The most frustrating part was that there were plenty of warning flags, and I feel like the admin was very fat and happy. Many JMU fans feared something like this could happen, but were desperately hoping there was something going on behind the scenes that we were unaware of. Sadly, we are now in a bad position thanks to President Rose. The positive is that we still have an opportunity now with Alger, but time is definitely of the essence. Had Rose left a year before he did, things would be very different for us.
I still have faith that things will work out, but it's wearing thin. Waiting is definitely the hardest part.

(06-28-2013 01:11 PM)bridgeforthduke Wrote:  You know its getting bad when the official JMU store doesn't even know the name of our conference.

https://www.nmnathletics.com/sellnew/Sel...M_ID=14400

Would that be a Cac nugget?

I wish I could find the specific quote, but I'd go to my death bed saying I heard this from JMU (either in print or during an interview). Something along the lines of "we are not looking to move up but should the right situation present itself in the future we want to be in a position of readiness."

Don't recall if it was when the new stadium was announced or what but feel it was around that time. My point is, why was the Carr Study last on the list of things necessary to be ready? Seems an odd way to do things.

Damn if that doesn't look like a sun (aka sb conf) in the background though

(06-28-2013 03:15 PM)JMad03 Wrote:  The most frustrating part was that there were plenty of warning flags, and I feel like the admin was very fat and happy.

No, no, no... There was now way anyone could have seen this coming. Oh, wait...

October 4, 2010:

rufus Wrote:

Deez Nuts Wrote:I love where we are, and I hope it stays that way, as long as everybody else is still with us. We play a damn good football product... and I'd rather win over nearly everybody than the many many alternatives.

I'm happy with where we are right now too, so I can understand why you feel that way.

The question is, will you still be happy with where we are if Villanova, ODU, Delaware, UMass, and GSU are replaced with Stony Brook, Albany, Coastal Carolina, VMI, and Fordham? I know I won't be. Again, if all those schools move at the same time, I think we'll move with them. If they trickle into FBS, we will likely be left behind.

Right now, JMU gets great recruits, because we're the premier football school in the state behind UVA and VT. I don't like the idea of FBS ODU and FBS Liberty getting their picks before we do. The quality of our in-state recruiting classes will decline.

Ignoring the competition is a dangerous route to take. I would rather not see JMU football go the way of the American car companies that saw competition from Asia, but refused to alter their products and strategies until it was too late.

October 4, 2010:

rufus Wrote:I'm not advocating some immediate jump, but I believe we should conduct a formal feasibility study to assess all aspects of a move to FBS. If I were on the Board of Governors, I would absolutely want to see the projected changes in revenues, donations, and expenses, as well as other considerations like Title IX impact before I vote to make a move. It would be reckless to approve a move without the facts in front of the board. If our peers have already conducted their studies, and we have not, we could find ourselves left behind if we need six months to consider an invitation. Why not get our facts straight and be prepared?

http://boards.caazone.com/showthread.php...day/page10

Then again, not everyone saw it coming...

November 30, 2010:

DolleyMadison Wrote:

rufus Wrote:That's been my fear all along. I've always felt that the admin would move our program to FBS if all or most of our peers jump at once. I've frequently expressed my concern that our administration does not seem to be prepared for a scenario in which our peers and conferencemates trickle into FBS over a period of time.

UMass and Villanova appear to be the first drops in the trickle. The northern schools will bolt to a northern FCS conference if UMass leaves. The MWC is allegedly considering adding Houston and either UTEP or SMU. Those additions would leave CUSA with two holes to fill. I would be willing to bet that at least one of those holes will be filled by a CAA team -- most likely ODU.

Why are some people so confident that our administration didn't see this coming? Or that they werent prepared for this kind of things a couple years ago? Everyone always talks about in terms of recent success, fan support, facilities, recruiting regions, etc that JMU is in a better position to move up than almost all of our peers.

http://boards.caazone.com/showthread.php...-MAC/page2

Checkmate Rufus.

(06-28-2013 03:59 PM)rufus Wrote:  Then again, not everyone saw it coming...

November 30, 2010:

DolleyMadison Wrote:

rufus Wrote:That's been my fear all along. I've always felt that the admin would move our program to FBS if all or most of our peers jump at once. I've frequently expressed my concern that our administration does not seem to be prepared for a scenario in which our peers and conferencemates trickle into FBS over a period of time.

UMass and Villanova appear to be the first drops in the trickle. The northern schools will bolt to a northern FCS conference if UMass leaves. The MWC is allegedly considering adding Houston and either UTEP or SMU. Those additions would leave CUSA with two holes to fill. I would be willing to bet that at least one of those holes will be filled by a CAA team -- most likely ODU.

Why are some people so confident that our administration didn't see this coming? Or that they werent prepared for this kind of things a couple years ago? Everyone always talks about in terms of recent success, fan support, facilities, recruiting regions, etc that JMU is in a better position to move up than almost all of our peers.

http://boards.caazone.com/showthread.php...-MAC/page2

If you are going to quote me, at least copy the whole quote and not part of it...the quote continued...

Quote:There has yet to be a scenario that warrants JMU moving up. Even as things stand today, JMU should not be ready to drop everything and move up. Could that change tomorrow? next month? next year? Perhaps...but I have seen no indication from our administration that we are not ready to do what is best for the university in the event that certain opportunities arise.

It did change and at the time, there was no indication that our admin was not ready to do whats best for the university. However, a lot changed since I said that in 2010...presidential transition, teams leaving, conferences changing, etc.

When all you do for years is go on a message board and recite the same message over and over again (i.e. we are not FBS, we should be FBS, but we wont be FBS) you're bound to be right eventually.

I am going to start posting about how we need to expand Bridgeforth to 40,000+ so that 10-20 years from now when that decision is made, I will be considered a prophet.

Congrats on being the blind squirrel that found the nut.

Dolley – As a leader, you cannot simply sit back and react to changes as they occur. You have to anticipate changes before they occur. I am not in the business of college athletics or higher education in general, but it was pretty obvious even to me that these changes were coming. It seems that our admin was either blindsided or saw the changes coming but did not care to act.

As for the blind squirrel comment, I must be one very well-adapted blind rodent…

- ODU to CUSA: check
- Trickling of top of FCS to FBS, rather than a joint conference move: check
- Unprepared admin that had not assessed the implications of a move to FBS: check

This isn't a case of a blind squirrel finding a nut. This is simply a case a guy keeping his eyes open and assessing the surrounding environment. I can hardly call myself a prophet, when this outcome was obvious to anyone objectively watching the situation at that time.

I think the correct saying is:

Even a blind squirrel ...decides that demand for nuts is growing, understands that interest rates make borrowing money less expensive, buys a nut factory, hires the best nut processors in the business, puts in an effective nut distribution channel, builds nut awareness with a creative marketing campaign, rolls nut factory profits back into the business to help drive expansion and makes a handsome profit... once in a while!

(06-28-2013 10:08 AM)Purplehazed Wrote:  The Carr report is being paid for with tax dollars and has to be made public in its entirely, yes?

Carr's credibility is on the line, they can't omit or ignore the 13 story gorilla in the middle of campus.

Nobody can defend $75M spent on an fcs stadium and no assistant director AD can CREDIBLY claim "it puts us in a great position for the future"

To your first question, no, I seriously doubt the Carr report is being paid for by tax dollars...that would (IMO) be a violation of state law. My guess is the report is being paid from the athletic budget, which as we should all know by now is a separate (non-tax dollar related) pool of $$. As to your larger point, yes the report should be made public, and I am sure it will be. I also believe the report would be subject to FOIA requests, if it is not released. Even though the report was likely paid for using non-tax dollars that fact alone would not exempt it from being seen by the public because JMU's athletic program is not a separate (and non-public) legal entity.

As to your second notion that Carr's credibility is on the line...well, we're all entitled to our opinion, but I seriously doubt a Carr report recommending JMU stay where it is will damage it's credibility with anyone other than those associated with JMU who are strongly advocating FBS.

And finally...when you get wound up and start spewing hyperbole (such as "Nobody" can defend...), well, YOU lose all credibility. Building BFS was a smart move on many levels...it provided the opportunity to serve a currently strong, and growing fan base (see our attendance figures so often cited as proof of JMU's readiness for FBS), it provides an impressive tool in recruitment, and yes, it does put JMU in a favorable position when weighing future options. Step back for one moment and just consider where JMU would be without having made the investments in the APC and BFS. My guess is you'd be singing a different story.

Regardless of what the Carr report has to recommend, or when the full report is made known to the faithful, I'll continue to be proud of BFS, enjoy it's advantages over the lesser venues like UD's aging FB home, and support the Dukes win or lose.

(06-28-2013 09:09 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 08:21 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  FWIW the article is actually about:
-DC wants to change the mentality of people's giving. It's always been about Donor X writes a check to get good seats, parking, club/suites, etc - the benefits. Now that JMU has plateaued benefit wise (not stated but I infer that to mean until the new basketball facility is built) there's not much more left to offer.

Last paragraph: (Frerking) "We're locked into transactional giving. That's what people are used to. It takes time to get out and talk to the donors and the alumni about this and really what your money is going towards: 'This is why it's important. This is why we need you to step up and do more so that these student-athletes can have scholarship money, so they can have the best resources to compete at the highest level.' "

This is interesting to me. I agree here. This seems to be an internal resource (Ferking) admitting that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision and therefore he has nothing to "sell" the donors.

I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Brian F. is claiming "that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision." He's involved in creating the vision with Jeff Bourne, Pres. Alger and the BOV. Brian's point is that our donor base has to get away from writing checks in exchange for perks; the focus needs to be on creating more scholarships, more facilities (expanded BFS, new basketball arena, indoor tennis facility, etc.), new or expanded programs, etc. Brian's unspoken point is that donors can't expect to have a big time football and basketball without being willing to pay for it.

They/we are very willing to pay for it. There's nothing on the shelf. Jeff Bourne's comments about not being able to quantify the potential increase in contributions if a move is made is like a guy being afraid to take a hot chick's bra off for fear that she might have big nipples.

(06-28-2013 07:22 PM)HotHamandCheese84 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:09 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 08:21 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  FWIW the article is actually about:
-DC wants to change the mentality of people's giving. It's always been about Donor X writes a check to get good seats, parking, club/suites, etc - the benefits. Now that JMU has plateaued benefit wise (not stated but I infer that to mean until the new basketball facility is built) there's not much more left to offer.

Last paragraph: (Frerking) "We're locked into transactional giving. That's what people are used to. It takes time to get out and talk to the donors and the alumni about this and really what your money is going towards: 'This is why it's important. This is why we need you to step up and do more so that these student-athletes can have scholarship money, so they can have the best resources to compete at the highest level.' "

This is interesting to me. I agree here. This seems to be an internal resource (Ferking) admitting that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision and therefore he has nothing to "sell" the donors.

I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Brian F. is claiming "that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision." He's involved in creating the vision with Jeff Bourne, Pres. Alger and the BOV. Brian's point is that our donor base has to get away from writing checks in exchange for perks; the focus needs to be on creating more scholarships, more facilities (expanded BFS, new basketball arena, indoor tennis facility, etc.), new or expanded programs, etc. Brian's unspoken point is that donors can't expect to have a big time football and basketball without being willing to pay for it.

Duke Club staff will tell you that they are told about 50% of the story, and they pass on about 50% of that. They are kept in the dark as well.

(06-28-2013 07:22 PM)HotHamandCheese84 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:09 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 08:21 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  FWIW the article is actually about:
-DC wants to change the mentality of people's giving. It's always been about Donor X writes a check to get good seats, parking, club/suites, etc - the benefits. Now that JMU has plateaued benefit wise (not stated but I infer that to mean until the new basketball facility is built) there's not much more left to offer.

Last paragraph: (Frerking) "We're locked into transactional giving. That's what people are used to. It takes time to get out and talk to the donors and the alumni about this and really what your money is going towards: 'This is why it's important. This is why we need you to step up and do more so that these student-athletes can have scholarship money, so they can have the best resources to compete at the highest level.' "

This is interesting to me. I agree here. This seems to be an internal resource (Ferking) admitting that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision and therefore he has nothing to "sell" the donors.

I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Brian F. is claiming "that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision." He's involved in creating the vision with Jeff Bourne, Pres. Alger and the BOV. Brian's point is that our donor base has to get away from writing checks in exchange for perks; the focus needs to be on creating more scholarships, more facilities (expanded BFS, new basketball arena, indoor tennis facility, etc.), new or expanded programs, etc. Brian's unspoken point is that donors can't expect to have a big time football and basketball without being willing to pay for it.

I guess I read it this way:


Last paragraph: (Frerking) "We're locked into transactional giving. That's what people are used to.

This says to me: people give something to get something (transactional). I donate $xx to get a parking spot in Godwin, for example

It takes time to get out and talk to the donors and the alumni about this and really what your money is going towards: 'This is why it's important. This is why we need you to step up and do more so that these student-athletes can have scholarship money, so they can have the best resources to compete at the highest level.' "

This says to me: we (the folks who solicit donations) need to get out and talk to donors individually but that doesn't scale, therefore we need to provide those details on what our donors money goes toward (vision) through a broader more scalable campaign. (Public vision).

Your last few sentances appear to be part of a vision. I had no idea that JMU wants money for an indoor tennis facility for example. How would I know this? I guess that's my point.

There's a simple way to get money.... share a vision and a goal. Do that, and money will flood in. And that's not referring to just an FBS conference. If they expressed a goal of raising x dollars to go towards a new basketball arena, that's something fans can get behind. Keep it quiet, and the fans will as well.

(06-28-2013 07:28 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:22 PM)HotHamandCheese84 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:09 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 08:21 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  FWIW the article is actually about:
-DC wants to change the mentality of people's giving. It's always been about Donor X writes a check to get good seats, parking, club/suites, etc - the benefits. Now that JMU has plateaued benefit wise (not stated but I infer that to mean until the new basketball facility is built) there's not much more left to offer.

Last paragraph: (Frerking) "We're locked into transactional giving. That's what people are used to. It takes time to get out and talk to the donors and the alumni about this and really what your money is going towards: 'This is why it's important. This is why we need you to step up and do more so that these student-athletes can have scholarship money, so they can have the best resources to compete at the highest level.' "

This is interesting to me. I agree here. This seems to be an internal resource (Ferking) admitting that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision and therefore he has nothing to "sell" the donors.

I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Brian F. is claiming "that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision." He's involved in creating the vision with Jeff Bourne, Pres. Alger and the BOV. Brian's point is that our donor base has to get away from writing checks in exchange for perks; the focus needs to be on creating more scholarships, more facilities (expanded BFS, new basketball arena, indoor tennis facility, etc.), new or expanded programs, etc. Brian's unspoken point is that donors can't expect to have a big time football and basketball without being willing to pay for it.

Duke Club staff will tell you that they are told about 50% of the story, and they pass on about 50% of that. They are kept in the dark as well.

That has not been my experience with Brian F. That's why the article yesterday is quite telling. I've been saying for a while that there is plenty of evidence in the public domain over the last year about what JMU is planning. The big dog has been let off the leash and some real strides are being made. I would be more supportive of the negative comments if the leadership was sitting still over the last year; that has not been the case. Buckle up and open your wallets.

I predict that in 2016 that those that like to create a black cloud over everything JMU will complain about the "failure" of our admin to get Alabama, Florida, LSU, Texas, Stanford, Michigan, Ohio State, USC and Notre Dame to play at BFS.

(06-28-2013 07:49 PM)HotHamandCheese84 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:28 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:22 PM)HotHamandCheese84 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:09 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(06-27-2013 08:21 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  FWIW the article is actually about:
-DC wants to change the mentality of people's giving. It's always been about Donor X writes a check to get good seats, parking, club/suites, etc - the benefits. Now that JMU has plateaued benefit wise (not stated but I infer that to mean until the new basketball facility is built) there's not much more left to offer.

Last paragraph: (Frerking) "We're locked into transactional giving. That's what people are used to. It takes time to get out and talk to the donors and the alumni about this and really what your money is going towards: 'This is why it's important. This is why we need you to step up and do more so that these student-athletes can have scholarship money, so they can have the best resources to compete at the highest level.' "

This is interesting to me. I agree here. This seems to be an internal resource (Ferking) admitting that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision and therefore he has nothing to "sell" the donors.

I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Brian F. is claiming "that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision." He's involved in creating the vision with Jeff Bourne, Pres. Alger and the BOV. Brian's point is that our donor base has to get away from writing checks in exchange for perks; the focus needs to be on creating more scholarships, more facilities (expanded BFS, new basketball arena, indoor tennis facility, etc.), new or expanded programs, etc. Brian's unspoken point is that donors can't expect to have a big time football and basketball without being willing to pay for it.

Duke Club staff will tell you that they are told about 50% of the story, and they pass on about 50% of that. They are kept in the dark as well.

That has not been my experience with Brian F. That's why the article yesterday is quite telling. I've been saying for a while that there is plenty of evidence in the public domain over the last year about what JMU is planning. The big dog has been let off the leash and some real strides are being made. I would be more supportive of the negative comments if the leadership was sitting still over the last year; that has not been the case. Buckle up and open your wallets.

I predict that in 2016 that those that like to create a black cloud over everything JMU will complain about the "failure" of our admin to get Alabama, Florida, LSU, Texas, Stanford, Michigan, Ohio State, USC and Notre Dame to play at BFS.

You're being ridiculous. Nobody expects that. And I'll ask....WHAT in the world has been in the public domain?

(06-28-2013 08:02 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:49 PM)HotHamandCheese84 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:28 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 07:22 PM)HotHamandCheese84 Wrote:  

(06-28-2013 09:09 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  This is interesting to me. I agree here. This seems to be an internal resource (Ferking) admitting that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision and therefore he has nothing to "sell" the donors.

I don't see how you can arrive at the conclusion that Brian F. is claiming "that his job is hard because JMU won't share their vision." He's involved in creating the vision with Jeff Bourne, Pres. Alger and the BOV. Brian's point is that our donor base has to get away from writing checks in exchange for perks; the focus needs to be on creating more scholarships, more facilities (expanded BFS, new basketball arena, indoor tennis facility, etc.), new or expanded programs, etc. Brian's unspoken point is that donors can't expect to have a big time football and basketball without being willing to pay for it.

Duke Club staff will tell you that they are told about 50% of the story, and they pass on about 50% of that. They are kept in the dark as well.

That has not been my experience with Brian F. That's why the article yesterday is quite telling. I've been saying for a while that there is plenty of evidence in the public domain over the last year about what JMU is planning. The big dog has been let off the leash and some real strides are being made. I would be more supportive of the negative comments if the leadership was sitting still over the last year; that has not been the case. Buckle up and open your wallets.

I predict that in 2016 that those that like to create a black cloud over everything JMU will complain about the "failure" of our admin to get Alabama, Florida, LSU, Texas, Stanford, Michigan, Ohio State, USC and Notre Dame to play at BFS.

You're being ridiculous. Nobody expects that. And I'll ask....WHAT in the world has been in the public domain?

I'm making a bit of a joke about the expectations of fans for teams coming to BFS. I'm not going to recount my various arguments about this issue again here. I'm worn out with this topic. I'm going dark on this subject.

(06-28-2013 07:28 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  They/we are very willing to pay for it. There's nothing on the shelf. Jeff Bourne's comments about not being able to quantify the potential increase in contributions if a move is made is like a guy being afraid to take a hot chick's bra off for fear that she might have big nipples.

I never understood this fear. Did people not enjoy oatmeal cream pies as a kid?