No! Keep the conversation going! Fight for our love you two!

(07-03-2013 02:54 PM)DBJMU2006 Wrote:  No! Keep the conversation going! Fight for our love you two!

Between the Toledo, Miami, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern fans fighting for our hand in marriage, and then the Marshall-WVU reject academy and ole dirty community college fans....
We truly are loved around here! Go Dukes!

I think the academic reasoning for conference affiliation gets misunderstood. The athletic issue is that it's not a level playing field from a recruitment & admissions perspective. Schools who accept students who only meet the minimum NCAA academic criteria have an ATHLETIC advantage. It's a self-imposed disadvantage for the other schools, but it's a real consideration.

(07-03-2013 02:59 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 02:54 PM)DBJMU2006 Wrote:  No! Keep the conversation going! Fight for our love you two!

Between the Toledo, Miami, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern fans fighting for our hand in marriage, and then the Marshall-WVU reject academy and ole dirty community college fans....
We truly are loved around here! Go Dukes!

Well, GoAppsGo is asking for pubic comments, so this could just get very awkward very quickly.....

Quote:I guess you have some pubic comments from MAC officials or school AD's that support JMU's membership? Like I said, its not idle chat at the SBC about JMU. If it were not a real possibility, it would not be mentioned publicly.

(07-03-2013 03:46 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 02:59 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 02:54 PM)DBJMU2006 Wrote:  No! Keep the conversation going! Fight for our love you two!

Between the Toledo, Miami, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern fans fighting for our hand in marriage, and then the Marshall-WVU reject academy and ole dirty community college fans....
We truly are loved around here! Go Dukes!

Well, GoAppsGo is asking for pubic comments, so this could just get very awkward very quickly.....

Quote:I guess you have some pubic comments from MAC officials or school AD's that support JMU's membership? Like I said, its not idle chat at the SBC about JMU. If it were not a real possibility, it would not be mentioned publicly.

Please keep those comments away from me!

(07-03-2013 05:27 PM)GeoJMU Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 03:46 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 02:59 PM)Potomac Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 02:54 PM)DBJMU2006 Wrote:  No! Keep the conversation going! Fight for our love you two!

Between the Toledo, Miami, Appalachian State, Georgia Southern fans fighting for our hand in marriage, and then the Marshall-WVU reject academy and ole dirty community college fans....
We truly are loved around here! Go Dukes!

Well, GoAppsGo is asking for pubic comments, so this could just get very awkward very quickly.....

Quote:I guess you have some pubic comments from MAC officials or school AD's that support JMU's membership? Like I said, its not idle chat at the SBC about JMU. If it were not a real possibility, it would not be mentioned publicly.

Please keep those comments away from me!

Sounds like this situation could get hairy...

(07-03-2013 03:28 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  I think the academic reasoning for conference affiliation gets misunderstood. The athletic issue is that it's not a level playing field from a recruitment & admissions perspective. Schools who accept students who only meet the minimum NCAA academic criteria have an ATHLETIC advantage. It's a self-imposed disadvantage for the other schools, but it's a real consideration.

2012 NCAA APR Scores

Sun Belt Football:

Football Arkansas State University AR 938
Football Florida Atlantic University FL 932
Football Florida International University FL 930
Football Middle Tennessee State University TN 972
Football Troy University AL 921
Football University of Louisiana at Lafayette LA 956
Football University of Louisiana at Monroe LA 940
Football University of North Texas TX 951
Football Western Kentucky University KY 950

Appalachian State: 967
James Madison: 941

JMU had the 3rd lowest APR score in the CAA 2011-2012 rankings. UMASS (935) went to the MAC and ODU (933) went to CUSA.

Looks like JMU would be a good fit academically when it comes to student athletes in the marquee sport.

How is that in response to my comment about admission standards???

Just to be clear, I don't have some superiority complex about student-athlete performance @ JMU. Just feel like there's a lot of puff-chested posturing about how academics shouldn't matter to sports & it's not accurate.

(07-03-2013 06:20 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  How is that in response to my comment about admission standards???

Its an indicator of how your athletics department is run in regard to the academic success of its athletes. If your admissions standards are so high that you have a mentally superior, but athletically inferior student athlete... so much so that it creates an unfair advantage on the field of play... one place that fact could be proven would be in the NCAA's APR scores. Since JMU's APR scores fit right in with its potential peers in CUSA, MAC, or Sun Belt, I'd say academically, when it comes to student athletes, JMU is no better than many of its potential peers.

(07-03-2013 06:26 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Just to be clear, I don't have some superiority complex about student-athlete performance @ JMU. Just feel like there's a lot of puff-chested posturing about how academics shouldn't matter to sports & it's not accurate.

Academics should 100% matter. We should be preparing our student athletes for life beyond sports. That's the reason for APR scores in the first place. Its a way for students and parents to actually see how well a university TEACHES their kids and prepares them for life. APR scores reveal how well an athletic department is run in its primary mission: to educate and prepare student athletes.

If there is a great disparity in APR scores between schools in the same conference, you could make the argument that a school with a significantly lower score has a priority of winning games above teaching students. That's not the case with JMU and its potential peers.

(07-03-2013 06:29 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Its an indicator of how your athletics department is run in regard to the academic success of its athletes. If your admissions standards are so high that you have a mentally superior, but athletically inferior student athlete... so much so that it creates an unfair advantage on the field of play... one place that fact could be proven would be in the NCAA's APR scores. Since JMU's APR scores fit right in with its potential peers in CUSA, MAC, or Sun Belt, I'd say academically, when it comes to student athletes, JMU is no better than many of its potential peers.

I understand what you're saying & I get it. However, you're putting words in my mouth in a sense. I made a general statement about academics mattering in conference realignment, countering what 78 said. That's all.

To your APR comments, again, I'm not talking about how well the students perform at the school. I'm talking about their starting point, AKA admittance standards.

(07-03-2013 06:43 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  That's the reason for APR scores in the first place. Its a way for students and parents to actually see how well a university TEACHES their kids and prepares them for life. APR scores reveal how well an athletic department is run in its primary mission: to educate and prepare student athletes.

Not true. APR was created to punish programs who don't graduate students. Using that number to come to those conclusions is your decision, not the APR's purpose.

(07-03-2013 06:29 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 06:20 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  How is that in response to my comment about admission standards???

Its an indicator of how your athletics department is run in regard to the academic success of its athletes. If your admissions standards are so high that you have a mentally superior, but athletically inferior student athlete... so much so that it creates an unfair advantage on the field of play... one place that fact could be proven would be in the NCAA's APR scores. Since JMU's APR scores fit right in with its potential peers in CUSA, MAC, or Sun Belt, I'd say academically, when it comes to student athletes, JMU is no better than many of its potential peers.

Yeah but APR doesn't take into account the difficulty of coursework at one institution as opposed to another. That's where I think the APR comparison falls down. It should be a lot easier for a school that is academically less challenging to attain a higher APR score.....or am I completely missing something? I'm not saying JMU is right behind Harvard, but it rates pretty high in comparison to schools that I think you're considering as peers. That's a whole other discussion.

(07-03-2013 06:50 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 06:29 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Its an indicator of how your athletics department is run in regard to the academic success of its athletes. If your admissions standards are so high that you have a mentally superior, but athletically inferior student athlete... so much so that it creates an unfair advantage on the field of play... one place that fact could be proven would be in the NCAA's APR scores. Since JMU's APR scores fit right in with its potential peers in CUSA, MAC, or Sun Belt, I'd say academically, when it comes to student athletes, JMU is no better than many of its potential peers.

I understand what you're saying & I get it. However, you're ascribing an opinion to me that I never stated. I made a general statement about academics mattering in conference realignment, countering what 78 said. That's all.

To your APR comments, again, I'm not talking about how well the students perform at the school. I'm talking about their starting point, AKA admittance standards.

Would not higher admission standards improve the likelihood of a better academic performance? Is JMU more selective than Boston College (982) or Duke (989)? How about Lehigh (973) or Colgate (978)? William and Mary (966) or Richmond (965)? If they are, then as a parent of a student athlete thinking about JMU, I would be very concerned.

(07-03-2013 06:53 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 06:43 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  That's the reason for APR scores in the first place. Its a way for students and parents to actually see how well a university TEACHES their kids and prepares them for life. APR scores reveal how well an athletic department is run in its primary mission: to educate and prepare student athletes.

Not true. APR was created to punish programs who don't graduate students. Using that number to come to those conclusions is your decision, not the APR's purpose.

"The mandatory publication of graduation rates came into effect in 1990 as a consequence of the "Student Right-to-Know Act," which attempted to create an environment in which universities would become more devoted to academics and hold athletes more accountable for academic success. However, the graduation rates established by the NCAA showed poor results, for example they reported that among students who entered college between 1993 and 1996 only 51 percent of football players graduated within 6 years and 41 percent of basketball players. Feeling pressure to improve these poor rates the NCAA instituted reforms in 2004, including the APR, a new method for gauging the academic progress of student athletes. It was put into place in order to aid in the NCAA's goal for student-athletes to graduate with meaningful degrees preparing them for life. The principle data collector was Thomas Paskus, the Principal Research Scientist for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)."

(07-03-2013 07:04 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  The mandatory publication of graduation rates came into effect in 1990 as a consequence of the "Student Right-to-Know Act," which attempted to create an environment in which universities would become more devoted to academics and hold athletes more accountable for academic success.[2] However, the graduation rates established by the NCAA showed poor results, for example they reported that among students who entered college between 1993 and 1996 only 51 percent of football players graduated within 6 years and 41 percent of basketball players.[3] Feeling pressure to improve these poor rates the NCAA instituted reforms in 2004, including the APR, a new method for gauging the academic progress of student athletes.[3] It was put into place in order to aid in the NCAA's goal for student-athletes to graduate with meaningful degrees preparing them for life.[4] The principle data collector was Thomas Paskus, the Principal Research Scientist for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).[

Not trying to be argumentative, but this doesn't support your earlier statement about the goals of the APR system. The closest any of that comes to supporting your statement is that Article [3] mentions how it could help support an NCAA goal of getting more kids graduated. The APR system by itself exists only to punish schools that don't graduate kids. This is a completely different argument, yet I think you already know this. It would seem as if you're trying your best to argue a point I never made.

(07-03-2013 07:02 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Would not higher admission standards improve the likelihood of a better academic performance? Is JMU more selective than Boston College (982) or Duke (989)? How about Lehigh (973) or Colgate (978)? William and Mary (966) or Richmond (965)? If they are, then as a parent of a student athlete thinking about JMU, I would be very concerned.

You're all over the place. Can you explain the point you're attempting to make here? I can absolutely acknowledge that all of the schools listed above have higher academic admission standards than JMU. No argument at all.

Your last sentence is the definition of trolling. Has anyone stated JMU is more selective than any of those? I haven't seen that posted anywhere. Are you under the impression that JMU is more selective than those? Didn't think so. So, what's your point? You're mad that someone would suggest the Sun Belt doesn't include institutions JMU wants to associate with? I would recommend just getting over it.

(07-03-2013 07:09 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 07:04 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  The mandatory publication of graduation rates came into effect in 1990 as a consequence of the "Student Right-to-Know Act," which attempted to create an environment in which universities would become more devoted to academics and hold athletes more accountable for academic success.[2] However, the graduation rates established by the NCAA showed poor results, for example they reported that among students who entered college between 1993 and 1996 only 51 percent of football players graduated within 6 years and 41 percent of basketball players.[3] Feeling pressure to improve these poor rates the NCAA instituted reforms in 2004, including the APR, a new method for gauging the academic progress of student athletes.[3] It was put into place in order to aid in the NCAA's goal for student-athletes to graduate with meaningful degrees preparing them for life.[4] The principle data collector was Thomas Paskus, the Principal Research Scientist for the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA).[

Not trying to be argumentative, but this doesn't support your earlier statement about the goals of the APR system. The closest any of that comes to supporting your statement is that Article [3] mentions how it could help support an NCAA goal of getting more kids graduated. The APR system by itself exists only to punish schools that don't graduate kids. This is a completely different argument, yet I think you already know this. It would seem as if you're trying your best to argue a point I never made.

It actually doesn't exist to punish schools that don't graduate kids. It's purpose is to rank schools by how well they prepare student athletes for life after college. If a school falls below minimal standards, then there are procedures in place to "comply or die" but for 95% of the rest of the schools, it is a very useful tool to evaluate your performance against peers.

And I think I've made my point clear: Your original post is prejudiced and not based in fact outside of but a few elite conferences (Ivy League). And further, JMU would in no way be at an athletic disadvantage as a result of its affiliation with any school in the SBC, CUSA, or MAC because of its acceptance standards.

(07-03-2013 07:14 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 07:02 PM)GoAppsGo92 Wrote:  Would not higher admission standards improve the likelihood of a better academic performance? Is JMU more selective than Boston College (982) or Duke (989)? How about Lehigh (973) or Colgate (978)? William and Mary (966) or Richmond (965)? If they are, then as a parent of a student athlete thinking about JMU, I would be very concerned.

You're all over the place. Can you explain the point you're attempting to make here? I can absolutely acknowledge that all of the schools listed above have higher academic admission standards than JMU. No argument at all.

Your last sentence is the definition of trolling. Has anyone stated JMU is more selective than any of those? I haven't seen that posted anywhere. Are you under the impression that JMU is more selective than those? Didn't think so. So, what's your point? You're mad that someone would suggest the Sun Belt doesn't include institutions JMU wants to associate with? I would recommend just getting over it.

I thought we were having a spirited debate...