(08-22-2013 10:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 08:31 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  No one gets a "reciprocal benefit" in this world, Longhorn. But the students do get free admission to the games, it's not like they don't get some benefits. Your point is well taken, that the facilities were built in part by student fees, and are for the students....but you are just plain wrong in arguing about the club seats and the revenue they bring in. No one is arguing about the concept of "fairness", but revenue has almost nothing to do with fairness....

The concept of "consideration" is the basis of all legal contracts...or in other words, a reciprocal exchange of what is perceived to be a trade of equal value.

Answer me this...what consideration...or perceived trade of equal value...would students receive for underwriting the costs of building more suites?

And "free admission" is hardly "free" when 82% of the entire athletic budget is funded by students. Don't be naive by trying to promote the idea the students get into games for "free"...they've already paid, and then some.

legal contracts? The students have entered into no legal contract that states they must receive a perceived trade of equal or lesser value based on their student fees. Is that the warped view you have of the situation?

JMU cares about the students, but when you start investing millions upon millions of dollars into something, like BFS, you want to make sure you can generate revenue from it. Do you really need this kind of common sense explained to you?

And you are absolutely right, the students have paid for the right to enter the stadium without paying for tickets. But student fees are at every university, and club seats are in every nice athletic facility. Do you think student fees cover the cost of all the construction, upkeep and maintenance, personnel, associated utilities, and a thousand other costs that is required to have a BFS? No. You need to be able to have people pay money to come to the facility...You need get your head of of the clouds and use a little common sense.

I don't what will happen with the Godwin side, but hopefully they won't repeat the mistake they made with the Convo (opened my junior year) where the students got completely screwed with the seating.

(08-22-2013 10:55 PM)POTUS#4 Wrote:  I don't what will happen with the Godwin side, but hopefully they won't repeat the mistake they made with the Convo (opened my junior year) where the students got completely screwed with the seating.

I hope not either. I just think that people thinking there should be no club seating are living in a fantasy world. I don't suspect the other side will be a mirror of the side that's built up now. As Longhorn said, the students deserve a nice view. But reality is reality.

(08-22-2013 10:57 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 10:55 PM)POTUS#4 Wrote:  I don't what will happen with the Godwin side, but hopefully they won't repeat the mistake they made with the Convo (opened my junior year) where the students got completely screwed with the seating.

I hope not either. I just think that people thinking there should be no club seating are living in a fantasy world. I don't suspect the other side will be a mirror of the side that's built up now. As Longhorn said, the students deserve a nice view. But reality is reality.

The reality is that either with or without additional club seating, there's absolutely no reason students can't continue to be afforded prime seating on the Godwin side. Anything less will be a failure by JMU.

(08-22-2013 11:07 PM)POTUS#4 Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 10:57 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 10:55 PM)POTUS#4 Wrote:  I don't what will happen with the Godwin side, but hopefully they won't repeat the mistake they made with the Convo (opened my junior year) where the students got completely screwed with the seating.

I hope not either. I just think that people thinking there should be no club seating are living in a fantasy world. I don't suspect the other side will be a mirror of the side that's built up now. As Longhorn said, the students deserve a nice view. But reality is reality.

The reality is that either with or without additional club seating, there's absolutely no reason students can't continue to be afforded prime seating on the Godwin side. Anything less will be a failure by JMU.

Makes total sense the way they did it. Have the press box, club seating open first and make sure the upgrade is a success (packing the stadium) and generating extra revenue. I think we are seeing it is a success, and if in the future building up the next side becomes a necessity based on need, there will be seating for the students...but I also have no doubt that seating will be available at a premium as well. No way they invest that kind of money without being able to generate extra revenue.

Convo. Yeah that was a failure. When JPJ was built, club seating was built in and is quite successful, but still one half of the stadium from rim to rim is packed with students. Makes it great for them and intimidating for the opponent. I think BFS will more or less look like that if it's ever built to "completion"

(08-22-2013 10:52 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 10:38 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(08-22-2013 08:31 PM)jmu@uva Wrote:  No one gets a "reciprocal benefit" in this world, Longhorn. But the students do get free admission to the games, it's not like they don't get some benefits. Your point is well taken, that the facilities were built in part by student fees, and are for the students....but you are just plain wrong in arguing about the club seats and the revenue they bring in. No one is arguing about the concept of "fairness", but revenue has almost nothing to do with fairness....

The concept of "consideration" is the basis of all legal contracts...or in other words, a reciprocal exchange of what is perceived to be a trade of equal value.

Answer me this...what consideration...or perceived trade of equal value...would students receive for underwriting the costs of building more suites?

And "free admission" is hardly "free" when 82% of the entire athletic budget is funded by students. Don't be naive by trying to promote the idea the students get into games for "free"...they've already paid, and then some.

legal contracts? The students have entered into no legal contract that states they must receive a perceived trade of equal or lesser value based on their student fees. Is that the warped view you have of the situation?

JMU cares about the students, but when you start investing millions upon millions of dollars into something, like BFS, you want to make sure you can generate revenue from it. Do you really need this kind of common sense explained to you?

And you are absolutely right, the students have paid for the right to enter the stadium without paying for tickets. But student fees are at every university, and club seats are in every nice athletic facility. Do you think student fees cover the cost of all the construction, upkeep and maintenance, personnel, associated utilities, and a thousand other costs that is required to have a BFS? No. You need to be able to have people pay money to come to the facility...You need get your head of of the clouds and use a little common sense.

Wow...you need to be brought up to speed big-time.

First off, student fees are not mandated for collection at every university for athletics. At some unis athletic fees are an option...you pay only if you want to attend the games.

Secondly, students fees at JMU have covered nearly 99.8% of the construction costs of BFS....and all the other athletic facilities on campus. There were no state monies involved (by law) in BFS' construction, and the thousand-aires who contribute by purchasing club seats (while certainly enjoying the benefits of those nice spaces) did not pay to build them, nor does their annual contributions to rent them come close to paying down the bonds used to build BFS.

Finally, the students have been placed into a binding contractual situation...and the "consideration" involves the exchange of tuition and fee monies in exchange for an education. If you don't "get that" my fellow Duke fan, you have a very naive understanding of what's going on here.

Make no mistake...I am not picking a fight over the fact that the "deal" requires JMU students to pony up fees to support athletics...it was a bit of Carrier's genius that he understood the law and economics of the situation confronting his ambition, and that to ramp-up men's varsity athletics required he start collecting "fees" as opposed to tuition...however, HOWEVER, you are fooling yourself that the Duke Club and other loyal JMU fans have been the ones carrying the financial weight on making "big-boy" FB a distinct possibility. JMU alums have been enjoying a free lunch (paid for by student fees), and the time is coming where that formula will have to be adjusted.

Building out BFS would be great...but the students will be paying for it..."what's in it for them?" is the question.