(09-13-2013 11:25 AM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Does "the band" refer to MRDs & Pep Band only?

Yes, and the Dukettes.

They're going back to SOM control?

IPhone changed my hell to he'll

:-(

You da man POTUS

is it a coincidence that the "CAA" spelled backwards is "AAC" I think not, Go Dukes

Nothing really in this article that hasn't been mentioned/discussed ad nauseum.

(09-13-2013 12:26 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  They're going back to SOM control?

Don't know. This is the first I've heard of it, but I'm out of that loop now.

I think it is interesting that we are now starting to here about the dislikes JMU has with the CAA.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

The following is a non-confidential email sent today to all JMU Faculty Senators by David McGraw, Speaker of the Faculty Senate. Besides Senators, David's email was shared with President Alger. The information echos information I've shared about the process as it may unfold after the BOV meeting on Oct. 4.

************** BEGIN*************

Senators,

I’m writing to you because of the unprecedented amount of feedback I am hearing on the issue of whether JMU should consider changing its football conference. Over the past week, I’ve been receiving email messages literally every day, as well as being stopped on my walks across campus by concerned faculty. I have not seen such an expression of faculty sentiment on any issue since I’ve been an officer of the Senate. I want to do the best I can to communicate faculty perspectives up to the administration, and to keep faculty informed of what the administration is doing, so I want to reiterate what I believe to be the current status of this issue and explain my rationale for my proposed path forward.

Many of the communications I have received from the faculty have expressed the view that the administration has already made a decision on this question, and that the Board of Visitors will be voting on it at their next meeting on October 4, and therefore this is an issue of extreme urgency. I do not believe that this is the case.

I am convinced that the President has not made a decision on this issue. From my conversations with him, I know that he is hearing a lot of opinions on all sides of the issue from various constituent groups, and I believe he really wants to keep an open mind and hear all of the evidence and opinions before he makes up his mind. I have been assured that the administration does not plan to ask the BOV for any action on this matter at the October 4 meeting (while the BOV technically can take action on anything they choose, in practice, our BOV almost never does anything but to vote on issues presented to them by the JMU administration). I am confident in stating that I consider it extremely unlikely that any action will be taken on October 4.

As you know, the Board of Visitors has commissioned a consultant to study the matter, and that Report will be presented to the BOV on October 4 (and it will then be made public). Some have expressed the view that in business, one never commissions a consultant’s report except to justify a decision that has already been made. I do not believe this is true in this case. As you know, I attend the BOV meetings (except closed executive sessions), including the retreat in Williamsburg in June where the members of the BOV had more chance to talk informally. I feel I’ve gotten to know many of them, and have a sense of how they make decisions. The BOV does have a very vocal member who has been active in arguing that we should move to NCAA I-A. However, from my observation, I think he is alone in his passion. The rest of the BOV are (for the most part) business people who are cautious and fiscally conservative, and want to be persuaded that something is in the long-term best interest of the University before moving ahead with it. At the moment, I think they remain unconvinced on this issue, and are not interested in making that move unless it makes sound business sense. I’m not saying they would never vote “yes,” on this issue, but I don’t think they would do so unless President Alger requested it and unless they were persuaded it made good financial sense.

I think the Faculty Senate can make better, more well-reasoned arguments if we can look at the data in the consultant’s report before we take any action. I think doing so will make us look better – it will make us look as though we’ve based our conclusion on the evidence, rather than on a knee-jerk, “we-hate-football” attitude. I think waiting until after October 4 will allow us to present a stronger case, and give us more credibility with the President and the BOV. As a practical matter, I suspect the Senate will take a position against going to NCAA I-A either way, but I would rather have us try to approach the issue with open minds, look at the evidence, make a rational decision, then work to make a persuasive case to the administration.

We are in the process of planning a special meeting of the Faculty Senate on October 17 to address only this issue. We’re still deciding the format for that meeting, but I think that’s the perfect time for the Senate to tackle this issue (pun intended). The next meeting of the BOV after that is January 17. I believe this will give us ample time to try to persuade the administration, and ultimately make our case to the BOV if necessary, before any decision is made.

David

David K. McGraw, Esq.
Professor, Department of Integrated Science & Technology
James Madison University

********END*********

He writes that he is receiving an unprecedented amount of feedback on whether JMU should consider changing it's football conference. He does not say what the feedback is. Is it safe to conclude that this feedback is against the move?

ugh....so the JMU senate will vote against it no matter what? I am curious how the faculty at App and GSU reacted. We know the firestorm at UMass, but that was to be expected.

(09-13-2013 05:52 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  The following is a non-confidential email sent today to all JMU Faculty Senators by David McGraw, Speaker of the Faculty Senate. Besides Senators, David's email was shared with President Alger. The information echos information I've shared about the process as it may unfold after the BOV meeting on Oct. 4.

************** BEGIN*************

Senators,

I’m writing to you because of the unprecedented amount of feedback I am hearing on the issue of whether JMU should consider changing its football conference. Over the past week, I’ve been receiving email messages literally every day, as well as being stopped on my walks across campus by concerned faculty. I have not seen such an expression of faculty sentiment on any issue since I’ve been an officer of the Senate. I want to do the best I can to communicate faculty perspectives up to the administration, and to keep faculty informed of what the administration is doing, so I want to reiterate what I believe to be the current status of this issue and explain my rationale for my proposed path forward.

Many of the communications I have received from the faculty have expressed the view that the administration has already made a decision on this question, and that the Board of Visitors will be voting on it at their next meeting on October 4, and therefore this is an issue of extreme urgency. I do not believe that this is the case.

I am convinced that the President has not made a decision on this issue. From my conversations with him, I know that he is hearing a lot of opinions on all sides of the issue from various constituent groups, and I believe he really wants to keep an open mind and hear all of the evidence and opinions before he makes up his mind. I have been assured that the administration does not plan to ask the BOV for any action on this matter at the October 4 meeting (while the BOV technically can take action on anything they choose, in practice, our BOV almost never does anything but to vote on issues presented to them by the JMU administration). I am confident in stating that I consider it extremely unlikely that any action will be taken on October 4.

As you know, the Board of Visitors has commissioned a consultant to study the matter, and that Report will be presented to the BOV on October 4 (and it will then be made public). Some have expressed the view that in business, one never commissions a consultant’s report except to justify a decision that has already been made. I do not believe this is true in this case. As you know, I attend the BOV meetings (except closed executive sessions), including the retreat in Williamsburg in June where the members of the BOV had more chance to talk informally. I feel I’ve gotten to know many of them, and have a sense of how they make decisions. The BOV does have a very vocal member who has been active in arguing that we should move to NCAA I-A. However, from my observation, I think he is alone in his passion. The rest of the BOV are (for the most part) business people who are cautious and fiscally conservative, and want to be persuaded that something is in the long-term best interest of the University before moving ahead with it. At the moment, I think they remain unconvinced on this issue, and are not interested in making that move unless it makes sound business sense. I’m not saying they would never vote “yes,” on this issue, but I don’t think they would do so unless President Alger requested it and unless they were persuaded it made good financial sense.

I think the Faculty Senate can make better, more well-reasoned arguments if we can look at the data in the consultant’s report before we take any action. I think doing so will make us look better – it will make us look as though we’ve based our conclusion on the evidence, rather than on a knee-jerk, “we-hate-football” attitude. I think waiting until after October 4 will allow us to present a stronger case, and give us more credibility with the President and the BOV. As a practical matter, I suspect the Senate will take a position against going to NCAA I-A either way, but I would rather have us try to approach the issue with open minds, look at the evidence, make a rational decision, then work to make a persuasive case to the administration.

We are in the process of planning a special meeting of the Faculty Senate on October 17 to address only this issue. We’re still deciding the format for that meeting, but I think that’s the perfect time for the Senate to tackle this issue (pun intended). The next meeting of the BOV after that is January 17. I believe this will give us ample time to try to persuade the administration, and ultimately make our case to the BOV if necessary, before any decision is made.

David

David K. McGraw, Esq.
Professor, Department of Integrated Science & Technology
James Madison University

********END*********

VERY interesting. Thanks, Longhorn.

Thanks for sharing that, LH. Not surprising that the faculty are likely to oppose any move. Now many of us just have to hope Alger can (and is willing to) withstand any onslaught he is about to face with a move. Come on Jon Boy, time to show you've got a set.

I'm tired of hearing this griping by the JMU faculty and embarrassed by their ignorance regarding the appropriation and attainment of funds between athletics and academics. Like I said, I donate funds annually to the COB but if we do not move forward, my donation would likely be discontinued. STFU and do your jobs. If you don't like it, leave. It's not like you're going to get more or less compensation based on whether JMU goes 1A or not. These are people who simply don't understand the specifics of this issue. They may be thought leaders in their respective fields, but this is not one of them.

The expected critics of I-A are surfacing. Nothing to see here. The faculty isn't paying their 62M stadium bill, fans are.

Longhorn, can you share your personal opinion on this matter, as a member of jmu's faculty? I know you take the cautious perspective, but are you more "in favor" of it compared to your academic peers?

(09-13-2013 06:03 PM)Potomac Wrote:  The expected critics of I-A are surfacing. Nothing to see here. The faculty isn't paying their 62M stadium bill, fans are.

Technically, students are paying the lion's share...of not only the FB stadium, but also the varsity athletic budget...somewhere in the 80%+ area...through "fees"...which can't be used to support academics.

(09-13-2013 05:58 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  ugh....so the JMU senate will vote against it no matter what? I am curious how the faculty at App and GSU reacted. We know the firestorm at UMass, but that was to be expected.

I would guess that it is pretty common. Most faculty members are going to see any money going to the football program as money NOT going to their department. Of course, some have a negative view of sports in general (a view that has been around for over 100 years). But then some will be fine with it because they realize JMU's profile will be raised (if done correctly).

(09-13-2013 06:08 PM)NH/JMU Saxkow Wrote:  

(09-13-2013 05:58 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  ugh....so the JMU senate will vote against it no matter what? I am curious how the faculty at App and GSU reacted. We know the firestorm at UMass, but that was to be expected.

I would guess that it is pretty common. Most faculty members are going to see any money going to the football program as money NOT going to their department. Of course, some have a negative view of sports in general (a view that has been around for over 100 years). But then some will be fine with it because they realize JMU's profile will be raised (if done correctly).

the president AND an effective president of the faculty senate should be able to convince people that it increases a school's profile, which then leads to academics.

This guy doesn't even understand that this is an across the board decision on athletics with a myriad of considerable factors. He throws it all on the football team changing conferences. Yes, football is obviously the big centerpiece, but this decision affects every athletic program (assuming we don't make a football only move which I highly doubt).

(09-13-2013 06:12 PM)DoubleDDuke Wrote:  This guy doesn't even understand that this is an across the board decision on athletics with a myriad of considerable factors. He throws it all on the football team changing conferences. Yes, football is obviously the big centerpiece, but this decision affects every athletic program (assuming we don't make a football only move which I highly doubt).

"This guy" as you label him is quite aware of what is at stake. Your comment is presumptuous and way off-base.