(01-21-2015 03:51 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

This is the one I like, Chaifetz Arena in St. Louis. Maybe a bit larger than we would require, but it has a few suites and some nice site-lines.

I was also about to bring up Saint Louis' arena. Their court design is something I wouldn't mind mimicking. One duke dog head only of course.
I also agree that we don't need an arena that large. We will probably never draw the crowds necessary for it.

Just a quick example of what VCU did in 2008 with their strategic plan.

"In the fall of 2008, Teague announced an ambitious strategic plan for athletics that included initiatives in five areas; academic success, competitive goals, marketing and season ticket initiatives, and fundraising benchmarks. Such goals reflect Teague’s aggressive vision for VCU Athletics. As of 2010, VCU Athletics is exceeding these goals, notably in fundraising, where the financial goals of 2013 could remarkably be exceeded by 50 percent in 2011."

Random thought on this:

Why would this be revealed to the BoV behind closed doors and then not released for weeks after that reveal? The Carr Report was released the day it was presented if I'm not mistaken. What's the harm in releasing the strategic plan the same day?

I'm not suggesting anything because my optimism has generally been turned on its head - I just think it's a legitimate question to ponder and speculate on...

Let the speculation begin...

(01-27-2015 04:49 PM)JMUDukeDawg Wrote:  Random thought on this:

Why would this be revealed to the BoV behind closed doors and then not released for weeks after that reveal? The Carr Report was released the day it was presented if I'm not mistaken. What's the harm in releasing the strategic plan the same day?

I'm not suggesting anything because my optimism has generally been turned on its head - I just think it's a legitimate question to ponder and speculate on...

Let the speculation begin...

The obvious answer is they're waiting to see what comes out of this legislation going through its courses in Richmond which I can't say I blame them for. Depending on how this shakes out, it could throw the whole Strategic Plan on its head so what would be the point of releasing a vision that has become null and void? They're going to have to likely make amendments to it.

If it wasn't in the minutes, and it hasn't been released, i would wager it never even made it to the board. Then again i'm not wagering anything.

(01-27-2015 06:29 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  If it wasn't in the minutes, and it hasn't been released, i would wager it never even made it to the board. Then again i'm not wagering anything.

Hhmc said it was going there. May have been discussed in executive session.

Also, as the AD has publicly touted this plan, they need to say something.

(01-27-2015 06:48 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 06:29 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  If it wasn't in the minutes, and it hasn't been released, i would wager it never even made it to the board. Then again i'm not wagering anything.

Hhmc said it was going there. May have been discussed in executive session

To be considered an executive, don't you have to execute something every now and then. It's like I'm listening to sports talk about the Redskins this morning and they are talking about them rebuilding as usual. I'm thinking, "In order to rebuild, don't you have to have built something in the recent past? Rebuilding is for teams that get old for whom the window is closing. When Tom Brady and some of the guys on the Patriots, they'll have to rebuild. What the Skins need to do is just build.

Delegate Cox, who is the author of the athletic fee legislation, represents my district. I wrote him an email a few days ago expressing my concerns and letting him know I was a JMU supporter. His response is below. I thought it very interesting that JMU apparently did have input into the bill. So, maybe JMU doesn't view it as a hurdle they can't overcome.

Delegate Cox's response:

I appreciate your past support. Hopefully the below information will clarify some of the key reasons I filed my athletic fee bill.

The issue of the rising cost of attending Virginia’s public universities is one about which I feel strongly. While the quality of public higher education in Virginia is, in my view, one of the best nationally, it is also one of the most expensive. Tuition and fees have more than doubled since 2002 and we have been told by our legislative audit review commission staff (JLARC) that non-academics has been the primary driver of the spending growth accounting for over 56 percent of the increase. Student fees for intercollegiate athletics has been a major driver in that increase.

I have not moved forward with this legislation alone. I have reached out to the public institutions and sought their input. My staff and I met several times with representatives from these institutions, JMU prominently among them, and incorporated most of their recommendations into the legislation. In fact, the addition of the athletic review, the three adjustments to the subsidy percentage, and the splitting of the Division I-A schools using non-power conference averages were all issues raised by JMU and provided for in this legislation. I have reached out to Republicans and Democrats and while some have expressed concerns, they all agree with the goal of the legislation to begin to bend the cost curve in non-academic spending so that college remains accessible and affordable for Virginia families.

I have tried to make sure that this legislation balances the goal of improving affordability with the recognition that intercollegiate sports is an important aspect of college life. We have looked at the data from 230 Division I schools. The legislation’s standards would benchmark each institution to their national peers. I think the question we should all be asking is how can our national peers, and I am not talking about the schools in the power conferences, provide for this facet of college life more economically than Virginia schools. Let’s look at JMU in particular. When compared to its Division I-AA peers, JMU generates 9% less revenue from its athletic activities. They underperform in terms of contributions by about 3%. JMU relies on students to pick up 75% of the cost of its fairly expensive athletics program while their peers require student fees to only shoulder 25% of that same cost. I know there has been much discussion about JMU participating in Division I-A athletics. How would they compare against schools in the MAC or Conference USA? In both those conferences student fees make up only about a third of the sports revenue stream. While ticket sales and some royalties might increase, contribution levels at JMU trail most of their peers regardless of NCAA division. Recent decisions by Division I-A schools to increase scholarship costs due to compensating athletes will only increase these costs.

Nothing in this legislation prohibits JMU or any school to simply continue as they currently do. They can fail to meet the goals of the legislation. The legislation would then simply eliminate some expanded autonomy that was granted beginning in 2005. You may ask why we would single out that particular issue. When institutions sought greater autonomy, the Boards of Visitors agreed to two overarching principles—access and affordability. Clearly, continuing down the current path with ever increasing costs to attendance driven by non-academic endeavors runs counter to those principles. At JMU those non-academic costs have grown by almost 60% in the last decade with athletic fees growing at the same rate. I believe I would be negligent if I did not move forward in a responsible way to encourage some reason in this area.

Lastly, this legislation does provide a pathway for schools like JMU to move up if they choose to do so. I am not saying it will be simple or easy but if JMU can improve the proportion of their fund raising and their ticket sales to total revenue so it is more in line with aspirational peer schools, it is doable.

Regards,

Kirk

(01-27-2015 07:04 PM)JMUPurple Wrote:  Delegate Cox, who is the author of the athletic fee legislation, represents my district. I wrote him an email a few days ago expressing my concerns and letting him know I was a JMU supporter. His response is below. I thought it very interesting that JMU apparently did have input into the bill. So, maybe JMU doesn't view it as a hurdle they can't overcome.

Delegate Cox's response:

I appreciate your past support. Hopefully the below information will clarify some of the key reasons I filed my athletic fee bill.

The issue of the rising cost of attending Virginia’s public universities is one about which I feel strongly. While the quality of public higher education in Virginia is, in my view, one of the best nationally, it is also one of the most expensive. Tuition and fees have more than doubled since 2002 and we have been told by our legislative audit review commission staff (JLARC) that non-academics has been the primary driver of the spending growth accounting for over 56 percent of the increase. Student fees for intercollegiate athletics has been a major driver in that increase.

I have not moved forward with this legislation alone. I have reached out to the public institutions and sought their input. My staff and I met several times with representatives from these institutions, JMU prominently among them, and incorporated most of their recommendations into the legislation. In fact, the addition of the athletic review, the three adjustments to the subsidy percentage, and the splitting of the Division I-A schools using non-power conference averages were all issues raised by JMU and provided for in this legislation. I have reached out to Republicans and Democrats and while some have expressed concerns, they all agree with the goal of the legislation to begin to bend the cost curve in non-academic spending so that college remains accessible and affordable for Virginia families.

I have tried to make sure that this legislation balances the goal of improving affordability with the recognition that intercollegiate sports is an important aspect of college life. We have looked at the data from 230 Division I schools. The legislation’s standards would benchmark each institution to their national peers. I think the question we should all be asking is how can our national peers, and I am not talking about the schools in the power conferences, provide for this facet of college life more economically than Virginia schools. Let’s look at JMU in particular. When compared to its Division I-AA peers, JMU generates 9% less revenue from its athletic activities. They underperform in terms of contributions by about 3%. JMU relies on students to pick up 75% of the cost of its fairly expensive athletics program while their peers require student fees to only shoulder 25% of that same cost. I know there has been much discussion about JMU participating in Division I-A athletics. How would they compare against schools in the MAC or Conference USA? In both those conferences student fees make up only about a third of the sports revenue stream. While ticket sales and some royalties might increase, contribution levels at JMU trail most of their peers regardless of NCAA division. Recent decisions by Division I-A schools to increase scholarship costs due to compensating athletes will only increase these costs.

Nothing in this legislation prohibits JMU or any school to simply continue as they currently do. They can fail to meet the goals of the legislation. The legislation would then simply eliminate some expanded autonomy that was granted beginning in 2005. You may ask why we would single out that particular issue. When institutions sought greater autonomy, the Boards of Visitors agreed to two overarching principles—access and affordability. Clearly, continuing down the current path with ever increasing costs to attendance driven by non-academic endeavors runs counter to those principles. At JMU those non-academic costs have grown by almost 60% in the last decade with athletic fees growing at the same rate. I believe I would be negligent if I did not move forward in a responsible way to encourage some reason in this area.

Lastly, this legislation does provide a pathway for schools like JMU to move up if they choose to do so. I am not saying it will be simple or easy but if JMU can improve the proportion of their fund raising and their ticket sales to total revenue so it is more in line with aspirational peer schools, it is doable.

Regards,

Kirk

If this is true, seems as though JMU threw in the towel for 1-A and decided to close the door on itself.

Who does he consider in our 1-AA peer group to arrive at those comparative numbers?

As much as I cringe reading his response, I can't really dispute much of it. The whole question that he doesn't address is age old chicken vs. egg one. A lot of the reason JMU alumni have been reluctant to increase donations significantly is that based on history, we have absolutely no reason to believe we will receive any reward or action for it. I may write to him and lay that out in a more articulate fashion. It may be a waste of my finger tips but why not?

Why does this mean we closed the door on I-A? We advocated for the split in I-A conferences. If we were resigned to being I-AA we wouldn't have cared, right?

It's been a while since I read the Carr report, but my impression at the time was that JMU was not that far different in terms of student fee from the schools we'd most. likely be joining. Who are these "peer" schools he referred to in his email reply? Is he only referring to revenue rather than budget? That would not be an apples to apples comparison in terms of revenue stream and its impact on student fee percentage since there is greater revenue stream to tap into at the FBS level.

(01-27-2015 08:20 PM)olddawg Wrote:  It's been a while since I read the Carr report, but my impression at the time was that JMU was not that far different in terms of student fee from the schools we'd most. likely be joining. Who are these "peer" schools he referred to in his email reply? Is he only referring to revenue rather than budget? That would not be an apples to apples comparison in terms of revenue stream and its impact on student fee percentage since there is greater revenue stream to tap into at the FBS level.

I wondered that too when he referred to peer schools and it seemed like he was a little ignorant in that statement or we're in disagreement as to what should be considered a peer school. I get the impression he's just referring to size of student body. Get that into an email and press him on it. I don't dislike Kirk based on his statements as I think he's trying to do the right thing here but he may not be taking several significant factors into account as I read his response.

(01-27-2015 07:04 PM)JMUPurple Wrote:  Delegate Cox, who is the author of the athletic fee legislation, represents my district. I wrote him an email a few days ago expressing my concerns and letting him know I was a JMU supporter. His response is below. I thought it very interesting that JMU apparently did have input into the bill. So, maybe JMU doesn't view it as a hurdle they can't overcome.

Delegate Cox's response:

I appreciate your past support. Hopefully the below information will clarify some of the key reasons I filed my athletic fee bill.

The issue of the rising cost of attending Virginia’s public universities is one about which I feel strongly. While the quality of public higher education in Virginia is, in my view, one of the best nationally, it is also one of the most expensive. Tuition and fees have more than doubled since 2002 and we have been told by our legislative audit review commission staff (JLARC) that non-academics has been the primary driver of the spending growth accounting for over 56 percent of the increase. Student fees for intercollegiate athletics has been a major driver in that increase.

I have not moved forward with this legislation alone. I have reached out to the public institutions and sought their input. My staff and I met several times with representatives from these institutions, JMU prominently among them, and incorporated most of their recommendations into the legislation. In fact, the addition of the athletic review, the three adjustments to the subsidy percentage, and the splitting of the Division I-A schools using non-power conference averages were all issues raised by JMU and provided for in this legislation. I have reached out to Republicans and Democrats and while some have expressed concerns, they all agree with the goal of the legislation to begin to bend the cost curve in non-academic spending so that college remains accessible and affordable for Virginia families.

I have tried to make sure that this legislation balances the goal of improving affordability with the recognition that intercollegiate sports is an important aspect of college life. We have looked at the data from 230 Division I schools. The legislation’s standards would benchmark each institution to their national peers. I think the question we should all be asking is how can our national peers, and I am not talking about the schools in the power conferences, provide for this facet of college life more economically than Virginia schools. Let’s look at JMU in particular. When compared to its Division I-AA peers, JMU generates 9% less revenue from its athletic activities. They underperform in terms of contributions by about 3%. JMU relies on students to pick up 75% of the cost of its fairly expensive athletics program while their peers require student fees to only shoulder 25% of that same cost. I know there has been much discussion about JMU participating in Division I-A athletics. How would they compare against schools in the MAC or Conference USA? In both those conferences student fees make up only about a third of the sports revenue stream. While ticket sales and some royalties might increase, contribution levels at JMU trail most of their peers regardless of NCAA division. Recent decisions by Division I-A schools to increase scholarship costs due to compensating athletes will only increase these costs.

Nothing in this legislation prohibits JMU or any school to simply continue as they currently do. They can fail to meet the goals of the legislation. The legislation would then simply eliminate some expanded autonomy that was granted beginning in 2005. You may ask why we would single out that particular issue. When institutions sought greater autonomy, the Boards of Visitors agreed to two overarching principles—access and affordability. Clearly, continuing down the current path with ever increasing costs to attendance driven by non-academic endeavors runs counter to those principles. At JMU those non-academic costs have grown by almost 60% in the last decade with athletic fees growing at the same rate. I believe I would be negligent if I did not move forward in a responsible way to encourage some reason in this area.

Lastly, this legislation does provide a pathway for schools like JMU to move up if they choose to do so. I am not saying it will be simple or easy but if JMU can improve the proportion of their fund raising and their ticket sales to total revenue so it is more in line with aspirational peer schools, it is doable.

Regards,

Kirk

Wow. So much is complete BS in his response. You honestly believe JMU lags FCS competition on ticket sales and donations? That's a flat out lie by Cox.

Second, he makes zero mention of the fact that other states allow ADs to roll athletic expenses into general expenses.

I am surprised that he didn't provide any data to back his claims.

Finally, he neglects to mention the FTE cuts to higher Ed that HE has voted for since 2002.

We have higher attendance that all but one school in the MAC. Our booster club takes on more donations that EVERY school in the MAC. We would be in the top of CUSA as well. All of this is on a pure $ basis, as percentages are meaningless with the above mentioned accounting differences.

(01-27-2015 09:05 PM)JMU2004 Wrote:  

(01-27-2015 07:04 PM)JMUPurple Wrote:  Delegate Cox, who is the author of the athletic fee legislation, represents my district. I wrote him an email a few days ago expressing my concerns and letting him know I was a JMU supporter. His response is below. I thought it very interesting that JMU apparently did have input into the bill. So, maybe JMU doesn't view it as a hurdle they can't overcome.

Delegate Cox's response:

I appreciate your past support. Hopefully the below information will clarify some of the key reasons I filed my athletic fee bill.

The issue of the rising cost of attending Virginia’s public universities is one about which I feel strongly. While the quality of public higher education in Virginia is, in my view, one of the best nationally, it is also one of the most expensive. Tuition and fees have more than doubled since 2002 and we have been told by our legislative audit review commission staff (JLARC) that non-academics has been the primary driver of the spending growth accounting for over 56 percent of the increase. Student fees for intercollegiate athletics has been a major driver in that increase.

I have not moved forward with this legislation alone. I have reached out to the public institutions and sought their input. My staff and I met several times with representatives from these institutions, JMU prominently among them, and incorporated most of their recommendations into the legislation. In fact, the addition of the athletic review, the three adjustments to the subsidy percentage, and the splitting of the Division I-A schools using non-power conference averages were all issues raised by JMU and provided for in this legislation. I have reached out to Republicans and Democrats and while some have expressed concerns, they all agree with the goal of the legislation to begin to bend the cost curve in non-academic spending so that college remains accessible and affordable for Virginia families.

I have tried to make sure that this legislation balances the goal of improving affordability with the recognition that intercollegiate sports is an important aspect of college life. We have looked at the data from 230 Division I schools. The legislation’s standards would benchmark each institution to their national peers. I think the question we should all be asking is how can our national peers, and I am not talking about the schools in the power conferences, provide for this facet of college life more economically than Virginia schools. Let’s look at JMU in particular. When compared to its Division I-AA peers, JMU generates 9% less revenue from its athletic activities. They underperform in terms of contributions by about 3%. JMU relies on students to pick up 75% of the cost of its fairly expensive athletics program while their peers require student fees to only shoulder 25% of that same cost. I know there has been much discussion about JMU participating in Division I-A athletics. How would they compare against schools in the MAC or Conference USA? In both those conferences student fees make up only about a third of the sports revenue stream. While ticket sales and some royalties might increase, contribution levels at JMU trail most of their peers regardless of NCAA division. Recent decisions by Division I-A schools to increase scholarship costs due to compensating athletes will only increase these costs.

Nothing in this legislation prohibits JMU or any school to simply continue as they currently do. They can fail to meet the goals of the legislation. The legislation would then simply eliminate some expanded autonomy that was granted beginning in 2005. You may ask why we would single out that particular issue. When institutions sought greater autonomy, the Boards of Visitors agreed to two overarching principles—access and affordability. Clearly, continuing down the current path with ever increasing costs to attendance driven by non-academic endeavors runs counter to those principles. At JMU those non-academic costs have grown by almost 60% in the last decade with athletic fees growing at the same rate. I believe I would be negligent if I did not move forward in a responsible way to encourage some reason in this area.

Lastly, this legislation does provide a pathway for schools like JMU to move up if they choose to do so. I am not saying it will be simple or easy but if JMU can improve the proportion of their fund raising and their ticket sales to total revenue so it is more in line with aspirational peer schools, it is doable.

Regards,

Kirk

Wow. So much is complete BS in his response. You honestly believe JMU lags FCS competition on ticket sales and donations? That's a flat out lie by Cox.

Second, he makes zero mention of the fact that other states allow ADs to roll athletic expenses into general expenses.

I am surprised that he didn't provide any data to back his claims.

Finally, he neglects to mention the FTE cuts to higher Ed that HE has voted for since 2002.

We have higher attendance that all but one school in the MAC. Our booster club takes on more donations that EVERY school in the MAC. We would be in the top of CUSA as well. All of this is on a pure $ basis, as percentages are meaningless with the above mentioned accounting differences.

Let your voice be heard. Let him know about the facts. This isn't the only thing he has to deal with by any means so the more factual information you can get to him, the more we might be able to state our case for him to get rid of the tunnel vision.

I'd also like to know that if he he has reached out to the institutions, why have nearly all of the presidents of these institutions opposed him? He basically laid out a bill, nobody like it, and he said he reached out to them. Reaching out to the presidents of the the state schools and getting a resounding "No" and then claiming you did your due diligence and really sought their input and took it into account is a joke. Nobody who actually works at these institutions wants your bill. What's the point of soliciting input when you get an overwhelming response and just push it down their throats anyway?

Another point. Scholarships make up the largest % of our ad expenditure. As tuition has risen due to FTE cuts, our AD expenditure has had to rise to pay for these increased tuition costs for scholarships.

I wonder how the % increase in our AD costs compares to the % increase in tuition since 2002. Then compare both to the % that state support has been cut.

Promise it is eye opening. But Cox would rather promote a $111/student savings and pretend like he is attacking the issue of rising higher Ed costs. Yea, that $444 you saved students over 4 years will really really help lower their debt when they graduate.

Typical politician. Distract people from the real issues by pointing at something shiny.

Charlie King wrote a letter in response to the JLARC report back when it was released two months ago. His letter defends JMU's use of student fees and suggests that he disagrees with the recommendations.

speaking of facts, was anyone at the Richmond Madison Tour event tonight and learn anything worth sharing?