Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

(04-13-2015 06:18 AM)Yesolitis Wrote:  Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

Because they're not at JMU. Once you accept that fact, you'll sleep better.

More to your point, JMU's strong "athletic brand" in women's sports (witness national rankings in WBB, Softball and LAX) is doing just fine without more money being invested in FB.

Now, if FB generated the kind of surplus income that carried all the other sports, then you'd see a different attitude, until then, all varsity sports at JMU are basically seen as equal partners.

(04-11-2015 01:56 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-11-2015 10:53 AM)91Alum Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:48 PM)POTUS#4 Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:28 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(04-10-2015 02:11 PM)91Alum Wrote:  This little gem from Page 21 broke my freaking heart. Summed up, this pretty much reads: "Let's not get caught flat-footed and unprepared like those purple morons out west".


I mean, seriously, what the hell else could this be referring to?

The grand unveiling of the next Homecoming T-shirt design?!?

Yeah, I don't see a JMU connection. Has JMU had a galvanizing event?

Not sure the Natl Championship, the building of the new stadium, the 25K+ attendance of a few years ago, etc are singular galvanizing events, but we had a sh*tload of momentum and enthusiasm about the program, at least two conferences actively pressing us to join, and we pissed it away.

We weren't ready. And now we missed the boat.

If I had to honestly guess what they may be referring to above, I'd say they are figuring they have GOT to win an NCAA appearance during someone's life time. It's only been like 15 generations since they first tossed a coconut in the air. They then want to be ready to go all "W & M Nation" or however they plan to pimp their "brand".

I just don't see them going FBS, but yea, didn't see several others going ahead either...

Clearly, W&M's goals are nowhere near the same as ours should be - two very different schools with very different aims. They are not going FBS (as their plan makes clear). The point I was trying to make (not very well apparently) is that W&M understands the need to be prepared. They see that opportunities present themselves for a brief time, then they are gone - perhaps never to return. The fact that our (past and current) leadership was flat-footed and unable (or unwilling) to act when we had the chance is sad.

(04-13-2015 08:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:18 AM)Yesolitis Wrote:  Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

Because they're not at JMU. Once you accept that fact, you'll sleep better.

More to your point, JMU's strong "athletic brand" in women's sports (witness national rankings in WBB, Softball and LAX) is doing just fine without more money being invested in FB.

Now, if FB generated the kind of surplus income that carried all the other sports, then you'd see a different attitude, until then, all varsity sports at JMU are basically seen as equal partners.

I'm being very serious and would appreciate a thoughtful response LH, does JA, CK, JB attend the other athletic events in the manner in which they attend FB? I would guess that JB tries to do his best at personally supporting them, but I would have to question the other two. I realize you have to have an interest, but all three were in Charlotte last fall, would all three travel to Charlotte to see a regular season softball game against UNCC? We did have a big event on the Friday night prior to the game, so that made it a bit more important. However, I somehow doubt all three would have come down had there been a JMU vs UNCC softball game being played the next day. I could very well be misjudging their character.

I'm sure you see where I am heading with my question, but if I'm correct in my thoughts, then its very, very difficult to believe all sports are treated as equals.

(04-13-2015 09:18 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:18 AM)Yesolitis Wrote:  Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

Because they're not at JMU. Once you accept that fact, you'll sleep better.

More to your point, JMU's strong "athletic brand" in women's sports (witness national rankings in WBB, Softball and LAX) is doing just fine without more money being invested in FB.

Now, if FB generated the kind of surplus income that carried all the other sports, then you'd see a different attitude, until then, all varsity sports at JMU are basically seen as equal partners.

I'm being very serious and would appreciate a thoughtful response LH, does JA, CK, JB attend the other athletic events in the manner in which they attend FB? I would guess that JB tries to do his best at personally supporting them, but I would have to question the other two. I realize you have to have an interest, but all three were in Charlotte last fall, would all three travel to Charlotte to see a regular season softball game against UNCC? We did have a big event on the Friday night prior to the game, so that made it a bit more important. However, I somehow doubt all three would have come down had there been a JMU vs UNCC softball game being played the next day. I could very well be misjudging their character.

I'm sure you see where I am heading with my question, but if I'm correct in my thoughts, then its very, very difficult to believe all sports are treated as equals.

Treated as equals in support, fully funded, all scholarships paid for, equal access to academic support staff, fitness and training etc etc.

Not whether Alger attended a womens softball game in townson last week. Lol.

(04-13-2015 09:18 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:18 AM)Yesolitis Wrote:  Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

Because they're not at JMU. Once you accept that fact, you'll sleep better.

More to your point, JMU's strong "athletic brand" in women's sports (witness national rankings in WBB, Softball and LAX) is doing just fine without more money being invested in FB.

Now, if FB generated the kind of surplus income that carried all the other sports, then you'd see a different attitude, until then, all varsity sports at JMU are basically seen as equal partners.

I'm being very serious and would appreciate a thoughtful response LH, does JA, CK, JB attend the other athletic events in the manner in which they attend FB? I would guess that JB tries to do his best at personally supporting them, but I would have to question the other two. I realize you have to have an interest, but all three were in Charlotte last fall, would all three travel to Charlotte to see a regular season softball game against UNCC? We did have a big event on the Friday night prior to the game, so that made it a bit more important. However, I somehow doubt all three would have come down had there been a JMU vs UNCC softball game being played the next day. I could very well be misjudging their character.

I'm sure you see where I am heading with my question, but if I'm correct in my thoughts, then its very, very difficult to believe all sports are treated as equals.

I'm not the keeper of their schedules, but the Pres (and family) are almost always at WBB home games, and I know Sr. administrators regularly attend championship games (both at the CAA level and certainly at the NCAA level) whenever possible. JB and/or GP attend a large range of games, but then that's part of their job.

So basically, I don't think you're correct in your thoughts. If anything, Pres, Alger enjoys the WBB games more than the other sports, but we're all entitled to our personal choices. The "official" approach is to treat them all equally...which is part of the formula of finding the next conference. If the SB would allow a FB only membership I'm pretty sure we would have joined that league last year.

(04-13-2015 12:16 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 09:18 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:18 AM)Yesolitis Wrote:  Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

Because they're not at JMU. Once you accept that fact, you'll sleep better.

More to your point, JMU's strong "athletic brand" in women's sports (witness national rankings in WBB, Softball and LAX) is doing just fine without more money being invested in FB.

Now, if FB generated the kind of surplus income that carried all the other sports, then you'd see a different attitude, until then, all varsity sports at JMU are basically seen as equal partners.

I'm being very serious and would appreciate a thoughtful response LH, does JA, CK, JB attend the other athletic events in the manner in which they attend FB? I would guess that JB tries to do his best at personally supporting them, but I would have to question the other two. I realize you have to have an interest, but all three were in Charlotte last fall, would all three travel to Charlotte to see a regular season softball game against UNCC? We did have a big event on the Friday night prior to the game, so that made it a bit more important. However, I somehow doubt all three would have come down had there been a JMU vs UNCC softball game being played the next day. I could very well be misjudging their character.

I'm sure you see where I am heading with my question, but if I'm correct in my thoughts, then its very, very difficult to believe all sports are treated as equals.

I'm not the keeper of their schedules, but the Pres (and family) are almost always at WBB home games, and I know Sr. administrators regularly attend championship games (both at the CAA level and certainly at the NCAA level) whenever possible. JB and/or GP attend a large range of games, but then that's part of their job.

So basically, I don't think you're correct in your thoughts. If anything, Pres, Alger enjoys the WBB games more than the other sports, but we're all entitled to our personal choices. The "official" approach is to treat them all equally...which is part of the formula of finding the next conference. If the SB would allow a FB only membership I'm pretty sure we would have joined that league last year.

Who wouldn't enjoy seeing our girls play, they are super fun to watch? Cannot blame him. Of course, we know DD doesn't care beyond FB and MBB. I was actually very proud before Title IX that JMU was in the top 10% of schools having the most NCAA sports. Huge believer in athletics and what they do for the human brain and body.

wow, I feel better knowing that CK, JB and JA attend JMU sporting events. Engaged.

(04-13-2015 01:44 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  wow, I feel better knowing that CK, JB and JA attend JMU sporting events. Engaged.

Purple, LH was just answering my question.

(04-13-2015 08:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:18 AM)Yesolitis Wrote:  Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

Because they're not at JMU. Once you accept that fact, you'll sleep better.

More to your point, JMU's strong "athletic brand" in women's sports (witness national rankings in WBB, Softball and LAX) is doing just fine without more money being invested in FB.

Now, if FB generated the kind of surplus income that carried all the other sports, then you'd see a different attitude, until then, all varsity sports at JMU are basically seen as equal partners.

Well to suggest that Women's LAX and Football are remotely "even" is just asinine. Wonderful, JMU's woman's sports are doing well but how does that translate into donations? As you can see, not very well. If JMU is trying to put every sport on an equal level for PC purposes then fine... But in reality, no one gives a hill of beans about Woman's sports and to disregard Football/Basketball in favor of Woman's Basketbal/LAX/Track/Swimming/Pilates should have the whole JMU Athletic Department fired.

Why does it always devolve into this nonsense?

JMU SUPPORTS ALL SPORTS EQUALLY AS FAR AS FULL FUNDING. JMU DARN WELL KNOWS WHICH SPORTS DRIVE THE BUS & MARKETING EFFORTS REFLECT THAT.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand? It's like some posters are just waiting to pounce on the chance to say how much they hate softball or WBB or whatever other sport they're excited to make fun of that day.

(04-13-2015 03:21 PM)HyperDuke Wrote:  Why does it always devolve into this nonsense?

JMU SUPPORTS ALL SPORTS EQUALLY AS FAR AS FULL FUNDING. JMU DARN WELL KNOWS WHICH SPORTS DRIVE THE BUS & MARKETING EFFORTS REFLECT THAT.

Why is that so hard for some people to understand? It's like some posters are just waiting to pounce on the chance to say how much they hate softball or WBB or whatever other sport they're excited to make fun of that day.

Not really, many have stated the "status" of women's sports if moved to CUSA/MAC/SunBelt... It isn't out of the scope of discussion because it HAS been brought up.

(04-13-2015 03:34 PM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  Not really, many have stated the "status" of women's sports if moved to CUSA/MAC/SunBelt... It isn't out of the scope of discussion because it HAS been brought up.

While the impact may be discussed internally with the JMU admin, I'm absolutely certain that there's no need to worry about JMU administrators killing a conference move due to a women's sports issue (outside of general travel for all sports).

(04-13-2015 03:12 PM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 08:55 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-13-2015 06:18 AM)Yesolitis Wrote:  Good seasons mean very little if there if there is no momentum building to any goal. If the goal is simply win championships in the CAA, ok great. But even JMU's startegic plan suggests more competitive and successful results in NCAA tournaments. The issue is that it weighs all sports the same. I love tennis, but I am not about to spend my free time watching JMU's Men's Tennis. Women's Tennis? Perhaps... but that's a different topic. Point is, football and basketball were not very well articulated in the strategic plan as disportionately important sports to building a strong JMU Athletics brand across the board. JMU's goals have seemed vague to me for a while, and it continues to be the case in the recent strategic plan. No one wants to admit football and basketball are king.

Because they're not at JMU. Once you accept that fact, you'll sleep better.

More to your point, JMU's strong "athletic brand" in women's sports (witness national rankings in WBB, Softball and LAX) is doing just fine without more money being invested in FB.

Now, if FB generated the kind of surplus income that carried all the other sports, then you'd see a different attitude, until then, all varsity sports at JMU are basically seen as equal partners.

Well to suggest that Women's LAX and Football are remotely "even" is just asinine. Wonderful, JMU's woman's sports are doing well but how does that translate into donations? As you can see, not very well. If JMU is trying to put every sport on an equal level for PC purposes then fine... But in reality, no one gives a hill of beans about Woman's sports and to disregard Football/Basketball in favor of Woman's Basketbal/LAX/Track/Swimming/Pilates should have the whole JMU Athletic Department fired.

You just nailed why I hate Jeff Bourne in the role of Athletic Director at JMU. I have believed for a decade that Bourne uses all sports not called football to keep JMU in Tommy's crumbling athletic conference.

I know that Bourne will do what the presidents tells him to do but it is not helping that Bourne is better than fine remaining in the CAA to take care or his buddy.

W&M may have a well written mission statement, but they have had their fair share of brain farts. One no bigger than the fact that when South Carolina left the ACC in 1971, William and Mary was invited to join; they declined the invitation. Now that is some serious boat missing right there.

(04-15-2015 02:48 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  W&M may have a well written mission statement, but they have had their fair share of brain farts. One no bigger than the fact that when South Carolina left the ACC in 1971, William and Mary was invited to join; they declined the invitation. Now that is some serious boat missing right there.

I knew they had their opportunity, but didn't realize it was to replace USC when they left. Why would they have been offered rather than Tech? I'm sure a big part was academics, yet even in 71, you could see where Tech was headed. I was about 12 and attended a few games around that time period. I guess it was that stupid Gobbler that held them back.

(04-15-2015 02:56 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:48 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  W&M may have a well written mission statement, but they have had their fair share of brain farts. One no bigger than the fact that when South Carolina left the ACC in 1971, William and Mary was invited to join; they declined the invitation. Now that is some serious boat missing right there.

I knew they had their opportunity, but didn't realize it was to replace USC when they left. Why would they have been offered rather than Tech? I'm sure a big part was academics, yet even in 71, you could see where Tech was headed. I was about 12 and attended a few games around that time period. I guess it was that stupid Gobbler that held them back.

Back then VT was not very good in anything athletically, I believe. Someone with better knowledge than I can certainly speak to that, but I do believe up through at least the mid-70s VT's big rival was VMI. That tellls you something of where tey were as an athletic program.

(04-15-2015 03:13 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:56 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:48 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  W&M may have a well written mission statement, but they have had their fair share of brain farts. One no bigger than the fact that when South Carolina left the ACC in 1971, William and Mary was invited to join; they declined the invitation. Now that is some serious boat missing right there.

I knew they had their opportunity, but didn't realize it was to replace USC when they left. Why would they have been offered rather than Tech? I'm sure a big part was academics, yet even in 71, you could see where Tech was headed. I was about 12 and attended a few games around that time period. I guess it was that stupid Gobbler that held them back.

Back then VT was not very good in anything athletically, I believe. Someone with better knowledge than I can certainly speak to that, but I do believe up through at least the mid-70s VT's big rival was VMI. That tellls you something of where tey were as an athletic program.

VMI was a big time program back then.

VT wasn't great back then, but they went to a few bowl games and were good in bball in the 1960's and 1970's, including an elite 8 in 1967. (I think the NIT was big back then, though.)

(04-15-2015 03:13 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:56 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:48 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  W&M may have a well written mission statement, but they have had their fair share of brain farts. One no bigger than the fact that when South Carolina left the ACC in 1971, William and Mary was invited to join; they declined the invitation. Now that is some serious boat missing right there.

I knew they had their opportunity, but didn't realize it was to replace USC when they left. Why would they have been offered rather than Tech? I'm sure a big part was academics, yet even in 71, you could see where Tech was headed. I was about 12 and attended a few games around that time period. I guess it was that stupid Gobbler that held them back.

Back then VT was not very good in anything athletically, I believe. Someone with better knowledge than I can certainly speak to that, but I do believe up through at least the mid-70s VT's big rival was VMI. That tellls you something of where tey were as an athletic program.

My first live college football game was VMI at VT. I guess it was 77-79 era. It was a barnburner, as VMI won 6-3 or something like that.

(04-16-2015 07:30 AM)jmutoml757 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 03:13 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:56 PM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(04-15-2015 02:48 PM)JMU_71 Wrote:  W&M may have a well written mission statement, but they have had their fair share of brain farts. One no bigger than the fact that when South Carolina left the ACC in 1971, William and Mary was invited to join; they declined the invitation. Now that is some serious boat missing right there.

I knew they had their opportunity, but didn't realize it was to replace USC when they left. Why would they have been offered rather than Tech? I'm sure a big part was academics, yet even in 71, you could see where Tech was headed. I was about 12 and attended a few games around that time period. I guess it was that stupid Gobbler that held them back.

Back then VT was not very good in anything athletically, I believe. Someone with better knowledge than I can certainly speak to that, but I do believe up through at least the mid-70s VT's big rival was VMI. That tellls you something of where tey were as an athletic program.

My first live college football game was VMI at VT. I guess it was 77-79 era. It was a barnburner, as VMI won 6-3 or something like that.

I remember that game, though I was thinking it was just a few years later than the time period you mentioned. Really doesn't matter, though I'm pretty sure it was the final time VMI pulled out the victory and even then it was a bit of a shocker because Tech had started to separate itself as one of two major teams in VA.