The unofficial online home for fans of the Old Dominion University Monarchs. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I was told by a source I trust very much that we offered 1 million dollars to Tommy Amaker to coach here and he turned it down. Or rather his wife turned us down.

That interesting. I thought about him, and didn't mention him because I thought it was a bad fit.

Sent from my Pixel C using Tapatalk

Yeah, it would have been horrible to have a Duke grad with NOVA roots.

(01-23-2016 09:56 PM)blewbyu Wrote:  Jarret was a little man in a big man's job. He was here for 40 years and held ODU back for 39 of the 40. The truth is Jarrett was a JOKE. We could have had football 40 years ago and Jarrett was against it for the simple reason it would have made him have to actually work. The one thing he did wwas embrace women's sports. Yes that is noteworthy BUT that is all he did.He held ODU mens sports from blossoming for the simple reason he was lazy. There is no way Jarrett is in anyway close to being considered a good AD. Selig is much better than Jarrett ever thought about being. I was there and saw this all first hand, Believe me when I say Jarrett sucked.

Lol. I don't know how much I agree with the entire post, but I do believe that the AD's decision to decline to push through the challenges of making football a reality back in 89 has cost ODU in 3 ways:

1) Academic profile and success--from a commuter campus to a destination campus
2) A guaranteed AAC spot that would have been ours this last round of realignment
3) A piece of VT's surge (including being a factor in the Governor's mandates to UVA for voting them into ACC membership) some 15 years after our short-sighted decision

The opportunity costs in that 2nd and especially 3rd bullet has been beyond colossal.

(01-25-2016 04:35 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 09:56 PM)blewbyu Wrote:  Jarret was a little man in a big man's job. He was here for 40 years and held ODU back for 39 of the 40. The truth is Jarrett was a JOKE. We could have had football 40 years ago and Jarrett was against it for the simple reason it would have made him have to actually work. The one thing he did wwas embrace women's sports. Yes that is noteworthy BUT that is all he did.He held ODU mens sports from blossoming for the simple reason he was lazy. There is no way Jarrett is in anyway close to being considered a good AD. Selig is much better than Jarrett ever thought about being. I was there and saw this all first hand, Believe me when I say Jarrett sucked.

Lol. I don't know how much I agree with the entire post, but I do believe that the AD's decision to decline to push through the challenges of making football a reality back in 89 has cost ODU in 3 ways:

1) Academic profile and success--from a commuter campus to a destination campus
2) A guaranteed AAC spot that would have been ours this last round of realignment
3) A piece of VT's surge (including being a factor in the Governor's mandates to UVA for voting them into ACC membership) some 15 years after our short-sighted decision

The opportunity costs in that 2nd and especially 3rd bullet has been beyond colossal.

Number 1 under any circumstances. Heck, when when I went to ODU in the '70s it was more selective than VT. It would have been nice to have maintained that.

Numbers 2 and 3 would have been predicated on us pursuing and attaining Div 1A.

(01-23-2016 09:56 PM)blewbyu Wrote:  Jarret was a little man in a big man's job. He was here for 40 years and held ODU back for 39 of the 40. The truth is Jarrett was a JOKE. We could have had football 40 years ago and Jarrett was against it for the simple reason it would have made him have to actually work. The one thing he did wwas embrace women's sports. Yes that is noteworthy BUT that is all he did.He held ODU mens sports from blossoming for the simple reason he was lazy. There is no way Jarrett is in anyway close to being considered a good AD. Selig is much better than Jarrett ever thought about being. I was there and saw this all first hand, Believe me when I say Jarrett sucked.

I definitely agree that Jarrett held ODU back and we should have had FB 30 years ago. I got the impression that he was more of a risk averse civil servant (as opposed to lazy). Remember the Division 1 - AAA FB (non scholarship) FB idea? Thankfully that went nowhere.

(01-25-2016 04:55 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Number 1 under any circumstances. Heck, when when I went to ODU in the '70s it was more selective than VT. It would have been nice to have maintained that.

Numbers 2 and 3 would have been predicated on us pursuing and attaining Div 1A.

True. But I think we would have been on a parallel path with USF who profiled almost identical to us, were in the exact same conference, and had an AD that said we're going to do it for us--vs listening to the naysayers from Miami, Gainesville, and Tallahassee. It's amazing how similar our schools were at that time and how different both institutions have progressed. They have tons of growth in physical plant, research funding, student success, and yes...athletic department revenue due to the arrival of football in the Tampa area.

I think about it every time someone living in Hampton Roads talks about how we shouldn't push for growth due to VT or UVA's hold on the area. That feels like JJ talk to me.

(01-26-2016 02:00 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:55 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Number 1 under any circumstances. Heck, when when I went to ODU in the '70s it was more selective than VT. It would have been nice to have maintained that.

Numbers 2 and 3 would have been predicated on us pursuing and attaining Div 1A.

True. But I think we would have been on a parallel path with USF who profiled almost identical to us, were in the exact same conference, and had an AD that said we're going to do it for us--vs listening to the naysayers from Miami, Gainesville, and Tallahassee. It's amazing how similar our schools were at that time and how different both institutions have progressed. They have tons of growth in physical plant, research funding, student success, and yes...athletic department revenue due to the arrival of football in the Tampa area.

I think about it every time someone living in Hampton Roads talks about how we shouldn't push for growth due to VT or UVA's hold on the area. That feels like JJ talk to me.

If ODU had someone like George Steinbrenner pumping millions of dollars into our athletic program as he did for USF, our path might have been different.

(01-26-2016 04:03 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 02:00 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:55 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Number 1 under any circumstances. Heck, when when I went to ODU in the '70s it was more selective than VT. It would have been nice to have maintained that.

Numbers 2 and 3 would have been predicated on us pursuing and attaining Div 1A.

True. But I think we would have been on a parallel path with USF who profiled almost identical to us, were in the exact same conference, and had an AD that said we're going to do it for us--vs listening to the naysayers from Miami, Gainesville, and Tallahassee. It's amazing how similar our schools were at that time and how different both institutions have progressed. They have tons of growth in physical plant, research funding, student success, and yes...athletic department revenue due to the arrival of football in the Tampa area.

I think about it every time someone living in Hampton Roads talks about how we shouldn't push for growth due to VT or UVA's hold on the area. That feels like JJ talk to me.

If ODU had someone like George Steinbrenner pumping millions of dollars into our athletic program as he did for USF, our path might have been different.

Who's pumping money into UCF? Theres no excuse whatsoever for UCF to have a stronger academic or athletic profile than Old Dominion. Yet here we are.

(01-26-2016 09:35 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:03 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 02:00 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:55 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Number 1 under any circumstances. Heck, when when I went to ODU in the '70s it was more selective than VT. It would have been nice to have maintained that.

Numbers 2 and 3 would have been predicated on us pursuing and attaining Div 1A.

True. But I think we would have been on a parallel path with USF who profiled almost identical to us, were in the exact same conference, and had an AD that said we're going to do it for us--vs listening to the naysayers from Miami, Gainesville, and Tallahassee. It's amazing how similar our schools were at that time and how different both institutions have progressed. They have tons of growth in physical plant, research funding, student success, and yes...athletic department revenue due to the arrival of football in the Tampa area.

I think about it every time someone living in Hampton Roads talks about how we shouldn't push for growth due to VT or UVA's hold on the area. That feels like JJ talk to me.

If ODU had someone like George Steinbrenner pumping millions of dollars into our athletic program as he did for USF, our path might have been different.

Who's pumping money into UCF? Theres no excuse whatsoever for UCF to have a stronger academic or athletic profile than Old Dominion. Yet here we are.

As Dancin stated, Steinbrenner was a major contributor to USF.

(01-26-2016 01:51 PM)ODUDon Wrote:  

(01-23-2016 09:56 PM)blewbyu Wrote:  Jarret was a little man in a big man's job. He was here for 40 years and held ODU back for 39 of the 40. The truth is Jarrett was a JOKE. We could have had football 40 years ago and Jarrett was against it for the simple reason it would have made him have to actually work. The one thing he did wwas embrace women's sports. Yes that is noteworthy BUT that is all he did.He held ODU mens sports from blossoming for the simple reason he was lazy. There is no way Jarrett is in anyway close to being considered a good AD. Selig is much better than Jarrett ever thought about being. I was there and saw this all first hand, Believe me when I say Jarrett sucked.

I definitely agree that Jarrett held ODU back and we should have had FB 30 years ago. I got the impression that he was more of a risk averse civil servant (as opposed to lazy). Remember the Division 1 - AAA FB (non scholarship) FB idea? Thankfully that went nowhere.

He did push the 1AAA idea somewhat but not hard enough to get it passed. That idea came about because of the perceived lack of donations for a 1AA team and an aversion to going the D2 route. In retrospect it was a bad idea but maybe D2 wouldn't have been so bad after all if the funding wasn't there. We will never know because it all stopped when 1AAA didn't pass.

(01-26-2016 10:00 PM)ODUDrunkard13 Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 09:35 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:03 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 02:00 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:55 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Number 1 under any circumstances. Heck, when when I went to ODU in the '70s it was more selective than VT. It would have been nice to have maintained that.

Numbers 2 and 3 would have been predicated on us pursuing and attaining Div 1A.

True. But I think we would have been on a parallel path with USF who profiled almost identical to us, were in the exact same conference, and had an AD that said we're going to do it for us--vs listening to the naysayers from Miami, Gainesville, and Tallahassee. It's amazing how similar our schools were at that time and how different both institutions have progressed. They have tons of growth in physical plant, research funding, student success, and yes...athletic department revenue due to the arrival of football in the Tampa area.

I think about it every time someone living in Hampton Roads talks about how we shouldn't push for growth due to VT or UVA's hold on the area. That feels like JJ talk to me.

If ODU had someone like George Steinbrenner pumping millions of dollars into our athletic program as he did for USF, our path might have been different.

Who's pumping money into UCF? Theres no excuse whatsoever for UCF to have a stronger academic or athletic profile than Old Dominion. Yet here we are.

As Dancin stated, Steinbrenner was a major contributor to USF.

USF and UCF are different schools. Steinbrenner gave lots of money to USF in Tampa.

(01-26-2016 09:35 PM)monarx Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 04:03 PM)TheDancinMonarch Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 02:00 PM)FearTheLion Wrote:  

(01-25-2016 04:55 PM)ODUalum78 Wrote:  Number 1 under any circumstances. Heck, when when I went to ODU in the '70s it was more selective than VT. It would have been nice to have maintained that.

Numbers 2 and 3 would have been predicated on us pursuing and attaining Div 1A.

True. But I think we would have been on a parallel path with USF who profiled almost identical to us, were in the exact same conference, and had an AD that said we're going to do it for us--vs listening to the naysayers from Miami, Gainesville, and Tallahassee. It's amazing how similar our schools were at that time and how different both institutions have progressed. They have tons of growth in physical plant, research funding, student success, and yes...athletic department revenue due to the arrival of football in the Tampa area.

I think about it every time someone living in Hampton Roads talks about how we shouldn't push for growth due to VT or UVA's hold on the area. That feels like JJ talk to me.

If ODU had someone like George Steinbrenner pumping millions of dollars into our athletic program as he did for USF, our path might have been different.

Who's pumping money into UCF? Theres no excuse whatsoever for UCF to have a stronger academic or athletic profile than Old Dominion. Yet here we are.

Don't know who, if anyone, was the angel for UCF. But it took them almost 20 years to move from Div. III to Div. I. Certainly a different approach then most.

Dancin, you're right. We didn't and still don't have a Steinbrenner.

But if ODU had started football in 89, I'd bet we'd have one of two by now. There is so much wealth in VA that could've possibly become motivated to our school's growth potential over the years. I wonder how invested Steinbrenner was when USF couldn't fill up that SunDome that looked like Scope back in the day before they started football. Who knows? I don't and it is all woulda, coulda, shoulda stuff now.

In Wood's segment on Nick Cattles, he sounded very encouraged with the new TV deal in revenue and exposure. I know it's his job to spin, but I guess there is a bit of optimism to be had.

http://www.espnradio941.com/common/page.php?id=101

(01-27-2016 06:17 PM)BlueSilver Wrote:  In Wood's segment on Nick Cattles, he sounded very encouraged with the new TV deal in revenue and exposure. I know it's his job to spin, but I guess there is a bit of optimism to be had.

http://www.espnradio941.com/common/page.php?id=101

With Houston, Tulane, and the rest gone from CUSA, and SBC programs (their television deal was comparatively awful) and an FCS move-up as replacements, we knew we would take a substantial hit. It could have been much, much worse.
As it is, we will probably get at least as good or better exposure, and the decrease in revenue from the new television contract represents less than 1.2% of our total athletic revenues.

With record ODAF donations this year (not included in those revenue totals), the sky is definitely NOT falling.

I still think we need to let the football thing play out before we bash Jarrett for not wanting it. It's going to be awhile before we are truly competitive and we had to use smoke and mirrors to keep the sellout streak alive despite the last 2 games being for bowl eligibility. Now we may take a huge financial risk in a new stadium without any improvement in long term outlook. I see one of two things happening. Either we don't grow capacity much and we build a nice stadium of around 22+27k but have to double ticket prices, which will depress demand in the long run or we build a bigger stadium that will be half full except for when we get an ACC opponent. The only thing thing that could save us is an AAC invite that will bring in ECU, Navy, Temple, and some combo of Memphis, Cincinnati, and UConn every other year. Those would sell out 30k plus. Perhaps we can get a contingent invite before we break ground. We do not need a new stadium for our current schedule. If our home schedule includes Norfolk State/W&M/JMU/Richmond, ECU/Navy, Memphis/Cincinnati, and an ACC nonconference opponent, a new stadium is justifiable. 4 out of 6 home games that could demand 30k+.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk