As you can see above, we have 10.55 mm in "other" expenses. Nearly 25% of our budget goes where?

Also, Bridgeforth was finished in 2011. I would love to know why our facilities/overhead has increased nearly 300% since 2013. You would think we had already built the convo AND completed Bridgeforth.

I don't want to hear that we "fully" fund all sports and other schools don't. That doesn't even come close to explaining how we spend 40% more than the next highest CAA program, and 77% more than the closest in state CAA program. We spend more than ANY program in CUSA, MAC, or SBC.

Yet we play the "poor" card. It is a gross mismanagement of resources when you play cost containment football (biggest expenditure by far), yet rank ahead of the majority of FBS programs in total expense.

(04-18-2016 08:33 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  As you can see above, we have 10.55 mm in "other" expenses. Nearly 25% of our budget goes where?

At least that's down $2M from the year before

(04-18-2016 08:33 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  As you can see above, we have 10.55 mm in "other" expenses. Nearly 25% of our budget goes where?

Also, Bridgeforth was finished in 2011. I would love to know why our facilities/overhead has increased nearly 300% fold since 2013.

University Park?

on another note, as an alumni, when I read these things I have 2 choices. I can drop every thing I'm doing for a few hours, dive into all the data (much of it incomplete) and attempt to understand why this may be. Or, I can shrug my shoulders, say that sux, and go back to my day job and be indifferent about JMU.

Things like this, and the COA letter, really need a strong response from the administration. It should be their Job to explain this stuff in detail to all the stakeholders. If they believe what they are doing is correct and right and they have their own reasons for doing it, they should have no problem explaining it with conviction.

Did some more digging.

I know this isn't adding much to the dialogue but I just have to vent it.

It is mind-numbing and so painful to fathom that ECU is only spending 4.5mm more than us when you look at the side by side comparison of products on the field. Before anyone jumps all over me, I know we WOULD have swept them in softball had the games not been cancelled. And as awesome as the draft(s) and top 10 ranking is, come on it's softball... how many of you went to a softball game when you were a student? On that note - keep swinging ladies, it has been a fun ride, hoping for another super regional in HBurg.

Regardless of what is counted and what isn't counted, our student are paying more in student fees for athletics than any school in the country. It doesn't matter if our actual athletic budget is 4 million, 40 million, or 400 million...the burden is being put on our students (and all of us when we were students, especially young alumni) to the tune of $36 million. Our students are paying almost twice as much in student fees as the average entire budget of most FCS and G5 football programs. It's not right.

(04-18-2016 08:56 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  Regardless of what is counted and what isn't counted, our student are paying more in student fees for athletics than any school in the country. It doesn't matter if our actual athletic budget is 4 million, 40 million, or 400 million...the burden is being put on our students (and all of us when we were students, especially young alumni) to the tune of $36 million. Our students are paying almost twice as much in student fees as the average entire budget of most FCS and G5 football programs. It's not right.

Yes! Not only is it not right... it won't be allowed with the rule change in VA legislation. We need to drop that student fee % way down and the only way to do that is to go to FBS to get more $ from other sources or to rehaul the way they spend... such a sad situation.

(04-18-2016 08:45 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  Did some more digging.

I didn't get past the first line before I was confused. How do you have ticket sales that are "non-program specific"?

Maybe I'm missing something but you have to have the asterisk by the subsided by students ranking as well. I'm thinking if we cut out athletics budget by moving these random costs to the university budget, in line with other schools, the athletics costs drop to down around $35M. We still have about $9.5M in revenue from other sources which would mean we could drop our student fees by more than $10M. Obviously these fees will still be on students but marked as tuition versus athletic fees.

Granted we could just move those costs those to the university wide budget, keep student fees where they are and pay COA for the tune of a couple million and then give JB a fat @$$ raise.

Maybe that's why the are wanting to de-emphasize athletics.

(04-18-2016 09:37 AM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  Maybe that's why the are wanting to de-emphasize athletics.

This is what happens when you try to have all sports be "fully funded" like the P5 programs without healthy revenue generating sports (football/basketball). We simply can't do this without being FBS. It's poor business management to not put revenue generating sports first.

(04-18-2016 10:29 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:37 AM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  Maybe that's why the are wanting to de-emphasize athletics.

This is what happens when you try to have all sports be "fully funded" like the P5 programs without healthy revenue generating sports (football/basketball). We simply can't do this without being FBS. It's poor business management to not put revenue generating sports first.

Yep. In a perfect world, all programs would be fully funded. JMU is idealistic, but not pragmatic.

(04-17-2016 02:17 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  Something isn't adding up

Considering JMU is getting so much of its money from mandatory student fees...I think there are some ethical inquiries into is it even fair to ask students to foot the bill when the university refuses to offer a comparable product for their investment. It would be like someone selling you a $1 million house but only putting $100,000 worth of material into it.

DEAD ON!!

(04-18-2016 09:37 AM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  Maybe that's why the are wanting to de-emphasize athletics.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

How long until the basketball arena is shelved? Anyone taking bets?...50/50 King can figure out a way to call the arena a chemistry building and get it built so we would can report the most lopsided facility/product metric in the NCAA. (football/mbb)

(04-18-2016 10:29 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:37 AM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  Maybe that's why the are wanting to de-emphasize athletics.

This is what happens when you try to have all sports be "fully funded" like the P5 programs without healthy revenue generating sports (football/basketball). We simply can't do this without being FBS. It's poor business management to not put revenue generating sports first.

Not all, probably few, P5 universities fully fund all sports. We are trying to do something that is unreasonable. UNC-Chapel Hill doesn't, I know this to be true only because I have a close friend whose daughter was on the women's track team. I am almost positive Tech doesn't either. Though they commonly deal out many partials.

Prior to our paring down the sports we offer, it was very common for us to give a FB player a Track scholarship (of course the student/athlete was required to be on the Track team). Again, I know this to be true because I had a friend that was given this opportunity. With that being said, this is probably a very good reason that so many of our Oly Sports perform so well.

JMU had something like 27 - 29 NCAA sports (only out done by the Ivy's and a few others, one of which may have been UVA) to save face we made the commitment that we would hand out the maximum scholarships the NCAA would allow for the sports we kept. This also helped us with Title IX compliance.

One thing I am not sure of is how much do they say one scholly cost JMU. Do they define that cost as the same as what a normal fully paying student would be "on the hook" for, or has JMU come up with a reasonable dollar that is actual cost to the school which should be significantly less. There are so many numbers that can be played with, that it becomes nearly impossible (unless you are in CK's position) to understand how JMU defines things from the outside looking in.

(04-18-2016 10:56 AM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 09:37 AM)HolyCityDuke Wrote:  Maybe that's why the are wanting to de-emphasize athletics.

Winner winner, chicken dinner.

How long until the basketball arena is shelved? Anyone taking bets?...50/50 King can figure out a way to call the arena a chemistry building and get it built so we would can report the most lopsided facility/product metric in the NCAA. (football/mbb)

I'll take that bet. There is no way the arena isn't built, and it has nothing to do with our basketball program. Harrisonburg NEEDS this to happen. They have home shows and different events at the Convo. Not to mention concerts and other sporting events outside of JMU that the community really needs. Plus it benefits JMU financially. It may take a while, but the arena can pay itself off in so many ways that Bridgeforth cannot.
If this arena is even close to calling it off, I bet you'll be hearing about a lot of donors locally helping to fund this product.
Lastly, what about those that donated money specifically to fund the Convo? Think JMU is going to give all that money back? When was the last time that JMU announced a building project and it didn't happen?

The new convo project will happen. book it.

(04-18-2016 12:35 PM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  The new convo project will happen. book it.

Too bad at that point no one will give a damn. Anyone that gives a single penny to this administration is literally just throwing it into a wishing well.

They are a joke, my money will stay right where it is at, not in Jon Algers hands.

(04-18-2016 08:42 AM)JMUETC Wrote:  

(04-18-2016 08:33 AM)JMU2004 Wrote:  As you can see above, we have 10.55 mm in "other" expenses. Nearly 25% of our budget goes where?

Also, Bridgeforth was finished in 2011. I would love to know why our facilities/overhead has increased nearly 300% fold since 2013.

University Park?

on another note, as an alumni, when I read these things I have 2 choices. I can drop every thing I'm doing for a few hours, dive into all the data (much of it incomplete) and attempt to understand why this may be. Or, I can shrug my shoulders, say that sux, and go back to my day job and be indifferent about JMU.

Things like this, and the COA letter, really need a strong response from the administration. It should be their Job to explain this stuff in detail to all the stakeholders. If they believe what they are doing is correct and right and they have their own reasons for doing it, they should have no problem explaining it with conviction.

If the admin responds it'll be that "we're monitoring the situation". Funny thing is I don't believe our Athletic budget was cited on the Accomplishments link that the Rector Mike Thomas provided to me when he came back with a reply to my email about what our President has accomplished.

Since he did reply I took the opportunity to complain about our President not showing up for the 2nd CHOICES Forum and that I for one as a graduate didn't want Alger extended. Doubt he replies this time.

If only our BOV cared about anything enough to lift a finger.

They are complicit in all of this, heads need to roll ASAP. JA is making me hate my alma mater, which is sad, and I know I'm not alone in this.