with all the success over the last few years in both mens and womans sports, we have to be one of the best top to bottom non P5 athletic programs. Who is better? Maybe someone from the AAC. I dont know there non revenue sports well enough to know. thoughts?
(05-21-2019 08:21 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote: [ -> ]with all the success over the last few years in both mens and womans sports, we have to be one of the best top to bottom non P5 athletic programs. Who is better? Maybe someone from the AAC. I dont know there non revenue sports well enough to know. thoughts?
Would think UCF is in that conversation, and possibly UConn if not focused on football. A number of the top AAC schools seem competitive with the P5 in my mind.
Probably the Learfield Director’s cup points/standings or something similar would give an unbiased view of this.
Edit: Learfield standings here:
https://nacda.com/services/download_file...verall.pdf
Biggest surprise to me is Princeton at #19. The Ivies do well overall. UConn at #62, UCF at #71, JMU at #98. Much of the CAA is toward the bottom.
Biggest surprise to me was Denver at #41, but they do well in sports like Skiing.
We got no points in the winter sports as other than basketball we participate in like on sport.
As someone who lives 10 minutes from the Princeton campus it is not surprising that they do well as I see and hear about their teams all the time.
With our run in softball and our NCAA appearances in lacrosse and tennis we should move up the standings a bit. I believe that back in 94-95 we were very high up in these points when it was called the Sear's Cup.
(05-21-2019 08:21 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote: [ -> ]with all the success over the last few years in both mens and womans sports, we have to be one of the best top to bottom non P5 athletic programs. Who is better? Maybe someone from the AAC. I dont know there non revenue sports well enough to know. thoughts?
The women's programs might be in the conversation but even you know the men's ain't.
(05-21-2019 09:01 AM)2Buck Wrote: [ -> ] (05-21-2019 08:21 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote: [ -> ]with all the success over the last few years in both mens and womans sports, we have to be one of the best top to bottom non P5 athletic programs. Who is better? Maybe someone from the AAC. I dont know there non revenue sports well enough to know. thoughts?
The women's programs might be in the conversation but even you know the men's ain't.
Only 4 sports that matter and in two we are top ranked nationally.
Football was in the title game 2 years ago and National Champs 3 years ago.
Mens soccer was in the elite 8.
Baseball and hoops dont help.
Tennis and golf probably no chance there.
(05-21-2019 08:21 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote: [ -> ]with all the success over the last few years in both mens and womans sports, we have to be one of the best top to bottom non P5 athletic programs. Who is better? Maybe someone from the AAC. I dont know there non revenue sports well enough to know. thoughts?
100% agree.
But that to me does not give a free pass for one of your primary 2 revenue producers tanking and being a drain on the rest of the programs.
I sure do love me some FCS, and I would dread the notion of having to fight all year to play in the Nobody Cares Bowl Sponsored By Shoelaces.com at 11AM on December 15th on ESPN4 in front of 15 crazed fans in Bemidji MN.
BUT maybe trying to get into the AAC or something is what we'd need to get taken seriously. And to be honest, that's probably what could make the difference in getting a couple extra players for baseball, for soccer, and for basketball, and that could be the difference from "a really good NIT run" to "gets NCAA at-large bids every couple years", and not just in basketball, but in all the sports that have tournaments. I mean, we have several sports where we're the dominant team in the CAA, and don't really belong with them.
I'm sure having the DI minimum allowable # of mens sports doesn't help the rankings. I'm assuming you get points for how you finish in each sport.
Do we even have golf, tennis, or swimming? Those sports are huge at the college level.
(05-21-2019 03:09 PM)Nerfherder95 Wrote: [ -> ]Do we even have golf, tennis, or swimming? Those sports are huge at the college level.
Golf yes, tennis yes, swim yes (women only)
In 95-96 after the fall sports we were ranked 3rd and I believe finished in the Top 20. Back then the fall was extremely strong as we had top 10 teams in FH, football, and both Men's and Women's Soccer.
(05-21-2019 03:09 PM)Nerfherder95 Wrote: [ -> ]Do we even have golf, tennis, or swimming? Those sports are huge at the college level.
Seriously? Seriously???
Jmu embodies Title IX- fully funded nationally competitive programs across multiple sports- men’s and women’s . We should be proud.
NJDuke97 dateline58495370' Wrote: [ -> ]Jmu embodies Title IX- fully funded nationally competitive programs across multiple sports- men’s and women’s . We should be proud.
Yea, I'd agree with this. While some reservations or trepidation's about what they did back in, what? 2002? maybe '06 cut some folks the wrong way, this has actually been a pretty doggone good re-direction to go. Not a lot of programs sponsor the girls athletics as fully funded, and I, as 1 saw it as a poor move for a number of reasons. Probably put it on the Zone actually.
Yet, now, the full attention to girls/womens sports is coming to fruition. Lot of us Ol' Grumpy's woke up one day and realized we had a female athlete sleeping in her bedroom in the same house.
Both my kids (now in kollege, God help them) were varsity athletes in HS, and it was equally exciting to see them, and their teams excel as they did.
Did I ever prior give a rat's patootey about field hockey? Nope. But I still go the games at her HS cause we have a little band of folks that still care and contribute to hang out with.
Same with the JMU faithful. Those that traveled to Ann Arbor, AND spent an extra day or two are to be commended. And offered a cold bev. They were as loud as anyone else in the place.
Well done Dukes, well done.
We sponsor the minimum allowed for NCAA D1. Used to be one of the most and I'm fairly certain UVA was the only school which had more. Nevertheless, competing in less than half makes it tough to judge. No doubt we offer a student athlete a great opportunity to be a part of a successful program.
(05-21-2019 03:09 PM)Nerfherder95 Wrote: [ -> ]Do we even have golf, tennis, or swimming? Those sports are huge at the college level.
I take it you’ve never perused jmusports.com.
Yes to all three. Our swimming and diving is women’s only.
(05-22-2019 04:45 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote: [ -> ]We sponsor the minimum allowed for NCAA D1. Used to be one of the most and I'm fairly certain UVA was the only school which had more.
William & Mary had more then, and now. W&M currently sponsors 23 varsity sports. Used to have even more but men's lacrosse, wrestling, and fencing (and one other, I think) have been cut over the years.
Today, St. Thomas was kicked out of the MIAC, a century old D3 conference of which they are a founding member. The reason given? Basically, St. Thomas is too good athletically and the other schools got sick of losing to them. The fact that JMU hasn't been kicked out of the CAA and/or the commonwealth of Virginia due to our overall athletic winning percentages just goes to show the terrible small-mindedness that consumes our leadership!
This message brought to you in whole by Dukeman2020.
(05-22-2019 11:23 AM)Zorch Wrote: [ -> ] (05-22-2019 04:45 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote: [ -> ]We sponsor the minimum allowed for NCAA D1. Used to be one of the most and I'm fairly certain UVA was the only school which had more.
William & Mary had more then, and now. W&M currently sponsors 23 varsity sports. Used to have even more but men's lacrosse, wrestling, and fencing (and one other, I think) have been cut over the years.
Oh yea. Well it's a good thing your mascot wasn't the Griffin back then b/c our archers would have shot it down with ease.