(11-25-2013 01:05 PM)Cnelson203 Wrote: I do have to agree with those posters who suggest that the SBC move on from considering JMU. As an observer (and fan of the SBC), it really does look like the JMU administration wants nothing to do with the SBC, but hides their desires well within their much-discussed independent study (which really doesn't say much.) I sure wouldn't chase them as I think there are alternatives to SBC expansion (and I don't, for the life of me, understand why there is no all sports invite for NMSU) other than JMU that will "fit" the conference as well or better. You guys aren't desperate, so you don't need a JMU life line to save the conference. Far from it. You don't need saving, as you are doing just fine without them.
I can only say that historically, JMU's administration does things in a very opaque manner. This process of potentially seeking a realignment has been marked by unusual openness on the administration's part, but even that has still not led to any overt pronouncements, nor do any JMU fans expect any before January at least, if not later.
JMU has had a small number of Presidents in its history. The most recent occupant before the current President publicly advocated against moving to FBS. His predecessor, who oversaw the start of the football program, would have unilaterally made any decision to move, had the school's growth and the wider landscape of college athletics permitted it. Current leadership appears to desire to promote consensus by allowing all interested parties to let their voices be heard. In real terms this means that, because the administration has publicly said no invitation has been received and that comments and discussion are still ongoing, it is highly unlikely anything will be announced before the next Board of Visitors meeting in January 2014. Following that, if a decision to move is going to be made, the likelihood an announcement occurs increases weekly (and increases greatly once the winter sports seasons end).
There is a difference of opinion on our boards about what the FAQ's strong reliance on academic profile of any potential future conference means. A majority reached a conclusion similar to that of some on this board, that it meant a Sun Belt invitation would be refused. I am part of a minority who think it was meant to emphasize again to faculty that the University is not abandoning academic standards in its desire to compete at a higher athletic level, but did not preclude any conference.
I also do not think that the fact that JMU has yet to accept a Sun Belt invitation means that the school is stringing the conference along while it negotiates with other conferences for membership. Rather, JMU's administration has most likely decided that the marginal benefit gained from announcing a desire to move to FBS at this time is not as great as that to be gained by building as much as support as possible amongst the various parties (administration, faculty, students, alumni-many alumni were only recently contacted by athletics support organizations to ask about their desire to fund a realignment move), and then announcing at some later time.
but I would rather have UMASS instead of JMU.