(04-17-2014 09:42 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The theory may work if you are looking a years down the road. However, the evidence (the noise you referenced) is now coming out and it will be in a few months of the changes to FBS and it will cause the schools to re-think their place.

The undertone of your comment seems to be suggesting some type of seismic shift in the landscape of FBS football.

Issues you may be referring to:

1.) stipends for college athletes above cost of scholarship
2.) greater health and safety concern for all student athletes
3.) unionizing of student athletes (Northwestern s/a's scheduled to vote Apr. 25th)

What am I missing here? T.V. contracts for the P5 are done for the most part. Realignment noise has pretty much ceased (other than the SBC issue). I don't see any great issues out there that are going to rattle FBS to its foundation. Sure the P5 wants an ever greater share of the pie but their not going to kill the golden goose to get it.

(04-17-2014 10:26 AM)JMUsince89 Wrote:  After having read through this thread, I have yet to see any poster provide proof the JMU even received an official invite to the SBC. so this whole thread is speculation. SBC never invited JMU, and JMU never turned SBC down. IMHO. The plot thinkens. I dont think JMU has recieved invites from anyone, YET.

Ignorance is bliss.

(04-17-2014 10:26 AM)JMUsince89 Wrote:  After having read through this thread, I have yet to see any poster provide proof the JMU even received an official invite to the SBC. so this whole thread is speculation. SBC never invited JMU, and JMU never turned SBC down. IMHO.

Conferences will not put out public invites to schools without knowing it's going to be accepted. JMU's statement sounds like they knew they would get an invite if they wanted but didn't want the Belt.

(04-17-2014 10:31 AM)Saint3333 Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:26 AM)JMUsince89 Wrote:  After having read through this thread, I have yet to see any poster provide proof the JMU even received an official invite to the SBC. so this whole thread is speculation. SBC never invited JMU, and JMU never turned SBC down. IMHO. The plot thinkens. I dont think JMU has recieved invites from anyone, YET.

Ignorance is bliss.

I was going to get into a long-winded explanation, but this says it better.

+1

(04-17-2014 10:26 AM)JMUsince89 Wrote:  After having read through this thread, I have yet to see any poster provide proof the JMU even received an official invite to the SBC. so this whole thread is speculation. SBC never invited JMU, and JMU never turned SBC down. IMHO. The plot thinkens. I dont think JMU has recieved invites from anyone, YET.

Speculation on a sports message board? GTFO!

But in this case there is no speculation involved. Don't be an invite denier!

(04-17-2014 10:29 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:42 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  The theory may work if you are looking a years down the road. However, the evidence (the noise you referenced) is now coming out and it will be in a few months of the changes to FBS and it will cause the schools to re-think their place.

The undertone of your comment seems to be suggesting some type of seismic shift in the landscape of FBS football.

Issues you may be referring to:

1.) stipends for college athletes above cost of scholarship
2.) greater health and safety concern for all student athletes
3.) unionizing of student athletes (Northwestern s/a's scheduled to vote Apr. 25th)

What am I missing here? T.V. contracts for the P5 are done for the most part. Realignment noise has pretty much ceased (other than the SBC issue). I don't see any great issues out there that are going to rattle FBS to its foundation. Sure the P5 wants an ever greater share of the pie but their not going to kill the golden goose to get it.

Yes, Those 3 are basically what is being refferred to.
Were those topics address in the FBS report? I don't think so.
If the NLRB overturn the employee status, then the full cost of attendance plus a stipend changes the game for quite a few G5 schools. Do think ULM's of the G5 can stay FBS with their $10 million budget? There are new stipulations coming for FBS if you want to play and be competitve, otherwise if your in FBS just to say your FBS doesn't make the school any better than a top FCS program....it becomes a mockery of why are you in the division at all.

(04-17-2014 10:38 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:29 AM)FIUFan Wrote:  [quote='MWC Tex' pid='10677922' dateline='1397745757']
The undertone of your comment seems to be suggesting some type of seismic shift in the landscape of FBS football.
Issues you may be referring to:
1.) stipends for college athletes above cost of scholarship
2.) greater health and safety concern for all student athletes
3.) unionizing of student athletes (Northwestern s/a's scheduled to vote Apr. 25th)
What am I missing here? T.V. contracts for the P5 are done for the most part. Realignment noise has pretty much ceased (other than the SBC issue). I don't see any great issues out there that are going to rattle FBS to its foundation. Sure the P5 wants an ever greater share of the pie but their not going to kill the golden goose to get it.

Yes, Those 3 are basically what is being refferred to.
Were those topics address in the FBS report? I don't think so.
If the NLRB overturn the employee status, then the full cost of attendance plus a stipend changes the game for quite a few G5 schools. Do think ULM's of the G5 can stay FBS with their $10 million budget? There are new stipulations coming for FBS if you want to play and be competitve, otherwise if your in FBS just to say your FBS doesn't make the school any better than a top FCS program....it becomes a mockery of why are you in the division at all.

What you seem to be missing is the autonomy and will of the FBS school to maintain their status. UL-M can always add another money game to make up the what, $500k-$750k possibly required by each program for these stipends. Remember, these are amatuer athletes receiving value (room, board, education, etc.) for their service, there really isn't that much money they can demand.

You also fail to include the $1 million plus windfall that all G5 schools will receive from the new play-off format; just for being in the game. That's a heckuvalot more than what we were getting when we were in the Sun Belt.

Nothing causes more fear than ignorance.

(04-16-2014 10:59 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  They were mostly created to combat elitism that first excluded from education anyone who could not afford to travel to Europe to be educated then anyone who couldn't travel to far off cities here to be educated.

States and communities worked to get schools built to increase access to this precious resource.

So we take a system that was initiated to create more access for the masses to make education more democratic and turn around and rate these institutions on how successful they are in not being open to the average person and how successfully they have moved away from their founding mission.

I don't think it is a coincidence that as state supported schools have become more selective and more closed that government has felt less concern over cutting funding and moving us in a quarter century from a time when the government footed 2/3rds of the cost of operation of state schools to students now paying about 2/3rds of the cost of operation.

YES. Well said. Now read this -


“We believe that Liberty will redefine what is considered an academically prestigious university in the future,” said Jerry Falwell Jr., the university’s chancellor and president. The school, he said, aims to be judged by how many students it educates and how well it educates them rather than how many it turns away."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/educ...story.html


Yet.....even though our online programs are fully accredited with the same strict requirements that our residential programs are, we get snubbed by many on this board for trying to fight back against the elitist attitude of turning students away seen at more "prestigious" universities.

What that tells me...everyone loves elitism, whether in the SBC or the Ivy League. We all feel the need to be higher than, or better than someone, and only the ways in which we go about doing that differ. The Ivy Leagues look down upon the Big Ten with 1500+ SAT scores at Harvard and Yale compared to 1250's averages in Big Ten schools sans Northwestern. The SBC posters on this board for the most part look down at Liberty's online school because they feel it is a diploma mill that "cheapens" the experience of going to college.....(looking at you, ASUPATCH)....Nevermind that our online school consists of 8,500 current active duty service members or that the average age is 35 and most of them are going back to school for certifications or master's degrees....the fact that they're doing it cheaply and doing it online ignites the inner elitist in us, how dare they not uproot at 35, move their families, and attend a "real university" by going to a brick and mortar school.

Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

Well put.

So.. is JMU going to get better athletes with a stipend for their players (hopefully with the cost being covered with expanded CFP money and future TV contracts/Bowl payout etc) or without them? Even if FBS versus FCS meant nothing to recruits ().

Again - the choice is move forward or move backwards. There is no staying still.

(04-17-2014 11:13 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

Well put.

So.. is JMU going to get better athletes with a stipend for their players (hopefully with the cost being covered with expanded CFP money and future TV contracts/Bowl payout etc) or without them? Even if FBS versus FCS meant nothing to recruits ().

Again - the choice is move forward or move backwards. There is no staying still.

Or to put it another way

Staying still is moving backwards.

(04-17-2014 11:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:13 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

Well put.

So.. is JMU going to get better athletes with a stipend for their players (hopefully with the cost being covered with expanded CFP money and future TV contracts/Bowl payout etc) or without them? Even if FBS versus FCS meant nothing to recruits ().

Again - the choice is move forward or move backwards. There is no staying still.

Or to put it another way

Staying still is moving backwards.

Or.... Moving "forward" is a close to staying still as you are going to get!

(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

Curious about this "full cost" issue for the unionized athletes. I kinda get what you are saying in that an athlete will recieve more money at northern school (pick any MAC) vs a southern (GS) just because of the relative costs in those areas. But doesn't the student then have to pay the funds right back for the services (lodging, food, tuition, fees, etc...) keeping only the stipend part that will be standardized (or at least have a set limit) across the division?

I really don't get how this will work. Not only does the student now have to deal with budgeting his/her money, they could also have to pay taxes on this "income". I don't see how this will ever work. Articles I've read, even those in support of of unionization, have a hard time trying to make it work and basically say they would have to simply be semi-pro and have a loose association with a college. Also, I don't see how you can just 'pay' the football team. If a union was formed of student athletes, wouldn't that include all student athletes? The baseball, women's basketball, volleyball, lacrosse, swimming, track...... You would have to split the funds across them all. How do you determine the amount? Gross/Net profits from athletics? Will we simply just have boosters buy players (something the current NCAA frowns upon).

It's a can of worms that has been released and people leap before looking. just crazy

(04-17-2014 10:21 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:47 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:32 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:09 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:01 AM)paintedblue Wrote:  Yes Wood Selig was hired from WKU with an eventual move to FBS in mind, but he was also a very strong candidate because he is a Norfolk native so he knows the area very well and has deep roots here.

For me the biggests lesson learned by the JMU/SunBelt saga was that if a university wants to achieve upward mobility and success in athletics they must have both a strong president (power over BOV) and AD who are sports minded and proactive. We fans at ODU were extreamly fortunate that those conditions existed here at the proper time, because ten years prior to that (pre President Runte) our administration was nothing like that.

IMO the reason JMU chose to decline the SBC was because their leadership is too cautious and is just not that interested in FBS football.

I don't think that they are not interested in FBS football but that the landscape is still uncertain. Until the P5 get their automony or a new division created with new rules, why put the effort to move up only see yourselves end back where you were. There are some big changes coming.
Athletes as employees to full cost of attendance and stipends....that'll still needs to be settled but it will affect a whole lot of G5 schools and perhasp some G5 schools don't participate in that because it will be to costly stay remotely competitve.
I change my mind think that the Sunbelt is the last spot for FBS. There is going to be some movement when all the changes coming down the road here by August to see what a school decides where they want to play.

Well, I seriously doubt you ever see a split of FBS. There just isn't anything to gain and a lot of P5 programs would lose. However, even if there was a split the next level of programs are still a step up from FCS.

The FCS landscape is shifting west as the best FCS programs in FCS are moving up. With ODU, App St, UNCC, Ga So and possibly Liberty making the jump it will only make life on the recruiting trail harder for JMU which will make it harder to compete with the western FCS teams.

Yep.

All those overlooked players in VA that used to go to JMU now have another FBS option in the state and they can play in front of a packed home stadium against some recognizable names.

Teams like NCSU, Marshall, Virginia Tech, and App State aren't coming to play JMU at home, but they are coming to Norfolk.

Exactly. Kids are going to pick FBS over FCS almost every time. I just don't see any downside whatsoever to moving to FBS when the opportunity arises. The added exposure and revenue opportunites, the increased interest from boosters, the chance to upgrade facilities.... It all strengthens your program and whether there is ever a "split" or not you are better positioned than if you stay in FCS.

If there was a split and we are to assume that the G5 conferences are either in their own league or thrown in with FCS, does anyone doubt that those conferences would still be stronger than the FCS conferences?

I think the key word here is almost. Let's be honest, on the football field the difference in competition between the top of FCS and the bottom of FBS is at best marginal. Neither are going to get 5 star players so it really doesn't matter on that front anyways unless it's a transfer. There's a reason you don't see any G5 teams inviting NDSU to town lol.

(04-17-2014 02:55 PM)AlwaysSunny Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 10:21 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:47 AM)Niner National Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:32 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 09:09 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  I don't think that they are not interested in FBS football but that the landscape is still uncertain. Until the P5 get their automony or a new division created with new rules, why put the effort to move up only see yourselves end back where you were. There are some big changes coming.
Athletes as employees to full cost of attendance and stipends....that'll still needs to be settled but it will affect a whole lot of G5 schools and perhasp some G5 schools don't participate in that because it will be to costly stay remotely competitve.
I change my mind think that the Sunbelt is the last spot for FBS. There is going to be some movement when all the changes coming down the road here by August to see what a school decides where they want to play.

Well, I seriously doubt you ever see a split of FBS. There just isn't anything to gain and a lot of P5 programs would lose. However, even if there was a split the next level of programs are still a step up from FCS.

The FCS landscape is shifting west as the best FCS programs in FCS are moving up. With ODU, App St, UNCC, Ga So and possibly Liberty making the jump it will only make life on the recruiting trail harder for JMU which will make it harder to compete with the western FCS teams.

Yep.

All those overlooked players in VA that used to go to JMU now have another FBS option in the state and they can play in front of a packed home stadium against some recognizable names.

Teams like NCSU, Marshall, Virginia Tech, and App State aren't coming to play JMU at home, but they are coming to Norfolk.

Exactly. Kids are going to pick FBS over FCS almost every time. I just don't see any downside whatsoever to moving to FBS when the opportunity arises. The added exposure and revenue opportunites, the increased interest from boosters, the chance to upgrade facilities.... It all strengthens your program and whether there is ever a "split" or not you are better positioned than if you stay in FCS.

If there was a split and we are to assume that the G5 conferences are either in their own league or thrown in with FCS, does anyone doubt that those conferences would still be stronger than the FCS conferences?

I think the key word here is almost. Let's be honest, on the football field the difference in competition between the top of FCS and the bottom of FBS is at best marginal. Neither are going to get 5 star players so it really doesn't matter on that front anyways unless it's a transfer. There's a reason you don't see any G5 teams inviting NDSU to town lol.

I said almost because someone would find one example and say they proved me wrong. I would say that 95+% of the time a kid will pick FBS over FCS. Now, that doesn't mean that there aren't more talented players that end up in FCS because FBS schools made a mistake. Happens all the time. You also have the FCS advantage of taking transfers.

I wouldn't want to play NDSU because they are capable of beating us (of course we played UCA and play Montana State this year) but we would beat them 7 or 8 of 10 times.

(04-15-2014 08:00 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 07:30 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 07:28 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  It appears they made their bed. Now time to lie in it. Have fun in the SmallCAAn

JMU: A commitment to mediocrity!

You guys might consider starting talks with Tulane. They have similar goals.

Here I thought they just made a bowl game, join a new conference in July, and are building a new 70 million dollar stadium?

(04-19-2014 02:23 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 08:00 PM)CajunFanatico Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 07:30 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-15-2014 07:28 PM)AppinVA Wrote:  It appears they made their bed. Now time to lie in it. Have fun in the SmallCAAn

JMU: A commitment to mediocrity!

You guys might consider starting talks with Tulane. They have similar goals.

Here I thought they just made a bowl game, join a new conference in July, and are building a new 70 million dollar stadium?

I know Tulane has been a conference mate of Memphis for a very long time. But what people fail to understand when defending Tulane is that there is no support locally for them. So you can defend them and it is admirable, but the new 26k seat stadium will still only be 1/4 to 1/3 full and the play basketball in a high school gym.

They have tons of money and powerful alumni, that is why they find themselves in the AAC.

(04-17-2014 11:19 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:16 AM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:13 AM)The4thOption Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

Well put.

So.. is JMU going to get better athletes with a stipend for their players (hopefully with the cost being covered with expanded CFP money and future TV contracts/Bowl payout etc) or without them? Even if FBS versus FCS meant nothing to recruits ().

Again - the choice is move forward or move backwards. There is no staying still.

Or to put it another way

Staying still is moving backwards.

Or.... Moving "forward" is a close to staying still as you are going to get!

Or even moving forward too slowly is still going backwards when you let everyone else pass you.

Did that cover every aspect - doubt it.

(04-17-2014 12:11 PM)trueeagle98 Wrote:  

(04-17-2014 11:02 AM)Crump1 Wrote:  Stipends are already in the plans for the SBC if they pass. Not an issue.

Full cost is really a terrible idea and could wreck NCAA football. A system that hands players checks of varying amounts depending on the location of the university is going to create an uneven, inequitable environment and for that reason it is probably not going to pass.

Any payment system has to be standard across a particular division.

Employee status will be overturned.

Curious about this "full cost" issue for the unionized athletes. I kinda get what you are saying in that an athlete will recieve more money at northern school (pick any MAC) vs a southern (GS) just because of the relative costs in those areas. But doesn't the student then have to pay the funds right back for the services (lodging, food, tuition, fees, etc...) keeping only the stipend part that will be standardized (or at least have a set limit) across the division?

I really don't get how this will work. Not only does the student now have to deal with budgeting his/her money, they could also have to pay taxes on this "income". I don't see how this will ever work. Articles I've read, even those in support of of unionization, have a hard time trying to make it work and basically say they would have to simply be semi-pro and have a loose association with a college. Also, I don't see how you can just 'pay' the football team. If a union was formed of student athletes, wouldn't that include all student athletes? The baseball, women's basketball, volleyball, lacrosse, swimming, track...... You would have to split the funds across them all. How do you determine the amount? Gross/Net profits from athletics? Will we simply just have boosters buy players (something the current NCAA frowns upon).

It's a can of worms that has been released and people leap before looking. just crazy

Actually, trying to standardize the sport from school to school and conference to conference is crazy and has led to uneven competition and a relative handful of schools/folks getting wealthy off what at best is woefully underpaid labor.
College football isn't rec league or amateur athletics, it's a business. Put no more regulation on it than that put on Wall Street or corporate America. I.e., nothing beyond mere window dressing. Tax hell out of NCAA while you're at it, just to get back at those clowns for years of treating student-athletes like indentured servents.

Or, stop the charade. If college football is amateur athletics, get all advertising out of it. Get corporate money out of it.

Have wondered if someone might try to sue for all the money the P-5 conferences have made over the years on
college football. Seems would be a big plum that some ambulance chaser would be drooling over exploiting if they
thought they had much of a chance at all.