(06-20-2016 09:10 AM)#YEEHAWDUKES Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:06 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:25 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:13 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 08:58 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Can someone confirm what recruiting class was the first to be eligible under the recently adopted COA guidelines adopted (forced) upon us by the P5 schools?

A reality check seems to be in order. I think (at most) we're talking about 1 recruiting class in basketball, and taking the time to determine how to fund this initiative without reliance of student fees is to be applauded. Making one non-athlete group of students pay COA for a select few would be outrageous.

But by all means, continuing to bash JMU for doing something right, and in a timely manner.

You might not like the way he made his statement, but JMU's decision was very reactionary. Their lack of commitment to COA's previous to this announcement was something Kenny publicly criticized upon his departure.

I am excited JMU has come to this decision but we need to start leading instead of following if we are to become this national model Alger keeps talking about.

Nonsense. It was a rational and reasoned decision. There was nothing "reactionary" about it other than what all non P5 programs are being forced to do.

It's time people on this board grew up and realized JMU is not a member of a P5, and never will be.

P5 instituted COA's...then all of the G5 schools...then a lot of mid-major/non-football schools...then some of the schools in the CAA made plans to do so...then JMU did it. JMU made a rational and reasoned decisions after reacting to other schools making the commitment first.

No where in my statement did a launch personal attacks and nowhere did I insinuate JMU's desire to be a P5 school. Furthermore, I have seen no comments from anyone expressing frustration with JMU because we have not aligned ourselves with P5 programs.

Leave the name calling and hyperboles at the door and let's try to engage in some level headed discussions...

Yup. Our President had a firm stance against it and then reacted when he had to.

Our President had a reasonable, principled and philosophical position against an escalation of costs for scholar-athletes that was created by the P5 schools, and that blurs the distinction between college amateurs and semi-pros. Furthermore, how JMU would pay for COA without passing the costs onto non-athletes was something that required careful study. That said, it's reassuring you can make 100% correct snap judgments without having to study the various factors around how your decision will impact JMU. Must be nice.

(06-20-2016 09:10 AM)#YEEHAWDUKES Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:06 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:25 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:13 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  [quote='Longhorn' pid='13341782' dateline='1466387897']

Can someone confirm what recruiting class was the first to be eligible under the recently adopted COA guidelines adopted (forced) upon us by the P5 schools?

A reality check seems to be in order. I think (at most) we're talking about 1 recruiting class in basketball, and taking the time to determine how to fund this initiative without reliance of student fees is to be applauded. Making one non-athlete group of students pay COA for a select few would be outrageous.

But by all means, continuing to bash JMU for doing something right, and in a timely manner.

You might not like the way he made his statement, but JMU's decision was very reactionary. Their lack of commitment to COA's previous to this announcement was something Kenny publicly criticized upon his departure.

I am excited JMU has come to this decision but we need to start leading instead of following if we are to become this national model Alger keeps talking about.

Nonsense. It was a rational and reasoned decision. There was nothing "reactionary" about it other than what all non P5 programs are being forced to do.

It's time people on this board grew up and realized JMU is not a member of a P5, and never will be.

P5 instituted COA's...then all of the G5 schools...hen a lot of mid-major/non-football schools...then some of the schools in the CAA made plans to do so...then JMU did it.[b] JMU made a rational and reasoned decisions after reacting to other schools making the commitment first.

No where in my statement did a launch personal attacks and nowhere did I insinuate JMU's desire to be a P5 school. Furthermore, I have seen no comments from anyone expressing frustration with JMU because we have not aligned ourselves with P5 programs.

Leave the name calling and hyperboles at the door and let's try to engage in some level headed discussion...

False narrative. You want to spin that a large number of FCS programs rushed to adopt COA before JMU, and that's just complete nonsense. If you want a rational discussion stick to the facts.

And my comment about P5 conference alignment wasn't directed towards you individually, but to the larger point that those criticizing JMU for "reacting" and not being a "leader" on COA. It is an absurd argument because extended to its logical conclusion it implies JMU would have been at the forefront of the COA issue when the P5s created it. The truth is the entire COA issue was a P5 deal, leaving all others colleges to respond (or "react" if you prefer). Not all the G5s were Johnny-on-the-spot in their adoption of COA plans, and JMU's Pres (along with the other signatories to the now infamous position paper) was an entirely reasonable response detailing the problems COA would pose to FCS schools.

Again, you may now go right back to scrambling the COA timeline, but your administration handled this issue well.

Longhorn, it is eminently reasonable to oppose the general principle of cost of attendance stipends; I know I do. But this is the arena which the NCAA built, and we have to play in it. I'm glad that we've finally decided to get on board, but after the NCAA ruled that stipends could be offered last Friday's announcement was inevitable, at least if we wanted to maintain a competitive programs. President Alger should not have signed that letter, and we should not have delayed for more than a year.

But, whatever. Water under the bridge. Go Dukes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When we begin to think like a Gonzaga and not accept the inherent limitations of our conference (or anchor-depending on one's opinion), then I'll believe we've turned a corner. The COA is a step in the right direction. That said, there were other schools who we strive to be competitive basketball peers with, that went all in w/ basketball COA very early on. We still are cautious and reactionary.

(06-20-2016 04:08 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:10 AM)#YEEHAWDUKES Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:06 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:25 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 10:13 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  You might not like the way he made his statement, but JMU's decision was very reactionary. Their lack of commitment to COA's previous to this announcement was something Kenny publicly criticized upon his departure.

I am excited JMU has come to this decision but we need to start leading instead of following if we are to become this national model Alger keeps talking about.

Nonsense. It was a rational and reasoned decision. There was nothing "reactionary" about it other than what all non P5 programs are being forced to do.

It's time people on this board grew up and realized JMU is not a member of a P5, and never will be.

P5 instituted COA's...then all of the G5 schools...then a lot of mid-major/non-football schools...then some of the schools in the CAA made plans to do so...then JMU did it. JMU made a rational and reasoned decisions after reacting to other schools making the commitment first.

No where in my statement did a launch personal attacks and nowhere did I insinuate JMU's desire to be a P5 school. Furthermore, I have seen no comments from anyone expressing frustration with JMU because we have not aligned ourselves with P5 programs.

Leave the name calling and hyperboles at the door and let's try to engage in some level headed discussions...

Yup. Our President had a firm stance against it and then reacted when he had to.

Our President had a reasonable, principled and philosophical position against an escalation of costs for scholar-athletes that was created by the P5 schools, and that blurs the distinction between college amateurs and semi-pros. Furthermore, how JMU would pay for COA without passing the costs onto non-athletes was something that required careful study. That said, it's reassuring you can make 100% correct snap judgments without having to study the various factors around how your decision will impact JMU. Must be nice.

Explain to me your definition of "snap judgement"? I would think a "snap judgement" would be approving COAs almost two years ago when the NCAA announced they would allow schools to offer?

However, JMU sat back while dozens on top of dozens of schools approve COA...then JMU publicly announcements a rejection of the philosophy of COAs...then watches the number to grow to well over 100+ schools offering COA (most with much smaller budgets than JMU...then lose their most successful coach of all time as he publicly criticizes JMU's stance on COAs...then decides only after mounting pressure to add COAs...

Surely there has got to be some middle ground between a "snap judgement" and what JMU did. Your arguments would be much stronger without the hyperboles and personal jabs you take at others...

(06-20-2016 08:30 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 04:08 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:10 AM)#YEEHAWDUKES Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:06 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 11:25 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  Nonsense. It was a rational and reasoned decision. There was nothing "reactionary" about it other than what all non P5 programs are being forced to do.

It's time people on this board grew up and realized JMU is not a member of a P5, and never will be.

P5 instituted COA's...then all of the G5 schools...then a lot of mid-major/non-football schools...then some of the schools in the CAA made plans to do so...then JMU did it. JMU made a rational and reasoned decisions after reacting to other schools making the commitment first.

No where in my statement did a launch personal attacks and nowhere did I insinuate JMU's desire to be a P5 school. Furthermore, I have seen no comments from anyone expressing frustration with JMU because we have not aligned ourselves with P5 programs.

Leave the name calling and hyperboles at the door and let's try to engage in some level headed discussions...

Yup. Our President had a firm stance against it and then reacted when he had to.

Our President had a reasonable, principled and philosophical position against an escalation of costs for scholar-athletes that was created by the P5 schools, and that blurs the distinction between college amateurs and semi-pros. Furthermore, how JMU would pay for COA without passing the costs onto non-athletes was something that required careful study. That said, it's reassuring you can make 100% correct snap judgments without having to study the various factors around how your decision will impact JMU. Must be nice.

Explain to me your definition of "snap judgement"? I would think a "snap judgement" would be approving COAs almost two years ago when the NCAA announced they would allow schools to offer?

However, JMU sat back while dozens on top of dozens of schools approve COA...then JMU publicly announcements a rejection of the philosophy of COAs...then watches the number to grow to well over 100+ schools offering COA (most with much smaller budgets than JMU...then lose their most successful coach of all time as he publicly criticizes JMU's stance on COAs...then decides only after mounting pressure to add COAs...

Surely there has got to be some middle ground between a "snap judgement" and what JMU did. Your arguments would be much stronger without the hyperboles and personal jabs you take at others...

Don't you two see that you're in love with each other?

(06-21-2016 07:51 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 08:30 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 04:08 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:10 AM)#YEEHAWDUKES Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:06 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  P5 instituted COA's...then all of the G5 schools...then a lot of mid-major/non-football schools...then some of the schools in the CAA made plans to do so...then JMU did it. JMU made a rational and reasoned decisions after reacting to other schools making the commitment first.

No where in my statement did a launch personal attacks and nowhere did I insinuate JMU's desire to be a P5 school. Furthermore, I have seen no comments from anyone expressing frustration with JMU because we have not aligned ourselves with P5 programs.

Leave the name calling and hyperboles at the door and let's try to engage in some level headed discussions...

Yup. Our President had a firm stance against it and then reacted when he had to.

Our President had a reasonable, principled and philosophical position against an escalation of costs for scholar-athletes that was created by the P5 schools, and that blurs the distinction between college amateurs and semi-pros. Furthermore, how JMU would pay for COA without passing the costs onto non-athletes was something that required careful study. That said, it's reassuring you can make 100% correct snap judgments without having to study the various factors around how your decision will impact JMU. Must be nice.

Explain to me your definition of "snap judgement"? I would think a "snap judgement" would be approving COAs almost two years ago when the NCAA announced they would allow schools to offer?

However, JMU sat back while dozens on top of dozens of schools approve COA...then JMU publicly announcements a rejection of the philosophy of COAs...then watches the number to grow to well over 100+ schools offering COA (most with much smaller budgets than JMU...then lose their most successful coach of all time as he publicly criticizes JMU's stance on COAs...then decides only after mounting pressure to add COAs...

Surely there has got to be some middle ground between a "snap judgement" and what JMU did. Your arguments would be much stronger without the hyperboles and personal jabs you take at others...

Don't you two see that you're in love with each other?

(06-21-2016 07:51 AM)Deez Nuts Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 08:30 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 04:08 PM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:10 AM)#YEEHAWDUKES Wrote:  

(06-20-2016 09:06 AM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  P5 instituted COA's...then all of the G5 schools...then a lot of mid-major/non-football schools...then some of the schools in the CAA made plans to do so...then JMU did it. JMU made a rational and reasoned decisions after reacting to other schools making the commitment first.

No where in my statement did a launch personal attacks and nowhere did I insinuate JMU's desire to be a P5 school. Furthermore, I have seen no comments from anyone expressing frustration with JMU because we have not aligned ourselves with P5 programs.

Leave the name calling and hyperboles at the door and let's try to engage in some level headed discussions...

Yup. Our President had a firm stance against it and then reacted when he had to.

Our President had a reasonable, principled and philosophical position against an escalation of costs for scholar-athletes that was created by the P5 schools, and that blurs the distinction between college amateurs and semi-pros. Furthermore, how JMU would pay for COA without passing the costs onto non-athletes was something that required careful study. That said, it's reassuring you can make 100% correct snap judgments without having to study the various factors around how your decision will impact JMU. Must be nice.

Explain to me your definition of "snap judgement"? I would think a "snap judgement" would be approving COAs almost two years ago when the NCAA announced they would allow schools to offer?

However, JMU sat back while dozens on top of dozens of schools approve COA...then JMU publicly announcements a rejection of the philosophy of COAs...then watches the number to grow to well over 100+ schools offering COA (most with much smaller budgets than JMU...then lose their most successful coach of all time as he publicly criticizes JMU's stance on COAs...then decides only after mounting pressure to add COAs...

Surely there has got to be some middle ground between a "snap judgement" and what JMU did. Your arguments would be much stronger without the hyperboles and personal jabs you take at others...

Don't you two see that you're in love with each other?

People on one side of an issue say they don't like these boards anymore because of the other side's positions...then the group on the other side complains about the same thing...

The only thing that makes these boards unreadable anymore is two people, with differing views, unable to talk about a subject without mocking the other person instead of stating their opinion on the topic.

Instead of acting like your opinions are better than both me and Longhorn, why not contribute to the conversation? I love hearing others opinions especially when they differ from mine.

COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

Those of you so worried about losing a competitive advantage should step back and look at the Pandora's Box of ills that has been opened by the P5. Those leagues will simply continue to raise the COA (particularly in the non-revenue sports) eventually closing off any recruiting edge for JMU and like schools, and severely limiting any Cinderella stories of lesser league teams crashing their TV dominated world.

About 82% of a $44 million dollar athletic budget at JMU is funded by student fees. If that number were reversed, and the athletic budget was funded 82% by self-generated revenue (ticket sales, etc.) my following point would not be worth asking....

What if instead of spending $30+ million a year in student fees on coaches salaries, athletic scholarships and facilities, that money was spent on supporting a med school? Or in creating endowed professorship that might attract a Nobel, Field's Medal or Pulitzer Prize winner to the faculty? Or what if the $30 was socked away in the endowment? Or perhaps JMU could simply eliminate the athletic fees and lower the cost of attendance (COA) for all students?

I'm not really suggesting any of those actions. I believe AMATUER college athletics has an important place on our campus, and in the culture of a predominately undergraduate campus. What I am suggesting is that many of you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the untenable, unsustainable financial and media model crafted by the P5 conferences.

Alger is to be applauded for having tried to introduce a bit of rational, thoughtful reflection on the true impact of COA. That's what real leadership looks like. And Pres. Alger is to be commended for giving the go-ahead for JMU to match (fire-for-fire) the selective approval of COA for men's and women's basketball where JMU most needed it. He was "reactive" only in that he didn't initiate the COA issue, and had to respond to the P5 conferences. He didn't agree with them because JMU is not a P5 institution, and Pres. Alger's could see where this is leading. Many of you apparently can not. Pres. Alger's solution to the COA question is most praiseworthy because it excludes the use of additional student fees to fund the MBB and WBB COA stipends.

In the end, my efforts trying to provide a reasoned counterbalance to the several outspoken voices on this forum who take endless delite in bashing the JMU administration is not going to sway your off-kilter opinions. My critics no doubt think I'm in the bag for all-things promoted by the JMU administration, however, I can assure you that Jon Alger is fully engaged on this issue, and has been, and is continuing to find the best solutions for the ENTIRE institution.

(06-21-2016 11:43 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

Those of you so worried about losing a competitive advantage should step back and look at the Pandora's Box of ills that has been opened by the P5. Those leagues will simply continue to raise the COA (particularly in the non-revenue sports) eventually closing off any recruiting edge for JMU and like schools, and severely limiting any Cinderella stories of lesser league teams crashing their TV dominated world.

About 82% of a $44 million dollar athletic budget at JMU is funded by student fees. If that number were reversed, and the athletic budget was funded 82% by self-generated revenue (ticket sales, etc.) my following point would not be worth asking....

What if instead of spending $30+ million a year in student fees on coaches salaries, athletic scholarships and facilities, that money was spent on supporting a med school? Or in creating endowed professorship that might attract a Nobel, Field's Medal or Pulitzer Prize winner to the faculty? Or what if the $30 was socked away in the endowment? Or perhaps JMU could simply eliminate the athletic fees and lower the cost of attendance (COA) for all students?

I'm not really suggesting any of those actions. I believe AMATUER college athletics has an important place on our campus, and in the culture of a predominately undergraduate campus. What I am suggesting is that many of you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the untenable, unsustainable financial and media model crafted by the P5 conferences.

Alger is to be applauded for having tried to introduce a bit of rational, thoughtful reflection on the true impact of COA. That's what real leadership looks like. And Pres. Alger is to be commended for giving the go-ahead for JMU to match (fire-for-fire) the selective approval of COA for men's and women's basketball where JMU most needed it. He was "reactive" only in that he didn't initiate the COA issue, and had to respond to the P5 conferences. He didn't agree with them because JMU is not a P5 institution, and Pres. Alger's could see where this is leading. Many of you apparently can not. Pres. Alger's solution to the COA question is most praiseworthy because it excludes the use of additional student fees to fund the MBB and WBB COA stipends.

In the end, my efforts trying to provide a reasoned counterbalance to the several outspoken voices on this forum who take endless delite in bashing the JMU administration is not going to sway your off-kilter opinions. My critics no doubt think I'm in the bag for all-things promoted by the JMU administration, however, I can assure you that Jon Alger is fully engaged on this issue, and has been, and is continuing to find the best solutions for the ENTIRE institution.

Appreciate your insight.....

(06-21-2016 11:43 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

Longhorn- overall good post. As I stated in a previous comment, it's the next recruiting class that needed COA and it looks like it is going to get it so major disaster is avoided. However, the bolded statement above is incorrect. I know, for a fact, that the men's basketball team did lose multiple recruits due to COA not being offered. This includes recruits whose very first question during visits centered on COA $$s. Recruits who specifically referenced COA when decling further interest in JMU.
You also could argue that since one of the primary reasons Kenny left was because he felt his program was not going to be supported via COA that, in theory, all the women's recruits, including his daughter, that followed him to Virginia Tech left because of the COA issue. I do not believe that to be an excessive stretch in logic.
I will also add that the men's program is now, post COA announcement, already attracting interest from some recruits that are also receiving P5 scholarship offers. This is a new development and shows that the lack of COA over the past 18 months has restricted our recruiting, albeit in a year when we could survive the damage. Waiting another year would have been a likely deathblow to the program since we are replacing 8 or more scholarships next year at a time when we are trying to fundraise private funds for the new convo and demonstrate our dedication to athletics to potential FBS conferences.

(06-21-2016 12:54 PM)JMU_Degenerate Wrote:  

(06-21-2016 11:43 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

Longhorn- overall good post. As I stated in a previous comment, it's the next recruiting class that needed COA and it looks like it is going to get it so major disaster is avoided. However, the bolded statement above is incorrect. I know, for a fact, that the men's basketball team did lose multiple recruits due to COA not being offered. This includes recruits whose very first question during visits centered on COA $$s. Recruits who specifically referenced COA when decling further interest in JMU.
You also could argue that since one of the primary reasons Kenny left was because he felt his program was not going to be supported via COA that, in theory, all the women's recruits, including his daughter, that followed him to Virginia Tech left because of the COA issue. I do not believe that to be an excessive stretch in logic.
I will also add that the men's program is now, post COA announcement, already attracting interest from some recruits that are also receiving P5 scholarship offers. This is a new development and shows that the lack of COA over the past 18 months has restricted our recruiting, albeit in a year when we could survive the damage. Waiting another year would have been a likely deathblow to the program since we are replacing 8 or more scholarships next year at a time when we are trying to fundraise private funds for the new convo and demonstrate our dedication to athletics to potential FBS conferences.

I don't really know why but I love this statement. You can never be too careful with words on this board.

I agree with the general theme of Longhorn's post and disagree with the general sentiment of some of the posters going back and forth with him. We can all ask what ifs- what if JMU had COA when Va Tech came calling with a huge salary increase for Kenny Brooks? would Kenny have stayed or left and pointed to another reason why it was time to leave JMU? What if JMU MBB hadn't gone through a coaching change/search where the subject of COA became more of a front burner issue? What if the CAA hadn't changed commissioners? What if Delaware hadn't changed AD's, what if Towson hadn't committed to COA? What if we hadn't flown a plane over Bridgeforth?

Who know's what made JMU change their mind. The important thing is that they did and in time to impact a key recruiting class for JMU MBB. That's all that matters.

I think we can be happy with the decision to offer COA's for basketball while also expressing frustration at the teeth pulling and alarm pulling everyone had to do to get Alger to recognize how important this was for the basketball programs.

We heard everything from potential lawsuits JMU was looking to avoid and get clarification on, to JMU's history of treating all sports equally to a bunch of other hot air as to why it would never be done this way (basketball only) at JMU. So much for that latter piece.

It has been clear for about a year that this was the way to move forward that was both fiscally responsible and also met the market demands.

I appreciate those who worked hard to make it clear to Alger this was needed despite philosophical differences. I am happy Alger was flexible enough to get to this point. But lets not throw a parade for realizing water is wet.

(06-21-2016 11:43 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

Those of you so worried about losing a competitive advantage should step back and look at the Pandora's Box of ills that has been opened by the P5. Those leagues will simply continue to raise the COA (particularly in the non-revenue sports) eventually closing off any recruiting edge for JMU and like schools, and severely limiting any Cinderella stories of lesser league teams crashing their TV dominated world.

About 82% of a $44 million dollar athletic budget at JMU is funded by student fees. If that number were reversed, and the athletic budget was funded 82% by self-generated revenue (ticket sales, etc.) my following point would not be worth asking....

What if instead of spending $30+ million a year in student fees on coaches salaries, athletic scholarships and facilities, that money was spent on supporting a med school? Or in creating endowed professorship that might attract a Nobel, Field's Medal or Pulitzer Prize winner to the faculty? Or what if the $30 was socked away in the endowment? Or perhaps JMU could simply eliminate the athletic fees and lower the cost of attendance (COA) for all students?

I'm not really suggesting any of those actions. I believe AMATUER college athletics has an important place on our campus, and in the culture of a predominately undergraduate campus. What I am suggesting is that many of you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the untenable, unsustainable financial and media model crafted by the P5 conferences.

Alger is to be applauded for having tried to introduce a bit of rational, thoughtful reflection on the true impact of COA. That's what real leadership looks like. And Pres. Alger is to be commended for giving the go-ahead for JMU to match (fire-for-fire) the selective approval of COA for men's and women's basketball where JMU most needed it. He was "reactive" only in that he didn't initiate the COA issue, and had to respond to the P5 conferences. He didn't agree with them because JMU is not a P5 institution, and Pres. Alger's could see where this is leading. Many of you apparently can not. Pres. Alger's solution to the COA question is most praiseworthy because it excludes the use of additional student fees to fund the MBB and WBB COA stipends.

In the end, my efforts trying to provide a reasoned counterbalance to the several outspoken voices on this forum who take endless delite in bashing the JMU administration is not going to sway your off-kilter opinions. My critics no doubt think I'm in the bag for all-things promoted by the JMU administration, however, I can assure you that Jon Alger is fully engaged on this issue, and has been, and is continuing to find the best solutions for the ENTIRE institution.

1) While the NCAA implemented it 18 months ago, it was being planned for by schools prior to that. Hence "almost two years". I wasn't trying to mislead or misinform anyone by my statement

2) My concern wasn't about losing competitive edge (although without adding COAs we would have). My issue was JMU was very reactionary to the COA issue and was not taking the lead on the topic.

3) What if we didn't spend that $30+ million on anything outside the classroom at all? Why not spend the money on research, classrooms and professor salaries while getting rid of all other aspects of student life? The $44 million is an investment into the lives of our student-athletes. It's an investment into the student-life that all our students get to experience. It's an investment into the branding of the school. It's an investment into alumni engagement opportunities.

4) We're not talking about whether or not we should fund a new video board, more swag for athletes, better locker rooms. We're talking about funding COAs which go directly towards supporting student-athletes. You can't run an athletic program if you are unwilling to allocate the resources needed to be successful.

5) I'm not endlessly bashing the JMU administration but merely pointing out that Alger came out against this and gave in once everyone else did it (which everyone knew would happen). Not only is that not leadership but it is not taking the lead in a national model.

6) You keep insinuating that people on here want JMU to act and like a P5 school and think JMU should be a P5 school. Again, no one has stated that or insinuated such. But many non-P5 athletic programs have committed to COAs long ago with many of them being smaller departments than JMU. This has nothing to do with P5 in regards to JMU's decision...

(06-21-2016 01:31 PM)UofRfan Wrote:  I think we can be happy with the decision to offer COA's for basketball while also expressing frustration at the teeth pulling and alarm pulling everyone had to do to get Alger to recognize how important this was for the basketball programs.

We heard everything from potential lawsuits JMU was looking to avoid and get clarification on, to JMU's history of treating all sports equally to a bunch of other hot air as to why it would never be done this way (basketball only) at JMU. So much for that latter piece.

It has been clear for about a year that this was the way to move forward that was both fiscally responsible and also met the market demands.

I appreciate those who worked hard to make it clear to Alger this was needed despite philosophical differences. I am happy Alger was flexible enough to get to this point. But lets not throw a parade for realizing water is wet.

YES

(06-21-2016 11:43 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

How in the world could we possibly know that? The way Kenny was outspoken about it upon his departure suggests otherwise. And you never know if a recruit just didn't even consider JMU having known we weren't offering it and had no assurance that we would.

Also, I know coach Houston and his staff compete for recruits against schools in the G5 regularly and I've got to believe that us not having COA makes those recruiting battles very difficult. They're difficult to begin with as far as us being at the FCS level and those schools having COA and JMU not could be a tipping point for a recruit. I know if I was a recruit on the fence between JMU and a school offering COA, it would certainly be a factor in my decision making process.

(06-21-2016 04:32 PM)Dukes2Space Wrote:  

(06-21-2016 11:43 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

How in the world could we possibly know that? The way Kenny was outspoken about it upon his departure suggests otherwise. And you never know if a recruit just didn't even consider JMU having known we weren't offering it and had no assurance that we would.

Also, I know coach Houston and his staff compete for recruits against schools in the G5 regularly and I've got to believe that us not having COA makes those recruiting battles very difficult. They're difficult to begin with as far as us being at the FCS level and those schools having COA and JMU not could be a tipping point for a recruit. I know if I was a recruit on the fence between JMU and a school offering COA, it would certainly be a factor in my decision making process.

KB didn't leave JMU because JMU was still trying to figure out the COA issue (particularly how to pay for it). No doubt it frustrated KB (his exiting comments made that clear) but KB left because he was offered a life changing salary increase and coaching opportunity in the ACC. Making double what he was making at JMU would lure anyone, and because JMU was not going to offer him a salary greater than the President the . In the end, KB left because JMU didn't value him enough but to offer an extension without an increase, and then follow that offer with an insulting $25k counter.

As to the issue of recruiting against G5 FB programs, this may well be an emerging problem, but if JMU fans are expecting JMU to offer COA to our FB players the fan base is likely to be disappointed until such time (if ever) JMU decides to move to the 85 scholarship level (FBS). If a FB recruit JMU wants to sign can't decide between the value of a JMU education and what another program is offering via COA, well, JMU will just have to sign the player who wants to play for JMU. Budgets are a real thing, and until a JMU develops a funding mechanism for supporting FB COA it will be elusive.

http://espnharrisonburg.com/podcasts/

Some good interviews of Lou Rowe and Jeff Bourne on COA here. One thing that I learned so far the reason for the difference in the amount of the COA school to school isn't necessarily up the school- it's a calculation each school goes through. Apparently Liberty's COA calculation yields a COA stipend of approx. $8800 while JMU's is $4200- $4300 and other are lower.

(06-21-2016 01:32 PM)DolleyMadison Wrote:  [quote='Longhorn' pid='13345028' dateline='1466527413']
COA was a move foisted upon all other NCAA schools by the P5 approximately 18 months ago, not 2 years. At most 1 recruiting cycle has been impacted, and in that time JMU has not lost a single recruit because of COA.

Those of you so worried about losing a competitive advantage should step back and look at the Pandora's Box of ills that has been opened by the P5. Those leagues will simply continue to raise the COA (particularly in the non-revenue sports) eventually closing off any recruiting edge for JMU and like schools, and severely limiting any Cinderella stories of lesser league teams crashing their TV dominated world.

About 82% of a $44 million dollar athletic budget at JMU is funded by student fees. If that number were reversed, and the athletic budget was funded 82% by self-generated revenue (ticket sales, etc.) my following point would not be worth asking....

What if instead of spending $30+ million a year in student fees on coaches salaries, athletic scholarships and facilities, that money was spent on supporting a med school? Or in creating endowed professorship that might attract a Nobel, Field's Medal or Pulitzer Prize winner to the faculty? Or what if the $30 was socked away in the endowment? Or perhaps JMU could simply eliminate the athletic fees and lower the cost of attendance (COA) for all students?

I'm not really suggesting any of those actions. I believe AMATUER college athletics has an important place on our campus, and in the culture of a predominately undergraduate campus. What I am suggesting is that many of you have swallowed hook, line and sinker the untenable, unsustainable financial and media model crafted by the P5 conferences.

Alger is to be applauded for having tried to introduce a bit of rational, thoughtful reflection on the true impact of COA. That's what real leadership looks like. And Pres. Alger is to be commended for giving the go-ahead for JMU to match (fire-for-fire) the selective approval of COA for men's and women's basketball where JMU most needed it. He was "reactive" only in that he didn't initiate the COA issue, and had to respond to the P5 conferences. He didn't agree with them because JMU is not a P5 institution, and Pres. Alger's could see where this is leading. Many of you apparently can not. Pres. Alger's solution to the COA question is most praiseworthy because it excludes the use of additional student fees to fund the MBB and WBB COA stipends.

In the end, my efforts trying to provide a reasoned counterbalance to the several outspoken voices on this forum who take endless delite in bashing the JMU administration is not going to sway your off-kilter opinions. My critics no doubt think I'm in the bag for all-things promoted by the JMU administration, however, I can assure you that Jon Alger is fully engaged on this issue, and has been, and is continuing to find the best solutions for the ENTIRE institution.

1) While the NCAA implemented it 18 months ago, it was being planned for by schools prior to that. Hence "almost two years". I wasn't trying to mislead or misinform anyone by my statement. None-the-less, it was misleading, by exaggerating the amount of time how COA would be actualized.

2) My concern wasn't about losing competitive edge (although without adding COAs we would have). My issue was JMU was very reactionary to the COA issue and was not taking the lead on the topic. You continue to spout JMU's reaction was "very reactionary" as a negative thing. JMU's President took a philosophical position, based on principal and reason. His position was at the forefront of other schools, and that's defined as leadership. You're free to disagree with his position, but you can't have it both ways, labeling his response as reactionary, while refusing to recognize his position was a leading voice in opposition to COAs.

3) What if we didn't spend that $30+ million on anything outside the classroom at all? Why not spend the money on research, classrooms and professor salaries while getting rid of all other aspects of student life? The $44 million is an investment into the lives of our student-athletes. It's an investment into the student-life that all our students get to experience. It's an investment into the branding of the school. It's an investment into alumni engagement opportunities. The decision to invest in varsity athletics is all that you outline, and I'm a fan. Still, the cost per athlete (410 or so divided into $44 million) makes it a very expensive proposition, and other students are paying well over 80% of the cost. There is a limit to what JMU can afford, and the COA has opened up another avenue that the P5 schools are using...and will continue to exploit...over non-P5 schools.

4) We're not talking about whether or not we should fund a new video board, more swag for athletes, better locker rooms. We're talking about funding COAs which go directly towards supporting student-athletes. You can't run an athletic program if you are unwilling to allocate the resources needed to be successful. You're argument is a red-herring. All of the items you mention go towards supporting varsity athletes. This COA issue is a matter of fairness for athletes who come from families who can't provide the extra spending money many other students have access to, its just a little more obvious how it impacts an athlete than a fancy stadium. I also believe the COA redresses an long overdue need. That said, it still has to be paid for, and JMU's varsity programs are already overly dependent on non-student-athletes paying the freight.

5) I'm not endlessly bashing the JMU administration but merely pointing out that Alger came out against this and gave in once everyone else did it (which everyone knew would happen). Not only is that not leadership but it is not taking the lead in a national model. We will have to disagree about this. As I've already stated (more than once) being at the forefront and taking a principled stand is leadership. It's the purest definition and example of leadership you can find when simply "going along with the flow" is simply acquiescence of the worst sort. It is not simply a matter of recognizing "water is wet"...it's a matter of recognizing that too much water (as in a tsunami) can be a devastating force...in this case wiping out one more vestige of amateur college athletics.

6) You keep insinuating that people on here want JMU to act and like a P5 school and think JMU should be a P5 school. Again, no one has stated that or insinuated such. But many non-P5 athletic programs have committed to COAs long ago with many of them being smaller departments than JMU. This has nothing to do with P5 in regards to JMU's decision...
I'm not insinuating, I'm upfront in saying there are a number of JMU fans who (for reasons of personal ego I'm guessing) think that JMU should jump when the P5 conferences says "frog"...these are the same fans that denigrate our FB schedule and see aspirations of playing varsity sports at any level below the P5 as some kind of small ball. To ignore the ramifications of what these people have been insinuating (I believe you are among them) is (in my opinion) a pursuit of fools gold. Finally, what P5 schools (even your so-called "smaller departments") do is completely an insane comparison. Even "smaller" P5 schools have access to TV revenue and endowments and such, and are not nearly as dependent on student fees to fund their programs.