(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

Here we go with the “we account for things different at JMU”.

Look man it’s ok. USA Today says JMU would be the most subsidized program in CUSA. That’s what the vast majority of the people use. You guys are almost 80% subsidized, that’s honestly mind blowing. It’s no wonder your administration doesn’t want to move up.

Apparently the conferences were unaware that they would need to pay for this. CUSA and Sun Belt are on the hook for $2.54M and $2.18M, respectively. CUSA is being asked to pay the same amount as the SEC and the Big Ten. Looks like it is based on "the maximum grant-in-aid equivalency limits for men's basketball (13), women's basketball (15), and football bowl subdivision (85), by institution." I guess that means that since CUSA has 14 schools at the FBS level, they are treated the same as SEC and Big Ten, with only ACC paying more (15 teams because Notre Dame).

This is some crazy stuff. I don't know why the NCAA is doing this since the conferences were not named as defendants or co-defendants. Doesn't the NCAA usually pick up the tab on these things?

(08-17-2021 09:16 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  Apparently the conferences were unaware that they would need to pay for this. CUSA and Sun Belt are on the hook for $2.54M and $2.18M, respectively. CUSA is being asked to pay the same amount as the SEC and the Big Ten. Looks like it is based on "the maximum grant-in-aid equivalency limits for men's basketball (13), women's basketball (15), and football bowl subdivision (85), by institution." I guess that means that since CUSA has 14 schools at the FBS level, they are treated the same as SEC and Big Ten, with only ACC paying more (15 teams because Notre Dame).

This is some crazy stuff. I don't know why the NCAA is doing this since the conferences were not named as defendants or co-defendants. Doesn't the NCAA usually pick up the tab on these things?

Some conferences might need to consider offering buy ins for institutions, "If you can pay us $1M you get to be a member!" to help offset this costs. Sort of the MLS model for franchises.

(08-17-2021 09:12 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

Here we go with the “we account for things different at JMU”.

Look man it’s ok. USA Today says JMU would be the most subsidized program in CUSA. That’s what the vast majority of the people use. You guys are almost 80% subsidized, that’s honestly mind blowing. It’s no wonder your administration doesn’t want to move up.

And with a couple changes, we'll be at 55% or whatever. NCAA accounting is an absolute joke, kind of like how schools like Ball St and Eastern Michigan average 15k fans in odd numbered years and 3k fans in even numbered years.

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

So many things wrong with this. First you're going to pull out a source from 2016, then what? Compare that to USA Today numbers for other schools? Do they get to exempt debt service obligations from their figures? Actually it's just the numerator and not the denominator, so that's not even a comparable calculation for what a subsidy is but since when does legislation have to make sense.

So yeah, I'll bet any amount you want that you don't even have comparable data to be able to make a claim one way or another. We can make educated guesses. JMU is certainly not as subsidized as USA Today shows but you also don't have an AAC sized budget either. Those two things go hand in hand.

(08-17-2021 09:27 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 09:12 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

Here we go with the “we account for things different at JMU”.

Look man it’s ok. USA Today says JMU would be the most subsidized program in CUSA. That’s what the vast majority of the people use. You guys are almost 80% subsidized, that’s honestly mind blowing. It’s no wonder your administration doesn’t want to move up.

And with a couple changes, we'll be at 55% or whatever. NCAA accounting is an absolute joke, kind of like how schools like Ball St and Eastern Michigan average 15k fans in odd numbered years and 3k fans in even numbered years.

NCAA accounting is a lot better than using the Cox law definitions.

Here is the thing, the most dominate programs in IAA history now reside in IA. Those programs have 15 titles: GA Southern (6), Appy State (3), Marshall (2), Boise State (1), UMASS (1), WKU (1), ULM (1).

All those schools gone and JMU still finds away to screw up. Im just glad Marshall made the decision to move up when they did. Id hate to be stuck doing what NDSU is doing. For the last 10 years most years it's been NDSU and the lil ones.

What's the alternative for NDSU? Move up to where? And lose all those regional rivalries? Also what happens from a fan perspective when there isn't a national title on the line?

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

(08-17-2021 09:12 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

Here we go with the “we account for things different at JMU”.

Look man it’s ok. USA Today says JMU would be the most subsidized program in CUSA. That’s what the vast majority of the people use. You guys are almost 80% subsidized, that’s honestly mind blowing. It’s no wonder your administration doesn’t want to move up.

Winner winner chicken dinner...the student subsidy is purple crack

(08-17-2021 09:31 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

So many things wrong with this. First you're going to pull out a source from 2016, then what? Compare that to USA Today numbers for other schools? Do they get to exempt debt service obligations from their figures? Actually it's just the numerator and not the denominator, so that's not even a comparable calculation for what a subsidy is but since when does legislation have to make sense.

So yeah, I'll bet any amount you want that you don't even have comparable data to be able to make a claim one way or another. We can make educated guesses. JMU is certainly not as subsidized as USA Today shows but you also don't have an AAC sized budget either. Those two things go hand in hand.

Hey man talk to your own idiotic fans that want to put the certainties on it. "Most subsidized" is certainly a higher threshold of evidence than "not the most of the entire conference."

And look, I liked where you were headed, but we don't even have to use those sources from 2016. We have a couple audit reports from last year that would give us enough to get over the "do masks work?" level of credibility. It might not be 100% accurate but neither are those USA Today numbers. Bottom line, it would certainly be enough to get over a line of confidence that JMU would not be the "most subsidized" in the CUSA.

I also chuckled on your claim that NCAA accounting (or say legislation) is better than the Cox Bill while your own fans point out that half the CUSA isn't even compliant.

Honestly, you were so very nearly there that your response actually warranted my own response. I genuinely applaud you for that. It was quite a stark difference to the other herd turds on here that don't have a f'ing clue what they are talking about.

(08-17-2021 06:10 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 09:31 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

So many things wrong with this. First you're going to pull out a source from 2016, then what? Compare that to USA Today numbers for other schools? Do they get to exempt debt service obligations from their figures? Actually it's just the numerator and not the denominator, so that's not even a comparable calculation for what a subsidy is but since when does legislation have to make sense.

So yeah, I'll bet any amount you want that you don't even have comparable data to be able to make a claim one way or another. We can make educated guesses. JMU is certainly not as subsidized as USA Today shows but you also don't have an AAC sized budget either. Those two things go hand in hand.

Hey man talk to your own idiotic fans that want to put the certainties on it. "Most subsidized" is certainly a higher threshold of evidence than "not the most of the entire conference."

And look, I liked where you were headed, but we don't even have to use those sources from 2016. We have a couple audit reports from last year that would give us enough to get over the "do masks work?" level of credibility. It might not be 100% accurate but neither are those USA Today numbers. Bottom line, it would certainly be enough to get over a line of confidence that JMU would not be the "most subsidized" in the CUSA.

I also chuckled on your claim that NCAA accounting (or say legislation) is better than the Cox Bill while your own fans point out that half the CUSA isn't even compliant.

Honestly, you were so very nearly there that your response actually warranted my own response. I genuinely applaud you for that. It was quite a stark difference to the other herd turds on here that don't have a f'ing clue what they are talking about.

You’d think the “ODU HOMER” printed under my username and Homer Simpson pointing at the ODU logo attached to his butt would give it away but I’m actually not a Marshall fan.

I’m pretty well versed in VA athletic reporting and the Cox law. USA Today pulls their numbers directly from the audited reports sent to the NCAA so they’re the same. VA schools budgets will generally be higher than schools from other states due to inclusion of items generally not included. JMU seems to take this more to heart than ODU, I guess from having an accountant as an ad. The figures that are higher in the budget than ours seems to lie mainly in overhead. The Cox law has a gaping loophole that it seems JMU accounts for in referencing compliance but ODU does not. I can say with some certainty that JMU’s subsidy percentage is higher than 55% and lower than 78%.

Still wanna make that bet?

(08-17-2021 06:10 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 09:31 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:13 AM)herdfan129 Wrote:  JMU would be the most subsidized team in our conference. The only one close would be FIU... but nice try.

If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

So many things wrong with this. First you're going to pull out a source from 2016, then what? Compare that to USA Today numbers for other schools? Do they get to exempt debt service obligations from their figures? Actually it's just the numerator and not the denominator, so that's not even a comparable calculation for what a subsidy is but since when does legislation have to make sense.

So yeah, I'll bet any amount you want that you don't even have comparable data to be able to make a claim one way or another. We can make educated guesses. JMU is certainly not as subsidized as USA Today shows but you also don't have an AAC sized budget either. Those two things go hand in hand.

Hey man talk to your own idiotic fans that want to put the certainties on it. "Most subsidized" is certainly a higher threshold of evidence than "not the most of the entire conference."

And look, I liked where you were headed, but we don't even have to use those sources from 2016. We have a couple audit reports from last year that would give us enough to get over the "do masks work?" level of credibility. It might not be 100% accurate but neither are those USA Today numbers. Bottom line, it would certainly be enough to get over a line of confidence that JMU would not be the "most subsidized" in the CUSA.

I also chuckled on your claim that NCAA accounting (or say legislation) is better than the Cox Bill while your own fans point out that half the CUSA isn't even compliant.

Honestly, you were so very nearly there that your response actually warranted my own response. I genuinely applaud you for that. It was quite a stark difference to the other herd turds on here that don't have a f'ing clue what they are talking about.

This one is updated through 2019, and according to it, you would be the most subsidized program in CUSA. These aren’t my numbers so no reason to get mad at me.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

(08-17-2021 07:29 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:10 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 09:31 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

So many things wrong with this. First you're going to pull out a source from 2016, then what? Compare that to USA Today numbers for other schools? Do they get to exempt debt service obligations from their figures? Actually it's just the numerator and not the denominator, so that's not even a comparable calculation for what a subsidy is but since when does legislation have to make sense.

So yeah, I'll bet any amount you want that you don't even have comparable data to be able to make a claim one way or another. We can make educated guesses. JMU is certainly not as subsidized as USA Today shows but you also don't have an AAC sized budget either. Those two things go hand in hand.

Hey man talk to your own idiotic fans that want to put the certainties on it. "Most subsidized" is certainly a higher threshold of evidence than "not the most of the entire conference."

And look, I liked where you were headed, but we don't even have to use those sources from 2016. We have a couple audit reports from last year that would give us enough to get over the "do masks work?" level of credibility. It might not be 100% accurate but neither are those USA Today numbers. Bottom line, it would certainly be enough to get over a line of confidence that JMU would not be the "most subsidized" in the CUSA.

I also chuckled on your claim that NCAA accounting (or say legislation) is better than the Cox Bill while your own fans point out that half the CUSA isn't even compliant.

Honestly, you were so very nearly there that your response actually warranted my own response. I genuinely applaud you for that. It was quite a stark difference to the other herd turds on here that don't have a f'ing clue what they are talking about.

You’d think the “ODU HOMER” printed under my username and Homer Simpson pointing at the ODU logo attached to his butt would give it away but I’m actually not a Marshall fan.

I’m pretty well versed in VA athletic reporting and the Cox law. USA Today pulls their numbers directly from the audited reports sent to the NCAA so they’re the same. VA schools budgets will generally be higher than schools from other states due to inclusion of items generally not included. JMU seems to take this more to heart than ODU, I guess from having an accountant as an ad. The figures that are higher in the budget than ours seems to lie mainly in overhead. The Cox law has a gaping loophole that it seems JMU accounts for in referencing compliance but ODU does not. I can say with some certainty that JMU’s subsidy percentage is higher than 55% and lower than 78%.

Still wanna make that bet?

I'm confused by the confidence as you just lost your own bet? You cannot bet me that I can't find comparable data and then continually pull from that data to make your point. You can't say they are pulled form the same spot, and then use the data to make a statement of fact between the schools, and then say they aren't comparable. Either you lost your bet bc you are presenting the facts as comparable to make your point, orrrr you are using irrelevant data to try and make a point. So I'll let you choose, did you lose your own bet or are you using fake news to try and prove a point?

With that said, I never cared about your bet. I do care that you pretty much conceded that I would win my bet that JMU would not be the most subsidized in CUSA with the underlined statement. Sure you got cute and decided to say 78% instead of a lower amount bc FIU sits at 77%; however, given you consider yourself well educated on the topic, you are well aware that JMU is closer to that 55% and there is sufficient evidence it would not be the highest in the CUSA. You have already showed your cards that you think FIU is legitimately at 77% by saying JMU's high end is 78% while admitting that VA schools will generally be higher when compared to other states. So yeah, you won't flat out say it, but all of your points are showing that you agree that JMU would not be the most subsidized in CUSA.

Make sure to put the donation under "ODU Homer" so we all know which school it came from.

(08-17-2021 07:48 PM)herdfan129 Wrote:  This one is updated through 2019, and according to it, you would be the most subsidized program in CUSA. These aren’t my numbers so no reason to get mad at me.

https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances

You are literally just wasting space on this thread and showing your ignorance on the topic by remaining 4 steps behind the conversation.

(08-17-2021 08:30 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:29 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:10 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 09:31 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

So many things wrong with this. First you're going to pull out a source from 2016, then what? Compare that to USA Today numbers for other schools? Do they get to exempt debt service obligations from their figures? Actually it's just the numerator and not the denominator, so that's not even a comparable calculation for what a subsidy is but since when does legislation have to make sense.

So yeah, I'll bet any amount you want that you don't even have comparable data to be able to make a claim one way or another. We can make educated guesses. JMU is certainly not as subsidized as USA Today shows but you also don't have an AAC sized budget either. Those two things go hand in hand.

Hey man talk to your own idiotic fans that want to put the certainties on it. "Most subsidized" is certainly a higher threshold of evidence than "not the most of the entire conference."

And look, I liked where you were headed, but we don't even have to use those sources from 2016. We have a couple audit reports from last year that would give us enough to get over the "do masks work?" level of credibility. It might not be 100% accurate but neither are those USA Today numbers. Bottom line, it would certainly be enough to get over a line of confidence that JMU would not be the "most subsidized" in the CUSA.

I also chuckled on your claim that NCAA accounting (or say legislation) is better than the Cox Bill while your own fans point out that half the CUSA isn't even compliant.

Honestly, you were so very nearly there that your response actually warranted my own response. I genuinely applaud you for that. It was quite a stark difference to the other herd turds on here that don't have a f'ing clue what they are talking about.

You’d think the “ODU HOMER” printed under my username and Homer Simpson pointing at the ODU logo attached to his butt would give it away but I’m actually not a Marshall fan.

I’m pretty well versed in VA athletic reporting and the Cox law. USA Today pulls their numbers directly from the audited reports sent to the NCAA so they’re the same. VA schools budgets will generally be higher than schools from other states due to inclusion of items generally not included. JMU seems to take this more to heart than ODU, I guess from having an accountant as an ad. The figures that are higher in the budget than ours seems to lie mainly in overhead. The Cox law has a gaping loophole that it seems JMU accounts for in referencing compliance but ODU does not. I can say with some certainty that JMU’s subsidy percentage is higher than 55% and lower than 78%.

Still wanna make that bet?

I'm confused by the confidence as you just lost your own bet? You cannot bet me that I can't find comparable data and then continually pull from that data to make your point. You can't say they are pulled form the same spot, and then use the data to make a statement of fact between the schools, and then say they aren't comparable. Either you lost your bet bc you are presenting the facts as comparable to make your point, orrrr you are using irrelevant data to try and make a point. So I'll let you choose, did you lose your own bet or are you using fake news to try and prove a point?

With that said, I never cared about your bet. I do care that you pretty much conceded that I would win my bet that JMU would not be the most subsidized in CUSA with the underlined statement. Sure you got cute and decided to say 78% instead of a lower amount bc FIU sits at 77%; however, given you consider yourself well educated on the topic, you are well aware that JMU is closer to that 55% and there is sufficient evidence it would not be the highest in the CUSA. You have already showed your cards that you think FIU is legitimately at 77% by saying JMU's high end is 78% while admitting that VA schools will generally be higher when compared to other states. So yeah, you won't flat out say it, but all of your points are showing that you agree that JMU would not be the most subsidized in CUSA.

Make sure to put the donation under "ODU Homer" so we all know which school it came from.

You’re out off your element Donny

(08-17-2021 09:34 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  You’re out off your element Donny

You can't debate factz....
Student Athletic Fees

Student fees at JMU to support athletics are the highest in the country.

Status Quo in indefensible.

The sports programs should either be upgraded to D1 level, or funding should be cut in half to level the playing field with the CAA.

The later choice would lower tuition significantly, increase enrollment applications, and improve selectivity, which has been a very troublesome metric.

(08-18-2021 07:24 AM)Dukeman2 Wrote:  Student fees at JMU to support athletics are the highest in the country.

Status Quo in indefensible.

The sports programs should either be upgraded to D1 level, or funding should be cut in half to level the playing field with the CAA.

The later choice would lower tuition significantly, increase enrollment applications, and improve selectivity, which has been a very troublesome metric.

Pardon me sir, but you are mistaken! James Madison University is already at the Division 1 level. This information comes directly from the NCAA:

https://www.ncaa.org/about/division-i-schools

Might I suggest you check your sources?

(08-17-2021 08:30 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 07:29 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 06:10 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 09:31 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 12:31 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  If you want to bet $100 to the other schools athletic fund, I'll provide a very reliable source that we would not be most subsidized in CUSA. The source would be much better than you googling USA Today reports.

Should we make a bet?

So many things wrong with this. First you're going to pull out a source from 2016, then what? Compare that to USA Today numbers for other schools? Do they get to exempt debt service obligations from their figures? Actually it's just the numerator and not the denominator, so that's not even a comparable calculation for what a subsidy is but since when does legislation have to make sense.

So yeah, I'll bet any amount you want that you don't even have comparable data to be able to make a claim one way or another. We can make educated guesses. JMU is certainly not as subsidized as USA Today shows but you also don't have an AAC sized budget either. Those two things go hand in hand.

Hey man talk to your own idiotic fans that want to put the certainties on it. "Most subsidized" is certainly a higher threshold of evidence than "not the most of the entire conference."

And look, I liked where you were headed, but we don't even have to use those sources from 2016. We have a couple audit reports from last year that would give us enough to get over the "do masks work?" level of credibility. It might not be 100% accurate but neither are those USA Today numbers. Bottom line, it would certainly be enough to get over a line of confidence that JMU would not be the "most subsidized" in the CUSA.

I also chuckled on your claim that NCAA accounting (or say legislation) is better than the Cox Bill while your own fans point out that half the CUSA isn't even compliant.

Honestly, you were so very nearly there that your response actually warranted my own response. I genuinely applaud you for that. It was quite a stark difference to the other herd turds on here that don't have a f'ing clue what they are talking about.

You’d think the “ODU HOMER” printed under my username and Homer Simpson pointing at the ODU logo attached to his butt would give it away but I’m actually not a Marshall fan.

I’m pretty well versed in VA athletic reporting and the Cox law. USA Today pulls their numbers directly from the audited reports sent to the NCAA so they’re the same. VA schools budgets will generally be higher than schools from other states due to inclusion of items generally not included. JMU seems to take this more to heart than ODU, I guess from having an accountant as an ad. The figures that are higher in the budget than ours seems to lie mainly in overhead. The Cox law has a gaping loophole that it seems JMU accounts for in referencing compliance but ODU does not. I can say with some certainty that JMU’s subsidy percentage is higher than 55% and lower than 78%.

Still wanna make that bet?

I'm confused by the confidence as you just lost your own bet? You cannot bet me that I can't find comparable data and then continually pull from that data to make your point. You can't say they are pulled form the same spot, and then use the data to make a statement of fact between the schools, and then say they aren't comparable. Either you lost your bet bc you are presenting the facts as comparable to make your point, orrrr you are using irrelevant data to try and make a point. So I'll let you choose, did you lose your own bet or are you using fake news to try and prove a point?

With that said, I never cared about your bet. I do care that you pretty much conceded that I would win my bet that JMU would not be the most subsidized in CUSA with the underlined statement. Sure you got cute and decided to say 78% instead of a lower amount bc FIU sits at 77%; however, given you consider yourself well educated on the topic, you are well aware that JMU is closer to that 55% and there is sufficient evidence it would not be the highest in the CUSA. You have already showed your cards that you think FIU is legitimately at 77% by saying JMU's high end is 78% while admitting that VA schools will generally be higher when compared to other states. So yeah, you won't flat out say it, but all of your points are showing that you agree that JMU would not be the most subsidized in CUSA.

Make sure to put the donation under "ODU Homer" so we all know which school it came from.

Let me be more accurate. JMU's subsidized percent is higher than 58% and lower than 79.85%. That's the figure quoted by Bourne regarding the Cox bill that you were going to trot out as a "very reliable source" and the most recent USA Today subsidized percent published (it'll be 82.87% when the next one comes out). Bourne's figures are the most unreliable, it's not even a mathematically correct calculation of what percentage means and deeply skews the figure. USA Today does indeed pull their figures from NCAA reports but that doesn't mean that the NCAA reports are comparable from school to school and this is acknowledged in the AUP published by the NCAA. So you're going to argue that JMU is less subsidized than the highest in CUSA (FIU) because JMU includes their band and cheer squad expenses and a calculated amount that represents a percentage of school overhead. That would indeed lower your percentage subsidized if you removed those items, from 82.87% to 81.13%. The Cox law also allows debt obligations before a certain date but that's not applicable, that's just what the legislation says. Furthermore these items that are removed from the budget are only removed from the numerator of the percentage and not the denominator, so like I said not even mathematically correct in the definition of percentage. I suspect that there's a lot more fluff in JMU's figures inflating both your overall budget and the percentage subsidized but I have no way of knowing what's in those figures, maybe JMU really does spend a **** load on athletics administration. And I'm absolutely clueless about how FIU does their accounting to report to the NCAA. They have a crap ton of students and very little generated revenue so I imagine their subsidy is pretty high but their overall budget is also reported 15M less than JMU's so in a true side by side comparison JMU would have to cut A LOT of fluff that FIU doesn't have. Who knows but your true percentage of subsidy is IMO likely closer to the USA Today/NCAA number than the Cox/Bourne number for the reasons I've stated. Now Donny, go ahead and bring out your excellent resources and show us that JMU wouldn't be the most subsidized in CUSA and I'll pay that $100.

Never thought this thread could get worse, and I say this as a big fan of math. Big fan.