(08-19-2021 08:20 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:00 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 09:39 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is great. 2 accountants pissing at each other and an accountant-hater Dukeman2 chiming in only to be chastised by Dukeman3PO.

yeah, ok. the reality is G5s make no money from football and therefore have no additional money to allocate to non revenue sports. see ODU cutting wrestling to save $1m

and while we are here, what over spending on non revenue sports do you want to cut. should we start with softball? maybe you would like to cut woman's lax? how about field hockey? mens soccer? womans hoops has very little revenue?

I think you are confused about JMU's mission. are we trying to run a for profit minor league sports franchise?

lastly, dont tell DM2 i told you, but he is an accountant. ha

We cut wrestling for Title 9 compliance.

everyone uses title 9 as cover.

We’ve all been bemoaning the fact it costs so much to travel, our kids miss so much class time and our fans don’t identify with the institutions in our league,” ODU athletic director Wood Selig said

(08-19-2021 08:58 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:20 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:00 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 09:39 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is great. 2 accountants pissing at each other and an accountant-hater Dukeman2 chiming in only to be chastised by Dukeman3PO.

yeah, ok. the reality is G5s make no money from football and therefore have no additional money to allocate to non revenue sports. see ODU cutting wrestling to save $1m

and while we are here, what over spending on non revenue sports do you want to cut. should we start with softball? maybe you would like to cut woman's lax? how about field hockey? mens soccer? womans hoops has very little revenue?

I think you are confused about JMU's mission. are we trying to run a for profit minor league sports franchise?

lastly, dont tell DM2 i told you, but he is an accountant. ha

We cut wrestling for Title 9 compliance.

everyone uses title 9 as cover.

We’ve all been bemoaning the fact it costs so much to travel, our kids miss so much class time and our fans don’t identify with the institutions in our league,” ODU athletic director Wood Selig said

The fact is we weren't and still aren't Title 9 compliant even after cutting wrestling and adding volleyball. We would have had to add a lot more female sports if we'd kept wrestling, so it does come down to money in the end

(08-19-2021 08:58 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:20 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:00 AM)PGJMU2 Wrote:  

(08-18-2021 09:39 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is great. 2 accountants pissing at each other and an accountant-hater Dukeman2 chiming in only to be chastised by Dukeman3PO.

yeah, ok. the reality is G5s make no money from football and therefore have no additional money to allocate to non revenue sports. see ODU cutting wrestling to save $1m

and while we are here, what over spending on non revenue sports do you want to cut. should we start with softball? maybe you would like to cut woman's lax? how about field hockey? mens soccer? womans hoops has very little revenue?

I think you are confused about JMU's mission. are we trying to run a for profit minor league sports franchise?

lastly, dont tell DM2 i told you, but he is an accountant. ha

We cut wrestling for Title 9 compliance.

everyone uses title 9 as cover.

We’ve all been bemoaning the fact it costs so much to travel, our kids miss so much class time and our fans don’t identify with the institutions in our league,” ODU athletic director Wood Selig said

"We are vastly better positioned today for conference realignment given our decision to go FBS," ODU Athletic Director Wood Selig, 8/2021

Trivia Question:

Based on fiscal year end audit reports, as submitted to the State of Virginia, who spent more on football travel, and all athletic travel, over each of the prior three years; JMU or ODU?

(08-19-2021 08:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:43 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  Calc for the $4.3M and the assumptions utilized to calculate.

Wow, OK.

It's pretty simple. From JMU's most recent financials (which I will repost here because I'm considerate like that) the total budget is 58,216,278 and the subsidy is 45,672,215 of Student Fees + 2,571,324 of Direct Institutional Support totaling 48,243,539. Dividing the subsidy by the total would give you a subsidized percentage of 82.86%.

Using the USA Today figures most recently posted (also linked) the highest subsidized school by percentage is FIU at 77.15%. Therefore to be less subsidized than FIU JMU would need to add 4,323,959 of department generated revenue without raising the subsidized amount.

48,243,539/(58,216,278 + 4,323,959) = 77.14%

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

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2020.pdf

FIU's 77.15% is 2019 right? The JMU report is 2020 right? Why would you compare different years? You heard of Covid right? Did you assume it didn't impact anything in Q4-20 for JMU? Why wouldn't you have used the USA Today (i.e, 2019) numbers for both?


Also, the report was already posted in #2201 so what were you saying was ironic about wasting thread space?

(08-19-2021 08:24 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 08:43 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(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.

This turned out to be very ironic.

(08-19-2021 09:28 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 08:43 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  Calc for the $4.3M and the assumptions utilized to calculate.

Wow, OK.

It's pretty simple. From JMU's most recent financials (which I will repost here because I'm considerate like that) the total budget is 58,216,278 and the subsidy is 45,672,215 of Student Fees + 2,571,324 of Direct Institutional Support totaling 48,243,539. Dividing the subsidy by the total would give you a subsidized percentage of 82.86%.

Using the USA Today figures most recently posted (also linked) the highest subsidized school by percentage is FIU at 77.15%. Therefore to be less subsidized than FIU JMU would need to add 4,323,959 of department generated revenue without raising the subsidized amount.

48,243,539/(58,216,278 + 4,323,959) = 77.14%

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

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2020.pdf

FIU's 77.15% is 2019 right? The JMU report is 2020 right? Why would you compare different years? You heard of Covid right? Did you assume it didn't impact anything in Q4-20 for JMU? Why wouldn't you have used the USA Today (i.e, 2019) numbers for both?


Also, the report was already posted in #2201 so what were you saying was ironic about wasting thread space?

(08-19-2021 08:24 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-17-2021 08:43 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(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.

This turned out to be very ironic.

It was the showing ignorance and remaining 4 steps behind that's ironic.

We could do the same exercise comparing 2019 to 2019 if you'd like but it's still going to show JMU being more subsidized. The additional revenue figure would likely be smaller but still doesn't prove you argument.

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just show us all how JMU is not more subsidized than all CUSA teams without "creative accounting" or "projected growth". You've had every opportunity to do so and still haven't produced any numbers of your own.

(08-19-2021 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  It was the showing ignorance and remaining 4 steps behind that's ironic.

We could do the same exercise comparing 2019 to 2019 if you'd like but it's still going to show JMU being more subsidized. The additional revenue figure would likely be smaller but still doesn't prove you argument.

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just show us all how JMU is not more subsidized than all CUSA teams without and "creative accounting" or "projected growth". You've had every opportunity to do so and still haven't produced any numbers of your own.

Sorry but if I use your same math, the bolded isn't true.

2019 total budget is 52,704,654 and the subsidy is 41,576,716 of Student Fees + 509,359 of Direct Institutional Support totaling 42,086,075. Dividing the subsidy by the total would give you a subsidized percentage of 79.85%.

42,086,075/(52,704,654 + 1,853,389) = 77.14%

So, ummmm, yeah, now that your $4.3M has been cut to $1.8M (lol wow you were way off) do you want to continue down the path or do you want to concede now and post the $100 donation?

GUYS GET YOUR F'CKING POPCORN!!!

(08-19-2021 09:53 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  It was the showing ignorance and remaining 4 steps behind that's ironic.

We could do the same exercise comparing 2019 to 2019 if you'd like but it's still going to show JMU being more subsidized. The additional revenue figure would likely be smaller but still doesn't prove you argument.

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and just show us all how JMU is not more subsidized than all CUSA teams without and "creative accounting" or "projected growth". You've had every opportunity to do so and still haven't produced any numbers of your own.

Sorry but if I use your same math, the bolded isn't true.

2019 total budget is 52,704,654 and the subsidy is 41,576,716 of Student Fees + 509,359 of Direct Institutional Support totaling 42,086,075. Dividing the subsidy by the total would give you a subsidized percentage of 79.85%.

42,086,075/(52,704,654 + 1,853,389) = 77.14%

So, ummmm, yeah, now that your $4.3M has been cut to $1.8M (lol wow you were way off) do you want to continue down the path or do you want to concede now and post the $100 donation?

GUYS GET YOUR F'CKING POPCORN!!!

Uh......the bolded is still true. Your percentage of subsidy in 2019 was 79.85% which was greater than 77.15%.

So you just proved that you're 1.8M of additional program generated revenue short of your goal. Congratulations?

(08-19-2021 09:14 AM)Dukeman2 Wrote:  Trivia Question:

Based on fiscal year end audit reports, as submitted to the State of Virginia, who spent more on football travel, and all athletic travel, over each of the prior three years; JMU or ODU?

I would hope JMU's would be higher. a lot of post season playoff games and travel compared to odu who only played 2 of the last three years with no postseason to speak of.

thanks for pointing this out.

(08-19-2021 07:50 AM)AssyrianDuke Wrote:  I don't know much about accounting, but I am now rooting for this thread to get so large that we need to archive a large portion of it again.

Pass the popcorn, please.

This thread will break the internet when there is media smoke around a mid Atlantic G5 conference (inevitable?) and JMU is not mentioned.

Maybe a news helicopter over the quad and live interviews with posters with more than 5,000 post on the topic.

We need a second plane with a sign flyover at BFS during HC playing the Campbell Camels which started football in 2018. I'll buy in again...

(08-19-2021 10:03 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Uh......the bolded is still true. Your percentage of subsidy in 2019 was 79.85% which was greater than 77.15%.

So you just proved that you're 1.8M of additional program generated revenue short of your goal. Congratulations?

I took the bolded as JMU would be more subsidized year over year (since that was the specific topic / change), not against FIU. Noted.

So we need to make up a $1.8M revenue gap without "projecting growth." Okay. Cool. I won't "project growth" of donations, ticket sales, sponsorships. We will just take what is contractually binding (full disclosure, haven't looked at contracts, don't need too, information is in the audit reports).

What was the amount of the NCAA/CUSA distribution that CUSA/ODU received? What was the amount that CAA/JMU received? Clearly if JMU was in CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

What did CUSA/ODU get from their media deal? What did CAA/JMU get from their medial deal? Clearly if JMU was in the CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

(08-19-2021 10:22 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:03 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Uh......the bolded is still true. Your percentage of subsidy in 2019 was 79.85% which was greater than 77.15%.

So you just proved that you're 1.8M of additional program generated revenue short of your goal. Congratulations?

I took the bolded as JMU would be more subsidized year over year, not against FIU. Noted.

So we need to make up a $1.8M revenue gap without "projecting growth." Okay. Cool. I won't "project growth" of donations, ticket sales, sponsorships. We will just take what is contractually binding (full disclosure, haven't looked at contracts, don't need too, information is in the audit reports).

What was the amount of the NCAA/CUSA distribution that CUSA/ODU received? What was the amount that CAA/JMU received? Clearly if JMU was in CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

What did CUSA/ODU get from their media deal? What did CAA/JMU get from their medial deal? Clearly if JMU was in the CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

More projections? Come on man. If you entered tomorrow you'd be the most subsidized according to your "very reliable" sources. Those sources it turns out are not reliable and are the same ones that you degraded in your original post to Herd Fan, which clearly didn't state anything about revenue projections. You're categorically full of **** and a piss poor accountant.

But it is quite funny that you think CUSA's media deal is going to prove your point.

(08-19-2021 10:42 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:22 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  I took the bolded as JMU would be more subsidized year over year, not against FIU. Noted.

So we need to make up a $1.8M revenue gap without "projecting growth." Okay. Cool. I won't "project growth" of donations, ticket sales, sponsorships. We will just take what is contractually binding (full disclosure, haven't looked at contracts, don't need too, information is in the audit reports).

What was the amount of the NCAA/CUSA distribution that CUSA/ODU received? What was the amount that CAA/JMU received? Clearly if JMU was in CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

What did CUSA/ODU get from their media deal? What did CAA/JMU get from their medial deal? Clearly if JMU was in the CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

More projections? Come on man. If you entered tomorrow you'd be the most subsidized according to your "very reliable" sources. Those sources it turns out are not reliable and are the same ones that you degraded in your original post to Herd Fan, which clearly didn't state anything about revenue projections. You're categorically full of **** and a piss poor accountant.

But it is quite funny that you think CUSA's media deal is going to prove your point.

More projections? There hasn't been a single projection yet. Are you illiterate? This is not some wild @$$ guess man. The audit report is right there. Even signed by the same auditor.

CUSA paid out $1.3M. Media deal is another $0.5M. Soooo JMU in CUSA, based on contractually documents with no "growth projections," is not the most subsidized program per your own math (no creative accounting needed).

Pay up or GTFO.

I'm kind of mad you gave up so f'ing easy, we couldn't even get past two FSLIs before you f'ing tucked your tail.

Why don't you just admit that you were originally planning on bringing out Bourne's Money Matters post as your "very reliable source" originally until I called you out. Now you're putting all kinds of stipulations and projections on it. Would you have pulled this crap if herdfan had said deal?

(08-19-2021 10:47 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:42 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:22 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  I took the bolded as JMU would be more subsidized year over year, not against FIU. Noted.

So we need to make up a $1.8M revenue gap without "projecting growth." Okay. Cool. I won't "project growth" of donations, ticket sales, sponsorships. We will just take what is contractually binding (full disclosure, haven't looked at contracts, don't need too, information is in the audit reports).

What was the amount of the NCAA/CUSA distribution that CUSA/ODU received? What was the amount that CAA/JMU received? Clearly if JMU was in CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

What did CUSA/ODU get from their media deal? What did CAA/JMU get from their medial deal? Clearly if JMU was in the CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

More projections? Come on man. If you entered tomorrow you'd be the most subsidized according to your "very reliable" sources. Those sources it turns out are not reliable and are the same ones that you degraded in your original post to Herd Fan, which clearly didn't state anything about revenue projections. You're categorically full of **** and a piss poor accountant.

But it is quite funny that you think CUSA's media deal is going to prove your point.

More projections? There hasn't been a single projection yet. Are you illiterate? This is not some wild @$$ guess man. The audit report is right there. Even signed by the same auditor.

CUSA paid out $1.3M. Media deal is another $0.5M. Soooo JMU in CUSA, based on contractually documents with no "growth projections," is not the most subsidized program per your own math (no creative accounting needed).

Pay up or GTFO.

I'm kind of mad you gave up so f'ing easy, we couldn't even get past two FSLIs before you f'ing tucked your tail.

You're dishonest and a mental midget and a disgrace to the profession.

Now do FIU. You owe them 214K in entrance fees. That's enough to cover right? Of and CUSA's payout will be much less than in 2019 considering 2020 NCAA tournament was cancelled and we owe the NCAA 3+M for the Alston case. And I'm pretty sure you're not entitled to any NCAA credits that were earned before you joined.

None of this matters though because you clearly moved the goalposts after you were called out and cornered. And the reports used I've proven to be unreliable.

(08-19-2021 11:00 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:47 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:42 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:22 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  I took the bolded as JMU would be more subsidized year over year, not against FIU. Noted.

So we need to make up a $1.8M revenue gap without "projecting growth." Okay. Cool. I won't "project growth" of donations, ticket sales, sponsorships. We will just take what is contractually binding (full disclosure, haven't looked at contracts, don't need too, information is in the audit reports).

What was the amount of the NCAA/CUSA distribution that CUSA/ODU received? What was the amount that CAA/JMU received? Clearly if JMU was in CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

What did CUSA/ODU get from their media deal? What did CAA/JMU get from their medial deal? Clearly if JMU was in the CUSA, they would get the CUSA payout and not the CAA payout right?

More projections? Come on man. If you entered tomorrow you'd be the most subsidized according to your "very reliable" sources. Those sources it turns out are not reliable and are the same ones that you degraded in your original post to Herd Fan, which clearly didn't state anything about revenue projections. You're categorically full of **** and a piss poor accountant.

But it is quite funny that you think CUSA's media deal is going to prove your point.

More projections? There hasn't been a single projection yet. Are you illiterate? This is not some wild @$$ guess man. The audit report is right there. Even signed by the same auditor.

CUSA paid out $1.3M. Media deal is another $0.5M. Soooo JMU in CUSA, based on contractually documents with no "growth projections," is not the most subsidized program per your own math (no creative accounting needed).

Pay up or GTFO.

I'm kind of mad you gave up so f'ing easy, we couldn't even get past two FSLIs before you f'ing tucked your tail.

You're dishonest and a mental midget and a disgrace to the profession.

Now do FIU. You owe them 214K in entrance fees. That's enough to cover right? Of and CUSA's payout will be much less than in 2019 considering 2020 NCAA tournament was cancelled and we owe the NCAA 3+M for the Alston case. And I'm pretty sure you're not entitled to any NCAA credits that were earned before you joined.

None of this matters though because you clearly moved the goalposts after you were called out and cornered. And the reports used I've proven to be unreliable.

No one cares about this fight or bet. Take it offline or start a new thread. You choose to come to JMU for many reasons. If you don’t think you should pay student fees - go somewhere else. Not sure students really care how the money is carved up. I have students at other schools. JMU’s facilities are equal or better as are the student activities. Total cost of attendance is also significantly less at JMU.

(08-19-2021 10:47 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Why don't you just admit that you were originally planning on bringing out Bourne's Money Matters post as your "very reliable source" originally until I called you out. Now you're putting all kinds of stipulations and projections on it. Would you have pulled this crap if herdfan had said deal?

Whataboutism? AGAIN? F'ck it, I'll admit whatever you want after I see the screenshot of the $100 donation. I'll even continue to admit that I f'cked up and clicked URL button instead of image.

The facts are VERY CLEAR. Let me lay out the facts for you for the gazillionth time:

The bet was clearly stated that the threshold was "not the most subsidized in CUSA."

(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.

The source data was reiterated prior to you accepting the bet. The fact if it meets the "very reliable" or not doesn't matter once you agree to the bet following the third clarification that the audit reports were the source. What you assumed were my original intentions were do not matter. It was very clear before you accepted that the audit reports would be utilized.

(08-18-2021 06:07 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  The fact is I referenced better sources and as soon as you brought up Bourne/Cox, I brought up the reports and notes that you want to get all excited about it your latest response.

You accepted the bet. You further clarified that you were okay with comparing the audit report to USA Today FIU number.

(08-18-2021 06:17 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I’ll take your bet then. Release the Kraken.

You set the initial methodology to use to satisfy the bet.

(08-19-2021 08:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  ........ From JMU's most recent financials (which I will repost here because I'm considerate like that) the total budget is 58,216,278 and the subsidy is 45,672,215 of Student Fees + 2,571,324 of Direct Institutional Support totaling 48,243,539.
..........
48,243,539/(58,216,278 + 4,323,959) = 77.14%

(08-19-2021 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  ........We could do the same exercise comparing 2019 to 2019 if you'd like ........

You clearly stated the target.

(08-19-2021 10:03 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  So you just proved that you're 1.8M of additional program generated revenue short of your goal.

I noted just two revenue streams JMU would received in CUSA that is above what is currently flowing through their audit report totaling $1.8M of additional revenue (increased conference distribution of $1.3M, increased TV media of $0.5M). All the hoops you threw in and all the tangents you led us down do not matter. You set the threshold, you agreed to the source data, you agreed to be reason, you lost.

(08-19-2021 11:13 AM)Dukes1987 Wrote:  No one cares about this fight or bet. Take it offline or start a new thread. You choose to come to JMU for many reasons. If you don’t think you should pay student fees - go somewhere else. Not sure students really care how the money is carved up. I have students at other schools. JMU’s facilities are equal or better as are the student activities. Total cost of attendance is also significantly less at JMU.

This x's 4.7 billions and billions (that's algebraic, quasi-calculus... not accountant math).

(08-19-2021 11:15 AM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  

(08-19-2021 10:47 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  Why don't you just admit that you were originally planning on bringing out Bourne's Money Matters post as your "very reliable source" originally until I called you out. Now you're putting all kinds of stipulations and projections on it. Would you have pulled this crap if herdfan had said deal?

Whataboutism? AGAIN? F'ck it, I'll admit whatever you want after I see the screenshot of the $100 donation. I'll even continue to admit that I f'cked up and clicked URL button instead of image.

The facts are VERY CLEAR. Let me lay out the facts for you for the gazillionth time:

The bet was clearly stated that the threshold was "not the most subsidized in CUSA."

(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.

The source data was reiterated prior to you accepting the bet. The fact if it meets the "very reliable" or not doesn't matter once you agree to the bet following the third clarification that the audit reports were the source. What you assumed were my original intentions were do not matter. It was very clear before you accepted that the audit reports would be utilized.

(08-18-2021 06:07 PM)DoubleDogDare Wrote:  The fact is I referenced better sources and as soon as you brought up Bourne/Cox, I brought up the reports and notes that you want to get all excited about it your latest response.

You accepted the bet. You further clarified that you were okay with comparing the audit report to USA Today FIU number.

(08-18-2021 06:17 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  I’ll take your bet then. Release the Kraken.

You set the initial methodology to use to satisfy the bet.

(08-19-2021 08:58 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  ........ From JMU's most recent financials (which I will repost here because I'm considerate like that) the total budget is 58,216,278 and the subsidy is 45,672,215 of Student Fees + 2,571,324 of Direct Institutional Support totaling 48,243,539.
..........
48,243,539/(58,216,278 + 4,323,959) = 77.14%

(08-19-2021 09:43 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  ........We could do the same exercise comparing 2019 to 2019 if you'd like ........

You clearly stated the target.

(08-19-2021 10:03 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  So you just proved that you're 1.8M of additional program generated revenue short of your goal.

I noted just two revenue streams JMU would received in CUSA that is above what is currently flowing through their audit report totaling $1.8M of additional revenue (increased conference distribution of $1.3M, increased TV media of $0.5M). All the hoops you threw in and all the tangents you led us down do not matter. You set the threshold, you agreed to the source data, you agreed to be reason, you lost.

This is all BS but......

Figure you needed to meet = 1,853,389
2019 TV + Conference Dist = 1,782,318

Shortfall = 71,071

Pretty sad that you couldn't win a bet for which you made up the rules as you go.

Conference distribution dropped to 1.1M in 2020 BTW

(08-19-2021 11:00 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  You're dishonest and a mental midget and a disgrace to the profession.

Now do FIU. You owe them 214K in entrance fees. That's enough to cover right? Of and CUSA's payout will be much less than in 2019 considering 2020 NCAA tournament was cancelled and we owe the NCAA 3+M for the Alston case. And I'm pretty sure you're not entitled to any NCAA credits that were earned before you joined.

None of this matters though because you clearly moved the goalposts after you were called out and cornered. And the reports used I've proven to be unreliable.

You are talking about rounding errors man. I didn't move the goalpost bud, you did. Even if you want to believe that I moved the goalpost, they were moved prior to you accepting. It's all quoted right above.

Your whole argument was based on taking JMU's current percent subsidized to a hypothetical situation of JMU in CUSA was dumb. Like full stop. No need to even talk about "comparability" or "gold standard" or whatever the f'ck tangent you want to go down. If the conversation is a hypothetical of JMU being in CUSA, there is literally no reason to discuss JMU's current percentage as its based on a revenue number that is no longer relevant.

Here is what matters: CUSA's sh!t media package is still 4x bigger than the CAA and Flo Sports deal. CUSA receives more money from the NCAA, and as such distributes more money to their schools than the CAA. JMU's revenue increases as soon as JMU and CUSA sign the paperwork. This has nothing to do with "projecting growth." This has nothing to do with Herdfan's "Here we go with the “we account for things different at JMU”."  Its straight up a mechanism of the CUSA having more money than CAA.

I don't need to point out that ticket prices would increase. I don't need to point out that donations would increase. I don't need to point out that sponsorships and licensing would increase. I don't need to touch anything that could possibly be subjective (but yet supportable by underlying data that a reasonable person would consider). All of that would easily cover the assumptions you are making on additional expenses.

You were wrong about what source I was "going to trot out." You were especially wrong when you said that as I had already said the source was the audit reports. You were wrong about comparable data (thinking I was comparing JMU audit reports to other schools USA Today data, no d!psh!t I can take the f'ing audit reports from two schools in the same stated signed by the same f'ing person). You were wrong to even think about the Cox bill calculations.You were wrong to even think about Bourne's statement. You were wrong to push the "creative accounting" conspiracy. You have flat out been wrong time and time again.

I didn't correctly attach a picture.

I think it is clear who is the dishonest mental midget (which by the way, I love that, I fully plan on using that in the future.)