(04-23-2013 02:31 PM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  I don't get it. All schools play softies at home. Guaranteed wins. Alabama played GA State. Michigan played Appalachian, West VA played us. It is a tradition. Easy games to get the kinks worked out, pad the stats and make money. There are plenty of conference games for excitement. Having the occasional tough OOC opponent is good, but not a steady diet. The key is being in a good conference that guarantees plenty of good games.

This is true. However, with the losses that the CAA has sustained, we need to probably schedule a good non-conference I-AA game every year from here on out (assuming we stay in I-AA). I don't know why we don't play some of the Southern Conference teams more; ie, UT-Chatty, Furman, Elon, Wofford, Samford, El Cid, etc.

(04-23-2013 02:31 PM)BSKB 24 Wrote:  I don't get it. All schools play softies at home. Guaranteed wins. Alabama played GA State. Michigan played Appalachian, West VA played us. It is a tradition. Easy games to get the kinks worked out, pad the stats and make money. There are plenty of conference games for excitement. Having the occasional tough OOC opponent is good, but not a steady diet. The key is being in a good conference that guarantees plenty of good games.

I agree with what you're saying, but do you consider one highly ranked OOC opponent in a span of 13 years to be "occasional"?

The year Michigan lost to App State, their next two games were Oregon and Notre Dame, both home OOC games against schools that are, at worst, football peers.

(04-23-2013 02:00 PM)Onyxduke7 Wrote:  I thought we later learned that JMU's bid for the home playoff game would have been enough.. but it was actually Their conference (OVC i think it was) that opened up their wallet to come up with a large bid for the game.

May have to dig back through the Zone to find the exact numbers, but my recollection was that EKU's bid was enough to beat ours even with the OVC's enhancement. Of all the schools that submitted a bid for the first round (some didn't), JMU's was at the lower end of the spectrum, I believe. They wouldn't even come out and say what it was. Barber had to request using FOIA to get it.

But this is all

(04-23-2013 02:55 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 02:00 PM)Onyxduke7 Wrote:  I thought we later learned that JMU's bid for the home playoff game would have been enough.. but it was actually Their conference (OVC i think it was) that opened up their wallet to come up with a large bid for the game.

May have to dig back through the Zone to find the exact numbers, but my recollection was that EKU's bid was enough to beat ours even with the OVC's enhancement. Of all the schools that submitted a bid for the first round (some didn't), JMU's was at the lower end of the spectrum, I believe. They wouldn't even come out and say what it was. Barber had to request using FOIA to get it.

But this is all

HAHAHA. God, I thought the Zone was about to explode after that selection Sunday. I think that was the beginning of the end of any positive reputation JB had around here.

(04-23-2013 03:06 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 02:55 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 02:00 PM)Onyxduke7 Wrote:  I thought we later learned that JMU's bid for the home playoff game would have been enough.. but it was actually Their conference (OVC i think it was) that opened up their wallet to come up with a large bid for the game.

May have to dig back through the Zone to find the exact numbers, but my recollection was that EKU's bid was enough to beat ours even with the OVC's enhancement. Of all the schools that submitted a bid for the first round (some didn't), JMU's was at the lower end of the spectrum, I believe. They wouldn't even come out and say what it was. Barber had to request using FOIA to get it.

But this is all

HAHAHA. God, I thought the Zone was about to explode after that selection Sunday. I think that was the beginning of the end of any positive reputation JB had around here.

The sad thing about it was that we also advised ODU that year in their home playoff bid. ODU's bid won them a home game.

(04-23-2013 03:22 PM)JMU Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 03:06 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 02:55 PM)DooX Wrote:  

(04-23-2013 02:00 PM)Onyxduke7 Wrote:  I thought we later learned that JMU's bid for the home playoff game would have been enough.. but it was actually Their conference (OVC i think it was) that opened up their wallet to come up with a large bid for the game.

May have to dig back through the Zone to find the exact numbers, but my recollection was that EKU's bid was enough to beat ours even with the OVC's enhancement. Of all the schools that submitted a bid for the first round (some didn't), JMU's was at the lower end of the spectrum, I believe. They wouldn't even come out and say what it was. Barber had to request using FOIA to get it.

But this is all

HAHAHA. God, I thought the Zone was about to explode after that selection Sunday. I think that was the beginning of the end of any positive reputation JB had around here.

The sad thing about it was that we also advised ODU that year in their home playoff bid. ODU's bid won them a home game.

JMU's bid was higher than EKU's by 10K but the OVC gave them 20K to get the home game. That is straight from the CAA commisoners mouth as I was siting next to him when he told someone at the game why we were on the road.
I still remember ESPN in the plywood box on the home side stands. what a travisty, for playoff TV.

I said this back then, but the sad thing is your bid is simply the minimum you pay the NCAA. We would have had to pay double the amount we bid had the game been at BFS. Our bid made no since when yopu think about this one point. The NCAA gets 25% of the gate receits but no less than your bid. We were simply stupid looking at it from so many different angles.

(04-23-2013 03:27 PM)JMUsince89 Wrote:  JMU's bid was higher than EKU's by 10K but the OVC gave them 20K to get the home game. That is straight from the CAA commisoners mouth as I was siting next to him when he told someone at the game why we were on the road.
I still remember ESPN in the plywood box on the home side stands. what a travisty, for playoff TV.

Apparently JMU bid $46,768.50 and EKU bid $63,318.75.

I don't have a rivals sub so I don't know how much the OVC added and whether it was included in that number or on top of it. I thought I read/heard it ended up not making a difference but not recalling the source of that.

And just for good measure:

(04-23-2013 01:41 PM)All Dukes_All Day Wrote:  All joking aside though, what was our most exciting home OOC since App State?
2009: VMI
2010: Morhead State, Liberty
2011: CCSU
2012: St. Francis, Alcorn State
2013: St. Francis, CCSU

How can we really expect people to get excited about that? Even culture rich BCS schools wouldn't sell out those games.

To answer your first question, clearly the game against Morehead State was the most exciting. If you can't get excited about Morehead, you seriously need to question your masculinity!

We would have lost the EKY bid even w/o the conference kicking in $10k.

We also would have lost to ODU, who consulted with Bourne on how to manage the bid then beat us by $2k. Obviously it ended up not mattering, but it could have been a bid debacle.

Total ineptitude

(04-23-2013 07:23 PM)Dukeman Wrote:  We would have lost the EKY bid even w/o the conference kicking in $10k.

We also would have lost to ODU, who consulted with Bourne on how to manage the bid then beat us by $2k. Obviously it ended up not mattering, but it could have been a bid debacle.

Total ineptitude

Hopefully for ODUs' sake they have learned from their past on who to "consult" regarding athletic strategy.

(04-23-2013 07:23 PM)Dukeman Wrote:  We would have lost the EKY bid even w/o the conference kicking in $10k.

We also would have lost to ODU, who consulted with Bourne on how to manage the bid then beat us by $2k. Obviously it ended up not mattering, but it could have been a bid debacle.

Total ineptitude

Not defending the admin on this, but there was no chance we'd meet ODU in the first round anyway. I'm pretty sure our 2nd round bid was higher than theirs and I don't believe they even submitted a 3rd round bid due to graduation ceremony conflicts. So if the bracket had worked out with JMU and ODU playing, it would have been at JMU.

When I think of JMU football scheduling and playoff bidding I see many wienie-like qualities in the administration. There are only a few division I athletic departments that have less inspiring "strategies"
It is sad, but true.

(04-23-2013 03:27 PM)JMUsince89 Wrote:  JMU's bid was higher than EKU's by 10K but the OVC gave them 20K to get the home game. That is straight from the CAA commisoners mouth as I was siting next to him when he told someone at the game why we were on the road.
I still remember ESPN in the plywood box on the home side stands. what a travisty, for playoff TV.

(04-23-2013 05:38 PM)DooX Wrote:  Apparently JMU bid $46,768.50 and EKU bid $63,318.75.

(04-23-2013 07:23 PM)Dukeman Wrote:  We would have lost the EKY bid even w/o the conference kicking in $10k.

We also would have lost to ODU, who consulted with Bourne on how to manage the bid then beat us by $2k. Obviously it ended up not mattering, but it could have been a bid debacle.

Total ineptitude

Other posters post on here how JMU lost the bid by about 16,450 and that the OVC kicked in 20k. Not to defend JB, because he should have bid more, but its obvious by the numbers posted by others that without the OVC kicking in 20k, JMU wins the bid.

Then you come on here and say that JMU would have lost the EKU bid even without the OVC conference kicking in $10k. Reading is fundamental.

(04-23-2013 07:23 PM)Dukeman Wrote:  We would have lost the EKY bid even w/o the conference kicking in $10k.

We also would have lost to ODU, who consulted with Bourne on how to manage the bid then beat us by $2k. Obviously it ended up not mattering, but it could have been a bid debacle.

Total ineptitude

I know this is beating a dead horse, but Bourne had no say so on the ultimate decision. When it comes to money Charlie King makes all the decisions. King is the de facto AD, not Bourne. If Bourne were to be replaced, but King remained with his current power, nothing would change. My point is, the continous beat down on Bourne is misplaced. That being said, Bourne may be complacent in King's decisions, but he does not make the final decision when money is involved. That includes coaches' contracts, NCAA bids, or whether or not to serve Coke, Pepsi or RC Cola.

(04-24-2013 10:25 AM)JMU_71 Wrote:  That being said, Bourne may be complacent in King's decisions, but he does not make the final decision when money is involved. That includes coaches' contracts, NCAA bids, or whether or not to serve Coke, Pepsi or RC Cola.

I think you meant to say complicit ....unless you think JB doesn't care was CK does...and in that case "Bourne may be complacent about King's decisions"...but i agree with your larger point that CK is the decision maker when it comes to all $$ decisions

I certainly wouldn't assume that just because the AD reports directly to the Pres at most other universities, that the AD is the decision maker when it comes to money issues at those universities.

(04-24-2013 10:53 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(04-24-2013 10:25 AM)JMU_71 Wrote:  That being said, Bourne may be complacent in King's decisions, but he does not make the final decision when money is involved. That includes coaches' contracts, NCAA bids, or whether or not to serve Coke, Pepsi or RC Cola.

I think you meant to say complicit ....unless you think JB doesn't care was CK does...and in that case "Bourne may be complacent about King's decisions"...but i agree with your larger point that CK is the decision maker when it comes to all $$ decisions

Yes, complicit. Sorry, quick brainstorming with no proofreading does that sometimes.

I certainly wouldn't assume that just because the AD reports directly to the Pres at most other universities, that the AD is the decision maker when it comes to money issues at those universities.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nor would I. But, hopefully you would agree that if the AD answers to the VP for Finance (or whatever Charlie's title is), the AD is definitely not independent to make money decisions as they relate to athletics.

And then the thread turned into something stupid.