(12-01-2015 06:25 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  And as a follow-up to the bubble bursting, I think we should consider what that burst may look like and try to be in a good place when it happens. Suppose, for instance, that Syracuse and UNC say "screw this" and leave the ACC for a non-P5 conference where they can spend half as much, still pack the house for football games, and still have great basketball teams. Would you want to be in that conference? Or perhaps ODU, Appy, et al drop back to BCS and the CAA gets a regional TV deal with Comcast Sports Net or whomever. If I were in charge of JMU's athletics (the alumni would want me out in 10 minutes) but I'd strongly consider those kinds of things. If you think that the TV money bubble will burst and the entire D-1 system is due for a giant shake-up, why on earth would you invest a lot of money to be part of a system with such an uncertain future?

The short answer is that 1) it is not a lot of additional money. JMU already invests at that level as evidenced by the article and 2) with uncertainty, a move up to FBS at least positions JMU for the shake out. When the system shakes out, it will probably break down along divisions and geography. We want to be able to join the ideal regional conference with ODU, Marshall, ECU, etc because we are at the right level. JMU won't find themselves in a regional conference with Bridgewater and Washington and Lee because they are close by.

(11-27-2015 04:03 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 09:45 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  I don't ask people to see it the way I do, just don't bother changing the way I think about it. I'm getting to old to wait for the days we go against our peers only for a few games after the season ends.

Oh I certainly don't expect to do so. I just don't get the point you're making when you start talking about bowl games vs. FCS playoffs within the framework of attendance. If you're willing to travel to see JMU play SMU in the Nova Home Loans Arizona Bowl in Tuscon, I applaud your dedication. But you'll be one of 6 people doing so.

We traveled well to Dallas to play SMU in Sept...we travel well to no name fcs away games, why would we not travel to a potato or weed eater bowl?

We spend and have spent G5 money now. If the FCS vs G5 gap is 1 mile wide or 10 miles wide, is not relevant, better is better if you already have a G5 budget.

(12-02-2015 12:07 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 04:03 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 09:45 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  I don't ask people to see it the way I do, just don't bother changing the way I think about it. I'm getting to old to wait for the days we go against our peers only for a few games after the season ends.

Oh I certainly don't expect to do so. I just don't get the point you're making when you start talking about bowl games vs. FCS playoffs within the framework of attendance. If you're willing to travel to see JMU play SMU in the Nova Home Loans Arizona Bowl in Tuscon, I applaud your dedication. But you'll be one of 6 people doing so.

We traveled well to Dallas to play SMU in Sept...we travel well to no name fcs away games, why would we not travel to a potato or weed eater bowl?

We spend and have spent G5 money now. If the FCS vs G5 gap is 1 mile wide or 10 miles wide, is not relevant, better is better if you already have a G5 budget.

Is it out of the question to ask if a G5 budget is too big? One way to cut the disparity between spending and revenue is to cut spending, which hasn't been mentioned at all. (I know helmets don't cost $20M, but clearly "lots of helmet styles for each player" are in the budget)

(12-02-2015 04:34 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:07 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 04:03 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 09:45 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  I don't ask people to see it the way I do, just don't bother changing the way I think about it. I'm getting to old to wait for the days we go against our peers only for a few games after the season ends.

Oh I certainly don't expect to do so. I just don't get the point you're making when you start talking about bowl games vs. FCS playoffs within the framework of attendance. If you're willing to travel to see JMU play SMU in the Nova Home Loans Arizona Bowl in Tuscon, I applaud your dedication. But you'll be one of 6 people doing so.

We traveled well to Dallas to play SMU in Sept...we travel well to no name fcs away games, why would we not travel to a potato or weed eater bowl?

We spend and have spent G5 money now. If the FCS vs G5 gap is 1 mile wide or 10 miles wide, is not relevant, better is better if you already have a G5 budget.

Is it out of the question to ask if a G5 budget is too big? One way to cut the disparity between spending and revenue is to cut spending, which hasn't been mentioned at all. (I know helmets don't cost $20M, but clearly "lots of helmet styles for each player" are in the budget)

The first question is valid.

But the helmet issue is a red herring - that money's coming from a small, private group of donors (Alpha Dogs) along with what's already in JMU's contract with Nike as our outfitter and you know it (or are just uninformed). While one can argue as to whether that's the best use of that money, it's their money, not yours, and they care about having a good football program. Knowing a couple of them, I'm pretty sure they care (financially) about a lot of other things at JMU too, but that's not relevant.

(12-02-2015 04:58 PM)PurpleStreamers Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:34 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:07 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 04:03 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 09:45 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  I don't ask people to see it the way I do, just don't bother changing the way I think about it. I'm getting to old to wait for the days we go against our peers only for a few games after the season ends.

Oh I certainly don't expect to do so. I just don't get the point you're making when you start talking about bowl games vs. FCS playoffs within the framework of attendance. If you're willing to travel to see JMU play SMU in the Nova Home Loans Arizona Bowl in Tuscon, I applaud your dedication. But you'll be one of 6 people doing so.

We traveled well to Dallas to play SMU in Sept...we travel well to no name fcs away games, why would we not travel to a potato or weed eater bowl?

We spend and have spent G5 money now. If the FCS vs G5 gap is 1 mile wide or 10 miles wide, is not relevant, better is better if you already have a G5 budget.

Is it out of the question to ask if a G5 budget is too big? One way to cut the disparity between spending and revenue is to cut spending, which hasn't been mentioned at all. (I know helmets don't cost $20M, but clearly "lots of helmet styles for each player" are in the budget)

The first question is valid.

But the helmet issue is a red herring - that money's coming from a small, private group of donors (Alpha Dogs) along with what's already in JMU's contract with Nike as our outfitter and you know it (or are just uninformed). While one can argue as to whether that's the best use of that money, it's their money, not yours, and they care about having a good football program. Knowing a couple of them, I'm pretty sure they care (financially) about a lot of other things at JMU too, but that's not relevant.

Well, my point wasn't about the helmets, it's that clearly there's plenty of money involved if we're looking at several sets of helmets. How would, say, cutting 5% of the team's budget affect its performance? What about 10%, 20%, 50%? It just seems to me that "we have to be competitive" translates to "keep spending more and more money", which eventually turns into "don't ask any questions when these guys never show up to class". And I'm saying there don't seem to be many people asking "do we have to spend as much as we are spending?", and its follow-up question "say, what are we trying to accomplish here anyway?"

(12-02-2015 05:29 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:58 PM)PurpleStreamers Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 04:34 PM)94computerguy Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 12:07 PM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(11-27-2015 04:03 PM)bjk3047 Wrote:  Oh I certainly don't expect to do so. I just don't get the point you're making when you start talking about bowl games vs. FCS playoffs within the framework of attendance. If you're willing to travel to see JMU play SMU in the Nova Home Loans Arizona Bowl in Tuscon, I applaud your dedication. But you'll be one of 6 people doing so.

We traveled well to Dallas to play SMU in Sept...we travel well to no name fcs away games, why would we not travel to a potato or weed eater bowl?

We spend and have spent G5 money now. If the FCS vs G5 gap is 1 mile wide or 10 miles wide, is not relevant, better is better if you already have a G5 budget.

Is it out of the question to ask if a G5 budget is too big? One way to cut the disparity between spending and revenue is to cut spending, which hasn't been mentioned at all. (I know helmets don't cost $20M, but clearly "lots of helmet styles for each player" are in the budget)

The first question is valid.

But the helmet issue is a red herring - that money's coming from a small, private group of donors (Alpha Dogs) along with what's already in JMU's contract with Nike as our outfitter and you know it (or are just uninformed). While one can argue as to whether that's the best use of that money, it's their money, not yours, and they care about having a good football program. Knowing a couple of them, I'm pretty sure they care (financially) about a lot of other things at JMU too, but that's not relevant.

Well, my point wasn't about the helmets, it's that clearly there's plenty of money involved if we're looking at several sets of helmets. How would, say, cutting 5% of the team's budget affect its performance? What about 10%, 20%, 50%? It just seems to me that "we have to be competitive" translates to "keep spending more and more money", which eventually turns into "don't ask any questions when these guys never show up to class". And I'm saying there don't seem to be many people asking "do we have to spend as much as we are spending?", and its follow-up question "say, what are we trying to accomplish here anyway?"

Many people are asking this question. I have been asking it for 5 years. JMU has a FBS budget but is playing FCS football. It does not make sense. Part of the that budget is payment for a new stadium which many have asked, why invest to stay FCS and have a stadium 2x or 3x your conference peers. Since that can not be undone, how do you keep it filled and increase revenue.

All fair questions that have been asked by many. My feeling is that we either move up to justify our spending or move cut spending to be more in line with our peers. Due to many actions already taken, cutting spending to be more in line with our peers may be hard to do or require some hard decisions.

(12-01-2015 10:37 AM)JMURocks Wrote:  The Huffington article provides a compelling reason to move to FBS - revenue.

In the P5 + AAC, subsidies drop to less than 50% (12% or less for P5).

In the CAA - the school average is 74% subsidized sports. MAC, CUSA, and Sunbelt all earn more than the CAA and this allows them to reduce their subsidies relative to the CAA.

If students and professors want less fee money going to athletics, they should be in favor of a move up. Staying in the CAA is a poor economic decision.

I think the faculty would be in favor of moving to the ACC -- we're just waiting for the invite...

(12-02-2015 01:14 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Computerguy, I will simply argue that with a move to FBS we will have less of a negative cash flow rather than more and I'm pretty sure that Carr report said so as well.

The Carr report DID NOT say that there would be less negative cash flow; it said that the proportion of the budget dependent on student fees would decrease. If you look at the numbers, the students would have had to pay more...

Nominally more...and a better product.

App and G Southern...both in bowls and 9 wins.

(12-03-2015 12:33 PM)Phlegmish Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 01:14 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Computerguy, I will simply argue that with a move to FBS we will have less of a negative cash flow rather than more and I'm pretty sure that Carr report said so as well.

The Carr report DID NOT say that there would be less negative cash flow; it said that the proportion of the budget dependent on student fees would decrease. If you look at the numbers, the students would have had to pay more...

I can't remember did the Carr include the bowl payouts as part of the revenues? I'm thinking it did not, but could be wrong.

Each G5 conference is looking at $18M per conference BEFORE individual bowl payouts for 2015, GoDaddy Bowl for instance is another $750k, so a team like GaSo will get over $2.3M from bowls this year, and 3-9 schleps like UL-M will still get $1.6M or so. Considering that we lost money for the playoff game last year, that $1.6-2.3M would be a big difference maker for all involved.

(12-03-2015 12:33 PM)Phlegmish Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 01:14 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Computerguy, I will simply argue that with a move to FBS we will have less of a negative cash flow rather than more and I'm pretty sure that Carr report said so as well.

The Carr report DID NOT say that there would be less negative cash flow; it said that the proportion of the budget dependent on student fees would decrease. If you look at the numbers, the students would have had to pay more...

Nothing about my post addressed student fees, however, you need to read that report a second time, it never says fees would go up or down, it only addresses the student's percentage. For all we know, the fees could not change at all. My post clearly states less of a negative cash flow. Don't add or subtract from my statement, only argue my point if that is what you want to do.

(12-04-2015 01:33 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  

(12-03-2015 12:33 PM)Phlegmish Wrote:  

(12-02-2015 01:14 AM)BleedingPurple Wrote:  Computerguy, I will simply argue that with a move to FBS we will have less of a negative cash flow rather than more and I'm pretty sure that Carr report said so as well.

The Carr report DID NOT say that there would be less negative cash flow; it said that the proportion of the budget dependent on student fees would decrease. If you look at the numbers, the students would have had to pay more...

Nothing about my post addressed student fees, however, you need to read that report a second time, it never says fees would go up or down, it only addresses the student's percentage. For all we know, the fees could not change at all. My post clearly states less of a negative cash flow. Don't add or subtract from my statement, only argue my point if that is what you want to do.

BP,

While I agree your original post didn't really mention the student fees, the Carr Report DID state that the $$ amount of fees would go up in every scenario, but the % of the budget would be less.

net increase, but less of the overall burden with the expansion / improvement of competition.

fair argument.

and it's about $60 / YEAR for each student fee...c'mon..is it worth our time spent on the debating?

(12-04-2015 03:53 PM)bcp_jmu Wrote:  net increase, but less of the overall burden with the expansion / improvement of competition.

fair argument.

and it's about $60 / YEAR for each student fee...c'mon..is it worth our time spent on the debating?

Personally, when I am evaluating a purchase or some type of expense I look at actual dollar amounts not percentages. I don't care if my student fee is 81% of the budget, 100%, or 1%, I care about the actual amount coming out of my pocket (or mom's pocket or Uncle Sam's pocket). When you are asked to pay over $1,500 already, yes for some that extra $60 might break the camel's back.

But you are right it is not worth debating, I was just clarifying that yes the Carr Report did in fact state the increase in student fees.

i agree...and would add that students don't even say "how much is the student fee?"...they look at the overall cost of attending - and JMU is still a relatively good deal.

dukes!!