Was in the print edition this morning. Good to have national exposure.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...560269001/

(08-16-2017 10:07 AM)jwblue Wrote:  Was in the print edition this morning. Good to have national exposure.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...560269001/

“There’s been a lot of talk, and the talk is legitimate,” Houston said. “I think JMU is a very attractive institution for a lot of the FBS conferences, because our entire athletic program operates at a pretty high level. … If that opportunity comes to us, I think JMU would enthusiastically transition and would not hesitate.”

....would not hesitate

Further proof that Dukeman2's narrative is FAKE NEWS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

"The Dukes lost four starters on defense and five on offense, including linebacker Gage Steel (104 tackles) and defensive lineman Martez Stone..."

Lost 6 starters offense: 3 OL, 2 WR, Abdullah
Lost only 2 starters defense: Steele and Reynolds. Stone only started 4 games. Robinson started 10 and would be considered the returning starter.

Also mentioned 3 of the 7 transfers. Didn't mention Marshall, and you think he would be the 1st one mentioned..

The omission of Marshall surprised me as well.

I don't even pay any attention to comments about FBS - wasted far too many hours of my life caring about that topic.

good cause it was hashed out in another thread days ago

(08-16-2017 10:42 AM)DWING Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 10:07 AM)jwblue Wrote:  Was in the print edition this morning. Good to have national exposure.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nc...560269001/

“There’s been a lot of talk, and the talk is legitimate,” Houston said. “I think JMU is a very attractive institution for a lot of the FBS conferences, because our entire athletic program operates at a pretty high level. … If that opportunity comes to us, I think JMU would enthusiastically transition and would not hesitate.”

....would not hesitate

"If that opportunity", not "If any opportunity"
The problem with reading into this is the article dropped a sentence or two prior that likely defined what "that opportunity" would look like. The (...) makes a difference here. I hate when journalists do this.