Here is a copy of JMU's FRS report for the 2019 year. It's a pretty thorough breakdown (80 pages). There might be some financial chicanery, but I don't know how to find it since I'm not in the accounting field. Let me know if the link doesn't work and I will try to report it.

https://1drv.ms/b/s!AhNCbEJuwpFZnZsG3hyQ...Q?e=ZRdcx5

DD, apology for cherry pick term.

The DE numbers provided could be used by DE alum to challenge DE's spending/result metric. We thought DE was a 1A jump partner a decade ago.

FBS spending and not even good fcs results for quite some time now. Is DE even the best fcs team in DE anymore?

(12-18-2020 11:19 AM)Purplehazed Wrote:  DD, apology for cherry pick term.

The DE numbers provided could be used by DE alum to challenge DE's spending/result metric. We thought DE was a 1A jump partner a decade ago.

FBS spending and not even good fcs results for quite some time now. Is DE even the best fcs team in DE anymore?

With apologies to Delaware State, yes, Delaware is the best FCS team in Delaware. And we all know success in FCS is not an indicator of whether a school should or could go FBS. I can see if I can rustle up some more NCAA FRS reports for FCS playoff teams, but I probably won't get anything until after the new year.

(12-18-2020 11:11 AM)JMUNation Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 10:54 AM)For the Dukes Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 10:41 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 10:38 AM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:12 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  JMU vs Delaware football spending

Recruiting:.............JMU 513,254....Delaware 577,598
Coaches:...............JMU 6,431,033.... Delaware 7,196,588
Student Aid:...........JMU 8,964,985.....Delaware 11,774,940
Game Exp/Travel:....JMU 6,565,207..... Delaware 3,115,965
Facilities.................JMU 16,566,118.....Delaware 10,018,576


do we really spend more on football than our FCS peers?

Or do we just have a more modern, bigger stadium?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Cherry pick alert...should you be referring to peers above and then offer one program from a tiny state with zero fbs programs?

A for effort, the try is there.

cherry pick?

hart said Delaware was 2nd in FCS in the above post at that there was a $4.4m gap between us and them. that is why i picked them

so no comment on the data?

I’ve said before that I like having Delaware in our conference - they have shown a solid commitment to football and are about the only conference team I’m not embarrassed to play even though we don’t play them every year for some inexplicable reason. I consider them a peer and would love to have them as a rival (similar student body, size, and fan support). However, you’re cherry picking data here, you say we spend similar to our fcs peers but don’t list the expenditures of our “rivals” or conference mates like William and Mary, Elon, and Richmond. In fact, Delaware is the ONLY conference mate with a similar athletic budget. You’re again being intentionally dishonest...

He is not. Hart brought UD to the table and DD did a comparison. The numbers are not a available for Elon and UR because they are private schools. They might be good comparisons because they have both completed football stadium and basketball arena enhancements in the last 10 years too.

W&M is public and has renovated 1/2 of their stadium. Maybe DD can look at their numbers.

The reality is our administrations (Carrier through the present) have positioned us facility wise to compete at the highest division. FBS is the only sport in which we do not. Alger needs to be the one who pushes for this. Every move up starts with the President of the university not the AD or the Senior VP. Alger needs to use his political influence to move if he deems it worthy. The AD and his team simply provide the information needed to show its worthy but this happens at the request of the President. Hazed gets it the rest of you don’t.

Fair point on the UD comparison then, I missed that context of Hart bringing it up earlier in the thread and was going off DD saying we spend similarly to our fcs peers. And by the way I completely agree with your last paragraph - I don’t know what Alger is doing behind the scenes, and I hope he is doing something, but I fear he’s not making the necessary political moves. We can take a lesson from Mark Warner getting VT into the ACC

From the Equity in Athletics site (Title 9 reporting). Not my favorite source but Delaware doesn't seem to have the transparency that VA imposes. If you'll notice DE spending outstrips JMU in most everything except Football and Women's sports.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/details

**** that didn't work you can add the two schools and explore for yourself but here's the rub. First # is JMU second is UD

Operating Expenses - Men's Teams
Basketball $515,385 $506,915
Football $2,734,601 $949,459
Total Operating Expenses of all Sports, Except Football and Basketball, Combined $875,101 $1,010,145
Total Operating Expenses Men's Teams $4,125,087 $2,466,519

That's quite the difference in football expenses.

I don't understand the lead by not communicating strategy but can we all agree on below?

King, many thanks for building great facilities for all sports, all genders!
Bourne, many thanks for providing well rounded programs appealing to conferences that home athletic peers!
B.O.V., many thanks for allowing Mr. King and Mr. Bourne to prepare JMU for the future!

President Alger, please offer your insight on the future of JMU athletics and tell many eager JMU alum how you and JMU plan to capitalize on the hard work of Mr. King and Mr. Bourne. We are not asking for dates, we are not asking for details, we simply ask for your vision beyond "being excellent" for athletics, the front porch of the University that you lead as President.

How do we positively get this message to President Alger?

Do we all email President Alger in the same day, same time? Do we march the quad (wearing masks of course)? To we send purple smoke signals? Do we pray if we are religious?

I don't know, the request does has not gotten through or our President has intentionally decided not to lead. You all know that leadership is not mute.

(12-18-2020 11:41 AM)mturn017 Wrote:  From the Equity in Athletics site (Title 9 reporting). Not my favorite source but Delaware doesn't seem to have the transparency that VA imposes. If you'll notice DE spending outstrips JMU in most everything except Football and Women's sports.

https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/compare/details

**** that didn't work you can add the two schools and explore for yourself but here's the rub. First # is JMU second is UD

Operating Expenses - Men's Teams
Basketball $515,385 $506,915
Football $2,734,601 $949,459
Total Operating Expenses of all Sports, Except Football and Basketball, Combined $875,101 $1,010,145
Total Operating Expenses Men's Teams $4,125,087 $2,466,519

That's quite the difference in football expenses.

no way man. you're cherry picking. i don't believe you.



but seriously, those expenses seem way short. UD's coaching stafff gets paid more than that alone.
this says UD's football coaches got paid $1.9m in 2018

http://cafidatabase.knightcommission.org...ion_data-2

so what goes into that number? is that just game day operations? because of course ours would be higher. but so would our gameday revenue.

Yeah that’s a subtotal line item...

(12-18-2020 11:11 AM)JMUNation Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 10:54 AM)For the Dukes Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 10:41 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 10:38 AM)Purplehazed Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 09:12 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  JMU vs Delaware football spending

Recruiting:.............JMU 513,254....Delaware 577,598
Coaches:...............JMU 6,431,033.... Delaware 7,196,588
Student Aid:...........JMU 8,964,985.....Delaware 11,774,940
Game Exp/Travel:....JMU 6,565,207..... Delaware 3,115,965
Facilities.................JMU 16,566,118.....Delaware 10,018,576


do we really spend more on football than our FCS peers?

Or do we just have a more modern, bigger stadium?

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

Cherry pick alert...should you be referring to peers above and then offer one program from a tiny state with zero fbs programs?

A for effort, the try is there.

cherry pick?

hart said Delaware was 2nd in FCS in the above post at that there was a $4.4m gap between us and them. that is why i picked them

so no comment on the data?

I’ve said before that I like having Delaware in our conference - they have shown a solid commitment to football and are about the only conference team I’m not embarrassed to play even though we don’t play them every year for some inexplicable reason. I consider them a peer and would love to have them as a rival (similar student body, size, and fan support). However, you’re cherry picking data here, you say we spend similar to our fcs peers but don’t list the expenditures of our “rivals” or conference mates like William and Mary, Elon, and Richmond. In fact, Delaware is the ONLY conference mate with a similar athletic budget. You’re again being intentionally dishonest...

He is not. Hart brought UD to the table and DD did a comparison. The numbers are not a available for Elon and UR because they are private schools. They might be good comparisons because they have both completed football stadium and basketball arena enhancements in the last 10 years too.

W&M is public and has renovated 1/2 of their stadium. Maybe DD can look at their numbers.

The reality is our administrations (Carrier through the present) have positioned us facility wise to compete at the highest division. FBS is the only sport in which we do not. Alger needs to be the one who pushes for this. Every move up starts with the President of the university not the AD or the Senior VP. Alger needs to use his political influence to move if he deems it worthy. The AD and his team simply provide the information needed to show its worthy but this happens at the request of the President. Hazed gets it the rest of you don’t.

Houston, we have a problem. see above.

Speaking of the Smelly Bison...

Quote:FARGO — North Dakota State lost one dual-threat quarterback to the NFL Draft but is expected to gain another one via the NCAA transfer portal. Virginia Tech quarterback Quincy Patterson II will transfer to NDSU but will not be eligible for the spring season.

The news was first reported by 247 Sports and confirmed by The Forum on Friday.

Patterson, 6-foot-4 and 245 pounds, was a four-star quarterback out of high school at Solorio Academy in Chicago and participated in the 2017 Elite 11 quarterback camp with former Bison quarterback Trey Lance, who declared early for the NFL Draft earlier this fall.

Patterson left the Hokies with two games remaining in the season, a move that was met with approval from the Virginia Tech coaching staff.

“Through thought, prayer and countless discussions with my parents and other important people in my life, I felt it was in my best interest to enter my name into the transfer portal,” Patterson wrote on his personal Twitter account. “Despite the weird timing, my decision wasn’t made hastily.”

Out of high school, Patterson had offers from Virginia, Penn State, Iowa State, Iowa, Northwestern and North Carolina, according to the Daily Press newspaper in Newport News, Va.

“I just want to publicly thank Quincy for his time here,” Virginia Tech head coach Justin Fuente told the Daily Press. “Just a fantastic young man. (Patterson) played a vital role in our football team. Quincy knows how I feel about him and his folks. We stand ready to help him in any way we can moving forward. I’m sure when the news hits, his phone will be blowing up with a lot of people trying to find out about him, and our phones will be blowing up, too. We’ll have nothing but great things to say about him moving forward. I look forward to watching him play and watching him get on the field on a more consistent basis.”

Patterson II, a redshirt sophomore, appeared in three games this fall, completing 7 of 10 passes for 93 yards and two touchdowns. As a redshirt freshman in 2019, he played in seven games, completing 14 of 37 passes for 257 yards and two touchdowns. He had 50 carries for 254 yards averaging 4.8 yards per attempt.

Patterson II started one game, against Notre Dame, completing nine passes for 139 yards and running eight yards for a touchdown.

He played sparingly as a true freshman in 2018 as part of the NCAA's four-game eligibility rule.

Patterson II is the second FBS quarterback to transfer to NDSU in three years. Zeb Noland, the apparent heir to Lance this spring, came from Iowa State after the 2018 season. Noland appeared in mop-up duty behind Lance last season completing 9 of 14 passes for 120 yards.

Included in Patterson II's Twitter followers is Noland and most members of the Bison coaching staff. With Patterson II, NDSU stands to have five quarterbacks competing for the starting job next fall with the senior Noland, junior Noah Sanders, redshirt freshman Logan Graetz and true freshman Cam Miller.

Moreover, looking to next fall in which Noland would also be eligible because the NCAA waived this year for all players, the QB position will include the prize of NDSU's signing day recruiting class this week in quarterback Cole Payton from Omaha Westside.

This thread is getting juicy and I like people digging. Check out this link for JMU’s athletic spending as officially reported to the state of Virginia.
You will notice the facilities are not a part of the $11.8 million football spending. Annual Debt service for facilities has its own line item of $5.7 million in non-program specific spending on top of the $11.8 million in football spending.

This Financial statement gives you all the info you need to make your own assessment.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2018.pdf


The equity in athletics reports are hilarious because they consider student fees to be “revenue.” JMU correctly accounts for student fees in the above report as a subsidy that helps cover the huge deficit from an athletics program with little revenue but huge expenses.

(12-18-2020 11:56 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is getting juicy and I like people digging. Check out this link for JMU’s athletic spending as officially reported to the state of Virginia.
You will notice the facilities are not a part of the $11.8 million football spending. Annual Debt service for facilities has its own line item of $5.7 million in non-program specific spending on top of the $11.8 million in football spending.

This Financial statement gives you all the info you need to make your own assessment.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2018.pdf


The equity in athletics reports are hilarious because they consider student fees to be “revenue.” JMU correctly accounts for student fees in the above report as a subsidy that helps cover the huge deficit from an athletics program with little revenue but huge expenses.

Wow...look at the deficiency in the "Other Sports" column. Boom.

Should we be sending a "thank you" card each March to the A10 Attn: GMU and VCU for the $279k from the NCAA in the MBB column? If yes, is that gift on a sliding scale?

Can JMU join the ODAC in all sports but football and men's and women's basketball? Problem solved

The financial statement shows that JMU was about a season away from ticket sales from wbb > ticket sales for mbb. This at a school that rocked 6K at the POS Convocation center 16 years ago.

Just wow.

(12-18-2020 11:56 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is getting juicy and I like people digging. Check out this link for JMU’s athletic spending as officially reported to the state of Virginia.
You will notice the facilities are not a part of the $11.8 million football spending. Annual Debt service for facilities has its own line item of $5.7 million in non-program specific spending on top of the $11.8 million in football spending.

This Financial statement gives you all the info you need to make your own assessment.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2018.pdf


The equity in athletics reports are hilarious because they consider student fees to be “revenue.” JMU correctly accounts for student fees in the above report as a subsidy that helps cover the huge deficit from an athletics program with little revenue but huge expenses.

Interesting note in that,

Of the $54m owed on facilities, only $30m of it is bridgeforth.

$16m is university park.
$6m is veterans park.

(12-19-2020 09:08 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:56 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is getting juicy and I like people digging. Check out this link for JMU’s athletic spending as officially reported to the state of Virginia.
You will notice the facilities are not a part of the $11.8 million football spending. Annual Debt service for facilities has its own line item of $5.7 million in non-program specific spending on top of the $11.8 million in football spending.

This Financial statement gives you all the info you need to make your own assessment.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2018.pdf


The equity in athletics reports are hilarious because they consider student fees to be “revenue.” JMU correctly accounts for student fees in the above report as a subsidy that helps cover the huge deficit from an athletics program with little revenue but huge expenses.

Interesting note in that,

Of the $54m owed on facilities, only $30m of it is bridgeforth.

$16m is university park.
$6m is veterans park.

More from that link.

What is this?

Quote: Indirect cost paid to the institution by athletics - The Commonwealth’s Appropriation Act requires that educational and general programs in institutions of higher education recover the full indirect cost of auxiliary enterprise programs. The University assesses each auxiliary unit an indirect charge to recover institutional educational and general administrative overhead costs. In fiscal year 2018, this charge to the athletics’ departments amounted to $3,352,357.

What is this $3.3m charge to athletics? An do other institutions have a similar charge?

We have a $1.3m charge to athletics for spirit groups, which includes the band.

We know that other schools in other states do not charge this to athletics. VA law requires it. And with such a large band, that no one is asking to cut back on, it’s a hefty add on.

Another interesting line:

Quote:Total athletics-related capital expenditures $13,176,027

So of our $50m budget, $13m...or 26% goes to capital expenditures.

what is that amount for other schools? Is it a quarter of their budget?

(12-19-2020 09:12 AM)Duke Dawg yo' Wrote:  

(12-19-2020 09:08 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:56 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is getting juicy and I like people digging. Check out this link for JMU’s athletic spending as officially reported to the state of Virginia.
You will notice the facilities are not a part of the $11.8 million football spending. Annual Debt service for facilities has its own line item of $5.7 million in non-program specific spending on top of the $11.8 million in football spending.

This Financial statement gives you all the info you need to make your own assessment.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2018.pdf


The equity in athletics reports are hilarious because they consider student fees to be “revenue.” JMU correctly accounts for student fees in the above report as a subsidy that helps cover the huge deficit from an athletics program with little revenue but huge expenses.

Interesting note in that,

Of the $54m owed on facilities, only $30m of it is bridgeforth.

$16m is university park.
$6m is veterans park.

More from that link.

What is this?

Quote: Indirect cost paid to the institution by athletics - The Commonwealth’s Appropriation Act requires that educational and general programs in institutions of higher education recover the full indirect cost of auxiliary enterprise programs. The University assesses each auxiliary unit an indirect charge to recover institutional educational and general administrative overhead costs. In fiscal year 2018, this charge to the athletics’ departments amounted to $3,352,357.

What is this $3.3m charge to athletics? An do other institutions have a similar charge?

We have a $1.3m charge to athletics for spirit groups, which includes the band.

We know that other schools in other states do not charge this to athletics. VA law requires it. And with such a large band, that no one is asking to cut back on, it’s a hefty add on.

The $3.3+’million are for indirect costs payable to the university for providing support for the varsity athletic programs. Such costs may involve the JMU administration of the Registrar’s Office, the Financial Office for Student Support, Transportation, and on and on. In essence it’s to compensate the general university budget in being a university that supplies support services within which the varsity athletics program exists. This cost “recovery” is (despite your comment) quite normal at all schools.

You’ll especially find indirect costs are a part of any external research grant awarded to the university via a professor’s effort to apply for funding. Indirect costs are “recovered” by a percentage set by the university, and individual universities may set different percentages, although some external funding sources may limit the percentage of indirect costs as part of the funding grant.

Collecting indirect costs is a big deal for research intensive institutions. It helps fund many aspects of a university’s operation. Schools like Cal Berkeley, Michigan, Texas, and UVA reward the faculty who are successful grant writers in helping “bring home the bacon” due to the indirect costs that accrue to the university.

(12-19-2020 10:58 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-19-2020 09:12 AM)Duke Dawg yo' Wrote:  

(12-19-2020 09:08 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:56 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is getting juicy and I like people digging. Check out this link for JMU’s athletic spending as officially reported to the state of Virginia.
You will notice the facilities are not a part of the $11.8 million football spending. Annual Debt service for facilities has its own line item of $5.7 million in non-program specific spending on top of the $11.8 million in football spending.

This Financial statement gives you all the info you need to make your own assessment.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2018.pdf


The equity in athletics reports are hilarious because they consider student fees to be “revenue.” JMU correctly accounts for student fees in the above report as a subsidy that helps cover the huge deficit from an athletics program with little revenue but huge expenses.

Interesting note in that,

Of the $54m owed on facilities, only $30m of it is bridgeforth.

$16m is university park.
$6m is veterans park.

More from that link.

What is this?

Quote: Indirect cost paid to the institution by athletics - The Commonwealth’s Appropriation Act requires that educational and general programs in institutions of higher education recover the full indirect cost of auxiliary enterprise programs. The University assesses each auxiliary unit an indirect charge to recover institutional educational and general administrative overhead costs. In fiscal year 2018, this charge to the athletics’ departments amounted to $3,352,357.

What is this $3.3m charge to athletics? An do other institutions have a similar charge?

We have a $1.3m charge to athletics for spirit groups, which includes the band.

We know that other schools in other states do not charge this to athletics. VA law requires it. And with such a large band, that no one is asking to cut back on, it’s a hefty add on.

The $3.3+’million are for indirect costs payable to the university for providing support for the varsity athletic programs. Such costs may involve the JMU administration of the Registrar’s Office, the Financial Office for Student Support, Transportation, and on and on. In essence it’s to compensate the general university budget in being a university that supplies support services within which the varsity athletics program exists. This cost “recovery” is (despite your comment) quite normal at all schools.

You’ll especially find indirect costs are a part of any external research grant awarded to the university via a professor’s effort to apply for funding. Indirect costs are “recovered” by a percentage set by the university, and individual universities may set different percentages, although some external funding sources may limit the percentage of indirect costs as part of the funding grant.

Collecting indirect costs is a big deal for research intensive institutions. It helps fund many aspects of a university’s operation. Schools like Cal Berkeley, Michigan, Texas, and UVA reward the faculty who are successful grant writers in helping “bring home the bacon” due to the indirect costs that accrue to the university.

It’s not a comment, it’s a question. Thank you for explaining, but would like to know what this charge is at other schools.

That’s what we are doing here. Comparing jmus allegedly bloated budget with others.

(12-19-2020 12:05 PM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(12-19-2020 10:58 AM)Longhorn Wrote:  

(12-19-2020 09:12 AM)Duke Dawg yo' Wrote:  

(12-19-2020 09:08 AM)Duke Dawg Wrote:  

(12-18-2020 11:56 PM)Hart Foundation Wrote:  This thread is getting juicy and I like people digging. Check out this link for JMU’s athletic spending as officially reported to the state of Virginia.
You will notice the facilities are not a part of the $11.8 million football spending. Annual Debt service for facilities has its own line item of $5.7 million in non-program specific spending on top of the $11.8 million in football spending.

This Financial statement gives you all the info you need to make your own assessment.

http://www.apa.virginia.gov/reports/Jame...AA2018.pdf


The equity in athletics reports are hilarious because they consider student fees to be “revenue.” JMU correctly accounts for student fees in the above report as a subsidy that helps cover the huge deficit from an athletics program with little revenue but huge expenses.

Interesting note in that,

Of the $54m owed on facilities, only $30m of it is bridgeforth.

$16m is university park.
$6m is veterans park.

More from that link.

What is this?

Quote: Indirect cost paid to the institution by athletics - The Commonwealth’s Appropriation Act requires that educational and general programs in institutions of higher education recover the full indirect cost of auxiliary enterprise programs. The University assesses each auxiliary unit an indirect charge to recover institutional educational and general administrative overhead costs. In fiscal year 2018, this charge to the athletics’ departments amounted to $3,352,357.

What is this $3.3m charge to athletics? An do other institutions have a similar charge?

We have a $1.3m charge to athletics for spirit groups, which includes the band.

We know that other schools in other states do not charge this to athletics. VA law requires it. And with such a large band, that no one is asking to cut back on, it’s a hefty add on.

The $3.3+’million are for indirect costs payable to the university for providing support for the varsity athletic programs. Such costs may involve the JMU administration of the Registrar’s Office, the Financial Office for Student Support, Transportation, and on and on. In essence it’s to compensate the general university budget in being a university that supplies support services within which the varsity athletics program exists. This cost “recovery” is (despite your comment) quite normal at all schools.

You’ll especially find indirect costs are a part of any external research grant awarded to the university via a professor’s effort to apply for funding. Indirect costs are “recovered” by a percentage set by the university, and individual universities may set different percentages, although some external funding sources may limit the percentage of indirect costs as part of the funding grant.

Collecting indirect costs is a big deal for research intensive institutions. It helps fund many aspects of a university’s operation. Schools like Cal Berkeley, Michigan, Texas, and UVA reward the faculty who are successful grant writers in helping “bring home the bacon” due to the indirect costs that accrue to the university.

It’s not a comment, it’s a question. Thank you for explaining, but would like to know what this charge is at other schools.

That’s what we are doing here. Comparing jmus allegedly bloated budget with others.

You’d have to do individual research going school by school to determine their percentage(s), and it won’t necessarily be an easy number to find as it doesn’t show up in easily accessible public documents. It’s a number that varies, but based on my 40 years in Higher Ed the number can typically run between 8-15%. The higher the number the better as far as people like Charlie King are concerned because those monies flow into the general budget and are fungible. Some granting agencies (particularly government sourcing) will set the number, and rarely will a university get away with collecting more than 20-25% of a grant.

I know all of this sounds a bit mysterious, but all auxiliary enterprises on a college campus (and athletics is an auxiliary) generate a good part of their budgets from outside sources. For JMU athletics their biggest source of money comes from student fees, and there’s a cost involved in collecting, tracking and transferring those funds. For other aspects of running the campus, take the cost of employing JMU staff electricians or plumbers for instance, their salaries come from fees charged to a user. For example, say I needed an office repainted for a newly hired professor. Technically I can’t paint it myself, or hire a student to do it for cheap. As a department head I have to call Facility Maintenance and schedule the university painters to do it, and my department will be charged for the job (materials and time).

Bottom line, you’ve got money being moved between various accounts across campus all year long. The $3.3 mil that athletics sends to JMU’s general account is based on a % that has some history to it (I don’t know what that history might be, but there is definitely a number based on past years and that’s subject to adjustment).