Stolen from the JMU board...looks like the CAA isnt entirely against it...

http://www.starnewsonline.com/article/20...09889/1155

While W&M may not pay stipends to the basketball teams this season, if they continue to follow that path, it will just be because of using narrow, short range thinking.
(I thought we might be getting past that...)

It's going to become the norm in that sport, so you have to decide if you want to go ahead and keep up now, or not pay and have to catch up later.


We don't need any more hindrances to recruiting.

(07-09-2015 01:45 PM)billymac Wrote:  While W&M may not pay stipends to the basketball teams this season, if they continue to follow that path, it will just be because of using narrow, short range thinking.
(I thought we might be getting past that...)

It's going to become the norm in that sport, so you have to decide if you want to go ahead and keep up now, or not pay and have to catch up later.


We don't need any more hindrances to recruiting.

And I was having such a good day...

As usual billymac is right. My sense is that

1. In terms of national exposure as a return on investment, no other sport compares with mens and womens basketball. (That's not to say that I'm not a fan of every sport.)
2. It is so tough win basketball games at W&M, that we need to provide more institutional support than our conference peers, yet we are consistently in the bottom half (and usually in the bottom third).
   

Overall, we have a pretty well-funded athletic program for a school our size. It's just spread very, very thin. There is money for stipends, just as there was money for summer school last year after much gnashing of teeth.

In the article TD argues that "the term slippery slope is out there a little bit" and, just as cogently, that "we can speculate or not speculate." Well, my speculation is that if we fall behind Towson, Charleston, UNCW and others who offer stipends, we'll find the slippery slope from the top to the bottom.

OK, serenity now.

Got Ribe!

I think this all depends on who we want our peers to be. I don't really want to be peers with schools like Towson. Who cares what they do?

(07-09-2015 04:00 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  I think this all depends on who we want our peers to be. I don't really want to be peers with schools like Towson. Who cares what they do?

Yes, but there are only a few schools at the other end...small with limited resources, academic requirements, etc.

Basically Patriot league.

This will shake out some people who dont like the $$$ required to maintain mediocrity. Eventually there will be a true split.

The non-football schools in the CAA will benefit from this. CoC and UNCW will continue to pump money into their basketball and baseball programs while we pump money (rightfully so) into our football program.

(07-09-2015 07:57 PM)Tribal Wrote:  The non-football schools in the CAA will benefit from this. CoC and UNCW will continue to pump money into their basketball and baseball programs while we pump money (rightfully so) into our football program.

Doesn't this assume that putting money into football is mutually exclusive with putting money into basketball? I was assuming all the money we get for this sort of thing would come from increased donations/fundraising.

Edit: Also, I know we tend to be football first on the board here, but isn't the ROI greater for basketball? Even assuming every dollar spent is doubled for the women's program, we have a better chance for national recognition with basketball, despite the lower number of top-level pros.

(07-11-2015 09:34 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 07:57 PM)Tribal Wrote:  The non-football schools in the CAA will benefit from this. CoC and UNCW will continue to pump money into their basketball and baseball programs while we pump money (rightfully so) into our football program.

Doesn't this assume that putting money into football is mutually exclusive with putting money into basketball? I was assuming all the money we get for this sort of thing would come from increased donations/fundraising.

Edit: Also, I know we tend to be football first on the board here, but isn't the ROI greater for basketball? Even assuming every dollar spent is doubled for the women's program, we have a better chance for national recognition with basketball, despite the lower number of top-level pros.

Sure, but I'm going off the premise that each school has an athletic budget and we have a very expensive sport that the two other schools don't.

There is no doubt that, at our level, the ROI is far greater for basketball than football. One Final Four appearance would do more for Tribe Athletics than winning three consecutive FCS titles.

(07-11-2015 07:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  There is no doubt that, at our level, the ROI is far greater for basketball than football. One Final Four appearance would do more for Tribe Athletics than winning three consecutive FCS titles.

Financially AND in Public Awareness. No question.

(07-11-2015 08:13 PM)billymac Wrote:  

(07-11-2015 07:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  There is no doubt that, at our level, the ROI is far greater for basketball than football. One Final Four appearance would do more for Tribe Athletics than winning three consecutive FCS titles.

Financially AND in Public Awareness. No question.

And also for the academic side of the College

(07-11-2015 07:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Sure, but I'm going off the premise that each school has an athletic budget and we have a very expensive sport that the two other schools don't.

Gotcha. You were talking about simply having to spend money on football, not necessarily prioritizing football.

http://www.dnronline.com/article/jmu_cost_of_attendance

JMU Still ‘Monitoring’ As Others Adopt Cost Of Attendance

JMU just doesn't have the money to risk. I don't think some of their fans get that.

They don't have a large, affluent alumni base. Until the late 70s, most of their alums were school teachers. They don't exist in a large urban market where you might get a few wealthy donors. On top of that, we haven't been living in a roaring economy.

Their admin in my view has been pretty responsible, not putting the school in a risky position.

(07-18-2015 07:03 AM)Sitting bull Wrote:  JMU just doesn't have the money to risk. I don't think some of their fans get that.

They don't have a large, affluent alumni base. Until the late 70s, most of their alums were school teachers. They don't exist in a large urban market where you might get a few wealthy donors. On top of that, we haven't been living in a roaring economy.

Their admin in my view has been pretty responsible, not putting the school in a risky position.

I agree with you. The current administration appears to be much more cautious and conservative, when it comes to finances, than the previous administration. Other than the basketball stadium, they have really pulled back on the accelerator since the completion of the FB stadium.

While there is a very vocal minority in favor of continued growth (like many of us on this board who would love to see a very competitive Tribe sports situation, across the board), most of their alums (and this current group of leaders) seem to understand the hill that would need to be climbed and the price to be paid.