Thought this was worthy of an off topic.
JMU at 8-0 and broke into Top 25 is not eligible for post season play because the NCAA has a rule that you are not eligible for post-season play in your first two years after transitioning up to D1.
The NCAA even denied a waiver JMU requested after going 8-3 in their first season.
Double slap in the face to the kids is that the Sun Belt does not allow a team ineligible for post season to play in their Conference Championship game.
So barring some injunction from lawmakers the Dukes may go undefeated and have nothing to show for it. There is the possibility for a secondary waiver if not enough teams finish with 6 wins to fill the 41 Bowl games.
The final twist of the knife is that their coach is now coming up on most short lists of P5 coaching changes.
Comments
I mean they knew this when they signed up...
None of their stats count either pretty sure they have a guy that is (was) the sack leader but it won't "count"
Wait, seriously? That's the first I've heard of this. Do the stats the other teams accumulate playing against them count?
I don't agree with it but I can sort of understand the reasoning behind not allowing them to go to a bowl. This literally makes zero sense and only hurts the players.
I don't. If they beat 6+ FBS teams, why can't they go to a bowl like everyone else?
its hard for me to find much (if any) sympathy for JMU football
And I realized
That's a dumb rule. Why would you have a rule like that?
Feinstein on the Junkies said it was to keep lots of schools from moving up to D1 for a quick money grab.
It's a money grab for a school to go up to D1 for a bowl game?
Pretty bad of the other teams if a new team to the league can immediately dominate the other teams enough to guarantee a bowl game.
I don't buy it but that's the only reason I've heard for the rule
It's so an FCS team doesn't wait to move up to FBS until they have an especially stacked roster to compete. It's a dumb rule.
Oh no.
Anyway...
This brings up a few questions.
They knew this when the signed up, right?
Have they played anybody?
Are they going to be insufferable, all the time?
And also...
RIP
This has gone from a Hatin on the NCAA (which rightfully deserves it) to Hatin on JMU, and I love it! JMU knew the rules and they won a few games now they think they are special, you get nothing free in life.
Exactly, every other team has had the same rules that made that jump ODU had to go through the same thing, sure they weren't immediately successful but JMU shouldn't get special treatment because they were the top of a bad league for a long time moved up and have beat an awful schedule.
JMU thinks they are god's gift to football. so I'm totally fine watching them get smacked down to this extent by the NCAA
This ain't FCS anymore, nobody gives a shit about those previous years, you're a nobody at this level and now you know it
I'm always here to hate on the NCAA but don't think that I care about JMU because I don't.
I mean, personally I think it's a stupid rule but just like several people have already said; they knew this going into the transition, every other team that's made the transition has had the same rule, so eff'em.
I say this lightly but sincerely as my wife went to JMU (hated every minute of it too btw) and my little girl is half a Dukes fan because her softball coach is Kate Gordon-Short. We do attend a good amount of JMU events but a lot of that is just because we're 20 minutes away. Point is, JMU tears are almost as good as loluva tears.
Side note, why did your wife hate going there? It seems like a nice campus and the area is nice. We go camping not too far away from there and so my daughter knows the area. I had actually thought it was a place she could consider in year or two when we start having her look at schools.
I think it was probably just too close to home and so she didn't really get the whole "college" experience
Okay, thank you. Just wanted to make sure there was not something really bad going on. Was a guy I used to play volleyball with and he did not like the area because it was too small and not much to do. But my daughter is not a 'big city' type. She is like me and places like Blacksburg, Harrisonburg, etc. is a positive and not a negative for us. And we are living up by Philadelphia anyway.
I might be a little biased, but the area is great. ShenValley is great. I was born and raised in Luray and now live in Shenandoah. It's the perfect mix of rural 'away from it all' but close enough to NOVA and RVA to not be much of a hassle. Harrisonburg has pretty much everything you need as well. JMU is very limited though as far as what degree/career options your daughter would want to pursue. Engineering anything is out. Business, political science, teaching, nursing etc. it's a good option.
She is in 9th grade, so we certainly are not looking at majors now. But she is interested in genetics or zoology as well as things like art. Not art as in painting (though she does like that/it's not a great career path) but more like computer art and graphic design. She is definitely not into math or engineering, so no worry there. And if she does go with genetics or zoology, I've let her know she would almost certainly do undergrad in biology or biochemistry (I was biochem) but she would likely want to do a masters in Genetics or Zoology.
We are asking her to just think in terms of do you want to be close to where we live now or not, urban/suburban/rural, a big/medium/small school, somewhere up north where it snows, somewhere down south where it is warm ... those sorts of things.
We're in the same boat. My oldest is in 9th grade, and we're looking at interest, trying to narrow down majors. She's definitely into genetics as well, but has more interest on the engineering/math side. But she is falling in love with Virginia Tech, and I have zero problems with that!
Tech's College of Sciences has some summer camps that are designed to highlight what you could do in sciences, and we're hoping to get her in one of those this summer.
Tell her she can major in biochemistry, do well and end up with a full scholarship to Yale for grad school. But I'd try and talk her out of getting a Ph.D. unless you are independently wealthy and can afford to earn less than you would working at Burger King until you are in your 30s :-).
What I've told mine is that it really does not matter that much where you do undergrad in a field like Genetics. You don't want to go somewhere lousy, but go somewhere you like the place and area. If you dislike it, you won't do as well. Better off to go to the 8th ranked place if you really don't like it than the 1st ranked place if the 1st is in a spot you don't want to be. Just don't go to the 41st ranked place. If you do well undergrad, then grad is where you want to make sure you are in a good spot.
Edit: nothing wrong with stopping at an undergrad degree in biochemistry or biology. But if you do, you are probably not going to ever be more than a lab tech. Which is fine. But if she does not want to be a life-long lab tech, probably wants a masters or doctorate. I'd suggest NOT the doctorate. It makes your life miserable and your career prospects are actually worse than a straight undergrad degree. It closes far more doors than it opens. Granted, the doors it opens lead into nicer rooms. So it is a real risk. If it works out, great. If not ...
This is oddly specific. ;^)
Some good advice here, though. I'll pass that along.
It is very specific. When I was considering leaving academia and getting into business consulting, one of the things that pushed me over the edge was doing a little back-of-the-envelope calculation. At the time:
(1) The minimum wage was $5:15 an hour
(2) I estimated that I was getting paid $5.30 an hour
(3) The local Burger King in New Haven, CT was paying $8.03 an hour
Was also at a conference on graduate education and 2 guys from the National Science Foundation told me that their estimate was that only 50% of science Ph.Ds. (can't remember if it was just the life sciences or if it was all the natural sciences) would have an actual job in science 5-8 years after graduating.
I was too stubborn and/or stupid to quit, so I did finish. But I knew that a long-term academic postdoc was not an option for me. If worse came to worse and enough time went by, I had mentally accepted that I would move back to someplace like Blacksburg with a low cost of living, lie on my resume and say I had just been a lab tech all those years, get a job someplace like Food Lion, Kroger, Burger King, Wal-Mart ... and start from the ground floor. Thankfully, a good option came along, but it took me ~18 months to find it. ~12 before my thesis defense and ~6 after.
Yeah, I don't think there's too many of us on TKP but we're here none the less. I know as a youngster (high schooler) we couldn't wait to get out of the area; but as an adult, there's no better place to be.
I love Blacksburg and that area but the ShenValley will always be home. I did drop out of VT but eventually got my BS from ODU (I do not root for them in anything) but I do own a hat, lol. Virginia Tech is my love and was my college of choice out of high school ( between UCLA, Ithaca and USF).
Oh I am not from ShenValley (I'm from the Lynchburg area). I was just making a joke due to John Denver's country roads really being about Western Virginia, and not West Virginia.
Well, John Denver was higher than a kite when he wrote that song too. But technically it is correct as the Shenandoah river does actually flow about 2 miles into West Virginia and the actual Blue Ridge Mountain range went all the way into Harpers Ferry, WV (ironically the same place that the Shenandoah river meets the potamac). So basically the song is about Harpers Ferry WV, lol
I fucking hate west virginia as much as I hate UVa. I do. Fuck west virginia. Having said that this gotcha needs to fucking die. Seriously. Why is it constantly brought up? Nobosy was with Denver when he wrote it, nobody can read his mind, etc. The song says "West Virginia" bold and clear- of course they are going to rally around that. This one is stupid, IMO. Let them have their fucking song. It doesn't hurt anyone and its not the gotcha people think it is.
Sorry man, I don't make the rules but "telling everyone around you that Country Roads isn't about West Virginia at all" has unlimited eligibility because of the covid year so it's here to stay
A couple of things. If the posted speed limit is on a clear sign that states 55mph, and you go 80 and get a ticket- you get a ticket. Don't bitch about it. It's a posted sign, and you sped. Period. JMU knew the rules. It's a crystal clear rule- whether people like it or not- it's as clear as a speed limit sign. You must wait 3 years to be bowl eligible. Plain english, clear rule. To argue it is nonsense, IMO. It's like the old NFL OT rules. If it was jaguars titans and the game ended witha short FG to win, nobody on earth cared or called talk shows for a week demanding a rule change. If it was Brady "not getting the ball in his hands" it was world news and the rule sucked and needs to be changed immediately. If JMU was 3-4, nobody on earth would give a shit that this is a clear rule. People are bitching because JMU is good. Who fucking cares. The rule is clear.
Well, this is how you get stupid rules changed. Point out they are stupid and give examples.
Many people don't care because it currently impacts JMU, which many people here do not like.
This is exactly when the rule should be fairly considered, when it impacts people, institutions to benefit them when we don't like them.
Understand that in the future, it will impact institutions we DO like, in which case the response should be NO, in order to avoid the implicit bias in wanting to help someone/place we DO like.
I think it's time to examine the true reasons for this rule to discover it's pros and cons.
The rule makes perfect sense and is not stupid. It's a transition period from a lower division and competition to a higher one. As I said, the only people that are complaining are ones that feel emotionally sorry for a JMU team that can't go to the R and L carriers New Orleans Bowl on December 19th. The tragedy. So let's change the rule- which benefits all teams not named JMU in terms of time to move to 85 scholarships, become competitive in a higher class, get coaches heads of skewers for not making bowls, etc. Just because one year JMU beat Marshall and UVA. The rule was not made on emotion. It should not be changed based on emotion. The NFL over time rule WAS changed and people still went ape shit because Josh Allen and Mahomes ONLY got the ball twice each and not 3 times. FFS. Don't change rules based on emotions.
Logic would suggest that when this happens the "New Guy" would have a tougher time of it in the increased difficulty and logistical difficulty of moving from the lower division to the higher.
Note that the FBS ratings people currently find JMU #25 in CFB. This puts things into perspective as far I see. I don't think anyone in this crew has any positive influence over the ratings people.
That's a logical argument, not an emotional one.
It appears as if the #25 team in CFB is going to be held from a bowl game because of a rule that currently, I think is flawed. Just give me a logical argument as to why the rules exists.
Also, I have absolutely no ties to JMU and have no particularly positive feelings about them, which is implicitly why I find it a good time to question the rule.
I gave you several logical arguments why the rule exists. And I have said on here- for whatever reason JMU has siezed a vacuum the last several years. They are Boise under Peterson. They are very very good- they win literally all close games too. They win 90% of their games. Why? who knows?- great complimentary roster? winning culture from FCS? who knows. They are in fact ranked #25 right now. Their best wins are Marshall and UVA as well. Is it a travesty if they aren't in the Independence bowl with that resume? no. Are there 6-6 teams in the transition period deserving of post season play because the rule is "stupid" ? Or should a 6-6 VT that played 2 top 15 teams this season be considered over them? The rule is there for a reason. A logical one. The only reason people 1. Even know the rule is there and 2. are clamoring for it to be changed is because THIS year JMU is good. its sports talk fodder not a logical argument for change. If JMU was this pissed and cared that their kids get a shot at the post season, they should have stayed in the lower division. Problem solved.
it's like buying a gas-guzzling H1 Hummer and then complaining about gas prices. They knew they were going to have to wait a couple years when they moved up. Nobody is going to listen to you complain about gas prices, or care, if you go out and buy a gas-guzzler
To be fair to JMU Cignetti and their AD have been pretty much on the side of "we knew this was a thing" and "we knew our waiver probably wouldn't get accepted". Most of the noise is from fans and now the VA government which is even more laughable.
JMU was far more prepared than most teams that make this jump but they're not the only teams that found them self with more than 6 wins in the first two years, hell two other teams in their conference did that.
Correct, and you will 100% hear some SMU fans whining endlessly about the ACC revenue sharing plan that they clearly signed up for. Is it stupid? No, you signed the terms. As did JMU when they jumped divisions. Clear, simple. in NCAA hoops, your entire LEAGUE has to sit out the big dance for 2 years IIRC correctly when you move up. This is not some made up conspiracy against JMU.
They also knew they could have opted out of the playoff the year before the transition and that would have counted as a year without post season play. I'm pretty sure that is what App State did when they transitioned.
It would not have - the transition began after that season.
Ok, I missed the logical reason the rule exists.
Can you enumerate them for me as my comprehension must be lacking today. TIA.
Would it help if I stated perhaps the rule can be examined for a future case not to be implemented this year?
Also, I would suspect that most people did not know this rule exists, the current situation simply brought it to light. That is the case for me anyway. Which is why I brought it up.
Please see my above post, but I will repeat myself. 1. Time to adjust to 85 scholarships- to level the playing field for said lower division schools moving up. 2. OOC scheduling takes time to balance as many schools can't get FBS games initially- thus don't typically have a comparable post season resume. 3. It actually helps the coaches- their head is not on a stick for missing a bowl during the transition years.
Thank you for your repetition, I'm not trolling the continuous paragraph style must have me slightly lost.
Something I'm not understanding.
Do teams in the lower division have more than 85 scholarships? If so, the case might be able to be made that they can somehow get better recruits but, pretty low probability.
The others seem more like "Trust us, it's for your own good." type reasons which I find weak.
Especially weak for me is the scheduling piece as we can always inject into the rule a proviso that they be ranked by one or many methods in the top #1-25 of FBS. That ranking would remove the 'Weak schedule" argument.
The adjustment could be set in any new rule that conference champions would be eligible as that would mean the weak schedule argument should be moot.
No, teams in the lower division do not have 85 scholarships.. its 60 IIRC.
This point seems to me to indicate that the new FBS team would have a more difficult time in achieving sufficient wins in the higher division.
This is exactly what it is the NCAA uses these as a guide for stability when teams make the jump. If there are changes to this rule it should be infrastructure, income, and program success are consistent for X number of years at X value + an actual schedule. Of all the teams that have made the jump JMU might be the only one that could check all of these boxes. They did it on their on volition not because they want to change the rules but because they want to be competitive in BCS football and that's good for them but I don't really know that we need a rule change just because they had money to be more prepared than other schools - and I certainly don't want the NCAA having any ability to throw waivers at certain schools. Keep it black and white its the cost of business and move on.
The last thing the NCAA wants is a team benefitting for 2-3 years as a flash in the pan program just to relegate to the dumpster fire of the league or back to the FCS.
They should just cheat, right? What's the NCAA going to do to them? Openly cheating for championships is the best strategy, right? The NCAA doesn't assign bowl spots. Fuck 'em, go to a bowl anyway.
Unlike the SEC or B1G, other teams can get sanctioned by the NCAA.
So far JMU is 8-0 including in conference 5-0 Currently ranked #25.
2023 Schedule
Regular Season
vsBucknell
W38-3
@Virginia
W36-35
@Troy
W16-14
@Utah State
W45-38
vsSouth Alabama
W31-23
vsGA Southern
W41-13
@Marshall
W20-9
vsOld Dominion
W30-27
@Georgia St
11/43:30 pmESPN2
vsUConn
11/11TBD
vsAppalachian St
11/18TBD
@Coastal Car
11/25TBD
Absent the outsider rule of "The New Guy", This more than satisfies the criteria and if it were any other team there would be no question.
It very well may be that there is a good reason for the rule but it hasn't been articulated anywhere that I can see. I'm open to have it pointed out but right now, it seems other teams should just play better.
It seems like a dumb rule to me. But it's a clear rule and they knew what they were signing up for. They had to make a sacrifice to move up a level and this is it. I have no sympathy for them. I'm not defending the rule. I'm not advocating for JMU either. I think DC's allusion to speeding is apt here. They knew what they were signing up for and they shouldn't be surprised. Quietly take it on the chin and move TF on.
I can understand their emotionality (yup, new word) on it and don't blame them.
How about a rule change to apply to future teams?
I can also understand the emotionality (your word, not mine ;P) but I just don't care. It's one thing if you're trying to get a transfer player to start and the NCAA doesn't allow it but then another program in another state has almost an identical case and the NCAA permits them to start that transfer player. Decisions from the NCAA being meted out on case-by-case bases in an uneven manner is infuriating. But this isn't that. There aren't other teams who moved up who are being allowed to play in the post season in the first two years. The price to play with the big dogs is to sit out for a couple years. That's been pretty clear from the start and other teams have dealt with it. JMU (or, perhaps more accurately, their fans) should just shut TF up about it and move on.
Let's say they change the rule this off-season. If you move up to FBS, you can immediately play in a bowl. Awesome. Since 99.9999% of programs aren't JMU and NDSU, most won't even have 6 wins and the ones that do will be fighting off the 9th place team in the Big 12 for the weed eater bowl. Who- fucking - cares.
Well, somebody must care as there's many arguing against it.
I care because it seems arbitrarily to hold down the little guy making great improvements simply because he's the "New Guy" outsider.
VT Fans, as much as any fans, should be able to understand how fleeting that lightning in a bottle may be.
Only people emotionally attached to JMU care. Nobody else does. Nobody. And as stated many times, this is not a conspiracy. It's not "hold the little guy down". It applied to Liberty and App State just the same when they did it. JMU is having a great season. That doesn't piss off the NCAA to the point where they are vindictive. It doesn't. Also if JMU goes undefeated, with it's best win being against UVA or Marshall, is it a national crisis that they don't go to a low tier bowl? Is it?
I have no attachment to JMU or any other school in VA. This rule make zero sense, if the school can compete in a FBS schedule then they shouldn't be punished.
Now JMU knew the rule, i am not upset they applied for a wavier because well the NCAA is the model of inconsistent application of rules. But it failed so they should move on (which sounds like it happened).
The next step should be this offseason to change the rule because it's dumb and serves no purpose other than to distract fans from real NCAA issues when miraculously a team actually competes immediately coming from FCS, which has happened how many times before?
So take JMU having a magical season out of it. That is an exception, not the rule. You don't think a transition period from FCS to FBS is a logical idea/rule?
Not really. Do I think there should be stipulations that require a long term commitment vice short term money grab, sure but that should be part of the application process to move up is that you demonstrate the ability to do so prior to it being approved. Once you are there you either sink or swim in terms of record. JMU swam in this case. Put a stipulation in that once you move up you are required to remain at D1 for X number of years. Any school committing to that then has to commit to the resources for that duration which prevents the short term money grab from being a benefit over long term investment.
I also dont think the Sun Belt rule should remain as is. The Sun Belt felt that JMU was worthy of a spot in their Conference so why shouldn't they be able to immediately compete for a Sun Belt title? I understand the Sun Belt rule but think it was put in place to prevent a school that is being punished for rules violations from benefitting not to prevent a new school from competing.
This is exactly what the NCAA should have done from the beginning and is a much better approach than a postseason ban. Make the team commit for a minimum of five years so that in the rare instances that a team that just moved up gets to six wins, the players get to go enjoy a bowl game.
This right here.
If the concern is that they'll rise up a division, grab a bowl game for the cash, then go back down a division, then just make it so if you come up to D1, you must stay for a minimum amount of time.
Don't penalize a team for actually having their crap together enough to rise to D1 and immediately be successful.
That points more to the governing body doing things so poorly they hamstring their own teams.
Also, who cares if a team want to move up a division, go to a bowl, and then move back down? Why is that a problem the NCAA needs rules to prevent? Has this been a huge problem at any point in the past? Who gives a shit?
This would be murder on marketing, signage, TV contracts, team merchandise, etc. What about team schedules for conferences?
Perhaps a rule of something like "If you flip-flop within X years, you must repay any post-season earnings AND pay the conference you are exiting from costs associated with realignment and rebranding?
I don't quite understand. Just to move to FBS many schools need to up grade facilities and spend lots of money just to be eligible.
JMU has moved up amd been accepted by the sun belt. The sun belt can have exit fees if they want, otherwise JMU would be independent. I am not sure what rebranding JMU wouldn't have to pay that wouldn't be covered by the conference exit fee. The NCAA doesn't really release a ton of stuff with all the schools on it. Jerseys and such are covered in the schools contract, if they go back then they probably out spend their contract value and have to pay for the uniform updates. In addition just to move up you have 22 scholarships to pay for, increased coaching staff salaries, you have to cover ticket sales for any games with less than 15,000 spectators in attendance.
Around 10 years ago, non-P5 FBS teams loses about $20 mil on football each year, which is around $8 mil more than the average FCS team. I don't have numbers today, but I doubt they are much better with attendance dropping since 2020. JMU playing in two bowl games doesn't get them the ~16 mil they are losing over these two years. Or covering the NCAA entrance fee (now $5 mil, JMU only paid $5000). Or facilities up grades, travel cost to further opponents or anything else they have had to do.
With the bowl they would be going to it might actually cost them more to go to a bowl game than it would be to not go to one.
Exactly, they struggle to get fans to home games so they would absolutely lose money on unsold bowl game tickets.
And that why I don't care about what's happening to them...thems the rules and it actually is saving them money. Worrying about VT football is enough. I don't need to worry about some other Sun Belt school and their potential impacts.
I don't give a crap about JMU, I just think it's a stupid rule that solves a problem that doesn't really exist. No one is spending all of that money to move up to FBS just for that sweet Poulan Weedeater Bowl payout and then scampering back to FCS with a "so long, suckers!"
Meanwhile, the actual problems that the NCAA is actually responsible for fixing get ignored or ineffectually enforced.
There are NCAA rules I actually care about.
This isn't one of them.
Right here. This is what I'm saying.
It isn't about JMU, it's about a stupid rule.
Should we go back to the 70s rules where freshman couldn't play football at the collegiate level so that they have a transition period? It's a big jump in competition. A waiver ended that for 1 team and then the next year the rule was changed for all.
Like I said, they can change the rule next year. I don't care. I also don't think its national news that JMU is not in a low level bowl game that nobody watches or goes to- outside of hard corps alumni. I don't think that is some national conspiracy or travesty. JMU knew the plainly stated rule. If they change it this offseason- fine, don't care. Next year some 6-6 transitioning team can fight it out with Syracuse for the Birmingham Bowl. Nobody will go or watch except players families.
So you're saying no one really knows about our drubbing by UMD in the Pinstripe Bowl? Thank goodness
Unfortunately, WE know about it.
We play them several times in the next few years, so Pry will get an opportunity to correct that.
I have absolutely no attachment to JMU.
I've driven past the school a couple times on the highway, that's as close as I have been. I did not attend school there.
Therefore your repeated assertion that only people with emotional attachments to the school care.
I will however reject the criteria that things must rise to the level of national crisis before a rule change occur.
Rather I'd like to see teams rewarded when they do things right.
Again, this doesn't have to be a waiver, that claim is bordering on strawman since I've stated repeatedly that it can be a rule change that only applies going forward.
Understood. Keep an eye on the ratings for the bowl game that the Sunbelt champ plays in. That will give you an idea about how many people really care about JMU football or any Sunbelt team beyond their alumni.
That's the point.
It's the players and the alumni of both teams, the bowl game is for the people putting on the bowl, the advertisers and the schools.
It's not for us to care, it's for them.
Let them play.
This is low on my list for hating the ncaa... perpetuating the myth of amateurism is far and away #1.
I agree with you 100%, but I thought you were a big pay the players millions guy? those 2 don't jive.
Sure they do. The NCAA is preventing schools from paying the players millions...............directly.
nah dude. They go together perfectly. The NCAA won't allow paying the players in any fashion despite the fact that without them there wouldn't be this massive money machine that is CFB. Bar has been pretty clear that he thinks players should be allowed to get paid anyway they can. The NCAA's myth on amateurism prevents them from getting paid in many ways so it's led to lots of under-the-table stuff and, now NIL
OK yes, that makes sense. thank you
My stance is two fold:
"I don't think it's fair to artificially cap someone's earning power." - I certainly respect this take as a die hard capitalist myself. I get that. However in terms of college sports, this is not sustainable for any semblance of competitive balance. Even professional sports leagues have limits on salaries, number of coaches, number of practice hours, etc. The most popular sports league in America has the hardest salary cap of the 4 major sports. If you went to a "go get your money" model in college football and basketball, you simply would not have a competitive sport any longer. If you are cool with that- fine- I respect that too. I donate and root for VT- not because I love the NCAA, but because it is amateur sports ( sort of). These are student/athletes and they have the same rules as louisville has for the game this weekend. There is a different feel to that than Ravens/Cardinals- multi billion dollar business where OBJ can throw his helmet at his QB like a bitch, and start next week etc. Its just a different feel for me. And if there are no rules in place, the ACC FB program that pays its players the most money will win the league every season until there are caps put in place. The sport would die.
We don't have a competitive sport right now.
TCU played in the national title game last year. FAU played in the final four last year.
I don't think the additional revenue and prestige gained from playing in a bowl game is in any way outsized compensation especially given the significant costs incurred to make the change to D1 football.
I appreciate the detailed thoughtful response. Obviously, there is much uncertainty in the future of college sports, and watching the sport we love change so drastically in such a short period of time is somewhere between really weird and a little heart breaking
Major league American sports all have collective bargaining - if the NCAA wants to engage in collective bargaining, and the Athletes agree to a deal where NIL is not allowed, then I'm okay with it.
Honestly, I think it's already this way. If you go by the blue chip ratio, there's 12-16 teams in any given year that have a roster good enough to win a national title. If college football were to go any more laissez faire (with respect to player compensation) than it is now, do you really think the competitive balance would change? I don't.
Secondly, I'm not sure competitive balance is/should be the goal. The NFL - which is rife with parity - has had just 27 games so far this season where the spread was greater than or equal to a TD. Is that really what we want? IMO CFB needs to be a league where there are weekly games with 10, 15, 20, 30 etc point underdogs. That's what makes it so interesting.
Now, I do think conference realignment poses a significantly greater threat to parity. Right now, while at most 16 teams could actually win a title, there might be 100ish that could potentially have an 'interesting' season. I think both of those numbers could change as conferences consolidate. But that is another can of worms...
As someone who doesn't watch the NFL (not because I'm opposed to it; I just don't have a rooting interest in it), I don't think it's players getting paid that make it uninteresting; I think it's the franchising aspect. Teams all have the same money, so no one really needs to be original. There's nothing (to me) that feels unique about any team. No team is incentivized to take big risks - if you flop, you just get a great draft pick, try again soon, and keep prinking money in the process. College football is the opposite - when teams are mismatched, undersized, slower teams have to get creative. This is how/why the read option, the air raid, the HUNH, the spread, etc were all created.
So, ironically, I believe that lack of parity is critical to the intrigue of CFB.
I think having the best players is a huge piece of it, but I think organizational competency is an even bigger piece of it. I think equally as important as having the best players is having the best coaching staff - the programs that have money to hire analyst to scout, recruit, etc will all have a major advantage over the programs that don't. An anecdote about this - in the CFP semi-final, Kirby called a last minute timeout because one of his miscellaneous staffers saw something unique about OSU's formation, and knew that OSU was about to run a fake punt. When you can afford to have an army of polos, each of whom can dedicate their week to watching every OSU punt that has happened over the last 5 years - that's what kills the 'level playing field'
If we want more chaos and more upsets, I think a salary cap on coaches and staffs would be more effective than any limits to player compensation (although, we'll never be able to prove this hypothesis due to antitrust law).
FTFY
Seems like a dumb rule - you're either ready for a bowl or not when you make the jump. If you are great - if you aren't, well you're not going to make a bowl anyhow. But as most pointed out, it's a moot point since JMU knew what they were signing up for in the beginning.
To clarify, I have zero give a F about JMU and their administration has made it abundantly clear they understand the rule, requested a waiver and acknowledged that they didn't expect the waiver to be approved so this is not JMU whining about the situation. The administration has continued that vein of their position and only because it's become news worthy and they are being approached by the press for statements.
If I have any emotional feel on this it's for the players not the school. The seniors that might go undefeated and 20-3 at the D1 level but are barred from their conference championship as a result of this archaic rule and no chance at the experience of a bowl game due to the NCAA again being the NCAA. If they had remained at D2 they are probably dominating and in discussion for that levels National Title. Would I much rather watch a 12-0 JMU team in a bowl than an 8-4 Troy team? Absolutely. Do I think JMU deserves the top Sun Belt bowl game if they were to win the conference? Sure do. Not trying to say JMU deserves a spot over any other conferences unless overall their SOS dictates it.
Quite frankly I am ready for the implosion of the NCAA in its entirety due to its interference in minor issues but inability to address anything of substance. This rule should have evaluative criteria that allows for clear cut waivers to be granted. As we have seen though repetitively from the NCAA is that no decision has clear guidelines as Hokies have gotten to see first hand on multiple occassions with transfer portal decisions. Really just hoping for the day that the schools band together to show the NCAA the door.
At the same time, the players all knew about this when they got into it, and they all had their chance to transfer out if they truly cared about getting to a bowl. Its like asking me to feel bad for an amateur golfer who is on the run of a lifetime and has a chance to win The Masters. Oh, sure there's a lot of money they could be making, but they also had the chance to position themselves in order to get what they wanted and chose not to. It is what it is.
Would the NCAA grant waivers for immediate play if the reason why a student transferred is because they want to play in a bowl game?
I think your remedy here is not a reasonable one.
I doubt it especially if they were second school transfers because they shone at a little school and bumped up to JMU while D2 and now are forced to decide between a second transfer to even be allowed to have a chance at post season vice remaining at JMU. Also is forcing students to choose football over education/personal relationships because of an archaic NCAA rule if championships are important. Thought we played the game to wn....
I agree and that was my point. DC held the view that the players screwed themselves if a bowl game was so important and therefore we should not care.
My stance is that the players didn't really have a choice.
Not really. My view is simply its a clear rule. JMU knew it, their players knew it
They probably wouldn't have the opportunity to transfer out and retain scholarships or maybe eligibility to play, especially if they were at the school because they liked the school or were there for other reasons.
What would happen if an amateur is at the top of the leaderboard after four rounds of the Masters? Would they get the green jacket?
Of course they would. Especially there. The founder is the best amateur to ever play golf- Bobby Jones. Who never turned pro. That tournament is the most amateur friendly major in golf. It would be celebrated like no other masters if an amateur won. They would get the jacket, the crystal trophy, and the lifetime exemption. They just wouldn't get the 4.2 million dollar winners check.
I believe they get all the other exemptions with the exception of the PGA. So next like 5 years and US and British Open too.
Yes, they get everything - including Ryder Cups points- except the check/money.
Aren't the bowls technically separate entities from the NCAA? What's to stop a bowl game from inviting JMU anyway?
Bowls are separate and probably the biggest fallacy of the NCAA. The payouts schools could receive would go up exponentially if the post season were controlled as an entity rather than letting the "non-profit" bowls enjoy the majority of the revenue stream.
That said, almost every bowl is aligned by contract with the Conferences and placement is determined by the schools standing in their respective conference. Only way JMU might get a spot is if there are not enough bowl eligible teams to fill 82 spots.
There are currently 42 teams not counting JMU with 6 wins. There are 19 more with 5 wins. There are 25 other teams with at least 4 wins. Not delving into FBS vs FCS games that's 86 teams that only need to win half of their remaining games to be eligible.
What i'd like to know about the rule is...if it's the prevent a "quick money grab"...what exactly is wrong with that? There already is a rule in place preventing you from being bowl eligible if too many of your wins are from FCS schools (only 1 FCS win can count toward bowl eligibility). So to me this is just a redundant rule that has no real purpose...in the worst case scenario, what would be wrong with a school doing a quick cash grab IF in theory they are good enough to win at least 5 FBS level games.
AND THEN on top of that you'd have to actually be selected by a bowl committee, which while likely isnt a 100% gaurantee
The guys at Barstool are going to invite JMU to their bowl game if they go undefeated regardless of the rules in place.
I don't like JMU and I'm not overly fond of Barstool, but this is the kind of trolling the NCAA that I can get behind.
Edit: It'll be my luck that the JMU spot in the Barstool bowl would come at the expense of a bowl spot for Tech. Because reasons
A fine example of willful disregard of the rules as they exist in their day, in order to stand behind a principle they believe in.
Absolutely, unequivocally, fuck JMU.
I mean, sure, it's arguably the best high school in Harrisonburg, but why should anyone on a Hokie fan site give one flying fuck if they don't like rules they agreed to? Personally, I hope that this is the only season they ever have enough wins to go to a bowl, but are stuck watching from home.
I'm sorry that I only have one upvote to give for this comment.
I was a freshman cadet in 2010. I have a lot of uninternalized hatred for JMU.
Honestly curious as to which word was intended here? "Internalized'? or something else? (Sometimes I learn new words that I didn't realize had become words. TKP...it's educational!)
Uninternalized. Paraphrasing Malcolm Tucker.
I'm against this, if for no reason other than some Virginia politicians are wasting their time on it instead of doing actual work.
But also because they knew the rules, and they're just whining because whining often gets rewarded these days.
We should reward whining less, not more.
But I would be willing to make an exception if the NCAA wants to trade them Michigan's bowl spot.
There's a reason why I never stopped rooting for the Hokies throughout my time at JMU.
Even with our downturn coinciding with their upturn, their football program just...comes across as more unserious.
I can't put my finger on how or why. It just does. This has done nothing to change that perception.
With you on this. I can't put my finger on it either. Perhaps the biggest "issue" with it for me is their home atmosphere.
Flash back to 2019, they were ranked top 3 in the FCS poll (likely #1, too lazy to look), and were playing their "arch nemesis" Richmond, who was ranked somewhere between 10-15 at the time. This game has huge implications for the CAA championship and thus seeding for the playoffs.
I have never seen a more docile crowd in my life. It was plenty packed, not a sellout but durn close. But WOW was it quiet. I've legitimately seen HS games with more intense crowds. The only other game I'd seen at Bridgeforth was against W&M early '18, and they thrashed them. That game was much louder.
For a fan base who claims they have the best program in the state (arguably they do now, but not when they started clamoring about it after beating us a decade ago), honestly it's a bit sad. The little brother complex with them is real. It gives me a chuckle from time to time, I didn't realize how bad it was until I met my wife (JMU alum).
Their stadium seats 28K... they aren't the best of anything in Virginia. They have found their vacuum. They are boise with peterson right now- but playing weaker competition. They will be humbled soon enough
I've been to mens/women's soccer games at Thompson Field which I would guess is about 4k capacity waaaaay louder than Bridgewater. Men's and women's soccer.
Bridgeforth bridgewater is a beautiful little town and university about 7 miles south of JMU filled with the absolutely nicest people you'll ever meet. Honestly bridgewater Dayton area is filled the nicest people you'll ever meet, they are almost creepily nice.
It's also a shopping center/marina about 5 minutes from where I live...autocorrect will get after ya.
When I was in High School JMU was known more for their band than anything else. Well, at least that was the case for me who was in band and that was the biggest competition of the year. (I also went to band camp at JMU lol)
Their band is so much better than the MVs it's not funny
Yeah the band is still very, very highly regarded. 10x better than MVs like DC said above.
That's where them being better at anything starts and ends though.
Dems the rules. I can say it sucks for their program and fans, but this isn't any kind of new revelation. They knew what the progression was to make the move to FBS, and it just happens to coincide with them fielding a really decent football team. No sympathy here.
But, to the point of looking at potential changes to rules. Instead of deny accessing to championships / post-season for x years, lets deny the school's ability to go back down to a lower-tier for even more years. If the current waiting period is 3 years, then make the new one 5+.
Is the main concern that a school like JMU will jump up in class for shits and gigs to make a few bucks from a bowl and then go back down? I don't think that's why the rule is in place. I think the main concern is to protect competitive balance and reward the schools that have been competing at that level for some time with a fixed amount of bowl spots. I could be wrong. But I don't think moving up just to move down again makes sense on any level.
Who cares? It's the rules, and nobody made them move.
I see a lot of all-or-nothing scenarios in this discussion, so I'm going to propose a compromise:
What if the NCAA allowed FBS teams to go to a bowl during their transition period, but upped the minimum number of wins required for them to be bowl eligible to 8 or 9 wins as opposed to 6? That would allow a team that goes over and above to still be rewarded while keeping those doing the bare minimum from coming up for a cash grab.
Not bad but lets also add that they can bowl if they win their conference championship.
Agreed.
When did the transition ban on post season go into effect?
Was curious about past examples, and seems there have been some success stories for coming up and making a bowl game within the first 2 seasons up...
https://herosports.com/fcs-football-to-fbs-transitions-bzbz/
They can go to a bowl in year 2 if there are not enough 6-6 teams to fill out the bowl slate, bowls can then select from new members and teams with 5 wins. There's also waivers to become a full member early which JMU was denied (because the NCAA is trying to cut back on waivers) but I'm unsure which of those programs were granted waivers - I know Liberty was a weird special case they had to get a waiver to join as an independent
This wouldn't be a problem if it were 1983 when there were only 16 bowl games and a 9-2 VT team fresh off a 48-0 spanking of lolUva was snubbed by the Peach Bowl for a UNCheat team that lost to that same lolUva team the prior week. UNCheat was then stomped 28-3 by FSU in the Peach Bowl
(Why yes- I AM still a little bitter!)
Wasn't one of the original reasons for this rule is that transfers from FBS to FCS did not have to sit out of year? So they didn't want a school to try to capitalize on this by recruiting transfers in this fashion and then to be a flash in the pan since they can't recruit this way anymore and then be forever awful in the FBS.
I still think JMU should stop crying about it, which I think the admins all knew and haven't really said anything. They could have skipped their final FCS playoff appearance and counted that as a year without post season. But they decided to play it assuming they would walk through everyone and then lost in the semi finals.
The JMU admins have been clear that everything that has happened is what they expected to happen. JMU are not the ones making this a story other than the performance of the team on the field. Their athletic director has spoken multiple times the last two weeks and has been pretty clear they knew this was what they signed up for. The press and now politicians are the ones driving the conversation on the situation. The press I think were really hoping for more outrage from the JMU staff but haven't gotten it. It's still going to stay a story as long as they remain undefeated.
I was coming in to make this very point.
It seems to be contrived controversy created by news people looks for advertizing clicks and politicians looking to get free publicity and wanting to like the politicians in "Brother Where art Thou".
Still it brought to light what I still think is a stupid rule and would like to see altered to actually do what it proports to do.
I'll preface this with the fact I seem more heartless on most topics than most of my close friends:
I'm on the "you signed the contract, I'm sorry" side.
There are lots of rules in the world that make no sense, but if you're aware of them and sign a contract acknowledging them, you then don't get to complain about them.
It reminds me of a debate I had with some friends about credit card companies taking advantage of people with interest rates. They had all this sympathy for people who had to pay over-inflated interest rates while I simply blamed said people for being bad at managing money and for "knowing the rules and signing the contract". The debate then turned towards, why can't everyone own and afford the same luxuries (in this case JMU going to a bowl game = luxuries), and I simply argued the world is not fair. If one person can afford to put a Lamborghini on their credit card and pay it off interest free, good for them. If you can't afford a Lamborghini, but want one because your neighbor/friend got one, and then get hammered with interest when you can't afford it, that's on you.
This also seems similar to the whole "x actress got paid this much less money vs someone else". Well....get a better agent and don't sign if you're unhappy with it.
I don't care about JMU this year, how about going forward?
Who cares?
This happens so infrequently that it's a waste of anyone's time, and far from being one of the biggest issues that the NCAA is facing.
Because this situation will eventually arise again and I think it's fundamentally a disincentive for teams to go through the massive effort and cost to have their shit together completely before rising to D1.
And still, I submit once more...
Well, judging by the # of posts against, I think you betray your argument that you don't care by the case that you don't care.
It takes much less energy to truly not care.
Let's just say I started out not caring, but you're making me think it's might be worth my effort to actively oppose it.
Nah, on second thought, I was right in not caring. Good luck with it.
LOL, nice.
Funny part is, I'm here as the contrarian.
You appear to be contrarian ^2.
Again- this is the star player NFL overtime scenario and nothing more. If JMU was 4-4 nobody is talking about this, they aren't lobbying etc. It's NOT the rule, it's because they are good this year. When the chargers and texas play overtime and Davis Webb doesn't "GET A CHANCE TO TOUCH THE BALL OMFG TRAVESTY" - nobody on earth brings it up on sports talk, espn doesn't cover it, nothing. Now if Brady plays in over time and doesn't get a chance to touch the ball- well fuck.. we need an emergency meeting of owners to change the rules NOW! This is no different.
There are many many stupid rules that we do not know about because the situation has not arisen that brings awareness to them. It doesn't rise the point of emergency, here comes the strawman again. This is for future consideration, not impacting any current situation.
Who is David Webb and why do you car about his ball touching so much?
This is Year 2 of 2 right? Going forward I don't see why there would be any problems.
I'm talking about the next team that falls into this situation.
I guess the biggest concern is can this next team read?
If so, they have the option of not signing the contract. Therefore, if they do, I don't care about their whining.
I don't care about the current whining but, it is a disincentive to rise to D1. JMU isn't whining either, they agree with both of us that they signed the rule as read.
Let's change the rule so that next team can read that improved rule instead.
For decades its been a non-factor. Just because it happened to the self proclaimed chosen ones of football does not mean its a 'thing'
Get away from JMU.
I'm not even advocating for this to be alleviated for this team.
I'm advocating for the future.
I mostly agree with you.
However, there's nuances here - educated folks, like most of us here on TKP, can read the fine print. We have access to resources that we probably take for granted (advice from parents and friends who have done their due diligence, etc). I imagine, though, that there are lots of people who sign up for credit cards without fully understanding everything about them. People who don't have parents, relatives and friends to support them and advise them. People who are desperate for some form of payment to cover their rents and they end up signing up for things they can't afford without really knowing that they can't afford it. Are those people foolish and getting what they deserve? Perhaps. But I think a bigger problem is that there's just a general lack of education around financial well being in our education system.
There are absolutely people who should know better (perhaps do know better) and just can't help themselves. They sign up for a CC that has 0% interest for 12 months and get conditioned to letting their balance ride for a year and then get hammered with a 6% interest rate in year two and wind up in debt. Then there are folks who are only able to get really high interest, "predatory" loans and credit cards because their credit sucks but they're working 3 jobs to support 2 kids as a single parent and they need some form of money RIGHT NOW because they don't have health care coverage through any of their three jobs and they have a sick kid who is costing them thousands in medical bills each month. Do I have any sympathy for the idiot who makes 40K per year and buys a 100K car that he can't afford? No, not really. But for every one of those, I'd bet there are at least a dozen other folks who turn to those cards they can't afford because they have no other option.
A lot of people are financially illiterate, and we should do a better job in high schools. Most of the debt people are carrying on their credit cards is discretionary spending, and should absolutely be avoided. Credit cards are never an appropriate way to finance expensive things that someone can't afford.
All of this is a completely different topic than a university who has lawyers and knew what they were signing up for.
yeah, totally agree. I was just responding to Souphokie in a vacuum
We likely agree on this, for the most part.
I've been pushing for a Credit Card/Finance/Mortgage type class in high school for a while. Would serve most people far better than say an Algebra 2 class or something.
Amen. That basic concept is lost on most.
I have had to teach so many friends basic financial stuff that it's insane. I am very lucky that my grandfather liked to invest (he was a chemical engineer in Pearisburg). He made sure my father knew and my parents made sure my sister and I knew.
I am talking people and their spouse both making 6 figures not knowing basic finance or taxes. Masters degrees, and directors at companies.
But teaching finance in high school won't help because most people can't answer basic questions of things they leaded in high school.
Like with most things, high school students don't absorb much.
But in terms of the top things to teach them, I'd put finance near the top, and they should have at least heard some things a few times.
Parents can't teach it because, like you said, many of them don't understand it themselves.
There are a handful of rules that would save people a lot of money.
Can you send me the name of the bank issuing credit cards with
'non-introductory rates" at 6%? I'd KILL for those- average rates on CC now are 18-21% with EXCELLENT credit!(As prime is now at 8.5% after 18 months of Fed rate hikes. I used to pay off all my balances in full every month ; but with the help I've been giving family and friends in need the last few years, my balances have grown.
Doesn't change your main point which is "caveat emptor" and "know and understand what you are signing up for'.
I've worked in the mortgage industry for 30 years in both the origination and servicing sides; the ignorance of folks who have signed disclosures on (for instance ARMs) that give concrete examples on what the payments ill adjust to in the future is astounding. The so called "payment option ARMs" were particularly predatory- interest rates started absurdly low at 1.25% and began adjusting after just three months, but the payment change could be capped at 7.5% of the P&I payment year over year(HOWEVER the interest still accrued and was capitalized
(added to the outstanding balance until the sooner of 5 years or til the outstanding balance grew to 110% of the original balance..at which time the loan re-amortized to the fully amortizing rate and payment). As a diligent loan officer at the time, I did the math and explained to people who had asked me about the program that on average that re-amortization happened after about 20 months at which time the payment rose by about 70%!!! Hence i always advised heavily NOT to use that program but many loan officers are not looking out for their client's best interest but their own profitable compensation. Similarly- the BNPL (Buy Now Pay Later) offers (buy now no interest if paid off within 12 or 24 months) often don't highlight the fact that if you DON'T pay off within that time, all the "unpaid interest' is retroactively applied.
As others noted below a financial education class should be mandatory; a basic one beginning in middle school; a more advanced one in high school ; and even more advanced one in college.
good catch on the interest rates. I haven't applied for a CC in a looong time and I haven't paid the interest on my credit cards because I pay off the balance every month so, admittedly, I was pretty out of touch with what interest rates might be. I looked at one of my cards and it's 21%!!! Fortunately, I don't ever have to pay that but goddamn that is high!
"why can't everyone own and afford the same luxuries" Because we live this myth that people are equally intelligent, hard working, and entrepreneurial. The biggest myth in the world. The only people that deny it are living in denial themselves. I will use myself as an example. I very likely could have made a lot more money flipping houses when I seriously considered doing so. I make a very good, relatively stable salary in my job, but I could have made an unlimited amount potentially. So what is the difference between me and Mina Starsiak or me and Scott Yancy? They are more entrepreneurial than I am- they have that talent, they have that risk taking gene that I don't have- so I played it safe- and they are wealthier than I am. Good on them. We are not created equal - that is a myth. You are born equal as humans of course, but it ends shortly after. None of us are equally athletically gifted as Lebron James or Tiger Woods. It's a myth.
I'd make the argument that I'm as good as Lebron and Tiger....
I'm as good as Lebron playing golf, and I'm as good as Tiger playing basketball.
lol. that is true. I love golf. A lot. I play as often as I can. I was self taught for 20 years, and got my index down to about a 12. I am not shooting high 90's or 100 unless I am drunk or something else now. I went to an instructor a couple years ago- a serious one- to try to get better of course, more consistent. We did everything- filmed every swing, looked at the numbers, changed my swing pretty drastically etc. One day- he tells me- welp, you've got the path down to where you can shoot in the 70's low 80's...OK... then he says, you simply need to be more athletic - and I'm not sure you can be! lol- he was dead on. Some people are naturals at golf because they can turn athletically through the ball- like Tiger can do on one leg still- better than 90% of the people in the world. It's true. athleticism is a thing and it aint equal. Side note: Never played with him, but Michael Jordan is a borderline hack who is not nearly as good as he says at golf. Not close. He plays 36 a day and is probably a 16 HCP at best.
You missed a decimal in Jordan's handicap
https://www.essentiallysports.com/golf-news-what-is-nba-legend-michael-jordans-golf-handicap/
Well sure. There is that article, and there is a caddy I know personally that looped for him. lol. Maybe he has REALLY worked on his game.
You can go out and play him straight up if you want, but I'm taking my 5 strokes from him at a minimum.
i appreciate the gif. but this is not that scenario. This is first hand with zero parties having an axe to grind. I'm sure jordan could beat me in stroke play if he is on his game and not playing by his bullshit rules that he plays by. But he's not a 2 index. More than one thing can be true.
I'm a big golfer as well, and I'm fortunate to have some sort of natural ability where I can play exceptionally well despite a lack of practice and long layoffs. I am leaning towards having my right ankle surgically repaired which being left handed (is my front foot) I hope wont effect my ability to put my weight fully on it.
I have a golf trip in early March, so I likely won't do surgery til next Fall/Winter so I don't get to miss any time.
Great on you man, I am jealous. I played with a guy back in maryland that never praticed, and just simply had great timing with his hands. He broke most of the golf rules- very little shoulder turn, very handsy, but timing was impeccable and natural. He was a scratch or better. every shot is online and consistent. Not the longest hitter, but not short either. An instructor would want him to totally change. I keep joking with him that he is fucked when his timing gets off.
I have friends trying to learn and I am suggesting lessons before they develop their own habits. Once they start to hit balls and develop their own swing, then I am telling them they need to work on what works within their own swing.
In my years though, I've started really playing well when I sacrifice a club length's of distance. I have the option to hit my PW 140-145, but that option brings a 10% chance of hitting my target. Or I can swallow my pride and hit a controlled 9i 140 yards and likely find the middle of the green 50% of the time.
I should just go ahead with the surgery since I would like to do things like jog/run, squat, etc. (things I do everyday) which I can do but avoid mostly due to pain. But wanting to golf in March is really tempting and having 3 days away from the kids is always a nice vacation.
Consistency is key. How many guys have you played with bomb a drive 300 and then top a 7 iron? a bunch. How many dudes bomb and drive and slice the next one right of right? a bunch. A qualified instructor can get you much more consistent - and that is the key to better golf. That and playing often enough to hone a good short game. If you are a shitty putter, you won't ever score well.
I signed up for a golfing class with an instructor. He gave me my money back at the end and said find another sport.
ouch
Nice days for golfing are usually excellent days for fishing. I've learned to do what makes me happy, and golf ain't it. Furio in the Sopranos put it nicely as he backed the fellow up into the pond on the golf course, and my memory could be a bit off, but I believe it went something like "Is a stupid-a fuckin'-a game-a" in a menacingly heavy Italian accent.
THIS is so true!! I wrote an article (for an online community I'm a member of) that addressed this myth.
A few excerpts from that article titled "We are who we strive to be":
Also saw recent article about a GEN Z girl who said in a tik-tok video-
"One young American TikTok user recently took to the social site to showcase her stress and despair over not having time "to do anything" after working her 9-to-5 job.
"I want to shower, eat my dinner and go to sleep. I don't have time or energy to cook my dinner either. Like, I don't have energy to work out, like that's out the window. Like, I'm so upset," the young woman says in the now-viral TikTok. "Nothing to do with my job at all, but just like the 9-to-5 schedule in general is crazy."
Welcome to the REAL world!(I.E the ADULT world )
Attitude and effort CAN make a difference..in BOTH positive and negative directions.
The young Tik-Tok'r....
Time is what you make of it.... if her only responsibility is the 9-5 job, she's lucky and should have plenty of time for whatever else she wants to do. I have no sympathy for people like this either. If I can raise a 2 year old while having a 9-5 job, while also having to juggle a newborn in the NICU for 3 months; she should be able to cook herself a meal after work.
For real. I was recently deployed to a customer site and they were doing forced 8 hour days (ie, absolutely no overtime allowed). I found myself trying to figure out what to do with all my free time. No kids, no wife, in a strange town. I didn't want to spend a ton of money so I just bulk cooked and prepared for the rush later (6 weeks of 13 hour night shifts, 7 days/week).
I actually saw that video. Amusing.
Real life got her right between the eyes.
There is a logic floating around now among young people to "work less". OK, just understand that thall shalt have less money, and you'll quickly wake up.
With the younger generation that I've worked with, I find there is a bit of a double edged sword here. On one hand, they want to work fewer hours being actively online. On the other, they're also the ones that I've routinely seen unable to shut it off at the end of the day, and will be responding to messages and emails at all hours of the day. And this isn't any fault of their own, they've been trained to not be able to shut it off since they were in elementary school being required to do hours of homework every night just to cover the subjects and content that teachers were unable to cover during school hours. This generation has been trained to be working 24/7 and the burnout is very real.
For me, if its not between 9 ad 5 (more like 8 and 4 when I'm at home), I don't respond. Those are my hours and the company can fuck right off if they expect me to be available for hours they're not paying for. But so many of my co-workers are mentally unable to do that, and they're all miserable because of it.
Yeah- if its after my (NOW great ) 9-5 work schedule working remote from home, or on weekends or
I'm on vacation, there is NOTHING work related that will get my attention. Work-life balance is all 9important. When I as a loan officer during several of the late 90s/early 00s refi booms, I made a good bit of money; I COULD have worked 16 hours a day and likely DOUBLED my income BUT only at the expense of spending ANY time with family. And no amount of money can buy back missed time with the ones we love.
There's a reason for the saying "
What I have seen from the younger people I work with is really three mentalities:
I've seen the 3rd group force companies to think differently which is good because there are lots if archaic practices that really good employees are challenging and starting to enact change. I have yet to met any one in my field that is young and says they want to work less. I know a guy that works at a golf course in the summer and ski resort in the winter so he gets free skiing and golfing and he works as few hours as he can afford, but he's not young and while intelligent, never had the personality to work a 9-5 so he found a different way to afford expensive sports he loves.
I'd love to work less.
But at the moment, "less" would be 40 hours.
Get ready for more of the JMU stroke fest, GameDay is headed to Harrisonburg this week
Sure would be nice if they played anyone worth a shit
You mean like Marshal... ODU...
Lol and? That's the peak of their schedule, for us they were the warmups
Well then they'll just have to go undefeated and print up some National Championship banners then, won't they?
No surprise...ESPN needs something to talk about this weekend.
I'm sure Feinbaum will go ranting on something SEC related soon... Maybe TA&M and their buyout, or how its a travesty 'bama is ranked so low, or why Michigan should be banned from the post-season because there are clearly better SEC teams that should be ranked ahead of them.
As someone married to a JMU alum I will celebrate when this thread dies out and I'm envious if you haven't had a JMU football "fan" talk mad shit to you. Hope we put 70+ on them in 2026
2026?
Oh, you mean the year our offense will have
QB r-Sr Drones, Jr Watson
RB r-Sr Thomas/Black, Sr Duke, Fr Hiter
WR Sr Holloway, r-Jr Turner-Bradshaw, Jr Greene, r-So Adams, Wiggins, r-Fr Matthews, Fr Brown, Carter
TE Sr Wright, r-Jr Gosnell, r-Jr Saint Germain
And our defense will have
DL: Sr Burgos, r-Sr McDonald, r-Jr Givens, r-So Johnson, r-Fr Watford, Harris
LB: r-Sr McDonald, Lawson, Keller, r-So Williams, r-Fr Clatterbaugh
DB: Sr Delane, Johnson, r-So Barnes, So Delane, r-Fr Edwards, Fr Barney, Clarke, Walls
And our ST will have
K r-Jr Love
Plus God knows who we get from the portal, praise be unto it.
Drones is done after 2025 season unfortunately
Good. Now we can talk about something more interesting.
It shouldn't be hard.
Unfortunately, being so close to Hburg and all the JMU misfits; this subject isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Just this morning I had one of them mouthing off at how the NCAA has it out for them because they just made the jump to FBS and are already the best team in all of college football. 🤢🤮
It'll just take them a bit longer to figure out that's not the case.
That's the kind of delusional think I love to see crushed by the hokies when we play them.
Yes, quite a murderers row of programs they've played this year *checks notes* 2-8 LOLuva, 5-5 Utah State, and 1-9 UConn. Oh and 3-8 overall, 1-5 in the Patriot League Bucknell.
Totally wouldn't be woodshedded by any of the other Top 20 teams.
And no, this is not me advocating for them to go to a bowl. More pointing out that this idea of theirs is like LOLuva claiming to be an Ivy League school. No, you're not, and it's not even close to ever being true.
When Daniel Jones and Desmond Ritter square off in OT and one of them doesn't "get to touch the ball"- nobody on earth- even their moms give a flying shit. Nobody cares. Nobody. That's the rule in OT. Oh well. When its Brady/Mahomes- its the end of the fucking world if they dont trade touchdowns for the next 3 hours. OMG end of the world. That is what this is. JMU is undefeated. Had they lost 1-2 games, nobody on earth would fucking care. The rule is the rule.
Let them be mad. They're a nobody at this level, and reality is slapping them hard in the face. I'm enjoying it
I'm in the minority on this. The NCAA isn't some outside organization it's literally made up of member institutions. Its boards are staffed by university presidents, AD'S, CHANCELLORS, conference commissioners etc. The rules are set by and voted on by those same people, the appeals considered by them.
Good, now we can stop pretending this is about JMU and focus on getting this dumb rule changed for the future.
We want to incentivize schools and teams that are ready to take on the added burden of D1 play and support those that rise ready to play.
At least change rules so that teams that win their conference and win at least 6 conference games to be eligible for post season play.
And the conferences need to allow those teams to play in their championship game, too.
Why is this even a lobbying point on VT message board (still)? I get the conversation aspect but there is no way this directly applies to this institution except for maybe having to play one of these types of teams in a bowl, in which case whatever.
Moreover, STOP (please) saying D-1. FCS is D-1. You are talking about the transition between championship to bowl divisions.
Listening to the constant bitching and moaning from the fans and administration with a ridiculously inflated sense of self importance and self worth in the big picture, it has become glaringly obvious that JMU has firmly established themselves as the East Carolina of Virginia
Yep- it's a national crisis that JMU is not in the fucking R and L carriers bowl. OMFG. What a joke
Just the sheer number of "sue the NCAA" comments I've seen is absurd. Put me on the defense team for the NCAA.
As you can see here you agreed to these contractual terms. I rest my case.
Yep, they knew what they were getting into. Amazing the people with buyer's remorse when they were fully aware of what they were agreeing to. No sympathy for JMU whatsoever.
If you remember this, you know.
The entitlement here is off the fucking charts, and now they're going to waste taxpayer money over this crap
Would be awesome if the judge gets pissed that VA wasted tax payer money and time on this after signing the contract and tacks on an additional season of no post-season play. Won't happen, but that would be fitting for frivolous BS like this.
IANAL but I'm pretty sure they'd have to prove that the NCAA is colluding to restrain income from specifically JMU to win this....
I hope all this shit draws so much attention to JMU and they come out in 2024 and get smoked by Charlotte and Gardner Webb in back to back weeks before UNC beats them by 100
I am here for all of the Schadenfreude. Pass the popcorn, this gonna be good.
Give me a fucking break. There will be 6 win teams that are eligible this year that won't get invited to a bowl. What then??? should they sue also? a bowl game is not a fucking god given right. FFS.
There won't be and JMU will make a bowl because there won't be enough 6 win teams to fill slots. The issue at hand is the ban preventing them from playing in the conference championship game and potentially making a NY6 bowl, and the payout and exposure that comes with. The conference championship is big since it's played at campus sites and they would host.
"not sure why they want to make a NY6 bowl only to get beat by 70 by a real team" cool, then let them
What? They agreed to all of this. It isn't a "ban". It is the established rule for transitioning teams.
Okay?
Right. It might be kind of a dumb rule, but it's an established rule that everyone agreed to.
The fact that fumbling a ball forward through the endzone results in a touchback for the other team is kind of a lame rule, but you don't see Grant Wells suing someone about it.
C'mon Grant, Get ole Jimmy Turk on the line! Gotta get those turnover stats fixed.
Also the fact that your body (Ed Reed) can be 5 yards out of bounds, but if you are airborne and reach for the pylon, its a touchdown. The stupidest rule in sports.
60 teams already at 6 wins and 22 more at 5 so with two games left those 22 only need to win 1 of 2 remaining games each to eliminate JMU from a chance at a bowl.
The major outlet projections have been projecting three open slots for weeks now, and I think you counted JMU and JSU as part of that 60.
Well thank god that Appalachian State killed any chance at JMU getting an NY 6 bowl and the endless bitching that would have gone on for decades about it. A 1-loss JMU is not getting that bid, regardless.
Guy looking to boost his name recognition after all the asshole things he has done last 2 years.
An Attorney General is a politician, and unfortunately this one doesn't seem to have anything useful to do.
oh man this is embarrassing
Final thought on this:
jmu can choke on a chode
That is all
Let's just play out the scenario where they do get approved for the waiver. A lot of things have to fall into place to make this all worth it...
* Win the next 2 games
* Have the Sun Belt agree to let JMU play in the Sun Belt Championship
* Win the Sun Belt Championship
* Have Tulane lose a game
All of this happens and they go to Atlanta to play someone like Alabama or Penn State. LOL
I get wanting the money but that type of matchup could get UGLY. Id be interested to compare previous G5 resumes to JMU. I feel like this is a weak year for G5.
Edit: Added championship game approval to the list.
I don't know if the waiver would grant them access to the sun belt championship game or if they would need that from the conference.
I want to see this so bad.
I'd love to see them go to a NY6 game and play Alabama. The number of delusional Dukes fans who would swagger around like they were playing for a championship to get crushed by Saban and Co. 66-7 would be very, very cathartic.
I'll settle for watching them whine and moan about how unfair it all is and the NCAA is out to get them. No one cares about JMU.
I would love to see a shellacking by Alabama, but I think it would be even better for it to come from Kansas State or someone so they can't hide behind a Saban/SEC loss and still grandstand.
Like some 6-6 team...Cuse, Duke, Texas Tech, Butgers...
Im not sure that Cuse or TT can shellack anyone, but Duke v Dukes would be interesting and I think Rutgers would run through JMU.
In the duke's mayo bowl, certainly
Hahahaha. Mountaineers!
The marauders from Boone do it yet again!!!
That Lee Corso curse will get after ya....
That poor dog.
Know what's truly ironic??
Not a fucking word from any jmu'er since Saturday's game. I swear it's almost like nothing ever happened. Not a single peep about football or the rule or the appeal or a bowl or conference championship appearance. NOTHING!!!
Prior to Saturday's game that's the ONLY thing that was talked about amongst the "locals" and dukes. Hopefully it'll stay that way.
Looks like JMU is going bowling anyway.
Link
The Washington Post also stated
Am I reading it right that their petition of the NCAA cost them their spot in the conference championship game? I just thought they weren't eligible yet, but if so, that's absolutely hilarious.
I saw that.
After all that whining, they'll still go bowling.
And who cares?
All that whining all that politicking, they still end up in a who gives a shit bowl that someone whose highest profile win was a squeaker against UVa should deserve.
yep- America can take a fucking collective breath now that JMU is in the RL carriers bowl December 13th. Whew. What an injustice that would have been. Glad america may recover now.
No, the NCAA denying the waiver kept them out of the conference championship game.
Outstanding.
I'll allow it.
The Sunbelt rule states no team is eligible for the Championship if they are not eligible for postseason. I am curious if by now receiving a bowl bid, meaning technically eligible, doesn't that void the Sunbelt rule?
It won't happen at this point but you know they will still gripe about it rather than petition for a rule change.
It's come up before and all parties agreed this caveat wouldn't affect the championship eligibility, largely due to the need to actually be able to plan since it's an on campus game.
Im just glad JMU is in a very minor bowl now...whew...
I think some of their fans thought they deserved a spot in a top tier bowl, at least before they lost to App State, and they thought that was what was on the line. Now that they lost they don't give two shits for three shits about a bowl game.
While it would have been epic for ND to have to play JMU in the Fiesta Bowl, I still don't think they would have been selected over Tulane, etc. The SBC is very weak by comparison.