JMU (and others) say no to FCOA

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#492968

By R i - September 23rd, 2015, 4:15 pm

- September 23rd, 2015, 4:15 pm #492968

Track has high numbers, and they dont have a problem. I dont think its a numbers issue Old Flame.

Fan the Flames!

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#492995

By R i - September 24th, 2015, 8:19 am

- September 24th, 2015, 8:19 am #492995

Just saying that its not numbers that make it hard in football to get high character kids, that are on board with the mission of the school, because track gets the kids that want to be at LU for the most part. They have large numbers. But lets talk JMU before someone scolds us about the rabbit trail.

Fan the Flames!

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493176

By olldflame - September 26th, 2015, 7:37 am

- September 26th, 2015, 7:37 am #493176

They may have a lot of athletes on the roster, but men´s track and field and cross country combined have a total allottment of 12.6 full scholarship equivilant, which is divided into partial scholarships. They also have a lot of walkons. What that means is basically none of those kids are getting a full ride compared to 63 for football. As a result they have athletes who are making a significant personal/family investment in being at LU (or going into debt), which can tend to result in a less entitled attitude. I do agree that the football culture contributes to making it more difficult to get kids who fit in at Liberty, but it´s numbers too.

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493206

By thepostman - September 26th, 2015, 3:20 pm

- September 26th, 2015, 3:20 pm #493206

Race baiting huh? Just say what you're thinking BYD. Geez.

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493208

By Purple Haize - September 26th, 2015, 3:23 pm

- September 26th, 2015, 3:23 pm #493208

BuryYourDuke wrote:What's the "football culture"?

Violence

Potentate of The Dark Side
Aspiring Upward Basketball Coach
Suck on my Funk and Wagnalls! - Unknown

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493504

By R i - September 28th, 2015, 8:29 am

- September 28th, 2015, 8:29 am #493504

BuryYourDuke wrote:Got it.

Your opinionated, go ahead and enlighten us.

Fan the Flames!

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493599

By thepostman - September 28th, 2015, 5:28 pm

- September 28th, 2015, 5:28 pm #493599

Got it.

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493826

By jlread - October 1st, 2015, 2:51 pm

- October 1st, 2015, 2:51 pm #493826

Welp maybe FCOA won't create the large gap that the power 5 hopes for!!!! Yesterday Judges strike down $5k cap saying its to HIGH...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/sp ... oogle.com/

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493829

By olldflame - October 1st, 2015, 3:01 pm

- October 1st, 2015, 3:01 pm #493829

jlread wrote:Welp maybe FCOA won't create the large gap that the power 5 hopes for!!!! Yesterday Judges strike down $5k cap saying its to HIGH...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/sp ... oogle.com/

That $5k was to be over and above FCOA funds as compensation for use of each player´s name and image.

Re: JMU (and others) say no to FCOA#493831

By jlread - October 1st, 2015, 3:05 pm

- October 1st, 2015, 3:05 pm #493831

olldflame wrote:
jlread wrote:Welp maybe FCOA won't create the large gap that the power 5 hopes for!!!! Yesterday Judges strike down $5k cap saying its to HIGH...

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/sp ... oogle.com/
That $5k was to be over and above FCOA funds as compensation for use of each player´s name and image.

Awh I see. I thought it was part of it. Sounds like they're still fighting it out to find the magic #.