Some added thoughts

1. FCS results don't equal FBS results though the new "must have an invite" rule has DRAMATICALLY improved the outcomes for schools reclassifying FBS from FCS (not a point anyone wants raised if they challenge the rule). But there is the risk of a worse outcome that can hurt attendance and support though I think the rule change has reduced that probability (and that should be assessed as well).

2. The problem I see for JMU is the Carr report because the spreadsheet analysis deemed the three conference options are fungible (not stated but clearly you can determine from the details that the three were CUSA, MAC, and Sun Belt). JMU's reluctance to go Sun Belt isn't supported by the study unless there is identical reluctance to those other two options.

My theory, and that is all it is, is that:
JMU expected the Carr Report to show a distinct difference in outcome between the conference options and went into the process with two assumptions. The first being that the MAC would want a member to offset 13th and football only UMass and would want an eastern school so BGSU could shift to the west with their short drive away neighbor Toledo. The second assumption being that Bankowsky's push for 16 had legs and the ODU arguments for 16 only being done with another eastern school had JMU in play at a time when Bankowsky was by all accounts wanting 16 with two western schools to permit UAB to save money by shifting to the eastern division.

What ended up happening was the MAC fixed their problem by booting UMass, CUSA vapor-locked on 16 and now is locked up waiting to resolve the UAB issue and working on TV to determine what is next, while Sun Belt was ready to pull the trigger.

I suspect that interchangeability found by Carr was absolutely not expected and it was thought JMU could position to a conference that the leadership had made up its mind was the right fit and they had already concluded Sun Belt was unacceptable before the Carr report and the report did not change the key minds.

While I have heard some negative thoughts toward JMU from contacts in the league, these are all schools that are NMSU supporters who wanted NMSU to be the 12th full member and their willingness to support JMU was conditioned upon a recognition of the need for an additional eastern member and an expectation the east would support NMSU.

I do believe that there was a window where JMU could have said they would accept and would have received an invite and I'm not convinced that window is closed and further think if it is closed that is more because of internal league politics than whatever feelings of slight some schools may have toward JMU.