I’ll respond.

First, the ESPN list is deceptive. It’s not a rating of all grad players or all freshmen players ... it’s a rating of the universe of players that are transferring.

Second, the team had PG issues.

Third, the team had injury issues.

Fourth, the team had an ambitious OOC schedule while trying to work in six new players, and working through injuries to Pierce (on the ESPN list), Milon (on the ESPN list), and Rowley.

Fifth, when everything settled down, the team had a winning conference record.

Sixth, the team had leadership issues.

Seventh, it took a while to move on from the graduation losses of the previous year. Only falling to fourth in the conference after the graduation hit is not bad. We’re likely to fall further next year after this coaching hit unless something changes between now and the start of next year.

Eighth, was Tony the perfect coach? No. Was he the perfect coach for William and Mary? Yes.

Maybe, since she's done so well here, she will fill the Texas A&M vacancy.

LSU did this weird thing, whereby they dumped their AD because he didn't communicate with and thank donors, mishandled popular coaches, and wasn't a [LSU] person...he was just passing through. He'll be retain as a fundraiser. Seems he was booed throughout a football and basketball game...that sent a clear message.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

That RTD story feels like it's half written. Doesn't actually get into why raising the bar is important and Huge's vision for how that can hopefully be accomplished.

LSU has a very different set of challenges than W&M. They're in the SEC. "Don't piss everyone off" is probably #1 on the AD's to do list. That's not a luxury W&M currently has, unfortunately.

(04-18-2019 04:19 AM)nj alum Wrote:  I’ll respond.

First, the ESPN list is deceptive. It’s not a rating of all grad players or all freshmen players ... it’s a rating of the universe of players that are transferring.

Second, the team had PG issues.

Third, the team had injury issues.

Fourth, the team had an ambitious OOC schedule while trying to work in six new players, and working through injuries to Pierce (on the ESPN list), Milon (on the ESPN list), and Rowley.

Fifth, when everything settled down, the team had a winning conference record.

Sixth, the team had leadership issues.

Seventh, it took a while to move on from the graduation losses of the previous year. Only falling to fourth in the conference after the graduation hit is not bad. We’re likely to fall further next year after this coaching hit unless something changes between now and the start of next year.

Eighth, was Tony the perfect coach? No. Was he the perfect coach for William and Mary? Yes.

Tribeheart forgot that most of Shaver's losses are supposed to be thrown out in any "fair" accounting of his record.

(04-18-2019 09:53 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 04:19 AM)nj alum Wrote:  I’ll respond.

First, the ESPN list is deceptive. It’s not a rating of all grad players or all freshmen players ... it’s a rating of the universe of players that are transferring.

Second, the team had PG issues.

Third, the team had injury issues.

Fourth, the team had an ambitious OOC schedule while trying to work in six new players, and working through injuries to Pierce (on the ESPN list), Milon (on the ESPN list), and Rowley.

Fifth, when everything settled down, the team had a winning conference record.

Sixth, the team had leadership issues.

Seventh, it took a while to move on from the graduation losses of the previous year. Only falling to fourth in the conference after the graduation hit is not bad. We’re likely to fall further next year after this coaching hit unless something changes between now and the start of next year.

Eighth, was Tony the perfect coach? No. Was he the perfect coach for William and Mary? Yes.

Tribeheart forgot that most of Shaver's losses are supposed to be thrown out in any "fair" accounting of his record.

Yep. A whole lot of excuses.

Again, a reference to the "William and Mary Way"...and being perfect for it. That, I believe, is the essence of why Huge was ready to move on. She refuses to have a lackadaisical mentality of career middle management, toiling and coming close, but never getting the promotion. She is asking, is this the best that we can do?...then decided to roll the dice (surely knowing that is a gamble). There are many Fisch in the sea....

I swear, you'd think Sam Huge just broke up the '27 Yankees.

We won 13 games last year.

I'm not thrilled with how it all went down, but I'm ready to give Huge and Fischer a fair shot.

Sam Huge just broke up a successful program, not the ‘27 Yankees. There’s a difference.

Back to Texas A&M's AD taking the LSU job yesterday. No current female AD's in the good ole boy SEC. Major coaching hires already completed at A&M, so, no pending big tasks on their agenda. A million to one odds, but still worth watching.

If the Yankees fired Miller Huggins in 1927, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazerri, Waight Hoyt, and Herb Pennock wouldn’t have quit the team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-18-2019 09:53 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Tribeheart forgot that most of Shaver's losses are supposed to be thrown out in any "fair" accounting of his record.

I don't get why some folks fail to see the fairness or justice of throwing out those first ten years of Shaver's record. Look, the team stank, the program stank, the culture stank when Shaver got here. It takes time to change those things (as all of the Huge apologists are quick to say to give Fischer four or five years to make his changes before he can be held accountable for bad records). In the last six years, Shaver has more wins and more conference wins than any other team in the CAA (so I read; I certainly know for a fact that he is in the top three). So that is the record that he should be judged on (and which, of course, nobody should fire a coach with that record). When Huge provided Shaver's total record during the firing announcement, that was just absolutely bogus!! W&M could have fired Shaver at any time during those first ten years but not only did not fire him but gave him extensions for a job well done.

So, again, I don't get it why some folks don''t acknowledge that Shaver's early record does not matter and that his recent record was good --- unless of course those folks have a not-so-hidden agenda to be Huge apologists.

(04-17-2019 09:54 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  https://www.richmond.com/sports/college/...2f4d7.html

Todd Stottlemyer
@tstottle
We have an amazingly talented and bold Director of Athletics at William & Mary
@skh21
@TribeAthletics
Quote Tweet
Samantha K. Huge
@skh21
· 8h
Really appreciate the coverage ⁦@RTDjohnoconnor⁩. Thank you for helping us to tell the story of ⁦@TribeAthletics⁩! #GOTRIBE (link: https://www.richmond.com/sports/college/...2f4d7.html) richmond.com/sports/college…

8:57 PM · Apr 17, 2019 ·

Thanks for posting.

A few observations.

We have a new logo. I’m probably in the minority on this board - I like it.

JL was sent out in “a dignified manner”. I liked it. Of course, in contrast to JL, TS was not sent out in a dignified manner.

London was hired as JL’s replacement. I liked it. Of course, in contrast to hoops, football got a “name” guy with prior HC experience.

Dane was hired as TS’s replacement. I like it. I didn’t want a “name” guy. Of course, if TS and Dane were interviewing for the same job, ...

Finally, two of the last three paragraphs talk about the human quality of London and Dane ... belief in the development of young people. Too bad Tony didn’t have the same viewpoint; he might still be here (TIC).

I don’t know whether the article is complimentary or a back-handed smack!

The RTD piece was a PR article. I’m sure it was requested. Todd’s message was the same with a nice barb at the end about the transfers. It’s all simply spinning a new story to cover up the strip mining that was done. Cover it up and nobody will notice. That’s how politics works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(04-18-2019 01:15 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(04-17-2019 09:54 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  https://www.richmond.com/sports/college/...2f4d7.html

Todd Stottlemyer
@tstottle
We have an amazingly talented and bold Director of Athletics at William & Mary
@skh21
@TribeAthletics
Quote Tweet
Samantha K. Huge
@skh21
· 8h
Really appreciate the coverage ⁦@RTDjohnoconnor⁩. Thank you for helping us to tell the story of ⁦@TribeAthletics⁩! #GOTRIBE (link: https://www.richmond.com/sports/college/...2f4d7.html) richmond.com/sports/college…

8:57 PM · Apr 17, 2019 ·

Thanks for posting.

A few observations.

We have a new logo. I’m probably in the minority on this board - I like it.

JL was sent out in “a dignified manner”. I liked it. Of course, in contrast to JL, TS was not sent out in a dignified manner.

London was hired as JL’s replacement. I liked it. Of course, in contrast to hoops, football got a “name” guy with prior HC experience.

Dane was hired as TS’s replacement. I like it. I didn’t want a “name” guy. Of course, if TS and Dane were interviewing for the same job, ...

Finally, two of the last three paragraphs talk about the human quality of London and Dane ... belief in the development of young people. Too bad Tony didn’t have the same viewpoint; he might still be here (TIC).

I don’t know whether the article is complimentary or a back-handed smack!

Wow NJ. A rare post that I can actually say I agree with all your points.

(04-18-2019 12:50 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:53 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Tribeheart forgot that most of Shaver's losses are supposed to be thrown out in any "fair" accounting of his record.

I don't get why some folks fail to see the fairness or justice of throwing out those first ten years of Shaver's record. Look, the team stank, the program stank, the culture stank when Shaver got here. It takes time to change those things (as all of the Huge apologists are quick to say to give Fischer four or five years to make his changes before he can be held accountable for bad records). In the last six years, Shaver has more wins and more conference wins than any other team in the CAA (so I read; I certainly know for a fact that he is in the top three). So that is the record that he should be judged on (and which, of course, nobody should fire a coach with that record). When Huge provided Shaver's total record during the firing announcement, that was just absolutely bogus!! W&M could have fired Shaver at any time during those first ten years but not only did not fire him but gave him extensions for a job well done.

So, again, I don't get it why some folks don''t acknowledge that Shaver's early record does not matter and that his recent record was good --- unless of course those folks have a not-so-hidden agenda to be Huge apologists.

Throw out all the bad years of his resume, and only evaluate the good years, but also cut out all the bad parts from the good years because those don't count either. Sounds legit.

(04-18-2019 03:43 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:50 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:53 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Tribeheart forgot that most of Shaver's losses are supposed to be thrown out in any "fair" accounting of his record.

I don't get why some folks fail to see the fairness or justice of throwing out those first ten years of Shaver's record. Look, the team stank, the program stank, the culture stank when Shaver got here. It takes time to change those things (as all of the Huge apologists are quick to say to give Fischer four or five years to make his changes before he can be held accountable for bad records). In the last six years, Shaver has more wins and more conference wins than any other team in the CAA (so I read; I certainly know for a fact that he is in the top three). So that is the record that he should be judged on (and which, of course, nobody should fire a coach with that record). When Huge provided Shaver's total record during the firing announcement, that was just absolutely bogus!! W&M could have fired Shaver at any time during those first ten years but not only did not fire him but gave him extensions for a job well done.

So, again, I don't get it why some folks don''t acknowledge that Shaver's early record does not matter and that his recent record was good --- unless of course those folks have a not-so-hidden agenda to be Huge apologists.

Throw out all the bad years of his resume, and only evaluate the good years, but also cut out all the bad parts from the good years because those don't count either. Sounds legit.

I didn't say that. You did. I say evaluate Shaver on the recent history. If you're Huge and you want to fire Shaver because he never made the NCAA tournament, then fire him is what you do. But have the ba**s to admit it (which she sort of did) but don't also try to hide it or disguise it by slamming Shaver for a losing record in the early years (which she also did).

But do not misrepresent me and say that I said to discount certain losses during any year or not count D-III games. All games count in every year and the record is what it is ---- but I say again --- I don't understand why some people simply do not understand that the first ten years ARE SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT to any discussion of whether Shaver should have been retained in March 2019.

(04-18-2019 05:35 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 03:43 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:50 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 09:53 AM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  Tribeheart forgot that most of Shaver's losses are supposed to be thrown out in any "fair" accounting of his record.

I don't get why some folks fail to see the fairness or justice of throwing out those first ten years of Shaver's record. Look, the team stank, the program stank, the culture stank when Shaver got here. It takes time to change those things (as all of the Huge apologists are quick to say to give Fischer four or five years to make his changes before he can be held accountable for bad records). In the last six years, Shaver has more wins and more conference wins than any other team in the CAA (so I read; I certainly know for a fact that he is in the top three). So that is the record that he should be judged on (and which, of course, nobody should fire a coach with that record). When Huge provided Shaver's total record during the firing announcement, that was just absolutely bogus!! W&M could have fired Shaver at any time during those first ten years but not only did not fire him but gave him extensions for a job well done.

So, again, I don't get it why some folks don''t acknowledge that Shaver's early record does not matter and that his recent record was good --- unless of course those folks have a not-so-hidden agenda to be Huge apologists.

Throw out all the bad years of his resume, and only evaluate the good years, but also cut out all the bad parts from the good years because those don't count either. Sounds legit.

I didn't say that. You did. I say evaluate Shaver on the recent history. If you're Huge and you want to fire Shaver because he never made the NCAA tournament, then fire him is what you do. But have the ba**s to admit it (which she sort of did) but don't also try to hide it or disguise it by slamming Shaver for a losing record in the early years (which she also did).

https://wtkr.com/2019/03/13/william-mary...ny-shaver/

"However, we have high expectations for our men’s basketball program, including participating in the NCAA Tournament, and we will not shy away from setting the bar high."- Huge

Huge did say that's why Shaver was fired. We're really upset that the press release quoted his overall record and didn't make sure to exclude the losing seasons as per convention on the board? You are what your record says you are. Every report about Shaver mentions his overall record. You should write angry letters to every news organization telling them that it's been agreed upon by the council of elders that only certain seasons are to be included when discussing Shaver.

[quote]
But do not misrepresent me and say that I said to discount certain losses during any year or not count D-III games. All games count in every year and the record is what it is ---- but I say again --- I don't understand why some people simply do not understand that the first ten years ARE SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT to any discussion of whether Shaver should have been retained in March 2019.

It's convenient that the line is drawn right after the top teams of the conference left. They all count, you just have to decide how much you want to weigh them. Shaver's past years didn't hurt him, it was the fact that every year ended the same way with the same defensive failings and it wasn't going to change. You're only as good as your last envelope.

(04-18-2019 12:38 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  If the Yankees fired Miller Huggins in 1927, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazerri, Waight Hoyt, and Herb Pennock wouldn’t have quit the team.

They would not have had the option to change teams.

(04-18-2019 06:18 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 05:35 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 03:43 PM)Rocco Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:50 PM)Zorch Wrote:  [quote='Tribe2011' pid='16056062' dateline='1555599194']
Tribeheart forgot that most of Shaver's losses are supposed to be thrown out in any "fair" accounting of his record.

I don't get why some folks fail to see the fairness or justice of throwing out those first ten years of Shaver's record. Look, the team stank, the program stank, the culture stank when Shaver got here. It takes time to change those things (as all of the Huge apologists are quick to say to give Fischer four or five years to make his changes before he can be held accountable for bad records). In the last six years, Shaver has more wins and more conference wins than any other team in the CAA (so I read; I certainly know for a fact that he is in the top three). So that is the record that he should be judged on (and which, of course, nobody should fire a coach with that record). When Huge provided Shaver's total record during the firing announcement, that was just absolutely bogus!! W&M could have fired Shaver at any time during those first ten years but not only did not fire him but gave him extensions for a job well done.

So, again, I don't get it why some folks don''t acknowledge that Shaver's early record does not matter and that his recent record was good --- unless of course those folks have a not-so-hidden agenda to be Huge apologists.

Throw out all the bad years of his resume, and only evaluate the good years, but also cut out all the bad parts from the good years because those don't count either. Sounds legit.

I didn't say that. You did. I say evaluate Shaver on the recent history. If you're Huge and you want to fire Shaver because he never made the NCAA tournament, then fire him is what you do. But have the ba**s to admit it (which she sort of did) but don't also try to hide it or disguise it by slamming Shaver for a losing record in the early years (which she also did).

https://wtkr.com/2019/03/13/william-mary...ny-shaver/

"However, we have high expectations for our men’s basketball program, including participating in the NCAA Tournament, and we will not shy away from setting the bar high."- Huge

Huge did say that's why Shaver was fired. We're really upset that the press release quoted his overall record and didn't make sure to exclude the losing seasons as per convention on the board? You are what your record says you are. Every report about Shaver mentions his overall record. You should write angry letters to every news organization telling them that it's been agreed upon by the council of elders that only certain seasons are to be included when discussing Shaver.

Quote:But do not misrepresent me and say that I said to discount certain losses during any year or not count D-III games. All games count in every year and the record is what it is ---- but I say again --- I don't understand why some people simply do not understand that the first ten years ARE SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT to any discussion of whether Shaver should have been retained in March 2019.

It's convenient that the line is drawn right after the top teams of the conference left. They all count, you just have to decide how much you want to weigh them. Shaver's past years didn't hurt him, it was the fact that every year ended the same way with the same defensive failings and it wasn't going to change. You're only as good as your last envelope.

By the way, everyone seems to be saying that Shaver never could, never would beat UR, VCU, ODU, or GMU. Well, Shaver certainly proved that he could beat ODU even after they left (and kudos to ODU for partnering to keep the rivalry alive). UR and VCU refuse to play us at Kaplan. Was it because the RPI of a CAA team would hurt their resume? Or was it because Shaver had gotten their number? Even at the Robins Center, UR had to rely on home cooking to beat us (even the UR fans admit that!). We had some noteworthy wins against VCU (with at least one in the CAAT) and there isn't any reason to think that Shaver couldn't have gotten some more if VCU had stayed. Lastly, Mason has regressed so much since leaving the CAA that I don't even recognize them any more. We beat them last year and probably should have beaten them this year. So, point is, enough already about how the league is lesser since the "big boys" left. My attitude is that if they don't want to be in the CAA then good luck to them and good riddance. CofC, which replaced one of them, has done just as well as GMU, UR, or ODU. (Unfortunately, Elon (which also replaced one of them) has not).

(04-18-2019 05:35 PM)Zorch Wrote:  I don't understand why some people simply do not understand that the first ten years ARE SIMPLY NOT RELEVANT to any discussion of whether Shaver should have been retained in March 2019.

This is what it all boils down to. If you want to evaluate the program within the confines of the current conference, Shaver has certainly performed well as of late. I'm sure he would be a fine bet to continue to perform at his current level.

The problem is that this needs to be a much bigger conversation. That Shaver, Driscoll, and Reveley presided over W&M's effective relegation to a vastly inferior conference ought to be a huge black mark on their resumes, not something to excuse a decade of performance. More importantly, we need coach, AD, and President to be fully aligned on a strategy to better our situation going forward. We need to be looking for success beyond the confines of our current situation, not within it.

These analogies to professional sports are not useful. This quote is from my favorite Navy football writer, Michael James:

Quote:Most of the media coverage on [issues of conference realignment] comes from sportswriters, so stories are framed as sports stories. They are not. They are matters of higher education. When colleges and universities choose to participate at the Division I level, they are making a strategic decision to position themselves as mainstream, national institutions. The nation knows its colleges first through athletics, and being left out of the highest levels of the most popular sport means being left out of that conversation. It is vital, then, to keep that from happening.

I feel like most people in Williamsburg have seen the jump in winning percentage and rise in attendance and conclude that things are getting better. Things aren't getting better -- we're the frog in the proverbial saucepan. The last 16 years have been a disaster.

That's why I said quit and not change teams (no free agency until Curt Flood). Yes, they may be able to go somewhere else, but they are quitting on us.

(04-18-2019 07:09 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(04-18-2019 12:38 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  If the Yankees fired Miller Huggins in 1927, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Tony Lazerri, Waight Hoyt, and Herb Pennock wouldn’t have quit the team.

They would not have had the option to change teams.