CSNbbs

The implication is that Rowe assumed that Huge had done her job and was submitting a recommendation based on thorough review of all available options. From the phrasing here, it appears that was a poor assumption.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(09-25-2020 11:41 AM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]BTW, the "assume noble intent" (as it's phrased at my job) is the big Leadership 101 nugget. I will not assume noble intent from someone with Huge's history...that level of respect must be earned.

I certainly think she has noble intent in her own mind -- she's pursuing the course of action that she thinks is best. The problem is that her definition of what's best may be a bit skewed, and her idea of how to pursue it seems to lack some important guiding principles.

I would be surprised if Huge makes it to the new year at this point

(09-25-2020 12:04 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote: [ -> ]The implication is that Rowe assumed that Huge had done her job and was submitting a recommendation based on thorough review of all available options. From the phrasing here, it appears that was a poor assumption.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

That's my point. Rowe allowed Huge to do her job as AD, to run the department on the level, and to take informed decisions. Rowe's mistake was signing off without going over everything. In all fairness to Rowe, she has a tremendous amount on her plate and shouldn't have to micromanage her division leadership.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

The problem also is she has a 3 year track record which is not positive. When you combine the economic challenges that exist due to COVID(and have existed before) with her prior actions which have alienated significant portions of the alumni, faculty and students, the most logical choice is to have another voice lead. If it had been 2-3 months and only 1 or 2 events, it might be different, but there is nothing that would give anyone trust or patience at this point. She does not seem to handle conflict well. Telling students their sport won't be cut in the summer is bad. Not contacting anyone to offer other alternatives/goals etc. is bad. But, the final straw is conveying it all in 6 minutes and using someone else's words and thoughts. Any further communications would not be seen as caring(only as self-preservation).

A critical part of eliminating a budget shortfall is likeability. Many of us are probably supporting a struggling business or two right now in this pandemic time because we like and respect the owners and workers in that business. I know people that paid for haircuts they couldn't get or sent money or tips to restaurants when they were closed. Her track record is to run people away not toward W&M. Most likely some other institutions have benefited from that outcome. Hopefully it is not too late to bring many of them back home.

(09-25-2020 12:36 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-25-2020 12:04 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote: [ -> ]The implication is that Rowe assumed that Huge had done her job and was submitting a recommendation based on thorough review of all available options. From the phrasing here, it appears that was a poor assumption.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

That's my point. Rowe allowed Huge to do her job as AD, to run the department on the level, and to take informed decisions. Rowe's mistake was signing off without going over everything. In all fairness to Rowe, she has a tremendous amount on her plate and shouldn't have to micromanage her division leadership.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I agree. I was replying to soccerguy. I'm not as good at quote replies on my phone.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(09-25-2020 12:38 PM)TribePride91 Wrote: [ -> ]The problem also is she has a 3 year track record which is not positive. When you combine the economic challenges that exist due to COVID(and have existed before) with her prior actions which have alienated significant portions of the alumni, faculty and students, the most logical choice is to have another voice lead. If it had been 2-3 months and only 1 or 2 events, it might be different, but there is nothing that would give anyone trust or patience at this point. She does not seem to handle conflict well. Telling students their sport won't be cut in the summer is bad. Not contacting anyone to offer other alternatives/goals etc. is bad. But, the final straw is conveying it all in 6 minutes and using someone else's words and thoughts. Any further communications would not be seen as caring(only as self-preservation).

A critical part of eliminating a budget shortfall is likeability. Many of us are probably supporting a struggling business or two right now in this pandemic time because we like and respect the owners and workers in that business. I know people that paid for haircuts they couldn't get or sent money or tips to restaurants when they were closed. Her track record is to run people away not toward W&M. Most likely some other institutions have benefited from that outcome. Hopefully it is not too late to bring many of them back home.

It is fun to pile on reasons why we may not agree with this decision and how it was handled but the timing aspect of it should not be one of them. Very few if any of these athletes were going to compete this year anyway. If they do, we will all be pleasantly surprised. Moving to another school over the summer at any time was going to be pretty difficult. Actually finding another home during this school year will be a heckuva lot easier. If Huge is the evil, care nothing individual some here believe she it she would have cut the sports at the end of 2019-20 and not left open the option for competing this school year. The timing was never going to be good but the argument that it hurt these athletes prospects to play or compete this year is false. IF there is competition this year they can compete here. There is ZERO guarantee they would have been able to compete elsewhere.

Appreciate the sentiment 3455, but you are incorrect. Using the aforementioned Stanford letter, those students were notified in July. This would have been prior to the arrival of the students. I agree with you on the potential that there will be no season anyway, but at W&M a fair number of the athletes in these sports are either non-scholarship or only partial. Waiting to give them their notice after the payment of tuition was another mistake. Particularly for incoming freshmen, the timing is brutal. Perhaps more information will be shared to indicate that this was a quick decision. Not sure that makes it better, but it would at least explain why the announcement waited until 2 days before the on campus undergraduates returned to campus and more than 2 weeks after freshmen moved in.

None of this is fun for anyone.

(09-25-2020 08:02 AM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it alleges current violations, but is being explored in anticipation of T9 violations.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I'm an attorney and have worked on a number of matters analyzing Title IX compliance for college athletics programs. Here is what the attorney is saying in the letter.

First, he is saying that W&M was already not in compliance with the first prong of Title IX (it's a three part test as applied to college athletics and you have to meet each prong to be in compliance). This prong requires that a university provide equal opportunities for/effectively accommodate the athletics interests of its male and female students.

There are 3 ways a school can satisfy this requirement. The most clear cut way to do it is by showing that the percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled at the school. A variance of 2% is considered ok to meet this factor.

Second, the letter is saying that W&M's rate before the cuts fell well outside this 2% variance range. The letter says there was an 11.4% variance, where there were more male athletes than female athletes even though W&M is majority female (according to the letter, W&M is 57.7% female but only 46.3% of its athletes are female, 344 male athletes vs 296 female athletes). I haven't checked the EADA data to see if the 11.4% variance is accurate, but let's assume it is.

Third, the letter says that even with the cuts W&M's variance rate is still not in compliance with the 2% variance rate. It says the cuts will bring the variance rate to around 6.1% (51.6% of athletes will now be women), still well off the allowable 2% variance rate. The letter says that the solution to this problem is backtracking on the cuts to the women's programs (volleyball, swimming, and gymnastics) as that will then bring W&M within the 2% variance range by adding about 65 female athletes. The lawyer is threatening to file the lawsuit if the women's programs aren't brought back and W&M remains outside the 2% variance range. So he's saying you're currently not in compliance, but you can be if you bring the women's programs back. If you do that, the lawsuit won't be filed. If you don't, the lawsuit will be filed.

However, there are two other ways to meet the first prong of Title IX besides being within the 2% variance rate. The second way is by showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex (women here). This is a fact intensive inquiry and you'd have to examine a complete chronological history of when varsity sports were added and dropped at the school, and how participation numbers went up and down with the additions and drops. There'd have to be an analysis of W&M’s efforts to monitor its students’ interest and abilities and its policies on requesting the addition of sports/elevating club teams, and any plan to expand or add programs for women. W&M could be relying on this test in saying it is in compliance with the first prong of Title IX, as the cuts will result in W&M now having 220 male athletes and 235 female athletes. So W&M went from a situation where it had significantly more male athletes, to now having more female athletes. It would, in my opinion, be hard to convince a court that W&M is violating Title IX in a situation like that.

The third way to meet Title IX's first prong is by showing a school is effectively accommodating the athletics interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. I doubt W&M would rely on this test as I think they'd lose that argument.

W&M could still be planning to get within the 2% variance rate by adding softball and rowing, as has been discussed. But even if they aren't planning on adding those (or other women's sports), I think any Title IX lawsuit against W&M would likely fail.

(09-25-2020 01:45 PM)Old tribe Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-25-2020 08:02 AM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it alleges current violations, but is being explored in anticipation of T9 violations.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I'm an attorney and have worked on a number of matters analyzing Title IX compliance for college athletics programs. Here is what the attorney is saying in the letter.

First, he is saying that W&M was already not in compliance with the first prong of Title IX (it's a three part test as applied to college athletics and you have to meet each prong to be in compliance). This prong requires that a university provide equal opportunities for/effectively accommodate the athletics interests of its male and female students.

There are 3 ways a school can satisfy this requirement. The most clear cut way to do it is by showing that the percentages of male and female athletes are substantially proportionate to the percentages of male and female students enrolled at the school. A variance of 2% is considered ok to meet this factor.

Second, the letter is saying that W&M's rate before the cuts fell well outside this 2% variance range. The letter says there was an 11.4% variance, where there were more male athletes than female athletes even though W&M is majority female (according to the letter, W&M is 57.7% female but only 46.3% of its athletes are female, 344 male athletes vs 296 female athletes). I haven't checked the EADA data to see if the 11.4% variance is accurate, but let's assume it is.

Third, the letter says that even with the cuts W&M's variance rate is still not in compliance with the 2% variance rate. It says the cuts will bring the variance rate to around 6.1% (51.6% of athletes will now be women), still well off the allowable 2% variance rate. The letter says that the solution to this problem is backtracking on the cuts to the women's programs (volleyball, swimming, and gymnastics) as that will then bring W&M within the 2% variance range by adding about 65 female athletes. The lawyer is threatening to file the lawsuit if the women's programs aren't brought back and W&M remains outside the 2% variance range. So he's saying you're currently not in compliance, but you can be if you bring the women's programs back. If you do that, the lawsuit won't be filed. If you don't, the lawsuit will be filed.

However, there are two other ways to meet the first prong of Title IX besides being within the 2% variance rate. The second way is by showing a history and continuing practice of program expansion for the underrepresented sex (women here). This is a fact intensive inquiry and you'd have to examine a complete chronological history of when varsity sports were added and dropped at the school, and how participation numbers went up and down with the additions and drops. There'd have to be an analysis of W&M’s efforts to monitor its students’ interest and abilities and its policies on requesting the addition of sports/elevating club teams, and any plan to expand or add programs for women. W&M could be relying on this test in saying it is in compliance with the first prong of Title IX, as the cuts will result in W&M now having 220 male athletes and 235 female athletes. So W&M went from a situation where it had significantly more male athletes, to now having more female athletes. It would, in my opinion, be hard to convince a court that W&M is violating Title IX in a situation like that.

The third way to meet Title IX's first prong is by showing a school is effectively accommodating the athletics interests and abilities of the underrepresented sex. I doubt W&M would rely on this test as I think they'd lose that argument.

W&M could still be planning to get within the 2% variance rate by adding softball and rowing, as has been discussed. But even if they aren't planning on adding those (or other women's sports), I think any Title IX lawsuit against W&M would likely fail.

And I forgot to mention, but I'm sure W&M had an attorney review what their Title IX compliance would look like after the cuts. Or at least I hope they did.

A Title IX attorney weighs in. And that's why this fan base is awesome.

Good stuff, Old tribe. Appreciate the professional insight.

Paul Cox and Kris Marshall are our Athletics Compliance Officers. They also enjoy the title of Assistant Athletics Director and Assistant Director, respectively.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(09-25-2020 02:32 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Good stuff, Old tribe. Appreciate the professional insight.

Paul Cox and Kris Marshall are our Athletics Compliance Officers. They also enjoy the title of Assistant Athletics Director and Assistant Director, respectively.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

No problem.

I doubt Paul and Kris were the ones who did a Title IX analysis. Generally, athletics compliance officers are focused on whether coaches/teams are in compliance with NCAA bylaws (financial aid, recruiting, practice limits, etc.). Title IX is a federal law, not an NCAA bylaw.

Flat Hat

http://flathatnews.com/2020/09/25/studen...lagiarism/

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

My wife and i saw several male runners as we drove near campus today.
The citizens and tourists have always enjoyed watching the track athletes
running up and down DOG Street. These runners help build a sense of community between the town and the College. It would be such a shame for this large number of athletes to disappear from the community. Most of them are very involved in community service/charitable activities. We need more student athletes and fewer
students whose only activity is walking to and from the library.

(Redundant)

(09-15-2020 02:41 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-15-2020 02:26 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-15-2020 02:19 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-15-2020 02:13 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-15-2020 02:08 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote: [ -> ]Mens basketball has produced many, many professional basketball players. Can swimming say the same, even allowing for relative opportunities?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

So we're judging the success of student-athletes based on what they do after college? WTH? Okay, has swimming ever graduated a convicted rapist? Give me a break.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

It's a judgment of the relative talent level of the programs. Football also has players appear in the senior bowl and produces FCS level All Americans and national award nominees. Basketball had Nathan Knight and Marcus Thornton nominated for national awards in the past 10 years. Is there similar/relative success from the swimming programs? I genuinely don't know the answer to that.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

Have the 7 cut sports won more conference championships than fb, mbb, and wbb?

Does anyone outside of us know who Marcus Thornton is...ours, not the other Marcus Thornton?

This is a silly argument. Our MBB program is a laughing punchline. One of 4 or 5 to NEVER make the NCAAT.

I don't think fans of the cut 7 should attack the main 3, either. I've stated that. But, you minimizing their contribution like our basketball programs have done anything is laughable.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

The point being made was that swimming, despite winning all those conference championships, was not significantly higher profile nationally than basketball or football. The tone in the Hildebrand letter was "why do we keep supporting dead weight like football and basketball at the expense of swimming?"

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

(09-25-2020 01:36 PM)TribePride91 Wrote: [ -> ]Appreciate the sentiment 3455, but you are incorrect. Using the aforementioned Stanford letter, those students were notified in July. This would have been prior to the arrival of the students. I agree with you on the potential that there will be no season anyway, but at W&M a fair number of the athletes in these sports are either non-scholarship or only partial. Waiting to give them their notice after the payment of tuition was another mistake. Particularly for incoming freshmen, the timing is brutal. Perhaps more information will be shared to indicate that this was a quick decision. Not sure that makes it better, but it would at least explain why the announcement waited until 2 days before the on campus undergraduates returned to campus and more than 2 weeks after freshmen moved in.

None of this is fun for anyone.

Again. If the argument it steals a year from them it is entirely incorrect. Most if not all rosters would have been filled no matter when this was announced shy of last spring. Scholarship or walkons.

I've never seen this before, but the football turf and at least half of the seating in Zable is currently covered by heavy plastic sheeting. I guess this will protect the facility from the weather but this wasn't cheap and should it be a priority expenditure at this time?
Maybe someone has better knowledge of why this was done for probably the very first time. Does this contribute to our next CAA football championship?

(09-25-2020 04:10 PM)DSL Wrote: [ -> ]I've never seen this before, but the football turf and at least half of the seating in Zable is currently covered by heavy plastic sheeting. I guess this will protect the facility from the weather but this wasn't cheap and should it be a priority expenditure at this time?
Maybe someone has better knowledge of why this was done for probably the very first time. Does this contribute to our next CAA football championship?

I believe the coverings are because of the new surfacing of the track. I think there is considerable spraying involved for the track surface.

Agree the plastic is probably due to the track installation.
We could see that material had been applied to the track recently but the surface
appeared rough and uneven. I suppose the next step in the process is to
smooth out the new material. I didn't realize the track material was sprayed.