(09-26-2020 03:18 PM)TheRightWay Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020 09:11 AM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020 09:07 AM)Naptown Tribe Wrote: [ -> ]https://twitter.com/erikkorem/status/130...86593?s=21
Interesting tweet just now from Korem ...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think he was removed from TA staff listing a week ago.
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
He was Huge hatchet man! Running off the entire strength coaching staff w/in one year and making all of the trainers except one voluntarily resign. Had his own agenda from the beginning that never aligned with WM. Huge first hire and a poor one.
But he did do a great job of being Huge's basketball stool pigeon from the end of the bench.
Sent from my SM-G950U using
CSNbbs mobile app
(09-26-2020 06:06 PM)Old tribe Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020 08:20 PM)Zorch Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020 06:38 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Samantha Huge:
“We must achieve a shared understanding of what we mean by competitive excellence in intercollegiate athletics. We need to be open about possible disagreements ... and finish this conversation by listening to all of the voices in our community."
The line I bolded above really cracks me up. There will never be a shared understanding of what is meant by competitive excellence in college sports. Most W&M people, including all of the affected student-athletes of the seven dropped teams, know that excellence means 1) success in the classrooms (see the many Academic All-Americans, Rhodes Scholars, CAA Scholar Athlete of the Year awards etc etc etc), 2) success in the conference (W&M leads by a wide margin in the count of CAA championships, 3) success in the NCAA tournament for each sport (and including success on the individual level such as in track or swimming or gymnastics).
Meanwhile, to Huge, success is measured in only three sports (sports in which only one has had any success at all). It is not measured in academics and it is not measured in CAA championships (except as the vehicle to get the team to the NCAA tournament). Does Huge know that there are, what, something like 340 other Div I schools who are also trying to win (and a bunch of them cheat to do so!)? That many (certainly all of the Power 5) have many more resources? That W&M can't recruit the dumdums that other schools recruit? That W&M will almost certainly be "one-and-done" even if it makes the NCAA basketball tournament? That it takes several consecutive appearances before a team loses the "deer in the headlights" look and can actually compete, and that if the appearances are not close to each other then the effect is lost? That the same thing applies to the FCS playoffs? That you have to participate regularly and consecutively in order to build the proper winning mentality that the Marshalls, Georgia Southerns, Appy States, NDSU's, and yes, even JMU's had/have?
So Huge will never agree with what the hundreds of athletes/coaches tell her about what success means at W&M. But she will allow for "disagreement" as she ramrods her will through the Tribe community.
This is, in my opinion, the attitude that has held W&M athletics back for far too long. It's an acceptance of mediocrity because it's seen as being too hard to compete and because W&M is "special." I always point to Harvard when W&M people bring out these talking points. I am very good friends with people who played at basketball at Harvard, with those people graduating in years that span from the mid 90's to the mid 2010's. Harvard had the exact same attitude that Zorch is expressing for a very long time. Luckily for them, they decided to make a shift and put resources into their basketball program, refuse to accept that higher admission standards are an impossible hurdle to overcome, and to not feel bad about trying to win. Lo and behold, they've had a lot of success. They made 4 NCAA tournaments in a row, won games in 2 of those years, and have won the IVY league regular season title 6 out of the past 8 years. They also consistently are in on top 100 recruits and have landed a number of them. All this after having never won more than 19 games in its history until 2010 and not having made the NCAA tournament since 1946.
I get real tired of people claiming W&M can't compete in sports like basketball because we can't recruit "dum dums." Every school, including W&M, makes admissions exceptions for athletes. It's not a good excuse.
It's a fact that success in basketball and football are more valuable to a school than success in other sports. That's what's driving the shift in athletics priorities.
“...won the Ivy League.” Harvard has found a way for its athletes to compete against athletes from peer institutions in its conference schedule. Concur that Wm & Mary should investigate this model. It might be beneficial.
Harvard went all in on financial aid to athletes in a non-scholarship conference.
Harvard “rose” while traditional powers Penn and Princeton refused to enter the arms race with Harvard.
Harvard is in an 8 team league, which didn’t have a league tournament until a couple of years ago, and the current league tournament features four teams, not 8, not 10, not 12.
I agree ... we should find such a sweetheart deal with a bunch of schools that won’t challenge us financially, and which has a four team league tournament.
Throw in tournament games on our home court, and I’ll sign up for Harvard’s situation in a heartbeat.
(09-26-2020 07:24 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Whao wha what !!!!!
@TribeAthletics @williamandmary @savetribetrack @TomTheThrower - interesting WM Athletics is trying to tamp down “rumors” spending $142k on Brian Curtis / Paradigm Four Crisis Mgmt. PR and NOW spending $32k on “executive coach for Samantha Huge” since July. @skh21 @jlittel01 https://t.co/MZQiIPam2t![[Image: 019dead730872e0727f5ea389f31f34d.jpg]](https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20200927/019dead730872e0727f5ea389f31f34d.jpg)
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
I see someone posted in this twitter thread that maybe this is why FOIA requests are being fought so hard.
I believe that somewhere I saw the Athletic Department was saying each request would cost $10k. Maybe they are trying to make up these consulting expenses....I'm kidding...I think...
(09-26-2020 07:24 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Whao wha what !!!!!
@TribeAthletics @williamandmary @savetribetrack @TomTheThrower - interesting WM Athletics is trying to tamp down “rumors” spending $142k on Brian Curtis / Paradigm Four Crisis Mgmt. PR and NOW spending $32k on “executive coach for Samantha Huge” since July. @skh21 @jlittel01 https://t.co/MZQiIPam2t
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
I don't really understand the allegation here. Is it just that Huge is spending money while claiming the department doesn't have any or is this more akin to misallocation of funds where she's using department funds for personal gains? Could be both I suppose?
Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
(09-26-2020 06:06 PM)Old tribe Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020 08:20 PM)Zorch Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020 06:38 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Samantha Huge:
“We must achieve a shared understanding of what we mean by competitive excellence in intercollegiate athletics. We need to be open about possible disagreements ... and finish this conversation by listening to all of the voices in our community."
The line I bolded above really cracks me up. There will never be a shared understanding of what is meant by competitive excellence in college sports. Most W&M people, including all of the affected student-athletes of the seven dropped teams, know that excellence means 1) success in the classrooms (see the many Academic All-Americans, Rhodes Scholars, CAA Scholar Athlete of the Year awards etc etc etc), 2) success in the conference (W&M leads by a wide margin in the count of CAA championships, 3) success in the NCAA tournament for each sport (and including success on the individual level such as in track or swimming or gymnastics).
Meanwhile, to Huge, success is measured in only three sports (sports in which only one has had any success at all). It is not measured in academics and it is not measured in CAA championships (except as the vehicle to get the team to the NCAA tournament). Does Huge know that there are, what, something like 340 other Div I schools who are also trying to win (and a bunch of them cheat to do so!)? That many (certainly all of the Power 5) have many more resources? That W&M can't recruit the dumdums that other schools recruit? That W&M will almost certainly be "one-and-done" even if it makes the NCAA basketball tournament? That it takes several consecutive appearances before a team loses the "deer in the headlights" look and can actually compete, and that if the appearances are not close to each other then the effect is lost? That the same thing applies to the FCS playoffs? That you have to participate regularly and consecutively in order to build the proper winning mentality that the Marshalls, Georgia Southerns, Appy States, NDSU's, and yes, even JMU's had/have?
So Huge will never agree with what the hundreds of athletes/coaches tell her about what success means at W&M. But she will allow for "disagreement" as she ramrods her will through the Tribe community.
This is, in my opinion, the attitude that has held W&M athletics back for far too long. It's an acceptance of mediocrity because it's seen as being too hard to compete and because W&M is "special." I always point to Harvard when W&M people bring out these talking points. I am very good friends with people who played at basketball at Harvard, with those people graduating in years that span from the mid 90's to the mid 2010's. Harvard had the exact same attitude that Zorch is expressing for a very long time. Luckily for them, they decided to make a shift and put resources into their basketball program, refuse to accept that higher admission standards are an impossible hurdle to overcome, and to not feel bad about trying to win. Lo and behold, they've had a lot of success. They made 4 NCAA tournaments in a row, won games in 2 of those years, and have won the IVY league regular season title 6 out of the past 8 years. They also consistently are in on top 100 recruits and have landed a number of them. All this after having never won more than 19 games in its history until 2010 and not having made the NCAA tournament since 1946.
I get real tired of people claiming W&M can't compete in sports like basketball because we can't recruit "dum dums." Every school, including W&M, makes admissions exceptions for athletes. It's not a good excuse.
It's a fact that success in basketball and football are more valuable to a school than success in other sports. That's what's driving the shift in athletics priorities.
Pardon me for bolding your words above. Where, anywhere, in my post does it say that I accept mediocrity????? On the contrary, I thought that I made it clear that, especially in the non-revenue sports and especially if you have ever read any of my other posts, the Tribe teams are outstanding and well well above mediocre. Academics, CAA Championships, NCAA attendance. Swimming has/had that, Track/Cross Country has/had that, Field Hockey has/had that, Tennis has/had that, Soccer has/had that. I could go on and on. The only sports where we have never won are basketball (even volleyball has won in the past).
Halfway through your post it became clear that the only sport that you were talking about was men's basketball. You clearly agree with the Huge/Rowe model to funnel all resources into the big three and forget about the rest. That is mediocrity -- being good in just one or two things. I would rather the school be well rounded and be good in a lot of things.
Re Harvard -- You say that they have relaxed their admissions standards and that they "are in on" top 100 recruits, etc. Well, DUH!. Anybody who would turn down a "free" (grant-based) education at Harvard really would be too dumb to come here.
Oh, P.S. -- Tell me again, how big is the budget at Harvard? How big is the endowment at Harvard?
As for the Executive Coaching.....someone told her that she needed a coach (maybe Rowe) or maybe Huge just wanted to have it. I don't know. From what I understand from people who work in the department, she's a hand full and has some very specific communication and interpersonal skill issues. I have heard the words "bully" and "tyrant" used. If one witnesses those behaviors or there are complaints, then maybe some sort of Executive Coaching is in order. Or maybe she should just be fired.
(09-27-2020 06:23 AM)Tribe32 Wrote: [ -> ]As for the Executive Coaching.....someone told her that she needed a coach (maybe Rowe) or maybe Huge just wanted to have it. I don't know. From what I understand from people who work in the department, she's a hand full and has some very specific communication and interpersonal skill issues. I have heard the words "bully" and "tyrant" used. If one witnesses those behaviors or there are complaints, then maybe some sort of Executive Coaching is in order. Or maybe she should just be fired.
I have had an executive coach, paid for by my company, and I’ve never been accused of being a bully or a tyrant. This is simply one more example of people trying to pile on. Actual bullying tactics.
(09-26-2020 09:00 PM)zablenoise Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020 07:24 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Whao wha what !!!!!
@TribeAthletics @williamandmary @savetribetrack @TomTheThrower - interesting WM Athletics is trying to tamp down “rumors” spending $142k on Brian Curtis / Paradigm Four Crisis Mgmt. PR and NOW spending $32k on “executive coach for Samantha Huge” since July. @skh21 @jlittel01 https://t.co/MZQiIPam2t
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
I don't really understand the allegation here. Is it just that Huge is spending money while claiming the department doesn't have any or is this more akin to misallocation of funds where she's using department funds for personal gains? Could be both I suppose?
Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Both, per Littel, we are in the worst financial crisis in 150 years for the college. Personally I think that is a lot of hyperbole, there is no comparison of W&M today to the W&M of then. However across the entire college, not just athletics, rev down expenses up. Check the ship to on the invoice, Rowe is spending on the exec coaching. Rowe has deemed it a good idea to try to prop up a disaster of an AD with $32k in consulting fees. Nearly $300 k execs shouldn’t need coaching, if she can’t do the job, she needs to resign or be fired.
(09-27-2020 07:00 AM)Tribe3455 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2020 06:23 AM)Tribe32 Wrote: [ -> ]As for the Executive Coaching.....someone told her that she needed a coach (maybe Rowe) or maybe Huge just wanted to have it. I don't know. From what I understand from people who work in the department, she's a hand full and has some very specific communication and interpersonal skill issues. I have heard the words "bully" and "tyrant" used. If one witnesses those behaviors or there are complaints, then maybe some sort of Executive Coaching is in order. Or maybe she should just be fired.
I have had an executive coach, paid for by my company, and I’ve never been accused of being a bully or a tyrant. This is simply one more example of people trying to pile on. Actual bullying tactics.
Nonsense. There is no bullying going on here. A public state school in a self identified financial crisis cannot spend $32k on exec coaching period. Someone should have had the sense to say this is likely to get out via FOIA
and not approved it because of the bad optics.
(09-27-2020 07:01 AM)Tribfan Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020 09:00 PM)zablenoise Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020 07:24 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Whao wha what !!!!!
@TribeAthletics @williamandmary @savetribetrack @TomTheThrower - interesting WM Athletics is trying to tamp down “rumors” spending $142k on Brian Curtis / Paradigm Four Crisis Mgmt. PR and NOW spending $32k on “executive coach for Samantha Huge” since July. @skh21 @jlittel01 https://t.co/MZQiIPam2t
Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk
I don't really understand the allegation here. Is it just that Huge is spending money while claiming the department doesn't have any or is this more akin to misallocation of funds where she's using department funds for personal gains? Could be both I suppose?
Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
Both, per Littel, we are in the worst financial crisis in 150 years for the college. Personally I think that is a lot of hyperbole, there is no comparison of W&M today to the W&M of then. However across the entire college, not just athletics, rev down expenses up. Check the ship to on the invoice, Rowe is spending on the exec coaching. Rowe has deemed it a good idea to try to prop up a disaster of an AD with $32k in consulting fees. Nearly $300 k execs shouldn’t need coaching, if she can’t do the job, she needs to resign or be fired.
She has a contract, if you are going to fire her and not keep paying her, you need to build your case. I have worked with some really good folks in Human Resources over the years. We didn't have employment contracts with our people, but we still made sure we dotted all the I's and crossed the T's before letting someone go. She is also in a protected category.
(09-27-2020 07:00 AM)Tribe3455 Wrote: [ -> ] (09-27-2020 06:23 AM)Tribe32 Wrote: [ -> ]As for the Executive Coaching.....someone told her that she needed a coach (maybe Rowe) or maybe Huge just wanted to have it. I don't know. From what I understand from people who work in the department, she's a hand full and has some very specific communication and interpersonal skill issues. I have heard the words "bully" and "tyrant" used. If one witnesses those behaviors or there are complaints, then maybe some sort of Executive Coaching is in order. Or maybe she should just be fired.
I have had an executive coach, paid for by my company, and I’ve never been accused of being a bully or a tyrant. This is simply one more example of people trying to pile on. Actual bullying tactics.
I clearly stated that I don't know why she has an Executive coach. I'm not being a bully. I'm just pissed off at all the crazy stuff she does and then lies to cover things up.
BTW, I've had an executive coach too.
Will one of you two be my executive coach?
(09-27-2020 07:50 AM)HyperDuke Wrote: [ -> ]Will one of you two be my executive coach?
How much you willing to pay?
Not that anyone cares. I’m going it go on the record here and say one last thing and then stop posting in this thread. The crazy uproar and spiteful reduction of donations after the Shaver boot did way more damage to William and Mary than getting rid of him. Many had no problem with it happening but those that did harmed the university because they didn’t like it.
Many are trying to do the same right now because they don’t agree with the decision. Using charges of plagiarism, misuse of funds, etc people are completely tearing down everything they can grasp because they don’t like the decisions made by the first female AD the college has ever had. And along the way using the normal sexist markers that women in any power position have used against them. I’m amazed that this crowd can make ME defend Huge. For what it is worth I’m ecstatic we have Dane and not Tony as our coach. I dislike the fact we cut 7 sports, especially how and when we did it. But you folks and the Tribe 7 are hell bent on absolute ruination of the department. Good luck. Blame Huge all you want but our fan base at this point is getting what it deserves.
(09-27-2020 08:03 AM)Tribe3455 Wrote: [ -> ]Not that anyone cares. I’m going it go on the record here and say one last thing and then stop posting in this thread. The crazy uproar and spiteful reduction of donations after the Shaver boot did way more damage to William and Mary than getting rid of him. Many had no problem with it happening but those that did harmed the university because they didn’t like it.
Many are trying to do the same right now because they don’t agree with the decision. Using charges of plagiarism, misuse of funds, etc people are completely tearing down everything they can grasp because they don’t like the decisions made by the first female AD the college has ever had. And along the way using the normal sexist markers that women in any power position have used against them. I’m amazed that this crowd can make ME defend Huge. For what it is worth I’m ecstatic we have Dane and not Tony as our coach. I dislike the fact we cut 7 sports, especially how and when we did it. But you folks and the Tribe 7 are hell bent on absolute ruination of the department. Good luck. Blame Huge all you want but our fan base at this point is getting what it deserves.
I certainly have witnessed some cringe-worthy comments by a few posters during the Shaver and Tribe 7 debacles that highlighted an undercurrent of sexism against Huge. That said, her defenders should not hide behind her gender here. Just because she is female does not mean that every concern is a product of sexism.
From the public relations perspective, alone, I don't see how anyone can reasonably argue that she has handled anything well. I would argue that she completely botched the roll-out of the two most important issues she's had to handle. I will defer to other posts regarding the merits of those decisions, but if her job was to anger the vast majority of Tribe donors and fans -- mission accomplished.
But that is not her job. Tribe3455 can blame the victim all s/he wants, but I think the W&M fan base has every reason to be concerned about existential decisions made with little to no input from the W&M fan base. And I understand that leaders can't always listen to the fan base and must make tough decisions. But, at the end of the day, when your job and the athletes you manage depend on money coming from that fan base -- you have to do better than enraging them on a consistent basis.
I also would not say that we have "charges" of plagiarism. Instead, we have "confessions" of plagiarism. It's not sexist to hold William & Mary officers to a higher standard than "cut and paste." And I think questioning thousands of dollars spent on an executive coach -- who did not seem to do a very good job -- when we are told the Department has to tighten its belt -- is not just the grumbling of knuckle dragging misogynists.
At the end of the day, even Tribe3455 agrees that s/he does not like how Huge went about cutting 7 sports. I would say that it matters very much HOW an AD goes about cutting 7 sports. And it doesn't take a woman hater to say that.
(09-26-2020 06:52 PM)nj alum Wrote: [ -> ]I agree.
We should be like Harvard.
They sponsor 40 sports.
They’re not cutting sports.
https://gocrimson.com/
Now, if we could just join the Ivy League, and move the school to Boston ...
I'm all for having as many sports as possible. I don't think cuts are necessarily required to prioritize resources on a small number of sports.
(09-26-2020 11:07 PM)Zorch Wrote: [ -> ] (09-26-2020 06:06 PM)Old tribe Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020 08:20 PM)Zorch Wrote: [ -> ] (09-25-2020 06:38 PM)Tribal Wrote: [ -> ]Samantha Huge:
“We must achieve a shared understanding of what we mean by competitive excellence in intercollegiate athletics. We need to be open about possible disagreements ... and finish this conversation by listening to all of the voices in our community."
The line I bolded above really cracks me up. There will never be a shared understanding of what is meant by competitive excellence in college sports. Most W&M people, including all of the affected student-athletes of the seven dropped teams, know that excellence means 1) success in the classrooms (see the many Academic All-Americans, Rhodes Scholars, CAA Scholar Athlete of the Year awards etc etc etc), 2) success in the conference (W&M leads by a wide margin in the count of CAA championships, 3) success in the NCAA tournament for each sport (and including success on the individual level such as in track or swimming or gymnastics).
Meanwhile, to Huge, success is measured in only three sports (sports in which only one has had any success at all). It is not measured in academics and it is not measured in CAA championships (except as the vehicle to get the team to the NCAA tournament). Does Huge know that there are, what, something like 340 other Div I schools who are also trying to win (and a bunch of them cheat to do so!)? That many (certainly all of the Power 5) have many more resources? That W&M can't recruit the dumdums that other schools recruit? That W&M will almost certainly be "one-and-done" even if it makes the NCAA basketball tournament? That it takes several consecutive appearances before a team loses the "deer in the headlights" look and can actually compete, and that if the appearances are not close to each other then the effect is lost? That the same thing applies to the FCS playoffs? That you have to participate regularly and consecutively in order to build the proper winning mentality that the Marshalls, Georgia Southerns, Appy States, NDSU's, and yes, even JMU's had/have?
So Huge will never agree with what the hundreds of athletes/coaches tell her about what success means at W&M. But she will allow for "disagreement" as she ramrods her will through the Tribe community.
This is, in my opinion, the attitude that has held W&M athletics back for far too long. It's an acceptance of mediocrity because it's seen as being too hard to compete and because W&M is "special." I always point to Harvard when W&M people bring out these talking points. I am very good friends with people who played at basketball at Harvard, with those people graduating in years that span from the mid 90's to the mid 2010's. Harvard had the exact same attitude that Zorch is expressing for a very long time. Luckily for them, they decided to make a shift and put resources into their basketball program, refuse to accept that higher admission standards are an impossible hurdle to overcome, and to not feel bad about trying to win. Lo and behold, they've had a lot of success. They made 4 NCAA tournaments in a row, won games in 2 of those years, and have won the IVY league regular season title 6 out of the past 8 years. They also consistently are in on top 100 recruits and have landed a number of them. All this after having never won more than 19 games in its history until 2010 and not having made the NCAA tournament since 1946.
I get real tired of people claiming W&M can't compete in sports like basketball because we can't recruit "dum dums." Every school, including W&M, makes admissions exceptions for athletes. It's not a good excuse.
It's a fact that success in basketball and football are more valuable to a school than success in other sports. That's what's driving the shift in athletics priorities.
Pardon me for bolding your words above. Where, anywhere, in my post does it say that I accept mediocrity????? On the contrary, I thought that I made it clear that, especially in the non-revenue sports and especially if you have ever read any of my other posts, the Tribe teams are outstanding and well well above mediocre. Academics, CAA Championships, NCAA attendance. Swimming has/had that, Track/Cross Country has/had that, Field Hockey has/had that, Tennis has/had that, Soccer has/had that. I could go on and on. The only sports where we have never won are basketball (even volleyball has won in the past).
Halfway through your post it became clear that the only sport that you were talking about was men's basketball. You clearly agree with the Huge/Rowe model to funnel all resources into the big three and forget about the rest. That is mediocrity -- being good in just one or two things. I would rather the school be well rounded and be good in a lot of things.
Re Harvard -- You say that they have relaxed their admissions standards and that they "are in on" top 100 recruits, etc. Well, DUH!. Anybody who would turn down a "free" (grant-based) education at Harvard really would be too dumb to come here.
Oh, P.S. -- Tell me again, how big is the budget at Harvard? How big is the endowment at Harvard?
Your attitude is definitely accepting mediocrity for basketball. Just excuse after excuse. The reason basketball hasn't had much success historically is because the school has never given it the resources sufficient to create sustained success. And that's because of the attitude that you express, saying that it's too hard to compete with other schools that give basketball more resources and that are committed to winning. There's a reason schools want to win in basketball and football, which have been discussed on this forum many times. You honestly don't think it would help the entire athletic program if basketball went on a run comparable to Harvard's?
Harvard's endowment is not used for athletics. The basketball program raised money from private donors when a group of alumni decided it was time for the program to stop accepting mediocrity.