RE: Today's topic: the fallacy of the Dance argument used to support the firing of Tony
And finally, a budgetary comparison:
Wilmington (three championships overall and two appearances in the finals in the modern era)(3/2) $2,981,003
JMU (1/1) $2,911,439
Drexel (0/0) $2,861,372
NU (2/4) $2,740,955
Hofstra (0/2) $2,613,307
Delaware (1/1) $2,472,966
CofC (1/2) $2,422,777
W&M (0/2) $2,071,151
Towson (0/0) $1,948,144
Elon (0/0) $1,879,115
So, when the Athletics Department evaluated Tony, and decided to fire him because he didn't make the Dance, was any consideration given to the budgetary resources that the Athletics Department gave him, and whether same had any effect on making the Dance?
It is more than a coincidence that all of the hardware belongs to the higher-spending schools, but this was Tony's fault at W&M.
Sure it was!
An argument can be made, a very strong argument, that W&M has not made the Dance due to the funding by the Athletics Department, not the abilities of the coach.
Yet, we are told that it was the coaches' fault, and he should be fired.
Outrageous!
(This post was last modified: 03-19-2019 08:30 AM by nj alum.)
|