I don't think sex, race, etc. has anything to do with Huge's errors.

Quite frankly, I'm not sure that her playbook is that bad either....lot's of good ideas. She just can't execute it without causing turmoil. I think it's simply inexperience in dealing with change at a place like W&M. She has a very nomadic resume with mostly schools with big time athletics (Delaware is the exception). I think she underestimated how much loyalty people have/had in the long tenured coaches, staff, and teams that she ran out of town. The problem now is that she can't do stuff over, and I think she's out of mulligans.

(09-27-2020 09:37 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(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.

Your post is absolute nonsense. You say: "The reason basketball hasn't had much success historically is because the school has never given it the resources sufficient to create sustained success." That is total BS. There are plenty of reasons that W&M has not won in basketball that have nothing to do with resources. We did not lose to Delaware in the CAA final because of resources, we lost because Omar Prewitt missed the front end of a one-and-one and because the refs failed to call a charge on the Delaware big man in the final minute and because Thornton didn't pass to Rusthoven on the last play. We didn't lose to Delaware in the first round in 2019 (which got Shaver fired) or to Elon in the first round in 2020 because of resources. We lost because we played worse (coached worse?) than our opponents did. So my point is, we could win with the resources we actually have -- we just didn't. So we don't need to cut sports to divert more resources to the big three, we just need to be better (luckier?) at crunch time.

Also note that I brought up the fact that there are a lot of other schools out there that are trying to win (and a lot of them spend far more than W&M) to make the point that simply allocating more resources to the big three is not going to miraculously mean that all of a sudden W&M will start winning. Other schools want to win too and sometimes they are better than us and sometimes they are not better than us but simply play better than us that day. Killing 7 sports (where we actually DO win) is not going to help football beat JMU/Delaware in the big game or Hofstra in the big basketball game or Drexel/JMU in the big women's basketball game.

It is you who are making excuses and your excuse is that we do not spend enough money on the big three! Apparently, the reason is never that W&M simply did not play well enough to win.

See the post below, from a thread called "The Scar". It clearly lays out that W&M had everything it needed (Nathan Knight) to win but it did not. (Can't blame it all on Shaver because Fischer had Knight, too, and also lost in the first round.)

(03-09-2020 04:19 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(03-09-2020 01:51 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  We may not see a player like Nathan Knight for another 50 years. We haven't had a player between Jeff Cohen and Knight (59 years) who was remotely close to either of their talent. I don't think people really appreciate how good Nathan is for a program like ours.

Excellent post and a perfect lead-in to the following observation:

William & Mary -- as a school -- grossly underachieved while featuring Nathan Knight. Note that I am NOT repeat NOT saying that Knight underachieved. On the contrary, he went above and beyond his peers and his number should be retired at the first possible opportunity.

Note also that I am not assigning blame to the current coach, the previous coach, both coaches, ineptness/incompetence on the part of anyone in the athletic department, or just to the cosmic bad luck that inhabits the W&M basketball program. You can choose. I am just observing ....

Nathan Knight is the first CAA player since George Evans (GMU) to win POY and Defensive POY in the same season. Evans did it twice, in 1999 and 2001. By the way, GMU won the CAAT in both 1999 and 2001. I don't remember George Evans ever shooting any 3-pointers. He was a classic back-to-the-basket post man.

A similar player was Odell Hodge of ODU. He played from 1992-1993 to 1996-1997 (he was injured and out all year in 1995). Hodge had numbers very close to Knight's, but better. Hodge had 2117 points and 1086 rebounds. He also had 286 blocks. He was on the all-Defensive team in 1997 (maybe more often but the write-up was meager) and he was the CAA POY and CAAT MVP in both 1994 and 1997. Interestingly, in 1994 Hodge was CAAT MVP and his team lost in the final to JMU. ODU won in 1995 (the year Hodge was injured) and won again in his last year in 1997. I also don't ever remember Hodge shooting a 3-pointer. (One other tidbit -- Hodge currently lives in Brussels, Belgium. Too bad he couldn't have given Andy Van Vliet some power-move pointers while he was there).

So, based on Knight's stats being in the same neighborhood as CAA greats Hodge and Evans, you might expect the same kind of results. Instead, during the last two years (Knight's best years), W&M has bowed out to a worse-seeded team in their first game.

It is clear that W&M underachieved. You assign the blame -- but definitely not Knight's fault.

(09-27-2020 08:03 AM)Tribe3455 Wrote:  ... 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. ...

There are lots of ways to protest something (in this case, the firing of Tony Shaver). One way is to communicate with the decision-makers. I tried that, it did not work, and it was clear that Rowe was fully on board with the "basketball is king and the NCAAT is everything" mindset. So, when that failed, another way to protest is to withhold donations from an entity that is misusing and misspending my dollars. I did that. It was NOT out of spite, it was because it is a fact that sometimes the only way to get through to people is to hit them where it hurts -- in their pocketbook. Apparently, I and thousands of others did get through to them, at least partly, because donations have been down since then. It got their attention.

So, you and others who have characterized this attitude as "spite" are way off base. We are simply using one avenue, the last avenue available to us, to make a point that mere words can't make.

Best leaders I've ever had at work were females. Easy to pin criticism on sexism, bigotry, etc.

We've had everything we've needed to go dancing, just haven't put it together in one season. Thorton, Dixon, Prewitt, Tarpey, and Knight win the CAAT 7/10 times.

Huge made her bed and withholding $ is the only way for our ignored fanbasw to remove her.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

About a month ago when my football license fee and seat payment were refunded
I took much of that money and sent a donation to the Tribe Club. Even though
I was disillusioned with leadership, I wanted to help the department and especially the athletes get through this difficult year. Then came the surprising announcement to cut the 7 teams. Deception! Lack of transparency! I will be more careful with my contributions in the future. I want leaders that I can trust with our funds.

I enjoy W&M Athletics and continue to support them financially through all situations. We have great young people and coaches, many of whom we've had to our home...they are not the source of turmoil and why should we penalize them? I doubt denying $$$ will hasten or delay the AD's leaving. She is making
a pretty decent run at that herself based on the plagiarism fiasco that has embarassed her boss and the university.

Incidentally, if you count the 41 million , which is a contribution from two alums, immense as it is, that has been contributed for the Kaplan Arena refurbishing, then alumni contributions are up, not less.

How about this: we earned our money and we'll spend it however we chose. Donate all of your money to Tribe Athletics and I promise I won't lecture you.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(09-27-2020 11:23 AM)Zorch Wrote:  There are lots of ways to protest something (in this case, the firing of Tony Shaver). One way is to communicate with the decision-makers. I tried that, it did not work, and it was clear that Rowe was fully on board with the "basketball is king and the NCAAT is everything" mindset. So, when that failed, another way to protest is to withhold donations from an entity that is misusing and misspending my dollars. I did that. It was NOT out of spite, it was because it is a fact that sometimes the only way to get through to people is to hit them where it hurts -- in their pocketbook. Apparently, I and thousands of others did get through to them, at least partly, because donations have been down since then. It got their attention.

So, you and others who have characterized this attitude as "spite" are way off base. We are simply using one avenue, the last avenue available to us, to make a point that mere words can't make.

In the bold above, you just described "spite". You're trying to make their decision hurt. No argument that you have a right to do so, but it's literally spite.

In your post, you're basically saying that you were *not* writing, you were simply picking up a pencil, pressing the tip to paper, and making markings.

(09-27-2020 02:22 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 11:23 AM)Zorch Wrote:  There are lots of ways to protest something (in this case, the firing of Tony Shaver). One way is to communicate with the decision-makers. I tried that, it did not work, and it was clear that Rowe was fully on board with the "basketball is king and the NCAAT is everything" mindset. So, when that failed, another way to protest is to withhold donations from an entity that is misusing and misspending my dollars. I did that. It was NOT out of spite, it was because it is a fact that sometimes the only way to get through to people is to hit them where it hurts -- in their pocketbook. Apparently, I and thousands of others did get through to them, at least partly, because donations have been down since then. It got their attention.

So, you and others who have characterized this attitude as "spite" are way off base. We are simply using one avenue, the last avenue available to us, to make a point that mere words can't make.

In the bold above, you just described "spite". You're trying to make their decision hurt. No argument that you have a right to do so, but it's literally spite.

In your post, you're basically saying that you were *not* writing, you were simply picking up a pencil, pressing the tip to paper, and making markings.

I disagree; not with your definition but with the underlying intent. I do agree that I could have worded that a lot better to make my point. Even so, especially when talking about money, a person has a right to withhold their own money and if they do so it might not be because of spite but, rather, because they are careful with it and do not want to flush good money after bad. I considered the spending of $3.1M to pay Shaver to not coach as a bad waste of money. I simply did not want to give more funds to people who were so wasteful. The fact that it did "hit them where it hurts" is good because it got their attention (not because of the pain itself). Causing pain was not the motivating factor -- stopping them from wasting any more of my money was the bigger factor.

(09-27-2020 01:58 PM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  I enjoy W&M Athletics and continue to support them financially through all situations. We have great young people and coaches, ....

Just a lot less of them than before.

(09-27-2020 04:45 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 02:22 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 11:23 AM)Zorch Wrote:  There are lots of ways to protest something (in this case, the firing of Tony Shaver). One way is to communicate with the decision-makers. I tried that, it did not work, and it was clear that Rowe was fully on board with the "basketball is king and the NCAAT is everything" mindset. So, when that failed, another way to protest is to withhold donations from an entity that is misusing and misspending my dollars. I did that. It was NOT out of spite, it was because it is a fact that sometimes the only way to get through to people is to hit them where it hurts -- in their pocketbook. Apparently, I and thousands of others did get through to them, at least partly, because donations have been down since then. It got their attention.

So, you and others who have characterized this attitude as "spite" are way off base. We are simply using one avenue, the last avenue available to us, to make a point that mere words can't make.

In the bold above, you just described "spite". You're trying to make their decision hurt. No argument that you have a right to do so, but it's literally spite.

In your post, you're basically saying that you were *not* writing, you were simply picking up a pencil, pressing the tip to paper, and making markings.

I disagree; not with your definition but with the underlying intent. I do agree that I could have worded that a lot better to make my point. Even so, especially when talking about money, a person has a right to withhold their own money and if they do so it might not be because of spite but, rather, because they are careful with it and do not want to flush good money after bad. I considered the spending of $3.1M to pay Shaver to not coach as a bad waste of money. I simply did not want to give more funds to people who were so wasteful. The fact that it did "hit them where it hurts" is good because it got their attention (not because of the pain itself). Causing pain was not the motivating factor -- stopping them from wasting any more of my money was the bigger factor.

I'd say I'm not going to argue semantics but let's face it, arguing semantics is a very large part of this message board. The connotation of spite being hateful is what you're arguing, it seems. Spite isn't necessarily hateful intent, although it often is. The point is, you're uncomfortable with it being labeled "spite"... I'd say don't be. Nobody's arguing that your progression of actions was unreasonable. Edit: well, at least I'm not. :)

(09-27-2020 10:38 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Quite frankly, I'm not sure that her playbook is that bad either....lot's of good ideas. She just can't execute it without causing turmoil. I think it's simply inexperience in dealing with change at a place like W&M. She has a very nomadic resume with mostly schools with big time athletics (Delaware is the exception). I think she underestimated how much loyalty people have/had in the long tenured coaches, staff, and teams that she ran out of town. The problem now is that she can't do stuff over, and I think she's out of mulligans.

This is a really good take, imo. A lot of this situation just comes down to a misunderstanding of what this community values. It's ironic, because Rowe and Huge would be the first to talk about "values" and all of those entrepreneurial buzzwords.

I've mostly stayed on the sidelines except for what we've said on the pod, but one more point: it's a little naive to think that gender hasn't played some role in the reaction to this situation. Even if you believe that this has been mishandled (I do) or that firing Shaver was a mistake (I do) or whatever else, we're uncomfortable with having an ambitious, "aggressive" woman calling the shots.

(09-27-2020 05:28 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  ...The connotation of spite being hateful is what you're arguing, it seems. Spite isn't necessarily hateful intent, although it often is. The point is, you're uncomfortable with it being labeled "spite"...

Yes, this is correct.

(09-27-2020 05:55 PM)NoBidNation Wrote:  ... it's a little naive to think that gender hasn't played some role in the reaction to this situation. Even if you believe that this has been mishandled (I do) or that firing Shaver was a mistake (I do) or whatever else, we're uncomfortable with having an ambitious, "aggressive" woman calling the shots.

I don't think that words like "aggressive" (or worse) would be used if we agreed with the decisions. They would probably be labeled "astute", "prescient", or words like that. When we don't like the actions we use words like "boneheaded" or "dumb". In other words, it is not Huge's sex that influences my opinion at all; it is entirely her words and actions. I would love to celebrate the accomplishments of any W&M President or Athletic Director who does great things, be they men or women. Likewise, I will lambaste those actions, if deserved, be they from men or women.

Huge deactivated her Twitter acct.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Man, talk about thin skin...

(09-27-2020 09:37 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(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.

Bucknell has been to dance eight times. Lehigh has been five. Don’t imagine their budgets are larger than Tribe’s. Wonder what their secret sauce is? Learning what it is might be beneficial to entire athletic program.

PL teams play in a weak conference and get an AB. The same poor conference Bubba wanted us to join in the days when he was Big Tribe. Anyway, why are we going back and forth at each other? Blaming for withholding funds, fussing about phantom sexism, and arguing over semantics? Fire Huge like we should've done 2 years ago, hire a competent leader, and watch fundraising go through the roof. We have the coaches & athletes to win it all so cut bait with the real problem and let's go.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(09-27-2020 08:43 PM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(09-27-2020 09:37 AM)Old tribe Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Bucknell has been to dance eight times. Lehigh has been five. Don’t imagine their budgets are larger than Tribe’s. Wonder what their secret sauce is? Learning what it is might be beneficial to entire athletic program.

Don't know much about Lehigh, but Bucknell annually has by far the largest budget in the Patriot League, with the best facilities. There's a reason they are highly successful. Over time, you get what you pay for. Difficult now with the financial effects of the pandemic, but the goal needs to be to increase our men's basketball budget to at least a competitive level in the conference so we're not entirely reliant on getting lucky with a great coach we got for cheap to be competitive (Shaver, and hopefully Fischer).

https://watchstadium.com/patriot-league-...7-18-2019/

Bucknell is private. Lots of rich kids. Similar to High Point, Richmond or Elon.