(03-13-2019 06:33 PM)billymac Wrote:  Here is a list of potential coaching targets that JMU posters were talking about, as their next coach, before Rowe got his Vote of Confidence today.


John Becker Vermont 191-83. 2 NCAA bids in 8 years
Tim Cluess Iona 197-107 6 NCAA bids in 9 years
Steve Forbes East Tenn St. 100-37 1 NCAA bid in 4 years. Also 62-6 at a JUCO
Ray Harper Jax St 156-101 3 NCAA bids in 8 years. 2 DII titles, 2 NAIA titles
John Brannan N. Kentucky 80-51. 2 NCAA bids in 4 years
Lavelle Moton NC Central 179-112 3 NCAA bids in 9 years.
Nathan Davis Bucknell. 88-44 2 NCAA bids in 4 years
John Thompson III 346-193. 10 NCAA bids in 17 years. One Final Four
Thad Matta 439-154 13 NCAA bids in 17 years. 2 Final Fours. Is he healthy?
Andy Kennedy 266-169. 2 NCAA in 13 years
Randy Bennett St Mary’s 412-173. 7 NCAA bids in 18 years


Nathan Davis and Earl Grant are considered the top 2 possibilities at U of R, unless Mooney gets his "vote of confidence". (They won today...barely.)

The trouble with most of the data above (gaudy won-loss records and NCAA appearances) is that for most of those names the conferences they were in are historically inferior to the CAA. That is, if Tony Shaver was coaching at NC Central or anywhere in the Patriot League, NEC, MAAC, America East etc etc etc then I would bet that he would have multiple NCAAT appearances also. So, maybe those guys can win at those places --- but can they win at W&M????

.......Tony did.

(03-13-2019 09:39 PM)Zorch Wrote:  So, maybe those guys can win at those places --- but can they win at W&M????

.......Tony did.

No, he didn't. I'm not sure that firing him is the right move, but the reason given for the firing is that he did not win. I think Huge is smart enough to know that this reaction would come, and she still made the move because she thinks that maybe one of those guys can win at W&M. And that her job is on the line if the next coach doesn't.

I'm in the camp that thinks that given enough time, we would have made the tournament with Coach Shaver, maybe even next year. But I would also argue that thinking is mostly shaped by not wanting to return to Boyages and the irrelevancy that came before him.

Well, if Huge has found the money to bankroll a $1.7mill buyout (which may not be big for others, but is for us), then she must have the money to up the incentives for her replacement choice. It's definitely a different realm for Tribe sports.

John Thompson III certainly fits the Mike London mold, for better or worse.

CAA lost its historical superiority when ODU, GMU, and VCU left.

I do find it amusing that after years of people screaming they wanted the AD to be ambitious and proactive, they get an AD being ambitious and proactive and they're screaming about it.

Nathan Davis could be an inspired hire, particularly if he brings along a graduate transfer, maybe by the name Nate Sestina, and retains the current anticipated roster and recruit, lands the 2020 offers we have out there or better for the 2020 class, is able to prep a team for a game better than Tony and makes better in game adjustments, while representing the College with class and dignity, graduating his players and recruiting solid citizens based upon their own academic records up to W&M admission office standards without bribes and consistently takes W&M to the dance on what we have available to spend on the program.

Come to think of it, any candidate that could do that would be an inspired hire as well. That is all.

(03-14-2019 07:09 AM)Rocco Wrote:  I do find it amusing that after years of people screaming they wanted the AD to be ambitious and proactive, they get an AD being ambitious and proactive and they're screaming about it.

I wanted to retain Tony, but this didn't escape my notice as well. The biggest part that confuses me is this $1.7 million payout. If it is accurate, it runs completely opposite of the way we've conducted business. To be that Gung ho, Huge has got to have a guy already in the wings that has agreed in principle. You don't fire a long time successful coach and go blindly into the off-season looking for a replacement. At least that is my opinion. You bring in a dynamic coach and you retain most of the team, attract prime transfers, and continue to build. Make an uninspired hire and you risk a great deal of poaching and probable setback. Say what you want about Huge, and a lot has been said on this board, I don't think she is dumb. I think she will make a decent hire. It may not be the hire you or I want, but I think she will find a good candidate.

(03-14-2019 07:09 AM)Rocco Wrote:  I do find it amusing that after years of people screaming they wanted the AD to be ambitious and proactive, they get an AD being ambitious and proactive and they're screaming about it.

I understand where you are coming from on this but it is possible that those who are screaming now are not those who were screaming for the AD to be ambitious and proactive.

One of my big concerns - not in anyway minimizing the human aspect of getting rid of a good man who has done some unprecedented things at W&M - is (in my opinion) the appearance of fiscal irresponsibility. I have been a little concerned, and have stated before, that we have been spending money (in fairness I don't know how much) on outside consultants. Now on top of that, if it is true that we are paying a $1.7 million buyout, where is all this money coming from? The Under Armour deal? Another FCS Football game this year? The Stanford game in 2020? I know I have been asked to up my contribution in the last three weeks. Let's even pretend for a minute that we are a bigger D-1 program where a donor covers that check, could our Athletic Department not use that $1.7 million "donation" in other ways over the next 5 years?

Sure, if we make the NCAA Tournament and the supposed financial windfall that comes with it, all of this will be water under the bridge and the biggest thing will be that a damn good man and representative of our school (along with his assistants) lost their jobs. But this is a VERY proactive and ambitious move.

Despite any state job posting requirements, timing is absolutely critical to this move not causing next year to be a start over year, and getting a worthy coach.

As I stated previously:

I think any window for grabbing Nathan Davis (who would be my home run choice) may be gone as early as this weekend.

I think Huge does not make this decisive and quick of a move unless she had a plan A opportunity that opened and reduced the risk of the decision. Again, I think the dotted lines are there with how the dominoes fell and that the yet to be known catalyst was potentially Billy Kennedy being let go from her previous stomping ground.

It would have been a foolish decision, if no plan A and plan B were already thought out. Letting Tony go without that would not have any merit or wise basis.

(03-14-2019 07:38 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 07:09 AM)Rocco Wrote:  I do find it amusing that after years of people screaming they wanted the AD to be ambitious and proactive, they get an AD being ambitious and proactive and they're screaming about it.

I wanted to retain Tony, but this didn't escape my notice as well. The biggest part that confuses me is this $1.7 million payout. If it is accurate, it runs completely opposite of the way we've conducted business. To be that Gung ho, Huge has got to have a guy already in the wings that has agreed in principle. You don't fire a long time successful coach and go blindly into the off-season looking for a replacement. At least that is my opinion. You bring in a dynamic coach and you retain most of the team, attract prime transfers, and continue to build. Make an uninspired hire and you risk a great deal of poaching and probable setback. Say what you want about Huge, and a lot has been said on this board, I don't think she is dumb. I think she will make a decent hire. It may not be the hire you or I want, but I think she will find a good candidate.

I'm waiting to see who she brings in before I rage about it. Ideally it would be someone young and ambitious who may leave after 2-3 years but will win games and elevate the program before bolting. If it's John Thompson III it's going to take me a while before I talk myself into everything being okay.

(03-14-2019 07:09 AM)Rocco Wrote:  I do find it amusing that after years of people screaming they wanted the AD to be ambitious and proactive, they get an AD being ambitious and proactive and they're screaming about it.

Being ambitious and proactive is precisely what we needed, and for the most part what we want. Specific decisions still need to be evaluated based on unique circumstances. In Shaver's case, those circumstances have myself and others disagreeing with the decision. Blind loyalty has been a drag on the athletic department in the past, and new, ambitious leadership should not expect it going forward. We pay the bills. We can scream if we choose.

I like the idea of Nathan Davis. I agree that if there is any shot, now is it. He seems a prime candidate for dead-man-walking Chris Mooney at UR. He has won at all levels, comes from an academic background, and has proven to be a formidable recruiter. I think if you get him here early, you retain much of the current team, open the real possibility of gaining Sestina and other Bucknell targets.

So Huge can find 1.7M to buyout Shaver but could not find enough funds to pay for the team to attend summer school for each semester? Shaver and his staff worked with a shoestring budget and we now will magically find $1,700,000 to fund his buyout. Hope the Tribe Club makes sure no private funds are used to fund this as i know my contributions were never intended for this purpose.

(03-14-2019 07:09 AM)Rocco Wrote:  I do find it amusing that after years of people screaming they wanted the AD to be ambitious and proactive, they get an AD being ambitious and proactive and they're screaming about it.

Point taken, although I don't think any of the posters on this board want the quest for winning to be monomaniacal. There is plenty of room for goodwill and loyalty in a winning program. It's a balancing act, but it can be done.

I'm a Steelers fan so forgive the analogy, but I remember for years it seemed like Bill Cowher could never win the big game, until finally after thirteen years of near misses he got over the hump. On the way, the guy lost four AFC title games and a Super Bowl (not to mention a handful of other abortive playoff runs). But Rooney knew he had a solid coach who was due to get there eventually, and gave him a long leash and enough resources to succeed.

I think Shaver would have gotten us "there" and possibly next year, but what's done is done. I hope WM hires an ambitious young coach, and I also hope going forward that they make the decision carefully and give him the time and support he needs to do his job.

(03-14-2019 08:28 AM)wmmii Wrote:  So Huge can find 1.7M to buyout Shaver plus what would have to be a larger salary than Shaver made to hire his replacement but could not find enough funds to pay for the team to attend summer school for each semester? Shaver and his staff worked with a shoestring budget and we now will magically find $1,700,000 to fund his buyout. Hope the Tribe Club makes sure no private funds are used to fund this as i know my contributions were never intended for this purpose.

Your last sentence is a good point, however, I think any donation to the TC is considered "Pool Money" or AD budget funds. That said I doubt he gets a 1.7 mill check cut, might be more like Powerball he can take a one-time payout now of a negotiated amount, or be paid over a certain length of time. For example, the Mets are still paying Bobby Bonilla, I know its the Mets and all, but .....

On another note paying a former coach, not to coach are the things big-time schools do, so welcome to the big-time!

If you're looking for an NFC North comparison, it's Marvin Lewis. The team was a joke before he got there, and he made them competent. If you're happy with competency, you can stay the course. If you want to try to take another step forward, you need to take a risk.

The anger at Huge is misplaced. If the school wanted the status quo, they would have promoted from within. She's doing the job she was hired to do.

Don't understand the negativity directed at JTIII. All the guy ever did at Princeton and Georgetown was win, except for his last two seasons. 2 NCAA appearances at Princeton running a Princeton offense of course that he learned first hand. Multiple NCAA appearances at Georgetown including one Final Four. He would understand what it's like to be at a school like W&M based on his history at Princeton working with actual student athletes. Currently a assistant with the US National Team. Only drawback I can see is that we would probably not be able to pay him two million plus dollars/year like he got at Georgetown.

(03-14-2019 10:29 AM)Tribester Wrote:  Don't understand the negativity directed at JTIII. All the guy ever did at Princeton and Georgetown was win, except for his last two seasons. 2 NCAA appearances at Princeton running a Princeton offense of course that he learned first hand. Multiple NCAA appearances at Georgetown including one Final Four. He would understand what it's like to be at a school like W&M based on his history at Princeton working with actual student athletes. Currently a assistant with the US National Team. Only drawback I can see is that we would probably not be able to pay him two million plus dollars/year like he got at Georgetown.

I think a lot of the negativity now is that it isn't Shaver. The wounds are still too fresh. Unfortunately, it is extremely important that the hire is correct and happens quickly. I think my 1st choice would be Bucknell's Davis, followed by Wofford's Young. As far as unemployed coaches go, we could do far worse than JTIII. Though, I feel like if it is JTIII, then we had other deals fall through. He doesn't seem difference maker enough to cut ties with Shaver and pay out millions.

(03-14-2019 10:36 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  

(03-14-2019 10:29 AM)Tribester Wrote:  Don't understand the negativity directed at JTIII. All the guy ever did at Princeton and Georgetown was win, except for his last two seasons. 2 NCAA appearances at Princeton running a Princeton offense of course that he learned first hand. Multiple NCAA appearances at Georgetown including one Final Four. He would understand what it's like to be at a school like W&M based on his history at Princeton working with actual student athletes. Currently a assistant with the US National Team. Only drawback I can see is that we would probably not be able to pay him two million plus dollars/year like he got at Georgetown.

I think a lot of the negativity now is that it isn't Shaver. The wounds are still too fresh. Unfortunately, it is extremely important that the hire is correct and happens quickly. I think my 1st choice would be Bucknell's Davis, followed by Wofford's Young. As far as unemployed coaches go, we could do far worse than JTIII.

He's definitely still young enough. His offense at GTown didn't look anything like his offense at Princeton (which is a good sign that he adjusted), but his refusal to adjust the last few years at GTown ultimately cost him his job. It would be a "name" and he is likely to consider the ability to get back into coaching an attractive one. I have to imagine that giving Shaver 16 years has to be looked upon favorably by coaches - we don't have a track record of running people off after 2-3 years.

I can't say one way or another as to my impression of JTIII as an in-game coach (he did good things and bad things, IMO); but, I think we could do a helluva lot worse.

Where did the JTIII name come from? Honestly seems out of our reach, but a coach for the US Men's National Team who has a final 4 appearance and 10 tournament appearances (Plus 4 NITs) in 17 years seems like a good thing.