(03-19-2019 10:33 AM)tribeintexas Wrote:  Can we even support JTIII's salary with our MBB resources?

That depends on what he's willing to accept. If he looks at our (hopefully still) loaded team and views it as a chance to make a quick positive splash, followed by a fairly quick (2-3 years?) move back to a P5 team, then he could probably live on what we'd pay him for the short term.

(03-19-2019 10:25 AM)nj alum Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 09:34 AM)ttgwm02 Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 09:09 AM)88tribefan Wrote:  What are the chances that the new hire will be Holmes?

Based on nothing more than pure speculation, very low. Huge has made her play; if she hires an assistant who worked under the same man she just terminated, and has never served as a head coach, it will appear that she was unable to attract qualified candidates.

The budget numbers NJ Alum provided are illuminating. Comparing our annual budget with our conference competitors, it appears Tony got the most "bang for the buck" of any program in the CAA over the last six seasons.

NJ Alum, do you know off-hand the budgets for ODU, VCU, UVA, and Virginia Tech?

Trevor

The budget numbers for all schools is in the mid major madness link in post #9.

Here are the relevant numbers from the link:

SCHOOL EXPENSES REVENUE
Virginia Tech $9,892,883 $9,428,524
Virginia $8,555,125 $8,555,125
VCU $6,100,756 $8,830,848
Richmond $4,878,508 $4,878,508
Old Dominion $3,628,513 $3,628,513
George Mason $3,515,918 $3,515,918
James Madison $2,911,439 $2,911,439
Northeastern $2,740,955 $2,740,955
Drexel $2,861,372 $2,861,372
Liberty $2,856,213 $2,856,213
Davidson $2,638,281 $2,594,894
Hofstra $2,613,307 $2,613,307
Delaware $2,472,966 $2,472,966
C of Charleston $2,422,777 $2,422,777
William & Mary $2,071,156 $2,071,156
Towson $1,948,144 $1,948,144
Elon $1,879,111 $1,879,115
Longwood $1,709,008 $1,709,008
Wofford $1,610,673 $1,610,673
UNC Greensboro $ $1,567,728 $1,567,728
Radford $1,544,246 $2,325,900

Those numbers are pretty shocking. Liberty has an extra $800K to throw around, and our other in-state competitors are, at a minimum, $1.5M higher in annual budget. You can do a lot with that kind of funding. Recruiting, scheduling, marketing, video support.

This does not account for additional benefits from better shoe contracts - apparel, shoes, all the stuff that players love.

I don't see Virginia and Virginia Tech as comparable, because the ACC revenue is such a huge factor in their budgets.

(03-19-2019 08:18 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  I would approach this fallacy from the other side -- there seems to be a lot of magical thinking around here, along the lines of "Now that Tony is gone, Ms. Huge will surely hire Wonderful Unnamed Coach X (for a mere pittance of a salary, so the buyout will be no problem), and Wonderful Unnamed Coach X will surely take whatever is left of Tony's Team to the Dance next season, while Tony definitely would not/could not ever have done so. We're trading up from a 0% chance to a 100% chance -- what a deal!!!!!!!"

"And it will definitely happen next year, so there was absolutely no reason to keep Tony around for at least one more year to coach the wonderful team he had put together, but was just too incompetent (or mean) to coach, poor dear."

I would love to live in that world -- but then I'm a big fan of unicorns and leprechauns.

I don't know that I've seen anyone actually think that that *will* definitely happen. Now, I haven't read everything people have commented over the last few days, so maybe I missed something.

I commented on the Sports Blog article about how I would feel a lot better *if* we got either of two of the people they listed. However, that was simply wishful thinking acknowledging that we can't fix the situation with Shaver now. Do I think that will happen? No. I think this situation will be a complete mess and we'll end up with a worse coach, but at this point, I feel like holding out that hope is about all I can do as a fan. I'm not a big donor, so it's not like I have any influence.

For people who are big donors, obviously the choice is their's, I worry about how pulling donations might make things worse. That's where I see a big debate right now - is pulling donations the best/most ethical method of creating change? Perhaps, if people want to pull their athletics donations in protest, they could at least send that money to other things that need it. I know that mental health care is a big issue on campus now, as is food quality, and of course academic or need-based scholarships are always good.

I'd rather see Coach Holmes get the job over any candidate that is not a home run.

Sorry LeadBolt. It is not going to happen. I don't think W&M values the type of effort and genuine relationship building Coach Holmes is known for. We used to though.

Plus we need to save every penny to cover the 3 million for the buyout and the new coaching staff.

(03-19-2019 08:28 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 08:23 AM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 08:18 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  I would approach this fallacy from the other side -- there seems to be a lot of magical thinking around here, along the lines of "Now that Tony is gone, Ms. Huge will surely hire Wonderful Unnamed Coach X (for a mere pittance of a salary, so the buyout will be no problem), and Wonderful Unnamed Coach X will surely take whatever is left of Tony's Team to the Dance next season, while Tony definitely would not/could not ever have done so. We're trading up from a 0% chance to a 100% chance -- what a deal!!!!!!!"

"And it will definitely happen next year, so there was absolutely no reason to keep Tony around for at least one more year to coach the wonderful team he had put together, but was just too incompetent (or mean) to coach, poor dear."

I would love to live in that world -- but then I'm a big fan of unicorns and leprechauns.

If that's how you're reading it, more power to you, but the "magical thinking" is more along the lines of "Maybe there are good reasons for firing Coach Shaver and I hope that the next coach can take the great strides he made to the next level."

Well, no -- that would be a sane and reasonable approach. Those aren't the posts I'm talking about. (And no, I'm at work so I don't have time to go post-diving to dredge up examples for you of what I'm talking about.)

Also, let me add "Ms. Huge will surely hire Wonderful Unnamed Coach X (despite the fact that Tony's firing was totally spur-of-the-moment based on the second half of the Delaware game, and there was absolutely no pre-planning of who a successor would be, and it would be outrageous to suggest otherwise) ..."

Re "Maybe there are good reasons for firing Coach Shaver": except that no reasons have been named other than that Huge's email made it clear that failing to make the NCAA tournament was the main driver. If there were behind the scenes issues then they would have leaked out by now.

Better watch it Blow Gym rat --- I posted similar sentiments and Tribe_in_the_Burg labeled it an "unhinged rant" !

(03-19-2019 09:54 AM)Rocco Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 08:18 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  I would approach this fallacy from the other side -- there seems to be a lot of magical thinking around here, along the lines of "Now that Tony is gone, Ms. Huge will surely hire Wonderful Unnamed Coach X (for a mere pittance of a salary, so the buyout will be no problem), and Wonderful Unnamed Coach X will surely take whatever is left of Tony's Team to the Dance next season, while Tony definitely would not/could not ever have done so. We're trading up from a 0% chance to a 100% chance -- what a deal!!!!!!!"

"And it will definitely happen next year, so there was absolutely no reason to keep Tony around for at least one more year to coach the wonderful team he had put together, but was just too incompetent (or mean) to coach, poor dear."

I would love to live in that world -- but then I'm a big fan of unicorns and leprechauns.

I haven't really seen that magical thinking, except from the people who are Definitely Not Mad Online about Shaver being fired setting strawmen on fire. Most people are curious as to who is going to take the program to the tourney.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that Shaver should have gotten a chance with Knight as a senior, but a) he had 16 years to get the team there, b) he had Thornton/Tarpey/Prewitt/Dixon already (so it's not like this was his first team with talent, and 2014-15>2019-20), c) his teams from 2013-14 on that were good enough to win have all fell short in the tourney in almost exactly the same way every year, suggesting a lack of change; d) had it not happened next year, the Definitely Not Mad Online people would deflect to 2021-22 being the year.

At least a, b, and c are right.

(03-19-2019 10:24 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 09:54 AM)Rocco Wrote:  

(03-19-2019 08:18 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  I would approach this fallacy from the other side -- there seems to be a lot of magical thinking around here, along the lines of "Now that Tony is gone, Ms. Huge will surely hire Wonderful Unnamed Coach X (for a mere pittance of a salary, so the buyout will be no problem), and Wonderful Unnamed Coach X will surely take whatever is left of Tony's Team to the Dance next season, while Tony definitely would not/could not ever have done so. We're trading up from a 0% chance to a 100% chance -- what a deal!!!!!!!"

"And it will definitely happen next year, so there was absolutely no reason to keep Tony around for at least one more year to coach the wonderful team he had put together, but was just too incompetent (or mean) to coach, poor dear."

I would love to live in that world -- but then I'm a big fan of unicorns and leprechauns.

I haven't really seen that magical thinking, except from the people who are Definitely Not Mad Online about Shaver being fired setting strawmen on fire. Most people are curious as to who is going to take the program to the tourney.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that Shaver should have gotten a chance with Knight as a senior, but a) he had 16 years to get the team there, b) he had Thornton/Tarpey/Prewitt/Dixon already (so it's not like this was his first team with talent, and 2014-15>2019-20), c) his teams from 2013-14 on that were good enough to win have all fell short in the tourney in almost exactly the same way every year, suggesting a lack of change; d) had it not happened next year, the Definitely Not Mad Online people would deflect to 2021-22 being the year.

At least a, b, and c are right.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-872117-post-15...id15964665

d) Would have happened.

Time, in my opinion, to end this increasingly meandering discussion. Exhausted would be an apt description.

(03-20-2019 05:56 AM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  Time, in my opinion, to end this increasingly meandering discussion. Exhausted would be an apt description.

Instead of wanting to end this discussion, how about contributing to the discussion.

You're close to the program and have sources.

Was this decision to fire Tony at this time, and the manner in which it was done, the correct one? Does the public explanation hold water?

And there is a purpose to this discussion. Information. Information never hurt anyone. Engagement. Engagement by the fan base is good.

Whenever I am told that a discussion must end, I always ask "why"? What's being concealed? Is there something that we aren't supposed to know? If the rock is lifted, and the sun shines underneath, what will be found?

The discussion will die a natural death at the appropriate time (the announcement of the new head coach).

(03-19-2019 08:23 AM)nj alum Wrote:  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!

Left Charleston having stayed to see semis thinking basketball program needed structural changes. Additional funding, a facilities upgrade, conference composition/affiliation change, admissions flexibility — would be needed to move beyond present perch in CAA. Tribe teams are now more athletic and longer than before, but had no advantage over teams in semis. They remain at a strength and weight disadvantage.

Coaching change came as a surprise because as others have noted, it will be a special individual who left with same structure produces a different outcome.

One question I do have results from budget numbers above. Is there a way to screen for the program’s record against MEAC, Big South, Patriot and SOCON during Coach Shaver era? Occasional losses to Hampton, Howard, High Point were aggravating, but overall record against programs where there was no resource disadvantage should be solid?