(03-20-2019 07:50 PM)Tribe32 Wrote: I've said it before. Both Huge and Rowe are rookies in their positions. Firsts for both. Rookies make mistakes. Let's see how they clean it up.
I disagree. When you are a rookie, and making a significant decision, you should consider all potential implications and, if the risks are uncertain or too significant, take a conservative approach.
In this case, let's look at the calculus. Milon, Pierce, and Knight are gone after next year. Chase is a freshman.
If you keep Tony, and have a bad season with the returning roster, you have stronger grounds to terminate.
If you keep Tony, and he makes the tournament, you only have four more seasons under his contract, and with the albatross gone, you likely see a greater uptick in revenue and recruiting.
In other words, keeping Tony has no real downside, absent evidence that returning players intended to transfer.
But if you fire Tony, you face the following risks: (1) a mass exodus; (2) a fan outcry; (3) making a bad hire; (4) getting turned down by your leading candidates; (5) losing existing, signed recruits; (6) getting crucified in the press; and (7) hiring a coach that recruits more like Boyages - players that are small but slow.
Huge weighed the risks and opted for hubris. I agree with Tribal that unless there are material, significant facts we do not know that cast a bad light on Tony, the move was self-serving and intended to position Huge to take credit for "transformational" leadership.
The only way to reward this approach is by imposing on her the consequences of poor judgment. If these players depart, and the program goes into a tailspin, she should be terminated. She's been here two years, more than enough time to recognize that W&M is not Texas A&M. Maybe next time we will hire an AD who could have gained admission to W&M as an undergraduate ...