Powerful letter...

Professor Guthrie Letter

It's worth noting that this professor is the mother of a current cut 7 student-athlete.

I certainly agree with what she wrote, but the personal connection, for me, takes a bit of the sting off.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Indeed a powerful letter. It's best for the Tribe to part ways with Huge as quickly as possible. These are challenging times. However, I see no good outcome as long as Huge is the leader of the athletic department.

I would also listen more if academics took as hard a look at their own house.

There are no actions to cut academic programs that have few students or cut programs that do not prepare students for the "real world".

Huge's timing was just terrible. She seems more open to Stanford AD than to rest of us. It is time for President Rowe to act.

(09-23-2020 10:30 AM)wanm65 Wrote:  I would also listen more if academics took as hard a look at their own house.

There are no actions to cut academic programs that have few students or cut programs that do not prepare students for the "real world".

Won't get very far with this, especially given that W&M is outwardly prideful about providing a strong liberal education (and run by a president whose background is in Shakespearean literature).

(09-23-2020 12:25 PM)Swemster Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 10:30 AM)wanm65 Wrote:  I would also listen more if academics took as hard a look at their own house.

There are no actions to cut academic programs that have few students or cut programs that do not prepare students for the "real world".

Won't get very far with this, especially given that W&M is outwardly prideful about providing a strong liberal education (and run by a president whose background is in Shakespearean literature).

There are places to cut that will not effect our educational goals.

A strong BOV should demand a total review of the academic and admin costs and value added.

(09-23-2020 12:38 PM)wanm65 Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 12:25 PM)Swemster Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 10:30 AM)wanm65 Wrote:  I would also listen more if academics took as hard a look at their own house.

There are no actions to cut academic programs that have few students or cut programs that do not prepare students for the "real world".

Won't get very far with this, especially given that W&M is outwardly prideful about providing a strong liberal education (and run by a president whose background is in Shakespearean literature).

There are places to cut that will not effect our educational goals.

A strong BOV should demand a total review of the academic and admin costs and value added.

Whose educational goals? Yours? You say that as though there is a consensus for what constitutes "value added."

Anyways, I loved reading her letter, especially about the ways Huge relies on intimidation and otherwise carries herself in professional settings. Having had several conversations with her in more casual contexts, none of this surprises me.

(09-23-2020 12:51 PM)Swemster Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 12:38 PM)wanm65 Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 12:25 PM)Swemster Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 10:30 AM)wanm65 Wrote:  I would also listen more if academics took as hard a look at their own house.

There are no actions to cut academic programs that have few students or cut programs that do not prepare students for the "real world".

Won't get very far with this, especially given that W&M is outwardly prideful about providing a strong liberal education (and run by a president whose background is in Shakespearean literature).

There are places to cut that will not effect our educational goals.



A strong BOV should demand a total review of the academic and admin costs and value added.

Whose educational goals? Yours? You say that as though there is a consensus for what constitutes "value added."

Anyways, I loved reading her letter, especially about the ways Huge relies on intimidation and otherwise carries herself in professional settings. Having had several conversations with her in more casual contexts, none of this surprises me.

Try reading the Colleges' goals. Not mine. You may learn something :>)

Can we not turn this into another back-and-forth. The thought of challenging our academic side is silly. First rate education with minimal resources is our anthem.

This whole situation is a show and Tribe Athletics is headlining the comedy hour. The cuts may very well have been necessary (I don't know) but the focus is on an AD who simply isn't a good person and is professionally incompetent (something I do know & have stated for years).

It shouldn't be like this. W&M is better than what we're watching.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

I think what frustrates me is Tribe Athletics relies on 15 million or so of student funding every year (https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances). If the stated goal/achievement of these cuts was to reduce that burden, I honestly would have been somewhat supportive of it - each student basically pays 10k over 4 years so we can fund Tribe Athletics, for a lot of people, that's 10k more in loans they had to take out. But, unless I've missed something, no where has reducing the student burden been mentioned, it seems like we still have a budget shortfall, even after these cuts are made.

This letter is spot on. I would only add the financial impact of Shaver’s questionable firing on the athletic budget. It’s time for Huge to go. Strongly encourage anyone who has not already to write to the BOV and/or President Rowe. We are in danger of losing our athletic soul and the community is being torn apart and pitted against one another (revenue vs non-revenue) and this was not the case before Huge.

(09-23-2020 01:18 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think what frustrates me is Tribe Athletics relies on 15 million or so of student funding every year (https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances). If the stated goal/achievement of these cuts was to reduce that burden, I honestly would have been somewhat supportive of it - each student basically pays 10k over 4 years so we can fund Tribe Athletics, for a lot of people, that's 10k more in loans they had to take out. But, unless I've missed something, no where has reducing the student burden been mentioned, it seems like we still have a budget shortfall, even after these cuts are made.

I agree. This is my 2nd main issue, after the fact that they claimed they tried everything to raise money, which appears to be 100% not true.

(09-24-2020 01:14 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 01:18 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think what frustrates me is Tribe Athletics relies on 15 million or so of student funding every year (https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances). If the stated goal/achievement of these cuts was to reduce that burden, I honestly would have been somewhat supportive of it - each student basically pays 10k over 4 years so we can fund Tribe Athletics, for a lot of people, that's 10k more in loans they had to take out. But, unless I've missed something, no where has reducing the student burden been mentioned, it seems like we still have a budget shortfall, even after these cuts are made.

I agree. This is my 2nd main issue, after the fact that they claimed they tried everything to raise money, which appears to be 100% not true.

Now that you all mention this (I hadn't considered it in the least), this could be a spark to ignite the student body. If students are made aware just how much they pay in athletics fees, they may protest the cuts...could backfire and they may protest the fees in general. AD Huge may have to deal with that, too.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(09-24-2020 01:14 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 01:18 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think what frustrates me is Tribe Athletics relies on 15 million or so of student funding every year (https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances). If the stated goal/achievement of these cuts was to reduce that burden, I honestly would have been somewhat supportive of it - each student basically pays 10k over 4 years so we can fund Tribe Athletics, for a lot of people, that's 10k more in loans they had to take out. But, unless I've missed something, no where has reducing the student burden been mentioned, it seems like we still have a budget shortfall, even after these cuts are made.

I agree. This is my 2nd main issue, after the fact that they claimed they tried everything to raise money, which appears to be 100% not true.

* repost of Rowe's letter *

(09-24-2020 07:52 AM)Tribal Wrote:  

(09-24-2020 01:14 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  

(09-23-2020 01:18 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I think what frustrates me is Tribe Athletics relies on 15 million or so of student funding every year (https://sports.usatoday.com/ncaa/finances). If the stated goal/achievement of these cuts was to reduce that burden, I honestly would have been somewhat supportive of it - each student basically pays 10k over 4 years so we can fund Tribe Athletics, for a lot of people, that's 10k more in loans they had to take out. But, unless I've missed something, no where has reducing the student burden been mentioned, it seems like we still have a budget shortfall, even after these cuts are made.

I agree. This is my 2nd main issue, after the fact that they claimed they tried everything to raise money, which appears to be 100% not true.

Now that you all mention this (I hadn't considered it in the least), this could be a spark to ignite the student body. If students are made aware just how much they pay in athletics fees, they may protest the cuts...could backfire and they may protest the fees in general. AD Huge may have to deal with that, too.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Absolutely LAST thing that we need is more push back on student fees. You think the Tribe 7 cuts are bad. Wait until half the department is cut. I honestly believe every single student on campus benefits from a solid athletic department which is why I have never thought the fees should not be included. Students pay for a lot of things on campus that many of them care nothing about/don't use. Heck, the dorms are not self sustaining on board costs. Theaters and other buildings/facilities are not used by all. Athletics simply has a line item carved out because somebody long ago wanted that level of transparency. That's fine but to say even a mediocre athletic department is not beneficial to the entire student body and university would be incorrect.

+1

Each Student pays two fees, a general fee, and a facilities fee. The general fee is currently $2309.50 and the facility fee is $719.50 for a total of $3029 per semester, $6058 per year. Of this about $2228 goes to athletics, $226 of that for facilities for athletics (eg every student pays $22/year for the Laycock center.)

If $15M of the budget comes from these fees the allocation to swimming looks something like this:
- $182K roughly is required to fund the team (after the endowment ($118K and annual opex donations ($150K est) is taken into consideration)
- Assuming 100% of the $182K is covered by student fees, that is 1.2% of the total student fee allocation
- 1.2% of the $2228 athletic + facility fee is $26.74/annually, $13.37/semester, slightly more than the cost of the Laycock Center to fund a highly competitive championship winning swim team

The other sports aside from Volleyball have a similarly small financial footprint.
While I totally agree students shouldn't have to go into debt to fund athletics, the sports cut wouldn't amount to more than a $100 or so in rebates or reductions, and we all know there is no reduction coming, because 100% of the fees are still needed to cover the $3M + loss the department runs.

Conservatively I estimate at least $1M of that is just management overhead waste on the expense side (consultants, unnecessary facility improvements, cost of high employee turnover, paying Shaver to not coach). And of course ticket sales and fundraising for football and basketball are down since 2017, and the FY 2020 numbers which have yet to be released are likely to be a disaster. Its a financial management and PR disaster, and Huge has well earned her walking papers.

(09-24-2020 06:58 PM)Tribfan Wrote:  Each Student pays two fees, a general fee, and a facilities fee. The general fee is currently $2309.50 and the facility fee is $719.50 for a total of $3029 per semester, $6058 per year. Of this about $2228 goes to athletics, $226 of that for facilities for athletics (eg every student pays $22/year for the Laycock center.)

If $15M of the budget comes from these fees the allocation to swimming looks something like this:
- $182K roughly is required to fund the team (after the endowment ($118K and annual opex donations ($150K est) is taken into consideration)
- Assuming 100% of the $182K is covered by student fees, that is 1.2% of the total student fee allocation
- 1.2% of the $2228 athletic + facility fee is $26.74/annually, $13.37/semester, slightly more than the cost of the Laycock Center to fund a highly competitive championship winning swim team

The other sports aside from Volleyball have a similarly small financial footprint.
While I totally agree students shouldn't have to go into debt to fund athletics, the sports cut wouldn't amount to more than a $100 or so in rebates or reductions, and we all know there is no reduction coming, because 100% of the fees are still needed to cover the $3M + loss the department runs.

Conservatively I estimate at least $1M of that is just management overhead waste on the expense side (consultants, unnecessary facility improvements, cost of high employee turnover, paying Shaver to not coach). And of course ticket sales and fundraising for football and basketball are down since 2017, and the FY 2020 numbers which have yet to be released are likely to be a disaster. Its a financial management and PR disaster, and Huge has well earned her walking papers.

When and if that happens, I will hold the door open for her!!!