https://tribeathletics.com/news/2020/10/...etics.aspx

Great piece by Dave Johnson. Martin seems to really get it and get W&M. I'm hopeful for this new season under his leadership. I wonder depending on how things go if he will be given a significant opportunity to become the full time AD. Obviously he and Rowe work well together already.

I love the line about showing up to practices including the 5am swim team ones.

Let's get back to being William and Mary as Martin says in the interview and get back to truly being One Tribe, One Family where even if we have differences of opinions can work through them together to figure out the best way forward together.

Oh, and Tribal, he’d probably throw the ball with your kids too :).

My understanding is that most of the people who called President Rowe to complain about the dropped sports did not speak with her but, rather, with Martin. So I am very curious as to what he told those people versus what he might say tonight. I'm sure the calls were mollifying but still of the tone of "this is what is necessary". Now, tonight, is he already going in with the attitude that things are still necessary or is he going in with an open mind and a willingness to listen? As mentioned above, Martin and Rowe are already on the same page; I'm sure that she is planning and hoping that Martin will execute the plan a lot better than Huge did.

I have spoken to Martin before. I was not as impressed as some others have already said that they were.

Another question? Does W&M intend to do a search for a new AD or is this interim job a tryout ...giving Martin first crack and it is his job to lose?

I still remember how Reveley said "sure, I'll take the President's job on an interim basis, just until you can find somebody else" and then he stayed on for ten years.

I would be surprised if he's the final answer. Just doesn't make much sense to hire someone with no experience. I think Rowe is leaning on his leadership capabilities for now and clearly has trust in him.

I had a ten minute chat with him in the Suites section of the football stadium during a game last year and another five minutes at a new building dedication and was very impressed with him.

Fifteen minutes is not lots of time, but this fellow really gets and loves William & Mary, is very smart, and has an engaging personality. Let's give
him a decent chance.

Bubba, I am going to give him every chance as interim director. I just hope he can find the next person and go back to his full time job. I would suggest that if he was being considered for the job it would be "acting". Interim generally means for a specific time/task, but not expected to be permanent. Acting, means take the reigns in a status quo manner while a search is underway and a permanent candidate is chosen (many times acting becomes permanent).

That presentation went exactly as I thought it would. Some thoughts:

1. The announcement stated that he would answer questions, which he did not. Why not?

2. They quoted the 2018 Pictor study as “Bible” as to why they need to make the changes. That is completely disingenuous because, of course, that study was expressly commissioned to reach those very conclusions.

3. My wife pointed out that there was no apology or any remorse about how the College acted up to this point (such as for the plagiarism or for not working with shareholders in advance). Sure, they are sorry that they “got caught” but, otherwise they are not remorseful.

I am hopeful that Martin will truly listen but it is clear, to me, that this train is still full speed ahead until it gets derailed.

I’m trying to watch the Yankees game so posting some ideas will have to wait.

Martin doesn't owe us an apology. The problem is gone.


We aren't playing sports so Rowe should take her time in hiring an AD. She'll identify someone great, I'm sure.



Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(10-08-2020 07:17 PM)Zorch Wrote:  That presentation went exactly as I thought it would. Some thoughts:

1. The announcement stated that he would answer questions, which he did not. Why not?

2. They quoted the 2018 Pictor study as “Bible” as to why they need to make the changes. That is completely disingenuous because, of course, that study was expressly commissioned to reach those very conclusions.

3. My wife pointed out that there was no apology or any remorse about how the College acted up to this point (such as for the plagiarism or for not working with shareholders in advance). Sure, they are sorry that they “got caught” but, otherwise they are not remorseful.

I am hopeful that Martin will truly listen but it is clear, to me, that this train is still full speed ahead until it gets derailed.

I’m trying to watch the Yankees game so posting some ideas will have to wait.

3) Why would number 3 be something for him to talk about tonight? It has already been addressed. Plus, he did not plagiarize anything and he's already been more transparent about a plan working with stakeholders. THere are apologies already out there. He didn't owe anyone another one tonight.

2) Have you proven Pictor was used to reach those conclusions? Or is that your belief?

1) He stated why he wasn't taking live questions tonight. Did you not believe him? Or are you choosing to complain about him too a day into his position of interim AD? I actually believe he wants to have the answers before he takes questions. Try to respect that.

Go Tampa Bay!!!

Good guy who bleeds green and gold. He cares and has passion for W&M sports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Generally a nice presentation. One or two “lies, d*mn lies and statistics” moments. And no discussion of why Tribe Club giving was so far below budget.

My takeaway was that the announced cuts will go forward unless one or more teams comes up with something amazing in terms of new funding support. Swimming seems to be off to the best start, and just might make it. And with the women’s roster a bit larger than the men they can meet the Title IX hurdle.

Men’s track might consider teaming up with volleyball or women’s gymnastics.

Glad to see that some of the phony numbers are no longer being trotted out.

(10-08-2020 07:51 PM)Tribe3455 Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 07:17 PM)Zorch Wrote:  That presentation went exactly as I thought it would. Some thoughts:

1. The announcement stated that he would answer questions, which he did not. Why not?

2. They quoted the 2018 Pictor study as “Bible” as to why they need to make the changes. That is completely disingenuous because, of course, that study was expressly commissioned to reach those very conclusions.

3. My wife pointed out that there was no apology or any remorse about how the College acted up to this point (such as for the plagiarism or for not working with shareholders in advance). Sure, they are sorry that they “got caught” but, otherwise they are not remorseful.

I am hopeful that Martin will truly listen but it is clear, to me, that this train is still full speed ahead until it gets derailed.

I’m trying to watch the Yankees game so posting some ideas will have to wait.

3) Why would number 3 be something for him to talk about tonight? It has already been addressed. Plus, he did not plagiarize anything and he's already been more transparent about a plan working with stakeholders. THere are apologies already out there. He didn't owe anyone another one tonight.

2) Have you proven Pictor was used to reach those conclusions? Or is that your belief?

1) He stated why he wasn't taking live questions tonight. Did you not believe him? Or are you choosing to complain about him too a day into his position of interim AD? I actually believe he wants to have the answers before he takes questions. Try to respect that.

Go Tampa Bay!!!

3). Because he is the new face of the Athletic Department. Because (and my wife is an example) some fans still have a bad taste because of how this went down. Blaming it all on Huge doesn’t absolve the department of some culpability. I didn’t say it was a big deal for me personally but I mentioned it because I doubt my wife is the only one who thought that way.

2). First off, I said that the AD already had those opinions and she used Pictor to validate them. Second, Martin himself referenced it as justification when he was going over the timeline (remember when he said that both of the most recent reports mentioned it “on the second page”)?

3). I didn’t hear him say anything about not taking questions, I must have missed that when I was setting it up. Saying that you want to have the answers before you hear the questions is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard— how is that even possible? Also, by now, he should already know all of the canned answers and, after talking with hundreds of people (as he said he had) he should also have already heard most of the questions. Lastly, this is a message board and stating my opinion after his first appearance seems like a perfectly appropriate time.

Did you say “Go Tampa Bay” because you like them or simply because I like the Yankees?

One other thought: I don’t expect Martin to apologize, but the early portion of the presentation came across a bit too much like he was lecturing those opposed to the cuts for not being sufficiently respectful in voicing objections. That street runs both ways.

(10-08-2020 08:54 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 07:51 PM)Tribe3455 Wrote:  

(10-08-2020 07:17 PM)Zorch Wrote:  That presentation went exactly as I thought it would. Some thoughts:

1. The announcement stated that he would answer questions, which he did not. Why not?

2. They quoted the 2018 Pictor study as “Bible” as to why they need to make the changes. That is completely disingenuous because, of course, that study was expressly commissioned to reach those very conclusions.

3. My wife pointed out that there was no apology or any remorse about how the College acted up to this point (such as for the plagiarism or for not working with shareholders in advance). Sure, they are sorry that they “got caught” but, otherwise they are not remorseful.

I am hopeful that Martin will truly listen but it is clear, to me, that this train is still full speed ahead until it gets derailed.

I’m trying to watch the Yankees game so posting some ideas will have to wait.

3) Why would number 3 be something for him to talk about tonight? It has already been addressed. Plus, he did not plagiarize anything and he's already been more transparent about a plan working with stakeholders. THere are apologies already out there. He didn't owe anyone another one tonight.

2) Have you proven Pictor was used to reach those conclusions? Or is that your belief?

1) He stated why he wasn't taking live questions tonight. Did you not believe him? Or are you choosing to complain about him too a day into his position of interim AD? I actually believe he wants to have the answers before he takes questions. Try to respect that.

Go Tampa Bay!!!

3). Because he is the new face of the Athletic Department. Because (and my wife is an example) some fans still have a bad taste because of how this went down. Blaming it all on Huge doesn’t absolve the department of some culpability. I didn’t say it was a big deal for me personally but I mentioned it because I doubt my wife is the only one who thought that way.

2). First off, I said that the AD already had those opinions and she used Pictor to validate them. Second, Martin himself referenced it as justification when he was going over the timeline (remember when he said that both of the most recent reports mentioned it “on the second page”)?

3). I didn’t hear him say anything about not taking questions, I must have missed that when I was setting it up. Saying that you want to have the answers before you hear the questions is one of the most ridiculous things that I have ever heard— how is that even possible? Also, by now, he should already know all of the canned answers and, after talking with hundreds of people (as he said he had) he should also have already heard most of the questions. Lastly, this is a message board and stating my opinion after his first appearance seems like a perfectly appropriate time.

Did you say “Go Tampa Bay” because you like them or simply because I like the Yankees?

Still pretty much disagree with all three of your items but I don’t hate you or anything. I just hate the Yankees.

(10-08-2020 07:45 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Martin doesn't owe us an apology. The problem is gone.

We aren't playing sports so Rowe should take her time in hiring an AD. She'll identify someone great, I'm sure.

True, the problem is gone ...but as long as we are still using our current logo, Huge will always be with us. (and, no, I am not advocating wasting even more money changing it back).

The problem is only gone if you consider Huge the problem. If you consider the problem that the AD, President, and BOV agreed over multiple years in secret to cut a bunch of sports without making a genuine effort to save them by engaging alumni and other stakeholders... then the problem is definitely not gone.

Having slept on it, and realizing that Martin couldn't cover everything in 30 minutes, here are a few points where I'd like to see more elaboration:

- Under "Levers to Address the Structural Deficit," it was stated that "unrestricted private funds" were totally off the table, because they all have been "designated for other mission essential needs" (slide version) or "mission critical priorities" (spoken version). These "designations" were not made by divine decree; they're just a decision somebody made. Having been involved in the sausage-making that goes on when funds are divvied up among competing constituencies, I think a closer look here could identify some opportunities. In any university, things get funded that aren't "mission critical" unless your definition of that is awfully broad. Saying "just forget about it" from the start isn't exactly creative thinking. (Realizing, of course, that some on the academic side could argue that intercollegiate athletics is not "mission critical" either).

- The statement was made that "roughly half" of our teams' budgets are "below the median" in the CAA. This is another way of saying "a little more than half are at or above the median." (If "more than half" were below, they would have said that, not "roughly"). But in any case, it's a meaningless statistic standing alone. How tightly are the figures clustered? And to what extent are we comparing apples to oranges, since these are different universities spread across a broad geographic area in which costs vary.

- The discussion of "resources per student athlete" has a similar apples-to-oranges problem, exacerbated by the fact that the schools offer different menus of sports. What, to pick an example, are Delaware's above-the-median athletes getting for $51,641 each that our athletes aren't getting for $45,791 each? Is it something important enough to justify cutting 118 athletes from $45,791 to zero?

- Even assuming that some sports may need to be cut, how were these particular seven sports chosen? I can think of some others (no, I'm not talking football or basketball) with a long record of mediocrity.

- Since it appears that significant efforts to raise money to save the seven sports were not made before the cuts were announced, what efforts will be made now, over what time period, with what assistance provided to the teams, and how will the benchmarks for success be determined? (e.g., a team will need to have an endowment sufficient to cover X% of its actual [not inflated] annual costs and show the consistent ability to raise an additional Y% in annual giving toward operations, with the remaining Z% coming from the athletic department). Will these same benchmarks be applied to all teams? Or even to other "non-revenue" teams? If not, why not?

- It was stated that Tribe Club giving in FY20 was less than half the budgeted amount ($2.58 million vs. $5.43 million). What factors do you believe caused this imbalance, and how long do you expect those factors to persist?

Just some thoughts.

(10-09-2020 08:40 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  The problem is only gone if you consider Huge the problem. If you consider the problem that the AD, President, and BOV agreed over multiple years in secret to cut a bunch of sports without making a genuine effort to save them by engaging alumni and other stakeholders... then the problem is definitely not gone.

What if it wasn't "in secret" and they just thought we have too many sports to be feasible for a state school our size? I contend that if Huge, despite the negative reputation she already had, just said "We think the best move is to cut these sports", she'd still have the job and it would be mostly settled, even allowing for supporters of the cut sports to be upset.

(10-09-2020 08:53 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(10-09-2020 08:40 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  The problem is only gone if you consider Huge the problem. If you consider the problem that the AD, President, and BOV agreed over multiple years in secret to cut a bunch of sports without making a genuine effort to save them by engaging alumni and other stakeholders... then the problem is definitely not gone.

What if it wasn't "in secret" and they just thought we have too many sports to be feasible for a state school our size? I contend that if Huge, despite the negative reputation she already had, just said "We think the best move is to cut these sports", she'd still have the job and it would be mostly settled, even allowing for supporters of the cut sports to be upset.

I think you're right, particularly if some meaningful effort to raise funds to save them based on honest numbers had been tried (and failed).

(10-09-2020 09:04 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  

(10-09-2020 08:53 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(10-09-2020 08:40 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  The problem is only gone if you consider Huge the problem. If you consider the problem that the AD, President, and BOV agreed over multiple years in secret to cut a bunch of sports without making a genuine effort to save them by engaging alumni and other stakeholders... then the problem is definitely not gone.

What if it wasn't "in secret" and they just thought we have too many sports to be feasible for a state school our size? I contend that if Huge, despite the negative reputation she already had, just said "We think the best move is to cut these sports", she'd still have the job and it would be mostly settled, even allowing for supporters of the cut sports to be upset.

I think you're right, particularly if some meaningful effort to raise funds to save them based on honest numbers had been tried (and failed).

I'm saying I don't think that's necessary. When that question got asked, respond with something like "Based on our analysis, we didn't think fundraising was a long-term solution." Again, people would be mad, but the percentage of alumni that would be up in arms would be significantly lower, IMO. One of the biggest missteps was saying things that weren't true, like when she lied about trying to find the money. I think the intent was a lot less deceptive than the result, but using flowery language filled with half-truths and lies gives the appearance of outright deception, especially given Huge's reputation. If they wanted this to be something that people got over, it needed to be a simple statement. The individual meetings with sports could have been a lot longer, maybe have gotten into some more details, but this analysis was done over the course of years. Opening up the analysis for discussion by people who were not involved is asking for problems. A better approach would have been for Huge to say "My job is to make these decisions. I'm not hiding my criteria, but my job is not to explain every detail to a room full of angry people. If you have specific requests, please contact my office and set up a meeting." Then meet with anyone who wants to meet.

IMO, the interim AD could make the simple statements now, tacking on to the end "If you think you are more qualified to be the athletic director at W&M, here's the link to the job posting."

(10-09-2020 09:18 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(10-09-2020 09:04 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  

(10-09-2020 08:53 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(10-09-2020 08:40 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  The problem is only gone if you consider Huge the problem. If you consider the problem that the AD, President, and BOV agreed over multiple years in secret to cut a bunch of sports without making a genuine effort to save them by engaging alumni and other stakeholders... then the problem is definitely not gone.

What if it wasn't "in secret" and they just thought we have too many sports to be feasible for a state school our size? I contend that if Huge, despite the negative reputation she already had, just said "We think the best move is to cut these sports", she'd still have the job and it would be mostly settled, even allowing for supporters of the cut sports to be upset.

I think you're right, particularly if some meaningful effort to raise funds to save them based on honest numbers had been tried (and failed).

I'm saying I don't think that's necessary. When that question got asked, respond with something like "Based on our analysis, we didn't think fundraising was a long-term solution." Again, people would be mad, but the percentage of alumni that would be up in arms would be significantly lower, IMO. One of the biggest missteps was saying things that weren't true, like when she lied about trying to find the money. I think the intent was a lot less deceptive than the result, but using flowery language filled with half-truths and lies gives the appearance of outright deception, especially given Huge's reputation. If they wanted this to be something that people got over, it needed to be a simple statement. The individual meetings with sports could have been a lot longer, maybe have gotten into some more details, but this analysis was done over the course of years. Opening up the analysis for discussion by people who were not involved is asking for problems. A better approach would have been for Huge to say "My job is to make these decisions. I'm not hiding my criteria, but my job is not to explain every detail to a room full of angry people. If you have specific requests, please contact my office and set up a meeting." Then meet with anyone who wants to meet.

IMO, the interim AD could make the simple statements now, tacking on to the end "If you think you are more qualified to be the athletic director at W&M, here's the link to the job posting."

I think we agree about Ms. Huge -- it was the perceived dishonesty (and plagiarism, silly as that argument was IMHO) that brought her down. If serious fundraising had actually been tried during the years of consideration, then the statement about trying to find the money wouldn't have come across as a lie.

But the cat's out of the bag now, the questionable statements have been revealed, and transparency has been promised. I'm sure we'll find that there are limits on that transparency, but Martin can't completely back away from that promise.