(10-11-2020 04:50 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote: (10-11-2020 12:42 PM)Choirboy Wrote: The second is an email sent to all the honchos from an alumnus named Roger Crook. He thoroughly dissects and disembowels the presentation that Jeremy Martin just gave. Since Crook sent his email on 9/29, I am rather shocked that Martin went ahead and presented it. I got both of these links from the Save Tribe Swimming website.
https://616e0124-2790-47d0-96a7-e87abf76...93332c.pdf
EDIT: I also meant to say that the Swimming website has a "Pledge To Not Donate" list. Interesting that just since its inception on October 7 it already had more than 470 names. That is a lot of money lost to the College.
I don't think the Crook PDF will have the effect you think it does. It does a good job of presenting the position of the sports that were cut. I don't think it brings any new information to light. If that's the case, then I have a hard time seeing it cause the administration to reverse course.
Mr. Crook's letter does far more than present the position of the sports that were cut. It makes clear that the Pictor Group 2025 "vision" of out-resourcing other CAA football and basketball members was a mirage. It wasn't in the cards before the pandemic. Moreover, the athletic department and its hired guns have been unable to demonstrate that cutting seven sports makes this possible during or after the pandemic.
A huge question for the athletic department at this point is whether the Pictor Group actually took the time to look at other options. The prize evidently was getting to the dance, multiple times. One vivid example of another path occurred in 2018:
74 - 54. #16 vs. #1. Retrievers not just hobbling, but burying Cavaliers. A headline grabbing national story. How did even the possibility of this story come to pass? Hint: it had nothing to do with the CAA.
Seriously, the athletic department needs to come clean regarding whether, when casting about for "opportunities", the Pictor Group looked beyond that of dominating the CAA.
What metrics did the consultants use to determine the CAA was the most cost-effective home for Tribe athletics?
Did they find admissions data to indicate potential students, or even athletes, were attracted to W&M because of competition with Hofstra, Stony Brook, Charleston or any other CAA member?
Was there information that major donors would pull the plug if W&M looked at changing conference affiliation and gave up football games with Towson and Elon, or basketball games with Hofstra and Northeastern?
It clearly wasn't the Pictor Group's judgment that present CAA membership is particularly stable. The document makes reference to this potential. The previous vision didn't make any sense. Mr. Crook was able to pull back the curtain. The funding for the vision wasn't there and it wasn't the fault of swimming and track.
Maybe the most important question to pose to the "interim" and his boss -- why would you cling to a vision that has no chance of execution?