(05-04-2021 01:59 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  On the actual topic of this thread, I still think Omar Banks from Campbell would be a great hire. I wonder if we'll get a shortlist of candidates at some point?

No way...we are NOT going back to the actual topic!

Pirate lady, you were saying...

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(05-04-2021 01:44 PM)WMTRIBE75 Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 01:32 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  This thread is funny, if nothing else.

Yep, I was trying to add a little levity to the situation. I think that guy from Marshall ( was his name Thunders?) has changed his user name and has come back to visit after all these years. Sounds like somebody needs some ice cream and cake.

I do not mind a good, fun debate but come on. zablenoise, imagine thinking your contribution to this conversation is valid...kinda felt like a "I know you are but what am I" moment, not your best I'm sure. By the way - I did have ice cream and cake recently Mr. 75, while at JMU a few weeks ago watching them in the playoff......again......in another sport. My Harrisonburg friend and I were celebrating for sure! I have bball tix here and love going to home games but you all need to get over yourselves. God forbid multiple people have a difference of opinion and probably more right than you know. There is not 1 or 2 boogie men out here disagreeing with the group think just to ruin your tea and crumpet stuffing time....jokes aside open your eyes. Many people are tired of the misplaced smug sense of superiority and want to see a realistic long successful athletic program much like that of JMU who cut sports to have more $$. Rowe needs to grow a pair and stop listening to the small vocal mob. I got a fresh 2$ bill that says she's gone within 12-18 months over this one. Takers?

but thats just my opinion.

I'm certainly in the minority group here that agreed with Huge's vision of the basketball and football being the emphasized programs. Now, I think she may have gone about it poorly and that her people skills were lacking, but I don't think she is wrong. I know that contrasts greatly with the "all athletes should have the opportunity to compete at the highest level" crowd. Bottom line is, the schools we run with and consider peers do emphasize football and/or basketball. We've been doing more with less for decades trying to keep pace. For once it would be nice to be aggressive and out ahead of our peers rather than struggling to keep pace. I think W&M is a sleeping giant. Such a good school that attracts such great athletes. So much potential to be a perennial mid-major/fcs player. It seemed at one point as though that was the direction the school wanted to go. Where are headed to now? What are the goals of a new AD and revamped AD office? Are we fashioning the AD goals like they were 20 years ago or are we doing it with an eye towards the future? Do we want to be great, or simply provide a great experience? I think we can do both, but sacrifices will have to be made. And, those sacrifices won't and shouldn't be made by basketball and football.
Just my opinion, and I have no problem with wherever you side on the issue. Because I don't think either side is wrong. Just different visions of where you want W&M to go.

(05-05-2021 08:59 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I'm certainly in the minority group here that agreed with Huge's vision of the basketball and football being the emphasized programs. Now, I think she may have gone about it poorly and that her people skills were lacking, but I don't think she is wrong. I know that contrasts greatly with the "all athletes should have the opportunity to compete at the highest level" crowd. Bottom line is, the schools we run with and consider peers do emphasize football and/or basketball. We've been doing more with less for decades trying to keep pace. For once it would be nice to be aggressive and out ahead of our peers rather than struggling to keep pace. I think W&M is a sleeping giant. Such a good school that attracts such great athletes. So much potential to be a perennial mid-major/fcs player. It seemed at one point as though that was the direction the school wanted to go. Where are headed to now? What are the goals of a new AD and revamped AD office? Are we fashioning the AD goals like they were 20 years ago or are we doing it with an eye towards the future? Do we want to be great, or simply provide a great experience? I think we can do both, but sacrifices will have to be made. And, those sacrifices won't and shouldn't be made by basketball and football.
Just my opinion, and I have no problem with wherever you side on the issue. Because I don't think either side is wrong. Just different visions of where you want W&M to go.

I feel pretty much the same way. I felt Huge had the backbone to carry out the "successful sports can help W&M's overall brand", but she had very few "people skills" and, well, we know how that ended.


We are digging ourselves out financially and, hopefully, a solid, experienced leader will be hired to help the recovery.

(05-05-2021 09:42 AM)billymac Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 08:59 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I'm certainly in the minority group here that agreed with Huge's vision of the basketball and football being the emphasized programs. Now, I think she may have gone about it poorly and that her people skills were lacking, but I don't think she is wrong. I know that contrasts greatly with the "all athletes should have the opportunity to compete at the highest level" crowd. Bottom line is, the schools we run with and consider peers do emphasize football and/or basketball. We've been doing more with less for decades trying to keep pace. For once it would be nice to be aggressive and out ahead of our peers rather than struggling to keep pace. I think W&M is a sleeping giant. Such a good school that attracts such great athletes. So much potential to be a perennial mid-major/fcs player. It seemed at one point as though that was the direction the school wanted to go. Where are headed to now? What are the goals of a new AD and revamped AD office? Are we fashioning the AD goals like they were 20 years ago or are we doing it with an eye towards the future? Do we want to be great, or simply provide a great experience? I think we can do both, but sacrifices will have to be made. And, those sacrifices won't and shouldn't be made by basketball and football.
Just my opinion, and I have no problem with wherever you side on the issue. Because I don't think either side is wrong. Just different visions of where you want W&M to go.

I feel pretty much the same way. I felt Huge had the backbone to carry out the "successful sports can help W&M's overall brand", but she had very few "people skills" and, well, we know how that ended.

We are digging ourselves out financially and, hopefully, a solid, experienced leader will be hired to help the recovery.

Agreed here. I also think Huge did not have a good understanding of the W&M fanbase. Piratelady comments aside, I don't think it's as simple as following a blueprint than would work at most public Division I schools. I'd also argue that basketball needs to be the primary focus ahead of football. We need to be better than we are in football, but getting back to where we're an annual FCS playoff contender with seasons where we're title contenders is a good enough place to be, with regard to keeping the fanbase engaged/interested and maximizing the visibility or impact of the program on raising the profile of the College. Basketball, both women's and men's, offers a unique opportunity to all other sports in terms of national visibility. I think Rowe understands that. I also think that Huge had that as her #1 goal, but was sacrificing too much in order to achieve it.

Agree. If our goal as a school is to offer as many opportunities play sports to as many people as possible, we should go D3. If we want a D1 athletic program that enhances the school, reducing the way too large number of sports we offer is essential, paired with focusing on basketball and building a strong program that can compete over the long term. Rowe's been smartly moving in that direction, and it was a shame Huge's (correct) moves were implemented so poorly.

Maybe I'm not in the actual minority with my thinking. At least here, among the more hard-core sports fan base, it seems that way. Perhaps the anti focus on basketball and football folks are just more vocal. Online, that is the dominant voice in what I was reading.

For 45+ years as a men's basketball season ticket holder, I have dreamed of a program that had consistent winning teams supported by a loud and devoted fan base and was treated by our administration as the crown jewel of our athletic programs. Certainly, I prayed, one day our administration would figure out that nothing could bring more return on our sports budget than investing in this hidden treasure and beginning to stop treating men's basketball as the redheaded step child that I adored. That much, Huge had figured out. It is the one path that she left us with that we should continue on.

For me, at this point, the picture is pretty clear. I am fine with us staying in the CAA and really believe that at this time it s our best fit. I certainly want us to fully support our football program and get it back to its winning ways. And I am fine with supporting 23 teams if that is what our administration believes is the fairest response to our student body, alumni, supporters, and fans. But if we are ever going to consistently compete in men's basketball in the CAA against schools that do not underwrite 23 sports and do not underwrite football, we have got to eventually find a way to raise enough money on an annual basis to fund basketball at the same level as the non football playing schools in the CAA.

(05-05-2021 11:20 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  Maybe I'm not in the actual minority with my thinking. At least here, among the more hard-core sports fan base, it seems that way. Perhaps the anti focus on basketball and football folks are just more vocal. Online, that is the dominant voice in what I was reading.

Yeah I think it really just was the way Huge did it that rubbed everyone the wrong way. Anyone even remotely related to WM knows our athletic department isn't rolling in cash. Cutting the number of sports we offer is one of the most obvious ways we can stretch a dollar. But I think it was the fact that Huge kept affirming a commitment to the cut sports (swimming in particular) rather than just passing the hat around and asking alumni to shoulder part of the load. Only to turn around and cut everything and blame it on the pandemic.

I think it's worth noting, too, that Huge gets credit for bringing in big money donors for the Hall renovation. But her regime was about the worst I've ever seen at engaging the rank and file fanbase for donations. Especially perplexing because WM actually has a fairly well off alumni base that has shown a willingness to give en masse in the past decade. I hope whoever leads the department next sees that as a growth area.

(05-05-2021 08:59 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I'm certainly in the minority group here that agreed with Huge's vision of the basketball and football being the emphasized programs. Now, I think she may have gone about it poorly and that her people skills were lacking, but I don't think she is wrong. I know that contrasts greatly with the "all athletes should have the opportunity to compete at the highest level" crowd. Bottom line is, the schools we run with and consider peers do emphasize football and/or basketball. We've been doing more with less for decades trying to keep pace. For once it would be nice to be aggressive and out ahead of our peers rather than struggling to keep pace. I think W&M is a sleeping giant. Such a good school that attracts such great athletes. So much potential to be a perennial mid-major/fcs player. It seemed at one point as though that was the direction the school wanted to go. Where are headed to now? What are the goals of a new AD and revamped AD office? Are we fashioning the AD goals like they were 20 years ago or are we doing it with an eye towards the future? Do we want to be great, or simply provide a great experience? I think we can do both, but sacrifices will have to be made. And, those sacrifices won't and shouldn't be made by basketball and football.
Just my opinion, and I have no problem with wherever you side on the issue. Because I don't think either side is wrong. Just different visions of where you want W&M to go.

Amen!

Take a step back and ask a simple question. Will we have 23 teams in five years from now? No chance. Move down in conference? Revenue will drop. Move to D3? Revenue will become non-existent. The state isn't helping and nobody will pay student fees to support D3 at the levels we expect students to pay now. The problem that we have is that some of the sports that we're pretty good at don't drive any revenue to the department. Donations won't last forever.

I don't know for sure, but I expect that Huge was asked to resign based on Rowe finally paying attention and getting a lot of heat herself. Look at Huge's playbook. Most of it made total sense. Her issue was that she convinced herself that she needed to change the team to "her" people rather than trying to move the old regime forward with her. There are stories that were never made public that are cringe worthy related to how far she was willing to go to meet her agenda. Glad she's gone. She left things in chaos and dried up the money. That doesn't mean that her ideas were bad though.

We need to pick one or two sports and focus there. It wouldn't be stupid to look at sports we have now that don't make sense and find others that do.

I hope that they find an AD who is progressive and can work with both conferences and the NCAA. I want to have a department vision that aligns with the broader College's vision. IMO, Rowe is pretty progressive which may not rub everyone the right way, but hey, things change.

To join the chorus, I would've been fine with cutting some sports (although not necessarily same the ones Ms. Huge & Co. selected) to focus more on football and basketball.

I worry that the shambles she made of that process will make it doubly difficult for a future AD to make cuts, particularly in light of the "rainbows and unicorns for everybody forever" language the department has been emitting since then as damage control.

Maybe "All In" will actually succeed in generating enough money to maintain the 23-sport status quo and increase football/basketball support significantly. I hope it does; I doubt it will.

If it does fall short of that lofty goal, at least the future AD can honestly make a "we really DID look under every stone this time" argument. But it won't be pretty, and it may be more than five years down the road.

(05-05-2021 03:46 PM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  To join the chorus, I would've been fine with cutting some sports (although not necessarily same the ones Ms. Huge & Co. selected) to focus more on football and basketball.

I worry that the shambles she made of that process will make it doubly difficult for a future AD to make cuts, particularly in light of the "rainbows and unicorns for everybody forever" language the department has been emitting since then as damage control.

Maybe "All In" will actually succeed in generating enough money to maintain the 23-sport status quo and increase football/basketball support significantly. I hope it does; I doubt it will.

If it does fall short of that lofty goal, at least the future AD can honestly make a "we really DID look under every stone this time" argument. But it won't be pretty, and it may be more than five years down the road.

I haven't gotten a rainbows and unicorns sense, I think Martin said that if we don't hit fundraising goals sports would be cut.

It's still never ideal when sports get cut, but I think if the AD lays it out like that it's more understandable, and clear that they made an effort to not axe them.

Martin has done a good job stopping the dumpster fire that Huge caused. Many people left the department or were let go, all the financial reserves were drained and both basketball programs are currently far from where they were when she arrived(and not in a good way). Even if the financial situation improves through the new campaign, it will take time to rebuild. W&M may not have reached its ultimate athletic goals in the period from 2000 to 2017, but many of its programs were consistently successful. I think much of the anger came from the promise of 25 CAA Championships followed shortly by a major cash shortage, firing a coach with a seven figure buyout, spending large amounts of money on consultants, and then cutting the more successful W&M programs without notice. However, no question she was in charge at all times.

To be fair, 2020 (thanks to the pandemic) is difficult to evaluate. But, finding someone that at least attempts to engage both the students and the alumni in positive ways will be a massive improvement. Also, finding someone that seeks to advance W&M and not their own individual career would be even better. I might be the only one who thinks that the success of the students and coaches, rather than the administrators, is what will drive W&M's profile, revenues, and future. I always felt Craig Littlepage did a great job of leading at UVA without making himself the story as they became successful. No question that he did an outstanding job for years and deserved credit. But, he never seemed to seek it. I hope we can find someone who wants to be here for a while and has both an energetic but humble spirit. Ultimately anyone who can improve the morale of the department, balance the budget, and stay even for a 3-4 years would be a step toward longer term stability and success.

None of my comments are designed to be negative toward our current basketball coaches. They arrived to a hurricane or a big storm and have done a good job of attempting to rebuild from scratch. The new transfer rules will make that rebuild even tougher.

(05-05-2021 04:09 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  ... I think Martin said that if we don't hit fundraising goals sports would be cut.

TribePride91 said things very well. Meanwhile, re the above statement, some folks need to look at which sports are pulling their own weight in fundraising and which ones aren't.

Note that no women's sports will be cut in the near-term and absolutely none will be cut until W&M gets its Title IX act together (which could take years).

Note that the men's sports that were previously attempted to be cut (Track, Swimming, Gymnastics) are the ones who are exceeding all of their fundraising goals (paying their own way!). As long as that continues, there is no justification for cutting those sports. (I personally believe that Men's Gymnastics will go down to Club status but not because of a lack of support but, rather, because so many other schools are dropping Gymnastics). Other sports that don't have huge support (like Golf, last time I checked) do not even have enough athletes or enough budget to make any real difference by dropping them.

Let's face it: the only sport that actually makes any sense at all, financially, to drop is Football. And that isn't going to happen at W&M anytime soon. Consider, though, that Football brings in the most revenue but it doesn't even cover its own expenses, much less cover for any other sports. So W&M would actually lose less money if it dropped football.

Lastly, I guess that all the Huge supporters and the folks who say that W&M can't compete against CAA schools who spend so much more than W&M in basketball have forgotten that Tony Shaver actually had W&M in 4 CAA Finals in a span of 8 years ....and even in his last four years his teams were still competitive. No telling what even one win in any of those four Finals years would have done for the trajectory of W&M athletics. One of Huge's major errors was that she was too impatient. Shaver (or his assistants who might have succeeded him) would have gotten us there. (Hopefully, Fischer will....but he hasn't yet and until he does it cannot be said that he is any more successful than Shaver was).

(05-05-2021 04:09 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  I haven't gotten a rainbows and unicorns sense, I think Martin said that if we don't hit fundraising goals sports would be cut.

I must admit, looking back at the statements from last November, they were far more measured than I remembered. That'll teach me to rely exclusively on memory at my age!

(05-05-2021 04:09 PM)TDenverFan Wrote:  

(05-05-2021 03:46 PM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  To join the chorus, I would've been fine with cutting some sports (although not necessarily same the ones Ms. Huge & Co. selected) to focus more on football and basketball.

I worry that the shambles she made of that process will make it doubly difficult for a future AD to make cuts, particularly in light of the "rainbows and unicorns for everybody forever" language the department has been emitting since then as damage control.

Maybe "All In" will actually succeed in generating enough money to maintain the 23-sport status quo and increase football/basketball support significantly. I hope it does; I doubt it will.

If it does fall short of that lofty goal, at least the future AD can honestly make a "we really DID look under every stone this time" argument. But it won't be pretty, and it may be more than five years down the road.

I haven't gotten a rainbows and unicorns sense, I think Martin said that if we don't hit fundraising goals sports would be cut.

It's still never ideal when sports get cut, but I think if the AD lays it out like that it's more understandable, and clear that they made an effort to not axe them.

Especially when they, you know, actually make the effort.