(10-09-2019 07:23 PM)TribeInTheBurg Wrote:  

(10-08-2019 05:46 PM)Tribal Wrote:  '19-'20 season ticket purchases (thus far) and donations are way down for MBB. We're heading in the wrong direction.

I can see Huge cutting a few sports, namely, Swimming, Gymnastics, Golf and one other...maybe Tennis or XC.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

At the town hall, she explicitly stated that they're not looking at cutting sports. I'm assuming that will be a question asked at every subsequent town hall as well.

She explicitly said that they are not looking to cut sports NOW. That last word -- now -- is why the question will continue to be asked at every subsequent town hall.

I still think we need to take personalities out of this. The Athletic Department has made some major changes in coaching personnel across several sports. I believe the Athletic Department has the support of the Administration and the BOV.

However, for those who do not understand the panic and dread felt by those of us who are not comfortable with the Shaver decision, it might be helpful to look back to where we were:

https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-2...story.html

https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-2...story.html

For me, it is up to the College to demonstrate the increased commitment to MBB necessary to avoid a return to the dark ages we suffered between the mid-1980s and about 2005. If they do up their support of MBB substantially they have the right to pick the coach regardless of my opinion and I accept that. (I contribute consistently and a decent amount but not enough to expect to be consulted.)

Failing that enhanced commitment, my belief is that our "natural" position in MBB is about 8-10. I believe we have been punching above our weight for the last decade. I know there are other posters who believe we have underachieved or that our success lately has been the result of our natural competitive advantages in the CAA. I have to believe these posters did not endure the dark ages I alluded to earlier.

Actually right now, I am feelling twinges of hope for the coming year but I comment on the coming year in the stream dedicated to that topic.

(10-11-2019 03:40 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-2...story.html

.....I know there are other posters who believe we have underachieved or that our success lately has been the result of our natural competitive advantages in the CAA.

Good reminders, thanks! Your second article (the one immediately above) had this cogent paragraph:

"My first year, I thought we had to get better athletes to compete," Shaver said. "We still need good athletes, but we might be more inclined now to take a highly skilled athlete who's a good shooter and has some smarts, but who may not be the most athletic kid, over somebody who's strictly an athlete. Because of the way we've chosen to play, we have more of an idea of the kinds of players we want to recruit, so we can target certain kids."

Shaver said that in year 4. I believe that he had mastered that approach by years 11-16. That is how W&M was able to recruit great players like Marcus Thornton and Nathan Knight, and average athletes who played great in his system, like Terry Tarpey. Oh well, that is all gone now.

Serious question, no snark involved: What are the "natural competitive advantages" that we enjoy in the CAA"? I am aware of many disadvantages but the only competitive (recruiting) advantage that I can even remotely think of is the academic reputation of W&M --- and, of course, the stringent academic requirements at W&M are usually viewed as a disadvantage.

The key to any sport at a place like William and Mary is to get a system in place with consistent success. Only then will you build a reputation for a place that players want to play. That was a tall order for Shaver given the train wreck that he inherited. It was a very risky choice that Huge made and I still don't think she truly understood the ramifications in the short run and how deep the crater would be. We have a chance to be decent or even better than that because we have two very talented big men in a conference lacking kids that height. The following season we've got next to nothing in terms of talent unless we see some of the new kids really step up.

(10-11-2019 03:40 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  I still think we need to take personalities out of this. The Athletic Department has made some major changes in coaching personnel across several sports. I believe the Athletic Department has the support of the Administration and the BOV.

However, for those who do not understand the panic and dread felt by those of us who are not comfortable with the Shaver decision, it might be helpful to look back to where we were:

https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-2...story.html

https://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-2...story.html

For me, it is up to the College to demonstrate the increased commitment to MBB necessary to avoid a return to the dark ages we suffered between the mid-1980s and about 2005. If they do up their support of MBB substantially they have the right to pick the coach regardless of my opinion and I accept that. (I contribute consistently and a decent amount but not enough to expect to be consulted.)

Failing that enhanced commitment, my belief is that our "natural" position in MBB is about 8-10. I believe we have been punching above our weight for the last decade. I know there are other posters who believe we have underachieved or that our success lately has been the result of our natural competitive advantages in the CAA. I have to believe these posters did not endure the dark ages I alluded to earlier.

Actually right now, I am feelling twinges of hope for the coming year but I comment on the coming year in the stream dedicated to that topic.

Am hoping one objective success metric presented to the new regime is to get over the hurdle of the “H” schools. Would like to see periodic losses to Hampton, High Point, and Howard disappear from future records. The program deserves credit for punching above its weight in the CAA where it’s at a demonstrable resource disadvantage. Losses to Big South and MEAC schools are harder to take. Roster turnover notwithstanding, there are games on this year’s schedule that should be in the “w” category.

Why do you think the OOC schedule is so much easier than last year?

(10-13-2019 10:17 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Why do you think the OOC schedule is so much easier than last year?

This year’s schedule may or may not be more difficult than last year’s. It does, however, include games versus High Point, American, Wofford, Hampton, Morehead State, Fairfield, and St. Francis that the program should view as likely wins. If not, standards have not been raised.

One hopes the vision is to fund a top tier CAA program that also dominates in games against teams from leagues where the budgets are smaller.

It will be cause for celebration at homecoming if a generous donor(s) comes to the rescue for the arena upgrade. Whether any solutions are offered regarding year over year sustainability funding is in some respects as big a deal. It’s hard to envision appreciable dollars coming from ticket sales, Flo Sports or even a trip to the dance. The source(s) of funding for an annual budget increase is/are unclear. Discussion of increased commitment remains aspirational until this changes.

(10-13-2019 12:39 PM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  This year’s schedule may or may not be more difficult than last year’s. It does, however, include games versus High Point, American, Wofford, Hampton, Morehead State, Fairfield, and St. Francis that the program should view as likely wins. If not, standards have not been raised.

I bolded your sentence, above, that says it perfectly. In recent years, all of those games would be projected as wins (with only Wofford as maybe a tossup). So, if those games are not projected as wins this year or, worse, do not turn out to be actual wins, then the standards and the program itself are down.

Games on the road with Wofford, High Point, Hampton Buffalo , St. Joe's and Fairfield are surely not projected wins. These teams play well at home and we have lost in recent years to some of them. With only four home games through January 4th nobody can expect a .500 record through then.

(10-14-2019 03:22 PM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  Games on the road with Wofford, High Point, Hampton Buffalo , St. Joe's and Fairfield are surely not projected wins. These teams play well at home and we have lost in recent years to some of them. With only four home games through January 4th nobody can expect a .500 record through then.

The poster that you are replying to wrote St. Francis, not St. Joe’s. All saints are not alike.

Also, said poster did not refer to Buffalo as a projected win.

Otherwise, you got four out of six right.

Carry on.

(10-14-2019 03:22 PM)bubbadog57 Wrote:  Games on the road with Wofford, High Point, Hampton Buffalo , St. Joe's and Fairfield are surely not projected wins. These teams play well at home and we have lost in recent years to some of them. With only four home games through January 4th nobody can expect a .500 record through then.

To clarify — previous comments were made in context of thread on increased commitment and raising standards. I made and make no predictions regarding this year’s record.

To repeat — if standards for the program have been raised, losses against the likes of Hampton, High Point, and Howard should disappear from future records. Games against High Point, American, Wofford, Hampton, Morehead State, and St Francis such as on this year’s schedule should be viewed as wins for a program that has received an increased commitment and whose standards have been raised.

To stir the pot— an upper tier CAA program should expect to win these games games going forward. If the College can’t resource an upper tier CAA program, an alternative competitive structure is in order if College leadership’s objective of championship experiences is to be believed.

I make a distinction between commitment to MBB and standards for MBB. So in the contest of this thread, I'm not focused on outcomes but on whom we play.

In the past at least one of our major problems has been the requirement that MBB play 3 guaranteed games to help the budget. This has probably eliminated the possibility of doing 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals with HMs to get them to come to the Hall.

Without doing much research, here is what I would hope for in the HOME OOC schedule if we are increasing our commitment to MBB:

1) Tier 1 games. Ideally we would play one of these a year. Targets would be HMs whom the students have heard of and which would classify as "event" games. I would include UVa, Va Tech, UNC, Wake Forest, Maryland and Villanove in this category.
2) Tier 2 games. Ideally we would play 2-3 of these a year. These would be local schools with whom we have historically had rivalries. I would include GMU, ODU, UR, VCU (I know the A10 is something of a HM in basketball but I hope everyone understands the distinction that I making here) Hampton and VMI.
3) Tier 3 games. Ideally we would play 2-4 of these a year. These would be mid-majors either in our recruiting footprint or with whom we have a history of playing. I would include High Point and any Patriot League team in here.
4) Tier 4 games. Ideally we would play 1 of these a year. This would be DIII post-exam game.

My criteria for this schedule is that it creates excitement and draws attendance. Evaluating schedule in an attempt to garner an at large game is a fool's errand until the Power 5 schools leave the NCAA and Jay Bilas retires.

To get this schedule we will have to:

Trade one or more guarantee game for a 2-1 or 3-1 home game.
Partner with the other CAA schools to require the freeloading basketball schools to play the football schools, including especially us. (Yes, I am looking at you, UR, Rhode Island and Villanova.)
Shoot for 7-8 home games out of a 12-game OOC schedule.

I don't know how realistic this is but frankly, W&M is in no position to be arguing about whether a game against High Point "should" be a win. Until we are consistently drawing 5,000+ we are paupers.

(10-15-2019 03:02 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  I make a distinction between commitment to MBB and standards for MBB. So in the contest of this thread, I'm not focused on outcomes but on whom we play.

In the past at least one of our major problems has been the requirement that MBB play 3 guaranteed games to help the budget. This has probably eliminated the possibility of doing 2-for-1 or 3-for-1 deals with HMs to get them to come to the Hall.

Without doing much research, here is what I would hope for in the HOME OOC schedule if we are increasing our commitment to MBB:

1) Tier 1 games. Ideally we would play one of these a year. Targets would be HMs whom the students have heard of and which would classify as "event" games. I would include UVa, Va Tech, UNC, Wake Forest, Maryland and Villanove in this category.
2) Tier 2 games. Ideally we would play 2-3 of these a year. These would be local schools with whom we have historically had rivalries. I would include GMU, ODU, UR, VCU (I know the A10 is something of a HM in basketball but I hope everyone understands the distinction that I making here) Hampton and VMI.
3) Tier 3 games. Ideally we would play 2-4 of these a year. These would be mid-majors either in our recruiting footprint or with whom we have a history of playing. I would include High Point and any Patriot League team in here.
4) Tier 4 games. Ideally we would play 1 of these a year. This would be DIII post-exam game.

My criteria for this schedule is that it creates excitement and draws attendance. Evaluating schedule in an attempt to garner an at large game is a fool's errand until the Power 5 schools leave the NCAA and Jay Bilas retires.

To get this schedule we will have to:

Trade one or more guarantee game for a 2-1 or 3-1 home game.
Partner with the other CAA schools to require the freeloading basketball schools to play the football schools, including especially us. (Yes, I am looking at you, UR, Rhode Island and Villanova.)
Shoot for 7-8 home games out of a 12-game OOC schedule.

I don't know how realistic this is but frankly, W&M is in no position to be arguing about whether a game against High Point "should" be a win. Until we are consistently drawing 5,000+ we are paupers.

Am in concurrence that raising the standards absent an increased commitment is not realistic. But think it’s important to articulate what new standards should look like going forward. If commitment has been increased, future losses to Hampton, High Point, and Howard should be unacceptable.

Would frame discussion about football interlopers more starkly. Richmond, Villanova and URI use the CAA. Wm & Mary is abused by the CAA.

Am uncertain simply drawing 5000 will move the resource needle. Selling 5000 season tickets at $160 apiece grosses, not nets, $800,000. Perhaps unveiling of strategic plan will include specifics of resource underpinning of increased commitment.

Suspect we’re in concurrence that a pauper CAA program has not been and will not be a recipe for success.

You’re right about the attendance. Averaging 5,000 would actually be a result of increased commitment, not a precondition for success.

But wouldn’t it be nice!

Strategic Plan for BBall
• Increase annual funding to the level of the top three CAA programs;

(10-15-2019 08:29 PM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  "Partner with the other CAA schools to require the freeloading basketball schools to play the football schools, including especially us. (Yes, I am looking at you, UR, Rhode Island and Villanova.)"


Would frame discussion about football interlopers more starkly. Richmond, Villanova and URI use the CAA. Wm & Mary is abused by the CAA.

Agreed.

Didn’t know where else to put this.

They announced the 2020 Charleston Classic lineup yesterday. CofC gets the CAA spot next year.



I realize next year’s team doesn’t shape up as worthy of an invite but still ...

It seems like we have increased our expectations but not our commitment.

CofC (as the host site) automatically takes the CAA slot every four years, so, next year was a given for them.

VCU also in it next year.

(11-22-2019 03:05 PM)billymac Wrote:  VCU also in it next year.

Glad we missed then