(04-02-2019 11:24 PM)Tribewins Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 06:19 PM)ColonelEbirt Wrote:  I strongly disagree with her decision to fire Shaver. Especially this year. For that, I don’t like her performance as an AD. (And time will tell ... maybe it plays out as a bad decision and she pays the price - obviously not what we’re hoping for).

But there’s then a lot of talk on this board about how the process has been a total dumpster fire and how we deserve more explanation about why she let Shaver go and how she should field Tribe Club questions about her decision. Huh? She doesn’t owe me anything else. What more do we want to hear from her? She said, in different words, that she doesn’t think Shaver can win as much as she wants the program to win, so she’s moving on. If she had said she was firing him bc of his wardrobe I’d feel like I was owed more explanation. But wanting to win more seems like a good enough explanation. Now, she went out and found the best upgrade (in her mind) that she could find. Time will tell if her desire to win more plays out.

When a CEO fires someone on her Exec team, she doesn’t sit around and pontificate on that decision with the other Execs (and far-removed team members). She makes a direct statement about why she made the decision and then moves on.

I’m angry about the initial decision - and I’m worried about how everything might play out. But I don’t understand the vitriol about the other elements of what has unfolded over the last 3 weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ColonelEbirt, we don’t know each other, but I read and respect all of your posts. Folks are already picking your post apart. I try to live by a rule (although admittedly sometimes it’s tough to follow)....

Never debate/argue with anyone that’s less knowledgeable or informed than you, because they’ll never see your point of view and the debate/argument will get dragged down to their level. And That’s an argument you simply can’t win, because now your playing on their home field!

You’re 100% correct on the CEO analogy as well as your entire post. A CEO can and will terminate an Executive at any time without consulting the BOD or shareholders. I mean seriously? CEOs are involved in the day to day operations while BOD and shareholders are not. Also, Many CEOs are Chairman of the Board with Board members assembling quarterly at best. And Shareholders have no say in day to day operations, but merely voice their opinions in buy/sell trades in the coming months/years in reaction to decisions made by Executive team. To think a CEO needs to communicate hiring/firing to shareholders other than the same “general language” is Tribe fans got is ridiculous. That would be the tail wagging the dog.

Kudos to you Sir!

So if the AD didn’t communicate or consult on the firing with anyone other than the President before the decision was made, do you think that’s good or bad? What if your name was on the stadium? Do you think you deserve a courtesy call or heads up, or even better, maybe an opinion on the issue?
What if you were a different donor, considering funding a new stadium? Do you think you’d deserve a courtesy call then? What about people instrumental to the college’s fundraising campaigns? The Tribe Club President got an advanced heads up. It was nothing more than that, but certainly more than many stakeholders received.

Tough decisions can be made without burning bridges. The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and it’s her right, however sudjective it may be. What’s not subjective is ensuring those instrumental to the college’s past, present, and future are treated with respect, to the most reasonable extent possible. It’s just good business. W&M is a community much bigger than Samantha Huge. If a few people wanted her replaced, it could happen in a matter of days. There’s no turning back from where we are today, but she doesn’t have the most loyal following going forward.

(04-03-2019 12:11 AM)UmbrellaRiver Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 11:24 PM)Tribewins Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 06:19 PM)ColonelEbirt Wrote:  I strongly disagree with her decision to fire Shaver. Especially this year. For that, I don’t like her performance as an AD. (And time will tell ... maybe it plays out as a bad decision and she pays the price - obviously not what we’re hoping for).

But there’s then a lot of talk on this board about how the process has been a total dumpster fire and how we deserve more explanation about why she let Shaver go and how she should field Tribe Club questions about her decision. Huh? She doesn’t owe me anything else. What more do we want to hear from her? She said, in different words, that she doesn’t think Shaver can win as much as she wants the program to win, so she’s moving on. If she had said she was firing him bc of his wardrobe I’d feel like I was owed more explanation. But wanting to win more seems like a good enough explanation. Now, she went out and found the best upgrade (in her mind) that she could find. Time will tell if her desire to win more plays out.

When a CEO fires someone on her Exec team, she doesn’t sit around and pontificate on that decision with the other Execs (and far-removed team members). She makes a direct statement about why she made the decision and then moves on.

I’m angry about the initial decision - and I’m worried about how everything might play out. But I don’t understand the vitriol about the other elements of what has unfolded over the last 3 weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ColonelEbirt, we don’t know each other, but I read and respect all of your posts. Folks are already picking your post apart. I try to live by a rule (although admittedly sometimes it’s tough to follow)....

Never debate/argue with anyone that’s less knowledgeable or informed than you, because they’ll never see your point of view and the debate/argument will get dragged down to their level. And That’s an argument you simply can’t win, because now your playing on their home field!

You’re 100% correct on the CEO analogy as well as your entire post. A CEO can and will terminate an Executive at any time without consulting the BOD or shareholders. I mean seriously? CEOs are involved in the day to day operations while BOD and shareholders are not. Also, Many CEOs are Chairman of the Board with Board members assembling quarterly at best. And Shareholders have no say in day to day operations, but merely voice their opinions in buy/sell trades in the coming months/years in reaction to decisions made by Executive team. To think a CEO needs to communicate hiring/firing to shareholders other than the same “general language” is Tribe fans got is ridiculous. That would be the tail wagging the dog.

Kudos to you Sir!

So if the AD didn’t communicate or consult on the firing with anyone other than the President before the decision was made, do you think that’s good or bad? What if your name was on the stadium? Do you think you deserve a courtesy call or heads up, or even better, maybe an opinion on the issue?
What if you were a different donor, considering funding a new stadium? Do you think you’d deserve a courtesy call then? What about people instrumental to the college’s fundraising campaigns? The Tribe Club President got an advanced heads up. It was nothing more than that, but certainly more than many stakeholders received.

Tough decisions can be made without burning bridges. The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and it’s her right, however sudjective it may be. What’s not subjective is ensuring those instrumental to the college’s past, present, and future are treated with respect, to the most reasonable extent possible. It’s just good business. W&M is a community much bigger than Samantha Huge. If a few people wanted her replaced, it could happen in a matter of days. There’s no turning back from where we are today, but she doesn’t have the most loyal following going forward.

You just equivocated. Started off by saying the AD didn’t communicate or consult, followed by a bunch of layup questions trying to further your argument. But then you state “The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and its her right....”

ColonelEbirt, again I applaud your posts. We have many lawyers on this board, so I’ll quote 12 Angry Men again (Me to ColonelEbirt)...”They can’t hear you....they never will”

(04-03-2019 12:45 AM)Tribewins Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 12:11 AM)UmbrellaRiver Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 11:24 PM)Tribewins Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 06:19 PM)ColonelEbirt Wrote:  I strongly disagree with her decision to fire Shaver. Especially this year. For that, I don’t like her performance as an AD. (And time will tell ... maybe it plays out as a bad decision and she pays the price - obviously not what we’re hoping for).

But there’s then a lot of talk on this board about how the process has been a total dumpster fire and how we deserve more explanation about why she let Shaver go and how she should field Tribe Club questions about her decision. Huh? She doesn’t owe me anything else. What more do we want to hear from her? She said, in different words, that she doesn’t think Shaver can win as much as she wants the program to win, so she’s moving on. If she had said she was firing him bc of his wardrobe I’d feel like I was owed more explanation. But wanting to win more seems like a good enough explanation. Now, she went out and found the best upgrade (in her mind) that she could find. Time will tell if her desire to win more plays out.

When a CEO fires someone on her Exec team, she doesn’t sit around and pontificate on that decision with the other Execs (and far-removed team members). She makes a direct statement about why she made the decision and then moves on.

I’m angry about the initial decision - and I’m worried about how everything might play out. But I don’t understand the vitriol about the other elements of what has unfolded over the last 3 weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ColonelEbirt, we don’t know each other, but I read and respect all of your posts. Folks are already picking your post apart. I try to live by a rule (although admittedly sometimes it’s tough to follow)....

Never debate/argue with anyone that’s less knowledgeable or informed than you, because they’ll never see your point of view and the debate/argument will get dragged down to their level. And That’s an argument you simply can’t win, because now your playing on their home field!

You’re 100% correct on the CEO analogy as well as your entire post. A CEO can and will terminate an Executive at any time without consulting the BOD or shareholders. I mean seriously? CEOs are involved in the day to day operations while BOD and shareholders are not. Also, Many CEOs are Chairman of the Board with Board members assembling quarterly at best. And Shareholders have no say in day to day operations, but merely voice their opinions in buy/sell trades in the coming months/years in reaction to decisions made by Executive team. To think a CEO needs to communicate hiring/firing to shareholders other than the same “general language” is Tribe fans got is ridiculous. That would be the tail wagging the dog.

Kudos to you Sir!

So if the AD didn’t communicate or consult on the firing with anyone other than the President before the decision was made, do you think that’s good or bad? What if your name was on the stadium? Do you think you deserve a courtesy call or heads up, or even better, maybe an opinion on the issue?
What if you were a different donor, considering funding a new stadium? Do you think you’d deserve a courtesy call then? What about people instrumental to the college’s fundraising campaigns? The Tribe Club President got an advanced heads up. It was nothing more than that, but certainly more than many stakeholders received.

Tough decisions can be made without burning bridges. The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and it’s her right, however sudjective it may be. What’s not subjective is ensuring those instrumental to the college’s past, present, and future are treated with respect, to the most reasonable extent possible. It’s just good business. W&M is a community much bigger than Samantha Huge. If a few people wanted her replaced, it could happen in a matter of days. There’s no turning back from where we are today, but she doesn’t have the most loyal following going forward.

You just equivocated. Started off by saying the AD didn’t communicate or consult, followed by a bunch of layup questions trying to further your argument. But then you state “The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and its her right....”

ColonelEbirt, again I applaud your posts. We have many lawyers on this board, so I’ll quote 12 Angry Men again (Me to ColonelEbirt)...”They can’t hear you....they never will”

If only her job security and program funding were her sole decisions as well. The “Transformational” goals outlined in the athletics strategic plan include $100 million+ in donations to fund four key initiatives. She will not accomplish key objectives if she fails to acknowledge the integral role private donors have in funding her entire department.

Just as you compliment other posters on this board to build consensus, I suggest our AD consider an attempt to foster good relationships with key supporters as well. You’re technically 100% correct that she doesn’t have to. But then she won’t reach her goals and won’t have a job. And, at that point, nothing at W&M would be her sole decision. :)

(04-03-2019 01:20 AM)UmbrellaRiver Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 12:45 AM)Tribewins Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 12:11 AM)UmbrellaRiver Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 11:24 PM)Tribewins Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 06:19 PM)ColonelEbirt Wrote:  I strongly disagree with her decision to fire Shaver. Especially this year. For that, I don’t like her performance as an AD. (And time will tell ... maybe it plays out as a bad decision and she pays the price - obviously not what we’re hoping for).

But there’s then a lot of talk on this board about how the process has been a total dumpster fire and how we deserve more explanation about why she let Shaver go and how she should field Tribe Club questions about her decision. Huh? She doesn’t owe me anything else. What more do we want to hear from her? She said, in different words, that she doesn’t think Shaver can win as much as she wants the program to win, so she’s moving on. If she had said she was firing him bc of his wardrobe I’d feel like I was owed more explanation. But wanting to win more seems like a good enough explanation. Now, she went out and found the best upgrade (in her mind) that she could find. Time will tell if her desire to win more plays out.

When a CEO fires someone on her Exec team, she doesn’t sit around and pontificate on that decision with the other Execs (and far-removed team members). She makes a direct statement about why she made the decision and then moves on.

I’m angry about the initial decision - and I’m worried about how everything might play out. But I don’t understand the vitriol about the other elements of what has unfolded over the last 3 weeks.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ColonelEbirt, we don’t know each other, but I read and respect all of your posts. Folks are already picking your post apart. I try to live by a rule (although admittedly sometimes it’s tough to follow)....

Never debate/argue with anyone that’s less knowledgeable or informed than you, because they’ll never see your point of view and the debate/argument will get dragged down to their level. And That’s an argument you simply can’t win, because now your playing on their home field!

You’re 100% correct on the CEO analogy as well as your entire post. A CEO can and will terminate an Executive at any time without consulting the BOD or shareholders. I mean seriously? CEOs are involved in the day to day operations while BOD and shareholders are not. Also, Many CEOs are Chairman of the Board with Board members assembling quarterly at best. And Shareholders have no say in day to day operations, but merely voice their opinions in buy/sell trades in the coming months/years in reaction to decisions made by Executive team. To think a CEO needs to communicate hiring/firing to shareholders other than the same “general language” is Tribe fans got is ridiculous. That would be the tail wagging the dog.

Kudos to you Sir!

So if the AD didn’t communicate or consult on the firing with anyone other than the President before the decision was made, do you think that’s good or bad? What if your name was on the stadium? Do you think you deserve a courtesy call or heads up, or even better, maybe an opinion on the issue?
What if you were a different donor, considering funding a new stadium? Do you think you’d deserve a courtesy call then? What about people instrumental to the college’s fundraising campaigns? The Tribe Club President got an advanced heads up. It was nothing more than that, but certainly more than many stakeholders received.

Tough decisions can be made without burning bridges. The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and it’s her right, however sudjective it may be. What’s not subjective is ensuring those instrumental to the college’s past, present, and future are treated with respect, to the most reasonable extent possible. It’s just good business. W&M is a community much bigger than Samantha Huge. If a few people wanted her replaced, it could happen in a matter of days. There’s no turning back from where we are today, but she doesn’t have the most loyal following going forward.

You just equivocated. Started off by saying the AD didn’t communicate or consult, followed by a bunch of layup questions trying to further your argument. But then you state “The decision is ultimately Huge’s, and its her right....”

ColonelEbirt, again I applaud your posts. We have many lawyers on this board, so I’ll quote 12 Angry Men again (Me to ColonelEbirt)...”They can’t hear you....they never will”

If only her job security and program funding were her sole decisions as well. The “Transformational” goals outlined in the athletics strategic plan include $100 million+ in donations to fund four key initiatives. She will not accomplish key objectives if she fails to acknowledge the integral role private donors have in funding her entire department.

Just as you compliment other posters on this board to build consensus, I suggest our AD consider an attempt to foster good relationships with key supporters as well. You’re technically 100% correct that she doesn’t have to. But then she won’t reach her goals and won’t have a job. And, at that point, nothing at W&M would be her sole decision. :)

100% agree with this. Fostering good relationships with key supporters/donors is essentialL. If that’s your point, I have no problem, and apologize for my previous comments. I guess I read into comments as donors should be consulted on major decisions, I.e. new basketball coach. Which is wrong.

Everyone advocating to get rid of Huge realizes that new ADs bring their new people, right? So really you are asking for MORE turnover in the coaching ranks at W&M, beyond what has already happened.

(04-03-2019 02:41 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  Everyone advocating to get rid of Huge realizes that new ADs bring their new people, right? So really you are asking for MORE turnover in the coaching ranks at W&M, beyond what has already happened.

That is not guaranteed to happen with a new AD. TD wisely did not come in and start cleaning house. He kept Laycock, Alberts, Daly, and several other coaches on when he was hired. If we hired the right person they would take the time to separate the wheat from the shaft and proceed judiciously.

I am not one calling for Huge's immediate ouster based on what is currently known. This decision and the way it was handled leads to serious questions about her judgement and understanding of the athletics landscape relative to WM. In my mind she has broken something that was working better than it had worked at WM in a long, long time. If she can't raise the money to fund her coaching change or if her coaching change does not raise the program above what we had with Shaver in short order, then I do think she should lose her job because this is not a rebuild hire and she fired the previous coach.

(04-03-2019 09:45 AM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  

(04-03-2019 02:41 AM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  Everyone advocating to get rid of Huge realizes that new ADs bring their new people, right? So really you are asking for MORE turnover in the coaching ranks at W&M, beyond what has already happened.

That is not guaranteed to happen with a new AD. TD wisely did not come in and start cleaning house. He kept Laycock, Alberts, Daly, and several other coaches on when he was hired. If we hired the right person they would take the time to separate the wheat from the shaft and proceed judiciously.

I am not one calling for Huge's immediate ouster based on what is currently known. This decision and the way it was handled leads to serious questions about her judgement and understanding of the athletics landscape relative to WM. In my mind she has broken something that was working better than it had worked at WM in a long, long time. If she can't raise the money to fund her coaching change or if her coaching change does not raise the program above what we had with Shaver in short order, then I do think she should lose her job because this is not a rebuild hire and she fired the previous coach.

Now Huge has her men in place. I wish Coach London and Coach Fischer the best of luck, but my gut tells me a combined 13 to 15 wins for football and basketball this coming season.

I know nothing about AD Huge and this is not a CAA bashing question.

Do anyone know what AD Huge wishes/hopes/plans as far as conference affiliation short and/or long term?

(04-04-2019 10:27 AM)Purplehazed Wrote:  I know nothing about AD Huge and this is not a CAA bashing question.

Do anyone know what AD Huge wishes/hopes/plans as far as conference affiliation short and/or long term?

She's not been on record with anything other than wanting to be a strong leader in the CAA. IMO, I'm pretty sure nostalgic caa affiliations mean very little to her. Also my opinion, but if she is given the opportunity to raise the school's athletic profile through leaving the conference, she will. She fired a popular coach and paid to do so. I don't think she is concerned about radical shake ups.

I agree.

(04-04-2019 11:08 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I'm pretty sure nostalgic caa affiliations mean very little to her

And besides, what's left of them? No Richmond, no ODU, no VCU, no GMU... JMU is the last in-state rival left in the conference and they've had one foot out the door for about a decade. Not to mention other regional rivals that left longer ago like ECU and Navy. Anyone get nostalgic for games against Elon? No offense, Elon.

(04-02-2019 07:50 PM)Tank55 Wrote:  

(04-02-2019 06:38 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Anyone who is a Huge supporter, I dare you to list out the accomplishments that she's made so far in her tenure. Include evidence on her coaching changes, revenue increases through donations or other means, improvements in specific sports.

Please let us know

Her two key hires have a combined record of 0-0.

Let's look at the other sports

Women's soccer - 6-10-1
Volleyball - 5-20

And then there is the part about how she actually hired a Tennis coach when the team went without one for a few weeks. That was a Huge hire.

It's all okay though since she's found a bunch of big donors. Wait, she didn't do that either. It's been almost two years.

If President Rowe and AD Huge want to elevate the MBB/WBB program, they need to find big donors for a proposed multi sport practice facility among other things.

I agree and I'm waiting.

(04-04-2019 01:37 PM)A Quest Called Tribe Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 11:08 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I'm pretty sure nostalgic caa affiliations mean very little to her

And besides, what's left of them? No Richmond, no ODU, no VCU, no GMU... JMU is the last in-state rival left in the conference and they've had one foot out the door for about a decade. Not to mention other regional rivals that left longer ago like ECU and Navy. Anyone get nostalgic for games against Elon? No offense, Elon.

Agree, not sure why anyone with WM would be particularly committed to the CAA for tradition or nostalgia reasons. If there was a better place for us out there, I don't see any reason we should stay in the CAA (not suggesting we leave, just that there is no particular connection for us to stay for off the court reasons).

(04-04-2019 01:46 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Let's look at the other sports

Why?

This so-called "discussion" about big donors is remarkably dull. Who here really knows what big donors are contributing to the program.

It's all uniformed fantasy.

Donors contribute to the College first and their passion second IMO. However let us be honest that the Laycock Center and Zable renovations needed us to make deep runs in the NCAA playoff to kick start them.

The survey we got last fall about MBB arena and meetings with alumni and community supporters was not done with the intent to accept the status quo.

Be it right or wrong Huge made the call to get a new Coach, I see a connection …..

Because they all matter. Last time I checked the AD is responsible for the Athletic Department and not just the football and basketball team.

I assume from your answer that you don't care about the other sports.

(04-04-2019 03:50 PM)Tank55 Wrote:  

(04-04-2019 01:46 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Let's look at the other sports

Why?

Not really. They all matter, but they don't all matter equally.

I know I'm a broken record, but the point of the department -- the reason it exists rather than a club sports system -- is to advance the mission of the College. That's accomplished through raising interest and visibility, which in turn drives applications and donations. The sports that drive interest and visibility are men's basketball and football.

Huge will be judged by London and Fischer. If they succeed, the struggles of tennis, soccer, and volleyball won't matter. If they fail, overwhelming success by tennis, soccer, and volleyball won't matter.

Maybe that's not how it "should" be, but it's how it is.