W&M can't possibly contact every donor over the past few years and ask them to release their donation(s), in writing. The amount of legwork it would take to do that...it's not like we have an office full of people twiddling their thumbs...oh wait.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(09-14-2020 11:00 AM)nj alum Wrote:  The Shaver decision was high risk. It didn’t pan out.

How can anyone say whether the Shaver decision has or hasn't panned out yet? I wasn't in support of it, but it's only been a year and Fischer has looked like a very strong coach in that period. Things have actually gone much better than I expected them to and he seems to be laying down a very strong program foundation.

(09-14-2020 12:01 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 11:00 AM)nj alum Wrote:  The Shaver decision was high risk. It didn’t pan out.

How can anyone say whether the Shaver decision has or hasn't panned out yet? I wasn't in support of it, but it's only been a year and Fischer has looked like a very strong coach in that period. Things have actually gone much better than I expected them to and he seems to be laying down a very strong program foundation.

Don’t hijack the thread. There was already a very strong program foundation when Dane was hired.

The Shaver decision was high risk to try to get to the Dance in 2020. It didn’t pan out, and the cost has been high.

The Fischer hire was a fine hire. He has my 100% support, regardless of whether he makes the Dance. That is not the case with some of the Dancers.

Don’t confuse the two.

The Shaver firing caused a divorce with a portion of the fan base. The AD was candid about that at the Town Hall. The AD also said at the Town Hall that she looked forward to welcoming the divorced back, after the passage of time, reminding them of what they loved about W&M.

Well, if what they loved about W&M involved the Olympic sports, the divorced folks aren’t coming back, and there are more divorced folks poised to exit as well.

And both of these decisions are/were self-inflicted by the AD and all the other administrators who have chosen this fork in the road.

We will never know if a Shaver squad would've won a single CAAT game, recruits who would've stayed committed, or if his 2021 class would've been as strong as Fischer's. In the immortal words of George Michael, [W&M] turned a different corner. Either way, I support Fischer 100%.

It's undeniable that decision hurt financially, both in owed salary and less money donated. But, W&M managed to raise a lot of money from a few couples to spruce up W&M Hall so maybe that washes out.

There is no doubt we now have a divided fanbase with many who gave for decades who no longer give, or give less. Dedicated former student-athletes like 90 who can no longer stomach Samantha's actions.

I will never turn my back on W&M but will, instead, wait out Hurricane Sammy. I just hope Rowe & the BOV hold her accountable before Tribe Athletics drowns.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(09-14-2020 12:43 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 12:01 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 11:00 AM)nj alum Wrote:  The Shaver decision was high risk. It didn’t pan out.

How can anyone say whether the Shaver decision has or hasn't panned out yet? I wasn't in support of it, but it's only been a year and Fischer has looked like a very strong coach in that period. Things have actually gone much better than I expected them to and he seems to be laying down a very strong program foundation.

The Shaver decision was high risk to try to get to the Dance in 2020. It didn’t pan out, and the cost has been high.

There is no evidence that was the reason for the decision (and indeed it makes no sense as the reason -- if the goal was to get to the dance at all costs in a single year no AD in the world fires a coach and blows up a team to do that). It's just a justification you invented (with a very convenient structure to allow you to claim irrevocably that it "failed"!)

The Shaver decision was made with the long-term in mind. And the jury will be out on the verdict for at least a couple years barring a drastic success or failure.

interesting to see the W&M and Stanford "sorry we are cutting sports" letters side by side...

looks like W&M saved some time and effort by borrowing text.

(09-14-2020 01:18 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 12:43 PM)nj alum Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 12:01 PM)Tribe2011 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 11:00 AM)nj alum Wrote:  The Shaver decision was high risk. It didn’t pan out.

How can anyone say whether the Shaver decision has or hasn't panned out yet? I wasn't in support of it, but it's only been a year and Fischer has looked like a very strong coach in that period. Things have actually gone much better than I expected them to and he seems to be laying down a very strong program foundation.

The Shaver decision was high risk to try to get to the Dance in 2020. It didn’t pan out, and the cost has been high.

There is no evidence that was the reason for the decision (and indeed it makes no sense as the reason -- if the goal was to get to the dance at all costs in a single year no AD in the world fires a coach and blows up a team to do that). It's just a justification you invented (with a very convenient structure to allow you to claim irrevocably that it "failed"!)

The Shaver decision was made with the long-term in mind. And the jury will be out on the verdict for at least a couple years barring a drastic success or failure.

Thank you for agreeing with me!

“The goal was to get to the Dance at all costs in a single year no AD in the world fires a coach and blows up a team to do that.” Reasonable minds differ on whether the AD blew up the team, or the team was blowing up, and she tried to save Knight’s senior season, or some combination of the two, but make no mistake ... all of this ... all of it .... is about getting to the Dance at all costs, regardless of what it does to the fan base and the William and Mary Athletics Department. The fan and donor base is roiled.

From that perspective, these decisions make no sense.

PS I didn’t invent this up today. I’ve been “inventing” it ever since Shaver was fired.

Just look at it like a game of connect the dots.

(09-14-2020 01:35 PM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  interesting to see the W&M and Stanford "sorry we are cutting sports" letters side by side...

looks like W&M saved some time and effort by borrowing text.

The former swimmer whose article Tribal posted last night correctly inferred that same is likely an Honor Code violation if done by a W&M student, and some of my less interested frat brothers picked up on that as well.

(09-14-2020 01:35 PM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  interesting to see the W&M and Stanford "sorry we are cutting sports" letters side by side...

looks like W&M saved some time and effort by borrowing text.

Cut and paste is a beautiful thing. When students do it, it's called plagiarism. When ADs do it, it's called lazy.

Tribeathletics is hosting a virtual 5k as a community outreach effort. Responses on social media have been unwelcoming. Pretty funny stuff. This on is my favorite.

Bound to have some great times next fall with all the Track & Field athletes eligible!

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

(09-14-2020 10:59 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I've seen the online narrative that cutting these sports is a means for the AD to steal the endowments from the 7 and shift them to other purposes. I admit to being ignorant to how all of this works, but in my limited Google research, it didn't sound like changing the purpose for an endowment was doable without written agreement from the donor and the charity. I didn't gather that just because the purpose of the original endowment was no more that the funding could be used wherever. Can anybody more knowledgeable clarify this?

It can be done. The easiest way, as TF1983 indicated, would be if the documents establishing the endowment specifically provide for such a diversion of the funds. If not, the safest way would be to ask the Circuit Court to bless it. (Which, if there is an indication of "unclean hands," a court might be reluctant to do).

(09-14-2020 01:59 PM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 10:59 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I've seen the online narrative that cutting these sports is a means for the AD to steal the endowments from the 7 and shift them to other purposes. I admit to being ignorant to how all of this works, but in my limited Google research, it didn't sound like changing the purpose for an endowment was doable without written agreement from the donor and the charity. I didn't gather that just because the purpose of the original endowment was no more that the funding could be used wherever. Can anybody more knowledgeable clarify this?

It can be done. The easiest way, as TF1983 indicated, would be if the documents establishing the endowment specifically provide for such a diversion of the funds. If not, the safest way would be to ask the Circuit Court to bless it. (Which, if there is an indication of "unclean hands," a court might be reluctant to do).

Unless there is small print that allows them independently to redirect the funds, I cannot image any outside oversight allowing it without requiring W&M to make an effort to reach out to the givers. In fact, if the 7 wanted, I'm sure they could hire legal aid that could tie that money up and make it hard to move. I'm not sure that is what they want though.

(09-14-2020 01:48 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(09-14-2020 01:35 PM)soccerguy315 Wrote:  interesting to see the W&M and Stanford "sorry we are cutting sports" letters side by side...

looks like W&M saved some time and effort by borrowing text.

Cut and paste is a beautiful thing. When students do it, it's called plagiarism. When ADs do it, it's called lazy.

Bernard Muir (Stanford AD) is supposedly a mentor to Huge. I think Teel's column said that she consulted him about cutting sports. Wouldn't be too far of a stretch to infer that they wrote the text together.

But that's not a very good look, even if it's on the up and up. Continues to reinforce the idea that Huge wants to structure Tribe Athletics like a power conference school, which is not what W&M is.

This is amazing. I received a grade deduction on an APA paper because I didn't use two spaces after a period vice one space (a year older APA style).

https://twitter.com/kavmurray/status/130...79681?s=19

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

Well, in fairness, this statement was an exercise in backside-covering PR flackery, not academic work.

(09-15-2020 08:00 AM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  Well, in fairness, this statement was an exercise in backside-covering PR flackery, not academic work.

Well, in fairness, it was in a role as a "Leader" at an academic institution where plagiarism is taken very seriously by an Honor Code and applied with consequences to those that she "leads".

If a Dean did the same, would there be ramifications?

(09-14-2020 11:53 AM)Tribal Wrote:  W&M can't possibly contact every donor over the past few years and ask them to release their donation(s), in writing. The amount of legwork it would take to do that...it's not like we have an office full of people twiddling their thumbs...oh wait.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

That's why most endowment agreements have cy pres clauses. In the event the donor's specified use is no longer practicable, the university can apply the money toward a similar project. Here, since swimming is no longer a sport at W&M, the College can use the endowment money to fund other sports. The donor can always sue, but I doubt they will.

https://richmond.com/sports/college/rich...edb26.html

(09-15-2020 09:04 AM)mrjoolius Wrote:  https://richmond.com/sports/college/rich...edb26.html

This could be promising. He cut sports in September 2012 and stepped away from his position in late 2012.

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk

This isn't going away. The drop a bomb then go silent until it fizzles out days are over. W&M can't even post a nice story without an influx of 7 cut sports comments.

@williamandmary moving up the rankings

???? ????????????? ???????? by ?.?. ???? ??? ????? ??????

https://t.co/hga4Fatdsw

#GoTribe https://t.co/9LtPa6eI8u

Sent from my SM-N970U using Tapatalk