(11-23-2021 01:25 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 06:48 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  ...Shaver's first .500 or better season was when his first recruiting class were seniors, and the CAA final was the year after. If we're giving Coach Fischer that same leeway, next year would be the one that gets us back to the top/middle of the conference and the year after we need a magical run to the CAA finals.

(11-23-2021 10:38 AM)TribePride91 Wrote:  ... If we give him time, Dane will be able to build his program here.

I'm not adverse to giving Fischer time to build his team and grow to be as (or more) successful than Shaver. I'm not pinging on the two posters above, I am just using their posts as the springboard to this next comment. What cracks me up is that many, many posters say "give Fischer time" ....even though many other posters have been quick to decry Shaver's overall losing record and point to his first (losing) years' records as good reasons to fire him after year 16. Logic would seem to indicate that you can't have it both ways. Either a coach is making good progress and the administration ignores early losing records (as was done with Shaver for his first 15 years) or you hold the new coach to a high standard right from the beginning and he better produce quickly or get fired. What should not happen is what did happen to Shaver ... all records count (even the ones previously ignored) and they can be used against you later in your career to fire you even if your most recent records were quite good.

This is a good post.

(11-23-2021 10:38 AM)TribePride91 Wrote:  Cohn was on our short list initially and chose Colorado State. Fortunately for us that did not work out for him. He definitely made a significant impact as the Tribe point guard during his time with the program. The recruiting process and being "in" on the right players is difficult and likely has gotten even harder with so many kids now transferring in and out each year.

I still say that it is early. We may see some improvement between now and Feb/Mar.. I don't think with current staff and resources that we are a good basketball destination. Students come either for the well established coach, the great facilities, the culture, or the academics(and many don't care at all about the last one). W&M only has one of the 4 right now. But, like Coach Shaver and the rest of the staff were able to do, you can build something with consistency and good culture. We had that and our AD imploded it over one half of gut wrenching basketball against her old school.

If we give him time, Dane will be able to build his program here. In my opinion, being consistent, great culture, and great academics is what works at William and Mary. For those who have spent 40 years in the basketball wilderness, this is hard right now. But, none of this is surprising. It is going to take time. I look at it as this is Dane's first real year and it will be the toughest due to the lack in number of juniors and seniors. I think there are a lot of programs that hope to get students for 3-4 years rather than 1. There is nothing wrong with that plan as long as you continue to pay attention for the rare "great fit" transfer.

Not to relitigate ancient history -- well, not too much, anyway -- but I remain convinced that Ms. Huge's decision to get rid of Coach Shaver was made much earlier in the season. I think the only way he could have avoided it would have been if the Tribe won the tourney.

(11-23-2021 02:23 PM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  Not to relitigate ancient history -- well, not too much, anyway -- but I remain convinced that Ms. Huge's decision to get rid of Coach Shaver was made much earlier in the season. I think the only way he could have avoided it would have been if the Tribe won the tourney.

Enlightened wisdom

(11-23-2021 02:23 PM)Blow Gym rat Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 10:38 AM)TribePride91 Wrote:  Cohn was on our short list initially and chose Colorado State. Fortunately for us that did not work out for him. He definitely made a significant impact as the Tribe point guard during his time with the program. The recruiting process and being "in" on the right players is difficult and likely has gotten even harder with so many kids now transferring in and out each year.

I still say that it is early. We may see some improvement between now and Feb/Mar.. I don't think with current staff and resources that we are a good basketball destination. Students come either for the well established coach, the great facilities, the culture, or the academics(and many don't care at all about the last one). W&M only has one of the 4 right now. But, like Coach Shaver and the rest of the staff were able to do, you can build something with consistency and good culture. We had that and our AD imploded it over one half of gut wrenching basketball against her old school.

If we give him time, Dane will be able to build his program here. In my opinion, being consistent, great culture, and great academics is what works at William and Mary. For those who have spent 40 years in the basketball wilderness, this is hard right now. But, none of this is surprising. It is going to take time. I look at it as this is Dane's first real year and it will be the toughest due to the lack in number of juniors and seniors. I think there are a lot of programs that hope to get students for 3-4 years rather than 1. There is nothing wrong with that plan as long as you continue to pay attention for the rare "great fit" transfer.

Not to relitigate ancient history -- well, not too much, anyway -- but I remain convinced that Ms. Huge's decision to get rid of Coach Shaver was made much earlier in the season. I think the only way he could have avoided it would have been if the Tribe won the tourney.

Absolutely her mind was made up. From the Daily Press ..."Huge said she conducted her own internal review of the men's basketball program when she first came on two years ago and didn't like how the program was "trending"". I can still picture her sitting by herself behind the Tribe bench during the last regular season game at JMU, obviously hoping the Tribe would lose so they wouldn't have have a winning CAA record, thus automatic 1 year contract extension. That win cost the College $300k+.

Sent from my SM-G950U using CSNbbs mobile app

I’d hoped to avoid discussing Huge. Discuss what you want but that horse went to the glue factory a long time ago.

I would agree that her mind was likely made up earlier as it also likely was with many other former Tribe coaches. I will attempt to refrain from discussing her especially here at a time of thanksgiving.

I do think a solid number of the Tribe faithful are in the camp that was against the dismissal of the former coach and in favor now of the current coach to succeed in spite of difficult circumstances. I am definitely in that camp. Most that hated what happened in March of 2019 want Dane to succeed and are willing to be patient.

Maybe the Tribe gets its first win at Radford tomorrow night. Since it really doesn't matter to the CAA part of the schedule, I am just hoping to see improvement.

(11-23-2021 10:58 AM)wmmii Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 06:13 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 06:01 PM)wmmii Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 05:46 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 05:03 PM)zablenoise Wrote:  Oh yeah he's been pretty explicit about his desire to not take transfers on multiple occasions

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

That’s pretty disheartening.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is taken out of context. What Dane has stated is that his strategy is to find players that value our educational experience plus MBB and he want to BUILD the program around those players. He never stated that he did not want transfers.

What he has not done is use the strategy of the football staff to recruit Grad students who want our MBA program. This could be used to fill in the current gaps each year or backfill for players who transfer out.

I totally disagree with this post. I’ve been to lunches and have personally asked the question. Then why haven’t we offered one kid in 3 years that had more than one year of eligibility left?

Reading you statement more closely, it appears that a GRAD transfer is excluded in your discussion and you are only referring to a transfer with multiple years of eligibility. I would agree that Dane is not targeting his recruitment for players like Cohn but it also a false narrative to claim that Tony did either.

Do not know why you would "totally disagree" when i suggested that Dane should "recruit Grad students who want our MBA program"

Have a great Thanksgiving!

I never claimed Tony did. My original post merely was to point out the reason we are so young currently is because in year one instead of going after a few transfers that could have sat out a year and been Jr and sr now helping the younger guys blend in , this staff offered 3 kids with no d1 offers.

The transfer portal may not had existed 3 years ago but transfers did exist.

I think year 3 a staff shouldn’t be given a pass on being young if things aren’t going well because college basketball has changed significantly and you can get older quicker now. That’s was my only intention of my original post.

My fear is you go a few 5 win seasons back to back kids will run from the program and future recruiting will get even harder. Not many kids will commit to a team with a Coach having only one year left on his contract because they do ask.

(11-23-2021 10:28 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 08:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 06:31 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 04:27 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 04:22 PM)Tribal Wrote:  Andy V and David C are the only transfers IN that I recall as being impactful over the past decade. Either our coaches haven’t given full effort or not many find W&M appealing.

We’ve had lots of great players leave, of course.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Milon

Adam Payton, Sean McCurdy, and Hawley Smith too. But the transfer portal changed everything in Shaver's last year. Comparing transfers now to anything prior might as well be comparing outside shooters now to pre 3-point line era.

None of those guys in the last decade, as I stated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, my point was more that transfers weren't really a thing until 3 years ago. Before that all players had to sit a year and there wasn't a list of players who wanted to transfer. If you got a transfer, great, but it was not a significant part of the team building process.

The portal wasn’t available 3 years ago? Didn’t Pierce, Milon, Audige, Owens, and Luke (for a short time) go in it? My original post said get kids out of it year 1 and let them sit out a year .

(11-23-2021 06:00 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 10:28 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 08:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 06:31 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 04:27 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  Milon

Adam Payton, Sean McCurdy, and Hawley Smith too. But the transfer portal changed everything in Shaver's last year. Comparing transfers now to anything prior might as well be comparing outside shooters now to pre 3-point line era.

None of those guys in the last decade, as I stated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, my point was more that transfers weren't really a thing until 3 years ago. Before that all players had to sit a year and there wasn't a list of players who wanted to transfer. If you got a transfer, great, but it was not a significant part of the team building process.

The portal wasn’t available 3 years ago? Didn’t Pierce, Milon, Audige, Owens, and Luke (for a short time) go in it? My original post said get kids out of it year 1 and let them sit out a year .

Those guys all entered the portal the first year it was available, IIRC. I might be off by a year, but the year they went in was the year the portal started being a thing you had to pay attention to. I was replying to the discussion with Tribal about what transfers came in during Shaver's time.

My larger point is that transfers now have to be considered a viable way to build a program, like you're saying. That wasn't the case when Shaver was coaching, because you couldn't address immediate needs via transfers unless they were grad transfers, which were not particularly common. But also that when Coach Fischer took over, the portal was only starting to become what it is now. It is very important for the staff to get up to speed on using the portal to address team needs, and even better if those players are not one year grad transfers. When he was hired, I remember Fischer being touted for his ability to find under-recruited players. That's great, but whereas before you had to recruit high schoolers well to build a program, now recruiting is also players in the portal. Those players would also presumably be easier to project since they have some kind of college play under their belt.

(11-23-2021 07:41 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 06:00 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 10:28 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 08:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 06:31 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  Adam Payton, Sean McCurdy, and Hawley Smith too. But the transfer portal changed everything in Shaver's last year. Comparing transfers now to anything prior might as well be comparing outside shooters now to pre 3-point line era.

None of those guys in the last decade, as I stated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, my point was more that transfers weren't really a thing until 3 years ago. Before that all players had to sit a year and there wasn't a list of players who wanted to transfer. If you got a transfer, great, but it was not a significant part of the team building process.

The portal wasn’t available 3 years ago? Didn’t Pierce, Milon, Audige, Owens, and Luke (for a short time) go in it? My original post said get kids out of it year 1 and let them sit out a year .

Those guys all entered the portal the first year it was available, IIRC. I might be off by a year, but the year they went in was the year the portal started being a thing you had to pay attention to. I was replying to the discussion with Tribal about what transfers came in during Shaver's time.

My larger point is that transfers now have to be considered a viable way to build a program, like you're saying. That wasn't the case when Shaver was coaching, because you couldn't address immediate needs via transfers unless they were grad transfers, which were not particularly common. But also that when Coach Fischer took over, the portal was only starting to become what it is now. It is very important for the staff to get up to speed on using the portal to address team needs, and even better if those players are not one year grad transfers. When he was hired, I remember Fischer being touted for his ability to find under-recruited players. That's great, but whereas before you had to recruit high schoolers well to build a program, now recruiting is also players in the portal. Those players would also presumably be easier to project since they have some kind of college play under their belt.

So we actually agree on something for once.

(11-23-2021 05:36 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  I never claimed Tony did. My original post merely was to point out the reason we are so young currently is because in year one instead of going after a few transfers that could have sat out a year and been Jr and sr now helping the younger guys blend in , this staff offered 3 kids with no d1 offers.

Apologies. That was my claim getting you in trouble. I don't think Tony was "good" at recruiting transfers. But on the occasion he did it worked out pretty well. It just surprised me looking back at his tenure.

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk

(11-23-2021 07:41 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 06:00 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 10:28 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 08:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 06:31 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  Adam Payton, Sean McCurdy, and Hawley Smith too. But the transfer portal changed everything in Shaver's last year. Comparing transfers now to anything prior might as well be comparing outside shooters now to pre 3-point line era.

None of those guys in the last decade, as I stated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, my point was more that transfers weren't really a thing until 3 years ago. Before that all players had to sit a year and there wasn't a list of players who wanted to transfer. If you got a transfer, great, but it was not a significant part of the team building process.

The portal wasn’t available 3 years ago? Didn’t Pierce, Milon, Audige, Owens, and Luke (for a short time) go in it? My original post said get kids out of it year 1 and let them sit out a year .

Those guys all entered the portal the first year it was available, IIRC. I might be off by a year, but the year they went in was the year the portal started being a thing you had to pay attention to. I was replying to the discussion with Tribal about what transfers came in during Shaver's time.

My larger point is that transfers now have to be considered a viable way to build a program, like you're saying. That wasn't the case when Shaver was coaching, because you couldn't address immediate needs via transfers unless they were grad transfers, which were not particularly common. But also that when Coach Fischer took over, the portal was only starting to become what it is now. It is very important for the staff to get up to speed on using the portal to address team needs, and even better if those players are not one year grad transfers. When he was hired, I remember Fischer being touted for his ability to find under-recruited players. That's great, but whereas before you had to recruit high schoolers well to build a program, now recruiting is also players in the portal. Those players would also presumably be easier to project since they have some kind of college play under their belt.

It might be a good idea for College leadership (those trying to obtain funding for the program and those coaching the program) to have a common understanding of where it stands on using transfers and the portal. It's different in Williamsburg than in a lot of places owing to the admissions standards, but it doesn't seem productive to be losing players to UNC and Minnesota and reloading with high school seniors or division II talent. Article below on Iona probably doesn't describe a template for Wm & Mary, but it does show how a program can avoid being lost in the desert. Others have already mentioned the Charleston example.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co...story.html

(11-26-2021 08:02 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 07:41 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 06:00 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 10:28 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-22-2021 08:52 PM)Tribal Wrote:  None of those guys in the last decade, as I stated


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, my point was more that transfers weren't really a thing until 3 years ago. Before that all players had to sit a year and there wasn't a list of players who wanted to transfer. If you got a transfer, great, but it was not a significant part of the team building process.

The portal wasn’t available 3 years ago? Didn’t Pierce, Milon, Audige, Owens, and Luke (for a short time) go in it? My original post said get kids out of it year 1 and let them sit out a year .

Those guys all entered the portal the first year it was available, IIRC. I might be off by a year, but the year they went in was the year the portal started being a thing you had to pay attention to. I was replying to the discussion with Tribal about what transfers came in during Shaver's time.

My larger point is that transfers now have to be considered a viable way to build a program, like you're saying. That wasn't the case when Shaver was coaching, because you couldn't address immediate needs via transfers unless they were grad transfers, which were not particularly common. But also that when Coach Fischer took over, the portal was only starting to become what it is now. It is very important for the staff to get up to speed on using the portal to address team needs, and even better if those players are not one year grad transfers. When he was hired, I remember Fischer being touted for his ability to find under-recruited players. That's great, but whereas before you had to recruit high schoolers well to build a program, now recruiting is also players in the portal. Those players would also presumably be easier to project since they have some kind of college play under their belt.

It might be a good idea for College leadership (those trying to obtain funding for the program and those coaching the program) to have a common understanding of where it stands on using transfers and the portal. It's different in Williamsburg than in a lot of places owing to the admissions standards, but it doesn't seem productive to be losing players to UNC and Minnesota and reloading with high school seniors or division II talent. Article below on Iona probably doesn't describe a template for Wm & Mary, but it does show how a program can avoid being lost in the desert. Others have already mentioned the Charleston example.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co...story.html

Are you really "losing" players if they graduated?

Transfers can help and hurt. They can be great to balance out classes and replace players who leave early, but they are a short term fix. MTSU used transfers to make the sweet 16 a few seasons ago, almost everyone on the roster was a transfer. But that isn't the way to achieve long-term success. Of course, the coach wasn't concerned with long-term success of MTSU, he already left.

I am not really defending the current staff, but I do think we have to wait and see how it all shakes out. Blair's return has helped, there is always hope that Tribe will improve with experience. I am not going to nitpick to determine which was the worst team, even considering that brings back too many bad memories.

(11-26-2021 09:28 AM)NC Tribe Wrote:  Are you really "losing" players if they graduated?

Transfers can help and hurt. They can be great to balance out classes and replace players who leave early, but they are a short term fix. MTSU used transfers to make the sweet 16 a few seasons ago, almost everyone on the roster was a transfer. But that isn't the way to achieve long-term success. Of course, the coach wasn't concerned with long-term success of MTSU, he already left.

I am not really defending the current staff, but I do think we have to wait and see how it all shakes out. Blair's return has helped, there is always hope that Tribe will improve with experience. I am not going to nitpick to determine which was the worst team, even considering that brings back too many bad memories.

We're more arguing for recruiting the 2-3 year transfers from the portal rather than 1 year grad transfers. More the Cohn type of transfer rather than Barnes. Those players are more easily identified with the growth of the transfer portal, but the coaching staff has to have a plan for targeting longer term transfer players.

During this last transfer portal session (the one where WM had one scholarship available and picked up Carroll) WM demonstrated interest (on Twitter) in 22 transfers: 2/3 were grad transfers and 1/3 were players with multiple years of eligibility. Tyler Kolek, a rising sophomore who transferred from GMU to Marquette, is an example of a player with multiple years of eligibility that the WM staff targeted.

(11-26-2021 01:56 PM)WillaMary08 Wrote:  During this last transfer portal session (the one where WM had one scholarship available and picked up Carroll) WM demonstrated interest (on Twitter) in 22 transfers: 2/3 were grad transfers and 1/3 were players with multiple years of eligibility. Tyler Kolek, a rising sophomore who transferred from GMU to Marquette, is an example of a player with multiple years of eligibility that the WM staff targeted.

Did we officially “offer” any undergraduates or just a coach followed them on Twitter? Big difference imo. As you know, our staff follows a bunch of kids we never offer.

Glad you jumped in on this post. In the late 3 years to your knowledge has this staff offered an undergraduate transfer with multiple years of eligibility left?

(11-26-2021 09:28 AM)NC Tribe Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 08:02 AM)Florida tribe fan Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 07:41 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 06:00 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-23-2021 10:28 AM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  Yeah, my point was more that transfers weren't really a thing until 3 years ago. Before that all players had to sit a year and there wasn't a list of players who wanted to transfer. If you got a transfer, great, but it was not a significant part of the team building process.

The portal wasn’t available 3 years ago? Didn’t Pierce, Milon, Audige, Owens, and Luke (for a short time) go in it? My original post said get kids out of it year 1 and let them sit out a year .

Those guys all entered the portal the first year it was available, IIRC. I might be off by a year, but the year they went in was the year the portal started being a thing you had to pay attention to. I was replying to the discussion with Tribal about what transfers came in during Shaver's time.

My larger point is that transfers now have to be considered a viable way to build a program, like you're saying. That wasn't the case when Shaver was coaching, because you couldn't address immediate needs via transfers unless they were grad transfers, which were not particularly common. But also that when Coach Fischer took over, the portal was only starting to become what it is now. It is very important for the staff to get up to speed on using the portal to address team needs, and even better if those players are not one year grad transfers. When he was hired, I remember Fischer being touted for his ability to find under-recruited players. That's great, but whereas before you had to recruit high schoolers well to build a program, now recruiting is also players in the portal. Those players would also presumably be easier to project since they have some kind of college play under their belt.

It might be a good idea for College leadership (those trying to obtain funding for the program and those coaching the program) to have a common understanding of where it stands on using transfers and the portal. It's different in Williamsburg than in a lot of places owing to the admissions standards, but it doesn't seem productive to be losing players to UNC and Minnesota and reloading with high school seniors or division II talent. Article below on Iona probably doesn't describe a template for Wm & Mary, but it does show how a program can avoid being lost in the desert. Others have already mentioned the Charleston example.

https://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co...story.html

Are you really "losing" players if they graduated?

Transfers can help and hurt. They can be great to balance out classes and replace players who leave early, but they are a short term fix. MTSU used transfers to make the sweet 16 a few seasons ago, almost everyone on the roster was a transfer. But that isn't the way to achieve long-term success. Of course, the coach wasn't concerned with long-term success of MTSU, he already left.

I am not really defending the current staff, but I do think we have to wait and see how it all shakes out. Blair's return has helped, there is always hope that Tribe will improve with experience. I am not going to nitpick to determine which was the worst team, even considering that brings back too many bad memories.

I take aboard that, as the Rice Commission argued, the objective of college athletic scholarships is to produce scholar athletes who obtain college degrees. I further take aboard that as these scholar athletes are allowed to go to summer school, for multiple purposes, they can graduate in three years. It can be argued Wm & Mary hasn't lost these players academically. Where this handshake breaks down has to do with what the basketball program at Wm & Mary loses in these situations, the most productive athletic year of eligibility.

Donors, ticket holders, and fans of a program whose model is to groom its best players for a year or two and then watch them have a productive season that serves as a springboard for a transfer prior to the senior year of eligibility have a right to be frustrated. Trying to backfill with high school seniors and repeat this process may carry more risks than in previous decades. The existing fan base is aging out and needs to be replenished. A program that that willingly suffers through multi-year losing seasons hoping for some cyclical turnaround that may or may not materialize will be hard pressed to attract new fans.

As mentioned elsewhere it's encouraging that the coaching staff was cognizant of players who were in the portal. My question is whether College leadership knows what form its version of a hybrid high school senior/college transfer model needs to take to succeed and avoid 0-6 starts. Presently, it appears the College has very little beyond the business school/MBA hook to attract transfers.

What else is being sold in the way of employable skills/placement opportunities to make academically qualified players elsewhere want to come to Williamsburg and, mostly, ride buses to CAA, Big South, and MEAC venues? If the AD, coaching staff, President, and academic deans were locked in a room to generate some additional options, what would hatch? My understanding is that the President wants Division I basketball at the College to succeed.

(11-26-2021 04:33 PM)Touchdown Green and Gold Wrote:  

(11-26-2021 01:56 PM)WillaMary08 Wrote:  During this last transfer portal session (the one where WM had one scholarship available and picked up Carroll) WM demonstrated interest (on Twitter) in 22 transfers: 2/3 were grad transfers and 1/3 were players with multiple years of eligibility. Tyler Kolek, a rising sophomore who transferred from GMU to Marquette, is an example of a player with multiple years of eligibility that the WM staff targeted.

Did we officially “offer” any undergraduates or just a coach followed them on Twitter? Big difference imo. As you know, our staff follows a bunch of kids we never offer.

Glad you jumped in on this post. In the late 3 years to your knowledge has this staff offered an undergraduate transfer with multiple years of eligibility left?

I can’t answer that question because unlike offers for HS players you very rarely hear about the offers to transfers. For example I never heard of an official offer to Brandon Carroll, Bryce Barnes, or Tyler Hamilton but they all ended up at WM. The only official offer I remember hearing from this past transfer session was to grad transfer Kaiden Rice.

Taking from this thread, it looks like Shaver, at least toward the end, brought in a few multiple year transfers who mostly panned out. Early on, Fischer has not done that. Fischer brought in a few one year fire and forget guys…understandable given his need to immediately fill our roster after the mass exodus. Maybe it’s time to refocus his recruiting methods.

Fischer probably needs to be aggressive this spring because he may not survive a full contract. I’d love for him to get our team straightened out and show some promise heading into postseason but we clearly couldn’t have started our 2021 campaign any worse (save players involved in felonious activities or program cheating scandals).

I’m an anti-Huge, pro-Shaver guy 100%. I want Fischer to be massively successful at W&M and move our program forward. Feelings and desires are mutually exclusive when it comes to this.

Go Tribe!

With the advent of the transfer portal it would appear as if the recruiting game has changed dramatically.

Developing freshmen is now risker than it used to be.

One year transfers abound to fill specific holes.

Multiple year transfers can be of high value as waivers have become much easier to obtain.

At an institution such as W&M this can be trickier than at a P5 school. Academic standards are higher than most other schools and the level of competition doesn't seem to warrant those wanting to test themselves against higher level competition.

Dane is working hard to develop camaraderie, unity, team spirit and togetherness. These can help retain/attract players.

Emotion can not be over looked as a motivator in game and in retaining players. W&M has traditionally been able to inspire positive emotions in many of its student athletes.

Here's hoping that our coaching staff can find the best formula for success! GO TRIBE!