(01-19-2023 08:44 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  I'm in for finding 30 minutes a game for Williams for the rest of the season. It's tough to get excited about Nelson's offense or Mullins' defense when they're never going to play a game that matters here.

I think this is a great point. We're at the development/know what you've got crossroads imo. Need to look to the future and try to build some semblance of a program

(01-19-2023 08:58 PM)FauqDawg10 Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 08:57 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  Only Monmouth's 32 point loss at Drexel earlier in conference play was larger than the 27 and 28 point losses of our last two games.

I'm willing to bet we haven't lost consecutive conference games by 25+ since the Swenson era.

Wow. Dead on. Last time we lost back to back conference games by 25+ was Swenson's final season in '93-'94. At ODU 105-72 on 2 Feb and then 3 days later at home against Richmond 105-73. It's been rare for us to drop conference games by 25+ just because teams will pull their starters usually. Shows a real lack of effort and buy-in from our players. Going back to the Swenson Era: Swenson managed it 9 times in 7 years, Charlie 3 times in 6 years, Boyages 2 times in 3 years, Tony 10 times in 16 years, and now Dane 4 times in 4 seasons.

(01-20-2023 06:58 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 12:49 AM)Tribester Wrote:  We are a stupid basketball team. Have no idea what to do with the ball half the time, constantly get stuck under the basket with nowhere to go, which leads to repeated dumb turnovers. Even worse, we are soft, lazy, and play with no sense of urgency at all. Teams go on huge runs, and Dane just stands there with a dumb look on his face. If he ever got in a player’s face and bitched him out I would probably pass out from shock. No emotion whatsoever. No wonder the team plays the same way…flat as a pancake. Unless Brian Mull is totally clueless, Dane will be canned at the end of this season. If not, he should be judged harshly as well.

If you remember, part of the reason for Shaver leaving was because Huge didn't like how Tony yelled at the players, especially Knight when we desparately needed to keep from going pro. She wanted someone who was nice. Well this is what she got. Dane was also the only candidate who accepted our offer after multiple (close to 10) candidates turned us down either in the process or before even receiving an offer.

I'd love to know a deep dive on this. Even at the time I was wondering how we ended up that far down Huge's available coach list.

(01-20-2023 10:56 AM)zablenoise Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 08:44 PM)WMInTheBurg Wrote:  I'm in for finding 30 minutes a game for Williams for the rest of the season. It's tough to get excited about Nelson's offense or Mullins' defense when they're never going to play a game that matters here.

I think this is a great point. We're at the development/know what you've got crossroads imo. Need to look to the future and try to build some semblance of a program

(01-19-2023 08:58 PM)FauqDawg10 Wrote:  

(01-19-2023 08:57 PM)Tribeheart Wrote:  Only Monmouth's 32 point loss at Drexel earlier in conference play was larger than the 27 and 28 point losses of our last two games.

I'm willing to bet we haven't lost consecutive conference games by 25+ since the Swenson era.

Wow. Dead on. Last time we lost back to back conference games by 25+ was Swenson's final season in '93-'94. At ODU 105-72 on 2 Feb and then 3 days later at home against Richmond 105-73. It's been rare for us to drop conference games by 25+ just because teams will pull their starters usually. Shows a real lack of effort and buy-in from our players. Going back to the Swenson Era: Swenson managed it 9 times in 7 years, Charlie 3 times in 6 years, Boyages 2 times in 3 years, Tony 10 times in 16 years, and now Dane 4 times in 4 seasons.

(01-20-2023 06:58 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 12:49 AM)Tribester Wrote:  We are a stupid basketball team. Have no idea what to do with the ball half the time, constantly get stuck under the basket with nowhere to go, which leads to repeated dumb turnovers. Even worse, we are soft, lazy, and play with no sense of urgency at all. Teams go on huge runs, and Dane just stands there with a dumb look on his face. If he ever got in a player’s face and bitched him out I would probably pass out from shock. No emotion whatsoever. No wonder the team plays the same way…flat as a pancake. Unless Brian Mull is totally clueless, Dane will be canned at the end of this season. If not, he should be judged harshly as well.

If you remember, part of the reason for Shaver leaving was because Huge didn't like how Tony yelled at the players, especially Knight when we desparately needed to keep from going pro. She wanted someone who was nice. Well this is what she got. Dane was also the only candidate who accepted our offer after multiple (close to 10) candidates turned us down either in the process or before even receiving an offer.

I'd love to know a deep dive on this. Even at the time I was wondering how we ended up that far down Huge's available coach list.

Why is W&M such an undesirable destination for prospective hoops coaches? Is it just the money?

It reminds me of the Sheldon years. I thought he was a terrible player when he first started. He was a below the rim finisher who didn't display much athleticism or ability to shoot outside. I liked Rusty as I thought he was more of an offensive threat. Then Whitman and Seacat came and I thought surely Shaver would work them in over Sheldon.

But at this level, unless you are truly dominant (read NATHAN KNIGHT) in the post, you do much better to use your 6'8"-6'9" forward (CAA center) like Sheldon, lots of screens and easy buckets off pick n rolls. If they can shoot outside, great, but if not, you've got a workhorse who can be key in an effective offense.

*Sat on the reply button, this was in response to Tribe32:
"WMTRIBE75, your comment is spot on. Neither Ben or Noah can shoot from more than 5 feet from the basket. Just look at their free throw percentages. Williams and Karasinski can both shoot from three point land and are very comfortable taking mid range jump shots. The other huge benefit is that you pull the opposing big men out of the paint in a man to man situation. It kind of begs the question why Dane doesn't mix up the four of them a little more."

Just gonna pile on here.

Last night's loss dropped us to KenPom 300+.

The CAA now has five teams there. Is this really where we want to be? A bad conference with a bad media deal. I think it's hanging by a thread. UD and CofC will move on this spring, time for us to as well. Stinks that CofC will get the A10 bid when I guarantee they wanted us to win a championship so they could bring us aboard. CofC was an add from last realignment and now will pass us by. How many programs are going to do the same before we wake up and find a good permanent home?

W&M drawbacks, from the perspective of prospective MBB coach:

1). Academic admission hurdles (or at least they need to be students with relatively lean bios). All the concern about Campbell’s recent FB recruiting success and NIL overlooks what appears to be the case: the coach can get any kid in that he wants.
2). Williamsburg. Ideal for certain tourists and retirees but hardly an urban environment. A lot of kids come from an urban environment and want that.
3). We don’t pay our head coaches and certainly not our assistant coaches. Those who wanted Shaver to hire a defensive guru and Fischer to hire an offensive one have never explained how to offer a salary to attract someone qualified.
4). Small fan base/atmosphere at the Hall. We don’t draw that well, we play in a cavernous facility which absorbs fan noise and too many of our fans leave with 2 minutes to go in the game, regardless of the score, to beat that horrendous Wmbg. traffic.
5). No history of success. Only Parkhill and Shaver had good stretches
6). Admin has consistently refused to invest in the program.

Granted FB has overcome a lot of those obstacles. That may be a result of the groundwork laid by Laycock and the QB club

#6!!!! So very true, both monetarily and administratively. Adequate support would go a long way to manage numbers 1-5.

(01-20-2023 12:33 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  W&M drawbacks, from the perspective of prospective MBB coach:

4). Small fan base/atmosphere at the Hall. We don’t draw that well.....

This might be true right now but historically is not so true. I don't have any numbers in front of me but I know I saw data that showed that we drew very well in the latter Shaver years. Higher average per game attendance than most other CAA schools (including bigger schools and schools in more urban environments). All it takes to draw better crowds is a winning team.

(01-20-2023 12:33 PM)tribeinexile Wrote:  W&M drawbacks, from the perspective of prospective MBB coach:

1). Academic admission hurdles (or at least they need to be students with relatively lean bios). All the concern about Campbell’s recent FB recruiting success and NIL overlooks what appears to be the case: the coach can get any kid in that he wants.
2). Williamsburg. Ideal for certain tourists and retirees but hardly an urban environment. A lot of kids come from an urban environment and want that.
3). We don’t pay our head coaches and certainly not our assistant coaches. Those who wanted Shaver to hire a defensive guru and Fischer to hire an offensive one have never explained how to offer a salary to attract someone qualified.
4). Small fan base/atmosphere at the Hall. We don’t draw that well, we play in a cavernous facility which absorbs fan noise and too many of our fans leave with 2 minutes to go in the game, regardless of the score, to beat that horrendous Wmbg. traffic.
5). No history of success. Only Parkhill and Shaver had good stretches
6). Admin has consistently refused to invest in the program.

Granted FB has overcome a lot of those obstacles. That may be a result of the groundwork laid by Laycock and the QB club

And from the player perspective:

-The facilities are mediocre at best

-The coaching staff is totally anonymous

-Williamsburg is very far from most of the kids we recruit. We're not in the middle of nowhere; we're in a metro area of 1.8 million and yet we're a complete zero locally. The fact that it's been a dozen years since we've recruited a player who lived within three hours is honestly nuts; are there any other D-1 schools who have totally abandoned their backyards to that degree? In the past five years we've lost six transfers to schools close to their homes. It's never the only factor but it's a huge and constant disadvantage that's theoretically easy to rectify.

(01-20-2023 12:39 PM)Mrs. Got Ribe Wrote:  #6!!!! So very true, both monetarily and administratively. Adequate support would go a long way to manage numbers 1-5.

Correct. Oddly none of those were issues in the very recent past when we were frequently winning 20 games per season, only a few years ago.

Definitely #6 and #1, although #1 is not quite as severe as it used to be.

#6 is the key. It has been given lip service, for years, but never really had the "put your money where your mouth is" scenario actually happen.

Love football and want a continued strong program, but we need to seriously commit to a Richmond type attitude, where football is strong, but basketball is our featured sport.


Unfortunately, the fiscal side of things is not close to optimal right now and that is a big obstacle to overcome.

Also, this is a personal beef, but along those lines, what actual good does having a 1.3 billion endowment do, if you never use it??? It's just a pretty number, on a piece of paper, that, I guess, you can brag about to your colleagues.

Why not lend the Athletic Department the couple million, or so (have a 1.298 or 1.297 billion endowment) needed to right the ship and get the Arena built and figure that investing in the future of the program will bring in the added revenue that will allow for repaying the "loan" in full, and then some.

It has always bewildered me. The concept that "We've got it...and we want more, but we're not going to actually use it.", even when it is a logical part of a "vision plan" floated many times over the past decade.

It's like a person saving for retirement, so won't take a vacation in order to be able to add to the savings more quickly, then dies before he can actually use any of those savings. He just passes along the cash...and has missed out on a whole bunch of enjoyable vacations.

ah, well...


Your other reasons are valid, but #5 would fix, or at least, help with, #2, 3 & 4. The only thing we have to offer recruits, now, is playing time, no real TV, no evidence that we can make the dance or win the CAA, and other than Nate, not a lot of proof that we can get you ready for the Pros.

Until we can change the narrative of W&M Basketball, through whatever logical steps are needed, things will, pretty much, stay the same... and I'm not getting any younger.

(01-20-2023 01:37 PM)billymac Wrote:  #6 is the key. It has been given lip service, for years, but never really had the "put your money where your mouth is" scenario actually happen.

Also, this is a personal beef, but along those lines, what actual good does having a 1.3 billion endowment do, if you never use it??? It's just a pretty number, on a piece of paper, that, I guess, you can brag about to your colleagues.

Why not lend the Athletic Department the couple million, or so (have a 1.298 or 1.297 billion endowment) needed to right the ship and get the Arena built and figure that investing in the future of the program will bring in the added revenue that will allow for repaying the "loan" in full, and then some.

It has always bewildered me. The concept that "We've got it...and we want more, but we're not going to actually use it.", even when it is a logical part of a "vision plan" floated many times over the past decade.

Re your first point above: I don't disagree that maybe the admin hasn't been as supportive as they could be......but it is not the admin who is failing to make in-game adjustments or failing to motivate the team. So the coaching staff still bears most of the blame for the lack of success.

Re the next point (as shown above): YES!!! I have said that same thing for quite a few years now (even before the endowment exceeded $1B). What is the use of having the money if you don't use it? Would as many people actually give so much if they knew that it would never be used?

My homeowners insurance company has been around since 1794. Over that time they have amassed a HUGE "endowment", so much so that the actual business of the company has become the caretaking and increasing of the buffer fund more than the insurance business. The latter is just an excuse to maintain their reason for existence. I suspect that the same is true for a bunch of entities with huge endowments (including many top universities) and I fear that W&M has/will adopt the same attitude. When I made a comparable complaint several years ago some wiseguy said "do you even know the definition of an endowment?" --- again, forgetting what use is an endowment if you never use any of it?

(01-20-2023 02:41 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(01-20-2023 01:37 PM)billymac Wrote:  #6 is the key. It has been given lip service, for years, but never really had the "put your money where your mouth is" scenario actually happen.

Also, this is a personal beef, but along those lines, what actual good does having a 1.3 billion endowment do, if you never use it??? It's just a pretty number, on a piece of paper, that, I guess, you can brag about to your colleagues.

Why not lend the Athletic Department the couple million, or so (have a 1.298 or 1.297 billion endowment) needed to right the ship and get the Arena built and figure that investing in the future of the program will bring in the added revenue that will allow for repaying the "loan" in full, and then some.

It has always bewildered me. The concept that "We've got it...and we want more, but we're not going to actually use it.", even when it is a logical part of a "vision plan" floated many times over the past decade.

Re your first point above: I don't disagree that maybe the admin hasn't been as supportive as they could be......but it is not the admin who is failing to make in-game adjustments or failing to motivate the team. So the coaching staff still bears most of the blame for the lack of success.

Re the next point (as shown above): YES!!! I have said that same thing for quite a few years now (even before the endowment exceeded $1B). What is the use of having the money if you don't use it? Would as many people actually give so much if they knew that it would never be used?

My homeowners insurance company has been around since 1794. Over that time they have amassed a HUGE "endowment", so much so that the actual business of the company has become the caretaking and increasing of the buffer fund more than the insurance business. The latter is just an excuse to maintain their reason for existence. I suspect that the same is true for a bunch of entities with huge endowments (including many top universities) and I fear that W&M has/will adopt the same attitude. When I made a comparable complaint several years ago some wise guy said "do you even know the definition of an endowment?" --- again, forgetting what use is an endowment if you never use any of it?

As the saying goes, modern universities are hedge funds with small educational components. Universities like W&M love to hoard money in their endowments because it makes the fund managers lots of dough. I understand the spouse of an influential alum runs our endowment. Plus, why should W&M use the annual revenue from your endowment to lower tuition, improve athletics, etc. when it is turning away lots of kids every year who are willing to pay full freight?