I shed a tear as JMU beat UVA in front of 48k. I just thought “why are they doing this to themselves, wouldn’t they rather play at Campbell?”

Cmon, y’all are so negative about our prospects.

(10-27-2023 04:19 PM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:10 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  This is a fun debate.

I think it's really important to understand the internal cost to all of these sports. Just take mens track and swimming. Between them there are well over 60 athletes, most of them not on scholarship. You have to pay for travel/hotels/meals, trainers, academic support, etc. Those sports generate zero revenue and cost plenty. Guess what else? They aren't killing it on the track and in the pool anymore. Swimming stinks and is a great example of a program in decline. It makes no sense to continue to field as many programs when we are flat broke and the college isn't willing to pitch in any of the Bold money. Its real easy to hang onto old traditions and keep wanting it to be better than it really is, but it isn't.

I think swimming has done quite well considering the had to deal with the unforced error of having the entire program canceled and some athletes transfer. Volleyball had a winning season after being cut. Recruiting likely suffered too for the cut sports. Regardless, making decision on wether to cut sport or not based on their most recent record is no way to run an athletic dept. ......

I can't believe Tribe32 opened the Pandora's box of trying to justify cutting sports based on how well they are doing recently. But okay......under those auspices, Men's Basketball should be the first to go. And until last year, Football would have been right behind them. In fact, IT IS A FACT that cutting football would have enormous benefits towards the bottom line of the athletic department's finances. We also would be instantly compliant with Title IX, we would have tons of money to divert to other sports, etc etc. So while I personally do not favor cutting either Football or MBB, I do say that folks who are quick to talk about cutting sports should be careful what they wish for....maybe their favorite sports should be cut.

(10-27-2023 05:03 PM)W+M4TW Wrote:  I shed a tear as JMU beat UVA in front of 48k. I just thought “why are they doing this to themselves, wouldn’t they rather play at Campbell?”

Cmon, y’all are so negative about our prospects.

I recently watched us beat UVA by 12 points in front of 53,000 and we didn’t have to join some league of southwest misfits and kill our sports program to do it.

(10-27-2023 05:14 PM)Sitting bull Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:03 PM)W+M4TW Wrote:  I shed a tear as JMU beat UVA in front of 48k. I just thought “why are they doing this to themselves, wouldn’t they rather play at Campbell?”

Cmon, y’all are so negative about our prospects.

I recently watched us beat UVA by 12 points in front of 53,000 and we didn’t have to join some league of southwest misfits and kill our sports program to do it.

Do you mean 14 years ago? JMU and ODU left in that time period and their programs don’t look dead to me. Are Marshall and Coastal misfits? I’ll leave it alone but I just don’t understand how we can look around and say “yeah this feels right.” Go for something big or drop to Pat and pretend we’re an Ivy. That would have all the appeal y’all are talking about here. I truly don’t understand how CAA is better than Pat with the arguments you all have made. And that’s fine. It’s like I said all the way at the beginning. Go big if we’re serious or drop down to peers if we’re not. Don’t stay in this bizarre group of misfits that tarnish our name any longer than necessary.

(10-27-2023 05:10 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 04:19 PM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:10 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  This is a fun debate.

I think it's really important to understand the internal cost to all of these sports. Just take mens track and swimming. Between them there are well over 60 athletes, most of them not on scholarship. You have to pay for travel/hotels/meals, trainers, academic support, etc. Those sports generate zero revenue and cost plenty. Guess what else? They aren't killing it on the track and in the pool anymore. Swimming stinks and is a great example of a program in decline. It makes no sense to continue to field as many programs when we are flat broke and the college isn't willing to pitch in any of the Bold money. Its real easy to hang onto old traditions and keep wanting it to be better than it really is, but it isn't.

I think swimming has done quite well considering the had to deal with the unforced error of having the entire program canceled and some athletes transfer. Volleyball had a winning season after being cut. Recruiting likely suffered too for the cut sports. Regardless, making decision on wether to cut sport or not based on their most recent record is no way to run an athletic dept. ......

I can't believe Tribe32 opened the Pandora's box of trying to justify cutting sports based on how well they are doing recently. But okay......under those auspices, Men's Basketball should be the first to go. And until last year, Football would have been right behind them. In fact, IT IS A FACT that cutting football would have enormous benefits towards the bottom line of the athletic department's finances. We also would be instantly compliant with Title IX, we would have tons of money to divert to other sports, etc etc. So while I personally do not favor cutting either Football or MBB, I do say that folks who are quick to talk about cutting sports should be careful what they wish for....maybe their favorite sports should be cut.

Go back and read my post. I didn't say that we should cut programs that are losing. You twisted my words to make your argument. What I said is that Men's Swimming and Track aren't successful like they used to be. Men's Swimming is an example of a sport that is dying on the vine. Other than the parents and some well to do alumni, nobody cares. Nobody is going to step up to build an aquatic center. Why would high school swimmers come to Williamsburg? Why do you think coaches leave? This is the same thing that's going to happen to a lot more sports until either a) someone gives a couple hundred million to the Athletic Department, or b) we cut stuff. This isn't an emotional argument from my side. This problem isn't just going to go away. Teams will be cut whether you like it or not, or we're going to D3, getting rid of scholarships and most of the Athletic Department.

(10-28-2023 05:54 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 05:10 PM)Zorch Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 04:19 PM)WMTribe90 Wrote:  

(10-27-2023 03:10 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  This is a fun debate.

I think it's really important to understand the internal cost to all of these sports. Just take mens track and swimming. Between them there are well over 60 athletes, most of them not on scholarship. You have to pay for travel/hotels/meals, trainers, academic support, etc. Those sports generate zero revenue and cost plenty. Guess what else? They aren't killing it on the track and in the pool anymore. Swimming stinks and is a great example of a program in decline. It makes no sense to continue to field as many programs when we are flat broke and the college isn't willing to pitch in any of the Bold money. Its real easy to hang onto old traditions and keep wanting it to be better than it really is, but it isn't.

I think swimming has done quite well considering the had to deal with the unforced error of having the entire program canceled and some athletes transfer. Volleyball had a winning season after being cut. Recruiting likely suffered too for the cut sports. Regardless, making decision on wether to cut sport or not based on their most recent record is no way to run an athletic dept. ......

I can't believe Tribe32 opened the Pandora's box of trying to justify cutting sports based on how well they are doing recently. But okay......under those auspices, Men's Basketball should be the first to go. And until last year, Football would have been right behind them. In fact, IT IS A FACT that cutting football would have enormous benefits towards the bottom line of the athletic department's finances. We also would be instantly compliant with Title IX, we would have tons of money to divert to other sports, etc etc. So while I personally do not favor cutting either Football or MBB, I do say that folks who are quick to talk about cutting sports should be careful what they wish for....maybe their favorite sports should be cut.

Go back and read my post. I didn't say that we should cut programs that are losing. You twisted my words to make your argument. What I said is that Men's Swimming and Track aren't successful like they used to be. Men's Swimming is an example of a sport that is dying on the vine. Other than the parents and some well to do alumni, nobody cares. Nobody is going to step up to build an aquatic center. Why would high school swimmers come to Williamsburg? Why do you think coaches leave? This is the same thing that's going to happen to a lot more sports until either a) someone gives a couple hundred million to the Athletic Department, or b) we cut stuff. This isn't an emotional argument from my side. This problem isn't just going to go away. Teams will be cut whether you like it or not, or we're going to D3, getting rid of scholarships and most of the Athletic Department.

Oh come on, 32, nobody "twisted" your words. You were the one who first brought athletic success into the equation. You were saying how much it costs to field swimming and track and then said they weren't even winning anymore (which clearly implies that if the teams were winning then the expenses would be more justified).

Why would high school swimmers come to W'burg? To get a first class education (same as always).

I fully agree that the Athletic Department seems to be bloated with a lot of names and titles for people who we don't even know what they do. Blame Huge for that.

Zorch, two things. Most high school swimmers don't want to go to a college to swim knowing that the program was cut and may be on the chopping block. If the swimming part isn't that important in the overall equation, I completely agree that William and Mary is a great choice, especially for non-scholarship athletes. Second, the athletic success is part of the equation because it is a result of lack of funds, etc. I actually think we are more on the same page than a different one. I want all of our sports to be successful. My take is that we aren't in a position for that to be the case until we either drastically cut costs (sports) or gain a lot of revenue. I don't want to see teams struggle to make budget and beg parents for mone to sustain the program. Several sports (not on the chopping block) are asking parents to pay for road meals, pitch in for hotels, buses, and so on. That's not a model that I'm proud of.

(10-28-2023 06:26 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Zorch, two things. Most high school swimmers don't want to go to a college to swim knowing that the program was cut and may be on the chopping block. If the swimming part isn't that important in the overall equation, I completely agree that William and Mary is a great choice, especially for non-scholarship athletes. Second, the athletic success is part of the equation because it is a result of lack of funds, etc. I actually think we are more on the same page than a different one. I want all of our sports to be successful. My take is that we aren't in a position for that to be the case until we either drastically cut costs (sports) or gain a lot of revenue. I don't want to see teams struggle to make budget and beg parents for mone to sustain the program. Several sports (not on the chopping block) are asking parents to pay for road meals, pitch in for hotels, buses, and so on. That's not a model that I'm proud of.

Our Title IX situation precludes cutting any women Sports currently.

The turnover in the Tribe Club leadership since Bobby retired impacted continuity and effectiveness.

Our Athletic Department is not in a good place financially nor is the vision on how to address these problems.

The College needs to shift fundraising goals to the next areas of focus which creates huge concerns for the success of athletic fundraising unless meaningful changes occur soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

(10-29-2023 06:57 AM)wmmii Wrote:  

(10-28-2023 06:26 PM)Tribe32 Wrote:  Zorch, two things. Most high school swimmers don't want to go to a college to swim knowing that the program was cut and may be on the chopping block. If the swimming part isn't that important in the overall equation, I completely agree that William and Mary is a great choice, especially for non-scholarship athletes. Second, the athletic success is part of the equation because it is a result of lack of funds, etc. I actually think we are more on the same page than a different one. I want all of our sports to be successful. My take is that we aren't in a position for that to be the case until we either drastically cut costs (sports) or gain a lot of revenue. I don't want to see teams struggle to make budget and beg parents for mone to sustain the program. Several sports (not on the chopping block) are asking parents to pay for road meals, pitch in for hotels, buses, and so on. That's not a model that I'm proud of.

Our Title IX situation precludes cutting any women Sports currently.

The turnover in the Tribe Club leadership since Bobby retired impacted continuity and effectiveness.

Our Athletic Department is not in a good place financially nor is the vision on how to address these problems.

The College needs to shift fundraising goals to the next areas of focus which creates huge concerns for the success of athletic fundraising unless meaningful changes occur soon.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Why would a high school swimmer come to the Burg? First, I think you need to understand who we are talking about as recruits. In both track and swimming, W&M is a D1 mid-major and is therefore recruiting kids at that level. We are not recruiting Olympians, although we do develop and send athletes to Olympic trials in both sports. Recruits in these sports, for the most part, are looking for a good school and a good program in which to continue and, in most cases, conclude their competitive athletic careers. The keys then are to offer the right academic profile, the right team chemistry and culture, and the right training and competitive environment. The Tribe does that. To answer the question for swimming and to address 32’s unfortunately misguided opinion on swimming being a “dying” sport, I suggest you go to a home meet at the Rec or to the CAA Championships (they are at Hampton’s brand new aquatic center again in February). The spirit and competitive environment at those meets is unbelievable and has to be experienced before you offer an otherwise completely uninformed opinion on the state of Tribe swimming. The opportunity to compete in that atmosphere is certainly part of what high school swimmers look for and find with the Tribe. I would add that swimmers (and track athletes) also come to the Tribe because they get a chance to be part of a great team and athletics community. Again, go watch swim practice at the Rec (yes, contrary to the Huge propaganda it has everything a college swim team needs) and you will see a team that cheers for each other during practice and a team chemistry that sets the Tribe apart from many other swimming programs. Talk to the athletes or alums and you will find a program with a strong and supportive culture, including an active alumni and supporter base that participates in career zooms with athletes and appears at away meets and conference championships in force. When you combine the competitive atmosphere of CAA swimming with the team’s spirit and culture and with the school’s strong academics (plus the benefit of in-state tuition for the Virginia kids), that makes the Tribe a really attractive place to swim and study. Track offers its student athletes the same sorts of competitive opportunities (including the nationally-famous Colonial Relays), the same strong culture, and a first-class facility with the relatively newly resurfaced track.

Comments on cost savings from cutting the men’s programs are equally misguided and uninformed. There simply aren’t large cost savings to be had by cutting the men’s programs in those sports. Track and swimming are combined programs. The men and women share coaches, facilities, trainers, and other support services and people. Cutting the men does not eliminate those expenses. Likewise, the women’s teams have most, if not all, of the scholarship money in those sports, so no real savings there. All that’s really left to fund for the men is essentially equipment and travel, which are more than funded through the substantial donations that those sports generate and their existing endowments. In fact, all cutting the men’s teams does is eliminate the fund raising that those communities provide to Tribe Athletics ($2 million for track and $1.6 million for swimming in the last 3 years according to the All In page) and replace it with an obligation to fully fund the women’s teams without those significant donations. You have to know that women’s programs and supporters (which can’t be cut) aren’t motivated to donate when their programs are being used solely as a Title IX makeweight for football. Ultimately, the most likely outcome is that the school has to spend more on those sports than it does now. Don’t worry, Huge and her cronies didn’t understand that either. But that’s the problem with believing and regurgitating the misleading garbage they put out as “justification” for cutting the sports.

As wmmii suggests, the school needs to raise money for athletics. So, if you want more money to spend on football, basketball or any other sport you do care about, donate and/or encourage others to do so. Cutting these or other sports is simply not the answer financially or culturally for the Tribe.

Frankly this is BS. Michigan State eliminated swimming and I’m pretty sure they have more money than we do. Offer the minimum sports required by the NCAA to remain Division I, be in Title IX compliance, admit more male students, and fund the sports we do keep at the proper levels. We can always have a club swimming team for example. This is the reality whether some people want to admit it or not.

Here's what I don't understand:
-Huge didn't operate in a vaccum. The school had to have been supportive of her announcement that we were going to focus on Football and men and women's basketball
-in hindsight her announcement coincided with a lot of major WM events and NCAA events that suggested she had a pulse on college athletic trends
-those events were: 1. finishing a major renovation and expansion of zable 2. undertaking a much needed remake of Kaplan 3. NIL SC decision 4. Major conference realignment
-Despite all the hate she gets on here, her timing was pretty darn good if we wanted to be considered for realignment. Yeah she blew it with Shaver, but to be fair there were some pretty uninspired years under Tony with some very high talent and it seems like her decision may have depended on some money that didn't show up and potentially a pick that walked away
-Huge's announcement of the cutting of the Tribe 7, again, was not in a vaccum, that decision had to have been approved by Rowe and supported by major donors. Huge took the fall though
-Mann was hired in '21. His longest tenure was at Rice, which can not have been inconsequential in the hiring decision given the similar profile to WM. His other major experience was at Cal. Both high academic schools who play in big time FBS conferences, one public, one private
-Mann presents better than Huge and has stayed quiet for the most part, silently making solid hires
That's the background that brings us to today. We had to hire a new AD at an absolutely terrible time in terms of a shift in college athletics. There's no clear way forward as our own conference continues to sink. Donors want goals and as of now the athletic department only presents funding goals for the teams with no promises of what those goals mean (other than existence).
What's the overall goal? Being mediocre at everything with a massive athletic department doesn't excite anyone. NIL deals are going to be nonexistent with a crap media rights deal in a no name league.
I think FBS gives a clear goal to a school (WM) whose spending on athletics matches up with most FBS programs. There's not an immediate need to cut sports if you can make enough on the leap (but unfortunately now the entrance fee has increased). Men's gymnastics was an obvious candidate for the chopping block--we more or less performed an act of charity by keeping our team as it kept the number of teams at d1 minimum. And frankly, we've never won a championship in it, and there's only 15 teams...
Another candidate was track, if we keep track the movement of the ugly track from zable needs to be done asap so it can ascend to most beautiful stadium in the state.

Sorry for rambling and going too long, but Mann really needs to thread the needle here. Staying put is going to wreak havoc on alumni excitement and giving, and it's also going to weaken our recruiting (NIL has to be factored in now) and our national brand. I realize many on here are fans of the athletic department as a whole and enjoy the olympic sports, but I think outside of this forum that's really a minority of alum. The ones who care about sports and stroke big checks want football and bball to be nationally recognized programs. Not average in a sinking mid major.

I think funding of sports is a small part of the issue and number of varsity sports offered and Title IX compliance is the bigger part. I've not recently done the research, but compare the number of sports offered by us to peer schools that we want to be compared to. I'm a basketball/football guy. So I compare us to fcs schools consistently flirting with the playoffs. Compare us with CAA teams consistently on the bubble to win a championship. I believe we offer north of 20 varsity sports. Most of the peer schools I mentioned are more in the 16 range and invest more in athletics than we do. Many of these schools have higher enrollments than us. The formula for running a successful athletic department is no secret. It's been proven over and over. We insist on being different and touting the mantra of doing more with less. I hate that. I'd love to be able to attack athletics like the schools we like to compete with. If there is a commitment to excellence plan and a clear path going forward, I think donor wallets would open. It's hard to get excited to donate money when it appears there is a murky success plan, athletic department indecisiveness, and contentment with mediocrity. I know the more athletic opportunities for everybody people won't agree with me, and that's OK.

...So is Delaware leaving or not?

(10-29-2023 01:51 PM)Rocco Wrote:  ...So is Delaware leaving or not?

Well, Old Tribe knows a guy, so maybe. But I wouldn’t expect an official announcement (if it’s true) until after the date when it’s too late for the CAA to exclude UD from conference tournaments, etc. That would be, what, late spring/early summer of 2024?

From one of the UD posters on Go Hens regarding CUSA:

“Ending up in the CUSA is like wanting to take Raquel Welch or Sophia Loren to the prom and finding that Brunhilda Wartface is the only one who would say yes. Sometimes it is better to stay home until a better option comes along. Just MHO.”

(10-29-2023 10:43 AM)Tribester Wrote:  Frankly this is BS. Michigan State eliminated swimming and I’m pretty sure they have more money than we do. Offer the minimum sports required by the NCAA to remain Division I, be in Title IX compliance, admit more male students, and fund the sports we do keep at the proper levels. We can always have a club swimming team for example. This is the reality whether some people want to admit it or not.

Sure, anybody can cut sports, that’s easy. Let’s be bold! Let’s keep college athletics in the proper perspective, stay true to our mission, and offer as many opportunities as we can for deserving men and women to compete in their chosen sports.

As was well laid out above by Tribe 406, these sports you want to cut cost very little to run. Cutting men’s track or cross country would decimate the women’s side and cause both men and women alumni to stop giving. As Huge found out the hard way, the Tribe family includes all the Tribe.

We’re not going to fund an FBS football program by cutting some non-scholarship, low cost sports. I’m not arguing for the CAA. I’m just asking for someone to explain what conference is better and how we afford it? Again, it's not enough to simply say the CAA is not as strong as it used to be or that we have lost rivals. That’s obvious. What’s the plan? How do we pay for it? Is there a model for success we can emulate as a small, public, liberal arts school with high academics?

JMU has 21,000 students to tap to the tune of millions in athletic fees to fund their FBS program. They have a larger alumni base. They also have lower admission standards. For those reasons, FBS was a reasonable choice for JMU and they’ve found success. That doesn’t mean it's a good choice or fit for WM.

Best I can tell JMU charges $2,362 to each student for "intercollegiate athletics". WM changes $2,196 for the same tuition line item. So, JMU raises $49 million from its students to fund athletics in the form of added tuition cost. WM raises roughly $21 million. For WM to generate the same revenue from student fees, we’d have to raise the student fee to over $5,000 per student. Therein lies the root problem and the reality that no one arguing for FBS now has been able to address.

(10-29-2023 01:50 PM)mrjoolius Wrote:  I think funding of sports is a small part of the issue and number of varsity sports offered and Title IX compliance is the bigger part. I've not recently done the research, but compare the number of sports offered by us to peer schools that we want to be compared to. I'm a basketball/football guy. So I compare us to fcs schools consistently flirting with the playoffs. Compare us with CAA teams consistently on the bubble to win a championship. I believe we offer north of 20 varsity sports. Most of the peer schools I mentioned are more in the 16 range and invest more in athletics than we do. Many of these schools have higher enrollments than us. The formula for running a successful athletic department is no secret. It's been proven over and over. We insist on being different and touting the mantra of doing more with less. I hate that. I'd love to be able to attack athletics like the schools we like to compete with. If there is a commitment to excellence plan and a clear path going forward, I think donor wallets would open. It's hard to get excited to donate money when it appears there is a murky success plan, athletic department indecisiveness, and contentment with mediocrity. I know the more athletic opportunities for everybody people won't agree with me, and that's OK.

There’s a lot that can be done to improve our athletics and its administration that are attainable. There’s much lower hanging fruit than cutting sports. To simply say other schools have fewer sports and do better in basketball, therefore we need to cut sports, is an oversimplification of all that goes into a winning program. Firing Shaver was a big mistake, and one we’re still trying to recover from and it was a self-inflicted wound that had nothing to do with money (other than the fact that we’re still paying Shaver).

How about a model where Brian Mann shows Rowe a business model and plan that moves us up to FBS, trims some fat, gets us into Title IX complance and uses funds from the broader college endowment with a positive ROI over a 5-10 year horizon? The big elephant in the room is that until Rowe does something like that, we aren't going to get out of the hole that Huge left us in. Until something gives, we aren't going to be able to fund everything.

I'm not that old, but I'm old enough to remember when we had fencing, riflery, wrestling, and men's lacrosse. We somehow survived those cuts. We have to live within our means or get a truck load of cash from somewhere.

(10-30-2023 10:46 AM)Tribe32 Wrote:  How about a model where Brian Mann shows Rowe a business model and plan that moves us up to FBS, trims some fat, gets us into Title IX complance and uses funds from the broader college endowment with a positive ROI over a 5-10 year horizon? The big elephant in the room is that until Rowe does something like that, we aren't going to get out of the hole that Huge left us in.

I’m betting he’s done that. Brian Mann, unlike his predecessor, strikes me as someone who likes to do a little research before making snap decisions. I’m also guessing that he has likely been in contact with his counterpart at Delaware and discussed possible joint moves.

(10-29-2023 12:32 PM)W+M4TW Wrote:  Donors want goals and as of now the athletic department only presents funding goals for the teams with no promises of what those goals mean (other than existence).
What's the overall goal? Being mediocre at everything with a massive athletic department doesn't excite anyone.

I think you're right about a lot of things, but I've lost all appetite for the argument, so I'm not going to dive into it. But after making the argument to five AD's now, I can pretty well identify their goals:

1. Enhance the experience of every student athlete, and
2. To the extent consistent with Goal 1, provide each student athlete to compete for a championship at least once in their career. ("Championship" seems to mean league championship, and the meaning of "compete for" seems to float around a little.)
   

For me these goals lead to a rabbit hole of philosophical questions (not the least of which is student fees) but Got Ribe 2.0 understands that they can have the athletic department they want and he can choose to donate or not.

Anyway, I thought I'd toss this in because I think you ask a fair question.

Got Ribe!