Wrong. If we made the STJ/W*M decision vs. staying the course with good players, we'd be in the same position as them-we certainly wouldn't be 8-1 and we certainly wouldn't have some of our players. In case you haven't noticed, experienced transfers are the most valuable commodity in the recruiting game (outside of 1 and dones).
2019 Opponent Thread
- Thread starter plydogg
- Start date
Wrong. If we made the STJ/W*M decision vs. staying the course with good players, we'd be in the same position as them-we certainly wouldn't be 8-1 and we certainly wouldn't have some of our players. In case you haven't noticed, experienced transfers are the most valuable commodity in the recruiting game (outside of 1 and dones).
Good experienced transfers are valuable, when they add to an existing roster of good and experienced players.
Correct me if I am wrong, but Blake Francis seems to be the only transfer who has been a starter in the Mooney era. However, I will defer to others who know more.
Last edited:
All due respect, you cannot possibly know this unless you have the benefit of ESP. Had the exact same scenario happened, i.e., we lose 3-4 players to transfer, then sure, it's highly likely we aren't 8-1. But there isn't a lot of reason to think that would have happened. GG/NS/BF not transferring given their various redshirt/prior transfers and I don't have any reason to think if those guys stay that you'd lose Jacob or Nate.
It's moot anyway, we have the coach and the team we have. Time will tell if it proves fruitful come March.
But in reality - when you hire a new coach, unless you have a top 25 team returning, it is safe to expect a transition year or two as the coaches and players adapt to each other, the coach needs time to implement their system, and the coach needs time to recruit their players.
If we had a new coach come in this year and didn't lose one player to transfer - I would have said this is 15-17 win team. With next year being the bigger year (assuming guys stick around).
It is probably the minority where a new coach comes in and has success - the levels of competing for conference title or NCAA bid in year 1 of their tenure. Safer to say the majority is that when a new coach comes in - there is a year or two of transition before you start to evaluate and see improvement.
If we had a new coach come in this year and didn't lose one player to transfer - I would have said this is 15-17 win team. With next year being the bigger year (assuming guys stick around).
It is probably the minority where a new coach comes in and has success - the levels of competing for conference title or NCAA bid in year 1 of their tenure. Safer to say the majority is that when a new coach comes in - there is a year or two of transition before you start to evaluate and see improvement.
Totally agree. I would further argue that retaining CM doesn’t guarantee GG and NS stay next year. So enjoy this year because nothing is guaranteed.
I for one am very happy that the team is 8-1 and more than willing to give Mooney some credit for that. That doesn't change my mind that we should have fired him last year or after the previous year, and I think W&M has already shown that it can do just fine with a new coach and a bunch of new players.
I will always believe that the best coach can take average players and make them good or good players and make them great. If you already have great players, then the coach maybe is less important. But at the college level, I'd rather have average players and a great coach than good players and an average or bad coach.
Neither W&M nor St. Joe's were exactly like us. St. Joe's has made the NCAAs a couple times since we last did and W&M has never made them. To me, the W&M move was more justified than the St. Joe's move, but I didn't have a problem with either of them.
I will always believe that the best coach can take average players and make them good or good players and make them great. If you already have great players, then the coach maybe is less important. But at the college level, I'd rather have average players and a great coach than good players and an average or bad coach.
Neither W&M nor St. Joe's were exactly like us. St. Joe's has made the NCAAs a couple times since we last did and W&M has never made them. To me, the W&M move was more justified than the St. Joe's move, but I didn't have a problem with either of them.
Sorry, I thought that statement implied that you were thankful the decision makers didn't fire Mooney like the "pitchfork brigade" wanted, because we're now 8-1 and not in the same situation as St. Joe's - clearly I misinterpreted you and took it waaaay out of context. OK Cool, Hook 'Em.
There are many more people who think our coach has under-performed than just the "pitchfork brigade" - it sounds like that is your terminology for the FMM - including neutral observers who aren't as invested as us. That was my point, though I made it poorly - don't care what you label them, but it wasn't limited to just them. I don't know who on here is in the FMM (though I have an idea), but Nathan doesn't strike me as one. While I was disappointed in Hardt's non-decision, I wasn't hurt by it. In fact, it's better for the bottom line.
As for W&M, I don't think their situation is any more relevant than St. Joe's. My only thoughts on the Tribe are 1) I wish we still played them in MBB; 2) I hope they lose - often - in every sport. I think that's something that just gets instilled once you wear the Spider uniform. I think it's a shame that our current players don't get to experience the rivalry; but I understand that scheduling W&M doesn't do much for us in today's NCAA (though neither does Hampton). Tony Shaver's firing, to me, only means that the small club of long-tenured coaches that can't make the NCAAs got even smaller in 2019.
Last edited:
with all due respects back at you, you are pretending it is 1998, not 2019. the power is with the players, whether they were redshirts or not
I don't need to have ESP, 700 players transferred last year and they all have AAU coaches, family, etc. who are telling them whatever they want to hear.
While 1998 was a great year for me, I'm not sure why that matters.
If you have three guys who are poorly positioned to transfer like Grant, Nick, and Blake, you can't logically presume our situation is comparable to the 700 other transfers out there. That's roughly akin to saying that my reasonably smart kid is going to go to Harvard because there's a bunch of other smart kids who are going to go to Harvard. Context matters, and our situation last year was a low risk situation for a mass player exodus.
Blake isn't a grad transfer, but if you're talking all transfers I think Marshall Wood started a few games. Nothing like Blake, though.
It was time for Martelli to go. He was way past his expiration date. St. Joe's sees itself more like their Big 5 brethren like Nova and Temple, and they probably thought Martelli was holding them back.
Shaver was a good hire for W&M at the time (led H-SC to success, had experience with Dean Smith) but after he came close to winning the CAA so many times and coming up short it was time for a change. Can't keep doing the same thing over and over and expect different results.
martelli, probably yes, but a guy there for 30 years deserves more than a press release. handled very poorly.
I just don't understand the Shaver thing. You had a team that would have been favorite, let go of a coach who has won more than just about anyone there (remember not exactly Duke), lost 3 players who are playing in the P6 and hired a guy who was the assistant at George Mason.
At least STJ hired an NBA guy who has some name recognition in Philly.
My guess is that Ryan Daly will be a big name in the sprint GT roles. Given his grandfather is CHuck Daly who was a STJ coach, he may stay.
As I have told EL numerous times on this board, I may be wrong in March for W&M, just doesn't seem to make sense, IMHO.
Regarding W&M, sometimes players need to hear a new voice. I can see both sides here. You could have waited one more year and see if Shaver can deliver with Knight and the others, or you could realize that Shaver had 3 years with Knight already and several other years with others. Maybe Shaver was getting a little complacent, or maybe not all his players were on board with his style, and the AD realized it was time for a fresh face leading them. I do like Fischer and think she made a real good hire there, so I give their AD credit for that.
But, every situation is different. Just because some schools make coaching changes does not mean all of them should. I could also see both sides of Hardt's decision to keep Mooney or not. I wanted to keep him and am glad we did, but I could see the other side as well.
But, every situation is different. Just because some schools make coaching changes does not mean all of them should. I could also see both sides of Hardt's decision to keep Mooney or not. I wanted to keep him and am glad we did, but I could see the other side as well.
Last edited:
Alabama leads Penn St. by 7 in the second half. Would be a good result for us if it holds.
Also going on right now Duquesne leads Radford by 20+ mid 2nd half and La Salle leads Morgan St by 6 mid 2nd half.
Also going on right now Duquesne leads Radford by 20+ mid 2nd half and La Salle leads Morgan St by 6 mid 2nd half.
That's a bit of a stretch. Fordham is already the epitome of brutality. They shouldn't be doing buy games.
St. Joe's has by far the toughest OOC in the Atlantic 10 this year. They are 222 spots higher in SOS than the Spiders, as of today.
Chris Mooney declared we were going to have the toughest OOC in the A10 this season.
We couldof have been in the same situation they [St. Joe's] were this year had the pitchfork brigade Chris Mooney got their gotten his way last spring. Thankfully those who make the actual decisions took a deep breath and now we’re 8-1 9-1, not St. Joe's.
Chris Mooney declared we were going to have the toughest OOC in the A10 this season.
We could
STJ is a dumpster fire, no matter what there strength of schedule is. 5 scholarship players, 2 wins and their best players from last year playing for Louisville and Providence.
Wisc Lost to Rutgers, vandy lost to liberty at home. Liberty 12-0 though they havent played anyone good. Need these teams to get decent or our ooc is real weak.
Last edited:
Yep, and that has as much bearing on our 9-1 start as our soft SOS.
(FTR, I don't think our schedule is as weak as KenPom says it is; hopefully today's NET reflects that)
Ohio State loses by double digits to Minnesota. It seems nobody wants to be #1.
Auburn is one of four remaining undefeated teams.
Our one loss is the only remaining BCS team in the country. Auburn handily beat a tough St. Louis team over the weekend. I can pick over the strength of our schedule for the first 10 games, but will say it is not a Liberty or Duquesne bad, but I can't pick over the results. This is as good as any of us could have asked for.
Had we beaten Auburn, we would be a ranked Top 25 team right now, so I think we are right where need to be right now.
I have beat the drum for a tougher schedule. This one is working out for us so far, but if the A10 gets a little rockier than expected, the lack of any significant wins ( will depend how Wiscy fares, and Bama if we beat them) could bite us. I do feel like in order to get to a VCU/Wich State/St. Mary's level you really need to schedule much tougher. Would like to see us beef up the schedule next year, and we should have the talent to do so.
We had the talent to do so this year. We just opted out of "best OOC in the A10."
Now we just need to keep winning, and <shudder> rooting for Wisconsin.
Hey if BC wins the ACC, and Bama & Vandy finish 1&2 in the SEC, there is nothing to worry about...
Then Auburn becomes a bad loss.
But it won't matter, because in that world we're 33-1 with an Auto Bid.
Why worry about the things we have no control over.....do the things within our power, just win and let the chips far where they may!
I think we're 9th so far in non conf rankings amongst A10 teams. May be slight variation depending on ranking site used. Far from toughest or one of toughest in A10. Classic bait and switch move they pulled there.
I agree with you & number of us have beat that drum. Look I'm very happy with 9-1 and 22 NET but that can be fleeting as we know. When you have a good expected team like we did coming in you need to schedule harder. Because it sucks when you have a NCAA team and they could get burned by the schedule. With this team we still win some harder games imo and then we give ourselves more margin. I'm worried we lose most of that current margin with a bad or mediocre loss. Obv if we continue to win at .900 clip none of it matters but that's not too unrealistic...but nothing wrong with hoping for historic season either. Anyway you get the margin primarily by good wins, not relying on average teams like USA, Charleston, Radford and St Francis do really well in their conference. If we go 3-0 rest of way in OOC then fine most worries go away. The initial Net rankings on A10 may negate some of the OOC weakness too. We'll see. While the biggest thing is getting back to NCAA you have to consider seeding too.
Next year it should definitely be beefed up but if we hear that at all from anyone associated from UR prepare for the opposite.
Many of you act like had we scheduled some top P6 teams, we would have beaten them all and been top 10 or something right now. It will all come down to beating some of the top A-10 teams. If we can't beat the top A - 10 teams, what makes anyone think we would have beaten some top P6 teams? The schedule was more than fine for us. If we do not make the dance, it will not be because of the out of conference schedule. It will be because we did not do well enough in the A-10.
Another straw man argument there by VT. I don't see anybody acting like that. Advocating tougher schedule = the top P6 teams? Nice try. How about just another NCAA bubble type team, a top 75 team. Right now we got Wisco and hope they are at least on bubble. Bama is a good really important game but they won't even be a bubble team. One more harder game can make all the difference. & yes I think we would have won it, we're good. I've been pushing this as a NCAA team all offseason.
Also beating top p6 teams - or just top 75 type p6 teams - can sometimes be easier than beating top A10 teams. They can overlook teams like us in OOC. Especially early in season before you get into grind of leagues. It definitely happens. That's why those neutral non conf tourney games are so important but really any venue. Talk to a coach about that. You like to tell people to talk to recruits, players, ADs. Well talk to the coaches and they'll tell u.
Goes without saying that beating the top A10 teams will have a big role in making the dance or not, but the OOC and A10 games supplement each other. You do well enough in OOC and have some bigger wins, well it allows you to jump teams in standings and finish a spot lower. Conversely if you do not as well or have poor metrics you probably need to finish higher. It will be a combo, and also have a role in seeding if we are fortunate enough to be a locked in dance team late in year.
Last edited:
You are right as usual, us poor fans cannot ever expect to beat a top p6 (though we were ahead of no. 12 ranked Auburn for a half, and beat Wisconsin). Hopefully you are not tied into Mr. John Hardt and Coach Chris Mooney's inner circle.
Any good schedule needs balance. You could go the Wainwright route, which I believe in 2004 UR had a top 10 OOC schedule with games at Kansas, at Colorado, at UAB, neutral game with South Carolina, at Wake, neutral game with Manhattan, at South Florida. But few people remember - UR entered A10 play that year with a record of 7-5 and entered the Kansas road trip of at Temple, at Kansas, and at Xavier at 8-8. UR was not even in the discussion at that point for an NCAA bid. So it was a total gamble with that schedule. Luckily - they pulled out 3 wins - came out to 11-8 and finished the A10 strong.
But I think the more typical approach these days, unless your a Michigan state who knows they will make the tourney each and every year - is you have to be strategic with your scheduling. You need a handful of easy games - probably quad 3-4 games, and likely at home. Then you need a some quad 2 games with other mid-majors or low level P5 schools. These should be teams expected to win their conference from mid-level conferences, or schools expected to be on the bubble from P5 levels. Then you need 2-3 strong quad 1 games. These will likely be road games or tourney games on neutral sites. Your looking to steal 1 of these games. Think games like Purdue, Missouri, or Florida from the Mooney NCAA runs. You don't expect to win all of these games - but if you play 2-3 of them in your OOC, you steal 1 of them - your looking good.
There has been much debate on the schedule on this board, and I frankly don't have an issue with it. Its clearly not the best schedule in school history. But it is good enough to do 2 things. 1) Save Mooney's job. Your crazy if you don't think coaches consider this when putting together schedules. They need to win games at the end of the day. 2) Keeps UR in the NCAA conversation, if they win the games they should - which is what UR has done and maybe even stolen a game with Wisconsin (depends on how Wisconsin fairs in Big Ten).
But overall - the spiders will need to close out the OOC strong, ideally winning at least 2 if not all 3 of the remaining games. Then will still need to finish the A10 in the top 3. Which based on what we have seen so far from them - is still a possibility.
But I think the more typical approach these days, unless your a Michigan state who knows they will make the tourney each and every year - is you have to be strategic with your scheduling. You need a handful of easy games - probably quad 3-4 games, and likely at home. Then you need a some quad 2 games with other mid-majors or low level P5 schools. These should be teams expected to win their conference from mid-level conferences, or schools expected to be on the bubble from P5 levels. Then you need 2-3 strong quad 1 games. These will likely be road games or tourney games on neutral sites. Your looking to steal 1 of these games. Think games like Purdue, Missouri, or Florida from the Mooney NCAA runs. You don't expect to win all of these games - but if you play 2-3 of them in your OOC, you steal 1 of them - your looking good.
There has been much debate on the schedule on this board, and I frankly don't have an issue with it. Its clearly not the best schedule in school history. But it is good enough to do 2 things. 1) Save Mooney's job. Your crazy if you don't think coaches consider this when putting together schedules. They need to win games at the end of the day. 2) Keeps UR in the NCAA conversation, if they win the games they should - which is what UR has done and maybe even stolen a game with Wisconsin (depends on how Wisconsin fairs in Big Ten).
But overall - the spiders will need to close out the OOC strong, ideally winning at least 2 if not all 3 of the remaining games. Then will still need to finish the A10 in the top 3. Which based on what we have seen so far from them - is still a possibility.
If any of you remember the tv show, "Our Gang" or "The Little Rascals" who had a famous saying, "you can please some of the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time"....Our team is better than many of you think.
But conversely if we don't win enough games it might. Personally I find the 'just win' simplistic. Not pinning that on you sman, you hear it a fair amount on board. You could say that about anyone. Virtually any D1 team vs. a D1 schedule could win enough games to get a bid. Maybe that's every game but 1 for some. Guess what it depends on your schedule, who u played, who u beat, just like it does for us. If we're 18-1 going into Dayton like that other thread then yeah the schedule isn't a big deal. Not very realistic so you prepare for other scenarios.
Of course if we get a really large enough qty of wins vs our schedule we'd be in regardless, but it's IF we fall short of that automatic number then the questions of schedule really come into play. That will become clearer as the season progresses. I'd love to 'just win' and take away all doubt but nothing comes easy for the Spiders normally.
