.500 or below. He’s heading towards his 8th one. 8 out of 20.
Burn the Shirts
- Thread starter spider23
- Start date
.500 or below. He’s heading towards his 8th one. 8 out of 20.
.500 record or below is fair enough to consider a down year. It’s frustrating knowing you’re going to be in a down year so early into the season. Still, if someone were to say in a 5 year stretch (‘19-20 - ‘23-24. Not counting this year because we don’t know officially what our final record will be) we would be 24-7 and likely at large, win A10 tourney/R32 NCAAs, and win A10 regular season champion 3 of those 5 years, but the other 2 years we are very bad, would you be okay with that?
Last edited:
We have been over this a million times, you can't count the likely at large and the real at large - they are mutually exclusive.
Just like Tom can't throw the ball and catch the ball.
And to be fair, I was trying like hell to get back on the Moon Man parade, but really think last year was fools gold.
Whether we would have ended up getting the at-large bid or not, doesn’t take away from a great season. Still, the same question remains. In a vacuum, would one be okay with this 5 year stretch: 24-7, down year, A10 championship + R32 NCAA, down year, 23-10 (15-3 conference) A10 regular season champions.
Cycles started from the beginning of Moon's tenure, giving him the benefit of allowing his first recruiting class to mature through graduation - the natural end point for cycle 1, which ended in 2 NCAAs.
That was the idea of program building, build through recruiting and payoff is when those guys are upperclassmen. Thus cycles are mostly 4-5 years, tho cycle 1 was extended bc Moon had no players of his own recruiting in year 1, and the last cycle was extended to 6 years bc of Covid. So the idea of showing the cycles is to see how the yield compared to the promises. Think of these as eras of Spider hoops under Moon if cycles don't work for you (Geriot/KA/Harp era, Golden/Gilly era, etc.)
There will always be guys who overlap but generally it's based on a time period of 5 years to account for redshirts, and adjusted to coincide if a big class graduates together (or 2 classes of starters b2b) as a natural end to that cycle, which has happened in 2 of the 3 cycles.
Cycle 1 of the Geriot/Gonzalvez/Butler/Anderson/Harper yielded 2 ncaas. 6 years.
Cycle 2 of Ced/KA0/Cline/T. Allen/Deion/Trey Davis/ShawnDre - yielded zero ncaas. 5 years (allowance for redshirts)
Cycle 3 of Grant/Sherod/Gilyard/Cayo/Goose - yielded 1 ncaa. 6 years bc of Grant/Sherod and Covid.
Cycle 4 is ongoing - zero ncaas. In year 3.
If you want to argue cycles are now meaningless bc you don't get big classes together for 4 years anymore that is fine. I'm open to adjusting how they go forward based on quicker portal cycles. If so, I'd say Cycle 4 was closed after 2 years with zero ncaas (Quinn/Bigs/King cycle/era) and cycle 5 is starting horribly.
Moon is now going back to the talking points of those old ways though, building expectations for the future rather than the present. One of the constant refrains here though is why we cannot build upon the good years to make a good cycle permanent with extensive run of very good seasons in a row, without suffering 40% of years being .500 or below? Why have to rebuild rather than continually adding equivalent star-caliber players each year afterward for continued up-years?
The first year of each new cycle resulted in a .500 record and two losing records. if you say this is cycle 5 bc of shortened portal cycles, this will be likely be another losing year in first year of this portal cycle.
That was the idea of program building, build through recruiting and payoff is when those guys are upperclassmen. Thus cycles are mostly 4-5 years, tho cycle 1 was extended bc Moon had no players of his own recruiting in year 1, and the last cycle was extended to 6 years bc of Covid. So the idea of showing the cycles is to see how the yield compared to the promises. Think of these as eras of Spider hoops under Moon if cycles don't work for you (Geriot/KA/Harp era, Golden/Gilly era, etc.)
There will always be guys who overlap but generally it's based on a time period of 5 years to account for redshirts, and adjusted to coincide if a big class graduates together (or 2 classes of starters b2b) as a natural end to that cycle, which has happened in 2 of the 3 cycles.
Cycle 1 of the Geriot/Gonzalvez/Butler/Anderson/Harper yielded 2 ncaas. 6 years.
Cycle 2 of Ced/KA0/Cline/T. Allen/Deion/Trey Davis/ShawnDre - yielded zero ncaas. 5 years (allowance for redshirts)
Cycle 3 of Grant/Sherod/Gilyard/Cayo/Goose - yielded 1 ncaa. 6 years bc of Grant/Sherod and Covid.
Cycle 4 is ongoing - zero ncaas. In year 3.
If you want to argue cycles are now meaningless bc you don't get big classes together for 4 years anymore that is fine. I'm open to adjusting how they go forward based on quicker portal cycles. If so, I'd say Cycle 4 was closed after 2 years with zero ncaas (Quinn/Bigs/King cycle/era) and cycle 5 is starting horribly.
Moon is now going back to the talking points of those old ways though, building expectations for the future rather than the present. One of the constant refrains here though is why we cannot build upon the good years to make a good cycle permanent with extensive run of very good seasons in a row, without suffering 40% of years being .500 or below? Why have to rebuild rather than continually adding equivalent star-caliber players each year afterward for continued up-years?
The first year of each new cycle resulted in a .500 record and two losing records. if you say this is cycle 5 bc of shortened portal cycles, this will be likely be another losing year in first year of this portal cycle.
Since October 1981, I have considered winning less than 2/3 of your games when the Selection Show starts as a down year...
Yep. & he still doesn't answer my question before he asks yet another. shocker.
GISELE! Boom. I needed that. I'm officially ready for Thanksgiving. The best holiday of the year imo.
would you be okay if I told you five years ago that in five years the Spiders would have made 1 NCAA trip over that period, given the roster had an NBA player, another guy who made 4 all conference teams, another guy who was POY, 3 different guys who became 2nd teamers and another guy named most improved in the conference?
the issue a lot of people have with your approach is why are we mandated to suffer 40% down seasons with all the resources - and talent - that Richmond has? Feels like stockholm syndrome.
They will definitely be more productive, but will it be at Richmond? They are 18 year old kids just months out of high school. After sitting on the bench a whole year and watching this $hit show (and other schools offering money), do you really think it's logical that they won't leave?
I sure would. And the other 2 years were not even very bad. 2021 was a 14-9 season. Kenpom had us at 65 that year, 4th best in the A-10. 2023 was a struggle at 15-18 ( 150 kenpom). It just depends on how u look at it. Some can look at the end result from last year and say bad season, but I think last year, with an A-10 regular season title, was a great season with a bad ending.
But, I don't get the 4/5 year cycle talk. Jacob, Grant and Nate were 3rd year guys in 2020, and Blake was in his 1st year with us. Last year, we started 4 guys who weren't even with us in 2022, including 2 guards who were in their 1st year here, and 8 of our 9 rotation guys were not here 2022, yet somehow we aren't good unless we go through a 4 or 5 year cycle? 24, 24, and 23 wins 3 of the past 5 seasons, but we need a 4/5 year cycle to be good? Anyway, no question the start of this season has been disappointing, but I guess where I differ from most on here is I don't want to start firing coaches because of it.
And I'm sick and tired of reading about the covid year and how some of yall think an at lage bid was a sure thing. How many non P5 schools with 7 loses get at large bids anymore? Base on history, I think it was a long shot at best. But keep on giving Moonman credit for another NCAA bid..
I would want more info, but almost always yes! And the info we do have says yes, definitely, I would take the last 5 seasons every 5 years.
And, it is really 1 in 4 years since there were only 4 tournaments those 5 years. And, funny how 2020 counts for this debate when so many other debates act like it never happened. That is what I will never understand. How Spider fans on here who say they love our school and want us to win, cannot stand when anyone brings up 2020, one of our best seasons ever at 24-7, and constantly downplays it.
We have a whole thread dedicated to keeping track of former UR players who transferred. Other than Randolph, no one else has really been super productive at their new program which is of a lesser caliber than Richmond. I am not saying that it will or won’t be the case in the future, but just an observation from all our other transfers in recent memory.
Kevin Anderson.
Jacob Gilyard.
Jordan King.
That's the cycle. Every seven years, on average, he finds a dominant point guard and we win a lot. The other years, we don't have a realistic chance of winning the league, winning the A10 tournament or making the NCAA tournament.
Jacob Gilyard.
Jordan King.
That's the cycle. Every seven years, on average, he finds a dominant point guard and we win a lot. The other years, we don't have a realistic chance of winning the league, winning the A10 tournament or making the NCAA tournament.
Similar threads
