Pat Kelsey, who does nothing but win conference championships, was right there for the taking and went to a CAA school for probably half what we pay Mooney. Depressing as all hell.
Fire Mooney
- Thread starter URWilk110
- Start date
vcu fans will never admit it but they know that Richmond basketball would be a force to be reckoned with if Mooney wasn’t the head coach. I learned on here a few weeks back that before that us and vcu had the same amount of ncaa appearances before Mooney, which came as a shock to me. It shows how one program took off and the other remained stagnant. I honestly believe that if Mooney wasn’t the coach for the last 10 years that we would have at least 3 ncaa appearances and likely more during that time frame. I hope our administration sees how vcu loves Mooney but I know they don’t care.
You realize of course that Coach Mooney will be back next year. Drink the koolaid, you will feel better.
Isn‘t that what Jim Jones told his followers? Didn’t work out so well for them.
Tale of two programs, ostensibly, arch rivals. Since joining the A10, VCU has made 7 NCAA appearances.
VCU's administration is committed to a successful basketball program. Richmond's administration is committed to Mooney. The results speak for themselves. Sad.
Did you not know our history or theirs?
UR - 1984,1986,1988,1990,1991
VCU - 1980,1981,1983,1984,1985
So we caught up then both with lean years
UR - 1998,2004
VCU 1996,2004
Since then UR 2 VCU 11 (If this year counts and last year doesn’t) in the 14 seasons with postseason available 2007-2021.
I thought I knew ours. I always knew UR was great in the 80’s and parts of the 90’s and kind of just assumed vcu was always making ncaa appearances left and right. Turns out the too programs were on the same level prior to Mooney. Which again proves my point that vcu fans won’t admit it but they know we would be right up there with them if Mooney wasn’t our coach.
Another thought I had about where vcu and UR are as programs is the fact that once you get behind in college sports it’s very hard to catch back up. vcu went to the final four and capitalized on it, they branded themselves even better, upgraded their facilities, went after bigger name recruits and overall put more money into the program. UR had the opportunity to capitalize the same year but did none of the things vcu did other than extend their coach for 10 years. Virginia Tech football is another example of this. From 2004 to 2011 they had the longest streak of 10+ win seasons in the country. They didn’t capitalize on the success and instead saw other programs in the ACC like Clemson and UNC start putting more and more money into football and particularly recruiting and pretty soon the Hokies became an average ACC program in football. They talk about this all the time on the Tech Sideline podcast and blame the athletic director at the time for not asking for more donations during their period of success and not upgrading facilities. Tech football up until recently had some of the worst facilities in all of power 5 football and had one of the smallest recruiting budgets. You can’t win that way now. They have started to spend more money now on football but now are so far behind clemson that they can’t catch up. See any similarities between that situation and UR basketball? I do.
I understand your point. Different sport though. Facilities and money not the problem, unless you factor in that the morons think if you throw enough money at it the problem will go away. Complacency, low bar, bad coaching, and poor administration is the issue. E C Robins wouldn't tolerate this crap.
Last edited:
You missed the part where I said "I hate our coach for life". I'm aware he isn't going anywhere, but I'm not going to kneel over like Kevin Bacon and say "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
Gallipoli gets it he has said he hates Mooney too. He was just logged into the wrong account.
If you told me 2 years ago we would beat Kentucky and be ranked, I wouldn't have believed that we ended the season with this record and result. I just wouldn't have been able to believe that was possible to collapse in that fashion.
https://www.espn.com/mens-college-b...ank-martin-accepts-responsibility-6-15-season
Linking this here because this was one of the threads that had talk of buyouts. This AD took advantage of their position. The extension came with no $ owed if fired. The buyout is just the next 2 years and from previous deal. A few posters in past have said these buyouts don't exist but just another example of many where they do.
It would be gross incompetence by Hardt if Mooney's extension did not have a buyout that had conditions more favorable to U of R.
Linking this here because this was one of the threads that had talk of buyouts. This AD took advantage of their position. The extension came with no $ owed if fired. The buyout is just the next 2 years and from previous deal. A few posters in past have said these buyouts don't exist but just another example of many where they do.
It would be gross incompetence by Hardt if Mooney's extension did not have a buyout that had conditions more favorable to U of R.
Is this all you wanted for Mooney?
This doesn't really do anything. It doesn't make it any cheaper to fire Martin through the existing contract term. Yes, you can void the extension. Guess I just don't see the point. The buyout wasn't reduced. It just wasn't extended.
This doesn't really do anything. It doesn't make it any cheaper to fire Martin through the existing contract term. Yes, you can void the extension. Guess I just don't see the point. The buyout wasn't reduced. It just wasn't extended.
nope I didn’t even expect that much but I’d love it for Mooney! It would mean he’d have 3 years but we’d only owe him for 1 if fired or even less than that if that 1 year had a buyout. Uh yes sign me up. Have no idea what u mean by it doesn’t do anything. It’s a no risk extension. The “buyout” is zero. They owe nothing on added years if he’s terminated. Sure it doesn’t change existing buyout but they used their leverage. Martin himself admits as much. At least u r coming around that there r lots of contracts where u don’t owe all the $$ left on the term. There is no legitimate reason none at all why we should owe Mooney 3 full years of compensation if we decided to move on. With caveat our AD is Hardt so have to accept remote possibility we would.
I don't see the point from either party's point of view.
Martin got nothing (as he should coming off a 6-15 season). He's still on the same contract through 2022-23. Two years, same salary, same buyout. The 2 year extension isn't a real extension. There's no commitment to it. It's totally meaningless.
And the school got nothing. No break on the existing contract or buyout. Just a piece of paper.
If the point was to try to show recruits they're committed to Martin, it obviously it fails in my eyes. But maybe some will just see that he's "under contract" through 2025 now and be happy with that.
Martin got nothing (as he should coming off a 6-15 season). He's still on the same contract through 2022-23. Two years, same salary, same buyout. The 2 year extension isn't a real extension. There's no commitment to it. It's totally meaningless.
And the school got nothing. No break on the existing contract or buyout. Just a piece of paper.
If the point was to try to show recruits they're committed to Martin, it obviously it fails in my eyes. But maybe some will just see that he's "under contract" through 2025 now and be happy with that.
What do u mean the school got nothing? Normally they'd have to pay something to get out of two more years term, now they don't. It got cost certainty, it got less risk, it likely still got what u said at the end re: recruits.
Martin keep a job he wants to keep and if he does it well he still gets paid a lot more in those 2 added years than he would have been worth on the open market had he been fired.
If Mooney has 3 years left but we owe him exactly zero on 2 of those years if he's fired that's a very good thing. In theory. In practice we have John Hardt.
It is going to be interesting to see how this whole thing with PQ and the faculty senate wanting him gone will impact things. PQ has both been instrumental in keeping Mooney employed and his large cash contributions have shielded Hardt from the impact of all of the smaller donations going away because Mooney is employed.
If PQ is ousted, perhaps he takes his money and influence elsewhere, and without his sugar daddy, Hardt has to start acting like a real AD. Gonna be fascinating to watch.
If PQ is ousted, perhaps he takes his money and influence elsewhere, and without his sugar daddy, Hardt has to start acting like a real AD. Gonna be fascinating to watch.
ok let's put it in Mooney terms (and I'm only guessing on the numbers so please correct me wherever you see fit).
Mooney disappointed this year with a top 25 team ending up in the NIT. GKiller as acting AD is considering firing him. but Mooney's got 3 years (?) left on his deal at $1.2M per year (?) and let's say a $2M buyout if terminated (?).
GK decides to offer him a 2 year extension. Mooney still gets $1.2M per year for the next 3 years. He still collects $2M if terminated in that term. But he gets 2 more years at $1.2M after that if we want to keep him and if he wants to stay for that.
what did Mooney get? 2 years of non-guaranteed money. so he got nothing. except not getting fired and paid $2M which the school didn't want to pay or they would have.
and the school got what? I still see nothing. I guess they get to keep paying him $1.2M for 2 extra years if they want to but they're not obligated to and either is he.
GK the acting AD would never offer a 2 year extension to Mooney to take him to 5 years. So stop right there! Even your hypothetical is crazy. & btw instead of meat & potatoes like Hardt I’d be cotton candy. If GK was acting AD. Tho Hardt might be both of those actually. I’d keep the Regatta and also add a train bound for nowhere.
your hypothetical should really go back to Sept when Moon got extension. Had 2 years got 2 more to 4 but 1 season is down so now he’s back to 3. Acting AD GK would never had given him that 2 year extension but if he was forced to do something then yes a 2 year non guaranteed contract with no buyout would have been an acceptable route.
if u don’t think that would have benefitted U of R then I don’t feel like banging my head into the wall w this discussion any further.
GK's point is that if Mooney's original deal said we owed him all the money no matter what, it would be stupid to keep those terms in place for the two-year extension we gave him. I agree.
If Hardt were smart, all we'd be on the hook for right now would be this coming season at $1.2 million. The extension might say he also gets $1.2M a year – as long as he is our coach – but that if we fire him during one of those two years, he gets nothing beyond the pro-rated amount he has earned at the point of termination (as opposed to the entire $2.4M).
So yes, the school would definitely be getting something in that scenario – it would be saving whatver money remained on his contract at the time it fired him instead of owing him everything.
Mooney would lose the protection of getting all $2.4 million from the extension, but at the time he signed the extension, no one else was going to guarantee him $2.4M for two years anyway. So he was getting the opportunity to earn another $2.4M if he did his job.
At the time of the extension, Hardt had all the leverage. Hope he used it.
Correct EL. And the whole point was to just show yet another example of these types of deals happening in the real world with coaching contracts. A few on here surprisingly said they don't exist, but they are relatively common and many other examples have been listed on here before too. If we owe Mooney everything on the last 2 year extension then Hardt is even worse than imaginable which is hard to imagine. Especially given the circumstances at the time the terms should have been very favorable to U of R.
I'm not asking you to bang your head against the wall. just trying to understand what you see here as the benefit to a non-guaranteed extension.
if it was just for optics to recruits to show the school's commitment to the coach, then I think it fails since there's no commitment.
Recruits aren't going to know whether we owe him the full $2.4M for the last two years of his deal or not. He gets the advantage of being able to tell them "I'm signed though 24," which is true. We get the advantage of firing him at the end of this coming season if we miss the NCAAs again and not having to pay him one cent of that $2.4M.
A non-guaranteed extension obviously is more beneficial to the school than to the coach. If the coach could get a fully guaranteed contract somewhere else for the same amount of money, most of the time he would take it. Mooney didn't have that opportunity last year.
A non-guaranteed extension obviously is more beneficial to the school than to the coach. If the coach could get a fully guaranteed contract somewhere else for the same amount of money, most of the time he would take it. Mooney didn't have that opportunity last year.
I can only direct you to the previous replies where that has already been addressed. If mine aren't clear then check out Eight Legger's.
I guess that's true in our case since we're a private school and we don't know the buyout situation for Mooney.
But Martin's recruits do know his situation since it's been made public.
we simply shouldn't have extended in the first place if we're looking to buyout a year later.
I agree, extending him last year for two years at face value was a questionable idea. However, if we were hellbent on keeping Mooney and extended him without any guaranteed dollars, then it was great. We gave Mooney what he needed to be able to recruit for two more years (last year and this year), but we assumed no financial responsibility for those extra years. Why wouldn't we do that?
If he wanted financial stability beyond this coming year, then he should have either taken another job or coached better here. It's that simple.
Martin's recruits know the situation, sure. It will be used against him on the recruiting trail, no doubt. But he also has a very recent track record of making the Final Four, which he can use against others.
If he wanted financial stability beyond this coming year, then he should have either taken another job or coached better here. It's that simple.
Martin's recruits know the situation, sure. It will be used against him on the recruiting trail, no doubt. But he also has a very recent track record of making the Final Four, which he can use against others.
It’s amazing to me how none of you complainers realize the impact of your statements.
And you wonder why we’re not a P6 basketball program.
Your naïveté is embarrassing to think you went to Richmond.
And you wonder why we’re not a P6 basketball program.
Your naïveté is embarrassing to think you went to Richmond.
I guess I missed something interesting.
All I have to say is that everything about Richmond basketball is predictable and it is because UR has had the same coach for 16 years. If there was a history of success, then there would not be any posts on this thread. The glory days of Richmond basketball are getting further and further into the past.
Yesterday’s JOC article spoke volumes and underscores the predictability.
2022 will be a watershed year:
1) Will the third time be the charm for a NCAA birth?
2) Depnding on #1, will there be a coaching change?
3) How many scholarships will be available 3-6? More?
4) What effect will the new “no sit” transfer rule have - positive or negative?
Change is always hard to come by in Richmond, VA.
Change came fast to the city of Richmond and now it is a dangerous dump. Hopefully change at UR is more civilized and better thought out. Defund Mooney!!
Similar threads
