As soon as you stop defending everything that's happened the last eight years, we'll stop questioning it.
Higher probability of Mooney getting contract extension than leaving early.
- Thread starter UR80sfan
- Start date
Just to be clear, my post is about my thoughts on the decision the administration and members of the board will make relative to Mooney after the basketball season and not about what my personal requirements for Mooney to keep his job. Many of you shared your personal requirements on what Mooney has to do, which we already know, but did not address the topic of the post. If you think their position is that Mooney must make the NCAA to retain his job the following year, I think you are incorrect.
I think very few folks here think that’s the standard he will be held to. He hasn’t been held to that standard for the past 8 years, it seems unlikely that it’ll become the administrations requirement now, particularly while he has contract years remaining.
A better question is would that performance earn him an extension?
And this is the exact reason. Until such time as the administration commits to winning going to the NCAA isn't going to happen. Why is this such a difficult stretch of the imagination to understand. Their position in every case is should be that every sport make the tournament. Otherwise they're not doing the job for which they are accountable.
Goal number 1 is win for an athletic administration while giving the kids their degree. There is no goal number 2. 2,3,4,5 etc are other's goals and responsibilities.
Except for the small little fact that we have gone to the NCAA. And went back to back.
That’s on big hat no cattle Hardt. Another factor in coaching decision. He could have changed narrative but didn’t. New coach u would have gotten positivity & energy surrounding program. No doubt. He made his bed lie in it.
When your most prominent sport’s coach is on hot seat it doesn’t go away until he does well enough to clearly get off hot seat or gets fired. So this will be here all thru next season unless hopefully we get off to a really great start building NCAA momemtum. That’s sports. Hardt getting a retirement gig maybe thought he could coast. Sorry.
The players r supported. For a school with 3k undergrad & 8 years without NCAA it is supported solidly. Room for improvement of course esp students but winning has big role in that. I’ll be rooting hard for them but the skepticism of Mooney will remain until he proves otherwise. U r fooling yourself if u think u just put it away. Maybe a rental fan can. That’s probably why easy for u to say that. Most of us r ur grads, STH, spider club members or travel to away & tourney games.
NCAA or bust.
Our athletic director - not posters on this board - is on the record stating our program's expectations are to compete for championships and go to the NCAA tournament. While the first part of that statement may be nebulous, the second isn't. I know expectations are not "job requirements" but at some point they have to be, right?
The V14 blog did an analysis a while back on coaches who have been with their current schools as long as Mooney. It wasn't a hit piece. When you toss out a couple of coaches from one-bid leagues with zero tournament aspirations, there is literally nobody in the nation worse at meeting Hardt's stated expectations.
The V14 blog did an analysis a while back on coaches who have been with their current schools as long as Mooney. It wasn't a hit piece. When you toss out a couple of coaches from one-bid leagues with zero tournament aspirations, there is literally nobody in the nation worse at meeting Hardt's stated expectations.
If we find ourselves in the same situation as Bonaventure, hopefully Joe Castiglione has to recuse himself from the selection process this time.
It's a bit fantastic to use 14-4 and tied for first in your hypothetical, considering our coach has never finished second or first in his entire career, but why not. In a vacuum, I don't think I would fire a coach in that scenario.
GKiller's point about the OOC is valid, though. Bonaventure that year did not have a strong OOC (even at 8-3); they never even left the state of NY. They didn't do themselves any favors by losing their first A10 tourney game. The only way we find ourselves in that scenario and left out is we botch the OOC horribly. And if we botch the OOC that badly.....
- Fire Lunardi for incompetence
- Fire Hardt for hiring Lunardi and hyping our "best in the A10 OOC schedule" - it would probably be a more publicly embarrassing blunder than anything Gill did.
- In the ensuing house-cleaning, Mooney probably goes, too - he started pushing the "best-OOC-in-the-A10" narrative, and we don't need to re-list all the other valid reasons
Speaking of Lunardi, I heard that he will do play by play for St. Joe's but he has been relieved of his duties as Director of Marketing for the school. His side gigs are now important to pad his paycheck. This is probably the reason he is now working as a scheduling consultant.
Last edited:
Chris Mooney and Pat Chambers (Penn State) are I believe the only 2 head coaches for multi-bid leagues who haven't taken their teams to the NCAA in 7 plus years AND are still employed by those schools.
Mooney has not finished first or second in the regular season, but he did go 13 - 3 back to back with a tournament title. I hear you about out of conference, but you never know what the committee is thinking, especially regarding mid-majors. We went 13-3 A-10, won 11 more games out of conference including beating Purdue, Arizona State, Wake, Seton Hall, and VCU, had some good conference wins, won our conference tourney, and only got a 12 seed in 2011. So, if we have a good A-10 season and don't get in, it does not automatically mean we had a bad OOC. You could be right, but you just don't know with the committee.
I believe because the A-10 played their championship game so late on selection Sunday, the committee slotted the winner of that game as the 12 seed to accomodate whomever won the A-10 autobid. Either way, we were underseeded that year and we proved that out by Advancing to the Sweet 16.
That type of profile this past year, probably would have gotten us a 10 seed or lower. But we can't go .500 OOC and then 13-3 in the A-10 and expect a bid. Need to get some big wins OOC.
As 97 alluded to, the committee told us exactly what they were thinking. We got the 12 seed because of "Dayton protection." They just slotted the A10 tourney champ there, and admitted it was unfair to Richmond. But the A10 tourney was so late, they had filled out almost the entire bracket. We were in no matter what, and ironically would have gotten a higher seed as an at-large if we had lost to Dayton. Even more ironic is that might have pushed VCU out of the field entirely the year they made their Final Four run.
There is no way we go 8-4 OOC against the "best OOC in the A10" and tie for first in the league, and get left out of the NCAA. No way. It would have to be one of the worst OOC's in the league.
How could we have gone from a 12 seed with a win, to in no matter what with a loss? I don't remember the committee actually saying this.
We were not at all on the bubble. They acknowledged it. I don't remember the exact circumstances, but someone asked about Richmond, the A10 champion, seeming underseeded, and that was their explanation. The 12 seed had nothing to do with where Richmond was on their list. They put the A10 champion on that line before the game, just in case Dayton won. To them, that was a better solution than moving everyone around between the end of our game and the show to get Richmond to their "proper" place. I'm pretty sure Miller has confirmed this; he might even have been the source.
Had Xavier made the final, the bracket would have looked very different, but all three (Xavier, Temple, Richmond) were in. Temple, who we had just beat on a neutral court the previous day, was a 7. Xavier was a 6.
Had Xavier made the final, the bracket would have looked very different, but all three (Xavier, Temple, Richmond) were in. Temple, who we had just beat on a neutral court the previous day, was a 7. Xavier was a 6.
I never heard them say that. So, they were fine with admitting they were underseeding a team at least four or five spots? So, what if we had 30 wins? Would we still have been a 12 seed and they would have under seeded us by about 8 seeds? They had two hours to figure out how to move things around. It's not that difficult to make two brackets. One if we win. And another if Dayton wins. If they had us prepared to be a higher seed if Dayton won, why wouldn't they just use that bracket and give us the higher seed and drop someone down into Dayton's 12 seed spot? Sure does look like to me they just said the winner gets the 12 seed and the loser is out.
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you're belaboring this, besides your propensity to argue about every little thing on this board. It has been so long since this happened; I believe it's common knowledge and generally accepted.
To answer your what-ifs, as a general rule the committee is not going to push an at-large team to that line of the bracket, especially in the same region as a play-in game between two of the last four in at #11. It is effectively "easier" for them to bump a team from the tournament altogether than seed an at-large at #12.
To answer your what-ifs, as a general rule the committee is not going to push an at-large team to that line of the bracket, especially in the same region as a play-in game between two of the last four in at #11. It is effectively "easier" for them to bump a team from the tournament altogether than seed an at-large at #12.
Had you been a fan of the program in 2011, you would have known this. Link below addresses the fact that we would have been in regardless of whether we won or lost the A-10 championship game, quoting Gene Smith (chair of the selection committee) on our status.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ncaa...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.caf3d5074279
I don't argue every point and I didn't think we were arguing. Just wondering why the committee could have a plan in place for us if Dayton won, but not one for us if we won. That is so weak by the committee.
Anyway, my point was teams get snubbed, especially mid majors. So, yes, maybe bad OOC play could hurt us in the end, but we could also do well in both OOC play and in conference and still gets snubbed.
Last edited:
I might spontaneously grow a pair of tits overnight and become Miss America next year too, but it's pretty unlikely.
There are mid-majors that get snubbed every year after having good years. There are numerous examples of this happening. I doubt there are examples of what you posted happening, so not a good analogy. But, I do agree that it's time to make the tournament.
Choppin’, it’s obviously very hard when fantastic teams like Xavier and Butler have only done it once!!!!
Big assist from #13 Morehead St that year, knocking off #4 Louisville for you.
I guess, but we had just defeated the 5 seed, so it is not like we would have had no chance against the 4 seed. Also, plenty of 13s have made the sweet 16, so when they beat the 4, they are not always a gimme for the 5 or 12. When you make the sweet 16, you earn it.
I used to be skinny boy. Now I am fat and old. But this is me NOW. We lose 20 games two years in a row. I think that is BAD. I am fat , we have been very BAD last two years no excuses.I think we lose 5 games a year from slow strategy. I think we have terrible ball screen defense too. How can we never try hedge or never double the ball , never ? We just do take the pony ride ball to basket .
Someone do a favor and look at video and review with Andre all fouls called on him because it will be easy for him to adjust if he knows and sees. We need his on ball defense. He is a good player who finally got a chance.
What can be done with $100,000 ? Hire old coach likeHubie Brown best coach ever to review our game video and comment . Maybe Coach can donate?
Someone do a favor and look at video and review with Andre all fouls called on him because it will be easy for him to adjust if he knows and sees. We need his on ball defense. He is a good player who finally got a chance.
What can be done with $100,000 ? Hire old coach likeHubie Brown best coach ever to review our game video and comment . Maybe Coach can donate?
I’m curious to know how many 12 or 13 seeds made the Sweet 16 in the past 20 years by knocking off both the 4 and 5 seed (two upsets) in a three-day span. I’m sure a few (out of 160 opportunities).
Not sure about beating 4 and 5, but 6 13s have made the sweet 16 and 21 12s have, so I would think a decent amount have beaten the 4 and 5. We beat the 4 and 5 in 1988 when we beat Indiana and Georgia Tech back-to-back.
Credit to our team that year that they didn't celebrate their first round win like they had just pulled off a huge upset. They were all business.
In fact, that 12 seed - the one you tried to cite as evidence that the committee was close to leaving us out - gave us a very favorable matchup. Vanderbilt was considered too high at 5, and everyone knew 12 was too low for us. We were the trendy 5/12 upset that weekend; we had a shorter line than a couple of 8/9 games.
Yep. All about the match up. Sometimes, a 12 is even favored over the 5. Back to the committee, do you think we were safely in before the A-10 tourney even started? If so, why wouldn't they have us, as a team safely in, higher than 12? If not, when do you think we were safely in? After the semi final win? That is when I felt we were in, but after seeing where they put us after winning the title, who knows? Bottom line is a 12 was a ridiculous seeding job by the committee, and inexcusable.
I have no idea. Perhaps if we lost our first game. I think we were in when we made the semis, considering the A10 was consistently putting 3+ teams in. Not really interested in hypotheticals.
As to your other questions/issues, they've already been answered. They would have put us higher if we were an at-large. They couldn't put an at large on that #12 line. The only other AQ they could have demoted there in 2011 (other than A10) was Gonzaga. Perhaps they did us a favor - Gonzaga didn't make the sweet 16 from their spot.
As to your other questions/issues, they've already been answered. They would have put us higher if we were an at-large. They couldn't put an at large on that #12 line. The only other AQ they could have demoted there in 2011 (other than A10) was Gonzaga. Perhaps they did us a favor - Gonzaga didn't make the sweet 16 from their spot.
Sorry for asking about hypotheticals, but that is usually what message boards are mostly about. If they would have put us higher as an at large, meaning they had a bracket prepared for both us and Dayton if Dayton won, why wouldn't they just give us the better seed after we won and put a lesser team as a 12 seed? They could have easily had a bracket prepared with two 11s and two 12s as the play in teams. You would think someone from the committee would have spoken up and said, "If we have Richmond higher if they lose, let's just keep them there if they win, and adjust other teams because we certainly can't drop Richmond for winning". No one thought to say that? No question this was a strange job by the committee.
