ADVERTISEMENT

Lack of NCAA appearances

Eight Legger

Eight Legger

Spider's Club
May 27, 2003
20,640
19,258
113
I did a little research, and I find this interesting. Maybe you will too, or maybe not.

There are 89 teams in the top-7 conferences in Division I. (The A-10 is rated as the seventh-best conference.) Of those 89, 25 have failed to make the NCAAs each of the past 4 seasons.

Of those 25, only 8 have had the same head coach during those four years - Seton Hall, Georgia Tech, Clemson, Penn State, Texas A&M, Washington, Fordham, Richmond. (Most of the other other 17 fired their coaches after 4 or 5 years, on average, if they failed to make the NCAA once. A few coaches left on their own for other jobs.)

Of those 8, only Richmond (Mooney - 10 years) and Washington (Lorenzo Romar - 13 years) have coaches who have been in their jobs for more than 5 years.

This is the list of the 25 teams. Most have been, or currently are, in the midst of significant rebuilds during the past 4 years. Candidly, it's not a list that we want to be associated with, but unfortunately, we are. We are the only team on this list that advanced to the Sweet 16 in 2011.

Auburn
Boston College
Clemson
Depaul
Duquesne
Fordham
George Mason
Georgia Tech
Mississippi State
Northwestern
Oregon State
Penn State
Rhode Island
Richmond
Rutgers
Seton Hall
South Carolina
Southern Cal
TCU
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Virginia Tech
Wake Forest
Washington
Washington State
 
Also interesting...how many of these 25 teams had .500 or better records each of the past four seasons:

Richmond
Washington

I think your lens is focused only on one metric, post-season appearances. Not everyone hires or fires on this category. Would we want the coach community to look at UR as a place that fires it's coach when he's had three winning seasons and one .500 season over the past four years? If I'm a quality coach (i.e., someone we would want to actually hire), then I'd be very cautious taking a job at a place that was going to fire me for those results.

Again, I'm not saying we should stick our heads in the sand, but post-season berths are likely not the only consideration here.
 
the trouble, the trap, the sink hole, of utilizing numbers is that anyone can grab numbers which say anything you may wish them to say. we all want to dance but there are other arrows in the quiver which have to be taken into consideration. well, the AD will take those arrows into consideration, the fans, don't have to at all. no question that i have a bias, first, know, respect and really like CM and all the coaches, second, am a REDSKIN fan and have seen up close and personal what happens, or does not happen, by changing coaches. i want to win and win big, dance, all of us do, we just don't all agree on how and there is nothing wrong with differing opinions, particularly when they don't mean anything as far as our coaching situation.
 
I think the number that counts most here by the posters who want more NCAA trips is the 1M+ CM is getting. Without that, probably be less focus on the coach. We see all the time in pro sports where say 2 players have equal stats, but the guy making the $$$ gets the blunt of criticism. Fair or unfair, it's there. Posting here I see more clearly how much UR has invested in the program so can't argue with the side who wants more success even though the higher-ups might be satisfied?
 
I'm not suggesting that we didn't show great improvement the last month of the season, or that I don't feel confident heading into next year -- I do. I am just pointing out the facts as they exist today. We are in a very small group of top-level basketball programs that have not made the tournament for 4 years and that have had the same coach during the entirety of that time, that's all.
 
why are we looking at the top 7 conferences? I think it's delusional if you think we're comparable with the the Big 12, Big East, ACC, Big 10, Pac12 or SEC. if you want a fairer look, compare the A10 to the other upper mid-major conferences like the AAC, WCC, Mid American, Mountain West, MVC and Big West. I think you'll get a different picture.
 
Eight, totally get what you are saying. And as noted, it's absolutely an interesting situation. As noted in my last post though, I do think you have to consider that a lot of those coaches who have resigned or been terminated elsewhere have done so because their programs have failed to win, not necessarily get to the NCAA/NIT.

We are in a different state because we are consistently winning at least. Probably not to the extent that we want to, i.e. enough to translate to bids.

I'd love to look at which programs have retained their coaches AND also have bad W-L records.
 
Spiderman, I am using the top 7 leagues because I chose our league's ranking as the cut off point. And even using those parameters, we are in bad company among our own league. Do we want to look like Duquesne, Fordham and George Mason? I hope not.

TBone, you raise a good point. I would imagine that most of the teams on that list have had at least 2 losing seasons in the past 4 years, so their situations are obviously different from ours. But it also makes things curious, too. If out of 89 teams in these leagues, there are only two with 4 straight winning seasons that have not made the NCAA, why is that? Are we boosting our record by playing a bunch of cupcakes? Are we suffering bad luck every single year? What is the root cause of our problems?
 
I just don't think we're comparable to large state schools in BCS conferences. yes, they're more likely to fire a coach who fails to dance, though I doubt they fire a guy putting up 19 wins and finishing over .500 in conference either.
 
To me - the winning seasons just buy you a little more time. If your losing - maybe your fired by year 3 or 4. If your winning, but not making any post-seasons, then maybe you just get 1 or 2 more years. But even so - the result will ultimately be the same - you need to make a change.

Look at VA Tech and Seth Greenberg. He was always winning, but could never make the NCAA tourney. Call it scheduling, lack of winning the big games, etc - but he was winning, and always close. VA Tech gave him 5 years from his NCAA appearance before they got rid of him. They fell on hard times since then - but have now made a great hire in Buzz Williams who will no doubt have them back in the NCAA hunt in another year or two.

I see that as a good blueprint for us. Including this year - it has been 4 years since our last NCAA appearance. If we miss next year - that will be 5. Do you fire Mooney after then? It would depend on two factors for me - what was our record..if we had a losing record next year - I would say yes, get rid of him. Two - if we have a winning record, what is potentially available out there in the coaching ranks - is there a up and coming coach we can make a run, a BCS assistant we can land, or maybe even a big name looking for a restart? If not - go one more year. That would be 6 years.

Since our first appearance in the NCAA tourney under Tarrant in 1984, our longest NCAA draught has been 6 years and that covered what time span - Dooley - who I think someone referenced as the only coach UR fired...well there you go then...go 6 years with no NCAA, pull the plug.
 
Seth? he was fired after a 4-12 season in the ACC, 15-16 overall with a cupcake OOC. and looking forward, what he left behind was 4-14, 13-19 the next year and 2-16, 9-22 the following year and 2-16, 11-22 this season. pretty sure that's not the example you're looking for.
 
Eight - why don't you just stop following UR basketball? It obviously frustrates you. You can surely find something else to focus on that may prove to be better and more productive for you. Maybe work on that bike race or solve the Flying Squirrels new stadium issue? There is lots of juicy stuff to sink your teeth into on that one.
 
This is your retort to stop following UR basketball. Nice. When you don't have a good argument, just tell the other person to go away. Need more fans like 8L.
 
My point with Seth is that he was winning, just not making the NCAA tourney - and it was driving people to wanting a change. Yes - his last year, they went 15-16 and 4-12 in the ACC, and that just made getting rid of him easier. What if he had another NIT season? Do you keep him around for another year cause he is winning? And I don't think its fair to look at the teams after he left - because when new coaches come in - there is a new system, new style, players transfer out, recruits back out, etc.

Point is - he was winning, similar to Mooney at UR. Mooney is winning - he just has no NCAA appearances the last 4 years to show for it. And next year - by all accounts, we should have another winning team. Will it be an NCAA team - we all think so or hope so, but time will tell on that one. How long to hang on to someone who is winning, but not making the post-season?

And Seth is not coaching - but why would you once you enter the commentator world. The pay is pretty good, you still get to stay connected to the game you enjoy, and best of all - no more wins and losses. Your always undefeated as a commentator. I am sure if Seth wanted to - he could throw his name out there and get some interviews, but he has put himself in a position with a great job and he can be super selective or he can choose to never coach again. The guy was 167-117 at Tech (.588) winning percentage. I don't understand why everyone thinks he was so bad. Guess what Mooney's win percentage is at UR - .561.
 
97 - I have a great argument. It just doesn't matter. Do we have to keep going around and around on this? I'm sure 8L is a wonderful fan, as I'm sure are you. great guys, wonderful families. But the INCESSANT complaining is unreal - schedule, substitution patterns, shooting technique, floor designs, nothing is too small or insignificant for some of you to complain about. Is this really worth all the angst? Is everything else in your life perfect or is an anonymous message board some kind of an outlet? Seriously - perspective is the word that comes to mind.
 
Pike - why don't you just stop reading my posts? They obviously frustrate you. You can surely find something else to focus on that may prove to be better and more productive for you.
 
Its a message board to talk about Spider hoops. If we didn't talk about the schedule, substitution patterns, the coaching decisions, what would be the point of having the message board. That is its whole purpose, it would be really boring if we all said the same thing or nothing at all.

I come on here because I enjoy the discussion and debate and I obviously love Spider hoops as does everyone around here. I just think if you to have a lively discussion, you need to bring facts and positions to back up your arguments and just not tell other posters to go away (trolls and VCU posters excluded
smile.r191677.gif
.

I think we can agree that there are valid points for keeping CM and valid points that also can lead one to conclude that he might not be the guy to get us over the hump.
 
Respect all the comments here but feel like we are beating a dead horse a bit. Been over this a bunch already. Even so here's my two cents:

If we were losing badly, and coming in well under .500 for the last four seasons with no improvement in sight for next season, I bet Mooney would have been gone after this year.

When three of the last four years we were on the bubble and/or in the mix for a bid or NIT berth plus factor in injuries and player losses (Ced and DWill, Fore and ANO), it buys more time as the program is close to meeting goals.

Finally when your team is expected to improve and be at the top of the league and get a NCAA berth next year, why would you fire the coach now?

Saying that, I do think though that pressure is at its greatest next year for Mooney as we have our most experienced class since our sweet sixteen run. If we flop and fail miserably to reach that goal I think Mooney is on the hot seat.

After next year, I feel we may slip back a bit based on team experience, so Mooney has to strike while the iron is hot.
 
Eight - excellent point. In fact, I did stop reading this board for about a month. All this basketball going on now makes it tough to stay away....
 
I apologize to anyone who feels I am being unfair in starting discussions based in fact. I have very high expectations for our program. I think many of us do. I think our athletic department does or it would not have invested so much money and resources into it.

It is quite possible that I would feel content with things if we were the only D-I program in Richmond. We are not. Therefore, it is an impossible thing to ponder.

If you own a great auto repair shop and you have a lot of happy customers in part because you are the only shop in town, your view of things is pretty positive, and maybe that's good enough. But if Maaco opens a $10-million repair shop across the street from you tomorrow, undercuts your pricing and has 5 times as many mechanics as you do, suddenly you cannot afford to just be "good enough." You have to do better, somehow, or die.

In my humble opinion, we have to do better, period.
 
Eight, I appreciate that your post had some data and substance. I think what URPike, and many others on this board, find frustrating is the lackadaisical "Mooney sucks" chant that comes on the board about 5 minutes after we lose a game. It's literally like clockwork on here, and it is tedious, particularly when there are lots of datapoints that suggest we are far from being average.

That said, I believe in looking hard at what the goals/objectives/results/situation are. It should be a valid consideration if we go 5 seasons without an NCAA trip. I for one don't have super high expectations, but I do like when we make the dance. Certainly others do here as well. Maybe the expectation should be higher than mine but lower than annual post-season dancing.

I hate the mediocre talk, and I don't like the name calling that some posters have on here to call us mediocrity accepters just because some of us don't expect annual NCAA trips. That's pretty disrespectful in my estimation. And I know you aren't one of those people, btw.

At the end of the day, I'd really rather be close and missing, than fire a coach, start over for 3 seasons, and maybe end up right back where we were, on the edge. That seems like a brutally painful plan.
 
Originally posted by SpiderTrap:
My point with Seth is that he was winning, just not making the NCAA tourney - and it was driving people to wanting a change. Yes - his last year, they went 15-16 and 4-12 in the ACC, and that just made getting rid of him easier. What if he had another NIT season? Do you keep him around for another year cause he is winning? And I don't think its fair to look at the teams after he left - because when new coaches come in - there is a new system, new style, players transfer out, recruits back out, etc.
Click to expand...
If Mooney had 4 wins in the A10 this year he would have been fired. Can't compare this situation to Seth's.

This post was edited on 3/17 4:53 PM by fan2011
 
I would be curious to know how many teams total are in the A-10, AAC, WCC, Mid American, Mountain West, MVC compared to the 75 in the 6 conferences above them.

and then would like to see who are the 20 or so teams with the most NCAA appearances in the last 8 years (or perhaps 7 and add next year) from the mid-tier conferences. That would be two classes.

That might show the better performers from our peers. But conference movement might complicate it a bit.

That might be a better group to want to be in, than simply comparing to the worst post season performing BCS teams.
 
other teams not in the NCAA's this year:
Syracuse
Stanford
Memphis
Florida
Texas A&M
Illinois
Pitt
UConn
Michigan
Alabama
Kansas St
Arizona St
Florida St
Auburn
Wake
Ga Tech
Nebraska (!)
etc ...

why aren't they in? point is, if you don't win your conference tournamant, there's very few at-large bids and a lot of good programs don't make it. we talk so much about how we should expect bids. that we spend so much money. do you think we outspend the above teams? we're a #1 seed in the NIT. we had better seasons than those teams listed. yet it's non-stop complaints about how we didn't make it. that we should have been 27-5. that we have too much talent to not have been better. like we have more talent than all of these teams?! it takes a special year to get an at-large bid. it takes some lucky bounces, too. I'm amazed after reading this board all season that we came so close. we were written off after every loss.
 
The only thing I got out of this thread is that some people want Mooney gone. I think his style is boring, but it works with the type of players they recruit.No losing seasons in a while. Consistency
 
Consistently missing the NCAA's for the past 4 years.

But we do get to hang that RPI 100 banner each year.
 
In regards to Spiderman's comment that we should not look at the top 6 "power conferences" as a comparison, the A10 has averaged the 5th most bids per conference over the past five years, tied with the Pac-12 and ahead of the SEC.
 
great. but go team by team with the current members of the A10 vs them. do you think we're as good as or have anything in common with them?
 
Originally posted by spiderman:
great. but go team by team with the current members of the A10 vs them. do you think we're as good as or have anything in common with them?
Click to expand...
Exactly, if the A10 played the major conferences team seed 1 vs 1, 2 vs 2, etc. etc. ..... A10 probably win 1 or 2 games at the most. Maybe 3 on occasion but the point is over the long haul won't compete.

This post was edited on 3/18 2:38 PM by SouthJerseySpiderFan
 
I think the conversation was about the lack of making the NCAA tournament, which A10 teams have been pretty successful at doing over the last five years. I do not think that the conversation was about being ranked in the Top 25 and/or making a run in the tournament. That is a completely different story.
 
Originally posted by URWilk110:
I think the conversation was about the lack of making the NCAA tournament, which A10 teams have been pretty successful at doing over the last five years. I do not think that the conversation was about being ranked in the Top 25 and/or making a run in the tournament. That is a completely different story.
Click to expand...
Well said. How about we just look in the A-10 for comparison: In the past four years, Davidson, VCU, Dayton, St. Bonaventure, LaSalle, St. Joes, UMass, GW, and St. Louis have all gotten a bid. Some of them have had multiple bids.

Current programs that have not gotten bids include: Richmond, Fordham, Duquesne, George Mason, and Rhode Island.
 
We're due next year. Not sure I'd take it to the bank just yet, but we have certainly shown signs. If Anthony's production can be replaced and we can get contributions from some new guys, there's no reason a senior laden team should not be inline for the dance.

Two things I liked when l listened to the Monday night Sportsline talk with Mooney: said schedule next year is shaping up to be quote "very, very good" but didn't have details yet. Second, he said incoming guard Julius reminds him of David Gonzalvez with his body type and style of play. Like to hear that and it could bode well for getting some meaningful contributions next year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SFspidur

Women's hoops schedule

Replies
12
Views
2K
UR Basketball Board
urfan1
urfan1
MDspider8

2025 Baseball Season

Replies
5
Views
808
UR Baseball and Other Sports
spiderstudent17
spiderstudent17
SFspidur

Around the A-10: 2024–25 Edition

Replies
204
Views
15K
UR Basketball Board
spider23
spider23
Section9.RowD

'24-'25 Spiders Friends and Family

Replies
42
Views
5K
UR Basketball Board
MrTbone
MrTbone
32counter

Early Signing Day,December 4, 2024-December 6, 2024

Replies
180
Views
10K
UR Football Board
urfan1
urfan1
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back