Mens: NET '24-'25 Rankings
- Thread starter Section9.RowD
- Start date
40. Dayton
57. Bona
58. Rhody
69. Loyola
72. VCU
79. Mason
114. Davidson
118. La Salle
129. GW
134. St. Joe's
228. SLU
229. UMass
256. Fordham
259. UR
326. Duquesne
stats.ncaa.org
57. Bona
58. Rhody
69. Loyola
72. VCU
79. Mason
114. Davidson
118. La Salle
129. GW
134. St. Joe's
228. SLU
229. UMass
256. Fordham
259. UR
326. Duquesne
NCAA Statistics
SOS of 336, and that doesn't even include the D-II teams.
90. Louisiana Tech
147. Maine
226. Bucknell
262. Charlotte
273. Marist
318. Ball State
Remaining OOC:
2. Auburn
120. Belmont
176. W&M
274. VMI
160. FGCU
90. Louisiana Tech
147. Maine
226. Bucknell
262. Charlotte
273. Marist
318. Ball State
Remaining OOC:
2. Auburn
120. Belmont
176. W&M
274. VMI
160. FGCU
Low expectations, low scheduling, low ability to adapt. Low ranking.
Expected.
Sorry, but the teams to which UR lost were really bad, watching the games did nothing to show anything different. That all three are 225+ in the NET is right in line with how they played.
That UR is below them makes perfect sense.
The leafyness is beautiful this time of year though!!
Sorry, but the teams to which UR lost were really bad, watching the games did nothing to show anything different. That all three are 225+ in the NET is right in line with how they played.
That UR is below them makes perfect sense.
The leafyness is beautiful this time of year though!!
Not surprising at all. I think we are more like a 300 level team this year. We are definitely the cupcake this year.
Normally I would expect to be competitive with anyone with a fair shot of winning. Usually I'd be disappointed with a double digit loss to anyone and devastated by a 20+ point loss. This year, with this team, I EXPECT at least a 30+ point loss (and that's if Auburn is being nice). We are that bad this year.
We can probably lose to Auburn by 30 and our NET will improve next week simply because our strength of schedule will take such a jump. Top 200 here we come!
I think this will be a let down spot for Auburn, after playing at Duke. Bigger letdown spot if they win at Duke. If they lose, it could get ugly for us - but still a let down.
This is bull, we should be at least 5 spots better than Fordham…40. Dayton
57. Bona
58. Rhody
69. Loyola
72. VCU
79. Mason
114. Davidson
118. La Salle
129. GW
134. St. Joe's
228. SLU
229. UMass
256. Fordham
259. UR
326. Duquesne
NCAA Statistics
Thank goodness, John Hardt was able to get the extension signed last Spring on Mooney. I'm sure multiple BCS programs were about to beat down our door wanting to hire him out from under us. Lol. Disgraceful. And no one dare ask King Mooney about this, less he get all bristly with him and then have to obstificate about how hard everything is.
Still like this presentation, just not results..
bracketologists.com
Atlantic 10 Conference at Bracketologists
bracketologists.com
Who has fallen further - the Regular Season Champs or the Tourny Champs!?!40. Dayton
57. Bona
58. Rhody
69. Loyola
72. VCU
79. Mason
114. Davidson
118. La Salle
129. GW
134. St. Joe's
228. SLU
229. UMass
256. Fordham
259. UR
326. Duquesne
NCAA Statistics
not shocked at all40. Dayton
57. Bona
58. Rhody
69. Loyola
72. VCU
79. Mason
114. Davidson
118. La Salle
129. GW
134. St. Joe's
228. SLU
229. UMass
256. Fordham
259. UR
326. Duquesne
NCAA Statistics
Yeah. I tried to spell check it and it didn't come up. Sorry, obfuscate is the correct spelling. Mooney gives a masterclass in this any time someone asks him a tough question.
So, a coach who won an A-10 tourney title and a dance game in 22 and an A-10 regular season title in 24 should not get an extension? And, despite the numerous conference titles and success several of our sports programs have had since he got here, you feel taking yet another jab at Hardt is justified too?
He got an extension after the dance in 22. Didn't need another one in 24, especially considering we didn't even make the postseason last year and also because no one else wanted his services and was still under contract. We negotiated against only ourselves and to what ends. And had Hardt looked at Mooney's 20 year track record he would have seen a year like this year bearing down the tracks at him.
So, yeah I'm taking all of the shots at Hardt. The extension was unneeded last year and now tied ourselves further to a guy who wins 55% of the time. And since he exceeded 55% last year, you knew a reversion to the mean was coming, and boy is it coming.
So, yeah I'm taking all of the shots at Hardt. The extension was unneeded last year and now tied ourselves further to a guy who wins 55% of the time. And since he exceeded 55% last year, you knew a reversion to the mean was coming, and boy is it coming.
Hardt is actually fine. The problem is not effort at setting up successful programs. We've had a good amount of success across our sports programs. The problem is recognizing when one is failing or at least recognizing when it is not reaching potential. And then not recognizing the glaring problem! Kinda compounds the issue when it so happens to be our flagship program.
I'm sure Banners R' Us has a "NET Top 260 Banner" somewhere on the shelves, guys.
A coach should get an extension for one of these reasons:
• he is outperforming his current contract in a big way and you want to show support proactively.
• there’s a strong likelihood that other schools will try to sign him if you don’t, and you don’t want to lose him.
• his contract is almost up and you want to keep him.
Nothing Mooney has done in recent years fits any of those categories to me. He’s been paid very handsomely for a very long time. He’s been earning at a level that is commensurate with a coach who is winning league titles, so when he finally actually does that, why should we pay him even more? It’s literally what we have been paying for all along.
And as 97 said, no one else at a level above ours is threatening to hire him.
• he is outperforming his current contract in a big way and you want to show support proactively.
• there’s a strong likelihood that other schools will try to sign him if you don’t, and you don’t want to lose him.
• his contract is almost up and you want to keep him.
Nothing Mooney has done in recent years fits any of those categories to me. He’s been paid very handsomely for a very long time. He’s been earning at a level that is commensurate with a coach who is winning league titles, so when he finally actually does that, why should we pay him even more? It’s literally what we have been paying for all along.
And as 97 said, no one else at a level above ours is threatening to hire him.
Correct. And if we are taking snapshots, don’t forget the back to back 20 game losses in 2017 and 2018. Just guessing they are throw out years as well as long term 55 pct winning record. Almost forgot the VCU dominance over us. All certainly befitting a coach for life.
Any good year = extension.
Any down year(s) = no consequences.
Best job in America.
Any down year(s) = no consequences.
Best job in America.
But, this is not the year 2019. This is 2024. I said I wanted to keep him in 2019 because I liked who we had coming back and believed we could have great success had we kept the team and coach together. Which we did and did. I also said I completely understood if we made a coaching change then because of how disappointing the 20 loss seasons were.
But, again, this is not 2018 or 2019. Those years are irrelevant if deciding on an extension in 2024, and I don't know any A-10 school or mid major that would not renew a coach who was just coming off a 15-3 A-10 regular season title, 2 years after winning the A-10 tourney and a NCAA tourney game, and a couple years before that going 24-7. So, you and others can keep bringing up 20 loss seasons over 5 years ago, but no AD in the country would look at pre 2020 seasons over the last 5 years when deciding on an extension. No one.
But, again, this is not 2018 or 2019. Those years are irrelevant if deciding on an extension in 2024, and I don't know any A-10 school or mid major that would not renew a coach who was just coming off a 15-3 A-10 regular season title, 2 years after winning the A-10 tourney and a NCAA tourney game, and a couple years before that going 24-7. So, you and others can keep bringing up 20 loss seasons over 5 years ago, but no AD in the country would look at pre 2020 seasons over the last 5 years when deciding on an extension. No one.
Did you miss that he already got an extension after the A10 tourny win and NCAA round one win? Just scroll back a few posts ago. You should be able to find it.
And why does several years ago count towards his extension now but the bad seasons prior don't count? Brooklyn said it best. You only have to look back one post for that one.
What was Mooney going to do if we had not extended him last year? Quit? Go take another job somewhere? Stop trying as hard to win games at Richmond? The answer is "no" to all of those questions, so the extension was a bad business decision.
Better yet. You get to count the previous good year, whenever that was, a 2nd time towards the current year's argument. What a deal!
Last edited:
Still remember, probably about 9 to 10 years ago, ran into a former D1 coach at an AAU tournament. Guy told me that Moon had best job on America, as you note. Cited pay with no pressure from admin to win. We operate in a time warp.
Agree. And pick and choose look back periods. Playing with numbers and years to justify is an easy thing to do. Anything to rationalize ongoing bad decisions to support extensions into the future. And the long term results always prevail back to his norm.
