Mens: NET '24-'25 Rankings
- Thread starter Section9.RowD
- Start date
So this analysis is backward to me. Its not awful so its ok. How about we justify giving him a second one two years after first one with some outstanding results that exceed what we thought we were paying for in 22. I would have been fine with an extension last year if he was entering the last year etc. but just no reason to do it there. And certainly not every AD would have extended him there given the 2022 extension and the years still on it and the good not great results last year. But this is the mentality from the admin too - hey we are doing OK (55%) - - let's celebrate ourselves! . That's been for a long time and now its infected the team who decided to celebrate upon clinching a tie for the conf championship and promptly lost all their mojo.
And can we stop calling everything he does that's better than a .500 record and no post-season some great accomplishment. So in 21-22, with all those older guys etc. we were well short of expectations for the whole season until we had a great 5 game run in the A-10 tourney and won an NCAA game. Those post-season things happened and they are great, but lets not ignore the well under expectation 30 game regular season and act like that was some great year. And if the argument is yeah well its the end of the year that matters and getting a bid etc. then especially we can't call last year anything great either. Last year we weren't great in OOC, were very good in conference regular season (but never a threat for at-large) and a shit show in post-season. Nice we won a share of A10 but the end was as brutally bad and if we count the NCAA year as great just because of post-season, then last year was nothing special. Both those years were OK-to-good but NOT close to great. But we grasp at partial achievement like those two years and act like we have some stellar program and pay and extend accordingly.
We have a solid program, but its not at the top of mid-majors or the conference etc. so we should stop celebrating ourselves and rewarding the coach with pay and extensions that imply otherwise!
So as to Skinn -- - very different situation than Mooney. This was his first ever extension, he was/is clearly turning the program around and it was a one-year extension. Mooney has had a long (and questionable) series of extensions, he had rebuilt the program long ago (to his credit) but has been stagnant (and not upward like Skinn) for a good while and had been extended 2 years earlier and he got two years.
Don't know much about the Capel one (for example, how close was he to the end of his contract etc. or his last (if any extension).
But all of that is just the wrong way to approach it. Others do it so we should too! I would be sure of two things - - (1) plenty of other programs DON'T do it and (2) every situation is different anyway. We shouldn't justify it based on what others do or don't do in different circumstances etc. Let's justify it on our circumstances. To me its a bad decision under these circumstances. I am not saying we fire him, just saying it was ridiculous to extend him at that time and those circumstances. And what Pitt did with Jeff Capel or what GMU (or anyone else) did is irrelevant. The admin on down are a bit lost IMHO on our basketball program with too much celebrating and rewarding just OK performance! We just shouldn't be extending our coach every time we have a good/not great season! Those seasons sorta stand out because of the other seasons being even lesser ones and that's not a great way to be running your program!
See the scheduling thread to note what teams that want to get at large bids do to challenge themselves and assert that they are a top non-P5 program.
I'll also push back against the theory that this is personal Mooney hatred. It's professional accountability.
It's weariness of the program's inability to elevate itself, to challenge itself to be great and to accept mediocrity as inevitable. To put forth via its biggest booster the notion that an NCAA year or a nice winning year means that a losing record the next season is okay, to be expected and that losing seasons are acceptable because we're leafy or whatever. To have to say out loud at a press conference that scheduling is difficult because two D2 teams, including the home opener, are on the schedule. To participate in the worst MTE in the country, in front of 50 fans, with high school JV refs. These are institutional issues.
After 20 years, Chris Mooney is the program. He is the institution. Therefore, the failures reflect on him. It's not personal, it's just the truth of what is happening. The buck stops with the head man. When you lose, everything is heightened. If it's not him who can fix the above issues and can take the heat of fan pressure about them, then this whole thing is house of cards and there is no accountability. I refuse to accept that notion.
Quote pending approval says it all. It's the most truthful thing the program has done in recent memory.
I'll also push back against the theory that this is personal Mooney hatred. It's professional accountability.
It's weariness of the program's inability to elevate itself, to challenge itself to be great and to accept mediocrity as inevitable. To put forth via its biggest booster the notion that an NCAA year or a nice winning year means that a losing record the next season is okay, to be expected and that losing seasons are acceptable because we're leafy or whatever. To have to say out loud at a press conference that scheduling is difficult because two D2 teams, including the home opener, are on the schedule. To participate in the worst MTE in the country, in front of 50 fans, with high school JV refs. These are institutional issues.
After 20 years, Chris Mooney is the program. He is the institution. Therefore, the failures reflect on him. It's not personal, it's just the truth of what is happening. The buck stops with the head man. When you lose, everything is heightened. If it's not him who can fix the above issues and can take the heat of fan pressure about them, then this whole thing is house of cards and there is no accountability. I refuse to accept that notion.
Quote pending approval says it all. It's the most truthful thing the program has done in recent memory.
We don’t know the specifics of Mooney’s contract. For all we know, there could’ve been an automatic extension clause for winning A10 regular season and/or coach of the year. I can’t give a fully informed opinion without knowing the full specifics of the contract extension (salary, buy-out, etc.) but in principle it makes sense to reward someone for what many consider a very good season.
In today’s world of college athletics, particularly with football, contracts heavily favor coaches. How many times have we seen programs (especially from P5) throw everything but the kitchen sink to lure coaches in, only to fire them a few years later and still owe them a bunch of money. We also need to show that we’re willing to award good performances. Believe it or not, one day Mooney will no longer coach at UR and when we interview prospective coaches, we can show how we incentivize and reward success as a reason to attract top quality coaches.
I shared the George Mason example because several have commented how Richmond seems to be the only school doing this kind of stuff and Hardt is foolish to do this. I’m pointing out that other schools that are at our level and above, have done the same thing and for less.
We have a 20 year body of work to judge the program on … and it’s perfectly mediocre. Yay /s
It’s the same idea though that people argue for why Mooney shouldn’t have gotten an extension. Why would George Mason extend someone for a season that didn’t win anything and was average in A10? Sure, don’t fire him and just let his contract play out, but why reward it with an extension? Mooney won A10 coach of the year and A10 regular season which were much more noteworthy than anything George Mason accomplished last year.
My thought is Tony Skinn earned the extension for reasons you alluded to and Mooney also earned his extension for the reasons I alluded to above. It’s all relative to a program and its expectations. Kentucky wanted Calipari gone because he only won one national championship despite having one of the best funding/facilities/resources in college basketball. If we had those kind of results, we would build Mooney a statue. A school like George Mason was happy because they’ve been a below average team since joining the A10 and like you’ve said, Tony Skinn is showing great promise in turning the program around. So for their expectations, he earned an extension.
All I know is with Beilein and with Tarrant I had the belief that every season could be special. With Mooney I am pleasantly surprised when we have a good year.
Well stated. I just believe we have all the pieces in place to have much higher expectations than we do. We are a coach away from having a consistent excellent program!
Skinn is also considered a star at GMU, he was important figure in their FF run.
Very true. Beilein was special. And you know why? Because he could work with the talent he had. That's what makes a good coach. Mooney, on the other hand, needs the perfect storm of talent that exactly fits his unadaptable system.
True but it’s evidently good enough. And worse is that there are those that justify and support mediocrity using every pretzel logic justification and slicing / dicing of creative quantification. In the end there are minimal NCAA appearances, 55 pct winning record, and absolutely torched by VCU. But all of that is good enough for some.
If the Yankees gave Aaron Judge a 10-year deal for $600 million and he proceeded to hit .230 with 25 home runs a year for six straight years, then in year seven hit .340 with 55 HRs, would they immediately give him a 4-year extension for $300 million? I doubt it. But that’s sort of what we’ve done with Mooney on multiple occasions.
It remains funny to read when the vt4700's and student17's bring up 22' NCAA as reason for extension. I've read on it here before. But correctly refuted by many. He already got that extension in 2022.
also lmao about the commuter school Goo Moos comparison. overall it's like our moms used to say if your friend jumped off a bridge would you? At Richmond I guess it's yes. & if Mooney had an auto extension for a damn media A10 coach of year award where is the transparency to say so for highest paid employee of university. don't other schools state that....now where's the bridge. Anyway no way he had TWO years auto extension for that either. otherwise our contracts r even worse garbage. The only auto extension should be NCAA. That is the metric. That is why we went to A10. We did better pre-Mooney. We have 3 in 20 years. even philly bob black says that is underperformance.
why did he need 5 years...makes zero sense. That's what he got. Why wasn't 3 years enough (that's what he had) when he was coming off a losing season followed by a NIT year when we didn't even end up on bubble and ended season on an absolute dud with 3 bad losses. He got REWARDED for that. student17 says we must rewartd that type of preformance. That's a problem imo. A guy who had already received at least 4 other extensions. Let's give the 20 year coach even more 24 year security, someone with only 3 ncaas, has 40% down .500 or less seasons overall, and is the WORST rivalry coach of ALL TIME. A fact nobody cares about within the walls of the RC. Is this how "one of the top basketball programs in the NATION" should operate?
Because we want comfortability. I predicted we would extend him this summer bc they didn't want the risk of bad year then having 2 years left and maybe having a teensy weensy bit of pressure the following year. But no we prefer status quo and comfortability. which is even dumber when you consider the actual years we do really well is when he has that teensy weensy pressure. His first ncaas he got 4 years it was time, 19-20 was needed after those back to back terrible years (BILLBOARD), and 2022 he was finally nearing end of contract when it was doable to move on & it looked like a change was at least possible (PETITION GUY). when he has extra years (comfortability) we don't produce.
also lmao about the commuter school Goo Moos comparison. overall it's like our moms used to say if your friend jumped off a bridge would you? At Richmond I guess it's yes. & if Mooney had an auto extension for a damn media A10 coach of year award where is the transparency to say so for highest paid employee of university. don't other schools state that....now where's the bridge. Anyway no way he had TWO years auto extension for that either. otherwise our contracts r even worse garbage. The only auto extension should be NCAA. That is the metric. That is why we went to A10. We did better pre-Mooney. We have 3 in 20 years. even philly bob black says that is underperformance.
why did he need 5 years...makes zero sense. That's what he got. Why wasn't 3 years enough (that's what he had) when he was coming off a losing season followed by a NIT year when we didn't even end up on bubble and ended season on an absolute dud with 3 bad losses. He got REWARDED for that. student17 says we must rewartd that type of preformance. That's a problem imo. A guy who had already received at least 4 other extensions. Let's give the 20 year coach even more 24 year security, someone with only 3 ncaas, has 40% down .500 or less seasons overall, and is the WORST rivalry coach of ALL TIME. A fact nobody cares about within the walls of the RC. Is this how "one of the top basketball programs in the NATION" should operate?
Because we want comfortability. I predicted we would extend him this summer bc they didn't want the risk of bad year then having 2 years left and maybe having a teensy weensy bit of pressure the following year. But no we prefer status quo and comfortability. which is even dumber when you consider the actual years we do really well is when he has that teensy weensy pressure. His first ncaas he got 4 years it was time, 19-20 was needed after those back to back terrible years (BILLBOARD), and 2022 he was finally nearing end of contract when it was doable to move on & it looked like a change was at least possible (PETITION GUY). when he has extra years (comfortability) we don't produce.
Mason clearly doesn't want their coach to be poached again, 1 year after their last coach left, that would be devastating for trying to build a program. Obviously, it is a COMPLETELY different situation here, with a 20 year tenured head coach, who just received another extension 2 years prior who has said multiple times he has zero desire to leave Richmond, nor does any school want him, and he is already one of the highest paid coaches in our league as it is.
Billboard and the petition were the only 2 things since Mooney has been here that exhibited any type of pressure on Mooney and the administration. One can debate the merits/tactics of each but can not debate the fact that they made Mooney and our leadership feel pressure.
When did I say that winning the A10 tournament in 202 should be reason for an extension in 2024? He got an extension in 2022 for winning the A10 tournament + NCAA R32 and an extension in 2024 for winning A10 regular season and probably the A10 COY. The way I see it, is those are two separate, independent extensions. Winning A10 tournament in 2022 should not be justification for getting an extension in 2024 when he got one in 2022 for that reason. I think we can look at his last 5 years here, which of course includes the A10 tournament, as a better indicator of his next 5 years of success more than looking at his results 10-15 years ago.
That's not my point at all. We are not doing it because George Mason is doing it. We are doing it because that is the trend of what many athletic programs around the country do. It's to refute the notion that we are the only school who does this kind of thing, when its rather commonplace.
They did not disclose specific terms of the contract, so I can't give a fully formed opinion on the matter, but extending through 2028-2029 was likely for recruiting purposes to show a coach being at a school throughout a player's tenure there. I would hope that it includes things like a lesser buy-out because I agree with you and others points that UR holds the chips so to speak and has the negotiating power to set the terms of the contracts.
He did not get rewarded for ending the season with 3 bad losses, he got rewarded for winning A10 regular season and A10 COY. It was very disappointing to end that way, but shouldn't detract from the accomplishment.
Last edited:
Still, my same line of questioning applies: why would George Mason care then if another program takes their coach if the results he is producing are 7th in A10 with a 9-9 record and not winning anything? If the expectations are the same for them as a fellow A10 school, that is NCAA or bust, then by the same argument others have made against Mooney getting a contract extension should also apply to George Mason.
To be clear, I am in agreement with George Mason AD to extend him and think he has done a great job and am saying that programs should reward their coaches for meeting their expectations. For George Mason, that's what they're happy with. For us, it's winning A10 tournaments/A10 regular season, for Kentucky its win a national championship. It's all relative.
And just because you know a coach doesn't want to leave a place, is that really a reason to use against them when deciding whether to give them an extension or not? If you knew someone who works at a company for 20 years and does something noteworthy for a promotion/raise, would you want their boss to not give it to them because the boss knows the employee likes it there, has a family who likes it there, close(ish) to retirement (<7 years), and doesn't want to leave? I don't think that's fair and should not be used against someone in making that determination, regardless whether its a young up-and-coming coach who is looking to leave for P5 or an older, tenured coach with the same program.
Not relevant anymore. Hardly any player stays at a school for their entire college career nowadays.
Completely agree. If that was the thought, it is in line with Hardt's awe and awakening at touring the VCU hoops practice facility, when most of the A10 already had them, let alone the power conferences.
That's a fair argument, but in this case, Mooney has already been rewarded very nicely. And he didn't do enough to warrant another reward.
I agree that this is likely not the norm anymore and Mooney should adjust to this new norm in terms of evaluating players and transfers. Still, I imagine most high school recruits go into a program hoping that they stay there all 4 years (whether that is the case is totally different). I am sure when Mooney recruits high school players or even had the conversation with McGlothin/Robinson about redshirting, its keeping in mind their development over a 4-5 year stretch at a program. But yes, I think its fair to say the norm in how recruiting is done has changed, and Mooney needs to adjust to that.
well done by mr. spider. of course it detracts and u need FIVE years for recruiting purposes when the kids stay on average 2? lol.
student17 I won't go back and search it up. Technically my use of "the" vt4700's and student17's was a generalization. the english literature majors on here can confirm or deny. It was said by vt4700 in this post but I know I read it on here b4 too. Considering I disagree with about 90% of what you write I was confident.
Does "one of the top basketball programs in the NATION" typically give extensions after back to back losing seasons and NIT seasons? Also, u once mentioned a down year was inevitable. Not going to cite it for you - the admins can scold me for improper citation - but Mooney takes that to another level. 40% of his seasons r bad .500 or under inevitable seasons. Besides being the worst rivalry coach of ALL TIME (researched and cited) I will get my crack team on finding out if he has the most bad seasons of anyone at his level and tenure. We could have the worst rivalry of ALL TIME and the worst bad season coach of ALL TIME. Story at 11. Or more likely future Barstool sports blog & tweet.
student17 I won't go back and search it up. Technically my use of "the" vt4700's and student17's was a generalization. the english literature majors on here can confirm or deny. It was said by vt4700 in this post but I know I read it on here b4 too. Considering I disagree with about 90% of what you write I was confident.
Does "one of the top basketball programs in the NATION" typically give extensions after back to back losing seasons and NIT seasons? Also, u once mentioned a down year was inevitable. Not going to cite it for you - the admins can scold me for improper citation - but Mooney takes that to another level. 40% of his seasons r bad .500 or under inevitable seasons. Besides being the worst rivalry coach of ALL TIME (researched and cited) I will get my crack team on finding out if he has the most bad seasons of anyone at his level and tenure. We could have the worst rivalry of ALL TIME and the worst bad season coach of ALL TIME. Story at 11. Or more likely future Barstool sports blog & tweet.
Thank you. The goal of our program (frankly any program) should be to advance to the playoff in your respective sport. For D-1 MBB that is the NCAA tournament. We had a great regular season last year and it resulted in an NIT game that most of us didn't care about and obviously the team didn't care that much either as they easily got bounced by an equally disinterested and quite pedestrian Virginia Tech team. If he wins the tournament and goes to the NCAA last year, than I would agree an extension would be worthy because he met what should be the goal of the program. That is not what happened though.
And we said great, it took you 20 years to win the regular season title of a 15 team league, here is an extension for being below the law of averages.
Also I don't care what George Mason is doing. They are not my school and they are inconsequential in the college basketball world at present. George Mason last made the NCAA in 2011, is this the type of program we should look at to emulate. They do regularly beat Mooney though so perhaps so.
