Mens - @ VCU - Sat 2/1 4pm CBSSN

[spiderstudent17]

Queally runs are athletics department. Hardt answers to him. There is no question on that.

And that is a problem. Circling back though to my first point in all of this, is that when Hardt has been placed with the decision to hire a coach for our sports team, he’s done a really good job. If he were to make the decision to hire our men’s basketball coach without any external influences (I.e. Queally) I think he’ll do a good job given his track record so far.

 

[MrTbone]

I heard from a friend of mine who stays in close contact with UR athletics that if we didn’t win in 2022, Mooney would’ve been gone. Not sure how accurate that is or if other sources here want to confirm. Fact is thought that he won - even if it was as a 6th seed and an underwhelming regular season that year - plus he had an NCAA win against Iowa. He followed it up with A10 regular season championship 2 years later and won A10 COY.

With those results alone, Mooney isn’t going to be fired this season or to be honest even next season if it’s underwhelming again. That’s just my opinion based on all the factors I’ve discussed on this thread. Earliest I can see is after 2026-2027 season. 3 years in a row with lousy results at that point, and I think Mooney will retire. That’s my guess of how things would go down.

Oh I’m on record that there is nothing that will dislodge him other than himself. I can see pressure from “someone” at some point but even then it’ll be CM retiring.

All I’m saying is that I don’t care if our AD has shown any competence in his hiring decisions when his firing decisions are super suspect. He does not act like an AD who believes in setting a high bar for performance.

 

[spiderstudent17]

All I’m saying is that I don’t care if our AD has shown any competence in his hiring decisions when his firing decisions are super suspect. He does not act like an AD who believes in setting a high bar for performance.

How much of this lack of firing do you think is on Hardt, influence from Queally, or byproduct of a University that does not emphasize athletics as much as we all wish it would?

In other words, if Hardt had 100% control in decision making where buy-out money wasn’t a factor and our big time donors didn’t have any influence on decision making (who to fire or hire), what do you think Hardt would’ve done or do? It’s easy to blame Hardt for things, but he is probably restricted in many ways, mostly by our own desire to not alienate one of our biggest donors and our university culture/philosophy towards athletics in general. With what he has been able to do, it’s been mostly a good job in my honest opinion: fundraising, facility upgrades, hiring of coaches, and academic success with our student athletes.

10 out of 19 of our sports teams last year either finished 1st or 2nd in A10 regular season and/or tournament. We won 5 championships last year (football, MBB regular season, WBB regular season + tournament, WLax tournament).

 

[MrTbone]

How much of this lack of firing do you think is on Hardt, influence from Queally, or byproduct of a University that does not emphasize athletics as much as we all wish it would?

In other words, if Hardt had 100% control in decision making where buy-out money wasn’t a factor and our big time donors didn’t have any influence on decision making (who to fire or hire), what do you think Hardt would’ve done or do? It’s easy to blame Hardt for things, but he is probably restricted in many ways, mostly by our own desire to not alienate one of our biggest donors and our university culture/philosophy towards athletics in general. With what he has been able to do, it’s been mostly a good job in my honest opinion: fundraising, facility upgrades, hiring of coaches, and academic success with our student athletes.

10 out of 19 of our sports teams last year either finished 1st or 2nd in A10 regular season and/or tournament. We won 5 championships last year (football, MBB regular season, WBB regular season + tournament, WLax tournament).

How many of the 10 sports where we finished 1st or 2nd do you follow or care about? Are any of them more impactful or valuable to the university than basketball?

It’s irrelevant why he is unable to move us forward, he is responsible for athletic success, right? I’m not saying it’s un-nuanced, it of course is, but therein is the problem. People are making excuses for what is clearly a low bar.

 

[MrTbone]

Perhaps more importantly, what gives you any confidence he won’t be neutered for some future basketball choice he may magically get to make? He’s not shown the ability to move the needle yet.

 

[97spiderfan]

And that is a problem. Circling back though to my first point in all of this, is that when Hardt has been placed with the decision to hire a coach for our sports team, he’s done a really good job. If he were to make the decision to hire our men’s basketball coach without any external influences (I.e. Queally) I think he’ll do a good job given his track record so far.

This we can agree upon. Giving complete control of your MBB to your biggest donor is not healthy, in fact it is harmful. Very much akin to the Dallas Cowboys with Jerry Jones. Dallas is rarely terrible because of Jerry's money/Dallas status but they will never be great either because of his influence in the operations side of things. Just as with us, our program with the financial resources that Queally (and others) and the financial status of the University as whole, we are always going to be one of the better funded A-10 programs, but because we don't let our professional athletic leadership make personnel decisions, we are a 55% winning program.

 

[MrTbone]

How much of this lack of firing do you think is on Hardt, influence from Queally, or byproduct of a University that does not emphasize athletics as much as we all wish it would?

Btw, I failed to answer the question. I think this is 100% on Hardt. Using your own contact’s sources, he had the green light to terminate him in 2022. I doubt that is purely conditioned on parameters that are set by some kind of Opus Dei cabal. Hardts call, he just is unwilling to make it, for whatever reason.

But that said, of course he is influenced by others. Possibly by Queally (who here actually knows), less likely by Hallock (I think he stays out of this fray), and even more minutely by BoT or some other fringe figure.

I don’t believe it’s really a buyout issue. The university is obligated to set aside his salary for whatever contractual value it’s worth, so the money is allocated to future operating expenses regardless. Yes they’d have to then sign up for additional salary for a new coach for whatever years remain, but that’s a net cost of what, maybe $1-4M? We aren’t going out and getting a high end coach. if UR was ever to consider that, it’s a manageable number. But we don’t buy out contracts, so I’ll concede that.

 

[VegasSpider]

Here you go:
From JOC article in RTD - “Even though we haven’t had a ton of success and wins, we’ve really competed,” Mooney said of UR’s season. “Tonight, it felt like we didn’t.”

I really take offense to this actually. I think the kids HAVE competed all year, I agree with that actually. I like the investment that I see from guys like AP, Dusan, Walz... and even GWIII. But, I think it's a really ignorant take to come in and say "it felt like we didn't compete tonight".

Have you ever watched a guy with no arms try to open a pickle jar? Do you think when the guy uses his feet and the jar falls and breaks into six thousand pieces that he's not trying? They were given zero tools.

I'd like someone to say... in the presser ... its not that we weren't competing.... what more would you have liked us to do exactly? What did the coaches do to compete at the start of the second half? Can anyone name a single adjustment we made strategically at any point during the game on Saturday? Just one. I didn't see any.

Do you think we lost by 40 cause the coaches said "cmon guys play harder" and they didn't..... and ONLY if they would've... everything changes?

I don't feel like the guys gave up. I really don't. We can all agree they didn't play well, but I really want to know what playing well looks like in this scenario.

We were 20 point underdogs. 20. Just so we're all clear.... when you're a 20 point underdog (and I know a little about this) there are a statistically significant amount of results/trials where we lose this game by 30+ points. The 41 point loss is ugly, but its not some crazy anomaly if you run this specific trial 1000 times.

By the way, just as an aside, I've never heard Roussell say... I wish the ladies would've competed harder. Typically, the first thing he says is.... I wish we would've made this change sooner... and that's on me.