ADVERTISEMENT

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

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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Yea, it’s not like CM is wanted by any other program.
 
Student17 have u ever met Hardt? I’d say mortal lock u haven’t. Some of us have. Just saying u might have little bit of a different take.

Also no offense I don’t really trust your grading system when u have applauded Mooney extensions (b4 recent backtracking), have zero increased expectations for a 20 year coach, don’t want to schedule hard teams, etc. Mik Aoki was 27-32 last year. I expect he’ll have another losing season this year. Him & the field hockey r incomplete grades. We all wish field hockey well I know girls who play, but no AD is judged on a field hockey hire. The guy didn’t even show up for the Patriot League football press conf move.

Remember there was no real AD search. It was fake. David Hale was full of shit. Just another example that soured me on UR admin. Queally hired Hardt.

I do agree Moon isn’t going anywhere.
 
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.
Great point, I see many coaches take this on themself. Does moon? I honestly don't know - I don't waste my time as he never says anything.
 
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.
As many have mentioned on here before. Mooney has taken away all basketball instincts from the players.
Pretty sure that Walz would have some sort of an inside game and has shown that he can rebound if he were allowed to play inside and rebound.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8legs1dream
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.
Did we not play hard as Mooney said? I don't know. I will say VCU played harder than us at all times.

As has been discussed ad nauseum, Mooney's disdain of the offensive rebound, sit back and wait defense, fluid pass it around that perimeter offense takes a lot of the competitive juices out of how players are hard wired to play. It is also a stark 100% contrast to VCU' s style of play which is too contest everything 100%, guard you full court every single play, harass and trap you in the half court, shock and awe offense.

I know which style of play I prefer and obviously which style was successful on the court was never in doubt. We play like a bunch of sissies. We actually have some hard nosed players in Dusan, AP, Tyne, Roche maybe if Mooney said f it, let's just go out and be junkyard dogs and fight for every loose scrap on the court, we would at least be entertaining. But everyone knows that isn't happening.

This is only going to get worse in my opinion this year. At some point, whatever fight is left in this team is gonna bleed out.
 
it was interesting hearing Mooney pregame on Friday talking about how good vcu is at O rebounds and hard to defend as result. but alas I don't think it was a light bulb moment. I also wondered how we aren't 1 of the leaders in fast break pts with every team hitting the O glass on us. In fact we are really bad at the fast break.
 
Student17 have u ever met Hardt? I’d say mortal lock u haven’t. Some of us have. Just saying u might have little bit of a different take.
I have and spoken to him several times.
Also no offense I don’t really trust your grading system when u have applauded Mooney extensions (b4 recent backtracking), have zero increased expectations for a 20 year coach, don’t want to schedule hard teams, etc.
I am not going to discuss all of these points again, but backtracking to me here seems to have negative connotation. I based my thought process of what information I have before me and am willing to amend what I say after hearing people out and whether I agree with their points or not.
We all wish field hockey well I know girls who play, but no AD is judged on a field hockey hire. The guy didn’t even show up for the Patriot League football press conf move.
Men's basketball is without question our #1 priority as an athletic department. I bring up the points of these other hires because with other data of coaching hires, to smaller degree of importance, he has done a solid job. The alternative would be wanting or thinking Hardt will do a good job of hiring our men's basketball coach without any evidence of other hires in Richmond. At least now, there is some indication that he would do a good job with that. So in a way, he should be judged off field hockey and baseball hires to trust him enough to do basketball. But your right that his legacy as AD will be more of his advancement of basketball than the other sports.
Mik Aoki was 27-32 last year. I expect he’ll have another losing season this year. Him & the field hockey r incomplete grades.
Even baseball that didn't have a winning season, still improved enough to make A10 finals in year 1. We have a great class coming in too. I don't expect immediate turn arounds, just that he and field hockey has done a good job. I will amend - or backtrack if that's how you like to put it - if in the next few years he does a very poor job.
Remember there was no real AD search. It was fake. David Hale was full of shit. Just another example that soured me on UR admin. Queally hired Hardt.
Like I said to 97, if Queally has too much influence on these types of decisions, that is not a good thing. We should all be appreciative of his financial support for facility upgrades, NIL, etc. but he should not be impacting decision making at that level in my opinion. Part of it is reality of college athletics, part is probably UR not wanting to alienate him as donor, and part is university culture/philosophy towards athletics. If we had more big time donors or there was more pressure of success, then I think circumstances will be different. Still, with whatever hands tied decision making Hardt has done with hiring new coaches, he's done a good job in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiderman
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.
Personally I follow all of them and do care as a Spider alum and fan. But I get your point. I, like many others here, are not spending our time talking about our golf team.

He is the face of our athletic department, but my question is how responsible is he, really? Does he have his hands tied with big donors, or BoT? I have no idea. I completely agree with 97 that it is unhealthy for our AD to rely on the influence of one mega donor. That is not a good thing. With whatever limitations he has had in place, I think he's done a good job in a variety of ways. Also we talk about Mooney's entire 20 year tenure here, but can we agree that outside 2010-2011, 2020-2024 was our best stretch under Mooney? That was under Hardt's leadership. Compared to Keith Gill, I think he has done a much better job overall, despite me disagreeing with some of his decisions.
 
I've heard several times that Hardt is even more invisible to the athletic department than Gill was, which is saying something considering Gill lived in DC. He barely speaks to most of the head coaches.
 
I've heard several times that Hardt is even more invisible to the athletic department than Gill was, which is saying something considering Gill lived in DC. He barely speaks to most of the head coaches.
This is Hardt's retirement gig. Just getting enough money to upgrade the Beach House and then him and the Ms. can retire travel the word.
 
Personally I follow all of them and do care as a Spider alum and fan. But I get your point. I, like many others here, are not spending our time talking about our golf team.

He is the face of our athletic department, but my question is how responsible is he, really? Does he have his hands tied with big donors, or BoT? I have no idea. I completely agree with 97 that it is unhealthy for our AD to rely on the influence of one mega donor. That is not a good thing. With whatever limitations he has had in place, I think he's done a good job in a variety of ways. Also we talk about Mooney's entire 20 year tenure here, but can we agree that outside 2010-2011, 2020-2024 was our best stretch under Mooney? That was under Hardt's leadership. Compared to Keith Gill, I think he has done a much better job overall, despite me disagreeing with some of his decisions.
Keith Gill remote worked the AD job before remote work was a thing. So, if Hardt shows up to the office more often than not, that just there is doing more than Gill could muster for us.
 
Key parts of the job of the AD are to stay on the good side of big donors AND attract new big donors AND get buy-in from those groups for his or her vision for the athletics program and our future path.

Clearly that's a challenge for Hardt because Queally hired him since their daughters were roommates at UR, but it shouldn't let him off the hook.

If Hardt is not an idiot, he must realize that the Mooney ship has sailed. In fact it's largely been sailing around in circles for 13 or 14 years now. At this point, losing this much is going to cost us NIL donors. If we go 8-22 this year, how many of the current Spider Collective members are going to be excited to dump another $50k in next year? And if we lose a bunch of those donors, the caliber of player we can attract will be even worse.

If Mooney can't win with these guys, how's he going to do it with anyone worse? You don't get four years to build a team any more – you get one year. Mooney's systems are not adaptable, and he refuses to adapt himself.

Hardt needs to have a come-to-Jesus chat with Queally, which shouldn't be difficult since they know each other so well. This is literally his job.

"Hey Paul, you know how much the university values all your contributions, and I know how much you want our programs to be successful or else you wouldn't be so giving. I want the same thing, and it's now clear to me that in order to achieve that goal in men's basketball, we need a new approach. Let's chat about this over a porterhouse or 12 Friday night, shall we?"
 
Last edited:
You don't get four years to build a team any more – you get one year.
This is where Moon is playing Triumvirate Chess (copyright that one Gkiller) and the rest of us are playing message board checkers. Moon is stockpiling redshirts and incoming freshman, and plans to build this way in this post covid early onset NIL portal era. He is selling the long game and the other two are playing along. They probably read posts like this and laugh their a$$es off all day long. Or log into their 80s or Annap account and troll away. SUCKERS.
 
This is where Moon is playing Triumvirate Chess (copyright that one Gkiller) and the rest of us are playing message board checkers. Moon is stockpiling redshirts and incoming freshman, and plans to build this way in this post covid early onset NIL portal era. He is selling the long game and the other two are playing along. They probably read posts like this and laugh their a$$es off all day long. Or log into their 80s or Annap account and troll away. SUCKERS.

good work. submitting it to the patent attorney now. he's busy.

note to our young readers. consider being a patent attorney. u can do well. The one for the Yeti is getting a big bonus. Of course U of R had the worst ones.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT