Mooney Ranking - The Athletic

[spider23]

This may be firewalled, so apologies.

College basketball coaching tiers 2023: Dan Hurley moves into Tier 1, John Calipari falls

Based on expert input and our own criteria, here's how we rank the top coaches in Division I.

theathletic.com

Mooney is ranked in tier 5, by my count the first four tiers have ~86 coaches - so he comes in around 100 - give or take.

I am still of the opinion that we can have success like a St. Mary's or VCU. But I think we need an upgrade. Not going to happen any time soon, but this list is a good referene for our AD - if he had a pulse.

 

[ManiBenton]

The Athletic article is a joke for having mooney in tier 5......... Tier 7 at best.

 

[KE Spider]

This may be firewalled, so apologies.

College basketball coaching tiers 2023: Dan Hurley moves into Tier 1, John Calipari falls

Based on expert input and our own criteria, here's how we rank the top coaches in Division I.

theathletic.com

Mooney is ranked in tier 5, by my count the first four tiers have ~86 coaches - so he comes in around 100 - give or take.

I am still of the opinion that we can have success like a St. Mary's or VCU. But I think we need an upgrade. Not going to happen any time soon, but this list is a good referene for our AD - if he had a pulse.

Believe they are saying what we all, well most, already know. Pedestrian coach. Mr. Double Nickel.

Not someone other programs are salivating to steal from us...then again we were 24-7 in 2020, made the Dance 3 times in 18 years so that absolves all to some.

To me, it fails to meet Richmond standards.

 

[SpiderTrap]

Believe they are saying what we all, well most, already know. Pedestrian coach. Mr. Double Nickel.

Not someone other programs are salivating to steal from us...then again we were 24-7 in 2020, made the Dance 3 times in 18 years so that absolves all to some.

To me, it fails to meet Richmond standards.

To me - this fits UR standards perfectly. Not too good to draw too much attention to athletics, we would not want that to happen because we already know the administration feels they "dumb" down our student pool. But not terrible where are a laughing stock. Tier 5 - right around 100 ranking is the ideal landing spot for UR Basketball. We strive to be just a top 100 program. Some years - we will have good years and be an NCAA team, other years we will struggle, but be middle of the pack around 120-150. And then majority of the time we fall right around 100. 100 is right in that "compete" but not win territory that UR loves to be in.

 

[SpiderRick]

This may be firewalled, so apologies.

College basketball coaching tiers 2023: Dan Hurley moves into Tier 1, John Calipari falls

Based on expert input and our own criteria, here's how we rank the top coaches in Division I.

theathletic.com

Mooney is ranked in tier 5, by my count the first four tiers have ~86 coaches - so he comes in around 100 - give or take.

I am still of the opinion that we can have success like a St. Mary's or VCU. But I think we need an upgrade. Not going to happen any time soon, but this list is a good referene for our AD - if he had a pulse.

well if they are ranking ADs, then Hardt just be tier 99

 

[spider23]

To me - this fits UR standards perfectly. Not too good to draw too much attention to athletics, we would not want that to happen because we already know the administration feels they "dumb" down our student pool. But not terrible where are a laughing stock. Tier 5 - right around 100 ranking is the ideal landing spot for UR Basketball. We strive to be just a top 100 program. Some years - we will have good years and be an NCAA team, other years we will struggle, but be middle of the pack around 120-150. And then majority of the time we fall right around 100. 100 is right in that "compete" but not win territory that UR loves to be in.

Unfortunately you are the voice of reason here. Our admin is content to lay low.

 

[KE Spider]

To me - this fits UR standards perfectly. Not too good to draw too much attention to athletics, we would not want that to happen because we already know the administration feels they "dumb" down our student pool. But not terrible where are a laughing stock. Tier 5 - right around 100 ranking is the ideal landing spot for UR Basketball. We strive to be just a top 100 program. Some years - we will have good years and be an NCAA team, other years we will struggle, but be middle of the pack around 120-150. And then majority of the time we fall right around 100. 100 is right in that "compete" but not win territory that UR loves to be in.

Trap, well stated. Hit the nail on the head from my observations.

Sad, but true. So disappointed that our school is not committed to being the best they can be in all school pursuits. See it as a black eye for UR.

 

[RichmondNative]

I think Tier 5 is a reach and seems that credit is being given for longevity at current school. Top half of coaches in D1, but not top third in my opinion (so coach 150 instead of 100).

 

[ManiBenton]

Top 300 at the highest I mean this guy has lost so many games to worse opponents and fails to compete with the good ones. The fraud can thank Gilyard and co for that boost.

 

[Eight Legger]

There are only 17 coaches ranked below him, so it's not an exactly a ringing endorsement. Of course this one didn't rank all D1 coaches either.

 

[gcarter52]

Moles in the House!

 

[AnnapSpider]

Trap, well stated. Hit the nail on the head from my observations.

Sad, but true. So disappointed that our school is not committed to being the best they can be in all school pursuits. See it as a black eye for UR.

My God, what are you talking about? “We’re not committed to being the best.“
Name me one or two small, private universities that are better than Richmond In athletics.

 

[MrTbone]

My God, what are you talking about? “We’re not committed to being the best.“
Name me one or two small, private universities that are better than Richmond In athletics.

Davidson probably would qualify right now as better in most athletics than UR.

 

[97spiderfan]

My God, what are you talking about? “We’re not committed to being the best.“
Name me one or two small, private universities that are better than Richmond In athletics.

Well of, since you asked. Davidson, Duke, Gonzaga, Marquette, Providence, SLU, Seton Hall, Dayton, Villanova, Xavier. All our small private universities that I think most would say are better at athletics, specifically men's basketball, as that is what this discussion is about.

 

[spiderman]

Well of, since you asked. Davidson, Duke, Gonzaga, Marquette, Providence, SLU, Seton Hall, Dayton, Villanova, Xavier. All our small private universities that I think most would say are better at athletics, specifically men's basketball, as that is what this discussion is about.

we define "small" differently. almost all of those are at least twice our size. and most have a huge advantage in conference affiliation. but yes, I don't know what Davidson does differently but they're doing something right.

(or at least they were under McKillop Sr)

 

[97spiderfan]

we define "small" differently. almost all of those are at least twice our size. and most have a huge advantage in conference affiliation. but yes, I don't know what Davidson does differently but they're doing something right.

(or at least they were under McKillop Sr)

True, I stayed under 10K for my small definition but yes some of those schools have 2-3 times as many students as we do. Another school, that is actually smaller than us, that I neglected to add was St. Mary's. I think schools like Davidson, St. Mary's, Gonzaga, Xavier, Dayton, SLU are probably our best comparisons. Smallish private colleges/universities that do not play in a P6 conference.

And remember, Gonzaga was not Gonzaga before Few, Xavier was in our same conference just a few years ago. Those schools made very deliberate steps to raise the profile of the MBB program, so they might not seem like peers schools anymore, but to me that is just because they put in the work and had the vision to make it happen, whereas we are unwilling and lack a similar vision.

 

[SpiderTrap]

My God, what are you talking about? “We’re not committed to being the best.“
Name me one or two small, private universities that are better than Richmond In athletics.

Duke, Gonzaga, Davidson, St. Mary's California, Creighton, Marquette, Xavier.........

Note - this is just basketball related. I have no idea if Creighton is any good in Women's soccer or lacrosse.

 

[KE Spider]

One stat says it all - 55%.

Anyone or any institution content with a 55% winning percentage over 17-18 years is screaming a successful basketball program isn't really that important to them. Most sadly, it is who UR is.

My last bash (deserved) of BB program for the season.

Wish the team the best. Go Spiders!

 

[97spiderfan]

Duke, Gonzaga, Davidson, St. Mary's California, Creighton, Marquette, Xavier.........

Note - this is just basketball related. I have no idea if Creighton is any good in Women's soccer or lacrosse.

Creighton is a great example. 4,000 undergrad. Played in a MVC just a few years ago, now a big time player in the Big East. That could have been us, had we had the vision, leadership, drive to make it happen. And now every casual fans of sports knows about Creighton because the basketball team helped to make that happen. Great marketing for the entire school when your sports teams are relevant.

 

[8legs1dream]

Creighton is a great example. 4,000 undergrad. Played in a MVC just a few years ago, now a big time player in the Big East. That could have been us, had we had the vision, leadership, drive to make it happen. And now every casual fans of sports knows about Creighton because the basketball team helped to make that happen. Great marketing for the entire school when your sports teams are relevant.

the fact that we have out of touch fans that think we are the height of athletic success for "small universities" is just laugh out loud bad

 

[97spiderfan]

Creighton is a great example. 4,000 undergrad. Played in a MVC just a few years ago, now a big time player in the Big East. That could have been us, had we had the vision, leadership, drive to make it happen. And now every casual fans of sports knows about Creighton because the basketball team helped to make that happen. Great marketing for the entire school when your sports teams are relevant.

And we've got Mooney, who seems to be cantankerous with the one local media source (RTD) that finds our program relevant enough to actually cover from time to time.

 

[SpiderTrap]

One stat says it all - 55%.

Anyone or any institution content with a 55% winning percentage over 17-18 years is screaming a successful basketball program isn't really that important to them. Most sadly, it is who UR is.

My last bash (deserved) of BB program for the season.

Wish the team the best. Go Spiders!

55% - I got a feeling we will be right around that percentage this year. 17-14 record.

 

[Deep in Central Time]

Creighton gets great community support from beyond the alumni base. Usually top 5 in basketball attendance per game in the country. This clicked in for me when I tried to buy a ticket to Campbell / Creighton in November 2011 and the only remaining seats for me and the family were one row from the top of a big NBA sized arena. They were in the MVC then and had one sweet sixteen in the last 40 years before that.

 

[ManiBenton]

My God, what are you talking about? “We’re not committed to being the best.“
Name me one or two small, private universities that are better than Richmond In athletics.

This has to be fake right?

 

[AnnapSpider]

1

This has to be fake right?

To say “Sad, but true. So disappointed that our school is not committed to being the best they can be in all school pursuits. See it as a black eye for UR.” has to be fake.
Everything gets covered with one umbrella - basketball. Let’’s ask FCS football how Richmond got so far in the
playoffs last year. Tell Chemotti to quit going to NCAA playoffs. Tell Mooney to give back out A-10 Trophy and victory
over Iowa .
And be sure to tell our new baseball coach that is was hired to just keep us loosing.
.
some of you should have gone to Michigan or Ohio State.

 

[MrTbone]

1

To say “Sad, but true. So disappointed that our school is not committed to being the best they can be in all school pursuits. See it as a black eye for UR.” has to be fake.
Everything gets covered with one umbrella - basketball. Let’’s ask FCS football how Richmond got so far in the
playoffs last year. Tell Chemotti to quit going to NCAA playoffs. Tell Mooney to give back out A-10 Trophy and victory
over Iowa .
And be sure to tell our new baseball coach that is was hired to just keep us loosing.
.
some of you should have gone to Michigan or Ohio State.

I don’t really fall into the doom and gloom category when it comes to UR athletics, but it’s hard to argue that UR cares about “winning”. That’s quite different than just caring. I think they care, but as noted, it’s probably more about putting a clean product out there and not letting sports drive any negative PR, which sometimes come when coaching terminations occur prior to contracts running out. That seems to be territory we just won’t wade into.

Further, the argument is more longitudinal. We have not demonstrated any real consistent success in any sport over the past decade or so. Modest recent success with bball and football after long gaps of being kind of irrelevant. Lax has shown promise but championship level performance is a bit hard to come by at UR.

It’s hyperbolic to say we don’t care. But it’s reasonably accurate to say we don’t seem overly concerned about not winning and for the most part, even less concerned when we are losing.

That’s the conundrum.

 

[SpiderTrap]

Our Athletic program as a whole is good. The problem with being good - is people, myself included - will want you them to take the next step. What is the next step - well, lets look at the sports noted above.

Basketball - be a consistent NCAA tourney participant. Not a team who makes it every 4-5 years.
Football - be a consistent playoff team. Not every 4 years or so. We had this going - making the playoffs in 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009 and won the title in 2008. Then disappeared for 5 years and came back in 2014, 2015, 2016 - but then disappeared again until 2022. Could we be a team that makes it consistently every year, with an off year here and there? Not 4-5 years straight without making it.
Lacrosse - they seem to be making the lacrosse tourney, but then losing first round. I know one of the many explanations given for adding lacrosse at UR was because there were only about 60 D1 lacrosse teams at the time we entered and it would be easier and faster for UR to compete for National Championships in lacrosse. Chemotti has done the first part - 10 years of the program, 5 NCAA appearances, but all first round losses. Can we take the next step and become a team that is a serious contender for the final four or have we reached our ceiling - we can win our conference and make the tourney, but will consistently be a first round loss.
Baseball - really fallen off since the early 2000's and World Series days. Can UR just become a team that is a top 4 team in the A10 on a consistent basis. Then we can worry about getting back to the WS tourney.

So is our athletic program terrible - of course not. But in our flagship sports of Basketball and Football - I think everyone always wants more consistency. Then the next level of Lacrosse and Baseball - can they take the next step? Some will say YES. Others will say - this is as good as it gets.

 

[Eight Legger]

I'm tired of our size being used as a self-imposed barrier to success. It's true that we have achieved some nice success in some of our sports, and that's great! It's also evidence that we can do it regardless of what size we are. Look, we have chosen to compete in D1 athletics for years and years. If it's such a hindrance to do so given our size, we should stop doing it. Since we haven't stopped, though, we should be all in to win. And we can't use our size as an excuse.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I'm tired of our size being used as a self-imposed barrier to success. It's true that we have achieved some nice success in some of our sports, and that's great! It's also evidence that we can do it regardless of what size we are. Look, we have chosen to compete in D1 athletics for years and years. If it's such a hindrance to do so given our size, we should stop doing it. Since we haven't stopped, though, we should be all in to win. And we can't use our size as an excuse.

Agree 100% - I hate the size argument and the academics excuse. Our admissions is more difficult, wah wah wah....these are self-imposed barriers. Size really doesn't matter cause its not like we hosting open tryouts and only picking from a 4K student pool as opposed to VCU picking from a 30K student pool. We recruit the same kids in all sports just like everyone else. And we have even been ranked as the most beautiful campus - so size really doesn't matter. Admissions - self-imposed. If that is such a hinderance, then lets join a league that has similar academic requirements - in my mind, thats looking at the Patriot League. Cause we are not an Ivy league school

 

[8legs1dream]

if we could join the Ivy League then maybe they would be the one's complaining about our admissions standards being too low 😂

 

[spiderman]

admissions is just a minor hinderance. we fish in a smaller pond, but there are great players in that pond that prefer a UR to many other schools.

but size is absolutely a real obstacle. call it an excuse if you want, but there aren't a lot of schools with just over 3,000 undergrads in non-P6 conferences becoming national powers. talk to any kid in AAU. nobody dreams of playing at a school with 3,000 undergrads. plus our size now factors into an NIL pool disadvantage.

but yes, we can succeed more often than we have.

 

[spider23]

Well, sman, you talk to people in there 50's and they think of Richmond as a good hoops school - b/c they still remember us beating Cuse, Indiana, etc. You talk to kids and not so much. Yes, Iowa, but we need to follow that up.

St. Mary's enrollment: 3,900.

SDSU has not had a top 100 recruit in 7 years (coming out of hs).

We need to stop with excuses.

 

[spiderman]

St Mary's was brilliant locking up the Australian market years ago! we need a pipeline to somewhere.

 

[SpiderTrap]

admissions is just a minor hinderance. we fish in a smaller pond, but there are great players in that pond that prefer a UR to many other schools.

but size is absolutely a real obstacle. call it an excuse if you want, but there aren't a lot of schools with just over 3,000 undergrads in non-P6 conferences becoming national powers. talk to any kid in AAU. nobody dreams of playing at a school with 3,000 undergrads. plus our size now factors into an NIL pool disadvantage.

but yes, we can succeed more often than we have.

Kids don't want to play at our school, not because of the size - but because of our low profile. We are a team that gets very little student support, we don't pack the Robins Center on a nightly basis, and we are not a top tier team contending for A10 titles or NCAA berths on a consistent basis.

Duke is smaller than us, and play in a glorified HS gym. Why are they able to attract kids? Is it simply because they are in the ACC? NO. It is because they are in the ACC and consistently WIN. I am not saying we would compete with Duke, but you translate that to the A10 - if we were a consistent top 4 team and NCAA team in the A10 - we would be out recruiting our peers, filling up the stands, and hopefully getting more student support.

Agree to disagree - size is not the problem. And if it is the problem - shouldn't our successful, yet small, alumni base make up for it with their large donations - our billion dollars of endowment, shouldn't that be the offset?

 

[spider23]

St Mary's was brilliant locking up the Australian market years ago! we need a pipeline to somewhere.

Looks like they still are, 4 on roster from Australia now, and one Lithuanian. Star player (Maheny) is local and grew up rooting for them.

 

[spider23]

We landed a great prospect in Duinker from Australia , and then stopped. He did not ever fully develop, and was in Moon's dog house - and that was it. So not sure why we stopped, I mean its a long flight, but Im sure PQ would pony up the 1500.00 and send Giper.

 

[KE Spider]

At least, Trusler is doing us proud in football.

 

[8legs1dream]

Kind of concerned at the international flavor of the team down the road as there are some damn nice international players out there to be gotten, heaven forbid they start tapping into that on top of all the other advantages they have enjoyed over the years.

 

[GKiller]

Kids don't want to play at our school, not because of the size - but because of our low profile. We are a team that gets very little student support, we don't pack the Robins Center on a nightly basis, and we are not a top tier team contending for A10 titles or NCAA berths on a consistent basis.

Duke is smaller than us, and play in a glorified HS gym. Why are they able to attract kids? Is it simply because they are in the ACC? NO. It is because they are in the ACC and consistently WIN. I am not saying we would compete with Duke, but you translate that to the A10 - if we were a consistent top 4 team and NCAA team in the A10 - we would be out recruiting our peers, filling up the stands, and hopefully getting more student support.

Agree to disagree - size is not the problem. And if it is the problem - shouldn't our successful, yet small, alumni base make up for it with their large donations - our billion dollars of endowment, shouldn't that be the offset?

Duke smaller? Duke is double our size undergrad. And if u count grad students which usually isn't too relevant but probably moreso for a place like Duke, they r over 17k. They r small undergrad but much bigger than us. Double students, double alumni, double employees, double ppl associated with Duke connections etc. Have you been to Cameron? yes they have bleachers that pull out near court but they got seatbacks 365 around court. It's historic. Wouldn't think to refer as glorified HS gym. That's VCU.

Look I believe we make too many excuses. Admissions especially. They are not THE reason but contributing factors of course. I think naive to say size plays no role.

We could fill the RC easy with double enrollment imo. St. Mary's plays in a 3500 seat gym. And Duke can't be the example every time. There r others - Nova Gonzaga - but the historic league affiiation helps most, Gonzaga & St. Mary's closer examples but St. Mary's feels more fleeting.

But it is what it is, succeed on your strengths. I agree with u that a lot of things r our choice. But I also wish we were larger, it would help. We aren't so u move on. But I certainly understand Sman's point.

Lastly, our supposedly successful alumni base giving large donations is a little overrated. I don't really see it, a larger alumni base is a benefit there too. Like many things a simple numbers game.

 

[spiderman]

Kids don't want to play at our school, not because of the size - but because of our low profile.

kids do want to play at our school, obviously. we're a great school in a good conference. we have amazing facilities. we did recently dance and beat a big name team.

but we're going to lose out to a P6 for a recruit 95% of the time if the kid is a priority at both schools. most kids want the bigger school in the higher ranked conference.

we've beaten GMU and VCU for recruits and they both made the final 4. winning helps, but it's not just that.