Mooney signs extension

[spiderstudent17]

I like your posts 17 but u r really long and all over the place sometimes. Tho brevity not my strength either & i won't be here! A few comments...

2019 or 2022 years were accounted for in last extension. if others can't talk farther back, nobody can use those years either, not when he was already rewarded for them. imo.

Also if the expectation should always be championships and NCAA appearances for our basketball team whether its year 1 or year 20 I have no idea why in another post u gave Mooney a free pass for his 1st 4 years.

5 years revolving contract for an existing in place coach is no longer the norm. Of course brand new hires will get that length and the ultra successful will. otherwise its dumb and smart ADs r trending away from that. have u ever met Hardt? He sweats pretentiousness. He does not fall under the sharp AD but would follow outdated trends. Its a 1-2 year cycle at most. transfer portal. new teams each year. u don't need for recruiting. NIL is the new recruiting. so u r wrong about that but I do agree some ADs r clueless.

He got an extension for a losing season followed by 0-1 in NIT. Always found Coaching awards to be self serving btw. lot of scratch your back w that stuff. these coaches and ADs often have same agents and use same search firms. keep it to players awards. Last year A10 reg championship was great but it got us nothing. Most years it would. But we were bad OOC and then completely shat the bed very end of year most notably A10 and NIT. In no way does that warrant an extension. Disagree with u and school and anyone else there 100%.

Thanks GK, I appreciate your posts too. I certainly understand a lot of where you and others are coming from. And a lot of which I agree with frankly. I have high expectations of what I want Richmond basketball to achieve and hope we have the mentality that we can achieve these things. I would love nothing more than for Richmond to have a P5 school mentality with athletics and understanding that success in athletics will help our overall University profile tremendously; not to mention the pride we all get from seeing our alma mater do well. I also want to have realistic expectations and goals too. If we want to look at the entire 19 year history, then I think a B- grade is fair for Mooney: meaning he did not meet the high expectations I had of him for him in terms of NCAA and A10 championship results, but also means that he hasn't done awful either and shown a lot of promise. Personally, I think there is a lot of argument that could've been made to have a coaching change in 2016-2018 and also arguments that I completely understand the perspective too on why he should have remained. The admin felt the best decision was the latter, among other reasons, and that's why he is still our coach. I think for me mentally, its accepting the past for what it was - lackluster to some degree - and also looking at the more current results in terms of assessing our continued trajectory. And right now Mooney has met my expectations for an A10 coach who gets paid $1.5 million with top 4 A10 basketball resources and NIL and like anyone who performs well at their job, should be rewarded (in his case in a contract extension). If we had the results these past 5 years over the last 20 we wouldn't being having these conversations. We are also a few unlucky breaks in 2015 and 2020 away from being in the NCAAs, which also would have changed how many would grade his tenure here.

My reasoning and optimism is that the results these last 5 years will become the new trend for the next 10 years as well (every class has at least one NCAA appearance, we win an A10 championship of some kind, and we bring top ranked recruits) because of changes that have occurred in Mooney's defensive philosophy, additions of staff with differing perspective, NIL/transfer portal area, loosening recruiting restrictions, etc. I have never been "pro-Mooney" or "anti-Mooney". I am "pro-the success of Richmond basketball" and "pro-assessing the facts before me". When the facts change, my position will change.

Either way, its a fun discussion to have and why I enjoy posting on the board. We are all Spider fans and its great to have a space to be able to talk Spider sports. My wife has certainly gotten sick and tired listening to me talk about Richmond sports that's for sure!

 

[Eight Legger]

I have used this analogy before, but let's say you own a company and you hire a big-time salesguy and he makes a big sale for you in year 1. But then he doesn't make another big one for a decade, and during that time he's barely turning any profit for the company after you are done paying his salary each year. Then in year 12, he makes another big sale. Are you immediately giving him a raise?

 

[GKiller]

17 - u really think we should reward a losing season followed by an NIT season (bad ooc/great a10/abysmal postseason) where we arguably choked as A10 1 seed & then got blown out by VA Tech in the NIT that a dozen teams opted out of playing?

The end result of that is a 5 year contract. He had 3 left. If he had 5 years left already should we have extended to 7? Why not 10 or lifetime. I take issue with premise that we always have to reward performance. Again we gave him an extension after the 10 year deal & b4 these better seasons occurred so we weren’t extending on performance back then.

Frankly I’d rather have a coach fighting to earn more years with NCAA bids & have that carrot out there. We saw what happened after the long 10 year deal. Complacency perhaps but regardless we got a long drought. And we became handcuffed by the contract length. I worry we r doing exact same thing.

And now it’s still not supposedly reasonable to expect a 4th ncaa by year 20 even though we have this incredibly veteran respected coach with all the resources at “one of the top programs in the NATION”.

 

[spiderstudent17]

I have used this analogy before, but let's say you own a company and you hire a big-time sales guy and he makes a big sale for you in year 1. But then he doesn't make another big one for a decade, and during that time he's barely turning any profit for the company after you are done paying his salary each year. Then in year 12, he makes another big sale. Are you immediately giving him a raise?

I like the sales analogy. I will put in parenthesis what I correspond your analogy to our situation. The way I see it, suppose someone was in the business of selling different print media. We had a sales guy selling only physical newspapers during that decade stretch of time and he didn't make any meaningful revenue. Instead of firing him, we decided to change the environment he was working in to try and help with his production. For example rather than selling only physical newspapers, we allow him to sell other things too like magazines and books (loosening our academic restrictions) and we also decided to give the sales guy more money (us giving NIL and other increase in basketball expenses for our staff) for him to travel to different places and meet new clients (recruits) in order broaden the circle who he can sell to. We also hire a different partner (hiring new assistant staff) for the sales guy to work with, who suggests different approaches on how to sell the different media to people. After all this, we notice an increase in the original sale's guy revenue production (A10 tournament, regular season championship, NCAA win) and him making sales with wealthier clients (recruiting higher ranked recruits to come here). Would you still want to fire him or keep him employed (giving contract extensions)?

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

I agree, Moon is here to stay. I can't further debate whether he deserves an extension or not, and don't care much either way because what is done is done. He's our coach and I want us to win.

But if he is getting these extensions, I fully expect more reg. season championships and more NCAA appearances regularly - not every 4 or 5 years. Anything less is a huge failure of my expectations for such an ingrained coach, who clearly has been anointed for life and who has every little piece of the program under his control and every bit of a structure in place to succeed at the highest level in the A10. I don't think losing seasons + mediocre seasons should equate to 50% of Richmond's results. Period. Everything is in place. Nothing should hold us back.

I quite literally think any fan who does not have these expectations is assimilating to the gentleman's culture of pretty good is good enough, which is how I feel about Hardt (this is not a positive.) I don't subscribe to that. Be great.

 

[Eight Legger]

I like the sales analogy. I will put in parenthesis what I correspond your analogy to our situation. The way I see it, suppose someone was in the business of selling different print media. We had a sales guy selling only physical newspapers during that decade stretch of time and he didn't make any meaningful revenue. Instead of firing him, we decided to change the environment he was working in to try and help with his production. For example rather than selling only physical newspapers, we allow him to sell other things too like magazines and books (loosening our academic restrictions) and we also decided to give the sales guy more money (us giving NIL and other increase in basketball expenses for our staff) for him to travel to different places and meet new clients (recruits) in order broaden the circle who he can sell to. We also hire a different partner (hiring new assistant staff) for the sales guy to work with, who suggests different approaches on how to sell the different media to people. After all this, we notice an increase in the original sale's guy revenue production (A10 tournament, regular season championship, NCAA win) and him making sales with wealthier clients (recruiting higher ranked recruits to come here). Would you still want to fire him or keep him employed (giving contract extensions)?

Those are all good analogies too. Like I said somewhere here yesterday, I am not advocating getting rid of Mooney at this point, because relatively speaking we’ve done pretty well in the past few years and he’s definitely done well in the portal. We’ll probably never know what happened during those 10 long years, i just think it’s a little strange that at Richmond there is no penalty for being average or slightly above average, but as soon as you are very good even once, you get a big extension.

 

[Anachnid]

Under this new K extension Moonicorn receives more years and more money. Under the terms of this K, what is UR to receive from Moonicorn?

 

[SpiderTrap]

17 summed it up with one short sentence. The time to get rid of Mooney has passed.

If the school was serious about basketball - they would have gotten rid of him after back to back losing seasons in 2018 and 2019, which would have been 8 years with no NCAA to show. But the school didn't want to pay up and the rest is history, because since then - he has been better, no question there - and he has had some help. COVID gave him a pass, as it did a lot of coaches. His medical issue gave him a pass, that is just human nature. And COVID gave him 5-6 years with some guys - so that really helped as well.

SO as I have said before and as 97 said - he is not going anywhere. And in my mind - he really doesn't need to do anything special to ride out his career at UR. He is the all time leader in wins. He has a chance to become all time leader in wins in A10 (more because of longevity). If he sticks around and coaches another 10 years - he will probably only have 1 or maybe 2 losing seasons. Rest will be 18-21 win seasons, and might even make a tourney. He is not going anywhere, so we might as well wish the best upon him and the team, especially this year where we have some good transfers it seems - and maybe the portal becomes Mooney's friend and takes UR to a higher level and more appearances. OR - maybe in a few years - UR moves to the Patriot league for all sports and we can just focus on winning the conference tourney each year.

 

[SpiderGuy]

I have used this analogy before, but let's say you own a company and you hire a big-time salesguy and he makes a big sale for you in year 1. But then he doesn't make another big one for a decade, and during that time he's barely turning any profit for the company after you are done paying his salary each year. Then in year 12, he makes another big sale. Are you immediately giving him a raise?

Good points. And here and there I’ve used stock market analogies to the success or not of the CM tenure. Based upon the entire tenure and including 2 back to back 20 loss seasons, how would a ROI look in comparison to a simple index fund or even guaranteed CDs performance? For me, I’d pass on any advisor who performed per our basketball program the last 19 or so years.

 

[spiderstudent17]

i just think it’s a little strange that at Richmond there is no penalty for being average or slightly above average, but as soon as you are very good even once, you get a big extension.

17 - u really think we should reward a losing season followed by an NIT season (bad ooc/great a10/abysmal postseason) where we arguably choked as A10 1 seed & then got blown out by VA Tech in the NIT that a dozen teams opted out of playing?

I think I can answer both these statements in one response. I think the premise we all have to agree on is this: Just because we don’t make the NCAA, doesn’t automatically make the season a failure. If you don’t agree with this premise and instead think that a season’s success should only be judged by NCAA appearances and nothing else, and that no other things should be looked at or considered, then I think we fundamentally have to disagree.

For me and likely UR admin, while NCAAs is the goal and expectation we should set as the standard of a successful season, just because we don’t achieve that doesn’t necessarily make it a failure. Hence the nuance I reference in earlier posts. For instance, suppose in 2019-2020 season COVID didn’t stop the season and we ended up with a 26-8 regular season record (losing in the A10 championship) finishing 2nd only behind #3 in the country Dayton. The NCAA committee decides to put an 18-14 Mississippi State as an at-large. Just because we didn’t make the NCAA does not mean I consider that a failure of a season at all.

So the challenge is, if we allow this type of nuance instead of this black-or-white view of NCAA = successful season and no NCAA = failure, there can be a vast grey area of interpretation. This can essentially be broken down into 3 categories

1. We make the NCAA as an at-large or winning A10 tournament

2. We did not make the NCAA but still had a good year so the season was not a failure.

3. We did not make the NCAA and had a bad year and the season was a failure

We all agree that category 1 means we had a successful season. It’s objective. The interpretation and debate comes into whether a season where we don’t make the NCAAs falls into category 2 or category 3.

Here’s the part where I don’t necessarily agree with the admin but can understand their perspective. In 2015 we were the 1 seed NIT, NIT quarterfinals, 20+ win season, top 4 A10. In 2017 we were 20+ wins, NIT quarter finals, and 3 seed in the A10. They probably put those results along with the 2020 year where COVID cut our season short and 2024 where we won the A10 regular season championship but missed NCAA, in the second category of “no NCAA but still successful.” So that means seasons ‘10 ‘11, ‘15, ‘17, ‘20, ‘22, ‘24 were considered a success. Admin felt that even if we didn’t make the NCAAs from 2012-2022 we still had enough seasons in category 2 that warrant him not being fired and instead went the route of helping Mooney in other ways (NIL, practice facility, etc) to work on getting more category 1 seasons

 

[GKiller]

I like the sales analogy. I will put in parenthesis what I correspond your analogy to our situation. The way I see it, suppose someone was in the business of selling different print media. We had a sales guy selling only physical newspapers during that decade stretch of time and he didn't make any meaningful revenue. Instead of firing him, we decided to change the environment he was working in to try and help with his production. For example rather than selling only physical newspapers, we allow him to sell other things too like magazines and books (loosening our academic restrictions) and we also decided to give the sales guy more money (us giving NIL) for him to travel to different places and meet new clients and broaden the circle who he can sell to. We also hire a new partner (hiring new assistant staff) for the sales guy to work with, who suggests different approaches on how to sell the different media to people. After all this, we notice an increase in the original sale's guy revenue production. Would you still want to fire him or keep him employed (giving contract extensions)?

btw what evidence is there of us loosening any academic restrictions for athletics? who is the player or players we have gotten in who we couldn't in the past? U keep bringing that up but I'm curious what the basis of that is. we have a poster UR80s fan who has alluded to it but that's it. Yet he was the same person who said Bamisile couldn't get into UR and Bamisile was a recruit last summer! I'm not against it bc it's happened in the past but it was the same thing for every coach Tarrant Dooley Beilein and Wainwright. We denied an all ACC player in AD Vassallo under Ole Jer. as a recent grad u might not be privy to that history. To me it’s the same its been and other coaches dealt with it and performed better. Of course it’s possible we have loosened but where's the beef.

 

[spiderstudent17]

btw what evidence is there of us loosening any academic restrictions for athletics? who is the player or players we have gotten in who we couldn't in the past? U keep bringing that up but I'm curious what the basis of that is. we have a poster UR80s fan who has alluded to it but that's it. Yet he was the same person who said Bamisile couldn't get into UR and Bamisile was a recruit last summer! I'm not against it bc it's happened in the past but it was the same thing for every coach Tarrant Dooley Beilein and Wainwright. We denied an all ACC player in AD Vassallo under Ole Jer. as a recent grad u might not be privy to that history. To me it’s the same its been and other coaches dealt with it and performed better. Of course it’s possible we have loosened but where's the beef.

I’ve acknowledged that it’s “supposed” from what I’ve seen from posters here and perhaps others would want to weigh in if they heard anything different. Irrespective of that though, my point still stands. There’s still the other aspects I’ve alluded that we have done that has helped with our recruiting such as the practical facility, our basketball expenses being towards the top of A10. Also, there was a JOC article/interview a several weeks ago that said our NIL is towards top of A10 with about $500K/year. Perhaps others would want to weigh on our NIL specifically as well.

EDIT: I also have heard it from a friend of mine, who is well connected with our athletic department, who has alluded that issues that we’ve had with situations like with Malcolm Bernard years ago, have improved. But I haven’t heard directly or anything. Also, we’ve expressed interest in JUCO players. Has that ever been the case before?

 

[GKiller]

I think I can answer both these statements in one response. I think the premise we all have to agree on is this: Just because we don’t make the NCAA, doesn’t automatically make the season a failure. If you don’t agree with this premise and instead think that a season’s success should only be judged by NCAA appearances and nothing else, and that no other things should be looked at or considered, then I think we fundamentally have to disagree.

I agree with that premise. However nobody is saying last year was a failure or any other 1 season. but 3 for 19 is a failure. 9-25 vs vcu is a failure. Even with the uptick in last few years we still have all of 1 NCAA in 13 years. That's still a failure.

Your premise was we must reward Mooney a contract extension for past performance after last season. That is the premise I took issue with. not the bolded one above. Also personally bonuses r for past performance. Contracts r for future performance. Why after those 2 years and having 3 years already on contract is that reward necessary? This is not about firing. He's not under consideration for being fired. It's about another extension.

 

[GKiller]

I’ve acknowledged that it’s “supposed” from what I’ve seen from posters here and perhaps others would want to weigh in if they heard anything different. Irrespective of that though, my point still stands. There’s still the other aspects I’ve alluded that we have done that has helped with our recruiting such as the practical facility, our basketball expenses being towards the top of A10. Also, there was a JOC article/interview a several weeks ago that said our NIL is towards top of A10 with about $500K/year. Perhaps others would want to weigh on our NIL specifically as well.

our facilities and expenses have always been towards the top of A10. No change there. NIL we need more info.

 

[urmite]

I’m not going to get into the debate of what performance criteria should be evaluated.

But I have grown curious where our Total Revenue (Ticket sales, Donations, Performance awards, etc…) rank among the 350+ teams that play division 1.

I also wonder if postseason would be evaluated differently if Revenue was the primary criteria.
And I am not saying it should be.

 

[ManiBenton]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. There's a few counterpoints I would like to address as well.

1. When you say that last 5 years don't say the full story, what more is there to know? We know his entire 19 year record and it is definitely not-eye popping in terms of success. The time to fire him has passed. I don't think any AD should make decisions now moving forward from 10 years ago. Mooney's situation and the landscape of basketball is different now. Also, AD's shouldn't make decisions after only 1 year of results either. I am on record saying the 10 year extension following 2011 was a bad idea. However, right now we have 5 years worth of data about how we are trending. So when you acknowledge that if a new coach came in with these same results, you would be okay with that, but not with Mooney right now because he had put us in a 10 year drought in the past, I don't agree with drawing that same conclusion. If in the next 5 years we have very poor results, then it is absolutely fair to revisit the conversation on his coaching status.

2. He is incapable of making adjustments during clutch time since he started? I would agree that there were was a long stretch of time where no lead felt safe, but that's also discounting a lot of really great wins we have had that he helped lead over the years and many close wins as well. Especially this past year where we held onto our leads very well.

3. What do you mean by finished above projections 2-3 times after extension? Pre-season projections? Who cares what preseason has to say. Its absolutely meaningless. If we were projected to finished 15th and finished 13th would that be seen as finishing above projections and thus a good thing?

sorry about the delay in my response. Work got busy and unlike Mooney I’m actually judged on my day to day productivity/results. I have a response to each point so Imma start with 1: the main reason why I brought up the past is because problems and choke jobs that were happening back then are still happening on each team. Doesn’t matter the talent level, we still can’t rebound and our offense falls silent late into games. We had talent during that 10 year drought and not making the tournament (imo is an example of poor coaching). I also wanna clarify me accepting a new coach with the resume of Mooney through 5 years. I’m so tired of the same style of b-ball that doesn’t produce consistent winning. I can’t buy into mooneys system. 2- yeah sure we held our lead against Davidson at home. What about bc when we went scoreless for 4 minutes, and Colorado where we went scoreless from the 7:30 to the 5:14 mark in the second half. As we know these are the most important games for mid majors, when you play q1 or q2 talent in the non con. It’s essential for more of a chance at an at large bid. Look at joes going into conference, they were one of the teams that had a shot at an at large and they still lost a q4 game. Sure Mooney held leads in a10 play but Richmond had a favorable conference schedule plus some questionable officiating (Loyola game). I get it a win is a win but these weren’t convincing wins. Think the only three convincing wins we had Bonnie’s at home (and that’s a stretch), @fordham, @GW (I was there, that Bailey slam was crazy), and @louis.
3. Yes the preseason ranking are a sh*t show, but it’s the way most people/analysts interpret the conference. For example, Richmond was projected to finish 1st after the covid year and majority of people thought that. That’s also a huge reason why Mooney won coach of the year. And saying it’s the end all be all, but it’s the measurement I use to determine what is expected of my team.

 

[GKiller]

Also, we’ve expressed interest in JUCO players. Has that ever been the case before?

Yes

 

[VT4700]

17 summed it up with one short sentence. The time to get rid of Mooney has passed.

If the school was serious about basketball - they would have gotten rid of him after back to back losing seasons in 2018 and 2019, which would have been 8 years with no NCAA to show. But the school didn't want to pay up and the rest is history, because since then - he has been better, no question there - and he has had some help. COVID gave him a pass, as it did a lot of coaches. His medical issue gave him a pass, that is just human nature. And COVID gave him 5-6 years with some guys - so that really helped as well.

SO as I have said before and as 97 said - he is not going anywhere. And in my mind - he really doesn't need to do anything special to ride out his career at UR. He is the all time leader in wins. He has a chance to become all time leader in wins in A10 (more because of longevity). If he sticks around and coaches another 10 years - he will probably only have 1 or maybe 2 losing seasons. Rest will be 18-21 win seasons, and might even make a tourney. He is not going anywhere, so we might as well wish the best upon him and the team, especially this year where we have some good transfers it seems - and maybe the portal becomes Mooney's friend and takes UR to a higher level and more appearances. OR - maybe in a few years - UR moves to the Patriot league for all sports and we can just focus on winning the conference tourney each year.

I am always amazed to hear "if the school was serious about basketball"....as if we aren't paying a coach big money, as if we don't have great facilities, and, as if we don't care about NIL.

You said they would have fired Mooney if they cared. Or, maybe they did care and saw what a few of us on here saw....we had a stud PG in Jacob, a great looking transfer in Blake coming in, a solid big in Grant, a good looking recruit in Tyler coming in, and a tremendous player in Nick coming back from injury to go along with guys like Goose and Nate, and a few others and felt, we have a chance to be really good if we just stick with it here.

And, the results the past 5 years speak for themselves. Yet, you and many others on here continue to say the school doesn't care about winning, and it was a mistake to not fire Mooney after 2019.

 

[CarolinaSpider]

Yes

Aron Stewart, Eric Gray

 

[AnnapSpider]

I’m so happy for a number of posters on this board.
With the extension you will be able to continue to blame Mooney, for everything.
Won’t that be fun ?

 

[spiderstudent17]

I agree with that premise. However nobody is saying last year was a failure or any other 1 season. but 3 for 19 is a failure. 9-25 vs vcu is a failure. Even with the uptick in last few years we still have all of 1 NCAA in 13 years. That's still a failure.

Your premise was we must reward Mooney a contract extension for past performance after last season. That is the premise I took issue with. not the bolded one above. Also personally bonuses r for past performance. Contracts r for future performance. Why after those 2 years and having 3 years already on contract is that reward necessary? This is not about firing. He's not under consideration for being fired. It's about another extension.

I am not arguing against the point if you simply want to view it overall as "3 out of 19 NCAA is a failure of our expectations". Although, my posts above about the different categories still stands when viewing the tenure overall. That is why I have said multiple times that I gave him a B- (A is the standard of NCAA 1 in 4 years, A10 championships). Anyway, I digress. Regardless, I agree that 3 for 19 NCAA is lackluster for our investment and standards. A point that I am making though is why are we viewing it as 3 for 19 and not factoring that changes have occurred with our program and the landscape of basketball that have impacted Mooney's ability to recruit and coach (I list them in my previous replies to you)? So considering that, I tend to think of Mooney's tenure this way:

A. 2005-2019: Had some good seasons obviously, but overall not up to our expectations. Argument could definitely be made that he should've been let go some time in this time period, but was not.

B 2020-2024: Has had 3 very good years that involved A10 tournament, A10 regular season, and NCAA win. Down years in between were only for 1 year.

I am simply saying that "B" in this case meets our expectations and there is no reason right now to believe that we are deviating off that trajectory of continued success. So as an AD, why should he continue to harp on Mooney's performance, or lack thereof, 10 years ago when making decisions now?

With respect to his contract, none of us know the details of it so again it is harder to discuss if there were incentive clauses or something else. However, what we do know was that his contract was extended from the 2026-2027 season to the 2028-2029 season. It seems reasonable to me to want to extend someone's contract a couple years, who had the results he had this year. Yes, it was a disappointing end to the season, but we had a very solid year and won an A10 regular season championship trophy. If you want to say that this is irrelevant because we didn't make the NCAA and ended on a 3 game losing streak, so that isn't contract extension worthy, I disagree. I say the contract extension was still warranted because an A10 championship is an A10 championship and that is something we can put in our trophy room, with the goal that he will replicate these kinds of results in the next several years. This applies to Mooney now or if we had a new coach the last 5 years. If the contract extension was something like 5-10 more years, then yes I would have issue with it. Also if next year, we don't have a good season then we should not extend the contract for the sake of doing it.

 

[RichmondNative]

I quite literally think any fan who does not have these expectations is assimilating to the gentleman's culture of pretty good is good enough, which is how I feel about Hardt (this is not a positive.) I don't subscribe to that. Be great.

I have said this exact thing the last number of times the Mooney contract extensions have been discussed. UR is definitely all about “good enough” when it comes to Men’s basketball. Apparently the driving forces on the Collective agree.

 

[GKiller]

I’m so happy for a number of posters on this board.
With the extension you will be able to continue to blame Mooney, for everything.
Won’t that be fun ?

Well we could blame an avatar

 

[SpiderAlways]

The other point in all of this is, why are people so fixated on Mooney's past record 6 or more years ago? Can't people improve? Could you imagine if we didn't want to play Justin Harper his senior year because he averaged ~3 ppg as a freshman, rather than seeing his improvement over time? Or someone's boss at work telling them that they've done a great job the last several years, but because of poor performance 10 years ago, they won't give them a raise.

If Mooney had only been our coach since 2019-2020 through now, we would all be happy with the results. Why are we so pressed at looking at results from 10 years ago? Perhaps things have changed and the results we are getting now are becoming the new norm. And if in the next several years we have very poor seasons, then we should revisit the conversation about contract extension/firing him. I get it, results matter. We pay a coach a lot of money, who for a long period of time, was not getting results most of us aspire for Richmond to have. Personally, I think we should've had a coaching change in 2016-2018. The administration felt otherwise. However, its 2024 now and the last 5 years we have had very good results. This should be rewarded and we should keep doing the things we've been doing to continue this trend.

Yep, one auto bid in the last six years. That seems par for the course with the moon man

 

[spider23]

Yep, one auto bid in the last six years. That seems par for the course with the moon man

Some would say his ability to leverage those results at a top basketball program into another contract extension makes him a Moonicorn.

 

[spiderstudent17]

Yep, one auto bid in the last six years. That seems par for the course with the moon man

I'm tired of rehashing the same points. If you don't think that the last 5 years have been solid for us as a basketball program and that we continue to show signs of trending in the right direction, then I don't know what else to say. I respect your opinion and we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

[AnnapSpider]

Well we could blame an avatar

Very sad

 

[Spiders4ever]

I’m so happy for a number of posters on this board.
With the extension you will be able to continue to blame Mooney, for everything.
Won’t that be fun ?

Never fun to fall short at clutch time.

 

[SpiderTrap]

I am always amazed to hear "if the school was serious about basketball"....as if we aren't paying a coach big money, as if we don't have great facilities, and, as if we don't care about NIL.

I am of the thought that UR does just enough to put on the display it cares.

Paying coach big money - I would argue that was done in response to Shaka Smart getting a big deal, and we wanted to keep our coach. We will never know - but I wonder if Shaka had left VCU after that final four run - would we have increased the salary as much as we did.

Facilities - our facilities are great. But I feel like we are always near the end to get there. Robins Center updates were late in my opinion, and the practice facility was initially delayed, then finally completed. I guess better late than never - but we are never trying to be first in near the front in any of these areas.

NIL - we have a very secretive NIL at this point compared to counterparts in own league. Maybe its just taking time to ramp up. But similar to above - we let everyone go first and then try to follow.

I think UR is serious about basketball to the point that Basketball is our flagship sport. But are they serious about pushing the envelope and taking that next step - I don't think so. And what could they do? Well - take for example the new legislation that would allow schools to pay players directly in VA. UR especially when we talk about ourselves - we market ourselves as this small private school with a big bank account and wealthy alumni who come from the Northeast. So if we are this wealthy private school - why not step up, beat the other schools to the punch, challenge the NCAA, and come out and say - we will pay our athletes, Make some headlines, push the envelope, and get out in front of something for a change, rather than be a follower and put on the show we are serious - when really all we are serious about is competing.

 

[spiderstudent17]

Here I go posting about other teams again, but UMass extends Frank Martin 2 more years through 2028-2029 season after leading the team to a 20-11 record this season, 4 seed in A10, and 0 trophies. UMass ended their season losing their first game in A10 tournament and didn’t have any other post season games. Does UMass not care about NCAAs and A10 championships?



Here's a quotation from their athletic director

"In just two seasons, Frank Martin has revitalized our basketball program and with this extension we want to ensure that momentum continues," said Bamford. "Our investment in Coach Martin and his staff, along with several other programmatic enhancements over the next two years, shows our commitment to building a men's basketball program that can realize sustained success and advance our recognizable college basketball brand. I want to thank Frank for his partnership, diligence and thoughtful approach to make Massachusetts Basketball regionally and nationally relevant."

 

[SpiderTrap]

I think Frank Martin is a different situation. He just finished two years. Took over a UMASS team that I believe was coming over 5+ losing seasons. His first year - he finished just below .500 and then last year made a big jump to 20-11.

If you want to compare UMASS to UR. The question would be - if Frank Martin averages about 18-20 wins the next 3-4 seasons, but has no post-season to show for it - will they extend him then? Will they keep him and just let contract run out? Or will they terminate contract early and pay the buyout?

Right now - too early to tell at UMASS. But they are coming from a bad place right now and I think fact that Martin had a good season, the extension is a sign they like the progress being made and reward him for that. But I would think - they expect it to continue, and expect an NCAA appearance in the next 3-4 years.

 

[spiderman]

Martin had 3 years remaining and was coming off a good (not amazing) season. certainly could make the same argument that an extension wasn't needed yet. but they feel he's the right guy so they extended. like we've done with CM.

 

[spiderstudent17]

I think Frank Martin is a different situation. He just finished two years. Took over a UMASS team that I believe was coming over 5+ losing seasons. His first year - he finished just below .500 and then last year made a big jump to 20-11.

But why extend the contract and not just let it expire? After all, the expectations are an NCAA appearance, so unless he has an NCAA appearance why are they rewarding him by extending his contract?

I think fact that Martin had a good season, the extension is a sign they like the progress being made and reward him for that. But I would think - they expect it to continue, and expect an NCAA appearance in the next 3-4 years.

In other words, are you saying that while UMass AD has the expectations of an NCAA appearance that they still gave him an extension because they can recognize good progress being made by the coach and that, along with the program enhancements they are providing the coach, means they believe to be on a trajectory of continued success? Surely, that is not something I have been articulating the past day!

 

[8legs1dream]

Here I go posting about other teams again, but UMass extends Frank Martin 2 more years through 2028-2029 season after leading the team to a 20-11 record this season, 4 seed in A10, and 0 trophies. UMass ended their season losing their first game in A10 tournament and didn’t have any other post season games. Does UMass not care about NCAAs and A10 championships?

View embedded media

Here's a quotation from their athletic director

"In just two seasons, Frank Martin has revitalized our basketball program and with this extension we want to ensure that momentum continues," said Bamford. "Our investment in Coach Martin and his staff, along with several other programmatic enhancements over the next two years, shows our commitment to building a men's basketball program that can realize sustained success and advance our recognizable college basketball brand. I want to thank Frank for his partnership, diligence and thoughtful approach to make Massachusetts Basketball regionally and nationally relevant."

well they are garbage and heading to a garbage conference after this upcoming season but if you want to compare their situation to ours go right ahead I suppose 🤷‍♂️

 

[spiderstudent17]

well they are garbage and heading to a garbage conference after this upcoming season but if you want to compare their situation to ours go right ahead I suppose 🤷‍♂️

Right, the MAC sucks and their basketball program is on a sinking ship. However, some posts here make it seem like Richmond is the only school in the country who thinks that way with extensions. It’s not uncommon for ADs to extend coaches who haven’t met the expectations of NCAAs, if the AD still feels the coach is making good progress. In our case, we just won a regular season championship, which is a tangible representation of good progress.

 

[97spiderfan]

UMass is moving a one bid MAC conference after next year. I think that has way more to do with the extension than what Frank Martin has done or will do for the program. They want/they really need stable seasoned leadership because their basketball program is going to see a lot of transition over the next few years moving to a lower ranked conference. I would imagine the portal will be full of UMass players when they make this transition and the players they get in return are not going to have the same pedigree of player that is leaving.

 

[Eight Legger]

Right, the MAC sucks and their basketball program is on a sinking ship. However, some posts here make it seem like Richmond is the only school in the country who thinks that way with extensions. It’s not uncommon for ADs to extend coaches who haven’t met the expectations of NCAAs, if the AD still feels the coach is making good progress. In our case, we just won a regular season championship, which is a tangible representation of good progress.

For the record, I don't think anyone in this discussion has called Mooney's tenure overall "a failure" but there are only nine longer-tenured coaches in America at this level, and pretty much every one of them has outperformed him in one way or several. That makes him an anomaly and begs the question about why no other coach like Mooney (with his list of achievements) has lasted so long at one place in that time. There may be perfectly good reasons, but it's a question worth asking.

 

[VT4700]

For the record, I don't think anyone in this discussion has called Mooney's tenure overall "a failure" but there are only nine longer-tenured coaches in America at this level, and pretty much every one of them has outperformed him in one way or several. That makes him an anomaly and begs the question about why no other coach like Mooney (with his list of achievements) has lasted so long at one place in that time. There may be perfectly good reasons, but it's a question worth asking.

Fair question, EL, and I will take a shot.

From Mooney's side:
1. He and his family really like it at Richmond. The school, where they live, everything about it.

2. He knows he can win mhere. Has a sweet 16, and multiple NCAA and NIT bids.

3. He is being paid well.

From the school's side:
1. They really like a class act like Mooney representing our program.

2. They saw him win big early in his career here, saw him win big more recently here, and saw enough during the non tourney stretch to make the decision to stay with him. Hard to say they made the wrong choice.

3. Seems like whenever it might have been time to make a change, we answered with a good year. We were 1st 4 out after 2015, and likely an OT loss to VCU in 2017 from getting in. So, instead of saying 12-6 A-10 and 13-5 A-10 in 2 out of 3 years from 2015 to 2017 was not good enough and we need to make a change, the school stayed with him. Then, we had the back to back 20 loss seasons. No question that was a chance to make a change. I remember our discussions on here. I was in the minority and wanted to give him one more chance, but I also said I could see the point of those that wanted him gone. From the school's end, they probably saw what I saw. We had a great PG and a great big, we had Nick coming back, Blake ready to go, and a good looking recruit in Tyler coming in, along with Nate, Goose and others. The talent was there, so why not go one more year and see what happens. As much as I like Mooney, I think I probably would have wanted a change had we not had such a great year in 2020. But, we did have a great year in 2020. Many on here don't like talking about 2020 for whatever reason, but it did happen. We did go 24-7. We did beat Big Ten champ Wisconsin. We did go 14-4 IC. So, the school made the right choice in sticking with him, and we followed up 2020 with an A-10 title and dance win in 2022, and a regular season title in 2024.

 

[8legs1dream]

Right, the MAC sucks and their basketball program is on a sinking ship. However, some posts here make it seem like Richmond is the only school in the country who thinks that way with extensions. It’s not uncommon for ADs to extend coaches who haven’t met the expectations of NCAAs, if the AD still feels the coach is making good progress. In our case, we just won a regular season championship, which is a tangible representation of good progress.

Saying "hey this horrible basketball program does our special thing too!" isn't as great a look as you think it is. 🥱

 

[brooklyn brownstone]

I think that Martin got his extension because of his win at Richmond this year. Transitive property thing.