Of note: Tarrant's and Belein's winning percentage at Richmond are both .650. The difference between Mooney at .550 and Tarrant and Belein at .650 is a lot more than 10 percentage points and a couple more wins each year.
no signs Richmond will extend contract of hoops coach
- Thread starter spiderman
- Start date
650 is closing on stellar...550 not so much. There's a rather large difference.
Silly debate. Hard to compare eras. And different conferences. It could easily be argued that Mooney would be much higher than 55% had most of his games been against the 90s CAA and not the A10. I think Beilein is a great coach, always have, but he beat Mason, American, and UNCW in the CAA tourney to get to his only NCAA tourney while here. No comparison.
Are you suggesting that Mooney would have done better in the CAA than Beilein did in the CAA? Put down the crack pipe. Beilein competed against CAA teams because he had a CAA team. You act like Mooney would have been recruiting at an A10 level while in the CAA. Come on man, that's just nonsense. Beilein is 10 times the coach Mooney is and any fool can see it.
It should be easier to win more games the higher the level of league affiliation. You are peers with your league members, so all things should relatively equal against league members. However, we should be able to get better recruits in the A-10 vs. the CAA which should make us more of a favorite against OOC competition, particularly when we were playing against other mid-majors programs in lesser leagues.
Also, don't forget that we got jobbed out of an NCAA bid by the CAA the last year when we were in it, when Beilein won the league outright but the CAA didn't let us play in the conference tournament.
You can't look at Beilein's career and not agree he is one of the top college basketball coaches. He pretty much won where ever he went. I believe part of the problem with Mooney is his lack of head coach experience before he came here.
What’s tough to explain with CM is the 2010-2011 years where he undeniably had great success. I know folks like to trot out that he caught lightning in a bottle by riding Kevin Anderson but I think that’s very reductive reasoning. I don’t think he made the sweet 16 by accident, I don’t think that really happens.
The only explanation I come up with is that he stopped recruiting system fits and instead got guys who collectively couldn’t deliver the system. He’s had some ok years since but obviously not good enough to make the tournament.
The only explanation I come up with is that he stopped recruiting system fits and instead got guys who collectively couldn’t deliver the system. He’s had some ok years since but obviously not good enough to make the tournament.
I think factors A and B are recruiting/roster. Those 2010 2011 teams had a lot of talent, and a lot of depth compared to recent rosters. We have had some very good players recently, the SDJ's, Cline, etc. but they have not been surrounded by depth, in the form of solid A10 level performers that were battling other such guys for playing time. Very simple here. You had guys like Fran Martel, K Smitty, and Butler battling it out. Garrett,Geriot, Harper, Dwill, multiple guys competing on interior. And very legit backcourts with Gonzo/KA the Brothers backed up by Ced. Lots of options. Last few teams are 2-3 proven guys and lots of question marks.
Certainly a lack of depth has been very problematic. It's unclear to me why though, i.e., did we try and fail to get higher quality players (seems likely) or did we think the guys we were getting were good system players and they proved not to be (seems less likely). My point is, CM has demonstrated he can win with the right talent. He hasn't necessarily demonstrated he can win enough games without talent to make the NCAA tournament.
And furthermore, the guys that complain about us negative nancies: Go out and get me Wes Miller as our coach today, and I will STFU and be 100% positive for the next three years. You don't like me, go to Hardt and make it happen and I will be the Kool Aid drinking guy again.
He would have been competing with 90's CAA and A10 teams. There is no legit difference. Competition on one's level is equal on a relative basis to higher level competition. I'll argue that he'd have done no better considering he's not been able to beat a down A10. Stop saying that lower talent conference overall success does not equal higher talent conference overall success. His record speaks for itself and he's had plenty of time to adapt. I'll argue again given his past performance that he'd not have been more than 55% with his team in those conferences with their relative lack of ability to recruit top talent. Guy's a nudge...
Eras and conferences make no difference. You have to compete no matter what conference or situation you're in.
Last edited:
But he has to get that talent consistently. Not just one recruiting class (which he didn't succeed with) over his entire UR career. He can't win. He won't win. He lucks out and gets a McDonalds All-American to go with his usual recruits and I'll argue he still doesn't crack the top 30.
Exactly. Success at lower levels gets those guys to the D1 level. Then they have to get it done.
This is one reason I like Wes Miller. Yes, he is young, and did some impressive losing at first at UNC-G. He thought he would come in and replicate Roy's system, but he was not getting two 6'10 4/5 start PF's every other year. He figured it out, how to recruit to his situation, and find guys that loved the game and would improve and now that he is winning is recruiting at an even better level. We should have got him this past year, because he will leap frog us like the guy at NC State.
I think Coach puts his experiences together for a very good year . I think everyone to be happy this year for sure.
