Perspective

[I-M-UR]

4 years, 2 NIT wins, a head coach we paid 3+ million, beautiful facility (recently remodeled), did we get our money's worth.
PS. The 'hater' term is childish name calling. I doubt if anyone hates Mooney, but I certainly question the return on investment

 

[fan2011]

We payed Mooney to get us into the NCAA at-large conversation every year. He has done that 2 of the past 4 years, and with the amount of roster turnover after our sweet 16 run I think that is all we could ask for. Without significant injuries in our program in each of the last 3 years we would be much happier with Mooney, our teams would have been more successful. Unfortunately we have been extremely unlucky injury-wise and it has hampered Mooney's teams. I am happy with where he has taken the program, we are a perennial winning team (averaging 21 wins for the last 8 seasons with no losing seasons) who is going to be at least in the at-large conversation every year. When we do make the NCAAs Mooney has shown he can win games as well.





This post was edited on 3/28 2:29 PM by fan2011

 

[MolivaManiac]

How many times do we need to do this?

Are we generating any original thoughts here? Perhaps Cooper was onto something.

 

[fan2011]

Originally posted by MolivaManiac:
How many times do we need to do this?

Are we generating any original thoughts here? Perhaps Cooper was onto something.

I say the same thing in every thread, and they are my original thoughts... I think...

I don't know why the topic is brought up every other day on the board, it has been discussed ad nauseam.

 

[spider fan]

Alright before you read this I am only "playing along" with the last post and do not want anyone to take it too seriously. So far "we" have been called "mush", "moron", and the only third word I can think of that fits in with that train of thought and starts with an "m" is myopic and here is the definition: Myopic is an adjective meaning shortsighted in every sense. Whether you need glasses or a new attitude, if you can't see the forest for the trees, you're myopic.

 

[SpiderFan26]

We had high turnover in 2011, but boy we should've replaced that by now.

I think the big worry is if (and when) we make the NCAA tourney next year, do we set the precedence that waiting about 4 years is going to be ok. To me, its not that Mooney is that bad, its that I don't want to accept the principle that waiting anywhere from 3-5 years between tourney appearances is ok. Hoping we go on a run the next few years, but the biggest concern to me isn't that our record is that bad, but instead that we have high gaps between appearances.

 

[Ulla1]

Our program is great. Support our coaching staff, our school, our players. Great things are coming in the near future. The repetitive petty posts by some are tiresome.

 

[SpiderGuy]

Originally posted by fan2011:
We payed Mooney to get us into the NCAA at-large conversation every year. He has done that 2 of the past 4 years, and with the amount of roster turnover after our sweet 16 run I think that is all we could ask for. Without significant injuries in our program in each of the last 3 years we would be much happier with Mooney, our teams would have been more successful. Unfortunately we have been extremely unlucky injury-wise and it has hampered Mooney's teams. I am happy with where he has taken the program, we are a perennial winning team (averaging 21 wins for the last 8 seasons with no losing seasons) who is going to be at least in the at-large conversation every year. When we do make the NCAAs Mooney has shown he can win games as well.




This post was edited on 3/28 2:29 PM by fan2011

Injuries are just one factor. Many programs experience them & shouldn't use that as some reason for "not achieving an end". That's a polite way of saying we need to stop using injuries as an excuse. Teams should be deep enough, and the players that are on the court (recruited by a coach) should be able to fill voids. You're the numbers guy. Maybe you can find some stats 1) that show teams that have experienced injuries and still got to NCAA's and 2) show teams that experienced injuries and it "may" have impacted them getting a bid.

One can justify on the downside all day long, but that doesn't cut it. It only moves the hopes forward to another year, and that ship has sailed several years ago.

Have said it before - it boils down to what goals & expectations are. Maybe going to NCAA's once every other year or at least once every 3 years is unreasonable. Maybe my expectations are unreasonable or too high for some.

 

[Eight Legger]

I'm not sure where it says we are paying Mooney to "get us into the NCAA tournament conversation." Is that written somewhere in his contract?

 

[97spiderfan]

We were in the conversation 2 of the past 4 years. That's news to me. Teams that are in bubble consideration make the nit. Not sure what other year you are referring to but you must have a broad definition of bubble consideration. And injuries are part of the game, again not sure what you mean by major injuries the past 3 years. A 3 week injury to your 7th man is not what I consider a major injury. Especially when we rip off 6 in a row during his injury. If you like him that's fine, but quit exaggerating stuff to prove your point.

 

[fan2011]

Originally posted by 97spiderfan:
We were in the conversation 2 of the past 4 years. That's news to me. Teams that are in bubble consideration make the nit. Not sure what other year you are referring to but you must have a broad definition of bubble consideration. And injuries are part of the game, again not sure what you mean by major injuries the past 3 years. A 3 week injury to your 7th man is not what I consider a major injury. Especially when we rip off 6 in a row during his injury. If you like him that's fine, but quit exaggerating stuff to prove your point.

Here are a random selection of articles I found after a quick google search mentioning us being on the bubble in February, right before Ced went down last year..

http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/university-richmond/1616848-richmond-basketball-on-the-bubble.html
http://www.bloggingthebracket.com/2014/2/27/5417550/college-basketball-recap-nebraska-baylor-richmond-west-virginia
http://www.vanquishthefoe.com/byu-cougars-basketball/2014/2/24/5440752/2014-ncaa-tournament-bracketology-update-can-byu-make-the-field

We were obviously on the bubble this year, we were one of the first four out.

While the injuries this season weren't as major as previous years they did have a negative effect on our season. ANO was not our seventh man, he was 5th in points, our best rebounder, and best inside defender. After ANO went down our offensive and defensive efficiencies dropped, and we lost a game that basically kept us out of the NCAAs. I think we beat GMU with ANO, we just didn't have an answer to Shevon Thompson without ANO. We also lost Fore, our most promising freshman.

I may have exaggerated my points, I'm sorry. I am tired of this same question being brought up repeatedly, it really annoys me and my emotions got the best of me.

 

[I-M-UR]

First, how many times do we need to go through this? As often as needed until there is some change
or at least admitting, with some sense
of urgency, that some improvement is needed.
(at the very least some open, candid
conversations about what needs to be improved from the Head Coach…. Rocco
certainly has no problem with doing that) Plus folks felt it was more appropriate
to discuss this after the season was over so I did. I would like to see what goals were put into
a 10 year million dollar contract.We were in consideration for the NCAA for 2 of the last 4
years? I agree with 97 teams really on
the bubble get into the NIT.Injuries? Which team
doesn't have them? We played our best
basketball after Ano's. A freshman's
injury hurt the team? Hard to measure that.It's time to make financial commitments to the
Spider Club for 2015/16 so what better time to evaluate the status of our sports program.

 

[WebSpinner]

yes, these same ole threads are getting old but what else does one discuss on a basketball board once the season ends? the bottom line is that there are those who expect one thing and those who expect another thing, pretty simple and very normal. reality is, does not matter what either camp thinks, feels but it does matter what the athletic director things, feels, what the board of trustees thinks, feels and what the big donor(s) thinks and feels. we can debate, get angry, blow smoke but does not matter so better accept it and move on to baseball or spring football. last thought, rick barnes is available and anthony grant is available, probably more to come, none of which will be CM.

 

[keefusb]

I feel like we have legitimately been "on the bubble" one time since the Sweet 16 season, and that was this year. Last year, there was some early talk about us being a dark horse team for the A10 tourney after we went on a tear after CL's injury, but then we collapsed at the very end of the season. Every team deals with injuries, so I tend not to use them as an excuse. In fact some teams do better after a key player gets hurt.

I do think we should question the ROI, especially those of us who contribute financially to the school and program. I think making the NIT and winning a couple of games has taken a bit of the heat off of CM, but next season really ought to be an NCAA year, and if it isn't, we should really begin to seriously question the program's goals and definition of success. I personally feel that if we don't make the NCAA's then CM's seat ought to get very, very warm.

 

[PhiDeltaSpider]

For what has been recently invested in this program, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect NCAA consideration most years and NIT at the very minimum every year we do not make the NCAAs. I don't see us getting back to that Kevin Anderson level team any time soon (or maybe never) simply because we do not have any more Kevin Andersons on our roster, and he was the main reason we accomplished what we did in those 2 NCAA years. I see us as having winning seasons under CM but nothing great or no consistent appearances in the NCAAs. Why? 1. no strong player development within the program All players for the most part improve as they gain experience and get older, wiser and stronger throughout their college careers, but I do not see ours showing marked improvement above and beyond these normal benchmarks. 2. We do not emphasize rebounding in our system, nor do we foster the necessary attitudes to have our players become good rebounders. This is a deadly combination and has haunted us throughout CM's tenure, and it will continue to haunt us and keep us from achieving our more lofty goals. 3. We are totally predictable. Although I like our offense (except for our lack of crashing the offensive boards) and defense, we do not vary either one much if any. Our players should be able to switch to a zone or straight man-to-man defense seamlessly at any time during a game. I never see this happen. We sometimes "press," but I feel I am stretching the point when I call our pressure a "press." Almost every good college team will have backup defenses or will switch "looks" once in a while when the situation warrants. We do not. 4. In my opinion, our situational substituting has become ludicrous. I applaud Coach Mooney for the situational substitutions, but I think he has become so enamored with it that he does not see the negatives from constantly making these changes so early in a game. We lose a flow to our offense and defense, we tag certain players as not good defensive players and that will sometimes become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe make the changes in the last 1 or 2 minutes of a game or half, but not before then unless special circumstances warrant it. Whew, I believe I'm done. I hadn't meant to write so much but end-of-season frustrations need to be addressed. OK, Guys and Gals, have at me.

 

[iSpider]

Originally posted by spider fan:
Alright before you read this I am only "playing along" with the last post and do not want anyone to take it too seriously. So far "we" have been called "mush", "moron", and the only third word I can think of that fits in with that train of thought and starts with an "m" is myopic and here is the definition: Myopic is an adjective meaning shortsighted in every sense. Whether you need glasses or a new attitude, if you can't see the forest for the trees, you're myopic.

"Mediocre" begins with an "M."

 

[Ulla1]

Seems like the same messages from the same people over and over. Is this an effort to sabotage our recruiting? Let's just assume that some posters (not sure of your affiliations) are unhappy with our program. You have made your point. Why not move to more positive topics? If you truly support our team, it is time to move on.

 

[urmite]

Random thoughts:

It did seem we were often mentioned as first four out last season immediately before Ced went down.

With the shuffling already starting, if Mooney does move on, does Rick Barnes appear to fit here?

It was interesting that the announcers last night thought starting the offensive/defensive substitutions with 4 minutes left was way too early...

 

[whampas]

Originally posted by iSpider:

Originally posted by spider fan:
Alright before you read this I am only "playing along" with the last post and do not want anyone to take it too seriously. So far "we" have been called "mush", "moron", and the only third word I can think of that fits in with that train of thought and starts with an "m" is myopic and here is the definition: Myopic is an adjective meaning shortsighted in every sense. Whether you need glasses or a new attitude, if you can't see the forest for the trees, you're myopic.

"Mediocre" begins with an "M."

So does "meathead". Make your point, I made mine.

 

[97spiderfan]

Originally posted by fan2011:

Originally posted by 97spiderfan:
We were in the conversation 2 of the past 4 years. That's news to me. Teams that are in bubble consideration make the nit. Not sure what other year you are referring to but you must have a broad definition of bubble consideration. And injuries are part of the game, again not sure what you mean by major injuries the past 3 years. A 3 week injury to your 7th man is not what I consider a major injury. Especially when we rip off 6 in a row during his injury. If you like him that's fine, but quit exaggerating stuff to prove your point.

Here are a random selection of articles I found after a quick google search mentioning us being on the bubble in February, right before Ced went down last year..

While the injuries this season weren't as major as previous years they did have a negative effect on our season. ANO was not our seventh man, he was 5th in points, our best rebounder, and best inside defender. After ANO went down our offensive and defensive efficiencies dropped, and we lost a game that basically kept us out of the NCAAs. I think we beat GMU with ANO, we just didn't have an answer to Shevon Thompson without ANO. We also lost Fore, our most promising freshman.

I may have exaggerated my points, I'm sorry. I am tired of this same question being brought up repeatedly, it really annoys me and my emotions got the best of me.

Fan, thanks for your response. Always glad when posters come back with legitimate points backed up with facts. To your two points regarding the last two seasons.

Last year: The loss of Ced was huge, but also remember that the 2 games prior to his injury we got absolutely housed by St. Louis and VCU and our resume up to that point had some nice conference home wins, but also a lot of missed opportunity OOC wins (sound familiar). So yes, we were mentioned on the bubble in early Feb when he went down, lots of teams are at the point in the season, we would have still had to finish the season pretty strong to actually get off of the bubble and into the tournament.

This year: Sure we may have beaten Mason with ANO or we might have lost as well. We lost to JMU on the road with him. Likewise, would have we have ripped off 6 in a row with him not injured? Maybe, maybe not.

I clearly am on the side of "could have, should have, might have" are not enough. The only teams in any sport that say that are teams that don't make it over the hump.

With that said, I want to give Chris the credit he deserves for the way we closed the season. He clearly rallied the troops and we went on a nice little run. I'm excited about next year, I think he has on the cusp of a really great season. Of course, I've thought that the past 2 years and he is never quite able to get us over the hump.

 

[SpiderGuy]

Originally posted by PhiDeltaSpider:
For what has been recently invested in this program, I do not think it is unreasonable to expect NCAA consideration most years and NIT at the very minimum every year we do not make the NCAAs. I don't see us getting back to that Kevin Anderson level team any time soon (or maybe never) simply because we do not have any more Kevin Andersons on our roster, and he was the main reason we accomplished what we did in those 2 NCAA years. I see us as having winning seasons under CM but nothing great or no consistent appearances in the NCAAs. Why? 1. no strong player development within the program All players for the most part improve as they gain experience and get older, wiser and stronger throughout their college careers, but I do not see ours showing marked improvement above and beyond these normal benchmarks. 2. We do not emphasize rebounding in our system, nor do we foster the necessary attitudes to have our players become good rebounders. This is a deadly combination and has haunted us throughout CM's tenure, and it will continue to haunt us and keep us from achieving our more lofty goals. 3. We are totally predictable. Although I like our offense (except for our lack of crashing the offensive boards) and defense, we do not vary either one much if any. Our players should be able to switch to a zone or straight man-to-man defense seamlessly at any time during a game. I never see this happen. We sometimes "press," but I feel I am stretching the point when I call our pressure a "press." Almost every good college team will have backup defenses or will switch "looks" once in a while when the situation warrants. We do not. 4. In my opinion, our situational substituting has become ludicrous. I applaud Coach Mooney for the situational substitutions, but I think he has become so enamored with it that he does not see the negatives from constantly making these changes so early in a game. We lose a flow to our offense and defense, we tag certain players as not good defensive players and that will sometimes become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe make the changes in the last 1 or 2 minutes of a game or half, but not before then unless special circumstances warrant it. Whew, I believe I'm done. I hadn't meant to write so much but end-of-season frustrations need to be addressed. OK, Guys and Gals, have at me.

Crystal clear post & well thought out. I think you summed up the issues quite well. I can't see how anyone can argue the validity of your points. Great post!

 

[WebSpinner]

personally feel that if his ideas were accurate, we would be 5-27 every year.

 

[SpiderGuy]

Originally posted by WebSpinner:
personally feel that if his ideas were accurate, we would be 5-27 every year.

Just curious - Which of his ideas do you believe are not accurate, and can you explain with a bit of supporting detail as to why?

 

[fan2011]

Originally posted by SpiderGuy:

Originally posted by WebSpinner:
personally feel that if his ideas were accurate, we would be 5-27 every year.

Just curious - Which of his ideas do you believe are not accurate, and can you explain with a bit of supporting detail as to why?

Well, if we don't develop players, don't recruit good players, are too predictable etc., how did our record (and computer numbers) improve over the last four years?


This post was edited on 3/29 4:51 PM by fan2011

 

[TBSpyder]

I was under the impression that we were discussing intercollegiate sports, and not professional sports. Now granted, money has corrupted college sports. The top basketball programs have to hire mercenaries to represent the program, and then create a façade, that they are student athletes.

I'm hoping UR is recruiting student athletes, who take the same classes as non-athletes. I like that we are a nationally recognized program. And yes, when you look at the growing number of programs, seeking at large bids, I think some fans' expectations are unrealistic. I certainly don't think whether a coach is retained or not, should be based on NCAA bids, though, it seems to be an obvious criteria at many places.

Gee, paying a coach an incredible amount of money, but threatening firing, if they don't prove much more successful coaches than the average coach, certainly invites corner cutting and cheating. I suspect that there are many more scandals at colleges, than have been caught. Gresham's Law says that coaches that cheat, will thrive, and those who don't, will be fired. So most college coaches will wind up being cheaters. And what lessons, do athletes learn, who attend schools who do cut corners?

I like our coach and program, but my opinion doesn't matter. I hope UR administration is wise enough to stay the course.

 

[MolivaManiac]

Are you guys all copy and pasting from threads in November, December, January and February? Or typing new posts? I can't tell.

 

[WebSpinner]

mine are brand new but think all the others are cut and paste......

 

[spider fan]

Gonzaga has been in the NCAA tournament for 17 straight years. That is a goal to emulate. Gonzaga is a Jesuit school with about 4800 undergrads and 7500 total students.

 

[MrTbone]

Originally posted by spider fan:
Gonzaga has been in the NCAA tournament for 17 straight years. That is a goal to emulate. Gonzaga is a Jesuit school with about 4800 undergrads and 7500 total students.

Not a bad program to aspire to, but the WCC isn't the A10. Gonzaga has won the WCC regular season 15 of the past 17 seasons and won the WCC tournament 14 of the past 17 seasons. They are dominant in a relatively soft conference. Nearly half the teams haven't been to the tournament this millenium. I just don't know that their situation is real comparable.

Nonetheless, I would take being in 17 years straight. Maybe an argument for being in a less competitive conference.

 

[MidloTrader]

Tbone, while Zags have had great success in dominating their conference and getting to the dance, they've had little success in getting past round of 32. This year was their first Sweet 16, I believe. Not sure they always deserve to be in top 10 of polls either, but certainly are one of the media's darlings. I'd take their constant winning and getting to "dance" any day, but they simply prove the case that it's difficult for non power conference teams to make it to elite 8 and final 4 more than just once in a while.

 

[urmite]

Actually, they have 6 trips to the sweet sixteen, including 3 in a row 1999-2001 all three as a double digit seed.

Gonzaga

 

[MidloTrader]

Thanks for the correction, urmite. Announcers this weekend must have meant not ever getting to final 4.

 

[spider fan]

Originally posted by MrTbone:

Originally posted by spider fan:
Gonzaga has been in the NCAA tournament for 17 straight years. That is a goal to emulate. Gonzaga is a Jesuit school with about 4800 undergrads and 7500 total students.

Not a bad program to aspire to, but the WCC isn't the A10. Gonzaga has won the WCC regular season 15 of the past 17 seasons and won the WCC tournament 14 of the past 17 seasons. They are dominant in a relatively soft conference. Nearly half the teams haven't been to the tournament this millenium. I just don't know that their situation is real comparable.

Nonetheless, I would take being in 17 years straight. Maybe an argument for being in a less competitive conference.

Would not want to be in a less competitive conference. The emulation part was about being in the dance for 17 straight years which is an accomplishment.

 

[MrTbone]

Originally posted by spider fan:

Originally posted by MrTbone:

Originally posted by spider fan:
Gonzaga has been in the NCAA tournament for 17 straight years. That is a goal to emulate. Gonzaga is a Jesuit school with about 4800 undergrads and 7500 total students.

Not a bad program to aspire to, but the WCC isn't the A10. Gonzaga has won the WCC regular season 15 of the past 17 seasons and won the WCC tournament 14 of the past 17 seasons. They are dominant in a relatively soft conference. Nearly half the teams haven't been to the tournament this millenium. I just don't know that their situation is real comparable.

Nonetheless, I would take being in 17 years straight. Maybe an argument for being in a less competitive conference.

Would not want to be in a less competitive conference. The emulation part was about being in the dance for 17 straight years which is an accomplishment.

I wouldn't either, I like being in the A10. I just think it's provocative...is Gonzaga getting to the NCAA because they are just head and shoulders above an arguably soft conference? It has to factor in somewhere. We've all had the long-time discussions about the value of being in the a10 vs. the CAA. The WCC isn't really comparable to the CAA, but it might be closer to that than the A10.

The real answer is consistent winning makes you marquee. We have flirted with this at times, such as the late 80s to early 90s, and then again in the late 90s to early millenium. In both cases, and again after Wainwright, we took marked steps backward as a program. I think that continuity break is important and is a good argument that you might want to stick with a winning coach if you can. Perhaps we need to look at how programs like Gonzaga keep their coaches.

 

[I-M-UR]

Originally posted by spider fan:

Originally posted by MrTbone:

Originally posted by spider fan:
Gonzaga has been in the NCAA tournament for 17 straight years. That is a goal to emulate. Gonzaga is a Jesuit school with about 4800 undergrads and 7500 total students.

Not a bad program to aspire to, but the WCC isn't the A10. Gonzaga has won the WCC regular season 15 of the past 17 seasons and won the WCC tournament 14 of the past 17 seasons. They are dominant in a relatively soft conference. Nearly half the teams haven't been to the tournament this millenium. I just don't know that their situation is real comparable.

Nonetheless, I would take being in 17 years straight. Maybe an argument for being in a less competitive conference.

Would not want to be in a less competitive conference. The emulation part was about being in the dance for 17 straight years which is an accomplishment.

The WCC may not be a tough as the A10 but BYU, St. Mary's, Pepperdine, Pacific aren't bad teams.

 

[MrTbone]

Originally posted by I-M-UR:

Originally posted by spider fan:

Originally posted by MrTbone:

Originally posted by spider fan:
Gonzaga has been in the NCAA tournament for 17 straight years. That is a goal to emulate. Gonzaga is a Jesuit school with about 4800 undergrads and 7500 total students.

Not a bad program to aspire to, but the WCC isn't the A10. Gonzaga has won the WCC regular season 15 of the past 17 seasons and won the WCC tournament 14 of the past 17 seasons. They are dominant in a relatively soft conference. Nearly half the teams haven't been to the tournament this millenium. I just don't know that their situation is real comparable.

Nonetheless, I would take being in 17 years straight. Maybe an argument for being in a less competitive conference.

Would not want to be in a less competitive conference. The emulation part was about being in the dance for 17 straight years which is an accomplishment.

The WCC may not be a tough as the A10 but BYU, St. Mary's, Pepperdine, Pacific aren't bad teams.

Agreed, but WCC is maybe a 1-2 bid league annually, whereas A10 is more like 2-3 or even 3-4. I guess what I'm thinking is how much of Gonzaga's success is due to them being the big fish in the small pond. Kind of similar to X in the A10 for a long time.

I just think it's interesting. Obviously they are a good team, and have other teams that periodically are good as well in conference.

 

[Anachnoid]

Bump

 

[Ulla1]

This coming year will be memorable; look forward to our third Sweet Sixteen run. Roll Spide!