Robbie Beran - 2019 Offer

[spiderman]

It hasn't been a "gradual but consistent slide of our program over the past 7 years". More like consistently average, always feeling one year away. Until last year which was obviously bad.

Wins:
2012: 16
2013: 18
2014: 19
2015: 19
2016: 16
2017: 20
2018: 12

 

[urmite]

There are times that this discussion makes me conjure up an image of Coach Sisyphus and the mascot changing from a spider to a giant ant holding a rubber tree plant...

 

[MrTbone]

It hasn't been a "gradual but consistent slide of our program over the past 7 years". More like consistently average, always feeling one year away. Until last year which was obviously bad.

Wins:
2012: 16
2013: 18
2014: 19
2015: 19
2016: 16
2017: 20
2018: 12

It’s definitely hyperbolic to suggest we’re on some precipitous decline, but I definitely understand where 97 and others are coming from. I think the continued ask for another year of patience is what drives some of those folks batty, particularly when theres a very real potential to look past this upcoming season.

 

[Ulla1]

 

[9Legs]

It hasn't been a "gradual but consistent slide of our program over the past 7 years". More like consistently average, always feeling one year away. Until last year which was obviously bad.

Wins:
2012: 16
2013: 18
2014: 19
2015: 19
2016: 16
2017: 20
2018: 12

"Figures lie and liars figure"- Old Adage- Bottom line we are winning- 54% of our games under this regime- A 60% win rate in a 30 game schedule is 18-12 which from the A10 is not enough for the NIT- Now if you want to pay for post season- there is al- ways someone willing to take your money. We can best be described as "mediocre " (of only moderate quality; not very good) .It is what it is!

 

[Spiders05]

For those that get triggered...

I'm about to go way OT for this thread and dive back into the Mooney debate.

"Figures lie and liars figure"- Old Adage- Bottom line we are winning- 54% of our games under this regime- A 60% win rate in a 30 game schedule is 18-12 which from the A10 is not enough for the NIT- Now if you want to pay for post season- there is al- ways someone willing to take your money. We can best be described as "mediocre " (of only moderate quality; not very good) .It is what it is!

I believe Spiderman's post was trying to communicate the fact that it wasn't as though we came out of the S16 year, had 3 wins the following season and everyone cried, "Fire Mooney, this isn't good enough!"

The '12 team had one player above 6'5 that wasn't a freshman. Despite not having their own real identity, coming off the two-year NCAA run, they played in the postseason (famous ending of season with UNCC meltdown).

The '13 team was 17-8 before losing 5 of last 6. Wayne Sparrow was the tallest guy older than a sophomore by the end of the season. D-Will's career went up in a cloud.

The '14 team won 2/3 against ranked opponents and made a nice run in the NIT. They lost by 2 to Miami (who lost in the finals by 2).

I can easily see how one may have been generally concerned with recruiting during this time frame but in terms of on-court performance, please feel free to stand up if you came off the '14 season thinking, "Damn, this just isn't good enough."

Now...

The '15 team struggled, no doubt.

'16 started the year thinking 1+1+1+1+1 = 3 (and this is when I recall pitchforks coming out), finally put it together (too little too late for NCAA, obviously) but had a good NIT run and lost to the eventual champion in the quarterfinals.

'17...well...

I know there's a group that's never been a fan of Mooney, and obviously their choice. I'm of the opinion that those that use "The last 7 years..." are being selective with the window they use. For me, those that start their position with, "The last 3 years..." carry some weight.

 

[spiderman]

yeah, that sums it up very well.

I'm certainly not arguing that last year wasn't painful as a fan. and I can't argue with those who point out that we haven't had a really special year in the past 7. but it hasn't all been bad. we've had some very good teams in the past 7 that just didn't quite finish.

I just think the pitchfork crown hasn't been realistic. it hasn't been bad enough to eat what it would cost. next year is the earliest we'd even consider it, and even then only if we went through another 12 win season. there's no way we buy CM out if the team bounces back and wins say 18 again. and 18 is a lot more likely than 12, imo.

 

[97spiderfan]

For those that get triggered...

I'm about to go way OT for this thread and dive back into the Mooney debate.



I believe Spiderman's post was trying to communicate the fact that it wasn't as though we came out of the S16 year, had 3 wins the following season and everyone cried, "Fire Mooney, this isn't good enough!"

The '12 team had one player above 6'5 that wasn't a freshman. Despite not having their own real identity, coming off the two-year NCAA run, they played in the postseason (famous ending of season with UNCC meltdown).

The '13 team was 17-8 before losing 5 of last 6. Wayne Sparrow was the tallest guy older than a sophomore by the end of the season. D-Will's career went up in a cloud.

The '14 team won 2/3 against ranked opponents and made a nice run in the NIT. They lost by 2 to Miami (who lost in the finals by 2).

I can easily see how one may have been generally concerned with recruiting during this time frame but in terms of on-court performance, please feel free to stand up if you came off the '14 season thinking, "Damn, this just isn't good enough."

Now...

The '15 team struggled, no doubt.

'16 started the year thinking 1+1+1+1+1 = 3 (and this is when I recall pitchforks coming out), finally put it together (too little too late for NCAA, obviously) but had a good NIT run and lost to the eventual champion in the quarterfinals.

'17...well...

I know there's a group that's never been a fan of Mooney, and obviously their choice. I'm of the opinion that those that use "The last 7 years..." are being selective with the window they use. For me, those that start their position with, "The last 3 years..." carry some weight.

This thread is a perfect example of how things get taken out of context.

S-man pulls my "gradual but consistent decline" comment and comes back with some facts on # of wins, that per his own admission is says that we are "consistently average". I would agree.

Tbone than chimes in that those that suggest we are in precipitous decline are being hyperbolic. Ok, perhaps, but that was not what I had suggested when I said we have seen a gradual but consistent decline.

O5, good post but again I didn't say precipitous decline, nor suggest that we followed up our Sweet 16 by falling off the face of the Earth. No, I think our program has been on a gradual but consistent decline.

In 2010 and 2011, our program was an upper echelon A-10 team. Upper echelon A-10 teams are NCAA tournament teams.
2012-2016, we fell a step back and were a high middle tier A-10 team to just a straight mid level of the pack A-10 team. High middle tier teams can snag an NIT bid while mid tier teams get no postseason.
2017-2018: Despite finishing 5th in the league, due to tie breakers and with one extra loss we could have finished 10th and with 12 total wins for the year, we played more like a lower tier A-10 team for most of the year. This year most pre-season estimate show predict us at the 11th best team in the league. So, now are program is playing like and seen as a lower tier team in the A-10. Low tier teams are .500 and below teams.

I think this defines a gradual but consistent decline. This is espicially true when you consider that in 2010-2011, the A-10 also contained teams like Xavier and Temple. So, we have seen our decline in our league, while our league membership has been diluted and is less strong as well. If Xavier, Butler, and Temple were still in the A-10, our decline would be more apparent

Further, if you want to dive into our recruiting over the past 7 years, you will see again a gradual but consistent decline in the level of recruit we are signing. In those early years we had guys like Ced, D-Will, TA, Deion, K-Zero, Brothers, TD, all had numerous offers from programs at least on par with us. With the exception of the Buck, Sherod, & Grant class, which is becoming more and more of an outlier, our recruits we are getting are guys that are not highly sought after among our peers. Schneider, Verbinkis, Cayo, Johnson, Gustavson, Grace, Wojcyk, none of those guys were highly recruited and some barely recruited at all.

All that is to say I stand by my gradual but consistent decline of our program over the past 7 years.

 

[spiderstudent17]

As fans, we have expectations that our program will achieve more than possibly being in the conversation for an NCAA birth at some point of the season. Mooney has somehow perfected doing just good enough for people to give him reason to stay another year. "shoulda, woulda, coulda" basically sums up his coaching tenure, not just here but since he has been a head coach. Throughout his entire 20 year head coaching career, he has a winning percentage of 54.4% (also has a 54.4% winning percentage his 13 years here.) The law of averages will always take place, balancing out at what inevitably will be slightly above average coaching career for Mooney.

The most frustrating part is that other coaches at UR have expectations to win. Huesman repeatedly states that 6-5 is unacceptable and our goal is a national championship. Anything short of an A10 championship for our swim & dive team is unacceptable. Our lacrosse teams have expectations to be in the tournament every year. Other coaches have also been let go by our athletic department for poor on the field results. Yet, when Hardt was asked 2 weeks ago on Black and Drew Sports Radio what our goal is for basketball, his answer was "improvement."

If fans hold the sentiment like spiderman above said "we haven't had a really special year in the past 7. but it hasn't all been bad" that is exactly why there is no impetus for Mooney or anyone else on our staff to make any changes. Our goal as a program shouldn't be to just "be okay". It should be to have 20+ winning seasons, win A10 championships, make the tournament, and "be okay" on our down years.

 

[spiderman]

97, I know your frustrated and want change. that's fine. still, I can't believe you're standing by "gradual but consistent slide of our program over the past 7 years". excluding the past year, it would be tough to have a more consistent program. there's no consistent decline. it's 6 consistent years and then a drop off a cliff last year.

I believe we have the foundation for a big turnaround. we have 3 superstars to build around. we'll see if I'm wrong.

and 17, by consistent I'm not saying it's OK to just be OK. we all want more. I'm simply arguing against the so called gradual but consistent slide.

 

[spiderman]

Other coaches have also been let go by our athletic department for poor on the field results.

of course they have. but not at the cost we're talking about here. unless you're one of the 2 or 3 donors that can write that check.

 

[spider23]

17, I find it a bit unfathomable - with all the improvements, and $ being put into the program under Mooney, that we as a fan base and our admin is OK with the mediocrity and every 2 to 3 year recruiting cycles.
Spiderman I get. From his posts he has a kid that sounds likely to be a D1 prospect, he is going to be positive. I would do the same if my kid was in that position and wanted to go to UR. I give him a pass.
I do think Hardt and the admin only play along due to A) Queally's $ and B) Miller's stupidity of a contract.

Carry on.

 

[97spiderfan]

97, I know your frustrated and want change. that's fine. still, I can't believe you're standing by "gradual but consistent slide of our program over the past 7 years". excluding the past year, it would be tough to have a more consistent program. there's no consistent decline. it's 6 consistent years and then a drop off a cliff last year.

I believe we have the foundation for a big turnaround. we have 3 superstars to build around. we'll see if I'm wrong.

and 17, by consistent I'm not saying it's OK to just be OK. we all want more. I'm simply arguing against the so called gradual but consistent slide.

I gave my statements above by where we stand as an A-10 program. We were a top level A-10 program in 2011 and now we are being picked 11th. As for the 3 "superstars" statement. Grant has "superstar" potential. Sherod and Jacob are really good players but I wouldn't put them in a superstar class yet.

Regardless of those semantics, after those 3 players, we have absolutely nothing from our 10 remaining players that any one of us can even say would even qualify as an average A-10 player. Even bad programs have a few really good players. To compete night in night out in this a league like the A-10, you need a minimum of 8 high quality players. We got 3. We had 5 last year and we saw where that got us. Now we have 3.

This is why we are being pick near the bottom of the A-10 by literally everyone who has weighed in thus far.

 

[spiderman]

we don't know what we have around those 3, but some will be good.
and if you went back to our best teams, we had a lot of unknowns behind our top 3 players back then too. they turned out to be solid role players, but that wasn't a given before they got the chance.

as for other A10 teams having a minimum of 8 high quality players, we could go team by team. I think you'd struggle finding many teams with 8 guys returning who statistically you'd call high quality.

 

[9Legs]

For those that get triggered...

I'm about to go way OT for this thread and dive back into the Mooney debate.



I believe Spiderman's post was trying to communicate the fact that it wasn't as though we came out of the S16 year, had 3 wins the following season and everyone cried, "Fire Mooney, this isn't good enough!"

The '12 team had one player above 6'5 that wasn't a freshman. Despite not having their own real identity, coming off the two-year NCAA run, they played in the postseason (famous ending of season with UNCC meltdown).

The '13 team was 17-8 before losing 5 of last 6. Wayne Sparrow was the tallest guy older than a sophomore by the end of the season. D-Will's career went up in a cloud.

The '14 team won 2/3 against ranked opponents and made a nice run in the NIT. They lost by 2 to Miami (who lost in the finals by 2).

I can easily see how one may have been generally concerned with recruiting during this time frame but in terms of on-court performance, please feel free to stand up if you came off the '14 season thinking, "Damn, this just isn't good enough."

Now...

The '15 team struggled, no doubt.

'16 started the year thinking 1+1+1+1+1 = 3 (and this is when I recall pitchforks coming out), finally put it together (too little too late for NCAA, obviously) but had a good NIT run and lost to the eventual champion in the quarterfinals.

'17...well...

I know there's a group that's never been a fan of Mooney, and obviously their choice. I'm of the opinion that those that use "The last 7 years..." are being selective with the window they use. For me, those that start their position with, "The last 3 years..." carry some weight.

 

[9Legs]

For those that get triggered...

I'm about to go way OT for this thread and dive back into the Mooney debate.



I believe Spiderman's post was trying to communicate the fact that it wasn't as though we came out of the S16 year, had 3 wins the following season and everyone cried, "Fire Mooney, this isn't good enough!"

The '12 team had one player above 6'5 that wasn't a freshman. Despite not having their own real identity, coming off the two-year NCAA run, they played in the postseason (famous ending of season with UNCC meltdown).

The '13 team was 17-8 before losing 5 of last 6. Wayne Sparrow was the tallest guy older than a sophomore by the end of the season. D-Will's career went up in a cloud.

The '14 team won 2/3 against ranked opponents and made a nice run in the NIT. They lost by 2 to Miami (who lost in the finals by 2).

I can easily see how one may have been generally concerned with recruiting during this time frame but in terms of on-court performance, please feel free to stand up if you came off the '14 season thinking, "Damn, this just isn't good enough."

Now...

The '15 team struggled, no doubt.

'16 started the year thinking 1+1+1+1+1 = 3 (and this is when I recall pitchforks coming out), finally put it together (too little too late for NCAA, obviously) but had a good NIT run and lost to the eventual champion in the quarterfinals.

'17...well...

I know there's a group that's never been a fan of Mooney, and obviously their choice. I'm of the opinion that those that use "The last 7 years..." are being selective with the window they use. For me, those that start their position with, "The last 3 years..." carry some weight.

"If IFs and Buts were candy and nuts everyday would be XMAS"!!!!!
and we would have gone to the NCAA more than ZILCH!!!

 

[MrTbone]

we don't know what we have around those 3, but some will be good.
and if you went back to our best teams, we had a lot of unknowns behind our top 3 players back then too. they turned out to be solid role players, but that wasn't a given before they got the chance.

as for other A10 teams having a minimum of 8 high quality players, we could go team by team. I think you'd struggle finding many teams with 8 guys returning who statistically you'd call high quality.

I think you’re overselling that the 2010 and 2011 teams only had three known quantities. Four of the five starters for the 2010 team were guys who had played a ton of minutes from their freshman seasons, the fifth being Harper who started seeing his action sophomore year. The 2011 team lost butler and gonzo but had ksmith, fran-ced and Garrett who all had played respectable bench minutes.

I like our three returning starters this year but I don’t think the scenario is at all comparable in bench preparedness or experience for the starters.

 

[SpiderDaMan]

If "offer" threads are made for every offer there will be plenty to talk about for months. Bacot isn't going to a VA school. Time to close that thread down...

 

[SpiderDaMan]

This thread is a perfect example of how things get taken out of context.

S-man pulls my "gradual but consistent decline" comment and comes back with some facts on # of wins, that per his own admission is says that we are "consistently average". I would agree.

Tbone than chimes in that those that suggest we are in precipitous decline are being hyperbolic. Ok, perhaps, but that was not what I had suggested when I said we have seen a gradual but consistent decline.

O5, good post but again I didn't say precipitous decline, nor suggest that we followed up our Sweet 16 by falling off the face of the Earth. No, I think our program has been on a gradual but consistent decline.

In 2010 and 2011, our program was an upper echelon A-10 team. Upper echelon A-10 teams are NCAA tournament teams.
2012-2016, we fell a step back and were a high middle tier A-10 team to just a straight mid level of the pack A-10 team. High middle tier teams can snag an NIT bid while mid tier teams get no postseason.
2017-2018: Despite finishing 5th in the league, due to tie breakers and with one extra loss we could have finished 10th and with 12 total wins for the year, we played more like a lower tier A-10 team for most of the year. This year most pre-season estimate show predict us at the 11th best team in the league. So, now are program is playing like and seen as a lower tier team in the A-10. Low tier teams are .500 and below teams.

I think this defines a gradual but consistent decline. This is espicially true when you consider that in 2010-2011, the A-10 also contained teams like Xavier and Temple. So, we have seen our decline in our league, while our league membership has been diluted and is less strong as well. If Xavier, Butler, and Temple were still in the A-10, our decline would be more apparent

Further, if you want to dive into our recruiting over the past 7 years, you will see again a gradual but consistent decline in the level of recruit we are signing. In those early years we had guys like Ced, D-Will, TA, Deion, K-Zero, Brothers, TD, all had numerous offers from programs at least on par with us. With the exception of the Buck, Sherod, & Grant class, which is becoming more and more of an outlier, our recruits we are getting are guys that are not highly sought after among our peers. Schneider, Verbinkis, Cayo, Johnson, Gustavson, Grace, Wojcyk, none of those guys were highly recruited and some barely recruited at all.

All that is to say I stand by my gradual but consistent decline of our program over the past 7 years.

7 years is all? The animal in me just had to say it...carry on and don't mind me.

 

[Ulla1]

I think you’re overselling that the 2010 and 2011 teams only had three known quantities. Four of the five starters for the 2010 team were guys who had played a ton of minutes from their freshman seasons, the fifth being Harper who started seeing his action sophomore year. The 2011 team lost butler and gonzo but had ksmith, fran-ced and Garrett who all had played respectable bench minutes.

I like our three returning starters this year but I don’t think the scenario is at all comparable in bench preparedness or experience for the starters.

T, with all due respect, BS.

 

[MrTbone]

T, with all due respect, BS.

A) I always enjoy the “all due respect” precursor before someone says something disrespectful.
B) Feel free to fact check the above analysis and offer an alternative fact-based argument.

 

[spiderman]

I think you’re overselling that the 2010 and 2011 teams only had three known quantities. Four of the five starters for the 2010 team were guys who had played a ton of minutes from their freshman seasons, the fifth being Harper who started seeing his action sophomore year. The 2011 team lost butler and gonzo but had ksmith, fran-ced and Garrett who all had played respectable bench minutes.

I like our three returning starters this year but I don’t think the scenario is at all comparable in bench preparedness or experience for the starters.

fair enough. those teams were more experience and had more seniors. but while guys like Garrett, Martel and Smith had played some minutes, they had been 2 ppg guys. I don't know that that qualifies as known high quality backups, though they turned out solid.

some of our our unknowns will prove to be solid as well.

 

[MrTbone]

fair enough. those teams were more experience and had more seniors. but while guys like Garrett, Martel and Smith had played some minutes, they had been 2 ppg guys. I don't know that that qualifies as known high quality backups, though they turned out solid.

some of our our unknowns will prove to be solid as well.

I do expect some similarities. When you look at Fran-ced, ksmith and Garrett, they were collectively averaging over 40mpg. By comparison, our top three returners this year are JJ, Cayo and Oddo who return about 31mpg. What those three guys from 2010 brought to the team is very different than the three guys returning this year, notably in defensive skill.

You’re right that we won’t know what we have until a year from now though. I think that’s part of the complaint folks have. It shouldn’t look quite so uncertain.

 

[MrTbone]

also, sorry, i just realized how way off topic we are on robbie beran's thread, i'll shut my trap on this one.

 

[spiderman]

rob ‏@REB_0031 17h17 hours ago
Very honored and humbled to receive an offer from Rutgers of the Big 10!

 

[MrTbone]

we have to be able to beat out rutgers for this kid. come on man.

 

[97spiderfan]

I do expect some similarities. When you look at Fran-ced, ksmith and Garrett, they were collectively averaging over 40mpg. By comparison, our top three returners this year are JJ, Cayo and Oddo who return about 31mpg. What those three guys from 2010 brought to the team is very different than the three guys returning this year, notably in defensive skill.

You’re right that we won’t know what we have until a year from now though. I think that’s part of the complaint folks have. It shouldn’t look quite so uncertain.

The fact that Oddo (a walk-on) is one our top 3 returning bench players is telling. I feel I need to remind folks that last years team had one senior (who was not even a contributing player) on it. Speaks to the significant level of attrition we are experiencing. Yet another sign of an ailing program.

 

[MrTbone]

The fact that Oddo (a walk-on) is one our top 3 returning bench players is telling. I feel I need to remind folks that last years team had one senior (who was not even a contributing player) on it. Speaks to the significant level of attrition we are experiencing. Yet another sign of an ailing program.

It probably won't make you feel better that Keith is our only other returning player who saw actual game time last year.

I included him for comparative purposes of the top three bench minute guys, not because he was a significant contributor. Was trying to make it apples to apples. And before anyone jumps on me about it, I do like Keith, seems like a good kid, plays hard, shoots well.

 

[spiderman]

And before anyone jumps on me about it, I do like Keith, seems like a good kid, plays hard, shoots well.

agreed, but I'm not sure anyone expects Keith to be in the rotation. some guys who haven't played here yet will be getting time, and will hopefully be successful in their roles.

 

[Ulla1]

Well, our guys recognized Robbie’s potential early on.

 

[Spiders05]

Well, our guys recognized Robbie’s potential early on.

11 months after his first offer and he plays in our city. We were his 17th offer. Not sure I'd give us credit for recognizing potential "early on" in this case.

 

[ChoppinBroccoli]

11 months after his first offer and he plays in our city. We were his 17th offer. Not sure I'd give us credit for recognizing potential "early on" in this case.

Don't let facts get in the way of a good narrative.

 

[Ulla1]

11 months after his first offer and he plays in our city. We were his 17th offer. Not sure I'd give us credit for recognizing potential "early on" in this case.

05, any Power 6 offers before UR offered?

 

[Ulla1]

11 months after his first offer and he plays in our city. We were his 17th offer. Not sure I'd give us credit for recognizing potential "early on" in this case.

Whoa, 05! Just checked Verbal Commits. Robbie's best offer prior to UR was James Madison! I know you want to get rid of our coaching staff, but, hey, give credit where it is due.

 

[SpiderDaMan]

05, any Power 6 offers before UR offered?

Everyone that stands even the slightest chance offers any top 100 that even shows one second of interest. Offering is pretty much offering. Unless of course you happen to be Duke, KY or UNC. Offers from them mean something. For most of the rest of us we're scrambling for the best 3 or 4 star guy that will pay attention.

 

[Spiders05]

I know you want to get rid of our coaching staff, but, hey, give credit where it is due.

First, you're showing a lot of ignorance here.

Whoa, 05! Just checked Verbal Commits. Robbie's best offer prior to UR was James Madison!

Second, he had offers from a number of better programs than JMU, but...

The quality of offers was not contained anywhere within the post I was responding to. Your original post opined that we recognized talent early. We certainly were in before ACC/B10 programs came calling, but again (and I'll type slower this time), 16 programs, including in-state programs, JMU, VMI, GMU, WM had all offered a kid that played his first two years just 4.5 miles from our campus.

 

[Ulla1]

First, you're showing a lot of ignorance here.



Second, he had offers from a number of better programs than JMU, but...

The quality of offers was not contained anywhere within the post I was responding to. Your original post opined that we recognized talent early. We certainly were in before ACC/B10 programs came calling, but again (and I'll type slower this time), 16 programs, including in-state programs, JMU, VMI, GMU, WM had all offered a kid that played his first two years just 4.5 miles from our campus.

05, pretty low level offers. I rest my case.

 

[MrTbone]

agreed, but I'm not sure anyone expects Keith to be in the rotation. some guys who haven't played here yet will be getting time, and will hopefully be successful in their roles.

If Keith is in the rotation then we’ve definitely got problems.

 

[MrTbone]

I’m not sure why we’re spending much time debating this kid. He is pretty solidly in the “no chance” category barring some major change in his status.

 

[spiderman]

not sure when you want us offering a kid like this, 05. nobody projected him to be an A10 level player before he had a big spring live period and we offered right then. when we offered we were arguably his best offer. I think our timing was fine. and I also assume we were in contact with him before offering, but who knows.

end of April to early May he started getting good offers including ours but he blew up in the summer live period and his offers hit a whole new level. that's unfortunate but not the first time.

still ... people overestimate how important it is to offer super early. kids fall in love with a better offer pretty quickly. if this kid wants to stay home, we're a really good option. but we're not the prettiest girl at the dance now. and that wouldn't change even if we offered him in middle school.