Said it before and will keep saying it until proven wrong (which I hope I am)- Paul's paucity of playing time is directly proportional to his ability at this level.
Spiders basketball success is in the rear view mirror
- Thread starter 32counter
- Start date
I-M, with all due respect, Paul had a large brace on his leg for most of this past season. Thus, he was limited and in reality unable to compete until late in the year. Oh well, Negative Nancys will be Negative Nancys. OSC
I hope and trust that UR administration is not as arbitrary as some here, that a coach will only be retained if makes the NCAA tourney, once, every _ years. And what if you are just short, as we were two seasons ago, #1 seed in NIT with victories in first two rounds. Was that a failed year? When you consider how many bids the P5 schools get, it's not as easy for the best coaches to go to NCAA regularly. Some programs have had some regular success lately, but a lot of things have to go well. And there's a good chance, that if some of you got your wish, and CM was canned, we'd go backwards as a program. Happens all the time.
I think the key for next year in order for Mooney to keep his job is the team needs to finish well and show promise for the future. If we rely on multiple frosh next year like most expect we will, then I think any reasonable person would expect us to have some bumpy times ahead, especially early in the season. But I think the key is if we are able to see improvement, see guys developing over the course of the season and maybe the team finishes strong - then he gets another season.
But your missing two other parts to the equation of getting rid of Mooney. 1) Money - who is going to pay the 3-4 million it might cost to pay Mooney NOT to coach UR, and then your going to have to pay an incoming coach at least 700K a year, if not more So at that rate, if we got rid of Mooney and hired a new coach at 700K - we would be spending about 1.7 million on our men's basketball coach (1 to coach and 1 not to coach). At big time programs - they even struggle with this and it usually a big time donor or group of donors who step up to help pay off the old coach - does UR have these donors in their back pocket? 2) To get rid of Mooney, you better have a good coach out there you really want and who you are almost guaranteed will take the job - we don't want to fire Mooney, then make calls to some coaches and they never pick up and next thing you know - we are settling on our 3rd or 4th choice.
But your missing two other parts to the equation of getting rid of Mooney. 1) Money - who is going to pay the 3-4 million it might cost to pay Mooney NOT to coach UR, and then your going to have to pay an incoming coach at least 700K a year, if not more So at that rate, if we got rid of Mooney and hired a new coach at 700K - we would be spending about 1.7 million on our men's basketball coach (1 to coach and 1 not to coach). At big time programs - they even struggle with this and it usually a big time donor or group of donors who step up to help pay off the old coach - does UR have these donors in their back pocket? 2) To get rid of Mooney, you better have a good coach out there you really want and who you are almost guaranteed will take the job - we don't want to fire Mooney, then make calls to some coaches and they never pick up and next thing you know - we are settling on our 3rd or 4th choice.
If we make the NCAA tournament, we earn $1.2M for every game we play, and the rest of the league gets $400,000. (That's this year's number; it probably will go up.) That helps cover the costs we would incur by paying whatever the buyout is and hiring a new coach. That's the whole point.
Of course we don't get all that money at once, but the idea is that if we have a coach who can actually take us to the tournament regularly, vs. the current coach who cannot, the change more or less pays for itself.
Of course we don't get all that money at once, but the idea is that if we have a coach who can actually take us to the tournament regularly, vs. the current coach who cannot, the change more or less pays for itself.
We are going to need some of the new players to play a substantial role next year. We need another big man. I can't really see TJ and MW as our big guys. TJ may find things tougher, as Terry Allen was a focus of many defenses, leaving TJ to slip inside. Next year, defenses may focus on TJ. The OOC schedule looks brutal, so it's not like we have a nice OOC of cupcakes, giving our younger players time to develop.
But I was so wrong this year about how good our team was going to be, hope I'm wrong about what kind of year, we will have next year. And I could be, I've seen other freshmen have great years. Many don't, of course.
But I was so wrong this year about how good our team was going to be, hope I'm wrong about what kind of year, we will have next year. And I could be, I've seen other freshmen have great years. Many don't, of course.
Do you think it is more likely a new coach would get to the NCAAs next year, or even in the 4 years we would still be paying Mooney? With our current roster a new coach would be looking at a complete rebuild, 4 to 5 years before we see the NCAAs. We make a bad hire and that gets closer to 8-10 years. Even the 'sure hire' of Dan Hurley hasn't taken URI to the NCAAs in 4 years and he has been a monster recruiter. Archie took 3 years. If we fired Mooney I doubt we would see the tournament while we were still paying 2 salaries.
Do we hurry up and cut the cord now to accelerate the rebuilding process or suffer for 5-8 more years?
I agree. We have to hope either Friendshuh, Golden, someone we haven't signed yet, or some combination of the three can contribute substantially as a big next year.
The problem is we can't or won't pay two salaries simultaneously. Eight Legger suggested the new coach would make NCAA money to offset Mooney's salary, but even if we fired Mooney today that money won't be coming in for another 3+ years at least and certainly won't solve the problem of paying two salaries at once for the next 4 years.
Does anyone actually know if we owe Mooney every single penny of the remainder of the contract if he is fired?
Matt Brady had a year left at $300k and got paid a buyout of $20k after his firing.
Matt Brady had a year left at $300k and got paid a buyout of $20k after his firing.
I don't think anyone has seen his contract, just fun to speculate things that support my argument and possibly explain the university's behavior.
All this negativity, over and over and over again. Do your homework and post new information about Spider basketball. The Ulla is constantly googleing recruits, former players, et c. in an effort to share information with my fellow Spiders. Even downloaded the Twitter app and opened an account to try to find information to share. Could some of you guys make an effort to inform about our program or do you find it more gleeful to tear it down? As an old Spider, I just don't understand the new mentality. OSC
Let's be honest. The University of Richmond has more money than it has administrative brains, just like most Universities do. Tough to infer too much there and tough to see any change until it becomes a real problem for administration, for whatever reason.
But let's just say, for sake of conjecture, that his buyout is half of his pay, or $600k per year. And we lose 1000 STH out of sheer boredom with the mediocre product, and that costs $200k worth of ticket revenue and $100k worth of merchandise and concessions revenue, they the numbers start to look a bit more palatable if there are good alternatives, and I'm sure there would be a line out the door and around the block for job seekers.
Again, all conjecture.
Appreciate the sentiments and efforts ulla. It's a long offseason and the wounds from this past season are still healing. The "new mentality" is the result of the "new normal" with our program. Play mediocre ball and get hammered by your rival as much as we do and this is the result. I guess it beats apathy or disinterest altogether.
If every year and every dollar of that contract is guaranteed, then that cements Jim Miller's legacy.
Beilein came here in 97, took a veteran team that sucked for three years and made the NCAAs in his first year. Hire the right coach and anything is possible, even right away. The way I see it, it's no greater risk hiring someone new than it is keeping the same hierarchy in place that has missed 5 straight tournaments and thinking that for some reason, "next year" will be the year...
...and Latrell Scott was the foreman in charge of backing up the cement truck in this analogy.
This is a good argument. I think what's compelling about it is that the team had a fairly solid roster. We don't have a very solid roster right now.
Yeah, I can see it both ways. There was lots of talent on that team, but it was used to doing things a certain way and losing. Tough to change attitudes, expectations and results with a team of seniors that had not won at all for three years.
Potentially easier to come in with a younger, talented team and implement new things right away and get buy-in. But who knows. I hope we win a lot next year and don't have to worry about any of this.
Probably not, but mostly because I'm not overly worried about losing upperclassmen to transfer. I'd feel differently about how important retaining my young talent or recruits is.
Totally unrelated, but I always thought it was kinda funny that when a coach gets fired, the first thing the new coach tries to do is keep all the recruits in place. Why? The old coach got fired because he wasn't good enough, so you want all his recruits because...?
If you hire a proven guy, yws. Aomeone who has succeeded regularly before at a analler school or conference. Those hires are solid. Not sure Gill has the bball smarts to know a good hire though.
Dude, don't argue with the stats guy. Hard to win because he can steer it his way any time and any way. Not to mention he's right about 50% of the time.
What does it take for a coach to be 'proven'? What does 'succeed regularly' mean? The school you are a fan of, Wake, could sure use your help finding these 'proven' coaches (and then not firing them.)
Last edited:
Making the NCAA tournament is most definitely a measure of how successful a basketball program is. Coach Tarrant was head coach from 1981 to 1993 for a total of 12 years and during that time frame we were in the NCAA Tournament 5 times. We have been to 9 NCAA Tournaments and the other 4 times were 1 under Beilein who was coach for 5 years, 1 under Wainwright who was coach for 3 years, and 2 under Mooney and he has been the coach for 11 years. If another unnamed closeby A-10 team can make the NCAA tournament 6 years in a row why can't we?
The new coach can make them better and achieve more than the old coach.
father, that is why schools utilize search firms to ID guys. ADs cannot be perfect in everything they do, they need help, just like all of us do. even with that, look at wake, does not always work and in fact, if you look at all the firings each and every year, have to think there are a lot of schools which just never get it right, at least for long.
Coach Beilein did not make Dooley's players better after 10-15 practices.
What he did was earn their immediate respect and put them in a position to win games based on fundamental coaching, individual game strategy and playing the right players in the right situation. Winning generates buy-in and builds momentum and esprit-de-corps.
Draw whatever current analogies you'd like.
What he did was earn their immediate respect and put them in a position to win games based on fundamental coaching, individual game strategy and playing the right players in the right situation. Winning generates buy-in and builds momentum and esprit-de-corps.
Draw whatever current analogies you'd like.
Never did Mooney suggest that PF was not playing because of an injury, or out of concern about re-injuring his leg. IM UR has pointed out the flaws in your argument: If that were the concern, why blow the year of eligibility? And why have him practice all year? 5 minutes per game of play time twice per week would be a lot less wear and tear than daily 2 hr practices.
The only logical conclusions one can draw are either 1) PF was not good enough to merit play time, even in a year where our front court was not deep. 2) Mooney was too stubborn to play him despite the fact that he could help the team. (I'd say option 1 is a lot more likely than option 2.)
Even great programs have down years, and the fact that we had a down year doesn't mean the program is going in the tank. I see better things ahead. But something has to change to make that possible. The new recruits seem like a good start. But I'd also like to see Mooney shaking some things up in the coaching. Will we emphasize rebounds? Will we practice other defenses? Will we change substitution patterns, so young guys get more time when the game is put away or out of reach?
blow a year of eligibility? PF already redshirted a year.
would this argument be different if we did get in a couple of years ago when we were the #1 NIT seed?
the comparisons to Dooley are way off, too. we didn't have a Dooley year this season.
I loved the Tarrant years, but how many of Tarrant's teams were earning at-large bids? he won CAA tournaments to get in.
you guys obviously think CM is a worse coach than I do. I think he's a good coach when he has the right players. yes it's on him to get those players, and I think now he is getting them. so I believe he'll win with them again.
would this argument be different if we did get in a couple of years ago when we were the #1 NIT seed?
the comparisons to Dooley are way off, too. we didn't have a Dooley year this season.
I loved the Tarrant years, but how many of Tarrant's teams were earning at-large bids? he won CAA tournaments to get in.
you guys obviously think CM is a worse coach than I do. I think he's a good coach when he has the right players. yes it's on him to get those players, and I think now he is getting them. so I believe he'll win with them again.
I have on good authority from someone inside the UR athletic department there is no buyout clause in his contract - we fire him, he gets the full amount. With that being said - I am sure lawyers could get involved and they could come to an agreement, but as it stands today - he gets full amount of remaining contract if we let him go. Good for him - bad for UR.
Spiderman, +1. What I think made Tarrant such a great coach, was not that we dominated the ECAC South/Colonial Conference during his years, and were the AQ so many times, but that we won games once we made the tourney.
Let me ask a slightly different question if 5 out of 351 Division 1 teams can make the NCAA Tournament more than 6 years in a row, then why can't we?
I think 6 years in a row is a realistic goal but not a realistic expectation. Even 1 every 2 seems high. So I am looking at the last 12 years. While I expected 1 in 4 to reasonable, I am now leaning closer to 1 in 3. (Which we haven't done)
The answer to that is, there's no reason we can't be one of them, at least empirically. 5 other teams have done it, so it can be done. It doesn't make it realistic of course, which it sounds like you understand.
I think 1 in 3 is a reasonable goal, 1 in 2 is a preferred goal, and every year (with occasional blips) is a very long stretch goal.
Last edited:
I agree. I think a realistic expectation is to be in the conversation 3 out of every 4 years with NCAA bids coming 1-2 of those years and NIT invites the other 1-2 years. If we see 2 NCAAs and 1 NIT in Mooney's final 4 years, and his recruiting doesn't slip, I think we extend him.
My first line was to attempt to tone down the emotional aspect. Some feel that since 1 of 2 teams in Richmond has made 6 straight that means we have a 50% chance of doing so and why haven't we? I wanted to show that assumed probability isn't accurate.
On my project, I have made a list of all 798 teams that made the NCAA (6x65/6x68). I haven't had time for complete analysis but there are more teams with 3 or more appearances than I thought.
Still need to group them. Making 5 of 12 always as a 4 seed or better may not relate to us. but making 5 of 12 always as an AQ & 12 seed or lower doesn't either.
