UR basketball
- Thread starter Ulla1
- Start date
I don't think 32 was demeaning KoVien. I was thinking 32 was making a different point, i.e., that the Ulla may not be the best evaluator of talent. The Ulla is undoubtedly intelligent, his heart is certainly in the right place, and his participation on this board and as a fan is very much appreciated. We need many more with his dedication. However, he lacks the ability to accurately evaluate recruits showing an interest in our school because of his deep, unabiding, and blinding devotion to UR athletics, a trait which most of us now recognize and accept even though we may call him on it or tease him about it from time to time about it.
I believe due to entrance requirements we have to take chances on marginal players.
A lot depends on work ethic and dedication to improvement. Look at TJ from when he got
here to now. Yes look at his bloodline, but look at his improvement each year. Kwan Fore
has made steps in right direction this year.
We rarely get the star but hope for development long term. Justin Harper was another example
of retooling his physique and look what he did for the school. I believe Sherrod and Buck if they
work hard will be stars early on. We don't know what mindset and dedication this 2017 class brings,
but we can only hope there is some TJ work ethic in some of them.
A lot depends on work ethic and dedication to improvement. Look at TJ from when he got
here to now. Yes look at his bloodline, but look at his improvement each year. Kwan Fore
has made steps in right direction this year.
We rarely get the star but hope for development long term. Justin Harper was another example
of retooling his physique and look what he did for the school. I believe Sherrod and Buck if they
work hard will be stars early on. We don't know what mindset and dedication this 2017 class brings,
but we can only hope there is some TJ work ethic in some of them.
The fact of the matter is that next year - we will need new guys, guys who have never played for UR before to step and be "major" factors. Unfortunatley - this does not happen very often in the UR's history - especially under Mooney.
I agree - look at Solly should be more of a transfer, but in UR's limited history of transfers, only a few standout - as proven by the Aron Stewart thread. Guys like Greg Stevenson burst onto the scene and are major players in year 1, but I think the trajectory of someone like Cline is more realistic - give them a year or two to adjust and maybe Solly turns into an all league player. Frosh - Buckingham is most likely on the All-Rookie team and maybe a candidate for Rookie of the Year in the A10, but even he is still inconsistent an only gets us 9 points a game. Our last frosh who really came onto the scene was Kevin Anderson - he got 10 points a night - but that team went 16-15 his first year. So I think expecting a frosh to burst on the scene and be a major player is asking a lot as well. But I also thinks this shows the future is bright for Buckingham and the Spiders - but I don't see it being next year. I see it being the following year 2018-2019 season. Too many young and new guys next season, and too many unknowns on how our big men (if any) will develop and fill in for Cline.
I agree - look at Solly should be more of a transfer, but in UR's limited history of transfers, only a few standout - as proven by the Aron Stewart thread. Guys like Greg Stevenson burst onto the scene and are major players in year 1, but I think the trajectory of someone like Cline is more realistic - give them a year or two to adjust and maybe Solly turns into an all league player. Frosh - Buckingham is most likely on the All-Rookie team and maybe a candidate for Rookie of the Year in the A10, but even he is still inconsistent an only gets us 9 points a game. Our last frosh who really came onto the scene was Kevin Anderson - he got 10 points a night - but that team went 16-15 his first year. So I think expecting a frosh to burst on the scene and be a major player is asking a lot as well. But I also thinks this shows the future is bright for Buckingham and the Spiders - but I don't see it being next year. I see it being the following year 2018-2019 season. Too many young and new guys next season, and too many unknowns on how our big men (if any) will develop and fill in for Cline.
I am willing to state that virtually no one on this board is capable of evaluating the talent level of our recruits. Ulla is no more optimistic than many of our posters are pessimistic about who we are bringing in. This is like predicting the weather, the only way you really know is when you see it live and in person.
Impact freshmen are hard to find. Impact transfers are not as sporadic, at least not across the A10. We certainly have to hope that Solly falls into this category. I'm not as down on our chances next year because we have the talent exodus every year (like every other team) and I think it tends to get overblown, but replacing two really high level guys is harder than replacing just one as has been our situation the last few years.
Don't mean to speak for iSpider, but I suspect that his reference to "lucking out" refers to the fact that all 3 recruits from last year had local ties. Would Mooney have landed them had they been from Pittsburgh, Dallas, and Seattle? Factually, we don't know, but if you look at Mooney's track record of signing higher caliber recruits (not from Richmond) a strong argument can be made that the smart money would be on NO.
Small guards could be considered the exception to the above assertion.
Why was it petty? 32, was just demonstratively pointing out that Ulla blows up every recruit Mooney signs using Ulla's own words.
Espicially when Ulla was just lecturing us on how great our current incoming class is. I don't see it the greatness beyond Gilyard, all I see is a bunch of guys who we were their definitive best offer. Guys that we offered after our first and second choices turned us down.
I don't think Mooney has solved his recruiting problems at all. This year's class is fantastic, but we all knew this year's class was going to be great because the 3 guys we brought in had interest from many schools, including Sherod and Buck who both had numerous high major offers. Next year, we are back to the same old Mooney recruiting pattern of getting players who were not highly recruited at all.
And for the 8 millionth time, there is a reason these guys are not highly recruited.
Of note, I can't remember us ever having signed multiple guys in the early period before. It's not unreasonable to think that some of these guys would have garnered interest from other programs, including better programs, if they hadn't signed in November. So while I understand the "we're the best offer on the list" argument, it's not as predictable a measure as it is when we look at other spring signings where we've typically struggled in the prior few years.
I still don't get how football is our flagship sport. This is purely anecdotal, but when I meet people and they find out I went to Richmond they often mention our basketball program. It is the most common response, actually. The only non-Richmond person who has ever mentioned our football program to me is a JMU alum, so based on my interactions it has nowhere near the visibility on the national level that our basketball program does. Maybe in Richmond it has a lot of visibility, but on a national level very few people know about the football program, and most people I have talked to are surprised to learn we actually have a football team! I live in a college town in North Carolina and interact mostly with people ages 18-35 for what its worth.
Last edited:
If we didn't have major competition in the city/ the state/the region/nationally then this would have more merit. Richmond is heavily recruited and we definitely are not the only local/regional option.
Quite frankly, I don't see the relevance to this on either side of the debate. We are supposed to land some local kids. Just as Pitt and Duquesne are supposed to get future 'stashers from the Iron City. You could maybe argue we should get more then we've gotten. But it's not "luck" to land anybody... local or not.
Most of our guys sign early.
2015: Buck, Sherod, Golden
2014: Johnson (Pistokache and Dominaus late)
2013: Fore, Friendshuh, Diekvoss (Smithen late)
2012: S. Jones, J. Jones, Singleton (none late)
2011: Allen, Taylor (none late)
2010: Anthony, Davis, Nelson-Ododa, Piotrowski (none late)
Consider me shamed. I was aware of the 2015 class and JJ in 2014. All of those prior years I thought were predominantly spring signings. That said, I don't think it changes my point that early signing guys are by nature going to have fewer offers, particularly if they blow up. I doubt we would have been Julius Johnson's only offer after he posted 32ppg or whatever he did as a senior at FAA. 97's point is dead on with the late signees (Dominaus and Smithen above are clear examples), it just isn't as definitive with early signers in my estimation.
Not as concerned by our current exodus of players??? Why not? This is true, this happens every year. But last time we had a POY leave the program was Kevin Anderson, I think we all thought it might take us a year or two to rebound from that exodus of not only Anderson, but also Harper and Geriot. BUT - we did have Brothers, Martel, Lindsay, Garrett, Duinker, and DWilliams behind those guys - and we are still in rebuild mode.
So - I would agree with you if in the past we have proven under Mooney and staff when our great players leave, that guys behind step up - but unfortunately - this has not happened yet.
So - I would agree with you if in the past we have proven under Mooney and staff when our great players leave, that guys behind step up - but unfortunately - this has not happened yet.
I thought it was petty to search for a post that must be 2 years old to rub it in ulla's face that he was wrong.
I'm sure if we scour everyone's past posts, including mine, we can find plenty of mistakes/errors, etc.
He was our first commitment in that class. He knew he had a good deal and committed in August that year.
This is just not true. 2 of the first guys that had offers were Tomas and Bryce. Whether you like them, I like them, Ulla, i or anyone else doesn't matter. Our staff identified them early as guys they like and offered. Now, whether you trust the staff to find quality talent is a different matter and an angle you could support reasonably well.
Gilyard, who everyone seems to love was a late offer, but seems to be the crowd favorite. AJ and Cayo were not early offers.
Last year TA and TJ were our leading scorers, this year it's TJ and SDJ. The year before that, it was K0 by a far margin, and TA stepped up to replace his scoring. The year before that, it was Ced whose production was replaced by K0. I could probably keep tracing it back.
It sounds like your position is not about individual production but more about team results/success. If so, then sure, my argument has no merit. But that's a question of overall depth, not about if we are going to really struggle next year due to a good or great player leaving. I do think that two very good players leaving is hard to replace.
I never make mistakes, unless you go to post #53 above. But, otherwise, never.
This is accurate. I just went back through 7 years of posts, and I couldn't find any mistakes on your part. Well done, sir!
I believe the answer to the questions is.... 54%. 12 years of actual history and the result is mediocre. Look at all the "If's" above. "Hope is not a good strategy". Go Spiders, beat Rams!
Appreciate the shout out. I am likely to make a mistake in the next 12 minutes. Good things never last.
This statement, sadly, was a mistake. The streak is over.
How good will Grant be? 54%. 54% of what? 54% of TJ? 54% better than TJ? 54% of our team's scoring and rebounds? That is pretty good.
How good will Solly be? 54%? Is he also going to have 54% of our scoring? We are going to be really efficient, already over 100%.
Two of our freshmen will improve our team by 54% each as well, now we are over 200%!
Gilyard will add 54% too? You are pretty optimistic for next year, we will be tough to beat when playing over 250%.
In regards to Tomas, we offered him early, true. But he didn't sign until much later. So, was that because he was deciding or we had other guys in the hopper ahead of him. That is a question only Mooney and staff can answer.
Other questions regarding Tomas.
1. Who else offered him in during this time. The only two other offers, I see, are Florida Gulf Coast and Valpo, neither of which play in a league anywhere close to the A-10. So, we were his best offer.
2. What type of numbers is he putting up in his senior year? TBone said JJ was putting up 32 ppg as a senior and we see the type of rotational player he has become. Tomas is not putting up anywhere near those numbers.
Tomas maybe a great player, but I think there is ample room for question marks given his high school performance and other schools interested, and our staff's prior recruiting results.
I just am way past giving Mooney the benefit of the doubt when it comes to recruiting. The old saying fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
If multiple members of this class end up being quality A-10 players, than I will be happy to come on here and own my misjudgment. Wish others, (ahem, Ulla) would own their own past misjudgments on recruits as well, but some just seem to promote eternal optimism in the recruiting front, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary.
I believe the 54% figure he is referencing is Mooney's winning percentage over 12 years.
That really does seem to be carved in stone. Whether it is against the ACC or the MEAC.
Since we are going to win 54% of our games, we should schedule much better teams.
Our football program has a lot more success. How many D1 National Championships has our basketball team won? Our football program won a D1 National title in 2008. Our football program has been vastly more successful than our basketball program. I do not see any success for our basketball program until the end of the Mooney contract in 2021.
On a more serious note, here is how our A10 performance compares to other A10 teams over the past decade:
Code:
A10 win % Bids A10 Years
VCU 75% 4 5
Dayton 61% 4 10
Davidson 61% 1 3
Richmond 59% 2 10
SLU 51% 3 10
SJU 48% 3 10
SBU 48% 1 10
URI 48% 0 10
UMass 47% 1 10
GW 46% 1 10
La Salle 45% 1 10
Duquesne 38% 0 10
GMU 31% 0 4
Fordham 25% 0 10The 54% win rate is misleading, it makes it seem like our performance is solidly in the center of the pack. However, the distribution of wins is heavily lopsided, and the median win percentage in college basketball is under 50%, so 54% is actually more above average than it appears. Notice, 10 of the 14 A10 teams lost more than 54% of their A10 games over the past decade. The only current A10 team who has won at a significantly higher rate than us over the past decade is VCU.
I am not saying I am completely satisfied with our performance over the past decade, but when compared with the long term performance of other A10 teams I would put us somewhere above mediocre.
Last edited:
When the distribution is not symmetric the median is much better indicator of 'average' in the colloquial sense than the mean.
Another way to look at it is that our 54% win rate does not mean we performed better than 54% of teams over that time period, and if the A10 data is representative of college basketball as a whole we may have a higher win rate than over 70% of college basketball teams under Mooney's tenure.
Last edited:
Yes, I did mean Mean instead of average. So of course a Mean above 50% was meant as a truly failed joke.
Note that several A-10 programs with good winning percentages over the past decade are not included on the list because they've left the conference.
Xavier 77% over 6 seasons, Temple 77% over 6 seasons, and Butler 69% in one season. Charlotte was 40% in 6 seasons.
Xavier 77% over 6 seasons, Temple 77% over 6 seasons, and Butler 69% in one season. Charlotte was 40% in 6 seasons.
Good report Ulla.
That seems odd that Ulla is pegging Bryce as playing at a low level of competition, for a team with an A10 level recruit and a P5 level recruit. Normally guys at that level don't seek out a team that plays in a low level league?? Especially odd since it seems that Bryce went through two schools from end of jr year to sr year, and with his dad so plugged in to the hoops scene. I would really have thought since Bryce already had the Richmond spot, they would have focused on a high level of competition to ready him for the A10. Just seems odd to me, possibly this is the highest level in that area of SC?
True, and when Xavier and Temple were here we were still 3rd or 4th out of 14 in the A10 (above mediocre). They have been replaced on this list by VCU and Davidson, Dayton has also improved significantly since they left as well.
Yeah, I'm just pointing out part of the reason why things are skewed toward teams being below .500. They lost a lot of games to teams that are no longer with us and not on the list.
maybe tie your financial support decisions to the the answers to the above questions....
The state of our basketball program (which was horrible at the time) had nothing to do with my decision to attend UR in March, 1972. Nor will the present state of our basketball program have anything to do with my current financial support, however meager that may be, of the university.
Others may disagree. It's a free country, for now anyways.
The state of our basketball program (which was horrible at the time) had nothing to do with my decision to attend UR in March, 1972. Nor will the present state of our basketball program have anything to do with my current financial support, however meager that may be, of the university.
Others may disagree. It's a free country, for now anyways.
Similar threads
