UR opts in to House settlement, will only pay hoops players

[GKiller]

Summary: neither men’s nor women’s basketball will disclose the amount UR will be giving players but will be “very aggressive” in elevating our basketball. Will give multi-year contracts. Admin sees value of athletics at UR in elevating national reputation. There is aligning across the board with donors, admin, etc.

not sure about that summary. where did it say anything about admin wanting to elevate national rep. if it did I missed. we really don't talk like that anymore. we did for a brief time. but certainly not now, regarding mens bball. I grant u Rousell did talk about growing & the women's program becoming better with resources.

the admin take is status quo...doing all this to be competitive...not elevate. I wish they wanted to elevate but the article to me was really about using this to be who we've been re: mens hoops. Part of the problem imo is the admin thinks mens hoops is nationally competitive and continue to be "one of the best basketball programs in the entire nation"...so status quo works for them, except the whole premise their whole read on who we are is wrong given we have underachieved overall under Mooney in A10 era.

there are some positives to article overall don't get me wrong...but this idea of elevating...I've watched UR hoops long time....we were about elevating, but then as we slowly accepted lower standards under Moon that naturally went away.

btw I would love to see Hardt plan for raising $ to offset pay for play via additional athletic revenues. maybe we will. but if it were easy I'm not sure why we haven't done it before. instead our athletic revenue strategy for a while imo has been to lower ticket prices. at least Moon talks only "philanthropy" and seems to understand it will come from there. philanthropy really ain't the right word tho. or just take $ from university operational costs which so many schools incl big ones r doing because they r running althletic deficits and need the $.

 

[spiderstudent17]

not sure about that summary. where did it say anything about admin wanting to elevate national rep. if it did I missed. we really don't talk like that anymore. we did for a brief time. but certainly not now, regarding mens bball. I grant u Rousell did talk about growing & the women's program becoming better with resources.

the admin take is status quo...doing all this to be competitive...not elevate. I wish they wanted to elevate but the article to me was really about using this to be who we've been re: mens hoops. Part of the problem imo is the admin thinks mens hoops is nationally competitive and continue to be "one of the best basketball programs in the entire nation"...so status quo works for them, except the whole premise their whole read on who we are is wrong given we have underachieved overall under Mooney in A10 era.

there are some positives to article overall don't get me wrong...but this idea of elevating...I've watched UR hoops long time....we were about elevating, but then as we slowly accepted lower standards under Moon that naturally went away.

btw I would love to see Hardt plan for raising $ to offset pay for play via additional athletic revenues. maybe we will. but if it were easy I'm not sure why we haven't done it before. instead our athletic revenue strategy for a while imo has been to lower ticket prices. at least Moon talks only "philanthropy" and seems to understand it will come from there. philanthropy really ain't the right word tho. or just take $ from university operational costs which so many schools incl big ones r doing because they r running althletic deficits and need the $.

Misread, mentioned national basketball. I think it was Hallock who mentioned in an article for UR magazine about national reputation.

The talk about women's basketball continuing to grow and having investment like this is a promising sign and not wanting to sit on our laurels. This is what we need to do to keep an excellent coach in Roussell, bring in top 100 recruits, and be nationally ranked. Plus, it seems now that our women's team is also getting revenue from the NIL collective, which is a great thing. Between NIL collective and house settlement, I would love to see our women's team getting $1 million a year budget. Ambitious? Yes. But if we really want to take the step to the next level is what is necessary. UR never shares specific numbers, but I feel confident it will be good.

I don't think the administration is looking at how we did last year and will say that's nationally competitive. I also don't think anyone is going to put lipstick on a pig and say our schedule this year is nationally competitive. There's no need to criticize that publicly if you're Hardt, it's understood. There is a belief of being nationally competitive and a financial commitment towards that. That is wanting to elevate our program in my eyes.

I do get what you're saying about status quo with men's basketball since all A10 will do this, but even with the "status quo" there is a range. Bernadette said between $1-3 million. The way this article read with "an aggressive target" "alignment" "great investment" at least to me suggests we will be in the higher end of that range. There seems to a strong institutional commitment for successful in both men's and women's basketball, while other schools in a similar position may not have that same commitment/desire. Maybe it's more optimism on my end, but hearing the coaches and admin say all these things out loud is a great sign.

 

[Eight Legger]

It's encouraging, for sure. And I would think it eliminates the newest excuse that Mooney could use for underperformance. We've given him chartered flights, a refurbished arena, a practice facility, and now NIL funding at a highly competitive level. Am I missing anything?

I will say that I hope we reconsider only paying MBB and WBB when we have a men's lax program sitting right there on the precipice of a national championship. How much would it cost to buy the best faceoff guy in the country?

 

[GKiller]

I do get what you're saying about status quo with men's basketball since all A10 will do this, but even with the "status quo" there is a range. Bernadette said between $1-3 million. The way this article read with "an aggressive target" "alignment" "great investment" at least to me suggests we will be in the higher end of that range. There seems to a strong institutional commitment for successful in both men's and women's basketball, while other schools in a similar position may not have that same commitment/desire. Maybe it's more optimism on my end, but hearing the coaches and admin say all these things out loud is a great sign.

Good to be optimistic. I'm in fact regularly optimistic of the teams we can have each season. Tho it's often crushed.

But there is no elevate. believe me we r done with that talk for mens hoops. they r too protrective of the Moon man. maybe when we get a new coach u will hear it again.

we have always had $ in program. probably since Robins Center was built. so that insititional commitment has been there. all relative. it's got us 3 ncaa in 20 years. so there will be $ again, which is good, but it's not a new strategy it's the price of doing business. now honestly admin is probably ok with 2 in next 20. they keep lowering expectations. it's never elevate. I wish. tho we've had chances, we let vcu come & take it. we are not even competitive within our own city.

 

[spider23]

Yep, it's whack a mole with the excuse making. Take one away - and another one pops up. I think the "we can't shedule tough teams" mole is the current one avoiding the hammer. So if we blow through the Citadel's and Southern's and finish top 5 in A10 - the messaging will be: "if only some p5's played us, we could have danced".