Spider17
All A-10 player
Losing this game to a very bad, 6-22 Loyola team and being 14-14 against D1 competition, had me thinking about the idea of legacy. I have to imagine that some sort of thought of leaving a legacy has crossed the minds of many coaches. The idea that even after they retire, they left an indelible mark on the university that will be remembered in a positive way. There's an intangible satisfaction that I think most people would have with this. I think Jay Wright, Tony Bennett, and many coaches recognize the importance of this, and why I think those guys left the way they did. They probably recognized that the way the college landscape is progressing now, is not something they can (or want) to adjust too well enough and left "on top" so they can be remembered fondly for the incredible accomplishments they made rather than struggle and underperform to the standards they had. As spider fans, we think about John Belein or Dick Tarrant in this way. Perhaps Chuck Boone as an athletic director.
My question then is this. Do you think Mooney and to a lesser extent, Hardt, think about the legacy they leave at this University? Or is this just a paycheck they collect even if it means tarnishing the reputation he has as a coach? I'm not saying Mooney has the same legacy as Jay Wright or Tony Bennett, but within the confides of UR, I'm sure he would have been thought of fondly by fans to some extent because of the sweet 16 run and winning some big games over the years. Because right now, if we are just going to drag this out for the next 3 years - which looks to be the case - Mooney's 55% winning percentage is only going to get worse. He's only going to add more to the loss column. He's going to lose more to VCU and miss more NCAA tournaments. Then, the thought of him shifts from "Coach Mooney the nice guy from Princeton who led a clean program and had big moments for UR in his career" to "Coach Mooney, the guy who dragged this out too long and it's hurting his image, record, and the basketball program".
We see this with other athletes. Guys like Aaron Rodgers who perhaps is coming back for more years than he needs to. We see teams like the Patriots moving on from Belichick as they saw he was on a decline, but gave him the respect to go out before it got too bad. There's a saying "go out on top" which for many people they would prefer than play another 2-3 underachieving years because of the image it holds for their legacy. There's also the expression "die a hero or live long enough to become a villain". In Mooney's case, it's retire while people still think of you as a decent coach who had some great moments or keep coaching to the point that everyone feels your hurting the program.
I think for most people there is some sort of intrinsic pride they have to feel that they left a place better than they found it and have that external validation from others. Especially in public positions like this, there's a certain element of opinion from fans/the community and how one is thought of even when they leave, that is important to people. So I was wondering whether Mooney and to a lesser extent Hardt, think about these things or care about these things in anyway or does it not matter to them/they truly believe that what they're doing and results they're producing is acceptable and their "legacy" will be fine.
Today I watched a UR coach take a lacrosse program that did not exist 14 years ago beat the defending national champions and where we legitimately can become #1 team in the country on Monday. I watched a women's basketball coach finish his 3rd straight season with 25+ wins and position his team to make 3 NCAAs in a row. Then I watched a coach in his 21st year lose to a 6-22 Loyola team and finish bottom 4 in the A10 3 of the past 4 years and can't help but think the very stark contrast in legacy the 2 former coaches are leaving compared to the latter.
My question then is this. Do you think Mooney and to a lesser extent, Hardt, think about the legacy they leave at this University? Or is this just a paycheck they collect even if it means tarnishing the reputation he has as a coach? I'm not saying Mooney has the same legacy as Jay Wright or Tony Bennett, but within the confides of UR, I'm sure he would have been thought of fondly by fans to some extent because of the sweet 16 run and winning some big games over the years. Because right now, if we are just going to drag this out for the next 3 years - which looks to be the case - Mooney's 55% winning percentage is only going to get worse. He's only going to add more to the loss column. He's going to lose more to VCU and miss more NCAA tournaments. Then, the thought of him shifts from "Coach Mooney the nice guy from Princeton who led a clean program and had big moments for UR in his career" to "Coach Mooney, the guy who dragged this out too long and it's hurting his image, record, and the basketball program".
We see this with other athletes. Guys like Aaron Rodgers who perhaps is coming back for more years than he needs to. We see teams like the Patriots moving on from Belichick as they saw he was on a decline, but gave him the respect to go out before it got too bad. There's a saying "go out on top" which for many people they would prefer than play another 2-3 underachieving years because of the image it holds for their legacy. There's also the expression "die a hero or live long enough to become a villain". In Mooney's case, it's retire while people still think of you as a decent coach who had some great moments or keep coaching to the point that everyone feels your hurting the program.
I think for most people there is some sort of intrinsic pride they have to feel that they left a place better than they found it and have that external validation from others. Especially in public positions like this, there's a certain element of opinion from fans/the community and how one is thought of even when they leave, that is important to people. So I was wondering whether Mooney and to a lesser extent Hardt, think about these things or care about these things in anyway or does it not matter to them/they truly believe that what they're doing and results they're producing is acceptable and their "legacy" will be fine.
Today I watched a UR coach take a lacrosse program that did not exist 14 years ago beat the defending national champions and where we legitimately can become #1 team in the country on Monday. I watched a women's basketball coach finish his 3rd straight season with 25+ wins and position his team to make 3 NCAAs in a row. Then I watched a coach in his 21st year lose to a 6-22 Loyola team and finish bottom 4 in the A10 3 of the past 4 years and can't help but think the very stark contrast in legacy the 2 former coaches are leaving compared to the latter.
Last edited:
