We're officially doomed

[Eight Legger]

it's probably all coming from the school.
they want a successful basketball program. it's important. they tried to do it on the cheap this year. it failed.
increasing NIL doesn't guarantee anythying, but paying 40% of what the top teams in the league pay is a losing proposition.

If this is true, and I think it probably is... That makes the issue 1000x worse in my mind, because it would mean all of the following is true:

• the university has been holding back available funds that it could have put toward the basketball program before now;
• it has enough in these reserves to simply buy out Mooney and hire someone new (who also would come at a lower price tag) but is choosing not to do so;
• the powers that be have decided that MONEY and not MOONEY is the real problem here.

 

[Spider17]

I don’t think it’s all from the school. The school will subsidize the rest to get to the number the AD has determined necessary to not embarrass ourselves, which I believe will be around $4-5 million. Wasn’t explicitly stated but heavily implied we’re going to have a considerable payroll increase next season. But I do agree Eight, that it shows we have the money to buyout Mooney’s contract but instead are choosing to stick with him.

The cynical view is that they want Mooney for life and will help with funding it necessary for him to do well enough to stay here.

The optimistic view is that the university is really committed to the success of this program and want us to be at the top. Mooney has done well in the past and they want to see if he can continue that success with a high payroll.

The practical view is the cost of giving Mooney a payroll increase is still cheaper than buying out his contract the next 3 years. They recognize these results aren’t where we want them to be, but because of Mooney’s history here not only of success in the past but relationships he’s built, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and another chance with a top level A10 budget. If he produces another mediocre season, it will be the final straw.

 

[sman]

If this is true, and I think it probably is... That makes the issue 1000x worse in my mind, because it would mean all of the following is true:

• the university has been holding back available funds that it could have put toward the basketball program before now;

this year is the 1st year schools could contribute to the NIL.

 

[Eight Legger]

this year is the 1st year schools could contribute to the NIL.

Correct, but it apparently could have contributed more this year. Or it could have bought Mooney out after last year. Or now.

 

[MrTbone]

I think what sman said about we'll be better with better players is fair, but I'll be shocked if we're dramatically better next year even with better players. The returning players are pretty dubious other than Argabright. I like Robinson personally but he didn't get a ton of time, and a lot of what he got was out of his position group. I don't see any dramatic jumps from Mikkel or Colin. Maybe Harper?

So you're gonna have to bring at least 3 new starters, and you're gonna face all the same problems we've historically had from a system perspective.

Plus, we just don't play defense. So, there's that.

 

[SpiderTrue]

paying 40% of what the top teams in the league pay is a losing proposition.

I have said similar things and was ridiculed.

 

[RichmondNative]

So you're gonna have to bring at least 3 new starters, and you're gonna face all the same problems we've historically had from a system perspective.

Exactly and this new team is going to have to have good team chemistry for this one year turnaround. It is going to take more than one year with Mooney. At least two. So whatever is invested next year is going to have to be repeated the following year, etc. Of course, you have to retain the players with eligibility too. One year doesn’t look that costly, but keep adding on the subsequent years.

At STL it took 2 years with money and a new coach. STL, VCU and Dayton are the teams that supposedly are spending big money and I don’t think it is a guarantee that any of them win the autobid. Time will tell. Personally I am rooting for St Joe’s. I want to hear the powers that be explain their way around that one.

 

[vt4700]

it's probably all coming from the school.
they want a successful basketball program. it's important. they tried to do it on the cheap this year. it failed.
increasing NIL doesn't guarantee anythying, but paying 40% of what the top teams in the league pay is a losing proposition.

"On the cheap". Really? We probably spent the 4th most NIL this year in the A-10. Man, u love the NIL excuse. We lost 11 games this year to Q3/Q4 teams that I feel pretty confident saying spent way less money than the 2 million we did. 11!!!!! NIL wasn't a losing proposition to those teams. Just think if we had a coach who could beat Q3 and Q4 teams. Shoot, I will even give u 3 of the 11 as losses, and we would be 23-8 right now with just a decent coach.

And, stop pretending like SLU, Dayton, and VCU are these juggernaults. The A-10 has 2 bubble teams right now, not 3 juggernauts. Liberty, LaSalle, Rhode Island, Mason, and St Joe's, all who spent less NIL than we did, had wins against one or more of these teams. Guess who didn't? Shocker.....us.

 

[RichmondNative]

And, stop pretending like SLU, Dayton, and VCU are these juggernaults. The A-10 has 2 bubble teams right now, not 3 juggernauts. Liberty, LaSalle, Rhode Island, Mason, and St Joe's, all who spent less NIL than we did, had wins against one or more of these teams. Guess who didn't? Shocker.....us.

Totally agree and one of the lower spend teams could get the autobid too.

 

[URFan1]

I don’t think it’s all from the school. The school will subsidize the rest to get to the number the AD has determined necessary to not embarrass ourselves, which I believe will be around $4-5 million. Wasn’t explicitly stated but heavily implied we’re going to have a considerable payroll increase next season. But I do agree Eight, that it shows we have the money to buyout Mooney’s contract but instead are choosing to stick with him.

The cynical view is that they want Mooney for life and will help with funding it necessary for him to do well enough to stay here.

The optimistic view is that the university is really committed to the success of this program and want us to be at the top. Mooney has done well in the past and they want to see if he can continue that success with a high payroll.

The practical view is the cost of giving Mooney a payroll increase is still cheaper than buying out his contract the next 3 years. They recognize these results aren’t where we want them to be, but because of Mooney’s history here not only of success in the past but relationships he’s built, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and another chance with a top level A10 budget. If he produces another mediocre season, it will be the final straw.

I'm sure they think if they buy him out they will still need to give replacement elevated NIL money.

 

[Eight Legger]

I don’t think it’s all from the school. The school will subsidize the rest to get to the number the AD has determined necessary to not embarrass ourselves, which I believe will be around $4-5 million. Wasn’t explicitly stated but heavily implied we’re going to have a considerable payroll increase next season. But I do agree Eight, that it shows we have the money to buyout Mooney’s contract but instead are choosing to stick with him.

The cynical view is that they want Mooney for life and will help with funding it necessary for him to do well enough to stay here.

The optimistic view is that the university is really committed to the success of this program and want us to be at the top. Mooney has done well in the past and they want to see if he can continue that success with a high payroll.

The practical view is the cost of giving Mooney a payroll increase is still cheaper than buying out his contract the next 3 years. They recognize these results aren’t where we want them to be, but because of Mooney’s history here not only of success in the past but relationships he’s built, they are willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and another chance with a top level A10 budget. If he produces another mediocre season, it will be the final straw.

His remaining salary is $4.5 million in total, the last $3 million of which came from the 2024 extension. If Hardt really wrote that extension in such a way that the entire amount or anything close to it is due as a buyout should we fire Mooney, then Hardt should be fired for incompetence. Full stop.

To wit: Mooney had no other suitors who would have paid him what we were paying him. There was no reason to give him an extension to begin with, and certainly no reason to do so on his terms.

You want to give him an extension for public-facing reasons so that he can recruit on it or brag about it to his friends, fine. But the fine print needed to say: "Early termination is subject to a buyout of 33% of the remaining contract" or something to that effect. And if Mooney didn't want to sign that, fine -- we still had him under contract for three more years at the time the extension was offered.

I've been trying to give Hardt the benefit of the doubt that he is not this much of an inept moron, but it now seems that he may be.

 

[*23*]

To wit: Mooney had no other suitors who would have paid him what we were paying him. There was no reason to give him an extension to begin with, and certainly no reason to do so on his terms.

You want to give him an extension for public-facing reasons so that he can recruit on it or brag about it to his friends, fine. But the fine print needed to say: "Early termination is subject to a buyout of 33% of the remaining contract" or something to that effect. And if Mooney didn't want to sign that, fine -- we still had him under contract for three more years at the time the extension was offered.

Precisely. Absolutely no reason to give Mooney any type of buyout. No interest in him at all since 2012. Plenty of better options if he walke. Heck, moon would have bitched about it, but would probably agree to a pay cut, or more incentive based, less guaranteed to stay here since so comfortable, and he would have had to move way down conferences for next opportunity. If Hardt gave him a big buyout, only reason is: TRIUMVIRATE. PQ basically slapped him around and said, look at all the money I give and you can't do this for me. But more likely, they are all buddies and it was not even a discussion point. Even though made ZERO business sense, less than zero - they just did it b/c they are buddies.

Not saying I wouldn't do the same for my buddies, but damn its frustrating b/c we just keep becoming less and less relevant.

 

[vt4700]

His remaining salary is $4.5 million in total, the last $3 million of which came from the 2024 extension. If Hardt really wrote that extension in such a way that the entire amount or anything close to it is due as a buyout should we fire Mooney, then Hardt should be fired for incompetence. Full stop.

To wit: Mooney had no other suitors who would have paid him what we were paying him. There was no reason to give him an extension to begin with, and certainly no reason to do so on his terms.

You want to give him an extension for public-facing reasons so that he can recruit on it or brag about it to his friends, fine. But the fine print needed to say: "Early termination is subject to a buyout of 33% of the remaining contract" or something to that effect. And if Mooney didn't want to sign that, fine -- we still had him under contract for three more years at the time the extension was offered.

I've been trying to give Hardt the benefit of the doubt that he is not this much of an inept moron, but it now seems that he may be.

Good points all around. That being said, I still don't think an extra 4.5 million should be an issue for us at all. I think if they wanted him gone, he would be gone.

 

[*23*]

Good points all around. That being said, I still don't think an extra 4.5 million should be an issue for us at all. I think if they wanted him gone, he would be gone.

Agree, just another excuse in the back pocket of Hardt: Well are hands are tied b/c we can't pay the buyout. So yes, I agree we normally would have looked at potentially a coaching change, but it was a non starter. And.....................PQ glared at me when I brought it up to him one day, and he gave me the silent treatment for a month.

 

[ManiBenton]

I have said similar things and was ridiculed.

cause your first was coming onto the board flexing a meaningless GMU game. You weren't here when we lost to Elon, Charleston Southern, or any of the games before when we lost to teams that are putting the same or less resources into there bball program. You tried to have your "gotcha moment" but it back fired tremendously. Still waiting on that apology btw

 

[sman]

"On the cheap". Really? We probably spent the 4th most NIL this year in the A-10. Man, u love the NIL excuse. We lost 11 games this year to Q3/Q4 teams that I feel pretty confident saying spent way less money than the 2 million we did. 11!!!!! NIL wasn't a losing proposition to those teams. Just think if we had a coach who could beat Q3 and Q4 teams. Shoot, I will even give u 3 of the 11 as losses, and we would be 23-8 right now with just a decent coach.

And, stop pretending like SLU, Dayton, and VCU are these juggernaults. The A-10 has 2 bubble teams right now, not 3 juggernauts. Liberty, LaSalle, Rhode Island, Mason, and St Joe's, all who spent less NIL than we did, had wins against one or more of these teams. Guess who didn't? Shocker.....us.

I have no idea why I have to defend almost every post from you. on the cheap? yeah. if we're paying 40% of what the serious teams are paying, we tried to get by on the cheap.

we're on record that we'll substantially increase NIL. you're pulling "4th most" out of nowhere. we've only heard we spent about $2M and top teams are at $5M. that's all we know. and while more NIL doesn't guarantee anything ... it sure as shit helps.

I'm not defending this year's results. I'm certainly not defending Mooney. we're bad and it's his program. I'd love us to be analyzing coaching options. but I'm going to assume Hardt meant what he said and Mooney is coming back. so I hope with more NIL he can add better talent and we can win games. because I'm sick of losing and reading all this bitching every day.

 

[whampas]

I have no idea why I have to defend almost every post from you. on the cheap? yeah. if we're paying 40% of what the serious teams are paying, we tried to get by on the cheap.

we're on record that we'll substantially increase NIL. you're pulling "4th most" out of nowhere. we've only heard we spent about $2M and top teams are at $5M. that's all we know. and while more NIL doesn't guarantee anything ... it sure as shit helps.

I'm not defending this year's results. I'm certainly not defending Mooney. we're bad and it's his program. I'd love us to be analyzing coaching options. but I'm going to assume Hardt meant what he said and Mooney is coming back. so I hope with more NIL he can add better talent and we can win games. because I'm sick of losing and reading all this bitching every day.

You better get used to it. As long as Mooney is coach there will be losses that make you scratch your head and bitching will follow. He's a bad coach surrounded by yes men.

 

[Spider17]

I hope I’m not adding fuel to the fire to the discussion here, but this is my take. I can’t speak for VT but I think his response was to get a more nuanced view of your statement that paying 40% of what the top teams pay is a losing proposition. While that is true, it is an oversimplification of what happened and I think makes an incorrect correlation that more NIL money yields better results. It implies - at least to me - that we had done well enough with our NIL where where we beat teams we should have (which we did not), teams that have lower NIL than us (which we did not), and only finished behind those teams that were definitely paying more. I think that’s what VT was getting at when explaining the Q3/4 losses. So it is a losing proposition, but not just because we are paying 40% of the top teams pay. They’re a lot of other teams who also pay less than the top teams and more around our range of $2 million and also teams that have even less NIL than us that we’ve lost a lot to.

I think sman is correct in that there are no credible sources saying we were 4th most in A10. In fact, I feel confident in saying we were not the 4th most. JOC article says we were in the middle which probably means around 7-9th.

Also to sman’s posts in other threads, regardless of whatever the specific numbers are, having more money should in theory open more doors and discussion for recruits who could make more of a significant impact here day 1. Question that we won’t know until next year is whether our coaching staff can adequately maximize the increase in payroll in identifying and bringing in recruits who can meaningfully contribute at a level that we can win an A10 championship or NCAA appearances. My belief is they won’t be, but the jury is still out on this one.

 

[Spiderguy]

His remaining salary is $4.5 million in total, the last $3 million of which came from the 2024 extension. If Hardt really wrote that extension in such a way that the entire amount or anything close to it is due as a buyout should we fire Mooney, then Hardt should be fired for incompetence. Full stop.

To wit: Mooney had no other suitors who would have paid him what we were paying him. There was no reason to give him an extension to begin with, and certainly no reason to do so on his terms.

You want to give him an extension for public-facing reasons so that he can recruit on it or brag about it to his friends, fine. But the fine print needed to say: "Early termination is subject to a buyout of 33% of the remaining contract" or something to that effect. And if Mooney didn't want to sign that, fine -- we still had him under contract for three more years at the time the extension was offered.

I've been trying to give Hardt the benefit of the doubt that he is not this much of an inept moron, but it now seems that he may be.

The above is a well stated post.

I have no confidence in Hardt. Regardless of buyout provision, there comes a time when performance becomes a priority. Based upon Mooney's long term avg at best results as well as the last 2 miserable years, one has to evaluate performance with a real set of open eyes. There are no set of numbers that would support Mooney based upon long term & short term trends. We all know there is plenty of money at UR, and if the desire was truly there to part ways with the university's highest paid employee, that could happen. So, it should tell us that the desire is to continue along the same path with all of the stated excuses & reasons. Next year we'll find out that throwing more money at the program will result in modest at best improved performance. Then Hardt & friends will find other excuses.

To quote your closing line, "I've been trying to give Hardt the benefit of the doubt that he is not this much of an inept moron, but it now seems that he may be." And I agree with your point.

 

[sman]

... it is an oversimplification of what happened and I think makes an incorrect correlation that more NIL money yields better results.

more NIL should absolutely yield better results. I'm willing to bet the top 25 doesn't have more than a handful of teams (if any) not paying say top 50 in NIL.

Mooney isn't Mark "more with less" Schmidt. and we're not SBU. we shouldn't be handcuffing ourselves with a budget NIL program. and going forward, it sounds like we won't.