2015-16 "Too Early" Preseason Basketball Top 25

[KJ's#1Supporter]

We have gotten over the hump. 5 NCAA tourney(some will say thats not an accomplishment, thats fine)

But I still want to know if that has ever happened to a program and what their recovery time was. Its 2015 everyone wants quick results without the work, but usually that isnt the case. when a kid comes to visit UC and sees our amenities and then goes to Louisville or Cuse its obvious who the choice will be. The university withing the last 5 years finally started to do renovations to the campus(thats what draws 17-18 year olds), to start drawing up plans for new facilities, ect. Mick and co werent the deterrent, the facilities were, the fact there was no brand. Things take time. People have a hard time understanding that. I blame everyone uptop who took the passive approach of we will take care of it when the time comes instead of the proactive step to making the area a better place

If our program was sending players to the NBA, recruits wouldn't care about the facilities. Huggins landed top players in Manhattan, KS. Have you ever been there? I have. It's 2 hours away from Kansas City in the middle of nowhere and is a football school. But kids knew they could make it to the next level there. And that's all it took.

I'm not sure what other programs have been through anything close to what we have, but it was 10 years ago. So how long do we use this as the reason we're being held back? Mick's entire tenure? And if that's the case, and the coach needs EVERYTHING working in his favor to land top players, then what good is the coach? I'm done with the excuses. We need top 50 talent if we're ever going to go to the next level. It is that simple. The reasons why not are of no comfort to me.

 

[BearcatSpaniard513]

If you take out the one and dones then UK hasn't developed anyone, well maybe Darius Miller. How many college Jr and Sr's are in the draft? UK has a junior that was a top 20 recruit that nobody guarded the whole tourney.

Is the NBA the only metric people are using for player development?

In one regard it is a testament of what Mick can do with inferior talent.

I never did understand this argument. Mick Cronin cannot be calling or texting his players every single day demanding they put in the necessary time to reach the next level. He runs practices, workouts, and instructs them on what they need to do to improve as individuals. That does not mean they actually put the work in. On top of that, we are getting mainly 3 star recruits and some 4s. A 3 star recruit is considered and ranked an average NCAA player when they come in. The NBA is made up of the best players in the world... SK did not make the NBA because of Mick Cronin. It was his own work ethic that got him to where he is now.

 

[coachpipe]

If our program was sending players to the NBA, recruits wouldn't care about the facilities. Huggins landed top players in Manhattan, KS. Have you ever been there? I have. It's 2 hours away from Kansas City in the middle of nowhere and is a football school. But kids knew they could make it to the next level there. And that's all it took.

I'm not sure what other programs have been through anything close to what we have, but it was 10 years ago. So how long do we use this as the reason we're being held back? Mick's entire tenure? And if that's the case, and the coach needs EVERYTHING working in his favor to land top players, then what good is the coach? I'm done with the excuses. We need top 50 talent if we're ever going to go to the next level. It is that simple. The reasons why not are of no comfort to me.

If you dont get it you never will get it. Youre still on "this is micks 10th year" completely avoiding everything else

 

[Bulldog01]

I never did understand this argument. Mick Cronin cannot be calling or texting his players every single day demanding they put in the necessary time to reach the next level. He runs practices, workouts, and instructs them on what they need to do to improve as individuals. That does not mean they actually put the work in. On top of that, we are getting mainly 3 star recruits and some 4s. A 3 star recruit is considered and ranked an average NCAA player when they come in. The NBA is made up of the best players in the world... SK did not make the NBA because of Mick Cronin. It was his own work ethic that got him to where he is now.

According to Cuban coaches like Cronin are bad business for basketball. I agree 100% with him. Basketball is a running game to score as many points as possible. Why would I go somewhere where we never run, I'm not allowed to shoot, scoring 60 is blessing, top 25 players don't start on top 40 teams?

 

[Bulldog01]

If you dont get it you never will get it. Youre still on "this is micks 10th year" completely avoiding everything else

What is he avoiding? I can name 15 programs that wasn't near our level 10yrs ago when Cronin took over that's had more success.

 

[coachpipe]

What is he avoiding? I can name 15 programs that wasn't near our level 10yrs ago when Cronin took over that's had more success.

Werent on our level? Okay. Find me a single team that had zero scholarship players

I honestly dont even know why I respond to you

 

[KJ's#1Supporter]

If you dont get it you never will get it. Youre still on "this is micks 10th year" completely avoiding everything else

How long do we talk about "everything else"? Some coaches don't need "everything else" when they've been somewhere for a year, much less a decade. That's my point. But I will move on bc I will always see "everything else" as an excuse. Again, we went to the finals in the best conference and Sweet 16 in year 6. Going back and referring to the situation from year 1 now, way after our most successful year, doesn't work for me.

 

[KJ's#1Supporter]

I honestly dont even know why I respond to you

Then don't.

 

[JasonS]

Mick has had 1 2nd round draft pick in 9 years. Our player development hasn't been good bc of our style of play. Not sure how you can disagree with that.

Player development and NBA drafting are two different things. The NBA drafts on potential not production. Player development is about production not potential. These are mutually exclusive most of the time. A better gauge is the number of players making money playing professionally period. That said, you can't argue that SK developed as a player here. It doesn't mean player development equals drafted by the NBA.

 

[BearcatSpaniard513]

According to Cuban coaches like Cronin are bad business for basketball. I agree 100% with him. Basketball is a running game to score as many points as possible. Why would I go somewhere where we never run, I'm not allowed to shoot, scoring 60 is blessing, top 25 players don't start on top 40 teams?

Then watch the NBA...

 

[Bulldog01]

Werent on our level? Okay. Find me a single team that had zero scholarship players

I honestly dont even know why I respond to you

personally being a coach that's all the better if I'm giving 10yrs. BTW, get it right guys. We only played with 6-7 scholarship players with ak in big east and should've went to tourny. Out of them 7 players I believe 4-5 were SR. Whoever the coach was we were going be short on scholarships. Mick had reputation of being best recruiter in country. I wouldn't be shocked if he told UC he didn't want Downey or tillford. Mick was very high on having 6'5 or better players like Syracuse to play in big east. Both Downey and tillford were under 6'.

 

[Bulldog01]

Then watch the NBA...

Every night

 

[KJ's#1Supporter]

Player development and NBA drafting are two different things. The NBA drafts on potential not production. Player development is about production not potential. These are mutually exclusive most of the time. A better gauge is the number of players making money playing professionally period. That said, you can't argue that SK developed as a player here. It doesn't mean player development equals drafted by the NBA.

I agree. But I just see that the teams with tournament success have Top 50 recruits and NBA prospects. We have neither. So developing the 3 star guys is great. But exceeding expectations for those types of players individually does not equal exceeding expectations as a program. You can only get so far with our recruiting and style of play. At some point, you need to start landing Top 50 players consistently. And the coach at Cincinnati should be doing that in year 10, regardless of anything.

 

[BearcatSpaniard513]

I agree. But I just see that the teams with tournament success have Top 50 recruits and NBA prospects. We have neither. So developing the 3 star guys is great. But exceeding expectations for those types of players individually does not equal exceeding expectations as a program. You can only get so far with our recruiting and style of play. At some point, you need to start landing Top 50 players consistently. And the coach at Cincinnati should be doing that in year 10, regardless of anything.

I believe the_one_32 already said it earlier in this thread and I agree with him that a shortened shot clock will help us, and make the college game quicker and more exciting

 

[david aka the TYZ]

I get all that. But we're entering season #10 under Mick. At what point is that stuff no longer an excuse? We went to the Big East finals and Sweet 16 in year 6...why was that not the moment where the program got over the hump?

Simce you have to get in on players when they ate freshman and sophomores, one could argue that is the season where we started recruiting better and that now we are beginning to realize that increase in talent.

 

[KJ's#1Supporter]

Simce you have to get in on players when they ate freshman and sophomores, one could argue that is the season where we started recruiting better and that now we are beginning to realize that increase in talent.

Yeah but still all borderline Top 100ish players in 3 classes, besides Lawrence (and even he was as much of a project as a 5-star guy can possibly be). The 2016 class is HUGE. It means so much for the future. But it seems like we're already out on all the 5-star talent.

 

[#BearcatNation]

Some of you make it sound like we really collapsed after that Big East champ. game and sweet 16 run in 2012. Not the case to me. Okay, 2012-13 was very disappointing to me, looking at how much actual talent that team had. I think a healthy Cash could've led that team far. Also Justin Jackson had an abysmal year; him playing better would've been huge. But 2013-14 we were up to #7 in the polls (highest since 2003-04 season) and won the conference. Sure, we lost 1st round in the tourney, but we all know the tourney is a crapshoot and not the easiest way to determine a successful season. This past season, we had 7 newcomers and still weren't really even on the bubble come selection sunday. We won the 1st round game and hung with a 35-0 team. We should be ranked to start next season, and our 2015 recruiting class is pretty solid.

Look, there's plenty of things we need to improve upon, but I don't see how you can act as if the program is trending downward. While it's taking a little while, I feel like we're still trending upward. A "next step," i.e. elite eight should happen within the next 3-4 years. If that doesn't happen, we've stopped trending upward, which is a problem. But for the time being, I don't see any big problem.

 

[indydoug]

If our program was sending players to the NBA, recruits wouldn't care about the facilities. Huggins landed top players in Manhattan, KS. Have you ever been there? I have. It's 2 hours away from Kansas City in the middle of nowhere and is a football school. But kids knew they could make it to the next level there. And that's all it took.

I'm not sure what other programs have been through anything close to what we have, but it was 10 years ago. So how long do we use this as the reason we're being held back? Mick's entire tenure? And if that's the case, and the coach needs EVERYTHING working in his favor to land top players, then what good is the coach? I'm done with the excuses. We need top 50 talent if we're ever going to go to the next level. It is that simple. The reasons why not are of no comfort to me.

I guess I'm a little confused about how UC is supposed to "go to the next level". It's been stuck at nearly the same level for almost 2 decades. The program has 1 Final Four in last 50+ years. If you compare the last 18 years (9 with Cronin, 9 without) there isn't much change, even accounting for Mick's 1st 4 years after the program gave itself a near death penalty. Surely no one could have expected NCAA appearances in the 1st couple of years of his tenure.
1998-2006--8 NCAA apps., 1 S-16 and 8-8 record in Tourney
2007-2015--5 NCAA apps., 1 S-16 and 4-5 record in Tourney.

So either Huggs was doing less with more in his last 8 years plus Kennedy, or Mick is doing nearly the same with less. Now I realize Huggs had more success earlier in his tenure, but that success was definitely not maintained in terms of "going to the next level" of NCAA success as indicated by the above comparison.

 

[#BearcatNation]

I guess I'm a little confused about how UC is supposed to "go to the next level". It's been stuck at nearly the same level for almost 2 decades. The program has 1 Final Four in last 50+ years. If you compare the last 18 years (9 with Cronin, 9 without) there isn't much change, even accounting for Mick's 1st 4 years after the program gave itself a near death penalty. Surely no one could have expected NCAA appearances in the 1st couple of years of his tenure.
1998-2006--8 NCAA apps., 1 S-16 and 8-8 record in Tourney
2007-2015--5 NCAA apps., 1 S-16 and 4-5 record in Tourney.

So either Huggs was doing less with more in his last 8 years plus Kennedy, or Mick is doing nearly the same with less. Now I realize Huggs had more success earlier in his tenure, but that success was definitely not maintained in terms of "going to the next level" of NCAA success as indicated by the above comparison.

Not really fair to base simply NCAA Tournament results as "success." At least in my eyes.

 

[indydoug]

Not really fair to base simply NCAA Tournament results as "success." At least in my eyes.

Ok, I don't necessarily disagree but how else does UC get to the next level without deep tournament runs? More to the point, why do they play the Tourney? Success is mostly all about NCAA tourney success. As one example, look at ESPN's way too early 2015-2016 top 25. XU, despite losing Stainbrook & D. Davis, is ranked (went to S16 and has had several S16 runs the past decade ). UC, however, is not, despite returning every important player from its Round of 32 team. Getting better players is great, but this program has been about on the same level for the past 2 decades, if you again, rightfully so, take out the 1st couple of years of Cronin's tenure.