UCB, I think your expectations are unrealistic. Why should the 8th or 9th greatest college basketball program of all time expect anything more than getting bounced in the 1st or 2nd game in the NCAA each year. All those publications that continually rank us as one of the great programs of all time are unrealistic as well. Everyone is being unrealistic. We have reached the upper echelon of Mid major programs. Doesn't it sound much better to be ranked at or near the top of all mid majors, rather than being the 45th best of all programs?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Around the Country
- Thread starter jacobkdoyle
- Start date
Help Support BearcatTalk:
UCB, I think your expectations are unrealistic. Why should the 8th or 9th greatest college basketball program of all time expect anything more than getting bounced in the 1st or 2nd game in the NCAA each year. All those publications that continually rank us as one of the great programs of all time are unrealistic as well. Everyone is being unrealistic. We have reached the upper echelon of Mid major programs. Doesn't it sound much better to be ranked at or near the top of all mid majors, rather than being the 45th best of all programs?
it's not the 90s. times have changed. ancient program history has little impact on its future.
we're in an era where conference affiliation means more than it ever has before. there are haves and have nots. we're a have not.
52nd nationally in athletic department revenues and expenses among public schools. 46% of that budget is subsidized.
this market has two professional sports teams and another similarly situated college program (and that program is not hampered by things like playing football and being a public research university). there is a dominant regional power an hour and a half to the north that seriously infects a significant portion of this area.
i'd love for this to be a top 15 program with a legitimate chance to contend for a national title every year. there are, inherently, only 15 top 15 programs. what about our current situation makes it realistic to think we can and should be in the same tier as a kentucky/duke/arizona/kansas type program?
i'm asking a serious question.
program history is irrelevant. given the current facts, do people really think there is anyone who could build this program into one of the very few top-tier programs?
suppose you did have a coach come in like that. do we really think we could get that coach to stick around for the long haul? without the hometown hook, you'd always be worried about losing a coach like that in this day and age.
these are the facts of life. we don't have to be happy it. we can wish it to be better. but, realistically, given the facts, what do people honestly think this program should be?
not what do we want it to be - what can it realistically be given the current constraints?
we're in an era where conference affiliation means more than it ever has before. there are haves and have nots. we're a have not.
52nd nationally in athletic department revenues and expenses among public schools. 46% of that budget is subsidized.
this market has two professional sports teams and another similarly situated college program (and that program is not hampered by things like playing football and being a public research university). there is a dominant regional power an hour and a half to the north that seriously infects a significant portion of this area.
i'd love for this to be a top 15 program with a legitimate chance to contend for a national title every year. there are, inherently, only 15 top 15 programs. what about our current situation makes it realistic to think we can and should be in the same tier as a kentucky/duke/arizona/kansas type program?
i'm asking a serious question.
program history is irrelevant. given the current facts, do people really think there is anyone who could build this program into one of the very few top-tier programs?
suppose you did have a coach come in like that. do we really think we could get that coach to stick around for the long haul? without the hometown hook, you'd always be worried about losing a coach like that in this day and age.
these are the facts of life. we don't have to be happy it. we can wish it to be better. but, realistically, given the facts, what do people honestly think this program should be?
not what do we want it to be - what can it realistically be given the current constraints?
UCBearcats
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,723
do people really think there is anyone who could build this program into one of the very few top-tier programs?
Yes, I think there's a lot of people who could.
Yes, I think there's a lot of people who could.
please tell me why you think that given the facts i laid out above.
it's not the 90s. times have changed. ancient program history has little impact on its future.
we're in an era where conference affiliation means more than it ever has before. there are haves and have nots. we're a have not.
52nd nationally in athletic department revenues and expenses among public schools. 46% of that budget is subsidized.
this market has two professional sports teams and another similarly situated college program (and that program is not hampered by things like playing football and being a public research university). there is a dominant regional power an hour and a half to the north that seriously infects a significant portion of this area.
i'd love for this to be a top 15 program with a legitimate chance to contend for a national title every year. there are, inherently, only 15 top 15 programs. what about our current situation makes it realistic to think we can and should be in the same tier as a kentucky/duke/arizona/kansas type program?
i'm asking a serious question.
program history is irrelevant. given the current facts, do people really think there is anyone who could build this program into one of the very few top-tier programs?
suppose you did have a coach come in like that. do we really think we could get that coach to stick around for the long haul? without the hometown hook, you'd always be worried about losing a coach like that in this day and age.
these are the facts of life. we don't have to be happy it. we can wish it to be better. but, realistically, given the facts, what do people honestly think this program should be?
not what do we want it to be - what can it realistically be given the current constraints?
Just a few words are all that's needed as a response to all these wonderful sentences above.....Xavier, Butler, VCU, etc.
And, don't tell me that Butler and Xavier are in the Big East. They made a lot of noise in their mid-major conferences. Our own Bearcats were in a mid-major conference all the way till about 2006 and reached number 1 a number of times, Final Four, elite 8s, favored to win the national championship, etc....and some of these happened in the 2000s (#1, National Championship favorite, many top 10s, All Americans, National Player of the Year).
There have been "far" more low and mid-majors making the Final Fours, elite 8s, and advancing deep into the NCAA tournament in the 2000s than anytime before then. George Mason, Whichita, etc. But not Cincinnati. We are definitely a have-not, and it is the head coach where that statement is most true!!!
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
it's not the 90s. times have changed. ancient program history has little impact on its future.
we're in an era where conference affiliation means more than it ever has before. there are haves and have nots. we're a have not.
52nd nationally in athletic department revenues and expenses among public schools. 46% of that budget is subsidized.
this market has two professional sports teams and another similarly situated college program (and that program is not hampered by things like playing football and being a public research university). there is a dominant regional power an hour and a half to the north that seriously infects a significant portion of this area.
i'd love for this to be a top 15 program with a legitimate chance to contend for a national title every year. there are, inherently, only 15 top 15 programs. what about our current situation makes it realistic to think we can and should be in the same tier as a kentucky/duke/arizona/kansas type program?
i'm asking a serious question.
program history is irrelevant. given the current facts, do people really think there is anyone who could build this program into one of the very few top-tier programs?
suppose you did have a coach come in like that. do we really think we could get that coach to stick around for the long haul? without the hometown hook, you'd always be worried about losing a coach like that in this day and age.
these are the facts of life. we don't have to be happy it. we can wish it to be better. but, realistically, given the facts, what do people honestly think this program should be?
not what do we want it to be - what can it realistically be given the current constraints?
No one thinks we should be in the same tier as Duke, Kentucky, or Kansas. However, we absolutely should expect to win AAC titles, AAC Tournaments, to be a fixture in the Top 25, and to compete for a Top 5 seed on a regular basis.
please tell me why you think that given the facts i laid out above.
Xavier and Butler, and now VCU continue to do just fine after coaching changes. Iowa State seems to be doing fine with their coaching change. We pay our coach$2.5 million a year, #22 in all of college basketball. #10 is only $2.9 Million. So, our coach's salary is not far from #10 in all of college basketball. Do you seriously think we'll have a revolving door when we pay that good and with that tradition? Huggs even turned down his alma mater to stay here. Highly doubtful we have a revolving door when we're paying pretty damn good comparatively speaking.
and also comment as to whether you think that person would stay at cincinnati for long and why.
Salary, tradition, previous coach lowered expectations, university investing mega millions to improve facilities!.
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
A lot of people were sold on this being Cronin's most talented team. Halfway through the season, we aren't even getting votes in both polls. That's fringe Top 40 territory. I don't care about excuses or how close people think we could be to Top 10 if several games would've gone differently. We are underperforming, and the coach completely shut down the team that looked early in the year to be a real contender. We're right back to the same style that makes the tournament, has a coin-flip 1st round game, and goes home. Based on how we've played in AAC games this far, what am I supposed to be SO optimistic about the rest of the year?
UCBearcats
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,723
please tell me why you think that given the facts i laid out above.
I'm not sure how many "facts" you listed in your post that are relevant to the argument you're trying to make. Saying 10-15 years ago is ancient history doesn't seem like a factual statement to me. Money is not and has never been an issue for UC when it comes to athletics. It's why we can afford Tommy T's salary, we could afford the Nippert renovation and we're going to renovate 5/3rd.
In addition to the schools listed by other posters I'll add Dayton to that mix. The University of Dayton has a better program than us going back the last 5 years, that's an absolute disgrace. You claim that conference affiliation in basketball has more weight now than ever before but I think you're dead wrong. Butler and Xavier both became very good programs before they moved in to the new Big East........currently there are a number of schools outside the power 5 who have built very strong programs. Dayton, VCU, Wichita State, Gonzaga, San Diego State and Northern Iowa just to name a few.
So again, I do believe there are plenty of other coaches who could come in and do a better job than Mick has done. College basketball is in FACT, not about conference affiliation but about coaching. Good coaches have good players and good programs. We have a mediocre coach which is why we have a mediocre program with mediocre talent.
As for why they'd stay........maybe they wouldn't, who knows?? I'm not really worried about that. I'd rather be really great for 5 years and deal with our coach leaving than be mediocre for the next 10 years and not have to worry about it.
Last edited:
I'm not sure how many "facts" you listed in your post that are relevant to the argument you're trying to make. Saying 10-15 years ago is ancient history doesn't seem like a factual statement to me. Money is not and has never been an issue for UC when it comes to athletics. It's why we can afford Tommy T's salary, we could afford the Nippert renovation and we're going to renovate 5/3rd.
In addition to the schools listed by other posters I'll add Dayton to that mix. The University of Dayton has a better program than us going back the last 5 years, that's an absolute disgrace. You claim that conference affiliation in basketball has more weight now than ever before but I think you're dead wrong. Butler and Xavier both became very good programs before they moved in to the new Big East........currently there are a number of schools outside the power 5 who have built very strong programs. Dayton, VCU, Wichita State, Gonzaga, San Diego State and Northern Iowa just to name a few.
So again, I do believe there are plenty of other coaches who could come in and do a better job than Mick has done. College basketball is in FACT, not about conference affiliation but about coaching. Good coaches have good players and good programs. We have a mediocre coach which is why we have a mediocre program with mediocre talent.
As for why they'd stay........maybe they wouldn't, who knows?? I'm not really worried about that. I'd rather be really great for 5 years and deal with our coach leaving than be mediocre for the next 10 years and not have to worry about it.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and X, Butler, Gonzaga, VCU, Iowa State all proved that you can re-hire and not miss a beat. There are plenty of unknown good young coaches (like Huggs, Brad Stevens, Skip Prosser, Shaka Smart, etc) who are putting in their time waiting for their opportunity. And, we pay well enough to attract established coaches also.
yikes.
so if this year's team makes an elite 8 run, how long of a pass does that buy our program?
we seem to be putting a ton of stock into one-off runs in determining the status of the program and the hands it's in.
5 year totals:
vcu: 5 straight ncaa appearances; 3 round of 32; 1 each 16, 8 and 4; hasn't been past the round of 32 since 2011; generally competed for conference titles
butler: 3 of 5 ncaa appearances; 3 round of 32; 1 each sweet 16, 8, 4 and 2; also a runner-up run in 2010; hasn't been past the round of 32 since 2011; tough conference makes title contention tougher but haven't really contended (big east only)
xavier: 4 of 5, 2 round of 32, 2 sweet 16 (both times getting a fluke shitty seeded team in the round of 32 to advance); tough conference and haven't competed for a title (big east only)
san diego state: 5 straight, 4 of 5 round of 32, 2 sweet 16s; generally competed for conference titles
gonzaga: 5 straight; 5 round of 32; 1 sweet 16; generally competed for conference titles (actually dominated utter garbage)
and cincinnati: 5 straight; 3 round of 32; 1 sweet 16; generally competed for conference titles (american only)
----------
i think there's a tendency to get down on ourselves because of some recent disappointments, but if that's the company you guys are trying to keep, i think we're a lot closer than some folks may realize.
and, like i said, i think there's a tendency to put way too much stock into a one-year run. they're generally fluky and heavily influenced by luck.
vcu's run could easily have ended in the sweet 16 with one different bounce in a 1 point overtime win.
butler barely got out of the round of 32 in 2010 and almost lost in both the round of 64 and round of 32 in 2011.
if you want to measure a program's success by the presence or absence of occasional runs like that, that's fine with me i suppose. i'd think you'd need to be prepared to be satisfied for the long haul after a single uc run, though.
so if this year's team makes an elite 8 run, how long of a pass does that buy our program?
we seem to be putting a ton of stock into one-off runs in determining the status of the program and the hands it's in.
5 year totals:
vcu: 5 straight ncaa appearances; 3 round of 32; 1 each 16, 8 and 4; hasn't been past the round of 32 since 2011; generally competed for conference titles
butler: 3 of 5 ncaa appearances; 3 round of 32; 1 each sweet 16, 8, 4 and 2; also a runner-up run in 2010; hasn't been past the round of 32 since 2011; tough conference makes title contention tougher but haven't really contended (big east only)
xavier: 4 of 5, 2 round of 32, 2 sweet 16 (both times getting a fluke shitty seeded team in the round of 32 to advance); tough conference and haven't competed for a title (big east only)
san diego state: 5 straight, 4 of 5 round of 32, 2 sweet 16s; generally competed for conference titles
gonzaga: 5 straight; 5 round of 32; 1 sweet 16; generally competed for conference titles (actually dominated utter garbage)
and cincinnati: 5 straight; 3 round of 32; 1 sweet 16; generally competed for conference titles (american only)
----------
i think there's a tendency to get down on ourselves because of some recent disappointments, but if that's the company you guys are trying to keep, i think we're a lot closer than some folks may realize.
and, like i said, i think there's a tendency to put way too much stock into a one-year run. they're generally fluky and heavily influenced by luck.
vcu's run could easily have ended in the sweet 16 with one different bounce in a 1 point overtime win.
butler barely got out of the round of 32 in 2010 and almost lost in both the round of 64 and round of 32 in 2011.
if you want to measure a program's success by the presence or absence of occasional runs like that, that's fine with me i suppose. i'd think you'd need to be prepared to be satisfied for the long haul after a single uc run, though.
UCBearcats
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,723
No one said we're trying to keep the company of those programs, I'm just providing you examples of programs that aren't tied to the Power 5 and are still successful.
Our fans should have every expectation based on the history of our program that we should be better than every program listed above. We shouldn't be trying to keep company with any of those programs, they should be trying to keep company with us.
Come talk to me when we make the Elite 8 this year, I'm sure you won't hear me doing much complaining. In the meantime if you'd like to continue the discussion quit trying to take comments out of context to somehow prove some sort of point.
If you're completely happy with the success of our program that's your prerogative, I don't agree with you and there's plenty of reasons why.
Our fans should have every expectation based on the history of our program that we should be better than every program listed above. We shouldn't be trying to keep company with any of those programs, they should be trying to keep company with us.
Come talk to me when we make the Elite 8 this year, I'm sure you won't hear me doing much complaining. In the meantime if you'd like to continue the discussion quit trying to take comments out of context to somehow prove some sort of point.
If you're completely happy with the success of our program that's your prerogative, I don't agree with you and there's plenty of reasons why.
Last edited:
At this point, I have shifted to focusing on making a run pretty soon mainly because that's all that's missing. That doesn't mean I'm automatically calling for jobs if it doesn't happen, but that's what I'm asking for.
We're consistently good. We are interesting. We compete for league titles. We've made 5 straight tourneys. There comes a point though where Mick's resume is eventually going to start getting looked at sideways almost like Marvin Lewis for what is missing. If he checks that box, yes I'm officially content and probably will be indefinitely.
To a certain extent, the S16 run and beating FSU went a long way with me. If just winning those 2 games helped get the money off his back this much, how much more would 1 deep run do?
We're consistently good. We are interesting. We compete for league titles. We've made 5 straight tourneys. There comes a point though where Mick's resume is eventually going to start getting looked at sideways almost like Marvin Lewis for what is missing. If he checks that box, yes I'm officially content and probably will be indefinitely.
To a certain extent, the S16 run and beating FSU went a long way with me. If just winning those 2 games helped get the money off his back this much, how much more would 1 deep run do?
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
We aren't regularly competing for AAC titles. We all think we should be. But realistically, we're not.
A lot of a fan's perspective has to do with hope. People like to compare Huggins 1 Sweet 16 in his last 9 years, to Cronin 1 Sweet 16 in 9 years. The difference is that along the way, we were racking up regular season Conference Championships, we always had a # by our name, we won Conference Tournament Championships, we got high NCAA seeds, and we had guys who were going to get drafted into the NBA. The ride is what can fuel expectations. And in that success, fans are more willing to understand why some years don't work out in the tournament as well as others. We generally haven't had that hope about the team often enough under Cronin. Usually by this time each year, were nervously hoping we don't collapse and miss the tournament altogether.
I know a lot of Kansas fans. And when you look back, they've actually been upset in the 2nd round several times under Bill Self. But the fans of the program know that in a given year, they will win the confetence, and if things go their way, they will make a deep run in March. I don't say this to suggest we can be Kansas. I say this to suggest we should be the Kansas of the AAC. But we are not.
A lot of a fan's perspective has to do with hope. People like to compare Huggins 1 Sweet 16 in his last 9 years, to Cronin 1 Sweet 16 in 9 years. The difference is that along the way, we were racking up regular season Conference Championships, we always had a # by our name, we won Conference Tournament Championships, we got high NCAA seeds, and we had guys who were going to get drafted into the NBA. The ride is what can fuel expectations. And in that success, fans are more willing to understand why some years don't work out in the tournament as well as others. We generally haven't had that hope about the team often enough under Cronin. Usually by this time each year, were nervously hoping we don't collapse and miss the tournament altogether.
I know a lot of Kansas fans. And when you look back, they've actually been upset in the 2nd round several times under Bill Self. But the fans of the program know that in a given year, they will win the confetence, and if things go their way, they will make a deep run in March. I don't say this to suggest we can be Kansas. I say this to suggest we should be the Kansas of the AAC. But we are not.
No one said we're trying to keep the company of those programs, I'm just providing you examples of programs that aren't tied to the Power 5 and are still successful.
Our fans should have every expectation based on the history of our program that we should be better than every program listed above. We shouldn't be trying to keep company with any of those programs, they should be trying to keep company with us.
Come talk to me when we make the Elite 8 this year, I'm sure you won't hear me doing much complaining. In the meantime if you'd like to continue the discussion quit trying to take comments out of context to somehow prove some sort of point.
If you're completely happy with the success of our program that's your prerogative, I don't agree with you and there's plenty of reasons why.
thanks for making this all about yourself, but i'm actually responding to the general theme of the responses to my original comment.
responses summed up by the first sentence typed in response:
Just a few words are all that's needed as a response to all these wonderful sentences above.....Xavier, Butler, VCU, etc.
no one is taking anything out of context.
We aren't regularly competing for AAC titles. We all think we should be. But realistically, we're not.
A lot of a fan's perspective has to do with hope. People like to compare Huggins 1 Sweet 16 in his last 9 years, to Cronin 1 Sweet 16 in 9 years. The difference is that along the way, we were racking up regular season Conference Championships, we always had a # by our name, we won Conference Tournament Championships, we got high NCAA seeds, and we had guys who were going to get drafted into the NBA. The ride is what can fuel expectations. And in that success, fans are more willing to understand why some years don't work out in the tournament as well as others. We generally haven't had that hope about the team often enough under Cronin. Usually by this time each year, were nervously hoping we don't collapse and miss the tournament altogether.
I know a lot of Kansas fans. And when you look back, they've actually been upset in the 2nd round several times under Bill Self. But the fans of the program know that in a given year, they will win the confetence, and if things go their way, they will make a deep run in March. I don't say this to suggest we can be Kansas. I say this to suggest we should be the Kansas of the AAC. But we are not.
did we not share a conference title in the league's inaugural season with a team on its way to a real conference? and then we tied for 3rd in the following year, finishing 2 games back of a league champion we beat twice?
that's not contending?
jacobkdoyle
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 17,008
did we not share a conference title in the league's inaugural season with a team on its way to a real conference? and then we tied for 3rd in the following year, finishing 2 games back of a league champion we beat twice?
that's not contending?
We did not contend last year. We started 2-2 in the conference and never got in the race. We also lost to East Carolina and Tulane. We are already 2 games off the pace this year, and only 5 games in. So no, I don't consider that a contender.
UCBearcats
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,723
thanks for making this all about yourself, but i'm actually responding to the general theme of the responses to my original comment.
responses summed up by the first sentence typed in response:
no one is taking anything out of context.
You responded directly to my posting with a question and I responded, that's kind of how it works on a message board. Also, I'm not sure you understand the meaning of the word context......either way I can already tell you'd be very annoying to get into an argument with so I'll pass.