Comparable Comparison To UC

[Thegreatone]

Tom Crean is a good coach and we all know that. He was put into the same situation as MC. Mick has been in a better conference though. Indiana has a slightly better name as far as recruiting but our affiliation with the Big East helps even that out.

Indiana so far:

Road record: 2-23

Record 09-10: 9-20 (3-14)
Record 08-09: 6-25 (1-18)

Record after February 14th: 0-13
Record in March: 0-4

Late season meltdowns:

09/10: 0-11
08/09: 1-20

It is hard to comeback from the ashes of nothing. Indiana was in the NCAA Championship this decade.

 

[Thegreatone]

Got this from a guy on BCN

 

[ralph1950]

I have used Crean as an example many a time. Mick's first 2 years at UC look better than Crean's 2 years at IU.

 

[lumberjack]

I have used Crean as an example many a time. Mick's first 2 years at UC look better than Crean's 2 years at IU.

I don't care about tom crean or Indiana or any other team for that matter. I'm sure Indiana lacks talent but atleast makes smart basketball plays.

 

[adrock]

To spell it out, here's why this comparison is important whether you care about IU and Tom Crean or not:

• Tom Crean is considered by most to be a good coach, and has even been used by (pardon the term) Mick haters as the standard of success. "You'll see how quickly Tom Crean puts IU back on the map" they'd say.
• Tom Crean is not currently showing the results (again, pardon the term) Mick haters expected.
• So, a good coach at a program in a similar situation to UC is not rebuilding any faster than UC.
• This either means that Tom Crean is not a good coach (which we discounted in the first point)...or UC's current rebuilding speed can't be used to determine Mick's ability as a coach.
• As a result, the conclusion can't reasonably be made that things would get better if Mick were replaced, because it can't be reasonably concluded that Mick is the problem.
• Therefore, those calling for Mick's firing due to the lack of progress made are illogical.

Logic = win.

Maybe the situation both of these schools are in is just too difficult to be rebuilt in 3-4 years. That's what the Tom Crean comparison is meant to show...and I think it does so successfully.

 

[ready2go]

You cannot compare the two programs first off.

It is only his 2nd year at IU.

IU just last year faced serious NCAA Allegations. In the end that hurts rercuiting and not to mention he had 1 scholy player back. On top of that he lost 3 schollys to self imposed punishment by IU. This is his second year and like lumberjack mentioned they play smart bball.

PUT ALL THAT ASIDE:
Here is what Mick "Haters" or what you call us based our decisions on
-lack of player progression under Mick, players remain same or get worse
-lack of hustle or bad attidude, if he can't change them he does recruit them
-play calling out of time-outs, exception of Bishops 3 down 5 vs nova haven't seen much production
-execution and free throw shooting, said this before but once it becomes a team problem it becomes Micks problem.

Once Mick gets his "Feel Sorry Year" i mean 5th year, give me Steve Alford!!!

 

[adrock]

Your assumption though is that UC would have rebuilt more quickly after the Huggins and Kennedy incidents under the guidance of some other coach, correct?

What logical reason have you to believe that?

Or is this more of the knee-jerk, shortsighted criticism from a group of people that think since a coach isn't Bob Huggins, he isn't good enough?

 

[BearcatAlum1]

Your assumption though is that UC would have rebuilt more quickly after the Huggins and Kennedy incidents under the guidance of some other coach, correct?

What logical reason have you to believe that?

Or is this more of the knee-jerk, shortsighted criticism from a group of people that think since a coach isn't Bob Huggins, he isn't good enough?

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding. We have a winner ladies and gentlemen.

 

[ready2go]

Your assumption though is that UC would have rebuilt more quickly after the Huggins and Kennedy incidents under the guidance of some other coach, correct?

What logical reason have you to believe that?

Or is this more of the knee-jerk, shortsighted criticism from a group of people that think since a coach isn't Bob Huggins, he isn't good enough?

I'm not sure if that was directed towards me, but

I DO NOT REPEAT MYSELF...

Go back and RE-READ under "PUT ALL THAT ASIDE" from my last post

For the record my assumption was that by now I would see some resemblance of an offense and team chemistry, as I do when watching IU!!

 

[adrock]

I DO NOT REPEAT MYSELF...

Respectfully disagree.

Go back and RE-READ under "PUT ALL THAT ASIDE" from my last post

All of your criticism of the players' lack of progression, ability to run offense, etc. can be explained by the caliber of player Mick has had to recruit over the past few years. Only last year did we start to get players that are what we expect in terms of talent from a UC team. That's why it's called rebuilding. We start with what we can get, and as those players exit the system through graduation or eligibility exhaustion we get players better than them. And the process is repeated until we get where we used to be.

That's happening. Adam H < Wilks, Davis < Dixon, Wright < Stephenson, Parker.

We have players with the level of talent we hope for, and we have players with the level of experience we need...but we have precious few players with both (Deonta and maybe Rashad).

 

[ready2go]

Respectfully disagree.



All of your criticism of the players' lack of progression, ability to run offense, etc. can be explained by the caliber of player Mick has had to recruit over the past few years. Only last year did we start to get players that are what we expect in terms of talent from a UC team. That's why it's called rebuilding. We start with what we can get, and as those players exit the system through graduation or eligibility exhaustion we get players better than them. And the process is repeated until we get where we used to be.

That's happening. Adam H < Wilks, Davis < Dixon, Wright < Stephenson, Parker.

We have players with the level of talent we hope for, and we have players with the level of experience we need...but we have precious few players with both (Deonta and maybe Rashad).

The thread was comparing IU to UC. As lumberjack pointed out IU makes smart plays!!! That is my argument here. This is Micks 4th year and IU seems better prepared, coached or what not than UC.

Give me Steve Alford!! (So I lied, I do repeat msyelf)

 

[Not Guilty]

You cannot compare the two programs first off.

You absolutely can compare the two programs. Their are differences (IU was able to hire a name coach, IU is in an weaker conference, IU has a bigger name in the basketball world, IU has a MUCH better fan base, IU's problems carried some NCAA sanctions, most of UC's problems were self imposed) but still, the situation the two coaches began with was very, very similar.

It is only his 2nd year at IU.

Mick had a better first year and a better second year than Crean is having at IU. Those seasons are the ones that are being compared. Just because they didn't happen at the same time doesn't make them not comparable.

IU just last year faced serious NCAA Allegations. In the end that hurts rercuiting and not to mention he had 1 scholy player back. On top of that he lost 3 schollys to self imposed punishment by IU. This is his second year and like lumberjack mentioned they play smart bball.

Again, the why is different, but the what is the same. We faced NCAA sanctions that our coach asked for immediately (loss of scholarships) and then needed a near perfect APR in order to stop that from happening again. Our recruiting was hurt because it didn't happen for 2.5 years. When our coach was hired, we had one scholarship player (McGowan) and two walk ons (Allen and Miller) with no recruits anywhere on the horizon. And you think they play smart ball because you aren't emotionally attached and realize their limitations, but in the end what does it matter if they are playing at a significantly worse level than UC was in year one and year 2. In fact, UC played at a higher level in year 1 than IU is playing in year 2.

PUT ALL THAT ASIDE:
Here is what Mick "Haters" or what you call us based our decisions on
-lack of player progression under Mick, players remain same or get worse
-lack of hustle or bad attidude, if he can't change them he does recruit them
-play calling out of time-outs, exception of Bishops 3 down 5 vs nova haven't seen much production
-execution and free throw shooting, said this before but once it becomes a team problem it becomes Micks problem.

Once Mick gets his "Feel Sorry Year" i mean 5th year, give me Steve Alford!!!

We have gotten better every year under Mick. Even this year, where our record may end up being worse, objective measures such as Pomeroy, Sagarin or the flawed RPI showed a marked improvement. The progress may not be fast enough for some of you, but it is definitely there. The question you have to ask yourself is, how much will be lost if Mick is fired (because it is possible we could lose a lot) and is there a coach we could hire that would make it worth it (given our financial situation and generally worthless fan base, I would strongly argue no).

This team works hard. They are a good defensive team and one of the best rebounding teams in the country. There may be lapses (but that is true for EVERY team), but if you think work ethic is a problem, I have to strongly question your opinion or what the hell you are watching.

Generally our play calling out of timeouts is pretty good.

 

[ready2go]

You absolutely can compare the two programs. Their are differences (IU was able to hire a name coach, IU is in an weaker conference, IU has a bigger name in the basketball world, IU has a MUCH better fan base, IU's problems carried some NCAA sanctions, most of UC's problems were self imposed) but still, the situation the two coaches began with was very, very similar.



Mick had a better first year and a better second year than Crean is having at IU. Those seasons are the ones that are being compared. Just because they didn't happen at the same time doesn't make them not comparable.



Again, the why is different, but the what is the same. We faced NCAA sanctions that our coach asked for immediately (loss of scholarships) and then needed a near perfect APR in order to stop that from happening again. Our recruiting was hurt because it didn't happen for 2.5 years. When our coach was hired, we had one scholarship player (McGowan) and two walk ons (Allen and Miller) with no recruits anywhere on the horizon. And you think they play smart ball because you aren't emotionally attached and realize their limitations, but in the end what does it matter if they are playing at a significantly worse level than UC was in year one and year 2. In fact, UC played at a higher level in year 1 than IU is playing in year 2.



We have gotten better every year under Mick. Even this year, where our record may end up being worse, objective measures such as Pomeroy, Sagarin or the flawed RPI showed a marked improvement. The progress may not be fast enough for some of you, but it is definitely there. The question you have to ask yourself is, how much will be lost if Mick is fired (because it is possible we could lose a lot) and is there a coach we could hire that would make it worth it (given our financial situation and generally worthless fan base, I would strongly argue no).

This team works hard. They are a good defensive team and one of the best rebounding teams in the country. There may be lapses (but that is true for EVERY team), but if you think work ethic is a problem, I have to strongly question your opinion or what the hell you are watching.

Generally our play calling out of timeouts is pretty good.

Doctors say you live longer by laughing..

Thank you Not Guilty!

Give me STEVE ALFORD!!!!!!!

If we can't afford him give me a high school coach. We'll run flex!

 

[adrock]

Generally our play calling out of timeouts is pretty good.

Agreed. This argument as well as the "lack of player progression" are two examples of things people use as fact simply because a couple people have repeated the statements to the point of exhaustion. Neither are true, but I have so far been unable to convince someone that believes these things otherwise.

 

[ready2go]

Agreed. This argument as well as the "lack of player progression" are two examples of things people use as fact simply because a couple people have repeated the statements to the point of exhaustion. Neither are true, but I have so far been unable to convince someone that believes these things otherwise.

Seriously????

Do you guys WATCH and listen to the games??

Commentators continually comment on our lack of out of timeout play calling!!

Wow... blows my mind

 

[Not Guilty]

Seriously????

Do you guys WATCH and listen to the games??

Commentators continually comment on our lack of out of timeout play calling!!

Wow... blows my mind

I'm almost certain you have the problem of confirmation bias. You will remember the last play of regulation against Marquette, but forget the last play of regulation against Notre Dame or the countless other plays that worked or at least got a good look.

 

[Not Guilty]

Agreed. This argument as well as the "lack of player progression" are two examples of things people use as fact simply because a couple people have repeated the statements to the point of exhaustion. Neither are true, but I have so far been unable to convince someone that believes these things otherwise.

To me, the "lack of player progression" at least has a little merit. But the people who continually throw it out there are unable to analyze the whole picture. As you already mentioned, the guys that we recruited in year 1 and 2 under Cronin are not the type of players that have been recruiting since year 3 and on. Circumstances dictated that UC take nearly anyone available in year one and project players in year 2.

Also I have noticed progress from players who will likely be very important for us next year, especially Bishop, Thomas and Cash. Lance's understanding of the game has improved as well and I think will only get better in the offseason. And most importantly, the team has improved every year under Cronin. If that happens again next year (which I believe it will if Lance stays), we will be in the tournament and could possibly be a pretty good seed.

 

[adrock]

Seriously????

Do you guys WATCH and listen to the games??

Commentators continually comment on our lack of out of timeout play calling!!

Wow... blows my mind

Good argument. Pulling the old "Seriously?" and "Wow..." out on us.

BTW, why don't you join us for a beer? Don't bring your "brother" though.

 

[ready2go]

I'm almost certain you have the problem of confirmation bias. You will remember the last play of regulation against Marquette, but forget the last play of regulation against Notre Dame or the countless other plays that worked or at least got a good look.

Before I take a break....

I hated those who once Mick was hired immediatly critized him. You must give the guy a chance. That is why I did not enjoy reading BCN. However based on what I have seen over the past 4 years I am developing an opinion.

Not once have I brought up my love for Bob Huggins. I don't wear The University of Bob Huggins T-shirts to games. I wear The University of Cincinnati proudly. Mick has taken this program as far as he can. Let's move on and not waste anymore time.

But we don't have that kind of money...
Who are we going to bring in... wah wah wah

Give me Steve Alford!!!

 

[Not Guilty]

Before I take a break....

I hated those who once Mick was hired immediatly critized him. You must give the guy a chance. That is why I did not enjoy reading BCN. However based on what I have seen over the past 4 years I am developing an opinion.

Not once have I brought up my love for Bob Huggins. I don't wear The University of Bob Huggins T-shirts to games. I wear The University of Cincinnati proudly. Mick has taken this program as far as he can. Let's move on and not waste anymore time.

But we don't have that kind of money...
Who are we going to bring in... wah wah wah

Give me Steve Alford!!!

You really haven't responded to any points I have made.

And sarcastically mentioning the money issue (and subsequent issue of bringing a quality coach in) doesn't make it less true.

Think about what UC faces right now. The conference we are in is absolutely loaded with top programs and top coaches. It may not be too difficult to get close to the middle of the pack, but it is extremely difficult to get anywhere near the top. Would it really be a smart career move for Steve Alford (who already left his job in the Big 10 because his results weren't good enough for his fan base) to come to UC, where we have a small athletic budget compared to our peers, are in significant debt, and have an awful fan base that doesn't support the program unless you are good (in college athletics, this doesn't cut it). Why would he leave. He already experienced that and left because he wasn't appreciated. Now you think he is going to come back to a similar situation? Doesn't make any sense.

And just to counter the rebuttal before it is already made, this isn't about settling for mediocrity. This is about understanding our circumstances, being realistic and looking for what is best for our program. If we could go out and lure a slam dunk to UC, I would strongly consider that option. But that simply isn't the case right now. I have been extremely frustrated with UC to the point that I have stopped posting about them for awhile, but that doesn't mean its right to fire Cronin when there has been progress every year. He is young, is capable or learning on the job as most coaches do early in their careers and continues to bring in nice talent. That to me is much better than the alternative (mid-major coach with unknown recruiting abilities at the highest level and no ties to the university).