Houston: Round 2: The Battle for Everything

[Bcatfollower]

Mick Cronin's "failure" was de minimis. Very, very rarely did his teams lose to inferior teams (and never more than once or twice every couple of years) but his teams were consistent and they almost NEVER beat themselves because they were DISCIPLINED.

At the very least, his teams were always 25-30 win teams and there was never any question they were going to make the NCAA Tournament, which if you haven't been paying attention is kind of a prerequisite to making a deep run in the NCAA Tournament.

Winning conference championships and making the tournament every year is actually a GREAT result for a team of UC's stature. There are a lot of Power 5 programs that can't even do that. Focusing on a singular metric (deep NCAA tournament runs) that only a handful of programs pull off with any consistency (and they're all in Power 5 conferences, except for Gonzaga and Villanova) is just stupid.

He rarely won the conference. Rarely won a conference tourney. Never made any run. Literally he is the definition of mediocre. I don’t have the stat but believe he lost to multiple inferior teams in the ncaa.

 

[cincyguy13]

No i understand the administration dropped the ball. Thats what i understand and any man with some pride is not gonna sit up there and not be compensated and hogged tied with recruiting on a short contract

Ok, so if you understand that the staff left, for whatever reason, then you also understand that any new staff is going to look different. It's not going to be the exact same roster with the exact same roles. You understand that, right? It doesn't make much sense when you keep saying this is a top 15 team with the original staff and original roster. They aren't here anymore.

 

[cincyguy13]

EXACTLY. Let's remember why Mick left--Mike Bohn and the administration refused to give him the raise and contract extension they should have given him, it was hamstringing recruiting, and by the time they realized "oh shit, he might actually leave" it was too late and he was out the door. Our loss, clearly his gain. He's killing it at UCLA.

Just not sure how any of this is Brannen's fault. Or the fact that players left.

 

[Bcatfollower]

Ok, so if you understand that the staff left, for whatever reason, then you also understand that any new staff is going to look different. It's not going to be the exact same roster with the exact same roles. You understand that, right? It doesn't make much sense when you keep saying this is a top 15 team with the original staff and original roster. They aren't here anymore.

You are talking to much reason for him to understand. Mick had a 2 seed and did his same stupid bs. Even if we were top 15, which we weren’t, mick woulda pissed it away and then blamed players, refs, league, ncaa seeding, region... etc

 

[UCats329]

He rarely won the conference. Rarely won a conference tourney. Never made any run. Literally he is the definition of mediocre. I don’t have the stat but believe he lost to multiple inferior teams in the ncaa.

3 regular season and 2 conference tournament championships in the AAC in 6 years. By my math that's 5 out of 12. I think if you asked most teams if they'd like to win their conference roughly half the time they would say "**** yes". If you're going to sit here and bash him for never winning the Big East you're nuts (they did make the tournament final the same year they made the Sweet 16.)

As for the NCAA tournament, yes, they lost to a few lower seed teams (#12 Harvard--who should have been more like a 7; #7 Nevada--literally the only MAJOR ****-up I would hold against him in his 13 year tenure) but also had the pleasure of getting to play #1 seed Kentucky in Lexington and #3 seed UCLA in Sacramento. They lost as the 6 seed against #3 National Champion UConn in 11. They lost a few 8-9 games as the 9 seed, including one where they had to play an underseeded Creighton team that had NPOY Doug McDermott. They made a Sweet 16 by winning a 6-3 game against FSU as the 6. That's his tournament record. It's really not as bad as people make it out to be.

 

[Bcatfollower]

3 regular season and 2 conference tournament championships in the AAC in 6 years. By my math that's 5 out of 12. I think if you asked most teams if they'd like to win their conference roughly half the time they would say "**** yes". If you're going to sit here and bash him for never winning the Big East you're nuts (they did make the tournament final the same year they made the Sweet 16.)

As for the NCAA tournament, yes, they lost to a few lower seed teams (#12 Harvard--who should have been more like a 7; #7 Nevada--literally the only MAJOR ****-up I would hold against him in his 13 year tenure) but also had the pleasure of getting to play #1 seed Kentucky in Lexington and #3 seed UCLA in Sacramento. They lost a few 8-9 games as the 9 seed, including one where they had to play an underseeded Creighton team that had NPOY Doug McDermott. They made a Sweet 16 by winning a 6-3 game against FSU as the 6. That's his tournament record. It's really not as bad as people make it out to be.

It’s just funny to even read this post... literally every failure you say things like underseeded or underrated or no one should expect to win in the big East.

1 sweet 16 in 12 years is ridiculous if you’re touting making tourney appearances
Same excuses that people got tired of every year.

 

[skyblade]

He rarely won the conference. Rarely won a conference tourney. Never made any run. Literally he is the definition of mediocre. I don’t have the stat but believe he lost to multiple inferior teams in the ncaa.

In his last 3 years here, he set UC's record for most combined wins over a three year period, won a regular season title (plus two second place finishes) and two conference tournament titles (plus a second place finish).

And lets not forget the 9 straight NCAA tournaments, a streak that Brannen seems likely to end in his first year.

He was a top coach in the American. The only thing he didn't do is win in the single elimination NCAA tournament - which is largely random.

More importantly, his teams came out almost every night and played with effort, intensity and focus on both ends of the court. He may not have had the best offensive players, but they generally avoided beating themselves.

Brannen's first year has a lot of silly TO's, bad defense and lack of effort at rebounding. I would feel better if we were playing hard and smart and getting beat because of lack of talent. But it seems to me that we have the talent to compete, it's lack of effort and focus where we generally get beat.

 

[JoeRunner89]

Ok, so if you understand that the staff left, for whatever reason, then you also understand that any new staff is going to look different. It's not going to be the exact same roster with the exact same roles. You understand that, right? It doesn't make much sense when you keep saying this is a top 15 team with the original staff and original roster. They aren't here anymore.

Ok. clearly. I. Understand. Im talking about the team Brannen couldn't keep together

 

[cincyguy13]

3 regular season and 2 conference tournament championships in the AAC in 6 years. By my math that's 5 out of 12. I think if you asked most teams if they'd like to win their conference roughly half the time they would say "**** yes". If you're going to sit here and bash him for never winning the Big East you're nuts (they did make the tournament final the same year they made the Sweet 16.)

As for the NCAA tournament, yes, they lost to a few lower seed teams (#12 Harvard--who should have been more like a 7; #7 Nevada--literally the only MAJOR ****-up I would hold against him in his 13 year tenure) but also had the pleasure of getting to play #1 seed Kentucky in Lexington and #3 seed UCLA in Sacramento. They lost as the 6 seed against #3 National Champion UConn in 11. They lost a few 8-9 games as the 9 seed, including one where they had to play an underseeded Creighton team that had NPOY Doug McDermott. They made a Sweet 16 by winning a 6-3 game against FSU as the 6. That's his tournament record. It's really not as bad as people make it out to be.

there are some things you can point to, to defend Cronin. The tournament is not one of them. stop.

 

[UCats329]

It’s just funny to even read this post... literally every failure you say things like underseeded or underrated or no one should expect to win in the big East.

Same excuses that people got tired of every year.

If not winning a 16-team conference that had multiple HOF coaches and several borderline blueblood programs (in the midst of a MASSIVE program rebuild, no less) or not advancing to the Sweet 16 every 2 or 3 years are your metrics, I cannot wait to see how you react starting next year when John Brannen's UC teams finish 7th or 8th in the AAC and make the NIT, if that.

It's your brand of delusional ass thinking that's screwed this whole thing up for those of us who enjoyed winning ~28 games a year, conference titles, and making the tournament EVERY YEAR.

 

[JoeRunner89]

In his last 3 years here, he set UC's record for most combined wins over a three year period, won a regular season title (plus two second place finishes) and two conference tournament titles (plus a second place finish).

And lets not forget the 9 straight NCAA tournaments, a streak that Brannen seems likely to end in his first year.

He was a top coach in the American. The only thing he didn't do is win in the single elimination NCAA tournament - which is largely random.

More importantly, his teams came out almost every night and played with effort, intensity and focus on both ends of the court. He may not have had the best offensive players, but they generally avoided beating themselves.

Brannen's first year has a lot of silly TO's, bad defense and lack of effort at rebounding. I would feel better if we were playing hard and smart and getting beat because of lack of talent. But it seems to me that we have the talent to compete, it's lack of effort and focus where we generally get beat.

And remember all the experineced hall of fame coaches he had to coach up against rebuilding in that big east and some ppl on here are actually comparing what brannen inherited and the situation to what mick inherited... I mean come on

 

[UCats329]

In his last 3 years here, he set UC's record for most combined wins over a three year period, won a regular season title (plus two second place finishes) and two conference tournament titles (plus a second place finish).

And lets not forget the 9 straight NCAA tournaments, a streak that Brannen seems likely to end in his first year.

He was a top coach in the American. The only thing he didn't do is win in the single elimination NCAA tournament - which is largely random.

More importantly, his teams came out almost every night and played with effort, intensity and focus on both ends of the court. He may not have had the best offensive players, but they generally avoided beating themselves.

Brannen's first year has a lot of silly TO's, bad defense and lack of effort at rebounding. I would feel better if we were playing hard and smart and getting beat because of lack of talent. But it seems to me that we have the talent to compete, it's lack of effort and focus where we generally get beat.

THANK YOU. Now let's see how that plays out when there's no Jarron Cumberland or Tre Scott and the team is mostly freshmen and sophomores.

 

[Bcatfollower]

In his last 3 years here, he set UC's record for most combined wins over a three year period, won a regular season title (plus two second place finishes) and two conference tournament titles (plus a second place finish).

And lets not forget the 9 straight NCAA tournaments, a streak that Brannen seems likely to end in his first year.

He was a top coach in the American. The only thing he didn't do is win in the single elimination NCAA tournament - which is largely random.

More importantly, his teams came out almost every night and played with effort, intensity and focus on both ends of the court. He may not have had the best offensive players, but they generally avoided beating themselves.

Brannen's first year has a lot of silly TO's, bad defense and lack of effort at rebounding. I would feel better if we were playing hard and smart and getting beat because of lack of talent. But it seems to me that we have the talent to compete, it's lack of effort and focus where we generally get beat.

Mick wasn’t/isn’t the top coach in the American. The ncaa is not really random. Mick melted down a few times and cost his team wins. Match up zones start to fail when you play consistently good teams. Ask jim Boheim.

 

[Bcatfollower]

If not winning a 16-team conference that had multiple HOF coaches and several borderline blueblood programs (in the midst of a MASSIVE program rebuild, no less) or not advancing to the Sweet 16 every 2 or 3 years are your metrics, I cannot wait to see how you react starting next year when John Brannen's UC teams finish 7th or 8th in the AAC and make the NIT, if that.

It's your brand of delusional ass thinking that's screwed this whole thing up for those of us who enjoyed winning ~28 games a year, conference titles, and making the tournament EVERY YEAR.

And exiting the first weekend every year. The excuses keep coming. So weak

 

[UCats329]

Mick wasn’t/isn’t the top coach in the American. The ncaa is not really random. Mick melted down a few times and cost his team wins. Match up zones start to fail when you play consistently good teams. Ask jim Boheim.

Do you even actually watch basketball?

 

[Bcatfollower]

Do you even actually watch basketball?

Are you 5’5, bald and had your daddy coach your high school team so you could play?

 

[cincyguy13]

Ok. clearly. I. Understand. Im talking about the team Brannen couldn't keep together

You say you understand but i'm still not sure. Most times when there is a coaching change, players leave. Has nothing to do with the new coach. most of the time, it's because the guy the knew and the reason they came in the first place, left.

Also, if the same exact team came back, it's not Cronin coaching them. It's a guy with a completely different style. So those that roster isn't going to have the same success.

 

[UCats329]

And exiting the first weekend every year. The excuses keep coming. So weak

There's nothing to excuse. MOST PROGRAMS exit the first weekend, assuming they even make it into the field to begin with. There are like a dozen teams that even regularly make it out of the first weekend (Duke, UNC, Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida, Kansas, UCLA, Oregon, Gonzaga, Villanova) and if your haven't noticed none of them are playing in the AAC.

If you're going to sit here and call Mick Cronin a failure for not making regular Sweet 16s, I cannot wait to see how bad you savage John Brannen when they don't even make the tournament for 3 or 4 years.

 

[Bcatfollower]

There's nothing to excuse. MOST PROGRAMS exit the first weekend, assuming they even make it into the field to begin with. There are like a dozen teams that even regularly make it out of the first weekend (Duke, UNC, Virginia, Louisville, Syracuse, Kentucky, Florida, Kansas, UCLA, Oregon, Gonzaga, Villanova) and if your haven't noticed none of them are playing in the AAC.

EVERY YEAR?

 

[JoeRunner89]

Do you even actually watch basketball?

Exactly probrably only watches one team.... Every Now And Then