Mick Cronin

[Jon Rycek]

If mick left it would be interesting to see where he ended up. Like would anyone take his style of play or has his lack of march success make ADs think twice.

Lol.. Mick would have plenty of job opportunities. Come on

 

[z_bearcat]

Keith Williams... Jacob Evans..

Gary Clark, Sean Kilpatrick . . . This is not a legitimate argument. Cronin has had plenty of good players. The problem often is he hasn’t had enough at one time. The other problem is his coaching style. He has to sacrifice some defense in favor of a purely offensive player. There needs to be some balance in his recruiting philosophy.

 

[TheRealMick]

What did he say about JJ and cane?

Basically they wasn't athletic enough but gave their all. Nobody recruited them out of high school blah blah blah. Crazy talk from a coach

 

[TheRealMick]

What are your sources for Mick leaving and him bashing Broome and Jennifer?

Radio guy said it first. Chad was on tv last night and said same thing. Nku and UC coaches might not be back. Nku coach would be high on our list

 

[sedziobs]

Cronin has had lots of scorers who aren't elite athletes. Cumberland, Caupain, Kilpatrick, and Vaughn are the obvious examples. Then there's a whole bunch of role players fitting that description, like Jenifer, Farad Cobb and Larry Davis. Beyond that there's the players that just didn't work out, like Quadri and Jeremiah Davis. We don't only recruit athletes.

 

[TheRealMick]

Cronin has had lots of scorers who aren't elite athletes. Cumberland, Caupain, Kilpatrick, and Vaughn are the obvious examples. Then there's a whole bunch of role players fitting that description, like Jenifer, Farad Cobb and Larry Davis. Beyond that there's the players that just didn't work out, like Quadri and Jeremiah Davis. We don't only recruit athletes.

You only need athletes on wings. Mick been missing a rashad bishop or shaw Thomas in AAC. We been getting away with 2 guards playing the 3. Lack of length on wing killed us this year. Keith williams was weakest link in 3pt defense but at time his athleticism allowed him to recover and block 3pt shots. He's only guy on team that plays with real athleticism. Hardnett and Logan needed to play this year by all means.

 

[Cin City]

https://mikedropsports.com/how-uc-it-being-a-bearcat/

 

[Bcatfollower]

https://mikedropsports.com/how-uc-it-being-a-bearcat/

Who wrote this garbage?

 

[Bcatfollower]

Lol.. Mick would have plenty of job opportunities. Come on

Hopefully we will see

 

[sirthought]

He gets at least one well-publicized D1 job offer every year. That's from the schools who think they have a shot at drawing him away.

If a UCLA offered I wouldn't blame Mick for taking at shot at it. He'd probably have enough money for a good life even if he got fired. And it would be a professional achievement just to get there. (Although that becomes less of a destination every year.)

But not many blue bloods will call on Mick because he hasn't made a deep run. So I think he's got it good here. He makes it work more than not.

And a quick look around the AAC shows us how easy it is for a program to fall out of relevancy. Getting a better coach is not a given. If they knew they could close a deal with someone strong before firing Mick, then that would help, but that's not how it works.

 

[cincyguy13]

https://mikedropsports.com/how-uc-it-being-a-bearcat/

I don't know what Mikedropsports is but if anyone can't not see why people are frustrated, they are being naive. The tournament is the biggest thing in the sport and I would say, UC has been the most disappointing team when it comes to their performance in the tournament, for 20+ years. I honestly can't think of a program that has been as solid as UC, that doesn't at least have 1 elite 8 during this time. It is hard to be this bad. It is not all Mick's fault but with every year that passes, the pressure and frustrating will continue to grow. The people that defend Mick to the end are almost as bad as the people who what to fire him every other week.

 

[sirthought]

Only eight other schools have been as solid, and they've all done better in at least one tournament. This is frustrating, and I think most of the tournament failings fall on Cronin from either game coaching decisions or just a lack of preparing his team to win in those situations.

But looking at the sport and why UC has men's basketball, it's not just to play in the tournament. It's much bigger. I'd say they have to be pleased with mostly winning seasons, fans back in the arena, and players graduating and representing the school well.

 

[seldompost]

I don't know what Mikedropsports is but if anyone can't not see why people are frustrated, they are being naive. The tournament is the biggest thing in the sport and I would say, UC has been the most disappointing team when it comes to their performance in the tournament, for 20+ years. I honestly can't think of a program that has been as solid as UC, that doesn't at least have 1 elite 8 during this time. It is hard to be this bad. It is not all Mick's fault but with every year that passes, the pressure and frustrating will continue to grow. The people that defend Mick to the end are almost as bad as the people who what to fire him every other week.

To be "the most disappointing team in the tournament over the last 20 years", you have to make the tournament consistently. How many years over the last 13 has UC overachieved in the regular season? How many years have they finished higher in final rankings than preseason? Mick's teams overachieve and that can lead to being exposed in the tournament. Enjoy the ride, because every other non-power conference school (except Gonzaga) wants what we have.

 

[TheRealUC]

To be "the most disappointing team in the tournament over the last 20 years", you have to make the tournament consistently. How many years over the last 13 has UC overachieved in the regular season? How many years have they finished higher in final rankings than preseason? Mick's teams overachieve and that can lead to being exposed in the tournament. Enjoy the ride, because every other non-power conference school (except Gonzaga) wants what we have.

Agreed. Living in Uconn country, I can tell you fans are not enjoying this recent stretch at all, even with their past success. To quote my roommate on selection Sunday, "at least you get to wonder what seed you're gonna get". It's a luxury not many fans/schools have. Yes, the massive disappointment that follows sucks to high hell, but it's something i think is getting taken for granted.

 

[waterhead]

Last year really did a number on me and made me reflect on our REAL chances when we make the dance each year. I think in our 8 appearances we have had 1 LEGIT chance to make some type of Final Four run. Of course when you have that type of team and opportunity you have to get it done in that very year. There are all kinds of factors that can end that run for you.

I can't look back at the rest of our teams and think we had any business winning more than a game or two. Our next highest seed was a 5 and we had some 6's as well. Looking at seed alone those are 1 win seeds and 2 wins would be better than expected. Sure would be nice to make it out of the first weekend but even that is not what I am looking for as a fan really.

So you have to look at other teams and coaches theoretically and ask yourself would it be okay to make the dance only half the time...if half of those squads were legit. By legit I am talking about at least a protected seed. So in 8 years you make the dance 4 times and 2 of them are legit contenders. And your style of play and coaching works better in March.

Would I trade the year in year out conference title contentions and trips to the dance with pretenders or would I rather do this every other year if it meant we would have more contenders? I am in the contender crowd. I don't like pretending we are better than we are because we can win a bunch of games.

Last year gave me some hope that our coach could put together a magical team every once or twice in a decade or so...but the problem is not only do the stars have to align to just have the players (for how our system works)...but then they have to align again to make that run. And everything was lined up so nice...but it didn't happen. So do we have to wait 8 more years to get that type of opportunity?

I think we have a very very good coach. I just don't know if he or his style is cut for tournament and that bothers me. There is a high likelihood if he is gone that things will not be better...but I am almost ambivalent at this point to giving it a try. We will be a stepping stone job (for anyone that it's not their dream job) unless or until we get into a better conference or our conference becomes a final destination conference. But if someone is good enough to step out from UC to a better position then we probably had a hell of a run. If not...we can always re-hire in 3-5 years and try it again.

I will let someone smarter than me decide. This year would not have been the year I would want to make a new coach hire I can tell you that. So I would prefer any other year than this one if it happens. Too many openings are going to be available.

 

[TheRealMick]

Talent isn't the reason we losing. We should've beat all the teams we've faced since KY. Time start looking at coaching development. Parker still sits with the walk ons, demarr sits behind bench, Jackson might sneak a word in or two during games, other coaches are non existent. Watch the other winning programs. They all have 2-3 coaches up coaching during games. We need new corner men that know their valuable also during games. This isn't the old days where u could get away with one coach, you need multiple elite voices on bench

 

[TheRealUC]

Talent isn't the reason we losing. We should've beat all the teams we've faced since KY.

They were the lower seed vs saint joes and UCLA. If you're gonna blast them for losing to lower seeded Iowa and Nevada, then losing to a higher seed cant fall into the "should've" won category.

 

[waterhead]

Talent isn't the reason we losing. We should've beat all the teams we've faced since KY. Time start looking at coaching development. Parker still sits with the walk ons, demarr sits behind bench, Jackson might sneak a word in or two during games, other coaches are non existent. Watch the other winning programs. They all have 2-3 coaches up coaching during games. We need new corner men that know their valuable also during games. This isn't the old days where u could get away with one coach, you need multiple elite voices on bench

Talent may not be the reason we lose any one particular game but it is the reason the fan base has little hope of having a LEGIT contender when we reach the dance. Cronin has had 1 in his 8 years making the dance where the seed would project to more than winning 1 game. Not going to get into the results of last year because it's not the point.

Huggins had 9 top 4 seeds in 14 appearances I believe. No matter the end results and no matter if you think either coach was a very good tourney coach...there was reason to believe (as a fan) that those years had at the very least a punchers chance to get to the Final 4.

That is 9 out of 14 vs 1 out of 8. Contenders vs pretenders. That speaks to the talent level on the team. It should come as no surprise last year was our most talented team and so was our seed. It is Cronin's only contender in 12 years. If Cumberland comes back I like the potential next year but I don't think it's at the level of our 2 seed team. Probably between the 2 and 6 though. But we may not have Cumberland and we may not even have the coach so who knows.

 

[TheRealUC]

Talent may not be the reason we lose any one particular game but it is the reason the fan base has little hope of having a LEGIT contender when we reach the dance. Cronin has had 1 in his 8 years making the dance where the seed would project to more than winning 1 game. Not going to get into the results of last year because it's not the point.

Huggins had 9 top 4 seeds in 14 appearances I believe. No matter the end results and no matter if you think either coach was a very good tourney coach...there was reason to believe (as a fan) that those years had at the very least a punchers chance to get to the Final 4.

That is 9 out of 14 vs 1 out of 8. Contenders vs pretenders. That speaks to the talent level on the team. It should come as no surprise last year was our most talented team and so was our seed. It is Cronin's only contender in 12 years. If Cumberland comes back I like the potential next year but I don't think it's at the level of our 2 seed team. Probably between the 2 and 6 though. But we may not have Cumberland and we may not even have the coach so who knows.

excellent post

 

[sedziobs]

Huggins had 9 top 4 seeds in 14 appearances I believe.

I'm not trying to make a point, but I think it's interesting that we lost to a team seeded lower than us in 8 out of those 9. The only exception was our elite 8 run in 1993 when we lost to 1 seed UNC. In our final four run in 1992 as a 4 seed we got fairly lucky, getting 9 seed UTEP in the sweet sixteen and 6 seed Memphis in the elite 8. We didn't have to face any of the top 3 seeds in our region. In fact only twice since 1989 have we beaten a protected seed. Huggins beat 3 seed Georgia Tech in 1996 and Cronin beat 3 seed Florida St in 2012.