Nebraska

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

TheLongHaul said:
With all due respect, UC ranks 295th in scoring offense out of approximately 350 teams. The Nebraska game wasn't an anomaly, it was the trend. And it should be obvious to everyone by now that this isn't a current season trend, it's a trend under Mick.

The fact of the matter is this team just isn't very good. I pointed it out when they were barely squeaking by cupcakes. Now they've played two average teams and lost to them both. Maybe they'll get better, maybe they won't, but right now they aren't that good.
Click to expand...

Points per possessions > Scoring offense....

(UC is #123 in offense)
 
I think that we all need to take a step back. We all know what we lost, best defensive and one of best 3 offensive players in the league. We returned 6.8 ppg in the starting lineup and we all knew this years seniors were part of the weakest class MC has had. UC had a hard time scoring 70 last year with the 2nd leading scorer in school history. We have had a player transfer and a Sr. starter hurt as well. What did you think would happen the first true road game with 7 new faces, no identity and no leader? There are still chances to get some quality wins, the season is not over. Cronin has never had to lean on underclassmen as much as he has this year. This years seniors have not made the jump to date that previous classes have.

Don't get me wrong, that game was downright painful to watch Saturday. There are plenty of learning points from the Nebraska game and they still had a chance to win despite the elements/poor decisions/poor shooting. There are still more chances to get some quality wins, lets get one Wednesday. I will be at 5/3 cheering them on. (Wish we got 15K or however many were at Nebraska Saturday, this after 3 straight home losses)
 
Last edited:
JumpinJack5 said:
We are still 6-2 and this is a really young team. I am frustrated with the lack of offense, but the sky isn't falling just yet.
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet if we could go back and review 9 years of posting on here, or other similar sites, that the "we are a young team" excuse has been used every single year. It's an annual phenomenon. The whole world wants to find the fountain of youth. Who knew it was located in the bowels of 5/3 arena?
 
L-T said:
I would be willing to bet if we could go back and review 9 years of posting on here, or other similar sites, that the "we are a young team" excuse has been used every single year. It's an annual phenomenon. The whole world wants to find the fountain of youth. Who knew it was located in the bowels of 5/3 arena?
Click to expand...

It is a young team.
 
JumpinJack5 said:
We are still 6-2 and this is a really young team. I am frustrated with the lack of offense, but the sky isn't falling just yet.
Click to expand...

6-2 because they have played 6 bad teams and two average teams. The sky isn't falling yet but they are running out of chances with the league being such crap this year. I expected them to struggle a bit this year and figured they'd be a bubble team. Right now they aren't close the bubble and I figured (or hoped?) that they'd have something that resembled an offense.

Bearcat_NTS said:
Points per possessions > Scoring offense....

(UC is #123 in offense)
Click to expand...

I realize that but the post I responded to was quoted talking about how many points UK scored, not how many points per possession UK scored that game. Nevertheless, who gives a crap? The point remains. Whether you look up UC's PPP or PPG, they suck on all accounts (btw, where did you see #123? I had #170).
 
TheLongHaul said:
6-2 because they have played 6 bad teams and two average teams. The sky isn't falling yet but they are running out of chances with the league being such crap this year. I expected them to struggle a bit this year and figured they'd be a bubble team. Right now they aren't close the bubble and I figured (or hoped?) that they'd have something that resembled an offense.



I realize that but the post I responded to was quoted talking about how many points UK scored, not how many points per possession UK scored that game. Nevertheless, who gives a crap? The point remains. Whether you look up UC's PPP or PPG, they suck on all accounts (btw, where did you see #123? I had #170).
Click to expand...

Yeah, points per possession can also be Inflated by a weak schedule strength. Kenpom currently has our strength of schedule at 267. With our weak league, don't expect this to get massively better as the year goes on. Here's how I see it.

The eye test > points per possession > scoring offense

(This offense is nauseating to watch)
 
L-T said:
I would be willing to bet if we could go back and review 9 years of posting on here, or other similar sites, that the "we are a young team" excuse has been used every single year. It's an annual phenomenon. The whole world wants to find the fountain of youth. Who knew it was located in the bowels of 5/3 arena?
Click to expand...

Making up nonsense just for the sake of being a contrarian is a bad look. The last four teams were all veteran heavy when it came down to who saw significant minutes and you know it...
 
Bearcat_NTS said:
Points per possessions > Scoring offense....

(UC is #123 in offense)
Click to expand...

I agree, if you are coaching the La Salle Lancers. But, in major college basketball, scoring offense affects recruiting and attendance. It's indicative of style and brand.

I understand you just graduated. A word of advice. The hardest thing you will experience in your career is marketing. Whether it's yourself or your business. We live in a commoditized world. It's easier if you have money. But, even with money, it's a challenge.

If the Board named you Coach tomorrow, you could bring in a class of three-star recruits, simply by printing out the Rivals list and sending offer letters on University letterhead.

It's hard getting the top-75 recruits. That's why you pay a coach $2.2 million.

When you propose a 20% reduction in arena capacity, due to lack of interest, scoring offense matters. When you are forced to divert charitable donations from cancer research, because you are unable to generate enough surplus from your program to finance arena renovations, scoring offense matters.
 
Chad Brendel said:
Making up nonsense just for the sake of being a contrarian is a bad look. The last four teams were all veteran heavy when it came down to who saw significant minutes and you know it

Didn't make up a thing. I know how veteran heavy they were. I'm responding to other people in here continually using the young excuse year after year (This has actually occurred whether you believe it or not). Didn't have a damn thing to do with my point of view, but I'm glad you made the point that the last four years of horrible offense had not a thing to do with us being young. I agree with you! Thanks for helping to make my point.
Click to expand...
 
LeftyRose said:
I agree, if you are coaching the La Salle Lancers. But, in major college basketball, scoring offense affects recruiting and attendance. It's indicative of style and brand.

I understand you just graduated. A word of advice. The hardest thing you will experience in your career is marketing. Whether it's yourself or your business. We live in a commoditized world. It's easier if you have money. But, even with money, it's a challenge.

If the Board named you Coach tomorrow, you could bring in a class of three-star recruits, simply by printing out the Rivals list and sending offer letters on University letterhead.

It's hard getting the top-75 recruits. That's why you pay a coach $2.2 million.

When you propose a 20% reduction in arena capacity, due to lack of interest, scoring offense matters. When you are forced to divert charitable donations from cancer research, because you are unable to generate enough surplus from your program to finance arena renovations, scoring offense matters.
Click to expand...

Nailed it. Bravo!
 
It bothered me a little to hear Mick talking today about being in the "infancy stage". Is this a throw away year his his mind? Bc we've had 10 extra practices, a Bahamas game, 2 exhibitions and 8 regular season games...that's about 1/3 of the total games gone with conference play looming...Umm, we should be past that stage by now, right?
 
jacobkdoyle said:
It bothered me a little to hear Mick talking today about being in the "infancy stage". Is this a throw away year his his mind? Bc we've had 10 extra practices, a Bahamas game, 2 exhibitions and 8 regular season games...that's about 1/3 of the total games gone with conference play looming...Umm, we should be past that stage by now, right?
Click to expand...

Much easier said than done, and ultimately in large part a result of the 2011 class not living up to expectations. If that class went as planned, there would be quality veteran leadership at the top of the roster that had been through the battles and could lead the team to victories in games like Nebraska and Ole Miss. Those guys obviously aren't able to do that, so in a lot of ways they are starting from scratch and asking guys with at most one year of experience to handle the load.

You can want them to be past that, but it doesn't make it reality...
 
Chad Brendel said:
Much easier said than done, and ultimately in large part a result of the 2011 class not living up to expectations. If that class went as planned, there would be quality veteran leadership at the top of the roster that had been through the battles and could lead the team to victories in games like Nebraska and Ole Miss. Those guys obviously aren't able to do that, so in a lot of ways they are starting from scratch and asking guys with at most one year of experience to handle the load.

You can want them to be past that, but it doesn't make it reality...
Click to expand...

Exactly. Not that Mick and the coaching staff aren't at least partially to blame for that class, they went 0 for 3 with Jermaine, Shaq, and GeLawn.

Plus, Jermaine Lawrence was supposed to be a badass sophomore this year.
 
Chad Brendel said:
Much easier said than done, and ultimately in large part a result of the 2011 class not living up to expectations. If that class went as planned, there would be quality veteran leadership at the top of the roster that had been through the battles and could lead the team to victories in games like Nebraska and Ole Miss. Those guys obviously aren't able to do that, so in a lot of ways they are starting from scratch and asking guys with at most one year of experience to handle the load.

You can want them to be past that, but it doesn't make it reality...
Click to expand...

I'm having a tough time being patient since the game Saturday night. I think it is maybe just bc there aren't a ton of dominant teams this year and the conference is down, so I feel like we should easily be a tournament team. But that doesn't seem possible right now. I think eventually Caupain could be the best guard in the conference. He reminds me of a Michigan State guard with the way he plays. I also think Clark has 1st team all conference written all over him. But as for this year, I suppose you're right. The 2011 class...maybe Mick isn't writing off this year as much as he writing off the idea of those guys becoming the Bishop/Parker style leaders. I was really hoping that'd be Sanders this year. I guess I'll have to scale back my expectations and hope for the baby steps, L-T style.
 
PakMan said:
Exactly. Not that Mick and the coaching staff aren't at least partially to blame for that class, they went 0 for 3 with Jermaine, Shaq, and GeLawn.

Plus, Jermaine Lawrence was supposed to be a badass sophomore this year.
Click to expand...

JD3 also was in class of 11'

Also, one thing to remember is that Troy was born in 1995.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Q
USF Part II
Replies
3
Views
17K
Queens_NYC
Q
W
CLUTCH
Replies
5
Views
3K
waterhead
W
B
NTS-ology
2 3
Replies
41
Views
10K
Garybearcat
G
G
This Year Compared to the Past Few Years
2
Replies
37
Views
11K
sedziobs
S
J
Fatigue
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
Patrick Bateman
P
Back
Top