Ole Miss

[waterhead]

We currently rank 304th of 351 Div. 1 schools in scoring average. Our 3-pt. shooting percentage ranks 296th of 351 schools. We're playing mostly patsies at this point. When the real competition starts, do you think these stats will improve? Unlikely. When you have a program with the great tradition of Cincinnati, no part of your game should ever reach the level of the bottom feeders in college basketball.

Wasn't it you who just lectured me on expectations? Of course I expect them to improve. In fact I would be willing to bet they will. Do you care to bet? You think they will end up 304th or worse in scoring average and 296th or worse in shooting %.

I'm game if you are. You say unlikely. I say extremely likely they improve. Let's wager!

 

[jacobkdoyle]

We're Cincinnati. We never expect to not make the NCAA. A down year for us is making the tournament and getting bounced in the first round. Once again, let's not lower the bar and the expectations to the point where if we make the tournament we can claim another Mick miracle has occurred. The experts have been picking us to be fourth in the league and to make the NCAA tournament, so as fans, let's not set the bar lower than the experts. If your trend line is ever upward as most proclaim, you certainly can't have back to back first round flame outs followed by a year where you don't even make the tournament.

I completely agree.

 

[BearcatSpaniard513]

Wasn't it you who just lectured me on expectations? Of course I expect them to improve. In fact I would be willing to bet they will. Do you care to bet? You think they will end up 304th or worse in scoring average and 296th or worse in shooting %.

I'm game if you are. You say unlikely. I say extremely likely they improve. Let's wager!

I think L-T was saying with the increased competition and better teams we'll be playing against, it's unlikely. I see where you would bet it increases though (our youth learning and playing better together). It does make me worry that we can't score 70 against a Fairmont State or Saint Francis. Ah the growing pains

 

[Robert]

Since 1996 UC has averaged somewhere between 30%-36% from 3 pt in every year but two outliers. Let's say this team is going to end up toward the bottom part of the curve of 30%. A good shooting team of 36% will only hit one more 3 given 20 attempts in a game on average. Three points per game...I will take it...but it's not that critical to have one lights out shooter except maybe during crunch time. Several average shooters can get the job done.

We have shot 41%, 47% and 37% in three games this year. Three games we have been at 15% or less. Let's not over-react every time we shoot bad and then act like it's an anomaly every time we shoot good. Relax and let a decent portion of the season pass by first.

Our shooting will get more consistent as the season goes on.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but having great shooters isn't just about the shots they make. It's about the spacing and the way opponents have to game plan and defend to stop those guys from getting open looks. Saying it only makes a difference of 3 points per game is only looking at the direct effect of having a lights-out shooter in your rotation. It doesn't take into account the open looks it creates for other guys.

 

[L-T]

Wasn't it you who just lectured me on expectations? Of course I expect them to improve. In fact I would be willing to bet they will. Do you care to bet? You think they will end up 304th or worse in scoring average and 296th or worse in shooting %.

I'm game if you are. You say unlikely. I say extremely likely they improve. Let's wager!

Lol....ok....we'll bet. You're really going out on the limb with this bet aren't you. You better do your homework before you take such a big leap. They're only 304th. Are you sure you want to predict they'll get better?

 

[LeftyRose]

There you go bringing Huggs into the argument again. Nobody mentioned Huggs here and you proclaimed the other day that you're tired of looking in the past and you closed the thread, that was actually a good thread about our fanbase. All I proclaimed is the fact that "We're Cincinnati. We never expect to not make the tournament." So, I will now answer your question. YES! I did proclaim that during Huggs' years. If Huggs had two first round flame-outs followed by a year where we didn't even make the tournament, all the fans would have come unglued....including me.

The history is well documented why there were not more great moments in those years and you know the story as well as I do. Equating these past 4 years to that period is just a joke, as evidensed by the lack of fan support we now have. The fan support is the best barometer of all. If the fans viewed the present as equal to or better than those 9 years, we wouldn't be averaging 4,000 to 5,000 less per game even with the bargain basement prices being thrown at fans to get them to attend. Your argument holds no water.

I actually agree with L-T on this point. Everyone thought Huggs was finished. Mark my words, his team this year is more talented than any UC team assembled in the Cronin era.

Cronin coaches up his guys as good as anyone. So does Tubby Smith. At some point, it's a matter of bringing in better talent. That's unfortunate, but reality. Zero top-75 recruits on this team. Zero top-75 recruits next year. Zero.

 

[JackBauer151]

There you go bringing Huggs into the argument again. Nobody mentioned Huggs here and you proclaimed the other day that you're tired of looking in the past and you closed the thread, that was actually a good thread about our fanbase. All I proclaimed is the fact that "We're Cincinnati. We never expect to not make the tournament." So, I will now answer your question. YES! I did proclaim that during Huggs' years. If Huggs had two first round flame-outs followed by a year where we didn't even make the tournament, all the fans would have come unglued....including me.

The history is well documented why there were not more great moments in those years and you know the story as well as I do. Equating these past 4 years to that period is just a joke, as evidensed by the lack of fan support we now have. The fan support is the best barometer of all. If the fans viewed the present as equal to or better than those 9 years, we wouldn't be averaging 4,000 to 5,000 less per game even with the bargain basement prices being thrown at fans to get them to attend. Your argument holds no water.

You've said many times and I've heard other people say it to, " Equating these past 4 years to that period is just a joke, as evidensed by the lack of fan support we now have. The fan support is the best barometer of all. If the fans viewed the present as equal to or better than those 9 years, we wouldn't be averaging 4,000 to 5,000 less per game even with the bargain basement prices being thrown at fans to get them to attend." You are comparing the those last 9 Huggins years and the last 4 Cronin years as if they are apples to apples. This is simply not true. They are apples and oranges. There are so many mitigating factors that come into play when considering perception and support of the local fan base. During the Huggins golden years: The Bengals sucked, The Reds sucked, Xavier sucked, UC football was non existent, High definition did not exist, the economy was booming, arena was considered acceptable, and UC was shown on local television. Cincinnati was the only game in town. The only one that was considered a winner. What this city could be proud of. The city rallied around the program and rightfully so. It's not hard to see why it was the hardest ticket in town to try to get. Also a credit to Huggins was that he was just as big of a show on the sidelines as the actual games. People literally went to games just to watch Huggs go nuts. He was entertaining. Mick entered the program with ZERO chance of winning for the first 4 years. Hard for the casual fan to support that. During that time the Bengals, Reds, and Muskies have all dramatically improved and people have to make decisions on where to spend their time and money. Xavier, Louisville, Memphis, and UCONN all have state of the art arenas while UC plays in a multipurpose gym. People also buy TV's for thousands of dollars so they can watch games in the comfort of their man cave in High Definition instead of pay money for gas, parking, tickets, and food. Not to mention the sport takes place in the middle of winter. Bearcat football has been to two BCS bowls and is putting 90 million into a renovation. Some people can only support one financially. Its just reality. Cincinnati Basketball simply has to compete with more than it ever has had too; all while having an inferior budget, locker rooms, arena, and as a result of everything I mentioned above.... fan support. It's been an uphill battle for Mick since the day he got here. He has had to deal with more than Huggins ever could have imagined. The criticism about his offense, the roster construction, recruiting classes, and march success are all valid and we can debate about all of those things. Comparing him and the Huggins years are simply too different to compare. The social, economic, and competitive climates have all dramatically shifted from the time Huggins was the coach to where we are now.

 

[waterhead]

I think L-T was saying with the increased competition and better teams we'll be playing against, it's unlikely. I see where you would bet it increases though (our youth learning and playing better together). It does make me worry that we can't score 70 against a Fairmont State or Saint Francis. Ah the growing pains

Yah I know what he's getting at...the competition only gets tougher. He probably forgot that 5 of our guards have already played against MUCH tougher competition than they have faced this year. The 6th is probably our best shooter (Cobb) and the 7th probably won't shoot many 3's (Morman).

Do I think it will get better??? There isn't a doubt in my mind!!

 

[L-T]

I actually agree with L-T on this point. Everyone thought Huggs was finished. Mark my words, his team this year is more talented than any UC team assembled in the Cronin era.

Cronin coaches up his guys as good as anyone. So does Tubby Smith. At some point, it's a matter of bringing in better talent. That's unfortunate, but reality. Zero top-75 recruits on this team. Zero top-75 recruits next year. Zero.

It all starts with recruiting. That was Mick's calling card when he got here. He was a master recruiter. Reality says he has been very underwhelming as a recruiter. Yes, he coaches players up defensively, and gets them to play hard....all great coaching attributes....but he doesn't coach them up much offensively, and his players are not NBA ready when they leave here.

Ed Badger was a terrific coach in the early 80s, but was a poor recruiter. His teams all over-achieved, but he eventually lost his job because he wasn't going to get us to the next level. If Xavier can land top 10 recruiting classes, then what is our problem?

Bottom line, the top players don't want to come in here and practice defense for 3 hours a day and play slow-down basketball and score 50 points per game. He'll never land any elite player for that reason, unless the player has baggage and everyone else backs off...like Lance Stephenson.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

The thing that people need to keep in mind is that scoring 70 isn't what it used to be in college basketball. 60 is the new 70. I mean Kentucky just won 58-38, UConn Texas was 55-54, kansas had 40 v Kentucky and won 61-56 against Michigan State, Louisville just had 45, SDSU and Virginia score in the 50s. That is a wide range of conferences with teams struggling score (or they're just playing more of a defensive style). With a 35 second clock and short 3 pt line, we aren't the only ones playing against a packed in style of defense. The reason NBA offenses are better (other than obvious reason of talent) is bc they space the floor out so much better and take quicker shots. I don't mind not having an up tempo run and gun team, but I do wish we'd put an emphasis on taking the shot the very first time we get a decent look. It's just the natural tendency of college age kids to tighten up and feel more pressure on their shot the lower the shot clock gets. But looking to shoot comes with experience. Clark and Morman could be difference makers for quickening up our offensive flow if they continue to make an effort to always move towards the basket.

 

[waterhead]

Lol....ok....we'll bet. You're really going out on the limb with this bet aren't you. You better do your homework before you take such a big leap. They're only 304th. Are you sure you want to predict they'll get better?

You asked me if I REALLY thought the numbers would improve as they got into better competition and now you are saying I am going out on a limb because I said yes???

WOW...just wow


Would you like to rephrase YOUR OWN question??

 

[L-T]

You've said many times and I've heard other people say it to, " Equating these past 4 years to that period is just a joke, as evidensed by the lack of fan support we now have. The fan support is the best barometer of all. If the fans viewed the present as equal to or better than those 9 years, we wouldn't be averaging 4,000 to 5,000 less per game even with the bargain basement prices being thrown at fans to get them to attend." You are comparing the those last 9 Huggins years and the last 4 Cronin years as if they are apples to apples. This is simply not true. They are apples and oranges. There are so many mitigating factors that come into play when considering perception and support of the local fan base. During the Huggins golden years: The Bengals sucked, The Reds sucked, Xavier sucked, UC football was non existent, High definition did not exist, the economy was booming, arena was considered acceptable, and UC was shown on local television. Cincinnati was the only game in town. The only one that was considered a winner. What this city could be proud of. The city rallied around the program and rightfully so. It's not hard to see why it was the hardest ticket in town to try to get. Also a credit to Huggins was that he was just as big of a show on the sidelines as the actual games. People literally went to games just to watch Huggs go nuts. He was entertaining. Mick entered the program with ZERO chance of winning for the first 4 years. Hard for the casual fan to support that. During that time the Bengals, Reds, and Muskies have all dramatically improved and people have to make decisions on where to spend their time and money. Xavier, Louisville, Memphis, and UCONN all have state of the art arenas while UC plays in a multipurpose gym. People also buy TV's for thousands of dollars so they can watch games in the comfort of their man cave in High Definition instead of pay money for gas, parking, tickets, and food. Not to mention the sport takes place in the middle of winter. Bearcat football has been to two BCS bowls and is putting 90 million into a renovation. Some people can only support one financially. Its just reality. Cincinnati Basketball simply has to compete with more than it ever has had too; all while having an inferior budget, locker rooms, arena, and as a result of everything I mentioned above.... fan support. It's been an uphill battle for Mick since the day he got here. He has had to deal with more than Huggins ever could have imagined. The criticism about his offense, the roster construction, recruiting classes, and march success are all valid and we can debate about all of those things. Comparing him and the Huggins years are simply too different to compare. The social, economic, and competitive climates have all dramatically shifted from the time Huggins was the coach to where we are now.

I didn't compare them. Bearcat Jeff did. I just responded to his comparison.

By the way, Xavier has had no difficulty competing with all these other things you mentioned. They have steadily climbed to near sellout levels for every game in spite of HDTVs, the Reds, the Bengals, Mick's rise, etc. Their non-conference schedules have been top shelf. They've went to multiple Elite 8s. They've had great recruiting classes. Anything on this planet that Xavier can do, should not be an issue for us to achieve and surpass.

 

[L-T]

You asked me if I REALLY thought the numbers would improve as they got into better competition and now you are saying I am going out on a limb because I said yes???

WOW...just wow


Would you like to rephrase YOUR OWN question??

You're talking specifics. I'm talking in generalities. If you asked me if we can reach 303rd, do you think I would have answered no? This is a pretty silly argument. You can Wow...just wow all you want. I'll still bet you just to keep you entertained.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I didn't compare them. Bearcat Jeff did. I just responded to his comparison.

By the way, Xavier has had no difficulty competing with all these other things you mentioned. They have steadily climbed to near sellout levels for every game in spite of HDTVs, the Reds, the Bengals, Mick's rise, etc. Their non-conference schedules have been top shelf. They've went to multiple Elite 8s. They've had great recruiting classes. Anything on this planet that Xavier can do, should not be an issue for us to achieve and surpass.

I didn't compare I asked if you felt the same the last nine years of the Huggs era. My point is and was performance wise in the NCAA
the program is in the same place as in those years. The difference is Huggs had higher seeds.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I get the differences between then and now. I also believe as fans we overreact to things based on our likes and dislikes of a coach or player myself included. I'm that way over Andy Dalton.

 

[JackBauer151]

I didn't compare them. Bearcat Jeff did. I just responded to his comparison.

By the way, Xavier has had no difficulty competing with all these other things you mentioned. They have steadily climbed to near sellout levels for every game in spite of HDTVs, the Reds, the Bengals, Mick's rise, etc. Their non-conference schedules have been top shelf. They've went to multiple Elite 8s. They've had great recruiting classes. Anything on this planet that Xavier can do, should not be an issue for us to achieve and surpass.

They also have failed to make the field of 64 two straight years. All the things you mentioned are because of their administration putting its support and money behind the basketball program. Big recruiting budget and built a brand new arena where fan experience is a priority (Hence that is where the casual fan goes). Also dont have to compete with a football team since they dont have one. Have roughly 3,000 less seats to sell. If this argument is about administrations you may have a point, if it's about coaches you do not.

 

[waterhead]

You're talking specifics. I'm talking in generalities. If you asked me if we can reach 303rd, do you think I would have answered no? This is a pretty silly argument. You can Wow...just wow all you want. I'll still bet you just to keep you entertained.

Of course I am talking specifics!! You can tell me you meant anything you want by claiming a "generality".

I thought it was pretty silly of you to start talking to me about "lowering the bar" and "expectations". You wanted to make it seem like I was settling as a fan by using these subjective "generalities". I explained that I wasn't expecting to make the tourney because I was being rational about what we were starting the season with. 7 new comers and only 3 guys with more than 1 year in the system (those three are average at best)....we lose 3 senior captains (the heart and soul of the team). It is a perfectly rational stance to base my expectations for the season on the circumstances surrounding this team.

I have extremely high expectations for next year and the year after!! Higher than any Mick has currently attained. So...am I lowering the bar...or raising the bar? I expect at least 1 final four in the next 3 years...and I highly doubt it will be this one because of the reasons already mentioned.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I get what L-T is getting at and he makes some good points. I just don't agree that other fans are somehow lowering the bar because they see things differently.

We all agree the attendance needs to improve and that we all want a successful program.

 

[L-T]

I didn't compare I asked if you felt the same the last nine years of the Huggs era. My point is and was performance wise in the NCAA
the program is in the same place as in those years. The difference is Huggs had higher seeds.

My argument has never wavered. I've always looked at the big picture, whivh means our stature back then was waaaaay beyond just our NCAA performance. You can't ignore the great regular seasons, the MacDonald's All Americans, the National Player of the year, the NBA draft picks, the big attendance, the National TV (when there wasn't 56 different channels televising games), etc., etc.

If you choose to dumb down the whole comparison to just a look at the NCAA performance, then you really take away a lot of the argument for Mick, because he has had some nice regular seasons. His NCAA performance has been pretty lacking. He's had two first round flame-outs in a row. Huggs had two in 14 years. If he follows those up with not even making the tournament this year, do you seriously think the pressure won't be ramped way up on him, especially if attendance continues where it's at and we're trying to raise funding to spend $72 million on the program.

4 NCAAs in a row is an achievement that only 16 schools have accomplished currently. Great job Mick! However, this only serves to show just how incredible our 14 in a row was back then.

http://mcubed.net/ncaab/strkr64c.shtml

At that time, only Kansas had more. The nine years you complain about were all NCAA appearances, with only one first round flame out. So if you're bragging about 4 now, you can't begin to compare it favorably to the final 9 of a 14 year run of excellence. Like jack Bauer stated, comparing today with back then is ludicrous. They're not even in the same universe.

 

[L-T]

Of course I am talking specifics!! You can tell me you meant anything you want by claiming a "generality".

I thought it was pretty silly of you to start talking to me about "lowering the bar" and "expectations". You wanted to make it seem like I was settling as a fan by using these subjective "generalities". I explained that I wasn't expecting to make the tourney because I was being rational about what we were starting the season with. 7 new comers and only 3 guys with more than 1 year in the system (those three are average at best)....we lose 3 senior captains (the heart and soul of the team). It is a perfectly rational stance to base my expectations for the season on the circumstances surrounding this team.

I have extremely high expectations for next year and the year after!! Higher than any Mick has currently attained. So...am I lowering the bar...or raising the bar? I expect at least 1 final four in the next 3 years...and I highly doubt it will be this one because of the reasons already mentioned.

Now we're talking!!!! An expectation of at least one final four in the next three years!! I like it!

My point WH is this....8 years ago, it was all about the 2nd round losses in the NCAA. The Mick supporters and Higgs haters all brought that up over and over again. Everyone said you have to give him at least 6 years. Well, here we sit in year 9, coming off two 1st round losses and suddenly more than just you have brought up that we should just be happy with making the tournament, and making statements like we didn't even expect us to make the tournament this year.

So, the phenomena we have going on now is a huge shift in what was being said 8 years ago by many of the same people. Suddenly, the 2nd round flame-outs are never brought up and we suddenly are just happy making the tournament. Almost nobody besides me ever throws an expectation out there that would give Mick a chance to fail at some point.....until now. You have thrown down the gauntlet and established the expectation of a FINAL FOUR within the next three years. I agree, 9 years is plenty enough time to start expecting a Final Four in the near future.

I take back what I said about you lowering the bar! Bravo!