St Joe's

BearcatTalk

Help Support BearcatTalk:

We all share common bonds - love for the program and the desire for it to be great. That passion manifests itself different ways at different times. I'm not going to knock anyone for being passionate about this program, whether I agree or not.

I've stated my thoughts on Mick and the notion that he hasn't gotten over that feeling of the first few years of the program - low talent and forced to play a certain style to survive. But, we HAVE to give credit where credit is due. This program was a dumpster fire when he took over and he has built it back to about 80-85% of what it was before. That's a credit to him.

Moreover, there were signs of a change in his philosophy this year. Ball movement was better. There was an effort to play inside-out utilize the passing abilities of our bigs. And while he may have limited the development of Jenifer by being too quick to yank him, Jacob Evans got better and better.

Now, we're about to add two top 100 recruits (Cumberland and Washington). I think he's earned the right to Coach next year's team and see what happens.

There are a few things I'd like to see going forward but, criticism aside, Mick has recruited some fine young men that represent ALL of us well and they've done what over 300 schools have failed to do by getting to the dance 6 straight times. Next year's team might be the most skilled and truly talented UC has seen in a long time and we should give the man the chance to coach them. Don't forget, he had a pretty decent health scare last year and that certainly contributed to a different outlook on life overall...but in the long run I don't think he cares any less about winning than any of us do. You don't do what he does for a living and accept losing.
 
We all share common bonds - love for the program and the desire for it to be great. That passion manifests itself different ways at different times. I'm not going to knock anyone for being passionate about this program, whether I agree or not.

I've stated my thoughts on Mick and the notion that he hasn't gotten over that feeling of the first few years of the program - low talent and forced to play a certain style to survive. But, we HAVE to give credit where credit is due. This program was a dumpster fire when he took over and he has built it back to about 80-85% of what it was before. That's a credit to him.

Moreover, there were signs of a change in his philosophy this year. Ball movement was better. There was an effort to play inside-out utilize the passing abilities of our bigs. And while he may have limited the development of Jenifer by being too quick to yank him, Jacob Evans got better and better.

Now, we're about to add two top 100 recruits (Cumberland and Washington). I think he's earned the right to Coach next year's team and see what happens.

There are a few things I'd like to see going forward but, criticism aside, Mick has recruited some fine young men that represent ALL of us well and they've done what over 300 schools have failed to do by getting to the dance 6 straight times. Next year's team might be the most skilled and truly talented UC has seen in a long time and we should give the man the chance to coach them. Don't forget, he had a pretty decent health scare last year and that certainly contributed to a different outlook on life overall...but in the long run I don't think he cares any less about winning than any of us do. You don't do what he does for a living and accept losing.
His coaching methods are not feeling it's what gives his roster the best chance to win. All good teams play defense. Landing better recruits will help with execution. As mentioned many things go into recruiting. He recruits well enough to do what most teams haven't done, make the tourney.

This is a dead horse. Coach isn't going anywhere and he shouldn't. Will finish higher in the league next year potentially winning it and make another tourney appearance. If we get a few breaks we may make a run.

And Doogle JJ wasn't mishandled. Fact is against better competition he added little value. When you play games that are very tightly contested and there is a significant drop off in production from the back up to starter you won't get a very long leash. Fact is JJ adds depth not starter minutes. I really don't think you'll ever see him as a starter. Being recruited as depth doesn't mean he is a miss in the process. Not everyone turns into a star or starter.
 
Last edited:
Watching some of the speed, shooting ability and talent on these lesser programs in this NCAA tournament proves that there is no excuse for our recruiting results. Shooting and speed have been very lacking in our program. Next year's team won't be anything special with regards to speed. Shooting is a TBD. If Cumberland lights it up, which I highly doubt, then we might have a chance to be decent. Evans and Caupain need to be way more consistent than they were this year.
 
We all share common bonds - love for the program and the desire for it to be great. That passion manifests itself different ways at different times. I'm not going to knock anyone for being passionate about this program, whether I agree or not.

I've stated my thoughts on Mick and the notion that he hasn't gotten over that feeling of the first few years of the program - low talent and forced to play a certain style to survive. But, we HAVE to give credit where credit is due. This program was a dumpster fire when he took over and he has built it back to about 80-85% of what it was before. That's a credit to him.

Moreover, there were signs of a change in his philosophy this year. Ball movement was better. There was an effort to play inside-out utilize the passing abilities of our bigs. And while he may have limited the development of Jenifer by being too quick to yank him, Jacob Evans got better and better.

Now, we're about to add two top 100 recruits (Cumberland and Washington). I think he's earned the right to Coach next year's team and see what happens.

There are a few things I'd like to see going forward but, criticism aside, Mick has recruited some fine young men that represent ALL of us well and they've done what over 300 schools have failed to do by getting to the dance 6 straight times. Next year's team might be the most skilled and truly talented UC has seen in a long time and we should give the man the chance to coach them. Don't forget, he had a pretty decent health scare last year and that certainly contributed to a different outlook on life overall...but in the long run I don't think he cares any less about winning than any of us do. You don't do what he does for a living and accept losing.[/QUO]

Doogle, like I've said many times. You are a great poster on here. I don't agree with everything you've said here, but you said it very well. No matter who's coaching, I'll have my customary seat at every game and root hard for us to take the next step.
 
Yep, now they are ridiculously talented and a #1 seed.
Probably makes a bunch more money and has a much better product to sell. Referencing facilities and conference. Larry Davis does a good job but the really need another.. With our situation your only going to get in so many living rooms.
 
Probably makes a bunch more money and has a much better product to sell. Referencing facilities and conference. Larry Davis does a good job but the really need another.. With our situation your only going to get in so many living rooms.

Mick Cronin makes about $400,000 more than Dana Altman. Don't know about the assistants.
 
Mick Cronin makes about $400,000 more than Dana Altman. Don't know about the assistants.

What do the staffs make?

Mick is the winningest coach under the age of 45 And has made the tourney 6 straight years with less resources. I would expect him to makemore money if you want to keep him.
 
Last edited:
Mick Cronin makes about $400,000 more than Dana Altman. Don't know about the assistants.
Here is a question. Do you think Altman would leave Oregon for UC to make what Mick makes?

Another question is why would the BOT approve a very nice salary for Mick if they were dissatisfied with his performance.

I mean it's been mentioned on here that donors have expressed their displeasure with the direction of the program. The fan base is displeased. How does that warrant a top coaches salary. The admin. Is flooded with calls from donors to express their disappointment in the program. Does Mick have pictures of the BOT? Something is not adding up. Generally when your a well compensated employee it means your boss is happy with your performance. He is trying to discourage your desire to seek employment elsewhere.

Do you believe the winningest coach under 45 who hsas his program as 1 of 8 schools to make the NCAA tourney for 6 straight years would have trouble finding another coaching job? All this while operating on a shoe string in sub par facilities in a shitty conference. If I am missing something maybe the donors should be questioning what the BOT is doing. They approved his salary. Mick exist because they approved his salary and hired him.
 
Last edited:
Mick Cronin makes about $400,000 more than Dana Altman. Don't know about the assistants.

Stubbs is making around 500K and is pretty much only a recruiter. LD makes I thinks a little north of 300K and that was after the raise last year to reward him for taking over for Mick.

Trust me, if Mick could pay Stubbs enough to get him back, he would...
 
Last edited:
Altman didn't get a raise on his last extension because of compliance issues. It was incentive laden, and ensured there were no more issues going forward...
Chad my point is we pay Mick because he does a good job n a very tough environment. There are people posting here who think he isn't earning his money and wouldn't find a job in a p-5 conference if he made himself available. My opinion is he would be hired in a minute. His salary is about performance and keeping him here.
 
Chad my point is we pay Mick because he does a good job n a very tough environment. There are people posting here who think he isn't earning his money and wouldn't find a job in a p-5 conference if he made himself available. My opinion is he would be hired in a minute. His salary is about performance and keeping him here.

I agree. My point was Altman would be making more than Mick if he didn't have internal issues in his program. That hasn't been the case here under Mick...
 
Mick and his performance are part of our pitch we are continually dusting off to make ourselves attractive to the Big 12. Every time I hear someone say we should fire him I laugh. The BOT is doing everything they can to keep him. Money,budget and facilities. Mick helped shine up this turd when the admin missed the boat on expansion. Kept his mouth shut when all the resources went to football and still performed at a high level. Yes let's fire him. Now I didn't graduate from the UC business school but my Rollins college education tell me they can not possibly be dissatisfied with his performance. If they were why would they compensate him to keep him here?
 
Yes, but that wasn't his doing. Just his responsibility to correct...

Chad I do appreciate your input and consider you a fantastic source for UC athletics, but I just have to ask why every post ends with " ... " No harm or malicious intent, just curious. Thanks!
 
Back
Top