The Official Bob Huggins Thread

[Thegreatone]

When does WVU get into town? I want a Huggins watch from around the city. I wonder if he has any must visits?

 

[adrock]

Well stated Ryno, reps coming your way. Bob Huggins' tenure was frankly nothing short of amazing. The fact that he had been able to recruit such talent without the benefit of using the Big East and the promise of playing at MSG as a recruiting tool is very impressive. Now that he's gone though, we should stop pining for him. He's back at his alma mater and is happy; Mick is at his alma mater and (hopefully) happy. The teams are either pretty equally matched, or perhaps even ours is better.

While I'm thinking about this topic, let me just say this: Even though I didn't like it, I could see how genuine fans of the program might have rooted for Mick to fail over the past couple years, because they had no faith in him and would rather he fail quickly so we could move on with our lives. However, it's becoming quite clear to me anyway that Mick has this program on the right track. We're recruiting studs, players are improving within the program, we're going into conference play undefeated, and we're playing well in the Big East. Anyone that continues to root against Mick in the face of this obvious success is either showing their inability to adjust to the current reality and admit they were wrong, or is not (and perhaps never was) a fan of the program. They were a Huggins fan. That doesn't make them bad people, but they should probably just go buy Mountaineer gear and go away.

 

[Thegreatone]

People can criticize our tournament success or lack there of when Huggins was in town but he did go to the Final Four in 92 and Elite 8 in 96.

I think we all agree that we would have been a serious Final Four contendor in 99-00. In 2002 we were a 1 seed and had NO BUSINESS losing that early in the tournament.

Huggins was producing a national title contendor once every 4 or so years. The one major flop was 2002. 1999-00 was not a flop. We would have done much better with the best player in college that year.

You can argue that we were due when he was leaving. People want to say he was declining on his way out but our team could have been.

Downey, Bill Walker, Mayo, and Beasley.....

Could have made another run at it.

 

[ready2go]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UXAz6jhXgk&playnext=1&list=PLFBACE0ADCA3ADA49[/ame]

This pretty much sums up Huggins Tenure at UC.
Exciting and Passionate

But, hopefully we dont see this Saturday

 

[TheLongHaul]

People can criticize our tournament success or lack there of when Huggins was in town but he did go to the Final Four in 92 and Elite 8 in 96.

I think we all agree that we would have been a serious Final Four contendor in 99-00. In 2002 we were a 1 seed and had NO BUSINESS losing that early in the tournament.

Huggins was producing a national title contendor once every 4 or so years. The one major flop was 2002. 1999-00 was not a flop. We would have done much better with the best player in college that year.

You can argue that we were due when he was leaving. People want to say he was declining on his way out but our team could have been.

Downey, Bill Walker, Mayo, and Beasley.....

Could have made another run at it.

Man it drives me nuts when I see this. How on earth would Beasley have been at UC????

Mayo wasn't going to UC either. The only one that had a chance was Walker and I'm not sure if he would have ended up at UC if Huggins didn't have a year of no restrictions to recruit him.

 

[anbuc88]

People can criticize our tournament success or lack there of when Huggins was in town but he did go to the Final Four in 92 and Elite 8 in 96.

I think we all agree that we would have been a serious Final Four contendor in 99-00. In 2002 we were a 1 seed and had NO BUSINESS losing that early in the tournament.

Huggins was producing a national title contendor once every 4 or so years. The one major flop was 2002. 1999-00 was not a flop. We would have done much better with the best player in college that year.

You can argue that we were due when he was leaving. People want to say he was declining on his way out but our team could have been.

Downey, Bill Walker, Mayo, and Beasley.....
Could have made another run at it.

The first 3 may have been here. But Beasley would have come here only if Huggs has hired the assistant he stole from Charlotte to go to KSU. We would also have been on probation due to the mayo recruitment and Huggs would not be here due to this. Given at that time that he was likely to be forced out anyway, he would have had nothing to lose by taking Mayo. We should be glad this scenerio never played out.

 

[bearcat jeff]

Part of today's vitriol is due to fans that over inflate the success of the Huggins era. They were very good years, but not great. To say Huggins had a national title contender every 4 years is a huge exaggeration. The Kenyon Martin incident broke my heart but upsets happen every season in the NCAA and nothing was certain. Cincinnati still had sweet 16 talent and fell short. Under Huggs UC went to a final four and two elite eights. After Van Excel and company left most trips to the NCAA were major disappointments. Bob Huggins never beat a higher seeded team at UC. Let's not rewrite history to make a point.

 

[ralph1950]

People can criticize our tournament success or lack there of when Huggins was in town but he did go to the Final Four in 92 and Elite 8 in 96.

I think we all agree that we would have been a serious Final Four contendor in 99-00. In 2002 we were a 1 seed and had NO BUSINESS losing that early in the tournament.

Huggins was producing a national title contendor once every 4 or so years. The one major flop was 2002. 1999-00 was not a flop. We would have done much better with the best player in college that year.

You can argue that we were due when he was leaving. People want to say he was declining on his way out but our team could have been.

Downey, Bill Walker, Mayo, and Beasley.....

Could have made another run at it.

I doubt the above 3 would have come, only Walker would have come to UC. Mayo would have taken USC's money and not come to UC. Beasley, no way, Huggins paid Delonte Hill a $400,000 bribe to get Beasley to K-State, I doubt UC would have shelled out the $400,000.

 

[blackcattitude]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UXAz6jhXgk&playnext=1&list=PLFBACE0ADCA3ADA49

This pretty much sums up Huggins Tenure at UC.
Exciting and Passionate

i'll take Wilks' dunk from yesterday. Rutgers' 4 >>>> Coppin St.'s 2

 

[MDW79]

To say Huggins had a national title contender every 4 years is a huge exaggeration.

I would actually say it was more often than every 4 years. I'm not sure that is any exaggeration by any sense of the word. Key word = Contend

In retrospect, it's easy to say well they never did anything, or the lost in the 2nd round, but I would argue most of those teams were capable of contending. Look at their seeds. (Again, in retrospect it's easy to question them)

If you were to see the brackets for 2011 come out right now, would you not say that all the top 4 seeds have a chance at contending? Literally, everyone of them? And if not top 4, how about top 3, top 2 seeds, they most certainly are contenders right?

One of out every 4 years is only 4 teams total during his tenure. The 92 team is one. (Now that Mich forfeited those wins...) The 96 team was most certainly a contender. (OT loss to UNC in EE) The 99 team we don't have to debate. That's 3 right there. Now of those remaining 13 teams, there's a 1 seed, a handful of 2's, I think a couple 3, and a 4. Regardless, how is a 1 seed, or those 2 seeds not a contender?

I think that's where many differ on opinion. I know, myself, more than every 4 years, thought this team had a legit shot to compete for a NC. In actuality, I thought this about every other year. It's easy to look at the 01 team now and say they weren't capable of competing, but I dare any UC fan to admit they thought that when that team was top 5 for 10 straight weeks and secured that #1 seed.

Regardless of those tourney flops, there were a lot of LEGIT top 20, top 15, top 10, top 5 teams rolling into March. And most of those teams could compete with anybody in the nation. (Obligatory, ask Duke) For whatever reasons, they didn't fair well, but I think most were more than legit.

 

[JasonS]

I would actually say it was more often. I'm not sure that is any exaggeration by any sense of the word. Key word = Contend

In retrospect, it's easy to say well they never did anything, or the lost in the 2nd round, but I would argue most of those teams were capable of contending. Look at their seeds. (Again, it retrospect it's easy to question them)

If you were to see the brackets for 2011 come out right now, would you not say that all the top 4 seeds have a chance at contending? Literally, everyone of them? And if not top 4, how about top 3, top 2 seeds, they most certainly are contenders right?

One of out every 4 years is only 4 teams total during his tenure. The 92 team is one. (Now that Mich forfeited those wins...) The 96 team was most certainly a contender. (OT loss to UNC in EE) The 99 team we don't have to debate. That's 3 right there. Now of those remaining 13 teams, there's a 1 seed, a handful of 2's, I think a couple 3, and a 4. Regardless, how is a 1 seed, or those 2 seeds not a contender?

I think that's where many differ on opinion. I know, myself, more than every 4 years, thought this team had a legit shot to compete for a NC. In actuality, I thought this about every other year. It's easy to look at the 01 team now and say they weren't capable of competing, but I dare any UC fan to admit they thought that when that team was top 5 for 10 straight weeks and secured that #1 seed.

Regardless of those tourney flops, there were a lot of LEGIT top 20, top 15, top 10, top 5 teams rolling into March. And most of those teams could compete with anybody in the nation. (Obligatory, ask Duke) For whatever reasons, they didn't fair well, but I think most were more than legit.

92, 93, 96, 00, 02 all had a shot for sure. The problem, in my opinion, was that the recruiting really fell off after the 01-02 season. I don't think UC would have stayed down long but I think some of UC's best classes were comprised of Texas and New York players and for whatever reason, UC stopped getting the top players out of both of those spots.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I would actually say it was more often than every 4 years. I'm not sure that is any exaggeration by any sense of the word. Key word = Contend

In retrospect, it's easy to say well they never did anything, or the lost in the 2nd round, but I would argue most of those teams were capable of contending. Look at their seeds. (Again, in retrospect it's easy to question them)

If you were to see the brackets for 2011 come out right now, would you not say that all the top 4 seeds have a chance at contending? Literally, everyone of them? And if not top 4, how about top 3, top 2 seeds, they most certainly are contenders right?

One of out every 4 years is only 4 teams total during his tenure. The 92 team is one. (Now that Mich forfeited those wins...) The 96 team was most certainly a contender. (OT loss to UNC in EE) The 99 team we don't have to debate. That's 3 right there. Now of those remaining 13 teams, there's a 1 seed, a handful of 2's, I think a couple 3, and a 4. Regardless, how is a 1 seed, or those 2 seeds not a contender?

I think that's where many differ on opinion. I know, myself, more than every 4 years, thought this team had a legit shot to compete for a NC. In actuality, I thought this about every other year. It's easy to look at the 01 team now and say they weren't capable of competing, but I dare any UC fan to admit they thought that when that team was top 5 for 10 straight weeks and secured that #1 seed.

Regardless of those tourney flops, there were a lot of LEGIT top 20, top 15, top 10, top 5 teams rolling into March. And most of those teams could compete with anybody in the nation. (Obligatory, ask Duke) For whatever reasons, they didn't fair well, but I think most were more than legit.

Ok, let's say all you say is true. Which I don't believe it is remotely true. I think they got high seeds due to an inflated conference record but for argument sake let's say we agree.

Who is responsible for the flops and failures? People want to hold Cronin accountable, what about Huggins inability to maximize his tournament seeding? Huggins was good at getting you there and not much thereafter. I loved getting there, but again the failures were a joke nationally. There's a big difference in dominating CUSA talent and national title talent. Bob had that twice in my opinion, hit the final four one season and was a second round out the other. The 2001 team was really good and got a horrible draw against UCLA but they weren't going to win a national title. It was not a complete team.

 

[BearcatAlum1]

Ok, let's say all you say is true. Which I don't believe it is remotely true. I think they got high seeds due to an inflated conference record but for argument sake let's say we agree.

Who is responsible for the flops and failures? People want to hold Cronin accountable, what about Huggins inability to maximize his tournament seeding? Huggins was good at getting you there and not much thereafter. I loved getting there, but again the failures were a joke nationally. There's a big difference in dominating CUSA talent and national title talent. Bob had that twice in my opinion, hit the final four one season and was a second round out the other. The 2001 team was really good and got a horrible draw against UCLA but they weren't going to win a national title. It was not a complete team.

I posted this on BCN approximately 2 years ago! Wow, time waits for no one...

-------------------
January 30, 2009

Some of you will appreciate this and some of you won't. Here is Cincy’s NCAA history while at from 1988 to 2005 (Huggins’ Era).

Accomplishments: 20-14 overall; 1 Final Four; 3 Elite 8s; 4 Sweet 16s; only ONE 1st Round loss; 14 straight seasons in the NCAA.

Shortfalls: NEVER beat a higher ranked team, EVER; NO Elite 8s after 1995-1996 season; 1 Sweet 16 in final 9 seasons despite having: One 1 seed, Two 2 seeds, Three 3 seeds, a 4 seed and 5 seed; advanced past first weekend of tournament ONCE in final 9 seasons;

I think the biggest glaring statistic is the fact that UC only made it past the first weekend of the Tournament ONCE in his final 9 seasons. That is why UC got the reputation as being "choke artists" in the NCAA Tourney.

UC was “upset” every year besides four.

1991-1992 (4 seed)
1st Round: Delaware (13) 85-47
2nd Round: Mich St. (5) 77-65
Sweet 16: Utep (9) 69-67
Elite 8: Memphis (6) 88-57
Final 4: Michigan (6) 76-72

1992-1993 (2 seed)
1st Round: Coppin St. (15) 93-66
2nd Round: New Mex St. (7) 92-55
Sweet 16: Virginia (6) 71-54
Elite 8: North Carolina (1) 75-68

1993-1994 (8 seed)
1st Round: Wisconsin (9) 80-72

1994-1995 (7 seed)
1st Round: Temple (10) 77-71
2nd Round: Uconn (2) 96-91

1995-1996 (2)
1st Round: UNC Greens (15) 66-61
2nd Round: Temple (7) 78-65
Sweet 16: Georgetown (3) 87-70
Elite 8: Miss. St (5) 73-63

1996-1997 (3 seed)
1st Round: Butler (14) 86-69
2nd Round: IowaSt (6) 67-66

1997-1998 (2 seed)
1st Round: N.Arizona (15) 65-62
2nd Round: West Virginia (10) 75-74

1998-1999 (3 seed)
1st Round: George Mason (14) 72-48
2nd Round: Temple (6) 64-54

1999-2000 (2 seed)
1st Round: UNC Wilm (15) 64-47
2nd Round: Tulsa (7) 69-61

2000-2001 (5 seed)
1st Round: BYU (12) 84-59
2nd Round: Kent State (13) 66-43
Sweet 16: Stanford (1) 78-65

2001-2002 (1)
1st Round: Boston U (16) 90-52
2nd Round: UCLA (8) 105-101

2002-2003 (8 seed)
1st Round: Gonzaga (9) 74-69

2003-2004 (4 seed)
1st Round: E.Tenn St. (13) 80-77
2nd Round: Illinois (5) 92-68

2004-2005 (7 seed)
1st Round: Iowa (10) 76-64
2nd Round: Kentucky (2) 69-60


I think this shows the dropoff in NCAA success after the 1995-1996. Elite programs advance past the first weekend of the tournament more than once in the last 9 years. I think the BigEast will better prepare us to make deeper runs in the tournament. If anyone wants to do the work and pull the season records for our teams, that'd be nice. Many times we were CUSA champs and couldn't even get out of the 2nd Round.
-------------------------------------------------------

It will be interesting to see how well we are prepared to play in the NCAA if we make it. Of course, this will be a completely new experience for every player on the roster, but the competition level is undeniably higher in the BE than CUSA. A #7-#12 seed BE team would scare me much, much more than almost any CUSA team (save Memphis under Cal the last 3-4 years).

 

[MDW79]

Ok, let's say all you say is true. Which I don't believe it is remotely true. I think they got high seeds due to an inflated conference record but for argument sake let's say we agree.

Who is responsible for the flops and failures? People want to hold Cronin accountable, what about Huggins inability to maximize his tournament seeding? Huggins was good at getting you there and not much thereafter. I loved getting there, but again the failures were a joke nationally. There's a big difference in dominating CUSA talent and national title talent. Bob had that twice in my opinion, hit the final four one season and was a second round out the other. The 2001 team was really good and got a horrible draw against UCLA but they weren't going to win a national title. It was not a complete team.

Wait, wait, wait, you're going in another direction. (We can have the why we failed debate or CUSA debate, but hold on a sec) Did we, or did we not, have 4 legit NC contenders?

You say those teams were inflated. Ok, well how much? If we drew a 2 seed (Top 8) are you trying to say that team was not only not top 8, but not top 10, 15, etc?

Maybe we just define contender differently. I think just about 16 teams every year are legit contenders. But I consider contender and favorite two entirely different things. It seems you're applying the term NC Favorite to the conversation. How is a #1 seed not a contender? If I asked you right now, is, I don't know, Purdue a contender this year? (What are they, like #12) I would think most would say yes. If I asked, are they the favorite, most would say no.

I'm not sure how a top 10 team, which we had numerous times, is not in contention to contend for a title. They may not be the favorite, and they may be overrated, but it's not as if a #6 ranking is overrated to the tune of like 20 spots, regardless of their schedule.

If a team beats #1 Duke, how is there not a CHANCE for contention? Cuz if it is, we can now tack on the 98 team to the list as well. (They're already on there for me)

 

[bearcat jeff]

I posted this on BCN approximately 2 years ago! Wow, time waits for no one...

-------------------
January 30, 2009

Shortfalls: NEVER beat a higher ranked team, EVER; NO Elite 8s after 1995-1996 season; 1 Sweet 16 in final 9 seasons despite having: One 1 seed, Two 2 seeds, Three 3 seeds, a 4 seed and 5 seed; advanced past first weekend of tournament ONCE in final 9 seasons;

I think the biggest glaring statistic is the fact that UC only made it past the first weekend of the Tournament ONCE in his final 9 seasons. That is why UC got the reputation as being "choke artists" in the NCAA Tourney.

UC was “upset” every year besides four.

I think this shows the dropoff in NCAA success after the 1995-1996. Elite programs advance past the first weekend of the tournament more than once in the last 9 years. I think the BigEast will better prepare us to make deeper runs in the tournament. If anyone wants to do the work and pull the season records for our teams, that'd be nice. Many times we were CUSA champs and couldn't even get out of the 2nd Round.
-------------------------------------------------------

It will be interesting to see how well we are prepared to play in the NCAA if we make it. Of course, this will be a completely new experience for every player on the roster, but the competition level is undeniably higher in the BE than CUSA. A #7-#12 seed BE team would scare me much, much more than almost any CUSA team (save Memphis under Cal the last 3-4 years).

Excellent post and great illustration of the reality of the last 9 years under Huggs. This is exactly why they weren't great years just good ones.

 

[MDW79]

I posted this on BCN approximately 2 years ago! Wow, time waits for no one...

-------------------
January 30, 2009

Some of you will appreciate this and some of you won't. Here is Cincy’s NCAA history while at from 1988 to 2005 (Huggins’ Era).

Accomplishments: 20-14 overall; 1 Final Four; 3 Elite 8s; 4 Sweet 16s; only ONE 1st Round loss; 14 straight seasons in the NCAA.

Shortfalls: NEVER beat a higher ranked team, EVER; NO Elite 8s after 1995-1996 season; 1 Sweet 16 in final 9 seasons despite having: One 1 seed, Two 2 seeds, Three 3 seeds, a 4 seed and 5 seed; advanced past first weekend of tournament ONCE in final 9 seasons;

I think the biggest glaring statistic is the fact that UC only made it past the first weekend of the Tournament ONCE in his final 9 seasons. That is why UC got the reputation as being "choke artists" in the NCAA Tourney.

UC was “upset” every year besides four.

1991-1992 (4 seed)
1st Round: Delaware (13) 85-47
2nd Round: Mich St. (5) 77-65
Sweet 16: Utep (9) 69-67
Elite 8: Memphis (6) 88-57
Final 4: Michigan (6) 76-72

1992-1993 (2 seed)
1st Round: Coppin St. (15) 93-66
2nd Round: New Mex St. (7) 92-55
Sweet 16: Virginia (6) 71-54
Elite 8: North Carolina (1) 75-68

1993-1994 (8 seed)
1st Round: Wisconsin (9) 80-72

1994-1995 (7 seed)
1st Round: Temple (10) 77-71
2nd Round: Uconn (2) 96-91

1995-1996 (2)
1st Round: UNC Greens (15) 66-61
2nd Round: Temple (7) 78-65
Sweet 16: Georgetown (3) 87-70
Elite 8: Miss. St (5) 73-63

1996-1997 (3 seed)
1st Round: Butler (14) 86-69
2nd Round: IowaSt (6) 67-66

1997-1998 (2 seed)
1st Round: N.Arizona (15) 65-62
2nd Round: West Virginia (10) 75-74

1998-1999 (3 seed)
1st Round: George Mason (14) 72-48
2nd Round: Temple (6) 64-54

1999-2000 (2 seed)
1st Round: UNC Wilm (15) 64-47
2nd Round: Tulsa (7) 69-61

2000-2001 (5 seed)
1st Round: BYU (12) 84-59
2nd Round: Kent State (13) 66-43
Sweet 16: Stanford (1) 78-65

2001-2002 (1)
1st Round: Boston U (16) 90-52
2nd Round: UCLA (8) 105-101

2002-2003 (8 seed)
1st Round: Gonzaga (9) 74-69

2003-2004 (4 seed)
1st Round: E.Tenn St. (13) 80-77
2nd Round: Illinois (5) 92-68

2004-2005 (7 seed)
1st Round: Iowa (10) 76-64
2nd Round: Kentucky (2) 69-60


I think this shows the dropoff in NCAA success after the 1995-1996. Elite programs advance past the first weekend of the tournament more than once in the last 9 years. I think the BigEast will better prepare us to make deeper runs in the tournament. If anyone wants to do the work and pull the season records for our teams, that'd be nice. Many times we were CUSA champs and couldn't even get out of the 2nd Round.
-------------------------------------------------------

It will be interesting to see how well we are prepared to play in the NCAA if we make it. Of course, this will be a completely new experience for every player on the roster, but the competition level is undeniably higher in the BE than CUSA. A #7-#12 seed BE team would scare me much, much more than almost any CUSA team (save Memphis under Cal the last 3-4 years).

All fair, but we didn't exactly catch a ton of breaks either. (Some teams do, some teams don't) And again, to each their own, I'm not so sure a post season success is the end all be all. Remember the Kansas team that just lost in the 2nd round? Would all really say every team that made the Sweet 16 not only had a better year, but a better team than they did? I would hope not.

97 team vs ISU, Burton got drug to the ground, lose b/c of it. If we in you never know...

98 team vs WVU, not only a banked in 27 footer at the buzzer, but Patterson tipped it as well. If we win that game, you never know.

00 team-Don't even get me started

01 team -Worst draw a #1 seed could ever get. It is an excuse somewhat, but you never know what happens if we win that game. (UCLA was a preseason #1 team had like 47 NBA caliber players. We lost in OT)

I will totally agree that after that, our teams went downhill, and none had any real chance of making noise past the 2nd weekend. But I consider the 92-01 years pretty much all more than legit programs. Some simply paint it as us having a 4 year run and then it went to trash. I would argue that couldn't be more wrong, and there's room for about 100 debates on what actually happened from 96-01.

 

[BearcatAlum1]

^ We were not trash. We had a solid program.

I just gave results. No excuses. In the end, it is about results.

Like I said, we will certainly be more tested than the top teams from the mid-major conferences.

 

[bearcat jeff]

All fair, but we didn't exactly catch a ton of breaks either. (Some teams do, some teams don't) And again, to each their own, I'm not so sure a post season success is the end all be all. Remember the Kansas team that just lost in the 2nd round? Would all really say every team that made the Sweet 16 not only had a better year, but a better team than they did? I would hope not.

97 team vs ISU, Burton got drug to the ground, lose b/c of it. If we in you never know...

98 team vs WVU, not only a banked in 27 footer at the buzzer, but Patterson tipped it as well. If we win that game, you never know.

00 team-Don't even get me started

01 team -Worst draw a #1 seed could ever get. It is an excuse somewhat, but you never know what happens if we win that game. (UCLA was a preseason #1 team had like 47 NBA caliber players. We lost in OT)

I will totally agree that after that, our teams went downhill, and none had any real chance of making noise past the 2nd weekend. But I consider the 92-01 years pretty much all more than legit programs. Some simply paint it as us having a 4 year run and then it went to trash. I would argue that couldn't be more wrong, and there's room for about 100 debates on what actually happened from 96-01.

Every coach will tell you that you need a little luck to win a title. Luck like Kansas getting upset when we made our final four run so we didn't face them. Luck like facing lower seeds all the way to the final four. Luck runs both ways. You can't use it as an excuse for losses and disregard it in good runs. Look at the seeds they faced in 91-92 and 92-93. 13, 5, 9, 6, 6, 15, 7, 6. UC was a 4 and 2 respectfully in those seasons. They didn't face a higher seed till the elite 8 of 92-93 when they played #1 UNC. That's 8 straight games against lower seeds in 2 tournaments.

 

[MDW79]

^ We were not trash. We had a solid program.

I just gave results. No excuses. In the end, it is about results.

Like I said, we will certainly be more tested than the top teams from the mid-major conferences.

Yeah I know, not really singling you, just the results listed. (Giving my excuses) But there a lot of people who consider the only good years 92-96.
I think there's legit cases to be made why many teams after 96 we're potentially even better.

And speaking for myself, did it suck to lose in the 2nd round all those times? Yup. Does it erase what we accomplished, and the fun I had watching that team for the 30 regular season games? Nope. And I do think there was a whole lot of contenders in there.

92-01 UC basketball was a powerhouse. Period. If you look at those teams on the floor, and really consider everything, they match with just about anybody, save a few schools, during that run. No one wanted to play them, they were tough, they were intimidating, they outworked you, and most definitely we're very, very good. (regardless of 2nd round losses) They may have not been Duke or Kentucky, but they were most certainly in that next tier.

 

[MDW79]

Every coach will tell you that you need a little luck to win a title. Luck like Kansas getting upset when we made our final four run so we didn't face them. Luck like facing lower seeds all the way to the final four. Luck runs both ways. You can't use it as an excuse for losses and disregard it in good runs. Look at the seeds they faced in 91-92 and 92-93. 13, 5, 9, 6, 6, 15, 7, 6. UC was a 4 and 2 respectfully in those seasons. They didn't face a higher seed till the elite 8 of 92-93 when they played #1 UNC. That's 8 straight games against lower seeds in 2 tournaments.

I know, exactly my point. Thanks for agreeing.

(That we had teams that were just as good if not better, but did not have any luck after 96)