Tourney - wise, what's is reasonable to expect?

[ZCat]

Ok, it has been interesting reading what others have said. We know the tourney is a crapshoot. We are in a crappy conference. We are still getting better. It is hard to beat the blue bloods. No one will schedule us, so it's super hard to get above a 4 seed. So, what is reasonable?? Going forward I mean.

This stinks. Are we gonna have to accept that it is basically max 1 sweet 16 every 3 years? Bc more than that would be 2/4 years , and that seems hard with the seeds we are likely to get in this conference.

So 1 S16/3,years, and hope to fall into or earn way into an E-8 every 6-10 years? Kinda depressing, but without that higher see it is so hard to beat such tough teams 2 games in a row.

 

[Jon Rycek]

Ok, it has been interesting reading what others have said. We know the tourney is a crapshoot. We are in a crappy conference. We are still getting better. It is hard to beat the blue bloods. No one will schedule us, so it's super hard to get above a 4 seed. So, what is reasonable?? Going forward I mean.

This stinks. Are we gonna have to accept that it is basically max 1 sweet 16 every 3 years? Bc more than that would be 2/4 years , and that seems hard with the seeds we are likely to get in this conference.

So 1 S16/3,years, and hope to fall into or earn way into an E-8 every 6-10 years? Kinda depressing, but without that higher see it is so hard to beat such tough teams 2 games in a row.

Well I don't think that it's been decided that we can only get as high as a 4 seed. Our conference was especially bad this yeR, that's not going to be the case every season. I think we are more likely a 4-5 bid conference (UC, SMU, UCONN, and maybe UCF, Tulsa or Memphis) and if we can manage to win it and/or the conference tourney there is no reason to think a 4 is our ceiling. And we have to handle business out of conference too. As was said plenty of times if we beat those island and play duke that changes a lot for us, even if we could have pulled it out at butler. So there are definitely a few things we can do to upgrade our seeding just gotta keep playing good basketball. That being said I'd like to see the cats lose no more than 4/5 games again next regular season, and I don't see why that can't happen and if that's the case because of where I think we start out in preseason ranking next year we could end up more on the 10-12 range in the ranking maybe even a little higher. Either way gonna be another great season and with more offensive fire power I'll be expecting a run, again.

 

[cincyguy13]

Ok, it has been interesting reading what others have said. We know the tourney is a crapshoot. We are in a crappy conference. We are still getting better. It is hard to beat the blue bloods. No one will schedule us, so it's super hard to get above a 4 seed. So, what is reasonable?? Going forward I mean.

This stinks. Are we gonna have to accept that it is basically max 1 sweet 16 every 3 years? Bc more than that would be 2/4 years , and that seems hard with the seeds we are likely to get in this conference.

So 1 S16/3,years, and hope to fall into or earn way into an E-8 every 6-10 years? Kinda depressing, but without that higher see it is so hard to beat such tough teams 2 games in a row.

As much as it sucks, I think this is what we're looking at. Maybe a S16 every 3-4 years. I just think that's where we are

 

[cincycpaw]

So, it's a great question and I may change my mind, but:

What seems reasonable and likely:

1) NCAA tournament every year (with the very rare exception)
2) NCAA Round of 32 80% min
3) Sweet 16 - every 3-4 years
4) Elite Eight - every 6-8 years

What I originally wanted to say:

1) NCAA every year
2) Round of 32 every year
3) Sweet 16 every other year
4) Elite 8 - every 4 years

 

[cincyguy13]

If you don't have at least a S16 ever couple years, it becomes a little like the bengals situation. Where some people lose interest.

 

[GarradJ21]

Conference will get a little better next year. I have high hopes we add Witchta. Also, even with a weaker conference there's posibilites of better seeds look at Gonazaga. If we win @ Butler, beat R.I. and if even we lose to Duke that's a seed line increase. There's no telling how each season will go but we do need to almost be perfect and take full advantage of the big games we have. If you think about it, we were 3-4 against tournament teams this year. That's not worthy of a 4 seed or better. If we are 5-2 or 6-1 it's a different story.

Also, seeds don't matter. Look at Villanova. They were basically treated like a 4 seed having to play Wisconsin. No chance Wisconsin was an 8 seed. More like a 5 seed.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

You need to stop tying an entire season to a single tournament. I would set UC's goals at winning conference, and the conference tournament. What happens in the dance is just a bonus.

Even in the glorified Bob Huggins era, we only made it out of the first weekend once in the last 9 seasons. I think everyone would say we still enjoyed the basketball being played at the time though.

 

[cincyguy13]

You need to stop tying an entire season to a single tournament. I would set UC's goals at winning conference, and the conference tournament. What happens in the dance is just a bonus.

Even in the glorified Bob Huggins era, we only made it out of the first weekend once in the last 9 seasons. I think everyone would say we still enjoyed the basketball being played at the time though.

Most people are and have said a S16 every couple years. Thats not putting all the focus on the tourney. It's just wanting a couple wins every once in awhile. I don't think that's unreasonable

 

[cincyguy13]

You need to stop tying an entire season to a single tournament. I would set UC's goals at winning conference, and the conference tournament. What happens in the dance is just a bonus.

Even in the glorified Bob Huggins era, we only made it out of the first weekend once in the last 9 seasons. I think everyone would say we still enjoyed the basketball being played at the time though.

Also I agree, everyone loves Huggins, and I do to, but he had some of the most talent of any teain the country for 5-6 years in the late 90s and did nothing in the tournament. So if people wanna kill mick for it, they can't act like Huggins was much better.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

Coach Cronin will be in year 12. Why are people still talking about the old coach so much? WE KNOW! 1 sweet 16 in the last 9 years. But lots of other success, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter what we used to do, whether you're referring to the good or the bad. I don't ever hear KState fans talk about Huggins or Frank Martin. I don't ever hear KU fans talk about Roy Williams. I don't ever hear Mizzou fans talk about Quin Snyder or Mike Anderson. Move on!

I also agree on not putting so much in the NCAA Tournament. A Sweet 16 every ______ years...or what? What if we're winning the AAC, ripping off ridiculous home winning streaks, winning 30 games, winning the AAC Tournament, getting good seeds, producing All-Conference players, spending the whole year ranked, etc? We had 34 games over the course of several months before we played in the NCAA Tournament. Then we had 2 games in 3 days, and one was against a ridiculous, NBA loaded, offensive juggernaut. So we lost. Ok? That sucked. So did every other loss.

 

[jacobkdoyle]

I guess all I'm saying is that all NCAA Tournament runs are not created equal. So it shouldn't be an automatic that this conversation happen at the end of every season.

7 NCAA appearances:
-Lost to National Champion UConn
-Lost in the Sweet 16 to Final 4 bound Ohio State
-Lost to 35-0, Final 4 Kentucky
-Lost to UCLA (TBD)

^These aren't the years to ask the big questions about NCAA Tournament runs imo.

I'd say save it for when we lose to Harvard, Creighton, and Saint Joseph's (PA).

 

[cincyguy13]

Coach Cronin will be in year 12. Why are people still talking about the old coach so much? WE KNOW! 1 sweet 16 in the last 9 years. But lots of other success, blah, blah, blah. It doesn't matter what we used to do, whether you're referring to the good or the bad. I don't ever hear KState fans talk about Huggins or Frank Martin. I don't ever hear KU fans talk about Roy Williams. I don't ever hear Mizzou fans talk about Quin Snyder or Mike Anderson. Move on!

I also agree on not putting so much in the NCAA Tournament. A Sweet 16 every ______ years...or what? What if we're winning the AAC, ripping off ridiculous home winning streaks, winning 30 games, winning the AAC Tournament, getting good seeds, producing All-Conference players, spending the whole year ranked, etc? We had 34 games over the course of several months before we played in the NCAA Tournament. Then we had 2 games in 3 days, and one was against a ridiculous, NBA loaded, offensive juggernaut. So we lost. Ok? That sucked. So did every other loss.

I just said 1 S16 every so often was a reasonable expectation. That was the question asked for this thread. Will anything happen if we don't get it. No. I'll watch every game forever. Just would be nice.

As for Huggins. For whatever reason people can't get over it. I think it was time for him to go when he did, most of the diehards would agree I would think. The less diehard fans use it as an excuse to not watch the team anymore.

 

[cincyguy13]

I guess all I'm saying is that all NCAA Tournament runs are not created equal. So it shouldn't be an automatic that this conversation happen at the end of every season.

7 NCAA appearances:
-Lost to National Champion UConn
-Lost in the Sweet 16 to Final 4 bound Ohio State
-Lost to 35-0, Final 4 Kentucky
-Lost to UCLA (TBD)

^These aren't the years to ask the big questions about NCAA Tournament runs imo.

I'd say save it for when we lose to Harvard, Creighton, and Saint Joseph's (PA).

I think people can handle the losing to uconn, ucla, etc... But the combination of those and the Harvard Creighton and st. Joes definetly isn't ideal. While I agree with you about tourney success, I understand people wanting to win some every now and then

 

[jacobkdoyle]

I think people can handle the losing to uconn, ucla, etc... But the combination of those and the Harvard Creighton and st. Joes definetly isn't ideal. While I agree with you about tourney success, I understand people wanting to win some every now and then

I can understand that too. But each Tournament is its own individual event. Bc we lose one year, doesn't mean it's reasonable to say we must go further the next year. Doesn't mean we can't. But it's totally unconnected in my mind. To get to the Sweet 16 next year, we might play 2 crappy teams, we might play 2 good teams, we might play a juggernaut, we might not even make the field. But losing to UCLA this year has not a thing to do with that.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

Most people are and have said a S16 every couple years. Thats not putting all the focus on the tourney. It's just wanting a couple wins every once in awhile. I don't think that's unreasonable

There is nothing wrong with wanting Sweet 16s and more. I am sure every fan wants this for the program. I just don't want people to devalue a season simply because of unfortunate seeding or playing 1 bad game. Setting the expectation on tournament results shifts the view from the season as a whole to a 2 game sample.

This year's team won 30 games and the city should be proud.

 

[TheRealUC]

There is nothing wrong with wanting Sweet 16s and more. I am sure every fan wants this for the program. I just don't want people to devalue a season simply because of unfortunate seeding or playing 1 bad game. Setting the expectation on tournament results shifts the view from the season as a whole to a 2 game sample.

This year's team won 30 games and the city should be proud.

perfectly said

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

There is nothing wrong with wanting Sweet 16s and more. I am sure every fan wants this for the program. I just don't want people to devalue a season simply because of unfortunate seeding or playing 1 bad game. Setting the expectation on tournament results shifts the view from the season as a whole to a 2 game sample.

This year's team won 30 games and the city should be proud.

couldn't agree more

 

[UCBearcats]

As for Huggins. For whatever reason people can't get over it. I think it was time for him to go when he did, most of the diehards would agree I would think. The less diehard fans use it as an excuse to not watch the team anymore.

95% of the time I see Huggins brought up on this board it's by people who are Mick apologists using it as a way to discredit anyone's complaints or arguments. That is a stone cold FACT. In fact, it just happened again in a recent thread I posted in about Mick's complaining to the media. I was told to "get over Bob Huggins" as if the fact that I have a problem with Mick's comments to media has anything to do with a coach who was here 13 years ago. Comments like that are usually the catalyst that drag a thread down into an argument that has zero relevance to anything that's happening with today's Bearcats program.

Jake is right, people need to stop bringing him up. He's so long gone and any attempts by anyone to either compare Mick to Bob in a positive or a negative light are baseless and stupid.

I think you should institute a ban for anyone who brings his name up out of context. I bet if that happened there'd be none of Mick's sworn knights left on this board to protect him anytime someone voices even the slightest displeasure with his coaching.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

95% of the time I see Huggins brought up on this board it's by people who are Mick apologists using it as a way to discredit anyone's complaints or arguments. That is a stone cold FACT. In fact, it just happened again in a recent thread I posted in about Mick's complaining to the media. I was told to "get over Bob Huggins" as if the fact that I have a problem with Mick's comments to media has anything to do with a coach who was here 13 years ago. Comments like that are usually the catalyst that drag a thread down into an argument that has zero relevance to anything that's happening with today's Bearcats program.

Jake is right, people need to stop bringing him up. He's so long gone and any attempts by anyone to either compare Mick to Bob in a positive or a negative light are baseless and stupid.

I think you should institute a ban for anyone who brings his name up out of context. I bet if that happened there'd be none of Mick's sworn knights left on this board to protect him anytime someone voices even the slightest displeasure with his coaching.

I really don't know why you hate Mick so much other than a blind love for the past.

What is a reasonable expectation for a program outside of the Power conferences and in addition is not a blue blood? What is the next coach going to do that would build a better and more stable program in the current landscape of college athletics? These are real questions not apologies, because I don't think Mick has anything he needs to apologize for.

I think Mo said it best on the radio last night, our model isn't Duke or UNC, it is Gonzaga.

 

[UCBearcats]

I really don't know why you hate Mick so much other than a blind love for the past.

What is a reasonable expectation for a program outside of the Power conferences and in addition is not a blue blood? What is the next coach going to do that would build a better and more stable program in the current landscape of college athletics? These are real questions not apologies, because I don't think Mick has anything he needs to apologize for.

I think Mo said it best on the radio last night, our model isn't Duke or UNC, it is Gonzaga.

I don't hate Mick, I just want better results. Mick does a lot of things that irritate me and I think his brand of basketball will never bring a high level of success. He has shown in the last couple of years that he's willing to change a bit and we saw some of that pay off this season. If the results keep improving (this season was very good, not good enough) then I'll be happy. We aren't there yet but there are some reasons to be hopeful that Mick just might figure it out. Could we do worse than we've done under Mick? For sure we could but we could also do better.

If your point is to try to convince me that UC shouldn't be great then there's not point in discussing it. I've been down that road too many times on this board. I don't expect us to be Duke or UNC but we're also not Gonzaga either. Our path isn't Duke or UNC or Gonzaga, it's UC. We're a historical top 20 college basketball program and we've been elite before, anything less than that is not acceptable to me. It has nothing to do with hating Mick or wanting Huggins back. If you're happy with not winning conference championships, very rarely being ranked and not advancing past sweet 16's then great, you do you and I'll do me.