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

[WAITE HOYT 2]

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.

I think Micks style is very much a product of the two guys he worked for, Huggins and Pitino. Both put a huge emphasis on defense. It was a fact that under Huggins if you don't guard you don't play. The issue is they get and have much more access to better players. We can debate the reasons why they do until the cows come home. My HO is Mick does a very good job with the hand he is dealt. We could possibly do better and I have seen us do a heck of a lot worse.

 

[UCBearcats]

I think Micks style is very much a product of the two guys he worked for, Huggins and Pitino. Both put a huge emphasis on defense. It was a fact that under Huggins if you don't guard you don't play. The issue is they get and have much more access to better players. We can debate the reasons why they do until the cows come home. My HO is Mick does a very good job with the hand he is dealt. We could possibly do better and I have seen us do a heck of a lot worse.

I don't really care how he developed his style, I just don't love it. I think until recently Mick was very stubborn and acted like he knew better than everyone else in the profession even though his style was proving time and time again it didn't stack up with the best of the best. Mick is evolving, I hope for the better. I've been very happy with his change of philosophy in recruiting in recent years, Mick sees now that he needs to get scorers and he's done a better job of it recently.

Since you brought it up I'll use the Huggins example. He's a coach who preaches defense and toughness but he also wants to get off as many shots as possible because he knows he needs to outscore the other team. WVU presses and crashes the offense glass in an effort to get up as many shots as possible with the thought being if you can attempt 15-20 more shots than your opponent you'll usually be in a good spot. To me that's an example of a coach who has figured out a way to excel in all aspects of the game. Now obviously it's not fair to compare a highly accomplished HOF coach to Mick Cronin but let's hope Mick evolves to a point where he can have teams who play offense as well as they play defense, if he does that then I think he'll really be on to something. That's going to take Mick doing some self evaluation and admitting to himself that he's wrong about a lot of the ways he looks at the game of basketball.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

I don't really care how he developed his style, I just don't love it. I think until recently Mick was very stubborn and acted like he knew better than everyone else in the profession even though his style was proving time and time again it didn't stack up with the best of the best. Mick is evolving, I hope for the better. I've been very happy with his change of philosophy in recruiting in recent years, Mick sees now that he needs to get scorers and he's done a better job of it recently.

Since you brought it up I'll use the Huggins example. He's a coach who preaches defense and toughness but he also wants to get off as many shots as possible because he knows he needs to outscore the other team. WVU presses and crashes the offense glass in an effort to get up as many shots as possible with the thought being if you can attempt 15-20 more shots than your opponent you'll usually be in a good spot. To me that's an example of a coach who has figured out a way to excel in all aspects of the game. Now obviously it's not fair to compare a highly accomplished HOF coach to Mick Cronin but let's hope Mick evolves to a point where he can have teams who play offense as well as they play defense, if he does that then I think he'll really be on to something. That's going to take Mick doing some self evaluation and admitting to himself that he's wrong about a lot of the ways he looks at the game of basketball.

Your point about Mick not changing his style is where I think you and I have a difference. He had 4 years of Cash running his offense and 4 years of TC. I really believe if Cash had not gotten injured we may not be having this conversation. When he was recruited it was with the idea that we play a up tempo brand of ball. The injury derailed that idea. TC while a great player was never a PG that was going to lead us in a running style of play. Just not his strength. Micks evolution as a coach will occur because he has the personnel to do it. Can Broome is lightening. Rumor has it he may be the fastest player we have ever had here. We also won't have to be shuttling back and forth between his style and the back up PG, JJ. Both have the same game. Your perception of him as being stubborn and arrogant is where we disagree. He played to the strength of his players. He also was a good enough Coach to win with the players he got. He is now landing players that fit a more up tempo style. I think you'll see the difference this year and it has nothing to do with him being stubborn. It has everything to do with the strengths of his players. Your failure to understand that is a very common theme for the Mick haters who post here. Also for the record who coaches our team is of very little interest to me. As long as he meets my idea of a successful program. You could be the coach for all I care. I don't go to the every game to see Mick Cronin on the sidelines. I go to see the players.

 

[UCBearcats]

Your point about Mick not changing his style is where I think you and I have a difference. He had 4 years of Cash running his offense and 4 years of TC. I really believe if Cash had not gotten injured we may not be having this conversation. When he was recruited it was with the idea that we play a up tempo brand of ball. The injury derailed that idea. TC while a great player was never a PG that was going to lead us in a running style of play. Just not his strength. Micks evolution as a coach will occur because he has the personnel to do it. Can Broome is lightening. Rumor has it he may be the fastest player we have ever had here. We also won't have to be shuttling back and forth between his style and the back up PG, JJ. Both have the same game. Your perception of him as being stubborn and arrogant is where we disagree. He played to the strength of his players. He also was a good enough Coach to win with the players he got. He is now landing players that fit a more up tempo style. I think you'll see the difference this year and it has nothing to do with him being stubborn. It has everything to do with the strengths of his players. Your failure to understand that is a very common theme for the Mick haters who post here. Also for the record who coaches our team is of very little interest to me. As long as he meets my idea of a successful program. You could be the coach for all I care. I don't go to the every game to see Mick Cronin on the sidelines. I go to see the players.

Waite, your bleeding heart and love of excuses will never see eye to eye with my mentality. You summed it up perfectly in your previous post when you mentioned the "hand that Mick was dealt".

You look at the situation and want to point out all the various reasons why something isn't happening and I look at the situation and point the finger at the guy in charge.

Two completely different perspectives, two completely different sets of opinions.

Also, you do realize that Mick recruits his own players right? I think you fail to realize that sometimes.

 

[cincrulz11]

let's hope Mick evolves to a point where he can have teams who play offense as well as they play defense, if he does that then I think he'll really be on to something. That's going to take Mick doing some self evaluation and admitting to himself that he's wrong about a lot of the ways he looks at the game of basketball.

I have an honest question for you. Do you pay any attention to the actual program? It's clear from the comment I'm quoting here that you do not. Look at the last 3 classes mick has brought in. How on earth can you say what you just said.


Or how about his comments the other day about how the players he brought in here early in his career are close to having no place in the current game.


Also wvu offense and ours were almost identical in shootings %'s across the board and adjusted offensive efficiency. but since when do facts sway an agenda.

 

[UCBearcats]

I have an honest question for you. Do you pay any attention to the actual program? It's clear from the comment I'm quoting here that you do not. Look at the last 3 classes mick has brought in. How on earth can you say what you just said.


Or how about his comments the other day about how the players he brought in here early in his career are close to having no place in the current game.


Also wvu offense and ours were almost identical in shootings %'s across the board and adjusted offensive efficiency. but since when do facts sway an agenda.

Mick's defenses are usually top 10 to 15 in the country, his offense has never been close to that. I go to every home game, I watch every road game, I see every game we play with my own set of eyes and I don't consult a spreadsheet afterwards to tell me if we played well or not. We scored a lot of points this season against cupcake opponents but against most of the better competition we played the offense struggled.

Also, I don't care about your advanced stats, go talk about them with the birds since that's what they were made for.

 

[cincrulz11]

Also, I don't care about your advanced stats, go talk about them with the birds since that's what they were made for.

shooting % is a pretty advanced one, you're right about that marty.

 

[UCBearcats]

shooting % is a pretty advanced one, you're right about that marty.

Shooting percentage has nothing to do with the points I made about WVU. My point about WVU was that their philosophy revolves around the concept of creating as many offensive chances as possible for their team. It's why they press and it's why the crash the offensive glass.

How well their players execute it is a completely different thing. Based on the fact that they're still in the tourney and earned a 4 seed I'd say the execution probably went pretty well.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Waite, your bleeding heart and love of excuses will never see eye to eye with my mentality. You summed it up perfectly in your previous post when you mentioned the "hand that Mick was dealt".

You look at the situation and want to point out all the various reasons why something isn't happening and I look at the situation and point the finger at the guy in charge.

Two completely different perspectives, two completely different sets of opinions.

Also, you do realize that Mick recruits his own players right? I think you fail to realize that sometimes.

Bleeding heart. LOL!! Stating the obvious is not bleeding heart. Your failure to grasp the obvious and understand the situation is quite the excuse for you. We are a very good program. I do not have to defend Mick. His performance has earned him the right to continue on as our coach. Actually I'm glad you post here. Your signature comments on the bottom of each of your post really says it all. I have no desire to change coaches. That doesn't mean I wouldn't like to win a few more games.

And yes I know he recruits the players. Another area I am very satisfied with. He gets very good student athletes. They produced a 30 win season and a undefeated home schedule. 3 more will walk this semester.

 

[UCBearcats]

I do not have to defend Mick.

Yet you always do, even when no one is attacking him. You've been posting here long enough to know where I stand yet you're always so infatuated with my opinion of Mick. You think he's the bee's knee's, I think he's pretty good but not great. No amount of long winded, woe is Mick commentary from you is going to change my mind.

I know you're glad I post here Waite, this message board would be a pretty boring place if it was just a bunch of guys sitting around agreeing with each other all the time.

 

[cincyguy13]

To me mick is a good coach. I don't think he's great. At least not yet. He is growing as a coach though, which is good. I think he's style of play had a lot more to do with not being able to compete on a talent level with the other teams in the big east. Defense is a way to compete when you don't have players. It also has to do with coming up under Huggins and pitino. Their offenses are never great, they try to speed the game up to mask it but it's still not good. Frank Martin is the same.

The biggest thing now is to keep getting talent and see where this thing could go. If we miss on a year or two of prospects it could really
hurt.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

I don't hate Mick, I just want better results.

It is clear from your posts, you have some serious issues with Mick. Is a 30 win season and beating Xavier not a good enough result?

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.

I am not saying UC shouldn't be great, but I am asking you to define greatness instead of just bitching and moaning about the coach.

You want us to be a top 20 program? I would say coming off of 7 straight NCAA tournaments, a 30 win season, and actually being more talent next season, it appears we are there.


You dodged, my direct questions in your last posting so I will ask again.

What is a reasonable expectation for a program outside of the Power conferences? Essentially define excellence for a Mid Major program.

What is the next coach going to do that would build a better and more stable program in the current landscape of college athletics? Essentially if we had a different coach than Mick, why is our situation going to improve.

If you can't answer these simple questions, you are just another fool behind a keyboard with blind hate for a coach.

 

[UCBearcats]

It is clear from your posts, you have some serious issues with Mick. Is a 30 win season and beating Xavier not a good enough result?




I am not saying UC shouldn't be great, but I am asking you to define greatness instead of just bitching and moaning about the coach.

You want us to be a top 20 program? I would say coming off of 7 straight NCAA tournaments, a 30 win season, and actually being more talent next season, it appears we are there.


You dodged, my direct questions in your last posting so I will ask again.

What is a reasonable expectation for a program outside of the Power conferences? Essentially define excellence for a Mid Major program.

What is the next coach going to do that would build a better and more stable program in the current landscape of college athletics? Essentially if we had a different coach than Mick, why is our situation going to improve.

If you can't answer these simple questions, you are just another fool behind a keyboard with blind hate for a coach.

We are not a top 20 program under Mick, maybe we were this past season but we haven't been historically under Mick. I think Mick is making progress and I hope that continues. This past season was good but not good enough, he needs to keep improving.

I'm not dodging your question, the reasonable expectation is we live up to our historical billing. We should be a top 25 team every year, we should win conference championships more than once every 10 years, we should compete for high seeds in the NCAA's, we should have a program that creates a local and national buzz, we should consistently sell out our arena, we should make the occasional run in the NCAA tourney, AND there should NEVER be any doubt about who is the best program in this city. Mick has not put this program on that level....PERIOD, EXCLAMATION POINT, END OF STORY.

Whether or not we play in a big time conference means nothing to me as it relates to basketball, minus the Big East years UC has never been in a conference that was considered "big time".

We have a coach that makes a lot of money, we have a nationally known brand that commands respect, we have a historical program that has been elite in the past, and we have a brand new facility coming in the pipeline. Mick has everything he could ever need or want to be great. It's on him to get the job done. He's been here long enough that I would have thought he'd have us back there by now. In recent years I've seen some signs to be encouraged by but I still remain skeptical.

That's a very reasonable outlook despite the cries from so many butt-hurt Mick apologists.

 

[Bearcat2016]

Here's the way I evaluate Mick's tenure:
From 2006-2012: Very pleased. He increased win totals almost every year and the recruiting in the big east was good. A ton of top 150 guys and a couple 5 stars. Defensive schemes were great and offense was average. He got us back to the tourney and into the sweet sixteen

2013-2016: These teams were not enjoyable to watch at all. We had a good team in 2014, but mainly because of SK, JJ's development, and the teams toughness. The recruiting classes from 2011, 2012, and 2013 were average in terms of affecting our program. That is what bothered me with Mick was I was losing hope in some of the players coming in.

2016-2017: Had a ball watching this team. The change in recruiting style reflected in good basketball. Landing Troy in 2013, Gary and Kyle, Jacob in 2015, and Jarron in 2016 gets me excited. The offense had flow and Mick can teach anybody defense.

All in all: Mick was late on adjusting in terms of recruiting. The classes of 2011,2012, and some of 2013 flattened the progression of the program. Mick did a good job of making the tourney those years....But now we have a good recruiting strategy and it is showing on the court. If we go the next two season without a nice run, I will be disappointed because I feel we have good players. But all in all, I like where the team is heading. New arena, skilled players, new offensive strategies. I'm excited!

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Yet you always do, even when no one is attacking him. You've been posting here long enough to know where I stand yet you're always so infatuated with my opinion of Mick. You think he's the bee's knee's, I think he's pretty good but not great. No amount of long winded, woe is Mick commentary from you is going to change my mind.

I know you're glad I post here Waite, this message board would be a pretty boring place if it was just a bunch of guys sitting around agreeing with each other all the time.

Again I am not defending Mick. If you can guarantee me a better option then what we have I would be all for it.

Infatuated?? Lol!!! You post to get a response. A simple thank you will do.

Who is better then Mick that is coming here? I won't even ask who will come and stay after he upgrades the program. Is coach K coming here? Is Mark Few? Give me some options of coaches who will deliver the performance Mick has given us. My fear is people like you, who refuse to understand the difficulties that non P5 conferences have competing and won't consider the changes in colllege athletics will lead us to another dark age. Here is something you may want to consider. Mick isn't going anywhere unless he wants to.

Your constant efforts to paint him in a bad light are tired and old. Not to mention misguided. Even your compliments are backhanded. Again give me a better option.

 

[UCBearcats]

Again I am not defending Mick. If you can guarantee me a better option then what we have I would be all for it.

Infatuated?? Lol!!! You post to get a response. A simple thank you will do.

Who is better then Mick that is coming here? I won't even ask who will come and stay after he upgrades the program. Is coach K coming here? Is Mark Few? Give me some options of coaches who will deliver the performance Mick has given us. My fear is people like you, who refuse to understand the difficulties that non P5 conferences have competing and won't consider the changes in colllege athletics will lead us to another dark age. Here is something you may want to consider. Mick isn't going anywhere unless he wants to.

Your constant efforts to paint him in a bad light are tired and old. Not to mention misguided. Even your compliments are backhanded. Again give me a better option.

What are you even talking about man? Who's talking about firing Mick in this discussion? I know that Mick isn't going anywhere.

I think you need to take a nap before you hit the early bird special. You're not thinking clearly right now.

 

[NKY Bearcat]

We are not a top 20 program under Mick, maybe we were this past season but we haven't been historically under Mick. I think Mick is making progress and I hope that continues. This past season was good but not good enough, he needs to keep improving.

I'm not dodging your question, the reasonable expectation is we live up to our historical billing. We should be a top 25 team every year, we should win conference championships more than once every 10 years, we should compete for high seeds in the NCAA's, we should have a program that creates a local and national buzz, we should consistently sell out our arena, we should make the occasional run in the NCAA tourney, AND there should NEVER be any doubt about who is the best program in this city. Mick has not put this program on that level....PERIOD, EXCLAMATION POINT, END OF STORY.

Whether or not we play in a big time conference means nothing to me as it relates to basketball, minus the Big East years UC has never been in a conference that was considered "big time".

We have a coach that makes a lot of money, we have a nationally known brand that commands respect, we have a historical program that has been elite in the past, and we have a brand new facility coming in the pipeline. Mick has everything he could ever need or want to be great. It's on him to get the job done. He's been here long enough that I would have thought he'd have us back there by now. In recent years I've seen some signs to be encouraged by but I still remain skeptical.

That's a very reasonable outlook despite the cries from so many butt-hurt Mick apologists.

So top 25 team every year that wins the conference? I would say the program appears to be on track for that. There is room for improvement, but the program appears to be in this direction


The rest of that wall of text appeared to be a garbage heap about how we should be elite and a national brand. Please wake up to the modern sports world, where ESPN decides which games get promoted for college basketball. If you are not UK, Duke, UNC, UCLA, or Kansas, good luck getting air time. Just ask Gonzaga how much being ranked #1 all year got them in national coverage. Not getting national coverage, means not getting elite recruits. Is your mythical new coach, going to use his contacts at ESPN to get our games promoted on TV like UK vs Kansas? Is Mike and Mike going to start talking about UC?

Simply put, times have changed. Try to figure out how to adjust your perspective to the current landscape. Also try posting intelligently.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

What are you even talking about man? Who's talking about firing Mick in this discussion? I know that Mick isn't going anywhere.

I think you need to take a nap before you hit the early bird special. You're not thinking clearly right now.

early bird special. I got to give you credit that was funny.

 

[cincycpaw]

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.

Of course no one knows what's going to happen in each tournament and what the matchups will be. And of course not every tournament run is created equal. That said, if you are failing to make the NCAA tourney important then you are just failing to recognize reality. It is important. And no matter the matchups a Sweet 16 run every 4 years is certainly doable for the Cincinnati program.

 

[UCBearcats]

Also try posting intelligently.

Thanks, I'll take that into consideration.