UC vs. Georgetown

[UCBearcats]

You're definitely wise beyond your 30 years, because many on here continue to try to spin the notion that we are somehow back to where we were back then. This program is so far from that program, that it's laughable to even argue. The proof is in the pudding. Where we were then got us invited to join the Big East. Where we are today got us invited to join America 12. Period, end of story.

Yeah, it's a joke. It's like the UC vs XU argument. Yeah, they made the tournament and had success during a nice stretch while we were down after the whole Nancy Z debacle but they never reached the type of heights we did during the 90's and 2000's. It's embarrassing that so called fans of this program are willing to discredit what we did back then in order to prop up the appearance of what we're doing right now. It's pretty much the Bengalization of a small group of UC fans that are overly vocal on this message board. I go to all the games, I talk to a lot of people and I have a big group of friends that are also UC fans and the majority of people I speak to are in the same mindset as you and I.

Mick's done a pretty good job but has a long way to go if he ever wants to get back to that point. I lean to the side of the fence that doesn't believe based on what he's shown me that he's capable of getting us back there. As a fan, that's what I'm looking for, is to get back to that point.

 

[CaptDale]

Wrong. Basketball has NOTHING to do with conference realignment. It's market share and TV revenue. Why do you think the B1G chose Rutgers? Their unbelievable basketball program? It was the New York market for their TV network. Basketball has nothing to do with it. Period. End of story.

"The whole world revolves around money. It's ONLY a question of money."
I was told that when I was a young co-op at UC by a crusty old gambler I worked with for the City Engineering Dept.
It is oh so true, Anbuc. You hit the nail on the head.

 

[L-T]

i was looking at the whole picture and not this year (which deserves an asterisk when you have Rubles throwing it in)...Mick during his whole tenure at UC, has drawn up plays to put UC in position to win in the last seconds (i.e. lob to Gates)...now he cannot control if his players can produce during those situations, but at least there was a great strategy in play...and Mick has held his own against his mentors (i.e. Pitino and Huggins), and until this year, Mick has owned GTown...i am not saying Mick is Boeheim or Pitino, but what i am saying is that Mick is a young coach and still on the rise...it was a tough year, but not all of it was the coaching...do i wish he would hire a "big man" coach, hell yes!...and am i satisfied with just getting to the tournament, no...i want to see another sweet 16 trip...and i expect to see more down the road...i just cant expect it from this team this year after the way they struggled as the season has gone on...i am very excited about next years potential, and i expect a tournament appearance at the very minimum...

Mick has coached over 200 games here, so it's not anything special to find an occasional last second play that went well. It's all about what have you done lately and this year his play calling on inbounds and offensive sets was atrocious. If you're blaming the play-calling failures this year on the players, then who's to say that the successes he had in the past weren't because of great plays by the players who bailed him out of his poor play calling. Both arguments are just stupid. It's all about the "eye test" and Mick isn't shining in my "eye-test". Sorry. He's evidently passing with flying colors in your "eye test". I just think many of you might need a pair of glasses. I have 20-20 vision.

 

[L-T]

Yeah, it's a joke. It's like the UC vs XU argument. Yeah, they made the tournament and had success during a nice stretch while we were down after the whole Nancy Z debacle but they never reached the type of heights we did during the 90's and 2000's. It's embarrassing that so called fans of this program are willing to discredit what we did back then in order to prop up the appearance of what we're doing right now. It's pretty much the Bengalization of a small group of UC fans that are overly vocal on this message board. I go to all the games, I talk to a lot of people and I have a big group of friends that are also UC fans and the majority of people I speak to are in the same mindset as you and I.

Mick's done a pretty good job but has a long way to go if he ever wants to get back to that point. I lean to the side of the fence that doesn't believe based on what he's shown me that he's capable of getting us back there. As a fan, that's what I'm looking for, is to get back to that point.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[bearcat jeff]

Yeah, it's a joke. It's like the UC vs XU argument. Yeah, they made the tournament and had success during a nice stretch while we were down after the whole Nancy Z debacle but they never reached the type of heights we did during the 90's and 2000's. It's embarrassing that so called fans of this program are willing to discredit what we did back then in order to prop up the appearance of what we're doing right now. It's pretty much the Bengalization of a small group of UC fans that are overly vocal on this message board. I go to all the games, I talk to a lot of people and I have a big group of friends that are also UC fans and the majority of people I speak to are in the same mindset as you and I.

Mick's done a pretty good job but has a long way to go if he ever wants to get back to that point. I lean to the side of the fence that doesn't believe based on what he's shown me that he's capable of getting us back there. As a fan, that's what I'm looking for, is to get back to that point.

Guys if you are compaing on court results you have no argument. It's not an attempt to put anything down, I was on the bandwagon too, it's just a fact that UC underachieved after 96 in the NCAA.The highlighted statement simply isn't true. I posted the results in the NCAA. Those results say you are wrong.

 

[bearcat jeff]

UC isn't a mid major basketball program, people shouldn't be excited about just making the tournament and winning a game or two. The regular season matters to most people. UC doesn't make a whole lot of revenue off of the touney, we make money by selling tickets to games held in our arena during the regular season. The tourney is great but it's only 3 weeks out of what is a very long season. Did our teams in the late 90's and first half of the 2000's disappoint in the tournaments? Absolutely, and that was a big knock on Huggins when he was here. It doesn't mean that what they accomplished on the floor throughout the course of a season wasn't far better than what Mick's teams have accomplished.

Under your ridiculous rules about what people should think is important or not you're completely discounting our 2000 team. I don't know about you but I'd say that team was the best being a UC fan has ever been. I'm 30 years old so in my lifetime that is about as good as UC basketball gets. Yeah, we lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA's that season but there is no way you can claim that our team last season provided better moments than our 2000 team. If you polled most UC fans I'm sure they're going to say the same thing. I'd take that 2000 team that lost in the 2nd round of the NCAA's over last year's sweet 16 team any day of the week and twice on Sundays.

For anyone having trouble remember how sweet that team was here's a little blast from the past for you. The good old days when the shoe was rocking and Dickie V was announcing our games because we actually were thought of as a national powerhouse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_up1RPAB338&noredirect=1

After 96 nobody thought of UC as a powerhouse. It was a yearly discussion if they'd flame out again as a higher seed in the NCAA. If UC doesn't make the big dance all that other stuff won't be there. And if you'd take a second round loss in 2000 over a sweet 16 last year you need to refigure your goals for this program.

 

[UCBearcats]

After 96 nobody thought of UC as a powerhouse. It was a yearly discussion if they'd flame out again as a higher seed in the NCAA. If UC doesn't make the big dance all that other stuff won't be there. And if you'd take a second round loss in 2000 over a sweet 16 last year you need to refigure your goals for this program.

Our 2000 team was ranked #1 throughout a large part of the season, pretty sure that made us a national powerhouse. Our 2002 team was a top 5 team. Both those teams got bounced in the 2nd round but I think a whole season worth of top production says a little more than 1 game in March. What stopped those late 90's and early 2000's teams from being great was the lack of success in the NCAA's. Back then as UC fans we were upset about 2nd round losses or just making the sweet 16, now we're supposed to be all excited about the fact that we're even in the tourney. That's the difference between then and now. Keep on burying your head in the sand if you want but if you think this current program can even come close to touching what we were back then you're outside your mind.

 

[bearcat jeff]

Our 2000 team was ranked #1 throughout a large part of the season, pretty sure that made us a national powerhouse. Our 2002 team was a top 5 team. Both those teams got bounced in the 2nd round but I think a whole season worth of top production says a little more than 1 game in March. What stopped those late 90's and early 2000's teams from being great was the lack of success in the NCAA's. Back then as UC fans we were upset about 2nd round losses or just making the sweet 16, now we're supposed to be all excited about the fact that we're even in the tourney. That's the difference between then and now. Keep on burying your head in the sand if you want but if you think this current program can even come close to touching what we were back then you're outside your mind.

You're talking apples and oranges. I keep saying on court results you keep looking at other things. You are the only person I have ever heard say UC was a powerhouse after 96. They made 1 sweet 16 after 96 and either lost in the 1st or 2nd round every other year. No not a powerhouse.

 

[Scheids21]

I'm a little late to this party, but I will quickly weigh in. Of course, our current state is not where it was around 2000. However, the program is still developing and growing and I would say 3 straight tournament appearances is a solid footing.

I would say UC 1997 - 2004 is very similar to present day Pitt. Very good to great every year during the regular season, but developed a reputation for getting bounced early and under performing in the tournament (and yes, I remember Kenyon Martin breaking his leg).

 

[UCBearcats]

You're talking apples and oranges. I keep saying on court results you keep looking at other things. You are the only person I have ever heard say UC was a powerhouse after 96. They made 1 sweet 16 after 96 and either lost in the 1st or 2nd round every other year. No not a powerhouse.

How are you defining on court results?? Just the tournament? Or is a #1 ranking the country and a two loss season not a product of on court results?

I mean, what are you even talking about? If you want to set these tiny little parameters for me to be able to defend my argument in we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Amberlycolonel]

You're talking apples and oranges. I keep saying on court results you keep looking at other things. You are the only person I have ever heard say UC was a powerhouse after 96. They made 1 sweet 16 after 96 and either lost in the 1st or 2nd round every other year. No not a powerhouse.

Make that 2.

 

[Scheids21]

This argument is the definition of the word "powerhouse"...who cares.

 

[L-T]

I'm a little late to this party, but I will quickly weigh in. Of course, our current state is not where it was around 2000. However, the program is still developing and growing and I would say 3 straight tournament appearances is a solid footing.

I would say UC 1997 - 2004 is very similar to present day Pitt. Very good to great every year during the regular season, but developed a reputation for getting bounced early and under performing in the tournament (and yes, I remember Kenyon Martin breaking his leg).

This is one of the more sensible analysis. We were absolutely a "regular season" powerhouse. From 1996 to 2004 we won less than 25 games only once. In the tournaments, we were a .500 team, but we all know there was more than a fair share of really bad luck that went into many of those losses. I will buy your 1st paragraph completely. We are on pretty solid footing. I just think the trend line turned a little downward this season. But who knows, we can reverse a somewhat negative January and February with just two simple wins.

 

[bearcat jeff]

This is one of the more sensible analysis. We were absolutely a "regular season" powerhouse. From 1996 to 2004 we won less than 25 games only once. In the tournaments, we were a .500 team, but we all know there was more than a fair share of really bad luck that went into many of those losses. I will buy your 1st paragraph completely. We are on pretty solid footing. I just think the trend line turned a little downward this season. But who knows, we can reverse a somewhat negative January and February with just two simple wins.

What the hell is a regular season powerhouse? That does not make you a great team!!! Again by your standard the last 3 years are tremendous...26 wins, 26 wins, and 22 and counting. A regular season powerhouse? Is UK, Duke, Indiana, Michigan St., Kansas, and the like known as regular season powerhouses? You can't argue people are setlling and then pull this crap out of your hat. UC was a very good program not great, and has climbed back to that level. Sustainability is now the question.

 

[bearcat jeff]

How are you defining on court results?? Just the tournament? Or is a #1 ranking the country and a two loss season not a product of on court results?

I mean, what are you even talking about? If you want to set these tiny little parameters for me to be able to defend my argument in we'll just have to agree to disagree.

The game has evolved so that March is all that matters. Why do you think a mid major can win 25 plus games, dominate their conference and lose in a conf tournament and then go to the NIT? It's about March. Memphis is the best comparison to UC imo. Nice program who will get you a lot of regular season wins, had a very good run under a future hall of fame coach, and have fallen a notch, but their league enables them to keep winning a lot of games in the regular season. All I'm saying is I don't want to hear anybody saying people are settling when those who hang onto the past rejoice in the last 9-10 years of 1st and 2nd round losses in the NCAA under the former coach. It can't be both ways. If you're happy with 28 wins in a much weaker conference and a second round loss or just getting to the tournament, then 26 wins playing in the BEast and a Sweet 16 and getting there yearly should make you very happy.

But if you wanna talk "FUN" and not results yes, the run from 1991-2005 was more fun to watch. Personally I just care about winning. That makes it fun to me. People forget attendance was dropping the last few years under Huggs too. Why? Because people came to accept a big regular season would be followed by a second round tournament loss. Sustained success = sustained tournament success which I personally define as getting past the first weekend consistently. If you are one of the last 16 teams standing most years for a national championship, you are a high level program.

I highly doubt Duke, UK, UNC, UConn and Kansas define their season by if they won 25 or more games. My guess is they are Elite because they win and compete for national championships yearly and that is what the fans expect.

I guarantee you if by hook or crook, UC goes to back to back Sweet 16's it will hold far more meaning in terms of national respect than if they would have won 26 games and finished top 3-4 in league play. People will be saying, "Mick Cronin has taken UC to back to back sweet 16s for the first time since 1992 and 1993."

Again, I loved the run from 1991-2005. I just recognize that from 1997 till 2005 that the program failed to sustain success where it matters. If memory serves me they finished 3rd 2 of the last 3 seasons in conference play under Huggins in CUSA.

 

[Amberlycolonel]

The game has evolved so that March is all that matters. Why do you think a mid major can win 25 plus games, dominate their conference and lose in a conf tournament and then go to the NIT? It's about March. Memphis is the best comparison to UC imo. Nice program who will get you a lot of regular season wins, had a very good run under a future hall of fame coach, and have fallen a notch, but their league enables them to keep winning a lot of games in the regular season. All I'm saying is I don't want to hear anybody saying people are settling when those who hang onto the past rejoice in the last 9-10 years of 1st and 2nd round losses in the NCAA under the former coach. It can't be both ways. If you're happy with 28 wins in a much weaker conference and a second round loss or just getting to the tournament, then 26 wins playing in the BEast and a Sweet 16 and getting there yearly should make you very happy.

But if you wanna talk "FUN" and not results yes, the run from 1991-2005 was more fun to watch. Personally I just care about winning. That makes it fun to me. People forget attendance was dropping the last few years under Huggs too. Why? Because people came to accept a big regular season would be followed by a second round tournament loss. Sustained success = sustained tournament success which I personally define as getting past the first weekend consistently. If you are one of the last 16 teams standing most years for a national championship, you are a high level program.

I highly doubt Duke, UK, UNC, UConn and Kansas define their season by if they won 25 or more games. My guess is they are Elite because they win and compete for national championships yearly and that is what the fans expect.

I guarantee you if by hook or crook, UC goes to back to back Sweet 16's it will hold far more meaning in terms of national respect than if they would have won 26 games and finished top 3-4 in league play. People will be saying, "Mick Cronin has taken UC to back to back sweet 16s for the first time since 1992 and 1993."

Again, I loved the run from 1991-2005. I just recognize that from 1997 till 2005 that the program failed to sustain success where it matters. If memory serves me they finished 3rd 2 of the last 3 seasons in conference play under Huggins in CUSA.

2004/05 finished 2nd, 2003/04 finished 1st, 2002/03 finished 4th. Prior to those seasons, we finished 1st every year up to league conception.http://www.bbstate.com/conferences/C-USA/standingshist

 

[bearcat jeff]

2004/05 finished 2nd, 2003/04 finished 1st, 2002/03 finished 4th. Prior to those seasons, we finished 1st every year up to league conception.http://www.bbstate.com/conferences/C-USA/standingshist

So a second and a fourth instead of 2 3rds. Thanks for the link.

 

[anbuc88]

The game has evolved so that March is all that matters. Why do you think a mid major can win 25 plus games, dominate their conference and lose in a conf tournament and then go to the NIT? It's about March. Memphis is the best comparison to UC imo. Nice program who will get you a lot of regular season wins, had a very good run under a future hall of fame coach, and have fallen a notch, but their league enables them to keep winning a lot of games in the regular season. All I'm saying is I don't want to hear anybody saying people are settling when those who hang onto the past rejoice in the last 9-10 years of 1st and 2nd round losses in the NCAA under the former coach. It can't be both ways. If you're happy with 28 wins in a much weaker conference and a second round loss or just getting to the tournament, then 26 wins playing in the BEast and a Sweet 16 and getting there yearly should make you very happy.

But if you wanna talk "FUN" and not results yes, the run from 1991-2005 was more fun to watch. Personally I just care about winning. That makes it fun to me. People forget attendance was dropping the last few years under Huggs too. Why? Because people came to accept a big regular season would be followed by a second round tournament loss. Sustained success = sustained tournament success which I personally define as getting past the first weekend consistently. If you are one of the last 16 teams standing most years for a national championship, you are a high level program.

I highly doubt Duke, UK, UNC, UConn and Kansas define their season by if they won 25 or more games. My guess is they are Elite because they win and compete for national championships yearly and that is what the fans expect.

I guarantee you if by hook or crook, UC goes to back to back Sweet 16's it will hold far more meaning in terms of national respect than if they would have won 26 games and finished top 3-4 in league play. People will be saying, "Mick Cronin has taken UC to back to back sweet 16s for the first time since 1992 and 1993."

Again, I loved the run from 1991-2005. I just recognize that from 1997 till 2005 that the program failed to sustain success where it matters. If memory serves me they finished 3rd 2 of the last 3 seasons in conference play under Huggins in CUSA.

Great post. I don't know why we need to revisit the Huggins years. Those were a few great and the rest very good years. It was an exciting time to be a Bearcat fan. But those years were also mainly marked by March Sadness, not March Madness. Is is better to get to the NCAA tourney and lose in the second round than not make it at all. No question it is. But we are back to making it on a yearly basis. Lets live in the present and root for our team. Coach Huggins has moved on. So should the rest of us on this board.

 

[UCBearcats]

Great post. I don't know why we need to revisit the Huggins years. Those were a few great and the rest very good years. It was an exciting time to be a Bearcat fan. But those years were also mainly marked by March Sadness, not March Madness. Is is better to get to the NCAA tourney and lose in the second round than not make it at all. No question it is. But we are back to making it on a yearly basis. Lets live in the present and root for our team. Coach Huggins has moved on. So should the rest of us on this board.

I've moved on from Huggins, believe me. Moving on from Huggins doesn't mean that you can't look back at what those teams did and appreciate them. The people always talking about moving on from Huggins are the same people who consistently bring him up. If you look at my posts I made mention of our teams from back then and their success, not about Huggins vs. Mick.

 

[L-T]

What the hell is a regular season powerhouse? That does not make you a grat team!!! Again by your standard the last 3 years are tremendous...26 wins, 26 wins, and 22 and counting. A regular season powerhouse? Is UK, Duke, Indiana, Michigan St., Kansas, and the like known as regular season powerhouses? You can't argue people are setlling and then pull this crap out of your hat. UC was a very good program not great, and has climbed back to that level. Sustainability is now the question.

How many 1, 2 and 3 seeds do we have under Cronin? We're not even close to those years? National TV was dictating many great Non-Conference games for us in those days because we were a powerhouse. Cronin gets his 25 wins by playing his plethora of cupcakes every year, which is why the city has never embraced him and he can't sell out games. He has no credibility. Nobody appreciates a coach who doesn't have the balls to compete against the best. Again, how many big conferences are knocking down our doors to invite us in now? The decline of our basketball program is a big part of that.