UC vs. Georgetown

[anbuc88]

]We should expect to be in the conference championship every season,[/B] not celebrate the 1 time we were. The team makes it once and you are content?

Really?? In a league that has national powers such a Syracuse, G-town, UL, Pitt, Villanova, and ND, we should EXPECT to be in the conference championsip EVERY year. You think all those schools should be thinking, 'Well, we all have to fight for that 1 spot in the championship game, because you know UC should be there. They have all the advantages over us, like funding, facilities, an unbelievable fanbase, etc.' You know, Notre Dame NEVER made it to the BE chamionship game. NEVER. Let that sink in. NEVER, EVER. But we should expect to be there every year. Like another poster here said, love reading you posts. So informative. NOT.

 

[L-T]

A few things: attendence is up. lawrence is a 4 star recruit. Our preseason ranking could have been overstated. Who is playing better? How about SK,Parker,Cash,Bishop,Dixion. I'm sure there arre more. getting only 3 star guys and achieving the results he has really says it all. You want a top 25 program. You had that last year and if we have a nice run in NCAA this year you'll have it again. We are currrently ranked 38 in field of 64.

The amount of improvement I'm talking is far beyond what those guys improved. Kilpatrick might achieve it next year...he's close, but those others sure didn't. I'm talking the level of improvement we saw in Kenyon Martin, Eric Hicks, Bobby Brannen, Ryan Fletcher, Steve Logan, Danny Fortson, to name a few.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

The amount of improvement I'm talking is far beyond what those guys improved. Kilpatrick might achieve it next year...he's close, but those others sure didn't. I'm talking the level of improvement we saw in Kenyon Martin, Eric Hicks, Bobby Brannen, Ryan Fletcher, Steve Logan, Danny Fortson, to name a few.

all but Kenyon were talented players to begin with. As mick continues to grow the program he will get more talented players to work with. As evidences by the class this year. L-T bringing in a young coach, under the circumstances he inherited given the results, indicate he has done a great job rebuildng the program. Falling to see that is foolish. Every talking head that has done our games says the turnaround under Cronin has been amazing. That said, like you I want more. i think Mick will continue to grow himself and the program. Also, you mentioned the players but ignored the fact that attendence is up and this recruiting class is not all a bunch of 3 stars.

 

[User Name:]

all but Kenyon were talented players to begin with. As mick continues to grow the program he will get more talented players to work with. As evidences by the class this year. L-T bringing in a young coach, under the circumstances he inherited given the results, indicate he has done a great job rebuildng the program. Falling to see that is foolish. Every talking head that has done our games says the turnaround under Cronin has been amazing. That said, like you I want more. i think Mick will continue to grow himself and the program. Also, you mentioned the players but ignored the fact that attendence is up and this recruiting class is not all a bunch of 3 stars.

Are you saying Yancy Gates wasn't talented(#7 Center, #22 overall)? GTown and IU wanted him badly

What about Anthony McClain(#8 center, #56 overall)? Uconn wanted him badly

LT has a point about development of the bigs.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

L_T, If you think we undeachieved this year your are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally I feel we overvalued our roster. Our inside play was horrible. Now if you want to fault Mick for not landing a top flight big man to eliminate some pressure off the perimeter. I agree. Considering our lack of interior play I think we did as well as we could. Making the tourney and landing a nice recruiting class has to go into his yearly performance review.

A little more perspective:


UC: One of 23 teams to make dance last three years. One of 9 with chance to extend streak of winning at least one game.

Read more: http://www.espn1530.com/pages/lancesBlog.html#ixzz2Nu4BqciU


Exclusive company
UC is one of 10 schools to win its football bowl game and also qualify for the NCAA Championship field, joining Arizona, Boise State, Louisville, Michigan State, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Oregon and Syracuse

Read more: http://www.espn1530.com/pages/lancesBlog.html#ixzz2Nu4mk8oE

I think are athletics coupled with the fine academic programs offered in Clifton make us a very good choice for student athletes. We as fans should be proud of out university. This doesn't mean we shouldn't strive to get better.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

Are you saying Yancy Gates wasn't talented(#7 Center, #22 overall)? GTown and IU wanted him badly

What about Anthony McClain(#8 center, #56 overall)? Uconn wanted him badly

LT has a point about development of the bigs.

McClain had chronic foot problems and Yancy could have been much better but a coach can't want it more than the player. With Yancy's talent he has to take ownership of his lack of effort. I always told my kids if I want you to be good more than you want to be good we will never have a good athletic experience and you will always regret my involvement. Mick did everything he could to get Yancy to perform up to his potential. Yancy did not want it badly enough.

 

[L-T]

In 2005 after all those sub-standard years when we supposedly weren't respected nationally by anyone, we were asked to join the best basketball conference in the world. What a great example of how our program was direspected.

In 2013, after supposedly bringing our program back to the same level as then, and having an elite coach, we're now no longer coveted by the "Big Boys" and we have our noses pressed up against the window wishing that someone would let us in. Who's to blame? It certainly isn't our football program.

 

[WAITE HOYT 2]

In 2005 after all those sub-standard years when we supposedly weren't respected nationally by anyone, we were asked to join the best basketball conference in the world. What a great example of how our program was direspected.

In 2013, after supposedly bringing our program back to the same level as then, and having an elite coach, we're now no longer coveted by the "Big Boys" and we have our noses pressed up against the window wishing that someone would let us in. Who's to blame? It certainly isn't our football program.

L_T sorry I can't conversate with you anymore. if you don't understand that conference realignment is all about Football and the dollars then we can't communicate. The UC Basketball program has nothing to do with our not being in a credible conference nor does the performance of our football team. It is about TV markets and Facilities that can generate more revenue.. By the way our elite coach got himself fired and his failure to leave in a acceptable manner cost the program two years worth of recruiting.

 

[Bearcat_NTS]

It is hard to compare how those teams would have faired in the BE. I think several of those teams (I'm thinking the 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004 teams) all would have been probably top 6 or 7 teams in the BE which is what we have been under Mick. Only the 2000 and 2002 teams would have been one of the favorites to win the BE. Again, this is all my opinion, but it is hard to say we aren't back on the same level.

 

[L-T]

L_T sorry I can't conversate with you anymore. if you don't understand that conference realignment is all about Football and the dollars then we can't communicate. The UC Basketball program has nothing to do with our not being in a credible conference nor does the performance of our football team. It is about TV markets and Facilities that can generate more revenue.. By the way our elite coach got himself fired and his failure to leave in a acceptable manner cost the program two years worth of recruiting.

We'ree not discussing that coach. We're discussing this one. If it's all about football, then why were Pitt, Syracuse, Louisville, and Notre Dame asked to join the ACC? Is it just a coincidense that they happen to be great basketball programs? Notre Dame isn't playing football in the ACC and Pitt and Syracuse haven't done anything special in football in many years, and Louisville is just now beginning to do a little. If I were a betting man, I would bet that their great basketball tradition had a lot to do with them getting invited. And, I imagine that our former coach's trip to the final 4 a few years ago probably helped them get invited to the Big 12 as well.

I'm sorry you won't be conversing anymore. You seem to be a passionate Bearcat fan and I appreciate that. We just disagree on Mick. I'm sure we both want the same for our school. For the record, I'm rooting for Mick to whup up on Creighton on Friday. Who knows, I might even compliment him afterwards!

 

[nparker1]

Com'on man. That's a tired old response. Nobody would have named Huggins as a realistic replacement, but he had us in the final 4 in 3 years and might have won it all had Michigan not cheated. Who was Chris Mack before Xavier got him...or Pete Gillan...or Buzz Williams...or Brad Stevens...or Chaka Smart or Tom Crean, or Jamie Dixon, or Skip Prosser, or Jim Valvano, etc., etc.. The country is full or top young coaches just waiting for their chance to shine. How can we name a replacement when they're either assistant coaches in great programs, or head coaches in obscure conferences and we don't know who any of them are. They're all realistic replacements. And, as Tommy Tuberville proved, we may even lure a known coach occasionally. Who knows when Brad Stevens or Chaka Smart will decide to move up? We may be in the right place or the right time to lure one of them.

We're not at the point where we need to be thinking about replacing Mick yet, but we can't settle into a mindset where we are happy just making the tournament. Our goal is to cut down the nets, and if Mick can't get that done, then it's time to move on.

i understand what you are saying, but no one can comfortably say that UC would draw the interests of many known or rising coaches nationwide...B Stevens wouldnt come here like TT because he is winning...TT came to UC as a "get out of dodge" opportunity before he got fired...not because UC had attracted him all along...he was acquaintances with UC's AD, thus the reason fror his decision to come to UC...Mick has shown he can out coach any coach when it comes to calling plays, and his defense is true to UC tradition...i fully expect him to continue to progress with better recruits as UC continues to gain national recognition each year...plus, who would want Smart...he acts like he is coaching just to receive personal acknowledgement and a chance to appear on dancing with the stars...Mick is loyal and does not see UC as a stepping stone...he is also a fan of the program, and will not stand to see them lose

 

[L-T]

i understand what you are saying, but no one can comfortably say that UC would draw the interests of many known or rising coaches nationwide...B Stevens wouldnt come here like TT because he is winning...TT came to UC as a "get out of dodge" opportunity before he got fired...not because UC had attracted him all along...he was acquaintances with UC's AD, thus the reason fror his decision to come to UC...Mick has shown he can out coach any coach when it comes to calling plays, and his defense is true to UC tradition...i fully expect him to continue to progress with better recruits as UC continues to gain national recognition each year...plus, who would want Smart...he acts like he is coaching just to receive personal acknowledgement and a chance to appear on dancing with the stars...Mick is loyal and does not see UC as a stepping stone...he is also a fan of the program, and will not stand to see them lose

Really??? Which offensive plays and inbounds plays have led you to make the statement that he can out-coach any coach?

 

[Bearcat22]

Really??? Which offensive plays and inbounds plays have led you to make the statement that he can out-coach any coach?

The inbounding thing isn't Cats specific. All weekend I was watching good team struggle with this. Not excusing it but it seems pretty widespread.

 

[UCBearcats]

ALL that matters are end results not the fluff. By yor argument Mick Cronin has done far more with far less and should be applauded!Mick has achieved the same results as Huggins from 97-2005.

Did you read this? I have said repeatedly Mick has brought the program "..back to where it was on the court when Huggs vs. Z happened and I am correct."

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.

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

 

[UCBearcats]

Bonus Video, 2002 Bearcats over Marquette.......again, I'd take this team over anything Mick has provided us since he's been here. Mick's has a long way to go before he gets us anywhere near where we were at this point in time. That is, unless you're Bearcat Jeff, because apparently we all have a very over inflated view of how good UC was at this point in time. Was that Dewayne Wade??? Didn't that Marquette team go to a final 4???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0ESUwsdI-M4

 

[CaptDale]

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

And we would have won the whole thing had not KMart broke his leg
I went to the regionals in Anaheim when we got beat by Stanford (I think by 2) - should not have happened and wouldn't if Martin was able to play. We were a lock to win the National Championship. So close!

 

[nparker1]

Really??? Which offensive plays and inbounds plays have led you to make the statement that he can out-coach any coach?

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...

 

[anbuc88]

And we would have won the whole thing had not KMart broke his leg
I went to the regionals in Anaheim when we got beat by Stanford (I think by 2) - should not have happened and wouldn't if Martin was able to play. We were a lock to win the National Championship. So close!

We lost to Stanford in the sweet 16 the year after Kenyon's injury. Stanford was the overall Number 1 seed that year. We lost to Tulsa in the round of 32 after Kenyon's injury, and were seeded #2 (although we deserved a Number1). We also lost to Stanford by double digits, but were close at the beginning of the second half.

 

[L-T]

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

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.

 

[anbuc88]

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.

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.