UCLA

[westsidecat]

Mick will lead uc to multiple national championships starting next year. We are lucky to have him

But on the flip side Cincinnati’s offense under Mick has been an outright embarrassment since he was hired from Murray State 7 years ago. And I have the numbers to prove it:


*
Field Goal % (Big East Rank)
Points Per Game (Big East Rank)
Free Throw % (Big East Rank)
2012-13 37.8% (14th) 61.8 (12th) 67.5% (11th)
2011-12 40.3% (16th) 67.4 (7th) 66.2% (16th)
2010-11 42.3% (10th) 64.8 (13th) 67.1% (13th)
2009-10 43.7% (9th) 66.5 (13th) 61.5% (16th)
2008-09 42.2% (11th) 66.1 (11th) 65.5% (11th)
2007-08 41.2% (14th) 64.6 (14th) 66.5% (10th)
2006-07 39.3% (13th) 62.8 (12th) 64.6% (13th)NOTE: These are Big East stats against Big East opponents. Sure Cincinnati can break the scoreboard against Hee Haw University but against better competition they struggle mightily with the ball in their hands.

numbers say diffrent.

 

[aronius]

well, not many names were let out because uc did a great job of keeping things quiet. skip prosser was one name that was throwen out.

i'm pretty sure no one thought it would be mick..even the national media, who was surprised uc didn't get a big name for a big time job.

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

 

[westsidecat]

If you were a big fan of Huggins- you were likely happy just making the tournament. Especially considering his last 9 years at UC he went to the second weekend just one time.

upsets happen. big diffrence going in as a 1-5 seed vs a 10 seed bubble squad.

and no, i wasn't a big fan of huggs just find it funny how people try to discredit everything he done here.

let me know when mick makes 14 ncaa in a row.

 

[westsidecat]

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

agree to disagee.

do you think it would be the same now? do you belive tubby and howland wouldn't consider?

 

[UCBearcats]

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

You have no clue what you're talking about either. Can we start separating facts from people's opinion when we have these debates and then maybe we'll get somewhere?

Were you in the room 7 years ago, were you the AD, were you part of a team of people advising him? Do you honestly have any idea how many people were interested in the job? Do you know if UC pursued anyone else or if they just made their decision to hire Mick because at the time he seemed like the best fit for the job?

Let me answer these questions for you, the answer is no. Just because someone might have told you something or you think you know something doesn't make it fact.

PS - I don't even know what point you're trying to argue for or against, just tired of reading people's post where they take some crap and try to spin it off as factual evidence to represent their argument.

 

[aronius]

You have no clue what you're talking about either. Can we start separating facts from people's opinion when we have these debates and then maybe we'll get somewhere?

You always use this lame defense. Since no one was in the room there could have been a long list of high major candidates but Mike Thomas chose to go with a coach of 3 years head coaching experience, that makes sense.

Again, there were articles at the time linking Hobbs and obviously Mick to the job. What there was not, were articles linking ANY big time coach to the job.

 

[Bearcat22]

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

To be fair, Karl Hobbs name is mentioned anytime a big time program has an opening. It's like when Phil Jackson is mentioned for every NBA coaching job.

 

[SlamJam]

upsets happen. big diffrence going in as a 1-5 seed vs a 10 seed bubble squad.

and no, i wasn't a big fan of huggs just find it funny how people try to discredit everything he done here.

let me know when mick makes 14 ncaa in a row.

uh, didn't you say "I find it funny some fans are just happy making the tournament"

 

[UCBearcats]

You always use this lame defense. Since no one was in the room there could have been a long list of high major candidates but Mike Thomas chose to go with a coach of 3 years head coaching experience, that makes sense.

Again, there were articles at the time linking Hobbs and obviously Mick to the job. What there was not, were articles linking ANY big time coach to the job.

It's not a lame defense, it's the truth. When people start saying things like we don't have the money to hire a coach or makes statements like you did that's not a fact. That's your opinion or it's based on something someone told you. It doesn't make it a fact.

I'm not saying that there was a big time coach that wanted the job and I'm pretty sure there probably wasn't. I'm not trying to argue for or against your point, just making the statement that you're trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.

What I will say is that our program was already decimated, we had, at the time, a great candidate sitting there in Mick Cronin and he was the very convenient choice. Does anyone honestly remember who would have even been available at the time had we not gone with Mick?

I'm not going to argue that UC was a top 10 program but I'd say we were certainly top 20 at the time. We weren't on par and never have been with Duke, UNC, Syracuse or UK but in the 90's and early 2000's we were on an pretty even playing field with schools like Arizona, Memphis, ect. Not to mention that these things are cyclical, at that point in time we were doing better as a program than Louisville or Ohio State or a lot of other programs people consider big time today. Back then no one even knew who the hell VCU, Butler or Gonzaga even were.

 

[L-T]

You have no clue what you're talking about either. Can we start separating facts from people's opinion when we have these debates and then maybe we'll get somewhere?

Were you in the room 7 years ago, were you the AD, were you part of a team of people advising him? Do you honestly have any idea how many people were interested in the job? Do you know if UC pursued anyone else or if they just made their decision to hire Mick because at the time he seemed like the best fit for the job?

Let me answer these questions for you, the answer is no. Just because someone might have told you something or you think you know something doesn't make it fact.

PS - I don't even know what point you're trying to argue for or against, just tired of reading people's post where they take some crap and try to spin it off as factual evidence to represent their argument.

You do realize Mick started with nothing don't you?

 

[JasonS]

Not saying we 'didn't play anyone good'. Just saying the quality of opponents in our OOC did not prepare these particular players for the Big East grind. Last year it worked out fine because the team was much more physical/tougher.

Sure there was a difference in his play but you don't think this was caused by the quality of opponents? Its much easier to score against Tennessee Martin than Pitt. Wouldn't you agree?

Just answer me this: Did the competition get tougher or easier during conference play?

So who do you want on the schedule and, more importantly, how are you getting those teams on the schedule?

 

[L-T]

It's not a lame defense, it's the truth. When people start saying things like we don't have the money to hire a coach or makes statements like you did that's not a fact. That's your opinion or it's based on something someone told you. It doesn't make it a fact.

I'm not saying that there was a big time coach that wanted the job and I'm pretty sure there probably wasn't. I'm not trying to argue for or against your point, just making the statement that you're trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.

What I will say is that our program was already decimated, we had, at the time, a great candidate sitting there in Mick Cronin and he was the very convenient choice. Does anyone honestly remember who would have even been available at the time had we not gone with Mick?

I'm not going to argue that UC was a top 10 program but I'd say we were certainly top 20 at the time. We weren't on par and never have been with Duke, UNC, Syracuse or UK but in the 90's and early 2000's we were on an pretty even playing field with schools like Arizona, Memphis, ect. Not to mention that these things are cyclical, at that point in time we were doing better as a program than Louisville or Ohio State or a lot of other programs people consider big time today. Back then no one even knew who the hell VCU, Butler or Gonzaga even were.

During the final years of Huggs that everyone likes to complain about....

FINAL AP POLL
1997 10
1998 9
1999 11
2000 7
2001 N/R
2002 5
2003 N/R
2004 11
2005 23

We even made the NCAA with a 17-11 record in 2003...Now that's respect!

 

[Bearcat04]

Honestly, I don't buy the whole money argument that people on this site always try to make. You don't have any clue what the hell you're talking about when you start talking athletic budgets at UC and neither do I. All I know is that Mick gets paid pretty well, we didn't have any problem paying Huggins a top salary when he was here and there was hardly any mention of money when it came to bringing over Tommy T. This University can afford to pay a coach 2 mil/ year if they needed to which would pretty much get you anyone except the top 10 highest paid coaches in the country. I'm fairly certain that if the right guy was available and the mutual desire was there to make a move money wouldn't be as big of an issue as people try to make it out to be.

Yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. There's more to a budget than just paying the head coach. Aside from Coach K's salary, Duke spent another $10.2M on basketball expenses last year. The best programs either have a huge budget or have an athletic program with a very high net income. We don't have either. That doesn't mean we can't compete, reach the Final 4, or win a championship, but it's not easy to have a sustained level of success on the cheap in today's college athletics. Way too many fans think our program is on a level playing field just because we've had past success. History has nothing to do with current spending.

 

[L-T]

So who do you want on the schedule and, more importantly, how are you getting those teams on the schedule?

Oh com'on. That as stupid a question as the guys who say, "Well who do you want to replace Mick with"? I want Kentucky, Ohio St. Duke, N. Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Syracuse, etc., etc., etc. How am I getting those teams? Negotiation.

 

[L-T]

Oh com'on. That as stupid a question as the guys who say, "Well who do you want to replace Mick with"? I want Kentucky, Ohio St. Duke, N. Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Syracuse, etc., etc., etc. How am I getting those teams? Negotiation.

We got almost everyone of these teams on the scedule before Mick. How did we do it? By building a nationally respected, high profile, successful program. You're probably right, we can't command these teams anymore!

 

[JasonS]

Oh com'on. That as stupid a question as the guys who say, "Well who do you want to replace Mick with"? I want Kentucky, Ohio St. Duke, N. Carolina, Indiana, Florida, Syracuse, etc., etc., etc. How am I getting those teams? Negotiation.

It's not negotiation. It's TV. TV decides whom plays whom out of conference. Don't be so naive.

 

[JasonS]

We got almost everyone of these teams on the scedule before Mick. How did we do it? By building a nationally respected, high profile, successful program. You're probably right, we can't command these teams anymore!

Really? We didn't play OSU or UK. We only played Duke in the Great Alaskan Shootout. We never played Syracuse before the Big East. When's the last time we played IU or Florida in an OOC game that wasn't a tournament like Maui or Alaska? Frankly, do some research before you make these crazy statements.

 

[UCBearcats]

Yeah, don't let the facts get in the way of your argument. There's more to a budget than just paying the head coach. Aside from Coach K's salary, Duke spent another $10.2M on basketball expenses last year. The best programs either have a huge budget or have an athletic program with a very high net income. We don't have either. That doesn't mean we can't compete, reach the Final 4, or win a championship, but it's not easy to have a sustained level of success on the cheap in today's college athletics. Way too many fans think our program is on a level playing field just because we've had past success. History has nothing to do with current spending.

Yeah, and if you spend money to bring in a coach who can get this program back on top then you can make money. Kind of hard to spend 10.2 million on bball when you spend the first half of your season playing to 5 or 6k fans/night and every time you do start to generate some buzz in the fan base you turn around and lose 3 or 4 straight games at home.

Kind of like how our football program made pennies per year until we got Brian Kelly in here and gave the fan base something to get excited about.

Again, I'm not arguing that we have an athletic budget on par with some of the bigger schools, we clearly don't. You made the statement that we can't afford a good coach, that's simply not true, or if it is you're certainly not qualified to make that statement.

 

[JasonS]

Yeah, and if you spend money to bring in a coach who can get this program back on top then you can make money. Kind of hard to spend 10.2 million on bball when you spend the first half of your season playing to 5 or 6k fans/night and every time you do start to generate some buzz in the fan base you turn around and lose 3 or 4 straight games at home.

Kind of like how our football program made pennies per year until we got Brian Kelly in here and gave the fan base something to get excited about.

Again, I'm not arguing that we have an athletic budget on par with some of the bigger schools, we clearly don't. You made the statement that we can't afford a good coach, that's simply not true, or if it is you're certainly not qualified to make that statement.

Even when Brian Kelly was here the football program made pennies. That is why they are adding luxury boxes: to increase revenue. 35,000+ seats is not enough to fund an athletic department.

 

[joshuag12000]

During the final years of Huggs that everyone likes to complain about....

FINAL AP POLL
1997 10
1998 9
1999 11
2000 7
2001 N/R
2002 5
2003 N/R
2004 11
2005 23

We even made the NCAA with a 17-11 record in 2003...Now that's respect!

That's probably part of the reason people complained about those years. They were ranked pretty highly to have so many early exits. That's also why it can be more understanding that this years team had an early exit. They weren't ranked and not expected to win. Fact is just getting to the tournament consistently is an accomplishment and getting deep into it is even more of an accomplishment. It also helps to have luck on your side sometimes when everyone is so evenly matched up.

I think a lot of the frustration now comes from being in the Big East. In Conference USA a down year might have been a 3rd or 4th place finish for UC. In the Big East down year and you wind up 9th or lower in the conference.