Was Mick Cronin REALLY an Underachiever in March?

[cincyguy13]

You’re right, we should cry that he left forever and never move on. Let me know how that goes. I’m great full that he rebuilt the program. Once again, what do you want me to do? He left, I moved on. You’re like th ex boyfriend that Is constantly talking about how great your ex was. They don’t want to be with you anymore!!!![/QUOTE
If I spent a decade trashing her how could I be upset if she leaves, maybe if you were grateful she wouldn’t .

If you know me at all, you know I was far from a mick hater when he was here but keep trying

 

[itsamemario]

Short Answer: Yes
Long Answer: Yes Yes

 

[cincrulz11]

If you know me at all, you know I was far from a mick hater when he was here but keep trying

there were some that hated mick from the day he was hired. most of them were banned off.


there were others that turn over time. took me till 2018 to start to turn. i never thought he'd have more talent than 2018. we might not have more talent than that again. that team was beyond loaded. i was certain mick would lead us to great places up until that year. after that i thought he had likely peaked here.


it just turned me to apathy though. 2019 season was by far the least i've watched the team. i didn't think we should fire him, but i was not at all upset when he chose to leave. looking back at recruiting, his flirt with unlv, and so on, mick had decided to leave before 2019, it was just about finding a place.


remember when his camp made up the story that UC had reduced his pay. mick wanted out, end of story.

 

[waterhead]

When you enter the dance as a 5-10 seed every year nobody is expecting to make a F4 run (other than possibly the randomness crowd). It would be nice to make a few 2nd weekend trips in 9 years but even that would be about the pinnacle of expectations most years.

To have some REAL hope of making a deep run you have to come in as a top 15 or top 10 team like the single year we had a 2 seed.

9 straight tourneys is impressive but our outlook was bleak in 8 of them. In 9 years give me 3 protected seeds and 6 missed tourneys over 1 protected seed and 8 teams that had little chance to make any noise.

My issue with Cronin wasn't making the dance...it was making it with a legit contender team that had a snowball's chance in hell. If you know you aren't going to win or make a deep run...what is the difference?

 

[cincrulz11]

When you enter the dance as a 5-10 seed every year nobody is expecting to make a F4 run (other than possibly the randomness crowd). It would be nice to make a few 2nd weekend trips in 9 years but even that would be about the pinnacle of expectations most years.

To have some REAL hope of making a deep run you have to come in as a top 15 or top 10 team like the single year we had a 2 seed.

9 straight tourneys is impressive but our outlook was bleak in 8 of them. In 9 years give me 3 protected seeds and 6 missed tourneys over 1 protected seed and 8 teams that had little chance to make any noise.

My issue with Cronin wasn't making the dance...it was making it with a legit contender team that had a snowball's chance in hell. If you know you aren't going to win or make a deep run...what is the difference?

i really think the difference in bubble team and 1st round exit is very slim at best. you get to enjoy the season for 3-4 more days.


ive never once gone around bragging about a 1st round exit.


real talk last 9 seasons would you rather be us or xavier? they've missed twice in those 9 years but have 2 sweet 16's and an elite 8.

 

[cincyguy13]

i really think the difference in bubble team and 1st round exit is very slim at best. you get to enjoy the season for 3-4 more days.


ive never once gone around bragging about a 1st round exit.


real talk last 9 seasons would you rather be us or xavier? they've missed twice in those 9 years but have 2 sweet 16's and an elite 8.

I’ve never bragged about making the tournament. To me, that’s silly. Great you made it, now what. Great, we’ve made it 9 years in a row. Awesome

 

[cincyguy13]

there were some that hated mick from the day he was hired. most of them were banned off.


there were others that turn over time. took me till 2018 to start to turn. i never thought he'd have more talent than 2018. we might not have more talent than that again. that team was beyond loaded. i was certain mick would lead us to great places up until that year. after that i thought he had likely peaked here.


it just turned me to apathy though. 2019 season was by far the least i've watched the team. i didn't think we should fire him, but i was not at all upset when he chose to leave. looking back at recruiting, his flirt with unlv, and so on, mick had decided to leave before 2019, it was just about finding a place.


remember when his camp made up the story that UC had reduced his pay. mick wanted out, end of story.

The pressure started getting to him. He started giving more attitude after normal questions. He knew that team was probably his best shot and they failed. When it was rumored of him leaving, I leaned more toward wanting him to stay buy I wasn’t that tore up about it after the fact. I think it was good for both sides. More for him. He gets a rise and doesn’t have the pressure of returning his school to the final four. He has different pressure now but it’s not his home town.

 

[Jon Rycek]

2018 wasn’t Micks fault as much as many of you like to blame him. His game plan put us up by 20. Then the players had a meltdown. Mick isn’t on the court, he can’t make the guys hit shots. The players lost that game.

 

[cincyguy13]

2018 wasn’t Micks fault as much as many of you like to blame him. His game plan put us up by 20. Then the players had a meltdown. Mick isn’t on the court, he can’t make the guys hit shots. The players lost that game.

Does this apply to all coaches? Hmmm

 

[TheLongHaul]

2018 wasn’t Micks fault as much as many of you like to blame him. His game plan put us up by 20. Then the players had a meltdown. Mick isn’t on the court, he can’t make the guys hit shots. The players lost that game.

The coach is 100% accountable for who he subs in and out. Not taking Cumberland out and deciding he would leave it up to the player to decide was a huge mistake and cost them dearly. Add to the fact that Mick was crapping his pants during the meltdown which undoubtedly had an effect on the players. The coach had a meltdown, the players reflected the coach. To say Mick had nothing to do with that epic collapse is ridiculous. Why have a coach if they have no control of maintaining a 24 point lead with 12 minutes left?

 

[waterhead]

The coach is 100% accountable for who he subs in and out. Not taking Cumberland out and deciding he would leave it up to the player to decide was a huge mistake and cost them dearly. Add to the fact that Mick was crapping his pants during the meltdown which undoubtedly had an effect on the players. The coach had a meltdown, the players reflected the coach. To say Mick had nothing to do with that epic collapse is ridiculous. Why have a coach if they have no control of maintaining a 24 point lead with 12 minutes left?

Amen

 

[justinhub2003]

The coach is 100% accountable for who he subs in and out. Not taking Cumberland out and deciding he would leave it up to the player to decide was a huge mistake and cost them dearly. Add to the fact that Mick was crapping his pants during the meltdown which undoubtedly had an effect on the players. The coach had a meltdown, the players reflected the coach. To say Mick had nothing to do with that epic collapse is ridiculous. Why have a coach if they have no control of maintaining a 24 point lead with 12 minutes left?

All coaches make mistakes, pretty sure we blew a nice lead vs Colgate, & Bowling Green.

It happens.

I do feel uc was shafted a lot with playing teams who were under seeded.

When we played Kansas state (won) they were a lot higher in kenpom then other 11 seeds. They were 30, we were 23.. didn’t feel like a 6 vs 11 matchup

Harvard was really good that year and under seeded. What kinda 12 seed Is 32 in kenpom?

UCLA had no business being a 3 seed, they were 31-5

Iowa was 36 in kenpom, we were 35... yet it was a 7 vs 10

Nevada was #23 in kenpom and yet a 7 seed

 

[sedziobs]

You can add 2012 Texas to that list. They were 32 as an 11 seed.

 

[Queens_NYC]

You can add 2012 Texas to that list. They were 32 as an 11 seed.

Creighton was 15 as a 7 seed in 2013.

 

[Union Bearcat]

All coaches make mistakes, pretty sure we blew a nice lead vs Colgate, & Bowling Green.

It happens.

I do feel uc was shafted a lot with playing teams who were under seeded.

When we played Kansas state (won) they were a lot higher in kenpom then other 11 seeds. They were 30, we were 23.. didn’t feel like a 6 vs 11 matchup

Harvard was really good that year and under seeded. What kinda 12 seed Is 32 in kenpom?

UCLA had no business being a 3 seed, they were 31-5

Iowa was 36 in kenpom, we were 35... yet it was a 7 vs 10

Nevada was #23 in kenpom and yet a 7 seed

Using kenpom to say a team is under seeded is silly. Is purdue a 6 seed quality this year because they are 22 in kenpom? Plenty of examples out there that contradict you

 

[justinhub2003]

Using kenpom to say a team is under seeded is silly. Is purdue a 6 seed quality this year because they are 22 in kenpom? Plenty of examples out there that contradict you

I believe that kenpom is a great metric for our good a team is:

So when I say that they were under seeded, I just mean that on paper it looks like a 6 vs 11 matchup, but when yuh compare the quality of each team, it’s much more of a toss up.


If you look at Xavier’s recent tourney success. They played a lot more over seeded teams or had the luck factory break there way.

We just haven’t gotten that lucky break yet

 

[cincyalum2014]

All coaches make mistakes, pretty sure we blew a nice lead vs Colgate, & Bowling Green.

It happens.

I do feel uc was shafted a lot with playing teams who were under seeded.

When we played Kansas state (won) they were a lot higher in kenpom then other 11 seeds. They were 30, we were 23.. didn’t feel like a 6 vs 11 matchup

Harvard was really good that year and under seeded. What kinda 12 seed Is 32 in kenpom?

UCLA had no business being a 3 seed, they were 31-5

Iowa was 36 in kenpom, we were 35... yet it was a 7 vs 10

Nevada was #23 in kenpom and yet a 7 seed

You are an excuse machine with anything that involves Mick Cronin, I was a Cronin guy, I defended him until the end and still will defend him, but the guy had his issues... He always complained about seeding or where they were playing like we were the only team getting screwed literally every single year and then get on the mic after every loss and continue to complain about how they should of been playing someone easier, Yes those losses like Nevada do happen, but to say that Nevada loss was not 100% on Mick would be crazy, Mick lost his composure and the players followed. Its unfortunate that we didn't do much in the tourney in 9 years because Mick is a great coach and I don't think he gets anywhere near as much credit as he should and I wish him the best at UCLA but I am all in with JB.

 

[waterhead]

All coaches make mistakes, pretty sure we blew a nice lead vs Colgate, & Bowling Green.

It happens.

I do feel uc was shafted a lot with playing teams who were under seeded.

When we played Kansas state (won) they were a lot higher in kenpom then other 11 seeds. They were 30, we were 23.. didn’t feel like a 6 vs 11 matchup

Harvard was really good that year and under seeded. What kinda 12 seed Is 32 in kenpom?

UCLA had no business being a 3 seed, they were 31-5

Iowa was 36 in kenpom, we were 35... yet it was a 7 vs 10

Nevada was #23 in kenpom and yet a 7 seed

Once again the real problem here is the seed we go in with. The better the seed the bigger the spread is between you and the team you play. If you go in as a 5+ seed you are going to face some teams that aren't that far off in terms of quality. In general if you want better chances to advance you have to be a top 10 or 15 team. We only did that once in 9 years.

One would hope in 9 years you could squeeze out an Elite 8 or F4 run at least once. But in reality we had only 1 team that had a legit chance to make that happen. And although I disagree slightly with the randomness crowd...if you have 1 chance...randomess has a much better chance of affecting that outcome. If we had 2 or 3 more teams with a protected seed the probability would be we can make something out of at least one of those chances.

It's not easy putting together a top 10 or 15 team in our conference. So we either accept that and live with madness mediocrity or we don't accept that and we attempt to make a change in hopes of finding a better solution. It will be difficult for any coach but not impossible. I am in the camp of trying to get better results even if we risk taking a step back (or two).

We will have to wait and see how it goes.

 

[justinhub2003]

You are an excuse machine with anything that involves Mick Cronin, I was a Cronin guy, I defended him until the end and still will defend him, but the guy had his issues... He always complained about seeding or where they were playing like we were the only team getting screwed literally every single year and then get on the mic after every loss and continue to complain about how they should of been playing someone easier, Yes those losses like Nevada do happen, but to say that Nevada loss was not 100% on Mick would be crazy, Mick lost his composure and the players followed. Its unfortunate that we didn't do much in the tourney in 9 years because Mick is a great coach and I don't think he gets anywhere near as much credit as he should and I wish him the best at UCLA but I am all in with JB.

Dude. I just mentioned the issue with seeding. And that if we’re 6 seed, we’ve generally played the best 11 seed In the field and it’s usually a long way from home.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t have won more of those games, but I’m just calling it out using the same metric I’ve been waiting for years.


For example: uc was a 6 seed, entered the tourney as a 22 in kenpom. We played the 11 seed Kansas state, who was 28th heading in that game.

We Xavier, they were an 11 seed that year. They came in with a kenpom of 39. And they played a 6 seeded Maryland who came into that game as a 46 in kenpom.

Xavier was able to be an 11 and play 6 seed who they were 6 spots better. They won by 11

They sent played florida state, who was 26 in kenpom as a 3 seed. We played UCLA, a 3 seed.

That’s just one year too.

 

[justinhub2003]

Once again the real problem here is the seed we go in with. The better the seed the bigger the spread is between you and the team you play. If you go in as a 5+ seed you are going to face some teams that aren't that far off in terms of quality. In general if you want better chances to advance you have to be a top 10 or 15 team. We only did that once in 9 years.

One would hope in 9 years you could squeeze out an Elite 8 or F4 run at least once. But in reality we had only 1 team that had a legit chance to make that happen. And although I disagree slightly with the randomness crowd...if you have 1 chance...randomess has a much better chance of affecting that outcome. If we had 2 or 3 more teams with a protected seed the probability would be we can make something out of at least one of those chances.

It's not easy putting together a top 10 or 15 team in our conference. So we either accept that and live with madness mediocrity or we don't accept that and we attempt to make a change in hopes of finding a better solution. It will be difficult for any coach but not impossible. I am in the camp of trying to get better results even if we risk taking a step back (or two).

We will have to wait and see how it goes.

Just an FYI... in the last 10 year. 5 teams out of 40 made the final four from a non power league. One was UConn who made it with big East players.

That’s a 12.5% chance to make the final foul from our league in a 10 year sample size.

Final fours are hard. I don’t have expect one from CJB. Because it’s silly.