Why do the games slip away?

[swg]

Ever see a team get games flipped on them like UC?
Check out UC's leads that eventually turned to losses this season
13 vs West Virginia, lost by 6
12 vs Seton Hall, lost by 7
11 vs Louisville, lost by 8
10 vs Gonzaga, lost by 2
7 vs Pitt, lost by 3
6 vs Syracuse, lost by 17
6 vs Marquette, lost in OT
5 vs Xavier in OT, lost by 4
3 vs St John's with :19, lost by 2


Lance at www.homer247.com

 

[TheLivingLegend]

Good teams find ways to finish games... we are not a good team.

With that being said, im satisfied with how we have played the last two games. UC needs to keep building on this and for pete sake someone needs to be chewing out Yancy every foot step he makes.

 

[swg]

As far as Yancy goes, he does seem to make great effort to go down court offensively, but not the same effort to get back on D. Either the Strength and Conditioning needs to change, substitution patterns, or a kick in the behind.

 

[TheLivingLegend]

As far as Yancy goes, he does seem to make great effort to go down court offensively, but not the same effort to get back on D. Either the Strength and Conditioning needs to change, substitution patterns, or a kick in the behind.

Kid just needs a kick in the ass. Every 5 minutes... I would watch a less talented, undersized Hicks all day long over him.

Back to the topic.. Thats quite a long list, what could have been...

 

[swg]

The last four were the worst. Syracuse was just embarrassing. St Johns was a game virtually won. UC could have beaten X, same w/ Marquette.

Opportunities lost. UC wins 3 of these 9 games, still in the hunt for the tourney.

 

[bearcat jeff]

They are not well coached and they have no floor leader. A well coached team does not go on a 9 minute scoring drought. If you have a floor leader he gets to the line and scores. If you are well coached you attack the basket. If you are well coached you understand the role you play on the team. If you are well coached you aren't 6'9" and still committing fouls 20 feet from the basket, every single game, after 2 full seasons. If you are well coached you don't come down the court trailing by 4 with 4 minutes left in a close game and fire a 3 point shot 10 seconds into the shot clock when you are the only 4 year player on the team and the supposed team leader. If you are well coached you don't get absolutely annihilated on the boards in the second half of a must win. If you are well coached you don't have an absolutely horrific road record in league play over the past 4 years. You don't lose this many close games because you understand how to win them. As I stated on another thread, this team's problem is that it is a very poorly coached and prepared team that has no identity or sense of who it is or even who will play from game to game. If you are well coached you aren't searching for combinations with 3 games left. Did I say all this doesn't happen if you are well coached?

 

[ralph1950]

A

They are not well coached and they have no floor leader. A well coached team does not go on a 9 minute scoring drought. If you have a floor leader he gets to the line and scores. If you are well coached you attack the basket. If you are well coached you understand the role you play on the team. If you are well coached you aren't 6'9" and still committing fouls 20 feet from the basket, every single game, after 2 full seasons. If you are well coached you don't come down the court trailing by 4 with 4 minutes left in a close game and fire a 3 point shot 10 seconds into the shot clock when you are the only 4 year player on the team and the supposed team leader. If you are well coached you don't get absolutely annihilated on the boards in the second half of a must win. If you are well coached you don't have an absolutely horrific road record in league play over the past 4 years. You don't lose this many close games because you understand how to win them. As I stated on another thread, this team's problem is that it is a very poorly coached and prepared team that has no identity or sense of who it is or even who will play from game to game. If you are well coached you aren't searching for combinations with 3 games left. Did I say all this doesn't happen if you are well coached?

Mick showed he is a good Coach at Murray State
He had to start from scratch at UC. The team is 16-12 another winning season. Why would anyone say the coach of a winning team is not coaching them well.

 

[lumberjack]

They are not well coached and they have no floor leader. A well coached team does not go on a 9 minute scoring drought. If you have a floor leader he gets to the line and scores. If you are well coached you attack the basket. If you are well coached you understand the role you play on the team. If you are well coached you aren't 6'9" and still committing fouls 20 feet from the basket, every single game, after 2 full seasons. If you are well coached you don't come down the court trailing by 4 with 4 minutes left in a close game and fire a 3 point shot 10 seconds into the shot clock when you are the only 4 year player on the team and the supposed team leader. If you are well coached you don't get absolutely annihilated on the boards in the second half of a must win. If you are well coached you don't have an absolutely horrific road record in league play over the past 4 years. You don't lose this many close games because you understand how to win them. As I stated on another thread, this team's problem is that it is a very poorly coached and prepared team that has no identity or sense of who it is or even who will play from game to game. If you are well coached you aren't searching for combinations with 3 games left. Did I say all this doesn't happen if you are well coached?

correct-- what you said. PS. Don't tell this to Ralph1950. He is watching some other bearcat team from some other era. He probably is against dodge ball!

 

[swg]

Mick sure isn't getting help from the players. Nobody has stepped up and consistently led for a whole game. UC goes through spurts, then droughts, then spurts.......then the game slips away.

 

[Thegreatone]

We lack leadership. I also think we lack the ability to be lead.

 

[ready2go]

A Mick showed he is a good Coach at Murray State
He had to start from scratch at UC. The team is 16-12 another winning season. Why would anyone say the coach of a winning team is not coaching them well.

Murray State hasnt missed a beat without him. They are 27-4 right now.

And the OVC is not the Big East. 3 years in the OVC cannot prepare anyone for the Big East. Especially going 17-11 in the 2nd year at that school. Everyone argument for Mick here is that we have not had a chance to see all his recruits go through the system. Then why is hiring a guy who coached for 3 years in a weaker conference a good choice when his overall work had not been completely seen?

 

[Kingsley Court]

With that being said, im satisfied with how we have played the last two games. UC needs to keep building on this and for pete sake someone needs to be chewing out Yancy every foot step he makes.

Who's Pete?

 

[BearcatAlum1]

Murray State hasnt missed a beat without him. They are 27-4 right now.

And the OVC is not the Big East. 3 years in the OVC cannot prepare anyone for the Big East. Especially going 17-11 in the 2nd year at that school. Everyone argument for Mick here is that we have not had a chance to see all his recruits go through the system. Then why is hiring a guy who coached for 3 years in a weaker conference a good choice when his overall work had not been completely seen?

You raise very valid arguments.

I'm not going to sit here in defend the hiring of Mick. At the time, I thought he was one of the more promising candidates that seriously considered the job. Murray State has been a springboard to other big school jobs, but I agree with your uncertainty.

I think Mick gets next year. For the sake of the program and our future, I hope we make the NCAA Tournament and sign a solid recruiting class. We don't need the #1 recruiting class, but we need to have a solid foundation for the future.

 

[swg]

Mick was certainly the best guy we could have gotten back then. Who else would have opted for careeer suicide, as even popular Mick is catching heat in his fourth year, while everyone figured 5 years minimum. The Chinese might be patient, but this ain't Beijing.
I do think that most criticism has been pretty fair, however.

 

[bearcat jeff]

I didn't say Mick was a bad coach. I said this team isn't well coached. Personally I thought Mick needed to make some asst. coach changes last year. These players aren't developing and that is largely due to the position coaches. That said it ultimately rests on the HC to get them where they should be.

The players aren't helping their coach. They have a terrible basketball iq. why do other teams shoot more ft's? Because they are more agressive and go to the hoop more and don't settle for jump shots. Yancy Gates 20 minutes without a reb in the WVU game? C'mon!!! Soft is all you can say. With his size he should get one by accident. He does not post strong close to the basket and constantly receieves the ball 5-8 feet off the block and tries to make a move and tries to help guard the perimeter. This puts him out of rebounding position.

I think Mick will get another season and I'll support him and the program. I just don't think he deserves one. Over half the scholarship players on this team are jrs. and seniors. It should be further along. If not in terms of wins, certainly in terms of performance.

 

[ralph1950]

Murray State hasnt missed a beat without him. They are 27-4 right now.

And the OVC is not the Big East. 3 years in the OVC cannot prepare anyone for the Big East. Especially going 17-11 in the 2nd year at that school. Everyone argument for Mick here is that we have not had a chance to see all his recruits go through the system. Then why is hiring a guy who coached for 3 years in a weaker conference a good choice when his overall work had not been completely seen?

You hire the guy who is the best fit for the job. Not one "name" coach would take the job in April 2006. Kennedy did not want the job. Prosser did not want the job and besides his buyout at Wake was about $10 million. Mick had the reputation of being a tireless worker and great recruiter and he had a plan to bring UC back in 6 years that he presented to Mike Thomas at the interview. Mick's Murray State team had just taken North Carolina to the wire in the NCAA Tourney. Mick also offered stability that no other candidate could, he is a Cincinnati guy, a UC grad, his family lives in Cincinnati, UC is his "dream job". He was not the guy who would leave for another job once the team was rebuilt. He was not the guy for whom UC was going to be his stepping stone to a "better Job".

 

[ralph1950]

Who's Pete?

Pete Rose, he bets on the Bearcats.

 

[BearcatAlum1]

I didn't say Mick was a bad coach. I said this team isn't well coached. Personally I thought Mick needed to make some asst. coach changes last year. These players aren't developing and that is largely due to the position coaches. That said it ultimately rests on the HC to get them where they should be.

The players aren't helping their coach. They have a terrible basketball iq. why do other teams shoot more ft's? Because they are more agressive and go to the hoop more and don't settle for jump shots. Yancy Gates 20 minutes without a reb in the WVU game? C'mon!!! Soft is all you can say. With his size he should get one by accident. He does not post strong close to the basket and constantly receieves the ball 5-8 feet off the block and tries to make a move and tries to help guard the perimeter. This puts him out of rebounding position.

I think Mick will get another season and I'll support him and the program. I just don't think he deserves one. Over half the scholarship players on this team are jrs. and seniors. It should be further along. If not in terms of wins, certainly in terms of performance.

I agree more than disagree with this last paragraph.

I do not necessarily like how the team is coached. I think we play too many players (although, I was happy with the rotation against WVU, save the foul trouble). I also think we lack organization on the offensive end, most of the time.

I do not necessarily believe that Mick is the guy. However, I think he gets next year. I don't know if "deserve" is the quite the word I would use, but I think a fifth year is "expected."

Next year is put up or shut up, no doubt.

PG Cash
SG Lance
SF Bishop
PF Gates
PF Ibra

That's a very solid starting five and should definately push us into the field of 64 (I refuse to use the field of 65). You could always take Bishop, move Lance to the SF position and insert Dixon/Davis/Kilpatrick.

 

[Thegreatone]

I agree more than disagree with this last paragraph.

I do not necessarily like how the team is coached. I think we play too many players (although, I was happy with the rotation against WVU, save the foul trouble). I also think we lack organization on the offensive end, most of the time.

I do not necessarily believe that Mick is the guy. However, I think he gets next year. I don't know if "deserve" is the quite the word I would use, but I think a fifth year is "expected."

Next year is put up or shut up, no doubt.

PG Cash
SG Lance
SF Bishop
PF Gates
PF Ibra

That's a very solid starting five and should definately push us into the field of 64 (I refuse to use the field of 65). You could always take Bishop, move Lance to the SF position and insert Dixon/Davis/Kilpatrick.

I would really like that lineup.

We will be better no doubt but Im not ready to give up this year.

 

[ohioubearcat]

I agree more than disagree with this last paragraph.

I do not necessarily like how the team is coached. I think we play too many players (although, I was happy with the rotation against WVU, save the foul trouble). I also think we lack organization on the offensive end, most of the time.

I do not necessarily believe that Mick is the guy. However, I think he gets next year. I don't know if "deserve" is the quite the word I would use, but I think a fifth year is "expected."

Next year is put up or shut up, no doubt.

PG Cash
SG Lance
SF Bishop
PF Gates
PF Ibra

That's a very solid starting five and should definately push us into the field of 64 (I refuse to use the field of 65). You could always take Bishop, move Lance to the SF position and insert Dixon/Davis/Kilpatrick.

1.) I completely agree it is either put up or shut up. Unfortunately I don't think the university will be in a position to make a change if they need to. The athletic department is deeply in red numbers in an attempt to lure BK to stay. That gamble didn't pay off and unfortunately our football program will continue to bleed the athletic department.

2.) IMO in order for us to be a tournament team one of the above needs to take a big step next season. We need one of them to be a consistent contributor 80% of the games. This season we have the starting 5 talent to make the tourney but we lack depth. I think that may be a problem next year as well. In order to be a consistent team you need depth. Mick touched on our lack of depth in his post game comments after the WVU game. The foul trouble "forced his hand" to put lineups he did not want out there in the 2nd half.