The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

I do think Under Armour is still gaining ground on Adidas as far as AAU and college sponsorships go but definitely trailing very far behind Nike. At an NBA level, Under Armour is much further behind. Outside of Steph Curry, they really don't have any major star player sponsorships.

At the end of the day, despite our less than ideal apparel and conference situation, we should definitely be recruiting at a higher level. Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines. There is a reason Mick's staff is the second most tenured in CBB and it's because the phones aren't ringing from other schools which doesn't surprise me in the least. Mick is too loyal (probably too a fault) to part ways with anyone either so it looks like we'll be stuck with this group for awhile.

(04-18-2018 10:46 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines.

Agreed. Without question this is our biggest issue. They have absolutely nobody that is able to move the needle in recruiting. It's not a good recruiting staff. Been that way since Stubblefield left.

(04-19-2018 06:34 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 10:46 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines.

Agreed. Without question this is our biggest issue. They have absolutely nobody that is able to move the needle in recruiting. It's not a good recruiting staff. Been that way since Stubblefield left.

Yep. Mick is too stubborn to switch things up. Look at all their backgrounds, not a single coach on this staff (including Mick) has played D1 basketball. And none have had any high level college basketball or NBA coaching experience, other than Savino at Rutgers and Mick at UL.

I know we aren't going to out recruit schools that cheat like UK, but we should be able to compete than Xavier, Butler, Purdue, Rhode Island, Wichita St., Memphis, UCONN, on the recruiting trail.

(04-19-2018 06:52 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:34 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 10:46 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines.

Agreed. Without question this is our biggest issue. They have absolutely nobody that is able to move the needle in recruiting. It's not a good recruiting staff. Been that way since Stubblefield left.

Yep. Mick is too stubborn to switch things up. Look at all their backgrounds, not a single coach on this staff (including Mick) has played D1 basketball. And none have had any high level college basketball or NBA coaching experience, other than Savino at Rutgers and Mick at UL.

I know we aren't going to out recruit schools that cheat like UK, but we should be able to compete than Xavier, Butler, Purdue, Rhode Island, Wichita St., Memphis, UCONN, on the recruiting trail.

Maybe UC is doing a better job recruiting than we think. You don't go to 8 NCAA tournaments with garbage talent. With the FBI investigation, I am not sure you want to be involved with top level guys anymore. This is still a lot of room for improvement with recruiting but I don't it is nearly as bad a people think. I am excited to see Logan Johnson next year and confident the Cats bring in someone this spring as well that can make an impact.

UC also suffers from their own success because there isn't a lot of playing time available to offer each year. The roster turnover is minimal unlike a lot of programs that burn through players and coaches a really high rate.

Long term, I value stability in the coaching staff. If the program starts missing the tournament then it will time for a change.

(04-19-2018 07:08 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:52 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:34 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 10:46 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines.

Agreed. Without question this is our biggest issue. They have absolutely nobody that is able to move the needle in recruiting. It's not a good recruiting staff. Been that way since Stubblefield left.

Yep. Mick is too stubborn to switch things up. Look at all their backgrounds, not a single coach on this staff (including Mick) has played D1 basketball. And none have had any high level college basketball or NBA coaching experience, other than Savino at Rutgers and Mick at UL.

I know we aren't going to out recruit schools that cheat like UK, but we should be able to compete than Xavier, Butler, Purdue, Rhode Island, Wichita St., Memphis, UCONN, on the recruiting trail.

Maybe UC is doing a better job recruiting than we think. You don't go to 8 NCAA tournaments with garbage talent. With the FBI investigation, I am not sure you want to be involved with top level guys anymore. This is still a lot of room for improvement with recruiting but I don't it is nearly as bad a people think. I am excited to see Logan Johnson next year and confident the Cats bring in someone this spring as well that can make an impact.

UC also suffers from their own success because there isn't a lot of playing time available to offer each year. The roster turnover is minimal unlike a lot of programs that burn through players and coaches a really high rate.

Long term, I value stability in the coaching staff. If the program starts missing the tournament then it will time for a change.

Stability in a coaching staff is beneficial if those assistants are consistently bringing in upper tier talent or are great x's and o's guys. I don't think UC's assistants are high level at either. I think Mick has put together a group of coaches that are loyal to him, don't question him, and are good enough to win at a reasonable level so he's taking the comfortable approach (never changing) instead of the riskier approach (changing assistants).

I personally would like to see a change. Its obvious UC's staff isn't going to bring in the talent needed and there's nothing else that sets UC apart from other similar teams. So they need a new salesman. I'm even in favor of playing the recruiting games like most other teams do .... hire a top level kids dad or aau coach to land him.

Also, I'd like to see Mick hire someone to bring in new offensive philosophies. If UC isn't going to beat teams with talent then they need to be better at the x's and o's.

(04-19-2018 07:42 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:08 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:52 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:34 AM)Marcus Wrote:  [quote='UCbball21' pid='15256792' dateline='1524109566']
Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines.

Agreed. Without question this is our biggest issue. They have absolutely nobody that is able to move the needle in recruiting. It's not a good recruiting staff. Been that way since Stubblefield left.

Yep. Mick is too stubborn to switch things up. Look at all their backgrounds, not a single coach on this staff (including Mick) has played D1 basketball. And none have had any high level college basketball or NBA coaching experience, other than Savino at Rutgers and Mick at UL.

I know we aren't going to out recruit schools that cheat like UK, but we should be able to compete than Xavier, Butler, Purdue, Rhode Island, Wichita St., Memphis, UCONN, on the recruiting trail.

Also, I'd like to see Mick hire someone to bring in new offensive philosophies. If UC isn't going to beat teams with talent then they need to be better at the x's and o's.

Exactly. That is what Huggins has done. He doesn't have an overly good recruiting staff, but he has some very good X's and O's guys now, especially Everhart. UC currently has guys who were viewed as "recruiters" who aren't very good at recruiting. Really nobody who is good at X's and O's. They need someone that knows how to run an offense.

(04-19-2018 07:42 AM)nachoman91 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:08 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:52 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:34 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 10:46 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines.

Agreed. Without question this is our biggest issue. They have absolutely nobody that is able to move the needle in recruiting. It's not a good recruiting staff. Been that way since Stubblefield left.

Yep. Mick is too stubborn to switch things up. Look at all their backgrounds, not a single coach on this staff (including Mick) has played D1 basketball. And none have had any high level college basketball or NBA coaching experience, other than Savino at Rutgers and Mick at UL.

I know we aren't going to out recruit schools that cheat like UK, but we should be able to compete than Xavier, Butler, Purdue, Rhode Island, Wichita St., Memphis, UCONN, on the recruiting trail.

Maybe UC is doing a better job recruiting than we think. You don't go to 8 NCAA tournaments with garbage talent. With the FBI investigation, I am not sure you want to be involved with top level guys anymore. This is still a lot of room for improvement with recruiting but I don't it is nearly as bad a people think. I am excited to see Logan Johnson next year and confident the Cats bring in someone this spring as well that can make an impact.

UC also suffers from their own success because there isn't a lot of playing time available to offer each year. The roster turnover is minimal unlike a lot of programs that burn through players and coaches a really high rate.

Long term, I value stability in the coaching staff. If the program starts missing the tournament then it will time for a change.

Stability in a coaching staff is beneficial if those assistants are consistently bringing in upper tier talent or are great x's and o's guys. I don't think UC's assistants are high level at either. I think Mick has put together a group of coaches that are loyal to him, don't question him, and are good enough to win at a reasonable level so he's taking the comfortable approach (never changing) instead of the riskier approach (changing assistants).

I personally would like to see a change. Its obvious UC's staff isn't going to bring in the talent needed and there's nothing else that sets UC apart from other similar teams. So they need a new salesman. I'm even in favor of playing the recruiting games like most other teams do .... hire a top level kids dad or aau coach to land him.

Also, I'd like to see Mick hire someone to bring in new offensive philosophies. If UC isn't going to beat teams with talent then they need to be better at the x's and o's.

Does anyone know what Antwan Jackson's role is? My understanding was that he was supposed to be a stud recruiter. I just haven't seen enough evidence to show this.

(04-19-2018 06:52 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 06:34 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 10:46 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Our assistants are still the number one problem. We have no youth, personality, or NBA experience on the side lines.

Agreed. Without question this is our biggest issue. They have absolutely nobody that is able to move the needle in recruiting. It's not a good recruiting staff. Been that way since Stubblefield left.

Yep. Mick is too stubborn to switch things up. Look at all their backgrounds, not a single coach on this staff (including Mick) has played D1 basketball. And none have had any high level college basketball or NBA coaching experience, other than Savino at Rutgers and Mick at UL.

I know we aren't going to out recruit schools that cheat like UK, but we should be able to compete than Xavier, Butler, Purdue, Rhode Island, Wichita St., Memphis, UCONN, on the recruiting trail.

Larry Davis was the guy who found Tim Duncan for Wake Forest. I always thought he was seen as a good recruiter?

(04-19-2018 07:08 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Maybe UC is doing a better job recruiting than we think. You don't go to 8 NCAA tournaments with garbage talent. With the FBI investigation, I am not sure you want to be involved with top level guys anymore. This is still a lot of room for improvement with recruiting but I don't it is nearly as bad a people think. I am excited to see Logan Johnson next year and confident the Cats bring in someone this spring as well that can make an impact.

UC also suffers from their own success because there isn't a lot of playing time available to offer each year. The roster turnover is minimal unlike a lot of programs that burn through players and coaches a really high rate.

Long term, I value stability in the coaching staff. If the program starts missing the tournament then it will time for a change.

You're obviously correct. But fans want the recruiting to improve, so they go over the top in discussing the current state.

(04-19-2018 10:01 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:08 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Maybe UC is doing a better job recruiting than we think. You don't go to 8 NCAA tournaments with garbage talent. With the FBI investigation, I am not sure you want to be involved with top level guys anymore. This is still a lot of room for improvement with recruiting but I don't it is nearly as bad a people think. I am excited to see Logan Johnson next year and confident the Cats bring in someone this spring as well that can make an impact.

UC also suffers from their own success because there isn't a lot of playing time available to offer each year. The roster turnover is minimal unlike a lot of programs that burn through players and coaches a really high rate.

Long term, I value stability in the coaching staff. If the program starts missing the tournament then it will time for a change.

You're obviously correct. But fans want the recruiting to improve, so they go over the top in discussing the current state.

Fans want the team to make a run in March every now and then (to the second weekend at the very least) which requires the ability to consistently beat good teams. In order to do so, you need high-level talent. Fact is, if Cincinnati hadn't underachieved so miserably in the tournament this year none of us would be so outspoken in our dissatisfaction with our coaching staff and their recruiting prowess and/or offensive X's/O's.

Cronin and his staff have only been to one Sweet 16 in 12 years despite making the tournament 8 straight years. Meanwhile Xavier and OSU have made 6 and 3 Sweet 16's respectively in that same time period. Are you satisfied with those results?

(04-19-2018 12:22 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 10:01 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:08 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Maybe UC is doing a better job recruiting than we think. You don't go to 8 NCAA tournaments with garbage talent. With the FBI investigation, I am not sure you want to be involved with top level guys anymore. This is still a lot of room for improvement with recruiting but I don't it is nearly as bad a people think. I am excited to see Logan Johnson next year and confident the Cats bring in someone this spring as well that can make an impact.

UC also suffers from their own success because there isn't a lot of playing time available to offer each year. The roster turnover is minimal unlike a lot of programs that burn through players and coaches a really high rate.

Long term, I value stability in the coaching staff. If the program starts missing the tournament then it will time for a change.

You're obviously correct. But fans want the recruiting to improve, so they go over the top in discussing the current state.

Fans want the team to make a run in March every now and then (to the second weekend at the very least) which requires the ability to consistently beat good teams. In order to do so, you need high-level talent. Fact is, if Cincinnati hadn't underachieved so miserably in the tournament this year none of us would be so outspoken in our dissatisfaction with our coaching staff and their recruiting prowess and/or offensive X's/O's.

Cronin and his staff have only been to one Sweet 16 in 12 years despite making the tournament 8 straight years. Meanwhile Xavier and OSU have made 6 and 3 Sweet 16's respectively in that same time period. Are you satisfied with those results?

Yeah man, I get all that. I've been critical of the recruiting over the years.

It's pretty telling to me that had UC hung on to win the Nevada game, you wouldn't be criticizing the staff's recruiting or coaching abilities.

(04-19-2018 02:14 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 12:22 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 10:01 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 07:08 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Maybe UC is doing a better job recruiting than we think. You don't go to 8 NCAA tournaments with garbage talent. With the FBI investigation, I am not sure you want to be involved with top level guys anymore. This is still a lot of room for improvement with recruiting but I don't it is nearly as bad a people think. I am excited to see Logan Johnson next year and confident the Cats bring in someone this spring as well that can make an impact.

UC also suffers from their own success because there isn't a lot of playing time available to offer each year. The roster turnover is minimal unlike a lot of programs that burn through players and coaches a really high rate.

Long term, I value stability in the coaching staff. If the program starts missing the tournament then it will time for a change.

You're obviously correct. But fans want the recruiting to improve, so they go over the top in discussing the current state.

Fans want the team to make a run in March every now and then (to the second weekend at the very least) which requires the ability to consistently beat good teams. In order to do so, you need high-level talent. Fact is, if Cincinnati hadn't underachieved so miserably in the tournament this year none of us would be so outspoken in our dissatisfaction with our coaching staff and their recruiting prowess and/or offensive X's/O's.

Cronin and his staff have only been to one Sweet 16 in 12 years despite making the tournament 8 straight years. Meanwhile Xavier and OSU have made 6 and 3 Sweet 16's respectively in that same time period. Are you satisfied with those results?

Yeah man, I get all that. I've been critical of the recruiting over the years.

It's pretty telling to me that had UC hung on to win the Nevada game, you wouldn't be criticizing the staff's recruiting or coaching abilities.

My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

(04-19-2018 09:00 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

(04-20-2018 07:44 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 09:00 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:44 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 09:00 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

Judging their recruiting and coaching abilities based on one game is really weird. UC hangs on to win that game and all of a sudden the assistants are solid? Come on.

I don't pretend to know how good each individual assistant coach is at recruiting or teaching or in game coaching. I don't think anyone on here has much insight either. I generally think the staff is pretty good only because I think the team is generally pretty good. You and others think they've hit their ceiling. But it's very odd to me that you'd all of sudden change your opinion about something like an assistant's ability to recruit based on the outcome of a tournament game.

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:44 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 09:00 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

It is.

(04-20-2018 08:23 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:44 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 09:00 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

It is.

No it's not. Especially not after 12 years.

(04-20-2018 08:19 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:44 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 09:00 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

Judging their recruiting and coaching abilities based on one game is really weird. UC hangs on to win that game and all of a sudden the assistants are solid? Come on.

I don't pretend to know how good each individual assistant coach is at recruiting or teaching or in game coaching. I don't think anyone on here has much insight either. I generally think the staff is pretty good only because I think the team is generally pretty good. You and others think they've hit their ceiling. But it's very odd to me that you'd all of sudden change your opinion about something like an assistant's ability to recruit based on the outcome of a tournament game.

Here's the thing... I was watching the game with my family, and we were up like 25 points, and my wife was making fun of me for being so into the game and still nervous about it. Then the game got into the low teens, and she was like relax, they are still up alot. Then when it got within five I think she finally understood my frustrations. I'm sorry, but there is no way in hell Jay Wright, Bill Self, or any real good coach worth his salt loses that game. There is a reason I didn't feel good about a 22 point lead with 11 minutes to go.

(04-20-2018 08:30 AM)Marcus Wrote:  No it's not. Especially not after 12 years.

I'd see your guys' arguments more sympathetically if you at least tried to be fair. The 12 years things is illustrative. Was Cronin supposed to go deep in the tournament his first year here?

In any case, there are benefits to stability, but I tend to think its healthier if a head coach's assistants are moving up in the world.

(04-20-2018 08:30 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:23 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:44 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-19-2018 09:00 PM)UCbball21 Wrote:  My tune would have been about the same if they lost to Loyola in the Sweet 16 as well.

But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

It is.

No it's not. Especially not after 12 years.

No, it is. How many of those years would advancing to the Sweet 16 not have been considered an overachievement? Two? Maybe three?

I'll probably get ripped for saying this (since, you know, you root for your favorite teams to win), but results are largely overrated in sports, especially when it comes to one-off situations. Scott Cross was just basically fired at UTA for his "inability" to win a conference tournament title despite gradually improving the program over 12 years from a Southland also-ran to arguably the most consistently good program in the Sun Belt (and one that attracts good talent). He was 72-33 in the last three years. This firing was rightly seen as ridiculous by almost everyone. It's on a bigger scale, but the situations are pretty similar with the criticism that Cronin and co. receives.

The Nevada game was devastating for dozens of reasons that we all know, we would all agree there. I don't think the coaching staff is perfect by any means, but they are pretty damn good in my estimation. NCAA Tournament success and failure will always be overblown and unfairly criticized and/or praised.