(03-20-2017 06:20 AM)CincyBearcatFan86 Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 11:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  At some point you have to beat somebody, no matter the draw. We have not. Period.

This is my biggest issue. Duke got beat by a team that has similar talent as we do.

Duke is not as good as UCLA either. Duke was over rated, as was most of the ACC.

(03-19-2017 11:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  At some point you have to beat somebody, no matter the draw. We have not. Period.

other than the 2012 team, agree

UCLA was a lot better than a 3 seed, I think we all agree.
UC was better than a six seed, we agree.

But Mick said it doesn't matter, after the first round, you have to beat people. DUke, UofL, and a bunch of other better seeds figured this out these past two days. Heck UNC almost lost to a very average Arkansas team. Yesterday Arkansas, Wichita St, and Rhode Island all had a legit shoot to win and all three folded in the last two or three minutes. Point is, once you get out of the first round its WW3.

For the most part UC has not been able to win games like last night. And this goes back to Huggy bear days too. Only difference is, in Huggs day we were a 1 or 2 seed a lot and still lost in the freakin second round. Mick does the same thing with 6, 7, and 8 seed range teams. Either way, we just don't make deep tourney runs.

UC has been 1 and done more times than I can count since 1994. I won't go back and look it up but I'd be interested to see how many times we have been 1 and done plus lost in the first round since 1994. Bet is would shock most here.

What is expectation on the incoming recruits? Williams sounds like a good player, but can he shoot? The other two guys seem like typical Mick guys, but probably won't contribute til they are jr/sr

(03-19-2017 11:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  At some point you have to beat somebody, no matter the draw. We have not. Period.

This. +1000

UC did exactly what was expected after the committee screw job. Beat a decent K-State team convincingly and then had nowhere near the roster to compete for 40 minutes in what was effectively a home game for a UCLA roster that looks more like a NBA team than it does an AAC team.

I know what people hoped for. What did they honestly expect? Did they even watch UCLA this year? That second half is exactly what they have done all year even against better teams than UC.

It's one of the best shooting and passing teams I've ever seen.

I really enjoyed this team. I hate that they didn't go further but it was a good season they just ran into a better team I'm excited about next year I think troy will be missed but with that said Jacob keeps getting better and the three freshman this year all showed lots of promise

UC was 22 kenpom when the tournament started and they were 22 in the committee rankings when the tournament started (they were 20 in Sagarin). There were teams that got screwed by the committee (Wisconsin, Wichita State being the most glaring), but UC really wasn't one of them. This wasn't about disrespect for the AAC either. The AAC's problem was it's teams didn't have the wins over tournament teams the committee looks for in seeding. I think the way they looked is flawed but honestly even if they used better metrics UC was a 5 or 6 seed. UC fans seem to always want to blame someone else. It is what it is. Need to do more to get ourselves as a top 4 protected seed.... Getting Memphis, Temple, UConn back to relevance will help (though we'll have to still win most those games), setting up your buy game schedule like Xavier would help (Zero buy games against sub 200 RPI team), scheduling and winning a couple games against good mid major teams could help.... they need get more good wins if they want a higher seed. It's not just about racking up guady win totals and never has been. Wichita State was top 7 in kenpom at the start of the tournament (8 now) and earned a 10 seed despite it's guady record. UC wasn't screwed, they were probably one of the more properly placed teams in the entire tournament once you get past the first few seed lines.

(03-20-2017 06:30 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 06:20 AM)CincyBearcatFan86 Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 11:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  At some point you have to beat somebody, no matter the draw. We have not. Period.

This is my biggest issue. Duke got beat by a team that has similar talent as we do.

Duke is not as good as UCLA either. Duke was over rated, as was most of the ACC.

South Carolina played in their home state, we played a 10 o'clock game on the west coast.

16-17 was a good year. The story of the year is the dramatic offensive improvement. If this continues were going to break through sometimes. The NCAA tournament is such a crapshoot I wouldn't ever judge an individual season on how the tournament goes. I would look back at the last 5 years to see if your team is improving and playing well in March consistently. For us the answer is currently no but I'm optimistic for the future. We've consistently had offenses ranked around 100 and were able to improve that to top 40. If we continue to field these kinds of teams instead of the offensively challenged teams of recent past well have our fair share of runs. The roster suggests our offense should continue to improve.

UCLA was great on offense. Everyone knew UC would have to score to beat them, but they are bad for a top flight type team on defense and UC had it's chances. It was too sloppy with the basketball in the first half or it could have had a nice lead. In the second half Evans missed a couple wide open threes, KJ missed a big wide open 3 when it was needed, and Washington didn't finish the kind of shots he needed to win a game like that. Ultimately I thought UC did fine defensively against UCLA...they made a run because they are great on that end, but failed to capitalize on their chances against a not great defense.

I still think it's criminal that UCLA only had 2 fouls the entire half the way UC attacked the basket all game, but we didn't do enough to make it a real legit gripe that cost us the game.

(03-20-2017 07:15 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 06:30 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  

(03-20-2017 06:20 AM)CincyBearcatFan86 Wrote:  

(03-19-2017 11:49 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  At some point you have to beat somebody, no matter the draw. We have not. Period.

This is my biggest issue. Duke got beat by a team that has similar talent as we do.

Duke is not as good as UCLA either. Duke was over rated, as was most of the ACC.

South Carolina played in their home state, we played a 10 o'clock game on the west coast.

16-17 was a good year. The story of the year is the dramatic offensive improvement. If this continues were going to break through sometimes. The NCAA tournament is such a crapshoot I wouldn't ever judge an individual season on how the tournament goes. I would look back at the last 5 years to see if your team is improving and playing well in March consistently. For us the answer is currently no but I'm optimistic for the future. We've consistently had offenses ranked around 100 and were able to improve that to top 40. If we continue to field these kinds of teams instead of the offensively challenged teams of recent past well have our fair share of runs. The roster suggests our offense should continue to improve.

On this note... the offense was good enough to be a top 15 type team this year if our defense consistently played at the level I'd hoped it could. My goal for this team at the beginning of the year was top 5 adj defense and top 30 adjusted offense. Other teams are still playing so it could change some but they are going to finish at 15 adj defense and 33 adj offense. That's a huge improvement as you noted on offense, but the defense wasn't quite the elite level I hoped it could be.

(03-20-2017 06:55 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  I know what people hoped for. What did they honestly expect? Did they even watch UCLA this year? That second half is exactly what they have done all year even against better teams than UC.

Hey Mo, who you arguing with?

(03-20-2017 07:11 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  UC was 22 kenpom when the tournament started and they were 22 in the committee rankings when the tournament started (they were 20 in Sagarin). There were teams that got screwed by the committee (Wisconsin, Wichita State being the most glaring), but UC really wasn't one of them. This wasn't about disrespect for the AAC either. The AAC's problem was it's teams didn't have the wins over tournament teams the committee looks for in seeding. I think the way they looked is flawed but honestly even if they used better metrics UC was a 5 or 6 seed. UC fans seem to always want to blame someone else. It is what it is. Need to do more to get ourselves as a top 4 protected seed.... Getting Memphis, Temple, UConn back to relevance will help (though we'll have to still win most those games), setting up your buy game schedule like Xavier would help (Zero buy games against sub 200 RPI team), scheduling and winning a couple games against good mid major teams could help.... they need get more good wins if they want a higher seed. It's not just about racking up guady win totals and never has been. Wichita State was top 7 in kenpom at the start of the tournament (8 now) and earned a 10 seed despite it's guady record. UC wasn't screwed, they were probably one of the more properly placed teams in the entire tournament once you get past the first few seed lines.

(03-20-2017 07:16 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  UCLA was great on offense. Everyone knew UC would have to score to beat them, but they are bad for a top flight type team on defense and UC had it's chances. It was too sloppy with the basketball in the first half or it could have had a nice lead. In the second half Evans missed a couple wide open threes, KJ missed a big wide open 3 when it was needed, and Washington didn't finish the kind of shots he needed to win a game like that. Ultimately I thought UC did fine defensively against UCLA...they made a run because they are great on that end, but failed to capitalize on their chances against a not great defense.

I still think it's criminal that UCLA only had 2 fouls the entire half the way UC attacked the basket all game, but we didn't do enough to make it a real legit gripe that cost us the game.

Great stuff as always Mark. What's really disappointing is that these are two points that have been pounded just about into submission on this board for years. UC basketball MUST schedule better teams. No more excuses. And UC basketball lacks that NBA talent capable of taking over a game. We have all seen flashes from Evans but he, like Clark, seems to have a very passive personality instead of that killer instinct. I'd say Cumberland seems to have but I also would have said that about Evans at the end of last year and Caupain at the end of his first couple years which really worries me. It's all the more frustrating when I see Mick's near misses dominate in tournament action. Guys like Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Jarred Terrell etc. I can't decide if it is merely a product of bad luck recruiting or if Mick is landing guys on the same level but just not developing that killer instinct that so many great teams seem to have. I am very worried that it is the latter rather than the former just because I have seen with my own two eyes guys start out very aggressive when they get here and slowly but surely become more and more passive as they progress in their Bearcat careers. Even with the increase in talent, which I would say is undeniable, the moment just always seems too big for the Bearcats.

I will say clark may not take over with scoring often enough but he was exceptional across the board again last night.

Don't expect much improvement on the scheduling front. Might actually be a step backwards next year but not for lack of attempts at bigger games.

UC finished 12 in the RPI with an OOC SOS of 31. Not sure scheduling was an issue.

Not sure if this has been brought up BUT can we lose the match up zone for next year,will have plenty of talent to line up with just about everyone man to man.Tired of seeing wide open 3's and guys pointing to him saying thats your man!

If scheduling is going to get better it's going to have to come from improvement in conference teams. Mick's been quite vocal in his frustrations of not being able to sign home and homes with good teams. I suspect that we don't have anything replacing the Iowa State and Butler series we've had the last couple years. Thanks again Michigan...

We need to adjust expectations. We are a good Mid Major Team. We have went about as fare as we can go being in the America and with coach Mick. Would any of us have been shocked to have lost to KSU? I doubt it. Disappointed yes, shocked no.

Look at the recruits for next year. All are 3 Stars. The only wiff of McDonalds they ever got was at the checkout saying "Make that a value meal." No Flight White, no Damon Flint, no Satterfield, no Born Ready, etc.

Great observations throughout this thread. UCLA certainly has the talent at every position to go all the way. I guess for UC's sake, I'd like to see that happen after watching the Bruins take the Bearcats apart in the second half. I felt all season that anything short of some combination of the following three achievements would be a disappointment this year: winning the AAC regular season title, winning the AAC tournament title or advancing to the Sweet Sixteen. Of course none of those were accomplished.

With that said, I was pretty proud of this team on and off the court: big wins against ISU and X, top 25 ranking most all year, noteworthy home court winning streak and they avoided the dreaded first game elimination with that impressive performance against K-State. I refuse to complain about seeding because that's become a tired storyline around here. But did any team with UC's record/rankings/ratings have to face a team as talented as UCLA in the second game? I think not.

Finally, what about next year? I've tried to live in the moment this season and not point to the next campaign. So much can happen in one offseason. Broome is the real deal by all accounts. But I can't help but wonder about his size being a liability against much taller guards like we saw last night. At one point, I thought Cronin was trying to build a team more like Syracuse with tall guards who could stifle an opponent's offense on the parameter and post up against their defenders inside. I'm guessing Evans could play some point next year against taller defenses but I have no idea about the talent and ability of the incoming class. Is there someone as good as Cumberland in that group? If not, I don't see how the team takes another step forward. And it's going to take more than one "ready now" recruit per class to advance in today's world of high major hoops.

Whether Mick wants to admit it or not, people are going to compare results with Chris Mack. I have no use for X but I can't deny that Mack's fourth Sweet Sixteen in eight seasons is commendable. Especially with a team that was on life support most of February. In March they narrowly avoided the play-in game; took an #11 seed and proceeded to beat a #6 from the B10 and a #3 from the ACC. If there year ends this week (and it might not) they've accomplished a lot with a very short bench. (I hope IU makes Mack an offer he can't refuse.) But that's the type of performance UC should expect. And if I'm typing these same comments one year from now just when should we reasonably expect to return to the Sweet Sixteen? ... or better?

Keith Williams is playing in the Iverson Roundball Classic with recruits from a lot of big time schools.

(03-20-2017 07:56 AM)mikecat Wrote:  Not sure if this has been brought up BUT can we lose the match up zone for next year,will have plenty of talent to line up with just about everyone man to man.Tired of seeing wide open 3's and guys pointing to him saying thats your man!

Kyle Washington may be the worst defender that Mick has ever given serious minutes to.

While I'm on the subject, he may as well donate his right arm to someone who can use it.