I think Mack is a good coach overall. I don't want to be intellectually dishonest about it. He has done a GREAT job at XU. Is he a little slimy? Sure. Has he recruited some questionable kids? Sure. Has he won? Yup.

I'd take him as a head coach lol. (not saying fire Mick to hire him)

Objectively speaking they are very close. As a UC fan, I'll stick with UC grad Mick. As an XU fan, I'd stick with XU grad Mack. If I was the AD of a school with a big budget looking for a coach, I think it comes down to what type of school I have. If I"m private-ish where basketball is King I'd go with Mack. If I'm state U. where football rules the roost, I'd go Mick.

If I had to pick one or the other generically speaking, right now I'd have to say Mack. Mick had a much harder row to hoe but both have been in place long enough that these are 100% their programs. Given that this is or should be Mick's best team imo and the reality that X has been a little bit better this year I'd have to say Mack at this moment. But that could change as early as later on this season. It's that close.

I am sorry but I do not want Mack to coach UC. Just look at the above for the reason.

Mack comes across as a fun, interesting likeable guy. He's become great a designing stuff to get his guys the ball where he wants them to get it. His set plays work very often. I imagine if he was at UC we'd probably defend him too. He also seems like a guy who doesn't really worry about institutional control or how is players act on the court / in the community. The slap on the wrist he gave Tu (for 14) Halloway and Mark Lyons after their actions throughout the game and after speaks volumes. His continued defense of Macura's constant BS stands out as well. Simply put, Mack is a a really good basketball coach, who I'm sure has no problem looking the other way to get talent he wants. Given Mick's clean track record and level of accomplishment here I'd rather have Mick, but I imagine if we'd already have Mack I'd have a different perspective.

A week and a half ago, Chris Mack started two players who were showing signs of concussion. One had eyesight issues and the other experienced dizziness. That would NEVER fly at UC. It is better to lose a game than to gamble with the health of two young men.

I'm with most others on this. Mack is a better coach. Mick is a better person. If I want to win, I choose Mack. If I care about the perception of the program, I choose Mick. Unfortunately, I don't know where I am at this point because it's been so long since UC basketball has won anything of any significance. Sadly, I'm being swayed into the dark "win at all costs" side.

(01-06-2018 11:18 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  I'm with most others on this. Mack is a better coach. Mick is a better person. If I want to win, I choose Mack. If I care about the perception of the program, I choose Mick. Unfortunately, I don't know where I am at this point because it's been so long since UC basketball has won anything of any significance. Sadly, I'm being swayed into the dark "win at all costs" side.

Does X have a perception nationally as a renegade program? I think it's basically UC fans that think that. The fact of the matter is almost all great coaches have some sort of edge or reason to dislike them.

Mack has been more successful than Mick the past 12 years, no doubt about it. Mick is still young (45), so perhaps he has some room to improve and will be fielding better teams the next 5 years. Or not.

(01-06-2018 11:49 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:18 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  I'm with most others on this. Mack is a better coach. Mick is a better person. If I want to win, I choose Mack. If I care about the perception of the program, I choose Mick. Unfortunately, I don't know where I am at this point because it's been so long since UC basketball has won anything of any significance. Sadly, I'm being swayed into the dark "win at all costs" side.

Does X have a perception nationally as a renegade program? I think it's basically UC fans that think that. The fact of the matter is almost all great coaches have some sort of edge or reason to dislike them.

Mack has been more successful than Mick the past 12 years, no doubt about it. Mick is still young (45), so perhaps he has some room to improve and will be fielding better teams the next 5 years. Or not.

I don't know about nationally, but I live in Indianapolis and all of the Butler fans I know absolutely hate Xavier and consider them a dirty program. This is after only spending a few seasons as conference mates. I would imagine Wisconsin fans share a similar sentiment after what happened this year.

We can put some numbers in. Since Mack became HC in 2010 Xaviers final kenpom rating average has been 38. Since 2010 Uc's final kenpom average has been 35. Mack has missed the tournament twice (2012-2013, and lost the play in game in 2013-2014), Mick didn't make it in the 2010 season. So then it comes to tournament runs. Obviously xavier has had the better run there, but also far easier roads despite being the same average seed at UC in the tournament over those years.

since 2011 when uc started making the tournament again here is the breakdown.

UC average seed 7 xu average seed 7 (goes up to 8 if you count the play in loss, but since they lost the play in, they didn't get in).


UC has made the 2nd round or better 4 times. xavier has made the 2nd round or better 4 times.


in the 2nd round UC played the 10, 24, 1, and 16th ranked kenpom teams. average of 13th best team.

in the 2nd round xu has played 79, 68, 38, 26. average of 53rd best team.



Tournament runs take a lot going right for you. Hell xaviers by far best team in their history busted out in the 2nd round 2 years ago. That team was far better than their team last year that made the elite 8.

Guys, has Mack been THAT much more successful than Mick? I wasn't going to do this but let's compare numbers and then I'll make some points at the end:

Mick - 15 Seasons
319-161 (.665)
8 Seasons Ranked AP Poll
2 Seasons Ranked Final AP Poll
2 Regular Season Conference Championships
2 Conference Tournament Championships
9 NCAA Tournament Appearances (7 Consecutive)
1 S16
0 E8
0 F4

Mack - 9 Seasons
201-92 (.686)
6 Seasons Ranked AP Poll
3 Seasons Ranked Final AP Poll
2 Regular Season Conference Conference Championships
0 Conference Tournament Championships
7 NCAA Tournament Appearances
4 S16
1 E8
0 F4

In fairness, Mick's time at Murray State needs to be included. Why? Because it shows he has been successful at two Division 1 programs. He has a longer history of coaching success that should not be discounted when comparing to Mack.

You can't make excuses but it also needs to be pointed out that Mack followed a successful Chris Miller to take over the reigns of Xavier in 2009. Mick took over the UC job in 2006 and we all know the rebuild job that had to be done in arguably the best basketball conference of ALL TIME. If Mick stepped into a situation like Mack did we can only assume Mick's overall record of success would be even better.

What sticks out is Mack has had better overall success head-to-head and in the NCAA tournament. But as someone posted earlier, Mack has no F4 appearances either.

Have I been critical and frustrated at times with Mick and our style of play? My hand is raised. Heck, I was critical of Huggs and would be of any coach that would be here because that's the nature of loving and rooting for your team. We're head cases at times as sports fans. However, looking at these numbers Mack does not rise head and shoulders above Mick in terms of overall success. I would argue it's pretty close.

So in the final analysis, and I guess I'm old school and a reformed Southern Baptist now, integrity and character are huge factors for me. I go back to Mick's rebuilding job, graduating players, how he handled the brawl, how he has conducted himself (he had a slip against Macura) on and off the court, his love and loyalty to UC - there is just no reason for me to want Mack here for any reason. My opinion only but I stand by it.

Yeah, I'm guessing the 15,000 that root for X will take Mack and the other 2 1/2 million in the metro area that root for UC will take Mick, case closed.

(01-06-2018 11:53 AM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:49 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:18 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  I'm with most others on this. Mack is a better coach. Mick is a better person. If I want to win, I choose Mack. If I care about the perception of the program, I choose Mick. Unfortunately, I don't know where I am at this point because it's been so long since UC basketball has won anything of any significance. Sadly, I'm being swayed into the dark "win at all costs" side.

Does X have a perception nationally as a renegade program? I think it's basically UC fans that think that. The fact of the matter is almost all great coaches have some sort of edge or reason to dislike them.

Mack has been more successful than Mick the past 12 years, no doubt about it. Mick is still young (45), so perhaps he has some room to improve and will be fielding better teams the next 5 years. Or not.

I don't know about nationally, but I live in Indianapolis and all of the Butler fans I know absolutely hate Xavier and consider them a dirty program. This is after only spending a few seasons as conference mates. I would imagine Wisconsin fans share a similar sentiment after what happened this year.

Purdue fans think they are dirty too. Painter has said he will never play XU again unless he has to in the NC2As.

I think *some* UC fans would prefer Mack. Maybe 5%. The rest are either firmly in the Mick camp or treasure the reputation of the university enough to prefer Mick to someone that doesn't seem to be able to control his players or hold them accountable considering we were embarrassed at times under Huggins' tenure.

Personally, I'm behind Mick and think he's moving in the right direction as far as recruiting is concerned. I think he may be a bit too loyal to his assistant coaches, though they do fit the mold of what he's trying to do. But if Mick does leave or can't live up to deservedly increased expectations once the new arena is built and that hand plays out, I think with UC basketball history being what it is and our facilities and commitment to strong athletics we can do much, much better than Mack in a replacement.

(01-06-2018 12:15 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:53 AM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:49 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:18 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  I'm with most others on this. Mack is a better coach. Mick is a better person. If I want to win, I choose Mack. If I care about the perception of the program, I choose Mick. Unfortunately, I don't know where I am at this point because it's been so long since UC basketball has won anything of any significance. Sadly, I'm being swayed into the dark "win at all costs" side.

Does X have a perception nationally as a renegade program? I think it's basically UC fans that think that. The fact of the matter is almost all great coaches have some sort of edge or reason to dislike them.

Mack has been more successful than Mick the past 12 years, no doubt about it. Mick is still young (45), so perhaps he has some room to improve and will be fielding better teams the next 5 years. Or not.

I don't know about nationally, but I live in Indianapolis and all of the Butler fans I know absolutely hate Xavier and consider them a dirty program. This is after only spending a few seasons as conference mates. I would imagine Wisconsin fans share a similar sentiment after what happened this year.

Purdue fans think they are dirty too. Painter has said he will never play XU again unless he has to in the NC2As.

He said that several years back but I am pretty sure the scheduled them again (they played in 2016 and 2017). Meanwhile they have only played us three times ever, and it’s been 30 years since they played us in during the regular season

(01-06-2018 08:31 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 12:15 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:53 AM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:49 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 11:18 AM)Cat-Man Wrote:  I'm with most others on this. Mack is a better coach. Mick is a better person. If I want to win, I choose Mack. If I care about the perception of the program, I choose Mick. Unfortunately, I don't know where I am at this point because it's been so long since UC basketball has won anything of any significance. Sadly, I'm being swayed into the dark "win at all costs" side.

Does X have a perception nationally as a renegade program? I think it's basically UC fans that think that. The fact of the matter is almost all great coaches have some sort of edge or reason to dislike them.

Mack has been more successful than Mick the past 12 years, no doubt about it. Mick is still young (45), so perhaps he has some room to improve and will be fielding better teams the next 5 years. Or not.

I don't know about nationally, but I live in Indianapolis and all of the Butler fans I know absolutely hate Xavier and consider them a dirty program. This is after only spending a few seasons as conference mates. I would imagine Wisconsin fans share a similar sentiment after what happened this year.

Purdue fans think they are dirty too. Painter has said he will never play XU again unless he has to in the NC2As.

He said that several years back but I am pretty sure the scheduled them again (they played in 2016 and 2017). Meanwhile they have only played us three times ever, and it’s been 30 years since they played us in during the regular season

Purdue had a home and away agreement with Xavier playing Purdue in Cincinnati in 2011 and West Lafayette in 2012. To my knowledge they have not played since.

(01-06-2018 05:15 AM)jarr Wrote:  The bottom line is that Mack is rolling out final 4/NT caliber teams nearly every year

Mack's seeds in the tournament:
6
6
10
12
6
2
11

(01-06-2018 09:24 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 05:15 AM)jarr Wrote:  The bottom line is that Mack is rolling out final 4/NT caliber teams nearly every year

Mack's seeds in the tournament:
6
6
10
12
6
2
11

Because mack played a couple 15/14 type seeds in the second round and made a run people think x has been better than they really have been. This is probably his second best team. 2 years ago (2nd round loss) was his best

(01-06-2018 09:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-06-2018 09:24 PM)levydl Wrote:  Mack's seeds in the tournament:
6
6
10
12
6
2
11

Because mack played a couple 15/14 type seeds in the second round and made a run people think x has been better than they really have been. This is probably his second best team. 2 years ago (2nd round loss) was his best

I agree. I would say though I expect they're more of a 4-5 seed than the 2 seed they got a couple years ago. Kenpom has them at 20 and BPI had them at 13 but they only update the next morning. They're massively overrated at 5.

Just doing the math in my head I believe we've been 6, 8, 9, 4, 10, 6, and 6 so we've been a fraction better than them over our 7 year tournament run, especially considering we they missed one of those years and lost a play in game in another.

[Reporter] "Fans of your arch rival Cincinnati feel that you are overrated as a coach and that Xavier has been extremely lucky in the NCAA tournament relative to other teams and the draws and seed lines they receive. What do you say to that?"

"Years ago Mick Cronin was drunk in a bar and was mean to me so he sucks."