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

(11-08-2018 12:38 PM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  This might worthy of its own thread, but I feel like we have enough already - so I'll throw it here.

I love how high expectations are for this program. We should strive to be a top 25 team every year, and Cronin would agree.

Given the ROI we're getting from Mick, though, he isn't going anywhere anytime soon. He's the 38th highest paid head coach in college basketball. We don't have the resources to spend like a top 25 program, and Mick gets us damn close every year. Everyone hates hearing the money excuse, but welcome to life in the AAC (paging Rag).

UC can ditch Mick and try the up-and-comer route - but to do so, you can't miss. Therein lies the rub. Go with the steady hand and get the results you're getting, or try to strike lightning in a bottle every 3-4 years. My current preference is to keep Cronin, given his recent history. But I wouldn't march out front of 5/3 with a sign if they decided his time was up.

You can miss. Case & point....just head over to Nippert.

It's interesting how vastly different the approaches have been for UC hoops vs. UC football. The latter has gone about things in the approach that many seem to fear. They've gone after hot shot, up & comers, who typically do well enough to earn another gig. You don't get that gig unless you've performed above expectations. MD, BK, CBJ...train wreck latter day Tubs....and right back at it with CLF. This approach has borne more pub than anything Mick has done with the hoops team. We've become a school with football recognition...within an inch of a national championship game opportunity, multiple conference championships, sent some stars to the next level, etc. We swung and missed and have paid a high price over 2 4-8 seasons (and arguably the season prior to Tubs last season was painful as well). Nevertheless, we remained attractive enough to snag someone like CLF. And this is for a football program that doesn't have a whiff of the historical clout of our hoops program.

Meanwhile, the approach with the hoops team has been one of stability. Low risk, and subsequently low rewards. We've racked up some wins (which btw the football team has done as well) except we've rarely had anything to get excited about in the post season. At this point, we all know what we're going to get with Mick. I gotta think there's someone out there that can do more with the resources we have





mc

I'm not optimistic about this season, but i predicted we would take our lumps early for certain given our lack of experience. You couple that with a high profile opener in an arena they are not used to, and it obviously ended up a disappointment. However, i'd give them a couple months to settle in and see what they have. The one thing for certain is they are going to get battle tested whether they are ready or not, so there is hope that some guys will snap out of it, and get better which is what should happen. To early to throw in the towel.

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:18 PM)chatcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:49 PM)doss2 Wrote:  We will have no problem filing the place this year as it is pre sold. We're the Suites and Club seats which are the people that really pay for a facility required to signup for 3 years like the Nippert Stadium. If no three year requirement watch out next year as folks will be jumping ship if Mickey is still coach.

1. Brooks is useless
2. Scott is useless
3. Jennifer is useless
4. Broome is useless
5. Moore is useless
6. Williams is useless

Nice recruiting Mick.

I don't think any of those guys are useless. All are situational players that you can win with. Hell, Williams seems like a guy who could end up being a really good player. The problem is they need at least a few of these guys to be more than situational players that help you a ton if put in the right spots.

Yup. But people on here were ready to crucify Mick after the Nevada loss and will now take any reason they can to hate on Mick. All these guys are good situational players and quite a few of them have starter potential. But expecting them to be polished starters in their first game (especially a big game against a quality opponent) is extremely unrealistic. Especially when Cumberland was on the bench.

If we play like this in two months when conference play starts I will agree we have a problem. But I fully expect to see a much better team by that time.

(11-08-2018 12:49 PM)doss2 Wrote:  We will have no problem filing the place this year as it is pre sold. We're the Suites and Club seats which are the people that really pay for a facility required to signup for 3 years like the Nippert Stadium. If no three year requirement watch out next year as folks will be jumping ship if Mickey is still coach.

I'm sure you've got your lawyers working on an out for your club lease just like at Nippert a few years ago.

dossbig does not have MBB tix so he's not on the hook. I imagine he is eager to re-up his FB Club license now.

Mick would be subject to a lot less criticism from diehard fans if he didn't act like such a prick in postgame interviews. He possesses the uncanny ability to say the exact wrong thing at the exact wrong time i.e. "if OSU had scored 27 in the second half we would have won by two". I mean honestly, does he have a shred of common sense when it comes to cultivating a fan base?

(11-07-2018 08:52 PM)crex043 Wrote:  He should get this year. This team could be turned around and compete for NCAA. I'm not going to write these guys off after one game.

As for comparisons to SK's senior year, Cumberland is no SK. He doesn't have the consistency at this point.

I was guilty the other night of making comments about this team. After watching the replay i THOUGHT, wow, if 5 BASKETS that uc MISSED that were normally made had gone in, we'd have been happy with the ending. I'm going to try to be patient and realize it takes time to replace Clark, Washington and Evans.
Hopefully, Mick will concentrate for next year's recruiting class to add more basketball talent on the offensive end.

(11-08-2018 05:58 PM)skyblade Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:18 PM)chatcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:49 PM)doss2 Wrote:  We will have no problem filing the place this year as it is pre sold. We're the Suites and Club seats which are the people that really pay for a facility required to signup for 3 years like the Nippert Stadium. If no three year requirement watch out next year as folks will be jumping ship if Mickey is still coach.

1. Brooks is useless
2. Scott is useless
3. Jennifer is useless
4. Broome is useless
5. Moore is useless
6. Williams is useless

Nice recruiting Mick.

I don't think any of those guys are useless. All are situational players that you can win with. Hell, Williams seems like a guy who could end up being a really good player. The problem is they need at least a few of these guys to be more than situational players that help you a ton if put in the right spots.

Yup. But people on here were ready to crucify Mick after the Nevada loss and will now take any reason they can to hate on Mick. All these guys are good situational players and quite a few of them have starter potential. But expecting them to be polished starters in their first game (especially a big game against a quality opponent) is extremely unrealistic. Especially when Cumberland was on the bench.



If we play like this in two months when conference play starts I will agree we have a problem. But I fully expect to see a much better team by that time.

everybody that knows basketball knows if we had beaten Nevada that they next game would have been our last. That team was a great passing team that worked for easy baskets. OUR guys heads would have been spinning.

(11-08-2018 05:58 PM)skyblade Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:18 PM)chatcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:49 PM)doss2 Wrote:  We will have no problem filing the place this year as it is pre sold. We're the Suites and Club seats which are the people that really pay for a facility required to signup for 3 years like the Nippert Stadium. If no three year requirement watch out next year as folks will be jumping ship if Mickey is still coach.

1. Brooks is useless
2. Scott is useless
3. Jennifer is useless
4. Broome is useless
5. Moore is useless
6. Williams is useless

Nice recruiting Mick.

I don't think any of those guys are useless. All are situational players that you can win with. Hell, Williams seems like a guy who could end up being a really good player. The problem is they need at least a few of these guys to be more than situational players that help you a ton if put in the right spots.

Yup. But people on here were ready to crucify Mick after the Nevada loss and will now take any reason they can to hate on Mick. All these guys are good situational players and quite a few of them have starter potential. But expecting them to be polished starters in their first game (especially a big game against a quality opponent) is extremely unrealistic. Especially when Cumberland was on the bench.

If we play like this in two months when conference play starts I will agree we have a problem. But I fully expect to see a much better team by that time.

so our sophomores and juniors and seniors need more time than Ohio states freshmen and sophomores?

(11-08-2018 05:58 PM)skyblade Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:18 PM)chatcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:49 PM)doss2 Wrote:  We will have no problem filing the place this year as it is pre sold. We're the Suites and Club seats which are the people that really pay for a facility required to signup for 3 years like the Nippert Stadium. If no three year requirement watch out next year as folks will be jumping ship if Mickey is still coach.

1. Brooks is useless
2. Scott is useless
3. Jennifer is useless
4. Broome is useless
5. Moore is useless
6. Williams is useless

Nice recruiting Mick.

I don't think any of those guys are useless. All are situational players that you can win with. Hell, Williams seems like a guy who could end up being a really good player. The problem is they need at least a few of these guys to be more than situational players that help you a ton if put in the right spots.

Yup. But people on here were ready to crucify Mick after the Nevada loss and will now take any reason they can to hate on Mick. All these guys are good situational players and quite a few of them have starter potential. But expecting them to be polished starters in their first game (especially a big game against a quality opponent) is extremely unrealistic. Especially when Cumberland was on the bench.

If we play like this in two months when conference play starts I will agree we have a problem. But I fully expect to see a much better team by that time.

Nancy--don't you have other things to do? Let us deal with your coach our own way.

This goof can't coach/recruit offense and is in over his head in the tournament.

I think back to mid 90's UC teams...

there isn't ONE person on this team that would have made those Huggins teams with the exception of Cumberland.


Scott??? LOL
Brooks?? LULZ
Jenifer??? haha

and so forth...

(11-09-2018 05:11 AM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 08:52 PM)crex043 Wrote:  He should get this year. This team could be turned around and compete for NCAA. I'm not going to write these guys off after one game.

As for comparisons to SK's senior year, Cumberland is no SK. He doesn't have the consistency at this point.

I was guilty the other night of making comments about this team. After watching the replay i THOUGHT, wow, if 5 BASKETS that uc MISSED that were normally made had gone in, we'd have been happy with the ending. I'm going to try to be patient and realize it takes time to replace Clark, Washington and Evans.
Hopefully, Mick will concentrate for next year's recruiting class to add more basketball talent on the offensive end.

You do realize you could have written that quote after the last 10 seasons,the highest they have ever been in 3 pt % is 130th in the country!!! Its not changing and Mick single handily is responsible for this.I would welcome a change!!!

For once Paul Daughtery has an excellent column where he facetiously takes Cronin to task about lack of offense and his idiotic defensive comments.

(11-09-2018 07:30 AM)coachpipe Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:58 PM)skyblade Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:18 PM)chatcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:49 PM)doss2 Wrote:  We will have no problem filing the place this year as it is pre sold. We're the Suites and Club seats which are the people that really pay for a facility required to signup for 3 years like the Nippert Stadium. If no three year requirement watch out next year as folks will be jumping ship if Mickey is still coach.

1. Brooks is useless
2. Scott is useless
3. Jennifer is useless
4. Broome is useless
5. Moore is useless
6. Williams is useless

Nice recruiting Mick.

I don't think any of those guys are useless. All are situational players that you can win with. Hell, Williams seems like a guy who could end up being a really good player. The problem is they need at least a few of these guys to be more than situational players that help you a ton if put in the right spots.

Yup. But people on here were ready to crucify Mick after the Nevada loss and will now take any reason they can to hate on Mick. All these guys are good situational players and quite a few of them have starter potential. But expecting them to be polished starters in their first game (especially a big game against a quality opponent) is extremely unrealistic. Especially when Cumberland was on the bench.

If we play like this in two months when conference play starts I will agree we have a problem. But I fully expect to see a much better team by that time.

so our sophomores and juniors and seniors need more time than Ohio states freshmen and sophomores?

They played 2 freshman, 2 seniors, a junior that is their best player and 2 sophomores. So experience was pretty similar. We played 10 different players to their 8 as Mick is trying to find the right mix. Plus there was no pressure on O$U. We are opening a new arena with lots of hype, etc.

We crapped the bed. Shot terrible. Missed a lot of bunnies. Still have guys trying to find a role and learning chemistry. I still figure given time, this team will be fine and be a tourney team. Just need to figure out how all the pieces fit together and who works best with who, etc.

Heck the call on Cumberland one minute in that should have been an offensive foul on Wesson changed the game. Wesson could have been the guy on the bench 3 minutes in (Since he got another foul a couple minutes later), instead we lose Cumberland (Though I agree Mick should have put him back in when we couldn't score). We out-rebounded, assisted, fewer turnovers. They are supposed to be a bad 3 point shooting team and they shot 40% and made probably 4 step back 3s often well defended. We shot 27% from the field. We shoot 31%, we win the game.

(11-09-2018 09:21 AM)BigDawg Wrote:  

(11-09-2018 07:30 AM)coachpipe Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:58 PM)skyblade Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:18 PM)chatcat Wrote:  1. Brooks is useless
2. Scott is useless
3. Jennifer is useless
4. Broome is useless
5. Moore is useless
6. Williams is useless

Nice recruiting Mick.

I don't think any of those guys are useless. All are situational players that you can win with. Hell, Williams seems like a guy who could end up being a really good player. The problem is they need at least a few of these guys to be more than situational players that help you a ton if put in the right spots.

Yup. But people on here were ready to crucify Mick after the Nevada loss and will now take any reason they can to hate on Mick. All these guys are good situational players and quite a few of them have starter potential. But expecting them to be polished starters in their first game (especially a big game against a quality opponent) is extremely unrealistic. Especially when Cumberland was on the bench.

If we play like this in two months when conference play starts I will agree we have a problem. But I fully expect to see a much better team by that time.

so our sophomores and juniors and seniors need more time than Ohio states freshmen and sophomores?

They played 2 freshman, 2 seniors, a junior that is their best player and 2 sophomores. So experience was pretty similar. We played 10 different players to their 8 as Mick is trying to find the right mix. Plus there was no pressure on O$U. We are opening a new arena with lots of hype, etc.

We crapped the bed. Shot terrible. Missed a lot of bunnies. Still have guys trying to find a role and learning chemistry. I still figure given time, this team will be fine and be a tourney team. Just need to figure out how all the pieces fit together and who works best with who, etc.

Heck the call on Cumberland one minute in that should have been an offensive foul on Wesson changed the game. Wesson could have been the guy on the bench 3 minutes in (Since he got another foul a couple minutes later), instead we lose Cumberland (Though I agree Mick should have put him back in when we couldn't score). We out-rebounded, assisted, fewer turnovers. They are supposed to be a bad 3 point shooting team and they shot 40% and made probably 4 step back 3s often well defended. We shot 27% from the field. We shoot 31%, we win the game.

Pretty sure OSU's coach wasn't benching Wesson for some irrational fear of fouls.

No shock that Cumberland finished the game with 2 fouls.

(11-09-2018 08:25 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 05:58 PM)skyblade Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 03:18 PM)chatcat Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:49 PM)doss2 Wrote:  We will have no problem filing the place this year as it is pre sold. We're the Suites and Club seats which are the people that really pay for a facility required to signup for 3 years like the Nippert Stadium. If no three year requirement watch out next year as folks will be jumping ship if Mickey is still coach.

1. Brooks is useless
2. Scott is useless
3. Jennifer is useless
4. Broome is useless
5. Moore is useless
6. Williams is useless

Nice recruiting Mick.

I don't think any of those guys are useless. All are situational players that you can win with. Hell, Williams seems like a guy who could end up being a really good player. The problem is they need at least a few of these guys to be more than situational players that help you a ton if put in the right spots.

Yup. But people on here were ready to crucify Mick after the Nevada loss and will now take any reason they can to hate on Mick. All these guys are good situational players and quite a few of them have starter potential. But expecting them to be polished starters in their first game (especially a big game against a quality opponent) is extremely unrealistic. Especially when Cumberland was on the bench.

If we play like this in two months when conference play starts I will agree we have a problem. But I fully expect to see a much better team by that time.

Nancy--don't you have other things to do? Let us deal with your coach our own way.

Complain if you want, but when I need to check 2/3rds of the post to see if Bearcats#1 posted them and the majority of the time it isn't him, the board gets pretty hard to read.

The are valid points, such as Mick sitting Cumberland for an entire half.

But there are way to many post in some form of: Mick sucks at coaching offense and all our team is useless. There was at least one guy saying even Cumberland is useless.

Pardon me if I think that we should actually wait to see these guys play for a month or two before we conclude the team is trash. We are a team with a bunch of new pieces in search of a new identity. Of course the early season is going to be rough - especially when Cumberland doesn't score a point in the first half. We will probably see a few games where they get it all together and look very good, but it is going to take time. I'm not going to judge a team by one loss in the NCAA tournament and I'm also not going to judge them by one loss in their first game. If we've still got a problem mid-season then we have a problem. But I'm not going to call for the head of a coach with back-to-back 30 win seasons because he lost his first game with a team that lost 3 starters from the previous year.

Our players will grow and develop and it will be fun to watch, though it will be a bumpy ride at times.

(11-08-2018 04:24 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:38 PM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  This might worthy of its own thread, but I feel like we have enough already - so I'll throw it here.

I love how high expectations are for this program. We should strive to be a top 25 team every year, and Cronin would agree.

Given the ROI we're getting from Mick, though, he isn't going anywhere anytime soon. He's the 38th highest paid head coach in college basketball. We don't have the resources to spend like a top 25 program, and Mick gets us damn close every year. Everyone hates hearing the money excuse, but welcome to life in the AAC (paging Rag).

UC can ditch Mick and try the up-and-comer route - but to do so, you can't miss. Therein lies the rub. Go with the steady hand and get the results you're getting, or try to strike lightning in a bottle every 3-4 years. My current preference is to keep Cronin, given his recent history. But I wouldn't march out front of 5/3 with a sign if they decided his time was up.

You can miss. Case & point....just head over to Nippert.

It's interesting how vastly different the approaches have been for UC hoops vs. UC football. The latter has gone about things in the approach that many seem to fear. They've gone after hot shot, up & comers, who typically do well enough to earn another gig. You don't get that gig unless you've performed above expectations. MD, BK, CBJ...train wreck latter day Tubs....and right back at it with CLF. This approach has borne more pub than anything Mick has done with the hoops team. We've become a school with football recognition...within an inch of a national championship game opportunity, multiple conference championships, sent some stars to the next level, etc. We swung and missed and have paid a high price over 2 4-8 seasons (and arguably the season prior to Tubs last season was painful as well). Nevertheless, we remained attractive enough to snag someone like CLF. And this is for a football program that doesn't have a whiff of the historical clout of our hoops program.

Meanwhile, the approach with the hoops team has been one of stability. Low risk, and subsequently low rewards. We've racked up some wins (which btw the football team has done as well) except we've rarely had anything to get excited about in the post season. At this point, we all know what we're going to get with Mick. I gotta think there's someone out there that can do more with the resources we have


mc

Very thoughtful post; thank you. Three things I'll mention in relation:
1. I don't have a problem with getting rid of Mick in favor for an up-and-comer. It's risky, but I'm a degenerate gambler.

2. I don't see the ceiling of the bball program any higher than what Mick is already capable of doing: annual tourney births and the shot at a decent run every 3-4 years. We don't have the resources/support/etc. to do better IMO.

3. The one difference between football and basketball that I think is somewhat important is the size of the fanbases. There are significantly more people willing to consume UC football in-person every year compared to basketball. I don't know what exact impact this has on donations or overall revenue (I can guess), but football appears more capable of weathering a storm (i.e. bad coaching hire) than basketball, somewhat due to the sheer amount of support they receive coupled with how popular the sport is nationwide right now.

(11-09-2018 05:11 AM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(11-07-2018 08:52 PM)crex043 Wrote:  He should get this year. This team could be turned around and compete for NCAA. I'm not going to write these guys off after one game.

As for comparisons to SK's senior year, Cumberland is no SK. He doesn't have the consistency at this point.

I was guilty the other night of making comments about this team. After watching the replay i THOUGHT, wow, if 5 BASKETS that uc MISSED that were normally made had gone in, we'd have been happy with the ending. I'm going to try to be patient and realize it takes time to replace Clark, Washington and Evans.
Hopefully, Mick will concentrate for next year's recruiting class to add more basketball talent on the offensive end.

Bolded, while I absolutely agree with this statement I also think it's a two edged sword. We should expect most games with quality opponents to be close scores. So we could add Wednesday night's loss to a long and growing list of close defeats: Butler and Iowa State @ Cincinnati and NCAA Tournament matchups against Nevada and St. Joseph's come to mind, where a basket or two would have turned the tide.

But if we look critically at UC's shot selection during the first ten minutes (and really throughout the game) it was the real reason we now lament poor shooting results.

Further, some have argued it was a two possession game close to the end. That's true. But OSU isn't expected to be a great team this year. Run a more disciplined offense from the tipoff and UC is up a dozen with a couple of minutes to go. 14% shooting sucks the life out of the crowd but also gets in the players' heads.

(11-09-2018 09:24 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 04:24 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  

(11-08-2018 12:38 PM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  This might worthy of its own thread, but I feel like we have enough already - so I'll throw it here.

I love how high expectations are for this program. We should strive to be a top 25 team every year, and Cronin would agree.

Given the ROI we're getting from Mick, though, he isn't going anywhere anytime soon. He's the 38th highest paid head coach in college basketball. We don't have the resources to spend like a top 25 program, and Mick gets us damn close every year. Everyone hates hearing the money excuse, but welcome to life in the AAC (paging Rag).

UC can ditch Mick and try the up-and-comer route - but to do so, you can't miss. Therein lies the rub. Go with the steady hand and get the results you're getting, or try to strike lightning in a bottle every 3-4 years. My current preference is to keep Cronin, given his recent history. But I wouldn't march out front of 5/3 with a sign if they decided his time was up.

You can miss. Case & point....just head over to Nippert.

It's interesting how vastly different the approaches have been for UC hoops vs. UC football. The latter has gone about things in the approach that many seem to fear. They've gone after hot shot, up & comers, who typically do well enough to earn another gig. You don't get that gig unless you've performed above expectations. MD, BK, CBJ...train wreck latter day Tubs....and right back at it with CLF. This approach has borne more pub than anything Mick has done with the hoops team. We've become a school with football recognition...within an inch of a national championship game opportunity, multiple conference championships, sent some stars to the next level, etc. We swung and missed and have paid a high price over 2 4-8 seasons (and arguably the season prior to Tubs last season was painful as well). Nevertheless, we remained attractive enough to snag someone like CLF. And this is for a football program that doesn't have a whiff of the historical clout of our hoops program.

Meanwhile, the approach with the hoops team has been one of stability. Low risk, and subsequently low rewards. We've racked up some wins (which btw the football team has done as well) except we've rarely had anything to get excited about in the post season. At this point, we all know what we're going to get with Mick. I gotta think there's someone out there that can do more with the resources we have


mc

Very thoughtful post; thank you. Three things I'll mention in relation:
1. I don't have a problem with getting rid of Mick in favor for an up-and-comer. It's risky, but I'm a degenerate gambler.

2. I don't see the ceiling of the bball program any higher than what Mick is already capable of doing: annual tourney births and the shot at a decent run every 3-4 years. We don't have the resources/support/etc. to do better IMO.

3. The one difference between football and basketball that I think is somewhat important is the size of the fanbases. There are significantly more people willing to consume UC football in-person every year compared to basketball. I don't know what exact impact this has on donations or overall revenue (I can guess), but football appears more capable of weathering a storm (i.e. bad coaching hire) than basketball, somewhat due to the sheer amount of support they receive coupled with how popular the sport is nationwide right now.

1. Agreed.

2. I can recall back in 2003 when Richard Skinner said the same thing on 700 WLW when UC firing Rick Minter. He said UC would not be able to hire a better coach and go any further with the program. We then hired Dantonio, Kelly, Jones, whiffed on Tubs, and now Coach Fickell.

3. You really can't compare the attendance of one game as there are only six home football games vs. 18 home basketball games. Arguably the attendance is about the same in total when you consider we averaged shy of 30K last year for six games (roughly 180,000) and we averaged around 9500 for 18 home basketball games (roughly 180,000). Just anecdotal, I think our fan base as a whole might be more passionate about hoops than football. Its not as lopsided as it once was, but it is still there to some extent. There's probably a lot more people willing to watch UC Basketball that follow another CFB program. Therefore, arguably your entire point might actually be off.