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

UC is now recruiting to a premier facility. I think the downtime for the rebuild was a recruinegative. That negative is gone and replaced by a positive.

(01-13-2019 11:31 PM)ZCat Wrote:  Just finished watching the game. Have not read any posts.

Wow- I’ll take the win, but we surely needed every point.

Love how we attack, Get in the bonus and then attack. Free points from the line.
Cumberland so shifty and smart. Besides his late Offensive foul, he made so many smart plays. Including going to the basket backing up turning back around and getting their best player to foul out.

So glad Mick played Cane Early. Even if he was not destined to have back to back good games, you know the Huskies game planned for him. So that may have opened things up for other players. Seems like his defense has really improved. But WTH Kind of a pass did he throw though with 1.4 seconds left in overtime? After that I don’t think I can trust him taking the ball out in late game situations anymore. Holy moly. I know all of our hearts skipped a beat thinking they’re going to jack it up and score on a 50 footer to win the game. I think All UC fans want a five point lead at the end. Because even a 4 point lead is not enough because we could foul three point shooter and go to overtime.

I think someone said it here or maybe om one of the other forums, Justin has way too much air under his shot. Hence I think he missed three of us last for free throws. Big, big 3 though In overtime after missing three or four in a row.

Mick played LoJo, But he really considers this a system program, and upperclassman play more. He even said that on the pregame on the radio. I feel Diarra should be playing before Fredericks and take some of Scott’s minutes. He puts stress on the defense, Blocks shots, is so tall and disruptive. You have to match to talent. The Huskies have talent. I don’t care if he’s raw. Deserved 5 min.

Will take the win! Let’s give it right back to them plus more and win at their place.

You know who has a lot of air under his shot? Steph mf Curry

I have to say I do agree about Diarra. I'm actually a little surprised with how little run he is getting. Even with the upper class men in front of him. But then again I shouldn't be because we all know that Mick prefers to do things the hard way.

Jenifer has a good stroke. You'd much rather have arc on the ball than shoot a flat shot like Scott. You could see on his face when he came out of the huddle for the first ft he was nervous. He's usually pretty relaxed at the line, but he took a big gasp and just shot it. He was nervous. He was 12/14 going into the game and shot pretty close to 80% last year. He's also generally got a soft shot so if he doesn't hit it clean he can rattle it in. He's not really been the man to win or try to win games so this was not in his wheelhouse. He's shooting a heck of a lot better from the perimeter now that he's putting more air under the ball. He's just got to relax. They guy that shoots an interesting shot is Broome. He has almost no rotation on his shot at all. It's like it's fixed in motion. His issue is getting it there. However, that's been discussed.

(01-14-2019 08:59 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 11:31 PM)ZCat Wrote:  Just finished watching the game. Have not read any posts.

Wow- I’ll take the win, but we surely needed every point.

Love how we attack, Get in the bonus and then attack. Free points from the line.
Cumberland so shifty and smart. Besides his late Offensive foul, he made so many smart plays. Including going to the basket backing up turning back around and getting their best player to foul out.

So glad Mick played Cane Early. Even if he was not destined to have back to back good games, you know the Huskies game planned for him. So that may have opened things up for other players. Seems like his defense has really improved. But WTH Kind of a pass did he throw though with 1.4 seconds left in overtime? After that I don’t think I can trust him taking the ball out in late game situations anymore. Holy moly. I know all of our hearts skipped a beat thinking they’re going to jack it up and score on a 50 footer to win the game. I think All UC fans want a five point lead at the end. Because even a 4 point lead is not enough because we could foul three point shooter and go to overtime.

I think someone said it here or maybe om one of the other forums, Justin has way too much air under his shot. Hence I think he missed three of us last for free throws. Big, big 3 though In overtime after missing three or four in a row.

Mick played LoJo, But he really considers this a system program, and upperclassman play more. He even said that on the pregame on the radio. I feel Diarra should be playing before Fredericks and take some of Scott’s minutes. He puts stress on the defense, Blocks shots, is so tall and disruptive. You have to match to talent. The Huskies have talent. I don’t care if he’s raw. Deserved 5 min.

Will take the win! Let’s give it right back to them plus more and win at their place.

You know who has a lot of air under his shot? Steph mf Curry

I have to say I do agree about Diarra. I'm actually a little surprised with how little run he is getting. Even with the upper class men in front of him. But then again I shouldn't be because we all know that Mick prefers to do things the hard way.

Bolded, if Scott's slump continues I expect Diarra will get some minutes Tuesday night. Of course if he makes a mistake and gets jerked out as quickly as Logan Johnson has of late, we won't see much development in competitive game situations.

Logan Johnson flashes such potential but seems more tentative than in the early season--probably afraid to make a mistake. His shot blocking ability is amazing for his size. I think a four guard lineup gets Logan and Trevor a lot more minutes in the rotation. Both should provide more scoring punch than our reserve bigs in a more free flowing offense.

Three point defense is issue #1 right now. A close second is finding some guys not named "Cumberland" who can put the ball in the basket.

(01-14-2019 10:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 08:59 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  

(01-13-2019 11:31 PM)ZCat Wrote:  Just finished watching the game. Have not read any posts.

Wow- I’ll take the win, but we surely needed every point.

Love how we attack, Get in the bonus and then attack. Free points from the line.
Cumberland so shifty and smart. Besides his late Offensive foul, he made so many smart plays. Including going to the basket backing up turning back around and getting their best player to foul out.

So glad Mick played Cane Early. Even if he was not destined to have back to back good games, you know the Huskies game planned for him. So that may have opened things up for other players. Seems like his defense has really improved. But WTH Kind of a pass did he throw though with 1.4 seconds left in overtime? After that I don’t think I can trust him taking the ball out in late game situations anymore. Holy moly. I know all of our hearts skipped a beat thinking they’re going to jack it up and score on a 50 footer to win the game. I think All UC fans want a five point lead at the end. Because even a 4 point lead is not enough because we could foul three point shooter and go to overtime.

I think someone said it here or maybe om one of the other forums, Justin has way too much air under his shot. Hence I think he missed three of us last for free throws. Big, big 3 though In overtime after missing three or four in a row.

Mick played LoJo, But he really considers this a system program, and upperclassman play more. He even said that on the pregame on the radio. I feel Diarra should be playing before Fredericks and take some of Scott’s minutes. He puts stress on the defense, Blocks shots, is so tall and disruptive. You have to match to talent. The Huskies have talent. I don’t care if he’s raw. Deserved 5 min.

Will take the win! Let’s give it right back to them plus more and win at their place.

You know who has a lot of air under his shot? Steph mf Curry

I have to say I do agree about Diarra. I'm actually a little surprised with how little run he is getting. Even with the upper class men in front of him. But then again I shouldn't be because we all know that Mick prefers to do things the hard way.

Bolded, if Scott's slump continues I expect Diarra will get some minutes Tuesday night. Of course if he makes a mistake and gets jerked out as quickly as Logan Johnson has of late, we won't see much development in competitive game situations.

Logan Johnson flashes such potential but seems more tentative than in the early season--probably afraid to make a mistake. His shot blocking ability is amazing for his size. I think a four guard lineup gets Logan and Trevor a lot more minutes in the rotation. Both should provide more scoring punch than our reserve bigs in a more free flowing offense.

Three point defense is issue #1 right now. A close second is finding some guys not named "Cumberland" who can put the ball in the basket.

Diarra is going to have to get some minutes eventually. Nsoseme doesn't show any signs of ever becoming anything other than a high energy back up big. He has to have the worst offensive game I've seen. I don't understand how a guy that is 6'10 and can jump out of the gym can struggle so much putting the ball in the basket. Both him and Brooks have a bad habit of getting right under the rim and then having to jump around it when they are trying to dunk.

(01-14-2019 10:01 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Logan Johnson flashes such potential but seems more tentative than in the early season--probably afraid to make a mistake. His shot blocking ability is amazing for his size. I think a four guard lineup gets Logan and Trevor a lot more minutes in the rotation. Both should provide more scoring punch than our reserve bigs in a more free flowing offense.

Three point defense is issue #1 right now. A close second is finding some guys not named "Cumberland" who can put the ball in the basket.

I think the team has 3 guys that are capable scorers, Cumberland, Williams, and Broome. The problem is Williams and Broome need an open floor. Hard to be a slasher when we put 2 bigs on the block. Williams and Broome both shoot 57% on 2 point shots, that a pretty nice clip for guards.



If you just play a zone and pack into the paint what can we do on offense? If you play man but sag off everybody but cumberland what can we do on offense? if teams make sure cumberland doesn't get any open looks, we don't really have any answers. It's similar to how we played xavier. They have some slashers but no shooters, so we just stayed back and let them fire away from 3.


its pretty hard to be good on offense in todays game if you have 2 post players that don't need to be guarded if they are more than 5 feet from the rim and only 2 players on the roster that shoot over 31% from 3.



edit: obviously this is for the half court. we appear to have players that would be much better served to play at a higher tempo but we just dont do that here.

(01-14-2019 10:09 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Diarra is going to have to get some minutes eventually. Nsoseme doesn't show any signs of ever becoming anything other than a high energy back up big. He has to have the worst offensive game I've seen. I don't understand how a guy that is 6'10 and can jump out of the gym can struggle so much putting the ball in the basket. Both him and Brooks have a bad habit of getting right under the rim and then having to jump around it when they are trying to dunk.

I'm assuming you mean he's bad at scoring when he gets the offensive rebound. He has the highest offensive rebounding percentage on the team/

(01-14-2019 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 10:09 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Diarra is going to have to get some minutes eventually. Nsoseme doesn't show any signs of ever becoming anything other than a high energy back up big. He has to have the worst offensive game I've seen. I don't understand how a guy that is 6'10 and can jump out of the gym can struggle so much putting the ball in the basket. Both him and Brooks have a bad habit of getting right under the rim and then having to jump around it when they are trying to dunk.

I'm assuming you mean he's bad at scoring when he gets the offensive rebound. He has the highest offensive rebounding percentage on the team/

Ya he clearly is tentative and raw with the ball offensively, but if he qualified, he'd grade as one of the best rebounders in the country. As of today, his DReb% would rank 17th and his OReb% would be 91st. Hopefully the savvy around the rim with the ball gradually comes around. Still love his potential.

(01-14-2019 01:10 PM)dave416 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 10:09 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Diarra is going to have to get some minutes eventually. Nsoseme doesn't show any signs of ever becoming anything other than a high energy back up big. He has to have the worst offensive game I've seen. I don't understand how a guy that is 6'10 and can jump out of the gym can struggle so much putting the ball in the basket. Both him and Brooks have a bad habit of getting right under the rim and then having to jump around it when they are trying to dunk.

I'm assuming you mean he's bad at scoring when he gets the offensive rebound. He has the highest offensive rebounding percentage on the team/

Ya he clearly is tentative and raw with the ball offensively, but if he qualified, he'd grade as one of the best rebounders in the country. As of today, his DReb% would rank 17th and his OReb% would be 91st. Hopefully the savvy around the rim with the ball gradually comes around. Still love his potential.

he's shooting 36.8% at the rim this year. Only 2 bigs the past 10 years have shot under 55% at the rim for us, the other was Cheikh Mbodj in 2012 at 41.9%.

(01-14-2019 12:22 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 10:09 AM)skylinecat Wrote:  Diarra is going to have to get some minutes eventually. Nsoseme doesn't show any signs of ever becoming anything other than a high energy back up big. He has to have the worst offensive game I've seen. I don't understand how a guy that is 6'10 and can jump out of the gym can struggle so much putting the ball in the basket. Both him and Brooks have a bad habit of getting right under the rim and then having to jump around it when they are trying to dunk.

I'm assuming you mean he's bad at scoring when he gets the offensive rebound. He has the highest offensive rebounding percentage on the team/

Fair point. I just mean his ability to put the ball into the basket is basically a net 0. He has scored 6 points in 54 minutes of conference play and only 33 points in 228 minutes total. That is fine so long as he is out there with Cumberland, but on the off chance Jarron leaves next season, you can't have a black hole at offense when no one else can score either. By his Senior season, all of our scorers and Scott/Brooks will be gone. Does anyone see Nsoseme being able to our starting big at that point? He is a great hustle player and I think he is instrumental to the team, but I also think that at someone point Diarra will need to surpass him for us to get any scoring out of our bigs.

It is sort of an issue I have with Mick. We knew when we recruited Diarra that he could put the ball in the basket but may have issues defensively. We also knew the opposite was true about Nsoseme. Nsomeme for is averaging 13.4 MPG because of his D and offensive rebounding, whereas Diarra is DNP on 10/17 games. Diarra could put the ball in the basket if given the opportunity. He has no problem playing guys that can't do **** offensively, but won't play guys that might struggle on D even if they could score. See also Cane Broome v. Justin Jenifer.

You are correct in your assessment. But Mick is just doing what Mick has always done. He values defense way more than he values offense. He has said so repeatedly over the years. He has repeatedly said "Offense comes and goes like your high school girlfriend." When UC beat UConn in overtime on Saturday night, when Broome and Justin Jenifer were shooting free throws in an attempt to ice the game, Mick took guys off the foul lane and put them back on defense. Broome and Jennifer missed 4 of 8 free throws and of course we had no chance of rebounding the ball because we had no players in the same zip code. But heck, we were back on defense--just in time to watch some UConn guy come down and hoist up a three and---SPLASH.

(01-14-2019 02:40 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  You are correct in your assessment. But Mick is just doing what Mick has always done. He values defense way more than he values offense. He has said so repeatedly over the years. He has repeatedly said "Offense comes and goes like your high school girlfriend." When UC beat UConn in overtime on Saturday night, when Broome and Justin Jenifer were shooting free throws in an attempt to ice the game, Mick took guys off the foul lane and put them back on defense. Broome and Jennifer missed 4 of 8 free throws and of course we had no chance of rebounding the ball because we had no players in the same zip code. But heck, we were back on defense--just in time to watch some UConn guy come down and hoist up a three and---SPLASH.

Mick also really values offensive rebound, but I commented on this as well. It sometimes makes sense to take guys off the line at the end of games to set your defense and to avoid picking up a cheap foul that sends guys to the line. However, UC had like 3 fouls to give at that point in the game. Not having guys on the foul like to try to rebound misses was just bad strategy. UC was planning to give fouls anyways. All you need to do is set your defense, is give a foul if you don't get the offensive rebound. I was baffled by that coaching play.

(01-14-2019 04:27 AM)converrl Wrote:  Consistent post-season penetration isn't simply luck

A lot of it is, even for the absolute top of the CBB world, which we are not. Even for those who attract absolute studs(No homo), which we aren't going to be doing any time soon...

As for superior coaching, I think you're giving FAR too much credit to coaching. Anthony Davis didn't need John Calipari to do ****. Depending on the players, you could replace the coach with a strawman and get largely the same result.

The elite became elite over decades. Not because they up and decided to be so. No one just decides to be great and *poof* it happens. It's an organic process, not something you can top down plan. How many hires go belly up? How many programs have had to rebuild after a big name flops? Tons. We are not innately special and your confidence isn't built on anything solid. It's basically just "We're great because we think we are!!!" reality is indifference. We've been bad before, we could be bad again. There are times I'd consider axing a coach, Mick isn't doing anything to warrant that.

But like I told the rtaylor, I'm not going to go back and forth on a hypothetical world where we have an elite coach and elite recruiting classes that isn't going to exist in the immediate future.
If we get there, it'll likely be decades from now.

(01-14-2019 03:19 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 04:27 AM)converrl Wrote:  Consistent post-season penetration isn't simply luck

A lot of it is, even for the absolute top of the CBB world, which we are not. Even for those who attract absolute studs(No homo), which we aren't going to be doing any time soon...

As for superior coaching, I think you're giving FAR too much credit to coaching. Anthony Davis didn't need John Calipari to do ****. Depending on the players, you could replace the coach with a strawman and get largely the same result.

The elite became elite over decades. Not because they up and decided to be so. No one just decides to be great and *poof* it happens. It's an organic process, not something you can top down plan. How many hires go belly up? How many programs have had to rebuild after a big name flops? Tons. We are not innately special and your confidence isn't built on anything solid. It's basically just "We're great because we think we are!!!" reality is indifference. We've been bad before, we could be bad again. There are times I'd consider axing a coach, Mick isn't doing anything to warrant that.

But like I told the rtaylor, I'm not going to go back and forth on a hypothetical world where we have an elite coach and elite recruiting classes that isn't going to exist in the immediate future.
If we get there, it'll likely be decades from now.

I have to disagree here. If you are stating that quality college coaching does not matter, then look at the success rate for kids that come straight out of HS to the pros. The vast majority are busts because they didn't develop a basketball IQ and didn't last long in the League.

As far as consistent success being owed more to luck or the quality of the program, that doesn't hold much water either...the top 10 all-time programs show a consistent level of post-season success over decades--this isn't luck...it's the quality of the talent and the quality of the coaching.

If luck were the primary factor, then NO program would pay a coach ANYTHING and just let the players play. You also wouldn't see wins and an increase in the quality of a program follow a coach as he moves from school to school--some perfect examples are Larry Brown, Calipari, Lon Krueger and Roy Williams--there are many more.

If a program wants to improve it's profile it has 2 choices:

1. Shell out coin for a coach with a resume full of credentials
2. ID an "up and comer" and make him a permanent feature of your program

If you sit back and wait for "luck" you'll grow a Rip Van Winkle before you see consistent post-season success.

BTW--it works the same way in FB.

(01-14-2019 08:48 PM)converrl Wrote:  I have to disagree here. If you are stating that quality college coaching does not matter, then look at the success rate for kids that come straight out of HS to the pros. The vast majority are busts because they didn't develop a basketball IQ and didn't last long in the League.

As far as consistent success being owed more to luck or the quality of the program, that doesn't hold much water either...the top 10 all-time programs show a consistent level of post-season success over decades--this isn't luck...it's the quality of the talent and the quality of the coaching.

I'm not saying coaching doesn't matter, I'm saying talent matters more. Far more. This is a sport dominated firstly by genes, not by fundamentals. One who doubts that need only look at the freakish height and athleticism of those who play at a high level.

As for luck, quality of coaching and talent don't exist in a vacuum. Traditions are built over time in particular ways because they work.
It's a lot like natural selection, it weeds out those who cannot stay due to circumstance. Whether you're talking a biological organism or an athletic department, circumstances shape what you can or can't bring in. There's a reason Miami of Ohio isn't Duke, and it's not because they don't know how, it's because they can't be Duke. There's a reason a 5'6 foot tall white guy like myself isn't the starting center for Warriors. There are things you can do to improve your luck, as luck is just probability. Building better facilities, establishing a long tradition, being the only game in town and having a large enough audience to draw interest from the right demographic.

At the end of the day, things have a reason for being or not being and it's not because people wished them to be. You can make the most of what you have but you don't have the same potential as the organization/person/city etc. next to you. No two situations are exactly the same and there is no uniform path to success that is guaranteed to get you what you want. Like idiot politicians who think they can plan for every eventuality and demand more power, you aren't as special as you think you are, and life is too complicated in all it's possibilities/variables for any person or administration to ever control.

If you see such an elite near future that's fine, but I don't.
The campus is fun but not the best. The tradition as of the last couple decades is good, but we don't have the same tradition as a Duke or North Carolina. UCLA can go through coaches like underwear, we make the wrong hire, it won't be so easy to get back up. Keep in mind also, the right hire isn't some finite easily defined thing.

Quote:If luck were the primary factor, then NO program would pay a coach ANYTHING and just let the players play.

I said luck was the primary factor in distinguishing the elite from the rest. Their paths according to time and circumstance weren't their own doing. That was chance. Not that they shouldn't be commended for taking advantage of it.
More over, every roster isn't equal, so that seems a silly argument. Hopefully you aren't as naive as to suggest every player was a blank slate, and ONLY got to where they are through hard work. There's lot's of people who don't have the kind of attributes and inborn ability/talent that the best of the best have and no amount of work will ever bridge that gap.

Quote:You also wouldn't see wins and an increase in the quality of a program follow a coach as he moves from school to school--some perfect examples are Larry Brown, Calipari, Lon Krueger and Roy Williams--there are many more.

I'm not saying you can't step up with regard to coaching staff, just that it's not as easy as plug and play. Larry Brown won jack **** at SMU. Calipari at Memphis compared to Calipari at Kentucky is a joke and the only reason they saw an uptick at Kentucky is because Tubby Smith wasn't nearly as sleazy as the others who'd been there. Lon Kruger is also a terrible example of an elite coach. He was okay at Illinois and even with his one good season at Florida, he left there with a 104-80 record. He doesn't belong in the same conversation. You take away Buddy Heild who got them to a Sweet Sixteen, followed by a final four and what has Kruger done in the rest of his tenure at Oklahoma?

Quote:If a program wants to improve it's profile it has 2 choices:

1. Shell out coin for a coach with a resume full of credentials
2. ID an "up and comer" and make him a permanent feature of your program

If you sit back and wait for "luck" you'll grow a Rip Van Winkle before you see consistent post-season success.

BTW--it works the same way in FB.

Yeah, how'd that high profile Tuberville hire turn out for us?
Like I said, you can up your chances, but chance implies probability, probability implies uncertainty and uncertainty implies luck. You aren't going to magically know the right way. You steer as best you can but you don't rock the boat arbitrarily, that's just dumb. Take a risk when it's necessary, not just because you're pouty you got your meat but not your pudding.

(01-15-2019 09:20 AM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-14-2019 08:48 PM)converrl Wrote:  I have to disagree here. If you are stating that quality college coaching does not matter, then look at the success rate for kids that come straight out of HS to the pros. The vast majority are busts because they didn't develop a basketball IQ and didn't last long in the League.

As far as consistent success being owed more to luck or the quality of the program, that doesn't hold much water either...the top 10 all-time programs show a consistent level of post-season success over decades--this isn't luck...it's the quality of the talent and the quality of the coaching.

I'm not saying coaching doesn't matter, I'm saying talent matters more. Far more. This is a sport dominated firstly by genes, not by fundamentals. One who doubts that need only look at the freakish height and athleticism of those who play at a high level.

As for luck, quality of coaching and talent don't exist in a vacuum. Traditions are built over time in particular ways because they work.
It's a lot like natural selection, it weeds out those who cannot stay due to circumstance. Whether you're talking a biological organism or an athletic department, circumstances shape what you can or can't bring in. There's a reason Miami of Ohio isn't Duke, and it's not because they don't know how, it's because they can't be Duke. There's a reason a 5'6 foot tall white guy like myself isn't the starting center for Warriors. There are things you can do to improve your luck, as luck is just probability. Building better facilities, establishing a long tradition, being the only game in town and having a large enough audience to draw interest from the right demographic.

At the end of the day, things have a reason for being or not being and it's not because people wished them to be. You can make the most of what you have but you don't have the same potential as the organization/person/city etc. next to you. No two situations are exactly the same and there is no uniform path to success that is guaranteed to get you what you want. Like idiot politicians who think they can plan for every eventuality and demand more power, you aren't as special as you think you are, and life is too complicated in all it's possibilities/variables for any person or administration to ever control.

If you see such an elite near future that's fine, but I don't.
The campus is fun but not the best. The tradition as of the last couple decades is good, but we don't have the same tradition as a Duke or North Carolina. UCLA can go through coaches like underwear, we make the wrong hire, it won't be so easy to get back up. Keep in mind also, the right hire isn't some finite easily defined thing.

Quote:If luck were the primary factor, then NO program would pay a coach ANYTHING and just let the players play.

I said luck was the primary factor in distinguishing the elite from the rest. Their paths according to time and circumstance weren't their own doing. That was chance. Not that they shouldn't be commended for taking advantage of it.
More over, every roster isn't equal, so that seems a silly argument. Hopefully you aren't as naive as to suggest every player was a blank slate, and ONLY got to where they are through hard work. There's lot's of people who don't have the kind of attributes and inborn ability/talent that the best of the best have and no amount of work will ever bridge that gap.

Quote:You also wouldn't see wins and an increase in the quality of a program follow a coach as he moves from school to school--some perfect examples are Larry Brown, Calipari, Lon Krueger and Roy Williams--there are many more.

I'm not saying you can't step up with regard to coaching staff, just that it's not as easy as plug and play. Larry Brown won jack **** at SMU. Calipari at Memphis compared to Calipari at Kentucky is a joke and the only reason they saw an uptick at Kentucky is because Tubby Smith wasn't nearly as sleazy as the others who'd been there. Lon Kruger is also a terrible example of an elite coach. He was okay at Illinois and even with his one good season at Florida, he left there with a 104-80 record. He doesn't belong in the same conversation. You take away Buddy Heild who got them to a Sweet Sixteen, followed by a final four and what has Kruger done in the rest of his tenure at Oklahoma?

Quote:If a program wants to improve it's profile it has 2 choices:

1. Shell out coin for a coach with a resume full of credentials
2. ID an "up and comer" and make him a permanent feature of your program

If you sit back and wait for "luck" you'll grow a Rip Van Winkle before you see consistent post-season success.

BTW--it works the same way in FB.

Yeah, how'd that high profile Tuberville hire turn out for us?
Like I said, you can up your chances, but chance implies probability, probability implies uncertainty and uncertainty implies luck. You aren't going to magically know the right way. You steer as best you can but you don't rock the boat arbitrarily, that's just dumb. Take a risk when it's necessary, not just because you're pouty you got your meat but not your pudding.

What then, in your mind would warrant Cronin's ouster? It seems that the bar would be unreasonably high...

30 years without a sweet 16 appearance?

Just curious.

(01-15-2019 01:42 PM)converrl Wrote:  What then, in your mind would warrant Cronin's ouster? It seems that the bar would be unreasonably high...

30 years without a sweet 16 appearance?

Just curious.

At this juncture, with the conference we are in and the reality of college recruiting; missing the tournament/sub 20 win seasons, or a genuine scandal. There's a lot to be said for stability. We've landed better players the past few years and I'm convinced we'll be on the rise in the next couple.

(01-15-2019 02:34 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:42 PM)converrl Wrote:  What then, in your mind would warrant Cronin's ouster? It seems that the bar would be unreasonably high...

30 years without a sweet 16 appearance?

Just curious.

At this juncture, with the conference we are in and the reality of college recruiting; missing the tournament/sub 20 win seasons, or a genuine scandal. There's a lot to be said for stability. We've landed better players the past few years and I'm convinced we'll be on the rise in the next couple.

That is exactly where I am at with Mick. I value stability as well.

(01-15-2019 02:34 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:42 PM)converrl Wrote:  What then, in your mind would warrant Cronin's ouster? It seems that the bar would be unreasonably high...

30 years without a sweet 16 appearance?

Just curious.

At this juncture, with the conference we are in and the reality of college recruiting; missing the tournament/sub 20 win seasons, or a genuine scandal. There's a lot to be said for stability. We've landed better players the past few years and I'm convinced we'll be on the rise in the next couple.

So...you'd keep Cronin forever if he wins more than 20 games/yr and misses the second round of the tourney from here on out?

(01-15-2019 02:54 PM)converrl Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 02:34 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(01-15-2019 01:42 PM)converrl Wrote:  What then, in your mind would warrant Cronin's ouster? It seems that the bar would be unreasonably high...

30 years without a sweet 16 appearance?

Just curious.

At this juncture, with the conference we are in and the reality of college recruiting; missing the tournament/sub 20 win seasons, or a genuine scandal. There's a lot to be said for stability. We've landed better players the past few years and I'm convinced we'll be on the rise in the next couple.

So...you'd keep Cronin forever if he wins more than 20 games/yr and misses the second round of the tourney from here on out?

Given our current situation? I keep him as long as he's competitive, going to the tourney and bringing in recruiting classes I see as viable. If he royally ***** up, then we consider a change. I don't really see the tournament success or failure as being uniquely linked to him, or any other one factor for that matter. If I really believed it was plug-in coach so-and-so and *poof* deep runs in the tournament consistently, I'd be of a different mind. I just don't see that happening here.

Put it to you this way: I could see us making a hire and basically becoming Dayton but with nicer facilities easier than I could see us making a hire and being Kentucky.