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

(02-23-2021 12:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 12:33 PM)levydl Wrote:  Scott was a redshirt. He was rated right about where Hardnett was, for ex.

Keith Williams was not quite as highly rated as Clark and Evans and surely Cumberland, but he was a near 100 guy. It's true that Cronin needed more of those higher-end recruits to have a top 10-20 team. But the rest of the guys were longer-term projects on the same path as Scott and Brooks and Justin Jennifer. Again, had any of those guys transferred out early in their careers, do you think they end up at a top program or at the places where the later guys ended up?

I don't know where they end up. I know they were far more talented than most of the lower recruits mick brought in his last few classes. I know mick didn't bring anyone in like the top recruits he brought from 2013-2015. If you don't see the drastic talent drop-off in recruiting I don't know what else to say.

Recruiting rankings are important but not everything. KW may have had a better recruiting ranking than Troy but Troy was a better player as a 17 year old freshman than KW is as a senior. Sometimes raters get infatuated with an attribute like KW's athleticism and ignore that he didn't have basketball skills. I don't even think he's underachieved. I just think he's limited from a talent standpoint. And I think we all knew from day 1 that he wasn't in that line of key player from Troy, Gary, JE3, and Jarron. Had we gotten back to recruiting those types KW would be an excellent #3 scorer on a good team.

(02-23-2021 01:46 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 12:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-23-2021 12:33 PM)levydl Wrote:  Scott was a redshirt. He was rated right about where Hardnett was, for ex.

Keith Williams was not quite as highly rated as Clark and Evans and surely Cumberland, but he was a near 100 guy. It's true that Cronin needed more of those higher-end recruits to have a top 10-20 team. But the rest of the guys were longer-term projects on the same path as Scott and Brooks and Justin Jennifer. Again, had any of those guys transferred out early in their careers, do you think they end up at a top program or at the places where the later guys ended up?

I don't know where they end up. I know they were far more talented than most of the lower recruits mick brought in his last few classes. I know mick didn't bring anyone in like the top recruits he brought from 2013-2015. If you don't see the drastic talent drop-off in recruiting I don't know what else to say.

Recruiting rankings are important but not everything. KW may have had a better recruiting ranking than Troy but Troy was a better player as a 17 year old freshman than KW is as a senior. Sometimes raters get infatuated with an attribute like KW's athleticism and ignore that he didn't have basketball skills. I don't even think he's underachieved. I just think he's limited from a talent standpoint. And I think we all knew from day 1 that he wasn't in that line of key player from Troy, Gary, JE3, and Jarron. Had we gotten back to recruiting those types KW would be an excellent #3 scorer on a good team.

Absolutely agree with this post.

This may have been covered already, so forgive me if it has.

At least twice, maybe more, in the game Sunday Madsen was guarding his guy on the wing, and was overplaying to the top of the key, forcing the guy towards the baseline with the ball.

The guy blew past madsen and went baseline for an easy layup.

Both times I remember Madsen looking towards his teammate in the paint with a look of "wtf are you doing?" like he was expecting backside help.

Was this an example of madsen overplaying, not being quick enough to stay in front of his guy, and getting burned?

Or is it an example of them purposely having madsen overplay to cut off movement to the top of the key, knowing that he would need backside help when the guy went baseline, and his teammate blowing the help defense?

I'm curious because it made madsen look like he was wearing bricks on his shoes. Is he really that slow, or was he overplaying on purpose because he was supposed to have backside help?

(02-23-2021 03:29 PM)namrag Wrote:  This may have been covered already, so forgive me if it has.

At least twice, maybe more, in the game Sunday Madsen was guarding his guy on the wing, and was overplaying to the top of the key, forcing the guy towards the baseline with the ball.

The guy blew past madsen and went baseline for an easy layup.

Both times I remember Madsen looking towards his teammate in the paint with a look of "wtf are you doing?" like he was expecting backside help.

Was this an example of madsen overplaying, not being quick enough to stay in front of his guy, and getting burned?

Or is it an example of them purposely having madsen overplay to cut off movement to the top of the key, knowing that he would need backside help when the guy went baseline, and his teammate blowing the help defense?

I'm curious because it made madsen look like he was wearing bricks on his shoes. Is he really that slow, or was he overplaying on purpose because he was supposed to have backside help?

I'm no guru and was only half paying attention by the time Madsen started getting serious minutes but I think Tre Scott covered for pretty much the entire team last season with his ability to switch and guard the rim. Vogt is just too slow and Diarra has zero mental game to handle making switches on defense which is why they try to use him at the top of the zone where he doesn't have to think as much. Its getting exposed this season. What confuses me is why bring in a guy like Rap when he obviously wasn't going to add any rim protection whatsoever.

(02-23-2021 03:29 PM)namrag Wrote:  This may have been covered already, so forgive me if it has.

At least twice, maybe more, in the game Sunday Madsen was guarding his guy on the wing, and was overplaying to the top of the key, forcing the guy towards the baseline with the ball.

The guy blew past madsen and went baseline for an easy layup.

Both times I remember Madsen looking towards his teammate in the paint with a look of "wtf are you doing?" like he was expecting backside help.

Was this an example of madsen overplaying, not being quick enough to stay in front of his guy, and getting burned?

Or is it an example of them purposely having madsen overplay to cut off movement to the top of the key, knowing that he would need backside help when the guy went baseline, and his teammate blowing the help defense?

I'm curious because it made madsen look like he was wearing bricks on his shoes. Is he really that slow, or was he overplaying on purpose because he was supposed to have backside help?

Actually they are supposed to force him baseline and the guy down low is to rotate to stop for the trap. Twice Davenport wasn't paying attention and didn't move to rotate baseline for the stop until it was much to late. That's why he was guarding that direction to invite him to go baseline. The younger guys particularly Davenport and Eason have been lost on defense since the get go. Much to learn there. Sunday Eason was on their bigger kid and MAW was picked and ran completely around the guy, but Eason never moved to step out or make any attempt at a switch and the guy goes right in for a layup.

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

LoL Hats off Mark. Way to call your shot.

(03-30-2021 05:55 AM)Z-Fly Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

LoL Hats off Mark. Way to call your shot.

Agreed. It's hard to pick the Final Four given so many one possession wins and losses in March Madness, or as we call it here in Cincinnati, March Sadness. But even watching a pretty average UC squad get taken to the woodshed twice it was clear that Houston was way beyond every other team in the American. I too felt that if the ball bounced right a few times the Cougars could return to the Final Four after a long absence. Congratulations to them--it does nothing but good for the AAC.

Watching again last night, I have to say it's one of the most incredible rebounding teams I've ever seen. And the commentators love teams returning to the Final Four and recalling the glory of past appearances. That's a narrative that reinforces the fact that there is a great basketball tradition for the top programs in the AAC.

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

What I imagine every time you pull up receipts.

(03-30-2021 07:31 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

What I imagine every time you pull up receipts.

Something like that.

Here's the thing, Houston was a final four good whether they made it or not. Uc was final four good in 2018. It's nice when the team actually gets there though. At that point it's inarguable.

(03-30-2021 08:06 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Something like that.

Here's the thing, Houston was a final four good whether they made it or not. Uc was final four good in 2018. It's nice when the team actually gets there though. At that point it's inarguable.

Exactly. Houston could just as easily have lost in the 2nd round to Rutgers. NCAA tournament success is important but there's so much luck involved you need to look at 3-4 year patterns to get a better sample size vs. one year which may be a complete outlier. UCLA for instance has the most ridiculous opponent FT shooting luck vs. Alabama; you can't give Mick credit for that or hold it against Oats.

Houston had a real shot at a final four in 2018. They beat SDSU in round 1 and they had a 2 point lead over Michigan with 3.6 seconds and were shooting free throws. They miss both free throws and Michigan hit a 3 at the buzzer. Michigan went on the the Championship game. After Houston they beat A&M, FSU, and Loyola.

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

A well-deserved victory lap.

(03-30-2021 08:20 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 08:06 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Something like that.

Here's the thing, Houston was a final four good whether they made it or not. Uc was final four good in 2018. It's nice when the team actually gets there though. At that point it's inarguable.

Exactly. Houston could just as easily have lost in the 2nd round to Rutgers. NCAA tournament success is important but there's so much luck involved you need to look at 3-4 year patterns to get a better sample size vs. one year which may be a complete outlier. UCLA for instance has the most ridiculous opponent FT shooting luck vs. Alabama; you can't give Mick credit for that or hold it against Oats.

Hence, the overall unpredictability of the NCAA Tournament. UC had a 2 point, grinding nail biter victory against Texas-El Paso on its way to the 1992 Final Four that another possession, basket, and made free throw for UTEP would have meant yet another early exit for UC.

Sometimes the ball bounces the right direction off the rim, or into the cylinder and tournament history is changed forever. They say, "luck favors the prepared," but I've also watched X or UK win all too often when it seemed nothing more than a lucky bounce. UC has those too, but not often enough.

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

I kept seeing this thread at the top of the board and finally opened it up to see why lol

I admit they are better than I thought they were

(still think they foul on every rebound)

(03-30-2021 04:14 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

I kept seeing this thread at the top of the board and finally opened it up to see why lol

I admit they are better than I thought they were

(still think they foul on every rebound)

I picked them to win it all. I could have chosen for Baylor/Gonzaga but went with a team I could root for.

I’ve been a bit surprised how poorly they’ve shot from the field/free throw line in the tourney. I haven’t checked against regular season stats and maybe they just shot light out against UC, but it feels like they’ve been shooting poorly.

Regardless, Houston is a team that can win it all. The amount of rebounds they get is crazy and they are very well coached with a great mix of talent.

(03-30-2021 04:22 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  

(03-30-2021 04:14 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(03-29-2021 08:53 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:48 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  

(02-21-2021 01:45 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  You guys understand that Houston is final 4 good right

They are a lot better than UC, but not final 4 good

I kept seeing this thread at the top of the board and finally opened it up to see why lol

I admit they are better than I thought they were

(still think they foul on every rebound)

I picked them to win it all. I could have chosen for Baylor/Gonzaga but went with a team I could root for.

I’ve been a bit surprised how poorly they’ve shot from the field/free throw line in the tourney. I haven’t checked against regular season stats and maybe they just shot light out against UC, but it feels like they’ve been shooting poorly.

Regardless, Houston is a team that can win it all. The amount of rebounds they get is crazy and they are very well coached with a great mix of talent.

Outside of the first weekend shooting % seems to be way down for all teams. I think in the tournament everyone is playing 110% the entire time so the legs go quicker. Plus playing two games like that in two days wears them down a bit, especially the way Houston plays.