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

Malik Hall: https://247sports.com/Player/Malik-Hall-94278

Caleb Mills:

(04-20-2018 08:59 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:30 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:23 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 07:44 AM)levydl Wrote:  But had they won those games, then suddenly the recruiting and coaching is OK? That seems like a weird way to judge those types of things, no?

Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

It is.

No it's not. Especially not after 12 years.

No, it is. How many of those years would advancing to the Sweet 16 not have been considered an overachievement? Two? Maybe three?

I'll probably get ripped for saying this (since, you know, you root for your favorite teams to win), but results are largely overrated in sports, especially when it comes to one-off situations. Scott Cross was just basically fired at UTA for his "inability" to win a conference tournament title despite gradually improving the program over 12 years from a Southland also-ran to arguably the most consistently good program in the Sun Belt (and one that attracts good talent). He was 72-33 in the last three years. This firing was rightly seen as ridiculous by almost everyone. It's on a bigger scale, but the situations are pretty similar with the criticism that Cronin and co. receives.

The Nevada game was devastating for dozens of reasons that we all know, we would all agree there. I don't think the coaching staff is perfect by any means, but they are pretty damn good in my estimation. NCAA Tournament success and failure will always be overblown and unfairly criticized and/or praised.

So by your logic, he gets a pass for the previous 11 years because we weren't expected to go further? In other words, we would have been better off being an 8 seed this year and losing in Rnd 2?

I actually do tend to agree that one year's post season results can be a shaky way to judge a program overall, but 12 years overall is a much fairer way to judge. 5 years was a silly amount of time to take to get back in the tournament. Look at Penny Hardaway how quickly he will have Memphis a top 15 team again. Cuonzo Martin turned Mizzou around immediately with their best player injured all year. Sick of the excuses.

(04-20-2018 09:19 AM)jarr Wrote:  I actually do tend to agree that one year's post season results can be a shaky way to judge a program overall, but 12 years overall is a much fairer way to judge. 5 years was a silly amount of time to take to get back in the tournament. Look at Penny Hardaway how quickly he will have Memphis a top 15 team again. Cuonzo Martin turned Mizzou around immediately with their best player injured all year. Sick of the excuses.

LOL, you're now just giving Penny Hardaway at top 15 team?! Cuonzo Martin--you must be joking?

Look, it's perfectly clear that you don't think Cronin is a good enough coach and that you view everything with that lens. It's fine. But there's really no use in arguing with you about it at this point.

(04-20-2018 09:19 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:59 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:30 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:23 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

It is.

No it's not. Especially not after 12 years.

No, it is. How many of those years would advancing to the Sweet 16 not have been considered an overachievement? Two? Maybe three?

I'll probably get ripped for saying this (since, you know, you root for your favorite teams to win), but results are largely overrated in sports, especially when it comes to one-off situations. Scott Cross was just basically fired at UTA for his "inability" to win a conference tournament title despite gradually improving the program over 12 years from a Southland also-ran to arguably the most consistently good program in the Sun Belt (and one that attracts good talent). He was 72-33 in the last three years. This firing was rightly seen as ridiculous by almost everyone. It's on a bigger scale, but the situations are pretty similar with the criticism that Cronin and co. receives.

The Nevada game was devastating for dozens of reasons that we all know, we would all agree there. I don't think the coaching staff is perfect by any means, but they are pretty damn good in my estimation. NCAA Tournament success and failure will always be overblown and unfairly criticized and/or praised.

So by your logic, he gets a pass for the previous 11 years because we weren't expected to go further? In other words, we would have been better off being an 8 seed this year and losing in Rnd 2?

I actually do tend to agree that one year's post season results can be a shaky way to judge a program overall, but 12 years overall is a much fairer way to judge. 5 years was a silly amount of time to take to get back in the tournament. Look at Penny Hardaway how quickly he will have Memphis a top 15 team again. Cuonzo Martin turned Mizzou around immediately with their best player injured all year. Sick of the excuses.

Martin also had three pretty good upperclassmen, and although he didn't get Michael Porter for the full season, he did get his younger brother who wasn't a bad consolation prize. Not to mention their leading scorer this year was a grad transfer.

If grad transfers were a thing back when Mick was hired, I think his rebuild would have been way quicker. Being able to offer kids heavy minutes right away in the old Big East would have been an easy sell.

(04-20-2018 08:48 AM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:30 AM)Marcus Wrote:  No it's not. Especially not after 12 years.

I'd see your guys' arguments more sympathetically if you at least tried to be fair. The 12 years things is illustrative. Was Cronin supposed to go deep in the tournament his first year here?

In any case, there are benefits to stability, but I tend to think its healthier if a head coach's assistants are moving up in the world.

Okay 8 years since they've been making the tournament. Either way it's become painfully obvious UC has serious issues getting beyond the first weekend. One way of addressing that is improving your talent and that does not seem to be happening with last year's class and this current one when you look at who they are replacing on the roster (Clark, Washington, Evans, etc..). After this year I'm beginning to wonder if Mick needs elite talent on his roster to be able to get beyond the first weekend.

(04-20-2018 09:19 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:59 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:30 AM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:23 AM)dave416 Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 08:02 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  Yes, judging a coaching staff by how far their team advances in the NCAA tournament on a regular basis is so weird /s

It is.

No it's not. Especially not after 12 years.

No, it is. How many of those years would advancing to the Sweet 16 not have been considered an overachievement? Two? Maybe three?

I'll probably get ripped for saying this (since, you know, you root for your favorite teams to win), but results are largely overrated in sports, especially when it comes to one-off situations. Scott Cross was just basically fired at UTA for his "inability" to win a conference tournament title despite gradually improving the program over 12 years from a Southland also-ran to arguably the most consistently good program in the Sun Belt (and one that attracts good talent). He was 72-33 in the last three years. This firing was rightly seen as ridiculous by almost everyone. It's on a bigger scale, but the situations are pretty similar with the criticism that Cronin and co. receives.

The Nevada game was devastating for dozens of reasons that we all know, we would all agree there. I don't think the coaching staff is perfect by any means, but they are pretty damn good in my estimation. NCAA Tournament success and failure will always be overblown and unfairly criticized and/or praised.

So by your logic, he gets a pass for the previous 11 years because we weren't expected to go further? In other words, we would have been better off being an 8 seed this year and losing in Rnd 2?

I actually do tend to agree that one year's post season results can be a shaky way to judge a program overall, but 12 years overall is a much fairer way to judge. 5 years was a silly amount of time to take to get back in the tournament. Look at Penny Hardaway how quickly he will have Memphis a top 15 team again. Cuonzo Martin turned Mizzou around immediately with their best player injured all year. Sick of the excuses.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Saying that NCAA Tournament success/failure involves a lot more luck than people like to admit. Cruel and unusual things can and do happen.

The comparisons don't make much sense to me - Penny Hardaway is going to get great recruits early on based on name and his AAU connections, but he hasn't even coached a game yet. I've got no problem with Cuonzo as a coach, but their rebuild was nothing compared to Cincy's, and they were a middling SEC team this year that was roughly as good as Cincy's worst team in the last 8 years. They also lost in the first round, which people are arguing as a failure.

Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

(04-20-2018 11:45 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

Read a week after Memphis hired Hardaway they made over a $1M in increased season ticket sales. I imagine the merchandise sales are up as well. When you consider that number is now already higher and will continue to grow more he will be a success even if he is an average coach (I haven't even gotten into the fact he has signed a couple four star guys already).

(04-20-2018 12:13 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 11:45 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

Read a week after Memphis hired Hardaway they made over a $1M in increased season ticket sales. I imagine the merchandise sales are up as well. When you consider that number is now already higher and will continue to grow more he will be a success even if he is an average coach (I haven't even gotten into the fact he has signed a couple four star guys already).

Increased ticket sales... from what number? They had been averaging below 6k per game (announced attendance) at one point last year, which was down about 3.5k from the previous season average. Does this number simply confirm Memphis has a faint pulse now? Obviously they're more energized now that Penny has been hired, but nothing has been sustained yet with on-court performance. UConn also pulled in some top basketball talent, but they didn't perform well once Ollie's reign projected forward.

(04-20-2018 11:45 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

THIS. It just boggles my mind that people still post that the tourney is just not that important, a crap shoot, blah, blah, blah. Where all empirical evidence points otherwise. I mean Mick in his typical stupid snarky response said deep runs in the tourney are just for recruiting. I guess I would make excuses as well if I sucked at one major aspect of my job. The tourney is huge folks.

(04-20-2018 02:21 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 11:45 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

THIS. It just boggles my mind that people still post that the tourney is just not that important, a crap shoot, blah, blah, blah. Where all empirical evidence points otherwise. I mean Mick in his typical stupid snarky response said deep runs in the tourney are just for recruiting. I guess I would make excuses as well if I sucked at one major aspect of my job. The tourney is huge folks.

Yep. Regular season success is great, but tournament success is what matters the most by far. I would rather go into the tournament with 10 losses and advance to the Elite 8 than have the kind of season we've had the past two years.

(04-20-2018 03:06 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:21 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 11:45 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

THIS. It just boggles my mind that people still post that the tourney is just not that important, a crap shoot, blah, blah, blah. Where all empirical evidence points otherwise. I mean Mick in his typical stupid snarky response said deep runs in the tourney are just for recruiting. I guess I would make excuses as well if I sucked at one major aspect of my job. The tourney is huge folks.

Yep. Regular season success is great, but tournament success is what matters the most by far. I would rather go into the tournament with 10 losses and advance to the Elite 8 than have the kind of season we've had the past two years.

Unless you are playing in the ACC, Big XII, or Big East you are not making the tournament with 10 losses. I would rather win 27 to 30 games a year and win a conference championship because then my team would have a realistic chance to go on a deep run. The 2012 Bearcats made the Sweet 16 and had 10 loss going into the tournament but UC isn't in the Big East so the easiest way to make a deep run is going to running large win totals and conference championships.

No reason for this to be an "either/or" proposition: great regular season or deep run.

How about both?

This year's team demonstrated all season that they were pretty special. Being a development program as some here say, a team with this blend of size, skill and depth doesn't come along every season at Cincinnati.

Most of the talking heads finally thought UC would make the Sweet Sixteen this year. Up 22 points, many here began to believe too. But there is some missing ingredient in Mick's recipe that the cake won't rise in March. It's meant UC exiting during the first weekend 7 out of 8 years. Whether that's recruiting, assistant coaches, offensive philosophy, physical fatigue, it's up to Mick to figure it out and fix it. He's the CEO--he earns CEO pay so the buck stops with him. "Shareholders" are watching; patience is diminishing. A Sweet Sixteen this year would have changed that narrative.

(04-20-2018 03:06 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:21 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 11:45 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

THIS. It just boggles my mind that people still post that the tourney is just not that important, a crap shoot, blah, blah, blah. Where all empirical evidence points otherwise. I mean Mick in his typical stupid snarky response said deep runs in the tourney are just for recruiting. I guess I would make excuses as well if I sucked at one major aspect of my job. The tourney is huge folks.

Yep. Regular season success is great, but tournament success is what matters the most by far. I would rather go into the tournament with 10 losses and advance to the Elite 8 than have the kind of season we've had the past two years.

Great so how do you recruit and coach a team to lose 10 in the regular season and go to the Elite 8? Seriously. What type of player do you need to attract to do this and how do you develop them to make this happen (be a so-so coach for 1/2 the year and then start teaching them the "good stuff"?) I bet there are a lot of coaches that would love to hear your secret recipe because there's a lot of teams that lose around 10 games a year and don't make it to the Elite 8 - especially when they aren't in a premiere conference. Please explain.

In the meantime, I'll give you my theory. Most coaches try to recruit and develop the best team they can every year. Amidst the uncertainty of injuries, officiating and the performance of opponents likely similarly dedicated and motivated, they try to win as many games as possible to both make the NCAA tourney and to get the highest seed possible. If they achieve that, they do more of the same in the NCAA tournament. Except just about every team they play is good to great and all of them are similarly motivated to win. Typically, the better teams do win more often than the merely good teams, but due to variables like officiating, match-ups, injuries and not to mention the statistical variances of the game (e.g. shooting, loose balls and fouls) sometimes they don't just like the regular season and just like all of sports. In the end only 8 teams make it to the Elite 8 (the standard you mention) and although most of them are very good to great, it's still a bit of a crap shoot each year to which teams (and thus which coaches) make it that far. But there's still just basically one strategy: put together the best team you possibly can and continue to develop them so that they are ideally peaking (via continuous development) at the end of the year and get the best possible position in the tournament.

From there it's basically a small sample size crapshoot where even the mightiest teams with the mightiest coaches have been known not to advance very far some seasons. It's common for these games to come down to one player taking one shot in the closing moments. Sometimes he makes it, sometimes he doesn't. If you are playing a team that is significantly better than you, hope that this one actual game is one of the 2 out of 10 that you would beat them. If they are even, hope today is one of the 5 in ten where you are victorious. And if you are significantly better, hope that today is one of the 8 in ten chances where you win (obviously adjust chances accordingly).

Cole Anthony:

https://247sports.com/Player/Cole-Anthony-86991

Quote:The top-ranked point guard in 2019 has never really listed any schools. However, the group of coaches watching him can at least provide some insight on who is involved. Among those in the house for the explosive floor general were Louisville (Chris Mack), Cincinnati (Mick Cronin), Notre Dame (Mike Brey), North Carolina (Roy Williams), Texas, Michigan, Duke, Kentucky, Seton Hall, Wake Forest and UConn.

(04-20-2018 10:17 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 03:06 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 02:21 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(04-20-2018 11:45 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  Schools don't invest in athletics just to win games. Schools invest in athletics to provide marketing for the university.

Beating our (perceived) mediocre conference is fine, but making a Sweet Sixteen or better is the only real way to provide the level of marketing that is warranted by Mick's $2.2 million salary, our upcoming $80+ million arena, and our program's impressive history.

Mick's performance in the most important marketing aspects (advancing in the NCAAT, beating Xavier, portraying himself well to the media) just... sucks. He is genuinely great at a lot of things, but not at what matters most.

We can spend years analyzing WHY he has trouble in those regards, but it would be mostly pointless because Mick is too stubborn to change himself or his staff... and that is his greatest weakness.

THIS. It just boggles my mind that people still post that the tourney is just not that important, a crap shoot, blah, blah, blah. Where all empirical evidence points otherwise. I mean Mick in his typical stupid snarky response said deep runs in the tourney are just for recruiting. I guess I would make excuses as well if I sucked at one major aspect of my job. The tourney is huge folks.

Yep. Regular season success is great, but tournament success is what matters the most by far. I would rather go into the tournament with 10 losses and advance to the Elite 8 than have the kind of season we've had the past two years.

Great so how do you recruit and coach a team to lose 10 in the regular season and go to the Elite 8? Seriously. What type of player do you need to attract to do this and how do you develop them to make this happen (be a so-so coach for 1/2 the year and then start teaching them the "good stuff"?) I bet there are a lot of coaches that would love to hear your secret recipe because there's a lot of teams that lose around 10 games a year and don't make it to the Elite 8 - especially when they aren't in a premiere conference. Please explain.

In the meantime, I'll give you my theory. Most coaches try to recruit and develop the best team they can every year. Amidst the uncertainty of injuries, officiating and the performance of opponents likely similarly dedicated and motivated, they try to win as many games as possible to both make the NCAA tourney and to get the highest seed possible. If they achieve that, they do more of the same in the NCAA tournament. Except just about every team they play is good to great and all of them are similarly motivated to win. Typically, the better teams do win more often than the merely good teams, but due to variables like officiating, match-ups, injuries and not to mention the statistical variances of the game (e.g. shooting, loose balls and fouls) sometimes they don't just like the regular season and just like all of sports. In the end only 8 teams make it to the Elite 8 (the standard you mention) and although most of them are very good to great, it's still a bit of a crap shoot each year to which teams (and thus which coaches) make it that far. But there's still just basically one strategy: put together the best team you possibly can and continue to develop them so that they are ideally peaking (via continuous development) at the end of the year and get the best possible position in the tournament.

From there it's basically a small sample size crapshoot where even the mightiest teams with the mightiest coaches have been known not to advance very far some seasons. It's common for these games to come down to one player taking one shot in the closing moments. Sometimes he makes it, sometimes he doesn't. If you are playing a team that is significantly better than you, hope that this one actual game is one of the 2 out of 10 that you would beat them. If they are even, hope today is one of the 5 in ten where you are victorious. And if you are significantly better, hope that today is one of the 8 in ten chances where you win (obviously adjust chances accordingly).

I'm not saying there is a formula for having a so-so regular season and making a deep run in March. I'm just frustrated about all of these great regular season teams the past 20+ years going nowhere in March.

Jalen Lecque: https://247sports.com/Player/Jalen-Lecque-86982

(04-21-2018 09:35 AM)Tymanh99 Wrote:  Cole Anthony:

https://247sports.com/Player/Cole-Anthony-86991

Quote:The top-ranked point guard in 2019 has never really listed any schools. However, the group of coaches watching him can at least provide some insight on who is involved. Among those in the house for the explosive floor general were Louisville (Chris Mack), Cincinnati (Mick Cronin), Notre Dame (Mike Brey), North Carolina (Roy Williams), Texas, Michigan, Duke, Kentucky, Seton Hall, Wake Forest and UConn.

They weren't there for Anthony... lol

(04-21-2018 11:08 PM)GameTime_21 Wrote:  

(04-21-2018 09:35 AM)Tymanh99 Wrote:  Cole Anthony:

https://247sports.com/Player/Cole-Anthony-86991

Quote:The top-ranked point guard in 2019 has never really listed any schools. However, the group of coaches watching him can at least provide some insight on who is involved. Among those in the house for the explosive floor general were Louisville (Chris Mack), Cincinnati (Mick Cronin), Notre Dame (Mike Brey), North Carolina (Roy Williams), Texas, Michigan, Duke, Kentucky, Seton Hall, Wake Forest and UConn.

They weren't there for Anthony... lol

hey, don't kill the narrative! looking at the roster, assuming they were watching etienne.

Jared Jones: https://247sports.com/Player/Jared-Jones-94237

Sharife Cooper (2020): https://247sports.com/Player/Sharife-Cooper-45573352