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

(01-10-2020 03:06 PM)cpawstoney Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:02 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I don't recall him ever having an alumni player function here...unless he just wasn't as shamelessly promoting all the work he's doing while he was here. I actually feel like there were multiple statements about Brannen doing his and how happy the alumni were about it.

Where do you think he got the idea?

The 200 or so institutions that do it...or the 14 team student athlete alumni events that UC does every year (including the one I attend every August).

(01-10-2020 03:28 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:06 PM)cpawstoney Wrote:  

(01-10-2020 03:02 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  I don't recall him ever having an alumni player function here...unless he just wasn't as shamelessly promoting all the work he's doing while he was here. I actually feel like there were multiple statements about Brannen doing his and how happy the alumni were about it.

Where do you think he got the idea?

The 200 or so institutions that do it...or the 14 team student athlete alumni events that UC does every year (including the one I attend every August).

Or possibly Mike Bohn, the fans, or UC basketball alumni.

Aside for his own players, I don’t think a lot of the older alums were that fond of MC.

(01-11-2020 06:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Aside for his own players, I don’t think a lot of the older alums were that fond of MC.

I wonder if some of that stemmed from when he left for Louiswhore at the time we were conference mates.

(01-11-2020 07:23 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(01-11-2020 06:56 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  Aside for his own players, I don’t think a lot of the older alums were that fond of MC.

I wonder if some of that stemmed from when he left for Louiswhore at the time we were conference mates.

Exactly....he was a backstabber. Incidentally, he falls again to USC 74-63. UCLA is now at .500 on the year.

Grim Pickens:

At this rate Little Mickey could be one and done. Then again Chip Kelly has survived 2 awful years.

(01-12-2020 09:13 AM)doss2 Wrote:  At this rate Little Mickey could be one and done. Then again Chip Kelly has survived 2 awful years.

Mick is good until April 1, 2021, then the clock starts ticking.

If UCLA terminates its contract with Cronin without cause, it’ll owe him the following buyout:

During Contract Year 1 (through March 31, 2020): $19 million
During Contract Year 2 (through March 31, 2021): $15.4 million
During Contract Year 3 (through March 31, 2022): $8.775 million
During Contract Year 4 (through March 31, 2023): $5.925 million
During Contract Year 5 (through March 31, 2024): $3 million
During Contract Year 6 (through March 31, 2025): the remaining unpaid amount of guaranteed compensation of base salary plus talent fee.

(01-12-2020 10:42 AM)Romell Shorter Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 09:13 AM)doss2 Wrote:  At this rate Little Mickey could be one and done. Then again Chip Kelly has survived 2 awful years.

Mick is good until April 1, 2021, then the clock starts ticking.

If UCLA terminates its contract with Cronin without cause, it’ll owe him the following buyout:

During Contract Year 1 (through March 31, 2020): $19 million
During Contract Year 2 (through March 31, 2021): $15.4 million
During Contract Year 3 (through March 31, 2022): $8.775 million
During Contract Year 4 (through March 31, 2023): $5.925 million
During Contract Year 5 (through March 31, 2024): $3 million
During Contract Year 6 (through March 31, 2025): the remaining unpaid amount of guaranteed compensation of base salary plus talent fee.

You nailed it. April Fools Day UCLA will admit what Fools they were and send Mickey to Disneyland.

(01-12-2020 11:40 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 10:42 AM)Romell Shorter Wrote:  

(01-12-2020 09:13 AM)doss2 Wrote:  At this rate Little Mickey could be one and done. Then again Chip Kelly has survived 2 awful years.

Mick is good until April 1, 2021, then the clock starts ticking.

If UCLA terminates its contract with Cronin without cause, it’ll owe him the following buyout:

During Contract Year 1 (through March 31, 2020): $19 million
During Contract Year 2 (through March 31, 2021): $15.4 million
During Contract Year 3 (through March 31, 2022): $8.775 million
During Contract Year 4 (through March 31, 2023): $5.925 million
During Contract Year 5 (through March 31, 2024): $3 million
During Contract Year 6 (through March 31, 2025): the remaining unpaid amount of guaranteed compensation of base salary plus talent fee.

You nailed it. April Fools Day UCLA will admit what Fools they were and send Mickey to Disneyland.

Barring absolute disaster, I think they knew going in they would have to give him 3ish years regardless. Seems to align with the contract as well.

He isn't a top recruiter although will land some 5 stars at UCLA. His program at UC IMO was all about a culture built around toughness and hustling.

If they weren't prepared for the above then UCLA is idiotic. This seems to align with his contract though.

While here, Cronin bitched that he couldn't recruit to UC because they were an inferior brand.

Now he's at UCLA.

The recruiting woes will repeat themselves.

Then everyone will know that Cronin's recruiting problems were the result of which COACH is doing the recruiting, and not the fault of "the brand".

(01-13-2020 01:07 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  Barring absolute disaster, I think they knew going in they would have to give him 3ish years regardless. Seems to align with the contract as well.

He isn't a top recruiter although will land some 5 stars at UCLA. His program at UC IMO was all about a culture built around toughness and hustling.

If they weren't prepared for the above then UCLA is idiotic. This seems to align with his contract though.

From UCLA's perspective, they got in a bind when they were rejected like the ugly stepsister from what 5-6 coaches before Mick? LOL. I agree that he'll get three years unless he absolutely craps the bed after Year 2.

I think he gets three years unless the roof caves in or he gets sideways with major supporters.

With the wealth of competitive advantages UCLA has--money, more than a hundred national championships in all sports, money, more NCAA basketball championships than any other school, money, #1 in undergraduate applications for enrollment, money, top 10 public research university/academic profile, money, P5 conference riches, beautiful campus, the Rose Bowl, and did I mention money?... one wonders how the Bruins don't win big in football or basketball on a regular basis these days.

That UC just swept them in football and basketball, home and away, speaks volumes for the Bearcat program and our ROI. It probably means we'll be banished from their schedule for a century now too.

(01-13-2020 04:49 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I think he gets three years unless the roof caves in or he gets sideways with major supporters.

With the wealth of competitive advantages UCLA has--money, more than a hundred national championships in all sports, money, more NCAA basketball championships than any other school, money, #1 in undergraduate applications for enrollment, money, top 10 public research university/academic profile, money, P5 conference riches, beautiful campus, the Rose Bowl, and did I mention money?... one wonders how the Bruins don't win big in football or basketball on a regular basis these days.

That UC just swept them in football and basketball, home and away, speaks volumes for the Bearcat program and our ROI. It probably means we'll be banished from their schedule for a century now too.

I live in LA so I'm somewhat familiar with UCLA. The interesting thing is, they kind of act like they don't have money. Maybe being in the UC (Univ. of CA) system inhibits what they can do, I have no idea. I just know that while it looks like they have a beautiful campus and nice facilities, they act like they cannot compete with football heavy weights like tOSU and Clemson. I get this impression from listening to their radio show or games. I know Cal struggled to upgrade their football stadium and then went into crazy debt getting it done.

I'm not sure what the money is being spent on at some of these underachieving brand schools.

(01-13-2020 06:00 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 04:49 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I think he gets three years unless the roof caves in or he gets sideways with major supporters.

With the wealth of competitive advantages UCLA has--money, more than a hundred national championships in all sports, money, more NCAA basketball championships than any other school, money, #1 in undergraduate applications for enrollment, money, top 10 public research university/academic profile, money, P5 conference riches, beautiful campus, the Rose Bowl, and did I mention money?... one wonders how the Bruins don't win big in football or basketball on a regular basis these days.

That UC just swept them in football and basketball, home and away, speaks volumes for the Bearcat program and our ROI. It probably means we'll be banished from their schedule for a century now too.

I live in LA so I'm somewhat familiar with UCLA. The interesting thing is, they kind of act like they don't have money. Maybe being in the UC (Univ. of CA) system inhibits what they can do, I have no idea. I just know that while it looks like they have a beautiful campus and nice facilities, they act like they cannot compete with football heavy weights like tOSU and Clemson. I get this impression from listening to their radio show or games. I know Cal struggled to upgrade their football stadium and then went into crazy debt getting it done.

I'm not sure what the money is being spent on at some of these underachieving brand schools.

To be fair, no one is really competing with those schools on an annual, program-centric basis.

UCLA can certainly compete at the top of the PAC if they play things right.

Thumped by Stanford 74-59, now below .500 at 8-9.


It only gets sweeter...

(01-14-2020 11:21 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 06:00 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  

(01-13-2020 04:49 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I think he gets three years unless the roof caves in or he gets sideways with major supporters.

With the wealth of competitive advantages UCLA has--money, more than a hundred national championships in all sports, money, more NCAA basketball championships than any other school, money, #1 in undergraduate applications for enrollment, money, top 10 public research university/academic profile, money, P5 conference riches, beautiful campus, the Rose Bowl, and did I mention money?... one wonders how the Bruins don't win big in football or basketball on a regular basis these days.

That UC just swept them in football and basketball, home and away, speaks volumes for the Bearcat program and our ROI. It probably means we'll be banished from their schedule for a century now too.

I live in LA so I'm somewhat familiar with UCLA. The interesting thing is, they kind of act like they don't have money. Maybe being in the UC (Univ. of CA) system inhibits what they can do, I have no idea. I just know that while it looks like they have a beautiful campus and nice facilities, they act like they cannot compete with football heavy weights like tOSU and Clemson. I get this impression from listening to their radio show or games. I know Cal struggled to upgrade their football stadium and then went into crazy debt getting it done.

I'm not sure what the money is being spent on at some of these underachieving brand schools.

To be fair, no one is really competing with those schools on an annual, program-centric basis.

UCLA can certainly compete at the top of the PAC if they play things right.

This. If Utah and Washington can win the Pac12, there is no reason UCLA can't be successful in the PAC12.

Food for thought...

Did Mick Cronin elevate the UC program or did the UC program elevate Mick Cronin???

I think time will tell, that Mick Cronin was actually being propped up by a pretty good, historic program and had everyone fooled with smoke and mirrors that he was the best we could hope for.

So, Alford's squad finished 17-16 last year. 9-9 in conference play. Mick will get a pass on this year and he should based on that. As we've said upstream, Year 2 will be critical for him to show improvement. I actually think he will show improvement. The issue is not Mick per se. The issue is UCLA and whether they believe Mick is the answer to getting the program back to a high level. Time will tell but there may not be all that long of a span given to him. At Cincinnati, he had the time given to him initially based on the state of the program. That does not apply for him now. I'm sure he's aware of that too.

UCLA wins a thriller vs Cal, 50-40. Mick's got to love that score

(01-19-2020 10:06 PM)jarr Wrote:  UCLA wins a thriller vs Cal, 50-40. Mick's got to love that score

It was 22-21 at the half. Rock fight baby.