(02-13-2012 10:33 AM)BearcatOtto Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 09:52 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 09:03 AM)BearcatOtto Wrote:  What year of the rebuilding process were our seniors recruited? Right...year two.

How attractive was it to come to UC to play basketball four years ago? Again right...not very appealing to an 18 year old.

I'm firmly in Mick's corner and refuse to panic over the loss to Marquette, so dont take this post as negative versus him or the team. However UC was EXTREMELY attractive in year 2 to a recruit... A chance to start IMMEDIATELY in arguably the BEST conference in the NCAA. Also, nice analysis by the Nachoman bears this out.

Rath used to say it's best to avoid the board for a couple of days afer a loss and I have taken his advice. I know the team is on the bubble but for now I am still confident we'll get into the tourney. I also think we'll bounce back well against Providence this week.

This team is 1 I'd want to avoid if my team was in the tournament, extremely capable of beating top teams and also capable of laying an egg.

It may have been atractive for players to come for playing time but players that wanted to win would never have come here. We had no chance of winning in year two.

18 yearl old recruits, especially high level recruits often think they're the difference between winning and losing... so I dont think that would be a deterrent either.

That is just flat out not true. By that logic places like Seton hall providence etc would be flooded with good recruits. We learned early on that immediate pt is not nearly as important as a winning program.

I was disappointed with the effort Saturday, but to jump off a ledge over it. Gees. Come on. Marquette is one of the worst 3 point shooting teams in the Big East and they lit it up. I think that got our guys down some as it can be deflating and our defense got shredded, but many were off bad turnovers and just quick transition. SK was pretty much unusable since he was still very sick. You don't think a healthy SK helps greatly as he is a very good defender and a huge piece of the offense? Once Marquette got it going, the Cats just couldn't cool them off. It happens. Teams are rolling so well that they smell blood in the water and really keep it going and snowballing it. Went the opposite for us.

Marquette is a very good team and they have put on some beatdowns this year including going in to Wisconsin and taking them down handily. There will be better days. We will get them again at our house.

If we lose a couple at home, then I'll be a lot more worried. For now, it was a bad game and plenty of teams have had bad nights up at Marquette.

(02-13-2012 12:09 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  That is just flat out not true. By that logic places like Seton hall providence etc would be flooded with good recruits. We learned early on that immediate pt is not nearly as important as a winning program.

Cincinnati has been a winning program. From the University of Cincinnati Page:

Quote: The last 17 seasons has been one of the brightest periods in the University of Cincinnati’s rich basketball history. In fact, only the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, during which the Bearcats made five straight trips to the Final Four and won back-to-back national championsips, shines brighter.

Bob Huggins, who was named head coach in 1989, rekindled those national championship expectations in only his third season at the helm when he directed UC to the Final Four. The Bearcats have advanced to the Elite Eight of the NCAA tournament three times and have reached the Sweet 16 four times.

Cincinnati has won its conference season and/or tournament title in 12 of the last 15 seasons. UC has claimed eight league tournament titles and 10 regular season crowns during this span. The Bearcats have finished in the Top 10 of the final polls in seven of the past 13 years. During this time, Cincinnati has ranked among the nation’s winningest programs both in terms of winning percentage and victories.

Fifteen Bearcats have garnered first team all-conference honors during this era with three of those, Danny Fortson, Kenyon Martin and Steve Logan, picking up a total of four C-USA Most Outstanding Player Awards.

The program has fallen on hard times after the Huggins firing... But it's not Seton Hall or Providence. An 18 year old recruit in 2002 would have been born 1984; they would have grown up playing AAU basketball, etc. during the best days in modern history (sans late 50s early 60s) of UC Basketball. The program was far from irrelevant in 2002, and it's far from being irrelevant now.

University of Cincinnati Basketball History

We will get a better idea of who this team really is starting Wednesday at Providence. The key for this or any team will be getting into the tournament, matchups, and how well they are playing in late Feb/early March. What we know is that when playing well, they can beat just about anyone; and when they aren't, they can lose to just about anyone. The question is which team will show up at season's end. As I recall, UConn wasn't blowing people up in early Feb. last year.

So far as Mick goes - I was as pissed as anyone about the way the whole Huggins thing was handled, and in some respects I'm still pissed. But Mick took a job that very few coaches would've handled well and has performed admirably. Remember, he had to pay more attention to the academic side than 99% of the coaches out there just to "restore" our supposedly bad reputation.

If it weren't for Slick Calipari, we would've had Teague this year. Mick has gone the HS and long term development route and so long as we contend for tourney spots the next year or two, I'll be happy. After that, expectations go higher. Jeezum Crow, take a look at Coach K's first few years at Duke, and that was with an established program coming off good years. Boosters wanted his head after years 2-4. Mick had a much rougher climb, and he didn't have Kentucky's resources and reputation like Pitino did when he took over in the late 90s.

Mick's a bright guy and I think he's just now coming into his own as a Coach with an identity for his program. And at times this season, I've thought his in-game coaching and game prep was pretty outstanding. Just needs more consistency.

(02-13-2012 01:18 PM)HattoriHanzo Wrote:  We will get a better idea of who this team really is starting Wednesday at Providence.

6 games left in the regular season and we still don't know?

(02-13-2012 12:24 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  The program has fallen on hard times after the Huggins firing... But it's not Seton Hall or Providence. An 18 year old recruit in 2002 would have been born 1984; they would have grown up playing AAU basketball, etc. during the best days in modern history (sans late 50s early 60s) of UC Basketball. The program was far from irrelevant in 2002, and it's far from being irrelevant now.

What does 2002 have to do with anything? Next year's recruits were born in 1993-1994. I was born in 1980 and I remember Andrew Gaze and Seton Hall getting screwed in the NCAA Finals against Michigan in '89. It didn't hold much cache 10 years later. UC has been basically off the radar since today's recruits were in grade school. I think the overestimate UC's place in the basketball world to kids who have only been paying attention for the last 8-10 years.

As far as the evolution of Cronin's recruiting, I actually thought it would be better than it has been. Gates and Lance have been his 2 big recruits, and each is kind of a special case. The freshman class is once again a group of 4 year guys, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think his recruiting has been about the same throughout his tenure, he just got a couple one off opportunities that he cashed in on.

I was actually thinking about Jordan Sibert the other day, the kid from Princeton that went to OSU. I noticed he rarely played as a sophomore even though he was a McD's AA in high school. Thought he must be rethinking his choice. But I went to the OSU-Michigan St. game this weekend in Columbus and was blown away. That arena is amazing. It's like a pro team's. Makes the school look like a church gym. Everything they did was first class - the intros to the stuff they do during timeouts, everything (except they don't sell beer, which is BS). If I were a recruit attending that game, I would have wanted to sign up immediately. Of course, every school doesn't have OSU's cash, but it gives you some perspective what UC is up against.

(02-13-2012 09:36 AM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  UC wouldn't be on the bubble if the non-conference schedule was a lot stronger and smarter We would be looking at two or three more wins in the conference and the bid would be locked up. UC could have lost to the same exact teams but instead of playing schools that are going to win 10 or less game they should have played a few mid-majors that would win 13-18 games.

How can you say that? They could have had 5 or 6 losses in the nonconference they way they were playing had they scheduled some mid-majors. They were a Cheikh Mbodj 3 pointer from losing to Miami. They probably should have lost to Georgia. Who knows what would have happened with a different schedule.

(02-13-2012 03:27 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(02-13-2012 12:24 PM)Crewdogz Wrote:  The program has fallen on hard times after the Huggins firing... But it's not Seton Hall or Providence. An 18 year old recruit in 2002 would have been born 1984; they would have grown up playing AAU basketball, etc. during the best days in modern history (sans late 50s early 60s) of UC Basketball. The program was far from irrelevant in 2002, and it's far from being irrelevant now.

What does 2002 have to do with anything? Next year's recruits were born in 1993-1994. I was born in 1980 and I remember Andrew Gaze and Seton Hall getting screwed in the NCAA Finals against Michigan in '89. It didn't hold much cache 10 years later. UC has been basically off the radar since today's recruits were in grade school. I think the overestimate UC's place in the basketball world to kids who have only been paying attention for the last 8-10 years.

As far as the evolution of Cronin's recruiting, I actually thought it would be better than it has been. Gates and Lance have been his 2 big recruits, and each is kind of a special case. The freshman class is once again a group of 4 year guys, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I think his recruiting has been about the same throughout his tenure, he just got a couple one off opportunities that he cashed in on.

I was actually thinking about Jordan Sibert the other day, the kid from Princeton that went to OSU. I noticed he rarely played as a sophomore even though he was a McD's AA in high school. Thought he must be rethinking his choice. But I went to the OSU-Michigan St. game this weekend in Columbus and was blown away. That arena is amazing. It's like a pro team's. Makes the school look like a church gym. Everything they did was first class - the intros to the stuff they do during timeouts, everything (except they don't sell beer, which is BS). If I were a recruit attending that game, I would have wanted to sign up immediately. Of course, every school doesn't have OSU's cash, but it gives you some perspective what UC is up against.

levydl - UC has always been up against those type of programs. During Huggs tenure osu just happened to not be the team they are now. I have been to Value City arena. Our crowds in the 90's were just as good as any in the country. If UC wins consistently the atmosphere will be back.

The idea that early playing time is a recruiting selling point for programs on the low is laughable, particularly in college basketball where the best recruits usually play as freshman no matter where they go. I'm not going to "blame" fans for not showing up for those games, but you can't tell me an empty 5th 3rd is remotely enticing to a kid with options. Extremely attractive my ass.

Those saying bubble team is as good as it will ever get with Mick are probably the same people who said we'd never be a tourney team with him two years ago. How quickly some forget we finished 6th in an insanely deep BE last year, got a 6 seed, won our first round game by 15, and lost to the eventual national champions. How were we a bubble team when we knew we were getting a bid?

Now we're sitting on the bubble (could be firmly in or out by the end of the year), and some are back to proclaiming permanent mediocrity.. sound more like wishful thinking than anything else.

(02-13-2012 04:01 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  levydl - UC has always been up against those type of programs. During Huggs tenure osu just happened to not be the team they are now. I have been to Value City arena. Our crowds in the 90's were just as good as any in the country. If UC wins consistently the atmosphere will be back.

Did anyone have an arena like that in the 90s? I feel like the arm's race is much hotter now. I agree that those games in the late 90s and early 2000s were awesome and that we can get back to that atmosphere, but it still can't compare to some of the top teams places, like Pitt, UofL, or OSU. Different playing fields.

I was just coming at it from a crowd standpoint. I can not compare the physicial structure, since different periods of time. If UC were to upgrade the physical plant and have the same level of crowd in the 90's we would be on par.

if UC built a new arena, they'd have a nice crowd the first few game. If they can't find a way over this middle of the road at best hump they're in, it'll be back to where it's at.

Our attendance is way up from where it was at the start of the season. I haven't crunched numbers but I bet it's on par with most programs outside the top 25. It's time to latch on to something else, you've sucked that teat dry.

If anyone was wondering, I'd say the attendance in Big East play has been pretty good.
Big East attendance for Cincinnati:
Notre Dame- 10,142
St. Johns- 8,820
Villanova- 10,255
Syracuse- 13,176
DePaul- 10,450

Average: 10,568
Percentage capacity: 80.2%

When conference play starts, attendence is fine. It would be fine outside of league play as well if the non conference schedule wasn't highlighted by Radford. Also, give the athletic department credit, the Deapul game was a great crowd as will the Seton Hall game because if you went to the Liberty Bowl you got two free tickets to one of those two games. If we can't get 11,000+ vs Louisville and Marquette then this is a sorry fanbase. By the way, UC is 17-8 and 7-5 in this league. Thats more than acceptable people. Look at the so called great programs in this league, outside of Syracuse and Pitt no one consistantly has high seeds. UConn has missed the tourney a couple times and they will again this year. Louisville stays in the mid seed range usually. Villanova was an 11 last year and they will miss this year. Most programs in this league have years like were having now but they mix in a "great year" at being a top 4 seed so the preception of the program is better. UC is waiting for they're great year. It's coming. Go Cats.

If we were still Top 15 and the "only game in town" then yeah, you sell out for Middle TN Central Tech....when I was a student in mid 90's we regularly drew 12k+ for every game regardless. But there are many factors as to why we don't draw 4k for the scrubss:
-Huggins deal still makes some mad
-XU has been on the national stage
-UC Football has been a "hot ticket" some years


etc etc etc


I have been pleased with BE attendance really.

17-8 (7-5)

I know I've been down on them a lot lately (see RU loss) but in perspective, it wasn't but a few short years ago any of us would have KILLED to be in the spot we are in right now.

(02-14-2012 01:47 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  17-8 (7-5)

I know I've been down on them a lot lately (see RU loss) but in perspective, it wasn't but a few short years ago any of us would have KILLED to be in the spot we are in right now.

It's better now because we've been to the tournament but in Mick's second year we started out 8-5 in Big East play before we tanked. Hard to believe.