(03-17-2013 06:55 PM)payday Wrote:  Amazing how little faith fans in this board have.

This team has just played SO poorly for so long why would most people think it would change? They haven't shown any sign of improving.

You cant be upset with the bracket. This is the type of thing that happens when you earn a 10 seed. It's better to be talking about this than the stuff we were talking about from 2005-2010. I would of commited serious misdemeanor crimes to hear our name called then. It is what it is. Three straight tourney apperances. Go cats.

I think Indiana got one of the easiest brackets but boy, that Miami team, led by shane larkin might be the toughest obstacle for anyone.

(03-17-2013 07:04 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 06:55 PM)payday Wrote:  Amazing how little faith fans in this board have.

This team has just played SO poorly for so long why would most people think it would change? They haven't shown any sign of improving.

this years team was a big letdown because of our inside players regressing instead of improving. If we had Yancy Gates back, we'd have won several more games. Hoping next years incoming big men are ready to play. We cannot win with JJ and Rubles lack of offense again. Rubles did great with hustle and rebounding but he's a turnover machine. Maybe he'll get better by next year. JJ Isn't going to get better. We seen pretty much the max on him on offense.
and then there's Kelvin Gaines...oh my gawdddddd

(03-17-2013 07:19 PM)BearcatShane09 Wrote:  You cant be upset with the bracket. This is the type of thing that happens when you earn a 10 seed. It's better to be talking about this than the stuff we were talking about from 2005-2010. I would of commited serious misdemeanor crimes to hear our name called then. It is what it is. Three straight tourney apperances. Go cats.

Three tournament appearances in a row. Getting in is getting boring and that is a great thing.

For the most part Cincinnati basketball is pretty much back where Huggins left us.

It so much more fun complaining about 22 wins than it is 13.

Coach Cronin might need to recruit a couple more of Max Twymans in the future that have skills on shooting and passing.

(03-17-2013 06:55 PM)payday Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 06:45 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 06:39 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 06:21 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 05:52 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  As far as UC goes, they haven't played well since December. They don't often exit in the first round. This is the year. A disciplined team that runs offensive sets will have the Cats home early.

You strike me as someone who is very depressing to talk to.

Nope. Quite the opposite. I've just been kicked in the nads so often as a Cincy sports fan that I've come to expect the worst.

I'm actually happy they just made the tourney. Everything else is gravy.

I don't think Billy is depressing at all...he's being realistic. Anybody who has watch this team since Cash went down at DePaul knows it's got to be one of the worst offenses in the nation right now.

Yea. But one of the best defenses. C'mon!!! Creighton lost to Indiana St, Illinois St, and Drake. Cincy should pound Creighton like they did Missouri two years ago.


Amazing how little faith fans in this board have.

UC can beat Creighton but I wouldn't underestimate the Jays based on who they lost to. They also beat: Wisconsin, Saint Joes, Nebraska, Cal so they are very capable of beating UC. UC will likely have to be able to put up 60+ to beat the Jays.

(03-17-2013 06:39 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I'm tired of people thinking UC gets screwed in some vast conspiracy every year by the ncaa tourney committee...it's laughable really

and for the 100th time the 2002 Bearcats had no business losing to UCLA...that team ended up 21-12 with losses to Pepperdine, Ball State, and a first round pac 12 tourney loss to Cal. UC on the other hand was ranked in the top 5 and was a one seed. I don't give a dang how many nba players were on the ucla roster, I don't care what they were pre season...they were 21-12 for a reason. We had NO business losing to them...but people still act like we were screwed in the seeding and ucla depsite 11 losses coming into the ncaa should really have been a three or four seed......stop with the nonsense folks

That loss sticks in my mind as the most disappointing loss by UC in the Huggins era. I think it was just hard for everyone to accept. On the other hand, it's not like it was the first time a 1 lost to an 8.

(03-17-2013 07:47 PM)back2vinyl Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 06:39 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  I'm tired of people thinking UC gets screwed in some vast conspiracy every year by the ncaa tourney committee...it's laughable really

and for the 100th time the 2002 Bearcats had no business losing to UCLA...that team ended up 21-12 with losses to Pepperdine, Ball State, and a first round pac 12 tourney loss to Cal. UC on the other hand was ranked in the top 5 and was a one seed. I don't give a dang how many nba players were on the ucla roster, I don't care what they were pre season...they were 21-12 for a reason. We had NO business losing to them...but people still act like we were screwed in the seeding and ucla depsite 11 losses coming into the ncaa should really have been a three or four seed......stop with the nonsense folks

That loss sticks in my mind as the most disappointing loss by UC in the Huggins era. I think it was just hard for everyone to accept. On the other hand, it's not like it was the first time a 1 lost to an 8.

See that sticks in my mind of one of the losses where I was most proud of UC's performance. UCLA was very inconsistent that year, but it was loaded with talent. Lots of NBA players on that roster. You mention that teams bad performances but that UCLA team also beat several highly seeded teams as well.

I thought UC played great that game, UCLA also played great, and we had a couple breaks go against us. Lenny Stokes was an absolute force that day. Logan did not shoot his best but made plays all over. There have been tournament performances I have been disappointed it. That one was not one of them.

I find interesting is that nobody ever looks at who is on the committee. Was there any doubt St Mary's wasn't getting in with the WCC commissioner in the room. You had to guess that when Southern Miss went down that the associate commissioner of C-USA was campaigning for future member MTSU.

Bobinski A-10's connection probably had a lot do with LaSalle and future MWC conference member Utah State probably rewarded Boise State for their return to the MWC. Remember tournament credits are revenue for schools.

UC played their balls off in that ucla game. Stokes went off in that game. Ucla was the worst possible second rnd matchup for a one seed ever. Loaded team that struggled all year and then got hot. It wasn't like we were loaded either that year aside for Stevie and Lenny.

(03-17-2013 08:11 PM)Murph29 Wrote:  UC played their balls off in that ucla game. Stokes went off in that game. Ucla was the worst possible second rnd matchup for a one seed ever. Loaded team that struggled all year and then got hot. It wasn't like we were loaded either that year aside for Stevie and Lenny.

Struggled all year with inconsistency but at their best we weren't the first 1 seed they beat. They beat like 4 teams that were seeded 3 or higher.

Oh by the way Kentucky is playing a road game in the NIT and Xavier's NIT bubble just burst.

(03-17-2013 07:56 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I find interesting is that nobody ever looks at who is on the committee. Was there any doubt St Mary's wasn't getting in with the WCC commissioner in the room. You had to guess that when Southern Miss went down that the associate commissioner of C-USA was campaigning for future member MTSU.

Bobinski A-10's connection probably had a lot do with LaSalle and future MWC conference member Utah State probably rewarded Boise State for their return to the MWC. Remember tournament credits are revenue for schools.

The selection committee this year was headed by smaller school AD and had 4 other small school/conference reps. There was a rep from each of the Power 5 conferences but no rep from the BE. Reps were from XU, Wake, LSU, Mich St, Stanford, Utah State, WCC, Big Sky, SMU, OK.

Bobinski sounded like an idiot when he tried to explain why MTSU was included with their 1 top 100 win.

Jay Bilas seemed agitated that the recipe for getting into the tournament is a moving target, changing every year. This year the "who have you beaten" measure didn't seem to matter, it was all about who didn't you lose to?

This year it appears that it would've been better to play a weaker schedule and win, than challenge your team and lose. Next year they'll probably penalize teams for playing weak schedules and winning banging the drum for "you should've played and beaten some one."

(03-17-2013 08:18 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Oh by the way Kentucky is playing a road game in the NIT and Xavier's NIT bubble just burst.

What!!!??? UK a lower seed and X in the CBI!!!???

(03-17-2013 08:16 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:11 PM)Murph29 Wrote:  UC played their balls off in that ucla game. Stokes went off in that game. Ucla was the worst possible second rnd matchup for a one seed ever. Loaded team that struggled all year and then got hot. It wasn't like we were loaded either that year aside for Stevie and Lenny.

Struggled all year with inconsistency but at their best we weren't the first 1 seed they beat. They beat like 4 teams that were seeded 3 or higher.

Agreed. That UCLA team played well when motivated and had beaten some very good teams and lost to some inexplicably. They had the talent to beat anybody if they played like they cared. The Cats played their a$$es off in that game. Was disappointed they lost for them because they left it on the court but not because they failed to compete.

(03-17-2013 08:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:18 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Oh by the way Kentucky is playing a road game in the NIT and Xavier's NIT bubble just burst.

What!!!??? UK a lower seed and X in the CBI!!!???

Rupp is being used by other schools. They are a #1 seed, but have no choice but to go on the road to a 3,000 seat gym on the Robert Morris campus.

(03-17-2013 08:34 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:26 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:18 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  Oh by the way Kentucky is playing a road game in the NIT and Xavier's NIT bubble just burst.

What!!!??? UK a lower seed and X in the CBI!!!???

Rupp is being used by other schools. They are a #1 seed, but have no choice but to go on the road to a 3,000 seat gym on the Robert Morris campus.

Oh yeah. Forgot about Lexington as a host site

(03-17-2013 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:16 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:11 PM)Murph29 Wrote:  UC played their balls off in that ucla game. Stokes went off in that game. Ucla was the worst possible second rnd matchup for a one seed ever. Loaded team that struggled all year and then got hot. It wasn't like we were loaded either that year aside for Stevie and Lenny.

Struggled all year with inconsistency but at their best we weren't the first 1 seed they beat. They beat like 4 teams that were seeded 3 or higher.

Agreed. That UCLA team played well when motivated and had beaten some very good teams and lost to some inexplicably. They had the talent to beat anybody if they played like they cared. The Cats played their a$$es off in that game. Was disappointed they lost for them because they left it on the court but not because they failed to compete.

Every year there are good teams in the 8/9 matchup that have tons of talent. I don't know why we always make excuses for losing to UCLA. We were a #1 seed and had a 10-point halftime lead. Losing that game was a huge disappointment.

Just look at some of the 8's this year. Pitt is considered a top 10 team by the ratings systems and they have a future NBA center. NC State was preseason top 10 and they have multiple NBA draft picks on their roster. UNC was just outside the preseason top 10 and they also have a number of guys that will drafted. We act like UCLA is the only good team to ever fall to an 8. It's simply not true.

(03-17-2013 08:46 PM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:26 PM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:16 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 08:11 PM)Murph29 Wrote:  UC played their balls off in that ucla game. Stokes went off in that game. Ucla was the worst possible second rnd matchup for a one seed ever. Loaded team that struggled all year and then got hot. It wasn't like we were loaded either that year aside for Stevie and Lenny.

Struggled all year with inconsistency but at their best we weren't the first 1 seed they beat. They beat like 4 teams that were seeded 3 or higher.

Agreed. That UCLA team played well when motivated and had beaten some very good teams and lost to some inexplicably. They had the talent to beat anybody if they played like they cared. The Cats played their a$$es off in that game. Was disappointed they lost for them because they left it on the court but not because they failed to compete.

Every year there are good teams in the 8/9 matchup that have tons of talent. I don't know why we always make excuses for losing to UCLA. We were a #1 seed and had a 10-point halftime lead. Losing that game was a huge disappointment.

Just look at some of the 8's this year. Pitt is considered a top 10 team by the ratings systems and they have a future NBA center. NC State was preseason top 10 and they have multiple NBA draft picks on their roster. UNC was just outside the preseason top 10 and they also have a number of guys that will drafted. We act like UCLA is the only good team to ever fall to an 8. It's simply not true.

The worst situation for a number 1 or 2 seed is to be sitting in a bracket with an 8/9 or 7/10 seeded team that has been inconsistent over the course of a year — the 8/9 team that has knocked off the best teams but also has some crazy losses which keep them from a lower seed. A 1 or 2 wants an 8/9 or 7/10 that has been consistent beating those who they should beat and losing to top teams. UCLA was a perfect example of the 8/9 you don't want in your bracket if you are a 1.

Pitt is the same type of 7/10. They have shown they can knock off top teams but were hurt for a lower seed by some losses and the S curve.