A CINCY FAN WROTE:
"As far as thriving, UC built its basketball program back to respectability in the Big East. UC went from a completely bleak outlook in basketball a mere 6 years ago to respectability, and 3 straight NCAA appearances. Something that SJU can't say and they have had the Big East name surrounding them forever."

I RESPONDED:
---> "The "Big East" name allowed Cincinnati to recruit and re-build from their mid-00's disaster, and that Big East name was built on the backs of St John's and the original 7/8/9... without the Big East name, where would UC be right now?"


A CINCY FAN WROTE:
"Why has St. John's had such a problem rebuilding then? Providence? DePaul?

UC has won in every conference it has ever played in... yes, maybe the name helped a bit to get their foot in the door to recruit, but at the end of the day it is all about the coach selling a recruit on the advantages of their school.

The Big East did not build UC, Louisville, or WVU into great basketball schools. Great coaches did that through the years. All of them will still be very good in the future as their history dictates it."

I WROTE THIS WHILE THE OTHER THREAD WAS BEING LOCKED, AND SINCE THIS SIMILAR THREAD IS STILL REMAINING OPEN I MIGHT AS WELL POST IT HERE:
---> Because of football and other pressures, PC (and others) eventually agreed to expand the conference to 16 schools. This coincided with two fair-to-poor coaching hires pre-Cooley (I called mulligans on these two coaches on another thread). In the 90's, we had some great teams and excellent players and had around 12 NBA players in the league at one point around that time. We had three great coaches in Pitino, Rick Barnes and Gillen (with a disaster year in Gordie Chiesa when Pitino left late for the Knicks).

The Big East decision to expand and invite West Virginia, Notre Dame, and others, was excellent choice to build the greatest basketball conference in college basketball history. But in doing this, it allowed these additional teams better hoops cred in the northeast and PC’s main recruiting territory back then (metro NY) was more crowded. St John's also had a bad hire after Jarvis (their mulligan), and now they're getting 5-star recruits and have a great coach.

Also, Notre Dame hadn’t made the NCAAs in the 5 years leading up to their Big East entry. West Virginia hadn’t made the Sweet Sixteen from 1963 til three years after their Big East entry. While both programs were solid pre-Big East, I think carrying the Big East name helped each school move from "solid" program to "excellent" program – better recruits, better coaches now available (like, in West Virginia’s case I don't think Huggins would've gone to the A-10; even Beilein wouldn't have laterally moved from Richmond (A-10) to West Virginia (if in the A-10)). Going forward, I'm still gonna pull for our former Big East compatriots in their other conferences, but I'm really looking forward to the Big East and having Cooley.

So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

(08-29-2013 01:30 PM)mlb Wrote:  So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

Ok, that's not what I said exactly. I think your conference opens up the way to have better opportunities and credibility, and an easier path to improvement. If Cincinnati had remained in C-USA, I think they'd be a much different program-- would've had a tougher time re-building. If Memphis had joined the Big East in 2005, I think they'd be a better program than they already are... who knows-- maybe even could've kept Calipari...

(08-29-2013 01:30 PM)mlb Wrote:  So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

I completely agree with your comments about great coaches. I like your coach and think he's doing a terrific job. He deseerves all the credit for the recent turn around.

OTOH, how did UC's "great" history help it rebuild?

Do you think that today's recruits give a rat's ass about what Cincy did more than 50 years ago when they won their championships. I doubt today's kids have any clue who Oscar Robertson is/was.

And what has been so "great" about UC's history in the last 50 years? Does 1 Final four more than 20 years ago and a couple of Elite 8's qualify as "great history"? How does that distinguish Cincy from all the other teams that have been going to the tournament regularly and getting the occasional deep run into the tournament? do you really think that Cincy's history is unique and that it distinguishes Cincy from dozens of other school?

Today's recruits are 15-18 years old or younger when coaches start talking to them. They certainly aren't aware of anything much more than 10 years old. What in the world has Cincy done in the last 10 years to make recruits think this is a great & storied program that I want to be part of?

(08-29-2013 02:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 01:30 PM)mlb Wrote:  So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

I completely agree with your comments about great coaches. I like your coach and think he's doing a terrific job. He deseerves all the credit for the recent turn around.

OTOH, how did UC's "great" history help it rebuild?

Do you think that today's recruits give a rat's ass about what Cincy did more than 50 years ago when they won their championships. I doubt today's kids have any clue who Oscar Robertson is/was.

And what has been so "great" about UC's history in the last 50 years? Does 1 Final four more than 20 years ago and a couple of Elite 8's qualify as "great history"? How does that distinguish Cincy from all the other teams that have been going to the tournament regularly and getting the occasional deep run into the tournament? do you really think that Cincy's history is unique and that it distinguishes Cincy from dozens of other school?

Today's recruits are 15-18 years old or younger when coaches start talking to them. They certainly aren't aware of anything much more than 10 years old. What in the world has Cincy done in the last 10 years to make recruits think this is a great & storied program that I want to be part of?

Can someone please answer this man's questions???? ANYONE? Or will his logical points just continued to be ignored?

(08-29-2013 02:39 PM)Milhouse08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 02:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 01:30 PM)mlb Wrote:  So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

I completely agree with your comments about great coaches. I like your coach and think he's doing a terrific job. He deseerves all the credit for the recent turn around.

OTOH, how did UC's "great" history help it rebuild?

Do you think that today's recruits give a rat's ass about what Cincy did more than 50 years ago when they won their championships. I doubt today's kids have any clue who Oscar Robertson is/was.

And what has been so "great" about UC's history in the last 50 years? Does 1 Final four more than 20 years ago and a couple of Elite 8's qualify as "great history"? How does that distinguish Cincy from all the other teams that have been going to the tournament regularly and getting the occasional deep run into the tournament? do you really think that Cincy's history is unique and that it distinguishes Cincy from dozens of other school?

Today's recruits are 15-18 years old or younger when coaches start talking to them. They certainly aren't aware of anything much more than 10 years old. What in the world has Cincy done in the last 10 years to make recruits think this is a great & storied program that I want to be part of?

Can someone please answer this man's questions???? ANYONE? Or will his logical points just continued to be ignored?

Melky's great questions may get this thread locked.

(08-29-2013 02:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  OTOH, how did UC's "great" history help it rebuild?

There is something to be said when a recruit walks in and see the banners on the wall and the trophy's in the case. Granted, 50 years wouldn't necessarily impress, but 10-15 years certainly is not stretch.

Quote:Do you think that today's recruits give a rat's ass about what Cincy did more than 50 years ago when they won their championships. I doubt today's kids have any clue who Oscar Robertson is/was.

And what has been so "great" about UC's history in the last 50 years? Does 1 Final four more than 20 years ago and a couple of Elite 8's qualify as "great history"? How does that distinguish Cincy from all the other teams that have been going to the tournament regularly and getting the occasional deep run into the tournament? do you really think that Cincy's history is unique and that it distinguishes Cincy from dozens of other school?

Today's recruits are 15-18 years old or younger when coaches start talking to them. They certainly aren't aware of anything much more than 10 years old. What in the world has Cincy done in the last 10 years to make recruits think this is a great & storied program that I want to be part of?

Once again... when comparing UC to other "up and coming" schools it certainly helps. You can say "we've done it before, we can do it again." Obviously, if it is UC vs. Kentucky it won't help.

The biggest thing in college basketball is the coach... a coach can make or break a program more than in football. There are so many great basketball players out there and such a limit on scholarships that great players end up playing at non-traditional powers all the time as well.

(08-29-2013 02:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 01:30 PM)mlb Wrote:  So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

I completely agree with your comments about great coaches. I like your coach and think he's doing a terrific job. He deseerves all the credit for the recent turn around.

OTOH, how did UC's "great" history help it rebuild?

Do you think that today's recruits give a rat's ass about what Cincy did more than 50 years ago when they won their championships. I doubt today's kids have any clue who Oscar Robertson is/was.

And what has been so "great" about UC's history in the last 50 years? Does 1 Final four more than 20 years ago and a couple of Elite 8's qualify as "great history"? How does that distinguish Cincy from all the other teams that have been going to the tournament regularly and getting the occasional deep run into the tournament? do you really think that Cincy's history is unique and that it distinguishes Cincy from dozens of other school?

Today's recruits are 15-18 years old or younger when coaches start talking to them. They certainly aren't aware of anything much more than 10 years old. What in the world has Cincy done in the last 10 years to make recruits think this is a great & storied program that I want to be part of?

I don't know about these other UC fans on here, but I don't think their history had much to do with it at all. Did it hurt? Definitely not. But it was nothing more than an offhand mention to recruits.

What the kids Mick has been able to recruit are buying into is him, his vision for the program, and the fact that you can win a lot of games here. That's what he is selling, and it is working.

If anyone is counting on UC's program regressing badly like some have expected, then I would caution you before you bet your life savings on it...

(08-29-2013 02:39 PM)Milhouse08 Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 02:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 01:30 PM)mlb Wrote:  So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

I completely agree with your comments about great coaches. I like your coach and think he's doing a terrific job. He deseerves all the credit for the recent turn around.

OTOH, how did UC's "great" history help it rebuild?

Do you think that today's recruits give a rat's ass about what Cincy did more than 50 years ago when they won their championships. I doubt today's kids have any clue who Oscar Robertson is/was.

And what has been so "great" about UC's history in the last 50 years? Does 1 Final four more than 20 years ago and a couple of Elite 8's qualify as "great history"? How does that distinguish Cincy from all the other teams that have been going to the tournament regularly and getting the occasional deep run into the tournament? do you really think that Cincy's history is unique and that it distinguishes Cincy from dozens of other school?

Today's recruits are 15-18 years old or younger when coaches start talking to them. They certainly aren't aware of anything much more than 10 years old. What in the world has Cincy done in the last 10 years to make recruits think this is a great & storied program that I want to be part of?

Can someone please answer this man's questions???? ANYONE? Or will his logical points just continued to be ignored?

Why don't you answer the questions since you are clearly obsessed with UC.

(08-29-2013 03:22 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 02:05 PM)Melky Cabrera Wrote:  

(08-29-2013 01:30 PM)mlb Wrote:  So the Big East alone didn't build those programs is my point... UC didn't get help rebuilding because of the Big East brand name... in fact, it probably hurt. The tougher schedule and the poor records made recruits think twice about coming in. UC did it because it has a great history and a great coach. Simple as that. College basketball has proven 1 thing... your coach is MUCH more important than your conference.

I completely agree with your comments about great coaches. I like your coach and think he's doing a terrific job. He deseerves all the credit for the recent turn around.

OTOH, how did UC's "great" history help it rebuild?

Do you think that today's recruits give a rat's ass about what Cincy did more than 50 years ago when they won their championships. I doubt today's kids have any clue who Oscar Robertson is/was.

And what has been so "great" about UC's history in the last 50 years? Does 1 Final four more than 20 years ago and a couple of Elite 8's qualify as "great history"? How does that distinguish Cincy from all the other teams that have been going to the tournament regularly and getting the occasional deep run into the tournament? do you really think that Cincy's history is unique and that it distinguishes Cincy from dozens of other school?

Today's recruits are 15-18 years old or younger when coaches start talking to them. They certainly aren't aware of anything much more than 10 years old. What in the world has Cincy done in the last 10 years to make recruits think this is a great & storied program that I want to be part of?

I don't know about these other UC fans on here, but I don't think their history had much to do with it at all. Did it hurt? Definitely not. But it was nothing more than an offhand mention to recruits.

What the kids Mick has been able to recruit are buying into is him, his vision for the program, and the fact that you can win a lot of games here. That's what he is selling, and it is working.

If anyone is counting on UC's program regressing badly like some have expected, then I would caution you before you bet your life savings on it...

I think Mick is doing an excellent job recruiting considering where we came from the last 10 years.
What has to happen now in order for Cronin to take the next step in his recruiting, is he now has to get more kids into the league ( Stephenson is the only one I believe ), when that happens, UC will be consistent top 25.

Because someone started an X or Cincy thread I'm clearly obsessed with UC? So I guess you're obsessed with X for responding as well good sir?

Well, this has gone downhill long enough...