Huggins also owns the "second round NCAA flame outs with a good seed" award over Cronin.


#fact

I don't understand why some of you can't appreciate both coaches and act as if some sort of praise of Huggins is an indirect jab at Cronin.

Edit: Unless it's a post from dossbig, who's just sitting back and laughing.

Good call out Coop

My comment wasnt a rip on Huggins in light of Cronin but more just a rip in Huggins because we had some really good seeded teams that couldnt even get to the swee 16.

(03-26-2015 09:17 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Good call out Coop

My comment wasnt a rip on Huggins in light of Cronin but more just a rip in Huggins because we had some really good seeded teams that couldnt even get to the swee 16.

Even though I think Huggs' squads were on the whole better, your point is still fair criticism. I was starting to think the Huggins just wasn't a good end of season/tournament coach, but his performance at WVU has put that theory to rest. It sounds like rationalization, but some of those lower-seeded teams that Huggins lost to really were better than their seedings, such as UCLA and Temple.

(03-26-2015 11:07 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:17 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Good call out Coop

My comment wasnt a rip on Huggins in light of Cronin but more just a rip in Huggins because we had some really good seeded teams that couldnt even get to the swee 16.

Even though I think Huggs' squads were on the whole better, your point is still fair criticism. I was starting to think the Huggins just wasn't a good end of season/tournament coach, but his performance at WVU has put that theory to rest. It sounds like rationalization, but some of those lower-seeded teams that Huggins lost to really were better than their seedings, such as UCLA and Temple.

Towards the end of his time here, the teams that were losing early in the tournament just weren't that good. Quite frankly, looking back on it I'm kinda surprised the team that followed Steve Logan's senior year even made the tournament (and they made it comfortably as an 8 seed).

Early on though, we had quite a bit of bad luck. Iowa State was trying to foul us late and pushed us over, but we were called for traveling. They went on to go ahead on the next possession and win. WVU hit a buzzer beater from half court that was tipped and still went in. Obviously Kenyon breaking his leg was less than ideal.

I've always been of the opinion people put too much emphasis on tournament performance when evaluating a program though. The tournament is a ton of fun because it can be so unpredictable, but for the same reason it isn't a great measure of a program.

(03-26-2015 02:05 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:07 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:17 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Good call out Coop

My comment wasnt a rip on Huggins in light of Cronin but more just a rip in Huggins because we had some really good seeded teams that couldnt even get to the swee 16.

Even though I think Huggs' squads were on the whole better, your point is still fair criticism. I was starting to think the Huggins just wasn't a good end of season/tournament coach, but his performance at WVU has put that theory to rest. It sounds like rationalization, but some of those lower-seeded teams that Huggins lost to really were better than their seedings, such as UCLA and Temple.

Towards the end of his time here, the teams that were losing early in the tournament just weren't that good. Quite frankly, looking back on it I'm kinda surprised the team that followed Steve Logan's senior year even made the tournament (and they made it comfortably as an 8 seed).

Early on though, we had quite a bit of bad luck. Iowa State was trying to foul us late and pushed us over, but we were called for traveling. They went on to go ahead on the next possession and win. WVU hit a buzzer beater from half court that was tipped and still went in. Obviously Kenyon breaking his leg was less than ideal.

I've always been of the opinion people put too much emphasis on tournament performance when evaluating a program though. The tournament is a ton of fun because it can be so unpredictable, but for the same reason it isn't a great measure of a program.

You are correct-there was a definite drop-off. It seemed like there were several years where he was having trouble getting the recruits on campus and in uniform, with resulting short rosters. Perhaps off-court issues were coming into play-no need to rehash those here. Mick has done a much better job at the "CEO" side of the job than his predecessor.

5. I somewhat disagree with the idea that the arena is a primary factor holding the program back. The primary determinant of recruiting is the HC's personal credibility and reputation with the players' "handlers," with a view to giving them the best path to the NBA. I believe that Huggs has a lot more of this than Mick at this time, although SK's recent promotion can only give him a boost.

Just look at area teams arena steps and tournament success around here.

Shoemaker opens 1989 - Final Four shortly after 1992 and 16 year tourney run
Cintas Center opens 2000 - Xaviers elite 8 2004, and all but 2 years in the tourney
Ohio States new arena 1998(Value City opens) - right after 6 consecutive years of not making the tournament, they have 3 Final Fours, and have only missed the tourney 4 times in 17 years.

Cronin's only players that I could see playing a significant role on a Huggins team are Yancy, SK, Lance, and Cashmere. Big drop off after those. Just my opinion.

I think Gary Clark, Troy Caupain (any of the years between Van Exel and Logan), and Ellis would all have significantly helped Huggins teams through the years.

I also think the buy in of the weight lifting program hurt us. I look at the 92 team and they weren't ripped but they were in great shape with an added bounce to their step, I think a few of the later teams would have benefitted more from fitness and carrying 20 pounds less muscle than the weight program provided.

(03-26-2015 02:33 PM)ucbrownsfan Wrote:  I also think the buy in of the weight lifting program hurt us. I look at the 92 team and they weren't ripped but they were in great shape with an added bounce to their step, I think a few of the later teams would have benefitted more from fitness and carrying 20 pounds less muscle than the weight program provided.

This is a fascinating issue that really deserves its own thread. I'm not sold on the idea that a heavy free weight program for the whole team is such a great idea in basketball, but that raises the question of just what is the best conditioning program for the sport.

Should we compare efforts v. UK in 2015?

(03-26-2015 09:27 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Should we compare efforts v. UK in 2015?

UC punched UK in the mouth and kept coming at them


WVA looks like timid rabbits shatting their britches

(03-26-2015 02:05 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:07 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:17 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Good call out Coop

My comment wasnt a rip on Huggins in light of Cronin but more just a rip in Huggins because we had some really good seeded teams that couldnt even get to the swee 16.

Even though I think Huggs' squads were on the whole better, your point is still fair criticism. I was starting to think the Huggins just wasn't a good end of season/tournament coach, but his performance at WVU has put that theory to rest. It sounds like rationalization, but some of those lower-seeded teams that Huggins lost to really were better than their seedings, such as UCLA and Temple.

Towards the end of his time here, the teams that were losing early in the tournament just weren't that good. Quite frankly, looking back on it I'm kinda surprised the team that followed Steve Logan's senior year even made the tournament (and they made it comfortably as an 8 seed).

Early on though, we had quite a bit of bad luck. Iowa State was trying to foul us late and pushed us over, but we were called for traveling. They went on to go ahead on the next possession and win. WVU hit a buzzer beater from half court that was tipped and still went in. Obviously Kenyon breaking his leg was less than ideal.

I've always been of the opinion people put too much emphasis on tournament performance when evaluating a program though. The tournament is a ton of fun because it can be so unpredictable, but for the same reason it isn't a great measure of a program.

You forgot the committee screwing us and putting UCLA as an 8 seed against us in the 2nd round and they had the talent as a 1. Unfortunately, they played like a 1 that day and you had Billy Knight banking in 3's from the corner just to beat us.

(03-26-2015 09:31 PM)HoosierCat Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:05 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:07 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:17 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Good call out Coop

My comment wasnt a rip on Huggins in light of Cronin but more just a rip in Huggins because we had some really good seeded teams that couldnt even get to the swee 16.

Even though I think Huggs' squads were on the whole better, your point is still fair criticism. I was starting to think the Huggins just wasn't a good end of season/tournament coach, but his performance at WVU has put that theory to rest. It sounds like rationalization, but some of those lower-seeded teams that Huggins lost to really were better than their seedings, such as UCLA and Temple.

Towards the end of his time here, the teams that were losing early in the tournament just weren't that good. Quite frankly, looking back on it I'm kinda surprised the team that followed Steve Logan's senior year even made the tournament (and they made it comfortably as an 8 seed).

Early on though, we had quite a bit of bad luck. Iowa State was trying to foul us late and pushed us over, but we were called for traveling. They went on to go ahead on the next possession and win. WVU hit a buzzer beater from half court that was tipped and still went in. Obviously Kenyon breaking his leg was less than ideal.

I've always been of the opinion people put too much emphasis on tournament performance when evaluating a program though. The tournament is a ton of fun because it can be so unpredictable, but for the same reason it isn't a great measure of a program.

You forgot the committee screwing us and putting UCLA as an 8 seed against us in the 2nd round and they had the talent as a 1. Unfortunately, they played like a 1 that day and you had Billy Knight banking in 3's from the corner just to beat us.

I loved that team. I considered overachieving to get a 1 seed, but that team was awesome. I remember when the brackets came out and everyone was talking about how screwed UC was to draw UCLA in the second round. We came out and took control of the game immediately and I was feeling great. (I'm pretty sure this happened somewhere near the midpoint of the 2nd half) We were up 10 and they hit a 3 and a foul was called on UC on the box out. UCLA inbounded the ball and hit another 3 and all the sudden a comfortable lead was a 4 point game. The rest was history. Very disappointing.

I guess that would fall into the unlucky category, but it would be down the list. When an 8 seed is more talented than you (and then handily loses to a 12 seed the next round) it's hard to cry foul.

(03-26-2015 02:05 PM)Overrated Wrote:  Early on though, we had quite a bit of bad luck. Iowa State was trying to foul us late and pushed us over, but we were called for traveling. They went on to go ahead on the next possession and win. WVU hit a buzzer beater from half court that was tipped and still went in. Obviously Kenyon breaking his leg was less than ideal.

Not to mention the fact that single game outcomes are highly dependent upon matchups/draws and we've had some tough one as some of the follow-up discusses. It's not necessarily about better teams per se - it's about who's better that particular game at that particular time. Pretty much every team looks good when they make shots and almost none look good when they don't.

Quote:I've always been of the opinion people put too much emphasis on tournament performance when evaluating a program though. The tournament is a ton of fun because it can be so unpredictable, but for the same reason it isn't a great measure of a program.

Strongly agree. It's a lot more fun to see your team advance than lose of course but it's not a great way to evaluate a full season imo (National Championship excepted). Each team is different year to year with tiny post-season sample sizes so I don't understand why so many fans see it as the be-all, end-all in evaluating seasons and especially in drawing some of their conclusions.

(03-27-2015 12:29 AM)Overrated Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:31 PM)HoosierCat Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 02:05 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 11:07 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(03-26-2015 09:17 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Good call out Coop

My comment wasnt a rip on Huggins in light of Cronin but more just a rip in Huggins because we had some really good seeded teams that couldnt even get to the swee 16.

Even though I think Huggs' squads were on the whole better, your point is still fair criticism. I was starting to think the Huggins just wasn't a good end of season/tournament coach, but his performance at WVU has put that theory to rest. It sounds like rationalization, but some of those lower-seeded teams that Huggins lost to really were better than their seedings, such as UCLA and Temple.

Towards the end of his time here, the teams that were losing early in the tournament just weren't that good. Quite frankly, looking back on it I'm kinda surprised the team that followed Steve Logan's senior year even made the tournament (and they made it comfortably as an 8 seed).

Early on though, we had quite a bit of bad luck. Iowa State was trying to foul us late and pushed us over, but we were called for traveling. They went on to go ahead on the next possession and win. WVU hit a buzzer beater from half court that was tipped and still went in. Obviously Kenyon breaking his leg was less than ideal.

I've always been of the opinion people put too much emphasis on tournament performance when evaluating a program though. The tournament is a ton of fun because it can be so unpredictable, but for the same reason it isn't a great measure of a program.

You forgot the committee screwing us and putting UCLA as an 8 seed against us in the 2nd round and they had the talent as a 1. Unfortunately, they played like a 1 that day and you had Billy Knight banking in 3's from the corner just to beat us.

I loved that team. I considered overachieving to get a 1 seed, but that team was awesome. I remember when the brackets came out and everyone was talking about how screwed UC was to draw UCLA in the second round. We came out and took control of the game immediately and I was feeling great. (I'm pretty sure this happened somewhere near the midpoint of the 2nd half) We were up 10 and they hit a 3 and a foul was called on UC on the box out. UCLA inbounded the ball and hit another 3 and all the sudden a comfortable lead was a 4 point game. The rest was history. Very disappointing.

I guess that would fall into the unlucky category, but it would be down the list. When an 8 seed is more talented than you (and then handily loses to a 12 seed the next round) it's hard to cry foul.

I also forgot to mention the pass that went about 10 feet over Gadzuric's head in transition, it hit the backboard right back to Gadzuric for the dunk in stride. God, I loved that team too. They deserved more.

My favorite team was 2006 and they didn't even make the tournament.

After last night's ass whipping, Dossbig stuffed himself into his old jumpman brand UC Jersey and is sitting in a dark room watching interviews by Huggs while listening to Sinead O'Connor croon "Nothing Compares To You."

Sinead O'Connor songs should be used in enhanced interrogations, if they're not already.