(04-09-2015 03:00 PM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  if you haven't read the documented cases about established programs falling off the rails when the head coach leaves midseason, then you weren't following the bearcats close enough this past year to criticize coach davis.

(04-09-2015 03:00 PM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  if you haven't read the documented cases about established programs falling off the rails when the head coach leaves midseason, then you weren't following the bearcats close enough this past year to criticize coach davis.

This. Remember how out of sorts UC was against VCU that day? That's how it usually goes for most teams for the duration, even if the team is talented.

As far as I'm concerned, we owe Coach Davis our appreciation for that, if not for the myriad things he's done over the years that we *don't* know about.

(04-09-2015 03:45 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  16-9 is a .640 winning pct. That's not bad at all. Tiny tiny tiny sample size, but interesting.

I wonder, is it reasonable to assume MC woulda done all that much better? He's a career .613 winner, but in fairness he's better and weighed down by those first few years at UC.

No way of knowing one way or another, but it would appear that LD delivered fairly equal value relative to what we may have expected from a full staff. Which makes it all the more sorry that only a sad collection of teams were interested.




mc

I don't think this season would be much different. We were an inconsistent team before Mick was lost for the year and that continued for pretty much the duration of the season.

I did think LD struggled a bit with substitution patterns and late game management, but to suggest we would have won games like Tulane or East Carolina or UConn should Mick have been there is pure speculation, after all we lost a close game at Nebraska with Mick in excruciating fashion.

(04-09-2015 04:38 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 03:45 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  16-9 is a .640 winning pct. That's not bad at all. Tiny tiny tiny sample size, but interesting.

I wonder, is it reasonable to assume MC woulda done all that much better? He's a career .613 winner, but in fairness he's better and weighed down by those first few years at UC.

No way of knowing one way or another, but it would appear that LD delivered fairly equal value relative to what we may have expected from a full staff. Which makes it all the more sorry that only a sad collection of teams were interested.




mc

I don't think this season would be much different. We were an inconsistent team before Mick was lost for the year and that continued for pretty much the duration of the season.

I did think LD struggled a bit with substitution patterns and late game management, but to suggest we would have won games like Tulane or East Carolina or UConn should Mick have been there is pure speculation, after all we lost a close game at Nebraska with Mick in excruciating fashion.

Agreed.

(04-09-2015 04:38 PM)Overrated Wrote:  

(04-09-2015 03:45 PM)marcuscan Wrote:  16-9 is a .640 winning pct. That's not bad at all. Tiny tiny tiny sample size, but interesting.

I wonder, is it reasonable to assume MC woulda done all that much better? He's a career .613 winner, but in fairness he's better and weighed down by those first few years at UC.

No way of knowing one way or another, but it would appear that LD delivered fairly equal value relative to what we may have expected from a full staff. Which makes it all the more sorry that only a sad collection of teams were interested.




mc

I don't think this season would be much different. We were an inconsistent team before Mick was lost for the year and that continued for pretty much the duration of the season.

I did think LD struggled a bit with substitution patterns and late game management, but to suggest we would have won games like Tulane or East Carolina or UConn should Mick have been there is pure speculation, after all we lost a close game at Nebraska with Mick in excruciating fashion.

maybe not tulane or east carolina, but I think mick would have taken down uk