Mick isn't going anywhere. As this point you have to give him time once again to rebuild the program with a new arena and hopefully a new conference. Is he a hall of fame coach like the guy that used to here, no. Is he young enough to build a really strong legacy that includes a couple deep tournament runs and high rankings, yes.

Overall this season was probably his worst coaching job since the 2009-2010 team. I do wonder how much sitting out last year hurt him and the team's chemistry because I thought the guys played really hard last year for Larry Davis. While they had more clunkers like games against ECU and Tulane they also played better in clutch situations against high level teams like Purdue and SMU.

I am just happy to hit the reset button and start fresh next year knowing that it is going to be the last year in the old arena. Nothing would be better than an undefeated home record, a conference championship, and a deep NCAA tournament run.

(03-19-2016 08:20 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Mick isn't going anywhere. As this point you have to give him time once again to rebuild the program with a new arena and hopefully a new conference. Is he a hall of fame coach like the guy that used to here, no. Is he young enough to build a really strong legacy that includes a couple deep tournament runs and high rankings, yes.

Overall this season was probably his worst coaching job since the 2009-2010 team. I do wonder how much sitting out last year hurt him and the team's chemistry because I thought the guys played really hard last year for Larry Davis. While they had more clunkers like games against ECU and Tulane they also played better in clutch situations against high level teams like Purdue and SMU.

I am just happy to hit the reset button and start fresh next year knowing that it is going to be the last year in the old arena. Nothing would be better than an undefeated home record, a conference championship, and a deep NCAA tournament run.

It wasn't a total loss...I heard Sammie pulled straight A's

(03-19-2016 06:45 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  He's done a perfect job. Remember that the wins and losses are secondary to the success of these student athletes in their pursuit of a degree.

Are you Mick's girlfriend or mother? He's perfect at what? Excuses, mediocrity or collecting large checks? Let's stop with the fallacy of "student athletes." That term is for the NCAA marketing dept or teenagers looking for unicorns.

(03-19-2016 08:24 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:45 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  He's done a perfect job. Remember that the wins and losses are secondary to the success of these student athletes in their pursuit of a degree.

Are you Mick's girlfriend or mother? He's perfect at what? Excuses, mediocrity or collecting large checks? Let's stop with the fallacy of "student athletes." That term is for the NCAA marketing dept or teenagers looking for unicorns.

Not Duane is Sammie lol

Watching this weekend, it is so obvious how far behind in talent the AAC is as a whole compared to the top 5 or 6 conferences, just awful.

(03-19-2016 09:20 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Watching this weekend, it is so obvious how far behind in talent the AAC is as a whole compared to the top 5 or 6 conferences, just awful.

Admittedly it wasn't a great tournament, but the AAC had a 2 point loss in OT to a good Big 10 team, Had a 2 point loss in the play in game, had a 2 point loss to the Atlantic Ten Champs on a crazy play, had a win over the PAC 12 team, lost to the number 1 team in the country and didn't have it's best team playing in the tournament. Nobody is arguing the AAC currently has teams in line with the best of the best, but it's not like the league got run off the floor in this tournament either.

One of those teams were also missing an all conference 2nd teamer and defensive player of the year

(03-19-2016 09:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:20 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Watching this weekend, it is so obvious how far behind in talent the AAC is as a whole compared to the top 5 or 6 conferences, just awful.

Admittedly it wasn't a great tournament, but the AAC had a 2 point loss in OT to a good Big 10 team, Had a 2 point loss in the play in game, had a 2 point loss to the Atlantic Ten Champs on a crazy play, had a win over the PAC 12 team, lost to the number 1 team in the country and didn't have it's best team playing in the tournament. Nobody is arguing the AAC currently has teams in line with the best of the best, but it's not like the league got run off the floor in this tournament either.

Thanks for keeping it real Mark.

(03-19-2016 06:45 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  I would keep Cronin no matter what happens on the court. Clean program, no negative image. He's done a perfect job. Remember that the wins and losses are secondary to the success of these student athletes in their pursuit of a degree.

I'd be happy with 0-22 as long as they all graduate. I expect rosewater and BearcatsUC agree.

No I do not. I would not trade coaches though. Making the NCaa every year with a chance of a run is all you can ask. Some posters are clueless if they think this is easy at Cincinnati. There are plenty of examples of programs that had greater recent success than UC, yet after a coaching change have been unable to reach that apex(or close) again. UNLV comes to mind. There success in the 80s and early 90s was tremendous. UCLA has not exactly been the UCLA of the 60s and 70s. Appreciate what you have. We did not lose to UConn and Stjoes in the tournament due to coaching. It was a bad luck year and that's it. We played well. I think that we played hard, just not smart.

(03-20-2016 07:59 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:45 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  I would keep Cronin no matter what happens on the court. Clean program, no negative image. He's done a perfect job. Remember that the wins and losses are secondary to the success of these student athletes in their pursuit of a degree.

I'd be happy with 0-22 as long as they all graduate. I expect rosewater and BearcatsUC agree.

No I do not. I would not trade coaches though. Making the NCaa every year with a chance of a run is all you can ask. Some posters are clueless if they think this is easy at Cincinnati. There are plenty of examples of programs that had greater recent success than UC, yet after a coaching change have been unable to reach that apex(or close) again. UNLV comes to mind. There success in the 80s and early 90s was tremendous. UCLA has not exactly been the UCLA of the 60s and 70s. Appreciate what you have. We did not lose to UConn and Stjoes in the tournament due to coaching. It was a bad luck year and that's it. We played well. I think that we played hard, just not smart.

I understand the point you are making and agree but using UNLV is a bad example- they cheated, and badly to acheive the success you speak of. So some coaches werent going to touch that program with a ten foot pole after Tark exited stage left.

(03-20-2016 08:08 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 07:59 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:45 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  I would keep Cronin no matter what happens on the court. Clean program, no negative image. He's done a perfect job. Remember that the wins and losses are secondary to the success of these student athletes in their pursuit of a degree.

I'd be happy with 0-22 as long as they all graduate. I expect rosewater and BearcatsUC agree.

No I do not. I would not trade coaches though. Making the NCaa every year with a chance of a run is all you can ask. Some posters are clueless if they think this is easy at Cincinnati. There are plenty of examples of programs that had greater recent success than UC, yet after a coaching change have been unable to reach that apex(or close) again. UNLV comes to mind. There success in the 80s and early 90s was tremendous. UCLA has not exactly been the UCLA of the 60s and 70s. Appreciate what you have. We did not lose to UConn and Stjoes in the tournament due to coaching. It was a bad luck year and that's it. We played well. I think that we played hard, just not smart.

I understand the point you are making and agree but using UNLV is a bad example- they cheated, and badly to acheive the success you speak of. So some coaches werent going to touch that program with a ten foot pole after Tark exited stage left.

Lets substitute Indiana for UNLV

(03-20-2016 08:17 AM)rosewater Wrote:  Lets substitute Indiana for UNLV

The UCLA of the 60's and 70's could no longer exist in this college basketball landscape. Everything has changed.

Sampson was the first real transition coach post-Knight and he was fired after violations and Indiana went through sanctions. Crean came in and cleaned up the mess. They've been to 3 Sweet Sixteen's in the last 5 years.

Hell, Xavier loses their coach on a regular basis and hasn't missed a beat.

You can appreciate what you have and still think Cincinnati Basketball should have higher expectations. Programs can go through ups and downs, but I'm not going to settle for just making the tournament.

The fact that the expectations of UC Basketball and Football have fallen so drastically should tell us all something. Just making the NCAA Tournament and a bowl game isn't good enough, nor should it be.

I do not think you can discount UCLA by saying the landscape has changed if were are comparing present to the past. The argument about Indiana is an argument of scale. Indiana had three natis with Knight. One was and undefeated season. W/o checking they had at least one other final four (92 same as UC). Post Knight 3 sweet 16 appearances using your statistics (lazy). Heavens, Mick has one sweet sixteen. I would not group football with basketball. TT should have been fired yesterday. Listening to his words, he is just keeping a seat warm in order to draw a check. Mick is not ideal, but I think if you balance Mick's upside against the risk of a new hire, the odds favor status quo.

(03-19-2016 09:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:20 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Watching this weekend, it is so obvious how far behind in talent the AAC is as a whole compared to the top 5 or 6 conferences, just awful.

Admittedly it wasn't a great tournament, but the AAC had a 2 point loss in OT to a good Big 10 team, Had a 2 point loss in the play in game, had a 2 point loss to the Atlantic Ten Champs on a crazy play, had a win over the PAC 12 team, lost to the number 1 team in the country and didn't have it's best team playing in the tournament. Nobody is arguing the AAC currently has teams in line with the best of the best, but it's not like the league got run off the floor in this tournament either.

You people crack me up, did you watch the Indiana-KY. game. You guys all say Caupain is our best player, yet he starts for neither team and sees at best 10 or 12 minutes a game, if that. These are 4 and 5 seeds, take off the rose colored glasses. Clark would be the same way, maybe sees a few more minutes for Ind. Caupain at best would be a role player on Victory Pkwy. AAC's best team cheated to get to the top.

(03-20-2016 09:15 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:20 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Watching this weekend, it is so obvious how far behind in talent the AAC is as a whole compared to the top 5 or 6 conferences, just awful.

Admittedly it wasn't a great tournament, but the AAC had a 2 point loss in OT to a good Big 10 team, Had a 2 point loss in the play in game, had a 2 point loss to the Atlantic Ten Champs on a crazy play, had a win over the PAC 12 team, lost to the number 1 team in the country and didn't have it's best team playing in the tournament. Nobody is arguing the AAC currently has teams in line with the best of the best, but it's not like the league got run off the floor in this tournament either.

You people crack me up, did you watch the Indiana-KY. game. You guys all say Caupain is our best player, yet he starts for neither team and sees at best 10 or 12 minutes a game, if that. These are 4 and 5 seeds, take off the rose colored glasses. Clark would be the same way, maybe sees a few more minutes for Ind. Caupain at best would be a role player on Victory Pkwy. Its best team cheated to get there.

So our best player (a PG) wouldn't start at the program with the best PG (or 2nd best depending how you feel about Valentine) in the country and wouldn't start for Indiana who has an NBA level PG... sure. If your point is the 5-10 blue blood programs have better talent than UC than yes you are 100% right. But you made the point on the league as a whole vs. other leagues and sorry that has demonstratively not been the case.

BTW Clark would have absolutely been a valuable addition to UK this year as they desperately needed inside guys who could put the ball in the basket (despite recruiting really high prospects there). Ellis would have absolutely helped out Kentucky this year as well (may even have started, but certainly would have gotten minutes).

Both Clark and Ellis would have helped Indiana as well. Indiana's big advantage over UC was it got really consistent production from the 2/3 all year, something UC didn't get. Additionally, Yogi Farrell is an NBA talent, and though I think Troy is a big time college player he's not an NBA talent. I feel great about the way Evans was playing at the end though and he's the type of talent that would help at most programs going forward.

So yea, if you're talking about the 5-10 best programs you are right, but when talking about conferences as a whole, not so much.

(03-20-2016 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 09:15 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:20 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Watching this weekend, it is so obvious how far behind in talent the AAC is as a whole compared to the top 5 or 6 conferences, just awful.

Admittedly it wasn't a great tournament, but the AAC had a 2 point loss in OT to a good Big 10 team, Had a 2 point loss in the play in game, had a 2 point loss to the Atlantic Ten Champs on a crazy play, had a win over the PAC 12 team, lost to the number 1 team in the country and didn't have it's best team playing in the tournament. Nobody is arguing the AAC currently has teams in line with the best of the best, but it's not like the league got run off the floor in this tournament either.

You people crack me up, did you watch the Indiana-KY. game. You guys all say Caupain is our best player, yet he starts for neither team and sees at best 10 or 12 minutes a game, if that. These are 4 and 5 seeds, take off the rose colored glasses. Clark would be the same way, maybe sees a few more minutes for Ind. Caupain at best would be a role player on Victory Pkwy. Its best team cheated to get there.

So our best player (a PG) wouldn't start at the program with the best PG (or 2nd best depending how you feel about Valentine) in the country and wouldn't start for Indiana who has an NBA level PG... sure. If your point is the 5-10 blue blood programs have better talent than UC than yes you are 100% right. But you made the point on the league as a whole vs. other leagues and sorry that has demonstratively not been the case.

BTW Clark would have absolutely been a valuable addition to UK this year as they desperately needed inside guys who could put the ball in the basket (despite recruiting really high prospects there). Ellis would have absolutely helped out Kentucky this year as well (may even have started, but certainly would have gotten minutes).

Both Clark and Ellis would have helped Indiana as well. Indiana's big advantage over UC was it got really consistent production from the 2/3 all year, something UC didn't get. Additionally, Yogi Farrell is an NBA talent, and though I think Troy is a big time college player he's not an NBA talent. I feel great about the way Evans was playing at the end though and he's the type of talent that would help at most programs going forward.

So yea, if you're talking about the 5-10 best programs you are right, but when talking about conferences as a whole, not so much.

As a league, the AAC lost to Kenpom ranked teams #57,#56,#44 and #22, also UConn was down by 20 at the half and had no chance in that game. Doesn't sound very competitive to me.

(03-20-2016 09:30 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 09:15 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:24 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 09:20 PM)CincyBro Wrote:  Watching this weekend, it is so obvious how far behind in talent the AAC is as a whole compared to the top 5 or 6 conferences, just awful.

Admittedly it wasn't a great tournament, but the AAC had a 2 point loss in OT to a good Big 10 team, Had a 2 point loss in the play in game, had a 2 point loss to the Atlantic Ten Champs on a crazy play, had a win over the PAC 12 team, lost to the number 1 team in the country and didn't have it's best team playing in the tournament. Nobody is arguing the AAC currently has teams in line with the best of the best, but it's not like the league got run off the floor in this tournament either.

You people crack me up, did you watch the Indiana-KY. game. You guys all say Caupain is our best player, yet he starts for neither team and sees at best 10 or 12 minutes a game, if that. These are 4 and 5 seeds, take off the rose colored glasses. Clark would be the same way, maybe sees a few more minutes for Ind. Caupain at best would be a role player on Victory Pkwy. Its best team cheated to get there.

So our best player (a PG) wouldn't start at the program with the best PG (or 2nd best depending how you feel about Valentine) in the country and wouldn't start for Indiana who has an NBA level PG... sure. If your point is the 5-10 blue blood programs have better talent than UC than yes you are 100% right. But you made the point on the league as a whole vs. other leagues and sorry that has demonstratively not been the case.

BTW Clark would have absolutely been a valuable addition to UK this year as they desperately needed inside guys who could put the ball in the basket (despite recruiting really high prospects there). Ellis would have absolutely helped out Kentucky this year as well (may even have started, but certainly would have gotten minutes).

Both Clark and Ellis would have helped Indiana as well. Indiana's big advantage over UC was it got really consistent production from the 2/3 all year, something UC didn't get. Additionally, Yogi Farrell is an NBA talent, and though I think Troy is a big time college player he's not an NBA talent. I feel great about the way Evans was playing at the end though and he's the type of talent that would help at most programs going forward.

So yea, if you're talking about the 5-10 best programs you are right, but when talking about conferences as a whole, not so much.

Just used that game as an example,the AAC is far behind the top 4 or 5 leagues in talent, hell, just use how far down each team was seeded.

(03-20-2016 08:17 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 08:08 AM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-20-2016 07:59 AM)rosewater Wrote:  

(03-19-2016 06:45 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  I would keep Cronin no matter what happens on the court. Clean program, no negative image. He's done a perfect job. Remember that the wins and losses are secondary to the success of these student athletes in their pursuit of a degree.

I'd be happy with 0-22 as long as they all graduate. I expect rosewater and BearcatsUC agree.

No I do not. I would not trade coaches though. Making the NCaa every year with a chance of a run is all you can ask. Some posters are clueless if they think this is easy at Cincinnati. There are plenty of examples of programs that had greater recent success than UC, yet after a coaching change have been unable to reach that apex(or close) again. UNLV comes to mind. There success in the 80s and early 90s was tremendous. UCLA has not exactly been the UCLA of the 60s and 70s. Appreciate what you have. We did not lose to UConn and Stjoes in the tournament due to coaching. It was a bad luck year and that's it. We played well. I think that we played hard, just not smart.

I understand the point you are making and agree but using UNLV is a bad example- they cheated, and badly to acheive the success you speak of. So some coaches werent going to touch that program with a ten foot pole after Tark exited stage left.

Lets substitute Indiana for UNLV

In light of Micks possible decision to interview for the UNLV job, maybe we can have a real scientific experiment about Micks ability to lift programs.

It could definitely be better. The budget is smaller than TCU and DePaul. UMass spends more money on recruiting. The arena is outdated and the conference is second rate. This program is renowned because of what they did 50+ years ago, which is meaningless to current recruits. I'm surprised they've even made it to six straight tournaments given the current lack of funding.

(03-20-2016 11:19 AM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  It could definitely be better. The budget is smaller than TCU and DePaul. UMass spends more money on recruiting. The arena is outdated and the conference is second rate. This program is renowned because of what they did 50+ years ago, which is meaningless to current recruits. I'm surprised they've even made it to six straight tournaments given the current lack of funding.

UC has some issues. The old arena and losing the Big East hurts but the Bearcats are more than just two national titles and five finals fours from and 1950's and 1960's. You don't go to 20 NCAA tournaments in the last 25 years without being a top level program. You can extend that to 20 NCAA tournaments, 4 NIT bids, and double digit conference championships since Fifth Third Arena opened.