(03-21-2016 08:53 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 08:44 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 08:39 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Stay, if he goes, I'll have Tuberville football and a decapitated basketball program to look forward to.

You don't think we can get another basketball coach in here?

If it was that simple, I'd say getting the right coach is basically a coin flip and I wouldn't be as certain of the result of Mick's leaving.
No. I think you'll be dealing with defections/transfers, decommits, trying to put together a whole staff and recruit with a poultry few prospects this summer, and an absolutely GOD AWFUL basketball season, if not two, there following. If you get a flop of a coach ontop of that, you might as well not have basketball at all for the next half decade. With that, the fans will find something else to spend their money on and you'll have sent the program down the toilet.

The idea that this would be a good thing, is some of the most pie in the sky BS I've ever heard. This is an absolutely crap time for a coaching change, unless you're going to promote from within, I am absolutely against it. You're not one coach away from a deep run, if this coach leaves town, you're going to be even further away. REGARDLESS of who the next coach is, the next couple of seasons will be garbage. Recruiting connections can take years and the pipelines you've created are history. More over, the players who are already here committed to this staff. With them gone, there's no incentive to stay. Sure, you might keep some of the upper-classmen, but you better hope to whatever deity you believe in, that the rest really like Cincinnati and aren't thinking about other cities/campuses.

We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Might a kid transfer? Sure. Most won't want to sit out a year...many won't want to play in Nevada...few if any would be offered a higher profile opportunity than Cincy. Mick has served UC well; if he's gone, he's gone. Onward and upward.

(03-21-2016 09:18 PM)AeroCat Wrote:  

There it is! I was waiting for that.

(03-21-2016 09:12 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  Didn't happen that way when Huggins was hired. The improvement was immediate. Nothing magical about Huggins, just when you have the right guy, it happens fast, unless your program is devastated.

The improvement happened, because you hired someone local and it wasn't like he was here Final 4. His first two years were crap. He didn't have to deal with defections of meaningful talent, because there was none. Where did the program have to go but up before Huggins? Do you remember what it was like before he was hired? It was putrid. More over, recruiting isn't the same way it was a quarter century ago. You're assuming X quality coach = Y quality recruits = Z quality results; between AAU loyalties, a greater exploitation of kids in every part of the country and the reputation of brands both corporate(Shoe companies) and school, the game's a lot more complicated today. Who are you going to hire?

Name me the coach and the staff and that's going to make us go to final 4 status, in this age where kids are plastered all over the internet and sleaze ball scouts/coordinators and diploma mill schools have built in alliances. I'm not saying someone can't build it up over time, but even if the guy you get is well vetted, there will be an inevitable down turn. In all honesty, I'm not looking forward to watching that.

Mick is a still young and very good head coach. He could end up being extra-ordinarily good, only time will tell. He needs to improve a bit and I have done my fair share of b*tching about his work over the years. But lets be honest for a second he in no way deserves to be kicked to the curb.

With the negativity of our fan base I might take a look elsewhere. A look is not disrespect. So why are we being so disrespecful of the past 10 years?

Stay.

(03-21-2016 09:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Yet another bad analogy. Xavier promotes from within. They don't go out hiring coaches from other schools. They're not applicable to our situation and the idea that they represent what would happen isn't grounded in our reality. If you want to make coach Davis HC, fine. Otherwise, that's an absolutely meaningless contrast. It's the same program when Miller leaves, and Mack takes over.
As for the second one, the fact you have to reach back to the 80's says a lot.

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Yet another bad analogy. Xavier promotes from within. They don't go out hiring coaches from other schools. They're not applicable to our situation and the idea that they represent what would happen isn't grounded in our reality. If you want to make coach Davis HC, fine. Otherwise, that's an absolutely meaningless contrast. It's the same program when Miller leaves, and Mack takes over.
As for the second one, the fact you have to reach back to the 80's says a lot.

Pete Gillen was a notre dame assistant
Skip prosser was loyola head coach
Thad matta was butler head coach
Miller and mack with both promoted from within

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Yet another bad analogy. Xavier promotes from within. They don't go out hiring coaches from other schools. They're not applicable to our situation and the idea that they represent what would happen isn't grounded in our reality. If you want to make coach Davis HC, fine. Otherwise, that's an absolutely meaningless contrast. It's the same program when Miller leaves, and Mack takes over.
As for the second one, the fact you have to reach back to the 80's says a lot.

You have put forward one scenario...that Mick leaves and the program tanks. But that is just one possibility. There is also the chance we get a better coach in here and instead of barely scraping 20 wins and a 9seed early exit we actually get back to being nationally relevant.

(03-21-2016 09:36 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Yet another bad analogy. Xavier promotes from within. They don't go out hiring coaches from other schools. They're not applicable to our situation and the idea that they represent what would happen isn't grounded in our reality. If you want to make coach Davis HC, fine. Otherwise, that's an absolutely meaningless contrast. It's the same program when Miller leaves, and Mack takes over.
As for the second one, the fact you have to reach back to the 80's says a lot.

Pete Gillen was a notre dame assistant
Skip prosser was loyola head coach
Thad matta was butler head coach
Miller and mack with both promoted from within

Pete Gillen might as well have been walking the earth with T-Rex, and if you're going to say that they haven't improved from Miller's first season on, you're batty.

(03-21-2016 09:36 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Yet another bad analogy. Xavier promotes from within. They don't go out hiring coaches from other schools. They're not applicable to our situation and the idea that they represent what would happen isn't grounded in our reality. If you want to make coach Davis HC, fine. Otherwise, that's an absolutely meaningless contrast. It's the same program when Miller leaves, and Mack takes over.
As for the second one, the fact you have to reach back to the 80's says a lot.

Pete Gillen was a notre dame assistant
Skip prosser was loyola head coach
Thad matta was butler head coach
Miller and mack with both promoted from within

Was an assistant at X when he hired as the head coach.
Edit, was an assistant then a cup of coffee at Loyola.

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)nati streets Wrote:  With the negativity of our fan base I might take a look elsewhere. A look is not disrespect. So why are we being so disrespecful of the past 10 years?

Stay.

This is also a fanbase where someone posted on this message board is everyone else excited that Ellis is gone. Theres a negative energy by a portion of the fans who go to games as well and I've heard much more negativity from fans in the stands directed towards some of our players. Not all the time but more than I'd like to admit.

Really starting to feel like UC fans are a big part of the problem.

(03-21-2016 09:39 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Yet another bad analogy. Xavier promotes from within. They don't go out hiring coaches from other schools. They're not applicable to our situation and the idea that they represent what would happen isn't grounded in our reality. If you want to make coach Davis HC, fine. Otherwise, that's an absolutely meaningless contrast. It's the same program when Miller leaves, and Mack takes over.
As for the second one, the fact you have to reach back to the 80's says a lot.

You have put forward one scenario...that Mick leaves and the program tanks. But that is just one possibility. There is also the chance we get a better coach in here and instead of barely scraping 20 wins and a 9seed early exit we actually get back to being nationally relevant.

There's also a chance I have a magical kingdom, where unicorns and hobbits graze enchanted meadows, and wizards work on powerful alchemical recipes, while casting dark spells and scrying for long lost artifacts up my ass; I can't see there's not but I'm not going looking unless I have to. I'm certainly not going to base my future on the assumption there is.

(03-21-2016 09:43 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:39 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:15 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  We've also seen programs where players are energized by a new coaching staff and perform at levels beyond what they've previously demonstrated. Watching UC play this year, I rarely got the sense they were having much fun on the court at all. We witnessed uninspired performances for a full half or an entire game (home game against Temple) and no single player seemed willing or able to assume the role of floor leader on a nightly basis.

I just don't buy the doomsday scenario. It never happened across town and we've seen five coaches parade through X each taking the performance up a notch to a top five ranking this year. Steve Fisher took over @ Michigan the last week of the season in 1989 and won a national championship.

Yet another bad analogy. Xavier promotes from within. They don't go out hiring coaches from other schools. They're not applicable to our situation and the idea that they represent what would happen isn't grounded in our reality. If you want to make coach Davis HC, fine. Otherwise, that's an absolutely meaningless contrast. It's the same program when Miller leaves, and Mack takes over.
As for the second one, the fact you have to reach back to the 80's says a lot.

You have put forward one scenario...that Mick leaves and the program tanks. But that is just one possibility. There is also the chance we get a better coach in here and instead of barely scraping 20 wins and a 9seed early exit we actually get back to being nationally relevant.

There's also a chance I have a magical kingdom, where unicorns and hobbits graze enchanted meadows, and wizards work on powerful alchemical recipes, while casting dark spells and scrying for long lost artifacts up my ass; I can't see there's not but I'm not going looking unless I have to. I'm certainly not going to base my future on the assumption there is.

well that was an interesting post/take....lol

(03-21-2016 09:55 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  well that was an interesting post/take....lol

I just mean it worries me, nothing personal. I understand we would survive, but I feel like it'd like be a bad situation for a few years, possibly more with a lousy hire.
Though, the hiring of Tubs may be making me a little hyper skeptical of administrators... I wrecked a car once or twice, I also see potential cars rolling into intersections without looking every time I drive now. Same thing.

(03-21-2016 09:42 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)nati streets Wrote:  With the negativity of our fan base I might take a look elsewhere. A look is not disrespect. So why are we being so disrespecful of the past 10 years?

Stay.

This is also a fanbase where someone posted on this message board is everyone else excited that Ellis is gone. Theres a negative energy by a portion of the fans who go to games as well and I've heard much more negativity from fans in the stands directed towards some of our players. Not all the time but more than I'd like to admit.

Really starting to feel like UC fans are a big part of the problem.

But dumping on UC fans isn't negative at all...

(03-21-2016 10:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:42 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)nati streets Wrote:  With the negativity of our fan base I might take a look elsewhere. A look is not disrespect. So why are we being so disrespecful of the past 10 years?

Stay.

This is also a fanbase where someone posted on this message board is everyone else excited that Ellis is gone. Theres a negative energy by a portion of the fans who go to games as well and I've heard much more negativity from fans in the stands directed towards some of our players. Not all the time but more than I'd like to admit.

Really starting to feel like UC fans are a big part of the problem.

But dumping on UC fans isn't negative at all...

Perhaps it is actually seeing the forest despite the trees...

[edit]
Legitimately though - what is everyone angry about that push them into the "go" category?
Is it at Mick would even interview elsewhere?
Is it that we lost in the first round to a team we should have beaten?
Is it that we lost a bunch of close games?
Is it that we had so much expectation and the team did not live up to it?
Is it that he missed a radio talk show?

I know what frustrated me, and it was that we never learned to play a full game. We would have periods where the team seemed to stop, or did not play until the buzzer. That was very frustrating, and I put that on Mick. But that does not mean I would like him to leave. So I'm seriously curious. What pushes people over the edge?

(03-21-2016 10:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  But dumping on UC fans isn't negative at all...

So criticizing the fanbase is off limits but irrational criticisms of college kids is fair game?

This place is a train wreck.

(03-21-2016 10:01 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:42 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-21-2016 09:29 PM)nati streets Wrote:  With the negativity of our fan base I might take a look elsewhere. A look is not disrespect. So why are we being so disrespecful of the past 10 years?

Stay.

This is also a fanbase where someone posted on this message board is everyone else excited that Ellis is gone. Theres a negative energy by a portion of the fans who go to games as well and I've heard much more negativity from fans in the stands directed towards some of our players. Not all the time but more than I'd like to admit.

Really starting to feel like UC fans are a big part of the problem.

But dumping on UC fans isn't negative at all...

LOL, what a response.

I hope he stays. We should have a good team next year. I like making the tourney. The grass isn't always greener. I don't think he's ever gonna build us into a top ten program or contend for a final four, but who knows what could happen if we got into a better conference and recruiting picked up. And look at coaches who matured into big time coaches. Boeheim didn't exactly light it up with final fours and titles when he first started. Nor did Calhoun. Biggest successes came later when they were older coaches. I would like a more attractive and effective offense but that would be a gamble if he left. Unless there's some obvious stud coach knociking at our door, I'd prefer mick not leave and we stay with what we have and hope for improvement