(02-21-2017 10:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I don't know why Doc always has to dust off the fans don't like Mick garbage. It is 13,000 K plus every night at 5/3rd Arena.

He and Lance listen to random tweets/radio call-ins from guys who were not likely UC fans to begin with and take that as the mainstream conscious of the fan base.

(02-21-2017 10:51 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 10:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I don't know why Doc always has to dust off the fans don't like Mick garbage. It is 13,000 K plus every night at 5/3rd Arena.

He and Lance listen to random tweets/radio call-ins from guys who were not likely UC fans to begin with and take that as the mainstream conscious of the fan base.

Or......

They just make up their own reality in order to get listeners/readers.

Sad!

(02-21-2017 10:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I don't know why Doc always has to dust off the fans don't like Mick garbage. It is 13,000 K plus every night at 5/3rd Arena.

He gets it from the few that comment either on his articles or possibly from the few that call in to talk radio.

(02-21-2017 10:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I don't know why Doc always has to dust off the fans don't like Mick garbage. It is 13,000 K plus every night at 5/3rd Arena.

And that many against Tulsa on a Saturday at noon. Those of us who were there didn't pay the big bucks to see 12-14 Tulsa lose their sixth game in a row, or for the tension of an exciting American conference title race, or for the cheap beer and exciting concessions, or to see the jump rope team at halftime (well, maybe some were, they were pretty entertaining).

Those people come to see Mick and the team he has assembled and coached.

(02-21-2017 11:12 AM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 10:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  I don't know why Doc always has to dust off the fans don't like Mick garbage. It is 13,000 K plus every night at 5/3rd Arena.

And that many against Tulsa on a Saturday at noon. Those of us who were there didn't pay the big bucks to see 12-14 Tulsa lose their sixth game in a row, or for the tension of an exciting American conference title race, or for the cheap beer and exciting concessions, or to see the jump rope team at halftime (well, maybe some were, they were pretty entertaining).

Those people come to see Mick and the team he has assembled and coached.

There were four in the lower section, behind the visitor bench two rows in front of our season tix seats that most definitely were. Two of the girls who performed and presumably a brother and father. Nice seats for freebies but there really aren't many season tix holders left around us these days.

The frustration stems from teams and players that just aren't as good as what we'd become accustomed to. But there were legitimate issues with Huggs: off-court issues, low grad rates, excessive reliance on jucos, recruits that never made it to campus or couldn't stay enrolled & eligible, the whole "outlaw" image, etc. Frankly, the program was in bad shape when he got canned, even though that team, with its short roster, was damn good. This year, Mick has a solid T25 team with none of Huggs' negatives. Mick arguably has the program in a better place now than Huggs ever had it.

(02-20-2017 09:13 PM)bww Wrote:  You could tell that Mick was a good coach in the first couple of years when we had nothing, and yet still only lost to really good BEast teams by 7-11 pts. We should have lost those games by 25+ He has become more accountable, but those early years he had an excuse for everything.

The best is yet to come in the next few years. I am very excited for the future with Mick as the coach.

I always said that the first bearcat team that mick coached shouldn't have won a game and yet, he won 11. I knew there was a good coach heading the program.

(02-21-2017 12:59 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  The frustration stems from teams and players that just aren't as good as what we'd become accustomed to. But there were legitimate issues with Huggs: off-court issues, low grad rates, excessive reliance on jucos, recruits that never made it to campus or couldn't stay enrolled & eligible, the whole "outlaw" image, etc. Frankly, the program was in bad shape when he got canned, even though that team, with its short roster, was damn good. This year, Mick has a solid T25 team with none of Huggs' negatives. Mick arguably has the program in a better place now than Huggs ever had it.

Not relying on JUCO as a business model. Nearly everyone graduates now. By all accounts good citizens off the court (players and staff). NCAA is not sniffing around. New facility underway in 2 weeks.

If you start counting in 2010 or so when the rebuild reached a manageable level, this current run is equal to or better than what we rolled out in the years post Kenyon under Huggs. That includes the 31-4 team in Logan's senior year since this season appears to be on path to replicate that one.

I'd say things are as good as they have ever been from an overall program health perspective.

(02-21-2017 02:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:59 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  The frustration stems from teams and players that just aren't as good as what we'd become accustomed to. But there were legitimate issues with Huggs: off-court issues, low grad rates, excessive reliance on jucos, recruits that never made it to campus or couldn't stay enrolled & eligible, the whole "outlaw" image, etc. Frankly, the program was in bad shape when he got canned, even though that team, with its short roster, was damn good. This year, Mick has a solid T25 team with none of Huggs' negatives. Mick arguably has the program in a better place now than Huggs ever had it.

Not relying on JUCO as a business model. Nearly everyone graduates now. By all accounts good citizens off the court (players and staff). NCAA is not sniffing around. New facility underway in 2 weeks.

If you start counting in 2010 or so when the rebuild reached a manageable level, this current run is equal to or better than what we rolled out in the years post Kenyon under Huggs. That includes the 31-4 team in Logan's senior year since this season appears to be on path to replicate that one.

I'd say things are as good as they have ever been from an overall program health perspective.

No way we're in the ballpark of Logan's senior year team...

That team played legit NBA talent throughout; david west, josh howard, dwayne wade, matt barnes, jason kapono, reese gaines got a few cups of coffee. you could have developed a .500 nba team from UC's competition that year when those. This year, we've played a few decent second rounders. Our 2001-02 team had some great wins, 34 pts over a team that ended up being a 3 seed.

(02-21-2017 03:05 PM)ucbrownsfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 02:10 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 12:59 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  The frustration stems from teams and players that just aren't as good as what we'd become accustomed to. But there were legitimate issues with Huggs: off-court issues, low grad rates, excessive reliance on jucos, recruits that never made it to campus or couldn't stay enrolled & eligible, the whole "outlaw" image, etc. Frankly, the program was in bad shape when he got canned, even though that team, with its short roster, was damn good. This year, Mick has a solid T25 team with none of Huggs' negatives. Mick arguably has the program in a better place now than Huggs ever had it.

Not relying on JUCO as a business model. Nearly everyone graduates now. By all accounts good citizens off the court (players and staff). NCAA is not sniffing around. New facility underway in 2 weeks.

If you start counting in 2010 or so when the rebuild reached a manageable level, this current run is equal to or better than what we rolled out in the years post Kenyon under Huggs. That includes the 31-4 team in Logan's senior year since this season appears to be on path to replicate that one.

I'd say things are as good as they have ever been from an overall program health perspective.

No way we're in the ballpark of Logan's senior year team...

That team played legit NBA talent throughout; david west, josh howard, dwayne wade, matt barnes, jason kapono, reese gaines got a few cups of coffee. you could have developed a .500 nba team from UC's competition that year when those. This year, we've played a few decent second rounders. Our 2001-02 team had some great wins, 34 pts over a team that ended up being a 3 seed.

Because that team ran into the crazy talented UCLA team in the second round that played a great second half and got really lucky on some flukie plays, people tend to downgrade how good that team was. It's to this day my all time favorite UC team. Ran through a peak level CUSA with some huge wins down the stretch. Absolutely earned that one seed. Logan was incredible but everyone else played their role. What sucks about the one game and out format is you get the right team on the right night and you can go down. UC played well and still lost. I firmly believe that UC team makes the final four if UCLA doesn't bank in a three / have the ball land in kapono's lap on an airball as the shotclock is expiring (for a layup) and a few other flukie plays plays. Both teams played well, but seemed like despite UCLA's talent UC was the better team...every break seemed to go against them.

That team racked up a bunch of wins against middling competition, too.

If UC wins out, I have no problem putting them in the same category as 2001. Different type of team, but go through the guys getting most of the minutes and this roster stacks up very well with that one.

Crazy thing is I take our starters this year at 3-5. Logan is the major difference between these teams.

(02-21-2017 03:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  That team racked up a bunch of wins against middling competition, too.

If UC wins out, I have no problem putting them in the same category as 2001. Different type of team, but go through the guys getting most of the minutes and this roster stacks up very well with that one.

This is a huge exaggeration. I hate on the RPI but that's the easiest records to get so I'm going to go with it. The 2002 Bearcats finished 3 in the RPI. They were 8-2 against the RPI top 50 and 9-1 against RPI 51-100. 17-3 against the RPI top 100 is pretty excellent stuff. http://www.basketballprospectus.com/rpi.php?y=2002

I like this team a lot. They are 3-2 vs. the RPI top 50 and 2-1 against 51-100. This team is 5-3 agianst the RPI top 100. The season isn't over and UC could get a couple more, but they aren't going to come anywhere near the 17 top 100 wins or the 8 top 50 wins in the regular season. The idea that this UC team and the 2002 UC team played similar competition is silly. That resume of the 2002 team is damn impressive. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...tty-report

I should add that the UC team from 2002 finished #2 in Kenpom adjusted efficiency (7th Adj Offense and 2nd in Adjusted defense). That team had the profile of legit national championship contender. It didn't earn a one seed just by beating middling competition.

(02-21-2017 03:35 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  Crazy thing is I take our starters this year at 3-5. Logan is the major difference between these teams.

Logan was a legitimate 1st team all american who had a great case for National Player of the Year. That's great but the pieces of that team fit perfectly and were better than people remember. Stokes could come at you and explode for a ton. He and McCleroy were great perimeter defenders (IMac being the best I've seen at UC). Clark actually reminds me a ton of Jamal Davis. UC ran a lot of that offense using his intelligence. He could switch on defense against a lot of guys and probably could have been more of a center piece if needed to. Clark's a better overall player but their role is similar and Davis was excellent in his. Everyone remembers Little because of the roommate incident, but he was a presence inside and one of the reasons this team was so great defensively (the others being how great Stokes and McCleroy were guarding on the perimeter and Davis's flexibility).

You can't ignore the huge role Maxiell played scoring (and defending) off the bench. Max is still the most talented inside player UC has had since KMart and was essential to this team. Field brought some instant shooting off the bench. The rest of the roster were basically minute eating defenders but all played their roles well. Everyone on that team fit well together and their roles complimented each other so well. Not sure I'll ever have a UC team top that as my favorite.

All that said it will come down to the March measuring stick . The 2002 club lost to the best #8 seed of all time in the round of 32.

If this club makes it to the Sweet 16 or beyond and racks up 32 or more wins along the way , I'll happily give the nod to this 2017 crew.

(02-21-2017 03:58 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  That team racked up a bunch of wins against middling competition, too.

If UC wins out, I have no problem putting them in the same category as 2001. Different type of team, but go through the guys getting most of the minutes and this roster stacks up very well with that one.

This is a huge exaggeration. I hate on the RPI but that's the easiest records to get so I'm going to go with it. The 2002 Bearcats finished 3 in the RPI. They were 8-2 against the RPI top 50 and 9-1 against RPI 51-100. 17-3 against the RPI top 100 is pretty excellent stuff. http://www.basketballprospectus.com/rpi.php?y=2002

I like this team a lot. They are 3-2 vs. the RPI top 50 and 2-1 against 51-100. This team is 5-3 agianst the RPI top 100. The season isn't over and UC could get a couple more, but they aren't going to come anywhere near the 17 top 100 wins or the 8 top 50 wins in the regular season. The idea that this UC team and the 2002 UC team played similar competition is silly. That resume of the 2002 team is damn impressive. http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketba...tty-report

I should add that the UC team from 2002 finished #2 in Kenpom adjusted efficiency (7th Adj Offense and 2nd in Adjusted defense). That team had the profile of legit national championship contender. It didn't earn a one seed just by beating middling competition.

If UC wins out with a conference championship they will be 31-3 with a top 10 RPI.

Don't care. I'd put them on the same level as Logan's SR year where they went 31-4 with a flame out to a 8/9 seed....don't care why or to whom or if all the bounces went against the home team. They spit the bit. This year's team would deserve the same level of respect. More if they actually play the second weekend in the tourney.

(02-21-2017 03:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  That team racked up a bunch of wins against middling competition, too.

If UC wins out, I have no problem putting them in the same category as 2001. Different type of team, but go through the guys getting most of the minutes and this roster stacks up very well with that one.

They'd have to make an elite 8 / final 4 run for me to put them in the same category.

I actually see this team as being a lot like that one, with above average guard play instead of great guard play.

Logan / Imac were better at every phase of the game than Caupain / KJ. Other guys could have scored more, but the thing is Logan made himself a true alpha that year - which is something this team needs IMO.

(02-21-2017 04:48 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  If UC wins out with a conference championship they will be 31-3 with a top 10 RPI.

Don't care. I'd put them on the same level as Logan's SR year where they went 31-4 with a flame out to a 8/9 seed....don't care why or to whom or if all the bounces went against the home team. They spit the bit. This year's team would deserve the same level of respect. More if they actually play the second weekend in the tourney.

One game to me has never outweighed everything a team does. One game anything can happen. That team beat a ton of quality basketball teams all year. Their record vs. RPI top 50 and top 100 teams was the exact kind of record you'd expect for a one seed. I love this team, but unless they make the final four I can't say they would have accomplished as much as that team. That team won a conference regular season and tournament title, earned a 1 seed, and was clearly one of the best 5 teams in the country all season. 1 loss just doesn't erase that because of when it happened.

(02-21-2017 04:51 PM)ucbrownsfan Wrote:  

(02-21-2017 03:30 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  That team racked up a bunch of wins against middling competition, too.

If UC wins out, I have no problem putting them in the same category as 2001. Different type of team, but go through the guys getting most of the minutes and this roster stacks up very well with that one.

They'd have to make an elite 8 / final 4 run for me to put them in the same category.

I actually see this team as being a lot like that one, with above average guard play instead of great guard play.

Logan / Imac were better at every phase of the game than Caupain / KJ. Other guys could have scored more, but the thing is Logan made himself a true alpha that year - which is something this team needs IMO.

This is where I am as well. A final four run would make this team stand out more despite the fact that the 2002 team was better all year. BTW the 2002 team being better is not a knock on this team, that team had an amazing season. Probably the second best team of the Huggins era (behind Kenyon's team), though 1993, 1993 and 96 ended up more accomplished with deep runs.

That's why they play. Winner gets to brag. . 31 wins and 1-1 in the tournament and nobody outside of I-275 cares.