(12-19-2017 08:28 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  I think the posts kind of reflect the team... good enough on any given night to beat just about anyone, teasing the fan-base with visions of past glory full of 1-4 seeds and SI covers...

Bad/inconsistent enough on any given night to make a 200 RPI team look like a tournament team and the fan-base goes bi-polar and the jumping off cliffs and fire/sipping Mick posts flourish...

Wait, what? At 9-2, what post 200 RPI team have we made look like a tournament team?

MLB stuck the landing a few posts above.

(12-19-2017 09:45 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 08:28 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  I think the posts kind of reflect the team... good enough on any given night to beat just about anyone, teasing the fan-base with visions of past glory full of 1-4 seeds and SI covers...

Bad/inconsistent enough on any given night to make a 200 RPI team look like a tournament team and the fan-base goes bi-polar and the jumping off cliffs and fire/sipping Mick posts flourish...

Wait, what? At 9-2, what post 200 RPI team have we made look like a tournament team?

MLB stuck the landing a few posts above.

I said capable of, I stay pretty level headed. I try not to rise and fall as some here have. I agree that MLB was spot on

(12-19-2017 11:01 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 09:45 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 08:28 AM)Crewdogz Wrote:  I think the posts kind of reflect the team... good enough on any given night to beat just about anyone, teasing the fan-base with visions of past glory full of 1-4 seeds and SI covers...

Bad/inconsistent enough on any given night to make a 200 RPI team look like a tournament team and the fan-base goes bi-polar and the jumping off cliffs and fire/sipping Mick posts flourish...

Wait, what? At 9-2, what post 200 RPI team have we made look like a tournament team?

MLB stuck the landing a few posts above.

I said capable of, I stay pretty level headed. I try not to rise and fall as some here have. I agree that MLB was spot on

Sorry to belabor this, but I wouldn't call that a level headed comment. We're capable of making a sub 200 look like a tourney team based upon what exactly? I see no evidence of that. We've not only beaten, we've buried all teams within sniffing distance of a 200 RPI.

(12-19-2017 08:22 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:19 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  My point proven, ‘spose.

But seriously, how good is UCLA this year?

To answer my own question, UCLA beat #7 Kentucky today.

(12-19-2017 09:06 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(12-19-2017 08:49 AM)BearcatsUC Wrote:  We’re racing towards the end of December and UC has played only one team that is currently ranked - X - and they throttled the Bearcats. I don’t think it is unreasonable to examine the rest of the schedule given UC’s somewhat underwhelming performance thus far.

DISCLAIMER: I say the following words with all due respect...But do we really need to examine the remaining schedule to know what we have? Isn't this what we've become under Cronin? Solid but not spectacular? Struggle against the better teams? Finish toward the top but not at it? Making the tournament but not making it past the first weekend? Again, maybe that is what we're destined to be from now on. The UC higher ups and fan base will ultimately have to determine that.

It’s what UC has been for over 20 years. It pre dates Cronin. We have a LOT farther to fall then to rise. As long as we have a chance in the Tourney, I vote for standing pat. Simple as that.

I'm glad Mick's nephew has weighed in. So much insight from the basement. Thanks!

(12-18-2017 10:11 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 09:25 PM)Ragpicker Wrote:  Oh No! UC has money problems? Not in the AAC.

Dear Ragpicker:

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

Best,

Santa

Thought it was Beggar's Night since he bolted out of the country leaving UC athletics with a lump of coal.

(12-18-2017 08:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 06:57 AM)jarr Wrote:  Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

People can write bigger checks to correct this.

This is an athletic department that is $40 million in the hole for funding the 5th 3rd rehab. Difference in scheduling a Savannah State buy game versus a Valpo buy game is upwards of $100K a game.

... or UC could have had Lindner negotiate the BBT rate.

(12-18-2017 08:26 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-18-2017 06:57 AM)jarr Wrote:  Combined record of 3-39, and 3 if those teams have 300+RPI. Someone really needs to talk to Mick or Bohn about trying to avoid these teams if at all possible. I see no benefit to playing them.

People can write bigger checks to correct this.

This is an athletic department that is $40 million in the hole for funding the 5th 3rd rehab. Difference in scheduling a Savannah State buy game versus a Valpo buy game is upwards of $100K a game.

Sorry to be off topic, but what’s the significance/meaning of the frog in your signature?

(12-24-2017 10:49 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  I'm glad Mick's nephew has weighed in. So much insight from the basement. Thanks!

13-2. 31 weeks in the AP over past two years. About time Mick flushes his drains to rid the place of any residual odor.