In recent years I've seriously fallen off with CBB. Bored to tears by our play, and just the sport in general. So, now here we are approaching the end of the year and after that exciting 4 game stretch I've slacked off once again.

I see we're highly ranked - top 10 - but i don't have any real feel for what's happening, and our chances to actually win when it counts. this year. I'm going to rein in my skepticism for Mick & Co. for a moment and ask y'all what you think. How are we looking, and what's your guesses for how the post season plays out?




mc

I think that we are as good as the 92 team but not the 00 or 96. We are a poor mans 96. Our post players are good, but not as good as Fortson/Long. I would call the pg play a push. Neither JJ nor Legree could shoot. Edge to Legree. Burton/Flint v. Cumberland/Evans is a push. Could be a sweet sixteen team and with an overall week field could go further.

(01-29-2018 09:17 PM)rosewater Wrote:  I think that we are as good as the 92 team but not the 00 or 96. We are a poor mans 96. Our post players are good, but not as good as Fortson/Long. I would call the pg play a push. Neither JJ nor Legree could shoot. Edge to Legree. Burton/Flint v. Cumberland/Evans is a push. Could be a sweet sixteen team and with an overall week field could go further.

I'd take Evans/Cumberland over Damon and Darnell. Evans is a real NBA prospect with a the ability to hit clutch shots. JJ usually doesn't turn the ball over (like Legree dribbling off foot out of bounds). Cumberland has a better attack the basket game than Burton- just stop the charges and hit some shots. S16 should be the floor.

They should be, at the very least, a Sweet 16 team.

They should've been last year as well. But a west-coast matchup against another 30-win team (one of UCLA's best in recent memory) did us in early.

This year's squad is better, however, and should likewise receive a better seed. Depending on match ups, an elite eight/final four run is not out of the question.

Only teams I really don't think they can beat are Purdue and Nova. Other than that, a lot of luck is going to factor into the final 2 months of the season.

If you'd like a couple quick points for why this team could out perform the previous ones.


Best defense Mick has ever had here


Highest offensive rebounding % of any team mick has ever had here


37% from 3 as a team, highest percent from 3 of any team mick has had here.


First time all 5 positions are capable of scoring


Broome has the 2nd highest ARate of any PG Mick has had in a single season and he has a good chance to have the highest ARate


Hightest Kenpom of any team Mick has ever had here


There are clear signs that put this team above all others under Mick.

I feel bad for anyone who has zoned out on this season. It's been a joy to watch.

What the what is this thread...?

(01-29-2018 09:17 PM)rosewater Wrote:  I think that we are as good as the 92 team but not the 00 or 96. We are a poor mans 96. Our post players are good, but not as good as Fortson/Long. I would call the pg play a push. Neither JJ nor Legree could shoot. Edge to Legree. Burton/Flint v. Cumberland/Evans is a push. Could be a sweet sixteen team and with an overall week field could go further.

This team is better than 96, 96 didn't have any real depth, and it ended being the downfall.

This team defends better, rebounds better, and shoots better than 96. As great as fortson was he still wasn't clark on the defensive end, and the guard play is just so much better here and now. not counting Broome in comparing is a little odd to me as well... especially if you were comparing starters 96's starters were Legree, Flint, Gregor, Fortson, Long.

Check One:

__ Really, really good
__ Really good
__ Good
__ Meh
__ We suck
__ Jury still out
__ Don't know/No opinion

(01-29-2018 10:20 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What the what is this thread...?

This is very confusing. What year is this again?

(01-29-2018 10:25 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Check One:

__ Really, really good
__ Really good
__ Good
__ Meh
__ We suck
__ Jury still out
__ Don't know/No opinion

Catch me during a game thread. I’d like a “all of the above” please

(01-29-2018 10:53 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 10:25 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Check One:

__ Really, really good
__ Really good
__ Good
__ Meh
__ We suck
__ Jury still out
__ Don't know/No opinion

Catch me during a game thread. I’d like a “all of the above” please

I think that's why many have a problem getting fully on board the bandwagon with this team. Pick a 3-5 minute stretch in most any game and any option could be applicable. Except the eggs game where it was clearly "We suck" start to finish.

(01-29-2018 10:51 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 10:20 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What the what is this thread...?

This is very confusing. What year is this again?

I thought I’d seen it all. This takes the cake.

(01-29-2018 10:21 PM)ucbrownsfan Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 09:17 PM)rosewater Wrote:  I think that we are as good as the 92 team but not the 00 or 96. We are a poor mans 96. Our post players are good, but not as good as Fortson/Long. I would call the pg play a push. Neither JJ nor Legree could shoot. Edge to Legree. Burton/Flint v. Cumberland/Evans is a push. Could be a sweet sixteen team and with an overall week field could go further.

This team is better than 96, 96 didn't have any real depth, and it ended being the downfall.

This team defends better, rebounds better, and shoots better than 96. As great as fortson was he still wasn't clark on the defensive end, and the guard play is just so much better here and now. not counting Broome in comparing is a little odd to me as well... especially if you were comparing starters 96's starters were Legree, Flint, Gregor, Fortson, Long.

I do not agree with defending better, and rebounding better. This team probably does shoot better. The guard play may be a little better but not significantly. Sure Gregor was a starter, but did not get the minutes given to Burton. Still believe the elite eight team of 96 was better. The good thing is this team has a chance to prove me wrong.

(01-29-2018 11:02 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 10:51 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 10:20 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What the what is this thread...?

This is very confusing. What year is this again?

I thought I’d seen it all. This takes the cake.

Well I am glad that you post to show you disapprove. Your opinion is valued.

(01-29-2018 10:51 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 10:20 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  What the what is this thread...?

This is very confusing. What year is this again?

Is this a midlife crisis?

This guy posts on multiple UC message boards and we are supposed to think he doesn’t know what is up with this team? Really?

It bullsh!t or baths!t crazy. Pick em.

(01-29-2018 10:59 PM)gerhard911 Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 10:53 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-29-2018 10:25 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Check One:

__ Really, really good
__ Really good
__ Good
__ Meh
__ We suck
__ Jury still out
__ Don't know/No opinion

Catch me during a game thread. I’d like a “all of the above” please

I think that's why many have a problem getting fully on board the bandwagon with this team. Pick a 3-5 minute stretch in most any game and any option could be applicable. Except the eggs game where it was clearly "We suck" start to finish.

Oh Come on. We have won 12 in a row and are currently winning our conference games by an average of 19 points. WTF games are you people watching?

Lately getting the play many expected from JC. If we were getting what we were told to expect from CB (last year best player in practice) we would have only 1 loss perhaps none.

(01-30-2018 12:09 AM)doss2 Wrote:  Lately getting the play many expected from JC. If we were getting what we were told to expect from CB (last year best player in practice) we would have only 1 loss perhaps none.

since he was the best player on our team vs florida and the only one to show up the first 30 minutes vs x, i kinda doubt it.