(03-28-2017 12:02 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]I've always wondered why X gets such a pass in the Cincy area. It really is absolutely nothing special. Admissions stats no better than UC, zero serious research activity, poor ($150M endowment). It's not bringing 30+ ACT type students or world renowned faculty into the city/region. It's not providing Cincinnati with a world class medical facility or a huge economic impact like UC. Yet a segment of the community seems desperate to put it on some kind of pedestal as if it were almost Georgetown or Boston College. Just because a school is private and Catholic doesn't mean it's high quality. There are far more mediocre or worse Catholic universities than there are Notre Dames and Georgetowns.
I think you answered the question in your post. To sum up the opinion of my co-worker (who went to Thomas More) who grew up in Price Hill just a block away from Elder and St. William Church, he is always going to root for XU over UC because of how he values Catholic education over public education and what the Church meant to his upbringing. I think a lot of people in this city feel that way; particularly people over the age of 35.
I would add that there are still a lot of people in the community who undervalue UC's academic programs, its faculty and resources; not to mention the financial impact the university has on the region.
Finally, I would add all of this is amplified by the fact that most of the media in this town are alums of XU, UD or other small, private faith based colleges (That tool Lance is a Butler grad and is a huge XU homer).
(03-28-2017 01:58 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2017 12:02 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]I've always wondered why X gets such a pass in the Cincy area. It really is absolutely nothing special. Admissions stats no better than UC, zero serious research activity, poor ($150M endowment). It's not bringing 30+ ACT type students or world renowned faculty into the city/region. It's not providing Cincinnati with a world class medical facility or a huge economic impact like UC. Yet a segment of the community seems desperate to put it on some kind of pedestal as if it were almost Georgetown or Boston College. Just because a school is private and Catholic doesn't mean it's high quality. There are far more mediocre or worse Catholic universities than there are Notre Dames and Georgetowns.
I think you answered the question in your post. To sum up the opinion of my co-worker (who went to Thomas More) who grew up in Price Hill just a block away from Elder and St. William Church, he is always going to root for XU over UC because of how he values Catholic education over public education and what the Church meant to his upbringing. I think a lot of people in this city feel that way; particularly people over the age of 35.
I would add that there are still a lot of people in the community who undervalue UC's academic programs, its faculty and resources; not to mention the financial impact the university has on the region.
Finally, I would add all of this is amplified by the fact that most of the media in this town are alums of XU, UD or other small, private faith based colleges (That tool Lance is a Butler grad and is a huge XU homer).
I come from a huge Catholic family all educated in Catholic grade and high schools and there is not an X fan among them. I have always despised the Xavier basketball fans since the sixties and seventies in the games at Cincinnati Gardens from the foul mouths their students displayed then. Now I guess all fan bases are that way.
(03-28-2017 02:28 PM)cincybb51 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2017 01:58 PM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ] (03-28-2017 12:02 PM)Bearcat 1985 Wrote: [ -> ]I've always wondered why X gets such a pass in the Cincy area. It really is absolutely nothing special. Admissions stats no better than UC, zero serious research activity, poor ($150M endowment). It's not bringing 30+ ACT type students or world renowned faculty into the city/region. It's not providing Cincinnati with a world class medical facility or a huge economic impact like UC. Yet a segment of the community seems desperate to put it on some kind of pedestal as if it were almost Georgetown or Boston College. Just because a school is private and Catholic doesn't mean it's high quality. There are far more mediocre or worse Catholic universities than there are Notre Dames and Georgetowns.
I think you answered the question in your post. To sum up the opinion of my co-worker (who went to Thomas More) who grew up in Price Hill just a block away from Elder and St. William Church, he is always going to root for XU over UC because of how he values Catholic education over public education and what the Church meant to his upbringing. I think a lot of people in this city feel that way; particularly people over the age of 35.
I would add that there are still a lot of people in the community who undervalue UC's academic programs, its faculty and resources; not to mention the financial impact the university has on the region.
Finally, I would add all of this is amplified by the fact that most of the media in this town are alums of XU, UD or other small, private faith based colleges (That tool Lance is a Butler grad and is a huge XU homer).
I come from a huge Catholic family all educated in Catholic grade and high schools and there is not an X fan among them. I have always despised the Xavier basketball fans since the sixties and seventies in the games at Cincinnati Gardens from the foul mouths their students displayed then. Now I guess all fan bases are that way.
My family is Catholic as well (although I did not grow up here). I am merely stating an observation from some, not all Catholic families in town.
(03-24-2017 12:41 PM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]The thing that annoys me about Lance (and Doc recently) is their need to dismiss the accomplishments of the Huggins era to defend Mick Cronin. I wrote a very long winded response to this BS.
My Response to Local Media Anti-Huggs Crusade
(AKA Why You Can Support Mick AND Appreciate the Huggs Years)
The UC fans have moved on but the local media hasn’t. Every year at some time or another it seems the local media needs to explain why Huggins didn’t actually have great years (as if we all weren’t around) and why that means the Bearcat fans should support Mick. To most fans, this is not an either or scenario. The smart fans get that program is in a different situation and are evaluating Mick’s performance mostly independent of what was achieved under Huggins. We want Mick to get the program to that level again and even beyond, but we are not grading Mick against Huggins. My support of Mick Cronin and his Bearcat program is not dependent on tearing down the accomplishments of the Huggins era. I know many Bearcat fans that feel this way.
The media using Huggs’ tournament losses to justify why UC should stick with Mick Cronin is idiotic because it misses what makes Mick the right guy for Cincinnati. He’s not right because he can lose in the second round too…he’s right because of the stability he brought the program and the direction he is moving the program. To be perfectly frank to date Mick hasn’t accomplished anything near what Huggins accomplished at UC, but that doesn’t mean he won’t or cannot. The comparison with what Huggins accomplished to what Mick has so far is idiotic because Huggs is so far ahead by those measures, but those measures fail to appreciate the situations and context.
Here’s how I would rank every Bearcat season by accomplishments of the team since Huggins came to UC:
The Great Seasons:
1992- Final Four, Regular Season Champion, Conference Tournament Champion, Four Seed in the Tournament.
2000- Ranked Number 1 most the season, Undefeated Regular Season Conference Champions, 1st in the RPI, 10-2 against the RPI top 50, 19-3 against the RPI top 100… just a dominating season. 2 seed in the tournament
1993- Elite Eight, Conference Regular Season Champions, Conference Tournament Champions, 2 seed in the tournament
1996- Elite Eight, Conference Regular Seasons Champions, Conference Tournament Champions, 2 seed,
2002- Conference Regular Season Champions, Conference Tournament Champions, 1 seed, RPI #3, 8-2 v. RPI top 50, 17-3 v. RPI top 100. #2 kenpom adjusted efficiency (first year he kept that stat)
The Very Good Seasons:
1999- Only 6 losses, Regular season champions, 3 seed in the tournament, won great Alaskan Shootout over Historically great Duke team. Made round of 32. 8-3 vs. RPI top 50, 12-4 over top 100.
2012- Clearly Mick’s best overall season despite a disappointing start. 4th in a loaded Big East, Conference tournament finals, sweet 16. 8-6 v. RPI top 50, 11-8 vs. top 100. Only 31 kenpom but they were a different team once they went small.
1998- Regular Season and Tournament Conference Champions, 2 seed in tournament. 9th in Final AP Poll.
1997- Preseason number 1, Regular Season Conference Champions, 3 seed in tournament. Final AP Rank of 10. Disappointing overall season, but still a really good season.
2014- Tied for regular season conference title with defending champs ahead of eventual champs, 5 seed in tournament, 6-6 v. RPI top 50, 10-7 v. RPI top 100, tourney results disappointing, but that team ahead a really good year. Only 27 in kenpom, but top 10 in adjusted defense.
2017- 16-2 conference record, 6 seed, 3-4 RPI top 50, 6-5 v. top 100, no bad losses, conference tournament finals, 2nd round NCAA tournament. 22 kenpom. Top 15 in Polls on multiple occasions.
2004- Regular Season and Tournament Champions, 4 seed in tournament, 7-6 v. RPI top 50, 12-6 v. top 100, no bad losses. 17 in kenpom. Maybe should be higher but hard to get 2nd round dismantling by Illinois out of head.
The Good Seasons:
2001- Regular Season Conference Champion, Sweet 16, 5 seed in tournament, 2-4 Vs. RPI top 50, 9-5 vs. RPI top 100. 4 losses outside RPI top 100. Nice break in tournament, but not a great overall season.
2011- 6th in loaded Big East, 2nd round of NCAA tournament, team that put UC back in the NCAAs, 21st in kenpom. 7-9 v. RPI top 50, 8-9 v. RPI top 100, no bad losses.
2005- 2nd round NCAA tournament, 4-5 vs. RPI top 50, 9-6 v. top 100. 7 seed in NCAA tournament. 19 kenpom.
2015- Round of 32, 6-4 v. RPI top 50, 9-8 v. top 100. Only 43 kenpom. 8 seed.
2016- First round exit, 5-5 v. top 50, only 7-10. 32 kenpom. 9 seed. Team seemed close, but as we know lost a ton of close games.
2013- First Round Exit, 5-10 vs. top 50, 9-12 v. top 100. 40 kenpom, 10 seed.
1995- Conference Tournament Champion, 7 seed, 2nd round exit.
1994- Conference tournament champions, First round exit, 8 seed. 25 in final AP poll.
2006 (AK’s year)- NIT quarterfinals (lost when players suspended), 4-8 vs. RPI top 50, 11-11 v. top 100, 44 kenpom.
2003- First Round Exit, only 17 wins (against 12 losses), 3-6 v. RPI top 50, 8-9 v. top 100, 36 kenpom
OK Seasons:
2010- NIT second round, 3-11 RPI top 50, 8-16 RPI top 100, kenpom 68, great start, team not quite ready.
1991- NIT, 18 wins, 10.62 Strength of Record According to Sports Reference
1990- Huggs first year, NIT, 20 wins, 7.19 SOR According to Sports Reference.
2009- 1-9 v. RPI top 50, 7-12 v. RPI top 100. 86 kenpom
The Rebuild-
2008
2007
Of note I would rank 5 Huggs seasons as great. Mick has yet to break through but I am optimistic he does next season. All of Mick’s seasons since he got back to the tournament have been good and very good. Like Huggins he’s consistently kept UC in position to make the tournament and has avoided real down years. Unlike Huggins he has yet to break through for those next level quite season. My hope is that is coming and ultimately would love to see him achieve even beyond where Huggins had the program.
Mick Cronin and Bob Huggins inherited two different programs in two different situations in two different times with many different sets of obstacles. The decimation of the program that took place before Mick arrived has been well documented and I do not know a single Bearcat fan that doesn’t appreciate the job Mick did resurrecting the program from the ashes, back to the NIT in year 4 and the NCAA in year 5…where UC has been each of the last 7 years. He brought stability to the program, made it nationally relevant again and brought the kind of sustained, consistent success few other programs have. I believe UC is one of 8 programs to make the NCAA tournament the last 7 seasons. That means something.
Most of those who criticize Mick do so because they believe this program needs to get to the next level. I tend to agree with those people that this cannot be it. While UC has been consistently good to very good under Mick, he has not had that breakthrough great season. I think it is coming next year for many reasons and believe he will start delivering those type of seasons on a semi-regular basis, but that isn’t an unfair or unreasonable expectation.
Why hasn’t that season come yet? Well at least in the first few years Cronin was severely handicapped by the programs decimation. However, we are long past that now. Mick just completed year 11 on the Bearcat bench. That’s a long time. That is no longer an acceptable excuse for why we cannot break through. However, I would argue there are reasons to this point Mick has not quite made the jump from strong, consistent program, to one capable of being a contender from time to time. Whether it was facility issues, conference instability or a couple missed recruiting classes after SKs class, UC just hasn’t quite gotten over the hump we all want to seem them get to.
However, this has been slowly changing. The 2015-2016 showed promise despite losing a ton of heartbreakers. The underclassman were clearly players. The team continued with UC’s trademark defense but began to show much improved offense. That trend continued this season as UC hung around as a borderline top 20 type team by most metrics all season. They were better in conference, had better out of conference wins, a better offense, a similar defense and advanced further in the tournament. They finished 22 in kenpom efficiency and earned the 22nd spot on the committee’s bracket. They were good, but not good enough to avoid a tough second round matchup and went home.
That 22 was 10 spots higher than the prior season and similar improvement next season would finally make UC a legit final four contender and likely earn them a top 4 protected seed. That would be a big step for the program and one I am confident Mick Cronin will make. The hardest thing for fans to appreciate is consistent success at the same level. Fans always want more.
Mick’s achievement of sustained success is probably undervalued by many, but it ultimately cannot be the peak for UC basketball and I have plenty of confidence based on recent history that it will not be. I firmly believe Mick Cronin is the right guy to lead this Bearcat program forward and believe next year’s team will be well positioned for a tournament run. In a one game and out tournament things can happen, the key is putting together great teams that are real contenders… eventually you will break through. Next year could very like be that first great Mick team and I am happy the administration has had the confidence to stick with him as we move towards making that break through and the clear appreciation for what he has already done.
http://bearcatmark.blogspot.com/2017/03/...huggs.html
Well done and thought out. Thanks
(03-28-2017 07:30 PM)RedRocker Wrote: [ -> ]Who is Lance McAlister?
…and why do we give a flip what he thinks about UC?
(03-28-2017 01:21 PM)DownOnRohs Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2017 01:27 PM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ]I finally went to a game at Cintas as the grand daughter sang at half time. I was expecting more. Not sure what so big deal about it.
I think just compared to 5/3rd and US Bank Arena it was by far the best of the 3. In all reality it was probably more of an indictment on the conditions of 5/3rd and USB more so than how top notch Cintas is.
Once the new 5/3rd is complete we will rightfully be back on top as far as facilities are concerned.
Yet another example of Xavier getting a favorable draw...
Regardless my thoughts on Lance, pretending his quotes are real, it's a sobering look at our state of affairs.
Better question is will EggSaver ever make a Final Four?
(03-30-2017 07:50 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ]Better question is will EggSaver ever make a Final Four?
and if they do where are we all gonna commit group suicide because that's pretty much the only thing we can hold over their head anymore.
(03-30-2017 08:09 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 07:50 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ]Better question is will EggSaver ever make a Final Four?
and if they do where are we all gonna commit group suicide because that's pretty much the only thing we can hold over their head anymore.
Well there's also the 2 national championships, the top ten program all time according to AP.... there's an all time great NBA player... There's the weeks we've spent at number 1 in the polls. There's having 10+ seasons that are overall better than even their best season... but other than that.
BTW if X finally breaks through with a final four, we'll be fine.
If we beat X next year then suddenly the narrative shifts to us having a 2 game win streak. It reallly doesn't take much to sway over the casual Cincinnatian.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk
(03-30-2017 08:16 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:09 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 07:50 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ]Better question is will EggSaver ever make a Final Four?
and if they do where are we all gonna commit group suicide because that's pretty much the only thing we can hold over their head anymore.
Well there's also the 2 national championships, the top ten program all time according to AP.... there's an all time great NBA player... There's the weeks we've spent at number 1 in the polls. There's having 10+ seasons that are overall better than even their best season... but other than that.
BTW if X finally breaks through with a final four, we'll be fine.
Almost all of those accomplishments are more than 50 years old (the 2000 team was #1 for most of the season, and the 1997 team was #1 from the preseason until they lost their second game of the year to Xavier on Lenny Brown's buzzer beater. Yay). You could say similar things about several schools that aren't particularly relevant today:
University of San Francisco won two titles, one in which they were undefeated, went to another Final 4, spent 20 or so weeks at #1, and had one of the top few players in basketball history in Bill Russell (plus HOFer KC Jones).
La Salle won an NCAA title and an NIT title when that was similarly impressive, plus went to another NCAA final, reached #1 for several weeks, and had an all time great college player in Tom Gola.
Holy Cross also won a NCAA and a legit NIT title and went to two other Final 4s, were #1 a few weeks, and had an all timer in Bob Cousy.
UC's top 10 ranking is built almost entirely on stuff that happened in a 6-year period that occurred before my dad got his UC degree, and he just died. I grew up in the Huggs Era and it was wonderful and it's why I'm a lunatic UC fan and my point is not to denigrate it. But think about that 6-year starting with Oscar and ending with the finals loss to Loyola-Chicago; if, instead, you replaced it with something like Huggins's 6 best seasons, do you think UC would be anywhere close to a top 10 program?
(03-30-2017 09:39 AM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:16 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:09 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 07:50 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ]Better question is will EggSaver ever make a Final Four?
and if they do where are we all gonna commit group suicide because that's pretty much the only thing we can hold over their head anymore.
Well there's also the 2 national championships, the top ten program all time according to AP.... there's an all time great NBA player... There's the weeks we've spent at number 1 in the polls. There's having 10+ seasons that are overall better than even their best season... but other than that.
BTW if X finally breaks through with a final four, we'll be fine.
Almost all of those accomplishments are more than 50 years old (the 2000 team was #1 for most of the season, and the 1997 team was #1 from the preseason until they lost their second game of the year to Xavier on Lenny Brown's buzzer beater. Yay). You could say similar things about several schools that aren't particularly relevant today:
University of San Francisco won two titles, one in which they were undefeated, went to another Final 4, spent 20 or so weeks at #1, and had one of the top few players in basketball history in Bill Russell (plus HOFer KC Jones).
La Salle won an NCAA title and an NIT title when that was similarly impressive, plus went to another NCAA final, reached #1 for several weeks, and had an all time great college player in Tom Gola.
Holy Cross also won a NCAA and a legit NIT title and went to two other Final 4s, were #1 a few weeks, and had an all timer in Bob Cousy.
UC's top 10 ranking is built almost entirely on stuff that happened in a 6-year period that occurred before my dad got his UC degree, and he just died. I grew up in the Huggs Era and it was wonderful and it's why I'm a lunatic UC fan and my point is not to denigrate it. But think about that 6-year starting with Oscar and ending with the finals loss to Loyola-Chicago; if, instead, you replaced it with something like Huggins's 6 best seasons, do you think UC would be anywhere close to a top 10 program?
If you took away the Wooden years and replaced them with the recent Steve Alford like success would UCLA be all that much?
Is this really what it has come to so we can pretend UC isn't a big time basketball program?
BTW read the AP piece...they specifically mention the 90s as UC appeared in the polls over 60% of the time.
(03-30-2017 09:46 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 09:39 AM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:16 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:09 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 07:50 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ]Better question is will EggSaver ever make a Final Four?
and if they do where are we all gonna commit group suicide because that's pretty much the only thing we can hold over their head anymore.
Well there's also the 2 national championships, the top ten program all time according to AP.... there's an all time great NBA player... There's the weeks we've spent at number 1 in the polls. There's having 10+ seasons that are overall better than even their best season... but other than that.
BTW if X finally breaks through with a final four, we'll be fine.
Almost all of those accomplishments are more than 50 years old (the 2000 team was #1 for most of the season, and the 1997 team was #1 from the preseason until they lost their second game of the year to Xavier on Lenny Brown's buzzer beater. Yay). You could say similar things about several schools that aren't particularly relevant today:
University of San Francisco won two titles, one in which they were undefeated, went to another Final 4, spent 20 or so weeks at #1, and had one of the top few players in basketball history in Bill Russell (plus HOFer KC Jones).
La Salle won an NCAA title and an NIT title when that was similarly impressive, plus went to another NCAA final, reached #1 for several weeks, and had an all time great college player in Tom Gola.
Holy Cross also won a NCAA and a legit NIT title and went to two other Final 4s, were #1 a few weeks, and had an all timer in Bob Cousy.
UC's top 10 ranking is built almost entirely on stuff that happened in a 6-year period that occurred before my dad got his UC degree, and he just died. I grew up in the Huggs Era and it was wonderful and it's why I'm a lunatic UC fan and my point is not to denigrate it. But think about that 6-year starting with Oscar and ending with the finals loss to Loyola-Chicago; if, instead, you replaced it with something like Huggins's 6 best seasons, do you think UC would be anywhere close to a top 10 program?
If you took away the Wooden years and replaced them with the recent Steve Alford like success would UCLA be all that much?
Is this really what it has come to so we can pretend UC isn't a big time basketball program?
BTW read the AP piece...they specifically mention the 90s as UC appeared in the polls over 60% of the time.
Thank you. I can't figure out why UC fans want to discredit the recent past so much. Even this season's 30 wins helped keep UC in the rankings for most of the season. I wish more fans put more stock into regular season metrics like conference championship, poll appearances, and NCAA tournament bids. You will notice that the all time great programs are near the top of the list. I believe these metrics have just as much value as tournament wins when determining the all time best programs.
I am probably in the minority of fans that finds the journey of the regular season and conference tournament, the quest to make the tournament, just as exciting as the NCAA tournament. In a lot of ways the comeback this past season against Marshall was just as important as any post-season game because a loss would have changed the entire season and how we viewed this team. No undefeated home schedule, likely no 30 wins, potentially a downgraded seed that led to a first round loss, no top 25 rankings, and the usual can't finish games theme from 2015-2016 might have returned.
(03-30-2017 09:39 AM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:16 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 08:09 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 07:50 AM)doss2 Wrote: [ -> ]Better question is will EggSaver ever make a Final Four?
and if they do where are we all gonna commit group suicide because that's pretty much the only thing we can hold over their head anymore.
Well there's also the 2 national championships, the top ten program all time according to AP.... there's an all time great NBA player... There's the weeks we've spent at number 1 in the polls. There's having 10+ seasons that are overall better than even their best season... but other than that.
BTW if X finally breaks through with a final four, we'll be fine.
Almost all of those accomplishments are more than 50 years old (the 2000 team was #1 for most of the season, and the 1997 team was #1 from the preseason until they lost their second game of the year to Xavier on Lenny Brown's buzzer beater. Yay). You could say similar things about several schools that aren't particularly relevant today:
University of San Francisco won two titles, one in which they were undefeated, went to another Final 4, spent 20 or so weeks at #1, and had one of the top few players in basketball history in Bill Russell (plus HOFer KC Jones).
La Salle won an NCAA title and an NIT title when that was similarly impressive, plus went to another NCAA final, reached #1 for several weeks, and had an all time great college player in Tom Gola.
Holy Cross also won a NCAA and a legit NIT title and went to two other Final 4s, were #1 a few weeks, and had an all timer in Bob Cousy.
UC's top 10 ranking is built almost entirely on stuff that happened in a 6-year period that occurred before my dad got his UC degree, and he just died. I grew up in the Huggs Era and it was wonderful and it's why I'm a lunatic UC fan and my point is not to denigrate it. But think about that 6-year starting with Oscar and ending with the finals loss to Loyola-Chicago; if, instead, you replaced it with something like Huggins's 6 best seasons, do you think UC would be anywhere close to a top 10 program?
According to the article....Best decade for Cincinnati the 90's appeared in 61.25% of the polls....I think that's well after your dad went to UC...
don't understand why fans have to find fault when something positive is written about UC...
(03-30-2017 09:46 AM)bearcatmark Wrote: [ -> ]If you took away the Wooden years and replaced them with the recent Steve Alford like success would UCLA be all that much?
Is this really what it has come to so we can pretend UC isn't a big time basketball program?
BTW read the AP piece...they specifically mention the 90s as UC appeared in the polls over 60% of the time.
It's not really the same, but sure.
I'm not pretending we aren't a big time basketball program. I'm also not pretending that we're a much better program than some other schools because a few teams whose players are most now dead were great.
