(03-30-2017 10:05 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote: [ -> ]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.
I'm in near complete agreement, actually.
I just find it a bit funny that UC fans look down their noses at other programs because of, essentially, a great run 50+ years ago. I also think it's silly that some UC fans have insane expectations about the program because of, essentially, that great run.
(03-30-2017 10:17 AM)uchoops Wrote: [ -> ]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...
If the metric says that the 90s was a better decade than the one in which UC won 2 titles, had a runner-up finish, went to another Final 4, and graduated one of the top few basketball players in history, perhaps the metric isn't very good.
(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?
UCLA had 10 of their 11 NC's over 40 years ago. Other than the 1980's we have been very relevant so don't bring us down to a Holy Cross, Lasalle or San Francisco which have no history of recent success. Also our down decade was greatly started by harsh NCAA penalties for things questionable not as bad as what the Kentucky's , Louisville's and North Carolina's now seem to get minor slaps on the hand which don't destroy their programs. The words Blue Blood and Elite which are highly subjective get throw around a bunch. In my opinion we are a historic Blue Blood as attested by in the AP rating poll. Being Elite by my definition is more short term based on current media promotion of programs. Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina etc (pretty much the programs you get sick of hearing being promoted on ESPN commercial breaks) are the Elites currently. Don't know when but someday I hope with the growing number of one and done players and the inequality of the money distribution the NCAA is going to alter its direction. On the football side players are now starting to skip bowl games to prepare for the draft. Big money has made all this the new reality I guess but hopefully something forces some sanity back into "amateur" sports.
Historic trivia fact...UC was the first team to win their last game played in the NCAA tournament 5 years in row.
(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.
The thing I did find humorous was all the remembrances of XU football on the wall. Talk about living in the past. Undefeated since 1973. Record in last 5 years was 11-40-1
I think your post is telling. Norwood U and its supporters, especially in the media, do a great job of turning negatives into positives. Case in point: Their football was atrocious and unable to be funded, in an era where it was not difficult to field a team. However, they always throw around undefeated since 1973. Their revisionist historians act as if the football program was something worth talking about. Same goes for Cintas. The arena is nice. I would take NKU's over Cintas in a heart beat.
Why can't Lance McAlister do what Mo Egger is doing?
(03-30-2017 10:32 AM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 10:17 AM)uchoops Wrote: [ -> ]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...
If the metric says that the 90s was a better decade than the one in which UC won 2 titles, had a runner-up finish, went to another Final 4, and graduated one of the top few basketball players in history, perhaps the metric isn't very good.
Then why don't you come up with you own poll??? The poll is based on time spent in the top 25....and the 90s represented the most time UC was in the Top 25...it's not that hard to figure out...
>Why Can't UC do what XU is doing?
Because we can't lose to UC like Xavier did?
(03-30-2017 10:32 AM)levydl Wrote: [ -> ] (03-30-2017 10:17 AM)uchoops Wrote: [ -> ]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...
If the metric says that the 90s was a better decade than the one in which UC won 2 titles, had a runner-up finish, went to another Final 4, and graduated one of the top few basketball players in history, perhaps the metric isn't very good.
This metric was designed by the AP poll to highlight the AP poll and used the AP poll to determine the rankings. They were very upfront about how the rankings were calculated. The AP poll stops at the end of the regular season so tourney performance has no bearing on this metric
