(01-09-2017 11:12 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW, Mick was worried about the defense going into the season. Turns out this might be the best defensive team UC has had since SK's senior year. I know people haven't been high on Washington's defense , but I think he's been better than expected on that end (very versatile despite some liabilities) and because Clark is so great defending around the basket they don't need Washington as the rim protector. Between Caupain, KJ and Evans UC is just so long at the top of the zone (also true when Cumberland plays). When Jennifer comes in they lose some in length but he is in the offensive players grill the entire time. I love watching this team defend.

I really wish they would just tell KW not to go for any blocks unless it's a sure thing. He probably misses 5 boards a game because he's making a terrible attempt at a block while helping on someone else's man. I know that can still alter shots, but it just seems to do more bad than good IMO.

(01-09-2017 02:04 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 11:12 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW, Mick was worried about the defense going into the season. Turns out this might be the best defensive team UC has had since SK's senior year. I know people haven't been high on Washington's defense , but I think he's been better than expected on that end (very versatile despite some liabilities) and because Clark is so great defending around the basket they don't need Washington as the rim protector. Between Caupain, KJ and Evans UC is just so long at the top of the zone (also true when Cumberland plays). When Jennifer comes in they lose some in length but he is in the offensive players grill the entire time. I love watching this team defend.

I really wish they would just tell KW not to go for any blocks unless it's a sure thing. He probably misses 5 boards a game because he's making a terrible attempt at a block while helping on someone else's man. I know that can still alter shots, but it just seems to do more bad than good IMO.

Excellent insight. KW's offensive game is back thankfully. Some improvement in his defense and this team will just keep getting better.

I'll be disappointed with less than 26-5. It's not unreasonable to expect 3 more losses for whatever reason: injuries, a "February fatigue" slump or just one of those games where nothing works for UC and everything does for the opponent. I'm guessing five losses would look pretty elite by early March.

http://kenpom.com/blog/candidates-for-co...erfection/




As of this moment there are 18 teams that are showing at least a 1% chance of going unbeaten in conference play. Let’s get to know them better.

6. Cincinnati (American) 4.4%. The Bearcats are 3-0 in the American and have cleared road games against Temple and Houston from the path to perfection. They’ll probably be an underdog at SMU on February 12 and late road games against UCF and UConn promise to be the kind of low-scoring slogs that usually result in close scores.

***** Post removed ******

My apologies, I didn't mean to insult any specific person.

(01-10-2017 01:24 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 11:21 PM)WalterSobchak Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 10:22 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:19 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 02:38 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  This. We haven't won a conference tournament championship since 2004. It's no coincidence that our best showing in a conference tournament in the Mick Cronin era led to a Sweet 16 appearance. Building momentum and playing your best basketball late in the season matters if you're going to make a deep tournament run. UConn has been our kryptonite, but they are down and we have our most talented team in at least 5 years. No more excuses -- it's time to cut down the nets in Hartford.

Wtf is the tournament is hartford F'ing Connecticut!?!? This damn conference.

A long time ago my father, who only had an 8th grade education, to me "Any time you don't understand something, insert the word money".

Smart man.

Only stupid and bitter people think this way.

If you don't understand something, you're probably missing an important piece of the equation. It is the height of stupidity to refuse to admit that sometimes you're not fully informed. A key indicator of people like this is if you blame everything on some obscure boogeyman (money, rich people, immigrants, racism, George Soros, the Koch brothers, etc - note that this is not limited to any particular political persuasion).

This is going off the rails. I don't know anyone here from Adam, so it may not be my place to speak. By definition it is not stupid, it is certainly bitter to call someone's father stupid and bitter. It reeks of a sanctimonious belief that you are so much more enlightened than anyone else in the room. Not only is it off-putting, it is flat out rude and disrespectful to a fellow Bearcat. It is possible to make a dissenting point and be civil at the same time.

It's been said that if you can't explain it to a 7 year-old you don't really understand it yourself. Ultimately everything can be broken down and explained on a basic level. In some old timer's life experiences he found that, more often than not, basic human greed for money and/or fame was a driving factor when he couldn't immediately find a motive. It's not stupid or bitter, it's reflective on his own history. Everything is not so nuanced, and power, money and fame are powerful influences. Often the missing piece is who is getting it and from where. Again, sorry for this going off the rails, but family means a lot to me and I hate to see someone's family denigrated or attacked.

(01-09-2017 03:46 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 02:04 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(01-09-2017 11:12 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  BTW, Mick was worried about the defense going into the season. Turns out this might be the best defensive team UC has had since SK's senior year. I know people haven't been high on Washington's defense , but I think he's been better than expected on that end (very versatile despite some liabilities) and because Clark is so great defending around the basket they don't need Washington as the rim protector. Between Caupain, KJ and Evans UC is just so long at the top of the zone (also true when Cumberland plays). When Jennifer comes in they lose some in length but he is in the offensive players grill the entire time. I love watching this team defend.

I really wish they would just tell KW not to go for any blocks unless it's a sure thing. He probably misses 5 boards a game because he's making a terrible attempt at a block while helping on someone else's man. I know that can still alter shots, but it just seems to do more bad than good IMO.

Excellent insight. KW's offensive game is back thankfully. Some improvement in his defense and this team will just keep getting better.

I think he's adjusting his game based on the way opponents are starting to defend him. Butler showed that if you get physical with him, he didn't adjust. If he can continue to hit the mid-range jumper, he will become very dangerous.

(01-10-2017 01:24 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 11:21 PM)WalterSobchak Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 10:22 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:19 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 02:38 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  This. We haven't won a conference tournament championship since 2004. It's no coincidence that our best showing in a conference tournament in the Mick Cronin era led to a Sweet 16 appearance. Building momentum and playing your best basketball late in the season matters if you're going to make a deep tournament run. UConn has been our kryptonite, but they are down and we have our most talented team in at least 5 years. No more excuses -- it's time to cut down the nets in Hartford.

Wtf is the tournament is hartford F'ing Connecticut!?!? This damn conference.

A long time ago my father, who only had an 8th grade education, to me "Any time you don't understand something, insert the word money".

Smart man.

Only stupid and bitter people think this way.

If you don't understand something, you're probably missing an important piece of the equation. It is the height of stupidity to refuse to admit that sometimes you're not fully informed. A key indicator of people like this is if you blame everything on some obscure boogeyman (money, rich people, immigrants, racism, George Soros, the Koch brothers, etc - note that this is not limited to any particular political persuasion).

Preach.

"Only stupid and bitter people think this way."

LOL. You seem like a cool guy.

(01-10-2017 01:24 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 11:21 PM)WalterSobchak Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 10:22 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:19 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 02:38 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  This. We haven't won a conference tournament championship since 2004. It's no coincidence that our best showing in a conference tournament in the Mick Cronin era led to a Sweet 16 appearance. Building momentum and playing your best basketball late in the season matters if you're going to make a deep tournament run. UConn has been our kryptonite, but they are down and we have our most talented team in at least 5 years. No more excuses -- it's time to cut down the nets in Hartford.

Wtf is the tournament is hartford F'ing Connecticut!?!? This damn conference.

A long time ago my father, who only had an 8th grade education, to me "Any time you don't understand something, insert the word money".

Smart man.

Only stupid and bitter people think this way.

If you don't understand something, you're probably missing an important piece of the equation. It is the height of stupidity to refuse to admit that sometimes you're not fully informed. A key indicator of people like this is if you blame everything on some obscure boogeyman (money, rich people, immigrants, racism, George Soros, the Koch brothers, etc - note that this is not limited to any particular political persuasion).

I get your point, but this is an untactful way to make it and I'm not sure you're responding based on some outrageous statement that even goes against what you are saying. I also think Chris's dad's point that money has a way of influencing a ton of things seems reasonable to me.

(01-10-2017 01:24 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 11:21 PM)WalterSobchak Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 10:22 PM)ctipton Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 03:19 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(01-08-2017 02:38 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  This. We haven't won a conference tournament championship since 2004. It's no coincidence that our best showing in a conference tournament in the Mick Cronin era led to a Sweet 16 appearance. Building momentum and playing your best basketball late in the season matters if you're going to make a deep tournament run. UConn has been our kryptonite, but they are down and we have our most talented team in at least 5 years. No more excuses -- it's time to cut down the nets in Hartford.

Wtf is the tournament is hartford F'ing Connecticut!?!? This damn conference.

A long time ago my father, who only had an 8th grade education, to me "Any time you don't understand something, insert the word money".

Smart man.

Only stupid and bitter people think this way.

If you don't understand something, you're probably missing an important piece of the equation. It is the height of stupidity to refuse to admit that sometimes you're not fully informed. A key indicator of people like this is if you blame everything on some obscure boogeyman (money, rich people, immigrants, racism, George Soros, the Koch brothers, etc - note that this is not limited to any particular political persuasion).

One has to look no further than the last ten years of conference realignment to demonstrate that you are patently wrong in your assessment.

Sent from my Nexus 5X using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-10-2017 01:24 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  Only stupid and bitter people think this way.

If you don't understand something, you're probably missing an important piece of the equation. It is the height of stupidity to refuse to admit that sometimes you're not fully informed. A key indicator of people like this is if you blame everything on some obscure boogeyman (money, rich people, immigrants, racism, George Soros, the Koch brothers, etc - note that this is not limited to any particular political persuasion).

Is his mother also so overweight that she has her own zip code? What is the extent of your physical relationship with his sister? Classy way to treat anyone, especially a fellow Bearcat.

My apologies, I didn't mean to insult his Dad. I should have removed the first sentence before I posted. I have deleted that post.

But getting back on topic - blaming this on *money* is simplistic garbage in this case. In college sports, money is a byproduct of fan interest in the product. Will higher attendance (due to a conference tourney in Memphis, Cincy, or Hartford) result in more money? Yes. But that's because money follows fan interest. If you're not making money, it's because you're producing an inferior product that people don't care about.

There's also an important side benefit of higher attendance - if the conference tournament has low attendance it makes us look like a 2nd rate conference on TV.

(01-10-2017 01:17 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  But getting back on topic - blaming this on *money* is simplistic garbage in this case. In college sports, money is a byproduct of fan interest in the product. Will higher attendance (due to a conference tourney in Memphis, Cincy, or Hartford) result in more money? Yes. But that's because money follows fan interest. If you're not making money, it's because you're producing an inferior product that people don't care about.

There's also an important side benefit of higher attendance - if the conference tournament has low attendance it makes us look like a 2nd rate conference on TV.

So why was Rutgers added to the highest media deal payout conference again? And why did the Big 12 get paid to not expand with two perfectly worthwhile candidates that would have increased their viewership?

(01-10-2017 02:15 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 01:17 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  But getting back on topic - blaming this on *money* is simplistic garbage in this case. In college sports, money is a byproduct of fan interest in the product. Will higher attendance (due to a conference tourney in Memphis, Cincy, or Hartford) result in more money? Yes. But that's because money follows fan interest. If you're not making money, it's because you're producing an inferior product that people don't care about.

There's also an important side benefit of higher attendance - if the conference tournament has low attendance it makes us look like a 2nd rate conference on TV.

So why was Rutgers added to the highest media deal payout conference again? And why did the Big 12 get paid to not expand with two perfectly worthwhile candidates that would have increased their viewership?

The B10 added Rutgers for the additional revenue from the carriage fees for having the B10 Network on the basic tier of cable in NYC and in NJ.

The Big 12 situation is a little different. They don't have a Big 12 Network so they were not going to get any additional revenue from the carriage fees in new markets. By contract, the networks were contractually obligated to increase the B12 media deal if they were to add two new schools (by paying the new schools). However, the Big 12 simply negotiated a deal to accept less money from the networks so that they can keep the money for themselves. For the 10 existing teams and the networks it was a win, win.

Bottom line it is all about the money. Nobody cares that Rutgers or TCU are lucky to draw 5,000 people at their home arenas.

Bitterness is the product of experience, ignoring experience isn't a very practical way to go through life.
Cynicism, in non-distorted/spirit crushing doses, can keep you from making bad decisions.

(01-10-2017 02:45 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 02:15 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 01:17 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  But getting back on topic - blaming this on *money* is simplistic garbage in this case. In college sports, money is a byproduct of fan interest in the product. Will higher attendance (due to a conference tourney in Memphis, Cincy, or Hartford) result in more money? Yes. But that's because money follows fan interest. If you're not making money, it's because you're producing an inferior product that people don't care about.

There's also an important side benefit of higher attendance - if the conference tournament has low attendance it makes us look like a 2nd rate conference on TV.

So why was Rutgers added to the highest media deal payout conference again? And why did the Big 12 get paid to not expand with two perfectly worthwhile candidates that would have increased their viewership?

The B10 added Rutgers for the additional revenue from the carriage fees for having the B10 Network on the basic tier of cable in NYC and in NJ.

The Big 12 situation is a little different. They don't have a Big 12 Network so they were not going to get any additional revenue from the carriage fees in new markets. By contract, the networks were contractually obligated to increase the B12 media deal if they were to add two new schools (by paying the new schools). However, the Big 12 simply negotiated a deal to accept less money from the networks so that they can keep the money for themselves. For the 10 existing teams and the networks it was a win, win.

Bottom line it is all about the money. Nobody cares that Rutgers or TCU are lucky to draw 5,000 people at their home arenas.

DING DING DING
WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER

The answer to the "Hartford" question is pretty simple actually.

Back when the AAC was finding itself after the "C-7" departure, they were trying to figure out how the conference tournament would look and work. We gave up MSG in the divorce...probably a good idea since it is a massive facility and we have no real NYC schools (I'm willing to nod to UConn.). The first post-BE tourney was at the Mohawk casino and was poorly attended. I think we lost money on it. Had it been successful, it probably would have been there on a long-term basis.

So hosting was put out to bid. There was a lot of speculation that the Conference was looking at the Palestra in Philly as a permanent site, but that never panned out for a bunch of reasons. Memphis and New Orleans were also discussed as permanent sites but neither were chosen. Orlando got a two year run and then Hartford got the next slot in an attempt to bring the tournament back to the NE. These things are scheduled YEARS ahead of time, and Hartford has been slated for four years now.

Truth be told, Orlando was a complete failure. Attendance was dismal. Hartford would be hard pressed to be worse.

(01-10-2017 05:19 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The answer to the "Hartford" question is pretty simple actually.

Back when the AAC was finding itself after the "C-7" departure, they were trying to figure out how the conference tournament would look and work. We gave up MSG in the divorce...probably a good idea since it is a massive facility and we have no real NYC schools (I'm willing to nod to UConn.). The first post-BE tourney was at the Mohawk casino and was poorly attended. I think we lost money on it. Had it been successful, it probably would have been there on a long-term basis.

So hosting was put out to bid. There was a lot of speculation that the Conference was looking at the Palestra in Philly as a permanent site, but that never panned out for a bunch of reasons. Memphis and New Orleans were also discussed as permanent sites but neither were chosen. Orlando got a two year run and then Hartford got the next slot in an attempt to bring the tournament back to the NE. These things are scheduled YEARS ahead of time, and Hartford has been slated for four years now.

Truth be told, Orlando was a complete failure. Attendance was dismal. Hartford would be hard pressed to be worse.

I bolded the last paragraph for emphasis. I think a major factor in the decision making is they wanted to host the tournament in a venue where people would attend. Hosting the tournament in Orlando, New Orleans or even Tampa would be disasterous. Those cities do not support those basketball programs, and more to the point none of those teams have a chance in winning the conference tournament anytime soon.

Realistically the only options for this conference would be Connecticut or Memphis (We don't have a venue to host this tournament so Cincinnati is out and while the people support Temple better than a Tulane, it is not that great in the grand scheme of things).

(01-10-2017 05:19 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The answer to the "Hartford" question is pretty simple actually.

Back when the AAC was finding itself after the "C-7" departure, they were trying to figure out how the conference tournament would look and work. We gave up MSG in the divorce...probably a good idea since it is a massive facility and we have no real NYC schools (I'm willing to nod to UConn.). The first post-BE tourney was at the Mohawk casino and was poorly attended. I think we lost money on it. Had it been successful, it probably would have been there on a long-term basis.

So hosting was put out to bid. There was a lot of speculation that the Conference was looking at the Palestra in Philly as a permanent site, but that never panned out for a bunch of reasons. Memphis and New Orleans were also discussed as permanent sites but neither were chosen. Orlando got a two year run and then Hartford got the next slot in an attempt to bring the tournament back to the NE. These things are scheduled YEARS ahead of time, and Hartford has been slated for four years now.

Truth be told, Orlando was a complete failure. Attendance was dismal. Hartford would be hard pressed to be worse.

Actually you are a little off. Orlando was supposed to host again this year, but they postponed it to 2018 since Orlando got selected as a host site for NCAA tournament games. Hartford was the easiest selection to replace this year since they aren't dealing with scheduling conflicts with major pro teams. It will be in Orlando next year.

Sent from my SM-N920P using CSNbbs mobile app

(01-10-2017 05:28 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:19 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The answer to the "Hartford" question is pretty simple actually.

Back when the AAC was finding itself after the "C-7" departure, they were trying to figure out how the conference tournament would look and work. We gave up MSG in the divorce...probably a good idea since it is a massive facility and we have no real NYC schools (I'm willing to nod to UConn.). The first post-BE tourney was at the Mohawk casino and was poorly attended. I think we lost money on it. Had it been successful, it probably would have been there on a long-term basis.

So hosting was put out to bid. There was a lot of speculation that the Conference was looking at the Palestra in Philly as a permanent site, but that never panned out for a bunch of reasons. Memphis and New Orleans were also discussed as permanent sites but neither were chosen. Orlando got a two year run and then Hartford got the next slot in an attempt to bring the tournament back to the NE. These things are scheduled YEARS ahead of time, and Hartford has been slated for four years now.

Truth be told, Orlando was a complete failure. Attendance was dismal. Hartford would be hard pressed to be worse.

I bolded the last paragraph for emphasis. I think a major factor in the decision making is they wanted to host the tournament in a venue where people would attend. Hosting the tournament in Orlando, New Orleans or even Tampa would be disasterous. Those cities do not support those basketball programs, and more to the point none of those teams have a chance in winning the conference tournament anytime soon.

Realistically the only options for this conference would be Connecticut or Memphis (We don't have a venue to host this tournament so Cincinnati is out and while the people support Temple better than a Tulane, it is not that great in the grand scheme of things).

Why do we not have a venue to host? I attended the Conference USA championship in 93 and 98 and I remember having very good crowds.

(01-10-2017 05:43 PM)subflea Wrote:  

(01-10-2017 05:19 PM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  The answer to the "Hartford" question is pretty simple actually.

Back when the AAC was finding itself after the "C-7" departure, they were trying to figure out how the conference tournament would look and work. We gave up MSG in the divorce...probably a good idea since it is a massive facility and we have no real NYC schools (I'm willing to nod to UConn.). The first post-BE tourney was at the Mohawk casino and was poorly attended. I think we lost money on it. Had it been successful, it probably would have been there on a long-term basis.

So hosting was put out to bid. There was a lot of speculation that the Conference was looking at the Palestra in Philly as a permanent site, but that never panned out for a bunch of reasons. Memphis and New Orleans were also discussed as permanent sites but neither were chosen. Orlando got a two year run and then Hartford got the next slot in an attempt to bring the tournament back to the NE. These things are scheduled YEARS ahead of time, and Hartford has been slated for four years now.

Truth be told, Orlando was a complete failure. Attendance was dismal. Hartford would be hard pressed to be worse.

Actually you are a little off. Orlando was supposed to host again this year, but they postponed it to 2018 since Orlando got selected as a host site for NCAA tournament games. Hartford was the easiest selection to replace this year since they aren't dealing with scheduling conflicts with major pro teams. It will be in Orlando next year.

Sent from my SM-N920P using CSNbbs mobile app

Fair enough... Thanks for the correction.