Doc: Don't criticize Mick Cronin
The Morning Line
Paul Daugherty , pdaugherty@enquirer.com Published 12:47 p.m. ET March 20, 2017 | Updated 1:39 p.m. ET March 20, 2017


Mawnin’ Mobsters. Still in The Sac (almost literally) for two more days before I point the Hertz-mobile south to San Jose. If you’ve ever been to downtown SJ, you’ll understand why I’m lingering in the state capital as long as possible.

The Mourning After, it’s fair and should be safe to report that UC simply lost to a better team. For all sickened by Mick’s carping re the seedings, I ask you this: Do you honestly believe FSU, also a No. 3, loser to X, would have had even a puncher’s chance v. UCLA?

Me, neither.

For much of the 2nd half last night, that was as good an offensive team as I’ve seen in many a moon. That 63-second stretch where they pumped in three treys was as Holy S--- a span as I’ve seen all year. Even Steve Alford took a second afterward to remark about how remarkable it was. And Alford is still Indiana-gee whiz.

And Lonzo Ball. I don’t care if his dad is Al Capone, that kid is a cut above. The greatest players know when being pretty good isn’t good enough, and can turn it on at will. In the 2nd half, Ball had nine assists, and two of the dagger 3s that essentially ended UC’s year.

So. . .

What do you make of it?

I’ve already gotten some predictable, anti-Mick feedback. Why? His team played about as perfect a 1st half as it could last night. But here’s some news: UC ain’t UCLA. The Bruins have three guys expected to be 1st-rounnd NBA picks. They have Ball, probably the best PG in the game, and destined to leave UCLA as soon as the Bruins lose. They have Alford’s kid who, incredibly, is UCLA’s 5th leading scorer, all-time. Think of that roster he’s on.

People who think Cronin should be criticized simply overrate the ability of the Bearcats to compete at the proverbial highest level. They can catch lightning as they did the Final 4 year (when UTEP beat Kansas in Round 2.) They can muster an Elite 8 run, as Huggs did twice. They’re not UCLA. Or Duke, UNC, AZ etc etc.

UC basketball could be even better next year

Those frustrated that Xavier outdoes UC at tourney time should remember that the Musketeers don’t have the football anchor. Basketball is it, and they decided a long time ago that basketball was a most valuable marketing tool. Think of yourselves as fans of the University of Washington, which competes with little Gonzaga. Or even IU v. Butler. Same situation.

Meantime, a team that returns Clark, Washington, Cumberland, Evans and Jenifer (as well as a hotshot recruit or two, evidently) isn’t in bad shape. In fact, it’s in pretty good shape. This year, at least, UC got a lousy draw.

And please, Mick, upgrade the non-conference schedule.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/b.../99412540/

(03-22-2017 08:28 AM)ctipton Wrote:  Doc: Don't criticize Mick Cronin
The Morning Line
Paul Daugherty , pdaugherty@enquirer.com Published 12:47 p.m. ET March 20, 2017 | Updated 1:39 p.m. ET March 20, 2017

Cincinnati Bearcats guard Kevin Johnson (25) and Cincinnati Bearcats forward Kyle Washington (24), background, rest their hands on their hips in the final moments of the 79-67 loss to UCLA.
(Photo: The Enquirer/Kareem Elgazzar)

Mawnin’ Mobsters. Still in The Sac (almost literally) for two more days before I point the Hertz-mobile south to San Jose. If you’ve ever been to downtown SJ, you’ll understand why I’m lingering in the state capital as long as possible.

The Mourning After, it’s fair and should be safe to report that UC simply lost to a better team. For all sickened by Mick’s carping re the seedings, I ask you this: Do you honestly believe FSU, also a No. 3, loser to X, would have had even a puncher’s chance v. UCLA?

Me, neither.

For much of the 2nd half last night, that was as good an offensive team as I’ve seen in many a moon. That 63-second stretch where they pumped in three treys was as Holy S--- a span as I’ve seen all year. Even Steve Alford took a second afterward to remark about how remarkable it was. And Alford is still Indiana-gee whiz.

And Lonzo Ball. I don’t care if his dad is Al Capone, that kid is a cut above. The greatest players know when being pretty good isn’t good enough, and can turn it on at will. In the 2nd half, Ball had nine assists, and two of the dagger 3s that essentially ended UC’s year.

So. . .

What do you make of it?

I’ve already gotten some predictable, anti-Mick feedback. Why? His team played about as perfect a 1st half as it could last night. But here’s some news: UC ain’t UCLA. The Bruins have three guys expected to be 1st-rounnd NBA picks. They have Ball, probably the best PG in the game, and destined to leave UCLA as soon as the Bruins lose. They have Alford’s kid who, incredibly, is UCLA’s 5th leading scorer, all-time. Think of that roster he’s on.

People who think Cronin should be criticized simply overrate the ability of the Bearcats to compete at the proverbial highest level. They can catch lightning as they did the Final 4 year (when UTEP beat Kansas in Round 2.) They can muster an Elite 8 run, as Huggs did twice. They’re not UCLA. Or Duke, UNC, AZ etc etc.

UC basketball could be even better next year

Those frustrated that Xavier outdoes UC at tourney time should remember that the Musketeers don’t have the football anchor. Basketball is it, and they decided a long time ago that basketball was a most valuable marketing tool. Think of yourselves as fans of the University of Washington, which competes with little Gonzaga. Or even IU v. Butler. Same situation.

Meantime, a team that returns Clark, Washington, Cumberland, Evans and Jenifer (as well as a hotshot recruit or two, evidently) isn’t in bad shape. In fact, it’s in pretty good shape. This year, at least, UC got a lousy draw.

And please, Mick, upgrade the non-conference schedule.

http://www.cincinnati.com/story/sports/b.../99412540/

Ah there the reason. Mick's teams cannot be better because we have an anchor of a football team. Doc are you friggin serious?

Media continues to make supporting Mick about criticizing Huggins.

I thought the article was pretty close to our message board threads. He probably read the thread.

I did see any Huggins criticism in the article.

(03-22-2017 09:16 AM)bearcatfan Wrote:  I thought the article was pretty close to our message board threads. He probably read the thread.

I did see get any Huggins criticism in the article.

There isn't. And he probably does. Any decent sportswriter with half a brain should scan boards like these on a regular basis. I believe Doc has lifted topics and ideas of this very board and added his own flair to them for Enquirer columns.

WTF does a football anchor even mean?!?!



mc

(03-22-2017 09:28 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  WTF does a football anchor even mean?!?!



mc

Not sure. I guess we should ask Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin or Florida. They seemed to have done well in both sports.

(03-22-2017 09:28 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  WTF does a football anchor even mean?!?!



mc

Yea this is an idiotic narrative...that somehow UC football has hurt the basketball program. Shouldn't it have been hurting the basketball program in the 90s when nobody attended and people had to buy football season tickets to get basketball? The idea that a successful football program has been a detriment to basketball is stupid.

The anchor is not football, the anchor is the American Athletic Conference and we ain't dropping that anchor anytime soon.

(03-22-2017 09:33 AM)JunctaJuvant Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 09:28 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  WTF does a football anchor even mean?!?!



mc

Not sure. I guess we should ask Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin or Florida. They seemed to have done well in both sports.

Michigan State has been to NCAA for something like 17 straight years despite a rather successful football program. Doc needs to wait a day before publishing so he can calmly ask "Does this make sense?"

"Football anchor" is ridiculous, but I do think the rise of football's popularity has dented basketball's early-season attendance a bit. More fans than previously wait until football's over before going to BB games.

(03-22-2017 09:41 AM)doss2 Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 09:33 AM)JunctaJuvant Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 09:28 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  WTF does a football anchor even mean?!?!



mc

Not sure. I guess we should ask Michigan, Oregon, Wisconsin or Florida. They seemed to have done well in both sports.

Michigan State has been to NCAA for something like 17 straight years despite a rather successful football program. Doc needs to wait a day before publishing so he can calmly ask "Does this make sense?"

...and even if Xavier puts all their eggs in the basketball basket - they are still rinky dink. They are a poor school with a poor athletic program. Despite that, they outperform UC.

I'd think a nationally recognizable football program helps the brand in general.

(03-22-2017 09:35 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-22-2017 09:28 AM)marcuscan Wrote:  WTF does a football anchor even mean?!?!



mc

Yea this is an idiotic narrative...that somehow UC football has hurt the basketball program. Shouldn't it have been hurting the basketball program in the 90s when nobody attended and people had to buy football season tickets to get basketball? The idea that a successful football program has been a detriment to basketball is stupid.

I would take that point a step further. The football program's success under Kelly and Jones with big bowl games and national rankings took the focus (and pressure to win) off Mick and the basketball program. Most UC fans were ecstatic about the newfound pigskin success and weren't as intensely focused on a basketball program being rebuilt in the toughest conference ever.

The football anchor theory is an offshoot of the old Mike DeCourcy theory that UC should have invested in the basketball arena instead of redoing Nippert.

I don't understand why everyone is freaking out about Xavier still being alive? They beat an absolute trash 6 seed, and a 3 that UC would have handled. Tournament performance aside, UC clearly had the better year and the better team. Sometimes you have **** luck and run into the #1 overall pick in the NBA draft... UC will be better than Xavier again next year...

Can't the argument be made that the entire reason we are stuck in the AAC is due to football? Many on here say that conference affiliation greatly affects Mick's recruiting. And the conference affiliation is 100% due to football considerations. Hence it isn't the biggest leap logically to say that football considerations do in fact act as an anchor on the basketball program.

I personally feel that the bigger picture includes many different factors, of which the AAC anchor is one.

(03-22-2017 10:24 AM)namrag Wrote:  Can't the argument be made that the entire reason we are stuck in the AAC is due to football? Many on here say that conference affiliation greatly affects Mick's recruiting. And the conference affiliation is 100% due to football considerations. Hence it isn't the biggest leap logically to say that football considerations do in fact act as an anchor on the basketball program.

I personally feel that the bigger picture includes many different factors, of which the AAC anchor is one.

OK, so let's play the game, shall we?

Let's assume that UC discontinued FB in the wake of the 2012 breakup of the BE. (Remember, UC wouldn't have been IN the BE in the first place without our FB program...) What conference would we be in now?

The Big East? Probably not. The new BE is composed of like-minded, like purpose schools. This has come up from time-to-time when the suggestion was made that we rejoin the BE...I don't think the BE seriously looks at either UConn or UC...though UConn has at least history working in their favor. But UC, especially with Xavier in the conference, simply doesn't fit the BE's needs or profile.

So that leaves, what??? The A10? The A10 is at least comparable to the AAC in that it is a lower profile conference with lower profile schools. The MAC? We could keep FB and still do that.

Simply put, though I hate the AAC, there are simply no better options out there.

The last team before Villanova to win the title without fielding a 1A football team was Villanova 30 years ago. There is absolutely no validity to it. I'd argue that building the brand name through football is an advantage

To go along with the theme of this thread, I happened to catch a segment of WLW Sportstalk last night and Lance was telling everyone how they should be happy that Mick has made so many consecutive NCAA appearances. Also said because UC gets about 1/10th of revenue money that the P5 schools get, and that because they play in a Mickey Mouse (his words) basketball conference, this is about as good as it gets.

I'm not sure I understand that rationale of complacency.

He went on to point out that Huggs was 0-5 against higher seeds, and lost 9 times (64%) against teams lower seeded than them. Yet no one dares criticize Huggs, but want to run Mick out of town. THAT was laughable. I recall plenty of people who grew tired of Huggs' struggles in March.

Gonzaga is a 1 seed playing in a worse conference than us. Witchita has been very successful and aspires to join our conference. I put no credibility in this either