(03-25-2017 08:09 AM)BJUnklFkr Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 05:42 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Yeah...the media made him be a drunk and get his DUI. The media made him recruit and bring thugs to campus. LOL wow.

Huggins ran himself out of town with his drinking problem. He is also the one who brought kids like Art Long, Roy "not so" Bright, Donald Little, etc. to campus. Art Long was supposed to join UC a year earlier than he did...he was busted for selling dope if I recall and couldn't join the team when he wanted to. You had Guns to school boy, torturing roomates boy, and the list went on. Were they all like that? No not at all, but we had enough of them to keep the image going over his tenure.

No...Huggins ran himself out of town.

Wait a damn minute here! Over the past 1-2 years, haven't YOU been making posts about how Mick should start taking chances on lower character kids?

hehe...Im all over the place right now. Delerious. Losing in the second round year after year does that to a person.

i don't know what I want now. I'm back on the Mick wagon as of this morning.

Everybody needs to stop pouting. The Muskies have emerged as a power because they've won when it counts, and we're where we are because we haven't. Give credit where credit is due.

In all his seasons here, Huggins never led UC to the promised land. Close, maybe, but... you know.... horseshoes. In the years since he left, he hasn't taken anyone else there, either.

Are there better coaches out there than Mick? Probably. Could we identify one, lure him to UC, and hope he'd stay long enough and attract enough talent to make a difference? Maybe. Was Dusty Baker the ultimate manager? Probably not, but how have the Reds done since they fired him?

(03-25-2017 09:09 AM)colohank Wrote:  Everybody needs to stop pouting. The Muskies have emerged as a power because they've won when it counts, and we're where we are because we haven't. Give credit where credit is due.

In all his seasons here, Huggins never led UC to the promised land. Close, maybe, but... you know.... horseshoes. In the years since he left, he hasn't taken anyone else there, either.

Are there better coaches out there than Mick? Probably. Could we identify one, lure him to UC, and hope he'd stay long enough and attract enough talent to make a difference? Maybe. Was Dusty Baker the ultimate manager? Probably not, but how have the Reds done since they fired him?

So you are saying because UC might make a bad hire we should never consider getting rid of Mick? That's absurd. I'm not syaing Mick deserves to be fired now but if he can't get over the hump (maybe 3-5 more years) it will be time to look elsewhere.

(03-25-2017 09:09 AM)colohank Wrote:  Everybody needs to stop pouting. The Muskies have emerged as a power because they've won when it counts, and we're where we are because we haven't. Give credit where credit is due.

In all his seasons here, Huggins never led UC to the promised land. Close, maybe, but... you know.... horseshoes. In the years since he left, he hasn't taken anyone else there, either.

Are there better coaches out there than Mick? Probably. Could we identify one, lure him to UC, and hope he'd stay long enough and attract enough talent to make a difference? Maybe. Was Dusty Baker the ultimate manager? Probably not, but how have the Reds done since they fired him?

1. UC went further with Huggs than Xavier has ever gone with anyone
2. How long did it take Boeheim to win at Syracuse? Huggs had UC as a top 4 seed about half the time he was here. His best team lost it's best player before the tournament. Boeheim may never have a title if Melo goes down right before the tourney. These things matter. I want a coach that has me as a high seed enough that I think we can do it.
3. Dusty Baker leaving is not what caused the reds to lose. Look at the roster.
4. I'm not going to say UC can lure better coaches than Mick because I like Mick and think UC is poised for a huge year next year, but UC could absolutely find a talented coach who could be excellent. If Mick were gone tomorrow the UC program is big enough that it could find someone and thrive.

(03-25-2017 09:28 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  3. Dusty Baker leaving is not what caused the reds to lose. Look at the roster.

Thank you for this. It drives me nuts when people cite firing Dusty as the reason for the Reds regression. That was completely driven by letting the roster deteriorate and we'd be finishing in last with Joe Maddon, Dusty Baker, or any other manager.

(03-25-2017 09:28 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-25-2017 09:09 AM)colohank Wrote:  Everybody needs to stop pouting. The Muskies have emerged as a power because they've won when it counts, and we're where we are because we haven't. Give credit where credit is due.

In all his seasons here, Huggins never led UC to the promised land. Close, maybe, but... you know.... horseshoes. In the years since he left, he hasn't taken anyone else there, either.

Are there better coaches out there than Mick? Probably. Could we identify one, lure him to UC, and hope he'd stay long enough and attract enough talent to make a difference? Maybe. Was Dusty Baker the ultimate manager? Probably not, but how have the Reds done since they fired him?

1. UC went further with Huggs than Xavier has ever gone with anyone
2. How long did it take Boeheim to win at Syracuse? Huggs had UC as a top 4 seed about half the time he was here. His best team lost it's best player before the tournament. Boeheim may never have a title if Melo goes down right before the tourney. These things matter. I want a coach that has me as a high seed enough that I think we can do it.
3. Dusty Baker leaving is not what caused the reds to lose. Look at the roster.
4. I'm not going to say UC can lure better coaches than Mick because I like Mick and think UC is poised for a huge year next year, but UC could absolutely find a talented coach who could be excellent. If Mick were gone tomorrow the UC program is big enough that it could find someone and thrive.

Who knows how much farther Huggs would have gone in the tournament with a healthy Kenyon Martin? I'd like to think UC could have gone all the way that year, but then a lot of folks thought we'd go all the way with Oscar, too, and we didn't. Our two national championships and a third near-miss came in the years just after he left.

As always, the team that scores the most points wins, and it doesn't matter if the points that provide the margin of victory are scored by a dominant player, by a balanced team effort, or by some back-bencher who has one lucky night and contributes beyond his natural ability.

Let's break down Mark's excellent reasoning a bit further:

(03-25-2017 09:28 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  4. I'm not going to say UC can lure better coaches than Mick because I like Mick...

This is the conundrum that we currently find ourselves in. Just looking strictly at the numbers Mick has 1 regular season co-conference championship, 0 conference tournament championships and 1 S16 appearance. On the flip, no off-court issues on either his part, the assistant coaches or his players. Academics have been good and developing character in the players has been emphasized. I will NEVER forget how he handled the post-brawl with Xavier and that incident told me everything I need to know about Mick's character. He's also one of Cincinnati's own meaning he appreciates and respects the history of the program, the university and the greater Cincinnati community. I like Mick personally too.

Quote:...UC is poised for a huge year next year...

I believe this in my heart but it also seems we've been saying this for several years now. This is no longer the rebuild years nor is it the old Big East. At some point, the expectation has to be actually winning a conference championship and winning a conference tournament in addition to a deep tourney run. It doesn't help that we are in a watered down conference but you could argue that we come across weaker perception-wise if we can't even win a title in that watered down conference.

Quote:...but UC could absolutely find a talented coach who could be excellent. If Mick were gone tomorrow the UC program is big enough that it could find someone and thrive.

Agree. Our program history, brand, forthcoming upgraded arena and consecutive appearances in the NCAA tourney are all reasons for a talented coach to desire coming here. To Mick's and the university's credit, there is no more rebuild - a solid foundation has been established for the next guy. Where I end up in all this is Mick deserves a few more years to get it done especially in light of the new arena facility upgrades. But........at some point I hope our university does not settle for just simply being competitive and making the tournament every year. Mick isn't the only coach that has high character and stresses graduating players either. College coaches get paid the big bucks and the expectations should be just as high. My two cents.

(03-25-2017 09:09 AM)colohank Wrote:  In all his seasons here, Huggins never led UC to the promised land. Close, maybe, but... you know.... horseshoes. In the years since he left, he hasn't taken anyone else there, either.

I would classify that statement as incorrect:

3 sweet 16's and a final four under his stewardship at WVU since he left...that's a far sight better than Mick's performance over the same timespan.

(03-25-2017 09:16 AM)mptnstr@44 Wrote:  So you are saying because UC might make a bad hire we should never consider getting rid of Mick? That's absurd. I'm not syaing Mick deserves to be fired now but if he can't get over the hump (maybe 3-5 more years) it will be time to look elsewhere.

5 more years of the same performance? The shoe will be half empty at that point.

Mick had his MOST TALENTED TEAM (by any metric) this year and could not penetrate--that's on the coach, not the kids. Time to expect more....unless you don't REALLY care about winning...which I expect is the case with the Mick defenders.

I have no problem with Mick. However, should he try to hold up UC for a raise again this year, I think Mike Bohn should let him know he is lucky to be making his current salary.

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

Quote:"It really is amazing to consider what Mick has accomplished with one hand tied behind his back. He will keep winning and keep making the tourney. But how long does he want to do it while banging his head against the wall? I would have left by now." said a current coach.

I was reminded of this quote while watching the Oregon-Kansas game. We couldn't afford to keep our top assistant coach and now he's helped build an elite roster at Oregon. Mick has been very successful given the fact that the program has not kept up with the Joneses. Hopefully the new arena will help somewhat level the playing field.

Having said that, the results in March must improve. No conference tournament titles and only one Sweet 16 is not good enough. I don't think Mick has plateaued either. The offensive overhaul of the roster has made major improvements without affecting the defense and we are only adding more offense with Broome and Cumberland.

(03-24-2017 11:10 AM)Xpectations Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 09:11 AM)Eastside_J Wrote:  Its best not to feed the stupidity.

X was a bubble team until the very end of the season that had an impressive win last night against the first really good team they played in the tournament. The previous two were lousy and mediocre.

They have still yet to make a single final four in the history of the program, let alone a NC game or NC. At some point, maybe they will. Maybe even this year.

But if the tournament is as people like Lance and X most fans would say "is all that matters". OK, fine than X is just one of the raft of teams that has never in the history of the program, gotten good enough to accomplish a final four or NC season.

If quality of season doesn't matter and making it to the last weekend of the tournament is everything, than I am pretty sure "close doesn't count".

"Final five" - Whoop de effing do.

Yes, let's not feed the stupidity. I at least love how creative you're having to become to define success on such narrow and subjective terms.

Let's see if I have this straight. NCAA Tourney wins don't matter ... unless they're against teams we deem good, regardless of the Committee or other ranking systems ... even if those wins in the two rounds were by an average of 18 points.

Final Fours are the only thing that matter ... even though ours was 25 years ago, and then when my grandparents were barely alive.

Elite Eights? They matter zero. In fact, no wins prior to the Final Four should get any credit whatsoever--which is a great criterion because our last Elite Eight was over 20 years ago (vs. 3) and we've had one Sweet Sixteen (vs. 7) in the past 15 years.

Hell, if you're not going to make a Final Four, why even bother going, or winning at all?

Oh, and if you make a Final Four, that's the one time it's okay to beat mediocre teams--let's say a 13-seed, a 5-seed, a 9-seed, and a 6-seed. But I'm sure those teams were all worthy of 1- or 2-seeds, whereas X's NCAA 6-seed, 3-seed and 2-seed opponents were all grossly overseeded.

Oh, and don't forget that UCLA should have been seeded much, much higher than 3-seed FSU despite the Committee, the best ranking systems and their resume suggesting otherwise.

I'm sure I've forgotten some of the other criteria required to narrow the definition of "success." And I'm sure there's more narrowing to come, if necessary.

Look, is it fair to say X barely made the Tourney this season? Yep. It's been a rough season with Myles' suspension, our most talented player out for the back half of the season--who was already playing with one shoulder before that injury (which you guys saw in person), and our next best player hurt and/or hobbled for much of the back third of the season. X could've mailed it in and said the adversity was too great and we're not good enough to beat good teams.

I can say this. I'm glad they didn't. And while I loved last season, where X truly played on an elite level--spending much of the season in the Top 10 and breaking the Top 5--until the last 6 minutes in the 2nd round of the NCAA Tourney. I like this season even more--especially given what they where faced with.

There are a ton of smart people on this board. One of your fans here (BearcatHawkeye) is my favorite poster on any board. There are many other balanced opinions as well. Other are, let's just say, amusing/entertaining.

I have had almost no time to myself and had been looking forward to responding.

Yes Xpectations, narrow definition indeed. You are absolutely right.

But lets be honest, fair or not, the "final four, NC game and NC" yardstick of success is very real. Trust me we have had to deal with it for some time. If you maintain a level of success without reaching that critical measure, you will have to deal with it too eventually.

Although the good news is as a mostly white Jesuit, school it will be considered bad form to pin that label on your program. It must be nice to be both taken seriously and treated with kid gloves. You escape not just media and public judgment but all negative stains and/or reputation damage. Its about the player(s) involved not the program. Which is kind of ridiculous at this point considering at least one of your players does something negative and damaging every year.

And BTW, forgive me if I am not moved by the "adversity" story. You are talking to fans of a program that have been through a lot worse with a LOT BETTER teams. Critical injuries to truly star players? Yep. Last second bank shot after last second bank shot? Oh yeah. How about playing in the final four against a team of paid players that had to vacate their NCAA wins - that too.

Myles Davis is/was an idiot. You guys knew that well before his antics hit the police blotters. Jalen Reynolds was so bad he was pushed out of the program after last year, even though you desparately needed size. Hey don't feel so bad, we went through a LONG period of constant self-inflicted wounds too. The only difference yours are magically erased. Every single one of ours was hung on us like negative christmas tree ornaments, only to be boxed up and rehung the following year.

Here are your "takeaways" Xpectations. You are still the team who needed to win its last few games to get in. You are still the program whose fans were Booing your coach and players a month ago at home.

Yes - apart from Arizona you played the computer ranked WORST team in their seedline each of your first two games. Please don't argue, its not even close.

Someday you might make "the club" of teams that have made it. You haven't yet.

Yep its a narrow definition and IMO not even a good one. But all you have to do is notice how people are making a HUGE deal out of the historic accomplishments of Oregon, Gonzaga, and South Carolina to see how much it matters.

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.

Sumner just declared for the draft. Guess he figured he would rather get paid if he's going to sacrifice his body.

(03-28-2017 12:22 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Sumner just declared for the draft. Guess he figured he would rather get paid if he's going to sacrifice his body.

Did he hire an agent?

(03-28-2017 12:38 PM)doss2 Wrote:  

(03-28-2017 12:22 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Sumner just declared for the draft. Guess he figured he would rather get paid if he's going to sacrifice his body.

Did he hire an agent?

Yes

(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'm not a huge fan of Xavier, but you can't really make an apples-to-apples comparison. Xavier doesn't pretend to be a research institution - unlike UC, that isn't part of its mission. I don't live in Cincinnati, and haven't for a number of years, but I hear about UC's importance to the city referenced far more often than I do Xavier's. It really isn't close.

In terms of Catholic schools, I don't hear Xavier mentioned in the same breath as Georgetown, BC, or Notre Dame. If anything, Xavier's peers are Catholic schools like Portland, Loyola, San Diego, etc. - schools that are fine academically, but really only recruit students locally or from a rather contained region. On the endowment, I suspect that the university views that as a real long term threat. Schools that Xavier hopes to view as peers - Dayton, St. Louis, Creighton, Marquette - all have endowments of at least $500K, and much better academic reputations. Xavier's endowment is 357th in the nation. For better or worse, endowment size has quite a bit or relation to the success of a university.

(03-28-2017 12:22 PM)dsquare Wrote:  Sumner just declared for the draft. Guess he figured he would rather get paid if he's going to sacrifice his body.

Did he hire an agent?

(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.