I saw some talk on twitter about people wanting Kilpatrick getting his jersey retired. IMO, if SK gets his number then there is no way you leave out Logan, Fortson, and NVE. And for that matter some of the guys from the NT teams like Bonham and George Wilson.

The fact of the matter is we have a very high standard for getting in the rafters and we should be proud of that. It should be a player that is truly transcendent. KMART was the NPOY, 3 time conference DPOY, #1 pick, and best player for the best team in the country.

The only other player I would consider would be NVE, because of his NBA career, and that he was apart of the resurrection of the program from the ashes (1 FF and an EE). Even though Logan was a better college player.

Maybe we should come up with another way to honor the 2nd tier guys, I was cool with the banners in the concourse myself. The AAs did have a ribbon under the restsraunt.

Whatever you decide, leave a spot open for Gary Clark.

As someone whose favorite player is Fortson I'd be in favor of retiring SKs jersey. I like that the bar for getting your number retired is really high, I don't feel like opening it up to a 2,000 point scorer dramatically lowers the bar. Whether Danny's number is retired or not doesn't change my opinion that he's the best player of the Shoemaker era by a decent margin.

(01-15-2018 09:35 PM)RealDeal Wrote:  As someone whose favorite player is Fortson I'd be in favor of retiring SKs jersey. I like that the bar for getting your number retired is really high, I don't feel like opening it up to a 2,000 point scorer dramatically lowers the bar. Whether Danny's number is retired or not doesn't change my opinion that he's the best player of the Shoemaker era by a decent margin.

SK just doesn't stand out over all the other players mentioned. He is just fresher in people's minds.

No way NVE deserves it.

Fortson absolutely. As much as I loved Lo, I’m ok with not retiring his.

And hell yes SK deserves it.

In 2002, Steve Logan had a better year than Jason Williams. But Williams went to Duke and won a title the year before and was the favorite coming into the season and had a great year, so the media gave him the POY awards. Why would UC let that decision by the national media determine that Logan is unworthy of having his jersey retired? What more could Logan have done that year!?!

I'd retire a bunch of jerseys. Thacker, Bonham, Hogue, Nicky V, Fortson, Logan, Kilpatrick. Hell, I'd retire Huggs' pullover. UC has a rich history that very few non-blue-bloods have. We should be playing that up, not being demure about it.

(01-15-2018 10:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  No way NVE deserves it.

Fortson absolutely. As much as I loved Lo, I’m ok with not retiring his.

And hell yes SK deserves it.

Not sure how you can say SK deserves it more than Logan and NVE.

(01-15-2018 10:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  No way NVE deserves it.

Fortson absolutely. As much as I loved Lo, I’m ok with not retiring his.

And hell yes SK deserves it.

Agree on NVE. No way in any realm of consciousness does SK deserve it over Logan. None.

I can see hanging jersey's of players but I see no one else whose number should be retired beyond Twyman, Robertson and Martin.

The All Americans were honored in The Shoe, but before SK would be Hogue, Bonham, Wilson, Thacker as these guys were All Americans and won NCAA's.

3 jerseys retired for all of our basketball history is too conservative in my opinion. I would retire Fortson and Logan for sure. Kilpatrick is close as the #2 all time scorer but Logan (#3 all time) and Fortson (#4 all time) were consensus first team All-Americans in 2002 and 1997 respectively.

(01-15-2018 11:56 PM)doss2 Wrote:  I can see hanging jersey's of players but I see no one else whose number should be retired beyond Twyman, Robertson and Martin.

The All Americans were honored in The Shoe, but before SK would be Hogue, Bonham, Wilson, Thacker as these guys were All Americans and won NCAA's.

Agree, I think the people saying SK have the attention span of a fruit fly. The conversation should probably start the with National Champ guys (Wilson, Bonham, Hogue, etc), and then move to Fotson, Logan, NVE.

It's the same crowd that was clamoring to get Hicks number retired his senior year, and I think I remember people having the same sentiments about Max. If you want to change your standard, then you need to adjust it for all of the guys in the past that meet that same standard.

(01-16-2018 07:20 AM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:56 PM)doss2 Wrote:  I can see hanging jersey's of players but I see no one else whose number should be retired beyond Twyman, Robertson and Martin.

The All Americans were honored in The Shoe, but before SK would be Hogue, Bonham, Wilson, Thacker as these guys were All Americans and won NCAA's.

Agree, I think the people saying SK have the attention span of a fruit fly. The conversation should probably start the with National Champ guys (Wilson, Bonham, Hogue, etc), and then move to Fotson, Logan, NVE.

It's the same crowd that was clamoring to get Hicks number retired his senior year, and I think I remember people having the same sentiments about Max. If you want to change your standard, then you need to adjust it for all of the guys in the past that meet that same standard.

One man's opinion: I like the bar being set very high for an elite program such as UC. No one can question the qualifications of those who have been honored. Many programs would have retired jerseys for most of the other names mentioned here.

Are there other ways to continue to honor excellent players? Absolutely and in the new 5th/3rd a blue ribbon panel should be formed to evaluate multiple methods and locations for recognition of All-Americans, NBA players, 1,000 point scorers, etc.. Our rich history needs to be displayed prominently throughout. That serves to educate our students and younger fans; inform visiting fans they're in a place of greatness and entice recruits to be part of a transcendent tradition.

Related to this, my recollection is there was no stated criteria for the Ring of Honor when it was added to Nippert. As a result, you now have former players who (rightfully) look at their own accomplishments and wonder why they're not included. Recognition, including retiring numbers, is a slippery slope without clearly articulated, objective criteria and the courage of those in leadership to uphold that standard and avoid a recency bias.

An easy way to solve this - especially with the new arena - is to create a ring of red or a ring of honor. Reserve retiring number/jerseys for those who truly deserve it based on the standards set, but you can still honor Kilpatrick, Logan, Fortson, etc. by putting their names around a ring, similar to Nippert.

Kinda off topic but I love at BB&T how NKU has a hall of fame showcase room of sorts right off its main concourse. Probably too late now, but UC should have done something similar with the renovation. A room highlighting these players' careers, especially for us who are younger or newer fans who may not know much about the careers of these older players. IMO the faux marble oversized players from the old arena were absolutely corny.

(01-15-2018 11:02 PM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  No way NVE deserves it.

Fortson absolutely. As much as I loved Lo, I’m ok with not retiring his.

And hell yes SK deserves it.

Not sure how you can say SK deserves it more than Logan and NVE.

NVE was here two years. No JUCO is ever getting his jersey retired at UC unless they start handing that honor out like pez.

Logan had a better final year but entire body of work while at UC, offensively, defensively, intangibles and what they did for the program, I put SK up on the wall first. UC agreed, so I'm not alone in the universe apparently.

(01-16-2018 08:25 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 11:02 PM)jarr Wrote:  

(01-15-2018 10:29 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  No way NVE deserves it.

Fortson absolutely. As much as I loved Lo, I’m ok with not retiring his.

And hell yes SK deserves it.

Not sure how you can say SK deserves it more than Logan and NVE.

NVE was here two years. No JUCO is ever getting his jersey retired at UC unless they start handing that honor out like pez.

Logan had a better final year but entire body of work while at UC, offensively, defensively, intangibles and what they did for the program, I put SK up on the wall first. UC agreed, so I'm not alone in the universe apparently.

I'm in complete agreement with Rath.

NVE was here two years and I believe his final year was 3rd team all American. SK was first or second team depending on which service you use and a four year player. NVE is nowhere near this conversation.

Shoemaker era Bearcats not already retired boils down to 3 players in the debate: Fortson, Logan, SK. As previously mentioned I consider Fortson the best player of this era by a decent margin but it's been 20 years, they're not retiring his number.

Logan vs SK. Ill concede that Logan had a better senior season; he was a unanimous 1st team All American vs SK who was 1st/2nd team depending upon service. SK hit a significant milestone with 2,000 points. No offense to Logan but SKs character puts him way ahead for me. Thats a credit to SK, not trying to say Logan is a bad guy. He's the type of guy you want to honor as what your program stands for.

Of the modern era Bearcats I'd retire:
1. Logan
2. Fortson
3. SK

I'd do it in that order, but I think all three have great cases and earned it with their on court play. Logan's senior season I thought was better than Williams who was the consensus NPOY. Logan lead a bunch of role players to a conference title, conference tournament title and 1 seed in the NCAA tournament. Go back and look at the number of top 50/top 100 wins that team had over the course of the season...it is staggering how accomplished they were with really 1 consistent offensive threat (Stokes was hit or miss, though when he was on he was great). They finished 7 in kenpom adjusted offense and 3rd in kenpom adjusted defense (2nd overall in kenpom). For that roster to be 7th in adjusted offense is just insane to me and says so much for Logan.

By comparison Kilpatrick's senior season UC finished 98 in adjusted offense. He was a one man wrecking crew on that end, but didn't make teammates better the way Logan did. People may get on Logan's defense, but its clear his teams didn't suffer because of it. He understood how to play defense and did though not spectacular held up his end. I think there is a tendency now to underrate Logan's career at UC. He was also the key guy his Junior year...the team took off when he wrestled control from Satterfield. He was a key bench player on the best UC team of the modern era and even played a huge role as a freshman. Logan was a spectacular Bearcat.

Consensus 1st Team All-Americans[edit]
1958, 1959, 1960 – Oscar Robertson
1963 – Ron Bonham
1963 – Tom Thacker
1997 – Danny Fortson
2000 – Kenyon Martin
2002 – Steve Logan

That is for one year with the exception of Oscar. That gets you a banner on the wall.

Retired jersey numbers are not for one year of accolades. They are for the entire body of work on and off the court from the time you walked on to campus.

(01-16-2018 10:59 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  That is for one year with the exception of Oscar. That gets you a banner on the wall.

Retired jersey numbers are not for one year of accolades. They are for the entire body of work on and off the court from the time you walked on to campus.

Ok, but as far as one year goes, that doesn't come close to describing Logan.

I think there is a tendency now to underrate Logan's career at UC. He was also the key guy his Junior year...the team took off when he wrestled control from Satterfield. And he WON CUSA player of the year as a Junior and Senior. He was a key bench player on the best UC team of the modern era and even played a huge role as a freshman. He's 3rd all time in scoring at UC and if I remember correctly somewhere in the top 5 in assists (I can't find this if anyone can help). Logan was a spectacular Bearcat.

The only Shoemaker era Bearcat I'd clearly take over Logan is Fortson. Not saying he's #2 but he's in that discussion.