The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(05-14-2019 11:29 AM)coachpipe Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 11:13 AM)Topcat Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 10:57 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 10:49 AM)Topcat Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 10:06 AM)Marcus Wrote:  Agree completely with all of this.

Uh, maybe just a little objectivity is in order here.

Gary Clark, Jacob Evans, Lance Stevenson, Troy Caupain and Jarron Cumberland are all not slouches.

He also had Trey Burke until Michigan undercut us at the very last minute.

I always thought the rap on him was is inability to win the big games and advance in the tournament. I never blamed him for his inability to land Zion Williamson.

I am sorry but recruiting was a huge issue. Coach went on during a media session last year that he disliked grad transfers.

Only one team earned a protected seed, that’s a talent problem.

He two really talented two year runs 2011/2012 and 2017/2018. Cronin didn’t recruit well enough to become a top 15 program.

Oh, OK. I must have misinterpreted all the bitching and moaning through the years about how we always lost to lower seeded teams with less talent than us in March.

both can be true.

Iowa was ranked better than UC most of the season. They under achieved some but when the NCAA Tourney opened, they were ready. I'm concentrating on being supportive of the new coach Brannen. There's a lot more up and up potential with the program now.

(05-14-2019 05:29 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:41 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:07 PM)Topcat Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:14 PM)Marcus Wrote:  The "almost got's" are hilarious and a sure sign of grasping for straws to defend something indefensible. These Cronin shills are still in full force I see. Gotta love it, even after this article.

If you will go back and read my initial post in this thread sir, you will see that I too am glad that he's gone. While I generally thought he did a good job here, I too got tired of losing to lesser teams in the NCAA tournament.

However, what I don't like is revisionist historians who come on here as the smartest people in the room and all just pat themselves on the back now that the guy they hated is gone.

Trey Burke was a COMMIT to UC... until he wasn't. That's what 18 year old kids do. They like what they have until something shinier comes along and then they want that.

If this Evan Prater guy from Wyoming decides at the last minute that Notre Dame is a little cooler than UC, is Fickell then an idiot that can't recruit?

A guy who makes 9 straight NCAA's must know something about recruiting no matter what conference you come from.

… but not if you don't say so.

The revisionist history is the he was "pushed" out and that Bohn "didn't want him". IMO this article is a bad look for Cronin and his shills. That's really the bottom line for me. I get sick of the constant bashing of the UC admin/AD over the handling of this, when clearly it was the other side that was the issue.

Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

The question is what offer would have kept Cronin from taking his "dream job"?

That may be your question and it may be a valid one, but it's not what I'm asking about.

(05-14-2019 05:53 PM)Bearcatdh58 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:41 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:07 PM)Topcat Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:14 PM)Marcus Wrote:  The "almost got's" are hilarious and a sure sign of grasping for straws to defend something indefensible. These Cronin shills are still in full force I see. Gotta love it, even after this article.

If you will go back and read my initial post in this thread sir, you will see that I too am glad that he's gone. While I generally thought he did a good job here, I too got tired of losing to lesser teams in the NCAA tournament.

However, what I don't like is revisionist historians who come on here as the smartest people in the room and all just pat themselves on the back now that the guy they hated is gone.

Trey Burke was a COMMIT to UC... until he wasn't. That's what 18 year old kids do. They like what they have until something shinier comes along and then they want that.

If this Evan Prater guy from Wyoming decides at the last minute that Notre Dame is a little cooler than UC, is Fickell then an idiot that can't recruit?

A guy who makes 9 straight NCAA's must know something about recruiting no matter what conference you come from.

… but not if you don't say so.

The revisionist history is the he was "pushed" out and that Bohn "didn't want him". IMO this article is a bad look for Cronin and his shills. That's really the bottom line for me. I get sick of the constant bashing of the UC admin/AD over the handling of this, when clearly it was the other side that was the issue.

Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

Please read and be fact based before commenting. ?

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

Please read at least the first full sentence before attempting a lecture. If it's beyond your comprehension, just ask for help or clarification. I'm good people, I'm here to help. ?

(05-16-2019 11:50 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 05:29 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:41 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:07 PM)Topcat Wrote:  If you will go back and read my initial post in this thread sir, you will see that I too am glad that he's gone. While I generally thought he did a good job here, I too got tired of losing to lesser teams in the NCAA tournament.

However, what I don't like is revisionist historians who come on here as the smartest people in the room and all just pat themselves on the back now that the guy they hated is gone.

Trey Burke was a COMMIT to UC... until he wasn't. That's what 18 year old kids do. They like what they have until something shinier comes along and then they want that.

If this Evan Prater guy from Wyoming decides at the last minute that Notre Dame is a little cooler than UC, is Fickell then an idiot that can't recruit?

A guy who makes 9 straight NCAA's must know something about recruiting no matter what conference you come from.

… but not if you don't say so.

The revisionist history is the he was "pushed" out and that Bohn "didn't want him". IMO this article is a bad look for Cronin and his shills. That's really the bottom line for me. I get sick of the constant bashing of the UC admin/AD over the handling of this, when clearly it was the other side that was the issue.

Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

The question is what offer would have kept Cronin from taking his "dream job"?

That may be your question and it may be a valid one, but it's not what I'm asking about.

It seems like Bohn was interested in incentivizing Cronin to make the second weekend instead of writing a check to Cronin that would have rewarded Cronin for what had happened in the tourney for the prior seven years. Apparently, Bohn changed his tune this off-season, but it wasn't enough to keep Cronin from going after a more appetizing job situation.

We'll never know why. It could have been his call. I would imagine that was influenced by big donors who thought Cincinnati was better than just regular season success with post season mediocrity with no indication that any calls for changes would be taken seriously, and perhaps the change this off-season was in response to Mick expressing serious interest in UCLA to keep from falling off into the ass-end of the coaching carousel season.

We'll never know, because the big donors ain't talking.

(05-14-2019 06:23 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:41 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:07 PM)Topcat Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 01:14 PM)Marcus Wrote:  The "almost got's" are hilarious and a sure sign of grasping for straws to defend something indefensible. These Cronin shills are still in full force I see. Gotta love it, even after this article.

If you will go back and read my initial post in this thread sir, you will see that I too am glad that he's gone. While I generally thought he did a good job here, I too got tired of losing to lesser teams in the NCAA tournament.

However, what I don't like is revisionist historians who come on here as the smartest people in the room and all just pat themselves on the back now that the guy they hated is gone.

Trey Burke was a COMMIT to UC... until he wasn't. That's what 18 year old kids do. They like what they have until something shinier comes along and then they want that.

If this Evan Prater guy from Wyoming decides at the last minute that Notre Dame is a little cooler than UC, is Fickell then an idiot that can't recruit?

A guy who makes 9 straight NCAA's must know something about recruiting no matter what conference you come from.

… but not if you don't say so.

The revisionist history is the he was "pushed" out and that Bohn "didn't want him". IMO this article is a bad look for Cronin and his shills. That's really the bottom line for me. I get sick of the constant bashing of the UC admin/AD over the handling of this, when clearly it was the other side that was the issue.

Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

Lost me right here...

'Tis a pity. If only you could have endured another 6 words ("this is a response to comments"), you would no longer be lost as the context for the entire post was made clear.

(05-16-2019 12:11 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:50 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 05:29 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 02:41 PM)Marcus Wrote:  The revisionist history is the he was "pushed" out and that Bohn "didn't want him". IMO this article is a bad look for Cronin and his shills. That's really the bottom line for me. I get sick of the constant bashing of the UC admin/AD over the handling of this, when clearly it was the other side that was the issue.

Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

The question is what offer would have kept Cronin from taking his "dream job"?

That may be your question and it may be a valid one, but it's not what I'm asking about.

It seems like Bohn was interested in incentivizing Cronin to make the second weekend instead of writing a check to Cronin that would have rewarded Cronin for what had happened in the tourney for the prior seven years. Apparently, Bohn changed his tune this off-season, but it wasn't enough to keep Cronin from going after a more appetizing job situation.

We'll never know why. It could have been his call. I would imagine that was influenced by big donors who thought Cincinnati was better than just regular season success with post season mediocrity with no indication that any calls for changes would be taken seriously, and perhaps the change this off-season was in response to Mick expressing serious interest in UCLA to keep from falling off into the ass-end of the coaching carousel season.

We'll never know, because the big donors ain't talking.

I genuinely appreciate your response, but I can't follow your narrative. I need help with it. Can you clarify?

(05-16-2019 12:22 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:11 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:50 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 05:29 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

The question is what offer would have kept Cronin from taking his "dream job"?

That may be your question and it may be a valid one, but it's not what I'm asking about.

It seems like Bohn was interested in incentivizing Cronin to make the second weekend instead of writing a check to Cronin that would have rewarded Cronin for what had happened in the tourney for the prior seven years. Apparently, Bohn changed his tune this off-season, but it wasn't enough to keep Cronin from going after a more appetizing job situation.

We'll never know why. It could have been his call. I would imagine that was influenced by big donors who thought Cincinnati was better than just regular season success with post season mediocrity with no indication that any calls for changes would be taken seriously, and perhaps the change this off-season was in response to Mick expressing serious interest in UCLA to keep from falling off into the ass-end of the coaching carousel season.

We'll never know, because the big donors ain't talking.

I genuinely appreciate your response, but I can't follow your narrative. I need help with it. Can you clarify?

You lost me. If you've got a specific question, I'm sure someone more in the know can assist you on here.

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

(05-16-2019 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

Agreed. Bohn neither "ran him out of town," nor "backed up the truck," either of which would have been irresponsible.

(05-16-2019 12:39 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

Agreed. Bohn neither "ran him out of town," nor "backed up the truck," either of which would have been irresponsible.

large bump in pay and more years ended up being contingent on Mick making the 2nd weekend of the NCAAs in the contract offer. Mick took that as disrespect ,waited out UCLA, took the job . Bohn didn't move on the offer. He handled it perfectly .

(05-16-2019 12:39 PM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

Agreed. Bohn neither "ran him out of town," nor "backed up the truck," either of which would have been irresponsible.

Mark and formerlurker nailed it on these two posts. Exactly how I feel. I would not expect or want Bohn to run a coach out of town who has ran a clean program and been to 9 straight NCAA tournaments, but I also wouldn't want him to throw every last dollar we have in our already cash-strapped athletic department to placate someone who hasn't made deep tournament runs. Bohn did the right thing.

(05-16-2019 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

I think we may have reached a semantic argument here without a more detailed look at Bohn's offer. Wasn't Mick currently making around $2.2M which put him around 50th overall? But based upon your post:

Quote:He would have made 3.3 million in 2020 (which is top 20 coach pay). UC raised his base to 2.5 million and significantly increased his incentive bonuses. They gave him favorable buyouts provisions going both ways.

How much more realistic rope do you think he had left to offer Mick when you take into account UC's budget as a non P5 and the fact that Brannen ended up getting what, about half that amount and who knows what regarding incentives and buyouts? $3.3M including meeting some apparently not incredibly difficult incentives sounds like a VERY aggressive financial attempt to keep Cronin to me based upon your info.

(05-17-2019 11:15 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

I think we may have reached a semantic argument here without a more detailed look at Bohn's offer. Wasn't Mick currently making around $2.2M which put him around 50th overall? But based upon your post:

Quote:He would have made 3.3 million in 2020 (which is top 20 coach pay). UC raised his base to 2.5 million and significantly increased his incentive bonuses. They gave him favorable buyouts provisions going both ways.

How much more realistic rope do you think he had left to offer Mick when you take into account UC's budget as a non P5 and the fact that Brannen ended up getting what, about half that amount and who knows what regarding incentives and buyouts? $3.3M including meeting some apparently not incredibly difficult incentives sounds like a VERY aggressive financial attempt to keep Cronin to me based upon your info.

That $3.3m for 2020 includes a "retention bonus" of $800k due in 2020, which was in Cronin's extension from a few years back. He was going to make that if he was still at UC with or without a new deal.

(05-17-2019 12:07 PM)TheGreatNate Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 11:15 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

I think we may have reached a semantic argument here without a more detailed look at Bohn's offer. Wasn't Mick currently making around $2.2M which put him around 50th overall? But based upon your post:

Quote:He would have made 3.3 million in 2020 (which is top 20 coach pay). UC raised his base to 2.5 million and significantly increased his incentive bonuses. They gave him favorable buyouts provisions going both ways.

How much more realistic rope do you think he had left to offer Mick when you take into account UC's budget as a non P5 and the fact that Brannen ended up getting what, about half that amount and who knows what regarding incentives and buyouts? $3.3M including meeting some apparently not incredibly difficult incentives sounds like a VERY aggressive financial attempt to keep Cronin to me based upon your info.

That $3.3m for 2020 includes a "retention bonus" of $800k due in 2020, which was in Cronin's extension from a few years back. He was going to make that if he was still at UC with or without a new deal.

Thanks. That's good info which makes the claim above about his 2020 income being top 20 rather misleading (since it would be scheduled to drop significantly the following year rather than stay the same or increase as conventionally happens). Still don't know all the details about incentives/bonuses/buyouts, but now I can see more where people are coming from who say it was a fairly conservative offer by Bohn.

(05-16-2019 12:23 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:22 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:11 PM)crex043 Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 11:50 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 05:29 PM)crex043 Wrote:  The question is what offer would have kept Cronin from taking his "dream job"?

That may be your question and it may be a valid one, but it's not what I'm asking about.

It seems like Bohn was interested in incentivizing Cronin to make the second weekend instead of writing a check to Cronin that would have rewarded Cronin for what had happened in the tourney for the prior seven years. Apparently, Bohn changed his tune this off-season, but it wasn't enough to keep Cronin from going after a more appetizing job situation.

We'll never know why. It could have been his call. I would imagine that was influenced by big donors who thought Cincinnati was better than just regular season success with post season mediocrity with no indication that any calls for changes would be taken seriously, and perhaps the change this off-season was in response to Mick expressing serious interest in UCLA to keep from falling off into the ass-end of the coaching carousel season.

We'll never know, because the big donors ain't talking.

I genuinely appreciate your response, but I can't follow your narrative. I need help with it. Can you clarify?

You lost me. If you've got a specific question, I'm sure someone more in the know can assist you on here.

You rang?

(05-17-2019 03:46 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 12:07 PM)TheGreatNate Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 11:15 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-16-2019 12:29 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(05-14-2019 04:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Haven't read the article so this is a response to comments. So if Bohn actually wanted to keep Mick as earnestly as this article apparently makes it sound what does that say about Bohn? Was he just another Mick apologist who was satisfied with mediocrity in March and fooled by a coach who paradoxically "can't recruit" and "doesn't develop players very well" while winning frequently and consistently enough to appear more regularly in a merit based tourney than almost any other school only to typically lose to inferior teams due to his "poor coaching decisions"?

Sounds to me from the comments that Bohn wasn't especially ready to "move on" from Cronin. Instead it sounds like he understood that Cronin is the type of coach that you do everything you can to hold on to because the grass very likely isn't greener under somebody else at UC. Or is Bohn just another "shill"? Asking for some friends on the board...

I don't know that that I'd agree with your assessment that Bohn was ready to do "everything" he could to keep Cronin. He could have offered more years, hell he probably could have offered more guaranteed money, BUT I do think Bohn valued Mick as a coach and was willing to make reasonable, fair efforts to keep him. I don't think he was willing to commit to him at the level Cronin seemed to believe he deserved. The offer was fair and commensurate with Cronin's accomplishments.

I think we may have reached a semantic argument here without a more detailed look at Bohn's offer. Wasn't Mick currently making around $2.2M which put him around 50th overall? But based upon your post:

Quote:He would have made 3.3 million in 2020 (which is top 20 coach pay). UC raised his base to 2.5 million and significantly increased his incentive bonuses. They gave him favorable buyouts provisions going both ways.

How much more realistic rope do you think he had left to offer Mick when you take into account UC's budget as a non P5 and the fact that Brannen ended up getting what, about half that amount and who knows what regarding incentives and buyouts? $3.3M including meeting some apparently not incredibly difficult incentives sounds like a VERY aggressive financial attempt to keep Cronin to me based upon your info.

That $3.3m for 2020 includes a "retention bonus" of $800k due in 2020, which was in Cronin's extension from a few years back. He was going to make that if he was still at UC with or without a new deal.

Thanks. That's good info which makes the claim above about his 2020 income being top 20 rather misleading (since it would be scheduled to drop significantly the following year rather than stay the same or increase as conventionally happens). Still don't know all the details about incentives/bonuses/buyouts, but now I can see more where people are coming from who say it was a fairly conservative offer by Bohn.

The new contract would be guaranteed for 4 years at $2.5m a year so it wasn't so much going to "drop" as just return to the base. It also stipulated that the 5th and 6th years (also at $2.5m/yr I believe) would become guaranteed if Mick took the team to the Sweet 16 in two of the first four years. I believe his tournament related bonuses/incentives were also scheduled to triple with the new deal.

(05-17-2019 06:03 PM)TheGreatNate Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 03:46 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(05-17-2019 12:07 PM)TheGreatNate Wrote:  That $3.3m for 2020 includes a "retention bonus" of $800k due in 2020, which was in Cronin's extension from a few years back. He was going to make that if he was still at UC with or without a new deal.

Thanks. That's good info which makes the claim above about his 2020 income being top 20 rather misleading (since it would be scheduled to drop significantly the following year rather than stay the same or increase as conventionally happens). Still don't know all the details about incentives/bonuses/buyouts, but now I can see more where people are coming from who say it was a fairly conservative offer by Bohn.

The new contract would be guaranteed for 4 years at $2.5m a year so it wasn't so much going to "drop" as just return to the base. It also stipulated that the 5th and 6th years (also at $2.5m/yr I believe) would become guaranteed if Mick took the team to the Sweet 16 in two of the first four years. I believe his tournament related bonuses/incentives were also scheduled to triple with the new deal.

In terms of the market, the "drop" in salary rankings would be especially notable. Per mark's comment $3.3M would put him top 20 for 2020. But 2.5M in 2021 would put him way back from there. Factor in the rapidly increasing market with Mick staying flat at $2.5 for the next 5-6 years and I would guess he might be well outside the top 50 well before the contract term ends.