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

(04-23-2020 11:36 AM)Former Lurker Wrote:  

(04-23-2020 07:24 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  I think this team took off when the coach finally recognized what would work best for this particular team... which is what a coach is supposed to do, I think.

I credit Brannen for not insisting on ramming that square peg through a round hole all season just because it was his system. It took a while, but when he finally relented and let Cumberland run the show we were good.

Getting back to the original topic, he's going to have to address rebounding because it is true, Houston basically just played volley ball on the boards until they finally made a shot.

... he also needs to find out a way to make guys better at shooting those shots from 15 feet away when no one is guarding you, because missing those costs us more than one game last year.

Agree, but I'm also excited to see what Brannen-ball looks like with his own recruits. We saw bits and pieces of it last year, and you could see the potential.

Having a style of play that is attractive to recruits is huge. I'm looking forward to shedding the "rock fight" perception we earned under Mick. And that's not meant as a slight to Mick. Just excited for the change.

Cronin just lost his 5*

I wonder who he'll blame for this one?

(04-28-2020 09:45 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  I wonder who he'll blame for this one?

You just can't recruit to a place like UCLA.

(04-28-2020 09:12 PM)bcat1997 Wrote:  Cronin just lost his 5*

check it out!

If I coached at a place like UCLA, I would try to emulate Mark Few. LA seems like an easy place to recruit to, and would especially be attractive for international recruits. Look for guys in Australia and New Zealand who are tearing it up on the U18 club teams, go hard after good transfers, and recruit the hell out of California. The problem is that the kind of kids Gonzaga recruits probably don't fit Mick's system.

There's couple of ways at looking at this.

1. If the dude was any good at all, he was there for only one year anyway. If he feels that this G league is his better option then knock yourself out, kid. However, nobody watches G league games.

2. If you do the NCAA one and done route, no, you're not getting paid (or at least you're NOT supposed to) but you do get a free year of education (or at least you ARE supposed to) and a lot of perks. People DO watch college basketball and if you're good you can make a brand for yourself before you ever step foot on an NBA court... a la "Zion".

Look at a guy like Romeo Langford. IU crapped all over themselves to get him. When he got there, he was good... but not great. However, he parlayed that gig into a 1st round draft choice based on potential alone.

Now where's that guy from cincy that skipped out of Syracuse to go play overseas? I can't even remember his name. Darius... something? Did he get to the NBA? I don't even know.

My point is that I still think it's a better move to go to college simply for the exposure. These guys going the G league route are barking up the wrong tree if you ask me because they may be getting their foot in the door, but it's the back door.

(04-29-2020 08:58 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  There's couple of ways at looking at this.

1. If the dude was any good at all, he was there for only one year anyway. If he feels that this G league is his better option then knock yourself out, kid. However, nobody watches G league games.

2. If you do the NCAA one and done route, no, you're not getting paid (or at least you're NOT supposed to) but you do get a free year of education (or at least you ARE supposed to) and a lot of perks. People DO watch college basketball and if you're good you can make a brand for yourself before you ever step foot on an NBA court... a la "Zion".

Look at a guy like Romeo Langford. IU crapped all over themselves to get him. When he got there, he was good... but not great. However, he parlayed that gig into a 1st round draft choice based on potential alone.

Now where's that guy from cincy that skipped out of Syracuse to go play overseas? I can't even remember his name. Darius... something? Did he get to the NBA? I don't even know.

My point is that I still think it's a better move to go to college simply for the exposure. These guys going the G league route are barking up the wrong tree if you ask me because they may be getting their foot in the door, but it's the back door.

That's not looking like it'll be true anymore...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...dorsements

(04-29-2020 09:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 08:58 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  There's couple of ways at looking at this.

1. If the dude was any good at all, he was there for only one year anyway. If he feels that this G league is his better option then knock yourself out, kid. However, nobody watches G league games.

2. If you do the NCAA one and done route, no, you're not getting paid (or at least you're NOT supposed to) but you do get a free year of education (or at least you ARE supposed to) and a lot of perks. People DO watch college basketball and if you're good you can make a brand for yourself before you ever step foot on an NBA court... a la "Zion".

Look at a guy like Romeo Langford. IU crapped all over themselves to get him. When he got there, he was good... but not great. However, he parlayed that gig into a 1st round draft choice based on potential alone.

Now where's that guy from cincy that skipped out of Syracuse to go play overseas? I can't even remember his name. Darius... something? Did he get to the NBA? I don't even know.

My point is that I still think it's a better move to go to college simply for the exposure. These guys going the G league route are barking up the wrong tree if you ask me because they may be getting their foot in the door, but it's the back door.

That's not looking like it'll be true anymore...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...dorsements

Well ok. All the more reason to go the college route.

"Hi! I'm local college basketball player Jarron Cumberland. When I want ice cream I don't go to that place Oprah likes. I go to U-D-F !!! MMMMM !!"

(04-29-2020 09:46 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 09:08 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 08:58 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  There's couple of ways at looking at this.

1. If the dude was any good at all, he was there for only one year anyway. If he feels that this G league is his better option then knock yourself out, kid. However, nobody watches G league games.

2. If you do the NCAA one and done route, no, you're not getting paid (or at least you're NOT supposed to) but you do get a free year of education (or at least you ARE supposed to) and a lot of perks. People DO watch college basketball and if you're good you can make a brand for yourself before you ever step foot on an NBA court... a la "Zion".

Look at a guy like Romeo Langford. IU crapped all over themselves to get him. When he got there, he was good... but not great. However, he parlayed that gig into a 1st round draft choice based on potential alone.

Now where's that guy from cincy that skipped out of Syracuse to go play overseas? I can't even remember his name. Darius... something? Did he get to the NBA? I don't even know.

My point is that I still think it's a better move to go to college simply for the exposure. These guys going the G league route are barking up the wrong tree if you ask me because they may be getting their foot in the door, but it's the back door.

That's not looking like it'll be true anymore...

https://www.espn.com/college-sports/stor...dorsements

Well ok. All the more reason to go the college route.

"Hi! I'm local college basketball player Jarron Cumberland. When I want ice cream I don't go to that place Oprah likes. I go to U-D-F !!! MMMMM !!"

For sure, that basically removed one of the decision "barriers" for these G-League kids.

Darius Bazley was a first round draft pick last year

(04-29-2020 10:06 AM)blackcattitude Wrote:  Darius Bazley was a first round draft pick last year

If this works out with no cap like some of the connected individuals seem to thing, you could see million dollar shoe deals or apparel contracts coming soon to a College near you.

(04-29-2020 10:06 AM)blackcattitude Wrote:  Darius Bazley was a first round draft pick last year

Really? Well OK.

My interest in the NBA has just been exposed. ZERO.

If the NCAA doesn't come through with some kind of endorsement and likeness allowance (please god, cap it or you'll see deals like the last big scandal except totally legal) you're going to see a lot of top recruits going straight to the G-League.

You might not get the exposure, but you get paid (these guys get more than a normal G League contract of $35k), get to play against better talent, and are already on direct NBA radar. If a player doesn't care about gaining an image from a year of college, it's an even more appealing option. If you're good enough to make a roster the year after, you'll be in the public eye 82 games a year.

That said, I don't see this as having any reflection on Cronin, though some people here still want to mock him for whatever reason. Kid is taking the safe option by going for the organization more likely to play next year along with a salary. And he gets a bunch of press for decommitting, too!

(04-28-2020 09:45 PM)Edgebrookjeff Wrote:  I wonder who he'll blame for this one?

Sorry Mick but that's funny!

(04-29-2020 02:31 PM)Yawny Wrote:  If the NCAA doesn't come through with some kind of endorsement and likeness allowance (please god, cap it or you'll see deals like the last big scandal except totally legal) you're going to see a lot of top recruits going straight to the G-League.

You might not get the exposure, but you get paid (these guys get more than a normal G League contract of $35k), get to play against better talent, and are already on direct NBA radar. If a player doesn't care about gaining an image from a year of college, it's an even more appealing option. If you're good enough to make a roster the year after, you'll be in the public eye 82 games a year.

That said, I don't see this as having any reflection on Cronin, though some people here still want to mock him for whatever reason. Kid is taking the safe option by going for the organization more likely to play next year along with a salary. And he gets a bunch of press for decommitting, too!

College bball players always had an option to get paid, i.e. developmental league and overseas. NBA just needed to quit catering to the ncaa. If a large number of players start jumping to the G League the ncaa will start making concessions to athletes.

As for Cronin. He brings it on himself. The kid apparently was not sold on championships from the 70's and Mick's ability to make him a top prospect. He ended up taking the best option for him.

(04-30-2020 11:19 AM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(04-29-2020 02:31 PM)Yawny Wrote:  If the NCAA doesn't come through with some kind of endorsement and likeness allowance (please god, cap it or you'll see deals like the last big scandal except totally legal) you're going to see a lot of top recruits going straight to the G-League.

You might not get the exposure, but you get paid (these guys get more than a normal G League contract of $35k), get to play against better talent, and are already on direct NBA radar. If a player doesn't care about gaining an image from a year of college, it's an even more appealing option. If you're good enough to make a roster the year after, you'll be in the public eye 82 games a year.

That said, I don't see this as having any reflection on Cronin, though some people here still want to mock him for whatever reason. Kid is taking the safe option by going for the organization more likely to play next year along with a salary. And he gets a bunch of press for decommitting, too!

College bball players always had an option to get paid, i.e. developmental league and overseas. NBA just needed to quit catering to the ncaa. If a large number of players start jumping to the G League the ncaa will start making concessions to athletes.

As for Cronin. He brings it on himself. The kid apparently was not sold on championships from the 70's and Mick's ability to make him a top prospect. He ended up taking the best option for him.

They weren't catering to the ncaa. it was the other way around. The ncaa is a de facto development league for the nba that cost nba owners nothing and that's the way the owners and the NBA liked it. Implementing an age restriction was not to benefit the ncaa, it was because too many unqualified teens were making an ill-advised jump when they should have been trying to get some type of training (be it at college, overseas or the G-League) before killing off their potential.

From everything i've read/heard (via podcasts) is that Adam Silver is dedicated to making this work. They are behind at this point but have all the resources and the ultimate affiliation to succeed. in that regard, i don't believe that the college game is done but that the competition level of college bball is going to go down a notch or two. This may not affect Cincy all that much but the pool of players that Duke, UK and NC compete for will be smaller with the spill over effect being that everyone is going to be recruiting slightly down. This actually helps Cincy's competitiveness in theory as the talent gap will narrow some.

The NLI thing has a lot more potential to damage Cincy, especially if commercial opportunities become a significant driver in influencing decisions. Obviously until the final rules/regulations are written everything is speculation but the ability of a school to sell recruits on marketing opportunities has the ability to shift the playing field (as an aside, just reading some of the prospective regulations being floated out there just illustrates how backwards and up their own arse the ncaa really is). i wonder how much Koch brother money can pump up WSU? We always heard about all the money behind SMU and now they get to find channels for them to use it legally. College sports may actually go down the "highest bidder" path before the ink dries on these regs.

Getting back to the direct thread topic, I'm not looking to hype any paysites here, but after reading Williams' new Athletic article on DeJulius, I'm extremely pleased, impressed and confident in Brannen's staff's recruiting. DeJulius comes off as extremely well-spoken, intelligent, thoughtful and confident and he talks about how UC went from "one of the darkest horses in the race" to the leader in his personally designed school scoring system after UC gave him its sales pitch via zoom.

Without getting too deep into the details, DeJulius talked about how he felt the UC staff had everything he needed and was looking for with Coach Dwyer being the "cool young guy", Coach Gee as "spiritual" and Coach Brannen as the "locked in" "basketball guru". Great stuff and I'm excited to see what the new guys, especially DeJulius, brings to the team.

(04-17-2020 05:37 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(04-17-2020 07:25 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I want to stress that I've never believed and I think the evidence shows style doesn't really play a factor in success. The teams that are very good to elite on both ends advance the most on march but those are largely the best teams. Those teams play a variety of styles. I wouldn't call mick's teams not being good enough offensively a style issue just a reality. Those teams didn't advance because largely they weren't top 16 type teams and had some bad luck (eventually even as a Lowe seed you'll advance).

Hopefully we'll see better offense without a defensive dropoff. That is the kind of team that is likely to make a run.

I knew you had done some of that analysis earlier and I wasn't sure how to find it. But my recollection was basically what you just said which isn't really consistent with another poster's take that there's a "style" specifically conducive to postseason (as opposed to regular season) success whether we are talking about Huggins, Cronin, Brannen or whoever. Well, besides the obvious - be good at everything (i.e. offense and defense). Of course, those teams are likely to have great success pretty much by definition.

This leaves the vast majority of the teams, including some good to very good ones, with the reality that they are a little to a lot better at one aspect of the game than the other. As such, they are a flawed team and it doesn't necessarily matter which "style" they play. They are going to win or lose in the postseason for the same reason they won or lost in the regular season - usually some combination of matchups, simply an "on" or "off" night, injuries, officiating, depth, coaching, improvement, reaction to pressure and luck.

Aside from maybe a slight or occasional allowance by the officials to maybe allow some additional physicality ("let them play") and having a higher "profile", it's pretty much the same game in the postseason as it is during the regular one. There's not a "key" style imo and I suspect the data proves this out (and as your analysis appears to show.)

Been a while since I checked the thread, so apologies for the late response. I think my post is understandably being misinterpreted. The 'style' I was referring to was the coaching/recruiting philosophy, and not the style of play.

By that, I mean, Mick's intentions were to build a team within a rigid system. He wanted the team to not try and be a jack of all trades, and instead focus on a few key items that they could absolutely dominate, leaving them in a position to win. He recruited to that philosophy, he coached to that philosophy, he lived that philosophy. He was also successful at that philosophy. I also think his stubborness was his biggest achilles heel, and why in my opinion only, he wasn't able to capture the magic to advance in the tournament. You need to embrace the chaos of the tournament if you want to be successful in it. Mick hated that aspect of the postseason setup.

Brannen is taking a different approach, in that he wants to play a more open system that can be more flexible. Don't get me wrong, he still wants to play a certain way, but the indications I've gotten are that he wants talented players, and is willing to flex his style to get them. He is willing to adapt his coaching to fit his players, like he (albeit reluctantly) did this year.

This could be wrong, it's simply a read after 1+ year. But, I believe that the style of approach to a building and coaching a team will give us a higher ceiling under Brannen in the postseason, with the requisite added risk. It could completely blow up in our faces, but in my opinion, that is better than never trying at all.