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

(04-12-2021 01:58 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:35 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 12:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Repeat after me: There is no right formula for picking a basketball coach. Those with no head coaching experience have become hall of famers. Those who came up coaching smaller programs have become hall of famers.

You could trot out this argument to support any hiring. It's vacuous. Yes, the guy who ticks all your boxes might fail, and the guy who was your 7th choice might become a HoFer, but you should still have criteria for hiring someone and then get the guy who best meets them.

As far as I can tell, Martin's main qualification is he played on the 92 team. Admittedly, there don't appear to be any home-run hires out there. And it would be cool to have a former Bearcat leading the team. But he would be a pretty crazy hire IMO.

He's worked as an assistant under a hall of famer for 15 years as well. Multiple assistants that worked under Huggs have been successful head coaches. There are criteria. Yea if you could pluck someone who has succeeded at a head coach at this level that might be better. I think Archie would have been a safer hire for example because we know he succeeded at Dayton and his Indiana stint, while not great isn't egregiously bad either. But the reality is we were choosing between retreads like Archie, experienced assistants like Martin, or up and coming coaches at low majors like Brannen was when we hired him. We weren't taking a wildly successful coach at our level.

History tells us those three criteria types of hires all have their successes and failures. So you interview. You get a sense at who has the best plan for your job and you make the judgment.

Fit is a huge part of what determines a coach's success at a program. There are good coaches who fail at jobs that they just aren't a good fit for. We don't know if Erik is head coach material yet, but we do know that he should be a good fit. And for a program in turmoil, that's not a bad start. I think he'll bring an identity to the program, and it's an identity we're all familiar and comfortable with because it's worked here for the better part of the past 3 decades.

Erik Martin (especially if he brings NVE with him) will bring juice to the program and create excitement among donors. He is a cultural fit and knows what it takes to be a Bearcat. Those are advantages, not disadvantages. The other stuff (schemes, in-game coaching, recruiting) all remain to be seen, but there's a lot to like regardless. This isn't a hire without risk, but I don't see any obvious alternatives that aren't without risk.

LOL, you called the things that actually involve coaching "the other stuff." Your point about fit underlines that his only real qualifications are that he's a Bearcat and he's Huggs's assistant. We just have to hope that he is ready and able to lead the program. It's kind of crazy that we are at that point, but here we are . . .

(04-12-2021 01:25 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  We will at least have a 2 year built in excuse that we all need to let him learn on the job.

if Martin is hired and it takes 5 or 6 years to win, will you all be calling for his head? CJB was probably the classiest coach we had in 30 years and many of you were calling for his head. I was surprised we never heard ' Give us Barabbas' chants. Please give the next coach a fair chance. Just hope the next one doesn't allow visitors into practice so they can spew out all the secrets.

(04-12-2021 12:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Repeat after me: There is no right formula for picking a basketball coach. Those with no head coaching experience have become hall of famers. Those who came up coaching smaller programs have become hall of famers.

I would agree that there is no one formula for picking a basketball coach, but that doesn't correspond mean there aren't likelier to produce better results than others. I mean you can start with the whole notion of hiring a search firm or not. I don't have the data but it would be interesting to see the success rates with coaches getting their first HC job at a "major" (is that what we're called?) in basketball.

(04-12-2021 03:20 PM)crex043 Wrote:  Erik Martin is 2-0 vs Xavier. So there's that.

He’s also been to more final fours than every player Xavier has ever had, combined.

(04-12-2021 03:22 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 12:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Repeat after me: There is no right formula for picking a basketball coach. Those with no head coaching experience have become hall of famers. Those who came up coaching smaller programs have become hall of famers.

I would agree that there is no one formula for picking a basketball coach, but that doesn't correspond mean there aren't likelier to produce better results than others. I mean you can start with the whole notion of hiring a search firm or not. I don't have the data but it would be interesting to see the success rates with coaches getting their first HC job at a "major" (is that what we're called?) in basketball.

To add to that....I keep seeing comparisons of Martin to other first time head coaches like Howard, Few, Izzo, Williams and to a lesser extent Sean Miller and Chris Mack. But the major difference is these guys took over successful, and in some cases, stacked teams who were all coming off NCAA tournament appearances. In some cases, multiple. They weren't first time guys tasked with rebuilding (or giving a shot in the arm to) a program who currently has a only few players returning and no recruits.

(04-12-2021 01:54 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:52 PM)Lush Wrote:  if it helps with rayvon......

No idea how it would make any difference...might make PMac a more realistic option though (even if "more realistic just means a 10% chance instead of a 5% chance).

well, with that era back in the limelight, folk'll learn how undoubtedly badass it was to be a bearcat. let's get them jersey's back, fire cunny and give the ad to huggs

(04-12-2021 03:30 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:54 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:52 PM)Lush Wrote:  if it helps with rayvon......

No idea how it would make any difference...might make PMac a more realistic option though (even if "more realistic just means a 10% chance instead of a 5% chance).

well, with that era back in the limelight, folk'll learn how undoubtedly badass it was to be a bearcat. let's get them jersey's back, fire cunny and give the ad to huggs

I love your brand of humor man...never change.

(04-12-2021 01:04 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:02 PM)Banter Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 12:51 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  If UC fans can't at least give him a chance and rally around Martin, UC b-ball is a lost cause which it's pretty much been since Huggy with good portion of the base always biiiitchin about coach.

I understand it's not perfect, but sometimes these hires work out. Just like Fickell.

I will not be thrilled if we hire Martin, and I find some irony in some posters who ripped CBJ for his qualifications, but are excited about Martin.

That said, I will fully support Martin, even if I think it will be a mediocre hire. I am more than willing to eat crow if he comes here and finds a lot of success.

That's where I'm at. I'm in no way inspired by hiring a guy who wasn't even the lead assistant at a program he spent a decade and a half at and who has no experience as a guy making the decisions on the sideline...but I will give him a chance and hope he finds success. I simply worry that so many people want 1993 back, when that isn't the way of the world...and we're shooting our foot so many times we won't have one to stand on.

I'll join our likely tiny club. I love Eric, wish him the best, will be on his side rooting for him and the team and will give him the time necessary to establish himself.

But assuming it happens, it feels like a somewhat cynical hire designed to placate the fanbase for a while on the cheap.

(04-12-2021 03:21 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:25 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  We will at least have a 2 year built in excuse that we all need to let him learn on the job.

if Martin is hired and it takes 5 or 6 years to win, will you all be calling for his head? CJB was probably the classiest coach we had in 30 years and many of you were calling for his head. I was surprised we never heard ' Give us Barabbas' chants. Please give the next coach a fair chance. Just hope the next one doesn't allow visitors into practice so they can spew out all the secrets.

Not sure I follow your rant.

If he’s not winning in 5 years he’ll be gone like any other guy would be. Earlier if he’s a disaster like the guy he’ll be replacing.

(04-12-2021 03:21 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:25 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  We will at least have a 2 year built in excuse that we all need to let him learn on the job.

if Martin is hired and it takes 5 or 6 years to win, will you all be calling for his head? CJB was probably the classiest coach we had in 30 years and many of you were calling for his head. I was surprised we never heard ' Give us Barabbas' chants. Please give the next coach a fair chance. Just hope the next one doesn't allow visitors into practice so they can spew out all the secrets.

If he doesn't win in 5-6 years, he should be ridden out of town. You just railroaded a guy who got you to two conference championships games (yes, I realize there were extenuating circumstances) and the other guy who won at a decent clip was still getting the "we can do better" treatment. If you have a guy in here in 3 years not making the tournament and aren't holding him accountable, then we've transitioned to a football school (which as a football first guy, I wouldn't be upset with).

(04-12-2021 01:06 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  Just give whoever is hired as the next head coach a damn chance. There is too much in-fighting and negativity in this fan base. As Mark said, there is no magic formula for finding a successful head coach. We've seen guys move up from assistant coaching positions, guys move up from smaller head coaching gigs, and guys move over from the NBA with success. NO ONE on this board knows if Erik Martin (or anyone else for that matter) will be successful. I don't know everything and neither do you. Let's rally behind whoever is the new coach and give him a fair shot at building our program to the level we all want to see it.

Should we be upset in the end if we don't think he got a fair shake?

Who cares at this point? It will work itself out and it won’t impact the new coach one iota.

(04-12-2021 03:32 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:04 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:02 PM)Banter Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 12:51 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  If UC fans can't at least give him a chance and rally around Martin, UC b-ball is a lost cause which it's pretty much been since Huggy with good portion of the base always biiiitchin about coach.

I understand it's not perfect, but sometimes these hires work out. Just like Fickell.

I will not be thrilled if we hire Martin, and I find some irony in some posters who ripped CBJ for his qualifications, but are excited about Martin.

That said, I will fully support Martin, even if I think it will be a mediocre hire. I am more than willing to eat crow if he comes here and finds a lot of success.

That's where I'm at. I'm in no way inspired by hiring a guy who wasn't even the lead assistant at a program he spent a decade and a half at and who has no experience as a guy making the decisions on the sideline...but I will give him a chance and hope he finds success. I simply worry that so many people want 1993 back, when that isn't the way of the world...and we're shooting our foot so many times we won't have one to stand on.

I'll join our likely tiny club. I love Eric, wish him the best, will be on his side rooting for him and the team and will give him the time necessary to establish himself.

But assuming it happens, it feels like a somewhat cynical hire designed to placate the fanbase for a while on the cheap.

Low imagination, low budget, but who knows? It might work.

(04-12-2021 01:18 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 10:36 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 06:33 AM)Bear Catlett Wrote:  Ahhh... the Cincinnati self loathe rears it's ugly head again.

Everybody with half a brain knows Brannen got canned because he sucked. His perceived treatment by UC is unique to the situation. As it had been said by others before, if Brannen had a shred of honor he would have resigned and left town quietly with a negotiated settlement that UC would have been more than happy to do. Let's give credit where it's due, Tubberville did.

But no, he had to turn it into a pi$$ing match and any potential coach worth having will recognize what's going on.

And you think they are going to side with UC? Somebody will take the job of course but it won't be somebody who turned down other options at the level of our program.

Why does the next coach have to take a side? I mean, isn't it a little stupid for a guy to be defensive about what the guy before him got canned for???

Hiring is a two-way street. The guy doing the hiring has to want to hire the candidate. The candidate that is considering the job has to want it and be comfortable with who he will be working for especially in the coaching world and especially if he has other options. There's an important trust component for positions like this. C'mon even you have to understand that. It sounds like we found one with a major tie and love for the University who isn't going to get hung up on salary so there's that.

(04-12-2021 01:18 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:04 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:02 PM)Banter Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 12:51 PM)natibeast21 Wrote:  If UC fans can't at least give him a chance and rally around Martin, UC b-ball is a lost cause which it's pretty much been since Huggy with good portion of the base always biiiitchin about coach.

I understand it's not perfect, but sometimes these hires work out. Just like Fickell.

I will not be thrilled if we hire Martin, and I find some irony in some posters who ripped CBJ for his qualifications, but are excited about Martin.

That said, I will fully support Martin, even if I think it will be a mediocre hire. I am more than willing to eat crow if he comes here and finds a lot of success.

That's where I'm at. I'm in no way inspired by hiring a guy who wasn't even the lead assistant at a program he spent a decade and a half at and who has no experience as a guy making the decisions on the sideline...but I will give him a chance and hope he finds success. I simply worry that so many people want 1993 back, when that isn't the way of the world...and we're shooting our foot so many times we won't have one to stand on.

He’s been the 2nd or 3rd assistant on that staff forever. Who else wants to hire him? We are cleaning up in aisle 5 after hiring another guy nobody else wanted.

I loved Eric Martin. But this would be such a perplexing, high risk gamble of a hire. I swear we have a Magic 8 Ball making decisions nowadays.

We just blew $5M and we have a CFO supervising the Head Coach. We weren't outbidding anybody for someone with similar viable options.

(04-12-2021 02:55 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  He's worked as an assistant under a hall of famer for 15 years as well. Multiple assistants that worked under Huggs have been successful head coaches. There are criteria. Yea if you could pluck someone who has succeeded at a head coach at this level that might be better. I think Archie would have been a safer hire for example because we know he succeeded at Dayton and his Indiana stint, while not great isn't egregiously bad either. But the reality is we were choosing between retreads like Archie, experienced assistants like Martin, or up and coming coaches at low majors like Brannen was when we hired him. We weren't taking a wildly successful coach at our level.

History tells us those three criteria types of hires all have their successes and failures. So you interview. You get a sense at who has the best plan for your job and you make the judgment.

You don't like our options much?

I like our options fine. There are just zero no brainers. My preference was for Bryce Drew if he was interested, but I mean he went 0-18 in the SEC is final year. He was no slam dunk.

My point is that ultimately it doesn't matter if he was an assistant coach, a head coach for a low major or a retread...In all those scenarios some succeed, some fail. I liked Brannen's resume a ton last time. I think Martin matches the profile of the kind of assistant that gets this kind of job and he has ties to the university. If he's hired I assume the AD was impressed in his interview. I guess we'll see if it works.

(04-12-2021 01:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:35 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 12:52 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Repeat after me: There is no right formula for picking a basketball coach. Those with no head coaching experience have become hall of famers. Those who came up coaching smaller programs have become hall of famers.

You could trot out this argument to support any hiring. It's vacuous. Yes, the guy who ticks all your boxes might fail, and the guy who was your 7th choice might become a HoFer, but you should still have criteria for hiring someone and then get the guy who best meets them.

As far as I can tell, Martin's main qualification is he played on the 92 team. Admittedly, there don't appear to be any home-run hires out there. And it would be cool to have a former Bearcat leading the team. But he would be a pretty crazy hire IMO.

He's worked as an assistant under a hall of famer for 15 years as well. Multiple assistants that worked under Huggs have been successful head coaches. There are criteria. Yea if you could pluck someone who has succeeded at a head coach at this level that might be better. I think Archie would have been a safer hire for example because we know he succeeded at Dayton and his Indiana stint, while not great isn't egregiously bad either. But the reality is we were choosing between retreads like Archie, experienced assistants like Martin, or up and coming coaches at low majors like Brannen was when we hired him. We weren't taking a wildly successful coach at our level.

History tells us those three criteria types of hires all have their successes and failures. So you interview. You get a sense at who has the best plan for your job and you make the judgment.

Who did we interview? NVE is the only other one I've heard confirmed and it sounds like that was more of an assistant/package deal than an actual HC candidate. Hopefully there were others (Savino, Green) but I haven't seen anyone asserting it.

(04-12-2021 03:48 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Who did we interview? NVE is the only other one I've heard confirmed and it sounds like that was more of an assistant/package deal than an actual HC candidate. Hopefully there were others (Savino, Green) but I haven't seen anyone asserting it.

For what it's worth I heard a few other names. These things stay pretty tight in our AD. I know you'd prefer an Athletic Department that leaked everything.

(04-12-2021 03:51 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 03:48 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Who did we interview? NVE is the only other one I've heard confirmed and it sounds like that was more of an assistant/package deal than an actual HC candidate. Hopefully there were others (Savino, Green) but I haven't seen anyone asserting it.

For what it's worth I heard a few other names. These things stay pretty tight in our AD. I know you'd prefer an Athletic Department that leaked everything.

That's rather disingenuous. There's a big difference between leaking everything and having some transparency and accountability as a public institution. Regardless, I'm not sure why such a simple question has made you so defensive. What other names or is that top secret info too?

(04-12-2021 03:30 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:54 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-12-2021 01:52 PM)Lush Wrote:  if it helps with rayvon......

No idea how it would make any difference...might make PMac a more realistic option though (even if "more realistic just means a 10% chance instead of a 5% chance).

well, with that era back in the limelight, folk'll learn how undoubtedly badass it was to be a bearcat. let's get them jersey's back, fire cunny and give the ad to huggs

Come on now, Huggins as AD is a silly idea. He just isn't qualified.

He would be a much better fit as president. Every brewery in town could sell UC-branded beer. Put me down for 1 keg of Huggins Hefeweizen.