(03-07-2013 04:56 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  A pet peeve of mine is when I see people act like "top 20 all time program" does not mean anything. Kansas does not outspend everyone in the Big 12, it has a great history of success. When your school has won National titles, been to final fours in multiple decades, had a run of 14 straight NCAA tournament bids in the last decade, and has a reputation as being a top basketball program, that is a selling point. It is a good one too. That is not too say there are not other factors, obviously there are a ton of other factors. That's why a school like UNC can go threw a big downturn after Dean Smith leaves, or UCLA can fall down after Wooden. But in the end, having this history is a big deal and is helpful in bringing a program back up. It is a huge selling point for the program.

UCLA and UNC are resurgent because they have unlimited resources and fan support. Kansas is arguably second to only UK by any measure. Any program is one bad hire away from taking a down turn, coaching is the most important factor obviously. When it comes to building a program I'll still take fan support and cash over history any day.

(03-07-2013 11:51 AM)BearChatter v2.0 Wrote:  With one more regular season game to go, and hopefully a few more to come this season, Mick is finishing up his 7th season as head coach at UC. Just for fun, what grade would you give his coaching career so far at UC?

A - to B + at worse...he inherited the worst college mess that anyone could inherit and he improved the team over the years , the right way. Andy Kenndy and Thomas should have still been contacting recruits because that was part of their jobs. Mick had to grab what he could and he made uc respectable. Not many coaches could have won 11 games that first season, including Huggins and Kennedy.

(03-07-2013 01:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I gave him a B. He inherited a mess but again that was 7 years ago. Crean inherited just as big a mess at Indiana and they just won at least a share of the conference title in the best conference in college hoops. Digging UC out of the mess was awesome. It was at times painful to watch, but it was great seeing UC in the tournament.

That said I think Lance Stephenson's team showed so much promise early and then drastically underachieved the last 10 games. That team was tournament caliber and yet fell apart down the stretch. This team has drastically underachieved as well. I have seen plenty of teams without big time post threats have really good seasons. The problem I have seen and the reason I cannot give Cronin and A is he has never been able to produce a good offense. Even his best teams were competent at best on the offensive side of the ball. If he can ever get a team to perform offensively like it does defensively and rebounding (or hell even just a good offense, not great)...UC will have arrived where it needs to be (a top 15 program year in and year out).

My hope is that being a tournament team is not the cap for the Cronin era. I want a team that can compete for conference titles in any conference in the country. I want a team that is regularly (not necessarily every year) a top 15 team by tournament time. That is the level Cronin needs to get the program to for me to want him to be around for 7 more years. He gets a B so far, and so far that is good enough for me. But I think over the next 3 seasons we need to see this program get to the next level.

Creans student managers were better than Ron Allen was.

(03-07-2013 01:13 PM)BearChatter v2.0 Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 01:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I gave him a B. He inherited a mess but again that was 7 years ago. Crean inherited just as big a mess at Indiana and they just won at least a share of the conference title in the best conference in college hoops. Digging UC out of the mess was awesome. It was at times painful to watch, but it was great seeing UC in the tournament.

That said I think Lance Stephenson's team showed so much promise early and then drastically underachieved the last 10 games. That team was tournament caliber and yet fell apart down the stretch. This team has drastically underachieved as well. I have seen plenty of teams without big time post threats have really good seasons. The problem I have seen and the reason I cannot give Cronin and A is he has never been able to produce a good offense. Even his best teams were competent at best on the offensive side of the ball. If he can ever get a team to perform offensively like it does defensively and rebounding (or hell even just a good offense, not great)...UC will have arrived where it needs to be (a top 15 program year in and year out).

My hope is that being a tournament team is not the cap for the Cronin era. I want a team that can compete for conference titles in any conference in the country. I want a team that is regularly (not necessarily every year) a top 15 team by tournament time. That is the level Cronin needs to get the program to for me to want him to be around for 7 more years. He gets a B so far, and so far that is good enough for me. But I think over the next 3 seasons we need to see this program get to the next level.

In other words, you wish Cronin's teams resembled his mentor Pitino more than it resembles his mentor Huggins. Hehehe.

Huggins had that great defense with questionable offense. Pitino's teams seem to have both. And Pitino is known for his teams peaking around March Madness. Huggins teams tended to flame out come March.

I always felt Huggins made an awful decision every year in the ncaa tournament of renting a local hs gym and working his teams to death. They wouldn't have any legs left in the tourney and usually lost close games to teams they were favored over.

(03-07-2013 02:08 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 02:04 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I am still in the camp that moving to a weaker conference will help this program more than many will admit. Good teams look bad in conferences like the Big East, ACC, or Big Ten because there is talent across the board and teams are good enough to exploit your weaknesses.

You can win in weaker leagues without a good big man. You can also win in the NCAA tournament without a good big man. You can't win in the Big East without a good big man because the game is not called very tight and teams will foul you to death so that you wings and guards can't get good looks.

Yancy's junior and senior season provided UC with their best Big East record. Eric Hicks playing the post by himself got the Cats to .500 in the league. Hoping that Vaughn, SK, or whoever our go to guard is each season will shoot the Cats to victory is a dangerous formula.

Moving to the Big East has not hurt Louisville and Marquette. Their programs have thrived at a very high level. I just don't buy this argument. Yes teams are going to lose more games in the league, but there is also the opportunity to pick up more quality wins. The Marquette and louisville programs that the Bearcats used to own have passed them by virtue of the Big East.

Just winning more is not what gets you a high seed. It is winning against quality competition. If you play more against that competition you can afford to lose more, but you better win at a good rate too. Gonzaga is not doing so well because they are in a crappy conference. They are doing so well because they went out and dominated good teams in the non-conference as well (5-0 against the Big 12). Conversely, Memphis went out and laid an egg against competition in the non-conference, so despite absolutely tearing through CUSA, they are likely to be a very low seed in the tourney.

Eric Hicks never played in the Big East. He graduated during the last year of the C-USA under Andy Kennedy's interim year.

(03-07-2013 09:33 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 02:08 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 02:04 PM)bearcatlawjd Wrote:  I am still in the camp that moving to a weaker conference will help this program more than many will admit. Good teams look bad in conferences like the Big East, ACC, or Big Ten because there is talent across the board and teams are good enough to exploit your weaknesses.

You can win in weaker leagues without a good big man. You can also win in the NCAA tournament without a good big man. You can't win in the Big East without a good big man because the game is not called very tight and teams will foul you to death so that you wings and guards can't get good looks.

Yancy's junior and senior season provided UC with their best Big East record. Eric Hicks playing the post by himself got the Cats to .500 in the league. Hoping that Vaughn, SK, or whoever our go to guard is each season will shoot the Cats to victory is a dangerous formula.

Moving to the Big East has not hurt Louisville and Marquette. Their programs have thrived at a very high level. I just don't buy this argument. Yes teams are going to lose more games in the league, but there is also the opportunity to pick up more quality wins. The Marquette and louisville programs that the Bearcats used to own have passed them by virtue of the Big East.

Just winning more is not what gets you a high seed. It is winning against quality competition. If you play more against that competition you can afford to lose more, but you better win at a good rate too. Gonzaga is not doing so well because they are in a crappy conference. They are doing so well because they went out and dominated good teams in the non-conference as well (5-0 against the Big 12). Conversely, Memphis went out and laid an egg against competition in the non-conference, so despite absolutely tearing through CUSA, they are likely to be a very low seed in the tourney.

Eric Hicks never played in the Big East. He graduated during the last year of the C-USA under Andy Kennedy's interim year.

Not true. AK coached is only season at UC in the Big East. Hicks I believe was a 1st team conference selection that year.

Eric Hicks played at MSG in the BE Tourney when Gerry McNamara hit that nearly half-court shot that beat UC in a game that UC was poised to win. I remember Eric Hicks slumping to the floor in disbelief. He had played miraculously that game, both offensively and defensively.

(03-07-2013 09:48 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  Eric Hicks played at MSG in the BE Tourney when Gerry McNamara hit that nearly half-court shot that beat UC in a game that UC was poised to win. I remember Eric Hicks slumping to the floor in disbelief. He had played miraculously that game, both offensively and defensively.

If I recall correctly James White probably had the best game of his career that game.

(03-07-2013 09:28 PM)bearcat54 Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 01:03 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I gave him a B. He inherited a mess but again that was 7 years ago. Crean inherited just as big a mess at Indiana and they just won at least a share of the conference title in the best conference in college hoops. Digging UC out of the mess was awesome. It was at times painful to watch, but it was great seeing UC in the tournament.

That said I think Lance Stephenson's team showed so much promise early and then drastically underachieved the last 10 games. That team was tournament caliber and yet fell apart down the stretch. This team has drastically underachieved as well. I have seen plenty of teams without big time post threats have really good seasons. The problem I have seen and the reason I cannot give Cronin and A is he has never been able to produce a good offense. Even his best teams were competent at best on the offensive side of the ball. If he can ever get a team to perform offensively like it does defensively and rebounding (or hell even just a good offense, not great)...UC will have arrived where it needs to be (a top 15 program year in and year out).

My hope is that being a tournament team is not the cap for the Cronin era. I want a team that can compete for conference titles in any conference in the country. I want a team that is regularly (not necessarily every year) a top 15 team by tournament time. That is the level Cronin needs to get the program to for me to want him to be around for 7 more years. He gets a B so far, and so far that is good enough for me. But I think over the next 3 seasons we need to see this program get to the next level.

Creans student managers were better than Ron Allen was.

Crean was also a much more established coach when he took over at IU. He was coaching in the Final 4 while Mick was still an assistant. It's also an easier place to turn around because of their vast resources and great fan support.

B

(03-07-2013 07:46 PM)apoe Wrote:  UCLA and UNC are resurgent because they have unlimited resources and fan support. Kansas is arguably second to only UK by any measure. Any program is one bad hire away from taking a down turn, coaching is the most important factor obviously. When it comes to building a program I'll still take fan support and cash over history any day.

This is spot on. If UC is a top-20 all-time program, the fans and administration sure don't act like it. When Huggs was here, 10-11K seemed like a bad crowd (he'd say "F-em" over every non-sellout). Now, we justify less than 10K attendance due to "the crappy schedule".

Anyway, B+ is my grade. A+ for the rebuilding job. It has been great to not only return to the tournament, but make a solid run last year.

But, the less than stellar development of many of the players (Justin Jackson seems almost like the same player who arrived), and failure to seize the momentum that getting back to the tournament should have had on recruiting pulls it down to a B+. I definitely won't go lower than that though.

He has played an injured PG for four years. There is no excuse not to have someone competent waiting in the wings, and coming off the bench at this point. Same with the center position. Yancy left, and the two people returning, both taller than him, haven't come close to filling the void. Then we lose our top big man target to USF.

All and all though, I'm very pleased with things. I do agree with people that this next recruiting class should be very productive. Maybe that "momentum" is slower than I'd (and we'd all) like. The program has returned to defense, rebounding, and toughness in general. Mick has certainly put his blue-collar stamp on Bearcat basketball. Despite the warts, this is something to be proud of

I went B-, would have had him at a solid B, but took a half letter grade away, because the team can be so painful to watch, too many long droughts. I'll admit I go down to games less due to the way they play, and not finding it entertaining, he keeps saying up tempo, and then the offense turns into hold the ball for 30 seconds and heave. I also think there is wayyyyyy to much visual advertising at the shoe, that big east logo on the center scoreboard drives me crazy. I want to be able to look up at the scoreboard and see how many points rebounds etc a player has, and that is so rarely available. But I think some of the attendance is due to Mick, a Brian Kelly type coach with the same results would have sellouts.

I think its near impossible to give him an A, when you have Mark Few, Brad Stevens, Shaka Smart all accomplishing much more at programs with less history, budget etc, as quickly as they all have... that's an A coaching job. If we had hired Calipari, at the time (maybe unrealistic I know) but a guy that could recruit a bunch of freshmen that could have produced right away. Crean has done more quicker.

That said, a lot of guys could have done much worse, he's been very steady and we have a solid team with strengths but also real wholes.
The brawl became a wash for me, if he didn't handle it so well, it would have been a negative, as guys under his watch lost their cool. He behaved like a leader when he spoke on that.

(03-07-2013 07:46 PM)apoe Wrote:  

(03-07-2013 04:56 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  A pet peeve of mine is when I see people act like "top 20 all time program" does not mean anything. Kansas does not outspend everyone in the Big 12, it has a great history of success. When your school has won National titles, been to final fours in multiple decades, had a run of 14 straight NCAA tournament bids in the last decade, and has a reputation as being a top basketball program, that is a selling point. It is a good one too. That is not too say there are not other factors, obviously there are a ton of other factors. That's why a school like UNC can go threw a big downturn after Dean Smith leaves, or UCLA can fall down after Wooden. But in the end, having this history is a big deal and is helpful in bringing a program back up. It is a huge selling point for the program.

UCLA and UNC are resurgent because they have unlimited resources and fan support. Kansas is arguably second to only UK by any measure. Any program is one bad hire away from taking a down turn, coaching is the most important factor obviously. When it comes to building a program I'll still take fan support and cash over history any day.

Those 2 are different animals. UCLA has to be winning at a high clip to draw fans and UNC always has great fan support.

More Ugly UCLA Hoops Numbers: Atrocious "Attendance" Stats
http://www.bruinsnation.com/2012/2/22/28...-4-seasons

UNC probably averages 20,000 a game. UCLA hasn't averaged over 10,000 since the 70's and 80's. Pauley seats 13,800.
By islandbruin on Feb 24 2012, 4:00a

I spent 3 minutes calculating a weighted average of 8.73, starting with zero for
"F" up to 12 for A+. That puts our grade between a "B" and a "B+". Rounding up, we give Mick a grade of "B+."

I gave him a "B".

It would have been an "A", but this season has disappointed me.

(03-08-2013 09:52 AM)ucbrownsfan Wrote:  I went B-, would have had him at a solid B, but took a half letter grade away, because the team can be so painful to watch, too many long droughts. I'll admit I go down to games less due to the way they play, and not finding it entertaining, he keeps saying up tempo, and then the offense turns into hold the ball for 30 seconds and heave. I also think there is wayyyyyy to much visual advertising at the shoe, that big east logo on the center scoreboard drives me crazy. I want to be able to look up at the scoreboard and see how many points rebounds etc a player has, and that is so rarely available. But I think some of the attendance is due to Mick, a Brian Kelly type coach with the same results would have sellouts.

I think its near impossible to give him an A, when you have Mark Few, Brad Stevens, Shaka Smart all accomplishing much more at programs with less history, budget etc, as quickly as they all have... that's an A coaching job. If we had hired Calipari, at the time (maybe unrealistic I know) but a guy that could recruit a bunch of freshmen that could have produced right away. Crean has done more quicker.

That said, a lot of guys could have done much worse, he's been very steady and we have a solid team with strengths but also real wholes.
The brawl became a wash for me, if he didn't handle it so well, it would have been a negative, as guys under his watch lost their cool. He behaved like a leader when he spoke on that.

Excellent observations. B- was my grade also for the very reasons you stated. I do wonder if Calipari had come to UC if he would have been perceived as more of an outlaw than at UK. Both his prior schools had to vacate Final Four appearances but he seems to get a free pass since winning last year.

(03-08-2013 09:52 AM)ucbrownsfan Wrote:  If we had hired Calipari, at the time (maybe unrealistic I know) but a guy that could recruit a bunch of freshmen that could have produced right away.

I never expected Mick to recruit one-and-dones, and his failure to do so isn't the basis for my criticism of his recruiting. I did hope that he would have a good eye for immature, undeveloped , under-the-radar recruits, and the staff to develop those players into productive junior and seniors. If you don't have the coaching pedigree to land the 5-stars and the one-and-dones, then you need to assemble a squad with solid senior leadership.

I gave him a B+. He needs to learn how to coach offense. His teams are often painful to watch. From a previous post, I think Mick has often recruited "name" players and when they lose out there is no fallback position. I had high expectations for this team and my disappointment is somewhat tempered by the injuries to Cash. But this team has no clue how to run an effective half court offense and it drives me crazy that they do not know how to finish a fast break.

Mick has done a heck of a job all in all


and like Huggy...he can't coach offense for &%#

(03-08-2013 05:59 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  Mick has done a heck of a job all in all


and like Huggy...he can't coach offense for &%#

I think Mick is a spitting image of Pitino, only difference is that Rick has some kids that can score on their own.