I would be shocked if we don't win at least two, and surprised if we do not win at least three.

(11-28-2017 11:35 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  I would be shocked if we don't win at least two, and surprised if we do not win at least three.

It all comes down to beating Florida or Xavier. Need these for the tournament resume. Losing this year to Miss State and UCLA will actually hurt the profile more than winning those games will.

I am lower on UCLA than most but they are borderline tournament team this year and could really struggle and even miss the NIT.

(11-29-2017 08:44 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 11:35 PM)Bruce Monnin Wrote:  I would be shocked if we don't win at least two, and surprised if we do not win at least three.

It all comes down to beating Florida or Xavier. Need of these for the tournament resume. Losing this year to Miss State and UCLA will actually hurt the profile more than winning those games will.

I am lower on UCLA than most but they are borderline tournament team this year and could really struggle and even miss the NIT.

How much longer does UCLA keep Alford? He has been bringing in top 5 classes, but doesn't seem to do a good job balancing his teams out and getting them to play D. It seems they are good every other year, and bad every other year, which probably isn't good enough for UCLA. Or maybe UCLA just doesn't care anymore?

(11-28-2017 10:53 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 09:03 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  UC trailed X a good part of the second half last year @ 5th/3rd and we've all seen how the ball bounces and the officials whistles blow @ Cintas.

Uc trailed because an opposing player who was shooting around 30% on the season was possessed by Steph Curry for a half. Despite that and an uncharacteristically poor free throw shooting night we won by 5-10. Take those two things away and you're looking at a 15 point win. UC was significantly better than X last season, we won 30 games and they were the last team that didn't have to play in Dayton.

That said rivalry games on the road are really tough and although I believe we'll still be better over the course of the year I see this game as one we'll be a slight underdog. We should win against Miss St and UCLA and I see X and Florida as 40-50% win probabilities.

Completely unscientific but if Blueitt scores his season average against us last year, we win the game 86-57. I think this year will be close against X but we still come away with a 10ish point victory. Just need Cumberland to get his head out of his ass. His last 3 games, he has a combined 14 points, 7 boards, and 5 assists. Thats not including his 7 TO performance against Buffalo.

I expect to lose to XU. Sorry, but the last 25 years has trained me to think in such a way.

If you survive the first 10 minutes adjusting to the jump up in competition level, I think you'll roll against X.

Interestingly (or maybe not), Xavier just beat Baylor. UC plays @X on Saturday, while WSU plays @Baylor on Saturday. Hoping both of us can pick up Top25 roadies!

(11-29-2017 11:12 AM)Wudizzle Wrote:  If you survive the first 10 minutes adjusting to the jump up in competition level, I think you'll roll against X.

Interestingly (or maybe not), Xavier just beat Baylor. UC plays @X on Saturday, while WSU plays @Baylor on Saturday. Hoping both of us can pick up Top25 roadies!

Its one of the fiercest rivalries in the nation. It generally doesnt go according to script.

(11-29-2017 12:20 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 11:12 AM)Wudizzle Wrote:  If you survive the first 10 minutes adjusting to the jump up in competition level, I think you'll roll against X.

Interestingly (or maybe not), Xavier just beat Baylor. UC plays @X on Saturday, while WSU plays @Baylor on Saturday. Hoping both of us can pick up Top25 roadies!

Its one of the fiercest rivalries in the nation. It generally doesnt go according to script.

Good point.

Wish this wasn't on FS1. Gave that up with the cable box, and haven't had a chance to see much of UC yet this year.

(11-28-2017 04:23 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:56 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:44 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I don't take people's predictions here as overly pessimistic. Seven games in and no top 50 (or maybe even 100) opponents means we simply don't know what UC has yet or how a new point guard du jour will perform in crunch time. We'll know much more by the time Memphis roles in December 31. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Posters in this thread are opening talking about needing to win these games to make the NCAA tournament!

If you pay attention to this program and have watched this team so far and still can't figure out that it is very good, well, I don't know what to tell you. In any case, even if they go 4-0 in this stretch, people will still be walking around with a black cloud come tournament time, thinking UC is cursed.

I have to agree. Goodness, people are broken here. You don't need to be a ray of sunshine to see how good this team is.

Agreed.

But after Kenyon's leg and getting shafted in the year Kennedy was interim HC, I think we are cursed. We just need this year's team to break the curse.

(11-29-2017 07:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:23 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:56 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:44 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I don't take people's predictions here as overly pessimistic. Seven games in and no top 50 (or maybe even 100) opponents means we simply don't know what UC has yet or how a new point guard du jour will perform in crunch time. We'll know much more by the time Memphis roles in December 31. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Posters in this thread are opening talking about needing to win these games to make the NCAA tournament!

If you pay attention to this program and have watched this team so far and still can't figure out that it is very good, well, I don't know what to tell you. In any case, even if they go 4-0 in this stretch, people will still be walking around with a black cloud come tournament time, thinking UC is cursed.

I have to agree. Goodness, people are broken here. You don't need to be a ray of sunshine to see how good this team is.

Agreed.

But after Kenyon's leg and getting shafted in the year Kennedy was interim HC, I think we are cursed. We just need this year's team to break the curse.

You forgot to mention McNamara's half court shot in the Big East Tourney in 05, that 3/4 court shot by UCONN in the AAC tourney in 14, the West Virginia launch in the NCAA tourney in 98, and on and on and on....

(11-29-2017 09:56 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 07:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:23 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:56 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:44 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I don't take people's predictions here as overly pessimistic. Seven games in and no top 50 (or maybe even 100) opponents means we simply don't know what UC has yet or how a new point guard du jour will perform in crunch time. We'll know much more by the time Memphis roles in December 31. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Posters in this thread are opening talking about needing to win these games to make the NCAA tournament!

If you pay attention to this program and have watched this team so far and still can't figure out that it is very good, well, I don't know what to tell you. In any case, even if they go 4-0 in this stretch, people will still be walking around with a black cloud come tournament time, thinking UC is cursed.

I have to agree. Goodness, people are broken here. You don't need to be a ray of sunshine to see how good this team is.

Agreed.

But after Kenyon's leg and getting shafted in the year Kennedy was interim HC, I think we are cursed. We just need this year's team to break the curse.

You forgot to mention McNamara's half court shot in the Big East Tourney in 05, that 3/4 court shot by UCONN in the AAC tourney in 14, the West Virginia launch in the NCAA tourney in 98, and on and on and on....

The bankshot... I remember I was 12 when I watched that. Short of fouling them immediately I don't know what could have been done.

(11-29-2017 10:12 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 09:56 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 07:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:23 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:56 PM)levydl Wrote:  Posters in this thread are opening talking about needing to win these games to make the NCAA tournament!

If you pay attention to this program and have watched this team so far and still can't figure out that it is very good, well, I don't know what to tell you. In any case, even if they go 4-0 in this stretch, people will still be walking around with a black cloud come tournament time, thinking UC is cursed.

I have to agree. Goodness, people are broken here. You don't need to be a ray of sunshine to see how good this team is.

Agreed.

But after Kenyon's leg and getting shafted in the year Kennedy was interim HC, I think we are cursed. We just need this year's team to break the curse.

You forgot to mention McNamara's half court shot in the Big East Tourney in 05, that 3/4 court shot by UCONN in the AAC tourney in 14, the West Virginia launch in the NCAA tourney in 98, and on and on and on....

The bankshot... I remember I was 12 when I watched that. Short of fouling them immediately I don't know what could have been done.

If I recall, Patterson said he got the tips of his fingers on it as it left the shooters hands...just unreal


granted, as the 2 seed, we had no business allowing the 10 seed WVA to be in a position for a miracle shot...but that's another story

(11-29-2017 09:56 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 07:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:23 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:56 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:44 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  I don't take people's predictions here as overly pessimistic. Seven games in and no top 50 (or maybe even 100) opponents means we simply don't know what UC has yet or how a new point guard du jour will perform in crunch time. We'll know much more by the time Memphis roles in December 31. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Posters in this thread are opening talking about needing to win these games to make the NCAA tournament!

If you pay attention to this program and have watched this team so far and still can't figure out that it is very good, well, I don't know what to tell you. In any case, even if they go 4-0 in this stretch, people will still be walking around with a black cloud come tournament time, thinking UC is cursed.

I have to agree. Goodness, people are broken here. You don't need to be a ray of sunshine to see how good this team is.

Agreed.

But after Kenyon's leg and getting shafted in the year Kennedy was interim HC, I think we are cursed. We just need this year's team to break the curse.

You forgot to mention McNamara's half court shot in the Big East Tourney in 05, that 3/4 court shot by UCONN in the AAC tourney in 14, the West Virginia launch in the NCAA tourney in 98, and on and on and on....

LOL, McNamara's shot was right at the three point line. Enough with this cursed nonsense.

(11-29-2017 11:50 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 09:56 PM)Bearcats#1 Wrote:  

(11-29-2017 07:01 PM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 04:23 PM)stxrunner Wrote:  

(11-28-2017 03:56 PM)levydl Wrote:  Posters in this thread are opening talking about needing to win these games to make the NCAA tournament!

If you pay attention to this program and have watched this team so far and still can't figure out that it is very good, well, I don't know what to tell you. In any case, even if they go 4-0 in this stretch, people will still be walking around with a black cloud come tournament time, thinking UC is cursed.

I have to agree. Goodness, people are broken here. You don't need to be a ray of sunshine to see how good this team is.

Agreed.

But after Kenyon's leg and getting shafted in the year Kennedy was interim HC, I think we are cursed. We just need this year's team to break the curse.

You forgot to mention McNamara's half court shot in the Big East Tourney in 05, that 3/4 court shot by UCONN in the AAC tourney in 14, the West Virginia launch in the NCAA tourney in 98, and on and on and on....

LOL, McNamara's shot was right at the three point line. Enough with this cursed nonsense.

fab five

I'm at the point where I'll believe it when I see it. My fandom as a UC fan basically started as a wee little tot with Danny Fortson's last team which got knocked out by Iowa St in Rd 2.

In my time as UC fan over 20 years, I have seen only two sweet 16s and no elite 8s. Thinking about this really makes it sink in how bad we have been in March.

(11-30-2017 08:02 AM)jarr Wrote:  I'm at the point where I'll believe it when I see it. My fandom as a UC fan basically started as a wee little tot with Danny Fortson's last team which got knocked out by Iowa St in Rd 2.

In my time as UC fan over 20 years, I have seen only two sweet 16s and no elite 8s. Thinking about this really makes it sink in how bad we have been in March.

For a while UC was a great March team, 1992 through 1996. Three deep runs in five years.

Anyway, the next four games won't define the season but they are extremely critical for earning a high seed in the NCAA tournament. Anything less than 2-2 would be a disaster. There is four game run in conference play that has UC at SMU, at Houston, UConn, and Wichita State that will also be key. That is part of a very difficult back part of the conference schedule. The first half of the conference schedule includes Memphis twice, ECU, and USF. The back includes Wichita State twice, UConn twice, at Houston, and at SMU.

Top ten teams do not go 2-2 or 1-3 against the upcoming four games, only one top ten team in the bunch and it's on a neutral floor. If this team is as good as most on here believe, only 3-1 or 4-0 is acceptable.

(11-30-2017 09:49 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Top ten teams do not go 2-2 or 1-3 against the upcoming four games, only one top ten team in the bunch and it's on a neutral floor. If this team is as good as most on here believe, only 3-1 or 4-0 is acceptable.

eh... this isn't really the case. Top ten teams lose on the road to 10-20 teams more often than they win (Xavier game). Florida/UC is basically a coinflip kind of game. Top 10 teams lose on the road to 25-50 teams a decent percent of the time (see UCLA). If UC goes 2-2 it doesn't mean they are not a top ten caliber team or capable of making the final four.

It's too early to say the computer rankings are right, but they do give a good idea for win probabilities if you assume UC is a top 10 team. Sagarin predictor has UC has the 9th best team in the country. Despite that it predicts they should lose more often than they win at this Xavier team (45% chance of winning). Sagarin predictor is not as high as others on Florida so it has UC at 52% to win that game. It has UC at 65% to win at UCLA. Basically it tells us even top 10 teams are usually losing 1-2 games in that stretch and it's not even that uncommon (though mildly surprising) to lose 3. That would be incredibly disappointing and really hurt seed possibilities, but it wouldn't really definitively tell you that UC isn't a top 10 caliber team.

(11-30-2017 09:49 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Top ten teams do not go 2-2 or 1-3 against the upcoming four games, only one top ten team in the bunch and it's on a neutral floor. If this team is as good as most on here believe, only 3-1 or 4-0 is acceptable.

I agree. Again, I based my answer of 3-1 on what should the "expectation" be. Some posters responded more on what they think will/should happen. If we want to play with the big boys and represent the conference that picked us to win it (even after WSU joined) and the preseason love we received from the national sports media then the expectation should be to play better than 2-2 over the next four games. The only team ranked higher than us is Florida and UCLA and Miss St are not even ranked.

(11-30-2017 10:01 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 09:49 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Top ten teams do not go 2-2 or 1-3 against the upcoming four games, only one top ten team in the bunch and it's on a neutral floor. If this team is as good as most on here believe, only 3-1 or 4-0 is acceptable.

eh... this isn't really the case. Top ten teams lose on the road to 10-20 teams more often than they win (Xavier game). Florida/UC is basically a coinflip kind of game. Top 10 teams lose on the road to 25-50 teams a decent percent of the time (see UCLA). If UC goes 2-2 it doesn't mean they are not a top ten caliber team or capable of making the final four.

It's too early to say the computer rankings are right, but they do give a good idea for win probabilities if you assume UC is a top 10 team. Sagarin predictor has UC has the 9th best team in the country. Despite that it predicts they should lose more often than they win at this Xavier team (45% chance of winning). Sagarin predictor is not as high as others on Florida so it has UC at 52% to win that game. It has UC at 65% to win at UCLA. Basically it tells us even top 10 teams are usually losing 1-2 games in that stretch and it's not even that uncommon (though mildly surprising) to lose 3. That would be incredibly disappointing and really hurt seed possibilities, but it wouldn't really definitively tell you that UC isn't a top 10 caliber team.

Mark, even you have to admit it's a little early to be firing up the computer rankings talk. We've played 7 games against nobody. Every game I've watched, even with the scoring margin, I am seeing a lot of flaws that I fear will be exposed soon. I hope I'm wrong.

For example, when I watch us play against Alabama State type teams, I try and pretend on each play what it would look like against an elite team. They might throw a bad pass that doesn't get intercepted vs cupcake state, but would against Wichita, X, or Florida, etc. The computer doesn't account for that kind of stuff.