Sweet Lord. Kill this thread. X won. UC lost. Move on.

(12-05-2017 06:52 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Mark that game was lost in the first ten minutes. What was their points per possession in the first ten minutes? They couldn’t hit anything, including one footers by Gary Clark.

Yes I. Addition to not making shots they also got out rebounded and played horrible defense.

I’m with a few others that have said if Mick doesn’t want to try to match the X intensity then he needs to end the series because he’s embarrassing himself.

I'd even shorten that time to the first 5 minutes. You could tell by the body language of the 2 teams who was going to win. If it takes UC to view this game as their "Super Bowl" then view it as such. Because whatever UC is doing isn't working and whatever X is doing, is.

Foxsports Ohio has re-broadcast it at least once, I hope they let it die too.

(12-05-2017 09:27 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:52 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Mark that game was lost in the first ten minutes. What was their points per possession in the first ten minutes? They couldn’t hit anything, including one footers by Gary Clark.

Yes I. Addition to not making shots they also got out rebounded and played horrible defense.

I’m with a few others that have said if Mick doesn’t want to try to match the X intensity then he needs to end the series because he’s embarrassing himself.

I'd even shorten that time to the first 5 minutes. You could tell by the body language of the 2 teams who was going to win. If it takes UC to view this game as their "Super Bowl" then view it as such. Because whatever UC is doing isn't working and whatever X is doing, is.

Had UC responded on defense and on the glass last season like they did this year, last years game would have been lost in the first 5-10 minutes. The point is UC let a shooting slump early (and X making plays of offense) affect how they defended and rebounded. Last year they did not do that and when X started missing shots UC started really scoring, UC was in position to get back into the game. Letting X rebound 42% of their misses is embarassing for this team and prevented UC from putting the pressure on X in the second half.

(12-06-2017 09:02 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:27 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:52 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Mark that game was lost in the first ten minutes. What was their points per possession in the first ten minutes? They couldn’t hit anything, including one footers by Gary Clark.

Yes I. Addition to not making shots they also got out rebounded and played horrible defense.

I’m with a few others that have said if Mick doesn’t want to try to match the X intensity then he needs to end the series because he’s embarrassing himself.

I'd even shorten that time to the first 5 minutes. You could tell by the body language of the 2 teams who was going to win. If it takes UC to view this game as their "Super Bowl" then view it as such. Because whatever UC is doing isn't working and whatever X is doing, is.

Had UC responded on defense and on the glass last season like they did this year, last years game would have been lost in the first 5-10 minutes. The point is UC let a shooting slump early (and X making plays of offense) affect how they defended and rebounded. Last year they did not do that and when X started missing shots UC started really scoring, UC was in position to get back into the game. Letting X rebound 42% of their misses is embarassing for this team and prevented UC from putting the pressure on X in the second half.

Key word bolded. It happens to the best teams on any given night. Unfortunately, the given night has been 8 of the past 12 against X. Resilience, swagger, toughness. Does UC have it? Will they acquire it? It's going to determine whether this 2017/18 edition is "special" as some have suggested or just another pretty good group that is a runner up in the AAC, gets a 5 or 6 seed and comes home the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.

(12-05-2017 09:27 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  Sweet Lord. Kill this thread. X won. UC lost. Move on.

i think you should give a negative rep point to anyone (staring with me) who replies in this thread. as for me, i'm sure this is a lost season and mick will let us down. and i didn't watch or listen to the game. had some quality male bonding time with my buddy at his father's southeastern indiana semi backwoods retreat. while some folks went out hunting them woods in the morn, my friend and i were sleeping off a healthy late night session of comfortable clothing, a full pot belly stove, drinking to excess, arguing about the direction of black filmmakers, and maturely discussing our project

(12-06-2017 09:02 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:27 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:52 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Mark that game was lost in the first ten minutes. What was their points per possession in the first ten minutes? They couldn’t hit anything, including one footers by Gary Clark.

Yes I. Addition to not making shots they also got out rebounded and played horrible defense.

I’m with a few others that have said if Mick doesn’t want to try to match the X intensity then he needs to end the series because he’s embarrassing himself.

I'd even shorten that time to the first 5 minutes. You could tell by the body language of the 2 teams who was going to win. If it takes UC to view this game as their "Super Bowl" then view it as such. Because whatever UC is doing isn't working and whatever X is doing, is.

Had UC responded on defense and on the glass last season like they did this year, last years game would have been lost in the first 5-10 minutes. The point is UC let a shooting slump early (and X making plays of offense) affect how they defended and rebounded. Last year they did not do that and when X started missing shots UC started really scoring, UC was in position to get back into the game. Letting X rebound 42% of their misses is embarassing for this team and prevented UC from putting the pressure on X in the second half.

I don't even disagree with any of that. My point from an earlier post is that it drives me crazy that Mick has the team play fast and loose offensively against garbage competition but as soon as they play a decent team he becomes very controlling, making his PGs stop just past mid court and literally turn all the way around to get a play call, which usually results in nothing because no one sets real screens or cuts to the basket looking for the ball, it's just motion for the sake of motion. I hate that, but if he is going to insist on doing that against good teams he may as well make his guys play that way against crap teams so that they are ready for it in big games.

(12-05-2017 07:19 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:59 PM)jarr Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:52 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Mark that game was lost in the first ten minutes. What was their points per possession in the first ten minutes? They couldn’t hit anything, including one footers by Gary Clark.

Yes I. Addition to not making shots they also got out rebounded and played horrible defense.

I’m with a few others that have said if Mick doesn’t want to try to match the X intensity then he needs to end the series because he’s embarrassing himself.

^^^^

I like Mark, but sometimes I wonder if he even watches the same games, and just checks the computer stats after. The bottom line is the parts of the game that counted the most, at the beginnings of each half we got our a** kicked and couldn't hit bunnies, free throws, or open threes to stay in the game. Sure there were moments where Evans and Cumberland got some garbage points, but couldn't do it when it really mattered, just like the Bengals.

Story of our lives as Cincinnati fans. We always have teams that can't get it done when it counts. I knew when the Steelers cut it to a touchdown we were going to lose.

Ahh....you've lived a short life my friend! Cincinnati has had winners...several of them....in my short lifetime. Here are the pinnacles IMHO:

1. 75/76/90 Reds
2. 81/88 Bengals
3. 92 Bearcat MBB

Know what ALL these teams had in common?

1. An ass-kicking coach
2. a front office that cared about winning
3. an eye for talent

It CAN be done...and it CAN be done here--you just need to get the right ingredients.

BTW...what DIDN'T these teams have?

Tons of $$$$...none of them were at the top of the heap cash-wise when they broke through.

(12-06-2017 03:00 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 09:02 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 09:27 PM)Cat-Man Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 06:52 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  Mark that game was lost in the first ten minutes. What was their points per possession in the first ten minutes? They couldn’t hit anything, including one footers by Gary Clark.

Yes I. Addition to not making shots they also got out rebounded and played horrible defense.

I’m with a few others that have said if Mick doesn’t want to try to match the X intensity then he needs to end the series because he’s embarrassing himself.

I'd even shorten that time to the first 5 minutes. You could tell by the body language of the 2 teams who was going to win. If it takes UC to view this game as their "Super Bowl" then view it as such. Because whatever UC is doing isn't working and whatever X is doing, is.

Had UC responded on defense and on the glass last season like they did this year, last years game would have been lost in the first 5-10 minutes. The point is UC let a shooting slump early (and X making plays of offense) affect how they defended and rebounded. Last year they did not do that and when X started missing shots UC started really scoring, UC was in position to get back into the game. Letting X rebound 42% of their misses is embarassing for this team and prevented UC from putting the pressure on X in the second half.

I don't even disagree with any of that. My point from an earlier post is that it drives me crazy that Mick has the team play fast and loose offensively against garbage competition but as soon as they play a decent team he becomes very controlling, making his PGs stop just past mid court and literally turn all the way around to get a play call, which usually results in nothing because no one sets real screens or cuts to the basket looking for the ball, it's just motion for the sake of motion. I hate that, but if he is going to insist on doing that against good teams he may as well make his guys play that way against crap teams so that they are ready for it in big games.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think this was a case of that. Uc was pretty free flowing on offense and played at a pretty fast tempo throughout. This wasn't some 50 possession slog. UC had 75 possessions over the course of the game. That's in the top third of pace of play games. They just missed good looks early, got down and did not respond on defense or on the glass. They didn't have a great offensive game, but didn't have a bad one either and were pretty good offensive the last 3/4 of the game.

BTW... I agree that many times in the past his teams have gotten slower as the season goes on and he's taken more and more control of the game. I don't think that's what we saw against X at all.