Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
jarr Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Not "Not Duane"
Location:
Post: #41
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:17 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Huggins in the last 9 seasons has made a final four and 3 sweet 16... I think with less talent and worse teams than some of those UC teams that ended up losing early. I don't think it's because Huggins is a better coach now... I don't think it's because he was a big time coach in the early to mid 90s, then fell off then got back to being a big time coach. There is just an element of randomness to March. Build top of the bracket type teams and you can beat that randomness far more often.

I think part of this is he has changed up the personal and his coaching style. He is actually way more mellow than his UC days, and has been bringing in more offensively skilled players. I think when he inherited some of Beliens players when he first got there, a light switch went off about the type of players he should be looking at. I agree we have had some tremendous bad luck over the years, but we have also failed at seizing the moments that were available.
 
03-21-2018 12:23 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatmark Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,640
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 237
I Root For: the Deliverator
Location:
Post: #42
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:18 PM)jarr Wrote:  Mark, I feel like you dont really put stock into some of the human elements to the game, like confidence, momentum, basketball IQ, etc. There is absolutely a reason certain teams(in all sports), tend to have disappointing post season results while others always seem to exceed expectations on the big stage. I am not sure it can be quantified the way you are trying to do so. There is a reason Marvin is 0-7 in the playoffs, and it is more than bad luck. I also believe the same can be applied to our 0-7 record in advancing to weekend 2, with a top 4 seed. Luck plays into some of this, but not all of it.

Why did Huggs early teams (1992, 1993, 1996) not suffer from that same issue? Why has Huggs WVU teams not suffered from that same issue? 6 of those years were Huggins teams... a variety of odd stuff happened and again you aren't play slouches in round 2...you are playing teams that can beat you.

I'd put more stock in that if it was the same group of guys losing all the time, but it was not. There were some very different teams that lost each of those years. Teams change year to year.

Again... look at Nova

2010- Lost in Second Round
2011- Lost in First round
2012- Missed tournament
2013- Lost in First Round
2014- Lost in Second Round
2015- Lost in Second Round

That is six straight seasons they didn't get out of the first weekend.

2016- National Champions.... What happened? Suddenly those problems didn't exist?

2017- Lost n Second Round.
 
03-21-2018 12:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jarr Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Not "Not Duane"
Location:
Post: #43
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:23 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:18 PM)jarr Wrote:  Mark, I feel like you dont really put stock into some of the human elements to the game, like confidence, momentum, basketball IQ, etc. There is absolutely a reason certain teams(in all sports), tend to have disappointing post season results while others always seem to exceed expectations on the big stage. I am not sure it can be quantified the way you are trying to do so. There is a reason Marvin is 0-7 in the playoffs, and it is more than bad luck. I also believe the same can be applied to our 0-7 record in advancing to weekend 2, with a top 4 seed. Luck plays into some of this, but not all of it.

Why did Huggs early teams (1992, 1993, 1996) not suffer from that same issue? Why has Huggs WVU teams not suffered from that same issue? 6 of those years were Huggins teams... a variety of odd stuff happened and again you aren't play slouches in round 2...you are playing teams that can beat you.

I'd put more stock in that if it was the same group of guys losing all the time, but it was not. There were some very different teams that lost each of those years. Teams change year to year.

Again... look at Nova

2010- Lost in Second Round
2011- Lost in First round
2012- Missed tournament
2013- Lost in First Round
2014- Lost in Second Round
2015- Lost in Second Round

That is six straight seasons they didn't get out of the first weekend.

2016- National Champions.... What happened? Suddenly those problems didn't exist?

2017- Lost n Second Round.

I'd have to go back and watch, but one trend I have seen more often with the teams that got bounced early, was the lack of a true PG. For whatever reason this has always been an issue with UC teams dating back to the Huggins years. 92,93,00,01,06 were the only years we had a true break the defense down type PG. Thsts 5 years in 29 years of the Huggs/AK/Mick era. I wish this position was emphasized more with recruiting than it is.
 
03-21-2018 12:28 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jarr Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Not "Not Duane"
Location:
Post: #44
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:28 PM)jarr Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:23 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:18 PM)jarr Wrote:  Mark, I feel like you dont really put stock into some of the human elements to the game, like confidence, momentum, basketball IQ, etc. There is absolutely a reason certain teams(in all sports), tend to have disappointing post season results while others always seem to exceed expectations on the big stage. I am not sure it can be quantified the way you are trying to do so. There is a reason Marvin is 0-7 in the playoffs, and it is more than bad luck. I also believe the same can be applied to our 0-7 record in advancing to weekend 2, with a top 4 seed. Luck plays into some of this, but not all of it.

Why did Huggs early teams (1992, 1993, 1996) not suffer from that same issue? Why has Huggs WVU teams not suffered from that same issue? 6 of those years were Huggins teams... a variety of odd stuff happened and again you aren't play slouches in round 2...you are playing teams that can beat you.

I'd put more stock in that if it was the same group of guys losing all the time, but it was not. There were some very different teams that lost each of those years. Teams change year to year.

Again... look at Nova

2010- Lost in Second Round
2011- Lost in First round
2012- Missed tournament
2013- Lost in First Round
2014- Lost in Second Round
2015- Lost in Second Round

That is six straight seasons they didn't get out of the first weekend.

2016- National Champions.... What happened? Suddenly those problems didn't exist?

2017- Lost n Second Round.

I'd have to go back and watch, but one trend I have seen more often with the teams that got bounced early, was the lack of a true PG. For whatever reason this has always been an issue with UC teams dating back to the Huggins years. 92,93,00,01,06 were the only years we had a true break the defense down type PG. Thsts 5 years in 29 years of the Huggs/AK/Mick era. I wish this position was emphasized more with recruiting than it is.

Also, Jay does get more slack because he has a team like this every year. So maybe you are right, that it is pretty much a crapshoot between being 2nd round and national champ. Then that means we need to expect to have more legit contenders. Villanova has one every year, I would hope.we could have one at least every other year.
 
03-21-2018 12:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatmark Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,640
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 237
I Root For: the Deliverator
Location:
Post: #45
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:28 PM)jarr Wrote:  I'd have to go back and watch, but one trend I have seen more often with the teams that got bounced early, was the lack of a true PG. For whatever reason this has always been an issue with UC teams dating back to the Huggins years. 92,93,00,01,06 were the only years we had a true break the defense down type PG. Thsts 5 years in 29 years of the Huggs/AK/Mick era. I wish this position was emphasized more with recruiting than it is.

I certainly agree that was an issue in 1997 and 1998. I think in 2000 and 2002 that wasn't an issue at all. It probably was an issue with this team that may have played out later in the tournament, but I hardly think that's why this team lost. They lost because they stopped playing their game and let Nevada muck up the game into pick up basketball.

There are always real basketball reasons for losing. That's the case for every game and every loss a team ever has. Almost every tournament game is against a real quality team that you could lose to. Kenpom had UC 70% against Nevada (and Kenpom numbers had UC was the 4th best team in the country). So numbers said Nevada beats UC 30% of the time. Good teams make losses more likely for everyone, But my general point is I'm going to judge Mick going forward on whether this kind of team is produced more often. If its not I'll get on board with those who want to move on.
 
(This post was last modified: 03-21-2018 12:38 PM by bearcatmark.)
03-21-2018 12:36 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jarr Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Not "Not Duane"
Location:
Post: #46
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:14 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  Lets just hypothetically say last year's team had beaten UCLA and lost to UK, and the Sean Kilpatrick team that lost to Harvard, had made the Sweet 16 as well... Is UC really any different today? Fans might perceive things as being better because most fans are so tournament centered in their evaluation, but is the program really in any better shape?

The key is not letting these protected seed, contender type teams be a rarity. So far it has been. If we can't build on this and have more teams that are true contenders it may be time to move on. There are no excuses anymore. We need to see more teams like this. If we do we'll break through eventually, if we don't...we may need to look elsewhere.

Yes, I honestly think so. That would have meant we beat 2 national title contenders on UCLA and MSU on the big stage. I think Mick would have generated more pub for this program if that happened.
 
03-21-2018 12:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jarr Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Not "Not Duane"
Location:
Post: #47
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:36 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:28 PM)jarr Wrote:  I'd have to go back and watch, but one trend I have seen more often with the teams that got bounced early, was the lack of a true PG. For whatever reason this has always been an issue with UC teams dating back to the Huggins years. 92,93,00,01,06 were the only years we had a true break the defense down type PG. Thsts 5 years in 29 years of the Huggs/AK/Mick era. I wish this position was emphasized more with recruiting than it is.

I certainly agree that was an issue in 1997 and 1998. I think in 2000 and 2002 that wasn't an issue at all. It probably was an issue with this team that may have played out later in the tournament, but I hardly think that's why this team lost. They lost because they stopped playing their game and let Nevada muck up the game into pick up basketball.

There are always real basketball reasons for losing. That's the case for every game and every loss a team ever has. Almost every tournament game is against a real quality team that you could lose to. Kenpom had UC 70% against Nevada (and Kenpom thought UC was the 4th best team in the country). So numbers said Nevada beats UC 30% of the time. Good teams make losses more likely for everyone, But my general point is I'm going to judge Mick going forward on whether this kind of team is produced more often. If its not I'll get on board with those who want to move on.

What do you think the expected rate of this happening should be? Do you place any emphasis on March success at all with this, or do you think it is all a complete crapshoot, and the regular season should be grading line?
 
03-21-2018 12:41 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatmark Online
Moderator
*

Posts: 15,640
Joined: Dec 2006
Reputation: 237
I Root For: the Deliverator
Location:
Post: #48
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:41 PM)jarr Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:36 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:28 PM)jarr Wrote:  I'd have to go back and watch, but one trend I have seen more often with the teams that got bounced early, was the lack of a true PG. For whatever reason this has always been an issue with UC teams dating back to the Huggins years. 92,93,00,01,06 were the only years we had a true break the defense down type PG. Thsts 5 years in 29 years of the Huggs/AK/Mick era. I wish this position was emphasized more with recruiting than it is.

I certainly agree that was an issue in 1997 and 1998. I think in 2000 and 2002 that wasn't an issue at all. It probably was an issue with this team that may have played out later in the tournament, but I hardly think that's why this team lost. They lost because they stopped playing their game and let Nevada muck up the game into pick up basketball.

There are always real basketball reasons for losing. That's the case for every game and every loss a team ever has. Almost every tournament game is against a real quality team that you could lose to. Kenpom had UC 70% against Nevada (and Kenpom thought UC was the 4th best team in the country). So numbers said Nevada beats UC 30% of the time. Good teams make losses more likely for everyone, But my general point is I'm going to judge Mick going forward on whether this kind of team is produced more often. If its not I'll get on board with those who want to move on.

What do you think the expected rate of this happening should be? Do you place any emphasis on March success at all with this, or do you think it is all a complete crapshoot, and the regular season should be grading line?

I'm always going to grade based on the complete season. March is a small factor in that. But to me it's more important to be a high seeded team in march than to steal a couple of games.

I think your number was pretty good when you started this thread. I agreed with most of what you said in the first post. Maybe not quite every other year, but close to it.
 
03-21-2018 12:44 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JFlight21 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,093
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 49
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #49
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 12:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:41 PM)jarr Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:36 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:28 PM)jarr Wrote:  I'd have to go back and watch, but one trend I have seen more often with the teams that got bounced early, was the lack of a true PG. For whatever reason this has always been an issue with UC teams dating back to the Huggins years. 92,93,00,01,06 were the only years we had a true break the defense down type PG. Thsts 5 years in 29 years of the Huggs/AK/Mick era. I wish this position was emphasized more with recruiting than it is.

I certainly agree that was an issue in 1997 and 1998. I think in 2000 and 2002 that wasn't an issue at all. It probably was an issue with this team that may have played out later in the tournament, but I hardly think that's why this team lost. They lost because they stopped playing their game and let Nevada muck up the game into pick up basketball.

There are always real basketball reasons for losing. That's the case for every game and every loss a team ever has. Almost every tournament game is against a real quality team that you could lose to. Kenpom had UC 70% against Nevada (and Kenpom thought UC was the 4th best team in the country). So numbers said Nevada beats UC 30% of the time. Good teams make losses more likely for everyone, But my general point is I'm going to judge Mick going forward on whether this kind of team is produced more often. If its not I'll get on board with those who want to move on.

What do you think the expected rate of this happening should be? Do you place any emphasis on March success at all with this, or do you think it is all a complete crapshoot, and the regular season should be grading line?

I'm always going to grade based on the complete season. March is a small factor in that. But to me it's more important to be a high seeded team in march than to steal a couple of games.

I think your number was pretty good when you started this thread. I agreed with most of what you said in the first post. Maybe not quite every other year, but close to it.

The issue remains that March success begets more seasons like the one we just had (protected seed with a chance to make a run). So no matter how little importance you personally put on March, it matters more than anything for the continued growth of the program.

Mick constantly complains through channels about how difficult it is to recruit to the AAC, to these facilities, etc. but a deep March this year would have undoubtedly helped recruiting and the stature of the program. That's why this lost opportunity is so devastating, especially considering that the roster going forward has Cumberland and a bunch of role players (in my opinion)...
 
03-21-2018 01:01 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jarr Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 7,467
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 56
I Root For: Not "Not Duane"
Location:
Post: #50
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 01:01 PM)JFlight21 Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:44 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:41 PM)jarr Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:36 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 12:28 PM)jarr Wrote:  I'd have to go back and watch, but one trend I have seen more often with the teams that got bounced early, was the lack of a true PG. For whatever reason this has always been an issue with UC teams dating back to the Huggins years. 92,93,00,01,06 were the only years we had a true break the defense down type PG. Thsts 5 years in 29 years of the Huggs/AK/Mick era. I wish this position was emphasized more with recruiting than it is.

I certainly agree that was an issue in 1997 and 1998. I think in 2000 and 2002 that wasn't an issue at all. It probably was an issue with this team that may have played out later in the tournament, but I hardly think that's why this team lost. They lost because they stopped playing their game and let Nevada muck up the game into pick up basketball.

There are always real basketball reasons for losing. That's the case for every game and every loss a team ever has. Almost every tournament game is against a real quality team that you could lose to. Kenpom had UC 70% against Nevada (and Kenpom thought UC was the 4th best team in the country). So numbers said Nevada beats UC 30% of the time. Good teams make losses more likely for everyone, But my general point is I'm going to judge Mick going forward on whether this kind of team is produced more often. If its not I'll get on board with those who want to move on.

What do you think the expected rate of this happening should be? Do you place any emphasis on March success at all with this, or do you think it is all a complete crapshoot, and the regular season should be grading line?

I'm always going to grade based on the complete season. March is a small factor in that. But to me it's more important to be a high seeded team in march than to steal a couple of games.

I think your number was pretty good when you started this thread. I agreed with most of what you said in the first post. Maybe not quite every other year, but close to it.

The issue remains that March success begets more seasons like the one we just had (protected seed with a chance to make a run). So no matter how little importance you personally put on March, it matters more than anything for the continued growth of the program.

Mick constantly complains through channels about how difficult it is to recruit to the AAC, to these facilities, etc. but a deep March this year would have undoubtedly helped recruiting and the stature of the program. That's why this lost opportunity is so devastating, especially considering that the roster going forward has Cumberland and a bunch of role players (in my opinion)...

Just curious, but about our facilities and amenities are we lacking that the big boys have? I honestly dont know and dont spend a ton of time around college campuses these days. I thought the Varsity Village and new arena renovation addressed all these issues.
 
03-21-2018 01:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
OKIcat Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,308
Joined: Sep 2015
Reputation: 52
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #51
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 11:28 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 10:38 AM)jarr Wrote:  What is the reason behind the low budget? Is it simply the AAC and football? How does our basketball budget compare to Wichita, UCONN, and Memphis? All these schools always seem to still have plenty of money to throw around. Could it be that Mick doesnt bring any excitement or buzz to the program, and people have decided to spend their money elsewhere? I will probably be going that route next year unless I see some real changes being made with the program. I can't justify the time and money I spend knowing the results will never change, because Mick says Sweet 16's are just for fans and recruits.

Well it's mainly tv dollars. The 5 big conferences all distributed $25 - $40 million per school while the AAC schools get around $2 million per year. That's not a typo. And it's less than the basketball-only Big East gets per year.

Yes, Xavier makes more money from television than UC and we have a football program. Now, I'd argue UC's exposure on ESPN has more than made up for that, but still.

Half of UC's athletic department revenue comes from student fees ($24 million).
Rights/Licensing = $16.6 million
Ticket sales = $7.8 million

Even if a new coach came in and sold out the entire season and bunch of merch came flying off the shelves, what are we looking at? $3-4 million more per year? That's not going to make a dent.

Bolded, peeling the onion just a bit more on that. UC's real revenue since the dissolution of the Big East is much higher with millions in exit fees, NCAA shares and royalties for selling the BE name to the Catholic Seven. As we approach the end of that revenue stream, the AAC will get an improved TV deal in the marketplace given ratings performance for football and basketball. Somewhere in a conference room in NYC, Fox Sports is asking why they overpaid for the new Big East given mostly anemic ratings. So the new BE may indeed get less in the next contract.

That said, the new 5th/3rd should represent a substantial increase in revenue too. I'm guessing that seat privileges, club seats and new private boxes will create a good bump. But only if there is sufficient fan interest. And to me, that equates to a reasonable expectation of winning big; regular season and postseason. Are expectations rising, falling or holding even? This is a bad week for asking that question.
 
03-21-2018 01:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
skyblade Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 535
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #52
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 01:29 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 11:28 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 10:38 AM)jarr Wrote:  What is the reason behind the low budget? Is it simply the AAC and football? How does our basketball budget compare to Wichita, UCONN, and Memphis? All these schools always seem to still have plenty of money to throw around. Could it be that Mick doesnt bring any excitement or buzz to the program, and people have decided to spend their money elsewhere? I will probably be going that route next year unless I see some real changes being made with the program. I can't justify the time and money I spend knowing the results will never change, because Mick says Sweet 16's are just for fans and recruits.

Well it's mainly tv dollars. The 5 big conferences all distributed $25 - $40 million per school while the AAC schools get around $2 million per year. That's not a typo. And it's less than the basketball-only Big East gets per year.

Yes, Xavier makes more money from television than UC and we have a football program. Now, I'd argue UC's exposure on ESPN has more than made up for that, but still.

Half of UC's athletic department revenue comes from student fees ($24 million).
Rights/Licensing = $16.6 million
Ticket sales = $7.8 million

Even if a new coach came in and sold out the entire season and bunch of merch came flying off the shelves, what are we looking at? $3-4 million more per year? That's not going to make a dent.

Bolded, peeling the onion just a bit more on that. UC's real revenue since the dissolution of the Big East is much higher with millions in exit fees, NCAA shares and royalties for selling the BE name to the Catholic Seven. As we approach the end of that revenue stream, the AAC will get an improved TV deal in the marketplace given ratings performance for football and basketball. Somewhere in a conference room in NYC, Fox Sports is asking why they overpaid for the new Big East given mostly anemic ratings. So the new BE may indeed get less in the next contract.

That said, the new 5th/3rd should represent a substantial increase in revenue too. I'm guessing that seat privileges, club seats and new private boxes will create a good bump. But only if there is sufficient fan interest. And to me, that equates to a reasonable expectation of winning big; regular season and postseason. Are expectations rising, falling or holding even? This is a bad week for asking that question.

It also equates to who do we play. There is a lot more interest in playing another power team then watching us beat up on ECU. In that regards I think the AAC will be getting better; Memphis, UConn, SMU, Houston and UCF should all be good enough to draw fan interest next year and Wichita State should get some interest through name power even though they probably won't be much good.

I think outsider perception is that UC is rising. Back-to-back 30 win seasons, top 10 in the polls and Evans likely getting drafted in the first round are all good signs. Insiders I'm not so sure, next-year expectations will be lower but longer-term I think people will expect us to continue to be a major power in the conference, continue to make the NCAA tournament every year and a regular top 25 team.
 
03-21-2018 01:51 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CliftonAve Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 12,464
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 358
I Root For: My kid's team
Location:
Post: #53
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
The facilities argument is bullshot, especially now that we will be re-opening 5/3rd in 2018.

The conference argument is not hurting Wichita (who just came from the MVC), UConn (who has sucked the past three years), Memphis (who will likely start landing 4-5 star recruits on the regular) and Houston (who has out recruited us the past two years).

As far as the tournament goes, if it all boils down to randomness I'd like to get a few CBB coaches to buy me some lottery tickets. They're the luckiest SOB's on the planet. Bad luck is an explanation for 1-2 seasons, but 12.... c'mon dude. My experience in athletics is that you create your own luck. The better teams are capable of taking the brass ring when "good" luck swings their way.
 
03-21-2018 02:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Cataclysmo Offline
All American
*

Posts: 2,737
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 57
I Root For: Cincinnat
Location: Cincinnati
Post: #54
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 02:10 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The facilities argument is bullshot, especially now that we will be re-opening 5/3rd in 2018.

The conference argument is not hurting Wichita (who just came from the MVC), UConn (who has sucked the past three years), Memphis (who will likely start landing 4-5 star recruits on the regular) and Houston (who has out recruited us the past two years).

As far as the tournament goes, if it all boils down to randomness I'd like to get a few CBB coaches to buy me some lottery tickets. They're the luckiest SOB's on the planet. Bad luck is an explanation for 1-2 seasons, but 12.... c'mon dude. My experience in athletics is that you create your own luck. The better teams are capable of taking the brass ring when "good" luck swings their way.

Yup. Again, good coaches create their luck during the regular season. Consistently getting protected seeds suddenly makes the lottery much easier to win...
 
03-21-2018 02:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
skyblade Offline
Special Teams
*

Posts: 535
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 10
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #55
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 02:10 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  The facilities argument is bullshot, especially now that we will be re-opening 5/3rd in 2018.

The conference argument is not hurting Wichita (who just came from the MVC), UConn (who has sucked the past three years), Memphis (who will likely start landing 4-5 star recruits on the regular) and Houston (who has out recruited us the past two years).

As far as the tournament goes, if it all boils down to randomness I'd like to get a few CBB coaches to buy me some lottery tickets. They're the luckiest SOB's on the planet. Bad luck is an explanation for 1-2 seasons, but 12.... c'mon dude. My experience in athletics is that you create your own luck. The better teams are capable of taking the brass ring when "good" luck swings their way.

It's a major stretch to say 12, even 8 is a bit of a stretch. Cronin took on a major rebuilding project when he arrived here, he didn't inherit a top program. Then when things were turning around we were knocked down to a second tier conference.

Facilities won't be an argument next year. But this year, I'm guessing walking recruits around a construction site and some pretty generated pictures of what it will look like doesn't have quite the same impact as the real thing.

If we go another 3-4 years without getting a protected seed (or a year or two without making the NCAA tournament) I will be ready for Mick to be gone. But we just had the best back-to-back years that we have ever had under Cronin and next year we should be in the top 3 of the conference (and possibly another 30 win season if Evans decides to stay). Firing Mick because we lost one game after winning 30 in the season would be lunacy.

You can look at stars and rankings for recruiting all you like, I will look at team success. Cincinnati has been the best team in the AAC since it formed (with SMU a fairly close 2nd), until that changes Cronin has done well at recruiting in my book.
 
03-21-2018 02:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcatlawjd2 Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,278
Joined: Apr 2012
Reputation: 38
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #56
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
I agree with everything Mark has said regarding the NCAA tournament and seeding. I want UC to advance into the second weekend more often and eventually bring home a trophy; however, I actually but more stock into the regular season and conference tournament results than the NCAA tournament to see where a program is really at.

There is the fear of being stuck in the post-season choke artist category but I think the conference tournament victory and the staff's six NCAA tournament wins has kept them out of Marvin Lewis territory. If UC starts dropping first round games to double digit seeds every year then I would start to get worried; however, losing to a team that now has 29 wins isn't the same thing as losing to a 15 or 16 seed.

My expectation for Bearcats is that they make the tournament every year, win the American regular season or conference tournament roughly once every other year, earn six seeds or higher the majority of the time with elite seeds every two to four years. UC also needs to turn the tide against Xavier starting next year and beat Ohio State as well. Winning games against you local rivals and winning conference championship is more important than a lucky run to the sweet 16.

Primary goals:
1. Bring home championships (Conference, Conference Tournament, Regional (Final Four), National).
2. NCAA tournament bids.
3. Performance against rivals
4. Running a clean program
5. Ranked in top 25 every season
 
03-21-2018 08:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
MrCincy Offline
Water Engineer
*

Posts: 70
Joined: Dec 2015
Reputation: 5
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location:
Post: #57
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 05:54 AM)jarr Wrote:  I am curious what everyone's own expectations are for this program. There seems to be a lot of varying opinions on this, some seem very pleased with what Mick has done here and his trajectory, others seem to think he has taken this program to a certain level but won't get us further.

I personally, have always felt this program is a top 15 hoops school. History should tell us that based on all of the basic metrics (all time wins, final 4's championships, tourney appearances, AA's, times ranked in the polls, conference titles, etc.) We will be playing in a top 15 on campus arena next year, and I believe if committed, can pay a top 25 salary. I also believe we have a top 20 fan base, at least for Basketball. It doesn't always show, but when the team is doing well, UC fans travel pretty well and will fill up the arena on a consistent basis. We are and always will be a Basketball first school, where most schools learn Football first.


I do agree with some, that basing a season on what happens in the tournament can be a bit unfair, looking at this over a longer time frame should be more accurate. I believe that 1 sweet 16 in 12 years is not meeting the expectations of this program. However, this year gave me a glimmer of hope, that perhaps Mick is turning the corner (until Sunday).

I believe our expectations should be the following:

1) Be a final four contender every other year (realizing this may result in an expected early exit, but we should be considered in the running

2) Be a tournament level team nearly every year, probably 9 out of 10 years

3) Be challenging for the league title almost every year, maybe finishing top 3. But winning a championship about 4 out of 10 times.

4) At least one final four in a 10 year span. Whether we were a heavy favorite to do so entering as a 1 or 2 seed, or making an unexpected run as 3-6 seed.

5) Staying in the top 25 about 85% of the time.

6) Consistently bringing in top 40 recruiting classes, and top 3 AAC classes

7) Creating a pipleine with local talent, possibly having a somewhat local kid (100 mile radius) every other year.

8) Producing at least one NBA player every 4 year cycle

9) At least 3 sweet 16's in a 10 year span

10) Win totals should consistently be over 25 W per year

10) OOC SOS should be top 25 consistently, with our league not providing many opportunities for quality wins

11) Continuing to graduate players on a consistent basis and have good quality players that represent the school well

12) Coming close to winning a national championship or perhaps doing the whole thing. I realize winning the whole thing is a little unrealistic, but it would be nice to get close or be discussed as a heavy favorite at least once. Winning it would probably exceed my expectations.


Are these expectations realistic or unrealistic? Has Mick met yours in his 12 years, or has he exceeded or or not met yours?
Mick is a great BB coach. Your expectations are a dream in your own mind. Coach Cronin is a consistent winner. I expect you to get all A's over the next 10 years.
 
03-22-2018 11:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Loco Bearcat Offline
Bench Warmer
*

Posts: 223
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation: 7
I Root For: UC
Location:
Post: #58
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-22-2018 11:03 PM)MrCincy Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 05:54 AM)jarr Wrote:  I am curious what everyone's own expectations are for this program. There seems to be a lot of varying opinions on this, some seem very pleased with what Mick has done here and his trajectory, others seem to think he has taken this program to a certain level but won't get us further.

I personally, have always felt this program is a top 15 hoops school. History should tell us that based on all of the basic metrics (all time wins, final 4's championships, tourney appearances, AA's, times ranked in the polls, conference titles, etc.) We will be playing in a top 15 on campus arena next year, and I believe if committed, can pay a top 25 salary. I also believe we have a top 20 fan base, at least for Basketball. It doesn't always show, but when the team is doing well, UC fans travel pretty well and will fill up the arena on a consistent basis. We are and always will be a Basketball first school, where most schools learn Football first.


I do agree with some, that basing a season on what happens in the tournament can be a bit unfair, looking at this over a longer time frame should be more accurate. I believe that 1 sweet 16 in 12 years is not meeting the expectations of this program. However, this year gave me a glimmer of hope, that perhaps Mick is turning the corner (until Sunday).

I believe our expectations should be the following:

1) Be a final four contender every other year (realizing this may result in an expected early exit, but we should be considered in the running

2) Be a tournament level team nearly every year, probably 9 out of 10 years

3) Be challenging for the league title almost every year, maybe finishing top 3. But winning a championship about 4 out of 10 times.

4) At least one final four in a 10 year span. Whether we were a heavy favorite to do so entering as a 1 or 2 seed, or making an unexpected run as 3-6 seed.

5) Staying in the top 25 about 85% of the time.

6) Consistently bringing in top 40 recruiting classes, and top 3 AAC classes

7) Creating a pipleine with local talent, possibly having a somewhat local kid (100 mile radius) every other year.

8) Producing at least one NBA player every 4 year cycle

9) At least 3 sweet 16's in a 10 year span

10) Win totals should consistently be over 25 W per year

10) OOC SOS should be top 25 consistently, with our league not providing many opportunities for quality wins

11) Continuing to graduate players on a consistent basis and have good quality players that represent the school well

12) Coming close to winning a national championship or perhaps doing the whole thing. I realize winning the whole thing is a little unrealistic, but it would be nice to get close or be discussed as a heavy favorite at least once. Winning it would probably exceed my expectations.


Are these expectations realistic or unrealistic? Has Mick met yours in his 12 years, or has he exceeded or or not met yours?
Mick is a great BB coach. Your expectations are a dream in your own mind. Coach Cronin is a consistent winner. I expect you to get all A's over the next 10 years.

If Cronin was a great coach UC would be playing Kansas St in the Elite 8 on Saturday, however Sweet 16 and Elite 8 don't matter to him!!
 
03-22-2018 11:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Bruce Monnin Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,171
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation: 59
I Root For: Cincinnati
Location: Minster, Ohio
Post: #59
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
Regular season is merely qualifying and practice for the tournament, just like in high school sports. All that matters is you get your team qualified, prepared and positioned for the tournament.
 
03-23-2018 10:03 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
bearcat54 Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,965
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation: 31
I Root For:
Location:
Post: #60
RE: Realistic Expectations for BB going forward (next 10 years)
(03-21-2018 07:03 AM)jarr Wrote:  
(03-21-2018 06:55 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  Trying to judge Mick's 12 years here so far is tough because of the moving pieces he's had to endure. I think we all agree you can throw out the first 4 years.

And I think some underestimate how difficult going from the Big East to the AAC was for recruiting. We were coming off a BE tournament championship appearance and then were up-heaved into different recruiting regions/rivalries/etc. I'd argue Mick adapted, and we've seen the fruits of that labor.

With that said, 1 S16 in the last 8 years seems tough to swallow. Our program is better than that. Do I think that ratio will improve under Mick? Yes, but I'll admit I'm not positive.

We should make the tournament 9/10 years and have a team capable of going on a run every 3 years. I don't need a 12-point plan where I try to check boxes to see if we need to change coaches (not making fun, jarr; just saying).

I think if you look at the last 3 years, Mick's done a great job. Problem for him, though, is that the next time this caliber team comes along (within the next 3 years), he can't **** the bed.

The other issue with brushing off underachieving results in March with teams like this, is that he hasn't shown a knack for over achieving and pulling off upsets when we are seeded lower. This puts even more added pressure on the contender type teams that we expect every 2 or 3 years.

sort of reminds one of how the fan base started whining about with bob huggins a few years after the vanexel years.
 
03-26-2018 05:34 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2018 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2018 MyBB Group.