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

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?

Anger management !

Coach needs to clean up his language on the sidelines.

Hire an offensive coach.

No more excuses.

Great season with a sad ending.

(03-21-2018 06:30 AM)ktny4 Wrote:  Coach needs to clean up his language on the sidelines.

Hire an offensive coach.

with all those dirty words mick uses on the sidelines, sounds like he’s already a pretty offensive coach to some.

1. Be a reasonable contender every year in conference.
2. NCAAs every year- I understand that good teams have off years and if we suffer unexpected injuries or someone leaves unexpectedly I'd accept that. However when it's just due to the talent cycle I feel 8-10 seed should be our floor.
3. Be a legitimate threat to go to the Final 4 every few years.
4. I don't want to quantify recruiting because of the flaws of the ranking system for but bring in all conference caliber players in most classes.

Here are my concerns.
1. We were able to recruit all conference caliber players in 4 straight years from Troy through Jarron. This allowed us to have consecutive 30 win seasons and for the first time this year be a legitimate threat to go really far. There's not one in our freshman class that we can expect to get to that level and I haven't heard much about our incoming freshmen.
2. I wasn't concerned about this until Sunday but in a big game whether it's NCAAs or a game with conference title ramifications you can't let it spin out of control. We need an identity, something we can count on when things are going bad. We had better scorers this year than we've had in a long time but 5 10-12 point scorers means you're playing the hot hand and not consistently running the offense through someone. If I'm not mistaken SK was the only 15 point a game scorer we had in our consecutive NCAA run. Assuming Jacob leaves Jarron needs to accept being the man and put up 17 next year.

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.

(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.

I don't think you can change this ju ju by doing the same thing we've always done.

(03-21-2018 07:24 AM)DownOnRohs Wrote:  I don't think you can change this ju ju by doing the same thing we've always done.

I agree. Either Mick needs to accept that he needs to change or Bohn needs to make a change humself. With Marshall, Hurley, and Penny coming in the league now, everything just got much more competitive.

I'd be fine with less anger and excuses.

(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.

I agree with much of what you're saying. Here's where we part ways:

- In the world of sports it's ancient history now, but I've never understood why Mick got a pass for the first FOUR years. Programs with rich tradition playing in the best basketball conference ever (real Big East) would reasonably expect a substantial improvement after two seasons--or three at most. Maybe the world has changed this past decade but we're seeing coaches changed out in that cycle time if performance isn't meeting some baseline expectation.
- If we're going to blame the AAC for recruiting deficiencies, conversely, don't we have to question why recruiting was never great on the big stage--the Big East?
- A pair of 30 win seasons and arguably the highest profile in Mick's tenure and we have a recruiting class with a 2 star point guard and a tall guard who appears gifted but likely a development project. This with a front court that offers immediate openings for at least two starters.

I'll never deny it was an enjoyable regular season and winning the conference title (outright) and tournament were new high water marks. That it took 12 seasons to achieve that at a high tradition program with abundant resources will continue to invite the Marvin Lewis comparisons. Then add in the annoyance of that little school across town with no championship tradition, thrashing UC more years than not, racing to Sweet Sixteens and an Elite Eight and it compounds the frustration.

I'll always support the 'Cats and my University. I sat through the Tubs years (at least until the 3rd quarter) and I can't wait to step into the new 5th/3rd. But no matter the win/loss record, March 2019 will be approached with great trepidation by many fans. If Mick's best team can't hold a 22 point lead against a mostly unheralded Nevada squad with just six healthy players I have zero confidence our coach can escape the first weekend on any consistent basis. Sadly, if others feel the same way it could throw a big wet blanket on home attendance next year. And that's not good for UC in any way.

(03-21-2018 05:54 AM)jarr Wrote:  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.

I agree with most of these, the two I disagree with are above.

I think recruiting rankings are too unreliable of a measure. 5-stars are the only near guarantees, below that there are so many recruits that it's impossible to accurately rank them all. Players will sometimes get bumped or dropped a star based on where they went. Look at the NFL or NBA draft, where there are far fewer players and more dedicated scouts and players still slip through the cracks or turn out to be busts. As long as Mick is being successful at getting players of the type he wants and he is meeting other expectations I don't care if he's doing it with 2-stars or with 5-stars.

A local pipeline would be nice, but it's not going to effect my support of UC or Mick Cronin if we have no local recruits over the next 10 years.

I would also add be ranked #1 in the AP or coaches poll at some point during the season once every 4/5 years.

(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.

I agree, I think the rebuild is a lot more then the first 4 years. Those 4 years laid the foundation to bring in better quality players, the next 4 years built the frame and the most recent 4 years have been finishing the building. This year was the first year that we haven't had to start any freshmen and we had a quality starter/backup at almost every position.

Next year with the newly renoved stadium, name recognition from being in the top 10 most of the season, a 2 seed in the NCAA tournament, Evans likely going pro and all the other positives should get recruiting to just about the peak of where it can be. The only other thing that can improve recruiting is beyond Mick's control - the AAC. Recruits want to prove themselves against other great teams/players. Luckily the AAC is looking up as well.

(03-21-2018 06:55 AM)JPBearcat3 Wrote:  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.

I'd definitely agree with this. I'm a big believer that you can be a top program outside the P5 (Gonzaga & Wichita) but uncertainty is the toughest thing to deal with. I think the uncertainty in that transition was a set back and it's why our talent really slid after the Sweet 16 year. There was 5 years if I'm not mistaken between SKs class and the next all conference talent we recruited- Troy.

My biggest concern now is it looks like we're going to go another year without a high end talent. If we don't nail next year's class you're going to see a massive drop off after Jarron leaves.

My only expectation at this point is that somehow i'll recover from the debacle i watched Sunday. That was a big, big setback in terms of having a very good squad poised to make a run, not to mention the favorable pub you get from the Loyola matchup, and completely meltdown for no real apparent reason other than incompetence. I've been pretty neutral on Cronin these years, but what i saw from a guy 12 years in was a major disappointment. How we end up in any better position to compete in the post season after watching what he and his coaching staff have delivered in the past is complete "pot luck" to me. My expectation is likely to expect more of the same.

(03-21-2018 07:59 AM)OKIcat 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.

I agree with much of what you're saying. Here's where we part ways:

- In the world of sports it's ancient history now, but I've never understood why Mick got a pass for the first FOUR years. Programs with rich tradition playing in the best basketball conference ever (real Big East) would reasonably expect a substantial improvement after two seasons--or three at most. Maybe the world has changed this past decade but we're seeing coaches changed out in that cycle time if performance isn't meeting some baseline expectation.
- If we're going to blame the AAC for recruiting deficiencies, conversely, don't we have to question why recruiting was never great on the big stage--the Big East?
- A pair of 30 win seasons and arguably the highest profile in Mick's tenure and we have a recruiting class with a 2 star point guard and a tall guard who appears gifted but likely a development project. This with a front court that offers immediate openings for at least two starters.

I'll never deny it was an enjoyable regular season and winning the conference title (outright) and tournament were new high water marks. That it took 12 seasons to achieve that at a high tradition program with abundant resources will continue to invite the Marvin Lewis comparisons. Then add in the annoyance of that little school across town with no championship tradition, thrashing UC more years than not, racing to Sweet Sixteens and an Elite Eight and it compounds the frustration.

I'll always support the 'Cats and my University. I sat through the Tubs years (at least until the 3rd quarter) and I can't wait to step into the new 5th/3rd. But no matter the win/loss record, March 2019 will be approached with great trepidation by many fans. If Mick's best team can't hold a 22 point lead against a mostly unheralded Nevada squad with just six healthy players I have zero confidence our coach can escape the first weekend on any consistent basis. Sadly, if others feel the same way it could throw a big wet blanket on home attendance next year. And that's not good for UC in any way.

From https://www.downthedrive.com/2017/9/14/1...an-johnson
"Johnson is a four-star recruit according to Scout and a three-star player according to 247Sports. He is ranked as the No. 17 prospect in the state of California and the No. 32 recruit in the 2018 class by 247Sports."

Johnson also had interest from UCLA and St. Mary's. Until we see him play we won't know how well he will do. But it's a bit soon to write him or Hardnett off.

The fact that our team is now deep enough to get skilled players and let them spend their first year developing in practice (and the weight room) is a good thing.

I don't think Cronin agrees that we have immediate openings for two starters. Brooks and Scott have done their time and are the starters unless we somehow pull in a 5-star player.

I don't think the issue with Brooks and Scott is really whether they start or not. My concern with both of them is how long they can stay on the court. Both have historically had foul issues on limited minutes. It will be an adjustment at least initially to stay on the court. Scott is clearly more battle ready than Brooks.

Jarr I agree with almost all of your expectations. I know people who only care about the tournament think I'm crazy, but I'd rather have my program have the season UC just had over the season say X had last year. X made the elite 8 but everyone knew they weren't a real threat. I want a real title contender and to me that is shown on the floor throughout the season. It's not all about what actually happens in a single elimination tournament, but are you really capable of winning that single elimination tournament. The fact is this was the only team we've really had that was realistically capable of that since 2002. We need to see it more often. This was a devastating loss. It can be made slightly less devastating if we keep putting this caliber team on the floor on a semi regular basis. We keep making the tournament and keep doing that and we'll make some runs. The real test for Mick Cronin and this staff is can they start having a real contender type team more often. There are legitimate reasons why it hadn't happened yet, but we're passed that now... the program is his... he has resources, he has facilities, he has a name program... time to build on this season going forward.

Why would anyone believe it is going to be any different these next ten years, it will be status quo. Mick tells you that every time he says the shootout isn't important or he doesn't coach to advance past sweet sixteen. We have three ALL STATE 1st teamers this year and don't get a sniff from any of them, not a sniff from Kennard, that is a problem. People will say well he had no chance or they didn't want to come here, I say, that in itself is the problem. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insane....... that I am not.

(03-21-2018 09:26 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Why would anyone believe it is going to be any different these next ten years, it will be status quo. Mick tells you that every time he says the shootout isn't important or he doesn't coach to advance past sweet sixteen. We have three ALL STATE 1st teamers this year and don't get a sniff from any of them, not a sniff from Kennard, that is a problem. People will say well he had no chance or they didn't want to come here, I say, that in itself is the problem. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insane....... that I am not.

I don't believe Mick will be here for 10 years if we continue with these results. IMHO if we maintain status quo in the NCAAT or worse; if attendance drops; or donations decrease he'll be here two more years tops. There's just too much money invested in the new arena and our revenues from the conference are no longer supplemented with Big East Exit Fees and Tourny credits.

(03-21-2018 09:26 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  Why would anyone believe it is going to be any different these next ten years, it will be status quo. Mick tells you that every time he says the shootout isn't important or he doesn't coach to advance past sweet sixteen. We have three ALL STATE 1st teamers this year and don't get a sniff from any of them, not a sniff from Kennard, that is a problem. People will say well he had no chance or they didn't want to come here, I say, that in itself is the problem. Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is insane....... that I am not.

This is exactly my perspective, and i've been a season ticket holder for going on 35 years. I think that guys get more set in their ways as they get older and more comfortable and do not see things changing that much. I had hoped the excitement of a refurbished arena would renew some interest, but that kind of went out the window with Sunday's flame out. My hope now is we are competitive with Osu to start the season next year. Calipari and Pitino both mentioned when Huggins left that it's good for coaches to retrench every 10 years or so to renew the situation. I tend to agree with them. It's hard for them to change their identity after a while short of winning big.