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

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-14-2018 02:39 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-14-2018 10:19 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(10-13-2018 11:55 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-08-2018 08:15 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  I am not going to go back and quote all of your posts. I believe you stated that Mick was not the one who lost the game, it was the players. That may be true, but Mick was the on that left Cumberland in with four fouls, Mick was the one who either did not, or could not utilize his timeouts to slow the run, or design a play to go inside, or calm his kids down. That was on Mick. Period. Mick loves to come up with excuses, and belittle his own fan base, with his petulant quotes about offense being for friends and family, and the Tournament is for recruiting, The X game is just another game, and all of the other BS he has spouted over the years. He does not get elite recruits because they don't want to play in his system or style. You don't think other coaches recruit against him because of that? Please. Mick does himself no favors with his failure to win in March and his childish attitude.

Dude, he's recruiting 18 year olds. They aren't deciding against us because of a press conference Mick had a few years ago or because of what he said about the Xavier game. They're going to base their decision on our recent success, what we've done for players and the campus/university itself. The players he's trying to persuade aren't 35 year old UC fans with beer guts who watch sports center religiously. They're high school kids... As far as Xavier goes, it is just a game. Sorry you give it some metaphysical power/significance over things, but I don't.

Dude, can you read? Not what I posted about recruiting. You are very good at twisting an argument though with your blathering nonsense.

Given that you're back and forth during the course of that paragraph, it's hard to tell if you're talking style and system exclusively or not. I mean,

Quote:. He does not get elite recruits because they don't want to play in his system or style. You don't think other coaches recruit against him because of that? Please. Mick does himself no favors with his failure to win in March and his childish attitude.

kind of makes it sound like you think his approach and his attitude about the program are somehow causing recruiting deficiencies in addition to the "system". I don't think recruits are persuaded by attitude unless you're going full on Mike Rice on your players.

But I'll bite, I don't think it has anything to do with the system either. If you're good, you get a **** ton of minutes and opportunities. The end of last season Cumberland and Evans had all the opportunity in the world to shine. Everybody isn't looking to play in the prettiest offensive system in the world, if they were, Kentucky would have worse recruits than us.

Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

I think it's more the style of play. It has gotten better the last couple years. but when you hear commentators constantly talking about rock fights, instead of basketball games, it has an effect. Kids want to run up and down and score, not participate in a rugby scrum.

(10-15-2018 07:30 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-14-2018 02:39 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-14-2018 10:19 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(10-13-2018 11:55 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Dude, he's recruiting 18 year olds. They aren't deciding against us because of a press conference Mick had a few years ago or because of what he said about the Xavier game. They're going to base their decision on our recent success, what we've done for players and the campus/university itself. The players he's trying to persuade aren't 35 year old UC fans with beer guts who watch sports center religiously. They're high school kids... As far as Xavier goes, it is just a game. Sorry you give it some metaphysical power/significance over things, but I don't.

Dude, can you read? Not what I posted about recruiting. You are very good at twisting an argument though with your blathering nonsense.

Given that you're back and forth during the course of that paragraph, it's hard to tell if you're talking style and system exclusively or not. I mean,

Quote:. He does not get elite recruits because they don't want to play in his system or style. You don't think other coaches recruit against him because of that? Please. Mick does himself no favors with his failure to win in March and his childish attitude.

kind of makes it sound like you think his approach and his attitude about the program are somehow causing recruiting deficiencies in addition to the "system". I don't think recruits are persuaded by attitude unless you're going full on Mike Rice on your players.

But I'll bite, I don't think it has anything to do with the system either. If you're good, you get a **** ton of minutes and opportunities. The end of last season Cumberland and Evans had all the opportunity in the world to shine. Everybody isn't looking to play in the prettiest offensive system in the world, if they were, Kentucky would have worse recruits than us.

Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

I think it's more the style of play. It has gotten better the last couple years. but when you hear commentators constantly talking about rock fights, instead of basketball games, it has an effect. Kids want to run up and down and score, not participate in a rugby scrum.

Kids also want to play for someone who'll take them deep into the dance with regularity.

(10-15-2018 07:20 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

Blue chips play in the NBA, blue chips don't give a flying **** about March. If they did, Ben Simmons wouldn't have gone to LSU. Johnny Jones, Will -whatever his name is and Trent Johnson before them have done butt **** nothing in March and they still have better recruiting classes than us the past few years. You know why? Because kids would rather go to LSU than UC. We aren't an NBA pipeline and we aren't a party school. Resign yourself to that fact sir...

Tell that to UK/Duke/KU/UNC....you must be blind AND deaf....we used to be mentioned in the same neighborhood with those programs...

We used to be an NBA pipeline. Then your people blew it up...ON PURPOSE!!

Good coaches don't grow on trees--that's why when you have a proven winner you move heaven and earth to KEEP him because of the value to the program.

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

(10-15-2018 06:45 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 06:37 PM)doss2 Wrote:  75-73

62-61 AAC Regular Season Champs @WSU

Gee--king of the trash pile...that'll pull the recruits in...

NOT.

(10-15-2018 07:30 PM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-14-2018 02:39 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-14-2018 10:19 AM)rtaylor Wrote:  

(10-13-2018 11:55 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  Dude, he's recruiting 18 year olds. They aren't deciding against us because of a press conference Mick had a few years ago or because of what he said about the Xavier game. They're going to base their decision on our recent success, what we've done for players and the campus/university itself. The players he's trying to persuade aren't 35 year old UC fans with beer guts who watch sports center religiously. They're high school kids... As far as Xavier goes, it is just a game. Sorry you give it some metaphysical power/significance over things, but I don't.

Dude, can you read? Not what I posted about recruiting. You are very good at twisting an argument though with your blathering nonsense.

Given that you're back and forth during the course of that paragraph, it's hard to tell if you're talking style and system exclusively or not. I mean,

Quote:. He does not get elite recruits because they don't want to play in his system or style. You don't think other coaches recruit against him because of that? Please. Mick does himself no favors with his failure to win in March and his childish attitude.

kind of makes it sound like you think his approach and his attitude about the program are somehow causing recruiting deficiencies in addition to the "system". I don't think recruits are persuaded by attitude unless you're going full on Mike Rice on your players.

But I'll bite, I don't think it has anything to do with the system either. If you're good, you get a **** ton of minutes and opportunities. The end of last season Cumberland and Evans had all the opportunity in the world to shine. Everybody isn't looking to play in the prettiest offensive system in the world, if they were, Kentucky would have worse recruits than us.

Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

I think it's more the style of play. It has gotten better the last couple years. but when you hear commentators constantly talking about rock fights, instead of basketball games, it has an effect. Kids want to run up and down and score, not participate in a rugby scrum.

I know that every year is going to be "the year" that we finally start running. But this year is really setup to be that year. Our bigs are faster and more athletic then last year and we've got two senior PG's, plus Cumberland who can run point. Cronin was asked in an interview (on gobearcats.com I think) earlier this month and said that we will be using a lot more motion, screens and pick-and-rolls, because our bigs aren't skilled scorers so we can't just post them up. Cumberland said that we will be extremely fast this year.

The players we have force a change. If we try to pound it inside this year, we will lose. We need to use our speed and athleticism to create mismatches and run teams down. Our bigs should mostly be scoring offensive rebounds or open layups.

(10-15-2018 06:45 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 06:37 PM)doss2 Wrote:  75-73

62-61 AAC Regular Season Champs @WSU

Still the best UC sports moment since 2009 Pitt football. Maybe you could argue for the 2012 Big East and NCAA tournament runs.

(10-15-2018 07:53 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 06:45 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 06:37 PM)doss2 Wrote:  75-73

62-61 AAC Regular Season Champs @WSU

Gee--king of the trash pile...that'll pull the recruits in...

NOT.

So you're calling a conference championship a trash pile? You were probably the same person complaining when we didn't win a conference championship. Wallow in your mud because you're damn good at it.

(10-15-2018 07:50 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:20 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

Blue chips play in the NBA, blue chips don't give a flying **** about March. If they did, Ben Simmons wouldn't have gone to LSU. Johnny Jones, Will -whatever his name is and Trent Johnson before them have done butt **** nothing in March and they still have better recruiting classes than us the past few years. You know why? Because kids would rather go to LSU than UC. We aren't an NBA pipeline and we aren't a party school. Resign yourself to that fact sir...

Tell that to UK/Duke/KU/UNC....you must be blind AND deaf....we used to be mentioned in the same neighborhood with those programs...

We used to be an NBA pipeline. Then your people blew it up...ON PURPOSE!!

Good coaches don't grow on trees--that's why when you have a proven winner you move heaven and earth to KEEP him because of the value to the program.

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

We've never been in the same neighborhood as those blue bloods since the 1960's. What about the mistakes made from drinking and recruiting thugs? What about all those second round flame outs? Who's fault is that? The program is BIGGER THAN ANY ONE PERSON. Get a friggin' clue.

I'm more surprised that a guy named Romell Shorter isn't, instead, saying "Thank you Tony Yates", for giving him a scholarship.

(10-15-2018 07:50 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:20 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

Blue chips play in the NBA, blue chips don't give a flying **** about March. If they did, Ben Simmons wouldn't have gone to LSU. Johnny Jones, Will -whatever his name is and Trent Johnson before them have done butt **** nothing in March and they still have better recruiting classes than us the past few years. You know why? Because kids would rather go to LSU than UC. We aren't an NBA pipeline and we aren't a party school. Resign yourself to that fact sir...

Tell that to UK/Duke/KU/UNC....you must be blind AND deaf....we used to be mentioned in the same neighborhood with those programs...

We used to be an NBA pipeline. Then your people blew it up...ON PURPOSE!!

Good coaches don't grow on trees--that's why when you have a proven winner you move heaven and earth to KEEP him because of the value to the program.

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

Uh... 1. Did it occur to you that this isn't 1996? The last half of the Huggins years were bleh. Thunder lizards used to walk across the fern covered marshes where the Bengals currently play. That doesn't imply anything about our present situation.
2. Those schools you mentioned worship the sport, have a completely different culture and campus life than we do.
3. Hiring any coach isn't going to turn us into Duke or UNC. You can't just choose to be that. At that point you might as well be saying "If we click our heels together and really believe... " Dude, how many high school basketball stars do you think have Clifton in their top 10?

It doesn't matter to an 18 year old that Nick Van Exel or Kenyon Martin went here. You might as well be talking to them about president Coolidge or the new fangled horseless buggies going down the road. It's irrelevant. The fact is there can only be so many blue bloods and the ones that became that way took more than the right coach to do it.

As for my previous post, you said blue chips care about March, they obviously don't if there headed to lesser SEC schools. Look at the top 25 recruiting classes the last 5 years and you'll see they get 5 stars. At some point saying "but Huggins... " is a lot like Loyola/Chicago bragging on pre WW2 NCAA success. No one cares.

(10-15-2018 09:49 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:50 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:20 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

Blue chips play in the NBA, blue chips don't give a flying **** about March. If they did, Ben Simmons wouldn't have gone to LSU. Johnny Jones, Will -whatever his name is and Trent Johnson before them have done butt **** nothing in March and they still have better recruiting classes than us the past few years. You know why? Because kids would rather go to LSU than UC. We aren't an NBA pipeline and we aren't a party school. Resign yourself to that fact sir...

Tell that to UK/Duke/KU/UNC....you must be blind AND deaf....we used to be mentioned in the same neighborhood with those programs...

We used to be an NBA pipeline. Then your people blew it up...ON PURPOSE!!

Good coaches don't grow on trees--that's why when you have a proven winner you move heaven and earth to KEEP him because of the value to the program.

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

Uh... 1. Did it occur to you that this isn't 1996? The last half of the Huggins years were bleh. Thunder lizards used to walk across the fern covered marshes where the Bengals currently play. That doesn't imply anything about our present situation.
2. Those schools you mentioned worship the sport, have a completely different culture and campus life than we do.
3. Hiring any coach isn't going to turn us into Duke or UNC. You can't just choose to be that. At that point you might as well be saying "If we click our heels together and really believe... " Dude, how many high school basketball stars do you think have Clifton in their top 10?

It doesn't matter to an 18 year old that Nick Van Exel or Kenyon Martin went here. You might as well be talking to them about president Coolidge or the new fangled horseless buggies going down the road. It's irrelevant. The fact is there can only be so many blue bloods and the ones that became that way took more than the right coach to do it.

As for my previous post, you said blue chips care about March, they obviously don't if there headed to lesser SEC schools. Look at the top 25 recruiting classes the last 5 years and you'll see they get 5 stars. At some point saying "but Huggins... " is a lot like Loyola/Chicago bragging on pre WW2 NCAA success. No one cares.

Got to love your mindset...we can't do it so we should be happy continuing to suck.

Excellent way to promote progress.

With an attitude like that, you may as well shut down the program.

Of course that might be what you're after to begin with since you ceaselessly defend mediocrity and claim it's our ceiling.

Since you are so happy with the state of things as they are, why don't you argue for a reduction in resources dedicated to the program--cut the cost of the program by slashing the payout to the coaches and reduce the number of scholarships. In fact, why not argue to go full-on IVY and eliminate those athletic scholarships altogether--then you'd have all the snoot appeal you seem to crave at a fraction of the cost.

People with your attitude are worthless.

(10-15-2018 08:36 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:50 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:20 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

Blue chips play in the NBA, blue chips don't give a flying **** about March. If they did, Ben Simmons wouldn't have gone to LSU. Johnny Jones, Will -whatever his name is and Trent Johnson before them have done butt **** nothing in March and they still have better recruiting classes than us the past few years. You know why? Because kids would rather go to LSU than UC. We aren't an NBA pipeline and we aren't a party school. Resign yourself to that fact sir...

Tell that to UK/Duke/KU/UNC....you must be blind AND deaf....we used to be mentioned in the same neighborhood with those programs...

We used to be an NBA pipeline. Then your people blew it up...ON PURPOSE!!

Good coaches don't grow on trees--that's why when you have a proven winner you move heaven and earth to KEEP him because of the value to the program.

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

We've never been in the same neighborhood as those blue bloods since the 1960's. What about the mistakes made from drinking and recruiting thugs? What about all those second round flame outs? Who's fault is that? The program is BIGGER THAN ANY ONE PERSON. Get a friggin' clue.

It's bigger than Cronin--that's for sure.

I don't know if you've checked recently, but the program is shrinking, not growing as a national powerhouse.

If you want to play the "what about" game, I can turn the tables on you:

1. What about Huggin's subsequent success and his ability to control those problems since UC?

2. What about the lottery picks WVU has sent to the NBA?

3. What about his ability to beat higher-seeded teams in the tourney since then?

4. What about his ability to keep WVU in the top 10-15 range throughout this period?

WVU isn't a "party school" or even a desirable locale...they just have a solid coach and a sustained ability to penetrate in the post-season because they consistently are tested against top-flite competition.

I know you love Nancy, but she's long gone and she's not coming back. I'm certain she wouldn't mind if we moved on from her coach.

(10-16-2018 01:34 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 09:49 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:50 PM)Not Duane Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 07:20 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(10-15-2018 08:39 AM)Not Duane Wrote:  Recruits are persuaded by cred. Cred comes from March penetration. Mick has no cred. Mick does not get the blue chips. Program suffers.

Blue chips play in the NBA, blue chips don't give a flying **** about March. If they did, Ben Simmons wouldn't have gone to LSU. Johnny Jones, Will -whatever his name is and Trent Johnson before them have done butt **** nothing in March and they still have better recruiting classes than us the past few years. You know why? Because kids would rather go to LSU than UC. We aren't an NBA pipeline and we aren't a party school. Resign yourself to that fact sir...

Tell that to UK/Duke/KU/UNC....you must be blind AND deaf....we used to be mentioned in the same neighborhood with those programs...

We used to be an NBA pipeline. Then your people blew it up...ON PURPOSE!!

Good coaches don't grow on trees--that's why when you have a proven winner you move heaven and earth to KEEP him because of the value to the program.

Don't blame me for your mistakes.

Uh... 1. Did it occur to you that this isn't 1996? The last half of the Huggins years were bleh. Thunder lizards used to walk across the fern covered marshes where the Bengals currently play. That doesn't imply anything about our present situation.
2. Those schools you mentioned worship the sport, have a completely different culture and campus life than we do.
3. Hiring any coach isn't going to turn us into Duke or UNC. You can't just choose to be that. At that point you might as well be saying "If we click our heels together and really believe... " Dude, how many high school basketball stars do you think have Clifton in their top 10?

It doesn't matter to an 18 year old that Nick Van Exel or Kenyon Martin went here. You might as well be talking to them about president Coolidge or the new fangled horseless buggies going down the road. It's irrelevant. The fact is there can only be so many blue bloods and the ones that became that way took more than the right coach to do it.

As for my previous post, you said blue chips care about March, they obviously don't if there headed to lesser SEC schools. Look at the top 25 recruiting classes the last 5 years and you'll see they get 5 stars. At some point saying "but Huggins... " is a lot like Loyola/Chicago bragging on pre WW2 NCAA success. No one cares.

Got to love your mindset...we can't do it so we should be happy continuing to suck.

Excellent way to promote progress.

With an attitude like that, you may as well shut down the program.

Of course that might be what you're after to begin with since you ceaselessly defend mediocrity and claim it's our ceiling.

Since you are so happy with the state of things as they are, why don't you argue for a reduction in resources dedicated to the program--cut the cost of the program by slashing the payout to the coaches and reduce the number of scholarships. In fact, why not argue to go full-on IVY and eliminate those athletic scholarships altogether--then you'd have all the snoot appeal you seem to crave at a fraction of the cost.

People with your attitude are worthless.

Man, you just be a real joy to take in a basketball game with. I'm not sure who is more insane... You or real Duane. Only insane people deal in absolutes, and you believe if we aren't spending Duke or UNC money that we should shut the whole program down.

(10-15-2018 08:41 PM)Ring of Black Wrote:  I'm more surprised that a guy named Romell Shorter isn't, instead, saying "Thank you Tony Yates", for giving him a scholarship.

Yates: great Bearcat player. Terrible coach. He gave Roger McClendon way too much of MY playing time. I would have been an All-America if not for Yates.

Most UC fans, recognize the historic greatness of UC basketball, but don't expect results commensurate with today's handful of blue bloods--Duke, UNC or UK. I think that's the wrong argument.

I would also suggest most UC fans aren't looking to run Mick out of town on a rail. The concern for many has been, and remains, focused solely on NCAA Tournament performance. That small, private school with little historic tradition in Norwood is certainly no blue blood. Yet they've consistently outperformed UC in the NCAA tournament since 2004 with "coach du jour". Three Elite Eights and four Sweet Sixteens during that period by my count.

Has UC's tournament performance during this same period simply been "bad" luck?...a recruiting issue?...coaching strategy and tactics? Those dissatisfied with NCAA results need not compare our program to ones in Durham, Chapel Hill or Lexington. Look no farther than Victory Parkway to ponder why their folks have had more to crow about (most) of the past 14 years.

(10-16-2018 07:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Most UC fans, recognize the historic greatness of UC basketball, but don't expect results commensurate with today's handful of blue bloods--Duke, UNC or UK. I think that's the wrong argument.

I would also suggest most UC fans aren't looking to run Mick out of town on a rail. The concern for many has been, and remains, focused solely on NCAA Tournament performance. That small, private school with little historic tradition in Norwood is certainly no blue blood. Yet they've consistently outperformed UC in the NCAA tournament since 2004 with "coach du jour". Three Elite Eights and four Sweet Sixteens during that period by my count.

Has UC's tournament performance during this same period simply been "bad" luck?...a recruiting issue?...coaching strategy and tactics? Those dissatisfied with NCAA results need not compare our program to ones in Durham, Chapel Hill or Lexington. Look no farther than Victory Parkway to ponder why their folks have had more to crow about (most) of the past 14 years.

That pretty much sums up how I feel... should we fire Mick? No, of course not. He hasn't done anything that has warranted getting fired. However, I also don't think he has earned another raise or contract extension until he starts beating Xavier and produces more NCAAT success.

I'm still bitter that we didn't call his bluff during the UNLV debacle. Either Mick would have given up and continued coaching here without a raise (saving UC millions over the life of the contract), or he would have left for UNLV. It would have been a great opportunity for both our program and Mick to move forward and try new things, IMO.

The virtually guaranteed annual Xavier and first weekend losses have convinced me that something needs to change. I would prefer Mick to take that next step as a coach by learning to run a high level offense (or hire someone that can) and stay here at UC, but he seems too stubborn to change. It's a shame, because I think he could be a HOF coach.

(10-16-2018 09:29 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 07:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Most UC fans, recognize the historic greatness of UC basketball, but don't expect results commensurate with today's handful of blue bloods--Duke, UNC or UK. I think that's the wrong argument.

I would also suggest most UC fans aren't looking to run Mick out of town on a rail. The concern for many has been, and remains, focused solely on NCAA Tournament performance. That small, private school with little historic tradition in Norwood is certainly no blue blood. Yet they've consistently outperformed UC in the NCAA tournament since 2004 with "coach du jour". Three Elite Eights and four Sweet Sixteens during that period by my count.

Has UC's tournament performance during this same period simply been "bad" luck?...a recruiting issue?...coaching strategy and tactics? Those dissatisfied with NCAA results need not compare our program to ones in Durham, Chapel Hill or Lexington. Look no farther than Victory Parkway to ponder why their folks have had more to crow about (most) of the past 14 years.

That pretty much sums up how I feel... should we fire Mick? No, of course not. He hasn't done anything that has warranted getting fired. However, I also don't think he has earned another raise or contract extension until he starts beating Xavier and produces more NCAAT success.

I'm still bitter that we didn't call his bluff during the UNLV debacle. Either Mick would have given up and continued coaching here without a raise (saving UC millions over the life of the contract), or he would have left for UNLV. It would have been a great opportunity for both our program and Mick to move forward and try new things, IMO.

The virtually guaranteed annual Xavier and first weekend losses have convinced me that something needs to change. I would prefer Mick to take that next step as a coach by learning to run a high level offense (or hire someone that can) and stay here at UC, but he seems too stubborn to change. It's a shame, because I think he could be a HOF coach.

I don't disagree with most of what you are saying. However IIRC, we didn't give him a raise. He was given a contract extension on his current deal which had not even yet expired. This was actually done unilaterally by Dr. Ono (for both Mick and Tubs) on his way out the door to Canada.

(10-16-2018 09:29 AM)TubaCat Wrote:  

(10-16-2018 07:46 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Most UC fans, recognize the historic greatness of UC basketball, but don't expect results commensurate with today's handful of blue bloods--Duke, UNC or UK. I think that's the wrong argument.

I would also suggest most UC fans aren't looking to run Mick out of town on a rail. The concern for many has been, and remains, focused solely on NCAA Tournament performance. That small, private school with little historic tradition in Norwood is certainly no blue blood. Yet they've consistently outperformed UC in the NCAA tournament since 2004 with "coach du jour". Three Elite Eights and four Sweet Sixteens during that period by my count.

Has UC's tournament performance during this same period simply been "bad" luck?...a recruiting issue?...coaching strategy and tactics? Those dissatisfied with NCAA results need not compare our program to ones in Durham, Chapel Hill or Lexington. Look no farther than Victory Parkway to ponder why their folks have had more to crow about (most) of the past 14 years.

That pretty much sums up how I feel... should we fire Mick? No, of course not. He hasn't done anything that has warranted getting fired. However, I also don't think he has earned another raise or contract extension until he starts beating Xavier and produces more NCAAT success.

I'm still bitter that we didn't call his bluff during the UNLV debacle. Either Mick would have given up and continued coaching here without a raise (saving UC millions over the life of the contract), or he would have left for UNLV. It would have been a great opportunity for both our program and Mick to move forward and try new things, IMO.

The virtually guaranteed annual Xavier and first weekend losses have convinced me that something needs to change. I would prefer Mick to take that next step as a coach by learning to run a high level offense (or hire someone that can) and stay here at UC, but he seems too stubborn to change. It's a shame, because I think he could be a HOF coach.

All that needs to be said.

He's checking every box except two of the three most important.

It’s really only an annual loss at Cintas. I expect UC to beat Xavier this year.

Post season play has been 20 years of bad luck. It started in 1997 and seemingly has never gone away other than a few bright spots. I don’t get it. From injuries, to buzzer beaters, to missed calls, to impossible bracket, injections, playing out west, to a dunk that was just too late, to blown leads. i think we have seen almost everything....

We should always expect to be the BEST we can possibly be under our circumstances. I think it is unfair and not an apple to an apple to compare us to Xavier. Do they have big time athletic facilities to pay debt service on like UC does? Do they have a football program to spend and focus on? And by the way, football drives the bus for national athletics appeal and P5 invites. Mick should be held accountable as any coach but it has to be more than just the NCAA tournament results. I still can't believe many on here have just blown by the regular season we just had and the conference tournament as if it never happened. The focus for some is solely on the loss to Nevada. What about our player development - watching boys who are not highly recruited transform before our eyes to grown men with game as Seniors? What about our academics and player graduation rates? Does that not count? How about no more Thugs-R-Us labels? What about the fact that UC will make the NCAA tourney every year with a chance, yes a chance, to finally make a deep run? Is that not better than making the tourney once every 3-4 years? I am not a Mick apologist. I'm simply saying learn to appreciate what we have and the circumstances that we're in before throwing Mick to the wolves because of the Nevada game. We will not be held hostage to Mick Cronin that's for sure. We are a solid, historic program that I don't doubt for one minute that UC could attract an interested, high caliber, quality coach to take the helm. But, IMO we're not there yet. Let's see how Mick responds this season with one heckuva OOC schedule and a legit shot to repeat as regular season conference champions. When we're seeded for the NCAA tourney, then cross that bridge with the angst.