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

(01-07-2019 11:31 PM)bearcatmill Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 09:21 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 08:38 PM)chatcat Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 08:13 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 08:01 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  The bolded is nonsense but seems to be your personal mission to trash under armour.

No it’s not. There are numbers out there show that Nike and to a lesser extint Adidas are linked to the top 50 players on the AAU circuit. Most pick a college affiliated with thier AAU affiliation. Under Armour in 2017 had I think six on their AAU teams. The top players pick power 5 plus Big East over everyone else but they also pick Nike then Adidas over Under Armour.

I believe UCLA is Under Armour and don't they have several McDonald's types on their roster?

Made the switch this year which should help UA’s numbers going forward. It’s a combination of things but the best recruits are going to power conference schools, secondary to that Nike gets preference over Adidas which gets preference over UA. UC unfortunately is not in a power conference nor with the perefered apperal company. It makes recruiting harder but not impossible. In the current cycle playing time is a huge factor. There are not a lot of minutes to go around next year.

Has nothing to do with conf or apparel company. Kids want to play in a dynamic offense. Not some dull grind it out game. Our conference mates have no problem recruiting in the American.

Yeah, but they do have problems winning consistently. WRT Mick's recruiting I think it's pretty simple. He recruits to his system, not rankings. He might make an occasional exception if the opportunity presents itself, but it's rare. It would probably be more fun if he went by rankings for us fans, but I'm not sure it would result in more wins (and/or longer tourney runs if that's your bottom line).

(01-07-2019 08:13 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 08:01 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(01-07-2019 06:24 PM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  Three major issues I see from the outside on the recruiting front. Conference affiliation, shoe company affiliation, and playing time. We fixed the facilities issue but it might take a few years to reap benefits.

Talent level on this is lower than the last two years but right in line with the post 2012 teams. Experience matters and this group is in year one of a two year process unless Jarron leaves early. Basically solidifying the pg spot next year is huge.

The bolded is nonsense but seems to be your personal mission to trash under armour.

No it’s not. There are numbers out there show that Nike and to a lesser extint Adidas are linked to the top 50 players on the AAU circuit. Most pick a college affiliated with thier AAU affiliation. Under Armour in 2017 had I think six on their AAU teams. The top players pick power 5 plus Big East over everyone else but they also pick Nike then Adidas over Under Armour.

Gotta agree with Law here, mark. I think if you asked Chad Brendel (aka Gametime) he would tell you as much.

Alot.of people blaming superficial reasons (conference, shoes, etc.) But missing the big picture. As someone stated earlier, even if Mick was at some random mid level B10 or ACC school with Nike. I still don't think his recruiting is that much better.

There are a number of issues on this topic, but I think for one Mick casta way too short of a net too way top select few players tonplay in a very specific atyle.of play. Where as other, really good coaches will cast out larger nets, and bring in kids and conform their system around the players they have, or at least tweak it. Mick seems very stuck in not making tweaks to allow certain players tonutilize their strengths and hide their weaknesses.

The bottom line is Mick's system isn't that appealing to most kids, and Mick isn't interested in most kids anyways. So of the 10% he shows interest in, he is luck to get 10% to short interest back. Th his really narrows the pool.

...and one more point. I thimk Mick is way too loyal simply to someone because they have more years in the system. My understanding is that Torrence wanted to be here next year and reclassify but Mick was having none of it. He wanted him to stay 2020. Which makes no sense to me, because I do not see a ton of depth right now at the guard positions.and LJ has not proven himself to be aurefire lock as pur primary ball handler next year. I think Torrence would have been perfect for next year, but Mick sees differently.

IMO Mick recruits athletes and tries to make them basketball players too often.

UC has three guys on the backend of NBA rosters from the last two teams. If Evans doesn’t leave early UC is probably sitting at one loss right now. The curse of recruiting NBA ready players is that they leave early and it makes for a tougher ride year to year.

I think there is a middle ground between Mick's role players and "ready now/ready soon" NBA players. There are many impact players on the college scene--some even become All-Americans, but just aren't NBA material. Many of those players possess shooting ability and offensive skills superior to what we see regularly on the home court.

Was Evans' early departure a complete surprise to Mick? I'd find that hard to believe. Yet there was no one in the incoming class who could really make an immediate contribution on the offensive side or even give the quality minutes he delivered as a freshman off the bench.

I don't fault Mick's overall recruiting strategy. I do believe it requires at least one blue chip player each recruiting cycle to maintain the current level of success. Halfway through this season, there isn't a freshman contributing meaningful minutes the way Evans, Clark or Caupain did when they entered the program.

(01-08-2019 07:52 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  I think there is a middle ground between Mick's role players and "ready now/ready soon" NBA players. There are many impact players on the college scene--some even become All-Americans, but just aren't NBA material. Many of those players possess shooting ability and offensive skills superior to what we see regularly on the home court.

Was Evans' early departure a complete surprise to Mick? I'd find that hard to believe. Yet there was no one in the incoming class who could really make an immediate contribution on the offensive side or even give the quality minutes he delivered as a freshman off the bench.

I don't fault Mick's overall recruiting strategy. I do believe it requires at least one blue chip player each recruiting cycle to maintain the current level of success. Halfway through this season, there isn't a freshman contributing meaningful minutes the way Evans, Clark or Caupain did when they entered the program.

My issue is that is Broome and Fredricks are not ready to take over and be nightly impact guys. This team needed a grad transfer at the two, three, or four to take the pressure off of Jarron to do everything. Over the summer I thought Fredricks was that guy but he isn’t ready. Broome has been a disappointment. Williams, Scott, and Brooks are all improving at a solid rate and should be more consistent next year.

Depending on how much better you think the Big East is than the AAC, but X landed Top 10 recruiting classes in 2013 and 2016. If it is a better conference, is it THAT much better?

(01-08-2019 07:59 AM)bearcatlawjd2 Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 07:52 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  I think there is a middle ground between Mick's role players and "ready now/ready soon" NBA players. There are many impact players on the college scene--some even become All-Americans, but just aren't NBA material. Many of those players possess shooting ability and offensive skills superior to what we see regularly on the home court.

Was Evans' early departure a complete surprise to Mick? I'd find that hard to believe. Yet there was no one in the incoming class who could really make an immediate contribution on the offensive side or even give the quality minutes he delivered as a freshman off the bench.

I don't fault Mick's overall recruiting strategy. I do believe it requires at least one blue chip player each recruiting cycle to maintain the current level of success. Halfway through this season, there isn't a freshman contributing meaningful minutes the way Evans, Clark or Caupain did when they entered the program.

My issue is that is Broome and Fredricks are not ready to take over and be nightly impact guys. This team needed a grad transfer at the two, three, or four to take the pressure off of Jarron to do everything. Over the summer I thought Fredricks was that guy but he isn’t ready. Broome has been a disappointment. Williams, Scott, and Brooks are all improving at a solid rate and should be more consistent next year.

Good post. I think to someone's point above, Broome was supposed to help replace Evans but he has no range and plays suspect defense. If he shoots 30% from 3 we are a different team.

Hardaway's recruiting pipeline is going to quickly dry up when he runs out of kids that he knew/coached/housed prior to his becoming a college coach.

Huggins got some guys, but he wasn't saddled with the P5/G5 stigma that we are under now. It was a lot more level playing field then.

Mick targets guys that are going to work in his system. Every coach misses on guys. He just needs to get out there and find the next Gary Clark.

(01-08-2019 01:31 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Yeah, but they do have problems winning consistently. WRT Mick's recruiting I think it's pretty simple. He recruits to his system, not rankings. He might make an occasional exception if the opportunity presents itself, but it's rare. It would probably be more fun if he went by rankings for us fans, but I'm not sure it would result in more wins (and/or longer tourney runs if that's your bottom line).

I think the rankings thing is a canard. You don't have to recruit a guy just because he's highly ranked. But you should be recruiting guys who are so good that evaluators rank them. It doesn't take some special scouting insight to figure out if a kid is one of the best 50 or so guys in his class.

(01-08-2019 02:46 AM)jarr Wrote:  ...and one more point. I thimk Mick is way too loyal simply to someone because they have more years in the system. My understanding is that Torrence wanted to be here next year and reclassify but Mick was having none of it. He wanted him to stay 2020. Which makes no sense to me, because I do not see a ton of depth right now at the guard positions.and LJ has not proven himself to be aurefire lock as pur primary ball handler next year. I think Torrence would have been perfect for next year, but Mick sees differently.

If this is true, that's pretty infuriating to me. I don't know how you pass on a guy like that when you haven't landed a top 100 guy in 3 years. Recruiting rankings aren't everything, but don't tell me you can't find minutes for a top 50 guy when we are losing our two point guards and have Trevor Moore (can't find his shot) and Logan Johnson (unproven) coming off the bench.

(01-08-2019 09:22 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  Hardaway's recruiting pipeline is going to quickly dry up when he runs out of kids that he knew/coached/housed prior to his becoming a college coach.

Huggins got some guys, but he wasn't saddled with the P5/G5 stigma that we are under now. It was a lot more level playing field then.

Mick targets guys that are going to work in his system. Every coach misses on guys. He just needs to get out there and find the next Gary Clark.

I doubt that. Just because he's no longer coaching AAU doesn't mean he's not connected. Guys that he has coming in next year will attract kids in the younger classes that they know, and the chain continues. The only way I see him not continuing to recruit at a high level is if he doesn't win games once his blue chip guys are in the rotation. If he's not in the tournament by year 3, it will fall apart.

(01-08-2019 10:32 AM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 09:22 AM)Def Berkkat Wrote:  Hardaway's recruiting pipeline is going to quickly dry up when he runs out of kids that he knew/coached/housed prior to his becoming a college coach.

Huggins got some guys, but he wasn't saddled with the P5/G5 stigma that we are under now. It was a lot more level playing field then.

Mick targets guys that are going to work in his system. Every coach misses on guys. He just needs to get out there and find the next Gary Clark.

I doubt that. Just because he's no longer coaching AAU doesn't mean he's not connected. Guys that he has coming in next year will attract kids in the younger classes that they know, and the chain continues. The only way I see him not continuing to recruit at a high level is if he doesn't win games once his blue chip guys are in the rotation. If he's not in the tournament by year 3, it will fall apart.

I don't buy that.

Did Gary Clark and Jacob Evans just not know anyone younger than them that was any good at basketball?

People on here undervalue Mick's recruiting around here. It'd be nice to get UC to a level where they were getting blue chip recruits, but he has done a great job finding not just solid role players, but real difference makers. UC is a top 25 program and a big part of it has been his ability to identify talent. Guys like SK, Gary Clark, Jacob Evans and Jarron Cumberland are real difference makers. The big hole in his recruiting is getting the blue chip, obviously ready stud...if he got one of those every couple of years UC would be a top 10 program.

(01-08-2019 10:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  People on here undervalue Mick's recruiting around here. It'd be nice to get UC to a level where they were getting blue chip recruits, but he has done a great job finding not just solid role players, but real difference makers. UC is a top 25 program and a big part of it has been his ability to identify talent. Guys like SK, Gary Clark, Jacob Evans and Jarron Cumberland are real difference makers. The big hole in his recruiting is getting the blue chip, obviously ready stud...if he got one of those every couple of years UC would be a top 10 program.

Is it quite possible that Cronin got lucky with these players. If Cuse comes calling does SK come here, if Duke or NC come calling does Clark come here, if LSU comes calling where does Evans go...Cumberland maybe comes here anyway but did OSU recruit him. Washington comes here why, nowhere else to go ?

There are plenty of average coaches/recruiters who have landed a handful of guys who went on to have a cup of coffee in the NBA.

Let's be frank, the recruiting expectations when Cronin was hired compared to what he has actually delivered, has been underwhelming. Granted, the expectations may have been a little high, but what he has actually delivered has also been a little low.

(01-08-2019 10:55 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 10:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  People on here undervalue Mick's recruiting around here. It'd be nice to get UC to a level where they were getting blue chip recruits, but he has done a great job finding not just solid role players, but real difference makers. UC is a top 25 program and a big part of it has been his ability to identify talent. Guys like SK, Gary Clark, Jacob Evans and Jarron Cumberland are real difference makers. The big hole in his recruiting is getting the blue chip, obviously ready stud...if he got one of those every couple of years UC would be a top 10 program.

Is it quite possible that Cronin got lucky with these players. If Cuse comes calling does SK come here, if Duke or NC come calling does Clark come here, if LSU comes calling where does Evans go...Cumberland maybe comes here anyway but did OSU recruit him. Washington comes here why, nowhere else to go ?

As I recall we got Washington because he had a relationship with Gary Clark (they went to some NC State camps together).

Gary was one of those guys nobody got onto until late. I don't think he was on the "right" AAU team and his high school was in a smaller conference.

(01-08-2019 10:55 AM)CincyBro Wrote:  

(01-08-2019 10:45 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  People on here undervalue Mick's recruiting around here. It'd be nice to get UC to a level where they were getting blue chip recruits, but he has done a great job finding not just solid role players, but real difference makers. UC is a top 25 program and a big part of it has been his ability to identify talent. Guys like SK, Gary Clark, Jacob Evans and Jarron Cumberland are real difference makers. The big hole in his recruiting is getting the blue chip, obviously ready stud...if he got one of those every couple of years UC would be a top 10 program.

Is it quite possible that Cronin got lucky with these players. If Cuse comes calling does SK come here, if Duke or NC come calling does Clark come here, if LSU comes calling where does Evans go...Cumberland maybe comes here anyway but did OSU recruit him. Washington comes here why, nowhere else to go ?

That's not luck. That's identifying talent that others did not identify. That's a skill and a huge part of recruiting when you're not Duke, UNC or Kentucky.