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

I wasn't able to watch the game today but I tried to keep tabs on the score from work. I DVR'd the game but I won't watch it. I get the general idea of what happened. I wasn't going to post this thread so soon after the loss but I can't get this off my mind. It's a hard question. Before getting to the question, and in fairness to Coach Cronin and to former Coach Huggs, I wanted to look back at our program's success in the tournament going back to 1969/70. That seemed like an easy year for math's sake - the past 50 seasons. I didn't want to go back to the Ed Jucker years and the two national championships as that could skew the numbers from an era that occurred before most of us were born. Over that span, here are some of our program's tournament numbers:

26 appearances (23 since 1991/92)
54 games
28-26 (.518)
0 National Championships
0 Finals
1 Final Four
3 Elite Eights
6 Sweet Sixteens (1 from 1975 when the field was only 32 teams)
18 Second Rounds
8 First Round One-And-Done's
Last FF Appearance: 1992
Last Elite Eight Appearance: 1996
Last Sweet Sixteen Appearance: 2012

When you look at these numbers across that time span the first thing that stands out is our lack of overall deep runs in the tournament. For example, we've only made 6 Sweet Sixteens, SIX, in 50 seasons! Looking a little deeper and you realize that if it wasn't for Bob and Mick our program would be wandering in the desert of no tournament appearances since UC last made the dance in 1977. For that, we are forever grateful. Back to the numbers, I've heard many times that our program is considered a "Top 25 All-Time Program." I realize part of that title is based on how you define it. But for the purposes of this thread, I'll keep it to the NCAA Tournament. In the last 50 seasons, UC's deep tournament success covered a period of about 5 years under Huggs between 92-96. Since then, it has not been very good. My question is, are we really as good a program as many of us seem to think we are? You can't just point to Mick. It goes back much further. What is the problem that keeps us from making deep runs? It's not a simple answer and it forces us to really look at our program inside and out. How can we get it back to those early Huggs years or is that even now possible? In all sincerity, I'm not trying to pounce on a negative spin as most of you know I love my Bearcats and I tend to be one of the more optimistic, supportive posters on the Board. I'll remain as such but I thought this was a legitimate question worth asking. I value many of you loyal Cats fans' opinions. I'll hang up, go for a drive, and come back later.

Huggins years: point guard play.
Mick years: lack of talent across the roster.

Huggins was receiving high seeds but only made runs with good point guards.
Mick isn’t really getting highs seeds which exposes him more difficult first weekend games. The lack of talent after first five or six guys makes them vulnerable against high powered offenses as UC continues to wear down in the second half. Outside of the UK game, I believe UC has led in second half in thier tournament losses but eventually get blitzed in last 10 minutes or so.

He needs to stop calling us an elite program..because if we were an elite program, he would probably be fired next week

(03-22-2019 03:57 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I wasn't able to watch the game today but I tried to keep tabs on the score from work. I DVR'd the game but I won't watch it. I get the general idea of what happened. I wasn't going to post this thread so soon after the loss but I can't get this off my mind. It's a hard question. Before getting to the question, and in fairness to Coach Cronin and to former Coach Huggs, I wanted to look back at our program's success in the tournament going back to 1969/70. That seemed like an easy year for math's sake - the past 50 seasons. I didn't want to go back to the Ed Jucker years and the two national championships as that could skew the numbers from an era that occurred before most of us were born. Over that span, here are some of our program's tournament numbers:

26 appearances (23 since 1991/92)
54 games
28-26 (.518)
0 National Championships
0 Finals
1 Final Four
3 Elite Eights
6 Sweet Sixteens (1 from 1975 when the field was only 32 teams)
18 Second Rounds
8 First Round One-And-Done's
Last FF Appearance: 1992
Last Elite Eight Appearance: 1996
Last Sweet Sixteen Appearance: 2012

When you look at these numbers across that time span the first thing that stands out is our lack of overall deep runs in the tournament. For example, we've only made 6 Sweet Sixteens, SIX, in 50 seasons! Looking a little deeper and you realize that if it wasn't for Bob and Mick our program would be wandering in the desert of no tournament appearances since UC last made the dance in 1977. For that, we are forever grateful. Back to the numbers, I've heard many times that our program is considered a "Top 25 All-Time Program." I realize part of that title is based on how you define it. But for the purposes of this thread, I'll keep it to the NCAA Tournament. In the last 50 seasons, UC's deep tournament success covered a period of about 5 years under Huggs between 92-96. Since then, it has not been very good. My question is, are we really as good a program as many of us seem to think we are? You can't just point to Mick. It goes back much further. What is the problem that keeps us from making deep runs? It's not a simple answer and it forces us to really look at our program inside and out. How can we get it back to those early Huggs years or is that even now possible? In all sincerity, I'm not trying to pounce on a negative spin as most of you know I love my Bearcats and I tend to be one of the more optimistic, supportive posters on the Board. I'll remain as such but I thought this was a legitimate question worth asking. I value many of you loyal Cats fans' opinions. I'll hang up, go for a drive, and come back later.

You have to remember UC struggled from 1978 through the entire 1980s because of sanctions from the NCAA following the Gale Catlett era, combined with an overall money issue the entire university faced during that time (and two poor coaching hires in Ed Badger and Tony Yates). That's 11 years right there, and it took Huggins a couple years to build for NCAA tourney success.

Also, following Ed Jucker UC hired Tay Baker, who was an assistant for both George Smith and Juck. Baker was a UC grad and by all accounts a nice guy, but his record was mediocre considering some of the talent he brought to Clifton. Baker was coach for 7 years.

This program is better than what our tournament record has given us. No one has ever claimed we should be equal to Duke or UK, so not sure why people keep tossing that trope out there. I posted a thread a few weeks ago with our overall accomplishments paired with other programs and we are squarely a top 20 program. There were 10K plus fans that tool over the arena today, woth P5 programs in the same session, the place was overwhelmingly red, that is not small time. Our arena is not small time.

Mick's recruiting (or lack thereof) has been well documented. I understand he does not have all the resources, but there is no excuse for the number of local players to have slipped by because they don't fit his style (I don't even know what that means). Just recruit the best damn players period, by any means possible without cheating of course, and let the rest sort itself out. He way overthinks how he needs to assemble his teams and we end up with Trevor Moore playing major minutes in a close NCAA game.

(03-22-2019 04:20 PM)jarr Wrote:  This program is better than what our tournament record has given us. No one has ever claimed we should be equal to Duke or UK, so not sure why people keep tossing that trope out there. I posted a thread a few weeks ago with our overall accomplishments paired with other programs and we are squarely a top 20 program. There were 10K plus fans that tool over the arena today, woth P5 programs in the same session, the place was overwhelmingly red, that is not small time. Our arena is not small time.

Mick's recruiting (or lack thereof) has been well documented. I understand he does not have all the resources, but there is no excuse for the number of local players to have slipped by because they don't fit his style (I don't even know what that means). Just recruit the best damn players period, by any means possible without cheating of course, and let the rest sort itself out. He way overthinks how he needs to assemble his teams and we end up with Trevor Moore playing major minutes in a close NCAA game.

It always come back to recruiting as players win games. This team was desperate for impact wing in the off season and they get Fredricks, who at best is role player and a worst a guy that wouldn’t play on Mick’s first team.

Need a point guard and wing this off season, probably need to run off someone too if we want to really go for it. Assuming Cumberland comes back, you need to find at least one impact player to along with the current group.

Honest to god, it’s embarrassing

"Cincinnati is way too good of a program to have not gotten out of the first weekend since 2012" Charles Barkley said that during the pregame and it's true!!!!!