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

(09-26-2019 10:27 AM)RuckleSt Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 10:01 AM)levydl Wrote:  I'm excited to see Brannen coach the team. With Cumberland, Williams, and Scott back, plus Jaevin Cumberland and the rest of the guys Brannen pulled, there is the opportunity for a very nice first year.

The theory that Brannen will lose some ummm unimportant games but win more "important" ones is silly. That is not a thing that a coach can reliably do. It is not an ability that some coaches have and others lack. The best coaches win both regular season games in January and NCAA tournament games. Those are not two different skill sets.

I disagree, great defensive teams don't have hot and cold games. They are consistent, and therefore less likely to have upset losses when facing inferior competition. Whereas, a great offensive team with just average defense can and will have cold shooting nights and get beat.

Interesting discussion. I’ve sorta missed this a bit.

I think Mick’s “schtick” (for lack of a better term) was that he knew you could win regardless of the recruiting rankings if you:

A. Locked down on D which traveled every night home or away and shortened the game;
B. Take care of business at home; and
B. Beat about every team on the road you were supposed to beat.

During this string of consecutive NCAA appearances that is exactly what UC did almost without fail.

My personal admission of a sized 7 3-4 tin foil hat is that nearly every year the selection committee looked to kick UC’s tires to test to see whether they could actually beat offensive perimeter focused teams that were not the type they regularly faced in conference play...go down the list...Iowa, Nevada, UCLA, St. Joe’s, UK, Harvard, Creighton, etc...by and large not exactly rough and tumble teams that board and bang down low.

My expectation is that is the type of play we are heading towards under Brannen once Cumberland graduates. We could be in store for some deeper runs in March but I also wonder if we will need to get our heads around not making the Big Dance every year.

I’m looking forward to the season because I honestly don’t know what to expect yet.

(09-26-2019 04:35 AM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-25-2019 07:57 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Why do you think that, JD? Could be 100% correct but I have not seen anything yet to make me have a strong belief beyond a mere hope. I heard talk of UC football being a wide open offense when CLF was hired.... lol...I watched NKU in person 3 times last year and didn’t come away thinking that staff was innovating the game on either end. Perhaps those systems will click with a higher level of athlete.

I don’t pay much attention to what the coaches or media say in the preseason until the ball goes up in the air. We will see what things look like come late December or so. People would be wise to temper 1st year expectations IMO.

UC has struggled in the NCAA’s for a multitude of reasons going back about 20 years but what have we averaged the past 5 years... 28 wins a season? 27? Do people feel strongly that this roster will win 27 or 28 games this year? Hope so. Hoping we don’t go from complaining about winning a lot of 55-50 games to cheering both teams scoring in the 80’s and losing more of them. Gotta win a bunch of those regular season games in this conference or you possibly get to host a tournament game instead. Teams like Seton Hall and Providence unsuccessfully tried the wide open offense M2M defensive philosophy in the old BE days. It rarely traveled well and didn’t work when the other team had a better roster or could lock down on D and on the glass. D travels in the AAC which is why coaches and fans have hated UC forever. Houston is using the old UC blueprint for a reason. Time will tell.

I think a lot of fans would prefer to win 24-25 games a year and have success in the tournament than to win 28 games a year and continue getting bounced in the first round. We will see if that happens, but with a new staff, new system, and new players I definitely see where the optimism is coming from.

That's probably true, but I also think it's completely meaningless from a practical standpoint. I mean how do you recruit/build/coach a team to win 24-25 games a year and have success in the tourney v. one that wins 28 and gets bounced in the first round? You don't imo. All coaches are trying to recruit/build/coach a team that wins as many games as possible whether it's in the regular season or in the tourney. I guess you could argue that there's a "handles pressure" skill to coaching, but the reality is if you've won 28 games during the season rather than 24-25, you've probably handled a lot of pressure games very well.

I think the difference between the 2 scenarios you describe, in nearly all cases, is a combination of small sample size, luck and matchups rather than some master plan.

If there was any coaching reason for Mick's failures in March, I think it would be related to his teams playing tight because of his personality. But yeah, a lot of it is luck and match-ups.

(09-26-2019 12:22 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If there was any coaching reason for Mick's failures in March, I think it would be related to his teams playing tight because of his personality. But yeah, a lot of it is luck and match-ups.

I'm extremely happy to see that 5/3 is sold out again. Hopefully the 2nd of a good number of years that's true.

As for Mick and his tourney results, or lack thereof, I believe it was simply because Mick didn't seem to change philosophies (from substitution patterns to offensive/defensive schemes) from the regular season to the Tournament and definitely not once the game started. He was certainly a "dance with who brung you" kinda guy.

(09-26-2019 12:22 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If there was any coaching reason for Mick's failures in March, I think it would be related to his teams playing tight because of his personality. But yeah, a lot of it is luck and match-ups.

Bolded, I believe there is something to this, especially when it gets in players' heads that, "we can't win in March, we got a bad seed, draw or location," If players believe that, even on some subconscious level, it can be like that missed 12 inch putt on the final hole that denies a PGA tournament win.

I also think that the energy his teams expended on defense took a physical toll by late February. I think we all saw those Bearcat teams miss shots in March that they were routinely dropping in a month earlier.

But this is all pretty much conjecture. Hope springs eternal--for me, that UC gets past the first weekend more than once in the next nine years.

BCJ Exclusive With John Brannen

The bottom line is it was time for a change. Overall play good enough in the regular season to qualify for the tourney and then crap the bed every year did wear on all of us. To just have a coach that can look eye level to his players is a good start.

(09-26-2019 06:56 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  The bottom line is it was time for a change. Overall play good enough in the regular season to qualify for the tourney and then crap the bed every year did wear on all of us. To just have a coach that can look eye level to his players is a good start.

Not sure height has much to do with wins and losses but if that’s what scratches your itch, run with it. lol

If JB’s team finish the regular season with fewer wins but deeper runs than before, most of the fan base would be fine with that. Most people follow college basketball pretty casually, especially before March. They do not live game to game, or even minute to minute like those of us who post on here.

As for the sellouts, I have a couple thoughts. First, obviously the redone arena plays a huge role in this. Last year everyone thought the team was going to be very good, this year people are excited about the new era. Despite all the hurdles we have had thrown at us over the years (realignment, loss of rivalries, coaching changes, etc) our fan base keeps showing up to football and basketball games- now we are even starting to see interest in some of the Olympic sports as well. Bearcat Nation is strong right now.

(09-26-2019 12:11 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 04:35 AM)C1ncy4Life Wrote:  

(09-25-2019 07:57 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  Why do you think that, JD? Could be 100% correct but I have not seen anything yet to make me have a strong belief beyond a mere hope. I heard talk of UC football being a wide open offense when CLF was hired.... lol...I watched NKU in person 3 times last year and didn’t come away thinking that staff was innovating the game on either end. Perhaps those systems will click with a higher level of athlete.

I don’t pay much attention to what the coaches or media say in the preseason until the ball goes up in the air. We will see what things look like come late December or so. People would be wise to temper 1st year expectations IMO.

UC has struggled in the NCAA’s for a multitude of reasons going back about 20 years but what have we averaged the past 5 years... 28 wins a season? 27? Do people feel strongly that this roster will win 27 or 28 games this year? Hope so. Hoping we don’t go from complaining about winning a lot of 55-50 games to cheering both teams scoring in the 80’s and losing more of them. Gotta win a bunch of those regular season games in this conference or you possibly get to host a tournament game instead. Teams like Seton Hall and Providence unsuccessfully tried the wide open offense M2M defensive philosophy in the old BE days. It rarely traveled well and didn’t work when the other team had a better roster or could lock down on D and on the glass. D travels in the AAC which is why coaches and fans have hated UC forever. Houston is using the old UC blueprint for a reason. Time will tell.

I think a lot of fans would prefer to win 24-25 games a year and have success in the tournament than to win 28 games a year and continue getting bounced in the first round. We will see if that happens, but with a new staff, new system, and new players I definitely see where the optimism is coming from.

That's probably true, but I also think it's completely meaningless from a practical standpoint. I mean how do you recruit/build/coach a team to win 24-25 games a year and have success in the tourney v. one that wins 28 and gets bounced in the first round? You don't imo. All coaches are trying to recruit/build/coach a team that wins as many games as possible whether it's in the regular season or in the tourney. I guess you could argue that there's a "handles pressure" skill to coaching, but the reality is if you've won 28 games during the season rather than 24-25, you've probably handled a lot of pressure games very well.

I think the difference between the 2 scenarios you describe, in nearly all cases, is a combination of small sample size, luck and matchups rather than some master plan.

Well one key to managing to win 28 games a year is to schedule a bunch of OOC cupcakes. I don't see a lot of that on the schedule this year. If we are in the tournament this year with this year's schedule, we will be battle tested for reaching the sweet 16.

(09-26-2019 01:07 PM)OKIcat Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 12:22 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  If there was any coaching reason for Mick's failures in March, I think it would be related to his teams playing tight because of his personality. But yeah, a lot of it is luck and match-ups.

Bolded, I believe there is something to this, especially when it gets in players' heads that, "we can't win in March, we got a bad seed, draw or location," If players believe that, even on some subconscious level, it can be like that missed 12 inch putt on the final hole that denies a PGA tournament win.

I also think that the energy his teams expended on defense took a physical toll by late February. I think we all saw those Bearcat teams miss shots in March that they were routinely dropping in a month earlier.

But this is all pretty much conjecture. Hope springs eternal--for me, that UC gets past the first weekend more than once in the next nine years.

Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using CSNbbs mobile app

(09-26-2019 03:41 PM)cpawstoney Wrote:  BCJ Exclusive With John Brannen

Excellent interview. I find Brannen very genuine and thoughtful in his remarks. Very little "coachspeak" which gets old in a hurry.

Most all like him now--he's undefeated at UC. But I agree with those who suggest we needed a reboot to see if Bearcat basketball could once again be a force in the postseason. The jury is out. But from all indications, Bohn hired well.

For decades, X could never compete with UC for top recruits. From me, that's a rare compliment to them for raising their profile. I have a feeling that Brannen will win more than his share of those recruiting battles. The future looks bright.

(09-26-2019 09:44 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(09-26-2019 06:56 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  The bottom line is it was time for a change. Overall play good enough in the regular season to qualify for the tourney and then crap the bed every year did wear on all of us. To just have a coach that can look eye level to his players is a good start.

Not sure height has much to do with wins and losses but if that’s what scratches your itch, run with it. lol

I was being tongue-in-cheek. That said, I won't miss the Mighty Mouse tantrums on the sidelines.

This is an interesting thread. Everyone seems to have their own theory on the lack of tournament success, but I think its much more simple than most on here. With the exception of 2018, Mick's teams weren't actually second weekend type teams. If you are looking for second weekend teams (there are 16 of them) lets generously look for top 20 kenpom teams (4 and 5 seeds aren't too much different). Here's where UC finished since they made their tournament return under Mick.

2019: 29
2018: 4
2017: 23
2016: 32
2015: 43
2014: 27
2013: 40
2012: 31
2011: 21

2018 was really the only legit second week type team (and was honestly a national title contender type team).
2012 is a bit deceiving in that they were legitimately a different team after they went small, but even then they were still a fringe second weekend type team.

Most Mick teams have been teams you'd expect to lose in the first or second round. People love to point to inflated records against lesser competition, but none of those teams really were second weekend type teams.

The caveat being there has been some bad luck in not getting to the second weekend once or twice. There are a few teams almost every year that make a run from a lower seed. Sometimes they get hot, sometimes their opponent just plays poorly...sometimes they get a favorable draw with overseeded teams. We'd probably have expected UC to make the sweet 16 a time or two more in this span, but the real fact is they haven't had second weekend type teams.

It sucks about 2018 because that was a legitimately great UC team. They were dominant for 29 minutes and the epic collapse is as frustrating as it gets. It was a combination of bad play, panic from the staff and some bad luck. It was a real opportunity to make a great run. Other than that, UC in the tournament has pretty much been what they were all season under Mick, a tournament caliber team, but not much else.

(09-27-2019 07:59 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Most all like him now--he's undefeated at UC. But I agree with those who suggest we needed a reboot to see if Bearcat basketball could once again be a force in the postseason. The jury is out.

Yuppo. The jury is in for MC:

5-8 vs. Xavier

6-9 vs. NCAA Tourney Field

4-6 vs Xavier

9-9 vs NCAA Tourney Field

That's the prior 10 year record before Mick took over the gig. Just sayin' for reference.

Not sure why we are re-litigating the end of the MC era here. UC offered a deal that would pay him up to $3M/year which I believe was fair. He chose to decline it and move on to UCLA for what in essence was only a $100,000 raise per year (when you deduct taxes and cost of living). Its now a new era.

(09-27-2019 10:10 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  4-6 vs Xavier

9-9 vs NCAA Tourney Field

That's the prior 10 year record before Mick took over the gig. Just sayin' for reference.

Very true. Break down the NCAA numbers a bit more and MC got past the first weekend ONE time. Huggs did much better. We all know this and have compared and contrasted both coaches ad nauseam. I'm simply saying after 13 seasons it was time for a change and I bet if you asked Mick he would agree. Will JB be any better? Time will tell but you can't answer that question without a change at the top.

(09-27-2019 10:30 AM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(09-27-2019 10:10 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  4-6 vs Xavier

9-9 vs NCAA Tourney Field

That's the prior 10 year record before Mick took over the gig. Just sayin' for reference.

Very true. Break down the NCAA numbers a bit more and MC got past the first weekend ONE time. Huggs did much better. We all know this and have compared and contrasted both coaches ad nauseam. I'm simply saying after 13 seasons it was time for a change and I bet if you asked Mick he would agree. Will JB be any better? Time will tell but you can't answer that question without a change at the top.

I get the sense that this was one of those scenarios where both sides were ready for a change. This is not necessarily a bad thing, happens in both sports and elsewhere in life. I wish both sides well, just as long as Mick's success does not interfere with the success of UC.

Huggins and Cronin will always be reference points for whoever the coach at UC is. Both in their own ways made UC basketball good again.

The hope is to exceed the standard each set. Honestly without those two coaches UC basketball would look like some combination of St. John’s, San Francisco, and pre-Sampson Houston.

UC is basically a Final Four or two elite 8 appearances away from being a top 12 all time program. That isn’t easy but it’s standard needed to make the jump from being a good top 25 level program to a great one again.

(09-27-2019 10:10 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  4-6 vs Xavier

9-9 vs NCAA Tourney Field

That's the prior 10 year record before Mick took over the gig. Just sayin' for reference.

Technically true, because the AK year they didn't make it.

UC was 12-10 in the 10 tournaments preceding mick taking over. 1 elite eight and another sweet 16.

That's a decent amount better than 6-9. Some bad luck really prevented them from being better... the big one was losing NPOY before the tournament. Also lost a game on a tipped bank three and that UCLA game. UC had some real contenders in that stretch that were true second weekend type teams, even though they missed. Had they kept putting those caliber teams out there they would have broken through. We've seen similar stretches from teams like Virginia and Villanova where they lose early as a high seed for several years. Key is to keep putting the type of teams out that earn those high seeds. You'll eventually break through.