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

(12-14-2021 02:51 PM)levydl Wrote:  It sounds like some of you guys think that having a good football team and basketball team are mutually exclusive, but I can't understand why. The investment has been made for the arena, wr hired good young coach (I think!), we're joining the best hoops conference in the country, we have a history of success in the sport. How does football's success come at basketball's expense? Maybe there isn't enough fan interest for a mediocre hoops team when the football team is doing well?

It's a bad point. You can win at both and really both are more likely to feed into the other in this day in age than hurt the other. We've seen plenty of football centric programs get better in basketball. The SEC used to be pretty bad outside of Kentucky, but its basketball has taken off in recent years. In the late 00s Florida was pretty elite in both.

Hopefully Wes is the guy to get them there. He's said all the right things and seems to be making inroads on the recruiting trial. Hopefully it will pay off in a significant improvement in recruiting. Just because the program was set back by recruiting late in the Cronin era and a disastrous hire to replace him, doesn't mean it can't get back to the top 15 program it was in the 1990s early 2000s.

(12-14-2021 02:55 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-14-2021 02:51 PM)levydl Wrote:  It sounds like some of you guys think that having a good football team and basketball team are mutually exclusive, but I can't understand why. The investment has been made for the arena, wr hired good young coach (I think!), we're joining the best hoops conference in the country, we have a history of success in the sport. How does football's success come at basketball's expense? Maybe there isn't enough fan interest for a mediocre hoops team when the football team is doing well?

It's a bad point. You can win at both and really both are more likely to feed into the other in this day in age than hurt the other. We've seen plenty of football centric programs get better in basketball. The SEC used to be pretty bad outside of Kentucky, but its basketball has taken off in recent years. In the late 00s Florida was pretty elite in both.

Hopefully Wes is the guy to get them there. He's said all the right things and seems to be making inroads on the recruiting trial. Hopefully it will pay off in a significant improvement in recruiting. Just because the program was set back by recruiting late in the Cronin era and a disastrous hire to replace him, doesn't mean it can't get back to the top 15 program it was in the 1990s early 2000s.

In what way is it a bad point? You pointed out the biggest outlier in Florida in the early 2000's. Since the college football playoff has been a thing, you've never had a team make the final 4 in basketball and football and from what I can tell you've never had a team make the final 4 in football and the Elite 8 in basketball. I'm not saying its impossible but data points outside of UC clearly show its very difficult to do.

(12-14-2021 11:36 AM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  We will be okay. Give the guy a couple of years. Typical knee jerk reaction to a loss against Xavier.

Sadly, it's UC's losses to Xavier which are typical. Given the inevitability of outcomes we've become so accustomed to, our reactions are hardly knee-jerk.

(12-14-2021 04:19 PM)colohank Wrote:  

(12-14-2021 11:36 AM)Bearcatbdub Wrote:  We will be okay. Give the guy a couple of years. Typical knee jerk reaction to a loss against Xavier.

Sadly, it's UC's losses to Xavier which are typical. Given the inevitability of outcomes we've become so accustomed to, our reactions are hardly knee-jerk.

Well, quite frankly- this is a rebuilding year. This team has some pieces to build on but we would be kidding ourselves to think this team had a great shot at winning. I am not saying we should be complacent about losing to Xavier. But put your emotions aside for a second. You have to be realistic about these things.

It's this weird circumstance where X and UC fans are in agreement on the state of things:

Xavier Men's BB > UC Men's BB

Maybe they need to rename it "The Cross-town Shoulder Shrug."

You guys can spin it all you want but UC should be thumping XU every year, not the other way around. If you don't care - that's fine.

(12-14-2021 05:52 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  You guys can spin it all you want but UC should be thumping XU every year, not the other way around. If you don't care - that's fine.

I don’t agree that UC should be thumping X every year. Don’t know how anyone can see that as normal based on the fact that X leads UC by a bunch over the last 25 years. Should it be competitive every year? Absolutely. But I don’t see where either school should be thumping the other on a regular basis. They are 2 good programs, playing in very good BB leagues, and led by good young coaches. My guess is that the BB budgets for the two schools are equal. The facilities are pretty similar. The emphasis on BB might be a bit higher at X than it is at UC, but only because they don’t have football. Size of the school means nothing. If it did than Duke and Gonzaga would never win anything. Are the academic requirements at X a little different than they are at UC? Possibly. But then, some students/athletes might actually prefer smaller classes and a more personal experience than they might experience at a school with 40,000 students. Each school has its own strengths and weaknesses. Both schools compete at a high level and compete against the same set of regional schools for talent. Thumping X every year? I don’t see it.

The football team is undefeated since 1973!

(12-14-2021 05:52 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  You guys can spin it all you want but UC should be thumping XU every year, not the other way around. If you don't care - that's fine.

I’ll bite. Why should we just expect that? The 1990’s? lol he early 1960’s?

It’s starting to be like Brad Pitt’s line in Money Ball where all the scouts are sitting around talking about a hitter they are looking at and how the ball jumps off his bat and his power, etc. and Billy Bean looks up and asks “if he’s a good hitter why doesn’t he hit well?”

They are in a much better conference (for the time being) are better funded as a program, and are the flagship of the school.

Things are about to change a lot when we head into the B12 but in terms of being situated, X in the Big East has been in the catbird seat for a long time now.

Just playing devil’s advocate.

Time to move on. We sucked and they plunked us.

(12-14-2021 07:01 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(12-14-2021 05:52 PM)Dont tase me bro Wrote:  You guys can spin it all you want but UC should be thumping XU every year, not the other way around. If you don't care - that's fine.

I’ll bite. Why should we just expect that? The 1990’s? lol he early 1960’s?

It’s starting to be like Brad Pitt’s line in Money Ball where all the scouts are sitting around talking about a hitter they are looking at and how the ball jumps off his bat and his power, etc. and Billy Bean looks up and asks “if he’s a good hitter why doesn’t he hit well?”

They are in a much better conference (for the time being) are better funded as a program, and are the flagship of the school.

Things are about to change a lot when we head into the B12 but in terms of being situated, X in the Big East has been in the catbird seat for a long time now.

Just playing devil’s advocate.

Conference didn't seem to matter when UC was in the better conference, now it somehow does.

I just get frustrated watching them lose this game every year. I think they should win every game no matter who they play - lol

Just venting here

It matters when you recruit.

Did X out-recruit us prior to them joining the Big East?

(12-14-2021 10:37 PM)Racinejake Wrote:  Did X out-recruit us prior to them joining the Big East?

Killing the basketball program before entering the Big East killed any recruiting advantages UC would have had.

Losing the Big East right when Mick started to get things rolling hurt too.

Then the Nevada game happened which killed all the momentum built in 2017 and 2018.

It just seems like UC has had one bad break after another for last 25 years. You actually can go back to 1996 if you need too. Whether it be against Xavier or in the tournament the Bearcats have had some of worst luck/meltdown/stupid finishes go against them. It’s why so many are so frustrated. What happens if Kenyon leads UC to a title in 2000, Logan and Cats beat UCLA in 2002, Mick doesn’t implode vs Nevada, 1 ranked UC doesn’t lose to Xavier twice, the 2006 or 2010 don’t lose heartbreaker to Xavier. This list is just too long….I missed about 10 to 15 key moments that have gone against the Cats. As a fan base we tired of losing the most important games.

We seem to win a lot of those games in football these days.

It is usually a matter of leadership from the coaches and players. Maybe Coach Miller can be that coach and bring in those players.

I won't rehash the whole conference issue. Thankfully, UC resolved that problem on September 12th, for the long term.

Most X fans are smart enough to concede that their Big East isn't close to what the old Big East was. Only one team (Villanova) has made a splash on the big stage and the Wildcats have been really outstanding under Jay Wright. Without those tourney runs, the current version's profile sinks considerably. Gonzaga wins big from an obscure conference which suggests it's more about recruiting, preparation, and in-game coaching decisions than conference patches on jerseys. As others here have suggested, if conference affiliation meant so much, UC should have dominated the Shootout when the Bearcats were in the old Big East. That just never happened.

Regarding "bad luck" I don't believe in it, especially when UC losses under Huggins and Cronin are retrospectively attributed to it. Was it "good luck" that won the Tulsa football game this year to preserve UC's run to the CFP? Not really, because UC's coaches and players had put the team in a position to withstand a late rally. At best, Tulsa could have tied the game and forced overtime on our field.

All the "bad luck" losses ever discussed in basketball came down to a final basket or possession. Upsets happen for a variety of reasons--watch that improbable, deep three pointer by Rutgers at the buzzer against #1 Purdue recently. But had Purdue made two more free throws, snagged another rebound, or defended better on any single possession during the first 39 minutes of the game, Rutgers' "lucky" shot would have been inconsequential. Watching UC's meltdown against Nevada, we all saw it coming minutes before the final dagger. It doesn't make it less painful, but it's hard to suggest it was simply an incident attributed to "bad luck".

So maybe Steele is the next Coach "K" and just needed time to get his sea legs to take X to the Promised Land? I think not. Past history remains a strong predictor of future performance by coaches. On that basis, Wes has the right stuff. Better days are ahead for Bearcat basketball; I'm counting on that.

(12-15-2021 08:31 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Regarding "bad luck" I don't believe in it, especially when UC losses under Huggins and Cronin are retrospectively attributed to it. Was it "good luck" that won the Tulsa football game this year to preserve UC's run to the CFP? Not really, because UC's coaches and players had put the team in a position to withstand a late rally. At best, Tulsa could have tied the game and forced overtime on our field.

All the "bad luck" losses ever discussed in basketball came down to a final basket or possession. Upsets happen for a variety of reasons--watch that improbable, deep three pointer by Rutgers at the buzzer against #1 Purdue recently. But had Purdue made two more free throws, snagged another rebound, or defended better on any single possession during the first 39 minutes of the game, Rutgers' "lucky" shot would have been inconsequential. Watching UC's meltdown against Nevada, we all saw it coming minutes before the final dagger. It doesn't make it less painful, but it's hard to suggest it was simply an incident attributed to "bad luck".

Yes, sure, there's no such thing as bad luck, Kenyon should have set a better screen or something when he broke his leg . . .

(12-15-2021 12:47 PM)levydl Wrote:  

(12-15-2021 08:31 AM)OKIcat Wrote:  Regarding "bad luck" I don't believe in it, especially when UC losses under Huggins and Cronin are retrospectively attributed to it. Was it "good luck" that won the Tulsa football game this year to preserve UC's run to the CFP? Not really, because UC's coaches and players had put the team in a position to withstand a late rally. At best, Tulsa could have tied the game and forced overtime on our field.

All the "bad luck" losses ever discussed in basketball came down to a final basket or possession. Upsets happen for a variety of reasons--watch that improbable, deep three pointer by Rutgers at the buzzer against #1 Purdue recently. But had Purdue made two more free throws, snagged another rebound, or defended better on any single possession during the first 39 minutes of the game, Rutgers' "lucky" shot would have been inconsequential. Watching UC's meltdown against Nevada, we all saw it coming minutes before the final dagger. It doesn't make it less painful, but it's hard to suggest it was simply an incident attributed to "bad luck".

Yes, sure, there's no such thing as bad luck, Kenyon should have set a better screen or something when he broke his leg . . .