Cronin Coaching Conversation

[Bearcat_DF]

Since it is quiet, now may be a good time to discuss some of the finer points of Cronin's coaching ability. There are many dimensions to a head coach - here I want to focus on what I think falls under coaching philosophy (though it could be an issue of leadership, motivation, or strategy.)

I saw something last season during the ND game which I'm still pondering. While this is not intended to be a comparison to the previous HC, it is the contrast with BH that makes the incident stand out.

In the 2nd half of the game, we allowed a wide open three. (As I remember it, ND could pretty much get an open three about any time they wanted one.) Given the location of my seat, I could not tell who blew the assignment - did someone not fight through a screen, was it a missed rotation, etc.). In the past, I would turn to BH and it would be clear who blew their assignment because he would be "coaching" them from the sideline.

When I looked to Cronin, he kinda kicked his foot in an "aw shucks" kinda way and quietly turned to watch the Cats on offense.

So - here are some questions (again this is not to say Cronin is a bad coach or Huggins is better than Cronin, or anything else one might want to try to read between the lines.) Rather, it is about Cronin's philosophy.

1) The first question is whether this was just an isolated incident or a coaching tendency?

2) Was Cronin's philosophy/motivation hampered by the lack of overall talent and short bench? In previous years, if a player didn't fight through a screen, they would find pine pretty quick. I think there were some games where BH was about to yank John Breiner out of the stands trying to find someone who would play Bearcat defense.)

3) Will Cronin be more lax when there are defensive mistakes?

4) How will Bearcat basketball change? I recall debates on this forum related to Huggins' over focus on defense and his quick trigger for benching players for defensive mistakes.

So to this issue of philosophy - will Cronin be more offensive minded? can he do so without losing the intense defense that has been a hallmark of Bearcat basketball. I always felt that Huggins over-emphasized defense to compensate for players who did not have strong offensive skills. With the up tick in talent we are seeing due to Cronin and being in the BE - will we be able to have both - intense D with more aggressive offense?

Go Cats!
DF

[tophat]

I'm gonna repond very briefly.

I think the reaction you refer to by Cronin was more a reflection of a lack of personnel than anything else. You will see him coach differently this year. But that doesn't mean he'll necessarily blow up on the sidelines every time a player blows an assignment. Watch Pitino at UL: he often watches long portions of a game in an apparently semi-detached manner, even though his players are screwing up. He'll get all over them during a time-out or maybe in the locker room. Other coaches are like this -- just because a coach doesn't instantaneously blow up on the sideline doesn't mean he's coddling his players.

What most people don't know about Cronin is how tough he is. He's not easy to play for in the way you're implying. He's just as demanding in his own way as Huggins is.

[The real Bearcat Fan]

Since it is quiet, now may be a good time to discuss some of the finer points of Cronin's coaching ability. There are many dimensions to a head coach - here I want to focus on what I think falls under coaching philosophy (though it could be an issue of leadership, motivation, or strategy.)

I saw something last season during the ND game which I'm still pondering. While this is not intended to be a comparison to the previous HC, it is the contrast with BH that makes the incident stand out.

In the 2nd half of the game, we allowed a wide open three. (As I remember it, ND could pretty much get an open three about any time they wanted one.) Given the location of my seat, I could not tell who blew the assignment - did someone not fight through a screen, was it a missed rotation, etc.). In the past, I would turn to BH and it would be clear who blew their assignment because he would be "coaching" them from the sideline.

When I looked to Cronin, he kinda kicked his foot in an "aw shucks" kinda way and quietly turned to watch the Cats on offense.

So - here are some questions (again this is not to say Cronin is a bad coach or Huggins is better than Cronin, or anything else one might want to try to read between the lines.) Rather, it is about Cronin's philosophy.

1) The first question is whether this was just an isolated incident or a coaching tendency?

2) Was Cronin's philosophy/motivation hampered by the lack of overall talent and short bench? In previous years, if a player didn't fight through a screen, they would find pine pretty quick. I think there were some games where BH was about to yank John Breiner out of the stands trying to find someone who would play Bearcat defense.)

3) Will Cronin be more lax when there are defensive mistakes?

4) How will Bearcat basketball change? I recall debates on this forum related to Huggins' over focus on defense and his quick trigger for benching players for defensive mistakes.

So to this issue of philosophy - will Cronin be more offensive minded? can he do so without losing the intense defense that has been a hallmark of Bearcat basketball. I always felt that Huggins over-emphasized defense to compensate for players who did not have strong offensive skills. With the up tick in talent we are seeing due to Cronin and being in the BE - will we be able to have both - intense D with more aggressive offense?

Go Cats!
DF

Bearcat DF, I think your point is interesting but I will wait until Mick has a full compliment of players before I can tell how good of coach he is. Last year I know there were games where he had to protect the basket and double team the inside players because he did not have the athletes to protect both the inside and outside. So he would give up the lower percentage outside shot. This year he should have more height and better balance on the floor. We will see how his team responds this year and in the future. I think B H would have had a hard time playing his style of defense with the talent that was on the floor for UC Basketball last year.

[red_n_black_attack]

I remember that BH didn't "blow-up" much in that '89 season. He would frequently put his arm over Banks shoulder and point to spots on the court during time-outs, much the same way Starks would be buddy-buddy with the ref who just gave him a technical foul. However, I don't recall the blow-ups coming or the quick hook until there was talented bench-depth.

Yates could recruit a little, but they had no depth at all left for BH.

A fair comparison of Cronin's coaching ability will come as the threat to bench a player for mistakes or mental lapse becomes a real threat. One image that comes to mind is (I think it was an Enquirer photo) of Bob yelling at a ref with Mick in the background waving his arms as he yelled at a player for not being in the right spot.

Give him a little more time, please.

[Cpaw]

I for one hope Cronin does not have the same coaching ways as Huggins. I think every player needs to be handled on an individual basis. If you take Kirkland for example, he stated at times he was timid on the court because he was afraid to make a mistake. While Kennedy was coach and the short time before he got hurt, you could see him start to flourish. Some players respond to that pressure better than others, so they should be dealt with in whatever manner gets them to produce and be the best player. From what I know of Mick, I think he will be this type of coach, and I think the results will show.

Cpaw

[waterhead]

My guess is that Cronin took some things he liked from Pitino and Huggins and whoever else he could learn from along the way. From what I have heard he will not be the quick trigger that Huggins was but that doesn't mean he won't be teed off and let the kids know about their mistakes. My guess is that defense will suffer a bit and offense will get better. A more hands off approach can be good if the players can be trusted and as long as they give appropriate effort. Constantly berating a player can have two effects...one that motivates and one that alienates.

Offense and game planning should be better. Defensive performance will slide a bit...not much though. Cronin would not be wise to ignore Huggin's defensive philosophy.

[Eastside_J]

I am pretty sure Mick isn't trying to be Bob Huggins.

[CroninCrazy]

My guess is that Cronin took some things he liked from Pitino and Huggins and whoever else he could learn from along the way. From what I have heard he will not be the quick trigger that Huggins was but that doesn't mean he won't be teed off and let the kids know about their mistakes. My guess is that defense will suffer a bit and offense will get better. A more hands off approach can be good if the players can be trusted and as long as they give appropriate effort. Constantly berating a player can have two effects...one that motivates and one that alienates.

Offense and game planning should be better. Defensive performance will slide a bit...not much though. Cronin would not be wise to ignore Huggin's defensive philosophy.


I interviewed Coach Cronin a couple of months ago and this is what he had to say:


Are you friends with Bob Huggins?
We are cordial and I am appreciative of the opportunity he gave me and for everything he taught me.

You’ve worked for some Hall-Of-Fame caliber coaches with Huggins and Rick Pitino. Who did you learn from the most?
I learned so much from both guys that I am lucky to have worked for them both. They are different in many ways and that helped me find my own way as a head coach.

How does it feel now that you must coach against two of your former bosses?
Weird, but we are all competitors so we can put aside relationships easily. It is very ironic that we are all in the same league now.

Do you ask you father (Harold “Hep” Cronin) for basketball advice?
We talk a lot, but my assistants are the main source of outside opinion for me. My dad and I talk more in general about life issues.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I am pretty sure Mick isn't trying to be Bob Huggins.

Nor should he be. He can only be Mick Cronin.

But Huggins is a topnotch coach. 590 W in 25 seasons proves that. Mick has 80 W in 4 seasons - about what Huggins did after 4 years of coaching.

[Mick's Da Man]

I'm gonna repond very briefly.

I think the reaction you refer to by Cronin was more a reflection of a lack of personnel than anything else. You will see him coach differently this year. But that doesn't mean he'll necessarily blow up on the sidelines every time a player blows an assignment. Watch Pitino at UL: he often watches long portions of a game in an apparently semi-detached manner, even though his players are screwing up. He'll get all over them during a time-out or maybe in the locker room. Other coaches are like this -- just because a coach doesn't instantaneously blow up on the sideline doesn't mean he's coddling his players.

What most people don't know about Cronin is how tough he is. He's not easy to play for in the way you're implying. He's just as demanding in his own way as Huggins is.


I was going to respond to the original post and fortunately yours was the first response and covered everthing I was going to say.

In other words, who in the heck was Mick supposed to replace them with when they blew an assignment?

I think it will be different this season.

You cannot base Mick's coaching ability on last season. He was shorthanded beyond belief and had no size for the Pittsburgh's, Georgetown's and Louisville's.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I was going to respond to the original post and fortunately yours was the first response and covered everthing I was going to say.

In other words, who in the heck was Mick supposed to replace them with when they blew an assignment?

I think it will be different this season.

You cannot base Mick's coaching ability on last season. He was shorthanded beyond belief and had no size for the Pittsburgh's, Georgetown's and Louisville's.

Mick's team lost 5 games it SHOULD have won last year. His fault, their fault, both. Regardless, some of his coaching left something to be desired in 2007.

[SLMadiCat]

Mick's team lost 5 games it SHOULD have won last year. His fault, their fault, both. Regardless, some of his coaching left something to be desired in 2007.

What about the games that they won that they should have lost? I guess in those games he didn't leave anything to be desired.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

What about the games that they won that they should have lost? I guess in those games he didn't leave anything to be desired.

I don't remember many of those - perhaps 1 or 2.

[waterhead]

I don't remember many of those - perhaps 1 or 2.

What about games they shouldn't have been close in the first place given the depth and talent on the team?

[GoCats1994]

Interesting topic to discuss.

I certainly want to believe Mick is a good - actually great - coach. He has worked for a couple of well-respected (in this area) coaches, he had a mild degree of success at Murray State, and certainly has a reputation for recruiting.

However - I did notice a few things last year that left me wondering....

It was obvious that Cronin was able to install his offensive and defensive schemes. For example - there were long stretches where you would see the Bearcats move the ball offensively, make the "right" passes, find the open players, and then ultimately miss the shots. It was almost like you could tell Cronin's main goal last year was to set the foundation/implement his plan. In other words... kind of like saying "I am going to get these kids to do the right things, and sooner or later I'll get players with more talent and some of these shots will start falling".

I have mixed emotions about this type of strategy. I think there is a lot that can be said for the approach. You set the bar high. You do not waver from the path that you are teaching. Etc. There are certainly enough leadership books at any local book store that would back this philosophy.

However, I could not help but wonder if he was demonstrating the creativity that is often needed within his role? Was he able to get the most out of his players? Was he able to build a game plan according to his players abilities - or only according to processes/systems that had worked for him (or other coaches) in the past?

Believe me... I am not trying to overly criticize MC. I think that there is a lot to be said for the experience that he has yet to have but will continue to gain. Although since this post was already in motion - I thought I would add my $0.02.

Short version... I think the jury is still out on his ability to alter game plans based on his players' individual talent and abilities.

[The real Bearcat Fan]

Let's wait and see what happens this year when Mick has more talent. I can remember some fans saying the only offense BH had was a rebound from a missed shot with his first team. The most important thing Bob Huggins did while coach of the Bearcats was win. Mick deserves to be given a chance to win with his own players.

[ME80]

Mick's team lost 5 games it SHOULD have won last year. His fault, their fault, both. Regardless, some of his coaching left something to be desired in 2007.

1958, I love your support of BH and appreciate the way that you have supported him on this forum when especially when cheap shots have been lobbed at him. But I sense that when it comes to Cronin talk you become somewhat unfair to him. In all honesty you can look at almost any team during any year and find games that were lost that should have been won, including Hugg's teams.

[Cats4Ever]

:confused:

Way too early to tell what type of coach he will be. He needs his players and his system in place, with experience, to compete.

That being said, I don't understand some people's comments on what great hires Mike Thomas has made - we won't know until 3 or 4 years from now how good or even great they will be. Then an accurate, unbiased conclusion can be made.

Love the increased level and more highly rated recruits we are getting - concerned about the academic risk (Jason Henry) we have signed. Without Henry in the class, the class ranking has to be in the 30's or worse. going to be tough to improve our league standings if the other teams continue to have higher ranked classes.

Give it time -

The Huggins force-out will have set this program back at least 4 years - we are now heading into year 3 that he is gone. I see the basketball program getting significantly better at the end of the 2008-2009 year. Definitely in the 2009-2010 year.

Amazing how long the Board of Trustees decision has hurt the program. 2005 (AK year, no NCAA), 2006 Mick's first year with a bunch of late JUCO's HS signings (No NIT). Next year a rebuilding year with lots of good looking freshmen (crosses fingers). 2008 should be a much better year, but still a relatively young team (Soph's and freshmen).

Some people realized the impact early on about the BOT decision, others are just seeing it now.

I'm excited about the future of both the football and basketball programs - just wish they would have greater success faster. I have tons of patience, I just use it up fast. :D

[jeffto]

But Huggins is a topnotch coach. 590 W in 25 seasons proves that. Mick has 80 W in 4 seasons - about what Huggins did after 4 years of coaching.

He is a topnotch coach, but not a great coach until he wins a NCAA championship. I hope he does - maybe a couple of years after Mick wins his.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

He is a topnotch coach, but not a great coach until he wins a NCAA championship. I hope he does - maybe a couple of years after Mick wins his.

I wonder how many UC fans will be wearing K-State colors this year?

[Bearcat Revival]

NONE...they traded in for Blue and Gold...and overalls.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

NONE...they traded in for Blue and Gold...and overalls.

If they are anything like thier football team, they'll be wearing stripes and a jumpsuit.

[james jr]

Interesting topic to discuss.

I certainly want to believe Mick is a good - actually great - coach. He has worked for a couple of well-respected (in this area) coaches, he had a mild degree of success at Murray State, and certainly has a reputation for recruiting.

However - I did notice a few things last year that left me wondering....

It was obvious that Cronin was able to install his offensive and defensive schemes. For example - there were long stretches where you would see the Bearcats move the ball offensively, make the "right" passes, find the open players, and then ultimately miss the shots. It was almost like you could tell Cronin's main goal last year was to set the foundation/implement his plan. In other words... kind of like saying "I am going to get these kids to do the right things, and sooner or later I'll get players with more talent and some of these shots will start falling".

I have mixed emotions about this type of strategy. I think there is a lot that can be said for the approach. You set the bar high. You do not waver from the path that you are teaching. Etc. There are certainly enough leadership books at any local book store that would back this philosophy.

However, I could not help but wonder if he was demonstrating the creativity that is often needed within his role? Was he able to get the most out of his players? Was he able to build a game plan according to his players abilities - or only according to processes/systems that had worked for him (or other coaches) in the past?

Believe me... I am not trying to overly criticize MC. I think that there is a lot to be said for the experience that he has yet to have but will continue to gain. Although since this post was already in motion - I thought I would add my $0.02.

Short version... I think the jury is still out on his ability to alter game plans based on his players' individual talent and abilities.

I applaud Mick for sticking with his "system". It will make the players from last year better and allow them to mentor the new players on the system. I feel that coaches who are always adjusting to their talent level are rarely highly successful and for the most part poor recruiters. Boeheim, Pitino, Calhoun, Roy Williams, Coach K, even Billy Donovan are all "systems" coaches and when they don't have the players to run their systems they all experience down years.

[The real Bearcat Fan]

I wonder how many UC fans will be wearing K-State colors this year?

I only wear UC colors. I wore UC colors when Ed Badger and Tony Yates were coaches and I will always wear UC colors no matter what there record or who is coaching. I like Bob Huggins, Andy Kennedy and Frank Martin but I am a UC fan and I will root for all three coaches when they do not play UC or in Huggins case it does not determine a Big East Championship. I am a UC fan first.

[cincycpaw]

I applaud Mick for sticking with his "system". It will make the players from last year better and allow them to mentor the new players on the system. I feel that coaches who are always adjusting to their talent level are rarely highly successful and for the most part poor recruiters. Boeheim, Pitino, Calhoun, Roy Williams, Coach K, even Billy Donovan are all "systems" coaches and when they don't have the players to run their systems they all experience down years.


I'd disagree. Being flexible as a coach to play to your players strengths is what leads to wins.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

1958, I love your support of BH and appreciate the way that you have supported him on this forum when especially when cheap shots have been lobbed at him. But I sense that when it comes to Cronin talk you become somewhat unfair to him. In all honesty you can look at almost any team during any year and find games that were lost that should have been won, including Hugg's teams.

Cronin is a superb recruiter. He has yet to show that he is equal as a coach.

That's just a fact. His team lost a number of games in 2007 that should have been W.

[SLMadiCat]

Cronin is a superb recruiter. He has yet to show that he is equal as a coach.

That's just a fact. His team lost a number of games in 2007 that should have been W.

Find for me one coach who has not lost games they should have won. I guess BH won every game he was supposed to?

Taking a look at the 2002-2003 season, here are some of Huggins' losses, that in my opinion, they should have won:

1. 11/30/02 - Dayton
2. 12/07/02 - Xavier
3. 12/22/02 - Clemson
4. 01/29/03 - Depaul
5. 02/15/03 - Charlotte
6. 02/18/03 - St. Louis
7. 03/12/03 - Southern Miss
8. 03/20/03 - Gonzaga (NCAA tournament)

Oh, and this is with a team that Bob had infinite amount of time to recruit and put together. Mick only had a few months.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Find for me one coach who has not lost games they should have won. I guess BH won every game he was supposed to?

Taking a look at the 2002-2003 season, here are some of Huggins' losses, that in my opinion, they should have won:

1. 11/30/02 - Dayton
2. 12/07/02 - Xavier
3. 12/22/02 - Clemson
4. 01/29/03 - Depaul
5. 02/15/03 - Charlotte
6. 02/18/03 - St. Louis
7. 03/12/03 - Southern Miss
8. 03/20/03 - Gonzaga (NCAA tournament)

Oh, and this is with a team that Bob had infinite amount of time to recruit and put together. Mick only had a few months.

Huggins is/was a better coach than Mick. So is/was Andy Kennedy. Mick is/was a better recruiter than either.

UC should have been above .500 in 2007 but for 5 blown games.

Nov. 21st, 2006 Wofford 7:00 PM WXIX L 90 - 91
Dec. 2nd, 2006 UAB 4:00 PM ESPNU L 57 - 59
Jan. 17th, 2007 at Syracuse 7:00 PM L 76 - 77
Feb. 6th, 2007 at Providence 7:30 PM L 70 - 71
Feb. 10th, 2007 at Rutgers 4:00 PM WXIX L 69 - 73

Those 5 (above).

[Bearcat_DF]

Like I said in the original post, this is not an attempt to compare Cronin to BH or others.

I appreciate the substantial posts.

I tend to agree with those who have observed that we do not have a good gauge of his in-game coaching because he was so limited with personnel.

I think even this year, it will be hard to gauge. I also suspect, there is a learning curve that will occur, so that he will be better in year 2, year 3, etc.

I remember being able to observe AK's growth even during one year - did he win 2 or 3 of the mirror games on the second try (Rutgers and WV for sure).

Finally, my initial comment about Cronin's demeanor was not so much about wanting or expecting a tirade. (I agree with posters who question that coaching technique as the best method.) Rather, my concern was based more on how easy he seemed to take it. Perhaps he is just portraying a good poker face. Or, it could be that he hasn't developed an intense competitiveness that I've seen in other coaches. It seems coaches like Donovan, Coach K, Dean Smith wanted every loose ball, every rebound, wanted every shot defended, wanted their players to compete on every step.

I want that intense fire that was so evident in Fortson, Kenyon, Brannon, I-Mac, Hicks, Logan.

Go Cats!

DF

[Mick's Da Man]

Mick's team lost 5 games it SHOULD have won last year. His fault, their fault, both. Regardless, some of his coaching left something to be desired in 2007.

Wow. Huggs sure lost alot of games he should have won too. His NCAA Tourney record leaves something to be desired. I guess he's a bad coach too.

Too bad he had it easier than Mick by playing in the CUSA conference. I can only wonder how much worse he would have fared playing in the Big East.

Oh yeah, he'll get his chance this season.

(by the way, you started this crud)

[SLMadiCat]

Huggins is/was a better coach than Mick. So is/was Andy Kennedy. Mick is/was a better recruiter than either.

UC should have been above .500 in 2007 but for 5 blown games.

Nov. 21st, 2006 Wofford 7:00 PM WXIX L 90 - 91
Dec. 2nd, 2006 UAB 4:00 PM ESPNU L 57 - 59
Jan. 17th, 2007 at Syracuse 7:00 PM L 76 - 77
Feb. 6th, 2007 at Providence 7:30 PM L 70 - 71
Feb. 10th, 2007 at Rutgers 4:00 PM WXIX L 69 - 73

Those 5 (above).

Thanks for making my point. Huggins lost eight games that he should have won and Mick only lost five. Don't forget that a couple games were blown purely b/c of bad FT shooting at the end of the game. But I guess that is Mick's fault too? Mick must be the better coach.

I would agree that Huggins is a more proven coach right now, but how you say without hesitation that AK is, is beyond me.

And now when you reply to this post, instead of making baseless claims and throwing out random facts, please try to address the argument. You failed to address anything about Huggins losing those eight games that he should have won. Why is that?

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Folks, you're entitled to your opinion. So am I - Mick's coaching in 2007 left something to be desired.

His coaching in the opening game of the 2006 season (Murray St vs UC) did also.

He is a SUPERB recruiter, one of the best in college basketball.

He is not yet at (or near) that level as a coach.

Simple as that.

Andy Kennedy did excellent coaching jobs at UC (2006) and Ole Miss (2007). His coaching skills are obvious when you watch him.

[Mick's Da Man]

Fact is........Mick's record at Murray State was better than Huggs at Akron.

[jon b]

Fact is........Mick's record at Murray State was better than Huggs at Akron.

You really think, right now (June 23, 2007) that Mick is a better coach than Huggins? I need to create a list of people who think so. I can then downgrade their bball knowledge IQ in my eyes.

With that said, it does not mean Mick might not end up a better coach. Tear Huggins down if you need to, but Mick has not yet proven he can coach at a high level. I believe he can and I am excited about the possibilities, but he has not yet done it.

This reminds me of the arguments people have when they don't like the starter at a position. The 2nd stringer is always better and should be playing. In some cases the 2nd stringer does end up being better, but usually not. Remember Taron Barker as starting PG and Chad Moore as a freshman. People wanted Moore because he was flashier, even though at the time he turned the ball over way too much and could not play defense. The thing was, they wanted more than Barker, so it had to be Moore. I guess some people would rather lose by 10 yet score 80 than win by 5 and score 70. Ok, so those numbers are not real, but maybe they make my point.

Here is Tom's basic point: "Huggins is/was a better coach than Mick. So is/was Andy Kennedy. Mick is/was a better recruiter than either."

Right now, I don't see how any parts of that are debatable. I hope in ten years we can write: "Mick has proven to be better than Huggins", but right now we cannot (based on facts).

[cincycpaw]

Folks, you're entitled to your opinion. So am I - Mick's coaching in 2007 left something to be desired.

His coaching in the opening game of the 2006 season (Murray St vs UC) did also.

He is a SUPERB recruiter, one of the best in college basketball.

He is not yet at (or near) that level as a coach.

Simple as that.

Andy Kennedy did excellent coaching jobs at UC (2006) and Ole Miss (2007). His coaching skills are obvious when you watch him.

I agree with this. Mick has already proven himself as a recruiter...in record time really as a head coach at the elite level.

That being said, his coaching last year left something to be desired. I understand that the talent level wasn't there and he was in a tough position, so he obviously gets almost a 100% pass. But he certainly hasn't proven that he can coach at this level....yet. I was a bit worried about him when he got hired, but I think he will become a great coach. Huggs already is a great coach and Andy is 2 years ahead of Mick, but I think Mick will close th egap on Andy (due to talent of the kids if not anything else) and I hope Mick can get even close to Bob Huggins.

I'm not sure why mentioning how good a coach Huggs was on this forum leades to such animosity. Without Huggs, where would Mick be? Where would UC be? He was nothing short of great for UC, all the players, all the coaches, and all the fans. I'm looking forward to a friendly rivalry with WV and Huggs...I hope he wins a ton of games...just 1 less than UC each year. ;)

[cincycpaw]

Fact is........Mick's record at Murray State was better than Huggs at Akron.

Huggs was a head coach at Walsh before that...

Huggins was only 27 when he became a collegiate head coach, accepting the position at Walsh University in 1980. In three seasons at Walsh, he compiled a 71-26 record, twice earning NAIA District 22 Coach of the Year honors. Huggins directed the 1982-83 team to a perfect 30-0 regular season mark and an eventual 34-1 mark.

Not bad as a young first time head coach.

Huggs also took Akron to the NCAA...has Akron ever been to the NCAA before or after? How about Murray State before and after Mick?

I'm not sure how anyone can argue that Mick's a better coach than Huggs right now. I think he might get there, I hope he does.

[SLMadiCat]

Like I said, I think Huggins is more proven, as of now. But how can you say that the argument that AK is/was a better coach than Mick isn't even debatable? What has AK done? He has taken a team filled with Seniors/upper classman with UC to the NIT. Not the NCAA. If anything you could say they underachieved. I expected them to make the tourney that year and they didn't. There were so many times during that season that I questioned his coaching abilities. Remember the game against Seton Hall? And what has he done at Ole Miss. He took an OKAY team and they got into the NIT. I'd hardly call that great. But don't get me wrong, I think AK will be a good coach, but I'd also say it is debatable as to who is better. Mick did some very good things while at Murray St.

The problem with bringing up Huggins is some people (1958), do it to degrade Mick. So naturally, some people feel like sticking up for him. The same way people do for Huggins.

I say, lets wait 5-10 years, then see who is better. Huggins has proved he is a good coach. Great? When he wins a championship, I'll call him a great coach. Same with Mick.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Like I said, I think Huggins is more proven, as of now. But how can you say that the argument that AK is/was a better coach than Mick isn't even debatable? What has AK done? He has taken a team filled with Seniors/upper classman with UC to the NIT. Not the NCAA. If anything you could say they underachieved. I expected them to make the tourney that year and they didn't. There were so many times during that season that I questioned his coaching abilities. Remember the game against Seton Hall? And what has he done at Ole Miss. He took an OKAY team and they got into the NIT. I'd hardly call that great. But don't get me wrong, I think AK will be a good coach, but I'd also say it is debatable as to who is better. Mick did some very good things while at Murray St.

The problem with bringing up Huggins is some people (1958), do it to degrade Mick. So naturally, some people feel like sticking up for him. The same way people do for Huggins.

I say, lets wait 5-10 years, then see who is better. Huggins has proved he is a good coach. Great? When he wins a championship, I'll call him a great coach. Same with Mick.

AK coached superbly at UC in 2006 and Ole Miss in 2007. To win 21 games in both circumstances was remarkable. He's among the best young coaches in the game today.

[waterhead]

Here is Tom's basic point: "Huggins is/was a better coach than Mick. So is/was Andy Kennedy. Mick is/was a better recruiter than either."

Right now, I don't see how any parts of that are debatable. I hope in ten years we can write: "Mick has proven to be better than Huggins", but right now we cannot (based on facts).

Actually it's very easy to debate all of these points. Whether or not the debate is right or wrong is the question. Had the statement been "Huggins has proven he is a great D1 coach and so far Kennedy has shown signs but Cronin has not had the time nor team to do so"...I could agree without debate.

Michael Jordan in my mind didn't become the best after he won his 6th championship. MJ always had inside of him the talent, desire not to fail, determination to succeed, willingness to work hard, willingness to learn, etc. He was actually the best all along it just took time to prove it.

Let's give Mick the time to prove or disprove your statement but it is absolutely debatable. My point is not that I think Cronin is better than MJ, BH, or AK it's just too early to tell where he fits in which is why I am not choosing a side. My feeling is that Cronin has some of the traits that I mentioned above if not all of them so the potential is there.

Huggins is only a better coach if he has made more of his abilities than Cronin will. That remains to be seen.

[jon b]

Actually it's very easy to debate all of these points. Whether or not the debate is right or wrong is the question.
<snip>
Let's give Mick the time to prove or disprove your statement but it is absolutely debatable. My point is not that I think Cronin is better than MJ, BH, or AK it's just too early to tell where he fits in which is why I am not choosing a side. My feeling is that Cronin has some of the traits that I mentioned above if not all of them so the potential is there.

Huggins is only a better coach if he has made more of his abilities than Cronin will. That remains to be seen.

Hey, I get philisophical now and again so I don't disagree necessarily that the true comparison will come, but I am referring solely to the now. Comparing Huggins track record (Wash, Akron, UC, even KSU) vs. Cronin (Murray St and UC) and drawing the conclusion that Cronin is better is a bit warped in my view. It does not mean someone doesn't have that view. I still don't see how any parts of that are debatable, but you are right, there is someone who will debate it.

I also stated in my message that I hope we can say Mick is a better coach at some point. That does not mean I am now trashing Huggins. He was/is a great coach but I hope Mick is better. And I hope that when Jason Sandleberg gets his life right and replaces Mick in 25 years, that he is the best of the 3. He was always destined for UC somehow. I throw that name out for the forum old timers. Hopefully I got it right! :D

[SLMadiCat]

Hey, I get philisophical now and again so I don't disagree necessarily that the true comparison will come, but I am referring solely to the now. Comparing Huggins track record (Wash, Akron, UC, even KSU) vs. Cronin (Murray St and UC) and drawing the conclusion that Cronin is better is a bit warped in my view. It does not mean someone doesn't have that view. I still don't see how any parts of that are debatable, but you are right, there is someone who will debate it.

I also stated in my message that I hope we can say Mick is a better coach at some point. That does not mean I am now trashing Huggins. He was/is a great coach but I hope Mick is better. And I hope that when Jason Sandleberg gets his life right and replaces Mick in 25 years, that he is the best of the 3. He was always destined for UC somehow. I throw that name out for the forum old timers. Hopefully I got it right! :D

Any and all opinions are debatable, and unless you can somehow prove as a fact that Huggins is a better coach, then it is still debatable. I'm sure some on this forum think Huggins is better than Dean Smith. I don't, but it is still debatable. I'm also sure that most on here would agree that Huggins has a better track record than Mick. I have to look through this whole post to see if anyone said that Mick is a better coach than Huggs based on track records. I'm not sure where you got that from? As far as who will ultimately be better, or have better success, that is to be determined, but there is nothing wrong with believing that Mick will be a better coach. That, is debatable.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Any and all opinions are debatable, and unless you can somehow prove as a fact that Huggins is a better coach, then it is still debatable. I'm sure some on this forum think Huggins is better than Dean Smith. I don't, but it is still debatable. I'm also sure that most on here would agree that Huggins has a better track record than Mick. I have to look through this whole post to see if anyone said that Mick is a better coach than Huggs based on track records. I'm not sure where you got that from? As far as who will ultimately be better, or have better success, that is to be determined, but there is nothing wrong with believing that Mick will be a better coach. That, is debatable.

Dean Smith is one of the top 2 or 3 coaches of all time. Nobody ever said that or anything close to it.

But Huggins > Mick as a coach right now.

[SLMadiCat]

Dean Smith is one of the top 2 or 3 coaches of all time. Nobody ever said that or anything close to it.

But Huggins > Mick as a coach right now.

Some on here would argue it, I'm sure of that. But they can all they want, it's debatable.

And I agree, as I've said in previous posts, as of now, Bobby has better credentials. I disagree with AK though. I'll take Mick as a coach (and recruiter) over AK. Just my opinion, I'll leave it at that.

[jon b]

Some on here would argue it, I'm sure of that. But they can all they want, it's debatable.

And I agree, as I've said in previous posts, as of now, Bobby has better credentials. I disagree with AK though. I'll take Mick as a coach (and recruiter) over AK. Just my opinion, I'll leave it at that.

Tell you what, may Don roll over i naked in his woods, but I think Mick IS a better recruiter than Huggins. Now. Huggins gets recruits because of who he is, but does not work as hard at it (nor should he have to at this point) as Mick does. Huggins best recruits came under Mick. UL's best classes under Pitino were recruited while Cronin was there. I don't know if he just shows a pic of his wife, or what he does, but he is very very good at it.

As for the debate, anything is debatable, I just don't always see how or why someone would want to debate certain things. But then I listen to sports talk radio and realize that some folks, because they have watched one game in their lifetime, now know enough (not talking about you here, I think you have represented yourself well FWIW) to criticize the coach (insert Narron, Huggins Cronin, etc.).

[DMoney_70]

Are we really still this concerned about Bob Huggins? Are there still some folks that feel it necessary to protect and defend him and his record? Last I looked he's going into his 3rd season away from Cincinnati. Can we please move on? Maybe someone should start a "Bob Huggins - I just can't get over him" forum.

[Oldtimer_UC_fan]

Are we really still this concerned about Bob Huggins? Are there still some folks that feel it necessary to protect and defend him and his record? Last I looked he's going into his 3rd season away from Cincinnati. Can we please move on? Maybe someone should start a "Bob Huggins - I just can't get over him" forum.

Yes, I agree. I wonder if Kansas still talks about Roy Williams like some do Huggins? He's gone. Remember the good times while he was here, and look to the future.

[DMoney_70]

Yeah. I mean no offense. I loved Huggs and hated the way things went down but in the end, I'm a Bearcat fan and their coach's name is Mick Cronin. I wish Bob good luck but he's not in the picture for me anymore and I'm surprised that he still demands as much attention as he gets on Bearcat forums.

You can't compare who is the better coach. This is a ludicrous argument at this juncture. I hope Mick is his own coach and I'm fine if he's not a bit like Huggins. Some folks act like we can't accept a coach that doesn rant and rave like a lunatic and pull kids out of the game for walking crooked.

Huggs was fun to watch and I liked his style but there's more than 1 way to skin a cat.

[Nerf]

Are we really still this concerned about Bob Huggins? Are there still some folks that feel it necessary to protect and defend him and his record? Last I looked he's going into his 3rd season away from Cincinnati. Can we please move on? Maybe someone should start a "Bob Huggins - I just can't get over him" forum.

I think at this point the reason Bob still comes up is that people want to feel assured that despite everything that happened, ultimately the program has been upgraded. I'm not yet certain that it has, but I'm optimistic.

[cincycpaw]

Are we really still this concerned about Bob Huggins? Are there still some folks that feel it necessary to protect and defend him and his record? Last I looked he's going into his 3rd season away from Cincinnati. Can we please move on? Maybe someone should start a "Bob Huggins - I just can't get over him" forum.

History and tradition mean nothing to you?

3 years removed and outta sight outta mind?

We sure as **** better stop talking about Fortson, Kenyon, Logan, et al too then. Not too mention those championships from over 40 years ago...should take down the banners.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Tell you what, may Don roll over i naked in his woods, but I think Mick IS a better recruiter than Huggins. Now. Huggins gets recruits because of who he is, but does not work as hard at it (nor should he have to at this point) as Mick does. Huggins best recruits came under Mick. UL's best classes under Pitino were recruited while Cronin was there. I don't know if he just shows a pic of his wife, or what he does, but he is very very good at it.

As for the debate, anything is debatable, I just don't always see how or why someone would want to debate certain things. But then I listen to sports talk radio and realize that some folks, because they have watched one game in their lifetime, now know enough (not talking about you here, I think you have represented yourself well FWIW) to criticize the coach (insert Narron, Huggins Cronin, etc.).

No doubt, Mick is one of the best (Top 10) recruiters in college hoops. But a few corrections are offered below.

UC's best recruits since 1989 are Herb Jones, Nick Van Exel, Corie Blount, Damon Flint, Dontonio Wingfield, Danny Fortson, Kenyon Martin (and others).

They were recruited by Huggs, Larry Harrison, Steve Moeller, and John Loyer.

U of L's recruits in 2001-02-03 were not as highly ranked as its classes in 2004-05-06-07.

Mick helped recruit the former, not the latter. Reggie Theus was much better as a Louisville recruiter.

[DMoney_70]

Don't think I said out of mind. History and Tradition? Of course they mean a great deal to me but I am not content to live in the past. Trying to compare Mick to Huggs and judging him based on whether he does it the way Bob did is ridiculous.

I miss Huggs. I loved the style of ball they played when he was here. I'm just saying it's not doing us any good to clog up a forum with talk about a coach that's been gone for 3 years and held 2 jobs in that time. He's a Mountaineer and I'm a Bearcat fan.

Cherish the past is one thing. Living in it is another.

Don't come questioning my appreciation and ability to honor the past. I just happen to want Mick to be a better coach than Huggs because that would mean many NEW memories ahead of us.

[Cats4Ever]

Recognize the situation that Mick is in. One of the toughest, if not the number 1 basketball conference, trying to win with JUCO's and freshmen.

Tough start.

Throw the record out - he get's a do-over.

However, watching the team last year, I did not see any improvement on defense and there was some improvement on offense. In contrast, other 1st year coaches, in different (easier IMHO) conferences, did do well.

I don't like the fact that the UC team had the longest losing streak in 82 years - that includes lots of bad teams and bad coaches (Yates, Badger).

Recruting wise, definite improvement, but if Henry is not eligible, our incoming class is not as strong, and I see all the other league teams getting better players.

I want UC to succeed, but playing catch up is not easy in this league, and if I remember right, we are playing more league games this year than last. Ouch!

Good luck Mick, I want you to succeed.:D

[levydl]

Reggie Theus was much better as a Louisville recruiter.

That's not how Pitino put it.

[CincyBearcat95]

I have to agree DMoney here, but to be honest - the old coaching ghosts never go away. I live in Kansas City now. The KU fans still talk about Roy and the fact that he was talking to Dean Smith during the final four. A lot more dislike him now, and like Self, but you can here the jealousy in their voices. Huggs, made a brief stop here and I was excited to get to see him coach (even if it was for the WildCats and I'm a KU fan by marriage.)

So, Mick will have to live with comparisons. Player for player, I think Mick is one of the best recruiters out there. His work ethic is amazing. However, his coaching - X's and O's are still to be seen. I hope he is the greatest coach ever though. I'd love to see Cincy in it always.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

That's not how Pitino put it.

Look at the facts. Here are the RSCI Winners (top rated recruiting classes).

http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/The_Winners/the_winners.html

Louisville #3 in 2001 because of players signed by Denny Crum and Vince Taylor before the coaching change.

NR (Not Rated) in 2002 or 2003. Cronin to Murray St, Theus at Louisville.

Then #9 in 2004. #13 in 2005. #6 in 2006.

Numbers pretty clear to me.

[Kindog202]

Numbers or no numbers, the thing I look for is what his peers are saying about him. Mike Decourcy named him in the Top 5 of best college COACHES under 40 in America. Pitino has said very good things about him. Jaime Dixon was amazed at the job he did in such a short amount of time. John Thompson III said he was very lucky to escape the home game we played against them with a win (remember we had them down 10 early in the game). The loss against Syracuse, we came charging back from down 19 in the second half, on the road. A few of the other close loses were due to some poor foul shooting at the end. People seem to forget that he thoroughly out-coached Miller in the Crosstown Shootout. You want to look for improvement, we finally won a close game at home against Seton Hall at the end of the year.

Looking at last year's roster and with the shortened amount of time Mick had to recruit, most of the kids Mick was recruiting for Murray State. He had to fill a roster, didn't have time to be picky and couldn't be with not much left out there. You could make an argument that on last year's team no one would have started for any other BE team and only Vaughn, Williamson and possibly Sikes would have seen any court time.

People want to look at the record and automatically say it was a bad year and Mick's coaching left something to be desired. Take last year's team and put them in C-USA and they are in the hunt for second place in the conference behind Memphis. I think they win the A-10 if they are in that conference. They had a team made up of mostly mid-major level recruits, playing together for the first time, playing in a high level conference and you see the results.

As has been mentioned before, give Mick the time to fill a roster with quality BE talent, which he is doing now and then see how he coaches the talent before we write him off.

By the way, if anyone has been to the summer league games (I know it's only the summer league) but Vaughn, Mitchell and Davis have looked outstanding and Mike Williams has been very solid for them.

[jkwuc89]

I think recruit rankings are one of the most over-hyped statistics in all of basketball. They certainly are no guarantee of future team success. A much better assessment of a recruit is how he and his team actually performs. Take a look at some of the so-called mid-major teams for instance (especially the Missouri Valley Conference). Unless I am mistaken, they typically don't land many so called top-rated recruits. Yet, they keep winning lots of games.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

I think recruit rankings are one of the most over-hyped statistics in all of basketball. They certainly are no guarantee of future team success. A much better assessment of a recruit is how he and his team actually performs. Take a look at some of the so-called mid-major teams for instance (especially the Missouri Valley Conference). Unless I am mistaken, they typically don't land many so called top-rated recruits. Yet, they keep winning lots of games.

Yep. Absolutely correct. The 1999 Bearcat recruits were highly rated. The 1991 recruits weren't as highly rated.

But the 1991 class took UC to heights it hadn't seen in 30 years (1992 FF and 1993 Elite 8).

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Numbers or no numbers, the thing I look for is what his peers are saying about him. Mike Decourcy named him in the Top 5 of best college COACHES under 40 in America. Pitino has said very good things about him. Jaime Dixon was amazed at the job he did in such a short amount of time. John Thompson III said he was very lucky to escape the home game we played against them with a win (remember we had them down 10 early in the game). The loss against Syracuse, we came charging back from down 19 in the second half, on the road. A few of the other close loses were due to some poor foul shooting at the end. People seem to forget that he thoroughly out-coached Miller in the Crosstown Shootout. You want to look for improvement, we finally won a close game at home against Seton Hall at the end of the year.

Looking at last year's roster and with the shortened amount of time Mick had to recruit, most of the kids Mick was recruiting for Murray State. He had to fill a roster, didn't have time to be picky and couldn't be with not much left out there. You could make an argument that on last year's team no one would have started for any other BE team and only Vaughn, Williamson and possibly Sikes would have seen any court time.

People want to look at the record and automatically say it was a bad year and Mick's coaching left something to be desired. Take last year's team and put them in C-USA and they are in the hunt for second place in the conference behind Memphis. I think they win the A-10 if they are in that conference. They had a team made up of mostly mid-major level recruits, playing together for the first time, playing in a high level conference and you see the results.

As has been mentioned before, give Mick the time to fill a roster with quality BE talent, which he is doing now and then see how he coaches the talent before we write him off.

By the way, if anyone has been to the summer league games (I know it's only the summer league) but Vaughn, Mitchell and Davis have looked outstanding and Mike Williams has been very solid for them.

I agree - Cronin is one of the Top 10 recruiters. His coaching hasn't been tested yet.

[cincycpaw]

Don't think I said out of mind. History and Tradition? Of course they mean a great deal to me but I am not content to live in the past. Trying to compare Mick to Huggs and judging him based on whether he does it the way Bob did is ridiculous.

I miss Huggs. I loved the style of ball they played when he was here. I'm just saying it's not doing us any good to clog up a forum with talk about a coach that's been gone for 3 years and held 2 jobs in that time. He's a Mountaineer and I'm a Bearcat fan.

Cherish the past is one thing. Living in it is another.

Don't come questioning my appreciation and ability to honor the past. I just happen to want Mick to be a better coach than Huggs because that would mean many NEW memories ahead of us.

I agree with a lot of what you write here. Especially this "I just happen to want Mick to be a better coach than Huggs because that would mean many NEW memories ahead of us".

It just sickens me the way some people on here have to try and use anything and everything to cut down Huggins. Personally, I hope he is extremely successful at WVU, winning tons of games, just never against the Bearcats and never more in conference than the Bearcats. I'd love a WVU v. UC Championship though.

Let's see how many close games the Bearcats win this year that they lost last year. Obviously greater talent will help, but I also hope Mick has learned from his 1st year in the Big east as well.

[jeffto]

I agree - Cronin is one of the Top 10 recruiters. His coaching hasn't been tested yet.

Tom, you need to be consistent. Either he is a good recruiter or he isn't. According to your posts he didn't recruit well at UC nor Louisville. Now he's top ten?

In truth we don't really know if he's a good recruiter or bench coach yet. I happen to think he will be great at both. The only evidence that counts is based on W's and L's in the regular season AND post-season. Time will tell.

[levydl]

Look at the facts. Here are the RSCI Winners (top rated recruiting classes).

http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/The_Winners/the_winners.html

Louisville #3 in 2001 because of players signed by Denny Crum and Vince Taylor before the coaching change.

NR (Not Rated) in 2002 or 2003. Cronin to Murray St, Theus at Louisville.

Then #9 in 2004. #13 in 2005. #6 in 2006.

Numbers pretty clear to me.

Have you actually looked at the players in those classes, or are you just going off of what some recruiting database says?

The 2004 class is that high because it had Sebastian Telfair in it, and the 2005 class is that high because it had Amir Johnson in it. Neither ever played, and neither was ever going to play in the first place, so I don't see how Theus should get credit for them. Moreover, by focusing on Telfair, U of L lost out of Rondo (that may have been a blessing in disguise, but they went without a top PG until Sosa came in last year).

When Derrick Caracter (great talent, but great recruit?) and Edgar Sosa and Terrence Williams (Theus' big gets) get Louisville to the Final 4 (and perhaps they will this year), then I'd say he's on par with Mick, who had to convice Pitino to take Garcia and Dean, since the recruiting gurus thought so little of them. But which small forward would you rather have, Garcia or Williams? The RSCI says Williams. Agree?

Pitino himself said Mick is the best recruiter he's ever seen. Perhaps he was being disingenuous, but I don't know why he would. You can believe some database over him if you wish.

[SLMadiCat]

Yep. Absolutely correct. The 1999 Bearcat recruits were highly rated. The 1991 recruits weren't as highly rated.

But the 1991 class took UC to heights it hadn't seen in 30 years (1992 FF and 1993 Elite 8).

Which one is it? You use rankings to say who is a better recruiter, than say rankings are meaningless.

[jkwuc89]

I really could not care less how Mick rated as a recruiter at Louisville versus other assistants who worked there. Does it really matter? Past success is no guarantee of future performance. So far, I think Mick has done a decent job recruiting as the head UC coach. But, my final judgment will be reserved until I see how his new recruits perform on the floor. This season will be the first true test of his recruiting. It will let us see if Mick brought in Big East capable players.

[SLMadiCat]

I really could not care less how Mick rated as a recruiter at Lousville versus other assistants who worked there. Does it really matter? Past success is no guarantee of future performance. So far, I think Mick has done a decent job recruiting as the head UC coach. But, my final judgment will be reserved until I see how his new recruits perform on the floor. This season will be the first true test of his recruiting. It will let us see if Mick brought in Big East capable players.

I agree, but I still think 2008-2009 is his first to really judge his success on. This team is still very much a make-shift team.

[levydl]

I really could not care less how Mick rated as a recruiter at Lousville versus other assistants who worked there. Does it really matter? Past success is no guarantee of future performance. So far, I think Mick has done a decent job recruiting as the head UC coach. But, my final judgment will be reserved until I see how his new recruits perform on the floor. This season will be the first true test of his recruiting. It will let us see if Mick brought in Big East capable players.

Past success is no guarantee of future performance, but it's certainly the best indicator there is.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Tom, you need to be consistent. Either he is a good recruiter or he isn't. According to your posts he didn't recruit well at UC nor Louisville. Now he's top ten?

In truth we don't really know if he's a good recruiter or bench coach yet. I happen to think he will be great at both. The only evidence that counts is based on W's and L's in the regular season AND post-season. Time will tell.

Recruited well at UC from 1998 through 2001. So did Steve Moeller, Larry Harrison, and John Loyer (before that) as well as Andy Kennedy (after that). Has recruited well at UC in past 2 years also.

Did not recruit particularly well at Louisville. Vince Taylor (before) and Reggie Theus (after) recruited better there.

Simple as I can make it. Re-read it, if necessary.

Coaching = decent at Murray State, disappointing last year at UC.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Which one is it? You use rankings to say who is a better recruiter, than say rankings are meaningless.

Never said anything like that. The 1991 class was rated in Top 10 to 15 range. The 1999 class was Top 5 range.

Would that you had a clue. Maybe someday.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Have you actually looked at the players in those classes, or are you just going off of what some recruiting database says?

The 2004 class is that high because it had Sebastian Telfair in it, and the 2005 class is that high because it had Amir Johnson in it. Neither ever played, and neither was ever going to play in the first place, so I don't see how Theus should get credit for them. Moreover, by focusing on Telfair, U of L lost out of Rondo (that may have been a blessing in disguise, but they went without a top PG until Sosa came in last year).

When Derrick Caracter (great talent, but great recruit?) and Edgar Sosa and Terrence Williams (Theus' big gets) get Louisville to the Final 4 (and perhaps they will this year), then I'd say he's on par with Mick, who had to convice Pitino to take Garcia and Dean, since the recruiting gurus thought so little of them. But which small forward would you rather have, Garcia or Williams? The RSCI says Williams. Agree?

Pitino himself said Mick is the best recruiter he's ever seen. Perhaps he was being disingenuous, but I don't know why he would. You can believe some database over him if you wish.

The 2002 and 2003 Louisville classes had many disappointments. Those classes were subpar, compared to Crum (before) and Pitino (since).

That's hogwash about Dean and Garcia. Both were NYC area recruits attracted to Pitino as a coach (and vice versa). Totally false.

I believe almost anything over Pitino's mouth.

[SLMadiCat]

U of L's recruits in 2001-02-03 were not as highly ranked as its classes in 2004-05-06-07.

Mick helped recruit the former, not the latter. Reggie Theus was much better as a Louisville recruiter.

Here you use the rankings to try to prove that Reggie Theus was a better recruiter than Cronin.

Look at the facts. Here are the RSCI Winners (top rated recruiting classes).

http://home.nc.rr.com/rsci/The_Winners/the_winners.html

Louisville #3 in 2001 because of players signed by Denny Crum and Vince Taylor before the coaching change.

NR (Not Rated) in 2002 or 2003. Cronin to Murray St, Theus at Louisville.

Then #9 in 2004. #13 in 2005. #6 in 2006.

Numbers pretty clear to me.

Ha. This is the best. You use recruiting rankings to again base your argument against Cronin as a recruiter. Even better, you state that the recruiting rankings are fact. Ask Florida, see if rankings are facts.

Yep. Absolutely correct. The 1999 Bearcat recruits were highly rated. The 1991 recruits weren't as highly rated.

But the 1991 class took UC to heights it hadn't seen in 30 years (1992 FF and 1993 Elite 8).

Now here, in response to Keith's comment that rankings are useless, you actually agree (even though above you say they are the facts).

Never said anything like that. The 1991 class was rated in Top 10 to 15 range. The 1999 class was Top 5 range.

Would that you had a clue. Maybe someday.

You sure you never said that?

[waterhead]

58 is obviously still a little ticked off about the Huggins debacle. Understandable. Let's hope them sour grapes turn into a fine whine:)

The FACTS are nobody really knows how good Mick is or is not. It's all just speculation right now so why don't we just get behind him until he proves us right or wrong. When that day comes we can praise him or call for his head. Until then I'm not sure it does us any good to concentrate on his short comings...everyone has them. Huggins obviously had them even though most of us loved him anyway. As someone said there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Climb on board the Mick Cronin train...nobody's gonna get hurt if we have to jump off down the road.

[Bearcat_DF]

Waterhead,

I don't know about others, but I enjoy the discussion of pros and cons - whether it be Huggins, Cronin or anyone else. (Caveat - I do set a limit at overly critical remarks about players. They are payed a $1mil . . .)

So, I do not see it as dwelling on short comings. Further, it has a small chance of improving the program. If we can see a shortcoming, I believe other coaches can see them too. By discussing them here, at least the coaching staff will be aware of what others are seeing. (Yes, the basketball staff and AD staff monitor message boards).

Unfortunately, some want to make a competition out of the Huggins/Cronin debate. I think it is really a proxy for the debate about Dr. Zimpher's decision which in my mind is already settled: she botched it because the timing was poorly chosen, it set the program back at least 1-2 years.

I look forward to the upcoming season because it appears we do not have enough data to discuss Cronin's coaching skill.

Go Cats!
DF

[waterhead]

Waterhead,

I don't know about others, but I enjoy the discussion of pros and cons - whether it be Huggins, Cronin or anyone else.


DF,

I like debating too. I just felt it was getting a little heated. I guess we're all big boys and can handle it.

My peronal thought is that judging how good of a coach Mick is from the mess he was thrown into is an excersize in futility. I mean it was an absolute mess of a situation and I agree with you on the Zim debacle. When order is restored to the program it will be easier to judge his performance. I think someone already said it but I don't think we can can get a good handle on his coaching ability until 08'-09' or perhaps even the following year after team chemistry has had a chance to take hold. Not to mention he gets to use recruits that weren't last minute.

[Inchickinkick]

I agree, but I still think 2008-2009 is his first to really judge his success on. This team is still very much a make-shift team.

english please

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Here you use the rankings to try to prove that Reggie Theus was a better recruiter than Cronin.



Ha. This is the best. You use recruiting rankings to again base your argument against Cronin as a recruiter. Even better, you state that the recruiting rankings are fact. Ask Florida, see if rankings are facts.



Now here, in response to Keith's comment that rankings are useless, you actually agree (even though above you say they are the facts).



You sure you never said that?

The 1991 class was not as highly rated as the 1999 class.
Top 10-15 class is not as highly rated as Top 5 class.

Seems clear to me.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

58 is obviously still a little ticked off about the Huggins debacle. Understandable. Let's hope them sour grapes turn into a fine whine:)

The FACTS are nobody really knows how good Mick is or is not. It's all just speculation right now so why don't we just get behind him until he proves us right or wrong. When that day comes we can praise him or call for his head. Until then I'm not sure it does us any good to concentrate on his short comings...everyone has them. Huggins obviously had them even though most of us loved him anyway. As someone said there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Climb on board the Mick Cronin train...nobody's gonna get hurt if we have to jump off down the road.

I like Mick Cronin. He's just not proven as a coach yet. Not even close. Decent at Murray St (as others have done there). Disappointing at UC last year. Fantastic recruiter.

[SLMadiCat]

I like Mick Cronin. He's just not proven as a coach yet. Not even close. Decent at Murray St (as others have done there). Disappointing at UC last year. Fantastic recruiter.

Go figure, one year at UC and he isn't proven yet. Who would have thought? So because others have done well at Murray St. it diminishes what he has done there? I don't see the correlation.

[SLMadiCat]

english please

I think everybody understood me.

[Bearcat Fan Since 1958]

Go figure, one year at UC and he isn't proven yet. Who would have thought? So because others have done well at Murray St. it diminishes what he has done there? I don't see the correlation.

Murray State and OVC are Little Potato League.

UC in the Big East is Major League Baseball.

It remains to be seen how Mick will do as a coach. He is a superb recruiter. So was Tony Yates.

[ME80]

Cronin is a superb recruiter. He has yet to show that he is equal as a coach.

That's just a fact. His team lost a number of games in 2007 that should have been W.

Been on vacation so sorry about the late response, but again you failed to address the point I made. You can look at at almost any year of BH's tenure and find games he lost that they should have won.

[SLMadiCat]

Murray State and OVC are Little Potato League.

UC in the Big East is Major League Baseball.

It remains to be seen how Mick will do as a coach. He is a superb recruiter. So was Tony Yates.

What does Tony Yates have to do with it?

CUSA was a little potato too compared to the Big East.