Mic Cronin

[Joco45215]

I always thought he would be the right replacement for Bob when Bob retired....I just think he was rushed into the job before he was ready. Its year 5 and yes the Cats are better than they were when he took over but not on the level we as Bearcat fans were used too...I dont think he's right for the job any more. His recruiting is weak (er) He has not be able to take a good player and make them great. I cannot think of any player he's gotten and coached them up better from a under classman to upper classman. This is my last year for Cronin, Most have already given up, Im not a basher of his but if it doesnt get any better Im not supporting him any more...Im a home town guy I root for all the home town teams (cept X, Ill watch them but for some reason after I got that Black and red blood I cant be a fan at all), guys, etc. etc. I figured when Huggins was let go that it would take 2-3 years for them to be back to the Tourney. I also thought being a Bengals fan Id have more patience with the process...No it didnt work. Mike Thomas goal was a conference Championship with every athletic team every 5 years....Its year six in the conference....Im waiting and hoping but it doesnt seem to be happening....Heres to hoping it does!

[Bearcat Otto]

No matter who the coach is or was, this program didn't have a chance for at least 5 years after Huggins was gone.

And everyone knows the reasons why.

[BeastUC]

Well honestly the had no choice but to be better than they were when he took over.
I think this year will tell a lot as we have a chance to finish as high as 6th or as low as 13th,IMO.I think 5 years is long enough to field a competitive team given the situation Cronin walked into.
Sadly,i'm not expecting much this season even though i want to,so i won't be too disappointed unless we finish below 13th.

[McMickenKid]

I always thought he would be the right replacement for Bob when Bob retired....I just think he was rushed into the job before he was ready. Its year 5 and yes the Cats are better than they were when he took over but not on the level we as Bearcat fans were used too...I dont think he's right for the job any more. His recruiting is weak (er) He has not be able to take a good player and make them great. I cannot think of any player he's gotten and coached them up better from a under classman to upper classman. This is my last year for Cronin, Most have already given up, Im not a basher of his but if it doesnt get any better Im not supporting him any more...Im a home town guy I root for all the home town teams (cept X, Ill watch them but for some reason after I got that Black and red blood I cant be a fan at all), guys, etc. etc. I figured when Huggins was let go that it would take 2-3 years for them to be back to the Tourney. I also thought being a Bengals fan Id have more patience with the process...No it didnt work. Mike Thomas goal was a conference Championship with every athletic team every 5 years....Its year six in the conference....Im waiting and hoping but it doesnt seem to be happening....Heres to hoping it does!

I think you echo the majority voice of Bearcat fans.

[KY Bearcat]

I have been as harsh a critic as anyone, however I am more than willing to support Mick through this season as I truly believe that the upcoming season will "make or break" MC's tenure with the Bearcats. If he can pull 20+ wins out of this season and get us a ticket to the tournament then great, if not, he has had a fair and ample amount of time to prove his worth and if we fail to make any impact on the conference and national stage, I do not believe Mick will ever reach the standards that this program has (which are relatively average standards these days.)

[cincycpaw]

No matter who the coach is or was, this program didn't have a chance for at least 5 years after Huggins was gone.


BS.

We aren't talking about winning a national championship here...we're talking about being in the tournament.

To think that NO other coach could have gotten that done in this time frame is ridiculous.

[Cpaw]

hmmm, I think their are 137 other threads covering this same topic. I am not sure but I think most points of view have been expressed at least 49 times. These are guesstimates, please don't hold me to them!

[Lobot]

Agreed. I really don't think we need to rehash this yet again.

[Mr. Bearcat]

Whether we need to rehash this same argument or not, this continues to be the single biggest issue with this program, so the discussion will continue until something changes (i.e. Cronin turns us into a power...or...we get a new coach)...period! Ignoring it won't make anything get better.

Our basketball program is greatly disappointing at the present time. Nobody is coming to games. We aren't sniffing the tournament. He is the leader of the program, so he is responsible and it should be expected that he take some heat. We can't carry on forever with him because of his supposed potential. At some point, potential becomes reality. The reality right now is our program is pretty sad.

[Nerf]

Mick. His name is Mick.

[behrlezt]

"Defintiely from a maturity standpoint. Guys that understand the grind. The biggest for us is going to be Cashmere Wright and Jaquon Parker because they are still only sophomores." If i have to hear the inexperience BS again from Mick it's going to be a long year...

[Bearcat_DF]

Wright is beginning his 3rd year in the program. Parker his second.

Whatever happened to the coaches who say of freshmen in Feb, they aren't freshmen any longer . . .

[Carin's Dad]

Whether we need to rehash this same argument or not, this continues to be the single biggest issue NOT with this program,
Winning more games is the single biggest issue with the program. A coaching change will not necessarily address that issue in the near term.

Rehashing the same old topic with no new data points is intellectually moronic.

I happen to think we have a good convergence of factors that could make for a decent season:

1) We're underrated - easy to overlook.
2) No "superstars" We had two players who everybody thought were stars who were actually just average players - Stephenson and Vaughn. What this means is the players remaining will have to play as a team and not think that somebody else will save their butts.
3) Related to point 2 is that there is now room for a real team leader to emerge. We've needed this for the last 4 years and it just wasn't something Vaughn wanted to or could do.
3) Experience - there's just no substitute.
4) Kilpatrick - he showed in Canada that he's got some game.
5) Three extra games and the extra practice from the Canada trip.

My expectations are still low but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.

[Mr. Bearcat]

Winning more games is the single biggest issue with the program. A coaching change will not necessarily address that issue in the near term.

Rehashing the same old topic with no new data points is intellectually moronic.

I happen to think we have a good convergence of factors that could make for a decent season:

1) We're underrated - easy to overlook.
2) No "superstars" We had two players who everybody thought were stars who were actually just average players - Stephenson and Vaughn. What this means is the players remaining will have to play as a team and not think that somebody else will save their butts.
3) Related to point 2 is that there is now room for a real team leader to emerge. We've needed this for the last 4 years and it just wasn't something Vaughn wanted to or could do.
3) Experience - there's just no substitute.
4) Kilpatrick - he showed in Canada that he's got some game.
5) Three extra games and the extra practice from the Canada trip.

My expectations are still low but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.

The established way to stop losing in athletics is to change coaches. Bob Huggins was a big change from Tony Yates. Lou Pinella was a big change from Pete Rose. Marvin Lewis was a big change from D1ck LeBeau and Dave Shula. Standing pat with Mick Cronin will also not necessarily address winning more games either. We have four years of results and facts to base making a change on. We don't have a history of wins and great recruits to support standing pat.

Having new data points and not recognizing them is also intellectually moronic.

New data points:
-New 2010 recruits added to roster
-Kilpatrick added to roster
-Rashad Bishop reinstated
-commitments from 4 2011/2012 recruits
-Canada trip completed
-preseason rankings and standings released

So, with all the new data points, someone started this thread.

1.) We're not underrated at all. We're rated right where our past performance, returning players, recruits (or lack thereof) say we should be. Only if we over-perform can we go back and say we were underrated. At this point there is not on shread of evidense that says we're underrated.

2.) Having no stars is part of our problem. Hoping that a great team emerges from a team of no stars is wishful thinking. I don't think we have any Tom Thackers, Tony Yates, Paul Hogues, Ron Bonhams or anyone like them on this team.

3.) Wishing for a leader to emerge is not fact. It is a wish.

4.) Canada is a hockey country. American basketball players should all have game against them.

5.) Three extra games and extra practices will help...good point!

My expectations are not low, but they aren't high either. Let's hope for a huge pleasant surprise!

[juckerrules]

Winning more games is the single biggest issue with the program. A coaching change will not necessarily address that issue in the near term.

Rehashing the same old topic with no new data points is intellectually moronic.

I happen to think we have a good convergence of factors that could make for a decent season:

1) We're underrated - easy to overlook.
2) No "superstars" We had two players who everybody thought were stars who were actually just average players - Stephenson and Vaughn. What this means is the players remaining will have to play as a team and not think that somebody else will save their butts.
3) Related to point 2 is that there is now room for a real team leader to emerge. We've needed this for the last 4 years and it just wasn't something Vaughn wanted to or could do.
3) Experience - there's just no substitute.
4) Kilpatrick - he showed in Canada that he's got some game.
5) Three extra games and the extra practice from the Canada trip.

My expectations are still low but I'm open to being pleasantly surprised.

I agree 98% - My only quibble, and understand, this is coming from someone who was decidedly NOT a big Lance fan...is that I would categorize anyone who is drafted in the NBA as better than "average".

I always thought the team chemistry was off - they didn't jell, but surely Lance was better than average....those guys don't get a sniff from the NBA

[Carin's Dad]

I agree 98% - My only quibble, and understand, this is coming from someone who was decidedly NOT a big Lance fan...is that I would categorize anyone who is drafted in the NBA as better than "average".

I always thought the team chemistry was off - they didn't jell, but surely Lance was better than average....those guys don't get a sniff from the NBALance was not a college star by any measurement. He may end up being a good pro (or an ex-con), but his performance at UC was solid but nothing great.

[Carin's Dad]

1.) We're not underrated at all. We're rated right where our past performance, returning players, recruits (or lack thereof) say we should be. Only if we over-perform can we go back and say we were underrated. At this point there is not on shread of evidense that says we're underrated. Okay - How about "expactations are low"

2.) Having no stars is part of our problem. Hoping that a great team emerges from a team of no stars is wishful thinking. I don't think we have any Tom Thackers, Tony Yates, Paul Hogues, Ron Bonhams or anyone like them on this team. Tell it to Butler. All those '61 players you mention were stars coming out of high school. All heavily recruited.

3.) Wishing for a leader to emerge is not fact. It is a wish. At least there's no barrier now.

4.) Canada is a hockey country. American basketball players should all have game against them. Like Kansas a couple of years ago?

5.) Three extra games and extra practices will help...good point!

My expectations are not low, but they aren't high either. Let's hope for a huge pleasant surprise!My point was there's no fresh evidence with which to reopen the whole "Fire Mick" discussion. Every possible nuance has been raised and discussed a thousand times. All it's accomplished is getting several members banned from this site.

[catsfan32]

Most of you are hilarious.

Some of you are crazy.

A few of you are sane.

Let's see how the season plays out and we'll pass judgment from that point.

Cincinnati is 1 of 5 teams to increase their win total over the last 4 years. Name the other 4 and you'll be shocked. However, I'm sure some of you will run that stat in the dirt and make "excuses" why it shouldn't apply.

Sincerely,

The One Who Knows More Than You

[levydl]

Lance was not a college star by any measurement. He may end up being a good pro (or an ex-con), but his performance at UC was solid but nothing great.

Best freshman in the Big East. "Nothing great" does not equal "average."

[Joco45215]

Mick. His name is Mick.


Excuse me my mistake. When he restores the glory to this program no one in Cincy will spell it wrong again.....;)

[Joco45215]

The established way to stop losing in athletics is to change coaches. Bob Huggins was a big change from Tony Yates. Lou Pinella was a big change from Pete Rose. Marvin Lewis was a big change from D1ck LeBeau and Dave Shula. Standing pat with Mick Cronin will also not necessarily address winning more games either. We have four years of results and facts to base making a change on. We don't have a history of wins and great recruits to support standing pat.

Having new data points and not recognizing them is also intellectually moronic.

New data points:
-New 2010 recruits added to roster
-Kilpatrick added to roster
-Rashad Bishop reinstated
-commitments from 4 2011/2012 recruits
-Canada trip completed
-preseason rankings and standings released

So, with all the new data points, someone started this thread.

1.) We're not underrated at all. We're rated right where our past performance, returning players, recruits (or lack thereof) say we should be. Only if we over-perform can we go back and say we were underrated. At this point there is not on shread of evidense that says we're underrated.

2.) Having no stars is part of our problem. Hoping that a great team emerges from a team of no stars is wishful thinking. I don't think we have any Tom Thackers, Tony Yates, Paul Hogues, Ron Bonhams or anyone like them on this team.

3.) Wishing for a leader to emerge is not fact. It is a wish.

4.) Canada is a hockey country. American basketball players should all have game against them.

5.) Three extra games and extra practices will help...good point!

My expectations are not low, but they aren't high either. Let's hope for a huge pleasant surprise!



Where is this information I would like to see who is commited (all i heard was the shaq kid he beat out some small schools for), this used to be the best web site for Cincy basketball and from what I hear he keeps it all a secret on who he is recruiting...I like the old recruiting page better

[Joco45215]

Where is this information I would like to see who is commited (all i heard was the shaq kid he beat out some small schools for), this used to be the best web site for Cincy basketball and from what I hear he keeps it all a secret on who he is recruiting...I like the old recruiting page better

sorry I retract this statement I found them quit easily....my mistake

[Mr. Bearcat]

My point was there's no fresh evidence with which to reopen the whole "Fire Mick" discussion. Every possible nuance has been raised and discussed a thousand times. All it's accomplished is getting several members banned from this site.

I agree Mick is our coach come he11 or high water this year and we just have to support him and hope for the best. I have renewed my season tickets and I will be at every game doing just that.

My honest to God hope is that he is the coach for the next 30 years and we don't need to make a change. That would mean that he turned us around and made us a basketball power again.

Nobody should want or expect anything less than us being a top 25 program every year. We cannot be happy being outside the top 25 and in the bottom half of the Big East. We are one of the top 25 basketball programs "all-time" and we can't accept anything less from Mick. 5 years is plenty of time to turn this thing around. Expectations are pretty low this year, but we all hope that the experts are wrong. If not, I think the heat will be rising pretty high on Mick. We started good in Canada. Let's hope it carries into the regular season. The way football has started, we may be relying on Mick for some sanity by that time.

[K-Mart123]

Please remember that UC is in the Big East and not conference USA. Winning on a consistent basis is much harder in the Big East regardless of the coach.

[Mr. Bearcat]

Please remember that UC is in the Big East and not conference USA. Winning on a consistent basis is much harder in the Big East regardless of the coach.

It doesn't seem too hard for UCONN, Pitt, Syracuse, Georgetown, Louisville, WVU, Marquette, etc. It is only hard for the wanna-bees like Rutgers, St. Johns, Seton Halls, Depauls, S. Fla., etc. who we have been hanging out with lately. Our program should be right there with the winning programs in the Big East and winning should be an expectation for us just like it is for the 6 or 7 schools that are always winning.

Yes, the league is tougher than Conf. USA, but that doesn't seem to have stopped Lousiville or Marquette. As long as we make excuses about the league being tougher, we'll continue to be a mediocre program. Pitino and Huggins and coaches like them embrace the better competition and lead their programs to greater success because of it. We should not expect less because the road to success is a little tougher.

[Best Body]

Please remember that UC is in the Big East and not conference USA. Winning on a consistent basis is much harder in the Big East regardless of the coach.

The good coaches in the league do it just fine. Just b/c it is hard to do, doesn't mean the university should settle for someone who can't do it. The fact is that under Mick, UC is losing on a consistent basis (He's not had even one good year in the league.), which should be unacceptable in any league.

I'd love for UC to have a coach who can consistently win in the Big East. Personally, I'd certainly accept a down year once in awhile, given the difficulty of the conference. Heck, right now I'd settle for someone who could do it every other year. That'd be a monumental improvement.

[oldcat48]

It's still all about the dollar. When the administration here invests money at athletics the way Louisville's did, then we can compete for coaches like Pitino. Until then, we've got the worst budget of the fb schools, and any of our successes (in any sport) are to be commended. Until we can fork up money to get established, successful coaches here in the first place (or to keep rising stars from leaving) we will struggle for the long run while experiencing blips of success in the short run. Just my opinion, but I think it's correct.

And please don't follow up with "we should've kept Huggs" because he had an equal part in his own firing. Just consider my post one for looking to the future only ;)

[K-Mart123]

The problem is that the Big East has several very good coaches and even they do not make the tournament every year. The Big East has some of the best coaches of all time, it is very difficult to go against that every year. If UC was in the Big East instead of conference USA years ago i do not think that they would have the winning history that they do.


The only way UC gets back to what we all know and crave is if they are able to hire a big name coach. Even that will not guarantee success.

Teams in the Big East with Great coaches

Uconn, nova, pitt, UL, WVU, sycracuse

no other conference in the country has the amount of great coaches that the Big East has.

[Mr. Bearcat]

It's still all about the dollar. When the administration here invests money at athletics the way Louisville's did, then we can compete for coaches like Pitino. Until then, we've got the worst budget of the fb schools, and any of our successes (in any sport) are to be commended. Until we can fork up money to get established, successful coaches here in the first place (or to keep rising stars from leaving) we will struggle for the long run while experiencing blips of success in the short run. Just my opinion, but I think it's correct.

And please don't follow up with "we should've kept Huggs" because he had an equal part in his own firing. Just consider my post one for looking to the future only ;)

We were able to keep our former coach for a long time and certainly had more than blips of success. But, in general, you are correct. However, if we were going to try to compete in the Big East with a Conference USA budget and mentality, then maybe we should have stayed in Conf. USA. Shame on us for trying to play with the big boys and trying to do it cheaper than everyone else.

You don't move to the big time and turn yourself into a loser because you don't want to spend money to compete. If we are going to stay in the Big East, then we need to spend a whole lot more obviously. If we are not willing to spend more, or unable to do so, then we need to get back in a league where we can compete. I have no interest in watching us lose just so we can compete with the best. Losing will not result in increased budgets and spending, nor will it attract enough fans to be able to budget more.

[Carin's Dad]

The problem is that the Big East has several very good coaches and even they do not make the tournament every year. The Big East has some of the best coaches of all time, it is very difficult to go against that every year. If UC was in the Big East instead of conference USA years ago i do not think that they would have the winning history that they do.


The only way UC gets back to what we all know and crave is if they are able to hire a big name coach. Even that will not guarantee success.

Teams in the Big East with Great coaches

Uconn, nova, pitt, UL, WVU, sycracuse

no other conference in the country has the amount of great coaches that the Big East has.
Only two of those hired "big name" coaches, and they were both a little tarnished when hired. Pitino by his failure in the pros and Huggins - well you know.

[K-Mart123]

tarnished or not, i would love to have Pitino as the coach of UC

[cincycpaw]

Most of you are hilarious.

Some of you are crazy.

A few of you are sane.

Let's see how the season plays out and we'll pass judgment from that point.

Cincinnati is 1 of 5 teams to increase their win total over the last 4 years. Name the other 4 and you'll be shocked. However, I'm sure some of you will run that stat in the dirt and make "excuses" why it shouldn't apply.

Sincerely,

The One Who Knows More Than You

So they started scheduling easier pre-conference games...how does that show improvement? Let's look at the conference record shall we....

[Mr. Bearcat]

So they started scheduling easier pre-conference games...how does that show improvement? Let's look at the conference record shall we....

I guess that shows which of his 3 categories he falls into with respect to the people in here. You are absolutely right. Our Non-Conference schedule has been eased to the point that it would be almost impossible to not improve our record. The league schedule on the other hand is pretty constant and a much more accurate barometer or our progress, and to your point, it does not show progress.

But, who cares about football and basketball anyway. Our volleyball team has cracked the top 25. We are now officially a "VOLLEYBALL SCHOOL"!

[oldcat48]

We were able to keep our former coach for a long time and certainly had more than blips of success. But, in general, you are correct. However, if we were going to try to compete in the Big East with a Conference USA budget and mentality, then maybe we should have stayed in Conf. USA. Shame on us for trying to play with the big boys and trying to do it cheaper than everyone else.

You don't move to the big time and turn yourself into a loser because you don't want to spend money to compete. If we are going to stay in the Big East, then we need to spend a whole lot more obviously. If we are not willing to spend more, or unable to do so, then we need to get back in a league where we can compete. I have no interest in watching us lose just so we can compete with the best. Losing will not result in increased budgets and spending, nor will it attract enough fans to be able to budget more.

Dead on correct.

[BearcatAlum1]

So they started scheduling easier pre-conference games...how does that show improvement? Let's look at the conference record shall we....

A rebuttal is that sometimes the conference is stronger/weaker than other years.

When you have 8 teams ranked in the top 25 throughout the entire year, 8-9 conference wins may seem solid.

When you have 2-3 teams ranked in the top 25 throughout the entire year, 12-13 wins is probably expected.

Just saying...

[cincycpaw]

A rebuttal is that sometimes the conference is stronger/weaker than other years.

When you have 8 teams ranked in the top 25 throughout the entire year, 8-9 conference wins may seem solid.

When you have 2-3 teams ranked in the top 25 throughout the entire year, 12-13 wins is probably expected.

Just saying...


That is a decent point.

So let's look at the post-season play. ;)

[Carin's Dad]

We were able to keep our former coach for a long time and certainly had more than blips of success. But, in general, you are correct. However, if we were going to try to compete in the Big East with a Conference USA budget and mentality, then maybe we should have stayed in Conf. USA. Shame on us for trying to play with the big boys and trying to do it cheaper than everyone else.

You don't move to the big time and turn yourself into a loser because you don't want to spend money to compete. If we are going to stay in the Big East, then we need to spend a whole lot more obviously. If we are not willing to spend more, or unable to do so, then we need to get back in a league where we can compete. I have no interest in watching us lose just so we can compete with the best. Losing will not result in increased budgets and spending, nor will it attract enough fans to be able to budget more.Are there a lot examples of high mid level programs investing big bucks on a "name" coach? OK State had all the money in the world and took an up-and-comer. The big name coaches aren't moving around unless it's an upgrade. Williams to NC, Cal to UK, Self to KU.

And I don't think any of them move for money. Izzo would be in Cleveland if he just wanted money.

Saying we should invest big money (even if we had it) in a big time coach is pretty ridiculous because there's virtually nobody to "buy."

[binturong07]

hmmm, I think their are 137 other threads covering this same topic. I am not sure but I think most points of view have been expressed at least 49 times. These are guesstimates, please don't hold me to them!

Exact same thing I thought when reading this thread.

[Mr. Bearcat]

Are there a lot examples of high mid level programs investing big bucks on a "name" coach? OK State had all the money in the world and took an up-and-comer. The big name coaches aren't moving around unless it's an upgrade. Williams to NC, Cal to UK, Self to KU.

And I don't think any of them move for money. Izzo would be in Cleveland if he just wanted money.

Saying we should invest big money (even if we had it) in a big time coach is pretty ridiculous because there's virtually nobody to "buy."

My post didn't say a word about spending more money on a coach. My reference was to continually hearing the excuse that we operate on the smallest budget in the Big East. I don't want to hear that BS anymore. There's no reason why Louisville should have a ton more money to spend than us.....nor should Marquette, Pitt, etc. We're supposedly one of the most expensive public universities to attend according to an MSN report last year. Why are these other small market schools spending way more than us? I'm sure part of the answer is fans and donors. For whatever reason, we don't have passionate and loyal fans and alumni I guess. Much has been written on here about UCATS and pricing increases that have turned loyal people away, so maybe the answer lies there. Maybe we need to rethink that process and hire Louisville's donor program coordinator away from them. They seem to have it figured out!

If you are going to continually bring up how little we spend to answer why we are performing poorly, then move back to a mid major league where you can compete and we can establish a winning tradition. It doesn't seem to bother Memphis, Butler, Xavier, etc. If you want to hang with the big boys, then you have to spend like the big boys.

[ucat4]

Well said Mr. B. Also, it only makes sense that the more you spend & invest on improving the quality of a program the more that program will earn.

Bottom line is: wins = revenue

Hmm, for some reason winning seems to solve everything.......one needs to look no further than the football program the last few years

[richard k.]

. There's no reason why Louisville should have a ton more money to spend than us..... Maybe we need to rethink that process and hire Louisville's donor program coordinator away from them. They seem to have it figured out!

The "problem" with comparing UC and UofL is that in addition to hiring their donor program coordinator you'd also have to figure out a way to get rid of the Reds, the Bengals, and "X." The ONLY competing athletic organization in Louisville to UofL is UK, and Lexington is almost as far from Louisville as Columbus/OSU is from Cincinnati. Don't mean to make excuses but we are, in fact, a "big city public school," which, unfortunately, is not considered the state "flagship" school. Doesn't mean that enlarging the donor base/amounts can't be done - but,obviously, it is a challenge.

[Mr. Bearcat]

The "problem" with comparing UC and UofL is that in addition to hiring their donor program coordinator you'd also have to figure out a way to get rid of the Reds, the Bengals, and "X." The ONLY competing athletic organization in Louisville to UofL is UK, and Lexington is almost as far from Louisville as Columbus/OSU is from Cincinnati. Don't mean to make excuses but we are, in fact, a "big city public school," which, unfortunately, is not considered the state "flagship" school. Doesn't mean that enlarging the donor base/amounts can't be done - but,obviously, it is a challenge.

Well then, Pitt and Marquette are certainly in the same boat, as well as others. Plus, Louisville is close enough to us that I'm sure the Reds and Bengals also eat up a % of the entertainment dollars for some of their people also.

[oldcat48]

To be fair, U of L's donor folks might have it so much easier where they work now that they wouldn't have a clue how to manage in a truly tough fundraising environment.

I'm pretty sure Louisville's administration made a huge commitment to athletics several years ago. I think they also get lots of help from the state of Kentucky on their new facilities. So not only is it easier to hire big name coaches, ala Pitino, but heck, you can much more easily hang onto the coaches you hire who do well by paying them much more money and building them lovely arenas, rather than just serving as the farm team for coaches to move on to higher paying jobs, which must be your m.o. if you don't have money to keep coaches.

Pitt has been an established athletic program for decades and they're an AAU school so they probably have current donors whose parents and grandparents went to Pitt (and supported it). Marquette? Marquette doesn't even have football, it's a private school, so no comparison there (except for the fact that they have pro sports). Louisville clearly prioritizes athletics over some other things on campus, or they wouldn't have the budget they do. But they clearly functioned under the "Build it and they will come" mentality (not just facilities, but salaries, everything). And it worked - they have a huge fanbase now. Big enough to survive Kragthorpe :p

[Mr. Bearcat]

To be fair, U of L's donor folks might have it so much easier where they work now that they wouldn't have a clue how to manage in a truly tough fundraising environment.

I'm pretty sure Louisville's administration made a huge commitment to athletics several years ago. I think they also get lots of help from the state of Kentucky on their new facilities. So not only is it easier to hire big name coaches, ala Pitino, but heck, you can much more easily hang onto the coaches you hire who do well by paying them much more money and building them lovely arenas, rather than just serving as the farm team for coaches to move on to higher paying jobs, which must be your m.o. if you don't have money to keep coaches.

Pitt has been an established athletic program for decades and they're an AAU school so they probably have current donors whose parents and grandparents went to Pitt (and supported it). Marquette? Marquette doesn't even have football, it's a private school, so no comparison there (except for the fact that they have pro sports). Louisville clearly prioritizes athletics over some other things on campus, or they wouldn't have the budget they do. But they clearly functioned under the "Build it and they will come" mentality (not just facilities, but salaries, everything). And it worked - they have a huge fanbase now. Big enough to survive Kragthorpe :p

Our donor/fan base is definitely weak. It only took a few years of post-Huggs to turn a pretty full arena into a half empty arena...or worse. If we lose against Oklahoma this week, it will be interesting to see what our new-found football loyalty turns into. We already did not sell out the home opener...which is pretty sad. Bottom line, there is no loyalty when it comes to Bearcat sports. It's win, or else, you play to an empty arena/stadium. That's why being in the Big East, and not spending the necessary money, is a formula for failure because our fans won't come to see a loser.

[Bcatfan08]

I'd say that it was difficult for any coach to come in and do much better in the first five years. Tell any coach that they could take a job with a team that has just one returning scholarship player and the team is moving from about the 8th best conference to the best conference and see who takes the job. Mick wasn't going to get many solid recruits the first 2-3 years and we were lucky to get Yancy and Deonta. Most coaches won't do much better than Mick's first year and that means just about every recruit isn't interested in going to UC after the first year. Mick's settling for guys who either have poor grades, were passed by several schools, or are JUCO guys. None of which are guys that build programs.

This is all something brought on solely by Nancy Z and her very poor handling of getting rid of Huggins. You just can't get rid of a coach right before the season. She does it in April and we're probably just fine. We could get a new coach and not lose recruits. Instead we can't get a new coach for a year and lose the entire team.

I always hear how we should be a much better team, but Mick has done a lot in a very short time. Now that we're back to a place where we can get recruits and can compete we'll get to see if Mick is the coach of the future. He got the program back to be able to compete, but it now depends on whether he can coach with some of the top coaches. It's great that he brought us back to where we are now, but if he can't coach with the best then we need to move on. He took care of the hardest part of bringing the program back to being competitive, but now we're getting to the point where he has to produce. Its great that he brought the program back, but that only lasts a short time. Selling a program to get recruits and winning all the games against teams we should beat is one thing, but in the Big East that's not enough. Mick's done a lot for the program, but if he doesn't win this year he probably will be on the way out.

[Carin's Dad]

UL spends $5.4 million on BBall ($2.3 on salaries) and takes in $18 million ($8.7 contributions, $7.4 tickets)

UC spends $3.7 million ($1.5 salaries) and takes in $5.7 million ($0.4 contributions, $2.7 tickets)

This report is not clear on the dates: http://www2.indystar.com/NCAA_financial_reports/expense_stat/show?school_id=82

Their BBall program is generating enough excess money to pay for the new arena with no state money.

All we need to do is up our contributions by $800,000 and we can get a Pitino level coach!

[oldcat48]

Our donor/fan base is definitely weak. It only took a few years of post-Huggs to turn a pretty full arena into a half empty arena...or worse. If we lose against Oklahoma this week, it will be interesting to see what our new-found football loyalty turns into. We already did not sell out the home opener...which is pretty sad. Bottom line, there is no loyalty when it comes to Bearcat sports. It's win, or else, you play to an empty arena/stadium. That's why being in the Big East, and not spending the necessary money, is a formula for failure because our fans won't come to see a loser.

Regarding the fans not coming - maybe for a few games. But if we win at the middle/end of the season, the bandwagon jumpers will all be back, and they'll be back much quicker than it took them to get on in the first place a couple of years ago.

[oldcat48]

I'd say that it was difficult for any coach to come in and do much better in the first five years. Tell any coach that they could take a job with a team that has just one returning scholarship player and the team is moving from about the 8th best conference to the best conference and see who takes the job. Mick wasn't going to get many solid recruits the first 2-3 years and we were lucky to get Yancy and Deonta. Most coaches won't do much better than Mick's first year and that means just about every recruit isn't interested in going to UC after the first year. Mick's settling for guys who either have poor grades, were passed by several schools, or are JUCO guys. None of which are guys that build programs.

This is all something brought on solely by Nancy Z and her very poor handling of getting rid of Huggins. You just can't get rid of a coach right before the season. She does it in April and we're probably just fine. We could get a new coach and not lose recruits. Instead we can't get a new coach for a year and lose the entire team.

I always hear how we should be a much better team, but Mick has done a lot in a very short time. Now that we're back to a place where we can get recruits and can compete we'll get to see if Mick is the coach of the future. He got the program back to be able to compete, but it now depends on whether he can coach with some of the top coaches. It's great that he brought us back to where we are now, but if he can't coach with the best then we need to move on. He took care of the hardest part of bringing the program back to being competitive, but now we're getting to the point where he has to produce. Its great that he brought the program back, but that only lasts a short time. Selling a program to get recruits and winning all the games against teams we should beat is one thing, but in the Big East that's not enough. Mick's done a lot for the program, but if he doesn't win this year he probably will be on the way out.

To be fair to Mick, I'd say he's proven he can coach with the best of them, because he's beaten most of them here and there in the last few years, arguably with far inferior talent. He outcoached Pitino on the New Years Day game a few years ago - I was there. I'd say the million dollar question is if Mick can CONSISTENTLY beat the top coaches in the league. Consistency is Mick's issue, imho, getting the guys to compete day in and day out.

[cincycpaw]

To be fair to Mick, I'd say he's proven he can coach with the best of them,

I don't think that is fair. I think it is way to early to say that. Certainly possible though.

[Mr. Bearcat]

To be fair to Mick, I'd say he's proven he can coach with the best of them, because he's beaten most of them here and there in the last few years, arguably with far inferior talent. He outcoached Pitino on the New Years Day game a few years ago - I was there. I'd say the million dollar question is if Mick can CONSISTENTLY beat the top coaches in the league. Consistency is Mick's issue, imho, getting the guys to compete day in and day out.

The danger of pointing out the few great coaches Mick has beaten and extrapolating that to prove that he can compete with the best, is someone also pointing out the bad coaches and teams who have defeated him, and there have been plenty of those also. I don't want to go back and make such a list, but I'm sure it would be pretty ugly.

[oldcat48]

The danger of pointing out the few great coaches Mick has beaten and extrapolating that to prove that he can compete with the best, is someone also pointing out the bad coaches and teams who have defeated him, and there have been plenty of those also. I don't want to go back and make such a list, but I'm sure it would be pretty ugly.

I'd have to do some research on that and no time at the present, but it would be interesting to see which coaches that get fired from the Big East have beaten which big-time coaches in the Big East and how many wins like that there were over their final five years. I mean, Mick's beaten several of them - his wins against them aren't one or two over three seasons or anything.

Again - I think Mick's problem is that he's got to be consistent. And a disciplinarian. They don't have to like you but they do have to respect you.

Edit: took a second to check on Mick's record at least:
09-10 beat Louisville, UConn twice, ND, Maryland, and Vandy
08-09 beat Georgetown twice, ND
07-08 beat WVU, Pitt, Nova, Syracuse, and Louisville
06-07 beat X, WVU

I'm not sure if that's a lot or not - I'd have to check a lot of other schedules. But I think he's beaten enough of them that the elite coaches can't take Mick for granted. They probably can't be sure which team will show up. Again, consistency.

[Mr. Bearcat]

I'd have to do some research on that and no time at the present, but it would be interesting to see which coaches that get fired from the Big East have beaten which big-time coaches in the Big East and how many wins like that there were over their final five years. I mean, Mick's beaten several of them - his wins against them aren't one or two over three seasons or anything.

Again - I think Mick's problem is that he's got to be consistent. And a disciplinarian. They don't have to like you but they do have to respect you.

Edit: took a second to check on Mick's record at least:
09-10 beat Louisville, UConn twice, ND, Maryland, and Vandy
08-09 beat Georgetown twice, ND
07-08 beat WVU, Pitt, Nova, Syracuse, and Louisville
06-07 beat X, WVU

I'm not sure if that's a lot or not - I'd have to check a lot of other schedules. But I think he's beaten enough of them that the elite coaches can't take Mick for granted. They probably can't be sure which team will show up. Again, consistency.

I think we are still looking at "potential" when we discuss Mick. He has teased us with some good stuff at times to the point that we are just about to declare him the "Savior" and anoint him as our coach for now and evermore....and then the infamous collapses happen and we're left to wallow in disappointment for the whole offseason.

I really don't like the trend I'm seeing with recruits though. I confess that I don't closely follow recruiting and what I'm about to say is just an observation, but it seems as though we're starting to only get middle of the road recruits who are decent athletes who are a year or two or three away from being solid contributors....no immediate impact players. I think the longer we go with no trips to the dance, the harder it will be for him to convince the great players to come here. Huggs was a recognizable coach with a winning reputation. Outside of this area, if you said the name Mick Cronin, very few people would even know he is a basketball coach, much less coaching in the Big East. When you don't have a decent name coach, nor a history of winning and being in the NCAA, your recruiting will decline, and in my opinion, that is what we are seeing right now!

[bearcatbret]

And what exactly has Marvin lewis done?

[Mr. Bearcat]

And what exactly has Marvin lewis done?

Two trips to the playoffs and a he11 of a lot more wins than the guys who he followed.

[BearcatAlum1]

I think we are still looking at "potential" when we discuss Mick. He has teased us with some good stuff at times to the point that we are just about to declare him the "Savior" and anoint him as our coach for now and evermore....and then the infamous collapses happen and we're left to wallow in disappointment for the whole offseason.

I really don't like the trend I'm seeing with recruits though. I confess that I don't closely follow recruiting and what I'm about to say is just an observation, but it seems as though we're starting to only get middle of the road recruits who are decent athletes who are a year or two or three away from being solid contributors....no immediate impact players. I think the longer we go with no trips to the dance, the harder it will be for him to convince the great players to come here. Huggs was a recognizable coach with a winning reputation. Outside of this area, if you said the name Mick Cronin, very few people would even know he is a basketball coach, much less coaching in the Big East. When you don't have a decent name coach, nor a history of winning and being in the NCAA, your recruiting will decline, and in my opinion, that is what we are seeing right now!

ESPN Recruiting Rankings have UC at #18.

The class includes Shaq Thoams, Guyn, Ellis and K.Smith (who has since opened his recruiting). The addition of Elijah Carter, Jermaine Sanders and another PF would push that number even higher.

[Mr. Bearcat]

ESPN Recruiting Rankings have UC at #18.

The class includes Shaq Thoams, Guyn, Ellis and K.Smith (who has since opened his recruiting). The addition of Elijah Carter, Jermaine Sanders and another PF would push that number even higher.

You know as well as I do, those recruiting rankings are BS. If you simply recruit a lot of players, you automatically have a high ranking. The class we bash so badly, our present senior class was a top 15 class (3 4-star and 4 3-star players). How did that highly ranked class work out?

I admittedly don't follow recruiting very closely, but I know enough to know that the players we are getting are a notch or two below what we should be getting. They are not bad, but they are not the type to vault us to the top of the Big East either. We need immediate help, not projects!

[BearcatAlum1]

You know as well as I do, those recruiting rankings are BS. If you simply recruit a lot of players, you automatically have a high ranking. The class we bash so badly, our present senior class was a top 15 class (3 4-star and 4 3-star players). How did that highly ranked class work out?

I admittedly don't follow recruiting very closely, but I know enough to know that the players we are getting are a notch or two below what we should be getting. They are not bad, but they are not the type to vault us to the top of the Big East either. We need immediate help, not projects!

I agree that you need to be careful about "class rankings" and "stars" next to a player's name, but sometimes they give a generally objective view.

Guyn, Ellis and Shaq Thomas make for a nice start. We have 3 'ships left and have really focused on our targets.

I think we've got a great chance to have a top 15 class. Yes, the numbers will help if we sign 5-6 kids. However, it'll be a solid class with every player having many high-major offers.

[Mr. Bearcat]

I agree that you need to be careful about "class rankings" and "stars" next to a player's name, but sometimes they give a generally objective view.

Guyn, Ellis and Shaq Thomas make for a nice start. We have 3 'ships left and have really focused on our targets.

I think we've got a great chance to have a top 15 class. Yes, the numbers will help if we sign 5-6 kids. However, it'll be a solid class with every player having many high-major offers.

Agreed, it's a good start. I would like to see a few with a little higher profile to really send the class over the top. Bottom line...this program needs a lot of help and soon. I hope these guys don't take 2-3 years to develop.

[BearcatAlum1]

Agreed, it's a good start. I would like to see a few with a little higher profile to really send the class over the top. Bottom line...this program needs a lot of help and soon. I hope these guys don't take 2-3 years to develop.

Some do, some don't.

Obviously, big men take longer to develop than guards and most wings.

Once again, these are kids. Many are still growing, maturing, and learning the bodies. Keep in mind, most of these young men are 6'5"-6'10". It's not as easy as a PG at 5'11".

If UC is able to bring in a few of the kids we're all hoping for, I will be very pleased (as will many others that follow recruiting).

[Deaf_Bearcat]

This is going to be Mick's 5th year. He will have no excuses (injuries, refree calls, etc.). He will be seriously under our radar. He must send our team to the first NCAA tourney in 6 years THIS coming season. If it did not happen, I will be in 100% agreement with everyone who wants to see a new replacement of Mick. Get serious, Mick supporters.

[Dannyboy]

This is going to be Mick's 5th year. He will have no excuses (injuries, refree calls, etc.). He will be seriously under our radar. He must send our team to the first NCAA tourney in 6 years THIS coming season. If it did not happen, I will be in 100% agreement with everyone who wants to see a new replacement of Mick. Get serious, Mick supporters.
5 years is a lot more than many people get. Mick started with a mess, but now its his mess. All the players are his. The system is his. The coaches are his. If you can't win in 5 years, you just can't win.

[Mr. Bearcat]

5 years is a lot more than many people get. Mick started with a mess, but now its his mess. All the players are his. The system is his. The coaches are his. If you can't win in 5 years, you just can't win.

The whole world knows Mick Cronin is on the hot seat. Many in here are in denial, and that is fine. More power to them if they want to continue along the same path. They may prove to be the ones who are right.

However, this has been debated and argued for the past two years a million times. It's a new season. We did well in Canada. Let's direct our positive energy toward the coach and the team. If we have to go hunting for another new coach, we're screwed...so none of us should want that option! I honestly hope Mick has a great season. He inherited a mess, but I believe he thought he would overcome that mess with his great recruiting, and it just hasn't played out. Our current senior class is the one that really set him back. That was a nice recruiting class and should have established the foundation for continued improvement over their four years. However, not a one of them has developed into all-Big East caliber and that has really hurt the coach's progress as well.

It's a new season and I'm excited that it's here. I love Bearcat basketball. It's easy to continue the attacks on the coach, but let's try to get behind him and become a true 6th man and hope this team finally gets us back to the Top 25 and an NCAA Tournament bid. After some games have been played, we can get back to debating about strategy and the coach, but right now, we should be pumped up to start the season no matter who the coach is.