Here's a non-believer

[juckerrules]

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=jn-bigeast121510

[UC4life]

hmm i dont like jason king that much. Go Cats!

[bearcated]

"That would be enough to save Cronin’s job. If that happens, his scheduling tactics will be tough to criticize."

He nails the main complaint I have with the schedule. It's about Mick padding the results with easy wins to save his job.

[Pruke]

Oddly enough - for the criticism being dished by King, he basically acknowledges the reason why a coach would put together a non-con schedule like we have - whatever....


But by winning their first nine games, the Bearcats have developed confidence that’s been lacking the past few seasons. The victories – even though they came against inferior opponents – have Cincinnati’s players believing they’re better than they truly are, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. If anything it could make a difference once the schedule gets tougher.

[Kindog202]

"That would be enough to save Cronin’s job. If that happens, his scheduling tactics will be tough to criticize."

He nails the main complaint I have with the schedule. It's about Mick padding the results with easy wins to save his job.

IMO, barring a monumental collapse, Mick will be back next year based on the class of recruits he signed in the early signing period. This includes even if the team fails to make the NCAA's. You lose the 5 seniors and already have 5signed for next year. To switch coaches at the end of this year will set the program back even farther.

I firmly believe that this team will make a strong showing in the Big East and will be dancing come March.

[Josh Rexhausen]

It's about Mick padding the results with easy wins to save his job.

But it's not. We normally have 1-3 non conference games that are tougher. This year the toughest ones were supposed to be Oklahoma, x, and Dayton. When they were scheduled this was tough enough, now that they are down too many fans are saying "darn it we should have known the future." Please stop blaming the schedule, Cats play the schedule they're delt. You want tougher games, give the athletic department more money to schedule them, tell them who you want but be sure to check your crystal ball to make sure they are tough enough.

[waterhead]

"That would be enough to save Cronin’s job. If that happens, his scheduling tactics will be tough to criticize."

He nails the main complaint I have with the schedule. It's about Mick padding the results with easy wins to save his job.

I am not sure if I buy the whole Mick scheduled to save his job theory. But...if Mick runs the OOC table there will only be one way from there on out to improve his win total and that will be in the BE. He is definitely here for this year. If he happens to squeeze out another year where wins improve but we don't make the dance...he won't have that luxury to fall back on anymore. It seems as though he is likely going to be here next year barring a horrible BE season. It is probably prudent given our large recruiting class. We don't want to lose any/many of them due to firing. Next year we will only have a recruiting class of 2 (or so). That is the year when I think it will finally all be on the line if we don't make the dance. Even if we do make the dance this year...I think expectations will be that we do it again next year since most of our stars will be returning.

In Mick's own words.."It's all about getting better every year". Barring a major injury (knock on wood) excuses/rationalizations will be depleted. I like what I see. I even like what I have seen from Mick. He's had some pretty bad teams making a run at a dance (with the exception of last year which was a more talented team). I think his recruiting and X's and O's are pretty good. The only question in my mind is how does he stand up in the motivation and adversity department. I think last year was the only legitimate year to judge him on getting to the dance or not. IMO he is 0-1...not 0-4.

[psax889906]

But it's not. We normally have 1-3 non conference games that are tougher. This year the toughest ones were supposed to be Oklahoma, x, and Dayton. When they were scheduled this was tough enough, now that they are down too many fans are saying "darn it we should have known the future." Please stop blaming the schedule, Cats play the schedule they're delt. You want tougher games, give the athletic department more money to schedule them, tell them who you want but be sure to check your crystal ball to make sure they are tough enough.

Excellent post. You nailed many of the main points.

[Big B]

But worst case is we could go 15-0 in ooc and then finish .500 in the Big East, finishing in 8th place or worst. Then they probably won't go to Ncaa tourney with over 20 wins.

[jadam222]

But worst case is we could go 15-0 in ooc and then finish .500 in the Big East, finishing in 8th place or worst. Then they probably won't go to Ncaa tourney with over 20 wins.

If they go 15-0 and .500 in the BEast they will get in without a doubt. As some people mentioned before, who would have thought Dayton, X and Oklahoma would be down this year? I do realize the OOC has been weak. Why isn't anyone complaining about OSU in their schedule? This is their schedule:


Nov. 12, 2010 NC A&T W 102-61 1-0
Nov. 16, 2010 at Florida W 93-75 2-0
Nov. 20, 2010 UNC-Wilmington W 81-41 3-0
Nov. 23, 2010 Morehead St. W 64-45 4-0
Nov. 26, 2010 Miami-OH W 66-45 5-0
Nov. 30, 2010 at Florida State W 58-44 6-0
Dec. 9, 2010 IUPUI W 75-64 7-0
Dec. 12, 2010 Western Carolina W 85-60 8-0
Dec. 15, 2010 FLA GULF COAST W 83-55 9-0
Dec. 18, 2010 South Carolina 2:00 pm ET | Tickets
Dec. 21, 2010 UNC-Asheville 8:30 pm ET | Tickets
Dec. 23, 2010 Oakland 8:00 pm ET | Tickets
Dec. 27, 2010 Tenn. Martin

They are ranked #2 in the country but where is the powerhouse schedule? Louisville just lost to Drexel. I think there are people who try to validate their dislike for whatever reason of this program. Its way past old. Now we go undefeated and its not tough enough. OSU can play cream puffs and be ranked #2. Nobody is saying a thing. OSU is good this year but I think we are too. Who have they played? Its not just OSU and UC. All teams with tough conference do this now. I await anyone to rationalize. Same people were on the "fire Mick" as soon as he came here. Now we are winning games and they state its not strong enough. That is why we don't attend games. Its a stretch. Nothing is good enough for some people. Why not let the season play out and enjoy it? At least we are winning, Now I am hearing from some people that Drexel is a powerhouse or Oakland. Oakland lost to Wright State whom we handled quite well. The REASON they started to come back is that Cronin called off the hard play by sitting the starters more. The game was always in hand. People are really reaching to substantiate themselves not supporting the program. Just be real.

[catsfan32]

"That would be enough to save Cronin’s job. If that happens, his scheduling tactics will be tough to criticize."

He nails the main complaint I have with the schedule. It's about Mick padding the results with easy wins to save his job.

This has to be longzheimer or doss, no other person can be as misguided as you two are. Do us all a favor, stop posting because no matter how much money you say you give or how long you have been a fan, dementia is seriously setting in.

[catsfan32]

But worst case is we could go 15-0 in ooc and then finish .500 in the Big East, finishing in 8th place or worst. Then they probably won't go to Ncaa tourney with over 20 wins.

There is some statistic out there and seeing as its late I don't care to look it up. But any BEAST team that has won like 21 or 22 games during the regular season have NEVER been left out of the tournament. Just some food for thought..........

[Bearcat1996]

There is some statistic out there and seeing as its late I don't care to look it up. But any BEAST team that has won like 21 or 22 games during the regular season have NEVER been left out of the tournament. Just some food for thought..........

If true then the cupcake schedule is definately a smart move. Anything to get us back to the dance. As mentioned before; Dayton, xu and Oklahoma were probably looking much tougher when scheduled. Other than that, how can anyone fault their team for WINNING games??? They are playing great defense and finishing teams off at the end of games. These have been two areas of major concern in recent years. Support this team and see what happens!

[waterhead]

There is some statistic out there and seeing as its late I don't care to look it up. But any BEAST team that has won like 21 or 22 games during the regular season have NEVER been left out of the tournament. Just some food for thought..........

It may not be as easy as that. I don't think there is any way in **** we are getting in if we go 8-10 in conference whether we run the OOC table or not. That would put us at 21-10. I don't think we will be left out if we go 10-8 IC. If we run the OOC table and go 9-9 in BE then we will be 22-9. WV was left out in 07 at 22-9 (I think) and my guess is they had a better OOC SOS than us. They actually had a winning record in conference at 9-7.

Bottom line...UC doesn't get a lot of favors in things like this (or was it BH). I think we have to go 10-8 IC regardless of win totals. I am still guessing we will have one OOC loss on our resume. That would put us at 22-9 or 23-8 if we run the OOC table. I'm a lot less confident in getting in at 9-9 now.

[kpzero]

To be completely honest, I dont want to be in the NCAA tournament if we have less than 10 wins unless we make a good BE tourney run.

Currently Pom has us at a projected record of 22-9 (9-9) and that is with us still being slightly weighed down by the bad preseason rating.


I am fairly confident that we will hit the 10 mark in conference. The Big East isnt as dominant as recent years. Sure there is great DEPTH but there are no teams that are unbeatable. Our defense will keep us in just about every game. The difference between our current team and a BE contender is the soft play of Gates and Thomas. Here is to hoping they figure it out sometime between now and the Nova game.

[Bearcat Bounce]

Funny there was no mention of the Dayton blowout.

[Best Body]

I think it is actually a pretty fair article, actually.

There are some pretty good quotes, including the one that Mick entered the season on the hot seat and "should've". I'm surprised that one hasn't been argued about yet.

But the one that stood out to me, even though it was in reference to Louisville (I think it applies to UC as well): "Louisville has impressive balance with four players averaging between 10.1 and 12.4 points, but to be an upper-echelon team in the Big East, you need a game-changer." Unfortunately UC lacks this "game-changer", and it would be a surprise if any of the incoming recruits for next year are this kind of player, anytime soon. For this reason alone, if the Cats fail to make the NCAA, Mick should be let go. None of the recruits we would potentially lose are program makers.

No doubt the team has done what it has needed to, thus far. But for all of those appalled at the posters who are not overly impressed with the victories over the no name schools, note that UC is still listed at 11th in the BE rankings. I believe this to be fair, given that they've not really beaten anyone.

I also agree with the poster that indicated that it will take 10 BE wins for UC to make the NCAA this year. Remember that they play Depaul twice, and the selection committee looks at who you beat as much as the record. Also, the conference could theoretically get 8 teams in, but more likely 6 or 7. With a total cupcake win against USF, and that is already 3 gimme wins. And with those bad teams likely piling up 14-16 league losses each, the 9th place team in the conference could easily be 9-9. I really hope that the strategy pays off & the confidence leads to at least 10 wins, but without a strong league showing, it will come back to hurt them.

[ucat4]

The victories – even though they came against inferior opponents – have Cincinnati’s players believing they’re better than they truly are, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. If anything it could make a difference once the schedule gets tougher.

I didn't like the bolded part from the article. How does he know how good our guys are? This team is laden w/ seniors that have tons of Big East experience. These kids (the seniors anyway) have been getting lots of Big East minutes year in and year out. They've been through the gauntlet again and again and again. How does this dude know how good we "truly" are? I really think this team is going to surprise some people.

Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but this guys comment rubbed me the wrong way.

[MDW79]

The victories – even though they came against inferior opponents – have Cincinnati’s players believing they’re better than they truly are, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. If anything it could make a difference once the schedule gets tougher.

I didn't like the bolded part from the article. How does he know how good our guys are? This team is laden w/ seniors that have tons of Big East experience. These kids (the seniors anyway) have been getting lots of Big East minutes year in and year out. They've been through the gauntlet again and again and again. How does this dude know how good we "truly" are? I really think this team is going to surprise some people.

Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but this guys comment rubbed me the wrong way.


I thought the same exact thing. One, how does he know what these kids are thinking, and how good they think they are? Two, did anybody from the program speculate that they were anything, be it great, good, decent, bad, whatever?

The guy acts like these kids are running around claiming to be world beaters, when in actuality they, and their coach, have been nothing but humble, and understanding of skepticism, in their interviews.

I don't think even Bobby Knight himself would claim anything concrete about this team, in regards to how'll they'll finish. I think the truth is nobody knows yet. But somehow this clown who wrote this knows exactly how good we are/how good will be? Not to mention, what these kids think?

What an a-hole....

[JordanW]

I don't mind his opinion because it's honest (besides the joke quote you guys have posted). We haven't played anyone YET. One thing that is apparent and no one can say otherwise, is that this team has been playing with a TON of confidence. This team looks better, passes better and seems to really enjoy playing together. Last year it was all about finding openings for Vaughn and Stephenson. This year it's getting spread around like a team should! Yancy has slimmed down, Thomas is a bit tougher down low and rebounding well. Dion Dixon, Wright and Bishop have become viable scoring threats. I know I'm stating what appears to be obvious to those who have watched them play, but they look solid... Oh yeah, we now have a redshirt freshman in SK that is lighting it up as a leader/scorer and Jackson who's the energy bunny. Has a Mick Cronin team ever shot as well from the 3 point line? I'm excited about this season due to what I've seen on the floor, cupcakes aside.

[waterhead]

I think it is actually a pretty fair article, actually.

There are some pretty good quotes, including the one that Mick entered the season on the hot seat and "should've". I'm surprised that one hasn't been argued about yet.

But the one that stood out to me, even though it was in reference to Louisville (I think it applies to UC as well): "Louisville has impressive balance with four players averaging between 10.1 and 12.4 points, but to be an upper-echelon team in the Big East, you need a game-changer." Unfortunately UC lacks this "game-changer", and it would be a surprise if any of the incoming recruits for next year are this kind of player, anytime soon. For this reason alone, if the Cats fail to make the NCAA, Mick should be let go. None of the recruits we would potentially lose are program makers.

No doubt the team has done what it has needed to, thus far. But for all of those appalled at the posters who are not overly impressed with the victories over the no name schools, note that UC is still listed at 11th in the BE rankings. I believe this to be fair, given that they've not really beaten anyone.

I also agree with the poster that indicated that it will take 10 BE wins for UC to make the NCAA this year. Remember that they play Depaul twice, and the selection committee looks at who you beat as much as the record. Also, the conference could theoretically get 8 teams in, but more likely 6 or 7. With a total cupcake win against USF, and that is already 3 gimme wins. And with those bad teams likely piling up 14-16 league losses each, the 9th place team in the conference could easily be 9-9. I really hope that the strategy pays off & the confidence leads to at least 10 wins, but without a strong league showing, it will come back to hurt them.

With all due respect BB...I agree the article is fair for the most part. I also agree with much of what you have said. There isn't much in that article that we haven't heard already.

But I would like to comment on that second paragraph. "Game changer". I think it's a bit unfair of you or anyone to say we don't have that on our current team. I think everyone is excited about SK and what he can do in the future. I know I am. To say he won't be a "game changer" after just 9 games of his career (of which he has changed at least one game in a big way)...is a little premature. To make the same prediction about future recruits is just silly.

[waterhead]

The victories – even though they came against inferior opponents – have Cincinnati’s players believing they’re better than they truly are, and there’s certainly nothing wrong with that. If anything it could make a difference once the schedule gets tougher.

I didn't like the bolded part from the article. How does he know how good our guys are? This team is laden w/ seniors that have tons of Big East experience. These kids (the seniors anyway) have been getting lots of Big East minutes year in and year out. They've been through the gauntlet again and again and again. How does this dude know how good we "truly" are? I really think this team is going to surprise some people.

Maybe I'm just being overly sensitive, but this guys comment rubbed me the wrong way.

The guy talks out of both sides of his mouth on a few occasions to cover his butt. He is basically saying the schedule is giving us a false sense of confidence and we aren't as good as our record indicates...but that false confidence could come in handy when the schedule gets tougher??? So is the weak schedule a good or bad thing? LOL!

He also talks about how Mick is scheduling weak to keep his job...and that could also be a good thing??? As opposed to what? Scheduling strong so that we don't make the dance and he gets fired??? Again LOL!

The guy has some good points but then goes on to contradict his own points on a couple occasions. In short...he's making sure he's got an out when some of his bold statements backfire.

[Bearcat82]

It helps to know and understand Big East history. Playing a "soft" OOC schedule is a Big East tradition dating back to Carnesecca @ St. J's, Thompson @ G'Town, Massimino @ 'Nova, Pitino @ Providence...one of the big exceptions may be Boeheim who sime 1976 has been playing a fairly difficult OOC schedule. Kudos to Mick for understanding this and scheduling the cupcakes necessary to try and claw their way out of the "bucket-of-crabs" that is Big East Basketball.

[coach]

As i've maintained in the past, this schedule will be at least as difficult, if not more so, than many of the schedules overall that Huggins played in his hey day. The biggest difference falls in the big east schedule throwing down the gauntlet in january and february which makes finishing strong very difficult. In the old days, our conference schedule had many mediocre teams in this time frame which made finishing a much more pleasant experience...and then we would lose in the second round of the ncaa tourney, go figure. This is the road we have chosen, people should just live with it and root for the team. All the diatribe about the fans bitching and moaning is ridiculous. People need to get off their duffs and get out of the house for a change. This is a very lazy city. Even X, which has done very well, isn't always guaranteed a 10k spot in a nice newer arena. That is even considering that they basically have no football to dilute the attendance. This isn't a strong sports market despite what folks think.

[MDW79]

You may need a game changer to win the tourney, but I disagree that you need one to finish in the top half of the league, or to be able to compete in the regular season.

Ask Pitt's team last year. Or Marquette's. A gamer change would be great to have, and might change a L to a W on occasion. But I don't think one is needed for this team to have a winning record in conference, and/or to make the tourney.

PS No way this team gets in with 21 wins if they go 13-0 in OOC. I think they need a minimum of 23 to be safe, whether it be 9-9 with a conference tourney win, or 10-8. 22 total with 13 OOC, 9-9 in conference, and 1st round BEtourney loss, may get us in, but hardly a lock. Waterhead was also right, WVU won 22 games in '06 (21 regular season + 1 BE tourney) and got left out. There is NO way this OOC schedule affords us the ability to have a losing record in conference.

[BearcatAlum1]

But the one that stood out to me, even though it was in reference to Louisville (I think it applies to UC as well): "Louisville has impressive balance with four players averaging between 10.1 and 12.4 points, but to be an upper-echelon team in the Big East, you need a game-changer." Unfortunately UC lacks this "game-changer", and it would be a surprise if any of the incoming recruits for next year are this kind of player, anytime soon. For this reason alone, if the Cats fail to make the NCAA, Mick should be let go. None of the recruits we would potentially lose are program makers.

I also agree with the poster that indicated that it will take 10 BE wins for UC to make the NCAA this year. Remember that they play Depaul twice, and the selection committee looks at who you beat as much as the record. Also, the conference could theoretically get 8 teams in, but more likely 6 or 7. With a total cupcake win against USF, and that is already 3 gimme wins. And with those bad teams likely piling up 14-16 league losses each, the 9th place team in the conference could easily be 9-9. I really hope that the strategy pays off & the confidence leads to at least 10 wins, but without a strong league showing, it will come back to hurt them.

Not a good post. Here's why:

1. Balanced scoring is NOT a bad thing, especially in our conference. We almost have 6 guys averaging double figures. Who do you stop? When guarding us, you don't concentrate on one player, i.e. Kemba Walker or Tu Holloway. I've NEVER heard of balance as a bad thing. As for a "game changer," let's see how well Uconn does this year. They're essentially a one man team with some supporting pieces. Until we are in a tight game and every possession matters down the stretch, it is impossible to determine if we have a "game changer." If a "game changer" means a Lance Stephenson, then I'll gladly take the following group of 6 and a non "game changer."

Dion Dixon 12.3ppg
Yancy Gates 11.1
Sean Kilpatrick 10.7
Cashmere Wright 10.0
Rashad Bishop 9.9
Ibrahima Thomas 8.1

2. Are you seriously dogging the recruits? They're not even on campus and you dismiss them as kids that are not "program makers." What exactly is a "program makers?" Is it a kid that contributes four years, gradually improves and is a big contributor as a junior and senior? Or, is it a guy like Lance Stephenson (I am a huge Lance fan, so this is only for example) that comes in for one year and is somewhat disruptive to the team (offense flow, etc.). C'mon man. Our 2011 Class is good.

3. 10 BE wins to make it? Maybe, but 10 BE wins would make us a guaranteed LOCK. We'll no more after the OOC schedule is complete, but a 13-0 OOC (wins over Dayton, @ Oklahoma, @ Miami OH, Xavier) record makes our magic # in the BE 9-9. 22-9 BE team with a 9-9 record will not be omitted from the field. NO WAY. Write it down now. We go 23-8 and we will have a 6-7 seed at worst.

[Bearcat_DF]

It helps to know and understand Big East history. Playing a "soft" OOC schedule is a Big East tradition dating back to Carnesecca @ St. J's, Thompson @ G'Town, Massimino @ 'Nova, Pitino @ Providence...one of the big exceptions may be Boeheim who sime 1976 has been playing a fairly difficult OOC schedule. Kudos to Mick for understanding this and scheduling the cupcakes necessary to try and claw their way out of the "bucket-of-crabs" that is Big East Basketball.

I think you need to look at SU's schedule lately. I don't think they played a road game last year until their first BE road game. It is true this year too, though they have played a couple of decent neutral site games.

[BearcatJoe]

Funny there was no mention of the Dayton blowout.

I thought so to. Conveniently helps make the writers point.

[Binturong05]

My problem with this is the author acts as if the athletic department is trying to pull a fast one. I can recall a year ago there was open discussion about softening the schedule for this team. I can't say I'm a fan of a watered down schedule but I would like the acknowledgement from the author that this is by design.

[bearcated]

But it's not. We normally have 1-3 non conference games that are tougher. This year the toughest ones were supposed to be Oklahoma, x, and Dayton. When they were scheduled this was tough enough, now that they are down too many fans are saying "darn it we should have known the future." Please stop blaming the schedule, Cats play the schedule they're delt. You want tougher games, give the athletic department more money to schedule them, tell them who you want but be sure to check your crystal ball to make sure they are tough enough.
You (along with everyone else frankly) conveniently ignore the fact that UC had two additional home dates this season because of that bogus "tournament" they put on. Who did they schedule? Fl A&M (RPI 302) and Sav St (RPI 322). What a waste of everyone's time.

To argue that if only OK or Toledo were better this schedule would be acceptable is ridiculous. To date UC has played the 340th RPI ranked schedule in all of D1. That's out of 345 D1 schools. UC's schedule can't get much worse.

The worst team U of L plays ALL YEAR is FL International (RPI 257). UC plays 7 (seven) teams worse than FL International this year. That's a quarter season of sucking.

If UC goes 6-12 or 7-11 in the league I don't want to hear it from all the apologists about what a good start they had to the season.

[Cpaw]

Are we 9-0? Hard to tell sometimes. Put me in the group of "I would rather have wins, experience and positive atmosphere going into the BEast schedule than a couple of losses and a tougher road to the tourney. This team has the moxy and attitude to do great this year and make the tourney, only time will dispel the myths.

[Best Body]

With all due respect BB...I agree the article is fair for the most part. I also agree with much of what you have said. There isn't much in that article that we haven't heard already.

But I would like to comment on that second paragraph. "Game changer". I think it's a bit unfair of you or anyone to say we don't have that on our current team. I think everyone is excited about SK and what he can do in the future. I know I am. To say he won't be a "game changer" after just 9 games of his career (of which he has changed at least one game in a big way)...is a little premature. To make the same prediction about future recruits is just silly.

I think what he is referring to as a Game changer, at least what I consider that to be, is a 1st or 2nd team All American type - someone like a Kemba Walker at UConn. Basically, someone who is capable of dominating BE play on a consistent basis. SK, nor none of the incoming freshman for next year are at all likely to be that type of player next season (they certainly aren't projected to be or they'd have had offers from all the top BE schools, as well as the top programs around the country). That doesn't mean that any or all have no value, or that they can't have good games - it's just that to contend for the BE, a team needs a truly special player, and UC lacks that kid, and it appears they will next year too.

[catsfan32]

I think what he is referring to as a Game changer, at least what I consider that to be, is a 1st or 2nd team All American type - someone like a Kemba Walker at UConn. Basically, someone who is capable of dominating BE play on a consistent basis. SK, nor none of the incoming freshman for next year are at all likely to be that type of player next season (they certainly aren't projected to be or they'd have had offers from all the top BE schools, as well as the top programs around the country). That doesn't mean that any or all have no value, or that they can't have good games - it's just that to contend for the BE, a team needs a truly special player, and UC lacks that kid, and it appears they will next year too.

Can't believe people post stuff like this. Do you even understand what you are typing? Game changers like Walker aren't instantly brought as freshman. There are rarely 1st or 2nd team All-American's as freshman. 99% of players who develop into game changers take several years and you notice it their Junior/Senior years. Have you seen Kemba's stats his first two seasons? They are comparable to both SK and Cash's statistics. Point is, it took time for Walker to become a game changer, you aren't even willing to give one of our players a chance to become a game changer? And then you write off our incoming class as well! What a joke.

Oh yeah, and who did Walker have offers from? UC, Uconn, Providence, and St. Johns. 3 out of 4 aren't "top programs"

[Best Body]

Not a good post. Here's why:

1. Balanced scoring is NOT a bad thing, especially in our conference. We almost have 6 guys averaging double figures. Who do you stop? When guarding us, you don't concentrate on one player, i.e. Kemba Walker or Tu Holloway. I've NEVER heard of balance as a bad thing. As for a "game changer," let's see how well Uconn does this year. They're essentially a one man team with some supporting pieces. Until we are in a tight game and every possession matters down the stretch, it is impossible to determine if we have a "game changer." If a "game changer" means a Lance Stephenson, then I'll gladly take the following group of 6 and a non "game changer."

Dion Dixon 12.3ppg
Yancy Gates 11.1
Sean Kilpatrick 10.7
Cashmere Wright 10.0
Rashad Bishop 9.9
Ibrahima Thomas 8.1

2. Are you seriously dogging the recruits? They're not even on campus and you dismiss them as kids that are not "program makers." What exactly is a "program makers?" Is it a kid that contributes four years, gradually improves and is a big contributor as a junior and senior? Or, is it a guy like Lance Stephenson (I am a huge Lance fan, so this is only for example) that comes in for one year and is somewhat disruptive to the team (offense flow, etc.). C'mon man. Our 2011 Class is good.

3. 10 BE wins to make it? Maybe, but 10 BE wins would make us a guaranteed LOCK. We'll no more after the OOC schedule is complete, but a 13-0 OOC (wins over Dayton, @ Oklahoma, @ Miami OH, Xavier) record makes our magic # in the BE 9-9. 22-9 BE team with a 9-9 record will not be omitted from the field. NO WAY. Write it down now. We go 23-8 and we will have a 6-7 seed at worst.

1. Plenty of teams with a dominating player have done well. Lance never became a game changer, whatsoever. Balance is great, and sure it'd be better to have more than one dominating player, but 1 is better than none. Remember what Kenyon did for the team. Also, I don't really know how much stock we should put in the current stats, given the pitiful competition, thus far.

2. Our next class is o.k., but as many have stated, it lacks a consensus top 100 player. It is ranked highly mostly b/c of the number of recruits. Nothing against any of the incoming recruits (who knows how they will develop), but none are projected All Americans or even All BE caliber kids. This is what the author was talking about when he said Louisville lacked Game Changers.

3. Certainly anything can happen, but I don't know why you'd expect an 8th or 9th place team with a 9-9 BE record, and no top 50 OOC wins to make the NCAA tourney. Especially if 3 of the conference wins are against Depaul and USF. If you add to that wins over let's say Providence, Louisville, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Marquette and ND, and how many top 50 wins will the team have? 1 or 2? And with the OOC, the team's RPI would be around 70, at best. Dayton won't be a quality win this year, OK is going to finish near the bottom of the Big 12, Miami is a MAC school, and X may or may not turn out to be a good win (if they even win it).

[MDW79]

I think what he is referring to as a Game changer, at least what I consider that to be, is a 1st or 2nd team All American type - someone like a Kemba Walker at UConn. Basically, someone who is capable of dominating BE play on a consistent basis. SK, nor none of the incoming freshman for next year are at all likely to be that type of player next season (they certainly aren't projected to be or they'd have had offers from all the top BE schools, as well as the top programs around the country). That doesn't mean that any or all have no value, or that they can't have good games - it's just that to contend for the BE, a team needs a truly special player, and UC lacks that kid, and it appears they will next year too.

Who was that player for Pitt last year? Boom, roasted. :D

I will agree that we really need to see how these kids do against stiffer competition.

[Best Body]

Can't believe people post stuff like this. Do you even understand what you are typing? Game changers like Walker aren't instantly brought as freshman. There are rarely 1st or 2nd team All-American's as freshman. 99% of players who develop into game changers take several years and you notice it their Junior/Senior years. Have you seen Kemba's stats his first two seasons? They are comparable to both SK and Cash's statistics. Point is, it took time for Walker to become a game changer, you aren't even willing to give one of our players a chance to become a game changer? And then you write off our incoming class as well! What a joke.

Oh yeah, and who did Walker have offers from? UC, Uconn, Providence, and St. Johns. 3 out of 4 aren't "top programs"

Actually, alot of game changers are studs right away. Duke's Irving, I think his name is Jones from UK, and tO$Us kid this year; the kids from UK last year - you can go on an on back to Carmello Anthony, back to Patrick Ewing. Granted, these are elite players, and the BE isn't loaded with tons of them, but the point is still that really great players usually are dominant when they get to college. Some do develop into truly dominant players later in their careers like Kenyon, but even with those, you can typically see the athletic potential stick out like a sore thumb from the start.

My initial post was that UC wouldn't likely have this type of player this year or next. Not that none of its players can never achieve anything.

Given that none of the recruits are top 100, I think it's more unreasonable to assume even 1 of them will develop into a 1st team All American in 4 years, than to assume they will.

[Josh Rexhausen]

Last year we had 4 guys through 9 games who could put down 20 points (I don't think Gates had yet) We lost Lance and Vaughn, But we still have Gates and Bishop, and we added Kilpatrick and Dixon. I bet Wright lays down 20+ at least once this year. Tha's 5 "game changers." I said it in another thread that this team may not be better one-on-one compared to last years team, but they are better 5 on 5. Like Mick said in the post game, the team is better not because of subtracting two egos, but because of the growth of the guys on both teams, realizing now that better effort last year could have been the difference in making the NCAA.

And bearcated, you are certainly entitled to your opinion of the scheduling two teams who do not measure up to what you would like to see. My point was that money could be the problem, the better you are the more leverage you have to ask for more money. We are asking teams to come here and lose, if you want to get some numbers from the athletic department to see how much more money they need to upgrade the games to opponents you deem worthy, please let us know so we can continue to do our part supporting the team. You bring up Louisville, and I read someone's post in the FB forum about the difference in athletic budgets there and here, that is how they are able to pay those better teams to come in and compete with ( Drexel did beat them so I can't say "lose to") them.

[Josh Rexhausen]

Maybe the problem is the definition of "game changer". I define it as someone who can change the outcome of a game. I submit that a 20 point game qualifies, because 20 points (in most good games ) is larger than the point spread. Now a great player is different to me, a great player is a consensus NBA tallent comming in as a freshman, or an all american, or a record setting player. These are different in my opinion, a Great player is a "game changer" among "game changers" if you will.

[BearcatAlum1]

"Game Changer" v. "Go-to-guy"

Same thing?

Too funny.

TBD who takes the shot in crunch time, or where we get buckets down the stretch. I'd bet that the shot is taken within the normal course of our offense, and not a "one on one" clearout.

[Josh Rexhausen]

TBD who takes the shot in crunch time, or where we get buckets down the stretch. I'd bet that the shot is taken within the normal course of our offense, and not a "one on one" clearout.

Darn right!! And if the team doesn't know, the defense should have even less of an idea. Like the two players answered that question in a post game this year "whoever is open."

[Bearcat82]

Are we 9-0? Hard to tell sometimes. Put me in the group of "I would rather have wins, experience and positive atmosphere going into the BEast schedule than a couple of losses and a tougher road to the tourney. This team has the moxy and attitude to do great this year and make the tourney, only time will dispel the myths.

Thank you....

[Carin's Dad]

Since our competition has not lived up to what was originally scheduled, this is probably a good year to rely a little more on computers. With every game they play, KenPom's computer keeps raising it's expectations for this team. He's now predicting 22 wins and he's a hair's breadth from saying 10-8 in the conference. They certainly look pretty good to me and as the computer gets more and more data points, it's starting to agree.

Frankly, I'm pumped about our prospects this year and to those of you who want to say were somehow "bad" because of our schedule, go pound salt. You can say you don't know how good we are but in no way, shape or form can you say we're bad.

[waterhead]

Best Body;168456]I think what he is referring to as a Game changer, at least what I consider that to be, is a 1st or 2nd team All American type - someone like a Kemba Walker at UConn.[/B] Basically, someone who is capable of dominating BE play on a consistent basis. SK, nor none of the incoming freshman for next year are at all likely to be that type of player next season (they certainly aren't projected to be or they'd have had offers from all the top BE schools, as well as the top programs around the country). That doesn't mean that any or all have no value, or that they can't have good games - it's just that to contend for the BE, a team needs a truly special player, and UC lacks that kid, and it appears they will next year too.

First of all I think expecting a 1st or 2nd team All American is asking a bit much. Secondly, who would have figured Walker to be an All Amercain over several players rated well above him? Mick almost got him so that says something about his evaluation skills.

You continue to say SK is not that type of player and I ask why? After ONLY 9 games he has shown some incredible ability. He has even led us to victory in a game when nobody else could make a shot. He has probably led scoring in 1/3 of our games. Whether he was projected as that type of player matters not. As a first year guy he may not be All American variety...but I am expecting BIG things out of SK. Honest.


I will go on record as saying I expect SK to be that type of "game changer" in the future. Mark it down. He is on our team right now. Cut and paste this and bring it back in the future. If I am wrong I will admit it. If you are wrong I hope you will too.

[waterhead]

Since our competition has not lived up to what was originally scheduled, this is probably a good year to rely a little more on computers. With every game they play, KenPom's computer keeps raising it's expectations for this team. He's now predicting 22 wins and he's a hair's breadth from saying 10-8 in the conference. They certainly look pretty good to me and as the computer gets more and more data points, it's starting to agree.

Frankly, I'm pumped about our prospects this year and to those of you who want to say were somehow "bad" because of our schedule, go pound salt. You can say you don't know how good we are but in no way, shape or form can you say we're bad.

Awesome! Well said. I like that attitude. We may not end up like we want but there sure is reason to be optimistic.

[Best Body]

First of all I think expecting a 1st or 2nd team All American is asking a bit much. Secondly, who would have figured Walker to be an All Amercain over several players rated well above him? Mick almost got him so that says something about his evaluation skills.

You continue to say SK is not that type of player and I ask why? After ONLY 9 games he has shown some incredible ability. He has even led us to victory in a game when nobody else could make a shot. He has probably led scoring in 1/3 of our games. Whether he was projected as that type of player matters not. As a first year guy he may not be All American variety...but I am expecting BIG things out of SK. Honest.


I will go on record as saying I expect SK to be that type of "game changer" in the future. Mark it down. He is on our team right now. Cut and paste this and bring it back in the future. If I am wrong I will admit it. If you are wrong I hope you will too.

I hope you are right. I do think it matters though how a player was projected as a recruit when trying to predict what type of player he will be. Also, we have already seen (basically) what type of players Dixon, Wright, Parker are in Big East play. Given that SK wasn't just handed their minutes on a silver platter last year, and wasn't instantly put in the starting rotation this year, suggests to me that his talent level isn't vastly superior. Granted, doing that last year for Lance didn't work out perfectly, so perhaps the design is valid. Still, I think if SK's talent level was overwhelming, he would already be featured alot more.

No one knows exactly how he'll turn out. I don't know for sure that he'll never be 1st or 2nd team All BE. If he is, if you remind me to do so, I promise I'll eat crow. And again, my initial post that started getting me killed on here was that I don't see that difference maker for this season or next (at least that is what I intended), not that UC couldn't have that player in 2014. I'm not sure how likely it'll be that SK or an unheralded freshman will be that player next year.

Also, more than one poster has thrown out Kemba Walker as evidence of a "difference maker" that wasn't projected that way. Rivals had him as a 5 star player (14th overall player) in the 2008 class. UC's top recruit isn't in the top 100. There is a big difference.

[waterhead]

BB,

I don't disagree that we should expect a larger % of 5 star players than 3 star players to turn up aces and be A A's. I think it's going to take a little success before this coach can start reeling in 4 and 5 star guys every year.

As far as SK being featured. For one we aren't featuring anyone on this team as a stated philosophy. #2...Mick might be using the bench as a motivating factor so his head doesn't get too big. Bring him along slowly...keep him hungry.

As for the Kemba thing...pick any unheralded recruit you want. I think Kemba was rated about #75 overall when we were recruting him. That's not the point though.

I agree with you that we aren't going to have an All American this year...it will be next to impossible with the coaching philosophy of team ball. I understand in your original comment you were using this year and next. But your reasoning was that since we won't have those players...we should make the dance or fire the coach...is a little unreasonable. I don't care if we have A A's or not. We either make the dance or find a new coach. I may be more likely to wait one more year...not because I would want to give him a 6th year to show us something...but for recruiting reasons. I think we have a good solid class coming in...whether we have "game changers" All Americans or not is not the issue. I don't think any new coach could come in and put All Americans in that class if we lose a couple during a coaching switch. It would be more likely that he would have to settle for 1 or 2 star players rather than replace them with 4 or 5 star players.

The following year there are only 2 recruits to worry about. It will be much easier to find a diamond in the rough, a transfer, or a late signing top rated recruit. I would much rather risk losing 2 than 6.

I am talking as if this is going to happen. I don't think it will. I think Cronin is going to show us something this year. If he doesn't I will be ready to move on...I may just wait a year to pull the trigger.

[Best Body]

BB,
It would be more likely that he would have to settle for 1 or 2 star players rather than replace them with 4 or 5 star players.



Your points are fair.

I do think any coach can get 3 star recruits to UC, to replace 3 star recruits that may change committments. We wouldn't be watching MAC level players running around if Cronin were to be fired. A point I was trying to make is that I'd not be afraid of losing any of the incoming recruits, at the expense of not making a needed coaching change. I think similar level 3 star recruits can be found, and not all of them would have better options than UC, anyway, so we'd probably only lose 1 or 2 of the 4 at most. If one were Lebron James or something, I'd have a different opinion.

[levydl]

I hope you are right. I do think it matters though how a player was projected as a recruit when trying to predict what type of player he will be. Also, we have already seen (basically) what type of players Dixon, Wright, Parker are in Big East play. Given that SK wasn't just handed their minutes on a silver platter last year, and wasn't instantly put in the starting rotation this year, suggests to me that his talent level isn't vastly superior. Granted, doing that last year for Lance didn't work out perfectly, so perhaps the design is valid. Still, I think if SK's talent level was overwhelming, he would already be featured alot more.


Wright and Parker were freshmen last year - you really think you know what type of players they'll be in the Big East after seeing them play 1 year, a year where Cash was coming off an injury and a season layoff and Parker didn't even play in 8 Big East games?

And why even bother actually seeing and judging what Kilpatrick can do when you can just create some rationale that supports your preconception that he's not an impact guy? Not to mention that your reasoning doesn't even account for Cash and Parker playing a different position than Kilpatrick, making unclear why he'd take many of their minutes, or Lance obviously getting most of the run at the 2.

Kilpatrick can score. He needs to get better on D, but he will fill it up for the next 4 years.

[waterhead]

Someone also made a point earlier about Kemba Walker. In his first year he averaged 25 minutes and 9 points. His second year he averaged 35 minutes and 15 points. I think SK could easily reach those numbers with the same minutes.

The point is it took 3 years for him to REALLY break out. Part of that is due to taking more shots. He's also on the floor more for them. If Wright were on the floor for UC for 10 more minutes per game this year don't you think he would be averging closer to 15 pts? Yah...I know SOS but you hear what I am saying. If Cronin next year turned over the floor to Wright and said you take all the shots you can he could probably average 20+...but it might not make us better to have that type of impact player. I am not trying to say Wright is like Kemba...just that we shouldn't write him off as a big impact guy.

SK, Wright, and others deserve a chance to shine before we write them off as non impact guys. If Gates ever develops a good low post move (by someone making the light come on for him)...he could be that guy too. Kmart took one heck of a jump his senior year because he spent a lot of time in the gym working on some things between his junior and senior year. I am not sure who was helping him. IMO we should get someone to work REAL hard with Gates for his and our benefit. Bring in a specialist. Get an old NBA big man to work with him. Heck, bring Martin in and ask him what changed his game. Bring Fortson in and show him how to work the low post.

Gates worked real hard this summer and I give him a lot of credit for wanting to get better. For some reason though he just doesn't seem to get that low post idea of backing a guy down and going up strong.

[booman'84]

Gates, Wright, SK, Bishop, Dixon, and even Thomas are all impact players for an unbeaten big east team. I'll take them six players over any top six players on any big east team. No team in big east can match that group wit experience, talent, and size. Bearcats will without a doubt finish in top 4 in conference. This is best uc team since kenyons last yr. I'll take this team over satterfields soph yr and hicks sn yr teams. Not to mention we have JJ, Davis, Wilks being great role players right now.

[Best Body]

And why even bother actually seeing and judging what Kilpatrick can do when you can just create some rationale that supports your preconception that he's not an impact guy?

Kilpatrick can score. He needs to get better on D, but he will fill it up for the next 4 years.

I've seen Kilpatrick play in person and on tv. I've also seen other freshman look dominant and incredible. SK looks o.k., so far, but I haven't seen a great player from him, by comparison. The "Expert" projections for the various players happen to back all of this up. I'm just being honest about what is actually likely to happen - I'd love for the kid to eventually develop into the next Nick V E or Logan for UC. Soon (this year or next) would be great b/c the team needs it. I think it'd be unreasonable to expect him to turn into a lottery pick, or something which some posters appear to.

[CatsClaw]

"That would be enough to save Cronin’s job. If that happens, his scheduling tactics will be tough to criticize."

He nails the main complaint I have with the schedule. It's about Mick padding the results with easy wins to save his job.

Yet you ignore the fact that we had Duke on the schedule and it was changed at the last second. Complainers will always complain I guess. Looking for any reason to get rid of Cronin because they can't get over the fact that Bob Huggins is gone.

[CatsClaw]

I think it is actually a pretty fair article, actually.

There are some pretty good quotes, including the one that Mick entered the season on the hot seat and "should've". I'm surprised that one hasn't been argued about yet.

But the one that stood out to me, even though it was in reference to Louisville (I think it applies to UC as well): "Louisville has impressive balance with four players averaging between 10.1 and 12.4 points, but to be an upper-echelon team in the Big East, you need a game-changer." Unfortunately UC lacks this "game-changer", and it would be a surprise if any of the incoming recruits for next year are this kind of player, anytime soon. For this reason alone, if the Cats fail to make the NCAA, Mick should be let go. None of the recruits we would potentially lose are program makers.

No doubt the team has done what it has needed to, thus far. But for all of those appalled at the posters who are not overly impressed with the victories over the no name schools, note that UC is still listed at 11th in the BE rankings. I believe this to be fair, given that they've not really beaten anyone.

I also agree with the poster that indicated that it will take 10 BE wins for UC to make the NCAA this year. Remember that they play Depaul twice, and the selection committee looks at who you beat as much as the record. Also, the conference could theoretically get 8 teams in, but more likely 6 or 7. With a total cupcake win against USF, and that is already 3 gimme wins. And with those bad teams likely piling up 14-16 league losses each, the 9th place team in the conference could easily be 9-9. I really hope that the strategy pays off & the confidence leads to at least 10 wins, but without a strong league showing, it will come back to hurt them.

For people who dislike Cronin it's a fair article. For people who look at it logically it's an idiotic article. For example, I noticed you ignored the post showing Ohio State's schedule. And take a look at San Diego State's schedule. Again, people will always look for a reason to complain, especially when it comes to a 9-0 basketball team that some people were hoping would fail just because the head coach isn't named Bob Huggins or Andy Kennedy.

[UCEE73]

Again, people will always look for a reason to complain, especially when it comes to a 9-0 basketball team that some people were hoping would fail just because the head coach isn't named Bob Huggins or Andy Kennedy.

+1

My take, exactly!

[Best Body]

For people who dislike Cronin it's a fair article. For people who look at it logically it's an idiotic article. For example, I noticed you ignored the post showing Ohio State's schedule. And take a look at San Diego State's schedule. Again, people will always look for a reason to complain, especially when it comes to a 9-0 basketball team that some people were hoping would fail just because the head coach isn't named Bob Huggins or Andy Kennedy.

I don't understand what O$U or SDSU have to do with anything. Unfortunately, O$U is extremely talented, and is apparently a natl championship contender, according to the experts, polls, fans, and probably even O$U haters such as myself. I know nothing of SDSU. Still, I don't think either program really relates to whether UC's early wins are worth anything, or if the team lacks a certain type of player necessary for winning in the BE.

As for the dislike of Cronin, BH and AK..... : I was sad to see the others go, but I was excited about the Cronin hire, and certainly would like him to do well here. It's probably no secret that IMO he's not really done enough so far to prove he is a good enough coach for the BE, but this wasn't really related to the point of the article or my post.

Overall, I don't understand how any of your response relates to my post, other than to call the article idiotic vs. fair b/c it doesn't support the idea that the start of this season is somehow proof of Cronin's worth.