2016 General Recruiting

[GarradJ21]

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

Why did 2 guys we were recruiting this spring go to Adidas schools? How can that even be possible? And didn't Bowman go to a UA school? What's the excuse for that one?

Playing time. I believe playing time is above anything.

[Ryno99]

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

Van Exel or Martin would give our coaching staff more credibility. These recruits had to have watched them play for them to get any respect? Please. Kenyon was unanimous player of the year, and the #1 pick. He's about as young as you can find for a former NBA guy wanting to coach. You don't think high level recruits would take his word for something over an asst who has been part of sending 1 undrafted guy to the league? Yeah right. Van Exel has also worked specifically in the NBA in player development and in the D-League. Even if he wasn't a former player, that kind of thing on the resume gives you credibility with recruits. You guys are nuts if you think either one of these guys would carry zero weight with recruits. Not even sure how anyone could think their impact would be meaningless. Stunning really.

And now we're going all in on saying we can't recruit bc we're not Nike? Tons of non-Nike schools seem to find a way to do it. I guess UCLA just committed program suicide yesterday by becoming yet another UA school. Can't wait to track their recruiting, I'm sure it'll take a HUGE hit (Not!).

Excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses. For absolutely everything. Always the "reasons" why we can't succeed. And it never has anything to do with the coach, the brand he's built, or the type of basketball he plays.

Jacob, not once did I say they could or couldn't recruit based on that, I said I don't think most of us know what really goes into it and that the shoe companies are a bigger issue than we give them credit for, there are plenty of situations where we have or haven't gotten a player that isn't Nike or even is Nike. I choose to focus on other aspects than the negativity which many focus on here on this board. I choose to live my life happy and positively, if some choose to be negative and unhappy, hey that is their prerogative.

Your opinion is what it is but please don't put words in my mouth.

[Ryno99]

I am curious about one thing, what are peoples expectations? That the staff get every recruit they go after? What should the hit rate be? What do you think Coach K, or Cal's hit ratio is? Yes they get higher players, but my guess would be that their hit rates aren't as high as you may think. Competition is fierce, and young men are fickle and impressionable. If this were easy, everyone would win a championship every year.

[#BearcatNation]

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

Excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses, excuses. For absolutely everything. Always the "reasons" why we can't succeed. And it never has anything to do with the coach, the brand he's built, or the type of basketball he plays.

Relax. You interpret it as excuses, I interpret it as trying to find reasons for mediocre/poor recruiting. I do think the slow-paced hoops wouldn't be ideal for many recruits, but at the same time, it sure doesn't hurt schools like Virginia, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Syracuse, etc etc. Other schools make it work. Why can't we?

There are a lot of factors towards poor recruiting. Sure, the coaching staff does get some blame. But a poor arena and sub-par conference that gets few eyes doesn't help either. Trying to find "that one thing", which to you seems to be the coaches, and others seems to be amenities, etc. is silly.

[jacobkdoyle]

Originally Posted by Ryno99

Jacob, not once did I say they could or couldn't recruit based on that, I said I don't think most of us know what really goes into it and that the shoe companies are a bigger issue than we give them credit for, there are plenty of situations where we have or haven't gotten a player that isn't Nike or even is Nike. I choose to focus on other aspects than the negativity which many focus on here on this board. I choose to live my life happy and positively, if some choose to be negative and unhappy, hey that is their prerogative.

Your opinion is what it is but please don't put words in my mouth.

Nothing I said was directed specifically at you.

And positivity is a matter of perspective. L-T is viewed as being negative by many, but he has been the top person on the board when it comes to talking up everything The University of Cincinnati has to offer. It's pretty simple on this board...there is the narrative that Cronin is a perfect person, who is doing a perfect job, and is working miracles. And there is the narrative that some people hate Cronin and want to tear down anything and everything he's done at any cost. Neither are really true. But being on the other side of a "positive" and "happy" person's issue, doesn't automatically make you "negative" and "unhappy". Surely you understand that.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by Ryno99

I am curious about one thing, what are peoples expectations? That the staff get every recruit they go after? What should the hit rate be? What do you think Coach K, or Cal's hit ratio is? Yes they get higher players, but my guess would be that their hit rates aren't as high as you may think. Competition is fierce, and young men are fickle and impressionable. If this were easy, everyone would win a championship every year.

For me it's not the hit ratio as much as we have open scholarships and we are very thin. If you miss the guys you were after...you still need to make sure we aren't an ankle sprain away from being in complete scramble mode.

[Ryno99]

I agree waterhead, now it comes down to is anyone worth the scholly at this point, I don't think you add a body just to add one, but hopefully you have planned that if option A and B fall through there is an option C, if not shame on them. But sometimes I guess option C could be gone by the time you know A&B are as well, who knows.

[jacobkdoyle]

Originally Posted by Ryno99

I am curious about one thing, what are peoples expectations? That the staff get every recruit they go after? What should the hit rate be? What do you think Coach K, or Cal's hit ratio is? Yes they get higher players, but my guess would be that their hit rates aren't as high as you may think. Competition is fierce, and young men are fickle and impressionable. If this were easy, everyone would win a championship every year.

I don't think we make ourselves as desirable as possible with the way we operate and it hurts our reputation. Everyone tries to make it so big about Coach Cal, shoe companies, one and dones, etc. Not saying those things are completely irrelevant, but I think we weigh all the off the court stuff way too heavily and forget to focus on the basketball itself. I've said it several times, but here's what I expect: To win the AAC regular season or tournament damn near every year. You (and I don't mean you specifically) can throw up any "reason" you want for not being Top 15, getting NBA Talent, etc, but I still haven't seen a good reason why we can't compete at the highest level in our conference. So where that puts us nationally, I don't know. But the idea of "make the tournament at all costs" equalling Mission Accomplished is growing old. Last year our coach said he didn't care where we were in the conference standings, and that he doesn't coach for wins and losses. I've never known those things to be so unimportant at UC. But I feel like at the end of the day though, results do the talking. Everything else is just fodder. And the product of UC basketball needs to improve.

[Bearcat513]

First off I want to say when I said I wanted Van Exel as an assistant I thought he had AAU coaching experience too. I did a quick search but didn't find anything. Not that he isn't qualified now, like Jacob said he was an instructor for player development for the Hawks, but having those AAU connections as a coach would be an even bigger help for his case as an assistant.

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

Nothing I said was directed specifically at you.

And positivity is a matter of perspective. L-T is viewed as being negative by many, but he has been the top person on the board when it comes to talking up everything The University of Cincinnati has to offer. It's pretty simple on this board...there is the narrative that Cronin is a perfect person, who is doing a perfect job, and is working miracles. And there is the narrative that some people hate Cronin and want to tear down anything and everything he's done at any cost. Neither are really true. But being on the other side of a "positive" and "happy" person's issue, doesn't automatically make you "negative" and "unhappy". Surely you understand that.

As for the quoted section, I really believe I am in the middle of those two extremes and many might agree. Do I think Cronin is perfect? No, because the results are not there. Not even close. Do I want him fired and hate his guts? No, not at all. I respect him for what he has given this program, a stable coach who wins and runs a good program. He took in a program that was dying, or dead, and has resurrected it. But now, he needs to get out of the first weekend of the tourney. No more first round exits.

I think the number one factor of why we don't get big time recruits is our snail like pace of basketball. If I was not a diehard fan of UC, I would HATE watching our games. They are boring. We can't score on the road and have droughts of 8+ minutes every game. It hurts my eyes watching it. We are not in the Big East anymore as a team who can't compete. We are in a lesser conference and are a top-two program in said conference. We should be taking our athletes and pitting them against the other teams to see who can run and score the most. Do I want to give up 75 points a game? No. But, we can win games 75-67 and still play tremendous defense. Someone mentioned ND, Cuse, Virginia, Wisconsin as teams who play slow. Well, yes. But they are also the most efficient offenses in the country. Strides need to be made towards more efficient offense players who can still play solid defense. Not lock down defenders who struggle to reach 50 while on the road.

[jacobkdoyle]

Originally Posted by #BearcatNation

Relax. You interpret it as excuses, I interpret it as trying to find reasons for mediocre/poor recruiting. I do think the slow-paced hoops wouldn't be ideal for many recruits, but at the same time, it sure doesn't hurt schools like Virginia, Wisconsin, Notre Dame, Syracuse, etc etc. Other schools make it work. Why can't we?

There are a lot of factors towards poor recruiting. Sure, the coaching staff does get some blame. But a poor arena and sub-par conference that gets few eyes doesn't help either. Trying to find "that one thing", which to you seems to be the coaches, and others seems to be amenities, etc. is silly.

I think part of the problem too is having to turn over every rock to find the "right" fit. We eliminate lots of players right off the bat if they don't fit a profile that is based largely on defensive potential. We have such a rare (outdated) and specific style of play, it seems like we have a hard time even compiling a list of viable options from the get-go. I've been hearing for years that the shift in focus is changing, but I'm still not sure I really see it on this upcoming roster. Coach needs to be more adaptable when it comes to the guys he recruits. If the guy is good, it's on you to figure out how to make him successful, instead of trying to jam square pegs into round holes. Putting the style above all else, regardless of personnel is a huge impediment to success on the court imo.