'16 MS PF/C Darius Hicks

jacobkdoyle · 05-02-2016, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdchick

Absolutely terrible comparisons Cobb was a starter for his two years here and cane Broome wil start both years he is here

Yeah, both as JRs. No chance Hicks would start as a JR when Clark and Washington (and Moore) are gone?

jacobkdoyle · 05-02-2016, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jds513

Of course. Everyone knows that. Including him. Same is true for those other schools and it may be easier for him to get on the court. Every recruit wants something different in a school. You can't just deny that there could possibly be more playing time available at one of those schools. He's a 3 star player, not 5.

The guys we have here that he'd be competing with for PT aren't 5* either. I'm sure it'd be easier for him to get on the floor at Tulane...but again, that's the case for lots of players who don't choose crappy programs. If he can come to UC, I'm betting he does.

jacobkdoyle · 05-02-2016, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdchick

Absolutely terrible comparisons Cobb was a starter for his two years here and cane Broome wil start both years he is here

And also, those comparisons were more about guys not wanting to play for bad teams. It really is funny how hard you try to troll me. You don't ever have an original post of your own. What you "contribute" on this site is so easy.

mdchick · 05-02-2016, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacobkdoyle

And also, those comparisons were more about guys not wanting to play for bad teams. It really is funny how hard you try to troll me. You don't ever have an original post of your own. What you "contribute" on this site is so easy.

Don't flatter yourself I just try to show the avg poster or are players that everyone on this site isn't an idiot.

jacobkdoyle · 05-02-2016, 01:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdchick

Don't flatter yourself I just try to show the avg poster or are players that everyone on this site isn't an idiot.

Can we get MadMan on a spell check for this guy? I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and call it a typo, but that's twice now. And I'm the idiot. Good grief. Come up with an original thought of your own on UC or basketball in general sometime, and I'll show you how easy it is to respond the way you do to me. Pathetic.

Madman81 · 05-02-2016, 08:06 AM

he's not doing a good job showing anyone that all posters aren't idiots, that's for sure.

BearcatSpaniard513 · 05-02-2016, 08:37 AM

Realistically I think he gives us some needed size coming off the bench and some explosiveness that Moore doesn't offer. And that is all we need. Washington and Clark are going to get the majority of the minutes the next 2 seasons. If we can convince a kid to come here to be a part of a really good team, and embrace the role player off the bench their first couple years then great! Let's just hope we pitch him the benefit of making the NCAA and having guys like Gary and Washington ahead of him to help his development.

BearcatSpaniard513 · 05-02-2016, 08:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BearcatSpaniard513

Realistically I think he gives us some needed size coming off the bench and some explosiveness that Moore doesn't offer. And that is all we need. Washington and Clark are going to get the majority of the minutes the next 2 seasons. If we can convince a kid to come here to be a part of a really good team, and embrace the role player off the bench their first couple years then great! Let's just hope we pitch him the benefit of making the NCAA and having guys like Gary and Washington ahead of him to help his development.

I totally forgot about Brooks when I typed this...

WAITE HOYT 2 · 05-02-2016, 09:43 AM

I guess I'm confused why some think saying Playing Time is a factor in recruiting is an excuse. An excuse for what???? We are a good program that competes well in our league and makes the dance. The problem with this board is almost every thread turns into a debate about the effectiveness of our Coach. Playing Style, recruiting, personality and many others. If we don't land Hicks because he would rather play in a situation that affords him with a better opportunity to see the floor or any number of reasons that is up to him. I could list many factors that go into landing players. Here is a news flash for everyone we are not the 1960 bearcats and haven't been for awhile. We are not Huggins bearcats and haven't been for awhile. We are a good program that competes very hard who's players graduate and who generally stay out of trouble. We also are a program that has room for improvement. This is not a excuse, it is reality. In my opinion we do very well with what we have to offer in todays college athletics. I won't list what obstacles make up todays college game because its been done to death by many almost daily on here.

I mean really didn't this conversation start on the general recruiting thread.

jacobkdoyle · 05-02-2016, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WAITE HOYT 2

I guess I'm confused why some think saying Playing Time is a factor in recruiting is an excuse. An excuse for what???? We are a good program that competes well in our league and makes the dance. The problem with this board is almost every thread turns into a debate about the effectiveness of our Coach. Playing Style, recruiting, personality and many others. If we don't land Hicks because he would rather play in a situation that affords him with a better opportunity to see the floor or any number of reasons that is up to him. I could list many factors that go into landing players. Here is a news flash for everyone we are not the 1960 bearcats and haven't been for awhile. We are not Huggins bearcats and haven't been for awhile. We are a good program that competes very hard who's players graduate and who generally stay out of trouble. We also are a program that has room for improvement. This is not a excuse, it is reality. In my opinion we do very well with what we have to offer in todays college athletics. I won't list what obstacles make up todays college game because its been done to death by many almost daily on here.

I mean really didn't this conversation start on the general recruiting thread.

BC WE ALSO HAVE PLAYING TIME TO OFFER. If a grad transfer PG turned us down for playing time reasons, yeah that makes sense. But for this specific case, it is not an issue. He will have every opportunity to get on the floor here. Why else would we be recruiting him this spring? Obviously the staff sees our frontcourt and realizes that minutes behind Clark and Washington are wide open. Hicks has just as good of a chance as anyone else to get them.

05-02-2016, 08:06 AM	#46
Madman81 Elite Member Join Date: Nov 2015 Posts: 657	he's not doing a good job showing anyone that all posters aren't idiots, that's for sure.

05-02-2016, 08:37 AM	#47
BearcatSpaniard513 Elite Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 704	Realistically I think he gives us some needed size coming off the bench and some explosiveness that Moore doesn't offer. And that is all we need. Washington and Clark are going to get the majority of the minutes the next 2 seasons. If we can convince a kid to come here to be a part of a really good team, and embrace the role player off the bench their first couple years then great! Let's just hope we pitch him the benefit of making the NCAA and having guys like Gary and Washington ahead of him to help his development.

05-02-2016, 09:43 AM	#49
WAITE HOYT 2 Epic Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 8,404	I guess I'm confused why some think saying Playing Time is a factor in recruiting is an excuse. An excuse for what???? We are a good program that competes well in our league and makes the dance. The problem with this board is almost every thread turns into a debate about the effectiveness of our Coach. Playing Style, recruiting, personality and many others. If we don't land Hicks because he would rather play in a situation that affords him with a better opportunity to see the floor or any number of reasons that is up to him. I could list many factors that go into landing players. Here is a news flash for everyone we are not the 1960 bearcats and haven't been for awhile. We are not Huggins bearcats and haven't been for awhile. We are a good program that competes very hard who's players graduate and who generally stay out of trouble. We also are a program that has room for improvement. This is not a excuse, it is reality. In my opinion we do very well with what we have to offer in todays college athletics. I won't list what obstacles make up todays college game because its been done to death by many almost daily on here. I mean really didn't this conversation start on the general recruiting thread.