Huggins' NCAA History at UC

[BearcatAlum1]

Originally Posted by Kingsley Court

II would then argue that 4 seeds should make it 75 percent of the time. The reason being, I think the 4-5 matchup is always a difficult one, and in most cases could very well be a toss up. I get your point though.

Your math smells fishy..............doesn't a toss up suggest 50/50, not 75/25?


Just messing......

[Kingsley Court]

Yeah I know, but for some reason I think 4 seeds have a little bit of an advantage over the 5 seed. I guess I should have gone 60ish, but depending on the 4 and 5 seed the percentage could be higher or lower.

[BearcatAlum1]

Originally Posted by Kingsley Court

Yeah I know, but for some reason I think 4 seeds have a little bit of an advantage over the 5 seed. I guess I should have gone 60ish, but depending on the 4 and 5 seed the percentage could be higher or lower.

Touche'. Good save.

[Kingsley Court]

ha, not really. But I think we should get back to the toppic at hand because you bring up a very good point, and you had a lot of good research.

For the longest time I thought the perception around the country was that UC was a choke job. Now I wonder if people thought that it was because they thought they were overrated, or rather just for some reason couldn't get over the hump. The did have some crushing losses in some of these games, but losses none the less. Interestng topic.
Do you think that Huggs could have been fired in the future if he kept getting top 4 seeds and not getting out of the first weekend? I don't think that would have ever happenend, but I guess it depends on how much of post season success is a factor.

[BearcatAlum1]

Originally Posted by Kingsley Court

For the longest time I thought the perception around the country was that UC was a choke job. Now I wonder if people thought that it was because they thought they were overrated, or rather just for some reason couldn't get over the hump.

Do you think that Huggs could have been fired in the future if he kept getting top 4 seeds and not getting out of the first weekend? I don't think that would have ever happenend, but I guess it depends on how much of post season success is a factor.

1. I have family in California that gave me $hit because UC was always "choking" in the tournament. UC was respected for having a good program, but we were laughed at after the 95-96 season.

2. I think fans were getting frustrated with Huggins before he was terminated. I was frustrated, as was every other UC fan that I knew at the time.

Funny thing is that our current team has as much talent as some of those 1-4 seeds, but we play in the BigEast against other 1-4 seeds.

[Kingsley Court]

Originally Posted by BearcatAlum1

Funny thing is that our current team has as much talent as some of those 1-4 seeds, but we play in the BigEast against other 1-4 seeds.

Interesting point there. I never even thought of it like that.

[ohioubearcat]

I think Huggins struggles in the tournament were becauses his teams were tad overrated and very much underprepared. I believe the biggest reason for Huggins failures in the tourney were more that his teams never played anyone. I would say 80% of the games we played while in CUSA were cupcakes. In order for your team to be adequately prepared for a run in march they need to be tournament tested. Unfortunately the Huggins teams were not tested.

Look at our early bounces from the tourney....how many of those were extremely close games? The UCLA game the Patterson tip on the banked 3...quite sickening. You figure if they play a "murders row" big east schedule they would prob pull those games out.

Simply put they choked bc they were never in those situations before. His teams had to learn to win in the tourney whereas we are hopefully learning every game!

[BearcatAlum1]

Originally Posted by ohioubearcat

I think Huggins struggles in the tournament were becauses his teams were tad overrated and very much underprepared. I believe the biggest reason for Huggins failures in the tourney were more that his teams never played anyone. I would say 80% of the games we played while in CUSA were cupcakes. In order for your team to be adequately prepared for a run in march they need to be tournament tested. Unfortunately the Huggins teams were not tested.

Look at our early bounces from the tourney....how many of those were extremely close games? The UCLA game the Patterson tip on the banked 3...quite sickening. You figure if they play a "murders row" big east schedule they would prob pull those games out.

Simply put they choked bc they were never in those situations before. His teams had to learn to win in the tourney whereas we are hopefully learning every game!

Good point. Agreed.

[TheFranchise]

Originally Posted by DontMissHim

This, amoung many reasons, is why my name is "dontmisshim".

Ya because Micks 5 years here have been just exceptional. 5 years, umm how many NCAA Tournament Appearances? or how bout just NIT appearances? Look that up and let me know.


Now before you go on and say "Mick is rebuilding a progam" think about this:

Pryor to Huggins arriving in 1989, the last time UC made the NCAA Tournament was in 1977. Huggins took over a program that was playing in a recreation facility. UC was no longer a power it once was as in the 60's. He rebuilt the program almost instantly. He made the NIT in his first 2 years, and then ran off 14 straight NCAA Tournament Appearances.

This was a man who turned down at least 3 NBA jobs, and even the West Virginia job to stay here at Cincinnati. Give the man his credit for building a basketall powerhouse. Since his departure, this powerhouse is now the whipping boy in college basketball. Now once Mick departs you can keep that profile picture and keep your name because then it makes perfect sense.

[BearcatAlum1]

Originally Posted by TheFranchise

Ya because Micks 5 years here have been just exceptional. 5 years, umm how many NCAA Tournament Appearances? or how bout just NIT appearances? Look that up and let me know.


Now before you go on and say "Mick is rebuilding a progam" think about this:

Pryor to Huggins arriving in 1989, the last time UC made the NCAA Tournament was in 1977. Huggins took over a program that was playing in a recreation facility. UC was no longer a power it once was as in the 60's. He rebuilt the program almost instantly. He made the NIT in his first 2 years, and then ran off 14 straight NCAA Tournament Appearances.

This was a man who turned down at least 3 NBA jobs, and even the West Virginia job to stay here at Cincinnati. Give the man his credit for building a basketall powerhouse. Since his departure, this powerhouse is now the whipping boy in college basketball. Now once Mick departs you can keep that profile picture and keep your name because then it makes perfect sense.

Well, this qualifies as the first defensive post of the thread.

No one is diminishing what Huggins accomplished. He did some great things for UC basketball and helped re-establish us on the map. Not one person is trying to take that away from him.

Huggins did have shortfalls. He built this program back to national prominence, but struggled in his last 10 years in the NCAA Tournament. It really isn't that disputable.

Did I want to see Huggs go? No, not really. Was I getting anxious regarding the first weekend flameouts? Hell yes. Was I aware that it is an accomplishment to make the tournament and win a game 13 of 14 seasons in the Big Dance? Absolutely.

I don't get why you would compare Huggins to Mick. It really isn't comparable, so you are more or less making an argument equal to a fourth grader. Isn't there a show about that?

Huggins first 5 years > Mick's first 3.5 years. The situations may have been different, but wins/losses are all that matter.

Happy now?