02-04-2010, 07:36 PM | #21 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 118
|
Quote:
|
|
02-04-2010, 07:42 PM | #22 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,155
|
One thing we need to remember is that Huggins did not coach in the BE, so his wins would be inflated somewhat. His teams were solid in the 90s, but most never reached it's full potential. I guess I'm grateful for Huggins to bring Cincy back to relevence, and now Mick needs to take it up a notch.
There is no reason why UC can't compete with just about every school aside from Duke, Kansas, and UNC (at least in terms of recruiting, if not wins). |
02-04-2010, 07:49 PM | #23 | |
Elite Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Dayton
Posts: 1,008
|
Quote:
2. Different situations. Surely someone that appears to know the history of the UC program such as you will admit that the circumstances were NOT the same at the point in time when both men took over. 3. Better hires? I agree. Hindsight is 20/20, is it not? Problem is finding established coaches that wanted the job for about $800,000-$1mil a year. We didn't and don't have UK type money. 4. Most glaring and obvious error of your post is that Mick hasn't even completed his 4th year. He has been here for about 3.667 years, right? How do you get that "he has been here 5 years?" 5. Objectivity my dear Watson. It's elementary. 6. I understand the best way to deflect hard facts is to bring up the shortfalls of another........I didn't go into my profession without learning a thing or two about argument tactics. It doesn't do any good to say Mick sucks when the facts of the thread have nothing to do with Mick. That's my last post of the night on the matter because it will kill my buzz. |
|
02-04-2010, 08:20 PM | #24 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,155
|
Don't kill the buzz.
|
02-04-2010, 08:25 PM | #25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 118
|
First I would like to correct myself, I realize he has been here since 2006, not 2005, but my facts still stand. Anyways this game could get ugly real quick, just like 2 years ago at ND.
|
02-04-2010, 08:29 PM | #26 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7,155
|
It's not looking good. UC looks lost on offense, turnover prone, and leaving passing lanes open. Not the look of a smart team.
|
02-04-2010, 09:51 PM | #27 |
Epic Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Nati
Posts: 3,837
|
There is no debate. Mick does not know what a post season game is...
|
02-04-2010, 11:06 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 118
|
|
02-05-2010, 11:08 AM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 367
|
I'm not going to deny Huggs did not get it done in the NCAA's, but I do want to defend UC's schedule in the 1990's. UC's schedule in the 1990's was not that bad. I'm not saying C-USA was beter than the Big East, but at the time C-USA was as good at the top as any other conference in the country. The bottom was bad. Memphis and Louisville were as strong as they are today. UC, Marquette, Charlotte were a lot better than they are today, making several tourny runs. Even teams like UAB, DePaul and St. Louis were a threat to beat anyone in the country on any given night back then. That's 8 solid squads. UC also would play some annual bouts with a top ranked opponent (ie. Duke, Arizona, UNLV, UMASS, Temple) and often finished on the winning side.
|
02-05-2010, 11:09 AM | #30 | |
Elite Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 807
|
Quote:
Huggins didn’t get the reputation of not being a tournament coach for nothing-not beating a seed higher then you EVER is bad. Real bad. Again- Mick isn’t the answer but I certainly was not content with Huggins either….Maybe I just have higher expectations of UC basketball, possibly too high I suppose. |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|