UCLA

[westsidecat]

Originally Posted by BearcatMick

Mick will lead uc to multiple national championships starting next year. We are lucky to have him

But on the flip side Cincinnati’s offense under Mick has been an outright embarrassment since he was hired from Murray State 7 years ago. And I have the numbers to prove it:


*
Field Goal % (Big East Rank)
Points Per Game (Big East Rank)
Free Throw % (Big East Rank)
2012-13 37.8% (14th) 61.8 (12th) 67.5% (11th)
2011-12 40.3% (16th) 67.4 (7th) 66.2% (16th)
2010-11 42.3% (10th) 64.8 (13th) 67.1% (13th)
2009-10 43.7% (9th) 66.5 (13th) 61.5% (16th)
2008-09 42.2% (11th) 66.1 (11th) 65.5% (11th)
2007-08 41.2% (14th) 64.6 (14th) 66.5% (10th)
2006-07 39.3% (13th) 62.8 (12th) 64.6% (13th)NOTE: These are Big East stats against Big East opponents. Sure Cincinnati can break the scoreboard against Hee Haw University but against better competition they struggle mightily with the ball in their hands.

numbers say diffrent.

[aronius]

Originally Posted by westsidecat

well, not many names were let out because uc did a great job of keeping things quiet. skip prosser was one name that was throwen out.

i'm pretty sure no one thought it would be mick..even the national media, who was surprised uc didn't get a big name for a big time job.

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

[westsidecat]

Originally Posted by SlamJam

If you were a big fan of Huggins- you were likely happy just making the tournament. Especially considering his last 9 years at UC he went to the second weekend just one time.

upsets happen. big diffrence going in as a 1-5 seed vs a 10 seed bubble squad.

and no, i wasn't a big fan of huggs just find it funny how people try to discredit everything he done here.

let me know when mick makes 14 ncaa in a row.

[westsidecat]

Originally Posted by aronius

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

agree to disagee.

do you think it would be the same now? do you belive tubby and howland wouldn't consider?

[UCBearcats]

Originally Posted by aronius

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

You have no clue what you're talking about either. Can we start separating facts from people's opinion when we have these debates and then maybe we'll get somewhere?

Were you in the room 7 years ago, were you the AD, were you part of a team of people advising him? Do you honestly have any idea how many people were interested in the job? Do you know if UC pursued anyone else or if they just made their decision to hire Mick because at the time he seemed like the best fit for the job?

Let me answer these questions for you, the answer is no. Just because someone might have told you something or you think you know something doesn't make it fact.

PS - I don't even know what point you're trying to argue for or against, just tired of reading people's post where they take some crap and try to spin it off as factual evidence to represent their argument.

[aronius]

Originally Posted by UCBearcats

You have no clue what you're talking about either. Can we start separating facts from people's opinion when we have these debates and then maybe we'll get somewhere?

You always use this lame defense. Since no one was in the room there could have been a long list of high major candidates but Mike Thomas chose to go with a coach of 3 years head coaching experience, that makes sense.

Again, there were articles at the time linking Hobbs and obviously Mick to the job. What there was not, were articles linking ANY big time coach to the job.

[Bearcat22]

Originally Posted by aronius

There was not 1 article from the national media claiming "surprise" that UC didn't get a big name. Prosser and Wright were both linked to the job for about 15 minutes before they both publicly said no thanks.

The only two people who picked up the phone were Mick and Karl Hobbs. Not the mark of a top 10 job...

To be fair, Karl Hobbs name is mentioned anytime a big time program has an opening. It's like when Phil Jackson is mentioned for every NBA coaching job.

[SlamJam]

Originally Posted by westsidecat

upsets happen. big diffrence going in as a 1-5 seed vs a 10 seed bubble squad.

and no, i wasn't a big fan of huggs just find it funny how people try to discredit everything he done here.

let me know when mick makes 14 ncaa in a row.

uh, didn't you say "I find it funny some fans are just happy making the tournament"

[UCBearcats]

Originally Posted by aronius

You always use this lame defense. Since no one was in the room there could have been a long list of high major candidates but Mike Thomas chose to go with a coach of 3 years head coaching experience, that makes sense.

Again, there were articles at the time linking Hobbs and obviously Mick to the job. What there was not, were articles linking ANY big time coach to the job.

It's not a lame defense, it's the truth. When people start saying things like we don't have the money to hire a coach or makes statements like you did that's not a fact. That's your opinion or it's based on something someone told you. It doesn't make it a fact.

I'm not saying that there was a big time coach that wanted the job and I'm pretty sure there probably wasn't. I'm not trying to argue for or against your point, just making the statement that you're trying to pass off your opinion as a fact.

What I will say is that our program was already decimated, we had, at the time, a great candidate sitting there in Mick Cronin and he was the very convenient choice. Does anyone honestly remember who would have even been available at the time had we not gone with Mick?

I'm not going to argue that UC was a top 10 program but I'd say we were certainly top 20 at the time. We weren't on par and never have been with Duke, UNC, Syracuse or UK but in the 90's and early 2000's we were on an pretty even playing field with schools like Arizona, Memphis, ect. Not to mention that these things are cyclical, at that point in time we were doing better as a program than Louisville or Ohio State or a lot of other programs people consider big time today. Back then no one even knew who the hell VCU, Butler or Gonzaga even were.

[L-T]

Originally Posted by UCBearcats

You have no clue what you're talking about either. Can we start separating facts from people's opinion when we have these debates and then maybe we'll get somewhere?

Were you in the room 7 years ago, were you the AD, were you part of a team of people advising him? Do you honestly have any idea how many people were interested in the job? Do you know if UC pursued anyone else or if they just made their decision to hire Mick because at the time he seemed like the best fit for the job?

Let me answer these questions for you, the answer is no. Just because someone might have told you something or you think you know something doesn't make it fact.

PS - I don't even know what point you're trying to argue for or against, just tired of reading people's post where they take some crap and try to spin it off as factual evidence to represent their argument.

You do realize Mick started with nothing don't you?