Go Back   BearcatTalk.com > Cincinnati Basketball > Bearcat Basketball

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-06-2019, 12:53 PM   #61
cincyguy13
Epic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 4,086
cincyguy13 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyblade View Post
Well it appeared that we did force Hardnett off team to get Harvey. But I agree, hoping to grab a Harvey type player is exactly why you hold onto the 13th scholarship.

The risk is that Harvey as a Junior or Senior commits an infraction that you could let slide from another player, but can't let slide with Harvey due to his past. Now suddenly you are losing a star player you have given a bunch of playing time to develop and are relying on to play major minutes. Also, as we know, UC still holds a bit of the Thug-U reputation (without reason), if Harvey gets into more legal trouble, his past is something that can be used against us in the media/recruiting.

Just because I think Harvey is high risk, doesn't mean I think we shouldn't have taken him or think something will go wrong. By high risk I don't mean I think it's 50-50 he will get into trouble again either. I'd say he's a few percentage points more likely to get into more trouble than an average recruit. I expect him to have no problems and quickly develop into a star here.
Whatís the risk with the madsens? You think if Gabe is killing it and mason isnít, you think he leaves with his brother? I donít see that happening. And if they are both struggling and want to leave. So be it.

As far as Harvey, you have to take him. Itís not even a question. We are in no position to turn away top talent. Especially if you are a new coach trying to start something big.

cincyguy13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-06-2019, 10:58 PM   #62
TheLongHaul
Epic Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,938
TheLongHaul is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyblade View Post
Like many others, you resort to calling things stupid and attacking me because your arguments hold no weight. I started posting more on this forum to stay away from this type of angry, defensive, substance-less post.

In terms of their recruitment, Harvey and Gabe each had something that prevented a number of schools from recruiting them (Harvey - legal issues, Gabe - only wanted to play with schools that also recruited his twin). These are things that quite a few schools saw and made them pass. Gabe is initially a higher risk because we had to spend a scholarship on Mason, who plays a position we don't need depth at (and I don't think anyone thinks we would have recruited Mason without Gabe).

Most players choose their favorite school and their decision to stay is only up to themselves. We don't know how much Mason would influence Gabe's decision. But there is the possibility that if Mason leaves due to lack of playing time, Gabe would also leave. That makes the risk of Gabe leaving higher than if we just had Gabe.

As for Harvey, you think Harvey is no higher risk? Than why do you think so many schools passed on him? Even Brannen said that Harvey understands he can't make another mistake.

Where did I saw I don't like Harvey? I said I don't mind taking risks here and there. I'm happy with Harvey. I can be happy with him, while still acknowledging we got him because we were willing to gamble a little. Gabe I think looks great, but is only a 160 rated recruits, we should be able to get recruits in the 150-200 range without any strings attached.
What name did I call you? I said your post was stupid, and that is 100% true and I provided support for it. And others are pointing it out on other boards. Notice a trend? p.s., it's you.

The Madsen twins publicly acknowledged that they wanted to be recruited individually and weren't a package deal. Your argument that Gabe only wanted to play with schools that also recruited his twin is b.s., and I'm calling you out on it. It's honestly quite funny reading your posts. Gabe is a high risk because because his brother may leave? And this after you say "We don't know how much Mason would influence Gabe's decision" - so we have no clue, yet it's still a high risk? Yea, and Jacob Evans was high risk because he could have gotten home sick going to a school so far away.

Wow, there is a possibility one would leave? Unheard of. I guess there is no possibility of other players leaving. Cronin should not have recruited Brooks because there was a possibility he would leave if there was a coaching change.

Was Harvey a risk? Perhaps. But what is the risk? He does something and gets kicked off the team? His infraction was pretty minor. You could argue it's a risk not taking a player of his talent. It wasn't like he pushed his girlfriend down the stairs. So let me ask you again since you conveniently ignored it: what was your position on taking Lance Stephenson, Alvin Mitchel, Ellis (twice - once after he had already been kicked off the team), Lawrence, and Jason Henry?
TheLongHaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2019, 11:41 AM   #63
skyblade
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 1,039
skyblade is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLongHaul View Post
What name did I call you? I said your post was stupid, and that is 100% true and I provided support for it. And others are pointing it out on other boards. Notice a trend? p.s., it's you.

The Madsen twins publicly acknowledged that they wanted to be recruited individually and weren't a package deal. Your argument that Gabe only wanted to play with schools that also recruited his twin is b.s., and I'm calling you out on it. It's honestly quite funny reading your posts. Gabe is a high risk because because his brother may leave? And this after you say "We don't know how much Mason would influence Gabe's decision" - so we have no clue, yet it's still a high risk? Yea, and Jacob Evans was high risk because he could have gotten home sick going to a school so far away.

Wow, there is a possibility one would leave? Unheard of. I guess there is no possibility of other players leaving. Cronin should not have recruited Brooks because there was a possibility he would leave if there was a coaching change.

Was Harvey a risk? Perhaps. But what is the risk? He does something and gets kicked off the team? His infraction was pretty minor. You could argue it's a risk not taking a player of his talent. It wasn't like he pushed his girlfriend down the stairs. So let me ask you again since you conveniently ignored it: what was your position on taking Lance Stephenson, Alvin Mitchel, Ellis (twice - once after he had already been kicked off the team), Lawrence, and Jason Henry?
Maybe you didn't really follow the recruiting. Makes sense as most of the guys on the other board like to get emotionally worked up, but don't really follow recruiting closely. The Madsen's said they wanted to be recruited individually, but they also made it clear that they wanted to be a package deal. The risk with Gabe is that Mason the mid-major level player that he looks like and we've basically used two scholarships on one player. Do you (or anyone) think Mason would be here if Gabe went elsewhere?

Any player could leave for a variety of reasons. But no other recruit besides Gabe is going to leave because their brother is unhappy here. It is one more factor that could influence Gabe departing, that a normal recruit does not have, thus higher risk.

Can you not read? I said I'm happy with Harvey here and fine with taking a risk here and there. That applies to past players as well. As long as we don't take too many risks and are getting players who wouldn't normally come here is a good strategy.
skyblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2019, 09:16 AM   #64
TheLongHaul
Epic Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 2,938
TheLongHaul is on a distinguished road
Yes, I followed the recruiting and read and heard them say multiple times that they are not a package deal and wanted to be recruited individually. This is straight out of the horses mouth. Sure they said it'd be nice to play together if the right situation came along, which it did in Cincinnati.

Your logic is absurd for saying Gabe is a higher risk. But since just stated you agree with Brannen's strategy I guess it was a lot of drivel for nothing. I'm with you, I think it's a great strategy.
TheLongHaul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2019, 06:39 PM   #65
cincyguy13
Epic Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 4,086
cincyguy13 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyblade View Post
Maybe you didn't really follow the recruiting. Makes sense as most of the guys on the other board like to get emotionally worked up, but don't really follow recruiting closely. The Madsen's said they wanted to be recruited individually, but they also made it clear that they wanted to be a package deal. The risk with Gabe is that Mason the mid-major level player that he looks like and we've basically used two scholarships on one player. Do you (or anyone) think Mason would be here if Gabe went elsewhere?

Any player could leave for a variety of reasons. But no other recruit besides Gabe is going to leave because their brother is unhappy here. It is one more factor that could influence Gabe departing, that a normal recruit does not have, thus higher risk.

Can you not read? I said I'm happy with Harvey here and fine with taking a risk here and there. That applies to past players as well. As long as we don't take too many risks and are getting players who wouldn't normally come here is a good strategy.
If you think Gabe is going to be really good, yes you spend two scholarships to get him. You never need 13 players anyway.
cincyguy13 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 09:27 AM   #66
waterhead
Senior Moderator
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,500
waterhead is on a distinguished road
This is not a two scholly for one player deal. That concept is utterly ridiculous!
Unless you don't count the scholarships Cronin offered to guys ranked in the 300-400's. This whole concept of Mason basically being worth as much as an empty roster spot is outrageous, humiliating and not even close to accurate.

Anyone who is perpetuating this as a two for 1 deal is being completely disingenuous in order to make their point seem stronger.
waterhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 11:15 AM   #67
z_bearcat
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 57
z_bearcat is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterhead View Post
This is not a two scholly for one player deal. That concept is utterly ridiculous!
Unless you don't count the scholarships Cronin offered to guys ranked in the 300-400's. This whole concept of Mason basically being worth as much as an empty roster spot is outrageous, humiliating and not even close to accurate.

Anyone who is perpetuating this as a two for 1 deal is being completely disingenuous in order to make their point seem stronger.
^^^ Agree, completely. I donít post on here very often. I mostly come here for laughs. This is one example of threads that provide me humor.

Last edited by z_bearcat; 09-09-2019 at 11:44 AM.
z_bearcat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 12:27 PM   #68
skyblade
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 1,039
skyblade is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by waterhead View Post
This is not a two scholly for one player deal. That concept is utterly ridiculous!
Unless you don't count the scholarships Cronin offered to guys ranked in the 300-400's. This whole concept of Mason basically being worth as much as an empty roster spot is outrageous, humiliating and not even close to accurate.

Anyone who is perpetuating this as a two for 1 deal is being completely disingenuous in order to make their point seem stronger.
Does anyone think we would have recruited Mason if not for Gabe?

Does anyone think we needed another young PG/SG? In 2020 we already have MAW (PG/SG), Saunders (PG), Harvey (PG/SG) and Gabe (SG/SF) as freshmen/sophomores. Where will Mason find minutes in the next few years?

Cronin generally offered big men 300-400 rated bigs (harder to get) and at positions where we didn't already have a ton of depth. If Mason was 6'8"+ I'd have no problem with him at his rating.

But the low rating, plus him playing a position where we already have plenty of young depth, screams that he's only here because of Gabe.

As for those saying it's just the 13th scholarship. It is, but now we have locked it in. Our last 2 scholarships pretty much need to be used on a pair of PF/C's for 2020 (unless Davenport is going to be the backup PF). The 13th scholarship could have been saved to be used on a grad transfer depending on our needs, such as one of the young likely 2020 starters (Prince at PF and MAW at PG) not developing quickly enough or getting injured. Instead we used it on a 300+ rated guy, who is likely going to be the third string PG for the next 3 years.
skyblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 12:53 PM   #69
skyblade
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Posts: 1,039
skyblade is on a distinguished road
For 2020 I see our depth chart as.

PG: 1. MAW (SO), 2. Saunders (FR) 3. Harvey (SO) or Mason (FR)
SG: 1. Moore (SR), 2. Harvey (possibly 1 by years end, SO), 3. Gabe/MAW or Mason
SF: 1. Keith (SR), 2. Gabe (FR)/Davenport (RS FR),
PF: 1. Prince (RS SO), 2. Davenport (RS FR) (may change if/when we sign a PF), 3. ??
C: 1. Diarra (RS JR), 2. Vogt (RS JR), 3. ??

At C/PF I see us getting one guy who is probably a RS (Traynor for example - probably needs to RS to add muscle) and another guy who can play immediately (at minimum as backup PF). Ideally the RS would be able to play minutes at center (two years to develop behind Diarra/Vogt then start for 3 years), but it depends on who we can get.
skyblade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-09-2019, 02:38 PM   #70
waterhead
Senior Moderator
 
waterhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,500
waterhead is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by skyblade View Post
Does anyone think we would have recruited Mason if not for Gabe?

Does anyone think we needed another young PG/SG? In 2020 we already have MAW (PG/SG), Saunders (PG), Harvey (PG/SG) and Gabe (SG/SF) as freshmen/sophomores. Where will Mason find minutes in the next few years?

Cronin generally offered big men 300-400 rated bigs (harder to get) and at positions where we didn't already have a ton of depth. If Mason was 6'8"+ I'd have no problem with him at his rating.

But the low rating, plus him playing a position where we already have plenty of young depth, screams that he's only here because of Gabe.

As for those saying it's just the 13th scholarship. It is, but now we have locked it in. Our last 2 scholarships pretty much need to be used on a pair of PF/C's for 2020 (unless Davenport is going to be the backup PF). The 13th scholarship could have been saved to be used on a grad transfer depending on our needs, such as one of the young likely 2020 starters (Prince at PF and MAW at PG) not developing quickly enough or getting injured. Instead we used it on a 300+ rated guy, who is likely going to be the third string PG for the next 3 years.
You seem to be starting from a point that I would not be starting from. I would assume Saunders and Harvey will be starting but even that is not set in stone. After that I would not be setting depth charts right now at PG and SG between MAW and Moore. We haven't seen any of these guys play yet except for Moore and up until this point he doesn't deserve to be on the floor. I wouldn't even rule out Moore entering the portal at some point but who knows.

This doesn't even begin to account for injury at PG or SG.
waterhead is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., - All material on this Cincinnati Bearcat discussion forum is strictly for entertainment purposes only. This site and any pages within are in no way affiliated with the University of Cincinnati. Any images, copyrights, or trademarks used on this site are used under the "Fair Use Provision" of the Copyright Act for purposes of comment, criticism, and news reporting.