Mick Cronin

[waterhead]

Mick does not like the grad transfer option. I get it...I really do. But, what is that philosophy getting us in March? We are worried about alienating players who aren't good enough and may transfer? They are on the bench anyway.

So we lose a couple of players to transfer and we get more options to recruit players that pan out. It's probably even a win for the transfer out who gets to showcase at a lower level ala Guyn. Win win. Loyalty is nice as long as it's not to a fault. I don't propose using grad transfer every year either.

Maybe we could have played Logan Johnson more...get him ready. We tried to recruit Moore for shooting which I think was great...but it's not working so how far does the loyalty need to go? I propose about 10 more game in the first part of the year to see if he can snap out of it. But we could have worked Logan in there a bit more this year and got him ready. Moore wasn't giving us much....may have been even a liability.

Fredericks perplexes me too. He's not helping much. Go after a HS kid that can score and shoot. Fredericks is a "system guy" who can rebound but he's not a scorer/play maker by any stretch. Sure he can probably hit 3's better than he has but there are HS guys that can do that too. It seems like a waste.

It seems like we are really really really reaching on recruits which is a bit alarming. I have watched enough basketball to see all kinds of scorers out there going to mid majors or even in our conference that could help us. There are plenty of options out there to help so we need to do better to find them. I don't care how many stars they have.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by Jon Rycek

I’m confused as to what point your making. You say our lack of tournament success is a pattern at this point. But then you admit our seeding hasn’t been that of making a sweet 16+ run. Other than that terrible loss to nevada, which I still don’t put on the shoulders of Cronin as much as I do the people actually playing the game. But fans will be fans. We upset a 3 seed and made one sweet 16. It took Mick what, 5 years just to get us tourney ready, so discount those years. You want a sweet 16 every four years or a team that can make one, well we should have that next season, and should have made it last season if it wasn’t for the previously stated fiasco. People keep saying 1 sweet sixteen in 13 season, we’ll four of those were a huge rebuilding. So in 9 years, we’ve had one run, and one that should have been, and possibly another next season. That’s 3 good teams in ten years. Sounds exactly what you’re asking for? So what’s the issue

My problem isn't with coaching. It's with the talent we have to coach. Even when we made the S16 that was borderline about all we could expect to do. We are pretenders most years with the exception of 1. So it's 1 of 9 pretenders vs contenders.

We need offensive talent. That is a recruiting style thing. Athletes and system guys are not getting it done. Give me a player who can dribble and shoot and keep defenders off balance even if he's not a high jumper. Can he put the ball in the basket? Yes? Okay...is he 5'9" and 230 lbs okay no. Can he move decent and has BB IQ? Okay maybe yes.

[justinhub2003]

Saw this on the UCLA board and thought it was interesting:

interesting questions from a poll of college players from The Athletic. no mention of tony bennett as someone a player would want to play for

4. Which coach other than your own would you most like to play for?
Top result: Mike Krzyzewski (33.6 percent)
Runners-up: Tom Izzo (6.4), John Calipari (5.5)
Also receiving multiple votes (in descending order): Roy Williams, Bruce Pearl, Buzz Williams, Rick Barnes, Chris Beard, Mick Cronin, Mark Few, Kelvin Sampson, Jay Wright
In their own words …
“Coach K. I mean, his record speaks for itself. He’s the best in the game.”
“I think I would’ve liked to experience playing for Coach K.”
“Tom Izzo. That guy is awesome. The way he gets fired up. He has that kind of swagger, fire, you like.”

5. Which coach would you least like to play for?
Top result: Bob Huggins (9.1 percent)
Runners-up: John Calipari, Tom Izzo and Frank Martin (6.4 percent each)
Also receiving multiple votes (in descending order): Jim Boeheim, Greg Gard, Mike Krzyzewski, Richard Pitino, Brad Underwood, Rick Pitino, Steve Prohm, Shaka Smart
In their own words …
“Bob Huggins. Just too aggressive for me. That’s not my style. I need to be able to talk to my guy.”
“Calipari. I really like an Xs and Os coach. He runs off talent. He doesn’t have to turn a three-star player into a five-star player.”
“The Michigan State coach, just because I saw a video on him.”

Mick shows up in the list for coaches players would like to Play for.

And Bob Huggins is the coach players wouldn't want to play for.

People always say Mick is a hard ass, and yet, the players in the NCAA think he is someone they want to play for.. Obviously not the top guy but its good to see his name mentioned

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by Jon Rycek

This is not a good statement at all. In this case Tony Bennet would just be a back up option. Since when is playing highlight reel basketball make you a good coach?

of course you dont think so, it doesn't praise mick.

if mick had won elite leagues and made runs in the tournament he wouldn't be looked at like a back up option, Tony Bennett has done those things.



Even then UCLA might not be a great spot for Bennett because their fans don't just demand you win, they demand you win and look good doing it. They want to be entertained.


Virginia basketball isn't always the most fun thing to watch even though they are a great team.

[sedziobs]

Originally Posted by waterhead

We need basketball players to get protected seeds or to advance.
So my proposal is to skip the athlete project recruit or the 3-4 star guys with multiple offensive deficiencies and get basketball players who know how to score even if they aren't top notch athletes. Play makers and shooters instead.

Both of these options will result in a similar quality team. Marquette is a team full of offensive "basketball players". So are a ton of mid-major teams, like Wofford, St Mary's and Belmont. None of these teams can compete with the top 16 teams every year. It takes a combination of size, athleticism and skill to be a top team. Whichever one of those we don't have will be the one everyone complains about.

We had skilled players in Broome and Jenifer and people complained about not having enough perimeter size. We complain that our big guys don't have enough skill. We had a big, skilled guard in Caupain that we complained wasn't athletic enough. This is going to be the case for every team that can't regularly get 5 star recruits. They're all going to be deficient in some area, except for a few upperclassmen here and there like Gary. This is just a fact of life at Cincinnati, whether or not Cronin is our coach.

I think he would be able to consistently get 5 star players at UCLA, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if he leaves. I just don't think we should force him out.

[TheRealUC]

Dixon reportedly near a deal with UCLA

https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2019...ie-dixon-ucla/

[Profchaos102]

In a poll taken by 110 college basketball players conducted by the Athletic, the question was posed “Which coach other than your own would you most like to play for?”

Cronin was 9th out of the 12 coaches that made the list. Thought it was interesting. Not advocating for or against keeping him. I’m staying out of that convo, but I thought that this was interesting and felt relevant.

[Profchaos102]

Oh and Bob Huggins was number one for least want to play for.

[waterhead]

Originally Posted by sedziobs

Both of these options will result in a similar quality team. Marquette is a team full of offensive "basketball players". So are a ton of mid-major teams, like Wofford, St Mary's and Belmont. None of these teams can compete with the top 16 teams every year. It takes a combination of size, athleticism and skill to be a top team. Whichever one of those we don't have will be the one everyone complains about.

We had skilled players in Broome and Jenifer and people complained about not having enough perimeter size. We complain that our big guys don't have enough skill. We had a big, skilled guard in Caupain that we complained wasn't athletic enough. This is going to be the case for every team that can't regularly get 5 star recruits. They're all going to be deficient in some area, except for a few upperclassmen here and there like Gary. This is just a fact of life at Cincinnati, whether or not Cronin is our coach.

I think he would be able to consistently get 5 star players at UCLA, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if he leaves. I just don't think we should force him out.

Sure. All great points as usual. However, I have started to lean towards the side of something Cincrulz11 has stated. The defensive system can work with many different types of players and not just the athletes. I look at VA as an example. They haven't ranked outside the top 7 in defense per T-rank in 6 years. We are typically in the top 10-20. Even when we focus on D we still aren't the elite of the elite. VA has some basketball players which may not be considered ultra athletes...but they continue to get the job done on D at an elite level.

So my proposal is to focus on the offensive side and maintain the D with the "basketball players" vs the "athletes". Keith Williams would be a good example here. I am not even sure he has the best grasp on the defensive scheme EVEN if he is capable of carrying it out due to his athleticism. If a player has one or the other "basketball smarts" vs athleticism...give me the guy with basketball smarts who can shoot and make plays. He will be smart enough to carry out the D scheme. IE not missing assignments as much or leaving a shooter open, or over helping, or knowing when to switch...etc.etc.etc.

Keith is not exempt from getting beat off the dribble....but if he makes mental mistakes in the scheme is he any better than a slower kid that is smart enough to make up for it? I don't want this to sound like I think Keith is not smart...it's just a theoretical. Cumberland is a guy who makes up for a lack of athleticism and so did SK. They just know how to get things done and sometimes that is better in the system than athletes.

[cincrulz11]

Originally Posted by Profchaos102

In a poll taken by 110 college basketball players conducted by the Athletic, the question was posed “Which coach other than your own would you most like to play for?”

Cronin was 9th out of the 12 coaches that made the list. Thought it was interesting. Not advocating for or against keeping him. I’m staying out of that convo, but I thought that this was interesting and felt relevant.

he probably had 1-2 votes right? i wonder who they were and if it was guys he recruited and almost came here.



the list of coaches guys dont want to play for is guys that act like mick on the court. Huggins/Izzo/Martin are those tough love guys that scream a lot but seem really close to their players, I think mick falls into a category like them although Mick probably doesn't get as much exposure as they do.