Turn Off Ads?
Page 44 of 48 FirstFirst ... 34404142434445464748 LastLast
Results 646 to 660 of 712

Thread: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

  1. #646
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    651

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Great win. I don't think it's enough to get them out of the 8 / 9 matchup, but maybe if things break the right way they can sneak into a 7 seed. Of course a win against Syracuse would be monumental and would bump them up into a 5 or 6 seed potentially, but I think Syracuse is a bad matchup for UC.

    The unis are ugly, but I think it's pretty cool that UC is one of only three schools that is getting the opportunity to showcase them. It could be worse, we could have Baylor's uniforms and have a team looking like a bunch of highlighters running down the court...

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #647
    ZCTRMTP!!!!! texasdave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    10,807

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Quote Originally Posted by nmculbreth View Post
    Great win. I don't think it's enough to get them out of the 8 / 9 matchup, but maybe if things break the right way they can sneak into a 7 seed. Of course a win against Syracuse would be monumental and would bump them up into a 5 or 6 seed potentially, but I think Syracuse is a bad matchup for UC.

    The unis are ugly, but I think it's pretty cool that UC is one of only three schools that is getting the opportunity to showcase them. It could be worse, we could have Baylor's uniforms and have a team looking like a bunch of highlighters running down the court...
    Those unis looked a lot better after they came back to win. Midway through the second half they were looking ugly. I'd like to see the Bearcats play about 8 more times in them this year so they have a chance to grow on me. =)
    A summer watching a bad Reds' team, is still a pretty good summer.

  4. #648
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    I think they've played their way to a 7 seed. House money from here on out.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  5. #649
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    http://www.gobearcats.com/allaccess/?media=308758

    Link to interviews with Yancy and Mick. As an aside, the fixed camera angle really shows how hilariously short Mick is by comparison.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  6. #650
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    270

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Quote Originally Posted by paintmered View Post
    I think they've played their way to a 7 seed. House money from here on out.
    I'm thinking they're probably hovering around the highest 8 seed right now. Which, I guess the distinction between the best/worst 8/9 seeds is pretty worthless. You wanna be lined up against Mizzou either way. So yeah, let's hope for 6 or 7.

    Question for people who watch a lot of basketball: Can you think of an odder/weirder team that was relatively successful?

    What I mean by that is, this team:

    -lost to Presbyterian
    -had the brawl, obviously
    -seemingly stole Xavier's spirit force via the brawl
    -shoots 3's great when well-defended or beyond 25 ft
    -shoots 3's terribly when wide open
    -varies wildly in which players play well or poorly, in defiance of continuity or logic
    -knocks off nearly all top Big East teams but loses to Rutgers and St. John's
    -is considered a lock despite a terrible RPI
    -is successful due primarily to, as far as I can tell, turnover margin


    Don't get me wrong, I'm having fun, but sometimes this team absolutely baffles me. It's a good confusion, though? I'm not sure why they are good, it makes no sense. The best theory I have is that their perimeter defense is exceptional, and Yancy and JJ are good enough to hold their own despite being outmanned. That's the best I've got. Anyone else?

  7. #651
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,187

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Am I the only one who thought the officiating was horrible? I mean, this is the conference tournament and it is broadcast on ESPN. You'd like to think the Big East would want to put their best foot forward. Some of the missed calls were quite bad IMO. I didn't get to see any of the other games, but geez was the UC/GT one bad.

  8. #652
    Member ervinsm84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West Chester
    Posts
    448

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Quote Originally Posted by SeeinRed View Post
    Am I the only one who thought the officiating was horrible? I mean, this is the conference tournament and it is broadcast on ESPN. You'd like to think the Big East would want to put their best foot forward. Some of the missed calls were quite bad IMO. I didn't get to see any of the other games, but geez was the UC/GT one bad.
    It was a weirdly officiated game. The first half I thought was called really well, I think they called maybe 7 fouls combined, but the 2nd half and OT's was pretty bad. Its not really that uncommon though, the quality of officials in CBB arent near as good as a lot of people like to pretend, especially with charging/blocks.,

    Side note rant it irks me to no end when annoucers say things in baseball like "well they get 95 or 99% of the calls right." Uh, duh, of course they get that high a percentage correct. An overwhelming majority of the calls are where the guy at first is out by 3+ feet or oooh, they called a foul ball a strike. Thanks umps for padding your stats on calls an 8 year old could make 100% of the time. What they need to be evaluated on is trying to rarely screw up the easy calls, and getting a decent % of the really tough/close calls correct.
    Newsflash!

    Joey Votto does not care about RBI.

    NEITHER SHOULD ANY OF US

  9. #653
    Member ervinsm84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West Chester
    Posts
    448

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Quote Originally Posted by jredmo2 View Post
    I'm thinking they're probably hovering around the highest 8 seed right now. Which, I guess the distinction between the best/worst 8/9 seeds is pretty worthless. You wanna be lined up against Mizzou either way. So yeah, let's hope for 6 or 7.

    Question for people who watch a lot of basketball: Can you think of an odder/weirder team that was relatively successful?

    What I mean by that is, this team:

    -lost to Presbyterian
    -had the brawl, obviously
    -seemingly stole Xavier's spirit force via the brawl
    -shoots 3's great when well-defended or beyond 25 ft
    -shoots 3's terribly when wide open
    -varies wildly in which players play well or poorly, in defiance of continuity or logic
    -knocks off nearly all top Big East teams but loses to Rutgers and St. John's
    -is considered a lock despite a terrible RPI
    -is successful due primarily to, as far as I can tell, turnover margin


    Don't get me wrong, I'm having fun, but sometimes this team absolutely baffles me. It's a good confusion, though? I'm not sure why they are good, it makes no sense. The best theory I have is that their perimeter defense is exceptional, and Yancy and JJ are good enough to hold their own despite being outmanned. That's the best I've got. Anyone else?
    There definitely are not many teams that have had the narrative that this type of Cincy team has had ever. Its really been an odd season. That said, the loss at Rutgers wasnt near the shock that some people think bc Rutgers was only a 2 or 3 pt dog in that game. The only truly shocking losses were home vs presby (which they blew a 15 point lead with ~8 minutes to go) and home vs STJ where they managed to get like 20 more shot attempts than ST J and still couldnt win bc no one could fall out of a boat and hit water. Dont take that to mean I think they've been unlucky though. IF anything, other than the blown call in the WVU game, UC's results have been pretty lucky in close games throughout the year.

    They are now 9-5 in games decided by 5 or less which helps a ton/very lucky, and every statistical study out there has shown "knowing how to win close games" isnt really a skill that teams have.


    That said, I think youre right in that their success is rooted heavily in turnovers, both not committing them and forcing them. While this should seem like an obvious thing (commit turnover bad, force turnover good LDO) Im not sure everyone gets the magnitude of difference between a turnover and taking a bad shot.


    They rarely turn it over as you noted, which is really easy to not view as "good offense" bc their offense isnt really pretty by traditional standards.
    It seems like Mick's philosophy, and I agree 100% is that a bad shot is way >>>> turnovers, whereas I think a lot of people think they are one in the same.

    If UC has a game where they have 5+ fewer turnovers, they dont have to make very many of their shots to be scoring at a much higher clip than their opponents.

    A bad shot, lets say a long contested 2pt jumper off the dribble that the guy makes maybe 30% of the time is still worth 0.6 ExpectedPoints (2x.3)
    Now, the best offense in college basketball averages ~1.2 pts per possession. So while that bad possession is a ton worse than the best offense in the country, its also the same gap between the terrible alternative of getting 0.0 Expectedpoints off of a turnover.


    Add in that, I didn't even begin to quantify how much turning it over kills your defense bc often times it will lead to a transition opportunity. Oh and, forcing turnovers in also helps a team get easier scoring opportunities. It becomes more and more clear to me that turnovers, while only one of the 4 factors and rated #2 most important by Dean Oliver out of the four factors, is the easiest to control and excel in for teams that do not have elite talent (see Wisconsin's history of success). Whereas eFG%, takes much more skill and talent to be elite at shooting a high eFG% or preventing a team from shooting a high eFG%. Fortunately, for UC, eFG% isnt on the final scoreboard but rather total points or else they'd be screwed.

    UC has excelled in forcing them, and not committing them, and that gives their offense a lot of leeway to score more points than their opponents, while simultaneously crippling the other teams ability to score.

    Profound LDO i know. Dont turn it over, force turnovers and win EZGAME right? But I really think the stuff that irritates a lot of fans about the UC offense (some of the quick shots, jacked up contested jumpers, lots of 3's etc) bc they're going to "miss a lot" and "look ugly" is partly in design to just shoot it before they screw up and turn the ball over without getting up a scoring attempt. It may sound odd, but a bad shot dominates a turnover, by the same amount the #1 offense in the country dominates a bad shot.


    TLDR Cliffs
    Bad shots >>>>>Turnovers has same gap as #1 offense>>>>>BadShot
    Last edited by ervinsm84; 03-09-2012 at 12:54 AM.
    Newsflash!

    Joey Votto does not care about RBI.

    NEITHER SHOULD ANY OF US

  10. #654
    Be the ball Roy Tucker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Mason, OH
    Posts
    12,172

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    I've watched 3 or 4 of the Big East tournament games and it seems to me the refs are letting the guys play. Unless there is a jagged end of a bone sticking out or arterial blood is spurting, its "play on".

    Pay attention to the open sky

  11. #655
    Waitin til next year bucksfan2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    10,182

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Nice overall game by UC. Probably the best I have ever seen Yancy look. Its what many UC fans thought they were getting when he signed with UC. He was dominant on the block and finished like a power forward should.

    Dixon went 3-6 or 4-8 on FT's late in the game and in overtime. He needs to make those. I don't know why he struggles so much when it comes to making late FT's.

    I wonder late in the game how much UC benefitted from Georgetown having to play its second game in 2 days? There were a couple of late FT's that came up short because of tired legs. I also think Yancy was able to take advantage of it on offense powering his way to the rim.

    There was something I noticed against GT that surprised me. Jackson is the best UC player at feeding the post. I was shocked considering UC at times plays 4 guards, all of whom can hit the outside shot. There were times when I was yelling "what are you doing" but Jackson was very good at getting Yancy the ball.

  12. #656
    Member ervinsm84's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    West Chester
    Posts
    448

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Quote Originally Posted by bucksfan2 View Post
    There was something I noticed against GT that surprised me. Jackson is the best UC player at feeding the post. I was shocked considering UC at times plays 4 guards, all of whom can hit the outside shot. There were times when I was yelling "what are you doing" but Jackson was very good at getting Yancy the ball.
    Good observation, and I agree. Its kinda sad just how few players are good at making entry passes into the post anymore. Parker, SK, and Dixon all have struggled throughout the year to make entry passes from the wing, and it makes it even harder when a bunch of the time they tried to feed the post from the corner which really cuts down on the angle to make a pass. Its probably partially a product of just how little back to the basket basketball is used anymore when they are growing up. Almost everything is face up and go off the bounce, especially with the increase of stretch 4s, and even at the 5 position for a lot of teams that dont really have a big time scorer in the post.

    Off the top of my head, Idk if there are ten guys in all of cbb who score the bulk of their points with their back to the basket anymore.
    Newsflash!

    Joey Votto does not care about RBI.

    NEITHER SHOULD ANY OF US

  13. #657
    Member Sea Ray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    15,567

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    I think it's clear that UC has been up and down all year but the good news is they're in an up period right now. I'd argue that they're playing as well now as they have all year and that's what you want to see

  14. #658
    SERP Emeritus paintmered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Cbus
    Posts
    7,048

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Quote Originally Posted by Roy Tucker View Post
    I've watched 3 or 4 of the Big East tournament games and it seems to me the refs are letting the guys play. Unless there is a jagged end of a bone sticking out or arterial blood is spurting, its "play on".
    That's generally how it is for all Big East games. It tends to bite the teams in the rear come tourney time when the refs call the games much tighter.
    What if this wasn't a rhetorical question?

    All models are wrong. Some of them are useful.

  15. #659
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    651

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Biggest win in a long, long time.

    Incredible.

  16. #660
    NL Central champs
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    North Dakota
    Posts
    472

    Re: 2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

    Big win for Cincy tonight. They almost blew it at the end, but they were able to hang on.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25