2011/2012 UC Basketball official thread

[SeeinRed]

Good teams go on the road and win 1 or 2 of those games. Even if not, good teams don't go on the road and lose all three by double digits.

I forgot to make the wager back when we were discussing it, but I really don't think UC makes the tournament. They still don't have a single win against a team that's going to be in the NCAA (except for the outside possibility Xavier gets in).

Think about the above statement for a moment, then consider it's already January 20.

Completely disagree that good teams win 2 games. At Nova and at Syracuse are two games against top 10 teams that even very good teams will have trouble winning. I can see good teams winning one of the three. Also, not to pick nits, but UC didn't lose all three by double digits.

The not having a single win agains a tournament team is a great point, unless you actually point out that they have only played three teams that are likely to be tournament teams (if we are not counting Xavier), and that two of those teams are top 10 teams they played on the road. They still have to play Pitt, St. Johns twice, Georgetown twice, West Virginia, Louisville and UConn. Now, the Big East probably won't end up with 11 bids, but those are all teams some project to be in the tournament right now. UC has plenty of chances to get the wins they need to get in. Losing to Syracuse and Nova was no big deal. The ND games hurts, but it does not sink their chances.

I know that begs for the argument about how weak their non conference schedule was, but that wasn't the argument being made here. The argument being made is that UC somehow isn't a tournament team based on three games on the road. Is UC a lock to make the NCAA's this year? No. Are they a lock to miss? Absolutely not. UC has plenty of basketball to play before they can be judged.

[Brutus]

Good point dude...Syr/Vill/ND are undefeated at home and the top 10 in the Big East are a whopping 29-2 at home. "GOOD" teams don't go and steal games vs top teams at home...the teams that do the stealing are the great teams like Syr, Vill and Pitt and even they got knocked around this weekend on the road.

Like I said... good teams play competitive.

Villanova, Syracuse and Notre Dame may not lose games often at home. And they haven't. So if UC were competitive, I wouldn't hold it against them too much that they lost. But they weren't competitive in either game.

Yet, Maryland was able to lead almost the entire game at Villanova. Maryland certainly isn't any better off than Cincinnati. But they fought and gave Villanova everything they could handle.

William & Mary, Iona, North Carolina St. and Providence were all nip & tuck with Syracuse in the dome and managed to keep it close for 40 minutes. None of those teams are even tournament caliber.

Indiana St., Gonzaga & Connecticut played competitive basketball with Notre Dame in South Bend.

Competitive basketball. If you can't even play competitive games against these teams away from home, and you've not beaten anyone that will be in the tournament (fair or not, it matters), why should you be considered an NCAA Tournament team? If you can't stay competitive against these teams, then you're not one of the best 37 at-large teams.

I'm not even criticizing Cincinnati necessarily that they didn't win one or two of those (though it's not the monumental task that it's being made out to be). But they weren't really competitive in any of the three games. Again, good teams DO play competitive in games like that. They don't get beaten by double-digits in all three games.

Right now, Ken Pomeroy's site (KenPom.com for those that have not seen it) has Cincinnati's projected record, based on current efficiency & margin numbers, to end up at 21-9 and 10-8 in the Big East. I know the easy thing to do is suggest 10-8 will get a Big East team in. But consider that if UC wins the games it's supposed to win within the aforementioned projection, there will be only a total of 3-4 wins against teams in the tournament, none away from home. That will almost never get a team into the tournament.

I'm still open for that wager.

[paintmered]

Yet, Maryland was able to lead almost the entire game at Villanova. Maryland certainly isn't any better off than Cincinnati. But they fought and gave Villanova everything they could handle..

Maryland also didn't play Villanova on campus like UC did, fwiw.

[NorrisHopper30]

Like I said... good teams play competitive.

Villanova, Syracuse and Notre Dame may not lose games often at home. And they haven't. So if UC were competitive, I wouldn't hold it against them too much that they lost. But they weren't competitive in either game.

Yet, Maryland was able to lead almost the entire game at Villanova. Maryland certainly isn't any better off than Cincinnati. But they fought and gave Villanova everything they could handle.

William & Mary, Iona, North Carolina St. and Providence were all nip & tuck with Syracuse in the dome and managed to keep it close for 40 minutes. None of those teams are even tournament caliber.

Indiana St., Gonzaga & Connecticut played competitive basketball with Notre Dame in South Bend.

Competitive basketball. If you can't even play competitive games against these teams away from home, and you've not beaten anyone that will be in the tournament (fair or not, it matters), why should you be considered an NCAA Tournament team? If you can't stay competitive against these teams, then you're not one of the best 37 at-large teams.

I'm not even criticizing Cincinnati necessarily that they didn't win one or two of those (though it's not the monumental task that it's being made out to be). But they weren't really competitive in any of the three games. Again, good teams DO play competitive in games like that. They don't get beaten by double-digits in all three games.

Right now, Ken Pomeroy's site (KenPom.com for those that have not seen it) has Cincinnati's projected record, based on current efficiency & margin numbers, to end up at 21-9 and 10-8 in the Big East. I know the easy thing to do is suggest 10-8 will get a Big East team in. But consider that if UC wins the games it's supposed to win within the aforementioned projection, there will be only a total of 3-4 wins against teams in the tournament, none away from home. That will almost never get a team into the tournament.

I'm still open for that wager.

You said good teams win 1 or 2 of those...not play competitive. Who cares if it was competitive? A loss is a loss..the only issue about not playing competitive is if it becomes a trend and we won't know for sure if it's a trend until we play a team that is just as good as us aka St Johns. If we go tank at SJ i'll get worried, but I'm not necessarily expecting a win.

PS. Maryland didn't play Villanova at an arena where Vill has won 45 straight.

[SeeinRed]

I'm not even criticizing Cincinnati necessarily that they didn't win one or two of those (though it's not the monumental task that it's being made out to be). But they weren't really competitive in any of the three games. Again, good teams DO play competitive in games like that. They don't get beaten by double-digits in all three games.

Again, UC didn't lose by double digits in all three. If you are going to make statements meant to make things look worse, at least get that fact right. UC lost 66-58 last night. That is not by double digits. Not far off, but considering you are using double digits as a general statement to try and skew perception towards your point, you should probably use facts.

Also, I would say UC was competitive last night. UC didn't have the lead past the first couple minutes in the game, but they did bring it back to single digits, and even within five with a little over a minute left in the game. I concede the Syracuse and Nova games not being close, though UC did come back within single digits at Nova. Even good teams lose by double digits sometimes, especially when playing top 10 teams on the road.

I have not seen on UC fan tell anyone that the games at Syracuse and Nova were "monumental tasks." I have seen UC fans say that they weren't easy, and there is no shame in losing those games. Your argument is just as biased against UC as others are for UC. There is no way those games tell you if UC is or isn't a NCAA tournament team.

[bucksfan2]

You said good teams win 1 or 2 of those...not play competitive. Who cares if it was competitive? A loss is a loss..the only issue about not playing competitive is if it becomes a trend and we won't know for sure if it's a trend until we play a team that is just as good as us aka St Johns. If we go tank at SJ i'll get worried, but I'm not necessarily expecting a win.

PS. Maryland didn't play Villanova at an arena where Vill has won 45 straight.

Me. Its all about a coach making the right adjustments, getting the right unit on the court together, and not seeing the same bad trends happening.

I would have no issue if UC played well against Syracuse and Nova. Both are solid clubs (ND is a good home team but I was not impressed with them) that are tough to beat on the road. But the troubling aspect for me was the same poor coaching and same poor playing by certain players. Its inexcusable to have your best scorer sitting on the bench for the first 8 minutes of a basketball game, a game in which you are having trouble scoring. Its inexcusable for Bishop and Thomas to continue to see extended playing time when they aren't producing. Its inexcusable to see your opponent go one a scoring run with your best scorer on the bench.

If you want to say that a loss is just a loss that is your prerogative. But when I watch the games I see the same things that have happened year in year out under Mick. Its nice and fun when UC is beating up on the likes of St. Francis, but when you see the same fundamental flaws against good teams its disheartening.

[SeeinRed]

Me. Its all about a coach making the right adjustments, getting the right unit on the court together, and not seeing the same bad trends happening.

I would have no issue if UC played well against Syracuse and Nova. Both are solid clubs (ND is a good home team but I was not impressed with them) that are tough to beat on the road. But the troubling aspect for me was the same poor coaching and same poor playing by certain players. Its inexcusable to have your best scorer sitting on the bench for the first 8 minutes of a basketball game, a game in which you are having trouble scoring. Its inexcusable for Bishop and Thomas to continue to see extended playing time when they aren't producing. Its inexcusable to see your opponent go one a scoring run with your best scorer on the bench.

If you want to say that a loss is just a loss that is your prerogative. But when I watch the games I see the same things that have happened year in year out under Mick. Its nice and fun when UC is beating up on the likes of St. Francis, but when you see the same fundamental flaws against good teams its disheartening.

I'm a big UC and Mick supporter, but there is no disproving your points for the time being. UC has a chance to prove you wrong, but they haven't yet. I hope they do. I really hope they do.

[Brutus]

You said good teams win 1 or 2 of those...not play competitive. Who cares if it was competitive? A loss is a loss..the only issue about not playing competitive is if it becomes a trend and we won't know for sure if it's a trend until we play a team that is just as good as us aka St Johns. If we go tank at SJ i'll get worried, but I'm not necessarily expecting a win.

PS. Maryland didn't play Villanova at an arena where Vill has won 45 straight.

My exact quote was:

"Good teams go on the road and win 1 or 2 of those games. Even if not, good teams don't go on the road and lose all three by double digits."

But it was convenient that you left the second part out.

The Villanova streak is somewhat misleading, because Nova plays a lot of their tougher games at Wells Fargo. So while the streak is impressive, it's not indicative necessarily of who they've beaten. Many of the big time opponents in and out of conference aren't played there.

[NorrisHopper30]

My exact quote was:

"Good teams go on the road and win 1 or 2 of those games. Even if not, good teams don't go on the road and lose all three by double digits."

But it was convenient that you left the second part out.

The Villanova streak is somewhat misleading, because Nova plays a lot of their tougher games at Wells Fargo. So while the streak is impressive, it's not indicative necessarily of who they've beaten. Many of the big time opponents in and out of conference aren't played there.

I didn't quote that because it was inaccurate..

[Brutus]

Again, UC didn't lose by double digits in all three. If you are going to make statements meant to make things look worse, at least get that fact right. UC lost 66-58 last night. That is not by double digits. Not far off, but considering you are using double digits as a general statement to try and skew perception towards your point, you should probably use facts.

Also, I would say UC was competitive last night. UC didn't have the lead past the first couple minutes in the game, but they did bring it back to single digits, and even within five with a little over a minute left in the game. I concede the Syracuse and Nova games not being close, though UC did come back within single digits at Nova. Even good teams lose by double digits sometimes, especially when playing top 10 teams on the road.

I have not seen on UC fan tell anyone that the games at Syracuse and Nova were "monumental tasks." I have seen UC fans say that they weren't easy, and there is no shame in losing those games. Your argument is just as biased against UC as others are for UC. There is no way those games tell you if UC is or isn't a NCAA tournament team.

You're really going to haggle over 2 points? Really?

Until the last 2 minutes of the game, it was never under 10 points after it was 16-8 early in the first half. But because of a small rally with a few minutes left to play you're going to haggle over qualifying it a double-digit loss because the final margin was 8 points? Come on now. Technicalities aside, the game was double digits for 30 of 40 minutes. Let's call a spade a spade.

I've been doing mock selection committee stuff for 10 years. That won't mean anything to you, but I've gotten used to what the committee looks for. This is not an NCAA Tournament team. Contrary to the assertion no one can learn anything from these games, I feel strongly about it. And contrary to the notion teams can't go on the road and play strong basketball against a good team, I say hooey. That's excuse-making for poor performances. Good teams do put up a fight. And I don't consider a misleading, cosmetic score change the last 1:30 a fight.

You say I'm biased against Cincinnati, but you couldn't be more wrong. I don't care about UC one way or another. I'll admit I don't like Cronin for other reasons that aren't important, but that's immaterial to this discussion. I actually prefer Cincinnati be relevant, if I'm being truthful. I helped launch the UC site on Scout as one of the publishers in 2005. And it certainly wasn't because I was "biased" against them.

I want them to make the tournament. I really, honestly do. But I'm sorry, I've followed the selection stuff closely, and this just doesn't have the looks of a tournament team.

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm not.

[Brutus]

I didn't quote that because it was inaccurate..

LOL Ok then. So you're going to use the 2-point technicality to discredit the entire philosophy.

That's fallacious logic at its finest.

Signature bet. Loser has to change his sig to something of the winner's choice for one week (nothing over the top or R-rated, of course). Fair enough?

I'm wagering that UC is not in the field (short of winning the automatic bid) at the end of the year. If they win by virtue of the Big East Tournament, all bets are off.

[webbbj]

The Cats better start loading up on some wins in the next 8 games, the weakest part of the big east schedule. Atleast 6-2 would be nice.

[SeeinRed]

You're really going to haggle over 2 points? Really?

When you use it as an emphasis statement, which you obviously did, it makes a different in the context of the argument. You don't differentiate between losing by 10 points or losing by 30, and it was done so to make the losses appear more convincing than if you said they lost by 8 or lost by 11 which they did against Villanova.

Until the last 2 minutes of the game, it was never under 10 points after it was 16-8 early in the first half. But because of a small rally with a few minutes left to play you're going to haggle over qualifying it a double-digit loss because the final margin was 8 points? Come on now. Technicalities aside, the game was double digits for 30 of 40 minutes. Let's call a spade a spade.

These "technicalities" were never used to detract from your point, but arguing that UC wasn't competitive is not true. Sure, you can pull out some arbitrary numbers that you determine to mean UC was in the game or out of the game, but a game hovering around a 12 point difference for much of the second half is competitive. Even though UC never really threatened taking the lead, it doesn't mean they were not "competitive."

I've been doing mock selection committee stuff for 10 years. That won't mean anything to you, but I've gotten used to what the committee looks for.

You are right, it means nothing to me, other than you have argued about this before. I don't know you from Adam, and I really don't think it makes your argument anymore substantitive by throwing around what you've done, nor does it make mine any less valid. I don't know what you feel you need to prove by that statement, but it did not accomplish it. Its not that you can't be knowlegable on the subject, just that you have no idea the knowlege of other posters. I see no reason to tell each other our qualifications on the subject other than you want to make it seem you know more than everyone else.

This is not an NCAA Tournament team. Contrary to the assertion no one can learn anything from these games, I feel strongly about it. And contrary to the notion teams can't go on the road and play strong basketball against a good team, I say hooey. That's excuse-making for poor performances. Good teams do put up a fight. And I don't consider a misleading, cosmetic score change the last 1:30 a fight.

Anyone making such a statement right now is not who I would want on the selection committee. Might as well cancel the rest of the season and start the tournament. Teams can't improve and how they play in three games must be the team they really are. And I guess the final score is more cosmetic than appearance during the game. You say UC didn't put up a fight, and I say you must have been watching a different game. UC definitely put up a fight at ND and at Nova. Both games were within reach. Its not an excuse to say UC didn't have to win those games, and how they lost is irrelevant. What is misleading is claiming that I am making excuses for UC, or that it is irrelevant that they didn't lose all three games by double digits. Your points are aimed at maximizing the thought that UC was blown out in all three games.

You say I'm biased against Cincinnati, but you couldn't be more wrong. I don't care about UC one way or another. I'll admit I don't like Cronin for other reasons that aren't important, but that's immaterial to this discussion.

Simply not true. An unbiased opinion would be that you should wait until tournament time to decide who is in and who is out. You declare they are out then make bias argument for why they are. Your arguments are obviously skewed at making your opinion appear stonger as is evident by inserting arbitrary comparisons.

I've not once said UC was in or out of the tournament, because it is simply impossible to know. Anyone claiming to know must be able to see the future.

I actually prefer Cincinnati be relevant, if I'm being truthful. I helped launch the UC site on Scout as one of the publishers in 2005. And it certainly wasn't because I was "biased" against them.

A stated bias against Cronin is more than enough reason to not want them to be relevant. Sorry, any claim of being unbias is not one I can believe.

I want them to make the tournament. I really, honestly do. But I'm sorry, I've followed the selection stuff closely, and this just doesn't have the looks of a tournament team.

I hope I'm wrong, but I suspect I'm not.

So, because they don't look like a tournament team to you, they aren't? You've been right on every team you have seen and believed them not to be a tournament team? I'm not saying its not, but you are definitely making arguments based on the bias of what you think the team looks like.

FWIW, none of this is personal against you and I certainly hope you don't take it that way. I just don't trust it when people throw around why they think they know more than you on message boards. It adds nothing to the discussion.

[Brutus]

When you use it as an emphasis statement, which you obviously did, it makes a different in the context of the argument. You don't differentiate between losing by 10 points or losing by 30, and it was done so to make the losses appear more convincing than if you said they lost by 8 or lost by 11 which they did against Villanova.



These "technicalities" were never used to detract from your point, but arguing that UC wasn't competitive is not true. Sure, you can pull out some arbitrary numbers that you determine to mean UC was in the game or out of the game, but a game hovering around a 12 point difference for much of the second half is competitive. Even though UC never really threatened taking the lead, it doesn't mean they were not "competitive."



You are right, it means nothing to me, other than you have argued about this before. I don't know you from Adam, and I really don't think it makes your argument anymore substantitive by throwing around what you've done, nor does it make mine any less valid. I don't know what you feel you need to prove by that statement, but it did not accomplish it. Its not that you can't be knowlegable on the subject, just that you have no idea the knowlege of other posters. I see no reason to tell each other our qualifications on the subject other than you want to make it seem you know more than everyone else.



Anyone making such a statement right now is not who I would want on the selection committee. Might as well cancel the rest of the season and start the tournament. Teams can't improve and how they play in three games must be the team they really are. And I guess the final score is more cosmetic than appearance during the game. You say UC didn't put up a fight, and I say you must have been watching a different game. UC definitely put up a fight at ND and at Nova. Both games were within reach. Its not an excuse to say UC didn't have to win those games, and how they lost is irrelevant. What is misleading is claiming that I am making excuses for UC, or that it is irrelevant that they didn't lose all three games by double digits. Your points are aimed at maximizing the thought that UC was blown out in all three games.



Simply not true. An unbiased opinion would be that you should wait until tournament time to decide who is in and who is out. You declare they are out then make bias argument for why they are. Your arguments are obviously skewed at making your opinion appear stonger as is evident by inserting arbitrary comparisons.

I've not once said UC was in or out of the tournament, because it is simply impossible to know. Anyone claiming to know must be able to see the future.



A stated bias against Cronin is more than enough reason to not want them to be relevant. Sorry, any claim of being unbias is not one I can believe.



So, because they don't look like a tournament team to you, they aren't? You've been right on every team you have seen and believed them not to be a tournament team? I'm not saying its not, but you are definitely making arguments based on the bias of what you think the team looks like.

FWIW, none of this is personal against you and I certainly hope you don't take it that way. I just don't trust it when people throw around why they think they know more than you on message boards. It adds nothing to the discussion.

Sort of you telling me I'm biased? What does that add to the discussion. If you truly want a discussion, don't start telling people what they believe and how they believe it, especially when they tell you that you're mistaken.

I said I have nothing against Cincinnati and you're basically telling me I do. What does that really add to the discussion?

I told you I didn't care for Cronin because I'm trying to be up front with you. Apparently you didn't appreciate the attempt. Instead, you're trying to build a strawman off the comment.

I probably wouldn't have used my 'credentials' in the discussion had you not called me biased. When you call someone biased, don't lecture them when they fire back with a comment like the one I made. You challenged my clarity and partiality on this, so why wouldn't I then fire back with my own background?

Anyhow, I think your understanding the word "bias" might need some recalibration. Bias assumes I have a prejudiced disposition against Cincinnati for some altruistic reason. It's getting kind of ridiculous how because I don't think they've got the team or resume to make the NCAA Tournament, that's somehow "biased." I simply don't think they pass the look or smell test. NCAA Tournament teams typically show a bit of a pulse and competitive edge in games against better teams. That hasn't happened.

Call it what you like. But if you don't want talked down to, don't throw the terms around so capriciously.

[Redlegs23]

Brutus, do you think Cincinnati will make the tournament?

Seriously isn't there an Ohio State thread for you to post in? I mean, they are undefeated and #1 in the country and everything. We get it already, you don't think UC is a tournament team. I have my doubts as well, but you coming into the UC thread and repeatedly tell us that they aren't a tournament team is getting a little old. Especially when you throwing out how many points one team beats another by to prove your point.

Did you know that Ohio State lost by double digits to Butler last year? (Technically it was 8, but we will round up).

Oh, and Ohio State lost by 22 at Wisconsin last year. 22!

They lost by 9 at Michigan (rounded up to double digits).

Then they lost by 11 at Minnesota.

Yup, then there was that 16 point loss at West Virginia.

Can you believe that after all of those double digit losses they still ended up getting a 2 seed! Wow! I didn't think good teams did that!