This was really a fun game to watch. Yeah, yeah, Cincy shouldn't have struggled so much with Eastern Kentucky. No, they shouldn't have, but I still prefer a win over a loss, thank you very much.
What do these numbers tell ya?
UC
2 pt fg%: 47%
2 pt fga: 34
3 pt fg%:30.6%
3 pt fga: 36
Believe or not, the answer might not be the obvious one. Cincy scored .94 points per shot on 2 point field goals and .92 pps on 3s. There's really nothing there that says they should have shot more 2s; they were equally effective inside and outside the arc.
Now, I realize that's an extremely simplified analysis that doesn't take into account many things, but I thought it was sorta interesting nonetheless. During the game, I really felt UC had the advantage inside and that they should start pounding it in there more often. Maybe I was wrong. Maybe not.
Any way you look at it, the big men inside won this one for the Cats, mainly due to a 45-26 rebounding advantage. Mike Williams had a great game with 13 points (on just 7 fga) and 16 bounds (9 offensive!). Big Yancy gates had 17 and 8.
Deonta Vaughn, despite shooting 5 of 13 from the field, had a nice all-around game. He scored 20 and dished out 7 assists (with just 2 turnovers; overall, UC took care of the ball with just 10 team turnovers).
Sure, it should have been easier, but I'll take the W ... and the exciting finish!
***
Since I posted last after the win vs. UNLV Cincinnati has:
beat UAB 87-80
lost to Xavier 76-66
beat Charleston Southern 74-55
beat Miss. State 75-63
They are now 9-2, and ranked 49th in the country by Pomeroy (not counting tonight's performance). Pomeroy's model expects them to go 19-12, which is probably bubble territory. It's fun to be back into contention, although we can't forget UC was 8-3 two years ago at this point, and stumbled to an 11-19 season. 11 non-conference games don't always tell ya everything. But thing's are definitely looking better.
***
Regarding the blog, if anyone is still here, expect things to continue to be sporadic and relatively inactive. Thanks for stoppin' by, though!
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
UC 67, UNLV 65
Coming off the loss to Florida State, this is a very good win for Cincinnati. Basketball Prospectus 2009 predicts UNLV to go 13-3 in the Mountain West and Vegas had them favored by ~6 tonight (oh, yeah, they were also playing in Veges ... where they are usually pretty tough).
If you were to look at the box score without looking at the final score, it'd probably be tough to pick out the winner. Here's a comparison:
FG% on 2-point fgs
UC: 41%
UNLV: 43%
FG% on 3-point fgs
UC: 36%
UNLV: 30%
Rebounds
UC: 36
UNLV: 34
Assists
UC: 14
UNLC: 13
TO
UC: 15
UNLV: 12
Okay, you get the point. There really isn't an area of the game that jumps out and says ... "that's why we won this game." Well, maybe there is, but it isn't really in the box score (and I didn't watch/listen to the game -- I've heard that's helpful in determining these things : ). Anyway, it really makes you (me, anyway) think about the almighty win. Does Cincinnati really deserve 100% of a win and UNLV 0% of one? Shouldn't it be more like 55/45 or something? Okay, those aren't really questions. Just remember that when we're talking about "win shares" in college hoops in like 2022, you heard it here first!
Anyway, there were about 70 possessions in this one. That's .96 points per possession and .93 allowed for Cincy. When the differential is on the plus side vs. a solid team, you'll take it. Some random notes:
If you were to look at the box score without looking at the final score, it'd probably be tough to pick out the winner. Here's a comparison:
FG% on 2-point fgs
UC: 41%
UNLV: 43%
FG% on 3-point fgs
UC: 36%
UNLV: 30%
Rebounds
UC: 36
UNLV: 34
Assists
UC: 14
UNLC: 13
TO
UC: 15
UNLV: 12
Okay, you get the point. There really isn't an area of the game that jumps out and says ... "that's why we won this game." Well, maybe there is, but it isn't really in the box score (and I didn't watch/listen to the game -- I've heard that's helpful in determining these things : ). Anyway, it really makes you (me, anyway) think about the almighty win. Does Cincinnati really deserve 100% of a win and UNLV 0% of one? Shouldn't it be more like 55/45 or something? Okay, those aren't really questions. Just remember that when we're talking about "win shares" in college hoops in like 2022, you heard it here first!
Anyway, there were about 70 possessions in this one. That's .96 points per possession and .93 allowed for Cincy. When the differential is on the plus side vs. a solid team, you'll take it. Some random notes:
- Deonta Vaughn led the team in points and assists (16 and 6) ... but he had a pretty bad game. He shot 5-19 from the floor and had 7 turnovers. A simple way to illustrate his struggles: Vaughn scored .84 points per shot. The rest of the Bearcats scored 1.1 points per shot. Redistribute Vaughn's shots to his teammates and Cincinnati would have scored like 5 more points in the game. Okay, not really. It's a team game and you can't just do that, but (hopefully) you get my point.
- Larry Davis also did not have a good one. 0-10 from the floor doesn't need much of an explanation.
- On the plus side, Yancy Gates had 16 points (7-10 fg-fga) and 7 rebounds in 19 minutes. Dion Dixon also had a good one, scoring 13 points on just 7 shots.
I'm really super-impressed with this win, despite the random nitpicks in my "recap." Next up is another big test against UAB on December 6th.
Friday, November 21, 2008
167?
I was going to make a short post about VMI's 133 point night vs Stevensen, but then I scrolled down a bit more and saw ... Texas Tech, 167, East Central 115. There were ~122 possessions in this one. I don't know what the record is, but that's crazy. The average per game is like 65-70. Anyway, that's 1.37 pts/poss. (137 per 100). Or it's like 96 points for a 70 possession game, a normal pace. So, yeah, they were very efficient offensively, but you can see the kind of effect pace has on a team's final score. Tech had 18 turnovers, which is pretty bad at first glance. Again, this is an area where tempo-free stats can help us out. They had only .15 TO per poss. -- that's 15 per 100 possessions, a well above average number.
Back to the VMI game real quick. There were about 101 possessions in the game. VMI scored 133, so that's 1.32 per poss. Check out Chavis Holmes' line: 21 pts, 9 rebs, 4 asts, 5 stls, 4 blks, 8-13 fg-fga ... all in 21 minutes!
Crazy stuff ....
Back to the VMI game real quick. There were about 101 possessions in the game. VMI scored 133, so that's 1.32 per poss. Check out Chavis Holmes' line: 21 pts, 9 rebs, 4 asts, 5 stls, 4 blks, 8-13 fg-fga ... all in 21 minutes!
Crazy stuff ....
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Rollin' past Texas Southern
Both teams had about 70 possessions in this one. Cincinnati scored 82 points, or about 117 points per 100 possessions (that's just about as efficient as they were in their game vs. South Dakota). They allowed 51 points, or about 73 per 100. Again, a pretty dominant performance.
Individually, the standout was probably Alvin Mitchell, who scored 15 points on just 8 shots and 22 minutes on the floor. He went 4-7 from three and 3-4 from the line. Deonta Vaughn had a solid all around game with 12 points, 6 assists, and 5 rebounds in a team-leading 31 minutes. Other good performers:
Dion Dixon: 4 pts, 5 ast, 10 reb, 19 mins
Steve Toyloy: 11 pts, 7 reb, 5-5 fg-fga, 19 mins
The only real negatives from the Bearcats' side were the 17 turnovers and poor shooting from the line (12-21, 57%).
FWIW, Big East teams are like 24-2 so far this year.
Individually, the standout was probably Alvin Mitchell, who scored 15 points on just 8 shots and 22 minutes on the floor. He went 4-7 from three and 3-4 from the line. Deonta Vaughn had a solid all around game with 12 points, 6 assists, and 5 rebounds in a team-leading 31 minutes. Other good performers:
Dion Dixon: 4 pts, 5 ast, 10 reb, 19 mins
Steve Toyloy: 11 pts, 7 reb, 5-5 fg-fga, 19 mins
The only real negatives from the Bearcats' side were the 17 turnovers and poor shooting from the line (12-21, 57%).
FWIW, Big East teams are like 24-2 so far this year.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
UC 77, South Dakota 46
I thought South Dakota was a D2 school, but I guess they made the jump to D1 this year, as part of the Great West conference. You can call them D1, I guess, but they are probably about as close to D2 as you can get. Either way, Cincy has to play the games on the schedule, and it looks like they did about as much as you could ask tonight.
According to the formula for estimating possesions in a game, the Cats had about 65 possessions in the game. They scored 77 points, so that's like 1.18 points per possession. For some context, last year the NCAA average efficiency (points per 100 poss.) was 102. The number one team, IUPUI, was at 118. Cincinnati had a very efficient offensive game vs. South Dakota, but obviously we must consider the competition.
South Dakota had 69 possessions and they scored 46 points. That's .67 points per possession or 67 per 100 possessions, depending on how you want to look at it (it's the same thing, of course). That's also ... pretty bad. Again, for some context, the leader in defensive efficiency last year was Kansas at 83. So, we'll have the best offense and defense in the nation ... if we keep playing Great West teams : )
Some other random notes:
According to the formula for estimating possesions in a game, the Cats had about 65 possessions in the game. They scored 77 points, so that's like 1.18 points per possession. For some context, last year the NCAA average efficiency (points per 100 poss.) was 102. The number one team, IUPUI, was at 118. Cincinnati had a very efficient offensive game vs. South Dakota, but obviously we must consider the competition.
South Dakota had 69 possessions and they scored 46 points. That's .67 points per possession or 67 per 100 possessions, depending on how you want to look at it (it's the same thing, of course). That's also ... pretty bad. Again, for some context, the leader in defensive efficiency last year was Kansas at 83. So, we'll have the best offense and defense in the nation ... if we keep playing Great West teams : )
Some other random notes:
- Yancy Gates had quite a debut: 16 pts, 11 reb, 3 blks, 7-11 from the field. What's more impressive is that he only played 20 minutes. So that's 32 points, 22 rebounds, and 6 blocks per 40. Yeah, not a bad start.
- Also a nice start for Mike Williams, having not played in two years. He had 8 points and 9 boards in 26 minutes.
- Junior transfer Steve Toyloy had a good, under-the-radar-type game: 8 points, 7 rebounds in just 16 minutes.
Okay, I'm runnin' out of bullet points here. It was a nice game all around. Quick turn around Tuesday against Texas Southern, who brings back all five of their starters ... though, they went 7-25 last year.
Hey, I should keep this thing goin'
Hey, folks ... sorry for not posting in such a long time. I thought about just shutting this thing down, but I saw that Mr. Koch linked to me (thanks, Bill!), and that encouraged me to give it another shot. Going forward, the content here will remain mostly UC hoops, but I'll 'cover' college ball in general (I especially enjoy tracking some smaller D1 schools) and even the NBA on occasion.
If you happen to be new around these parts, please feel free to comment on any posts. It'd be great if we could get some intelligent discussion going ... God knows I'm not going to provide it by myself : )
Anyway, I like to try to look at things from a statistical perspective. I'm surely not going to provide much insight from a scouting standpoint, and I think the stats can be pretty interesting. I've been following sabermetrics (that's what they call this stuff in baseball) for a good 4-5 years, but I'm pretty new to the basketball stuff -- so we'll be learning together, if we learn anything.
Thanks for stopping by. I'm a bit more busy than I have been in the past, but I hope I can do a better job of following the Bearcats this year. I'll try to have a little recap up of the game vs. South Dakota either tonight or tomorrow night.
If you happen to be new around these parts, please feel free to comment on any posts. It'd be great if we could get some intelligent discussion going ... God knows I'm not going to provide it by myself : )
Anyway, I like to try to look at things from a statistical perspective. I'm surely not going to provide much insight from a scouting standpoint, and I think the stats can be pretty interesting. I've been following sabermetrics (that's what they call this stuff in baseball) for a good 4-5 years, but I'm pretty new to the basketball stuff -- so we'll be learning together, if we learn anything.
Thanks for stopping by. I'm a bit more busy than I have been in the past, but I hope I can do a better job of following the Bearcats this year. I'll try to have a little recap up of the game vs. South Dakota either tonight or tomorrow night.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Retiring numbers
Bill Koch writes that only three UC basketball men's basketball players have had their numbers retired.
A mini-debate in the comments centered around whether or not Cincy should retire more numbers and how those players (and their accompanying numbers) should be selected. A couple people said, essentially, take out the subjective aspect -- make it be a requirement that the player had won a national player of the year award.
I say ... hmm, that is basing it completely on something subjective -- the selection of the national player of the year is certainly subjective. Now, you kind of take it out of the universities hands, so there will be no controversy there, but this method would not exactly take the subjectivity out of the process.
Furthermore, who's to say that's a good 'method' anyway. Aren't three years as a top ten player better than one year as the best player and two or three relatively insignificant ones. I don't know for sure, but I'd certainly say so.
Unless you create some sort of detailed, uber-stat, there is always going to be subjectivity in something like this (and you could even argue it'd still exist, even if you did that). Personally, I'd put together a committee of past players, writers, etc. to have some type of vote to determine the numbers that would be retired. Heck, have some type of internet vote for the fans. Nobody knows a team's players like its fans, collectively.
A mini-debate in the comments centered around whether or not Cincy should retire more numbers and how those players (and their accompanying numbers) should be selected. A couple people said, essentially, take out the subjective aspect -- make it be a requirement that the player had won a national player of the year award.
I say ... hmm, that is basing it completely on something subjective -- the selection of the national player of the year is certainly subjective. Now, you kind of take it out of the universities hands, so there will be no controversy there, but this method would not exactly take the subjectivity out of the process.
Furthermore, who's to say that's a good 'method' anyway. Aren't three years as a top ten player better than one year as the best player and two or three relatively insignificant ones. I don't know for sure, but I'd certainly say so.
Unless you create some sort of detailed, uber-stat, there is always going to be subjectivity in something like this (and you could even argue it'd still exist, even if you did that). Personally, I'd put together a committee of past players, writers, etc. to have some type of vote to determine the numbers that would be retired. Heck, have some type of internet vote for the fans. Nobody knows a team's players like its fans, collectively.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
CBI? ... News to me
More games, huh?
Looks like Cincy isn't done yet (yeah, I'm a little late with the news). Frankly, I didn't know about this tourney (the College Basketball Invitational) and figured the Bearcats were finished for the year. According to Koch, they'll now face Bradley in the first round of the CBI.
Personally, I'm excited that there are more games, and we'll see what happens here.
But I wanted to take a moment to address a couple of larger issues. I'm not a controversial person by nature (at least at this point) and since nobody reads this anyway, I doubt my thoughts on these issues will be deemed controversial. Anyway ...
The negative approach
The general negativity from a large portion of fans is quite hard to believe. I guess, maybe it's understandable, but it goes beyond simply be frustrated with the season. It is like some people will make a negative comment on any issue that comes up (in the few blogs/forums that I read). Sure, any fans who post their thoughts on the 'net are "super fans" and probably not that representative of Bearcat fans as a whole, but it seems like there are quite a lot of them with negarive views.
Anyway, is there any reason to be particularly upset with getting an invite to this little tournament? It's more games to watch (maybe; if they're on tv), it's another game for the seniors, another game for the younger guys, perhaps there's a chance for some recognition, etc. etc. Where's the bad stuff? Sure, it's no big deal, really. It's not the NCAA tournament, but who's making it out to be that? Better than nothin', I say. Either way, to each their own ...
What's that about wins and losses?
The other thing that I think is interesting is that many fans cannot seem to look past win-loss record. Sure, it's important; nobody would deny that. But a win and a loss is on such a cut and dry scale. Imagine this: Cincy loses to #1 ranked, oh let's say Duke, 65-61. Marquette loses to #255 ranked Longwood by 20. That's all the info you have on both teams. Are they equal because they're both 0-1? Not if I have anything to say about it. Now over the course of the season, things like that are supposes to balance out and W/L record will become pretty telling, right? Well, sure, to a degree. But record by itself serves little purpose. I mean, just take a mid-major variety ball club. They could easily go 25-5 and not be ranked all year (and righlty so). North Carolina does that and they're a top team. That brings us to the novel concept of ...
Strength of schedule. Pomeroy has UC's SOS at 21st in the nation. That's second best in the Big East and, well, 21st overall out of some 300+ teams. Now it's 13-18 against much better than average competition. Pomeroy then has UC ranked 100th overall. Nah, it isn't great, but it's a lot better than you'd expect from a 13-18 record, and a lot of that is due to that tough schedule.
So is there awkwardness with UC getting into this tourney? I don't see it. Bradley and their much more respectable 17-15 mark are ranked 85th by Pomeroy's measure, just 15 spots better than Cincy. Brown, another CBI team, is ranked a whopping 148th in the country, but of course their 19-9 record makes them look, well, pretty damn good. They played in the Ivy League, folks.
A bad 30 point game?
This is turning into a longer post than I planned and, quite frankly, I'm having fun with it. I was meaning to post this the other night but I didn't get around to it. Anyway, is it possible to score 30 points in a 40 minute game and have a bad night offensively (I'm only considering shooting here; not passing, ball control, defense, etc.)? The quick answer would probably be no, not really. But did you see Deonta Vaughn the other night vs. Pitt? Outside of being electrifying at times, he had a pretty rough night. He scored 30 in 39 minutes, but he shot an ugly 8-25 from the field.
Let's pretend Vaughn took every Bearcat shot that night (all 54) and got to the line as much as he did, relative to his field goal attempts. That gets us:
from the field: 17.28-54
from 2: 6.48-21.6
from 3: 10.8-32.4
from the line: 19.5-26
Total points = ~65
I'm all over the place here. If you can't follow what I did there, you're in good company, as I can't either. I think I did it right, though, and the point is: Vaughn barely increased UC's point total, relative to how his teammates performed (Cincy actually scored 64 points). Of course, this is an oversimplified "analysis," as players don't take all of their team's shots. if they did, they'd be blanketed more than Deonta was, and they'd shoot an even worse.
I'll go a step further and say that part of the reason Vaughn had to shoot so much was because he was the only player that could consistently get open. Yeah, the rest of the team shot 45% compared to Deonta's 32%, but if they only shot when they were open and they didn't get open often, what was he supposed to do? Now, I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm merely throwing it out there as something to chew on.
Men of Bradley
So we've got this game with Bradley coming up. Who are these guys? They're 5-11 vs teams in Pomeroy's top 115. That means they're like 12-4 vs. teams outside of the top 115. So they beat up on bad teams ... but who doesn't? Plus, the 115 number was just an arbitrary selection by me (it's close to Cincinnati's ranking).
They play to about 70 possesions a game compared to Cincy's 65, so the game might be a battle of conflicting interests, at least in terms of pace. They're also real dangerous from 3 with 5 guys who've made at least 20 on the year.
We'll see you around.
Looks like Cincy isn't done yet (yeah, I'm a little late with the news). Frankly, I didn't know about this tourney (the College Basketball Invitational) and figured the Bearcats were finished for the year. According to Koch, they'll now face Bradley in the first round of the CBI.
Personally, I'm excited that there are more games, and we'll see what happens here.
But I wanted to take a moment to address a couple of larger issues. I'm not a controversial person by nature (at least at this point) and since nobody reads this anyway, I doubt my thoughts on these issues will be deemed controversial. Anyway ...
The negative approach
The general negativity from a large portion of fans is quite hard to believe. I guess, maybe it's understandable, but it goes beyond simply be frustrated with the season. It is like some people will make a negative comment on any issue that comes up (in the few blogs/forums that I read). Sure, any fans who post their thoughts on the 'net are "super fans" and probably not that representative of Bearcat fans as a whole, but it seems like there are quite a lot of them with negarive views.
Anyway, is there any reason to be particularly upset with getting an invite to this little tournament? It's more games to watch (maybe; if they're on tv), it's another game for the seniors, another game for the younger guys, perhaps there's a chance for some recognition, etc. etc. Where's the bad stuff? Sure, it's no big deal, really. It's not the NCAA tournament, but who's making it out to be that? Better than nothin', I say. Either way, to each their own ...
What's that about wins and losses?
The other thing that I think is interesting is that many fans cannot seem to look past win-loss record. Sure, it's important; nobody would deny that. But a win and a loss is on such a cut and dry scale. Imagine this: Cincy loses to #1 ranked, oh let's say Duke, 65-61. Marquette loses to #255 ranked Longwood by 20. That's all the info you have on both teams. Are they equal because they're both 0-1? Not if I have anything to say about it. Now over the course of the season, things like that are supposes to balance out and W/L record will become pretty telling, right? Well, sure, to a degree. But record by itself serves little purpose. I mean, just take a mid-major variety ball club. They could easily go 25-5 and not be ranked all year (and righlty so). North Carolina does that and they're a top team. That brings us to the novel concept of ...
Strength of schedule. Pomeroy has UC's SOS at 21st in the nation. That's second best in the Big East and, well, 21st overall out of some 300+ teams. Now it's 13-18 against much better than average competition. Pomeroy then has UC ranked 100th overall. Nah, it isn't great, but it's a lot better than you'd expect from a 13-18 record, and a lot of that is due to that tough schedule.
So is there awkwardness with UC getting into this tourney? I don't see it. Bradley and their much more respectable 17-15 mark are ranked 85th by Pomeroy's measure, just 15 spots better than Cincy. Brown, another CBI team, is ranked a whopping 148th in the country, but of course their 19-9 record makes them look, well, pretty damn good. They played in the Ivy League, folks.
A bad 30 point game?
This is turning into a longer post than I planned and, quite frankly, I'm having fun with it. I was meaning to post this the other night but I didn't get around to it. Anyway, is it possible to score 30 points in a 40 minute game and have a bad night offensively (I'm only considering shooting here; not passing, ball control, defense, etc.)? The quick answer would probably be no, not really. But did you see Deonta Vaughn the other night vs. Pitt? Outside of being electrifying at times, he had a pretty rough night. He scored 30 in 39 minutes, but he shot an ugly 8-25 from the field.
Let's pretend Vaughn took every Bearcat shot that night (all 54) and got to the line as much as he did, relative to his field goal attempts. That gets us:
from the field: 17.28-54
from 2: 6.48-21.6
from 3: 10.8-32.4
from the line: 19.5-26
Total points = ~65
I'm all over the place here. If you can't follow what I did there, you're in good company, as I can't either. I think I did it right, though, and the point is: Vaughn barely increased UC's point total, relative to how his teammates performed (Cincy actually scored 64 points). Of course, this is an oversimplified "analysis," as players don't take all of their team's shots. if they did, they'd be blanketed more than Deonta was, and they'd shoot an even worse.
I'll go a step further and say that part of the reason Vaughn had to shoot so much was because he was the only player that could consistently get open. Yeah, the rest of the team shot 45% compared to Deonta's 32%, but if they only shot when they were open and they didn't get open often, what was he supposed to do? Now, I'm not saying that's what happened; I'm merely throwing it out there as something to chew on.
Men of Bradley
So we've got this game with Bradley coming up. Who are these guys? They're 5-11 vs teams in Pomeroy's top 115. That means they're like 12-4 vs. teams outside of the top 115. So they beat up on bad teams ... but who doesn't? Plus, the 115 number was just an arbitrary selection by me (it's close to Cincinnati's ranking).
They play to about 70 possesions a game compared to Cincy's 65, so the game might be a battle of conflicting interests, at least in terms of pace. They're also real dangerous from 3 with 5 guys who've made at least 20 on the year.
We'll see you around.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Well, that's that
I think the loss to Pittsburgh is a pretty good example of what happens when you have one, and only one, real scoring threat. Vaughn is awesome, but if he's the only guy that's going to score, the defense is going to play him tighter and tighter. And I think that's what happened, especially late. Sure, he got on fire there, and that was pretty special. But then the d tightened up even more and then you've got trouble ... and that led to an ugly overall shooting night for Deonta (8-25 from the floor), despite some late magic. If someone could have buried a couple of 3's there or they could have got something going inside, then Vaughn gets freed up a little bit and maybe shoots better down the stretch. As it was, Pitt was all over him and he struggled getting off solid shots. It's a lot of game theory, really, I think. They need more weapons next year and I hope they'll have them.
As for the season in general, it was a disappointing finish, but -- as I've said before -- I think they outperformed expectations by a good bit. I understand there are already two factions in the Cincy online world (and as I follow more teams via the net, I find that is more often than not the case). I am not really on either side of the hate/love Mick Cronin debate. Frankly, I don't follow things closely enough, or know enough about basketball, to be really entrenched on one side or the other. Hopefully I can fall somewhere in between and try to offer a somewhat "objective" take, although I try to be an optimistic person in general.
And that takes me to this final note: the future of this blog. It isn't going anywhere (well, I might change the domain name in the future, but we'll see), as there's no reason for that. I'd certainly like to update it more next season and even in this offseason. Currently, I'm writing for a couple of baseball blogs and I maintain another, smaller web site. I have made a 88 cents overall in close to a year of blogging on the net (although making money is certainly not a priority, or even a goal at this point), I go to college, and I try to do some non-internet related things every once in a while. You'd be surprised at how much time I have left over, but a lot of it goes to baseball, a sport I know a bit better. Either way, I'm going to update this blog occasionally over the next few weeks with my thoughts on the tournaments, college sports in general, and possibly a few UC offseason things. I'm not particularly impressed with my first go around with this blog, and I bet you're not either. Hopefully, if I keep things up for a while, I'll improve and we'll create a nice little community here.
As for the season in general, it was a disappointing finish, but -- as I've said before -- I think they outperformed expectations by a good bit. I understand there are already two factions in the Cincy online world (and as I follow more teams via the net, I find that is more often than not the case). I am not really on either side of the hate/love Mick Cronin debate. Frankly, I don't follow things closely enough, or know enough about basketball, to be really entrenched on one side or the other. Hopefully I can fall somewhere in between and try to offer a somewhat "objective" take, although I try to be an optimistic person in general.
And that takes me to this final note: the future of this blog. It isn't going anywhere (well, I might change the domain name in the future, but we'll see), as there's no reason for that. I'd certainly like to update it more next season and even in this offseason. Currently, I'm writing for a couple of baseball blogs and I maintain another, smaller web site. I have made a 88 cents overall in close to a year of blogging on the net (although making money is certainly not a priority, or even a goal at this point), I go to college, and I try to do some non-internet related things every once in a while. You'd be surprised at how much time I have left over, but a lot of it goes to baseball, a sport I know a bit better. Either way, I'm going to update this blog occasionally over the next few weeks with my thoughts on the tournaments, college sports in general, and possibly a few UC offseason things. I'm not particularly impressed with my first go around with this blog, and I bet you're not either. Hopefully, if I keep things up for a while, I'll improve and we'll create a nice little community here.
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
It's go time!
Well, I don't know about you (all one of you : ), but I am excited about the game tonight vs. Pitt at MSG. The way I look at, who cares about the last 5 games? Who cares about the loss to UCONN, or for that matter, every other game this season? It all comes down to one game ... and then, of course, one game tomorrow ... and one game until we win this Big East tourney. Of course, that's easy for me to say. I'm not on the team and I haven't played a competitive sport in years. Can you just wipe out a 45 point loss and a disappointing 5 game losing streak? I'm not sure, but why not? If the final goal of a National Championship -- and I'll assume that's the ultimate goal -- is still in reach, then why not give it all you've got and see what happens? Sure, a championship of National or Big East variety is a stretch to say the least, but there's really no reason to not go all out for it, despite the odds.
Anyway, it has been a nice run. Yeah, I've caught up on some of the online reaction on the finish -- as much as I can stomach, which is not much. What did everyone expect? I mean, while I say the "final goal" is an NCAA championship that is more of a dream than anything. For the most part, this team outperformed expectations, perhaps even destroyed them. It's human nature, I suppose, to allow the recent games to put the season into a negative light ... but there's time to right that ship and turn things around, if you if think this was somehow a disappointing season.
Pomeroy (for some reason, can't hyperlink: http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2008&c=BE&t=p) has Pittsburgh as the 30th best team in the country and UC at 100. But let's not forget we beat this club back in January and we only lost by six in Pitt. With no real home court advantage, the oddsmakers have Pitt as a 9 point favorite. Seems a bit high to me -- did I mention anything about weighting recent performance too much?
Anyway, there would be no better way to finish off the season than with an exciting run in New York. Let's get this thing started tonight. With nothing to lose myself, I'll make some "bold" predictions.
Cincy -- 83
Pitt -- 81
Vaughn buries two late threes and racks up, let's say ... 41 on the night.
Anyway, it has been a nice run. Yeah, I've caught up on some of the online reaction on the finish -- as much as I can stomach, which is not much. What did everyone expect? I mean, while I say the "final goal" is an NCAA championship that is more of a dream than anything. For the most part, this team outperformed expectations, perhaps even destroyed them. It's human nature, I suppose, to allow the recent games to put the season into a negative light ... but there's time to right that ship and turn things around, if you if think this was somehow a disappointing season.
Pomeroy (for some reason, can't hyperlink: http://www.kenpom.com/conf.php?y=2008&c=BE&t=p) has Pittsburgh as the 30th best team in the country and UC at 100. But let's not forget we beat this club back in January and we only lost by six in Pitt. With no real home court advantage, the oddsmakers have Pitt as a 9 point favorite. Seems a bit high to me -- did I mention anything about weighting recent performance too much?
Anyway, there would be no better way to finish off the season than with an exciting run in New York. Let's get this thing started tonight. With nothing to lose myself, I'll make some "bold" predictions.
Cincy -- 83
Pitt -- 81
Vaughn buries two late threes and racks up, let's say ... 41 on the night.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)