Stephenson Still waiting for clearance...

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog04&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ada6629a0-7bd0-4605-8869-25a20cb5adabPost%3a3120f1de-73ac-43b2-a6c8-29ad98a77711&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com


It's gotta be the documentary holding him up unless there is more to the story we are unaware of. If he is deemed ineligible, I would suggest UC fire their entire compliance department. They have been wrong on nearly everything the last 7 years.

[boozehound]

Man I hope he is ineligable. Clifton would explode, if they even care about BBall anymore.

[gladdenguy]

I love the comments underneath that bash Mick. It is hilarious.
Boy, this would be a first Christmas if Lance can't play. I will be so happy.
As for the Mick bashing, I did notice the one post of the praising Huggins, picking him to win the Big East and go to his 17th tournament in 18 years. Frickin chuggy.

[Lamont Sanford]

GG -

Agreed that if Stephenson were to be declared ineligible by the NCAA, it would be an early Christmas gift for me as well.

Happy Holidays Mick!

[Juice]

I hated Stephenson even before he went to UC so if he ends up screwing himself and UC then I will be a very happy guy.

[PM Thor]

Mick took a runner on Stephenson because he has nothing to lose. Everyone knows that he is on a very short leash over there, so why not extend a scholly to a guy who potentially has a high upside, but might not qualify? Mick had to try to do something to save his job...the best scenario for me would be for Stephenson to not qualify but Mick keeps his job.

I HATE dayton.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Mick took a runner on Stephenson because he has nothing to lose. Everyone knows that he is on a very short leash over there, so why not extend a scholly to a guy who potentially has a high upside, but might not qualify? Mick had to try to do something to save his job...the best scenario for me would be for Stephenson to not qualify but Mick keeps his job.

I HATE dayton.

Do you think this is Mick's Do or Die year? I know he signed a 2 year extension, but that could have been for recruiting purposes.

[Juice]

Do you think this is Mick's Do or Die year? I know he signed a 2 year extension, but that could have been for recruiting purposes.

I think that is exactly it because they didn't give a raise, higher the buyout number, or anything different from the pre-existing deal. They just added two years.

[PM Thor]

What Juice just said. If UC was serious about extending Cronins contract, they would have attached a monetary amount to it over just extending the current contract. It was simply done for recruiting purposes in my estimation. And yeah, I think this year is Micks make or break year.

I HATE dayton.

[_LH]

What Juice just said. If UC was serious about extending Cronins contract, they would have attached a monetary amount to it over just extending the current contract. It was simply done for recruiting purposes in my estimation. And yeah, I think this year is Micks make or break year.

I HATE dayton.

I agree. No one esle in the country would touch LS and Mick knew he needed to produce this year or he is gone. What does he care if LS gets UC into a USC type of position by recruiting a kid that has a good chance of taking money while in school. If UC doesn't dance this year, Mick is gone anyways.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Goodman touching on the situation briefly

http://community.foxsports.com/goodmanonfox/blog/2009/10/07/cincinnati_frosh_lance_stephensons_new_nickname_al most_there

[DoubleD86]

I guess I am in the total minority in not seeing the "desperation" of this move by Mick. Note, I am not disagreeing that he could be coming to his do or die year soon, but I don't think that it is this year. Back to the original point, I don't understand how this is such a desperate or dumb move. Assuming he thinks he can keep Stephenson out of trouble the one year he is at UC (which to be honest everything I have read about the kid tells me he can stay out of trouble) this is a relatively low/no risk with incredibly high rewards situation.
The two options:
1) He is deemed ineligible, Mick has to apologize and publicly look upset about it, but they are exactly where they would have been without picking up Stephenson.

2) He is deemed eligible and UC just picked up one of the best (possibly #2) in this class, he plays one year and gets UC some national publicity. A decent year means more recruits and a building up of the program

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

I guess I am in the total minority in not seeing the "desperation" of this move by Mick. Note, I am not disagreeing that he could be coming to his do or die year soon, but I don't think that it is this year. Back to the original point, I don't understand how this is such a desperate or dumb move. Assuming he thinks he can keep Stephenson out of trouble the one year he is at UC (which to be honest everything I have read about the kid tells me he can stay out of trouble) this is a relatively low/no risk with incredibly high rewards situation.
The two options:
1) He is deemed ineligible, Mick has to apologize and publicly look upset about it, but they are exactly where they would have been without picking up Stephenson.

2) He is deemed eligible and UC just picked up one of the best (possibly #2) in this class, he plays one year and gets UC some national publicity. A decent year means more recruits and a building up of the program

I agree its a smart move on Mick's part since he really has nothing to lose, but it does reek of desperation (Although I think UC may be an NCAA tourney team without LS, depending on how they perform in Big East).

[dc_x]

I guess I am in the total minority in not seeing the "desperation" of this move by Mick. Note, I am not disagreeing that he could be coming to his do or die year soon, but I don't think that it is this year. Back to the original point, I don't understand how this is such a desperate or dumb move. Assuming he thinks he can keep Stephenson out of trouble the one year he is at UC (which to be honest everything I have read about the kid tells me he can stay out of trouble) this is a relatively low/no risk with incredibly high rewards situation.
The two options:
1) He is deemed ineligible, Mick has to apologize and publicly look upset about it, but they are exactly where they would have been without picking up Stephenson.

2) He is deemed eligible and UC just picked up one of the best (possibly #2) in this class, he plays one year and gets UC some national publicity. A decent year means more recruits and a building up of the program

There is a 3rd option - He is deemed eligible, plays some games, and it is later revealed that he is ineligible. That's when things could get ugly for UC. Getting "cleared" by the NCAA is not a permanent thing. If facts come to the NCAA's attention at a later date, then UC could be in deep sh!t.

[XU 87]

Do you think this is Mick's Do or Die year? I know he signed a 2 year extension, but that could have been for recruiting purposes.

I don't, unless he has a terrible year this year. Cronin inherited an absolute disaster with one scholarship player returning. And that guy was a NAIA transfer. I think he originally got a 6 year contract with the understanding that it was going to take some time to turn things around. And as much as I hate to admit it, he has brought in a few guys who can play.

I think the jury is still out as to Cronin's coaching ability. I think his last two teams basically quit on him at the end of the year.

[boozehound]

I don't, unless he has a terrible year this year. Cronin inherited an absolute disaster with one scholarship player returning. And that guy was a NAIA transfer. I think he originally got a 6 year contract with the understanding that it was going to take some time to turn things around. And as much as I hate to admit it, he has brought in a few guys who can play.

I think the jury is still out as to Cronin's coaching ability. I think his last two teams basically quit on him at the end of the year.

Which is a BIG problem for me if I am evaluating a coach.

[XU 87]

What's a big problem? His teams quitting on him? (I agree that's a big problem).

[AviatorX]

Let's get him eligible. I think (and hope) he will be, and XU will still beat down UC at the Cintas. Gotta get em at full strength.

[???]

Lance Stephenson will be eligible. There are no freshman in the country who are ruled eligible at this time or who have made it through the clearing house. I have no idea why Bill Koch would decide to write up a story on this and not include any other players.

I think XU has at least one freshman coming in this year and he has most likely has not been cleared. There is not a story about the XU player b/c he is not the #1 player in the country. When you are are a big time program with tradition and you have the #1 player in the country coming in, you get attention about it (good, bad or uncertain)until the guy hits the floor. Especially when you have had 3 down years in a row and are most certainly back and maybe better off than before.

If you don't believe me check out what is going on with UK, UL, KU, UNC and MSU not just UC. No early Christmas presents on this one.

Not trying to sound like a jerk but this is how it works. I guess some of the fans on here have never paid attention to the UC articles about big time recruits in the past being cleared to play. But some of the fans on here probably were not fans when XU was going to the NCAA tournament every two years.

[Espe]

Damn UC got John Wall too?

[bobbiemcgee]

This article pretty much sums it up. Mick rolling the dice, except by the time he got there, no one else was at the table.

http://ncaabasketball.fanhouse.com/2009/06/30/cinci-risks-academic-progress-with-stephenson/

Big time program??? What a joke.

[_LH]

If UC fails to make the NCAA's this year with a healthy Wright, a departing Vaughn playing his natural position, a seasoned Gates and an incoming one and done stud, Mick will be fired.

Basically all the pieces that Mick has been complaining about holding his team back are now in place but will only be in place for this year. After this year, Mick loses Vaughn and probably LS, so much is riding on this year and prospects are not as bright when Vaughn and LS are gone. If Mick can't get it done with everything he has this year, I don't expect him to be back.

I will say this though. If the football team finishes with no more than one loss, Mick will be allowed to stay as long as he wants.

???,

LS's eligibility is an issue because of his internet show. It has nothing to do with UC's history as a program.

[boozehound]

What's a big problem? His teams quitting on him? (I agree that's a big problem).

Yes. His teams quitting on him is a big problem. That is 100% on the coach, and is one of the things that he should have the most control over. If the kids quit on the coach, the coach has to go.

[Muskie]

I think XU has at least one freshman coming in this year and he has most likely has not been cleared. There is not a story about the XU player b/c he is not the #1 player in the country. When you are are a big time program with tradition and you have the #1 player in the country coming in, you get attention about it (good, bad or uncertain)until the guy hits the floor. Especially when you have had 3 down years in a row and are most certainly back and maybe better off than before.



What in the world is this about?

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

???,

I assume no UC fan is 100% sure of any player being cleared by the NCAA. Especially one of the most controversial freshman players in the last decade.

Looking at UC's track record of players becoming ineligible and all the times they were assured things were fine when they clearly weren't, I'd say nothing is 100%.

[???]

???,

I assume no UC fan is 100% sure of any player being cleared by the NCAA. Especially one of the most controversial freshman players in the last decade.

Looking at UC's track record of players becoming ineligible and all the times they were assured things were fine when they clearly weren't, I'd say nothing is 100%.

Nothing is 100% but there is nothing sticking out from an academic standpoint or anything else that would make Stephenson ineligible. Mick was in a good position with Stephenson in January and others were still in the mix until the very end. He was receiving calls on his second visit to UC the weekend he committed.
No Freshman are cleared at this point.

The article should not have been written but people all over the country are interested and that is why it was put out there.

Mick just got an extension. He will not be fired. No players quit, believe it or not, injuries were a big problem and guys were playing with them. They were not deep enough with the injuries to continue on. This is a fact.

They will be back this year and probably better than ever. This UC team was going to be good before Stephenson came in. I understand the XU fans that want Lance Stephenson to not play at UC and the XU fans who do not realize how good this team should be and how good the recruiting is going for UC. The fact is that UC is a program that has been good since the 50's and have had 3 down years that did not just come out of nowhere. UC is a big time program that is not ever going to be held down or out of the scene for too long.

This is not a knock against XU it is reality about UC, but some want to pretend it is not true.

[XU 87]

They will be back this year and probably better than ever. This UC team was going to be good before Stephenson came in. I understand the XU fans that want Lance Stephenson to not play at UC and the XU fans who do not realize how good this team should be and how good the recruiting is going for UC. The fact is that UC is a program that has been good since the 50's and have had 3 down years that did not just come out of nowhere. UC is a big time program that is not ever going to be held down or out of the scene for too long.



Hmmmm. Good since the 50's? I guess you were born after the lost decade of the 80's when UC had about 4 winning seasons and no NCAA appearances. Prior to that, I think Gale Catlett won 1 NCAA game at UC before he left for WVU. Prior to that, your coach was fired. You had a great run in the late 50's and early 60's. So did Loyola and San Francisco. You also a had a good run in the 90's. But let's not pretend that UC has been some annual powerhouse for the last 50 years. However, UC was put on probation in the 70's, 80's and 90's, so you were consistent in that regard.

Big time program? If that's the case, why was your average attendance around 6000 last year? Big time programs don't play in front of half empty home crowds.

UC does have a few guys who can play. But let's not act like Cronin is bringing in top 10 recruiting classes. And let's also not forget that UC is heavily counting on two guys who have never played a minute of college basketball.

[_LH]

???,

LS had 0 offers from anyone but UC because he was considered a risk and there was a chance he would not be cleared due to his internet show. That is why there was an article written questioning if LS will make it through.

[bobbiemcgee]

"He was receiving calls on his second visit to UC the weekend he committed."
YEAH, calls from his Attorney, MTV coverup Accountant and women's abuse groups.

"I understand the XU fans that want Lance Stephenson to not play at UC."

Don't think anybody here cares if he plays or not. He'll move on with his 6 hrs. of basketweaving credit in March, if he doesn't get hurt. We have more of a TEAM concept, one that he would not understand.
Reading some of the crap his father sez, I can see he is just the anticipated meal ticket in the family. Sad.

[xunorm]

I don't care if he's eligible or not, but if he isn't, UC fans will use that caveat if X beats them again in the Shootout. A problem that I do see occurring for UC is their academic standing with LS. My prediction is he pulls an Oden and just stops going to class once the basketball season is over in order to prepare his game for the next level.

[bobbiemcgee]

The key is whether Stephenson’s family accepted money from MTV or their producers based on their son’s future earning potential – a violation of NCAA rules.
The answer, of course, is YES. Was he doing BORN READY for nothing???? Get real. However, I do expect this to be swept under the rug somehow, that's just the way it is. It will come up later ala Telfair, Bush, USC, Memphis, etc. but after he's done with college BB.

[boozehound]

Nothing is 100% but there is nothing sticking out from an academic standpoint or anything else that would make Stephenson ineligible. Mick was in a good position with Stephenson in January and others were still in the mix until the very end. He was receiving calls on his second visit to UC the weekend he committed.
No Freshman are cleared at this point.

The article should not have been written but people all over the country are interested and that is why it was put out there.

Mick just got an extension. He will not be fired. No players quit, believe it or not, injuries were a big problem and guys were playing with them. They were not deep enough with the injuries to continue on. This is a fact.

They will be back this year and probably better than ever. This UC team was going to be good before Stephenson came in. I understand the XU fans that want Lance Stephenson to not play at UC and the XU fans who do not realize how good this team should be and how good the recruiting is going for UC. The fact is that UC is a program that has been good since the 50's and have had 3 down years that did not just come out of nowhere. UC is a big time program that is not ever going to be held down or out of the scene for too long.

This is not a knock against XU it is reality about UC, but some want to pretend it is not true.

That's all well and good, even though I disagree with some of it, but from a Xavier fan's perspective UC fans were saying the same things last year (if you replace Lance Stephenson with Cashmir Wright).

At some point the excuses stop mattering if you aren't winning. I think that Mick is nearing that point.

[gladdenguy]

Nothing is 100% but there is nothing sticking out from an academic standpoint or anything else that would make Stephenson ineligible. Mick was in a good position with Stephenson in January and others were still in the mix until the very end. He was receiving calls on his second visit to UC the weekend he committed.
No Freshman are cleared at this point.

The article should not have been written but people all over the country are interested and that is why it was put out there.

Mick just got an extension. He will not be fired. No players quit, believe it or not, injuries were a big problem and guys were playing with them. They were not deep enough with the injuries to continue on. This is a fact.

They will be back this year and probably better than ever. This UC team was going to be good before Stephenson came in. I understand the XU fans that want Lance Stephenson to not play at UC and the XU fans who do not realize how good this team should be and how good the recruiting is going for UC. The fact is that UC is a program that has been good since the 50's and have had 3 down years that did not just come out of nowhere. UC is a big time program that is not ever going to be held down or out of the scene for too long.

This is not a knock against XU it is reality about UC, but some want to pretend it is not true.

THREE DOWN YEARS??????????? what would you call the 80s???????
You sure are living a dream

[gladdenguy]

Hmmmm. Good since the 50's? I guess you were born after the lost decade of the 80's when UC had about 4 winning seasons and no NCAA appearances. Prior to that, I think Gale Catlett won 1 NCAA game at UC before he left for WVU. Prior to that, your coach was fired. You had a great run in the late 50's and early 60's. So did Loyola and San Francisco. You also a had a good run in the 90's. But let's not pretend that UC has been some annual powerhouse for the last 50 years. However, UC was put on probation in the 70's, 80's and 90's, so you were consistent in that regard.

Big time program? If that's the case, why was your average attendance around 6000 last year? Big time programs don't play in front of half empty home crowds.

UC does have a few guys who can play. But let's not act like Cronin is bringing in top 10 recruiting classes. And let's also not forget that UC is heavily counting on two guys who have never played a minute of college basketball.

Sorry 87, I did not see this post until after I posted the 80s thing. Great stuff.

[???]

Sorry 87, I did not see this post until after I posted the 80s thing. Great stuff.

The 80's were a disaster. UC could have been in serious trouble with the NCAA and got smart quick to avoid it. I am talking about the last 3 years of rebuilding after the 14 straight NCAA appearances. 10 or 11 tough years out of 60 is not a big deal. I think XU made their first NCAA appearance in the 80's so that was a good decade to remember with UC going through hell.

Whomever mentioned that Stephenson was not being recruited or getting calls form any schools other than UC is dead wrong. The former XU coach and 2 or 3 other schools within a 90 mile radius of Cincinnati were calling. 1 North, 2 South. Others were as well.

[Cincy Muskie]

gladdenguy,

congrats on 1,000 posts.

Mick rolled the dice on Lance. You can thank Derrick Rose for the increased scrutiny and interest on 'Born Ready'.

[_LH]

???,

You have been misinformed. LS had NO other offers when he accepted Mick's offer. He had NO where else to go as everyone else backed away.

[bobbiemcgee]

[
Whomever mentioned that Stephenson was not being recruited or getting calls form any schools other than UC is dead wrong. The former XU coach and 2 or 3 other schools within a 90 mile radius of Cincinnati were calling. 1 North, 2 South. Others were as well.[/QUOTE]

Once again you're wrong. Miller said in July it wouldn't be smart to take him. Here's the interview:
http://www.zagsblog.com/2009/07/29/coachs-corner-arizonas-sean-miller/

[???]

[
Whomever mentioned that Stephenson was not being recruited or getting calls form any schools other than UC is dead wrong. The former XU coach and 2 or 3 other schools within a 90 mile radius of Cincinnati were calling. 1 North, 2 South. Others were as well.

Once again you're wrong. Miller said in July it wouldn't be smart to take him. Here's the interview:
http://www.zagsblog.com/2009/07/29/coachs-corner-arizonas-sean-miller/[/QUOTE]

Once again I am wrong? If I have posted anything on this board at anytime where I was wrong, I would like to see it. The only thing would be that Justin Martin was not coming to XU. I only posted that b/c some people who were involved said they did not think there was a shot. They are now happy with the situation, especially since he is going to a prep. XU is taking the necessary steps to compete in the NCAA with moves like this one.

Lance Stephenson was being recruited by about 20 programs very hard when he decided on UC. Miller was at the head of the pack. Trust Me. So was a guy in West Virginia, Lexington and Louisville. Along with another guy in Columbus. The only school on him early that backed off was Kansas.

I would not trust everything you read on zagsblog. Adam Zagoria emailed me to find out what year I. Thomas would be at UC and if he was a red shirt freshman and also to find out if XU had any "decent" (newcomer) players this year besides Jordan Crawford. I had to let him know Lyons should be a stud.

I get some pretty good information, normally first hand and do not come on here to cause problems. I came on here about this thread b/c an XU fan posted this link on a UC message board and was talking alot of shit. I thought I would check it out.

[Titanxman04]

Everything I remember reading was that all the major programs recruiting LS backed off due to his off-court issues. UC continued because what else would Mick have to lose? I wish I had my sources, but I simply don't save every page I read, primarily because it's UC basketball.

With all due respect, ???, I don't think you're right on this particular subject.

[XU 87]

QUOTE]

Once again I am wrong? If I have posted anything on this board at anytime where I was wrong, I would like to see it.



I suppose we could start with your post above where you stated UC has been good since the 50's and then stated that UC is a "big time" program. I also think that your statement about how great UC's recruiting ihas been could also be classified as an exaggeration. And you yourself mentioned how wrong you were about the Justin Martin recruitment.

So other than several absolute falsehoods and some exaggerations, you're usually right.

[???]

I suppose we could start with your post above where you stated UC has been good since the 50's and then stated that UC is a "big time" program. I also think that your statement about how great UC's recruiting ihas been could also be classified as an exaggeration. And you yourself mentioned how wrong you were about the Justin Martin recruitment.

So other than several absolute falsehoods and some exaggerations, you're usually right.

UC has been good since the 50's. They have 6 Final Fours and 2 NC's since then. They were and have been ranked in the Top 10-15(several #1's and #2's and they shit the bed) consistently since the 50's(not in the 80's, everyone knows this). They have some Elite Eights(which at least look good) in this time but the season stopped there. If they could have kept it together, they could look much much better as a program. Not many programs can say they have done what UC has done. They are a "big time" Basketball program.

Lance Stephenson was still being recruited by several schools. I will give you a couple of other schools that were making unofficial offers up until he chose UC. St. John's, Maryland and Florida.

I was wrong about Justin Martin, but it was not me guessing the outcome. I was told that he would not be going to XU. Mostly b/c other schools were on him. UL could not except a partial qualifier and he got recruited over. IU was not in a position to take a risk on a 2010 recruit given their situation. XU got a good player and the coaches did not expect it. I am not making this stuff up.

[danaandvictory]

No, you dipshit. You said UC had been consistently good since the 1950s and was a big time program during that time. That's just demonstrably false. They were mediocre in the 1970s and absolutely abysmal for most of the 1980s. So, yeah, they've been consistently good since the 1950s except for 20 of the 50 years in question. Jesus Christ.

[ud2009]

You guys spend more time talking about UC basketball and football than you do your own team. Get over UC. I have never seen a bunch of fans so jealous of a program in my entire life.

If any of you honestly think that nobody else was recruiting "Born Ready" then you are living in a bubble. This guy is a top 10 player and most people think top 5. He absolutely torched John Wall at the Elite 24 game in Rucker Park. Wall was guarding him the entire time and could not keep up. My sources tell me he will be good to go

Now relax boys and talk about something positive that D. Wells recruitment or the upcoming season

[xavierj]

You guys spend more time talking about UC basketball and football than you do your own team. Get over UC. I have never seen a bunch of fans so jealous of a program in my entire life.

If any of you honestly think that nobody else was recruiting "Born Ready" then you are living in a bubble. This guy is a top 10 player and most people think top 5. He absolutely torched John Wall at the Elite 24 game in Rucker Park. Wall was guarding him the entire time and could not keep up. My sources tell me he will be good to go

Now relax boys and talk about something positive that D. Wells recruitment or the upcoming season

That is interesting. I think it is more UC fans obsessed with Xavier or you UC fans would not be here. I could care less about UC, much less cruise their message boards. Maybe you guys can go back and start another argument about how UC has a better football program then Ohio St. for like the 1,000th time in the last two weeks.

[???]

No, you dipshit. You said UC had been consistently good since the 1950s and was a big time program during that time. That's just demonstrably false. They were mediocre in the 1970s and absolutely abysmal for most of the 1980s. So, yeah, they've been consistently good since the 1950s except for 20 of the 50 years in question. Jesus Christ.

So with 6 Final Fours and actually at least 2 3rd place finishes before they counted Final Fours and 2 Championships and some season ending Elite Eights in the mix(which the XU fans love to talk about the XU Elite Eights. Hanging your hats on those) that does not qualify as consistently good since the 50's or a big time program? These things happened from the 50's on(excluding the 80's) and not many programs can claim these things. UC has dropped the ball on several occasions when they should have done much more due to talent and they way they were playing. They have been #1 in the country several times and been expected to do bigger things at the end of the season.

UC's program is a big time, a very good program. This is not taking anything away from XU and their basketball program or their fans. It is just a fact in college basketball.

[xsteve1]

That is interesting. I think it is more UC fans obsessed with Xavier or you UC fans would not be here. I could care less about UC, much less cruise their message boards. Maybe you guys can go back and start another argument about how UC has a better football program then Ohio St. for like the 1,000th time in the last two weeks.

Exactly...UC fans are the biggest joke in College sports. When they were good in hoops all they could talk about was playing UK (well they lost to a mediocre UK team in Indy)....now with a good football team they think they are better than OSU (too funny as Brian Kelley would leave for OSU in 2 seconds if offered).
At X we just win and do our talking on the court.

[???]

Exactly...UC fans are the biggest joke in College sports. When they were good in hoops all they could talk about was playing UK (well they lost to a mediocre UK team in Indy)....now with a good football team they think they are better than OSU (too funny as Brian Kelley would leave for OSU in 2 seconds if offered).
At X we just win and do our talking on the court.

An XU fan posted this link on a UC message board with comments added. That is why I came on to read this. I normally only come on here to look at recruiting information and add what I am told. Between the XU fan posting this on a UC message board and all the talk about the XU's "final five" I do not think that XU lets their players do the talking on the court.

Brian Kelly would and will leave when his time comes, which could be sooner than later. I do not think any UC fans think UC has a better program than OSU, that is ridiculous. I do think that UC would give them a good game and probably beat them this year. Who Knows, OSU will not schedule them every year.

That UK team was better than mediocre and UC fans do want to play UK every year. It would be awesome. It is being worked on too.

[AviatorX]

An XU fan posted this link on a UC message board with comments added. That is why I came on to read this. I normally only come on here to look at recruiting information and add what I am told. Between the XU fan posting this on a UC message board and all the talk about the XU's "final five" I do not think that XU lets their players do the talking on the court.

Brian Kelly would and will leave when his time comes, which could be sooner than later. I do not think any UC fans think UC has a better program than OSU, that is ridiculous. I do think that UC would give them a good game and probably beat them this year. Who Knows, OSU will not schedule them every year.

That UK team was better than mediocre and UC fans do want to play UK every year. It would be awesome. It is being worked on too.

Pretty sure the only time this comes up is when UC fans bring it up to make fun of XU fans.

Just curious, but what's your prediction for UC this season?

[bobbiemcgee]

Once again you're wrong. Miller said in July it wouldn't be smart to take him. Here's the interview:
http://www.zagsblog.com/2009/07/29/coachs-corner-arizonas-sean-miller/

"Once again I am wrong? If I have posted anything on this board at anytime where I was wrong, I would like to see it. The only thing would be that Justin Martin was not coming to XU. I only posted that b/c some people who were involved said they did not think there was a shot. They are now happy with the situation, especially since he is going to a prep. XU is taking the necessary steps to compete in the NCAA with moves like this one."

"Lance Stephenson was being recruited by about 20 programs very hard when he decided on UC. Miller was at the head of the pack. Trust Me. So was a guy in West Virginia, Lexington and Louisville. Along with another guy in Columbus. The only school on him early that backed off was Kansas."

So you're basically saying Zags lied and made up the interview with Miller. I have absolutely no doubt that Book could have had this guy, given his history with Lincoln HS, except for the Miller veto. Same with many other programs. Too much baggage. If Zags had to check with you to find out that Cheeks is a stud, I would question his resources and abilities as a BB 'expert".

[???]

Pretty sure the only time this comes up is when UC fans bring it up to make fun of XU fans.

Just curious, but what's your prediction for UC this season?

I don't bring it up but I have had XU fans tell me that XU was basically the 5th place team. I don;t argue, I have nothing to say about UC the past couple of years.

I cannot predict an exact number of wins(should be close to 25 this year) but I think UC should and will finish in the top 5 of the Big East assuming no major set backs. I think that UC, WVU, Villanova, UL and Uconn will be battling for the top spots. Just a prediction though.

UC does have a good team. They have the talent and experience they need. Experience took some time to get obviously.

[???]

"Once again I am wrong? If I have posted anything on this board at anytime where I was wrong, I would like to see it. The only thing would be that Justin Martin was not coming to XU. I only posted that b/c some people who were involved said they did not think there was a shot. They are now happy with the situation, especially since he is going to a prep. XU is taking the necessary steps to compete in the NCAA with moves like this one."

"Lance Stephenson was being recruited by about 20 programs very hard when he decided on UC. Miller was at the head of the pack. Trust Me. So was a guy in West Virginia, Lexington and Louisville. Along with another guy in Columbus. The only school on him early that backed off was Kansas."

So you're basically saying Zags lied and made up the interview with Miller. I have absolutely no doubt that Book could have had this guy, given his history with Lincoln HS, except for the Miller veto. Same with many other programs. Too much baggage. If Zags had to check with you to find out that Cheeks is a stud, I would question his resources and abilities as a BB 'expert".

I don't think he made up the interview but I do not think every coach tells all in every interview. Miller has shown that he keeps things quiet or does not give up all information. So, I do not think it was all true.

Lance Stephenson looked like a big gamble with alot of baggage. It turns out he grabbed a girl's butt and has done nothing else to this point. Grades are fine and he got into an argument at an AAU tournament. When I heard in February that he liked UC, I was worried b/c of what I had read. It turns out it is not always true.

I would question his expertise.

[bobbiemcgee]

If any of you honestly think that nobody else was recruiting "Born Ready" then you are living in a bubble. This guy is a top 10 player and most people think top 5. He absolutely torched John Wall at the Elite 24 game in Rucker Park. Wall was guarding him the entire time and could not keep up. My sources tell me he will be good to go

Now relax boys and talk about something positive that D. Wells recruitment or the upcoming season[/QUOTE]

Pretty funny since Wall got the MVP, and oh BTW won the game.

BR will only play 20-25 minutes in his whole life against X b4 going in round 2 of the draft, so who cares? I would be more concerned with the new LaSalle frosh who could play us 8-10 times.

[XU 87]

I have never seen a bunch of fans so jealous of a program in my entire life.



Ever been to the UD board?

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

You guys spend more time talking about UC basketball and football than you do your own team. Get over UC. I have never seen a bunch of fans so jealous of a program in my entire life.

If any of you honestly think that nobody else was recruiting "Born Ready" then you are living in a bubble. This guy is a top 10 player and most people think top 5. He absolutely torched John Wall at the Elite 24 game in Rucker Park. Wall was guarding him the entire time and could not keep up. My sources tell me he will be good to go

Now relax boys and talk about something positive that D. Wells recruitment or the upcoming season

I have no beef with ??? since he's just defending his team. I saw the article on Cincinnati.com posted by a UC beat writer, so I thought it would be relevant to an "around the ncaa" thread because its a local issue. It has nothing to do with being "obsessed" or "jealous" of UC. It has everything to do with 1) The season not starting 2) The news is slow 3) It's a local issue and 4) As a college basketball fan I'm interested.

UDfan, get off your high horse. Are you saying there are no Wright State or Xavier threads at UDPride ever? If Wright State had landed a top 10 controversial player the UD threads wouldn't comment on it?

All I've simply alluded to is that if I were a die hard UC fan, I would never say any player the NCAA is investigating would be eligible 100% with all the past rulings. I've complimented UC a number of times on how I think they'll be top 8 in the Big East and very competitive regardless if Stephenson plays or not. Most on here have said the same thing. A stronger UC helps make a stronger Xavier, and vice-versa.

And ???, UC has the greater tradition of course with the 2 national championships and final four appearances. However, at that time, parity was low-there were less teams in the NCAA tourney - The NIT was very strong and independant as well stealing some NCAA caliber teams - etc. Not to discredit UC at all because they had some great great teams, but there's no question it is harder to win an NCAA championship today than in the early 1960's.

[???]

I have no beef with ??? since he's just defending his team. I saw the article on Cincinnati.com posted by a UC beat writer, so I thought it would be relevant to an "around the ncaa" thread because its a local issue. It has nothing to do with being "obsessed" or "jealous" of UC. It has everything to do with 1) The season not starting 2) The news is slow 3) It's a local issue and 4) As a college basketball fan I'm interested.

UDfan, get off your high horse. Are you saying there are no Wright State or Xavier threads at UDPride ever? If Wright State had landed a top 10 controversial player the UD threads wouldn't comment on it?

All I've simply alluded to is that if I were a die hard UC fan, I would never say any player the NCAA is investigating would be eligible 100% with all the past rulings. I've complimented UC a number of times on how I think they'll be top 8 in the Big East and very competitive regardless if Stephenson plays or not. Most on here have said the same thing. A stronger UC helps make a stronger Xavier, and vice-versa.

And ???, UC has the greater tradition of course with the 2 national championships and final four appearances. However, at that time, parity was low-there were less teams in the NCAA tourney - The NIT was very strong and independant as well stealing some NCAA caliber teams - etc. Not to discredit UC at all because they had some great great teams, but there's no question it is harder to win an NCAA championship today than in the early 1960's.

I hear you on all your points, especially the eligibility thing. UC has not had much luck with it in the past. I was not trying to discredit any other team or XU at all. I was just defending my team but also pointing out the reason I believe as many do that UC is a big time program with good tradition.

[LyonsIsFlyin]

You guys spend more time talking about UC basketball and football than you do your own team. Get over UC. I have never seen a bunch of fans so jealous of a program in my entire life.

If any of you honestly think that nobody else was recruiting "Born Ready" then you are living in a bubble. This guy is a top 10 player and most people think top 5. He absolutely torched John Wall at the Elite 24 game in Rucker Park. Wall was guarding him the entire time and could not keep up. My sources tell me he will be good to go

Now relax boys and talk about something positive that D. Wells recruitment or the upcoming season

A UD fan telling us he's never seen fans so jealous of another program? Clearly you HAVE to be a UC troll posing as UD fan right?

You also need to see the difference between jealousy and us talking about our RIVAL.

Now go away.

[???]

A UD fan telling us he's never seen fans so jealous of another program? Clearly you HAVE to be a UC troll posing as UD fan right?

You also need to see the difference between jealousy and us talking about our RIVAL.

Now go away.

If you have read this thread you know I am a UC fan but not on here to cause problems. The UD2009 guy is on UC boards too. He is in no way a UC fan unless he is doing something very strange. UC has enough crazy fans, I do not want to claim this one too.

[Xpectations]

UC has been good since the 50's. They have 6 Final Fours and 2 NC's since then.

Then using your logic, another way to say this is that UC hasn't been good since the '60s except for 1992.

Yeah, I know you quote other things but clearly you're hanging most of your argument on the above, even going so far as to say that XU is hanging their hats on Elite Eights -- the argument being those don't match UC's Championships and Final Fours. You also go on to talk about how few other schools can match that, which is true.

You continue going back to the 6 FFs and 2 NCs as your lead point in your "consistently good" argument. The Bearcats certainly had one of the best 5-year stretches from 1959-1963 of any team in history. Once you throw out several 5-year spans from UCLA under Wooden, it's tough for any program to claim such a prestigious 5-year period.

Thus, all of UC's Championships and 5 of their 6 Final Fours occured in the 5-year period from '59-'63. Most people here weren't even alive then, and many that were alive were still too young to remember it (NOTE: I am 47 and wasn't alive during any of their National Championships).

UC then followed that by going 11 years without even playing in an NCAA game.

They returned to the NCAA tournament in 1975, winning 2 games, but then went 16 more seasons before they won another NCAA game -- including the last 14 years of that stretch where they never played in a single NCAA game.

I'm not sure I'd call 3 NCAA tournament appearances and 2 victories in 28 consecutive seasons "consistently good."

A much more accurate way to paint UC is that they have been consistently "mediocre" over the past 56 years with the noted exception of a "consistently very good" 14-year stretch under Huggins (NOTE: by my math, that's 25% of the time).

[XU 87]

They returned to the NCAA tournament in 1975, winning 2 games, but then went 16 more seasons before they won another NCAA game -- including the last 14 years of that stretch where they never played in a single NCAA game.



They only won one game in 1975. The field was 32 teams back then. Hence, they made the sweet 16 by winning one game.

[???]

Then using your logic, another way to say this is that UC hasn't been good since the '60s except for 1992.

Yeah, I know you quote other things but clearly you're hanging most of your argument on the above, even going so far as to say that XU is hanging their hats on Elite Eights -- the argument being those don't match UC's Championships and Final Fours. You also go on to talk about how few other schools can match that, which is true.

You continue going back to the 6 FFs and 2 NCs as your lead point in your "consistently good" argument. The Bearcats certainly had one of the best 5-year stretches from 1959-1963 of any team in history. Once you throw out several 5-year spans from UCLA under Wooden, it's tough for any program to claim such a prestigious 5-year period.

Thus, all of UC's Championships and 5 of their 6 Final Fours occured in the 5-year period from '59-'63. Most people here weren't even alive then, and many that were alive were still too young to remember it (NOTE: I am 47 and wasn't alive during any of their National Championships).

UC then followed that by going 11 years without even playing in an NCAA game.

They returned to the NCAA tournament in 1975, winning 2 games, but then went 16 more seasons before they won another NCAA game -- including the last 14 years of that stretch where they never played in a single NCAA game.

I'm not sure I'd call 3 NCAA tournament appearances and 2 victories in 28 consecutive seasons "consistently good."

A much more accurate way to paint UC is that they have been consistently "mediocre" over the past 56 years with the noted exception of a "consistently very good" 14-year stretch under Huggins (NOTE: by my math, that's 25% of the time).

UC was pretty domintae back in the 50's and part of the 60's. The field was much smaller back in those years. I have to look it up but I think that the field was somewhere around 25 teams and then as noted above moved to 32 teams in the 70's. UC had some good teams in the late 60's and into the 70's. They were bad in the 80's and then went on to have some very good teams in the 90's to 2004. 1 FF and 3 Elite Eights and most people realize it should have been better. The teams were good. I am not saying UC has dominated NCAA basketball but they have been consistently good since the 50's. The tournament was run differently back then and they made it and won it a couple of times and fell short of the field sometimes. The teams were good just not always one of the best.

[PM Thor]

But UC wasn't "good" for long stretches of time in the last 60 years. It's been shown they weren't. Also, if UC is a "big time" program, where are the fans? Your logic is flawed. UC was excellent back in the day, rather, UC was the best program out there for a time being in the late 50's and early 60's. Then there was a signifigant and obvious downturn. I don't see how you cannot recognize what is the most blatant of truths.

And as for Stephenson, you unequivocably state that he will be eligible, then state that no freshman are eligible yet. You can't know he will or will not, it's just pure conjecture, as is my belief that he won't be eligible based on his family taking money based on his talents. But, quite honestly, no one knows what the NCAA will do, because they make some rather vague and arbitrary rulings sometimes, whether or not they are fair or not. We will see.

I HATE dayton.

[Xpectations]

They only won one game in 1975. The field was 32 teams back then. Hence, they made the sweet 16 by winning one game.

They actually won two games, but it was only because they used to play for third place in each regional bracket.

UC beat Texas A&M ... then lost to Louisville ... and then beat Notre Dame to take third place in the region.

It was a goofy system back then. I'm not sure I'd count the second win as a victory though because they still only advanced one round before effectively being put out of the tournament.

By the same token, I'm not sure I'd count two losses against Notre Dame in that tournament.

Interestingly, 4 of UC's NCAA Tournament victories (and 1 of their losses) came after they were already effectively eliminated from the tournament.

[Titanxman04]

They actually won two games, but it was only because they used to play for third place in each regional bracket.

UC beat Texas A&M ... then lost to Louisville ... and then beat Notre Dame to take third place in the region.

It was a goofy system back then. I'm not sure I'd count the second win as a victory though because they still only advanced one round before effectively being put out of the tournament.

By the same token, I'm not sure I'd count two losses against Notre Dame in that tournament.

Interestingly, 4 of UC's NCAA Tournament victories (and 1 of their losses) came after they were already effectively eliminated from the tournament.

See, that's something I did not know. Guess ya learn something every day. And that would also, I feel, lower the quality of such victories, seeing as it's like a post-season exhibition game, almost. Did they count those games as a matter of record? In terms of post-season victories?

[Xpectations]

See, that's something I did not know. Guess ya learn something every day. And that would also, I feel, lower the quality of such victories, seeing as it's like a post-season exhibition game, almost. Did they count those games as a matter of record? In terms of post-season victories?

UC reports their all-time NCAA Tournament record as 40-23. That includes a record of 4-1 in games after already being eliminated from the tournament.

There were a number of things that make historical comparisons difficult:


There were Regional and Finals third-place games for a number of years, allowing teams to generate more victories.
There were only 8 teams from the beginning, 1939, through 1950. You could win the tournament in just 3 games and there were certainly teams missing that were very capable of taking down any team in the tournament.
From 1951 through 1975 there were between 16 and 25 teams. Again, there were very good teams missing. For example, the Wilt Chamberlain-led Kansas teams didn't play in every NCAA Tournament because they didn't win their conference.
It wasn't until 1980 that the NCAA Tournament included 48 teams, which at least meant the best 40+ teams in the country were in the tournament.
The NIT had a good number of the top teams through the 1960s.
The NIT was actually the better tournament for a number years of when the tournaments overlapped, so the NIT Champion was considered by most to be THE National Champion -- though the NCAA had surpassed the NIT by 1958 when Xavier won the NIT.


The reality is that it is MUCH MORE difficult to win an NCAA Tournament today. While winning a National Championships in any given season is a great accomplishment, they certainly aren't all created equal in terms of difficulty and impressiveness.

You must now win 6 games (instead of 3 or 4 games through 1974).

And generally all of the Top 50 teams in the country are in the tournament today, whereas the majority of the Top 50 (and often several in the Top 10 to Top 20) were missing from the NCAA Tournament until the mid 1970s.

[XU 87]

They actually won two games, but it was only because they used to play for third place in each regional bracket.

UC beat Texas A&M ... then lost to Louisville ... and then beat Notre Dame to take third place in the region.

It was a goofy system back then. I'm not sure I'd count the second win as a victory though because they still only advanced one round before effectively being put out of the tournament.

By the same token, I'm not sure I'd count two losses against Notre Dame in that tournament.

Interestingly, 4 of UC's NCAA Tournament victories (and 1 of their losses) came after they were already effectively eliminated from the tournament.

You're right. I forgot about the consolation game. But like yourself, I don't really count a consolation game as being an NCAA win.

[???]

UC reports their all-time NCAA Tournament record as 40-23. That includes a record of 4-1 in games after already being eliminated from the tournament.

There were a number of things that make historical comparisons difficult:


There were Regional and Finals third-place games for a number of years, allowing teams to generate more victories.
There were only 8 teams from the beginning, 1939, through 1950. You could win the tournament in just 3 games and there were certainly teams missing that were very capable of taking down any team in the tournament.
From 1951 through 1975 there were between 16 and 25 teams. Again, there were very good teams missing. For example, the Wilt Chamberlain-led Kansas teams didn't play in every NCAA Tournament because they didn't win their conference.
It wasn't until 1980 that the NCAA Tournament included 48 teams, which at least meant the best 40+ teams in the country were in the tournament.
The NIT had a good number of the top teams through the 1960s.
The NIT was actually the better tournament for a number years of when the tournaments overlapped, so the NIT Champion was considered by most to be THE National Champion -- though the NCAA had surpassed the NIT by 1958 when Xavier won the NIT.


The reality is that it is MUCH MORE difficult to win an NCAA Tournament today. While winning a National Championships in any given season is a great accomplishment, they certainly aren't all created equal in terms of difficulty and impressiveness.

You must now win 6 games (instead of 3 or 4 games through 1974).

And generally all of the Top 50 teams in the country are in the tournament today, whereas the majority of the Top 50 (and often several in the Top 10 to Top 20) were missing from the NCAA Tournament until the mid 1970s.

This has been fun. You guys have been good to this UC fan. I have been playing alot of defense. I will leave you guys alone now until I can bring any XU recruiting information.

As for Stephenson, the people close to the situation are confident but UC does not fair well in these situations. I have a very good feeling though.

[_LH]

No one "close" to the situation is going to publically say they don't feel good about LS's chances of getting cleared. There is good chance he won't.

Since LS had no other offers outside of UC their fortunes are now tied and subject to whether or not he has taken or will take money before going pro.

[wkrq59]

LH, you are absolutely correct. And one more thing. The NCAA definitely does not want another Reggie Bush situation where the parents apparently with full knowledge of the student athlete took gifts or money or in kind--free use of several houses. They also don't want another OJ Mayo fiasco, so they can just tell the kid, "No." and by the time all the appeals are hears and the decisions handed down, LS will be in a developmental league or an NBA uniform. The NCAA often (almost always) issues capricious rulings, e.g., Bobby Bowden may go to his grave never knowing just how many games they'll let him have won.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[???]

LH, you are absolutely correct. And one more thing. The NCAA definitely does not want another Reggie Bush situation where the parents apparently with full knowledge of the student athlete took gifts or money or in kind--free use of several houses. They also don't want another OJ Mayo fiasco, so they can just tell the kid, "No." and by the time all the appeals are hears and the decisions handed down, LS will be in a developmental league or an NBA uniform. The NCAA often (almost always) issues capricious rulings, e.g., Bobby Bowden may go to his grave never knowing just how many games they'll let him have won.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

The verdict is in. A few things to work out and then the announcement of the freshman class.

[Cincy Muskie]

Source?

Guess not. Just for S&G's I am hearing Parker and Kilpatrick have some Clearinghouse issues as well.

Come back when you got a link or a source reference.

[???]

Source?

Guess not. Just for S&G's I am hearing Parker and Kilpatrick have some Clearinghouse issues as well.

Come back when you got a link or a source reference.

So no source for S&G's about Kilpatrick and Parker? No problems with them. Same as any freshman. My sources have the same connection to the team as my sources at XU and other schools. I guess I should try to link something from a writer before it is written?

The verdict is in whether you like it or not.

[xufan02]

Your verdict on Xavier recruiting was poor to very poor. Please go back to bearcatnews, or updride and go away. Maybe come back once it is the week of the shootout. No one cares about UC and Lance Stephenson. You guys will get beaten like a drum in Cintas with or without him.

[bobbiemcgee]

I expect Lance will be cleared by next (final) week even though we know he took money for the MTV deal (supposedly if he accepted a T-Shirt it was a violation). I suspect the cash was funneled thru family members. His Father sez Lance received $0 dollars. Ha. That's cuz he got it all. Who would sign up for a TV series and say, "Oh. I'll do it for nothing". "Just have some extra time on my hands." Ridiculous. There is a reason major programs backed off. Six more months of Lance. Then the truth will surface. This is the way the NCAA investigates. Someone who didn't get the anticipated payoff will squeal.
Frankly, I think his NBA audition with UC will not go that well. He loves the spotlight and apparently is a ball hog and hasn't really played against an actual "defense orientated team" yet. Cashmere Wright can't be too happy for sure.

[Cincy Muskie]

???,

I want to be clear that I think 'Born Ready' will have a major impact on UC, IF and WHEN he is cleared to play. Information gathered from Dana O'Neill's piece on ESPN.com indicated the investigation would wrap up this week. Those guys (NCAA) usually aren't that speedy with decisions even after they have all the information. I think he is going to be cleared to play but may be 'benched' for a number of games until they (NCAA) let him step on the floor. Similar to John Riek and Mississippi State.

I have a source who says the sun isn't coming up tomorrow. Point? It is hard to take 'sources' on message boards very seriously. And for the record I was being very, very sarcastic in regards to Parker and Kilpatrick. 'Killa' is going to be a nice option for UC as well. Parker I haven't had a chance to see play but given Mick's track record for developing talent he will be a stud too.

[XU 87]

???,

Parker I haven't had a chance to see play but given Mick's track record for developing talent he will be a stud too.

What track record are you referring to?

[Cincy Muskie]

87,

I couldn't help but throw a little sarcasm in there.

[XU 87]

Sorry, sometimes it's tough to tell sarcasm when you're reading it.

[???]

Sorry, sometimes it's tough to tell sarcasm when you're reading it.

Mick turned some very average players into pretty good players down at Murray St. He really has not had a chance to develop anyone but Vaughn at UC. That will be his first 4 year player. He got the ball rolling with him after year 1, which is pretty early for most NCAA players. It takes about two years normally to really get the college game down for most(not all)players. The juniors and sophomores this year are very improved and will be considered "developing" or "developed".

I cannot say a whole lot about the freshman other than Stephenson and Parker look to be freshman studs. Stephenson was a no brainer and Parker is pretty damn solid, especially for reclassifying from 2010 to 2009. Kilpatrick will take a year maybe two to get comfortable. Just sit back and watch what Mick is doing and enjoy the fact that UC basketball is finally back after three long seasons.

[_LH]

UC may get "back" but they certainly aren't there yet and what does "back" mean to you?

[Cincy Muskie]

To be determined on Mick's ability to develop players to be fair. How many years was he at Murray State? 3 or 4? I remember Adam Chiles (Louisville problem child) transferred into Murray during Mick's tenure. The Racers had a solid foundation when Mick arrived. In fact I believe they were coming off consecutive NCAA tournament appearances the year Cronin took the helm.

It will be nice to see what Vaughn can do with a better supporting cast around him. He deserves some post season success for all his efforts the past few seasons.

[XU 87]

He really has not had a chance to develop anyone but Vaughn at UC.

I didn't realize that Vaughn was the only player that Cronin ever coached at UC.