Every so often, I meet with The Dean and Justin Jeffre to discuss local happenings, goals for the future of Cincinnati, and sometimes just to shoot the breeze.  Last night, our normal conversation shifted to the firing of UC basketball coach Bob Huggins.  Jeffre admitted he wasn’t an avid Bearcats fan like his friend Nick Lachey, but still he played the role of “typical Cincinnatian,” rushing to the defense of Huggins and his “accomplishments.” On the campaign trail, Jeffre said he has been selling Cincinnati to the world, and his buddy Nick Lachey is often called “Mr. Cincinnati”—frequently seen on Newlyweds with his Bearcats gear, screaming in frustration and disappointment while watching UC play.  Jeffre informed me of Lachey’s passion about Huggins being fired and how he wrote letters to the Enquirer speaking in Huggins’ defense.  Such actions beg a few questions of these “spokespersons”:  Why are you obsessed with mediocrity? Why do you choose this cause to fight for? Do you think your love of mediocrity encourages more of Cincinnati to embrace mediocrity?

Bush steals two elections and people are relatively silent. The city sells fountain square and an affordable parking garage to private interests and people remain silent in spite of the fact that we are lied to about all the numbers. The firing of a mediocre basketball coach on the other hand caused students to put down their sweating beer mugs at Woody’s, organize their fraternities, make hostile t-shirts and cry about the injustices that have been done by “the man” (or woman in this case) to their precious and defenseless Bob Huggins.

I bring this topic up rarely as many Cincinnatians will string up Bob Huggins nay-sayers or burn them at the stake. They defend him as if he is the Pope and they are the most devout of Catholics. But what is it they are defending?

Bob Huggins is credited with bringing the University of Cincinnati from the doldrums of college basketball to becoming one of the elite teams of the entire nation. I will grant the Huggins supporters that he did have a good season some eleven years ago and gave the UC basketball program some type of recognition throughout the country.

One of the lines you hear from Huggins supporters is that “Coach got us to the tournament 14 years in a row.” That’s a true statement. What they won’t tell you is that out of those 14 years Bob Huggins and the UC basketball team lost in the early rounds (1st or 2nd) 10 times. What makes that worse is that UC would usually come in with a high seed and get upset by 10 seeds or little known teams that they should have plowed over.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am from Columbus, Ohio originally and we had a similar type of coach in my back yard at the Ohio State University. John Cooper was a football coach who would win Big Ten titles, get to bowl games, post winning records and do all the things that Bob Huggins accomplished on the hardwood. Like Huggins, Cooper had an incredibly mediocre record in the post-season.

Did Columbus herald coach John Cooper in the same fashion as Cincinnati worships the car-swerving Bob Huggins? Anyone who follows sports in the state of Ohio knows that is not the case. The fans of Ohio State football had called for his termination long before the Buckeye athletic department actually pulled the trigger. Ohio State football fans know that there is something better than just making it to the post-season. They believe that they can and should do better and will rise up until they get their wish.

Last night I was having a typical bar conversation about Bob Huggins with Justin Jeffre, a typical Cincinnatian, who jumps to the aid of Bob Huggins in spite of not even really being a sports fan. The debate circled around the point of Huggins being able to get to the NCAA tournament and I of course countered with the fact that he lost in the opening rounds (usually being upset) nearly every time.

I tried to detail the facts that UC had held the dubious honor of being Sports Illustrated Magazine’s “least rootable team,” that we had sagging graduation rates, and for some reason the majority of our coaches kept getting caught driving drunk. On top of that we had players who seemed to lack “moral fiber,” being caught with guns on campus is one such example. Sometimes I say this and get the laughable response that Bob Huggins was an advocate of social justice, giving these unfortunate criminals a second chance at life by allowing them in our university and on his basketball team. It had nothing to do with him needing thoroughbred athletes to continue his tournament appearance streak. He was just being Huggins the humanitarian.

Justin responded with “yeah, but he got us to the tournament every year.” That seems to be enough for the average resident of Cincinnati. Even though UC has been the perennial easy upset pick for even the most novice of sports fans who fill out a tournament bracket for $5 at their office.

For those who are still reading, this conversation is not really about sports or mediocre Bob Huggins at all. This is about Cincinnati’s obsession and satisfaction with mediocrity. The mindset of the city is such that just being 1 of the 64 teams in an NCAA tournament is as good as winning the national title. This is the city that goes 8-8 one year in football and suddenly Paul Brown stadium is sold out and rocking the city with cries of “Who-dey!?”.

This love of mediocrity is clearly not exclusive to sports. We have one of the worst daily papers in the nation and yet people continue to read it every day, I assume like the Bob Huggins situation people feel there is no other choice. The Dean of Cincinnati can point out the corruption of our city and county politicians, people will read it and some may even believe it. At the end of the year they will go back to their regular polling place and still punch the hole next to the name of the same person who has been proven corrupt. Cincinnati is content with their lazy or corrupt politicians (or basketball coaches) and feel that they can do no better.

This city is considered by many to be on the downswing. Point the finger anywhere you want but the fault is on us, the regular people of the city. We stopped believing we could do better. At some point we decided as a city that just getting to the tournament was enough to keep us happy. Somewhere along the line we decided that we would continue to buy the Cincinnati Enquirer as long as it was still 50 cents and available at the nearest street corner.

Bob Huggins is gone and even the Enquirer has come around to saying the sky is not falling. Andy Kennedy, a former assistant coach, is having equal or greater success than the beloved Bob Huggins in spite of the fickle fans who refuse to attend games or support the team as a way to stick it to Nancy Zimpher.

The city is failing because of peoples reluctance to change, the same reason our college basketball team was failing. There is an old cliche that says “if you keep doing what you’ve been doing, then you’re going to get what you’ve always got.” This is something that teachers or sports coaches throw out at you to make you believe that if you work a little harder than you will get more. I give you the same challenge now. When we begin as a city to take more pride in everything about Cincinnati, then that pride will cause me and you to demand more. More from our coaches, more from our politicians, more from ourselves. When this happens we will never again be considered a city that is on the downswing.

Socializer!

del.icio.us

Furl It

Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can log in above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.

If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here!

1. says:
   07 Jan 2006  at  04:22 pm | #

   This condition can also be described as “sentimentality.”

2. fred says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  09:34 am | #

   I hate Huggins and I am glad he is gone but you need to do some fact checking.

   “What they won’t tell you is that out of those 14 years Bob Huggins and the UC basketball team lost in the first round 10 times.”

   No not correct. The bearcats made it to the sweet 16 four years under Huggins and were in the second round 95, 97, 98, 99, 03, 04. That is at least 10 appearances past the first round.

   http://lance1360homer.com/index.asp?page=home&article=1458

   if you want to read more about what Huggins accomplishments really meant in comparison to his peers

   “ and for some reason the majority of our coaches kept getting caught driving drunk.”

   Two coaches were caught drunk driving far from a majority

   There are plenty of examples of Cincinnati accepting mediocre achievement.  Huggins wasn’t one of them.  Your argument loses a lot of validity when the basic facts included are wrong

   Some might look at your article and point out that part of Cincinnati’s problems comes from the fact we don’t appreciate the good things and success we have as a city.

   on another note-

   “Bush steals two elections and people are relatively silent. “

   maybe that is because most people realize that bush didn’t steal one election much less two.  There is more evidence that Kennedy stole his election than bush his.  Should we still sit around and bitch about Kennedy?  Get over it you lost.

3. Andrew Warner says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  09:47 am | #

   The fact about 10 out of 14 tournament losses was from the ESPN show “Around the Horn.”

   They discussed the firing of Huggins, gave the aforementioned facts, and three out of 4 panelists declared his career unsuccessful.

4. Andrew Warner says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  09:51 am | #

   If I got my facts wrong there is a still a valid point… In spite of his high seeds he could only get past the second round 4 out of 14 times.... Still losing to teams who are seeded lower on a consistent basis.

5. says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  10:00 am | #

   But the real meat of this argument is not about Huggins, but about an overal sentimental stance that Cincinnati takes towards mediocrity.  Is that true?

6. Bearman says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  10:39 am | #

   But the real meat of this argument is not about Huggins, but about an overal sentimental stance that Cincinnati takes towards mediocrity.  Is that true?

   Yes but only to an extent.  Andrew claims we cheer an 8-8 Bengals season and sell out the stadium the next year.  Compare that to other cities, where their home team could suck for years and yet they still sell it out (Green Bay with Football and Chicago with Baseball).  Cincinnati has fickle fans who won’t show up to support a losing team.  So going 8-8 after years of losing does have meaning.  It’s not to celebrate mediocrity but rather to celebrate a potential changing of the tide toward better things. 

   UC has made it to the tournament 14 straight years (3rd longest active streak in the nation).  To make it to the tournament, a team needs to be one of the elite 20% of all Division 1 programs.  So while I agree that Huggins didn’t do much once he got there, I think this is a case of a perception of what indeed mediocrity is.  And in this case I think those vocal supporters of Huggins may indeed be partly because of sentimentality and loyalty.

   Andrew, just think if the number of people who read one of your articles or viewed one of my cartoons was typically 15 and one day it became 30.  To us that would be something to cheer about but in general it would still be pretty damn mediocre.

7. sammy says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  11:04 am | #

   huggins probably didn’t realize he had such a devoted following. note to bob: if you ever thought about becoming a cult leader, nows the time to do it.

8. Andrew Warner says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  11:19 am | #

   Bearman,
   You are right about the differences in the Bengals and the Bearcats basketball team. The Bengals showing signs of life was something worth cheering abot. A new hope that they would be something good.

   Bearcats basketball on the other hand peaked years ago, then declined, then reached its plateau and showed no signs of getting back to Huggins “peak years.”

   Sammy,
   good comment… The level of devotion is amazing.

9. fred says:
   08 Jan 2006  at  01:20 pm | #

   The fact about 10 out of 14 tournament losses was from the ESPN show “Around the Horn.”

   They discussed the firing of Huggins, gave the aforementioned facts, and three out of 4 panelists declared his career unsuccessful.

   Perhaps you misunderstood or perhaps they were wrong.  Either way the “facts” you cited were wrong. 

   Some judge Huggins unsuccessful but when he was let go he was one of only 21 coaches who had been to a final four.  He had coached as long without a title as john wooden, coach K, and less than dean smith (21 years), lute olson (27 years, and Jim Calhoun (27 years)

   UC basketball under Huggins was consistently in the second round of the tournament (at a minimum) that means they were one of the last 32 teams remaining.  Since there are 327 division 1 programs that puts UC in the top 10%.

   Personally i can’t stand Huggins and am glad he is gone but using his as an example of mediocrity is laughable

   I wish our city (and your percentage of being correct) were in the same percentile.

   “But the real meat of this argument is not about Huggins, but about an overal sentimental stance that Cincinnati takes towards mediocrity.  Is that true?”

   That is true but if you cant get the basic facts you are going to use as an example why should anyone take you seriously?

10. Bearman says:
    08 Jan 2006  at  03:07 pm | #

    As I thought more about your entry, I do agree that we have begun to accept mediocrity but maybe because it’s a learned response.  Example - Thirty years ago when you wanted to play baseball, you tried out for a little league team and guess what, not everyone made it.  Then we were told that it was bad for little kids to have to deal with disappointment at such an early age and now even the crappy kid gets a turn at bat.  So rather than that kid moving on to find the sport or activity they excel at, they linger in an activity they may not even enjoy anymore and remain forever mediocre.

    Move that to other areas and a kid grows up accepting the fact that the effort they put in should be “good enough.”

11. Andrew Warner says:
    08 Jan 2006  at  06:19 pm | #

    Fred,
    You are a spitting image of exactly what I am talking about. The Bearcats were regularly picked to be in the top 10, top 15, but often failed to attain the success that were supposed to.

    You seem to be happy to be just in the top 32 or 64. You can’t compare the University of Cincinnati to every one of the 327 division 1-A teams. They are a big time college basketball program, and have been out achieved by schools as small and smaller than Xavier. If you want to compare a school of some 35,000 total enrollment with a top tier basketball program to every school that throws 5 guys out on the hardwood then keep being satisfied with underachieving.

12. fred says:
    08 Jan 2006  at  07:53 pm | #

    "You are a spitting image of exactly what I am talking about. The Bearcats were regularly picked to be in the top 10, top 15, but often failed to attain the success that were supposed to.”

    You are an idiot.  Would you care to tell me how many times in the past 15 years the bearcats were ranked in the preseason as a top 10 teams?  (The answer is twice)

    “You can’t compare the University of Cincinnati to every one of the 327 division 1-A teams.”

    Why cant I.  Which schools do i need to throw out? Small schools like Duke?

    “They are a big time college basketball program, and have been out achieved by schools as small and smaller than Xavier.”

    So Xavier is a benchmark of success because the reached the elite 8 once?  Please tell me why there one trip was worth more than Huggins three (which by the way only 7 teams in the nation have done more times in the last 15 years).  BTW- How many NCAA appearances did UC make in the 15 years prior to Huggins- only three. so much for being a “big time basketball program)

    “If you want to compare a school of some 35,000 total enrollment with a top tier basketball program to every school that throws 5 guys out on the hardwood then keep being satisfied with underachieving.”

    So which big schools success are you comparing UC to.  Can we not compare UC to small schools that have say 6,500 undergrad- like duke?  School size has NOTHIGN to do with athletic success.  Where is the cut off at 22,000 so we can compare them to uconn?  Syracuse has 16,000 students.  North Carolina at chapel hill-16,000 (that is 6 of the last 8 national championships from smaller division 1 schools)

    You have NO idea what you are talking about.  Perhaps one definition of mediocrity would be to write an article with incorrect facts and then try to defend it.

13. says:
    08 Jan 2006  at  10:47 pm | #

    As mediocre as UC is, just think about the elation Cincinnatians have felt at having the Bengals in the playoffs for the first time in a decade and a half. Though they did not deserve it (they only beat one team with a winning record all year, and that team beat them twice). And now that their 120 million dollar man has been injured, and will probably never be the same again, it will be another decade and a half before the Bengals see another playoff game. But there will continue to be masochists in Cincinnati supporting this pathetic franchise as it embarrasses itself and the city for the foreseeable future.

14. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  08:46 am | #

    Andrew (and Nihilist),
    Please stick to shitty political writing in which you use bogus “facts” to get your unrelated points across. Shitty sports writing is just too much.

    Bob Huggins (synonomous with UC basketaball), while he may have struggled in recent NCAA tourneys to live up to the lofty expectations created by his own success, is one of the few things this city had to consistently be proud of. He is THE REASON why UC is currently playing in the best conference in collegiant basketball history. He is THE REASON why UC just built a $100 million plus sports center on campus. He is THE REASON why we get to watch UC on ESPN about 10 times over the next month.

    Not only does his record speak for itself, but the way in which he accomplished this success should be an inspiration to this city. Cincinnati has traditionally prided itself on being “blue collar.” Nothing exemplified this attitude more than a Huggin’s coached UC team. They were never the tallest team in the country, never the most talented, but always among the nations toughest teams.

    Before you say “he should have recruited better (less questionable character) players”, have you thought about who Huggins was competing with for the top players in the country? Duke, North Carolina, Kentucky, UCONN, etc… all have much more to offer a potential recruit in terms of campus life. Players came to UC because of one thing--the chance to play for coach Huggins.

    I could go on and on in my defense of Huggins, but instead, I think we should all step back and regain our collective minds. Think back to 1989 when the Shoemaker Center was just opening. UC basketball wasn’t even mentioned in the same breath as the aforementioned national powers (UCONN is a relative newcomer, too). Now, they are one of the top ten programs in the country. We can only hope the next UC coach is as “mediocre” as Huggins. (By the way UC should offer Andy Kennedy a four year contract--especially after they beat UCONN tonight) Take a look at these “mediocre” numbers.

    BEST RECORDS IN COLLEGE BASKETBALL SINCE 2000
    By W-L % first:

    1. Duke 190-32 (.856)
    2. Gonzaga 169-40 (.809)
    3. Illininois 177-43 (.805)
    4. Oklahoma 163-47 (.776)
    4. Cincinnati 163-47 (.776)
    6. Kentucky 165-48 (.775)
    7. Kansas 167-49 (.773)
    8. Arizona 166-49 (.772)
    9. Syracuse 165-50 (.767)
    10. Stanford 154-47 (.766)

    By most W next:

    1. Duke 190
    2. Illinois 177
    3. Gonzaga 169
    4. Kansas 167
    5. Arizona 166
    6. Kentucky 165
    6. Syracuse 165
    8. Cincinnati 163
    8. Oklahoma 163
    10. Utah State 160

    P.S.
    Nihilist--The Bengals only beat one team with a winning record? Do your homework a little bit. Not only did they beat Pittsburgh, they also beat the Chicago Bears.

15. Andrew Warner says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  08:49 am | #

    Fred,
    You have made the point which I never refuted that Bob Huggins once had a few good seasons. Since then UC has been plagued with pre-mature tournament exits that you don’t seem to care about because Huggins had some good results once upon a time. You are content to rest upon the laurels of success that are long forgotten by everyone except everyone who has a crush on Bob Huggins.

    I used the total enrollment of UC where as you used undergrad… That is a distortion of facts, can’t you get them right? If you want to talk about UC undergrad we have somewhere around 19,000 students. Those programs you mentioned are prestigous and put as much focus on basketball as our school does. Their coaches wouldn’t keep their job if they consistently underachieved the way Huggins has in recent years.

    You are arguing the small details of the article while proving the point of what I originally wrote. Huggins fans are plenty happy with what he accomplished years ago and are content to just be somewhere in the tournament.

16. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  09:16 am | #

    Andrew,

    UC was rated the #1 team in the country for almost the entire 2000 season. Does that automatically mean that they would have won the national title? No, but it does mean they would have had a legit shot. After Kenyon Martin broke his leg, UC bowed out in the second round--understandably so.

    Why do I bring this up? Because that was the year UC had its best chance at winning the national title. After that year, there was going to be a “rebuilding” phase no matter who was the coach. What have been the results of that rebulding? Well, I would argue that we are seeing it right now.

    UC has one of its best teams in the last 10 years. They are loaded with seniors right now that were brought in by the “mediocre” Huggins. If he was still the coach, there would be 2-3 MORE players on the shallow roster. This would have been another chance to get the elusive national title.

    The mere fact that we are mentioning the words “UC” and “national title” in the same sentence are remarkable. I would only hope that’s the case 5 years from now.

    Andrew, if you would have written a column stating that “UC has had some disappointing finishing in the last couple of years,” no body could have disputed that--even the most loyal Huggins supporter. But, by somehow confusing those finishes with “mediocrity,” you’ve squandered any credibility. Do you see the difference, or were you just trying to get a rise out of people?

17. fred says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  09:26 am | #

    "I used the total enrollment of UC where as you used undergrad… That is a distortion of facts, can’t you get them right? If you want to talk about UC undergrad we have somewhere around 19,000 students.”

    It does appear i made a mistake with the duke numbers.  They have a total of 13,000 instead of the 6,500 undergrad.  The numbers for the other schools include graduate students.  Sorry about my one mistake.  At least i can admit to mine.  Even with including the graduate numbers at duke they are still a much smaller school than UC.  So again i ask if student enrollment matters shouldn’t these schools struggle?

    “Those programs you mentioned are prestigous and put as much focus on basketball as our school does. Their coaches wouldn’t keep their job if they consistently underachieved the way Huggins has in recent years.”

    As pointed out earlier in case you missed it

    Year coaching before title

    coach k - 15 years
    dean smith 21 years
    lute olson 27 years
    Jim Calhoun 27 years

    Did you know that less than half of number one seeds make the final four.  That means that coaches are getting upset all the time in the tournament.  It is part of what makes march madness what it is.

    “You are arguing the small details of the article while proving the point of what I originally wrote. “

    Here is the thing andrew.  if you dont understand your subject matter you are using as an example why should anyone take your point seriously.  If you cant do the little things right the big things dont matter.

    “Huggins fans are plenty happy with what he accomplished years ago and are content to just be somewhere in the tournament.”

    In case you mised it the first three times i said it I DONT LIKE BOB HUGGINS> I HATE HIM.  My personal feelings aside that doenst change the fact that what he acccomplished here wasnt mediocre.

18. Doug says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  09:50 am | #

    Using a team’s performance during the NCAA tourny is not the best way to judge a team.  The very tourny’s format is somewhat flawed.  The ‘one-and-done’ nature is unfair to all teams.  As a result, March Madness is full of teams that get hot at the right time and upset higher-seeded teams.  UC is not an exclusive victim of this, it happens all the time to all teams.  West Virginia taking down Wake Forest last season is a perfect example.  WVU simply had one of those games where they just couldn’t miss.  Had Wake Forest been allowed to play WVU over a series of, say, 7 games, WF would have likely won about 5 of them.

    I’m not saying the tourney should change their format by any means, it’s what makes the tournament great, but it does not always crown a worthy champion and it is not the best indicator of how good a season the team had.  It’s much more fair to play games in series, like baseball does.

    Bearing this in mind, I think it’s more fair to judge Huggins by his full body of work, not just his performance in March, but by the entire season.  It’s far better to judge the season by the 30 games played during the regular season, not the 2 or 3 games played in the tourney, no?

    I think firing Huggins was justified.  Because his coaches were running around getting DUI’s.  I think UC fans need to get over it and move on.  But his basketball teams were exemplory and calling him ‘mediocre’, getting your facts wrong on his tourny performance, and using ‘Around the Horn’ as a source to boot, isn’t going to win you a whole lot of credibility.

19. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  10:01 am | #

    ohiocrat,

    The Bears ended up with a winning record; but at the time that they played the Bengals they did not have a winning record. The Bears had gone into the game 1-1. So, when they beat the Bears, they did not beat a team with a winning record. Ergo, the Bengals only beat one team with a winning record.

    I stand uncorrected.

20. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  10:06 am | #

    Nihilist,
    Fininsh the sentence then. “The Bengals only defeated one team with a winning record at the time they played them.” The way you stated it was flat out wrong!

    Your point was that the Bengals hadn’t beaten anybody worth a shit. My point is that Chicago ended up having a helluva season. Good enough in fact, for their coach, Lovie Smith, to be named NFL coach of the year.

21. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  10:35 am | #

    ohiocrat, at worst I am guilty of ambiguity. I was certainly not wrong. The way that you chose to interpret me was not what I meant, nor is it what I wrote. I no more wrote ?The Bengals only defeated one team that ended their season with a winning record? than I did, ?The Bengals only defeated one team with a winning record at the time they played them.? Although I would think that a team?s record at the time of play is more relevant than what they end up doing months down the road. Teams make adjustments, learn, improve (or deteriorate) over the course of a season. The team that the Bengals played on the third week of the season was not the same team that ended with a ?helluva? season.

    Besides, is it really so impressive that the Bengals twice in 16 games beat a team that ?ended up? with a winning record?

22. fred says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  10:41 am | #

    "As mediocre as UC is, just think about the elation Cincinnatians have felt at having the Bengals in the playoffs for the first time in a decade and a half. Though they did not deserve it (they only beat one team with a winning record all year, and that team beat them twice).”

    In addition to ohiocrats point about you wording that wrong you are also incorrect with your statement that the Bengals did not deserve to go to the playoffs. 

    Every year the division champion goes to the playoff that is how you EARN your trip. They deserved to go because they were the AFC north division champs.

23. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  10:44 am | #

    Nihilist,
    I agree with you that the Bengals were lacking in “big” wins. No objection here. I was basically lumping your “ambiguous” statement in with Andrew’s blatant lies about Huggin’s record at UC. My apologies, but I still think the win at Chicago was a worthwhile accomplishment.

24. Rove says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  11:03 am | #

    Getting back to something more important."maybe that is because most people realize that bush didn’t steal one election much less two.  There is more evidence that Kennedy stole his election than bush his.  Should we still sit around and bitch about Kennedy?  Get over it you lost.”

    Govener Bush did steal those elections and is currently destroying our country. I didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry, so the “you lost” argument doesn’t work. Read “the best democracy money can buy” by Greg Palast or “To Close too call” by Jeffrey Toobin. The give the facts on the 2000 election . Remeber the Supreme Court stopped the recount.

    To learn more about 2004, read Congressman John Conyers report “What Went Wrong In OHIO”.

25. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  11:09 am | #

    Remeber the Supreme Court stopped the recount.
    
    And every count made after that showed that Bush won.

26. Andrew Warner says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  11:21 am | #

    My “blatant lies” have been changed, so maybe you stat boys can focus on the bigger picture.

    You can’t compare wins and losses of Cincinnati with top tier programs. Bob Huggins had padded schedules (part of his “win at the cost of the program’s integrity attitude) and his tendency was to lose IF he had a decent opponent on his schedule. A prestigous program in a weak conference is bound to attain a great number of wins, that is the reason Gonzaga is on the same list.

    Huggins’ best accompishment in recent years was that he might have had a good showing in a tournament had Kenyon Martin not been injured. Then of course another person on this thread mentioned that since then we have been in a “re-building” phase. A 5 year re-building phase in college basketball is a joke.

    Some on this blog compare UC to UConn or Duke and say that we can’t steal recruits from them, what in the world will we have to offer?! This captures the heart of my original point. You automatically put our program on a tier that is below the best of the best. We have a historically strong basketball tradition going back to Oscar Robertson, many successful seasons in the 1990’s and apparently a default championship in 2000. If you put all that with one of the games most winningest coaches, why would a recruit not want to come to a fine University like UC?

    Doug- Others would say a coach should be judged entirely on what they do in tournament play. Big coaches and big players make their names in the tournament and that is how legacies are established. Do we remember Christian Laettner’s game-winning shot against Kentucky or some 30 point performance he had in game 12? Does anyone care what Gonzaga does in the regular or season or the upset wins they used to get in the tournament?

    Fans need to show respect to the players and adminstrators and quit calling Bob Huggins the entire program. What a school gets with Huggins is this list:

    -Law-breaking staff and players
    -25% graduation rates
    -constant underachieving in tournament play
    -disgraceful losses with no class (The Illinois/UC game in the second round of the tournament a few years back-we lost by some 30 points and talked trash the entire game in spite of having our butts handed too us). Or losing to the University of South Florida in CUSA tournament play
    -no national titles

    From SI:
    1. CINCINNATI
    

    Every year without fail the Bearcats trot out a police, er, starting lineup stocked with juco transfers and miscreants. Cin City ballers have been charged with every crime in the book—and some that aren’t: Donald Little was kicked off the team in April 2002 for taping his roommate to a lawn chair, throwing weights at his head, clubbing him with a whiskey bottle and burning him with a heated coat hanger. Only then did Little stab him. The warden of this outfit? Coach Bob Huggins. Yes, Huggy Bear has taken Cincy to 12 straight NCAA tournaments; the problem is that student-athlete is not the preferred term for describing the players who have gotten the Bearcats there. Huggins’s 1996 comment “Our guys have done a good job educationally” rivals any of Baghdad Bob’s assertions. The team’s graduation rate, according to the latest NCAA figures, is 25%. But it was Coach Bob’s performance during his DUI arrest in June that cemented his Most Vile status: When Huggins staggered from his Lexus, the officer spotted vomit on the inside of the car door. At least the puke matched Huggins’s sweater.

27. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  11:52 am | #

    Andrew,

    Are you trying to be as short-sighted as possible? While WE (Cincinnatians) think that every potential recruit would want to come to UC, that’s simply not the case. They came here, and continued to come here, because of Bob Huggins. There is no disputing that. Ask the top-tier recruits UC has had in the past 10 years and they’ll all tell you the same thing.

    Do you not think that UC would have had to rebuild after the 2000 season regardless of who the coach was? Did that rebuilding result in missed NCAA appearances, lack of recruiting, a loss of nationally televised games? No, and that’s just one reason why Huggins is one of the top 10 coaches in the country.

28. fred says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  01:03 pm | #

    Bob Huggins had padded schedules (part of his “win at the cost of the program’s integrity attitude) and his tendency was to lose IF he had a decent opponent on his schedule.

    Good lord andrew would you either give up or look at some records before you open your mouth.  As the higher ranked team against the top 25 while at UC huggins was 26-12.  That is almsot 70% wins.  A good record by any comparasion.

    Also do you know how the NCAA measures graduation rates?  It doenst take into account transfers, jucos, people that graduate in in longer than 6 years and those that leave to go pro.  Taking those into account the rate is much higher than 25%

    for the love of god go talk about pot or health care that you might know somethign about

29. fred says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  01:05 pm | #

    Govener Bush did steal those elections and is currently destroying our country. I didn’t vote for Gore or Kerry, so the “you lost” argument doesn’t work. Read “the best democracy money can buy” by Greg Palast or “To Close too call” by Jeffrey Toobin. The give the facts on the 2000 election . Remeber the Supreme Court stopped the recount.

    http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html

    an independent recount of the florida ballots show that bush won and increased his margin after the supreme court had stopped the illegal recount

30. Doug says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  01:15 pm | #

    Andrew,

    I realize the majority of pundits judge coaches mainly on their performance in March.  And I also believe that this point of view is somewhat lacking for the reasons I stated above.  I believe that a coach’s performance during the regular season should also bear some weight(assuming you play a resonable schedule, which UC did).  And this is where 14 straight NCAA appearances look mighty good on the resume.  Roy Williams and Lute Olsen were also coaches that had problems in March before finally winning national titles.  The reason being is simple: national titles are frickin’ hard to win! 

    We are in complete agreement that Huggins deserved to be fired because of the lack of maturity his teams seemed to exhibit on and off the court.  No one can argue with you on this point.  But, the man could coach a basketball team, no debating that.

    Doug

31. Andrew Warner says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  02:39 pm | #

    Fred,
    That is a cumulative stat of his whole career in which I have already said that he HAD many successful years. Aside from that fact, that is against lower ranked teams. What about against higher ranked teams? What is his record against teams he’s not SUPPOSED to beat?

    Hell, since Lousville hired Petino Huggins wasn’t even the best coach in Conference USA.

    Let’s look at last season. Put a few decent teams on the schedule and lost them all: Wake Forest, Illinois, Louisville 2x, Split with Depaul, CUSA tournament lost to pitiful USF. 2nd round tournament loss to KY.

    Key Wins: Purdue? Valparaiso? Northwestern State?

    In the 2003-2004 season: No stellar wins or losses. 1st round of the tournament won by 3 points against East Tennessee State (who?) and got bounced in the 2nd round in embarassaing fashion by Illinois.

    2002-2003:
    Key wins: Oklahoma State maybe. Don’t even remember how good they were.
    Embarassing losses: Dayton, Xavier, Saint Louis, Charlotte, Southern Mississippi (CUSA tournament), Gonzaga in the first round.

    Fred, that is three consecutive seasons of mediocrity. Ohio State got to a final four more recently, I think won a Big Ten conference championship (I am sure Fred will point it out if I am mistaken) and their coach was fired.

    It’s not that coach Huggins is a good recruiter, he is just the only person who will take criminals and “miscreants.” He doesn’t care about the quality of person as long as they can run fast and jump high. That way he can take it to teams like Detroit and Northwestern State and please his supporters with deceptively high winning records.

32. Rove says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  02:45 pm | #

    Greg and Fred,
    Tens of thousands of voters names were purged from the voter rolls, mostly in Arican American/democratic areas. They were denied their right to vote. He supposedly won by 567 votes.

33. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  03:34 pm | #

    Rove, would please you provide a link to a report that shows where that occured, or are you just making it up?

34. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  03:35 pm | #

    It’s safe to say Ms. Zimpher is in the twilight of a mediocre career!

35. fred says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  04:05 pm | #

    Let’s look at last season. Put a few decent teams on the schedule and lost them all: Wake Forest, Illinois, Louisville 2x, Split with Depaul, CUSA tournament lost to pitiful USF. 2nd round tournament loss to KY.

    Key Wins: Purdue? Valparaiso? Northwestern State?

    good lord UC was unranked at the begining of the year.  they were favored in none of those games excpet the USF game.  At the time they played wake ranked third, illionois 1, lousiville 9, 19

    “In the 2003-2004 season: No stellar wins or losses. 1st round of the tournament won by 3 points against East Tennessee State (who?) and got bounced in the 2nd round in embarassaing fashion by Illinois.”

    No quality wins excpet beating a ranked dayton team, a ranked marquett team and a ranked louisville team (marquette and lousiville on the road as well)

    “2002-2003:
    Key wins: Oklahoma State maybe. Don’t even remember how good they were.
    Embarassing losses: Dayton, Xavier, Saint Louis, Charlotte, Southern Mississippi (CUSA tournament), Gonzaga in the first round.”

    UC was unranked that year and not favored in many of those contest you mention.  btw. oklahoma state was ranked 11th when that game was played

    Ohio State got to a final four more recently, I think won a Big Ten conference championship (I am sure Fred will point it out if I am mistaken) and their coach was fired.

    he was fired for paying a player.  not for “mediocrity”.  quit making mistakes and i wont have to correct them

    “It’s not that coach Huggins is a good recruiter, he is just the only person who will take criminals and “miscreants.”

    what a crock of shit.  look at Uconn, uk and everywhere else.  everyone takes those kids

    again you have demonstrated no knowledge at all of basketball. thanks for playing

36. Rove says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  04:47 pm | #

    Greg, http://www.thenation.com/doc/20010205/palastside

    He’s written a lot on this topic, most of his work is at the BBC. I recommend the report by Congressman John Conyers “What went wrong in Ohio” about the 2004 election.

37. Andrew Warner says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  05:27 pm | #

    Geez Fred, I have to correct your mistakes again. Ohio State’s coach gave money to an unrecruitable player who had played at the professional level overseas. Because he was unrecruitable that is like me lending money to you. I say lending because the family paid him back. Everyone that follows O State basketball knows that they were just trying to find a way to get rid of him.

    Does UConn have players and coaches arrested more than they win tournament games (exaggeration, please don’t take as a fact)? Schools like those you have mentioned care somewhat for the graduation rates of their programs and therefore will not take any JUCO-come-lately due to the fact that those rates hurt the program.

    Your excuse for them losing all those games is that they were “unranked” or not favored. Why on earth would a team with an elite coach like your boy Huggins be unranked and not favored in games against mediocre teams like Dayton?

    You’re not showing a knowledge of basketball any more, you are just saying that UC didn’t win those games because they weren’t good those years. Are you even listening to yourself? I’m trying to tell you that they were unranked and lackluster… or in another word, MEDIOCRE. Yet I don’t have to say it because for some reason your defense of Huggins is that his teams weren’t good. Stop making excuses for him like the fact that the team wasn’t ranked. Poor rankings reflect poor coaches

38. says:
    09 Jan 2006  at  11:00 pm | #

    Rove, nothing from from CNN, ABC,CBS,NBC,MSNBC,New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Newsweek, Time? I wonder why? Cause it ever happened!!!!

39. Rove says:
    10 Jan 2006  at  12:18 am | #

    Greg, The corporate media misses a lot of important stories. They missed the peace movement and forgot to ask tough questions about WMDs. They were too busy beating the drums for war. I suggest you occaisionaly look at foreign news outlets. The bbc is a good start. Go to projectcensored.org and see what Walter Kronkite has to say about it..

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm