Previous Message:
Re: Sensible solution - was TW not the prob.
Re: Sensible solution - was TW not the prob.
Next Message:
Re: Sensible solution - was TW not the prob.
Re: Sensible solution - was TW not the prob.
What to discuss?
From: dfairchild
Date: 01 Oct 2006 - 04:39 PM EST
Date: 01 Oct 2006 - 04:39 PM EST
It seems a legitimate question to discuss is how many questions we have
going into this season. The last couple of years, there have been a
handful - who will play the point, what will we do for a center, etc?
This year, there are so many unknowns, that I'm not even sure I know the
questions for this year.
How will Coach Cronin make the adjustment from Murray State to UC?
What type of talent have we recruited to go alongside of McGowan?
What type of year will McGowan have without Hicks beside him?
Who will be the point guard?
Who will play center?
Who will play on the wings?
From where will our points come?What style will we play?
What type of depth will we have?
Who will ultimately make our rotation? What will it look like?
How many minutes will each player get?
There are so many unknowns that it makes any discussion of the upcoming
season pure speculation.
Hopefully, in 2 months we will atleast know what the questions are.
Go Cats!
DF
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of Dan Marshall
Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2006 11:02 AM
To: 'UC Basketball Forum'
Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Graduation Numbers For
SelectedTeams(1996-99Recruiting Classes)
Ben it's a discussion not an argument... And there's nothing else(Thankfully
as was pointed out) to talk about.
Should we just ignore the big elephant in the room?
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Ben Hurst
Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2006 12:30 PM
To: UC Basketball Forum
Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Graduation Numbers For Selected
Teams(1996-99Recruiting Classes)
I havent checked email in a week. 91 messages.
Still arguing over Huggins/Zimpher fueled by lack of national(worldwide)
media coverage. I think we all agree. It stinks. Let's get over it. move
on, support the current team the best we can, not by calling them a midmajor
team with a midmajor coach but a Beast Team with a Beast coach.
Now, I will get off my very tall horse, and say its interesting about the
graduation rates. Huh, higher than KY, L'Ville, OH St, & way over Tenn. Why
again do we get the bad rap?
Go Cats!
-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of address@hidden
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 10:42 PM
To: address@hidden
Subject: [UC Basketball] Graduation Numbers For Selected Teams
(1996-99Recruiting Classes)
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/gsr2006/140.pdf Cincinnati GSR 46, Fed 29.
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/gsr2006/334.pdf Kentucky GSR 33, Fed 23.
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/gsr2006/367.pdf Louisville GSR 33, Fed 22.
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/gsr2006/518.pdf Ohio State GSR 38, Fed 10.
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/gsr2006/694.pdf Tennessee GSR 18, Fed 8.
http://web1.ncaa.org/app_data/gsr2006/306.pdf Indiana GSR 82, Fed 67.
http://www.ncaa.org/grad_rates/2005/d1_info.pdf Explanation of GSR here. It
counts JuCo transfers, Div I transfers, and players who leave in good
academic standing.
The Federal method counts ONLY HS freshmen entering on scholarship and
whether they graduate in 6 years or not.
Huggins fared better against nearby schools than you might think.
Tom Gray, Bearcat fan since 1958
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date: 9/29/2006
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.10/459 - Release Date: 9/29/2006
To subscribe, please follow the instructions here.


