Is Archie Miller Better than Mick Cronin?

[southernindianahoosier2]

Recently my friends were making fun of UCLA hiring Mick Cronin. I thought it was a terrible hire too.

 

However, I've taken a look at Cincinnati's records on Kenpom and they seem like pretty similar to Archie's. Which begs the question. Is Archie a drastically better coach that Mick Cronin? The more research I do, the more it seems that Archie is just a younger more promising Mick Cronin, but not necessarily better at the moment. 

 

What are your thoughts?

[Uspshoosier]

Cronin made it to 1 sweet 16 in his 13 years at Cincinnati


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Hoosierfan2017]

Yes.

[mdn82]

Simple yes


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[mdn82]

Cronin made it to 1 sweet 16 in his 13 years at Cincinnati


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

This is why it’s simple.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Hillsdale87]

13 minutes ago, southernindianahoosier2 said:

Recently my friends were making fun of UCLA hiring Mick Cronin. I thought it was a terrible hire too.

 

However, I've taken a look at Cincinnati's records on Kenpom and they seem like pretty similar to Archie's. Which begs the question. Is Archie a drastically better coach that Mick Cronin? The more research I do, the more it seems that Archie is just a younger more promising Mick Cronin, but not necessarily better at the moment. 

 

What are your thoughts?

It's really not even close. Archie took Dayton to more Sweet 16s in 6 years than Cronin did with Cincinnati in 14. And Cincinnati is a much better basketball school than Dayton. 

I think Cronin is going to be fine at UCLA. He's a very good defensive basketball coach whose teams consistently play with effort. He's a much worse offensive coach than Archie though, and that limits his ceiling. I think the problem with the fit is that Cronin is going to be good enough to get UCLA to the top 25 consistently, and they will compete for Pac-12 titles. I don't think he's good enough to compete for national championships though, and that's the expectation. But it's also hard to fire a coach who's doing a good, but not great job. They've been able to fire Howland and Alford because they had some really bad season. Cronin made the tournament 9 years in a row at UC. I don't think he's going to have bad seasons at UCLA once he gets his guys in there.

[mdn82]

It's really not even close. Archie took Dayton to more Sweet 16s in 6 years than Cronin did with Cincinnati in 14. And Cincinnati is a much better basketball school than Dayton. 
I think Cronin is going to be fine at UCLA. He's a very good defensive basketball coach whose teams consistently play with effort. He's a much worse offensive coach than Archie though, and that limits his ceiling. I think the problem with the fit is that Cronin is going to be good enough to get UCLA to the top 25 consistently, and they will compete for Pac-12 titles. I don't think he's good enough to compete for national championships though, and that's the expectation. But it's also hard to fire a coach who's doing a good, but not great job. They've been able to fire Howland and Alford because they had some really bad season. Cronin made the tournament 9 years in a row at UC. I don't think he's going to have bad seasons at UCLA once he gets his guys in there.

I think Cronin has some upside because he will have better players. It’s more a matter if they get the more talented players to buy in to what they want to do. Not always easy. UCLA sells itself. That said his teams will have to improve offensively. He is 48 so he isn’t old. Not sure of how he does with the LA crowd. Definitely different than the Midwest.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

[Deserthoozier]

1 hour ago, southernindianahoosier2 said:

Recently my friends were making fun of UCLA hiring Mick Cronin. I thought it was a terrible hire too.

 

However, I've taken a look at Cincinnati's records on Kenpom and they seem like pretty similar to Archie's. Which begs the question. Is Archie a drastically better coach that Mick Cronin? The more research I do, the more it seems that Archie is just a younger more promising Mick Cronin, but not necessarily better at the moment. 

 

What are your thoughts?

Archie has, or at point of hire had, much greater potential ceiling! Like in the NBA draft, if your bringing in new/younger talent - potential counts a lot!

[Josh]

It's actually a good comparison.  Both are mid major coaches who have underperformed on a bigger stage.  Looking at their numbers as you suggested, they appear to be the same coach.  Now that they're at Blue Blood schools, it'll be interesting to follow their trajectories.

[RaceToTheTop]

4 hours ago, mdn82 said:

I think Cronin has some upside because he will have better players. It’s more a matter if they get the more talented players to buy in to what they want to do. Not always easy. UCLA sells itself. That said his teams will have to improve offensively. He is 48 so he isn’t old. Not sure of how he does with the LA crowd. Definitely different than the Midwest.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners mobile app

I don't think there was any area in the country that could have been more disappointed with their teams' performances last year than Los Angeles.  UCLA and USC going 33-33....and USC had built up a couple of really good years to lead into it.