Transfer Portal 2026

[Geaux Juan]

....... Huggins also had Damon Flint, who regressed every one of his four years.

I think that's a bit unfair to Damon Flint. He was recruited as a shooting guard, but every year he had to play point guard because Huggs couldn't recruit a better player to be the PG. Flint made a sacrifice for the team's sake.

[leo from jersey]

You can say that about any coach. I think Thiam and Baba showed vast improvement from start to end last season. Day Day certainly got a lot better. Huggins also had Damon Flint, who regressed every one of his four years.

I believe that the reason Thiam and Baba had better stats at the end of the year is because JJ sat and Tillery got them the ball. They seemed to have been the same except for getting the ball where they could shoot. I would have liked to have seen VIK under a different coach. Simous went down his last year noticeably, but not on skill but due to his team's selfishness.

[longtimefan]

We had a coach WM who recruited ready made
players that were players only not open to development. Look at his record and tell me these guys improved y/y. I recall Kenyon was
was considered raw needing Huggs influence.
Mic was the same, having tenured under Huggs and Pitino.
I feel great about the new direction and the possibilities coaching will have on this program

You can say that about any coach. I think Thiam and Baba showed vast improvement from start to end last season. Day Day certainly got a lot better. Huggins also had Damon Flint, who regressed every one of his four years.

[JBB]

Normally, I wouldn't call someone out for a comment like this, but this is completely uncalled for. At least wait until someone posts this a "bad signing" and then rebut the assertion, preferably with facts to support your position. And, at least have the courage to name the opposing viewpoint instead of insinuating - "stats guy(s)."

Some posters need to grow up and stop taking posts personally. This is a forum for discussion, which is based on facts that support one's position. At least "stats guy" - actually "analytics guy," which I explained in another thread and apparently you did not read - supports his assertions with quantifiable measures. I encourage you to do the same and to do it respectfully.

Off the soap box now.

As for Vaden, his former coach at Mt. Union, who is now a UC assistant, obviously persuaded CJC to bring him over to UC. This tells me that he has something to offer UC, at least another 5 fouls per game and an additional practice body. Maybe he is a late bloomer and did not get offers out of HS. Maybe he demonstrated some skill that CJC feels makes him a worthwhile addition. Whatever that is, trust the coaching staff in place to make the right decisions for the roster. They have not steered us wrong yet - nor have steered us right either. Point being it's too early to tell.

We had a coach WM who recruited ready made
players that were players only not open to development. Look at his record and tell me these guys improved y/y. I recall Kenyon was
was considered raw needing Huggs influence.
Mic was the same, having tenured under Huggs and Pitino.
I feel great about the new direction and the possibilities coaching will have on this program

[Rufus]

As London 'Cat very succinctly posted, having the ability to foul an opponent is a very useful tool in defending the rim. And having a person to absorb those fouls thus preserving someone who starts or is in the normal rotation is smart bball. It was demoaned last week on this forum that we needed at least one more big body, well we have him now. So what if he's a project, if he can contribute any thing at all now who knows what he can become after two three years in the same system. I for one miss the days hen we could watch a raw recruit and watch him develope from year to year. The NIL and transfer portal has denied us fans of this caveat.

ps. This facet of the game completely escaped the last regime

[sedz]

I think I've only referred to two signings as "bad" in all of my years analyzing basketball metrics (since the early days of Ken Pomeroy and Jeff Sagarin). Those were Chris McNeal and Rapolas Ivanauskas, players with horrible metrics even after multiple years in D1 basketball before they came here. I usually say almost nothing about high school or D2/3/Juco guys because there's not much to analyze. I give everyone a chance, whether I like the signing or not. I will root for all of our players and treat them all equally during the season, posting advanced metrics after each game, good bad or neutral.

Vaden appears to be a purely developmental signing. He played less than 16 minutes per game, after just 5 mpg as a freshman. But it's very clear he can block shots. 102 blocks in 452 minutes, or 9 blocks per 40 minutes. Even if he's just a practice player, a guy like that can be useful for our rotation players to work on finishing at the rim. Riley, Colvin, and Fleming are all under 55% at the rim and could use some work.

[swilsonsp4]

Normally, I wouldn't call someone out for a comment like this, but this is completely uncalled for. At least wait until someone posts this a "bad signing" and then rebut the assertion, preferably with facts to support your position. And, at least have the courage to name the opposing viewpoint instead of insinuating - "stats guy(s)."

Some posters need to grow up and stop taking posts personally. This is a forum for discussion, which is based on facts that support one's position. At least "stats guy" - actually "analytics guy," which I explained in another thread and apparently you did not read - supports his assertions with quantifiable measures. I encourage you to do the same and to do it respectfully.

Off the soap box now.

As for Vaden, his former coach at Mt. Union, who is now a UC assistant, obviously persuaded CJC to bring him over to UC. This tells me that he has something to offer UC, at least another 5 fouls per game and an additional practice body. Maybe he is a late bloomer and did not get offers out of HS. Maybe he demonstrated some skill that CJC feels makes him a worthwhile addition. Whatever that is, trust the coaching staff in place to make the right decisions for the roster. They have not steered us wrong yet - nor have steered us right either. Point being it's too early to tell.

Hear, hear.

CJC has stated that he always stashes developmental guys on the bench. He plays up to 13 during the season. We have no way to know Vaden's potential, simply because he faced D3 competition. If a key member of his staff (in this case, Mike Fuline) has coached a player and recommends bringing him aboard, that's fine by me. If Vaden grows into an eventual contributor, great. If not, he really isn't taking up a roster spot, given CJC's philosophy of not playing all 15.

[London 'Cat]

before the stats guys tell us what a bad signing this is, I'm willing to give him a chance. He brings some size. Does that equal extra fouls down low, if necessary? any extra defensive help? I'm also willing to put some faith in CJC, and what he's trying to rebuild. I remember an interview with Kelvin Samson about UH's inside game. He said (paraphrasing) that UH had 4 bigs, which equalled 20 fouls, which meant that UH was NOT going to give up layups. it was next man up, which is something another, successful UC coach embraced.

Normally, I wouldn't call someone out for a comment like this, but this is completely uncalled for. At least wait until someone posts this a "bad signing" and then rebut the assertion, preferably with facts to support your position. And, at least have the courage to name the opposing viewpoint instead of insinuating - "stats guy(s)."

Some posters need to grow up and stop taking posts personally. This is a forum for discussion, which is based on facts that support one's position. At least "stats guy" - actually "analytics guy," which I explained in another thread and apparently you did not read - supports his assertions with quantifiable measures. I encourage you to do the same and to do it respectfully.

Off the soap box now.

As for Vaden, his former coach at Mt. Union, who is now a UC assistant, obviously persuaded CJC to bring him over to UC. This tells me that he has something to offer UC, at least another 5 fouls per game and an additional practice body. Maybe he is a late bloomer and did not get offers out of HS. Maybe he demonstrated some skill that CJC feels makes him a worthwhile addition. Whatever that is, trust the coaching staff in place to make the right decisions for the roster. They have not steered us wrong yet - nor have steered us right either. Point being it's too early to tell.

[GoBearcats31]

Halvine Dzellat has committed to Seattle U

[leo from jersey]

I see nothing wrong with giving the kid a chance. As a walk on from a D3 school he's probably thrilled to be given a chance to be included in a D I school, even if he never sees the floor or approaches the money the stars make he at least gets a supreme education. But apparently M. Fuline thinks he has the potential to at least give him a chance. One thing that can't be measured is heart ,desire or ambition. If this kid comes in and works hard the possibilities are there in front of him. And he is the chance to see what this coaching and training staff can do. I didn't see any huge developmental surges in the last five years from players that came in here with years of "bball" already under their belt.

Maybe the kid wants to be a coach and this is how you learn the trade and as Rufus said , you get a great education too for free. D3 doesn't give athletic scholarships.

[Rufus]

I see nothing wrong with giving the kid a chance. As a walk on from a D3 school he's probably thrilled to be given a chance to be included in a D I school, even if he never sees the floor or approaches the money the stars make he at least gets a supreme education. But apparently M. Fuline thinks he has the potential to at least give him a chance. One thing that can't be measured is heart ,desire or ambition. If this kid comes in and works hard the possibilities are there in front of him. And he is the chance to see what this coaching and training staff can do. I didn't see any huge developmental surges in the last five years from players that came in here with years of "bball" already under their belt.

[Natination113]

before the stats guys tell us what a bad signing this is, I'm willing to give him a chance. He brings some size. Does that equal extra fouls down low, if necessary? any extra defensive help? I'm also willing to put some faith in CJC, and what he's trying to rebuild. I remember an interview with Kelvin Samson about UH's inside game. He said (paraphrasing) that UH had 4 bigs, which equalled 20 fouls, which meant that UH was NOT going to give up layups. it was next man up, which is something another, successful UC coach embraced.

Well said.

[D.A.H.]

Officially a Bearcat

before the stats guys tell us what a bad signing this is, I'm willing to give him a chance. He brings some size. Does that equal extra fouls down low, if necessary? any extra defensive help? I'm also willing to put some faith in CJC, and what he's trying to rebuild. I remember an interview with Kelvin Samson about UH's inside game. He said (paraphrasing) that UH had 4 bigs, which equalled 20 fouls, which meant that UH was NOT going to give up layups. it was next man up, which is something another, successful UC coach embraced.

[loshow22]

Chad Brendel hinted that UC might be adding a 6'10" center from D3 Mt. Union, Shaun Vaden. Vaden played for new UC assistant coach Mike Fuline. This would be a developmental addition, probably as a walk-on. Vaden averaged 4.9 ppg, 4.4 rpg. He blocked 94 shots in 27 games, including 9 outings with at least 5 rejections (8 vs Case Western Reserve). Obviously, take the opposition into account.

Officially a Bearcat

[swilsonsp4]

Chad Brendel hinted that UC might be adding a 6'10" center from D3 Mt. Union, Shaun Vaden. Vaden played for new UC assistant coach Mike Fuline. This would be a developmental addition, probably as a walk-on. Vaden averaged 4.9 ppg, 4.4 rpg. He blocked 94 shots in 27 games, including 9 outings with at least 5 rejections (8 vs Case Western Reserve). Obviously, take the opposition into account.