Is Crean In Trouble?

[Lennys Tap]

I agree. I'm happy with Buzz's results, though some from the JUCO route and taking kids that never step foot on campus due to grades is troubling to me.  But he has continued to carry the ball.....but he could have been had a week or two later.  MU is classic at screwing up searches.  It's not hard, companies successfully do them all the time.

Who are "the kids that never set foot on campus due to grades" that are troubling to you?

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

All I know is you don't know.  


I know one thing in regards to coaching searches:

1) I don't want committees making the call, I want one or two at the most individuals making the call.   It introduces real accountability.

You don't know that I know that Cottingham called 3 guys, they said no, and after 48 hours they went with Buzz? Alright. But that was the consensus about what happened at the time.

Let me be devil's advocate. Let's say this is exactly what happened. Do you then have any problem with it?

If not, then it seems that you are just bitter that someone is criticizing the process at all.

[Lennys Tap]

Sorry to hear you don't know what statistical probability is, Pakuni. I wasn't referring to actual hires.

I (and I'm sure Pakuni) know what statistical probability is and what it isn't. And it isn't a number you make up because it sounds about right to you or because it advances your argument. Other than your intuition how did you come up with your number(s)?

[Tugg Speedman]

... and we don't know who might have called Cottingham and he said no.  I seem to remember that Skip Prosser was interested but we were not interested in him.

All hiring processes are messy.  In fact the best companies are like GE, they hire lots and weed out (dare I say they "run them off").  Criticizing a hiring process for one spot can only be done based on the outcome/results.  Think the hiring process for President of The US.  You think that is a good process?  You can only judge it by its results.

added ....

Also taking weeks to find a new hire risked the 2008/2009 season.  It could have meant more transfers and lost recruits.  A decision was made to move fast because we have a good team and not repeat the DePaul process as so many seem to think was a good way to go about it.

[Pakuni]

Sorry to hear you don't know what statistical probability is, Pakuni. I wasn't referring to actual hires.

Statistical probability: The process of pulling random numbers out of one's rectum and stating them as fact in furtherance of a position.

99 times out of 100, Pakuni is right.
Disagree? Then perhaps you need to brush up on statistical probability.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

Great. You are not happy with 95 out of 100 times, it would make more sense to interview more than three established coaches over a 48 hour period before going with the one year assistant coach.

Feel free to come up with what you feel is a better probability.

[Pakuni]

Great. You are not happy with 95 out of 100 times, it would make more sense to interview more than three established coaches over a 48 hour period before going with the one year assistant coach.

Feel free to come up with what you feel is a better probability.

I'd suggest there probably is not enough of a sample size (instances of one-year assistants being elevated to a head coaching job after a brief search process involving perhaps as few as two other candidates) to determine statisical probability.
But you seem to be the expert here.

[Tugg Speedman]

Great. You are not happy with 95 out of 100 times, it would make more sense to interview more than three established coaches over a 48 hour period before going with the one year assistant coach.

Feel free to come up with what you feel is a better probability.

So it is required to bring in a bunch of old retreads/farts that you may not want just to make a bunch of idiots on a message board happy?  As someone said earlier ... in the first 48 hours Miller and Bennett said no and the third option, Buzz, said yes.  Why waste more time talking to guys you do not want (Skip Prosser as I noted earlier).

[ATL MU Warrior]

I'd suggest there probably is not enough of a sample size (instances of one-year assistants being elevated to a head coaching job after a brief search process involving perhaps as few as two other candidates) to determine statisical probability.
But you seem to be the expert here.

WARRIOR07 - May I kindly suggest you stop already?  You are being owned.

[Skatastrophy]

WARRIOR07 - May I kindly suggest you stop already?  You are being owned.

Haha, truth.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

I guess this proves my point. Most people cannot seperate the process from the results.

[Lennys Tap]

I guess this proves my point. Most people cannot seperate the process from the results.

So you're sayin' there's a chance....

[Pakuni]

I guess this proves my point. Most people cannot seperate the process from the results.

Sure. That's it.
Or maybe it's that most people recognize that process ultimately is irrelevant. Nobody ever won a college basketball game because they followed a hiring process designed to appease the all-knowing inhabitants of an Internet mesage board.

And maybe we just like to poke fun at people who criticize a process of which they did not participate and have no first-hand (or second- or third-hand) knowledge.
Well, except for a few people around here who know everything, can predict future outcomes and know how other people will react in every circumstance.

[GGGG]

The process was HORRENDOUS and was the same type of process that got Marquette in trouble with this Dean fiasco. Sometimes fate finds a way to treat Marquette in spite of itself.

No.  The Dean's process was actually exactly opposite of the process that ended up with Buzz.  The Dean's had a search committee...Buzz's didn't.  The Dean's search was lengthy and comprehensive...Buzz's wasn't.  The Dean's search was very open with campus wide participation...Buzz's wasn't.

Yet, which one was the failure?

It's silly to be obsessed about the process when the results are what matters.  I have made good and bad hires using both types.  The process is as good as the result it produces.

[ATWizJr]

You don't know that I know that Cottingham called 3 guys, they said no, and after 48 hours they went with Buzz? Alright. But that was the consensus about what happened at the time.

Let me be devil's advocate. Let's say this is exactly what happened. Do you then have any problem with it?

If not, then it seems that you are just bitter that someone is criticizing the process at all.

  Are you unhappy with the result?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

No.  The Dean's process was actually exactly opposite of the process that ended up with Buzz.  The Dean's had a search committee...Buzz's didn't.  The Dean's search was lengthy and comprehensive...Buzz's wasn't.  The Dean's search was very open with campus wide participation...Buzz's wasn't.

Yet, which one was the failure?

It's silly to be obsessed about the process when the results are what matters.  I have made good and bad hires using both types.  The process is as good as the result it produces.

This is correct. Also, processes work great in mass scale. Say you wanted to find the top 1000 accountants for a new firm. Clearly a comprehensive process is needed to identify, interview, compare, and ultimately hire the best candidates.

But, when you narrow that down to 1 key spot, the "process" really becomes about the result. You can search high and low and around the world, but if you don't find the right guy/girl, you failed. It's not an exact science when you are looking for 1 spot.

Realistically, no company uses a "process" to decide who the hire. The process is really just to get the best candidates identified. Ultimately, it's up to the responsible hiring party (in this case the AD) to make the decision with input from BOT, large donars, etc.

I'm a big fan of "process" for some things, and recognize it's rightful place. But, installing "process" on a small scale really probably doesn't increase the success rate.  

Put it this way: If you had 1 free throw and your life depended on it, would it be wise to go through a warm up process for a few minutes?

Yes, that would probably lead to a higher success rate.

But, would it make sense to shoot free throws for 8 straight hours before shooting your 1 free throw? Probably not.

The incremental gain for the time spent probably wouldn't help in this scenario.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This is the most disingenuous statement you've ever made Chicos. 

We all know what was going on at UNO. He did NOT walk out.  UNO was not keeping promises, as is well documented.  They were on a path to extinction.  Buzz has proven to be a man of great integrity, as those who have crossed his path in MKE all know.   

You've missed the point completely.  I've asked this question many times and the answer has always been honest.

In 2008, after Buzz had left New Orleans and took the job at MU as an assistant, was he going to be offered a head coaching job anywhere other than MU?  The answer by EVERYONE with a brain cell is NO.  At least not that year, not coming off what had been done.

You are reading way to much into my comments.  I'm not blaming him for leaving UNO, I'm stating a fact that he left UNO late in the game and you can damn well bet your ass that 99% of the AD's in this country aren't going to put their necks out to hire someone like that so soon.  Which is EXACTLY why I'm saying he wasn't going anywhere.  There is no job that he could take in that year that would be better than the MU job, so he could be had a week or two weeks later

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

  Are you unhappy with the result?

I'm very happy about this result so far.

But if you look at the way the University has half-assed other searches -- the Dean thing, Cottingham's own position, the Provost (who was a dime a dozen Communications prof at SLU about 12 minutes before he was the MU Provost), Marquette has a history of lazily filling very serious positions. I think we've lucked out with Buzz. My concern with the process is I don't know if that luck will be repeated with the same process.

In fact, I think the Dean thing suggests that incompetence at hiring is very much an issue at MU. In many ways, yes, the Dean thing was the polar opposite. The job has been open since December, 2007. Which should be embarassing. But the similarity is the quirky way MU has tried to fill the position.

[Pakuni]

You've missed the point completely.  I've asked this question many times and the answer has always been honest.

In 2008, after Buzz had left New Orleans and took the job at MU as an assistant, was he going to be offered a head coaching job anywhere other than MU?  The answer by EVERYONE with a brain cell is NO.  At least not that year, not coming off what had been done.

You are reading way to much into my comments.  I'm not blaming him for leaving UNO, I'm stating a fact that he left UNO late in the game and you can damn well bet your ass that 99% of the AD's in this country aren't going to put their necks out to hire someone like that so soon.  Which is EXACTLY why I'm saying he wasn't going anywhere.  There is no job that he could take in that year that would be better than the MU job, so he could be had a week or two weeks later

You're right ... it is very unlikely any other program was going to hire Buzz as head coach in 2008.
But where you're wrong is assuming that means he would have happily waited hanging in the breeze while MU interviewed/contacted numerous other coaches, setting him aside as its coach of last resort.
I think it's safe to say that if Buzz learned nothing else from his UNO experience, it's to be very careful about choosing his next head coaching opportunity, if one were to come along.
Is it then really beyond the realm of imagination to think that he would be turned off by a school that treats him like the backup plan to their backup plan's backup plan? That he might have seen that happening and decided that he didn't want to be at a place where he was viewed as good enough ... but only if 10 other people said 'No' first?
Maybe he would have waited through that.
Or maybe he would have said, 'Screw these people, I don't want to be jerked around' and then he would have taken a solid six-figure salary as an assistant at IU or UK and bided his time for a head coaching job at a school that actually wanted him.
I can't say how he would have reacted. And, despite your all-knowingness, neither can you.

[NersEllenson]

Chicos - Lenny and I would still like a reply to your statement:

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 18, 2010, 10:16:32 AM
I agree. I'm happy with Buzz's results, though some from the JUCO route and taking kids that never step foot on campus due to grades is troubling to me.  But he has continued to carry the ball.....but he could have been had a week or two later.  MU is classic at screwing up searches.  It's not hard, companies successfully do them all the time.

I'd asked for a rebuttal with the below post:
You get upset when I say D-Wade was the key factor in the Final Four run (even though I've provided ample evidence to support that claim) - by saying that as a result of making that point, I'm disrespecting what contribution Diener, Novak, RJack and Merritt made....YET..you have the audacity to say JUCOs are "troubling" to you??  Is that basically not disrespecting Jimmy Butler, DJO, Fulce, Dwight Buycks - who all have been model citizens, good performers on court, and good ambassadors of the program??

Who are "the kids that never set foot on campus due to grades" that are troubling to you?

Do you not have a rebuttal?  Is this because again you are just posting garbage that is not based in fact, but rather in your desperation to defend Tom Crean and try to tear down Buzz Williams, you resort to making things up?  Your silence is damning Chicos.