Stop and think

[CAGASS24]

Random pondering led me to the notion that MU has the chance to string 3 pretty objectively successful coaching tenures in a row.  In spite of dramatic circumstances surrounding the departures and arrival of Wojo [and there are many......!]this situation is potentially remarkable and questionably without contemporaries.  I feel good about Wojos role in the matter.  MU all day!!!!!!

[Galway Eagle]

Random pondering led me to the notion that MU has the chance to string 3 pretty objectively successful coaching tenures in a row.  In spite of dramatic circumstances surrounding the departures and arrival of Wojo [and there are many......!]this situation is potentially remarkable and questionably without contemporaries.  I feel good about Wojos role in the matter.  MU all day!!!!!!

Just three? I mean Deane went NIT Finals, NCAA, NCAA, nothing, O'Neil went to a couple NCAA appearances and an NIT. I think you could make a solid case it'd be 5 in a row of successful tenures and pending Wojo three stellar tenures in a row. 

[brewcity77]

Just three? I mean Deane went NIT Finals, NCAA, NCAA, nothing, O'Neil went to a couple NCAA appearances and an NIT. I think you could make a solid case it'd be 5 in a row of successful tenures and pending Wojo three stellar tenures in a row.

Yes, just three. Deane won with KO's guys, then when he had to stand on his own, we followed those three years up with "missed the postseason" and "losing record". Love it or hate it, the whole "five years to judge a coach" thing has merit because it forces the coach to win with their own players, which demonstrates an ability to not just coach but also to recruit, evaluate, and develop their own players.

Maybe you don't need five years anymore because coaching changes now leads to such dramatic roster turnover (Buzz had a core of all his own guys by year 3) but personally I'm not ready to pencil Wojo in to the "success" column just yet.

I think he's shown he has potential, but before I'll agree to him being a success, he needs to get to the tourney and win. I'd also like to see more than one successful recruiting class. 2015 was great, but let's see how 2016 comes together and if those kids can play, not just win the rankings wars.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Just three? I mean Deane went NIT Finals, NCAA, NCAA, nothing, O'Neil went to a couple NCAA appearances and an NIT. I think you could make a solid case it'd be 5 in a row of successful tenures and pending Wojo three stellar tenures in a row. 

Deane was fired for essentially telling Cords that he should be happy with an NCAA appearance once every few years.....

I'm not in the 5 year club but I would also rather see results before calling anything a success or failure.

[BallBoy]

Just three? I mean Deane went NIT Finals, NCAA, NCAA, nothing, O'Neil went to a couple NCAA appearances and an NIT. I think you could make a solid case it'd be 5 in a row of successful tenures and pending Wojo three stellar tenures in a row.

I lived through the Deane years and I would not include them in the success column.  Deane's team were not fun to watch and MU was lucky to score 60.  Deane philosophy was to extend the shot clock to shorten the game and try to keep it close with points.  MU would not be in the Big East under Deane and they would have fallen into the Horizon if he stayed longer.

Good partier and nice guy but not who was going to change the game for MU.

[Dawson Rental]

Yes, just three. Deane won with KO's guys, then when he had to stand on his own, we followed those three years up with "missed the postseason" and "losing record". Love it or hate it, the whole "five years to judge a coach" thing has merit because it forces the coach to win with their own players, which demonstrates an ability to not just coach but also to recruit, evaluate, and develop their own players.

Maybe you don't need five years anymore because coaching changes now leads to such dramatic roster turnover (Buzz had a core of all his own guys by year 3) but personally I'm not ready to pencil Wojo in to the "success" column just yet.

I think he's shown he has potential, but before I'll agree to him being a success, he needs to get to the tourney and win. I'd also like to see more than one successful recruiting class. 2015 was great, but let's see how 2016 comes together and if those kids can play, not just win the rankings wars.

One of the indicators of a successful coach that I like best is "What sort of shape did he leave the program in?"  When Deane left, Marquette's program badly needed a rebuild, so I'm not going with "unsuccessful" as an evaluation on him.

Deane's downfall was he wouldn't have been able to recruit his own mother.

[GGGG]

I lived through the Deane years and I would not include them in the success column.  Deane's team were not fun to watch and MU was lucky to score 60.  Deane philosophy was to extend the shot clock to shorten the game and try to keep it close with points. MU would not be in the Big East under Deane and they would have fallen into the Horizon if he stayed longer.

I agree with pretty much everything you say except the last sentence.  Conference membership isn't like promotion and relegation.  I don't think our BE conference membership is due to our Final Four run.  It's due to the standing of our basketball program. 

At worst we would be in the A10.  But I think we would be in the BE regardless.

[Dawson Rental]

I agree with pretty much everything you say except the last sentence.  Conference membership isn't like promotion and relegation.  I don't think our BE conference membership is due to our Final Four run.  It's due to the standing of our basketball program. 

At worst we would be in the A10.  But I think we would be in the BE regardless.

I agree.  MU would likely still be in the Big East, I've always thought the statement that Crean got MU into the Big East to be an overstatement.  With Deane we'd just be the butt of some great jokes like "Why do they call it the Big East?"  "Because DePaul and Marquette are in the west."

The bottom line is that Deane is gone because his ambitions were well under Marquette's expectations.

[The Lens]

I love Mike.  He was incredible to me as a student.  I was in AMSU / MUSG and he was amazingly accessible and open to any promotion we suggested, often funding it himself.  That being said, it was time for a change and MU got the right guy.  I'll rag on TC as much as anyone but of the 1999 hires, he was the best.  Unless you count UW-M's hire.  TC was just so easy to dislike that seeing him leave was fine with me.

What is special is if this season unfolds like it should we will have had our last 5 coaches lead us to NCAA's.

[Norm]

I lived through the Deane years and I would not include them in the success column.  Deane's team were not fun to watch and MU was lucky to score 60.  Deane philosophy was to extend the shot clock to shorten the game and try to keep it close with points.  MU would not be in the Big East under Deane and they would have fallen into the Horizon if he stayed longer.

Good partier and nice guy but not who was going to change the game for MU.

You must have only attend games the last two years of his tenure, because there were some great games that were fun to watch where MU upset teams they had no business beating. There were some great victory parties at Turners afterwards too.

[brewcity77]

I agree with pretty much everything you say except the last sentence.  Conference membership isn't like promotion and relegation.  I don't think our BE conference membership is due to our Final Four run.  It's due to the standing of our basketball program. 

At worst we would be in the A10.  But I think we would be in the BE regardless.

I think this is a bit contradictory. Our standing as a basketball program when the Big East came knocking was largely because of our Final Four run. They weren't inviting us because we won a championship some three decades earlier.

Like it or not, the bulk of the 1980s we weren't very good. We had a good little run under O'Neill, but if we had regressed to being a losing program, the Big East wouldn't have been interested. Crean made us relevant again. We were a winning program, a program with enough financial support to get the Al built, it was clear we were trending upward.

In the 14 years prior to joining the Big East, we had 11 postseason appearances and 13 winning records under 3 different coaches. The collective, along with the commitment to the program, got us invited. But if we had continued to trend down and had 6 more years of mediocre results with no postseason appearances, I can't see us getting in. Crean's ability to show the program could sustain success had a lot to do with us getting into the Big East.

[GGGG]

I think when the BE came knocking, that if they were dedicated to adding two basketball programs, that Marquette and DePaul were by far the best choices regardless of the Final Four run.  You are focusing too much about on-court success versus the television market, the resources dedicated to the program, etc.  Really the only other logical choice at the time may have been Xavier.  But then who?  St. Louis?  Dayton? 

[brewcity77]

I think when the BE came knocking, that if they were dedicated to adding two basketball programs, that Marquette and DePaul were by far the best choices regardless of the Final Four run.  You are focusing too much about on-court success versus the television market, the resources dedicated to the program, etc.  Really the only other logical choice at the time may have been Xavier.  But then who?  St. Louis?  Dayton?

Charlotte, who went to the A-10, would've brought a bigger market and a fertile recruiting ground. They also had a solid run of success on the court.

Let's not forget that at the end of the 1980s, MU Basketball was on life support. O'Neill brought us back, but had we stuck with Deane, who knows if we wouldn't have fallen right back to Dukiet-level success. In the first 6 years of Crean (before joining the Big East) Mike Deane had one winning season at Lamar (15-14 in 2002) and one NCAA bid (won the Southland in 2000).

If we had those same results I don't believe we would have been invited, and possibly DePaul would've been left out as well. Anyone who knows better can feel free to correct this, but I remember hearing this about our conference history. DePaul was huge in getting us into the Great Midwest. They were successful at the time and brought us along. When the Big East came knocking, we brought DePaul along. Quite a few of the Big East schools didn't want to go this far west, but it was justifiable because of our success, program dedication, and market. DePaul joining not only brought the Chicago market but also allowed us to repay DePaul for the favor they did by getting us into the Great Midwest a decade (or so) earlier.

I know, it's easy to dismiss geography, but the view of conference realignment was more geographically based 10 years ago than it is today. Xavier and Charlotte would have kept the Big East more "East", but we were the biggest non-football prize they could go for.

[The Lens]

Charlotte, who went to the A-10, would've brought a bigger market and a fertile recruiting ground. They also had a solid run of success on the court.

Let's not forget that at the end of the 1980s, MU Basketball was on life support. O'Neill brought us back, but had we stuck with Deane, who knows if we wouldn't have fallen right back to Dukiet-level success. In the first 6 years of Crean (before joining the Big East) Mike Deane had one winning season at Lamar (15-14 in 2002) and one NCAA bid (won the Southland in 2000).

If we had those same results I don't believe we would have been invited, and possibly DePaul would've been left out as well. Anyone who knows better can feel free to correct this, but I remember hearing this about our conference history. DePaul was huge in getting us into the Great Midwest. They were successful at the time and brought us along. When the Big East came knocking, we brought DePaul along. Quite a few of the Big East schools didn't want to go this far west, but it was justifiable because of our success, program dedication, and market. DePaul joining not only brought the Chicago market but also allowed us to repay DePaul for the favor they did by getting us into the Great Midwest a decade (or so) earlier.

I know, it's easy to dismiss geography, but the view of conference realignment was more geographically based 10 years ago than it is today. Xavier and Charlotte would have kept the Big East more "East", but we were the biggest non-football prize they could go for.

We would have seen success again with Mike.  He had a decent class come in with Cordell, Olouma & Jon Harris.  He had too solid recruits who would have joined the next year in Stephon Don Don and Gary Buchanan.  Mike would have gotten us back to the NCAA's but that would have been the peak, then we would have hit a valley again, rinse and repeat.  I won't sell you on sustained success with him, but you can't convince me we never would have had good years.

[brewcity77]

We would have seen success again with Mike.  He had a decent class come in with Cordell, Olouma & Jon Harris.  He had too solid recruits who would have joined the next year in Stephon Don Don and Gary Buchanan.  Mike would have gotten us back to the NCAA's but that would have been the peak, then we would have hit a valley again, rinse and repeat.  I won't sell you on sustained success with him, but you can't convince me we never would have had good years.

Most likely. I'm just saying that if we had continued to do what we did in his last two seasons for the six that followed his departure, we'd either be in the A-10 or the Horizon right now.

Market size is great, but no one is banging down the door of UIC, Loyola Chicago, Fordham, or LIU. There are multiple factors that go into conference realignment. Being in a top-35 market helped us, but our sustained on-court success and financial commitment to the program were also significant factors.

[Lennys Tap]

 We had a good little run under O'Neill, but if we had regressed to being a losing program, the Big East wouldn't have been interested.

Crean was here for 6 years before we joined into the Big East. His record in those 6 seasons:

121-65, one conference regular season title, 2 NCAA tournaments, 4 NCAA tournament wins, 1 Final Four, 3 NITs and 1 no tournament.

Our record the previous 6 seasons (under KO and Deane):

123-60, one conference championship, 4 NCAA tournaments, 3 NCAA tournament wins, 1 Sweet 16, 1 NIT and 1 no tournament.

The Final Four was awesome but it's not why we're in the Big East. Neither was the trajectory of the program under TC. History, TV, a geographical partner for DePaul, a decade + of solid teams and a (financial) commitment to future success were the keys.

[Badgerhater]

I lived through the Deane years and I would not include them in the success column.  Deane's team were not fun to watch and MU was lucky to score 60.  Deane philosophy was to extend the shot clock to shorten the game and try to keep it close with points.  MU would not be in the Big East under Deane and they would have fallen into the Horizon if he stayed longer.

Good partier and nice guy but not who was going to change the game for MU.

I was one of the four students in the student section at that time and I agree with your post.

[GGGG]

Most likely. I'm just saying that if we had continued to do what we did in his last two seasons for the six that followed his departure, we'd either be in the A-10 or the Horizon right now.

Market size is great, but no one is banging down the door of UIC, Loyola Chicago, Fordham, or LIU. There are multiple factors that go into conference realignment. Being in a top-35 market helped us, but our sustained on-court success and financial commitment to the program were also significant factors.

Marquette was invited to join the BE in the Fall of 2003 - immediately after its Final Four run.  Before the Final Four run, Marquette made two NCAA tournaments in the eight years prior dating back to the beginning of the Deane era.  So there wasn't really "sustained on court success."  There was basically one great year after a number of mediocre ones.  I think the long term commitment to the basketball program was much more important.

Put it this way, if Marquette had lost to Missouri in the second round in 2003, I still think they get the BE invite.  If the decision was made in 2002, I still think they get the BE invite.

[brewcity77]

Crean was here for 6 years before we were invited into the Big East. His record in those 6 seasons:

121-65, one conference regular season title, 2 NCAA tournaments, 4 NCAA tournament wins, 1 Final Four, 3 NITs and 1 no tournament.

Our record the previous 6 seasons (under KO and Deane):

123-60, one conference championship, 4 NCAA tournaments, 3 NCAA tournament wins, 1 Sweet 16, 1 NIT and 1 no tournament.

The Final Four was awesome but it's not why we're in the Big East. Neither was the trajectory of the program under TC. History, TV, a geographical partner for DePaul, a decade + of solid teams and a (financial) commitment to future success were the keys.

You quoted this:

"...if we regressed to being a losing program, the Big East wouldn't have been interested."

You didn't address that quote at all.

All I'm saying is sustained success (which Crean helped deliver) was a part of us getting into the Big East.

What if our record in those 6 seasons from 1999-2000 through 2004-2005 was 79-94 with 1 NCAA appearance, 0 NCAA wins, 0 NIT appearances, and 5 no tournaments? That's what Deane did at Lamar and Wagner during that 6-year period.

I'm not saying the Final Four got us into the Big East. I'm saying that our sustained success (which our Final Four run was a big part of) coupled with our respectable market and clear dedication to the program were all factors. If we had the results Deane delivered elsewhere at Marquette, we wouldn't have sustained success and the Al wouldn't have been built. There were multiple reasons we were invited. Tom Crean's success was one of those reasons.

[brewcity77]

Marquette was invited to join the BE in the Fall of 2003 - immediately after its Final Four run.  Before the Final Four run, Marquette made two NCAA tournaments in the eight years prior dating back to the beginning of the Deane era.  So there wasn't really "sustained on court success."  There was basically one great year after a number of mediocre ones.  I think the long term commitment to the basketball program was much more important.

Put it this way, if Marquette had lost to Missouri in the second round in 2003, I still think they get the BE invite.  If the decision was made in 2002, I still think they get the BE invite.

A long-term commitment that was largely fueled by the excitement Crean brought to the program and culminated in the Al McGuire Center that was being built at the time.

EDIT: I agree that had we lost to Missouri in 2003 we would have still received the invite. I think there's a good chance if the decision was made in 2002 we would have received the invite. If the decision had been made in 2001, in the midst of a 4th straight losing season and with no Al McGuire Center in sight, I don't think we'd have received the invite.

[GGGG]

EDIT: I agree that had we lost to Missouri in 2003 we would have still received the invite. I think there's a good chance if the decision was made in 2002 we would have received the invite. If the decision had been made in 2001, in the midst of a 4th straight losing season and with no Al McGuire Center in sight, I don't think we'd have received the invite.

So what you are saying is that 2002 season was the key to the BE.  I just don't think that's the case, unless the BE was filled with a bunch of short-term thinkers.  Marquette was a good program back in 2001.  Better than other choices for the BE at the time.

[Pakuni]

I agree with pretty much everything you say except the last sentence.  Conference membership isn't like promotion and relegation.  I don't think our BE conference membership is due to our Final Four run.  It's due to the standing of our basketball program. 

At worst we would be in the A10.  But I think we would be in the BE regardless.

It's obviously hard to say, but one has to wonder where the standing of the program had been had it remained on its trajectory under Deane.
I don't think the Final Four appearance was necessary to get a Big East invite, but I think it would have been far less likely with a string of no tourney appearances, falling attendance, etc.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

It's obviously hard to say, but one has to wonder where the standing of the program had been had it remained on its trajectory under Deane.
I don't think the Final Four appearance was necessary to get a Big East invite, but I think it would have been far less likely with a string of no tourney appearances, falling attendance, etc.

More important than Deane and to some extent Crean was the decision to invest in BB by Wild and others. 

Deane was fine considering the resources. He never would have cut it post the decision to invest.

[GooooMarquette]

I think it's fair to say three, and four out of five.  Deane had some nice seasons at first, but we were clearly going downhill at the end.

Still, if Deane is the worst of our last five coaching hires, that's pretty impressive.  In that same time span, UNC hired Doherty, UK hired Gillespie, and IU had Mike Davis.

[brewcity77]

So what you are saying is that 2002 season was the key to the BE.  I just don't think that's the case, unless the BE was filled with a bunch of short-term thinkers.  Marquette was a good program back in 2001.  Better than other choices for the BE at the time.

I'm saying that sustaining success and the building of the Al (which demonstrated commitment to the program) were keys to the Big East. The market helped. I certainly don't think it was a given just because of the six years before Crean arrived.

I agree with Frenns that the decision to invest was huge, but I feel that Crean's salesmanship made that investing an easier sell.

More than anything, I do fully believe the hiring of Crean was heavily instrumental. It wasn't just the success, it wasn't just his ability to generate fan excitement, and it wasn't just his ability to help convince donors they were investing in a bigger future, but it was all of those things that helped us get there.

It may not make everyone happy, but I do feel the Crean hire was the most significant hire Marquette made for the men's program since Al McGuire. No disrespect to O'Neill or Buzz, but Crean was the perfect guy at the perfect time.