To All Of The Crean Bashers Out There. . .

[TallTitan34]

To all of you Crean bashers out there in all fairness you can't blame him after every loss.  I realize this is the NCAA tournament but give it time.  We play with pretty much one upperclassman and argueably our best player was out to injury.  Crean isn't responsible for missed easy layups in the first 10 minutes of play.

Why don't you ever give Crean credit after a win or after College Gameday comes.

I see alumni all the time saying students now have no idea how good we have it.  You bashers say Marquette is going nowhere under Crean.  A Final Four, the Al McGuire Center, the Big East, sellout crowds, expanded national exposure. 

I think some people need to get there head out of their ass and think of where we would be without Crean.

[MarquetteFan94]

To all of you Crean bashers out there in all fairness you can't blame him after every loss.  I realize this is the NCAA tournament but give it time.  We play with pretty much one upperclassman and argueably our best player was out to injury.  Crean isn't responsible for missed easy layups in the first 10 minutes of play.

Why don't you ever give Crean credit after a win or after College Gameday comes.

I see alumni all the time saying students now have no idea how good we have it.  You bashers say Marquette is going nowhere under Crean.  A Final Four, the Al McGuire Center, the Big East, sellout crowds, expanded national exposure. 

I think some people need to get there head out of their ass and think of where we would be without Crean.

Amen.

[maxpower773]

talltitan, that can't be correct....it doesn't fit what they want to believe, it doesn't fit their agendas and exaggerated view of what this team has been in the past 20 years.

[MUCHI814]

I don't think you can ever blame a fan for wanting more. I'm not gonna sit back and be content with the situation, I want to see some better results, sorry if that's too much for people to handle or if almost offends some.

[maxpower773]

Hell, everyone wants to win. But a lot of things being said are just plain stupid. I don't think anyone here is not upset about the loss, some of us though are just a bit more rational...like yourself with handling it and being able to see where our program has been and is going.

[77fan88warrior]

Is it Crean's fault that Ooz has 2 fouls 2 minutes into the game and we can't make a layup?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Why don't you ever give Crean credit after a win or after College Gameday comes.

Who gives a whit about College GameDay?!?! That means nothing! Honestly, that was a nice day, but is that more important to you than fielding a team that doesn't fall into the fetal position as soon as the NCAA tips off?

I'd rather they not come if it means we're going to get slaughtered on national television.

[MUDPT]

Sorry if I would like to see our NCAA tournament game not taken off the Chicago airwaves because MU is losing so bad.

As an 8 seed.

[pitz]

Why don't you ever give Crean credit after a win or after College Gameday comes.

Who gives a whit about College GameDay?!?! That means nothing! Honestly, that was a nice day, but is that more important to you than fielding a team that doesn't fall into the fetal position as soon as the NCAA tips off?

I'd rather they not come if it means we're going to get slaughtered on national television.

No, I guess you are right.  I would rather be in Conference USA playing low caliber teams and Memphis being the one big game of the year.
I would rather have 200 students in the student section than half the student body
I would rather been invisible nationally than on Game Day
Why didn't I see that ?????

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

No, I guess you are right.  I would rather be in Conference USA playing low caliber teams and Memphis being the one big game of the year.
I would rather have 200 students in the student section than half the student body
I would rather been invisible nationally than on Game Day
Why didn't I see that ?????

Pitz - I am not advocating a return to Conference USA, but we did get to the Final Four out of that conference and played before overflowing student sections. Was that Crean's doing?

Or was it Wade??

That's what you have to ask yourself.

[mutpm]

We had an overflowing student section this year and I'm pretty sure Wade wasn't on the team.  It's a testament to the program that Crean has built here.  KO only went to the tournament 2 of the 5 years he was here, Deane only went 2 of the 5 years he was here.  Before that, we weren't going to the tournament at all.  TC has gone 4 out of 8, including 4 of the last 6.  I know that it doesn't seem that great, but things are way better now than they were the past 25 years.

[Ready2Fly]

PRN -

Sure the Final Four run had a lot to do with Wade.  But it also had A LOT to do with Diener, Novak, RJax, Chapman, etc., etc., etc.  And who brought all of that talent in here?  The Wizard of Oz?

Did Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams and and Billy Donovan win the national championship the last two years, or was it their NBA caliber talent?  Give me a f*cking break.

No coach accidentally goes to the final four and has back to back 10-6 seasons in the Big East.  Sorry if that's not good enough for you.

[Pakuni]

PRN -

Sure the Final Four run had a lot to do with Wade.  But it also had A LOT to do with Diener, Novak, RJax, Chapman, etc., etc., etc.  And who brought all of that talent in here?  The Wizard of Oz?

Did Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams and and Billy Donovan win the national championship the last two years, or was it their NBA caliber talent?  Give me a f*cking break.

Amen.
The whole "Wade was what got Crean to the Final Four" argument is assinine. No Crean = No Wade. Dwyane came to MU because of Tom Crean.
And Wade wasn't the only guy who contributed to that Final Four run. Without Travis Diener, Marquette doesn't survive the first weekend (or perhaps first round).

[augoman]

amazing to me that everyone is willing to give the coach credit for all the accomplishments of the athletic director.  remember him?  or the incredible surprise of DWade's talent.  I fear that now he'll turn to PR to sell us on the future; we'll slip back to hearing how great the incoming brandon bell is.  BUT, for all my negativity, I do like tc, am thrilled with his successes, and respect his attributes, but am not BLIND to his obvious faults!  His team was not prepared.  we were unable to execute.  our game plan sucked.  he failed to make any adjustments until we were 14 points down and scorless for 10 minutes!  I suffered severe deja vu to the '03 Kansas game.  we were 'deer in the headlights' once again!
and by the way, Wade came to MU because of Odarty Blankson.

[Ready2Fly]

"and by the way, Wade came to MU because of Odarty Blankson."

... And ODB only came here because of Wardle, and Wardle only came here because of McIlvaine, and McIlvaine only came here because of Doc Rivers, and Doc Rivers only came here because of Butch Lee, and Butch Lee only came here because of.... Murf?

Oh, wait, your argument sucks.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

PRN -

Sure the Final Four run had a lot to do with Wade.  But it also had A LOT to do with Diener, Novak, RJax, Chapman, etc., etc., etc.  And who brought all of that talent in here?  The Wizard of Oz?

Did Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams and and Billy Donovan win the national championship the last two years, or was it their NBA caliber talent?  Give me a f*cking break.

No coach accidentally goes to the final four and has back to back 10-6 seasons in the Big East.  Sorry if that's not good enough for you.

I was responding to her reference to Conference USA as some kind of a black hole. We were drawing plenty of fans in Conference USA. And, again, I'm not saying I want to go back there, but it wasn't as bad as some people claim. For every East Carolina or South Florida the Big East has a Rutgers or a...South Florida.

Find me a post where I claim Crean should be gone. You'll be looking for a long time.

[muwarrior87]

Why don't you ever give Crean credit after a win or after College Gameday comes.

Who gives a whit about College GameDay?!?! That means nothing! Honestly, that was a nice day, but is that more important to you than fielding a team that doesn't fall into the fetal position as soon as the NCAA tips off?

I'd rather they not come if it means we're going to get slaughtered on national television.

Whether you see it or not, that's a day of publicity for the school and it's program. that's exactly why it's a big deal to have it. Advertise MU coast to coast.

[rocky_warrior]

FWIW (in response to the thread overall), please remember there really aren't many "Crean bashers" - just a few very vocal ones. 

[pitz]

PRN -

Sure the Final Four run had a lot to do with Wade.  But it also had A LOT to do with Diener, Novak, RJax, Chapman, etc., etc., etc.  And who brought all of that talent in here?  The Wizard of Oz?

Did Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams and and Billy Donovan win the national championship the last two years, or was it their NBA caliber talent?  Give me a f*cking break.

No coach accidentally goes to the final four and has back to back 10-6 seasons in the Big East.  Sorry if that's not good enough for you.

I was responding to her reference to Conference USA as some kind of a black hole. We were drawing plenty of fans in Conference USA. And, again, I'm not saying I want to go back there, but it wasn't as bad as some people claim. For every East Carolina or South Florida the Big East has a Rutgers or a...South Florida.

Find me a post where I claim Crean should be gone. You'll be looking for a long time.

My point wasn't that is was a black hole then but it is now.  My point was that without Tom Crean we don't get invited to the Big East cause I don't see our program being where it is with Mike Deane.  The students were overflowing in 03 but they were building before that.
True Bill Cords had alot to do with it but try stating your case with the program as it was.
And for all the Pitts, ND, UCONN, Syracuse, Louisvilles Villanovas you have...........Memphis

[WashDCWarrior]

Anybody claiming that Crean should not be the coach, has an overinflated view of the national reputation of Marquette.  The exception would be if you know of a replacement option who is undisputedly better than Crean and jumping at the opportunity to coach MU.  And when I say better, I don't just mean in-game coaching, I mean building a program: recruiting, marketing, etc.  I sure can't think of anyone who fits this description.

Changing a coach purely for the sake of change will cause the program to regress.  Marquette was a stronger program in the 70s than it is now.  After Al brought MU the title in '77 and promptly retired, the program began a decade-long decline and the program got to the point where it had losing seasons.  The worst part is, nobody missed us.  Top-notch coaches in the late 80s weren't saying, "Gosh, I'd like to be the one to return Marquette to their glory years."  Right now a "bad" season for MU is 20+ wins and an NCAA berth.  Make a coaching change, and five years from now, this could sound like an impossibly good season.  If we fell that hard after a championship, we could do it now.

Altough my pro-Crean arguments are mostly of the "we could do much worse" variety, I do see him giving us a better chance than anyone of returning us to a national championship.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Let's review this again for those that don't understand:

Tom Crean is not perfect.

Tom Crean is not the best X and O's coach in the country.

Tom Crean is not the best recruiter in the country.

Tom Crean is not God.

Tom Crean is not the second coming of John Wooden.

Tom Crean is not the second coming of Al McGuire.

Tom Crean IS the second best coach in MU history.

Tom Crean IS equal or better than any coach that MU could hire (check the resumes).

Tom Crean IS only in his 8th season as a head coach and has made the NCAA 4 out of the last 6 seasons

Tom Crean IS returning almost all of his players from last year's team and is poised to have a sucessful 2007-2008 and 2008-2009 seasons (look at the talent on the team)

Tom Crean IS a good coach and if people can't admit that, then their expectations are just too high and they need to start rooting for UNC or Duke. If you don't believe me, compare ANY similar school to MU and show me that they have had more success in the past 10 years. I bet you can't find one. St John's, DePaul, St. Louis, Xavier, Georgetown, even Gonzaga hasn't had the amount of growth and success that MU has had.

Stack 'em up... prove it to everybody here that there is somebody better out there.

[MUsoxfan]

I love TC, but I tend to disagree/question his judgement of certain players playing time this year.   I don't know if he won or lost those games because of what I feel is poor judgement....but it can't go another year of being like that

[DegenerateDish]

I'm not sure about the Gonzaga comparison, they've had a heck of a run the last 9 years (which is about the same amount of time Crean has been at MU).

They've been to the NCAA's 9 straight years, and while they haven't gone to a Final Four, they are overall 12-9 in that time frame, including 4 Sweet 16 berths and one regional final and only two one and done's. In addition, they've been a lower seed many times, and had to beat some high seeds to get those accomplishments done.

In comparison, MU is 4-4, with three one and done's and obviously a Final 4 berth.

I guess it depends more or less what you prefer. Do you prefer consistency (like Gonzaga, with the occasional semi-big run in the tourney) or do you prefer the huge run (like MU had in '03) with semi-consistently making the tournament.

[DoubleMU0609]

I don't know that I'd automatically say that 'Zaga has had a better run over the last 9 years.  Remember that because of the conference they are in they're practically guaranteed to make it to the big dance every year.  They do have more Sweet 16's so you can say that they have taken advantage of their opprotunities, but how many years out of the past 9 would they even be in the NCAAs if they hadn't won their conference tourney?

[DegenerateDish]

True, but that said, as a lower seed more often than not, it's not like they were one and done every year or every other year. Plus they still had to go out and win their conference each year, even if the quality isn't Big East or C-USA, it's still an impressive run.

2006--Third seed in Oakland Region
Defeated Xavier in first round, 79-75
Defeated Indiana in second round, 90-80
Lost to UCLA in regional semifinal, 73-71

2005--Third seed in Albuquerque Region
Defeated Winthrop in first round, 74-64
Lost to Texas Tech in second round, 71-69

2004--Second seed in St. Louis Region
Defeated Valparaiso in first round, 76-49
Lost to Nevada in second round, 91-72

2003--Eighth seed in West Region
Defeated Cincinnati in first round, 74-69
Lost to Arizona in second round, 96-95 (2OT)

2002--Sixth seed in West Region
Lost to Wyoming in first round, 73-66

2001--12th seed in South Region
Defeated Virginia in first round, 86-85
Defeated Indiana State in second round, 85-69
Lost to Michigan State in regional semifinal, 77-62

2000--10th seed in West Region
Defeated Louisville in first round, 77-66
Defeated St. John's in second round, 82-76
Lost to Purdue in regional semifinals, 75-66

1999--10th seed in West Region
Defeated Minnesota in first round, 75-63
Defeated Stanford in second round, 82-74
Defeated Florida in regional semifinal, 73-72
Lost to Connecticut in regional final, 67-62

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I don't know that I'd automatically say that 'Zaga has had a better run over the last 9 years.  Remember that because of the conference they are in they're practically guaranteed to make it to the big dance every year.  They do have more Sweet 16's so you can say that they have taken advantage of their opprotunities, but how many years out of the past 9 would they even be in the NCAAs if they hadn't won their conference tourney?

Well, while I'll agree that the Zags have had a great run, I don't think their program has come as far as MU's. Their tourney runs have been impressive, and I'm a fan of theirs... but MU has just come so far as a program overall. I just think people forget what this program was like 10 years ago. The program is still gaining momentum... we are in a great spot to continue to compete at a high level for years to come.

• MU's attendance and donations are WAY up. They sell-out the Bradley 2-3 times a year when they previously could only sell 15,000 to see #1 Cinci.
  
  MU has been able to move to a better conference... WAY better.
  
  MU has put 3 players into the NBA (I think the Zags may have 3 as well)
  
  MU has beaten the #1 team in the country (UK) to get to the final 4
  
  MU has a top notch practice facility
  
  The list goes on.

The Zags are close... Creighton is probably close (although quietly), and maybe even S. Illinois, although I don't know how similar it is to MU. That's it. I can't think of another that's even close.

Similar schools have made some nice runs, but never been able to make it stick for more than a couple of years and/or had to come as far as MU. 10 years ago MU was about on par with Dayton. Look at it now.

Think about it:
Xavier
St. Joes
DePaul
St. Johns
UMass
Georgetown (recently)
Villanova (recently)
Boston College (they've been up and down)
Temple
Even St. Louis had a nice couple of year run in the 90's.

They have all had nice runs for a couple of years... but never been able to maintain it.

MU has been maintaining a pretty high level and has a chance to continue that in the next couple of years.

[mviale]

I don't think you can ever blame a fan for wanting more. I'm not gonna sit back and be content with the situation, I want to see some better results, sorry if that's too much for people to handle or if almost offends some.

Criticism of a coaching decision is one thing, but dancing in the rain is another.

[muPARTY]

i'm not here to bash crean because i think he's a good coach (not great, but good).  but what scares me is this thought of "it's better than it used to be" mindset.  i didn't know Marquette back in the 80s when they were bad, so i think a lot of you posters are just happy to see the team in the top-25 on a weekly basis and on national TV.  what i see is a coach who had one good year and treated as if he's a god (he is, you all know it).

at what point will enough be enough?  i'm not saying to give up on the Crean tenure at this moment or next yr, etc, but after we had those back-to-back NIT tournaments (with a 1st round loss at home in there) in '04 & '05, i feel that his job was being debated.  then he got some great freshman, a new conference, and a great outcome and he seemed safe again while everyone built up for this yr.  this yr came and the outcome was stagnant.
* 4-4 in the NCAA with those four wins coming in '03
* lost 5 of 7 tournaments in the first round ('00-NIT-Xavier, '02-NCAA-Tulsa, '05-NIT-Western Michigan, '06-NCAA-Alabama, '07-NCAA-Michigan State)
* none of the freshman class following the '03 FF continue to go to Marquette
* 4 conference tournament wins in 8 seasons (4-8) (2 Ws coming in '02)

while i don't believe he should get the boot right now, at what point does a coach who's paid in the top-5 have to show results like a coach in the top-5?  i guess what my point is, i'm not expecting him to be John Wooden or Al, but i'm not satisfied with people saying "well at least we're better than we used to be",  i just want a sign of hope, and looking at his post season record, i don't see any.

by comparison...
Mike Deane's record that got him fired:
'94/'95 21-12 (NIT runner-up)
          23-8 (2nd rd loss NCAA)
          22-9 (CUSA Trmt Champs, 1st rd loss NCAA)
          20-11 (3rd rd loss NIT)
'98/'99 14-15

Bruce Pearl:
* 5-3 in NCAA  (still active in '07)
* lost 1 of 5 tournaments in first round ('03-NCAA)
* 5 20+ win seasons

Bill Self (since '00 still active in '07):
* 3 Elite 8s
* Sweet 16
* 2 1st Rd losses and a 2nd rd loss

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

i'm not here to bash crean because i think he's a good coach (not great, but good).  but what scares me is this thought of "it's better than it used to be" mindset.  i didn't know Marquette back in the 80s when they were bad, so i think a lot of you posters are just happy to see the team in the top-25 on a weekly basis and on national TV.  what i see is a coach who had one good year and treated as if he's a god (he is, you all know it).

at what point will enough be enough?  i'm not saying to give up on the Crean tenure at this moment or next yr, etc, but after we had those back-to-back NIT tournaments (with a 1st round loss at home in there) in '04 & '05, i feel that his job was being debated.  then he got some great freshman, a new conference, and a great outcome and he seemed safe again while everyone built up for this yr.  this yr came and the outcome was stagnant.
* 4-4 in the NCAA with those four wins coming in '03
* lost 5 of 7 tournaments in the first round ('00-NIT-Xavier, '02-NCAA-Tulsa, '05-NIT-Western Michigan, '06-NCAA-Alabama, '07-NCAA-Michigan State)
* none of the freshman class following the '03 FF continue to go to Marquette
* 4 conference tournament wins in 8 seasons (4-8) (2 Ws coming in '02)

while i don't believe he should get the boot right now, at what point does a coach who's paid in the top-5 have to show results like a coach in the top-5?  i guess what my point is, i'm not expecting him to be John Wooden or Al, but i'm not satisfied with people saying "well at least we're better than we used to be",  i just want a sign of hope, and looking at his post season record, i don't see any.

by comparison...
Mike Deane's record that got him fired:
'94/'95 21-12 (NIT runner-up)
          23-8 (2nd rd loss NCAA)
          22-9 (CUSA Trmt Champs, 1st rd loss NCAA)
          20-11 (3rd rd loss NIT)
'98/'99 14-15

Bruce Pearl:
* 5-3 in NCAA  (still active in '07)
* lost 1 of 5 tournaments in first round ('03-NCAA)
* 5 20+ win seasons

Bill Self (since '00 still active in '07):
* 3 Elite 8s
* Sweet 16
* 2 1st Rd losses and a 2nd rd loss

couple of things... take Bill Self's total body of work, not just his succesful seasons.

Here is a link for his career record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Self

He's had some good seasons at UofI and KU, but he wasn't setting the world on fire in his first 8 seasons.

Secondly, what Crean gets paid has nothing to do with anything. NONE of us are effected by what he gets paid.

MU will lower ticket prices if they get a cheaper coach, so I'm not sure why anybody cares about this.

What they pay him doesn't effect anybody. We all know there are some donors out there that contribute a large amount of money to MU in order to help pay that salary. If Crean goes, that money will go too.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Questioning Crean's job stability is ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to say his salary means nothing.

It means, if he were to leave for another job, we could get another coach in here with the money we've shown we're willing to spend.

[Chili]

Questioning Crean's job stability is ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to say his salary means nothing.

Are you the donor paying his salary with the courtside seats? So why do you care what his salary is when he doesnt?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Good Lord...another poster with reading comprehension problems. I DON'T CARE ABOUT HIS SALARY!!!!

I am simply pointing out that it is something MU can use to attract other candidates!

I swear, the defensiveness by some on this board boders on bizarre.

[Chili]

you missed the point. just because Crean is getting X dollars does NOT mean another coach will. so to say you expect those same dollars to be available for another coach is a complete fallacy.


you get it now? Crean gets paid what he does because a major donor chooses to pay the vast majority of his salary, not the athletic department. for some reason those same types of donations were NOT there for Deane and most likely won't be there for other coaches.

to make it simple...

Big Boosters like Crean.
Big Boosters donate Big Dollars and offer fringe benefits to the athletic department that are earmarked for Crean.
Crean gets paid by the University from the previously mentioned donations.

Therefore...

No Crean = No Big Donations

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Good Lord...another poster with reading comprehension problems. I DON'T CARE ABOUT HIS SALARY!!!!

I am simply pointing out that it is something MU can use to attract other candidates!

I swear, the defensiveness by some on this board boders on bizarre.

No defensiveness here... I just seriously doubt MU is going to shell out huge bucks for another coach. I'm not questioning MU dedication to success, I'm just saying that Crean has put himself in a unique spot and I doubt these large donations for salary would be coming in if he left. When he was hired there wasn't a huge pool of money out there... he earned it.

He's not going anywhere... we all know it. I guess I keep posting because I want people to realize what is actually going on and how good it is.

If this team falls out of the first round for the next 3 years in a row, then I think we might have to talk about the state of the program and where we think it should be. But, at this point I would say the program is in great shape and questioning the coach is silly.

This team is going to be very fun next year. People should get off Crean's back and get on the bandwagon. It's going to be great.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You think boosters are spending their money because they like Crean? Or because they like the fact that Marquette's profile as a basketball program has increased with the FF, the Big East, Wade, etc.?

By your rationale, if Crean were take the Michigan job -- which he isn't going to do -- they'd go contribute to his salary in Ann Arbor.

Your point of view is laughable. You think if Crean left, we'd be back to paying our coaches $200K? You're just wrong.

By the way, nobody ever suggested the next guy would earn an equal salary. But we would be extremely competitive. That's where these boosters come in.

[Big Papi]

Questioning Crean's job stability is ridiculous, but it's equally ridiculous to say his salary means nothing.

It means, if he were to leave for another job, we could get another coach in here with the money we've shown we're willing to spend.

Whose to say that the Administration would pay the next coach the same amount of money out of the gate.

What coach out there who is significantly better than TC do you think would be willing to take the job?  

Roy Williams, Coach K, Boeheim, Montgomery, Self, Lute Olsen, Billy Donovan, Calipari, Few, Bo Ryan, Huggins, Izzo, Gillespie, Sampson, Rick Barnes?  

Just curious because I don't see any of these guys willing to come to MU or MU willing to take some of them on.  I am all for getting a big time coach but I don't see one willing to come to MU.  After that you are looking at young coaches who are not established at the elite level.  The hot coaches like Dana Altman's or Chris Lowery's of the world are a big gamble and a step backwards in my books.

I know you hate the admin for changing the nickname and that TC has somehow rubbed you the wrong way but the truth of the matter is that we are in a much better situation now than we were 10 years ago.

And while I am at it, I am so sick of these what if scenarios.  What if we are one and done next and the year after.  What if we don't make the tourny.  Well what if we make it the Final Four within the next two years.  We are just as likely to get the Final Four as we are of being one and done next year.  

[Chili]

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

You think boosters are spending their money because they like Crean? Or because they like the fact that Marquette's profile as a basketball program has increased with the FF, the Big East, Wade, etc.?

By your rationale, if Crean were take the Michigan job -- which he isn't going to do -- they'd go contribute to his salary in Ann Arbor.

Your point of view is laughable. You think if Crean left, we'd be back to paying our coaches $200K? You're just wrong.

By the way, nobody ever suggested the next guy would earn an equal salary. But we would be extremely competitive. That's where these boosters come in.

They are spending the money because they want Crean at Marquette. Not any other coach - Crean. Another coach isn't going to get the same love - nor would they give it to another school. These people like Crean and want him at MU. So they pay him. How difficult is this for you to realize? 

But if you think we would shell out over $1,000,000 for the next guy you are off your rocker.

Also, I think I gave you to much credit because your line about the boosters giving money to Crean at UM is horribly contrived and reaching for an extreme point which is not there.

[AlumKCof93]

Any notion of firing Crean is preposterous and would set the program back for years.  For one thing, we would have a very difficult job of hiring another desirable candidate as firing such a young, successful coach would solidify the notion that MU has an over-inflated sense of self-worth.  For those that don't recall, MU got blasted in some circles for arrogance when Deane was fired.  He was let go even though he won 100 games in 5 years.
Crean has elevated the program and positioned us well for the future as many are predicting us to be ranked in the top 15 at the beginning of next year. When was the last time we were in that position?
I understand the frustration following our tournament loss.  But for those who are anti-Crean, it should mean you won't be too upset if he leaves for another program.  Its absurd to think Crean should be shown the door.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Your point of view is laughable. You think if Crean left, we'd be back to paying our coaches $200K? You're just wrong.

By the way, nobody ever suggested the next guy would earn an equal salary. But we would be extremely competitive. That's where these boosters come in.

Couple of things...

#1 I guess we will agree to disagree about the future coaches salary. I doubt MU would go out and spend 1million to try and replace Crean unless it was somebody VERY special that MU just had to have (Majarus, or somebody from the NBA or something)

#2 You are the one who suggested that they would earn equal salary. I said that salary doesn't matter because if Crean left the donations would go down and MU would have to look for a replacement without the large donation.

You said this in your post at 9:03am

"It means, if he were to leave for another job, we could get another coach in here with the money we've shown we're willing to spend."

You said this, and then disputed it 3 posts later... what is going on here?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Your point of view is laughable. You think if Crean left, we'd be back to paying our coaches $200K? You're just wrong.

By the way, nobody ever suggested the next guy would earn an equal salary. But we would be extremely competitive. That's where these boosters come in.

Couple of things...

#1 I guess we will agree to disagree about the future coaches salary. I doubt MU would go out and spend 1million to try and replace Crean unless it was somebody VERY special that MU just had to have (Majarus, or somebody from the NBA or something)

#2 You are the one who suggested that they would earn equal salary. I said that salary doesn't matter because if Crean left the donations would go down and MU would have to look for a replacement without the large donation.

You said this in your post at 9:03am

"It means, if he were to leave for another job, we could get another coach in here with the money we've shown we're willing to spend."

You said this, and then disputed it 3 posts later... what is going on here?

You're serious?

You honestly don't understand the difference between "willing to spend money" and "willing to pay somebody the exact amount that our 8-year veteran coach made?"

So you understand, these two sentences do not have equal meaning:

1. I'm willing to spend some money on a nice new car
2. I'm willing to spend a huge wad on a Bentley

[ChicosBailBonds]

PRN

Do you want the nice new car or the Bentley?

 

[DoubleMU0609]

PETA has officially started to protest both sides of this conversation due to the cruelty to the dead horse.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

PRN

Do you want the nice new car or the Bentley?

 

I want the Bentley!!!!

My point is that if my Bentley decides to drive off, I'd be able to get around town comfortably in my nice new car.

[ChicosBailBonds]

PRN

Do you want the nice new car or the Bentley?

 

I want the Bentley!!!!

My point is that if my Bentley decides to drive off, I'd be able to get around town comfortably in my nice new car.

Yeah but the hot chicks might not dig you as much

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Your point of view is laughable. You think if Crean left, we'd be back to paying our coaches $200K? You're just wrong.

By the way, nobody ever suggested the next guy would earn an equal salary. But we would be extremely competitive. That's where these boosters come in.

Couple of things...

#1 I guess we will agree to disagree about the future coaches salary. I doubt MU would go out and spend 1million to try and replace Crean unless it was somebody VERY special that MU just had to have (Majarus, or somebody from the NBA or something)

#2 You are the one who suggested that they would earn equal salary. I said that salary doesn't matter because if Crean left the donations would go down and MU would have to look for a replacement without the large donation.

You said this in your post at 9:03am

"It means, if he were to leave for another job, we could get another coach in here with the money we've shown we're willing to spend."

You said this, and then disputed it 3 posts later... what is going on here?

You're serious?

You honestly don't understand the difference between "willing to spend money" and "willing to pay somebody the exact amount that our 8-year veteran coach made?"

So you understand, these two sentences do not have equal meaning:

1. I'm willing to spend some money on a nice new car
2. I'm willing to spend a huge wad on a Bentley

I'm just going off what you wrote before. It's there in black and white.

"It means, if he were to leave for another job, we could get another coach in here with the money we've shown we're willing to spend."

That implies that you believe MU would throw Crean type money at another coach. (maybe, but maybe not... guess that is speculative at best seen as Crean is still here).

Can we get back to talking about DJ's socks now?

[muPARTY]

couple of things... take Bill Self's total body of work, not just his succesful seasons.

Here is a link for his career record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Self

He's had some good seasons at UofI and KU, but he wasn't setting the world on fire in his first 8 seasons.

1st, that's where i got Self's stats so i saw his career.  i did the 2000 to compare during the Crean years (since they were both available at roughly the same time).  also, he had Oral Roberts and turned that program around.  TC has turned MU's program around but, looking at Mike Deane's record (one season w/o 20+ wins), he had less to rebuild.

2nd, to everyone who's commented on the $$$ part.  i understand he's not going to take less if the school's offering more, that's just plain stupid.  but at the same time, he's going to be held to higher expectations.  it's no different than that of a pro athlete who gets a huge contract and doesn't have the same results as their conterparts with similiar contracts.  maybe they're underachieving or maybe they are simply overpaid.  the fact is, there is a new measuring stick to gauge their work.  the 4 names above him- Tubby Smith, Thad Matta, Rick Barnes, Tom Izzo.  the 5 after TC- Bill Self, Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams, Lute Olsen, Billy Donovan.  forget the fact 6 of them have championships (and recent ones too), but all 9 of them have made it to the Sweet 16 (or further) at least twice.  and don't think the boosters would have a problem shelling out the big bucks for guys like those (considering some of them cost less).

[Ahoya06]

Great post, TallTitan!

Hey, did you and the crew make it down to NC for the game?

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

couple of things... take Bill Self's total body of work, not just his succesful seasons.

Here is a link for his career record.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Self

He's had some good seasons at UofI and KU, but he wasn't setting the world on fire in his first 8 seasons.

1st, that's where i got Self's stats so i saw his career.  i did the 2000 to compare during the Crean years (since they were both available at roughly the same time).  also, he had Oral Roberts and turned that program around.  TC has turned MU's program around but, looking at Mike Deane's record (one season w/o 20+ wins), he had less to rebuild.

2nd, to everyone who's commented on the $$$ part.  i understand he's not going to take less if the school's offering more, that's just plain stupid.  but at the same time, he's going to be held to higher expectations.  it's no different than that of a pro athlete who gets a huge contract and doesn't have the same results as their conterparts with similiar contracts.  maybe they're underachieving or maybe they are simply overpaid.  the fact is, there is a new measuring stick to gauge their work.  the 4 names above him- Tubby Smith, Thad Matta, Rick Barnes, Tom Izzo.  the 5 after TC- Bill Self, Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams, Lute Olsen, Billy Donovan.  forget the fact 6 of them have championships (and recent ones too), but all 9 of them have made it to the Sweet 16 (or further) at least twice.  and don't think the boosters would have a problem shelling out the big bucks for guys like those (considering some of them cost less).

1. I understand about comparing the same time frame, I'm just trying to get as close to apples to apples if we are going to compare records. I know Self did a nice job at Oral Roberts and built a nice program, there is no doubt. I think Crean is doing the same thing here. It's been 8 years, but the program is in much better standing now than it has been in the last 30years. Why worry?

2. I know that everybody thinks that increased money means increased expecations... I get that. I'm just saying realistically Crean could make 100million dollars and it really wouldn't matter. MU is paying X amount, and a couple of donors are pick up the rest of the tab. Why does everybody obsess about that? At this point, we can't attract any of the other top 10 that you mention... so what?

If Crean goes at this point, I think it is a step backwards for the program... I guess that wraps it up in one sentence for my point of view.

[Big Papi]

1st, that's where i got Self's stats so i saw his career.  i did the 2000 to compare during the Crean years (since they were both available at roughly the same time).  also, he had Oral Roberts and turned that program around.  TC has turned MU's program around but, looking at Mike Deane's record (one season w/o 20+ wins), he had less to rebuild.

Less to rebuild?  Deane's teams went from a second round NCAA exit, to an embarrassing first round exit where he was suspended for the next NCAA game he would coach, to an NIT season to a 14-15 losing record.  Wrong direction.

2nd, to everyone who's commented on the $$$ part.  i understand he's not going to take less if the school's offering more, that's just plain stupid.  but at the same time, he's going to be held to higher expectations.  it's no different than that of a pro athlete who gets a huge contract and doesn't have the same results as their conterparts with similiar contracts.  maybe they're underachieving or maybe they are simply overpaid.  the fact is, there is a new measuring stick to gauge their work.  the 4 names above him- Tubby Smith, Thad Matta, Rick Barnes, Tom Izzo.  the 5 after TC- Bill Self, Jim Calhoun, Roy Williams, Lute Olsen, Billy Donovan.  forget the fact 6 of them have championships (and recent ones too), but all 9 of them have made it to the Sweet 16 (or further) at least twice.  and don't think the boosters would have a problem shelling out the big bucks for guys like those (considering some of them cost less).

Not counting Deane, as it looked like he was content to stay at MU forever and take us to the NCAA tourny once every 3 to 4 years, the MU job was a stepping stone position that was going down the path of St. Louis basketball.  In other words, falling off the map of respectability.  TC is being compensated very nicely because under his tenure we reached a Final Four, he has recruited NBA players that provide our basketball program great exposure and has elevated this program to a level where we are no longer a stepping stone program. Furthermore, his success here has helped fund the AL, increased attendence at our basketball games and has positioned us to make the NCAA's for a possible 3 and 4 years in a row(something we have not seen here since Hank Raymonds was coach).  That is the measuring stick you should be guaging.  Where were we as a program in March 1999 and where are we now.  We went from a team trending towards a perinneal NIT team to a team that is on the verge of going back-to-back-to-back-to..........of the NCAA tourny.  We went from me being able to buy a ticket to a game against Cincy the night before the game to having weekend games sellout.  We went from not being mentioned by anyone in TV to turning on any basketball broadcast and having a good chance that Marquette would be mentioned at some point in time.  

You want to compare TC's salary to other coaches but you can't argue that statement logically.  First of all none of those coaches would come to MU for the amount of money that (a) TC initially received and (b) currently makes.  You think we can hire Matta and all of a sudden get the next Oden, Durant or OJ Mayo?  MU is not in a position where we can select recruits and I don't see who would be willing to come here that would change that perception.  What I can see is where TC has taken this program from where he began and how over time, he could make MU what a Calhoun did for UConn.  I think we need to look long term and not short term.  
Second, every program is different.  I think when TC got here he had some huge obstacles to overcome, greater than Indiana, UConn, North Carolina, Kentucky, Arizona, Kansas, Michigan St. and Florida.  All of those are public universities with public funding that have football as their main economic driver.  We are a small private institution and the main sport generating revenue.  Do we have to overpay our coach who has overcome these obstacles?  Maybe, maybe not but so what if we did.  

I guess I just can't believe that everyone can't see that this program is in a better position now than it has been in the last 10 to 20 years.      

[muPARTY]

2002mualum, i absolutly get what you're saying.  Tom Crean has made this program (overall) the best it's been since Al, if he left now it would be a step backward, and there's no way any of those 9 other coaches are coming here if TC was to leave.

the question i was orginally getting at, back whatever number of posts ago, is "To keep his job, what's the minimum from TC/MU that people expect?"

i just get the feeling around here (MU fanbase) is that all TC needs to do is win 20 games and make the NCAA and anything after that (tournament wins) is gravy, because it's better than it used to be.  he's 2-7 in opening round games for the NCAA/NIT (1 NCAA and 1 NIT).  my contention is, raise the bar, just making the NCAAs anymore doesn't cut it, you have to win and move on, and do it yr after yr.  going to the Elite 8 or another Final Four and then having another 3-4 year drought of first round NCAA/NIT exists won't cut it either.  win and be consistent in following seasons.

[rocky_warrior]

my contention is, raise the bar, just making the NCAAs anymore doesn't cut it, you have to win and move on, and do it yr after yr.  going to the Elite 8 or another Final Four and then having another 3-4 year drought of first round NCAA/NIT exists won't cut it either.  win and be consistent in following seasons.

I've stayed out of this, but wait a second.  Even "elite" programs miss the NCAA occasionally.  See UCONN this year.  They didn't even make the NIT!  1st round exits don't mean that you've gone in the crapper either.  See Kansas the past few years.

If crean can build up a *little* more, make the NCAAs approx 6 of 8 years, and have a nice little run a couple of those 6 years, then I think we're doing VERY well. 

It's impossible to make the sweet 16 every year.  IMPOSSIBLE.  So if that's what you mean by consistency, then your expectations are too high.  And I don't just mean they're too high for Marquette, I mean they're too high for ANY NCAA school.  Nobody can do it.  Raise the bar too high, and you're destined for failure.

Ok, my last (and first?) post in this thread.  We're *almost* where we need to be.  Just enjoy what we've got.  A pretty good program right now.

[muPARTY]

i can never resist a good argument 

Less to rebuild?  Deane's teams went from a second round NCAA exit, to an embarrassing first round exit where he was suspended for the next NCAA game he would coach, to an NIT season to a 14-15 losing record.  Wrong direction.

look at your facts, in 6 of the 7 seasons before Crean took over MU had 20+ wins with 4 NCAA and 2 NITtrips
in the 7 seasons before Self at Oral Roberts: 11-17, 8-21, 8-20, 36-6, 29-6, 10-18, 5-22.  oh yeah, those two seasons of 36 & 29 wins came were in the NAIA
which one was worse to inherit again ?

...TC is being compensated very nicely because under his tenure we reached a Final Four, he has recruited NBA players that provide our basketball program great exposure and has elevated this program to a level where we are no longer a stepping stone program. Furthermore, his success here has helped fund the AL, increased attendence at our basketball games and has positioned us to make the NCAA's for a possible 3 and 4 years in a row(something we have not seen here since Hank Raymonds was coach).  That is the measuring stick you should be guaging.  Where were we as a program in March 1999 and where are we now.  We went from a team trending towards a perinneal NIT team to a team that is on the verge of going back-to-back-to-back-to..........of the NCAA tourny.  We went from me being able to buy a ticket to a game against Cincy the night before the game to having weekend games sellout.  We went from not being mentioned by anyone in TV to turning on any basketball broadcast and having a good chance that Marquette would be mentioned at some point in time.  

i've never called into doubt his contributions to MArquette and never will.  but all i  hear is "better than it used to be".  that's all in good right now, but for how long can you say a program is re-establishing itself?  i feel like the next step to reestablishment comes from winning, tournament winning.  and as i've pointed out 5 opening round losses in 7 tries.

You want to compare TC's salary to other coaches but you can't argue that statement logically.  First of all none of those coaches would come to MU for the amount of money that (a) TC initially received and (b) currently makes.  You think we can hire Matta and all of a sudden get the next Oden, Durant or OJ Mayo?    

i compared the salaries for the purpose of comparing salary/accomplishments.  i never said the recruiting thing was problem, except when it came to post players.  to (a) and (b), i don't know what his hiring salary was and his current salary, was basically established after the Final Four when many of those other coaches signed at new schools.  hire Matta they come?  nope, but something made Oden go to a school that was very recentlyunder NCAA suspention.... but i say let OSU keep Matta

MU is not in a position where we can select recruits and I don't see who would be willing to come here that would change that perception.

i thought Dominic, Wes, and Jerel changed that perception.  heard some good things about this Trevor Mbakwe fella too.  but, to play devil's advocate, how would they get tot he point of being able to select recruits?  win... in let's say the tournament?  maybe do it year after year?  but it's probably not the (here's that stat again) 2-7 in opening round games is it?
 

I guess I just can't believe that everyone can't see that this program is in a better position now than it has been in the last 10 to 20 years.      

i guess I JUST CAN'T BELIEVE that everyone sees where the program is now, where is was (and for some reason accepting that going back to the 70s would be setting the bar too high  ???  so they only look back as far as the 80s) and are content.  i ran down Wisconsin Ave to the lake in '03 to see back to back 19 win seasons and 2 NITs (with one being a loss at home, in the first round to western michigan ), to find people saying it was better than it was 10-20 years ago.  then came 10-6 in the Big East and some talented freshmen, and while '06 didn't end exactly on top, all i could think of was how good '07 would be. then '07 came with some good wins, and bad losses, and then nothing.  no improvement, no taking it to the next level.  still, everyone says "better than it used to be". 

come '07-'08 i'll still be cheering for the team, putting all i have into supporting them, and believing they can go all the way.... and hoping for someone to raise the bar from the 80s to the 70s and say "they're not better than they used to be, let's see if they can"

***ok, enough of me trying to pick a fight    i like crean as a coach, him at Marquette is very good, for both, but my expectations are higher than "better than it used to be"

[muPARTY]

If crean can build up a *little* more, make the NCAAs approx 6 of 8 years, and have a nice little run a couple of those 6 years, then I think we're doing VERY well. 

...We're *almost* where we need to be.  Just enjoy what we've got.  A pretty good program right now.

hit the nail on the head of what i was trying to convey.  and to answer your question, the consistency is, if they make a run to Sweet 16, Elite 8, etc, then have an opening round win in one of those couple of years following the run.  not a 4yr drought between seeing the round of 32.  that was all.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

2002mualum, i absolutly get what you're saying.  Tom Crean has made this program (overall) the best it's been since Al, if he left now it would be a step backward, and there's no way any of those 9 other coaches are coming here if TC was to leave.

the question i was orginally getting at, back whatever number of posts ago, is "To keep his job, what's the minimum from TC/MU that people expect?"

i just get the feeling around here (MU fanbase) is that all TC needs to do is win 20 games and make the NCAA and anything after that (tournament wins) is gravy, because it's better than it used to be.  he's 2-7 in opening round games for the NCAA/NIT (1 NCAA and 1 NIT).  my contention is, raise the bar, just making the NCAAs anymore doesn't cut it, you have to win and move on, and do it yr after yr.  going to the Elite 8 or another Final Four and then having another 3-4 year drought of first round NCAA/NIT exists won't cut it either.  win and be consistent in following seasons.

I understand that we don't want just "accept" things, I guess I personally feel like patience is important. There is a lot of talent here and coming in, so lets see how the next few years go.

It's going to be a fun couple of years watching the current group develop.