2019 Coaching Carousel

[wadesworld]

So the vocal minority that want Wojo fired have come up with basically some version of the following.  Fire Wojo and then:

1.  Reach out to or hire Matta.  Ignoring that the guy either doesn't want to coach, and ignore all of the other openings where he did not get the job or did not pursue the job.  Ignoring health issues or hey,  contact the guy and see how he is doing. Fine, but not much of a realistic idea here it seems. I'd hope those in the know would already know something on this one. Maybe we can do like St. John's did to Mullin and look around and see who we can get, and then when Mullin finds out we're looking, deny it.  At least Mullin resigned.

2.  Promote Stan for a year and tell him maybe he'll get the job or maybe not after MU sees who is available next year.  That sounds like a winning plan.  Let's ignore what that does to recruiting, retaining players, and what it says to Stan or that Stan would even accept something like that...  I some how doubt that goes well.  Definitely kills recruiting and player retention in the short term. 

3. Go get a top guy at at top school who would surely come to MU for less money or equal pay...?  Not sure how this one works.

4.  Ignore the history of MU hires that was so well set forth, and that if there is a hire it will likely to an assistant or a low D1 coach. Unproven either way

Let me add, when a school is rumored to be looking at Wojo, state that is not the case because Wojo is not good and no one would want him.  All false rumors.  I'm sure VT would have told Wojo no, since they got the guy they really wanted, and the idea that VT would have any interest in Wojo has to be complete baloney.

It could be that like the majority here and the MU administration, others see something in Wojo and what he has done to date and where the program is at... but wait, that doesn't fit the Wojo is so terrible no one would want him.

This is all accurate.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

So the vocal minority that want Wojo fired have come up with basically some version of the following.  Fire Wojo and then:

1.  Reach out to or hire Matta.  Ignoring that the guy either doesn't want to coach, and ignore all of the other openings where he did not get the job or did not pursue the job.  Ignoring health issues or hey,  contact the guy and see how he is doing. Fine, but not much of a realistic idea here it seems. I'd hope those in the know would already know something on this one. Maybe we can do like St. John's did to Mullin and look around and see who we can get, and then when Mullin finds out we're looking, deny it.  At least Mullin resigned.

2.  Promote Stan for a year and tell him maybe he'll get the job or maybe not after MU sees who is available next year.  That sounds like a winning plan.  Let's ignore what that does to recruiting, retaining players, and what it says to Stan or that Stan would even accept something like that...  I some how doubt that goes well.  Definitely kills recruiting and player retention in the short term. 

3. Go get a top guy at at top school who would surely come to MU for less money or equal pay...?  Not sure how this one works.

4.  Ignore the history of MU hires that was so well set forth, and that if there is a hire it will likely to an assistant or a low D1 coach. Unproven either way

Let me add, when a school is rumored to be looking at Wojo, state that is not the case because Wojo is not good and no one would want him.  All false rumors.  I'm sure VT would have told Wojo no, since they got the guy they really wanted, and the idea that VT would have any interest in Wojo has to be complete baloney.

It could be that like the majority here and the MU administration, others see something in Wojo and what he has done to date and where the program is at... but wait, that doesn't fit the Wojo is so terrible no one would want him.

Don't forget, Wojo is going to stay at Marquette because it's a comfortable gig since the BOT and administration don't have any expectations for the program.

[MU82]

So the vocal minority that want Wojo fired have come up with basically some version of the following.  Fire Wojo and then:

1.  Reach out to or hire Matta.  Ignoring that the guy either doesn't want to coach, and ignore all of the other openings where he did not get the job or did not pursue the job.  Ignoring health issues or hey,  contact the guy and see how he is doing. Fine, but not much of a realistic idea here it seems. I'd hope those in the know would already know something on this one. Maybe we can do like St. John's did to Mullin and look around and see who we can get, and then when Mullin finds out we're looking, deny it.  At least Mullin resigned.

2.  Promote Stan for a year and tell him maybe he'll get the job or maybe not after MU sees who is available next year.  That sounds like a winning plan.  Let's ignore what that does to recruiting, retaining players, and what it says to Stan or that Stan would even accept something like that...  I some how doubt that goes well.  Definitely kills recruiting and player retention in the short term. 

3. Go get a top guy at at top school who would surely come to MU for less money or equal pay...?  Not sure how this one works.

4.  Ignore the history of MU hires that was so well set forth, and that if there is a hire it will likely to an assistant or a low D1 coach. Unproven either way

Let me add, when a school is rumored to be looking at Wojo, state that is not the case because Wojo is not good and no one would want him.  All false rumors.  I'm sure VT would have told Wojo no, since they got the guy they really wanted, and the idea that VT would have any interest in Wojo has to be complete baloney.

It could be that like the majority here and the MU administration, others see something in Wojo and what he has done to date and where the program is at... but wait, that doesn't fit the Wojo is so terrible no one would want him.

While I agree with the tone of your post, GOO, is there any reason why Stan couldn't get the exact kind of treatment Buzz got -- an actual contract with an actual commitment? He has been a valuable assistant at Marquette, and he has been a fine recruiter both here and at Arizona State. He has been around the block a few times. He's not a "kid."

Some Scoopers would applaud such a move, others would decry it as "proof" that we're a mid-major (even though many successful programs throughout history have elevated assistant coaches to the top job, including Michigan State with Izzo, Gonzaga with both Monson and Few, Marquette with Buzz, etc). I like to think that most would say, "Maybe this can work" and give Stan a real chance.

I have no idea if Stan can be a successful head coach, but I didn't know that about Buzz, either. Nobody did ... anybody who says he/she knew for sure that Buzz would be great is a liar. For that matter, nobody knew whether Al, K or Izzo would be a great head coach.

The only thing I know for certain is you don't give Stan the job on a 1-year trial basis. If you think he can successfully coach the team, you go all-in and give him a real contract. (As we all know, "real contracts" aren't really anyway, so if he ends up sucking big-time you don't have to keep him.) You make the program his so that current players and recruits know the score.

[Goose]

wades

I try quite hard to add, IMO, I think or I believe in most of my posts. There likely are posts were that does not occur, but I simply am posting my opinion on the vast majority of my posts. As for my knowledge of ball, I will take my chances on discussing the glory days with most anyone, but do respect that others, like 4ever, know more than I do about the Al era. His experience, age and being at games I was not at, is far different experience than I have in regards to that area. When he posts, I respect that he likely knows more about that topic than I do.

As for knowledge of current college basketball, I am very far removed from the situation and readily accept there is plenty I do not know about current college ball and how it works today. That said, I believe that the lessons I have learned from really, really smart basketball people allows me to provide a different perspective than some on here. There was a time, that I did see how recruiting worked firsthand, I saw how coaches were courted and how that process worked, I saw how coaches chose to leave the program and other personal experiences that were/are part of how a program functions.

Not that you care, but I recently posted on Linkedin regarding my career and lessons learned along the way. The theme of the post, that sometimes your eyes do not lie, real life experiences matter and you can learn something every day if you chose to listen to others. In my chosen profession, I feel quite confident on my knowledge on a topics related to my career, but seldom does a week go by that I do not learn something new.

I am far from biggest MU fan on this board, far from most knowledgeable on current behind the scenes activities within the program, have little inside recruiting news to share, do not relate to all the computer data now used or really do not know if Wojo is the next Coach K. But I do know, that being around people that know the game very well has rubbed off on me to some degree. You can dismiss every post I make as me being a know it all and that is your choice. For the record, I will say that I likely have admitted being wrong more than most on here.

Here's to MU winning the next biggest game of the season!

[Nukem2]

Goodman tweets that UCLA closing in on Mick Cronin

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

UCLA just tweeted it out. I actually think they fell into the best candidate. He's still young, but with a ton of experience, and if he gets his guys to play hard he'll win a lot of games in that conference.

[Nukem2]

UCLA just tweeted it out. I actually think they fell into the best candidate. He's still young, but with a ton of experience, and if he gets his guys to play hard he'll win a lot of games in that conference.

UCLA will certainly play more defense than in recent decades under Cronin.

[MuMark]

"Hey Mick......As you probably have seen our first 7 choices all turned us down.......do you still want the job? Ok....looks like you were our top choice all along.....Welcome aboard!"

"Oh and 1 more thing.....do you have a buyout and if so....will Cincinnati be willing to negotiate it?"

[cheebs09]

"Hey Mick......As you probably have seen our first 7 choices all turned us down.......do you still want the job? Ok....looks like you were our top choice all along.....Welcome aboard!"

"Oh and 1 more thing.....do you have a buyout and if so....will Cincinnati be willing to negotiate it?"

He probably paid it himself to get out of the AAC.

[MuMark]

Jeff Borzello
‏
Verified account
 
@jeffborzello
 7m7 minutes ago
More
Mick Cronin's UCLA contract is for six years and $24 million.

Was makiing 2.2 million at Cincy

[Its DJOver]

Any likely transfers out of Cinci worth looking into?  Cumberland is only a JR right?

[Cheeks]

UCLA will certainly play more defense than in recent decades under Cronin.

Howland had them playing a ton of defense, much to the chagrin of LA fan.

[muguru]

Any likely transfers out of Cinci worth looking into?  Cumberland is only a JR right?

He is such a stud...Yes, he's a junior. Would LOVE to have him, if he decided to transfer. Then again, so would 350 other programs.

[Cheeks]

"Hey Mick......As you probably have seen our first 7 choices all turned us down.......do you still want the job? Ok....looks like you were our top choice all along.....Welcome aboard!"

"Oh and 1 more thing.....do you have a buyout and if so....will Cincinnati be willing to negotiate it?"

Pete Carrol at USC

Cronin has wanted out for some time. 

[Pakuni]

He probably paid it himself to get out of the AAC.

AAC is better than the Pac 12.

[MU82]

AAC is better than the Pac 12.

Watching the Pac 12 just makes you a person say: "Aaak!"

Of course, if one smokes enough weed like Bill Walton, even the Pac 12 is tolerable.

[wadesworld]

Didn't UCLA fans run Howland out of town because his team played a boring brand of basketball without a lot of offense?  If so, yeesh on this hiring.  Not sure why there's so much love for MC.  The guy's teams are very good defensively but can never score the ball.  He's made 1 Sweet 16 in his career and is 6-11 in the NCAA Tournament in his career.

[GooooMarquette]

AAC is better than the Pac 12.

Yep...except for the cheerleaders.

[Pakuni]

Didn't UCLA fans run Howland out of town because his team played a boring brand of basketball without a lot of offense?  If so, yeesh on this hiring.  Not sure why there's so much love for MC.  The guy's teams are very good defensively but can never score the ball.  He's made 1 Sweet 16 in his career and is 6-11 in the NCAA Tournament in his career.

They're not going to love Cronin's style, but it was a lot more than Howland's style that got him fired, namely:
- declining results. UCLA didn't make it out of the first weekend of the tourney in his last five seasons, and missed it altogether in his two of his last four.
- lost control of the program, highlighted by a big SI story about players fighting, partying way too much, etc.

[GOO]

While I agree with the tone of your post, GOO, is there any reason why Stan couldn't get the exact kind of treatment Buzz got -- an actual contract with an actual commitment? He has been a valuable assistant at Marquette, and he has been a fine recruiter both here and at Arizona State. He has been around the block a few times. He's not a "kid."

Some Scoopers would applaud such a move, others would decry it as "proof" that we're a mid-major (even though many successful programs throughout history have elevated assistant coaches to the top job, including Michigan State with Izzo, Gonzaga with both Monson and Few, Marquette with Buzz, etc). I like to think that most would say, "Maybe this can work" and give Stan a real chance.

I have no idea if Stan can be a successful head coach, but I didn't know that about Buzz, either. Nobody did ... anybody who says he/she knew for sure that Buzz would be great is a liar. For that matter, nobody knew whether Al, K or Izzo would be a great head coach.

The only thing I know for certain is you don't give Stan the job on a 1-year trial basis. If you think he can successfully coach the team, you go all-in and give him a real contract. (As we all know, "real contracts" aren't really anyway, so if he ends up sucking big-time you don't have to keep him.) You make the program his so that current players and recruits know the score.

If we somehow lost Wojo, I'd hope that Stan would be at the top of the list of potential hires.  My post was referencing a suggestion made by another poster, including the one year trial, etc, which is obviously a less than solid idea.  You either hire the guy and make a commitment or you don't. Anything else would kill recruiting and player retention and alienate the hire at the outset.  Unless we want a complete rebuild. I didn't want to call out the poster that made that suggestion by name. 

[cheebs09]

AAC is better than the Pac 12.

I don’t know. The new TV deal doesn’t seem to be good for AAC. I don’t think Cronin was in love with the conference and was looking to get out.

[Pakuni]

I don’t know. The new TV deal doesn’t seem to be good for AAC. I don’t think Cronin was in love with the conference and was looking to get out.

I'm speaking only to the quality of the teams/competition currently. Obviously there's way more upside in the Pac 12, and Westwood > Cincinnati (and $4 million > $2.2 million).

[brewcity77]

They're not going to love Cronin's style, but it was a lot more than Howland's style that got him fired, namely:
- declining results. UCLA didn't make it out of the first weekend of the tourney in his last five seasons, and missed it altogether in his two of his last four.
- lost control of the program, highlighted by a big SI story about players fighting, partying way too much, etc.

This is all true, but I'd guess if Ben Howland's teams played the sort of style UNC, Duke, or Kansas play, he'd still be there today.

[Pakuni]

This is all true, but I'd guess if Ben Howland's teams played the sort of style UNC, Duke, or Kansas play, he'd still be there today.

If by that you mean "winning and frequent deep tourney runs" I'd agree.
But a flashier style with the same results - i.e. zero Sweet 16s, one conference title in five seasons - wasn't going to save Ben in LA.

Alford's teams were more up-tempo, and his first five seasons at  UCLA were better than Howland's last five, and that got him fired.

[Billy Hoyle]

This is all true, but I'd guess if Ben Howland's teams played the sort of style UNC, Duke, or Kansas play, he'd still be there today.

maybe, but there was something more that happened in regards to the Josh Smith situation.  It's also what made him rather unattractive to others jobs he threw himself at, including MU.