Scholarship table
Over the last 40-50 years, or however far back you want to go, how much consistency has their been in school and athletic department leadership, though? I've got to think that most ADs only hire one or two basketball coaches in their tenure. Most school presidents are probably in the same camp, maybe add one more hire to their list. So while the school may have a track record of doing things a certain way, who's to say that current leadership and powers-that-be would agree with the way things have been done in the past? I don't see any reason why MU can't attract a successful head coach. The things I assume most coaches are looking for - resources, prestige/reputation, facilities, alumni support, etc. - is offered by Marquette. We're not Duke or Kansas, but I don't see any discernible difference between MU and schools like Villanova, Gonzaga, or Creighton. I'd say the MU job seems like it could be just as attractive as a Texas Tech or Virginia even. Outside of the blue bloods, what would set other schools apart from Marquette when it comes to attracting a basketball coach? Why couldn't we go out and make a pitch for a guy like Gregg Marshall or Randy Bennett who have proven themselves as head coaches and built strong programs in smaller conferences? I would even think we could attract P6 coaches who might be looking for a change. Maybe guys like Rick Barnes, Matt Painter, Chris Beard, Mark Turgeon would prefer to be at a basketball-first school. I've got to think MU could make a pretty convincing sales pitch to almost any coach in the country. I see no need to always look for the diamond in the rough assistant.
Regardless of era, MU has been pretty consistent in where they look for a new head coach. We’ve hired 8 coaches post Al - zero from a power conference, 2 from low mid majors and 6 assistants. Of our low major head coaches, 1 was fair and 1 was a disaster. The most successful was the one assistant who had a year of HC experience (Buzz). The next best were assistants hired from major programs (KO and Crean). Hank was an assistant who should have stayed an assistant and Rick was an assistant who would have been great but who wasn’t ready. With Wojo the jury is still out but even the most hopeful must admit he didn’t arrive as ready as Buzz, KO or Crean in spite of a longer run as an assistant (under a Hall of Fame one at that). So the evidence post Al says go with top notch assistants. That said, Al was a small college head coach who MU “rescued” from Belmont Abbey. So maybe the key is finding an “it” guy. Al had ”it” in spades. Buzz was the closest thing MU has seen since but was too quirky for some. KO and Rick had “it” too but were too self destructive (KO) or too inexperienced (Rick). The only guy without a big personality who has been successful at MU was TC. Wojo Is as white bread as they come, which (IMO) will make it tougher for him.
MU should not and will not stick with an underperforming coach because they are too afraid to hire a new coach.
Good recap, Lenny.The two most successful coaches in modern Marquette history were a guy hired from Belmont Abbey (where he went 13-39 his last two seasons) and a guy hired after one year as a head coach at New Orleans (where he went 14-17) and one year as an MU assistant.
Not to get this thread off track from arguing with everyone, but why WAS Al hired? It was before my time but I'm curious why a 13-39 coach from a tiny college was hired to take the reins?
At the miniscule Belmont Abbey College in North Carolina, where McGuire spent seven seasons as head coach, his team's record plummeted from 24-3 in 1957-58 down to 6-18 in 1963-64. He was ready to do something, anything rather than coach college basketball. Yet when the Marquette position became available, McGuire received unsolicited letters of recommendation from the likes of Joe Lapchick of the New York Knicks and Walter Brown of the Boston Celtics. Soon enough, McGuire landed in Milwaukee to take control of the Warriors.
Are you certain this is the only reason Marquette is sticking with Wojo? Is it possible they simply are pleased that the team won 24 games last season, has a top-10 recruiting class coming in next season, and has never had a sniff of any NCAA rules violations? Can you think of any school in the last 25 years that has fired a coach in a similar circumstance?Maybe MU brass really does think Wojo is underperforming but won't fire him "because they are too afraid to hire a new coach," but I haven't seen any evidence suggesting that to be true.
Is that the reason they are sticking with Wojo? If you re-read my posts, it's the exact opposite. I believe in MU's AD, athletic department and leadership to keep Wojo or to fire him and get a great new coach.I was responding the other who think Wojo is untouchable because MU incapable of finding a coach that could do better than Wojo.I think/know MU still believes that Wojo can become the quality coach MU deserves. His extension, as modest as it was, is factual evidence to me. The extension also was evidence that MU is not fully sold on Wojo and not loving the on the court success that would warrant a big raise and a long term contract. IMO, MU is correct in their position, which shows the quality of the people in charge.So, I think you and I are on the same page with Wojo's status.
Interesting read if you've got time. But according to thishttp://www.sportsonearth.com/article/69064672/fbi-gambling-investigation-al-mcguire-marquette-college-basketball
LOL... So what's your point? Sometimes schools get it right and move on from somewhat successful coaches to better coaches and sometimes they don't?I guess your point is MU's AD and leadership can not be trusted to find a better coach than Wojo.We can have an honest disagreement about that position.
I am not sure why, but good experienced coaches do not want to coach at MU.
I want to say it's because they saw what they would be stepping into in 2014.
So what does that make Wojo?
I don't get this take. Why can't you enjoy a great performance by a team that has been hammered for the past two weeks by "fans"? I mean, if you are going to rip a team, people should come out and compliment these guys for showing up and putting on a great performance.Instead its, "you guys collapsed last year, I'm not going to cheer you on".
That’s where we ended up, but we have tried countless times to get an established coach from a brand school and failed every time. We all get that you like eccentricity in your coaches. That’s fine. You hold, in my opinion, a bias against coaches that are more straight laced...again...that’s fine and your right to do it. Sometimes different personalities are required at different times. For the same reason sometimes a player’s coach is needed and sometimes an authoritarian is needed. Different situations can dictate that.
You're completely missing my point. MU should not and will not stick with an underperforming coach because they are too afraid to hire a new coach. This was proven with Deane.I happen to trust MU to hire a qualified coach because they have a professional team in place to do so, and a hell of a lot to offer. You, and some other, don't trust MU. I presume you have your own reason to believe they are incompetent to run a major college program.There is no guaranty the new hire would work out. Every college and pro sports team has made poor hires, but the good organizations recognize the error and correct it. That is my point. I don't expect this to change your opinion of MU, so we'll agree to disagree.
For many decades, the Jesuits had ethical hiring rules about plundering head coaches under contract at other schools. Dukiet and Deane were allowed as they were plucked from Jesuit schools. Al was from a Catholic school he gave clearance. Eddie Hickey came from SLU (Jesuit).
Fair post. I don’t really have a bias against straight laced (i.e.,, boring, low in personality) coaches. They can work at a lot of places. But I would argue we haven’t seen that at Marquette. Al was always the coolest (and sometimes the craziest) guy in the room. KO and Buzz were outrageous but also inspirational. I didn’t care for TC (he has a creepiness that’s makes me uncomfortable), but I acknowledge that he had a big personality. Low personality/low key guys (Dean Smith, John Wooden) have been great at blue bloods but (Hank, Dukiet and to date Wojo) less than stellar here. I acknowledge that low key Mark Few has made it work at Gonzaga, but my preference for a little school like Marquette is a guy with a big personality
The program (not the roster, the program) that Wojo inherited was better than any program a Marquette coach had inherited since Hank took over for Al. Great facilities, big budget, 8 NCAA appearances in 9 years, 2 S16s an an E8 in the last 4 years and a FF 11 years before. It (the program) has taken a step (or more) back under Wojo. Can he bring it back? Hope so.
the fact that your only as good as your last season.