For All The Buzz Haters ....

[THEGYMBAR]

No comparison between O'Neill hire and Buzz hire. Kevin took over a horrible situation. MU was as low as it possiblt get. He was also very, very highly thought of around the country. No media outlet that I remember thought hiring hiring was a mistake.

[Chili]

They were both established assistant coaches at big time programs. Not a 9 month green horn. crap, a year ago not one person on this board would have been cuming in their boxers over Buzz, but now since he has saved some recruiters he is John Wooden. I wish I knew what his philosophy's were when it comes to hoops, that might help quell some of the uneasy feelings a lot of people have about this hire. All we know is he plays winning basketball. WTF is that?

Kevin O'Neill had three seasons experience as an assistant coach at a major program (Arizona) before landing the Marquette head-coaching job.

Buzz Williams has three years experience as an assistant coach at a major program (A&M and Marquette) before landing the Marquette head-coaching job.

So you are comparing having Kevin coming into the MU situation as equal to that of the one Buzz is? Come on now - you cannot be serious? Also, Kevin had just gone to the Final Four with Zona.

[Pakuni]

So you are comparing having Kevin coming into the MU situation as equal to that of the one Buzz is? Come on now - you cannot be serious? Also, Kevin had just gone to the Final Four with Zona.

Actually, yeah. Their resumes are remarkably similar.

- both three years of experience as an assistant at a major program
- both have reputations as a top-level recruiter
- both had a series of stops at lower-level programs before landing in a major conference
- both have doubts/questions/uncertainties about actual coaching skills
- both in early-30s when landed first head head-coaching gig

Apparently, the only "major" difference you can offer is that O'Neill went to a Final Four. Of course, he did so with a senior-laden team of guys he didn't even recruit, i.e. Sean Elliot, Steve Kerr, Tom Tolbert.

If there are other major differences in their resumes, please share. I'm sure you can nitpick a place or two where their resumes are not perfectly identical.

Does this mean Williams will have success similar to O'Neill? Of course not. But it's remarkable that some are outraged over Buzz's hiring when the only success MU has had over the past two decades is under coaches with similar resumes.

[Chili]

So you are comparing having Kevin coming into the MU situation as equal to that of the one Buzz is? Come on now - you cannot be serious? Also, Kevin had just gone to the Final Four with Zona.

Actually, yeah. Their resumes are remarkably similar.

- both three years of experience as an assistant at a major program
- both have reputations as a top-level recruiter
- both had a series of stops at lower-level programs before landing in a major conference
- both have doubts/questions/uncertainties about actual coaching skills
- both in early-30s when landed first head head-coaching gig

Apparently, the only "major" difference you can offer is that O'Neill went to a Final Four. Of course, he did so with a senior-laden team of guys he didn't even recruit, i.e. Sean Elliot, Steve Kerr, Tom Tolbert.

If there are other major differences in their resumes, please share. I'm sure you can nitpick a place or two where their resumes are not perfectly identical.

Does this mean Williams will have success similar to O'Neill? Of course not. But it's remarkable that some are outraged over Buzz's hiring when the only success MU has had over the past two decades is under coaches with similar resumes.

\

But is the situation similar? I think not.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

So you are comparing having Kevin coming into the MU situation as equal to that of the one Buzz is? Come on now - you cannot be serious? Also, Kevin had just gone to the Final Four with Zona.

Actually, yeah. Their resumes are remarkably similar.

- both three years of experience as an assistant at a major program
- both have reputations as a top-level recruiter
- both had a series of stops at lower-level programs before landing in a major conference
- both have doubts/questions/uncertainties about actual coaching skills
- both in early-30s when landed first head head-coaching gig

Apparently, the only "major" difference you can offer is that O'Neill went to a Final Four. Of course, he did so with a senior-laden team of guys he didn't even recruit, i.e. Sean Elliot, Steve Kerr, Tom Tolbert.

If there are other major differences in their resumes, please share. I'm sure you can nitpick a place or two where their resumes are not perfectly identical.

Does this mean Williams will have success similar to O'Neill? Of course not. But it's remarkable that some are outraged over Buzz's hiring when the only success MU has had over the past two decades is under coaches with similar resumes.

Wow...anybody got a shovel?

Both Crean and O'Neill were very highly regarded assistants at major programs (edited) coming off of Final Four appearances.

Both would have likely been snapped up -- if not that very year -- than in the subsequent year.

If we hadn't hired Buzz Williams he would have been looking for a head coaching job for several years and may never had gotten one. This is not disputable. His resume does not suggest that he is a major conference head coach...not even close, really. How can you argue that it does? It's enough to suggest that you are trying to "spin" this hire for another reason.

I'm going to support the team, but to claim it's not legitimate for fans to question Marquette's decision making is idiotic.

[Pakuni]

But is the situation similar? I think not.

And therein lies the rub.
Some of you guys, IMO, are much too focused on the process and/or the circumstances rather than the results. Perhaps that's understandable, given that it likely will take 2-3 years to truly know the results.

Regardless, it seems the major complaints seem to be:

1. Marquette should have taken longer to name a coach
2. As a more established program, MU should have exhausted its opportunties with more established coaches before looking to promote an assistant.

As far as I can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with whether or not Buzz Williams will be a good or bad head coach. Buzz will be no better whether they hired him the moment Tom Crean resigned or two weeks later.  Likewise, Buzz Williams' success or failure is not dependent upon the number of more experienced coaches Marquette contacted before hiring him.

If your other complaint is that MU should have hired (insert name here) instead, please tell me who and what makes that person more likely to succeed. Please keep your list to coaches actually interested in the job, i.e. no Bennett or Miller, and please keep in mind the recent history of mid-major coaches hired to run Big East programs (Welsh, Wainwright, McCullum, etc.).

[Pakuni]

If we hadn't hired Buzz Williams he would have been looking for a head coaching job for several years and may never had gotten one. This is not disputable.

Well, since you say it so emphatically, it must be true.
Never mind the fact that Williams, with an even thinner resume than the one he has now, already landed a head coaching job.

It's enough to suggest that you are trying to "spin" this hire for another reason.

 

I'm going to support the team, but to claim it's not legitimate for fans to question Marquette's decision making is idiotic.

When exactly did I make that claim? Oh, that's right ... never.
Question it all you want.
On the other hand, what's truly idiotic is claiming that there is no rationale whatsoever for the hiring. It may prove to be a bad hire, but it's not one done without some reasoning.

[Nukem2]

Pakuni, I agree.  Also, I think that there is not much coaching movement this year as there has been so much the last two years and also there are a lot of potential guys who simply want to stay where they are because of location, talent on hand, newness to the job or inertia.  also, the list of potentials is very thin this year.  Hard to get BCS guys to move unless there is a perceived significant advancement and one really does not want to get underachieving BCS HC's.  So, one is stuck with a few mid-major guys who frankly are not all that attractive or one needs to walk the plank with an untested "attractive" high major assistant who may or may not pan out.  Basketball Times had a list of "attractive" coaches and assistants last week.  Frankly, I was underwhelemd other than Sean Miller (who obviously has a good thing going and is probably waiting for an "eliite" opening).

[77ncaachamps]

I don't hate Buzz.

With that said, I support the TEAM on the front of the jerseys.

[MUSF]

But is the situation similar? I think not.

And therein lies the rub.
Some of you guys, IMO, are much too focused on the process and/or the circumstances rather than the results. Perhaps that's understandable, given that it likely will take 2-3 years to truly know the results.

Regardless, it seems the major complaints seem to be:

1. Marquette should have taken longer to name a coach
2. As a more established program, MU should have exhausted its opportunties with more established coaches before looking to promote an assistant.

As far as I can tell, neither of these issues have anything to do with whether or not Buzz Williams will be a good or bad head coach. Buzz will be no better whether they hired him the moment Tom Crean resigned or two weeks later.  Likewise, Buzz Williams' success or failure is not dependent upon the number of more experienced coaches Marquette contacted before hiring him.

If your other complaint is that MU should have hired (insert name here) instead, please tell me who and what makes that person more likely to succeed. Please keep your list to coaches actually interested in the job, i.e. no Bennett or Miller, and please keep in mind the recent history of mid-major coaches hired to run Big East programs (Welsh, Wainwright, McCullum, etc.).

+1

I share all of PRNs concerns and I don't fault him for voicing them. However, there is one thing that many seem to be overlooking. There is never a bad time to hire the right guy. Now, I'm not saying Buzz is absolutely the right guy. All the issues raised buy PRN and others ae valid and seem to suggest that we rushed into this hire and could have done better but let's hope that Cottingham and the BOT asked all of the tough questions and decided they couldn't let Buzz walk out the door. Granted, the administration has not always proved reliable in this area but all we can do is hope.

The bottom line is that none of us were in the room and all we have to go by is Buzz's resume and our own and others perceptions. Time will ultimately tell. I choose to give MU the benefit of the doubt here and will reserve judgment until Buzz has had the chance to actually coach and recruit. MU got it right last time. Let's pray they did it again.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pakuni, do you think the national reputation of KO and Crean as assistants is the same as Buzz?  Let's forget "process" and "circumstances" and move to just the reputation of the assistant coaches.

If I recall correctly, O'Neill was voted at the coaches convention as the #1 recruiter and #1 assistant coach in the NCAA DI in 1988.  Crean was regarded along with a few others as very hot assistants nationally in 1999.

I think that is a fair question to ask.  You said their resumes are the same or similar, perhaps you can show me an equivalent rating that would help to quantify your statement...let alone the pedigree of the programs of Arizona and Michigan State vs Texas A&M/Marquette in comparison.

Now, as it relates to "process" and "circumstances"....yes, that plays a significant role in my calculation.  Different situations mean different solutions, different hires, different outlooks.  I contend that Buzz would be here today, April 12th to hire just as we was available April 5th.

[downtown85]

They were both established assistant coaches at big time programs. Not a 9 month green horn. crap, a year ago not one person on this board would have been cuming in their boxers over Buzz, but now since he has saved some recruiters he is John Wooden. I wish I knew what his philosophy's were when it comes to hoops, that might help quell some of the uneasy feelings a lot of people have about this hire. All we know is he plays winning basketball. WTF is that?

Kevin O'Neill had three seasons experience as an assistant coach at a major program (Arizona) before landing the Marquette head-coaching job.

Buzz Williams has three years experience as an assistant coach at a major program (A&M and Marquette) before landing the Marquette head-coaching job.

Correct, and with MU coming off their worst 5 year period in their history, that gamble was worth risking.  Couldn't get any worse at that point.   That's what many of us are so puzzled by, the gamble.  The situation in 1989 when Kevin was hired is so dramatically different to 2007 it's not even in the same universe, yet the same gamble was taken. 

Independent vs Big East
Two straight losing seasons vs three straight NCAA appearance seasons
The Old Gym vs the Al



Hopefully the same results as that 1989 hire, but that doesn't change the gamble/risk is higher then it needed to be.

Chicos,

Your analysis is correct.  It is a gamble.  A gamble with a lot less upside for MU than some might think.

Let's imagine the optimistic scenario.  Let's suppose Buzz takes our veteren team to the final four next year.  Let's say he leverages that and his God given recruiting talent to get Jamil Wilson and a bunch of other stud recruits in 2009 and 2010.  Let's say we are consistently ranked in the top 10 over the next 3 or 4 years and regularly make it to the elite 8.  We would all be big Buzz fans.  However, Buzz has made it clear (in the Homer interview and elsewhere) that he doesn't know much about Marquette or the Big East and the move to an assistant coach was a "career move."  Nothing wrong with that but he will jump as soon as the alums of University of Texas or even Oklahoma state open their check books and lure him to the big 12.  In other words, it is a gamble where there are some benefits to MU but most of the benefits, if the gamble works, accrue to Buzz and not the University.  Then, if the track record of the current AD and administration hold true, they will roll the dice again in a couple of years.  It is not a formula for success.  A little more thought and vision would have gone a long way in the hiring process.  

One might say that any coach may be lured away no matter who we hired.  However, I still believe that there were 6 to 8 coaches that would have been great hires, were or would have been interested, and weren't properly vetted. There are absolutely dozens and dozens of coaches who are better than Buzz on paper.  It is a risky trade with little upside for MU.

[Pakuni]

I think that is a fair question to ask.  You said their resumes are the same or similar, perhaps you can show me an equivalent rating that would help to quantify your statement...let alone the pedigree of the programs of Arizona and Michigan State vs Texas A&M/Marquette in comparison.

You can ask the question, but it's ultimately irrelevant. Whether O'Neill had a better rep or not makes Williams no more or less likely to succeed. I do know that Williams has a stellar rep as a recruiter. Would you have felt better about the hire if Williams had spent the last year at a more prominent program like Kentucky? He could very easily have done so, but I don't see how that makes him a better (or worse) coach.

Now, as it relates to "process" and "circumstances"....yes, that plays a significant role in my calculation.  Different situations mean different solutions, different hires, different outlooks.  I contend that Buzz would be here today, April 12th to hire just as we was available April 5th.

You may be right.
Now, please explain how waiting another week would have benefited Marquette.

I can tell you we wouldn't feel as secure knowing DJ and Jerel are coming back.
I can tell you we wouldn't have had someone in NJ re-recruiting one of the team's top recruits.
I can tell you there wouldn't be signals out there that Erik Williams is standing by his verbal to MU.
I can tell you there wouldn't be similar indications regarding Joe Fulce and Chris Otule.
I can tell you we wouldn't have had someone in contact with Jamil Wilson and the other key Class of 2009 recruits.
I can tell you we wouldn't have somebody out there today looking to fill a scholarship opening created by the Christopherson/Nick Williams situations.
I can tell you we wouldn't have had such warm-and-fuzzies coming out of the wards banquet (and I put that last because it's of relatively minor importance).

IMO, those are all negatives associated with waiting another week. What are the positives?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Never mind the fact that Williams, with an even thinner resume than the one he has now, already landed a head coaching job.

Exactly. And the fact that he left after a single year is precisely why he should have been waiting a LONG time before being considered for any job, let alone a job heading a BIG EAST team that finished the season ranked 25th in the country. This is not to mention the fact that ALL of his knowledge is in Texas and he admitted he knew nothing of Marquette or the Big East at this time a year ago. Nothing. This is a college basketball coach.

Anybody who is encouraged or enthusiastic about this hire is not being truthful.

[MUSF]

IMO, those are all negatives associated with waiting another week. What are the positives?

Getting the best coach possible.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying but any way you slice it, Buzz is a pretty big roll of the dice.
A roll of the dice that many rightfully question.

[Marquette84]

Now, as it relates to "process" and "circumstances"....yes, that plays a significant role in my calculation.  Different situations mean different solutions, different hires, different outlooks.  I contend that Buzz would be here today, April 12th to hire just as we was available April 5th.

You still haven't yet come up with an explanation as to what would have changed for the positive with another week. 

The same guys would have been available.  They would have all had the same plusses and minuses.

Unless you were banking on Miller or Bennett to change their minds, another week would have had no upside.  However, it would have had all of the downsides that Pakuni listed.

Here's a serious question for you--do you think that is is possible that the Arizona people and Michigan state people knew how good O'Neill and Crean were before the rest of the world?  It may have taken MU until 1989 to know that O'Neill was good, based largely on that national poll of recruiters.  But wouldn't you have to admit that the Arizona staff were the first to know that Kevin O'Neill was going to be a great coach in 1987 or 1988?

Second question--was there anything different about O'Neill before he gained a national reputation?  Or did he have the same potential when only the Arizona folks knew how good he was--the only difference being how many people knew how good he was?

Third, MU got to see a lot of assistants at MU that later went on to head coaching jobs--Buckley, Horn, Kowalczak, Panaggio, Green--they got to see how these coaches performed as assistants, and later as head coaches.  It is possible they saw consistencies between Williams and Horn that would have led them to believe that he was capabile of leading a team?

Fourth, what is unreasonable about concluding that a low-major head coach, no matter how successful, is more risky than an assistant that you already know, especially when you can make informed comparisons to guys like Darrin Horn and Tim Buckley.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think that is a fair question to ask.  You said their resumes are the same or similar, perhaps you can show me an equivalent rating that would help to quantify your statement...let alone the pedigree of the programs of Arizona and Michigan State vs Texas A&M/Marquette in comparison.

You can ask the question, but it's ultimately irrelevant. Whether O'Neill had a better rep or not makes Williams no more or less likely to succeed. I do know that Williams has a stellar rep as a recruiter. Would you have felt better about the hire if Williams had spent the last year at a more prominent program like Kentucky? He could very easily have done so, but I don't see how that makes him a better (or worse) coach.

Now, as it relates to "process" and "circumstances"....yes, that plays a significant role in my calculation.  Different situations mean different solutions, different hires, different outlooks.  I contend that Buzz would be here today, April 12th to hire just as we was available April 5th.

You may be right.
Now, please explain how waiting another week would have benefited Marquette.

I can tell you we wouldn't feel as secure knowing DJ and Jerel are coming back.
I can tell you we wouldn't have had someone in NJ re-recruiting one of the team's top recruits.
I can tell you there wouldn't be signals out there that Erik Williams is standing by his verbal to MU.
I can tell you there wouldn't be similar indications regarding Joe Fulce and Chris Otule.
I can tell you we wouldn't have had someone in contact with Jamil Wilson and the other key Class of 2009 recruits.
I can tell you we wouldn't have somebody out there today looking to fill a scholarship opening created by the Christopherson/Nick Williams situations.
I can tell you we wouldn't have had such warm-and-fuzzies coming out of the wards banquet (and I put that last because it's of relatively minor importance).

IMO, those are all negatives associated with waiting another week. What are the positives?

Wait a minute now, you brought up resumes yesterday.  You think being voted the number one assistant coach in the nation isn't resume worthy and something a bit more to get excitable about as a perspective recruit/ fan?

All of the examples you gave (the banquet, etc), are all short term.  I'm thinking long term.  Next year is almost a built in success unless the guy can't chew gum and walk at the same time.  Short term was never the issue, long term is what you build for.  I'm thrilled we had a great banquet, that will go a long way for success in 2010, 2011, etc.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Now, as it relates to "process" and "circumstances"....yes, that plays a significant role in my calculation.  Different situations mean different solutions, different hires, different outlooks.  I contend that Buzz would be here today, April 12th to hire just as we was available April 5th.

You still haven't yet come up with an explanation as to what would have changed for the positive with another week. 

The same guys would have been available.  They would have all had the same plusses and minuses.

Unless you were banking on Miller or Bennett to change their minds, another week would have had no upside.  However, it would have had all of the downsides that Pakuni listed.

Here's a serious question for you--do you think that is is possible that the Arizona people and Michigan state people knew how good O'Neill and Crean were before the rest of the world?  It may have taken MU until 1989 to know that O'Neill was good, based largely on that national poll of recruiters.  But wouldn't you have to admit that the Arizona staff were the first to know that Kevin O'Neill was going to be a great coach in 1987 or 1988?

Second question--was there anything different about O'Neill before he gained a national reputation?  Or did he have the same potential when only the Arizona folks knew how good he was--the only difference being how many people knew how good he was?

Third, MU got to see a lot of assistants at MU that later went on to head coaching jobs--Buckley, Horn, Kowalczak, Panaggio, Green--they got to see how these coaches performed as assistants, and later as head coaches.  It is possible they saw consistencies between Williams and Horn that would have led them to believe that he was capabile of leading a team?

Fourth, what is unreasonable about concluding that a low-major head coach, no matter how successful, is more risky than an assistant that you already know, especially when you can make informed comparisons to guys like Darrin Horn and Tim Buckley.

I can't predict what would have happened 84.  But I know for certain Buzz would still be here a week later, so why not try and get a Brownwell (we didn't even bother) or Les or make a run at someone more interesting.  Buzz was here and wasn't going anywhere.  So what exactly was the negatives....you're right, I can't point out for sure there would be a hire in that extra week, but we all know for damn sure Buzz was still here.  What are the negatives...a banquet would have to be delayed a week?  Taylor still wouldn't get his release yet, so no issue there....all it does is delay yesterday's meeting.  Nick Williams was still going to get his release, no issue there.  What exactly was the downside in spending an extra few days to make a few more runs at someone more established that had better than a 14-17 record?  If you don't hit a homerun, guess what...Brent Buzz Williams is right there happily ready to take $1.16 million per year and with a big smile on his face.

It either means MU gave up early because they struck out with everyone they tried.  Or they thought Buzz was the #3 candidate.  Both situations pose interesting questions.  If it's the former, then MU needs to really ascertain why.  Was it being in the Big East?  Was it the AD?  Why.  If it's the former, we better pray like hell they are great judges of basketball coaching talent...I know Cottingham has been instrumental the last 20 years in hiring coaches....oh wait...

Next year is a given...it's not next year I'm worried about, it's the years after.

Off to Little League.  It's been a blast. 

[THEGYMBAR]

It is pretty sad that we are hoping to compare this hire to Kevin O'Neill. KO put some juice into a dead program, but hardly a major success. I remember vividly walking into BC early in KO's career and feeling a buzz in the joint, especially against ND and Michigan. It was 1st time we had that "feeling" since Rick left.

All that said, KO is at best the 3rd since AL and the coaches ahead of him were not Hall of Famers. I pray to God that this hire is better than KO. I think Buzz has work cut out to prove better than KO. If he doesn't this will be a terrible hire.

Hiring KO had ZERO risk to it. We sucked and he was hungry for head job. If that failed we go from Top 100 team to top 125 team, big deal. The stakes are so much higher in 2008.

[Marquette84]

If you don't hit a homerun, guess what...Brent Buzz Williams is right there happily ready to take $1.16 million per year and with a big smile on his face.

It either means MU gave up early because they struck out with everyone they tried.  Or they thought Buzz was the #3 candidate.  Both situations pose interesting questions.  If it's the former, then MU needs to really ascertain why.  Was it being in the Big East?  Was it the AD? 

Next year is a given...it's not next year I'm worried about, it's the years after.

I disagree that Brad Brownell or Jim Les would ever be considered a "homerun." 

Miller or Calipari or Bennett?  Sure. 

[Pakuni]

Wait a minute now, you brought up resumes yesterday.  You think being voted the number one assistant coach in the nation isn't resume worthy and something a bit more to get excitable about as a perspective recruit/ fan?

Being voted the best recruiter is great and O'Neill was an excellent choice for Marquette.  But it doesn't change the fact that his and Williams' resumes were/are very similar when they landed the Marquette job.

All of the examples you gave (the banquet, etc), are all short term.  I'm thinking long term.  Next year is almost a built in success unless the guy can't chew gum and walk at the same time.  Short term was never the issue, long term is what you build for.  I'm thrilled we had a great banquet, that will go a long way for success in 2010, 2011, etc.   

How did I guess that you would pick on the one thing I listed last and said wasn't very important? Stunning.

It's interesting that you consider reaching out to Taylor, Otule and Fulce as "short term" given that they're guys who could be with the program in 2011 and 2012. Or that reaching out to a high school junior like Jamil Wilson is "short term."  Or that keeping a top 50 recruit would could be at MU through 2013 is "short term."

What you don't seem to understand is that the administration very likely did not believe Les or Brownell were better candidates than Buzz. Their failure to contact those guys wasn't a result of them hurrying. It was a result of them thinking they had a better candidate in-house. And if they had who they believed to be a better candidate in-house, why wait any longer? Why contact/interview options 5,6,7 and 8 when option 3 or 4 is there and wants the job?

Your protestations to the otherwise, this is about Buzz and your belief that he's not a good/good enough coach. There's nothing wrong with believing that. But it's not the process you're upset at. Had Sean Miller been introduced as MU's next head coach 24 hours after Tom Crean landed in Bloomington, I'd wager to guess you're not here wondering why the administration didn't take the time to interview Jim Les and Brad Brownell.

And I'm still waiting for all the benefits of waiting longer. We all understand you believe Williams would have been there a week later. I'm not so clear on why you think the administration should have waited if, as seems clear, he was their guy.

As for your shot at Cottingham ... was he the lone person involved the hiring process? No.
Were guys who know a thing or two about the game and hiring coaches involved?
Yes.