When will this fallacy ever end!! Al Mcguire had more to do with getting Mu in the BE than Crean by building a nationally recognized program. Was Crean the reason we got invited to the GMC and the C-USa too!!!?? >:(
EddieDswang wrote: I think we're all a bit wiser now......we've been sensitized a bit when it comes to our head coach.
Whether Buzz reaches the Final Four or his teams accomplish great things, this time around there will be no false hype....no intrigue....no behind-the-scenes tirades....no hidden agendas. It's not about him. It's about Marquette. He's made that plain and simple.
What started out 9 years ago so positive, flushed itself down the toilet with a few final years of ego-maniacal actions. We at Marquette deserve better. Win or lose, there will be dignity....there will be class. With Buzz, this is what I've seen.
I enjoy the games....talking aobut the "what ifs".....the "leave it all on the court" performances of our college athletes.....potential recruits...and the rest. I don't enjoy the periphary crap that clouded our program before the exodus of old Tommy Twotone.
I want to be entertained. I want to be proud of my university. I want to see our team grow on and off he court. I want a candid and honest leader (who could some day leave us for the Texas job....but I'm sure he will do it in the right way).
We just might have it all in Buzz.
I can see why you are bitter about the way the Crean era ended...but he recruited Wade, got us to the Four...did a great job pushing MU, the donors, the architects to build the AL...he hired Buzz at the right time for us...that might turn out to be bigger than getting Wade....but the most important result of the Crean Era...and the most important thing to happen to MU ...bigger than '77....was...drum roll....JOING THE BIG EAST!!
....the triplets came here to compete in the Big East...the job was attractive to Buzz and others because it is a Big East job!!!! MU is on TV-every game!!! MU is on Big Monday...record admissions...non hoops athletes-Mike Van Sickle came here to be in The Big East and have a chance to set the standard for the program...other athletes are on the way....MU can now survive Al retiring...coaches leaving like the Colts from Baltimore ...all because we are in the Big East...
...so point out all the negatives you have seen since '99...and I say what has happened over the last 9 yrs has been great...perhaps even a miracle...in '99 we are playing Dayton...down by 40...deep in the CUSA cellar....and in garbage time, an MU player grabs a missed Dayton FT and dunks it in the wrong basket...Homer turns to George[the game was not on TV] and GT is speechless... I remember thinking ..'Where is this program going?' I would not have sold my soul to get into the BIg East at that time, but I would have thought about it. Now I don't have to..
A few weeks ago I received an email from a poster who asked me after I defended Crean...'JD, when did you crawl up Tom Crean's ass and die?' I responded 'I was wondering why it was getting so dark; I thought it just did that naturally until Dec 22...and then it got lighter.' But there are negatives with every coach...in every program...I learned when about 2 weeks after our Duke loss in '94, KO was walking across the campus in a Tenn orange sweat suit, that no matter what, I will always love Marquette more than the coaches....I attended MU...I live in Milw...KO was a mercenary....but KO also saved the program by getting Mac, Logt , Key and Tony Miller...he found a better opportunity for himself and his family....I can live with that...I shook his hand, thanked him for his hard work and service to our program....Crean got us to the Big East and hired Buzz as an asst....no way Buzz gets hired at MU otherwise....so to TC, thanks and Godspeed....just don't mess with Buzz's targeted recruits....and the next time we play Indiana in the Great Alaska Shootout, we will kick your ass!
I don't know what from this post is yours and what is ganked directly from the other board...
Wrong. MU getting invited to the Big East had more to do with the fact that Mike Tranghese is one of Crean's friends than any other factor. It didn't matter what Al did 30 years ago, just like it didn't matter what Ed Jucker did at Cincy 40 years ago or what Ray Meyer did at DePaul. If Crean wasn't there, MU would have been a long shot at best. With Crean there, MU was a lock due to his pre-existing friendship with the commissioner.
I just hope you felt better after that rant, Mr. Hayward!
Merry Christmas!
Creans relationship with Tranghese are you kidding me!! That is laughable if not so silly!! Sorry but When the BE went looking for 5 teams they wanted schools that fit the geographical and media markets that were acceptable, they wanted schools that fit the institutional and academic stipulations that they set. They also wanted schools that had terrific tradition in basketbal of football. Depaul anf Marquette met all of those requirements. Was Jerry Wainwright friends with Tranghese or was the traditon that RayMeyer built with Deapul BBall , more importnat? Mu would be in the BE right now if MU had hired someone different in 1999 and had middle of the road success over the next 5 years. Tom Crean had absolutely zero, nada, zilch to do with it. And i have said that since long before that clown left.
Quote from: mwbauer7 on December 25, 2008, 05:22:02 PM
I don't know what from this post is yours and what is ganked directly from the other board...
The part with the grammatical errors is his.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 25, 2008, 07:14:44 PM
Creans relationship with Tranghese are you kidding me!! That is laughable if not so silly!! Sorry but When the BE went looking for 5 teams they wanted schools that fit the geographical and media markets that were acceptable, they wanted schools that fit the institutional and academic stipulations that they set. They also wanted schools that had terrific tradition in basketbal of football. Depaul anf Marquette met all of those requirements. Was Jerry Wainwright friends with Tranghese or was the traditon that RayMeyer built with Deapul BBall , more importnat? Mu would be in the BE right now if MU had hired someone different in 1999 and had middle of the road success over the next 5 years. Tom Crean had absolutely zero, nada, zilch to do with it. And i have said that since long before that clown left.
And you've been wrong all along. Tranghese has talked about how he greatly admires Crean, how he wanted to get MU because he wanted to work with Crean again(they met when Crean was with Pitt), how he thinks Crean was great for the Big East etc. It wasn't about what Al had done 25 years before, it was about Crean and what he was doing.
membership is decided upon by the university presidents...and Tranghese very well may have admired Crean...but conference admission is not based on one person nor should it ever be ......people come and go...the university presidents never met Crean nor would they put more than .000001% of their decsiosn making process on the head coach of the school's bball team. bma you seem like an intelligent enogh person it is much bigger than that and I would admit to that even if I loved Crean. Crean had as much to do with it as Wainwright at Deapual. It was the university and the athletic tradtion not the mens bball coach at the time.
if it happened in 1994 and oneil was the coach Mu would have been invited.
If it happened in 1997 and Dean ws the caoch Mu would have been invited.
It happened in 2003 and Crean was the coach Mu was invited
The Big East expanded in the past and had multiple opportunities to add MU prior to the school actually joining in 2005. MU was an option in 1980 when they added Villanova and again in 1982 when Pitt came on board. It was only a few years after Al retired, but MU didn't get in. They had the opportunity to add MU in 1991 when Miami, Va Tech and Temple(Football Only) joined, but they didn't. They had the opportunity again in 1995 when WVU, Rutgers and Notre Dame joined and again they chose not to.
It wasn't about what MU had been under McGuire, it was about what MU was at the time under Crean. Just like it was about what Louisville is under Pitino, not what they had been under Crum...and what Cincinnati was under Huggins not what they had been under Jucker.
The fact that schools like MU, DePaul, Cincinnati and Louisville had historic coaches had nothing to do with them being added. It was about the programs they were at the time and what they could bring to the conference in the future. If MU didn't have Crean and hadn't just gone to the Final Four, they would not have been invited.
...and then there's Seton Hall. Tell me again what their accomplishments were that got them into the Big East and not LaSalle, for example.
Quote from: bma725 on December 25, 2008, 08:29:09 PM
The Big East expanded in the past and had multiple opportunities to add MU prior to the school actually joining in 2005. MU was an option in 1980 when they added Villanova and again in 1982 when Pitt came on board. It was only a few years after Al retired, but MU didn't get in. They had the opportunity to add MU in 1991 when Miami, Va Tech and Temple(Football Only) joined, but they didn't. They had the opportunity again in 1995 when WVU, Rutgers and Notre Dame joined and again they chose not to.
It wasn't about what MU had been under McGuire, it was about what MU was at the time under Crean. Just like it was about what Louisville is under Pitino, not what they had been under Crum...and what Cincinnati was under Huggins not what they had been under Jucker.
The fact that schools like MU, DePaul, Cincinnati and Louisville had historic coaches had nothing to do with them being added. It was about the programs they were at the time and what they could bring to the conference in the future. If MU didn't have Crean and hadn't just gone to the Final Four, they would not have been invited.
So why did DePaul get in...Tranghese must be part of the Chicago political machine :)
I typically agree with you BMA, and I'm sure having TC as a head coach didn't hurt, but in some way or another it always comes back to Al, in my opinion. In one post you seem to say it was because TC and Tranghese were friends, and in another, you say it's because TC had rebuilt a strong program. I have little "inside" information prior to TC's arrival, but I tend to think Bill Cords had more to do with it, and maybe he understood TC's ties to Tranghese would help. It still goes back to Al, and one of the major problems I have with TC is how he made it seem like MU's history had nothing in comparison to IU's. I'll take Al over Bobby Knight anyday!
Merry Christmas to all you MU fans...I now have my fix for the day.
Quote from: bma725 on December 25, 2008, 08:29:09 PM
The Big East expanded in the past and had multiple opportunities to add MU prior to the school actually joining in 2005. MU was an option in 1980 when they added Villanova and again in 1982 when Pitt came on board. It was only a few years after Al retired, but MU didn't get in. They had the opportunity to add MU in 1991 when Miami, Va Tech and Temple(Football Only) joined, but they didn't. They had the opportunity again in 1995 when WVU, Rutgers and Notre Dame joined and again they chose not to.
It wasn't about what MU had been under McGuire, it was about what MU was at the time under Crean. Just like it was about what Louisville is under Pitino, not what they had been under Crum...and what Cincinnati was under Huggins not what they had been under Jucker.
The fact that schools like MU, DePaul, Cincinnati and Louisville had historic coaches had nothing to do with them being added. It was about the programs they were at the time and what they could bring to the conference in the future. If MU didn't have Crean and hadn't just gone to the Final Four, they would not have been invited.
Marquette resisted joining any conference for years and years. They thought, incorrectly so, that going the independent route was in their best interest, especially as long as ND remained an independent also. When the NCAA kept giving conference champs and conference tourney champs automatic bids to the dance, MU had to rethink their strategy. At the point in time that the Warriors joined the Big East, it was going to happen, Crean or no Crean, because it was right for both the school and the conference.
Bma i undertsand you opinion but really belive you to be wrong, for example sure Pitino is a great coach and will keep louisville strong for the foreseeable future and has BE ties. But they get in regardless of their current coach they got in deu to strong football and the wonderful bball tradtition established by Crum. Conference and university deciions are not made based on such short tenures and impredicatblility of a current coach.
also things change over time as others say at one time Mu was not intersted in conference affiliation in the 70's and 80's independents held much power. Al on numerous times said he never wanted to be in a confence. As time went on that changed. Air travel, chartered flights etc chnged dramatically, television coverage dramatically. Your examples of previous expansion are irrelavant Pittsburgh, Temple, Villanova , gegraphically demograpically etc. all made more sense at the time, even Miami and Va tech as the BE at that time was attempting to establish there Fball presence made big time sense. The first geographic stretch was for Notre Dame, and with their cache reaching ot to the midwest is more than understandable. If nothing else Miami and ND proved to the big east that that travel and distance were not big ostacles at all to building a strong conference. When the time came schools like Maine, Umass, Hofstra, Fordham, etc. other more geograpical fits were not considered. Scholls with all the attractions that i previously mentioned including financial commitment were invited. Crean had as much to do with it as he had to do with Mu being invited to the C-USa a few year previous. If nothing else Mu's commitment to pay Crean what they were had more to do with it than the actual individual on the sidelines.
I don't understand peoples' need to distribute credit and/or blame solely on one person. A LOT of people have helped and some have hurt MU along the way.
There are a lot of little details that can be debated, but without Al, Hank, Rick, Bob, Kevin, Mike and Tom and Buzz, MU wouldn't be in the same position it is now.
Accept that they all deserve some credit for the good stuff and some blame for the not-so-good stuff.
Annoying thread.
Don't forget to give credit to Hickey! Agreed, annoying.
Quote from: ATWizJr on December 26, 2008, 06:41:01 AM
Don't forget to give credit to Hickey! Agreed, annoying.
Agreed about annoyance factor, as it is impossible to know what would have happened had we hired someone other than Crean. Although I am in the camp of we'd be in there anyway (as long as Deane's successor wasn't a complete Dukiet-like guy) because they wanted a non-football school with as good a basketball program as was possible in a good-sized market that wasn't already covered by the league and wasn't too far west. Who was left to take?
FWIW, I am as far from an insider as an alumnus can be, but I arrived early (worried about traffic from CT) to one of those alumni pre-game parties during our first Big East season before the Seton Hall game and was lucky enough to have an uninterrupted 10 minute conversation with Bill Cords. Among the many things he said was that Notre Dame deserved as much or more credit than anybody for getting us in the Big East, as they insisted on us and DePaul and used all of their influence to make it happen.
Top 25 in attendance, strong financial commitment to basketball, #9 all time in tourney appearances etc. all were huge factors and we were those long before Crean showed up.
Big East? Come on....it is about the TV $$$. Big East lost Boston and added the Chicago DMA. Lost Miami and gained Tampa. Lost Blacksburg/Roanake in Virginia Tech and gained Louisville, Cinci, and Milwaukee. In a small sense, they retained a presence in Boston with Providence with a bleedover. These were all gains in terms of TV market size and more so, the right purchasing power demographics. Throw in the fact the BE now has contiguous coverage over half the country and you have the first national conference. Marquette, DePaul, Louisville, and Cinci all have long histories of supporting their sports programs and there was a good fit with already existing rivalries even with the BE schools--Memphis has/did not (not to mention the history scandals/poor academics at Memphis.Memphis State).
USF, Louisville, Cinci replaced the three football schools and have since shown their success. While the ACC has shown that, besides the ex-BE football teams, they are not really a football conference first--and are still just a "southern conference". UNC and Duke bball with all the ACC ESPN announcers are their only national exposure athletic strength schools in reality.
ESPN is responsible for both these conferences. IMO, the BE has won out. Will the BE continue to tweak, especially in regard to football? Yes, I can see Memphis being an athletic fit. It would also help matters if DePaul stepped up their investment/commitment in their major sport.
MU credit? Cords. Also, TC was and is still a great salesman. Made for ESPN. Give him his due.
pardener you make a great argument all of it dead on correct on the whole demographic marketing portion of the reasoning Mu was agreat fit....and then say give Crean his due....yet Crean had nothing to do with any of what you state.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 26, 2008, 09:40:28 AM
pardener you make a great argument all of it dead on correct on the whole demographic marketing portion of the reasoning Mu was agreat fit....and then say give Crean his due....yet Crean had nothing to do with any of what you state.
dude, give it up.
Your obsession with only giving credit to certain people involved with MU but not others is retarded.
EVERYBODY deserves credit, from the ushers, to the University president.
OK? ::)
I give credit to Steve Novak for making those huge 3's against Holy Cross and Mizzou.
Quote from: reinko on December 26, 2008, 09:49:31 AM
I give credit to Steve Novak for making those huge 3's against Holy Cross and Mizzou.
More so Diener versus Holy Cross
Good call, my bad.
But I think you got my point ;)
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 26, 2008, 09:40:28 AM
pardener you make a great argument all of it dead on correct on the whole demographic marketing portion of the reasoning Mu was agreat fit....and then say give Crean his due....yet Crean had nothing to do with any of what you state.
What I left unstated on TC is all that he recreated along with the players he brought in. Blowing up Midnight Madness, renewal of student interest, hype, contests, Gameday, merchandising, shoe deals, ties to Izzo, student enrollment, etc... and more so, TC's national reputation after the F4. ESPN=BE and TC was all over it--TV, radio, web, even print. You need a quote, call TC. TC's reputation/spin, and therefore Marquette's at the time (yes, building on Al, Hank, Rick, KO), had TC as the national face. Notice I use the word "national". Makes for good TV ratings and fan interest across the US. MU attendance, winning % and graduation rates didn't suffer either.
In Milwaukee or Wisco, where it is about the alums, ex-players, meet n greets, hs gyms and the local press, it was a different story...which after a while, led to the inevitable parting. It was time for him to move on--and how he did it was low class, but let's face it, TC was the charismatic national face of the program. He was successful at it and this helped when entering the BE.
Buzz seems to be taking a different track than TC--building locally and nationally. Have you noticed the increase of Rosiak's and the JS coverage? Buzz is a good local quote, provides depth, is open. He reaches out to alums, ex-players, charities, hs coaches, even Bo & Jeter. That is a very different signal to me--although the alums are more cautious in willingness to accept him--that Buzz is here for the long haul. Again, this will play out with time. With Buzz, the national hype will only come with winning...as will the local acceptance.
Indeed, some things do get old.
There are a lot of reasons we were selected for the Big East.
The 1977 NCAA championship did not hurt us.
the 2003 final four did not hurt us.
But what really got us in is our tradition of having a successful clean program, which you can attribute to every coach and administration at MU, the fact that we were in a big city Milwaukee market and the fact that DePaul including Chicago market are 60 miles from Marquette. There is no way the Big East expands as far west as Milwaukee without also picking up Chicago.
For all the exposure and charisma you claim Crean brought to MU, he still couldn't rec ruit a big man to save his life. In fact, given the FF bump, his recruiting flat out sucked. Buzz has him beaten on that level already.
Crean is about as charismatic as a fence post. His entire personality is gleamed from leadership books.
I am curious what TC did to Red, 4ever, and MRHAYWARD.
Did he steal your lady back in high school? Run over your dog? Burn your house down? Take your mom out for a steak dinner and not call her?
We get it. You thought he was snakeoil salesman.
Quote from: reinko on December 26, 2008, 11:45:31 AM
I am curious what TC did to Red, 4ever, and MRHAYWARD.
Did he steal your lady back in high school? Run over your dog? Burn your house down? Take your mom out for a steak lobster dinner and not call her?
We get it. You thought he was snakeoil salesman.
Please don't insult snakeoil salesmen like that.
Mods, any chance we can get an "Ignore Thread" option to go along with the "Ignore User" button...?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 26, 2008, 11:25:17 AM
For all the exposure and charisma you claim Crean brought to MU, he still couldn't rec ruit a big man to save his life. In fact, given the FF bump, his recruiting flat out sucked. Buzz has him beaten on that level already.
Crean's recruiting has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Don't twist this thread to meet your agenda.
You guys are letting your dislike of MU's previous coach cloud your judgment.
Tom Crean is
not the sole reason that MU is in the Big East.
However, it's not like he had NOTHING to do with it. He certainly played a (big) part.
You 3 (red, 4ever, hayward) speak in such absolute terms that it's insane.
Also, you have a great habit if not responding to logical rebuttals, but rather just moving on to a new thread.
I'll repeat what Bill Cords told me in San Diego and again in Anaheim....we wouldn't be in the Big East without Tom Crean. He said it was that simple.
Since he was the AD at the time we joined the Big East, I'll take his word on it.
By no means was he saying Crean was the only reason, that's never the case. It takes committment by many people, money, etc. But simply put, without Crean, we weren't going to be the Big East was the implication I got from him.
Don't underestimate what Bilsu is saying.
I realize a lot of you think Crean is Hitler but that doesn't change the facts we're in this conference, got to a Final Four, landed the current NBA's leading scorer, had the 2nd best run in MU history, graduated nearly everyone, etc, etc because of this guy.
I get a kick out of the fact TC could convince Mike Trangresse that he was staying at MU but he couldn't convince recruits (his shills will say his recruiting suffered b/c of the perception he was leaving) .
if we're throwing out absolutes I'll say we don't make the BE if Fr Wild doesn't modify student athlete requirements for a kid from Robbins, IL.
Finally, TC was an asset but so was not having a football team, so was not being located in Cinci (XU) or Dayton (Dayton), so was being a natural travel & rival school with DePaul and ND, so was being in the 34th largest DMA.
The irony is this entire thread is in response to something Dodds said. JD's a great guy with the heart of a saint but he's in the tank for TC as much as he is for Favre. There are some topics that are just best left untouched.
Clearly some of you got coal in your stockings--it's the only logical explanation for obsessing over coaches and their (lack of) involvement in conference changes instead of enjoying sweet christmas loot!
Honestly, with all this arguing you guys should be getting paid, right? I really want someone to call the Athletics department so this issue can be put to bed.
That was really the reasoning for my original post. The fact that certain boards are still attempting to cannonize the guy even while he is in Bloomington. Absolutely amazing how some are so completely oblivios to everything that has gone down over the years and still want to blindly canonize someone and give them credit for things they do not deserve.
PS ...cords is going to support his coach and of course he is going to give Crean credit, what would you expect him to do? Cords was the ultimate politiocian
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 10:10:26 AM
Absolutely amazing how some are so completely oblivios to everything that has gone down over the years and still want to blindly canonize someone and give them credit for things they do not deserve.
And yet, time and time again, when you're called to actually give some specifics on what "some are so completely oblivios [sic] to," you disappear. Apparently, its such petty stuff that you are afraid to even mention it.
Cords deserves credit for firing Deane and hiring Crean. Crean deserves credit for building a team worth of being invited to the Big East. Without both, we don't get invited. Period.
Its amazing that some here have such petty hatred that they cannot give credit even where due.
disappear?! coo koo i have made 4-5 posts in this thread, run along child
Cords told me that one on one, colleague to colleague as the two of us sat down for a private chat. He and I go back to 1987 and the point of the discussion was to talk about how far we had come as a school, program, etc.
What I find equally funny as that some of you don't want to accept reality of how pathetic we had come.
3 ncaa wins in TWENTY YEARS was the situation when Crean was hired. Think about it.
As for the "edxceptions" made for some kid from Robbins....was this any different then the same exceptions made by Wild for Alton Mason who had far worse academic issues going into MU? Of course not.
Exceptions have been made time and time again, sometimes with more flexibility then others. Of course then you have to ask yourself, if Crean was able to convince Wild that Wade was worth the risk then shouldn't Crean be acknowledged for doing so? Was Alton Mason worth that same risk? There are others we could go through all the way back to McGuire.
MU is not in the Big East without Crean and the accomplishments of the program under his direction. It can't be said any clearer. It doesn't mean he was the only one, but the fact of the matter is the timing of the Big East expansion happened at the same time MU got damn good again, went to a Final Four, won a CUSA title, had three NBA players on it's roster, was drawing 18600 to major games.
Timing is everything folks, call it luck, call it the alignment of the stars, call it whatever you like...but all those things happened when the opportunity presented itself and Crean was the captain of the ship.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 02:59:51 PM
disappear?! coo koo i have made 4-5 posts in this thread, run along child
Mark my words. You've always running away from threads when you're asked to come up with any specifics on Crean.
It's always this general "stuff thats gone down over the years" or "his true colors" or "coach-speak" or "people he screwed" or some other comment utterly lacking in specifics.
Yet, when you're asked to come up with examples, you disappear.
Note your post above--once again, you fail to give any examples whatsoever.
Quote from: Marquette84 on December 28, 2008, 11:32:23 AM
And yet, time and time again, when you're called to actually give some specifics on what "some are so completely oblivios [sic] to," you disappear. Apparently, its such petty stuff that you are afraid to even mention it.
+1
It seams like there is a group around here who likes to perform "Drive-by Creanings" where they quickly move in to remind everybody how "bad" Crean really is, and then are nowhere to be found when they are rebutted.
Alton Mason was an NCAA Clearinghouse Qualifier, Wade was not.
(Now who took his tests is another thing but that was not something Fr Wild or probably even Deane was privy too)
Quote from: DamonKeysContactLens on December 28, 2008, 05:00:11 PM
Alton Mason was an NCAA Clearinghouse Qualifier, Wade was not.
(Now who took his tests is another thing but that was not something Fr Wild or probably even Deane was privy too)
Alton Mason they knew couldn't read above a grade level that permits admission to a university like MU. There have been exceptions over the years on many many players.
Crean convinced Wild it was a good risk to take Wade...do you believe that is not the case? If you believe it was worth the risk, shouldn't Crean be acknowledged for suggesting that risk be taken?
if a kid qualifies and flunks out it looks far less bad than taking a a non qualifier who does the same. Alton mason was far less risk taken than Dwade. Regardless it has nothing to do with the argument and I personally have no problem with taking Dwade or alton Masons so long as they represent the university properly, we start looking like a Cincy and things change. That is more of a character and university control issue than an intelligence issue anyway. My only issue ever with Wade is how it relates back to Cream and his own self cannoniztion of how he was found in the weeds of high school basketball and noone accress the country country recognize his hidden talents except for the one top crean. That is total bogus as has been said he was ineligbile to attend BCS schools. therefore his options were prep school, Juco, or non BCS schools that were in conferences that allowed non-qualifiers. Mu was not the only school that recognized his talent Mu was one of the only schools that could offer the kid.
MU was drawing 18600 to big games before Crean came along. MU was in Milwaukkee before Crean came along. Mu was a terrific non football playing option long be fore Crean came along. Mu was an attractive BE canidiate just like they were an attarctive C-USa candidate before Cream came along. As I said before If the BE shake down occur in the early 90's or late 90's were get invited then too. Cords can give Cream all the credit he wants. he would have given Oneil credit in 1994r if we were invited then too.
The significant difference here is some people feel Tom Crean made MArquette. They are so completely wrong. Mu was the all time #9 in post season appearances competing in a pretty sold conference in the C-USa playing and on occasion selling out the BC. Tom Cream was absolutely nobody. Marquette made Tom Crean. Did he do a good job as a steward of the MU tradtion and add a chapter while he was here? sure. But Marqueete made Tom Crean. He and others forgot that.
it is similar to the anaolgy of the hand in the bucket of water. with Mu being the bucket of water and Cream the hand. you can splash and stir and agitate that water to water ever degree you feel necessary but not long after you leave or remove the hand things reamain the same. the beat goes on make all the noise you want but shortly thereafter you are not longer missed. Buzz and this season heretofore have preoven that already.
Crean came in tried to make himself bigger than the program splashed all he could slapped people like GT and other major donors right in the face now he has left and the beat goes on. actually 1 Ncaa win in the last 5 years aint a whole lot of spalshing.
Mu is better now that he is gone. Buzz is a better man, coach and recruiter
For clarification, can you provide the details to your bold statements below?
Thanks.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
Mu was not the only school that recognized his talent Mu was one of the only schools that could offer the kid. Who else offered?
MU was drawing 18600 to big games before Crean came along. When/What games? How often?
Mu was the all time #9 in post season appearances competing in a pretty sold conference in the C-USa playing and on occasion selling out the BC. When was MU selling out (18600+?)
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Tom Crean is the reason that MU is in the Big East, but I am trying to illustrate that you (Mr. Hayward) often make broad/bold statements without providing any real detail or research.
It seems like you are trying to cherry pick some broad topics to support your agenda.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
if a kid qualifies and flunks out it looks far less bad than taking a a non qualifier who does the same. Alton mason was far less risk taken than Dwade. Regardless it has nothing to do with the argument and I personally have no problem with taking Dwade or alton Masons so long as they represent the university properly, we start looking like a Cincy and things change. That is more of a character and university control issue than an intelligence issue anyway. My only issue ever with Wade is how it relates back to Cream and his own self cannoniztion of how he was found in the weeds of high school basketball and noone accress the country country recognize his hidden talents except for the one top crean. That is total bogus as has been said he was ineligbile to attend BCS schools. therefore his options were prep school, Juco, or non BCS schools that were in conferences that allowed non-qualifiers. Mu was not the only school that recognized his talent Mu was one of the only schools that could offer the kid.
MU was drawing 18600 to big games before Crean came along. MU was in Milwaukkee before Crean came along. Mu was a terrific non football playing option long be fore Crean came along. Mu was an attractive BE canidiate just like they were an attarctive C-USa candidate before Cream came along. As I said before If the BE shake down occur in the early 90's or late 90's were get invited then too. Cords can give Cream all the credit he wants. he would have given Oneil credit in 1994r if we were invited then too.
The significant difference here is some people feel Tom Crean made MArquette. They are so completely wrong. Mu was the all time #9 in post season appearances competing in a pretty sold conference in the C-USa playing and on occasion selling out the BC. Tom Cream was absolutely nobody. Marquette made Tom Crean. Did he do a good job as a steward of the MU tradtion and add a chapter while he was here? sure. But Marqueete made Tom Crean. He and others forgot that.
it is similar to the anaolgy of the hand in the bucket of water. with Mu being the bucket of water and Cream the hand. you can splash and stir and agitate that water to water ever degree you feel necessary but not long after you leave or remove the hand things reamain the same. the beat goes on make all the noise you want but shortly thereafter you are not longer missed. Buzz and this season heretofore have preoven that already.
Crean came in tried to make himself bigger than the program splashed all he could slapped people like GT and other major donors right in the face now he has left and the beat goes on. actually 1 Ncaa win in the last 5 years aint a whole lot of spalshing.
Mu is better now that he is gone. Buzz is a better man, coach and recruiter
Eloquent man, simply eloquent!
Quote from: 2002mualum on December 28, 2008, 07:23:42 PM
For clarification, can you provide the details to your bold statements below?
Thanks.
Just to be clear, I'm not saying that Tom Crean is the reason that MU is in the Big East, but I am trying to illustrate that you (Mr. Hayward) often make broad/bold statements without providing any real detail or research.
It seems like you are trying to cherry pick some broad topics to support your agenda.
pull a old media guide and all the those numbers are clearly available.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 09:31:58 PM
pull a old media guide and all the those numbers are clearly available.
What other schools would have offered to Wade?
Also, I don't have access to the media guides, but these numbers seem to indicate that MU had some of the best attendance numbers under Crean. I know it's not exactly what you said in your previous post, but it does show that Crean did increase the profile of the school in the local community.
http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/season_by_season_attendance
Well Hayward, I know Cords wasn't lying.
And yes, we had a great basketball tradition before Crean, but of course those old media guides you speak of will also show 3 NCAA wins in 20 years prior to Crean. That would be equivalent of a Dayton or a UWGB or schools of that ilk for that type of time period.
Part of the problem was that so many alums kept saying how great the tradition was and forgot that with each year, the tradition got more and more stale, and more and more distant.
Do I think Buzz is a nicer guy? A better person (how does one judge this?) Perhaps. I do know a guy named Tom Crean brought Buzz to Marquette. In fact, the man quit a head coaching gig to come work for Crean. I do know Tom Crean suggested they hire Buzz to replace him. I do know both happened.
So either you're saying that Buzz can't evaulate people (after all he quit a head job to work for Crean), or you have to actually take a deep swallow and admit that maybe Crean was a good coach, good enough to quit a head coaching gig over to come work for the guy. I know that will be difficult for you to do, but I don't see how you can avoid it.
MU may be better off with Buzz.....and of course the brutal irony for you is that it wouldn't have happened without Tom Crean.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
My only issue ever with Wade is how it relates back to Cream and his own self cannoniztion of how he was found in the weeds of high school basketball and noone accress the country country recognize his hidden talents except for the one top crean. That is total bogus as has been said he was ineligbile to attend BCS schools. therefore his options were prep school, Juco, or non BCS schools that were in conferences that allowed non-qualifiers. Mu was not the only school that recognized his talent Mu was one of the only schools that could offer the kid.
First, most BCS schools would have shown more interest in Wade had he been better at the time he signed with MU. He didn't play on his school's varisty team his Sophomore year, and was good but not great his junior year.
Had he been a bonafide top 25 player by his junior year, a BCS program interested in Wade would have told him not to sign in the fall--that he would have a scholie if he could get a qualifying score by the spring signing period. Baring that, Wade would have had the option to go to a prep school biding his time if the thought there was a UNC or UK or KU offer in the wings.
Meanwhile, you overstate MU's attractiveness in the 1999-2000 timeframe. We were coming off a 10th place finish in CUSA, and had been surpassed by directional schools like UAB and UNCC. Hell, DePaul and Illinois State (Wade's other two offers) could have been considered more attractive than MU at the time. At the time of Wade's recruitment, ISU was coming off back to back NCAA tournament appearances and played most of its games in the midwest. DePaul finished well ahead of us--tied for 3rd--in CUSA.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
MU was drawing 18600 to big games before Crean came along.
Hardly.
At the time Crean was hired, MU had played 178 games at the Bradley Center, and a grand total of 5 games attained even 17,500+ attendance--four of them were against Wisconsin. The fifth (against Cincinnati) had occurred 6 years earlier (Feb 25, 1993).
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
MU was in Milwaukkee before Crean came along. Mu was a terrific non football playing option long be fore Crean came along. Mu was an attractive BE canidiate just like they were an attractive C-USa candidate before Cream came along. As I said before If the BE shake down occur in the early 90's or late 90's were get invited then too. Cords can give Cream all the credit he wants. he would have given Oneil credit in 1994r if we were invited then too.
You are simply delusional:
Early 1990s:
1990: 3rd place MCC no NCAA tournament
1991: 5th place MCC no NCAA tournament
1992: 3rd place GMC no NCAA tournament
1993: 3rd place GMC no NCAA tournament.
There is absolutely no way our early 1990's performance was interesting to the Big East. No way.
1996: 3rd place CUSA one and done NCAA
1997: 5th place CUSA first round loser NCAA
1998: 7th place CUSA
1999: tie 10th place CUSA
The late 90's is even worse--it shows a program in steep decline if not complete collapse. We would have been lucky to get an A10 or MVC bid in the late 1990's.
You're right about one thing--if the Big East had come calling in 1994, we might have gotten the nod. Except that Kevin O'Neill was too busy shopping himself around to be bothered about MU's conference alignment.
What's amazing is that following the biggest games of their respective careers, Kevin O'Neill was looking for a job and taking a jab at MU on the way out telling the world he was bigger than Marquette.
Meanwhile, Tom Crean leveraged his biggest success to get the Al built and Marquette into the Big East, returning to MU despite being the hottest coaching prospect in the nation.
Yet, for some reason you hold O'Neill in higher regard for putting MU first.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
The significant difference here is some people feel Tom Crean made MArquette. They are so completely wrong. Mu was the all time #9 in post season appearances competing in a pretty sold conference in the C-USa playing and on occasion selling out the BC. Tom Cream was absolutely nobody. Marquette made Tom Crean. Did he do a good job as a steward of the MU tradtion and add a chapter while he was here? sure. But Marqueete made Tom Crean. He and others forgot that.
Nobody here feels that Tom Crean made Marquette. Nobody. Period. This is a complete and total fabrication.
Some of us recognized that by 1999 things have changed since 1977. And some of us recognized that things had changed dramatically for the worse between 1994 and 1999. MU has no birthright to national prominence.
Clearly the lack of success--sustained or otherwise--by Hank Raymonds, Rick Majerus, Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane demonstrate that the Marquette mystique alone isn't enough to assure even mediocre performance. And not even Kevin O'Neill thought he could sustain success--he left the first chance he got.
Yet you act as if winning at MU is a sure thing and the coach brings nothing to the table.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
Tom Cream was absolutely nobody. Marquette made Tom Crean. Did he do a good job as a steward of the MU tradtion and add a chapter while he was here? sure. But Marqueete made Tom Crean. He and others forgot that.
Absolutely nobody? He was the #1 assistant at the best program of the late 90's. If MU hadn't hired him, somebody would have.
As far as "he and other forgot" we still don't have a clue what you're talking about. You have yet to cite a single example of this (if you even have any).
I don't see Crean's actions and statements relative to MU any different than Coach K at Duke, or Jim Calhoun at UConn or Ben Howland at Pitt or UCLA or Thad Matta at Xavier or Ohio State or Mark Few at Gonzaga or Tom Izzo at Michigan State, or Mike Brey at ND or Bill Self at Kansas or any other successful coach at any other major program.
What has Tom Crean ever said that none of these others have said?
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 28, 2008, 06:47:31 PM
Crean came in tried to make himself bigger than the program splashed all he could slapped people like GT and other major donors right in the face now he has left and the beat goes on. actually 1 Ncaa win in the last 5 years aint a whole lot of spalshing.
How specifcially did Crean try to make himself bigger than program?
Once again, you DISAPPEAR when it comes to specifics.
Frankly, I saw both Deane and O'neill as worse offenders in this regards. O'Neill made no bones about where he thought Marquette was relative to his coaching ability and clearly said that he had taken it as far as he could, seeking bigger and better opportunities.
Deane put proximity to his wife and/or parents above loyalty to Marquette. To cover for his inability to bring in an NCAA caliber team he tried to pass off statements that said the NIT was the right spot for us. And he certainly wasn't putting MU above himself during the 1997 NCAA tournament when he gave us a black eye for making Bobby Knight look reserved.
And if there is one coach who constantly puts himself above his program, its Rick Majerus--a guy who works for a Catholic organization, but has no qualms about mouthing off in favor of abortion. Here's a tangible example of a coach putting his views ahead of his employer.
Boy MU84,
In your mind the world MU basketball world really did start in 199 with the hiring of Tammy Naismith. otherwise you may have remebered that in 1993 we actually played in the NCAA tournament, Indianapolis to be excat I was there. Also in 1994 we were in the NCaa's again St. Petersburg, we upset Pitino's Kentucky Wildcats.
Mu for certain would have been invited then and in 199 before the Tan one ever stepped foot on campus.
Attendence... I think it is absolutely wrong to compare attendence figures of Crean versus other "bradley center" coaches while Mu is in the Big East. there is no doubt the draw of a georgetown or a Uconn or going to jack up the number of fans regardless of what the coach or team are performing. however, that should not create a problem for you as Crean was at Mu 6 years before Mu joined the BE. Longer than Deane or Oneill.
Therefore...only 5 of the 10 largest crowds ever to grace the Bradley center before 2005-2006 (1st Be year) came to see a Crean team. How could this be? According to you and others MU was never even attarcting crowds. Sorry, in fact Mu avergaed top 25 in attendence records for years even dating back before the Bradley. Mu having large crowds is a longtime tradition and part of the attraction that the BE had. Furthermore those 5 teams all had Dwade.
In actual fact the two lowest attendence years for Mu in terms of average attendence came during the Crean years. the only year Mu ever averaged under 10,000 came under the Great one. Furthermoire, 6 times Mu has avergaed under 12,000 3 of those years under Crean. 3 out of 6 of his years. While only 3 times did Mu avergae under 12,000 in the 11 years pervious to that that the Bradley was open. (1 dukiet year and 5 each for deane and oneil)
Wow, Crean was all that but actaul had half of the worst attendence years despite only being there 1/3 rd of the time. sainthood?
Those are some concrete numbers for you. You probably want to say the Crean team that averaged a little over 9000 fannies in the seat was bad. You are right he was a poor coach except for the two years that he had Dwadeand would have lost his job about 2004 or 2005 if it were not for him. neverthelsss, 9000 a agme. Kevin oneill managed to get almost 14000 fannies in the seats in 1991 and that team was brutal. As a matter of fact the 5 kevin oneil years had a alrger per year average every single year than any Crean team sans the two Dwade seasons. Crean was packing in 11-12K a year while Oneil was packing in 13-14K a year. But then Crean wants to go and say he raised attendence at MU 70% and put that in his bio and tout it to the IU people on his introductory speech?!
Mike deane averaged more fans per game in his last season with a poor team than Crean did in 4 of the 5 years before the Big East, sans the two Dwade years. His 6th year at the helm he had less fans that Deane had in his last when MU was bad!!
get over yourself with these Crean lies and twisted statistitics. Yes Mu's attendance has gone up since we joined the BE. But to use that as a reason we got into the BE is a joke. Attendence under Crean was actually not very good sans 2003and 2003.
Mr. Hayward --
You also left out the obvious fact that attendance numbers were clearly inflated by somebody (?) whenever Marquette had a nationally televised game. I'm quite certain neither Deane nor O'Neill bothered to fabricate "record" attendance.
This stuff will all start showing up soon in Bloomington and the fans down there won't swallow it like the fans in Milwaukee.
you are absolutely correct. One can be assure d that in 1993 when 18,500 people attended the MU/cincy game including myself that is how many people were there. Now I was not even going to go there on that argument but you and I know that it is almost impossible to continue to break the attendence record every single time Mu had a primetime nationally televised game. As a matter of fact it got to the point of being a joke. I was at a few of those later "records" where row upon row were completely empty yet somehow we continued to break the records of games where there was not a seat in the house. And i am inluding the sky boxes and club cambria. we had a few records when stacks of rows in the ipper decks were completely personless lyet we were 'over capacity??!! well when you increase attendance by 70% .... Ever notice snake oil salesmen get out of town just about when they realize their gig is up?
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
In your mind the world MU basketball world really did start in 199 with the hiring of Tammy Naismith. otherwise you may have remebered that in 1993 we actually played in the NCAA tournament, Indianapolis to be excat I was there. Also in 1994 we were in the NCaa's again St. Petersburg, we upset Pitino's Kentucky Wildcats.
Mu for certain would have been invited then and in 199 before the Tan one ever stepped foot on campus.
Nobody is saying that Crean is the greatest coach ever. But he's without a doubt better than anyone MU's has had except McGuire--and I put him ahead of O'Neill, because O'Neill cut and ran as soon as he had the chance.
And if you at all honest, you'd have noted that I admitted that 94 we may well have received a bid to the Big East had O'Neill demonstrated he thought MU had a big-time future. But why would the Big East show faith in MU's future if the head coach wouldn't?
As I said, its confusing why you hold O'Neill in high esteem since he actually did cut out and slammed MU in the process as soon as he won his first big game--that Kentucky game you cite.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
Attendence... I think it is absolutely wrong to compare attendence figures of Crean versus other "bradley center" coaches while Mu is in the Big East. there is no doubt the draw of a georgetown or a Uconn or going to jack up the number of fans regardless of what the coach or team are performing.
You had no problem comparing attendance when you thought that MU regularly had large crowds. When facts show that only 5 games had even 17,500 (no less your claimed 18,600) you now say they aren't comparable?
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
Therefore...only 5 of the 10 largest crowds ever to grace the Bradley center before 2005-2006 (1st Be year) came to see a Crean team. How could this be? According to you and others MU was never even attarcting crowds.
There you go with your misrepresentations. Nobody said MU didn't attract crowds. I'm disputing your exaggeration about how many big game crowds under Deane and O'neill.
In Crean's Last year we avergaed 16,239. That's about 3500 more per game than the 12,738 average for all years prior to his arrival.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
Sorry, in fact Mu avergaed top 25 in attendence records for years even dating back before the Bradley. Mu having large crowds is a longtime tradition and part of the attraction that the BE had.
Yes. And Crean helped MU move higher on the list over the last several years.
MU had good crowds, now we have great crowds.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
In actual fact the two lowest attendence years for Mu in terms of average attendence came during the Crean years. the only year Mu ever averaged under 10,000 came under the Great one.
Then again, can you blame people for not wanting to come see Kruti Hester to see if MU could defend their 10th place CUSA finish?
Not said was that the four highest attendance years came during the Crean years.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PMYou probably want to say the Crean team that averaged a little over 9000 fannies in the seat was bad.
Of course it was a bad team! Do you think that was a quality team? A team that just finished 10th place in C-USA, and the only hope of improvement was riding on the addition of Krunti Hester to replace Mike Bargen?
Yes the team was bad. And no, it wasn't Crean's fault. Those seem like pretty obvious facts to me.
Here are more obvious facts:
- Al McGuire wasn't a lousy coach because his first team went 8-18.
Kevin O'Neill should not be judged solely on the 26-32 record from his first couple of seasons.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
he was a poor coach except for the two years that he had Dwadeand would have lost his job about 2004 or 2005 if it were not for him.
Had Bob Dukeit, Rick Majerus or Mike Deane recruited a guy like Dwyane Wade, they wouldn't have lost their jobs either.
And if Al McGuire had not recruited George Thompson or Dean Meminger. he probably wouldn't have lasted more than five years either.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
neverthelsss, 9000 a agme. Kevin oneill managed to get almost 14000 fannies in the seats in 1991 and that team was brutal.
9971 is a bit closer to 10,000 than to 9,000.
13,433 is not "almost 14,000."
And let's have some intellectual honesty--the 9971 that Crean drew his first year was more a reflection of the prior year's 10th place CUSA finish than anything that Crean did.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
As a matter of fact the 5 kevin oneil years had a alrger per year average every single year than any Crean team sans the two Dwade seasons. Crean was packing in 11-12K a year while Oneil was packing in 13-14K a year.
Hardly.
First, let's end your charade of crediting wade for the only good attendance years for Crean. We had nearly the same attendance the year after Wade left as his 2003 season. And Wade's first year (2001-02) is just the 6th largest attendance year for Crean, and 11th best in the Bradley Center.
Let's rank them, season by season:
1. 2008 (Crean): 16239
2. 2003 (Crean): 15553 (wade year)
3. 2007 (Crean): 15345
4. 2004 (Crean): 15291
5. 1993 (O'Neill): 14347
6. 2006 (Crean): 139997T. 1993 (O'neill): 13433
7T. 1991 (O'Neill): 13433
9. 1995 (Deane): 13258
10. 1990 (O'neill): 13319
11. 2002 (Crean): 12777 (wade year)12. 1992 (O'neill): 12613
13. 1997 (Deane): 12247
14. 1999 (Deane): 12145
15. 2005 (Crean): 1196516. 1996 (Deane): 11936
17. 1998 (Deane): 11508
18. 2001 (Crean): 11360
19. 2000 (Crean): 9971Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
But then Crean wants to go and say he raised attendence at MU 70% and put that in his bio and tout it to the IU people on his introductory speech?!
Well he did. 16239 is approximately 70% growth on 9971.
Oh, wait--we're supposed to believe that Crean is more to blame for the 9971 than was the team's 10th place showing in CUSA the year before.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
Mike deane averaged more fans per game in his last season with a poor team than Crean did in 4 of the 5 years before the Big East, sans the two Dwade years. His 6th year at the helm he had less fans that Deane had in his last when MU was bad!!
Another misrepresentation. The facts don't lie. I ranked all attendance years--Dean'es 1999 season was 14th overall, and worse than all but 3 of Crean's years.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
get over yourself with these Crean lies and twisted statistitics. Yes Mu's attendance has gone up since we joined the BE. But to use that as a reason we got into the BE is a joke. Attendence under Crean was actually not very good sans 2003and 2003.
Again, the facts are what they are. Crean has 5 of the 6 biggest attendance years in MU history. But who's expecting you to be honest at this point. Every stat you cite is wrong, twisted, takein out of context, or manipulated.
One more thing: It might help you to look at things grapically. The graph on MU's wiki page shows an 8 year trend of generally declining attendance from 1994 to 2001, followed by a general increasing trend from 2002 through 2007:
If 2008 were on this chart, it would be one more data point to the right, even higher than the peak shown below.
(http://wiki.muscoop.com/lib/exe/fetch.php/men_s_basketball/attendance.gif?cache=cache&w=458&h=309)
Sometimes it takes a while to reverse a trend.
Quote from: RedWebster on December 29, 2008, 04:31:54 PM
Mr. Hayward --
You also left out the obvious fact that attendance numbers were clearly inflated by somebody (?) whenever Marquette had a nationally televised game. I'm quite certain neither Deane nor O'Neill bothered to fabricate "record" attendance.
This stuff will all start showing up soon in Bloomington and the fans down there won't swallow it like the fans in Milwaukee.
That is 100% BULLCRAP. I know exactly how the numbers were counted and they are done by tickets sold / given away. All one had to do was try to get a ticket during any of those games via Ticket Master to validate this. I also remained good friends with many upon my departure and can guarantee you those that remained there said none of that was going on.
The numbers at MU have ALWAYS been counted the same way. Tickets sold / given away is the announced attendance. If 5000 people didn't attend, then too bad, it was still called as if they were there.
Simply put, Marquette84 succinctly pointed out the flaws in the arguments people are making and yet once again, people ignore the facts with their own agendas. Why? Because he didn't drink with people at Turners? Because he wasn't a "great guy"? For whatever reason, the notion that MU was God's gift to college basketball or even in the top 50 was sadly mistaken by the end of the 1990's. Mike Deane said it best himself when he said we should compete for the NIT in most years and if we make the NCAAs, then great.
That's what we had become and for a few of you here, you refuse to accept it....even when the head coach at the time flat out told it like it was.
Deane's low expectations was one of the reasons he was let go. We are a member of the BE because the administration and University rightfully committed to elevating it's one revenue producing sport and not because Crean created or willed it so.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 30, 2008, 08:25:52 AM
Deane's low expectations was one of the reasons he was let go. We are a member of the BE because the administration and University rightfully committed to elevating it's one revenue producing sport and not because Crean created or willed it so.
No one is saying Crean willed it. The fact of the matter is, however, that MU hoops was not a Big East caliber team until Crean got it back to that level.
Let's take NC State as an example. Here is a team that has won two national titles in the last 35 years yet is in the doldrums. They have great history, great tradition, play in a great conference. Yet, they have not been able to get back to that level of a top team in quite some time. The next coach that does that for NC State will have the benefit of the tradition, facilities, conference to make it happen, but it doesn't change the fact that the next coach to actually get them there will have done something that the previous 3 or 4 couldn't. The longer you go, the harder it is to get a school back.
Whether people like to admit it or not, MU got back to greatness under Crean. He's the second best coach MU has had in their history. The numbers don't lie.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 28, 2008, 11:03:34 PM
And yes, we had a great basketball tradition before Crean, but of course those old media guides you speak of will also show 3 NCAA wins in 20 years prior to Crean. That would be equivalent of a Dayton or a UWGB or schools of that ilk for that type of time period.
That is true, Chicos, but those three wins were in the 6 years before Crean. O'Neill is the guy who did the heaviest lifting in pulling the program out of its doldrums.
Crean won 5 NCAA games in his 9 years, which is roughly the same ratio as the 6 years prior. He won NCAA games in only 2 of his 9 seasons, as well, which is not particularly impressive.
Bottom line is that Crean, without question, raised the profile of this program. I think the perception of him is probably better than the reality, but so what? I still say we'd be in the Big East without him, as long as the guy that followed Deane was better than Deane.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 29, 2008, 04:00:21 PM
Attendence... I think it is absolutely wrong to compare attendence figures of Crean versus other "bradley center" coaches while Mu is in the Big East. there is no doubt the draw of a georgetown or a Uconn or going to jack up the number of fans regardless of what the coach or team are performing. however, that should not create a problem for you as Crean was at Mu 6 years before Mu joined the BE. Longer than Deane or Oneill.
I guess you haven't seen DePaul's attendance?
I also hope you never cheered for a Crean team since it would make you a hippokrit.
The fact that I read this whole thread is embarrassing.
those larger attendence records were all in the Big East. You cannot say part fo the reason we got in the Big East is becuse Cream raised attendence levels. You are putting the cart ahead of the horse. In fact attendence levels were generally down under Cream including 2 of the worst years we ever had under Crean, before we joined the big East.
You like to say the 1999 team only avergaed 9000 becuase they were so bad. Sorry charlie we had other bad years including 1991 where the teams was arguably worse and averaged 14000. Bottom line Mu has always supported the teams. Since before tommy naismith. In fact before joining the Big Eas the numbers clearly show the fans supported him less.
But keep toughting that one of the reason we got in is because our attendence numbers have been so high the last three years ::)
MAybe the reason we got in is because Cream was so great by demonstrating how he could maintain a high level program after losing a lottery pick like he did in the 2 seasons after the final 4. That is probaably another reason we got in. thanks Cream. sarcasm off another demonstartion of how Mu got in becuse of Mu and it's support and traditon, not becuase of its coach. The Big east would have been scared like us fans were that this guy is a pretender that signed a superstar that other schools could not and has a house of cards of a program. 2004 and 2005 proved that to the BE, yet they invited us anyway based on the strength of the University
Hey MU84
I love your quote....
Nobody is saying that Crean is the greatest coach ever. But he's without a doubt better than anyone MU's has had except McGuire--and I put him ahead of O'Neill, because O'Neill cut and ran as soon as he had the chance.
And if you at all honest, you'd have noted that I admitted that 94 we may well have received a bid to the Big East had O'Neill demonstrated he thought MU had a big-time future. But why would the Big East show faith in MU's future if the head coach wouldn't?
As I said, its confusing why you hold O'Neill in high esteem since he actually did cut out and slammed MU in the process as soon as he won his first big game--that Kentucky game you cite.
In fact if you substitute "Crean" for Oneill in your paragraphs we would be in full agreement. at least Oneill was a straight shooter and would tell you how he felt. Crean was a two faced liar, part and parcel tot he reason he could not maintain a staff or a team for that matter and why most people that associated with him hated him.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 30, 2008, 08:25:52 AM
Deane's low expectations was one of the reasons he was let go. We are a member of the BE because the administration and University rightfully committed to elevating it's one revenue producing sport and not because Crean created or willed it so.
Had the adminstration and University had EXACTLY the same level of commitment in 1999, but wound up retaining Mike Deane, or hiring a Jerry Wainwright or a Tim Welsh or God forbid another Bob Dukiet, we would not have been invited to the Big East. I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this.
Can you honestly sit here and say that because Marquette had "commitment" our 10th place C-USA team performanced didn't matter? Or the five years of decline since the Sweet 16 didn't mattter?
Seriously, what argument would you have made that Marquette deserved the invitation over UNC-Charlotte? Or UAB? Or St. Louis? Or St. Joseph? Or Holy Cross? Or Butler? Or LaSalle? Or Temple? How do you argue for Marquette over programs that were either geographically closer, in a bigger TV market, had demonstrated stronger recent performance, or in some cases all three.
Our heritage? Nobody but our own fans care about a championship 20+ years after the fact. UNCC, Dayton, Holy Cross, San Francisco, Seattle and Loyola have final four heritage as well. That alone doesn't merit you a BCS conference invitation.
Nobody is denying that we needed the university's backing. But we also needed performance on the court that was worthy of an invitation. We didn't have that before Crean.
Quote from: CTWarrior on December 30, 2008, 09:38:53 AM
That is true, Chicos, but those three wins were in the 6 years before Crean. O'Neill is the guy who did the heaviest lifting in pulling the program out of its doldrums.
Crean won 5 NCAA games in his 9 years, which is roughly the same ratio as the 6 years prior. He won NCAA games in only 2 of his 9 seasons, as well, which is not particularly impressive.
Bottom line is that Crean, without question, raised the profile of this program. I think the perception of him is probably better than the reality, but so what? I still say we'd be in the Big East without him, as long as the guy that followed Deane was better than Deane.
But Crean also go the team to the NCAAs 5 years out of 7 and went to a Final Four. We didn't have a stretch like that in ages. As much good as O'Neil did, he also damaged things by wanting out so badly, public comments about his contract, etc. He helped cement an image that MU had become a stepping stone job.
I don't think we would be in the Big East without the accomplishments we made on the court....call it blind luck, great timing, or whatever, it was a damn fortutious that MU went to the Final Four, Crean had a great basketball pedigree with contacts very strong to the Big East, etc, etc all at that same time.
I'll tell you guys a quick story from the late 1990's when I was there. Cords and I went to meet with Midwest Sports Television (I think that was the name). They were based in Minneapolis and about to launch a network in Milwaukee. I crap you not when I tell you that their management at the start of the meeting asked why they should be interested in carrying a Division II team like Marquette on their network. That's how low we had sunk. MSC had carried Gophers in Minneapolis and really had no idea what level we were at. Now, I blame a lot of that on their sure ignorance because MU had some good years in the 1990's, but often perception is reality. Cords, by the way, nearly decapitated the guy (good for Cords) when he made that statement. It was great to see as Cords really let him have it. But the point was that MU was not the household name it used to be.
I think that is one thing that many in the midwest continue to overlook. Those that seem most anti-Crean are those in Milwaukee where MU is still a day to day topic. But in Texas, Florida, California, etc, MU was NOTHING anymore. People had no idea where or what Marquette was. They do now, largely based on what the team accomplished with the Final Four and having a dynamic coach.
Let's just cut to the chase on this. After having a few conversations with some of the folks that still or used to work at MU today, they put it rather nicely.
Crean is largely hated by the local MU blue hairs and long standing Warrior insiders. They resented that Crean took too much credit for the resurgence, especially in Milwaukee where these people have lived much of their lives. Many of them feel that MU will be good all the time because it's MU, it's the tradition, it's the University. They simply ignore that Majerus, Dukiet, Deane apparently are the outliers or that even Raymonds struggled with what he had.
There is no doubt that great people from years gone past built this program and many still live in Milwaukee now. They are proud people that have given plenty to the program, formed it's base and much of the winning tradition. Early on, Crean tapped into that but as the program became more and more his, he moved in different directions which alienated many of those insiders, former players, etc. They felt like their accomplishments were not recognized properly, or overshadowed by Crean and his PR machine.
It's politics, plain and simple. Crean wasn't one of them and that wore thin on them. Crean was an arrogant ass which only added to their disdain, feelings were hurt, beers weren't drank, golf was not played, Crean wasn't one of them.
My advice for Buzz would be to stay out of the political windstorm, focus on hoops, say it's "all about the program" and the players and the tradition....he'll be loved by those folks. But, if the winning stops, well then it's just another nail in the coffin that tradition alone doesn't cut it (see NC State as the most recent example). Tradition is great, but it needs a leader.
MU has been at it's best in the last 50 years with DYNAMIC, ARROGANT, CONTROVERSIAL coaches. McGuire, Crean, O'Neill. When I say arrogant toward McGuire, I think you know what I mean....it's not derogatory, but more of confident tone that said "we're going to beat you whether you like it or not". The nice guys.... well they were nice but didn't get the wins or the publicity needed to continue to win at a consistent level. Nice guys can be controlled by insiders as well. That's why some insiders don't like strong, forceful coaches that don't curtsey to them all times. Nice guys, they're nice bu they haven't been long at MU or most other places either. Wooden is an exception, but if you win like Wooden you can be Mother Theresa and it doesn't matter.
Of course the dynamic here is that KO and Crean pissed off so many of those insiders who felt it was MU MU MU as the reason they were winning and not because of their coaching, recruiting, management styles.
It's all about internal politics, much of it because Crean's ego couldn't play that game properly and stroke insider egos because he was busy stroking his own....and much of it because many of the "insiders" are still attached to the 1970's historical fantasy that MU just needs to throw a basketball out there and magic happens because tradition and the way it was will keep things going strong, despite repeated history showing that not to be the case.
Politics. Nothing more then that plus the hurt feelings by some insiders and former players .....throw in the fact Crean was an ass just poured fuel on the fire. Of course, Crean isn't the only one to say that many of these insiders were overbearing....KO said it, Deane said, Crean said it, Majerus. Seems to be a consistent complaint by many of our coaches.
I'm just telling you like it is based on when I was there and based on folks that are still there. Politics is part of every athletic program, and certainly part of MU's. After 9 years, people wear on each other, it often doesn't take that long. Personalities clash, feelings get hurt, pride overtakes many, egos abound = the feelings of today by some.
Well puts Chicos.
Hayward you are just getting straight owned this thread.
Go pick up your gold vest at the dry cleaners and call it day.
Your Mom inflated attendance records... oh!!!!
this thread made my head hurt... something about posts that are over 10,000 words that just seems a bit overkill. i'm going back to my choose your own adventure book now.
Chicos --
I'm neither an insider or a former player and I couldn't stand the guy. I knew O'Neill was an ass, but he never pretended he wasn't. I actually liked him. I also liked Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane.
The people you are describing who don't like Crean are people who recognize an a-hole when they see one and would rather not have an a-hole representing our university. We're just people who are good judges of character.
He'll be outed by the good people of Indiana, who traditionally do not take kindly to people who are full of stuff. And I cannot wait.
Hay and Web have it nailed. Good try JD but it wouldn't matter where I lived, Crean has urinated me off since the FF. I've got April 1 circled on the calendar as a holiday.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on December 30, 2008, 03:24:04 PM
Hay and Web have it nailed. Good try JD but it wouldn't matter where I lived, Crean has urinated me off since the FF. I've got April 1 circled on the calendar as a holiday.
Crean was the 2nd best coach in MU's history. Him sleeping with my wife wouldn't change that. Him punching my grandmother in the face wouldn't change that. Him physically peeing on me wouldn't change that. Our basketball team and our univeristy are in a much better place than they were in 1999, and a lot of that is the result, at least in a small way, of what Crean did. Yes, he was a dick or an ass to a lot of people, but he ran a good, clean program and everybody should be thankful for that.
Quote from: RedWebster on December 30, 2008, 02:41:05 PM
Chicos --
I'm neither an insider or a former player and I couldn't stand the guy. I knew O'Neill was an ass, but he never pretended he wasn't. I actually liked him. I also liked Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane.
The people you are describing who don't like Crean are people who recognize an a-hole when they see one and would rather not have an a-hole representing our university. We're just people who are good judges of character.
He'll be outed by the good people of Indiana, who traditionally do not take kindly to people who are full of stuff. And I cannot wait.
I wasn't referencing you Red.
Show me an ass jerk as a head coach and often he's winning. That's an unfortunate reality. Howland, Huggins, Caliprari, Pitino, Crean, Knight, Digger, Keady, Izzo, Ryan, Williams, etc. Of course, there are plenty that don't, but a common theme for many of these coaches are strong ego, type A, short temper, etc and it usually means the guy comes off as a jerk.
Strong personalities in that list above, but they won, even if they were hard as hell to work with (or for) and difficult to like.
I've said here many times, give me an a-hole coach who wins, doesn't cheat, graduates his players every day of the week over one that is really nice, only wins a little bit. I won't tolerate an a-hole coach who cuts corners or cheats, but if he wins and does it the right way, I'll take it every day of the week.
I'd rather have a nice guy that does all those things, those seem to be much harder to find.....let's hope we got one. Wooden was a nice guy, Dean Smith was a nice guy. That would be the best of all worlds.
Well said, Chico's. I am definitely an old gaseous person, but I recognize what TC did for the program. He may not have started it all, but he continued a tradition of good basketball and a clean program. His lasting legacy will be the players he brought into the program and I, for one alumnus, am very proud of all of them. The image of MU in the current world of college basketball has a lot to do with Tom Crean.
That said. I'm real happy to have Buzz.
i have never said Crean did not do a good job as a coach ow was not an ass hole. I agree with both those satements. What I simply disagree with are many of his and others claims such as attendence that are absolutely false. i also, which was the basis of the thread, disagree that he had much affect if any towards us attaining Big Eats stature , he was a pawn in the chess game and would still be a nobody if he was not at MU. Agian Mu made tom crean not vice versa.
I also object to the chicos statement of him not playing the game with Old Blue hairs. Not playing the game is onw thing being out right disresctful to old players and donors is a whole other ball game. I dont think many people right now could imagine a person like buzz treating or speaking to many of those people the way that Cream did.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 30, 2008, 07:02:23 PM
I also object to the chicos statement of him not playing the game with Old Blue hairs. Not playing the game is onw thing being out right disresctful to old players and donors is a whole other ball game. I dont think many people right now could imagine a person like buzz treating or speaking to many of those people the way that Cream did.
Still waiting for those examples Haywire. Exact comments with dates and locations would be nice too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHg5SJYRHA0
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on December 30, 2008, 07:02:23 PM
Agian Mu made tom crean not vice versa.
So if you truly believe that MU made Tom Crean, please answer the following:
1. Why didn't MU "make" Hank Raymonds?
2. Why didn't MU "make" Rick Majerus?
3. Why didn't MU "make" Bob Dukiet?
4. Why didn't MU "make" Mike Deane?
You claim that MU makes the coach, but here are four examples of MU coaches that the program failed to make successful. All four had the same benefits of MU and it's history and alumni going for them. They all had a much higher pedigree than that "nobody" you constantly complain about--Tom Crean.
Unlike Crean all four saw their personal careers and reputation take a hit following their coaching gig at MU, with Deane, Dukeit and Majerus settling for lesser jobs in an attempt to restart their careers.
Unlike Crean, all of them left the MU program in worse shape than they received it.
Unlike Crean, all saw attendance decline visibly and measurably from their first year to their last.
Granted, unlike Crean, none of them tried to take credit for their accomplishments--which seems to be what bothers you most about Crean. Then again, their accomplishments aren't worth taking credit for.
Consider--four highly pedigreed coaches supported by the former-player combine all step into the MU job and fail. A "nobody" steps in and succeeds. And he has the audacity to point out the obvious: that he deserved credit for his results.
And his reward for accomplishing something that 4 out of 5 prior post-Al coaches failed to do is that he's called a two faced liar and an ass and who knows what else.
So in the end, let me ask you this: Who's ego is bigger? Tom Crean's? Or a bunch of guys who failed with Raymonds, Majerus, Dukeit and Deane, yet somehow think they're the reason for MU's resurgence in the 2000's?
Here's the sad thing--as long as your ilk is around, we're destined to see any successful coach leave as soon as they have the chance.
Sadly, its only a matter of time until you turn on Buzz.
He'll take us to a sweet 16 or a final four, and when the national spotlight changes once again from the nostalgia of '77 to the success of today, you'll come out of the woodwork talking about how a bunch of players from 35 years ago deserve more of the credit than Buzz.
And at that point, Buzz will have two options. Get while the gettin' is good (like O'Neill). Or stay and have to endure crap from your ilk (like Crean).
Here's hoping we can reach a point where our current team can attain success without somebody b*tching about whether current players and coaches genuflect in front of the retired numbers.
Or some present day insurance salesman miffed that he's not consulted on offensive sets that he remembers from his playing days.
Perhaps someday we can let a modern day team have the right to crow about their own accomplishments without hearing about how a team 35 to 40 years ago deserves much of the credit for paving the way.
Quote from: Marquette84 on December 30, 2008, 08:04:33 PM
So if you truly believe that MU made Tom Crean, please answer the following:
1. Why didn't MU "make" Hank Raymonds?
2. Why didn't MU "make" Rick Majerus?
3. Why didn't MU "make" Bob Dukiet?
4. Why didn't MU "make" Mike Deane?
You claim that MU makes the coach, but here are four examples of MU coaches that the program failed to make successful. All four had the same benefits of MU and it's history and alumni going for them. They all had a much higher pedigree than that "nobody" you constantly complain about--Tom Crean.
Unlike Crean all four saw their personal careers and reputation take a hit following their coaching gig at MU, with Deane, Dukeit and Majerus settling for lesser jobs in an attempt to restart their careers.
Unlike Crean, all of them left the MU program in worse shape than they received it.
Unlike Crean, all saw attendance decline visibly and measurably from their first year to their last.
Granted, unlike Crean, none of them tried to take credit for their accomplishments--which seems to be what bothers you most about Crean. Then again, their accomplishments aren't worth taking credit for.
Consider--four highly pedigreed coaches supported by the former-player combine all step into the MU job and fail. A "nobody" steps in and succeeds. And he has the audacity to point out the obvious: that he deserved credit for his results.
And his reward for accomplishing something that 4 out of 5 prior post-Al coaches failed to do is that he's called a two faced liar and an ass and who knows what else.
So in the end, let me ask you this: Who's ego is bigger? Tom Crean's? Or a bunch of guys who failed with Raymonds, Majerus, Dukeit and Deane, yet somehow think they're the reason for MU's resurgence in the 2000's?
Here's the sad thing--as long as your ilk is around, we're destined to see any successful coach leave as soon as they have the chance.
Sadly, its only a matter of time until you turn on Buzz.
He'll take us to a sweet 16 or a final four, and when the national spotlight changes once again from the nostalgia of '77 to the success of today, you'll come out of the woodwork talking about how a bunch of players from 35 years ago deserve more of the credit than Buzz.
And at that point, Buzz will have two options. Get while the gettin' is good (like O'Neill). Or stay and have to endure crap from your ilk (like Crean).
Here's hoping we can reach a point where our current team can attain success without somebody b*tching about whether current players and coaches genuflect in front of the retired numbers.
Or some present day insurance salesman miffed that he's not consulted on offensive sets that he remembers from his playing days.
Perhaps someday we can let a modern day team have the right to crow about their own accomplishments without hearing about how a team 35 to 40 years ago deserves much of the credit for paving the way.
What a beautiful post.
MAybe the real reason we got into the big east is becuase of wjo the temporray custodian of the men's basketball team is :o
I have it on good authority that Buzz wrote Tranghese a letter 15 years ago and Tranghese admired him so much he knew that some day he would be the Mu coach and could attract 16, 500 to his first Big East game.
Quote from: Marquette84 on December 30, 2008, 08:04:33 PM
So if you truly believe that MU made Tom Crean, please answer the following:
1. Why didn't MU "make" Hank Raymonds?
2. Why didn't MU "make" Rick Majerus?
3. Why didn't MU "make" Bob Dukiet?
4. Why didn't MU "make" Mike Deane?
1. It did.
2. It did.
3. It did.
4. It did.
I assure you that Marquette made Hank Raymonds...even he'd tell you that. I believe Majerus would say the exact same thing. I also assure you that Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane got coaching jobs as a result of "Head Coach, Marquette University" being on the resume.
Iincidentally, for somebody who objects to criticisms of our former coach, you sure seem to bash a decent man like Hank Raymonds an awful lot. You're truly the conscience of the program!
Thanks Red I was not going to respond if he cannot see that Mu made those guys his wunderlust for Cream is so thick that that is why I dont respond.
Ask hank Raymonds if Mu made him!!
Dis MU make Majerus...hmm lets see a an overweight manger becomes the head coach at Mu not to mention the education. Ahh read his book(s) its about 300 pages of how Mu made him.
Deane never gets another job if he does not take a coauple Mu teams to the NCAA's. Gave him antional stage to showcase his coaching ability. he is still coaching becuase Mu made him a name.
Oneill...how many times does he need to state in interviews that Mu was the best thing to have happened to him and he regrets having ever left?
and our former coach....an assistant B4 MU made him...let's see where he is in 6-7 years. He who laughs last laughs hardest.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on January 02, 2009, 02:57:59 PM
Thanks Red I was not going to respond if he cannot see that Mu made those guys his wunderlust for Cream is so thick that that is why I dont respond.
Ask hank Raymonds if Mu made him!!
Dis MU make Majerus...hmm lets see a an overweight manger becomes the head coach at Mu not to mention the education. Ahh read his book(s) its about 300 pages of how Mu made him.
Deane never gets another job if he does not take a coauple Mu teams to the NCAA's. Gave him antional stage to showcase his coaching ability. he is still coaching becuase Mu made him a name.
Oneill...how many times does he need to state in interviews that Mu was the best thing to have happened to him and he regrets having ever left?
and our former coach....an assistant B4 MU made him...let's see where he is in 6-7 years. He who laughs last laughs hardest.
I guess I misunderstood your comment. I thought we were talking about head coaching experience.
I assumed that when you said "made" you implied something more than just adding the name "Marquette" to a failed coaching gig then taking a huge step backwards simply to land any job.
If you feel that these guys needed MU to "make" them so that they could step up to Ball State, Gannon or Lamar, then we're starting out with different assumptions.
I have no problem with the concept that an MU coach would leave to take the job at Indiana or UCLA or Kansas or Duke or UNC.
I'm less positive with the idea that MU should be considered the stepping stone to the head coaching jobs at Lamar, Gannon, or Ball State, or even Tennessee.
And the fundamental issue is why you don't give Crean due credit for outperforming Majerus, Deane, Dukeit and Raymonds when he was given the same oppportunity?
You can dislike the guy personally, but you can't possibly argue that he was less successful on the court. Same tradition. Same heritage. Better performance.
crean out performe raymonds?? wow t
Here is how some men settle their disputes ;)
Warning...can be graphic.
http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/video/videopage?videoId=3361421
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on January 02, 2009, 11:11:03 PM
crean out performe raymonds?? wow t
Yes. Isn't it obvious?
In my mind its a no-brainer. I can give you a half-dozen solid reasons.
But please, you go first. Explain what makes you think Raymonds did a better job than Crean.
Basketball was dead at Marquette at the end of the Deane years. As a student, I could walk into the BC 5 minutes before the game and get a prime lower bowl student seat. The only time we really did not have really good seats is when Cincinnati or Louisville was in town for an ESPN game. At the time, the MU bench was by the student section and it was so quiet in there you could hear Mike Deane swear when he called three time outs in the first two minutes of the game.
In 1998, MU was in the NIT and had a game at the Bradley Center. Bo Ellis showed up at the Varsity Theater to give away tickets to the Western Civ class of about 400 students and he could not give them away. It was pretty pathetic.
While a self-absorbed jag (like most good coaches), TC worked his butt off and did his part to elevate this program to where it is today. Lets thank him for his success at MU, focus on the present and future and leave it at that.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on January 02, 2009, 11:11:03 PM
crean out performe raymonds?? wow t
Of course he did, ON EVERY level. I'd love to hear how Raymonds outperformed as head coach over Crean, especially considering what Raymonds was handed (a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP TEAM with 10 straight NCAA invitations) and the #2 program of the 1970's.
Raymonds parlayed that into 5 NCAA bids and 3 NCAA wins vs 5 NCAA losses. He also went to the NIT and lost in the first round. He then handed the program over to Majerus who never sniffed the NCAAs because it had become a NIT program by the time Raymonds was done with it.
Raymonds took a NCAA title team and #2 program in the country for a decade and in 6 years got 3 NCAA wins.
Crean took a program not even able to make the NIT and in his first 6 years had 4 NCAA wins (more than Hank), a Final Four, a Conference title, multiple NIT wins, etc.
It's not even close.
Look, Raymonds was a terrific assistant coach. Sometimes people are better suited in those positions and become fabulous in them. Hank was one of those guys. There is nothing wrong with that. Just as in management there are people that make outstanding managers, the best, but not necessarily as Vice Presidents or what have you. Some folks are better in that secondary role. Others are better at directing folks, are more comfortable with it. Hank was a premier assistant coach. He had to follow Al, which was difficult, but he struggled to keep MU anywhere close to what it was under McGuire.
Quote from: Badgerhater on January 03, 2009, 02:43:01 PM
Lets thank him for his success at MU, focus on the present and future and leave it at that.
Thank him? Marquette and Wade took him from being Izzo's asswipe to being a multimillionaire. I think the thanking works the other way around.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on January 03, 2009, 03:28:41 PM
Thank him? Marquette and Wade took him from being Izzo's asswipe to being a multimillionaire. I think the thanking works the other way around.
And that ass wipe gave us more basketball success then anyone ever to coach at MU not named Al McGuire. I know that hurts some of you to say it, but it cannot be factually denied.
I've attempted to read most of this and personally have nothing against Crean. But while many of you think he may be the hero/scapegoat on matters, what you fail to realize is that recruiting starts many years before a player actually chooses a University. I worked in the MU BB office under O'Neill. I remember seeing letters sent to Dwade when he was merely a kid. I was obviously at MU before we were even in a conference. I saw the discussions about joining a conference, and MU traditionally did not want to be part of one. While O'Neill was there, MU did. It was about the revenue dollars. And they have continued to join bigger conferences throughout the years.
Was it Crean? I think not. It's a business. And for those of you whom speak of O'Neill not having confidence in MU and jumping ship, you are completely off base. He was presented a career opportunity and took a chance. Just like you or I may do as a sales person, accountant, lawyer, business leader. He took that chance to become head coach at MU and in my opinion did a great job. I know I sure loved watching the team play in those years, as well as going to IN for their first tourney appearance, then Tennessee when they made it the following year.
Quote from: Jules1993MUWarrior on January 03, 2009, 06:13:35 PM
I've attempted to read most of this and personally have nothing against Crean. But while many of you think he may be the hero/scapegoat on matters, what you fail to realize is that recruiting starts many years before a player actually chooses a University. I worked in the MU BB office under O'Neill. I remember seeing letters sent to Dwade when he was merely a kid. I was obviously at MU before we were even in a conference. I saw the discussions about joining a conference, and MU traditionally did not want to be part of one. While O'Neill was there, MU did. It was about the revenue dollars. And they have continued to join bigger conferences throughout the years.
Was it Crean? I think not. It's a business. And for those of you whom speak of O'Neill not having confidence in MU and jumping ship, you are completely off base. He was presented a career opportunity and took a chance. Just like you or I may do as a sales person, accountant, lawyer, business leader. He took that chance to become head coach at MU and in my opinion did a great job. I know I sure loved watching the team play in those years, as well as going to IN for their first tourney appearance, then Tennessee when they made it the following year.
You saw letters from O'Neill to Wade during his tenure? He left in 1994. You're telling me that Wade was getting letters when he was 12 years old and in the 6th grade even though he wasn't recognized as any type of player at that point?
I'm sorry, but I don't buy it. Plenty of other Wades around back then, but Dwyane didn't even play any significant minutes until he was a junior in high school. He was considered small until a growth spurt.
I think you may be confused with who was sending letters.
As for KO, the man did a great job for MU but was constantly putting the university down. When he wasn't getting "serviced" in his office...ahem....he was quite the coach. As for other attributes, well I'll just say that there are better husbands, fathers and human beings out there. But he did do a helluva job getting MU back from the depths.
Ouch - chicos - The Oneill years sound better than Housewives of OC.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on January 03, 2009, 09:10:50 PM
I think you may be confused with who was sending letters.
Either that, or misrepresenting the letters sent to grade school kids for MU's summer camp as a recruiting letter.