It always puzzles me with the uncertainty of our basketball program. The following are known:
1. The Al is great practice facility.
2. BE is top conference
3. Kids love to play in NBA arena.
4. Pay coaches like we are a perennial Elite 8 program
5. Very good school
With these facts why do we always have a level of uncertainty in our program on regular basis? I believe it has to do completely with the administration not having a firm basketball agenda. I call it the "Al McGuire curse". Because we caught lightning in a bottle once we assume it will happen again. IMO that is a pretty big gamble for a school that depends on revenues from ball to pay for all sports and then some.
I want MU to utilize our great resources and take it to the next level. The ball is in the school's court and they need to deliver.
What do you suggest they do?
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 11:56:27 AM
It always puzzles me with the uncertainty of our basketball program. The following are known:
1. The Al is great practice facility.
2. BE is top conference
3. Kids love to play in NBA arena.
4. Pay coaches like we are a perennial Elite 8 program
5. Very good school
With these facts why do we always have a level of uncertainty in our program on regular basis? I believe it has to do completely with the administration not having a firm basketball agenda. I call it the "Al McGuire curse". Because we caught lightning in a bottle once we assume it will happen again. IMO that is a pretty big gamble for a school that depends on revenues from ball to pay for all sports and then some.
I want MU to utilize our great resources and take it to the next level. The ball is in the school's court and they need to deliver.
It puzzles me how a seemingly reasonable person can say the administration doesn't have "a firm basketball agenda." MU spends more on its program than every other Big East school except Louisville, keeps its coaches among the highest paid in the nation (at one point paid Buzz over $400,000 as an
assistant) and is less than a decade removed from building a $31 million basketball facility?
If the perception among the public and the media is that MU is a small, private school that is a stepping stone for a bigger job, guess what? There's nothing MU can do about it! That perception is reality. All MU can do is pay its coach fair market value, continue to perform, and hope the coach sticks around long enough so that his word is trusted.
In all honesty, if Buzz does NOT leave this year, and he gets a long-term extension and raise, and says 'no' to these so-called big jobs in the south, I think it will make off-seasons in years to come much easier. Why? Because everyone will know that Buzz ain't going anywhere, at least not for a parallel move. You don't see Jay Wright's name pop up for any of these jobs, and that's because the perception is that 'Nova is some shrine to the BEast.
That is, unfortunately, the reality we live in today. Like I said, Buzz stays, signs an extension, says "this is where I am to stay", I think this all dies down a lot more next year. Sure, his name will come up, but us fans won't look like boyfriends who's seen their girlfriend's ex move in next door every effing spring.
They should run the basketball team like a business. We have all the tools of the trade and yet more often than not we are scrambling. We built The Al to get kids like J.P. Tokoto, not the women's team.
I would find a guy, do 100% vetting and do whatever it takes to make him want to be here. I mentioned our positives and yet we still lose guys. No other school in similar situation is on the outside looking in more than MU is.
Pakuni--We pay our coaches market or above market pay and still lose them. Obviously we are not doing something right. What causes a business with great resources to lose key people? IMO it stems from a misconception that because we spend money and have toys guys will come. Those days are over with.
I would say, Goose, that perhaps part of the problem is influential alumni/donors with whom no one not named Al McGuire will ever be good enough. You see that writ small here.
Every coach through Crean commented about the difficulty of following a legend. Crean, to his credit, embraced it. And while we all (OK, most of us) love MU, it has its limitations. We are a small basketball school in a state that doesn't turn out much D1 talent and much of that goes to a state school. We are a private school hated by a large portion of the area/state surrounding it. Our campus is not beautiful. We are at the mercy of a huge conference that is looking to grow its football base. Our rivals are a plane flight away, mostly in another time zone. Our students boo our team when it isn't playing to their expectations. Fans stay away on weeknights. And our message boards, like most, have a vocal minority who are never happy and make enough noise that their numbers seem larger than they are.
Goose--Why do you hate Marquette so much? Why expend the energy on this board when you clearly hope for this program's demise?
I think Buzz sticking around would go a long way toward dispelling these perceptions, especially after how heavily he's been mentioned with Oklahoma and Arkansas.
The lack of a football team and the associated conference stability that provides is also a factor. Villanova and Georgetown are at least in a position where they could at least upgrade their existing programs if they had to. We're still the new kids in the Big East also, which puts us a notch below Nova and G-town. I think we're clearly ahead of DePaul and Providence, and at least even with St. Johns after they hired Lavin.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 12:22:29 PM
Pakuni--We pay our coaches market or above market pay and still lose them. Obviously we are not doing something right. What causes a business with great resources to lose key people? IMO it stems from a misconception that because we spend money and have toys guys will come. Those days are over with.
First, I think you're overstating MU's conundrum. We've lost two coaches in 17 years. One left when MU was in a much lesser place - in terms of money, conference affiliation and facilities - than it is today. so all the current advantages you speak of are irrelevant to that.
The second left to take over on of the 5-10 most storied programs in the nation for a ridiculous amount of money. No amount of "firm basketball agenda" could compete with that.
Regardless, other than some platitudes about "supporting the program" and "firm basketball agenda," please give us some specifics on what more the administration must do.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 12:18:05 PM
They should run the basketball team like a business. We have all the tools of the trade and yet more often than not we are scrambling. We built The Al to get kids like J.P. Tokoto, not the women's team.
I would find a guy, do 100% vetting and do whatever it takes to make him want to be here. I mentioned our positives and yet we still lose guys. No other school in similar situation is on the outside looking in more than MU is.
Goose, respectfully, it is run like a business. You must be fairly young because this is the way it is. MU has done everything in its power to maintain a top notch program. By all accounts, it is run like a top notch program.
Some of the issues MU faces we can do little if anything about.
1. Small, Jesuit School not for everybody
2. Small, downtown urban campus
3. Milwaukee. works for some people, not for others.
4. Weather
Nothing MU can do about any of that. MU was very fortunate Al and Hank liked Milwaukee and remained their in retirement. there are just some issues MU has no control over.
100% vetting means what? You don't think individual circumstances change over the years?There is NO WAY to guarantee anyone stays for a long time.
MU has done an outstanding job under Fr. Wild with this program. Just look at other Catholic schools and see just how hard it is. Can you say DePaul, Creighton, SLU, SH etc?
Seriously? Roy Williams left Kansas, Bill Self left Illinois, Calipari left Memphis and Pitino left UK for the NBA just off the top of my head. Schools with equal or greater resources face the same problems we do, it's not a "Marquette" thing.
Tower---I agree with you and believe many of things can change. The issues we have are not ones that cannot be overcome. We have so much to offer and at times I feel like we waste an opportunity. I love Al and I love MU but it is 2011.
It is time for the school and fans to take advantage of the many positives we have here. We need to embrace a coach and make it his program. We need to go to crappy games and cheer or we will go backwards quickly.
We have the tools to make this an elite program.
79Warriors---I am 47 years old and have supported the program since my Dad got tickets in 1968. Our family name is on The AL wall and another building on campus. Every major event in my life, funeral or wedding, a MU coach, player, former player or coach has been in attendance. I am not a 22y casual fan of the program.
The game has changed and MU has ton of correct things. But to me it seems excuses are always made. Your points/negatives are valid. But is Louisville better? We are too good of a place with many resources to lose coaches prematurely.
Jam---I love MU so much I am not afraid to admit weakness or faults. I will love MU if they decide to go to A-10 or discontinue basketball. Because I believe we have a ton of great resources and they are not used to the fullest make me a hater? Give me a break.
Quote from: 79Warrior on March 22, 2011, 12:29:09 PM
Some of the issues MU faces we can do little if anything about.
1. Small, Jesuit School not for everybody
2. Small, downtown urban campus
3. Milwaukee. works for some people, not for others.
4. Weather
5. Top basketball recruits are increasingly from the south and the west, making recruiting more difficult.
6. Relatively small fan base and the lack of PR that goes with that.
Quote from: 79Warrior on March 22, 2011, 12:29:09 PM
MU has done an outstanding job under Fr. Wild with this program. Just look at other Catholic schools and see just how hard it is. Can you say DePaul, Creighton, SLU, SH etc?
Amen. Frankly I am not sure MU could have done any better with their basketball program as they have over the past 12 years. Two very good coaches, better facilities, admittance into the BE, success on the court, spending $$ off of it... What else can MU do?
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 12:31:12 PM
It is time for the school and fans to take advantage of the many positives we have here. We need to embrace a coach and make it his program. We need to go to crappy games and cheer or we will go backwards quickly.
You originally said the problem was completely with administration. This sounds like it's on the fans. Regardless, what should be done? Our facilities and salaries are top-notch. Basketball is king at the university.
Getting fans to show up to all the games is relative. We still have elite attendance numbers. I don't think it's reasonable to expect sellouts every game when the school is small relative to the BC. I think sellouts for all BE games is the absolute ceiling for attendance.
So what are your ideas to increase attendance, and what are your other ideas to bolster the program? I'd love to have somebody like K or Izzo that will be here forever, but there's only 2 of them to go around.
Sultan---Hire a basketball mided AD. Make the business of basketball a 365 day business. Promote the program throughout the state. It seems to me that we are great at doing things after the fact. It is great we built The Al, not lets use it for our advantage.
IMO Mu takes basketball for granted and the other schools we compete with do not. The AD position is very important.
All I can say it is like the line in Rounders when Matt Damon says "why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table every year? Are they the luckiest guys in Vegas?"
We have the tools to be special, real special.
I would like to agree with the Goose. However, I would add the caveat that there is only so much MU can do unless they want to take another step. The city for the most part at this point does not identify with MU (e.g. Bucks crowd vs MU crowd). Could that change, yes, but not without making it a priority by MU (and taking heat for it by the talking heads and influential alumni). I don't think trying to motivate the alumni base to go to a South East West Arkansas State game is ever going to work, however there is a metro of about 1 million people that haven't had a basketball winner in sometime to cheer for. The prices are half or less the cost of Bucks games.
Filling the Bradley Center, making a MU game the thing to do, can't be just put on the alumni. I'm not saying it worked because I haven't been going to games, but Northwestern (another school not many city people identify with) has been making a huge push through advertising throughout the city. Chicago doesn't identify with any college, but it has been done before with Depaul. The numbers are there in Milwaukee to make it a special place to see games. This year was dreadful as far as building energy goes and I thought last year was just a down year.
I get you Goose, but I just don't see it happening unless a coach (hopefully Buzz) is the facilitator it making it the biggest thing in Milwaukee.
dw3---Thanks!!
If Buzz stays, Cotttingham looks like a genius. If Buzz leaves, it might be time to bring in a new AD and let Cottingham go back to the GC's office.
I think you are understating what MU is doing now in many regards. Could they put more effort into marketing? Probably...but you will likely get diminishing returns over time. (Chicos could address this better than I could.) Things are different than they were 30 years ago. The biggest difference being that UW-Madison's program is not only off life support, but one of the better programs in the country. Al never had to deal with that.
But the AD thing isn't much of an issue with me. Most schools have gone the route of having a business-minded AD like Cottingham. Increasingly, that role isn't just a figurehead former coach, but someone smart and savy to make decisions in an ever-changing landscape. Cottingham certainly seems to have done OK so far...the decision to add lacrosse for instance was a stroke of genious.
Tower---Again I agree with many of your points but I have a question. Why spend $31 million on The Al with all the negatives? Why not have marquee times and play at MECCA? Xavier has done pretty well with all the bells and whistles.
Again, this is were identity crisis come in? Are we Xavier (I would have no problem with that) or are we big time? Gotta have a identity and a plan.
"why do you think the same five guys make it to the final table every year"
Not even remotely true but still a good line.........great movie.
MUMark---Our regional has UNC, UK and OSU. Do not think any of their fans think it is successful season being there. They are there because the school/fans expect and demand it.
It does not happen by luck that Duke plays big games. They are bred to play big games. We have everything in place to do the same.
I totally agree with "Goose". I bleed MU Basketball. I still blame administration. MU has great facilities, except the weather at times. We had it going after Al (Raymonds and Majerus) then then that administration came up with duds like Dukiet and Deane. O'Neill and Crean weren't so hot either at MU. A maybe to Crean. Keep Buzz. There are more MU fans up here now, but I still get crap from UW and it sickens my stomach.
Goose - You seem to think college basketball is made up of Duke, UNC and 343 variations of losers.
What I read you as saying is either we are Duke or we are a bunch of losers and should then go into the A-10 (or the Midwest version, the Horizon league).
Two years ago, MU was top 10 before DJ broke his foot. This year we are sweet sixteen. We have more top 100 guys than ever. We play int he toughest league, the BE.
I can see you now ... either we have a banner from the BC or we are Centenary. No difference.
Why are people acting like we've already lost our coach? We're still playing and Buzz isn't going anywhere for at least another week (and I don't see it happening then either). All this bitching about losing another coach shouldn't really happen until we actually lose another coach. We don't need to worry about 100% vetting another coach and making it his program - we have a perfectly good coach in Buzz, so how about you treat it as Buzz's program?
AnotherMU--We were Top 10 three years ago and in Sweet 16 this year. Unfortunately we might be googling our third coach in that same time frame. All I want is a return on investment. We spend money like UNC and Duke, I have heard that we out spend all BE teams with exception of Louisville, yet we are possibly losing another coach.
I will admit I must be an idiot because not one other poster finds that to be troubling? Maybe that is part of the proble,
Just sayin
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 01:42:41 PM
AnotherMU--We were Top 10 three years ago and in Sweet 16 this year. Unfortunately we might be googling our third coach in that same time frame. All I want is a return on investment. We spend money like UNC and Duke, I have heard that we out spend all BE teams with exception of Louisville, yet we are possibly losing another coach.
I will admit I must be an idiot because not one other poster finds that to be troubling? Maybe that is part of the proble,
Just sayin
Why are you so sure we're losing a coach? Buzz will be here next year.
Goose - what will you say in two weeks if Buzz does not leave?
TJ---I am not so sure but can say this, I am an adult and do know people take jobs for various reasons. More money and closer to home usually are solid reasons.
My starting the topic has nothing to do with Buzz leaving, it has to do with overall program. Would love to see Buzz stay here for ten years. Unfortunately I am not the guy trying to keep him. IMO we better be able to sell Buzz on why to stay better than the guy trying to get him to leave.
I agree that advertising has diminishing returns, however we have multiple factors going against us now:
1. Our current coach doesn't care about marketing for the most part. I'm fine with this, but I agree, someone has to be responsible for pitching the product full time.
2. The 2/3 year players are hard for the public to get attached to. Jimmy Butler just became the face of the program, but he's gone within the next two weeks. I love that we've stayed competitive with 2/3 year players, but they aren't going to be someone who casual fans (not people on message boards) can get behind. My son just started talking non-stop about Jimmy Butler and he will be gone. While getting behind a program is one thing, I just don't see it with our alumni base (enough to pack the Bradley center), the players are the ones kids identify with.
I would actually be happy with going to games that had the excitement level of the 3 amigos era, whether or not the attendance figures show it, actual attendance seems down at least 10-15% from a few years ago.
AnotherMU---If Buzz stays I would be happy as hell. Still think overall identity needs to be addressed but we could add established coach to our positive list. Being elite program is EVERYDAY job.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 01:52:08 PM
AnotherMU---If Buzz stays I would be happy as hell. Still think overall identity needs to be addressed but we could add established coach to our positive list. Being elite program is EVERYDAY job.
I still don't know what you mean by "Identity" I think you mean we have to be Duke or forget basketball altogether. In other words, if we are not the best of 345 D1 programs, then we are wasting our time.
It's good to have goals. The athletic program should have goals established, short term and long term. I would hope they have ambitious goals for the long term and strive to accomplish them. The more specific the goal the better.
AnotherMU--Do you think most NCAA fans think MU is peer to:
UConn
Kentucky
UW
DePaul
Xavier
My gut feeling is more non MU fans would group us with DePaul or Xavier than the top three. We spend more on ball than all put UK in that group but not thought of that way nationally.
To me it is like the idiots that call their school's the Harvard of the Midwest. I don't want to be the Kentucky of Wisconsin, I want to be Kentucky.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 12:52:16 PM
Sultan---Hire a basketball mided AD. Make the business of basketball a 365 day business.
I love MU basketball as much as the next guy but this is a bad idea. JUST this year Steve Cottingham helped strengthen our position in the Big East by adding Mens and Womens Lacrosse, as well as hiring an up and coming head coach from Hostra to coach the men.
You may not intend going to any of these games, but this is a growing sport that is slowly gaining more and more media attention. And to the best of my knowledge makes MU the furthest west team with D1 Men & Womens Lacrosse.
As many have mentioned the BE is looking to expand its football members. I see us in a position that is less likely to get pushed out SOLELY based on this addition of LAX.
MU Basketball is better in the Big East then getting pushed out to a Non-BCS conference like the A-10, thank the guy who wasn't 100% focused on MUBB for that.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:07:16 PM
AnotherMU--Do you think most NCAA fans think MU is peer to:
UConn
Kentucky
UW
DePaul
Xavier
My gut feeling is more non MU fans would group us with DePaul or Xavier than the top three. We spend more on ball than all put UK in that group but not thought of that way nationally.
To me it is like the idiots that call their school's the Harvard of the Midwest. I don't want to be the Kentucky of Wisconsin, I want to be Kentucky.
That takes winning, and especially winning in the tournament, more than anything else. Like it or not the 3 amigos + Hayward underperformed mightily over the course of 5 years in the tournament. Getting to the tournament was great, but that's not the goal of Kentucky. MU has succeeded/done its job this year and hopefully future teams can repeat this success in years to come. Nothing is going to change any perceptions out there better than tournament success. Keep the bid-streak alive. Win a game almost every year. Multiple Sweet 16 appearances. Get the recent tourney record above .500. Make it further a few times. That's how you become like Kentucky. Our perception is a direct result of this being just our third Sweet 16 appearance in 20+ years.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 12:52:16 PM
IMO Mu takes basketball for granted and the other schools we compete with do not. The AD position is very important.
Once again, MU spends more on basketball than 14 of the other 15 Big East programs with which we compete.
On what basis do you consider this "taking basketball for granted?"
TJ---Exactly my point. But we spend money like an Elite program. That is my question...WHY DO WE OUTSPEND ALMOST EVERYONE AND GROUPED WITH XAVIER? We beat Xavier 907 straight times prior to 1995 and now they are our equals. They do not play in NBA joint, have $31 million practice facility, out spend most schools in coach and are small Jesuit school, with small urban campus, with marginal winter weather and next to rednecks. Yet they are equally or more respected on national level.
Am I the only one that finds that troubling?
This thread started out OK with a good idea, strive for greatness, but I feel it went off track. We're on the right path doing the right things. The biggest thing we can do is to make sure we keep Buzz to maintain stability, and even that is somewhat out of our control. If Buzz stays, the future looks bright with our roster for next year and we can continue this positivie momentum.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:27:53 PM
TJ---Exactly my point. But we spend money like an Elite program. That is my question...WHY DO WE OUTSPEND ALMOST EVERYONE AND GROUPED WITH XAVIER? We beat Xavier 907 straight times prior to 1995 and now they are our equals. They do not play in NBA joint, have $31 million practice facility, out spend most schools in coach and are small Jesuit school, with small urban campus, with marginal winter weather and next to rednecks. Yet they are equally or more respected on national level.
Am I the only one that finds that troubling?
They got 3 Sweet 16 appearances in a row. That's most of it.
Pakuni---We out spend 14 out 15 BE schools and are one hire away from being DePaul. That is taking the program for granted. Being great does not happen only because you spend money. It is a 365 day a year process.
I think you care more about what others think than most of the rest of us do.
The fact that we are in the BE while Xavier is in the A10 means they are not our equal.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:27:53 PM
TJ---Exactly my point. But we spend money like an Elite program. That is my question...WHY DO WE OUTSPEND ALMOST EVERYONE AND GROUPED WITH XAVIER? We beat Xavier 907 straight times prior to 1995 and now they are our equals. They do not play in NBA joint, have $31 million practice facility, out spend most schools in coach and are small Jesuit school, with small urban campus, with marginal winter weather and next to rednecks. Yet they are equally or more respected on national level.
Am I the only one that finds that troubling?
Those numbers aren't exactly comparing apples to apples, schools account for different things in different ways. I also don't think people consider us equals with Xavier. I certainly wouldn't trade places with them, even with their recent tournament success. I'd much rather go see my team play Big East teams during the season than A-10 teams.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:31:39 PM
Pakuni---We out spend 14 out 15 BE schools and are one hire away from being DePaul. That is taking the program for granted. Being great does not happen only because you spend money. It is a 365 day a year process.
And MU is spending money only 243 days a year?
Seriously, I'm still waiting to hear what exactly the university must do, or isn't doing, to show the commitment you're seeking.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 22, 2011, 12:42:18 PM
Some of the issues MU faces we can do little if anything about.
1. Small, Jesuit School not for everybody
2. Small, downtown urban campus
3. Milwaukee. works for some people, not for others.
4. Weather
5. Top basketball recruits are increasingly from the south and the west, making recruiting more difficult.
6. Relatively small fan base and the lack of PR that goes with that.
QuoteMU has done an outstanding job under Fr. Wild with this program. Just look at other Catholic schools and see just how hard it is. Can you say DePaul, Creighton, SLU, SH etc?
Amen. Frankly I am not sure MU could have done any better with their basketball program as they have over the past 12 years. Two very good coaches, better facilities, admittance into the BE, success on the court, spending $$ off of it... What else can MU do?
I was going to post something, but this nails it.
The program is and has been in good shape for a decade plus, especially considering the things is has to overcome and those things won't go away.
If Buzz stays and i think he will, i see lots more continued success for the program.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:31:39 PM
Being great does not happen only because you spend money. It is a 365 day a year process.
Let me see if I am understanding you here.
being great does not happen only because you spend money.
But you want to make it a 365 day process buy HIRING a guy to do this?
Pakuni---If I knew what Duke, Kentucky or UConn does differently I would tell you. I would think with the resources at our fingertips we would be able to figure out those guys gameplan. Maybe hire someone from their AD department.
All Duke did was hire probably the greatest coach in the history of college basketball. I actually think that they may be in for a pretty hard fall when Coach K retires, especially considering how poor his "coaching tree" has performed.
Kentucky (and to a lesser extent UConn) are large, public universities with massive followings that go well beyond their alumni base. They just have many more resources at their disposal than MU has.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:27:53 PM
TJ---Exactly my point. But we spend money like an Elite program. That is my question...WHY DO WE OUTSPEND ALMOST EVERYONE AND GROUPED WITH XAVIER? We beat Xavier 907 straight times prior to 1995 and now they are our equals. They do not play in NBA joint, have $31 million practice facility, out spend most schools in coach and are small Jesuit school, with small urban campus, with marginal winter weather and next to rednecks. Yet they are equally or more respected on national level.
Am I the only one that finds that troubling?
Goose - I just don't see it. This whole thread reads like a Chicken Little diatribe.
1. We are not a peer of Xavier, and I don't think that is how we are seen nationally (except for those people who work at Jesuit schools). I think most schools are first categorized by the conference they play in. Then, by relative size of athletic program. Then, by success. So, our comps are Nova, GTown, and to a lesser extent (based off success since the new Big East formed) PC, SJU, Seton Hall, DePaul.
2. I have no problem with our identity. In what was seen as a relatively down year, we were .500 in the toughest conference in the nation. In our up-years we will be in the hunt for the top-3 in conference, which I expect will equal being a top 10 team nationally. We have moved from being a defense-first team to and offense-first team, but the hustle and work ethic continues to be lauded nationally.
I think Goose raises an interesting question. In the 70's, Marquette was an elite program. Clearly, Marquette fell off and has not yet returned to that level.
To a certain extent, our history is also an anchor. It is unreasonable to believe we return to elite right now.
There are many conditions in place that demonstrate the commitment to a successful program. While the math is fuzzy when comparing how much programs spend on hoops, there is no doubt that the administration spends a lot. Mostly, the infrastructure of an elite program is in place.
And yet, like Goose asks, we are not elite despite our spending and infrastructure. We wonder if we'll be able to prevent our coach from going to Oklahoma or Arkansas. (Although, the buyout information makes me believe this is not an issue.)
I struggle with what else could be done to improve the program. However, I don't think it's enough to say, "we're doing the absolute best we can". I think Goose is asking a completely fair question, and I wish I had a simple answer in response.
Sultan--Why does every poster ignore the fact we out spend everyone yet under perform many of our peers?I ran a very small business and never would profess to being a Harvard MBA, but I do know if spend $60K on a car I do not want a Chevy Malibu in return.
I love MU and love program. But for some reasons it seems like a million excuses on here.
Henry--Thank you for explaining my point in a better manner. I get very emotional because I love the place and think we are really good but could be better. You stated my point better than I did...thank you.
Keeping your successful coaches and maintaining stability is a good start to getting to an elite status in basketball.
What more you can do to get to the point where most coaches want to be at MU long term?? develop prestige through winning, global warming establishing Milwaukee and Lake Michigan a tropical destination, keep driving those SUVs, Marquette thanks you......MPS developing more qualified major talent would help, not much down the pipe since Landry.
Goose - Ironically...I think you are one of the few with an identity crisis!! Seriously...you have been all over the last 3 weeks with regard to your perceptions and opinions of MU basketball.
You fear Xavier - yet Xavier lost Sean Miller, Pete Gillen and many other coaches along its way to success. Xavier gets more respect currently than MU because they advanced to 3-4 sweet 16's in the last 5 years.
UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky will always be elite. MU is probably a Top 15-25 program on the college basketball landscape. We are solid. However, because we don't have a football team..and are located in a state that produces limited high major basketball talent - those are 2 drawbacks that prevent us from being perceived as a Top 5-15 program.
Buzz can absolutely make MU elite again, through the sheer force of his will....let's hope he stays...it will always take a special coach such as Al, and Buzz to make MU a truly elite program. Even Indiana with all its history has struggled after the legendary Bobby Knight left..
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:59:35 PM
Sultan--Why does every poster ignore the fact we out spend everyone yet under perform many of our peers?I ran a very small business and never would profess to being a Harvard MBA, but I do know if spend $60K on a car I do not want a Chevy Malibu in return.
I love MU and love program. But for some reasons it seems like a million excuses on here.
It would be like asking why can't the Wisconsin football program be just like Texas, Ohio St., Florida, Alabama, USC, etc. when those programs not only have long traditions of success to draw in recruits along with the huge recruiting advantage of having a much more fertile home recruiting base to grab recruits from.
If it was easy to become a long time national power in college football or basketball, non-power programs would become a power program all the time. It doesn't work that way.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:59:35 PM
Sultan--Why does every poster ignore the fact we out spend everyone yet under perform many of our peers?I ran a very small business and never would profess to being a Harvard MBA, but I do know if spend $60K on a car I do not want a Chevy Malibu in return.
We pay to keep talented coaches. And in the past fifty years, we have lost three coaches who we wanted to keep. Majerus (although that is arguable), O'Neill (when the program was at a different place), and Crean (to one of the traditionally best programs in the country...after nine years).
And as far as "underperforming," how is that? We are a regular NCAA tournament participant. We have made a final four in the last decade. We are near the top of average attendance per year. We have had similar success in these regards to the likes of Georgetown and Villanova. We have out-performed the likes of Notre Dame and St. John's.
Considering how crappy the program was 15-20 years ago, we are in a good place.
Sultan---I respect all of your points and most of your points. I guess I am almost saddened that nobody else cares we spend like crazy to be a bubble team and sweet 16 once a decade. If that is the price tag for this level of success I think we are being duped.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 02:45:11 PM
Pakuni---If I knew what Duke, Kentucky or UConn does differently I would tell you. I would think with the resources at our fingertips we would be able to figure out those guys gameplan. Maybe hire someone from their AD department.
Stability, at least in two of those.
Coach K has been at Duke for 30+ years
Coach Calhoun has been at UCONN for 25 years
I truly believe that is the main missing ingredient at MU. We've had one guy, Al McGuire last more than a decade in the last 50 years. One guy.
Also, in each of those programs they are not competing much against others in their sport. Kentucky basketball is THE sport in Kentucky. UCONN basketball..it's the basketball team in Connecticut. Duke...well certainly they aren't the only game in the state but they also have a small gym to fill and really aren't the team in the state...in fact they are widely despised by many in the state who prefer UNC or NC State, but they have very strong niche and a huge national brand.
Ultimately....winning.....more winning equals more fans equals more stability
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 03:26:05 PM
Sultan---I respect all of your points and most of your points. I guess I am almost saddened that nobody else cares we spend like crazy to be a bubble team and sweet 16 once a decade. If that is the price tag for this level of success I think we are being duped.
I just don't think it's worthwhile to complain about it DURING a Sweet 16 run. The only way to fix the problems you speak of is sustained success over time. The team did its part this year. Now you need patience because we can't get another tick mark in our Sweet 16 Appearances column until next March.
Quote from: TJ on March 22, 2011, 03:39:26 PM
I just don't think it's worthwhile to complain about it DURING a Sweet 16 run. The only way to fix the problems you speak of is sustained success over time. The team did its part this year. Now you need patience because we can't get another tick mark in our Sweet 16 Appearances column until next March.
Well said.
FYI--I am not complaining. I just happen to think that who will be our coach next season is more important to the school than if we win or not Friday. A win would be great, coach stability better in my humble opinion.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2011, 03:30:17 PM
Coach K has been at Duke for 30+ years
Coach Calhoun has been at UCONN for 25 years
I truly believe that is the main missing ingredient at MU. We've had one guy, Al McGuire last more than a decade in the last 50 years. One guy.
Goose - Chicos has given you the holy grail of answer. I understand MU spends a lot, I'm OK with that because MU is trying to give the program every competitive advantage it can (see the Synergy Sports Technology discussion a couple days - a very expensive tool).
However, you need a good recruiter at the helm (we have one), and a good Xs and Os guy (he's getting better all the time), and you need him to stick around for a long time. If we can keep Buzz, I think we'll be fine. If we can't, we'll be OK, but maintaining success will be much more difficult.
Rocky--Well stated. I guess I need to wait for the answer to the real question. What does MU have to do to have a coach want to stay? The AL, big salary, BE and good school appears to not cut it. Maybe I'll go with the flow and accept things as they are.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 03:02:07 PM
Henry--Thank you for explaining my point in a better manner. I get very emotional because I love the place and think we are really good but could be better. You stated my point better than I did...thank you.
We have had many discussions about these spending numbers. They are somewhat meaningless. Their are no standards to which things are measured. If you have a football program, you can bury costs there. State schools are sensitive to taxpayers and tend to understate their spending. Small Private Schools want to show they can compete with state schools and tend to use liberal accounting.
That said, we do know that MU is an above average spender. Beyond that we cannot quantify a return on investment as the numbers are somewhat made up.
--------
Regarding Identity ... I feel many have missed another critical fact. We have a 100% graduation rate, one of the few schools that do. Even more rare is we have 100% graduation rate without a large number of "traditional" players. Our players rarely get in trouble. This all seems to matter to us a great deal.
If I could wave a wand and turn us into Kentucky, would you take that? Sure you'll get a #1 seed every other year and a 3 of 4 FF trips a decade. But along with that is the occasional NCAA sanction, cutting corners to get kids to qualify (see Derek Rose) drug arrests, beating up girlfriends and a low graduation rate.
Is this a trade you're willing to do?
Another MU--Agreed on the good of the program. Then our identity is solid student-athletes that graduate. I love that. Then do we need all the bells and whistles? I love ball a lot but if we could wave a wand over things I would prefer MU to become Northwestern than Kentucky. The school means as much to me as program.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 04:05:15 PM
Rocky--Well stated. I guess I need to wait for the answer to the real question. What does MU have to do to have a coach want to stay? The AL, big salary, BE and good school appears to not cut it. Maybe I'll go with the flow and accept things as they are.
See my post above ... To be tOSU (see the football sanctions handed down this week), Kentucky or anyone not named Duke and UNC, you have NCAA sanctions, low graduation rates, drug busts and many other unseemly things.
Maybe we are too strict in our acceptance standards (we have them) and do not tolerate pot smoking at Humphrey. Is that our problem?
Are we too strict in our acceptance standards? I doubt it.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on March 22, 2011, 04:19:22 PM
Are we too strict in our acceptance standards? I doubt it.
See Calipari at Memphis with Derek Rose. What if that happened here? If they kid took us to the final game, you ok with it?
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 04:05:15 PM
Rocky--Well stated. I guess I need to wait for the answer to the real question. What does MU have to do to have a coach want to stay? The AL, big salary, BE and good school appears to not cut it. Maybe I'll go with the flow and accept things as they are.
Coaching stability is huge. Most of us agree with that. But how do you know that MU hasn't already done what it needs to do to keep a coach? How do you know that those things "appear to not cut it?" Buzz has given no indication that he's leaving and every indication that he'll "stay as long as they'll have me." Maybe they did what they needed to do by hiring Buzz. I believe that was one of the reasons they hired him in the first place. If it really gets you this worked up, stop reading every rumor and coach wish list out there. Just because a bunch of bloggers and message board posters think Buzz would be good somewhere else doesn't mean he's going.
I don't know if we can truly believe Buzz on his "stay as long..." statement or not (I believe him, but I also don't think it's necessarily a lie if a perfect unexpected situation becomes available and he takes it), but we can be sure that the bloggers and experts are never going to think anyone is locked in at one place. They still predict Mark Few and Tom Izzo to move many years.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on March 22, 2011, 04:10:13 PM
We have had many discussions about these spending numbers. They are somewhat meaningless. Their are no standards to which things are measured. If you have a football program, you can bury costs there. State schools are sensitive to taxpayers and tend to understate their spending. Small Private Schools want to show they can compete with state schools and tend to use liberal accounting.
That said, we do know that MU is an above average spender. Beyond that we cannot quantify a return on investment as the numbers are somewhat made up.
--------
Regarding Identity ... I feel many have missed another critical fact. We have a 100% graduation rate, one of the few schools that do. Even more rare is we have 100% graduation rate without a large number of "traditional" players. Our players rarely get in trouble. This all seems to matter to us a great deal.
If I could wave a wand and turn us into Kentucky, would you take that? Sure you'll get a #1 seed every other year and a 3 of 4 FF trips a decade. But along with that is the occasional NCAA sanction, cutting corners to get kids to qualify (see Derek Rose) drug arrests, beating up girlfriends and a low graduation rate.
Is this a trade you're willing to do?
I agree with much of what's in here. As far as finances, I'd love to know where we spend. From what I've heard, one of the toughest things to do and biggest expenditures is scheduling, but when it comes to cupcakes, our scheduling is atrocious. So where does our money go? Is it all wrapped up in paying off The AL? Is it because of all the jet fuel used to scout recruits from California to Texas to Virginia?
As far as consistency, I feel we need it. And I hope that Buzz can provide it. But when you look at the top programs, you see Coach K at Duke, Boeheim at Syracuse, Calhoun at UConn, even Roy carrying on from his mentor Dean Smith at UNC. I'm really hoping we're still discussing Buzz as our head coach not just in 5 years, but in 10 and 20 years. That's the only way we'll ever reach elite status.
And in direct response to the trade-off, no, it's not worth it. I'd rather we make the tourney regularly, get the occasional Sweet 16, and maybe the blue moon Final Four run than be Kentucky. I can't help but think it will catch up with them at some point. I'd rather be clean and have kids representing us we can all be proud of than feel dirty because we've got the next Bruce Pearl at the helm.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 22, 2011, 04:26:02 PM
I agree with much of what's in here. As far as finances, I'd love to know where we spend. From what I've heard, one of the toughest things to do and biggest expenditures is scheduling, but when it comes to cupcakes, our scheduling is atrocious. So where does our money go? Is it all wrapped up in paying off The AL? Is it because of all the jet fuel used to scout recruits from California to Texas to Virginia?
I think most of it is used to support the other sports that MU needs to sponsor to be a member of the NCAA and the BE. Between the other sports, MU probably has 60 or so (?) other athletes on scholarship, coaches, travel, etc. But how much revenue do these sports generate?
Quote from: TJ on March 22, 2011, 04:24:39 PMBuzz has given no indication that he's leaving and every indication that he'll "stay as long as they'll have me."
This.
I think we're getting all worked up over rumors. If Buzz leaves, I'll be the first to jump in with Goose and ask what we're doing wrong. Until then, I think we're on an upward trajectory.
---
As far as "Elite" goes, that's branding, not performance. Branding takes time. I think MU has the ingredients (DWade, Brand Jordan, NCAA tournaments, conference, Al) ... we just need to continue to perform. There's also a luck component to it all. $$ alone will not get us to that upper echelon.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 03:51:25 PM
FYI--I am not complaining. I just happen to think that who will be our coach next season is more important to the school than if we win or not Friday. A win would be great, coach stability better in my humble opinion.
This is a complex thing. If it wasn't, lots of schools would be Duke.
I agree that stability is key...but so is winning. The proverbial "top programs" all have multiple national championships. They also tend to have had coaches with long tenures. So, we need both. I agree that we need to retain our coach. I'd be thrilled if Buzz was our coach for 25+ years because that would mean he is successful and the program is doing well. But, I struggle with saying that it's more important to have Buzz as our coach next season than whether or not we win Friday (although I realize that this isn't exactly what you said...you didn't specify Buzz).
An honest question: would it be better for the program long term if we made it to the FF (or better) this year but Buzz moved on to another job, or would it be better if we lost to UNC but kept Buzz? I honestly don't know, and I don't think there's an easy answer. The FF would enhance our reputation and hopefully help us get a good coach and recruits in the future (hopefully leading to stability and more winning), but the instability would be problematic. On the other hand, if we lose, and then have a tough year next year, perhaps we would still lose Buzz and struggle more in the future.
My personal opinion is that Marquette is doing a very nice job and the program is up there with the second tier of "very good programs" behind the elite programs. I think to get over the hump, they need a championship (or at least multiple final fours) and coaching stability. At this point, I'm not sure which of those is the chicken, and which is the egg.
Goose,
I have a couple of problems with your post. The first is with your use of the word elite, and the second refers to identity.
So, MU is not an elite program. You probably are correct, if that is based on the number of championship banners hanging from the rafters of the Bradley Center. However, that characterizes 95% of the D1 basketball programs. So, we are at the level below that, as evidenced by the number of times we have made it to the tourney, our attendance rankings, our winning percentage, etc. While we should not be satisfied with the current state of affairs, I don't think that suggests that we are losers, or that our program is a failure. Let's face it, MU was spoiled by the brief success of the 1970s, and there is probably a good reason for Al retiring at the top, realizing the times were changing and it was going to be difficult for MU to maintain its position relative to other programs. The days of independents was over, as evidenced by Depaul, MU, and Notre Dame basketball.
Regarding identity, that is a tougher issue to deal with. Tom Crean brought the program back to respectability with the success the program had during his tenure. He stayed at Marquette for about the same length of time as Al, and we came to expect a certain level of success from the program, and for the most part, Crean delivered. Sadly, we never got back to the final four, but a little bad luck with injuries, and some gaps in recruiting, certainly prevented us from having more success in the tourney.
But I am much more concerned about the pessimistic tone of your post. We have a bright, energetic young coach who has done a great job of recruiting. He got us into the tourney each of his 3 years, and has us into the Sweet sixteen this year. Not bad, if you ask me. He also has much more talent on the team next year than in previous years, and he will begin moving away from the juco players and toward the 4 year kids, which over time should bring more stability and prevent bumpy rides like we had this year. I think anyone who understands what little he had to work with when he took the job can understand why he chose so many jucos in the beginning. If you watch the MU games on TV, and listen to national commentators speak about Marquette, it is clear that we have an identity--that of hard work and toughness. What MU needs to move into the elite level, is continued success and deep runs into the tourney in consecutive years. We can do that only with consistency in the coaching staff. I am very optismistic about the future of men's b-ball at Marquette. I expect them to continue to improve, and I hope they continue to do it the right way, by graduating their players, by emphasizing life lessons, by being good representatives of Marquette University, and continued success on the hard court.
StillaWarrior--Agreed on winning and FF. I guess I assumed we all want the team to win and keep winning. My point is more towards multi-tasking. Lets win and lock a coach up long term. I would love nothing more than to have Buzz stay. But, would to be doing this again next year.
6746--My issue on identity is not solely based on being elite or not. My point is lets pick what we want to be. If we want to be a very good school with great representatives of the school on the team the expectations and expenditures should reflect that. If we want to be elite and spend like big timers the expectations should match that.
I apologize if my tone sounds negative. You can be assured I love the program and school. I get frustrated because fans either bitch about not winning more or make excuses on why we don't win more. If a common objective was laid out then many complaints would disappear.
I am not looking for a team identity other than the goal is to be elite or be Xavier. That said, Xavier gets a lot out of less in my opinion. The play of the team the last two games proves to me they have great character and that starts with Buzz.
Quote from: brewcity77 on March 22, 2011, 04:26:02 PM
I agree with much of what's in here. As far as finances, I'd love to know where we spend. From what I've heard, one of the toughest things to do and biggest expenditures is scheduling, but when it comes to cupcakes, our scheduling is atrocious. So where does our money go? Is it all wrapped up in paying off The AL? Is it because of all the jet fuel used to scout recruits from California to Texas to Virginia?
As far as consistency, I feel we need it. And I hope that Buzz can provide it. But when you look at the top programs, you see Coach K at Duke, Boeheim at Syracuse, Calhoun at UConn, even Roy carrying on from his mentor Dean Smith at UNC. I'm really hoping we're still discussing Buzz as our head coach not just in 5 years, but in 10 and 20 years. That's the only way we'll ever reach elite status.
And in direct response to the trade-off, no, it's not worth it. I'd rather we make the tourney regularly, get the occasional Sweet 16, and maybe the blue moon Final Four run than be Kentucky. I can't help but think it will catch up with them at some point. I'd rather be clean and have kids representing us we can all be proud of than feel dirty because we've got the next Bruce Pearl at the helm.
I'm with you on that
One reason i like this year's team so much and last year's also isn't just that they did good things on the court, all the kids on both squads strike me as good kids/young men that represent the university wonderfully.
I don't want the program to bring in a bunch of shaky character guys and also pull every possible string so the kids don't have to put effort into going to class.
If a player enters the program and isn't good enough to leave early for the NBA draft, i want them to leave with a degree which can benefit them through the rest of their lives. I want a coach in place who makes every kid attend class or take a hike. Winning isn't the only thing important for me.
El---Great answer. Now that is identity of a program. Nothing wrong with being a really good place with really good kids. I have no problem with that. If that is the case NONE of us should ever complain about a player or coach on here. Truthfully my concern is we want it all...good kid, big budget, great school and great coach. IMO it does not work that way, or at least it is very difficult to work that way.
All season I saw negative player, recruit and coach posts on this site and that is why I posed the question. If we want to be cut throat to get to elite level we all can be critical. If we want 100% graduation and great kids the bar needs to be lowered. If we lower the bar we lower the budget. My feeling is we keep a coach a lot longer if they knew expectations. In addition, that guy probably would work for a ton less money.
It's the curse of political correctness
Quote from: Utile et Dulce on March 22, 2011, 04:39:29 PM
As far as "Elite" goes, that's branding, not performance. Branding takes time. I think MU has the ingredients (DWade, Brand Jordan, NCAA tournaments, conference, Al) ... we just need to continue to perform. There's also a luck component to it all. $$ alone will not get us to that upper echelon.
If only we had a unique and recognizable nickname that would instantly boost our brand and tie to our rich legacy in college basketball.* *No, I will never give up the idea that the Warriors name will return. Like TallTitan's avatar, I'd even support the chicken mascot if it meant Warriors was the nickname. Because a Warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others, and there is absolutely nothing that contradicts with Marquette's mission about being a Warrior.On continuing to perform, I am reminded of the wonderful book, "Mastery" by George Leonard. Essentially, a large premise of the book is that human development happens in long stretches of plateaus where growth does not appear to happen. Performance increases in sudden spurts. That growth is followed by a decline to a level above the previous plateau, at which point a new plateau begins. One needs to embrace the plateau.
Perhaps, as a fanbase, we are just at a plateau and experiencing some of the growth. Despite the heritage of first/second round losses, MU has made the NCAA tourney six straight times. That hasn't happened since the 70's.
Further, I truly do believe that next year is when MU begins to make "the leap". I believe we will be ranked all year, contend for a top four spot in the BE, and have a minimum expectation of S16. Maybe not elite... but getting closer.
Having said all that, it still rubs me the wrong way to say, "we're doing everything perfectly and all that is necessary is to hope Buzz sticks around".
Henry---I agree that next year might be the year we have been waiting for on the court. I do not want this season to end but next year could be special.
The branding of MU is all part of the identity issue in my opinion. The school needs to brand the school. Maybe hiring a new marketing team..going back to Warriors (wishful thinking) or new logo. The turnout for sending team off yesterday was a joke and someone should be held responsible for that.
Over the past 60+ years...based on AP rankings....you could say MU is around the 17th best program and 3rd-4th among the privates. Is that Elite? Is that a program that has had trouble recruiting to Milwaukee? And no, it isn't all Al. Only two coaches in MU's history have had losing records EVER: Cord Lipe and Bob Dukiet. DePaul's last 3 of 4 have not been able to crack the break even mark, to put that into perspective.
Facilities and fan following are Top 10. NBA heritage is tops for our size, including recently. Three national tournament banners (NCAA, NIT, Catholic), with quite a few 2nd's and semi finishes. Strong financial commitment (double meaning). In the best hoops conference while on national TV with increasing frequency. MU is darn near Elite, perhaps in the Top 5%. Is Elite the top 2%? Buzz's suitors are historically below MU and they are on the down cycle. The MU psyche needs a shrink.
http://statsheet.com/mcb/rankings/report_most_in_the_top
Dr Blackheart---All of your points are valid and a positive for the program. Do you think fans in AZ or OR know that about MU? I would bet that many local ball fans in WI would be unaware of what we have done.
Our history, both past and recent, is borderline elite in my mind. My concern is what we have is more fragile than it should be. All schools risk downturns and I understand that. I would love to see MU viewed in a more elite manner by local media, national media and basketball fans in general.
Quote from: Goose on March 23, 2011, 08:36:43 AM
Dr Blackheart---All of your points are valid and a positive for the program. Do you think fans in AZ or OR know that about MU? I would bet that many local ball fans in WI would be unaware of what we have done.
Our history, both past and recent, is borderline elite in my mind. My concern is what we have is more fragile than it should be. All schools risk downturns and I understand that. I would love to see MU viewed in a more elite manner by local media, national media and basketball fans in general.
Do you know AZ's or OR's (btw, is that Oregon or Oral Roberts?) histories? Do you think those fans know where DePaul is located or Villanova or Xavier or Butler? Does the Average Joe know what cities your listed schools are located? MU is a national program, yet they continue to outdraw the Bucks per game locally. Basketball fans know Marquette. ESPN and the BE only enhance this.
My definition of Elite is Top 10 sustained. If you look at the list of schools on the AP list, they have had long tenures of HOF coaches who recruit consistently. MU needs to reward successful continuity and not go for the next "flavor of the month". And, MU fans/alums/students, Admin and AD need to act elite and not the victim. Very, very close.
Blackheart---Respect your opinion and hope you are correct. For the record, I want fans to know where MU is located and want young fans to want to attend MU and old fans to want their kids/grandkids to go to MU.
Maybe I just hold MU in way too high of regard. Outdrawing the Bucks does not do it for me. We have something really, really good and believe the word is not spread enough.
this is dated but it speaks volumes about the heritage of hoops at MU - something that is better than most realize
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uji6kjkAGwQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uji6kjkAGwQ)
Number 1 key to success is stability at the HC position. Marquette has done most everything* they can in that area. If Buzz leaves it will be due to factors MU cannot control.
* Cott has to make sure that he has the strongest possible buyout language in the HC contract. Crean's buyout was too weak, considering that the University just committed to him for 10 years, and he bails after 2. I know guys look for flexibility, but commitment from MU = a stronger buyout.
As far as identity goes, I think MU has been pretty clear since the McGuire era that we want good kids, who will graduate, and we will not prostitute our values to win. I think Buzz believes in that identity, believes that he can recruit players good enough to win at a high level, and will stay.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2011, 07:26:09 PM
El---Great answer. Now that is identity of a program. Nothing wrong with being a really good place with really good kids. I have no problem with that. If that is the case NONE of us should ever complain about a player or coach on here. Truthfully my concern is we want it all...good kid, big budget, great school and great coach. IMO it does not work that way, or at least it is very difficult to work that way.
I think it can work that way if we give Buzz time. He's bringing in good kids. We have a big budget. I believe Marquette is a great school with a great mission. And given time, he can become not just a very good recruiter but a great coach. I think he's already there as a person and just needs time. Maybe it's pie in the sky, but if Buzz is what he appears to be, there's no reason that given 8-10 years of consistency, we can't have it all.