Since expansion to 64 teams, in 1985, is the MU program an underacheiver, or overacheiver?
Here is the entire Pat Forde of ESPN article on the top 10s of each, and in the interest of space...a paste of the top 3 Overs, and top 3 Unders.
Link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6595711
Top 3 of each:
..."
OVERS:
1. Butler: You cannot get from the Horizon League to the Final Four -- unless you are the Bulldogs, who have done it two years in a row, advancing to the title game both times. It's one of the great feats in college hoops history.
But it's hardly the only reason Butler tops this list. It has had a winning record 18 of the past 19 years, played in 10 of the past 15 NCAA tournaments -- and most importantly, won games in those tournaments. As ESPN Insider John Gasaway pointed out Wednesday, Butler's 16 NCAA tourney victories since 2000 are more than Pittsburgh, Louisville, Villanova, Georgetown and Ohio State have compiled.
Butler has gotten all this done with four different head coaches, promoting from within and getting spectacular results. This isn't John Kresse at College of Charleston or Bob McKillop at Davidson, a situation where an excellent coach hunkered down and declined opportunities to leave for bigger jobs.
2. Duke: Yeah, we've become accustomed to considering the Blue Devils the sport's ultimate overdog. But that's only because of the relentless winning during the past 26 seasons. When put into context with similar schools, Duke is a massive overachiever.
Duke is the most academically prestigious school to win a national title in the modern era -- and it has won four of them. Its big-conference brethren, Stanford, Vanderbilt and Northwestern, have combined for ... let's see now ... zero national titles. Only one of them (Stanford) has even made a Final Four. The Blue Devils have made 11 in the modern era and 15 overall.
Duke also is the smallest school, in terms of enrollment, to win a national title since Villanova in 1985.
3. Gonzaga: You cannot hold an NCAA tournament without the Zags anymore. They've played in 13 straight and won at least one game in 10 of those appearances.
And nobody has dominated its league like Gonzaga, winning or sharing the West Coast Conference regular-season title 11 straight seasons and playing in the tournament final 14 straight years.
Although Spokane, Wash., is not a small town, it's remote enough that it theoretically should make recruiting tricky. But coach Mark Few has established himself as one of the premier recruiters in the nation...."
...."
UNDERS:
1. Northwestern: Being an egghead school is a proven impediment to winning national titles for everyone but Duke -- but plenty of egghead schools have at least experienced some success. Stanford has gone to a Final Four and been a No. 1 seed several times, and Vanderbilt has become an annual contender in the Southeastern Conference.
Then there is Northwestern.
Despite proximity to a slew of talent, the Wildcats are famously still waiting for their first NCAA tournament invitation. Not first victory; first berth. That's pathetic.
2. USC: There is just a little evidence that a Pac-12 school from Los Angeles can win a national title. It's all hanging from the rafters in the Pauley Pavilion on the UCLA campus. But across town, the Trojans have resolutely avoided achieving anything resembling basketball greatness.
USC has won six NCAA tourney games since 1979, half of them in a 2001 run to the Elite Eight. In the Trojans' last Final Four appearance (1954), they had to win just two games to get there.
Even building a sparkling new arena a couple of years ago hasn't yet turned USC into a legit contender. And there has been plenty of opportunity for a program to assert itself in what has been a weak Pac-12 the past few years.
3. Penn State: When a Big Ten school loses its coach to a mid-pack program from the Patriot League, it qualifies as a repudiation of your basketball rep. The Nittany Lions are a low-attendance, low-salary, high-apathy embarrassment.
Ironically, if Penn State had cared at all about its basketball program, it would have fired Ed DeChellis two years before he got the chance to jilt the place for Navy. Instead the school got a lose-lose situation -- it took seven disappointing seasons to finally earn an NCAA berth under DeChellis, and now it must shop for a new coach in late May.
Which makes Dick Vitale's suggested candidate -- Bob Knight -- a perfect choice. Penn State will have cornered the market on grumpy, old icons...."
We arent on either of Forde's top 10 list-- so in which camp would you place us?
i believe we are and have been competitors. with the exception of the dukiet era, i thought deane had the right idea, but sans the attraction that o'neil had which was the beginning of our assension to where we are today. always wonder what we could have done with majerus had some people allowed him to stay. but we are neither over nor under-we are the WARRIORS. buzz is a one of a kind like al was. now i'm not comparing the two. al was hollywood. but buzz has his own style and personality. i think he's a basketball rainman. very simple minded outside of the sport, but inside the gym, he might be misunderstood some. many will say his late game needs honing-probably, but there also is the fact that he needs the talent to understand/buy into his tactics and execute
Quote from: wyzgy on May 30, 2011, 08:03:22 AM
i believe we are and have been competitors. with the exception of the dukiet era, i thought deane had the right idea, but sans the attraction that o'neil had which was the beginning of our assension to where we are today. always wonder what we could have done with majerus had some people allowed him to stay. but we are neither over nor under-we are the WARRIORS. buzz is a one of a kind like al was. now i'm not comparing the two. al was hollywood. but buzz has his own style and personality. i think he's a basketball rainman. very simple minded outside of the sport, but inside the gym, he might be misunderstood some. many will say his late game needs honing-probably, but there also is the fact that he needs the talent to understand/buy into his tactics and execute
I think he has you fooled.....Buzz is not simple minded outside of basketball. He is plenty sharp but he relishes in the huckster roll....almost a defense mechanism. He is no dope and plenty smart.
Houwarrior....when you consider what we did prior to the 64 team era one could argue post 64 team expansion was a bit wobbly...thank God for the 2000's. We have 12 appearances since the expansion with 8 of those 12 coming since 2001. So we've gone to the NCAAs roughly every other year since expansion. The Final Four is the key, without I would say we underachieved. With it, I wouldn't say we overachieved but achieved credibility.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 30, 2011, 10:43:34 AM
Houwarrior....when you consider what we did prior to the 64 team era one could argue post 64 team expansion was a bit wobbly...thank God for the 2000's. We have 12 appearances since the expansion with 8 of those 12 coming since 2001. So we've gone to the NCAAs roughly every other year since expansion. The Final Four is the key, without I would say we underachieved. With it, I wouldn't say we overachieved but achieved credibility.
I think its interesting to note the different attitude that Butler and MU have had regarding conference affiliation since our days together as co-members of the MCC (precursor to the Horizon). I sense that so much of MU's identity is now tied up in what conference we're in and who our opponents are that we've lost sight of the fact that at the end of the season, each team stands on its own merits.
We hated the MCC from day one, and got out as quickly as we could.
Butler started in the exact same space, and leveraged the league's automatic bid and easier competition to become a regular player after the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.
When the record book is written on the season, does anybody care that we played in a tougher league? Butler gets the listing as a Final Four team.
Yeah, we get more money out of our Big East relationship than Butler gets from the Horizon. But we have to plow every dime back into the program to keep us competitive with Pitt and Louisvlle and Uconn, lest we join PC, DePaul and Seton Hall in the lower reaches of the standings.
Yes, there are some benefits to our affiliation with the BE--people would rather turn out for those opponents as opposed to those in the Horizon. Not going to downplay the visibility we get as "high major".
We left Butler behind when we left the Horizon after the 1991 season. Its conventional wisdom that leaving was a very good move for us. 20 years later and seeing the success of Butler over that period suggests that conference affiliation is overrated.
Not so fast 84. Kudos to Butler, but I suspect that reality will soon set in for Buter with Hayward, Howard and Mack now gone. Days of deep NCAA runs are probably over got the Bulldogs as they will no longer get guys like this from IN and KY as IU is on the rebound,
Painter has built up Purdue and KY is over Gillispie. I may be wrong, but probably not.
Butler has had a nice decade, but....? In the meantime, most of us enjoy the BE competition. Yes it costs more to compete, though I would hate to wallow thru a Horizon League season.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 30, 2011, 11:53:15 AM
I think its interesting to note the different attitude that Butler and MU have had regarding conference affiliation since our days together as co-members of the MCC (precursor to the Horizon). I sense that so much of MU's identity is now tied up in what conference we're in and who our opponents are that we've lost sight of the fact that at the end of the season, each team stands on its own merits.
We hated the MCC from day one, and got out as quickly as we could.
Butler started in the exact same space, and leveraged the league's automatic bid and easier competition to become a regular player after the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.
When the record book is written on the season, does anybody care that we played in a tougher league? Butler gets the listing as a Final Four team.
Yeah, we get more money out of our Big East relationship than Butler gets from the Horizon. But we have to plow every dime back into the program to keep us competitive with Pitt and Louisvlle and Uconn, lest we join PC, DePaul and Seton Hall in the lower reaches of the standings.
Yes, there are some benefits to our affiliation with the BE--people would rather turn out for those opponents as opposed to those in the Horizon. Not going to downplay the visibility we get as "high major".
We left Butler behind when we left the Horizon after the 1991 season. Its conventional wisdom that leaving was a very good move for us. 20 years later and seeing the success of Butler over that period suggests that conference affiliation is overrated.
Interesting points, but I think you have to factor in where both schools had been, as well. MU has a 19,000 seat building to fill and routinely filled the older 11,000 seat building. Would playing Youngstown State, UWM (chuckle chuckle), UIC, etc pull that off? I don't think so. Butler averaged something like 5,500 prior to the Final Four years...not sure where they are now...probably 7K or so. I believe Siena does better. MU needed big name teams to come through to help fill the arena, desired the television exposure, and looked to be a national player as a national university. Butler's mission is different. They were not a national school, though certainly have earned a national reputation in the last few years. Let's not forget that Butler's tv exposure during the season is paltry compared to ours. In the end, because of two great runs they have earned a tremendous amount of exposure, but that's a big bet to place on the crapshoot that is the NCAA tournament (Butler almost lost the first round this year).
To me, the safer more conventional bet is the one MU played. No guarantees if MU stayed behind we would have accomplished what Butler has. Besides, how long will Butler be able to continue this? Perhaps they are the next Gonzaga where they do it for a decade plus...very well could happen.
Interesting comments. Certainly you have proven that conference affiliation is not the end all be all which I don't think anyone here can disagree with you on. Not sure if MU stayed that course, however, if we would be better off or had enough good fortune to realize what Butler has. Guess we'll never know for sure.
Objectively speaking,
Buzz Williams era has been a mixed bag thus far, with the positives outweighing the negatives.
The Tom Crean era was a mixed bag with the positives outweighing the negatives.
The Mike Deane era was a mixed bag, with the negatives outweighing the positives.
KO era was a mixed bag with the positives outweighing the negatives.
The 80's were not good.
If Buzz Williams keeps Marquette at almost annual NCAA's, mixing in the 2nd weekend, and finishing top half or better of Big East almost annually, he'll be considered successful. It would help to add the once every many year deeper NCAA run and once every many year challenge for conference title.
We'll see what happens.
Buzz really has done a good job of recruiting so far, to keep MU at a high level, he will need to bring
in at least one 6'8"-6'9" power forward next year. Even with 11 or 12 kids this year including Singleton
they are very solid. I think senior leadership next year is key to any good college team, and the best 2
players next year are seniors. The year after there has to be some concern, as they really need to recruit
2 bigs. If Buzz does that, then MU can be good for years and compete in the Big East. This summer is key
for Buzz and MU. The PR for Buzz can not be much better, he should be able to get into some homes that
maybe in the past MU was unable to do. I really believe TC did not get that one big, after the Final 4
appearance, lets see if Buzz can!
Quote from: Nukem2 on May 30, 2011, 12:03:29 PM
Not so fast 84. Kudos to Butler, but I suspect that reality will soon set in for Buter with Hayward, Howard and Mack now gone. Days of deep NCAA runs are probably over got the Bulldogs as they will no longer get guys like this from IN and KY as IU is on the rebound,
Painter has built up Purdue and KY is over Gillispie. I may be wrong, but probably not.
I don't see any significant competition for players between Butler and Kentucky, IU or Purdue. Butler will continue to land the players they need to win Horizon championships--just as Gonzaga has been able to maintain a winning program without a load of 4- and 5-star players.
Would Butler have liked to land Cody Zellar? Sure. Did they
need him to win the Horizon Championship and win 25 to 30 games? Dobutful.
If they win the league championship, win 25 or 30 games, and finish and only 1 or 2 Horizon losses will they get a #5-7 seed? You bet. That is enough to get them into a crapshoot game for a shot at the Sweet 16.
Quote from: Nukem2 on May 30, 2011, 12:03:29 PM
Butler has had a nice decade, but....? In the meantime, most of us enjoy the BE competition. Yes it costs more to compete, though I would hate to wallow thru a Horizon League season.
MU has about 8000 undergrads, and 11,000 overall. Butler has about 3800 undergrads, 4400 overall.
When you adjust for the relative size of the two schools, Butler's 7200 average is on par with MU's 15,600 average.
Butler's average attendance was 189% of the undergrad population (and 164% of overall population). MU's was 195% of undergrads (and 141% overall).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 30, 2011, 12:04:23 PM
To me, the safer more conventional bet is the one MU played. No guarantees if MU stayed behind we would have accomplished what Butler has. Besides, how long will Butler be able to continue this? Perhaps they are the next Gonzaga where they do it for a decade plus...very well could happen.
Interesting comments. Certainly you have proven that conference affiliation is not the end all be all which I don't think anyone here can disagree with you on. Not sure if MU stayed that course, however, if we would be better off or had enough good fortune to realize what Butler has. Guess we'll never know for sure.
You're right the more conventional bet is the one MU played. On the other hand, a team like DePaul could have become dominant in the Horizon (or Mac or Summit).
But in any event--and this thought ties with the other thread on the end of the Big East--while our fans seem to think the only way to get respect and succeed is to be in an extremely tough conference top to bottom, there is another model out there--one that Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis and Xavier are using to great success.
Agree, there is another model...Butler, Gonzaga, Xavier, Memphis, etc are proving life is good even though they play in mid-major conferences. With the expansion of the NCAA tournament, this will likely increase the number of programs from other smaller conferences that could rise.
I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder how much harder it is to get back to contention from a BCS conference vs a smaller one. LMU was great for a few years, St. Joe's, George Washington, UMass, etc, but they couldn't maintain it for any number of reasons (LMU tragedy and fallout, Umass NCAA issues), etc.
To your point, a Butler and others have to rely on good players but not great players and that can be both a benefit and a problem. Beneficial in that you likely have your players all four years (though Butler lost two to early departure) but potentially a problem because the margin for error in their ability is smaller than better players. I hope we don't find out anytime soon what this all means, but I suspect we likely will.
84, I predict that Butler will not win the Horizon for the next 3 years. ;)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 30, 2011, 10:43:34 AM
Houwarrior....when you consider what we did prior to the 64 team era one could argue post 64 team expansion was a bit wobbly...thank God for the 2000's. We have 12 appearances since the expansion with 8 of those 12 coming since 2001. So we've gone to the NCAAs roughly every other year since expansion. The Final Four is the key, without I would say we underachieved. With it, I wouldn't say we overachieved but achieved credibility.
I agree. without the 2000s, we would be in the underacheivers. With it and the 2003 F4, we shade into over acheiver, assuming there is a bright line, and only an over/under choice.
We'll need at least 5 more years of NCAA runs to join the top 10 over acheiver group, with the likes of UConn and Gonzaga.
I would say with all the program/school offers we probably have under achieved. Obviously the FF is a big help to overall rating of the program, but still think neutral to under achieve in my opinion.
Victories in NCAA are more important to me than appearances. In addition, too many times we have been sitting on selection day hoping to get in. Fortunately the past decade the "if" factor has diminished to some extent which is a positive.
OK, I've staked my claim as an old-timer. That said, much depends on how one defines "over-" or "Under-achiever." If you're from my generation, we've been to one regional final and one final four since 1977, so that's under-achieving. If your basis for comparison is the 1980s, then boom, we've heavily exceeded expectations.
That said, we underachieved because we have, until now, failed to keep a winning coach engaged and energized in the Marquette head coaching position. We hired Rick Majerus too early and then watched him develop tournament caliber teams at Ball State and NCAA Championship caliber teams at Utah. We lost Kevin O'Neill to Tennessee when he was on the verge of executing something very good. We lost Tom Crean after he recruited the amigos and got the DWade team to the Final Four. To be excellent means having coaching stability with a coach who is an essential part of the University's personality and life. Only by building something special with a college coach does a team recruit consistently in a way that will ensure it will be a perrenial contender for national glory (see, Duke University).
To the Administration's credit, we're headed in the right direction with Buzz. Let's see how things go, but I'm excited.
dgies---Perfectly stated post!
Quote from: dgies9156 on May 31, 2011, 01:49:50 PM
OK, I've staked my claim as an old-timer. That said, much depends on how one defines "over-" or "Under-achiever." If you're from my generation, we've been to one regional final and one final four since 1977, so that's under-achieving. If your basis for comparison is the 1980s, then boom, we've heavily exceeded expectations.
That said, we underachieved because we have, until now, failed to keep a winning coach engaged and energized in the Marquette head coaching position. We hired Rick Majerus too early and then watched him develop tournament caliber teams at Ball State and NCAA Championship caliber teams at Utah. We lost Kevin O'Neill to Tennessee when he was on the verge of executing something very good. We lost Tom Crean after he recruited the amigos and got the DWade team to the Final Four. To be excellent means having coaching stability with a coach who is an essential part of the University's personality and life. Only by building something special with a college coach does a team recruit consistently in a way that will ensure it will be a perrenial contender for national glory (see, Duke University).
To the Administration's credit, we're headed in the right direction with Buzz. Let's see how things go, but I'm excited.
I am also in the oldtimers catagory. I agree we promted Rick Majerus too soon. Raymonds had the program on an uptick when he turned it over to Majerus, before Majures was ready. Majerus felt a lot of pressure and left after three years sending the program into the Dukiet tailspin. Crean stayed 9 years, which is a more than average length of time for a coach at one school. Raymonds coached 6 years, Majerus 3, Dukiet 3, O'Neal 5, Deane 5. Of the 16 Big East schools, I believe only 7 have the same coach they had when MU joined the league. A 56% turnover in five years and I suspect that is equivalent to the rest of college basketball.
I think we are an underachiever, and I think that we have been an underachiever in the 2000s as well. We have the second-highest budget in all of NCAA basketball. We have built new facilities, play in an NBA arena, and the men's basketball program is the undisputed king on campus. While we are headed in the right direction, the money that we are spending in theory should be paying off with results.
We spend more than double what the following programs spend annually: Washington, Purdue, Ohio State, Kansas State, Missouri, and Notre Dame. Only Duke spends more than we do. When it comes to bang for the buck, one Final Four this decade isn't enough. One additional Sweet Sixteen isn't enough. Only twice in the past 17 years have we played beyond the first weekend of the tournament. While we may not have had expenditures as high as we do now in most of those years, the expenditures are there now and the current regime needs to deliver.
All that said, we are in position to do just that. The recruiting classes are coming. This year is Buzz's most "disappointing" class and we still have a top 100 player (Anderson) and a late-emerging scoring stud (Mayo). With Jamil and Derrick Wilson both suiting up for the first time next season, this would have been considered one of our best classes in the years between the Final Four and the arrival of the Three Amigos (at least on paper). If this is going to be Buzz's "disappointing" class, I think we're doing pretty good from a recruiting standpoint. In addition, scheduling is improving, which should help us improve our early-season profile and ultimately our seed.
While it all looks good, we have to capitalize. As long as we keep spending the way we have been, I think it's fair to expect to routinely be ranked and competing for conference titles, with the Sweet Sixteen a pretty safe goal year-in and year-out. I realize there will be ups and downs, and I can live with coming up short some years, but as often as we are on the bubble, happy to make the Big Dance, we should be having hope of deep runs while earning top-3 seeds. The resources are there, the coaching staff seems to be there, but for us to stop being an underachiever, as we have been for the past 34 years (past decade definitely included) it's time for the results to catch up to the expenditures.
Quote from: brewcity77 on May 31, 2011, 09:57:27 PM
I think we are an underachiever, and I think that we have been an underachiever in the 2000s as well. We have the second-highest budget in all of NCAA basketball. We have built new facilities, play in an NBA arena, and the men's basketball program is the undisputed king on campus. While we are headed in the right direction, the money that we are spending in theory should be paying off with results.
We spend more than double what the following programs spend annually: Washington, Purdue, Ohio State, Kansas State, Missouri, and Notre Dame. Only Duke spends more than we do. When it comes to bang for the buck, one Final Four this decade isn't enough. One additional Sweet Sixteen isn't enough. Only twice in the past 17 years have we played beyond the first weekend of the tournament. While we may not have had expenditures as high as we do now in most of those years, the expenditures are there now and the current regime needs to deliver.
All that said, we are in position to do just that. The recruiting classes are coming. This year is Buzz's most "disappointing" class and we still have a top 100 player (Anderson) and a late-emerging scoring stud (Mayo). With Jamil and Derrick Wilson both suiting up for the first time next season, this would have been considered one of our best classes in the years between the Final Four and the arrival of the Three Amigos (at least on paper). If this is going to be Buzz's "disappointing" class, I think we're doing pretty good from a recruiting standpoint. In addition, scheduling is improving, which should help us improve our early-season profile and ultimately our seed.
While it all looks good, we have to capitalize. As long as we keep spending the way we have been, I think it's fair to expect to routinely be ranked and competing for conference titles, with the Sweet Sixteen a pretty safe goal year-in and year-out. I realize there will be ups and downs, and I can live with coming up short some years, but as often as we are on the bubble, happy to make the Big Dance, we should be having hope of deep runs while earning top-3 seeds. The resources are there, the coaching staff seems to be there, but for us to stop being an underachiever, as we have been for the past 34 years (past decade definitely included) it's time for the results to catch up to the expenditures.
I'm not sure it's fair to link expenditures with success in college sports. Or at least not expect expect a direct correlation between dollars spent and games won.
IMO, MU needs to spend the kind of money it spends just to stay competitive because it lacks the kind of natural, money-can't-buy advantages inherent at many other schools.
Marquette is not THE state school like Ohio State, Mizzou or Washington, or even a state school in a talent-rich place like Indiana (Purdue). MU is in a less-than-desirable location/campus compared to those other places you mention and, outside of perhaps Notre Dame, lacks those other programs' history in their conference and certainty in their conference. And it obviously lacks a football ATM like Notre Dame to subsidize the rest of the athletic department.
So how does MU make up for these shortcomings? Spend, spend, spend. Pay your coaches and staff top dollar. Build elite facilities. Provide state-of-the-art training and top-flight travel arrangements.
Even then, MU could spend five times what everybody else is spending and we're not going to be UNC, Duke or Kansas. The highest-paid coach in all the land isn't going to convince many kids Marquette is a better place to play college basketball than North Carolina, Duke or UCLA. It's just not happening. They have advantages MU can never write a check to obtain.
But then again, when you look at some of the schools you cited, none of them outside OSU have been notably more successful than MU over the last decade. I'd be surprised if many (any) of them generate the revenue MU does, and none match MU's attendance.
So while we'd all love to see more wins and deeper tourney runs, it seems unfair and inaccurate to suggest MU isn't getting bang for its buck.
Quote from: bilsu on May 31, 2011, 03:23:18 PM
I am also in the oldtimers catagory. I agree we promted Rick Majerus too soon. Raymonds had the program on an uptick when he turned it over to Majerus, before Majures was ready. Majerus felt a lot of pressure and left after three years sending the program into the Dukiet tailspin. Crean stayed 9 years, which is a more than average length of time for a coach at one school. Raymonds coached 6 years, Majerus 3, Dukiet 3, O'Neal 5, Deane 5. Of the 16 Big East schools, I believe only 7 have the same coach they had when MU joined the league. A 56% turnover in five years and I suspect that is equivalent to the rest of college basketball.
When we look at the great programs in college basketball, the one thing that stands out is coaching stability... well beyond what Marquette has experienced since Al left. For example, Coach K has been at Duke for more than 30 years; Dean Smith started coaching North Carolina -- oh, about the time the university was founded. Naah, it was in the early 1960s. Lute Olsen left Iowa in the early 1980s for Arizona and stayed there until he could not coach any longer. Jim Boeheim has been at Syracuse forever and the Thompson family has coached Georgetown since the first Jesuit explored the Potomoc. Roy Williams will now be at Carolina until the second coming and Bill Self will be at Kansas until, well, the day before Roy Williams leaves!
The point is, yes, there has been quite a bit of turnover with Big East schools. But the consistent winners -- Georgetown, Syracuse, UConn and even Pitt and Villanova -- have had extraordinary coaching stability. A young man comes to these universities intuitively knowing his coach will be there four years hence. If I'm a Top 50 or Top 100 recruit, that's critical to my selection because I'm buying into a style, a system and a commitment to how basketball is and will be played at my choice of university.
Brew, keep in mind expenses can be applied to all sorts of cost centers depending on the accounting creativity. It may look like we're spending gobs more than Ohio State or fill in state football school, but they may be allocating their costs against the football program, or evenly distributing it among 25 sports programs (we have 14 or 15), some schools will be attribute some costs against general funding and such.
It's very difficult to get a good handle on who is truly spending what, where, etc.
With the exception of a few years after Al and Hank had the program, and if we spend major bucks on the basketball program and can't put out a b+ product every year, WE ARE UNDERACHIEVING Period. Slick Rick wasn't quite ready, Deane and Dukiet were big time idiots. The program took a gigantic hit in those years. McNeil and even though I'm not a Crean fan were
great recruiters until they got to MU. But the former great MU recruiting territories were lost. We can't get anything worthwhile out of Illinois, D-Wade was an exception, even DePaul will start to recruit Illinois stronger, then we really will really sink. Can't even make a dent in the East. State of Wisconsin has some very good ball players coming up, I suggest we really go after them. (Koenig, Fuller, Fischer, Burton, Mecca, D. Wilson, Landers and Looney). Get a big time, Big name, coach if you are disatisfied with Williams. I AM. WE HAVE SUNK SINCE "GIVEM HELL AL", and "HOLLERIN' HANK".
Quote from: Earl Tatum on June 01, 2011, 09:17:46 PM
With the exception of a few years after Al and Hank had the program, and if we spend major bucks on the basketball program and can't put out a b+ product every year, WE ARE UNDERACHIEVING Period. Slick Rick wasn't quite ready, Deane and Dukiet were big time idiots. The program took a gigantic hit in those years. McNeil and even though I'm not a Crean fan were
great recruiters until they got to MU. But the former great MU recruiting territories were lost. We can't get anything worthwhile out of Illinois, D-Wade was an exception, even DePaul will start to recruit Illinois stronger, then we really will really sink. Can't even make a dent in the East. State of Wisconsin has some very good ball players coming up, I suggest we really go after them. (Koenig, Fuller, Fischer, Burton, Mecca, D. Wilson, Landers and Looney). Get a big time, Big name, coach if you are disatisfied with Williams. I AM. WE HAVE SUNK SINCE "GIVEM HELL AL", and "HOLLERIN' HANK".
Earl, Earl, Earl.....
C'mon, you know better
Sorry-- Dgies 9156-- It's my opinion . I saw the McGuire and Raymond years. Majerus was pretty good, but our territories were declining then and then came Deane and Dukiet. O'Neil and Crean did decent jobs recruiting, but were lost our IN on some territories that made us a success. Our bunch was going for some 30 years twice a year to games from up North, followed MU Basketball religiously and hated Wisconsin BB. I give the Badgers a little respect now but bleed MU. I do admit we are competitive, but with money spent on the program, I think we should do better. Maybe it is the administration holding us back. That's just my thoughts. At least I saw the NCAA Championship in Atlanta.
Earl, you and I are the same generation. I was an MU 1978 grad and saw the early McGuire years, courtesy of my father, an MU 1955 grad. Look, it took St. Al of Brookfield 13 years to get his NCAA Championship. It also took five years before St. Al made a meaningful dent in a tournament that was much smaller and less complicated than the three-weekend trip to glory we have now.
Championships are built over time. Even Dean Smith was roundly criticized for not being able to "win the big one" after Marquette defeated North Carolina in 1977. Next to Al and maybe John Wooden, Dean Smith may have been the greatest college coach of all time. And, look how long he was at Carolina.
That's why I believe that if the rumors about Buzz's contract provisions are true, Marquette is on the way to the stability it needs to be a perrenial power in the Big East.
I bleed as blue and gold as you do and before I pass to the Maurice Lucas room in heaven, I would love to see another National Championship banner in the corner of the Bradley Center (no, Milwaukee will NOT build yet another arena for the Bucks and Warriors). But I think the program is in good hands and I think the recruiting is what you make of it. Al was a New York street guy, so we ended up with New Yoork street players. Buzz is a hard-working, blue collar kinda guy whose players give 150% and he gets that kind of kid.
Incidentally, I thought the beginnings of our demise in the 1980s was the appointment of Hank to be head basketball coach. Hank was a wonderful man and an important part of our program, but he had been passed over once before (in 1964) as head coach and despite serving under Al, I'm not sure what he had in 1977 that he did not have in 1964. Hank should have continued as top assistant and Marquette should have done a nationwide search for a new, dynamic "Al Junior." We didn't and the consequences were debilitating for a long time thereafter.
The program changed when Hank did not want Skip Dillard, which lost him Mark Aquirre, because he thought
he had Scooter McCray. Secondly, Dean Marquardt was never the player after his injury. Hank thought that
Rick was a rising star, not really.
dgies---No doubt the hiring of Hank was the start of a downturn that lasted nearly two decades. In my opinion Al wanted his legacy to remain intact and hiring Hank would assure that. Hank was ureal guy and thought the world of him. Unfortunately he was inheriting arguably the first Showtime in basketball. Young posters do not realize the era and the role MU/AL played in the landscape of the NCAA.
I fully understand the contract Buzz was given because we need him to be successful and be here 10y plus. The guy can recruit and has some style. Truthfully I wish he would a hire a Hank Jr. and do what he does best. Al could have won with you as #1 assistant, but Buzz needs help in that front.
BCHoopster--Mark Aquire was gone the day resigned in Dec. 1976. Part of me is pissed at Al because he helped make Ray Meyer than he helped make Hank. Aquire had verbally committed to Al and when he retired it opened the field. Once again showing Al had more power retired than Hank had coaching.
Hey 9156 - Guess you're right about Hank. Great person but not adynamic coach to get the city players. Needed a big name coach. If I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong, the administration kind of stepped in after Al, about $$'s spent on the program. Don't know who the head padre was at that time.
You cats are all too old to be postin' on the net.
Quote from: BCHoopster on June 02, 2011, 09:33:59 AM
The program changed when Hank did not want Skip Dillard, which lost him Mark Aquirre, because he thought
he had Scooter McCray. Secondly, Dean Marquardt was never the player after his injury. Hank thought that
Rick was a rising star, not really.
also, Rod Foster was an MU verbal but switched to UCLA at he last minute. That might have been the same year that MU lost the McCrays
4everWarriors---Fortunately I am one on the young old cats on here. Just was fortunate enough to be very close to the program from age 5 on. I do appreciate the really old cats on here a ton though. You guys understand what made it happen and what is needed to be done again.
BCHoopster---Losing the McCray boys hurt as well. Plus the pipeline from high school down the road. Al would have owned Earl Tatum's hometown for another decade.
Quote from: Earl Tatum on June 02, 2011, 12:12:53 PM
Hey 9156 - Guess you're right about Hank. Great person but not adynamic coach to get the city players. Needed a big name coach. If I remember right, correct me if I'm wrong, the administration kind of stepped in after Al, about $$'s spent on the program. Don't know who the head padre was at that time.
You are wrong about Hank. He had a rough start with MU losing in the first round of the NCAA tournament after Whitehead was ejected and than lost Scooter McCray. The only team he had that did not win 20 games was the year Marquardt almost died in the car accident. However, when he turned the team over to Majerus every position had a top 30 high school player. Of course the best of them, Rivers decided to go hardship. The big overweight center never got it going and transferred out. Dwayne Johnson also transferred out for his senior year. Mandy Johnson and Kerry Trotter finished their careers at MU. Looking at the group you may not think they were that highly rated, but I have the Street & Smith magazines that shows that every one of them were considered to be one of the top 30 high school seniors going into their senior year. If Hank had stayed we had a shot at Joe Wolf, who did not want to play for Majerus who had no experience as a head coach. After a slow start the program was on an uptick under Hank. The fact is that Raymond's turned over a much more talented team to Majerus than Majerus turned over to Dukiet. Sure McGuire turned over a great team to Raymond's, but they were all seniors except for Toone and Bird. The rest were bench warmers.
Joe was seriously thinking about MU. From Joes mouth, Joe told MU not to leak the story but somehow
the story was leaked in the Journal before Joe had his press conference and changed his mind. I am sure
that changed Ricks mind in the future. Can not say Joe made a bad choice, but a good choice for his future.
The Majerus era was a complete diaster any way you look at it. Yeah Hank got much better talent, but really didn't do enough with it. His assistants (Majerus, Oliver) were weak and ESPN wS coming to the forefront so high level recruits were comfortable going to a wide variety of programs, not just the top 20.
Quote from: bilsu on June 02, 2011, 01:26:03 PM
You are wrong about Hank. He had a rough start with MU losing in the first round of the NCAA tournament after Whitehead was ejected...
MU's downfall started on that dreary day in Indianapolis in March 1978 when we lost to Miami of Ohio in the first round of the 1978 NCAA Tournament. A defending national champion losing in the first round to a mid-major? That's like today having a 1 seed lose to a 16 seed. It never happens.. ever. Except once.
Thousands of MU "Meet me in St. Louis" t-shirts went up in smoke that afternoon. St. Louis was the site of the NCAA Final Four that year.
The fact that the coach could not get control of his players and deal with the double flagerent foul is beyond belief. Andf while fewer people probably remember than game than they do Dean Marquardt, the fact is that we went on a death spiral that it took Kevin O'Neill to turn around.
All of the Al arguments about ego etc., may be true. But it took an administration to execute on Al's recommendations. The decision on Al's successor still rested at the foot of Father John Raynor and Quentin Quade, both of whom went on an expense control kick in the 1970s. Also, if my senile head is still on straight, I also remember that there was a serious questioning of the role of basketball in university life at Marquette in the late 1970s. Many professors complained about the fact that the highest paid university employee was the head basketball coach -- oblivious to the fact that the very buildings they taught in were bought and paid for with basketball money (including contributions raised because of the visibility of the Al led basketball program.
One lasting legacy of Father Wild is that he restored basketball at Marquette by hiring Tom Crean and later Buzz. Father recognizes that we don't exist for basketball, but basketball creates visibility for the university and links its various constituencies. Father Wild desevered having his own bobblehead last year because he has been the patron saint of the basketball program.
Yeah, it often seemed like Hank struggled to make a coaching decision, even something as minor as calling a time out. Unfortunately, his choice of Dukiet, years later, nearly took us to the depths of D3 ball.
Quote from: dgies9156 on June 02, 2011, 02:35:53 PM
MU's downfall started on that dreary day in Indianapolis in March 1978 when we lost to Miami of Ohio in the first round of the 1978 NCAA Tournament. A defending national champion losing in the first round to a mid-major? That's like today having a 1 seed lose to a 16 seed. It never happens.. ever. Except once.
Thousands of MU "Meet me in St. Louis" t-shirts went up in smoke that afternoon. St. Louis was the site of the NCAA Final Four that year.
The fact that the coach could not get control of his players and deal with the double flagerent foul is beyond belief. Andf while fewer people probably remember than game than they do Dean Marquardt, the fact is that we went on a death spiral that it took Kevin O'Neill to turn around.
All of the Al arguments about ego etc., may be true. But it took an administration to execute on Al's recommendations. The decision on Al's successor still rested at the foot of Father John Raynor and Quentin Quade, both of whom went on an expense control kick in the 1970s. Also, if my senile head is still on straight, I also remember that there was a serious questioning of the role of basketball in university life at Marquette in the late 1970s. Many professors complained about the fact that the highest paid university employee was the head basketball coach -- oblivious to the fact that the very buildings they taught in were bought and paid for with basketball money (including contributions raised because of the visibility of the Al led basketball program.
One lasting legacy of Father Wild is that he restored basketball at Marquette by hiring Tom Crean and later Buzz. Father recognizes that we don't exist for basketball, but basketball creates visibility for the university and links its various constituencies. Father Wild desevered having his own bobblehead last year because he has been the patron saint of the basketball program.
Even when I was in the athletic department there were still some professors (a minority) that wanted basketball deemphasized. You get that with every university. Murry Sperber was famous for it at Indiana and wrote College Sports Inc....had him as a guest lecturer and he presented his views and those of other profs. They were all wrapped up what college is supposed to be, the educating of young men and women and felt athletics had no place. It was easy for them to point to the excesses. There seemed to be some bitterness that the basketball coach made 5X they did (more like 10X to 20X now).
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51kecDjeZmL._SL500_AA300_.jpg)
Interesting thread. I went to MU from Hank's first year through the implosion of Majerus. One lasting memory was having Rick tell a bunch us the story of how MU lost Scooter McCrae over greasy fries and cheeseburgers at Chicagos. It seemed that Rick walked into Scooter's room to make sure that he was down for the night during a campus visit during a very inopportune time. Scooter never quite recovered from being busted polishing the old bayonet. Can't say for sure that the story is true, but it hearing Rick tell it was hilarious.
dgies---You are correct that Al's ego aside Fr. Raynor and QQ were the decision makers at the time. Honestly they did not have a clue and listened to Al. In addition, you are correct that many within the school had a dislike for the program.
As for us losing to Miami was the start of the end I strongly disagree with that. I say when Hank was hired, but would listen to arguments on that. During regular season we were ranked #1 in 1978 and lost at Loyola. That showed that we were now amongst the masses and no longer Showtime.
I would also disagree with anyone's negative thoughts on Rick. While he proved to be better down the road than at MU, but he did get it. Rick swung for the fences with the same elite recruits Al chased. He knew you needed studs to win. Rick might have been the wrong guy at the time but he got the big point. That was proven with his success at Ball State and Utah.
4everWarriors---Hank hiring Dukiet was worst move he ever made. It made his technical against Miami look brilliant. I would have preferred he stepped in for a season and conducted a real search and that is coming from a guy that cringed everytime I heard him announced as Head Coach.
Gary, you're correct on Hank. Basically, he was the wrong guy, at the wrong age, to head up the program.
Yep! Diges 9156--you are right on. Couldn't think of the names (Raynor or Quentin Quade )
It was an expensive drop in the budget at the time we were on the top level. Very Poor decisions by people who forgot, that basketball was a big supporter of the school. As previously mentioned---MU's demise started with the Miami, Ohio game.
Quote from: Goose on June 02, 2011, 04:26:27 PM
As for us losing to Miami was the start of the end I strongly disagree with that.
OK, this is my last post on this subject. Our underachieving stated in Indianapolis when we lost to Miami of Ohio. That lost still stings 33 years later and old folks still don't hesitate to remind me of it.
Here's why. We were defending national champions, as has been pointed out here several times, and were either 1 or 2 ranked all season. We had a great record and the magic seemed to be still with us. We had a team full of seniors with excellent senior leadership in Jimmy Boylan, Butch Lee, Jerome Whitehead and Ulice Payne.
We went to the Miami of Ohio game as prohibitive favorites. Our guys looked like a bunch of freshmen, allowing Miami to play close and losing their composure in the end. Hank could not pull the team together and when leadership was deperately needed, nobody took charge.
It would be as if UConn made the tournament next year with this year's team virtually intact and lost to Murray State, Belmont College or Coastal Carolina. Of course, that never happens in today's world.
The game was on national television, which meant more then than it does now, since ESPN was a year away. NBC was the only college game in town once tournament time came. Thousands of potential recruits, their advisors and coaches all saw the meltdown.
Less than a year later, the Big East was formed. Hank was an old grandfatherly figure when compared to John Thompson or Jimmy Valvano. Coaches saw that Hank didn't rally the troops and that senior leadership in that instance, meant nothing. A year later, with ESPN and the Big East, there was much more competition for our recruits and Ray Meyer began outrecruiting Hank in Chicago.
Would it have been any different if we had defeated Miami? Who knows, but we didn't and that the time it mattered.
dgies---Cannot argue with your thought process because we really are saying the same thing. Whether it was the day Hank was hired, the day we lost to Loyola or the day we were embarrassed against Miami it makes little difference. Looking back and reading your lat post I will go along with Miami loss.
Though it has been discussed a ton here in the past I do believe the loss to UNC at home during Rick's last year was the second domino that sent us to D3 levels. His losing Wolf and then losing that game on national TV was the end for Rick. I might be the only guy on here that believes if we win that game our next 15 years would have been much brighter.
Honestly, the hardest part for me back then was the denial of many supporters on how far we sunk and how quickly we sunk. Too many folks at MU and fans were spoiled. Al made it look easy but it was not easy. I am thankful that we have risen from the dead over the past 15 years, but far from satisfied. I want to see the bar raised higher by MU and fans.
Quote from: Goose on June 02, 2011, 04:26:27 PM
4everWarriors---Hank hiring Dukiet was worst move he ever made. It made his technical against Miami look brilliant. I would have preferred he stepped in for a season and conducted a real search and that is coming from a guy that cringed everytime I heard him announced as Head Coach.
Hank didn't have much choice since Rick screwed us over so badly by bailing in July. Who are you possibly going to get in July? This is the part I don't get. People here get all spun up because some guy gave us 9 years, returned us to our best position since McGuire and left for one of the top 5 programs of all-time but also left us with a great team and Buzz Williams and he's the anti-Christ who married his wife to get ahead.
Yet Rick gave us 3 years and bailed on us in July to become...wait for it...a F-ing assistant for the Milwaukee Bucks. He left us with a team that was devoid of talent sans Tony Smith and maybe a few marginal players like Reeder, Boone and in a position with no succession at all. We had to watch coaches from Texas San Antonio and Arkansas Little Rock say no. Talk about hitting a new low. Dukiet was a bad hire, but I don't see where we had much to work with. RIP Hank
Chico's---Agreed Rick hung us out to dry and it sucked. I mentioned it would have been better for Hank to step in for season than hire any of the bum's we interviewed. Two seperate issues in my opinion, Rick screwed us is a given. Hank then made horible situation worse. Plenty of behind the scene things led to Rick leaving and possibly could have been avoided.
I strongly disagree that just because Rick boned us that Hank gets a free pass. Him stepping in or naming interim coach would have been far better options. In addition, he could have cut Duliet losses far earlier than he did.
Quote from: Goose on June 03, 2011, 12:29:33 PM
Chico's---Agreed Rick hung us out to dry and it sucked. I mentioned it would have been better for Hank to step in for season than hire any of the bum's we interviewed. Two seperate issues in my opinion, Rick screwed us is a given. Hank then made horible situation worse. Plenty of behind the scene things led to Rick leaving and possibly could have been avoided.
I strongly disagree that just because Rick boned us that Hank gets a free pass. Him stepping in or naming interim coach would have been far better options. In addition, he could have cut Duliet losses far earlier than he did.
Not giving Hank a free pass at all. An absolutely wonderful human being and great assistant coach. Some people are meant to be great teachers and assistant coaches but not THE GUY. I would argue Hank was one of those people. I think we are on the same page there.
Chico's--Agree completely. He was awesome and great teacher assistant coach. Actually loved hearing stories at his funeral about exactly how much he loved sports and being pat of them. What I loved best was his son's hardly mentioned MU ball. 100% agree on Hank as a person.
I agree about the 86 UNC game being a tipping point. Most insane atmosphere I ever experienced at the MECCA. Ours for the taking. Found a way to lose. Just like we did all 8 times we played ND while I was there. Damn you, David Rivers and Jim Dolan(?). The UNC loss still hurts me more than the Louisville loss last year. And yes, there were profs that wanted us to drop out of D1. Mind-boggling. But back to the OP, on balance, since 1985, we are under-achievers. The last decade has been closer, but not quite up to, my expectations for the program. Crean did many good things at MU, but he struggled to put together consecutive good classes and he never really got the recruiting payoff he should have for the FF. Finally, as to Rick, he wasn't quite ready, influential alum never forgave him for not being Al, and there were lots of rumors floating around when we came back to school that August that the sweater vests weren't at all unhappy that he had jumped; that there might actually have been some pushing, too. Clearly, Dukiet was even more the wrong guy at the wrong time.
Quote from: tower912 on June 03, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
I agree about the 86 UNC game being a tipping point. Most insane atmosphere I ever experienced at the MECCA. Ours for the taking. Found a way to lose. Just like we did all 8 times we played ND while I was there. Damn you, David Rivers and Jim Dolan(?). The UNC loss still hurts me more than the Louisville loss last year. And yes, there were profs that wanted us to drop out of D1. Mind-boggling. But back to the OP, on balance, since 1985, we are under-achievers. The last decade has been closer, but not quite up to, my expectations for the program. Crean did many good things at MU, but he struggled to put together consecutive good classes and he never really got the recruiting payoff he should have for the FF. Finally, as to Rick, he wasn't quite ready, influential alum never forgave him for not being Al, and there were lots of rumors floating around when we came back to school that August that the sweater vests weren't at all unhappy that he had jumped; that there might actually have been some pushing, too. Clearly, Dukiet was even more the wrong guy at the wrong time.
I'm fairly convinced that MU will never get the FF payoff in recruiting that so many people here think we should. The reason...because it's MU. Our coaches don't stay long and when you hit a Final Four, every pundit in the country thinks our coach is leaving for a better gig. Hell, when we make the Sweet 16 they think that. This effects recruiting. Until MU can get to a FF or multiple FF's with the SAME coach who shows they aren't on the 2nd train out of the city, then I believe it will be a struggle. As an example, will Butler have a top 10 class following TWO Final Fours back to back? I doubt it. There are plenty of other Final Four teams from the last decade plus that didn't get this mythical bounce people want to talk about, while the blue bloods did. I contend it's because a lot of players at the very highest levels think that those FF's were a fluke or harder to come by and do not believe the coach \ conditions will remain for that perfect storm to happen again, at least not at a high percentage of likelihood.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 02, 2011, 04:36:49 PM
Gary, you're correct on Hank. Basically, he was the wrong guy, at the wrong age, to head up the program.
Loved Hank, but you are correct. Remember sitting at a luncheon for the Milwaukee Classic with assistants from the other participants. They each agreed Hank was a great guy and coach, but said MU should have gone a different direction. I've always believed Hank should have been just the AD and that a younger more "charismatic" coach should have been hired.
Quote from: Nukem2 on June 03, 2011, 04:25:36 PM
Loved Hank, but you are correct. Remember sitting at a luncheon for the Milwaukee Classic with assistants from the other participants. They each agreed Hank was a great guy and coach, but said MU should have gone a different direction. I've always believed Hank should have been just the AD and that a younger more "charismatic" coach should have been hired.
The list of coaches interested was quite the list, according to the chatter when I was there. Never seen a list and I don't know if one exists, but there was always rumor that the list of resumes\inquiries to replace Al and later Hank, was an impressive list. I always heard some pretty crazy names, but have no way of knowing if it actually true.
Quote from: tower912 on June 03, 2011, 03:29:09 PM
I agree about the 86 UNC game being a tipping point. Most insane atmosphere I ever experienced at the MECCA. Ours for the taking. Found a way to lose. The UNC loss still hurts me more than the Louisville loss last year.
I was at that game and see it a bit differently. MU was a an "aging" program that reminded me of a once stunning woman with a few pounds and wrinkles you didn't see 10 years prior. We played out of our minds that day and probably way over our heads.
Sure we lost, but it is not like we lost a game we should have won. Perhaps in retrospect we would have been a different program if we beat UNC, but the the more interesting game was a year later when we opened the Dean Dome and almost beat them there.
We already were on the downslide. What that game did was reinforce the notion that Majerus was not ready for prime time and that we needed a new coach. Unfortunately, Hank and the penny pinchers were in charge. That's why we got Dukiet and 10 years of malaise.
I hope Al is chewing Father Raynor's ear off in the Maurice Lucas Room up in heaven.
Can't minimize the fact that UNC played an ACC game the day before at home and then travelled to MKE for the Sunday afternoon game vs. MU. I know we beat Dayton on Sat., but it certainly didn't involve travel.
Had Al continued coaching Marquette, I have no doubt, ESPN, weather, facilities, ugly girls, and all the other excuses for not winning, would not have pertained to the Warriors. McGuire would have kept reloading the machine. But, his retirement, coupled with the administration not having a f*ckin' clue that basketball was their meal ticket, sent the program in a slow downward spiral.
Hank was the wrong guy. Rick, who I worked side by side with for a summer, was the wrong guy. Dukiet, a think I'm gonna barf. Cords, righted the ship with KO and then put a hole in its bow with Deane.
As for his hire of Crean, I applauded it at the time. Seemed" to have hit a home run. Can't really blame Bill for not uncovering the phony, self-centered, jackass during the interview process. Thankfully, he left MKE.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on June 04, 2011, 06:44:00 AM
Can't minimize the fact that UNC played an ACC game the day before at home and then travelled to MKE for the Sunday afternoon game vs. MU. I know we beat Dayton on Sat., but it certainly didn't involve travel.
Had Al continued coaching Marquette, I have no doubt, ESPN, weather, facilities, ugly girls, and all the other excuses for not winning, would not have pertained to the Warriors. McGuire would have kept reloading the machine. But, his retirement, coupled with the administration not having a f*ckin' clue that basketball was their meal ticket, sent the program in a slow downward spiral.
Hank was the wrong guy. Rick, who I worked side by side with for a summer, was the wrong guy. Dukiet, a think I'm gonna barf. Cords, righted the ship with KO and then put a hole in its bow with Deane.
As for his hire of Crean, I applauded it at the time. Seemed" to have hit a home run. Can't really blame Bill for not uncovering the phony, self-centered, jackass during the interview process. Thankfully, he left MKE.
He was still a homerun hire, whether you like him or not. We aren't in the situation we are in today (which is a DAMN GOOD SITUATION) without him. A lot of self-centered, jackasses in this world that get a lot of things accomplished at the end of the day. A lot of really nice, kind, giving souls that end up ruining everything.
Depending on the day and the "everything," my wife would place me in one camp or the other.
The UNC game matters because the wind was completely out of the sail after that game. Without a doubt the single greatest crowd in my lifetime was at MECCA that day. All 11,052 of us were hoping to regain the magic and us "seasoned" fans left with our dobbers down. I can live to be 110 and never have a more roller coaster of emotions at a game. If we won that game I truly believe our program would have regained a relevant role.
I will say again to any fan that was not there you missed an almost surreal moment in MU history. I have seen almost every great win or loss since 1968 and can say that day was an important date in program history. I can say even morec so now that every "old-timer" on here remembers the day as well.
Tower---Agree on the ND games as well.
Yeah, remember the UNC game here very well also. Pops Sims and crew couldn't salt away Daugherty and the boys. Mark of a really good team to basically turn it up a couple of notches in the last 5 minutes. Majerus was no match for Dean Smith as well.
MU's watershed moment, in my opinion, centered around the recruitment of Joe Wolf. Had he been a Warrior, I feel our program would have remained relevant and prime time recruits would have been interested. Certainly, Rick's loss of Wolf to the Tarheels magnified each of his coaching and recruiting errors.
4everWarriors--If we get Wolf things would have been much different. Two kick in the balls by UNC in short period of time altered our program more than most will ever know.
I too was at the UNC game at the Mecca. Still can't believe that we didn't win. My memory has it that Pop Sims turned the ball over at mid court 2 or 3 times in the last minute, but I doubt it was just him. Plus I assume Kenny Smith must've stepped up his defense. I don't recall what got us the solid lead in the game--defense? hot offense?--but do know that we were absolutely in a great position to win it.
My recollection of the next year was that we were up by 12 or so at halftime, in the Dean Dome, only to totally wilt in the second half.
I was there also. I think we went up 10 and North Carolina called time out. Our players were jumping around celebrating like the game was over. Of course the fans were to. Once you start celebrating the edge is gone. That was the big difference between Dean and Majerus. Dean knew and got his players to believe the game was not over. Majerus let his players celebrate. Although not as obvious the thing that turned the Loiusville game this year was Louisville's bigmen fouling out. I think that was the focus of Buzz's game plan. Take it to the Louisville bigmen and we did that very well and I think they both fouled out and the mission had been accomplished. Once they were gone we fell apart against Louisville's smaller lineup and lost the war. Again the difference in experience of coaching. Pitino did not think the game was over, but we did. How do I know Buzz thought the game was over. He put Erik Williams in. Louisville scored and Erik missed on a drive to the basket and the rout was on.