Poll
Question:
Who Had A Better First Five Years?
Option 1: Buzz ... 2008/2009 to 2012/2013
votes: 57
Option 2: Al ... 1964/1965 to 1968/1969
votes: 36
As noted in the Cinco de Buzz thread, today is Buzz's five year anniversary with MU.
We all know what Buzz did the last five years. And, we all know what Al did from 1970 to 1977.
But here is what Al did his first five years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_McGuire
1964–1965 Marquette 8–18
1965–1966 Marquette 14–12
1966–1967 Marquette 21–9 NIT Runner-up
1967–1968 Marquette 23–6 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1968–1969 Marquette 24–5 NCAA Elite Eight
After his fifth year, Al did this
1969–1970 Marquette 26–3 NIT Champions
1970–1971 Marquette 28–1 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1971–1972 Marquette 25–4 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1972–1973 Marquette 25–4 NCAA Sweet Sixteen
1973–1974 Marquette 26–5 NCAA Runner-up
1974–1975 Marquette 23–4 NCAA Round of 32
1975–1976 Marquette 27–2 NCAA Elite Eight
1976–1977 Marquette 25–7 NCAA Champions
--------------------------
Interesting that years 4 and 5 for Al and Buzz are remarkably similar.
That said, I would vote Buzz because years 1 to 3 were much better than Al's year's 1 to 3.
Al...Buzz walked into a NCAA program. Now granted it was a 1st weekend program but it was still a NCAA program.
Marquette University 2013-14 NIT CHAMPS!!!
Quote from: sarcastro on April 08, 2013, 03:54:36 PM
Marquette University 2013-14 NIT CHAMPS!!!
Isn't that the year (69/70) that Al essentially spurned the NCAA because MU got screwed on their seeding?
Quote from: buckchuckler on April 08, 2013, 04:00:20 PM
Isn't that the year (69/70) that Al essentially spurned the NCAA because MU got screwed on their seeding?
Yes ... in 1970 the NIT and the NCAA were a LOT closer in prestige than they are now. That is why we voluntarily passed on the NCAA for the NIT.
Different world today.
Quote from: buckchuckler on April 08, 2013, 04:00:20 PM
Isn't that the year (69/70) that Al essentially spurned the NCAA because MU got screwed on their seeding?
We were placed in the Midwest rather than the Mideast region which meant we would've played much further away from home. I believe there's a rule now stating that a team cannot turn down a NCAA tourney invite in favor of the NIT, although not sure why anyone would nowadays.
Quote from: The Lens on April 08, 2013, 03:46:48 PM
Al...Buzz walked into a NCAA program. Now granted it was a 1st weekend program but it was still a NCAA program.
Agree 100%
It's apples and oranges comparing where the program was in 1964 and where the program was when Buzz took over.
Al walked into a situation more similar to the one Crean walked into at Indiana.
Al completely turning it around in three years -- being the NIT runner-up in '67 is akin to being a Sweet 16 team today -- was an incredible accomplishment.
Quote from: MU82 on April 08, 2013, 04:58:39 PM
Agree 100%
It's apples and oranges comparing where the program was in 1964 and where the program was when Buzz took over.
Al walked into a situation more similar to the one Crean walked into at Indiana.
Al completely turning it around in three years -- being the NIT runner-up in '67 is akin to being a Sweet 16 team today -- was an incredible accomplishment.
I wouldn't say it's akin to being a sweet 16 team today, closer to being round of 32 if you ask me.
Al. He went from 0 to 180 like an F 16. Buzz jumped into a fast moving jet and made it fly faster.
Al also turned down the NCAA bid because ND got our spot in the Mideast IIRC.
Al and not even close. Different time and different challenges. Al was building a program and a brand.
Can someone give me a quick synopsis of what MU basketball was like before Al? I've been an MU fan for about 14 years now and never really hear about, or attempted to look up, any info regarding the program prior to Al. were we good, bad, mediocre?
Where did they come from, what did they inherit...that is key to this, in my opinion.
EDIT: 22 to 25 teams got to the NCAA tournament back then, today 68
Almost no national tv back then, today you can't escape it
No conference back then, Big East today
Bad facilities even by 1960's standards back then, great facilities today
15 scholarships back then, 12 today....more talent distributed today than ever before (UNC, KU, etc can't horde it like they used to)
Taking over a NCAA tournament team from the previous 3 years and only 5 years removed from Final Four vs taking over a team that had only three NCAAs appearances in our history (two in the 1950's)
Context is important
To me, it's Al McGuire and a silly discussion even to be voted on. That's not a dig on Buzz, he just had a lot more to work with, a lot lot lot more room for error, better facilities, more talent to work with, more chances of success (tournament expansion, etc).
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2013, 05:54:22 PM
Where did they come from, what did they inherit...that is key to this, in my opinion.
32 teams got to the NCAA tournament back then, today 68
Almost no national tv back then, today you can't escape it
No conference back then, Big East today
Bad facilities even by 1960's standards back then, great facilities today
15 scholarships back then, 12 today....more talent distributed today than ever before (UNC, KU, etc can't horde it like they used to)
Taking over a NCAA tournament team from the previous 3 years and only 5 years removed from Final Four vs taking over a team that had only three NCAAs appearances in our history (two in the 1950's)
Context is important
To me, it's Al McGuire and a silly discussion even to be voted on. That's not a dig on Buzz, he just had a lot more to work with, a lot lot lot more room for error, better facilities, more talent to work with, more chances of success (tournament expansion, etc).
Good points. Anyone know what the competitive landscape was back then? Fair to assume far fewer schools were trying to compete at the upper levels of NCAA? Just wondering how that impacted McGuire and his ability to build the program. Seems like (and i really dont know, only speculating) the environment today is far more challenging.
Sidebar discussion on al: was watching the al McGuire tapes the other day and man was he a strange motivator. Total you guys suck, prove me otherwise psychology.
Quote from: CAGASS24 on April 08, 2013, 07:34:24 PMTotal you guys suck, prove me otherwise psychology.
Hmmmm. Where have I heard that recently?
"We aren't very good."
Says the guy whose team made the Elite8.
Quote from: MURFC on April 08, 2013, 06:00:03 PM
Good points. Anyone know what the competitive landscape was back then? Fair to assume far fewer schools were trying to compete at the upper levels of NCAA? Just wondering how that impacted McGuire and his ability to build the program. Seems like (and i really dont know, only speculating) the environment today is far more challenging.
Really hard question to answer. So difficult to compare eras, then you bring in things like freshmen eligibility, outlawing the slam dunk, 3 point line exists now, no shot clock then, fewer DI teams but fewer post season opportunities as well. Back then, there was typically one college basketball games on tv per week, if you were lucky. Only conference champions made the NCAA tournament so we examples where USC was ranked #2 in the country but didn't make the NCAAs because UCLA was #1 and won the Pac Eight conference...same with Maryland one year. So I don't know if it is more challenging now, less challenging, hard to figure with so many variables, so many different opportunities today.
I voted Buzz, but Al started with nothing while Buzz started with a senior laden team.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2013, 07:41:35 PM
USC was ranked #2 in the country but didn't make the NCAAs because UCLA was #1
That was that Bob Boyd team with Westphal. I actually watched that game! 1971...seems like yesterday.
More votes for Buzz than Al. However, if you limited voting to fans who were fans through both eras, I think the results would flip flop.
Quote from: LittleMurs on April 09, 2013, 11:56:19 AM
More votes for Buzz than Al. However, if you limited voting to fans who were fans through both eras, I think the results would flip flop.
People's memories are awfully thin, or they're so young they have no memories at all.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2013, 05:54:22 PM
Context is important
To me, it's Al McGuire and a silly discussion even to be voted on. That's not a dig on Buzz, he just had a lot more to work with, a lot lot lot more room for error, better facilities, more talent to work with, more chances of success (tournament expansion, etc).
Agree with you on everything but the room for error. Al was building a program and there were not high expectations so he was going to be given time to build. If Buzz had gone to the NIT in his first 3 years people would have been calling for his head, especially with the senior leadership he was left with his first season.
Quote from: MUMonster03 on April 09, 2013, 01:25:41 PM
Agree with you on everything but the room for error. Al was building a program and there were not high expectations so he was going to be given time to build. If Buzz had gone to the NIT in his first 3 years people would have been calling for his head, especially with the senior leadership he was left with his first season.
When I say room for error, I mean a lot easier to get into the NCAA tournament. You can finish 9th in the Big East and make the NCAA tournament. In Al's era, you finished 2nd and you didn't get an invite....granted we were an independent, but my point is that being really good back then didn't mean you were invited. Today, there is a ton of room for error and you still get invited.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2013, 01:29:05 PM
When I say room for error, I mean a lot easier to get into the NCAA tournament. You can finish 9th in the Big East and make the NCAA tournament. In Al's era, you finished 2nd and you didn't get an invite....granted we were an independent, but my point is that being really good back then didn't mean you were invited. Today, there is a ton of room for error and you still get invited.
Have to agree with you on that then as well. 2011 would have been a NIT year at best back in the day but instead it was the beginning of the sweet 16's!
Quote from: MUMonster03 on April 09, 2013, 01:40:02 PM
Have to agree with you on that then as well. 2011 would have been a NIT year at best back in the day but instead it was the beginning of the sweet 16's!
Based on some experts in 2011, they had us as one of the last teams in but the tournament had just expanded that year.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 09, 2013, 03:19:37 PM
Based on some experts in 2011, they had us as one of the last teams in but the tournament had just expanded that year.
We were an 11. That's safely in. even in a 65 team field, that's safely in. 12 was usually the last at-large before expansion, and now its 13.
That said, it obviously wasn't an NCAA tournament team int he 1970s.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 08, 2013, 07:41:35 PM
Only conference champions made the NCAA tournament so we examples where USC was ranked #2 in the country but didn't make the NCAAs because UCLA was #1 and won the Pac Eight conference...same with Maryland one year.
Did we have an advantage in that respect being independent? Were we eligible for spots that teams better than us were not because we were not held back behind another team in a conference?
Quote from: TJ on April 09, 2013, 04:26:53 PM
Did we have an advantage in that respect being independent? Were we eligible for spots that teams better than us were not because we were not held back behind another team in a conference?
Overall, it was probably better to be an independent. But I'm sure there were some crappy autobids back then too that wouldn't have made it as an at large. Goes both ways