MUScoop

Greska: Larry Williams’ departure is Marquette’s loss

Don't let the timing fool you. The day former president Father Scott Pilarz announced his resignation and was followed by a cadre of his closest advisors, this was set in stone. Larry Williams  wasn't just an athletic director for Marquette, he was also the vice president of the university, reporting directly under Pilarz. He was [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=9962&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />

Source: Greska: Larry Williams’ departure is Marquette’s loss (http://painttouches.com/2013/12/13/greska-larry-williams-departure-is-marquettes-loss/)

Jeff Goodman, aka Buzz's personal pressman, with the non surprising response.  LOL. 



Nice article, be prepared to be attacked. 

I don't disagree with much of this.   Larry was closely allied with Pilarz.   When Pilarz left........

Article is totally contradictory....basically saying Larry is a big loss to MU, when the same article clearly illustrates there was a rift between the most important coaching position in the athletic department  - men's basketball and Larry...

And as for Cottingham....he took the ax on a bad UNIVERSITY policy - he didn't break any university rules....the policy was flawed..

I don't understand the argument about Larry Williams "leading us" into the Big East.  Yes, he was AD while we reformed the league--to me, that's it.  He did his job.  The only thing that's exceptional about the new conference is the TV deal--much better than expected.  

Larry Williams didn't lead us into the new Big East, Georgetown did

xghost, is job was to find MU the best fit during the conference re-alignment.   He did it well.   So, yes, he deserves credit for a  job well done.   There is honor in that. 

Quote from: Ners on December 13, 2013, 05:23:12 PM
Article is totally contradictory....basically saying Larry is a big loss to MU, when the same article clearly illustrates there was a rift between the most important coaching position in the athletic department  - men's basketball and Larry...

And as for Cottingham....he took the ax on a bad UNIVERSITY policy - he didn't break any university rules....the policy was flawed..

ahem...a policy he approved as General counsel and likely helped write...ahem

Quote from: PaintTouchesSays on December 13, 2013, 05:15:07 PM
Greska: Larry Williams’ departure is Marquette’s loss

Don't let the timing fool you. The day former president Father Scott Pilarz announced his resignation and was followed by a cadre of his closest advisors, this was set in stone. Larry Williams  wasn't just an athletic director for Marquette, he was also the vice president of the university, reporting directly under Pilarz. He was [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=painttouches.com&blog=28348875&post=9962&subd=painttouches&ref=&feed=1" width="1" height="1" />

Source: Greska: Larry Williams’ departure is Marquette’s loss (http://painttouches.com/2013/12/13/greska-larry-williams-departure-is-marquettes-loss/)

News flash, there are many vice-presidents at Marquette, not one. Larry was one of many. virtually every major department has a VP.

Quote from: 79Warrior on December 13, 2013, 06:13:45 PM
News flash, there are many vice-presidents at Marquette, not one. Larry was one of many. virtually every major department has a VP.

He probably meant reporting directly into Pilarz. I assume not all VP's do that, it would be unlikely.  My assumption is that many report into their respective Deans or whatever the command structure is.

Larry Williams was here for less than two years, for Godsakes. Most of the players who led us to championships in soccer and volleyball were here or committed to MU when Larry arrived. That credit goes to Steve Cottingham, who also gets the credit for hiring Buzz. With time and perspective Marquette will be grateful that they pulled the plug quickly on the failed team Pilarz/LW experiment. That will be their epitaph.

This seems to be an answer to the question; "Who is the most influential person in the MU athletic Department?"

I can't say that I disagree with the answer.

MU will be fine without Larry so clearly not a big loss.....

Good luck to him.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 13, 2013, 06:22:48 PM
Larry Williams was here for less than two years, for Godsakes. Most of the players who led us to championships in soccer and volleyball were here or committed to MU when Larry arrived. That credit goes to Steve Cottingham, who also gets the credit for hiring Buzz. With time and perspective Marquette will be grateful that they pulled the plug quickly on the failed team Pilarz/LW experiment. That will be their epitaph.

I'm glad they cleaned up the mess that was on the Chicago Tribune's front pages and changed policies and hopefully some of the culture.  That, ultimately, should be on their epitaph.   It would not be very good if things went back to the old ways and another major incident like that hit the fan.  One I hope everyone is focused like a laser beam not to have repeat itself again.

You are right that some of those kids were committed.  Does that mean that kids that did commit while he was here did so despite him, or because of him?  Not sure any of those comparisons make sense to begin with.  MU landed in about as good a spot as they could, they took necessary actions to clean up a mess and the teams have been successful.  Sometimes the captain is just along for the ride and gets the credit for doing nothing.  Sometimes it's a bit more than that but folks don't like the captain.

I was a huge Steve Cottingham fan. But with the mess that happened...someone had to go and it was his department. I think Larry Williams did an excellent job as our next AD and I am very sad to see him go. He was the driving force behind the basketball only Big East and helped refurbish our image after the assaults.

I look forward to our next AD continuing what Williams started.

Quote from: tower912 on December 13, 2013, 05:34:03 PM
xghost, is job was to find MU the best fit during the conference re-alignment.   He did it well.   So, yes, he deserves credit for a  job well done.   There is honor in that. 

Honor?? Surely you jest!

You don't think there is honor in a job well done?   

Larry Williams did some gods things for Marqueete - particularly in cleaning up the mess with athletes etc.  But to me, he seemed a fish out of water, and never seemed to fit in.  Just my opinion.

Quote from: tower912 on December 13, 2013, 09:05:56 PM
You don't think there is honor in a job well done?   

There is a difference between doing one's job and doing one's job well. The man was fired less than two years into a senior position. Clearly some more senior decision makers felt his performance was wanting. As a six figure donor I am glad he is gone and will consider giving once more.

Honor expresses itself in many ways. But there was nothing "honorable" about Larry Williams' performance as the Marquette AD. I knew the man had questionable leadership when he dressed down his most important direct report through the press. An Air Force officer would have been officially reprimanded for doing something that stupid.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2013, 06:51:37 PM


You are right that some of those kids were committed.  Does that mean that kids that did commit while he was here did so despite him, or because of him?  Not sure any of those comparisons make sense to begin with.  MU landed in about as good a spot as they could, they took necessary actions to clean up a mess and the teams have been successful.  Sometimes the captain is just along for the ride and gets the credit for doing nothing.  Sometimes it's a bit more than that but folks don't like the captain.

My point is simple The juniors and seniors on this year's volleyball and soccer teams were here before Larry arrived. The sophomores had already committed. To give him any credit for those championships is ridiculous, as the foundation was poured by the coaches under the watchful eye of the previous AD. So simply a coincidence. I know you've been a very vocal supporter of Larry in his battles with Buzz. Obviously he has lost the war, having been dismissed after 23 short months. Where do you stand on his dismissal?

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 13, 2013, 05:18:34 PM
Jeff Goodman, aka Buzz's personal pressman, with the non surprising response.  LOL. 



Nice article, be prepared to be attacked. 

You could have at least shared it with the class...
Twitter Tracka

Quote from: Jeff Goodman
Jeff Goodman ‏@GoodmanESPN 6h
Wow. Marquette announces athletic director Larry Williams has resigned. My guess is Buzz Williams not shedding a tear on this one

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 13, 2013, 09:43:22 PM
My point is simple The juniors and seniors on this year's volleyball and soccer teams were here before Larry arrived. The sophomores had already committed. To give him any credit for those championships is ridiculous, as the foundation was poured by the coaches under the watchful eye of the previous AD. So simply a coincidence. I know you've been a very vocal supporter of Larry in his battles with Buzz. Obviously he has lost the war, having been dismissed after 23 short months. Where do you stand on his dismissal?

Lenny

I am a vocal supporter of any AD that tries to keep the program on the up and up, that is their job.  Hire good coaches, keep the department pointed in the right direction, be a spokesperson for the program, lay out the long term strategy, etc.  

When you say you shouldn't give him ANY credit, I find that to be more than a bit harsh. When I was at MU and IU, the recruits often met with the AD, to understand how the whole process worked, parents would have questions, etc, etc.  It's a comfort level.  Players commit to schools for many reasons, certainly the coach, but also the school, the philosophy of the program, etc, etc, etc.  It's a package deal, especially when you get into Olympic sports where these kids aren't prima donnas and trying to get into some pro league.

Everyone should have a boss.  So when you say I supported LW vs BW, you aren't being truthful in that sense.  I don't care if Jesus Christ is the head coach, everyone has a boss, a check as it were.  That is my belief, you are free to disagree. Many here have said they want Buzz free to do as he pleases (I'm not exaggerating) without oversight.  Sorry, I don't agree with that viewpoint.  Installing an AD that is merely a yes man is not good either.  This is how programs get in trouble when a coach becomes the de facto head and yields all the power.  It's part of what led Bobby Knight down his demise until a new president came in and said enough.  There are many other examples.  

So I'm for the next AD having power, a check against the coach.  That doesn't mean he roadblocks him, but it means doing things that are common sensical, put the UNIVERSITY in the best position, but still allowing for success of the program.  I do not wish to see an AD that governs over 13 sports while the basketball coach has complete autonomy over his fifedom.  Feel free to disagree.

Quote from: MU B2002 on December 13, 2013, 10:33:53 PM
You could have at least shared it with the class...
Twitter Tracka

Sorry, it was in the Paint Touches article....I should have stated that.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2013, 09:32:18 AM
It's part of what led Bobby Knight down his demise until a new president came in and said enough.

How'd that work out for IU? Unless I'm mistaken they ended up in serious trouble with the NCAA. And theyre still begging Knight to come back for a game...BEGGING HIM!

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2013, 09:32:18 AM
Lenny

I am a vocal supporter of any AD that tries to keep the program on the up and up, that is their job.  Hire good coaches, keep the department pointed in the right direction, be a spokesperson for the program, lay out the long term strategy, etc.  

When you say you shouldn't give him ANY credit, I find that to be more than a bit harsh. When I was at MU and IU, the recruits often met with the AD, to understand how the whole process worked, parents would have questions, etc, etc.  It's a comfort level.  Players commit to schools for many reasons, certainly the coach, but also the school, the philosophy of the program, etc, etc, etc.  It's a package deal, especially when you get into Olympic sports where these kids aren't prima donnas and trying to get into some pro league.

Everyone should have a boss.  So when you say I supported LW vs BW, you aren't being truthful in that sense.  I don't care if Jesus Christ is the head coach, everyone has a boss, a check as it were.  That is my belief, you are free to disagree. Many here have said they want Buzz free to do as he pleases (I'm not exaggerating) without oversight.  Sorry, I don't agree with that viewpoint.  Installing an AD that is merely a yes man is not good either.  This is how programs get in trouble when a coach becomes the de facto head and yields all the power.  It's part of what led Bobby Knight down his demise until a new president came in and said enough.  There are many other examples.  

So I'm for the next AD having power, a check against the coach.  That doesn't mean he roadblocks him, but it means doing things that are common sensical, put the UNIVERSITY in the best position, but still allowing for success of the program.  I do not wish to see an AD that governs over 13 sports while the basketball coach has complete autonomy over his fifedom.  Feel free to disagree.

Chicos

I'll give Larry credit for the freshmen on this year's soccer and volleyball teams if you give Steve Cottingham credit for the sophomores, juniors and seniors. But you don't like Steve, so I not surprised you've never mentioned his role.

The whole "everybody needs a boss" mantra is largely a red herring. The argument most of us made was that the new guy on the job shouldn't come out guns blazing against his #1 asset. Question: When Tom Crean went ballistic on that Michigan assistant coach did Fred Glass rip him in the local paper? When Tom Crean was caught making an illegal visit to Gary Harris, did Fred make a public spectacle of it or suspend TC? Does that mean that Glass has no power and Crean has no boss?

Also, it was clear from the start that Fr Pilarz and Larry Williams wanted changes that would make the basketball program less competitive. There's not a basketball coach in the country who wouldn't have objected. The sexual assault or harassment incident was was used as the reason, but the idea that the changes they advocated would would make such instances less likely is specious at best.

I don't want a powerless AD, but I don't want a bull in a china shop who looks for opportunities to flex his muscles and make things difficult for the#1 asset from his most important program. You've praised or defended Larry for 2 years by saying "Buzz needs a boss". That wasn't the question. The question was "Is Larry a good and effective boss?" He was here less than two years, so we know what MU thinks. And you know what I and many others here think. What do you think?

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 14, 2013, 11:05:06 AM
Chicos

I'll give Larry credit for the freshmen on this year's soccer and volleyball teams if you give Steve Cottingham credit for the sophomores, juniors and seniors. But you don't like Steve, so I not surprised you've never mentioned his role.

The whole "everybody needs a boss" mantra is largely a red herring. The argument most of us made was that the new guy on the job shouldn't come out guns blazing against his #1 asset. Question: When Tom Crean went ballistic on that Michigan assistant coach did Fred Glass rip him in the local paper? When Tom Crean was caught making an illegal visit to Gary Harris, did Fred make a public spectacle of it or suspend TC? Does that mean that Glass has no power and Crean has no boss?

Also, it was clear from the start that Fr Pilarz and Larry Williams wanted changes that would make the basketball program less competitive. There's not a basketball coach in the country who wouldn't have objected. The sexual assault or harassment incident was was used as the reason, but the idea that the changes they advocated would would make such instances less likely is specious at best.

I don't want a powerless AD, but I don't want a bull in a china shop who looks for opportunities to flex his muscles and make things difficult for the#1 asset from his most important program. You've praised or defended Larry for 2 years by saying "Buzz needs a boss". That wasn't the question. The question was "Is Larry a good and effective boss?" He was here less than two years, so we know what MU thinks. And you know what I and many others here think. What do you think?

Case closed.  End of story.  Any rebuttal to this is just mumbo jumbo garbage...well said Lenny.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2013, 09:32:18 AM
Lenny

I am a vocal supporter of any AD that tries to keep the program on the up and up, that is their job.  Hire good coaches, keep the department pointed in the right direction, be a spokesperson for the program, lay out the long term strategy, etc.  

When you say you shouldn't give him ANY credit, I find that to be more than a bit harsh. When I was at MU and IU, the recruits often met with the AD, to understand how the whole process worked, parents would have questions, etc, etc.  It's a comfort level.  Players commit to schools for many reasons, certainly the coach, but also the school, the philosophy of the program, etc, etc, etc.  It's a package deal, especially when you get into Olympic sports where these kids aren't prima donnas and trying to get into some pro league.

Everyone should have a boss.  So when you say I supported LW vs BW, you aren't being truthful in that sense.  I don't care if Jesus Christ is the head coach, everyone has a boss, a check as it were.  That is my belief, you are free to disagree. Many here have said they want Buzz free to do as he pleases (I'm not exaggerating) without oversight.  Sorry, I don't agree with that viewpoint.  Installing an AD that is merely a yes man is not good either.  This is how programs get in trouble when a coach becomes the de facto head and yields all the power.  It's part of what led Bobby Knight down his demise until a new president came in and said enough.  There are many other examples.  

So I'm for the next AD having power, a check against the coach.  That doesn't mean he roadblocks him, but it means doing things that are common sensical, put the UNIVERSITY in the best position, but still allowing for success of the program.  I do not wish to see an AD that governs over 13 sports while the basketball coach has complete autonomy over his fifedom.  Feel free to disagree.

I don't recall one example where one of our recruits under Larry, Cottingham, or Cords - said:  I chose MU, because I felt they had a great Athletic Director.  You can argue, if you want, that the programs an athletic department has set up to support its student athletes - such as academic tutors, etc., can have an impact on parents/recruits - that has some truth to it.  But the infastructure MU had in place from an academic support perspective prior to Larry's arrival, was known to be some of the best in college hoops.  So it's not as though Larry created this great academic infrastructure to sell recruits.  He walked into a great system/set up.  It's Larry's fault he chose to exercise bad judgement regarding his comments on Buzz - though rumors also exist that state he was being pressured to do so by Pilarz....so perhaps that's on Pilarz...

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on December 14, 2013, 09:50:09 AM
How'd that work out for IU? Unless I'm mistaken they ended up in serious trouble with the NCAA. And theyre still begging Knight to come back for a game...BEGGING HIM!

In the long run, will work out fine.  Bobby had lost it the last 5 years, I got to witness some of the nonsense first hand.  He put his own personal attorney in as the AD.  It was beyond ridiculous.  Unfortunately in the short term it didn't work out because the AD they had during the Sampson era was a yes man covering for his guy....having his back...instead of doing the right thing which should have been not hiring him (Sampson) in the first place.

Things are on better footing now, and many messes cleaned up.  This is why I believe in a strong AD, not a rubber stamp AD. 

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 14, 2013, 11:05:06 AM
Chicos

I'll give Larry credit for the freshmen on this year's soccer and volleyball teams if you give Steve Cottingham credit for the sophomores, juniors and seniors. But you don't like Steve, so I not surprised you've never mentioned his role.

The whole "everybody needs a boss" mantra is largely a red herring. The argument most of us made was that the new guy on the job shouldn't come out guns blazing against his #1 asset. Question: When Tom Crean went ballistic on that Michigan assistant coach did Fred Glass rip him in the local paper? When Tom Crean was caught making an illegal visit to Gary Harris, did Fred make a public spectacle of it or suspend TC? Does that mean that Glass has no power and Crean has no boss?

Also, it was clear from the start that Fr Pilarz and Larry Williams wanted changes that would make the basketball program less competitive. There's not a basketball coach in the country who wouldn't have objected. The sexual assault or harassment incident was was used as the reason, but the idea that the changes they advocated would would make such instances less likely is specious at best.

I don't want a powerless AD, but I don't want a bull in a china shop who looks for opportunities to flex his muscles and make things difficult for the#1 asset from his most important program. You've praised or defended Larry for 2 years by saying "Buzz needs a boss". That wasn't the question. The question was "Is Larry a good and effective boss?" He was here less than two years, so we know what MU thinks. And you know what I and many others here think. What do you think?

Honestly Lenny, I think it's silly to give either AD much credit for any of the recruiting.  Some, but not much.  As mentioned, it's often a wider perspective than that.  I just had trouble with you saying LW shouldn't get ANY credit....just cuz you don't like LW.  LOL, see how this works.

By the way, I don't dislike Steve at all.  I worked with him from time to time on various contracts (sponsorships, etc).  Very lovely man and have no animosity toward him at all.   Did I think the "national search" they did that involved interviewing no one or whatever was thorough?  No.  Did I like how our university was dragged through the mud...No.  Unfortunately, fair or not, that usually means the  AD and\or coach is going to take a big hit.

Your question was Larry a good and effective boss?  Hmm, my guess is my response will be quite different than yours.  Do you count the other 13 sports, or do you only care about men's basketball?  Hard for me to answer your question on many levels without understanding how you define effective.  For me, clearly new policies were put forth that rubbed a coach (maybe more) wrong, but did recruiting drop off?  No.  Did performance drop off?  No.  Did we have less public incidents...yes.  Have academic accomplishments improved?  Yes, according to those on the Big East academic awards.

To summarize, performance didn't suffer, academics got better, issues off the court have not surfaced. 

Strategically, we are in a new conference...Ners can bad mouth it, but it was pretty clear from the NY Times and ESPN reporting that G'Town and MU were the leaders in that regard.  MU was going to get a slot at the table, but MU did more than take a seat, they helped with the formation, the key decisions, etc.  I believe Mr. Williams gets some of the nod for that.

Feel free to disagree.

Quote from: Ners on December 14, 2013, 11:14:22 AM
I don't recall one example where one of our recruits under Larry, Cottingham, or Cords - said:  I chose MU, because I felt they had a great Athletic Director.  You can argue, if you want, that the programs an athletic department has set up to support its student athletes - such as academic tutors, etc., can have an impact on parents/recruits - that has some truth to it.  But the infastructure MU had in place from an academic support perspective prior to Larry's arrival, was known to be some of the best in college hoops.  So it's not as though Larry created this great academic infrastructure to sell recruits.  He walked into a great system/set up.  It's Larry's fault he chose to exercise bad judgement regarding his comments on Buzz - though rumors also exist that state he was being pressured to do so by Pilarz....so perhaps that's on Pilarz...

Yet, academics have actually gotten BETTER since he stepped onto the scene.  Off court incidents reduced, performance not taken a hit and actually got better since he has been here. 

Nowhere did I say an individual picks a school solely because of the AD nor would I ever say it.  I said kids pick schools for a variety of reason, but many will tell you (certainly the parents) after meeting with the AD that they like the mission of the university, the philosophy of the athletic department (driven by the AD)...the entire package.

You do realize Ners, that the player \ parents need an outlet when there are issues with the coach.  This is crucial communication component which is why the AD relationship is important.  If a player feels there is something he\she cannot go to the coach about, they can go to the AD.  The AD has to look out for the well being of the student athlete.  Parents, specifically, want that assurance and it is an important component whether you want to acknowledge it or not.  I saw it first hand at those two universities.  My niece and nephew played at Stanford water polo and won several national titles...same feedback from them...AD is important to vision, comfort level, outlet, etc.

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2013, 11:46:14 AM
Yet, academics have actually gotten BETTER since he stepped onto the scene.  Off court incidents reduced, performance not taken a hit and actually got better since he has been here. 

Nowhere did I say an individual picks a school solely because of the AD nor would I ever say it.  I said kids pick schools for a variety of reason, but many will tell you (certainly the parents) after meeting with the AD that they like the mission of the university, the philosophy of the athletic department (driven by the AD)...the entire package.

You do realize Ners, that the player \ parents need an outlet when there are issues with the coach.  This is crucial communication component which is why the AD relationship is important.  If a player feels there is something he\she cannot go to the coach about, they can go to the AD.  The AD has to look out for the well being of the student athlete.  Parents, specifically, want that assurance and it is an important component whether you want to acknowledge it or not.  I saw it first hand at those two universities.  My niece and nephew played at Stanford water polo and won several national titles...same feedback from them...AD is important to vision, comfort level, outlet, etc.

Have they really gotten better.  Care to offer any evidence?   There was a couple incidents in one year that sparked attn...a statistical anomaly to a longer term trend of no incidents.  I seem to recall a pretty significant incident still this year with the Lacrosse team.  So incidents are still occurring at a typical/average pace.

As for academics, where is the evidence of that.  Recently our graduation rate for basketball is down as we used to always be at 100% (pretty much up until Larry got here).  If you are looking at GPA, one has to be careful, instituting new policies for higher GPA's may just lead athletes to flock to easier courses to boost their GPA...doesn't reflect an improvement on academics.

Quote from: forgetful on December 14, 2013, 11:56:38 AM
Have they really gotten better.  Care to offer any evidence?   There was a couple incidents in one year that sparked attn...a statistical anomaly to a longer term trend of no incidents.  I seem to recall a pretty significant incident still this year with the Lacrosse team.  So incidents are still occurring at a typical/average pace.

As for academics, where is the evidence of that.  Recently our graduation rate for basketball is down as we used to always be at 100% (pretty much up until Larry got here).  If you are looking at GPA, one has to be careful, instituting new policies for higher GPA's may just lead athletes to flock to easier courses to boost their GPA...doesn't reflect an improvement on academics.

I said I used Big East all academic honors as my baseline.  In terms of basketball APR scores, those are weighted over several years so you have a mix of pre LW and post LW. The last reported scores are 2011-12 season.  LW was hired Dec. of '11, and didn't start until second semester was already under way.  APR was on a 3 year decline from 09 to that year.  Will be interesting to see if it goes up next year and the year after, which would be part of LW's reign.  Of course, you have to look at all 14 sports, too, not just hoops.

As for the flocking to easier courses, hasn't that already been the case with some programs for 30+ years at MU (and everywhere else)?  I don't see that changing much.

There are "incidents" and there are "INCIDENTS".  Not all are the same, clearly.

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 13, 2013, 09:43:22 PM
My point is simple The juniors and seniors on this year's volleyball and soccer teams were here before Larry arrived. The sophomores had already committed. To give him any credit for those championships is ridiculous, as the foundation was poured by the coaches under the watchful eye of the previous AD. So simply a coincidence. I know you've been a very vocal supporter of Larry in his battles with Buzz. Obviously he has lost the war, having been dismissed after 23 short months. Where do you stand on his dismissal?

+100.

The original author is giving LW WAYYY too much credit for recent success in other sports.  LW and Buzz had a very strained relationship.  Buzz was deemed more important.  LW left.

Personally, I'd rather have an AD who isn't afraid to stand up to the school's biggest asset. The program needed some cleaning after Cottingham was let go. Larry Williams accomplished that. Along with the transition within the Big East, I think we should consider ourselves extremely lucky that he was our AD.

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 14, 2013, 01:44:55 PM
Personally, I'd rather have an AD who isn't afraid to stand up to the school's biggest asset. The program needed some cleaning after Cottingham was let go. Larry Williams accomplished that. Along with the transition within the Big East, I think we should consider ourselves extremely lucky that he was our AD.

Yeah, standing up by dissing him in an interview to the local paper.  That sure is "extremely lucky."  Please.  I agree a change needed to be made, but the NBE was such an obvious decision it was almost preordained.  For following that portion of a pretty simple script I will say "thanks and good luck" to LW.  For the rest, well, my momma always said...

Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 14, 2013, 11:05:06 AM
Chicos

I'll give Larry credit for the freshmen on this year's soccer and volleyball teams if you give Steve Cottingham credit for the sophomores, juniors and seniors. But you don't like Steve, so I not surprised you've never mentioned his role.

The whole "everybody needs a boss" mantra is largely a red herring. The argument most of us made was that the new guy on the job shouldn't come out guns blazing against his #1 asset. Question: When Tom Crean went ballistic on that Michigan assistant coach did Fred Glass rip him in the local paper? When Tom Crean was caught making an illegal visit to Gary Harris, did Fred make a public spectacle of it or suspend TC? Does that mean that Glass has no power and Crean has no boss?

Also, it was clear from the start that Fr Pilarz and Larry Williams wanted changes that would make the basketball program less competitive. There's not a basketball coach in the country who wouldn't have objected. The sexual assault or harassment incident was was used as the reason, but the idea that the changes they advocated would would make such instances less likely is specious at best.

I don't want a powerless AD, but I don't want a bull in a china shop who looks for opportunities to flex his muscles and make things difficult for the#1 asset from his most important program. You've praised or defended Larry for 2 years by saying "Buzz needs a boss". That wasn't the question. The question was "Is Larry a good and effective boss?" He was here less than two years, so we know what MU thinks. And you know what I and many others here think. What do you think?

(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSq37tbiMFRZaPtdnVplEUI-4Vw7-YaEYWJAMAPj5q4F0wXPsRD)

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 14, 2013, 11:46:14 AM
Yet, academics have actually gotten BETTER since he stepped onto the scene.  Off court incidents reduced, performance not taken a hit and actually got better since he has been here. 

Chico

Larry Williams wasn't around long enough to demonstrate any significant impact in the areas you cite. But he was around long enough to prove he was a terrible senior executive at Marquette.  Bill Cords has more time on the Al McGuire Center Sh1tter than Larry Williams had in total. The man was a disaster as AD. Be thankful he is gone.

Less than two years on a resume is a RED FLAG It will be interesting to see where he ends up but I am guessing he will have some splainin' to do about his time at Marquette.

Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 14, 2013, 12:53:47 PM

+100.

The original author is giving LW WAYYY too much credit for recent success in other sports.  LW and Buzz had a very strained relationship.  Buzz was deemed more important.  LW left.

Funny how simple it can really be. Good coaches are a lot harder to find than good ADs.