With the uncertainty at the Pres/AD positions, MU is faced with a very unpleasant set of choices.
1. Wait until the new pres/AD are in place and make the hire then. At the current pace that the sports world moves, MU simply cannot afford to wait 2 months to hire a coach.
2. Cords/Wilde choose a highly ranked assistant, Over the next few years, the new coach clashes with the guys who didn't hire him.
3. Cords/Wilde try to compete for the latest hot coach...who won't come because they don't know who the new admin is going to be.
4. Howland. History, track record, low maintenance. Already interested. He probably won't be here 10 years. New admin know they have a pro in place, can settle in. Once they are established, a few years down the road they can start planning the succession.
I tend to agree. I don't see any way they wait for a new administration to be in place, unless those decisions are already made and it happens in the next few days. Don't think that's the case. If you are guy like Marshall for instance, are you going to leave your cushy Wichita State gig for the unknowns at Marquette? I'd think not. If Howland real wants the job as has been reported, I think its a great fit and you give it to him.
Quote from: tower912 on March 22, 2014, 01:22:12 PM
With the uncertainty at the Pres/AD positions, MU is faced with a very unpleasant set of choices.
1. Wait until the new pres/AD are in place and make the hire then. At the current pace that the sports world moves, MU simply cannot afford to wait 2 months to hire a coach.
2. Cords/Wilde choose a highly ranked assistant, Over the next few years, the new coach clashes with the guys who didn't hire him.
3. Cords/Wilde try to compete for the latest hot coach...who won't come because they don't know who the new admin is going to be.
4. Howland. History, track record, low maintenance. Already interested. He probably won't be here 10 years. New admin know they have a pro in place, can settle in. Once they are established, a few years down the road they can start planning the succession.
#1 is not even plausible...the only time you do a July hire is when Rick Majerus quits on us in July. The hire will happen in the next 3 weeks unless they already have their guy it could happen sooner. My only worry on this stuff is for the guys you know you can get (i.e. Buzz in 2008, Wardle now, etc) you don't have to go fast. For guys you want really badly and can get them in a short window, then you go fast.
Why do you insist on starting new threads?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on March 22, 2014, 01:28:36 PM
#1 is not even plausible...the only time you do a July hire is when Rick Majerus quits on us in July. The hire will happen in the next 3 weeks unless they already have their guy it could happen sooner. My only worry on this stuff is for the guys you know you can get (i.e. Buzz in 2008, Wardle now, etc) you don't have to go fast. For guys you want really badly and can get them in a short window, then you go fast.
Well, Cords knows by now if SS is interested to listen to our pitch. Marshall, obviously they will have to wait for formal contact, but the feelers are out. Should not take too long to see if there is interest or not.
Hire Howland, keep Chew, all is good.
Quote from: mugrack on March 22, 2014, 01:48:47 PM
Hire Howland, keep Chew, all is good.
+1
His record speaks for itself (multiple FFs)
He's put multiple players in the NBA
He's a former BE guy, so surely he has east coast ties
His hiring makes a HUGE splash, shaking off any inkling of a notion that we are a stepping stone
Quote from: tower912 on March 22, 2014, 01:22:12 PM
4. Howland. History, track record, low maintenance. Already interested. He probably won't be here 10 years. New admin know they have a pro in place, can settle in. Once they are established, a few years down the road they can start planning the succession.
See I think Howland is the most likely to stay at MU the longest and offers the most stability. I could see him take advantage of all the great things MU has to offer and settle in for the remainder of his career at MU.
All other candidates seem to be the types that would use MU as a stepping stone again.
Quote from: mugrack on March 22, 2014, 01:48:47 PM
Hire Howland, keep Chew, all is good.
The first seems like it's there for the doing. Hopefully, Howland will be able to keep Chew. Why wouldn't he? Howland has a reputation for demeaning behavior toward assistants. Chew has an established relationship with Buzz and certainly would be welcome to follow him to VT. Chew's reputation should get him offers from several other schools closer to his Midwest home base, as well.
Marquette's ace in the hole? It's budget. Buzz got Chew away from Illinois because the administration okayed an increase in the budget for assistant salaries, and Chew got a very nice salary for an assistant basketball coach anywhere. Let's hope that's enough.
Young man's game. Not anti Howland but I go younger with big time recruiting skills.
I have settled on the idea that Howland would be the ideal hire. He won in the Big East before, and, in years 3-5 at UCLA (where he would have had all his recruits on the team), he took them to 2 Final Fours and an NCAA Championship Game appearance. He is an excellent recruiter, is a good X's and O's guy, sent numerous players to the NBA, and would not be a threat to leave.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2014, 02:48:41 PM
Young man's game. Not anti Howland but I go younger with big time recruiting skills.
Agreed on all points.
Quote from: mugrack on March 22, 2014, 01:48:47 PM
Hire Howland, keep Chew, all is good.
+1. Give Chew an extra $150,000 and call him Associate Head Coach. Need to protect our recruits that we want to keep. Delay will not help.
Not wild about Howland, despite his track record. His style of play is pretty boring (yeah, I know he is successful with it), and he does not seem to have the best relationships with players and assistants.
Quote from: Norm on March 22, 2014, 03:18:16 PM
Not wild about Howland, despite his track record. His style of play is pretty boring (yeah, I know he is successful with it), and he does not seem to have the best relationships with players and assistants.
To add to this, I would be curious to know what really went down at UCLA. Howland took them to a few Final Fours and I think maybe won the Pac 10 title the year he was fired. On paper, his record doesn't scream "fire me" so wonder why he was let go.
Quote from: Goose on March 22, 2014, 02:48:41 PM
Young man's game. Not anti Howland but I go younger with big time recruiting skills.
Jim Boeheim (69), Rick Pitino (61), John Beilein (61), Mike Krzyzewski (67), Roy Williams (63), Steve Fisher (68), Jim Larranga (64), John Calipari (55), Tom Izzo (59), Bo Ryan (66), Lon Kruger (61), Jim Crews (60) and Mike Montgomery (67) might beg to differ.
And don 't even make me mention how old Larry Brown is.
Quote from: Pakuni on March 22, 2014, 03:22:11 PM
Jim Boeheim (69), Rick Pitino (61), John Beilein (61), Mike Krzyzewski (67), Roy Williams (63), Steve Fisher (68), Jim Larranga (64), John Calipari (55), Tom Izzo (59), Bo Ryan (66), Lon Kruger (61), Jim Crews (60) and Mike Montgomery (67) might beg to differ.
Yep. Like I said, Majerus was 59 when he went to SLU who is giving Louisville all they can handle right now. If you know how to get it done, you know how to get it done.
Quote from: LAZER on March 22, 2014, 02:41:47 PM
See I think Howland is the most likely to stay at MU the longest and offers the most stability. I could see him take advantage of all the great things MU has to offer and settle in for the remainder of his career at MU.
All other candidates seem to be the types that would use MU as a stepping stone again.
Bingo.
Young coaches are wildly optimistic about their future potential. They have their eyes on the bluebloods.
Older coaches who are more seasoned realize a good thing when they see it. They are more realistic. KO, for example.
I want Howland.
It will also be nice to have all of Howland's former NBA players associating with the MU program. Kind of like how Wade associates with IU!
Quote from: Norm on March 22, 2014, 03:18:16 PM
Not wild about Howland, despite his track record. His style of play is pretty boring (yeah, I know he is successful with it), and he does not seem to have the best relationships with players and assistants.
People change. If he can make us a winner I'll take boring.
Quote from: Rockmic87 on March 22, 2014, 03:37:59 PM
It will also be nice to have all of Howland's former NBA players associating with the MU program. Kind of like how Wade associates with IU!
And shouldn't be too tough to recruit when you can point to this list of accomplishments:
Trevor Ariza
Dijon Thompson
Cedric Bozeman
Ryan Hollins
Jordan Farmar
Arron Afflalo
Russell Westbrook
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute
Kevin Love
Jrue Holiday
Darren Collison
Malcolm Lee
Tyler Honeycutt
Shabazz Muhammad
I think he would be a very good choice. Stability going forward is important. The rest of the university is in flux. And as a guy who just started a new and hopefully last stop professional job, I can appreciate the allure.
Quote from: indymufan on March 22, 2014, 03:20:54 PM
To add to this, I would be curious to know what really went down at UCLA. Howland took them to a few Final Fours and I think maybe won the Pac 10 title the year he was fired. On paper, his record doesn't scream "fire me" so wonder why he was let go.
He was at UCLA and his name was not John Wooden. He never won a national championship, hence he was fired.
Quote from: marquette09 on March 22, 2014, 04:16:51 PM
He was at UCLA and his name was not John Wooden. He never won a national championship, hence he was fired.
I think that there is a lot that you don't know or are choosing to ignore.
Has MU ever hired a coach that was fired from his last job before?
Quote from: mugrack on March 22, 2014, 01:48:47 PM
Hire Howland, keep Chew, all is good.
According to another poster, insidetheleague, Chew is going to VT.
The more I think about it the more I want Howland for these reasons:
1 - afraid MU will make a stupid decision like O'Neill
2 - afraid we'll get some off the wall assistant that either isn't as good as we thought or has eyes on blue bloods
3 - afraid we'll prematurely hire Wardle and if he doesn't have success will take time firing because he is one of our own, setting the program way back.
4 - He wants to come here (so he says)
5 - he's been successful as said above
6 - He produces talent (if the style wins I don't care how boring it is. the boring style is the stupidest reason I've heard for not hiring a guy - I want to win)
7 - trying to hire the studs like Marshall might take too long causing us to scramble for someone else after Howland decides he can't wait for us and goes to USF or something
I'm not 100% in on Howland, but I'm getting there. Just the thoughts that are going through my head.
While Howland could be a good choice, there is the baggage of what went on at UCLA out there. I don't claim to know the facts, but why does a school fire a 3 time FF coach. The stories being put forth are partying , drugs, etc. and letting the players control things. So we need to be cautious, but urgently so. Do our current recruits even know who the guy is?
Quote from: willie warrior on March 22, 2014, 04:52:09 PM
Do our current recruits even know who the guy is?
Who cares? Current recruits should be the last thing considered in trying to hire the right coach. They are just a notch below assistant coaches.
Exactly. Just tell the kids you took UCLA to 3 final fours in a row. They'll also watch ESPN and see that the analysts all know he's a good coach. And his X's and O's are solid.
Quote from: willie warrior on March 22, 2014, 04:52:09 PM
While Howland could be a good choice, there is the baggage of what went on at UCLA out there. I don't claim to know the facts, but why does a school fire a 3 time FF coach. The stories being put forth are partying , drugs, etc. and letting the players control things. So we need to be cautious, but urgently so. Do our current recruits even know who the guy is?
The majority of the ppl on MUSCOOP would easily trade the MU BBall program having "partying , drugs, etc. and letting the players control" issues, if Howland takes MU to 3 final 4...
I don't waddle to hear another thing about Wardle until his resume looks like this.
Howland knows how to recruit, win, and take players to the NBA. This would be a huge W for Marquette Basketball.
While Shaka Smart would be an excellent hire, my concern is if he were to come here he'd be rumored for numerous jobs as soon as he has success. Then what? We're back in the same situation where he'd leave and we're back to the revolving door. While Ben Howland may not be the perfect choice (who is?) he might be just what we need right now. And even though many people on this board have concerns about him, no one has said he can't coach and can't win.
Quote from: Rockmic87 on March 22, 2014, 05:04:41 PM
The majority of the ppl on MUSCOOP would easily trade the MU BBall program having "partying , drugs, etc. and letting the players control" issues, if Howland takes MU to 3 final 4...
Sorry--I do not believe that and certainly do not believe the admin does.
If we're going old...what about Steve Fisher?
Quote from: willie warrior on March 22, 2014, 05:09:51 PM
Sorry--I do not believe that and certainly do not believe the admin does.
Then you and the admins are in the minority.
Quote from: Rockmic87 on March 22, 2014, 05:18:53 PM
Then you and the admins are in the minority.
But then, anytime a program establishes a Dynasty of success, it usually comes crashing down eventually (i.e. USC and Ohio State Football).
Quote from: willie warrior on March 22, 2014, 04:52:09 PM
While Howland could be a good choice, there is the baggage of what went on at UCLA out there. I don't claim to know the facts, but why does a school fire a 3 time FF coach. The stories being put forth are partying , drugs, etc. and letting the players control things. So we need to be cautious, but urgently so. Do our current recruits even know who the guy is?
Howland did great at UCLA while he was recruiting and coaching his own way (hard working kids, like the kids he coached at Pitt). They didn't get into any trouble, and made it to - but didn't win - three Final Fours. The problem was that UCLA fans weren't satisfied with three Final Fours without a championship and didn't like the defensive mindset of the team, so he was pressured into recruiting Pirima Donna kids he didn't really want and ratcheting up the tempo. He lost control of those kids, and ultimately that's when things went south.
I think he learned from that experience that you stick with what you know and recruit the kids you want-and at Marquette that would play just fine.
Got this from a good friend who is a UCLA alum and big fan...and who loved what Howland was doing before he let the "win a championship at all costs" people get to him.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 22, 2014, 05:16:54 PM
If we're going old...what about Steve Fisher?
Fisher isn't leaving the sunny seaside town of San Diego for the twlight of his career. His hard work has finally paid off at SDSU.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 22, 2014, 05:23:15 PM
Howland did great at UCLA while he was recruiting and coaching his own way (hard working kids, like the kids he coached at Pitt). They didn't get into any trouble, and made it to - but didn't win - three Final Fours. The problem was that UCLA fans weren't satisfied with three Final Fours without a championship and didn't like the defensive mindset of the team, so he was pressured into recruiting Pirima Donna kids he didn't really want and ratcheting up the tempo. He lost control of those kids, and ultimately that's when things went south.
I think he learned from that experience that you stick with what you know and recruit the kids you want-and at Marquette that would play just fine.
Got this from a good friend who is a UCLA alum and big fan...and who loved what Howland was doing before he let the "win a championship at all costs" people get to him.
Great points. There was a definite change in the direction of that program after his initial success. The kinds of kids he recruited at Pitt and at the beginning at UCLA are the type Marquette wants too.
Weren't they his predecessor's recruits he won big with at UCLA?
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 22, 2014, 05:31:12 PM
Weren't they his predecessor's recruits he won big with at UCLA?
No. But you can make that argument with Roy Williams on his first NC at UNC!
Quote from: GooooMarquette on March 22, 2014, 05:23:15 PM
Howland did great at UCLA while he was recruiting and coaching his own way (hard working kids, like the kids he coached at Pitt).
I think he learned from that experience that you stick with what you know and recruit the kids you want-and at Marquette that would play just fine.
One incredibly toxic player almost single-handedly crashed that program. Hopefully it's a situation Howland learned from. While I think our expectations are much higher than they were six years ago, I don't see the "whoever it takes to win" pressure being put on our coaching staff.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 22, 2014, 05:31:12 PM
Weren't they his predecessor's recruits he won big with at UCLA?
No, most were Ben's recruits. He actually struggled a bit his first two years. They went to the FF in his third, fourth and fifth seasons. And even in their first FF run, most of the players were his frosh and sophs (Farmar, Afflalo, Shipp, Mbah a Moute).
"Couple of veiled Ben Howland references just four minutes into the game," noted Walton's television partner, Dave Pasch, and the broadcast just sort of took off from there.
From a high up UCLA alum on Howland:
Walton said this coming out of the first media timeout: "After years of shadow-boxing the apocalypse and wandering the land, the clouds have parted and people are having fun here. The atmosphere is totally different. [The Bruins are] up and down the court and they're passing the ball around and they're scoring and putting on an entertaining product. So things are getting a lot better here. People couldn't be happier or more proud."
Now I'm not nearly high enough to figure out how a Grateful Dead lyric about "shadow-boxing the apocalypse and wandering the land" applies to UCLA's program under Howland in recent years, so I won't even try. But, at this point, is there anything longer and stranger than Walton's obsession with Howland? If you watch closely, you can almost see Pasch rolling his eyes at the UCLA icon, and it's pretty bad when fellow ESPN employees are publicly calling for Walton to shutup or at least backoff.
"Ben Howland deserves better," tweeted ESPN analyst Seth Greenberg. "Give it a break Bill."
Their offense sucked according to Bill Walton.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 22, 2014, 05:46:06 PM
"Couple of veiled Ben Howland references just four minutes into the game," noted Walton's television partner, Dave Pasch, and the broadcast just sort of took off from there.
From a high up UCLA alum on Howland:
Walton said this coming out of the first media timeout: "After years of shadow-boxing the apocalypse and wandering the land, the clouds have parted and people are having fun here. The atmosphere is totally different. [The Bruins are] up and down the court and they're passing the ball around and they're scoring and putting on an entertaining product. So things are getting a lot better here. People couldn't be happier or more proud."
Now I'm not nearly high enough to figure out how a Grateful Dead lyric about "shadow-boxing the apocalypse and wandering the land" applies to UCLA's program under Howland in recent years, so I won't even try. But, at this point, is there anything longer and stranger than Walton's obsession with Howland? If you watch closely, you can almost see Pasch rolling his eyes at the UCLA icon, and it's pretty bad when fellow ESPN employees are publicly calling for Walton to shutup or at least backoff.
"Ben Howland deserves better," tweeted ESPN analyst Seth Greenberg. "Give it a break Bill."
Walton's a free spirit who appreciates the beautiful improvisational game basketball can be. Howland looks like a bit of a joyless curmudgeon that runs a conservative, restrictive, grind-it-out offense. Can't argue with the results, but I tend to be on Walton's side.
Five part, 20+ minute Howland interview from September with Seth Davis
"Hopefully I can get the best job available out there that fits me and will also be a great fit for the university". Katz and Parrish say he thinks this is it.
Part 4 gets into the Walton criticism and his style criticism: "There's no question, we will run more wherever I'm at a year from now." Says that UCLA was one of the better teams in the nation at fast break scoring last year, when they won the Pac 12 starting three freshmen.
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAiHZhQZksQ
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n46qzr5LLXE
Part 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5nuLbMJ8oo
Part 4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5fmtUDSQLA
Part 5 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvi1D9yiaiU
I can slurp this.
I want to slurp!!
Please let me SLUUUUURP!!!
Fly fishing? WTF?
This ain't a river runs through it, is he doing water color paintings too?
he's half in retirement.
Quote from: Stone Cold on March 22, 2014, 05:31:12 PM
Weren't they his predecessor's recruits he won big with at UCLA?
I would say for the most part, no. The first year at UCLA he had a losing record. Second year made NCAAs, but was only 18-11. Years 3 through 5 made the Final Four each year.
That first Final Four team had Cedric Bozeman and Ryan Hollins on it, they were Lavin recruits. Everyone else of any quality was Howland's
The guys below were all freshmen of sophomores
Jordan Farmar
Darren Collison
Josh Shipp
Arron Afflalo
Lorenzo Mata
Luc Richard Mbah a Moute
Michael Roll
Kelvin Kim
DeAndre Robinson
http://www.jsonline.com/sports/goldeneagles/marquette-has-contacted-ben-howland-about-coaching-position-b99230955z1-251743241.html
I am pro Howland. Of course, I didn't mind having a defense first approach this year.
If people didn't like Buzz's approach to the game this year, they will be really bored next year.
Al was a defense first coach and we were never bored.