MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: ecompt on March 30, 2014, 07:06:31 PM
-
Good pedigree, solid year at Tulsa, name recognition. I'd take him over Wojo in a heartbeat,
-
Me, too.
-
i'd also take him over Martin.
-
Of all the younger guys, he'd be my first choice. No mention in the national media though, so who knows if he'd even come to Marquette.
-
If Manning isn't fired next month from Wake it will be a miracle. He got his 5 years.
2014–15 Wake Forest 13–19 5–13 12th
2015–16 Wake Forest 11–19 2–16 13th
2016–17 Wake Forest 19–14 9–9 10th NCAA Division I First Four
2017–18 Wake Forest 11–20 4–14 14th
2018–19 Wake Forest 9–15 2–10 16th
-
Good memory to dig this up.
-
Thank goodness random scoop posters weren't making hiring decisions back then......lol
-
Manning wasn't on my short list, but I didn't hate the idea. Thought he would do well at Wake. I was incorrect.
-
Good memory to dig this up.
I got to thinking today when Crash was talking about Hopkins and MU and stating how close it was. The people that I have dealt with over the years at MU, some of which I saw last week in Milwaukee again...former employees now....I don't recall Hopkins being one of those guys. At any rate, wanted to go down memory lane of who was floating what back then, and with Wake losing by about 40 today at home and Manning clearly done I did recall him being on the list of some. But nothing wrong with that, we've all thrown names out there on this board that didn't work out, that's part of the fun of speculation. I am as guilty as anyone of it.
-
Okay. but would he have done better at MU than at Wake?
-
Okay. but would he have done better at MU than at Wake?
Impossible to know. He had two decent years at Tulsa, but he took over for a guy that had Tulsa 2nd or 3rd in three of the previous four years. Tulsa didn't have a losing record since 2006, so not exactly a program that was in distress.
-
It might take more than Danny and the Miracles to help him there.
He has found out in a hurry how difficult it is to compete in the ACC.
Go Warriors!
-
It might take more than Danny and the Miracles to help him there.
He has found out in a hurry how difficult it is to compete in the ACC.
Go Warriors!
He ain't in Kansas anymore
-
There was so much Wojo hate when he was hired. So many people saying things like for MU to be considered "a big-boy school" and a "big-boy job" we had to hire a real coach and not some assistant.
Heck, there was plenty of Wojo hate here 3 months ago.
All of these thread bumps just make me laugh.
-
I remember posters claiming UNC fans were laughing at MU and they had a running joke about why Wojo could never get a spot other than on Duke’s bench.
-
There was so much Wojo hate when he was hired. So many people saying things like for MU to be considered "a big-boy school" and a "big-boy job" we had to hire a real coach and not some assistant.
Heck, there was plenty of Wojo hate here 3 months ago.
All of these thread bumps just make me laugh.
I don't think that thinking was wrong then or now. MU continues to go down the path of assistant hires, they certainly can work out but they are risky because you don't know what you are going to get. On the job training. There's a reason that the major major guys almost never hire an assistant as the HC unless they are already at the program. Part of it is because we simply cannot get an established guy to come here, and so we've done well with landing on assistants that are hungry. The downside of that is we get guys that leave early and don't hang around very long typically. At some point it will bite us, and hopefully not hard where it takes a decade to turn it around. I'd still prefer landing an experienced head coach than someone that is learning how to do it on the fly.
-
I don't think that thinking was wrong then or now. MU continues to go down the path of assistant hires, they certainly can work out but they are risky because you don't know what you are going to get. On the job training. There's a reason that the major major guys almost never hire an assistant as the HC unless they are already at the program. Part of it is because we simply cannot get an established guy to come here, and so we've done well with landing on assistants that are hungry. The downside of that is we get guys that leave early and don't hang around very long typically. At some point it will bite us, and hopefully not hard where it takes a decade to turn it around. I'd still prefer landing an experienced head coach than someone that is learning how to do it on the fly.
Not so sure I agree.
Of our past six hires, Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane were experienced head coaches, while KO, TC, Buzz and Wojo weren't. (I know Buzz was HC for a short time at UNO, but he wasn't an "experienced" head coach.) I would take any of the latter four over either of the experienced guys.
-
Not so sure I agree.
Of our past six hires, Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane were experienced head coaches, while KO, TC, Buzz and Wojo weren't. (I know Buzz was HC for a short time at UNO, but he wasn't an "experienced" head coach.) I would take any of the latter four over either of the experienced guys.
This.
Sure, I would love for us to get a GREAT experienced coach with a proven track record of excellence -- like when Roy Williams went to UNC. But there are very, very, very few of those.
I do not want a retread with baggage. And, as you suggest, just as many mid-major coaches end up being flops as assistants do.
As you point out, our last 4 hires from the assistant ranks were successes -- some might argue major successes. All but Buzz knew what it took to succeed for several years in big-time programs, because they had served as top assistants in big-time programs.
I hope Wojo decides this is his destination job and stays for a long, long time. But if he leaves, I would have absolutely no problem hiring another guy who had been a long-time assistant under the likes of Olson (KO), Izzo (Crean) or K (Wojo) again.
I don't see how Wojo was more "risky" than Howland or Martin would have been.
-
i was honestly on the, let's see what we have here side. there were many things to like about him right off the bat-
from a winning tradition
played and coached under one of the best-recruits would be geeked by his attention
was a defensive minded player(remember, i said right off the bat)
i felt he was going to be a player's coach(age), could relate to players
even when wojo was under some intense criticism, i will admit that i clammed up a bit, but never threw him under the bus. i'm not doing the happy dance(on the final four logo ;)) yet, but we are headed in the right direction. let's see if he's creating a buzz(no pun) around the ncaa that MU is a b-ball and academic stud school
-
Not so sure I agree.
Of our past six hires, Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane were experienced head coaches, while KO, TC, Buzz and Wojo weren't. (I know Buzz was HC for a short time at UNO, but he wasn't an "experienced" head coach.) I would take any of the latter four over either of the experienced guys.
When I say an experienced head coach, I mean a major major not a mid major. Dukiet was gifted because Rick decoded in June or July to leave the program, and that was a killer.
Yes, we can get Midmajor guys to come here, we have tried to get Bennett, Shaka, etc, all have said no. We’ve rolled the dice pretty well, but it also means going young and those guys start to feel like they need to go elsewhere after a bit of time. Would be nice not to have a high major steal our guy each time and we actually return the favor.
-
did rick "decide" to leave the program or was he "encouraged"? i remember him being axked to leave like he didn't have a choice though
-
did rick "decide" to leave the program or was he "encouraged"? i remember him being axked to leave like he didn't have a choice though
My point was the timing was God awful.
-
My point was the timing was God awful.
got it
i don't remember if there were any other potentially better candidates than dukiet, but my God there had to be...but he could still play the peee ano
-
got it
i don't remember if there were any other potentially better candidates than dukiet, but my God there had to be...but he could still play the peee ano
If I recall the guy from Arkansas Little Rock was to be the coach and he bailed at the end, or we bailed....something. Very tough to get a coach that late.
-
When I say an experienced head coach, I mean a major major not a mid major. Dukiet was gifted because Rick decoded in June or July to leave the program, and that was a killer.
Yes, we can get Midmajor guys to come here, we have tried to get Bennett, Shaka, etc, all have said no. We’ve rolled the dice pretty well, but it also means going young and those guys start to feel like they need to go elsewhere after a bit of time. Would be nice not to have a high major steal our guy each time and we actually return the favor.
Marquette is a top 25 modern day program. In that time (50+ years) we have never hired a major major coach. The 2 who came closest (Deane and Dukiet) were a disappointment and a disaster respectively.
-
If I recall the guy from Arkansas Little Rock was to be the coach and he bailed at the end, or we bailed....something. Very tough to get a coach that late.
Mike Newell from Arkansas Little Rock turned down the job.
-
got it
i don't remember if there were any other potentially better candidates than dukiet, but my God there had to be...but he could still play the peee ano
Jud Heathcoate, the Old Michigan State coach, called Hank and encouraged him to hire Dukiet. I don't know how Jud knew Dukiet, but that is partially how Dukiet got into the picture.
-
Marquette is a top 25 modern day program. In that time (50+ years) we have never hired a major major coach. The 2 who came closest (Deane and Dukiet) were a disappointment and a disaster respectively.
I was recently reading an old article from when Dukiet was fired. Supposedly on our short list to replace him was Bernie Fine. Dodged a bullet there.
-
Jud Heathcoate, the Old Michigan State coach, called Hank and encouraged him to hire Dukiet. I don't know how Jud knew Dukiet, but that is partially how Dukiet got into the picture.
Wonder what Al, Hank or MU ever did to Jud to cause that level of hatred.
-
Wonder what Al, Hank or MU ever did to Jud to cause that level of hatred.
Excellent!
-
Mike Newell from Arkansas Little Rock turned down the job.
Still coaching in NAIA.
Old Tribune article with MU offering Newell. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-07-04-8602180124-story.html
Newell rejects the offer https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1986-07-05-8602180153-story.html
Lists the other candidates. Dick Versace, Moe Iba, Mel Hankinson, Dukiet and Cobb.
-
Marquette is a top 25 modern day program. In that time (50+ years) we have never hired a major major coach. The 2 who came closest (Deane and Dukiet) were a disappointment and a disaster respectively.
Neither of those come close in my opinion, and yes I am aware of the history. It is also why we go through the spin cycle every so often.
-
Yes, we can get Midmajor guys to come here, we have tried to get Bennett, Shaka, etc, all have said no.
Shaka was not a major-college coach. He was a mid-major coach who apparently had a lot to learn about building a major program.
Don't know what our level of engagement was on Bennett or how far it ever got.
Of those talked about the last go-round ...
Cuonzo would have used us. Howland, no thanks. The rest of the names bandied about were either from mid-majors or were assistants. Once Mrs. Shaka spurned us, I was perfectly happy with the guy we hired the day we hired him, and I'm thrilled with him now.
-
When I say an experienced head coach, I mean a major major not a mid major. Dukiet was gifted because Rick decoded in June or July to leave the program, and that was a killer.
Yes, we can get Midmajor guys to come here, we have tried to get Bennett, Shaka, etc, all have said no. We’ve rolled the dice pretty well, but it also means going young and those guys start to feel like they need to go elsewhere after a bit of time. Would be nice not to have a high major steal our guy each time and we actually return the favor.
If we could get an experienced high-major coach, sure. But your examples show that we haven’t been successful when we’ve tried.
Given that our realistic options seem to be experienced high major assistants - or - coaches with low-major HC experience, I’ll go with the former.
-
How often does a high major steal another high major's coach?
I can think of a few examples: Roy from Kansas to UNC (special situation there); Self from Illinois to Kansas; Crean from Marquette to Indiana. All 3 of those involved a coach jumping to a blueblood. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't think it's so common that one should realistically expect Marquette to poach a proven, successful, high-major coach.
-
How often does a high major steal another high major's coach?
I can think of a few examples: Roy from Kansas to UNC (special situation there); Self from Illinois to Kansas; Crean from Marquette to Indiana. All 3 of those involved a coach jumping to a blueblood. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't think it's so common that one should realistically expect Marquette to poach a proven, successful, high-major coach.
I think we got the next best thing.
-
How often does a high major steal another high major's coach?
I can think of a few examples: Roy from Kansas to UNC (special situation there); Self from Illinois to Kansas; Crean from Marquette to Indiana. All 3 of those involved a coach jumping to a blueblood. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't think it's so common that one should realistically expect Marquette to poach a proven, successful, high-major coach.
Only way a school like MU gets a successful, active high major coach is if the coach is disgruntled at his present school. (See Buzz from MU to Virginia Tech in reverse, for example) We're not a blue blood.
-
Only way a school like MU gets a successful, active high major coach is if the coach is disgruntled at his present school. (See Buzz from MU to Virginia Tech in reverse, for example) We're not a blue blood.
Agreed, Lenny.
There seems to be some dispute from those who claim to know whether VT actually "stole" Buzz from us. Many believe our administration held the door open for him and told him not to let it hit him on the way out. I am not privy to this kind of info, so all's I know about this deal is what I read here on Scoop.
My point (and it appears you agree) is that while some say it's high time for us to poach, say, Bill Self from Illinois, it's simply not something that happens very often ... and when it does happen it's usually a blueblood doing it or there is some extenuating circumstance (i.e. Roy to UNC) or both.
Again, I usually would rather hire a well-respected, experienced assistant from a program that has been successfully run by a great coach than a retread (such as Howland) or an unknown quantity (such as most mid-major head coaches).
-
How often does a high major steal another high major's coach?
I can think of a few examples: Roy from Kansas to UNC (special situation there); Self from Illinois to Kansas; Crean from Marquette to Indiana. All 3 of those involved a coach jumping to a blueblood. I'm sure there are other examples, but I don't think it's so common that one should realistically expect Marquette to poach a proven, successful, high-major coach.
Fair enough, though here are ones that come to mind for me off top of my head....some of these are dated, most are current
Bennett from Wazzu to UVa
Self from Illinois to KU
Belein from WVU to Michigan
Miller from Xavier to Zona
Williams from KU to UNC
Crean from MU to IU
Howland from Pitt to UCLA
Dixon from Pitt to TCU
Turgeon from Texas A&M to Maryland
Williams from MU to Va Tech
Altman from Creighton to Oregon
Martin from Cal to Missouri
Weber from Illinois to KState
Kruger from Florida to Illinois....later UNLV to Oklahoma
Mack from Xavier to Louisville
Caliprari from Memphis to Kentucky
Holtmann from Butler to Ohio State
Barnes from Clemson to Texas and then to Tennessee
Kennedy from Cincinnati to Ole Miss
Olson from Iowa to Arizona
Pastner from Memphis to Georgia Tech
Martin from K State to South Carolina
Anderson from Mizzou to Arkansas
KO from MU to Tennessee
-
Fair enough, though here are ones that come to mind for me off top of my head....some of these are dated, most are current
Bennett from Wazzu school to UVa
Self from Illinois to KU
Belein from WVU to Michigan
Miller from Xavier to Zona
Williams from KU to UNC
Crean from MU to IU
Holland from Pitt to UCLA
Dixon from Pitt to TCU
Turgeon from Texas A&M to Maryland
Williams from MU to Va Tech
Altman from Creighton to Oregon
Martin from Cal to Missouri
Weber from Illinois to KState
Kruger from Florida to Illinois....later UNLV to Oklahoma
Mack from Xavier to Louisville
Caliprari from Memphis to Kentucky
Holtmann from Butler to Ohio State
Barnes from Clemson to Texas and then to Tennessee
Kennedy from Cincinnati to Ole Miss
Olson from Iowa to Arizona
Pastner from Memphis to Georgia Tech
Martin from K State to South Carolina
Anderson from Mizzou to Arkansas
Mack and Holtmann were painful to me because they were departures of good coaches from the "New" Big East. Some might take it as a sign that the conference isn't desirable to coach in. Or maybe they had it with having to face Wright, Cooley, Wojo, et al twice a year. :o
-
Mack and Holtmann were painful to me because they were departures of good coaches from the "New" Big East. Some might take it as a sign that the conference isn't desirable to coach in. Or maybe they had it with having to face Wright, Cooley, Wojo, et al twice a year. :o
Or maybe they simply went to better programs and/or they were ready to move on.
-
Fair enough, though here are ones that come to mind for me off top of my head....some of these are dated, most are current
Bennett from Wazzu school to UVa
Self from Illinois to KU
Belein from WVU to Michigan
Miller from Xavier to Zona
Williams from KU to UNC
Crean from MU to IU
Holland from Pitt to UCLA
Dixon from Pitt to TCU
Turgeon from Texas A&M to Maryland
Williams from MU to Va Tech
Altman from Creighton to Oregon
Martin from Cal to Missouri
Weber from Illinois to KState
Kruger from Florida to Illinois....later UNLV to Oklahoma
Mack from Xavier to Louisville
Caliprari from Memphis to Kentucky
Holtmann from Butler to Ohio State
Barnes from Clemson to Texas and then to Tennessee
Kennedy from Cincinnati to Ole Miss
Olson from Iowa to Arizona
Pastner from Memphis to Georgia Tech
Martin from K State to South Carolina
Anderson from Mizzou to Arkansas
Good list. Only ones that should be removed are Sean Miller, Dana Altman, Josh Pastner, Calipari and Bruce Weber.
-
Good list. Only ones that should be removed are Sean Miller, Dana Altman, Josh Pastner, Calipari and Bruce Weber.
Why?
-
Why?
Can't speak for PTM but X and CU weren't high major when their coaches left, Memphis has never been high major, and Weber wasn't exactly stolen from Illinois.
-
Barnes wasn't really stolen from Texas either.
Kennedy was interim at Cincinnati and wasn't going to get the head gig there.
But that's a good list.
-
Why?
Xavier was in the A-10, a mid-major conference, when Miller went to Arizona, a borderline blueblood. There isn't a college basketball fan outside of Omaha who wouldn't consider Oregon to be a far better post than Creighton, which was in the MVC at the time. Pastner was under intense fire at Memphis and was desperate to get out. (It was even more dire than Buzz at MU; the administration was hardly clamoring to keep Pastner there.) The NCAA was knocking on Calipari's door at Memphis; he left behind a dumpster fire. Weber was fired by Illinois.
Others on the list who might not belong there: Buzz; Kennedy (was only interim coach at Cinci); Holtmann (is anybody actually calling Butler to OSU a lateral move?); Anderson (similar situation to Roy, as Anderson was a 17-year Arkansas assistant who wanted to get back there); Barnes (Texas to Tennessee version, anyway, as he was fired by Texas).
But sure, it's an interesting list. I think it confirms what I and a couple others have said: a major-to-major move is quite uncommon.
-
Can't speak for PTM but X and CU weren't high major when their coaches left, Memphis has never been high major, and Weber wasn't exactly stolen from Illinois.
I figured, but I don’t buy it. It’s like saying Wichita State isn’t a major but a mid major. Those programs were consistently ranked higher than 40% of the P5 schools....people get caught up in the conferences they played in, not the program. Gonzaga plays in a mid major conference, but is no way a mid major.
-
Barnes didn't leave Texas for Tennessee. He was fired.
-
Xavier was in the A-10, a mid-major conference, when Miller went to Arizona, a borderline blueblood. There isn't a college basketball fan outside of Omaha who wouldn't consider Oregon to be a far better post than Creighton, which was in the MVC at the time. Pastner was under intense fire at Memphis and was desperate to get out. (It was even more dire than Buzz at MU; the administration was hardly clamoring to keep Pastner there.) The NCAA was knocking on Calipari's door at Memphis; he left behind a dumpster fire. Weber was fired by Illinois.
Others on the list who might not belong there: Buzz; Kennedy (was only interim coach at Cinci); Holtmann (is anybody actually calling Butler to OSU a lateral move?); Anderson (similar situation to Roy, as Anderson was a 17-year Arkansas assistant who wanted to get back there); Barnes (Texas to Tennessee version, anyway, as he was fired by Texas).
But sure, it's an interesting list. I think it confirms what I and a couple others have said: a major-to-major move is quite uncommon.
You miss the point, where did I ever say they had to be lateral moves...ever? I didn’t. I also never said anything about blueblood....you did. I didn’t. Of course many are upgrades, some are lateral, but I never made that criteria...you did. A lot goes into defining what is a better job...money, conference, dedication to basketball, fan base, geography, etc.
As stated earlier, Gonzaga plays in a midmajor conference so based on your definition here, they must be midnajor.... uhm, no.
Finally, yes some guys were fired, but the hiring schools (which was my point all along) hired an established major coach anyway, INSTEAD of the unproven assistant....again, my premise from the get go. Experienced major coach vs unproven assistant.
-
Barnes didn't leave Texas for Tennessee. He was fired.
And Tennessee hired the major coach in Barnes rather than an assistant....which was my entire point...they went for major coach with experience, rather than inexperienced coach hoping he would do well,
-
You miss the point, where did I ever say they had to be lateral moves...ever? I didn’t. I also never said anything about blueblood....you did. I didn’t. Of course many are upgrades, some are lateral, but I never made that criteria...you did. A lot goes into defining what is a better job...money, conference, dedication to basketball, fan base, geography, etc.
As stated earlier, Gonzaga plays in a midmajor conference so based on your definition here, they must be midnajor.... uhm, no.
Finally, yes some guys were fired, but the hiring schools (which was my point all along) hired an established major coach anyway, INSTEAD of the unproven assistant....again, my premise from the get go. Experienced major coach vs unproven assistant.
Your premise, as is often the case, is flawed.
Not gonna argue with you for the sake of arguing. You can argue with yourself.
Go Marquette!
-
I figured, but I don’t buy it. It’s like saying Wichita State isn’t a major but a mid major. Those programs were consistently ranked higher than 40% of the P5 schools....people get caught up in the conferences they played in, not the program. Gonzaga plays in a mid major conference, but is no way a mid major.
82's post still used the term "high major", whether you like it or not, the A10, and MVC were not and are still not major conferences. Bringing up Gonzaga is just begging for our annual "who is a blueblood, and what is a high major" debate. Please save that for the offseason.
Would you consider Archie going from Dayton to I4 a "high major" switch. They were consistently ranked higher than many P6 teams, that doesn't make Dayton a high major.
-
Your premise, as is often the case, is flawed.
Not gonna argue with you for the sake of arguing. You can argue with yourself.
Go Marquette!
Please, explain to me why it is....you never give up unless you are buried so don’t start now.
Look, how can it be flawed when I also said there is no guarantee either way works. I’m not being absolute on this. My point is, however, many big programs hire coaches that have done it at the major level rather than taking the risk...that’s what I said and that is true. Many don’t. Those that do, some failed and some succeeeded. There are no guarantees in either approach.
-
Fair enough, though here are ones that come to mind for me off top of my head....some of these are dated, most are current
Bennett from Wazzu to UVa
Self from Illinois to KU
Belein from WVU to Michigan
Miller from Xavier to Zona
Williams from KU to UNC
Crean from MU to IU
Howland from Pitt to UCLA
Dixon from Pitt to TCU
Turgeon from Texas A&M to Maryland
Williams from MU to Va Tech
Altman from Creighton to Oregon
Martin from Cal to Missouri
Weber from Illinois to KState
Kruger from Florida to Illinois....later UNLV to Oklahoma
Mack from Xavier to Louisville
Caliprari from Memphis to Kentucky
Holtmann from Butler to Ohio State
Barnes from Clemson to Texas and then to Tennessee
Kennedy from Cincinnati to Ole Miss
Olson from Iowa to Arizona
Pastner from Memphis to Georgia Tech
Martin from K State to South Carolina
Anderson from Mizzou to Arkansas
KO from MU to Tennessee
The three I highlighted I'm pretty sure were guys let go by the first school or in the very least who knew that they were on very soft ground and left. There are a number of others on your list that I only suspect were in the same boat.
-
82's post still used the term "high major", whether you like it or not, the A10, and MVC were not and are still not major conferences. Bringing up Gonzaga is just begging for our annual "who is a blueblood, and what is a high major" debate. Please save that for the offseason.
Would you consider Archie going from Dayton to I4 a "high major" switch. They were consistently ranked higher than many P6 teams, that doesn't make Dayton a high major.
Yup, he did....but I never did say high major, of course I would love to know what that means to people. He basically took my statement, changed the goalposts to make a new statement....not sure why he limited it to blue bloods since MU isn’t one and the the topic at hand was about MU’s hiring practices...not that of a blueblood. Strange.
You are correct, I did not mention Archie’s hiring. In my view they are a midmajor at Dayton, but that is probably my bias coming into play. I believe Xavier, Creighton, Wichita State, Gonzaga, etc were more consistently accomplished then Dayton and maybe that is an error on my part. Point remains, those bigger programs are hiring other head coaches, not assistant coaches from outside their own program....back to the original point.
-
Please, explain to me why it is....you never give up unless you are buried so don’t start now.
Look, how can it be flawed when I also said there is no guarantee either way works. I’m not being absolute on this. My point is, however, many big programs hire coaches that have done it at the major level rather than taking the risk...that’s what I said and that is true. Many don’t. Those that do, some failed and some succeeeded. There are no guarantees in either approach.
My point was that it was not very common. Even if every scenario in that list was "allowed," we're still only talking about a couple handfuls of major-to-major moves.
My other point was that MU is 3-for-3 and arguably 4-for-4 (if one counts Buzz) on hiring top-tier assistants for the job. Of course there are no guarantees, but you keep suggesting that hiring a "proven" coach somehow trumps hiring Izzo's top assistant or K's top assistant or Olson's top assistant. You have zero proof that this is true. It's your opinion. Cool. We all have 'em.
I'm mad at myself for continuing to engage a troll who is destined to be banned again.
-
Yup, he did....but I never did say high major, of course I would love to know what that means to people. He basically took my statement, changed the goalposts to make a new statement....not sure why he limited it to blue bloods since MU isn’t one and the the topic at hand was about MU’s hiring practices...not that of a blueblood. Strange.
You are correct, I did not mention Archie’s hiring. In my view they are a midmajor at Dayton, but that is probably my bias coming into play. I believe Xavier, Creighton, Wichita State, Gonzaga, etc were more consistently accomplished then Dayton and maybe that is an error on my part. Point remains, those bigger programs are hiring other head coaches, not assistant coaches from outside their own program....back to the original point.
82's post asking about high major to high major wasn't in direct response to any post you made. It was a new topic after he had addressed your last post. Please try not to make this all about yourself.
Archie's last four years at Dayton were all 20+ win seasons with NCAA appearances. Altman's last 4 years at CU included 1 NCAA appearance, 2 NIT, and 1 CIT.
Point remains that the vast majority of head coaches hired are either assistants at high majors or head coaches at mid majors. Yes there are a few exceptions, but that is the route that most schools take, precisely because it is hard to poach from another high major.
-
Finally, yes some guys were fired, but the hiring schools (which was my point all along) hired an established major coach anyway, INSTEAD of the unproven assistant....again, my premise from the get go. Experienced major coach vs unproven assistant.
So you would rather hire a guy who has established (at least to his former employer's satisfaction) an inability to do the job rather than someone you're not sure about? I guess sometimes that might work, but guys like Rick Barnes aren't available every year.
Roy Williams (at Kansas), Coach K, Mark Few, Tom Izzo, Cal, Buzz (at MU), Crean (at MU), Bob Knight, Al McGuire, Lefty Driesel, Tark, Calhoun and Dean Smith are guys (off the top of my head) who support 82s argument.
Roy Williams (at UNC), Self, Barnes, Weber, Buzz (at VT) and Crean (at IU and Georgia) support yours.
I like Mike's list better.
-
Let's do it this way since as usual people are shifting stuff around, defining what "is is" and whether one inhaled or just kept it in their mouth. So to alleviate the definitions of Mid Major, Blue Blood, Elite, High Major, or whatever other hill people want to die on, let's make it clean.
How many schools from the P5 conferences when hiring their basketball coaches say in the last 25 years, hired existing college D1 head coaches vs hiring an assistant coach NOT FROM THEIR PROGRAM? Is that clear enough for everyone? Any wiggle room people want to play with? To be further clear, this INCLUDES someone that was recently fired but had the requisite head coaching D1 experience and was not an assistant. Clear as a bell?
Now, MU has gone the assistant route quite often with KO, Crean, Wojo. I think if you look at most of the P5 schools, that is not the case. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, but there absolutely is more risk with one vs the other. If people want to include Big East, by all means...we can make it P5 + Big East.
I think you will see that we don't act like the others....so far it has worked....I hope Wojo is here for 25 years and we don't have to worry about it, but if we do have to worry what direction will we go and why do most of the other big programs NOT go down that path? I have my guesses why, and it comes with risk management and satisfying their base....right or wrong, they feel they are "big time" and will go after someone that has proven it to some degree, rather than the risk.
-
So only "big time programs" hire coaches that have been fired from other "big time programs", got it.
-
Let's do it this way since as usual people are shifting stuff around, defining what "is is" and whether one inhaled or just kept it in their mouth. So to alleviate the definitions of Mid Major, Blue Blood, Elite, High Major, or whatever other hill people want to die on, let's make it clean.
How many schools from the P5 conferences when hiring their basketball coaches say in the last 25 years, hired existing college D1 head coaches vs hiring an assistant coach NOT FROM THEIR PROGRAM? Is that clear enough for everyone? Any wiggle room people want to play with? To be further clear, this INCLUDES someone that was recently fired but had the requisite head coaching D1 experience and was not an assistant. Clear as a bell?
Now, MU has gone the assistant route quite often with KO, Crean, Wojo. I think if you look at most of the P5 schools, that is not the case. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, but there absolutely is more risk with one vs the other. If people want to include Big East, by all means...we can make it P5 + Big East.
I think you will see that we don't act like the others....so far it has worked....I hope Wojo is here for 25 years and we don't have to worry about it, but if we do have to worry what direction will we go and why do most of the other big programs NOT go down that path? I have my guesses why, and it comes with risk management and satisfying their base....right or wrong, they feel they are "big time" and will go after someone that has proven it to some degree, rather than the risk.
Why is there more risk with hiring an assistant coach from elsewhere? Over the past 25 years, there have been a ton of head coaches who were eventually fired, many of which were former coaches elsewhere. The only way you can show that hiring an assistant is riskier is to have the numbers bear that out. Have they been fired more often? Do they have a worse winning percentage?
As far as I can tell, only three "high major" programs hired their current coach as an assistant from another program and who didn't have previous head coaching experience, which counts out Jeff Capel.
Those three are Wojo, Mike Hopkins at Washington and Chris Collins at Northwestern. All seem to be doing pretty well so far!
-
Let's do it this way since as usual people are shifting stuff around, defining what "is is" and whether one inhaled or just kept it in their mouth. So to alleviate the definitions of Mid Major, Blue Blood, Elite, High Major, or whatever other hill people want to die on, let's make it clean.
How many schools from the P5 conferences when hiring their basketball coaches say in the last 25 years, hired existing college D1 head coaches vs hiring an assistant coach NOT FROM THEIR PROGRAM? Is that clear enough for everyone? Any wiggle room people want to play with? To be further clear, this INCLUDES someone that was recently fired but had the requisite head coaching D1 experience and was not an assistant. Clear as a bell?
Now, MU has gone the assistant route quite often with KO, Crean, Wojo. I think if you look at most of the P5 schools, that is not the case. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, but there absolutely is more risk with one vs the other. If people want to include Big East, by all means...we can make it P5 + Big East.
I think you will see that we don't act like the others....so far it has worked....I hope Wojo is here for 25 years and we don't have to worry about it, but if we do have to worry what direction will we go and why do most of the other big programs NOT go down that path? I have my guesses why, and it comes with risk management and satisfying their base....right or wrong, they feel they are "big time" and will go after someone that has proven it to some degree, rather than the risk.
Talk about shifting the goalposts. I read 2 paragraphs and quit.
-
I was going to respond, but then I saw the carpet bombing.
Thread's over folks, nothing to see here.
-
Let's do it this way since as usual people are shifting stuff around, defining what "is is" and whether one inhaled or just kept it in their mouth. So to alleviate the definitions of Mid Major, Blue Blood, Elite, High Major, or whatever other hill people want to die on, let's make it clean.
How many schools from the P5 conferences when hiring their basketball coaches say in the last 25 years, hired existing college D1 head coaches vs hiring an assistant coach NOT FROM THEIR PROGRAM? Is that clear enough for everyone? Any wiggle room people want to play with? To be further clear, this INCLUDES someone that was recently fired but had the requisite head coaching D1 experience and was not an assistant. Clear as a bell?
Now, MU has gone the assistant route quite often with KO, Crean, Wojo. I think if you look at most of the P5 schools, that is not the case. It doesn't mean one is right and one is wrong, but there absolutely is more risk with one vs the other. If people want to include Big East, by all means...we can make it P5 + Big East.
I think you will see that we don't act like the others....so far it has worked....I hope Wojo is here for 25 years and we don't have to worry about it, but if we do have to worry what direction will we go and why do most of the other big programs NOT go down that path? I have my guesses why, and it comes with risk management and satisfying their base....right or wrong, they feel they are "big time" and will go after someone that has proven it to some degree, rather than the risk.
You keep stating that there is "more risk" in hiring assistants from top-tier programs when you have provided zero proof.
This time, you have amplified that, saying "there absolutely is more risk."
And you're the one who urged others to not state absolutes?
What is "risk"? Where is the evidence? Marquette is 4-for-4 ... is that enough evidence for anyone to state it proves that Marquette has absolutely done it the right way? I mean, it's hard to beat 100%!
chicos, the dead horse you keep beating is just an opinion -- the opinion of one interwebs troll who loves hearing himself argue.
-
So only "big time programs" hire coaches that have been fired from other "big time programs", got it.
Nope, can you show me where anyone said only big time programs hire coaches that have been fired, please focus on the word ONLY. Maybe then I'll get it.
-
Talk about shifting the goalposts. I read 2 paragraphs and quit.
Not shifting, establishing....so that people can't go on their wild escapades of definition grabbing.
Here's the answer to the question and criteria I laid out so people don't get into Blueblood, high major, mid major and all the other nonsense:
In MU's last five hires under that criteria, 60% of the time we went with an assistant coach. KO, TC, Wojo. Outside we went Mike Deane and Bob Dukiet. Buzz was an assistant that was promoted within. Hank Was an assistant hired within. Majerus an assistant hired within.
Dukiet was a disaster, but also a very rare case of a program being put in a bad position because Majerus left in the Summer....just doesn't happen...corner case. Deane had his moments, two NCAAs and two NITs. He was promised a practice facility, MU never delivered. He dealt with two different conferences. His biggest problem was recruiting and I thought he did him self a disservice in not grabbing a recruiting assistant coach known for that acumen.
Now let's look at P5 schools current coaching hires. Sorry, I'm not going back 25 years, statistically this should be representative based on current situation.
Pac 12. Of the 12 coaches currently employed, all of them came from previous head coach positions at D1 schools except Jones...but he was promoted within. 11 of 11 100%
Big 12. Of the 10 coaches currently employed, all of them came from previous head coach positions at D1 schools except Boynton...but he was promoted within. 9 of 9 100%
SEC. Of the 14 coaches currently employed, all of them came from previous head coach positions at D1 schools except Johnson (previous NBA head coach). 13 of 14 92.9%
Big 10. Of the 14 coaches currently employed, all of them came from previous head coach positions at D1 schools except Gard & Collins...but Gard was promoted within. 12 of 13 92.3%
ACC. Of the 15 coaches currently employed, all of them came from previous head coach positions at D1 schools except Boeheim...but he was promoted within. 14 of 14 100%
In summary, the P5 conferences currently have 61 head coaches that were not promoted from within as assistants. Only two of the 61 were hired without being a D1 coach in their last stop, one of those guys came from the NBA as a head coach. The other 59 came from D1 as their most recent head coaching stop.
This is the part I wanted to point out before the nonsense started.
96.7% of the time a P5 school hires a head coach with his last stop as a D1 head coach
40% of the time Marquette has done so
-
You keep stating that there is "more risk" in hiring assistants from top-tier programs when you have provided zero proof.
This time, you have amplified that, saying "there absolutely is more risk."
Yes, it is an opinion. Of course it is an opinion. My "proof" is in the data. Tell me, why is it that nearly 97% of the time the P5 schools go one direction, and we are vastly different than that only doing it 40% of the time? In my opinion, the risk level is higher because there is no track record. The P5 schools don't want to take that risk for fear of backlash from their fans. That is my opinion. The data is the data.
-
The three I highlighted I'm pretty sure were guys let go by the first school or in the very least who knew that they were on very soft ground and left. There are a number of others on your list that I only suspect were in the same boat.
Yet were hired anyway and given millions to take the new job, right? That's my point...they were hired coming from their last position as a D1 head coach. And Weber / Kruger did just fine in their new surroundings. We'll see how Pastner does...I'm not a fan.
Lots of ways to hire coaches, I just find the numbers interesting in how MU has done it vs the P5 schools. Staggeringly different. So far it has worked for us.
-
The data is the data.
Agreed. 100% of the time, Marquette hiring top assistant coaches at top-tier programs has been beneficial to the program.
Data!
Glad Marquette followed the data trend and tabbed Wojo, another in a line of excellent hires who had been top assistants.
Glad we didn't take the risk and hire either a head coach retread or a mid-major wannabe.
The data is the data, and the fun thing about data is that a reasonably intelligent debater can almost always find data to support his or her argument.
Heck, even an overly argumentative, multiple-times-banned interwebs troll like you occasionally can pull it off!
-
Agreed. 100% of the time, Marquette hiring top assistant coaches at top-tier programs has been beneficial to the program.
Data!
Glad Marquette followed the data trend and tabbed Wojo, another in a line of excellent hires who had been top assistants.
Glad we didn't take the risk and hire either a head coach retread or a mid-major wannabe.
The data is the data, and the fun thing about data is that a reasonably intelligent debater can almost always find data to support his or her argument.
Heck, even an overly argumentative, multiple-times-banned interwebs troll like you occasionally can pull it off!
Erin Andrews would be proud. I don't want to put words in your mouth as you do with me, so let me ask....are other head coaches retreads? Mid Majors are wannabes? I don't think you would say this, but it sounds like you are saying those guys shouldn't be considered....which makes me wonder why we bothered to go after Tony Bennett (a head coach retread) or Cuonzo Martin or any other previous head coach. As for the mid major wannabes, well some work out and some don't. Same for assistants, same for head coaches. I just find it interesting how much we buck the data trend.
-
Mike Hopkins at Washington is counted as a head coach at Syracuse?
Stretching a bit with that one. Wasn't he coach for like 7 games when Boeheim was out three years ago.
-
I just find it interesting how much we buck the data trend.
Is this referencing the P5 data you supplied? Since Marquette is not a P5 school, I don't think any data trend is being bucked.
Apples and oranges.
-
Izzo was never a head coach anywhere but MSU. A trivial adjustment, but a mistake nonetheless.
-
Cheeks,
You are Cords’ buddy...why did he like to buck the data? He hired three out of four of those assistants into HC jobs including Wojo.
-
Is this referencing the P5 data you supplied? Since Marquette is not a P5 school, I don't think any data trend is being bucked.
Apples and oranges.
Correct, but as we all know and I mentioned earlier that in college hoops it is the P5 + the Big East as we have adopted the same measures as P5 schools. So it's apples to apples. I offered to do the same exercise with Big East schools
But you bring up a good point. For the Big East it is different in how currently we have hired, maybe we can't attract the "retreads and wannabes" and forced to go that route. Mullin was an obvious alum hire. Ewing the same. Leitao's last gig was an assistant from another program, but of course DePaul hired someone who was their former head coach...about as corner a corner case you can have...I can only think of one other time that has happened in the last 25 years. Then you have Wojo. The rest came from other D1 programs or were promoted within.
Maybe the Big East
-
Cheeks,
You are Cords’ buddy...why did he like to buck the data? He hired three out of four of those assistants into HC jobs including Wojo.
I think you are ignoring what I originally said which is sometimes assistants IS the way to go. Necessary, an infusion of young blood, etc. Certain situations call for it. But as I've also said, at some point when do we graduate from that risk taking?
In terms of Cords....I would hazzard to guess it was because after Dukiet we couldn't get anyone other than a Tony Barone type and at times you need the young and fresh approach, the hungry guy, especially when you have nothing to lose. When we hired KO, we had nothing to lose. Needed a recruiter, that's what we got. Coming off Deane, the same perspective and I saw it first hand having worked for Deane and Crean, the difference was night and day in terms of optimism, what we could be how to approach things with energy. It was going to be Snyder or Crean, both assistants and both with energy...it's what we needed at the time.
There is no universal answer here, as I've also continued to say...not sure why people are ignoring this. Let me ask this, if we were able to get Bennett as we tried 5 years ago would you have wanted Wojo or Bennett? I've been on the Wojo bandwagon for a long long time, much longer than most here....the constant complaints about the Power Point, or that all he could do is coach Duke kids that were 5 stars....it was epic. Hell, some of still going on only 2 months ago.
That doesn't change that 99.9% of people here would have wanted Bennett and obviously so. Because he had a track record of success. For the SAME reason some in this very thread wanted Danny Manning, or Ben Howland or we could dig up any other old threads with other options...because known quantities are easier to digest than unknown...that's the risk quotient. Would you not agree?
I hope we don't need to make a decision for a decade plus, but if we do, I would love it if we have candidates that are less risky and we don't have to deal with our fans in year 5 complaining about power point presentations. I'm all in on Wojo and have been for a long time, that isn't changing.
-
So if I got this right...
Marquette has done very well when hiring well-established assistants from P5 programs (KO, Crean, Wojo) and not so well when hiring head coaches away from other schools (Deane, Dukiet), but there's an argument over which is the better philosophy for MU?
(https://i.giphy.com/media/lYKvaJ8EQTzCU/giphy.webp)
-
Marquette has done very well when hiring well-established assistants from P5 programs (KO, Crean, Wojo) and not so well when hiring head coaches away from other schools (Deane, Dukiet), but there's an argument over which is the better philosophy for MU?
MU has thus far taken a different approach than more than 95% of power schools and had great success in doing so. Is it luck, are they bucking the norm, or will this be the continued approach in the future because since it worked the last few times it is bound to work in the future.
-
Mack and Holtmann were painful to me because they were departures of good coaches from the "New" Big East. Some might take it as a sign that the conference isn't desirable to coach in. Or maybe they had it with having to face Wright, Cooley, Wojo, et al twice a year. :o
In Holtmanns case it was pure money. As he went from the poorest team in The Big East to the richest team in the Big Ten.
Mack went to a borderline Blue Blue Blood with a big money guarantee and more importantly low expectations given the situation . So he can take his time and build that program up properly. Kind of a once in a lifetime thing.
-
So if I got this right...
Marquette has done very well when hiring well-established assistants from P5 programs (KO, Crean, Wojo) and not so well when hiring head coaches away from other schools (Deane, Dukiet), but there's an argument over which is the better philosophy for MU?
(https://i.giphy.com/media/lYKvaJ8EQTzCU/giphy.webp)
But what's 50 years of history/empirical evidence when measured against Chico's opinion?
-
I think you are ignoring what I originally said which is sometimes assistants IS the way to go. Necessary, an infusion of young blood, etc. Certain situations call for it. But as I've also said, at some point when do we graduate from that risk taking?
99.9% of people here would have wanted Bennett and obviously so. Because he had a track record of success. For the SAME reason some in this very thread wanted Danny Manning, or Ben Howland or we could dig up any other old threads with other options...because known quantities are easier to digest than unknowns.
Danny Manning wasn't a risk? Kevin Stallings (your guy, run out of Vandy, don't even know if he's still coaching) wasn't a risk? Bob Dukiet wasn't a risk? Their floor was every bit as low as Crean's, Buzz's or Wojo's. Their ceiling was (IMO) a great deal lower.
-
Yes, it is an opinion. Of course it is an opinion. My "proof" is in the data. Tell me, why is it that nearly 97% of the time the P5 schools go one direction, and we are vastly different than that only doing it 40% of the time? In my opinion, the risk level is higher because there is no track record. The P5 schools don't want to take that risk for fear of backlash from their fans. That is my opinion. The data is the data.
CYA for the AD. When a Danny Manning or a Bob Dukiet prove to br=e an awful fit/hire the AD has an excuse for his bad judgement. If someone without a track record fails the AD is on the limb by himself. Most ADs put self preservation above bold, creative thinking.
-
Izzo was never a head coach anywhere but MSU. A trivial adjustment, but a mistake nonetheless.
Ishpeming High School.
Go Hematites!
;)
-
Erin Andrews would be proud.
Oh snap! You sure got me there, troll!
-
But what's 50 years of history/empirical evidence when measured against Chico's opinion?
If you want to go back in time, Eddie Hickey was an established coach at Creighton and SLU, hired by MU and he went 92-70, including 5 winning seasons out of 6. Went to two NCAA tournaments back when only 24 teams were invited. He bombed his last year going 5-21, otherwise had a very good record (87-49) going into final season. MU has shown they can hire D1 coaches, too. Hickey's squad won the '48 NIT championship.
-
Danny Manning wasn't a risk? Kevin Stallings (your guy, run out of Vandy, don't even know if he's still coaching) wasn't a risk? Bob Dukiet wasn't a risk? Their floor was every bit as low as Crean's, Buzz's or Wojo's. Their ceiling was (IMO) a great deal lower.
Yes, they were....which is why I said again and again no perfect way to do it. I said HIGHER risk for assistants, not that others had no risk. So this entire comment by you smacks of someone that didn't read what I said.
-
CYA for the AD. When a Danny Manning or a Bob Dukiet prove to br=e an awful fit/hire the AD has an excuse for his bad judgement. If someone without a track record fails the AD is on the limb by himself. Most ADs put self preservation above bold, creative thinking.
Hey, you might be right and in fact I suggested that it may be to ward off the fanbase from having to explain why they hired someone no one had heard of...though the AD will ultimately be judged by how his coaches fair in the long run, so that strategy isn't great long term. However, even if that is a reason to have 97% of the ADs doing the same thing is quite the trick, don't you think? Let's not forget that a heck of a lot of those hires within that 97% did just fine.
Of the last 25 NCAA championship head coaches in hoops, 24 came over to their championship school from the head coach of another D1 program. Only one was hired as an assistant...Kevin Ollie, who is no longer coaching. I'm guessing if I went back a previous 25 years further, it would say much of the same.
-
Oh snap! You sure got me there, troll!
Oh snap!
(https://media.giphy.com/media/26AHLBZUC1n53ozi8/giphy.gif)
-
If you want to go back in time, Eddie Hickey was an established coach at Creighton and SLU, hired by MU and he went 92-70, including 5 winning seasons out of 6. Went to two NCAA tournaments back when only 24 teams were invited. He bombed his last year going 5-21, otherwise had a very good record (87-49) going into final season. MU has shown they can hire D1 coaches, too. Hickey's squad won the '48 NIT championship.
Very relatable.
Also, George Halas led the Chicago Bears to six NFL titles, proving that team owners make great head coaches.
-
Very relatable.
Also, George Halas led the Chicago Bears to six NFL titles, proving that team owners make great head coaches.
Al Davis was AFL coach of the year in 1963 finished with a winning record. I believe there were others, but your sarcasm is noted.
Yes or no, has MU hired coaches that had D1 coaching experience? Yes
Yes or no, have some of those coaches done a good job at MU...gone to NCAA tournaments, NIT tournaments, winning records? Yes.
Yes or no, has MU hired assistant coaches that also have done a good job at MU...gone to NCAA tournaments, NIT tournaments, winning records? Yes
Yes or no, is there a perfect pattern that always works in hiring head coaches? No, nor has anyone said that to be the case.
-
If you want to go back in time, Eddie Hickey was an established coach at Creighton and SLU, hired by MU and he went 92-70, including 5 winning seasons out of 6. Went to two NCAA tournaments back when only 24 teams were invited. He bombed his last year going 5-21, otherwise had a very good record (87-49) going into final season. MU has shown they can hire D1 coaches, too. Hickey's squad won the '48 NIT championship.
Way to spin his record there with the 5/6 winning seasons. Yeah it's true, but just gloss over the fact that 13-12 is one of those 15-11 another. not exactly stellar records. Even his second ncaa appearance was only 16-11, cant believe we qualified
-
Why does everyone here lump in Mike Deane with Bob Dukiet, like they were equivalent coaching failures at Marquette? Mike Deane won 100 games faster than any MU coach before him and went to two NCAAs and two NITs. While Deane's recruiting tailed off, he still was a great bench coach and his teams won some big games against the likes of Cincinnati, Louisville, and others that had the Bradley Center rocking. Deane was so much better than Dukiet its an insult to put him at Dukiet's level.
-
Memory Lane, and I'm as guilty as the next person with whirlwind thoughts. All of us are super smart, especially at predicting and stuff.
Wojo on list of candidates https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43398.msg605895#msg605895
Martin on list https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43161.0
Martin will get job https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43327.0
More Martin https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43351.0
Goodman on candidates https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43226.0
Wojo https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43518.msg609138#msg609138 (my opinions haven't changed)
Shaka no shaka done deal...Scott Drew squirmy https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43236.0
-
Way to spin his record there with the 5/6 winning seasons. Yeah it's true, but just gloss over the fact that 13-12 is one of those 15-11 another. not exactly stellar records. Even his second ncaa appearance was only 16-11, cant believe we qualified
Spin is telling the truth? Wow. OK. Well, uhm I said 5 of 6 winning records. That would be 100% accurate, just like I said. Not sure how truth and facts are spinning, but hey it's 2019.
-
Why does everyone here lump in Mike Deane with Bob Dukiet, like they were equivalent coaching failures at Marquette? Mike Deane won 100 games faster than any MU coach before him and went to two NCAAs and two NITs. While Deane's recruiting tailed off, he still was a great bench coach and his teams won some big games against the likes of Cincinnati, Louisville, and others that had the Bradley Center rocking. Deane was so much better than Dukiet its an insult to put him at Dukiet's level.
Agree 100%. He was solid, not great, but nowhere in comparison to Dukiet. Recruiting was his downfall. I think the people trying to put Deane in Dukiet camp are the same people that are pushing a different narrative to make sure they win a Scoop argument (also, guilty as charged of that practice).
-
Why does everyone here lump in Mike Deane with Bob Dukiet, like they were equivalent coaching failures at Marquette? Mike Deane won 100 games faster than any MU coach before him and went to two NCAAs and two NITs. While Deane's recruiting tailed off, he still was a great bench coach and his teams won some big games against the likes of Cincinnati, Louisville, and others that had the Bradley Center rocking. Deane was so much better than Dukiet its an insult to put him at Dukiet's level.
Once Deane ran though O'Neill's recruits you saw him for what he was. A good coach but not a great recruiter. The team regressed considerably his last couple years and the Bradley Center was a tomb. Sure he was better than Dukiet. But he wasn't really successful and was rightfully fired.
-
Agree 100%. He was solid, not great, but nowhere in comparison to Dukiet. Recruiting was his downfall. I think the people trying to put Deane in Dukiet camp are the same people that are pushing a different narrative to make sure they win a Scoop argument (also, guilty as charged of that practice).
Dukiet and Deane were fired. O'Neill, Crean and Williams left on their own. Wojo is still here. That isn't a narrative.
-
It's "Chico's Vs. The Board Day". He has been hitting more goalposts than Codey Parkey today.
-
Dukiet and Deane were fired. O'Neill, Crean and Williams left on their own. Wojo is still here. That isn't a narrative.
Cleveland Browns fired Bill Bellichek. Lots of good coaches get fired, lots of bad ones too. KO, on that list was fired pretty much everywhere since. IU fired Crean. Buzz tends to leave places (UNO, MU) for whatever reason.
Dukiet and Deane were both head coaches at MU, both were fired. That's the extent of the similarities and if you knew them personally, you would say that was an understatement....whether it was socially, coaching, personality, relationships, etc. Plus Mike couldn't play the Piano.
-
In Holtmanns case ...to the richest team in the Big Ten
Wait! Holtmann went to Michigan??
Ohio ain't the richest in either endowment or AD earnings
-
Wait! Holtmann went to Michigan??
Ohio ain't the richest in either endowment or AD earnings
1 and 1a. They are both very well off. Ohio State gets a lot of specific gifts to Athletics. Money not an object at either.
-
Cleveland Browns fired Bill Bellichek. Lots of good coaches get fired, lots of bad ones too. KO, on that list was fired pretty much everywhere since. IU fired Crean. Buzz tends to leave places (UNO, MU) for whatever reason.
Dukiet and Deane were both head coaches at MU, both were fired. That's the extent of the similarities and if you knew them personally, you would say that was an understatement....whether it was socially, coaching, personality, relationships, etc. Plus Mike couldn't play the Piano.
I'm going to bow out of this. I have no idea what point you are trying to make any longer.
-
I'm going to bow out of this. I have no idea what point you are trying to make any longer.
I think he's trying to say that even good coaches get fired. You put Deane and Dukiet in the same category because they both got fired. There's still a ton of difference between the two in terms of success at Marquette.
-
Why does everyone here lump in Mike Deane with Bob Dukiet, like they were equivalent coaching failures at Marquette? Mike Deane won 100 games faster than any MU coach before him and went to two NCAAs and two NITs. While Deane's recruiting tailed off, he still was a great bench coach and his teams won some big games against the likes of Cincinnati, Louisville, and others that had the Bradley Center rocking. Deane was so much better than Dukiet its an insult to put him at Dukiet's level.
The main difference between Dukiet's and Deane's respective tenures at Marquette is that Deane inherited better players.
Once KO's players were gone, MU went into a tailspi that Cords fortunately brought to an end before things got much worse.
Let's not forget Great Bench Coach Mike Deane went 30 games under .500 at Lamar and Wagner. Or that Great Bench Coach Mike Deane lost to double digit seeds in both his NCAA appearances at MU.
-
Al Davis was AFL coach of the year in 1963 finished with a winning record. I believe there were others, but your sarcasm is
Fact check: Al Davis didn't own the Raiders in 1963. He didn't own them until the early 70s (he was given a small ownership stake in the late 60s after resigning as AFL Commissioner and returning to Oakland)
-
The main difference between Dukiet's and Deane's respective tenures at Marquette is that Deane inherited better players.
Once KO's players were gone, MU went into a tailspi that Cords fortunately brought to an end before things got much worse.
Let's not forget Great Bench Coach Mike Deane went 30 games under .500 at Lamar and Wagner. Or that Great Bench Coach Mike Deane lost to double digit seeds in both his NCAA appearances at MU.
Yup, recruiting was his issue. Deane did manage to take three different schools to the NCAA tournament and won over 430 college basketball games. Good coach, not a great recruiter.
Siena
Marquette
Lamar
He missed out taking Wagner in '05 when he got Wagner as the 6 seed to the finals of the NEC, but lost by six. A few years later they were the two seed, but only got to the semis.
-
The main difference between Dukiet's and Deane's respective tenures at Marquette is that Deane inherited better players.
Once KO's players were gone, MU went into a tailspi that Cords fortunately brought to an end before things got much worse.
Let's not forget Great Bench Coach Mike Deane went 30 games under .500 at Lamar and Wagner. Or that Great Bench Coach Mike Deane lost to double digit seeds in both his NCAA appearances at MU.
Deane lifetime coaching record 412-308. Took 4 teams to NCAA tournament. Took teams at 3 different schools to NCAA tournament. Was he a great coach ? No. But definitely in a much different class than Dukiet.
I thought Deane did a solid job at MU and maintained the momentum from KO. Thankfully , Cords saw the wheels were coming off the recruiting wagon and took decisive action before any real damage could occur.
-
Fact check: Al Davis didn't own the Raiders in 1963. He didn't own them until the early 70s (he was given a small ownership stake in the late 60s after resigning as AFL Commissioner and returning to Oakland)
I stand corrected....he was GM and Coach when he first started. Later AFL commissioner.
The others I referenced, Peggy Parratt was one....threw the first forward pass legally....owned and coached the Cleveland Tigers. Doc Young was another. Leo Lyons another. Etc. Coached and owned in the NFL.
-
Spin is telling the truth? Wow. OK. Well, uhm I said 5 of 6 winning records. That would be 100% accurate, just like I said. Not sure how truth and facts are spinning, but hey it's 2019.
No spin is selecting which truthful facts you presented in order to present it as an example that proves your point. You were completely honest but selected a way to present hickey as a successful coaching hire because it fit your narrative. You did not mention that only one, maybe the 18-8 regular season also, would be considered successful seasons by anyone on this board. The overall record is extremely padded by those the 61 year and the NIT year. You also failed to mention that his most successful year was his first year, and as we all know you would be first person on this board to say "wait 4-5yrs to judge because those aren't his players".
Ed Hickey was not a bust by any means but to use him as a successful example of hiring an established coach is a joke.
-
This is the quintessential scoop thread and should be on its tombstone
-
No spin is selecting which truthful facts you presented in order to present it as an example that proves your point. You were completely honest but selected a way to present hickey as a successful coaching hire because it fit your narrative. You did not mention that only one, maybe the 18-8 regular season also, would be considered successful seasons by anyone on this board. The overall record is extremely padded by those the 61 year and the NIT year. You also failed to mention that his most successful year was his first year, and as we all know you would be first person on this board to say "wait 4-5yrs to judge because those aren't his players".
Ed Hickey was not a bust by any means but to use him as a successful example of hiring an established coach is a joke.
He was not a successful hiring example? a joke? Three tournaments in his first five years and a winning percentage of .640 until his last season?
He took over for Nagle who in his last two years did not have a winning record, yet in Hickey’s first went 23-6. My 4 to 5 years philosophy is a marker to FULLY judge a coach so they can get a full class of matriculating players through. I have no idea about the roster makeup of Hickey’s first team, how many were holdovers or how many were his....do you?
Oh, forgot to mention....he’s in the Naismith Basketball hall of fame and the college basketball hall of fame.
Yeah, I would say he was not a bust, but where we strongly disagree is your assertion that he wasn’t a successful hire, a joke. Hardly.
-
He was not a successful hiring example? a joke? Three tournaments in his first five years and a winning percentage of .640 until his last season?
Oh, forgot to mention....he’s in the Naismith Basketball hall of fame and the college basketball hall of fame.
Yeah, I would say he was not a bust, but where we strongly disagree is your assertion that he wasn’t a successful hire, a joke. Hardly.
Is 23-6 a good season? Yes, did we make the postseason? Yes. were these his players? No
Is 13-12 a good season? No, did we make the postseason? No. were these his players? No
Is 16-11 a good season? No, did we make the postseason? Yes. were these his players? Some.
Is 15-11 a good season? No, did we have a post season? No. were these his players? Mostly.
Is 20-9 a good season? Yes, did we have a postseason? Yes. were these his players? Yes
Is 5-21 a good season? No. did we have a postseason? No. were these his players? Yes.
It's a simple analysis but it displays every fact about him without spinning it to fit a narrative. In that analysis I'm seeing a heck of a lot of nos and only one of them is debatable whether 16-11 was a good season.
I'd also say he's in the HOF due to SLU and . CU more than MU.
-
Is 23-6 a good season? Yes, did we make the postseason? No. were these his players? No
Is 13-12 a good season? No, did we make the postseason? No. were these his players? No
Is 16-11 a good season? No, did we make the postseason? Yes. were these his players? Some.
Is 15-11 a good season? No, did we have a post season? No. were these his players? Mostly.
Is 20-9 a good season? Yes, did we have a postseason? Yes. were these his players? Yes
Is 5-21 a good season? No. did we have a postseason? No. were these his players? Yes.
It's a simple analysis but it displays every fact about him without spinning it to fit a narrative. In that analysis I'm seeing a heck of a lot of nos and only one of them is debatable whether 16-11 was a good season.
I'd also say he's in the HOF due to SLU and . CU more than MU.
Half of his ncaa appearances were at MU.
He won national coach of the year honors while at MU.
Year 3 they go 16-11 and get an at large bid to the NCAA tournament, one of only 24 teams invited.....that is not a successful season. Wow.
Hickey was a brilliant strategist and tactician, but stubborn and difficult to play for. No nonsense military man.
-
Half of his ncaa appearances were at MU.
He won national coach of the year honors while at MU.
Year 3 they go 16-11 and get an at large bid to the NCAA tournament, one of only 24 teams invited.....that is not a successful season. Wow.
Hickey was a brilliant strategist and tactician, but stubborn and difficult to play for. No nonsense military man.
1) The NIT was arguably the better tournament or at least on par with the NCAA tournament at this point in time.
2) He won national coach of the year honours with Nagle's players. I don't know why this is hard to grasp you've used this argument with Buzz 100 times over. If Buzz won NCOY in 08-09 you would have said he inherited 4 of the best players we've had since Al.
3) Was Wojo's year three a successful season? Average record, blown out in the NCAA tournament, not entirely his players. I enjoyed that season but I wouldn't call it a successful season overall, just a meh forgettable year and I would compare that to Hickey going 16-11.
4) I'm not arguing he was not a brilliant strategist, he's in the HOF and did great at SLU and CU but if your point is hiring an established coach is a better option and you want to use an example, I don't think Hickey is a good one and I maintain that you spun it to be that way in your initial post about him while leaving out any of the many counterpoints.
-
1) The NIT was arguably the better tournament or at least on par with the NCAA tournament at this point in time.
2) He won national coach of the year honours with Nagle's players. I don't know why this is hard to grasp you've used this argument with Buzz 100 times over. If Buzz won NCOY in 08-09 you would have said he inherited 4 of the best players we've had since Al.
3) Was Wojo's year three a successful season? Average record, blown out in the NCAA tournament, not entirely his players. I enjoyed that season but I wouldn't call it a successful season overall, just a meh forgettable year and I would compare that to Hickey going 16-11.
4) I'm not arguing he was not a brilliant strategist, he's in the HOF and did great at SLU and CU but if your point is hiring an established coach is a better option and you want to use an example, I don't think Hickey is a good one and I maintain that you spun it to be that way in your initial post about him while leaving out any of the many counterpoints.
Nagle got nothing out of those guys compared to Hickey. And he kept putting out winning seasons. I said Buzz did a great job and should win coach of the year early in his career...Buzz also took over a ncaa team with all seniors. Hickey took over a team that that didn’t have a winning season in three years, and was barely over .500 in that winning season. Your Buzz comparisons and what I said are off base and incorrect. Hickey didn’t take over a team that was already in the NCAA tournament like Buzz did. I thought Buzz’s second year was an amazing coaching job and said it often. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to grasp the differences in the two situations. They are not at all alike.
The NIT by this time was no longer as important, it definitely was in the early days of the NCAA tournament. Look at the ranked teams that went to the ncaa tournament in the 1960’s vs the NIT to prove that out.
Wojo’s third year was a success. MU and USC were tied with 10 minutes left in the game and a two possession game if I recall with under 7 ( going off memory ), and then they got blown....oh by the way to a team that went to the Final Four.
-
The main difference between Dukiet's and Deane's respective tenures at Marquette is that Deane inherited better players.
Incorrect. The primary difference is that while Bob Dukiet played the Lounge Lizard score Mike Deane was the Lounge Lizard. Deane was an inveterate philanderer who established his bona fides after the lights went out in the gym.
I met Paula several times and often wondered the how and why of her marriage. Dino was an equal opportunity womanizer who liked them thick and thin, young and old, short and tall, flat and stacked, dumb and smart, black and white, blonde and brunette.
Deane gets a lot of undeserved praise for being a "great game coach."
Fact is, the only things Mike Deane excelled at was drinking, panty sniffng, and ass biting.
-
No spin is selecting which truthful facts you presented in order to present it as an example that proves your point.
+1 Chico is the consummate spinmeister. Picks his conclusion, gives the facts that support it and ignores those that contradict it. Throws in a few red herrings along the way to confuse or obfuscate. He missed his calling - should have been a "guest contributor" on Fox News or MSNBC as he stubbornly recites his talking points.
As you point out, most of Ed Hickey's LIMITED success at MU was due to his predecessor's players. He left Marquette in a worse spot than even Bob Dukiet. If his hiring (60+ years ago?) is the best and only example of "success" for MU by hiring a D1 coach...we can all rest our case.
-
+1 Chico is the consummate spinmeister. Picks his conclusion, gives the facts that support it and ignores those that contradict it. Throws in a few red herrings along the way to confuse or obfuscate. He missed his calling - should have been a "guest contributor" on Fox News or MSNBC as he stubbornly recites his talking points.
As you point out, most of Ed Hickey's LIMITED success at MU was due to his predecessor's players. He left Marquette in a worse spot than even Bob Dukiet. If his hiring (60+ years ago?) is the best and only example of "success" for MU by hiring a D1 coach...we can all rest our case.
The players quit on him his last year, they hated his authoritarian style. It allowed a guy named McGuire to become head coach.
LIMITED success at MU....classic. Half of the man’s NCAA appearances came at MU and a national coach of the year. Worse spot than Dukiet....classic. Dukiet had one winning year in three seasons, Hickey 5 in 6 years....classic.
-
Incorrect. The primary difference is that while Bob Dukiet played the Lounge Lizard score Mike Deane was the Lounge Lizard. Deane was an inveterate philanderer who established his bona fides after the lights went out in the gym.
I met Paula several times and often wondered the how and why of her marriage. Dino was an equal opportunity womanizer who liked them thick and thin, young and old, short and tall, flat and stacked, dumb and smart, black and white, blonde and brunette.
Deane gets a lot of undeserved praise for being a "great game coach."
Fact is, the only things Mike Deane excelled at was drinking, panty sniffng, and ass biting.
Fair.
-
Yup, recruiting was his issue. Deane did manage to take three different schools to the NCAA tournament and won over 430 college basketball games. Good coach, not a great recruiter.
The "three different teams" thing is a fluke. A sub-.500 Lamar team (made up of the previous coach's players) got hot at the right time and won their conference tourney. That's hardly a testament to Deane's body of work there. He went 40-46 over his next three seasons and then 20 games under .500 at Wagner.
One would think a "great bench coach" would have had more success at those lower levels where you get four-years to develop players and fit them into your system. He didn't.
He was a bad recruiter and mediocre coach.
-
MU and USC were tied with 10 minutes left in the game and a two possession game if I recall with under 7 ( going off memory ), and then they got blown
Well, at least they lost with smiles on their faces.
-
I remember games in the forties.I remember non stars getting yanked if their guy scored. I remember him losing his crap as Providence rolled MU in the tournament. I remember him basically saying MU should be content to be a mid major.
If you could handle the baggage and temper, having him as an assistant in charge of the defense wouldn't be so bad. A head coach? No.
-
I remember games in the forties.I remember non stars getting yanked if their guy scored. I remember him losing his crap as Providence rolled MU in the tournament. I remember him basically saying MU should be content to be a mid major.
If you could handle the baggage and temper, having him as an assistant in charge of the defense wouldn't be so bad. A head coach? No.
Burning time outs 45 seconds into games wasn't a brilliant coaching tactic?
-
So are we hiring Danny Manning or what?
-
Burning time outs 45 seconds into games wasn't a brilliant coaching tactic?
Down 2-0
-
The players quit on him his last year, they hated his authoritarian style. It allowed a guy named McGuire to become head coach.
LIMITED success at MU....classic. Half of the man’s NCAA appearances came at MU and a national coach of the year. Worse spot than Dukiet....classic. Dukiet had one winning year in three seasons, Hickey 5 in 6 years....classic.
Said he LEFT Marquette in worse shape than Dukiet, not that his record was worse than Dukiet's at MU.
Facts: he was 5-21 his final year at Marquette and left the program in the biggest mess in our history. Even Al couldn't do anything with the garbage Hickey left behind. He was 8-18 in his 1st year. Dukiet was 13-15 in his last year, KO was 15-14 with Dukiet's players his first year. So 13-39 (worst single season and worst 2 year stretch in MU history vs 28-29.
-
Nagle got nothing out of those guys compared to Hickey. And he kept putting out winning seasons. I said Buzz did a great job and should win coach of the year early in his career...Buzz also took over a ncaa team with all seniors. Hickey took over a team that that didn’t have a winning season in three years, and was barely over .500 in that winning season. Your Buzz comparisons and what I said are off base and incorrect. Hickey didn’t take over a team that was already in the NCAA tournament like Buzz did. I thought Buzz’s second year was an amazing coaching job and said it often. I don’t know why this is so hard for you to grasp the differences in the two situations. They are not at all alike.
The NIT by this time was no longer as important, it definitely was in the early days of the NCAA tournament. Look at the ranked teams that went to the ncaa tournament in the 1960’s vs the NIT to prove that out.
Wojo’s third year was a success. MU and USC were tied with 10 minutes left in the game and a two possession game if I recall with under 7 ( going off memory ), and then they got blown....oh by the way to a team that went to the Final Four.
You said as such re buzz during his second year but that has nothing to do with the first year. However, you make a valid point about the type of team that was inherited, Buzz did inherit a consistent NCAA team vs Hickey inheriting a .500 team with Kojis. What I don't understand is why for Nagle you make a point to qualify your statement saying "barely over .500" whereas for Hickey it's a "winning season" despite both being one over .500. This goes back to my point about you spinning a narrative.
I am not saying it was as important but it was at least on par or maybe barely below. Because conferences could only send 1 team to the NCAAs and the independents got only a few bids leaving plenty of NIT appearances from good to great teams.
Nagles winning percentage was .55 at MU Hickey's was .568 not like he was head and shoulders above Nagle like you are spinning him to be.
Me and you have very different versions of successful season I suppose. I don't know why you bring up the fact that the USC team went to the final four though when you're so adamant the tournament is a crapshoot. It doesn't really add anything unless I am misunderstanding your point.
-
I remember games in the forties.I remember non stars getting yanked if their guy scored. I remember him losing his crap as Providence rolled MU in the tournament. I remember him basically saying MU should be content to be a mid major.
If you could handle the baggage and temper, having him as an assistant in charge of the defense wouldn't be so bad. A head coach? No.
I also remember Deane's 12-7 record against ranked teams, with classic games against Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis and St. Louis, his coaching the only MU team to win a conference tournament, a run to the NIT championship game, two NCAAs, and yes, including the Austin Croshere blitzkrieg (including the made half court shot) against Providence in the NCAA.
He sure wasn't a perfect guy off the court by any stretch, but neither were O'Neill or Crean.
I have also wondered if Deane would make a good bench coach to help with the x's and o's.
-
You said as such re buzz during his second year but that has nothing to do with the first year. However, you make a valid point about the type of team that was inherited, Buzz did inherit a consistent NCAA team vs Hickey inheriting a .500 team with Kojis. What I don't understand is why for Nagle you make a point to qualify your statement saying "barely over .500" whereas for Hickey it's a "winning season" despite both being one over .500. This goes back to my point about you spinning a narrative.
I am not saying it was as important but it was at least on par or maybe barely below. Because conferences could only send 1 team to the NCAAs and the independents got only a few bids leaving plenty of NIT appearances from good to great teams.
Nagles winning percentage was .55 at MU Hickey's was .568 not like he was head and shoulders above Nagle like you are spinning him to be.
Me and you have very different versions of successful season I suppose. I don't know why you bring up the fact that the USC team went to the final four though when you're so adamant the tournament is a crapshoot. It doesn't really add anything unless I am misunderstanding your point.
Where did I make that distinction? Nagle's last two years he was 5 games under .500, and those guys were the ones that carried over to Hickey...right? Freshmen couldn't play back then. Yes, I pointed out that the third year prior he was barely over .500, but I didn't call Hickey's second year when he was barely over .500 anything to write home about....so what distinction are you referencing? How is that spinning a narrative, the situations between Buzz and Hickey much different. The differences between Nagle and Hickey were different.
Yes or no, was Hickey's winning % better than Nagle's? As you stated, it was. Furthermore, the last season when the team basically mutinied on him (according to the articles and comments by former players), his winning percentage was MUCH higher. Two NCAAs (Hickey) better than one NCAA (Nagle)...I'll give Nagle huge credit for winning two games, Hickey only won one. NIT Final Four (Hickey) better than NIT first round loss (Nagle). In both situations, it's a crapshoot anyway.
Yes, I guess we have differing view of success. I don't know how a team that earns an at large berth to the NCAA tournament when only 24 schools overall are invited is considered a NON-successful team, unless they were expected to go deep. Considering the previous year they were 13-12 with no post season bids, not sure I can state that expectations were high, but I am merely speculating.
-
Burning time outs 45 seconds into games wasn't a brilliant coaching tactic?
I remember a few times it was. He got his guys turned around very quickly, usually Richard Shaw. Other times is backfired.
-
Incorrect. The primary difference is that while Bob Dukiet played the Lounge Lizard score Mike Deane was the Lounge Lizard. Deane was an inveterate philanderer who established his bona fides after the lights went out in the gym.
I met Paula several times and often wondered the how and why of her marriage. Dino was an equal opportunity womanizer who liked them thick and thin, young and old, short and tall, flat and stacked, dumb and smart, black and white, blonde and brunette.
Deane gets a lot of undeserved praise for being a "great game coach."
Fact is, the only things Mike Deane excelled at was drinking, panty sniffng, and ass biting.
I think you are shortchanging BD's exploits.....
-
The "three different teams" thing is a fluke. A sub-.500 Lamar team (made up of the previous coach's players) got hot at the right time and won their conference tourney. That's hardly a testament to Deane's body of work there. He went 40-46 over his next three seasons and then 20 games under .500 at Wagner.
One would think a "great bench coach" would have had more success at those lower levels where you get four-years to develop players and fit them into your system. He didn't.
He was a bad recruiter and mediocre coach.
Probably, but he's in the record books for doing so. The 430+ wins didn't happen by accident, either. More than a mediocre coach, definitely not a good recruiter and he should have hired someone who was.
-
You know a thread is going well when there's 4 straight replies by chicos.
p.s. Chicos, it's ok to let things go. One of your weaknesses in life is not knowing when people have heard enough from you.
-
Thoughts on Ralph Risch? Neither an assistant nor former head coach. 73% winning percentage. I’ll await your 409 responses. Heard he liked the Tavern League broads too.
-
I think you are shortchanging BD's exploits.....
A child in the shadow of a giant.
Actually, I am not that familiar with BD as I was living overseas and his tenure was in those dark years before Al Gore invented the Internet
-
You know a thread is going well when there's 4 straight replies by chicos.
p.s. Chicos, it's ok to let things go. One of your weaknesses in life is not knowing when people have heard enough from you.
Thanks
-
You know a thread is going well when there's 4 straight replies by chicos.
p.s. Chicos, it's ok to let things go. One of your weaknesses in life is not knowing when people have heard enough from you.
nm