MUScoop

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3349522


Marquette
Hiring Buzz Williams was a gamble. These kind of moves to bump up the assistant to keep everyone in the program and the incoming recruits happy can either work -- like Jamie Dixon of Pitt or Frank Martin this past season at Kansas State -- or they can implode -- like Jerry DeGregorio at Rhode Island.

Quote from: Secret of the Ouse on April 17, 2008, 01:44:14 PM

Marquette
Hiring Buzz Williams was a gamble. These kind of moves to bump up the assistant to keep everyone in the program and the incoming recruits happy can either work -- like Jamie Dixon of Pitt or Frank Martin this past season at Kansas State -- or they can implode -- like Jerry DeGregorio at Rhode Island.

What options did he exclude?

Quote from: Secret of the Ouse on April 17, 2008, 01:44:14 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3349522


Marquette
These kind of moves to bump up the assistant to keep everyone in the program and the incoming recruits happy can either work -- like Jamie Dixon of Pitt or Frank Martin this past season at Kansas State -- or they can implode -- like Jerry DeGregorio at Rhode Island.

"UBL is either dead or he is alive".   

--Thanks for the insight Katzie.

Quote from: Secret of the Ouse on April 17, 2008, 01:44:14 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=3349522


Marquette
Hiring Buzz Williams was a gamble. These kind of moves to bump up the assistant to keep everyone in the program and the incoming recruits happy can either work -- like Jamie Dixon of Pitt or Frank Martin this past season at Kansas State -- or they can implode -- like Jerry DeGregorio at Rhode Island.

Andy Katz, master of the obvious.  Let's look at this through another lens

Hiring (established head coach) was a gamble. These kind of moves to bump up the assistant to keep everyone in the program and the incoming recruits happy hire an established coach can either work -- like Bruce Pearl at Tennessee like Jamie Dixon of Pitt or Frank Martin this past season at Kansas State -- or they can implode -- like Dave Odom at USC, Jerry Wainwright at DePaul or Steve Alford at Iowa Jerry DeGregorio at Rhode Island.

Katz also explained "if you strap rollerblades on and go down a set of stairs, you either fall on your face or cruise down them and look super cool"

Katz first sentence is the key to the entire debate.

"Hiring Buzz Williams was a gamble."

The question is, why did we feel the need to gamble with such an unknown? I still haven't heard an explanation.

Quote from: reinko on April 17, 2008, 02:16:44 PM
Katz also explained "if you strap rollerblades on and go down a set of stairs, you either fall on your face or cruise down them and look super cool"

Haha, that's great.

I'm tired of hearing that Buzz was a gamble. Any coach.......again ANY COACH that comes into a new program is a gamble. (Experienced or not!) There is no sure thing.

Give the guy a chance to coach and then draw your conclusions a year or two from now.

Quote from: hoops12 on April 17, 2008, 04:43:52 PM
I'm tired of hearing that Buzz was a gamble. Any coach.......again ANY COACH that comes into a new program is a gamble. (Experienced or not!) There is no sure thing.

Give the guy a chance to coach and then draw your conclusions a year or two from now.

I think many people are feeling uneasy because, in their minds, it is like this picture.. MU took on the additional risk that Buzz presents - his coaching success likelihood is harder to predict because of a small history to draw conclusions from.. it could range anywhere in that orange curve.. he could do REALLY well or do REALLY badly and affect our program accordingly.. a more experienced coach means more history and as such we could pick one that at least centers on our status quo like the yellow curve.. as the picture shows, this experienced coach could also do really well or badly but the likelihood of either seems to be much reduced... most likely this coach would range between moderately better and moderately worse.. if moderately worse, it would be easier to recover from.  The counter-punch to this feeling though is the thought that "if you want to make real money you got to play at the high stakes table and take more risks".  Personally, I don't terribly agree with the selection process itself but quite frankly, we have a coach and I'm ready to support him.  In light of the recent recruiting news, it certainly seems he's at least in the middle portion of the graph if not progressing to the right more.

Quote from: hoops12 on April 17, 2008, 04:43:52 PM
I'm tired of hearing that Buzz was a gamble. Any coach.......again ANY COACH that comes into a new program is a gamble. (Experienced or not!) There is no sure thing.

Give the guy a chance to coach and then draw your conclusions a year or two from now.

Correct....what people have said is there are degrees of risk but nothing is guaranteed to your point (and the same point many of us have made).

Quote from: spiral97 on April 17, 2008, 05:56:59 PM
a more experienced coach means more history and as such we could pick one that at least centers on our status quo like the yellow curve.

I completely disagree that the measured results between a "gamble" and an "experienced" coach have any different curve.  Of course, stats could prove or disprove that by plotting newly hired coaches throughout history and their records versus the "status quo". My guess is you'd see that both line up pretty well. 

I'll leave that up to you though since it's your argument.  ;D

However, I will agree that the expected results with a "gamble" probably have a greater deviation than the expected results with an experienced coach.

As an example, with Buzz - we don't know what to expect.  So opinions are all over the board on whether he'll take us to knew heights, or to a UNO like winning percentage (45.1% in 07).  Meanwhile, when Dukiet was hired, he was coming from St Peters with a  67.8% winning percentage over 7 years.  This is prior to my MU hoops days, but I've got to imagine people thought at the very least he'd keep Marquette above .500 - even if they thought he was a bad choice.  That didn't happen. (http://wiki.muscoop.com/doku.php/men_s_basketball/bob_dukiet)

So, it's an interesting study, but I think the premise that an experienced coach has a different curve than a inexperienced coach is fundamentally wrong.

Quote from: hoops12 on April 17, 2008, 04:43:52 PM
I'm tired of hearing that Buzz was a gamble. Any coach.......again ANY COACH that comes into a new program is a gamble. (Experienced or not!) There is no sure thing.

Give the guy a chance to coach and then draw your conclusions a year or two from now.

I'm behind Buzz, haven't been bad mouthing him and I hope he exceeds even the wildest expectations.

But... (you knew that was coming)... not all gambles are created equal.  If I had a million dollars in a casino, I would rather entrust it to a professional poker player against five inexperienced players with a million each than entrust it to a drunk frat kid who was going to pick a number on the roulette table.  Sure, the poker player could only win me $5 million while the frat boy could win me $36 million, but I like my odds with the poker player.  The upside with the frat boy is intriguing, though.  But both are a gamble.

I like Buzz.  I really didn't think we should have hired him -- at least not so quickly -- but I like him.  I think we might have some great upside here, and I don't know if there were any great hires out there for us.  I think a lot of schools make the mistake of hiring the hot or recognized coach just to maintain appearances so that people will view them as a major program.  We obviously went a different route and I hope it works out.  I'm now going to lie, though -- I am really concerned that this was a mistake.

That said, I am totally excited about Marquette basketball right now.  I can't wait for the fall recruiting season and Midnight Madness.  I've gotten over my shock and disappointment at Crean's departure, and I'm really looking forward to following Marquette basketball next season.  I hope I'm not disappointed.  I hope Buzz takes his time, hires an exceptional staff, and blows us (and the Big East) away over the next couple of years.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 18, 2008, 07:48:18 AM
But... (you knew that was coming)... not all gambles are created equal.  If I had a million dollars in a casino, I would rather entrust it to a professional poker player against five inexperienced players with a million each than entrust it to a drunk frat kid who was going to pick a number on the roulette table.  Sure, the poker player could only win me $5 million while the frat boy could win me $36 million, but I like my odds with the poker player.  The upside with the frat boy is intriguing, though.  But both are a gamble.

Whoa!  You didn't just compare Buzz's basketball history and knowledge to a drunk frat boy playing roulette did you?  If that's really what you meant to say - I dont think I should even argue with you.

In terms of that analogy, if you're calling someone like Chris Lowery a professional poker player, then I think you at least have to call Buzz a fast rising amateur that has been playing poker (and winning) for 18 years. 

Buzz has been a student of the game for a long time.  Started as an assistant at Navarro College in 1990 and worked his way up to head coach at Marquette.  Nearly every program that he's had a hand in has been a winner.  Not quite a drunk frat boy at playing roulette.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on April 18, 2008, 09:28:40 AM
Whoa!  You didn't just compare Buzz's basketball history and knowledge to a drunk frat boy playing roulette did you?  If that's really what you meant to say - I dont think I should even argue with you.

Absolutely not.  That's one of the reasons I hoped to make it real clear that I like Buzz and I'm very excited about the coming season.  I think I'd go as far as to say that I'm probably more "pro-Buzz" than the majority of the people on this board.  I was only trying to make the point that there are gambles, and then there are gambles.

Quote from: rocky_warrior on April 18, 2008, 09:28:40 AMIn terms of that analogy, if you're calling someone like Chris Lowery a professional poker player, then I think you at least have to call Buzz a fast rising amateur that has been playing poker (and winning) for 18 years.

Buzz has been a student of the game for a long time.  Started as an assistant at Navarro College in 1990 and worked his way up to head coach at Marquette.  Nearly every program that he's had a hand in has been a winner.  Not quite a drunk frat boy at playing roulette.

Keeping with the analogy (which was probably stupid anyway, but beating dead horses has been raised to an art form lately), I don't think there were any top-flight pros available.  There were no Phil Ivies out there waiting in the wings.  There were just a bunch of up-and coming young pros, and any one of them could win any given hand.  And I absolutely don't think that Buzz is some drunk frat boy.

My honest opinion is that there probably is not a huge amount of difference between the skills and knowledge of Buzz and some of the other coaches out there that people (including me) would have preferred.  Frankly, my confidence level in Buzz's abilities are not that much different than my confidence level would have been with several of the most frequently-named candidates as far as the entire package of recruiting, Xs and Os and running a major program.  Obviously Buzz has his strengths and his question marks.  I really hope he hires a great staff that will help him where he might be a little weak.

My biggest concern is over perception.  To a certain extent, college sports programs are what people think they are.  As Chico is fond of saying, "perception is reality."  If top-flight recruits see Marquette as a glorified mid-major, it will be a struggle to get them to come.  If big men see Marquette as a guard oriented program, it's tough to get them here.  If the powers that be at ESPN decide that Marquette -- without T.om C.rean and with an inexperienced coach -- is no longer a big time program, then I won't get to see them play very often.  What's worse, lots of HS kids also won't see them play, and the problem will worsen.

So, that's why I'm concerned about Buzz's hiring.  The reaction is the press was decidedly underwhelming.  Nobody said that Marquette "hit a home run" or made a great hire.  I am aware of the possibility that Buzz Williams is a better coach than Tony Bennett, but if recruits disagree and if Buzz has trouble recruiting for himself (as opposed to recruiting for a more experienced coach), we may never get a chance to find out.  Buzz will need to sign most of his 2009 recruiting class before he coaches a game at Marquette.

As I mentioned in my first post-C.rean post:  "I'm trying really hard not to get too caught up in name recognition.  I want the best guy possible, and I'm more than willing to accept that it might be someone I've never heard of.  "  I really hope that Buzz was the best guy.  He's going to have to work really hard to overcome some of the disadvantages he has coming in.  Fortunately, everyone agrees that he's a hard worker.

Edited to avoid the silly and annoying script.

Quote from: StillAWarrior on April 18, 2008, 10:04:17 AM
Keeping with the analogy (which was probably stupid anyway, but beating dead horses has been raised to an art form lately), I don't think there were any top-flight pros available.  There were no Phil Ivies out there waiting in the wings.  There were just a bunch of up-and coming young pros, and any one of them could win any given hand.  And I absolutely don't think that Buzz is some drunk frat boy.

OK.  Fair enough.  I didn't really think you were saying he was that much of a gamble - but on the other hand it can be read that way from what you wrote.

And I am fully expecting to get a letter from PETA soon about this boards cruelty to dead horses.   Unrelated side story -- at the Iowa state fair last year there was a booth with PETA t-shirts.  Given the location I was surprised somebody hadn't sent their heard of cattle over to trample the booth.  Then I read what the t-shirt said..."People for the Eating of Tasty Animals"  ;D

Stillawarrior, I think you have to take into account that the media, especially sports media has its own bias.  I tend to discount anything Katz says.  It has become increasing clear(For once PRN was right)....that Katz was in Crean's pocket.  With Tom Crean gone, Katz reverts to his badger loving biases.

I do agree with you that we have a PR issue to handle, but I think given the pieces we have back, those coming in, and the general unknown of college basketball we will do really well next year and Katz will probably the only NOT raving about Buzz.  I'm going on record right now.....barring a major injury or further player losses....we make the Elite Eight next year.

Quote from: mu03eng on April 18, 2008, 10:30:20 AM
It has become increasing clear(For once PRN was right)....that Katz was in Judas's pocket. 

I'm still waiting for somebody to point out when I was wrong. The Crean/Katz thing was plainly obvious since 2003. As I explained umpteen times, if Crean was upset about the coaching rumors he would have never spoken to Katz. Of course, he was a valued source for Katz for many years. Put two and two together, people!