http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=408951
Grading the new coaching hires
Marquette: In a panic, the Golden Eagles handed Buzz Williams a million-dollar opportunity. One night the school's administration thought it could lure Tony Bennett from Washington State; less than 12 hours later, Marquette assistant Williams was summoned home from the Final Four to interview for the job. Hiring him did not keep the recruiting class together, so what was the hurry? No matter, Williams turned in a solid year as coach at New Orleans in 2006-07 and is better prepared than most assistants to slide into the head coaching chair. Grade: B
After reading IU review the report has zero credibility. Obviously he is a very easy grader.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 12:05:13 PM
http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=408951
Grading the new coaching hires
Marquette: In a panic, the Golden Eagles handed Buzz Williams a million-dollar opportunity. One night the school's administration thought it could lure Tony Bennett from Washington State; less than 12 hours later, Marquette assistant Williams was summoned home from the Final Four to interview for the job. Hiring him did not keep the recruiting class together, so what was the hurry? No matter, Williams turned in a solid year as coach at New Orleans in 2006-07 and is better prepared than most assistants to slide into the head coaching chair. Grade: B
Talk about a conflicting review: He begins with "In a panic..." then ends with a "Grade: B."
Well said by Sporting News....No matter, Williams turned in a solid year as coach at New Orleans in 2006-07 and is better prepared than most assistants to slide into the head coaching chair.
Chicos with all the time you spend defending Crean it is remarkable you still find time to diss Buzz.
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on May 08, 2008, 12:10:18 PM
Well said by Sporting News....No matter, Williams turned in a solid year as coach at New Orleans in 2006-07 and is better prepared than most assistants to slide into the head coaching chair.
Chicos with all the time you spend defending Crean it is remarkable you still find time to diss Buzz.
Funny, how am I dissing Buzz? I'm posting an article from one of the top 3 or 4 sports publications in the country. If anything, the article asks the same questions I and many others asked...why the hire so fast? I'm fine with Buzz, but would have been more fine with him 5 days later. I'm not dissing him at all, you sure are defensive about it. The article gives him a B, how is that a diss? If anything, they are dissing the process which many of us have also. No dissing of Buzz, I hope like hell Buzz succeeds. He was available days later, just as this national writer also states...
Meanwhile a national publication is saying this also....maybe I'm Mike DeCourcey...maybe I feed him all his info. ;)
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on May 08, 2008, 12:09:46 PM
Talk about a conflicting review: He begins with "In a panic..." then ends with a "Grade: B."
Perhaps he thought if MU didn't rush so quickly, a A hire could have happened. Just a thought.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 12:14:21 PM
Funny, how am I dissing Buzz? I'm posting an article from one of the top 3 or 4 sports publications in the country. If anything, the article asks the same questions I and many others asked...why the hire so fast? I'm fine with Buzz, but would have been more fine with him 5 days later. I'm not dissing him at all, you sure are defensive about it.
Meanwhile a national publication is saying this also....maybe I'm Mike DeCourcey...maybe I feed him all his info. ;)
And I'll continue to ask ... what might have happened in those five extra days that would have made the situation any different? The main criticisms of Buzz - lack of HC experience, lack of Midwest ties, etc. - would have been the same on May 8 as they were on April 8. How would that five days have made him a better or worse head coaching candidate?
If you're going to suggest that MU might have found someone else in those five days, it's pretty apparent by now that that's a specious argument. From everything we know, after MU's top 2-3 choices turned them down, Buzz was their guy. Five days wasn't going to change that. Cottingham wasn't likely to wake up one morning and exclaim "By jove, I must have Brad Brownell!"
Two years from now we may all be here complaining about Buzz Williams' incompetence. But the date upon which he was hired will have nothing to do with it.
As for whether you've been "dissing" Buzz ... well, the term passive-aggressiveness comes to mind. Take this link, for example. DeCourcy has good things to say about Buzz, but your focus in on the panic comment and your chosen subject line sarcastically calls this "great publicity." Perhaps not a diss, but certainly contradictory to your claim that you're "fine" with Buzz.
very well said Pakuni...not to mention the fact that MU's hire despite "the panic" graded out higher than a good number of other BCs school's!!
It's one ting to have an agenda and sarcasm and all that but then to lie about it and say it is not there is....well....cowardly. My guess is chicos would be the first one to backslap Buzz and tell him how great he is and then name drop him on message baords if past history is any indicator.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 08, 2008, 12:30:58 PM
And I'll continue to ask ... what might have happened in those five extra days that would have made the situation any different? The main criticisms of Buzz - lack of HC experience, lack of Midwest ties, etc. - would have been the same on May 8 as they were on April 8. How would that five days have made him a better or worse head coaching candidate?
If you're going to suggest that MU might have found someone else in those five days, it's pretty apparent by now that that's a specious argument. From everything we know, after MU's top 2-3 choices turned them down, Buzz was their guy. Five days wasn't going to change that. Cottingham wasn't likely to wake up one morning and exclaim "By jove, I must have Brad Brownell!"
Two years from now we may all be here complaining about Buzz Williams' incompetence. But the date upon which he was hired will have nothing to do with it.
As for whether you've been "dissing" Buzz ... well, the term passive-aggressiveness comes to mind. Take this link, for example. DeCourcy has good things to say about Buzz, but your focus in on the panic comment and your chosen subject line sarcastically calls this "great publicity." Perhaps not a diss, but certainly contradictory to your claim that you're "fine" with Buzz.
We won't know what would have happened in those 5 days since we didn't try, now will we? I think that was his point and certainly mine. No creativity at all on MU's part, which is hardly shocking. I don't think Cottingham is capable of saying "by jove I have to have Brownwell"...or any number of other guys...does Cottingham even know they exist. :o
Passive aggressive....LOL....I posted the very first thing that came out of DeCourcey's writing. Do you think most people that will read that will focus on the panic move or the fact he did a "solid" job at New Orleans? My guess is they focus on the panic part because that's what hits you first.
I'm fine with Buzz in the sense that he's our coach and I want him to do well....but no, I don't think he was the best choice at the time of the hiring. There were better candidates to be had, IMO, if MU would have been a little creative. If not, Buzz was still there....but you know it was key to get him signed early to keep the recruiting class in order. ;)
Quote from: MR.HAYWARD on May 08, 2008, 12:47:03 PM
very well said Pakuni...not to mention the fact that MU's hire despite "the panic" graded out higher than a good number of other BCs school's!!
It's one ting to have an agenda and sarcasm and all that but then to lie about it and say it is not there is....well....cowardly. My guess is chicos would be the first one to backslap Buzz and tell him how great he is and then name drop him on message baords if past history is any indicator.
Oh please. I want Buzz to do well, please show me one post ever where I've indicated I wish him to fail. Give me a break. I hope the guy is the next John Wooden. But I also think our university makes some very odd decisions, Provost Wake being one of them along with an entire slew of others over the last 30 years. So it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt.
What's more upsetting to me are the schools that graded higher then we did, many of them currently not as good as MU but they went out and made some very nice hires. DeCourcey spends 75% of his paragraph taking shots at MU's process and one sentence to say it might be ok....but for that I'm guilty of not focusing on just the last sentence? LOL
Quote from: Pakuni on May 08, 2008, 12:30:58 PM
And I'll continue to ask ... what might have happened in those five extra days that would have made the situation any different? The main criticisms of Buzz - lack of HC experience, lack of Midwest ties, etc. - would have been the same on May 8 as they were on April 8. How would that five days have made him a better or worse head coaching candidate?
If you're going to suggest that MU might have found someone else in those five days, it's pretty apparent by now that that's a specious argument. From everything we know, after MU's top 2-3 choices turned them down, Buzz was their guy. Five days wasn't going to change that. Cottingham wasn't likely to wake up one morning and exclaim "By jove, I must have Brad Brownell!"
Two years from now we may all be here complaining about Buzz Williams' incompetence. But the date upon which he was hired will have nothing to do with it.
As for whether you've been "dissing" Buzz ... well, the term passive-aggressiveness comes to mind. Take this link, for example. DeCourcy has good things to say about Buzz, but your focus in on the panic comment and your chosen subject line sarcastically calls this "great publicity." Perhaps not a diss, but certainly contradictory to your claim that you're "fine" with Buzz.
I agree with Chicos on this one. One has to question the chain of events. Certainly the fact that 60 people applied for AD and none were interviewed would lead anyone to conclude the coaching "search" was just as suspect.
I think it is fair to say MUu did not make a serious run at either Bennet or Miller.
Why is it that very few people that read this site can realize that criticizing the hiring process of Buzz, and criticizing him are two totally different issues? I don't get it.
The way MU hired him was a panic move. But...we all want him to be successful and to prove us naysayers of him as the choice wrong.
Yes, we'll slap his back if he does a good job because he'll prove us wrong, but more importantly, he'll be doing a good job if that's the case. Something all of us wants.
Quote from: 79Warrior on May 08, 2008, 01:01:12 PM
I agree with Chicos on this one. One has to question the chain of events. Certainly the fact that 60 people applied for AD and none were interviewed would lead anyone to conclude the coaching "search" was just as suspect.
I think it is fair to say MUu did not make a serious run at either Bennet or Miller.
I actually think they made a serious run at both, though I don't know if ever got to talking turkey. I'd love to know what we offered Bennett, if we got to that point of figures being exchanged.
Miller I never though we had any shot at all on. He has no reason to leave at all. When Dixon goes, he'll be the Pitt coach but until then, he's just fine at Xavier racking up wins.
I also agree with Pakuni, I think Buzz was their 3rd choice along with probably 3 or 4 other guys all grouped in the same cluster. That's where I feel they gave up way to early.
I feel good about Buzz's hire of Benford and Layer. I don't know a thing about Aki, but hopefully he's solid. Monarch...who knows. He definitely needs to hit a home run in his first recruiting class if we're going to continue any kind of sustained success.
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on May 08, 2008, 01:05:52 PM
Why is it that very few people that read this site can realize that criticizing the hiring process of Buzz, and criticizing him are two totally different issues? I don't get it.
The way MU hired him was a panic move. But...we all want him to be successful and to prove us naysayers of him as the choice wrong.
Yes, we'll slap his back if he does a good job because he'll prove us wrong, but more importantly, he'll be doing a good job if that's the case. Something all of us wants.
Don't you know, they (those that can't distinguish the difference) have mind reading powers and also practice pschology as a hobby....or in Hayward's case...he's just been doing this same thing for the last 3 years under about 5 different names. :D
Quote from: Niv Berkowitz on May 08, 2008, 01:05:52 PM
Why is it that very few people that read this site can realize that criticizing the hiring process of Buzz, and criticizing him are two totally different issues? I don't get it.
Are the criticisms really that different? If you think the process was flawed, then you don't like the end result -- or at the very least don't think the end result was the best we could get. If we hired Roy Williams after 3 days, I doubt you would be saying anything about process.
What if Buzz was the best we could get? Does that suddenly make the process flawless?
See...criticizing the process, but saying "oh yeah - I think hiring buzz is great!" doesn't exactly work. You're saying you don't like the fact that MU hired buzz, because he's buzz, and (you think) they could have done better with a better process.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on May 08, 2008, 01:39:00 PM
Are the criticisms really that different? If you think the process was flawed, then you don't like the end result -- or at the very least don't think the end result was the best we could get. If we hired Roy Williams after 3 days, I doubt you would be saying anything about process.
What is Buzz was the best we could get? Does that suddenly make the process flawless?
See...criticizing the process, but saying that "oh yeah - but I think hiring buzz is great!" doesn't exactly work. You're saying you don't like the fact that MU hired buzz, because he's buzz, and (you think) they could have done better with a better process.
+1
I'm not sure on this whole thing yet... but I'm hopeful because hopefully MU knows something we don't.
There is a reason why all of us are posting on message boards and not working in athletic departments. It's because we don't really know what we are talking about. If we were experts, we'd be getting paid to do this stuff.
It's all just conjecture, guys.
I think there is a distinction between the criticisms..
analogy time.. processors are made in huge batches at once.. then they are each tested to make sure they operate as expected and that no defects were present in the manufacturing process.... so.. let's say the military goes to Intel and says we need one of your XYZ processors to go into this missile... and we need it in 6 days cuz we're going to launch it immediately at that time.. and Intel, instead of letting a batch go through the 5 day testing cycle just picks one off the conveyor belt immediately after manufacture and hands it to the military 5 days early... the military installs the processor and shoots off the missile which performs flawlessly and knocks off the intended enemy target rather than a children's hospital located in the US.
I would certainly have a beef with the process used to select the processor.. it's basically russian roulette.. however, the processor worked perfectly so I would have no beef with the processor itself.. even before the missile was fired I would have no grounds for a beef with processor.. Furthermore, even if they had gone through a more rigorous evaluation of the whole batch we may have chosen the same processor in the end.
as such.. I currently have no real beef with buzz.. he might end up working out perfectly as the coach (he certainly is showing promise).. but I'd be hard pressed to say that the process that was used to pick him was anything approaching ideal.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 01:08:10 PM
I actually think they made a serious run at both, though I don't know if ever got to talking turkey. I'd love to know what we offered Bennett, if we got to that point of figures being exchanged.
I swear Homer said on one of his shows that MU offered Bennett either right under $2mil or $2mil exactly and Bennett said no.
Chic's and Niv...Right on!!! I have been critical of Buzz hiring but who does not want him succeed? The process of hiring and national reaction to the hiring is what I am disappointed in. Buzz might be John Wooden and I hope that happens.
Why worry about Strong's hire at this point? If all Buzz recruits over the next three years are Mike Deane caliber players, he'll get kicked to the curb and we'll be doing this all over again soon.
To me the only question is whether Williams can sell his program to 4 and 5 star players. Unfortunately, it seems doubtful.
DeCourcy's like the rest of us: outside the hiring process.
Thus he can call it a "panic" - well, it kinda was since it was surprising - but to suggest that hiring Buzz was Plan D or Plan E is ludicrous. He may not have the desired top quality experience of a replacment coach, but he had some. And since other desired coaches/asst. coaches - except IL's Weber who publicly stated he was interested - never really actively persued the position with such fervor as we, MU fans, would expect from them, I think it's tough to piss on the hiring of Buzz.
I do not believe that any of the top tier coaches we wanted (i.e., Bennett and Miller) were really chomping at the bit to lead MU. I believe it was more of a bargaining chip to use with their institutions to improve their current status.
DeCourcy is outside the process....but he's also outside the MU fandom realm, unlike all of us.
Nationally, perception = reality.
We can all sit here and be optimistic that the sky isn't falling. And we can all talk ourselves into Buzz (and I've done a good job of that too...again, the optimism of a "fan").
But when it comes to that hour or two that Buzz has to sit w/a kid and his family and convince him of MU, he now not only has to convince them of MU, he has to do a much more powerful job of convincing them on him since he's such an unknown (now). And, if the only thing people know of MU is the old coach and nothing about the new guy, then we are starting off one step behind our compeition from the get go.
THis has all been re-hashed a kajillion times here, but that's all this stuff is. And because of this perception and considering the team coming in next season, Buzz unfortunately and fortunately has to succeed quickly short-term in order to have any shot at long-term success at MU. If he doesn't, that "perception" will never be changed.
4ever it seems doubtful? What is the evidence of that at this early point in the recruiting process?
Granted no concrete evidence at this point other than TT. Just my perception that top tier players, who BTW aspire to play in the Association, aren't going to trust their basketball futures with an unknown commodity like Buzz when more sucessful coaches are calling.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 01:08:10 PM
I actually think they made a serious run at both, though I don't know if ever got to talking turkey. I'd love to know what we offered Bennett, if we got to that point of figures being exchanged.
Miller I never though we had any shot at all on. He has no reason to leave at all. When Dixon goes, he'll be the Pitt coach but until then, he's just fine at Xavier racking up wins.
I also agree with Pakuni, I think Buzz was their 3rd choice along with probably 3 or 4 other guys all grouped in the same cluster. That's where I feel they gave up way to early.
I feel good about Buzz's hire of Benford and Layer. I don't know a thing about Aki, but hopefully he's solid. Monarch...who knows. He definitely needs to hit a home run in his first recruiting class if we're going to continue any kind of sustained success.
I have heard we never discussed any figures with either coach. There was a feeler out to gauge interest. I suspect if the feelers were MU will pay 2mm, Bennet's people would have opened discussions. Money never came out, MU was just trying to find out if there was mutual ground. Beleive me, 2mm would have moved TB out of Pulman.
Quote from: ATWizJr on May 08, 2008, 02:53:50 PM
4ever it seems doubtful? What is the evidence of that at this early point in the recruiting process?
Especially since he is 1 for 1 for 2009.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 12:14:21 PM
If anything, the article asks the same questions I and many others asked...why the hire so fast? I'm fine with Buzz, but would have been more fine with him 5 days later.
The counterargument to this strategy is that by waiting those extra five days and interviewing three or four additional "creative" choices, Buzz's hire would then be spun by the competition as "MU can't get a decent coach wound up settling". Even if Buzz was preferred over Lowrey and Brownell after another week's worth of interviews, nobody would believe it--the spin would be that Brownell and Lowrey turned MU down.
That would neither benefit Buzz nor MU.
How do we know that would happen? Because thats exactly what people are saying about Providence. They could have hired Keno Davis on day three, and they could argue that landing Davis was a coup because he's a fast rising great young coach. But taking that extra time, Davis is painted as "setttling" after Ford, Larranga, and multiple others turned them down.
The difference is that in Providence case, it appears to be true. They didn't wat Davis, at least early on.
In MU's case, there appears to be some pretty strong evidence that they REALLY like Buzz and he was one of the top choice after Miller and Bennett.
4everWarrior wrote: "Granted no concrete evidence at this point other than TT. Just my perception that top tier players, who BTW aspire to play in the Association, aren't going to trust their basketball futures with an unknown commodity like Buzz when more sucessful coaches are calling."
I agree to some extent, but we can also cite many examples where a new coach comes in and gets NBA-caliber players very early in his tenure. Heck, TC did it with Wade, TD, and Novak. Bo may have had some as well. That's just local examples.
Quote from: 79Warrior on May 08, 2008, 03:10:24 PM
I have heard we never discussed any figures with either coach. There was a feeler out to gauge interest. I suspect if the feelers were MU will pay 2mm, Bennet's people would have opened discussions. Money never came out, MU was just trying to find out if there was mutual ground. Beleive me, 2mm would have moved TB out of Pulman.
MU should have run to throw $2mil at Bennett. Would have been money well spent.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 12:49:30 PM
I'm fine with Buzz in the sense that he's our coach and I want him to do well....but no, I don't think he was the best choice at the time of the hiring. There were better candidates to be had, IMO, if MU would have been a little creative.
Well now, there's an unprovable/unrefutable claim.
I guess I could just as easily have said "If only Marquette had waited and been more creative, Mike D'Antonio was there for them."
Though, pray tell, what are these "creative" options of which you speak? Partial ownership of the university? A percentage of ticket sales? Seriously ... where does creativity fit in all this?
I understand that plenty of people aren't happy with Buzz Williams, head coach, Marquette University. That's fine with me.
I just wish some of you would admit it instead of this "if they had waited/if there were a better process" stuff. That's nothing more than you guys hedging your bets.
This way if Buzz does really well you can save face. After all, you never said
he was bad, just the process.
But if he fails you can still say "I told you so."
Quote from: bma725 on May 08, 2008, 02:01:10 PM
I swear Homer said on one of his shows that MU offered Bennett either right under $2mil or $2mil exactly and Bennett said no.
Wouldn't surprise me, and if MU did....big thumbs up for trying with him. The Bennetts were given new life at Wazzu and setup what they did for Dick and Tony. Doesn't surprise me that Tony is going to remain loyal, especially early on.
I've never heard a figure or even if one was offered, but my guess is it would take an amount like to get him interested. MU certainly seemed to go strong the first 36 hours after folks and then......
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 08, 2008, 03:38:33 PM
MU should have run to throw $2mil at Bennett. Would have been money well spent.
Tony Bennett was well aware of the money he could make at Marquette and chose not to pursue the job. I know MU spoke with many, many well respected and entrenched coaches about the job. I know Tony Bennett was one coach MU targeted, and MU had informal discussions with him/his people, but it never went anywhere. Bennett was not interested. It is laughable that the perspective by some is that MU somehow ignored Bennett and others (notably Miller and Lowry). You can criticize the hiring but you cannot criticize the process as it was actually quite thorough. Remember, MU is holding this stuff very close to the vest for obvious reasons. I wouldn't count on a Cottingham presser to tell the world all the people he talked to about the job. Buzz was the winner for a variety of reasons--some attributed to the non-interest of other possible candidates but primarily because of the qualities Buzz brings to the table as it related to the interested candidates. The college basketball world was well aware of the money and substantial perks offered by MU. I know this as a result of a discussion I had with a friend of an existing D1 coach who spoke with MU (no one at MU or Indiana). My friend spoke with the coach about the MU job and was surprised to learn he was contacted by MU. That coach was impressed with how MU worked the process. The complaints about how MU went about their business are ridiculous because they are not based on facts--only that Buzz was given the job more quickly than some would prefer.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 08, 2008, 03:15:57 PM
The counterargument to this strategy is that by waiting those extra five days and interviewing three or four additional "creative" choices, Buzz's hire would then be spun by the competition as "MU can't get a decent coach wound up settling". Even if Buzz was preferred over Lowrey and Brownell after another week's worth of interviews, nobody would believe it--the spin would be that Brownell and Lowrey turned MU down.
That would neither benefit Buzz nor MU.
How do we know that would happen? Because thats exactly what people are saying about Providence. They could have hired Keno Davis on day three, and they could argue that landing Davis was a coup because he's a fast rising great young coach. But taking that extra time, Davis is painted as "setttling" after Ford, Larranga, and multiple others turned them down.
The difference is that in Providence case, it appears to be true. They didn't wat Davis, at least early on.
In MU's case, there appears to be some pretty strong evidence that they REALLY like Buzz and he was one of the top choice after Miller and Bennett.
I don't think it's ever a bad thing to go into a recruits home and say you won 5 of the 6 National Coach of the Year awards. Providence was looking for a guy with PC ties or an East Coast guy, but still ended up with someone, that at least on paper, has some cred. I don't think PC ended up with someone they didn't want, they just went after a very defined search and even weeks later ended up with the National Coach of the Year. Not bad.
Quote from: Gato78 on May 08, 2008, 04:24:01 PM
Tony Bennett was well aware of the money he could make at Marquette and chose not to pursue the job. I know MU spoke with many, many well respected and entrenched coaches about the job. I know Tony Bennett was one coach MU targeted, and MU had informal discussions with him/his people, but it never went anywhere. Bennett was not interested. It is laughable that the perspective by some is that MU somehow ignored Bennett and others (notably Miller and Lowry). You can criticize the hiring but you cannot criticize the process as it was actually quite thorough. Remember, MU is holding this stuff very close to the vest for obvious reasons. I wouldn't count on a Cottingham presser to tell the world all the people he talked to about the job. Buzz was the winner for a variety of reasons--some attributed to the non-interest of other possible candidates but primarily because of the qualities Buzz brings to the table as it related to the interested candidates. The college basketball world was well aware of the money and substantial perks offered by MU. I know this as a result of a discussion I had with a friend of an existing D1 coach who spoke with MU (no one at MU or Indiana). My friend spoke with the coach about the MU job and was surprised to learn he was contacted by MU. That coach was impressed with how MU worked the process. The complaints about how MU went about their business are ridiculous because they are not based on facts--only that Buzz was given the job more quickly than some would prefer.
I'm sure all you write is the truth. However, essentially, Buzz was hired 48 hours after Crean was introduced at Indiana. It was fairly well known to anyone who pays one iota of attention that Buzz Williams would be the next coach by Friday morning of that week. I think it also bugs some people that Crean had his hands in the hiring.
Maybe the search was thorough in who was informally contacted but considering only one person interviewed for the job and it was that person's job to lose people still have a right to think the process wasn't as thorough as it could have been.
Hell, PC spent 6 weeks looking for a coach and had 3 candidates in for a final walk through and still landed the reigning National Coach of the Year. The only people who will remember the specifics of that search are UConn fans when they make fun of the Friars. Otherwise, people will say "nice, they just got the coach of the year".
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 08, 2008, 03:03:35 PM
Granted no concrete evidence at this point other than TT. Just my perception that top tier players, who BTW aspire to play in the Association, aren't going to trust their basketball futures with an unknown commodity like Buzz when more sucessful coaches are calling.
I know where you are going with this... but Tom Crean was able to recruit Dwyane Wade and Scott Merrit, both of whom have been on NBA rosters when he was an unknown commodity.
I'm not saying it happens all of the time, but it does happen... so claiming that Buzz can't make it happen is a little premature.
Give him more than 6 weeks.
Quote from: Gato78 on May 08, 2008, 04:24:01 PM
Tony Bennett was well aware of the money he could make at Marquette and chose not to pursue the job. I know MU spoke with many, many well respected and entrenched coaches about the job. I know Tony Bennett was one coach MU targeted, and MU had informal discussions with him/his people, but it never went anywhere. Bennett was not interested. It is laughable that the perspective by some is that MU somehow ignored Bennett and others (notably Miller and Lowry). You can criticize the hiring but you cannot criticize the process as it was actually quite thorough. Remember, MU is holding this stuff very close to the vest for obvious reasons. I wouldn't count on a Cottingham presser to tell the world all the people he talked to about the job. Buzz was the winner for a variety of reasons--some attributed to the non-interest of other possible candidates but primarily because of the qualities Buzz brings to the table as it related to the interested candidates. The college basketball world was well aware of the money and substantial perks offered by MU. I know this as a result of a discussion I had with a friend of an existing D1 coach who spoke with MU (no one at MU or Indiana). My friend spoke with the coach about the MU job and was surprised to learn he was contacted by MU. That coach was impressed with how MU worked the process. The complaints about how MU went about their business are ridiculous because they are not based on facts--only that Buzz was given the job more quickly than some would prefer.
As for one of the names you mentioned above, are you sure everyone you mentioned was contacted. EVERYONE? ;) As for what people know or don't know, well there's a lot of that going on. Let's not forget how many experts there were just a few weeks ago on Crean's contract and what the buyout was, what IU was going to owe us, what kind of lawsuits were going to start flying, etc, etc....most of them proved to be totally wrong. Or the fact that others have spoken to a few AD's, current coaches (both head and assistant) about the MU hire with some interesting responses. It's all in who you speak with.
I'm sure MU's "process" was wonderful with those they spoke with, I'd expect nothing less. And I totally agree MU would keep the candidates close to the vest, that's always been MU's M.O. as it should be. It also very likely that they did settle (I use that term purposely) on Buzz early in the process and thought he was THE GUY. That's fine, that's their decision and if it doesn't work out none of them will be held accountabl (though they should be).
But let's not make it out to be more then it was either. MU reached out to a few other coaches like Davidson's, Ga. Tech's and a few others. But exhaustive is not what it was nor was it creative, but it was swift...we got that part down.
By the way, how do you feel about the exhaustive search for an AD? ::)
Pakuni....when I say "creative" I mean thinking about a coach that is in a situation that he might want to make a move. Much like LSU did with Trent Johnson or OSU with Ford. Half of the game is identifying the guy that everyone thinks is stable and not going anywhere, but that requires a bit of creativity and a bit of dilligent work. Someone that had a senior laden team that just graduated, someone that has a new AD who didn't hire him and might feel a bit unloved, etc, etc. I provided those examples in the past.
It all comes back to March 31, 2008. MU and it's officials had NO CLUE ON PLANET EARTH that they were losing their coach. NONE. Do I blame them...no. Did they panic....well the national media thinks so and I'm a firm believer in everything the national media says. ;)
Six weeks later and I still can't believe Anthony Grant is still the coach at VCU AND signed an extended contract. Would we have received an "A".
Quote from: 2002mualum on May 08, 2008, 04:56:01 PM
I know where you are going with this... but Tom Crean was able to recruit Dwyane Wade and Scott Merrit, both of whom have been on NBA rosters when he was an unknown commodity.
I'm not saying it happens all of the time, but it does happen... so claiming that Buzz can't make it happen is a little premature.
Give him more than 6 weeks.
I don't think Merritt made it to a NBA roster. NBDL, but not NBA.
Quote from: nyg on May 08, 2008, 05:24:50 PM
Six weeks later and I still can't believe Anthony Grant is still the coach at VCU AND signed an extended contract. Would we have received an "A".
Grant, according to the folks I spoke with, was contacted. He wants to stay in the south.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 05:14:59 PM
Pakuni....when I say "creative" I mean thinking about a coach that is in a situation that he might want to make a move. Much like LSU did with Trent Johnson or OSU with Ford. Half of the game is identifying the guy that everyone thinks is stable and not going anywhere, but that requires a bit of creativity and a bit of dilligent work. Someone that had a senior laden team that just graduated, someone that has a new AD who didn't hire him and might feel a bit unloved, etc, etc. I provided those examples in the past.
Not to sound like a wet blanket, but taking on a coach who is leaving just because he lost all of his seniors, or because he was feeling "unloved" wouldn't make me very confident that he would stay at MU for very long.
I know what you are going for (and you could be right)... but there are issues with every candidate... no matter how "creative" MU got.
Hell, to be honest, Buzz is sort of a "creative" hire when you think about it.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 08, 2008, 05:28:08 PM
I don't think Merritt made it to a NBA roster. NBDL, but not NBA.
Wasn't he on the Bulls roster for pre-season? (not sure if we are counting that)
I don't want to be inaccurate... I guess my point is that new coaches can get talent... it's not always about "veteran coaches".
Quote from: 2002mualum on May 08, 2008, 05:41:13 PM
Not to sound like a wet blanket, but taking on a coach who is leaving just because he lost all of his seniors, or because he was feeling "unloved" wouldn't make me very confident that he would stay at MU for very long.
I know what you are going for (and you could be right)... but there are issues with every candidate... no matter how "creative" MU got.
Hell, to be honest, Buzz is sort of a "creative" hire when you think about it.
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but that's how coaches operate. I don't think anyone would have been surprised at MU if Crean had left at the end of next year, with all his seniors done. But many coaches, as skiddish as they are about their gig, often look for that new big pay day at a new school with a nice shiny 5 year contract and lower expectations during the first few years.
I don't know if I would call Buzz a creative hire.....somewhat surprising, somewhat risky, somewhat unexpected....not my words, those of the national media which I love so much. ;)
What is really interesting about the SI article first referenced in this thread is that Mike DeCourcy takes Stanford to the shed for its hire of Johnny Dawkins. DeCourcy reports that Dawkins duties at Duke never included recruiting. Also, he notes that Duke recruits guys that can control a game whereas SU is quite the opposite (obviously excluding the Lopezii). He gave Buzz a grade of "B" and Dawkins a "D+". I've posted often in various places that Dawkins was a riskier pick than Buzz. Obviously, DeCourcy agress. He also states that Buzz iss probabably far more ready to be a HC than most assistants. DeCourcy also says that Keno Davis is an "incomplete" because who knows waht his staff will be (not to mention that he won't have senior laden teams in the Mizzous valley to carry him). I think DeCorucy has a good feel here.
Quote from: 2002mualum on May 08, 2008, 05:43:07 PM
Wasn't he on the Bulls roster for pre-season? (not sure if we are counting that)
I don't want to be inaccurate... I guess my point is that new coaches can get talent... it's not always about "veteran coaches".
No 02, we're not counting preseason rosters (KO would get Shannon Smith then). Despite being a great guy, SM is probably the most disappointing recruit of TC's regime. Anytime ESPN telecasts focused on how Bo Ellis and Mr Merrit brainstorm weekly had to motivate Merrit, you should know he's not the guy you want to use in your defense of TC (of course you maybe too young to remember the Merritt days).
Plus TC's handling of Devin Harris recruitment (He told DH, keep passing the ball to Scott, he's your meal ticket) is another reason not to bring up Tosa East recruiting...cough Jerry Smith cough.
Quote from: Nukem2 on May 08, 2008, 09:01:08 PM
What is really interesting about the SI article first referenced in this thread is that Mike DeCourcy takes Stanford to the shed for its hire of Johnny Dawkins. DeCourcy reports that Dawkins duties at Duke never included recruiting. Also, he notes that Duke recruits guys that can control a game whereas SU is quite the opposite (obviously excluding the Lopezii). He gave Buzz a grade of "B" and Dawkins a "D+". I've posted often in various places that Dawkins was a riskier pick than Buzz. Obviously, DeCourcy agress. He also states that Buzz iss probabably far more ready to be a HC than most assistants. DeCourcy also says that Keno Davis is an "incomplete" because who knows waht his staff will be (not to mention that he won't have senior laden teams in the Mizzous valley to carry him). I think DeCorucy has a good feel here.
Yep.
DeCourcy believes MU got a better hire than OSU (Ford), Stanford (Dawkins) and, at least for now, Providence (Davis).
Of course, those claiming that DeCourcy's "mere" B grade for Marquette is bad publicity fail to mention that ... perhaps because they were here in recent weeks talking about how great Providence, Stanford and OSU did with their hires.
If anyone actually read what the Sporting News guy was saying, they would notice he was saying they were in a panic trying to find a coach, not in a panic now. Proper grammar people, don't you understand?
Quote from: Schoolyard on May 08, 2008, 10:14:29 PM
No 02, we're not counting preseason rosters (KO would get Shannon Smith then). Despite being a great guy, SM is probably the most disappointing recruit of TC's regime. Anytime ESPN telecasts focused on how Bo Ellis and Mr Merrit brainstorm weekly had to motivate Merrit, you should know he's not the guy you want to use in your defense of TC (of course you maybe too young to remember the Merritt days).
Plus TC's handling of Devin Harris recruitment (He told DH, keep passing the ball to Scott, he's your meal ticket) is another reason not to bring up Tosa East recruiting...cough Jerry Smith cough.
That's fair.
The only reason I mention it is because there was a claim that "inexperienced coaches can't bring in kids who want to be in the association". (this was in reference to Buzz)
My point was that inexperienced coaches CAN bring in NBA level talent (or at least kids who think they have it).
Dwyane, Merrit, Deiner were all in Crean's 1st 2 classes... when Crean wasn't really proven.
We can take Merrit out of the equation (as you have clearly illustrated), but Crean was able to recruit 1 NBA player in each of his first 3 classes. (Wade, Deiner, Novak)
(BTW, this is
not a pro-Crean post, I'm just making a point about "unproven coaches"... so please, let's not start a pro-crean/anti-crean thread)
Does this make sense?
Quote from: THEGYMBAR on May 08, 2008, 02:02:35 PM
Chic's and Niv...Right on!!! I have been critical of Buzz hiring but who does not want him succeed? The process of hiring and national reaction to the hiring is what I am disappointed in. Buzz might be John Wooden and I hope that happens.
I want him to succeed, too, and I know I am getting way ahead of myself, but if by chance Coach Buzz is the next coming of John Wooden, he'll be doing his coaching elsewhere in five years. Its another reason not to like this hiring process. If this guy is great, there is nothing about him that suggests he would hang around.
Quote from: CTWarrior on May 09, 2008, 07:42:39 AM
I want him to succeed, too, and I know I am getting way ahead of myself, but if by chance Coach Buzz is the next coming of John Wooden, he'll be doing his coaching elsewhere in five years. Its another reason not to like this hiring process. If this guy is great, there is nothing about him that suggests he would hang around.
What's the alternative? Hiring someone who would never draw interest from other programs?
That doesn't sound like a very solid plan.
Interestingly enough, that was the same logic used nine years ago by those who didn't want Crean. They were sure he'd be gone in less than five years. Of course, he stayed at MU nine years and, I'd venture to guess, would have been around much longer if not for Kelvin Sampson's stupidity.
Quote from: CTWarrior on May 09, 2008, 07:42:39 AM
I want him to succeed, too, and I know I am getting way ahead of myself, but if by chance Coach Buzz is the next coming of John Wooden, he'll be doing his coaching elsewhere in five years. Its another reason not to like this hiring process. If this guy is great, there is nothing about him that suggests he would hang around.
Then you are really limiting yourself to only a handful of coaches who are probably too old to move in 5 years time. That is not a criteria I would use to hire a coach.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 08, 2008, 10:17:20 PM
Yep.
DeCourcy believes MU got a better hire than OSU (Ford), Stanford (Dawkins) and, at least for now, Providence (Davis).
Of course, those claiming that DeCourcy's "mere" B grade for Marquette is bad publicity fail to mention that ... perhaps because they were here in recent weeks talking about how great Providence, Stanford and OSU did with their hires.
Nope. In fact, I spoke to Mike yesterday and that's not what he said. He said for the money OSU had, he thought it was underwhelming and thus the grade. I asked him if MU had hired Ford would the grade have changed and he said yes. He would have given MU a B+. So your interpretation is incorrect. It's all about expectations. After firing a coach with a winning record at OSU and having T. Boone Pickens bankroll the search, he thought that money would lead to someone higher then Ford and that's why he graded accordingly. That same hire at a different school gets a different grade. It's just like drafting a 3rd rounder in the 1st round, same concept.
Keno he left incomplete but he could end up to be a home run hire or a bomb, he wants to see who he hires as assistant coaches.
He was grading each school on that hire, not saying one school got a better hire then the other. His evaluation was based on what that school did with that school's resources, etc, it was not a comparison of one school to the next, as clearly made when pushed if a different school on the same list had hired one of the same coaches, would the grade change...and the answer was YES.