MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: CrackedSidewalksSays on May 16, 2008, 10:15:03 AM
-
Cottingham details 'the process'
Written by: noreply@blogger.com (NY Warrior)
OK, let's start with the good stuff.......Bob McClellan from Rivals.com pulled together an article on Buzz Williams (http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?cid=808250) -- the piece effectively recaps the 'how we got here' and 'here's what we know about Buzz' storylines.
Of course, we also have to put up with Marquette AD Steve Cottingham's defense of his unwillingness to conduct a thorough, national search to fill the institution's most visible job. So, in honor of FireJoeMorgan.com, (http://firejoemorgan.com/) we're going Ken Tremendous on Cottingham.
"I think the general public might see it that way (as a risky hire)," Marquette athletic director Steve Cottingham told Rivals.com.
Despite being an inside job, the Politburo would have seen it as a risky hire. Hiring a coach embroiled in a legal battle with his previous employer -- a job he left under questionable circumstances after a losing season -- is risky. For a university that believes its men's basketball program is a key part of its strategy to attract interest from prospective students and dollars from alums, the hire was risky by any measure.
"My view is it's a much greater risk to hire somebody based on the popular opinion."
Please ring that gong, Chuck Barris.
Would everybody who thought that MU should hire a coach based on popular opinion raise your hand? (no hands go up in our virtual world).
No, Mr. Cottingham. Marquette fans wanted to see the institution engage in a competitive evaluation and hiring process that didn't include "hire the last assistant remaining in the program" as a key criterion.
"There wasn't a risk in hiring Buzz because we know what he can do and know what he's going to do."
Seriously, Cottingham said that. You can't make this stuff up. To recap, here is what we knew about Buzz Williams at the time of his hiring:
- Buzz Williams did not have to defend his resume or approach to building a program against a slate of competitive candidates.
- Buzz Williams quit on the folks at the University of New Orleans and was engaged in a protracted legal battle with them.
- Buzz Williams led UNO to a 14-17 record as head coach.
- Buzz Williams played a brief, minor role in building the MU program.
- Buzz Williams would have been an assistant coach at any other D1 program in the nation for the 2008-2009 season.
- Buzz Williams seems to have been an effective recruiter as an assistant coach.
- Buzz Williams might be just fine in the end. Or he might not.
"It would have been easy to settle for a name on somebody else's list."
I think Cottingham mis-spoke here. What he meant to say was, "It would not have been easy to conduct an aggressive, national search. Such a search would have taken time and forced candidates to demonstrate their competing visions of Marquette basketball. Those candidates could have challenged this institution's perspectives in what would have been a very healthy dialectic. Ultimately we just didn't need that kind of distraction."
Cottingham admits other coaches were approached. He declined to reveal any names.
Approached? Stalked? Left messages for? Sigh.
It took Buzz Williams more time to hire his first assistant coach than it did for MU to hire its 16th head basketball coach. And per Internet reports, Williams actually conducted an aggressive national search to build out his staff (I didn't think MU allowed such a thing!). Bravo, Buzz.
"We did our job in terms of looking at people we thought would be interested and would be the right fit"
Looking at people but not interviewing people, apparently.
"That's all part of doing your due diligence."
Due diligence? This process was reminiscent of the fella who marries the first girl he kisses, only to realize later that playing the field for a while might have resulted in out-kicking his coverage.
"Buzz emerged pretty quickly as a strong candidate."
A haunting refrain reappears near Cottingham's noggin as a Pop-Up Video bubble , "Hire the last assistant remaining in the program."
"Recruiting is a huge part," Cottingham said.
Of course!! Nobody else that MU might have considered as a head coach can recruit -- only Buzz Williams can recruit. It's all making sense now.
"Even during the season, it became clear to me he'd be a high-major coach," Cottingham said. "I just didn't expect it would be at Marquette."
On this point we agree. Nobody else did either.
http://www.crackedsidewalks.com/2008/05/cottingham-details-process.html
-
Just validates my position that its not Buzz's fault he was hired. Now we have to give the man a chance.
-
Just validates my position that its not Buzz's fault he was hired. Now we have to give the man a chance.
Agreed
-
myself and everyone I know that has spent time with him has been absolutely more than impressed with the guy.
Agreed. The post was not about Buzz -- it was about the route to land Buzz.
Maybe, like Al McGuire himself who came from a questionable background,
No, he did not have a questionable background. Al McGuire's record at Belmont Abbey was 109-64.
he simply impressed the people in the room with his abilities and his previous 9 month audition that it was a no brainer, after Bennett and Miller were not interested? Could that possibly be the case or are we simply willing to assume that Cottingham and the other individuals simply idiots? For example what has Lowery at SIU done since Painter and Webber left town except see that program regress? I was scared as hell of that possibility.
As opposed to a fella with a 14-17 career record as a head coach. OK, we can agree to disagree on that point.
Give it a rest they could have interviewed 1500 candidates and still chosen the wrong one
True, but that is no reason not to actively interview a slate of candidates.
-
No, he did not have a questionable background. Al McGuire's record at Belmont Abbey was 109-64.
Yeah and his last two years there he was 6-19 and 6-18. He was on his way out of Belmont if he didn't improve.
-
Come on! Al McGure was a great college player, had success as a coach at Dartmouth and Belmont and...oh yeah...PLAYED IN THE NBA!!! He had a fantastic amount of experience.
Besides, Marquette was in the toilet when he was hired. Hiring Buzz would have been an appropriate gamble if we were in the doldrums, but we are not.
-
Just validates my position that its not Buzz's fault he was hired. Now we have to give the man a chance.
I'm with you 100%, and frankly, I think Buzz has done an above expectations job so far.
-
If I might conjure up a little Allen Iverson here:
"Process? We're talking about process? Process?"
All this stuff about process is played out and, frankly, irrelevant. The administration quickly came to the conclusion that, after Bennett and Miller said no, Buzz was their guy.
Interviewing five other people probably wasn't going to change that.
Waiting five more days, or five more weeks, almost certainly wasn't going to change that.
He was their guy, he was there, they hired him, they moved on. Simple as that.
It boggles the mind that so many continue to be so hung up on the process.
The hiring process won't determine how many games Marquette wins next year. Or the year after that. Or the year after that. Or the year after that.
It won't determine how many top 100 recruits Buzz lands.
It won't determine conference and NCAA tournament success.
It won't determine MU's APR scores or tradition of running a clean program.
And it is by those factors -- not the process -- by which Buzz's hiring will and should, be measured. All of this stuff about process will be, as it is now, meaningless drivel. Because all that matters is whether the administration did or did not select the right guy, not the process they followed to come to that conclusion.
-
Harvey---You are right on Al. No comparison the hire. Process has changed a ton in four decades. Yet, Buzz's resume is hardly Al's. I am not pissed at Buzz about the hire and agree we have to give him a chance. My feeling really is similar to Ray Rhodes...one and done if he fails.
-
Pakuni---Have you ever been part of a "process"? Of course the process matters. This is a big hire and big hires are done with a purpose. It is not done by the seat of the pants. This hire is the biggest hire at MU in ten years. If Fr. Wild stepped down unexpectedly do you think it would take longer than five days? Fr. Wild means less to MU than the bball coach. 500 guys could take Wild's spot and not miss a beat. Replacing Crean is probably 20 guys that you would feel confident that we expect the same success.
If you think the process is meaningless than we got what we deserved.
-
Pakuni is right. MU followed the process it had set up for itself. It interviewed it's top choices. Nos. 1 and 2 said they were not interested. No. 3 was and was hired. End of story. Let's go forward and judge the process by the results in future seasons.
-
Pakuni---Have you ever been part of a "process"? Of course the process matters. This is a big hire and big hires are done with a purpose. It is not done by the seat of the pants. This hire is the biggest hire at MU in ten years. If Fr. Wild stepped down unexpectedly do you think it would take longer than five days? Fr. Wild means less to MU than the bball coach. 500 guys could take Wild's spot and not miss a beat. Replacing Crean is probably 20 guys that you would feel confident that we expect the same success.
If you think the process is meaningless than we got what we deserved.
My thoughts on process now affect Marquette's success? Wow, never realized I had that kind of importance.
Anyhow, your silly notion that Fr. Wild means less to Marquette than a basketball coach aside ... yes, the process is meaningless.
What counts are results, not process.
Let's say 24 hours after Crean left, Steve Cottingham stepped up to a microphone at a hastily called press conference inside The Al and announced that Larry Brown had agreed to a five-year deal, with no buyout, to become Marquette's next head coach.
Would we then be having this discussion about process? Would people be complaining that the administration acted too quickly? Would we be questioning Cottingham for not interviewing Chris Lowery or Brad Brownell? Would we be obsessed about his messy divorce with his previous employers after they placed him in an untenable position?
I feel pretty safe assuming the answer to all of the above would be "No."
So let's at least be honest here: Nobody cares about the process. Because if an even more abbreviated process process landed Larry Brown or Sean Miller or Tony Bennett, nobody would be griping about it. The people p*ssing and moaning about process just don't like the hire, but just don't want to admit it, lest Buzz proves them wrong.
The bottom line is the success or failure of MU basketball does not hinge on the process used to hire a head coach. All that matters is whether or not they got the right guy.
-
A good process helps ensure that the decision you make is a good one. Without a process, you are swatting flies hoping to hit something.
I hated it when Cottingham was hired, and I hated his total disregard for a national search. His and this administration's utter cluelessness, unwillingness, and/or laziness befuddles the mind. This school has no clue how to fill jobs from outside. They are only concerned with ensuring those within the bubble stay there.
It's awful. Absolutely awful.
And in closing...I hope Buzz is very successful. And if he is...that still won't change the fact that the hiring process he came in on was a total f-ing joke...but it will at least make the medicine taste good at least.
-
Fr. Wild means less to MU than the bball coach.
That's just nutty right there.
-
A good process helps ensure that the decision you make is a good one. Without a process, you are swatting flies hoping to hit something.
I hated it when Cottingham was hired, and I hated his total disregard for a national search. His and this administration's utter cluelessness, unwillingness, and/or laziness befuddles the mind. This school has no clue hot to fill jobs from outside. They are only concerned with ensuring those within the bubble stay there.
It's awful. Absolutely awful.
And in closing...I hope Buzz is very successful. And if he is...that still won't change the fact that the hiring process he came in on wasn't a total f-ing joke...but it will make the medicine taste good at least.
Well said.
The lack of process doesn't show conviction, it shows laziness and complacency on the part of the administration.
-
I just find it interesting that the AD is out still defending his choice.....I guess more than a few people (certainly not those know nothing internet folks ;) ) might have raised a few concerns.
-
Those of you who say you are criticizing the process not the hire are full of it. worse, you are setting yourselves up to be right nomtter how Buzz does.
He does poorly (in your estimation) your response, "see we told you so, the process was flawed."
He does well, your response, " MU was so lucky he did well since, the process was flawed."
Give it up.
-
Those of you who say you are criticizing the process not the hire are full of it. worse, you are setting yourselves up to be right nomtter how Buzz does.
He does poorly (in your estimation) your response, "see we told you so, the process was flawed."
He does well, your response, " MU was so lucky he did well since, the process was flawed."
Give it up.
Yep. That's what I've been saying for three weeks. I think it's very safe to assume that the process zealots around here wouldn't blink had MU hired Sean Miller or Tony Bennett without first conducting a "national search" over several weeks.
-
Glad to see you're on our side AT Wiz.
Regardless of the outcome, the process sucked and should never, ever, ever be repeated again. And...regardless of the success/failure of Buzz, suppoters should never, ever, ever let the school or Cottingham forget.
One way to do this is via the wallet (a steep price). Another way is by hammering him on blogs, in print, and/or in person. Since many of us here don't know C-ham, we can only vent here.
Oh, one other thing...
For Cottingham to sit there in that interview and thumb his nose at all the fans/critics in the god-for-sakened public that wanted a national search or other candidates to be considered, can I just say he has a lot of f-ing nerve.
QUICK FLASHBACK FOLKS - HE DIDN'T WANT THIS JOB!!!! Now, he suddenly knows more about the hiring process than any of us? Guess what, prior to Buzz, I had just as much experience hiring a head coach as he did. Zero.
-
You're right Pakuni. Wanna know why? Because Miller actually has a recume of winning and a proven track record. He would be one of those people that are on the Option 1A, 1B list. If they say "no", most people would actually interview others.
Option 1? Nope
Option 2? Nope
Oh well, let's just hire the guy down the hall then.
-
Agreed
Yeah, what's Buzz supposed to do, turn it down?
-
Glad to see you're on our side AT Wiz.
Regardless of the outcome, the process sucked and should never, ever, ever be repeated again. And...regardless of the success/failure of Buzz, suppoters should never, ever, ever let the school or Cottingham forget.
I guess I don't understand exactly what you want the process to be. It's Cottingham's choice to hire who he wants...assuming his superiors agree. He clearly seemed to look at a couple of candidates that he thought would be good fits in Bennett and Miller. He then also talked to Buzz.
Did you want him to put together a search committee? Or did you just want him to interview a dozen more candidates? Part of me says that if he really liked Buzz, what is the point of going through a process just for the sake of going through a process?
Jon
-
You're right Pakuni. Wanna know why? Because Miller actually has a recume of winning and a proven track record. He would be one of those people that are on the Option 1A, 1B list. If they say "no", most people would actually interview others.
Option 1? Nope
Option 2? Nope
Oh well, let's just hire the guy down the hall then.
OK, then at least admit you don't give two shakes about the process. If adherence to a certain process anmd so-called national search were so important to you, you'd demand that said proceess be followed regardless of who the university hires.
Clearly, that's not the case. So why not drop the pretense and just admit you don't like the hire? There's nothing wrong with not liking the hire.
-
Pakuni....Coach means more than Fr. Wild everyday of the week. How many kids in NYC or Chicago care who the President of the school is? ZERO that is how many. Everyday students are influenced by sports and that plays as big a role as anything in MU's success.
Process= professionalism. Cottingham hire was done poorly and was a mistake, thus he has no idea on how to hire a coach. The process was not there because he had no idea what the process should be. No multi million dollar business remains one with processes.
-
Pakuni---Your thoughts do influence MU if you right them a check. Supporting the school financially after they prove to lack professionalism is why it continues. If fans, alumni and students griped enough they might actually listen. They know everyone follows and supports.
I hope that enough people piss and moan and MU decides to make choices like other elite programs. They want Duke or Kansas money for tickets but they make decisions like they are UW Whitewater.
-
And in closing...I hope Buzz is very successful. And if he is...that still won't change the fact that the hiring process he came in on was a total f-ing joke...but it will at least make the medicine taste good at least.
No you don't. You want him to fail so you can come back on the board and say "I told you so, I am smarter than Cottingham".
-
Yep. That's what I've been saying for three weeks. I think it's very safe to assume that the process zealots around here wouldn't blink had MU hired Sean Miller or Tony Bennett without first conducting a "national search" over several weeks.
Double agree. CrackedSidewalks and the others want Buzz to fail so they can come back to us people who have never been involved in "process" and tell us they were right. It is a shame that fans and alums refuse to get behind this coach and program.
-
Pakuni---Your thoughts do influence MU if you right them a check. Supporting the school financially after they prove to lack professionalism is why it continues. If fans, alumni and students griped enough they might actually listen. They know everyone follows and supports.
I hope that enough people piss and moan and MU decides to make choices like other elite programs. They want Duke or Kansas money for tickets but they make decisions like they are UW Whitewater.
I'm not being snarky here, but why do you assume that UWW would make decisions that way? A public university has a completely process driven hiring system...probably overly so.
-
Pakuni....Coach means more than Fr. Wild everyday of the week. How many kids in NYC or Chicago care who the President of the school is? ZERO that is how many. Everyday students are influenced by sports and that plays as big a role as anything in MU's success.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about.
The majority of MU students - the great majority, I'd venture to guess - don't go to the basketball games. Many don't care about basketball. I know many, many alums who take only minor interest in the basketball program, if any at all. The hardcore fans like us who troll message boards hoping to find the latest snippet on recruiting are very much the exception to the rule.
Most go/went to Marquette - as shocking as this may seem to you - for the education, not the basketball program. While the head basketball coach may be the most visible person associated with Marquette, he is far from the most important.
-
Pakuni....Coach means more than Fr. Wild everyday of the week. How many kids in NYC or Chicago care who the President of the school is? ZERO that is how many. Everyday students are influenced by sports and that plays as big a role as anything in MU's success.
MU's success goes way beyond actracting students be winning basketball games. There is also successful academics...fund-raising...managing the hundreds of millions of resources at its disposal. A good President develops an atmosphere and an organization that does that all. Believe me, MU can survive without a good basketball coach. MU would die without a good president.
-
jce---Look at the hire. That is UWW comparison. No other D1 program had any inclination to contact Buzz. Why did Cottingham? Because he does not know anything about running a D1 program.
-
Pakuni---My point is that there are 500 people that could replace Wild and be successful. He did not invent fundraising. Lets compare fundraising pre Wade and post Wade. People give money to winners. If MU was bottom 25 team does Strong write the same checks? Does Keyes give $7 million? Both are MAJOR MU basketball fans. Keyes has been going to games for decades.
Big donors love the attention. Fr. Wild is not why MU has grown their endowment the past decade. He has facilitated the process. The word process---think Wild has a process in his fundraising? Yep, after 2003 FF he called every big donor and asked if they watched MU beat Kentucky. But, he did have a process and it worked.
-
Come on! Al McGure was a great college player, had success as a coach at Dartmouth and Belmont and...oh yeah...PLAYED IN THE NBA!!! He had a fantastic amount of experience.
I'm not too sure if TEAL should have been used in your statement because - as we've seen with Isaiah Thomas - NBA experience doesn't translate into coaching success.
If that were so, Chris Crawford - who has more years on Al - would be a superb coach!
-
Those of you who say you are criticizing the process not the hire are full of it. worse, you are setting yourselves up to be right nomtter how Buzz does.
He does poorly (in your estimation) your response, "see we told you so, the process was flawed."
He does well, your response, " MU was so lucky he did well since, the process was flawed."
Give it up.
Not the case at all. Marquette, coming off 3 straight NCAAs, three straight national rankings, should not be in a position of having to make a risky hire within 72 hours. That is and always has been the issue.
Has NOTHING NOTHING NOTHING to do with Buzz. I hope like hell he will succeed, but MU did not have to make that risky of a hire THAT FAST. This is what national pundits are saying and this is what many MU fans are saying. Has NOTHING to do with "being right"...who gives a crap. This isn't about being right or wrong, it's about what MU could have done, what their ambitions are, how parochial they remain, etc.
That's what it is about. Nothing more.
Just when you think they have cleared a hurdle of parochialism, they come climbing back to it time and again....and quickly. They did it for the AD at such an alarming degree it is scary. They did it with the hiring of the Provost. They did it with the hiring of the basketball coach.
That doesn't mean these people can't succeed, but it certainly opens themselves up to plenty of questioning and to ignore that is being naive.
-
No you don't. You want him to fail so you can come back on the board and say "I told you so, I am smarter than Cottingham".
Oh that's such a pile of BS Irwin it's incredible. NO ONE wants Buzz to fail. Absolutely no one.
This isn't about being wrong or being right....you're being childish to frame it in those terms. You sound like our politicians on both sides with that crap.
It's about asking a legitimate question....why with Marquette having gone to 3 straight NCAA tournaments, 3 straight top 25 finishes, etc, etc is MU making a risky hire? WHY? That is a legitimate question that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Buzz's success or failure, and certainly NOTHING to do with our collective hopes of fielding a continued successful basketball program.
NO ONE wants Buzz to fail. PERIOD! Many people want to know how they got to putting out feelers for two very qualified and solid coaches (NCAA tournament experienced coach, head coaches, winning record, good recruiters, etc) and then completely do a 180 (not a NCAA experienced coach, not a head coach, not a winning record...but is a good recruiter when recruiting for a coach that met those previous qualifications)....and all in 72 hours.
IS THAT NOT A FAIR QUESTION?
-
Double agree. CrackedSidewalks and the others want Buzz to fail so they can come back to us people who have never been involved in "process" and tell us they were right. It is a shame that fans and alums refuse to get behind this coach and program.
CrackedSidewalks isn't one voice, but many voices. There are disagreements with the various writers there, to say CS wants Buzz to fail is the epitome of stupidity. No one wants him to fail that writes for CS, and secondly not everyone that writes for CS even agrees it was a poor process. Several writers do, but not CS as a whole since CS isn't taking any stance...just one writer (NY Warrior's) opinion.
-
Yep. That's what I've been saying for three weeks. I think it's very safe to assume that the process zealots around here wouldn't blink had MU hired Sean Miller or Tony Bennett without first conducting a "national search" over several weeks.
You're right, because certain people go above the "process" and those two would be them. Besides, how is going after Tony Bennett not part of a national search? The problem was the national search ended in 36 hours.
Secondly, your words about hoping Buzz fails is some of the most ridiculous logic I have seen from you. You are usually a level headed guy with reasoned opinions, but that one is flat out crazy.
"Even during the season, it became clear to me he'd be a high-major coach," Cottingham said. "I just didn't expect it would be at Marquette." Neither did 72% of MU fans in a recent poll or most national basketball pundits. And who knew Cottingham was such an evaluator of assistant coach talent....who knew. I'll bet he could identify a future major law firm partner with a room full of paralegals like no one else. ;)
-
NO ONE wants Buzz to fail. PERIOD! Many people want to know how they got to putting out feelers for two very qualified and solid coaches (NCAA tournament experienced coach, head coaches, winning record, good recruiters, etc) and then completely do a 180 (not a NCAA experienced coach, not a head coach, not a winning record...but is a good recruiter when recruiting for a coach that met those previous qualifications)....and all in 72 hours.
IS THAT NOT A FAIR QUESTION?
It's a fair question, with an obvious answer that's been given time and time again ... only some people plug their errors and refuse to accept it as the answer. The answer is this: after Bennett and Miller (and perhaos Grant) said no, the administration/Cottingham believed Buzz was the next best option.
You may not like that. You may not agree. But that is the answer.
And if that was the decision made, what point is there for them to continue the search process?
Would you go shopping for car, decide on which one you wanted, and then go test drive seven others "just in case"? What would be the point? You've already decided which one you wanted.
Much the same, the administration decided Buzz was the guy they wanted and, as a result, felt it was no longer necessary to test drive other candidates.
Again, you may not agree with that decision. That's fine. But this incessant whining over the "process" is ridiculous.
If there's a problem here, it's the choice, not the process.
-
The only two coaches that might have united the MU nation turned them down. Next options were mid-major coaches or high level assistants. Buzz had been both. He presented his vision of MU basketball and how we wanted to get there. He sold Cottingham and Wild. Is he riskier than Dawkins, than Brownell, than Lowery? Perhaps, but not much.
So, now, lets attack the process. Fair enough. Cottingham didn't want the job initially, but Wild wanted Cottingham and pressed him until he said yes. If Cords had stuck around two more years, and hired Buzz in the same timeframe, would there still be the uproar? Buzz convinced Cords, too. And finally, I will say this.
We, as hardcore MU basketball fans, believe our job in the BEast is a destination. Apparently, we are the only ones who do. The same national media types that Chico references that are saying we rushed a risky hire are the same ones that sang TC's praises and believe that TC made the program what it is, not the other way around. They think he is a pretty good coach who raised our program to heights not seen in 25-30 years and that IU got a great one. They don't give a damn about our whiny asses. They don't see all the flaws we see now as the jilted. They think his failure to recruit bigs is a symptom of being at MU. They think his game planning shortcomings are a result of being unable to bring a balanced roster to MU. They believe he will be able to recruit nationally successfully at IU and win the right way there. They believe that MU was holding him back, not the other way around.
So, rail against the process. Be prepared to say 'I told you so'. Blame the Jesuits who run our institution of higher learning for making choices and decisions consistent with their nature and the nature of the Catholic church. Because we will be able to change the nature of Jesuits by complaining enough on an MU basketball site.
The die is cast, the adventure begins. Lets man up just a little bit and see what happens before we out-whine by 17 month old cutting teeth.
-
Secondly, your words about hoping Buzz fails is some of the most ridiculous logic I have seen from you. You are usually a level headed guy with reasoned opinions, but that one is flat out crazy.
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
When did I say anything about anyone hoping Buzz fails?
I think you're confusing me with someone else.
-
It's a fair question, with an obvious answer that's been given time and time again ... only some people refuse to plug their errors and refuse to accept it as the answer. The answer is this: after Bennett and Miller (and perhaos Grant) said no, the administration/Cottingham believed Buzz was the next best option.
You may not like that. You may not agree. But that is the answer.
And if that was the decision made, what point is there for them to continue the search process?
Would you go shopping for car, decide on which one you wanted, and then go test drive seven others "just in case"? What would be the point? You've already decided which one you wanted.
Much the same, the administration decided Buzz was the guy they wanted and, as a result, felt it was no longer necessary to test drive other candidates.
Again, you may not agree with that decision. That's fine. But this incessant whining over the "process" is ridiculous.
If there's a problem here, it's the choice, not the process.
And you may not like it, but none of us want him to fail.....your insinuations to the contrary.
You want to know what I think really happened, MU was shot down by Bennett and Miller so fast it made their heads spin. They then decided they didn't want to go through being shot down again so they went with someone they knew would never say no because he was in no position to say no.
So instead of having a set of balls, they went for the easy hire. Damage control essentially. They didn't want to be turned down again.
I'd bet my house that's what happened and from what I've been able to find out internally, my house isn't going anywhere. So yes, it's still about process....he became default guy because they didn't want to be harmed or preceived to turned down. Wow, what a great "process" to hire your next coach. Instead of saying "we don't give a crap" if that happens (a few folks turning you down), you keep going through the process.
I remember UCLA being humbled by 5 guys saying no and people were ripping on UCLA as a result. They ended up with Harrick who just happened to win a national title. They kept to it.
I remember USC being turned down time and again, they kept to it and hire Pete Carroll. It took them a month to hire him, including being turned down by plenty, taking some cheap shots but so what....they had a stomach to try to get the best guy they could. They went after Billotti...and that fell through. They went after Erickson...that fell through. They went after Riley...that fell through. They got their 4th choice, some guy named Pete Carroll.
MU cowered after the first two said no and so quickly and they ran for cover.
-
Cowered, or decided, after interviewing Buzz, that no one out there who would be interested was significantly better?
-
Tower---Our job is a destination job for many coaches. Is a destination job for Buzz? My guess is he never dreamt he would be a BE coach. This hire was made by inexperienced and unqualified people. The help from the BOT and MU ball "insiders" was nonexistent. Cords will was successful because he got a ton of outside help from former players and other ball people.
I want Buzz to succeed because I love watching MU and want them to win. People can question the process without ripping Buzz. Honestly I think everyone to a man does not blame Buzz for anything. What is he supposed to do say "are you sure you want to hire me?" The whole process was a joke and Cottingham defended it shows what a joke it was.
-
Take Buzz out of the picture and look it objectively. I cannot believe there is one person that could defend the lack of professionalism in this hire. It is laughable for anyone to defend the process used in this hire.
-
Take Buzz out of the picture and look it objectively. I cannot believe there is one person that could defend the lack of professionalism in this hire. It is laughable for anyone to defend the process used in this hire.
If you take Buzz out of the hire, then the main complaint about the process goes away. The only valid reason to complain about the process is that you don't like the result of it. If a 72 hour process resulted in getting a name coach that people wanted like Larry Brown or Mike Montgomery or Trent Johnson then the amount of time it took to get them wouldn't mean a thing. You can't just categorically say that the process is bad regardless of the result, it doesn't work like that.
-
The professionalism of this hire?
i believe this was not cottingham's decision alone. Fr. Wild, Bill Cords who hired TC and is quite experienced, and many others were involved. If this was a Cords hire would ther be all this wailing and whining? I doubt it. To al large extent, because of his involvement, Cords had a huge hand in this, so let's stop assigning blame to an "inexperienced new AD who panicked" and realize the collaborative aspect of this hire.
Niv, nice try.
-
bma---If they had hired one of those guys in 72 hours it would have proved a process was in place. A list of names, in person interviews and firm contract talks. Unfortunately MU did not talk to anybody in person or offer a contract. Professional hires happen quickly. A school knows who they want and they go get one of the top three, if not a backup plan. MU had no backup plan...so they called Buzz back.
A complete lack of professionalism and no concern of fan reaction.
-
Cowered, or decided, after interviewing Buzz, that no one out there who would be interested was significantly better?
More like they didn't want to take another hit of someone else turning them down....they were in PR mode at that point. Let's hope it works out, he's certainly a hard enough worker that he has a good chance to.
-
Oh that's such a pile of BS Irwin it's incredible. NO ONE wants Buzz to fail. Absolutely no one.
This isn't about being wrong or being right....you're being childish to frame it in those terms. You sound like our politicians on both sides with that crap.
The fact that some people can't stop talking about it, makes me believe otherwise.
It's about asking a legitimate question....why with Marquette having gone to 3 straight NCAA tournaments, 3 straight top 25 finishes, etc, etc is MU making a risky hire? WHY? That is a legitimate question that has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with Buzz's success or failure, and certainly NOTHING to do with our collective hopes of fielding a continued successful basketball program.
NO ONE wants Buzz to fail. PERIOD! Many people want to know how they got to putting out feelers for two very qualified and solid coaches (NCAA tournament experienced coach, head coaches, winning record, good recruiters, etc) and then completely do a 180 (not a NCAA experienced coach, not a head coach, not a winning record...but is a good recruiter when recruiting for a coach that met those previous qualifications)....and all in 72 hours.
So because they looked at two very qualified head coaches, that meant that they couldn't look at assistants? Why is that a 180? Could they only go down one path and look at certain criteria? Then they would be blamed for going thru the process with blinders on. They went after the top two candidates and didn't get it done. They considered the field of other coaches and compared them to Buzz and felt he was a better hire. Why can't it be left at that? Maybe they should have gone thru the process done by Bill Cords to hire Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane. Maybe that would have been better.
IS THAT NOT A FAIR QUESTION?
-
More like they didn't want to take another hit of someone else turning them down....they were in PR mode at that point. Let's hope it works out, he's certainly a hard enough worker that he has a good chance to.
That is your opinion.
And how many times have we seen it written that it is embarrassing for a program when they are turned down multiple times (Providence).
-
Pakuni---My point is that there are 500 people that could replace Wild and be successful. He did not invent fundraising. Lets compare fundraising pre Wade and post Wade. People give money to winners. If MU was bottom 25 team does Strong write the same checks? Does Keyes give $7 million? Both are MAJOR MU basketball fans. Keyes has been going to games for decades.
Keyes was giving money to MU long before the basketball program was as successful as it recently has been. He clearly didn't invent fundraising, but he developed an atmosphere and the vision that inspires donors. I am positive that Zilber and others donations were more inspired by Wild than what they have seen on the BB court.
-
jce---Look at the hire. That is UWW comparison. No other D1 program had any inclination to contact Buzz. Why did Cottingham? Because he does not know anything about running a D1 program.
OK....so the problem you have *isn't* with the process, it is with the hire. That's fine. As someone mentioned earlier, if Cottingham hired Larry Brown after one and only one interview, no one would care about the process. I think that is the point of this entire thread
-
And you may not like it, but none of us want him to fail.....your insinuations to the contrary.
You want to know what I think really happened, MU was shot down by Bennett and Miller so fast it made their heads spin. They then decided they didn't want to go through being shot down again so they went with someone they knew would never say no because he was in no position to say no.
So instead of having a set of balls, they went for the easy hire. Damage control essentially. They didn't want to be turned down again.
I'd bet my house that's what happened and from what I've been able to find out internally, my house isn't going anywhere. So yes, it's still about process....he became default guy because they didn't want to be harmed or preceived to turned down. Wow, what a great "process" to hire your next coach. Instead of saying "we don't give a crap" if that happens (a few folks turning you down), you keep going through the process.
I remember UCLA being humbled by 5 guys saying no and people were ripping on UCLA as a result. They ended up with Harrick who just happened to win a national title. They kept to it.
I remember USC being turned down time and again, they kept to it and hire Pete Carroll. It took them a month to hire him, including being turned down by plenty, taking some cheap shots but so what....they had a stomach to try to get the best guy they could. They went after Billotti...and that fell through. They went after Erickson...that fell through. They went after Riley...that fell through. They got their 4th choice, some guy named Pete Carroll.
MU cowered after the first two said no and so quickly and they ran for cover.
I love MU as much as the next guy, but comparing our program to USC football is not apples to apples. They have much more tradition and success than we have had. Maybe we couldn't afford to take the PR hit becasue it would have made us look real bad to recruits as we struggle to maintain our solid position in the Big EAst Hoops race. Imagine if we were turned down by 5 coaches, what the other BE coaches (and Bo) would say about us on the recruiting trail.
-
Worse than the process was the manner in which Cottingham introduced the new Head Coach at the press conference....Junior Varsity introduction handing Buzz a baseball cap without enthusiasm and clearly demonstrating Cottingham is in over his head in all aspects of being an AD.
-
CrackedSidewalks isn't one voice, but many voices. There are disagreements with the various writers there, to say CS wants Buzz to fail is the epitome of stupidity. No one wants him to fail that writes for CS, and secondly not everyone that writes for CS even agrees it was a poor process. Several writers do, but not CS as a whole since CS isn't taking any stance...just one writer (NY Warrior's) opinion.
co-sign
-
jce---You take things out of context. If they had a process that was D1 worthy they never would have hired Buzz. It is not the hire. It is the fact they were so far out of their league they did not know what to do.
Regarding fundraising, you are either Fr. Wild or delusional. Keyes was never a seven figure donor until recently. You believe what you want to believe. Wild could be replaced by 500 other people. If you think he is something more than what he actually is keep drinking the KoolAide. No offense on Wild but we could go a year without replacing him. Trying doing that with a basketball coach. We went a year without AD....an unfortunately it looks like another 10 years without one.
-
Double agree. CrackedSidewalks and the others want Buzz to fail so they can come back to us people who have never been involved in "process" and tell us they were right. It is a shame that fans and alums refuse to get behind this coach and program.
Hilarious.....since there is nothing in my CS post to indicate a lack of support for Buzz Williams or the basketball program. Who knew that questioning the decision-making of the institution constituted a refusal "to get behind this coach and program." MU ain't the Ministry of Truth.
Folks read what they want to read, I guess.
-
That's just nutty right there.
20 or so years ago, you could probably say that about college basketball and colleges.
I'm not so sure anymore.
Basketball/sports as a marketing tool is just so big now.
-
You want to know what I think really happened, MU was shot down by Bennett and Miller so fast it made their heads spin.
{snip}
I'd bet my house that's what happened
{snip}
MU cowered after the first two said no and so quickly and they ran for cover.
Hmmm, if they taxes on your house weren't so high I'd take that bet. I got a call the morning of April 2 from a guy who knows some things. He told me MU had a short list of "big name" coaches they were going to contact (no more than 4). Buzz was on the list right after them. If they struck out with the name guys, then it was likely going to be Buzz unless his interviews didn't go well.
So, it happened just like I expected - they followed the process I heard about in advance. Maybe I should have shared my knowledge here, and then the process wouldn't have taken you by surprise so much.
Why is it so hard to fathom -- they had a process. They had a short list. Buzz was on the short list. Buzz got hired.
Of course, despite your arguing, you're saying that you don't think Buzz should have been on the short list. You don't care if he got interviewed, and you'll support him, but your opinion is really that he should not have been that high on Marquette's list.
-
And you may not like it, but none of us want him to fail.....your insinuations to the contrary.
With all due respect, Chico's, you are entirely full of (expletive for feces). I've never once said, implied, hinted or insinuated that you or anyone else wishes failure upon Buzz Williams. If you can show otherwise, please do so. Otherwise, please stop your ridiculous insinuations.
And really, Jim Harrick is an example you come up with? I'd rather see Marquette finish 16th in the Big East for the next decade than see my alma mater associate itself with someone the caliber of Jim Harrick.
By the way, you're also full of (expletive for feces) on your recollection of Pete Carroll's hiring. The process didn't last a month and USC was turned down exactly the same number of times as Marquette was before hiring Buzz.
Math, Chico's style:
MU turned down three times, turns to fourth choice = PANIC!
USC turned down three times, turns to fourth choice: Stomach.
It's also worth noting, though, that fickle alumni ripped Carroll's hiring the same way fickle alumni are ripping Buzz's hiring, and they too questioned whether the school's AD had a clue.
But, as we've seen proven time and again, fickle alumni know so much about how to operate an athletic program. ::)
-
jce---You take things out of context. If they had a process that was D1 worthy they never would have hired Buzz. It is not the hire. It is the fact they were so far out of their league they did not know what to do.
Regarding fundraising, you are either Fr. Wild or delusional. Keyes was never a seven figure donor until recently. You believe what you want to believe. Wild could be replaced by 500 other people. If you think he is something more than what he actually is keep drinking the KoolAide. No offense on Wild but we could go a year without replacing him. Trying doing that with a basketball coach. We went a year without AD....an unfortunately it looks like another 10 years without one.
The question isn't who's more replaceable. The question isn't who the University could go the longest without. The question is what position is more important to the University. If Buzz is an absolute failure at his job, but Fr. Wild is excellent at his, MU is in better shape than vice versa.
And Keyes was not a seven figure donor. No doubt. Generally you don't make more than one seven million gift in your lifetime. But Keyes was on the Board of Trustees for years...in fact I think he was on the Board when I was in school in the late 80s.
-
20 or so years ago, you could probably say that about college basketball and colleges.
I'm not so sure anymore.
Basketball/sports as a marketing tool is just so big now.
The problem is that you are only seeing the external part. Running the institution is much more important...you just don't see it.
-
jce---Let's agree to disagree. FYI---I do hope Buzz succeeds and the program goes to higher levels.
-
That is your opinion.
And how many times have we seen it written that it is embarrassing for a program when they are turned down multiple times (Providence).
Yeah, Providence landed the national coach of the year....how embarrassing. ::)
-
With all due respect, Chico's, you are entirely full of (expletive for feces). I've never once said, implied, hinted or insinuated that you or anyone else wishes failure upon Buzz Williams. If you can show otherwise, please do so. Otherwise, please stop your ridiculous insinuations.
And really, Jim Harrick is an example you come up with? I'd rather see Marquette finish 16th in the Big East for the next decade than see my alma mater associate itself with someone the caliber of Jim Harrick.
By the way, you're also full of (expletive for feces) on your recollection of Pete Carroll's hiring. The process didn't last a month and USC was turned down exactly the same number of times as Marquette was before hiring Buzz.
Math, Chico's style:
MU turned down three times, turns to fourth choice = PANIC!
USC turned down three times, turns to fourth choice: Stomach.
It's also worth noting, though, that fickle alumni ripped Carroll's hiring the same way fickle alumni are ripping Buzz's hiring, and they too questioned whether the school's AD had a clue.
But, as we've seen proven time and again, fickle alumni know so much about how to operate an athletic program. ::)
Jim Harrick had no NCAA issues until the end of his UCLA career....he was squeaky clean when hired so to use a Monday Morning QB application there is just wrong.
As for the math example, you forgot to figure in the time...USC turned down 3 times and waited 28 days...MU turned down 4 times and waited 48 hours....PANIC.
As for the fickle alumni, that is correct, that will always happen...but at least they took their time and got it right.
There is something to be said about taking your time to do something to get it right....but that's right, by questioning the timing and the process it really means I and others want Buzz to fail...talk about a load of feces. Good Jesus Christ.
-
Hmmm, if they taxes on your house weren't so high I'd take that bet. I got a call the morning of April 2 from a guy who knows some things. He told me MU had a short list of "big name" coaches they were going to contact (no more than 4). Buzz was on the list right after them. If they struck out with the name guys, then it was likely going to be Buzz unless his interviews didn't go well.
So, it happened just like I expected - they followed the process I heard about in advance. Maybe I should have shared my knowledge here, and then the process wouldn't have taken you by surprise so much.
Why is it so hard to fathom -- they had a process. They had a short list. Buzz was on the short list. Buzz got hired.
Of course, despite your arguing, you're saying that you don't think Buzz should have been on the short list. You don't care if he got interviewed, and you'll support him, but your opinion is really that he should not have been that high on Marquette's list.
MU got turned down quickly by Bennett, Miller, Davidson's coach, Grant and supposedly Hewitt (though I haven't been able to confirm that one)....they then went into panic mode because of the recruiting situation. Was Buzz always on the list? Yes....I never said he wasn't. Nor did I say he shouldn't have been....but when the no's were piling up from other schools, they went into panic mode quickly...too quickly. Buzz should have been fallback option way down the list. They started worrying about the recruits going away. Other Midwest head coaches that had actually been to the NCAAs, etc....they weren't interviewed or contacted for a number of reasons...including the lovely "didn't fit". That I will never understand.
My house is just fine.
I just want to know how in the first two days here was the criteria
Winning Head Coaching Experience
NCAA Tournament Experience
Good Recruiter as head coach
Then the criteria quickly became....day ten...fine...day two? Give me a break.
Non-winning Head Coaching Experience
No NCAA Tournament Experience
Good Recruiter as assistant coach
-
jce---Let's agree to disagree. FYI---I do hope Buzz succeeds and the program goes to higher levels.
MAJOR +1 (but you know deep down I want him to fail.... ::) )
-
Chico's---If I knew they would do something right if Buzz failed I might have different opinion. My gut tells me this might be Cottinghams best hire, provided he gets another chance. If Buzz fails and fails quickly all of TC's foundation is gone. We cannot afford the risk.
-
With all due respect, Chico's, you are entirely full of (expletive for feces). I've never once said, implied, hinted or insinuated that you or anyone else wishes failure upon Buzz Williams. If you can show otherwise, please do so. Otherwise, please stop your ridiculous insinuations.
It must be that "passive aggressive" leap of faith interpretation psychobabble analysis you taught me a week ago....just playing the same game with you. ;)
-
Chico's---If I knew they would do something right if Buzz failed I might have different opinion. My gut tells me this might be Cottinghams best hire, provided he gets another chance. If Buzz fails and fails quickly all of TC's foundation is gone. We cannot afford the risk.
I think Buzz has a great chance of succeeding....also believe he can succeed and we all want him to succeed. My issue has always been that if MU was in the toilet again, this hire makes sense from day one. When MU is not in the toilet, which they weren't, then it's risky....doesn't mean it won't work out, but it's risky. That opinion is shared by many national pundits and others....but you know that means we want him to fail, hey Irwin? ::)
-
Give it 5 years.
As much as I hate to say it, MU could have taken a lesson from St. Louis U's presser for the Majerus hire.
They could have looked it up on YouTube. Much more impressive. More enthusiasm and did what a press conference was supposed to do: get the national press out. Impressive speakes, backdrop, projection.
Good luck.
-
Yep. That's what I've been saying for three weeks. I think it's very safe to assume that the process zealots around here wouldn't blink had MU hired Sean Miller or Tony Bennett without first conducting a "national search" over several weeks.
Hardly the same comparision. with Bennett or miller MU would have a proven, established coach. To turn the program over to an unproven assistant is completely different. MU has taken a huge gamble.
-
Hardly the same comparision. with Bennett or miller MU would have a proven, established coach. To turn the program over to an unproven assistant is completely different. MU has taken a huge gamble.
You obviously want Buzz to fail. ;)
-
Jim Harrick had no NCAA issues until the end of his UCLA career....he was squeaky clean when hired so to use a Monday Morning QB application there is just wrong.
You're dead wrong on this one. Pick up a copy of "Raw Recruits" by Alexander Wolff and Armen Keteyian. Harrick was shady from the outset at UCLA, and I kind of doubt he just woke up one morning in Westwood and decided to be that way.
As for the math example, you forgot to figure in the time...USC turned down 3 times and waited 28 days...MU turned down 4 times and waited 48 hours....PANIC.
More fuzzy math, Chico's style.
Paul Hackett fired -- Nov. 27, 2000.
Pete Carroll introduced as new coach -- Dec. 15, 2000.
That's 18, not 28 days.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/football/college/news/2000/12/15/usc_carroll_ap/
Who is this mysterious fourth coach who turned down Marquette? What's your source for this?
And, if true, doesn't that only invalidate your argument that MU didn't conduct a thorough enough search? With how many candidates must the administration speak before you consider it a thorough search.
It's funny you consider USC contacting three coaches a "thorough" search, but MU contacting four is a rushed process. Love that kind of consistency.
-
It must be that "passive aggressive" leap of faith interpretation psychobabble analysis you taught me a week ago....just playing the same game with you. ;)
Actually, your comments re: me claiming you want Buzz to fail are more an example of delusional paranoia.
-
Yeah, Providence landed the national coach of the year....how embarrassing. ::)
With any luck, he'll have as bright a future as past winners of that award ...
Bruce Weber
Larry Eustachy
Phil Martelli
Clem Haskins (cheater)
Kelvin Sampson (cheater)
Perry Clark
Randy Ayers (cheater)
That's some impressive company Keno is running with these days, and the award clearly is an indicator of future success. ::)
-
Chico's---Agreed with the toilet comment. We spent nine years building credibility and risked losing it overnight. This hire make sense nine years ago, not in 2008. Why build a program and risk losing it over one hire?
-
Yeah, Providence landed the national coach of the year....how embarrassing. ::)
It was embarrassing DURINJG the process. And this National Coach of the Year was their 4th choice? 5th Choice? How good could he be? He coached one season without his recruits. He is as big of a risk as Buzz. Afterall, they both have one the same number of NCAA tournament games.
-
This quote caught me funny:
"Buzz emerged pretty quickly as a strong candidate."
When you're the only interview, I imagine it's not too hard to quickly emerge as a strong candidate.
-
Chico's---Agreed with the toilet comment. We spent nine years building credibility and risked losing it overnight. This hire make sense nine years ago, not in 2008. Why build a program and risk losing it over one hire?
So, if we don't hire Buzz and hire a mid level HC after a "thorough" search, we lose the Texas Army (E. Williams, Otule, Fulce and Butler)...throw in friends Trevor and Hazel with a transfer out. Hurley still directs TT to his East Coast John at Kansas. N. Williams to IU with the Tan Mafia. SC, DJ and JM are maybes--leaning more to leaving as time (and the NBA, NCAA recruiting windows approach and pass).
So after four weeks of a protracted but thorough search, the desertion of all assistant coaches including Buzz and missing a key live period, we hire a Brownell who HAS NO BE level recruiting pipeline or capable staff in place.
So, tell me which is the riskier of losing nine year's of progress under TC overnight? We go with a Brownell, we are looking worse than IU next year and years to come. And, what specifically have you seen from Buzz so far that makes you guys keep questioning the hire? The guy has been nothing but professional, he picked a quality staff, and is going after the top talent in the land. Still lots of questions I agree to come...but this still looks like a kick-ass hire to me so far no matter how it came about.
I remember DePaul took their time when Leitao left. They hired the "Chicago guy" Wainwright on May 1 after the live recruiting window closed--and that set them back the following season and the season after that in their recruiting. Don't forget the value of time in all this--if MU admin was convinced they had the guy early on right under their noses. Risky? Yes, but so would have been waiting as is the case with Providence (not a lot of great news coming out of there)
-
DePaul and Providence are not Marquette. DePaul has limited success, no attendance and no NCAA success in way too long. You don't hire a mid level coach, you hire an impact coach. Money talks in this business and MU has it. The hire is a major risk. Why is everyone so concerned about current recruits or playrs? Obviously IU has no fear of the upcoming season, they care about long term. Only way Buzz can win long term is if he wins this year and recruits this year.
Taxas army? Give me a break. Two projects, a juco we were not recruiting and a cross your fingers. MU will never, ever win recruiting TX players. Darin Horn stated the first priority at USC is recruiting instate kids. Our coach is comfortable recruiting in TX. He better get used to recruiting WI, IL, MN, NY an MI.
I question Buzz thus far because he has done nothing. Lost the two best incoming freshman and didn't recruit a potential McDonalds AA in WI. I would not call that a stellar opening month.
-
This quote caught me funny:
"Buzz emerged pretty quickly as a strong candidate."
When you're the only interview, I imagine it's not too hard to quickly emerge as a strong candidate.
Its obvious that too many people here have never actually conducted an interview to fill a position.
You don't bring in a candidate unless you know in advance that they are capable of doing the job. The interview is to validate that the candidate is a fit with the organization.
Perhaps you bring in multiple candidates if you didn't do your homework and know nothing about them. But D1 basketball coaches are open books. You know their track record. You've seen them on the sidelines.
Interviews would be worthless. In fact, they'd be worse than worthless, because you might be snookered by a smooth talking salesman into believing that they have capabilities they really don't have.
Can you imagine a interview with any of them?
________
Q: "Say, Brad, thanks for coming in. Tell me, what was your biggest challenge at Wright State?"
A: "I'd say recruiting--if I can bring in the guns to get WSU to 3rd place in the Horizon, I can certainly get MU to 1st in the Big East."
_________
Q: "Chris, what do you see as the biggest difference between success at Marquette as compared to Southern Illinois?"
A: "Well, the biggest difference is the heritiage of the program. I bring in good recruits at SIU, but if I had the power of Marquette behind me, boy, I'd have top 10 players here in no time."
__________
Q: "Jim, Marquette runs a clean program. What can you do to assure us that we won't run into any Georgia-like situations under your watch."
A: "I've learned from my mistakes. No way that happens again. I'm a changed man. Honest."
__________
Q: "Keno, where do you see yourself in five years?"
A: "I'll be on the ladder, cutting down the nets after I lead Marquette to it's 2nd national championship"
__________
Q: "Kevin, last time you were here we had a number of complaints about foul language on the bench. Can you keep your mouth in line if we bring you back?"
A: ^%@&^!% them! I'm here to W#$U%@)(Uing win. If they don't like my @&#$^*@# mouth, they can take a flying #&*@ at a (*@#&(*, and then suck my big &@#*&* on the way back down.
Do you see how silly the interview "process" would be for this job? There is NOTHING that a candidate could say that would provide better demonstration of his capabilities. Nothing. You know them from their public record--the good and the bad.
The only thing you need from an interview is whether you can stand working with the guy.
Pick anyone that you think should have been considered, then tell me what he could have said that would overcome his negatives.
For example, we all know Brad Brownell has never recruited players for a Marquette level program. We all know he's never coached at a Marquette level program. We know he's never had to interact with Marquette-level boosters and alums. Yet, many of you seem to think a mere interview would help change the perception that he lacks the qualifications for the job--even though we know he DOES lack the qualifications--at least if you put coaching, recruiting, and alumni relations at an MU-level program on the list of requirements.
[And before any of you smart alecks try to compare MU to New Orleans--I'm talking about the coaching that Buzz did at MU--in practices, during games. No, he wasn't the head coach, but we saw his coaching skills during the past season.]
It's as if we should give a bunch of coaches the chance to give us a snow job, in the expectations that one of them might be good enough to convince us to hire him rather than an assistant we've been able to watch in real sitautions--recruiting MU-level recruits, interacting with MU alums and boosters, preparing MU to play actual games, scouting MU-level opponents.
I'd really like to know what SPECIFIC statements another mid-major coach could have said during an interview that would have shed more light on his basic qualifications, and overcome what was visible over the past season.
-
Marquette84---You are right most major D1 coaches are an open book. They have a body of work to evaluate and determine worthiness. Every coach you mentioned has track record and you can do a pretty good job of guessing if they fit or not. Buzz has no body of work, yet he was given plenty of opportunity to give a snow job. KO and TC had bodies of work and every major D1 program had them on their radar screens. Cannot say that about Buzz.
-
Buzz is our coach.
Let him prove himself or we will gladly show him the door.
But it's a long time til Midnight Madness, so I know this haranguing of Buzz is going to be an eternity.
Unfortunately.
-
Its obvious that too many people here have never actually conducted an interview to fill a position.
You don't bring in a candidate unless you know in advance that they are capable of doing the job. The interview is to validate that the candidate is a fit with the organization.
Perhaps you bring in multiple candidates if you didn't do your homework and know nothing about them. But D1 basketball coaches are open books. You know their track record. You've seen them on the sidelines.
Interviews would be worthless. In fact, they'd be worse than worthless, because you might be snookered by a smooth talking salesman into believing that they have capabilities they really don't have.
Can you imagine a interview with any of them?
________
Q: "Say, Brad, thanks for coming in. Tell me, what was your biggest challenge at Wright State?"
A: "I'd say recruiting--if I can bring in the guns to get WSU to 3rd place in the Horizon, I can certainly get MU to 1st in the Big East."
_________
Q: "Chris, what do you see as the biggest difference between success at Marquette as compared to Southern Illinois?"
A: "Well, the biggest difference is the heritiage of the program. I bring in good recruits at SIU, but if I had the power of Marquette behind me, boy, I'd have top 10 players here in no time."
__________
Q: "Jim, Marquette runs a clean program. What can you do to assure us that we won't run into any Georgia-like situations under your watch."
A: "I've learned from my mistakes. No way that happens again. I'm a changed man. Honest."
__________
Q: "Keno, where do you see yourself in five years?"
A: "I'll be on the ladder, cutting down the nets after I lead Marquette to it's 2nd national championship"
__________
Q: "Kevin, last time you were here we had a number of complaints about foul language on the bench. Can you keep your mouth in line if we bring you back?"
A: ^%@&^!% them! I'm here to W#$U%@)(Uing win. If they don't like my @&#$^*@# mouth, they can take a flying #&*@ at a (*@#&(*, and then suck my big &@#*&* on the way back down.
Do you see how silly the interview "process" would be for this job? There is NOTHING that a candidate could say that would provide better demonstration of his capabilities. Nothing. You know them from their public record--the good and the bad.
The only thing you need from an interview is whether you can stand working with the guy.
Pick anyone that you think should have been considered, then tell me what he could have said that would overcome his negatives.
For example, we all know Brad Brownell has never recruited players for a Marquette level program. We all know he's never coached at a Marquette level program. We know he's never had to interact with Marquette-level boosters and alums. Yet, many of you seem to think a mere interview would help change the perception that he lacks the qualifications for the job--even though we know he DOES lack the qualifications--at least if you put coaching, recruiting, and alumni relations at an MU-level program on the list of requirements.
[And before any of you smart alecks try to compare MU to New Orleans--I'm talking about the coaching that Buzz did at MU--in practices, during games. No, he wasn't the head coach, but we saw his coaching skills during the past season.]
It's as if we should give a bunch of coaches the chance to give us a snow job, in the expectations that one of them might be good enough to convince us to hire him rather than an assistant we've been able to watch in real sitautions--recruiting MU-level recruits, interacting with MU alums and boosters, preparing MU to play actual games, scouting MU-level opponents.
I'd really like to know what SPECIFIC statements another mid-major coach could have said during an interview that would have shed more light on his basic qualifications, and overcome what was visible over the past season.
So you're saying Marquette hired Buzz based on his experience? His work history? That's just laughable. MU fell for the very "smooth talk" you just described.
He might be the best guy in the world, but he's simply not qualified to be a Big East head coach, particularly at a school that could be top 15 nationally next year. Think about that. We're expected to be one of the best team's in the nation next year! And we let our concern over losing some 17 year old kids, a junior college player and a kid who verballed decide who is going to coach the most experienced team in the country in 2008-2009.
We all hope like hell it works. But every sign in the world points to it being a poor decision. His recruiting base is in Texas. We're in Wisconsin. Every guy he's competing against for recruits is going to point to his utterly vacant track record. They'll point to the fact that, even if he succeeds, he'll be back in Texas at the first opportunity.
Cracked Sidewalks has hit the ball out of the ballpark on this one. To call this hire questionable is being generous.
-
DePaul and Providence are not Marquette. DePaul has limited success, no attendance and no NCAA success in way too long. You don't hire a mid level coach, you hire an impact coach. Money talks in this business and MU has it. The hire is a major risk. Why is everyone so concerned about current recruits or playrs? Obviously IU has no fear of the upcoming season, they care about long term.
IU's 2008-2009 season was over before it even began. 2 Players kicked off, White graduated and Gordon goes pro. They had about 5 guys on the roster. They could have hired John Wooden and Bobby Knight and they would have sucked. Their only thinking could be long term.
Only way Buzz can win long term is if he wins this year and recruits this year.
So according to you, that is the ONLY way huh?
I question Buzz thus far because he has done nothing. Lost the two best incoming freshman and didn't recruit a potential McDonalds AA in WI. I would not call that a stellar opening month.
Of course you fail to mention that one of them was gone the minute Crean left and that the POTENTIAL AA was not recruited all that heavily by the former coach. Way to skew your argument.
BTW, why is it OK to assume potential for a player but we can't do that with a coach?
-
I question Buzz thus far because he has done nothing. Lost the two best incoming freshman and didn't recruit a potential McDonalds AA in WI. I would not call that a stellar opening month.
I think your expectations are unrealistic here. Nick Williams was never coming to Marquette once Crean left. Buzz gave it a good shot with Taylor. As for Evan Anderson, I actually give Buzz props for not bothering. Marquette stopped recruiting him a long, long time ago. One of the biggest parts of strategy is knowing what NOT to focus on.
-
Buzz has no body of work, yet he was given plenty of opportunity to give a snow job. KO and TC had bodies of work and every major D1 program had them on their radar screens. Cannot say that about Buzz.
Frankly, this is not true, no matter how many times you or anybody else repeats it. He has been at MU for the last year.
MU has seen him interact and coach our current players.
MU has seen him recruit at MU.
MU has seen him interact with alums and boosters.
Why do you say that he has no body of work? Do you think that he was locked in his office for the past year, not allowed to talk to anyone? Not permitted to work in practice.
Fact of the matter is that MU actually SAW Buzz in action at MU. They can only GUESS at what others might do. Why is it so terribly hard to realize that Buzz was under evaluation from July of last year, not April 1 of this year?
-
He might be the best guy in the world, but he's simply not qualified to be a Big East head coach, particularly at a school that could be top 15 nationally next year. Think about that.
And Lowrey is? Brownell? Give me a break.
It sucks that Crean left. It sucks that Miller or Bennett didn't want the job. After that, making the argument that a mid-major coach is the right coach for a top 15 Big East team is as lauguable as you suggest Buzz is.
The fact is that NOBODY who would take the job was qualified in the way you want them to be. For some strange reason, you have ultimate confidence in guys with the same strong credentials that Bob Dukeit had. Sorry, but I don't buy that a mid-major coach is a better fit simply becuase he's had more success as a mid major coach.
It's hard to smooth talk for nine months. You'd be exposed LONG ago if your game couldn't match your talk.
Buzz has shown he can recruit and coach at Marquette as an assistant. The other candidates hadn't shown that can recruit or coach at MU's level. Period.
Its amazing that you dis a guy who's ACTUALLY been here for the last year, and pine for guys who led teams to middle of the pack finishes in conferences like the Horizon or MVC.
But you still haven't risen to the challenge of WHAT a guy like Lowery or Brownell could have told you to suggest they're any more qualified than Buzz. At least with Buzz, we know what we have--a guy who's capable of recruiting, coaching and game prep, getting along with the MU administration, and getting along with boosters.
You haven't told me one thing that would suggest that those others have those skills.
-
84--
I don't write essays like you. They don't pay me enough.
That being said, having read all your words, do you not consider there to be any value in looking a coach in the eye, shaking his hand, and getting a feel for him in person other then his "open book" track record?
Hiring a coach based alone on seeing him on the sideline? Speaking of "worse than worthless"......
-
84---Since you are so high on Buzz was he your first choice?
-
84--
I don't write essays like you. They don't pay me enough.
That being said, having read all your words, do you not consider there to be any value in looking a coach in the eye, shaking his hand, and getting a feel for him in person other then his "open book" track record?
Hiring a coach based alone on seeing him on the sideline? Speaking of "worse than worthless"......
Well, perhaps you're glad that MU took time to look Bob Dukeit in the eye, shake his hand, and get a feel for him in person.
-
Dukiet was a quick rebound hire after AR-LR coach changed his mind. Rick left like the Colts in offseason and not much opportunity to hire a coach. Apples to oranges.
-
DePaul and Providence are not Marquette. DePaul has limited success, no attendance and no NCAA success in way too long. You don't hire a mid level coach, you hire an impact coach. Money talks in this business and MU has it. The hire is a major risk. Why is everyone so concerned about current recruits or playrs? Obviously IU has no fear of the upcoming season, they care about long term. Only way Buzz can win long term is if he wins this year and recruits this year.
Taxas army? Give me a break. Two projects, a juco we were not recruiting and a cross your fingers. MU will never, ever win recruiting TX players. Darin Horn stated the first priority at USC is recruiting instate kids. Our coach is comfortable recruiting in TX. He better get used to recruiting WI, IL, MN, NY an MI.
I question Buzz thus far because he has done nothing. Lost the two best incoming freshman and didn't recruit a potential McDonalds AA in WI. I would not call that a stellar opening month.
Since MU is such a desirable job and we have so much money, where were all these "impact" coaches when the job opened? Which guys wanted to take on the challenge of coaching a fifth place BE team--the furtherest west campus in the conference? Where were their agents in working the back channels to break through the long line forming to interview? Why wouldn't the former coach entertain a counter offer to stay in the Garden of Eden?
Chicos called this out prior to TC leaving in terms of the candidates we'd attract. I love your expectations, but the last coach, while successful, didn't hit these. Buzz needs to recruit nationally in the BE to bring us all the way back--he won't get it done recruiting only regionally at MU (small private Catholic university in the midst of public state schools). You miss that it was Buzz who recruited the majority of TC's recent recruits in his short time here--and was the closer on TT (the kid not his wet nurse).
NW and TT asked for their release before Buzz was even interviewed...and Anderson was never a fit for TC's (or Buzz's) system--which is why they didn't recruit him. How you put all that on Buzz I am not tracking with, other than you will never like Buzz--period! He is from Texas and not from Wisconsin--the bastion of NCAA hoops. Buzz was hired simply because he CAN recruit AT Marquette--which he proved unlike choices 5-10.
-
84---Since you are so high on Buzz was he your first choice?
Fair question.
No. He wasn't first.
I would have put Few, Bennett, Calipari, Miller first. Guys who already successfull coach and/or recruit at MU's level. I'm least comfortable with Bennett out of that group, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt since he'd attract a lot of local top talent. I probably wouldn't have Georgia Tech's Hewitt in the mix, but if pressed could accept him in this group. I'd probably consider VCU's Grant, based on his experience at Florida.
I would have put Buzz after that group.
Then, I would put an assistant from another major program.
Only then would I consider a successful coach at a lower level. There is no way you can convince me that a mid-major guy wouldn't be the 2nd coming of Mike Deane or Bob Dukiet. They simply haven't been around a big-time program to understand the level of recruiting, player development, opponent preparation.
For all your criticism of Buzz, he HAS been around big-time programs at both MU and A&M, and he knows first hand the type of players that program needs, and the type of work required to recruit them. He knows how much time on the road its going to take, and he's already demonstrated over the past nine months that he's ready and able to do it.
I've answered your question--now I'd like to know your answer to mine. What could a Jim Les or a Brad Brownell said in an interview that would prove that they're not another Mike Deane or Bob Dukiet?
-
84---I would not have allowed Jim Les or Brownell anywhere near the campus. Their "open book" indicates they are coaching exactly where they belong. I would have let top assistant try and "snow job" me if I was AD. FYI you are right Buzz did spend time with A&M and MU but majority of his career was subpar programs.
Pardner---Who did he recruit? This years freshman class stunk with only Mbakwe a possible impact player. The two recruits he kept are mid major players at best. You are delusional if you think that TT was the driving force behind TT and NW. MU did not release recruits until after Buzz was hired. Both could have stayed and chose to move on.
What do I care where Buzz is from?
-
84---I would not have allowed Jim Les or Brownell anywhere near the campus. Their "open book" indicates they are coaching exactly where they belong. I would have let top assistant try and "snow job" me if I was AD. FYI you are right Buzz did spend time with A&M and MU but majority of his career was subpar programs.
Pardner---Who did he recruit? This years freshman class stunk with only Mbakwe a possible impact player. The two recruits he kept are mid major players at best. You are delusional if you think that TT was the driving force behind TT and NW. MU did not release recruits until after Buzz was hired. Both could have stayed and chose to move on.
What do I care where Buzz is from?
Huh?...Buzz wasn't here to recruit this year's freshman class which included Mr. Wisconsin BB SC...that was on your guy TC. How about the class of TT, NW, Otule, Fulce and now Butler and a strong verbal from EW for next year. TT said himself that Buzz was the closer when Crean was here, and Buzz continued that relationship while his agent Hurley shopped him elsewhere. So, Buzz recruited everyone but NW who was Bennie. You may not like the class, but it was rated in the Top 20 nationally. TT was a loss and Crean is already recruiting over NW at IU. Let's see what Buzz gets with that open scholarship and how the guys from Texas that you don't like--the 2nd best bball state--progress.
Maybe I am delusional but I am not irrational.
-
84---I would not have allowed Jim Les or Brownell anywhere near the campus. Their "open book" indicates they are coaching exactly where they belong. I would have let top assistant try and "snow job" me if I was AD. FYI you are right Buzz did spend time with A&M and MU but majority of his career was subpar programs.
So your month long diatrabe comes down to the fact that you would have hired a *different* assistant coach?
-
Well, perhaps you're glad that MU took time to look Bob Dukeit in the eye, shake his hand, and get a feel for him in person.
The non-answer answer is an interesting route for someone like you to take.
I'll take that as meaning you see no value in a coaching interview; consider Athletic Directors who do interviews to be wasting their time and resources; and would prefer that AD's simply watch a coach on the sideline for a few games and then hire him (without needing to meet them first of course).
-
This is not a knock on Buzz-----but it's nonsense to give him the ultimate credit for initially signing TT.
TT signed because he wanted to play for Crean------Buzz was nothing more than the contact or go between guy at MU. The proof is that if TT was so enamored with Buzz, he would not have asked for his release.
-
This is not a knock on Buzz-----but it's nonsense to give him the ultimate credit for initially signing TT.
TT signed because he wanted to play for Crean------Buzz was nothing more than the contact or go between guy at MU. The proof is that if TT was so enamored with Buzz, he would not have asked for his release.
Murf--I said Buzz recruited TT and closed the deal...not that TT didn't sign up to play for TC--chicken or egg?. The question at hand was who Buzz recruited at MU. Buzz was the lead recruiter with TT and most of the class--plus EW. Some of you act like all Buzz was doing was recording stats at the end of the bench last season--and refuse to give him any credit for recruiting a Top 20 class to MU--which he put together, at that time, in four months on the job as an assistant. The continuing angst about him is really ridiculous.
From Rosiak:
"Taylor informed Buzz Williams of his commitment in person Monday at St. Anthony's, news that prompted a hug from MU's newest assistant."
and this snippet:
"Taylor is the highest-profile East Coast recruit to commit to MU during Crean's tenure."
The whole saga of his release request (or lack of one) where the high school AD filled out the release form is another issue. As to who "asked for the release", the drama at the Hurley High Alter should show us who was pulling the strings. This episode lies in the dark side of college sports today. And, TT soooo wanted to play for Crean that he chose sitting on the bench at Kansas vs. starting at IU, right?
-
The non-answer answer is an interesting route for someone like you to take.
I'll take that as meaning you see no value in a coaching interview; consider Athletic Directors who do interviews to be wasting their time and resources; and would prefer that AD's simply watch a coach on the sideline for a few games and then hire him (without needing to meet them first of course).
Non-answer? What in the world are you talking about? I'm the one who asked the question! You're the one who responded a non-answer
I asked specifically what could a guy like Lowry or Brownell could say during an interview that would convince you that he's not another Bob Dukiet.
You responded that looking a person in the eye and shaking his hand was important. Fine. I merely pointed out that Bob Dukiet passes your test.
If you want to try again, tell me exactly what Brad Brownell or Chris Lowry could say during an interview that could convince you that they are fully capable.
***I'll take that as meaning you see no value in a coaching interview; consider Athletic Directors who do interviews to be wasting their time and resources; and would prefer that AD's simply watch a coach on the sideline for a few games and then hire him (without needing to meet them first of course).
Wrong.
I said: "The only thing you need from an interview is whether you can stand working with the guy."
Apparently, you also think that the eye-contact and hand shaking is important.
But you can't elaborate on what a mid-major coach could actually SAY during an interview that would convince you that he can do what he's never done.
So let's start with Brad Brownell
--undergrad at DePauw
--1 years as an Evansville assistant
--2 years as a University of Indianapolis assistant
--8 years as a UNC-Wilimington assistant
--4 years as UNC-Wilimington HC
--2 years as a Wright State HC
I think we'd both agree that Brownell has never recruited or coached a player that would be minimally capable of helping MU succeed in the Big East. I think we'd both agree that Brownell has never worked or played in a program with the type of expectations that come with the MU job. So it truly is a stretch for Brownell to take this job. MU hasn't actually seen Brownell in practice or how he recruits. MU has no idea how much or how little Brownell is willing to travel. I think we'd both agree that Brownell has never had the type of recruiting budget that he'd have at MU.
If it were me, I'd dismiss him without an interview as unqualified.
However, you think he deserves an interview. Fine.
So, with that background, what are the questions that you, as and AD would have lined up that would help you prove that he's a better pick than Buzz Williams (who you've already seen on the recruiting trail, working with alums and boosters, preparing for Big East-level games, and coaching players during practices--and concluding that he's qualified).
I'll give you the assumption that Brownell has a good handshake. What do you ask next?
-
It was embarrassing DURINJG the process. And this National Coach of the Year was their 4th choice? 5th Choice? How good could he be? He coached one season without his recruits. He is as big of a risk as Buzz. Afterall, they both have one the same number of NCAA tournament games.
I think you meant "won".
Davis won a conference championship, a conference tournament championship and went to OT in the NCAAs and lost on a miracle shot to a Sweet 16 team.
He was down their list on choices because they went for regional guys first, along with one of their own...an alum. They had Ford until OSU said, don't take the job because we'll pay you 3X the amount.
-
Buzz has shown he can recruit and coach at Marquette as an assistant. The other candidates hadn't shown that can recruit or coach at MU's level. Period.
Do you think it's fair to compare an assistant coach's ability to recruit to a Big East school while a Big East assistant vs a head coach at a mid major? Let's face it, top talent is going to go to the top schools in major conferences because of who the schools are, of course the mid major coaches aren't going to be able to bring in those types of kids. But let's reverse it....would that assistant coach if he went to a mid major be able to get top talent....highly unlikely. Could that mid major coach moving up to a high major get top talent now that he has the resources and the school brand with him....reasonably likely, certainly more then the other way around!
-
Well, perhaps you're glad that MU took time to look Bob Dukeit in the eye, shake his hand, and get a feel for him in person.
Dukiet was hired by Hank Raymonds....nuff said. Hank is a great guy, wonderful man but he was always destined to be a great assistant coach, not a great head coach and not a great AD. That might piss some people off, but that is reality.
-
Pardner------so you're saying that TT didn't stay with Buzz because Hurley talked him out of it. Well if Hurley was "pulling the strings" when they asked for release, which might be the case------then you can bet that Hurley was pulling the strings when TT originally signed with MU.
In either case the only thing that changed was that Crean left------so obviously Crean was the key figure in the original signing and in the decision to ask for the release from his commitment from MU.
I repeat------Buzz was nothing more than Crean's gopher in the TT/Hurley relationship with MU. That's what an assistant's job ordinarily is-----a gopher-----the only exception being if an assistant comes into a program and brings along a guy who he has an established previous relationship with (Fulce).
The reason the player signs is to play for the HC-----he doesn't sign because the assistant coach is a likeable smooth talker-----that may bring the recruit through the door and into the picture-----but the HC has to seal the deal or it's going to be a revolving door!
-
So you're saying Marquette hired Buzz based on his experience? His work history? That's just laughable. MU fell for the very "smooth talk" you just described.
He might be the best guy in the world, but he's simply not qualified to be a Big East head coach, particularly at a school that could be top 15 nationally next year.
But again, just because you have a problem with Buzz doesn't mean the process was bad. If the same process resulted in Bennett or Few or Miller, no one would be bitching. However, if they actually brought in five coaches for thorough interviews, and they still hired Buzz, you people would be bitching about something else.
-
But let's reverse it....would that assistant coach if he went to a mid major be able to get top talent....highly unlikely. Could that mid major coach moving up to a high major get top talent now that he has the resources and the school brand with him....reasonably likely, certainly more then the other way around!
Huh? A major conference assistant couldn't recruit at a mid-major level?
I guess that's why Bruce Weber had such trouble landing talent at Southern Illinois.
Or why Bruce Pearl didn't land any good players at UWM.
And why John Pelfrey couldn't get it done at South Alabama.
Kevin Stallings obviously couldn't recruit while at Illinois State.
Jeff Capel, Anthony Grant ... shall I continue?
I swear ... where do you come up with this stuff?
On the other hand, the high-major college basketball landscape is littered with the corpses of former top mid-major coaches who couldn't succeed at the next level because of recruiting deficiencies or simply because they got in over their head.
Mike Deane. Dan Monson. Tim Welsh. Jeff Lebo. Again ... shall I continue?
Obviously there are good and bad examples from both categories, but it is flat-out ludicrous to suggest that high-major assistant coaches cannot recruit as head coaches at the mid-major level.
-
Huh? A major conference assistant couldn't recruit at a mid-major level?
I guess that's why Bruce Weber had such trouble landing talent at Southern Illinois.
Or why Bruce Pearl didn't land any good players at UWM.
And why John Pelfrey couldn't get it done at South Alabama.
Kevin Stallings obviously couldn't recruit while at Illinois State.
Jeff Capel, Anthony Grant ... shall I continue?
I swear ... where do you come up with this stuff?
On the other hand, the high-major college basketball landscape is littered with the corpses of former top mid-major coaches who couldn't succeed at the next level because of recruiting deficiencies or simply because they got in over their head.
Mike Deane. Dan Monson. Tim Welsh. Jeff Lebo. Again ... shall I continue?
Obviously there are good and bad examples from both categories, but it is flat-out ludicrous to suggest that high-major assistant coaches cannot recruit as head coaches at the mid-major level.
I said a high-major assistant isn't going to land top top talent at a mid major because it's a mid-major.
People are penalizing mid major head coaches because they don't lure in 4 and 5 star players which is silly. 4 and 5 star players want to play at high major schools, so assistants at those high majors have the advantage of selling that high major brand that the mid majors don't.
My point is that it's a lot easier for a mid major head coach to recruit better as a high major head coach, then it would be for a high major assistant (who has the luxury of selling the level of school he is at) to go down to a mid major and try to get that same talent.
The kids go to the program and the level of the program....a mid major is ALWAYS going to be at that disadvantage. Did those coaches you cite have some good players...yes, but not many that were highly rated. I believe 84's assertion was that many of these mid-major head coaches hadn't proven they could recruit at the level of a high major...well it's a self-fullfilling prophecy because most high major players don't want to play at a mid major.
As for the failures you cited by mid majors going to a major...look at your paragraph prior to show many that succeeded at the high major level. Monson also inherited a disaster at Minnesota but still got to the NCAAs. Mike Deane got to the NCAAs. Tim Welsh got to the NCAAs. Were they successful....no as they were fired, but they also delivered in some years as well. They were proven enough commodities to do that. I'd have listed many of the mid majors that did well like Al McGuire, Bruce Pearl, Bo Ryan, Bruce Weber, Ben Howland, Mike Montgomery, Billy Donovan, Bill Self, Jim Calhoun, Lute Olson, Thad Matta, Billy Gillespie, Coach K, John Caliprari....shall I continue? Many many many successful head coaches at the highest level cut their teeth running mid majors first. And of course there are many assistant coaches that were promoted up like an Izzo, Williams, Dixon, etc....but most were at the same school many years which is usually a constant with those successful coaches.
Now list all those assistants with a losing record as a head coach that have succeeded in their second chance...I'm sure there are ton you can come up with there too. ::) As for your over the head comment...I spoke to three current assistant coaches that know Buzz very well....those same words you used came right out of their mouths....they also said they like the guy, thinks he works hard and hopes he can overcome the doubts they have. Go figure. Let's hope they're wrong.
Please, next time read what I actually said in the initial post...thank you....it will help your case greatly.
-
Dukiet was hired by Hank Raymonds....nuff said. Hank is a great guy, wonderful man but he was always destined to be a great assistant coach, not a great head coach and not a great AD. That might piss some people off, but that is reality.
Hank did not hire Dukiet. Hank's guy was Mike Newell. When Newell took a pass, Hank offered to coach for one year on an interim basis. The Athletic Board had power in those days and decided not to take Hank up on that offer. MU then turned to Dukiet, in many respects because Billy Packer recommended him (Billy was at the height of his "popularity"). I think it is totally wrong to hang Dukiet on Hank. I think the (thankfully) now defunct Athletic board is responsible.
-
I'd prefer not to get too much into the Buzz hiring because 84, Pakuni, and others will continue to hammer home their viewpoint that MU did everything right and myself, Chicos and others will continue to ask questions of MU and wonder if Cottingham was overwhelmed. This won't change for the next 3 years during Buzz' tenure.
All I'll say is if I was doing the interviewing I imagine when I asked Buzz Williams about his playing style and philosophy and he answered, "I have a winning style and would need some time to familiarize myself with what we have before deciding on a system" (from Bob McClellan's Yahoo/Rivals article) that would leave me a tad uneasy and wouldn't let me in good faith sell the continuity argument to the public. I mean, the guy has been with us for 9 months and he doesn't know what he has? Didn't we hire him because he was supposed to be familiar with our current team?
I find it disconcerting that Buzz can't explain his philosophy to a writer in better terms then the bolded quote above. Over the last month, when friends, co-workers, and acquaintances ask how MU will play under the new coach it's a little embarrassing not to be able to answer that question clearly for them. Especially so for an obsessive dork MU fan.
-
But again, just because you have a problem with Buzz doesn't mean the process was bad. If the same process resulted in Bennett or Few or Miller, no one would be bitching. However, if they actually brought in five coaches for thorough interviews, and they still hired Buzz, you people would be bitching about something else.
I'm critical of Cottingham in general and the process specifically, but if the above happened where 5 were interviewed and then they landed on Buzz I wouldn't bitch about anything. Buzz would have been the perfect safety pick for our coaching search.
-
Assistants at top programs, like TC and KO, are going to a better chance of being successful than a mid major head coach. Winning programs are used to recruiting 4 and 5 star recruits. Mid major head coaches are a big risk in my opinion, not different than the Buzz hire. Only difference they actually have coached.
Plain and simple, MU has reached a level were they should have made sure the next hire was an impact coach. How is the done? A list pf A coaches, no true timetable and a thick wallet. Anyone out there that does not believe is the one and only thing that separates most programs is money is kidding themselves.
If you think this is not true think about Alabama football. Everyone says that is the one job you do not want to take. Crazy expectations and crazier alumni. Well, they decided to go after Saban and got him. They got him with a perverse amount of money. MU has been paying TC a perverse amount of money for on court performance. There as a top coach out there that could have been enticed with money. We just did not try.
-
Hank did not hire Dukiet. Hank's guy was Mike Newell. When Newell took a pass, Hank offered to coach for one year on an interim basis. The Athletic Board had power in those days and decided not to take Hank up on that offer. MU then turned to Dukiet, in many respects because Billy Packer recommended him (Billy was at the height of his "popularity"). I think it is totally wrong to hang Dukiet on Hank. I think the (thankfully) now defunct Athletic board is responsible.
The AD was still involved in the decision...let's not be naive about it...Hank's guy had a foot in the water and then did a 180 and said no....the athletic department was in shambles when Cords took over, absolute shambles. The previous AD's (Raymonds being the most recent), the board, the university administration, had let the program go into the toilet on so many levels. Facilities ancient, weight room a joke for most high schools, etc, etc.
Hank has and still does a ton for Marquette University. An ambassador of the program. That doesn't take away the reality that MU's slide began with Hank as head coach, with his successor that he hired (Majerus) and with the following replacement...Dukiet. Classic MU parochialism.
-
Gato--Both you and Chico's are right on Dukiet hire. Hank was AD and did volunteer to coach for a season. Thankfully he was not taken up on it because that would have been bigger mistake than hiring Dukiet. MU acted with their heart and not their brains in whole Hank situation. He was an assistant coach and never should have been handed the keys to basketball powerhouse.
Hank was AD and he hire Dukiet. The whole thing was a mess because of timing of Rick's quitting and Newell backing out. But to not say Hank hired Dukiet is flat out wrong. So if Buzz sucks do we say Cottingham did not hire him?
-
You're missing the point.
I'm not faulting those mid-major coaches for failing to land high-major talent. I'm pointing out that they have no experience working at that level. As I said in my post, I'd take a guy like VCU's grant, because he knows from his experience at Florida what it takes to succeed at the high major level.
I discount completely a guy like Brownell because his experience consists of DePauw, Evansville, Indianapolis, UNC-W and Wright State. Marquette would easily be the biggest school he's been at since he left high school.
-
Both sources (lower level HC's & high level assistants) have produced good upper Div 1 coaches.
Al mcguire was a HC at a low level school-----and so was Bo Ryan!
Depends on the individual.
-
I'd prefer not to get too much into the Buzz hiring because 84, Pakuni, and others will continue to hammer home their viewpoint that MU did everything right
Yes. That's exactly what we've said.
Just as all you've said is that Marquette did everything wrong, made the worst hire in the history of college basketball and will soon find itself relegated from the Big East and fighting for 8th place in the Summit League.
-
As for the failures you cited by mid majors going to a major...look at your paragraph prior to show many that succeeded at the high major level. Monson also inherited a disaster at Minnesota but still got to the NCAAs. Mike Deane got to the NCAAs. Tim Welsh got to the NCAAs. Were they successful....no as they were fired, but they also delivered in some years as well. They were proven enough commodities to do that. I'd have listed many of the mid majors that did well like Al McGuire, Bruce Pearl, Bo Ryan, Bruce Weber, Ben Howland, Mike Montgomery, Billy Donovan, Bill Self, Jim Calhoun, Lute Olson, Thad Matta, Billy Gillespie, Coach K, John Caliprari....shall I continue? Many many many successful head coaches at the highest level cut their teeth running mid majors first. And of course there are many assistant coaches that were promoted up like an Izzo, Williams, Dixon, etc....but most were at the same school many years which is usually a constant with those successful coaches.
Dan Monson made one NCAA appearance in seven seasons, finished in the top half of the Big 10 one time and was 24 games under .500 in the conference. How you defend his tenure in Minnesota is mind-boggling. You'd burn Buzz in effigy if he had the same track record at Marquette.
Same for Welsh. Two NCAA tourneys in nine years. Zero NCAA wins in nine years. If Buzz Williams puts up a similar resume at MU, you'd call it a disaster. And rightly so.
Mike Deane? I'm not going to rehash that debate. Suffice to say, there's a reason he's the former Marquette coach.
Now, on to your examples of success, and a key point that seems to be evading you:
Bruce Pearl -- assistant at Iowa.
Bruce Weber -- assistant at Purdue.
Billy Donovan -- assistant at Kentucky.
Billy Gillispie -- assistant at Illinois.
Bill Self -- assistant at Kansas and Oklahoma State.
Coack K - assistant at Indiana.
John Calipari -- assistant at Kansas and Pitt.
Most of your examples of mid-major successes are guys who first worked as an assistant at a high-major program and first proved they could recruit and coach at that level. This simply is not true of the mid-major guys you're fawning over, i.e. Lowery, Brownell, Les, etc. To borrow a phrase, it's apples and oranges.
Now list all those assistants with a losing record as a head coach that have succeeded in their second chance...I'm sure there are ton you can come up with there too. ::)
A more accurate comparison would be to see how some successful coaches fared in their first seasons as a head coach (without dealing with a hurricane-ravaged program, of course). Most guys getting a "second chance," as you say, didn't leave their first job a) on their own volition or b) after one season.
Bill Self: 6-21 in first year as a head coach.
Coach K: 11-14 in first year as a head coach.
John Calipari: 10-18 in first year as a head coach.
Jay Wright: 10-18 in first year as a head coach.
Want some more?
Please, next time read what I actually said in the initial post...thank you....it will help your case greatly.
You're too funny.
-
You're missing the point.
I'm not faulting those mid-major coaches for failing to land high-major talent. I'm pointing out that they have no experience working at that level. As I said in my post, I'd take a guy like VCU's grant, because he knows from his experience at Florida what it takes to succeed at the high major level.
I discount completely a guy like Brownell because his experience consists of DePauw, Evansville, Indianapolis, UNC-W and Wright State. Marquette would easily be the biggest school he's been at since he left high school.
I disagree...many of those coaches do work at that level...in fact many of them are the first to recruit those kids and it's later that the big boys come in and swoop up and take that top talent. Many mid major coaches were assistant coaches at top level schools, and certainly know how to work at that level and what it takes.
That is correct on the Brownwell example, but is it correct with Chris Lowery? No, he was at Illinois. Is it correct with a Mark Fox or a Karl Hobbs or Dana Altman or any number of others? No.
-
Dan Monson made one NCAA appearance in seven seasons, finished in the top half of the Big 10 one time and was 24 games under .500 in the conference. How you defend his tenure in Minnesota is mind-boggling. You'd burn Buzz in effigy if he had the same track record at Marquette.
Same for Welsh. Two NCAA tourneys in nine years. Zero NCAA wins in nine years. If Buzz Williams puts up a similar resume at MU, you'd call it a disaster. And rightly so.
Mike Deane? I'm not going to rehash that debate. Suffice to say, there's a reason he's the former Marquette coach.
Now, on to your examples of success, and a key point that seems to be evading you:
Bruce Pearl -- assistant at Iowa.
Bruce Weber -- assistant at Purdue.
Billy Donovan -- assistant at Kentucky.
Billy Gillispie -- assistant at Illinois.
Bill Self -- assistant at Kansas and Oklahoma State.
Coack K - assistant at Indiana.
John Calipari -- assistant at Kansas and Pitt.
Most of your examples of mid-major successes are guys who first worked as an assistant at a high-major program and first proved they could recruit and coach at that level. This simply is not true of the mid-major guys you're fawning over, i.e. Lowery, Brownell, Les, etc. To borrow a phrase, it's apples and oranges.
A more accurate comparison would be to see how some successful coaches fared in their first seasons as a head coach (without dealing with a hurricane-ravaged program, of course). Most guys getting a "second chance," as you say, didn't leave their first job a) on their own volition or b) after one season.
Bill Self: 6-21 in first year as a head coach.
Coach K: 11-14 in first year as a head coach.
John Calipari: 10-18 in first year as a head coach.
Jay Wright: 10-18 in first year as a head coach.
Want some more?
You're too funny.
Wow....it's clear that you do have a reading problem.
I said..."Were they successful....no as they were fired, but they also delivered in some years as well."
How am I defending them....I said they weren't successful and that's why they were fired but then you accuse me of defending them. Hardly. I flat out said they weren't successful. READ!
As for the successes....I totally agree...they were assistants at high level schools....AND THEN THEY WENT AND BECAME HEAD COACHES AT MID MAJORS FIRST BEFORE GOING STRAIGHT TO THE HEAD COACH SEAT AT A HIGH MAJOR!!!! DUH!!!!
That's my entire point...there's a transition to success that works better than most.
1) Assistant coach low to mid major and do it successfully
2) Assistant coach high major and do it successfully
3) Head coach low to mid major and do it successfully
4) Head coach high major
We seemed to skip number 3, for some unknown reason to save a recruiting class and because we had a gun to our head that said if we didn't get a coach in 48 hours the school would turn into a pumpkin at midnight.
Finally, those assistant coaches that took over those specific programs went into horrible situations and turned them around. THOSE ARE THE BEST COACHES TO HIRE. They've proven it. Yes, I want those type of hires. Absolutely.....you're supporting my case.
-
Well Al McGuire, Dick Bennett, Bo Ryan, and many others were small school HCs and they did pretty well in high level Div 1.
This argument is silly------as both small HCs and big school assistants both have the potential for success at the major college level----depends on the individual qualifications of the person. Both origins are good preparations for the big time!
-
Is Pakuni comparing Buzz Williams to Bruce Weber??? Weber was an assistant at Purdue for like 15 years!! Bruce Pearl was a VERY successful D2 head coach and a VERY successful coach at UWM. Donovan was at Kentucky with Pitino (not exactly Billy Gillespie) for YEARS, and also played in the Final Four and the NBA.
How are you even comparing these guys to Buzz Williams? I'm not even convinced that Texas A&M is considered a "high major" basketball program! I mean, is it?
It's my contention that Buzz Williams has been in a "high major" basketball program for exactly 10 months. Even Bob Dukiet was far more qualified than Buzz.
-
Wow....it's clear that you do have a reading problem.
I said..."Were they successful....no as they were fired, but they also delivered in some years as well."
How am I defending them....I said they weren't successful and that's why they were fired but then you accuse me of defending them. Hardly. I flat out said they weren't successful. READ!
" Monson also inherited a disaster at Minnesota but still got to the NCAAs. Mike Deane got to the NCAAs. Tim Welsh got to the NCAAs"
Yep. No defending them. At all. ::)
By the way, using colors and extra large type size, the Internet equivalent of having a hissy fit, won't make you any less wrong, Chico's.
You clearly defended each and every one of them. Noting they were fired - quite an admission on your part - doesn't change that.
But thanks for pointing out my reading problem. I'll have to looked into right away.
That's my entire point...there's a transition to success that works better than most.
Clearly that's not your point. If it were, you wouldn't be pining for the likes of Jim Les and Brad Brownell. Neither followed this so-called "transition to success." Yet you were ready to march upon the Al with torch and pitchfork in hand because MU didn't contact either.
Try as you might - and you're trying mightily - you can't have it both ways. You can't rip on the hiring of Buzz because he didn't follow the "transition to success" then say the administration should have talked to Les, Brownell, Lowery, etc.
We seemed to skip number 3
Yep. We also skipped number 3 in hiring Tom Crean and Kevin O'Neill.
And we all know what disastrous hires those were.
-
Is Pakuni comparing Buzz Williams to Bruce Weber??? Weber was an assistant at Purdue for like 15 years!! Bruce Pearl was a VERY successful D2 head coach and a VERY successful coach at UWM. Donovan was at Kentucky with Pitino (not exactly Billy Gillespie) for YEARS, and also played in the Final Four and the NBA.
Ummm ... no. I was pointing out that most of the mid-major successes Chico was citing were guys who first worked as assistant coaches at high-major programs. I compared Buzz to none of those guys you mentioned.
-
We seemed to skip number 3, for some unknown reason to save a recruiting class and because we had a gun to our head that said if we didn't get a coach in 48 hours the school would turn into a pumpkin at midnight.
Maybe you'd stand a better chance at having your points taken seriously if you stopped repeating this BS.
It's been made clear that there was no panic, no deadline. There was a prioritized list of candidates, Buzz was on that list, and he was considered in the proper sequence.
You seem to have two beefs:
1. You rank some candidates that were ranked behind Buzz ahead of him. That's fine--we can debate that point all you want. We've reached the point where there are examples you can cite on successful mid-major coaches, and examples I can cite on unsuccessful ones. I've given you some very defensible reasons why Buzz was considered a strong candidate.
The bottom line is that all reports suggest that Buzz was considered in sequence--whether he was third or fifth or seventh doesn't really matter--there were a number of choices ahead of him, and they all turned down MU's offer. Your argument seems to be that somebody else should have been ranked ahead of him--but when you name names, it's easy to make the case that Buzz could be considered a better choice, depending on your criteria.
2. That leads to your next oft-repeated point--MU should have taken more time to interview additional candidates. To which I've raised the question several times what SPECIFICALLY an interview is going to reveal? No serious answers (except someone who made some remark about shaking hands).
Frankly, I don't see any evidence that ANY major program interviews five or six candidates before choosing one--I see evidence of programs successively interviewing candidates who turn them down, until one finally accepts. Providence is a good example. PC didn't decide on not hiring Davis over Larranga or Ford after a lengthy interview process. Larranga turned them down. Then they turned to Ford. He turned them down. Then they turned to Davis. He accepted.
Ditto with Indiana. Did they interview five candidates before hiring Crean? No. Bennett (first choice) turned them down, the moved on to #2. They didn't interview #3, 4, 5, and 6 and take several weeks.
Are there any examples of schools interviewing multiple candidates then choosing one (as opposed to being turned down and moving to the next)?
-
How can you say "it's been made clear there was no panic." Because you and others have stated that, it does not make it clear.
If you ask me, it's crystal clear that there WAS panic. A clearly thought out process would not have resulted in hiring a guy with 10 months of high D1 basketball experience.
We wouldn't hire a trainer with that kind of experience. It was absolutely a panic hire.
-
How can you say "it's been made clear there was no panic." Because you and others have stated that, it does not make it clear.
If you ask me, it's crystal clear that there WAS panic. A clearly thought out process would not have resulted in hiring a guy with 10 months of high D1 basketball experience.
We wouldn't hire a trainer with that kind of experience. It was absolutely a panic hire.
Please explain how a program that plays in a high-major conference, has appeared in three consecutive NCAA tournaments (while winning four games), four consecutive post-season tournaments, and has won 95 games the past four seasons against high major competition is not, in fact, a high-major program.
Thanks.
-
Well Al McGuire, Dick Bennett, Bo Ryan, and many others were small school HCs and they did pretty well in high level Div 1.
This argument is silly------as both small HCs and big school assistants both have the potential for success at the major college level----depends on the individual qualifications of the person. Both origins are good preparations for the big time!
Correct...because they cut their teeth at the lower levels first as a HC rather than throwing them in on their first job. Can it work for assistants going to a HC position at a high level directly....sure. Tom Crean is an example, though many people argue he was a lowsy game coach so who knows.
At the day, when you're in a position of strength, hire accordingly. When you're desperate, hire the assistant because you have nothing to lose. We took the opposite position....let's hope it works out.
I'm off to mow the front and back yard...peace...out.
-
" Monson also inherited a disaster at Minnesota but still got to the NCAAs. Mike Deane got to the NCAAs. Tim Welsh got to the NCAAs"
Yep. No defending them. At all. ::)
By the way, using colors and extra large type size, the Internet equivalent of having a hissy fit, won't make you any less wrong, Chico's.
You clearly defended each and every one of them. Noting they were fired - quite an admission on your part - doesn't change that.
But thanks for pointing out my reading problem. I'll have to looked into right away.
Clearly that's not your point. If it were, you wouldn't be pining for the likes of Jim Les and Brad Brownell. Neither followed this so-called "transition to success." Yet you were ready to march upon the Al with torch and pitchfork in hand because MU didn't contact either.
Try as you might - and you're trying mightily - you can't have it both ways. You can't rip on the hiring of Buzz because he didn't follow the "transition to success" then say the administration should have talked to Les, Brownell, Lowery, etc.
Yep. We also skipped number 3 in hiring Tom Crean and Kevin O'Neill.
And we all know what disastrous hires those were.
Classic....you continue to ignore the exact words I said..."WERE THEY SUCCESSFUL....NO" I then said they had SOME years where the delivered.
You're being so intellectually dishonest right now it's scary...I clearly said no, have now pointed it out to you two additional times...how you're ignoring that is truly amazing and unbelievable.
If I said Jimmy Carter did a nice job with Camp David Peace Accords does that mean I thought he did a nice job in his 4 years as president? That's essentially the argument you're taking, because I said "some years" they delivered trumps over the very clear first thing I said which was NO THEY DID NOT SUCCEED. Classic by you, truly classic.
-
You're citing statistics that were compiled after Williams left A&M. I agree they are in a high major conference. Were they a high major basketball program during Williams' time there? I think it's questionable.
-
Maybe you'd stand a better chance at having your points taken seriously if you stopped repeating this BS.
It's been made clear that there was no panic, no deadline. There was a prioritized list of candidates, Buzz was on that list, and he was considered in the proper sequence.
You seem to have two beefs:
1. You rank some candidates that were ranked behind Buzz ahead of him. That's fine--we can debate that point all you want. We've reached the point where there are examples you can cite on successful mid-major coaches, and examples I can cite on unsuccessful ones. I've given you some very defensible reasons why Buzz was considered a strong candidate.
The bottom line is that all reports suggest that Buzz was considered in sequence--whether he was third or fifth or seventh doesn't really matter--there were a number of choices ahead of him, and they all turned down MU's offer. Your argument seems to be that somebody else should have been ranked ahead of him--but when you name names, it's easy to make the case that Buzz could be considered a better choice, depending on your criteria.
2. That leads to your next oft-repeated point--MU should have taken more time to interview additional candidates. To which I've raised the question several times what SPECIFICALLY an interview is going to reveal? No serious answers (except someone who made some remark about shaking hands).
Frankly, I don't see any evidence that ANY major program interviews five or six candidates before choosing one--I see evidence of programs successively interviewing candidates who turn them down, until one finally accepts. Providence is a good example. PC didn't decide on not hiring Davis over Larranga or Ford after a lengthy interview process. Larranga turned them down. Then they turned to Ford. He turned them down. Then they turned to Davis. He accepted.
Ditto with Indiana. Did they interview five candidates before hiring Crean? No. Bennett (first choice) turned them down, the moved on to #2. They didn't interview #3, 4, 5, and 6 and take several weeks.
Are there any examples of schools interviewing multiple candidates then choosing one (as opposed to being turned down and moving to the next)?
84....Ford was going to take the Providence job....OSU through back channels said don't do it, we'll pay 3X what they are going to pay....that won't appear in the press, but that's how it went down. It will surface soon enough in the press, but nor for awhile.
Providence wanted to stay in their region which is why it took them as long as they did, they then went outside their region.
But seriously, is Providence the same as MU? No. Providence is in a world or hurt right now on all levels, their search should of and was more difficult then MU's.
Doesn't change the fact MU got a risky hire which is near universally acknowledged by everyone except a small handful of people. Doesn't mean he can't get it done, but was it necessary....I contend NO!
And sorry, it isn't BS about the first 48 hours, nothing of the sorts. MU got turned down by too many of their original list and they got nervous and didn't want to go through much more of it so they quickly moved to their other choice, a man that was on their list all along no doubt (and would have been there a week later as well).
-
I discount completely a guy like Brownell because his experience consists of DePauw, Evansville, Indianapolis, UNC-W and Wright State. Marquette would easily be the biggest school he's been at since he left high school.
This list is much more impressive:
Navarro College (1990-92), Oklahoma City (1992-94), Texas-Arlington (1994-98), Texas A&M-Kingsville (1998-99), Northwestern State (1999-2000), Colorado State (2000-04), Texas A&M (2004-06), Marquette (2007-08).
I didn't know three of those schools even existed before 6 weeks ago.
-
You're citing statistics that were compiled after Williams left A&M. I agree they are in a high major conference. Were they a high major basketball program during Williams' time there? I think it's questionable.
They were 43-19 in Williams' two years there, including 18-14 in the Big 12 and a NCAA Tournament win.
On top of that, teams that Buzz played a significant role in recruiting have won 52 games in the past two years and won three NCAA Tournament games.
I guess there's two ways you can look at this.
Either A&M is and has been a major program or Buzz Williams was part of a magical transformation of a mid-major program to a high-major program in less than three years.
-
This list is much more impressive:
Navarro College (1990-92), Oklahoma City (1992-94), Texas-Arlington (1994-98), Texas A&M-Kingsville (1998-99), Northwestern State (1999-2000), Colorado State (2000-04), Texas A&M (2004-06), Marquette (2007-08).
I didn't know three of those schools even existed before 6 weeks ago.
Actually, it is much more impressive.
Mountain West, Big 12 and Big East vs. Great Lakes Valley, Colonial and Horizon.
I'd say there's a tad bit of disparity between the two resumes, in that regard.
-
Classic....you continue to ignore the exact words I said..."WERE THEY SUCCESSFUL....NO" I then said they had SOME years where the delivered.
You're being so intellectually dishonest right now it's scary...I clearly said no, have now pointed it out to you two additional times...how you're ignoring that is truly amazing and unbelievable.
Wow, ease up on the righteous indignation.
If you can point out where I suggested that you called those guys successful, please do. I can save you some time, though, and let you know I never said that.
What I did say is that you defended them/their tenures, and that's exactly what you did.
For example, on Monson you said he "inherited a disaster at Minnesota but still got to the NCAAs."
No further point in continuing if you can't recognize the difference.
-
Actually, it is much more impressive.
Mountain West, Big 12 and Big East vs. Great Lakes Valley, Colonial and Horizon.
I'd say there's a tad bit of disparity between the two resumes, in that regard.
Yeah, that's why I wrote it was much more impressive.
-
They were 43-19 in Williams' two years there, including 18-14 in the Big 12 and a NCAA Tournament win.
On top of that, teams that Buzz played a significant role in recruiting have won 52 games in the past two years and won three NCAA Tournament games.
I guess there's two ways you can look at this.
Either A&M is and has been a major program or Buzz Williams was part of a magical transformation of a mid-major program to a high-major program in less than three years.
What teams are you talking about in the bolded?
-
Wow, ease up on the righteous indignation.
If you can point out where I suggested that you called those guys successful, please do. I can save you some time, though, and let you know I never said that.
What I did say is that you defended them/their tenures, and that's exactly what you did.
For example, on Monson you said he "inherited a disaster at Minnesota but still got to the NCAAs."
No further point in continuing if you can't recognize the difference.
Your interpretation of "defending someone" is absurd. My comments were a point in fact...Monson did inherit a disaster...that is true. I also said he wasn't successful and was fired as a result. There was no defense of Monson or anyone else, I simply said they were not successful, they were fired as a result though they did deliver some years (that doesn't make them overall successful nor does it defend those coaches). A better coach could have prevailed...Monson wasn't that guy.
You're playing your psycho babble BS again, I know what I wrote and I know what my intentions were, and they certainly weren't to defend anyone.
Just like the other day when you tried to play that with Mike DeCourcey to interpret what he was saying...a simple email to Mike proved that was not the case. He did not at all mean what you interpreted his words to mean. It seems you're going out of your way to interpret intent to fit your argument rather then letting the words speak for themselves...just my opinion.
I'm sorry if you take my words and Mike's a different way then intended, perhaps that's our fault in not clearly stating them for you. I'll have to try harder to make it CRYSTAL CLEAR from here on out, but something tells me even if I say "I'm not defending someone" you reach deep into your psychoanalytic background to say I (or other posters) are anyway. ::)
-
The AD was still involved in the decision...let's not be naive about it...Hank's guy had a foot in the water and then did a 180 and said no....the athletic department was in shambles when Cords took over, absolute shambles. The previous AD's (Raymonds being the most recent), the board, the university administration, had let the program go into the toilet on so many levels. Facilities ancient, weight room a joke for most high schools, etc, etc.
Hank has and still does a ton for Marquette University. An ambassador of the program. That doesn't take away the reality that MU's slide began with Hank as head coach, with his successor that he hired (Majerus) and with the following replacement...Dukiet. Classic MU parochialism.
So when Hank offered to coach one year as interim coach, who turned him down, himself? Were you even around then? Do you remember Hank was politely shown the door for Rick when Hank was athletic director? I think you are laying a bit too much on Hank and not enough on the other powers that were involved and to whom Hank answered.
-
What teams are you talking about in the bolded?
The last two A&M teams.
Buzz recruited a large part of the rosters for both those teams, including -- I think -- a majority of the starters.
-
Hank did not hire Dukiet. Hank's guy was Mike Newell. When Newell took a pass, Hank offered to coach for one year on an interim basis. The Athletic Board had power in those days and decided not to take Hank up on that offer. MU then turned to Dukiet, in many respects because Billy Packer recommended him (Billy was at the height of his "popularity"). I think it is totally wrong to hang Dukiet on Hank. I think the (thankfully) now defunct Athletic board is responsible.
OT ~ Mike Newell vs. Dukiet - that is a hard choice. Dukiet had a great pedigree coming in - lead assistent for Pete Carrill and Huge success at St Peters as a Head coach. ( they were actually quite good - I recall them beating tough Rutgers and Seton Hall teams in the 80's).
You just never know what will happen - check out the pedigree on Dukiet and now he is a lounge singer:
"The one former Princeton assistant with star power written all over him was Bob Dukiet, a former BC star who, with his blonde hair, warm personality and great sense of humor, was a good recruiter and well-liked by his players. He left Princeton for low DI St. Peter's and put them on the map in a serious way in the mid-1980's, getting them to a few NCAA tournaments and winning about 70% of his games. After St. Peter's, Dukiet took a big-time step up to Marquette, where he was picked to succeed the beloved Rick Majerus, and his record from 1986-1989 was 39-46. Unfortunately, that was a tall order, and Dukiet ended up at Division II Gannon University in Erie, where he led the school to the Elite 8 of the NCAA DII tournament (he was there from 1989-1996). Out of basketball now, the affable Dukiet -- this is a true story -- makes his living as a lounge singer. "
-
So when Hank offered to coach one year as interim coach, who turned him down, himself? Were you even around then? Do you remember Hank was politely shown the door for Rick when Hank was athletic director? I think you are laying a bit too much on Hank and not enough on the other powers that were involved and to whom Hank answered.
No, MU turned him down...and rightfully so. Was I there...no. Were many of us that worked there given the download over the years of various stories of who, when, why, how, etc over the course of history involving MU athletics....some by Hank himself. Yes.
Hank did great things for MU. That doesn't change my opinion that some people are cut out to be great assistant coaches and not head coaches, or great Vice Presidents at a company but not Presidents, or great writers but not necessarily great bureau chiefs. Etc, etc.
Is Hank solely responsible for hiring Dukiet? No. There were many committees and all kinds of nonsense back then....Scooter (Jim Scott) putting his two cents in all the time along with a lot of other folks that had too much power. But he was the AD and from what I was told, that was one of Hank's failings...he was too nice, wasn't able to grab the power he was entitled to by position. He let too many people weigh in to the point there wasn't much control. Too nice of a guy.
-
OT ~ Mike Newell vs. Dukiet - that is a hard choice. Dukiet had a great pedigree coming in - lead assistent for Pete Carrill and Huge success at St Peters as a Head coach. ( they were actually quite good - I recall them beating tough Rutgers and Seton Hall teams in the 80's).
You just never know what will happen - check out the pedigree on Dukiet and now he is a lounge singer:
"The one former Princeton assistant with star power written all over him was Bob Dukiet, a former BC star who, with his blonde hair, warm personality and great sense of humor, was a good recruiter and well-liked by his players. He left Princeton for low DI St. Peter's and put them on the map in a serious way in the mid-1980's, getting them to a few NCAA tournaments and winning about 70% of his games. After St. Peter's, Dukiet took a big-time step up to Marquette, where he was picked to succeed the beloved Rick Majerus, and his record from 1986-1989 was 39-46. Unfortunately, that was a tall order, and Dukiet ended up at Division II Gannon University in Erie, where he led the school to the Elite 8 of the NCAA DII tournament (he was there from 1989-1996). Out of basketball now, the affable Dukiet -- this is a true story -- makes his living as a lounge singer. "
Bob had a few other issues to which...ahem...let's just say were not societally normal.
Incidentally, it was Hubie Brown and Jud Heathcoate that recommended Dukiet.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=385779
In the same article, Rick Majerus believes it's better to hire from outside the program rather then from within....of course he also says MU shouldn't be in the Big East (though I actually agree with him a bit on that).
-
If you want some of background on Dukiet, here are some good comments from Hank, Rusk, etc in Pippines book that came out a few years ago. Dukiet starts on page 55 in chapter 6. He's in chapter 7 as well.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7WR3lOb0GyEC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=bob+dukiet&source=web&ots=r-aZ9BKSPj&sig=-_KIigS7c-9Pt61Sy7t2ODWnhso&hl=en#PPA54,M1 (http://books.google.com/books?id=7WR3lOb0GyEC&pg=PA55&lpg=PA55&dq=bob+dukiet&source=web&ots=r-aZ9BKSPj&sig=-_KIigS7c-9Pt61Sy7t2ODWnhso&hl=en#PPA54,M1)
-
The last two A&M teams.
Buzz recruited a large part of the rosters for both those teams, including -- I think -- a majority of the starters.
Since you do a lot of research, and I'm too lazy, can you confirm any of that?
You write "I think" which opens the door for some doubt.
-
Since you do a lot of research, and I'm too lazy, can you confirm any of that?
You write "I think" which opens the door for some doubt.
According to an interview Buzz conducted with Todd Rosiak last year (when hired as an asistant) he recruited eight of the nine players who signed at A&M while Gillispie was coach.
Obviously we're taking Buzz at his word here.
Those players include:
Josh Carter -- started 34 games in 06-07, 36 in 07-08
Antanas Kavaliauskas --started 34 games in 06-07
Donald Sloan -- started 36 games in 07-08 (played 19 mpg off the bench in 06-07)
Derrick Roland -- 19 mpg off bench in 07-08
Brian Davis -- started 15 games in 07-08
DeAndre Jordan -- started 21 games in 07-08
So, it appears he recruited two starters on the 2006-07 team and three/four on last year's team. Not bad, considering he was there for two seasons.
http://blogs.jsonline.com/muhoops/archive/2007/07/06/Buzz-Williams-interview.aspx
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/teams/tan/stats?year=2007
-
According to an interview Buzz conducted with Todd Rosiak last year (when hired as an asistant) he recruited eight of the nine players who signed at A&M while Gillispie was coach.
Obviously we're taking Buzz at his word here.
Those players include:
Josh Carter -- started 34 games in 06-07, 36 in 07-08
Antanas Kavaliauskas --started 34 games in 06-07
Donald Sloan -- started 36 games in 07-08 (played 19 mpg off the bench in 06-07)
Derrick Roland -- 19 mpg off bench in 07-08
Brian Davis -- started 15 games in 07-08
DeAndre Jordan -- started 21 games in 07-08
So, it appears he recruited two starters on the 2006-07 team and three/four on last year's team. Not bad, considering he was there for two seasons.
http://blogs.jsonline.com/muhoops/archive/2007/07/06/Buzz-Williams-interview.aspx
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/teams/tan/stats?year=2007
Huh. So, according to that, it seems Buzz Williams is really the reason behind Gillispie's success at A&M.
I wonder why A&M didn't hire him back from UNO when Gillispie left for Kentucky.
-
Huh. So, according to that, it seems Buzz Williams is really the reason behind Gillispie's success at A&M.
Yes.
That's exactly what I said. ::)