Athletic Director: 2 months later

[TallTitan34]

Many dislike the Golden Eagle.  Well, Craig is known to take out mascots.....

[Pakuni]

Bottom line, Marquette should have a positive face to the outside world. Not just people who view us neutrally, but if nothing else, potential recruits. Say a recruit is considering Marquette and Random University. Right after we hire Broeker, the coach from Random U is sitting in the recruit's living room, telling mom "You heard about the sexual assault with the basketball team at Marquette, right? Did you know that right after that happened, they promoted the director of the basketball program to director of all athletics?" How does that go over? Not very well, I'm guessing.

Really? Really?
I guess that would never happen. I also would guess that parents would just as easily be offended by a coach who tries those kinds of recruiting tactics.
And if that's truly your position, why keep Buzz Williams?
After all ... "You heard about the sexual assault with the basketball team at Marquette, right? Did you know that right after that happened, they gave the head basketball coach a huge raise and contract extension?"
How does that go over?
And don't you think parents and recruits are going to be far more concerned over such issues with the head coach than some administrator?
All the arguments you make here could just as readily - and probably more convincingly - be used against Buzz Williams.
Yet I don't recall you leading the charge for Buzz's ouster ... you know, for the sake of Marquette's image.

I'm usually a big admirer of your posts, but this one is nonsense.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I still maintain my campaign for Pintens! 

You could hire a guy from both within and outside the program with Pintens!

You looking to extend your Palermo's Pizza giveaway scam a few more seasons?   

[brewcity77]

Really? Really?
I guess that would never happen. I also would guess that parents would just as easily be offended by a coach who tries those kinds of recruiting tactics.
And if that's truly your position, why keep Buzz Williams?
After all ... "You heard about the sexual assault with the basketball team at Marquette, right? Did you know that right after that happened, they gave the head basketball coach a huge raise and contract extension?"
How does that go over?
And don't you think parents and recruits are going to be far more concerned over such issues with the head coach than some administrator?
All the arguments you make here could just as readily - and probably more convincingly - be used against Buzz Williams.
Yet I don't recall you leading the charge for Buzz's ouster ... you know, for the sake of Marquette's image.

I'm usually a big admirer of your posts, but this one is nonsense.

I have no doubt that there are coaches and programs that will and do use negative recruiting tactics. Saying that doesn't happen is like saying there aren't douchebags in college basketball. And I'm not championing Buzz to be removed any more than I wanted Cottingham to go or any more than I think Broeker couldn't do the job.

All I'm saying is that a serious, nationwide search for a new AD should occur because we have an image to clean up. Frankly, I think this whole thing is probably overblown. But the truth is that the situation is out there. Cottingham is now gone. We are in a position to make a clean-up statement with our hire. Had Buzz stepped down, I'd be saying adamantly that we shouldn't just rubber-stamp Benford to replace him.

We didn't have to get rid of anyone, but now that we have, we should treat replacing that person as serious business, not just looking at the list and saying "who's next in line?"

[TallTitan34]

You looking to extend your Palermo's Pizza giveaway scam a few more seasons?   

I have never won a Palermo's Pizza in the Pintens era!  Post-Pintens yes. 

[Pakuni]

I have no doubt that there are coaches and programs that will and do use negative recruiting tactics. Saying that doesn't happen is like saying there aren't douchebags in college basketball. And I'm not championing Buzz to be removed any more than I wanted Cottingham to go or any more than I think Broeker couldn't do the job.

My point is not that there won't be negative recruiting, and perhaps not negative recruiting about the sex assault accusations, but that negative recruiting will be directed toward the head coach, not some largely unknown administrator. After all, the same negative things one could day about Broeker could just as easily, and probably more effectively, be used against Buzz. What makes you think a negative recruiter would say such things about the AD, but give the head coach a pass?
And it seems inconsistent of you to raise these issues as a reason not to promote Broeker while offering no objection to the extension and raise for Buzz.

As you say, this whole thing is probably overblown. My guess is that 12-18 months from now, nobody even talks or thinks about it outside those who really dislike MU or those here who need something to complain about.
On the other hand, the selection of MU's next athletic director could have implications for many, many years, especially amid another round of conference reshuffling.
In that situation, I want the best, most capable person. If that's not Broeker, then by all means go get someone else. But if it is Broeker, it would be remarkably shortsighted to eliminate him from consideration because you believe it will create a temporary (and, IMO, insignificant) PR benefit. Believe me, any goodwill you think going outside the organization might create vanishes the instant MU is left on the outside looking when the dust settles on conference realignment.
Just hire the best person.

[brewcity77]

I'm not saying eliminate him at all. Personally, I'd be fine with having Cottingham still in charge. I wasn't in favor of anyone being fired or dismissed.

But we have the situation we have. We have to hire a new AD.

I just want us to do a thorough search and interview more than one in-house candidate. Bring in guys from other programs, bring in Craig Pintens (gotta keep TT happy), and by all means, let Broeker interview for the job. If he's the best candidate, hire him. If he isn't, don't. But at least conduct a broad search. The rubber-stamp isn't the way to go in this case.

[Canadian Dimes]

My point is not that there won't be negative recruiting, and perhaps not negative recruiting about the sex assault accusations, but that negative recruiting will be directed toward the head coach, not some largely unknown administrator. After all, the same negative things one could day about Broeker could just as easily, and probably more effectively, be used against Buzz. What makes you think a negative recruiter would say such things about the AD, but give the head coach a pass?
And it seems inconsistent of you to raise these issues as a reason not to promote Broeker while offering no objection to the extension and raise for Buzz.

As you say, this whole thing is probably overblown. My guess is that 12-18 months from now, nobody even talks or thinks about it outside those who really dislike MU or those here who need something to complain about.
On the other hand, the selection of MU's next athletic director could have implications for many, many years, especially amid another round of conference reshuffling.
In that situation, I want the best, most capable person. If that's not Broeker, then by all means go get someone else. But if it is Broeker, it would be remarkably shortsighted to eliminate him from consideration because you believe it will create a temporary (and, IMO, insignificant) PR benefit. Believe me, any goodwill you think going outside the organization might create vanishes the instant MU is left on the outside looking when the dust settles on conference realignment.
Just hire the best person.

Oh no Pakuni you are dead wrong.  Everything to do with MU is tainted...in fact Mu is still a laughing stock and a topic of converstaion everywhere I go. 

In fact, I was at a cocktail party just the other day in Indiana where someone said "Make no mistake, unless MU proves to me through an extensive external search that they are remorseful for all of those awful allegations I read on message boards, blogs and the Urinal Sentinal...unless they do ....Well I just dont know what I will do...but they are bad, I swear they are bad."  Then he went on to mutter something about altar boys.

Then and only then did I know Brewcity was right and MU was rotten to the core.  And we did need that White Knight, not only to fix everything that was clearly wrong at MU but also to let all out there know that Mu's values were not just a sham and that we truly were committed to righteousness.     

Good Grief

[brewcity77]

Oh no Pakuni you are dead wrong.  Everything to do with MU is tainted...in fact Mu is still a laughing stock and a topic of converstaion everywhere I go. 

In fact, I was at a cocktail party just the other day in Indiana where someone said "Make no mistake, unless MU proves to me through an extensive external search that they are remorseful for all of those awful allegations I read on message boards, blogs and the Urinal Sentinal...unless they do ....Well I just dont know what I will do...but they are bad, I swear they are bad."  Then he went on to mutter something about altar boys.

Then and only then did I know Brewcity was right and MU was rotten to the core.  And we did need that White Knight, not only to fix everything that was clearly wrong at MU but also to let all out there know that Mu's values were not just a sham and that we truly were committed to righteousness.     

Good Grief

You really do live in your own little world, don't you? Did you read anything I wrote, or just use one of these?

[Skatastrophy]

You really do live in your own little world, don't you? Did you read anything I wrote, or just use one of these?

It's a million dollar idea!