Is Danny Manning a serious candidate?

[Lennys Tap]

The players quit on him his last year, they hated his authoritarian style.  It allowed a guy named McGuire to become head coach.

LIMITED success at MU....classic.   Half of the man's NCAA appearances came at MU and a national coach of the year.  Worse spot than Dukiet....classic.  Dukiet had one winning year in three seasons, Hickey 5 in 6 years....classic.

Said he LEFT Marquette in worse shape than Dukiet, not that his record was worse than Dukiet's at MU.

Facts: he was 5-21 his final year at Marquette and left the program in the biggest mess in our history. Even Al couldn't do anything with the garbage Hickey left behind. He was 8-18 in his 1st year. Dukiet was 13-15 in his last year, KO was 15-14 with Dukiet's players his first year. So 13-39 (worst single season and worst 2 year stretch in MU history vs 28-29.

[Galway Eagle]

Nagle got nothing out of those guys compared to Hickey.  And he kept putting out winning seasons.  I said Buzz did a great job and should win coach of the year early in his career...Buzz also took over a ncaa team with all seniors.  Hickey took over a team that that didn't have a winning season in three years, and was barely over .500 in that winning season.  Your Buzz comparisons and what I said are off base and incorrect.  Hickey didn't take over a team that was already in the NCAA tournament like Buzz did.  I thought Buzz's second year was an amazing coaching job and said it often.  I don't know why this is so hard for you to grasp the differences in the two situations. They are not at all alike.

The NIT by this time was no longer as important, it definitely was in the early days of the NCAA tournament.  Look at the ranked teams that went to the ncaa tournament in the 1960's vs the NIT to prove that out.

Wojo's third year was a success.  MU and USC were tied with 10 minutes left in the game and a two possession game if I recall with under 7 ( going off memory ), and then they got blown....oh by the way to a team that went to the Final Four.

You said as such re buzz during his second year but that has nothing to do with the first year. However, you make a valid point about the type of team that was inherited, Buzz did inherit a consistent NCAA team vs Hickey inheriting a .500 team with Kojis. What I don't understand is why for Nagle you make a point to qualify your statement saying "barely over .500" whereas for Hickey it's a "winning season" despite both being one over .500. This goes back to my point about you spinning a narrative.

I am not saying it was as important but it was at least on par or maybe barely below. Because conferences could only send 1 team to the NCAAs and the independents got only a few bids leaving plenty of NIT appearances from good to great teams.

Nagles winning percentage was .55 at MU Hickey's was .568 not like he was head and shoulders above Nagle like you are spinning him to be.

Me and you have very different versions of successful season I suppose. I don't know why you bring up the fact that the USC team went to the final four though when you're so adamant the tournament is a crapshoot. It doesn't really add anything unless I am misunderstanding your point.

[Norm]

I remember games in the forties.I remember non stars getting yanked if their guy scored.  I remember him losing his crap as Providence rolled MU in the tournament.  I remember him basically saying MU should be content to be a mid major.

If you could handle the baggage and temper, having him as an assistant in charge of the defense wouldn't be so bad.   A head coach?  No.

I also remember Deane's 12-7 record against ranked teams, with classic games against Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis and St. Louis, his coaching the only MU team to win a conference tournament, a run to the NIT championship game, two NCAAs, and yes, including the Austin Croshere blitzkrieg (including the made half court shot) against Providence in the NCAA.

He sure wasn't a perfect guy off the court by any stretch, but neither were O'Neill or Crean.

I have also wondered if Deane would make a good bench coach to help with the x's and o's.

[Cheeks]

You said as such re buzz during his second year but that has nothing to do with the first year. However, you make a valid point about the type of team that was inherited, Buzz did inherit a consistent NCAA team vs Hickey inheriting a .500 team with Kojis. What I don't understand is why for Nagle you make a point to qualify your statement saying "barely over .500" whereas for Hickey it's a "winning season" despite both being one over .500. This goes back to my point about you spinning a narrative.

I am not saying it was as important but it was at least on par or maybe barely below. Because conferences could only send 1 team to the NCAAs and the independents got only a few bids leaving plenty of NIT appearances from good to great teams.

Nagles winning percentage was .55 at MU Hickey's was .568 not like he was head and shoulders above Nagle like you are spinning him to be.

Me and you have very different versions of successful season I suppose. I don't know why you bring up the fact that the USC team went to the final four though when you're so adamant the tournament is a crapshoot. It doesn't really add anything unless I am misunderstanding your point.

Where did I make that distinction?  Nagle's last two years he was 5 games under .500, and those guys were the ones that carried over to Hickey...right?  Freshmen couldn't play back then.  Yes, I pointed out that the third year prior he was barely over .500, but I didn't call Hickey's second year when he was barely over .500 anything to write home about....so what distinction are you referencing?  How is that spinning a narrative, the situations between Buzz and Hickey much different. The differences between Nagle and Hickey were different. 

Yes or no, was Hickey's winning % better than Nagle's?  As you stated, it was.  Furthermore, the last season when the team basically mutinied on him (according to the articles and comments by former players), his winning percentage was MUCH higher.  Two NCAAs (Hickey) better than one NCAA (Nagle)...I'll give Nagle huge credit for winning two games, Hickey only won one.    NIT Final Four (Hickey) better than NIT first round loss (Nagle). In both situations, it's a crapshoot anyway. 

Yes, I guess we have differing view of success. I don't know how a team that earns an at large berth to the NCAA tournament when only 24 schools overall are invited is considered a NON-successful team, unless they were expected to go deep. Considering the previous year they were 13-12 with no post season bids, not sure I can state that expectations were high, but I am merely speculating. 

[Cheeks]

Burning time outs 45 seconds into games wasn't a brilliant coaching tactic?

I remember a few times it was.  He got his guys turned around very quickly, usually Richard Shaw.  Other times is backfired.

[Cheeks]

Incorrect. The primary difference is that while Bob Dukiet played the Lounge Lizard score Mike Deane was the Lounge Lizard. Deane was an inveterate philanderer who established his bona fides after the lights went out in the gym.

I met Paula several times and often wondered the how and why of her marriage. Dino was an equal opportunity womanizer who liked them thick and thin, young and old, short and tall, flat and stacked, dumb and smart, black and white, blonde and brunette.

Deane gets a lot of undeserved praise for being a "great game coach."

Fact is, the only things Mike Deane excelled at was drinking, panty sniffng, and ass biting.

I think you are shortchanging BD's exploits.....

[Cheeks]

The "three different teams" thing is a fluke. A sub-.500 Lamar team (made up of the previous coach's players) got hot at the right time and won their conference tourney. That's hardly a testament to Deane's body of work there. He went 40-46 over his next three seasons and then 20 games under .500 at Wagner.
One would think a "great bench coach" would have had more success at those lower levels where you get four-years to develop players and fit them into your system. He didn't.
He was a bad recruiter and mediocre coach.

Probably, but he's in the record books for doing so. The 430+ wins didn't happen by accident, either.  More than a mediocre coach, definitely not a good recruiter and he should have hired someone who was.

[rocky_warrior]

You know a thread is going well when there's 4 straight replies by chicos.

p.s. Chicos, it's ok to let things go.  One of your weaknesses in life is not knowing when people have heard enough from you.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Thoughts on Ralph Risch?  Neither an assistant nor former head coach.  73% winning percentage.  I'll await your 409 responses. Heard he liked the Tavern League broads too. 

[Jon]

I think you are shortchanging BD's exploits.....

A child in the shadow of a giant.

Actually, I am not that familiar with BD as I was living overseas and his tenure was in those dark years before Al Gore invented the Internet

[Cheeks]

You know a thread is going well when there's 4 straight replies by chicos.

p.s. Chicos, it's ok to let things go.  One of your weaknesses in life is not knowing when people have heard enough from you.

Thanks

[Cheeks]

You know a thread is going well when there's 4 straight replies by chicos.

p.s. Chicos, it's ok to let things go.  One of your weaknesses in life is not knowing when people have heard enough from you.

nm