Brian Curtis from CSTV thinks MU panicked

[WarriorHal]

Todd R at the JS has reported in his blog that MU went after Bennett, Miller, Grant, McKillop and Hewitt--five experienced head coaches. All said no. So weren't the choices left either a small program coach (Dukiet, Deanne) or an assistant with big program experience (O'Neil, Crean)? We went with the in-house guy, which we did with Raymonds and Majerus. But with only 9 months on the job, I would say this is a different situation and other factors were at work i.e familiarity and popularity with existing players and most of the recruiting class. Raymonds and Majerus also knew the players and recruits of course, but they were "next in line," which wasn't the case with Buzz.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Todd R at the JS has reported in his blog that MU went after Bennett, Miller, Grant, McKillop and Hewitt--five experienced head coaches. All said no. So weren't the choices left either a small program coach (Dukiet, Deanne) or an assistant with big program experience (O'Neil, Crean)? We went with the in-house guy, which we did with Raymonds and Majerus. But with only 9 months on the job, I would say this is a different situation and other factors were at work i.e familiarity and popularity with existing players and most of the recruiting class.

Yes, I'm aware of that report....of course that same reporter said Mbakwe was transferring already and that has yet to pass (it could, but hasn't yet)....I guess I think the list of good, experienced coaches goes beyond 5, but that's just me.  Buzz was always going to be there...day 3, day 5, day 7, day 9.  I would have gone beyond day 3, MU chose not to.

Doesn't matter, Buzz is our guy.  Best of luck, hope like hell he's the man.

[Pakuni]

As to your question, it's impossible to answer Pakuni.  It all depends on who you ultimately get, does it not?  If Providence ends up with say a Brownwell or Larry Brown, then they did a terrific job and the rejections are well worth it.  If they end up with Cobb or someone like that, then the rejections weren't worth it.  You can't just assign a number because it's all relative to you actually hire.   I remember UCLA was rejected by 5 candidates in the early 1990's, they finally got their 6th choice.  He won them a national title a few years later.  Just as I remember a 1977 MU club coming off a national title that decided to go internal...and then a few years later...went internal again.  And we spent the next two decades recovering after a slow slide which led to a more rapid slide to an absolute freefall after Majerus left.

This is where you lose me.
What makes you so certain Brownell is a better hire than Buzz? Brownell just as easily could be Tim Welsh, Part Deux ... a guy with some mid-major success who couldn't cut it at the next level. The major program landscape is littered with the corpses of guys like Brad Brownell, yet you're saying hiring him =  "terrific job"?
You're judging who is and is not the better hire entirely on head-coaching experience, not results. Shouldn't you at least wait until we see who succeeds and who does not before declaring the better hire? Nine years ago, many, many, many fans on the other board were certain Iowa got the better hire than Marquette because they got Steve Alford. After all, he had head-coaching experience and mid-major success. How'd that turn out?

As for the 1977 club going internal ...

1. Nobody, internal or external, was going to duplicate Al's success at Marquette. MU caught lightning in a bottle there.

2. Had Marquette shown a little more patience with Majerus, this freefall you speak of probably never would have happened.

3. The absolute freefall after Majerus left wasn't because Hank Raymond was hired nine years earlier or Majerus was chosen to replace him. It's because the administration fell in love with an young up-and-comer with solid credentials as a head coach at a smaller program. And that's exactly the kind of guy you're pining for today. To be sure, MU had fallen from its lofty perch post-Al, but they were still a solid borderline NCAA tournament program in the early and mid 80s (before the tourney was expanded to 64), but Bob Dukiet -- the experienced head coach with small-school success -- made it a joke.

[Murffieus]

We won't be .500 overall with 4 starters back, but we could be .500 in the BE. IMO, it's incumbant upon BUZZ to get assistant's who know the x & o fundamentals.

I was at the banquet, and I am very impressed with him in that he's very convincing and he seems to say the right things----this is his gift/strong point-----but he's not selling Fuller brushes----he's the coach of a team.

[Marquette84]

I guess I think the list of good, experienced coaches goes beyond 5, but that's just me.  Buzz was always going to be there...day 3, day 5, day 7, day 9.  I would have gone beyond day 3, MU chose not to.

I think one fallacy in your thinking is that MU didn't start to look at the coaches out there until Crean left.  Look, within 20 minutes of Crean leaving there was a list of 20 or 30 coaches who might have been candidates--and Buzz was one of them.  It was pretty obvious that there were only two or three (Miller, Few, Bennett) that were head and shoulders above the rest.  It doesn't take 9 days to sort that out.

And apparetly, within a day or two MU went after those two or three.  They said no.

Everyone else had some serious flaw.  Once again it doesn't take 10 days to figure out what eveyone's flaw was.

--Brownell, Ford, Lowry, etc. smacked of Deane and Dukiet.  Never coached at a high-major program.  Uncertain whether they will succeed at the next level, and the track record of such coaches moving up and succeeding is 50/50 at best. 

--Majerus, Braun, etc., led to questions of whether their hearts were still into coaching.  It's been years since they had truly successful teams.

--O'Neill led to questions on whether he'd be too caustic for recruits, players, alums.  He might be a good coach and recruiter.  And he might be the guy that would run every decent player off the team.

--Weber led to questions on whether he could recruit effectively. 

--Buzz had only one year of HC experience and only 9 months at MU.


3 days, 6 days, 9 days, 2 months--nothing would change with further evaluation.  You can't evaluate you way to the conclusion that a "can't miss" prospect like Bob Dukeit would miss so badly.

After 10 more days, Brad Brownell would still make you wonder if he's the 2nd coming of Bob Dukiet.  Interviews, evaluations, recommendations--nothing would change that fact.  Within 20 minutes you know that he's done well at small time programs.  YOu'll never know if he'll do well in the BE until he's there.

AFter 10 more days, Chris Lowrey's record would be exactly the same--declining as his predecessor's recruits work their way out of the system.  He is what he is.

After 10 more days, Bob McKillop's age wouldn't be any younger--he's still be a 58 year old with no ties to the Midwest.

The attitude seems to be that MU should have at least talked to some of these other guys.  Why?  Can an interview change any of the fundamental objections?  No! 

[ChicosBailBonds]

As to your question, it's impossible to answer Pakuni.  It all depends on who you ultimately get, does it not?  If Providence ends up with say a Brownwell or Larry Brown, then they did a terrific job and the rejections are well worth it.  If they end up with Cobb or someone like that, then the rejections weren't worth it.  You can't just assign a number because it's all relative to you actually hire.   I remember UCLA was rejected by 5 candidates in the early 1990's, they finally got their 6th choice.  He won them a national title a few years later.  Just as I remember a 1977 MU club coming off a national title that decided to go internal...and then a few years later...went internal again.  And we spent the next two decades recovering after a slow slide which led to a more rapid slide to an absolute freefall after Majerus left.

This is where you lose me.
What makes you so certain Brownell is a better hire than Buzz? Brownell just as easily could be Tim Welsh, Part Deux ... a guy with some mid-major success who couldn't cut it at the next level. The major program landscape is littered with the corpses of guys like Brad Brownell, yet you're saying hiring him =  "terrific job"?
You're judging who is and is not the better hire entirely on head-coaching experience, not results. Shouldn't you at least wait until we see who succeeds and who does not before declaring the better hire? Nine years ago, many, many, many fans on the other board were certain Iowa got the better hire than Marquette because they got Steve Alford. After all, he had head-coaching experience and mid-major success. How'd that turn out?

As for the 1977 club going internal ...

1. Nobody, internal or external, was going to duplicate Al's success at Marquette. MU caught lightning in a bottle there.

2. Had Marquette shown a little more patience with Majerus, this freefall you speak of probably never would have happened.

3. The absolute freefall after Majerus left wasn't because Hank Raymond was hired nine years earlier or Majerus was chosen to replace him. It's because the administration fell in love with an young up-and-comer with solid credentials as a head coach at a smaller program. And that's exactly the kind of guy you're pining for today. To be sure, MU had fallen from its lofty perch post-Al, but they were still a solid borderline NCAA tournament program in the early and mid 80s (before the tourney was expanded to 64), but Bob Dukiet -- the experienced head coach with small-school success -- made it a joke.

Actually MU first fell in love with Arkansas-Little Rock's coach and then they fell in love with Dukiet, after they fell in love with themselves and had tremendous opportunities in 1977 and 1983 to outside the family, but they didn't.  I don't blame them, that's hindsight because back in those days that was often the case.

Now, do I know if Brownwell or Ford or any other would be a better hire.  Nope, impossible to know.  The only thing we can compare is their records as head coaches, and in that case both Brownwell and Ford fare much better than Buzz.  However, Buzz's position at UNO was an odd one.  What worries me more is a lot of the scuttlebutt about Buzz from UNO fans, long before he ever left coaching there.  Brownwell, as an example, is nearly universally lauded as a terrific x's and o's coach.

But again, I'm not against Buzz.  I know I can't convince you of that, but I'm not.  I look at it almost like a draft pick.  There may be a player I'd really like on my team, but that doesn't mean I pick him with the first round pick because he may only be valued at a 5th round.  I'd be thrilled with him on my team in the 5th, but if they took him in the 2nd I wonder what other player they could have gotten instead.

That's essentially my point.  Buzz was going to be here for days, we had plenty of time to look at a Ford, Brownwell, Altman, Les, Weber, etc.

By the way, you do know who applied for the MU job in 1977 correct?  Lightning in a bottle was there to be had again.

[ChicosBailBonds]

The difference 84, in my opinion, is that Brownwell, Ford's, etc are running successful programs right now.  Buzz wasn't and didn't when he had the chance (though under difficult circumstances).

You're absolutely right that it's impossible to know if Brownwell, Ford, Altman, Weber, etc would do better, but at least we know at the mid major level he has done well and was supposedly Indiana's choice after Crean.  Let's not forget that being a coach is not just about X's and O's, not just about recruiting, but also about organization and running that organization.

I like a guy, personally, that has done it for awhile and done it successfully rather than learning on the job.  I'd rather have that experience, I think it's worth something.

Just my two cents.


PS  Weber's recruiting classes for 2009 and 2010 are very very good

[only a warrior]

2. Had Marquette shown a little more patience with Majerus, this freefall you speak of probably never would have happened.

Pakuni - you've got to be kidding me.  As someone who was there for Hank's last year and all of Rick's, it was time to pull the plug on him.  He got progressively worse, brought in marginal talent and ultimately was sub-500.  He needed that fresh start at Ball State as much as we needed him out of here.  Worked out well for both parties.

[Norm]

Chicos,

Who are you referring to that applied after 77 that could have caught lightening in a bottle?

[mugrack]

In the end Majerus sucked as a coach at MU, I agree with you only an eagle... warrior.  Also his name is Hank RaymondS, and as AL McGuire said he didn't believe Marquette would ever win another national championship, but lets keep dreaming.

[Marquette84]

The difference 84, in my opinion, is that Brownwell, Ford's, etc are running successful programs right now. 

So were Dukeit and Deane.

The question is "So what?"

So what if Brownell is successful at Wright State?  There is plenty of evidence that running a low-level program successfully is not an accurate predictor of success when moving to a major program.  In fact, our own recent experience has been exactly opposite--a mid-major coach is UNsuccessful.  Therefore, citing Brownell's or Ford's success is irrelevant. 

You suggested that MU should have determined their search criteria before beginning a search.  It seems like MU did exactly that--they decided that a criteria was "no mid- or low-major coaches".