Merry Christmas ...But somethings get old...

[ChicosBailBonds]

Well Hayward, I know Cords wasn't lying. 

And yes, we had a great basketball tradition before Crean, but of course those old media guides you speak of will also show 3 NCAA wins in 20 years prior to Crean.  That would be equivalent of a Dayton or a UWGB or schools of that ilk for that type of time period.

Part of the problem was that so many alums kept saying how great the tradition was and forgot that with each year, the tradition got more and more stale, and more and more distant.

Do I think Buzz is a nicer guy?  A better person (how does one judge this?)  Perhaps.  I do know a guy named Tom Crean brought Buzz to Marquette.  In fact, the man quit a head coaching gig to come work for Crean.  I do know Tom Crean suggested they hire Buzz to replace him.  I do know both happened.

So either you're saying that Buzz can't evaulate people (after all he quit a head job to work for Crean), or you have to actually take a deep swallow and admit that maybe Crean was a good coach, good enough to quit a head coaching gig over to come work for the guy.  I know that will be difficult for you to do, but I don't see how you can avoid it.

MU may be better off with Buzz.....and of course the brutal irony for you is that it wouldn't have happened without Tom Crean. 

[Marquette84]

My only issue ever with Wade is how it relates back to Cream and his own self cannoniztion of how he was found in the weeds of high school basketball and noone accress the country country recognize his hidden talents except for the one top crean.  That is total bogus as has been said he was ineligbile to attend BCS schools.  therefore his options were prep school, Juco, or non BCS schools that were in conferences that allowed non-qualifiers.  Mu was not the only school that recognized his talent Mu was one of the only schools that could offer the kid.   

First, most BCS schools would have shown more interest in Wade had he been better at the time he signed with MU.  He didn't play on his school's varisty team his Sophomore year, and was good but not great his junior year.

Had he been a bonafide top 25 player by his junior year, a BCS program interested in Wade would have told him not to sign in the fall--that he would have a scholie if he could get a qualifying score by the spring signing period.  Baring that, Wade would have had the option to go to a prep school biding his time if the thought there was a UNC or UK or KU offer in the wings. 

Meanwhile, you overstate MU's attractiveness in the 1999-2000 timeframe.  We were coming off a 10th place finish in CUSA, and had been surpassed by directional schools like UAB and UNCC.  Hell, DePaul and Illinois State (Wade's other two offers) could have been considered more attractive than MU at the time. At the time of Wade's recruitment, ISU was coming off back to back NCAA tournament appearances and played most of its games in the midwest.  DePaul finished well ahead of us--tied for 3rd--in CUSA. 

MU was drawing 18600 to big games before Crean came along. 

Hardly.

At the time Crean was hired, MU had played 178 games at the Bradley Center, and a grand total of 5 games attained even 17,500+ attendance--four of them were against Wisconsin.  The fifth (against Cincinnati) had occurred 6 years earlier (Feb 25, 1993).

MU was in Milwaukkee before Crean came along.  Mu was a terrific non football playing option long be fore Crean came along.  Mu was an attractive BE canidiate just like they were an attractive C-USa candidate before Cream came along.  As I said before If the BE shake down occur in the early 90's or late 90's were get invited then too.  Cords can give Cream all the credit he wants.  he would have given Oneil credit in 1994r if we were invited then too.

You are simply delusional:

Early 1990s:
1990:  3rd place MCC no NCAA tournament
1991:  5th place MCC no NCAA tournament
1992:  3rd place GMC no NCAA tournament
1993:  3rd place GMC no NCAA tournament.

There is absolutely no way our early 1990's performance was interesting to the Big East.  No way.


1996:  3rd place CUSA one and done NCAA
1997:  5th place CUSA first round loser NCAA
1998:  7th place CUSA
1999:  tie 10th place CUSA

The late 90's is even worse--it shows a program in steep decline if not complete collapse.  We would have been lucky to get an A10 or MVC bid in the late 1990's. 

You're right about one thing--if the Big East had come calling in 1994, we might have gotten the nod.  Except that Kevin O'Neill was too busy shopping himself around to be bothered about MU's conference alignment. 

What's amazing is that following the biggest games of their respective careers, Kevin O'Neill was looking for a job and taking a jab at MU on the way out telling the world he was bigger than Marquette. 

Meanwhile, Tom Crean leveraged his biggest success to get the Al built and Marquette into the Big East, returning to MU despite being the hottest coaching prospect in the nation.

Yet, for some reason you hold O'Neill in higher regard for putting MU first. 

The significant difference here is some people feel Tom Crean made MArquette.  They are so completely wrong.  Mu was the all time #9 in post season appearances competing in a pretty sold conference in the C-USa playing and on occasion selling out the BC.  Tom Cream was absolutely nobody.  Marquette made Tom Crean.  Did he do a good job as a steward of the MU tradtion and add a chapter while he was here? sure.  But Marqueete made Tom Crean.  He and others forgot that.     

Nobody here feels that Tom Crean made Marquette.  Nobody.  Period.  This is a complete and total fabrication.

Some of us recognized that by 1999 things have changed since 1977.  And some of us recognized that things had changed dramatically for the worse between 1994 and 1999.  MU has no birthright to national prominence. 

Clearly the lack of success--sustained or otherwise--by Hank Raymonds, Rick Majerus, Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane demonstrate that the Marquette mystique alone isn't enough to assure even mediocre performance.  And not even Kevin O'Neill thought he could sustain success--he left the first chance he got.

Yet you act as if winning at MU is a sure thing and the coach brings nothing to the table. 

Tom Cream was absolutely nobody.  Marquette made Tom Crean.  Did he do a good job as a steward of the MU tradtion and add a chapter while he was here? sure.  But Marqueete made Tom Crean.  He and others forgot that.     

Absolutely nobody?  He was the #1 assistant at the best program of the late 90's.  If MU hadn't hired him, somebody would have. 

As far as "he and other forgot" we still don't have a clue what you're talking about.  You have yet to cite a single example of this (if you even have any). 

I don't see Crean's actions and statements relative to MU any different than Coach K at Duke, or Jim Calhoun at UConn or Ben Howland at Pitt or UCLA or Thad Matta at Xavier or Ohio State or Mark Few at Gonzaga or Tom Izzo at Michigan State, or Mike Brey at ND or Bill Self at Kansas or any other successful coach at any other major program.

What has Tom Crean ever said that none of these others have said? 

Crean came in tried to make himself bigger than the program splashed all he could slapped people like GT and other major donors right in the face now he has left and the beat goes on.  actually 1 Ncaa win in the last 5 years aint a whole lot of spalshing. 

How specifcially did Crean try to make himself bigger than program? 

Once again, you DISAPPEAR when it comes to specifics. 

Frankly, I saw both Deane and O'neill as worse offenders in this regards.  O'Neill made no bones about where he thought Marquette was relative to his coaching ability and clearly said that he had taken it as far as he could, seeking bigger and better opportunities. 

Deane put proximity to his wife and/or parents above loyalty to Marquette.  To cover for his inability to bring in an NCAA caliber team he tried to pass off statements that said the NIT was the right spot for us.  And he certainly wasn't putting MU above himself during the 1997 NCAA tournament when he gave us a black eye for making Bobby Knight look reserved. 

And if there is one coach who constantly puts himself above his program, its Rick Majerus--a guy who works for a Catholic organization, but has no qualms about mouthing off in favor of abortion. Here's a tangible example of a coach putting his views ahead of his employer. 

[MR.HAYWARD]

Boy MU84,

In your mind the world MU basketball world really did start in 199 with the hiring of Tammy Naismith.  otherwise you may have remebered that in 1993 we actually played in the NCAA tournament, Indianapolis to be excat I was there.  Also in 1994 we were in the NCaa's again St. Petersburg, we upset Pitino's Kentucky Wildcats. 

Mu for certain would have been invited then and in 199 before the Tan one ever stepped foot on campus.


Attendence... I think it is absolutely wrong to compare attendence figures of Crean versus other "bradley center" coaches while Mu is in the Big East.  there is no doubt the draw of a georgetown or a Uconn or going to jack up the number of fans regardless of what the coach or team are performing.  however, that should not create a problem for you as Crean was at Mu 6 years before Mu joined the BE.  Longer than Deane or Oneill.

Therefore...only 5 of the 10 largest crowds ever to grace the Bradley center before 2005-2006 (1st Be year) came to see a Crean team.  How could this be?  According to you and others MU was never even attarcting crowds.  Sorry, in fact Mu avergaed top 25 in attendence records for years even dating back before the Bradley.  Mu having large crowds is a longtime tradition and part of the attraction that the BE had.  Furthermore those 5 teams all had Dwade.

In actual fact the two lowest attendence years for Mu in terms of average attendence came during the Crean years.  the only year Mu ever averaged under 10,000 came under the Great one.  Furthermoire, 6 times Mu has avergaed under 12,000 3 of those years under Crean.  3 out of 6 of his years.  While only 3 times did Mu avergae under 12,000 in the 11 years pervious to that that the Bradley was open. (1 dukiet year and 5 each for deane and oneil)

Wow, Crean was all that but actaul had half of the worst attendence years despite only being there 1/3 rd of the time.  sainthood?


Those are some concrete numbers for you.  You probably want to say the Crean team that averaged a little over 9000 fannies in the seat was bad.  You are right he was a poor coach except for the two years that he had Dwadeand would have lost his job about 2004 or 2005 if it were not for him.  neverthelsss, 9000  a agme.  Kevin oneill managed to get almost 14000 fannies in the seats in 1991 and that team was brutal.  As a matter of fact the 5 kevin oneil years had a alrger per year average every single year than any Crean team sans the two Dwade seasons.  Crean was packing in 11-12K a year while Oneil was packing in 13-14K a year.  But then Crean wants to go and say he raised attendence at MU 70% and put that in his bio and tout it to the IU people on his introductory speech?! 

Mike deane averaged more fans per game in his last season with a poor team than Crean did in 4 of the 5 years before the Big East, sans the two Dwade years.  His 6th year at the helm he had less fans that Deane had in his last when MU was bad!!

get over yourself with these Crean lies and twisted statistitics.  Yes Mu's attendance has gone up since we joined the BE.  But to use that as a reason we got into the BE is a joke.  Attendence under Crean was actually not very good sans 2003and 2003.

[RedWebster]

Mr. Hayward --
You also left out the obvious fact that attendance numbers were clearly inflated by somebody (?) whenever Marquette had a nationally televised game. I'm quite certain neither Deane nor O'Neill bothered to fabricate "record" attendance.

This stuff will all start showing up soon in Bloomington and the fans down there won't swallow it like the fans in Milwaukee.

[MR.HAYWARD]

you are absolutely correct.  One can be assure d that in 1993 when 18,500 people attended the MU/cincy game including myself that is how many people were there.  Now I was not even going to go there on that argument but you and I know that it is almost impossible to continue to break the attendence record every single time Mu had a primetime nationally televised game.  As a matter of fact it got to the point of being a joke.  I was at a few of those later "records" where row upon row were completely empty yet somehow we continued to break the records of games where there was not a seat in the house.  And i am inluding the sky boxes and club cambria.  we had a few records when stacks of rows in the ipper decks were completely personless lyet we were 'over capacity??!!   well when you increase attendance by 70% ....   Ever notice snake oil salesmen  get out of town just about when they realize their gig is up?

[Marquette84]

In your mind the world MU basketball world really did start in 199 with the hiring of Tammy Naismith.  otherwise you may have remebered that in 1993 we actually played in the NCAA tournament, Indianapolis to be excat I was there.  Also in 1994 we were in the NCaa's again St. Petersburg, we upset Pitino's Kentucky Wildcats. 

Mu for certain would have been invited then and in 199 before the Tan one ever stepped foot on campus.

Nobody is saying that Crean is the greatest coach ever.  But he's without a doubt better than anyone MU's has had except McGuire--and I put him ahead of O'Neill, because O'Neill cut and ran as soon as he had the chance.

And if you at all honest, you'd have noted that I admitted that 94 we may well have received a bid to the Big East had O'Neill demonstrated he thought MU had a big-time future.  But why would the Big East show faith in MU's future if the head coach wouldn't?

As I said, its confusing why you hold O'Neill in high esteem since he actually did cut out and slammed MU in the process as soon as he won his first big game--that Kentucky game you cite.

Attendence... I think it is absolutely wrong to compare attendence figures of Crean versus other "bradley center" coaches while Mu is in the Big East.  there is no doubt the draw of a georgetown or a Uconn or going to jack up the number of fans regardless of what the coach or team are performing. 

You had no problem comparing attendance when you thought that MU regularly had large crowds.  When facts show that only 5 games had even 17,500 (no less your claimed 18,600) you now say they aren't comparable?

Therefore...only 5 of the 10 largest crowds ever to grace the Bradley center before 2005-2006 (1st Be year) came to see a Crean team.  How could this be?  According to you and others MU was never even attarcting crowds. 

There you go with your misrepresentations. Nobody said MU didn't attract crowds.  I'm disputing your exaggeration about how many big game crowds under Deane and O'neill.

In Crean's Last year we avergaed 16,239.  That's about 3500 more per game than the 12,738 average for all years prior to his arrival. 

Sorry, in fact Mu avergaed top 25 in attendence records for years even dating back before the Bradley.  Mu having large crowds is a longtime tradition and part of the attraction that the BE had. 

Yes.  And Crean helped MU move higher on the list over the last several years.

MU had good crowds, now we have great crowds.

In actual fact the two lowest attendence years for Mu in terms of average attendence came during the Crean years.  the only year Mu ever averaged under 10,000 came under the Great one. 

Then again, can you blame people for not wanting to come see Kruti Hester to see if MU could defend their 10th place CUSA finish?

Not said was that the four highest attendance years came during the Crean years.

You probably want to say the Crean team that averaged a little over 9000 fannies in the seat was bad. 

Of course it was a bad team!  Do you think that was a quality team?  A team that just finished 10th place in C-USA, and the only hope of improvement was riding on the addition of Krunti Hester to replace Mike Bargen?

Yes the team was bad.  And no, it wasn't Crean's fault.  Those seem like pretty obvious facts to me.   

Here are more obvious facts: 

• Al McGuire wasn't a lousy coach because his first team went 8-18.
  Kevin O'Neill should not be judged solely on the 26-32 record from his first couple of seasons.
  

he was a poor coach except for the two years that he had Dwadeand would have lost his job about 2004 or 2005 if it were not for him. 

Had Bob Dukeit, Rick Majerus or Mike Deane recruited a guy like Dwyane Wade, they wouldn't have lost their jobs either.

And if Al McGuire had not recruited George Thompson or Dean Meminger. he probably wouldn't have lasted more than five years either.

neverthelsss, 9000  a agme.  Kevin oneill managed to get almost 14000 fannies in the seats in 1991 and that team was brutal. 

9971 is a bit closer to 10,000 than to 9,000. 

13,433 is not "almost 14,000." 

And let's have some intellectual honesty--the 9971 that Crean drew his first year was more a reflection of the prior year's 10th place CUSA finish than anything that Crean did. 

As a matter of fact the 5 kevin oneil years had a alrger per year average every single year than any Crean team sans the two Dwade seasons.  Crean was packing in 11-12K a year while Oneil was packing in 13-14K a year. 

Hardly.

First, let's end your charade of crediting wade for the only good attendance years for Crean. We had nearly the same attendance the year after Wade left as his 2003 season.  And Wade's first year (2001-02) is just the 6th largest attendance year for Crean, and 11th best in the Bradley Center.

Let's rank them, season by season:

1.  2008 (Crean):  16239
2.  2003 (Crean):  15553 (wade year)
3.  2007 (Crean):  15345
4.  2004 (Crean):  15291
5.  1993 (O'Neill):  14347
6.  2006 (Crean):  13999
7T. 1993 (O'neill):  13433
7T. 1991 (O'Neill):  13433
9.   1995 (Deane): 13258
10. 1990 (O'neill):  13319
11. 2002 (Crean):  12777 (wade year)
12. 1992 (O'neill):  12613
13. 1997 (Deane):  12247
14. 1999 (Deane):  12145
15. 2005 (Crean):  11965
16. 1996 (Deane):  11936
17. 1998 (Deane):  11508
18. 2001 (Crean):  11360
19. 2000 (Crean):  9971

But then Crean wants to go and say he raised attendence at MU 70% and put that in his bio and tout it to the IU people on his introductory speech?! 

Well he did. 16239 is approximately 70% growth on 9971.

Oh, wait--we're supposed to believe that Crean is more to blame for the 9971 than was the team's 10th place showing in CUSA the year before.

Mike deane averaged more fans per game in his last season with a poor team than Crean did in 4 of the 5 years before the Big East, sans the two Dwade years.  His 6th year at the helm he had less fans that Deane had in his last when MU was bad!!

Another misrepresentation.  The facts don't lie.  I ranked all attendance years--Dean'es 1999 season was 14th overall, and worse than all but 3 of Crean's years.

get over yourself with these Crean lies and twisted statistitics.  Yes Mu's attendance has gone up since we joined the BE.  But to use that as a reason we got into the BE is a joke.  Attendence under Crean was actually not very good sans 2003and 2003.

Again, the facts are what they are.  Crean has 5 of the 6 biggest attendance years in MU history.   But who's expecting you to be honest at this point.  Every stat you cite is wrong, twisted, takein out of context, or manipulated.


One more thing:  It might help you to look at things grapically.  The graph on MU's wiki page shows an 8 year trend of generally declining attendance from 1994 to 2001, followed by a general increasing trend from 2002 through 2007:

If 2008 were on this chart, it would be one more data point to the right, even higher than the peak shown below.



Sometimes it takes a while to reverse a trend.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Mr. Hayward --
You also left out the obvious fact that attendance numbers were clearly inflated by somebody (?) whenever Marquette had a nationally televised game. I'm quite certain neither Deane nor O'Neill bothered to fabricate "record" attendance.

This stuff will all start showing up soon in Bloomington and the fans down there won't swallow it like the fans in Milwaukee.

That is 100% BULLCRAP.  I know exactly how the numbers were counted and they are done by tickets sold / given away.  All one had to do was try to get a ticket during any of those games via Ticket Master to validate this.  I also remained good friends with many upon my departure and can guarantee you those that remained there said none of that was going on.

The numbers at MU have ALWAYS been counted the same way.  Tickets sold / given away is the announced attendance.  If 5000 people didn't attend, then too bad, it was still called as if they were there.


Simply put, Marquette84 succinctly pointed out the flaws in the arguments people are making and yet once again, people ignore the facts with their own agendas.  Why?  Because he didn't drink with people at Turners?  Because he wasn't a "great guy"?  For whatever reason, the notion that MU was God's gift to college basketball or even in the top 50 was sadly mistaken by the end of the 1990's.  Mike Deane said it best himself when he said we should compete for the NIT in most years and if we make the NCAAs, then great.

That's what we had become and for a few of you here, you refuse to accept it....even when the head coach at the time flat out told it like it was.

[4everwarriors]

Deane's low expectations was one of the reasons he was let go. We are a member of the BE because the administration and University rightfully committed to elevating it's one revenue producing sport and not because Crean created or willed it so.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Deane's low expectations was one of the reasons he was let go. We are a member of the BE because the administration and University rightfully committed to elevating it's one revenue producing sport and not because Crean created or willed it so.

No one is saying Crean willed it.  The fact of the matter is, however, that MU hoops was not a Big East caliber team until Crean got it back to that level.

Let's take NC State as an example.  Here is a team that has won two national titles in the last 35 years yet is in the doldrums.  They have great history, great tradition, play in a great conference.  Yet, they have not been able to get back to that level of a top team in quite some time.  The next coach that does that for NC State will have the benefit of the tradition, facilities, conference to make it happen, but it doesn't change the fact that the next coach to actually get them there will have done something that the previous 3 or 4 couldn't.   The longer you go, the harder it is to get a school back.

Whether people like to admit it or not, MU got back to greatness under Crean.  He's the second best coach MU has had in their history.  The numbers don't lie.

[CTWarrior]

And yes, we had a great basketball tradition before Crean, but of course those old media guides you speak of will also show 3 NCAA wins in 20 years prior to Crean.  That would be equivalent of a Dayton or a UWGB or schools of that ilk for that type of time period.

That is true, Chicos, but those three wins were in the 6 years before Crean.  O'Neill is the guy who did the heaviest lifting in pulling the program out of its doldrums.

Crean won 5 NCAA games in his 9 years, which is roughly the same ratio as the 6 years prior.  He won NCAA games in only 2 of his 9 seasons, as well, which is not particularly impressive.

Bottom line is that Crean, without question, raised the profile of this program.  I think the perception of him is probably better than the reality, but so what?  I still say we'd be in the Big East without him, as long as the guy that followed Deane was better than Deane.

[77fan88warrior]

Attendence... I think it is absolutely wrong to compare attendence figures of Crean versus other "bradley center" coaches while Mu is in the Big East.  there is no doubt the draw of a georgetown or a Uconn or going to jack up the number of fans regardless of what the coach or team are performing.  however, that should not create a problem for you as Crean was at Mu 6 years before Mu joined the BE.  Longer than Deane or Oneill.

I guess you haven't seen DePaul's attendance?

I also hope you never cheered for a Crean team since it would make you a hippokrit.

The fact that I read this whole thread is embarrassing.

[MR.HAYWARD]

those larger attendence records were all in the Big East.  You cannot say part fo the reason we got in the Big East is becuse Cream raised attendence levels.   You are putting the cart ahead of the horse.  In fact attendence levels were generally down under Cream including 2 of the worst years we ever had under Crean, before we joined the big East.

You like to say the 1999 team only avergaed 9000 becuase they were so bad.  Sorry charlie we had other bad years including 1991 where the teams was arguably worse and averaged 14000.  Bottom line Mu has always supported the teams.  Since before tommy naismith. In fact before joining the Big Eas the numbers clearly show the fans supported him less.

But keep toughting that one of the reason we got in is because our attendence numbers have been so high the last three years 

MAybe the reason we got in is because Cream was so great by demonstrating how he could maintain a high level program after losing a lottery pick like he did in the 2 seasons after the final 4.  That is probaably another reason we got in.  thanks Cream.  sarcasm off  another demonstartion of how Mu got in becuse of Mu and it's support and traditon, not becuase of its coach.  The Big east would have been scared like us fans were that this guy is a pretender that signed a superstar that other schools could not and has a house of cards of a program.  2004 and 2005 proved that to the BE, yet they invited us anyway based on the strength of the University

[MR.HAYWARD]

Hey MU84

I love your quote....

Nobody is saying that Crean is the greatest coach ever.  But he's without a doubt better than anyone MU's has had except McGuire--and I put him ahead of O'Neill, because O'Neill cut and ran as soon as he had the chance.

And if you at all honest, you'd have noted that I admitted that 94 we may well have received a bid to the Big East had O'Neill demonstrated he thought MU had a big-time future.  But why would the Big East show faith in MU's future if the head coach wouldn't?

As I said, its confusing why you hold O'Neill in high esteem since he actually did cut out and slammed MU in the process as soon as he won his first big game--that Kentucky game you cite. 

In fact if you substitute "Crean" for Oneill in your paragraphs we would be in full agreement.  at least Oneill was  a straight shooter and would tell you how he felt.  Crean was a two faced liar, part and parcel tot he reason he could not maintain a staff or a team for that matter and why most people that associated with him hated him.

[Marquette84]

Deane's low expectations was one of the reasons he was let go. We are a member of the BE because the administration and University rightfully committed to elevating it's one revenue producing sport and not because Crean created or willed it so.

Had the adminstration and University had EXACTLY the same level of commitment in 1999, but wound up retaining Mike Deane, or hiring a Jerry Wainwright or a Tim Welsh or God forbid another Bob Dukiet, we would not have been invited to the Big East.  I don't know what is so difficult to understand about this. 

Can you honestly sit here and say that because Marquette had "commitment" our 10th place C-USA team performanced didn't matter?  Or the five years of decline since the Sweet 16 didn't mattter?   

Seriously, what argument would you have made that Marquette deserved the invitation over UNC-Charlotte?  Or UAB?  Or St. Louis?  Or St. Joseph?  Or Holy Cross?  Or Butler? Or LaSalle?  Or Temple? How do you argue for Marquette over programs that were either geographically closer, in a bigger TV market, had demonstrated stronger recent performance, or in some cases all three.

Our heritage?  Nobody but our own fans care about a championship 20+ years after the fact.  UNCC, Dayton, Holy Cross, San Francisco, Seattle and Loyola have final four heritage as well.  That alone doesn't merit you a BCS conference invitation. 

Nobody is denying that we needed the university's backing.  But we also needed performance on the court that was worthy of an invitation.  We didn't have that before Crean.

[ChicosBailBonds]

That is true, Chicos, but those three wins were in the 6 years before Crean.  O'Neill is the guy who did the heaviest lifting in pulling the program out of its doldrums.

Crean won 5 NCAA games in his 9 years, which is roughly the same ratio as the 6 years prior.  He won NCAA games in only 2 of his 9 seasons, as well, which is not particularly impressive.

Bottom line is that Crean, without question, raised the profile of this program.  I think the perception of him is probably better than the reality, but so what?  I still say we'd be in the Big East without him, as long as the guy that followed Deane was better than Deane.

But Crean also go the team to the NCAAs 5 years out of 7 and went to a Final Four.  We didn't have a stretch like that in ages.  As much good as O'Neil did, he also damaged things by wanting out so badly, public comments about his contract, etc.  He helped cement an image that MU had become a stepping stone job.

I don't think we would be in the Big East without the accomplishments we made on the court....call it blind luck, great timing, or whatever, it was a damn fortutious that MU went to the Final Four, Crean had a great basketball pedigree with contacts very strong to the Big East, etc, etc all at that same time.



I'll tell you guys a quick story from the late 1990's when I was there.  Cords and I went to meet with Midwest Sports Television (I think that was the name).  They were based in Minneapolis and about to launch a network in Milwaukee.  I crap you not when I tell you that their management at the start of the meeting asked why they should be interested in carrying a Division II team like Marquette on their network.   That's how low we had sunk.  MSC had carried Gophers in Minneapolis and really had no idea what level we were at.  Now, I blame a lot of that on their sure ignorance because MU had some good years in the 1990's, but often perception is reality.  Cords, by the way, nearly decapitated the guy (good for Cords) when he made that statement.  It was great to see as Cords really let him have it.  But the point was that MU was not the household name it used to be.

I think that is one thing that many in the midwest continue to overlook.  Those that seem most anti-Crean are those in Milwaukee where MU is still a day to day topic.  But in Texas, Florida, California, etc, MU was NOTHING anymore.  People had no idea where or what Marquette was.  They do now, largely based on what the team accomplished with the Final Four and having a dynamic coach. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Let's just cut to the chase on this.  After having a few conversations with some of the folks that still or used to work at MU today, they put it rather nicely.

Crean is largely hated by the local MU blue hairs and long standing Warrior insiders.  They resented that Crean took too much credit for the resurgence, especially in Milwaukee where these people have lived much of their lives.  Many of them feel that MU will be good all the time because it's MU, it's the tradition, it's the University. They simply ignore that Majerus, Dukiet, Deane apparently are the outliers or that even Raymonds struggled with what he had.   

There is no doubt that great people from years gone past built this program and many still live in Milwaukee now.  They are proud people that have given plenty to the program, formed it's base and much of the winning tradition.  Early on, Crean tapped into that but as the program became more and more his, he moved in different directions which alienated many of those insiders, former players, etc.  They felt like their accomplishments were not recognized properly, or overshadowed by Crean and his PR machine.

It's politics, plain and simple.  Crean wasn't one of them and that wore thin on them.  Crean was an arrogant ass which only added to their disdain, feelings were hurt, beers weren't drank, golf was not played, Crean wasn't one of them.

My advice for Buzz would be to stay out of the political windstorm, focus on hoops, say it's "all about the program" and the players and the tradition....he'll be loved by those folks.  But, if the winning stops, well then it's just another nail in the coffin that tradition alone doesn't cut it (see NC State as the most recent example).   Tradition is great, but it needs a leader.

MU has been at it's best in the last 50 years with DYNAMIC, ARROGANT, CONTROVERSIAL coaches.  McGuire, Crean, O'Neill.  When I say arrogant toward McGuire, I think you know what I mean....it's not derogatory, but more of confident tone that said "we're going to beat you whether you like it or not".   The nice guys.... well they were nice but didn't get the wins or the publicity needed to continue to win at a consistent level.  Nice guys can be controlled by insiders as well.  That's why some insiders don't like strong, forceful coaches that don't curtsey to them all times.  Nice guys, they're nice bu they haven't been long at MU or most other places either.  Wooden is an exception, but if you win like Wooden you can be Mother Theresa and it doesn't matter.

Of course the dynamic here is that KO and Crean pissed off so many of those insiders who felt it was MU MU MU as the reason they were winning and not because of their coaching, recruiting, management styles.


It's all about internal politics, much of it because Crean's ego couldn't play that game properly and stroke insider egos because he was busy stroking his own....and much of it because many of the "insiders" are still attached to the 1970's historical fantasy that MU just needs to throw a basketball out there and magic happens because tradition and the way it was will keep things going strong, despite repeated history showing that not to be the case.

Politics.  Nothing more then that plus the hurt feelings by some insiders and former players .....throw in the fact Crean was an ass just poured fuel on the fire.  Of course, Crean isn't the only one to say that many of these insiders were overbearing....KO said it, Deane said, Crean said it, Majerus.  Seems to be a consistent complaint by many of our coaches.

I'm just telling you like it is based on when I was there and based on folks that are still there.  Politics is part of every athletic program, and certainly part of MU's.  After 9 years, people wear on each other, it often doesn't take that long.  Personalities clash, feelings get hurt, pride overtakes many, egos abound = the feelings of today by some.     

[reinko]

Well puts Chicos. 

Hayward you are just getting straight owned this thread.

Go pick up your gold vest at the dry cleaners and call it day. 

[MU gimp ONE]

Your Mom inflated attendance records... oh!!!!

this thread made my head hurt... something about posts that are over 10,000 words that just seems a bit overkill.  i'm going back to my choose your own adventure book now.

[RedWebster]

Chicos --
I'm neither an insider or a former player and I couldn't stand the guy. I knew O'Neill was an ass, but he never pretended he wasn't. I actually liked him. I also liked Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane.

The people you are describing who don't like Crean are people who recognize an a-hole when they see one and would rather not have an a-hole representing our university. We're just people who are good judges of character.

He'll be outed by the good people of Indiana, who traditionally do not take kindly to people who are full of stuff. And I cannot wait.

[4everwarriors]

Hay and Web have it nailed. Good try JD but it wouldn't matter where I lived, Crean has urinated me off since the FF. I've got April 1 circled on the calendar as a holiday.

[jmayer1]

Hay and Web have it nailed. Good try JD but it wouldn't matter where I lived, Crean has urinated me off since the FF. I've got April 1 circled on the calendar as a holiday.

Crean was the 2nd best coach in MU's history.  Him sleeping with my wife wouldn't change that.  Him punching my grandmother in the face wouldn't change that.  Him physically peeing on me wouldn't change that.  Our basketball team and our univeristy are in a much better place than they were in 1999, and a lot of that is the result, at least in a small way, of what Crean did.  Yes, he was a dick or an ass to a lot of people, but he ran a good, clean program and everybody should be thankful for that. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos --
I'm neither an insider or a former player and I couldn't stand the guy. I knew O'Neill was an ass, but he never pretended he wasn't. I actually liked him. I also liked Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane.

The people you are describing who don't like Crean are people who recognize an a-hole when they see one and would rather not have an a-hole representing our university. We're just people who are good judges of character.

He'll be outed by the good people of Indiana, who traditionally do not take kindly to people who are full of stuff. And I cannot wait.

I wasn't referencing you Red.   

Show me an ass jerk as a head coach and often he's winning.  That's an unfortunate reality.  Howland, Huggins, Caliprari, Pitino, Crean, Knight, Digger, Keady, Izzo, Ryan, Williams, etc.  Of course, there are plenty that don't, but a common theme for many of these coaches are strong ego, type A, short temper, etc and it usually means the guy comes off as a jerk.

Strong personalities in that list above, but they won, even if they were hard as hell to work with (or for) and difficult to like.

I've said here many times, give me an a-hole coach who wins, doesn't cheat, graduates his players every day of the week over one that is really nice, only wins a little bit.  I won't tolerate an a-hole coach who cuts corners or cheats, but if he wins and does it the right way, I'll take it every day of the week.

I'd rather have a nice guy that does all those things, those seem to be much harder to find.....let's hope we got one.  Wooden was a nice guy, Dean Smith was a nice guy.  That would be the best of all worlds.

[wiscwarrior]

Well said, Chico's. I am definitely an old gaseous person, but I recognize what TC did for the program. He may not have started it all, but he continued a tradition of good basketball and a clean program. His lasting legacy will be the players he brought into the program and I, for one alumnus, am very proud of all of them. The image of MU in the current world of college basketball has a lot to do with Tom Crean.

That said. I'm real happy to have Buzz.

[MR.HAYWARD]

i have never said Crean did not do a good job as a coach ow was not an ass hole.  I agree with both those satements.  What I simply disagree with are many of his and others claims such as attendence that are absolutely false.  i also, which was the basis of the thread, disagree that he had much affect if any towards us attaining Big Eats stature , he was a pawn in the chess game and would still be a nobody if he was not at MU.  Agian Mu made tom crean not vice versa.

I also object to the chicos statement of him not playing the game with Old Blue hairs.  Not playing the game is onw thing being out right disresctful to old players and donors is a whole other ball game.  I dont think many people right now could imagine a person like buzz treating or speaking to many of those people the way that Cream did. 

[reinko]

I also object to the chicos statement of him not playing the game with Old Blue hairs.  Not playing the game is onw thing being out right disresctful to old players and donors is a whole other ball game.  I dont think many people right now could imagine a person like buzz treating or speaking to many of those people the way that Cream did. 

Still waiting for those examples Haywire.  Exact comments with dates and locations would be nice too.