Is Maryland a "destination"?

[Coleman]

Maybe now, neither MU, nor Maryland , are at the highest level as destination jobs, but both are attractive, solid programs, in very good BB conferences. Andy Katz called Maryland one of the top 10-15 coaching jobs in the USa...I'm not quite there, but Maryland and MU are easily both top 30 programs--all time.

Agreed. Neither is a destination, IMO, when you define destination as a program that most coaches would agree that they wouldn't leave for any other. Obviously, Bo Ryan might never want to leave Wisconsin, but that's just one coach's opinion on that particular school. To be a "destination," it has to be a pretty broad consensus that you have reached the summit of the mountain, and there is nowhere better to go.

I'd say there are very very few true destination schools, and they are the usual suspects: Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, North Carolina, et. al There are a few borderline destination schools...like UConn, Michigan St. (dare I say Indiana?), but even those I think someone would bail if the really big boys came a callin'

[MerrittsMustache]

Kansas wasn't a destination job for Roy Williams. Kentucky wasn't a destination job for Rick Pitino. Maryland was a destination job for Gary Williams but for other coaches, it might not be. Marquette may be a destination job for someone like Brian Wardle, but for other coaches, it might not be.

In other words, I think it's too simple to say that School X is a destination job while Schools Y and Z are not. Every coach has their own interpretation of a destination job...and some coaches define it as: the job that offers me the most money.

[ChicosBailBonds]

by brew's logic becky is a "destination"

don't see bo put up for any jobs, i understand hes older, but same logic

Not at all.  One coach does not a destination job make, though one coach can certainly make a job more of a destination.  Wisconsin is a helluva lot better job now than it was 15 years ago...a MUCH better job. Bo Ryan made it so and proved you can win there.  Dick Bennett to some degree as well.  Is it a destination job? No.  Is it a better job than it used to be?  Hell yes

[Pakuni]

Not at all.  One coach does not a destination job make, though one coach can certainly make a job more of a destination.  Wisconsin is a helluva lot better job now than it was 15 years ago...a MUCH better job. Bo Ryan made it so and proved you can win there.  Dick Bennett to some degree as well.  Is it a destination job? No.  Is it a better job than it used to be?  Hell yes

I'm totally confused now by what's your definition of a destination job. If it's more than one coach having a long, long tenure, then is Duke a destination job? In the four decades before Coach K, they went through seven coaches, none more than 15 years..
Is Kansas a destination job? They've only had one coach last more than a decade since Phog Allen, and that coach bailed for another program.

I'd suggest that whether or not a job is a "destination" job depends largely on who's in the job. For a mid-40s former Maryland player like Gary Williams, Maryland was a destination job. Maybe not for someone else. For Lute Olson, Arizona was a destination job. Sean Miller after just two seasons is having dalliances with another program. UW obviously is Bo Ryan's destination job. Chances are it won't be for the next guy.

[Coleman]

Kansas wasn't a destination job for Roy Williams. Kentucky wasn't a destination job for Rick Pitino. Maryland was a destination job for Gary Williams but for other coaches, it might not be. Marquette may be a destination job for someone like Brian Wardle, but for other coaches, it might not be.

In other words, I think it's too simple to say that School X is a destination job while Schools Y and Z are not. Every coach has their own interpretation of a destination job...and some coaches define it as: the job that offers me the most money.

Agree in principle, but Pitino left Kentucky for the NBA, not a fair comparison, and Williams left for UNC...another destination school.

[MerrittsMustache]

Agree in principle, but Pitino left Kentucky for the NBA, not a fair comparison, and Williams left for UNC...another destination school.

I see your point but to me, a "destination job" is one that a coach has no intention of leaving until he retires no matter what other jobs come open, be it the NBA or another highly-coveted college job. That's just me though. As this thread has shown, there are quite a few definitions out there.

[Hoopaloop]

I'm guessing Turgeon of A&M takes the Maryland job.

Nice call.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, despite the jabs, I still have a few contacts here and there in the right spots.  My KU connections tipped me off on MT leaving.  They were right.  Smart move. Maryland is a very good job no matter how you slice it.  The Big 12 is fragile still, Texas is a football state, Maryland is a basketball school with great recruiting targets at home base.  MT was an assistant for Roy Williams and I'm sure Roy helped sell him on the idea.

[brewcity77]

Not at all.  One coach does not a destination job make, though one coach can certainly make a job more of a destination.  Wisconsin is a helluva lot better job now than it was 15 years ago...a MUCH better job. Bo Ryan made it so and proved you can win there.  Dick Bennett to some degree as well.  Is it a destination job? No.  Is it a better job than it used to be?  Hell yes

You could probably argue Crean did a similar thing for Marquette. While O'Neill did a great job, guys like Dukiet and Deane seemed intent on burying any future of MU hoops. Crean came in and turned that around with consistent postseason play, a Final Four, a better conference, and leaving a strong class behind while going to one of the biggest jobs in the game, proving that Marquette could be a very good stepping stone at the least.

So is Marquette a now a destination job? I'd still say no (but hopefully for Buzz, yes ). But is it a better job than it used to be? Hell yes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm totally confused now by what's your definition of a destination job. If it's more than one coach having a long, long tenure, then is Duke a destination job? In the four decades before Coach K, they went through seven coaches, none more than 15 years..
Is Kansas a destination job? They've only had one coach last more than a decade since Phog Allen, and that coach bailed for another program.

I'd suggest that whether or not a job is a "destination" job depends largely on who's in the job. For a mid-40s former Maryland player like Gary Williams, Maryland was a destination job. Maybe not for someone else. For Lute Olson, Arizona was a destination job. Sean Miller after just two seasons is having dalliances with another program. UW obviously is Bo Ryan's destination job. Chances are it won't be for the next guy.

I don't think this is hard but if you're confused by my interpretation I'm more than happy to clarify.

There are schools that are "destination" jobs because they win over long swaths of time no matter who the coach is.  Kansas.  North Carolina.  Indiana.  Kentucky.  Etc.  They live, breathe, invest, etc into the program.
You don't leave these jobs usually unless it's an absolute special circumstance....i.e. Roy Williams leaving one destination job to coach at another and take the reigns of his alma mater.

Then there are "destination" jobs that have had some success but not nearly as consistent as the first group above.  They are a place that a certain type of coach would want to coach and be there for a long time, can build a successful program, has the right qualities in a program to be successful.  Those programs are destination jobs for SOME coaches but not all.  I"d put the Illinois, Michigan State, Maryland type schools there.  Some coaches would love to go to Illinois or Maryland and stay there 25 years.  Other coaches can go to Illinois and less than a decade later leave for another gig.

Is Duke a destination job....I'd say yes but I also think it might end up being like UCLA....another "destination" job but one where it might take a cycle of 10 to 20 years to get the next coach that is like the one that built the program up.  Duke had some success prior to Coach K, no doubt, but he will be a tough act to follow.  There will be a long line of guys that will want to try and most certainly will be a "destination" job.  What will be interesting to see is how well they do in terms of the alums, etc.  Coaches that followed John Wooden were very good, but they ran folks like Gene Bartow out of town for "merely" making it to the Final Four and not winning it all.  Denny Crum, UCLA assistant,  refused to take the reigns because he knew the mentality that was there and figured he was better off at Louisville.  The list of examples goes on.

Wisconsin...a destination job?  No.  Marquette...a destination job? No.   Let me know if my clarifications have assisted.  You are correct, a job may be a dream job for someone and thus their destination job but that doesn't mean it's universally that way.  I'll stick by my argument that Maryland is in that next tier of destination jobs where coaches go and put in multi decade runs.  Marquette is not one of those schools and we have almost 100 years of data to show that.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You could probably argue Crean did a similar thing for Marquette. While O'Neill did a great job, guys like Dukiet and Deane seemed intent on burying any future of MU hoops. Crean came in and turned that around with consistent postseason play, a Final Four, a better conference, and leaving a strong class behind while going to one of the biggest jobs in the game, proving that Marquette could be a very good stepping stone at the least.

So is Marquette a now a destination job? I'd still say no (but hopefully for Buzz, yes ). But is it a better job than it used to be? Hell yes.

As stated, I agree that MU is NOT a destination job.  Is it a better job because of what Crean did....Hell Yes.  That's why I was so dumbfounded that we took a chance and settled on an assistant rather than try and get someone that had already proven his value.  Buzz may end up being that guy, but why are we constantly taking that risk.  THAT'S EXACTLY why I and so many others were puzzled.  Crean left MU in a position of a very valuable job.   Bo Ryan has made Wisconsin a very valuable job.  Neither are destination jobs.

I hope you are right about Buzz and him wanting this to be his destination job...I'd be stunned if that's the case and even more stunned if he has a 10 year run at MU.  Too much instability with the conference, a lot of energy required to recruit at MU because the local talent isn't there to support two high major in state programs, the desire to win a national title (which is going to be very difficult at MU), etc.

[NersEllenson]

As stated, I agree that MU is NOT a destination job.  Is it a better job because of what Crean did....Hell Yes.  That's why I was so dumbfounded that we took a chance and settled on an assistant rather than try and get someone that had already proven his value.  Buzz may end up being that guy, but why are we constantly taking that risk.  THAT'S EXACTLY why I and so many others were puzzled.  Crean left MU in a position of a very valuable job.   Bo Ryan has made Wisconsin a very valuable job.  Neither are destination jobs.

I hope you are right about Buzz and him wanting this to be his destination job...I'd be stunned if that's the case and even more stunned if he has a 10 year run at MU.  Too much instability with the conference, a lot of energy required to recruit at MU because the local talent isn't there to support two high major in state programs, the desire to win a national title (which is going to be very difficult at MU), etc.

We are constantly taking "risks" such as Buzz, because no established, proven, high major D-1 coach has yet to clamor for the Marquette job.  It didn't happen when Crean left, and the few coaches we did approach shot us down.  So, while the program is better off and at a better level due to Tom Crean's time at MU - it still isn't a destination job as you have stated.  Furthermore, you rattle off all of the reasons why you would be shocked if Buzz stayed at MU for 10 years, (conference instability, poor recruiting base) but yet get mad at the MU administration for "taking risks" on unproven assistant coaches??  I'm confused.

[GGGG]

Chicos, MU has pretty much figured out that the way to grow the MU program is through long-term stability.  They need to get someone here, who is going to stay here, and has the ability and willingness to recruit nationally.  It is pretty much the exact opposite approach as UW has taken - they have hired two "system coaches" in Bennett and Ryan who are going to get the best local talent they can and have it fit their system.  Neither was going to go anywhere because they were both Wisconsin "lifers."

So yes...they took a risk because stability is important, and because you have to pay someone a premium to come to a place that isn't a "destination job," and doesn't sit in a recruiting hot-spot in order to maintain that stability.

[StillAWarrior]

Chicos, MU has pretty much figured out that the way to grow the MU program is through long-term stability.  They need to get someone here, who is going to stay here, and has the ability and willingness to recruit nationally.  It is pretty much the exact opposite approach as UW has taken - they have hired two "system coaches" in Bennett and Ryan who are going to get the best local talent they can and have it fit their system.  Neither was going to go anywhere because they were both Wisconsin "lifers."

So yes...they took a risk because stability is important, and because you have to pay someone a premium to come to a place that isn't a "destination job," and doesn't sit in a recruiting hot-spot in order to maintain that stability.

I think MU's current situation reveals that if MU wants stability in its program, it has to "overpay" its coach.  This isn't a slam on Buzz, and I'm very happy he's our coach and that MU is "overpaying" him.  In my opinion, he's getting paid far more than warranted by the accomplishments in his young career.  But, that simply the price of stability.  MU has to pay its coach enough so that it will be prohibitively expensive for another school to step in and hire him.  If you get lucky and make a good hire, this works well and the "stability premium" (as well as the "Milwaukee premium") is money well spent.  If you make a bad hire, it might be pretty expensive to make a coaching change.

Nothing in life is free.  Stability is college basketball is very valuable.  It should come as no surprise that it's also expensive.

[brewcity77]

Maybe it's just me, but I'd say Crean did more to improve Marquette as a job than Ryan has at Wisconsin, despite Ryan having greater overall success at UW (no Final Four notwithstanding) than Crean had here. And the reason I say that is the system. Crean's system required athletes. When he left, there were four very high level players, of which three have gone on to play in the NBA. There was a culture of athleticism, which most any good coach can find a way to succeed with, even a system coach.

Ryan, on the other hand, will likely not leave Wisconsin with such a culture. When he leaves, there will be good technical players, but it's not like any coach can walk in, use their system, and succeed. There just isn't enough raw basketball talent there. As good as they are (and they have been very good under Ryan) it comes in large part from the style of play he implements, a style that few coaches would emulate these days.

I'll be very curious to see what direction UW goes with their next coach once Ryan retires. He will have a chance to become UW's leader in all-time coaching wins next season, and will certainly take the mark in 2 years. At age 65, what will be left for him? Will he stick at Wisconsin longer than that? Does he want to coach into his 70s? I'm guessing he'll retire within 5 years. What kind of target will the Badgers go after? Another slow-down system guy? Or will they try to use their newfound reputation to go after a high-major candidate? It will be interesting to see what route they take, as I'm not sure what kind of interest they will get, even as a mainstay school in the Big Ten.

[ChicosBailBonds]

We are constantly taking "risks" such as Buzz, because no established, proven, high major D-1 coach has yet to clamor for the Marquette job.  It didn't happen when Crean left, and the few coaches we did approach shot us down.  So, while the program is better off and at a better level due to Tom Crean's time at MU - it still isn't a destination job as you have stated.  Furthermore, you rattle off all of the reasons why you would be shocked if Buzz stayed at MU for 10 years, (conference instability, poor recruiting base) but yet get mad at the MU administration for "taking risks" on unproven assistant coaches??  I'm confused.

NO, it happens because we don't try enough to make that pitch.  We decide 48 to 72 hours later that we've "given it our all" and then take the risk.

That's why. 

I agree MU is not a "destination" job but it's a lot better than most jobs out there and enough to lure a candidate that has a track record with less risk.  That's my point.  You and I agree that we're not going to get a Big Ten coach to move over to MU.  We're not going to get a ACC coach or most SEC coaches to move over. That doesn't mean you can't get a A-10, CUSA, some coaches in the Big 12, SEC to look if you actually try.  Hard to try in 48 hours and only going after 3 people. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos, MU has pretty much figured out that the way to grow the MU program is through long-term stability.  They need to get someone here, who is going to stay here, and has the ability and willingness to recruit nationally.  It is pretty much the exact opposite approach as UW has taken - they have hired two "system coaches" in Bennett and Ryan who are going to get the best local talent they can and have it fit their system.  Neither was going to go anywhere because they were both Wisconsin "lifers."

So yes...they took a risk because stability is important, and because you have to pay someone a premium to come to a place that isn't a "destination job," and doesn't sit in a recruiting hot-spot in order to maintain that stability.

We'll see if that plays out Sultan.  My idea of "long term stability" isn't hiring a guy that up and quit on his first team after one year, is from the South and has moved from job to job to job.  He may end up being a guy that's here 40 years for all we know, but past history doesn't indicate that will be the case.  I don't see how your stability comment comes close to squaring with the actual hire.  I would think a STABILITY hire would be to get a guy from the Midwest, one that has shown he can remain in a spot for a decade or longer, etc, etc. 

In fact, in one respect you seem to be saying MU took a risk (which pretty much everyone agrees is the case, even ners) yet in the same paragraph believe the risk = stability.  Not sure how that squares.

I buy into ners argument that we act the way we do, I get it...I lived it when I worked in the department when we hired Crean and when I was around for the student input for KO.  Totally get it.  Of course, in both of those hires we were a floundering program so it made sense for that risk.

If that is how we continue, then that's the course we will take.  I find it anything but stable, but it doesn't mean it cannot work either.  It does mean, however, that we are likely to go through this stuff continually every 5 to 8 years....such is life....such is INstability.

[GGGG]

Let me put it this way...

They are taking a risky move by attempting to ensure long-term stability with Buzz.  (Since he has a history of jumping jobs and a short history of success.)

[brewcity77]

We'll see if that plays out Sultan.  My idea of "long term stability" isn't hiring a guy that up and quit on his first team after one year, is from the South and has moved from job to job to job.  He may end up being a guy that's here 40 years for all we know, but past history doesn't indicate that will be the case.  I don't see how your stability comment comes close to squaring with the actual hire.  I would think a STABILITY hire would be to get a guy from the Midwest, one that has shown he can remain in a spot for a decade or longer, etc, etc.

I'm in the camp right now that Buzz will be here quite awhile. I know not everyone agrees with this. I realize that if a big enough job comes open, he'll go for it, but I think after the past couple years and seeing some pretty sizable schools with deep pockets -- Oregon, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and TAMU -- all come after Buzz and fail to get him, it'll take a special offer to pry him away. Did we know that would be the case off the bat? Of course not. Many of us (myself included) questioned the hire and had serious reservations. After the first three years, considering the suitors and his apparent loyalty, I feel much more secure.

The problem with that idea of a stability hire is who fits that mold that we could get? How many Midwest guys that can stay in one spot for a decade or longer and would be willing to come here even exist? Bo? Izzo? Obviously not. Are there any mid-major coaches out there that fit that mold? Better yet, are there any that we would embrace? The problem with that criteria is that any coach good enough for us to actually want him should be good enough to be lured away well before ten years are up. When does a promising mid-major coach actually stay for a decade? Mark Few? Is that it? Does anyone really believe Brad Stevens will still be at Butler in 2017? Would anyone put Greg Kampe or Dave Loos at the top of a list if Buzz were to suddenly head south?

What you're asking for is an oxymoron. The guys we would want that fit the description would be Big Ten and Big 12 legends that aren't looking to move, while the guys that fit the description and would move are guys we wouldn't want.

At the end of the day, you have to take a chance in one regard or another. We took a big chance by going for a non-Midwest guy who hadn't proven he could stay in one place for a decade or longer. That same description would apply to a few other Marquette coaches, including Al McGuire and Kevin O'Neill. Of course, it also applies to Bob Dukiet and Mike Deane. The only guys we've had that met your qualifications in the past four decades were Rick Majerus and Hank Raymonds, Midwest guys that spent at least ten years at Marquette.

Here's hoping this chance works out. So far, so good.

[tower912]

Coaches MU has hired in the last 50 years with previous head coaching experience...Al, Dukiet, Buzz.    2 out of 3 ain't bad.     We could have ended up with Keno Davis or Pelphrey or Bennett.  ANY hire is a gamble.    Experienced, successful coaches from large programs sometimes don't work at the next large program.   Right, RichRod?  Cottingham liked what he had seen out of Buzz in the year he had worked with him.   He promoted from within after gauging interest of some possible candidates.   A perfectly legitimate tactic, yet some are still criticizing it.   Odd.    Right now, I am more confident than I have been in the last 10 years that we have a coach that is going to stick around.    Oregon, TAMU, Oklahoma, Arkansas (some say Iowa) have all come sniffing and he is still here.   Part of that may be that Cottingham is very shrewd in setting up the contract and buyout clause.    Or, maybe, Buzz is one of those rare people you can take at his word.   He's our coach. All indications are that he will be for a while.   He's taken us to a sweet 16.   He held the program together through the transition.   He has expanded our recruiting net.    Go get 'em, Coach.   

[MerrittsMustache]

NO, it happens because we don't try enough to make that pitch.  We decide 48 to 72 hours later that we've "given it our all" and then take the risk.

That's why.  

Crean had been sniffing around for a new job since the FF run. The admins knew he wasn't going to be at MU for the long-haul. Buzz was brought in as his top assistant and conveniently took over as head coach the next season. Do you think that was a coincidence and MU simply threw their hands up after 3 days because no one else wanted the job? Or do you think someone at MU had the foresight to think that Buzz could be their man when Crean inevitably left and so they didn't waste any time in giving him the job?

[HouWarrior]

Gary Parrish talks about, what, to coaches, are the elements of the most attractive destination jobs, referencing Texas, and Ohio State, as meeting his elements, to wit:

...."I'm baffled that anybody would question Ohio State as one of the very best basketball jobs in the country. Trust me, college coaches -- you know, the guys who do this for a living -- wouldn't question it because Ohio State has lots of money, first-class facilities, a strong Nike affiliation and a terrific natural recruiting base, and those are the most important things to consider when rating jobs. Just look at the Buckeyes' roster.

The top three returning players -- Jared Sullinger, William Buford and Aaron Craft -- are all from Ohio, and the state produces high-major talent on a regular basis. Meantime, Indianapolis -- home of former OSU stars Greg Oden and Mike Conley -- is only about 175 miles away. So it's possible to recruit within a 200-mile radius of campus at Ohio State and produce Final Four-caliber teams year after year after year. That -- combined with all the other things previously mentioned -- makes Ohio State one of the nation's most desirable jobs. It could reasonably be ranked in the top five and cannot reasonably be ranked outside of the top 10. ..."


http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/15061687/oklahoma-regents-approve-166m-deal-for-kruger

[ChicosBailBonds]

Crean had been sniffing around for a new job since the FF run. The admins knew he wasn't going to be at MU for the long-haul. Buzz was brought in as his top assistant and conveniently took over as head coach the next season. Do you think that was a coincidence and MU simply threw their hands up after 3 days because no one else wanted the job? Or do you think someone at MU had the foresight to think that Buzz could be their man when Crean inevitably left and so they didn't waste any time in giving him the job?

They thought they had a shot to save some of the recruiting class and Buzz was recommended highly by Crean and others.  Could he be had a week or two later....of course....he wasn't going anywhere.

[ChicosBailBonds]

According to Turgeon, this is definitely his destination job (though Kansas would be one he would leave for).  Some interesting but not at all surprising comments about state of Texas basketball.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/blog/_/name/katz_andy/id/6562855/a-smoother-transition-mark-turgeon

[GGGG]

"A number of college coaches that have ties to the state of Texas told ESPN.com that high school and AAU coaches in the Lone Star State are famously provincial. If the staff isn't Texas-based, if there isn't a tendency to really cultivate the in-state coaches, there can be a backlash."


That is hardly unique to Texas.  Look at the crap that Purnell had to endure from Chicago AAU coaches when he was first hired.

Some pretty direct comments from Turgeon about his own short-comings as well as the short-comings of the A&M job.