Is MU BB program an underacheiver, or overacheiver, since 1985?

[HouWarrior]

Since expansion to 64 teams, in 1985, is the MU program an underacheiver, or overacheiver?

Here is the entire Pat Forde of ESPN article on the top 10s of each, and in the interest of space...a paste of the top 3 Overs, and top 3 Unders.

Link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=6595711

Top 3 of each:

..."
OVERS:
1. Butler: You cannot get from the Horizon League to the Final Four -- unless you are the Bulldogs, who have done it two years in a row, advancing to the title game both times. It's one of the great feats in college hoops history.

But it's hardly the only reason Butler tops this list. It has had a winning record 18 of the past 19 years, played in 10 of the past 15 NCAA tournaments -- and most importantly, won games in those tournaments. As ESPN Insider John Gasaway pointed out Wednesday, Butler's 16 NCAA tourney victories since 2000 are more than Pittsburgh, Louisville, Villanova, Georgetown and Ohio State have compiled.

Butler has gotten all this done with four different head coaches, promoting from within and getting spectacular results. This isn't John Kresse at College of Charleston or Bob McKillop at Davidson, a situation where an excellent coach hunkered down and declined opportunities to leave for bigger jobs.

2. Duke: Yeah, we've become accustomed to considering the Blue Devils the sport's ultimate overdog. But that's only because of the relentless winning during the past 26 seasons. When put into context with similar schools, Duke is a massive overachiever.

Duke is the most academically prestigious school to win a national title in the modern era -- and it has won four of them. Its big-conference brethren, Stanford, Vanderbilt and Northwestern, have combined for ... let's see now ... zero national titles. Only one of them (Stanford) has even made a Final Four. The Blue Devils have made 11 in the modern era and 15 overall.

Duke also is the smallest school, in terms of enrollment, to win a national title since Villanova in 1985.

3. Gonzaga: You cannot hold an NCAA tournament without the Zags anymore. They've played in 13 straight and won at least one game in 10 of those appearances.

And nobody has dominated its league like Gonzaga, winning or sharing the West Coast Conference regular-season title 11 straight seasons and playing in the tournament final 14 straight years.

Although Spokane, Wash., is not a small town, it's remote enough that it theoretically should make recruiting tricky. But coach Mark Few has established himself as one of the premier recruiters in the nation...."

...."
UNDERS:
1. Northwestern: Being an egghead school is a proven impediment to winning national titles for everyone but Duke -- but plenty of egghead schools have at least experienced some success. Stanford has gone to a Final Four and been a No. 1 seed several times, and Vanderbilt has become an annual contender in the Southeastern Conference.

Then there is Northwestern.

Despite proximity to a slew of talent, the Wildcats are famously still waiting for their first NCAA tournament invitation. Not first victory; first berth. That's pathetic.

2. USC: There is just a little evidence that a Pac-12 school from Los Angeles can win a national title. It's all hanging from the rafters in the Pauley Pavilion on the UCLA campus. But across town, the Trojans have resolutely avoided achieving anything resembling basketball greatness.

USC has won six NCAA tourney games since 1979, half of them in a 2001 run to the Elite Eight. In the Trojans' last Final Four appearance (1954), they had to win just two games to get there.

Even building a sparkling new arena a couple of years ago hasn't yet turned USC into a legit contender. And there has been plenty of opportunity for a program to assert itself in what has been a weak Pac-12 the past few years.

3. Penn State: When a Big Ten school loses its coach to a mid-pack program from the Patriot League, it qualifies as a repudiation of your basketball rep. The Nittany Lions are a low-attendance, low-salary, high-apathy embarrassment.

Ironically, if Penn State had cared at all about its basketball program, it would have fired Ed DeChellis two years before he got the chance to jilt the place for Navy. Instead the school got a lose-lose situation -- it took seven disappointing seasons to finally earn an NCAA berth under DeChellis, and now it must shop for a new coach in late May.

Which makes Dick Vitale's suggested candidate -- Bob Knight -- a perfect choice. Penn State will have cornered the market on grumpy, old icons...."


We arent on either of Forde's top 10 list-- so in which camp would you place us?

[wyzgy]

i believe we are and have been competitors.  with the exception of the dukiet era, i thought deane had the right idea, but sans the attraction that o'neil had which was the beginning of our assension to where we are today.  always wonder what we could have done with majerus had some people allowed him to stay.  but we are neither over nor under-we are the WARRIORS.  buzz is a one of a kind like al was.  now i'm not comparing the two. al was hollywood.   but buzz has his own style and personality.  i think he's a basketball rainman.  very simple minded outside of the sport, but inside the gym, he might be misunderstood some.  many will say his late game needs honing-probably, but there also is the fact that he needs the talent to understand/buy into his tactics and execute

[ChicosBailBonds]

i believe we are and have been competitors.  with the exception of the dukiet era, i thought deane had the right idea, but sans the attraction that o'neil had which was the beginning of our assension to where we are today.  always wonder what we could have done with majerus had some people allowed him to stay.  but we are neither over nor under-we are the WARRIORS.  buzz is a one of a kind like al was.  now i'm not comparing the two. al was hollywood.   but buzz has his own style and personality.  i think he's a basketball rainman.  very simple minded outside of the sport, but inside the gym, he might be misunderstood some.  many will say his late game needs honing-probably, but there also is the fact that he needs the talent to understand/buy into his tactics and execute

I think he has you fooled.....Buzz is not simple minded outside of basketball.  He is plenty sharp but he relishes in the huckster roll....almost a defense mechanism.  He is no dope and plenty smart.

Houwarrior....when you consider what we did prior to the 64 team era one could argue post 64 team expansion was a bit wobbly...thank God for the 2000's.   We have 12 appearances since the expansion with 8 of those 12 coming since 2001.   So we've gone to the NCAAs roughly every other year since expansion.  The Final Four is the key, without I would say we underachieved.  With it, I wouldn't say we overachieved but achieved credibility.

[Marquette84]

Houwarrior....when you consider what we did prior to the 64 team era one could argue post 64 team expansion was a bit wobbly...thank God for the 2000's.   We have 12 appearances since the expansion with 8 of those 12 coming since 2001.   So we've gone to the NCAAs roughly every other year since expansion.  The Final Four is the key, without I would say we underachieved.  With it, I wouldn't say we overachieved but achieved credibility.

I think its interesting to note the different attitude that Butler and MU have had regarding conference affiliation since our days together as co-members of the MCC (precursor to the Horizon).  I sense that so much of MU's identity is now tied up in what conference we're in and who our opponents are that we've lost sight of the fact that at the end of the season, each team stands on its own merits.

We hated the MCC from day one, and got out as quickly as we could.

Butler started in the exact same space, and leveraged the league's automatic bid and easier competition to become a regular player after the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.

When the record book is written on the season, does anybody care that we played in a tougher league?  Butler gets the listing as a Final Four team.  

Yeah, we get more money out of our Big East relationship than Butler gets from the Horizon.  But we have to plow every dime back into the program to keep us competitive with Pitt and Louisvlle and Uconn, lest we join PC, DePaul and Seton Hall in the lower reaches of the standings.

Yes, there are some benefits to our affiliation with the BE--people would rather turn out for those opponents as opposed to those in the Horizon.  Not going to downplay the visibility we get as "high major".

We left Butler behind when we left the Horizon after the 1991 season. Its conventional wisdom that leaving was a very good move for us.   20 years later and seeing the success of Butler over that period suggests that conference affiliation is overrated.

[Nukem2]

Not so fast 84.  Kudos to Butler, but I suspect that reality will soon set in for Buter with Hayward, Howard and Mack now gone.  Days of deep NCAA runs are probably over got the Bulldogs as they will no longer get guys like this from IN and KY as IU is on the rebound,
Painter has built up Purdue and KY is over Gillispie.  I may be wrong, but probably not.   


Butler has had a nice decade, but....?  In the meantime, most of us enjoy the BE competition.  Yes it costs more to compete, though I would hate to wallow thru a Horizon League season.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I think its interesting to note the different attitude that Butler and MU have had regarding conference affiliation since our days together as co-members of the MCC (precursor to the Horizon).  I sense that so much of MU's identity is now tied up in what conference we're in and who our opponents are that we've lost sight of the fact that at the end of the season, each team stands on its own merits.

We hated the MCC from day one, and got out as quickly as we could.

Butler started in the exact same space, and leveraged the league's automatic bid and easier competition to become a regular player after the first weekend of the NCAA tournament.

When the record book is written on the season, does anybody care that we played in a tougher league?  Butler gets the listing as a Final Four team.  

Yeah, we get more money out of our Big East relationship than Butler gets from the Horizon.  But we have to plow every dime back into the program to keep us competitive with Pitt and Louisvlle and Uconn, lest we join PC, DePaul and Seton Hall in the lower reaches of the standings.

Yes, there are some benefits to our affiliation with the BE--people would rather turn out for those opponents as opposed to those in the Horizon.  Not going to downplay the visibility we get as "high major".

We left Butler behind when we left the Horizon after the 1991 season. Its conventional wisdom that leaving was a very good move for us.   20 years later and seeing the success of Butler over that period suggests that conference affiliation is overrated.

Interesting points, but I think you have to factor in where both schools had been, as well.  MU has a 19,000 seat building to fill and routinely filled the older 11,000 seat building.  Would playing Youngstown State, UWM (chuckle chuckle), UIC, etc pull that off?  I don't think so. Butler averaged something like 5,500 prior to the Final Four years...not sure where they are now...probably 7K or so. I believe Siena does better. MU needed big name teams to come through to help fill the arena, desired the television exposure, and looked to be a national player as a national university.  Butler's mission is different.  They were not a national school, though certainly have earned a national reputation in the last few years.  Let's not forget that Butler's tv exposure during the season is paltry compared to ours.  In the end, because of two great runs they have earned a tremendous amount of exposure, but that's a big bet to place on the crapshoot that is the NCAA tournament (Butler almost lost the first round this year).

To me, the safer more conventional bet is the one MU played.  No guarantees if MU stayed behind we would have accomplished what Butler has.  Besides, how long will Butler be able to continue this?  Perhaps they are the next Gonzaga where they do it for a decade plus...very well could happen. 

Interesting comments.  Certainly you have proven that conference affiliation is not the end all be all which I don't think anyone here can disagree with you on.  Not sure if MU stayed that course, however, if we would be better off or had enough good fortune to realize what Butler has.  Guess we'll never know for sure.

[shoothoops]

Objectively speaking,

Buzz Williams era has been a mixed bag thus far, with the positives outweighing the negatives.

The Tom Crean era was a mixed bag with the positives outweighing the negatives.

The Mike Deane era was a mixed bag, with the negatives outweighing the positives.

KO era was a mixed bag with the positives outweighing the negatives. 

The 80's were not good.

If Buzz Williams keeps Marquette at almost annual NCAA's, mixing in the 2nd weekend, and finishing top half or better of Big East almost annually, he'll be considered successful.  It would help to add the once every many year deeper NCAA run and once every many year challenge for conference title.

We'll see what happens.   

[BCHoopster]

Buzz really has done a good job of recruiting so far, to keep MU at a high level, he will need to bring
in at least one 6'8"-6'9" power forward next year.  Even with 11 or 12 kids this year including Singleton
they are very solid.  I think senior leadership next year is key to any good college team, and the best 2
players next year are seniors.  The year after there has to be some concern, as they really need to recruit
2 bigs.  If Buzz does that, then MU can be good for years and compete in the Big East. This summer is key
for Buzz and MU.  The PR for Buzz can not be much better, he should be able to get into some homes that
maybe in the past MU was unable to do.  I really believe TC did not get that one big, after the Final 4
appearance, lets see if Buzz can!

[Marquette84]

Not so fast 84.  Kudos to Butler, but I suspect that reality will soon set in for Buter with Hayward, Howard and Mack now gone.  Days of deep NCAA runs are probably over got the Bulldogs as they will no longer get guys like this from IN and KY as IU is on the rebound,
Painter has built up Purdue and KY is over Gillispie.  I may be wrong, but probably not.   

I don't see any significant competition for players between Butler and Kentucky, IU or Purdue.  Butler will continue to land the players they need to win Horizon championships--just as Gonzaga has been able to maintain a winning program without a load of 4- and 5-star players.

Would Butler have liked to land Cody Zellar?  Sure.  Did they need him to win the Horizon Championship and win 25 to 30 games?  Dobutful.
 
If they win the league championship, win 25 or 30 games, and finish and only 1 or 2 Horizon losses will they get a #5-7 seed?  You bet.  That is enough to get them into a crapshoot game for a shot at the Sweet 16.

Butler has had a nice decade, but....?  In the meantime, most of us enjoy the BE competition.  Yes it costs more to compete, though I would hate to wallow thru a Horizon League season.

MU has about 8000 undergrads, and 11,000 overall.  Butler has about 3800 undergrads, 4400 overall.

When you adjust for the relative size of the two schools, Butler's 7200 average is on par with MU's 15,600 average.

Butler's average attendance was 189% of the undergrad population (and 164% of overall population).  MU's was 195% of undergrads (and 141% overall).  

To me, the safer more conventional bet is the one MU played.  No guarantees if MU stayed behind we would have accomplished what Butler has.  Besides, how long will Butler be able to continue this?  Perhaps they are the next Gonzaga where they do it for a decade plus...very well could happen. 

Interesting comments.  Certainly you have proven that conference affiliation is not the end all be all which I don't think anyone here can disagree with you on.  Not sure if MU stayed that course, however, if we would be better off or had enough good fortune to realize what Butler has.  Guess we'll never know for sure.

You're right the more conventional bet is the one MU played.  On the other hand, a team like DePaul could have become dominant in the Horizon (or Mac or Summit).   

But in any event--and this thought ties with the other thread on the end of the Big East--while our fans seem to think the only way to get respect and succeed is to be in an extremely tough conference top to bottom, there is another model out there--one that Butler, Gonzaga, Memphis and Xavier are using to great success.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Agree, there is another model...Butler, Gonzaga, Xavier, Memphis, etc are proving life is good even though they play in mid-major conferences.  With the expansion of the NCAA tournament, this will likely increase the number of programs from other smaller conferences that could rise.

I don't know the answer to this, but I wonder how much harder it is to get back to contention from a BCS conference vs a smaller one.  LMU was great for a few years, St. Joe's, George Washington, UMass, etc, but they couldn't maintain it for any number of reasons (LMU tragedy and fallout, Umass NCAA issues), etc. 

To your point, a Butler and others have to rely on good players but not great players and that can be both a benefit and a problem.   Beneficial in that you likely have your players all four years (though Butler lost two to early departure) but potentially a problem because the margin for error in their ability is smaller than better players.  I hope we don't find out anytime soon what this all means, but I suspect we likely will.

[Nukem2]

84, I predict that Butler will not win the Horizon for the next 3 years.   

[HouWarrior]

Houwarrior....when you consider what we did prior to the 64 team era one could argue post 64 team expansion was a bit wobbly...thank God for the 2000's.   We have 12 appearances since the expansion with 8 of those 12 coming since 2001.   So we've gone to the NCAAs roughly every other year since expansion.  The Final Four is the key, without I would say we underachieved.  With it, I wouldn't say we overachieved but achieved credibility.

I agree. without the 2000s, we would be in the underacheivers. With it and the 2003 F4, we shade into over acheiver, assuming there is a bright line, and only an over/under choice.
We'll need at least 5 more years of NCAA runs to join the top 10 over acheiver group, with the likes of UConn and Gonzaga.

[Goose]

I would say with all the program/school offers we probably have under achieved. Obviously the FF is a big help to overall rating of the program, but still think neutral to under achieve in my opinion.

Victories in NCAA are more important to me than appearances. In addition, too many times we have been sitting on selection day hoping to get in. Fortunately the past decade the "if" factor has diminished to some extent which is a positive.

[dgies9156]

OK, I've staked my claim as an old-timer. That said, much depends on how one defines "over-" or "Under-achiever." If you're from my generation, we've been to one regional final and one final four since 1977, so that's under-achieving. If your basis for comparison is the 1980s, then boom, we've heavily exceeded expectations.

That said, we underachieved because we have, until now, failed to keep a winning coach engaged and energized in the Marquette head coaching position. We hired Rick Majerus too early and then watched him develop tournament caliber teams at Ball State and NCAA Championship caliber teams at Utah. We lost Kevin O'Neill to Tennessee when he was on the verge of executing something very good. We lost Tom Crean after he recruited the amigos and got the DWade team to the Final Four. To be excellent means having coaching stability with a coach who is an essential part of the University's personality and life. Only by building something special with a college coach does a team recruit consistently in a way that will ensure it will be a perrenial contender for national glory (see, Duke University).

To the Administration's credit, we're headed in the right direction with Buzz. Let's see how things go, but I'm excited.

[Goose]

dgies---Perfectly stated post!

[bilsu]

OK, I've staked my claim as an old-timer. That said, much depends on how one defines "over-" or "Under-achiever." If you're from my generation, we've been to one regional final and one final four since 1977, so that's under-achieving. If your basis for comparison is the 1980s, then boom, we've heavily exceeded expectations.

That said, we underachieved because we have, until now, failed to keep a winning coach engaged and energized in the Marquette head coaching position. We hired Rick Majerus too early and then watched him develop tournament caliber teams at Ball State and NCAA Championship caliber teams at Utah. We lost Kevin O'Neill to Tennessee when he was on the verge of executing something very good. We lost Tom Crean after he recruited the amigos and got the DWade team to the Final Four. To be excellent means having coaching stability with a coach who is an essential part of the University's personality and life. Only by building something special with a college coach does a team recruit consistently in a way that will ensure it will be a perrenial contender for national glory (see, Duke University).

To the Administration's credit, we're headed in the right direction with Buzz. Let's see how things go, but I'm excited.

I am also in the oldtimers catagory. I agree we promted Rick Majerus too soon. Raymonds had the program on an uptick when he turned it over to Majerus, before Majures was ready. Majerus felt a lot of pressure and left after three years sending the program into the Dukiet tailspin. Crean stayed 9 years, which is a more than average length of time for a coach at one school. Raymonds coached 6 years, Majerus 3, Dukiet 3, O'Neal 5, Deane 5. Of the 16 Big East schools, I believe only 7 have the same coach they had when MU joined the league.  A 56% turnover in five years and I suspect that is equivalent to the rest of college basketball.

[brewcity77]

I think we are an underachiever, and I think that we have been an underachiever in the 2000s as well. We have the second-highest budget in all of NCAA basketball. We have built new facilities, play in an NBA arena, and the men's basketball program is the undisputed king on campus. While we are headed in the right direction, the money that we are spending in theory should be paying off with results.

We spend more than double what the following programs spend annually: Washington, Purdue, Ohio State, Kansas State, Missouri, and Notre Dame. Only Duke spends more than we do. When it comes to bang for the buck, one Final Four this decade isn't enough. One additional Sweet Sixteen isn't enough. Only twice in the past 17 years have we played beyond the first weekend of the tournament. While we may not have had expenditures as high as we do now in most of those years, the expenditures are there now and the current regime needs to deliver.

All that said, we are in position to do just that. The recruiting classes are coming. This year is Buzz's most "disappointing" class and we still have a top 100 player (Anderson) and a late-emerging scoring stud (Mayo). With Jamil and Derrick Wilson both suiting up for the first time next season, this would have been considered one of our best classes in the years between the Final Four and the arrival of the Three Amigos (at least on paper). If this is going to be Buzz's "disappointing" class, I think we're doing pretty good from a recruiting standpoint. In addition, scheduling is improving, which should help us improve our early-season profile and ultimately our seed.

While it all looks good, we have to capitalize. As long as we keep spending the way we have been, I think it's fair to expect to routinely be ranked and competing for conference titles, with the Sweet Sixteen a pretty safe goal year-in and year-out. I realize there will be ups and downs, and I can live with coming up short some years, but as often as we are on the bubble, happy to make the Big Dance, we should be having hope of deep runs while earning top-3 seeds. The resources are there, the coaching staff seems to be there, but for us to stop being an underachiever, as we have been for the past 34 years (past decade definitely included) it's time for the results to catch up to the expenditures.

[Pakuni]

I think we are an underachiever, and I think that we have been an underachiever in the 2000s as well. We have the second-highest budget in all of NCAA basketball. We have built new facilities, play in an NBA arena, and the men's basketball program is the undisputed king on campus. While we are headed in the right direction, the money that we are spending in theory should be paying off with results.

We spend more than double what the following programs spend annually: Washington, Purdue, Ohio State, Kansas State, Missouri, and Notre Dame. Only Duke spends more than we do. When it comes to bang for the buck, one Final Four this decade isn't enough. One additional Sweet Sixteen isn't enough. Only twice in the past 17 years have we played beyond the first weekend of the tournament. While we may not have had expenditures as high as we do now in most of those years, the expenditures are there now and the current regime needs to deliver.

All that said, we are in position to do just that. The recruiting classes are coming. This year is Buzz's most "disappointing" class and we still have a top 100 player (Anderson) and a late-emerging scoring stud (Mayo). With Jamil and Derrick Wilson both suiting up for the first time next season, this would have been considered one of our best classes in the years between the Final Four and the arrival of the Three Amigos (at least on paper). If this is going to be Buzz's "disappointing" class, I think we're doing pretty good from a recruiting standpoint. In addition, scheduling is improving, which should help us improve our early-season profile and ultimately our seed.

While it all looks good, we have to capitalize. As long as we keep spending the way we have been, I think it's fair to expect to routinely be ranked and competing for conference titles, with the Sweet Sixteen a pretty safe goal year-in and year-out. I realize there will be ups and downs, and I can live with coming up short some years, but as often as we are on the bubble, happy to make the Big Dance, we should be having hope of deep runs while earning top-3 seeds. The resources are there, the coaching staff seems to be there, but for us to stop being an underachiever, as we have been for the past 34 years (past decade definitely included) it's time for the results to catch up to the expenditures.

I'm not sure it's fair to link expenditures with success in college sports. Or at least not expect expect a direct correlation between dollars spent and games won.

IMO, MU needs to spend the kind of money it spends just to stay competitive because it lacks the kind of natural, money-can't-buy advantages inherent at many other schools.
Marquette is not THE state school like Ohio State, Mizzou or Washington, or even a state school in a talent-rich place like Indiana (Purdue). MU is in a less-than-desirable location/campus compared to those other places you mention and, outside of perhaps Notre Dame, lacks those other programs' history in their conference and certainty in their conference. And it obviously lacks a football ATM like Notre Dame to subsidize the rest of the athletic department.
So how does MU make up for these shortcomings? Spend, spend, spend. Pay your coaches and staff top dollar. Build elite facilities. Provide state-of-the-art training and top-flight travel arrangements.
Even then, MU could spend five times what everybody else is spending and we're not going to be UNC, Duke or Kansas. The highest-paid coach in all the land isn't going to convince many kids Marquette is a better place to play college basketball than North Carolina, Duke or UCLA. It's just not happening. They have advantages MU can never write a check to obtain.
But then again, when you look at some of the schools you cited, none of them outside OSU have been notably more successful than MU over the last decade.  I'd be surprised if many (any) of them generate the revenue MU does, and none match MU's attendance.
So while we'd all love to see more wins and deeper tourney runs, it seems unfair and inaccurate to suggest MU isn't getting bang for its buck.

[dgies9156]

I am also in the oldtimers catagory. I agree we promted Rick Majerus too soon. Raymonds had the program on an uptick when he turned it over to Majerus, before Majures was ready. Majerus felt a lot of pressure and left after three years sending the program into the Dukiet tailspin. Crean stayed 9 years, which is a more than average length of time for a coach at one school. Raymonds coached 6 years, Majerus 3, Dukiet 3, O'Neal 5, Deane 5. Of the 16 Big East schools, I believe only 7 have the same coach they had when MU joined the league.  A 56% turnover in five years and I suspect that is equivalent to the rest of college basketball.

When we look at the great programs in college basketball, the one thing that stands out is coaching stability... well beyond what Marquette has experienced since Al left. For example, Coach K has been at Duke for more than 30 years; Dean Smith started coaching North Carolina -- oh, about the time the university was founded. Naah, it was in the early 1960s. Lute Olsen left Iowa in the early 1980s for Arizona and stayed there until he could not coach any longer. Jim Boeheim has been at Syracuse forever and the Thompson family has coached Georgetown since the first Jesuit explored the Potomoc. Roy Williams will now be at Carolina until the second coming and Bill Self will be at Kansas until, well, the day before Roy Williams leaves!

The point is, yes, there has been quite a bit of turnover with Big East schools. But the consistent winners -- Georgetown, Syracuse, UConn and even Pitt and Villanova -- have had extraordinary coaching stability. A young man comes to these universities intuitively knowing his coach will be there four years hence. If I'm a Top 50 or Top 100 recruit, that's critical to my selection because I'm buying into a style, a system and a commitment to how basketball is and will be played at my choice of university.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Brew, keep in mind expenses can be applied to all sorts of cost centers depending on the accounting creativity.  It may look like we're spending gobs more than Ohio State or fill in state football school, but they may be allocating their costs against the football program, or evenly distributing it among 25 sports programs (we have 14 or 15), some schools will be attribute some costs against general funding and such.

It's very difficult to get a good handle on who is truly spending what, where, etc. 

[Earl Tatum]

With the exception of a few years after Al and Hank had the program, and if we spend major bucks on the basketball program and can't put out a b+ product every year, WE ARE UNDERACHIEVING Period. Slick Rick wasn't quite ready, Deane and Dukiet were big time idiots. The program took a gigantic hit in those years. McNeil and even though I'm not a Crean fan were
great recruiters until they got to MU. But the former great MU recruiting territories were lost. We can't get anything worthwhile out of Illinois, D-Wade was an exception, even DePaul will start to recruit Illinois stronger, then we really will really sink. Can't even make a dent in the East. State of Wisconsin has some very good ball players coming up, I suggest we really go after them. (Koenig, Fuller, Fischer, Burton, Mecca, D. Wilson, Landers and Looney). Get a big time, Big name, coach if you are disatisfied with Williams. I AM. WE HAVE SUNK SINCE "GIVEM HELL AL", and "HOLLERIN' HANK".

[dgies9156]

With the exception of a few years after Al and Hank had the program, and if we spend major bucks on the basketball program and can't put out a b+ product every year, WE ARE UNDERACHIEVING Period. Slick Rick wasn't quite ready, Deane and Dukiet were big time idiots. The program took a gigantic hit in those years. McNeil and even though I'm not a Crean fan were
great recruiters until they got to MU. But the former great MU recruiting territories were lost. We can't get anything worthwhile out of Illinois, D-Wade was an exception, even DePaul will start to recruit Illinois stronger, then we really will really sink. Can't even make a dent in the East. State of Wisconsin has some very good ball players coming up, I suggest we really go after them. (Koenig, Fuller, Fischer, Burton, Mecca, D. Wilson, Landers and Looney). Get a big time, Big name, coach if you are disatisfied with Williams. I AM. WE HAVE SUNK SINCE "GIVEM HELL AL", and "HOLLERIN' HANK".

Earl, Earl, Earl.....


C'mon, you know better

[Earl Tatum]

Sorry-- Dgies 9156-- It's my opinion . I saw the McGuire and Raymond years. Majerus was pretty good, but our territories were declining then and then came Deane and Dukiet. O'Neil and Crean did decent jobs recruiting, but were lost our IN on some territories that made us a success. Our bunch was going for some 30 years twice a year to games from up North, followed MU Basketball religiously and hated Wisconsin BB. I give the Badgers a little respect now but bleed MU. I do admit we are competitive, but with money spent on the program, I think we should do better. Maybe it is the administration holding us back. That's just my thoughts. At least I saw the NCAA Championship in Atlanta.

[dgies9156]

Earl, you and I are the same generation. I was an MU 1978 grad and saw the early McGuire years, courtesy of my father, an MU 1955 grad. Look, it took St. Al of Brookfield 13 years to get his NCAA Championship. It also took five years before St. Al made a meaningful dent in a tournament that was much smaller and less complicated than the three-weekend trip to glory we have now.

Championships are built over time. Even Dean Smith was roundly criticized for not being able to "win the big one" after Marquette defeated North Carolina in 1977. Next to Al and maybe John Wooden, Dean Smith may have been the greatest college coach of all time. And, look how long he was at Carolina.

That's why I believe that if the rumors about Buzz's contract provisions are true, Marquette is on the way to the stability it needs to be a perrenial power in the Big East.

I bleed as blue and gold as you do and before I pass to the Maurice Lucas room in heaven, I would love to see another National Championship banner in the corner of the Bradley Center (no, Milwaukee will NOT build yet another arena for the Bucks and Warriors). But I think the program is in good hands and I think the recruiting is what you make of it. Al was a New York street guy, so we ended up with New Yoork street players. Buzz is a hard-working, blue collar kinda  guy whose players give 150% and he gets that kind of kid.

Incidentally, I thought the beginnings of our demise in the 1980s was the appointment of Hank to be head basketball coach. Hank was a wonderful man and an important part of our program, but he had been passed over once before (in 1964) as head coach and despite serving under Al, I'm not sure what he had in 1977 that he did not have in 1964. Hank should have continued as top assistant and Marquette should have done a nationwide search for a new, dynamic "Al Junior." We didn't and the consequences were debilitating for a long time thereafter.

[BCHoopster]

The program changed when Hank did not want Skip Dillard, which lost him Mark Aquirre, because he thought
he had Scooter McCray.  Secondly, Dean Marquardt was never the player after his injury.  Hank thought that
Rick was a rising star, not really.