If Crean has signaled to Fr. Wild he is going, then I hope someone

[79Warrior]

calls Rick before he goes to Iowa. Huge mistake to let him get away. On the other hand, Tom may be staying and all is well in Warriorville!

[ChicosBailBonds]

Related....  http://marquettebasketball.blogspot.com/

[bma725]

I really don't think Majerus is going to Iowa, he's denied it, and they still plan to do interviews with other coaches(Altman etc) in the coming weeks. 

On another former coach note, Kevin O'Neill is apparently a candidate for the South Florida job.  It would be interesting having him back in college and at a school in our conference.

[mugoose]

not all that interested in kevin o'neil. talk about stock dropped. the guy has to settle for a bum job.

[4everwarriors]

USF is a bum job? I think they're a sleeping giant. Huge student population in a hot bed state of basketball in a dynamite conference. Kevin would be a good fit there and be very successful.

[MarquetteFan94]

USF is a bum job? I think they're a sleeping giant. Huge student population in a hot bed state of basketball in a dynamite conference. Kevin would be a good fit there and be very successful.

Yes...right now USF is a bum job....they draw 3-4,000/game (even with a 25k+ student body), play in a dump and haven't had a winning record since 2002....bum job.

If kids aren't staying in state to play at Miami and/or FSU they're most likely not going to turn to USF anytime soon...although FSU is obviously improving.

[Marquette84]

***Yes...right now USF is a bum job

You could have said that about Wisconsin in 1992. Or Arizona in 1978.  Or Pittsburgh in 1998.  Or Georgetown or UConn in 1977.

USF may not be a great program right now, but they start out with one HUGE advantage over programs like UCF or Stetson or Savannah State--they're a member of the Big East.

UCF or Florida International are bum jobs--USF has serious potential.

With the right coach and a bit of sustained success, they have the potential to become a national power the same way that teams like Wisconsin did. 

[Niv Berkowitz]

USF isn't a sexy job by any means, but considering it has the resources of using the Big East brand, and they draw on recruits from a state known for them (if football more so than hoops), it could be a sleeping giant for a coach.

Not from a fact of ever being a powerhouse in the league, but becoming a team that has 10,000+ at its games, hits .500 for their record fairly consistently, and always has a shot at beating anyone. You can't say they have that now. Plus, if their football team ever gets better, that also leads to the hoops getting better and more recognition for recruits.

It's not the best job, but based on location and conference affiliation, you can do a lot, lot worse.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

There is potential I guess... but no history.

I would say SJU and Depaul might be bigger "sleeping giants" from the Big East.

SJU is in NY (obviously some talent in the area), and have alumni with some big finacial resources. I think if the school re-commited itself to winning it could have a similar renaissance like MU.

And as much as we make fun of DePaul, we just better hope they never get their act together. Their stadium sucks, and its far away... but DePaul could/should be the premier college hoops team in Chicago. U of I will always be more popular, but it's a good distance away, so DePaul could end up similar to MU and Madison. Madison is more popular, but MU sells out a lot of games.

[MarquetteFan94]

***Yes...right now USF is a bum job

You could have said that about Wisconsin in 1992. Or Arizona in 1978.  Or Pittsburgh in 1998.  Or Georgetown or UConn in 1977.

USF may not be a great program right now, but they start out with one HUGE advantage over programs like UCF or Stetson or Savannah State--they're a member of the Big East.

UCF or Florida International are bum jobs--USF has serious potential.

With the right coach and a bit of sustained success, they have the potential to become a national power the same way that teams like Wisconsin did. 

Sure....you could've said that about UNC pre-Dean Smith or Georgetown pre-George Thompson II too....until USF gets a top notch coach they are a bottom feeder....not sure KO is their guy to build a program...could be, but IMO they need someone a lot more PR-focused than KO....someone that will embrace the student body.

Being in a top-tier conference definitely gives a school that is rebuiling or, in USF's case, building a program a potential advantage but just playing big time opponents doesn't guarantee anything....Baylor, Arizona St., Oregon St., Miami (FL), Penn St. to name a few.

I'd say Miami and FSU have as much, if not more, potential for upside than USF in the short term....but I agree, a couple, consecutive winning seasons and they could be on their way up...it's just a matter of getting there.

[BigSky]

USF started their football school 10 years ago and has made huge strides ...from 1-AA to D-1 in that time beating ranked D-1 football teams, bowl games(yes practically everyone goes to a bowl, but bowl nonetheless)....It's a 44,000 commuter school....but only the football team plays off campus and that may change in future years.  45,000 for some football games...in a short amount of time.  Pretty impressive.

On a separate note, O'Neill would be successful a lot of places.  He may have had a poddy mouth and some personality issues, but he also was a great recruiter and coach at MU. 

[bma725]

Sure....you could've said that about UNC pre-Dean Smith

No you couldn't have.  They had already established themselves a premier team in the country before Dean Smith got there.  They'd won a NCAA national title, a Helm's(pre-NCAA) national title, and lost the championship game of another NCAA tournament.  They had two undefeated seasons, national coach of the year, national player of the year, etc.  Smith wasn't hired to coach a bad program, he was hired to coach one of the best programs in the country.

The schools that are true national powers have been that way for many many years.  Duke and UCLA have been a premier program since the 1950s.  UNC since at the latest the 1950s.  Indiana and Kentucky the 1940s.  Kansas the 1920s.  And that's just the top level.  That's not even counting schools like Louisville or Michigan State or Arizona etc.

For all the advantages USF may provide for a coach moving up from a low or mid major, or assistant who's never had a head job, taking it to any real sustainable heights is going to be tough in this day and age.  They are starting at such a disadvantage, while the others just continue to build on what they have already done.  USF may be able to be a mid-level Big East team most of the time and a top level B.E. team once in a great while, but IMO that's about it.  Turning any program into a power these days is going to be very very tough.

[Marquette84]

USF may be able to be a mid-level Big East team most of the time and a top level B.E. team once in a great while, but IMO that's about it.  Turning any program into a power these days is going to be very very tough.

Serious question:

In 1992 would you have said that Wisconsin would ever be able to surpass Illinois and Ohio State and Indiana as an elite Big Ten team?  Or would you have concluded that they may be able to be a mid-level Big Ten team most of the time, and a top level B10 teams once in a great while?

In 1980 would you have said that Arizona would ever be able to surpass UCLA in the Pac Ten?  Or would you have concluded that they may be able to be a mid-level Pac Ten team most of theme and a top level team once in a great while?

There are numerous examples of has-beens or never-weres who are able to rise to the elite level and maintain that level for an extended period of time.  I don't think you can exclude USF from future consideration simply because they haven't had much in the past.  Wisconsin, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Duke, Arizona are all good examples of teams that transcended long periods with little to no success to return

[MarquetteFan94]

Sure....you could've said that about UNC pre-Dean Smith

Duke and UCLA have been a premier program since the 1950s. 

Duke was hardly a premier progam in the 50s....they won their conference tourney once in the 50s and made it as far as the Elite 8 once.  The only got out of the regionals 3 times in the 60s and once in the 70s.  It wasn't until Bill Foster's last few years and the arrival of Coach K until Duke gained sustained national prominence...won their first Nat'l Championship in '91.

It all starts with the right coach...it would be great for the BE if USF could get something going.

[bma725]

You need to check again.  They made 3 Final Fours in the 1960s including losing the championship game to UCLA in 1964.  They had National Coach of the Year winners, National Player of the Year winners, and multiple All-Americans throughout that period. 

[bma725]

USF may be able to be a mid-level Big East team most of the time and a top level B.E. team once in a great while, but IMO that's about it.  Turning any program into a power these days is going to be very very tough.

Serious question:

In 1992 would you have said that Wisconsin would ever be able to surpass Illinois and Ohio State and Indiana as an elite Big Ten team?  Or would you have concluded that they may be able to be a mid-level Big Ten team most of the time, and a top level B10 teams once in a great while?

In 1980 would you have said that Arizona would ever be able to surpass UCLA in the Pac Ten?  Or would you have concluded that they may be able to be a mid-level Pac Ten team most of theme and a top level team once in a great while?

There are numerous examples of has-beens or never-weres who are able to rise to the elite level and maintain that level for an extended period of time.  I don't think you can exclude USF from future consideration simply because they haven't had much in the past.  Wisconsin, Georgetown, Pittsburgh, Duke, Arizona are all good examples of teams that transcended long periods with little to no success to return

IN 1992 I wouldn't have said that Illinois and Ohio State were the premier programs in the Big Ten, and in terms of history, I would say Wisconsin still hasn't surpassed them.  To be an elite program you have to do it over a longer period of time. 

And again, I would say Arizona hasn't surpassed UCLA, it takes more success over a longer period of time to do that.

Additionally both of those schools have an advantage that USF will never have.  They are the top school in their state.  If there are big time players in their state, they have the advantage.  They will always get the most media coverage throughout the state and always been seen as the bigger more important program.  They will have more fans, more potential ticket buyers etc.  USF will never have that.  Because of the athletics history at other schools, the best they can hope for is 4th.  In fact if it weren't for the Big East tie, they'd more easily be compared to Northern Arizona than Arizona....and we all know the Big East doesn't necessarily guarantee success.

[MarquetteFan94]

You need to check again.  They made 3 Final Fours in the 1960s including losing the championship game to UCLA in 1964.  They had National Coach of the Year winners, National Player of the Year winners, and multiple All-Americans throughout that period. 

The 60s aren't the 50s....yes, a handful of All-Americans and one player of the year in the 60s is very impressive but they were hardly a premier progam leading up to the '64 National Championship game...further, they went 11 straight years without an NCAA appearance after '67....no National Championships until '91.

[Marquette84]

***IN 1992 I wouldn't have said that Illinois and Ohio State were the premier programs in the Big Ten, and in terms of history, I would say Wisconsin still hasn't surpassed them.  To be an elite program you have to do it over a longer period of time. 

Illinois was coming off NCAA appearnces in eight of the previous nine seasons, including a final four, and didn't finish lower than 4th in that timeframe.  Yet you wouldn't consider them one of the premier teams in the conference?  Meanwhile, Wisconsin has now been to 10 or 11 straight NCAAs, won the Big Ten Championship 3 of the last 6 years--yet *THEY* aren't at a level with Illinois or Ohio State?  

You've simply created a circular argument.  You seem to be sayting that you can't be considered a premire program unless you have both current AND historic success--and 20 years of success simply isn't enough.  Wince USF doesn't have a history, they can't possibly have a future.

Any team that has reached an elite level without a long term history (I.e Wisconsin) is simply declared not worthy due to lack of history--even though they overcame 47 years of futility to become a national contender and have consistently been there for a decade.


The counter argument to this is that USF will actually have an easier time reaching success than Wisconsin--they only have to overcome a decade of futility--not the 50 years that UW had to live down.  
  

***And again, I would say Arizona hasn't surpassed UCLA, it takes more success over a longer period of time to do that.


Well how long is long enough?  Arizona has finished ahead of UCLA in the Pac 10 in 16 of the past 23 seasons.  

***Additionally both of those schools have an advantage that USF will never have.  They are the top school in their state.  If there are big time players in their state, they have the advantage. 

Hmm.  I remember Marquette being the top team in Wisconsin at one time.  

And there are oh, so many quality recruits in Arizona to build a program around.  Or Wisconsin for that matter.  I seem to recall that Wisconsin is led right now by a kid out of Illinois.  Tucker, if I recall.  


***They will always get the most media coverage throughout the state

Just like one could once predict that Marquette would continue to get the most media coverage.  

***and always been seen as the bigger more important program. 

Just like Marquette had always been the  bigger and more important program than Wisconsin.


***They will have more fans, more potential ticket buyers etc.  USF will never have that. 

Why?  Are you saying that people in Tampa simply don't care about a successful winning program?  That somehow, only people in Tallahassee or Gainsfille care if there's a successful winning team in town?


***Because of the athletics history at other schools, the best they can hope for is 4th.  In fact if it weren't for the Big East tie, they'd more easily be compared to Northern Arizona than Arizona


Well, gee, if it wasn't for the Big Ten tie, Wisconsin would be more like UWGB or UWM.  If it wasn't for the ACC, UNC would be more like UNC-Wilmington.  If it wasn't for the Pac 10, UCLA would be more like UC-Santa Barbara.


***....and we all know the Big East doesn't necessarily guarantee success.

Duh!

There is no guarantee of success for ANY team in ANY conference--and there is no guarantee that ANY successful programs of the past will stay that way--when is the last time you remember hearing about Loyola as a national champoinship contender?

The point was that with the right coach, USF can become as successful as Wisconsin, Arizona, Pittsburgh, etc. have been of late.  

While they can't create a past history--I'd argue that schools like Wisconsin, Arizona, etc. have done okay without that history.

[Final Four or Bust]

You need to check again.  They made 3 Final Fours in the 1960s including losing the championship game to UCLA in 1964.  They had National Coach of the Year winners, National Player of the Year winners, and multiple All-Americans throughout that period. 

The 60s aren't the 50s....yes, a handful of All-Americans and one player of the year in the 60s is very impressive but they were hardly a premier progam leading up to the '64 National Championship game...further, they went 11 straight years without an NCAA appearance after '67....no National Championships until '91.

So national championships are the only banner of success?  Sorry, but arguing about the basketball history of UNC and Duke on this forum is foolish.  Sure they've had relative down cycles, but no one would argue they aren't a premier program -- and certainly no one in ACC country would ever suggest that.  (Remember, the tournament only used to be for conference champs for the most part -- Maryland had very few appearances many years ago ONLY because they were in the ACC and overshadowed by a UNC, Duke or NC State.  If it was now they would have had lots of teams in the tourney).

[MarquetteFan94]

You need to check again.  They made 3 Final Fours in the 1960s including losing the championship game to UCLA in 1964.  They had National Coach of the Year winners, National Player of the Year winners, and multiple All-Americans throughout that period. 

The 60s aren't the 50s....yes, a handful of All-Americans and one player of the year in the 60s is very impressive but they were hardly a premier progam leading up to the '64 National Championship game...further, they went 11 straight years without an NCAA appearance after '67....no National Championships until '91.

So national championships are the only banner of success?  Sorry, but arguing about the basketball history of UNC and Duke on this forum is foolish.  Sure they've had relative down cycles, but no one would argue they aren't a premier program -- and certainly no one in ACC country would ever suggest that.  (Remember, the tournament only used to be for conference champs for the most part -- Maryland had very few appearances many years ago ONLY because they were in the ACC and overshadowed by a UNC, Duke or NC State.  If it was now they would have had lots of teams in the tourney).

You missed the primary point of the disagreement.  My original point was that a lot of "traditional" basketball powerhouses were not always top tier programs...until a now-legendary coach came along.  A previous poster was stating that Duke (just like UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, etc.) has been a top-tier/elite program since the 50s (earlier for the others)...I was disputing that fact saying that, while they did string together a few good seasons in the mid-60s (never winning a national title) they clearly did not become an elite progam until Coach K's tenure.

And, yes, Natiional Championships are exactly what differentiate the truly elite, historically successful progams.  There are many moderately successful programs throughout history but only a handful of elite programs:  UCLA, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, etc. have managed to win several national championships over an extended period of time.

Believe me, I'd much rather be debating who should be the first guy off the bench tonight for MU than some Duke BS from 50 years ago. ;-)

[Final Four or Bust]

A previous poster was stating that Duke (just like UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, etc.) has been a top-tier/elite program since the 50s (earlier for the others)...I was disputing that fact saying that, while they did string together a few good seasons in the mid-60s (never winning a national title) they clearly did not become an elite progam until Coach K's tenure.

And this is where I disagree with you -- Duke's success (as much as I despise them) does not begin and end with Coach K.  The history is there and many would argue they were among the elite prior to Coach K.  Maybe not at the top of the elite pile, but certainly in it. 

[MarquetteFan94]

A previous poster was stating that Duke (just like UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA, etc.) has been a top-tier/elite program since the 50s (earlier for the others)...I was disputing that fact saying that, while they did string together a few good seasons in the mid-60s (never winning a national title) they clearly did not become an elite program until Coach K's tenure.

And this is where I disagree with you -- Duke's success (as much as I despise them) does not begin and end with Coach K.  The history is there and many would argue they were among the elite prior to Coach K.  Maybe not at the top of the elite pile, but certainly in it. 

I guess it's a matter of opinion (obviously) but I don't see how Duke could've been amongst the elite having never won a National Championship prior to Coach K...sure they were a very solid program for a few years in the mid-60s...one of the best...but an 11 year drought from the NCAA followed those teams in the 60s...I don't see it.  Coach K, while building off of what Bill Foster started, elevated and subsequently sustained that program to the elite status it has today.

To quote the great Ron Burgundy....."Agree to disagree..." 

[pbiflyer]

Yes...right now USF is a bum job....they draw 3-4,000/game (even with a 25k+ student body), play in a dump and haven't had a winning record since 2002....bum job.

Yeah, but they have started serving beer in their arena, even though it is on campus. Only one stand serves Miller Lite, with the rest serving Bud. But its a start.