Some Thoughts On MU Recruiting

[Dawson Rental]

We were a top 5 program (not team, program) under Al. The money and the competition are much greater today, making a return to that status nearly impossible IMO. Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC and UCLA would be very difficult to dislodge. Off the top of my head, Michigan St.,Syracuse, Louisville, Indiana and Arizona are probably 6-10. Right now we're in that next group that includes Ohio St, Michigan, Georgetown, UConn, Florida, Nova and others. Top 20, closing in on the top 15. As hard as it was to go from maybe 60 to 30 under TC it's even harder to go from 30 to 15. A move into the bottom of the top 10 is probably our ceiling even with a top young coach like Buzz - lose him and expectations, for me anyway, slide a little.

Calling MU a top 60 program just prior to Crean seems overly generous to me.

[Pakuni]

Generally agree with a lot of your takes Pakuni - yet disagree with your feelings on a "program."  A program is simply an extension of the Head Coach - it has virtually nothing to do with the university...great facilities, an NBA arena and an administration that invests heavily on athletics...is still not formula for success.  Lots of schools have all the above yet don't perform.

Xavier was GREAT under Sean Miller...and guess what, since Sean Miller's gone to Arizona - Arizona once again has become really good.  Arizona was great under Lute Olson, yet faltered after he left....Miller comes in..and once again they are bordering elite.  Xavier, on the other hand, has been trending downward since Miller left - Mack's recruits haven't been to the level of Miller.  Xavier and Arizona are still the same "program" with regard to facilities, admin commitment - yet why the drop in performance at Xavier once Miller left and Arizona once Lute Olson?  Just  don't see Xavier being a perennially good program capable of Sweet 16 and Elite 8's with just anybody as a head coach...takes a special talent.

I'm not dismissing the importance of the coach. I'm dismissing the notion that Buzz Williams is somehow uniquely qualified to succeed at Marquette, or that the level of success he's attained here is beyond the reach of nearly anyone else. I think if you put Shaka Smart, Sean Miller, Josh Pastner, John Groce or a few others at MU they could mirror Buzz's success. I recognize those guys aren't dime-a-dozen (to borrow an old phrase), but they're not impossible to find either.
And, just to be clear, I don't want to have to find out.

But I do disagree with the idea that lots of schools have comparable facilities and investment as Marquette without performing. Very few schools invest in basketball the way Marquette does, and those that do are almost all perennial winners (top 10 spenders, in order: Duke, Louisville, Kentucky, Marquette, Arkansas, Michigan St., Texas, Indiana, Syracuse, Pitt).

Also, I think you're being too hard on Chris Mack. He made the Sweet 16 two of his first three years, and while Xavier had a down year last year, there were extenuating circumstances (Dez Wells being expelled, Mark Lyons transfer). They've got some good young players returning and a top 20 recruiting class for 2014 that could get better, as they seem to be a favorite for top 50 Trevon Bluiett.

[Lennys Tap]

I don't think we disagree at all in our assessment of Buzz. We both think he's done a terrific job and would be tough for MU to replace.
I think we disagree with our assessment of Marquette.
You seem to think MU's an otherwise decent program that caught lightning in a bottle with Buzz and shouldn't (couldn't?) hope to replicate his success with another coach should he leave.
I think MU's more of a Xavier-type program, perennially good with the ability to make trips to the Sweet 16s and Elite 8s under different coaches.

Bottom line: I don't want Buzz to leave. It would suck. But if he does, Marquette will survive and, if they make the right hire, continue to have a successful basketball program.

Here are my expectations (roughly speaking) for MU(post Buzz) as a program (facilities, history and commitment non withstanding):

1.Bad hire = a sub top 50 program
2.Good hire = a 25-40 ranked program
3.Elite hire = a 10-25 ranked program

I think the odds favor continued success (2) but are very much against Buzz-like success (3).

[Lennys Tap]

Calling MU a top 60 program just prior to Crean seems overly generous to me.

Maybe, but even if we were 100 moving from there to 30 isn't as hard as going from 30 to 15. The extra 40 programs you're jumping aren't very competitive.

[Dawson Rental]

Maybe, but even if we were 100 moving from there to 30 isn't as hard as going from 30 to 15. The extra 40 programs you're jumping aren't very competitive.

Quite so, except maybe for the maybe.

[Pakuni]

Here are my expectations (roughly speaking) for MU(post Buzz) as a program (facilities, history and commitment non withstanding):

1.Bad hire = a sub top 50 program
2.Good hire = a 25-40 ranked program
3.Elite hire = a 10-25 ranked program

I think the odds favor continued success (2) but are very much against Buzz-like success (3).

That would, for all intents, make O'Neill, Crean and Buzz "elite" hires, or at least darn close.
MU was a top 20 team O'Neill's final year, were ranked in the top 25 for much of Crean's tenure after he had a chance to bring in his own players (i.e. post 2001). That's obviously continued during the Buzz era.
If three of MU's last four hires have been "elite,"  (or very close, under your criteria) why are you so skeptical about them doing it again, especially now when the job is far more attractive to an up-and-coming coach than when O'Neill and Crean came aboard?
I agree and understand that it's far from a sure thing - one of several reasons I'd like to keep Buzz - but there's nothing in MU's recent history that suggests we should be terribly pessimistic about it.

[keefe]

We forget that Al's teams won more than 2 games in the NCAA tournament only twice in his career

Because there were far fewer teams in the Tournament. In 1974 when MU went to the Championship game there were only 25 teams.

[MU82]

Here are my expectations (roughly speaking) for MU(post Buzz) as a program (facilities, history and commitment non withstanding):

1.Bad hire = a sub top 50 program
2.Good hire = a 25-40 ranked program
3.Elite hire = a 10-25 ranked program

I think the odds favor continued success (2) but are very much against Buzz-like success (3).

Ah, but what constitutes an "elite" hire? Was Buzz an elite hire? Lotsa folks sure didn't think so the day it happened!

Given the growth of our program, I would guess we'd be able to attract elite coaching talent should the job open up -- even if that elite gentleman is an assistant coach plenty of folks have never heard of.

Of course, this might not be an issue for another decade or two ... but by all means, let's keep talking about Buzz leaving as if it's a foregone conclusion. (Present company included.)

[Dawson Rental]

Because there were far fewer teams in the Tournament. In 1974 when MU went to the Championship game there were only 25 teams.

A pertinent point.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to post incorrectly about it."

                                             

[Lennys Tap]

That would, for all intents, make O'Neill, Crean and Buzz "elite" hires, or at least darn close.
MU was a top 20 team O'Neill's final year, were ranked in the top 25 for much of Crean's tenure after he had a chance to bring in his own players (i.e. post 2001). That's obviously continued during the Buzz era.
If three of MU's last four hires have been "elite,"  (or very close, under your criteria) why are you so skeptical about them doing it again, especially now when the job is far more attractive to an up-and-coming coach than when O'Neill and Crean came aboard?
I agree and understand that it's far from a sure thing - one of several reasons I'd like to keep Buzz - but there's nothing in MU's recent history that suggests we should be terribly pessimistic about it.

I don't mean to nitpick,but while KO and TC had teams in the top 25, I would put the program between 25-40 in their respective tenures. So, good, but a notch below elite.

[Pakuni]

I don't mean to nitpick,but while KO and TC had teams in the top 25, I would put the program between 25-40 in their respective tenures. So, good, but a notch below elite.

That's fair, but I think - especially in KO's case - you have to make these judgments while acknowledging the state of the program they inherited. Which is why it's pretty much impossible to compare them objectively.

That said, MU still was a top 20 program when O'Neill left and finished in the top 25 four of Crean's last seven seasons.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Buzz would be very hard to replace....but no one is irreplaceable. 

End. Of. Thread.

Everything else is just talkin'.

[brandx]

A pertinent point.

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to post incorrectly about it."

                                             

Not posted incorrectly. I realize there were anywhere from 24 - 32 teams in the dance during Al's tenure. My statement that he won more than 2 games twice is factual.

My point was that Buzz is getting close to being on the same level as Al. What Buzz needs to do is keep the program at an elite or near-elite level for 5 more years for the comparison to be valid.

[Lennys Tap]

Ah, but what constitutes an "elite" hire? Was Buzz an elite hire? Lotsa folks sure didn't think so the day it happened!

Given the growth of our program, I would guess we'd be able to attract elite coaching talent should the job open up -- even if that elite gentleman is an assistant coach plenty of folks have never heard of.

Of course, this might not be an issue for another decade or two ... but by all means, let's keep talking about Buzz leaving as if it's a foregone conclusion. (Present company included.)

Elite hires can only be judged in retrospect. John Wooden, Al McGuire, Bob Knight, Shaka Smart, Brad Stevens and Buzz Williams had nothing in their resumes that screamed elite. In Buzz's case, Steve Cottingham would have had much more "cover" if a Chris Lowery, Bob McKillop, Tony Bennett or Keno Davis would have been given the job. Thank you, Steve.

[melissasmooth]

End. Of. Thread.

Everything else is just talkin'.

But it will go on and on

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

But it will go on and on

Youre learning.

[Lennys Tap]

But it will go on and on

And you'll contribute to it, if making no point other than a snarky comment can be construed as a contribution.

[tower912]

But it will go on and on

It is what we do.   Along with baiting Chicos.   Reminiscing about how lucky we all are to have survived at MU.   Insulting Wisconsin.  Basically acting juvenile.    But your IQ doesn't sink nearly as fast as it does when you read the responses to your average news website article. 

[Hards Alumni]

End. Of. Thread.

Everything else is just talkin'.

+1

[brewcity77]

Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, UNC and UCLA would be very difficult to dislodge. Off the top of my head, Michigan St.,Syracuse, Louisville, Indiana and Arizona are probably 6-10.

Pretty fair list. If Alford doesn't turn things around at UCLA, they could fall from that top status. I also wonder how MSU, Syracuse, and Louisville when their current coaches retire. All are successful programs, but their success seems to be more centered on the coach (Heathcote, Izzo, Boeheim, Crum, Pitino) than the program itself.

I think Marquette can get into that second tier. I'd probably put us just below those schools right now. I fully believe Buzz (or another coach, if he sustained or increased our current level) could get us there. But to get into that top tier, you're probably looking at sustained success for at least 25 years coupled with 1-2 coaches after Buzz keeping it going. To get to that second tier, it works for the coach to be bigger than the program. To get to the top tier, the program has to be bigger than the coach.

If nothing else, we do spend like a blueblood...

[Sunbelt15]

You have a history of curious (at best) posts.  The above, just eliminates any doubt that you like to troll.

For those who think MU the university/facilities is/are the draw - you couldn't be more mistaken.  Top 100 kids choose a college due to:  A)Who the head coach is.  B)History sending players to the NBA - which is an offshoot of the coaching staff's development skills.  C) Location - climate, girls. D) Academic profile of university.

MU has done better than Buzz 1 time in its history - Al McGuire - a legend.  Buzz is only 5 years in, and very well can meet/exceed Al's accomplishments if he stays at MU 10-15 years.  To think MU could better post Buzz is the most ludicrous thing I've read on here...perhaps ever.

And great post Atlanta Warrior - COULD NOT AGREE MORE WITH ALL YOU WROTE.

Dude, you're a little too sensitive. Obviously, you love Buzz and feels he can do no wrong. I like Buzz but not in love with him. "In Buzz I Trust" is not my motto until he brings us a championship. Sorry you thing I'm a troll with curious post. Just a fan of MU.

[The Equalizer]

Maybe, but even if we were 100 moving from there to 30 isn't as hard as going from 30 to 15. The extra 40 programs you're jumping aren't very competitive.

Actually, once you're already at 30, its probably easier to get to 15, because it only takes only one or two players--many of which are legitimately considering you.  And once one elite recruit opens the door, it becomes easier to get the next, and the next and the next.

Meanwhile, if it were easy to get to 30, teams like DePaul, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Providence would all be there. Yet they've all been struggling for years. 

Ask yourself this--which is more likely?

A DePaul or Seton Hall turning the entire program around, becomming a mirror image of Marquette, and becomming capable of  running up 8 tournament appearances? 

Or Marquette landing a player like Diamond Stone for 2015, and then following him up with a Jayson Tatum in 2016, which would propel us into the top 5 right about the time Boeheim, Pitino, Coach K are approaching retirement?

And you could say the same for any consistent 15-30 team.  Any one of them is just one elite-level recruit in two consectuive years away from cracking that top 10/top 15 barrier.

[WarriorFan]

Here are my expectations (roughly speaking) for MU(post Buzz) as a program (facilities, history and commitment non withstanding):

1.Bad hire = a sub top 50 program
2.Good hire = a 25-40 ranked program
3.Elite hire = a 10-25 ranked program

I think the odds favor continued success (2) but are very much against Buzz-like success (3).

Better option:  Keep Buzz for 10-15 years... He retires after winning the 2024 National Championship with a history including 10 elite 8, 6 Final Four, etc...

[NersEllenson]

Post Buzz, we could still be good, if not better.

Dude, you're a little too sensitive. Obviously, you love Buzz and feels he can do no wrong. I like Buzz but not in love with him. "In Buzz I Trust" is not my motto until he brings us a championship. Sorry you thing I'm a troll with curious post. Just a fan of MU.

Its not sensitivity, as much as it was a reaction to stupidity.  I don't disagree with you in that MU could still be good post Buzz - but if you think MU could be better - that's just stupid. Buzz has produced the best results for MU since Al, and has a loaded roster moving forward. 

The chances MU would get a better coach, recruiter, representative than Buzz are slim to none.  As for not being in the "In Buzz I Trust" camp till he brings MU a national championship - that too seems stupid and a great way to make being a "fan" of MU a maddening experience.  If you can't savor Sweet 16s, Elite 8's and will only believe we have a GREAT coach if he can bring a National Championship to MU is quite shortsighted.  Of course every MU fan would love a National Championship - DUH - but to not have supreme confidence and trust in our coach if he doesn't deliver one??  Ludicrous.

[real chili 83]

But it will go on and on

Do you prefer jigs or spinners?