Bo Retiring

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This announcement was a very strategic move by our neighbors to the west. Late enough in the summer that decommitments or transfers are unlikely and draft declarations are impossible. Any recruit they go after for 2016 will know that Bo will be leaving, so they don't risk decommitments next year.  It may affect recruiting but it won't be much if Gard is the next coach. He takes the reigns in recruiting and that should minimize any anxiety recruits might have about who their coach is. Also gives Gard a chance at a strong start. Badgers will struggle this year but no one will blame Bo for one bad season on his way out. The following year (barring any major defections) should be a return to the top of the B1G. Much better for Bo to go out on a bad season and Gard to start on a good one than the other way around.

The Badger is a cunning vermin...but vermin none the less. May this announcement usher in an era of Marquette dominance over America's Dairyland...just the way the Jesuit God intended!

[The Equalizer]

Not based on recruiting, facilities, salaries or resources.

What's the Bucky advantage?

They're in the Big Ten.

Look, Buzz isn't the only big-time coach in D1 that feels that a non-football school outside the SEC, ACC, B1G, etc. is a second tier option. I would say your average D1 coach would easily rank Wisconsin ahead of Marquette.

Marquette is only more attractive than Wisconsin if you factor out football and its influence on NCAA governance. Fans can easily do that.  Coaches won't.

That having been said, I suspect Gard is their man by choice.  But if they do go outside, they're going to attract some big name interest, and our fans trying to make the argument that Wisconsin is a less attractive job by comparison to us is not based on reality.

[Tugg Speedman]

They're in the Big Ten.

Look, Buzz isn't the only big-time coach in D1 that feels that a non-football school outside the SEC, ACC, B1G, etc. is a second tier option. I would say your average D1 coach would easily rank Wisconsin ahead of Marquette.

Marquette is only more attractive than Wisconsin if you factor out football and its influence on NCAA governance. Fans can easily do that.  Coaches won't.

That having been said, I suspect Gard is their man by choice.  But if they do go outside, they're going to attract some big name interest, and our fans trying to make the argument that Wisconsin is a less attractive job by comparison to us is not based on reality.

Is it more attractive than the football HC position?  Seems like the football coaches cannot get out of Madison fast enough.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

They're in the Big Ten.

Look, Buzz isn't the only big-time coach in D1 that feels that a non-football school outside the SEC, ACC, B1G, etc. is a second tier option. I would say your average D1 coach would easily rank Wisconsin ahead of Marquette.

Marquette is only more attractive than Wisconsin if you factor out football and its influence on NCAA governance. Fans can easily do that.  Coaches won't.

That having been said, I suspect Gard is their man by choice.  But if they do go outside, they're going to attract some big name interest, and our fans trying to make the argument that Wisconsin is a less attractive job by comparison to us is not based on reality.

so... Madison gets a point for conference. All other for Marquette.

Pretty surprised on this board how Bo retires and now we're citing Buzz as the accurate prophet of doom. Ridiculous.

[BCHoopster]

Bo is retiring at the right time, he has an inexperienced team next year but by all accounts the whole team will be back the following year, unless Hayes goes pro which would be a big loss.
The new coach if it is Gard only has to recruit one player for next year, that should not be that hard to get.  So the new coach is getting a solid program to start with, not a bad situation Bo
left the new coach.  For Wojo it was a mess, Buzz knew it and left.  He was not going to get Stone or Ellenson to MU, if he could have I believe he would have stayed.  The program was slipping and he did not want to fail after a great 5 year run.

[naginiF]

Harvard isn't anywhere close to a Top 25 job. MU isn't a Top 20 job either.

I agree on Harvard but a list like this is soooo subjective for both the casual fan and a head coach.  Factor in support (fan, financial, institutional), administration, physical location, budget, history, connections to AAU/sporting company, conference affiliation, public vs. private, personal connection etc. etc. and importance each person places on each of these inputs moves that job up or down the list.

UVA, USC, G'Town and even Tenn (SMDH) could be argued onto this list.  I think the bottom line is outside of the top 5 - 7 --- giving a range to avoid the "which schools a blue bloods" argument --- both MU and WI would be included in a large pool of really good jobs.  How you rank one over the other is personal choice.

[GGGG]

Not based on recruiting, facilities, salaries or resources.

What's the Bucky advantage?

If you're counting heavily on the recent tourney success, you should also weight heavily on the recent recruiting success where UW has been embarrassing versus MU who was able to land a top ten class for a rookie head coach.

Facilities are better. (Bradley Center is nice, but I would trade it for an on campus arena like the Kohl Center in a heartbeat.)  Conference affiliation is better. They have much more money than MU does.  Recruiting?  Its located 90 miles away from MU.  They recruit the same territory.  Much larger fanbase than MU.

I'm not going to be such a homer that I can't recognize these things.

[GGGG]

I agree on Harvard but a list like this is soooo subjective for both the casual fan and a head coach.  Factor in support (fan, financial, institutional), administration, physical location, budget, history, connections to AAU/sporting company, conference affiliation, public vs. private, personal connection etc. etc. and importance each person places on each of these inputs moves that job up or down the list.

UVA, USC, G'Town and even Tenn (SMDH) could be argued onto this list.  I think the bottom line is outside of the top 5 - 7 --- giving a range to avoid the "which schools a blue bloods" argument --- both MU and WI would be included in a large pool of really good jobs.  How you rank one over the other is personal choice.

I completely agree with this.  People treat something as objective that is actually very subjective in nature.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What did Bo's sage daughter tweet?

[klyrish]

He'll finally have time to focus all his energy and efforts on stealing Christmas.

[Badgerhater]

He'll finally have time to focus all his energy and efforts on stealing Christmas.

Winner!  Lock this thread down!

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

They have much more money than MU does.  

2014 Basketball Budgets

8   $10,522,823     Marquette (BIGEAST)

29   $7,596,206     Wisconsin (BIG10)

Source: http://www.bbstate.com/info/teams-hoopsbudget

[Galway Eagle]

Facilities are better. (Bradley Center is nice, but I would trade it for an on campus arena like the Kohl Center in a heartbeat.)  Conference affiliation is better. They have much more money than MU does.  Recruiting?  Its located 90 miles away from MU.  They recruit the same territory.  Much larger fanbase than MU.

I'm not going to be such a homer that I can't recognize these things.

You could argue mke being 90 from Chicago gives it a slight edge in recruiting area though we don't have anyone from there currently.

[The Equalizer]

2014 Basketball Budgets

8   $10,522,823     Marquette (BIGEAST)

29   $7,596,206     Wisconsin (BIG10)

Source: http://www.bbstate.com/info/teams-hoopsbudget

How much they allocated to basketball isn't a reflection of how much money each school has.

Athletic Department Revenue:

Wisconsin: $124,928,916
Marquette: $29,721,972

Source: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

In other words, they have a lot more money than MU.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

How much they allocated to basketball isn't a reflection of how much money each school has.

Athletic Department Revenue:

Wisconsin: $124,928,916
Marquette: $29,721,972

Source: http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

In other words, they have a lot more money than MU.

But it is a reflection of institutional support and priorities.

[muwarrior69]

Boeheim replacement announced.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaab/acc/2015/06/25/syracuse-jim-boeheim-mike-hopkins-coach/29283547/

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

But it is a reflection of institutional support and priorities.

Bingo!  A men's basketball coach would care about how much a school spends for basketball not football, hockey, swimming, etc.  Wisconsin had an extra $95 million in athletic department revenue and in 2014 they still spent almost $3 million less for basketball than Marquette did.

[Galway Eagle]

Bingo!  A men's basketball coach would care about how much a school spends for basketball not football, hockey, swimming, etc.  Wisconsin had an extra $95 million in athletic department revenue and in 2014 they still spent almost $3 million less for basketball than Marquette did.

Unless you're buzz remember he did his math calculation of the chances of being successful at a non football school.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Unless you're buzz remember he did his math calculation of the chances of being successful at a non football school.

Buzz can't add 2 plus 2.

[4everwarriors]

Crean sucks

[The Equalizer]

But it is a reflection of institutional support and priorities.

Oh come on.

Buzz Williams making over 3 million while Bo Ryan "only" demanded 2.4 million is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities" for basketball? You don't think it reflected the fact that Bo Ryan wasn't going to bolt so UW didn't have to overpay him?

Or that MU paying rent to the Bradley Center while UW played at their own facility is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities?"  Some might argue that the fact that UW has is own facility in and of itself is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities" 

Or that UW could sell out their place hardly lifting a finger, but MU had significant marketing expenses and still wound up with an average of 3700 empty seats per game?  That means MU had more institutional support?

But none of that matters, right?  Because the only thing that matters is how much you spend.   

[Pakuni]

Or that MU paying rent to the Bradley Center while UW played at their own facility is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities?"  Some might argue that the fact that UW has is own facility in and of itself is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities" 

Or that Marquette is smart enough not to build its own arena when an NBA facility is a few blocks away, whereas there is no other suitable option for a place like UW except to build their own place.

Or that UW could sell out their place hardly lifting a finger, but MU had significant marketing expenses and still wound up with an average of 3700 empty seats per game?  That means MU had more institutional support?

How exactly are coming to the conclusion that attendance is a possible reflection of institutional support?

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Facilities are better. (Bradley Center is nice, but I would trade it for an on campus arena like the Kohl Center in a heartbeat.)  Conference affiliation is better. They have much more money than MU does.  Recruiting?  Its located 90 miles away from MU.  They recruit the same territory.  Much larger fanbase than MU.

I'm not going to be such a homer that I can't recognize these things.

NBA Arena (and soon to be brand-new NBA Arena) plus the Al. To pretend this is even close is to be a Badger homer.

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

Oh come on.

Buzz Williams making over 3 million while Bo Ryan "only" demanded 2.4 million is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities" for basketball? You don't think it reflected the fact that Bo Ryan wasn't going to bolt so UW didn't have to overpay him?

Or that MU paying rent to the Bradley Center while UW played at their own facility is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities?"  Some might argue that the fact that UW has is own facility in and of itself is a "reflection of institutional support and priorities"  

Or that UW could sell out their place hardly lifting a finger, but MU had significant marketing expenses and still wound up with an average of 3700 empty seats per game?  That means MU had more institutional support?

But none of that matters, right?  Because the only thing that matters is how much you spend.  

What are you talking about? Bo should be paid in line with Izzo. Compensation isn't all about retention. They historically and notoriously penny pinch on coaching staff.

The Kohl center isn't the Bradley center. Whether or not the arena is on campus affects fans not the team. MU's team regularly has access to NBA teams coming through and practicing at the Al.

Practice facilities are ahead on MU's side.

And yes. A larger budget IS important to an incoming coach. Remember when Illinois (another anointed B10 school) hired Chew from Missouri, only for MU to practically double his salary? That doesn't happen at Wisconsin. At MU you have a golden checkbook to build your staff.

UW selling out a smaller arena during back to back FF runs is apples and oranges to a rebuilding year and an NBA arena in a town with other entertainment options.

This board is full of weird Badger defense. I'm not sh1tting on them but between MU and UW programs this is not even close.

[GGGG]

NBA Arena (and soon to be brand-new NBA Arena) plus the Al. To pretend this is even close is to be a Badger homer.

They don't own the NBA arena.  Sorry.