Best transfers in MU history

[Goose]

MU82

The trying hard enough question is quite simple IMO. If they are trying their best to be "elite", they are failing. Another thought, quite possibly they are satisfied with current state of program and hope Wojo has bigger success down the road. My gut tells me that they spin a good story and many fans bite on it.

I have said a million times, I have ZERO problem being the type of program that is competitive on getting a bid every year and make occasional second weekend, IF, that is the product the university is selling. Many on here believe being elite is a priority to them. If that is the case, I believe they have struck out for a long time.

[MarqKarp]

Goose, what is MU doing (or not doing) to assure basketball success?   I guess I don't understand what you see (or don't see) that makes you question Mu"s commitment to being elite?

[Goose]

Karp

Are you serious? We have not been elite for four decades. What don't you get?

[nyg]

I really like the recent posts here by TAMU and dgies.

My initial reaction to comments earlier in this thread was, "What do you mean Marquette isn't trying hard enough to be elite?"

And my secondary reaction was, "What is elite, anyway?"

There are a half-dozen - maybe - programs that are anywhere near what MU was during Al's heyday.

I mean some folks actually still consider Indiana "elite" even though it hasn't been an elite program for 20+ years. UCLA? Is that "elite" anymore?

As for Al - I wasn't here for Al. I arrived in the fall of 1978, 18 months removed from our most glorious moment. I certainly am not here to shyte on Al. I chose Marquette because of its basketball program and Al built that.

But really ... wasn't MU hoops under Al kind of like the Ditka-era Bears? Won one championship, contended year-in and year-out, was brash and had a certain panache ... but couldn't win multiple titles - which often is cited as the mark of true greatness?

The main difference between the Al Warriors and the Ditka Bears was: The Bears won their title the year they were by far the NFL's best team and then never could live up to it while the Warriors had far better teams than the one that won their lone title as Al's swan song. Unlike the Bears, who couldn't match their one-shot-wonder success, the Warriors' disappointments came earlier, during Al's prime. Still, at least loosely, the comparison works for me.

Were the Bears an "elite" team in the 1980s? Maybe, but they certainly weren't THE elite team. Not even effen close, compared to the 49ers.

I know that Goose, Lenny and others are smart enough to realize that things have changed so much in college basketball that the odds are stacked against Marquette ever being "elite" again - just as they are stacked against UCLA now that Wooden can't have all of his lieutenants cheat like hell on the recruiting trail, just as they are stacked against Indiana now that great athletes will no longer play for an abusive, tyrant SOB no matter how great a coach he might be.

I agree with many and say I will be satisfied with the kind of success we had in our stretch under Buzz. S16-S16-E8, preceded by a bunch of other tourney appearances, is a pretty sweet run for just about any school not named Duke, UNC, Kentucky and Kansas. That we had a certain swagger and toughness made it all the better. You do that, and maybe you catch a break or three and make a FF or two, maybe even pull off a title like Nova last season.

And I think we can do that under Wojo - and, if he leaves one day, under the coach who replaces him.

Good post.  As one who was fortunate enough to be able to be a part of MU's basketball hierarchy in the 1970's, I can tell you it was a different time, as in all aspects of life.  During my time, MU lost a total of 14 games (including NCAAs) and I cannot recall one game lost at home, but then again my brain is sort of fried...  MU was a very elite program and would have been one of the best if not for the losses in consecutive years of Chones, McNeil and Lucas, all who left for the NBA.  What could have been if all had stayed would probably have meant one more national title for sure. I have said it earlier in posts that McNeil is probably the most underrated player in MU history, he was that good.

The atmosphere at the games was electric and students rarely missed a game for any reason whether it be the snow, classes, etc.  Duke has it K-Ville, in which students camp out for tickets, well MU did the same way before them and we did it in ass freezing cold, not regretting anything about doing it.

As for the tournament, back then there were only I believe 24 teams that went to the NCAAs.  They even had a third place game in the regionals and a third place game in final four for awhile.  Very selective, but MU never was considered being not invited due to their success.  There were many elite teams at the time, including of course the UCLA dynasty which won twice in my tenure, Louisville, Indiana, and NC State.  I would include MU as definitely an elite team.  Then there were others, even like a Providence, Memphis State, that recruited players and came out of nowhere.  Duke at the time was sort of a current Depaul type team and a non existent factor in basketball.

During that time there was no cable TV, no internet and you had the opportunity to watch maybe two national tv games on the weekends.  The tournament was still shown and that was big time for each program. You relied upon the radio and newspapers to see the scores and magazines like Street and Smith and Bob Gibbons Report for recruiting information. That all changed when ESPN came on board and started showing college basketball in I believe 1980.  Teams made the right coaching changes, the landscape of conferences were developed and recruits could now watch their favorite teams more often. 

You are right, those students/fans during that Buzz run should appreciate it because in these times that was pretty good.  But, times have changed as have the teams.  Eliteness is primarily based upon the school's past performance, along with bits of current success to keep them in the discussion.  Your examples of Indiana and UCLA fit the bill perfectly.  Duke, Kansas, UNC, Michigan St., Kentucky, they are elite now because they continue to win, make final fours, get the national media attention, which all leads to the top recruits going there for NBA potential.

MU was for awhile an elite program, a top 5 at the time.  But time, advances in television, cable, internet, recruiting, and the whole current NCAA basketball fascination in which March Madness is second behind the Super Bowl has changed the playing field. Being elite is a lot tougher now than it was back then.

[Pakuni]

Karp

Are you serious? We have not been elite for four decades. What don't you get?

That's a quality dodge of his question.

There are many, many reasons MU hasn't been 'elite', and lack of effort is about 100th on the list.
If you implication is that all it takes to be elite is wanting it, I've got a few Notre Dame football fans for you to meet. And when you're done with them, I'll introduce to the Texas and Tennessee backers.

[GGGG]

If "elite" means a program in contention for the national title nearly every year a la Duke, Marquette doesn't have the resources to be elite.

We have the resources to be Villanova.  Villanova is very good but I wouldn't call them "elite."  That is the goal.

[Goose]

Pakuni

I did not avoid the question. I agree with you and the other schools mentioned have also failed. Wanting something and getting something done are two different things. MU has not gotten it done.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I am surprised that there is so much debate re: Goose's position...Marquette themselves say they want to have an elite basketball program that competes for national titles.  So clearly missing objectives...

The real question is can MU achieve its goal above while achieving all the other things it thinks is right/important. 

I think no - I also think we when we and other schools have had brief periods of success we also didnt satisfy everyone on the way to winning.

[Pakuni]

Pakuni

I did not avoid the question. I agree with you and the other schools mentioned have also failed. Wanting something and getting something done are two different things. MU has not gotten it done.

Marquette has certain fixed circumstances that make it exceptionally unlikely that it ever "gets done."
I agree with the former Sultan, that Villanova is our ceiling ... and that's a fantastic ceiling with which we all should be beyond thrilled.
If you're going to be unsatisfied with anything short of Kentucky/Duke/UNC/Kansas territory, be ready for a life filled with disappointment.

[Goose]

Give me 'nova success and I will be facing in the street.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Help me out here I respect your input.. I have read many posts of the positive affect of the new stadium on recruiting. A Honest question. Of all the elements a recruit considers when making his decision, what percentage (weight) of those elements does he give to the new arena.  I'm looking for an average % not for a case by case.  Thanks

I think playing in an NBA stadium is a huge (YUGE!) recruiting tool. One that really sets Marquette apart from most programs. As Goose said, playing down the road from an NBA team doesn't really do much for recruits.

However, I think playing in an NBA arena is also a detriment to our home court advantage. If you look around, no team that plays exclusively in an NBA arena has won a national championship in the last 30 years. Very few Final Fours in that time as well. Quite simply, we don't have the fanbase to pack that size of a stadium on a nightly basis. When the arena isn't packed, the sound gets absorbed, the atmosphere diminishes, and suddenly we don't have much of a home court advantage at all. That can also play into recruiting (though not nearly as much as an NBA arena does).

Personally, I think a Nova has the best system worked out. They have a snake pit of an on campus arena that they sell out every game. The atmosphere is deafening even when they are playing Little Sisters of the Poor State. But they also have a relationship with the NBA arena and play 5-10 games there a season. They reserve those games for the big blockbuster games that will get sold out no matter how many seats are in the place. They get to keep the advantage of playing in an NBA arena but never sacrifice their home court advantage.

I would love that for our program. But at this point, an on campus arena is just a pipe dream. But even with an on campus arena, it would be a huge (YUGE!) mistake to give up the relationship with the NBA arena. Need to make sure we are playing at least some of our home games there.

[HoopsterBC]

I think playing in an NBA stadium is a huge (YUGE!) recruiting tool. One that really sets Marquette apart from most programs. As Goose said, playing down the road from an NBA team doesn't really do much for recruits.

However, I think playing in an NBA arena is also a detriment to our home court advantage. If you look around, no team that plays exclusively in an NBA arena has won a national championship in the last 30 years. Very few Final Fours in that time as well. Quite simply, we don't have the fanbase to pack that size of a stadium on a nightly basis. When the arena isn't packed, the sound gets absorbed, the atmosphere diminishes, and suddenly we don't have much of a home court advantage at all. That can also play into recruiting (though not nearly as much as an NBA arena does).

Personally, I think a Nova has the best system worked out. They have a snake pit of an on campus arena that they sell out every game. The atmosphere is deafening even when they are playing Little Sisters of the Poor State. But they also have a relationship with the NBA arena and play 5-10 games there a season. They reserve those games for the big blockbuster games that will get sold out no matter how many seats are in the place. They get to keep the advantage of playing in an NBA arena but never sacrifice their home court advantage.

I would love that for our program. But at this point, an on campus arena is just a pipe dream. But even with an on campus arena, it would be a huge (YUGE!) mistake to give up the relationship with the NBA arena. Need to make sure we are playing at least some of our home games there.

The first year in the new arena will be packed if the students show up, compared to a Bucks game the pricing should be reasonable.  Bucks I have found out will
not be, smaller area, 17,500, will fill up the whole first year.  Then what is on the court will matter.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU

I have no doubt that many of the folks you mentioned has MU being an elite program on top of their priority list. For the record, I have getting laid everyday on top of priority list and I would say MU and I have similar levels of success currently. Actually, I like my batting average a helluva of lot more than MU's regarding making ball program elite.

My point is simple, I am not sure the gang over there has any idea on how to make their top of the list objective happen. I think you are a tad naive on some of the beliefs you have regarding what level priority it is. Take being a tad naive as a compliment.

I'm not sure how to take naive as a compliment but I'll take your word for it.

I was born in the Dukiet years. The lowest point in Marquette basketball history. Marquette basketball was part of my life from birth. Some of my earliest memories are Marquette basketball games. What I have seen in my lifetime is a steady growth in Marquette basketball from irrelevant low-major to Big East Champion and Final Four contender. It took damn near my entire lifetime, but I think the administration has done a fantastic job of building us back towards the upper echelons of college basketball. We got to the very outskirts of those echelons when Buzz was here, which is why I loved him so much as a coach despite some of the warts. I think there was some massive missteps on both sides towards the end of Buzz' tenure and for the first time in my life we took a real step back. The people mainly responsible for those missteps are gone and we are back to growing again.

We will never be back at the level that Al got us to. Because that level doesn't exist anymore. No one is that good. Not Kentucky, not Duke, not North Carolina. It simply doesn't exist in today's day and age. But Marquette will not be satisfied until it is college basketball royalty again. Sultan said our ceiling is Villanova. I disagree. Our ceiling is a modern day Duke, North Carolina, or Kansas. Being considered a near lock for the tourney every year and always starting the year with final four potential. That is always what we are building towards.

But that doesn't mean that we won't enjoy the milestones and success along the way. We have to walk before we can run. I expect more than a tournament appearance with a 10 seed from the Marquette program. I however recognize the reality that with where we started this season, that is an accomplishment and it should be commended. But please don't mistake commendation for satisfaction.

Like most of the best things in life, this requires patience. I didn't get to experience the Golden Age of Marquette basketball. I recognize that I don't have the perspective of the older Warriors who must view everything post-Al as a sad replacement for what they used to get from Marquette. I can understand why it seems like patience has never paid off for those who were fans in the 70s. I was born during the low point of our program and have seen it grow to its second highest peak. My patience has always been rewarded.

I guess can understand. You have been patient for us to be elite for 4 decades now and have never seen it. I suppose I might not trust the people in charge to get it done either. I'm curious, who do you think could get the job done? If we had a new president, AD , BOT, would you possibly trust them? Or do you not just trust university administrations with basketball decisions in general? If not them, who should be making the decisions?

[MU82]

Pakuni

I did not avoid the question. I agree with you and the other schools mentioned have also failed. Wanting something and getting something done are two different things. MU has not gotten it done.

Again, Goose, I don't know what you think the higher-ups at Marquette should be doing to "get it done."

I am absolutely not being a wise-arse here. I am looking for what actual things should be done. I am not "wired" into our administration and board of directors like some here apparently are.

From afar, it appears Marquette has put a lot of money into the program, they have built nice facilities, they were willing to give the job and a very competitive contract to Shaka, when he was unavailable they hired one of the top assistants in the market, they recruit nationally.

Rather than repeating, "They say they want to be elite but they have failed," I seriously am asking you to elaborate on what they should be doing instead.

[brewcity77]

Brew

You are pretty easier grader on how elite looks like. I would take WI level of program at the moment, but nowhere near elite in my mind. They had a nice run and that is about it. As for coaches, Rick Pitino is the closest to Al, IMO. From his looks, hand gestures, walking the baseline, fashion sense and, most importantly, his ability to have his teams take over a game with a full court press. Big fan of Rick.

Before I get bashed with everything anti Pitino, please know your Al history before casting stones.

I also thought Wisconsin was an overreach, but there really just aren't many examples of programs that have ascended since then, certainly not in the last 20 years (which is what we are trying to do).

[Goose]

TAMU

My point on naive being a compliment is simple. You are a good person and you want to think the best of people. That is a good thing and keep that up.

I have said countless times that elite is different today and I get that. Aside from Buzzer getting us close for a couple of years we have not sniffed elite or near elite in decades.

In my heart and in my head, I do not think brass has a plan to be elite for much of four decades. They have the hope and dream and not the plan. Honestly, maybe MU brass is too good of a group of people to pull the trigger to be elite. If the case, I accept that and spend the ball money on making it better academic environment.

Again, I meant you being naive as a compliment. My gut tells me you are a good man.

[Goose]

MU82

I would gladly discuss your question in detail over cocktails, my treat. That said, there is a divided BOT on how and what ball program means to the university. There has been lack of leadership in AD for a long time. Note---please do not tell me Bill Cords. The two major hires when Cords was here was done 100% outside influence and did around his back. That is a fact.

Again, next time you are in Milwaukee we can have a cocktail and discuss in detail. Honestly, tired of the fight and pissing off the fellow scoopers.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU

My point on naive being a compliment is simple. You are a good person and you want to think the best of people. That is a good thing and keep that up.

I have said countless times that elite is different today and I get that. Aside from Buzzer getting us close for a couple of years we have not sniffed elite or near elite in decades.

In my heart and in my head, I do not think brass has a plan to be elite for much of four decades. They have the hope and dream and not the plan. Honestly, maybe MU brass is too good of a group of people to pull the trigger to be elite. If the case, I accept that and spend the ball money on making it better academic environment.

Again, I meant you being naive as a compliment. My gut tells me you are a good man.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you are saying that you must "play dirty" or at very least "not be a good person" in order to be elite. Is that correct?

[Goose]

TAMU

Not at all on having to play dirty. My point is that you take good people for their word, even if that word is comes up from lack of facts or experience. BOT or admin can say the right things and many follow what they say. I tend to follow results.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU

Not at all on having to play dirty. My point is that you take good people for their word, even if that word is comes up from lack of facts or experience. BOT or admin can say the right things and many follow what they say. I tend to follow results.

Then what did you mean by "Honestly, maybe MU brass is too good of a group of people to pull the trigger to be elite"? What does the admin being too good of people have to do with being an elite program?

I personally think I'm pretty good at separating the truth from the bs. You have to in my line of work. 95% of what comes out of the mouths of people who end up in my office is BS. But I have been known to be wrong. The future Mrs. TAMU reminds me of this frequently!

[Goose]

TAMU

Fair question and I stated my point poorly. By pull the trigger, I mean having the ability to acknowledge what you are capable of and what you are not capable of. Maybe removing folks from being involved in the process of getting outside people in the process would help.

I believe every person on the BOT is a good person and wants the best for MU. That said, I highly doubt anyone is going to suggest bringing in basketball people to build a plan for success.

[Dr. Blackheart]

Then what did you mean by "Honestly, maybe MU brass is too good of a group of people to pull the trigger to be elite"? What does the admin being too good of people have to do with being an elite program?

I personally think I'm pretty good at separating the truth from the bs. You have to in my line of work. 95% of what comes out of the mouths of people who end up in my office is BS. But I have been known to be wrong. The future Mrs. TAMU reminds me of this frequently!

Maybe look at the transfer in thread and folks would get an idea of what it would take. Pretty much all the MU greats wouldn't be admitted today.

[Goose]

Dr.

Agreed completely. The players cheered the loudest probably would not be Warriors in today's environment.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Maybe look at the transfer in thread and folks would get an idea of what it would take. Pretty much all the MU greats wouldn't be admitted today.

To be honest, I don't know the backgrounds of some of the Marquette greats before my time. So that could be true. What I do know is that the only players from the Buzz era who wouldn't be allowed in now would be Jae Crowder and Todd Mayo. Crowder has been debated ad naseum on here so I won't bring it up again. We should universally agree that the Toddler shouldn't have been a part of our program. I think we can still reach elite while only recruiting players who have the possibility of graduating (not probability, possibility), didn't attend 6 high schools due to disciplinary reasons, and have no violent crimes on their records. Those are really the only restrictions I know of on recruiting. Wojo has recruited JUCOs, he has recruited players with low GPAs, he recruited kids who had tough upbringings, and he has even recruited a kid who had a violent crime on his record. Most of the alleged restrictions on recruiting are just myths. All of this is of course ridiculous because there is no correlation between "non-choir boys" and successful basketball.

Dr.

Agreed completely. The players cheered the loudest probably would not be Warriors in today's environment.

Today's environment is an important qualifier. It was a very different world 40 years ago. That is something Marquette has no control over. Al would not be Al if he were a coach today.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU

Fair question and I stated my point poorly. By pull the trigger, I mean having the ability to acknowledge what you are capable of and what you are not capable of. Maybe removing folks from being involved in the process of getting outside people in the process would help.

I believe every person on the BOT is a good person and wants the best for MU. That said, I highly doubt anyone is going to suggest bringing in basketball people to build a plan for success.

That makes more sense. And this is something I could agree with. It would depend on who you define as "basketball people." If you mean "booster" I would heartily disagree.

I would also point out that Marquette has more "basketball people" in its search process than at least 95% of universities just by having an accomplished coach like Doc Rivers on board. I also trust Bill Cords as a basketball person given that he hired O'Neill, Crean, and Buzz...the three most successful Marquette coaches post Al. But more expertise and less hands in the pot is usually a good thing so I'd love to add even more!

Did you have a suggestion on who should have been involved that wasn't?