All of a sudden Buzz becomes likeable again...

[MU82]

I'm a huge Buzz fan and it goes beyond basketball. He is a good-hearted person.

Go Buzz and go VT!

Buzz didn't just win baby his last season - when he totally checked out. He just lost baby. Unforgivable. The real Al Davis would have fired him before the season was over.

And how do you know he is a "good-hearted person"?

Disclosure: I was a big Buzz fan when he was here, am grateful for his contributions to the program and wish things had worked for him to stay. I even defended him on this board for most of his last season here until it became obvious that he didn't give a shyte and couldn't wait to get out.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Yeah I don't think Buzz "had to go" either.  They wanted Buzz to do things differently, some for good reason, but handled it poorly, and he left.

There were issues under Buzz. Not major issues like Baylor, Tennessee, North Carolina etc but issues.

The administration was heavy handed but not unreasonable in their response.

Buzz had the option to adapt to the changes and make them work. He chose to leave.

Now three years later people on both sides have demonized the other side way more than either deserves.

[TheGym]

The Gym

Had long discussion on that topic last night and do not agree completely with you. If MU felt the program was in a bad place and did not like the direction under Buzz, they have should have fired him ASAP. In today's environment not making swift decisions only leads to bigger problems. If Buzz was bad apple, he should have been removed from his position the first day BOT knew he was bad apple.

I agree they should have moved alot quicker than they did.  However, I am glad they finally did make a move.  Look at what happened to Baylor by letting a certain mentality run throughout the program.  Not say we were anywhere near the issues at Baylor, but letting an environment build just makes the problems even bigger.

[Goose]

TAMU

I am sorry, but there either there were issues or there were not issues. Multiple players have mentioned in negative light from the Buzz era and either it is justified or not justified. If justified, they should have been kicked out of school and coach removed that day. If not justified, there show be zero leak on the topic and zero follow up conversation on the topic.

[Pakuni]

There were issues under Buzz. Not major issues like Baylor, Tennessee, North Carolina etc but issues.

The administration was heavy handed but not unreasonable in their response.

Buzz had the option to adapt to the changes and make them work. He chose to leave.

Now three years later people on both sides have demonized the other side way more than either deserves.

Yes, this.
Both sides bear some blame, though I'm not even sure why blame needs to be assigned. At the end of the day, both sides were probably better off moving on and painting one side or the other as the villain is silly and inaccurate.

[warriorchick]

TAMU

I am sorry, but there either there were issues or there were not issues. Multiple players have mentioned in negative light from the Buzz era and either it is justified or not justified. If justified, they should have been kicked out of school and coach removed that day. If not justified, there show be zero leak on the topic and zero follow up conversation on the topic.

Do you always make the best decision the first time you tackle a particular issue ?  In retrospect, do you sometimes wish you had handled it differently, and make a commitment to yourself and others to handle it better the next time?

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Buzz era was the first occasion MU had to deal with this type of  squirminess, and at the time,  there wasn't even consensus on whether things were squirmy or not.  They made what they thought at the time were good decisions.  If Wojo did the same things, and they made the same decisions, then I think you would have a case here.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU

I am sorry, but there either there were issues or there were not issues. Multiple players have mentioned in negative light from the Buzz era and either it is justified or not justified. If justified, they should have been kicked out of school and coach removed that day. If not justified, there show be zero leak on the topic and zero follow up conversation on the topic.

???

Is it not possible to have issues that don't quite rise to the level of someone needing to be fired? Zero leak on the subject? That doesn't exist in today's day and age. Vander Blue punching somebody is an issue. But there is no way Buzz should get fired for that nor should Blue get kicked off the team. There is also no way that there would be zero leak on the subject.

[Goose]

Chick

You made my point better than I could make it myself. The lack on consensus on being squirmy or not, is my whole point. As a 53y adult, I have very solid understanding on what squirmy looks like or not. Then if you add in being on BOT or admin at a major Catholic university, the grey area of what is squirmy or not shrinks by a wide margin because you need to error on the side of caution. The lack on consensus would lead "some" outsiders to belief that it likely was not squirmy based on an error on side of caution mentality.

Over the course of Buzz's tenure there either was reason for dismissal or not reason for dismissal. IMO there quite possibly was reason for dismissal and they chose a financial decision over the side of caution mindset.

As for first occasion of squirminess, I am pretty sure you know that there might have been one or a couple hundred previous bouts with squirminess within the program and university as a whole.

[Goose]

TAMU

So, Vander's only issue was punching a guy? If that was the case, I think it is a short conversation.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

TAMU

So, Vander's only issue was punching a guy? If that was the case, I think it is a short conversation.

No it wasn't. But I was giving an example of an issue that wouldn't require someone to be fired but also would have leaked.

Buzz pushed the boundaries in some areas. Admin allowed it at first. Then when it caused issues they decided, no more. I think it is fair for a boss to change expectations for an employee. What I don't think would be fair would be to firing an employee for not following expectations before they were expectations.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Over the course of Buzz's tenure there either was reason for dismissal or not reason for dismissal. IMO there quite possibly was reason for dismissal and they chose a financial decision over the side of caution mindset.

This is it for me - the passive aggressive path chosen irritates me....

[Lennys Tap]

Pilarz, LW and the BOT messed with happy.

[GGGG]

Pilarz, LW and the BOT messed with happy.

Not without reason.

[warriorchick]

This is it for me - the passive aggressive path chosen irritates me....

I wouldn't be surprised if the administration was already aware that Buzz's resume was on the street, and they knew if they hung back for a couple of days, they might save the university millions of buyout dollars.

He announced he was leaving 5 days after Selection Sunday, with a contract that had obviously been worked out well before then. This year, IU fired Crean 4 days Selection Sunday.  MU couldn't have fired him much faster than he fired himself.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

I wouldn't be surprised if the administration was already aware that Buzz's resume was on the street, and they knew if they hung back for a couple of days, they might save the university millions of buyout dollars.

He announced he was leaving 5 days after Selection Sunday, with a contract that had obviously been worked out well before then. This year, IU fired Crean 4 days Selection Sunday.  MU couldn't have fired him much faster than he fired himself.

If things were as terrible as reported, then should have been fired immediately after the elite 8 (or sooner).  This would have been preferable to freshman restrictions, 'buzz's tie is too tight' Larry and a million other paper cuts.  It was either fireable or not, right?

That would have taken conviction and principle.

[Goose]

Chick

Of course they knew his resume was on the street and have zero problem waiting a few days to save a few mil. Still goes back to did he deserve to be fired at any point of his tenure at MU. If so, you swallow the buyout and you do the right thing. If not, you don't mess with happy.

[GGGG]

Chick

Of course they knew his resume was on the street and have zero problem waiting a few days to save a few mil. Still goes back to did he deserve to be fired at any point of his tenure at MU. If so, you swallow the buyout and you do the right thing. If not, you don't mess with happy.

No.  Those aren't the only choices.

He didn't deserve to be fired.  But that doesn't mean that you can't place parameters on how he operates.  You seem to think that you either are completely hands off or you fire the guy.  That's not how workplaces work.

[Goose]

Sultan

My family/I have hired and fired people my entire life and I feel very well versed on how to handle a workplace. You are correct, it is not always black and white, and not everything merits firing or a raise. Let's be honest here, if the stuff that got out was true, it probably was beyond the grey area or stuff that got out was inaccurate. I really do not know what is true, but have my gut feeling.

[GGGG]

Sultan

My family/I have hired and fired people my entire life and I feel very well versed on how to handle a workplace. You are correct, it is not always black and white, and not everything merits firing or a raise. Let's be honest here, if the stuff that got out was true, it probably was beyond the grey area or stuff that got out was inaccurate. I really do not know what is true, but have my gut feeling.

I know enough about what is true to know that limitations were justified.  Now, should the placement of those limitations been handled the way SP and LW handled them?  Absolutely not.  But that doesn't change that those limitations were justified, and this is why they weren't removed when Wild and Cords were brought back.

[NickelDimer]

https://youtube.com/v/bs-o1OIqbHk

[Dr. Blackheart]

Again, Pilarz was axed, not because of basketball, but because he was rip roaring incompetent in all aspects of running Marquette University, including faith. Larry was a competent administrator, especially in legal matters, but the job was too big for him. Buzz left because his ego became bigger than the university.

Cords knew Buzz was leaving and even foreshadowed it a couple of weeks prior to donors. Buzz won the battle but lost the war. The NIT was not an option.

Marquette is a better place today.

[real chili 83]

Again, Pilarz was axed, not because of basketball, but because he was rip roaring incompetent in all aspects of running Marquette University, including faith. Larry was a competent administrator, especially in legal matters, but the job was too big for him. Buzz left because his ego became bigger than the university.

Cords knew Buzz was leaving and even foreshadowed it a couple of weeks prior to donors. Buzz won the battle but lost the war. The NIT was not an option.

Marquette is a better place today.

Yes, what a cluster f.  Kinda points back to the BOT, a'aiaiana?

[Lennys Tap]

This is it for me - the passive aggressive path chosen irritates me....

+1000

[warriorfred]

VT loses to the Badgers, and I no longer like Buzz.

[Anti-Dentite]

Again, Pilarz was axed, not because of basketball, but because he was rip roaring incompetent in all aspects of running Marquette University, including faith. Larry was a competent administrator, especially in legal matters, but the job was too big for him. Buzz left because his ego became bigger than the university.

Cords knew Buzz was leaving and even foreshadowed it a couple of weeks prior to donors. Buzz won the battle but lost the war. The NIT was not an option.

Marquette is a better place today.

If by rip roaring incompetent you mean alcoholic, then yes, he was rip roaring incompetent.