A macro view of P6 coaches

[MarquetteDano]

I think this problem is very easy to solve...stop hiring young, unproven Coaches, right??

Perhaps.  I am not arguing Wojo will work out or not.  The point is if you are going to hire a young coach it unfortunately takes some time to determine if they will be really good.

[wadesworld]

I think this problem is very easy to solve...stop hiring young, unproven Coaches, right??

What old, proven coach would leave their situation and come to Marquette?

[mug644]

What old, proven coach would leave their situation and come to Marquette?

Ben Howland wanted MU, right? (Though he was unemployed at that point, I believe.)

[Uncle Rico]

What old, proven coach would leave their situation and come to Marquette?

Tony Bennett, Chris Beard or Jay Wright

[Marcus92]

I think this problem is very easy to solve...stop hiring young, unproven Coaches, right??

All of the greatest coaches today were at one point young, unproven coaches.

When Villanova hired Jay Wright, he hadn't won an NCAA tournament game in his first 7 seasons as a Division I head coach at Hofstra. How did the AD ever get suckered into this young, unproven coach?

When Duke hired Mike Krzyzewski, he hadn't even made a single NCAA tournament in 5 seasons at Army. No way you hire this loser, right?

Jim Boeheim, Tom Izzo and Roy Williams hadn't served as head coach at any level before they were hired at Syracuse, Michigan State and Kansas, respectively. Pass on all three of these pretenders, surely?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

If you mean that some coaches show they CAN'T do it before then, I agree. But showing you can raise a program to an elite level rarely happens in less than a decade.

I dont agree the coach is the program in all cases...now winning championships or reaching iconic levels for a period of time, absolutely.  There are some though that have had great programs with a revolving door.

I would agree you 100% with the piece I quoted....that's why I'm more interested in the short-term signals that make you keep the bet on the table than some-sort of dream that Wojo be another Al in 15 years.

Personally I think Marquette is not good enough to place a decade bet on a coach.  Too much can happen for them and us.  They need to think in 3-5 year increments...since the past 5 haven't been great (versus the prior decade) the window needs to continually shorten.  I think most would agree the program won't have the same level of funding in 5 years if those years replicate the past 5.

[Jay Bee]

#10to15YearsToJudge

[Herman Cain]

The success of a coach IS the success of a program. If you change coaches every 5-10 years, you will most likely never reach the promised land. If you want to win year in and year out, it takes a coach installing a system and sticking with it for years. Long enough that the seniors teach the freshmen, that the culture is well established, and that the winning that attracts recruits isn't one flash-in-the-pan Final Four from the year before, but conference titles and tourney runs that come over a generation.

If you mean that some coaches show they CAN'T do it before then, I agree. But showing you can raise a program to an elite level rarely happens in less than a decade.

Yes it is rare, however, in Year 5 of Tom Izzo, MSU won a national championship.  Izzo elavated the program significantly. Primarily through working much harder on recruiting, more depth in particular ,  and also as you point out putting in the right culture. The culture is what has sustained their  program for a long period of time. 

[Silent Verbal]

On this board, it was 5 years to judge a coach.  When the results didn't come after Year 5, the goalposts moved and it became 10 to 15 years to judge, because you see it really is very hard to build any kind of culture or system in such a short half decade timeframe.  Got it.

[tower912]

You want a different coach.   Got it.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

On this board, it was 5 years to judge a coach.  When the results didn't come after Year 5, the goalposts moved and it became 10 to 15 years to judge, because you see it really is very hard to build any kind of culture or system in such a short half decade timeframe.  Got it.

I can't speak for Brew but no goalposts have shifted for me. It is still 5 years to judge a coach. At the end of 5 years a coach has been through a whole recruiting cycle so they have had to win with their own players. This helps avoid things like Kevin Ollie. At the end of 5 years you should have a pretty good idea of whether or not your coach has the program trending up, down, or sideways. If it's up, you extend, if it's down you fire, if it's sideways you most likely fire but I could see a circumstance when you don't. In Wojo's case, he is clearly trending up so you extend.

The 10-15+ years is how long you will likely have to wait if you want elite results. Just a reality that building an elite program takes time. As long as you keep trending up towards being elite the best course of action is sticking with your coach. That's how all the top programs got to where they are today. Churning through coaches every 5 years because they haven't gotten elite results right away rarely (if ever?) works.

[brewcity77]

Yes it is rare, however, in Year 5 of Tom Izzo, MSU won a national championship.  Izzo elavated the program significantly.

People always try to use Izzo or Beard as examples of the type of coach we should hire. Those guys are ridiculously rare. Sure, you can roll the dice every five years, and maybe you'll be the less than 1% of programs that in that time finds a guy who wins a title in his first 5 years as a head coach. Maybe it'll be Izzo. Maybe it'll be Ollie.

Two head coaches in the past 25 years have done it. You can play the odds, which aren't good, or you can try the Duke, Villanova, UConn (Calhoun), Syracuse, Maryland (Gary Williams), Arizona (Olson), Florida, Virginia route where you trust a coach for years and they eventually get you there.

[WhiteTrash]

On this board, it was 5 years to judge a coach.  When the results didn't come after Year 5, the goalposts moved and it became 10 to 15 years to judge, because you see it really is very hard to build any kind of culture or system in such a short half decade timeframe.  Got it.

Just think of how many NC's MU would have if the "Instant Results" fools running MU at the time just would have been patient with Deane? One can only dream; what a wasted opportunity that was.
I vote for tenure for all MU head coaches!

[brewcity77]

On this board, it was 5 years to judge a coach.  When the results didn't come after Year 5, the goalposts moved and it became 10 to 15 years to judge, because you see it really is very hard to build any kind of culture or system in such a short half decade timeframe.  Got it.

Chicos said 5 years. I spent some time crunching numbers after this season and determined that number, which was someone else's, was inadequate. 10-15 is far more reasonable if your aspiration is, like mine, to win a national championship.

As far as I'm concerned, any aspiration less than that is inadequate. While Sweet 16s and Elite 8s are fun, they really don't mean anything in the long run. Maybe an indicator you're on the right path, but no one outside your program will give a rat's ass about your second weekend run six years ago.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

All of the greatest coaches today were at one point young, unproven coaches.

When Villanova hired Jay Wright, he hadn't won an NCAA tournament game in his first 7 seasons as a Division I head coach at Hofstra. How did the AD ever get suckered into this young, unproven coach?

When Duke hired Mike Krzyzewski, he hadn't even made a single NCAA tournament in 5 seasons at Army. No way you hire this loser, right?

Jim Boeheim, Tom Izzo and Roy Williams hadn't served as head coach at any level before they were hired at Syracuse, Michigan State and Kansas, respectively. Pass on all three of these pretenders, surely?

+1

I would rather hire a young unproven head coach who has upside and an unknown ceiling than an older "proven" coach whose ceiling is already known (and isn't at an elite level). Take Mike Anderson for example (I think he's an example of a "proven" high major coach that we could possibly lure away). He's been a D1 coach for 17 years now. In that time, his peaks have been a 3 seed at Mizzou (followed by a 10 seed the next year) and 5 seed at Arkansas (followed by no postseason the next year). He's been very solid all those 17 years, but I see no reason to believe that in his 18+ years that he is suddenly going to reach a new level that he never has before. St. John's IMHO made a high floor low ceiling type hire. I'd rather take a bet on a young coach with upside who may turn into the next Wright, Bennett, Beilein,  or Williams if given enough time.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Just think of how many NC's MU would have if the "Instant Results" fools running MU at the time just would have been patient with Deane? One can only dream; what a wasted opportunity that was.
I vote for tenure for all MU head coaches!

Mike Deane was clearly trending down at the end of 5 years. 21-12, 23-8, 22-9, 20-11, 14-15....with a bad recruiting class coming in for year 6. It was clear once he didn't have KO's players to rely on that he couldn't be successful. That plus his off the court antics made the decision easier.

Patience doesn't mean a blank check. If the program is trending down or stagnating you cut your losses and look for your next coach.

[muguru]

All of the greatest coaches today were at one point young, unproven coaches.

When Villanova hired Jay Wright, he hadn't won an NCAA tournament game in his first 7 seasons as a Division I head coach at Hofstra. How did the AD ever get suckered into this young, unproven coach?

When Duke hired Mike Krzyzewski, he hadn't even made a single NCAA tournament in 5 seasons at Army. No way you hire this loser, right?

Jim Boeheim, Tom Izzo and Roy Williams hadn't served as head coach at any level before they were hired at Syracuse, Michigan State and Kansas, respectively. Pass on all three of these pretenders, surely?

My preference is to have a coach that has had prior Head Coaching experience...The above named Coaches were never Head coaches and obviously look at them now..but it's just a personal preference of mine, and I also believe(no guarantee of course), that a guy that was a previous Head coach can accelerate the timeline a bit as opposed to someone that wasn't. Yes, their are exceptions.

[muguru]

I can't speak for Brew but no goalposts have shifted for me. It is still 5 years to judge a coach. At the end of 5 years a coach has been through a whole recruiting cycle so they have had to win with their own players. This helps avoid things like Kevin Ollie. At the end of 5 years you should have a pretty good idea of whether or not your coach has the program trending up, down, or sideways. If it's up, you extend, if it's down you fire, if it's sideways you most likely fire but I could see a circumstance when you don't. In Wojo's case, he is clearly trending up so you extend.

The 10-15+ years is how long you will likely have to wait if you want elite results. Just a reality that building an elite program takes time. As long as you keep trending up towards being elite the best course of action is sticking with your coach. That's how all the top programs got to where they are today. Churning through coaches every 5 years because they haven't gotten elite results right away rarely (if ever?) works.

Again, for me...like with an athlete retiring, I see Coaches the same way..if you are going to get rid of them, it's better a year too early, then a year too late.

I hope it doesn't happen, but I'm going to be VERY curious to see what happens with pro Wojo supporters on this board, if this season isn't as good as last year was. That would be trending down like so many of you like to talk about. I'd bet anything he'd get a pass from a vast majority saying "it was a blip", he'll be fine, etc. He stays, And then what happens if the year after that is even worse?? Hence my point, better a year too soon then a year too late. Those two consecutive years of a downward trend, would in my opinion, be more detrimental to the program, then switching Coaches after next season IF it's worse than the previous year. I hope it doesn't happen.

[Herman Cain]

+1

I would rather hire a young unproven head coach who has upside and an unknown ceiling than an older "proven" coach whose ceiling is already known (and isn't at an elite level). Take Mike Anderson for example (I think he's an example of a "proven" high major coach that we could possibly lure away). He's been a D1 coach for 17 years now. In that time, his peaks have been a 3 seed at Mizzou (followed by a 10 seed the next year) and 5 seed at Arkansas (followed by no postseason the next year). He's been very solid all those 17 years, but I see no reason to believe that in his 18+ years that he is suddenly going to reach a new level that he never has before. St. John's IMHO made a high floor low ceiling type hire. I'd rather take a bet on a young coach with upside who may turn into the next Wright, Bennett, Beilein,  or Williams if given enough time.

I think for the Johnnies they made the right choice. They need stability in that program right now.

[Warrior Code]

On this board, it was 5 years to judge a coach.  When the results didn't come after Year 5, the goalposts moved and it became 10 to 15 years to judge, because you see it really is very hard to build any kind of culture or system in such a short half decade timeframe.  Got it.

A lot of people this board seem to have interpreted 5 years to judge a coach as "the coach will be one of the best in the country in 5 years/we will be elite or near-elite in 5 years." That's crazy rare, as others have pointed out.

I think it's much more accurate to judge the program compared to where it was five years ago - is it improving, stagnant, or worse off? While I would love for us to be closer to the national title conversation right now, I do see Marquette as on its way toward the top. Can Wojo get us there? I don't know. But it seems to me that we are making progress toward that goal.

[WhiteTrash]

Mike Deane was clearly trending down at the end of 5 years. 21-12, 23-8, 22-9, 20-11, 14-15....with a bad recruiting class coming in for year 6. It was clear once he didn't have KO's players to rely on that he couldn't be successful. That plus his off the court antics made the decision easier.

Patience doesn't mean a blank check. If the program is trending down or stagnating you cut your losses and look for your next coach.

Look, I agree with you. I think most of us do. As in most debates the fools at both extremes of each side hijack the debate (i.e. US politics). Those advocating firing Wojo after a couple of years or even now are one side and those advocating 10-15 years for Wojo to build a program are the other. I presume 90% of MU fans are in the middle. It appears MU is in the middle also as evidenced by their decision to extend him only a couple of years and only after a mostly successful season this past year. There is equal reason to be hopeful and doubtful of Wojo. 

[WhiteTrash]

I think it's much more accurate to judge the program compared to where it was five years ago - is it improving, stagnant, or worse off?

Straw man argument.
If MU was a .500 team the last three years it would be an improvement over 5 years ago, correct? Would anyone be happy with that?
Most adequate coaches could have improved MU from 5 years ago. MU's history, facilities and financial commitment give the MU head coach an advantage over most programs in the nation.
IMO, Wojo is decent and possibly getting better, but a very strong argument could be made that last year may be Wojo's high water mark at MU. It does not appear MU is content with that because they did not throw a bunch of money or a long term extension at him. MU's administration, like most MU fans, seems to being taking a 'wait and see' approach with Wojo.

[Warrior Code]

Straw man argument.
If MU was a .500 team the last three years it would be an improvement over 5 years ago, correct? Would anyone be happy with that?
Most adequate coaches could have improved MU from 5 years ago. MU's history, facilities and financial commitment give the MU head coach an advantage over most programs in the nation.
IMO, Wojo is decent and possibly getting better, but a very strong argument could be made that last year may be Wojo's high water mark at MU. It does not appear MU is content with that because they did not throw a bunch of money or a long term extension at him. MU's administration, like most MU fans, seems to being taking a 'wait and see' approach with Wojo.

How in the world are you going to call my post a straw man in one sentence and the follow it with the bolded in the very next sentence? Lol

[brewcity77]

Again, for me...like with an athlete retiring, I see Coaches the same way..if you are going to get rid of them, it's better a year too early, then a year too late.

Disagree. Duke fans wanted K gone after year 3. They stuck with him, went to 6 of the next 9 Final Fours and won two titles. Villanova fans wanted Jay Wright gone in 2012. They thought he'd peaked. They stuck with him & have won 2 titles in the 7 years since.

Every coach has a rough year. Wojo has already earned more rope than K had. I do think the standards this year should be what we thought last year was going to be, but we would be better off staying with a guy a year too long because any time you push a reset button you are starting the clock at zero on a 10-15 year trip.

Better to sink one extra year and maybe discover the guy was on the brink of a breakthrough than to torpedo it all and start over. Obviously if there's a clear trend down you cut bait, but we don't have that. We're still just 4 months removed from being a top-10 team.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Again, for me...like with an athlete retiring, I see Coaches the same way..if you are going to get rid of them, it's better a year too early, then a year too late.

In theory, I think you are right. I think it's a lot easier to tell with an athlete than with a coach. Personally, I don't like a year too early or too late, I prefer just right.

I hope it doesn't happen, but I'm going to be VERY curious to see what happens with pro Wojo supporters on this board, if this season isn't as good as last year was. That would be trending down like so many of you like to talk about. I'd bet anything he'd get a pass from a vast majority saying "it was a blip", he'll be fine, etc. He stays, And then what happens if the year after that is even worse?? Hence my point, better a year too soon then a year too late. Those two consecutive years of a downward trend, would in my opinion, be more detrimental to the program, then switching Coaches after next season IF it's worse than the previous year. I hope it doesn't happen.

Depends on what "isn't as good as last year" means. Do we get a 6 seed instead of a 5 seed? Don't care in the slightest. Do we end up barely making the tournament? Concerned but probably not close to firing depending on the recruiting outlook. Do we end up missing the NIT? Barring massive recruiting victories it is time to move on. This is all assuming no catastrophic injuries.

Also to nip this one in the bud as well....I would be very surprised if we don't take a step back in 20-21. Any program that graduates as much as we are going to next offseason is likely to take a step back the following year. That doesn't mean the program is regressing. All coaches have rebuidling years, it's part of college basketball. Now that doesn't mean the coach gets a free pass. I think a good way to judge is comparing it to the last rebuilding year which would be 17-18. If we finish better an NIT 2 seed I think it is a good indicator that the program has continued to improve.