collapse

Resources

2024-2025 SOTG Tally


2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.10
Mitchell6
Joplin4
Ross2
Gold1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

NCAA settlement approved - schools now can (and will) directly pay athletes by Uncle Rico
[Today at 07:04:58 AM]


Proposed rule changes( coaching challenges) by CTWarrior
[Today at 07:02:11 AM]


Al's Run Shirt from ASIP by The Sultan
[June 12, 2025, 05:05:07 PM]


Recruiting as of 5/15/25 by MuMark
[June 12, 2025, 12:53:02 PM]


Psyched about the future of Marquette hoops by MuMark
[June 12, 2025, 12:35:04 PM]


Kam update by MU82
[June 12, 2025, 12:04:39 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
66
Marquette
Scrimmage
Date/Time: Oct 4, 2025
TV: NA
Schedule for 2024-25
New Mexico
75

Henry Sugar

Rather than participate in the "Thread that won't Die", I wanted to add my thoughts in a new post about how Cottingham screwed up.  Originally, I was just going to put this on Cracked Sidewalks, but then I just let the topic drift into the wilderness.  However, with the intense debate, I think that the ideas of "What matters" highlights some interesting ideas.

From an informal poll taken amongst friends, Cracked Sidewalks, and Scoop posters, we came up with the following weights for Decision Criteria of choosing a new coachSixteen contributors included MU_Chi-IL, lurch91, indeelaw90, downtown85, mu03eng, dwaderoy2004, StillAWarrior, 2002mualum, CTWarrior, Hilltopper, NYWarrior, Chicos, two additional alum friends, and my brother-in-law (who is an alum and season ticket holder)

Decision Criteria for Selecting a Coach - Group Weights
Ability to Coach (26%)
Recruiting ability (31%)
Marquette Organizational Fit  (12%)
Potential Impact on Roster (5%)
Integrity / Leadership / Charisma (12%)
Player Development (15%)

The group just doesn't think that highly of Organizational Fit or Roster Continuity.  The two most important areas, as one might imagine, are Ability to Coach and Recruiting Ability.

Here is what Cottingham's list probably looked like. 

Cottingham's Coaching Criteria List (but of course he never had one)
Ability to Coach (0%)
Recruiting ability (35%)
Marquette Organizational Fit  (35%)
Potential Impact on Roster (20%)
Integrity / Leadership / Charisma (10%)
Player Development (0%)

Cottingham valued Organizational Fit and Impact on Roster much higher than the group list.  I am basing this off of his comments from the press conference announcing Buzz.  Cottingham's top three criteria were belief in student athletes, respect for Marquette as an organization, and belief that Marquette can compete at the highest level.  Holy crap!  Those are all about Organizational Fit!  His next comment was about the importance of recruiting.  His weighting of Recruiting ability is about the same as the group list.  Cottingham then probably got himself talked into the Ability to Coach (14-17 at NO) and Integrity / Leadership / Charisma aspects of Buzz through the interview.  I am sure that Buzz did a dynamite sales job explaining why he left NO high and dry.

Where Cottingham screwed up was that he never took the time to define what was important to him and/or he over-valued Organizational Fit.  Do I know this definitively to be true?  Of course not, but the evidence strongly suggests it.  Instead, I believe Chico's version.  Without a clear idea of what mattered in building the program, Cottingham reached out to the first four or five candidates and was rejected.  Then he talked himself into the guy down the hall.

How could Cottingham have done this better?
Define what matters to the program
Create a rough score for each potential candidate
Use that to guide the selection process
Revise what matters to the program as appropriate

For example, NYWarrior and I did a quick grade of Buzz, Brownell, and Lowery ages ago.
                                   
Ability to Coach (Buzz - 1.5 ; Brownell - 4.0 ; Lowery - 3.5)
Recruiting ability  (Buzz - 4.5 ; Brownell - 3.5 ; Lowery - 4.0)
Marquette Organizational Fit  (Buzz - 5.0 ; Brownell - 2.5 ; Lowery - 3.0)
Potential Impact on Roster  (Buzz - 4.5 ; Brownell - 2.5 ; Lowery - 3.0)
Integrity / Leadership / Charisma  (Buzz - 2.5 ; Brownell - 3.0 ; Lowery - 3.5)
Player Development (Buzz - 1.5 ; Brownell - 3.5 ; Lowery - 3.5)

Final weighted score
Buzz - 3.0
Brownell - 3.4
Lowery - 3.6

Note that we gave Buzz top marks in three areas and he still finished last in the Group Decision Model.  Now, obviously this is a bullshit exercise.  A real score for each coach would come out during the vetting process.  But the point is that Cottingham could have defined what he wanted better and used that to guide Marquette to other candidates that might not have been right down the hall.  Maybe he does a review of Brownell, Lowery, candidate X, and Buzz and still decides Buzz is the right choice.  That would be fine.

But Cottingham never even bothered.  We're supposed to believe that he did his due diligence by reaching out to four people that were slim candidates in the first place. 
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

MUCam

It is always easy to make numbers work to your argument's favor. I appreciate your efforts at solidifying your opinion, but in the end, 90%* of your premise is based on total and absolute speculation and assumption. It is a little disingenuous, in my opinion, to claim it is based on some math.

You can try, as much as you would like, to claim insight into the decision making process by virtue of some article and a few fleeting quotes. That said, insight (and the resulting data) stemming from that limited factual source leaves a lot to be desired.

Again, I appreciate your efforts. I just hope people realize that your opinion (How Cottingham screwed up) is no more or less based on fact or certainty than any other argument floating out there, regardless of the guise that is put forth by the "numbers/math game."

It is clear you don't like the hire. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. It just makes little sense to attempt to statistically/mathematically/numerically back up your opinion, when in the end it is nothing more than just that...an opinion. For the record, I don't know that you have ever come right out and claimed that your opinion is the right one, based on numbers, but your posts reek of that insinuation. Of course, that is just my opinion.

* The 90% figured is not based on any fact and is, in fact, simply thrown out there to show how meaningless numbers can be.


Henry Sugar

You're right.  I have no insight into what actually happened with Cottingham.  The post title was deliberately inflammatory.  However, I did list the subject as "speculative", and referenced my view of Cottingham's decision criteria as "probably" and listed the score for each coach as "bullshit".

However, we do know a few things:

  • Cottingham did not follow a structured decision process like I outlined.  He would have said so if he did.
  • Cottingham did lay out his criteria (implicitly) for choosing a coach, and it was heavily biased towards "organizational fit" and "Recruiting"

The numbers for Cottingham and then scoring the coaches are used to demonstrate mostly how a process should have been followed.  If it was implied in the post that these were justifying my position, then my apologies.  A debate on ideas is what's most interesting to me.  I think the decision model highlights a few ideas:

  • There is merit in figuring out what's important before starting on a decision
  • The administration valued different criteria than our group list did
  • A scoring model would have helped the administration do a better search

I didn't like the hire because I thought (and still think) that Cottingham screwed up the process.  I think that Cottingham went after four candidates that were slim options, got shot down, and then talked himself into the guy down the hall.

Since that point, Buzz has been above expectations and he'll get a fair shot from me. 

Two questions for you:
1.  Let's assume that the administration had a decision model (they didn't).  How do you think they weighted the criteria?
2.  What score (from 1-5) would you give Buzz on the various decision criteria?
Bonus - Pick any other coach and score them
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

Niv Berkowitz

Great summation, Henry. And bang up job on your recent Cracked Sidewalks post

jce

Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 19, 2008, 07:02:25 AM

  • A scoring model would have helped the administration do a better search

Not really.  Scoring models are great for narrowing down a pool of candidates, but in a small pool with limited options, your pool is narrowed down to begin with.  No pool is going to tell you how well you mesh with an employee personality wise and that is the primary factor I have when hiring an employee.  (I'm not saying I would hire an unqualified employee that I get along with, but if two candidates seem relatively close, the one that I personally mesh with better is going to get the offer.)

Henry Sugar

Quote from: jce on May 19, 2008, 10:04:25 PM
Not really.  Scoring models are great for narrowing down a pool of candidates, but in a small pool with limited options, your pool is narrowed down to begin with. 

You raise a good point regarding the size of the candidate pool.  I also agree, ultimately, that personality plays a huge role in the final decision.  (in the model, I have that as aspects of "Organizational Fit" and "Charisma / Leadership")

However, one of the greatest strengths of a scoring model is in helping to overcome cognitive biases.  People just naturally make sub-optimal decisions. It's part of being human.  We favor information that is more readily available, especially if it's recent or vivid.  We favor information that supports pre-existing beliefs.  We are over-optimistic about our capabilities.

A scoring model forces a person to use some discipline and structure by making them grapple with the questions of "What's important?" and "How does this candidate stack up against what's important?"  If properly set up, it can eliminate some of the cognitive biases  (that might result in favoring the guy that's available down the hall because he's a good salesman and believes in the Marquette mission).

So let's say that Cottingham reaches out to Bennett, Miller, Grant, and Hewitt and gets shot down.  Then, in Henry's alternate universe of better decision making, he takes a time out.  Cottingham does a little decision model and scores some candidates.  Perhaps he reveals something (like a history of X&Os or experience in the NCAA tournament as a HC) that might cause him to take a deeper look into a coach like Brownell or Lowery, as well as Buzz. 

And maybe at the end of the day he decides that Buzz is still the best fit.  Wouldn't that have been nice?  Maybe an improvement on the way it ended up happening?

Same question as before... I'd welcome your opinion regarding how you think the administration weighted the various decision criteria and how you think Buzz stacks up against those criteria.
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

MUBasketball

Well, kudos for obviously putting time and thought into your post.

I didn't bother reading, as the subject title pissed me off so I just clicked on it to reply.

Again, I didn't read it, but I'm assuming you don't agree with the Buzz hire based on the title of your post. But, if Buzz is as successful as I think he'll be, I bet you'll be first in line to pat him on the back, won't you? Typical sports "fans".

drewm88

Quote from: MUBasketball on May 19, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Well, kudos for obviously putting time and thought into your post.

I didn't bother reading, as the subject title pissed me off so I just clicked on it to reply.

Again, I didn't read it, but I'm assuming you don't agree with the Buzz hire based on the title of your post. But, if Buzz is as successful as I think he'll be, I bet you'll be first in line to pat him on the back, won't you? Typical sports "fans".


Thank you for this insightful and entirely worthwhile post.
As has been said numerous times in the past month here, there is nothing wrong with questioning the hire or the process. You can question/criticize/go nuts over it and still support the guy. I never expected Buzz to be the choice, and I'm not sure how I feel about it, but I'll root like hell for him and my Warriors.

Henry--I found your ideas interesting. Thanks.

jce

Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 19, 2008, 10:53:59 PM
You raise a good point regarding the size of the candidate pool.  I also agree, ultimately, that personality plays a huge role in the final decision.  (in the model, I have that as aspects of "Organizational Fit" and "Charisma / Leadership")

However, one of the greatest strengths of a scoring model is in helping to overcome cognitive biases.  People just naturally make sub-optimal decisions. It's part of being human.  We favor information that is more readily available, especially if it's recent or vivid.  We favor information that supports pre-existing beliefs.  We are over-optimistic about our capabilities.

A scoring model forces a person to use some discipline and structure by making them grapple with the questions of "What's important?" and "How does this candidate stack up against what's important?"  If properly set up, it can eliminate some of the cognitive biases  (that might result in favoring the guy that's available down the hall because he's a good salesman and believes in the Marquette mission).

So let's say that Cottingham reaches out to Bennett, Miller, Grant, and Hewitt and gets shot down.  Then, in Henry's alternate universe of better decision making, he takes a time out.  Cottingham does a little decision model and scores some candidates.  Perhaps he reveals something (like a history of X&Os or experience in the NCAA tournament as a HC) that might cause him to take a deeper look into a coach like Brownell or Lowery, as well as Buzz. 

And maybe at the end of the day he decides that Buzz is still the best fit.  Wouldn't that have been nice?  Maybe an improvement on the way it ended up happening?

Same question as before... I'd welcome your opinion regarding how you think the administration weighted the various decision criteria and how you think Buzz stacks up against those criteria.



I just have one change on the model.  IMO, organizational fit has to be ranked more than 12%.  I don't care if the best coach in the world expressed interest.  If they don't have a commitment to the mission of the organization, it's just a no go.  In fact, I think under your scenario, Cottingham had it ranked too low.  When I hire people, organizational fit is one of those "hurdle type" questions.  If you don't seem to have it, you are out.

Henry Sugar

Quote from: MUBasketball on May 19, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Well, kudos for obviously putting time and thought into your post.

I didn't bother reading, as the subject title pissed me off so I just clicked on it to reply.

Again, I didn't read it, but I'm assuming you don't agree with the Buzz hire based on the title of your post. But, if Buzz is as successful as I think he'll be, I bet you'll be first in line to pat him on the back, won't you? Typical sports "fans".

I really hope that you don't have a degree from Marquette, because your response is embarrassing.  You should have been taught to think more critically than that.

Here's a Link for MUBasketball
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

Henry Sugar

Quote from: jce on May 20, 2008, 07:48:58 AM
I just have one change on the model.  IMO, organizational fit has to be ranked more than 12%.  I don't care if the best coach in the world expressed interest.  If they don't have a commitment to the mission of the organization, it's just a no go.  In fact, I think under your scenario, Cottingham had it ranked too low.  When I hire people, organizational fit is one of those "hurdle type" questions.  If you don't seem to have it, you are out.

The 12% is a group average from sixteen people.  Fundamentally, you're right.  For example, Bennett, Miller, Grant, and Hewitt were all non-starters because of  Organizational Fit.

Let's say that Cottingham's speculative weight IS too low at 35%.  What do you think it should be, and how would you weight the remaining percentages?

Ability to Coach (XX%)
Recruiting ability (XX%)
Marquette Organizational Fit  (XX%)
Potential Impact on Roster (XX%)
Integrity / Leadership / Charisma (XX%)
Player Development (XX%)

It's different than the original question (what do you think Cottingham's weights were?), but it's still an honest question.
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

jce

Quote from: Henry Sugar on May 20, 2008, 08:40:18 AM
The 12% is a group average from sixteen people.  Fundamentally, you're right.  For example, Bennett, Miller, Grant, and Hewitt were all non-starters because of  Organizational Fit.

Let's say that Cottingham's speculative weight IS too low at 35%.  What do you think it should be, and how would you weight the remaining percentages?

Ability to Coach (XX%)
Recruiting ability (XX%)
Marquette Organizational Fit  (XX%)
Potential Impact on Roster (XX%)
Integrity / Leadership / Charisma (XX%)
Player Development (XX%)

It's different than the original question (what do you think Cottingham's weights were?), but it's still an honest question.


Well, to me, I would ask the question "Would the candidate fit into the mission of Marquette and will they understand the role athletics should play?"  If the answer is no, then I wouldn't go any further.  After that, I would think coaching and recruiting should be at about 40% each with the rest being PR type factors such as the leadership, charisma mentioned above.

I don't think Cottingham used a process like this.  I think he went for some high flyers, interviewed Buzz, and was so impressed that he offered him there.  I don't think he panicked like you mentioned, but was pleasently surprised at the quality of the interview.

Canned Goods n Ammo

Quote from: MUBasketball on May 19, 2008, 11:35:08 PM
Well, kudos for obviously putting time and thought into your post.

I didn't bother reading, as the subject title pissed me off so I just clicked on it to reply.

Again, I didn't read it, but I'm assuming you don't agree with the Buzz hire based on the title of your post. But, if Buzz is as successful as I think he'll be, I bet you'll be first in line to pat him on the back, won't you? Typical sports "fans".


Normally, I would agree with some of what you are saying... but trust me... Sugar puts more time, thought, and an even handed approach to everything he posts.

The research is sound, and his point is correct.

Take the time to read it.

Trust me.


PS I do think that some people are actually "questioning MU" because it will allow them to say "I told you so" later on.

Sugar isn't one of those guys.


MUCam

Sugar may not be looking to say "I told you so" later, but he certainly has an opinion that he is trying to push. In so trying, Sugar plays fast and loose with meaningless numbers.

For example, in his initial post, Sugar describes a "quick grade" that was done of Buzz, Brownell, and Lowery. In the "coaching ability" portion of that grade, Buzz is graded at 1.5, whereas Brownell and Lowery receive grades of 4.0 and 3.5 respectively. For a guy that seems so set on "criteria," Sugar does not define what criteria were used in grading Buzz so low. Even if there was criteria used, can that criteria be fairly used to judge the coaching ability of a man who coached one year at UNO? Experience can be fairly objectively ascertained, but coaching ability? I think not. So where does the 1.5 number come from? For that matter, where do the grades on Integrity/Leadership/Charisma and Player Development come from? What are the criteria for giving Buzz grades of 1.5 and 2.5?

In trying to extract an objective criteria formula for selecting coaches, Sugar uses countless assumptions and subjective (dare I say, unsupported) opinions to support his position. That is akin to building a skyscraper with playdough as your foundation. When the foundation is as weak (and subjective) as Sugar's is, then the remaining structure really leaves little to be desired.

Again, I appreciate Sugar's efforts at legitimizing his position. I simply think that he has over-institutionalized the process and made it much too rigid. This is especially true, where the rigid structure of a "Decision Criteria" model is based on the loose/swaying/unstable subjective opinions of a few sources. In a hiring process, one must look at objective criteria. However, there is an art to first impressions and to gut feelings and some of the best hires out there are a result of the perfection of such an art.

I am not saying Buzz is the right choice. He certainly wasn't my number one choice. But, to bolster my opinion with numbers specifically cut out of the wood to fit my argument doesn't make much sense.

The best argument against Buzz is the unknowns. Is MU so low on the totem pole that it needed to hire someone with so many unknowns? I am not sure that it did. MU supposedly had the money (and administration) to make a legitimate push for some real dark horse candidates. Did it do so? I am not sure whether or not it did. Buzz may be a home-run hire. I am cautiously optimistic that he will be. That said, perhaps the sure-fire hire would have been the safer route. It really is a tough call and one that Cottingham had to make. Taking him to the cleaners for that decision, without full knowledge of how the process played out, is a little bit irresponsible.

Henry Sugar

Quote from: MUCam on May 20, 2008, 01:28:32 PM
For example, in his initial post, Sugar describes a "quick grade" that was done of Buzz, Brownell, and Lowery. In the "coaching ability" portion of that grade, Buzz is graded at 1.5, whereas Brownell and Lowery receive grades of 4.0 and 3.5 respectively. For a guy that seems so set on "criteria," Sugar does not define what criteria were used in grading Buzz so low.

It was already a long-winded post, so I left out the rationale in the interest of brevity.  Regardless, immediately after posting the scores, I said the following:  "Now, obviously this is a bullcrap exercise.  A real score for each coach would come out during the vetting process."  You're saying that the numbers are full of crap, but so am I!

Quote from: MUCam on May 20, 2008, 01:28:32 PM
In trying to extract an objective criteria formula for selecting coaches, Sugar uses countless assumptions and subjective (dare I say, unsupported) opinions to support his position.

Again, I've freely admitted that the numbers are speculative multiple times during this thread.  The point, instead of the numbers, is on the process.  We all know that Cottingham didn't follow any process of the sort.

Quote from: MUCam on May 20, 2008, 01:28:32 PM
Again, I appreciate Sugar's efforts at legitimizing his position. I simply think that he has over-institutionalized the process and made it much too rigid. This is especially true, where the rigid structure of a "Decision Criteria" model is based on the loose/swaying/unstable subjective opinions of a few sources.

<sigh>  This is where we fundamentally disagree.  Really important decisions, like hiring arguably the most important employee of the university, deserve some rigor.  Note as well that I said, "Revise what matters to the program as appropriate", which would allow for flexibility.  In addition, it's not like taking this approach makes the decision cumbersome, because I was able to generate a decision model in about 90 min, and that included the time to solicit input from other people.

Quote from: MUCam on May 20, 2008, 01:28:32 PM
However, there is an art to first impressions and to gut feelings and some of the best hires out there are a result of the perfection of such an art.

And Cottingham has perfected the art of using gut feelings to make hiring decisions?  When?  In the 16 months he took to not interview anyone before deciding to name himself AD?  Or in the countless other hiring decisions he's made during his extended experience as an AD?  If anyone on the fucking planet needed to follow a better process and not rely on his gut feel, it was Cottingham.

PS - you avoided my original questions
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

Henry Sugar

Quote from: jce on May 20, 2008, 12:30:25 PM
I don't think Cottingham used a process like this.  I think he went for some high flyers, interviewed Buzz, and was so impressed that he offered him there.  I don't think he panicked like you mentioned, but was pleasently surprised at the quality of the interview.

In two sentences, you summarized everything I think Cottingham did wrong.

Also, thank you for providing your input regarding the model.  I like your IF/THEN approach to organizational fit, and I think that's a better way to approach things.
A warrior is an empowered and compassionate protector of others.

Murffieus

Buzz was hired for continuity-------let's hope he can coach.


Pardner

Okay--I took a retrospective look at our past coaches to see how they would have scored (in my mind) based upon where they were then and where we are now.  Same caveats as Henry about validity.

>>Al (4.7--had some problems with some of the admin on fit)
>>Hank (3.6--recruiting not a strong point)
>>Rick (3.9--not a good org/alumni fit)
>>Dukiet (2.3--even back then he was the wrong hire...would be worse in today's setting)
>>O'Neil (3.4--bad org fit)
>>Deane (2.7--recruiting a problem, not a good org fit)
>>TC  (3.7--coaching, player development slightly above average)

So, Buzz is a 3.1 via Henry with F/Incomplete grades on coaching and integrity (I guess because of questions about leaving UNO).  But, let's say Buzz is a "good" coach (3.5) as both his high major mentors say he is (Gillepsie and TC), that brings Buzz up to a 3.7.  Let's say UNO was half his fault (3.0), that brings Buzz's score to 3.9.  Would this make folks feel better?  I doubt it, but this (to me anyway) shows he has question marks, but he isn't way out on the norm.  Score them yourself and see what you get.

BTW, who says MU didn't have some sort of a process?  Facts are this:  MU had a list at the ready (thanks to Cords I assume who went through some process to arrive at that list).  SC called some key contacts to confirm that the list was current (Tranghese among others) and saw he had the same names.  He then went about going down that list...and Buzz was #4.  Isn't that a process only MU was prepared and acted quickly?  (BTW, if SC would have wanted a safe pick, it would have been with Brownell or Lowry--but he went with the known recruiter).  

Is it how most of us would do it?  No, but I think it is a bit obtuse to think Buzz was a face saving hire for SC--the safer move for a rookie AD would be to go with a Brownell as a layup.  That's where this process would have led MU to the wrong choice (see Dukiet in a panic after Newell did a Rick)

btw, MU is not an institution who is going to keep pressing and try to "steal" a top 3 hc coach by outbidding versus working through the channels for a release.  It would be hypocritical for a Jesuit school in their minds.  The best bet here would have been to work a Jesuit deal with Xavier for Miller--but Miller wasn't remotely interested.  Back in time, MU has hired from another Catholic school (Deane, Dukiet, Al), hired an assistant (TC, KO) or hired internally (Hank, Rick Buzz).  MU would NEVER pull an "IU Midnight Express".

Previous topic - Next topic