Rivals - Was Williams the Right Choice

[Niv Berkowitz]

From today on Rivals: Was Williams the Right Choice for MU

Two writers, editor and staff writer. Editor - Good choice. Writer - Questionable.

The final sentence in the article, to me, is what it all boils down too.

http://collegebasketball.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=809101

[HarveysWallbangers]

The fact that it's still being discussed makes it a questionable hire. It could turn out to be good, it could turn out to be bad. But there is no debate that it is questionable, especially considering the talent we have returning. 

Nobody would consider any of the other names mentioned for the job -- Bennett, Grant, Miller, Brownell, Lowery -- to be questionable hires. Nobody would consider the Providence hire questionable. Or the LSU hire. Or Oklahoma St. Or Indiana. Or Cal. Only Marquette's hire was questionable.

[mu03eng]

The fact that it's still being discussed makes it a questionable hire. It could turn out to be good, it could turn out to be bad. But there is no debate that it is questionable, especially considering the talent we have returning. 

Nobody would consider any of the other names mentioned for the job -- Bennett, Grant, Miller, Brownell, Lowery -- to be questionable hires. Nobody would consider the Providence hire questionable. Or the LSU hire. Or Oklahoma St. Or Indiana. Or Cal. Only Marquette's hire was questionable.

I would absolutely question the Brownell or Lowery hires.  I actually like Buzz's hire more than I would those two.  I have seen and heard enough experiences with Buzz from friends, etc. that I think he is a great fit.

I wasn't on the board in 1998 but I wonder what the discussion was about Tom Crean.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I would absolutely question the Brownell or Lowery hires.  I actually like Buzz's hire more than I would those two.  I have seen and heard enough experiences with Buzz from friends, etc. that I think he is a great fit.

I wasn't on the board in 1998 but I wonder what the discussion was about Tom Crean.

The discussion about Crean was solid...Michigan State was in the middle of their 3 straight Final Four runs.

It's clear from this article, that Andrew Skwara simply wants Buzz to fail.   

[3Mer]

"I can't imagine many coaches turning down a chance to inherit that kind of program and that kind of talent and experience. But, instead of shopping the job around so to speak, Cottingham handed it over to an unproven assistant. ... Why take such a risk when you can hire somebody with a better resume and a proven track record?"

I'd really like to know the inside story on Buzz's hire.  

Did MU go cheap?  Did Cottingham panic when Crean immediately tried to cherry-pick MU's recruiting class?  Was MU afraid of getting used as a stepping stone [again] by a higher profile hire?

Like Skwara, I'll never believe MU made anything but the most feeble of overtures towards legitimate candidates.  No matter how the hire gets spun, Buzz didn't have the resume for a top-20 program.

[HarveysWallbangers]

I would absolutely question the Brownell or Lowery hires.  I actually like Buzz's hire more than I would those two.  I have seen and heard enough experiences with Buzz from friends, etc. that I think he is a great fit.

I wasn't on the board in 1998 but I wonder what the discussion was about Tom Crean.

The fact that your friends have had positive experiences with Buzz Williams means nothing unless your friends are highly-rated high school recruits. The fact that this hire is being questioned is reason enough for a recruit to think twice about signing on with a complete unknown. If I had a son who was even a three-star recruit -- and I love MU -- I wouldn't advise him to sign on with this coach. He's inexperienced and is a complete fish out of water in Milwaukee.

As for 1998, Crean was a much more experienced assistant than Williams...it's not even close. Not to mention the fact that our team is in a much better place right now than when Crean took over. That's one of the reasons why this was such an irresponsible hire.

[mu03eng]

The fact that your friends have had positive experiences with Buzz Williams means nothing unless your friends are highly-rated high school recruits. The fact that this hire is being questioned is reason enough for a recruit to think twice about signing on with a complete unknown. If I had a son who was even a three-star recruit -- and I love MU -- I wouldn't advise him to sign on with this coach. He's inexperienced and is a complete fish out of water in Milwaukee.

As for 1998, Crean was a much more experienced assistant than Williams...it's not even close. Not to mention the fact that our team is in a much better place right now than when Crean took over. That's one of the reasons why this was such an irresponsible hire.

He is not a complete unknown....by all accounts every place he has gone, recruits have followed.  He supposedly secured a top 50 recruiting class at University of New Orleans....after Katrina to a University most of us didn't know played basketball. 

Is part of your hiring process to sit with a potential head coach while he tries to recruit a high school student????  All any hiring process has to go on is talking to the individual and getting a feel from them of how they will do.  A couple of my friends have had interactions with him, in which they came away very positive, including one who was very negative on the hire.  By all accounts, he is personable, generous, open, and honest....what more do you want in a recruiter...combine that with a reputation as a great recruiter and I think we are on very solid ground.  We have Eric Williams verballed....I know its one player but that has got to be taken into account.

If you want to have a debate about Buzz as an X and O guy, that is a legitimate discussion.  However, I don't think any of us can have an intelligent discussion about that as we haven't "seen" him make those decisions.

In the end the same people who were involved in the Crean hire were involved in some way in this hire...thats good enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I firmly believe Buzz was line 3 on the list of coaches they wanted.  When 1 and 2 said no, why not go with 3?  And in my mind Buzz is no more of a question then Brownell and Lowery are.

[ATWizJr]

The fact that this is still being discussed and that the hire is still being criticized before Williams has had a chance to prove himself is a clear indicator that some people have too much time on their hands and that no matter what Williams does:

He loses - no suprise, flawed process

He wins - MU sure is lucky, given the flawed process

the critics will have their fall back position.

[HarveysWallbangers]

It'll be difficult to criticize (or cite the luck of) the process when you consider there clearly was no process.

I wouldn't call asking two guys to be our head coach and then giving up and dropping it in the lap of our 9 month assistant from Texas a "process."

Do you think Marquette University would hire a professor with Williams' work history? 

[3Mer]

I wouldn't call asking two guys to be our head coach and then giving up and dropping it in the lap of our 9 month assistant from Texas a "process."

EXACTLY. 

We "critics" aren't lamenting Buzz's Xs/Os (who the he11 knows at this point?) or his recruiting (which he could have been doing as an MU assistant for a legitimately qualified successor to Crean -- i.e., a coach deserving of taking over at a top-20 program). 

Rather, we're lamenting the Universitry's lack of due diligence.

[mu03eng]

It'll be difficult to criticize (or cite the luck of) the process when you consider there clearly was no process.

I wouldn't call asking two guys to be our head coach and then giving up and dropping it in the lap of our 9 month assistant from Texas a "process."

Do you think Marquette University would hire a professor with Williams' work history? 

So you point at the output of a process and say as a result there was no process??  Just because you don't like the hire doesn't mean there wasn't a process.  As I said, I firmly believe Buzz was number three on the list....so we hardly "dropped it in his lap", but it was a conscience decision...or process if you will....if A or B doesn't happen we will interview C....if that works out C is the coach if not we will go to D.

[mu03eng]

EXACTLY. 

We "critics" aren't lamenting Buzz's Xs/Os (who the he11 knows at this point?) or his recruiting (which he could have been doing as an MU assistant for a legitimately qualified successor to Crean (i.e., a coach deserving of taking over at a top-20 program). 

Rather, we're lamenting the Universitry's lack of due diligence.

The problem with the due diligence argument is that are assuming there was someone better MU could have gotten.  My argument is that MU knew of all the possible candidates like Lowery and Brownell and liked Buzz better.  They then interviewed Buzz and liked him enough to give him the job....that my friend is a process.  If the interview hadn't gone well I'm sure coach 4 and 5 on the list would have been next and Buzz wouldn't be here.  Like it or not that is a process.

You can argue all you want that we could have waited and gotten Buzz still...fine but all you are doing then is PR and perhaps fracturing Buzz's confidence or desire to take the job by looking for "better" options before "settling".

What the process people seem to have difficulty accepting is that MU may very well have thought Buzz our third best option.

[Pakuni]

The problem with the due diligence argument is that are assuming there was someone better MU could have gotten. 

The real problem with the due diligence argument is that it's being made by people who weren't part of the process, have no personal knowledge of the process and have had no discussions with those who were part of the process, but rather those who want to pretend they know all about the process.

[3Mer]

The real problem with the due diligence argument is that it's being made by people who weren't part of the process, have no personal knowledge of the process and have had no discussions with those who were part of the process, but rather those who want to pretend they know all about the process.

I guess one's definition of "due process" is a relative thing. 

Personally, placing the stress on "due," I find it hard to swallow the explanation that -- in 6 days -- MU conducted a diligent search for an objectively qualified candidate and Buzz turned out to be the best candidate for the job.

Apparently, I'm not alone.  The media continues to scratch its head as well.

And the impact of such negative press is on the program's prestige, which will be felt in the inability to attract the higher-rated recruits needed to take MU beyond the first-round of the NCAAs.

[mu03eng]

I guess one's definition of "due process" is a relative thing. 

Personally, placing the stress on "due," I find it hard to swallow the explanation that -- in 6 days -- MU conducted a diligent search for an objectively qualified candidate and Buzz turned out to be the best candidate for the job.

Apparently, I'm not alone.  The media continues to scratch its head as well.

And the impact of such negative press is on the program's prestige, which will be felt in the inability to attract the higher-rated recruits needed to take MU beyond the first-round of the NCAAs.

See, 3Mer, what you are arguing is not the process but the quality of the decision from that process.  If that same process had brought you Tony Bennett(by all accounts, we offered), you wouldn't be harping on the process.

In the end I always go back to Occam's Razor.  Which of these three options is the simpliest and therefore most likely of the answers? 
1.  They loved Buzz and he was number 3 behind Miller and Bennett.  They were so confident in the choice that they made it despite the expected howl from fans and sports writers that wanted a "sexy" hire. 
2.  Bennett and Miller were 1 and 2 and then there was a jumble at 3.  When 1 and 2 said no they "panicked" because they thought no one would take the MU job so they turned to Buzz.  In fact they were so panicked they interview him three times in 2 days because they had to get him in the fold right away.  They made this move not realizing how much people would hate it. 
3.  They had no plan when figuring out how to replace the second most important position in the university.  They completely ignored the contingency planning they had pre-created should Crean leave, contacted Miller and Bennett got well maybes...panicked and hired Buzz because he was the easy get.

2 and 3 seem to assume an awful lot of incompetence, not ruling it out but I don't think I'm jaded enough to expect it like others seem to.

[ATWizJr]

+1

[Henry Sugar]

What the process people seem to have difficulty accepting is that MU may very well have thought Buzz our third best option.

I could see how they might think that.  You know... with Buzz' nine month tenure with Marquette and previous 14-17 season at New Orleans.  The same New Orleans program that now hates him for walking out on their team and leaving them high and dry.

This is a resume that screams to me, "I deserve to be a head coach at an established and successful D1 program!"

[Henry Sugar]

See, 3Mer, what you are arguing is not the process but the quality of the decision from that process.  If that same process had brought you Tony Bennett (by all accounts, we offered), you wouldn't be harping on the process.

You are probably right.  It wouldn't have meant that Marquette followed a good process, however.  Instead, the decision that was made has caused a large number of people to question how good of a job was done in picking the head coach.

2 and 3 seem to assume an awful lot of incompetence, not ruling it out but I don't think I'm jaded enough to expect it like others seem to.

See:  Gold, Marquette

Also:  Cottingham, Hiring Of

[MUBasketball]

It'll be difficult to criticize (or cite the luck of) the process when you consider there clearly was no process.

I wouldn't call asking two guys to be our head coach and then giving up and dropping it in the lap of our 9 month assistant from Texas a "process."

Do you think Marquette University would hire a professor with Williams' work history? 

Nothing beats people with absolutely no knowledge of the process blasting the search. How do you know how many people were contacted or how they handled the search?

Believe me, Buzz is thought of very highly by a lot of good basketball people.

This was a very good hire. Obviously nobody knows what will happen in the future, but we have a solid coaching staff. I think we'll be fine.

[Niv Berkowitz]

In the end the same people who were involved in the Crean hire were involved in some way in this hire...thats good enough for me to give him the benefit of the doubt.  I firmly believe Buzz was line 3 on the list of coaches they wanted.  When 1 and 2 said no, why not go with 3?  And in my mind Buzz is no more of a question then Brownell and Lowery are.

a) Bill Cords was A.D., not Cottingham.
b) Buzz is way more of a question than Brownell and Lowery. Check their win loss records and years of coaching experience and how they've built programs on their own. Buzz? not so much.

[Pakuni]

See, 3Mer, what you are arguing is not the process but the quality of the decision from that process.  If that same process had brought you Tony Bennett(by all accounts, we offered), you wouldn't be harping on the process.

Amen. This is what i've been preaching for weeks.
Most of the process zealots of today wouldn't be complaining if the identical process ended in Sean Miller or Tony Bennett.
Their issue, as loathe as they are to admit it, isn't the process itself, but the result of the process.

Great post, by the way.

[Pakuni]

a) Bill Cords was A.D., not Cottingham.
b) Buzz is way more of a question than Brownell and Lowery. Check their win loss records and years of coaching experience and how they've built programs on their own. Buzz? not so much.

Which program did Chris Lowery build?
Giving him credit for SIU's success is like saying Tubby Smith built a national championship winner at Kentucky.

[mviale]

To be or not to be - dukiet or 2nd coming of KO?

[ChicosBailBonds]

You are probably right.  It wouldn't have meant that Marquette followed a good process, however.  Instead, the decision that was made has caused a large number of people to question how good of a job was done in picking the head coach.

See:  Gold, Marquette

Also:  Cottingham, Hiring Of

Also:  Provost hiring

[mu03eng]

Also:  Provost hiring

Ok, I will bite since I'm clearly not in the know here....what is the scoop on the Provost hiring?