It's 2008, a look into the Crystal Ball

[JSHoosier 19,842]

I too remember the old days after Tom Crean was hired and the hordes of Marquette fans that graced Scout with their presence and there seems to be a lot of revisionism going on here. Those Marquette fans were very upset at losing Crean and took every opportunity to lash out, those that expressed the mostly level headed view that the author of the linked article did were few and far between. The truth of the matter is the only person that accomplished more at Marquette than Tom Crean was Al McGuire and most of the MU fans realized what they were losing which is why so many felt the need to invade IU boards with their vitriol. Those MU fans played the jilted ex role extremely well and it still amazes me how many IU fans on the boards bought so fully into the crap they were spreading 

 

 

 

If you are so underwhelmed about Crean's accomplishments then I can't see how you can possibly be excited about any of the prospective replacements that are bandied about who might actually come here.Maybe it is just the "shiny new thing" syndrome. 

 

As for Davis he couldn't and still can't walk and chew gum at the same time when it comes to coaching and additional experience has done nothing to change that. That being said, he shouldn't have been forced out until IU was prepared to replace him with a homerun hire. That is how we ended up with Sampson. 

I've noticed people tend to focus on one year of Crean's Marquette tenure, one year out of 9.  Look at the other 8, they wallowed in mediocrity.  Sure he made a Final Four, Mike Davis made one, but he didn't do a darn thing the other 8 years.  He missed the tournament almost as many times as he made it (missed 4 made 5) and when he did make it 80% of the time he didn't even get past the second round.  He only won the conference once, in 9 years.  He had a 66% winning percentage, which isn't that great.  The totality of his 9 years there is pretty mediocre.  The problem is we paid for the Final Four coach and he's not as good of a coach as that year suggests, like the column in the OP says.  Crean could sell a freezer to an eskimo though so he makes people focus on that one year.

 

It doesn't matter what coaches before him did (and Mike Deane won 20 games 4 of his 5 years there, just didn't have tournament success but Crean didn't have much either), Crean wasn't as impressive there as people think.

[Bigdaddy76 111]

I too remember the old days after Tom Crean was hired and the hordes of Marquette fans that graced Scout with their presence and there seems to be a lot of revisionism going on here. Those Marquette fans were very upset at losing Crean and took every opportunity to lash out, those that expressed the mostly level headed view that the author of the linked article did were few and far between. The truth of the matter is the only person that accomplished more at Marquette than Tom Crean was Al McGuire and most of the MU fans realized what they were losing which is why so many felt the need to invade IU boards with their vitriol. Those MU fans played the jilted ex role extremely well and it still amazes me how many IU fans on the boards bought so fully into the crap they were spreading 

 

 

 

If you are so underwhelmed about Crean's accomplishments then I can't see how you can possibly be excited about any of the prospective replacements that are bandied about who might actually come here.Maybe it is just the "shiny new thing" syndrome. 

 

As for Davis he couldn't and still can't walk and chew gum at the same time when it comes to coaching and additional experience has done nothing to change that. That being said, he shouldn't have been forced out until IU was prepared to replace him with a homerun hire. That is how we ended up with Sampson. 

I do agree with you about replacements for TC. But, I do believe that it would be a lot different this time around. BK is Looong gone. So there wouldn't be this "I don't want to be the guy that follows him syndrome" or the " I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings scenario" There also would not, or should not be any sanctions left over for the new coach. That being said, pretty much anyone that you get is gonna be an unknown. Its not like Izzo, or Pitino, or any other established coach is gonna come knocking. But I can't see why it wouldn't be attractive to like a Josh Pastner, or a Gregg Marshall, or someone of that ilk. 

[TheStillman 991]

I do agree with you about replacements for TC. But, I do believe that it would be a lot different this time around. BK is Looong gone. So there wouldn't be this "I don't want to be the guy that follows him syndrome" or the " I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings scenario" There also would not, or should not be any sanctions left over for the new coach. That being said, pretty much anyone that you get is gonna be an unknown. Its not like Izzo, or Pitino, or any other established coach is gonna come knocking. But I can't see why it wouldn't be attractive to like a Josh Pastner, or a Gregg Marshall, or someone of that ilk. 

 

Josh Pastner would be a terrible hire

[JSHoosier 19,842]

I do agree with you about replacements for TC. But, I do believe that it would be a lot different this time around. BK is Looong gone. So there wouldn't be this "I don't want to be the guy that follows him syndrome" or the " I don't want to hurt anybody's feelings scenario" There also would not, or should not be any sanctions left over for the new coach. That being said, pretty much anyone that you get is gonna be an unknown. Its not like Izzo, or Pitino, or any other established coach is gonna come knocking. But I can't see why it wouldn't be attractive to like a Josh Pastner, or a Gregg Marshall, or someone of that ilk. 

IIRC Pitino wanted the job at one time, but he's not leaving UL now.

 

I don't want Pastner.  Marshall would be interesting.

[Bigdaddy76 111]

Josh Pastner would be a terrible hire

I don't know that much about him, but was using that type of coach as a scenario. But for curiosity, What is it that is bad. I thought that he had a pretty good record at Memphis?

[KingPG21 6,583]

I don't know that much about him, but was using that type of coach as a scenario. But for curiosity, What is it that is bad. I thought that he had a pretty good record at Memphis?

They played in a bad conference so they racked up wins against bad teams. He have an average record against upper level competition, and hasn't done anything in the tournament. He has gotten recruits to go there, but the complaints about Crean being a recruiter more than a coach seem like they would apply to Pastner as well. 

[WindyCitySource 600]

They played in a bad conference so they racked up wins against bad teams. He have an average record against upper level competition, and hasn't done anything in the tournament. He has gotten recruits to go there, but the complaints about Crean being a recruiter more than a coach seem like they would apply to Pastner as well. 

 

You're absolutely right... Pastner pretty much has all the same issues that Crean does. Great recruiter/salesmen, average coach. Had success against poor competition (Memphis/Marquette both were CUSA). Both were assistants under HOF coaches (Lute Olson for Pastner, Izzo for Crean). Neither has been able to get past the sweet 16. 

Pastner has only been a head coach for 5 seasons and has yet to land his "Indiana" job. I wonder what sort of success he will have at the next level when someone inevitably gives him the shot. Hopefully it's not IU. 

[hoosierbgh 1,264]

I've noticed people tend to focus on one year of Crean's Marquette tenure, one year out of 9.  Look at the other 8, they wallowed in mediocrity.  Sure he made a Final Four, Mike Davis made one, but he didn't do a darn thing the other 8 years.  He missed the tournament almost as many times as he made it (missed 4 made 5) and when he did make it 80% of the time he didn't even get past the second round.  He only won the conference once, in 9 years.  He had a 66% winning percentage, which isn't that great.  The totality of his 9 years there is pretty mediocre.  The problem is we paid for the Final Four coach and he's not as good of a coach as that year suggests, like the column in the OP says.  Crean could sell a freezer to an eskimo though so he makes people focus on that one year.

 

It doesn't matter what coaches before him did (and Mike Deane won 20 games 4 of his 5 years there, just didn't have tournament success but Crean didn't have much either), Crean wasn't as impressive there as people think.

 

No, I'm not focusing on one year, I'm looking at the whole history of Marquette not just picking and choosing parts of it to support my argument. Marquette was a mid-major program when Tom Crean took over a bad team there, one that finished 14-15 overall and 6-10 in conference. It took him two years to build the program, then he took them to the tournament 5 of his 7 remaining years. Before his arrival, Marquette had only been to the tournament 7 times in the previous 20 years. Also they had only made it past the second round 5 times in 25 years. Despite taking over a bad team as a first time head coach, Crean also had a higher winning percentage than all but three other coaches who coached more than 1 year in Marquette history. His long conference championship was also one of only 4 total the school has ever won. 

 

Of course it matters what the previous coaches did at a school if you actually want understand the context of the discussion. Then again, I guess it isn't important at all if you just want to push an agenda and don't really want to put any effort into supporting your position. Btw, it would have been kind of difficult for Mike Deane to have much tournament success considering he only made the tournament twice in his five years despite taking over a good team.

 

All that aside you never even touched my main point that none of the reasonable/viable replacements candidates bandied about have demonstrated Tom Crean's level of success. 

[hoosierbgh 1,264]

IIRC Pitino wanted the job at one time, but he's not leaving UL now.

 

I don't want Pastner.  Marshall would be interesting.

Greg Marshall is the only name bandied about that in my opinion is both a real possibility and even worth a look. Even saying that, he has only made the tournament 10 times in 16 years and is only 3 of 7 at WSU, only has a 70% winning percentage overall, and has only made it past the 2nd round once in 16 years. Those are not exactly awe inspiring numbers.

[JSHoosier 19,842]

No, I'm not focusing on one year, I'm looking at the whole history of Marquette not just picking and choosing parts of it to support my argument. Marquette was a mid-major program when Tom Crean took over a bad team there, one that finished 14-15 overall and 6-10 in conference. It took him two years to build the program, then he took them to the tournament 5 of his 7 remaining years. Before his arrival, Marquette had only been to the tournament 7 times in the previous 20 years. Also they had only made it past the second round 5 times in 25 years. Despite taking over a bad team as a first time head coach, Crean also had a higher winning percentage than all but three other coaches who coached more than 1 year in Marquette history. His long conference championship was also one of only 4 total the school has ever won. 

 

Of course it matters what the previous coaches did at a school if you actually want understand the context of the discussion. Then again, I guess it isn't important at all if you just want to push an agenda and don't really want to put any effort into supporting your position. Btw, it would have been kind of difficult for Mike Deane to have much tournament success considering he only made the tournament twice in his five years despite taking over a good team.

 

All that aside you never even touched my main point that none of the reasonable/viable replacements candidates bandied about have demonstrated Tom Crean's level of success. 

If you're focusing on his entire 9 year tenure you have to admit that he his record isn't that impressive.  People try to make it out like he turned them into a perennial power and it's far from true, he was rather mediocre.  It's a fact he missed the tournament almost half the time.  It's a fact that 4 of the 5 years he did make it he didn't do a darn thing.  It's a fact that he won a whopping 66% of his games.  I'm not pushing an agenda, I'm pointing out he wasn't that good at Marquette himself.

 

I'm aware that Mike Deane's last year was 14-15, he still won 20 games four of the five years prior.  We only won 17 games this year, but it's supposed to be passed off as a "down year" or a "rebuild year".  Funny, that.

[hoosierbgh 1,264]

If you're focusing on his entire 9 year tenure you have to admit that he his record isn't that impressive.  People try to make it out like he turned them into a perennial power and it's far from true, he was rather mediocre.  It's a fact he missed the tournament almost half the time.  It's a fact that 4 of the 5 years he did make it he didn't do a darn thing.  It's a fact that he won a whopping 66% of his games.  I'm not pushing an agenda, I'm pointing out he wasn't that good at Marquette himself.

 

I'm aware that Mike Deane's last year was 14-15, he still won 20 games four of the five years prior.  We only won 17 games this year, but it's supposed to be passed off as a "down year" or a "rebuild year".  Funny, that.

 

LOL, you just can't admit that Tom Crean's success at Marquette compares favorably to both the success of previous coaches at Marquette or any viable candidate to replace him can you? I can respect your conviction but it is just not supported by facts.

 

As for Mike Deane, it is pretty clear that he started out with a full cupboard and then nosedived since his only tournament appearances were in his first two years. 

[JSHoosier 19,842]

LOL, you just can't admit that Tom Crean's success at Marquette compares favorably to both the success of previous coaches at Marquette or any viable candidate to replace him can you? I can respect your conviction but it is just not supported by facts.

 

As for Mike Deane, it is pretty clear that he started out with a full cupboard and then nosedived since his only tournament appearances were in his first two years. 

And you just can't admit that Tom Crean's success at Marquette is pretty mediocre, that he didn't have great success there.  He didn't, that is supported by facts and it's irrelevant to what coaches before him may or may not have done.  Is a winning percentage of 66%, missing the tournament almost half the time and usually not even getting past the second round "great"?  No, it's not.

[TheStillman 991]

For a first head coaching stop winning 66% of games over 9 years, bringing a program to its first final 4 in almost 30 years and leading a program from being a mid major to being in arguably the best conference at that time with little drop off in record is pretty impressive. Not sure your definition of great but Crean's resume at Marquette isn't mediocre and it is pretty close to what a resume would look like for most candidates that would replace him. Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners