Theory of why Lickliter failed or We hired the wrong Butler coach

I

in8hawk

Well-Known Member
After all the interviews with players this year about how they didn't know where they stood with Lickliter, had no relationship with him, but they liked the assistants and the assistants did most of the work, its no wonder that Butler is having continued success with the top assistant who, apparently, did all the work when Lickliter was at Butler. It seems that if he had brought all his top assistants with him, we would have been at least okay, but we got the two most inexperienced ones and one with no major conference experience. I think this is why that experiment didn't yield very good results, because with all the good players at mid-majors, how could they not get them to come to a BCS conference like Iowa, just in over their heads.
 
Last edited:
Re: Thoery of why Lickliter failed or We hired the wrong Butler coach

The process flushed a weak coach from the Division 1 coaching ranks. Unfortunately it came at Iowa's expense. Someone didn't do their homework during the search for Alford's successor.
 
Re: Thoery of why Lickliter failed or We hired the wrong Butler coach

Butler has some built-in advantages that Iowa does not have. It is a private liberal arts school, in a metropolitan center with good basketball talent that hosts several key sporting events each year. The school also puts the vast share of its athletic resources into that sport.

Seriously, it is just impossible to make a direct correlation between success there and success in another job.

Also, the fans at that school don't have a direct aversion to "boring" basketball.
 
CAAR, are you trying to suggest it is easier to have a good program at Butler than it would be at Iowa? I would say it should be just as easy to put a similar product on the court at either school. Butler, as it has been since Lick left, would have been at least a .500 Big Ten team, much more competitive than Iowa has been. They have had some better talent than we have had, I would think it would be equal to recruit to a BCS school with a good basketball history as to a Mid-major with a history, but it seems like Lick couldn't get the same kind of talent that Butler has. I would put that on his preference to have his assistants build the relationships, so he had no recruiting network to bring with him, that was all left behind in Indianapolis. At least McCaffery had to foresight to bring a player and assistant who had the network with him.
 
Some good college coaches don't end up being good pro coaches. Similarly, a coach at a place like Butler might have trouble at a bigger program like Iowa, especially in Iowa's case where you sort of have to make your own breaks due to a lack of a practice facility and other resources (I realize the practice facility will be done soon, but while Lickliter was here it hadn't even been approved, yet, to my knowledge.)

I think Lickliter was a good game coach and was a good teacher of the game, but was a horrible program builder and communicator, which led to the lack of player retention, which is what really killed his tenure and set the program back a few steps. As to the original post, I agree Brad Stevens might have helped cover up some of these flaws for Coach Lickliter while he was at Butler.

These two areas are where I feel Coach Fran is the most significant upgrade, and is why I feel confident that there is a brighter future for the BBall program.
 
in8hawk said:
CAAR, are you trying to suggest it is easier to have a good program at Butler than it would be at Iowa? I would say it should be just as easy to put a similar product on the court at either school. Butler, as it has been since Lick left, would have been at least a .500 Big Ten team, much more competitive than Iowa has been. They have had some better talent than we have had, I would think it would be equal to recruit to a BCS school with a good basketball history as to a Mid-major with a history, but it seems like Lick couldn't get the same kind of talent that Butler has. I would put that on his preference to have his assistants build the relationships, so he had no recruiting network to bring with him, that was all left behind in Indianapolis. At least McCaffery had to foresight to bring a player and assistant who had the network with him.
Click to expand...

It may not be easier to have a good program at Butler than at Iowa. But it IS easier to have a good program that plays that kind of basketball at Butler. Everybody here wants uptempo basketball like how it used to be. And it's tough to implement that kind of offense if you don't have talent to start with (which we didn't). And as CAAR said, Butler is able to devote the majority of their resources to basketball, and we can't do that.
 
I agree that it is easier to play that style at Butler, but if we had been winning, do you think it would have been as big of an issue? I doubt it. Wisconsin fans are okay with it, and they have had 2 slow ball coaches. Dick Bennett would love to win games 41-40 every game if he could. If we were going to Sweet 16s and final fours, most people wouldn't give 2 poops about the style of play. When slow ball doesn't work, it is brutal to watch, and we had that.
 
Also, when you are Iowa and not getting the top kids from your state, you have a HUGE DROPOFF. When you are Butler and you aren't getting the top kids from your state, you still have a lot of really good players to choose from, i.e. Howard.

Also, that style of ball is established and supported by the fans.

But, beyond that. If you are getting a kid from Lexington, KY, or Florida and Alabama and that kid lands in Indy and drives over to the campus, that is really different than flying into Chicago, transferring and flying into CR, then driving into to IC.

You want to talk about Big Ten vs. Mid-Major but these kids just see cornfields compared to a Pro-City.
 
The only time I ever really felt we saw the Butler style that Lickliter wanted Iowa to play was at the end of his second season right before Jake Kelly and the others transferred. I know a lot of people probably blotted this out of their memories due to the overall pain of the Lickliter regime, but in that last five or so games Iowa dominated tempo with guard play (Kelly) and played solid defense, and I actually thought it was pretty entertaining to watch at points. They didn't win, of course, but like the end of this year, you could see some promise.

The problem? They didn't win games, the fans were turned off by the "Butler Way" mantra, and then the players transferred. When Kelly and the other three left, Lickliter was basically a dead man walking. If they hadn't left, and he had added his four man recruiting class (McCabe, Marble, Larsen, and Brust) to a then experienced team, I think he might still be Iowa's coach.

But that obviously didn't happen, and I think the main reason it went south is he just wasn't ready or maybe not even built for the elements outside of pure coaching that are required at the Big Ten level.
 
Butler did not exactly shed a tear when the guy left and has been better without him. I remember being stoaked about Lickliter UNTIL he hired Walthall as his top assistant. Next he brings in Jordan and Cornette who had little, if any, experience with recruiting as his 3 & 4 guys. What ensued was nothing short of a ponzi scheme with Lickliter blowing smoke about turning corners, player development etc., while losses mounted and players left. Hiring Lickliter was a bad decision, but not providing oversight on his hires was the atomic bomb. No way should the AD or the selection committee allowed him to bring in a staff of amatuers.

There is a reason the guy is sitting around in Indiana not coaching and slumming for jobs like Florida Gulf Coast. Had the guy been intelligent enough to hire a couple of seasoned assistants / recruiters, things might have turned out differently. I said when he left that he would never coach higher than D2 again and so far that prediction is holding true.
 
Basically, my point of this thread was to explore a possible and likely plausible reason for Lick not working out. I believe that he needed a much stronger staff than he had to have similar recruiting and on court success. Most of what everyone else is saying, is that you can get kids to play at a mid-major in a major city easier than getting kids to play at a BCS school in a minor city. I got it. But how did Iowa State manage to get some good players there under the same circumstances? I understand that some kids that would matter, but shouldn't playing on national TV and playing other top talent matter too. Plus as a hedge to their decision to go to BCS school, you don't have to win your conference to make the NCAAs. Ask the Missouri ST kids.
 
iowa has several guys who picked iowa over butler, so its pretty tough to say that their strategy would work in the big ten.
 
If you look at it objectively....

in8hawk said:
CAAR, are you trying to suggest it is easier to have a good program at Butler than it would be at Iowa? I would say it should be just as easy to put a similar product on the court at either school. Butler, as it has been since Lick left, would have been at least a .500 Big Ten team, much more competitive than Iowa has been. They have had some better talent than we have had, I would think it would be equal to recruit to a BCS school with a good basketball history as to a Mid-major with a history, but it seems like Lick couldn't get the same kind of talent that Butler has. I would put that on his preference to have his assistants build the relationships, so he had no recruiting network to bring with him, that was all left behind in Indianapolis. At least McCaffery had to foresight to bring a player and assistant who had the network with him.
Click to expand...

you could make the case that it is more difficult to "win" at Iowa than it is at Butler. Butler is able to target recruits in Indiana and the close-by states who were looked over by the big-name programs, who are still good players. When players from Iowa are overlooked by the big-time schools, the talent Iowa is left with isn't of a caliber to compete in the Big 10. If you are a high school player from Indiana with the option of going to Butler or Iowa (assuming Indiana, Purdue and Notre Dame haven't offered) are you going to choose Iowa? Why would they? Butler has had much more success in the past decade (the time period high school kids care about), it's a school where basketball is a priority (dedicated practice facility for years), etc. To get to the tournament, Butler needs to be the best in the Horizon League, which is an easier proposition than finishing in the top 4 in the Big 10 is for Iowa.

McCaffery seems to have a good grasp of what it will take for him to win at Iowa, but I would argue it is harder for him to get talent to finish in the upper division of the Big 10 than it is for Stevens to get talent to allow him to win the Horizon League. Fran is competing with the likes of MSU, OSU, Illinois, Indiana, Purdue, all who have track records of bringing in Top 75 talent. Butler has no one bringing in similar talent in the Horizon League.
 
Finally someone says it. Yes, it is easier to win the Horizon league than it would be to win the Big Ten. But if a kid is borderline Big Ten and from Indiana, you still think he would rather go to Butler than another Big Ten school if Indiana or Purdue don't offer, assuming ND doesn't offer either (I know its a Big East school). I would assume ego has to kick in at some point, that if you think you are good enough to play in the Big Ten, you want to play that level, not Horizon League, and maybe I am crazy, but I would go Big Ten if my favorite team doesn't offer, but I still get Big Ten offers. I would be more likely to go to another power conference than mid-major if I had the choice.
 
The state of our program really has us between a rock and a hard place right now.

When you look at the 3 types of players that exist (high level, mid level and low level), it's painfully obvious that we stand a very low chance of attracting a high level player. We just aren't able to compete with the "blue bloods" of college basketball right now in attracting that kind of talent. Heck, even a lower-tier high level player would rather ride the pine at a place like Duke or Carolina (always thinking that next year is their year to get some minutes) than start at a place like Iowa.

As it relates to the mid level players, places like Butler can promise the same amount of playing time that we can with the added caveat that they'll most likely get to play in multiple NCAAs. So when given the choice to start at Iowa vs a place like Butler or VCU or Richmond, but possibly going 4 years without going to the Tourney, it's tough to convince them to come here.

With the low level player, you just can't build a competitive Big 10 team with those guys.

The good thing about basketball is that, unlike football, it only takes a couple of guys (surrounded by solid role players) to really propel a team from bad/mediocre to competing for a conference title. If you can find a couple of those guys, then you can get the domino effect and within a couple of years, be right back to where you need to be. Our problem before is that we did have some young talent that could have propelled us (Kelly, Petersen, Fuller, Tyler Smith, etc), but we couldn't keep them on campus. Right now, we have a great staff in place that can get everything out of a kid, we just need to find those few difference makers and keep them on campus.....because I have complete confidence that our staff will bring out the best in those kids.

Ultimately, the problem now is A)locating under the radar guys that have the potential to be game-changers and B) convincing them to come rebuild a once-proud national program.
 
in8hawk said:
Basically, my point of this thread was to explore a possible and likely plausible reason for Lick not working out. I believe that he needed a much stronger staff than he had to have similar recruiting and on court success. Most of what everyone else is saying, is that you can get kids to play at a mid-major in a major city easier than getting kids to play at a BCS school in a minor city. I got it. But how did Iowa State manage to get some good players there under the same circumstances? I understand that some kids that would matter, but shouldn't playing on national TV and playing other top talent matter too. Plus as a hedge to their decision to go to BCS school, you don't have to win your conference to make the NCAAs. Ask the Missouri ST kids.
Click to expand...

Iowa State has some solid players, and Garrett in particular has blossomed under the new regime. But they don't have a lot of guys that would start at many other BCS schools. Butler has several (Mack, Howard, Nored). And the "recruits" that they have coming in all have talent, but they're also "sloppy seconds". Better teams don't have to take a chance on those guys because they can players that are just as good without the baggage.

Also, nobody said it was impossible to have a good program here. Obviously it's not, because we used to be among the best. But, especially with the way the program is now, and the rise in mid-majors' profiles, it's EASIER to do it at Butler than it is here.
 
tm3308 said:
Iowa State has some solid players, and Garrett in particular has blossomed under the new regime. But they don't have a lot of guys that would start at many other BCS schools.
Click to expand...


I assumed he was talking about McDermott getting Brackins and Wesley Johnson.

Most ISU fans attribute the signing to assistant coach T.J. something or other that starts with an O.
 
CAARHawk said:
Also, when you are Iowa and not getting the top kids from your state, you have a HUGE DROPOFF. When you are Butler and you aren't getting the top kids from your state, you still have a lot of really good players to choose from, i.e. Howard.

Also, that style of ball is established and supported by the fans.

But, beyond that. If you are getting a kid from Lexington, KY, or Florida and Alabama and that kid lands in Indy and drives over to the campus, that is really different than flying into Chicago, transferring and flying into CR, then driving into to IC.

You want to talk about Big Ten vs. Mid-Major but these kids just see cornfields compared to a Pro-City.
Click to expand...

If Matt Howard was on Iowa we would spend all day saying how he wasn't a B10 player and we should stop recruiting in state kids. Howard is a solid player but he wouldn't be a player that would help us get to the next level. In the last two seasons Butler has had two kids, Hayward and Mack, who will play in the NBA. This is extremely rare for a mid major, but goes to show you they have been able to find undiscovered talent.

Iowa is going to need to do the same thing. From what I've seen so far Fran has been very successful at this so far, as both Basabe and Cartwright are B10 type players. It only takes a couple under the radar guys to get this program turned around. It's not going to happen over night but as we slowly get better, recruiting will get easier and we'll start to see the results. You can recruit to Iowa, less than a decade ago Alford had a top 10 class coming in. Just because we're not seeing the big time results in recruiting after one year, doesn't mean it won't happen under Fran.
 
One of the key reasons that Lick failed was the inexperienced staff he put together. How Barta did not monitor that is amazing to me because 7 years earlier Alford made the same mistake. Plus Lickliter did not have the Alford name which did help with people like Recker, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top