Sam Hauser commits to Marquette!

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

Great stuff Freeport.  I too am psyched about Sam's commitment.  One thing I notice is Sam is very good running off screens and squaring up.  Great footwork.  That allows him to be more than a spot up shooter standing in the corner.  Combine that with his smart passing, timely drives, and post moves and you have a very nice offensive weapon.

[Jay Bee]

For Freeport and others who have seen both, it almost seems like Hauser has a similar recruiting story to LaChance in that neither are viewed as top athletes so there seemed to be some hesitance by major programs to offer despite very high basketball IQs and shooting abilities.  Obviously LaChance played more point guard throughout high school and Hauser is viewed as a wing and Hauser is taller, but are the overall questions about their abilities somewhat similar?

Riley was small and traditional in every way. Besides his shooting, what I liked was he was a gamer. Big time competitive fire.

Athletic & overall game, Hauser is on a diff level. LaChance is a shooter; Hauser can help you in many ways.

I think part of it is nat'l guys having not seen him much. It's a "recruiting (ranking) miss" at this point and should be corrected to some degree if more folks view him in July.

All in all, I don't think the same concerns re: Riley are warranted for Hauser.  Very diff players

[Stretchdeltsig]

Thanks for the insightful report, Freeport.

[jsglow]

Good stuff.  Love watching guys who can create their shot either via off ball movement or fakes, etc.  It used to pain me to watch Dougie.  But he was incredible at it at the collegiate level.  And if he had played for us rather than the other guys we'd love him here.

[Freeport Warrior]

All in all, I don't think the same concerns re: Riley are warranted for Hauser.  Very diff players

Have to agree to disagree. I think the main concern is EXACTLY the same: lack of athleticism. Hauser has average athleticism IMO. LaChance, perhaps slightly less. Both get everything they can out of it (gamer reference is right on). Other that height/position (which I assumed were a given), they have a very similar game IMO.  Sam gets a few more rebounds simply because of height. They both play "good enough D" but excel in with their IQ, fundamentals and shooting. Without the height, Sam would probably be seen almost identically as LaChance. I know that seems like an odd statement, but that is how much I think their games are the same. Sam might be able to back down a 6' 4" power forward from Wisconsin Rapids, but it will certainly not be his calling card in college. He can shoot and he has great fundamentals -- those are his main skills. Here is the main difference IMO -- exposure.  Riley was "seen" by national scouts early on, but the offers were not rolling in, due to the athleticism concerns. He blew up his junior summer in July (ended ESPN #99 I think) because of his duel with Melo Trimble at Homestead and his Vegas tourney (I think Fab 48). Sam was seen as a "star to watch," but he made his real mark in the WI state tourney and has been increasing his profile steadily ever since. Hauser didn't need the July period to get his dream offers. La Chance did. People have been talking about Stone/Ellenson since 7th grade; Sam was not in that same hype category, alas his 3-star ranking (similar to Lachance). I don't know Hauser's personal camp schedule, but his AAU team ends in Louisville at the Super Showcase. That is where he will get seen. Thankfully, it doesn't matter any more. Hauser's team doesn't travel too much beyond the region, that is why he hasn't really been "seen."  His team is good, but they won't win any real national tournaments IMO. Making it to the final four of the national 17u tourneys is when you really see how you stack up. Thankfully, it doesn't really matter now. Just one man's opinion.

[Jay Bee]

Have to agree to disagree. I think the main concern is EXACTLY the same: lack of athleticism. Hauser has average athleticism IMO. LaChance, perhaps slightly less. Both get everything they can out of it (gamer reference is right on). Other that height/position (which I assumed were a given), they have a very similar game IMO.  Sam gets a few more rebounds simply because of height. They both play "good enough D" but excel in with their IQ, fundamentals and shooting. Without the height, Sam would probably be seen almost identically as LaChance. I know that seems like an odd statement, but that is how much I think their games are the same. Sam might be able to back down a 6' 4" power forward from Wisconsin Rapids, but it will certainly not be his calling card in college. He can shoot and he has great fundamentals -- those are his main skills. Here is the main difference IMO -- exposure.  Riley was "seen" by national scouts early on, but the offers were not rolling in, due to the athleticism concerns. He blew up his junior summer in July (ended ESPN #99 I think) because of his duel with Melo Trimble at Homestead and his Vegas tourney (I think Fab 48). Sam was seen as a "star to watch," but he made his real mark in the WI state tourney and has been increasing his profile steadily ever since. Hauser didn't need the July period to get his dream offers. La Chance did. People have been talking about Stone/Ellenson since 7th grade; Sam was not in that same hype category, alas his 3-star ranking (similar to Lachance). I don't know Hauser's personal camp schedule, but his AAU team ends in Louisville at the Super Showcase. That is where he will get seen. Thankfully, it doesn't matter any more. Hauser's team doesn't travel too much beyond the region, that is why he hasn't really been "seen."  His team is good, but they won't win any real national tournaments IMO. Making it to the final four of the national 17u tourneys is when you really see how you stack up. Thankfully, it doesn't really matter now. Just one man's opinion.

Fair enough and thanks for the thoughts. Yes, it was Fab 48 for Riley - I remember watching several of his games at Bishop Gorman that year. Dad yelling and him scoring.

But, with Hauser what I thought when I watched him a few weeks ago: he's gotten stronger and made some aggressive, relatively athletic plays around the bucket. Physically, I think you might be selling him a little short.

[Freeport Warrior]

Fair enough and thanks for the thoughts. Yes, it was Fab 48 for Riley - I remember watching several of his games at Bishop Gorman that year. Dad yelling and him scoring.

But, with Hauser what I thought when I watched him a few weeks ago: he's gotten stronger and made some aggressive, relatively athletic plays around the bucket. Physically, I think you might be selling him a little short.

That's funny because I was at a workout last week and thought the same thing of Riley. He looks so much stronger, yet still lean. He can dunk pretty easily now and I remember him always struggling. It shows what a year with a D1 strength and conditioning coach can do. Can't wait to see similar growth with Hauser and Heldt.

[real chili 83]

Have to agree to disagree. I think the main concern is EXACTLY the same: lack of athleticism. Hauser has average athleticism IMO. LaChance, perhaps slightly less. Both get everything they can out of it (gamer reference is right on). Other that height/position (which I assumed were a given), they have a very similar game IMO.  Sam gets a few more rebounds simply because of height. They both play "good enough D" but excel in with their IQ, fundamentals and shooting. Without the height, Sam would probably be seen almost identically as LaChance. I know that seems like an odd statement, but that is how much I think their games are the same. Sam might be able to back down a 6' 4" power forward from Wisconsin Rapids, but it will certainly not be his calling card in college. He can shoot and he has great fundamentals -- those are his main skills. Here is the main difference IMO -- exposure.  Riley was "seen" by national scouts early on, but the offers were not rolling in, due to the athleticism concerns. He blew up his junior summer in July (ended ESPN #99 I think) because of his duel with Melo Trimble at Homestead and his Vegas tourney (I think Fab 48). Sam was seen as a "star to watch," but he made his real mark in the WI state tourney and has been increasing his profile steadily ever since. Hauser didn't need the July period to get his dream offers. La Chance did. People have been talking about Stone/Ellenson since 7th grade; Sam was not in that same hype category, alas his 3-star ranking (similar to Lachance). I don't know Hauser's personal camp schedule, but his AAU team ends in Louisville at the Super Showcase. That is where he will get seen. Thankfully, it doesn't matter any more. Hauser's team doesn't travel too much beyond the region, that is why he hasn't really been "seen."  His team is good, but they won't win any real national tournaments IMO. Making it to the final four of the national 17u tourneys is when you really see how you stack up. Thankfully, it doesn't really matter now. Just one man's opinion.

Is that all in one big breath?  Paragraphs are your friend. 

Seriously, thanks for the report. 

[Dr. Blackheart]

Love joshing most posters here but JayBee and Freeport are excellent hoops experts. In all seriousness, there are a lot of great posters here if you follow on all sorts of topics.  Nothing is stale on Scoop, quite a worldly and impressive portfolio of posters, especially if the veil of anomity is lifted.  Quite amazing, actually.

[rocky_warrior]

Scholarship table (finally) updated.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?page=8

Notes:
 - Adding the 16-17  column for Sam, I finally had to drop the 11-12 column, waving goodbye to Jamail Jones, Jae Crowder, and Darius Johnson-Odom
 - The scholarship counts are wonky for 15-16, and 16-17.  Technically, by my own rules, 16-17 should be at -1, since if we used the remaining two for this year on 4 year (or any multi-year) player, we'd be at 14 scholarships for 16-17.    But until things settle out over the summer, I'll leave it at 2 and 1
 - On a similar note, I may finally discard my rules and just change it to a scholarships used count.  That way there's less ambiguity.  Or maybe that would cause more confusion.  I donno, I'll think about it.

Of course, I probably inevitably still have some mistakes, fire away.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Rocky,
Out of curiosity, is there a permanent link to the Scholarship Table now that it's no longer visible under the Resources box in the upper left?

[GGGG]

Its on the Features tab.

[willie warrior]

Scholarship table (finally) updated.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?page=8

Notes:
 - Adding the 16-17  column for Sam, I finally had to drop the 11-12 column, waving goodbye to Jamail Jones, Jae Crowder, and Darius Johnson-Odom
 - The scholarship counts are wonky for 15-16, and 16-17.  Technically, by my own rules, 16-17 should be at -1, since if we used the remaining two for this year on 4 year (or any multi-year) player, we'd be at 14 scholarships for 16-17.    But until things settle out over the summer, I'll leave it at 2 and 1
 - On a similar note, I may finally discard my rules and just change it to a scholarships used count.  That way there's less ambiguity.  Or maybe that would cause more confusion.  I donno, I'll think about it.

Of course, I probably inevitably still have some mistakes, fire away.

Thanks for keeping track of this. It likely is a pain in the butt to keep track of the comings and goings and eligibility.

[GGGG]

Scholarship table (finally) updated.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?page=8

Notes:
 - Adding the 16-17  column for Sam, I finally had to drop the 11-12 column, waving goodbye to Jamail Jones, Jae Crowder, and Darius Johnson-Odom
 - The scholarship counts are wonky for 15-16, and 16-17.  Technically, by my own rules, 16-17 should be at -1, since if we used the remaining two for this year on 4 year (or any multi-year) player, we'd be at 14 scholarships for 16-17.    But until things settle out over the summer, I'll leave it at 2 and 1
 - On a similar note, I may finally discard my rules and just change it to a scholarships used count.  That way there's less ambiguity.  Or maybe that would cause more confusion.  I donno, I'll think about it.

Of course, I probably inevitably still have some mistakes, fire away.

Do we know for sure that the Maches are coming back?

Interestingly, if HE goes pro after one year, and we recruit two additional freshmen for 2016, we will have achieved the allusive "CLASS BALANCE!!!!"

[MattyWarrior]

Is there such a thing as class balance? Thanks for providing and updating the roster.

[GGGG]

Is there such a thing as class balance?

No.  It's one of the Scoop memes that makes the Meme CBI now and again.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Its on the Features tab.

Thanks Sultan.

[rocky_warrior]

Do we know for sure that the Maches are coming back?

No, not at all.  I've penciled them in.  If I had to guess, they won't show up on the roster next year, but Marquette's roster page is currently stuck in 14-15 mode.

Thanks for keeping track of this. It likely is a pain in the butt to keep track of the comings and goings and eligibility.

No problem.  The state of transfers these days, it is hard to keep up to date -- I'm hopeful that will slow a bit under Wojo.  It has been a pain, but mostly on the technical side -- have to use 3 programs on my PC to get the table correctly convert to web format.  But last night I spent a few hours getting it to automatically embed from a Google spreadsheet.  Looks like it works well, and I'll switch to that on the next update.

[jsglow]

Scholarship table (finally) updated.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?page=8

Notes:
 - Adding the 16-17  column for Sam, I finally had to drop the 11-12 column, waving goodbye to Jamail Jones, Jae Crowder, and Darius Johnson-Odom
- The scholarship counts are wonky for 15-16, and 16-17.  Technically, by my own rules, 16-17 should be at -1, since if we used the remaining two for this year on 4 year (or any multi-year) player, we'd be at 14 scholarships for 16-17.    But until things settle out over the summer, I'll leave it at 2 and 1
 - On a similar note, I may finally discard my rules and just change it to a scholarships used count.  That way there's less ambiguity.  Or maybe that would cause more confusion.  I donno, I'll think about it.

Of course, I probably inevitably still have some mistakes, fire away.

I think I like the 'new' way Rock.  I get it.  There's 2 this year.  If one multi year kid signs now for '15-'16 then each of this year and next goes down by one to 1 and 0.  If two multi-year kids actually sign, then 0 and -1 meaning somebody's not coming back (or alternatively not inking his NLI and coming) for '16-'17.  That's my vote.  Nice work. Thanks.

[Coleman]

Scholarship table (finally) updated.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?page=8

Notes:
 - Adding the 16-17  column for Sam, I finally had to drop the 11-12 column, waving goodbye to Jamail Jones, Jae Crowder, and Darius Johnson-Odom
 - The scholarship counts are wonky for 15-16, and 16-17.  Technically, by my own rules, 16-17 should be at -1, since if we used the remaining two for this year on 4 year (or any multi-year) player, we'd be at 14 scholarships for 16-17.    But until things settle out over the summer, I'll leave it at 2 and 1
 - On a similar note, I may finally discard my rules and just change it to a scholarships used count.  That way there's less ambiguity.  Or maybe that would cause more confusion.  I donno, I'll think about it.

Of course, I probably inevitably still have some mistakes, fire away.

Just realized we have no scholarship seniors this coming year. When's the last time that's happened?

Also, if people stick around, we are going to be really, really, good in 2016-2017.

[Dawson Rental]

Do we know for sure that the Maches are coming back?

Interestingly, if HE goes pro after one year, and we recruit two additional freshmen for 2016, we will have achieved the allusive elusive "CLASS BALANCE!!!!"

FIFY

[rocky_warrior]

Just realized we have no scholarship seniors this coming year. When's the last time that's happened?

Also, if people stick around, we are going to be really, really, good in 2016-2017.

Hm, probably quite a while.  Especially since Otule was a senior for 18 years or so.