[Rosiak's Blog] MU not interested in Lucious

[ToddRosiakSays]

MU not interested in Lucious
               



While the hometown ties set the stage for speculation, don't look for former Milwaukee Pius star Korie Lucious to wind up in a Marquette Golden Eagles uniform.

               

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/115530639.html
               

[MU_Iceman]

That puts the speculation to rest...now why don't we focus on more pressing needs...like 5-6 more conference wins to close out the regular season...

[MuMark]

As always good job by Rosiak to get the inside scoop.

[brewcity77]

Best news I've heard all day. Really glad we won't be pursuing him, I wish him the best, but just don't think he's a good fit at Marquette.

[Lennys Tap]

As suspected, "interest" was all on Korie's part.

[tower912]

Never seemed like a good fit or a good idea.    I am glad it all turned out to be much ado about nothing. 

[T-Bone]

To egg on from the other thread...  "Dave Singleton, a walk-on transfer from High Point, can also play the position, and will be a junior next season."
 

[79Warrior]

To egg on from the other thread...  "Dave Singleton, a walk-on transfer from High Point, can also play the position, and will be a junior next season."
 

We have no idea how Singleton will play at this level. I would not count on too much.

[Warrior1969]

Great news..those of you thinking Singleton will play any significant minutes unless two guys in front of him get hurt are nuts.  He looked good in the summer league?...Remember how good a lot of the guys looked?....  hasn't transfered into the season at all.  If Ewill, JC, JJ, Blue, Gardner are having trouble seeing the floor, what on earth makes you think DS will?  Look at things realistically instead of with blue and gold sunglasses on.

[tower912]

Singleton...returning in front of him we have Blue, Cadougan, DJO, and Jones.    Unless Buzz signs another guard, preferably a highly ranked JUCO combo guard, or JJ really steps up his defense and works on his handle,  Singleton had BETTER be able to give us something.   I don't anticipate our incoming freshman playing a lot.     A 6'3 combo guard with (admittedly low) D1 experience doesn't look so bad as a back up plan. 

[T-Bone]

Ugh. 
I have my thoughts on Singleton on the other Lucious thread.  I brought it up here because Rosiak mentioned it in his article. 

I think our starting PG for the next two years will be Cadougan, with D. Wilson (haven't seen him at all) backing him up, and the possibility of Blue getting minutes at the point.  It would be a nice surprise if Singleton is good enough next year to warrant some minutes as additional backup.  He very well *could* be.  Seriously, re-read the part about *could*.  I can't believe how many times that's been missed. 

So, let's look at it this way:  If Wilson is not ready as a freshman (and very well might not be) to spell Junior at PG next season, who will be that guy?  As I said above, I think Blue will get some time, but he'll need to work on his skills in that position.  And I think Buzz will get Junior whipped into better shape than he's ever been in his life to get his minutes up, but after that...

[warthog-driver]

It would be a nice surprise if Singleton is good enough next year to warrant some minutes as additional backup.  He very well *could* be. 

Sartorially, Singleton is a team leader. The man knows his clothes He prefers a classic look and is therefore no stranger to Mr. Ralph Lauren.

[brewcity77]

Either way, Lucious wouldn't help us next season. Looking at next year, my guess is that we will primarily go with 2-guard sets, with Cadougan, DJO, and Blue getting the lion's share of the time. I trust that all three of them will be at least competent next year. Then we have Wilson and Singleton to pick up the additional minutes. In addition, Jones may need to help out in the backcourt if pressed, most likely at the 2. I think we'll be okay with that rotation, though any significant injuries to the first three names could leave us in a world of hurt.

[rocky_warrior]

Cadougan, DJO, and Blue getting the lion's share of the time. I trust that all three of them will be at least competent next year. Then we have Wilson and Singleton to pick up the additional minutes. In addition, Jones may need to help out

Juan Anderson, while tall (getting taller?) sounds like he could play the 2 as well.  I mean, if you throw Jones into the "guard" category, then JA belongs there as well.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was mostly surprised how few people were concerned about his multiple suspensions and behavior as a reason to just say no.  Seems more people were worried about his ability to play.

Just win baby

[GGGG]

Either way, Lucious wouldn't help us next season. Looking at next year, my guess is that we will primarily go with 2-guard sets, with Cadougan, DJO, and Blue getting the lion's share of the time. I trust that all three of them will be at least competent next year. Then we have Wilson and Singleton to pick up the additional minutes. In addition, Jones may need to help out in the backcourt if pressed, most likely at the 2. I think we'll be okay with that rotation, though any significant injuries to the first three names could leave us in a world of hurt.

My guess is that we largely have the same rotation as now, with Jones taking Buycks spot...Wilson taking Butler's...and Williams taking Fulce's.

Of course Jones won't be getting Buycks' minutes...

[groove]

I was mostly surprised how few people were concerned about his multiple suspensions and behavior as a reason to just say no.  Seems more people were worried about his ability to play.

Just win baby

+1
I agree with your concerns. Seems like an attitude that seems more prevalent lately on this board, with threads wondering how good we would be with Mbakwe. I hope the attitude isn't one that starts at the top. Would hate to see Buzz take the path of Huggins and just win baby. But hey, once you take little steps like recruiting guys who have already committed to other schools, you can easily find yourself taking bigger steps and sleaziness becomes blurry.

[MU B2002]

+1
I agree with your concerns. Seems like an attitude that seems more prevalent lately on this board, with threads wondering how good we would be with Mbakwe. I hope the attitude isn't one that starts at the top. Would hate to see Buzz take the path of Huggins and just win baby. But hey, once you take little steps like recruiting guys who have already committed to other schools, you can easily find yourself taking bigger steps and sleaziness becomes blurry.

If you look at the Mbakwe thread you would see that most everyone agreed we don't want him here, and it was simply 1 poster's question.

And you are the second person that i have seen refer to "recruiting guys who have already committed to other schools"  Source for this?

[ChicosBailBonds]

If you look at the Mbakwe thread you would see that most everyone agreed we don't want him here, and it was simply 1 poster's question.

And you are the second person that i have seen refer to "recruiting guys who have already committed to other schools"  Source for this?

Vander Blue comes to mind

[MU B2002]

Vander Blue comes to mind

Ok, so (a) Vander said we kept recruiting him after he committed, or (b) are you saying he is someone we continued to recruit after he verballed to Bucky?
 If (b), source?

And note: not trying to pick arguments, I just want to read this info from another source than a message board.

[NavinRJohnson]

Vander Blue comes to mind

You mean the same Vander Blue who de-committed from UW in May, and committed to MU in October? That Vander Blue? Who else comes to mind?

By that standard, Tom Crean was recruiting Nick Williams while he was committed to Marquette. Does that make you squirm?

[warthog-driver]

You mean the same Vander Blue who de-committed from UW in May, and committed to MU in October? That Vander Blue? Who else comes to mind?

By that standard, Tom Crean was recruiting Nick Williams while he was committed to Marquette. Does that make you squirm?

The vacation is over...

[GGGG]

Vander Blue comes to mind

I don't care.  He simply verballed.  It's still open season after a verbal IMO.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Ok, so (a) Vander said we kept recruiting him after he committed, or (b) are you saying he is someone we continued to recruit after he verballed to Bucky?
 If (b), source?

And note: not trying to pick arguments, I just want to read this info from another source than a message board.

Yes, MU kept recruiting him after he verballed to UW-madison (through various back channels).  A practice we shunned years earlier when it happened to us with Billingsley, etc.   

Sources?  Do you want me to link a newspaper article?  Can't do that because it doesn't exist.  Are there 50 people at both MU and UW that can confirm this happened with absolutely no hesitation at all.  Yes, and many at MU are no longer concerned about it.  They chalk it up as part of college basketball today....part of the process that exists.  No one likes it, but the feeling is that you have to do it.   

Some honest brokers here will confirm this, if they are being honest and not playing games with who the poster is but rather the merits of what has been stated. 

[chapman]

http://community.sportsbubbler.com/blogs/iwbs_sports_blog/archive/2009/10/18/vander-blue-commits-to-marquette.aspx

"When he first got the job as Marquette’s head coach I was the first player he called. But when I committed to Wisconsin, he honored that and never called me again."

Too bad we can't extend the shame of calling 17 year old kids liars to our own current players, not when the ever powerful "back channels" say otherwise..

[Pakuni]

+1
I agree with your concerns. Seems like an attitude that seems more prevalent lately on this board, with threads wondering how good we would be with Mbakwe. I hope the attitude isn't one that starts at the top. Would hate to see Buzz take the path of Huggins and just win baby. But hey, once you take little steps like recruiting guys who have already committed to other schools, you can easily find yourself taking bigger steps and sleaziness becomes blurry.

Or little steps like setting up your own AAU program or hiring as assistants guys with ties to top recruits?
Egad, the dreaded slippery slope fallacy.

[NavinRJohnson]

Sources?  Do you want me to link a newspaper article?  Can't do that because it doesn't exist.  Are there 50 people at both MU and UW that can confirm this happened with absolutely no hesitation at all.  Yes, and many at MU are no longer concerned about it.  They chalk it up as part of college basketball today....part of the process that exists.  No one likes it, but the feeling is that you have to do it.   

Great find by Chapman below, but beyond that, I will ask you something I have asked before...If you are so uncomfortable with the way things are being done at MU under Buzz Williams, why do you (at least claim to) continue to support them? You know about all of this creepy stuff that has gone on, yet you claim to like Buzz. You claim to support Buzz. Is that or is that not endorsing the behavior you claim to detest? You are either a complete hypocrite or just plain full of it, or both. You true colors (Crean and Crimson) show more and more every day you post here.

[Pakuni]

Yes, MU kept recruiting him after he verballed to UW-madison (through various back channels).  A practice we shunned years earlier when it happened to us with Billingsley, etc.   

Didn't a certain favorite coach of yours recruit a player to his school after the kid already had signed a LOI with another school?
Oops.
As always, moral outrage is selective.

Also, I seem to recall - though someone can correct me if I'm wrong - that same coach signed Carlton Christian after the kid had given a verbal elsewhere.

[MerrittsMustache]

http://community.sportsbubbler.com/blogs/iwbs_sports_blog/archive/2009/10/18/vander-blue-commits-to-marquette.aspx

Quote
"When he first got the job as Marquette’s head coach I was the first player he called. But when I committed to Wisconsin, he honored that and never called me again."

Too bad we can't extend the shame of calling 17 year old kids liars to our own current players, not when the ever powerful "back channels" say otherwise..

He said that Buzz never called him. Buzz probably texted him or Facebooked him or Tweeted @him or used skywriting or showed up at his house and held a boom box over his head playing Vander's favorite song. I guess we'll never know...unless a couple of Chicos' 50 anonymous sources can confirm this.

[NavinRJohnson]

showed up at his house and held a boom box over his head playing Vander's favorite song. I guess we'll never know...unless a couple of Chicos' 50 anonymous sources can confirm this.

Awesome.

[Boone]

Looks like the timeout didn't do much good.

[Canadian Dimes]

actually Buzz showed up in a Hummer Limousine at Midnight.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Looks like the timeout didn't do much good.

What was the timeout supposed to, cut my balls off?  Here I thought the timeout was for interactions with Ners.  If the timeout was to silence opinions that people don't agree with, wow.  I'll volunteer to get off, no need for a timeout.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Or little steps like setting up your own AAU program or hiring as assistants guys with ties to top recruits?
Egad, the dreaded slippery slope fallacy.

The AAU program that was setup under Bob Knight?  Or the one Purdue has going?  The one UCLA has ties to...those?

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Chicos - You last worked at Marquette when? 1999? M

ore than 10 years later, knowing you're addicted to posting online, there are still 50 employees in the athletic department willing to confide in you? That is the biggest bunch of bullsh*t I have ever heard in my life. You don't have any "sources." You might have at one time. But time and your online habits have eliminated them.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't care.  He simply verballed.  It's still open season after a verbal IMO.

Fair enough, but I simple answered the question and answered it factually.  There used to be a day that many people here and in the basketball world cared deeply about verbal commitments.  It's clear with your answer and those of many others, that may no longer be the case.

You know me, Mr. Traditional, I enjoyed the days when a verbal commitment was giving someone his word.  I'd prefer that a kid decommits first before coaches start chatting up with them, not while they are still verballed.  We all have our preferences, those would be mine.

[Pakuni]

The AAU program that was setup under Bob Knight?  Or the one Purdue has going?  The one UCLA has ties to...those?

I was speaking of an AAU program that's got a certain "swing" to it.
The one set up by your other favorite coach.

It's kind of ironic, though. You get all squirmy over MU possibly staying in touch with a kid who veballed as a sophomore - a practice you admit is not uncommon. but then your defense of schools setting up AAU programs?
"It's OK, cause Purdue and UCLA do it too."
Way to stay consistent.

[jmayer1]

Fair enough, but I simple answered the question and answered it factually.  There used to be a day that many people here and in the basketball world cared deeply about verbal commitments.  It's clear with your answer and those of many others, that may no longer be the case.

You know me, Mr. Traditional, I enjoyed the days when a verbal commitment was giving someone his word.  I'd prefer that a kid decommits first before coaches start chatting up with them, not while they are still verballed.  We all have our preferences, those would be mine.

So you're calling Vander a liar?

This board was so much better when you and your awful, false, horrible, lying, indignant, atrocious, and grievous posts weren't here. I wish the moderators would do what it sounds like so many other boards have previously done and ban you for life.  You very rarely contribute anything to the board and are by far the biggest net negative on it.
 

[4everwarriors]

So, are we now talkin' about the traditional way of recruiting traditional players?

[ChicosBailBonds]

http://community.sportsbubbler.com/blogs/iwbs_sports_blog/archive/2009/10/18/vander-blue-commits-to-marquette.aspx

Too bad we can't extend the shame of calling 17 year old kids liars to our own current players, not when the ever powerful "back channels" say otherwise..

He didn't lie, that's what back channels are for Chapman.  Buzz doesn't have to call and yet you can use back channels to get involved.  No different than what happens when schools hire coaches, they can officially say "we haven't contacted" said coach, yet through back channels a rep is talking to a rep while plausible deniability exists between school and coach.

Let's put it this way....go find out when MU got "involved".  Some of the same insiders knew several months before Blue decommitted that he was going to decommit and even stated it on Scout and this board.  Some were a bit premature, but it eventually came to being.  Those same people also knew MU was involved then through those back channels.  If you think MU walked away after Blue committed to Wisconsin you're crazy.  MU was still interested and when he started waivering back in January they let the proper parties know that MU was more than willing to take him on (as did Minnesota, Louisville, etc)

So let's also be clear here before another thread goes down the path of claiming someone said something they didn't.  No one is calling Vander a liar.  PERIOD.  Far from it. 

[tower912]

Backchannels = high school teammate who wanted Blue to join him, perhaps?    So, Vander is telling the truth that Buzz didn't try to recruit him after he verballed, Buzz is telling the truth that he didn't try to recruit him after he verballed.     Still looking for the squirmy part.   

[warriors1965]

So you're calling Vander a liar?

This board was so much better when you and your awful, false, horrible, lying, indignant, atrocious, and grievous posts weren't here. I wish the moderators would do what it sounds like so many other boards have previously done and ban you for life.  You very rarely contribute anything to the board and are by far the biggest net negative on it.
 

Why do the harshest personal attacks always come from positive posters?

What is it about some MU fans that they simply can't deal with other opinions?

It's the same on Scout when Murf posts.  People can't disagree politely and you can imagine their blood pressure skyrocketing while typing a vitriolic response to whatever point the guy makes.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I was speaking of an AAU program that's got a certain "swing" to it.
The one set up by your other favorite coach.

It's kind of ironic, though. You get all squirmy over MU possibly staying in touch with a kid who veballed as a sophomore - a practice you admit is not uncommon. but then your defense of schools setting up AAU programs?
"It's OK, cause Purdue and UCLA do it too."
Way to stay consistent.

Oh believe me, the whole AAU scene makes me not only want to squirm, but to hurl.  If you were implying the Swing, fine.  Other people here have suggested a recent program was started at IU, which is patently false, it was started during the Knight coaching era.  To your point, I can't stand the role of AAU coaches, teams in college basketball.

Nevertheless, define consistency please, especially on two different issues. If I'm against abortion but I'm ok with the death penalty, am I inconsistent? 

[ChicosBailBonds]

So, are we now talkin' about the traditional way of recruiting traditional players?

We used to honor verbal commitments.  We used to get our undies in a bunch when schools kept recruiting our players.  No longer.  Just win baby

[Boone]

So much lost time to make up...and so much B.S. to spew.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

He didn't lie, that's what back channels are for Chapman.  Buzz doesn't have to call and yet you can use back channels to get involved.  No different than what happens when schools hire coaches, they can officially say "we haven't contacted" said coach, yet through back channels a rep is talking to a rep while plausible deniability exists between school and coach.

Let's put it this way....go find out when MU got "involved".  Some of the same insiders knew several months before Blue decommitted that he was going to decommit and even stated it on Scout and this board.  Some were a bit premature, but it eventually came to being.  Those same people also knew MU was involved then through those back channels.  If you think MU walked away after Blue committed to Wisconsin you're crazy.  MU was still interested and when he started waivering back in January they let the proper parties know that MU was more than willing to take him on (as did Minnesota, Louisville, etc)

So let's also be clear here before another thread goes down the path of claiming someone said something they didn't.  No one is calling Vander a liar.  PERIOD.  Far from it. 

I think 2 of the UW sources were Trevon Hughes and Marcus Landry telling VB that it wasn't in his best interests to continue his verbal to UW.  The other 2 could be the UW staffer that blabbed to the state journal.

[NavinRJohnson]

You know me, Mr. Traditional, I enjoyed the days when a verbal commitment was giving someone his word.  I'd prefer that a kid decommits first before coaches start chatting up with them, not while they are still verballed.  We all have our preferences, those would be mine.

So I assume you had a problem with your hero Tom Crean and his back channels chatting up Indiana before he resigned his position with MU? C'mon Mr. Traditional, whadda you say? Did IU contact MU and get permission before any conversation, direct or otherwise took place? Did Nick Wlliams request a release from his LOI before any conversation about moving to IU took place?

[GGGG]

We used to honor verbal commitments.  We used to get our undies in a bunch when schools kept recruiting our players.  No longer.  Just win baby

It's not "just win baby."  I just don't think it is ethically wrong like you apparently do.  There is no contractural obligation on behalf of the player or the coach to honor a verbal commitment.

And if other schools want to recruit kids that have given verbals, such as Jamal Furguson, more power to them.  If he changes his mind, that's fine...hope he does it for the right reasons and is happy where he ends up.  Just like when I wasn't really all that upset when Aaron Bowen changed his commitment.

[NavinRJohnson]

We used to honor verbal commitments.  We used to get our undies in a bunch when schools kept recruiting our players.  No longer.  Just win baby

Again if you have something other than an accusation, lets have it. An answer to Pakuni roasting your nuts as he usually does, would be kinda nice too...

Didn't a certain favorite coach of yours recruit a player to his school after the kid already had signed a LOI with another school?
Oops.
As always, moral outrage is selective.

[GGGG]

Great...the grand victim is back.   

[Benny B]

PRN...you're right...I don't deal with the Big Ten, or the NCAA, or ESPN, or Fox Sports, etc, etc all the time, sometimes on a daily basis during certain times of the year.  You're so right. I would assume that you realize that sources don't have to always be at the school....but for the record, I still have several good friends there as well as a few at UW-madison in their athletic department.   

Chicos... it is quite often that you post "inside-information" from your various sources, but when called out on who your source is, we get the standard "I can't tell you who told me because it's a secret" type of response.

Do your "sources" know that from time to time you're publicizing information they've relayed to you in confidence?  It seems to me that if they would be so upset with you naming them, that they'd still be upset if you were repeating their words even if unattributed.

[4everwarriors]

Is anyone else ready to scream like a girl?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Chicos... it is quite often that you post "inside-information" from your various sources, but when called out on who your source is, we get the standard "I can't tell you who told me because it's a secret" type of response.

Do your "sources" know that from time to time you're publicizing information they've relayed to you in confidence?  It seems to me that if they would be so upset with you naming them, that they'd still be upset if you were repeating their words even if unattributed.

That would be the reason why you don't post who the sources are...right?  That's the whole point of sources.  When source gives a reporter something knowing full well they will report it, they do so with assumption the source isn't stated.  Correct?  No different here.  And yes, some of them absolutely know it may go here or CS. 

It's no different than someone here saying Crean will get fired this year or next year or whatever.  I've spoken to enough people at IU, in the sports world, at the Big Ten, etc, to know that's absolute crap.  I know what the parameters that were put on their team in terms of recruiting early on.  Am I going to come straight out and tell you who those sources are?  Nope, but I'll be collecting several bets next year that will show how right I was when I made those bets.


4ever...only TC screams like a girl.   

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Chicos... it is quite often that you post "inside-information" from your various sources, but when called out on who your source is, we get the standard "I can't tell you who told me because it's a secret" type of response.

Do your "sources" know that from time to time you're publicizing information they've relayed to you in confidence?  It seems to me that if they would be so upset with you naming them, that they'd still be upset if you were repeating their words even if unattributed.
[/quote
It's all a staggering load of bullsh*t. I am quite sure the folks at the "Big Ten, or the NCAA, or ESPN, or Fox Sports" are talking about Marquette's recruiting practices with some stooge from Direct TV. Those conference calls must be hellaciously long, particularly when particulars arise about when people "made contact" with high school sophomores. It's a wonder anything gets done with all that "inside information" floating around.

Utter and complete NONSENSE!!!!!

[Spaniel with a Short Tail]

I may be the only poster here saying, "Welcome back Chicos" - but I suggest you not take the bait many put before you.  I know I wouldn't respond to many of these posts that are just disguised attempts to call you out for your "in-the-know-but-can't-cite-my-sources" posts.  Can it be irritating as a reader...sure!  However, it's your style and I'm not going to waste my time calling you on it every post you make. I mean, this is a blog not a Masters thesis. Regardless of citation, I do find Chicos posts informative at times which is why I'm glad he's back. I just wish I didn't have to wade through the argumentative responses to get to the informative posts.

[T-Bone]

If anyone posts something they assert as fact which they choose not to reveal the source of, do something about it instead of attacking the messenger (Journalism 101).  Make efforts to try to refute the argument being made.  Where this board gets me is that, sometimes we see a name and go in attack mode.  But we're all smarter than that.  Too often the conversation becomes a personal thing that amounts to he said-he said.  It's annoying and beneath us. 

Consider it like this:  A friend/colleague of yours shares information with you that is not public.  Do you betray them and reveal the source jeopardizing their job or other comfort?  Hell no. 

In this particular instance we have what a player said - which may have been intentionally vague, and it may not have been.  We'll never know.  No one has called anyone a liar.  We also have a source (Chicos) which may or may not be reliable - that's up to each of us to decide.  We may never know that either.  Regardless, we don't have information to support either argument.  We've asked one side.  And denied the request - I assume for the reason I mentioned above.  The other sides (MU Staff, Blue) we can't really ask for verification.  At some point we have to take people at their word.  If it conflicts, well then make up your mind, but there's no reason to go after someone.  It's much easier to ignore or take it with a grain of salt.

We are a well educated bunch, we should be able to make solid arguments that are well reasoned.

Wait were we talking about Lucious?  I hear good things about this "Singleton" kid.  Hear he's changing his name to Javid to fit in better with the other players with "J" names.   
And I wasn't a Journalism major so ignore that mention of Journalism 101 earlier.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

classic among many...  Ziggy saying I was the only one on CS not using my name when that's also a lie/untruth.  

Thanks, I got your message from "MUOmbudsman".  

[Benny B]

That would be the reason why you don't post who the sources are...right?  That's the whole point of sources.  When source gives a reporter something knowing full well they will report it, they do so with assumption the source isn't stated.  Correct?  No different here.

Actually, it's completely different.  You're not a journalist.

And yes, some of them absolutely know it may go here or CS.

So that would be a some (but not all).  I'll take that as a "yes, I do on occasion betray those who trust me with a secret."  What little credibility you had as a judge of morality just went down the toilet.

In this particular instance we have what a player said - which may have been intentionally vague, and it may not have been.  We'll never know.  No one has called anyone a liar.  We also have a source (Chicos) which may or may not be reliable - that's up to each of us to decide.  We may never know that either.  Regardless, we don't have information to support either argument.  We've asked one side.  And denied the request - I assume for the reason I mentioned above.  The other sides (MU Staff, Blue) we can't really ask for verification.  At some point we have to take people at their word.  If it conflicts, well then make up your mind, but there's no reason to go after someone.  It's much easier to ignore or take it with a grain of salt.

We are a well educated bunch, we should be able to make solid arguments that are well reasoned.

We may be a well-educated bunch, but the recruits, parents, coaches, etc. that read this board do not know the reputations of anyone here and therefore may be misguided in choosing where they place their grains of salt (e.g. assigning an element of truth to someone's statement simply because they have more posts on this board than everyone else on the thread combined).  Vander isn't the only student-athlete in the nation that has gone on record saying that his decision was swayed by fanboards... I'm sure many others feel the same way, they simply haven't come out and said it.

If this was a closed message board and we knew who everyone was, then I would have no problem with the flaming that goes on here.  However, this is a public board that could be read by anyone, and therefore, some of the nonsense spoken could be unjustly slanderous and potentially detrimental to MU, our players' and coaches' reputations, recruiting efforts, and the overall state of MU athletics.

[babytownfrolics]

Very well said by Benny b.  Quite frankly, the moderators of this board should do a better job of censoring posts, because the stuff that goes on here has the potential to do more harm than good.

[brewcity77]

Very well said by Benny b.  Quite frankly, the moderators of this board should do a better job of censoring posts, because the stuff that goes on here has the potential to do more harm than good.

Honestly, as a moderator on another message board, it's a double-edged sword. Yes, this is a Marquette fan board, but that doesn't mean you want to censor anything negative. As soon as you start doing that, the mods come under fire from all the users. Moderation is one of those things that snowballs. Once you start to crack down, the plebes try even harder to find ways to get around the rules, which forces you to crack down even more. Before you know it, you're just the prick moderator with a stick up his backside that everyone hates. Site traffic goes down, people complain about where all the good posters went and why they can't have a decent discussion, and by the time you try to lighten up, it's too late.

Of course, if you are lenient and let everyone state their opinions, you end up with flame-fests that seem to go on endlessly, topics that spiral out of control, and it only takes a small minority of negative posters to take over a topic and make it look like the entire site look like a bunch of overly critical psychos and jerks. And of course, the casual viewer (or potential recruit, parent of a recruit, etc) thinks that the fanboard posters are a microcosm of the fanbase itself and you end up seeing the kid go somewhere else. After all, if they're this critical of Vander Blue, the top rated recruit Wisconsin has put out since Brian Butch, how will they treat me, a mere four-star who isn't even from the state (hypothetically)?

I think the mods on here do a tremendous job. While I think they should have pulled the trigger a bit quicker on nomorebuycks (admittedly, I was vocal on that one) and think they should probably do the same on warriors1965 (who's probably nomorebuycks with a new name), many of the people who are sometimes perceived as negative are simply somewhat misunderstood. ErickDJ08 (sorry if that's not exactly right) isn't a negative guy, he just made a thread that ended up critical of a player and was probably a bit too open-ended in titling it. Chicos doesn't hate Marquette, but he is quick to defend those he likes to the point that he'll attack anyone who attacks those he respects, which often makes it out to be him hating on Marquette when his real target is the individual. willie warrior also isn't a hater, he just fiercely defends his viewpoints, which are often in the minority. It doesn't make willie wrong by any stretch, but when people try to debate and he sticks unfailingly to his guns, it makes it look like we're just sniping back and forth.

While it's easy to say the mods should do a better job, it's incredibly tough as a mod to satisfy everyone. Who do you censor? Which posters do you give rope to, and which do you crack down on? My bet is if they conducted a private poll of 20 users here to get lists of which guys need to be reined in, they'd probably end up with 25 different lists, and most of us (I'm sure myself included) would be on some of those lists. Quite frankly, I think that it's not for the mods to control us, but rather for us to conduct ourselves in the proper manner. Imagine that these kids are your kids. Sure, you may have suggestions of how little Johnny (or Jamail, Jae, Jamil, or Juan) could improve their game, but say it in a way that wouldn't belittle them. Act as though Buzz Williams isn't just another employee, but rather your fraternity brother. Sure, you may give him a bit of crap at times, you may not like everything he does, but at least respect his position and realize that while not everything he tries will work out, he is doing it with the best interests of Marquette and our basketball program in mind.

I can happily admit that I need to heed those lessons as much as anyone else. I just hope that a few other people who need that lesson just like I do read it and can put in the effort to do the same. It will make the job of the mods on this site a lot easier, and make this a more pleasant place for all of us to spend our free time.

[babytownfrolics]

Double edged sword?  The answer is, if you cant handle the responsibility, don't have a message board in the first place.

uote author=brewcity77 link=topic=24254.msg270998#msg270998 date=1297484152]
Honestly, as a moderator on another message board, it's a double-edged sword. Yes, this is a Marquette fan board, but that doesn't mean you want to censor anything negative. As soon as you start doing that, the mods come under fire from all the users. Moderation is one of those things that snowballs. Once you start to crack down, the plebes try even harder to find ways to get around the rules, which forces you to crack down even more. Before you know it, you're just the prick moderator with a stick up his backside that everyone hates. Site traffic goes down, people complain about where all the good posters went and why they can't have a decent discussion, and by the time you try to lighten up, it's too late.

Of course, if you are lenient and let everyone state their opinions, you end up with flame-fests that seem to go on endlessly, topics that spiral out of control, and it only takes a small minority of negative posters to take over a topic and make it look like the entire site look like a bunch of overly critical psychos and jerks. And of course, the casual viewer (or potential recruit, parent of a recruit, etc) thinks that the fanboard posters are a microcosm of the fanbase itself and you end up seeing the kid go somewhere else. After all, if they're this critical of Vander Blue, the top rated recruit Wisconsin has put out since Brian Butch, how will they treat me, a mere four-star who isn't even from the state (hypothetically)?

I think the mods on here do a tremendous job. While I think they should have pulled the trigger a bit quicker on nomorebuycks (admittedly, I was vocal on that one) and think they should probably do the same on warriors1965 (who's probably nomorebuycks with a new name), many of the people who are sometimes perceived as negative are simply somewhat misunderstood. ErickDJ08 (sorry if that's not exactly right) isn't a negative guy, he just made a thread that ended up critical of a player and was probably a bit too open-ended in titling it. Chicos doesn't hate Marquette, but he is quick to defend those he likes to the point that he'll attack anyone who attacks those he respects, which often makes it out to be him hating on Marquette when his real target is the individual. willie warrior also isn't a hater, he just fiercely defends his viewpoints, which are often in the minority. It doesn't make willie wrong by any stretch, but when people try to debate and he sticks unfailingly to his guns, it makes it look like we're just sniping back and forth.

While it's easy to say the mods should do a better job, it's incredibly tough as a mod to satisfy everyone. Who do you censor? Which posters do you give rope to, and which do you crack down on? My bet is if they conducted a private poll of 20 users here to get lists of which guys need to be reined in, they'd probably end up with 25 different lists, and most of us (I'm sure myself included) would be on some of those lists. Quite frankly, I think that it's not for the mods to control us, but rather for us to conduct ourselves in the proper manner. Imagine that these kids are your kids. Sure, you may have suggestions of how little Johnny (or Jamail, Jae, Jamil, or Juan) could improve their game, but say it in a way that wouldn't belittle them. Act as though Buzz Williams isn't just another employee, but rather your fraternity brother. Sure, you may give him a bit of crap at times, you may not like everything he does, but at least respect his position and realize that while not everything he tries will work out, he is doing it with the best interests of Marquette and our basketball program in mind.

I can happily admit that I need to heed those lessons as much as anyone else. I just hope that a few other people who need that lesson just like I do read it and can put in the effort to do the same. It will make the job of the mods on this site a lot easier, and make this a more pleasant place for all of us to spend our free time.
[/quote]

[Plaque Lives Matter!]

Double edged sword?  The answer is, if you cant handle the responsibility, don't have a message board in the first place.

uote author=brewcity77 link=topic=24254.msg270998#msg270998 date=1297484152]
Honestly, as a moderator on another message board, it's a double-edged sword. Yes, this is a Marquette fan board, but that doesn't mean you want to censor anything negative. As soon as you start doing that, the mods come under fire from all the users. Moderation is one of those things that snowballs. Once you start to crack down, the plebes try even harder to find ways to get around the rules, which forces you to crack down even more. Before you know it, you're just the prick moderator with a stick up his backside that everyone hates. Site traffic goes down, people complain about where all the good posters went and why they can't have a decent discussion, and by the time you try to lighten up, it's too late.

Of course, if you are lenient and let everyone state their opinions, you end up with flame-fests that seem to go on endlessly, topics that spiral out of control, and it only takes a small minority of negative posters to take over a topic and make it look like the entire site look like a bunch of overly critical psychos and jerks. And of course, the casual viewer (or potential recruit, parent of a recruit, etc) thinks that the fanboard posters are a microcosm of the fanbase itself and you end up seeing the kid go somewhere else. After all, if they're this critical of Vander Blue, the top rated recruit Wisconsin has put out since Brian Butch, how will they treat me, a mere four-star who isn't even from the state (hypothetically)?

I think the mods on here do a tremendous job. While I think they should have pulled the trigger a bit quicker on nomorebuycks (admittedly, I was vocal on that one) and think they should probably do the same on warriors1965 (who's probably nomorebuycks with a new name), many of the people who are sometimes perceived as negative are simply somewhat misunderstood. ErickDJ08 (sorry if that's not exactly right) isn't a negative guy, he just made a thread that ended up critical of a player and was probably a bit too open-ended in titling it. Chicos doesn't hate Marquette, but he is quick to defend those he likes to the point that he'll attack anyone who attacks those he respects, which often makes it out to be him hating on Marquette when his real target is the individual. willie warrior also isn't a hater, he just fiercely defends his viewpoints, which are often in the minority. It doesn't make willie wrong by any stretch, but when people try to debate and he sticks unfailingly to his guns, it makes it look like we're just sniping back and forth.

While it's easy to say the mods should do a better job, it's incredibly tough as a mod to satisfy everyone. Who do you censor? Which posters do you give rope to, and which do you crack down on? My bet is if they conducted a private poll of 20 users here to get lists of which guys need to be reined in, they'd probably end up with 25 different lists, and most of us (I'm sure myself included) would be on some of those lists. Quite frankly, I think that it's not for the mods to control us, but rather for us to conduct ourselves in the proper manner. Imagine that these kids are your kids. Sure, you may have suggestions of how little Johnny (or Jamail, Jae, Jamil, or Juan) could improve their game, but say it in a way that wouldn't belittle them. Act as though Buzz Williams isn't just another employee, but rather your fraternity brother. Sure, you may give him a bit of crap at times, you may not like everything he does, but at least respect his position and realize that while not everything he tries will work out, he is doing it with the best interests of Marquette and our basketball program in mind.

I can happily admit that I need to heed those lessons as much as anyone else. I just hope that a few other people who need that lesson just like I do read it and can put in the effort to do the same. It will make the job of the mods on this site a lot easier, and make this a more pleasant place for all of us to spend our free time.

They were just following orders!

Tasteless historical jab aside, the mods here do what they can, not everyone will be happy and not all problems will be satisfied. Scrolling through the personal tiffs just makes the real info that much more rewarding in a strangely warped rationalization.

[muarmy81]

I was mostly surprised how few people were concerned about his multiple suspensions and behavior as a reason to just say no.  Seems more people were worried about his ability to play.

Just win baby

You're right.  We should resume promoting stereotypes about traditional/non-traditional players as well as dig up dirt where the real issues are:

JUCO players...everyone knows those guys can't be trusted and carry the most baggage.

[CoachRaymondsClass]

Chico : Scoop :: Murf : MU Hoops

Murf : BB knowledgeable pomposity :: Chico : Questionable BB knowledge pomposity

= two people apparently starved for attention (and also apparently with tons of time on their hands).

Both have diminished the fun and info otherwise available on two excellent sources of news and discussion on MU. My readership and time on both boards has greatly declined because of their constant self-promotion of their knowledge on BB and MU. At least Murf was a fairly successful HS BB coach (albeit in the 60s) and MU player (in the 50s). Like Chico, I worked in sports marketing, but that doesn't make me a knowledgeable BB analyst. Chico's "sources" and reporting style reminds me of Entertainment Tonight or tabloid. Boorish.

I haven't posted in a long time, but this thread... when Chico got involved... he hijacks threads just like Murf. Too Bad. Thank you to all the thoughtful posters and MU fans.

[tower912]

Well said.   Inspiring.   Inspired me to put both on ignore.    Thank you. 

[77ncaachamps]

GETTING BACK TO KORIE...

I asked Rosiak about KL during the MU-USF Live Blog.

"Have you heard any response from Korie Lucious about your article on MU's (dis)interest?"

Todd Rosiak: I have not. And I'm not tough to find.

I guess that MU's door is shut and Korie sees it.