MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: 1SE on October 26, 2017, 06:48:01 AM
-
Been following the QG saga with great interest and in many ways I'm with the moral victory camp even if he ultimately chooses elsewhere. To come from out of nowhere on an out of state, 5 star, says good things about Wojo and the program.
And yet.... there's something that is nagging me about this approach in that I'm not sure it leads to long term success. And by this kind of approach I mean "grab a one-n-done 5 star" every other year and fill the rest of the roster with 3 and 4 starts and the occasional JUCO/transfer.
My qualm is this. The 5 star route is obviously the way of the blue blood. Duke, UK are reloading every year with NBA all rookie teams and clearly that's a path to success. IF I thought this was a step to that then great. But it strikes me that we are a long way from being able to do that. In the meantime, I'm concerned that bringing in a one-n-done 5 star every few years creates more disruption than success - we disrupt a system and a team to create a focal point around a guy that's gone after one year - what does that do to the progression of the rest of the team?
I get HE. We had to have him, he was a bright spot in what would have been an otherwise miserable season (without him) but I don't think he necessarily did us favors in the longer term rebuild. There was a lot of "Henry Ball" that helped feature him for the NBA (and was presumably part of the promise of bringing him in) which didn't seem conducive to long term goals.
Like I say, I'm torn on this (and I certainly won't bemoan if QG comes!) - but it seems for a program like us a 5 star guy is a good call when you need that last little piece of Jet fuel to push a particular year that final mile. Maybe next year is that year, and maybe QG takes us from a sweet 16 team to a FF (or be still my heart NC). But if he moves us from a bubble team to a 1st weekend exit, does the "change of system" to accommodate a feature player for that season really pay off?
Maybe I'm overstating the problem. Maybe QG (or other one-n-dones) are told that while they'll be "the man" they'll have to be "the man" within the system. But if we're just going to be a feature school (with good markets & no sharing the spotlight) for some stand-out every few years I think I'd rather stick to the formula of building 4 year guys/teams that consistently make the tourney (second weekend) and maybe get a few lucky bounces every now and then and make a run to the FF.
Any of you with the encyclopedic NCAA knowledge allay my concerns here? Are there good example of teams out there with this approach (a few one-n-dones here and there but who maintain consistent levels of success)? Not necessarily in a given year (I'm sure there are examples), but as consistent strategy/approach?
-
I think the hybrid is a short term goal. As I mentioned in the recruiting thread, we should consider where Wojo came from and what type of recruiting he's used to. I think the clearest path to early success is building consistency. He's set us up for that by mostly taking high school kids and supplementing with transfers that spend 3-4 years in the system.
But long term, he comes from the blue blood, burger boy, five star school of success. That's why Ellenson mattered, why Grimes matters, and why I believe in 5-10 years the goal is not to be getting those guys occasionally but competing with blue bloods for recruits regularly.
I don't know if it will or can work, but I do believe that's the plan.
-
I think this is a little bit different because even if QG aid one and done were looking at a huge amount of experience returning the following year which will give us solid years back to back. Similar to if Henry’s year had gotten us to the NCAA (I imagine we were a depaul and Belmont away?) then we’d be saying it was a great addition then returning Luke, JJJ and D Wil we were in a solid spot the next year for back to back appearances
-
I understand the philosophical conundrum you describe. My short answer is this. Wisconsin has success with program guys. Some of them go to the league. But they always come up short. And this year will start to show what happens when you miss with a couple classes in a program system. Teams that win championships usually have a 1-2 and done. Villanova being an exception. So, take both.
-
This thread seems familiar 8-)
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54653.0
-
This thread seems familiar 8-)
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54653.0
;D Thought that but didn't go searching - I think my question though is more about as a system rather than a given recruit.
I guess it just strikes me as somewhat of an unstable equilibrium - if it's a path to loading up with 5 start great, but otherwise I wonder if sticking to 4-star- 4 year guys (as a system) isn't MU's best path to sustained success.
Anyway - say yes QG - who cares about the long run - in the long run we're all dead! Let's win a NC in 2019!
-
I don't want the Marquette basketball program to turn into a glorified babysitting service for guys who are simply killing time until they are eligible for the NBA draft.
If we pick up a one-and-done occasionally, fine. But if having a roster full of 5-stars was the only path to NCAA greatness, then either Duke or Kentucky would be winning the NCAA championship every year - and we all know that's not happening. Hell, a few years back, Kentucky didn't make the tourney and lost in the first round of the NIT. I would rather do things the old-fashioned way.
I want players who are actual students. I want players who care about Marquette as an institution and have relationships outside of the basketball team. I want players who high-five my kid as they pass him on Wisconsin Avenue because they are in the same study group. I want players that end up on the Board of Trustees after they retire.
We have never relied on one-and-dones in the past, and I think the school - and the team - is better off because of it.
-
It's an interesting strategic choice for a program like MU's, but it's also one that could be changing, what with the whole one-and-done opportunity potentially changing as a result of the FBI investigation and NBA considerations.
Further, I don't see MU ever going so far as Kentucky or Duke (which has only gone this route significantly within the last few years) in terms of stacking one and dones, but only taking the periodic one. But that's mainly because I don't see us getting that opportunity. HE was from Wisconsin and the stars seem to be aligning for QG, but it's unlikely to happen regularly.
Me, I hope that QG picks MU!
-
It's an interesting strategic choice for a program like MU's, but it's also one that could be changing, what with the whole one-and-done opportunity potentially changing as a result of the FBI investigation and NBA considerations.
Further, I don't see MU ever going so far as Kentucky or Duke (which has only gone this route significantly within the last few years) in terms of stacking one and dones, but only taking the periodic one. But that's mainly because I don't see us getting that opportunity. HE was from Wisconsin and the stars seem to be aligning for QG, but it's unlikely to happen regularly.
Me, I hope that QG picks MU!
I do, too, but do I ever want the situation where there is 100% turnover in our starters every year because last year's all got drafted? No way.
-
But if having a roster full of 5-stars was the only path to NCAA greatness, then either Duke or Kentucky would be winning the NCAA championship every year - and we all know that's not happening.
It's certainly interesting. Since 1978 when they started the McDonald's All-American Game, only two teams have ever won a title without at least one Burger Boy on the roster. 2002 Maryland and 2014 Connecticut were the two exceptions to the rule. Not all of those had one-and-done players, but if you want to win a title, it would seem that you do need to be landing McDonald's recruits. 38 of the past 40 champions have had at least one.
-
I do, too, but do I ever want the situation where there is 100% turnover in our starters every year because last year's all got drafted? No way.
Right and I agree- but I guess my point is does this 1-n-done every few years then cause more disruption than it's worth? I have no idea what is being said to QG or how he would be utilized on the team, but I think there's the potential that the team strategy "adjusts" a bit to accommodate/feature a one and done, but that then doesn't necessarily put us in a better position the following year.
I want QG to come and I think it could make a really special 18-19 season, but I then worry a bit for 19-20 and 20-21.
-
Best players you can get. That is why I think Grimes is an important get. Land him, program is looked at differently. I know in minority, but I take a top tier one and done over Hauser all day long. That said, getting both is ideal.
-
Ya I was no huge fan of Henry. Still dont follow himtoday or root for him like i do most MU grads. He just wasnt around long enuff and never seemed to be about the name on the front of the uniform. I prolly should blame Wojo more, but the conscienceless hiking of brick 3's would have gotten anyother player benched n scolded. Yet he did it without a second thought. Wojo coached that entire year as if he was afraid to upset Henry and I did not like that at all. That said i think QG would be different and I hope Wojo would coach him differently.
-
;D Thought that but didn't go searching - I think my question though is more about as a system rather than a given recruit.
Use that as a defense but my lawyers will be in touch ;D
Personally, I believe that the 18-19 roster (assuming no major defections) is set up to be a tournament lock and likely a 5 seed or higher. I think QG pushes us to 3 seed or higher so the one and done is well worth it.
Think about Villanova and Jalen Brunson. He didn't end up being a one and done but he was a consensus 5-star PG. He was the last piece that Nova needed to win it all.
-
Ya I was no huge fan of Henry. Still dont follow himtoday or root for him like i do most MU grads. He just wasnt around long enuff and never seemed to be about the name on the front of the uniform. I prolly should blame Wojo more, but the conscienceless hiking of brick 3's would have gotten anyother player benched n scolded. Yet he did it without a second thought. Wojo coached that entire year as if he was afraid to upset Henry and I did not like that at all. That said i think QG would be different and I hope Wojo would coach him differently.
This is same position I have.
-
Ya I was no huge fan of Henry. Still dont follow himtoday or root for him like i do most MU grads. He just wasnt around long enuff and never seemed to be about the name on the front of the uniform. I prolly should blame Wojo more, but the conscienceless hiking of brick 3's would have gotten anyother player benched n scolded. Yet he did it without a second thought. Wojo coached that entire year as if he was afraid to upset Henry and I did not like that at all. That said i think QG would be different and I hope Wojo would coach him differently.
I would wager that you would have felt completely different if he had an experienced supporting cast and they made a deep run into the tourney.
-
It's a delicate balance for sure. The difference between the 15-16 team and an expected (with Grimes) 18-19 team is clearly the depth and balance. The 15-16 team was basically Henry with a ton of freshmen, no seniors and little experience. If Grimes were to come, he would have a lot of valuable leadership with Markus (Jr.), Heldt (Sr.), Cheatham (Sr.), Froling (JR) and Sacar and Morrow (RS Jr.). If Grimes were to come to MU and leave after only one year, as many would expect, the 19-20 team still could have Sam, Markus, Morrow, Froling and Sacar, along with our current high-ceiling class with Ike, Elliott, Jamal and Theo to make up the foundation of the team. All of this also doesn't even take into account where Bailey fits in, and I think he will be here for the long-haul as well.
If that 18-19 team makes a deep tournament run, it will absolutely open doors for the staff to get an impact one-and-done every so often to help put a balanced and experienced team over the top. I am totally fine with that.
-
It's a delicate balance for sure. The difference between the 15-16 team and an expected (with Grimes) 18-19 team is clearly the depth and balance. The 15-16 team was basically Henry with a ton of freshmen, no seniors and little experience. If Grimes were to come, he would have a lot of valuable leadership with Markus (Jr.), Heldt (Sr.), Cheatham (Sr.), Froling (JR) and Sacar and Morrow (RS Jr.). If Grimes were to come to MU and leave after only one year, as many would expect, the 19-20 team still could have Sam, Markus, Morrow, Froling and Sacar, along with our current high-ceiling class with Ike, Elliott, Jamal and Theo to make up the foundation of the team. All of this also doesn't even take into account where Bailey fits in, and I think he will be here for the long-haul as well.
If that 18-19 team makes a deep tournament run, it will absolutely open doors for the staff to get an impact one-and-done every so often to help put a balanced and experienced team over the top. I am totally fine with that.
I'm certainly inclined to try it out (I'd much much MUCH rather QG comes than not) and if one-n-dones can fit in relatively seamlessly to be that last piece of the puzzle could be a great way forward. But college (I think for the better) is still so much of a team game that I worry when you're trying to build a team over multiple years with multiple classes the 1-n-done can just be a bit of a wrench in the mix.
FWIW If QG comes and we win the NC (heck, even if we get to the FF) I'll print out my original post and eat it as the stupidest thing ever.
-
Ya I was no huge fan of Henry. Still dont follow himtoday or root for him like i do most MU grads. He just wasnt around long enuff and never seemed to be about the name on the front of the uniform. I prolly should blame Wojo more, but the conscienceless hiking of brick 3's would have gotten anyother player benched n scolded. Yet he did it without a second thought. Wojo coached that entire year as if he was afraid to upset Henry and I did not like that at all. That said i think QG would be different and I hope Wojo would coach him differently.
I would wager that you would have felt completely different if he had an experienced supporting cast and they made a deep run into the tourney.
I think I'm going to actually agree with Sand-Knit here (gasp!). I think the problem with HE (and perhaps 1SE's overall concern in this thread), was the overall disruption to the program that he caused, precisely because of the fact that he didn't have an experienced supporting cast. A bit of chicken and egg, but I think HE was a chucker partially because there weren't many other great established scoring options in that lineup, so he took it on himself. Regardless, I don't have many fond memories of him and struggle to really be invested in his NBA career in the same way that I love seeing Wade, Wes, Jimmy, Jae, etc. do well.
Now, that said, I do think that there are points to be made that our team and program was going to be pretty bad that year anyway; that HE helped push us into the bubble conversation; and that his recruitment was a signal that Wojo was legit at an early (and perhaps crucial) point of his head coaching career. For all of those reasons, I'm glad that we got him; I just wish that the season had turned out a little differently, and that HE decided that perhaps he could have been drafted top-10 if he had come back for a second year and learned to play some defense and really developed his outside shot with the extra spacing that Howard, Hauser, and Rowsey would have given him.
All that said, I feel like QG sets up very differently in that he'll be walking into a team with a strong and established upper-class core, and doesn't have to press as much. A guy like that with the shooters and big bodies that we'll have seems to be a complimentary piece, as opposed to the focal point of the offense.
-
Been following the QG saga with great interest and in many ways I'm with the moral victory camp even if he ultimately chooses elsewhere. To come from out of nowhere on an out of state, 5 star, says good things about Wojo and the program.
And yet.... there's something that is nagging me about this approach in that I'm not sure it leads to long term success. And by this kind of approach I mean "grab a one-n-done 5 star" every other year and fill the rest of the roster with 3 and 4 starts and the occasional JUCO/transfer.
My qualm is this. The 5 star route is obviously the way of the blue blood. Duke, UK are reloading every year with NBA all rookie teams and clearly that's a path to success. IF I thought this was a step to that then great. But it strikes me that we are a long way from being able to do that. In the meantime, I'm concerned that bringing in a one-n-done 5 star every few years creates more disruption than success - we disrupt a system and a team to create a focal point around a guy that's gone after one year - what does that do to the progression of the rest of the team?
I get HE. We had to have him, he was a bright spot in what would have been an otherwise miserable season (without him) but I don't think he necessarily did us favors in the longer term rebuild. There was a lot of "Henry Ball" that helped feature him for the NBA (and was presumably part of the promise of bringing him in) which didn't seem conducive to long term goals.
Like I say, I'm torn on this (and I certainly won't bemoan if QG comes!) - but it seems for a program like us a 5 star guy is a good call when you need that last little piece of Jet fuel to push a particular year that final mile. Maybe next year is that year, and maybe QG takes us from a sweet 16 team to a FF (or be still my heart NC). But if he moves us from a bubble team to a 1st weekend exit, does the "change of system" to accommodate a feature player for that season really pay off?
Maybe I'm overstating the problem. Maybe QG (or other one-n-dones) are told that while they'll be "the man" they'll have to be "the man" within the system. But if we're just going to be a feature school (with good markets & no sharing the spotlight) for some stand-out every few years I think I'd rather stick to the formula of building 4 year guys/teams that consistently make the tourney (second weekend) and maybe get a few lucky bounces every now and then and make a run to the FF.
Any of you with the encyclopedic NCAA knowledge allay my concerns here? Are there good example of teams out there with this approach (a few one-n-dones here and there but who maintain consistent levels of success)? Not necessarily in a given year (I'm sure there are examples), but as consistent strategy/approach?
Agree 100%.
Wish players would play for at least 3 years.
-
I'd like to see a professional basketball environment that is entertaining and can accommodate those who are ready straight out of high school.
I'd like to see a college basketball environment that is entertaining and is based on player development, turning boys into men, graduating it's players, and making a few of them into NBA players.
And I don't think these are mutually exclusive.
-
I'm not sure Grimes will be one and done. Grimes is 16th in the 247 composite. Plus you have foreign players, sophomores, juniors, and seniors. Where does that put his draft stock? Grimes could play well enough to move up into the top 10 but he could just as easily have a Malik Newman type freshman year that isn't good enough to turn pro.
I'm going to take a wait and see approach. Right now I think it's 50/50 at best that Grimes will be one and done. Compare that Henry who I felt was 99% sure to be one and done.
-
I've become more a fan of Henry being here since he left than I was when he was racking up double-doubles. Here's the thing...that wasn't Wojo's team in the first place. Haanif is literally the only contributor to that team that is still here. Neither Matt nor Anim played that year nor would they have played much without Henry around. That season did not hurt anyone's development that actually stuck around.
Second, it showed that Wojo could take a McDonald's kid and turn him into a one-and-done, first round NBA Draft pick. Now granted, plenty of McDonald's kids go one-and-done, but there are plenty that don't go from Burger Boy to first round in 12 months. Henry was evidence that yes, you can get there from Marquette.
Third, we won 20 games because of Henry. With a terrible schedule, a mediocre at best supporting cast, and a couple really bad seasons in the rearview, our team became something we could be proud of once again. That might not have been a great season, but the NYC tourney title, the win at Madison, the sweep of Providence, and a few more legit wins, that was a fun season after the trainwrecks that were 2014 and 2015.
It's easy to dismiss Henry as a ballhog and chucker, but he was a beast of a player once he hit his stride. He made us fun to watch, he gave our program some points of pride when we needed it, and he opened the door for players like Grimes to follow in his footsteps albeit with a far, far superior supporting cast. And now he's making Frank Kaminsky his whipping boy in the NBA, so it's all good.
I'm glad for Hank, and appreciate what he brought to Marquette far more now than I did while he was here.
-
I understand the argument that Henry hurt the program. Theoretically if you don't get Henry then you Steve Taylor and Gabe Levin don't transfer and you theoretically pick up a kid like Kyle Washington or maybe Harry Froling as a freshman. Is one year of Henry worth 1 year of Taylor/Levin, 1 year of Levin/Washington, and 1 year of Washington/John? I don't know. But we got him, he won us a bunch more games, and he added to our alumni in the NBA list. I'm not going to complain.
-
I understand the argument that Henry hurt the program. Theoretically if you don't get Henry then you Steve Taylor and Gabe Levin don't transfer and you theoretically pick up a kid like Kyle Washington or maybe Harry Froling as a freshman. Is one year of Henry worth 1 year of Taylor/Levin, 1 year of Levin/Washington, and 1 year of Washington/John? I don't know. But we got him, he won us a bunch more games, and he added to our alumni in the NBA list. I'm not going to complain.
Don’t forget two years of Wally.
-
Interesting, varying thoughts here......... Do not like the one and dones at all. I don't believe HE improved at all while here. He got the adulation and special handling he was used to at club level and in high school as well as exposure in the media. But skill wise don't think I saw improvement in him. Left as the same player he was when he arrived only a year or so older.....maybe heavier. He used us and we him. Be honest.
Agree with Warriorchick on one and dones but think her thoughts on "students" and "board of trustee" candidates is far fetched as well. If we were Ivy League, maybe, but not as a high D1 program looking at repeated tournament appearances year after year as a goal. Guys don't have to be academic casualties but won't be phi-beta-kapa either..... Hopefully not like North Carolina...... Not that I wouldn't LIKE her premise but think it's unrealistic expectations.
HE was here because he was a Wisconsin kid and many here would have thought us as a loser if Bucky got him or he went out of state. I don't consider him an alum any more than any kid who came here a year and moved on elsewhere to another school or career. Attended here but alum...no. Made no mark and that opinion would not be swayed if a "supporting cast" was better or we made the tournament. His jersey will never be in the rafters but we DID invite him here.... Have to examine if we want to do that again and how often as further debated here... What are the costs and benefits to MU? Personally don't think it's worth it... Others disagree. That's fine.... Just my thoughts.
-
Hmm....might be one and done for one of the frosh or Harry if we sign QG as well.
-
Interesting, varying thoughts here......... Do not like the one and dones at all. I don't believe HE improved at all while here. He got the adulation and special handling he was used to at club level and in high school as well as exposure in the media. But skill wise don't think I saw improvement in him. Left as the same player he was when he arrived only a year or so older.....maybe heavier. He used us and we him. Be honest.
Agree with Warriorchick on one and dones but think her thoughts on "students" and "board of trustee" candidates is far fetched as well. If we were Ivy League, maybe, but not as a high D1 program looking at repeated tournament appearances year after year as a goal. Guys don't have to be academic casualties but won't be phi-beta-kapa either..... Hopefully not like North Carolina...... Not that I wouldn't LIKE her premise but think it's unrealistic expectations.
HE was here because he was a Wisconsin kid and many here would have thought us as a loser if Bucky got him or he went out of state. I don't consider him an alum any more than any kid who came here a year and moved on elsewhere to another school or career. Attended here but alum...no. Made no mark and that opinion would not be swayed if a "supporting cast" was better or we made the tournament. His jersey will never be in the rafters but we DID invite him here.... Have to examine if we want to do that again and how often as further debated here... What are the costs and benefits to MU? Personally don't think it's worth it... Others disagree. That's fine.... Just my thoughts.
I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I know that a large number of one and dones take the minimum amount of easy classes first semester and then drop out second semester as soon as the tournament is over. I don't expect all of our players to be titans of industry - but I like the fact that most of them take their studies seriously and graduate with real degrees. And my Board of Trustees comment (and we have had multiple ex-players on ours) was just an example of having affinity towards our school that goes beyond basketball. How many Kentucky players have any non-basketball interaction with their school after they leave?
-
I don't believe HE improved at all while here. He got the adulation and special handling he was used to at club level and in high school as well as exposure in the media. But skill wise don't think I saw improvement in him. Left as the same player he was when he arrived only a year or so older.....maybe heavier. He used us and we him. Be honest.
To be honest, I think you are completely wrong about this. Henry turned a corner starting with the Stetson game. I'm not sure why that was the point, but I remember being very frustrated with his shot selection. I felt he just bombed away. But starting with that game, his shooting percentages across the board improved. His final 13 games were better than his first 20.
FTs FT% 2Ps 2P% 3Ps 3P% eFG% RPG BPG
First 20 Games 72/98 73.5% 97/199 48.7% 16/67 24.8% 45.5% 9.8 1.6
Last 13 Games 71/93 76.3% 67/132 50.8% 14/37 37.8% 52.1% 9.5 1.3
His shooting numbers improved across the board, he got to the line more, he significantly improved his three point percentage and eFG percentage. His rebounding and blocks took minor hits, but this was against the toughest competition he faced all season. Of the first 20 games, over half (11) were against sub-100 Pomeroy teams but few of the final 13 games (3) were against sub-100 opponents. In the first 20 games, we had 2 wins over tournament teams, in the last 13 we had 3. FWIW, Henry was SOTG in all 5 of those games.
That means he faced more top-100 opponents and beat more tournament teams in the final 13 games, when his numbers were at their best, than he did in the first 20 games when his numbers were not as good. Henry definitely improved through the season and the numbers bear it out.
-
Great post, Brew.
I think it comes down to bringing in the best talent that fits your system. Whether they're a 1-and-done or not shouldn't really enter the discussion. For starters, what program would say no to a commitment from a 5-star Top 10 player? I've yet to hear of one. Henry generated a lot of excitement coming in — so much so that expectations were frankly too high. But that doesn't mean we should have passed on him. To me, this entire question is pretty much irrelevant on that basis alone.
I guess you could argue it's about where you put your recruiting priority. But again, you're always looking to bring in the best possible players. Wojo and his staff seem to have a good feel for understanding which recruits have genuine interest in MU. If those recruits happen to be in the Top 10, you bet Wojo is going to go after them. As he should.
Finally, you just never know. Plenty of top 10 high school players don't make quite the splash expected — and when the draft rolls around, fall outside the lottery. Many of those players decide to return for a second season. (As just one example, former Top 10 recruit and McDonald's All-American Marcus Lee came back to Kentucky in 2014.)
I'm with everyone who likes to watch players grow and develop over the course of four years. That's part of what makes college basketball special. But I hold nothing against players who leave early to pursue their professional careers. What's the difference between leaving after 1 season (Henry Ellenson), 2 seasons (Dwyane Wade) or 3 seasons (Vander Blue)? They all left early. Or what about someone like Robert Jackson, a transfer who only played here for 1 season? I enjoyed watching each of them as long as they wore a Marquette uniform.
The NBA introduced the 1-and-done rule after drafting a bunch of 18-year-olds who didn't pan out. Now the commissioner has indicated the league isn't entirely happy with the 1-and-done rule. We'll see what happens.
-
Interesting, varying thoughts here......... Do not like the one and dones at all. I don't believe HE improved at all while here. He got the adulation and special handling he was used to at club level and in high school as well as exposure in the media. But skill wise don't think I saw improvement in him. Left as the same player he was when he arrived only a year or so older.....maybe heavier. He used us and we him. Be honest.
Agree with Warriorchick on one and dones but think her thoughts on "students" and "board of trustee" candidates is far fetched as well. If we were Ivy League, maybe, but not as a high D1 program looking at repeated tournament appearances year after year as a goal. Guys don't have to be academic casualties but won't be phi-beta-kapa either..... Hopefully not like North Carolina...... Not that I wouldn't LIKE her premise but think it's unrealistic expectations.
HE was here because he was a Wisconsin kid and many here would have thought us as a loser if Bucky got him or he went out of state. I don't consider him an alum any more than any kid who came here a year and moved on elsewhere to another school or career. Attended here but alum...no. Made no mark and that opinion would not be swayed if a "supporting cast" was better or we made the tournament. His jersey will never be in the rafters but we DID invite him here.... Have to examine if we want to do that again and how often as further debated here... What are the costs and benefits to MU? Personally don't think it's worth it... Others disagree. That's fine.... Just my thoughts.
Agree 100%. One and drones are not worth the effort.