With Acker not playing is Buzz going to recruit another for this year or next?

[muwarrior69]

If he banks the schollie we have only 12 guys able to play which sort of troubles me. With Mboa and Cadougan having to get cleared buy some Internation clearing house they won't be hear until September (they miss out on 6 weeks of training and conditioning). Fulce is still a question Mark with his knee; that leave only 9 guys. It looks like last year but without the experienced starters. Your thoughts?

[lurch91]

Buzz ha said he's always looking to add one more player, but only wants the best players.  I'm sure he has 2-5 players in mind, but if it doesn't seem like they'd be successful in the Big East or might have problems with credits, I could see him banking the scholarship and going with what he has.

One enormous possitive is that Buzz has alot of interchangable parts.  Eventhough they don't have any experience, most of the freshman can play 2-4 positions.  We lacked that ability last year.

[JimmyBIToldYa]

what is this "banking the scholarship" thing? don't people realize that since he was a senior, "banking" his scholarship does not add any more scholarships for next year...

[schubert33]

what is this "banking the scholarship" thing? don't people realize that since he was a senior, "banking" his scholarship does not add any more scholarships for next year...

EXACTLY!!!

[bma725]

what is this "banking the scholarship" thing? don't people realize that since he was a senior, "banking" his scholarship does not add any more scholarships for next year...

You're allowed to use 13 scholarships every year.  Acker won't be on one, so MU only has 12 scholarship players for the 2009-10 season.  Any unused scholarship is considered banked for that year, what happens next year is irrelevant.

[JimmyBIToldYa]

You're allowed to use 13 scholarships every year.  Acker won't be on one, so MU only has 12 scholarship players for the 2009-10 season.  Any unused scholarship is considered banked for that year, what happens next year is irrelevant.

negative. the idea of banking a scholarship is referring to purposely not using one in the current year in order to have an extra the following year. but, i suppose that if buzz did use this scholarship on anyone except a one and done, then we would have one less next year. so, in a sense i suppose this could be considered banking it

[Nukem2]

You're allowed to use 13 scholarships every year.  Acker won't be on one, so MU only has 12 scholarship players for the 2009-10 season.  Any unused scholarship is considered banked for that year, what happens next year is irrelevant.

True; but, if the scholie were given to a 4 year guy or transfer this season there would be no more openings for the 2010 class absent any player movement out in the next year.  So it would not really be "banking" as you say, but it would keep the scholie open for 2010.  I would prefer that the scholie not be used unless a quality transfer were to be available or if it were used for one season for a walk-on.  Otherwise, there is not much out there other than guys with "issues".  Also, if Maurice is indeed in school this fall, is his scholie really available.  MU went through a lot of NCAA stuff to get McMorrow on medical hardship.  Acker still has eligiblity and I'm sure he won't be paying his own tuition.

[bma725]

negative. the idea of banking a scholarship is referring to purposely not using one in the current year in order to have an extra the following year. but, i suppose that if buzz did use this scholarship on anyone except a one and done, then we would have one less next year. so, in a sense i suppose this could be considered banking it

That may be how fans view it, but the NCAA considers it banked if it goes unused for a year, regardless of what you do with it in the future.  Others have manipulated the original view to attach the idea of not using it one year to have an extra scholarship available the following year but that's not the basic definition. 

[Marquette84]

negative. the idea of banking a scholarship is referring to purposely not using one in the current year in order to have an extra the following year. but, i suppose that if buzz did use this scholarship on anyone except a one and done, then we would have one less next year. so, in a sense i suppose this could be considered banking it

You never get an extra scholarship because you "banked" one the previous year.  If so, then Buzz could have gone with 14 rostered players for 09-10, because Mbakwe's scholarship was banked last year, and there would have been no need for Pat Hazel to transfer. 

The fact of the matter is that scholarships are for one season only, and teams have a limit of 13.  There is no such thing as a "scholarship bank" that you can use in subsequent seasons.

If you want to be technically accurate, Buzz does not have just 3 scholarships to hand out for 2010-11, he  has 13. 

People make the blind assumption that the 10 players who will be on the 2009-10 roster who will still have eligibility remaining have to receive one, along with Clark, Bowen and someone yet to be identified. 

However, there is no NCAA requirement that scholarships must be renewed--and we've seen with Pat Hazel that Buzz Williams is not one of those coaches who is going to keep a guy around just because he was on last year's roster and could come back.

So that leaves the issue of what to do with an open scholarship THIS year. 

Until somebody can tell me the value of an empty chair on the bench, I say fill the spot with the best PG still available.  If that player has some surprise upside, you can renew his scholarship next year.  If he's a dud, you don't renew it.   

And please don't go down the road of what a raw deal this is for the athlete--with that 12th spot, MU would be offering essentially a one-year tryout to a kid who thinks he's Big East material.  His other option is to head off to a MAC or Horizon type school.

[Nukem2]

   84, your essay on the 13 scholarships is very technically correct.  But, the world really does not think in that fashion (other than perhaps big name coaches moving to high profile job ala Calipari).  Yes, in some cases it works that way; but, most coaches try to be reasonably circumspect.

   As far as the "open" scholie (if indeed it is open if MA is in school yet with remaining unused eligibility), using it on just any player at ththis point does not strike me as Buzz's style.  Its one thing to have an opening due to transfer or player issue, its quite another to cavalierly dispose of a player after a one year "tryout" as you suggest.

  Again, you are tecnically correct.  But...........?????

[willie warrior]

What is the deal with this incessant concern about Acker not being available, so we need another PG? I think we have enough incoming talent at the Point: Cadougan; Odom-Johnson and Bucyk can play the point also. And please don't say none of them are tested so we should get another Point. That guy would be untested also.

We should use the scholarship on a stud, if there is one left--whether it is a point guard or some other position. i still think we may be hurting for a Center, although there is likely not a stud left at that position for next year.

We should use that scholarship to get the best talent available, and if there there is nothing left, then look at not using it for next year.

[Markusquette]

What is the deal with this incessant concern about Acker not being available, so we need another PG? I think we have enough incoming talent at the Point: Cadougan; Odom-Johnson and Bucyk can play the point also. And please don't say none of them are tested so we should get another Point. That guy would be untested also.

We should use the scholarship on a stud, if there is one left--whether it is a point guard or some other position. i still think we may be hurting for a Center, although there is likely not a stud left at that position for next year.

We should use that scholarship to get the best talent available, and if there there is nothing left, then look at not using it for next year.

The problem is Johnson-Odom and Buycks are naturally 2 guards, along with Cubillan, so we only have one true point in Cadougan.  I'm not saying one of the other guys can't run the point, but we could definitely use someone to run the team off the bench so let's hope one of them can do it.

[Marquette84]

   84, your essay on the 13 scholarships is very technically correct.  But, the world really does not think in that fashion (other than perhaps big name coaches moving to high profile job ala Calipari).  Yes, in some cases it works that way; but, most coaches try to be reasonably circumspect.

   As far as the "open" scholie (if indeed it is open if MA is in school yet with remaining unused eligibility), using it on just any player at ththis point does not strike me as Buzz's style.  Its one thing to have an opening due to transfer or player issue, its quite another to cavalierly dispose of a player after a one year "tryout" as you suggest.

  Again, you are tecnically correct.  But...........?????

Actually, the real world of top-10 programs DO think in this fashion.  If you want MU to be a regular top 10 program, you have to get over your squeamishness over taking a chance on players that ultimately have to transfer out.

For example, Bill Self needed to free up two scholarships this year:
http://www.kansascity.com/sports/story/1134722.html

Or, how about this:  four seldom-used players have transferred from Villanova over the last several years:  Casiem Drummond,  Malcolm Grant, Bilal Benn, and Andrew Ott?
Villanova: http://letsgonova.blogspot.com/2008/12/drummond-to-transfer.html

Here's a few more from programs that don't strike me as having much in common with Calipari:
Duke:  http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=4283176
UNC: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/story/1075081.html
UConn: http://www.courant.com/sports/uconn-men/hc-ucmen0608.artjun08,0,5980.story
Texas: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bk/bkc/men/6496167.html

If you don't care about becoming a top 10 team, then making four year commitments and sticking with them is a fine strategy. 

But the perennial top 10 teams show a much more significant number of transfers--and that's consistent across the board--not just at Calipari-run programs.

Which brings us back to this year's situation on MU:  We have one true PG.  Many have hopes that a pair of talented 2Gs can fill the bill, but the track record we've seen at MU suggests that relying on a 2G as your PG is extremely risky.  That risk could be reduced by bringing in a true PG, with the knowledge that
he can always transfer if he's not effective.

Finally, I think your comment about "cavalierly disposing" a player is completely misguided--I think it's clear that this is a two-way street.  A player who would not otherwise get a shot at a Big East roster is being given a one-year tryout.  I think there are plenty of players in the MAC, Horizon, Summit, etc, that would give their eye teeth for just such an opportunity.   

[JimmyBIToldYa]

You never get an extra scholarship because you "banked" one the previous year.  If so, then Buzz could have gone with 14 rostered players for 09-10, because Mbakwe's scholarship was banked last year, and there would have been no need for Pat Hazel to transfer. 

The fact of the matter is that scholarships are for one season only, and teams have a limit of 13.  There is no such thing as a "scholarship bank" that you can use in subsequent seasons.

If you want to be technically accurate, Buzz does not have just 3 scholarships to hand out for 2010-11, he  has 13. 

People make the blind assumption that the 10 players who will be on the 2009-10 roster who will still have eligibility remaining have to receive one, along with Clark, Bowen and someone yet to be identified. 

However, there is no NCAA requirement that scholarships must be renewed--and we've seen with Pat Hazel that Buzz Williams is not one of those coaches who is going to keep a guy around just because he was on last year's roster and could come back.

So that leaves the issue of what to do with an open scholarship THIS year. 

Until somebody can tell me the value of an empty chair on the bench, I say fill the spot with the best PG still available.  If that player has some surprise upside, you can renew his scholarship next year.  If he's a dud, you don't renew it.   

And please don't go down the road of what a raw deal this is for the athlete--with that 12th spot, MU would be offering essentially a one-year tryout to a kid who thinks he's Big East material.  His other option is to head off to a MAC or Horizon type school.

yes, you can get an extra by banking one. lets say that it was joe fulce leaving instead of acker... if he "banked" it we would have 4 to give instead of just 3

[Marquette84]

yes, you can get an extra by banking one. lets say that it was joe fulce leaving instead of acker... if he "banked" it we would have 4 to give instead of just 3

It's not an extra. We have 13 total next year.  Period.

If Buzz want's to give 4 scholarships for next year, even though you think we only have "3 to give", then he will.  Hell, he gave out an "extra" THIS year, and had to force Pat Hazel to transfer to fit under the limit of 13.

Think about it this way--if Kyrie Irving, Doron Lamb, and Joe Jackson all call up Buzz tomorrow and say they all want to come to Marquette along with Clark and Bowen. then Buzz is signing five this year, even if it looks like he only has "3 to give".

As I said, he did it this year--had 14 in hand and was actively recruiting for more.

Stop looking at it like this year's roster has guaranteed spots for 2010-11. 

[Silky]

Big difference to what Buzz was doing with Hazel than what Tom Crean did.  Tom Crean clearly cut kids from the team that he didn't think were good  enough.  Almost every year Crean would cut someone for usually no cause.  Damien Saunders ring a bell?  Hazel was going to transfer regardless of what you want to make up. 

It's not an extra. We have 13 total next year.  Period.

If Buzz want's to give 4 scholarships for next year, even though you think we only have "3 to give", then he will.  Hell, he gave out an "extra" THIS year, and had to force Pat Hazel to transfer to fit under the limit of 13.

Think about it this way--if Kyrie Irving, Doron Lamb, and Joe Jackson all call up Buzz tomorrow and say they all want to come to Marquette along with Clark and Bowen. then Buzz is signing five this year, even if it looks like he only has "3 to give".

As I said, he did it this year--had 14 in hand and was actively recruiting for more.

Stop looking at it like this year's roster has guaranteed spots for 2010-11. 

[Marquette84]

Big difference to what Buzz was doing with Hazel than what Tom Crean did.  Tom Crean clearly cut kids from the team that he didn't think were good  enough.  Almost every year Crean would cut someone for usually no cause.  Damien Saunders ring a bell?  Hazel was going to transfer regardless of what you want to make up.  

Really?  Big Difference?  Please explain.  Hazel wasn't playing, he wasn't going to play, and Buzz signed players that would have put MU at 14 players with only 13 scholarships to give, including several that would have likely jumped ahead of Hazel on the depth chart.  I seriously doubt that if Hazel had or Lazar Hayward-like production (or talent), he would be transferring.

No matter what you want to make up, Hazel is leaving for one reason, and one reason alone:  Buzz wanted someone else on the team.  

As for your claim that Saunders was cut for "no cause", please, use your brain.  Do you honestly feel that Crean wouldn't have rather had Saunders over Hazel or Blackledge?  There most certainly was a cause--the fact that there were two obvious choices that were retained ahead of Saunders is proof.

Furthermore, this wasn't even an MU argument--I brought up Villanova, Duke, UConn, Kansas, UNC, Texas all cutting players they don't think are good enough.  I could easily add UCLA, Louisville, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona.  The list goes on and on.

Crean wasn't coaching those teams.  This is not a Tom Crean issue.

Now, let me offer you the way you can counter my argument:  I've cited a bunch of perennial top ranked teams who all typically have at least one transfer per year.  

If you want to prove me wrong, you need to show that the teams I cited are outliers--that they don't reflect reality.  That there is a much larger pool of perennial top-10 or top 25 teams that DON"T have transfers nearly every year.  

So far you have cited exactly NONE.

My contention is that if Marquette wants to successfully compete with the likes of Duke, UNC, VIllanova, UConn, Louisville, UNC, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Georgetown, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, etc., then we are going to have to get used to seeing little-used players transfer out every year--just like those teams have.

Carrying a player who doesn't cut it is a luxury afforded to the mid-majors.
.  

[Marquette84]

Really?  Big Difference?  Please explain.  Hazel wasn't playing, he wasn't going to play, and Buzz signed players that would have put MU at 14 players with only 13 scholarships to give, including several that would have likely jumped ahead of Hazel on the depth chart.  I seriously doubt that if Hazel had or Lazar Hayward-like production (or talent), he would be transferring.

No matter what you want to make up, Hazel is leaving for one reason, and one reason alone:  Buzz wanted someone else on the team.  

As for your claim that Saunders was cut for "no cause", please, use your brain.  Do you honestly feel that Crean wouldn't have rather had Saunders over Hazel or Blackledge?  There most certainly was a cause--the fact that there were two obvious choices to cut before Saunders is proof.

Furthermore, this wasn't even an MU or Crean argument--I brought up Villanova, Duke, UConn, Kansas, UNC, Texas all cutting players they don't think are good enough.  I could easily add UCLA, Louisville, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona.  The list goes on and on.

Crean wasn't coaching those teams.  This is not a Tom Crean issue.

Now, let me offer you the way you can counter my argument:  I've cited a bunch of perennial top ranked teams who all typically have at least one transfer per year.  

If you want to prove me wrong, you need to show that the teams I cited are outliers--that they don't reflect reality.  That there is a much larger pool of perennial top-10 or top 25 teams that DON"T have transfers nearly every year.  

So far you have cited exactly NONE.

My contention is that if Marquette wants to successfully compete with the likes of Duke, UNC, VIllanova, UConn, Louisville, UNC, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Georgetown, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, etc., then we are going to have to get used to seeing little-used players transfer out every year--just like those teams have.

Carrying a player who doesn't cut it is a luxury afforded to the mid-majors.
.  

[Silky]

What a joke.  You know how Tom Crean forced kids out every year.  There is no need to bring up Hazel's issues on here, but the fact is he decided to transfer on his own for more playing time.  The facts of Tom Crean's transfers are virtually all consistent.  Crean pushed them out almost every time.

As for Saunders, he was caught with dope.  That was Crean's out of a mess he created.   How you can defend him there is laughable.

Buzz Williams and Tom Crean are light years apart on how they deal with players.   Ask any of the players, not just Tom Crean, like you do.

Really?  Big Difference?  Please explain.  Hazel wasn't playing, he wasn't going to play, and Buzz signed players that would have put MU at 14 players with only 13 scholarships to give, including several that would have likely jumped ahead of Hazel on the depth chart.  I seriously doubt that if Hazel had or Lazar Hayward-like production (or talent), he would be transferring.

No matter what you want to make up, Hazel is leaving for one reason, and one reason alone:  Buzz wanted someone else on the team.  

As for your claim that Saunders was cut for "no cause", please, use your brain.  Do you honestly feel that Crean wouldn't have rather had Saunders over Hazel or Blackledge?  There most certainly was a cause--the fact that there were two obvious choices that were retained ahead of Saunders is proof.

Furthermore, this wasn't even an MU argument--I brought up Villanova, Duke, UConn, Kansas, UNC, Texas all cutting players they don't think are good enough.  I could easily add UCLA, Louisville, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona.  The list goes on and on.

Crean wasn't coaching those teams.  This is not a Tom Crean issue.

Now, let me offer you the way you can counter my argument:  I've cited a bunch of perennial top ranked teams who all typically have at least one transfer per year.  

If you want to prove me wrong, you need to show that the teams I cited are outliers--that they don't reflect reality.  That there is a much larger pool of perennial top-10 or top 25 teams that DON"T have transfers nearly every year.  

So far you have cited exactly NONE.

My contention is that if Marquette wants to successfully compete with the likes of Duke, UNC, VIllanova, UConn, Louisville, UNC, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, Georgetown, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Arizona, etc., then we are going to have to get used to seeing little-used players transfer out every year--just like those teams have.

Carrying a player who doesn't cut it is a luxury afforded to the mid-majors.
.  

[Marquette84]

What a joke.  You know how Tom Crean forced kids out every year.  There is no need to bring up Hazel's issues on here, but the fact is he decided to transfer on his own for more playing time.  The facts of Tom Crean's transfers are virtually all consistent.  Crean pushed them out almost every time.

First, I know you're obsessed with Crean, but could you leave him out of it?

Buzz recruited 14 players for 13 slots, and he did so before anyone announced they were going to transfer.  If you want to pretend that Hazel didn't get some encouragement to leave, that's your business. 

Second, Coaches at every other perennial ranked program have someone transfer almost every year. Self pushed two out of Kansas this year alone. Villanova has had four leave over the past two or three years.  Duke averages between one and two transfers per year. So does UNC, Texas, etc. 

As I said, this is normal behavior for top ranked programs.

Third, if you want to challenge me on it, don't repeat the same blather about Crean.  Come up with some top ranked programs that don't have transfers.

[bma725]

Really?  Big Difference?  Please explain.  Hazel wasn't playing, he wasn't going to play, and Buzz signed players that would have put MU at 14 players with only 13 scholarships to give, including several that would have likely jumped ahead of Hazel on the depth chart.  I seriously doubt that if Hazel had or Lazar Hayward-like production (or talent), he would be transferring.

No matter what you want to make up, Hazel is leaving for one reason, and one reason alone:  Buzz wanted someone else on the team. 

There's nothing to make up, and unfortunately your reason is incorrect.  The posts have been deleted, but Hazel's fate was sealed when he made some off court decisions that led to his dismissal.  It wasn't a transfer decision on his part, it wasn't Buzz forcing him out, it was the athletic department deciding that Hazel committed an act that was not appropriate for a Marquette student athlete.  If he hadn't done that, he'd still be here.

[cheebs09]

First, I know you're obsessed with Crean, but could you leave him out of it?

Buzz recruited 14 players for 13 slots, and he did so before anyone announced they were going to transfer.  If you want to pretend that Hazel didn't get some encouragement to leave, that's your business. 

Well if it is true that it was an off the court issue (which it seems to be well documented) then it isn't like Buzz forced him out, he did it himself. It looks like it happened in the middle of the season based on Hazel's sudden drop in playing time, which means that Buzz recruiting before we found out Hazel was going to transfer isn't the same as him being forced out because Buzz was trying to find someone better and Hazel was the unlucky guy to get the boot.

[Silky]

I am not obsessed with Crean, you are.  For some reason, I thought you actually had some insight as to why Pat Hazel is no longer.  Your reasoning is absolutely incorrect.  That is my whole point.  Many know why Pat Hazel is no longer here and it has nothing to do with Buzz over recruiting (like Tom Crean did, that is my whole point).  I cannot believe you do not know.  Once Buzz knew Hazel was leaving, he signed another player.

Wisconsin have transfers lately? Don't think so.

First, I know you're obsessed with Crean, but could you leave him out of it?

Buzz recruited 14 players for 13 slots, and he did so before anyone announced they were going to transfer.  If you want to pretend that Hazel didn't get some encouragement to leave, that's your business.  

Second, Coaches at every other perennial ranked program have someone transfer almost every year. Self pushed two out of Kansas this year alone. Villanova has had four leave over the past two or three years.  Duke averages between one and two transfers per year. So does UNC, Texas, etc.  

As I said, this is normal behavior for top ranked programs.

Third, if you want to challenge me on it, don't repeat the same blather about Crean.  Come up with some top ranked programs that don't have transfers.

[bilsu]

If Buzz can find a respectable player, than I am  okay with using the scholarship. I do not think we have a problem with Cadougan being eligible. However, Mbao could be a problem. Buzz will not know for another two months whether Fulce's career is done. If Fulce does not heal and Mbao does not attain eligiblity we are down to 10 scholarship players. For this season to have any hope of success we need all three new guards to be ready to play. If any one of them are a bust we are in for a long season.

[Marquette84]

I am not obsessed with Crean, you are.

Really?   

I make a pair of posts that say NOTHING about Tom Crean, and here's how you respond:

"Big difference to what Buzz was doing with Hazel than what Tom Crean did.  Tom Crean clearly cut kids from the team that he didn't think were good  enough.  Almost every year Crean would cut someone for usually no cause.  Damien Saunders ring a bell?  Hazel was going to transfer regardless of what you want to make up."


So I replied and requested that you to comment on the fact that Villanova, Kansas, UNC, etc. all have transfers ever years.  I even said "Crean wasn't coaching those teams.  This is not a Tom Crean issue."  I guess I shouldn't have mentioned his name again, because you responded with:

What a joke.  You know how Tom Crean forced kids out every year.  There is no need to bring up Hazel's issues on here, but the fact is he decided to transfer on his own for more playing time.  The facts of Tom Crean's transfers are virtually all consistent.  Crean pushed them out almost every time.

As for Saunders, he was caught with dope.  That was Crean's out of a mess he created.   How you can defend him there is laughable.

Buzz Williams and Tom Crean are light years apart on how they deal with players.   Ask any of the players, not just Tom Crean, like you do.


You are clearly obsessed with Crean.

I'm talking about the need to accept the reality that if we want to be competitive with Duke, Villanova, UNC, Kansas, Louiville, UConn, etc, we have to accept transfers, just like they do

You keep responding with Tom Crean this and Tom Crean that.

I understand you don't like the man, but please, YOU are obsessed with him.  Please stop brining him up as the boogieman everytime you post. 

Wisconsin have transfers lately? Don't think so.

Mickey Perry.