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.

[Silky]

Everyone knows you have OCD, so I am not going to keep going at this with you.  I am not even going to read your silly response.  Tom Crean was brought up because everyone knows your close association with him.  You ripped Buzz for supposedly running off players, when in fact that wasn't the case at all.  I'm pretty surprised really you don't know what went down.  Tom Crean had to come up because if you are going to take a shot at Buzz, your sick obsession with Crean needed to be brought into this.  If you think Buzz did something wrong, how can you defend the horrible actions of annually running a kid like Tom Crean did?  Just by saying other schools did it, so that makes it right?  Does Izzo do it?  Stanford?  UCLA?  Kansas?  Wisconsin?  Do they really do it like Tom Crean does? 
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Tom Crean had like 12 transfers.

Mickey Perry.  That is all you can come up with for UW?  3 years ago?  You really are grasping.

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. 




Mickey Perry.

[Tugg Speedman]

Does anyone have a list of 09 players still available that were BE types that Buzz would consider?

[JimmyBIToldYa]

Does anyone have a list of 09 players still available that were BE types that Buzz would consider?

we can all guess all we want, but only buzz has that list

[Marquette84]

You really are obsessed, man!

I asked you NOT to comment about Crean, and you just can't do it! 

Everyone knows you have OCD, so I am not going to keep going at this with you.  I am not even going to read your silly response.  Tom Crean was brought up because everyone knows your close association with him.  You ripped Buzz for supposedly running off players, when in fact that wasn't the case at all.  I'm pretty surprised really you don't know what went down.  Tom Crean had to come up because if you are going to take a shot at Buzz, your sick obsession with Crean needed to be brought into this.  If you think Buzz did something wrong, how can you defend the horrible actions of annually running a kid like Tom Crean did?  Just by saying other schools did it, so that makes it right?  Does Izzo do it?  Stanford?  UCLA?  Kansas?  Wisconsin?  Do they really do it like Tom Crean does? 
You have no idea what you are talking about.

Tom Crean[/b] had like 12 transfers.

First--YOU brought Tom Crean into this thread, not me.  This started when somebody incorrectly said that a banked scholarship gives you an extra the following year, and I posted the correction.  You don't get an extra scholarship.  Period.  End of story.

Second, I'm truly sorry that I let you get me into your rope-a-dope on Hazel. I don't buy for an instant that Buzz Williams really wanted Hazel back next year--not with Darius Johnson Odom available and wanting to attend Marquette.  I'll just say that if Lazar Hayward had done the same thing, my belief is that MU would have found forgiveness in their hearts and accepted an apology--just as they did with O Lee, Copa, McCall, and other situations over the years.   

If you believe Buzz was ready to leave DJO and Mbao on the table for someone else to take, because he really preferred to have Pat Hazel, then we'll just have to disagree. 

Second, I'm not "ripping" Buzz Willams for running Pat Hazel off the team, I'm ripping those like you who  treat a transfer as an egregious sin that only Tom Crean committed.

As I've tried to point out to you, it is normal and acceptable for high-major teams to see a player or two leave--sometimes every year. If we want to compete with these teams, then we're going to have to accept that we'll see players transfer.

Duke has transfers--at least one a year

Villanova has transfers--four over the last three years.

Kansas has transfers--two this year alone.

UConn has transfers. UNC has transfers, Kentucky has transfers. 

So I see nothing wrong with Buzz wanting to upgrade the roster--even it means encouraging players like Pat Hazel and Scott Christopherson to transfer.  Those players wouldn't have been significant contributors and it's better for them to get to a program better suited to their skills.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Ahh, but as we all know there are those that get punished and those that get PUNISHED.  Let's put it this way, one of many examples...a certain clutch guard wasn't kicked off MU's squad in the 1990's despite doing things that other players WERE kicked off for.  That's the reality of life.  You play well, 2nd chances seem to come up more often than not vs someone that doesn't play as well or isn't a key component of the team.

Just as new coaches have a much shorter leash with players they didn't recruit, also part of life in college (or the pros).  That's reality and it goes on everywhere.  

[Hards Alumni]

WHAT




THE




HELL





IS





WRONG





WITH






THIS





ENTIRE






BOARD'S





OBSESSION





WITH




TOM





CREAN?





ENOUGH





ALREADY!

[GOMU1104]

WHAT




THE




HELL





IS





WRONG





WITH






THIS





ENTIRE






BOARD'S





OBSESSION





WITH




TOM





CREAN?





ENOUGH





ALREADY!

Couldn't agree more.

Can't all TC discussion be kept on the Superbar?

Or better yet...a Members Only section where PRN, 4ever, Silky, Chicos, MU84, etc can either A) Circle Jerk to a picture of TC in a tanning bed, or B) figure out a way to blame TC for the economy, swine flu, the Cubs sucking, whatever.

Seriously, you idiots make this board unreadable. Just go somewhere an discuss it yourselves. Every thread turns into this garbage. Whats the point?

[Silky]

I'm trying to protect the program from jokers like Mr. OCD 84 who is trying to bring down Buzz Williams when he doesn't have the facts.  Sorry for getting involved, but when people like that start tossing around lies, someone needs to say something.

[mu_hilltopper]

I'm siding the other way.  Talk about what you want to talk about. 

You "idiots" who don't like reading about topic X can just skip to the next message/thread.

Tom Crean left MU 15 months ago.  We'll be talking about him for quite some time into the future.   Get used to it.

[bma725]

I'm siding the other way.  Talk about what you want to talk about. 

You "idiots" who don't like reading about topic X can just skip to the next message/thread.

Tom Crean left MU 15 months ago.  We'll be talking about him for quite some time into the future.   Get used to it.

Problem is that it's getting to the point where you can't avoid it.  Any thread with information worth reading eventually turns into a Crean thread.  There are certain posters that can't go more than a couple posts without mentioning him and turning every single thread into the same tired debate.  It's taking a lot of the fun out of this place.

[4everwarriors]

I don't know about that. Loads of fun tarnishing that jackass and exposing him as the phony some of us realized he was many years ago.

[GGGG]

I'm trying to protect the program from jokers like Mr. OCD 84 who is trying to bring down Buzz Williams when he doesn't have the facts. 

Thank God.  The entire program would be in serious jeopardy if it weren't for your defense of Buzz.  Lord knows that this message board has the ability to shake the Marquette basketball program to its very foundations!

Keep up the good fight my man!!!

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Every post by Marquette84 is about the exact same thing...whether our former coach's name is mentioned or not. Talk about Buzz and his "treatment" of Hazel? We know it's a comparison. Are you really denying this?

Rarely, if ever, have you seen me, 4ever or Hayward start a thread on this topic. It's almost always in response to desperate, longing love letters posted by SJS or some other jilted teenaged girl.

"He said he LOVED me!"  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Problem is that it's getting to the point where you can't avoid it.  Any thread with information worth reading eventually turns into a Crean thread.  There are certain posters that can't go more than a couple posts without mentioning him and turning every single thread into the same tired debate.  It's taking a lot of the fun out of this place.

I agree with you... and I have to admit that my responses to some posts only exacerbate the issue.

I think that the consolidation of the Brewers vs Cubs thread has been great, and maybe something like that could be used to TC.

He seems to be the most polarizing topic on the board.

If you have an opinion of the guy... take it to the TC thread.

[GGGG]

I don't know about that. Loads of fun tarnishing that jackass and exposing him as the phony some of us realized he was many years ago.

Not really.  Same arguments by the same people for 15 months straight.  No fun in that.

I'm with bma....it has gotten tiresome and hard to avoid.

[Kramerica]

Problem is that it's getting to the point where you can't avoid it.  Any thread with information worth reading eventually turns into a Crean thread.  There are certain posters that can't go more than a couple posts without mentioning him and turning every single thread into the same tired debate.  It's taking a lot of the fun out of this place.

+100000000000000000000000

I started reading this thread to see if anyone had information about any new recruits (the guy who decommitted from USC, maybe) and it just turns into this big circle jerk over Crean. Its really annoying. 

[Hards Alumni]

Problem is that it's getting to the point where you can't avoid it.  Any thread with information worth reading eventually turns into a Crean thread.  There are certain posters that can't go more than a couple posts without mentioning him and turning every single thread into the same tired debate.  It's taking a lot of the fun out of this place.

I full heartedly agree... and this was the point I was trying to make... less eloquently of course.

I don't mind when the thread is titled or implies that it has TC info... I avoid it.

on the other hand, threads get completely hijacked every day or two and go from a meaningful discussion to a friggin pissing match between some of the regulars on the board.

I am all for an open board or moderating with a gentle stroke, but I'm here to read about what everyone has to say, and not watch every discussion disintigrate because of a select few.

[mu_hilltopper]

Blah, blah, blah.   Honestly, I find the complaining about talking about Crean just as bad.

We're not going to create a rule about NOT talking about Crean.  And it's probably not going to stop, especially when the beast is fed.  

So before you start writing about "Can we please stop talking about Crean?" .. please, just don't.  Ignore the offending message, and just move along.    I've heard this internet thing is pretty big, lots of stuff to read, games to play, sites to visit, porn to download. 

[GGGG]

Blah, blah, blah.   Honestly, I find the complaining about talking about Crean just as bad.

We're not going to create a rule about NOT talking about Crean.  And it's probably not going to stop, especially when the beast is fed.  

So before you start writing about "Can we please stop talking about Crean?" .. please, just don't.  Ignore the offending message, and just move along.    I've heard this internet thing is pretty big, lots of stuff to read, games to play, sites to visit, porn to download. 

mu_hilltopper...the Ayatollah Khamenei of MUScoop.   

[mu_hilltopper]

How's that?  An Ayatollah would very much be against free speech.   I am for it, with people deciding for themselves whether to read it or not.

[NYWarrior]

Infidels unite!





And now, back to your regularly scheduled Tom Crean programming....................

did you see DWade wearing IU shorts in that commercial!

oh the humanity!

must. start. new. thread.

[GGGG]

How's that?  An Ayatollah would very much be against free speech.   I am for it, with people deciding for themselves whether to read it or not.

Yer puttin' down the grassroots reform movement with one proclamation!!

(And it was a joke anyway.)

[Hards Alumni]

fair enough, your site, you moderate it as you please.

I guess I will just have to ignore 1/2 to 1/3 of all threads!

[pillardean]

I understand what MU84 was saying about the "1 year tryout" thing.  

I just think it's tough on the kid coming into MU.  If you are saying "tryout" then you are probably not giving the same chances to that kid as you would the other players that are an "investment."

The way I look at it, transfers occur when the investment no longer is worthwhile for BOTH the school and the player.  We saw that with Hazel and Christopherson.  They moved somewhere where their skills would be much more appreciated and respected and allowed to develop to a greater degree.  Nothing wrong with that, whether you want to say there was anything malicious in it (Hazel still be here if he had Hayward type numbers) or not would be the exact crux of if he should still be here or not, for Hayward would still be holding up his end of the investment-production-while Hazel wasn't!

I just think defining a PLAYER as having a "tryout" year would wrong to do as a University.  But if MU would say that each player each year is trying to defend his scholarship at MU and must work and produce accordingly or MU and Buzz won't renew the scholarship is not wrong.  For yes, we offered the kid a scholarship to play at MU, but if the kid doesn't deliver in the matter in which Buzz and MU defines, then they should not be held to renewing that scholarship.  Doing that does not make MU or Buzz look like monsters.  It's the way of ther world, you must produce and if you don't you won't be sticking around in your job or at your school.  It's that way for student-athletes.  They must produce at two aspects, the student and the athlete.  A student needs to produce in his/her studies or MU can deny re-enterence the following year.  There are standards people must live up to at MU and any University, if they are not living up to them then MU does not need to live up to their initial agreement.

If we want to go down that road and pick up another player this year, then all the newcomers and old regime would fall into the if you don't pan out we will not be reinstituting your scholarship for the following year.  All would need to be under the short leash, not just that final recruit.

We could speculate on whether we pick up one last recruit and what the outcome would be, but watching this year Buzz does has a bit of a plan he is working for.  And if someone from this year doesn't fit into that plan, I do not think we should pick up another player.  Save it and keep it open for 2010-2011 and forward.  But if there is someone out there that Buzz want's for his plan.  I definetely see him picking up that player for this year and forward.

[deep vacuum]

Would Frozena get any playing time until the newbies get acclimated?  He is listed on this years roster, and he has had two years of practice time in playing against the 4 graduated seniors plus Cubillan and Hayward so he knows what is required to succeed in Buzz's system and the Big East.  Just curious.

[dsfire]

Very, very unlikely.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm trying to protect the program from jokers like Mr. OCD 84 who is trying to bring down Buzz Williams when he doesn't have the facts.  Sorry for getting involved, but when people like that start tossing around lies, someone needs to say something.

He's trying to bring down Buzz Williams?  Please.  Let's get real here.

[bma725]

Blah, blah, blah.   Honestly, I find the complaining about talking about Crean just as bad.

We're not going to create a rule about NOT talking about Crean.  And it's probably not going to stop, especially when the beast is fed. 

So before you start writing about "Can we please stop talking about Crean?" .. please, just don't.  Ignore the offending message, and just move along.    I've heard this internet thing is pretty big, lots of stuff to read, games to play, sites to visit, porn to download.

Alright then, sounds like a plan.  Y'all have fun debating the same issue for the 15000th time.

[Marquette84]

Blah, blah, blah.   Honestly, I find the complaining about talking about Crean just as bad.

We're not going to create a rule about NOT talking about Crean.  And it's probably not going to stop, especially when the beast is fed.  

Unfortunately, we have a small number of people who feel that everything has to be defined around our prior coach.  Even when it's not, they find some way to pull him in.  For some reason, these guys just cannot move on.  

In this thread, I make a post that makes the simple observation that big time programs like Kansas, UNC, Villanova, Texas, Duke will fill every scholarship slot, and it means having players transfer nearly every year.  If we want to join them, then as fans we have to get over our squeamishness when a player like Hazel transfers.

No matter how many times I tried to explain that this had nothing to do with our prior coach, this joker Silky, with all of 25 posts to his credit, manages to reinterpret this into some defense of Crean or attack on Buzz.  

Here's what was completely lost on Silky:  When I compared Buzz Williams to Bill Self, Roy Williams, Coach K, Jay Wright, Calhoun, and Rick Barnes, I am not trying to "destroy Buzz" as he puts it.   I am trying to suggest what we as fans must accept as the norm if we want to compete.

I have to offer complements to Pillardean, who managed to make an intelligent response after interpreting the post in spirit in which I made it.  

Let me suggest to PRN, Sikly, 4everwarriors, Mr. Hawyard, and all the others who are still obsessed with our former coach--if you want to move on, then look closely at the following response that shows how someone read the same post you did, but did not reflexively interpret it about Crean:

I understand what MU84 was saying about the "1 year tryout" thing.  

I just think it's tough on the kid coming into MU.  If you are saying "tryout" then you are probably not giving the same chances to that kid as you would the other players that are an "investment."

The way I look at it, transfers occur when the investment no longer is worthwhile for BOTH the school and the player.  We saw that with Hazel and Christopherson.  They moved somewhere where their skills would be much more appreciated and respected and allowed to develop to a greater degree.  Nothing wrong with that, whether you want to say there was anything malicious in it (Hazel still be here if he had Hayward type numbers) or not would be the exact crux of if he should still be here or not, for Hayward would still be holding up his end of the investment-production-while Hazel wasn't!

I just think defining a PLAYER as having a "tryout" year would wrong to do as a University.  But if MU would say that each player each year is trying to defend his scholarship at MU and must work and produce accordingly or MU and Buzz won't renew the scholarship is not wrong.  For yes, we offered the kid a scholarship to play at MU, but if the kid doesn't deliver in the matter in which Buzz and MU defines, then they should not be held to renewing that scholarship.  Doing that does not make MU or Buzz look like monsters.  It's the way of ther world, you must produce and if you don't you won't be sticking around in your job or at your school.  It's that way for student-athletes.  They must produce at two aspects, the student and the athlete.  A student needs to produce in his/her studies or MU can deny re-enterence the following year.  There are standards people must live up to at MU and any University, if they are not living up to them then MU does not need to live up to their initial agreement.

If we want to go down that road and pick up another player this year, then all the newcomers and old regime would fall into the if you don't pan out we will not be reinstituting your scholarship for the following year.  All would need to be under the short leash, not just that final recruit.

We could speculate on whether we pick up one last recruit and what the outcome would be, but watching this year Buzz does has a bit of a plan he is working for.  And if someone from this year doesn't fit into that plan, I do not think we should pick up another player.  Save it and keep it open for 2010-2011 and forward.  But if there is someone out there that Buzz want's for his plan.  I definetely see him picking up that player for this year and forward.

[mu_hilltopper]

Unfortunately, we have a small number of people who feel that everything has to be defined around our prior coach.  Even when it's not, they find some way to pull him in.  For some reason, these guys just cannot move on. 

Yes, but you don't HAVE to respond, you know.   

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Marquette84 -- take a look at your post history and then tell us who has a crush on our former coach.

[Hards Alumni]

Yes, but you don't HAVE to respond, you know.   

you beat me to the punch, hill.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, but you don't HAVE to respond, you know.   

But if he does respond, it's not like he's the one initiating it, he's simply responding. 

Why is it somehow deemed more troubling for someone that is responding to the post then the same folks that keep initiating it time and time again?  Or is the viewpoint that as long as someone is responding, it keeps the silly accusations and ridiculous insults in play and with merit?  I don't know, I'm just asking.

[rocky_warrior]

Why is it somehow deemed more troubling for someone that is responding to the post then the same folks that keep initiating it time and time again? 

There's 3 types here - maybe more, but in general:
type #1: Those that disliked TC, or dislike him now, and like to post about it
type #2: Those that liked TC and want to defend him.
type #3: Those that have their opinion, but don't need to reiterate it a million times.

Type #2 starts just as many TC debates by posting in threads in which he hasn't yet been mentioned with sarcastic comments like:Why would player X do this?  I thought nobody liked our former coach

Seriously, I read nearly every thread here, and while type #1 get blamed for the thread drift, I think over half the thread drift is caused by type #2. 

So, just think before you post!  And consider where it has anything to do with the current thread.

For example.  This thread is about Acker, and whether we'll use his scholie this year.  Why am I having to talk about TC.  Silky mentioned it, but others jumped on Silky to essentially say "Why do you hate TC?".  From there it snowballed.  Imagine if everybody just accepted that Silky has his opinion, and went on talking about whether we need another PG for 2009-2010.   What a novel concept...

[Lennys Tap]

But if he does respond, it's not like he's the one initiating it, he's simply responding. 

Why is it somehow deemed more troubling for someone that is responding to the post then the same folks that keep initiating it time and time again?  Or is the viewpoint that as long as someone is responding, it keeps the silly accusations and ridiculous insults in play and with merit?  I don't know, I'm just asking.

So if you make a statement and I call your point of view repetitive, silly, ridiculous and without merit, I am merely responding, not "initiating" anything. Interesting point of view.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For example.  This thread is about Acker, and whether we'll use his scholie this year.  Why am I having to talk about TC.  Silky mentioned it, but others jumped on Silky to essentially say "Why do you hate TC?".  From there it snowballed.  Imagine if everybody just accepted that Silky has his opinion, and went on talking about whether we need another PG for 2009-2010.   What a novel concept...

Understood. 

Or an even more novel concept....imagine if the TC stuff wasn't brought up in the very first place and it never went down that path?  I'm guilty as charged for bringing it up in some threads before anyone else, but I try in most cases not to unless someone else goes down the path first.

But since TC stuff seems to drive about 80% of the conversation, people not talking about him might really put a crimp on the visitations.  Sex sells....erh I mean TC conversations do. 

[TJ]

Anyone want to talk about next year's 13th scholarship?  I can't see using it, because the drop off in talent from the player you would likely sign next year with that scholarship to the player you would sign right now with that scholarship would be tremendous. 

Even if you did institute a "one year tryout" (which I'm not necessarily against), you might lose out on talent for next year because any recruitment/signing would be going over the limit.  There's talent to be had in March, but you're limiting yourself greatly if you wait until the results of the tryout before replacing the player.  And it's not really a "tryout" if you sign over the guy before he even fails.

I say, unless there's a player available and willing for '09-'10 of the same talent level that we are trying to sign for next year's class, give the scholarship to Frozena.

[Silky]

I have no agenda, unlike 84.  I think Tom Crean did a very good job for us.  I disagreed on how he treated people and how he would get people out of the program.

However, MU 84 has to inject in every thread veiled shots at whomever to make Tom Crean look better.  Virtually every thread of the guy the past 5 years is in defense of Tom Crean.  Just look at his comments as it's the same old story. 

All he is trying to do here again is to make some fiction up that Buzz over recruited like Tom Crean.  Buzz did so because he knew he had to.  Crean did it and dealt with it later.  I agree with MU 84 many schools do it, but it doesn't make it right.

MU 84 has an agenda and I simply got sick of it and needed to call him out on it. 

[Marquette84]

I have no agenda, unlike 84.  I think Tom Crean did a very good job for us.  I disagreed on how he treated people and how he would get people out of the program.

However, MU 84 has to inject in every thread veiled shots at whomever to make Tom Crean look better.  Virtually every thread of the guy the past 5 years is in defense of Tom Crean.  Just look at his comments as it's the same old story. 

All he is trying to do here again is to make some fiction up that Buzz over recruited like Tom Crean.  Buzz did so because he knew he had to.  Crean did it and dealt with it later.  I agree with MU 84 many schools do it, but it doesn't make it right.

MU 84 has an agenda and I simply got sick of it and needed to call him out on it. 

In an attempt to get to some honest understanding here, I'm asking you to put aside whatever feelings you have toward me and answer one thing very clearly, without emotion or animosity.

Below is my first post in this thread.

Perhaps, Sikly, you could do me the favor of explaining where you see my agenda.  Let's put all the animosity behind us and at least try to come to some understanding.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how you manage to interpret this as pro-Crean or anti-Buzz. 

I don't understand where you get Crean out of this.  If you're going to accuse me of having an agenda, could you at least do me the favor of explaining to me, very clearly and very precisely, exactly what in this post could be construed as a "defense of Tom Crean" or "bringing down Buzz Williams"?

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.

[TJ]

I guess not.

(I know that my post wasn't earth-shattering, but I was hoping to get a change of subject back to the scholarship, even if just for a few posts.  I failed. )

Also, Silky, you've explained your point, again and again and again.  We are all very aware that you read between the lines of MU84's first post to see his secret hidden agenda and you want to call him out for what you think he might have meant to say.  You've done an admirable job at that.  But the ruse has been exposed, so you don't need to continue outing him anymore.

[Marquette84]

I guess not.

(I know that my post wasn't earth-shattering, but I was hoping to get a change of subject back to the scholarship, even if just for a few posts.  I failed. )

Well this sure doesn't help your cause:

Also, Silky, you've explained your point, again and again and again.  We are all very aware that you read between the lines of MU84's first post to see his secret hidden agenda and you want to call him out for what you think he might have meant to say.  You've done an admirable job at that.  But the ruse has been exposed, so you don't need to continue outing him anymore.

I'm beginning to think that if I suggested that it might be interesting with next year's lineup if the NCAA experimented with the international-style triangular lane, somebody would suggest that it demonstrates an anti-Buzz agenda.

Anyone want to talk about next year's 13th scholarship?  I can't see using it, because the drop off in talent from the player you would likely sign next year with that scholarship to the player you would sign right now with that scholarship would be tremendous. 

Even if you did institute a "one year tryout" (which I'm not necessarily against), you might lose out on talent for next year because any recruitment/signing would be going over the limit.  There's talent to be had in March, but you're limiting yourself greatly if you wait until the results of the tryout before replacing the player.  And it's not really a "tryout" if you sign over the guy before he even fails.

I say, unless there's a player available and willing for '09-'10 of the same talent level that we are trying to sign for next year's class, give the scholarship to Frozena.

To address your concern that signing someone now might hurt recruiting next year, a comprison might be in order.

Kansas signed Tyrone Appleton in April of last year.  This year they landed Xavier Henry saw Appleton transfer.  It's obvious that Appleton is not at Xavier's level, but KU took him anyway.  Why?

Because at the time he signed, their only real experienced returning guard was Sherron Collins.  Tyshawn Taylor hadn't signed yet.  Brady Morningstar was a redshirt the prior year, and only played in 16 games the year before that.  Tyrell Reed only played 21 games the year before.  Mario Little and Travis Releford were also newcomers.

Now, you could argue that with the other guards, KU probably could have chanced it and not taken Appleton. But what good would it have done to have an empty chair?  As history has shown, taking Appleton didn't stop them from recruiting and landing Henry.  And there was a chance that Appleton would have turned out to be something  special (he was the #3 ranked Juco). 

So this year, Buzz now has one experienced guard in Cubillan (two if you count Frozena).  The depth chart at guard is 4, and only one is a true PG.  What if, god forbid, something happens to Cadougan?  And what if Buycks and DJO are no more effective at the point than Logtermann or Mason?  2009-10 becomes a throwaway season.

And the other consideration is that Buzz is already recruiting a number of top 50 players for next year.  As I said in an earlier post, if Kyrie Irving, Joe Jackson and Doron Lamb all call Buzz and say they want to play for MU, Buzz isn't stupid--he takes all three and sorts out the scholarships at the end of the season.

[TJ]

Well this sure doesn't help your cause:

I know... I got frustrated and gave up too easily.  I felt bad about it after I did it, but my thinking was that this thread was lost to the world anyway.  I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I doubt anyone's coming here looking for talk about the last scholarship anymore.

[Marquette84]

I know... I got frustrated and gave up too easily.  I felt bad about it after I did it, but my thinking was that this thread was lost to the world anyway.  I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I doubt anyone's coming here looking for talk about the last scholarship anymore.

We'll see. . .

Regardless of whether one likes transfers or not, the biggest danger sign for the coming season that I see will be depth at guard--especially if we suffer an injury or one of the new recruits doesn't pan out.

Appleton was the #3 JUCO guard who played for the national JC champion the season before, and he was a bust at KU.  And we're counting on two JUCOs.

If we had depth to go along side them, it would be one thing. But beyond the JUCO transfers are  a highly rated newcomer, and a returning player who hasn't yet demonstrated that he's returned from surgery.

Everything might work out and we're just fine in the backcourt.  But if we find out in January that we need more depth, by then it will be too late to do anything. 

I'll readily admit whoever we land at this late date would be a longshot.  But I'll go back to the comparison to the empty chair--which doesn't have a shot at all of helping us.  Take someone now, as an insurance policy for us, chance of a lifetime for him, and let the scholarships sort themselves out next spring. 


 

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I think you're forgetting that it was O'Neill's team that got swept by Butler (his 2nd season, 90-91).

Outside of being a better recruiter, I don't see his coaching was significantly better than Dukiet.

O'Neill's 2nd season of 11-18 was almost exactly the same as Bob Dukiet's 2nd season of 10-18.  And don't forget--with Key, McIlvaine, and Logtermann as frosh, Curry as a 3rd year Soph and Trevor Powell as a senior that year--O'Neill's talent level was SIGNIFICANTLY better.  THAT'S the team that was swept by Butler.  Not Dukiet's holdovers.  

You claim that Marquette had a "true resurrection," however one has to wonder what shape MU was truly in for O'Neill to believe that "greener pastures" consisted of a 5-22 Never-Was team buried in last place in the SEC.   The mere fact that O'Neil left MU for Tennessee sent a MAJOR message about MU basketball--and it wasn't "MU is Back".  Not to mention that O'Neill wasn't just content to leave--he publicly dissed MU on the way out.

Hell, O'Neill didn't resurrect MU--he damn near cemented its reputation as Stepping-Stone U!  

Clearly, Marquette84 had no agenda with the above post.

EVERY POST HE MAKES HAS THE SAME AGENDA! The question is...why?

[TJ]

Well this sure doesn't help your cause:

I'm beginning to think that if I suggested that it might be interesting with next year's lineup if the NCAA experimented with the international-style triangular lane, somebody would suggest that it demonstrates an anti-Buzz agenda.


To address your concern that signing someone now might hurt recruiting next year, a comprison might be in order.

Kansas signed Tyrone Appleton in April of last year.  This year they landed Xavier Henry saw Appleton transfer.  It's obvious that Appleton is not at Xavier's level, but KU took him anyway.  Why?

Because at the time he signed, their only real experienced returning guard was Sherron Collins.  Tyshawn Taylor hadn't signed yet.  Brady Morningstar was a redshirt the prior year, and only played in 16 games the year before that.  Tyrell Reed only played 21 games the year before.  Mario Little and Travis Releford were also newcomers.

Now, you could argue that with the other guards, KU probably could have chanced it and not taken Appleton. But what good would it have done to have an empty chair?  As history has shown, taking Appleton didn't stop them from recruiting and landing Henry.  And there was a chance that Appleton would have turned out to be something  special (he was the #3 ranked Juco). 

So this year, Buzz now has one experienced guard in Cubillan (two if you count Frozena).  The depth chart at guard is 4, and only one is a true PG.  What if, god forbid, something happens to Cadougan?  And what if Buycks and DJO are no more effective at the point than Logtermann or Mason?  2009-10 becomes a throwaway season.

And the other consideration is that Buzz is already recruiting a number of top 50 players for next year.  As I said in an earlier post, if Kyrie Irving, Joe Jackson and Doron Lamb all call Buzz and say they want to play for MU, Buzz isn't stupid--he takes all three and sorts out the scholarships at the end of the season.

The problem I see in this logic is that we're not Kansas or Duke or any of the programs you named.  We're probably not landing John Walls or Xavier Henrys.  We want to get there, but I don't think we're there at this time.  Those guys can go anywhere and know that space will be made for them and everything will work out.  Is that necessarily the same for the next level of recruits?

[GGGG]

So this year, Buzz now has one experienced guard in Cubillan (two if you count Frozena).  The depth chart at guard is 4, and only one is a true PG.  What if, god forbid, something happens to Cadougan?  And what if Buycks and DJO are no more effective at the point than Logtermann or Mason?  2009-10 becomes a throwaway season.

If Acker were playing major minutes, it would be a throwaway season anyway.  Honestly, I think the only reason this season *isn't* a throwaway is if Junior or DJO catch on at point.  No late season recruit is going to change that.  Plus we have another guard coming in next year (Bowen) and my guess is that Buzz wants another one to round out the class since he already has an incoming front line player in Clark.  That might be Vander Blue, but perhaps not.