I went to an alumni event in Los Angeles tonight and among other things witnessed a live interview between coach Buzz and an MU alum who works on Katie Couric's show.
I could not have been more impressed by Buzz. The man speaks and acts with a humble inner authority that can't be manufactured or faked. Buzz is the real deal. He tells it like it is. He has a way of communicating with people that makes me understand how he can be such an effective leader of young men.
when I woke up this morning I didn't think there was any possible way I could be a bigger MU basketball fan. I was wrong. When Buzz chose to stay after the interview was over and talk to every single alum who wanted a word with him, and then when he abruptly grabbed the mic back and gave his telephone number and email address to everyone in the room, I knew that I was witnessing something truly unique and truly special.
I've seen Buzz at Alumni events as well and completely understand what you're saying. He is genuine and a good representative of the University.
So, I have to ask since much of the conversation currently revolves around one subject ... the current roster has 14 players and he apparently offered another this past weekend to Steadman Short. They are allowed only 13 spots. Did anyone ask him how this situation will be resolved?
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 11, 2010, 06:38:34 AM
I've seen Buzz at Alumni events as well and completely understand what you're saying. He is genuine and a good representative of the University.
So, I have to ask since much of the conversation currently revolves around one subject ... the current roster has 14 players and he apparently offered another this past weekend to Steadman Short. They are allowed only 13 spots. Did anyone ask him how this situation will be resolved?
You know better than that. First, he can't comment on unsigned recruits. Second, even if he could, he's not going to spill that information at an Alumni event.
More importantly, did you meet Chicos?
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 11, 2010, 06:43:21 AM
You know better than that. First, he can't comment on unsigned recruits. Second, even if he could, he's not going to spill that information at an Alumni event.
I did not expect him to name names. But, someone told Rosiak that they do not expect an incoming freshman to qualify and go to prep school. So that's Gardner's spot.
He could have been asked whether he is still recruiting for 2010 (to confirm if Short got an offer) and if he over-signs by another player
generally how does he expect to reconcile this situation. (another non-qualifier, or some other kid looking to go another way).
I'd also like to hear him talk about "Creaning" players and under what circumstances it is appropriate. If he can simply sign a better player is that good enough or does the kid have to lose his spot via his attitude and/or grades.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 11, 2010, 06:52:55 AM
I did not expect him to name names. But, someone told Rosiak that they do not expect an incoming freshman to qualify and go to prep school. So that's Gardner's spot.
He could have been asked whether he is still recruiting for 2010 (to confirm if Short got an offer) and if he over-signs by another player generally how does he expect to reconcile this situation. (another non-qualifier, or some other kid looking to go another way).
I'd also like to hear him talk about "Creaning" players and under what circumstances it is appropriate. If he can simply sign a better player is that good enough or does the kid have to lose his spot via his attitude and/or grades.
Are you serious? Do you honestly think he would say anything substantive about this at an Alumni event? He's going to give you a dismissive, party-line answer and that's about it.
Get real.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 11, 2010, 06:52:55 AM
I did not expect him to name names. But, someone told Rosiak that they do not expect an incoming freshman to qualify and go to prep school. So that's Gardner's spot.
You need to re-read what was in Rosiak's article. No one said anything about a kid not qualifying.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 11, 2010, 07:03:01 AM
Are you serious? Do you honestly think he would say anything substantive about this at an Alumni event? He's going to give you a dismissive, party-line answer and that's about it.
Get real.
Agree. He's honest, but he has a good sense of when to not talk directly about something, especially when it could cause trouble. If asked if he's still recruiting for 2010, you would hear "We're always recruiting and trying to get better", a polite way of saying "next question".
Quote from: 4everwarriors on May 11, 2010, 06:44:11 AM
More importantly, did you meet Chicos?
Chicos was too busy. He was running this website:
http://www.athletepromotions.com/athlete-speaking-engagement-booking-request.php?SpName=Tom%20Crean
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 11, 2010, 07:03:01 AM
Are you serious? Do you honestly think he would say anything substantive about this at an Alumni event? He's going to give you a dismissive, party-line answer and that's about it.
Get real.
So you leave when the Q&A starts because it all puffery and platitudes?
You'd be surprised what you can learn if you just ask. And yes, Buzz can elect to give a non-answer.
Quote from: bma725 on May 11, 2010, 07:31:24 AM
You need to re-read what was in Rosiak's article. No one said anything about a kid not qualifying.
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/92722969.html
Gardner's signing increases MU's class to six players, leaving the team one over the NCAA-mandated scholarship limit of 13. An MU source said one of the six will attend a prep school next season, but it's unclear which player it will be.
---
Ok the article did not say "not qualifying" but until a specific reason is stated, most that read this will assume the reason for going to prep school is someone is "not qualifying."
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 11, 2010, 08:15:15 AM
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/92722969.html
Gardner's signing increases MU's class to six players, leaving the team one over the NCAA-mandated scholarship limit of 13. An MU source said one of the six will attend a prep school next season, but it's unclear which player it will be.
---
Ok the article did not say "not qualifying" but until a specific reason is stated, most that read this will assume the reason for going to prep school is someone is "not qualifying."
And in doing so most would be reading something into it that isn't necessarily there. If this were a locked in stone player going prep for academic reasons, they would have said so. That's not necessarily what is going to happen.
What exactly is Marquette promising if a recruit commits? Is it a scholarship for a year? If it is, why doesn't the NCAA require the school to actually have a free scholarship before promising another?
because scholarships are renewable year-to-year. Any school at any time can refuse to renew a scholarship, thus making room for as many players as they want. Some conferences limit their schools to oversigning by only one player. Don't think the Big East has such a rule, but I'm not sure.
Quote from: bma725 on May 11, 2010, 08:19:57 AM
And in doing so most would be reading something into it that isn't necessarily there. If this were a locked in stone player going prep for academic reasons, they would have said so. That's not necessarily what is going to happen.
Rumor (per Rosiak) is prep school. Obviously reason is not qualifying. It's a safe assumption.
So, why are you going out of your way to point out the the exact reason was not stated and taking pains to tell us it might not be a non qualifier?
Do you know something we don't or are you just being argumentative?
Hypothetically, let's say Buzz has oversigned and everyone qualifies, nobody transfers, etc. The mandate is 13... there are now 14 on the roster.
Red-shirts count against the 13, but is there a "no-shirt" option? That is, could a player attend on a non-athletic scholarship and not play or practice with the team his freshman year, then begin attending on an athletic scholarship his sophomore year? If MU has full latitude to give a full, non-athletic scholarship to anyone it wants, could you give one to someone who's agreed (assuming this is the case) to not participate, as defined by the NCAA, as a varsity athlete his freshman year?
I don't know what the NCAA rules are that distinguish varsity athletes from other students, but could you make him team manager or statistician for a year? If he worked out/conditioned separate from the team and practiced in open gyms, would the NCAA be able to say anything?
I'm not predicting that this would happen; I'm just wondering if it could.
I believe a schoool has until the fall semester starts to be at no more than 13 scholarship players. And I thin kthe Big East does allow you to oversign by one, where other conferences may or may not allow that.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 11, 2010, 06:38:34 AM
I've seen Buzz at Alumni events as well and completely understand what you're saying. He is genuine and a good representative of the University.
So, I have to ask since much of the conversation currently revolves around one subject ... the current roster has 14 players and he apparently offered another this past weekend to Steadman Short. They are allowed only 13 spots. Did anyone ask him how this situation will be resolved?
I don't believe that is true.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 11, 2010, 09:17:31 AM
Rumor (per Rosiak) is prep school. Obviously reason is not qualifying. It's a safe assumption.
So, why are you going out of your way to point out the the exact reason was not stated and taking pains to tell us it might not be a non qualifier?
Do you know something we don't or are you just being argumentative?
With Buzz, there's no such thing as a safe assumption, and you should never read more into something than what is said. If they say someone is going to prep school and don't specifically say for academic reasons....there's a reason for that....it may be academics, it may be developmental, it may be something else.
There's a myriad of options at this point depending upon how things go. It may turn out that someone doesn't get the necessary test score or core GPA and they end up at prep school. It may turn out that one of the kids goes to prep school for developmental reasons. It may turn out that no one goes to prep school because someone currently on the team leaves and they don't get a commit. It may even be that the person the staff is thinking will go prep right now doesn't, because someone else ends up not qualifying.
To automatically assume an academic non-qualifier simply because they are talking about a player going to prep school is to assume too much.
Quote from: indeelaw90 on May 11, 2010, 07:56:38 AM
Chicos was too busy. He was running this website:
http://www.athletepromotions.com/athlete-speaking-engagement-booking-request.php?SpName=Tom%20Crean
Very lucrative, making 15% on all speaking fees.
No, did not attend, was here waiting for contractor for final sign off on all the construction work that was just finished. Would have liked to attend.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on May 11, 2010, 07:03:01 AM
Are you serious? Do you honestly think he would say anything substantive about this at an Alumni event? He's going to give you a dismissive, party-line answer and that's about it.
Get real.
Apparently Buzz did exactly what I asked. See 79 Warriors post
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=20490.msg204262#new
So, your assessment of what happens at alumni events is off the mark. Buzz does answer substantive questions ... all you have to do is ask.
Quote from: AnotherMU84 on May 11, 2010, 09:46:41 AM
Apparently Buzz did exactly what I asked. See 79 Warriors post
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=20490.msg204262#new
So, your assessment of what happens at alumni events is off the mark. Buzz does answer substantive questions ... all you have to do is ask.
You are completely wrong. Buzz gave very honest, candid and somewhat suprising answers to many questions.
uhmm... did you read his post?
Quote from: 79Warrior on May 11, 2010, 09:58:10 AM
You are completely wrong. Buzz gave very honest, candid and somewhat suprising answers to many questions.
What did I write? I said (and I'm copying here) "Buzz does answer substantive questions"
How is this different than what you said? Why are you trying to pick a fight?