Is Steve Taylor, Jr. still on the team? Several blow-outs--think he would play a minute or two.
He's hurt.
Knee problem ... talk of possible red-shirt this season
Not just the knee. The quad muscles atrophied after surgery and they are slow in building back. Would not be surprised at a redshirt.
Quote from: Nukem2 on December 19, 2013, 02:23:30 PM
Not just the knee. The quad muscles atrophied after surgery and they are slow in building back. Would not be surprised at a redshirt.
Yep. I'll bet he's only in uniform in case of a major injury scenario at the 4-5 positions...and even then would be surprised to see him back.
Quote from: Heisenberg on December 19, 2013, 02:09:21 PM
Knee problem ... talk of possible red-shirt this season
Isn't it too late for Taylor to red-shirt as he's seen action in multiple games already?
Quote from: Norm on December 19, 2013, 03:00:36 PM
Isn't it too late for Taylor to red-shirt as he's seen action in multiple games already?
The NCAA requirement is playing less than 30% of a team's games. They count D1 scrimmages and one game for a conference tourney. For Marquette, that is 34 games. Taylor has played in 10 (8 regular season and 2 scrimmages), which is just under the limit. He should be just eligible for a medical redshirt.
Quote from: Norm on December 19, 2013, 03:00:36 PM
Isn't it too late for Taylor to red-shirt as he's seen action in multiple games already?
Its not too late, but the injury has to be considered to be season-ending or incapacitating with doctors signing off.
14.2.4.3.3 Medical Documentation. Contemporaneous or other appropriate medical documentation, from a physician (a medical doctor) who administered care at the time of the injury or illness, that establishes the student-athlete's inability to compete as a result of that injury or illness shall be submitted with any hardship-waiver request. (Adopted: 4/20/99, Revised: 2/22/01)
If he's been suiting up, and supposedly even left the bench to check in against IUPUI before being called back, that would make it hard to claim that the medical documentation exists to support a redshirt.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2013, 03:30:18 PM
Its not too late, but the injury has to be considered to be season-ending or incapacitating with doctors signing off.
14.2.4.3.3 Medical Documentation. Contemporaneous or other appropriate medical documentation, from a physician (a medical doctor) who administered care at the time of the injury or illness, that establishes the student-athlete's inability to compete as a result of that injury or illness shall be submitted with any hardship-waiver request. (Adopted: 4/20/99, Revised: 2/22/01)
If he's been suiting up, and supposedly even left the bench to check in against IUPUI before being called back, that would make it hard to claim that the medical documentation exists to support a redshirt.
As I read it, if the medical doctor who did the surgery ("administered care") signs off that he can't compete because of the issues related to the surgery was done in the first place ("a result of that injury") then it seems like a no brainer.
I guess what I don't know is if someone *tries* to play after the injury, but clearly lacks something, does that count as incapacitated?
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2013, 03:24:28 PM
The NCAA requirement is playing less than 30% of a team's games. They count D1 scrimmages and one game for a conference tourney. For Marquette, that is 34 games. Taylor has played in 10 (8 regular season and 2 scrimmages), which is just under the limit. He should be just eligible for a medical redshirt.
Good stuff.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2013, 03:24:28 PM
The NCAA requirement is playing less than 30% of a team's games. They count D1 scrimmages and one game for a conference tourney. For Marquette, that is 34 games. Taylor has played in 10 (8 regular season and 2 scrimmages), which is just under the limit. He should be just eligible for a medical redshirt.
And now we know why the Selection Committee takes scrimmages into consideration.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2013, 03:24:28 PM
The NCAA requirement is playing less than 30% of a team's games. They count D1 scrimmages and one game for a conference tourney. For Marquette, that is 34 games. Taylor has played in 10 (8 regular season and 2 scrimmages), which is just under the limit. He should be just eligible for a medical redshirt.
Was this confirmed? As mentioned yesterday, one of the articles I posted said scrimmages are not counted.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 19, 2013, 04:48:27 PM
Was this confirmed? As mentioned yesterday, one of the articles I posted said scrimmages are not counted.
Whether the scrimmages count or not is moot in this case - Either way (10 of 34 =29.5%, 8 of 32 =25%) he's under 30%.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 19, 2013, 03:41:42 PM
As I read it, if the medical doctor who did the surgery ("administered care") signs off that he can't compete because of the issues related to the surgery was done in the first place ("a result of that injury") then it seems like a no brainer.
I guess what I don't know is if someone *tries* to play after the injury, but clearly lacks something, does that count as incapacitated?
I don't think it matters at this point whether Taylor is sitting out because he is aggrivating the original injury or whether it is something brand new.
The question is whether that doctor considers his current situation season-ending and incapacitating.
If the doctor says "I see no medical reason you can't play", and Buzz is benching him becuase he's not 100%, then according to the letter of the law, Taylor cannot redshirt, even though he has played in less than 30% of MU's scheduled games, or whatever the requirement is.
If the doctor says "I'm taking away the medical clearance to play, and his injury is going to end your season," then he can clearly redshirt.
My point in the post abovie was that if Taylor really was dressed and Buzz really tagged him to enter a game, it suggests that the doctors have not determined this is an incapacitating season-ending injury, which means the required medical documentation for a redshirt doesn't exist.
And comments like "'ll bet he's only in uniform in case of a major injury scenario at the 4-5 positions..." (which I know you didn't make--someone else did) are just not consistent with the rules. You can't redshirt a player and then send in a supposedly incapacitated player simply becuase you suddenly need him. This line of thinking would only apply to a freshman who hasn't yet played.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 19, 2013, 04:48:27 PM
Was this confirmed? As mentioned yesterday, one of the articles I posted said scrimmages are not counted.
This was posted on the brewcityball.com board by IWB:
Quote from: Jim Ganzer, "IWB"Gruman and I were trying to figure this out during the game. I had read the rule about the number of games, and it mentioned the scheduled scrimmages that replace games. It was unclear, so I got confirmation from NCAA rep that MU's scrimmages with Illinois State and Virginia counted as scheduled games. I did not know about the conference tourney counting as one - I like sitting with Gruman during games, I think we make a good team digging for info.
So.....
Steve has played in 8 games + 2 scrimmages. The season has 31 games + 1 conference tourney + 2 scrimmages. That equals 34. The rule is 30%. Sounds like he would have been ok, right? No - another part of that excludes the medical redshirt if the player comes back from the injury and then injures again, and that is where it gets tricky, defining when he was injured, and when it is considered 're-injured'.
Buzz had this to say post game - "I like to reward guys for hard work, and Steve has been working hard. I turned and saw him and sent him in. Chew asked me if I thought that was a good idea, and I called Steve back. I asked Chew what he thought. Steve said he would do whatever we asked him to do, so we sent him back."
Now this doesn't mean that Taylor will redshirt, what it means is that if they do decide to bypass the redshirt, it will be because he is healthy and because they need him, it won't be because they are rewarding him in the last 5 minutes of the IUPUI game.
So he meets the basic qualifications in terms of time played, the only question would be if he meets the qualifications in terms of injury timing.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 19, 2013, 06:12:24 PM
This was posted on the brewcityball.com board by IWB:
So he meets the basic qualifications in terms of time played, the only question would be if he meets the qualifications in terms of injury timing.
Well this story confirms there is currently no injury that would allow him to redshirt right now. If Buzz was ready to put him in, then by definition he's not medically incapacitated.
In addition to the oft-discussed "30% rule", the NCAA rule is pretty clear that the injury has to result in incapacty to compete for the remainder of the season:
(b) The injury or illness occurs prior to the first competition of the second half of the playing season that con- cludes with the NCAA championship in that sport (see Bylaw 14.2.4.3.4) and results in incapacity to compete for the remainder of that playing season;
That means the only way Taylor could redshirt is if he suffers a season-ending injury before MU's game against Seton Hall on January 11th, as long as he doesn't appear in another game between now and then (because one more game would put him over the 30% threshold and make him ineligible).
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2013, 05:31:03 PM
My point in the post abovie was that if Taylor really was dressed and Buzz really tagged him to enter a game, it suggests that the doctors have not determined this is an incapacitating season-ending injury, which means the required medical documentation for a redshirt doesn't exist.
And comments like "'ll bet he's only in uniform in case of a major injury scenario at the 4-5 positions..." (which I know you didn't make--someone else did) are just not consistent with the rules. You can't redshirt a player and then send in a supposedly incapacitated player simply becuase you suddenly need him. This line of thinking would only apply to a freshman who hasn't yet played.
This is an excellent point. If the NCAA wants to be sticklers -- and usually they do -- couldn't they just say, "If he was so hurt, why was he at the table ready to check into one game? Why was he in uniform in other games?" It's a legitimate question.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 19, 2013, 05:17:12 PM
Whether the scrimmages count or not is moot in this case - Either way (10 of 34 =29.5%, 8 of 32 =25%) he's under 30%.
Correct, but I was curious as to what the proper ruling is.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 19, 2013, 09:58:37 PM
Correct, but I was curious as to what the proper ruling is.
I think the rules are pretty clear that scrimmages count:
17.02.2 Contest. A contest is any game, match, exhibition, scrimmage or joint practice session with another institution's team, regardless of its formality, in which competition in a sport occurs between an intercollegiate athletics team or individual representing a member institution and any other team or individual not representing the intercollegiate athletics program of the same member institution. (Revised: 1/10/91)
Quote from: Marquette84 on December 19, 2013, 10:23:27 PM
I think the rules are pretty clear
whoa...equalizer no more
Quote from: Marquette84 on December 19, 2013, 10:23:27 PM
I think the rules are pretty clear that scrimmages count:
17.02.2 Contest. A contest is any game, match, exhibition, scrimmage or joint practice session with another institution's team, regardless of its formality, in which competition in a sport occurs between an intercollegiate athletics team or individual representing a member institution and any other team or individual not representing the intercollegiate athletics program of the same member institution. (Revised: 1/10/91)
thank you
Quote from: rocky_warrior on December 19, 2013, 10:34:31 PM
whoa...equalizer no more
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
Quote from: MU82 on December 19, 2013, 09:53:12 PM
This is an excellent point. If the NCAA wants to be sticklers -- and usually they do -- couldn't they just say, "If he was so hurt, why was he at the table ready to check into one game? Why was he in uniform in other games?" It's a legitimate question.
Of course then, that same question, if it is applicable, "Why was he in uniform in other games" would also apply to Du. Wilson, I would think that comparing the two situations, Wilson would definitely stand a better chance for a red shirt as he has not played in prior games, and his injury occurred this season. Not saying Wilson should be redshirted, but his case would look better.
At any rate, trying to figure some of these stupid rules the NCAA has is tough. Scrimmages count as games? Give me a break.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 08:26:55 AM
Of course then, that same question, if it is applicable, "Why was he in uniform in other games" would also apply to Du. Wilson, I would think that comparing the two situations, Wilson would definitely stand a better chance for a red shirt as he has not played in prior games, and his injury occurred this season. Not saying Wilson should be redshirted, but his case would look better.
At any rate, trying to figure some of these stupid rules the NCAA has is tough. Scrimmages count as games? Give me a break.
Duane Wilson would not be medically redshirted. He would simply be redshirted.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 19, 2013, 05:31:03 PM
I don't think it matters at this point whether Taylor is sitting out because he is aggrivating the original injury or whether it is something brand new.
The question is whether that doctor considers his current situation season-ending and incapacitating.
If the doctor says "I see no medical reason you can't play", and Buzz is benching him becuase he's not 100%, then according to the letter of the law, Taylor cannot redshirt, even though he has played in less than 30% of MU's scheduled games, or whatever the requirement is.
If the doctor says "I'm taking away the medical clearance to play, and his injury is going to end your season," then he can clearly redshirt.
I'm pretty sure Marquette's doctor is going to say he is incapacitated.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 08:29:52 AM
I'm pretty sure Marquette's doctor is going to say he is incapacitated.
My thoughts exactly. I'd bet the docs get quite a bit of latitude in making medical decisions like that.
I'd also bet that there are plenty of medical redshirts who would clearly be "incapacitated" for most of the season, but then might (arguably) be ready to play by the last few games. If the team decides that it would not want to waste a season of eligibility on those last few games, I'd bet the team docs successfully certify them as "incapacitated" every time.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 08:29:52 AM
I'm pretty sure Marquette's doctor is going to say he is incapacitated.
I don't doubt this could be the case. I admit to not knowing how deeply the NCAA looks into everything before permitting a redshirt. I just think if they want to be strict, they can simply say, "Look, this guy was at the freakin' scorer's table and ready to come into a game in December. You were going to play him. How incapacitated could he have been?" If we want to redshirt him, I hope that doesn't hurt Marquette's case.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 08:28:43 AM
Duane Wilson would not be medically redshirted. He would simply be redshirted.
OK--when will we know what is going on with Du. Wilson? Buzz says he is hurting. The Dr. says he is medically clear, according to Buzz. What are Buzz's plans? Does the kid want to play? Why is he suiting up? Why do others not suit up? What is the prognosis? What is going on? All we are told by Mr. Communication/Transparency is he is hurt. Let the kid talk if Buzz does not want to.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 09:04:32 AM
OK--when will we know what is going on with Du. Wilson? Buzz says he is hurting. The Dr. says he is medically clear, according to Buzz. What are Buzz's plans? Does the kid want to play? Why is he suiting up? Why do others not suit up? What is the prognosis? What is going on? All we are told by Mr. Communication/Transparency is he is hurt. Let the kid talk if Buzz does not want to.
Let's say you work for Exxon-Mobil or Starbucks or any other Fortune 500 company. You are a junior executive or just a "regular working stiff." Your CEO speaks for the company, says only what he believes the public needs to know and tells you to keep your yap shut.
Buzz is the CEO of Marquette basketball. If he says, "Jump," the only acceptable response by the players is, "How high?" It is not, "I might or might not want to jump, so let me go to the media and give my side."
Quote from: MU82 on December 20, 2013, 08:57:25 AM
I don't doubt this could be the case. I admit to not knowing how deeply the NCAA looks into everything before permitting a redshirt. I just think if they want to be strict, they can simply say, "Look, this guy was at the freakin' scorer's table and ready to come into a game in December. You were going to play him. How incapacitated could he have been?" If we want to redshirt him, I hope that doesn't hurt Marquette's case.
I really doubt the NCAA will ever know he was at the scorer's table for the IUPUI game.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 09:20:42 AM
I really doubt the NCAA will ever know he was at the scorer's table for the IUPUI game.
You're probably right. I'm not gonna tell them, and, hard as it is to believe, they probably don't read Scoop when doing their research.
Quote from: MU82 on December 20, 2013, 09:11:15 AM
Let's say you work for Exxon-Mobil or Starbucks or any other Fortune 500 company. You are a junior executive or just a "regular working stiff." Your CEO speaks for the company, says only what he believes the public needs to know and tells you to keep your yap shut.
Buzz is the CEO of Marquette basketball. If he says, "Jump," the only acceptable response by the players is, "How high?" It is not, "I might or might not want to jump, so let me go to the media and give my side."
Wrongo. The Companies you mentioned are just that, Companies--and employees work there can be told to shut their yap--although many companies do not do that--they allow their employees to express their opinions. Buzz may be the "CEO" of the Basketball team--but it is that a basketball team--not a private company. Are you afraid that the kid can say something that might be detrimental to the beloved CEO? My point is that Buzz is close mouthed about this which leads to a lot of speculation, which is a mistake--unless he is afraid that he may say something further that would lead to other questions. Obviously he must have a plan here because he is the CEO/Spokesperson/Team AD/Controller/PR rep/Team Dr./Rule Enforcer/Disciplinarian and Trustee. So Buzz, tell us more than he is hurt.
willie, I don't see a great deal of people (outside of yourself) who are clamoring to know about Duane's status, and I hardly have seen any "speculation." (About what people would speculate I don't know.)
He obviously was hurt. He has apparently been cleared. They are probably sorting out whether it is worthwhile to give him minutes this year or have him redshirt. What is there to speculate about?
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 09:33:02 AM
willie, I don't see a great deal of people (outside of yourself) who are clamoring to know about Duane's status, and I hardly have seen any "speculation." (About what people would speculate I don't know.)
Exactly. Lots of people are curious about Duane, but willie is the only person I am aware of who seems to think Buzz owes him a status update.
He got hurt. He was cleared. Then he got sick. So he has had almost no full speed practice in 6 weeks. And he's a freshman, so he's really way behind. Whether and how much he can/will contribute this year is to be determined. Until it is, what else is there to say?
Steve and Duane are in similar situations. Steve's recovery from his surgery is taking longer than expected. The muscles in his leg atrophied. IIRC he was only cleared for full contact just a few days before MU's first game. Well, clearly, after going through the day to day grind, he is struggling. IMO, Buzz should dress him for every game, allow him to rehab and practice, but not play him unless he is needed. (an injury to another big). Duane is a freshman. He had a stress fracture in his hip. He has missed several weeks of practice and conditioning. He is behind. He may not catch up this season. If he, his family, his coach, choose to have him sit out the entire season, seeing that as the best decision for him, so be it. It is his leg, his life. Buzz doesn't owe anybody on this board spit.
couldn't Taylor also be red-shirted? (not just a medical redshirt)
Quote from: tower912 on December 20, 2013, 10:02:10 AM
Steve and Duane are in similar situations. Steve's recovery from his surgery is taking longer than expected. The muscles in his leg atrophied. IIRC he was only cleared for full contact just a few days before MU's first game. Well, clearly, after going through the day to day grind, he is struggling. IMO, Buzz should dress him for every game, allow him to rehab and practice, but not play him unless he is needed. (an injury to another big). Duane is a freshman. He had a stress fracture in his hip. He has missed several weeks of practice and conditioning. He is behind. He may not catch up this season. If he, his family, his coach, choose to have him sit out the entire season, seeing that as the best decision for him, so be it. It is his leg, his life. Buzz doesn't owe anybody on this board spit.
Exactly. The idea that fans are entitled to know the medical history or condition of a college basketball player is soooo wrong, we shouldn't even have to discuss it.
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on December 20, 2013, 10:09:36 AM
couldn't Taylor also be red-shirted? (not just a medical redshirt)
No because he has already played this year.
Quote from: tower912 on December 20, 2013, 10:02:10 AM
Steve and Duane are in similar situations. Steve's recovery from his surgery is taking longer than expected. The muscles in his leg atrophied. IIRC he was only cleared for full contact just a few days before MU's first game. Well, clearly, after going through the day to day grind, he is struggling. IMO, Buzz should dress him for every game, allow him to rehab and practice, but not play him unless he is needed. (an injury to another big). Duane is a freshman. He had a stress fracture in his hip. He has missed several weeks of practice and conditioning. He is behind. He may not catch up this season. If he, his family, his coach, choose to have him sit out the entire season, seeing that as the best decision for him, so be it. It is his leg, his life. Buzz doesn't owe anybody on this board spit.
I thought Steve looked great at MU Madness. Thought he pretty much dominated McKay, so I wasn't surprised (or particularly crestfallen) when Jameel announced his transfer shortly thereafter. My guess is he's had another setback that goes deeper than muscle atrophy.
clearly, he tweaked the muscle in his leg going to the scorer's table. Chew noticed it and had buzz pull him back to the bench.
Pulled groin, a'ina?
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 09:24:53 AM
Wrongo. The Companies you mentioned are just that, Companies--and employees work there can be told to shut their yap--although many companies do not do that--they allow their employees to express their opinions. Buzz may be the "CEO" of the Basketball team--but it is that a basketball team--not a private company. Are you afraid that the kid can say something that might be detrimental to the beloved CEO? My point is that Buzz is close mouthed about this which leads to a lot of speculation, which is a mistake--unless he is afraid that he may say something further that would lead to other questions. Obviously he must have a plan here because he is the CEO/Spokesperson/Team AD/Controller/PR rep/Team Dr./Rule Enforcer/Disciplinarian and Trustee. So Buzz, tell us more than he is hurt.
I'm not afraid. I'm simply not obsessed. It's basketball.
Next subject.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on December 20, 2013, 09:52:31 AM
Exactly. Lots of people are curious about Duane, but willie is the only person I am aware of who seems to think Buzz owes him a status update.
I would like an update on Duane as well. The status quo at PG just isn't doing it for me at the moment ;D
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on December 20, 2013, 11:50:47 AM
clearly, he tweaked the muscle in his leg going to the scorer's table. Chew noticed it and had buzz pull him back to the bench.
Kinda like how JT Tiller injured his wrist walking toward the free throw line....
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 09:04:32 AM
OK--when will we know what is going on with Du. Wilson? Buzz says he is hurting. The Dr. says he is medically clear, according to Buzz. What are Buzz's plans? Does the kid want to play? Why is he suiting up? Why do others not suit up? What is the prognosis? What is going on? All we are told by Mr. Communication/Transparency is he is hurt. Let the kid talk if Buzz does not want to.
You thought maybe he hasn't said anything because there is nothing more to say? He's been cleared to play but still isn't 100%. What else is there to know?
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on December 20, 2013, 01:43:31 PM
You thought maybe he hasn't said anything because there is nothing more to say? He's been cleared to play but still isn't 100%. What else is there to know?
Reading is fundamental. Plenty of questions still unanswered.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on December 20, 2013, 08:51:13 AM
My thoughts exactly. I'd bet the docs get quite a bit of latitude in making medical decisions like that.
I'd also bet that there are plenty of medical redshirts who would clearly be "incapacitated" for most of the season, but then might (arguably) be ready to play by the last few games. If the team decides that it would not want to waste a season of eligibility on those last few games, I'd bet the team docs successfully certify them as "incapacitated" every time.
You're forgetting one key piece of information: Taylor has ALREADY been cleared, not with a few games left, but 23 games left Buzz sent him to check in. There IS NO season ending, incapacitating injury right now. [Either that, or there IS such an injury and our medical staff are incompetents for missing it].
This isn't a 50/50 judgement call by the doctor. This was (assuming he did his job) full evaluation, with xrays and imagaing and discussions with the patient--and after all that the doctor said Taylor was okay to put into a game.
Its almost frightening how some here casaully suggest that the same doctor(s) who cleared him will be able to come up with some retroactive diagnosis of "season ending injury--not cleared to play" that was missed.
Let's consider the doctor, who will have to go in on this deception by admitting his own incompetence: "I misdiagnored Taylor when I cleared him."
What's his explanation to the medical review board and other patients? "Hey, guys, don't sweat this--I just falsified that particular report. That patient was never really incapacitated. I just said he was so his basketball team could extend his eligibility. Trust me--I don't miss real injuries."
I mean, come on. At some point, do you think Marquette should play by the rules or not?
It sure sounds like a bunch of people here are just fine if we cheat to give Taylor an extra year of eligibility in th 2017 season.
Quote from: MU82 on December 20, 2013, 12:30:07 PM
I'm not afraid. I'm simply not obsessed. It's basketball.
Next subject.
Yeah it's basketball and the Coach/CEO should clarify what the plans are or what the outlook is. Guess there is no plan.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 20, 2013, 03:34:13 PM
You're forgetting one key piece of information: Taylor has ALREADY been cleared, not with a few games left, but 23 games left Buzz sent him to check in. There IS NO season ending, incapacitating injury right now. [Either that, or there IS such an injury and our medical staff are incompetents for missing it].
This isn't a 50/50 judgement call by the doctor. This was (assuming he did his job) full evaluation, with xrays and imagaing and discussions with the patient--and after all that the doctor said Taylor was okay to put into a game.
Its almost frightening how some here casaully suggest that the same doctor(s) who cleared him will be able to come up with some retroactive diagnosis of "season ending injury--not cleared to play" that was missed.
Let's consider the doctor, who will have to go in on this deception by admitting his own incompetence: "I misdiagnored Taylor when I cleared him."
What's his explanation to the medical review board and other patients? "Hey, guys, don't sweat this--I just falsified that particular report. That patient was never really incapacitated. I just said he was so his basketball team could extend his eligibility. Trust me--I don't miss real injuries."
I mean, come on. At some point, do you think Marquette should play by the rules or not?
It sure sounds like a bunch of people here are just fine if we cheat to give Taylor an extra year of eligibility in th 2017 season.
What the hell?
He had knee surgery. He was cleared. He apparently had a set back and is having trouble. That doesn't mean he was misdiagnosed. It doesn't mean the doctor is incompetent.
Patients don't heel on a straight line. They can have set backs. I had knee surgery about three years ago. Everything was fine six months later. Weeks went by with no pain at all. I went on a hike and the next day my knee swelled up and I had to ice it down and let it rest for awhile.
Why is it so hard to believe this is the case? According to some he looked real good in the scrimmage. He looked good to me the first couple of games. The last couple of games he played he looked awful. Is Taylor dogging it to get another year?
84, it could be as simple as " I cleared him. When I did, I anticipated that his recovery would run a normal course. It didn't. There was a complication that we didn't anticipate and he regressed instead of improving." No grand conspiracy. Sometimes, recoveries don't go normally. Willie, maybe Buzz hasn't said anything because the issue is still being discussed and debated internally and no final decision has been made.
Doctors do stuff like that all the time with workers compensation, nothing is for sure
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 20, 2013, 03:34:13 PM
You're forgetting one key piece of information: Taylor has ALREADY been cleared, not with a few games left, but 23 games left Buzz sent him to check in. There IS NO season ending, incapacitating injury right now. [Either that, or there IS such an injury and our medical staff are incompetents for missing it].
This isn't a 50/50 judgement call by the doctor. This was (assuming he did his job) full evaluation, with xrays and imagaing and discussions with the patient--and after all that the doctor said Taylor was okay to put into a game.
Its almost frightening how some here casaully suggest that the same doctor(s) who cleared him will be able to come up with some retroactive diagnosis of "season ending injury--not cleared to play" that was missed.
Let's consider the doctor, who will have to go in on this deception by admitting his own incompetence: "I misdiagnored Taylor when I cleared him."
What's his explanation to the medical review board and other patients? "Hey, guys, don't sweat this--I just falsified that particular report. That patient was never really incapacitated. I just said he was so his basketball team could extend his eligibility. Trust me--I don't miss real injuries."
I mean, come on. At some point, do you think Marquette should play by the rules or not?
It sure sounds like a bunch of people here are just fine if we cheat to give Taylor an extra year of eligibility in th 2017 season.
Or it could just be stuff that happens. Post-op patients' statuses change all the time. One day, a post-op patient is doing great, next day, they need more treatment, a new operation, whatever. Now, factor in that the patient isn't just trying to recover basic functioning...he's trying to recover to play high D-1 basketball. No need to assume incompetence or cheating when you can find very plausible explanations in everyday life...
You seem to think that medical practice is a very cut and dried yes/no proposition. It isn't.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 03:46:32 PM
What the hell?
He had knee surgery. He was cleared. He apparently had a set back and is having trouble. That doesn't mean he was misdiagnosed. It doesn't mean the doctor is incompetent.
Patients don't heel on a straight line. They can have set backs. I had knee surgery about three years ago. Everything was fine six months later. Weeks went by with no pain at all. I went on a hike and the next day my knee swelled up and I had to ice it down and let it rest for awhile.
Why is it so hard to believe this is the case? According to some he looked real good in the scrimmage. He looked good to me the first couple of games. The last couple of games he played he looked awful. Is Taylor dogging it to get another year?
Yep....
Quote from: willie warrior on December 20, 2013, 03:39:12 PM
Yeah it's basketball and the Coach/CEO should clarify what the plans are or what the outlook is. Guess there is no plan.
Oh joyless wonder, if only you had the power to fire Buzz and rid us of this horrible coach who has lacked a plan of success for his entire time at Marquette.
You know we can't recruit big men when we cheat and selectively tank 2014 so we can keep one on the roster in 2017.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 03:46:32 PM
What the hell?
He had knee surgery. He was cleared. He apparently had a set back and is having trouble. That doesn't mean he was misdiagnosed. It doesn't mean the doctor is incompetent.
Patients don't heel on a straight line. They can have set backs. I had knee surgery about three years ago. Everything was fine six months later. Weeks went by with no pain at all. I went on a hike and the next day my knee swelled up and I had to ice it down and let it rest for awhile.
Why is it so hard to believe this is the case? According to some he looked real good in the scrimmage. He looked good to me the first couple of games. The last couple of games he played he looked awful. Is Taylor dogging it to get another year?
Neither does my dog.
Why do we call him Steve Taylor Jr.? Isn't Steve Taylor enough?
Quote from: raul on December 20, 2013, 10:09:08 PM
Why do we call him Steve Taylor Jr.? Isn't Steve Taylor enough?
Its what he wants.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 03:46:32 PM
What the hell?
He had knee surgery. He was cleared. He apparently had a set back and is having trouble. That doesn't mean he was misdiagnosed. It doesn't mean the doctor is incompetent.
The "hell" comes down to a simple quesion:
Is Steve Taylor currently medically incapacitated with a season ending injury or not?
I say with what we know now, the answer is NO, given that he was available to be checked into a recent game.
If he actually is incapacitated, then MU's athletic tranining department perpetrated the mother of all screw-ups where neither head coach nor the player involved were actually aware of that fact, given that the head coach nearly inserted said player in the game, and said player started of to the scorers table to check in.
Just answer this one question--if Taylor is truly medically incapacitated as you seem to suggest, what possible string of events in your mind could have led to the situation where Taylor was very nearly put into a game?
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 03:46:32 PM
Patients don't heel on a straight line. They can have set backs. I had knee surgery about three years ago. Everything was fine six months later. Weeks went by with no pain at all. I went on a hike and the next day my knee swelled up and I had to ice it down and let it rest for awhile.
"Icing something down for a while" doesn't quite rise to the level of "medically incapacitated for the remainder of the season, don't you think?
And if you think such setbacks rise to the level of being incapaciating for the season, then once again, please explain how this situation could arise where Taylor was very nearly put into a game.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 20, 2013, 03:46:32 PM
Why is it so hard to believe this is the case? According to some he looked real good in the scrimmage. He looked good to me the first couple of games. The last couple of games he played he looked awful. Is Taylor dogging it to get another year?
Why is it so hard to believe that Taylor is truly incapaciated with a season ending injury? I'll tell you why:
BECAUSE TAYLOR WAS ALMOST CHECKED INTO A GAME!!! IT DIDN"T OCCUR TO EITHER THE COACH OR THE PLAYER THAT THE PLAYER HAD PREVIOUSLY SUFFERED A SESAON ENDING INJURY THAT INCAPCITATED HIM!!!
The rules do not say that a player can get get a hardship waiver if he is able to play but looks awful.
The rules only say that a player can get a waiver if he
can't play at all for the rest of the season.Why is that so hard for you to believe?
What if playing risked doing significantly worse damage? Maybe he's healthy enough to play, but his knee is in such a state that doing so could wreck it for his career. I don't know, but I certainly think if the medical staff could show that continuing to play on it could risk further damage, that would qualify for him being medically incapacitated despite being healthy enough to go into a game.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 21, 2013, 01:37:30 PM
What if playing risked doing significantly worse damage? Maybe he's healthy enough to play, but his knee is in such a state that doing so could wreck it for his career. I don't know, but I certainly think if the medical staff could show that continuing to play on it could risk further damage, that would qualify for him being medically incapacitated despite being healthy enough to go into a game.
Lets put aside the fact that when the doctors clear a player as being "well enough to play," they already have taken into account the risk of significantly worse or career-wrecking damage or reinjury.
Putting that aside, don't you belive that Buzz would refuse to play someone who he felt had even the slightest chance of causing career-wrecking damage?
Think about it. You're saying the docs told Buzz before the game that Taylor was good enough to play, but he could suffer signficantly worse damage--maybe even wreck his career--if he actually got in a game.
Buzz takes that nugget of information, files it away, and then when we're in the waning minutes of a blowout win, Buzz walks down to the bench and taps Taylor on the shoulder to check in--completely disregading the warning that the doctors gave him before the game.
I'm going to give Buzz credit for always putting the health and safety of his players ahead of anything else. If he sent Taylor to check in, then I'm satisfied that the possibility of a worse injury had passed or no longer existed.
Quote from: MU82 on December 20, 2013, 09:23:18 AM
You're probably right. I'm not gonna tell them, and, hard as it is to believe, they probably don't read Scoop when doing their research.
That's one hell of an assumption, Mister. Why wouldn't a hungry man walk into McDonalds?
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 21, 2013, 01:29:06 PM
Why is it so hard to believe that Taylor is truly incapaciated with a season ending injury? I'll tell you why:
BECAUSE TAYLOR WAS ALMOST CHECKED INTO A GAME!!! IT DIDN"T OCCUR TO EITHER THE COACH OR THE PLAYER THAT THE PLAYER HAD PREVIOUSLY SUFFERED A SESAON ENDING INJURY THAT INCAPCITATED HIM!!!
The rules do not say that a player can get get a hardship waiver if he is able to play but looks awful.
The rules only say that a player can get a waiver if he can't play at all for the rest of the season.
Why is that so hard for you to believe?
I know you are our resident tinfoil hat wearer, but I think the explanation is simple.
Steve Taylor can likely play at the level at which he has shown the last few games, but not get any better if he continues to play. Is that "incapacitated?" Here is the definition:
"unable to work, move, or function in the usual way"
He certainly would seem to meet that definition right?
So why was he almost checked into the IUPUI game? My guess is that it was likely an oversight by Buzz, which was caught immediately by his staff.
It really isn't that hard.
And it looks like none of this matters since Taylor played yesterday.
really stupid decision by Buzz. Now he can't redshirt in a season when it wouldn't matter if he played or not.
Quote from: ecompt on December 22, 2013, 08:13:31 AM
really stupid decision by Buzz. Now he can't redshirt in a season when it wouldn't matter if he played or not.
Maybe the doctors think he can recover enough to play this year.
Or maybe they know the redshirt wouldn't be granted.
Quote from: brewcity77 on December 22, 2013, 08:37:05 AM
Or maybe they know the redshirt wouldn't be granted.
This.
Probably Buzz wants to burn up the schollie to recruit someone better.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 22, 2013, 07:25:21 AM
And it looks like none of this matters since Taylor played yesterday.
Well, other than obvious vindication.
Mabye it wasn't "tinfoil hat" after all to point out obvious things like Taylor didn't qualify for the medical hardship waiver because he wasn't injured serioulsy enough to qualify under the NCAA rules.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 22, 2013, 08:14:52 AM
Maybe the doctors think he can recover enough to play this year.
Except you still have the tense wrong. Its not "can recover.'"
They already cleared him to play, before the IUPUI game. Past tense. History.
The doctors obviously thought he HAD ALREADY RECOVERED enough to play, which at that point made him ineligible for a hardship waiver.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 22, 2013, 10:24:46 AM
Well, other than obvious vindication.
Mabye it wasn't "tinfoil hat" after all to point out obvious things like Taylor didn't qualify for the medical hardship waiver because he wasn't injured serioulsy enough to qualify under the NCAA rules.
No, the tinfoil hat was the implication that either the coaches or the doctors were incompetent. But if you want to feel vindicated, I can give you a gold star, pat you on your head, and send you home to show mom.
I'm just glad we can move on from the "maybe Taylor can redshirt" phase of our lives.
FWIW, Taylor took the ball to the hoop nicely a few seconds after entering the game. The shot sat on the rim and didn't fall, but he looked quick and fluid.
Even though I was never among the Scoopers who thought Taylor was destined to be a star, I still think he has some talent and I hope Buzz now will start working him back into the rotation some.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 22, 2013, 10:28:06 AM
No, the tinfoil hat was the implication that either the coaches or the doctors were incompetent. But if you want to feel vindicated, I can give you a gold star, pat you on your head, and send you home to show mom.
Wouldn't you agree that if a player was in danger of having his career ruined or suffering severe injury by playing, a) the doctors would made damn sure that he was in street clothes, and b) even if he wasn't, the coach would know better than to put such a player in the game?
And wouldn't you agree that if the doctors believed that such a medical condition existed, but didn't tell the coach or actually place a medical restriction on the player, those doctors would be incompetent?
And wouldn't you agree that if a coach got that message from the doctors that a players career coudld be ruined or could suffer severe damage if he played, if that coach tried to put that player in the game, he'd be incompetent?
Look, its YOUR argument that you believe Steve was so severly injured to the point he couldn't play the rest of the season. And its YOUR argument that despite such injury the doctors didn't take him out of the lineup. And its YOUR argument Buzz knew about the danger of this injury, but was so situationally unaware that he sent Taylor into a game. And you merely call all that "an oversight."
Lets face it--such an egregious "oversight" wouldn't be an alternative to incompetence. It would be evidence of it.
The problem is that you can't come up with one rational explanation (other than incompetence) as to how Taylor could find himself heading up to the scorers table to check in if he truly was currently suffering a season-ending, incapacitating injury.
Look, the correct answer all along was that Taylor was cleared by the doctors to play (or never medically restricted in the first place), which would make him ineligible for a medical redshirt. The silliness was all yours in trying to find some way to thread a straight pin and explain how Taylor could be both injured and not injured at the same time.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 22, 2013, 11:31:30 AM
Look, its YOUR argument that you believe Steve was so severly injured to the point he couldn't play the rest of the season.
I never said that.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 22, 2013, 11:31:30 AM
And its YOUR argument that despite such injury the doctors didn't take him out of the lineup.
I never said that.
The problem with you Equalizer is that you have an apparent need to type your manifestos, but no apparent need to read anything else.
Hyperbole aside, I do think it was significant that Buzz had Taylor in uniform every game and at the scorer's table in that one game. For those who think the NCAA would have never known, well, maybe ... but maybe not.
If redshirting a player is even an option, you don't send him to the scorer's table to check into a game. I'm a big Buzz fan but he screwed up there. It basically shouted: "His injury is not serious enough for him to get a redshirt season!"
As I said earlier, I'm glad we stop asking "Will Taylor redshirt?" so we can return to "Why isn't Taylor playing more?" Ah, progress!
Quote from: MU82 on December 22, 2013, 12:37:03 PM
Hyperbole aside, I do think it was significant that Buzz had Taylor in uniform every game and at the scorer's table in that one game. For those who think the NCAA would have never known, well, maybe ... but maybe not.
If redshirting a player is even an option, you don't send him to the scorer's table to check into a game. I'm a big Buzz fan but he screwed up there. It basically shouted: "His injury is not serious enough for him to get a redshirt season!"
I think this is even more fundamental.
Clearly Taylor was medically cleared prior to the IUPUI game as evidenced by the fact he was available to for Buzz to use in the game. I cannot even fathom a situation in which Buzz could insert a player not medically cleared. So the fact that he was available is evidence that he was medically cleared.
And if he was medically cleared, then by definition the medical staff did not deem his injury to be incapacitating and season-ending.
So its not that the NCAA would have found out that Buzz nearly sent Taylor into the game. Its that the medical records that would need to support any medical redshirt aren't consistent with a season ending injury, and actualy say the exact opposite--he WAS cleared to play.
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 22, 2013, 02:16:26 PM
I think this is even more fundamental.
Clearly Taylor was medically cleared prior to the IUPUI game as evidenced by the fact he was available to for Buzz to use in the game. I cannot even fathom a situation in which Buzz could insert a player not medically cleared. So the fact that he was available is evidence that he was medically cleared.
And if he was medically cleared, then by definition the medical staff did not deem his injury to be incapacitating and season-ending.
So its not that the NCAA would have found out that Buzz nearly sent Taylor into the game. Its that the medical records that would need to support any medical redshirt aren't consistent with a season ending injury, and actualy say the exact opposite--he WAS cleared to play.
Sounds logical.
nm
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 22, 2013, 02:16:26 PM
I think this is even more fundamental.
Clearly Taylor was medically cleared prior to the IUPUI game as evidenced by the fact he was available to for Buzz to use in the game. I cannot even fathom a situation in which Buzz could insert a player not medically cleared. So the fact that he was available is evidence that he was medically cleared.
And if he was medically cleared, then by definition the medical staff did not deem his injury to be incapacitating and season-ending.
So its not that the NCAA would have found out that Buzz nearly sent Taylor into the game. Its that the medical records that would need to support any medical redshirt aren't consistent with a season ending injury, and actualy say the exact opposite--he WAS cleared to play.
Makes sense
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 22, 2013, 06:15:15 PM
Makes sense
Yup--it all makes sense. Buzz said that Du. Thomas was medically cleared about 5 games ago, but then said he was still hurting--probably from the splinters in his ass. Buzz knows best on who is ready.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 23, 2013, 08:04:40 AM
Yup--it all makes sense. Buzz said that Du. Thomas was medically cleared about 5 games ago, but then said he was still hurting--probably from the splinters in his ass. Buzz knows best on who is ready.
Not the same situation. Taylor already played this season and would have needed to apply for a medical redshirt waiver. If the docs cleared him but Buzz chose not to play him, it'd be tough to get that waiver (based on my understanding). Duane hasn't played this season so he can redshirt without needing a waiver or even a specific reason.
Well, now that it is apparent that he won't be redshirted, whose minutes is he going to cut into? I imagine Juan. I couldn't help but think that a healthy Taylor would have had the size, strength and agility to defend a guy like UNM's Bairstow better than our other alternatives. To be fair, it's been a while since he's seen extensive minutes, and my recollection of his defensive prowess is very hazy.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 23, 2013, 09:01:37 AM
Not the same situation. Taylor already played this season and would have needed to apply for a medical redshirt waiver. If the docs cleared him but Buzz chose not to play him, it'd be tough to get that waiver (based on my understanding). Duane hasn't played this season so he can redshirt without needing a waiver or even a specific reason.
You are missing the point. If he is to be redshirted, say so Buzz and reasons why. Tired of hearing that he is not playing because of....???? Simple communication by Buzz seems to be in order. Of course, now we will hear that Buzz is God and does not need to explain anything.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 23, 2013, 10:03:38 AM
You are missing the point. If he is to be redshirted, say so Buzz and reasons why. Tired of hearing that he is not playing because of....???? Simple communication by Buzz seems to be in order. Of course, now we will hear that Buzz is God and does not need to explain anything.
I don't think Buzz is God. I just wonder why you think that he, or anyone else at Marquette, needs to explain to us if Duane is being redshirted and why. What gives us the right to know? Because we're fans? Because we're alums? Because we're season ticket holders? The decision is between Duane, his family, the MU coaches and the medical staff.
This is a really really dumb thread. Why all the conspiracy theorys? Ncca investigation theorys etc. Maybe, just maybe Steve is still hurting, hurting too much to contribute in mid to late December but close to being ready. Close enough that even considering a redshirt without a unforeseen stepback is not even part of the plan.
My guess from everything that I have seen is steve will be back in the rotation i the next month and they have taken it easy on him so that can be the case
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on December 23, 2013, 10:12:19 AM
I don't think Buzz is God. I just wonder why you think that he, or anyone else at Marquette, needs to explain to us if Duane is being redshirted and why. What gives us the right to know? Because we're fans? Because we're alums? Because we're season ticket holders? The decision is between Duane, his family, the MU coaches and the medical staff.
So when will we know of that Decision, in March? And that still does not explain why he is not playing. Holy Moly, have you missed all the finger pointing going on in Green bay with Rodgers, McCarthy, and Thompson. Here is the story line: The organization says no. So with Du. Wilson, it is Buzz says no. The question is why?
Quote from: willie warrior on December 23, 2013, 12:07:50 PM
So when will we know of that Decision, in March? And that still does not explain why he is not playing. Holy Moly, have you missed all the finger pointing going on in Green bay with Rodgers, McCarthy, and Thompson. Here is the story line: The organization says no. So with Du. Wilson, it is Buzz says no. The question is why?
My question remains: What gives us the right to know?
Quote from: willie warrior on December 23, 2013, 12:07:50 PM
So when will we know of that Decision, in March? And that still does not explain why he is not playing. Holy Moly, have you missed all the finger pointing going on in Green bay with Rodgers, McCarthy, and Thompson. Here is the story line: The organization says no. So with Du. Wilson, it is Buzz says no. The question is why?
I respectfully suggest that, as a protest, you stop being a Marquette fan.
A nice start might be to stop frequenting Marquette fan boards.
Quote from: MU82 on December 23, 2013, 01:07:25 PM
I respectfully suggest that, as a protest, you stop being a Marquette fan.
A nice start might be to stop frequenting Marquette fan boards.
I don't like this typical response that fans often give when someone questions the team, etc. "why don't you follow another team then".
You don't have to be a sunshine pumper 24/7 to be a fan.....a fanatic of a team wants to win and will question why they aren't winning. Only natural. Doesn't make them any less a fan IMO.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2013, 03:51:41 PM
I don't like this typical response that fans often give when someone questions the team, etc. "why don't you follow another team then".
You don't have to be a sunshine pumper 24/7 to be a fan.....a fanatic of a team wants to win and will question why they aren't winning. Only natural. Doesn't make them any less a fan IMO.
I agree with you 100%, Chicos.
But then there are the very, very few folks here who are just joyless bummers. If the team wins, it's not by enough. If it loses, it's catastrophe. If we win eight in a row, we lost the ninth because Buzz was stupid. If we win the ninth, we were lucky and did so despite the stupid coaching.
I've only been around these parts for a couple years and my impression of willie is that he gets absolutely no joy from rooting on the Warriors. So I just wish he would put himself out of his misery (and ours).
Feel free to go back in my history to see if I have ever made a similar suggestion to anyone else. I'll save you the time: I haven't.
Maybe if Willie could find the grand canyon of territory between being a "sunshine pump" and "everything Buzz or the school or the players does is wrong and I deserve better pump" his posts might be better received............
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on December 23, 2013, 03:51:41 PM
I don't like this typical response that fans often give when someone questions the team, etc. "why don't you follow another team then".
You don't have to be a sunshine pumper 24/7 to be a fan.....a fanatic of a team wants to win and will question why they aren't winning. Only natural. Doesn't make them any less a fan IMO.
Quote from: MU82 on December 23, 2013, 04:01:55 PM
I agree with you 100%, Chicos.
But then there are the very, very few folks here who are just joyless bummers. If the team wins, it's not by enough. If it loses, it's catastrophe. If we win eight in a row, we lost the ninth because Buzz was stupid. If we win the ninth, we were lucky and did so despite the stupid coaching.
I've only been around these parts for a couple years and my impression of willie is that he gets absolutely no joy from rooting on the Warriors. So I just wish he would put himself out of his misery (and ours).
Feel free to go back in my history to see if I have ever made a similar suggestion to anyone else. I'll save you the time: I haven't.
Gotcha
Most coaches do not wish to publicly reveal the injury status of a certain player. There are many reasons for this - most notably probably because many injuries are day-to-day and giving an update everytime the player feels a little better or a little worse would be tedious. Also - why give other coaches/teams the competitive advantage of making a gameplan surrounding your team? It wouldn't make sense to show everyone at the table your hand of cards.
Quote from: MarsupialMadness on December 24, 2013, 12:14:38 PM
Most coaches do not wish to publicly reveal the injury status of a certain player. There are many reasons for this - most notably probably because many injuries are day-to-day and giving an update everytime the player feels a little better or a little worse would be tedious. Also - why give other coaches/teams the competitive advantage of making a gameplan surrounding your team? It wouldn't make sense to show everyone at the table your hand of cards.
This might apply to real, proven impact players. And Duane might one day prove to be such a player. But I doubt Samford's coaching staff (or Creighton's) is saying: "Let's go with Plan A if Duane Wilson plays and Plan B if Duane Wilson doesn't."
That being said, I don't believe Buzz owes us daily updates on injuries. You know who really wants such updates? Gamblers.
Quote from: MU82 on December 23, 2013, 04:01:55 PM
I agree with you 100%, Chicos.
But then there are the very, very few folks here who are just joyless bummers. If the team wins, it's not by enough. If it loses, it's catastrophe. If we win eight in a row, we lost the ninth because Buzz was stupid. If we win the ninth, we were lucky and did so despite the stupid coaching.
I've only been around these parts for a couple years and my impression of willie is that he gets absolutely no joy from rooting on the Warriors. So I just wish he would put himself out of his misery (and ours).
Feel free to go back in my history to see if I have ever made a similar suggestion to anyone else. I'll save you the time: I haven't.
Keep slurping the Buzz Kool Aid. Your impressions of my joy leave you as I suspected, clueless. Been a fan since 1954. Let me know all your fan credentials so we can compare.
Quote from: MU82 on December 24, 2013, 12:25:38 PM
This might apply to real, proven impact players. And Duane might one day prove to be such a player. But I doubt Samford's coaching staff (or Creighton's) is saying: "Let's go with Plan A if Duane Wilson plays and Plan B if Duane Wilson doesn't."
I think most coaches make gameplans for every player and situation. I'd be willing to bet that McDermmott has drawn up a plan for Duane Wilson and Steve Taylor
Quote from: willie warrior on December 24, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
Keep slurping the Buzz Kool Aid. Your impressions of my joy leave you as I suspected, clueless. Been a fan since 1954. Let me know all your fan credentials so we can compare.
My only fan credential is that I attended Marquette, graduated from Marquette, married a Marquette girl and love Marquette basketball win or lose.
Now please get on the Board of Directors and talk your fellow members into firing this no-good rotten coach who has accomplished NOTHING for us and whose only mission this season is to make certain Scoopers furious by not playing John Dawson more.
Quote from: MU82 on December 24, 2013, 10:05:58 PM
My only fan credential is that I attended Marquette, graduated from Marquette, married a Marquette girl and love Marquette basketball win or lose.
Now please get on the Board of Directors and talk your fellow members into firing this no-good rotten coach who has accomplished NOTHING for us and whose only mission this season is to make certain Scoopers furious by not playing John Dawson more.
Sorry, I have never advocated anything about John dawson. You must be mistaking me for somebody else--which still makes you clueless. Not interested in getting on the Board of Directors because that is reserved for MU Grads who have married an MU girl. You can get on the Board with your illustrious credentials and give Buzz a life time contract. He deserves it and I will even make a contribution for you.
Come to think about it, I do advocate something about John Dawson. I think it is pure bullsh$t that your God can play a game in Vegas against New Mexico with Dawson's family in attendance, and your God Williams relegates the guy to picking splinters out of his ass. That is classless, and I would say it for any player that Buzz did that to--not only Dawson. Buzz hosed the kid. Put that in your credentials and smoke it. There are plenty of Buzzo decisions that warrant criticism other than that one. Only too many people keep giving him a pass.
Having said that, Merry Christmas, and I too am a fan, win or lose.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 24, 2013, 11:39:34 PM
I think it is pure bullsh$t that your God can play a game in Vegas against New Mexico with Dawson's family in attendance, and your God Williams relegates the guy to picking splinters out of his ass.
I watched the game and the bench chairs were plastic
Quote from: willie warrior on December 24, 2013, 11:39:34 PM
Sorry, I have never advocated anything about John dawson. You must be mistaking me for somebody else--which still makes you clueless. Not interested in getting on the Board of Directors because that is reserved for MU Grads who have married an MU girl. You can get on the Board with your illustrious credentials and give Buzz a life time contract. He deserves it and I will even make a contribution for you.
Come to think about it, I do advocate something about John Dawson. I think it is pure bullsh$t that your God can play a game in Vegas against New Mexico with Dawson's family in attendance, and your God Williams relegates the guy to picking splinters out of his ass. That is classless, and I would say it for any player that Buzz did that to--not only Dawson. Buzz hosed the kid. Put that in your credentials and smoke it. There are plenty of Buzzo decisions that warrant criticism other than that one. Only too many people keep giving him a pass.
Having said that, Merry Christmas, and I too am a fan, win or lose.
I have no basketball gods. Basketball is a game to play or watch or, in my case, coach. I get great joy out of it. I want the team I coach and my alma mater's team to succeed, but I try not to drive myself and others too crazy when things don't quite go as hoped.
I think Buzz is an excellent coach who sometimes makes mistakes, as we all do, and I hope he stays at Marquette for a long, long time. You are far more critical of Buzz; I can't quite tell if you think he should be fired but you definitely think we could do better than the guy who has led us to two Sweet Sixteens and an Elite Eight in the last three seasons. I have observed that you seem joyless when it comes to Marquette basketball but you say that is not the case.
We seem to have covered everything in this realm so, at this point, I will agree to disagree with you and will stop contributing to this conversation between us.
Wishing you a Merry Christmas, willie, and a New Year filled with joy.
Willie is to Buzz as PRN was to Crean. An early hater.
But the question is why?
All Buzz has done is make the NCAA tournament all 5 years he has been our coach....won at least 1 game in the tournament every season but 1 and made it to 2 sweet 16s and an Elite 8. He has developed 6 NBA players(not one of them were considered to be of that level when they were recruited) and finished 2nd and first in the old Big East the last 2 seasons.
What in the world does he have to do to earn the support of some people?
I mean seriously.... ::)
Quote from: tower912 on December 25, 2013, 12:09:37 PM
Willie is to Buzz as PRN was to Crean. An early hater.
Quote from: MuMark on December 25, 2013, 03:11:20 PM
He has developed 6 NBA players(not one of them were considered to be of that level when they were recruited)
Be prepared to be accused of calling those guys talentless hacks. And of giving Buzz credit that should go to Tom Crean or their high school or JC coach.
Quote from: tower912 on December 25, 2013, 12:09:37 PM
Willie is to Buzz as PRN was to Crean. An early hater.
Yup. Typical. When somebody doesn't agree with another, then the "hater" comes out, without a clue. We see that all the time nowadays. I would submit that after "mother#@%er", "Hater" is the most overused descriptive adjective in the English language. I would also submit that those that jump to the "Hater" description are less than tolerant and more closed minded than most others.
Happy New Year. And go Warriors!
Quote from: willie warrior on December 26, 2013, 08:01:30 AM
Yup. Typical. When somebody doesn't agree with another, then the "hater" comes out, without a clue. We see that all the time nowadays. I would submit that after "mother#@%er", "Hater" is the most overused descriptive adjective in the English language. I would also submit that those that jump to the "Hater" description are less than tolerant and more closed minded than most others.
Happy New Year. And go Warriors!
Willie, the problem is that you don't ever really say much positive about Buzz. That is why you are getting labelled a 'hater'.
Quote from: willie warrior on December 26, 2013, 08:01:30 AM
Yup. Typical. When somebody doesn't agree with another, then the "hater" comes out, without a clue. We see that all the time nowadays. I would submit that after "mother#@%er", "Hater" is the most overused descriptive adjective in the English language. I would also submit that those that jump to the "Hater" description are less than tolerant and more closed minded than most others.
Happy New Year. And go Warriors!
First of all, "mother#@%er" and "hater" are nouns, not descriptive adjectives, but since I never had you pegged as an English major, no big deal.
Secondly, and more to the point, the reason you're labeled a hater isn't because you disagree with people or that those calling you out are intolerant. It's that in spite of the fact that the basketball program is in the best shape it's been in for decades and employs the second most successful coach in its history, virtually all of your posts are negative. You love the Warriors. I, and probably nearly everyone here, accept that. I just think that subjecting those you love to almost constant verbal abuse is an ineffective way to show it.
Willie, if you don't describe yourself as a hater, please explain how you WOULD explain yourself in regards to Buzz. According to you, he can't recruit, doesn't play the right combinations, and is a drag on the program. How is that not the description of someone who hates the coach?
Own it. PRN did. After another vitriolic rant against the coach, when someone calls your vitriolic rant a vitriolic rant, don't immediately pull the weak, obviously fake "quit calling me names because I don't agree with you" card. Own it.
Not to mention the *constant* playing of the victim card.
Quote from: tower912 on December 26, 2013, 10:29:37 AM
Willie, if you don't describe yourself as a hater, please explain how you WOULD explain yourself in regards to Buzz. According to you, he can't recruit, doesn't play the right combinations, and is a drag on the program. How is that not the description of someone who hates the coach?
Own it. PRN did. After another vitriolic rant against the coach, when someone calls your vitriolic rant a vitriolic rant, don't immediately pull the weak, obviously fake "quit calling me names because I don't agree with you" card. Own it.
You own it, pard, because I have never said he cannot recruit, nor have I said he is a drag on the program. Those are your words, along with hater, so YOU OWN IT.
Reading is fundamental. If you have read my posts in the past, I have said on a number of occasions that Buzz is a good recruiter and an above average recruiter. I have also said that he has an inability to recruit a quality big out of high school. By that I mean a fairly highly regarded Big. I have said a few times that his player selection does not make sense. Your leaping
to criticism means you are a hater fits right in with the PC crowd of today. If I didn't know better, I might suspect that you are a teacher in the PS system.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 26, 2013, 10:18:50 AM
First of all, "mother#@%er" and "hater" are nouns, not descriptive adjectives, but since I never had you pegged as an English major, no big deal.
Secondly, and more to the point, the reason you're labeled a hater isn't because you disagree with people or that those calling you out are intolerant. It's that in spite of the fact that the basketball program is in the best shape it's been in for decades and employs the second most successful coach in its history, virtually all of your posts are negative. You love the Warriors. I, and probably nearly everyone here, accept that. I just think that subjecting those you love to almost constant verbal abuse is an ineffective way to show it.
Thank you for that correction of noun. Mother$#@$# has been used as a noun, adjective with ing, an exclamation and so on. You go ahead and interpret the rest of my posts any way you want, but hater reminds of the PC crowd, so if that is your mantra, go for it.
motherf*cker and other variations can be used in any grammar context.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on December 26, 2013, 01:23:26 PM
motherf*cker and other variations can be used in any grammar context.
This thread has progressed nicely.
Quote from: MU82 on December 26, 2013, 11:24:32 PM
This thread has progressed nicely.
Fine.
Steve Taylor is a bad-assed motherf*cker.
Steve Taylor with a motherf*ckin jam.
Should Steve Taylor play more? Motherf*ckinlutely.
Quote from: ZiggysFryBoy on December 26, 2013, 11:31:29 PM
Fine.
Steve Taylor is a bad-assed motherf*cker.
Steve Taylor with a motherf*ckin jam.
Should Steve Taylor play more? Motherf*ckinlutely.
The baddest Mofo of them all - Mofo Jones
(http://thepeoplesmovies.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/horriblebossesjones.jpg)
That term
always reminds me of Oliver Lee. It was his favorite word, bar none. He used it at least once in every sentence he ever uttered at Marquette. He and Worthen were roommates and shared a love of snow.
O Lee was a top 5 recruit out of Deland, FL. He is Doc Gooden's uncle. I have to wonder how great he could have been were it not for his love of controlled substances. He had one of purest shots of anyone to ever play at Marquette. Man could we use him on this year's team.
People may have forgotten but we routinely signed the cream of the high school crop. Back in the day Marquette was an elite program. I recall watching
White Shadow while at MU and one of the players asked the coach what colleges were expressing interest. The coach replied, "All the best...UCLA, Marquette, Indiana..."
Bloody hell, but Denny Crum was chomping at the bit to replace Al. Oh, but what could have been.
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRyh3F0GWRFk1RXBlZ33C3c0xbibsLz7J1SHBTVgqJJnM3wXVQs)
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 22, 2013, 02:16:26 PM
I think this is even more fundamental.
Clearly Taylor was medically cleared prior to the IUPUI game as evidenced by the fact he was available to for Buzz to use in the game. I cannot even fathom a situation in which Buzz could insert a player not medically cleared. So the fact that he was available is evidence that he was medically cleared.
And if he was medically cleared, then by definition the medical staff did not deem his injury to be incapacitating and season-ending.
So its not that the NCAA would have found out that Buzz nearly sent Taylor into the game. Its that the medical records that would need to support any medical redshirt aren't consistent with a season ending injury, and actualy say the exact opposite--he WAS cleared to play.
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the Kevin Ware situation. Just today they announced that he is going to seek a medical redshirt. I believe that he was dressed to play v. Kentucky, but wasn't used by Louisville.
Nevermind...he wasn't dressed.
Quote from: The Sultan of Syncopation on December 30, 2013, 11:54:22 AM
It's going to be interesting to see how this plays out in the Kevin Ware situation. Just today they announced that he is going to seek a medical redshirt. I believe that he was dressed to play v. Kentucky, but wasn't used by Louisville.
So the question becomes...if he was on the bench, he must have been medically cleared. If he was cleared, then the injury wasn't "incapacitating."
My guess is that he gets to use the redshirt. And that your scenario isn't always as logical and as black and white as you think it is.
The key difference here is that Ware suffered a new injury:
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10215391/kevin-ware-louisville-cardinals-redshirt-chane-behanan-dismissed
"Ware suffered an injury to his right leg earlier in the month. It's the same leg he broke back in March when he landed awkwardly against Duke in the Elite Eight."
"Ware had surgery and missed much of the preseason. He made his return on Nov. 15 against Cornell, played nine games before sitting out the last two after being kicked in his right leg in a victory against Missouri State."
Meanwhile, we don't know if he was medically cleared to play or not. There's a difference between being dressed and actually cleared to play. Pitino didn't even try to put him in a game.
LOL.
For the second time in as many days, I edited my post as you were posting your reply.
He wasn't dressed for the Kentucky game so my guess is that he wasn't cleared making my post irrelevant. But it was an injury related to his initial leg break...a set back. Similar situation that Taylor is facing.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on December 25, 2013, 09:07:26 PM
Be prepared to be accused of calling those guys talentless hacks.
Once again, I'm amused at how insulted you are at this comment when your intent all along was to set as low a bar as possible for them in HS so you could falsely claim Buzz developed them from that point.
Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't embraced the comment so you could claim Buzz turned talentless hacks into NBA players instead of merely "sub 500 HS guys." I mean, that's a bigger accomplishment, don't you think?
It's not true--they were JUCO AAs before setting foot on MU's campus. But it would be a bigger and better false claim.
Or maybe you'd rather we go back and give Buzz credit for turning two guys who couldn't even dribble into NBA players. Its true. I'm sure at one point in their lives, neither Jae nor Jimmy had even picked up a basketball, no less dribbled.
Or two guys who had never set foot on a basketball court into NBA players. Again, absolutely true using your logic.
Or two guys who couldn't even walk into NBA players. Again, true--at one point they couldn't walk.
Or maybe this--He turned two guys who couldn't even feed themselves into NBA players.
Or how about this--he turned two guys who weren't even conceived into NBA players.
How about this: When talking about what credit Buzz deserves, we set the baseline at the level the players were immedeately before arriving on MU's campus. That way, we refer to Jimmy and Jae as JUCO AAs, not merely as guys who are "one-" or "two years removed from HS."
Quote from: The Equalizer on December 30, 2013, 12:23:45 PM
Once again, I'm amused at how insulted you are at this comment when your intent all along was to set as low a bar as possible for them in HS so you could falsely claim Buzz developed them from that point.
Frankly, I'm surprised you haven't embraced the comment so you could claim Buzz turned talentless hacks into NBA players instead of merely "sub 500 HS guys." I mean, that's a bigger accomplishment, don't you think?
It's not true--they were JUCO AAs before setting foot on MU's campus. But it would be a bigger and better false claim.
Or maybe you'd rather we go back and give Buzz credit for turning two guys who couldn't even dribble into NBA players. Its true. I'm sure at one point in their lives, neither Jae nor Jimmy had even picked up a basketball, no less dribbled.
Or two guys who had never set foot on a basketball court into NBA players. Again, absolutely true using your logic.
Or two guys who couldn't even walk into NBA players. Again, true--at one point they couldn't walk.
Or maybe this--He turned two guys who couldn't even feed themselves into NBA players.
Or how about this--he turned two guys who weren't even conceived into NBA players.
How about this: When talking about what credit Buzz deserves, we set the baseline at the level the players were immedeately before arriving on MU's campus. That way, we refer to Jimmy and Jae as JUCO AAs, not merely as guys who are "one-" or "two years removed from HS."
How about we set your baseline at where you were "immedeately" before you penned this: second grade.