Wally Ellenson.
He qualified for the NCAA Track and Field national championships in the high jump that run from June 11-14. My guess is that he will announce his transfer soon afterwards.
Marquette has been mentioned as a potential spot for him. If so, what does that mean for Henry?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 04, 2014, 01:26:19 PM
Wally Ellenson.
He qualified for the NCAA Track and Field national championships in the high jump that run from June 11-14. My guess is that he will announce his transfer soon afterwards.
Marquette has been mentioned as a potential spot for him. If so, what does that mean for Henry?
It can only help. I'm not sure if young Wally is talented enough to make our roster. He did next to nothing at Minnesota. Plus, I think being a track star he would prefer to end up at a program with a better track team.
If he did next to nothing, how did he qualify for the high jump national championships? That sounds pretty good to me. ?-(
Quote from: GooooMarquette on June 04, 2014, 01:41:01 PM
If he did next to nothing, how did he qualify for the high jump national championships? That sounds pretty good to me. ?-(
Good at high jump, not good at basketball.
Quote from: GooooMarquette on June 04, 2014, 01:41:01 PM
If he did next to nothing, how did he qualify for the high jump national championships? That sounds pretty good to me. ?-(
I meant on the basketball court
The kid has Olympic potential in the high jump (as in making the US team). Would he transfer to a school that does not have the track program for him to realize this potential?
I'm asking, not saying
hypothetically, if we were guaranteed to land a top 5 player, wouldn't you take Wally and even hire a national level high-jump coach to ease his concerns?
I would think the value proposition of landing a top 5 player is worth an extra bball roster spot, and a 100k a year track coach.
Quote from: dw3dw3dw3 on June 04, 2014, 02:09:22 PM
hypothetically, if we were guaranteed to land a top 5 player, wouldn't you take Wally and even hire a national level high-jump coach to ease his concerns?
I would think the value proposition of landing a top 5 player is worth an extra bball roster spot, and a 100k a year track coach.
So now we're going to hire track coaches to satisfy basketball recruits? Yeesh.
It would be legal and you're getting a legitimate McD bigman. You wouldn't do it if you were Wojo? I'm sure there has been a thread or two on our lack of high-quality big recruits over the past 20 or 30 years.
Marquette has a track and field program.
Maybe we should recruit his dad.
Oh, wait....
I say we get Dwight Stone to be his personal high-jump coach and top it off by hiring Carl Lewis to sing the national anthem at all of our home games!
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 04, 2014, 02:28:59 PM
Marquette has a track and field program.
I don't think Hberg meant that we don't have a track and field program. I think he meant that we don't have a track and field team that would give him a good chance to make the US Olympic team.
I also don't think the track and field program is guaranteed to survive the next 5 years.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 04, 2014, 03:51:32 PM
I don't think Hberg meant that we don't have a track and field program. I think he meant that we don't have a track and field team that would give him a good chance to make the US Olympic team.
I also don't think the track and field program is guaranteed to survive the next 5 years.
Well Wally would be in basically an individual sport. Of course he would need coaching, but if he wants to play basketball he may not have many choices.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 04, 2014, 02:10:15 PM
So now we're going to hire track coaches to satisfy basketball recruits? Yeesh.
We do have an excellent "track" record of success. AmmIright????
Quote from: wadesworld on June 04, 2014, 02:10:15 PM
So now we're going to hire track coaches to satisfy basketball recruits? Yeesh.
I would if it meant getting certain recruits.
Quote from: dw3dw3dw3 on June 04, 2014, 02:09:22 PM
hypothetically, if we were guaranteed to land a top 5 player, wouldn't you take Wally and even hire a national level high-jump coach to ease his concerns?
I would think the value proposition of landing a top 5 player is worth an extra bball roster spot, and a 100k a year track coach.
Quote from: wadesworld on June 04, 2014, 02:10:15 PM
So now we're going to hire track coaches to satisfy basketball recruits? Yeesh.
SQUIRMY!
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 04, 2014, 02:28:59 PM
Marquette has a track and field program.
Yes Marquette does have a track program and actually the men's and women's track and cross country programs have a very rich history, with Olympians, national champions, many all-american's, women's NAIA national championship in cross country, the first ever NCAA D1 all-american for women in any sport, 23 team championships in the Great Midwest and Conference-USA and most recently the men placing a solid 4th and the women 3rd at the Big East outdoor track championships with several individual champions. In the 10 year history of C-USA the women's cross country team won it 7 times and were 2nd the other 3 years. They have done this without having an indoor track, having the smallest coaching staff (3 full time) relative to the number of countable sports and athletes(6 NCAA sports with men's and women's cross country, indoor track and outdoor track and about 90 athletes) and the smallest scholarship budget of all the sports.
And for the person that said we may not have a track program much longer, Marquette is currently one above the number of required sports to be a DI school, so if you dropped the 6 programs that make up men's and women's cross country and track you would need to add two new women's sports and two new men's sports; so 4 new teams with four different coaching staffs, locker rooms, etc. No way could Marquette afford to get rid of track and cross country. I guess they could drop track and keep cross country and therefore would only need to add one new men's and women's sport, but it still would not make a lot of financial sense.
And the current coaching staff could certainly work with a high jumper the caliber of Ellenson, especially considering he is concentrating mostly on basketball and is doing his high jumping in a relatively short period of time in the outdoor season.
Quote from: chitownwarrior2011 on June 04, 2014, 05:21:10 PM
I would if it meant getting certain recruits.
First if all it wouldn't, and second of all I wouldn't. A basketball program is bigger than one potential recruit. You don't overpay a new track coach so that a track athlete who could also join your basketball team
might think about transferring into your school, just so that his younger brother
might commit to play for your basketball program. This is right up there with suggesting that Doc Rivers would leave his job as one of the top 5 coaches in the NBA just to take a
giant paycut to become the AD of MU simply to convince his "friend" Shaka Smart to come coach at MU, or Dick Bennett would come out of retirement just to become an AD to convince his son to leave his ACC Chsmpion and #1 NCAA Tournament seed in order to coach at the school that was his in-state rival when he was coaching UW to a FF. Some Scoop posters come up with some really good ideas.
MU has proven to be big enough to not allow a basketball coach to pick the AD he works with, let alone hire someone with absolutely no experience in a athletic department/front office position just to sway a coach 1 way or another, thankfully. They sure as heck shouldn't hire an athletic coach just to convince an athlete (from another sport, no less) to come to MU.
Henry isn't coming to MU, regardless of whether his brother is or not. And MU will be just fine despite that. Wait, nevermind, Coach K flew all the way to Rice Lake just to tell Henry how great Wojo is, he's in! ::)
We aren't very good at D1 track, he isn't very good at D1 basketball. Match made in heaven...or at a Shakey's.
Quote from: dw3dw3dw3 on June 04, 2014, 02:09:22 PM
hypothetically, if we were guaranteed to land a top 5 player, wouldn't you take Wally and even hire a national level high-jump coach to ease his concerns?
I would think the value proposition of landing a top 5 player is worth an extra bball roster spot, and a 100k a year track coach.
1) What does getting Wally Ellenson have to do with getting Diamond Stone?
2) "I only want guys at Marquette who want to be at Marquette. If I have to twist your arm or promise you stuff to want to put that jersey on, I don't think that's the right fit."
-Wojo
Quote from: LittleMurs on June 04, 2014, 05:40:06 PM
1) What does getting Wally Ellenson have to do with getting Diamond Stone?
2) "I only want guys at Marquette who want to be at Marquette. If I have to twist your arm or promise you stuff to want to put that jersey on, I don't think that's the right fit."
-Wojo
The top 5 player he was referring to is Henry Ellenson...he is ranked 5th in the new ESPN rankings.....
Quote from: wadesworld on June 04, 2014, 05:31:57 PM
Henry isn't coming to MU, regardless of whether his brother is or not. And MU will be just fine despite that. Wait, nevermind, Coach K flew all the way to Rice Lake just to tell Henry how great Wojo is, he's in! ::)
Again, you have no information to back this. Henry is a long way from making his college decision and Marquette is legitimately inside his top 5. Do I think he's coming here? No. But don't make definitive statements unless you know something.
Quote from: MU1980 on June 04, 2014, 05:26:28 PM
And for the person that said we may not have a track program much longer, Marquette is currently one above the number of required sports to be a DI school, so if you dropped the 6 programs that make up men's and women's cross country and track you would need to add two new women's sports and two new men's sports; so 4 new teams with four different coaching staffs, locker rooms, etc. No way could Marquette afford to get rid of track and cross country. I guess they could drop track and keep cross country and therefore would only need to add one new men's and women's sport, but it still would not make a lot of financial sense.
My apologies. I misspoke. Cross country is in danger of getting cut. Not track and field.
Cross country is a pretty low cost program. They don't require a great deal of scholarships and they hardly travel. Not saying you are wrong, but if the athletic department is having financial issues, this to me seems like a rather odd solution.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 04, 2014, 09:24:17 PM
My apologies. I misspoke. Cross country is in danger of getting cut. Not track and field.
I know of several schools that have cross country and not track, but I don't know of any schools that have track without cross country. There are no cross country scholarships; they are part of the 12.6 scholarships allowed for track. You would still need distance runners for track and someone to coach them, so there would be no real reason to get rid of cross country and keep track.
Just passing along what I have heard.
Quote from: MU1980 on June 04, 2014, 10:07:55 PM
I know of several schools that have cross country and not track, but I don't know of any schools that have track without cross country. There are no cross country scholarships; they are part of the 12.6 scholarships allowed for track. You would still need distance runners for track and someone to coach them, so there would be no real reason to get rid of cross country and keep track.
This is correct, I too know of no track program without cross country. Drop cross and keep track you are still paying distance coaches and have runners on (partial) scholarship.
If you have track, the marginal cost to have cross country is literally the travel in the fall to away meets. That is a rounding error to the athletic budget.
And yes, their are many schools with cross country but not track.
Quote from: Heisenberg on June 05, 2014, 06:24:02 AM
This is correct, I too took know of no track program without cross country. Drop cross and keep track you are still paying distance coaches and have runners on (partial) scholarship.
If you have track, the marginal cost to have cross country is literally the travel in the fall to away meets. That is a rounding error to the athletic budget.
And yes, their are many schools with cross country but not track.
Just found out that USC has track, but not cross country. They have only two distance kids listed on their roster and I am sure they don't actively recruit them. Hard to recruit a distance runner with no cross country team.
I would be very surprised if Marquette got rid of cross country and kept track, but I never thought UW would get rid of baseball either or that Marquette would drop wrestling.
As was pointed out earlier however, Marquette is at the minimum of NCAA mandated sports (7 men...7 women). If you drop Cross Country, you have to add something else. As has been mentioned, Cross is such a low cost sport, I have no idea why you would drop that.
The only sports that the BE sponsors that MU doesn't participate in are baseball, softball, swimming, field hockey and women's golf. They don't have the facilities for the first three...unless swimming can use the rec center... and field hockey would be odd since it isn't played much in the high schools. Women's golf could be a possibility, but why?
Guys, IMHO you've got Wally all wrong (as many had Henry wrong).
He's a very good basketball player. Ignore what you saw at Minnesota (which included a pre-season injury freshman year that kept him out for NC play and a coaching change in year 2).
He needs to be a two-sport athlete. (Which in this case would mean at a cost of a basketball scholarship.)
Who would he be most comparable to re: current Warriors? Not that similar, but perhaps Sandy Cohen, but Wally is a better athlete and outside shooter (albeit streaky). His nature is that of a medium-high usage guy (think 22-26% as a range he'd likely fall in, depending on circumstances and team)... hard worker, determined, non-traditional traditional who has amazing leaping abilities.
He's a guy who could play and defend the 2/3.. if you wanted a guard/wing to crash the offensive boards, he's what the doc ordered - honestly, capable of putting up a STRONG OR%.
His biggest issue might be (have been) getting acclimated to the speed of the college game. Once the feel is there (and fall of 2015.. it may be), he's a dangerous and good player.
Disclaimer/Questionnaire: Have you even ever seen the guy play? Answer: Yes, hours upon hours and in various settings/leagues/etc. [Would be helpful to have such disclosure when people post about players]
Thanks JayBee....and Mark Miller mentioned back in April that Iowa State, Baylor and Texas Tech are in the mix for him. All high, D1 programs.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 05, 2014, 10:11:28 AM
Thanks JayBee....and Mark Miller mentioned back in April that Iowa State, Baylor and Texas Tech are in the mix for him. All high, D1 programs.
... and Baylor and Texas Tech have excellent track programs that would be good landing spots for one the nation's best high jumpers.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on June 05, 2014, 09:59:00 AM
As was pointed out earlier however, Marquette is at the minimum of NCAA mandated sports (7 men...7 women). If you drop Cross Country, you have to add something else. As has been mentioned, Cross is such a low cost sport, I have no idea why you would drop that.
The only sports that the BE sponsors that MU doesn't participate in are baseball, softball, swimming, field hockey and women's golf. They don't have the facilities for the first three...unless swimming can use the rec center... and field hockey would be odd since it isn't played much in the high schools. Women's golf could be a possibility, but why?
You forget that we added men's and women's lacrosse. We are currently sitting at 8 and 8. We can drop one of each.
I think people are also underestimating how expensive non-revenue sports can be.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 05, 2014, 02:51:20 PM
You forget that we added men's and women's lacrosse. We are currently sitting at 8 and 8. We can drop one of each.
I think people are also underestimating how expensive non-revenue sports can be.
Track and cross country are by far the cheapest sports due to the fact that they have one coaching staff for six counting sports, only two locker rooms, travel together on buses for two sports at a time, etc. Also, track and cross country has ridiculously low scholarship amounts of around 8 total for men and 8 for women. That comes out to less than 3 scholarships per sport. Marquette has an incredible deal by having indoor and outdoor track/cross country, especially by combining the men's and women's programs and getting someone willing to get paid very little per sport to coach all six sports
As has been mentioned, getting rid of cross country doesn't eliminate any of the coaching staff, scholarships or locker room space. Also, it makes it that much more difficult to have a competitive track team, so you are hurting four of the sports that you are keeping.
Hopefully they don't cut any sport, but if they did feel the need, they would save a lot more money by getting rid of the tennis programs. I was around when they dropped wrestling and it was awful, especially because Jim Schmitz was an amazing coach and the program had a lot of success. Still don't understand why they added LaCrosse, when they didn't need to and many of the programs were already being underfunded. At a small school with only basketball bringing in revenue, it would have made sense to try and fully fund all the current sports before adding more.
Quote from: MU1980 on June 05, 2014, 03:02:16 PM
Track and cross country are by far the cheapest sports due to the fact that they have one coaching staff for six counting sports, only two locker rooms, travel together on buses for two sports at a time, etc. Also, track and cross country has ridiculously low scholarship amounts of around 8 total for men and 8 for women. That comes out to less than 3 scholarships per sport. Marquette has an incredible deal by having indoor and outdoor track/cross country, especially by combining the men's and women's programs and getting someone willing to get paid very little per sport to coach all six sports
As has been mentioned, getting rid of cross country doesn't eliminate any of the coaching staff, scholarships or locker room space. Also, it makes it that much more difficult to have a competitive track team, so you are hurting four of the sports that you are keeping.
Hopefully they don't cut any sport, but if they did feel the need, they would save a lot more money by getting rid of the tennis programs. I was around when they dropped wrestling and it was awful, especially because Jim Schmitz was an amazing coach and the program had a lot of success. Still don't understand why they added LaCrosse, when they didn't need to and many of the programs were already being underfunded. At a small school with only basketball bringing in revenue, it would have made sense to try and fully fund all the current sports before adding more.
Again, just passing along what I have heard. I know cutting tennis has been discussed as well. Track has been brought up but they don't know how to get around the minimum sport requirement.
Also, even if it is the cheapest of all the sports (not actually sure that's true) we are still talking thousands of dollars.
Quote from: TAMU Eagle on June 05, 2014, 03:19:13 PM
Again, just passing along what I have heard. I know cutting tennis has been discussed as well. Track has been brought up but they don't know how to get around the minimum sport requirement.
Also, even if it is the cheapest of all the sports (not actually sure that's true) we are still talking thousands of dollars.
I am not disagreeing with you at all and maybe you have some inside information that I no longer have. What I do have is an understanding of what the budgets are. Getting rid of cross country over two other sports (which could only be tennis since they aren't going to get rid of soccer or volleyball/golf) would make absolutely no sense. You don't free up any coaching salaries and benefits (over $100,000 for two tennis coaches), any scholarship money (probably at least $600,00 for men's and women's tennis), you don't free up locker room space in a crowded old gym and by eliminating cross country you hurt four of your remaining teams, since it helps to have distance runners on a track team. The cross country team also does not do home and away meets/games so they only fly once a year to the conference meet. So the only money you save is a few bus trips (which both men's and women's team share), one plane trip, a few hotel rooms and some meal money. Maybe $30-40,000 at most, as opposed to close to $900,000 for tennis. Not even a close comparison if they really are looking to save money.
Also, over the years cross country/track alums have donated millions of dollars to the program, which from what I have heard is the most of the non-revenue sports. No need to anger wealthy alumni that regularly donate to the school and athletics. Track/cross country alums donated by far the largest amount towards valley fields.
And just to emphasize, I do not in any way want them to get rid of tennis either.