Next year's team will be younger than this year's team particularly if Jones and Norman are not invited back. There has been minimal growth by Parham, Hamilton, and Owens and there's zero reason to believe they'll improve. Next year's team will be reliant the current frosh, recruits and redshirts. This may take a few seasons. Someone convince me otherwise before I renew for next season.
Depends on what our coach does in March and April.
Invited back huh...
If no legitimate Big East rotational pieces are added through the portal and there are no unexpected departures, they'll be better but not good enough to even be on the bubble.
You can build around Nigel. I'd expect Egbuonu to be one of the better players on the team if the above is the case. The ceiling would depend on whether Sheek can contribute right away and whether Stevens and Parham progress to legitimate Big East rotational players.
RGV 2.0
On one hand we won with Kam, Stevie, Justin, Oso, Omax & Tyler playing a lot of minutes as freshmen/sophomores
Though that group had Darryl, Gregg, & Kur to be a steadying presence. So the question to me is whether anyone who'd be an upper classmen could replicate the contributions those three gave us.
Instinct is no we'll be the same or worse in 26/27 as it stands now.
Not unless Shaka hits the portal, which I have to imagine he will.
Quote from: Galway Eagle on January 14, 2026, 03:42:31 PMOn one hand we won with Kam, Stevie, Justin, Oso, Omax & Tyler playing a lot of minutes as freshmen/sophomores
Though that group had Darryl, Gregg, & Kur to be a steadying presence. So the question to me is whether anyone who'd be an upper classmen could replicate the contributions those three gave us.
Instinct is no we'll be the same or worse in 26/27 as it stands now.
It would actually be incredibly hard to beat whatever record marquette finishes with this season. Surely they'll play a much weaker non conference.
Need 8/9 rotational players:
1. Nigel
2.
3.
4.
5. Parham
6. Stevens
7. Sheek
8. Egbuono
9. Existing player on this team
List is basically minutes ranking or player ranking, whatever.
Nigel somewhere in the top 4. Ideally the others listed would be in the 5-8 range for next year. So, need 3 new players who would be in our top 4 to compete for a bid. Once you start promoting players who belong in 5-8 range up to 1-4 range, that's how you end up with seasons like this. Exactly what happened this year.
Looks expensive though. I guess that's the cost of completely whiffing on multiple recruiting classes.
Quote from: Warrior of Law on January 14, 2026, 03:06:50 PMNext year's team will be younger than this year's team particularly if Jones and Norman are not invited back. There has been minimal growth by Parham, Hamilton, and Owens and there's zero reason to believe they'll improve. Next year's team will be reliant the current frosh, recruits and redshirts. This may take a few seasons. Someone convince me otherwise before I renew for next season.
Parham has shown clear improvement. Owens shows flashes. Agree on Hamilton.
To answer your question, yes I think there is reason to believe they'll be better. They are better than they were 3 weeks ago, and I'd except they keep improving. How much? Who knows.
Quote from: CountryRoads on January 14, 2026, 04:02:54 PMNeed 8/9 rotational players:
1. Nigel
2.
3.
4.
5. Parham
6. Stevens
7. Sheek
8. Egbuono
9. Existing player on this team
List is basically minutes ranking or player ranking, whatever.
Nigel somewhere in the top 4. Ideally the others listed would be in the 5-8 range for next year. So, need 3 new players who would be in our top 4 to compete for a bid. Once you start promoting players who belong in 5-8 range up to 1-4 range, that's how you end up with seasons like this. Exactly what happened this year.
Looks expensive though. I guess that's the cost of completely whiffing on multiple recruiting classes.
Believe Marquette will be better since it is difficult to imagine us being any worse.
The people I know who have seen Sheek play are bullish on him and feel he may start.
Also feel Nash Walker will be a rotational player. Miletic will add needed shooting too.
Quote from: BM1090 on January 14, 2026, 04:17:16 PMParham has shown clear improvement. Owens shows flashes. Agree on Hamilton.
To answer your question, yes I think there is reason to believe they'll be better. They are better than they were 3 weeks ago, and I'd except they keep improving. How much? Who knows.
Parham looks better because everyone around him stinks. Ideally, he would be a 7th guy on a good team. I wouldn't mind if he stays but he shouldn't play a prominent role. Owens is a big time CYA.
This team is in need of a major roster overhaul if we are competing next year.
If you asked me a month ago I would have said hell no. But I do see improvement next year. However without 2-3 high level transfers they are not even close to a tournament team.
Nigel will make more of an impact as a sophomore than Ross does as a senior. If Sheek can at least equal Gold's output that's a win (big if, as a frosh). I do think Royce will also be better than senior Gold but he's not on Par with what we need as a top 3 guy. Don't have any expectations out of either senior and also low expectations for Owens and Clark. So really at a minimum two of those four need to pack up at Humphrey Hall.
Nash, Miletic have some experience here and hopefully a much needed skill set in shooting. Egbuono comes with high praise. I predict Johnston is the next redshirt. Lots of uncertainties. Will be interesting.
Quote from: MarquetteMike1977 on January 14, 2026, 04:24:39 PMThe people I know who have seen Sheek play are bullish on him and feel he may start.
I hope so, but him beating out Josh and Caedin doesn't mean much to me at face value. Will he be able to compete with the Ejiofor's and Reed's of the world and whoever else the competition gets in the portal? Shaka always quotes Mike Tomlin so I guess we can say, "The standard is the standard." Right now we're way below it.
Quote from: wadesworld on January 14, 2026, 03:29:40 PMIf no legitimate Big East rotational pieces are added through the portal and there are no unexpected departures, they'll be better but not good enough to even be on the bubble.
You can build around Nigel. I'd expect Egbuonu to be one of the better players on the team if the above is the case. The ceiling would depend on whether Sheek can contribute right away and whether Stevens and Parham progress to legitimate Big East rotational players.
But if no portal players, then the lineup would probably be:
Two freshmen (Sheek, Egbuono)
Two sophomores (James, Stevens)
One Junior (Parham)
Of course that being maybe Owens stays and starts.
Then the excuse of losing, would be the same narrative that is currently being discussed as an excuse, too many young players against older experienced players.
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on January 14, 2026, 03:13:53 PMDepends on what our coach does in March and April.
Which cannot come soon enough!
All IMHO:
James, Stevens, Parham and possibly others will be more experienced and better after getting a baptism under fire.
Egbuonu and Sheek will be valuable contributors. Other newbies might be, too.
Shaka will bring in at least two good players via the transfer portal.
So sure, lots of reasons to believe MU will be better, probably a lot better.
Or if it makes folks feel "better" ...
Nah, nobody will improve, the newcomers will suck, Shaka will stubbornly refuse to add transfers, and we'll stink again. Whee!
Quote from: Warrior of Law on January 14, 2026, 03:06:50 PMNext year's team will be younger than this year's team particularly if Jones and Norman are not invited back. There has been minimal growth by Parham, Hamilton, and Owens and there's zero reason to believe they'll improve. Next year's team will be reliant the current frosh, recruits and redshirts. This may take a few seasons. Someone convince me otherwise before I renew for next season.
You could play a couple of Scoopers major minutes next season and have a better win-loss result compared to this season.
Ners for one. Who else?
Quote from: tower912 on January 14, 2026, 06:55:29 PMNers for one. Who else?
I was just talking about slight improvement. Now you're talking natty.
If Shaka gets 2-3 guys from the portal, we will be much, much better. If he sticks to his guns, we will settle in as a fair to average BE team at best.
We have the Lowery schollie. I am guessing we will have 1-2 more open schollies. Perfect time and a great excuse to use the portal. Really, what difference does it make if you recruit high school kids, and the freshmen you recruit are better than other players you recruited before. And they play. So, in essence you recruited over existing players. Same with portal. Use it. It's ok
Quote from: Daniel on January 14, 2026, 07:51:23 PMWe have the Lowery schollie. I am guessing we will have 1-2 more open schollies. Perfect time and a great excuse to use the portal. Really, what difference does it make if you recruit high school kids, and the freshmen you recruit are better than other players you recruited before. And they play. So, in essence you recruited over existing players. Same with portal. Use it. It's ok
I'm guessing some (perhaps even Shaka) would argue that it's not a matter of a recruit (or transfer) earning playing time over a returning player because the recruit (or transfer) proves he's better than the returnee ... it's a matter of
paying a recruit (or transfer) more than a returnee.
I'm not saying that school of thought is "right." IMHO, if we are to return to prominence, Shaka (or whoever the coach is) very well might need to pay a proven, talented transfer and/or a high-ranked recruit more than what returnees will be paid.
Returnee Jones got a clean bill of health and some Scoopers assumed he'd move back into the starting lineup even though freshman James was playing well; they were wrong. Fairly early in the season, Shaka benched returnee Lowery in favor of freshman Stevens. So obviously Shaka was willing to use recruits over returnees. But did James and Stevens receive more financial compensation than Jones and Lowery? I haven't seen the books, but I'd bet the answer's no.
Quote from: MU82 on January 14, 2026, 08:01:20 PMI'm guessing some (perhaps even Shaka) would argue that it's not a matter of a recruit (or transfer) earning playing time over a returning player because the recruit (or transfer) proves he's better than the returnee ... it's a matter of paying a recruit (or transfer) more than a returnee.
I'm not saying that school of thought is "right." IMHO, if we are to return to prominence, Shaka (or whoever the coach is) very well might need to pay a proven, talented transfer and/or a high-ranked recruit more than what returnees will be paid.
Returnee Jones got a clean bill of health and some Scoopers assumed he'd move back into the starting lineup even though freshman James was playing well; they were wrong. Fairly early in the season, Shaka benched returnee Lowery in favor of freshman Stevens. So obviously Shaka was willing to use recruits over returnees. But did James and Stevens receive more financial compensation than Jones and Lowery? I haven't seen the books, but I'd bet the answer's no.
Good points. But I feel that this will come. As this is the way the rest of the world works. Once done once, it will be easier
Quote from: Daniel on January 14, 2026, 08:21:56 PMGood points. But I feel that this will come. As this is the way the rest of the world works. Once done once, it will be easier
Yup. Here's hoping.
Quote from: MU82 on January 14, 2026, 08:01:20 PMI'm guessing some (perhaps even Shaka) would argue that it's not a matter of a recruit (or transfer) earning playing time over a returning player because the recruit (or transfer) proves he's better than the returnee ... it's a matter of paying a recruit (or transfer) more than a returnee.
I'm not saying that school of thought is "right." IMHO, if we are to return to prominence, Shaka (or whoever the coach is) very well might need to pay a proven, talented transfer and/or a high-ranked recruit more than what returnees will be paid.
Returnee Jones got a clean bill of health and some Scoopers assumed he'd move back into the starting lineup even though freshman James was playing well; they were wrong. Fairly early in the season, Shaka benched returnee Lowery in favor of freshman Stevens. So obviously Shaka was willing to use recruits over returnees. But did James and Stevens receive more financial compensation than Jones and Lowery? I haven't seen the books, but I'd bet the answer's no.
Great post 82. I simply do not believe that Shaka will do
all of what he needs to do, and as long as he is our coach we will not "return to prominence". With a patched up, or "modified" RGV, we/Shaka still will not be able to do what is necessary. Middle-of-the-pack in the BE would be our ceiling. RGV
has to go, which means its
creator has to go in order to "return to prominence". Cue the scoopers with the "one bad season" and reciting his very impressive accomplishments, as if they are relevant to the here and now of this mind-boggling disaster resulting from RGV. Then was then, and now is now.
I never, ever thought I would write this, but Coach Don Quixote, astride his steed Argeevy, needs to ride off into the sunset. I hate saying this, but it is what I believe.
Edit: I am well aware that he will likely return next season. I am simply expressing my opinion.
I think it's been mentioned on this board that MU NIL is based on your grade level (seniors get more than frosh). If that's the case, jettisoning Jones and Norman would free up some money and pave the way for a transfer or two. MU can soften the blow for their transfer to a Horizon league team with a severance payment. I'm not confident that Shaka will do that, and I fear he'll lean on the existing roster. Perhaps even to the extent that he gets himself fired for having the worst two-season stretch in MU history.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on January 14, 2026, 08:41:10 PMGreat post 82. I simply do not believe that Shaka will do all of what he needs to do, and as long as he is our coach we will not "return to prominence". With a patched up, or "modified" RGV, we/Shaka still will not be able to do what is necessary. Middle-of-the-pack in the BE would be our ceiling. RGV has to go, which means its creator has to go in order to "return to prominence". Cue the scoopers with the "one bad season" and reciting his very impressive accomplishments, as if they are relevant to the here and now of this mind-boggling disaster resulting from RGV. Then was then, and now is now.
I never, ever thought I would write this, but Coach Don Quixote, astride his steed Argeevy, needs to ride off into the sunset. I hate saying this, but it is what I believe.
Edit: I am well aware that he will likely return next season. I am simply expressing my opinion.
I don't know how Shaka will respond to this season. My opinion is that he will realize wining isn't possible with this current roster-building philosophy and that he will make necessary changes. But maybe you're right - though I hope not. We'll see!
There are some very inappropriate comments I would like to ascribe to next season's last place team that I will not post because of level of sensibility....
The frustration is large with all of this crap....
Quote from: MU82 on January 15, 2026, 12:41:09 AMI don't know how Shaka will respond to this season. My opinion is that he will realize wining isn't possible with this current roster-building philosophy and that he will make necessary changes. But maybe you're right - though I hope not. We'll see!
Blind faith-something that is
not characteristic of me-is what I had (note
past tense) in Shaka's ability to make his system work. I had my suspicions last season as the bench failed repeatedly to be reliable but trusted in Shaka's vision based upon his success at Marquette. Not only did he fail to go to the portal last Spring, but his preseason assurances of how impressively Hamilton had improved and that our calling card would be a tenacious defense made it clear that he was not dealing with reality. :o
When a professor is offered a position at a university and accepts, it takes quite a while before tenure is part of the relationship with the university. Yet apparently Marquette recruits have tenure as part of the deal.
I
hate saying Shaka need to go. He was (again, note
past tense) our dream coach who exceeded my expectations. Now? His frantic substitutions in games speaks volumes. He has made himself a failure.
I get it. His early season substituting was looking for the right combination. Those days are gone for now.
Quote from: MU82 on January 14, 2026, 08:01:20 PMI'm guessing some (perhaps even Shaka) would argue that it's not a matter of a recruit (or transfer) earning playing time over a returning player because the recruit (or transfer) proves he's better than the returnee ... it's a matter of paying a recruit (or transfer) more than a returnee.
I'm not saying that school of thought is "right." IMHO, if we are to return to prominence, Shaka (or whoever the coach is) very well might need to pay a proven, talented transfer and/or a high-ranked recruit more than what returnees will be paid.
Returnee Jones got a clean bill of health and some Scoopers assumed he'd move back into the starting lineup even though freshman James was playing well; they were wrong. Fairly early in the season, Shaka benched returnee Lowery in favor of freshman Stevens. So obviously Shaka was willing to use recruits over returnees. But did James and Stevens receive more financial compensation than Jones and Lowery? I haven't seen the books, but I'd bet the answer's no.
I don't necessarily agree. The salary structure is the salary structure and I think players are smarter than we give them credit for.
Drake Maye has a good chance to be MVP this year, yet a ton of players are paid more. Should he get angry about that or does he understand the system in place.
NIL is no different.
Quote from: Jockey on January 15, 2026, 11:08:20 AMI don't necessarily agree. The salary structure is the salary structure and I think players are smarter than we give them credit for.
Drake Maye has a good chance to be MVP this year, yet a ton of players are paid more. Should he get angry about that or does he understand the system in place.
NIL is no different.
NIL is definitely different. There are league rules that restrict what type of contract Drake Maye can have. There are not those types of restrictions college athletes can get.
Not unless shaka stops what he wants to do.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on January 15, 2026, 08:22:51 AMBlind faith-something that is not characteristic of me-is what I had (note past tense) in Shaka's ability to make his system work. I had my suspicions last season as the bench failed repeatedly to be reliable but trusted in Shaka's vision based upon his success at Marquette. Not only did he fail to go to the portal last Spring, but his preseason assurances of how impressively Hamilton had improved and that our calling card would be a tenacious defense made it clear that he was not dealing with reality. :o
When a professor is offered a position at a university and accepts, it takes quite a while before tenure is part of the relationship with the university. Yet apparently Marquette recruits have tenure as part of the deal.
I hate saying Shaka need to go. He was (again, note past tense) our dream coach who exceeded my expectations. Now? His frantic substitutions in games speaks volumes. He has made himself a failure.
I disagree that Shaka is "a failure."
This season is a failure ... after four mostly enjoyable, entertaining, successful seasons. If he continues with his current roster-building philosophy and it continues to fail, then we can revisit whether or not he's a failure.
Quote from: wadesworld on January 15, 2026, 11:13:12 AMNIL is definitely different. There are league rules that restrict what type of contract Drake Maye can have. There are not those types of restrictions college athletes can get.
I agree but I think players understand that better players get more money whether they are better players - not just because they stayed longer in the program.
Why would Nigel complain if they brought in a top center from the portal at more money than he is getting? It helps the team win which in turn means he will make more if he continues to develop.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on January 14, 2026, 08:41:10 PMGreat post 82. I simply do not believe that Shaka will do all of what he needs to do, and as long as he is our coach we will not "return to prominence". With a patched up, or "modified" RGV, we/Shaka still will not be able to do what is necessary. Middle-of-the-pack in the BE would be our ceiling. RGV has to go, which means its creator has to go in order to "return to prominence". Cue the scoopers with the "one bad season" and reciting his very impressive accomplishments, as if they are relevant to the here and now of this mind-boggling disaster resulting from RGV. Then was then, and now is now.
I never, ever thought I would write this, but Coach Don Quixote, astride his steed Argeevy, needs to ride off into the sunset. I hate saying this, but it is what I believe.
Edit: I am well aware that he will likely return next season. I am simply expressing my opinion.
Why do you think a Painter/Purdue model couldn't work for Marquette?
That seems to be the most logical pivot Shaka could make and I don't understand why he couldn't be successful with it.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on January 15, 2026, 12:19:33 PMWhy do you think a Painter/Purdue model couldn't work for Marquette?
That seems to be the most logical pivot Shaka could make and I don't understand why he couldn't be successful with it.
I think it could work long-term with improved recruiting.
But if we're talking about a 2026-27 turnaround, it's going to take more than bringing in a support player or two.
Quote from: MU82 on January 15, 2026, 12:12:41 PMI disagree that Shaka is "a failure."
This season is a failure ... after four mostly enjoyable, entertaining, successful seasons. If he continues with his current roster-building philosophy and it continues to fail, then we can revisit whether or not he's a failure.
That's fair. My venting got the better of me. Mea Culpa.
Quote from: Jockey on January 15, 2026, 12:13:22 PMI agree but I think players understand that better players get more money whether they are better players - not just because they stayed longer in the program.
Why would Nigel complain if they brought in a top center from the portal at more money than he is getting? It helps the team win which in turn means he will make more if he continues to develop.
I agree with this in concept. But what if Shaka already has told his players (and their parents) that NIL is based on time served and not necessarily talent and has promised them it would continue to be that way?
Please note that I have no idea if that's what he told them. Just saying that if it is, then there could be plenty of bruised egos if a newby gets more than a returnee, even if the newbie is better.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on January 15, 2026, 12:19:33 PMWhy do you think a Painter/Purdue model couldn't work for Marquette?
That seems to be the most logical pivot Shaka could make and I don't understand why he couldn't be successful with it.
I love this question. Thanks for posing it.
I think that the Painter/Purdue model probably is free from implied (if not stated) assurances that a player will not be recruited over and also my guess would be that Painter would work with a transfer (and his agent) to do what he needed to do regarding money, regardless of what arrangements he has with the rest of the team. Possibly, Purdue's and Painter's status in bball make it easier for"P&P" to make it work. A recruit who is not cutting it after being at Purdue for a while knows he needs to leave. Painter probably has a fairly short time frame for projects (like a Hamilton).
Another answer to your question is that Shaka is playing a different game with his RGV. The Purdue model
works. This year, we are seeing the first year of Shaka's transfer free team that he has been building for a while. I think he has incorporated too much of his personal beliefs-meditating, being influenced by some book that "changed my life" (my point being a "True Believer") etc.- into the team. I really like and respect him personally and have stated that I would love having him as a neighbor and friend, but
never, ever as a business partner. Good business plans have a Plan B, an exit strategy, when a new product bombs in the marketplace. Shaka is quixotic. He wasn't when he arrived at Marquette, but he is now.
Quote from: Warrior of Law on January 14, 2026, 03:06:50 PMNext year's team will be younger than this year's team particularly if Jones and Norman are not invited back. There has been minimal growth by Parham, Hamilton, and Owens and there's zero reason to believe they'll improve. Next year's team will be reliant the current frosh, recruits and redshirts. This may take a few seasons. Someone convince me otherwise before I renew for next season.
Even if Shaka doesn't go to the portal, I think we'll be a lot better next year. We can be a lot better and still not be a good team though. Maybe a 8-12 or 9-11 BE team or something like that, but not an NCAA tournament team.
Quote from: CTWarrior on January 15, 2026, 01:01:52 PMEven if Shaka doesn't go to the portal, I think we'll be a lot better next year. We can be a lot better and still not be a good team though. Maybe a 8-12 or 9-11 BE team or something like that, but not an NCAA tournament team.
MU may be improved and win a few more conference games. The issue is that every team that doesn't hamstring themselves with sub-par recruits over transfers will also improve. And potentially at a greater clip. Mature talent wins and MU needs more of it.
"then there could be plenty of bruised egos if a newby gets more than a returnee, even if the newbie is better."
If this is a problem for Shaka, then we have a problem. The answer is "play better so you demand more money from this team or another team."
This is what happens in the real world and what should be happening in the NIL world. Shaka's running the college basketball version of socialism apparently.
Quote from: PointWarrior on January 15, 2026, 02:21:45 PM"then there could be plenty of bruised egos if a newby gets more than a returnee, even if the newbie is better."
If this is a problem for Shaka, then we have a problem. The answer is "play better so you demand more money from this team or another team."
This is what happens in the real world and what should be happening in the NIL world. Shaka's running the college basketball version of socialism apparently.
Wut??
I get the roster construction angle - it's the big one. But, for me also concerning has been weird coaching decisions. Many have been squawking all year about the personnel deployment and substitution patterns.. but add in the end of game situations, use of timeouts, etc.. even last game, having MP2 out there in crunch time (I understand we had injuries) was a bizarre choice to me.
I don't think the roster we started the season with is as bad as our record. We weren't going to be very good, but didn't have to be this bad. I don't understand a lot of the coaching decisions, and that is also very concerning when looking ahead.
Our reality is success the rest of this season would be getting a win at lowly DePaul and somehow finding 6 conference wins this year. Ouch. #pray
Quote from: Pakuni on January 15, 2026, 12:25:25 PMI think it could work long-term with improved recruiting.
But if we're talking about a 2026-27 turnaround, it's going to take more than bringing in a support player or two.
I agree with this. For next season we'd need, at minimum, two good starters (a center and a scoring wing) to turn things around, assuming the return of Nigel, Adrian, and Royce.
I was saying more long-term. And yes, recruiting would have to improve. You can't miss on an entire class and expect it to work.
Quote from: Scoop Snoop on January 15, 2026, 12:45:30 PMI love this question. Thanks for posing it.
I think that the Painter/Purdue model probably is free from implied (if not stated) assurances that a player will not be recruited over and also my guess would be that Painter would work with a transfer (and his agent) to do what he needed to do regarding money, regardless of what arrangements he has with the rest of the team. Possibly, Purdue's and Painter's status in bball make it easier for"P&P" to make it work. A recruit who is not cutting it after being at Purdue for a while knows he needs to leave. Painter probably has a fairly short time frame for projects (like a Hamilton).
Another answer to your question is that Shaka is playing a different game with his RGV. The Purdue model works. This year, we are seeing the first year of Shaka's transfer free team that he has been building for a while. I think he has incorporated too much of his personal beliefs-meditating, being influenced by some book that "changed my life" (my point being a "True Believer") etc.- into the team. I really like and respect him personally and have stated that I would love having him as a neighbor and friend, but never, ever as a business partner. Good business plans have a Plan B, an exit strategy, when a new product bombs in the marketplace. Shaka is quixotic. He wasn't when he arrived at Marquette, but he is now.
Thanks for the thoughtful response and you make some good points.
I'm not sure Shaka has said he'd never recruit over someone and I don't think that's true. I think if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time.
Where that does come into play is the portal (to-date) and his approach with NIL (to-date), which reduces flexibility. For example, he gave Jop the opportunity to step into the OMax role vs. finding an Omax replacement in the portal. In retrospect, he could have still started Jop and made a portal addition to provide more talent and depth. That's a fair criticism.
I agree the Purdue/Painter model works because Painter is a better coach and runs a more successful program. But I absolutely think the same approach can work for Shaka and Marquette, which is not completely misaligned with the RGV philosophy. The main issue, as Pakuni said, is Shaka has to recruit better. He can't miss on an entire junior class and then when your senior class has some solid players but no stars, you're in trouble.
I think we all have assumptions of what Shaka is going to do this offseason and those assumptions entail a wide range of possibilities. And it's true that Shaka may have gotten a little high on his own supply with how much success he's had his first four years.
Reality has a way of slapping you in the face, though. So we'll see this spring if he's honest enough with himself (and his team) to understand that his roster-building approach is not sustainable if you want to compete at the highest level.
That's doesn't meant he focus has to move completely away from RGV. You don't need to purge 80% of the potential returnees like some have suggested. But you do need to pivot and add more talent.
We'll see what happens.
I appreciate your reply, Vander. Since Shaka is, I think, very likely to return, I believe what we have in common here is that we both hope that he will be able to turn things around sharply and quickly.
I think my background as an entrepreneur, founding a small manufacturing company in the very difficult commercial woodworking field, is influencing my posts here many, many years later. I was hard on myself then, and I know I am being hard on Shaka, and I make no apologies for that. It's just the way I am wired when talking about business, and college basketball, now more than ever, IS a business. If he stays (likely!), I hope he keeps his personal philosophies separate from his coaching.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on January 15, 2026, 03:45:13 PMThanks for the thoughtful response and you make some good points.
I'm not sure Shaka has said he'd never recruit over someone and I don't think that's true. I think if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time.
Where that does come into play is the portal (to-date) and his approach with NIL (to-date), which reduces flexibility. For example, he gave Jop the opportunity to step into the OMax role vs. finding an Omax replacement in the portal. In retrospect, he could have still started Jop and made a portal addition to provide more talent and depth. That's a fair criticism.
I agree the Purdue/Painter model works because Painter is a better coach and runs a more successful program. But I absolutely think the same approach can work for Shaka and Marquette, which is not completely misaligned with the RGV philosophy. The main issue, as Pakuni said, is Shaka has to recruit better. He can't miss on an entire junior class and then when your senior class has some solid players but no stars, you're in trouble.
I think we all have assumptions of what Shaka is going to do this offseason and those assumptions entail a wide range of possibilities. And it's true that Shaka may have gotten a little high on his own supply with how much success he's had his first four years.
Reality has a way of slapping you in the face, though. So we'll see this spring if he's honest enough with himself (and his team) to understand that his roster-building approach is not sustainable if you want to compete at the highest level.
That's doesn't meant he focus has to move completely away from RGV. You don't need to purge 80% of the potential returnees like some have suggested. But you do need to pivot and add more talent.
We'll see what happens.
I think an extremely underrated part of Painter's program is the fact that he's lost players that he has developed into key pieces and has still not taken a step back competitively.
Mason Gillis was Big Ten Sixth Man of the year in 2024, then transferred up to Duke.
Myles Colvin was an extremely important role player for last years squad, then transferred to Wake Forest.
I'm assuming both got paid more than Purdue was willing to give them. Painter was flexible enough to replace them with transfers.
Imagine if we lost Joplin and Ross in back to back years on top of losing Tyler and Oso.
Quote from: PointWarrior on January 15, 2026, 02:21:45 PM"then there could be plenty of bruised egos if a newby gets more than a returnee, even if the newbie is better."
If this is a problem for Shaka, then we have a problem. The answer is "play better so you demand more money from this team or another team."
This is what happens in the real world and what should be happening in the NIL world. Shaka's running the college basketball version of socialism apparently.
The NIL/Revenue sharing world is obviously not enough. Now there is point shaving action to earn some extra bucks. Just don't make it obvious.
Quote from: 1318WWells on January 16, 2026, 08:49:55 AMI think an extremely underrated part of Painter's program is the fact that he's lost players that he has developed into key pieces and has still not taken a step back competitively.
Mason Gillis was Big Ten Sixth Man of the year in 2024, then transferred up to Duke.
Myles Colvin was an extremely important role player for last years squad, then transferred to Wake Forest.
I'm assuming both got paid more than Purdue was willing to give them. Painter was flexible enough to replace them with transfers.
Imagine if we lost Joplin and Ross in back to back years on top of losing Tyler and Oso.
The last few comments in this thread have been solid. I think the bolded part is where we need to recall that Shaka has never said that he wouldn't use the transfer portal. He has implied that he wouldn't recruit (implicitly including bringing in a transfer) over players who stay in the program. (Note, though, as VBMG points out "if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time." Stevens over Lowery, James over Jones and Hamilton over Gold (ha!!) this season show his willingness to do just that.) He hasn't pushed players out (maybe he pushed Amadou?), and has remained stubbornly confident in his and the players' abilities to develop and Grow. Without departures and having signees out of high school, there haven't been openings on recent rosters which he could've filled with transfers.
So, if Joplin and Ross had transferred, I believe that he would've brought in transfers to replace them. Would he have given the players who had been here longer first dibs at a starting spot, perhaps. I might even say likely.
What we do know, though, is that Shaka wouldn't/won't deal with players' agents and that he has an NIL payment structure that seems to benefit longevity with the program. That doesn't mean better players don't get more and it doesn't mean that he might arrange for a transfer to get a good package. We also have speculation that he's willing to pay to keep a top player (rumors of what was offered to Kam to go elsewhere). It might mean, though we really don't know since there were no openings, that his beliefs and model will keep him from paying market price for an incoming, impactful (potentially, since one never really knows) transfer. And that could prove significant.
As others have said, this coming off season will be very interesting.
Quote from: mug644 on January 16, 2026, 09:28:26 AMThe last few comments in this thread have been solid. I think the bolded part is where we need to recall that Shaka has never said that he wouldn't use the transfer portal. He has implied that he wouldn't recruit (implicitly including bringing in a transfer) over players who stay in the program. (Note, though, as VBMG points out "if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time."
The logic of this eludes me. He's willing to bring in a high school recruit to take playing time away from an older player, but not a transfer. What's the difference? You're still bringing in someone new to take minutes away from a player who's been in the program longer.
Does the player who's losing minutes feel better about losing minutes to a freshman than a transfer junior? (How would Zaide Lowery answer that question?).
This is a distinction without a difference.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 16, 2026, 10:07:08 AMThe logic of this eludes me. He's willing to bring in a high school recruit to take playing time away from an older player, but not a transfer. What's the difference? You're still bringing in someone new to take minutes away from a player who's been in the program longer.
Does the player who's losing minutes feel better about losing minutes to a freshman than a transfer junior? (How would Zaide Lowery answer that question?).
This is a distinction without a difference.
I was beginning to wonder if I would
ever find a post by you that I agree with. Miracles never cease! ;D
My
guess is that once a HS recruit signs up, Shaka is saying he will not try to find another HS recruit in the same class who looks better for the same position. I may have this all wrong, but in any case-I think this post will elicit some interesting responses.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 16, 2026, 10:07:08 AMThe logic of this eludes me. He's willing to bring in a high school recruit to take playing time away from an older player, but not a transfer. What's the difference? You're still bringing in someone new to take minutes away from a player who's been in the program longer.
Does the player who's losing minutes feel better about losing minutes to a freshman than a transfer junior? (How would Zaide Lowery answer that question?).
This is a distinction without a difference.
I think the difference is the concept of a bird in hand is worth two in a bush. When it comes to giving playing time, Shaka prefers the known entity, the one he has been developing, has bought into the culture and has confidence in continued growth over one that might fit in, might fill an identified gap and might provide the needed impact. The kind of transfer we generally talk about is one who expects a clear, perhaps leading, role from the outset.
A high school recruit can be (and probably normally is) told that he will get a shot at more playing time, and if he buys in and shows value, he'll get that time. He has more time to prove his worth and earn the opportunity at significant playing time.
From my point of view, I agree with your implication that Shaka's approach reeks of stubbornness and arrogance more than reality. But, I can certainly see how a coach who has had such recent success with the retain and develop model would enter this year holding firmly on to the belief.
As said, we'll see if Shaka accepts the weaknesses and limited options of his approach, as evidenced by this year's results, and changes.
I think Zaide's departure hints at his willingness to lose minutes to a freshman.
Quote from: mug644 on January 16, 2026, 09:28:26 AMThe last few comments in this thread have been solid. I think the bolded part is where we need to recall that Shaka has never said that he wouldn't use the transfer portal. He has implied that he wouldn't recruit (implicitly including bringing in a transfer) over players who stay in the program. (Note, though, as VBMG points out "if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time." Stevens over Lowery, James over Jones and Hamilton over Gold (ha!!) this season show his willingness to do just that.) He hasn't pushed players out (maybe he pushed Amadou?), and has remained stubbornly confident in his and the players' abilities to develop and Grow. Without departures and having signees out of high school, there haven't been openings on recent rosters which he could've filled with transfers.
So, if Joplin and Ross had transferred, I believe that he would've brought in transfers to replace them. Would he have given the players who had been here longer first dibs at a starting spot, perhaps. I might even say likely.
What we do know, though, is that Shaka wouldn't/won't deal with players' agents and that he has an NIL payment structure that seems to benefit longevity with the program. That doesn't mean better players don't get more and it doesn't mean that he might arrange for a transfer to get a good package. We also have speculation that he's willing to pay to keep a top player (rumors of what was offered to Kam to go elsewhere). It might mean, though we really don't know since there were no openings, that his beliefs and model will keep him from paying market price for an incoming, impactful (potentially, since one never really knows) transfer. And that could prove significant.
As others have said, this coming off season will be very interesting.
Omax going pro early was the first case where he should have gone to the portal.
Kolek leaving and Sean not being ready til mid season was second case. Or replaced Kolek with Kam at point and never replaced Kam. Either way should've had a competent back up point on hand.
Oso leaving and transitioning to Gold starting would have been fine if there was a capable backup on hand to take Ben's old spot. Even if it was just a third player comparable to Gold and Parham to cover both the 4 and 5 spots.
Now need Lowery's spot to be filled by an experienced transfer.
Quote from: 1318WWells on January 16, 2026, 01:22:27 PMOmax going pro early was the first case where he should have gone to the portal.
Kolek leaving and Sean not being ready til mid season was second case. Or replaced Kolek with Kam at point and never replaced Kam. Either way should've had a competent back up point on hand.
Oso leaving and transitioning to Gold starting would have been fine if there was a capable backup on hand to take Ben's old spot. Even if it was just a third player comparable to Gold and Parham to cover both the 4 and 5 spots.
Now need Lowery's spot to be filled by an experienced transfer.
Hindsight is 20/20
I think it could be easily argued that Joplin stepping into the role OMax played worked well, and maybe even contributed to the recruit, retain, grow process.
I can see why Shaka, going into the 24-25 season thought that Kam, Stevie and Chase could cover the point guard spot until Sean returned. Plus Lowery was around, and played well enough that year coming off the bench. Of course, Sean didn't return and Kam got worn out.
Yeah, I agree that transitioning to Gold, after Oso was gone, without a competent back up was speculative at best. Then again, though Amadou may have been envisioned to play that role and was no longer on the team, Shaka had the confidence in the development of Caedin.
Anyway, the forks in the road are clear now, and looking back makes it easy to see how decisions made didn't work out. I'm willing to guess that Shaka looks back and sees that his choices didn't all have the results he anticipated.
The question now is whether this hindsight will inform his foresight and lead to changes and new/different decisions. I totally agree that Lowery's spot needs to be filled by an experienced transfer, though I'd say it needs to be a big (to fill in for Ben graduating, Royce not being a 5, Caedin being incapable, and Sheek being an unknown) more than someone playing Lowery's role (where we have Stevens and upcoming Egbuonu).
Quote from: 1318WWells on January 16, 2026, 01:22:27 PMOmax going pro early was the first case where he should have gone to the portal.
This is highly debatable. We retained the same seed and had the BE6th man of the year slot into the spot. Was Joplin an upgrade? No, but he certainly wasn't a downgrade. That year even if we get a better PF we aren't beating out UConn or Purdue for 1 seeds, the question really is whether we could edge out UNC or Houston to put us up there and if Tyler's injury remains the same we don't do that either.
Quote from: Pakuni on January 16, 2026, 10:07:08 AMThe logic of this eludes me. He's willing to bring in a high school recruit to take playing time away from an older player, but not a transfer. What's the difference? You're still bringing in someone new to take minutes away from a player who's been in the program longer.
Does the player who's losing minutes feel better about losing minutes to a freshman than a transfer junior? (How would Zaide Lowery answer that question?).
This is a distinction without a difference.
The difference is bringing in a freshman to compete vs. bringing in a proven transfer with the sole intention of him starting over a multi-year returnee. Not saying I agree or disagree with the logic but it seems clear to me.
Quote from: Jay Bee on January 15, 2026, 02:28:40 PMI get the roster construction angle - it's the big one. But, for me also concerning has been weird coaching decisions. Many have been squawking all year about the personnel deployment and substitution patterns.. but add in the end of game situations, use of timeouts, etc.. even last game, having MP2 out there in crunch time (I understand we had injuries) was a bizarre choice to me.
I don't think the roster we started the season with is as bad as our record. We weren't going to be very good, but didn't have to be this bad. I don't understand a lot of the coaching decisions, and that is also very concerning when looking ahead.
Our reality is success the rest of this season would be getting a win at lowly DePaul and somehow finding 6 conference wins this year. Ouch. #pray
Again. Absolutely criminal coaching. So bad.