MUScoop

MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: dajudge on June 10, 2018, 01:25:37 PM

Title: MU Royalty
Post by: dajudge on June 10, 2018, 01:25:37 PM
My wife,Patrick and I guests at friends wedding yesterday
Seated with people we had not met
Conversation turns to mu
Young vivacious woman asks if we r bb fans
Oh you may have heard of my dad,Dean Meminger
Impressive woman
Works for dept of labor in youth services in Baltimore
Could see the Cheshire Cat in both her and her 4 yr old son
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: WarriorDad on June 10, 2018, 03:10:37 PM
The best!
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: mileskishnish72 on June 10, 2018, 03:45:44 PM
RIP, Dream.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GooooMarquette on June 10, 2018, 05:38:58 PM
Wow - that is awesome! Her dad could certainly play ball.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: DoggyDaddy on June 10, 2018, 06:56:49 PM
Anyone who saw Dean Meminger play knew why he was the Dream. He controlled the tempo, set the plays, passed to the open man, scored when it was needed, and never ever turned the ball over. He was neither   loud nor arrogant; he even hung with students in the gym and The Gym (the bar on Wells). He was reserved yet friendly and it didn't matter your color or size. The smile was natural. When any game was nearing its conclusion usually with MU ahead, Dean had the ball because he had the surest hands in the nation. The biggest what if for me and many from that time was what if Dean had not fouled out (on a series of questionable calls by Big Ten refs) against Ohio State in the 1971 regional finals? He had never fouled out of a game while at MU before that heartbreaking loss.
To me he will always be the best: The Dream Goes on Forever. 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Nukem2 on June 10, 2018, 07:45:25 PM
Anyone who saw Dean Meminger play knew why he was the Dream. He controlled the tempo, set the plays, passed to the open man, scored when it was needed, and never ever turned the ball over. He was neither   loud nor arrogant; he even hung with students in the gym and The Gym (the bar on Wells). He was reserved yet friendly and it didn't matter your color or size. The smile was natural. When any game was nearing its conclusion usually with MU ahead, Dean had the ball because he had the surest hands in the nation. The biggest what if for me and many from that time was what if Dean had not fouled out (on a series of questionable calls by Big Ten refs) against Ohio State in the 1971 regional finals? He had never fouled out of a game while at MU before that heartbreaking loss.
To me he will always be the best: The Dream Goes on Forever.
Yup.  Those fouls in that OSU game were crap.  The Dream goes on forever.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 10, 2018, 08:56:41 PM
Four da younguns heer, #14 wuz da consumate point guard. Dat is all, aina?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: augoman on June 10, 2018, 09:25:17 PM
Four da younguns heer, #14 wuz da consumate point guard. Dat is all, aina?

well said, 4ever, well said.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 11, 2018, 12:41:48 AM
The Dream was big, big time. Loved watching him, both at MU and the Knicks.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: ChitownSpaceForRent on June 11, 2018, 05:46:50 AM
https://www.si.com/vault/1971/01/25/542222/crazy-cat-and-his-curious-warriors

What a cast of characters that sounds like. Coulda made a sitcom out of Al's teams. Also the Brell section made me chuckle, the more things change...
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Daniel on June 11, 2018, 07:36:45 AM
https://www.si.com/vault/1971/01/25/542222/crazy-cat-and-his-curious-warriors

What a cast of characters that sounds like. Coulda made a sitcom out of Al's teams. Also the Brell section made me chuckle, the more things change...

That was a fun read.  Thanks for posting the link!  Love Al’s line about getting to Houston (site of the national championship). “ Houston is for dreamers.  And dreamers are usually asleep”.  Awesome stuff
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 11, 2018, 10:36:45 AM
Chitown

Thanks for sharing. The reference of Fat Jack Resnov made my day. He was one of my idols growing up. He fit in perfectly in the circus that was Marquette basketball. He was one of many folks that were part of the Al era posse, and is greatly missed.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 11, 2018, 02:04:45 PM
Great article with the Chones call out. 

Jerel and Jimmy Mac in MU HOF but still no Chones. Travesty in my book on the down vote.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GooooMarquette on June 11, 2018, 04:26:14 PM
Great article with the Chones call out. 

Jerel and Jimmy Mac in MU HOF but still no Chones. Travesty in my book on the down vote.

This says Chones was inducted in 2004. http://www.gomarquette.com/hallfame/marq-hallfame.html
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: augoman on June 11, 2018, 05:07:21 PM
This says Chones was inducted in 2004. http://www.gomarquette.com/hallfame/marq-hallfame.html

He was, I was there.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 11, 2018, 06:03:01 PM
I think Dr. B meant Chones number being retired
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 11, 2018, 06:19:53 PM
I think Dr. B meant Chones number being retired

Yes thank you. 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 11, 2018, 06:33:46 PM
I think Dr. B meant Chones number being retired

But Jerel and Mac didn't have their numbers retired...
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: leever on June 11, 2018, 07:31:27 PM
Anyone who saw Dean Meminger play knew why he was the Dream. He controlled the tempo, set the plays, passed to the open man, scored when it was needed, and never ever turned the ball over. He was neither   loud nor arrogant;

So, I'm at a game and either while the team is coming out before the start or after halftime and my roommate yells "Go wild Dean!".  Dean stops, turns around a with that grin says "But, I'm not a wild person".  He was one of a kind for sure.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Mutaman on June 11, 2018, 08:18:36 PM
Dean's son, Dean Meminger Jr, is a news reporter for New York 1 news in NYC. Splitting image of his dad. Good reporter too.

(http://www.lehman.edu/lehmantoday/2011_02/images/meminger_dean.jpg)
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 11, 2018, 08:34:05 PM
But Jerel and Mac didn't have their numbers retired...

Sorry I typed this on the train this AM and my post was incomplete.  Reading this article and seeing the Mac and Jerel induction, I was reminded that #22 (Jerel's number too) is not retired.  Far more deserving than some arguably...a travesty really. 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 11, 2018, 09:10:07 PM
Sorry I typed this on the train this AM and my post was incomplete.  Reading this article and seeing the Mac and Jerel induction, I was reminded that #22 (Jerel's number too) is not retired.  Far more deserving than some arguably...a travesty really.

I understand now. I'm sure playing a season and a half is felt like too little to warrant it
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: burger on June 12, 2018, 07:04:01 AM
Chones is arguably the best non-guard in MU history.....
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 12, 2018, 08:01:50 PM
I understand now. I'm sure playing a season and a half is felt like too little to warrant it

Incredibly, he lost only one game. Also, he played 2.8 seasons counting his freshman year.  More than #3.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 12, 2018, 08:39:00 PM
Incredibly, he lost only one game. Also, he played 2.8 seasons counting his freshman year.  More than #3.

Yep, 50-1 as a varsity player. And I think we finished his freshman year ranked #8 and won the NIT. With Jim in the middle that team might have taken it all.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: real chili 83 on June 12, 2018, 08:43:28 PM
Yep, 50-1 as a varsity player. And I think we finished his freshman year ranked #8 and won the NIT. With Jim in the middle that team might have taken it all.

Incredible
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Stretchdeltsig on June 12, 2018, 08:46:14 PM
I remember Dean playing cards with George Thompson, Blanton Simmons and Ric Cobb in my apartment. they were fun to watch. George bet 24, and said that's my number.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 12, 2018, 09:36:48 PM
Incredibly, he lost only one game. Also, he played 2.8 seasons counting his freshman year.  More than #3.

Should Kentucky retire Anthony Davis' jersey?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: real chili 83 on June 12, 2018, 10:00:48 PM
Should Kentucky retire Anthony Davis' jersey?

Didn't he play football for USC?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 13, 2018, 10:23:03 AM
Should Kentucky retire Anthony Davis' jersey?

Should Doc, Wade or Lucas have been retired because they left early too (under your criteria)?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 13, 2018, 10:25:09 AM
Wade and Lucas. Doc should not be retired, IMO.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 13, 2018, 10:30:35 AM
Wade and Lucas. Doc should not be retired, IMO.

Goose

Agree 100%. Neither Doc's individual or team accomplishment's merit it.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 10:49:17 AM
Should Doc, Wade or Lucas have been retired because they left early too (under your criteria)?

My criteria was not leaving early.  wade played two full seasons, if Chones had stayed that season and led us to a FF Is be all for it. I don't think Doc should be retired, he played on three average teams, I mean Vander has more success to his name.

Let me make this simple for what my criteria would be: at least a Final Four, at least 50% of your collegiate career played at MU. That means the only players I think should be retired are wade, Lucas, Ellis, Tatum. That's not an indictment of the skill set of Kojis, rivers, Chones, meminger, Thompson etc. but the two things that matter to me are tournament results and allegiance to MU.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 13, 2018, 10:55:40 AM
Goose

Agree 100%. Neither Doc's individual or team accomplishment's merit it.



Ahah, dat's write, hey?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 13, 2018, 11:34:55 AM
Hurler

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Maybe you should read up on the history of the program before you post on big boy topics.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on June 13, 2018, 11:46:37 AM
Hurler

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Maybe you should read up on the history of the program before you post on big boy topics.

 ?-( well aren't you nice today
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 11:57:12 AM
Hurler

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about? Maybe you should read up on the history of the program before you post on big boy topics.

Goose generally I respect you, sometimes you can be negative or sensitive when called out for being negative and a bit condescending but I've never found you to be an a$$ till today which seems out of character. Now if you'd like to act like a "big boy" and discuss what criteria you'd set in a in an adult fashion then I'm more than happy to.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 13, 2018, 02:03:07 PM
Hurler

I believe too many guys have retired numbers at MU. Possibly your omission of Butch Lee from the retired list rubbed me the wrong way. My criteria is likely similar to yours, with some exceptions. For example, if Wade had not made FF, he would be a sure bet retired number.

If I came across as an ass, my apologies.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 02:16:15 PM
Hurler

I believe too many guys have retired numbers at MU. Possibly your omission of Butch Lee from the retired list rubbed me the wrong way. My criteria is likely similar to yours, with some exceptions. For example, if Wade had not made FF, he would be a sure bet retired number.

If I came across as an ass, my apologies.

Lee was simply an oversight. I feel as though the criteria I stated should've set that straight. wade sans FF would've been an interesting one and I agree it would've been hard to not retire him but I believe in a black and white cutoff line so there's never an argument when it comes to these things.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 02:24:20 PM
Lee was simply an oversight. I feel as though the criteria I stated should've set that straight. wade sans FF would've been an interesting one and I agree it would've been hard to not retire him but I believe in a black and white cutoff line so there's never an argument when it comes to these things.


We're not splitting atoms here.  There can be all sorts of shades of gray with things like this.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Juan Anderson's Mixtape on June 13, 2018, 02:44:11 PM

We're not splitting atoms here.  There can be all sorts of shades of gray with things like this.

Agreed. Why should George Thompson having his number retired depend upon whether Rick Mount makes or misses the game winner in 1969?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 02:47:25 PM

We're not splitting atoms here.  There can be all sorts of shades of gray with things like this.

Ok then what criteria would you set? I feel it's very easy to say this player should this player shouldn't be till you realize that not everyone will agree with each player and that there's only a finite number of usable numbers anyways. That's why I tried to keep it selective and simple.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 03:03:56 PM
Ok then what criteria would you set? I feel it's very easy to say this player should this player shouldn't be till you realize that not everyone will agree with each player and that there's only a finite number of usable numbers anyways. That's why I tried to keep it selective and simple.


If he was one of the top players to ever wear the jersey, then he get's it retired.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 03:10:31 PM

If he was one of the top players to ever wear the jersey, then he get's it retired.

Henry's going up in the rafters then?  Best Freshman ever to wear the jersey.

Rowsey?  Best single season scoring ever in an MU jersey.

There should be more to it than that.  Some level of postseason success needs to be a factor.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 03:11:42 PM
Henry's going up in the rafters then?  Best Freshman ever to wear the jersey.

Rowsey?  Best single season scoring ever in an MU jersey.

There should be more to it than that.  Some level of postseason success needs to be a factor.


I wouldn't call either Henry or Rowsey one of the best to ever wear the jersey.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 13, 2018, 03:12:52 PM
Wade and Lucas. Doc should not be retired, IMO.

So Hurler's provided us the young alum's criteria.  What are the Al alums thoughts about #22 hanging from the rafters? 

Crean wanted Doc's retired as he was trying to recruit his sons while trying to suckle at his test (and Bo's 31 was already raised so resistance would be less).  Plus, he was messing with George around that time. Shameful.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 03:16:50 PM

I wouldn't call either Henry or Rowsey one of the best to ever wear the jersey.

Stats would disagree with you.  Henry is statistically the best Freshman ever in an MU jersey.  Rowsey put up more points in a season that anyone ever has in an MU jersey.  Again, some level of postseason success needs to be considered when putting number in the rafters, both Henry and Rowsey lack that.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 03:23:22 PM
Stats would disagree with you.  Henry is statistically the best Freshman ever in an MU jersey.  Rowsey put up more points in a season that anyone ever has in an MU jersey.  Again, some level of postseason success needs to be considered when putting number in the rafters, both Henry and Rowsey lack that.


No stats do not disagree with me.  I never said best over one year - especially freshman year. 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 13, 2018, 03:23:34 PM
We aren't KY and we also don't need to create perfect rules for this.

Plain and simple, if we can retire #11 we can certainly get over the fact that Chones left before the season was out because the ABA and NBA were fighting for talent. 

Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Its DJOver on June 13, 2018, 03:41:56 PM

No stats do not disagree with me.  I never said best over one year - especially freshman year.

Then it goes back to Pipers question about how long a player needs to wear the MU jersey.  Clearly in your opinion it takes more than one year, no matter how good that year was.  Either way more clarity needs to be applied to your "top players to ever wear the jersey".  I'll ask again, should postseason success be considered?  I would say yes, Markus can possibly leave the programs all time leading scorer, buy a significant margin too.  But if he never plays past the first weekend in the tourney, it should be unanimous that "0" ain't getting raised.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 03:50:23 PM
Then it goes back to Pipers question about how long a player needs to wear the MU jersey.  Clearly in your opinion it takes more than one year, no matter how good that year was.  Either way more clarity needs to be applied to your "top players to ever wear the jersey".  I'll ask again, should postseason success be considered?  I would say yes, Markus can possibly leave the programs all time leading scorer, buy a significant margin too.  But if he never plays past the first weekend in the tourney, it should be unanimous that "0" ain't getting raised.


I've stated my criteria.  The whole point of vague criteria is that it isn't supposed to be a black and white exercise.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 04:08:00 PM

I've stated my criteria.  The whole point of vague criteria is that it isn't supposed to be a black and white exercise.

Maybe I'm misreading but it sounds like your criteria is that there isn't one?

Because "If he was one of the top players to ever wear the jersey, then he get's it retired." could be say... Tony smith, why shouldn't he get retired?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 13, 2018, 04:35:42 PM
Maybe I'm misreading but it sounds like your criteria is that there isn't one?

Bags,

I think Sultan's stance (one that I agree with) is that disqualifying people who didn't (for example) go to a FF is too arbitrary. I think you throw everything (individual greatness, team success, length of service, etc., etc.) into the hopper and make the best informed decision you can. In the end it comes down to an opinion. Should Jim Chones be denied because freshmen were ineligible during his era or because his 50-1 varsity record at MU doesn't include a FF? I say no - the only mistake I see by the powers that be was honoring Doc Rivers and omitting Chones.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: nyg on June 13, 2018, 04:50:27 PM
My criteria was not leaving early.  wade played two full seasons, if Chones had stayed that season and led us to a FF Is be all for it. I don't think Doc should be retired, he played on three average teams, I mean Vander has more success to his name.

Let me make this simple for what my criteria would be: at least a Final Four, at least 50% of your collegiate career played at MU. That means the only players I think should be retired are wade, Lucas, Ellis, Tatum. That's not an indictment of the skill set of Kojis, rivers, Chones, meminger, Thompson etc. but the two things that matter to me are tournament results and allegiance to MU.

If that is your criteria, then where does Butch Lee fit in? 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 04:51:57 PM
Bags,

I think Sultan's stance (one that I agree with) is that disqualifying people who didn't (for example) go to a FF is too arbitrary. I think you throw everything (individual greatness, team success, length of service, etc., etc.) into the hopper and make the best informed decision you can. In the end it comes down to an opinion. Should Jim Chones be denied because freshmen were ineligible during his era or because his 50-1 varsity record at MU doesn't include a FF? I say no - the only mistake I see by the powers that be was honoring Doc Rivers and omitting Chones.

Which is fine and good I'd generally agree but that criteria seems to lend itself to a non stop debate, over selection, and issues for when new greats come along because, as we've learned with the constant who's the GOAT conversation for decades now. I agree a FF may seem very arbitrary but to me if you set something like that you eliminate the gray area debate and, unless we start raking in FFs every year, keep it to a group of players that become immortalized in MU lore.

If that is your criteria, then where does Butch Lee fit in? 

Read my response to goose where I said it was an accidental omission...
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: nyg on June 13, 2018, 05:02:43 PM
Which is fine and good I'd generally agree but that criteria seems to lend itself to a non stop debate, over selection, and issues for when new greats come along because, as we've learned with the constant who's the GOAT conversation for decades now. I agree a FF may seem very arbitrary but to me if you set something like that you eliminate the gray area debate and, unless we start raking in FFs every year, keep it to a group of players that become immortalized in MU lore.

Read my response to goose where I said it was an accidental omission...

Very well, my miss. 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 13, 2018, 06:08:00 PM
Yeah butt, Too Tan Tommy said we're retirin' jerseys, knot numbers, aina?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 13, 2018, 06:45:37 PM
Which is fine and good I'd generally agree but that criteria seems to lend itself to a non stop debate, over selection, and issues for when new greats come along because, as we've learned with the constant who's the GOAT conversation for decades now. I agree a FF may seem very arbitrary but to me if you set something like that you eliminate the gray area debate and, unless we start raking in FFs every year, keep it to a group of players that become immortalized in MU lore.



Any Marquette "rafter" that doesn't include George Thompson and Dean Meminger would be a travesty, IMHO.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 13, 2018, 07:03:01 PM
Context is everything in these things.  That's why I'm totally opposed to some advanced metric that determines inclusion via some objective measure.

I don't have much quarrel with our current list.  And I'd include Chones because it was a unique situation with respect to the timing of the ABA draft and he left with Al's personal blessing.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Nukem2 on June 13, 2018, 07:16:14 PM
Context is everything in these things.  That's why I'm totally opposed to some advanced metric that determines inclusion via some objective measure.

I don't have much quarrel with our current list.  And I'd include Chones because it was a unique situation with respect to the timing of the ABA draft and he left with Al's personal blessing.
Agreed, Jimmy needs to be up there.  That was all about Al.  Get it done.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 13, 2018, 07:42:07 PM
Maybe I'm misreading but it sounds like your criteria is that there isn't one?

Because "If he was one of the top players to ever wear the jersey, then he get's it retired." could be say... Tony smith, why shouldn't he get retired?

Fine by me. Tony was a joy to watch.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 13, 2018, 08:09:31 PM
Hurler

Tony Smith is not close to being all time great, worthy of retired number. Very nice player, but hardly in top ten all time great discussion.

Nukem

Of course, 22 should be retired. Really a no brainer. There are too many retired numbers, and having Chones is an error in judgement, IMO.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: mileskishnish72 on June 13, 2018, 09:26:49 PM
Having trouble with the concept that tournament success is a requirement for number retirement.
Doesn't this penalize a great player who may have had the misfortune to play with a bunch of stiffs? It's not like our history is stuffed with Final Fours.

Dean was one of the all-time greats, of that there is no question. Maybe I'm prejudiced because it was my MU era, but Chones deserves # retirement.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 13, 2018, 09:44:48 PM
There yall go so we can all see the exact same conversation has been done at least 2x in the past 5 years.

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=39587.0

https://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=54318.0
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: dgies9156 on June 13, 2018, 11:01:32 PM
There's two levels of honor that should be considered. The first is numbers that never will be worn again.These are people so special to Marquette that their influence on the program, their achievements on the court and their impact on Marquette will never, ever be forgotten. In my lifetime, these are relatively few people and include:

Al McGuire
George Thompson
Dean Meminger
Butch Lee
Bo Ellis
Maurice Lucas
Dwyane Wade

Without these people, Marquette would be good but not have the memories of what we have been. These are the legends and the very best.

The next group deserves recognition short of uniform number retirement. They were important to the program and made a difference but did not change the direction or lead us into something almost by themselves. They are:

Jim Chones
Larry McNeill
Bob Lackey
Lloyd Walton PhD
Jerome Whitehead
Glenn Rivers
Jimmy Mac
Tony Smith
Jerel McNeal

There are a lot of other good players but these guys stand out. I just don't see most of what's left being so good that they are legends. Perhaps the Hauser boys and Markus Howard, maybe someday, but I want to see people who made a difference. Whose legend was more than big numbers. That's why our one-year-wonder won't make it. That's why I also don't think most of the guys from the last few years or even Mark Marotta make it.

Your thoughts?


Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 14, 2018, 07:43:48 AM
There's two levels of honor that should be considered. The first is numbers that never will be worn again.These are people so special to Marquette that their influence on the program, their achievements on the court and their impact on Marquette will never, ever be forgotten. In my lifetime, these are relatively few people and include:

Al McGuire
George Thompson
Dean Meminger
Butch Lee
Bo Ellis
Maurice Lucas
Dwyane Wade

Without these people, Marquette would be good but not have the memories of what we have been. These are the legends and the very best.

The next group deserves recognition short of uniform number retirement. They were important to the program and made a difference but did not change the direction or lead us into something almost by themselves. They are:

Jim Chones
Larry McNeill
Bob Lackey
Lloyd Walton PhD
Jerome Whitehead
Glenn Rivers
Jimmy Mac
Tony Smith
Jerel McNeal

There are a lot of other good players but these guys stand out. I just don't see most of what's left being so good that they are legends. Perhaps the Hauser boys and Markus Howard, maybe someday, but I want to see people who made a difference. Whose legend was more than big numbers. That's why our one-year-wonder won't make it. That's why I also don't think most of the guys from the last few years or even Mark Marotta make it.

Your thoughts?

Add Earl Tatum and Don Kojis to tier 1.

Move Jim Chones to tier 1.

Add Tony Miller, Lazar, JFB and Jae Crowder to tier 2.

Drop Larry McNeill and Jim McIlvaine from the list.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 14, 2018, 08:04:16 AM
Add Earl Tatum and Don Kojis to tier 1.

Move Jim Chones to tier 1.

Add Tony Miller, Lazar, JFB and Jae Crowder to tier 2.

Drop Larry McNeill and Jim McIlvaine from the list.

Was Kojis so good that we forget Terry Rand?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GooooMarquette on June 14, 2018, 08:14:05 AM
My opinion, and response to some of the younger folks' concerns:

Chones belongs to the top tier of any list - up with DWade, Butch, Dean and Bo...perhaps one or two others.

Younger people need to remember the context. He would have played 2 3/4 seasons at MU if frosh were eligible back then...which would have been well over half of his possible MU career. The fact that he didn't had nothing to do with his loyalty to MU or his skills or his grades (see DWade). The early departure his junior year was the result of a very unusual situation, with the ABA breaking traditional rules in order to beat the NBA to top talent. And in that situation, Al told him he should go because Chones' family was quite literally out of food. This was not an impulsive kid who bailed without considering the team - he consulted with the coach, and followed his advice.

We were 50-1 during his tenure, and would have been 51-0 but for some horrific calls against Meminger.

If Chones isn't recognized as among the best of the best at Marquette, we might as well just stop recognizing players....
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 14, 2018, 08:30:30 AM
My opinion, and response to some of the younger folks' concerns:

Chones belongs to the top tier of any list - up with DWade, Butch, Dean and Bo...perhaps one or two others.

Younger people need to remember the context. He would have played 2 3/4 seasons at MU if frosh were eligible back then...which would have been well over half of his possible MU career. The fact that he didn't had nothing to do with his loyalty to MU or his skills or his grades (see DWade). The early departure his junior year was the result of a very unusual situation, with the ABA breaking traditional rules in order to beat the NBA to top talent. And in that situation, Al told him he should go because Chones' family was quite literally out of food. This was not an impulsive kid who bailed without considering the team - he consulted with the coach, and followed his advice.

We were 50-1 during his tenure, and would have been 51-0 but for some horrific calls against Meminger.

If Chones isn't recognized as among the best of the best at Marquette, we might as well just stop recognizing players....

+1.

And for those that suggest Crowder or 'Zar....

Look, I love those guys but please, especially in comparison to someone like Chones.

What you guys have to remember is that it was 1970-72.  There was no Sportscenter or Nike to overhype everything.  There was Jack Baker's nightly radio show.  And if you're old enough to know who Jack was, you know what I'm talking about.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 09:56:30 AM
I loved Earl Tatum, but he first guy out, IMO. He was a great player, on some great times, but not at same level of dgies Tier 1 list. Chones is high on the tier 1 list. Anyone after those guys had very, very nice careers, but nowhere near the same level. Honestly, they are way behind the all time best.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 14, 2018, 10:29:58 AM
No Jerel?  MU leading scorer, AA, All BE, great defensive player.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 14, 2018, 10:47:02 AM
I loved Earl Tatum, but he first guy out, IMO. He was a great player, on some great times, but not at same level of dgies Tier 1 list. Chones is high on the tier 1 list. Anyone after those guys had very, very nice careers, but nowhere near the same level. Honestly, they are way behind the all time best.

Goose real question here. Do you feel that maybe have on some youth tinted goggles when it comes to the love for the old timers?

I mean I swear that lazar was 100x better than crowder even though I've been proven wrong a million times over but because when I was in H.S. and a freshman he was awe inspiring. I swear DJO was the greatest three point shooter I'd ever seen but Rowsey and Marcus are obviously better but my freshman to Junior year goggles make me think otherwise. Is it even the tiniest bit possible that you haven't given anybody sans wade their due because of a similar reason?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Folks,,, on June 14, 2018, 11:03:09 AM
No Jerel?  MU leading scorer, AA, All BE, great defensive player.

Nope, he didn't play in the 70s and isn't named Dwyane Wade so he should be wiped from the MU record books rather than have his jersey retired.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 11:26:56 AM
Hurler

IMO, Wade is the greatest player ever to play at MU and by a very wide margin. I have a love of great, great players and Dwade falls in the group easily. Plenty of very good players have played over last four decades. One of my all time favorites was David Boone. I thought Jae and Jimmy Butler were very good players. Vander had one outstanding season.
 
I love winning more than anything, but second place is appreciating great talent. Aside from Wade, I do not believe we have seen greatness in any one player. A lot of very good ones, but not great. I thought Jae was a very good player. But, to think he was even close to Wade as a player is laughable. Same holds true for Jarel, Wes, Jimmy and Lazar.

A couple disappointments as a fan were Dominic James and Vander Blue. James was very good and I thought he would great before he left. Vander had an outstanding season and left early. I do not think either would have been great, but might have got close.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 11:30:49 AM
Dr B

I would not have Jarel in my top five guards of all time, let alone an all time great. I do not think he was better than Doc Rivers and I thought Doc was a talented player, but a long way from being great.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 14, 2018, 12:53:03 PM
I think Goose is right on target.  DWade is the greatest talent in MU history.  But all the very tip top players in the 70's were significantly more talented than any of the guys from this century, appropriately adjusted for their respective eras.  (Today's guys jump higher, run faster, shoot better, yadda yadda.)  What some of you young guys aren't appreciating is that MU was one of the top 4-5 programs in the entire country for the better part of a decade.  We were the equivalent of a #1 or #2 seed essentially every year and played in 2 national championship games.  About 6-8 guys drove that and have been discussed.  But when we bring up wonderful players like DJO, Jae, Vander, and Rel, remember that we successfully competed to the top third of the BEast and went into the tourney as a middle seed with Sweet 16 aspirations.  That's really, really good.  But it simply isn't elite.

Which leads to another point.  Anyone who truly can't be happy unless MU can return to its 70's dominance is forever going to be unhappy.  That's how great we were.  Me?  Compete for the BEast every year and play the second weekend with a shot at the Final 4.  All good.   
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 01:19:45 PM
jsglow

There is close to zero chance for any dominance similar to Al's last decade at MU. I would be quite happy with the scenario you noted.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 14, 2018, 01:48:00 PM
I think Goose is right on target.  DWade is the greatest talent in MU history.  But all the very tip top players in the 70's were significantly more talented than any of the guys from this century, appropriately adjusted for their respective eras.  (Today's guys jump higher, run faster, shoot better, yadda yadda.)  What some of you young guys aren't appreciating is that MU was one of the top 4-5 programs in the entire country for the better part of a decade.  We were the equivalent of a #1 or #2 seed essentially every year and played in 2 national championship games.  About 6-8 guys drove that and have been discussed.  But when we bring up wonderful players like DJO, Jae, Vander, and Rel, remember that we successfully competed to the top third of the BEast and went into the tourney as a middle seed with Sweet 16 aspirations.  That's really, really good.  But it simply isn't elite.

Which leads to another point.  Anyone who truly can't be happy unless MU can return to its 70's dominance is forever going to be unhappy.  That's how great we were.  Me?  Compete for the BEast every year and play the second weekend with a shot at the Final 4.  All good.

I don't think any of the younger lads here are forgetting how good we were. I think you're dead on about the team dominance but when it comes to individuals it's a different story. Let's take 11-12, DJO and Jae topped at no8 and sweet 16, now instead of a cast of  Otule, Mayo, obese Gardner, D Wilson, Jones, Williams, cadougan let's surround them with any supporting cast the 70s had (minus the two stars). Are you gonna tell me that team wouldn't achieve at least upgrade to the top 4-5, which is what you said we were back then. Now take that argument with most the squads of the best 2000s teams. The big 3 and zar in 08-09 surrounded by the guys that meminger or Tatum had? That 12-13 team with some of the 70s players instead of Jake Thomas, Otule, d Wilson etc. If at any point you thought to yourself hey the stars on that team would've been a top 4-5 squad with the bench the 70s Stars  had then aren't you essentially saying they would've been legends as well but came along at a time the talent drop off was much greater than in the 70s?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: WarriorDad on June 14, 2018, 01:57:27 PM
Add Earl Tatum and Don Kojis to tier 1.

Move Jim Chones to tier 1.

Add Tony Miller, Lazar, JFB and Jae Crowder to tier 2.

Drop Larry McNeill and Jim McIlvaine from the list.

YES
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 02:07:19 PM
Hurler

Similar to my post yesterday, what the hell are you talking about? Do you know who the supporting cast was in the '70's? Do you know how deep Al went with players in the game? The good teams of the 2000's (minus Wade time) had a solid team of talent, but no stars. Al had stars and role players. What MU has missed, sans Wade, was a great player.

Wade is a great example of how one great player can change a team. Thus, many of the all time great at MU were a superstar playing with good player and role players. There were several teams that were exceptions to that, but they were teams that 2, 3 or 4 superstars on it.

Not trying to be an ass, but you really do not understand the program's past and you compare players and teams from your lifetime. I have no problem with that, provided you knew what the past looked like.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 14, 2018, 02:34:34 PM
I think Goose is right on target.  DWade is the greatest talent in MU history.  But all the very tip top players in the 70's were significantly more talented than any of the guys from this century, appropriately adjusted for their respective eras.  (Today's guys jump higher, run faster, shoot better, yadda yadda.)  What some of you young guys aren't appreciating is that MU was one of the top 4-5 programs in the entire country for the better part of a decade.  We were the equivalent of a #1 or #2 seed essentially every year and played in 2 national championship games.  About 6-8 guys drove that and have been discussed.  But when we bring up wonderful players like DJO, Jae, Vander, and Rel, remember that we successfully competed to the top third of the BEast and went into the tourney as a middle seed with Sweet 16 aspirations.  That's really, really good.  But it simply isn't elite.

Which leads to another point.  Anyone who truly can't be happy unless MU can return to its 70's dominance is forever going to be unhappy.  That's how great we were.  Me?  Compete for the BEast every year and play the second weekend with a shot at the Final 4.  All good.

This is the part I always struggle with. I know the players from the 70s were at unparalleled levels compared to their peers. No one other than Wade has reached those levels since (and he surpassed them IMHO). But I do wonder if they actually were that much better at basketball than the current greats.  I think it's generally accepted that basketball players are at very least better athletes now than they were in the 70s. And the landscape was certainly different. But I really can't say for sure since I didn't get to watch them with my own eyes.

I understand Bags point about the idolism of youth. I still think of Mclvaine, Hutchins, Crawford, and Wardle as great players because I watched them in my formative years. I know now that they are nowhere near the greats in our programs history but I remember them as better than they were
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 14, 2018, 02:41:58 PM
It looks like most of the Scoop Intelligencia is a strong thumbs up for Chones. So, why the down vote by MU?

Bad blood for leaving early by MUBB alums? 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 14, 2018, 02:43:38 PM
I don't think any of the younger lads here are forgetting how good we were. I think you're dead on about the team dominance but when it comes to individuals it's a different story. Let's take 11-12, DJO and Jae topped at no8 and sweet 16, now instead of a cast of  Otule, Mayo, obese Gardner, D Wilson, Jones, Williams, cadougan let's surround them with any supporting cast the 70s had (minus the two stars). Are you gonna tell me that team wouldn't achieve at least upgrade to the top 4-5, which is what you said we were back then. Now take that argument with most the squads of the best 2000s teams. The big 3 and zar in 08-09 surrounded by the guys that meminger or Tatum had? That 12-13 team with some of the 70s players instead of Jake Thomas, Otule, d Wilson etc. If at any point you thought to yourself hey the stars on that team would've been a top 4-5 squad with the bench the 70s Stars  had then aren't you essentially saying they would've been legends as well but came along at a time the talent drop off was much greater than in the 70s?

Bags, I have one huge advantage over you.  And it's not anything you can do anything about.  I saw them all play......  In person.......  Numerous times.

Do you have any idea how mediocre Craig Butrym, Bill Neary, Dave Delsman or Guy Lam were?  Have you ever heard of Guy Lam?  My goodness, we used to have a scholly 'reserved' for a Marquette HS kid.  And in Al's early years the 'scrambled eggs', guys so very bad their only purpose was to run around for 2 minutes until Pat and George could catch their breath and get some water.  Please don't make a supporting cast argument.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 14, 2018, 02:44:46 PM
This is the part I always struggle with. I know the players from the 70s were at unparalleled levels compared to their peers. No one other than Wade has reached those levels since (and he surpassed them IMHO). But I do wonder if they actually were that much better at basketball than the current greats.  I think it's generally accepted that basketball players are at very least better athletes now than they were in the 70s. And the landscape was certainly different. But I really can't say for sure since I didn't get to watch them with my own eyes.

I understand Bags point about the idolism of youth. I still think of Mclvaine, Hutchins, Crawford, and Wardle as great players because I watched them in my formative years. I know now that they are nowhere near the greats in our programs history but I remember them as better than they were

It's really unknowable TAMU.  Call it the Babe Ruth syndrome.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 02:48:58 PM
TAMU

How many All Americans at MU since Al? How many first round draft picks since Al? Of course the game has changed, the talent has risen and athletes are getting better. But how can a player be considered great if they are not even first team BE. Apples to apples, our best guys were better than than 99% of the rest. Today, are best guys are nowhere near at that level against the rest of the players nationally.



Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 14, 2018, 02:51:10 PM
One other factor in all of this.  The very best 21 year olds were in college then.  Chones was only the second 'hardship' in college basketball history.  Today, they are in the NBA by 19.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 14, 2018, 03:34:07 PM
TAMU

How many All Americans at MU since Al? How many first round draft picks since Al? Of course the game has changed, the talent has risen and athletes are getting better. But how can a player be considered great if they are not even first team BE. Apples to apples, our best guys were better than than 99% of the rest. Today, are best guys are nowhere near at that level against the rest of the players nationally.

I think we are on the same page
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 14, 2018, 03:56:53 PM
Bags, I have one huge advantage over you.  And it's not anything you can do anything about.  I saw them all play......  In person.......  Numerous times.

Do you have any idea how mediocre Craig Butrym, Bill Neary, Dave Delsman or Guy Lam were?  Have you ever heard of Guy Lam?  My goodness, we used to have a scholly 'reserved' for a Marquette HS kid.  And in Al's early years the 'scrambled eggs', guys so very bad their only purpose was to run around for 2 minutes until Pat and George could catch their breath and get some water.  Please don't make a supporting cast argument.

Fair enough, as I've said numerous times (in the links posted from the last two times we had this conversation) I wasn't there can only read about it and watch clips which, contrary to Goose's opinion, I have done. The season I was using as a reference point was 74 where a supporting cast behind Lucas consisted of Walton, Ellis, Campbell, Tatum. Now, again, I wasn't there but to me that sounds a lot better than the supporting cast of the 11-12 year I used as an example. I get each years different though so it was probably a poor comparison
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 14, 2018, 05:17:56 PM
Fair enough, as I've said numerous times (in the links posted from the last two times we had this conversation) I wasn't there can only read about it and watch clips which, contrary to Goose's opinion, I have done. The season I was using as a reference point was 74 where a supporting cast behind Lucas consisted of Walton, Ellis, Campbell, Tatum. Now, again, I wasn't there but to me that sounds a lot better than the supporting cast of the 11-12 year I used as an example. I get each years different though so it was probably a poor comparison

'74 was an incredible team.  Our best ever?  Perhaps.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 06:25:19 PM
Hurler

‘74 was a very good team, not a great one. ‘75 would have been had Lucas remained.

Glow

Did you really mention Rick Campbell? One of my favorite guys during that time, but not a name I would be throwing out as anything other than a role player.
Much of what you have posted is good stuff, but Rick is off base. Also, you mentioned Chopper and Butrym, neither saw any minutes aside from a route.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: jsglow on June 14, 2018, 06:55:19 PM
Hurler

‘74 was a very good team, not a great one. ‘75 would have been had Lucas remained.

Glow

Did you really mention Rick Campbell? One of my favorite guys during that time, but not a name I would be throwing out as anything other than a role player.
Much of what you have posted is good stuff, but Rick is off base. Also, you mentioned Chopper and Butrym, neither saw any minutes aside from a route.

Honestly Goose, I'm not really remembering Campbell's game.  And I don't think I mentioned him.  The quality 'role' players I always think of are Bill Neary and Jerry Howman.  I also remember how Al was always frustrated by Toone who was actually a helluva player, at least talent wise if not always for his attention to detail.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 07:16:22 PM
Glow

My bad, Hurler mentioned Rick. As for Jerry Homan,  Al said the following, “going into the season I had no idea how we can win win with Jerry, now I don’t know how we will win without him”. Jerry had outstanding Sr year, minus his last game.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: oldwarrior81 on June 14, 2018, 07:49:51 PM
'the '74 team was actually fairly young.

pic of starting lineup
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CrR2XcdUEAQLdzT.jpg

Marcus Washington the lone senior starter after McNeill left after the previous season. 
Luke was a junior.  Tatum a soph, as was Walton playing his first season coming from the juco ranks.  Bo a Freshman. 
Campbell was the top scorer off the bench at 4.1 a game.


Lloyd talked about his recruiting.   From the Chicago area (Mount Carmel), he played juco ball in Iowa.  After his freshman year he had decided to play at Jacksonville.  Jacksonville was a solid program, running off a streak of 20+ win seasons in the early 70's including making the championship game behind Artis Gilmore.  They really moved the ball up and down the court which was a good fit for Lloyd.  Bob Gottlieb was to become their new coach in '74.

Lloyd says the phone rang and Al was on the other end.  Lloyd says I'm taking a plane trip to Jacksonville, and will commit when I'm there.  Al said don't get on the plane until we speak to you.
1 1/2 hours later Majerus shows up at Walton's with a pizza.  Classic Rick recruiting.  They talked for a bit.  Rick drove him to Milwaukee and he signed.


Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 14, 2018, 07:52:45 PM
oldwarrior

Great stuff.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Newsdreams on June 14, 2018, 08:05:57 PM
This is the part I always struggle with. I know the players from the 70s were at unparalleled levels compared to their peers. No one other than Wade has reached those levels since (and he surpassed them IMHO). But I do wonder if they actually were that much better at basketball than the current greats.  I think it's generally accepted that basketball players are at very least better athletes now than they were in the 70s. And the landscape was certainly different. But I really can't say for sure since I didn't get to watch them with my own eyes.

I understand Bags point about the idolism of youth. I still think of Mclvaine, Hutchins, Crawford, and Wardle as great players because I watched them in my formative years. I know now that they are nowhere near the greats in our programs history but I remember them as better than they were
As you know the game has changed so much. Shot clock, 3-point line. I would say there was much more emphasis on fundamentals, specially per position. I mean back then most players played one position and learned the fundamentals to that position. Al was a master at finding all the pieces to the puzzle and build a team for that era. I believe Wojo is the doing tge same for this era. Not that we will be as dominant, but we should be up there.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 14, 2018, 09:10:34 PM
The good news is that we can argue eras.  Lots of great players who would be legends at most schools,

#firstworldproblem
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: dgies9156 on June 19, 2018, 10:59:42 PM
I loved Earl Tatum, but he first guy out, IMO. He was a great player, on some great times, but not at same level of dgies Tier 1 list. Chones is high on the tier 1 list. Anyone after those guys had very, very nice careers, but nowhere near the same level. Honestly, they are way behind the all time best.

Goose,

I suspect that leaving Earl Tatum off the Tier II list is the first sign of senility. He was an incredible player and belongs on that list. I am deeply regretting leaving one heck of a basketball player off the list of significant ballplayers to Marquette history.

As to Mr. Chones, as much as I loved him and wished he was able to stay for his entire career, which would have put him in the Tier 1 list, he is not a Tier I, never wear the uniform again player. He was a two-year varsity letterman and while he was as dominant and quality a player as we ever had, his early departure meant that he was unable to have the impact on our team that he should have or could have. Keep in mind that the players in Tier 1 drove history at Marquette.

I also would agree that Don Kojis and Terry rand probably belong in Tier II. Tony Smith was a tough one to leave off, but he played for some pretty bad MU teams.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 20, 2018, 08:04:03 AM
Huh, hey? Wee lost won game wit #22 at center. Therefour, game changer, impact playa, one of MU's goat. Know question, aina?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Nukem2 on June 20, 2018, 09:08:21 AM

As to Mr. Chones, as much as I loved him and wished he was able to stay for his entire career, which would have put him in the Tier 1 list, he is not a Tier I, never wear the uniform again player. He was a two-year varsity letterman and while he was as dominant and quality a player as we ever had, his early departure meant that he was unable to have the impact on our team that he should have or could have. Keep in mind that the players in Tier 1 drove history at Marquette.

Need to give Jimmy some rope here.  Al told him to take the money and pretty much shoved him out the door. Much as it upset us all, lets not rain on Jimmy's parade. Just what it was.  MU lost only one game with him and that was a travesty of injustice. Jimmy is right there with #3, who managed to be on the losing end of quite a few games.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 20, 2018, 09:19:54 AM
Truthfully, I cannot agree with any argument on keeping Chones number from being retired. The first time I saw Wade in person, I had his number retired in my head. If he had played one season and never saw a FF, Wade was still the all time best, IMO. The same holds true for Chones.

Aside from those two, Bo Ellis comes to mind. From the day he stepped on the Arena floor he was a great college player. His career was outstanding for four years. That said, I never would have thought Butch Lee would be a national POY after his freshman season. Butch needed his junior year to cement himself as an all time great. Wade and Chones made their impact known from day one.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: dgies9156 on June 20, 2018, 10:27:35 AM
Truthfully, I cannot agree with any argument on keeping Chones number from being retired.

First off, if the elders of Marquette's basketball program elect to retire Mr. Chones' number, I'd be very pleased. He was that good and when you think about, "what ifs..." clearly his situation comes to mind immediately, if not sooner. I was really upset at the time he left, but that was long before I understood what Coach McGuire told him and what the level of poverty was in his immediate family.

But as important as he was, he did not change the direction of the program. George, Butch and Bo did. Maurice, Dean and certainly Al did. And, I agree with the notion that Dwyane Wade was the greatest Warrior ever. We need to have a special place of honor for Mr. Chones but statistically, there is a limit to the number of uniform numbers we can retire. What does bother me is that there is no mention of Mr. Chones in our ring of honor, something that should be rectified in the new Silk Road Arena.

 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 20, 2018, 10:53:20 AM
dgies

I disagree that Chones did not change the direction of the program. He was a major factor in the transition MU made from being a very good program (late 60's) to true national prominence. In addition, his departure truly represented the Al era perfectly. Not only did few guys go pro early, he was a first of the three to make the jump. IMO, aside from a great era of basketball, what MU was as a program, was cutting edge and he was part of that. Guys going pro, crazy uniforms, coach/player fights, games at midnight and the list goes on. I am not so sure some of that happens without Chones being part of the program.

In reflecting back, I really believe the day Chones was left was the day the program became truly big time. His departure was insane, and it was encouraged by his coach. The other thread about "what if's" was a great thread. IMO, Al leaving is the biggest and Chones leaving is #2. That changed the direction of the program in many ways.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 20, 2018, 11:10:51 AM
Can one of the old timers help me out with this? I am too young to have seen Chones play, even professionally. Many here seem to put him and Wade in a category of player all their own, and his college numbers certainly support that.

My question is, if Chones is on the same level as Wade, why is his professional career not as decorated? I look at Wade and I see over a dozen all star appearances, 3 national championships, a finals MVP, a scoring champion, and whole bunch of All NBA team appearances. Chones was All Rookie for the ABA, and was eventually a national champion, but on that team he was the 4th or 5th best player (no shame in that when two of the players ahead of you are Magic and Kareem). Wade is a surefire HOFer and Chones will never make it.

Was there injuries? Was he just one of those guys that didn't translate as well to the professional game? Is it because he started in the ABA? Or am I totally off base and his career was just as impressive as Wade's but I'm not understanding the times?

Please understand, I'm not trying disparage Chones in any way. I'm just trying to understand how a guy considered near equal to Wade in college isn't joining Wade in the NBA's pantheon.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 20, 2018, 11:17:24 AM
TAMU

Wade is in a class of one, IMO...especially as a pro player. My comments on all MU players only is in regards to their college days. Truth be told, many of the all time Warrior greats had uneventful professional careers. Chones and Lucas had the best runs from that era. Bo and Butch were high, high level college players that had unproductive pro careers. IMO, that does not diminish what they were as college players.

Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 20, 2018, 11:24:43 AM
TAMU

Wade is in a class of one, IMO...especially as a pro player. My comments on all MU players only is in regards to their college days. Truth be told, many of the all time Warrior greats had uneventful professional careers. Chones and Lucas had the best runs from that era. Bo and Butch were high, high level college players that had unproductive pro careers. IMO, that does not diminish what they were as college players.




And Marquette isn't unusual in that regard.  Many of the top college players from high level programs had underwhelming pro careers. 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: dgies9156 on June 20, 2018, 01:47:51 PM
Can one of the old timers help me out with this? I am too young to have seen Chones play, even professionally. Many here seem to put him and Wade in a category of player all their own, and his college numbers certainly support that.

My question is, if Chones is on the same level as Wade, why is his professional career not as decorated? I look at Wade and I see over a dozen all star appearances, 3 national championships, a finals MVP, a scoring champion, and whole bunch of All NBA team appearances. Chones was All Rookie for the ABA, and was eventually a national champion, but on that team he was the 4th or 5th best player (no shame in that when two of the players ahead of you are Magic and Kareem). Wade is a surefire HOFer and Chones will never make it.

Was there injuries? Was he just one of those guys that didn't translate as well to the professional game? Is it because he started in the ABA? Or am I totally off base and his career was just as impressive as Wade's but I'm not understanding the times?

Please understand, I'm not trying disparage Chones in any way. I'm just trying to understand how a guy considered near equal to Wade in college isn't joining Wade in the NBA's pantheon.

Brother TAMU, Jim Chones was a wonderful college who dominated at a time when there were not a whole lot of dominating big men. Artis Gilmore, Bill Walton, even Kareem Abdul-Jabbar were kinda sorta his contemporaries. When he became pro, he was very good and lasted for I think a dozen years. But keep in mind, whereas Mr. Chones might have played against maybe a half dozen good centers in his time at Marquette, he played a really tough position in the pros where he faced the Bill Russells, Wilt Chamberlains, Nate Thurmans and Artis Gilmores almost every night.

Brother Goose, I keep thinking one thing and that's Marquette was going to win with Mr. Chones or without him. It took us probably five extra years to win our first NatChamp because he and Larry McNeill went pro. I enjoy the back and forth on this highly theoretical debate and I know we were undefeated in 1972 until Mr. Chones left. But heck we had great teams even without him. That 1972 team still had Larry McNeill, Maurice Lucas and "Lackey!" Greta bunch of guys and incredible ballplayers.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Lennys Tap on June 20, 2018, 03:17:45 PM
That 1972 team still had Larry McNeill, Maurice Lucas and "Lackey!" Greta bunch of guys and incredible ballplayers.

Maurice Lucas was a freshman and therefore ineligible for varsity basketball in 1972. Lackey and McNeill were good players but Chones was that team's best - by far. Air went out of the balloon - we were 22-0 when he left. We proceeded to lose 2 regular season games and get blown out early in the NCAA.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: dgies9156 on June 20, 2018, 04:03:57 PM
Maurice Lucas was a freshman and therefore ineligible for varsity basketball in 1972. Lackey and McNeill were good players but Chones was that team's best - by far. Air went out of the balloon - we were 22-0 when he left. We proceeded to lose 2 regular season games and get blown out early in the NCAA.

Oops on the Lucas point. I think it was the following year freshmen teams were eliminated. My bad.

Yeah, I'll never forget that 70-49 debacle at Detroit the Saturday after Mr. Chones left the team. I saw the Chones-less team that year at the University of Tennessee when it played Miami of Ohio and was cautiously optimistic.

After Mr. Chones left, the deck was stacked against us. Bob Lackey came under suspicion by the NCAA for allegedly signing a contract that would have prevented him from playing in an NCAA game. Al was at his best in defending "Lackey" in that one. I think Adolph "the Bigot" Rupp was doing all he could to throw us off balance and to keeping the oncoming tide of African American players in college basketball at bay. Rupp really was bad news and as a youngster growing up in Nashville, I took great delight in watching every time Kentucky lost, especially to Vanderbilt and Marquette!!!!!

Jim Chones or no Jim Chones, we were still strong enough that we should have cleared out that region, IMHO. Mr. Chones was an outstanding ballplayer and as a consequence, we had a much more sophisticated version of Henry Ellenson Disease -- we relied too much on Mr. Chones. Our guards were pretty good and certainly Larry McNeill and Lackey should have picked up the slack.

We didn't and the rest was history!
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: 4everwarriors on June 20, 2018, 06:30:12 PM
Sew yo, wee beat Creighton at home on Sat. afta #22 bolted, hey?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: MU82 on June 20, 2018, 10:26:00 PM

And Marquette isn't unusual in that regard.  Many of the top college players from high level programs had underwhelming pro careers.

Many truly great college players did not go on to have great pro careers. I mean, there are some who contend that Laettner is the greatest college player ever, and he was only an OK pro. Meanwhile, a few players who weren't superstars in college get put in the perfect situation as pros and really take off. Butler was pretty damn good at MU, but I doubt a single Scooper thought he would be a multiple-time NBA All-Star.

Plenty of other examples on both sides of this.

I saw Chones play many, many times in the NBA. He was a solid pro for a decade and had numbers that would have brought him nine figures worth of NBA salary in this day and age. He was strong and smart and did a lot of things well. But there were a lot of other great big men then, too.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: MUDPT on June 21, 2018, 05:53:49 AM
Did Chones ever come back to graduate? That used to be the policy for having your number retired.  Until #3 won an NBA title and the rules didn't apply to a certain coach...
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Frenns Liquor Depot on June 21, 2018, 07:15:34 AM
Did Chones ever come back to graduate? That used to be the policy for having your number retired.  Until #3 won an NBA title and the rules didn't apply to a certain coach...

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-05-24/sports/9905240024_1_jim-chones-college-degree-marquette (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-05-24/sports/9905240024_1_jim-chones-college-degree-marquette)

For the perception of this being a big deal, it sure doesnt seem to be the hold-up. 
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: willie warrior on June 21, 2018, 08:21:26 AM
It is almost impossible to rank MU royalty, because there were so many, and from different eras. Difficult to have a ranking of such greats as Chones, Lee, Lucas, Ellis, Memonger, Kojis, Wade, Thompson and several others.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 21, 2018, 08:22:36 AM
Did Chones ever come back to graduate? That used to be the policy for having your number retired.  Until #3 won an NBA title and the rules didn't apply to a certain coach...


Rules?  Are / were these really rules?  Established by whom?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 21, 2018, 08:34:27 AM

Rules?  Are / were these really rules?  Established by whom?

I seem to remember (maybe the Mascot crew) posting here that Pintens developed some formula the AD developed under Crean?  I don't know how #22 is not in the rafters, including an AA honor, a long NBA career averaging double figures and a World Championship.

In any regard, I am okay with retired jerseys and not numbers in the future. I am NOT a fan of retroactively taking retired numbers back. I think the last three coaches tried to hand out George Thompson's number. Not a good look.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 21, 2018, 08:41:47 AM
I seem to remember (maybe the Mascot crew) posting here that Pintens developed some formula the AD developed under Crean?  I don't know how #22 is not in the rafters, including an AA honor, a long NBA career averaging double figures and a World Championship.

In any regard, I am okay with retired jerseys and not numbers in the future. I am NOT a fan of retroactively taking retired numbers back. I think the last three coaches tried to hand out George Thompson's number. Not a good look.


I agree completely on all counts.  I just think the idea that "Crean broke the rules" with Wade is a little silly.  Unless the BOT passed a resolution that was ignored, which IMO didn't happen, then the "rules" (probably more like guidelines) were changed for the best player in the program's history.  Which is just fine.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 21, 2018, 08:52:11 AM

I agree completely on all counts.  I just think the idea that "Crean broke the rules" with Wade is a little silly.  Unless the BOT passed a resolution that was ignored, which IMO didn't happen, then the "rules" (probably more like guidelines) were changed for the best player in the program's history.  Which is just fine.

Any graduation rule, if it existed, is especially silly today with so many players leaving early. Heck, Haanif was even looking at an Irish Exit. Wade, Rivers, Lucas and Chones all left early...#22 was just the first even though Al was essentially his agent.

Some are still butt hurt I have a feeling due to the mid-season jump. Time adds perspective and the new arena provides a chance to get it right with #22.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Its DJOver on June 21, 2018, 09:06:01 AM
Is there actually any chance that this happens, or this all just a combination of reminiscing and wanting another Al era player immortalized.  I would think any push would have to come from Wojo, as if others with the power had wanted it done, it would be done by now.  For Wojo saying all the right things about the legacy of the school/ legacy of Al, is he really well versed enough in MU history to push for recognition for a player that left the school years before he was even born?  Not saying that I'm against it, or that 22 doesn't deserve it, just want to know if this is another off-season conversation, or if it has any possibility.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 21, 2018, 09:16:18 AM
Is there actually any chance that this happens, or this all just a combination of reminiscing and wanting another Al era player immortalized.  I would think any push would have to come from Wojo, as if others with the power had wanted it done, it would be done by now.  For Wojo saying all the right things about the legacy of the school/ legacy of Al, is he really well versed enough in MU history to push for recognition for a player that left the school years before he was even born?  Not saying that I'm against it, or that 22 doesn't deserve it, just want to know if this is another off-season conversation, or if it has any possibility.


I think the push would have to come from players from his era and from people (boosters) who are currently close to the program.  My guess is that Wojo would embrace it if it gets to that point.  But I think it is pretty rare to retire a number from nearly 50 years ago.  I don't place the chances very high.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: dgies9156 on June 21, 2018, 09:55:09 AM
Did Chones ever come back to graduate? That used to be the policy for having your number retired.  Until #3 won an NBA title and the rules didn't apply to a certain coach...

At one point way back when, Marquette committed itself to having its basketball players graduate -- even if years from now. During the McGuire era, I believe all but about three or four players received their degrees -- and most of those players came back later to earn them.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: MU82 on June 21, 2018, 10:49:15 AM
I just took a look at our retired numbers list: http://www.marquettebasketball.com/retired-jerseys

I must have missed us officially unretiring 11, which of course never should have been retired in the first place. When did that happen?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 21, 2018, 11:24:29 AM
#22 was retired a long time ago in the minds of former players and fans that lived that era. I actually would be somewhat pissed off they officially retired it now. It should have been decades ago.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 21, 2018, 11:34:41 AM
#22 was retired a long time ago in the minds of former players and fans that lived that era. I actually would be somewhat pissed off they officially retired it now. It should have been decades ago.


What does that even mean?  It's been worn regularly since Chones left.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Goose on June 21, 2018, 11:39:02 AM
sultan

Simple, anyone that knows anything about MU ball knows Chones was an all, all time great. In my mind, #22 retired 40 + years ago. The fact that others have worn that number is meaningless to me.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 21, 2018, 11:45:28 AM
sultan

Simple, anyone that knows anything about MU ball knows Chones was an all, all time great. In my mind, #22 retired 40 + years ago. The fact that others have worn that number is meaningless to me.


Well OK.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Dr. Blackheart on June 21, 2018, 11:59:16 AM
I just took a look at our retired numbers list: http://www.marquettebasketball.com/retired-jerseys

I must have missed us officially unretiring 11, which of course never should have been retired in the first place. When did that happen?

I looked at the AA links and saw this DJO picture.  Where's Waldo with the Mac photo bomb?

http://www.marquettebasketball.com/all-americans
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: barfolomew on June 21, 2018, 12:49:05 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say Marquette is the only school to retire a basketball "jersey" for a former football player who never played basketball (Bob Weingart).
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: MUDPT on June 21, 2018, 01:12:02 PM

I agree completely on all counts.  I just think the idea that "Crean broke the rules" with Wade is a little silly.  Unless the BOT passed a resolution that was ignored, which IMO didn't happen, then the "rules" (probably more like guidelines) were changed for the best player in the program's history.  Which is just fine.

I was on some committee when Doc was retired. About the only other thing I remember doing was picking the McCahill winners. Anyway, there was a guideline/ rule? that you had to graduate.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 21, 2018, 02:00:45 PM
I was on some committee when Doc was retired. About the only other thing I remember doing was picking the McCahill winners. Anyway, there was a guideline/ rule? that you had to graduate.


But again, who made the rule?  Because whomever has the ability to MAKE a rule, has the ability to CHANGE a rule.  (One of my organizational pet peeves by the way.)
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Galway Eagle on June 21, 2018, 03:06:40 PM
I'll go out on a limb and say Marquette is the only school to retire a basketball "jersey" for a former football player who never played basketball (Bob Weingart).

Can't 38 not be worn for basketball anyways? But overall I agree
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 21, 2018, 04:26:49 PM
Can't 38 not be worn for basketball anyways? But overall I agree


Neither can 77.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: barfolomew on June 21, 2018, 04:37:35 PM
Can't 38 not be worn for basketball anyways? But overall I agree

Correct. I put jersey in quotes for that reason.
AT LEAST UNTIL THE NCAA STOPS THE DISCRIMINATION AND STARTS HIRING POLYDACTYL REFEREES!
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: WarriorDad on June 21, 2018, 07:21:44 PM
Can one of the old timers help me out with this? I am too young to have seen Chones play, even professionally. Many here seem to put him and Wade in a category of player all their own, and his college numbers certainly support that.

My question is, if Chones is on the same level as Wade, why is his professional career not as decorated? I look at Wade and I see over a dozen all star appearances, 3 national championships, a finals MVP, a scoring champion, and whole bunch of All NBA team appearances. Chones was All Rookie for the ABA, and was eventually a national champion, but on that team he was the 4th or 5th best player (no shame in that when two of the players ahead of you are Magic and Kareem). Wade is a surefire HOFer and Chones will never make it.

Was there injuries? Was he just one of those guys that didn't translate as well to the professional game? Is it because he started in the ABA? Or am I totally off base and his career was just as impressive as Wade's but I'm not understanding the times?

Please understand, I'm not trying disparage Chones in any way. I'm just trying to understand how a guy considered near equal to Wade in college isn't joining Wade in the NBA's pantheon.

Others stated it pretty well.  Chones was close to the leading scorer on a few of the Cavs teams he played on.  He played with guys like Campy Russell, Kareem, Walt Frazier, Austin Carr, Magic Johnson, Jamal Wilkes and the like.  Some high volume scorers.  Jim was good, quality NBA player.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: dgies9156 on June 21, 2018, 11:23:51 PM
sultan

Simple, anyone that knows anything about MU ball knows Chones was an all, all time great. In my mind, #22 retired 40 + years ago. The fact that others have worn that number is meaningless to me.

Brother Goose:

Some of the folks who wore 22 after Mr. Chones were pretty good. They include:

Lloyd Walton PhD (right after Mr. Chones left)
Dwayne Johnson
Jerel McNeal
Wally (OK, not really)

Yes, I know Brian Wardle did too, as did Katin Reinhardt.

Nobody on this list is anywhere near Mr. Chones' ability. But of this group, Lloyd was really someone special as was Jerel.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: MU82 on June 22, 2018, 07:41:12 PM
Brother Goose:

Some of the folks who wore 22 after Mr. Chones were pretty good. They include:

Lloyd Walton PhD (right after Mr. Chones left)
Dwayne Johnson
Jerel McNeal
Wally (OK, not really)

Yes, I know Brian Wardle did too, as did Katin Reinhardt.

Nobody on this list is anywhere near Mr. Chones' ability. But of this group, Lloyd was really someone special as was Jerel.

Katin was special against Nova!
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: warriorchick on June 23, 2018, 08:58:17 AM
I looked at the AA links and saw this DJO picture.  Where's Waldo with the Mac photo bomb?

http://www.marquettebasketball.com/all-americans

Literary Digest used to pick an All-American basketball team?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 25, 2018, 09:46:40 AM
Correct. I put jersey in quotes for that reason.
AT LEAST UNTIL THE NCAA STOPS THE DISCRIMINATION AND STARTS HIRING POLYDACTYL REFEREES!
Amazingly, other sports have figured out how to make the seemingly insurmountable leap of how to indicate a number greater than 5 with hand signals.  Apparently it is a closely guarded secret and basketball has been unable to master that technological advance.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: MU82 on June 25, 2018, 03:18:23 PM
Amazingly, other sports have figured out how to make the seemingly insurmountable leap of how to indicate a number greater than 5 with hand signals.  Apparently it is a closely guarded secret and basketball has been unable to master that technological advance.

NBA refs apparently can master the technique, too. If they ever would call a moving screen on Jae -they won't, not on him or anybody else because moving screens apparently no longer exist - they would have no trouble signaling 99 to the scorer's table.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 25, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
Amazingly, other sports have figured out how to make the seemingly insurmountable leap of how to indicate a number greater than 5 with hand signals.  Apparently it is a closely guarded secret and basketball has been unable to master that technological advance.

Actually the NBA has figured it out. Andrei Kirilenko was given special permission to wear the number 47, he wore it his entire NBA career. This allowed him to have the nickname AK-47. Which was fitting because his hometown is where the weapon was first manufactured.

(http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/usatsi_8202416_168380594_lowres.jpg?quality=95&w=647)
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: 🏀 on June 26, 2018, 05:21:58 AM
Actually the NBA has figured it out. Andrei Kirilenko was given special permission to wear the number 47, he wore it his entire NBA career. This allowed him to have the nickname AK-47. Which was fitting because his hometown is where the weapon was first manufactured.

(http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/usatsi_8202416_168380594_lowres.jpg?quality=95&w=647)

Best nickname in sports, ever. Initials, number, Russian gun, he's a Russian Gunner, hometown. Just perfect.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 26, 2018, 10:22:48 AM
Actually the NBA has figured it out. Andrei Kirilenko was given special permission to wear the number 47, he wore it his entire NBA career. This allowed him to have the nickname AK-47. Which was fitting because his hometown is where the weapon was first manufactured.

(http://uproxx.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/usatsi_8202416_168380594_lowres.jpg?quality=95&w=647)


Did he need to have permission?  They’ve allowed digits greater than five for awhile.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TAMU, Knower of Ball on June 26, 2018, 11:32:15 AM

Did he need to have permission?  They’ve allowed digits greater than five for awhile.

They have? I don't pay attention to NBA numbers but AK47 is the only one I knew about off the top of my head.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 26, 2018, 12:01:33 PM
They have? I don't pay attention to NBA numbers but AK47 is the only one I knew about off the top of my head.

Bill Russell was #6. Bob Pettit was #9. John Havlicek #17. Etc.

I don’t think they’ve ever not allowed those digits.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: TSmith34, Inc. on June 26, 2018, 12:20:38 PM
Bill Russell was #6. Bob Pettit was #9. John Havlicek #17. Etc.

I don’t think they’ve ever not allowed those digits.
So is there some reason college doesn't?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: GGGG on June 26, 2018, 12:34:59 PM
So is there some reason college doesn't?


Their refs are bad enough without having to concentrate on using two hands twice to indicate a foul?

Honestly I don’t know why.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: MUDPT on June 26, 2018, 01:03:10 PM
Back in the day, teams would wear even numbers at home and odd on the road. Supposedly it was so there was only one number on the court and the scorekeeper wouldn’t get confused.
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Spotcheck Billy on June 26, 2018, 01:36:45 PM
Back in the day, teams would wear even numbers at home and odd on the road. Supposedly it was so there was only one number on the court and the scorekeeper wouldn’t get confused.

Interesting. What day was this back in?
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: oldwarrior81 on June 26, 2018, 01:54:20 PM
Interesting. What day was this back in?

In Wisconsin high school, I think the odd/even ended in the early 70's.  Although some schools kept the numbering systems until they purchased new jerseys a few years later.

I don't remember odd/even in college, but there are records of it occurring, mostly pre WWII.
I read Tennessee kept the odd/even until 1972 when freshman became eligible.  I guess they weren't able to outfit everyone with 17 eligible home #'s and 17 road #'s
Title: Re: MU Royalty
Post by: Litehouse on June 26, 2018, 02:11:25 PM
In Wisconsin high school, I think the odd/even ended in the early 70's.  Although some schools kept the numbering systems until they purchased new jerseys a few years later.

I don't remember odd/even in college, but there are records of it occurring, mostly pre WWII.
I read Tennessee kept the odd/even until 1972 when freshman became eligible.  I guess they weren't able to outfit everyone with 17 eligible home #'s and 17 road #'s

My HS used the even/odd numbers until at least the mid-80's.