Quote from: CTWarrior on Today at 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.

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.

It started with a championship with players they developed.  So they adopted a developmental model after being successful developing underappreciated players.   They recruited players they thought would develop in the same way.

I think this is a great synopsis but it started earlier than you're giving credit for. It started the year prior when Justin caught them off guard (Shakas words) by leaving early and Gregg grad transferred. Rather than get guys he dug his heels in and ran with the young returnees and swept the BE championships. It started spring 2022.

Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on Today at 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.

The Ravens did him a favor.

Phil Jackson always used to say that there is an expiration date for coaches with one organization, that change is healthy and necessary.

Quote from: Jockey on Today at 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: wadesworld on Today at 10:05:59 AMI'm on board with a roster of mostly high school recruits that you develop, but Shaka has to start hitting on these higher talent recruits he's in on but not landing.  And then he needs to understand the flaws in the roster and address them through the portal.  It doesn't take a new roster every year, just a new guy here and there.

This is it in a nutshell IMHO. It's basically the Painter/Izzo blueprint.

Quote from: wadesworld on Today at 10:05:59 AMI trust Shaka will adjust. I trust he'll adjust his strategy moving forward.

I think he'll adjust. I sure as heck hope so. We'll see!

Also ...

Hards, good OP.

Quote from: MU82 on Today at 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: Vander Blue Man Group on Today at 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.