With Acker not playing is Buzz going to recruit another for this year or next?

[dsfire]

Very, very unlikely.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I'm trying to protect the program from jokers like Mr. OCD 84 who is trying to bring down Buzz Williams when he doesn't have the facts.  Sorry for getting involved, but when people like that start tossing around lies, someone needs to say something.

He's trying to bring down Buzz Williams?  Please.  Let's get real here.

[bma725]

Blah, blah, blah.   Honestly, I find the complaining about talking about Crean just as bad.

We're not going to create a rule about NOT talking about Crean.  And it's probably not going to stop, especially when the beast is fed. 

So before you start writing about "Can we please stop talking about Crean?" .. please, just don't.  Ignore the offending message, and just move along.    I've heard this internet thing is pretty big, lots of stuff to read, games to play, sites to visit, porn to download.

Alright then, sounds like a plan.  Y'all have fun debating the same issue for the 15000th time.

[Marquette84]

Blah, blah, blah.   Honestly, I find the complaining about talking about Crean just as bad.

We're not going to create a rule about NOT talking about Crean.  And it's probably not going to stop, especially when the beast is fed.  

Unfortunately, we have a small number of people who feel that everything has to be defined around our prior coach.  Even when it's not, they find some way to pull him in.  For some reason, these guys just cannot move on.  

In this thread, I make a post that makes the simple observation that big time programs like Kansas, UNC, Villanova, Texas, Duke will fill every scholarship slot, and it means having players transfer nearly every year.  If we want to join them, then as fans we have to get over our squeamishness when a player like Hazel transfers.

No matter how many times I tried to explain that this had nothing to do with our prior coach, this joker Silky, with all of 25 posts to his credit, manages to reinterpret this into some defense of Crean or attack on Buzz.  

Here's what was completely lost on Silky:  When I compared Buzz Williams to Bill Self, Roy Williams, Coach K, Jay Wright, Calhoun, and Rick Barnes, I am not trying to "destroy Buzz" as he puts it.   I am trying to suggest what we as fans must accept as the norm if we want to compete.

I have to offer complements to Pillardean, who managed to make an intelligent response after interpreting the post in spirit in which I made it.  

Let me suggest to PRN, Sikly, 4everwarriors, Mr. Hawyard, and all the others who are still obsessed with our former coach--if you want to move on, then look closely at the following response that shows how someone read the same post you did, but did not reflexively interpret it about Crean:

I understand what MU84 was saying about the "1 year tryout" thing.  

I just think it's tough on the kid coming into MU.  If you are saying "tryout" then you are probably not giving the same chances to that kid as you would the other players that are an "investment."

The way I look at it, transfers occur when the investment no longer is worthwhile for BOTH the school and the player.  We saw that with Hazel and Christopherson.  They moved somewhere where their skills would be much more appreciated and respected and allowed to develop to a greater degree.  Nothing wrong with that, whether you want to say there was anything malicious in it (Hazel still be here if he had Hayward type numbers) or not would be the exact crux of if he should still be here or not, for Hayward would still be holding up his end of the investment-production-while Hazel wasn't!

I just think defining a PLAYER as having a "tryout" year would wrong to do as a University.  But if MU would say that each player each year is trying to defend his scholarship at MU and must work and produce accordingly or MU and Buzz won't renew the scholarship is not wrong.  For yes, we offered the kid a scholarship to play at MU, but if the kid doesn't deliver in the matter in which Buzz and MU defines, then they should not be held to renewing that scholarship.  Doing that does not make MU or Buzz look like monsters.  It's the way of ther world, you must produce and if you don't you won't be sticking around in your job or at your school.  It's that way for student-athletes.  They must produce at two aspects, the student and the athlete.  A student needs to produce in his/her studies or MU can deny re-enterence the following year.  There are standards people must live up to at MU and any University, if they are not living up to them then MU does not need to live up to their initial agreement.

If we want to go down that road and pick up another player this year, then all the newcomers and old regime would fall into the if you don't pan out we will not be reinstituting your scholarship for the following year.  All would need to be under the short leash, not just that final recruit.

We could speculate on whether we pick up one last recruit and what the outcome would be, but watching this year Buzz does has a bit of a plan he is working for.  And if someone from this year doesn't fit into that plan, I do not think we should pick up another player.  Save it and keep it open for 2010-2011 and forward.  But if there is someone out there that Buzz want's for his plan.  I definetely see him picking up that player for this year and forward.

[mu_hilltopper]

Unfortunately, we have a small number of people who feel that everything has to be defined around our prior coach.  Even when it's not, they find some way to pull him in.  For some reason, these guys just cannot move on. 

Yes, but you don't HAVE to respond, you know.   

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

Marquette84 -- take a look at your post history and then tell us who has a crush on our former coach.

[Hards Alumni]

Yes, but you don't HAVE to respond, you know.   

you beat me to the punch, hill.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes, but you don't HAVE to respond, you know.   

But if he does respond, it's not like he's the one initiating it, he's simply responding. 

Why is it somehow deemed more troubling for someone that is responding to the post then the same folks that keep initiating it time and time again?  Or is the viewpoint that as long as someone is responding, it keeps the silly accusations and ridiculous insults in play and with merit?  I don't know, I'm just asking.

[rocky_warrior]

Why is it somehow deemed more troubling for someone that is responding to the post then the same folks that keep initiating it time and time again? 

There's 3 types here - maybe more, but in general:
type #1: Those that disliked TC, or dislike him now, and like to post about it
type #2: Those that liked TC and want to defend him.
type #3: Those that have their opinion, but don't need to reiterate it a million times.

Type #2 starts just as many TC debates by posting in threads in which he hasn't yet been mentioned with sarcastic comments like:Why would player X do this?  I thought nobody liked our former coach

Seriously, I read nearly every thread here, and while type #1 get blamed for the thread drift, I think over half the thread drift is caused by type #2. 

So, just think before you post!  And consider where it has anything to do with the current thread.

For example.  This thread is about Acker, and whether we'll use his scholie this year.  Why am I having to talk about TC.  Silky mentioned it, but others jumped on Silky to essentially say "Why do you hate TC?".  From there it snowballed.  Imagine if everybody just accepted that Silky has his opinion, and went on talking about whether we need another PG for 2009-2010.   What a novel concept...

[Lennys Tap]

But if he does respond, it's not like he's the one initiating it, he's simply responding. 

Why is it somehow deemed more troubling for someone that is responding to the post then the same folks that keep initiating it time and time again?  Or is the viewpoint that as long as someone is responding, it keeps the silly accusations and ridiculous insults in play and with merit?  I don't know, I'm just asking.

So if you make a statement and I call your point of view repetitive, silly, ridiculous and without merit, I am merely responding, not "initiating" anything. Interesting point of view.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For example.  This thread is about Acker, and whether we'll use his scholie this year.  Why am I having to talk about TC.  Silky mentioned it, but others jumped on Silky to essentially say "Why do you hate TC?".  From there it snowballed.  Imagine if everybody just accepted that Silky has his opinion, and went on talking about whether we need another PG for 2009-2010.   What a novel concept...

Understood. 

Or an even more novel concept....imagine if the TC stuff wasn't brought up in the very first place and it never went down that path?  I'm guilty as charged for bringing it up in some threads before anyone else, but I try in most cases not to unless someone else goes down the path first.

But since TC stuff seems to drive about 80% of the conversation, people not talking about him might really put a crimp on the visitations.  Sex sells....erh I mean TC conversations do. 

[TJ]

Anyone want to talk about next year's 13th scholarship?  I can't see using it, because the drop off in talent from the player you would likely sign next year with that scholarship to the player you would sign right now with that scholarship would be tremendous. 

Even if you did institute a "one year tryout" (which I'm not necessarily against), you might lose out on talent for next year because any recruitment/signing would be going over the limit.  There's talent to be had in March, but you're limiting yourself greatly if you wait until the results of the tryout before replacing the player.  And it's not really a "tryout" if you sign over the guy before he even fails.

I say, unless there's a player available and willing for '09-'10 of the same talent level that we are trying to sign for next year's class, give the scholarship to Frozena.

[Silky]

I have no agenda, unlike 84.  I think Tom Crean did a very good job for us.  I disagreed on how he treated people and how he would get people out of the program.

However, MU 84 has to inject in every thread veiled shots at whomever to make Tom Crean look better.  Virtually every thread of the guy the past 5 years is in defense of Tom Crean.  Just look at his comments as it's the same old story. 

All he is trying to do here again is to make some fiction up that Buzz over recruited like Tom Crean.  Buzz did so because he knew he had to.  Crean did it and dealt with it later.  I agree with MU 84 many schools do it, but it doesn't make it right.

MU 84 has an agenda and I simply got sick of it and needed to call him out on it. 

[Marquette84]

I have no agenda, unlike 84.  I think Tom Crean did a very good job for us.  I disagreed on how he treated people and how he would get people out of the program.

However, MU 84 has to inject in every thread veiled shots at whomever to make Tom Crean look better.  Virtually every thread of the guy the past 5 years is in defense of Tom Crean.  Just look at his comments as it's the same old story. 

All he is trying to do here again is to make some fiction up that Buzz over recruited like Tom Crean.  Buzz did so because he knew he had to.  Crean did it and dealt with it later.  I agree with MU 84 many schools do it, but it doesn't make it right.

MU 84 has an agenda and I simply got sick of it and needed to call him out on it. 

In an attempt to get to some honest understanding here, I'm asking you to put aside whatever feelings you have toward me and answer one thing very clearly, without emotion or animosity.

Below is my first post in this thread.

Perhaps, Sikly, you could do me the favor of explaining where you see my agenda.  Let's put all the animosity behind us and at least try to come to some understanding.

For the life of me, I can't figure out how you manage to interpret this as pro-Crean or anti-Buzz. 

I don't understand where you get Crean out of this.  If you're going to accuse me of having an agenda, could you at least do me the favor of explaining to me, very clearly and very precisely, exactly what in this post could be construed as a "defense of Tom Crean" or "bringing down Buzz Williams"?

You never get an extra scholarship because you "banked" one the previous year.  If so, then Buzz could have gone with 14 rostered players for 09-10, because Mbakwe's scholarship was banked last year, and there would have been no need for Pat Hazel to transfer. 

The fact of the matter is that scholarships are for one season only, and teams have a limit of 13.  There is no such thing as a "scholarship bank" that you can use in subsequent seasons.

If you want to be technically accurate, Buzz does not have just 3 scholarships to hand out for 2010-11, he  has 13. 

People make the blind assumption that the 10 players who will be on the 2009-10 roster who will still have eligibility remaining have to receive one, along with Clark, Bowen and someone yet to be identified. 

However, there is no NCAA requirement that scholarships must be renewed--and we've seen with Pat Hazel that Buzz Williams is not one of those coaches who is going to keep a guy around just because he was on last year's roster and could come back.

So that leaves the issue of what to do with an open scholarship THIS year. 

Until somebody can tell me the value of an empty chair on the bench, I say fill the spot with the best PG still available.  If that player has some surprise upside, you can renew his scholarship next year.  If he's a dud, you don't renew it.   

And please don't go down the road of what a raw deal this is for the athlete--with that 12th spot, MU would be offering essentially a one-year tryout to a kid who thinks he's Big East material.  His other option is to head off to a MAC or Horizon type school.

[TJ]

I guess not.

(I know that my post wasn't earth-shattering, but I was hoping to get a change of subject back to the scholarship, even if just for a few posts.  I failed. )

Also, Silky, you've explained your point, again and again and again.  We are all very aware that you read between the lines of MU84's first post to see his secret hidden agenda and you want to call him out for what you think he might have meant to say.  You've done an admirable job at that.  But the ruse has been exposed, so you don't need to continue outing him anymore.

[Marquette84]

I guess not.

(I know that my post wasn't earth-shattering, but I was hoping to get a change of subject back to the scholarship, even if just for a few posts.  I failed. )

Well this sure doesn't help your cause:

Also, Silky, you've explained your point, again and again and again.  We are all very aware that you read between the lines of MU84's first post to see his secret hidden agenda and you want to call him out for what you think he might have meant to say.  You've done an admirable job at that.  But the ruse has been exposed, so you don't need to continue outing him anymore.

I'm beginning to think that if I suggested that it might be interesting with next year's lineup if the NCAA experimented with the international-style triangular lane, somebody would suggest that it demonstrates an anti-Buzz agenda.

Anyone want to talk about next year's 13th scholarship?  I can't see using it, because the drop off in talent from the player you would likely sign next year with that scholarship to the player you would sign right now with that scholarship would be tremendous. 

Even if you did institute a "one year tryout" (which I'm not necessarily against), you might lose out on talent for next year because any recruitment/signing would be going over the limit.  There's talent to be had in March, but you're limiting yourself greatly if you wait until the results of the tryout before replacing the player.  And it's not really a "tryout" if you sign over the guy before he even fails.

I say, unless there's a player available and willing for '09-'10 of the same talent level that we are trying to sign for next year's class, give the scholarship to Frozena.

To address your concern that signing someone now might hurt recruiting next year, a comprison might be in order.

Kansas signed Tyrone Appleton in April of last year.  This year they landed Xavier Henry saw Appleton transfer.  It's obvious that Appleton is not at Xavier's level, but KU took him anyway.  Why?

Because at the time he signed, their only real experienced returning guard was Sherron Collins.  Tyshawn Taylor hadn't signed yet.  Brady Morningstar was a redshirt the prior year, and only played in 16 games the year before that.  Tyrell Reed only played 21 games the year before.  Mario Little and Travis Releford were also newcomers.

Now, you could argue that with the other guards, KU probably could have chanced it and not taken Appleton. But what good would it have done to have an empty chair?  As history has shown, taking Appleton didn't stop them from recruiting and landing Henry.  And there was a chance that Appleton would have turned out to be something  special (he was the #3 ranked Juco). 

So this year, Buzz now has one experienced guard in Cubillan (two if you count Frozena).  The depth chart at guard is 4, and only one is a true PG.  What if, god forbid, something happens to Cadougan?  And what if Buycks and DJO are no more effective at the point than Logtermann or Mason?  2009-10 becomes a throwaway season.

And the other consideration is that Buzz is already recruiting a number of top 50 players for next year.  As I said in an earlier post, if Kyrie Irving, Joe Jackson and Doron Lamb all call Buzz and say they want to play for MU, Buzz isn't stupid--he takes all three and sorts out the scholarships at the end of the season.

[TJ]

Well this sure doesn't help your cause:

I know... I got frustrated and gave up too easily.  I felt bad about it after I did it, but my thinking was that this thread was lost to the world anyway.  I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I doubt anyone's coming here looking for talk about the last scholarship anymore.

[Marquette84]

I know... I got frustrated and gave up too easily.  I felt bad about it after I did it, but my thinking was that this thread was lost to the world anyway.  I hope that I'm proven wrong, but I doubt anyone's coming here looking for talk about the last scholarship anymore.

We'll see. . .

Regardless of whether one likes transfers or not, the biggest danger sign for the coming season that I see will be depth at guard--especially if we suffer an injury or one of the new recruits doesn't pan out.

Appleton was the #3 JUCO guard who played for the national JC champion the season before, and he was a bust at KU.  And we're counting on two JUCOs.

If we had depth to go along side them, it would be one thing. But beyond the JUCO transfers are  a highly rated newcomer, and a returning player who hasn't yet demonstrated that he's returned from surgery.

Everything might work out and we're just fine in the backcourt.  But if we find out in January that we need more depth, by then it will be too late to do anything. 

I'll readily admit whoever we land at this late date would be a longshot.  But I'll go back to the comparison to the empty chair--which doesn't have a shot at all of helping us.  Take someone now, as an insurance policy for us, chance of a lifetime for him, and let the scholarships sort themselves out next spring. 


 

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I think you're forgetting that it was O'Neill's team that got swept by Butler (his 2nd season, 90-91).

Outside of being a better recruiter, I don't see his coaching was significantly better than Dukiet.

O'Neill's 2nd season of 11-18 was almost exactly the same as Bob Dukiet's 2nd season of 10-18.  And don't forget--with Key, McIlvaine, and Logtermann as frosh, Curry as a 3rd year Soph and Trevor Powell as a senior that year--O'Neill's talent level was SIGNIFICANTLY better.  THAT'S the team that was swept by Butler.  Not Dukiet's holdovers.  

You claim that Marquette had a "true resurrection," however one has to wonder what shape MU was truly in for O'Neill to believe that "greener pastures" consisted of a 5-22 Never-Was team buried in last place in the SEC.   The mere fact that O'Neil left MU for Tennessee sent a MAJOR message about MU basketball--and it wasn't "MU is Back".  Not to mention that O'Neill wasn't just content to leave--he publicly dissed MU on the way out.

Hell, O'Neill didn't resurrect MU--he damn near cemented its reputation as Stepping-Stone U!  

Clearly, Marquette84 had no agenda with the above post.

EVERY POST HE MAKES HAS THE SAME AGENDA! The question is...why?

[TJ]

Well this sure doesn't help your cause:

I'm beginning to think that if I suggested that it might be interesting with next year's lineup if the NCAA experimented with the international-style triangular lane, somebody would suggest that it demonstrates an anti-Buzz agenda.


To address your concern that signing someone now might hurt recruiting next year, a comprison might be in order.

Kansas signed Tyrone Appleton in April of last year.  This year they landed Xavier Henry saw Appleton transfer.  It's obvious that Appleton is not at Xavier's level, but KU took him anyway.  Why?

Because at the time he signed, their only real experienced returning guard was Sherron Collins.  Tyshawn Taylor hadn't signed yet.  Brady Morningstar was a redshirt the prior year, and only played in 16 games the year before that.  Tyrell Reed only played 21 games the year before.  Mario Little and Travis Releford were also newcomers.

Now, you could argue that with the other guards, KU probably could have chanced it and not taken Appleton. But what good would it have done to have an empty chair?  As history has shown, taking Appleton didn't stop them from recruiting and landing Henry.  And there was a chance that Appleton would have turned out to be something  special (he was the #3 ranked Juco). 

So this year, Buzz now has one experienced guard in Cubillan (two if you count Frozena).  The depth chart at guard is 4, and only one is a true PG.  What if, god forbid, something happens to Cadougan?  And what if Buycks and DJO are no more effective at the point than Logtermann or Mason?  2009-10 becomes a throwaway season.

And the other consideration is that Buzz is already recruiting a number of top 50 players for next year.  As I said in an earlier post, if Kyrie Irving, Joe Jackson and Doron Lamb all call Buzz and say they want to play for MU, Buzz isn't stupid--he takes all three and sorts out the scholarships at the end of the season.

The problem I see in this logic is that we're not Kansas or Duke or any of the programs you named.  We're probably not landing John Walls or Xavier Henrys.  We want to get there, but I don't think we're there at this time.  Those guys can go anywhere and know that space will be made for them and everything will work out.  Is that necessarily the same for the next level of recruits?

[GGGG]

So this year, Buzz now has one experienced guard in Cubillan (two if you count Frozena).  The depth chart at guard is 4, and only one is a true PG.  What if, god forbid, something happens to Cadougan?  And what if Buycks and DJO are no more effective at the point than Logtermann or Mason?  2009-10 becomes a throwaway season.

If Acker were playing major minutes, it would be a throwaway season anyway.  Honestly, I think the only reason this season *isn't* a throwaway is if Junior or DJO catch on at point.  No late season recruit is going to change that.  Plus we have another guard coming in next year (Bowen) and my guess is that Buzz wants another one to round out the class since he already has an incoming front line player in Clark.  That might be Vander Blue, but perhaps not.