Main Menu
collapse

Resources

2024-2025 SOTG Tally


2024-25 Season SoG Tally
Jones, K.10
Mitchell6
Joplin4
Ross2
Gold1

'23-24 '22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

Big East Standings

Recent Posts

Marquette freshmen at Goolsby's 7/12 by tower912
[Today at 08:38:26 AM]


Marquette NBA Thread by MuggsyB
[Today at 08:06:27 AM]


Recruiting as of 7/15/25 by Zog from Margo
[July 11, 2025, 04:17:40 PM]


Nash Walker commits to MU by Captain Quette
[July 11, 2025, 02:40:11 PM]


Congrats to Royce by tower912
[July 10, 2025, 09:00:17 PM]


Kam update by seakm4
[July 10, 2025, 07:40:03 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address. We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or signup NOW!

Next up: A long offseason

Marquette
66
Marquette
Scrimmage
Date/Time: Oct 4, 2025
TV: NA
Schedule for 2024-25
New Mexico
75

Sharpie

Quote from: Wojo'sMojo on April 11, 2014, 11:35:36 AM
Villanova had 2 open scholarships this year and have 3 openings for next year currently. Seems to have worked out pretty well for them this year.

Well they had a better year than us, were ranked very high for most of the year, and didn't get very far in the tournament. I would take that compared to the year we had but give me some
more examples that it's the norm for teams leave scholarships open. Like I said, there are more positives than negatives to using your scholarships.

ChicosBailBonds

Quote from: avid1010 on April 11, 2014, 11:45:14 AM
the most predictable part of this thread was you jumping on and stating that buzz is squirmy, too.  i started looking for your post the second i read the first one.  you never let me down.  

thank you for always defending TC from those that treated him unfairly compared to previously coaches that left...wondering why you don't do the same for buzz?

I don't ALWAYS defend him, how is calling him a prick, a jerk, squirmy at times defending him?  You are like Lenny...always, never, forever...lazy quite frankly.

I'll defend Buzz when he needs defending.  What was actually more predictable was someone claiming something nefarious was going on which is why I asked the question, was he granted his release.  Turns out, he was.  Go figure.  No one here knows if a conversation was had yesterday between MU, IU, UVA, etc.  No one knows, but that is where certain people took it anyway. 

Wojo'sMojo

Quote from: wadesworld on April 11, 2014, 11:44:58 AM
It happens all the time at every high major school in every sport.  You don't perform, you lose your scholarship.  You're an investment and if you're not working out you get cut.

Who has Marquette cut in the last 5 years? And if we are cutting players who don't perform, I think Derrick and Juan should have gotten their pink slips already.

The Equalizer

Quote from: Wojo'sMojo on April 11, 2014, 11:12:47 AM
Short term sacrifices for long term gains. It's amazing that you think we will just go out and grab any 2014 recruit just because we have an opening. We can't just go to the good player tree and pick one off. There is virtually nobody left unsigned, unless you would like a D2 caliber player filling our open spots. I vote a graduate assistant or bust! It's not like we can just cut the guy we signed the following year.

First, its EXACTLY like that. You bring in the best guy you can this year with the 13th scholarship. If he doesn't pan out, he transfers to another program more aligned with his skills.    BTW, that goes for anyone on the team--even former top 100 players wind up leaving their teams after a year if they don't perform.

And its a win-win proposition. Team fills a spot on the roster and gets insurance against injury, an extra practice player, and if they win the lottery the player turns into a star. Meanwhile, the player gets a shot to prove himself at a high-major level.

Second, we are hardly at a point where there are no D1 players left.  There may be very few top 100 players available, but we're not talking about our first scholarship--we're talking about the 12th or 13th man on the roster.  And we're not competing for D2 players--we're competing for those D1 level players who might otherwise wind up at UWM or UWGB or Wright State or Valpo or Ball State--but would die for a shot at a role at Marquette. 

Those players know a prominent role at MU is a long shot for them--but they also know they'd rather take that chance and fail than to never have the chance at all and spend the rest of their lives regretting it.  Worst case they transfer to UWM, UWGB, Valpo, etc. after a year.



MUSF

From the Calipari Thread:

"As opposed to the "responsible" middle aged people who are even bigger prima donna's? Please...Just look at scoop." - Chitownwarrior2011

"So you're advocating for the 2 wrongs make a right model?" - ChicosBailBonds

From this thread:

"Seriously, Crean can do this?  The NCAA allows it? Based on this alone, I wouldn't release him.  If another school interferes like this with a player who hasn't even asked for a release from his LOI, don't let him go." - LLittleMurs

"You think the Buzzard hasn't offered these kids an offer...of course he has." - ChicosBailBonds

Pot meet Kettle

Wojo'sMojo

Quote from: The Equalizer on April 11, 2014, 12:54:26 PM
First, its EXACTLY like that. You bring in the best guy you can this year with the 13th scholarship. If he doesn't pan out, he transfers to another program more aligned with his skills.    BTW, that goes for anyone on the team--even former top 100 players wind up leaving their teams after a year if they don't perform.

And its a win-win proposition. Team fills a spot on the roster and gets insurance against injury, an extra practice player, and if they win the lottery the player turns into a star. Meanwhile, the player gets a shot to prove himself at a high-major level.

Second, we are hardly at a point where there are no D1 players left.  There may be very few top 100 players available, but we're not talking about our first scholarship--we're talking about the 12th or 13th man on the roster.  And we're not competing for D2 players--we're competing for those D1 level players who might otherwise wind up at UWM or UWGB or Wright State or Valpo or Ball State--but would die for a shot at a role at Marquette. 

Those players know a prominent role at MU is a long shot for them--but they also know they'd rather take that chance and fail than to never have the chance at all and spend the rest of their lives regretting it.  Worst case they transfer to UWM, UWGB, Valpo, etc. after a year.




So what happens when the kid doesn't want to transfer and is content being the 13th man? Seems like it could be a pretty sticky situation if you get the wrong kind of kid.

Also, there are barely any top 200 recruits left. You can spin it however you want, but there is not much unsigned talent left. It is pretty crappy if you go into recruiting someone and know that you are going to want them to transfer after a year. Keep the scholarships open unless you find a good fit. If you are worried about practice bodies, bring in a couple of walk ons.

avid1010

Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on April 11, 2014, 11:50:38 AM
I don't ALWAYS defend him, how is calling him a prick, a jerk, squirmy at times defending him?  You are like Lenny...always, never, forever...lazy quite frankly.

I'll defend Buzz when he needs defending.  What was actually more predictable was someone claiming something nefarious was going on which is why I asked the question, was he granted his release.  Turns out, he was.  Go figure.  No one here knows if a conversation was had yesterday between MU, IU, UVA, etc.  No one knows, but that is where certain people took it anyway. 
you always defend TC...and you know what that means...poor argument.

as far as defending buzz when he needs defending, that's never...same with TC...

TAMU, Knower of Ball

Quote from: Wojo'sMojo on April 11, 2014, 01:22:23 PM
So what happens when the kid doesn't want to transfer and is content being the 13th man? Seems like it could be a pretty sticky situation if you get the wrong kind of kid.

You don't extend him a scholarship the next year.

It's a common misconception that being on the team one year guarantee's one a spot on the team the following year. Athletic scholarships are 1 year and 1 year only. The school is not obligated to renew a player's scholarship.

So yes, you should fill all 13 schollies every year. If you need an extra one the following season, you cut the worst player on your team and give it to the player you want.

It may seem harsh but as someone else said, you've got to earn your scholarships. If you aren't cutting it on the court, you will lose it. Just like you will lose an academic scholarship if you aren't cutting it in the classroom.
Quote from: Goose on January 15, 2023, 08:43:46 PM
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


MU82

#83
Quote from: The Equalizer on April 11, 2014, 12:54:26 PM

And its a win-win proposition. Team fills a spot on the roster and gets insurance against injury, an extra practice player, and if they win the lottery the player turns into a star. Meanwhile, the player gets a shot to prove himself at a high-major level.


Well, it's not totally a win-win for the transferring player because of the rule mandating that transfers must sit out a year.

Yes, even when the institution doesn't really want the student -- because while he's good enough to be the 13th man he isn't good enough to make a difference, so the coach nudges the student out -- the kid STILL has to sit out a year.

If I'm the Northwestern union folks or anybody else gunning for college sports reform, the transfer rule is one of the first things I try to get changed.

Coaches can go from program to program like so many flies on you-know-what; not only aren't they punished but they usually get rewarded. But let a player try to better himself -- even at the request of the school he's leaving -- and he gets screwed.

Hell, there are even dopes who want to change the rule permitting grad students from being able to play immediately after transferring. Because apparently we hate to give the student -- even a kid smart enough to earn his/her degree in 3 years -- one freakin' advantage!
"It's not how white men fight." - Tucker Carlson

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

leever

Quote from: Heavy Gear on April 11, 2014, 11:37:05 AM
If Brent was still here, I could see Shayok falling into the Erik Williams, Jamail Jones, Jamal Ferguson category. Now we'll never know how he would've turned out under Wojo. At this moment we need bigs. Jon Horford would be a perfect fit for what we need, but haven't seen anywhere that he's listed any schools he's interested in. One day at a time.
well, ummmmmmm, I'm sure that depends on what school has the graduate program that he's interested in, right?  Not about basketball, all about the education

Wojo'sMojo

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 11, 2014, 01:51:37 PM
You don't extend him a scholarship the next year.

It's a common misconception that being on the team one year guarantee's one a spot on the team the following year. Athletic scholarships are 1 year and 1 year only. The school is not obligated to renew a player's scholarship.

So yes, you should fill all 13 schollies every year. If you need an extra one the following season, you cut the worst player on your team and give it to the player you want.

It may seem harsh but as someone else said, you've got to earn your scholarships. If you aren't cutting it on the court, you will lose it. Just like you will lose an academic scholarship if you aren't cutting it in the classroom.

I understand the logic, it just seems that everyone just expects that some kid will be happy coming here for a year and be on his way. Some kids would be happy being the 13th man on Marquette and wouldn't want to transfer. Probably lots of the recruits who are unsigned right now. Can you tell me when Marquette has not renewed someone's scholarship?

Big Papi

Quote from: TAMU Eagle on April 11, 2014, 01:51:37 PM
You don't extend him a scholarship the next year.

It's a common misconception that being on the team one year guarantee's one a spot on the team the following year. Athletic scholarships are 1 year and 1 year only. The school is not obligated to renew a player's scholarship.

So yes, you should fill all 13 schollies every year. If you need an extra one the following season, you cut the worst player on your team and give it to the player you want.

It may seem harsh but as someone else said, you've got to earn your scholarships. If you aren't cutting it on the court, you will lose it. Just like you will lose an academic scholarship if you aren't cutting it in the classroom.

With the number of kids that are transferring after the first semester, you keep the extra ship available unless WOJO is very confident that player coming in now, has a good chance to produce. 

The Equalizer

Quote from: MU82 on April 11, 2014, 02:01:16 PM
Well, it's not totally a win-win for the transferring player because of the rule mandating that transfers must sit out a year.


First, so what?  Realy, so what?  He knows what happens in the transfer situation BEFORE he comes to MU, so sitting out is not a bad thing for the transferring player.  It's part of his risk/reward analysis.

Second, did you consider that sitting out a year actually helps the player?  A redshirt year to develop, work with the new schools' coaching staff, take extra classes.  Maybe even get a masters at the new school because you'll get five years of college paid-for instead of only four.

Look at this pragmatically for a moment:  His choices prior to choosing a college are:
a) settle for a low major program from the get-go, with low probability the coach won't renew his scholarship. 
b) take a shot at the big time with Marquette, knowing that if you don't pan out you're going to be asked to transfer,  (which you know up front means sitting out a year).

You make it sound like this is going to be sprung on the kid as some sort of surprise and he'll be terribly harmed by the transfer year. 

The fact of the matter is that the player completely understands this risk going in.  Maybe you're just risk averse, but some players are willing to take that risk becuase the rewards are so great--and that's the type of player we'd want to sign anyway.





wardle2wade

Quote from: Wojo'sMojo on April 11, 2014, 02:07:24 PM
I understand the logic, it just seems that everyone just expects that some kid will be happy coming here for a year and be on his way. Some kids would be happy being the 13th man on Marquette and wouldn't want to transfer. Probably lots of the recruits who are unsigned right now. Can you tell me when Marquette has not renewed someone's scholarship?

The recruits we are talking about would not be happy being 13th man on any roster for their second year with a team.  99% of them would rather be playing elsewhere than be in that scenario.

Your entire argument at this point is simply conjecture of worst case scenarios.  You play the odds... it's in the best interest to fill all your scholarships considering the fluidity of rosters in college basketball.  It's a completely +EV strategy.  The recruits at this level understand it as well.

MU82

Quote from: The Equalizer on April 11, 2014, 03:09:15 PM
First, so what?  Realy, so what?  He knows what happens in the transfer situation BEFORE he comes to MU, so sitting out is not a bad thing for the transferring player.  It's part of his risk/reward analysis.

Second, did you consider that sitting out a year actually helps the player?  A redshirt year to develop, work with the new schools' coaching staff, take extra classes.  Maybe even get a masters at the new school because you'll get five years of college paid-for instead of only four.

Look at this pragmatically for a moment:  His choices prior to choosing a college are:
a) settle for a low major program from the get-go, with low probability the coach won't renew his scholarship. 
b) take a shot at the big time with Marquette, knowing that if you don't pan out you're going to be asked to transfer,  (which you know up front means sitting out a year).

You make it sound like this is going to be sprung on the kid as some sort of surprise and he'll be terribly harmed by the transfer year. 

The fact of the matter is that the player completely understands this risk going in.  Maybe you're just risk averse, but some players are willing to take that risk becuase the rewards are so great--and that's the type of player we'd want to sign anyway.






Down, boy! I agree with some of what you are saying.

I just think the rule is an inherently unfair one, in part because it punishes the student even if he wants to stay but is nudged out by the school itself. You don't think it's unfair because the kid knows about the rule going in -- although I doubt that going in, the kid is told that he might end up being the nudgee.


"It's not how white men fight." - Tucker Carlson

"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington

"In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." - George Orwell

The Equalizer

Quote from: MU82 on April 11, 2014, 02:01:16 PM

If I'm the Northwestern union folks or anybody else gunning for college sports reform, the transfer rule is one of the first things I try to get changed.

And this is the problem with the union.  They hurt employment for the people they pruport to help.

The union wants no transfers?  Fine, the school simply won't take the risk.

That means the kid that MIGHT have been marginally good enough to get a chance for one year with an open scholarship at a school like MU will instead never even get that option to even try to prove himself.  He'll have to settle for some low major program.   

LAZER

Quote from: The Equalizer on April 11, 2014, 03:21:54 PM
And this is the problem with the union.  They hurt employment for the people they pruport to help.

The union wants no transfers?  Fine, the school simply won't take the risk.

That means the kid that MIGHT have been marginally good enough to get a chance for one year with an open scholarship at a school like MU will instead never even get that option to even try to prove himself.  He'll have to settle for some low major program.   

MU has to fill their roster with somebody though?  MU and others will still have to take those chances.

Wojo'sMojo

Quote from: wardle2wade on April 11, 2014, 03:16:48 PM
The recruits we are talking about would not be happy being 13th man on any roster for their second year with a team.  99% of them would rather be playing elsewhere than be in that scenario.

Your entire argument at this point is simply conjecture of worst case scenarios.  You play the odds... it's in the best interest to fill all your scholarships considering the fluidity of rosters in college basketball.  It's a completely +EV strategy.  The recruits at this level understand it as well.

The recruits that are out there will not be getting off our bench. There are probably less than 8 players out there that are unsigned and could potentially offer us anything next year. So they would come here knowing they won't play and will sit out a whole season after that for what? To say they were on Marquette for 1 year. We are not college basketball royalty and to think kids are just lining up for the chance to play for us for a year, before transferring elsewhere is absurd. Why grab a low level recruit when he won't play the first year? JJJ was a top 40 recruit who played sparingly and we are gonna pluck some kid ranked in the 300's because we have an open scholarship??

wardle2wade

Quote from: Wojo'sMojo on April 11, 2014, 03:32:35 PM
The recruits that are out there will not be getting off our bench.

This is where your argument goes off the tracks.  In today's world, you never know.  Injuries/transfers open up opportunities where a less-heralded recruit can blossom under the spotlight.  They are at an age where there is a lot of potential. 

Also, no one said anything about plucking a kid ranked in the 300's.

Wojo'sMojo

Quote from: wardle2wade on April 11, 2014, 03:36:41 PM
This is where your argument goes off the tracks.  In today's world, you never know.  Injuries/transfers open up opportunities where a less-heralded recruit can blossom under the spotlight.  They are at an age where there is a lot of potential. 

Also, no one said anything about plucking a kid ranked in the 300's.

Sorry, most likely not getting off the bench. Take a look at the recruiting boards, there are 6 players in the top 200 that are unsigned. Where do you plan on getting these recruits? There is a reason why coaching changes suck and this is one of them. We are at the mercy of our recruits to fulfill their commitments, because there is nobody worthwhile signing to fill out our roster.

ChicosBailBonds

Quote from: MUSF on April 11, 2014, 12:59:30 PM
From the Calipari Thread:

"As opposed to the "responsible" middle aged people who are even bigger prima donna's? Please...Just look at scoop." - Chitownwarrior2011

"So you're advocating for the 2 wrongs make a right model?" - ChicosBailBonds

From this thread:

"Seriously, Crean can do this?  The NCAA allows it? Based on this alone, I wouldn't release him.  If another school interferes like this with a player who hasn't even asked for a release from his LOI, don't let him go." - LLittleMurs

"You think the Buzzard hasn't offered these kids an offer...of course he has." - ChicosBailBonds

Pot meet Kettle


LOL.  Show me where I'm condoning it? I am not.  I asked (that's what a "?" is for) Chitown if he condones a two wrongs make it right model.

Secondly, show me with my Buzzard comment where I condone that action....

I didn't.


Try again

ChicosBailBonds

Quote from: avid1010 on April 11, 2014, 01:23:39 PM
you always defend TC...and you know what that means...poor argument.

as far as defending buzz when he needs defending, that's never...same with TC...

Doubling down on stupidity and falsehoods....congratulations

I've never defended Buzz....wrong.  I've always defended TC...wrong.


The Equalizer

Quote from: Wojo'sMojo on April 11, 2014, 03:45:30 PM
Sorry, most likely not getting off the bench. Take a look at the recruiting boards, there are 6 players in the top 200 that are unsigned. Where do you plan on getting these recruits? There is a reason why coaching changes suck and this is one of them. We are at the mercy of our recruits to fulfill their commitments, because there is nobody worthwhile signing to fill out our roster.

The worst recruit we could land this year is far superior than the empty chair we have if we don't fill it.

The empty chair
--won't ever be able to go into a game if we're hampered by multiple injuries and fouls. 
--won't ever be part of the practice squad for scrimmages
--has absolutely zero possiblity of ever developing into a solid player.

Look at it this way: The type of player we might get now is equivalent to Amal McCaskill or Yous Mbao their senior years in HS. 

You'd rather bank a scholarship and pass on any possiblity of landing another McCaskill.
I'm willing to take a few Mbaos becuase every so often you land a McCaskill.

Wojo'sMojo

Quote from: The Equalizer on April 11, 2014, 04:20:31 PM
The worst recruit we could land this year is far superior than the empty chair we have if we don't fill it.

The empty chair
--won't ever be able to go into a game if we're hampered by multiple injuries and fouls. 
--won't ever be part of the practice squad for scrimmages
--has absolutely zero possiblity of ever developing into a solid player.

Look at it this way: The type of player we might get now is equivalent to Amal McCaskill or Yous Mbao their senior years in HS. 

You'd rather bank a scholarship and pass on any possiblity of landing another McCaskill.
I'm willing to take a few Mbaos becuase every so often you land a McCaskill.


Honestly, I would rather bank the scholarship and avoid the Durleys and Mbaos of the basketball world. It's like finding a needle in a haystack at this point of the recruiting juncture and to waste resources on someone who will most likely not impact the team and leave after a year, is not worth it in my eyes. To each their own, we will see how it plays out.

bilsu

I am dissappointed that Shayok is not coming.  People here who think it is not a loss should realize he is going to end up a a major program.

Previous topic - Next topic