Recruiting as of 4/15/25

[Galway Eagle]

So you're dating Sharon at school and Bob is dating her at home. At her graduation you both show up with a ring. She accepts his and says no to you. Your reaction would really be "No big deal, can't lose what you never had"? Don't think so.

If Bob paid a dowry when all you were offering was your love (Kansas UofA) or if Bob was say a Hensworth brother where it's love plus tight knit family, more successful than you, better looking, and pretty much beats you everywhere (duke) then you cut your losses.

If Bob is offering just his love and you're on even footing then yeah get upset.

[tower912]

Tower - anyone who views winning the lottery as a type of competition will not just lose in that endeavor but also in the game of life. Nobody (with a brain) pours their heart and soul into winning the lottery. It's total chance and the odds against you are more than 300,000,000 to 1.

Winning (or losing) the girl of your dreams against another suitor, a prized recruit against another school or a game against another team are not (logically) remotely the same thing as winning (or "losing") the lottery.

I got dumped by a fiancé because I didn't care enough about money.   Ended up trading up.   Anyway.   I didn't get an iPhoneX for Christmas like I wanted.    Did I lose something?    No.

[Lennys Tap]

I got dumped by a fiancé because I didn't care enough about money.   Ended up trading up.   Anyway.   I didn't get an iPhoneX for Christmas like I wanted.    Did I lose something?    No.

Wait. You don't care enough about money but you play the lottery???

Seriously, I'm glad for you that in the end it worked out better for you. Maybe the guys who replace Grimes or Mannion will end up working out better for MU. That doesn't minimize the loss and how it hit you in the moment, though.

Regarding your iPhoneX that somebody didn't give you for Christmas - unless you were involved in a competition with someone else for that iPhoneX and your wife, child or friend chose that person to give it to instead of you you did not "lose" anything. To a smart fellow like yourself (I'm not being sarcastic) this concept ought to be obvious.

Let me put it another way. If your dream job is to be president of the US, but it didn't  just happen, you didn't lose anything. If you had the same dream, rose through the ranks of government, won one of the two major party's nomination and then lost in the general election, you most definitely did lose something - even if it was something you never "had"

[tower912]

I won't keep arguing.  Lenny, we see this differently.

[Boone]

nm

[MU82]

C'mon, Mike. If you're one of 20, it's not the same as being a "finalist". If you don't see being eliminated a year out along with 20 others as different from being essentially left at the altar (think Mannion and Grimes) I don't know what to say. I'll guarantee you that Wojo and Stan felt those losses profoundly. Why shouldn't we? Doesn't mean you don't pick yourself up, carry on, etc. - but it's not a "no big deal, no loss" feeling for coaches or fans - and it shouldn't be.

Lenny, I realized after I wrote that post that it wasn't really a very good comparison, but I didn't have a chance to get back to it until now.

I think there are 4 levels here (maybe more, but 4 I can think of):

1. The Ellenson-Hauser level. Henry and Joey absolutely were "ours" to lose. We had their brothers on the roster, they meshed with our coaches and players, we were the leaders for them from the get-go, etc. Others (whose brothers weren't on the team) also probably fit here, too. Wade ... we were the only ones all over him, Diener IIRC expressed very early on that we were his top choice, I think some said Shumpert was at this level although that's before I followed this stuff at all, etc. If Henry et al had decided to go elsewhere -- especially effen Wisconsin -- it would have been a major "loss."

2. The Grimes-Mannion-Wes-Dom level. With these recruits, it apparently came down to us and one or two other schools. Relationships were made. Considerable capital and time were spent on the recruitment. I certainly can see why not signing any of them could be considered "losing." I don't look at it that way, but I can see why others (including you) do.

3. What appears to be the Jaren Jackson level. We seem to be one of a pretty large group of teams that are still on his list. We are recruiting him. We obviously want him. Most observers seem to feel he is leaning toward a blue-blood. If all that is true, I would argue pretty strongly that if he goes to Duke, it is not a case of us "losing" him, as we would have never been even close to "having" him. I think it would be unfair to say Wojo/Stan "lost" him; if you disagree that is your right.

4. The numerous high schoolers that we are one of dozens and dozens of schools looking at, perhaps early in the process, who eventually simply choose to go elsewhere. I think you'd agree that we will not have "lost" those kids.

That's the best I got, and it's a lot better than the silly answer I just threw out there earlier.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

There are two definitions of loser.

1. Somene who loses a thing or person. e.g. I lost my wedding ring!

2. Someone who loses a competition or contest. e.g. I lost to grandma at monopoly!

1 requires possession. 2 requires participation.

Under definition 1, Marquette did not lose *insert recruit here* because they never had them.

Under definition 2, Marquette is a loser of many recruiting battles,  some of them more profound than others,  because Marquette competed but did not win.

Everyone is right. Can we settle this vocabulary debate?

[Its DJOver]

Since scholarships are 1 year deals, can't you technically lose under definition one.

I remember Henry's last home game, every time he scored the student would chant "one more year".  Wouldn't that technically be a recruitment that we lost (even though no one expected us to win).

Even better example are grad transfers.  A lot of players that are eligible to be a grad transfer declare that they will explore their options, and ultimately decide to return to their original school.  I would classify that as a recruitment win for a player that you already had.

It's semantics, terminology and nit picking (fully admitting that), and I don't really want to get into a debate about it, just sharing my opinion, feel free to disagree.

[JakeBarnes]

So are we going to ever talk about recruits again or just talk about the girlfriends/acquaintances Scoop couldn't date/marry?

[manny31]

NM thread and Recruiting thread collide with a dash of quasi game theory added in for bad measure.

I like it....that's why I come here. Carry on.

[Loose Cannon]

Losers are those that are not motivated  by their Loss, end of story.

[Lennys Tap]

There are two definitions of loser.

1. Somene who loses a thing or person. e.g. I lost my wedding ring!

2. Someone who loses a competition or contest. e.g. I lost to grandma at monopoly!

1 requires possession. 2 requires participation.

Under definition 1, Marquette did not lose *insert recruit here* because they never had them.

Under definition 2, Marquette is a loser of many recruiting battles,  some of them more profound than others,  because Marquette competed but did not win.

Everyone is right. Can we settle this vocabulary debate?

How does definition #1 ever apply to recruiting? Of course we've never misplaced or forgotten where we've put a recruit. Nor have we "lost" them in the sense that they died.

Since recruiting is by definition a competition (assuming more than 1 suitor for the recruit's services) only definition #2 applies.

As in all competitions, some losses hurt more than others (as MU82 points out so well). When you're the favorite with a really good player or "right there" with someone projected to be great the loss is most painful. Great players who are long shots or merely good ones who look gettable only hurt a little - but are still at least technically losses. Guys you were never really in on #no matta.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Lenny, I realized after I wrote that post that it wasn't really a very good comparison, but I didn't have a chance to get back to it until now.

I think there are 4 levels here (maybe more, but 4 I can think of):

1. The Ellenson-Hauser level. Henry and Joey absolutely were "ours" to lose. We had their brothers on the roster, they meshed with our coaches and players, we were the leaders for them from the get-go, etc. Others (whose brothers weren't on the team) also probably fit here, too. Wade ... we were the only ones all over him, Diener IIRC expressed very early on that we were his top choice, I think some said Shumpert was at this level although that's before I followed this stuff at all, etc. If Henry et al had decided to go elsewhere -- especially effen Wisconsin -- it would have been a major "loss."

2. The Grimes-Mannion-Wes-Dom level. With these recruits, it apparently came down to us and one or two other schools. Relationships were made. Considerable capital and time were spent on the recruitment. I certainly can see why not signing any of them could be considered "losing." I don't look at it that way, but I can see why others (including you) do.

3. What appears to be the Jaren Jackson level. We seem to be one of a pretty large group of teams that are still on his list. We are recruiting him. We obviously want him. Most observers seem to feel he is leaning toward a blue-blood. If all that is true, I would argue pretty strongly that if he goes to Duke, it is not a case of us "losing" him, as we would have never been even close to "having" him. I think it would be unfair to say Wojo/Stan "lost" him; if you disagree that is your right.

4. The numerous high schoolers that we are one of dozens and dozens of schools looking at, perhaps early in the process, who eventually simply choose to go elsewhere. I think you'd agree that we will not have "lost" those kids.

That's the best I got, and it's a lot better than the silly answer I just threw out there earlier.

Only because I thought I was going crazy, by Jaren Jackson you mean Jalen Johnson?

[GGGG]

You can't lose out on those you couldn't properly name in the first place.

[copious1218]

How does definition #1 ever apply to recruiting? Of course we've never misplaced or forgotten where we've put a recruit.

Not a recruit at the time, but wasn't Sacar missing for awhile?

[Lennys Tap]

Not a recruit at the time, but wasn't Sacar missing for awhile?

Indeed he was - good one!

[GOO]

I was amazed at how long this thread stayed generally on topic before it became completely derailed.  Hopefully it can once again be about current recruits.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Since scholarships are 1 year deals, can't you technically lose under definition one.

We are talking about recruits that never came to Marquette.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

How does definition #1 ever apply to recruiting? Of course we've never misplaced or forgotten where we've put a recruit. Nor have we "lost" them in the sense that they died.

Since recruiting is by definition a competition (assuming more than 1 suitor for the recruit's services) only definition #2 applies.

As in all competitions, some losses hurt more than others (as MU82 points out so well). When you're the favorite with a really good player or "right there" with someone projected to be great the loss is most painful. Great players who are long shots or merely good ones who look gettable only hurt a little - but are still at least technically losses. Guys you were never really in on #no matta.

So no...we can't put this vocabulary debate to rest

[MU82]

Only because I thought I was going crazy, by Jaren Jackson you mean Jalen Johnson?

Crap. Don't go gettin' all factual on me!

[WarriorInNYC]

How does definition #1 ever apply to recruiting? Of course we've never misplaced or forgotten where we've put a recruit. Nor have we "lost" them in the sense that they died.

Since recruiting is by definition a competition (assuming more than 1 suitor for the recruit's services) only definition #2 applies.

As in all competitions, some losses hurt more than others (as MU82 points out so well). When you're the favorite with a really good player or "right there" with someone projected to be great the loss is most painful. Great players who are long shots or merely good ones who look gettable only hurt a little - but are still at least technically losses. Guys you were never really in on #no matta.

I would say that #1 could definitely apply to recruiting in the sense of receiving a verbal commitment (I know it's not actually signed, but the team has the sense that they "won" the recruitment and "have" their commitment) and then the player backing out (i.e., Herro). 

Or in the case that the player does actually sign and then asks for a release.  This usually only happens in the case where a coach leaves the program, but is still a scenario.

[cheebs09]

Wisconsin lost Vander Blue.

[JakeBarnes]

Speaking of this topic, anyone hear anything about the recruits that we are currently pursuing and haven't lost?

[wadesworld]

Speaking of this topic, anyone hear anything about the recruits that we are currently pursuing and haven't lost?

Define "haven't lost."

[Stretchdeltsig]

Recruit news?