Our 5 yr plan?

[MU82]

No, it's significantly better than what Wojo did in his first five years.

Basically, the timeline you laid out is either one year earlier than what Wojo did or the results were one tick better.

1: Terrible record but you can see the pieces coming together and getting better as the season goes on

Wojo Year 1: Terrible record but some signs of life with Luke coming in and then a heralded recruiting class being signed. Similar to your vision of progress under Shaka.

2: NIT, maybe sneak into the NCAAs

Wojo Year 2: Ellenson-led team was on the bubble most of the season but missed the postseason due to a couple of very bad losses. Not quite equal to your vision for progress under Shaka.

3: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to win our first game

Wojo Year 3: Beat the nation's No. 1 team en route to making the NCAAs. No. 10 seed indicated we weren't "expected" to win. Not quite equal to your vision for progress under Shaka.

4: NCAAs, high enough seed that we are expected to make the Sweet 16

Wojo Year 4: Step back from Year 4; won a couple NIT games. Nowhere near as good as your vision for progress under Shaka.

5: Step back from year 4 but still make the NCAAs

Wojo Year 5: Ranked most of the season, got into the top-10, in the running for 2/3 seed until late, supposedly-letter-driven fade; No. 5 seed but embarrassed in the tourney. At least slightly better than your vision for progress under Shaka.

Having taken a deeper look, I will concede that your vision of how we'll do under Shaka is somewhat better than "slightly better." And if Shaka actually wins some NCAAT games and gets us to a S16, I would absolutely go to "significantly better."

But you apparently think it's too much to ask Shaka to deliver postseason success -- I guess because of the chicos-memorial crapshoot factor -- and without such success, I personally don't see it as "significantly better."

And if in Year 5, Shaka's team actually underperforms Wojo's fifth season, it will not be easy to avoid being at least a little disappointed.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

And if in Year 5, Shaka's team actually underperforms Wojo's fifth season, it will not be easy to avoid being at least a little disappointed.

Trying to compare Shaka and Wojo on a year to year basis will not be a fruitful exercise. Teams develop over cycles and Wojo and Shaka started at different points in their cycles. The way the roster is currently constructed, Shaka is likely to have a down year in year 5 as he currently has 9 players who will be graduating after year 4. Now, there is no way all 9 make it to that point, but I'd estimate that he will likely have 4 or 5 graduating after year 4 and like most programs will take a step back as a result. Wojo faced something similar after year 3 which is why he took a step back in year 4.

Also, after year 5, Wojo was getting extended and rightfully so. So doing better than Wojo in the first 5 years means Shaka is doing very well. But I think the difference between Shaka and Wojo is that Shaka won't start a nosedive in the middle of Year 6.

[MU82]

Trying to compare Shaka and Wojo on a year to year basis will not be a fruitful exercise. Teams develop over cycles and Wojo and Shaka started at different points in their cycles. The way the roster is currently constructed, Shaka is likely to have a down year in year 5 as he currently has 9 players who will be graduating after year 4. Now, there is no way all 9 make it to that point, but I'd estimate that he will likely have 4 or 5 graduating after year 4 and like most programs will take a step back as a result. Wojo faced something similar after year 3 which is why he took a step back in year 4.

Also, after year 5, Wojo was getting extended and rightfully so. So doing better than Wojo in the first 5 years means Shaka is doing very well. But I think the difference between Shaka and Wojo is that Shaka won't start a nosedive in the middle of Year 6.

Reasonable take, TAMU. Thanks.

While "better than Wojo" still seems a low bar to me, I hope you're right with your last sentence.

We'll only have to wait 'til 2027 to see ... by which time Scoop will have gone through a few cycles itself!!!

[dgies9156]

First off, I suspect Shaka knows what he has for next year but most of us don't. We could be really good or we could be, well, Wojoish.

As for the five year plan, I expect we'll be in the NCAA every year and competitive for a national championship. That's why we play the game -- TO WIN. Strategic plans set vision and anything short of a Natty for a goal means we hired the wrong guy.

Maybe it is my age and having seen what we did way back when, but there's no excuse for mediocrity. If we wanted that, we should have saved our money and kept Wojo. We're better than that.

[Johnny B]

First off, I suspect Shaka knows what he has for next year but most of us don't. We could be really good or we could be, well, Wojoish.

As for the five year plan, I expect we'll be in the NCAA every year and competitive for a national championship. That's why we play the game -- TO WIN. Strategic plans set vision and anything short of a Natty for a goal means we hired the wrong guy.

Maybe it is my age and having seen what we did way back when, but there's no excuse for mediocrity. If we wanted that, we should have saved our money and kept Wojo. We're better than that.

u honestly expect to compete for a title this yr lol

[dgies9156]

u honestly expect to compete for a title this yr lol

I expect that we will compete, put 110% on the floor every time we play and yes, compete for a title.

Do I expect us to plan for that ..of course. Do I expect we will come up short ... I hope not but believe we probably will.

Again, as I said in the beginning, I really don't know what we have and don't have with this team.

[muwarrior69]

Reasonable take, TAMU. Thanks.

While "better than Wojo" still seems a low bar to me, I hope you're right with your last sentence.

We'll only have to wait 'til 2027 to see ... by which time Scoop will have gone through a few cycles itself!!!

Stop creeping me out, I'll be 80.

[NCMUFan]

Year 1:  It is what it is.
Year 2:  Little better than Year 1.
Year 3: A couple of upsets.  Maybe hope.
Year 4: Decent team. Makes NCAA.  1st round exit.
Year 5: Decent team.  Makes NCAA.  2nd round exit.

[The Sultan]

Year 1:  It is what it is.
Year 2:  Little better than Year 1.
Year 3: A couple of upsets.  Maybe hope.
Year 4: Decent team. Makes NCAA.  1st round exit.
Year 5: Decent team.  Makes NCAA.  2nd round exit.

I think the timeline is faster than that:

Year 1:  Struggles - no postseason
Year 2:  Fringe NCAA bid, likely NIT
Year 3:  Solid NCAA bid in the 9-11 range, likely first round exit.
Year 4:  Ranked much of the year.  Solid NCAA bid in the 5-7  range, potential S16
Year 5:  Ranked all year.  NCAA bid in the 3-4 range with S16 expected

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I think the timeline is faster than that:

Year 1:  Struggles - no postseason
Year 2:  Fringe NCAA bid, likely NIT
Year 3:  Solid NCAA bid in the 9-11 range, likely first round exit.
Year 4:  Ranked much of the year.  Solid NCAA bid in the 5-7  range, potential S16
Year 5:  Ranked all year.  NCAA bid in the 3-4 range with S16 expected

I don't think progress will be this linear. We're currently slotted to graduate 9 players after year 4. While all 9 will not make it that far, it is still likely that we are graduating 3 or more key players and will likely take a step back the following year.

[dgies9156]

I don't think progress will be this linear.

Forget linear progress. I want geometric progression!

[Dr. Blackheart]

Forget linear progress. I want geometric progression!

I have moved it to Trig level

[Newsdreams]

I have moved it to Trig level

Differential equations is were I'm at.

[The Equalizer]

Some observations:

1. It appears that everyone assumes year 1 is going to be a dumpster fire. I'll ask those people if they think Morsell and Kurath threw away their COVID year opportunity as they could have joined a program that at least had a chance at going to the tournament.  Also, did Shaka waste those scholarships, as he could have had two more spins on the "find-an-under-the-radar-player" wheel to find players that would help win in the future, rather than on two transfers who they don't believe will help win this year, and won't be available in future years.

2. There seems to be little consideration as to the quality of the rest of the league as to where we might place. Villanova has had a lock on the championship for the last seven years,  and it's because they have great coaching and great recruiting. UConn has stepped in and demonstrated great coaching in their first year in the league, and based on the last two classes is out-recruiting the rest of the conference--if they maintain this recruiting and nobody else steps up, I assume that over the next five years, UConn and Villanova are likely to finish 1-2 in the league.  The comments that we should regularly finish in the top three or compete for championships doesn't fit with the current reality of recruiting and coaching.

3. I think MU realistically belongs in the next tier (Xavier, Creighton, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Marquette) which means a 3rd place finish is our ceiling and 7th place is our floor.  Given the similarity of the programs in terms of coaching and recruiting, we could fall anywhere in this range in any given year, and our ultimate place is going to be more random than annual progression. Good news is that most years, 3 or 4 of these teams have a very good chance at making the tournament, and sometimes all five will make it. 

4. If that's Shaka's strategy is to find under-the-radar players who didn't get rated, or looking for hard-working players who fit his system., that makes him no different than, say, Mike Anderson, who found and developed Posh Alexander and Julian Champagne or Kevin Willard's with Sandro Mamukelashvili and Myles Powell. And for all the success Anderson had with Alexander and Champagne, it didn't put St. Johns ahead of UConn or Villanova. 

5.  I also see lots of assumptions that it takes several years for those under-the-radar players to be successful. To that, I cite Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) leading St. John's to 4th place in the Big East. I believe if a player is underanked or below-the-radar, they're going to emerge in year one.  To that end, I think Justin Lewis has already emerged as a future star for us, and if one of Stevie Mitchell, Oso, Emarion Ellis, David Joplin, Tyler Kolek or Kam Jones can emerge for us this year as Alexander did for st. Johns's last year, we're definitely in that second group as early as this season, which puts us in the mix for an NCAA bid.

6. I don't see Butler, Providence or DePaul having either the combination of recruiting or coaching to move about the bottom tier over the next five years.  I'm torn on whether Georgetown belongs in this group based on some promising recruiting and their unlikely conference championship and NCAA bid last year.  But ultimately think they've had too much roster turnover and inconsistency to establish themselves as a consistent middle-of-the-pack performer.

Net of all this: I'll be disappointed with any finish below 7th, and if we don't finish at least 3rd once over the next five years.  As far as NCAA success, I'd be disappointed with any fewer than 3 trips, and with any losses to lower seeds.

[NCMUFan]

Differential equations is were I'm at.

It is an integral process.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

1. It appears that everyone assumes year 1 is going to be a dumpster fire. I'll ask those people if they think Morsell and Kurath threw away their COVID year opportunity as they could have joined a program that at least had a chance at going to the tournament.  Also, did Shaka waste those scholarships, as he could have had two more spins on the "find-an-under-the-radar-player" wheel to find players that would help win in the future, rather than on two transfers who they don't believe will help win this year, and won't be available in future years.

No, Shaka didn't waste scholarships. Both Morsell and Kuath play defense at the level that Shaka expects and having them to model that for the younger players will reap benefits long beyond their one year in Milwauke. Also no, Morsell and Kuath didn't waste their COVID year opportunity. Not playing on a tournament team doesn't mean that there is no value in the experience.

2. There seems to be little consideration as to the quality of the rest of the league as to where we might place. Villanova has had a lock on the championship for the last seven years,  and it's because they have great coaching and great recruiting. UConn has stepped in and demonstrated great coaching in their first year in the league, and based on the last two classes is out-recruiting the rest of the conference--if they maintain this recruiting and nobody else steps up, I assume that over the next five years, UConn and Villanova are likely to finish 1-2 in the league.  The comments that we should regularly finish in the top three or compete for championships doesn't fit with the current reality of recruiting and coaching.

I don't know about UConn always finishing in 2nd but otherwise agree. Success is most accurately measured by how your team performs, not by what place they finish in the conference.

5.  I also see lots of assumptions that it takes several years for those under-the-radar players to be successful. To that, I cite Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) leading St. John's to 4th place in the Big East.

What is the relevance of (tied for) 4th place in the Big East? A more accurate observation is that Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) led St. John's to....a season where they missed the NIT. Despite them being stars, they couldn't carry their team to the postseason, not even the NIT. They as players will be better this season than they were last season (whether or not their team as whole will be, we will have to see. Lots of turnover in Queens this offseason). College players typically get better every year. This is a indisputable fact.

[Newsdreams]

It is an integral process.

Trust the process

[wadesworld]

Trust Respect the process

FIFY.

The Sixers suck.

[Newsdreams]

FIFY.

The Sixers suck.

LOL

[Herman Cain]

Some observations:

1. It appears that everyone assumes year 1 is going to be a dumpster fire. I'll ask those people if they think Morsell and Kurath threw away their COVID year opportunity as they could have joined a program that at least had a chance at going to the tournament.  Also, did Shaka waste those scholarships, as he could have had two more spins on the "find-an-under-the-radar-player" wheel to find players that would help win in the future, rather than on two transfers who they don't believe will help win this year, and won't be available in future years.

2. There seems to be little consideration as to the quality of the rest of the league as to where we might place. Villanova has had a lock on the championship for the last seven years,  and it's because they have great coaching and great recruiting. UConn has stepped in and demonstrated great coaching in their first year in the league, and based on the last two classes is out-recruiting the rest of the conference--if they maintain this recruiting and nobody else steps up, I assume that over the next five years, UConn and Villanova are likely to finish 1-2 in the league.  The comments that we should regularly finish in the top three or compete for championships doesn't fit with the current reality of recruiting and coaching.

3. I think MU realistically belongs in the next tier (Xavier, Creighton, St. Johns, Seton Hall, Marquette) which means a 3rd place finish is our ceiling and 7th place is our floor.  Given the similarity of the programs in terms of coaching and recruiting, we could fall anywhere in this range in any given year, and our ultimate place is going to be more random than annual progression. Good news is that most years, 3 or 4 of these teams have a very good chance at making the tournament, and sometimes all five will make it. 

4. If that's Shaka's strategy is to find under-the-radar players who didn't get rated, or looking for hard-working players who fit his system., that makes him no different than, say, Mike Anderson, who found and developed Posh Alexander and Julian Champagne or Kevin Willard's with Sandro Mamukelashvili and Myles Powell. And for all the success Anderson had with Alexander and Champagne, it didn't put St. Johns ahead of UConn or Villanova. 

5.  I also see lots of assumptions that it takes several years for those under-the-radar players to be successful. To that, I cite Posh Alexander (Fr) and Julian Champaigne (Soph) leading St. John's to 4th place in the Big East. I believe if a player is underanked or below-the-radar, they're going to emerge in year one.  To that end, I think Justin Lewis has already emerged as a future star for us, and if one of Stevie Mitchell, Oso, Emarion Ellis, David Joplin, Tyler Kolek or Kam Jones can emerge for us this year as Alexander did for st. Johns's last year, we're definitely in that second group as early as this season, which puts us in the mix for an NCAA bid.

6. I don't see Butler, Providence or DePaul having either the combination of recruiting or coaching to move about the bottom tier over the next five years.  I'm torn on whether Georgetown belongs in this group based on some promising recruiting and their unlikely conference championship and NCAA bid last year.  But ultimately think they've had too much roster turnover and inconsistency to establish themselves as a consistent middle-of-the-pack performer.

Net of all this: I'll be disappointed with any finish below 7th, and if we don't finish at least 3rd once over the next five years.  As far as NCAA success, I'd be disappointed with any fewer than 3 trips, and with any losses to lower seeds.

You have eloquently stated what is my case for MU. The rest of the league is not much different than us and we have enough talent to compete for the 3rd spot this year . With the youth we have we should be able to compete for that 3rd spot the next couple years .

[MU82]

we have enough talent to compete for the 3rd spot this year

How do you know?

Not trying to be a wise-arse. We know VERY little about the talent on this year's team. There certainly is very little proven high-major talent, which of course doesn't mean we lack talent.

I do hope you're right. Actually ... the optimist in me hopes you're wrong in that we actually can compete for the top spot in the BEast, even though the realist in me knows how unlikely that is.

[dgies9156]

How do you know?

Not trying to be a wise-arse. We know VERY little about the talent on this year's team. There certainly is very little proven high-major talent, which of course doesn't mean we lack talent.

I do hope you're right. Actually ... the optimist in me hopes you're wrong in that we actually can compete for the top spot in the BEast, even though the realist in me knows how unlikely that is.

Geometric progression, my friend. Geometric progression!

[MU82]

Geometric progression, my friend. Geometric progression!

You sound like Capt. Queeg.

[Newsdreams]

How do you know?

Not trying to be a wise-arse. We know VERY little about the talent on this year's team. There certainly is very little proven high-major talent, which of course doesn't mean we lack talent.

I do hope you're right. Actually ... the optimist in me hopes you're wrong in that we actually can compete for the top spot in the BEast, even though the realist in me knows how unlikely that is.

Because he died and resurrected

[Badgerhater]

Year 1:  win
Year 2: win more
Year 3:  keep on winning
Year 4:  still lots of winning
Year 5:  still not tired of winning