collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'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

Big East 23-24 NCAA and NIT Results by PointWarrior
[Today at 12:08:31 AM]


Three Years Ago Today... by Newsdreams
[March 27, 2024, 11:34:10 PM]


Kam Jones 1st Round Mock - The Ringer by PGsHeroes32
[March 27, 2024, 10:40:15 PM]


Katz has MU in Final Four by MurphysTillClose
[March 27, 2024, 10:24:36 PM]


UNLEASH THE POWER OF SCOOP!!! by TallTitan34
[March 27, 2024, 10:20:50 PM]


Best MU team since 1977 by Galway Eagle
[March 27, 2024, 09:47:04 PM]


Chicago bars for Fri game by Hallmarq
[March 27, 2024, 09:09:04 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 register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Author Topic: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future  (Read 9419 times)

Tyler COLEk

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 784
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #75 on: January 22, 2023, 06:17:57 PM »
Good point. In my first response to BC, I said NIL could help keep kids in school.

With all due respect, I was responding to a Scooper who keeps opining that guys won’t go pro because they’re “not ready” — as if supposedly not being ready keeps kids from going pro.

I do not “worry” about this at all.

I hear you. No doubt the decision to go pro early is not always made conservatively.

Viper

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #76 on: January 22, 2023, 08:28:24 PM »
It is possible Oso and/or OMax test the NBA draft.  If Oso keeps improving as rapidly as we've seen this season, I think its plausible he could get drafted (despite not having a perimeter shot at this stage).  Oso turns just 21 in July.  Lots of upside there.

Yet, I think Oso also is the type of kid who can see how special the team could be next year, and if we don't advance far this season - he's inclined to want to run it back with his teammates.  If that happens, I think it's Keeyan who is the odd man out.
imo, Oso does not have a nba-ready game, yet. Outside of about 6’, he’s got what, a push shot? Another year of offensive development needed. Defensively he’s close. Another year to add some upper body strength will help him immensely. Oso will be back next season leading Marquette on a deep run in March. Then the nba will be in his future.
Moron? Maybe. Dork? Possibly. Lost? Definitely.

Herman Cain

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12799
  • 9-9-9
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #77 on: January 22, 2023, 08:48:28 PM »
We're ahead of schedule Scoopers.  Goose discussed our resurgence before the start of last season so give the man credit.  I thought we would be in this position closer to mid year 3, but Shaka and these guys have proved me wrong.   We can take this program to the tier 1 level and sustain it, that's what Goose meant by the "Resurgence".

Now, in the midst to this climb back to greatness, coming out and zipping down the floor, we see a team that is as exciting as any group in the entire nation.  This is not hyperbole, we can attract the kind of players I and others have discussed for years that seemingly never took the pluge to Milwaukee. Guys who want to get up and down the floor, zoom with pace and space, slice and dice defenses, and play free flowing hoops.  We can now attract the Chase Ross type athlete as an example. 

Anyway, I believe this season and our aesthetically pleasing style, will lead to players wanting to come to MU both as hs players and transfers.  The entire picture is not complete and we have plenty of work to do but the trajectory of this MU program continues to climb.  The decade of dominance, something we have all wanted, may in fact be on the horizon.  Props to Shaka and our entire roster.
Just wanted to respond to Muggys opening post

Last Season
I was bullish before the start of last season. My enthusiasm was based on the experienced players we had on the roster .

This Season
I was bullish before the start of this season . My enthusiasm was based on player improvement and that I felt the Big East Competition was winnable

I don’t know ball , but I guess that proves a broken clock is right twice a day

I will admit I was surprised at the level of cohesion of this years team and the coaching prep for each game . Combined those attributes has enabled the team to do so well and be competitive each game .

Going Forward
We have three solid classes in house right now . The Juniors are all doing excellent ,  The Sophs are excellent /solid and we have Freshman that have demonstrated promise and upside

It appears as if the 2023 recruiting class has prospects that conform to Shaka’s style of play . I am bullish on that class.

So overall we will have athletic depth

Transfers /NIL
Transfers and NIL are unknown . My guess is given MU performance under Shaka this season , we may end up on the plus side of the Transfer /NIL equation . MU may be seen as an attractive destination . Especially to players moving up a conference .

Players Going Pro
I am in the camp that says Players going Pro is a positive for program development . Depth can absorb those departures

Recruiting Post 2023
Success breeds success and it appears the pipeline of prospects is loaded.

Resurgence

I think it is safe to say MU is positioned well to be among the Big East leaders with Shaka in charge . If we continue to do well in conference , we can achieve deep tournament runs.

Winning is overrated. The only time it is really important is in surgery and war.
                       ---Al McGuire

PointWarrior

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1885
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #78 on: January 22, 2023, 09:18:40 PM »
"I know this team lost Justin, Morsell and Kur and has gotten better……I think if people expect that to happen consistently they are probably fooling themselves."


COLE


Elonsmusk

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2262
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #79 on: January 22, 2023, 09:24:24 PM »
Just wanted to respond to Muggys opening post

Last Season
I was bullish before the start of last season. My enthusiasm was based on the experienced players we had on the roster .

This Season
I was bullish before the start of this season . My enthusiasm was based on player improvement and that I felt the Big East Competition was winnable

I don’t know ball , but I guess that proves a broken clock is right twice a day

I will admit I was surprised at the level of cohesion of this years team and the coaching prep for each game . Combined those attributes has enabled the team to do so well and be competitive each game .

Going Forward
We have three solid classes in house right now . The Juniors are all doing excellent ,  The Sophs are excellent /solid and we have Freshman that have demonstrated promise and upside

It appears as if the 2023 recruiting class has prospects that conform to Shaka’s style of play . I am bullish on that class.

So overall we will have athletic depth

Transfers /NIL
Transfers and NIL are unknown . My guess is given MU performance under Shaka this season , we may end up on the plus side of the Transfer /NIL equation . MU may be seen as an attractive destination . Especially to players moving up a conference .

Players Going Pro
I am in the camp that says Players going Pro is a positive for program development . Depth can absorb those departures

Recruiting Post 2023
Success breeds success and it appears the pipeline of prospects is loaded.

Resurgence

I think it is safe to say MU is positioned well to be among the Big East leaders with Shaka in charge . If we continue to do well in conference , we can achieve deep tournament runs.

Good post Herm.  Agree with your analysis.

GoldenEagles03

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3627
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #80 on: January 22, 2023, 09:32:05 PM »
I think it is safe to say the fanbase is rejuvenated!

It helps that NMD falls on a Saturday with a 1 o'clock game this year, but the cheapest tickets on the secondary market for a group of 3 are like $176 a piece after fees.
VIOLENCE!

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13003
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #81 on: January 22, 2023, 09:40:43 PM »
I think it is safe to say the fanbase is rejuvenated!

It helps that NMD falls on a Saturday with a 1 o'clock game this year, but the cheapest tickets on the secondary market for a group of 3 are like $176 a piece after fees.

Moisted

PorkysButthole

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 108

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22055
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #83 on: January 23, 2023, 12:33:34 AM »
To be fair, this statement was made in the context of low-major hires or promoted assistants--not guys coming in with a P6 pedigree.

You don't need to give Miller or Smart or Anderson five years--you knew what you were getting when you hired them. In other words, they already had their five+ years, and they passed the test at the Big East level.

On the other hand, it would be highly unfair to make any conclusion about Neptune or even Stubblefield right now. They inherited tough situations (Neptune with a depleted roster and injuries, Stubblefield with a major rebuild).   Even if Villanova was winning at full strength, fans would want to see if he can recruit to the level that Jay Wright did.

Iirc, Chicos was the original 5 years to judge guy and his argument wasn't about proven HCs vs promoted assistants or low major guys. It was about giving a new coach, regardless of background, an opportunity to coach a recruiting class from HS seniors to college seniors. His logic was that if you judge any sooner than that,  you may be unfairly blaming or crediting the new coach for recruiting/development done by their predecessor. Hopkins at UW comes to mind.  He won with Romars recruits and once we they were gone he crashed hard.

The logic was sound at the time but it's outdated now. Instant transfers means you can easily run off dead weight from the previous administration and instantly add impact transfers who fit your style of play. Great coaches shouldn't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.
TAMU

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


Newsdreams

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 9562
  • Goal - Win BE
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #84 on: January 23, 2023, 08:22:44 AM »
Iirc, Chicos was the original 5 years to judge guy and his argument wasn't about proven HCs vs promoted assistants or low major guys. It was about giving a new coach, regardless of background, an opportunity to coach a recruiting class from HS seniors to college seniors. His logic was that if you judge any sooner than that,  you may be unfairly blaming or crediting the new coach for recruiting/development done by their predecessor. Hopkins at UW comes to mind.  He won with Romars recruits and once we they were gone he crashed hard.

The logic was sound at the time but it's outdated now. Instant transfers means you can easily run off dead weight from the previous administration and instantly add impact transfers who fit your style of play. Great coaches shouldn't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.
You're correct Knower of Ball, see Dean winning with KO guys.
Goal is National Championship

Juan Anderson's Mixtape

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4296
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #85 on: January 23, 2023, 08:37:05 AM »
I don't think future recruiting will change much. Maybe it will be a little easier for Shaka to land his top targets, but I don't think those targets will change much.

Recruiting rankings are fun but it's a flawed process.  Leon Bond was #68 in the 247 composite.  He's redshirting at Virginia.  Meanwhile, Chase Ross was #177 and he's playing 16.9 mpg as a frosh.  It's mostly guesswork based on small sample sizes.

Trust the coaches to identify talent and recruit the right fits for the system and culture.

MuggsyB

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12685
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #86 on: January 23, 2023, 08:42:42 AM »
I don't think future recruiting will change much. Maybe it will be a little easier for Shaka to land his top targets, but I don't think those targets will change much.

Recruiting rankings are fun but it's a flawed process.  Leon Bond was #68 in the 247 composite.  He's redshirting at Virginia.  Meanwhile, Chase Ross was #177 and he's playing 16.9 mpg as a frosh.  It's mostly guesswork based on small sample sizes.

Trust the coaches to identify talent and recruit the right fits for the system and culture.

I think impact/versatile transfers will want to ball at MU.  Guys like free flowing hoops and high octane offenses.

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23344
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #87 on: January 23, 2023, 08:44:25 AM »
I think impact/versatile transfers will want to ball at MU.  Guys like free flowing hoops and high octane offenses.
But there aren't any openings.
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13003
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #88 on: January 23, 2023, 08:46:31 AM »

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #89 on: January 23, 2023, 08:50:09 AM »
Iirc, Chicos was the original 5 years to judge guy and his argument wasn't about proven HCs vs promoted assistants or low major guys. It was about giving a new coach, regardless of background, an opportunity to coach a recruiting class from HS seniors to college seniors. His logic was that if you judge any sooner than that,  you may be unfairly blaming or crediting the new coach for recruiting/development done by their predecessor. Hopkins at UW comes to mind.  He won with Romars recruits and once we they were gone he crashed hard.

The logic was sound at the time but it's outdated now. Instant transfers means you can easily run off dead weight from the previous administration and instantly add impact transfers who fit your style of play. Great coaches shouldn't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.

One of Keefe's faves, iirc

wadesworld

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 17383
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #90 on: January 23, 2023, 09:01:22 AM »
One of Keefe's faves, iirc

Wonder how that guy's doing.

Toughest guy around
But runs to HR for Scoop
Never to be seen
Rocket Trigger Warning (wild that saying this would trigger anyone, but it's the world we live in): Black Lives Matter

tower912

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 23344
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #91 on: January 23, 2023, 09:03:38 AM »
Wonder how that guy's doing.

Toughest guy around
But runs to HR for Scoop
Never to be seen

Bravo
Luke 6:45   ...A good man produces goodness from the good in his heart; an evil man produces evil out of his store of evil.   Each man speaks from his heart's abundance...

It is better to be fearless and cheerful than cheerless and fearful.

The Equalizer

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #92 on: January 23, 2023, 09:06:15 AM »
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball link=topic=64085.msg1506382#msg1506382 date=
Iirc, Chicos was the original 5 years to judge guy and his argument wasn't about proven HCs vs promoted assistants or low major guys. It was about giving a new coach, regardless of background, an opportunity to coach a recruiting class from HS seniors to college seniors. His logic was that if you judge any sooner than that,  you may be unfairly blaming or crediting the new coach for recruiting/development done by their predecessor. Hopkins at UW comes to mind.  He won with Romars recruits and once we they were gone he crashed hard.

The logic was sound at the time but it's outdated now. Instant transfers means you can easily run off dead weight from the previous administration and instantly add impact transfers who fit your style of play. Great coaches shouldn't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.

In other words, we can judge Miller, Holloway, Matta, and Neptune at the end of this year--their first season in a new program. If they don't contend (which is true for Holoway, Matta, and Neptune), it's because they failed at running off dead weight and instantly adding impact transfers?  Are you saying we can judge these guys as failures after one year?

After all, you say that great coaches don't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.


MuggsyB

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12685
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #93 on: January 23, 2023, 09:32:31 AM »
But there aren't any openings.

I'm basically talking down the road. 

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22055
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #94 on: January 23, 2023, 09:44:13 AM »
In other words, we can judge Miller, Holloway, Matta, and Neptune at the end of this year--their first season in a new program. If they don't contend (which is true for Holoway, Matta, and Neptune), it's because they failed at running off dead weight and instantly adding impact transfers?  Are you saying we can judge these guys as failures after one year?

After all, you say that great coaches don't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.

I think there's a big gap between failures and great coaches no? I also said that they need a season. Meaning they need a full year to get a contender off the ground. Contender is also vague language, I'm not implying a national championship contender, but rather an NCAAT at large team.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2023, 09:47:53 AM by TAMU, Knower of Ball »
TAMU

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


The Equalizer

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #95 on: January 23, 2023, 10:16:29 AM »
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball link=topic=64085.msg1506464#msg1506464 date=
I think there's a big gap between failures and great coaches no?

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

There are plenty of coaches who did well their first few years, then flamed out (e.g. Kevin Ollie, Matt Doherty, the aforementioned Mike Hopkins).
There are plenty of coaches who struggled their first few years and later went on to have hall-of-fame careers (Coach K, Jay Wright)

Pointing out that there's a big gap between the two groups isn't really saying much.

My point is that even in the post-transfer era, you can't know into which group a coach falls only two or three years into his career, or two or three years after being promoted from a low major to a P6 (hence the numerous examples in each camp).

By your logic, you can tell us after this year whether Kyle Neptune is the next Steve Lappas or the next Jay Wright. 

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #96 on: January 23, 2023, 10:30:22 AM »
Iirc, Chicos was the original 5 years to judge guy and his argument wasn't about proven HCs vs promoted assistants or low major guys. It was about giving a new coach, regardless of background, an opportunity to coach a recruiting class from HS seniors to college seniors. His logic was that if you judge any sooner than that,  you may be unfairly blaming or crediting the new coach for recruiting/development done by their predecessor. Hopkins at UW comes to mind.  He won with Romars recruits and once we they were gone he crashed hard.

The logic was sound at the time but it's outdated now. Instant transfers means you can easily run off dead weight from the previous administration and instantly add impact transfers who fit your style of play. Great coaches shouldn't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.

The 5 (or more) years to judge guys used Coack K and Jay Wright to “prove” their point. But they were exceptions and for every K or Jay there were scores of coaches who showed they couldn’t get it done early and 5 year (or longer) leashes only delayed the inevitable and set back their programs.

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22055
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #97 on: January 23, 2023, 11:14:44 AM »
Thank you, Captain Obvious.

There are plenty of coaches who did well their first few years, then flamed out (e.g. Kevin Ollie, Matt Doherty, the aforementioned Mike Hopkins).
There are plenty of coaches who struggled their first few years and later went on to have hall-of-fame careers (Coach K, Jay Wright)

Pointing out that there's a big gap between the two groups isn't really saying much.

Look you are the one who said this:

Are you saying we can judge these guys as failures after one year?

After all, you say that great coaches don't need more than a season to get a contender off the ground.

You claimed that because I said great coaches don't need more than season to get a contender of the ground that it somehow meant we could judge coaches as failures after year 1. You connected those two, I didn't.

My point is that even in the post-transfer era, you can't know into which group a coach falls only two or three years into his career, or two or three years after being promoted from a low major to a P6 (hence the numerous examples in each camp).

By your logic, you can tell us after this year whether Kyle Neptune is the next Steve Lappas or the next Jay Wright. 

I never said anything about knowing. Those are you words. What I did say was that you can start to more accurately judge than you could before instant transfers.
TAMU

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


The Equalizer

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 1765
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #98 on: January 23, 2023, 02:02:34 PM »
Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball link=topic=64085.msg1506526#msg1506526 date=
Look you are the one who said this:

You claimed that because I said great coaches don't need more than season to get a contender of the ground that it somehow meant we could judge coaches as failures after year 1. You connected those two, I didn't.

Just so I'm clear, you first said that in the current environment, a coach can turn a team into a contender in one season.

Now you're saying that if he doesn't, it doesn't mean he's a failure. 

That seems to be consistent with the point of view that one year isn't enough time--it's too soon to tell.

Quote from: TAMU, Knower of Ball link=topic=64085.msg1506526#msg1506526 date=
I never said anything about knowing. Those are you words. What I did say was that you can start to more accurately judge than you could before instant transfers.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but a) it's only the 2nd season of insta transfers and b) you don't have any examples where it's been easier to determine long-term success.

First, you're only assuming the positive end--yes, it's easier to take in transfers. You ignored the downside--it's easier to lose players to transfer. 

Second, you implied that this is a particular benefit of new coaches that helps us gauge their success quickly.  Yet every current coach has the same ability to rebuild rosters every year.

Third, in those cases where a new coach inherits a high-quality team of underclassmen, and then succeeds with them, you still haven't seen him turn his recruits into successful players.  Think of your example of Mike Hopkins.  Or if you prefer, Mike Deane winning with Kevin O'Neill recruits. 

Bottom line, maybe ist's easier, maybe its not, but you haven't actually made the case.

Perhaps the way to settle is for you to run down the list of 2021 and 2022 coaching hires (excluding guys like Shaka and Sean Miller who already had their five years) and make your set of predictions on who turns out to be a good hire, and who turns out otherwise. 

We can revisit in a few years and see if your predictions are correct.




TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22055
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: MU's Resurgence/Recruiting Future
« Reply #99 on: January 23, 2023, 04:19:41 PM »
Just so I'm clear, you first said that in the current environment, a coach can turn a team into a contender in one season.

Now you're saying that if he doesn't, it doesn't mean he's a failure. 

That seems to be consistent with the point of view that one year isn't enough time--it's too soon to tell.

I actually said a great coach shouldn't need more than a year to build a contender (NCAAT team). I said nothing about failures or any coach's long term prospects. You assumed that this meant that I thought that a coach who doesn't do this is a failure. That's not the case at all.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but a) it's only the 2nd season of insta transfers and b) you don't have any examples where it's been easier to determine long-term success.

Who said anything about long-term success?

The breakdown here is you are trying to make this an argument about if coaches can improve over time. Of course they can. No one has said otherwise. Rick Majerus was a failure at Marquette but developed into a great coach. Like any other job, most college basketball coaches improve over the course of their career.

What I actually said was that the tools available to coaches have changed. In the past, coaches had to rely on their predecessor's recruits or make a lot of cuts and rely on an extremely young roster. The transfer portal was not nearly as large or as deep as it is now and the vast majority of transfers needed to sit a year. Those who didn't only had one year of eligibility (in rare cases two). Building a balanced and experienced roster of players recruited by the current coach took a minimum of 2 years and more realistically it took 4-5 years. Now, a new coach can more easily convince any of the predecessor's leftovers to transfer if they don't fit what the coach wants and can build an entire balanced roster of players through the portal before their first season even starts (though realistically I think it takes a full year of recruiting).

And yes we can more easily judge a coach's performance once their roster is made up entirely of players they recruited. That doesn't mean they won't improve as a coach over time, it just means we know the current success on the court is more of their doing than of their predecessor's doing. As I understood it, that's what the original "5 years to judge" meme meant. Though you'd have to ask Chicos
TAMU

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


 

feedback