We're officially at Defcon 0.0

[Pakuni]

Who are these "credible people" here?  Have they doxxed themselves and proven they are "credible?"  And no crap, MU funds fewer sports than Power 4 schools who have football, and enrollments of 25,000-60,000 students, that have an alumni base 2-5x what MU does.  Football is a cash cow - I believe the TV package for college football is larger than college basketball?  Maybe I'm wrong on that? 

Yes, football programs are very good at making money. They're just as good at spending money. Most programs make little, if any, profit, and the vast majority of revenue they generate is poured back into the program. If you think Auburn and Texas A&M and Washington are taking money away from football to buy basketball players, you'd be mistaken.

The size of an alumni base matters, but what matters more is the engagement of the alumni base. Marquette graduates a fraction of the students UCF or Florida International or North Texas graduates, but our grads are way more likely to identify with and care about the success of the basketball team. In terms of donations and other support, that's more important than sheer numbers. 20,000 more grads doesn't matter if none of them care.
Added to that, Marquette is located in the heart of a major city with a large business/corporate community and not a lot of competition for attention and financial support. Would you rather go sell sponsorships in Milwaukee, or Columbia, Missouri, Urbana, Illinois and Lawrence, Kansas? 
Finally, the flipside of the football thing is that Marquette basketball doesn't have to compete with a football program (or a baseball program or a hockey program) for donors' attention and support. Men's hoops is the focus of everything.
So, yeah, Marquette has some inherent disadvantages based on its size, but there are advantages to exploit as well. If the athletic and marketing departments are failing to do so, then there need to be better people in charge.

But that aside, not surprised to see that you're the kind of guy who would bail on a guy at the first sign of adversity - before even giving the guy a shot to rectify the problem. 

What are you talking about?? I've repeatedly said I don't think Shaka should be fired after this season except in one circumstance ... he makes clear he won't budge from his philosophy and intends to run things back exactly as they are.
I'm all for giving him a chance to rectify the problems, but that actually requires committing to rectify the problems, not doing the exact same thing and hoping for a different result.

Finally, in another post you talk about how the majority LOVED RGV before this season. I wasn't one of them. I said last offseason that Shaka did his team a disservice by not bringing in more depth to support a solid starting five (or even a big to play ahead of BG). And I said again at the end of last season he would be making a mistake by not seeking help in the portal.
I don't think anyone, myself included, saw it getting this bad, but the signs of decline were there for anyone willing to see them.

[Markusquette]

Finally, in another post you talk about how the majority LOVED RGV before this season. I wasn't one of them. I said last offseason that Shaka did his team a disservice by not bringing in more depth to support a solid starting five (or even a big to play ahead of BG). And I said again at the end of last season he would be making a mistake by not seeking help in the portal.
I don't think anyone, myself included, saw it getting this bad, but the signs of decline were there for anyone willing to see them.

There were definitely a lot of others, myself included, discussing the portal well before this catastrophe of a season was even on the horizon. It's been coming to a head for some time now. I'm not sure that many people were "loving" the RGV idea as much as it was just sort of a feel good story for the program...warm and fuzzy. Given the prior success it was hard to believe they could sink to this level so quickly, so I think fans across the board expected MU to remain pretty competitive - especially considering organic development was expected.

It's nice to hear about recruits valuing RGV. Are they not getting paid well though?  Why can't we have it both ways - genuine relationships developed with high-level high school recruits along with transfers who fit the mentality and system? There's a false narrative that transfers come in and disrupt a team and screw up the dynamic. Do you know what messes up a team dynamic? Losing (badly). We've currently got upperclassmen that look like they're ready to graduate and move on. Shaka's put out head-scratching lineups and messed with playing time like it's a sick joke. Less than a couple months into the season, even he seems somewhat defeated.

I'm not expecting Shaka to go out and add 3 of the top 15 transfers to their starting lineup and become a juggernaut within a year. I'm simply hoping he can see the benefit and optionality using the portal to supplement a roster. It's only going to benefit him. He looks a hell of a lot better winning some games with transfers than going up in flames wearing the RGV polo. Whether or not the transfers work out, that's TBD. At least he can say he tried. Don't get me started on funds available to simply add one or two guys...

[dpucane]

[deleted because onepost is making all my arguments better than me]

[Norm]

Marquette was one of the last independent schools to join a conference and it held the program back in terms of development and recruiting. Now we are one of the last holdouts to using the transfer portal in the new NIL era. Will it have the same effect?