Is there reason to believe MU will be better in '26-27?

[muwarrior69]

"then there could be plenty of bruised egos if a newby gets more than a returnee, even if the newbie is better."


If this is a problem for Shaka, then we have a problem.  The answer is "play better so you demand more money from this team or another team."

This is what happens in the real world and what should be happening in the NIL world.  Shaka's running the college basketball version of socialism apparently.

The NIL/Revenue sharing world is obviously not enough. Now there is point shaving action to earn some extra bucks. Just don't make it obvious.

[mug644]

I think an extremely underrated part of Painter's program is the fact that he's lost players that he has developed into key pieces and has still not taken a step back competitively.

Mason Gillis was Big Ten Sixth Man of the year in 2024, then transferred up to Duke.

Myles Colvin was an extremely important role player for last years squad, then transferred to Wake Forest.

I'm assuming both got paid more than Purdue was willing to give them. Painter was flexible enough to replace them with transfers.

Imagine if we lost Joplin and Ross in back to back years on top of losing Tyler and Oso.

The last few comments in this thread have been solid. I think the bolded part is where we need to recall that Shaka has never said that he wouldn't use the transfer portal. He has implied that he wouldn't recruit (implicitly including bringing in a transfer) over players who stay in the program. (Note, though, as VBMG points out "if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time." Stevens over Lowery, James over Jones and Hamilton over Gold (ha!!) this season show his willingness to do just that.) He hasn't pushed players out (maybe he pushed Amadou?), and has remained stubbornly confident in his and the players' abilities to develop and Grow. Without departures and having signees out of high school, there haven't been openings on recent rosters which he could've filled with transfers.

So, if Joplin and Ross had transferred, I believe that he would've brought in transfers to replace them. Would he have given the players who had been here longer first dibs at a starting spot, perhaps. I might even say likely.

What we do know, though, is that Shaka wouldn't/won't deal with players' agents and that he has an NIL payment structure that seems to benefit longevity with the program. That doesn't mean better players don't get more and it doesn't mean that he might arrange for a transfer to get a good package. We also have speculation that he's willing to pay to keep a top player (rumors of what was offered to Kam to go elsewhere). It might mean, though we really don't know since there were no openings, that his beliefs and model will keep him from paying market price for an incoming, impactful (potentially, since one never really knows) transfer. And that could prove significant.

As others have said, this coming off season will be very interesting.

[Pakuni]

The last few comments in this thread have been solid. I think the bolded part is where we need to recall that Shaka has never said that he wouldn't use the transfer portal. He has implied that he wouldn't recruit (implicitly including bringing in a transfer) over players who stay in the program. (Note, though, as VBMG points out "if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time."

The logic of this eludes me. He's willing to bring in a high school recruit to take playing time away from an older player, but not a transfer. What's the difference? You're still bringing in someone new to take minutes away from a player who's been in the program longer.
Does the player who's losing minutes feel better about losing minutes to a freshman than a transfer junior? (How would Zaide Lowery answer that question?).
This is a distinction without a difference.

[Scoop Snoop]

The logic of this eludes me. He's willing to bring in a high school recruit to take playing time away from an older player, but not a transfer. What's the difference? You're still bringing in someone new to take minutes away from a player who's been in the program longer.
Does the player who's losing minutes feel better about losing minutes to a freshman than a transfer junior? (How would Zaide Lowery answer that question?).
This is a distinction without a difference.

I was beginning to wonder if I would ever find a post by you that I agree with. Miracles never cease! 

My guess is that once a HS recruit signs up, Shaka is saying he will not try to find another HS recruit in the same class who looks better for the same position. I may have this all wrong, but in any case-I think this post will elicit some interesting responses.

[mug644]

The logic of this eludes me. He's willing to bring in a high school recruit to take playing time away from an older player, but not a transfer. What's the difference? You're still bringing in someone new to take minutes away from a player who's been in the program longer.
Does the player who's losing minutes feel better about losing minutes to a freshman than a transfer junior? (How would Zaide Lowery answer that question?).
This is a distinction without a difference.

I think the difference is the concept of a bird in hand is worth two in a bush. When it comes to giving playing time, Shaka prefers the known entity, the one he has been developing, has bought into the culture and has confidence in continued growth over one that might fit in, might fill an identified gap and might provide the needed impact. The kind of transfer we generally talk about is one who expects a clear, perhaps leading, role from the outset.

A high school recruit can be (and probably normally is) told that he will get a shot at more playing time, and if he buys in and shows value, he'll get that time. He has more time to prove his worth and earn the opportunity at significant playing time.

From my point of view, I agree with your implication that Shaka's approach reeks of stubbornness and arrogance more than reality. But, I can certainly see how a coach who has had such recent success with the retain and develop model would enter this year holding firmly on to the belief.

As said, we'll see if Shaka accepts the weaknesses and limited options of his approach, as evidenced by this year's results, and changes.

I think Zaide's departure hints at his willingness to lose minutes to a freshman.

[1318WWells]

The last few comments in this thread have been solid. I think the bolded part is where we need to recall that Shaka has never said that he wouldn't use the transfer portal. He has implied that he wouldn't recruit (implicitly including bringing in a transfer) over players who stay in the program. (Note, though, as VBMG points out "if he recruits younger talent that proves to be better than an older player that guy will get the playing time." Stevens over Lowery, James over Jones and Hamilton over Gold (ha!!) this season show his willingness to do just that.) He hasn't pushed players out (maybe he pushed Amadou?), and has remained stubbornly confident in his and the players' abilities to develop and Grow. Without departures and having signees out of high school, there haven't been openings on recent rosters which he could've filled with transfers.

So, if Joplin and Ross had transferred, I believe that he would've brought in transfers to replace them. Would he have given the players who had been here longer first dibs at a starting spot, perhaps. I might even say likely.

What we do know, though, is that Shaka wouldn't/won't deal with players' agents and that he has an NIL payment structure that seems to benefit longevity with the program. That doesn't mean better players don't get more and it doesn't mean that he might arrange for a transfer to get a good package. We also have speculation that he's willing to pay to keep a top player (rumors of what was offered to Kam to go elsewhere). It might mean, though we really don't know since there were no openings, that his beliefs and model will keep him from paying market price for an incoming, impactful (potentially, since one never really knows) transfer. And that could prove significant.

As others have said, this coming off season will be very interesting.

Omax going pro early was the first case where he should have gone to the portal.

Kolek leaving and Sean not being ready til mid season was second case. Or replaced Kolek with Kam at point and never replaced Kam. Either way should've had a competent back up point on hand.

Oso leaving and transitioning to Gold starting would have been fine if there was a capable backup on hand to take Ben's old spot. Even if it was just a third player comparable to Gold and Parham to cover both the 4 and 5 spots.

Now need Lowery's spot to be filled by an experienced transfer.

[mug644]

Omax going pro early was the first case where he should have gone to the portal.

Kolek leaving and Sean not being ready til mid season was second case. Or replaced Kolek with Kam at point and never replaced Kam. Either way should've had a competent back up point on hand.

Oso leaving and transitioning to Gold starting would have been fine if there was a capable backup on hand to take Ben's old spot. Even if it was just a third player comparable to Gold and Parham to cover both the 4 and 5 spots.

Now need Lowery's spot to be filled by an experienced transfer.

Hindsight is 20/20

I think it could be easily argued that Joplin stepping into the role OMax played worked well, and maybe even contributed to the recruit, retain, grow process.

I can see why Shaka, going into the 24-25 season thought that Kam, Stevie and Chase could cover the point guard spot until Sean returned. Plus Lowery was around, and played well enough that year coming off the bench. Of course, Sean didn't return and Kam got worn out.

Yeah, I agree that transitioning to Gold, after Oso was gone, without a competent back up was speculative at best. Then again, though Amadou may have been envisioned to play that role and was no longer on the team, Shaka had the confidence in the development of Caedin.

Anyway, the forks in the road are clear now, and looking back makes it easy to see how decisions made didn't work out. I'm willing to guess that Shaka looks back and sees that his choices didn't all have the results he anticipated.

The question now is whether this hindsight will inform his foresight and lead to changes and new/different decisions. I totally agree that Lowery's spot needs to be filled by an experienced transfer, though I'd say it needs to be a big (to fill in for Ben graduating, Royce not being a 5, Caedin being incapable, and Sheek being an unknown) more than someone playing Lowery's role (where we have Stevens and upcoming Egbuonu).

[Galway Eagle]

Omax going pro early was the first case where he should have gone to the portal.

This is highly debatable. We retained the same seed and had the BE6th man of the year slot into the spot. Was Joplin an upgrade? No, but he certainly wasn't a downgrade. That year even if we get a better PF we aren't beating out UConn or Purdue for 1 seeds, the question really is whether we could edge out UNC or Houston to put us up there and if Tyler's injury remains the same we don't do that either.