Fun Facts re: DePaul game

[Vander Blue Man Group]

The fact Clark can't even got on the court at this stage of the season isn't exactly a ringing endorsement for his progress after two years. It's not like he's being blocked by high-end talent in front of him.
But sure, you can keep one guy like that around. Don't see the point of having several of them.

Good teams typically have a 8-man rotation (give or take).  That leaves 7 roster spots.  Maybe a couple of freshman aren't in the rotation.  Maybe there's 1-2 redshirts. Maybe you leave a spot open for flexibility.  That still leaves 3 scholarships. 

So why is it again that you can only keep 1 guys like that around? 

As long as it's not limiting the team in terms of NIL resources and flexibility, what's the problem? 

[panda]

As long as it's not limiting the team in terms of NIL resources and flexibility, what's the problem? 

What happens when a team loses 20 games in a season and those guys limit your roster flexibility? Potentially speaking from experience here

[Billy Hoyle]

Josh Clark is a "late bloomer lottery ticket".  Just now approaching the end of his redshirt Freshman year.  You want to dump him now for a different 18-year-old Late bloomer lottery ticket?

I've always been amused when coaches take a 7 foot project because "you can't teach height." Nope, you can't but when you find a 7 footer in the late signing period that even local low majors aren't interested in maybe coaches need to realize that "height" is the only athletic quality they have. Mbao, anyone?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

What happens when a team loses 20 games in a season and those guys limit your roster flexibility? Potentially speaking from experience here

Unless you can see the future that hasn't happened yet.

[Pakuni]

Good teams typically have a 8-man rotation (give or take).  That leaves 7 roster spots.  Maybe a couple of freshman aren't in the rotation.  Maybe there's 1-2 redshirts. Maybe you leave a spot open for flexibility.  That still leaves 3 scholarships. 

So why is it again that you can only keep 1 guys like that around? 

As long as it's not limiting the team in terms of NIL resources and flexibility, what's the problem? 

I'd quibble a bit with the 8-man rotation thing, depending how you define what's a rotation.

That said ... how does keeping three guys like that around not limit the team in terms of NIL resources and flexibility?
Every dollar you give him is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere. Every hour of coaching spent on him is an hour you can't spend developing someone else.

Just because the NCAA allows 15 scholarship players doesn't mean you have to have 15 scholarship players. It's a completely unnecessary thinning of resources ... not just money, but the time and energy of everyone in the program. It's increasing the burden on your coaches, your academic support, your strength and conditioning staff, etc. And because Marquette doesn't need a GM, it ultimately puts a greater burden on Shaka to oversee all that. And for what? The slim hope that one of those players might contribute 4-5 years down the road?
It's just a poor use of resources programwide.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I'd quibble a bit with the 8-man rotation thing, depending how you define what's a rotation.

That said ... how does keeping three guys like that around not limit the team in terms of NIL resources and flexibility?
Every dollar you give him is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere. Every hour of coaching spent on him is an hour you can't spend developing someone else.

Just because the NCAA allows 15 scholarship players doesn't mean you have to have 15 scholarship players. It's a completely unnecessary thinning of resources ... not just money, but the time and energy of everyone in the program. It's increasing the burden on your coaches, your academic support, your strength and conditioning staff, etc. And because Marquette doesn't need a GM, it ultimately puts a greater burden on Shaka to oversee all that. And for what? The slim hope that one of those players might contribute 4-5 years down the road?
It's just a poor use of resources programwide.

First, my scenario includes keeping a scholarship open. I disagree that it has any kind of substantive impact on flexibility, especially if Shaka proves he is willing to move on from some guys.

I also didn't say you had to keep around 3 flyers.  I just disagree that with a 15-man roster you have to limit yourself to 1.  And if Shaka decided not to take any flyers, that would be fine with me, too.

From an NIL perspective, it's a fair point.  However, I don't think it's unmanageable depending on how that structure is set up.  Paying a couple of end-of-the-bench guys or flyers a lower amount doesn't have to come at the expense of guys who cost and deserve more.   

If you really think time the staff has spent with Tre or Josh has adversely impacted the development of Royce or Nigel, that's just silly.  I hardly think coaching and developing a roster of 15 is much different from doing so with a roster of 12 or 13. 

And now you're getting into the burden from 2-3 extra players on support staff and Todd Smith?  Come on, dude.  You're getting ridiculous here. 

[panda]

Unless you can see the future that hasn't happened yet.

I could see the future last season when I called it out...

[MU82]

What is the upside to doing this? Warm and fuzzies? I'd much rather bring in a lottery ticket late bloomer and leave a spot open for a midseason transfer than waste it on two guys that should have never made a high major roster.

Me too.

I didn't say there was an upside. I just don't think it signals doom, either.

There are Scoopers saying, "If so-and-so is on the roster next season, that neans we'll suck again." I simply don't think that's necessarily true.

[panda]

Me too.

I didn't say there was an upside. I just don't think it signals doom, either.

There are Scoopers saying, "If so-and-so is on the roster next season, that neans we'll suck again." I simply don't think that's necessarily true.

If you gave me truth serum, I may possibly agree with some here that keeping a one or maybe two of the guys currently on the chopping block won't torpedo the season next season.

However - following this catastrophe of a season, a firm reset is needed to signal the end to free rides for these passengers. Start fresh with a different direction to reset following this year.

[Pakuni]

If you really think time the staff has spent with Tre or Josh has adversely impacted the development of Royce or Nigel, that's just silly.  I hardly think coaching and developing a roster of 15 is much different from doing so with a roster of 12 or 13. 

1. That's a red herring.
2. Yes, developing 15 players requires either more time and energy than 12, or a reduction in the amount of time/energy spent developing each individual player. This shouldn't even be controversial. Every additional employee I take on as a manager necessitates that I either spend less time and energy with one of my existing employees or I work more hours.

And now you're getting into the burden from 2-3 extra players on support staff and Todd Smith?  Come on, dude.  You're getting ridiculous here. 

Why yes, I do believe developing and conducting an in-depth strength-and-conditioning program for 15 people requires more time and energy than for 12 people. Again, not controversial.

[Jay Bee]

Every dollar you give him is a dollar that can't be spent elsewhere.

#FakeNews #Lies

It's not as if we are "maxxed out" on what we can give "student"-athletes.

[Pakuni]

#FakeNews #Lies

It's not as if we are "maxxed out" on what we can give "student"-athletes.

The athletic department has unlimited financial resources?

Scoop is where I've learned that Marquette doesn't have enough money to compete in the NIL world but also has no ceiling on what it can spend.

[wadesworld]

The athletic department has unlimited financial resources?

Scoop is where I've learned that Marquette doesn't have enough money to compete in the NIL world but also has no ceiling on what it can spend.

Is there a rule that every scholarship player is required to be paid NIL money?

[Pakuni]

Is there a rule that every scholarship player is required to be paid NIL money?

No.
But I imagine that quality players won't come to Marquette without it. And, IMO, if a player isn't capable of getting NIL money somewhere, he's probably not worth a spot on the roster. Even mid-major kids are getting paid.

[wadesworld]

No.
But I imagine that quality players won't come to Marquette without it. And, IMO, if a player isn't capable of getting NIL money somewhere, he's probably not worth a spot on the roster. Even mid-major kids are getting paid.

So keeping guys like Hamilton or Tre next year wouldn't automatically prevent Marquette from having enough money to attract transfers from coming in like you seem to have been constantly suggesting?

[Elonsmusk]

So keeping guys like Hamilton or Tre next year wouldn't automatically prevent Marquette from having enough money to attract transfers from coming in like you seem to have been constantly suggesting?

You nailed it.  No idea why some people think there is an obligation to pay guys like Tre and Caedin NIL dollars.  I don't have a problem with Tre being on the roster next year, but its at zero NIL dollars.  If he wants to explore options elsewhere to maximize earnings, so be it.

My feeling is 2 good portal pick ups on complementary positions, one being a big, and the other a versatile scoring guard and we are good.

[We R Final Four]

Shaka is playing the long game.
13,14, and 15 will be redshirts—freshmen most likely.

Hopefully next season we have:
1. Transfer big
2. Sheek
3. Josh

No need for Caedin. I can live with Tre as #12.

[Pakuni]

So keeping guys like Hamilton or Tre next year wouldn't automatically prevent Marquette from having enough money to attract transfers from coming in like you seem to have been constantly suggesting?

Are you suggesting Shaka is going to approach them with an offer akin to "You can stay, but your pay is being reduced to $0."
That seems the equivalent of getting cut - perhaps even worse - and they'd be unlikely to stay under those circumstances.
Even then, it could prevent the kind of changes necessary because those are roster spots that may be needed. Unless you're thinking Zaide's spot and maybe SJ's are definitely enough? I would disagree with that.

[Small Orange Soda]

1/3 of the roster next year hasn't played a minute of college basketball. If you want to have low expectations for players, have it for them. I don't know why anyone should just shrug off having two players (three if including Clark, since it's his second year) taking up roster spots when they've proven they don't provide any on court value.

Ben and Chase have obviously disappointed, but they're still getting minutes for a reason. The cumulative talent on this team is the problem. The worst MU team in decades shouldn't be dragging along dead weight into the next season. 

[Warrior of Law]

1/3 of the roster next year hasn't played a minute of college basketball. If you want to have low expectations for players, have it for them. I don't know why anyone should just shrug off having two players (three if including Clark, since it's his second year) taking up roster spots when they've proven they don't provide any on court value.

Ben and Chase have obviously disappointed, but they're still getting minutes for a reason. The cumulative talent on this team is the problem. The worst MU team in decades shouldn't be dragging along dead weight into the next season.

This. The fact that Chase Ross and Ben Gold play as much as they do indicates how low the talent level is at this point. Here's a breakdown:

Must Keep:
James, Jr

Prefer to Keep:
Parham
Stevens
Owens

Cut to Create Space:
Sean Jones

With the Lowery and Sean Jones spots, you got 2 portal fills. If MU finds a better 3rd or 4th, then Norman and Hamilton get buzzed. MU's advantages includes an early start on the process, plenty of playing time to offer, cash, and good pipeline to the NBA.