Colton Crowdis committed.

[Badgerhater]

The good news is you say you don't believe that Josh or Caedin make so much money that we can't land contributors, and there is still a scholarship open to add to this roster.  So they don't seem to be the problem in terms of filling in the hole Sheek left.

I think most people who aren't freaking out because of one of 15 scholarships is being used by Caedin Hamilton (which is all but about 5 posters on here) aren't really making excuses, they're expecting the team to be pretty good.  Is it a perfect roster?  Of course not.  The best in the country?  Of course not.  Most people realize that Caedin being on the roster, or the backup center position, won't be what prevents this team from being competitive in the BE.  A few are having mental meltdowns because they apparently think it will.

Like I said, some here think that if you have a list ready to go of players who could perfectly fill every roster spot that might come open for any reason, then we'll just have to make "One call, that's all!"  If Shaka wasn't asleep at the wheel, he'd have Gruber on line one, ready to make that call for him to the perfect replacement for whoever leaves.  If Nigel suddenly leaves tomorrow, a competent staff would just have a potential BE POY point guard on their list of replacements and they'd have the player in by Monday.

You mean there is not a Door Dash for backup portal basketball players?

[Small Orange Soda]

The good news is you say you don't believe that Josh or Caedin make so much money that we can't land contributors, and there is still a scholarship open to add to this roster.  So they don't seem to be the problem in terms of filling in the hole Sheek left.

I think most people who aren't freaking out because of one of 15 scholarships is being used by Caedin Hamilton (which is all but about 5 posters on here) aren't really making excuses, they're expecting the team to be pretty good.  Is it a perfect roster?  Of course not.  The best in the country?  Of course not.  Most people realize that Caedin being on the roster, or the backup center position, won't be what prevents this team from being competitive in the BE.  A few are having mental meltdowns because they apparently think it will.

All you've done is offer excuses. And since none of them have passed muster, you're now resorting to 'who cares' and accusing others of having meltdowns.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

This is great.
Over many weeks, when I've said that having several scholarship players on the roster who won't play is a waste of not only financial resources, but staff time, you scoffed at the idea that such resources would be so limited.
Now, the excuse for why they were unprepared for Sheek's departure is ... the staff doesn't have time to prepare because resources aren't unlimited.
Huh.   

Huh, indeed.  You're conflating very different things in yet another bad comparison. The resources spent (time, money) on developing two guys on your roster do not adversely impact the ability to develop your other players.  It does not adversely impact the ability to add another player to your team, especially considering different resources are responsible for those things.

Again, the staff not expecting Sheek's departure is not an "excuse" and I find it bizarre that it might be viewed that way.

It's not. These are exceptionally well paid professionals whose duties include being prepared for any possibility. As you admit, losing any player to the portal is a possibility. 
To be clear, I don't know that they weren't prepared. That's just the excuse being offered by some here for the lack of Sheek replacement.
I'm more inclined to believe they just chose not to go get a replacement and are content to run it back with CH and JC. This, IMO, was their choice, not a circumstance beyond their control.

It absolutely is.  Comparing different positions across different sports is useless.

It's certainly possible the staff could have added another player above Hamilton and Clark on the depth chart that would have made sense financially.  I acknowledge that possibility and that they could be making a mistake. 

The problem is you continuously refuse to acknowledge the other possibility as realistic and keep using the word "excuse".  You can't have it both ways.

Exactly. And MU's staff - at least according to those trotting out the "they didn't expect Sheek to leave" excuse - apparently is prioritizing its time in ways other than being prepared for players leaving.

I almost passed out from rolling my eyes at this one.  That's just lazy.  When you have an agreement in place with a player to stay, AFTER adding a starter in front of him, plus having two other centers behind him, allocating your time to seeing what other backup bigs are available if Sheek is poached at the last second, is ludicrous. 

[panda]

I feel like a 6-7 well built Owens at forward is a pretty solid size for a PF backup. Certainly more natural than some of the 6-6 PF we've had who went on to the NBA.

I did bring this up as a possibility a few weeks ago with Owens at the top of a diamond half court 3/4 court trap type defense to go small for a few minutes at a time during foul trouble etc. I don't see how anyone could watch him the past two seasons and think he could match up with a bigger four for extended minutes though.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

It sounds like an excuse because that's all you guys ever offer. Every criticism you and wades utter must be immediately followed by an excuse.

"Last year was bad, but it's okay, Shaka is taking transfers now"

"Sheek should've been replaced, but money, culture, availability, etc. made it impossible"

"Caedin is bad, but * wades posting history *"

If Shaka thought the gap between Fru and Caedin was as wide as it actually is, he wouldn't have just looked at a few guys and shrugged. He would've replaced Sheek.

I don't really care that Clark is on the team for another year. But if he has nothing to contribute again, he shouldn't be back.

And for you to say the scenarios I come up with are something else when you've come up with every scenario under the sun as to why Shaka didn't replace Sheek is rich.

More lazy nonsense.  Let's go through each of them.

"Last year was bad, but it's okay, Shaka is taking transfers now"

I'm not sure anybody has said that.  I know I certainly haven't.

"Sheek should've been replaced, but money, culture, availability, etc. made it impossible"

Once again, not something I said.  There's a difference between that and accounting for the POSSIBILITY that money, culture, talent, and availability did not result in a match.  And even if there was a match on those factors, the player would have to WANT to come to Marquette, which often seems overlooked in these conversations.

"Caedin is bad, but * wades posting history *"

Caedin has certainly been bad and being optimistic about what he could bring this year isn't logical.  But Wades is exactly right in regard to his usage as the season went on.

If Shaka thought the gap between Fru and Caedin was as wide as it actually is, he wouldn't have just looked at a few guys and shrugged. He would've replaced Sheek.

Wrong. That has nothing to do with a Fru/Caedin gap.  It has everything to do with a Sheek/Caedin + Clark gap compared to Hypothetical addition/Caedin + Clark gap.

I don't really care that Clark is on the team for another year. But if he has nothing to contribute again, he shouldn't be back.

And for you to say the scenarios I come up with are something else when you've come up with every scenario under the sun as to why Shaka didn't replace Sheek is rich.

I've essentially listed one scenario in regard to why Sheek wasn't replaced that you refuse to accept as a realistic possibility.

[Small Orange Soda]

More lazy nonsense.  Let's go through each of them.

I'm not sure anybody has said that.  I know I certainly haven't.

Once again, not something I said.  There's a difference between that and accounting for the POSSIBILITY that money, culture, talent, and availability did not result in a match.  And even if there was a match on those factors, the player would have to WANT to come to Marquette, which often seems overlooked in these conversations.

Caedin has certainly been bad and being optimistic about what he could bring this year isn't logical.  But Wades is exactly right in regard to his usage as the season went on.

Wrong. That has nothing to do with a Fru/Caedin gap.  It has everything to do with a Sheek/Caedin + Clark gap compared to Hypothetical addition/Caedin + Clark gap.

I've essentially listed one scenario in regard to why Sheek wasn't replaced that you refuse to accept as a realistic possibility.

First one has been wades attitude throughout, but okay, I won't attribute that one to you.

Second one is an excuse.

Clinging to this 8.5 minutes down the stretch stuff is an excuse. His minutes diminished the year before too. Rotations tighten down the stretch. And if he is a back of the bench player, he should've been asked to go.

I probably framed the Fru/Caedin gap stuff incorrectly. The point I was trying to make is that Shaka thinks Caedin is a capable backup C so he didn't replace Sheek.

The thing is, we all agree Caedin is bad. But what we're seeing is the cognitive dissonance of knowing Caedin is bad while Shaka doesn't, and you can't criticize Shaka without then excusing him. I like Shaka. He's a good coach. But it's completely reasonable to criticize him for the time, money, and resources he's wasted on Caedin and continued misevaluation of his talent level.

[Hards Alumni]

First one has been wades attitude throughout, but okay, I won't attribute that one to you.

Second one is an excuse.

Clinging to this 8.5 minutes down the stretch stuff is an excuse. His minutes diminished the year before too. Rotations tighten down the stretch. And if he is a back of the bench player, he should've been asked to go.

I probably framed the Fru/Caedin gap stuff incorrectly. The point I was trying to make is that Shaka thinks Caedin is a capable backup C so he didn't replace Sheek.

The thing is, we all agree Caedin is bad. But what we're seeing is the cognitive dissonance of knowing Caedin is bad while Shaka doesn't, and you can't criticize Shaka without then excusing him. I like Shaka. He's a good coach. But it's completely reasonable to criticize him for the time, money, and resources he's wasted on Caedin and continued misevaluation of his talent level.

Excuses are just reasons you don't like.

[Small Orange Soda]

Excuses are just reasons you don't like.

Not when every single criticism is met with one.

[wadesworld]

First one has been wades attitude throughout, but okay, I won't attribute that one to you.

Second one is an excuse.

Clinging to this 8.5 minutes down the stretch stuff is an excuse. His minutes diminished the year before too. Rotations tighten down the stretch. And if he is a back of the bench player, he should've been asked to go.

I probably framed the Fru/Caedin gap stuff incorrectly. The point I was trying to make is that Shaka thinks Caedin is a capable backup C so he didn't replace Sheek.

The thing is, we all agree Caedin is bad. But what we're seeing is the cognitive dissonance of knowing Caedin is bad while Shaka doesn't, and you can't criticize Shaka without then excusing him. I like Shaka. He's a good coach. But it's completely reasonable to criticize him for the time, money, and resources he's wasted on Caedin and continued misevaluation of his talent level.

Not sure where I've said last year was bad but Shaka is using the portal so we're good.  You're confusing not freaking out because we don't have an awesome backup 5 with thinking using the portal fixes everything.

What I think was fixed was that we addressed the biggest needs on this team, and returned our 3 best players.  I think things are "okay" because I expect Marquette to be a tournament team and to be competing as one of the better teams in the Big East this year.  Do I hope for better rosters in the future?  Yes.  But do I realize that most of this team's talent still has years left in the program if Shaka and the staff are able to retain them?  Also yes.  So I'm "okay" with having what I consider to be a Tournament team heading into the season, knowing there's further upside for the roster in the future.

But again, don't let me stop you and a few others from having a breakdown because Caedin Hamilton is on the roster in every single thread, 5 months from basketball being played.

By the way, you think everyone on a 15 person roster needs to NOT be a "back end of a bench player" or they should be asked to go?

Let me know the next time a college basketball (or pro, or high school) program has a 15 man rotation.  The next time one does will be the first.

Danny Hurley's so dumb that he kept Richie Springs around for a redshirt year, a redshirt freshman year, a redshirt sophomore year, and a redshirt junior year despite never averaging more than 1.3 points, 1.1 rebounds, or 0.2 assists per game.  Obviously that really hurt their chances keeping a useless player around for 4 years, especially when roster limits were even smaller.  Maybe they would've won something if Hurley gave him the boot when it was clear after 3 years the guy would never be a contributor.

Oh wait...

[Small Orange Soda]

Not sure where I've said last year was bad but Shaka is using the portal so we're good.  You're confusing not freaking out because we don't have an awesome backup 5 with thinking using the portal fixes everything.

What I think was fixed was that we addressed the biggest needs on this team, and returned our 3 best players.  I think things are "okay" because I expect Marquette to be a tournament team and to be competing as one of the better teams in the Big East this year.  Do I hope for better rosters in the future?  Yes.  But do I realize that most of this team's talent still has years left in the program if Shaka and the staff are able to retain them?  Also yes.  So I'm "okay" with having what I consider to be a Tournament team heading into the season, knowing there's further upside for the roster in the future.

But again, don't let me stop you and a few others from having a breakdown because Caedin Hamilton is on the roster in every single thread, 5 months from basketball being played.

By the way, you think everyone on a 15 person roster needs to NOT be a "back end of a bench player" or they should be asked to go?

Let me know the next time a college basketball (or pro, or high school) program has a 15 man rotation.  The next time one does will be the first.

Danny Hurley's so dumb that he kept Richie Springs around for a redshirt year, a redshirt freshman year, a redshirt sophomore year, and a redshirt junior year despite never averaging more than 1.3 points, 1.1 rebounds, or 0.2 assists per game.  Obviously that really hurt their chances keeping a useless player around for 4 years, especially when roster limits were even smaller.  Maybe they would've won something if Hurley gave him the boot when it was clear after 3 years the guy would never be a contributor.

Oh wait...

The point I've made is very simple. It's just that any criticism of Shaka is your personal bat signal and you have to swoop in and excuse it. I think spending four years on a back of the bench player is not wise, but Caedin isn't a back of the bench player. He's gonna play. And when you don't have a reasonable defense, you just resort to claiming others are having a meltdown as you pitch a fit that anyone dare criticize the coach.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Not when every single criticism is met with one.

That's not what's happening.  Reasoning you disagree with doesn't mean it's an excuse.

[MU82]

A few things related to the conversation ...

1. Did Shaka make a "choice" - choosing Hamilton/Clark over whatever backup center might have been available after he learned that Sheek was leaving?

Absolutely. Although nobody here knows which backup centers would have been willing to come to Marquette to be backup centers for backup-center dollars (or at least "market-rate" dollars), it definitely was Shaka's decision. And it will have been a failure on Shaka's part if Hamilton and/or Clark can't provide serviceable minutes and if that negatively impacts MU's record next season.

2. When it came to the portal, was Shaka reactive instead of proactive?

Well, Nigel James would have been one of the top players in the portal had Shaka not proactively worked to keep NJ happy. Parham and Stevens would have been sought after, too, but Shaka proactively worked to keep them in MU uniforms. In the open market, Shaka proactively pursued and landed one of the top-rated bigs available, and he also signed a well-regarded 2/3. However, one certainly could argue that Shaka was reactive (and didn't deliver) after Sheek left. So in my book, that's a 5-1 reading on the Proactive/Reactive Meter ... which seems A-OK, no?

3. In post #369 of this thread, should Hards Alumni have mentioned Crowdis and posted a link about him?

Of course not! The "Colton Crowdis committed" thread is obviously about Shaka's portal failures or successes and about 18 being the cause of all things wrong in the world. How dare Hards pretend otherwise?