Judge Rules that Last Years Seniors Are Eligible for a 5th Year

[MUbiz]

Signing Crowdis, who is no more than a glorified walk-on and will never play (he never even saw the court on Saturday in a scrimmage where we were shorthanded), was apparently more of a priority than addressing the backup PG need.

If a guy can't sniff the floor in a scrimmage when bodies are already stretched thin, calling him a "glorified walk-on" is honestly being generous. Burning resources and roster capital on a deep-bench flyer instead of securing a true floor general to spell the starters is malpractice — especially when you know how brutally punishing the Big East schedule gets once conference play tips off.  I am sure I will get flamed for this take, but I do not care.

[tower912]

The question is why did MU wait so long and settle for a player with questionable eligibility? 

It wasn't as if MU was trying to backfill after unexpectedly losing a backup PG mid summer. They knew about the situation at PG at the same time they were pursuing Fru and Nolan.  Why wasn't the backup PG a priority then?

Two things.   1.  It takes two to tango.   2. IMO, it became more important to the coaching staff after the Vancouver.

[The Sultan]

If a guy can't sniff the floor in a scrimmage when bodies are already stretched thin, calling him a "glorified walk-on" is honestly being generous. Burning resources and roster capital on a deep-bench flyer instead of securing a true floor general to spell the starters is malpractice — especially when you know how brutally punishing the Big East schedule gets once conference play tips off.  I am sure I will get flamed for this take, but I do not care.

Of our 15 roster spots, we have used nine of them on freshmen or sophomores, and only six on juniors, seniors, and super-seniors, one of whom may not be eligible.

I am not sure, from a depth point of view, this was a smart way to build a roster.

[The Sultan]

Two things.   1.  It takes two to tango.   2. IMO, it became more important to the coaching staff after the Vancouver.

You keep saying #1, but do we actually have any idea if we were turned down by anyone other than Riley.

And if #2 is the case, and we brought in Porter just a couple weeks later, it kind of leads to the conclusion that #1 wasn't really a problem. 

[wadesworld]

I remember when Scoop was complaining that Marquette wasn't getting in on any of these 5 for 5 guys that would potentially be given an extra year of a eligibility.  Now we land one and it's roster malpractice. 

[MUbiz]

I remember when Scoop was complaining that Marquette wasn't getting in on any of these 5 for 5 guys that would potentially be given an extra year of a eligibility.  Now we land on and it's roster malpractice. 

Taking a flyer on a 5th-year guy with actual upside is one thing — wasting a precious spot on a walk-on who provides zero help is literal malpractice, especially when we're crying out for a ready-to-go mid-major backup point guard. Not sure why that's so hard for some people to grasp.

[tower912]

Porter checks all of the boxes...assuming he is eligible.

[wadesworld]

Taking a flyer on a 5th-year guy with actual upside is one thing — wasting a precious spot on a walk-on who provides zero help is literal malpractice, especially when we're crying out for a ready-to-go mid-major backup point guard. Not sure why that's so hard for some people to grasp.

Landed exactly that.

[The Sultan]

Landed exactly that.

Except he can't play.

[wadesworld]

Except he can't play.

According to who?

[The Sultan]

According to who?

If you are talking about Colin Porter, he is ineligible.

If you are talking about Fru, he is a fourth year player.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Nolan is a more than capable backup PG. Porter is a nice to have, not a need.

[JTJ3]

Stevens can absolutely play PG too

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Player A: 31.6% usage, 54.0% eFG%, 25.9% Assist Rate, 13.7% TO Rate
Player B: 18.1% usage, 52.4% eFG%, 16.6% Assist Rate, 13.1% TO Rate

Which one do you trust to be your back up PG assuming both faced similar levels of competition?

[wadesworld]

If you are talking about Colin Porter, he is ineligible.

If you are talking about Fru, he is a fourth year player.

I thought Porter was ineligible based on the Kentucky ruling, but is also on the North Carolina lawsuit that has him eligible.

[The Sultan]

Nolan is a more than capable backup PG. Porter is a nice to have, not a need.

Ok....then I don't understand this:

IMO, it became more important to the coaching staff after the Vancouver.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Ok....then I don't understand this:

I don't understand it either

[tower912]

They played games in Vancouver without AS and with NJ in foul trouble.  IMO, this caused a reassessment of the need for another guard.

[Jay Bee]

They played games in Vancouver without AS and with NJ in foul trouble.  IMO, this caused a reassessment of the need for another guard.

Yes. Playing some scrub teams enlightened the staff to this 

[Shooter McGavin]

Nolan is a more than capable backup PG. Porter is a nice to have, not a need.

From your lips to God's ears TAMU.  Hope you are right.  Would still love Porter for insurance purposes though.

[Jay Bee]

I thought Porter was ineligible based on the Kentucky ruling, but is also on the North Carolina lawsuit that has him eligible.

#FakeNews #Lies x2

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Taking a flyer on a 5th-year guy with actual upside is one thing — wasting a precious spot on a walk-on who provides zero help is literal malpractice, especially when we're crying out for a ready-to-go mid-major backup point guard. Not sure why that's so hard for some people to grasp.

Hyperbole.

[The_Blaze]

There are successful programs that do not rely on a traditional starting point guard and run a motion offense. Marquette hasn't seen this approach in a while—both Wojo and Shaka were point guards and seem to prefer a point guard-centric offense.

Perhaps Shaka could create non–point guard sets when Nigel is off the floor. This would get more players involved, since the ball was in Nigel's hands too much last season out of necessity. This team has plenty of talent that needs to be utilized.

[MU90620]

I don't have any thing against the 5th year guys trying to get another year. And if they do, it will be great to have Porter on the team. However, from a purely mercenarian standpoint, I wouldn't be upset if all the 5th years end up being ineligible. I think Marquette is in a much better position to handle that than most teams and they will have a much better season if 5th years don't play this year. And when it comes to college basketball, Marquette success is at the top of my priority list.

[MUDPT]

There are successful programs that do not rely on a traditional starting point guard and run a motion offense. Marquette hasn't seen this approach in a while—both Wojo and Shaka were point guards and seem to prefer a point guard-centric offense.

Perhaps Shaka could create non–point guard sets when Nigel is off the floor. This would get more players involved, since the ball was in Nigel's hands too much last season out of necessity. This team has plenty of talent that needs to be utilized.

Not to be a jerk, but who runs motion anymore? I guess maybe some of the Spain action? Most teams are running set plays every time down.