RAFTERS

[ShockTalk]

What about Kelly Pete?

OK. You've mentioned this twice. Care to expand?

Pete is one of a number of top WSU basketball players. He is not a Warren Jabali.

[kcshocker11]

OK. You've mentioned this twice. Care to expand?

Pete is one of a number of top WSU basketball players. He is not a Warren Jabali.

Simply believe he deserves his number retired. He truely was one of the Shocker greats. He was the key piece in our first final 4 run

[Dan]

Takes a lot more than being a key piece to a final four run to get your number retired. Kelly Peete was a very good player, not retirement worthy.

[ShockTalk]

Simply believe he deserves his number retired. He truely was one of the Shocker greats. He was the key piece in our first final 4 run

I agree Peete being a Shocker great. But what separates him from others? Is being a part of a Final Four your criterion? What about Jamie Thompson? In his first year, I'm guessing he shouldered a good portion of the loss of Stallworth and Bowman. He had some big moments against #2 Michigan and #1 UCLA. That team only needed to win 2 games to get to the F4. What team had a harder route in the Dance? 64-65, 80-81, 12-13? Do we penalize other Shocker greats because they made no F4? Cheese, Perez, Sherrod, Miller, Tate, Moore, Van Eman? You brought his name up for singling out.

[Dan]

Nate Bowman, another good name. We've had a lot of good players through here, but you have to be all-american caliber to get your number retired, otherwise it's just a bunch of good players.

[ShockTalk]

Nate Bowman, another good name. We've had a lot of good players through here, but you have to be all-american caliber to get your number retired, otherwise it's just a bunch of good players.

I think that's the rub however. Some players get AA status because of the team they're on and some do not, even if they may be "greater" players. Some get AA status because of multiple publications and/or number of teams (1,2,3) selected at that particular time. The pool of AA worthy players in a particular year may be large or small. Having one's number hung in the rafters needs to be very, very exclusive. I just don't believe the criterion tells the complete story.

I'll say it again. A greater injustice has been done in our Hall of Fame.

[SubGod22]

I don't like the idea of making an exception to the rule. If you want to tweak the criteria for everyone, so be it. But the Hall of Fame is there for those who don't quite meet that.

@ShockTalk: is correct about the glaring hole in the HoF though.

[SHOXAAC]

I don't like the idea of making an exception to the rule. If you want to tweak the criteria for everyone, so be it. But the Hall of Fame is there for those who don't quite meet that.

@ShockTalk: is correct about the glaring hole in the HoF though.

If the rule is grossly outdated then it takes logic to re-educate the powers that be.

Don't victimize Warren for playing in a stagnant progressive era that had one AA group (AP). My guess is they had only first and maybe second team awards. Through the 70's and 80's the AA groups became plentiful. If Cliff, for example, would have played in Warren's era, would his number be in the rafters today based on the current criteria? Probably not. Dont penalize greatness because of outdated criteria.

[shock]

If the rule is grossly outdated then it takes logic to re-educate the powers that be.

Don't victimize Warren for playing in a stagnant progressive era that had one AA group (AP). My guess is they had only first and maybe second team awards. Through the 70's and 80's the AA groups became plentiful. If Cliff, for example, would have played in Warren's era, would his number be in the rafters today based on the current criteria? Probably not. Dont penalize greatness because of outdated criteria.

Warren set all those record in THREE years. Think of what he could have done in four

[ShockBand]

I think the requirements for consideration for a player should be either All-American status, and then something still very high, but just a shade below. Perhaps also you can be considered if you were named conference Player of the Year, maybe even making it a requirement that you have to POY twice or more. And I don't think ANY pro career items should be considered, this should be strictly on your performance as a Shocker.

[ShockTalk]

I think Ross McBurney should have his number in the rafters.

[Downtown Shocker Brown]

I think the requirements for consideration for a player should be either All-American status, and then something still very high, but just a shade below. Perhaps also you can be considered if you were named conference Player of the Year, maybe even making it a requirement that you have to POY twice or more. And I don't think ANY pro career items should be considered, this should be strictly on your performance as a Shocker.

I think a multiple time conference MVP should be there. I think the stats confirm it.

[wufan]

I think a multiple time conference MVP should be there. I think the stats confirm it.

The only MVC POY recipients we have had at WSU (award began in 68) according to wiki are Carr, X-Man (twice) and paul Miller.