The view from Terre Haute

[ShockRef]

In a word - embarrassing.
Even a decent HS team could have broken ISU's press. But this team has absolutely no heart. None. Zero. Zilch.
Winning is an acquired talent and this group doesn't have a clue. They have no concept of how to win.
I'll give MB his props, but he needed to lay an elbow straight to the chest of Henry Marshall. Marshall grabbed him on three occasions during press time and instead of laying him out, he just struggled to get free. If they aren't going to call the foul, take matters into your own hands.
JT Durley needs to go. He doesn't have a clue and shows absolutely no sign of ever 'getting it'.
Gal might have just earned himself a bus ticket out of town. His antics and Jr Hi decisions were atrocious. If (a big if) he is still around next year, he will be the third or fourth player off the pine.
Watching GM come out and do the radio show was painful. He was in sheer agony and I give him all the props in the world for coming out and honoring the commitment.
RC is a pleasure to watch. He busts his ass every time down the floor and other than the 'T' played a great game. He gives it everything he has and that's all you can ask.
Other than the Mike Cohen years, this was the first time I was embarrassed to support WSU. The choke job they pulled tonight was as low as any time I can remember. To hear the white trash ISU fans laughing at them as they ran off the floor was the ultimate kick to the teeth. None of them should ever allow themselves to forget tonight's game. 8)

[DUShock]

Thanks for some "eyes-on" perspective.

Go Shocks!!!!

[ISASO]

SR, let's not discuss players who won't return. It not "the right thing to do".

The spirit of college athletics mandates that you provide opporunities for young people to participate in athletics.

Why does winning and losing have to interfere with that?

These guys were brought here and understand that they will be given a free eductation for the full term of their eligibility in exchange for participating in a sport. Right?

You mean there are conditions to that arrangement? There seems to be some confusion. I'm not sure that putting conditions on a scholarship is the American way of doing things.

Maybe we need to be more concerned with loftier goals, like getting everyone equal playing time (the opportunity to participate) instead of being so caught up in this winning and losing thing.

[Shocka Lutha King]

Well if that is your attitude then let me play for them I could use a free education.

[pinstripers]

...........uh........I think that was sarcasim......

[shox7]

Ref, Do you have any idea why AE played so few minutes in the 2nd half. On TV it looked like he was pretty solid in the first half. Against the press he would seem to be a much better option than RC or JTD. I couldn't agree more about Gal.

[ShockRef]

Well if that is your attitude then let me play for them I could use a free education.

Can you make a free throw? Can you pass the ball against the press? If so, you could be the next the next walk on, (at least). 8)

[ShockRef]

Ref, Do you have any idea why AE played so few minutes in the 2nd half. On TV it looked like he was pretty solid in the first half. Against the press he would seem to be a much better option than RC or JTD. I couldn't agree more about Gal.

I was wondering the same thing until I saw his eyes when did go in. He was scared to death and immediately went to the wrong spot during the offensive set. The funny thing was in first half, the only reason he was open to make his first shot was due to running into WP and both ISU defenders got confused and doubled WP. However, I will give him credit for putting forth the effort. 8)

[1972Shocker]

SR, let's not discuss players who won't return. It not "the right thing to do".

The spirit of college athletics mandates that you provide opporunities for young people to participate in athletics.

Why does winning and losing have to interfere with that?

These guys were brought here and understand that they will be given a free eductation for the full term of their eligibility in exchange for participating in a sport. Right?

You mean there are conditions to that arrangement? There seems to be some confusion. I'm not sure that putting conditions on a scholarship is the American way of doing things.

Maybe we need to be more concerned with loftier goals, like getting everyone equal playing time (the opportunity to participate) instead of being so caught up in this winning and losing thing.

I don't believe anyone on this board has come close to making the above argument (although I could have missed that). The only discussion I have seen is whether the culling should occur early in a players career and whether or not a 3-year player (i.e. Wendell Preadom) deserves special consideration when it comes to culling. My position is, if you are going to cull do it early in a players career, after the second year at the latest.

WSU, in fact, has done quite a bit of culling in recent years. When you are not recruiting McDonald's AA this is going to be a fact of life.

I don't think there is much doubt that 1-3 of this year's scholarship players will not return next year.

Leading candidates would be Graham Hatch, Gal Mekel and JT Durley.

If HCGM really did yell to Matt not to pass the ball to Gal at the end of last night's game is a pretty big slam. Hard to believe Gal will want to come back.

JT is the biggest question mark of those three. Depends on whether HCGM thinks he will ever get it. I think JT has actually regressed in recent games.

Wendell Preadom could also decide to move on, although I doubt he will be pushed out this late in his career (at least I don't think he should be pushed out at this stage in his career). But anything is possible.

And, of course, all of the above depend on what recruits we are able to attract.

Question: During Turgeon's tenure I remember some kind of annual new scholarship limits. Have those limitations been removed and replaced with the progress toward graduation rules?

[ShockRef]

SR, let's not discuss players who won't return. It not "the right thing to do".

The spirit of college athletics mandates that you provide opporunities for young people to participate in athletics.

Why does winning and losing have to interfere with that?

These guys were brought here and understand that they will be given a free eductation for the full term of their eligibility in exchange for participating in a sport. Right?

You mean there are conditions to that arrangement? There seems to be some confusion. I'm not sure that putting conditions on a scholarship is the American way of doing things.

Maybe we need to be more concerned with loftier goals, like getting everyone equal playing time (the opportunity to participate) instead of being so caught up in this winning and losing thing.

I don't believe anyone on this board has come close to making the above argument (although I could have missed that). The only discussion I have seen is whether the culling should occur early in a players career and whether or not a 3-year player (i.e. Wendell Preadom) deserves special consideration when it comes to culling. My position is, if you are going to cull do it early in a players career, after the second year at the latest.

WSU, in fact, has done quite a bit of culling in recent years. When you are not recruiting McDonald's AA this is going to be a fact of life.

I don't think there is much doubt that 1-3 of this year's scholarship players will not return next year.

Leading candidates would be Graham Hatch, Gal Mekel and JT Durley.

If HCGM really did yell to Matt not to pass the ball to Gal at the end of last night's game is a pretty big slam. Hard to believe Gal will want to come back.

JT is the biggest question mark of those three. Depends on whether HCGM thinks he will ever get it. I think JT has actually regressed in recent games.

Wendell Preadom could also decide to move on, although I doubt he will be pushed out this late in his career (at least I don't think he should be pushed out at this stage in his career). But anything is possible.

And, of course, all of the above depend on what recruits we are able to attract.

Question: During Turgeon's tenure I remember some kind of annual new scholarship limits. Have those limitations been removed and replaced with the progress toward graduation rules?

Unless there is an agreement of sorts during the off-season, WP needs to start looking for more suitable environment. It's not exactly any secret that GM has zero confidence in him. If GM thought he had any ability to help break a press, he would have seen the floor last night. There wasn't the slightest hint of putting him in during the fateful 21 point run. Not even the tiniest of chances.
The message has been sent and there is no chance it hasn't been received. 8)

[RoyalShock]

I don't believe anyone on this board has come close to making the above argument (although I could have missed that). The only discussion I have seen is whether the culling should occur early in a players career and whether or not a 3-year player (i.e. Wendell Preadom) deserves special consideration when it comes to culling. My position is, if you are going to cull do it early in a players career, after the second year at the latest.

WSU, in fact, has done quite a bit of culling in recent years. When you are not recruiting McDonald's AA this is going to be a fact of life.

I don't think there is much doubt that 1-3 of this year's scholarship players will not return next year.

Leading candidates would be Graham Hatch, Gal Mekel and JT Durley.

If HCGM really did yell to Matt not to pass the ball to Gal at the end of last night's game is a pretty big slam. Hard to believe Gal will want to come back.

JT is the biggest question mark of those three. Depends on whether HCGM thinks he will ever get it. I think JT has actually regressed in recent games.

Wendell Preadom could also decide to move on, although I doubt he will be pushed out this late in his career (at least I don't think he should be pushed out at this stage in his career). But anything is possible.

And, of course, all of the above depend on what recruits we are able to attract.

Question: During Turgeon's tenure I remember some kind of annual new scholarship limits. Have those limitations been removed and replaced with the progress toward graduation rules?

I agree with your initial paragraph. Through his sarcasm ISASO it trying to take the extreme position in an attempt to discredit the opposing viewpoint. Obviously, he has a "win at all costs" attitude. Some of don't but since it's not his viewpoint, we're the extreme ones.

As for the scholarship limits, the 5/8 rule was dropped a few years ago.

[1972Shocker]

At this point we are locked into a Thursday play-in game in the MVC Tournament.

As painful as it maybe, and it really can not get anymore painful than it was last night, I would like to see HCGM up the minutes of the players he anticipates will return next year and use the rest of the regular season as a teaching tool. At this point it doesn't really matter whether we lose by 15 or in overtime does it.

[Zardoz]

SR, let's not discuss players who won't return. It not "the right thing to do".

The spirit of college athletics mandates that you provide opporunities for young people to participate in athletics.

Why does winning and losing have to interfere with that?

These guys were brought here and understand that they will be given a free eductation for the full term of their eligibility in exchange for participating in a sport. Right?

You mean there are conditions to that arrangement? There seems to be some confusion. I'm not sure that putting conditions on a scholarship is the American way of doing things.

Maybe we need to be more concerned with loftier goals, like getting everyone equal playing time (the opportunity to participate) instead of being so caught up in this winning and losing thing.

I don't believe anyone on this board has come close to making the above argument (although I could have missed that). The only discussion I have seen is whether the culling should occur early in a players career and whether or not a 3-year player (i.e. Wendell Preadom) deserves special consideration when it comes to culling. My position is, if you are going to cull do it early in a players career, after the second year at the latest.

WSU, in fact, has done quite a bit of culling in recent years. When you are not recruiting McDonald's AA this is going to be a fact of life.

I don't think there is much doubt that 1-3 of this year's scholarship players will not return next year.

Leading candidates would be Graham Hatch, Gal Mekel and JT Durley.

If HCGM really did yell to Matt not to pass the ball to Gal at the end of last night's game is a pretty big slam. Hard to believe Gal will want to come back.

JT is the biggest question mark of those three. Depends on whether HCGM thinks he will ever get it. I think JT has actually regressed in recent games.

Wendell Preadom could also decide to move on, although I doubt he will be pushed out this late in his career (at least I don't think he should be pushed out at this stage in his career). But anything is possible.

And, of course, all of the above depend on what recruits we are able to attract.

Question: During Turgeon's tenure I remember some kind of annual new scholarship limits. Have those limitations been removed and replaced with the progress toward graduation rules?

According to the paper Marshall didn't yell, he screamed for Matt not to pass the ball to Mekel. I don't know if he comes back next year because he believes he is a point gaurd and Marshall is the second coach at WSU to tell him that he isn't.

I think you were referring to the 5-8 rule that no longer exists. It limited schools to 5 scholarships in one year and 8 in two years.

[shox7]

Ref, What happened for RC to get a T? On TV I never heard an explaination. Was a "magic word" uttered?

[ShockRef]

Ref, What happened for RC to get a T? On TV I never heard an explaination. Was a "magic word" uttered?

I do not know what RC said, but I do know Sanzere told GM him that he warned RC 3 times to stop talking. I'm sure it was some sort of taunting and there is zero tolerance with the emphasis on sportsmanship. 8)