Marvin Clark
- Thread starter cloneraslin
- Start date
I have no problem with handlers in this type of situation. Kids in those environments aren't equipped to know how to make the best decision for themselves. Most of us had parents to guide us in our youth, Clark didn't for the most. The one time his mother seems to have stepped up and provided some guidance proved to be the crucial voice in where he chose to go to school. Hats off to the young man, sounds like a good kid with his priorities straight despite the struggles he faced. It's no minor accomplishment to even survive that type of upbringing let alone survive as a good person with a selfless mentality.
Agree. I hate to think what communication, attention, strokes, etc. that coaches have to go through to keep players thinking they're important enough. I admit all along, I thought we 'wanted' Clark, and kept asking fellow fans what they thought had happened. Nobody seemed to know, which is the way it should be , I guess. When the quote was made in that article that we wanted assurance or game film, was that such a bad thing to ask for? Was it before or after Vaughn basically left us surprised? Obviously, it's in the past, and time to move on, but something broke down in a small stretch of time. But... if he really truly wanted to be a Clone, would he have reacted so abruptly to an involved suitor asking for game film? How do we know for sure?..... is it possible that we wanted his commitment on his visit, especially since it was the 2nd one, and since he couldn't pull the trigger then, we also became cautious of his intentions?
P.S. Just so you know, I'm not criticizing the kid. He's been through alot and I think he'll be good. Nor critical of our staff. Just reaffirms to me how nuts recruiting must be. Curious as to why Indiana was the handler's choice later on?
Last edited:
Seems like it could be as simple as this:
“It’s funny because I know fans ridicule our high school approach but where we are at right now as a program is, they better be really good to come in here and impact us right away because we can get a transfer that will. At the end of the day, we are looking for guys that are high level, that are skilled and can come in and contribute.†Matt A.
Clark may end up being a solid player, but I like the transfers we signed.
“It’s funny because I know fans ridicule our high school approach but where we are at right now as a program is, they better be really good to come in here and impact us right away because we can get a transfer that will. At the end of the day, we are looking for guys that are high level, that are skilled and can come in and contribute.†Matt A.
Clark may end up being a solid player, but I like the transfers we signed.
Exactly what I thought of. We don't need to be developing those type of players who will also want PT. We can get immediate impact transfers, or regular ones and develop them while they sit out, not getting disgruntled about not getting PT.
I think the most under rated aspect of Hoiberg's strategy is how effective it is to keep 2 or 3 scholarships locked up with transfers so the other 10 are more or less happy with their minutes/opportunities. Normally those players in the last spots are either projects or disgruntled if they have talent. Hoiberg found a way to get the best of both worlds with none of the downsides.
I get the transfer thing. Or the probability that when we needed assurance, Clark was turned off. But why is it that I think this guy is going to be very good, a 'steal' for MSU, and when I see him hit the court, I'll be shaking my head? Oh well, can't get 'em all.
Scanning back through, I'm not sure Vaughn had to do anything with it but it's tough to tell. It'd be nice to get the staff's opinion on the situation. Vaughn committed on 2/11 and it appears as though we're still (or atleast our posters) are still thinking we're after Clark, Custer even tweeted at clark after that, as well our fans were tweeting back and it looks like our visit was just before that so we were interested prior to Vaughn committing. Tough to say but I still will hold me ground on the fact that I don't think the Staff "missed" Clark based on his performance this past year.
Believe what you want, but I'll hold my ground as well. We would have had Clark if not for Vaughn situation. Bottom line, the poster above is probably right. At this point we shouldn't care and move on.
Obviously a few people as they brought it up in the other thread. If you don't care, don't reply.
Little surprised he is transferring Valentine, Forbes, and Costello graduating and Davis possibly going pro. They do have Bridges coming in though so understandable.
I think he would be a solid get.
I think he would be a solid get.
I'd love to pick up Clark but I think this staff's priority is getting a guy to help out next year. Would be great to be able to address that need AND pick up Clark.