Just wondering

[DaytonBBall]

Seems kind of slow here, so i was just wondering about a couple things.
So I was reading the roster and it seems the walk-ons have been thinned out. Only Dan Fox and Luke Hendrick are left. I was kind of surprised Peter Zestermann is no longer on the roster at least he would have been a big body for practice, you know.
Anyways, do you think the walk-ons will have any type of impact and if so, who?
Does anyone know if we have any preferred walk-ons that will be late additions to the roster?

[UDF4N4LIF3]

Seems kind of slow here, so i was just wondering about a couple things.
So I was reading the roster and it seems the walk-ons have been thinned out. Only Dan Fox and Luke Hendrick are left. I was kind of surprised Peter Zestermann is no longer on the roster at least he would have been a big body for practice, you know.
Anyways, do you think the walk-ons will have any type of impact and if so, who?
Does anyone know if we have any preferred walk-ons that will be late additions to the roster?

I don't think either of them will be able to make a impact sitten the bench the whole year. The only time they will see time is if we are up by 30 or down by 30 ( In the last 50 seconds)

[rollo]

What's with the obsession with walk-ons? Every season we have people clammoring about this stud from St. Louis who's going to 'walk-on' and that stud from Indy who's going to 'walk-on' and lead this team to the NCAA's. OY!!!

Walk-ons are practice players. Nothing else.

Preferred walk-ons don't have to tryout with the other 20 wanna-be's for the 1 or 2 spots reserved for them.

Don't get me wrong as I love the walk-ons. Very few people are willing to put in that kind of time and commitment for little or no benefit. God bless all walk-ons, because we need them.

And before you tatoo me about Keith Waleskowski, he was never a walk-on as the intent from day 1 was to give him a scholarship....his 1/2 year off was more like a 'grey-shirt'.

[Atlantic 10]

Seems kind of slow here, so i was just wondering about a couple things.
So I was reading the roster and it seems the walk-ons have been thinned out. Only Dan Fox and Luke Hendrick are left. I was kind of surprised Peter Zestermann is no longer on the roster at least he would have been a big body for practice, you know.
Anyways, do you think the walk-ons will have any type of impact and if so, who?
Does anyone know if we have any preferred walk-ons that will be late additions to the roster?
We have 13 kids on ships this year,plus the 2 walkons gives us 15. Thats what we have carried as a team, the past few years we had only 11 players on ships due to not filling the ships, thats why 4 walkons at that time

[udstevied_D87]

What's with the obsession with walk-ons? Every season we have people clammoring about this stud from St. Louis who's going to 'walk-on' and that stud from Indy who's going to 'walk-on' and lead this team to the NCAA's. OY!!!

Walk-ons are practice players. Nothing else.


Dan fox was the only person getting in peoples faces about playing like crap towards the end of the year. when no1 else was a vocal leader he said something...he called out b-rob. true they are practice players, but they have a little more value than that

[San Diego Flyer]

If walk-ons make a direct statistical contribution, some scholarship player(s) has very likely gotten hurt or are not contributing for various reasons.

On the other hand, if they have leadership qualities as individuals, but simply aren't physically gifted enough to earn minutes on the floor, walk-ons can really help in team chemistry and other indirect areas just by being smart and supportive of their teammates.

They don't have to score points to make a noticeable contribution.

[DaytonBBall]

What's with the obsession with walk-ons? Every season we have people clammoring about this stud from St. Louis who's going to 'walk-on' and that stud from Indy who's going to 'walk-on' and lead this team to the NCAA's. OY!!!

Walk-ons are practice players. Nothing else.

Preferred walk-ons don't have to tryout with the other 20 wanna-be's for the 1 or 2 spots reserved for them.

Don't get me wrong as I love the walk-ons. Very few people are willing to put in that kind of time and commitment for little or no benefit. God bless all walk-ons, because we need them.

And before you tatoo me about Keith Waleskowski, he was never a walk-on as the intent from day 1 was to give him a scholarship....his 1/2 year off was more like a 'grey-shirt'.

Sorry for asking rollo i'll try to keep the "clamor about the obsession" to a minimum

[Binnie Bombs 33]

Walk-ons are a huge part of the team ... even if they never play in the game ... if they did not sacrifice their bodies for the better of the team in practice our team would be worse. Not to mention many walk-ons have great relationships with the players off the court.

Also as a former manager ... the managers roll is soooo important not to mention they work 65-70 hours a week for the team. The players on the court obviously, but so much work off the court is underlooked.


Managers and Walk-ons make the team chemistry what it is.

[daytonflyers]

dude there is no way you worked 65-70 hours a week for the basketball team as a manager

[ChicagoFlyer]

im with you daytonflyers, not a chance 65-70 hours

[moville]

I'm trying to remember any walk-ons from my era that made a difference . . .

Swamp might remember . . . was Steve Turnwald ('70) a walk-on? He may have earned a scholarship, but it seems to me he was in the walk-on category.

[ud69]

Turnwald had a schollie

[steve]

dude there is no way you worked 65-70 hours a week for the basketball team as a manager

Maybe he's talking total time that the washers and dryers are running as well.....

[The Gem]

Didn't Andy Metzler start off as a walk on?

[Gazoo]

Some of those teams were so bad we would have lost to SEVERAL DIII teams on our home floor.

[The Gem]

Actually I seem to remember we did lose to D2 teams at home in those days. I always liked Metzler though. He wasn't the most talented guy we ever had, but he always played hard and was a pretty good three point shooter.

[Glen Clark]

Actually I seem to remember we did lose to D2 teams at home in those days. I always liked Metzler though. He wasn't the most talented guy we ever had, but he always played hard and was a pretty good three point shooter.

And could mix it up off the court as well . . . :o