collapse

* Stud of Colorado Game

Tyler Kolek

21 points, 5 rebounds,
11 assists, 1 steal,
40 minutes

2023-24 Season SoG Tally
Kolek11
Ighodaro6
Jones, K.6
Mitchell2
Jones, S.1
Joplin1

'22-23
'21-22 * '20-21 * '19-20
'18-19 * '17-18 * '16-17
'15-16 * '14-15 * '13-14
'12-13 * '11-12 * '10-11

* Big East Standings

* Recent Posts

2024 Coaching Carousel by the eagle
[Today at 06:05:16 PM]


2024 Transfer Portal by Scoop Snoop
[Today at 05:36:13 PM]


2024 NCAA Tournament Thread by Frenns Liquor Depot
[Today at 04:57:21 PM]


Sweet 16 presser by MuMark
[Today at 04:40:13 PM]


Dallas bars tonite by BrewCity83
[Today at 04:40:04 PM]


Where is Marquette? by Dr. Blackheart
[Today at 04:38:52 PM]


10 years after “Done Deal” … It’s Happening! by The Sultan of Semantics
[Today at 03:24:51 PM]

Please Register - It's FREE!

The absolute only thing required for this FREE registration is a valid e-mail address.  We keep all your information confidential and will NEVER give or sell it to anyone else.
Login to get rid of this box (and ads) , or register NOW!

* Next up: NC State

Marquette
81
Marquette vs

NC State

Date/Time: Mar 29, 2024, 6:09 pm
TV: CBS
Schedule for 2023-24
Colorado
77

Poll

Are JUCO recruits acceptable to you, provided they are good players, represent the school well, and graduate

Acceptable
Unacceptable

Author Topic: Jucos  (Read 21912 times)

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Jucos
« Reply #50 on: October 29, 2014, 11:00:39 PM »
Sorry, but you are categorically wrong on this in so many ways.  A transfer has to sit, a JUCO does not.  A transfer has qualified at a four year institution, many JUCOs have not.  A transfer has a greater likelihood of graduating based on the data than a JUCO because of credits actually counting, this impacts our APR rates which can hamper us if we don't maintain a certain level.

Robert Jackson, was a transfer.  Even if he was a JUCO, taking one here and there is not an issue.  Not sure how many times I have to say it.  The issue becomes when your 40% of your roster is turning over in two years (yes, some JUCOs play 3), then you have more pressure on your recruiting cycles, more pressure on graduation rates.  These are just some of the reasons why schools don't do it.

The NCAA considers an eligible JUCO as a "transfer", just as they do a non-graduate transfer. The difference is a JUCO doesn't have to sit out a year. In this thread, you said JUCOs are acceptable if the academics are fine....but you have a problem with four years vs. two for the stability of the program.  

Thus, you are against taking more than one "transfer" due to continuity if I get that right since academics is no longer the issue...so at that point a JUCO or an four year transfer creates unbalance in your mind (which you state numerous times in this thread).

So is your argument that you are fine with transfers from traditional four year programs but not more than one transfer from a JUCO?  That position seems untenable. So what is it?
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 11:06:03 PM by Dr. Blackheart »

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Jucos
« Reply #51 on: October 29, 2014, 11:01:47 PM »
Excuse me?  

That is your quote from page 1.  Do you post so much you forget what you said?   ;)
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 11:03:51 PM by Dr. Blackheart »

Warrior Code

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 988
  • Undefeated since 1960
Re: Jucos
« Reply #52 on: October 29, 2014, 11:24:12 PM »
A juco is no different in my mind than any other transfer. They have to meet all the applicable standards. Once they are a part of the MU family I don't question how they got here.

This is my view as well. Anyone can become a great representative of our beloved institution of higher learning, no matter where they started. Hell, some of my fellow Scoopers may even get there some day.
Signature:
Signatures are displayed at the bottom of each post or personal message. BBCode and smileys may be used in your signature.

BCHoopster

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 3173
Re: Jucos
« Reply #53 on: October 30, 2014, 08:37:29 AM »
Let me rephrase the poll.

  Are JUCO's more likely to impair the MU basketball brand than "traditional" high school graduates who have been offered scholarships ?    

Jerome Whitehead, Lloyd Walton and Bob Lackey, Juco's

River rat

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
Re: Jucos
« Reply #54 on: October 30, 2014, 08:45:41 AM »
Well there you have it chicos, over 98% of respondents have no problem with JUCOs.  In fact, despite your insistance on some arbitrary 40% number, as you must hedge every statement, very few if anyone agreed with it.  Repondents pointed out that transfer rates were very high in hs recruits and relatively low for jucos, meaning the 2-3 years they spend on campus may be far longer than a hs player.  And there was no guarantee hs kids would represent the school any better or worse.  
You insist that the best programs dont recruit jucos, when in fact they do.  Figures lie and liars figure, any rational person knows that while hundreds, actually upwards of a thousand D1 capable hs seniors qualify a very small percentage do not. That small percentage if they go to juco will continue to represent a small part of the population.  Your moronic arguement flies in the face of the fact that an overwhelming amount of kids qualify!! That answers your repeated dumb questionwhy dont the top schools have more of them.  Can u follow that?   Some "elitist" schools even follow the ignorant and discrimintory notion that all jucos are bad and wont recruit them, luckily i believe that ignorance is minimal.
Additionally, some elite programs such as Als teams and your own bob knights teams relied heavily on them.  Both were willing to recruit them more if there were more capable players playing juco, not because of " your numerous illustration" of why they are bad, but because the pool was so small.
Teams come together over a summer and thru the year.  Your stance that players gel better being 3-4 years players is ignorant hogwash dreamt up in a cubicle from a person suffering from logorrhea.  Rob Jackson and MU really suffered from him being on campus one year and he really never fit in?, Cubicle hogwash.  Same can be said of Rodney Hood last year at Duke , or Dean Garrett or keith smart at Iu.  How could smart hit that shot he had only been on campus 7 months!!??
As many posters have stated I hope MU continues its open door policy towards jucos and does not succumb to discriminitory and ignorant whims of those in ivory towers.  MU should strive to have the best players on the floor and like AL and B Knight i would be fine with them being jucos
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 08:48:44 AM by River rat »

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Jucos
« Reply #55 on: October 30, 2014, 10:47:07 AM »
People here seem to be getting really hot and bothered over jucos. I have heard some things thrown out their like "discrimination," "arrogance," and "ignorance." Marquette has set up a basic policy with all of their prospective students: They must be of strong character, be in a position to graduate, and must be able to be successful at Marquette. This applies to all students, not just basketball players. If a junior college basketball player matches the three criteria, they will be welcomed with open arms. I agree with Texas Western that once they join the Marquette family, I don't care how they got there. But if they don't match the above criteria, I don't think we should be recruiting them. Everyone gets to draw their own line, but I want to avoid the "win at all costs" model that you see at places like UNC, Kentucky, Memphis, and Baylor. Fortunately, we are a far cry from those programs (though we have had our bad moments). I applaud the administration for walking the fine line between having an elite program and an ethical one.
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


River rat

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
Re: Jucos
« Reply #56 on: October 30, 2014, 12:12:38 PM »
People here seem to be getting really hot and bothered over jucos. I have heard some things thrown out their like "discrimination," "arrogance," and "ignorance." Marquette has set up a basic policy with all of their prospective students: They must be of strong character, be in a position to graduate, and must be able to be successful at Marquette. This applies to all students, not just basketball players. If a junior college basketball player matches the three criteria, they will be welcomed with open arms. I agree with Texas Western that once they join the Marquette family, I don't care how they got there. But if they don't match the above criteria, I don't think we should be recruiting them. Everyone gets to draw their own line, but I want to avoid the "win at all costs" model that you see at places like UNC, Kentucky, Memphis, and Baylor. Fortunately, we are a far cry from those programs (though we have had our bad moments). I applaud the administration for walking the fine line between having an elite program and an ethical one.

I have no issue with this but please understand this argument u are making has been the situation with one player, one.   Additionally, chicos 40% pulled from his ass number is as arbitrary as it is dumb, not to mention is arrogant and discriminitory at its finest.  I guarantee if the 12 best players al or bob knight could find were jucos and they met the obvious qualifications they would have no issue.  Like him or not buzzs a new house every year is spot on. And in todays day and age 2-3 years at a school is relatively long juco or hs.  
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:18:58 PM by River rat »

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Jucos
« Reply #57 on: October 30, 2014, 12:31:39 PM »
I have no issue with this but please understand this argument u are making has been the situation with one player, one.   Additionally, chicos 40% pulled from his ass number is as arbitrary as it is dumb, not to mention is arrogant and discriminitory at its finest.  I guarantee if the 12 best players al or bob knight were jucos and they met the obvious qualifications they would have no issue.  Like him or not buzzs a new house every year is spot on. And in todays day znd age 2-3 years at a school is relatively ling juco or hs. 

One thing I will note.  To be fair, in the 2010-2011 season, we did have 5 JUCOs on the roster.  5/13 is 38%, so Chico's isnt completely off here, though that is the year we had the most.

But also to that point, the JUCOs on that team were:
Jimmy Butler
Joe Fulce
DJO
Jae Crowder
Dwight Buycks

Does anybody wish we didn't have any of those players on our team?

The Lens

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 4916
Re: Jucos
« Reply #58 on: October 30, 2014, 12:37:19 PM »
I have a problem with Jucos...last year we didn't have enough.
The Teal Train has left the station and Lens is day drinking in the bar car.    ---- Dr. Blackheart

History is so valuable if you have the humility to learn from it.    ---- Shaka Smart

TAMU, Knower of Ball

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22058
  • Meat Eater certified
Re: Jucos
« Reply #59 on: October 30, 2014, 12:37:35 PM »
I have no issue with this but please understand this argument u are making has been the situation with one player, one.   Additionally, chicos 40% pulled from his ass number is as arbitrary as it is dumb, not to mention is arrogant and discriminitory at its finest.  I guarantee if the 12 best players al or bob knight were jucos and they met the obvious qualifications they would have no issue.  Like him or not buzzs a new house every year is spot on. And in todays day znd age 2-3 years at a school is relatively ling juco or hs. 

I'm not commenting on Chico's 40% rule. I don't know where he got it and don't think its correct.

I don't know how to respond to the rest of your statement because it isn't written in coherent sentences.
TAMU

I do know, Newsie is right on you knowing ball.


River rat

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
Re: Jucos
« Reply #60 on: October 30, 2014, 01:21:33 PM »
One thing I will note.  To be fair, in the 2010-2011 season, we did have 5 JUCOs on the roster.  5/13 is 38%, so Chico's isnt completely off here, though that is the year we had the most.

But also to that point, the JUCOs on that team were:
Jimmy Butler
Joe Fulce
DJO
Jae Crowder
Dwight Buycks

Does anybody wish we didn't have any of those players on our team?

.

chicos stated 40% because you wouldnt want anymore than that becuase of the inherent problems they bring that have been illustrated again and again.  
umm wow.  I will say it again if the best 12 players bob knight or al could find happened to be jucos they would have no problem with that being their team.  but genius does
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 01:23:30 PM by River rat »

TheBurrEffect

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Jucos
« Reply #61 on: October 30, 2014, 01:34:45 PM »
Sorry, but you are categorically wrong on this in so many ways.  A transfer has to sit, a JUCO does not.  A transfer has qualified at a four year institution, many JUCOs have not.  A transfer has a greater likelihood of graduating based on the data than a JUCO because of credits actually counting, this impacts our APR rates which can hamper us if we don't maintain a certain level.

Robert Jackson, was a transfer.  Even if he was a JUCO, taking one here and there is not an issue.  Not sure how many times I have to say it.  The issue becomes when your 40% of your roster is turning over in two years (yes, some JUCOs play 3), then you have more pressure on your recruiting cycles, more pressure on graduation rates.  These are just some of the reasons why schools don't do it.

Why are we arguing about ARP. It's become apparent under Buzz that we can have JUCO's and can have a good ARP. Uwm, uconn etc couldn't handle that with 4 year students. This ARP talk is a bunch of BS to be honest, high school and college are radically different atmospheres one can succeed in one and bomb in the other. So stick to basketball, not grades. It's a non issue (+ it will probably be eradicated in a few years)

Lennys Tap

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 12220
Re: Jucos
« Reply #62 on: October 30, 2014, 02:47:30 PM »
Tom Crean had 16 jucos or transfers on his last 6 Marquette rosters, 10 on his final 3.

Buzz Williams had 17 jucos or transfers on his 6 Marquette rosters, 5 on his final 3. He was forced to go heavy in years 2 and 3 (10 of his 17 total) because the cupboard was bare.

Crean had one who was really good (Robert Jackson)
Buzz had a bunch who were really good (DJO, JFB, Buycks, Crowder, Lockett)

The folks who have their nose out of joint over this are going after the wrong guy.

River rat

  • Team Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 416
Re: Jucos
« Reply #63 on: October 30, 2014, 02:53:15 PM »
please remember a certain posters mantra:

If crean did it = good
if buzz did it = bad

TheBurrEffect

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Jucos
« Reply #64 on: October 30, 2014, 02:58:10 PM »
One thing I will note.  To be fair, in the 2010-2011 season, we did have 5 JUCOs on the roster.  5/13 is 38%, so Chico's isnt completely off here, though that is the year we had the most.

But also to that point, the JUCOs on that team were:
Jimmy Butler
Joe Fulce
DJO
Jae Crowder
Dwight Buycks

Does anybody wish we didn't have any of those players on our team?

Dwight Buycks not playing the Louisville game he lost us would have been nice =)

WarriorInNYC

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 618
Re: Jucos
« Reply #65 on: October 30, 2014, 03:12:34 PM »
Dwight Buycks not playing the Louisville game he lost us would have been nice =)

Haha, that is true.  I can't remember being so upset about the result of a game.  That was a tough one to handle.

TheBurrEffect

  • Starter
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
Re: Jucos
« Reply #66 on: October 30, 2014, 03:25:10 PM »
Haha, that is true.  I can't remember being so upset about the result of a game.  That was a tough one to handle.

WHY DID HE SHOOT A LAYUP!?!?!?!?!?!?!?


Also I was way more angry at the Maui vs Butler. They outplayed Butler so hard, only to have a few lucky bounces and heave ruin it.

NCMUFan

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 2522
Re: Jucos
« Reply #67 on: October 30, 2014, 05:11:35 PM »
I think it's up to the individuals wishing to succeed at Marquette.  Maybe one should compare careers of HS players to JUCOs that came to Marquette to settle this question.  Maybe the results would show the JUCOs are more motivated students and athletes. DJO, Crowder, JFB, Buycks, Sam Worthen, LLoyd Walton represented Marquette well regardless of their origination.

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Jucos
« Reply #68 on: October 30, 2014, 07:34:40 PM »
The NCAA considers an eligible JUCO as a "transfer", just as they do a non-graduate transfer. The difference is a JUCO doesn't have to sit out a year. In this thread, you said JUCOs are acceptable if the academics are fine....but you have a problem with four years vs. two for the stability of the program.  

Thus, you are against taking more than one "transfer" due to continuity if I get that right since academics is no longer the issue...so at that point a JUCO or an four year transfer creates unbalance in your mind (which you state numerous times in this thread).

So is your argument that you are fine with transfers from traditional four year programs but not more than one transfer from a JUCO?  That position seems untenable. So what is it?

I already explained it and the key is the graduation rate  We get APR credits for kids graduating.  A kid transferring into MU from a 4 year institution, statistically speaking, is more likely to graduate than a JUCO.  Even a JUCO in good standing academically.  The reason is that generally (note, I'm saying generally) JUCO students are taking credits that often do not transfer to Marquette.  That is a problem on the back end for the APR.  It's a risk management equation.

If the kids you are taking in on the transfer side are more likely to graduate than the JUCOs you take in, I'll take the transfers.  First, the transfer qualified day one to a 4 year institution and the JUCO may have.  Can JUCOs redeem themselves, get it together, apply themselves, etc...absolutely.  Do they deserve a chance like anyone else...sure.  Can JUCO kids excel more than non JUCO kids?  Of course.  Is it fine to take JUCO kids on the roster?  Of course, just not in large quantities because the risks are there and you leave yourself in a potential bind if they don't graduate and impact your APR scores.  You're playing a statistical game of probabilities.

The last four APR reports, we have declined slightly in each one.  Nothing tragic, but it would be nice to be going the other way.  We were at 980 in 2010 season, we are now in the 950's.  You need to average 930 over two years or 900 over four years, so we're still ok.
« Last Edit: October 30, 2014, 07:43:37 PM by ChicosBailBonds »

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Jucos
« Reply #69 on: October 30, 2014, 07:38:43 PM »
I'm not commenting on Chico's 40% rule. I don't know where he got it and don't think its correct.

I don't know how to respond to the rest of your statement because it isn't written in coherent sentences.

My 40% came from 5 players on the squad that were JUCOs, which was 38.5%.  My apologies....hardly out of ass as RR would claim.  I didn't count prep schools, one of which was on some folks diploma mills list. 

Yes, most of his stuff is incoherent. 

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Jucos
« Reply #70 on: October 30, 2014, 07:39:51 PM »
Tom Crean had 16 jucos or transfers on his last 6 Marquette rosters, 10 on his final 3.

Buzz Williams had 17 jucos or transfers on his 6 Marquette rosters, 5 on his final 3. He was forced to go heavy in years 2 and 3 (10 of his 17 total) because the cupboard was bare.

Crean had one who was really good (Robert Jackson)
Buzz had a bunch who were really good (DJO, JFB, Buycks, Crowder, Lockett)

The folks who have their nose out of joint over this are going after the wrong guy.

Why are you combining JUCOs and transfers?  Not the same, you're just trying to make an argument that isn't there. 

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Jucos
« Reply #71 on: October 30, 2014, 07:42:32 PM »
Why are we arguing about ARP. It's become apparent under Buzz that we can have JUCO's and can have a good ARP. Uwm, uconn etc couldn't handle that with 4 year students. This ARP talk is a bunch of BS to be honest, high school and college are radically different atmospheres one can succeed in one and bomb in the other. So stick to basketball, not grades. It's a non issue (+ it will probably be eradicated in a few years)

Our APR was 980 4 years ago, it is now in the 950's.  The APR isn't going away.   You can call it BS all you want, but UCONN and UWM sat home for that BS.  You need to average a 930 over two years to avoid being punished.  Do I think we are in danger?  No.  Would I like to see the numbers go the other way?  Yes. 

ChicosBailBonds

  • Registered User
  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 22695
  • #AllInnocentLivesMatter
    • Cracked Sidewalks
Re: Jucos
« Reply #72 on: October 30, 2014, 07:52:10 PM »
Well there you have it chicos, over 98% of respondents have no problem with JUCOs.  In fact, despite your insistance on some arbitrary 40% number, as you must hedge every statement, very few if anyone agreed with it.  Repondents pointed out that transfer rates were very high in hs recruits and relatively low for jucos, meaning the 2-3 years they spend on campus may be far longer than a hs player.  And there was no guarantee hs kids would represent the school any better or worse.  
You insist that the best programs dont recruit jucos, when in fact they do.  Figures lie and liars figure, any rational person knows that while hundreds, actually upwards of a thousand D1 capable hs seniors qualify a very small percentage do not. That small percentage if they go to juco will continue to represent a small part of the population.  Your moronic arguement flies in the face of the fact that an overwhelming amount of kids qualify!! That answers your repeated dumb questionwhy dont the top schools have more of them.  Can u follow that?   Some "elitist" schools even follow the ignorant and discrimintory notion that all jucos are bad and wont recruit them, luckily i believe that ignorance is minimal.
Additionally, some elite programs such as Als teams and your own bob knights teams relied heavily on them.  Both were willing to recruit them more if there were more capable players playing juco, not because of " your numerous illustration" of why they are bad, but because the pool was so small.
Teams come together over a summer and thru the year.  Your stance that players gel better being 3-4 years players is ignorant hogwash dreamt up in a cubicle from a person suffering from logorrhea.  Rob Jackson and MU really suffered from him being on campus one year and he really never fit in?, Cubicle hogwash.  Same can be said of Rodney Hood last year at Duke , or Dean Garrett or keith smart at Iu.  How could smart hit that shot he had only been on campus 7 months!!??
As many posters have stated I hope MU continues its open door policy towards jucos and does not succumb to discriminitory and ignorant whims of those in ivory towers.  MU should strive to have the best players on the floor and like AL and B Knight i would be fine with them being jucos


That's awesome Rat, I was one that also voted acceptable.  I have no problem with JUCOs, I have a problem when 40% (38.5%) of your roster is JUCOs.  There's a reason why high quality teams don't do it, which you have refused to answer each and every time I have put it out there for you to answer.

It has nothing to do with discrimination or any of that nonsense.  Can it negatively impact the image of the program...yup.  Can it impact your APR scores?  Yes.  Does it mean recruiting classes turn through much quicker?  Yes.  Ignore those if you wish, but they are some of the very reasons why the top programs don't do it.  Why you ignore this is beyond me.  

Finally....Al's teams relied HEAVILY on them?  Bob Knight's teams relied HEAVILY on them?   Please define heavily....

Dr. Blackheart

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 13006
Re: Jucos
« Reply #73 on: October 30, 2014, 07:52:39 PM »
I already explained it and the key is the graduation rate  We get APR credits for kids graduating.  A kid transferring into MU from a 4 year institution, statistically speaking, is more likely to graduate than a JUCO.  Even a JUCO in good standing academically.  The reason is that generally (note, I'm saying generally) JUCO students are taking credits that often do not transfer to Marquette.  That is a problem on the back end for the APR.  It's a risk management equation.

If the kids you are taking in on the transfer side are more likely to graduate than the JUCOs you take in, I'll take the transfers.  First, the transfer qualified day one to a 4 year institution and the JUCO may have.  Can JUCOs redeem themselves, get it together, apply themselves, etc...absolutely.  Do they deserve a chance like anyone else...sure.  Can JUCO kids excel more than non JUCO kids?  Of course.  Is it fine to take JUCO kids on the roster?  Of course, just not in large quantities because the risks aren't there and you leave yourself in a potential bind if they don't graduate and impact your APR scores.  You're playing a statistical game of probabilities.

The last four APR reports, we have declined slightly in each one.  Nothing tragic, but it would be nice to be going the other way.  We were at 980 in 2010 season, we are now in the 950's.  You need to average 930 over two years or 900 over four years, so we're still ok.

Okay...perhaps you went into APR in some other thread...I didn't see that you mentioned that issue here.  The premise of this thread was that the academics of a JUCO were in place so that issue is taken care. So, the point of contention goes to basketball value.

My contention is a two year JUCO transfer then has higher basketball value than a transfer from a four year college as the later has to sit a year.  You brought up out of balance and 40%, which I disagreed with with my examples of the four transfers in 1977 or the double down with RJax by Crean when he knew Wade was in the wings. Transfers, whether JUCOs or from 4 year, have been very good for MU basketball and is a concept we should continue to embrace as it is part of our fabric.  Personally, I was appalled by the previous regime's ideas on this.

jesmu84

  • All American
  • *****
  • Posts: 6029
Re: Jucos
« Reply #74 on: October 30, 2014, 07:58:36 PM »
Our APR was 980 4 years ago, it is now in the 950's.  The APR isn't going away.   You can call it BS all you want, but UCONN and UWM sat home for that BS.  You need to average a 930 over two years to avoid being punished.  Do I think we are in danger?  No.  Would I like to see the numbers go the other way?  Yes. 

I'm not saying it's the way I want Marquette to go, but UConn seems to be doing just fine these days