Jucos

[Dr. Blackheart]

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

You keep sayng that but both are transfers.  A JUCO is a transfer under NCAA guidelines if they fulfill their academic requirements.  There is no release or letter of intent required.  In that sense a JUCO transfer = a graduate transfer as both have fulfilled their academic requirements and don't need to sit a year.  Read any release or article on a JUCO and it says a "JUCO transfer"...like Jae's Wiki page or MU's press release.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

Maybe, but then again just because they have to sit out a year doesn't mean they lose a year of eligibility.  Plus, you get to practice with the team while sitting out a year.  I actually find that beneficial, from a basketball value perspective.  I can take a JUCO kid that has 2 years of eligiblity and may take half the season to a full season to get up to speed and have one more year left.  Or, take a transfer that uses his sit year to get up to speed and have 2 full years (or more) to be at speed.  So I'm not sure your argument is concrete...it certainly can be argued the other way.

I don't know why people are bringing in transfers vs JUCOs, they're not the same in terms of practice, eligibility and chances of graduation.  Those are big differences. (What's interesting, non student athlete JUCOs with an AA that move on to 4 year colleges graduate at a higher rate than straight transfers....not the case with student athletes, however).

Have some of the JUCOs at MU the last decade been really good for MU...absolutely.  Of course it's a very small sample size.  I don't know anyone other than the 3 people in this poll, which I would wager River Rat was one of them, who wants no JUCO kids.  It's about how many, what does it do to revolving class sizes, what does it do to APR, etc, etc.

I'd also have you look at the math behind this.  I think about it like training employees, the longer you have them around, the better your team will be, the more cohesive, get everyone on the same page on how we do things.

If a club has 13 kids that are all HS recruits, 0 of them transfer, how many years of experience are you creating for your program having kids doing things the MU way, practicing the MU way, etc?

Same club with 25% as JUCOs on average with 2 years in the program, 0 of them transfer.  How many years of experience are you creating for your program...having kids doing things the MU way, practicing the MU way, etc?

Now, transfers change things up, should be part of the equation, especially with the epidemic of transfers going on right now.  So much Creaning and Buzzcutting going on, it cannot be ignored.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You keep sayng that but both are transfers.  A JUCO is a transfer under NCAA guidelines if they fulfill their academic requirements.  There is no release or letter of intent required.  In that sense a JUCO transfer = a graduate transfer as both have fulfilled their academic requirements and don't need to sit a year.  Read any release or article on a JUCO and it says a "JUCO transfer"...like Jae's Wiki page or MU's press release.

Squares and rectangles are both parallelograms.  Yes, they are both transfers, but they are different.  You are smarter than this.  If you want me to say they are both transfers, sure they are both transfers just as a rectangle and square are parallelograms.  I don't disagree with you on the nomenclature, but to say they are the same is just wrong.  One has to sit out, can practice with the team...get adjusted to the academic side while only practicing.  The other is thrown into the fire right away.  One was qualified into a four year institution right out of high school, the other MAY have qualified out of high school.   One likely will have most of their credits transfer to MU, the other may not due to certification, lack of major equivalency, etc.   One, statistically speaking, has a better chance of graduating then the other, especially with the year of sitting out and working on the books....that helps the APR.   So yes, they're both transfers, but they are not the same for any number of reasons.  There are reasons why schools don't overload on JUCOs.  Too many risks vs rewards when the numbers become too big.

[River rat]

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....

I have told u why more elite schools dont have more jucos,  because of their limited supply!!  It is right their in my post.  Reading is Fundamental, comprehending maybe not so much

[ChicosBailBonds]

I have told u why more elite schools dont have more jucos,  because of their limited supply!!  It is right their in my post.  Reading is Fundamental, comprehending maybe not so much

Honestly, it is almost impossible to read your stuff.  Writing is fundamental.  When this is an example of your writing, well forgive me for not having the Rosetta Stone or the decoder ring.  

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


For the record, quantity is part of the reason, but it goes way beyond that. 

[TheBurrEffect]

Just a fair note to throw in about "geling over years"

Did Davante, Jamil, Chris, and Derrick gel over the past 3 years? Didn't seem like it. DJO and Crowder gelled almost immediately. It has less to do with how long as apposed to with who/ chemistry.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Nope...Chicos on page 1 of this thread:

I was responding to Lenny's post.  I'm getting old, still don't understand what you are getting at.   

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just a fair note to throw in about "geling over years"

Did Davante, Jamil, Chris, and Derrick gel over the past 3 years? Didn't seem like it. DJO and Crowder gelled almost immediately. It has less to do with how long as apposed to with who/ chemistry.

Yes, sometimes kids hit it right off....sometime freshmen dominated teams that obviously were never together prior do great.  Over the long haul, give me a senior laden team that has been together for four years and they are going to know each other so well that they will outperform those that have not played as long together.  Again, talking in the aggregate, over the long haul, not small sample sizes.

[bilsu]

Davante was always quiet and he struck me as a loner. Mayo was also in his own world.

[Dr. Blackheart]

I was responding to Lenny's post.  I'm getting old, still don't understand what you are getting at.   

Other than veering off topic, quoting the wrong poster and being confused about which thread you were responding to, you did well.

[WarriorInNYC]

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.

Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here. 

09-10 Team:  3 JUCOs
10-11 Team:  5 JUCOs
11-12 Team:  2 JUCOs
12-13 Team:  0 JUCOs
13-14 Team:  0 JUCOs

Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.

[River rat]

Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here. 

09-10 Team:  3 JUCOs
10-11 Team:  5 JUCOs
11-12 Team:  2 JUCOs
12-13 Team:  0 JUCOs
13-14 Team:  0 JUCOs

Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.

Thats usually how it works when people look into the "facts"
That chicos posts.

Lol

[Nukem2]

Just a fair note to throw in about "geling over years"

Did Davante, Jamil, Chris, and Derrick gel over the past 3 years? Didn't seem like it. DJO and Crowder gelled almost immediately. It has less to do with how long as apposed to with who/ chemistry.

Actually, the Davante and Jamil combo was very good except not so much last year due to the poor perimeter play.

[Spotcheck Billy]

Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here. 

09-10 Team:  3 JUCOs
10-11 Team:  5 JUCOs
11-12 Team:  2 JUCOs
12-13 Team:  0 JUCOs
13-14 Team:  0 JUCOs

Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.

there is a year or so delay in APR scores being released; in other words the 13-14 APR score isn't even announced until next year IIRC

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

there is a year or so delay in APR scores being released; in other words the 13-14 APR score isn't even announced until next year IIRC

Yes. This is why UConn was punished for the actions of past players.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here. 

09-10 Team:  3 JUCOs
10-11 Team:  5 JUCOs
11-12 Team:  2 JUCOs
12-13 Team:  0 JUCOs
13-14 Team:  0 JUCOs

Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.

You do realize how the APR works, right....in terms of the lag in time aligned with graduation?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Thats usually how it works when people look into the "facts"
That chicos posts.

Lol

Except, that the data doesn't line up with the classes directly due to the lag times and allowance to graduate beyond four years.

Well done River....it's like you throw boomerangs and they come back and clock you in the face almost with every post of late.  Well done...great job.  Bob Knight...heavily relied....that was awesome.  With you, it is truly like going against a child.

[WarriorInNYC]

You do realize how the APR works, right....in terms of the lag in time aligned with graduation?

I am actually not the most familiar with this.  I thought there would be a little lag time (around a year or so), but the way you are saying it, it appears as though the lag time is probably >1 year.