http://www.kcrg.com/sports/Malcolm-In-the-Middle-of-Big-Time-Recruiting-99345089.html
JUCO out of Texas. Video included with the brief article.
He's got a good frame, is pretty agile/explosive in the post and looks to have a good touch.
Would like him to have 2 more inches but it can be done at 6'6" (Dejuan Blair, etc.).
No thanks
Quote from: mikem91288 on July 27, 2010, 04:59:07 PM
No thanks
I'll pass. I love what MU has been able to do with undersized bigmen over the years (and thats probably why they always seem to consider us), but as a program we need to move beyond this type of player. They have such a short ceiling compared to someone with proper height for their position.
It is very frustrating how we have still not landed a legit big-man recruit. I've been saying ever since I can remember "if we just had ONE legit big man, we'd really have something" I think the '11 class is where Buzz needs to show he can make it happen. We need 2 players standing 6'8 or above this year.
I think he looks like he would play more of a 4-3 like butler @ MU.
with that said we have enough of those guys already and I agree we need to bring in some tall timber.
I do not think we have a lot of talent at the 3-4 positions for 2011/2012. I have not seen Crowder yet, but he will be a senior. Eric Williams (junior) is improving, but he is no star as of now. Some are arguing that Gardner (sophomore) is a four, but he needs a lot more conditioning before that happens. We have Wilson (sophomore), but given he cannot play two games in a row at the pro am, I am beginning to wonder if he is soft. Jones (sophomore) has a great body, but wants to play outside. There is talent, but they all have short comings. As usual our strenth is at guard with DJO, Cadougan, Blue, Smith and Singleton.
Yes, but we've had 3-guard lineups with two of them under 6-feet. If we have 2 guards and 1 of them is. 6-4, 5-star, then I don't mind having a bunch of good 6-6 or 6-7 great players.
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
Yeah, it sucks getting the best JUCO player every year. Please stop exploiting a market inefficiency that brings wins and excitement to the Bradley Center! Oh the horror!
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
I guess if one draws his self esteem from other's "perceptions" (no matter how flawed) there might be some cause for concern. I didn't worry about jucos under Al or TC (except that most of Crean's couldn't play) and I'm not worried now. Maybe some elitist snobs from, say, Madison.....but not me.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
I will never understand this snobbish attitude. These are for the most part good kids who needed some extra time to mature (aka get their s**t together). What could possibly be wrong with giving them an oppotunity to make a better life for themselves? In the end, isn't that what a college education at Marquette is supposed to be about? It's certainly not supposed to be about judging people you've never met and don't know.
Enough with the condescending attitude already.
DJO, Fulce, Jimmy Butler and Buycks have proven to be the downfall of our fine program.
Why in the world wouldn't you want Buzz to keep recruiting jucos?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
Who said it was to balance the classes? Maybe it's to have a winning basketball team. And honestly, as long as the kids aren't criminals and they represent MU well, lets win some basketball games. Who cares
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 27, 2010, 09:03:49 PM
I will never understand this snobbish attitude. These are for the most part good kids who needed some extra time to mature (aka get their s**t together). What could possibly be wrong with giving them an oppotunity to make a better life for themselves? In the end, isn't that what a college education at Marquette is supposed to be about? It's certainly not supposed to be about judging people you've never met and don't know.
Enough with the condescending attitude already.
Well put, its annoying....I'm in the camp that wants the best talent regardless if they are outstanding students, if they qualify and can play then bring it. These guys would want MU to turn Wade away.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
Are you saying we shouldn't get guys like DJO and Jimmy Butler just because they were JUCOs? I'm a fan of getting whoever has the best talent.
Quote from: bilsu on July 27, 2010, 07:30:29 PM
I do not think we have a lot of talent at the 3-4 positions for 2011/2012. I have not seen Crowder yet, but he will be a senior. Eric Williams (junior) is improving, but he is no star as of now. Some are arguing that Gardner (sophomore) is a four, but he needs a lot more conditioning before that happens. We have Wilson (sophomore), but given he cannot play two games in a row at the pro am, I am beginning to wonder if he is soft. Jones (sophomore) has a great body, but wants to play outside. There is talent, but they all have short comings. As usual our strenth is at guard with DJO, Cadougan, Blue, Smith and Singleton.
Ok, so you name 5 guys, all of whom (except maybe Gardner) look to be really good players by '11-'12, and say this is a position of need? At the absolute most we will start 2 of these guys, and Jamil Wilson is a lock to be one of them. And isn't it a bit early to be calling Jamil soft, just because he sat out a meaningless game as a precautionary measure?
I see Wilson and Crowder as our forward starters in '11-'12, with EWill and Jones squarely in the mix, unless we can land a top-quality power forward in this year's class. For the record, I don't think the forward position is settled for the foreseeable future, I just don't think we need any more 6'6 combo-forwards.
Quote from: TallTitan34 on July 27, 2010, 09:59:39 PM
Are you saying we shouldn't get guys like DJO and Jimmy Butler just because they were JUCOs? I'm a fan of getting whoever has the best talent.
Agreed. Buycks, Fulce, DJO, Butler, have been good players and citizens. I see no reason why Crowder will not follow.
As far as I'm concerned, Buzz has been 4/4 so far with the JUCOs who have joined the program. He knows enough people at that level that I trust his judgement.
Just so everyone is clear, we've had a bunch of really good JUCO transfers at Marquette.
Let's see now, Bob Lackey came from a Juco and he was wonderful. Held the team together after Jim Chones turned pro.
Jerome Whitehead, I believe, spent a year at Juco.
Sam Worthen, who ran the team for two years in the early Hank years also was a Juco.
Let's not bite the hand that feeds us.
On a different note, I heard from a few people that they don't think its a good idea if Buzz keeps bringing in JUCO kids. I honestly have no problem what so ever (like most of you) having these guys on the team because they're good athletes but more importantly good kids. I don't know where this "bad method" came from (grades?) but can anyone say they like/dislike it?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
This statement appears to be an epic fail...as noted by many posters. I tend to agree with them, and that we should use all avenues available for acquiring top talent, combined with good character - as thus far all of the JUCO's Buzz has brought in, have been. Let's not stereotype.
Quote from: The Lens on July 27, 2010, 09:06:15 PM
DJO, Fulce, Jimmy Butler and Buycks have proven to be the downfall of our fine program.
Why in the world wouldn't you want Buzz to keep recruiting jucos?
DJO and Butler are studs--not sold yet on Bucyks, and Fulce is only a role player.
Id rather have a 6'6" ish 3-4 and a legit big than another guard and a legit big in a recruiting class of 2 players. If we got this guy or someone with similar size it doesn't mean that all hope is lost to land a center
We may have a distorted view about JUCO's. Most are not 3 year players, like Butler, DJO, and Fulce. That extra year is a definite plus in my eye. We don't seem to have any team chemistry problems though going this route.
Take Buycks for example - I think 1st team All American JUCO. Very average 1st half of the year, non-starter, then gets injured, falls further behind, then sits most of the rest of the year. Now, one year left to fulfill his potential and make his signing seem really worthwhile.
You can only play 5 players. I like the ones sitting to be underclassmen, so when they get to be juniors, they're full ingrained into what is expected from the coaches, they've adjusted to what it takes to be successful academically at MU, they take on a leadership attitude, and as such, they enhance the team chemistry from being around the program for so long.
I'm not saying this is true in all situations, but a 2 year JUCO needs time to get aclimated to MU, develop a bond with teammates, and become settled in academically. Too often, it seems they need a year to do this. Then, there's one year left...
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
John Wooden was. But not you, eh?
Buzz has hit on most of his JUCO recruits in terms of character (not to mention most have had a lot of basketball talent).
Lets be real though, JUCOs can be more risky as they couldn't cut it in high school for whatever reason but once they get to a stable environment at MU most have thrived thus far.
If Buzz starts recruiting more character misses like M. Clark and turns this into a Cincy type show then yes Cottingham should tell him to be more selective. Until that happens I'm not ready to cut off the JUCO pipeline, in fact I get more pride in seeing these types of kids succeed academically at MU.
I think people underestimate how hard it is to recruit at MU. On average WISC produces 2-3 high majors a year with 2 programs that have been top 25 on average the last 10 years. Assuming you recruit 4 player's each year and you can only get 1 from your home state, where do the other 3 come from? I would much rather he recruit Juco's early and get some of the best than wait and get a top 50 Juco late. Crowder, Butler, DJO, Buycks, Fulce, were All-Americans as Freshman. Only about 8 Fr player's make the list of 50. If you look at how the Juco's that are All-American as FR perform when they move up you would be suprised how well they do compared to guys that only excel in there Soph year. I have no problem with Buzz bringing in a really good Juco every year. The guys that don't want them, the other option is taking some Mid major talent out of Wisc each year as your last recruit.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 27, 2010, 09:03:49 PM
What could possibly be wrong with giving them an oppotunity to make a better life for themselves? In the end, isn't that what a college education at Marquette is supposed to be about? It's certainly not supposed to be about judging people you've never met and don't know.
No, in some people's odd little basketball world, that line of thinking only applies to guys like DJ Newbill who had his life ruined by Buzz Williams because he has to go to Southern Miss instead of Marquette, but then again, when it works in the opposite direction, that's the wrong thing to do as well. Of course, claiming that you won't make any judgments until after 5 years, and the proceeding to judge every move a guy makes every step of the way, kinda says it all about where some people are coming from.
We should be recruiting individuals not specific groups. It shouldn't matter if they are high school recruits, prep school, transfers or jucos, if they are quality people that can help the program, then we should go after them. There are plenty of high school recruits that are less than quality people. Painting a group with such a wide brush is ignorant wether its jucos, white guys or whatever.
Quote from: Stone Cold on July 28, 2010, 07:50:05 AM
Buzz has hit on most of his JUCO recruits in terms of character (not to mention most have had a lot of basketball talent).
Lets be real though, JUCOs can be more risky as they couldn't cut it in high school for whatever reason but once they get to a stable environment at MU most have thrived thus far.
If Buzz starts recruiting more character misses like M. Clark and turns this into a Cincy type show then yes Cottingham should tell him to be more selective. Until that happens I'm not ready to cut off the JUCO pipeline, in fact I get more pride in seeing these types of kids succeed academically at MU.
I agree but the "Cincy type show" included high school recruits as well, it was (is) the whole organization that is shadey not just the jucos
C
"Its really humbling. It's really a blessing..."
He already talks like Buzz, and I suspect that's where he picked up that line. If MU really want's him, I'm guessing he'll be here.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
Agreed. Wouldn't want any more players like DJO or JB... Keep trying to get a rise out of everyone. You're the Rush of MU Scoop.
You miss the point Avid.
A stable program is built on 4 year players, not 2 year players.
There's a reason why the powers in college basketball rarely, if ever, take JUCOs unless it's a one off situation.
DJO and JB are great players, unfortunately they will be here for only a few years. I was told here constantly by folks that we were recruiting JUCOs only to close a gap in the classes. As I stated then, I didn't think that would be the case and it appears that is correct.
I get why he's doing it. The players are more mature in terms of playing experience, they are ready to play immediately. But there is the downside in terms of stability, etc. There's a significant reason why most top programs have very few JUCO players.
Again, I cite John Wooden who used juco's throughout his career.
Quote from: ErickJD08 on July 27, 2010, 09:17:29 PM
Who said it was to balance the classes? Maybe it's to have a winning basketball team. And honestly, as long as the kids aren't criminals and they represent MU well, lets win some basketball games. Who cares
Who said...oh, I don't know...about 25 posters here. I'll be happy to share the posts if you like from a few years ago.
Paraphrasing, but things like
He has no choice
It's out of necessity
It's a risk worth taking to balance the classes
Buzz is only doing this short term
Etc, etc.
I think some people here actually believe that DJO and JB is a zero sum game. In other words, if we didn't go the JUCO route we would have no one to replace them. That's not how it works fellas.
I'm all for getting the best players to. What STUNS me, absolutely STUNS me, is that the top programs somehow get all these good players WITHOUT going the JUCO route time and time again. How do they ever do it? (And please, don't respond with UCLA had a JUCO in 2008 and another in 2001....we get it, on occasion programs will take a JUCO out of need.)
I'd much prefer high school kids, 4 year players, brought up on the program, more stability, very little turnover, etc, etc....that's how the best programs do it and I thought that's what we were aspiring to be.
Bring on the attacks boys.....5...4...3....2....1.....
I, personally, don't care what school a kid comes from. If Buzz continues to successfully recruit talented, intelligent and hard working young men that are coming to MU to better themselves then I'm happy.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 09:58:13 AM
Who said...oh, I don't know...about 25 posters here. I'll be happy to share the posts if you like from a few years ago.
Paraphrasing, but things like
He has no choice
It's out of necessity
It's a risk worth taking to balance the classes
Buzz is only doing this short term
Etc, etc.
I think some people here actually believe that DJO and JB is a zero sum game. In other words, if we didn't go the JUCO route we would have no one to replace them. That's not how it works fellas.
I'm all for getting the best players to. What STUNS me, absolutely STUNS me, is that the top programs somehow get all these good players WITHOUT going the JUCO route time and time again. How do they ever do it? (And please, don't respond with UCLA had a JUCO in 2008 and another in 2001....we get it, on occasion programs will take a JUCO out of need.)
I'd much prefer high school kids, 4 year players, brought up on the program, more stability, very little turnover, etc, etc....that's how the best programs do it and I thought that's what we were aspiring to be.
Bring on the attacks boys.....5...4...3....2....1.....
First, 25 posters here said its to balance the roster, not Buzz.
Dude, no attack... have your own opinion. But players who are really good rarely stay all four years anyways. The game has changed. Recruiting out of HS does not necessarily produce more stability, check out UK.
Finally, you are right. Elite programs do not really have to go the JUCO route to consistently get quality players in their program. Newflash... MU is not an elite program as of right now. Maybe though, after a few years of going deep into the tourney, winning the BE, or raising some banners, we will be considered elite. Until then, we need to get quality players using any route within the rules.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 09:58:13 AM
I'd much prefer high school kids, 4 year players, brought up on the program, more stability, very little turnover, etc, etc....that's how the best programs do it and I thought that's what we were aspiring to be.
Actually, MU's Jucos players have been a very stable bunch, going back to Crean. IIRC, not one has left the program and the only one having some sort of off the court issue was Trend Blackledge.
Chicos, its acutually been the traditional high-school player that has burned MU... (See Maymon, Blankston, Mbakwe, etc.)
Quote from: Skatastrophy on July 28, 2010, 10:06:40 AM
I, personally, don't care what school a kid comes from. If Buzz continues to successfully recruit talented, intelligent and hard working young men that are coming to MU to better themselves then I'm happy.
Im fine with your comment except for your use of the word "intelligent." Let's not dress-up the issue...an overwhelming percentage of college basketball players are anything but intelligent (especially kids that were academically ineligible out of h.s. and had to take the juco route).
Quote from: ErickJD08 on July 28, 2010, 10:08:42 AM
Finally, you are right. Elite programs do not really have to go the JUCO route to consistently get quality players in their program. Newflash... MU is not an elite program as of right now. Maybe though, after a few years of going deep into the tourney, winning the BE, or raising some banners, we will be considered elite. Until then, we need to get quality players using any route within the rules.
This. And let me add one more thing. Those "elite" programs also have a lot of HS one and dones, with the baggage that comes with them.
Personally, I'd rather have 2-3 years of a high level JUCO player, than one and dones that cause just as much instability.
Quote from: goodgreatgrand on July 28, 2010, 10:18:39 AM
Im fine with your comment except for your use of the word "intelligent." Let's not dress-up the issue...an overwhelming percentage of college basketball players are anything but intelligent (especially kids that were academically ineligible out of h.s. and had to take the juco route).
Our recruits thus far speak and present themselves intelligently. Do not mistake lack of work-ethic as a teenager in high-school resulting in poor grades as a lack of intelligence.
Now, if we start recruiting kids that act like Cincinnati's recruits under Thuggins? Then I'll retract my statement. Up until now I've been impressed with the guys Buzz has brought in.
So, when the lineup on the floor is Fulce, Butler, Crowder, DJO, and Buycks, some people are going to turn off the game in disgust?! Please. Buzz successes and failures with recruiting are an open book. Sometimes the freshman with baggage is the biggest problem, sometimes it is the juco commit who never actually makes it to campus before he gets accused of criminal wrong-doing, sometimes it is the perception of recruiting over a player to take a high level transfer. Buzz's job is to 1. win games and 2. build a program the university can be proud of. If he thinks this is the best way to do it, so be it until he fails to fulfill one of those 2 goals.
Chicos you like to talk, I get that but you might want to slow down from time to time.
70% of the top 10 schools in 2009-2010 in college basketball are schools that recruit JUCOs and either had JUCOs on the active roster or in their 2011 recruiting class.
3.WVU
5.Kentucky
6.Kansas
7.Kansas State
8.Syracuse
9.Tennessee
10. Baylor
This doesn't even take into account Prep school players which most of those teams listed have an abundance of.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 09:51:21 AM
You miss the point Avid.
A stable program is built on 4 year players, not 2 year players.
There's a reason why the powers in college basketball rarely, if ever, take JUCOs unless it's a one off situation.
What a complete crock. Have you forgotten the greatest success MU has had in the past 30 years and Tom Crean's meal ticket, Dwyane Wade already? Check the early entries for teams like UNC, Duke, Kentucky, UCLA, Syracuse, UConn and please tell me how those team have been built on 4 year players. They aren't built on 4 year players, they are built on good players, the best available that they can go and get consistently until they jump to the NBA after a couple years.
But, its good to know the standard for MU will continue to change for you yet again now that Buzz Williams is the coach. Do you even read the things you write around here anymore?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 09:51:21 AM
You miss the point Avid.
A stable program is built on 4 year players, not 2 year players.
There's a reason why the powers in college basketball rarely, if ever, take JUCOs unless it's a one off situation.
DJO and JB are great players, unfortunately they will be here for only a few years. I was told here constantly by folks that we were recruiting JUCOs only to close a gap in the classes. As I stated then, I didn't think that would be the case and it appears that is correct.
I get why he's doing it. The players are more mature in terms of playing experience, they are ready to play immediately. But there is the downside in terms of stability, etc. There's a significant reason why most top programs have very few JUCO players.
Recruit high school kids to bring more "stability" to the program? Odartey Blankston, Ron Howard, Kevin Menard, "Manchild" Mathews, Carlton Christian, Brandon Bell, Dameon Mason, Ryan Amoroso, Karon Bradley, Matt Mortenson, Niv Berkowitz, Trevor Mbakwe, Scott Christopherson, Yous Mbao, Jeronne Maymon, Brett Roseboro and even the great D Wade are some examples of the "stability" brought to MU's program by high school recruits in just the last 8-9 years. Conversely, I think every one of our JC's/tranfers over that span has fulfilled his eligibility and graduated. But why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?
Dude might want to stick to satellite tv.
"very little turnover"
I seem to recall quit a bit of turnover recently from schools like UCLA, UNC, UCONN, IU, Kansas, Illinois, Ohio State, etc.
I agree that having a program with Juco recruits like Blackledge and Lott is not going to get us where we want to be but 3 year players like Butler, DJO, and Fulce along with a 2 year kids like Buycks and Crowder have worked out pretty well.
Good players. Good kids. Go to class and stay out fo trouble.
Whats not to like?
Quote from: MuMark on July 28, 2010, 11:42:18 AM
Whats not to like?
For a few here, the coach who recruited them.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 27, 2010, 08:30:26 PM
I thought our JUCO route was to balance the classes the first few years. It seems we will continue to go the JUCO route indefinitely. Not a fan.
One of the most discriminatory and ignorant things I have ever read on this board. It is truly a shame MU is represented in this light by a so called fan.
I find it pathetic that this same poster says he will wait 5 years to pass judgement on Buzz, yet reacts in a negative manner to every move he makes. If we were all not so much dumber than chicos we might think he had already made up his mind.
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on July 28, 2010, 11:51:12 AM
One of the most discriminatory and ignorant things I have ever read on this board. It is truly a shame MU is represented in this light by a so called fan.
I find it pathetic that this same poster says he will wait 5 years to pass judgement on Buzz, yet reacts in a negative manner to every move he makes. If we were all not so much dumber than chicos we might think he had already made up his mind.
Whoops. You over-reacted.
"DJO and JB are great players, unfortunately they will be here for only a few years."
I will take the 3 and 2 years, respectively, of DJO and JB versus some of the not quite four-year flameouts by some of the dubious recruits of the tan one (Mason, Menard, Mortenson, Amoroso, etc).
Before you point out Crean's 4 year successes ( Three Amigo's, Novak, Hayward), I am sure Buzz will go both routes - 4 years players as the normal route and JUCO's to fill the right niches needed on the roster.
No if you want to discuss some of the tan one's JUCO moves, that's another story...
Both DJO and JB will be 3 year players unless DJO ends up going pro early(unlikely but possible).
I don't mind all of the JUCO players given Buzz's track record with these guys so far.
To be fair to Chico's however, if 3 years ago, somebody said our roster would have 5 JUCOS on it, I don't think people would have been excited.
Sometimes you have to let things develop before you can judge.
In this case, so far, so good.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on July 28, 2010, 02:10:22 PM
I don't mind all of the JUCO players given Buzz's track record with these guys so far.
To be fair to Chico's however, if 3 years ago, somebody said our roster would have 5 JUCOS on it, I don't think people would have been excited.
Sometimes you have to let things develop before you can judge.
In this case, so far, so good.
If we had 5 2 year juco players who performed like Lott, Kinsella or even MJax, you're right that people wouldn't be excited. When you have three 3 year players and two of them are potential NBA guys it's a different story. When your two 2 year jucos include a 1st team AA and a national POY, ditto.
You're at least consistant (albeit exasperating) in your non judgemental approach. Chicos eschews any positive judgements until year 6 yet is/was hypercritical from day one. To me, that's not the modus operandi of one reserving judgement.
Over his last 15 games he scored 20pts per game and shot .654 from the field. He also made 6 FT's per game. I think at the PF slot he looks solid, as long as he is playing with a true center and Otule would be in his class.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 28, 2010, 02:58:39 PM
You're at least consistant (albeit exasperating) in your non judgemental approach.
That's the nicest thing you've ever said to me.
Don't be going all soft on me Lenny.
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 28, 2010, 11:24:23 AM
Recruit high school kids to bring more "stability" to the program? Odartey Blankston, Ron Howard, Kevin Menard, "Manchild" Mathews, Carlton Christian, Brandon Bell, Dameon Mason, Ryan Amoroso, Karon Bradley, Matt Mortenson, Niv Berkowitz, Trevor Mbakwe, Scott Christopherson, Yous Mbao, Jeronne Maymon, Brett Roseboro and even the great D Wade are some examples of the "stability" brought to MU's program by high school recruits in just the last 8-9 years. Conversely, I think every one of our JC's/tranfers over that span has fulfilled his eligibility and graduated. But why let the facts get in the way of a good argument?
Yeah, I have to agree with the intent behind this. Of course it is preferable to have a four-year player over a three year player...and a three year player over a two year player...IF everything goes right.
However, the chances of a flame out are much higher for a HS guy than a JC guy. JCs get two years away from home to work on their academics. They get two years to prove that their HS game can work at another level. I have absolutely no problem with picking up a top-level JC guy in every class.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on July 28, 2010, 02:10:22 PM
I don't mind all of the JUCO players given Buzz's track record with these guys so far.
To be fair to Chico's however, if 3 years ago, somebody said our roster would have 5 JUCOS on it, I don't think people would have been excited.
Sometimes you have to let things develop before you can judge.
In this case, so far, so good.
Yeah, I get it. I'm old school and believe in the stability of going after 4 year players. It's what most of the great programs do, still to this day.
Partly it's because of the stigma that goes with it, I won't deny it. Programs that were shady as hell built themselves on the backs of JUCOs...Oklahoma, UNLV, USC, etc, etc. No doubt in my mind that clouds my view, I readily admit it, but when I see top level teams now rarely dip into the JUCO ranks it only reinforces to me that we should be doing the same thing.
I think JUCOJUNCTION said it pretty well about UCLA when they said "The UCLA Bruins do not spend much time recruiting junior college players. But Ben Howland's team has dipped into the the junior college ranks for a player." There's a reason why they don't and only go there in absolute need.
Let's look at it from a different perspective...I hope we get to a point where we are consistently getting top high school talent that a JUCO option is few and far between. It will mean we are winning with 4 year players, don't have needs that require a short term solution.
Maybe the plan is to become a JUCO destination point. That would be sad in my view, but people here obviously have a different points of view.
Lenny brings up examples of transfers, fair enough. I guess he'll have to help me understand why the top programs in this country, or even the top program in the state of Wisconsin, rarely go after JUCOs. Maybe they are doing it wrong, I don't know.
wow how dense...sure the top programs in the country typicall only get 4 year HS kids....but last I checked we were not one of the top programs in the country. if buzz wants to build us to that level and all those top hS kids are going to UNC etc. then getting the top Juco players in the interim sounds like one hell of a good plan, especially given his contacts!!
if Mu continues to win like they have under buzz his ability to recruit only increases, until then he needs to recruit his strenghts. 2 years ago very few people outside the juco ranks and on the eastern half of the country knew who buzz williams was.. that is quickly changing.
It would be nice to only recruit from high schools, to have every player stay 4 years, (unless of course they get tired of basketball and only want to stay at the college for the academics ;)) to never have a transfer, and to have to keep the 4 star recruits away with a stick, as we only accept 5 star recruits. Until that day, Buzz has to put the best team he can on the floor any way he can. Last year, because of transfers, injuries, and slow development, that meant winning with a ridiculously short, shallow team. Coach Williams stated goal is to have thirteen high major players on his team. Because of his background and contacts, right now, that means taking the creme de la creme of the JUCO world. So far, his 'mistakes' include three high schoolers and a JUCO. Cut the man some slack until he starts losing games or it becomes a pattern that the kids who actually get to campus show poor character.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 05:09:52 PM
Lenny brings up examples of transfers, fair enough. I guess he'll have to help me understand why the top programs in this country, or even the top program in the state of Wisconsin, rarely go after JUCOs. Maybe they are doing it wrong, I don't know.
Did you really just imply the top program in Wisconsin is..Wisconsin? You were given..I believe by Lenny..about 7 schools that finished in last year's top 10 who had JUCO's on their roster...so yes, "top programs" do go after JUCO's. It's been a rough week for you Chicos - but you are really pretty much going it alone on this one - probably ought to pull up the anchor and sail on, on this topic.
I really hope you and 84 start to look for the positives in the current MU program, as opposed to constantly looking for negatives - many of which don't exist. We already had 84 on this week telling us all how we hired Scott Monarch as a means to get Jimmy Butler..even though Buzz's relationship with Monarch goes alot farther back, than does/did Monarch's relationship with Jimmy Butler.
MU's best team ever 75-76 had two juco starters and four top 25 high school players.
Walton JC
Whitehead JC
Ellis
Tatum
Lee
Toone
All played some in NBA. MU needs to go where ever the talent is.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 05:09:52 PM
Yeah, I get it. I'm old school and believe in the stability of going after 4 year players. It's what most of the great programs do, still to this day.
Partly it's because of the stigma that goes with it, I won't deny it. Programs that were shady as hell built themselves on the backs of JUCOs...Oklahoma, UNLV, USC, etc, etc. No doubt in my mind that clouds my view, I readily admit it, but when I see top level teams now rarely dip into the JUCO ranks it only reinforces to me that we should be doing the same thing.
I think JUCOJUNCTION said it pretty well about UCLA when they said "The UCLA Bruins do not spend much time recruiting junior college players. But Ben Howland's team has dipped into the the junior college ranks for a player." There's a reason why they don't and only go there in absolute need.
Let's look at it from a different perspective...I hope we get to a point where we are consistently getting top high school talent that a JUCO option is few and far between. It will mean we are winning with 4 year players, don't have needs that require a short term solution.
Maybe the plan is to become a JUCO destination point. That would be sad in my view, but people here obviously have a different points of view.
Lenny brings up examples of transfers, fair enough. I guess he'll have to help me understand why the top programs in this country, or even the top program in the state of Wisconsin, rarely go after JUCOs. Maybe they are doing it wrong, I don't know.
Actually I think someone pointed out that 7 of the top 10 teams in the country last year had 1 or more JUCOS, so it's not like the top teams aren't looking. The plain truth is there's just not enough good JUCO players to go around. Lest we forget, Jamil Lott and Marcus Jackson arrived at MU as JUCO All Americans and neither were exactly stalwarts at the D1 level. Either Buzz knows how to pick the good ones or he knows some people who can.
On the "old school" issue, lighten up. Embrace change. Don't be so rigid :D
Quote from: LAMUfan on July 28, 2010, 07:38:39 AM
Id rather have a 6'6" ish 3-4 and a legit big than another guard and a legit big in a recruiting class of 2 players. If we got this guy or someone with similar size it doesn't mean that all hope is lost to land a center
No, but it probabily means we've given up on getting either Dawson or Thompson.
Quote from: Stone Cold on July 28, 2010, 07:50:05 AM
Buzz has hit on most of his JUCO recruits in terms of character (not to mention most have had a lot of basketball talent).
Lets be real though, JUCOs can be more risky as they couldn't cut it in high school for whatever reason but once they get to a stable environment at MU most have thrived thus far.
If Buzz starts recruiting more character misses like M. Clark and turns this into a Cincy type show then yes Cottingham should tell him to be more selective. Until that happens I'm not ready to cut off the JUCO pipeline, in fact I get more pride in seeing these types of kids succeed academically at MU.
I'm sorry, didn't Buzz pull Clark's scholarship, and I'm not aware of MU becoming a Cincy type situation, so what the heck are you talking about?????
Quote from: RJax55 on July 28, 2010, 10:14:46 AM
Actually, MU's Jucos players have been a very stable bunch, going back to Crean. IIRC, not one has left the program and the only one having some sort of off the court issue was Trend Blackledge.
Chicos, its acutually been the traditional high-school player that has burned MU... (See Maymon, Blankston, Mbakwe, etc.)
BINGO!
Quote from: goodgreatgrand on July 28, 2010, 10:18:39 AM
Im fine with your comment except for your use of the word "intelligent." Let's not dress-up the issue...an overwhelming percentage of college basketball players are anything but intelligent (especially kids that were academically ineligible out of h.s. and had to take the juco route).
I think this is an incorrect statement. The student/athletes may have come from bad environments, been slackers in HS, underachievers, did not take their studying seriously. But that does not make themselves unintelligent. If they try and apply themselves and get in a good learning environment and develop discipline and good study skills they can get good grades. They always had the same amount of intelligence.
Quote from: LittleMurs on July 28, 2010, 08:33:59 PM
I'm sorry, didn't Buzz pull Clark's scholarship, and I'm not aware of MU becoming a Cincy type situation, so what the heck are you talking about?????
Learn to read.
Quote from: Ready2Fly on July 27, 2010, 08:33:28 PM
Yeah, it sucks getting the best JUCO player every year. Please stop exploiting a market inefficiency that brings wins and excitement to the Bradley Center! Oh the horror!
What does Jerry Tarkanian, Bobby Huggins, and Buzz Williams have in common?
Quote from: Knight Commission on July 28, 2010, 09:07:20 PM
What does Jerry Tarkanian, Bobby Huggins, and Buzz Williams have in common?
They are/were basketball coaches.
Quote from: Knight Commission on July 28, 2010, 09:07:20 PM
What does Jerry Tarkanian, Bobby Huggins, and Buzz Williams have in common?
1.They've all forgotten more about basketball than you'll ever know.
2.They're not pompous, self righteous know-it-alls.
3. They know enough about basic English usage to distinguish between singular and plural (does vs do).
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on July 28, 2010, 05:40:52 PM
wow how dense...sure the top programs in the country typicall only get 4 year HS kids....but last I checked we were not one of the top programs in the country. if buzz wants to build us to that level and all those top hS kids are going to UNC etc. then getting the top Juco players in the interim sounds like one hell of a good plan, especially given his contacts!!
if Mu continues to win like they have under buzz his ability to recruit only increases, until then he needs to recruit his strenghts. 2 years ago very few people outside the juco ranks and on the eastern half of the country knew who buzz williams was.. that is quickly changing.
So the only way to get their is through JUCOs? Interesting....I look at some of the other top programs in the country who go there and didn't go that route. One of them is 90 miles west of us, but I defer...only way to get there is via JUCOs.
Speaking of dense Robby, is that recession over yet?
Quote from: Lennys Tap on July 28, 2010, 07:23:45 PM
Actually I think someone pointed out that 7 of the top 10 teams in the country last year had 1 or more JUCOS, so it's not like the top teams aren't looking. The plain truth is there's just not enough good JUCO players to go around. Lest we forget, Jamil Lott and Marcus Jackson arrived at MU as JUCO All Americans and neither were exactly stalwarts at the D1 level. Either Buzz knows how to pick the good ones or he knows some people who can.
On the "old school" issue, lighten up. Embrace change. Don't be so rigid :D
I said CONSISTENTLY going after JUCOs, not one year here and there (I gave the UCLA example where they have had 2 in the last decade).
I'm experiencing "change" since 2008...it sucks. KEEP THE CHANGE. ;)
Quote from: Stone Cold on July 28, 2010, 11:07:54 AM
Chicos you like to talk, I get that but you might want to slow down from time to time.
70% of the top 10 schools in 2009-2010 in college basketball are schools that recruit JUCOs and either had JUCOs on the active roster or in their 2011 recruiting class.
3.WVU
5.Kentucky
6.Kansas
7.Kansas State
8.Syracuse
9.Tennessee
10. Baylor
This doesn't even take into account Prep school players which most of those teams listed have an abundance of.
You obviously didn't read my statement that said don't give me examples where it happens once in awhile....like the UCLA example.
That being said, quite a list. I remember the day when we would cringe at being compared to the tactics that Kentucky, Tennessee, Kansas State, WVU \ Thuggins, employed. Now, everything is cool...as long as we're winning everything is cool.
You'll forgive me Stonecold for wanting to be compared to programs that do it a little differently...Duke, UCLA, Stanford, etc.
Quote from: Ners on July 28, 2010, 06:29:57 PM
Did you really just imply the top program in Wisconsin is..Wisconsin? You were given..I believe by Lenny..about 7 schools that finished in last year's top 10 who had JUCO's on their roster...so yes, "top programs" do go after JUCO's. It's been a rough week for you Chicos - but you are really pretty much going it alone on this one - probably ought to pull up the anchor and sail on, on this topic.
Are you really telling me the best program in Wisconsin ISN'T Wisconsin-madison at the moment?
Please explain, this ought to be good.
Do you want to use 1 year, 5 year, 10 year span? Overall is it a better program? Nope. Currently is it a better program. A, yes. Not by much, but I'd love for you to show me where it isn't.
12 consecutive NCAA berths to MU's 5 straight.....commanding lead by Wisconsin
NCAA wins last decade...UW with big advantage
Each has a Final Four the last decade....even
3 Big Ten championships to 1 C-USA championship....Wisconsin big lead
Head to head....UW has lead over us last decade
Exactly what are you using, other than very gold colored glasses, to imply they aren't the top program in the state currently until someone replaces them? Please explain
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 10:19:18 PM
Are you really telling me the best program in Wisconsin ISN'T Wisconsin-madison at the moment?
Exactly what are you using, other than very gold colored glasses, to imply they aren't the top program in the state currently until someone replaces them? Please explain
Yes - that is exactly what I am saying. At present..this very moment..Marquette is the better program - at least as far as top talent, 4 and 5 star recruits seem to think. I like MU's chances against UW the next 4 years - I'd bet money we go 3-1, maybe 4-0 over the next 4 years. I find our roster far more talented. It is true that during the Tom Crean years, Bo Ryan did compile a better record against MU - but the game has changed now...different coach at the helm, and through the work of Tom Crean raising the profile of the program..and handing the keys off to Buzz..I'd say we are the better program.
Just embrace what is going on Chicos..why nitpick if we bring in 1 JUCO per year? Who knows..we might not even take Malcom Moore...and sorry buddy but Bo Ryan has brought in JUCO's..perhaps you recall Zach Morley?
Quote from: Ners on July 28, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Yes - that is exactly what I am saying. At present..this very moment..Marquette is the better program - at least as far as top talent, 4 and 5 star recruits seem to think.
LOL
OK. Well, an impartial observer doesn't base how good a program is based on what the stars are by their names before they've played a game. It's called doing it on the court. Doesn't make me happy to say it, but UW-madison has had the better program the last decade. The good news is that both programs have been successful, so no big deal, but they have been better in every possible category (regular season, post season, head to head). It is what it is. You don't suddenly become a better program because you're recruits have more stars by them, you have to do it on the court and you have to do it consistently over time. That's how the real world works.
The future is very bright at MU. A lot of good players. The Big East didn't get dissolved (yet, Thank God)...we should do well in the coming years. I'll remain a happy camper if we keep winning, keep graduating players, stay out of any trouble, (honor commitments) and do things the right way.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 05:09:52 PM
Yeah, I get it. I'm old school and believe in the stability of going after 4 year players. It's what most of the great programs do, still to this day.
Huh? What?
Most great programs go after four-year players?
Kansas?
You mean like Xavier Henry, Cole Aldrich, Julian Wright, Mario Chalmers and Darrell Arthur?
UNC goes after four-year players?
Like Brandon Wright, Marvin Williams, Ty Lawson, Ed Davis, Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace and some dude named Jordan?
UCLA goes after four-year players?
Like Kevin Love, J'rue Holiday and Jordan Farmar?
Stanford (your shining example of all that is great in collegs sports) goes after four-year players?
Like the Lopez twins, Josh Childress, the Collins twins and Casey Jacobsen?
And please recognize, these programs go after these kids knowing full well they'll only be around for two years, maybe three at best. I mean, was Ben Howland really surprised that Kevin Love didn't stick around four years? Was Roy Williams shocked - shocked! - that Marvin Williams didn't stick around for a UNC degree? Did Trent Johnson believe a couple of talented 7-footers would do four years at Stanford when he recruited the Lopezes?
Don't feed us this bunk about these schools going after four-year players. They go after the best players they can get, just like Buzz Williams is doing.
Seriously, besides your ongoing obsession with how things appear to our friends to the west (and on obscure blogs), what's the difference to a program's stability between a kid that goes to JUCO for 1-2 years and then comes to Marquette and one who arrives on campus as a freshman and stays 1-2 years?
How does the likes of Jimmy Butler, DJO and Joe Fulce create a less stable environment at MU than Kevin Love, Jordan Farmar and J'rue Holiday at UCLA?
Please explain.
Ah....I wondered how this got to 4 pages so fast - figured we must have landed the kid. But now I see it's turned into the ever popular "JUCO vs. 4 year player" debate. Without reading, let me guess, some are worried we're turning into a team like Huggins had at Cincinnati, and others are arguing that our JUCOs are actually graduating, and not thugs like Cincy had.
I'd also guess a certain poster has probably brought up that Deane and Crean did not have the JUCO leniency that Buzz is getting.
Did I miss anything?
Just another thread that has nothing to do with its title. It's funny how often you can trace the derailing to one member of this board.
At least I got to read "Keep the change!", which is very, very funny. :-\
Seriously, besides your ongoing obsession with how things appear to our friends to the west (and on obscure blogs), what's the difference to a program's stability between a kid that goes to JUCO for 1-2 years and then comes to Marquette and one who arrives on campus as a freshman and stays 1-2 years?
How does the likes of Jimmy Butler, DJO and Joe Fulce create a less stable environment at MU than Kevin Love, Jordan Farmar and J'rue Holiday at UCLA?
Please explain.
[/quote]
To build more on this point, the difference is that guys like DJO and Jimmy Butler end up being 4 year college players, and with that have the potential to bring more maturity (and perhaps stability) to a team. Assuming we are dealing with solid kids, which has been the case, I'd much rather have a 2 or 3 year player that has had the extra year or two to mature, work on academics, assimilate into the college environment, then a player who is looking to be one and done.
I really don't understand or follow this mythical belief that these top programs recruit 4 year players. They recruit players that will be potential lottery picks after one or two years. Yet, there is no howling at the moon that this creates instability. Would people be as upset with Buzz if he landed a John Wall-type or even Gordon Heyward-type, knowing he'd create "instability" after a year or two.......
Quote from: Ners on July 28, 2010, 10:31:44 PM
Yes - that is exactly what I am saying. At present..this very moment..Marquette is the better program - at least as far as top talent, 4 and 5 star recruits seem to think. I like MU's chances against UW the next 4 years - I'd bet money we go 3-1, maybe 4-0 over the next 4 years. I find our roster far more talented. It is true that during the Tom Crean years, Bo Ryan did compile a better record against MU - but the game has changed now...different coach at the helm, and through the work of Tom Crean raising the profile of the program..and handing the keys off to Buzz..I'd say we are the better program.
IOW we have the *potential* to be the better program. Gotta win first.
Quote from: d6 on July 29, 2010, 07:31:16 AM
Would people be as upset with Buzz if he landed a John Wall-type or even Gordon Heyward-type, knowing he'd create "instability" after a year or two.......
I can think of a couple guys here who would feign indignation over just that, assuming Buzz Williams is the coach.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on July 29, 2010, 07:32:29 AM
IOW we have the *potential* to be the better program. Gotta win first.
Good point..I'm not going to get into the ridiculous debate with Chico's on this...as he's not coming down from his indignation ledge of how MU is continuing to recruit JUCO's and how UW is a superior program.
One question I would ask: At present, would you trade positions with a UW fan? Meaning, do you feel UW is on a higher trajectory at present, than MU? Or, if you could...would you switch allegiances to become a UW fan at present - assuming you could erase all memory of your Marquette bias?
Quote from: Ners on July 29, 2010, 09:24:59 AM
Good point..I'm not going to get into the ridiculous debate with Chico's on this...as he's not coming down from his indignation ledge of how MU is continuing to recruit JUCO's and how UW is a superior program.
One question I would ask: At present, would you trade positions with a UW fan? Meaning, do you feel UW is on a higher trajectory at present, than MU? Or, if you could...would you switch allegiances to become a UW fan at present - assuming you could erase all memory of your Marquette bias?
I'm sorry I can't really even think that way. I'm a fan of whom I am a fan of regardless of results.
Pakuni, are you being serious or did the teal button not work on the keyboard today out there in Chicago?
Those players were HIGH SCHOOL players that went into those programs with 4 years of eligibility. JUCOs have, at most, 3 years and usually only two years.
So your examples are beyond silly. Show me the abundance of JUCOs that UCLA, DUKE, UNC, Stanford, etc have recruited in the last two decades....that's what I said. The great programs don't do it.
You're not against JUCOs, just "too many" jucos?
I admire your principled ethics Chicos.
Quote from: Ners on July 29, 2010, 09:24:59 AM
Good point..I'm not going to get into the ridiculous debate with Chico's on this...as he's not coming down from his indignation ledge of how MU is continuing to recruit JUCO's and how UW is a superior program.
Translation....you know you can't defend your comments on anything results driven and are going solely based on what you think recruiting gurus say our guys will do. Face it, UW-madison has had a better program than us the last decade...PERIOD. It is what it is. There is zero debate on it.
That doesn't mean it won't change this year, the next 10 years. I sure as hell hope it does change. But back to original point, somehow they've managed to be the best program in the state and one of the best in the country without going after JUCOs. I'm old school. I prefer we go after high school kids that will be here for their entire college basketball career. Now, if they leave early, they leave early.
Quote from: Stone Cold on July 29, 2010, 09:44:48 AM
You're not against JUCOs, just "too many" jucos?
I admire your principled ethics Chicos.
Yup. And what does ethics have to do with it? I want kids here for four years. Inserting one every few years from a JUCO rank isn't that big a deal. When you have about 25% of your roster and looking to add more, that's a lot of turnover happening in a short period of time.
Ethics? You'll have to explain where that one came from, other than left field.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on July 29, 2010, 02:18:31 AM
Ah....I wondered how this got to 4 pages so fast - figured we must have landed the kid. But now I see it's turned into the ever popular "JUCO vs. 4 year player" debate. Without reading, let me guess, some are worried we're turning into a team like Huggins had at Cincinnati, and others are arguing that our JUCOs are actually graduating, and not thugs like Cincy had.
I'd also guess a certain poster has probably brought up that Deane and Crean did not have the JUCO leniency that Buzz is getting.
Did I miss anything?
Nope. You got it.
The impending "maybe IU should take JUCOS, it would help them" portion of the debate is scheduled for this afternoon, followed by the ever popular Ners vs Marquette84 showdown, which usually degenerates into some sort of Crean vs Buzz man-love contest.
Stay tuned!
Buzz had to win right away to keep the wolves from his door. Last year we were 22-12. Imagine what our record would have been without Butler, DJO, Buyckes and Fulce. Sure they would have been replaced by someone, but I suspect it with be with players with less talent and experience. As far as UW, I believe over the next four years they will win as many, if not more games than MU. MU still has a hugh size disadvantage. Sure our 6 guards are better than their 6 guards (if they even have that many), but you do not play 6 guards. They still have the better front line and I Suspect this will continue. Our front line will be more athletic, but shorter than UW's. As far as Juco's I think you recruit them, if you can project them being a starter at least one year. If they are not good enough to start, than you should be looking at a four year player.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 28, 2010, 10:19:18 PM
Are you really telling me the best program in Wisconsin ISN'T Wisconsin-madison at the moment?
Please explain, this ought to be good.
Do you want to use 1 year, 5 year, 10 year span? Overall is it a better program? Nope. Currently is it a better program. A, yes. Not by much, but I'd love for you to show me where it isn't.
12 consecutive NCAA berths to MU's 5 straight.....commanding lead by Wisconsin
NCAA wins last decade...UW with big advantage
Each has a Final Four the last decade....even
3 Big Ten championships to 1 C-USA championship....Wisconsin big lead
Head to head....UW has lead over us last decade
Exactly what are you using, other than very gold colored glasses, to imply they aren't the top program in the state currently until someone replaces them? Please explain
Is this evidence of some sort of warped version of Stockholm syndrome? Any psychologists/psychiatrists out there?
I don't know Chicos I thought you were against JUCOs because of a moral/life perspective stand, now it's all about because you want 4 year guys...I guess I'm confused as your arguments change frequently to serve your purpose.
Your post from last Sept:
"We all bring bias to our life perspective based on the life we live. Your perspective is important.
Equally, my bias on JUCOs comes from UNLV, Oklahoma under Tubbs, USC, etc. They were JUCO central growing up and issues followed them off the court all the time. Amazing athletes, they won a lot but many issues. Plus here in California we have a crapload of JUCOs with high profile athletic programs. Unfortunately a considerable amount of bad press has followed many of these local programs. My bias is unfair, but I readily admit it."
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 29, 2010, 09:46:07 AM
Translation....you know you can't defend your comments on anything results driven and are going solely based on what you think recruiting gurus say our guys will do. Face it, UW-madison has had a better program than us the last decade...PERIOD. It is what it is. There is zero debate on it.
That doesn't mean it won't change this year, the next 10 years. I sure as hell hope it does change. But back to original point, somehow they've managed to be the best program in the state and one of the best in the country without going after JUCOs. I'm old school. I prefer we go after high school kids that will be here for their entire college basketball career. Now, if they leave early, they leave early.
Sorry dude..but UW has recruited JUCO's - see Zach Morley..several years back 2002-2003. Top programs use JUCO's. Get over it. And you are completely correct that Bo Ryan did a better job at UW during the 1999-2008 timeframe, than did Tom Crean at Marquette. But, thankfully we are in a new era, with a better coach, that recruits better talent. I like the trajectory of the MU program more than the UW program...end of story.
Quote from: Ners on July 29, 2010, 10:48:44 AM
I like the trajectory of the MU program more than the UW program...end of story.
And I like the trajectory of the B10 more than the BE, especially after hearing Delany's last comments. Without a stable conference, it's tough for a program to even have a
trajectory.
UW recruited 2010 JUCO G Lazeric Jones from John Logan JC in Illinois. He had an official visit scheduled for UW in December, but committed to UCLA before he took the visit.
Quote from: GOMU1104 on July 29, 2010, 11:05:35 AM
UW recruited 2010 JUCO G Lazeric Jones from John Logan JC in Illinois. He had an official visit scheduled for UW in December, but committed to UCLA before he took the visit.
How can that be? UCLA is a top tier program. They don't dip into the JUCO ranks.
UCLA is going to crumble from instability.
Elliot Spitzer doesn't post on this board, aina hey?
GASP! Instability! Instability!
One of the players most scouted by Indiana out in Las Vegas last week was junior college forward Robert Goff. The 6-foot-9, 240-pound player is from Indianapolis and has quickly returned to the Hoosier recruiting radar. Now check out our series of video clips taken of the former Broad Ripple forward at the All-America Juco Showcase last week.
http://indiana.rivals.com/ (http://indiana.rivals.com/)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 29, 2010, 09:42:51 AM
Pakuni, are you being serious or did the teal button not work on the keyboard today out there in Chicago?
Your computer has a teal button? I can't find mine, but maybe they make them different for us Midwesterners.
Anyhow, fine work changing the subject and failing to address my questions. I'll try again.
You stated that these "great" programs recruit four-year players and offered up some nonsense about it being better for stability. I pointed out how absurd that statement is. In reality, those programs frequently recruit kids they know have absolutely no interest in sticking around for four years, much less earning a college degree.
The truth of the matter is, you don't give a rat's a-- about stability. If you did, you would have complained about all the transfers and coaching defections under the previous coach. You didn't.
Or, it seems, whether a kid graduates. If you did, you wouldn't be holding up UCLA and UNC as examples of how it should be done.
What you do care about is perception, and the stigma you choose to attach to JUCO kids. Never mind the fact that none of the JUCOs brought to MU by Buzz Williams - or Tom Crean, for that matter - did anything to validate that stigma. Rather than welcome that, you continue to embrace the stigma. Fine. Your choice.
That said, I can't understand how you have such moral indignation over recruiting JUCOs, yet seem to be OK with Ben Howland, Bill Self, Roy Williams, etc., recruiting kids who make a mockery of the entire student-athlete concept. These guys know full well that the top 10-type players they are bringing to their universities have no interest in academics or getting a diploma. They're just there to sharpen their basketball skills for a year or two before moving on to the pros.
Why, in your mind, is this OK? But bringing in a kid who actually will attend college for four years and possibly even earn a degree ... this is bad?
Explain that to me.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 29, 2010, 12:02:47 PM
Your computer has a teal button? I can't find mine, but maybe they make them different for us Midwesterners.
Anyhow, fine work changing the subject and failing to address my questions. I'll try again.
You stated that these "great" programs recruit four-year players and offered up some nonsense about it being better for stability. I pointed out how absurd that statement is. In reality, those programs frequently recruit kids they know have absolutely no interest in sticking around for four years, much less earning a college degree.
The truth of the matter is, you don't give a rat's a-- about stability. If you did, you would have complained about all the transfers and coaching defections under the previous coach. You didn't.
Or, it seems, whether a kid graduates. If you did, you wouldn't be holding up UCLA and UNC as examples of how it should be done.
What you do care about is perception, and the stigma you choose to attach to JUCO kids. Never mind the fact that none of the JUCOs brought to MU by Buzz Williams - or Tom Crean, for that matter - did anything to validate that stigma. Rather than welcome that, you continue to embrace the stigma. Fine. Your choice.
That said, I can't understand how you have such moral indignation over recruiting JUCOs, yet seem to be OK with Ben Howland, Bill Self, Roy Williams, etc., recruiting kids who make a mockery of the entire student-athlete concept. These guys know full well that the top 10-type players they are bringing to their universities have no interest in academics or getting a diploma. They're just there to sharpen their basketball skills for a year or two before moving on to the pros.
Why, in your mind, is this OK? But bringing in a kid who actually will attend college for four years and possibly even earn a degree ... this is bad?
Explain that to me.
Amen.
Quote from: Pakuni on July 29, 2010, 12:02:47 PM
That said, I can't understand how you have such moral indignation over recruiting JUCOs, yet seem to be OK with Ben Howland, Bill Self, Roy Williams, etc., recruiting kids who make a mockery of the entire student-athlete concept. These guys know full well that the top 10-type players they are bringing to their universities have no interest in academics or getting a diploma. They're just there to sharpen their basketball skills for a year or two before moving on to the pros.
Why, in your mind, is this OK? But bringing in a kid who actually will attend college for four years and possibly even earn a degree ... this is bad?
Explain that to me.
Whoa... Why is it the fault of Roy Williams or Bill Self or any other coach that recruits a one-and-done kid? Unless the recruit chooses to go to Europe like Brandon Jennings, the top tier recruits need to go
somewhere for a year. Fault the NBA for the age limit or the NCAA but the coaches? Really?
I really do not understand the objections to recruiting Juco's. MU has a long history of recruiting Juco's going back to the McGuire days. Off the top of my head, I do not remember any Juco that actually enrolled in MU being a hugh problem. Sure some of them did not play much, but all 13 players are not going to play.
Quote from: goodgreatgrand on July 29, 2010, 10:57:41 AM
And I like the trajectory of the B10 more than the BE, especially after hearing Delany's last comments. Without a stable conference, it's tough for a program to even have a trajectory.
Was the debate a question of which conference had a better trajectory? No. Buzz will get the MU program built up well enough/develop his own reputation for turning out players to the NBA - to where conference affiliation won't be a huge crisis..in the event the Big East breaks up and MU ends up in a mid to high major conference...
Quote from: goodgreatgrand on July 29, 2010, 12:50:15 PM
Whoa... Why is it the fault of Roy Williams or Bill Self or any other coach that recruits a one-and-done kid? Unless the recruit chooses to go to Europe like Brandon Jennings, the top tier recruits need to go somewhere for a year. Fault the NBA for the age limit or the NCAA but the coaches? Really?
Whoa ... where did I say it was their fault?
Read again, please.
I'm merely exposing the hypocrisy of complaining that JUCO players are bad for stability, yet holding up coaches who sign one-and-dones as shining examples of how it should be done. And it's just as hypocritical to complain about the academic stigma of JUCO kids while lavishing praise on programs that recruit kids who will attend class for one to three semesters and then drop out without making any serious effort toward a degree.
If Buzz were fortunate enough to land a player with one-and-done talent, that's fine with me.
Quote from: Ners on July 29, 2010, 10:48:44 AM
Sorry dude..but UW has recruited JUCO's - see Zach Morley..several years back 2002-2003. Top programs use JUCO's. Get over it. And you are completely correct that Bo Ryan did a better job at UW during the 1999-2008 timeframe, than did Tom Crean at Marquette. But, thankfully we are in a new era, with a better coach, that recruits better talent. I like the trajectory of the MU program more than the UW program...end of story.
It's so hard having a discussion with you because you don't read. I don't know if it's on purpose, or laziness, or what it is.
What did I say in the very first post on this topic?
I acknowledged that there are one-offs at places like UCLA, Wisconsin, etc. So for you to bring up as if I was wrong when I already acknowledged it either shows you didn't read it or flat out ignored it.
Yes, all programs go after Jucos from time to time.
No, I've never said DO NOT RECRUIT Jucos. I've said there is a time and place but if you load up your roster with them that's a different story. UW having 1 Juco in 10 years is a bit different than MU have 4X that many is just one year....or nearly 25% of our roster.
It also sets up an issue of a self fulfilling prophecy, which is what I said last year. If you keep going after JUCOs then you leave yourself no choice but to replace them with JUCOs when they leave, otherwise you have unbalanced classes again. Your only recourse is to pull off the bandaid at some point.
Upward trajectory...I love it. Just admit you were wrong, UW has had a better program than us the last decade. You got all over me for making that statement but you can't prove it wrong because you know it's right. Now you're coming with upward trajectory?
Quote from: Ready2Fly on July 29, 2010, 10:03:24 AM
Is this evidence of some sort of warped version of Stockholm syndrome? Any psychologists/psychiatrists out there?
I think it's merely evidence they have had a better program the last decade. Nothing more. I'm happy to be proven wrong with that statement...so far just personal attacks and such and nothing to counter the statement. Wait...Upward Trajectory...there's that.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on July 29, 2010, 11:11:31 AM
How can that be? UCLA is a top tier program. They don't dip into the JUCO ranks.
Yup....which I already posted yesterday....one of 2 JUCO players in a decade to go there.
Remember this quote I had yesterday..."The UCLA Bruins
do not spend much time recruiting junior college players." from JucoJunction.com?
Somehow, with only 2 JUCOs in a decade, they've managed 3 Final Fours....Duke, with zero JUCOs managed a national title...I could go on and on.
I guess it comes down to this fellas.
I'd rather have 4 years of Travis Diener, Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal, Lazar Hayward, Chris Crawford, Steve Novak, etc, etc than a guy like Dwight Buycks who is already a senior this year after playing middle the of the road minutes last year. I hope Buycks has a great year, I'm sure he will, but he just got here and now he's about to be gone.
There is a reason the great programs go with high school players. Pretty simple. You teach the "program way" from day one, the expectations are known for all four years, the turnover is lower, more stability, etc.
That's just what I'd rather see. Don't agree, that's fine. But don't make up stuff or ignore points altogether.
The good news is that we are aspiring to be like K-State (a Thuggins stop from two years ago), WVU ( a current Thuggins stop), Baylor, Kentucky, etc....for that I'm relieved.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 29, 2010, 01:58:06 PM
What did I say in the very first post on this topic?
I acknowledged that there are one-offs at places like UCLA, Wisconsin, etc. So for you to bring up as if I was wrong when I already acknowledged it either shows you didn't read it or flat out ignored it.
Yes, all programs go after Jucos from time to time.
Upward trajectory...I love it. Just admit you were wrong, UW has had a better program than us the last decade. You got all over me for making that statement but you can't prove it wrong because you know it's right. Now you're coming with upward trajectory?
I have acknowledged that you are correct that in the last decade UW did have better results than MU, which was under the Crean regime. We are in a new era..and Buzz is proving to be a better coach and better recruiter..which means better talent and most likely better results. We shall see how UW and MU fare over the next 4 years...my money is on MU...would you really trade MU's position with UW, roster-wise at this point?
Chicos - News flash - MU is not on the same level as Duke or UCLA. We are trying to get there. UCLA has used JUCO's..big deal. You complain about frequent use of using JUCO's leading to unbalanced classes. Didn't Crean suffer in this department due to all of the transfers from the high school players he signed?
I think you can give it a rest..you continue to go your argument alone. Just admit that your position has been proven wrong, and you've had to contradict yourself to try to continue to the discussion. Swallow your pride and for once admit you are wrong. It won't kill you.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 29, 2010, 02:11:25 PM
Somehow, with only 2 JUCOs in a decade, they've managed 3 Final Fours....Duke, with zero JUCOs managed a national title...I could go on and on.
I guess it comes down to this fellas.
I'd rather have 4 years of Travis Diener, Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal, Lazar Hayward, Chris Crawford, Steve Novak, etc, etc than a guy like Dwight Buycks who is already a senior this year after playing middle the of the road minutes last year.
Are those the only options? I mean, is it not possible to have mostly high school kids with a sprinkling of JUCOs and still succeed?
And while what you state about is swell, the reality is elite programs don't win with a bunch of kids who are there for four years. Certainly not your beloved Bruins, and you know it. Howland isn't winning with four-year players. He's winning with one-and-dones and early entries (Love, Holiday, Westbrook, Thompson, Farmar, Mbah a Moute, etc.).
Again, I ask ... how is that better from a standpoint of stability or academics than having 3-4 JUCO kids on the roster?
I'll eagerly await - though not really expect - your well-thought response.
Chico, as I have stated earlier in this thread, in a perfect world, we get nothing but 5 star high schoolers that stay in school 4 years. The world ain't perfect. What I see out of Buzz is that he is out there working the big boys, putting in his time on the Faust's, Tokoto's, Dawsons of the world. But he isn't putting his eggs all in one basket. Instead of putting all of his money on a Shumpert/Butch/Nankivil/Johnson and then not having a back up plan and settling for a Blackledge when he can't get a Stemler, he is also working his vast web of JUCO and Texas contacts to get guys who can play ball the way he wants, who have the drive he is looking for. Instead of sitting back and hoping, like a shark he is always moving forward, looking for the next big Tuna to grab. He wants people who want to buy into the Marquette attitude, and he doesn't care where they are from.
There is some disconnect here. I still don't see where there is some sort of empirical proof that programs like UNC, Kansas, UCLA, Syracuse, etc. are succeeding BECAUSE they recruit high school kids that learn the "program way." These kids must be exceptional learners because a large number of them sure aren't there for three, let alone four years.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 29, 2010, 02:11:25 PM
I guess it comes down to this fellas.
I'd rather have 4 years of Travis Diener, Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal, Lazar Hayward, Chris Crawford, Steve Novak, etc, etc than a guy like Dwight Buycks who is already a senior this year after playing middle the of the road minutes last year. I hope Buycks has a great year, I'm sure he will, but he just got here and now he's about to be gone.
There is a reason the great programs go with high school players. Pretty simple. You teach the "program way" from day one, the expectations are known for all four years, the turnover is lower, more stability, etc.
That's just what I'd rather see. Don't agree, that's fine. But don't make up stuff or ignore points altogether.
I guess it comes down to this little fella.
I'd rather have 2 years of Wade, 1 year of Carmello, 1 year of Wall, 1 year of Oden, 1 year of Beasely, 1 year of Conley...etc. (if they were all on the up and up coming into MU) than 4 years of Travis Diener, Wes Matthews, Jerel McNeal, Lazar Hayward, Chris Crawford, Steve Novak, etc, etc
There is a reason the great programs go with
high school players great talent. Pretty simple. You teach the "program way" from day one, the expectations are known for
all four years as long as the players are there,
the turnover is lower, more stability, etc. That's just what I'd rather see. Don't agree, that's fine. But don't make up stuff or ignore points altogether.
Coach K, Roy Williams, Self, Boeheim, Howland, Billy Donovan..etc are all on my side.
How about this Chico....Buzz doesn't belong to any party when it comes to who he recruits. He chooses the candidates to play for Marquette that most closely matches his principles, regardless of affiliation. Or this....he goes to war with the players he has, not the ones he wishes he has.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 29, 2010, 01:58:06 PM
It also sets up an issue of a self fulfilling prophecy, which is what I said last year. If you keep going after JUCOs then you leave yourself no choice but to replace them with JUCOs when they leave, otherwise you have unbalanced classes again. Your only recourse is to pull off the bandaid at some point
What?!?!? This is so wrong it's not even funny. In fact, with our current roster the exact opposite is true.
We currently have 3 seniors on this years squad (according to the Wiki), ALL of which are Juco transfers. You are saying we'd NEED to replace them with Jucos to rebalance classes?
Did you even think about this before you typed it?
Did I miss something??? Did we accept a verbal from this Moore kid?? Or is he just one of 25 - 30 guys we're recruiting. A guy who's strength is rebounding. A need that we have found difficult to recruit to in the past typically having our 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th choices go elsewhere. A need we are currently hoping can be filled by a redshirt Soph coming off his second season ending injury and a freshman who is somewhat of a project. Sounds to me like having some recruiting options at this point isn't the worst thing we could do. ::)
I love how Chicos is getting torn a new one, I don't think I've ever seen Scoop so united.
Quote from: d6 on July 29, 2010, 02:45:19 PM
There is some disconnect here. I still don't see where there is some sort of empirical proof that programs like UNC, Kansas, UCLA, Syracuse, etc. are succeeding BECAUSE they recruit high school kids that learn the "program way." These kids must be exceptional learners because a large number of them sure aren't there for three, let alone four years.
Not to mention exceptional basketball players coached by exceptional coaches.
Correlation does not mean it's a cause.
Quote from: bilsu on July 29, 2010, 12:52:15 PM
I really do not understand the objections to recruiting Juco's. MU has a long history of recruiting Juco's going back to the McGuire days. Off the top of my head, I do not remember any Juco that actually enrolled in MU being a hugh problem. Sure some of them did not play much, but all 13 players are not going to play.
It's not an objection to recruiting Jucos. I don't think anyone here has ever said don't recruit Jucos. The concern is how many, what that does to your team stability, constant turnover, etc
25% of our team right now is Jucos, you are correct we have recruited them since Al. Have we ever had 25% of our team as Jucos and looking to add more? Maybe we have, I don't recall it. Would be happy to hear where we have had that much of a tilt.
And maybe Pakuni can show me where UCLA, Duke, UNC, Wisconsin, etc have had 25% of their roster as Jucos. I know teams like Baylor, UNLV, Tennessee have, but I was hoping those weren't programs we were looking to model after.
Quote from: d6 on July 29, 2010, 02:45:19 PM
There is some disconnect here. I still don't see where there is some sort of empirical proof that programs like UNC, Kansas, UCLA, Syracuse, etc. are succeeding BECAUSE they recruit high school kids that learn the "program way." These kids must be exceptional learners because a large number of them sure aren't there for three, let alone four years.
Maybe you should just ask Williams, Coach K, Howland, etc why they go after high school kids. As Howland has told me in the past, if you have a choice, you always take the high school kid. Jucos have a time and a place, but they are a short term answer only. You can't sustain a program on Jucos, but you build a foundation on high school players.
High school kids are program builders.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 09:46:03 AM
And maybe Pakuni can show me where UCLA, Duke, UNC, Wisconsin, etc have had 25% of their roster as Jucos. I know teams like Baylor, UNLV, Tennessee have, but I was hoping those weren't programs we were looking to model after.
Well, I guess if we are going to limit ourselves to only one or two Juco's and have to fill the remaining roster spots with the HS kids that are left over after UCLA, Duke, UNC, Kentucky, etc. get done taking their pick, then if Buzz does a really good job, our results will hopefully be in line with Baylor, UNLV, Tennessee, etc.
Perhaps augmenting the roster with the best Juco talent available, is a way to build the program, achieve better results, and put yourself on position to compete with the aforementioned teams to get one or two of the top kids available.
BTW, Mr. Science, if 25% is too high, but having some Jucos is ok, what exactly is the right number? Where is the line between stability and instability? Would one less be ok? Two less? If you hit that magical barrier, is getting Crean quality, marginally talented 4 year college player, really better than a more talented Juco who will only be around 2 or 3 years? If so, why?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 09:52:20 AM
As Howland has told me in the past, if you have a choice, you always take the high school kid.
Sooooo...given a choice between say DJO and DJ Newbill, you would take Newbill because he's coming out of HS, even though he is an inferior player, seemingly had some questions about grades, etc. You would rather have Patrick Hazel over Jimmy Butler? Is that really your position?
BTW Chicos, what the hell are you talking about anyway? MU has 5 incoming players this year, and a grand total of 1 of them is coming from a junior college, bringing the current team total to 5. Buzz was obviously Juco heavy early to make up for the recruiting mess left by Crean (and if you can point to a single problem that has come as a result, I'd love to know what it is). Are you seriously trying to suggest that the great Ben Howland would not sign 1 out of 5 Juco's? There will be 3 openings we know of next year, and all 3 of those are JC players. If one of the 3 replacements is a JC player, will that offend your sensibilities as well?
You are so full of crap on this topic its ridiculous, and the reason why could not be more transparent.
Chicos, you drive me f*cking nuts. I am pulling my hair out reading this thread.
You hate that Buzz was hired, you miss Tom Crean like hell, rip on Buzz for getting too many JUCO's, assume the worst anytime a kid leaves...should I go on?
I couldn't give a crap less if Buzz brings in a kid who is a JUCO or a HS senior. Doesn't matter to me at all. Ya know what does matter to me? Winning.
You afraid JUCO's are "bad guys"? DJO, Butler, Fulce, and Buycks are all good kids and represent the university and the program very well. They are also all at the least very good players.
Did it ever cross your mind that Buzz has worked at many different JUCO's in his career and has a ton of contacts? Why does he recruit JUCO's? Why does he recruit Texas so hard? You recruit the area you know the best and the area you have the most contacts. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
Your whole thing is beyond tired. Why not support the program and stop bitching about everything?
EDIT: Why don't you answer Pakuni's question? How is it any different if MU cycles through good JUCO players who are here 2 or 3 years, as opposed to the "elite" programs having the same number of HS players leave early after 2 years?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 09:46:03 AM
It's not an objection to recruiting Jucos. I don't think anyone here has ever said don't recruit Jucos. The concern is how many, what that does to your team stability, constant turnover, etc
25% of our team right now is Jucos, you are correct we have recruited them since Al. Have we ever had 25% of our team as Jucos and looking to add more? Maybe we have, I don't recall it. Would be happy to hear where we have had that much of a tilt.
And maybe Pakuni can show me where UCLA, Duke, UNC, Wisconsin, etc have had 25% of their roster as Jucos. I know teams like Baylor, UNLV, Tennessee have, but I was hoping those weren't programs we were looking to model after.
Chico's, do you believe JUCOs are inherently lesser people? By their very nature less worthy of the Marquette uniform? Untouchables whose presence in very small numbers may be tolerable, but any more than a few simply too much to bear?
It seems you could not care less with whether they're good kids, who go to class. work toward a degree and represent MU well on and off the court. What matters is that they're JUCOs.
Me, I'd rather have a roster full of JUCOs like Jimmy Butler and DJO than high schoolers like Jeronne Maymon, but perhaps I lack your keen insight into the dangerous mind of a junior college athlete.
So, explain to me your bias. don't tell me what Duke and North Carolina does. Marquette isn't Duke and North Carolina. Tell me what Chico's Bail Bonds has against kids who attend junior college.
And, once again, you continue to avoid my question ... likely because you have no good answer. Still, I'll try again:
How is having a few JUCOs on one's roster create more instability, or a indicator of less attention to academics, than recruiting several kids every year who have no intention of attending classes for more than three semesters (at best) and no interest in obtaining a college diploma?
Why is the latter acceptable in your world, but the former a big no-no?
Quote from: Pakuni on July 30, 2010, 10:27:17 AM
Why is the latter acceptable in your world, but the former a big no-no?
I'm pretty sure the answer to that question is obvious to everyone here, with the exception of the person to whom the question is directed (at least he won't admit it).
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on July 30, 2010, 10:07:28 AM
Sooooo...given a choice between say DJO and DJ Newbill, you would take Newbill because he's coming out of HS, even though he is an inferior player, seemingly had some questions about grades, etc. You would rather have Patrick Hazel over Jimmy Butler? Is that really your position?
Nope, not my position but that's a red herring anyway. Given my choice between DJO and a Steve Novak, I'll take Novak. Given my choice of a DJO and Wesley Matthews, I'll take Matthews.
If you're saying DJO and Newbill, I'll take DJO because he's the better player. But, all things being equal (and what Howland was basically saying), if they are equal or close to it, take the high school player every time. But to suggest the choice would ever be between Newbill and DJO is way off the mark. That was his entire point. If the players are equal, take the high school player. Even if the players aren't equal but the potential for the high schooler is better, take the high school player. More "upward trajectory" (to use a new vogue term), etc, etc.
Quote from: NavinRJohnson on July 30, 2010, 10:18:37 AM
BTW Chicos, what the hell are you talking about anyway? MU has 5 incoming players this year, and a grand total of 1 of them is coming from a junior college, bringing the current team total to 5. Buzz was obviously Juco heavy early to make up for the recruiting mess left by Crean (and if you can point to a single problem that has come as a result, I'd love to know what it is). Are you seriously trying to suggest that the great Ben Howland would not sign 1 out of 5 Juco's? There will be 3 openings we know of next year, and all 3 of those are JC players. If one of the 3 replacements is a JC player, will that offend your sensibilities as well?
You are so full of crap on this topic its ridiculous, and the reason why could not be more transparent.
What do you mean...5 of 13 players...that's 38% of our roster is Juco if your numbers are right. That's what I'm talking about.
What is the right number on a roster you ask...I don't know, but I feel 38% is too high. Has there been a Marquette team EVER that has had 38% of our roster from the Juco ranks? Look, these are good kids, nice kids, great players. No issues that I'm aware of, which is a great thing. But you still have 5 guys on your team that will be here for only 2 or 3 years MAX. Which means you are 1 or 2 years short on a full cycle of kids coming through. Now, I get it that high school players turn pro early, some transfer, etc....but they all have the max potential to be at the school for four years. I believe the last 7 NBA players out of Marquette, 6 of them played all four years at MU.
Let me reverse the question to you guys. If 38% isn't a high number in your opinion, what is? If having 5 Juco players on a roster at one time is the way to go, why aren't the top programs in the country also doing this? I'm just asking. Maybe Buzz has found the right combination that no one has stumbled on in the past, who knows. I admitted honestly last year and again this week, I don't like the stigma...it's a bias I have. I've readily admitted it. I won't deny that I would like us not to be Juco central, and 38% of a roster is pretty damn close to that description, in my opinion. You don't have to agree, that's fine. I'd rather we do it another way, with high school kids, with a max of four years. That's my preference and I'm sorry if that upsets some people that I'd prefer we went that option. Some argue it's not possible to go that option which I call B.S.
If one thing (DJO vs. DJ Newbill) is a red herring, then so is the other (DJO vs. Novak or Matthews). We recruited Jimmy Butler, who has turned into a stud. Which equal or possibly equal hs player did we ignore? We recruited DJO, who looks like a stud. Which equal or possibly equal hs player did we turn away?
Quote from: Pakuni on July 30, 2010, 10:27:17 AM
Chico's, do you believe JUCOs are inherently lesser people? By their very nature less worthy of the Marquette uniform? Untouchables whose presence in very small numbers may be tolerable, but any more than a few simply too much to bear? Yes, lesser people, almost subhuman with a bit of vampire in them. Oh, and they turn into stone statues during the day. Are you serious with this question?
It seems you could not care less with whether they're good kids, who go to class. work toward a degree and represent MU well on and off the court. What matters is that they're JUCOs. Wrong, and I've answered the several times. I have nothing against those particular kids. Good kids, great players, seem to matriculating. I've said that multiple times, so either you ignored it or chose not to include it...I'll guess the latter. You are making an either or proposition, however, and this is where I think your logic is faulty. Could we not also find high school kids that are great players, matriculate, good kids or are they only at the JUCO level?
Me, I'd rather have a roster full of JUCOs like Jimmy Butler and DJO than high schoolers like Jeronne Maymon, but perhaps I lack your keen insight into the dangerous mind of a junior college athlete. I agree with you on Maymon, which is why I said last year we shouldn't have taken him to begin with. I'm sure you are intelligent enough to understand that just because they are a high school player doesn't mean you take them. It's not black or white, there are gray areas and Maymon was clearly a DON'T GO THERE recruit. It's why Crean and Ryan both said NO WAY IN HELL.
So, explain to me your bias. don't tell me what Duke and North Carolina does. Marquette isn't Duke and North Carolina. Tell me what Chico's Bail Bonds has against kids who attend junior college. I've stated last year and last week that I have a bias against JUCOs. Not hiding from it. There is a stigma that is out that I wish MU wasn't a part of. Pretty simple. I'm not crazy about Prep schools either. Does that mean I hate Lazar Hayward? Hell no. Great kid, great player, worked his ass off. But if asked me if we could get the same type of player out of high school than a prep school, yup...I would opt for the high school. Now, that probably begs the question on whether we could ever get that kind of player out of high school? I say yes, I believe in Buzz and that he can do that. Others seem to pooh pooh MU like it's not possible. I say B.S., we've landed plenty of top 100 kids over the years that were high school kids. So to put it simply, I'd rather have really good high school players than really good Juco and\or Prep school players. I like how Stanford, Duke, Wisconsin, etc, do it. That doesn't mean you can't dip into those areas from time to time for absolute need, but I think 90% of the time you go with the high school kids. I admire how they build their programs.
And, once again, you continue to avoid my question ... likely because you have no good answer. Still, I'll try again: Mostly because I rarely read any of your posts....I can't ignore something when I don't give a rat's arse what you write because you continually misrepresent what many people say here and I don't appreciate rolling in the mud if you're going to play that game, but I've obviously made an exception on this post.
How is having a few JUCOs on one's roster create more instability, or a indicator of less attention to academics, (where did I ever say this....one of your specialties on this board that you use against people all the time, making crap up) than recruiting several kids every year who have no intention of attending classes for more than three semesters (at best) and no interest in obtaining a college diploma? How many one and done kids or people even remotely like that have we EVER recruited to Marquette? Don't say Dwyane Wade because he was not tabbed that out of high school or even after his first year of college. Since we aren't landing any players like that, your question is totally irrelevant
Why is the latter acceptable in your world, but the former a big no-no?
Look at it this way. If a juco is good enough to start at least one year you want him. If he turns out to be a mistake you only used a scholarship for two years vs a freshmen mistake that could use it for four years.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 12:00:58 PM
What do you mean...5 of 13 players...that's 38% of our roster is Juco if your numbers are right. That's what I'm talking about.
Enough already Chicos. How many JUCO's did Buzz sign in this last class? 1 - Crowder..the JUCO Player of the Year. So, without the necessity to balance the recruiting classes that resulted from the coaching transition from Crean to Buzz...Buzz has brought in basically 1 JUCO.
He's yet to sign a JUCO for the 2011 class - but is not turning his back on the JUCO ranks of talent..which are where he has his roots..and which has been very good to him so far. I think Buzz likes kids who have to overcome some adversity...such as having to go to JUCO out of high school..makes a kid tougher/have more gratitude/desire to make it to the next level.
Let's not jump the gun and assume the MU roster will be made up of 38% JUCO's every year. That said, if the MU roster is made up of 40% JUCO's from here on out during Buzz's tenure..and the kids turn out like Jimmy, DJO, Dwight..and have success on the court and in the classroom...who cares if they are only at MU for 2 or 3 years? I just don't get your obsession with having to have 100% of your roster be 4-year players??
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 12:23:12 PM
I'd rather have really good high school players than really good Juco and\or Prep school players. I like how Stanford, Duke, Wisconsin, etc, do it.
Looking at Scout, 15 of the 34 players that committed to Duke for the '02 to '11 recruiting years came from non-traditional high schools.
I recall the argument that Buzz was put in a bad spot because we didn't have enough incoming freshmen in 2007 and 2008 to become upperclass contributors for the 2010 and 2011 seasons.
Yet if we sign in a juco now, we won't have that player as an upperclassman in 2014 and 2015. That should be the biggest argument against JUCOs, and I'm really surprised the same people who made that argument about the 2007 and 2008 incoming classes aren't raising that objection now.
We had plenty of incoming "4 year freshmen" in '07 and '08...most transferred out of the program.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 12:23:12 PM
I only skimmed over your post because I'm not very interested in this pissing match that goes nowhere, but I think you made a major error when explaining that Crean and Bo would say "NO WAY IN HELL" to Maymon. I don't think people could give 2 sh!ts about what those two think in terms of recruits. If Crean and Bo say no way, I think most can agree here that we would prefer Buzz say "Yes please!"
Did Maymon work out at Marquette? Nope. But do all recruits work out at every school? Nope. Hell, even the SAINT Tanned Tom Crean had quite a few of transfers (Bradley, Mason, Blanskon, etc. etc.). So does Saint Bo. It happens
Quote from: wadesworld on July 30, 2010, 01:54:18 PM
I only skimmed over your post because I'm not very interested in this pissing match that goes nowhere, but I think you made a major error when explaining that Crean and Bo would say "NO WAY IN HELL" to Maymon. I don't think people could give 2 sh!ts about what those two think in terms of recruits. If Crean and Bo say no way, I think most can agree here that we would prefer Buzz say "Yes please!"
Did Maymon work out at Marquette? Nope. But do all recruits work out at every school? Nope. Hell, even the SAINT Tanned Tom Crean had quite a few of transfers (Bradley, Mason, Blanskon, etc. etc.). So does Saint Bo. It happens
I think Chicos' point was that there were a lot of red flags with Maymon that may not have been there with some of those other guys and I tend to agree with him on that point. Of course, hindisght is 20/20, but there seemed to be a lot of reason why Maymon may not have been a good fit. Of course, some thought the same thing about Wes's mom as well and look how that turned out.
Just for fun, I went back and look at what MU's average tenure rate was for 4-year high school players from 2000-2006. I picked 2000 as it was Crean's first recruiting class and 2006 as it was the one that just graduated.
This includes players who went to prep school, but does not have transfers into the program.
The average rate was 2.96 years.
Again, MU's Jucos have been stable, staying their 2 years. If you were to revisit the rates in a few years, they would be even closer due to the additions of Buzz's 3-year Jucos players (Fulce, Butler, DJO) and the continued turnover of the traditional high school player.
Quote from: jmayer1 on July 30, 2010, 02:20:58 PM
I think Chicos' point was that there were a lot of red flags with Maymon that may not have been there with some of those other guys and I tend to agree with him on that point. Of course, hindisght is 20/20, but there seemed to be a lot of reason why Maymon may not have been a good fit. Of course, some thought the same thing about Wes's mom as well and look how that turned out.
An absolutely ignorant comment...for Saint Tommy just recently brought in trevor mbakwe who had 20 red flags for every one that maymon had.
Quote from: Canadian Dimes on July 30, 2010, 02:33:06 PM
An absolutely ignorant comment...for Saint Tommy just recently brought in trevor mbakwe who had 20 red flags for every one that maymon had.
Wow, defensive much? I'm one of Buzz's biggest fans, but was merely pointing out that there were a lot of red flags around Maymon that were not necessairly there for a lot of the other guys that transferred from MU. The same thing could be said for Mbakwe.
Quote from: wadesworld on July 30, 2010, 01:54:18 PM
I only skimmed over your post because I'm not very interested in this pissing match that goes nowhere, but I think you made a major error when explaining that Crean and Bo would say "NO WAY IN HELL" to Maymon. I don't think people could give 2 sh!ts about what those two think in terms of recruits. If Crean and Bo say no way, I think most can agree here that we would prefer Buzz say "Yes please!"
Disagree, there was a reason why Crean and Ryan said hell no to Maymon. And they were both right. He wasn't worth it on all levels.
Quote from: RJax55 on July 30, 2010, 02:24:27 PM
Just for fun, I went back and look at what MU's average tenure rate was for 4-year high school players from 2000-2006. I picked 2000 as it was Crean's first recruiting class and 2006 as it was the one that just graduated.
This includes players who went to prep school, but does not have transfers into the program.
The average rate was 2.96 years.
Again, MU's Jucos have been stable, staying their 2 years. If you were to revisit the rates in a few years, they would be even closer due to the additions of Buzz's 3-year Jucos players (Fulce, Butler, DJO) and the continued turnover of the traditional high school player.
I don't disagree with your numbers at all. We had a coach that pushed a lot of people hard and out the door. When I say more stable, I'm speaking about in general terms for most programs and not transfers. Almost no JUCOs transfer because almost all of them have only 2 years of eligibility. There's no point in transferring so that data point has a huge * next to it.
By stability, in a normal situation, means having 3 new recruits coming in every year with 4 years ahead of them and completing the cycle. Not having kids come in with only 2 years of eligibility which accelerates and shortens the cycle. That is what I mean by stability (this is assumes also that you have a coach that doesn't push people out consistently...like Crean did).
Quote from: RJax55 on July 30, 2010, 02:24:27 PM
Just for fun, I went back and look at what MU's average tenure rate was for 4-year high school players from 2000-2006. I picked 2000 as it was Crean's first recruiting class and 2006 as it was the one that just graduated.
This includes players who went to prep school, but does not have transfers into the program.
The average rate was 2.96 years.
Again, MU's Jucos have been stable, staying their 2 years. If you were to revisit the rates in a few years, they would be even closer due to the additions of Buzz's 3-year Jucos players (Fulce, Butler, DJO) and the continued turnover of the traditional high school player.
Can somebody please do this same analysis for the programs Chicos keeps blathering on about being the paragons of college basketball and doing it the "right way" by only taking 4-year HS kids? UCLA, UNC, Kansas and UW would do for a start.
I'll bet the numbers won't be significantly different and I for one would love to see this whole "stability" charade exposed as the utter BS most of us think it is.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 12:00:58 PM
What do you mean...5 of 13 players...that's 38% of our roster is Juco if your numbers are right. That's what I'm talking about.
What is the right number on a roster you ask...I don't know, but I feel 38% is too high. Has there been a Marquette team EVER that has had 38% of our roster from the Juco ranks? Look, these are good kids, nice kids, great players. No issues that I'm aware of, which is a great thing. But you still have 5 guys on your team that will be here for only 2 or 3 years MAX. Which means you are 1 or 2 years short on a full cycle of kids coming through. Now, I get it that high school players turn pro early, some transfer, etc....but they all have the max potential to be at the school for four years. I believe the last 7 NBA players out of Marquette, 6 of them played all four years at MU.
And how many times does a coach have to fill 5-6 spots? If all 5 in Buzz's first class were HS seniors, you're right back to square one in 4 years.
After this year, you're looking at 2 JUCOs (15%), assuming he gets HS players for 3 spots. That too many?
Buzz had a unique challenge with the amount of roster spots open when he took over. The three seniors this year helped remedy that greatly. Moving forward, we'll see what direction he goes.
But what I find fascinating is Mr. "Give me 5 years to evaluate" is already sounding the JUCO alarm.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on July 30, 2010, 03:35:58 PM
Can somebody please do this same analysis for the programs Chicos keeps blathering on about being the paragons of college basketball and doing it the "right way" by only taking 4-year HS kids? UCLA, UNC, Kansas and UW would do for a start.
I'll bet the numbers won't be significantly different and I for one would love to see this whole "stability" charade exposed as the utter BS most of us think it is.
What would be the point....the analysis didn't address what I meant by stability. His interpretation of stability is how long the kids last and includes transfers. JUCO kids rarely transfer because they only have one year left (usually). So with a JUCO you're going to get 2 years almost always. With a high school player, you may only get 2.96 but you have the possibility of getting 4. Nevertheless, last I checked, 2.96 is still going to be higher than the JUCO kids, even if they all go the maximum because the most they can go is 3years, mix in the the 2 year JUCOs and mathematically it has no choice than to be a smaller number.
I'm glad you're finally starting to get it. ;)
Would you rather have good players here for 2.96 years (using the MU data which included a coach that drove more transfers than most programs) vs 2.4 years? Assuming the transfer rate goes down with Buzz, the high school players are likely to be here north of 3 years while the JUCOs are still going to be limited by eligibility of 2 (3 max). That's entirely my point....faster turnover, even when comparing it to the Crean transfer years...even then it's a higher turnover rate.
This whole conversation is stupid. Chico's, nobody gives a rat's ass if you know Howland or anyone else. And who cares what Howland does? He doesn't coach here. Buzz does. And last year, we saw who had the better team.
Now let's take a look at who those 38% players are. Players elite programs would not have gone after, huh? Let's start with Fulce, the first one to commit. The reason he went to juco was because Buzz left UNO. So that gave him a year to figure out where he was going to go. And lo and behold, your stainless hero offered him a scholarship. That's right. Tom Crean signed him. No doubt he could have signed a kid fresh out of high school instead. But he took the word of his recruiting coordinator and signed a kid his assistant had known since he was in seventh grade. Would Marquette have been better off with some high school freshman? Probably not.
The next one is Butler. There is no question that Buzz had to sign jucos to round out his roster. He was going into the season down three players with the departure of Nick Williams, Taylor, and Christopherson. And again, he got a player highly recommended by one of his assistants. And again, this was a player who went the juco route not because he was deficient either academically or athletically, but because he got poor offers out of high school. Oh, and those elite teams? Some of them wanted him. He had offers from big name programs when Marquette got him.
Next we get Buyckes. A juco all around. A good player who made a contribution last year and will likely make a bigger one this year.
Then there is DJO. Another player who qualified out of high school, albeit late. He is a steal. And those elite programs you keep talking about? How about Kansas and North Carolina? They both wanted him. Buzz got there first.
Then there is Crowder. A big man in a position we need, and arguably the best juco in the country last year. Yeah, I'll take him. So would a lot of major programs.
So the suggestion that Buzz is relying way too much on jucos is rather absurd. The ones he has recruited have all either filled a specific need or balanced the roster, or both. Moreover, much more than most coaches, Buzz has great juco contacts, which is why he got DJO and lots of those major names were left hanging. He is not just getting jucos, he is getting the best jucos in the country.
So all things being equal you would prefer high school seniors? Good for you, but the coaching staff doesn't care what you think. And for good reason. All things are never equal. So you would take Novak over DJO? Great, but you might want to wait a couple years. DJO might well turn out to be a better player. Same with Butler and Matthews. And it is entirely possible that they will accomplish more in three years at Marquette than the others did in four. You might recall Novak keeping the bench warm his first semester. But even if they don't, it is not a choice between them and two players Marquette has recently sent to the NBA. It is a choice of them or some unnamed high school senior. Many, if not most of those players will spend most of their freshman year on the bench. And many others will not be here four years even if they don't go pro. Take a look at all the transfers under your hero's watch. Maybe you should be asking whether you would rather have Jimmy Butler for three years or Carlton Christian or James Matthews or Brandon Bell or Dwight Howard or Kevin Menard for one.
Chico's, you are as usual a self-absorbed windbag.
Quote from: MUfan12 on July 30, 2010, 03:36:58 PM
And how many times does a coach have to fill 5-6 spots? If all 5 in Buzz's first class were HS seniors, you're right back to square one in 4 years.
After this year, you're looking at 2 JUCOs (15%), assuming he gets HS players for 3 spots. That too many?
Buzz had a unique challenge with the amount of roster spots open when he took over. The three seniors this year helped remedy that greatly. Moving forward, we'll see what direction he goes.
But what I find fascinating is Mr. "Give me 5 years to evaluate" is already sounding the JUCO alarm.
I hope you are right...I asked the question last year if the JUCO thing was a one time bump. Most here said it was. Then a few more came. This year only one. Maybe next year we start to "normalize"...that is my hope. I absolutely agree he had to take that route early on....my question last year and now is will this become the norm? I argued then that it will become the norm (due to his JUCO contacts, etc), 1 or 2 JUCOs per year is going to be my guess. That means an almost constant 25% to 40% of your roster are JUCOs. In my mind, that's too high.
Others disagree. Fair enough. Some folks getting awfully personal with some of this stuff which is why you'll notice 4 or 5 guys have quit posting here in the last two months. Too many personal attacks, I include myself as one of those that has done some attacking. We need to tone it down a touch, myself included.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 03:31:24 PM
By stability, in a normal situation, means having 3 new recruits coming in every year with 4 years ahead of them and completing the cycle. Not having kids come in with only 2 years of eligibility which accelerates and shortens the cycle. That is what I mean by stability (this is assumes also that you have a coach that doesn't push people out consistently...like Crean did).
That would be nice, but is that really feasible? Honestly, I don't know...
Is MU tenure rate of high school players at 2.96 years all that low for a BCS conference program? Certainly, we had transfers due to a hard driving coach, but that period only includes 1 player who left early for the NBA.
Is MU transfer rate high? Again, more comparison work needs to be done.
My guess is that MU's rate is comparable to many other BCS programs. The traditional high school player is not staying 4 years in one program, whether that due to NBA early entry, transfers, off-the-court issues, etc.
So as a coach, I see where the Juco option is attractive. You can get a talented, more experienced and mature player that's pretty much a 2-year roster guarantee.
Perhaps a healthy mix of the two (Juco and high school) is the best way to go these days.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on July 30, 2010, 03:42:45 PM
What would be the point....the analysis didn't address what I meant by stability. His interpretation of stability is how long the kids last and includes transfers. JUCO kids rarely transfer because they only have one year left (usually). So with a JUCO you're going to get 2 years almost always. With a high school player, you may only get 2.96 but you have the possibility of getting 4. Nevertheless, last I checked, 2.96 is still going to be higher than the JUCO kids, even if they all go the maximum because the most they can go is 3years, mix in the the 2 year JUCOs and mathematically it has no choice than to be a smaller number.
I'm glad you're finally starting to get it. ;)
Would you rather have good players here for 2.96 years (using the MU data which included a coach that drove more transfers than most programs) vs 2.4 years? Assuming the transfer rate goes down with Buzz, the high school players are likely to be here north of 3 years while the JUCOs are still going to be limited by eligibility of 2 (3 max). That's entirely my point....faster turnover, even when comparing it to the Crean transfer years...even then it's a higher turnover rate.
This has been covered ad nauseum but I (and I think most other fans of MU basketball) would rather have the best possible players here irregardless of how long they are going to be here...just like UNC, Kentucky, Kansas, UCLA and any other program in the country.
I wish you wold finally start to get it.
Do transfers count as non-freshman brought into your program?
If they do, then the 1978 squad had 5 of 12 players (42%) that either transfered in or were Jucos; Whitehead, Dudley, Boylan, Payne, Ball.
Plus added Green and Worthen the next season.
Well since we have 3 Jucos graduating this year and its highly unlikely we sign 3 Jucos to replace them we can all rest easier that our Juco rate will be below 38% next season.
Lets say we sign 1 and have 3 out of 13 on the team next year.
Is 23% too high?
If these kids were bad students or bad kids I could see merit in this discussion.
All 5 will play significant minutes on a good team this year.
You know its funny.......once the kids get here I don't seperate them into high school recruits and Juco recruits.....they are all just Marquette players to me.
Quote from: Goatherder on July 30, 2010, 03:46:02 PM
This whole conversation is stupid. Chico's, nobody gives a rat's ass if you know Howland or anyone else. And who cares what Howland does? He doesn't coach here. Buzz does. And last year, we saw who had the better team.
I only mentioned it because he's a pretty good coach...three Final fours in the last five years. He knows his stuff and thought it was worth passing on. Obviously you disagree. Have a good weekend.
Peace
Quote from: Pakuni on July 30, 2010, 10:27:17 AM
Chico's, do you believe JUCOs are inherently lesser people? By their very nature less worthy of the Marquette uniform? Untouchables whose presence in very small numbers may be tolerable, but any more than a few simply too much to bear?
It seems you could not care less with whether they're good kids, who go to class. work toward a degree and represent MU well on and off the court. What matters is that they're JUCOs.
Me, I'd rather have a roster full of JUCOs like Jimmy Butler and DJO than high schoolers like Jeronne Maymon, but perhaps I lack your keen insight into the dangerous mind of a junior college athlete.
So, explain to me your bias. don't tell me what Duke and North Carolina does. Marquette isn't Duke and North Carolina. Tell me what Chico's Bail Bonds has against kids who attend junior college.
And, once again, you continue to avoid my question ... likely because you have no good answer. Still, I'll try again:
How is having a few JUCOs on one's roster create more instability, or a indicator of less attention to academics, than recruiting several kids every year who have no intention of attending classes for more than three semesters (at best) and no interest in obtaining a college diploma?
Why is the latter acceptable in your world, but the former a big no-no?
I like that Buzz has given great kids like Butler, DJO, and Fulce a chance to come to Marquette and get a lifetime of great memories while at the same time they both produce on the court and represent the university in a wonderful fashion.
Some of these JUCO kids out there come from very tough home environments that can contribute to why they aren't academically ready to get into a major college out of high school, but that doesn't automatically make them bad kids who are unworthy of a Marquette scholarship.
I can really respect that some of these JUCO kids decide to work hard at getting their academics in order and in turn a major college like Marquette gives them a second chance at attending a major university. So long as they behave themselves and represent the university in a great manner like all the other JUCO's that Buzz has recruited, i don't care at all what the ratio of JUCO's ends up being.
Buzz only has two jobs IMO when recruiting
1. Bring in good kids that don't shine a negative light on the university by getting in trouble or not going to class.
2. Bring in talented players that help win games
Nothing else matters