MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: River rat on October 29, 2014, 12:35:22 PM
-
Enjoy
-
Leading question given the additional hard to determine caveats you provided when they are being recruited. There is no guarantee anyone will graduate, especially a JUCO, nor be a good reflection of the university.
I would suggest revising the poll to eliminate those caveats, because one could argue those are the reasons JUCOs should not be brought in, given histrorical track records, Mr. Montreale Clark.
-
I voted acceptable.
However, the problem with your poll is that it doesn't stipulate how many, how it imbalances classes, etc, etc. In general, sure they are fine. When you have 40%+ of your roster in that situation, that's not good. 80% as you threw out yesterday, would completely destabilize your recruiting efforts. You don't seem to think those things through for whatever reason.
-
Leading question given the additional hard to determine caveats you provided when they are being recruited. There is no guarantee anyone will graduate, especially a JUCO, nor be a good reflection of the university.
I would suggest revising the poll to eliminate those caveats, because one could argue those are the reasons JUCOs should not be brought in, given histrorical track records, Mr. Montreale Clark.
Well no freaking kidding. Ur just like chicos in this regard ( sorry if that is overly harsh). But no one knows. Same goes for high school kids. Maybe mu shouldnt recruit anyone because you know we dont know how they might turn out. I will defer to the coach being a good judge of character and if he deems them worthy than i dont believe their background (juco or hs) should be of issue
-
Well no freaking kidding. Ur just like chicos in this regard ( sorry if that is overly harsh). But no one knows. Same goes for high school kids. Maybe mu shouldnt recruit anyone because you know we dont know how they might turn out. I will defer to the coach being a good judge of character and if he deems them worthy than i dont believe their background (juco or hs) should be of issue
Please, never accuse me of being Chicos. But the facts dont lie, JUCO's are less likely to graduate.
I like the change to increase the GPA requirement to 2.5, alot better than the 2.0 under Buzz's tenure, so probably the reason why Wojo is being allowed to do so.
This from a 2013 ESPN article, and why JUCO's have been historically less likely to graduate and why many schools made thoughtful/deliberate decisions not to recruit them.
'Data-driven decisions'
Diane Dickman, the NCAA's managing director of academic and membership affairs, has been charged by the NCAA's body to push Division I athletics toward the goal of having every student-athlete graduate within five years. When looking at graduation rates across the board, one of the biggest areas of concern was two-year college transfers. According to data collected from Division I schools, two-year transfers have underperformed relative to non-transfers or even four-four transfers. The newest data says around 11 percent of two-year transfers don't graduate within six years of transferring to a Division I school. Plus the Academic Progress Rate for non-transfers is around 973 and for two-year transfers it is 934.
-
I voted acceptable.
However, the problem with your poll is that it doesn't stipulate how many, how it imbalances classes, etc, etc. In general, sure they are fine. When you have 40%+ of your roster in that situation, that's not good. 80% as you threw out yesterday, would completely destabilize your recruiting efforts. You don't seem to think those things through for whatever reason.
I'd choose a roster that's 100% Jimmy Butlers over one that has any % of Amorosos, Mortensons, Hazels, Maymons, E Williams, etc., etc., etc. in a heartbeat.
-
One of the less statically significant polls I have ever seen.
-
I'd choose a roster that's 100% Jimmy Butlers over one that has any % of Amorosos, Mortensons, Hazels, Maymons, E Williams, etc., etc., etc. in a heartbeat.
Of course. Then again, I'd choose a roster of 100% Travis Diener, Steve Novaks, Wesley Matthews, etc, etc.....in a heartbeat.
They are here for 4 years, not 2 years. Pretty simple math....remember, the subject you are so good at.
-
Has it dawned on anyone that if they required a red shirt yet they'd probably actually graduate or have a shot at it?
-
I have ZERO problems with Junior College athletes (I hate the phrase "JUCO"). You dont even know how the best students are going to turn out in college. You just dont. I had very good grades and a really good ACT score in high school but I really screwed up my first two years at Marquette. You cannot stigmatize a whole group of people, good or bad. You really dont know how someone's performance in college will be coming from a Junior College or straight from high school.
-
Of course. Then again, I'd choose a roster of 100% Travis Diener, Steve Novaks, Wesley Matthews, etc, etc.....in a heartbeat.
They are here for 4 years, not 2 years. Pretty simple math....remember, the subject you are so good at.
4 years? What % of the freshmen that TC has recruited to Indiana have stayed for there for 4 years?
-
I'd choose a roster that's 100% Jimmy Butlers over one that has any % of Amorosos, Mortensons, Hazels, Maymons, E Williams, etc., etc., etc. in a heartbeat.
This
/Thread
-
Of course. Then again, I'd choose a roster of 100% Travis Diener, Steve Novaks, Wesley Matthews, etc, etc.....in a heartbeat.
They are here for 4 years, not 2 years. Pretty simple math....remember, the subject you are so good at.
Kentucky seems pretty content with 1 years. It's not so bad if you keep landing Jimmies.
-
I voted acceptable. That is with the assumption the coaches do the proper vetting of a recruit, which they should be doing whether it is a high schooler or a Juco. It is more a question of whether you are going to recruit players that have been involved in bad things. Basically, the argument of whether Buzz should of recruited the player the ended up at Kansas St. I forgot his name already, but he was syuspended for part of his junior season and all of his senior season. I have no problem recruiting a Juco, who does not have character issues.
-
As exemplified in this poll, people aren't against JUCOs, never has been the case. Folks can rattle off so and so under Al and Rick and Tom and Kevin and Buzz, etc. The question was volume. How many did Al have over the course of his career? What were the most he had in any one given year? Same for the other coaches. Things change when you get to 40% of your team for any number of reasons...it's why Al and everyone else never had a number that high, because it does your program no good in the long term.
I'm guessing Robbie the River Rat is the one person that voted against this.
-
Good thing chico n knight commision are not basketball coaches at mu
I could see it like this... " well young man i see that u were a juco AA last year as a freshman last year and u have been phenomenal when we watch you. I have spoken to ur coaches teachers parents nad former coaches and they all speak glowingly of your character and commitment. I understand u had little guidance in hs and came from a tough situation that left u as a non qualifier. Every thing i have heard and seen tells me u would be a great ambassador and player for marquette, but you see i have this study here..."
-
Good thing chico n knight commision are not basketball coaches at mu
I could see it like this... " well young man i see that u were a juco AA last year as a freshman last year and u have been phenomenal when we watch you. I have spoken to ur coaches teachers parents nad former coaches and they all speak glowingly of your character and commitment. I understand u had little guidance in hs and came from a tough situation that left u as a non qualifier. Every thing i have heard and seen tells me u would be a great ambassador and player for marquette, but you see i have this study here..."
I may have agreed with you. If it was not for the fact that you type like a 12 year old on msn messenger in 1999.
-
As exemplified in this poll, people aren't against JUCOs, never has been the case. Folks can rattle off so and so under Al and Rick and Tom and Kevin and Buzz, etc. The question was volume. How many did Al have over the course of his career? What were the most he had in any one given year? Same for the other coaches. Things change when you get to 40% of your team for any number of reasons...it's why Al and everyone else never had a number that high, because it does your program no good in the long term.
I'm guessing Robbie the River Rat is the one person that voted against this.
A completely hypocritcal post.. Haha
Them boys are ok unless we get too many of their kind
Laughable
-
I may have agreed with you. If it was not for the fact that you type like a 12 year old on msn messenger in 1999.
You said it better than I could
-
Kentucky seems pretty content with 1 years. It's not so bad if you keep landing Jimmies.
Good for Kentucky. I'd rather not be like Kentucky, but again I'm not a just win baby person.
-
A completely hypocritcal post.. Haha
Them boys are ok unless we get too many of their kind
Laughable
Cute, stupid...but cute.
I'll ask for a fourth time....why is it that most of the top programs do not pursue a bunch of JUCOs? Why is it that some don't pursue them AT ALL? While you are searching on the internet or Asking Jeeves (I say that, because the phone you are on has to be the vintage of that era) let me know how many JUCOs in total were on MU's three Final Four teams. Seems high school kids are doing just fine.
-
4 years? What % of the freshmen that TC has recruited to Indiana have stayed for there for 4 years?
I don't know, remember you are the big IU fan you should tell us. Are we counting kids that left early because they are now making millions of dollars in the NBA? For every kid that stays 4 years, that's double what a JUCO kid stays at in your program. Don't forget that.
Maybe you can help River Rat out, why is it that most top programs go after high school talent and not JUCOs? Is there a benefit to having kids in your program from 18 to 22 years old rather than just 20 to 22? Does it help in balancing recruiting classes? Does it help to have someone know your system for 4 years or 2 years?
-
I don't know, remember you are the big IU fan you should tell us. Are we counting kids that left early because they are now making millions of dollars in the NBA? For every kid that stays 4 years, that's double what a JUCO kid stays at in your program. Don't forget that.
Maybe you can help River Rat out, why is it that most top programs go after high school talent and not JUCOs? Is there a benefit to having kids in your program from 18 to 22 years old rather than just 20 to 22? Does it help in balancing recruiting classes? Does it help to have someone know your system for 4 years or 2 years?
They go after high school kids because they are by and large better players. Only a small % of the Juco All Americans pan out. Tom Crean's certainly didn't - his record with them would tell him to stay away. Buzz had great success with his - probably more than any other college coach over the last 5 years. If I'm his employer I say carry on.
-
Let me rephrase the poll.
Are JUCO's more likely to impair the MU basketball brand than "traditional" high school graduates who have been offered scholarships ?
-
what a ridiculous thread.
-
Let's cut to the uncomfortable truth.
How do you you think Huggs and Tark/ Crean/ Gillespie/ Buzz became successful?
Answer: recruit the JUCOS/prop 48 no one else would.
-
They go after high school kids because they are by and large better players. Only a small % of the Juco All Americans pan out. Tom Crean's certainly didn't - his record with them would tell him to stay away. Buzz had great success with his - probably more than any other college coach over the last 5 years. If I'm his employer I say carry on.
His actual employer didn't, for a number of reasons.
-
Marquette has always been the school of second chances--always took JUCO's and transfers. In fact, MU had four on the National Champion team. Is it worse to waste a scholarship on transfers as they use up an empty a year (not senior transfers). Dean Smth didn't want Jimmy Boylan as he didn't take transfers.
Pick your poison-- a Chris Otule for six years or a Jimmy Butler JUCO for two (even though he played three)?
-
Jimmy and DJO were at MU for 3.
-
Let me rephrase the poll.
Are JUCO's more likely to impair the MU basketball brand than "traditional" high school graduates who have been offered scholarships ?
Well based on the last 4 years at mu which has seen the greatest sucess since the mid 1970's it is clearly enhanced!!!
-
His actual employer didn't, for a number of reasons.
Can any recall keefes classic quote comparing chicos to the cowardly fighter pilot. It was so spot on!!!
-
Al: JUCO's
Rick: JUCO's
Crean: JUCO's
Buzz: JUCO's
Bottom line, JUCO's are an integral part of MU basketball history.
-
Al: JUCO's
Rick: JUCO's
Crean: JUCO's
Buzz: JUCO's
Bottom line, JUCO's are an integral part of MU basketball history.
This.
-
This.
No one said differently. Volume is a big part of that equation.
1 per year, doesn't create enormous turnover, etc....not a big deal
When 40% of your team is JUCO, that's a different story and why Al never did it, Rick never did it, Crean never did it, Hank, etc....not to that level. Only a few schools have ever done it at that level and those schools.......no thanks.
-
Can any recall keefes classic quote comparing chicos to the cowardly fighter pilot. It was so spot on!!!
You should run for the board at MU, perhaps as the Angus baron. That way you could influence some of these decisions....may I suggest you bring this to the meetings.
(http://www.spirefm.co.uk/resources/images/images/ad_banners_and_logos/speak-n-spell.jpg)
-
Chicos bound n determined to go down with the ship
-
You should run for the board at MU, perhaps as the Angus baron. That way you could influence some of these decisions....may I suggest you bring this to the meetings.
(http://www.spirefm.co.uk/resources/images/images/ad_banners_and_logos/speak-n-spell.jpg)
Cant challenge the content so might as well grasp at straws n challenge the spelling of a poster on an internet message board. Pretty small
-
No one said differently. Volume is a big part of that equation.
1 per year, doesn't create enormous turnover, etc....not a big deal
When 40% of your team is JUCO, that's a different story and why Al never did it, Rick never did it, Crean never did it, Hank, etc....not to that level. Only a few schools have ever done it at that level and those schools.......no thanks.
A JUCO is a transfer without sitting out a year. The 1977 team had four transfers, two being starters and one who won the Kansas State game. Was Robert Jackson worth it for one year of sitting and one year of playing? Your bias against transfers is chock full of holes. Back out now why you can.
-
No one said differently. Volume is a big part of that equation.
1 per year, doesn't create enormous turnover, etc....not a big deal
When 40% of your team is JUCO, that's a different story and why Al never did it, Rick never did it, Crean never did it, Hank, etc....not to that level. Only a few schools have ever done it at that level and those schools.......no thanks.
Agree with that. Judicious use makes sense.
-
A JUCO is a transfer without sitting out a year. The 1977 team had four transfers, two being starters and one who won the Kansas State game. Was Robert Jackson worth it for one year of sitting and one year of playing? Your bias against transfers is chock full of holes. Back out now why you can.
Chicos was speaking of Jucos only. Transfers from 4 year schools are a are different story from an academic perspective. I don't see any bias in what he said.
-
My thoughts on this thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaqC5FnvAEc
-
Chicos was speaking of Jucos only. Transfers from 4 year schools are a are different story from an academic perspective. I don't see any bias in what he said.
Nope...Chicos on page 1 of this thread:
Of course. Then again, I'd choose a roster of 100% Travis Diener, Steve Novaks, Wesley Matthews, etc, etc.....in a heartbeat.
They are here for 4 years, not 2 years. Pretty simple math....remember, the subject you are so good at.
-
Was Robert Jackson worth it for one year of sitting and one year of playing?
A one year transfer who was a MPS product/Mississippi State student and a guy who couldn't get a 17 on the ACT were 40% of the 2003 starting 5. One of them was the second or third best guy on the team and the other was the best player to ever wear a Marquette uniform. Between the two of them they played at MU for three years total. Without them that team doesn't make the tournament in 2003. I wish we had another transfer or non qualifier on that team in place of Townsend. Maybe if 60% of our starters "didn't belong" at MU we could have won the whole damn thing. This elitist approach to the basketball program reeks of arrogance and flies in the face of what has made MU basketball, at times anyway, elite.
-
Lenny Man, with all do respect, we coulda had Lew Alcindor, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron on that team and the results woulda been the same 'cuz Too Tan Tommy was coachin', hey?
-
Lenny Man, with all do respect, we coulda had Lew Alcindor, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron on that team and the results woulda been the same 'cuz Too Tan Tommy was coachin', hey?
Point taken.
-
Cant challenge the content so might as well grasp at straws n challenge the spelling of a poster on an internet message board. Pretty small
I've challenged the content plenty, you just don't get it. You haven't answered the question presented to you four times now....must be because you are pretty small.
-
A JUCO is a transfer without sitting out a year. The 1977 team had four transfers, two being starters and one who won the Kansas State game. Was Robert Jackson worth it for one year of sitting and one year of playing? Your bias against transfers is chock full of holes. Back out now why you can.
Sorry, but you are categorically wrong on this in so many ways. A transfer has to sit, a JUCO does not. A transfer has qualified at a four year institution, many JUCOs have not. A transfer has a greater likelihood of graduating based on the data than a JUCO because of credits actually counting, this impacts our APR rates which can hamper us if we don't maintain a certain level.
Robert Jackson, was a transfer. Even if he was a JUCO, taking one here and there is not an issue. Not sure how many times I have to say it. The issue becomes when your 40% of your roster is turning over in two years (yes, some JUCOs play 3), then you have more pressure on your recruiting cycles, more pressure on graduation rates. These are just some of the reasons why schools don't do it.
-
Nope...Chicos on page 1 of this thread:
Excuse me?
-
Lenny Man, with all do respect, we coulda had Lew Alcindor, Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and LeBron on that team and the results woulda been the same 'cuz Too Tan Tommy was coachin', hey?
If we had those guys against Syracuse do we get to 40 points?
-
A juco is no different in my mind than any other transfer. They have to meet all the applicable standards. Once they are a part of the MU family I don't question how they got here.
-
Sorry, but you are categorically wrong on this in so many ways. A transfer has to sit, a JUCO does not. A transfer has qualified at a four year institution, many JUCOs have not. A transfer has a greater likelihood of graduating based on the data than a JUCO because of credits actually counting, this impacts our APR rates which can hamper us if we don't maintain a certain level.
Robert Jackson, was a transfer. Even if he was a JUCO, taking one here and there is not an issue. Not sure how many times I have to say it. The issue becomes when your 40% of your roster is turning over in two years (yes, some JUCOs play 3), then you have more pressure on your recruiting cycles, more pressure on graduation rates. These are just some of the reasons why schools don't do it.
The NCAA considers an eligible JUCO as a "transfer", just as they do a non-graduate transfer. The difference is a JUCO doesn't have to sit out a year. In this thread, you said JUCOs are acceptable if the academics are fine....but you have a problem with four years vs. two for the stability of the program.
Thus, you are against taking more than one "transfer" due to continuity if I get that right since academics is no longer the issue...so at that point a JUCO or an four year transfer creates unbalance in your mind (which you state numerous times in this thread).
So is your argument that you are fine with transfers from traditional four year programs but not more than one transfer from a JUCO? That position seems untenable. So what is it?
-
Excuse me?
That is your quote from page 1. Do you post so much you forget what you said? ;)
-
A juco is no different in my mind than any other transfer. They have to meet all the applicable standards. Once they are a part of the MU family I don't question how they got here.
This is my view as well. Anyone can become a great representative of our beloved institution of higher learning, no matter where they started. Hell, some of my fellow Scoopers may even get there some day.
-
Let me rephrase the poll.
Are JUCO's more likely to impair the MU basketball brand than "traditional" high school graduates who have been offered scholarships ?
Jerome Whitehead, Lloyd Walton and Bob Lackey, Juco's
-
Well there you have it chicos, over 98% of respondents have no problem with JUCOs. In fact, despite your insistance on some arbitrary 40% number, as you must hedge every statement, very few if anyone agreed with it. Repondents pointed out that transfer rates were very high in hs recruits and relatively low for jucos, meaning the 2-3 years they spend on campus may be far longer than a hs player. And there was no guarantee hs kids would represent the school any better or worse.
You insist that the best programs dont recruit jucos, when in fact they do. Figures lie and liars figure, any rational person knows that while hundreds, actually upwards of a thousand D1 capable hs seniors qualify a very small percentage do not. That small percentage if they go to juco will continue to represent a small part of the population. Your moronic arguement flies in the face of the fact that an overwhelming amount of kids qualify!! That answers your repeated dumb questionwhy dont the top schools have more of them. Can u follow that? Some "elitist" schools even follow the ignorant and discrimintory notion that all jucos are bad and wont recruit them, luckily i believe that ignorance is minimal.
Additionally, some elite programs such as Als teams and your own bob knights teams relied heavily on them. Both were willing to recruit them more if there were more capable players playing juco, not because of " your numerous illustration" of why they are bad, but because the pool was so small.
Teams come together over a summer and thru the year. Your stance that players gel better being 3-4 years players is ignorant hogwash dreamt up in a cubicle from a person suffering from logorrhea. Rob Jackson and MU really suffered from him being on campus one year and he really never fit in?, Cubicle hogwash. Same can be said of Rodney Hood last year at Duke , or Dean Garrett or keith smart at Iu. How could smart hit that shot he had only been on campus 7 months!!??
As many posters have stated I hope MU continues its open door policy towards jucos and does not succumb to discriminitory and ignorant whims of those in ivory towers. MU should strive to have the best players on the floor and like AL and B Knight i would be fine with them being jucos
-
People here seem to be getting really hot and bothered over jucos. I have heard some things thrown out their like "discrimination," "arrogance," and "ignorance." Marquette has set up a basic policy with all of their prospective students: They must be of strong character, be in a position to graduate, and must be able to be successful at Marquette. This applies to all students, not just basketball players. If a junior college basketball player matches the three criteria, they will be welcomed with open arms. I agree with Texas Western that once they join the Marquette family, I don't care how they got there. But if they don't match the above criteria, I don't think we should be recruiting them. Everyone gets to draw their own line, but I want to avoid the "win at all costs" model that you see at places like UNC, Kentucky, Memphis, and Baylor. Fortunately, we are a far cry from those programs (though we have had our bad moments). I applaud the administration for walking the fine line between having an elite program and an ethical one.
-
People here seem to be getting really hot and bothered over jucos. I have heard some things thrown out their like "discrimination," "arrogance," and "ignorance." Marquette has set up a basic policy with all of their prospective students: They must be of strong character, be in a position to graduate, and must be able to be successful at Marquette. This applies to all students, not just basketball players. If a junior college basketball player matches the three criteria, they will be welcomed with open arms. I agree with Texas Western that once they join the Marquette family, I don't care how they got there. But if they don't match the above criteria, I don't think we should be recruiting them. Everyone gets to draw their own line, but I want to avoid the "win at all costs" model that you see at places like UNC, Kentucky, Memphis, and Baylor. Fortunately, we are a far cry from those programs (though we have had our bad moments). I applaud the administration for walking the fine line between having an elite program and an ethical one.
I have no issue with this but please understand this argument u are making has been the situation with one player, one. Additionally, chicos 40% pulled from his ass number is as arbitrary as it is dumb, not to mention is arrogant and discriminitory at its finest. I guarantee if the 12 best players al or bob knight could find were jucos and they met the obvious qualifications they would have no issue. Like him or not buzzs a new house every year is spot on. And in todays day and age 2-3 years at a school is relatively long juco or hs.
-
I have no issue with this but please understand this argument u are making has been the situation with one player, one. Additionally, chicos 40% pulled from his ass number is as arbitrary as it is dumb, not to mention is arrogant and discriminitory at its finest. I guarantee if the 12 best players al or bob knight were jucos and they met the obvious qualifications they would have no issue. Like him or not buzzs a new house every year is spot on. And in todays day znd age 2-3 years at a school is relatively ling juco or hs.
One thing I will note. To be fair, in the 2010-2011 season, we did have 5 JUCOs on the roster. 5/13 is 38%, so Chico's isnt completely off here, though that is the year we had the most.
But also to that point, the JUCOs on that team were:
Jimmy Butler
Joe Fulce
DJO
Jae Crowder
Dwight Buycks
Does anybody wish we didn't have any of those players on our team?
-
I have a problem with Jucos...last year we didn't have enough.
-
I have no issue with this but please understand this argument u are making has been the situation with one player, one. Additionally, chicos 40% pulled from his ass number is as arbitrary as it is dumb, not to mention is arrogant and discriminitory at its finest. I guarantee if the 12 best players al or bob knight were jucos and they met the obvious qualifications they would have no issue. Like him or not buzzs a new house every year is spot on. And in todays day znd age 2-3 years at a school is relatively ling juco or hs.
I'm not commenting on Chico's 40% rule. I don't know where he got it and don't think its correct.
I don't know how to respond to the rest of your statement because it isn't written in coherent sentences.
-
One thing I will note. To be fair, in the 2010-2011 season, we did have 5 JUCOs on the roster. 5/13 is 38%, so Chico's isnt completely off here, though that is the year we had the most.
But also to that point, the JUCOs on that team were:
Jimmy Butler
Joe Fulce
DJO
Jae Crowder
Dwight Buycks
Does anybody wish we didn't have any of those players on our team?
.
chicos stated 40% because you wouldnt want anymore than that becuase of the inherent problems they bring that have been illustrated again and again.
umm wow. I will say it again if the best 12 players bob knight or al could find happened to be jucos they would have no problem with that being their team. but genius does
-
Sorry, but you are categorically wrong on this in so many ways. A transfer has to sit, a JUCO does not. A transfer has qualified at a four year institution, many JUCOs have not. A transfer has a greater likelihood of graduating based on the data than a JUCO because of credits actually counting, this impacts our APR rates which can hamper us if we don't maintain a certain level.
Robert Jackson, was a transfer. Even if he was a JUCO, taking one here and there is not an issue. Not sure how many times I have to say it. The issue becomes when your 40% of your roster is turning over in two years (yes, some JUCOs play 3), then you have more pressure on your recruiting cycles, more pressure on graduation rates. These are just some of the reasons why schools don't do it.
Why are we arguing about ARP. It's become apparent under Buzz that we can have JUCO's and can have a good ARP. Uwm, uconn etc couldn't handle that with 4 year students. This ARP talk is a bunch of BS to be honest, high school and college are radically different atmospheres one can succeed in one and bomb in the other. So stick to basketball, not grades. It's a non issue (+ it will probably be eradicated in a few years)
-
Tom Crean had 16 jucos or transfers on his last 6 Marquette rosters, 10 on his final 3.
Buzz Williams had 17 jucos or transfers on his 6 Marquette rosters, 5 on his final 3. He was forced to go heavy in years 2 and 3 (10 of his 17 total) because the cupboard was bare.
Crean had one who was really good (Robert Jackson)
Buzz had a bunch who were really good (DJO, JFB, Buycks, Crowder, Lockett)
The folks who have their nose out of joint over this are going after the wrong guy.
-
please remember a certain posters mantra:
If crean did it = good
if buzz did it = bad
-
One thing I will note. To be fair, in the 2010-2011 season, we did have 5 JUCOs on the roster. 5/13 is 38%, so Chico's isnt completely off here, though that is the year we had the most.
But also to that point, the JUCOs on that team were:
Jimmy Butler
Joe Fulce
DJO
Jae Crowder
Dwight Buycks
Does anybody wish we didn't have any of those players on our team?
Dwight Buycks not playing the Louisville game he lost us would have been nice =)
-
Dwight Buycks not playing the Louisville game he lost us would have been nice =)
Haha, that is true. I can't remember being so upset about the result of a game. That was a tough one to handle.
-
Haha, that is true. I can't remember being so upset about the result of a game. That was a tough one to handle.
WHY DID HE SHOOT A LAYUP!?!?!?!?!?!?!?
Also I was way more angry at the Maui vs Butler. They outplayed Butler so hard, only to have a few lucky bounces and heave ruin it.
-
I think it's up to the individuals wishing to succeed at Marquette. Maybe one should compare careers of HS players to JUCOs that came to Marquette to settle this question. Maybe the results would show the JUCOs are more motivated students and athletes. DJO, Crowder, JFB, Buycks, Sam Worthen, LLoyd Walton represented Marquette well regardless of their origination.
-
The NCAA considers an eligible JUCO as a "transfer", just as they do a non-graduate transfer. The difference is a JUCO doesn't have to sit out a year. In this thread, you said JUCOs are acceptable if the academics are fine....but you have a problem with four years vs. two for the stability of the program.
Thus, you are against taking more than one "transfer" due to continuity if I get that right since academics is no longer the issue...so at that point a JUCO or an four year transfer creates unbalance in your mind (which you state numerous times in this thread).
So is your argument that you are fine with transfers from traditional four year programs but not more than one transfer from a JUCO? That position seems untenable. So what is it?
I already explained it and the key is the graduation rate We get APR credits for kids graduating. A kid transferring into MU from a 4 year institution, statistically speaking, is more likely to graduate than a JUCO. Even a JUCO in good standing academically. The reason is that generally (note, I'm saying generally) JUCO students are taking credits that often do not transfer to Marquette. That is a problem on the back end for the APR. It's a risk management equation.
If the kids you are taking in on the transfer side are more likely to graduate than the JUCOs you take in, I'll take the transfers. First, the transfer qualified day one to a 4 year institution and the JUCO may have. Can JUCOs redeem themselves, get it together, apply themselves, etc...absolutely. Do they deserve a chance like anyone else...sure. Can JUCO kids excel more than non JUCO kids? Of course. Is it fine to take JUCO kids on the roster? Of course, just not in large quantities because the risks are there and you leave yourself in a potential bind if they don't graduate and impact your APR scores. You're playing a statistical game of probabilities.
The last four APR reports, we have declined slightly in each one. Nothing tragic, but it would be nice to be going the other way. We were at 980 in 2010 season, we are now in the 950's. You need to average 930 over two years or 900 over four years, so we're still ok.
-
I'm not commenting on Chico's 40% rule. I don't know where he got it and don't think its correct.
I don't know how to respond to the rest of your statement because it isn't written in coherent sentences.
My 40% came from 5 players on the squad that were JUCOs, which was 38.5%. My apologies....hardly out of ass as RR would claim. I didn't count prep schools, one of which was on some folks diploma mills list.
Yes, most of his stuff is incoherent.
-
Tom Crean had 16 jucos or transfers on his last 6 Marquette rosters, 10 on his final 3.
Buzz Williams had 17 jucos or transfers on his 6 Marquette rosters, 5 on his final 3. He was forced to go heavy in years 2 and 3 (10 of his 17 total) because the cupboard was bare.
Crean had one who was really good (Robert Jackson)
Buzz had a bunch who were really good (DJO, JFB, Buycks, Crowder, Lockett)
The folks who have their nose out of joint over this are going after the wrong guy.
Why are you combining JUCOs and transfers? Not the same, you're just trying to make an argument that isn't there.
-
Why are we arguing about ARP. It's become apparent under Buzz that we can have JUCO's and can have a good ARP. Uwm, uconn etc couldn't handle that with 4 year students. This ARP talk is a bunch of BS to be honest, high school and college are radically different atmospheres one can succeed in one and bomb in the other. So stick to basketball, not grades. It's a non issue (+ it will probably be eradicated in a few years)
Our APR was 980 4 years ago, it is now in the 950's. The APR isn't going away. You can call it BS all you want, but UCONN and UWM sat home for that BS. You need to average a 930 over two years to avoid being punished. Do I think we are in danger? No. Would I like to see the numbers go the other way? Yes.
-
Well there you have it chicos, over 98% of respondents have no problem with JUCOs. In fact, despite your insistance on some arbitrary 40% number, as you must hedge every statement, very few if anyone agreed with it. Repondents pointed out that transfer rates were very high in hs recruits and relatively low for jucos, meaning the 2-3 years they spend on campus may be far longer than a hs player. And there was no guarantee hs kids would represent the school any better or worse.
You insist that the best programs dont recruit jucos, when in fact they do. Figures lie and liars figure, any rational person knows that while hundreds, actually upwards of a thousand D1 capable hs seniors qualify a very small percentage do not. That small percentage if they go to juco will continue to represent a small part of the population. Your moronic arguement flies in the face of the fact that an overwhelming amount of kids qualify!! That answers your repeated dumb questionwhy dont the top schools have more of them. Can u follow that? Some "elitist" schools even follow the ignorant and discrimintory notion that all jucos are bad and wont recruit them, luckily i believe that ignorance is minimal.
Additionally, some elite programs such as Als teams and your own bob knights teams relied heavily on them. Both were willing to recruit them more if there were more capable players playing juco, not because of " your numerous illustration" of why they are bad, but because the pool was so small.
Teams come together over a summer and thru the year. Your stance that players gel better being 3-4 years players is ignorant hogwash dreamt up in a cubicle from a person suffering from logorrhea. Rob Jackson and MU really suffered from him being on campus one year and he really never fit in?, Cubicle hogwash. Same can be said of Rodney Hood last year at Duke , or Dean Garrett or keith smart at Iu. How could smart hit that shot he had only been on campus 7 months!!??
As many posters have stated I hope MU continues its open door policy towards jucos and does not succumb to discriminitory and ignorant whims of those in ivory towers. MU should strive to have the best players on the floor and like AL and B Knight i would be fine with them being jucos
That's awesome Rat, I was one that also voted acceptable. I have no problem with JUCOs, I have a problem when 40% (38.5%) of your roster is JUCOs. There's a reason why high quality teams don't do it, which you have refused to answer each and every time I have put it out there for you to answer.
It has nothing to do with discrimination or any of that nonsense. Can it negatively impact the image of the program...yup. Can it impact your APR scores? Yes. Does it mean recruiting classes turn through much quicker? Yes. Ignore those if you wish, but they are some of the very reasons why the top programs don't do it. Why you ignore this is beyond me.
Finally....Al's teams relied HEAVILY on them? Bob Knight's teams relied HEAVILY on them? Please define heavily....
-
I already explained it and the key is the graduation rate We get APR credits for kids graduating. A kid transferring into MU from a 4 year institution, statistically speaking, is more likely to graduate than a JUCO. Even a JUCO in good standing academically. The reason is that generally (note, I'm saying generally) JUCO students are taking credits that often do not transfer to Marquette. That is a problem on the back end for the APR. It's a risk management equation.
If the kids you are taking in on the transfer side are more likely to graduate than the JUCOs you take in, I'll take the transfers. First, the transfer qualified day one to a 4 year institution and the JUCO may have. Can JUCOs redeem themselves, get it together, apply themselves, etc...absolutely. Do they deserve a chance like anyone else...sure. Can JUCO kids excel more than non JUCO kids? Of course. Is it fine to take JUCO kids on the roster? Of course, just not in large quantities because the risks aren't there and you leave yourself in a potential bind if they don't graduate and impact your APR scores. You're playing a statistical game of probabilities.
The last four APR reports, we have declined slightly in each one. Nothing tragic, but it would be nice to be going the other way. We were at 980 in 2010 season, we are now in the 950's. You need to average 930 over two years or 900 over four years, so we're still ok.
Okay...perhaps you went into APR in some other thread...I didn't see that you mentioned that issue here. The premise of this thread was that the academics of a JUCO were in place so that issue is taken care. So, the point of contention goes to basketball value.
My contention is a two year JUCO transfer then has higher basketball value than a transfer from a four year college as the later has to sit a year. You brought up out of balance and 40%, which I disagreed with with my examples of the four transfers in 1977 or the double down with RJax by Crean when he knew Wade was in the wings. Transfers, whether JUCOs or from 4 year, have been very good for MU basketball and is a concept we should continue to embrace as it is part of our fabric. Personally, I was appalled by the previous regime's ideas on this.
-
Our APR was 980 4 years ago, it is now in the 950's. The APR isn't going away. You can call it BS all you want, but UCONN and UWM sat home for that BS. You need to average a 930 over two years to avoid being punished. Do I think we are in danger? No. Would I like to see the numbers go the other way? Yes.
I'm not saying it's the way I want Marquette to go, but UConn seems to be doing just fine these days
-
Why are you combining JUCOs and transfers? Not the same, you're just trying to make an argument that isn't there.
You keep sayng that but both are transfers. A JUCO is a transfer under NCAA guidelines if they fulfill their academic requirements. There is no release or letter of intent required. In that sense a JUCO transfer = a graduate transfer as both have fulfilled their academic requirements and don't need to sit a year. Read any release or article on a JUCO and it says a "JUCO transfer"...like Jae's Wiki page or MU's press release.
-
Okay...perhaps you went into APR in some other thread...I didn't see that you mentioned that issue here. The premise of this thread was that the academics of a JUCO were in place so that issue is taken care. So, the point of contention goes to basketball value.
My contention is a two year JUCO transfer then has higher basketball value than a transfer from a four year college as the later has to sit a year. You brought up out of balance and 40%, which I disagreed with with my examples of the four transfers in 1977 or the double down with RJax by Crean when he knew Wade was in the wings. Transfers, whether JUCOs or from 4 year, have been very good for MU basketball and is a concept we should continue to embrace as it is part of our fabric. Personally, I was appalled by the previous regime's ideas on this.
Maybe, but then again just because they have to sit out a year doesn't mean they lose a year of eligibility. Plus, you get to practice with the team while sitting out a year. I actually find that beneficial, from a basketball value perspective. I can take a JUCO kid that has 2 years of eligiblity and may take half the season to a full season to get up to speed and have one more year left. Or, take a transfer that uses his sit year to get up to speed and have 2 full years (or more) to be at speed. So I'm not sure your argument is concrete...it certainly can be argued the other way.
I don't know why people are bringing in transfers vs JUCOs, they're not the same in terms of practice, eligibility and chances of graduation. Those are big differences. (What's interesting, non student athlete JUCOs with an AA that move on to 4 year colleges graduate at a higher rate than straight transfers....not the case with student athletes, however).
Have some of the JUCOs at MU the last decade been really good for MU...absolutely. Of course it's a very small sample size. I don't know anyone other than the 3 people in this poll, which I would wager River Rat was one of them, who wants no JUCO kids. It's about how many, what does it do to revolving class sizes, what does it do to APR, etc, etc.
I'd also have you look at the math behind this. I think about it like training employees, the longer you have them around, the better your team will be, the more cohesive, get everyone on the same page on how we do things.
If a club has 13 kids that are all HS recruits, 0 of them transfer, how many years of experience are you creating for your program having kids doing things the MU way, practicing the MU way, etc?
Same club with 25% as JUCOs on average with 2 years in the program, 0 of them transfer. How many years of experience are you creating for your program...having kids doing things the MU way, practicing the MU way, etc?
Now, transfers change things up, should be part of the equation, especially with the epidemic of transfers going on right now. So much Creaning and Buzzcutting going on, it cannot be ignored.
-
You keep sayng that but both are transfers. A JUCO is a transfer under NCAA guidelines if they fulfill their academic requirements. There is no release or letter of intent required. In that sense a JUCO transfer = a graduate transfer as both have fulfilled their academic requirements and don't need to sit a year. Read any release or article on a JUCO and it says a "JUCO transfer"...like Jae's Wiki page or MU's press release.
Squares and rectangles are both parallelograms. Yes, they are both transfers, but they are different. You are smarter than this. If you want me to say they are both transfers, sure they are both transfers just as a rectangle and square are parallelograms. I don't disagree with you on the nomenclature, but to say they are the same is just wrong. One has to sit out, can practice with the team...get adjusted to the academic side while only practicing. The other is thrown into the fire right away. One was qualified into a four year institution right out of high school, the other MAY have qualified out of high school. One likely will have most of their credits transfer to MU, the other may not due to certification, lack of major equivalency, etc. One, statistically speaking, has a better chance of graduating then the other, especially with the year of sitting out and working on the books....that helps the APR. So yes, they're both transfers, but they are not the same for any number of reasons. There are reasons why schools don't overload on JUCOs. Too many risks vs rewards when the numbers become too big.
-
That's awesome Rat, I was one that also voted acceptable. I have no problem with JUCOs, I have a problem when 40% (38.5%) of your roster is JUCOs. There's a reason why high quality teams don't do it, which you have refused to answer each and every time I have put it out there for you to answer.
It has nothing to do with discrimination or any of that nonsense. Can it negatively impact the image of the program...yup. Can it impact your APR scores? Yes. Does it mean recruiting classes turn through much quicker? Yes. Ignore those if you wish, but they are some of the very reasons why the top programs don't do it. Why you ignore this is beyond me.
Finally....Al's teams relied HEAVILY on them? Bob Knight's teams relied HEAVILY on them? Please define heavily....
I have told u why more elite schools dont have more jucos, because of their limited supply!! It is right their in my post. Reading is Fundamental, comprehending maybe not so much
-
I have told u why more elite schools dont have more jucos, because of their limited supply!! It is right their in my post. Reading is Fundamental, comprehending maybe not so much
Honestly, it is almost impossible to read your stuff. Writing is fundamental. When this is an example of your writing, well forgive me for not having the Rosetta Stone or the decoder ring.
Well there you have it chicos, over 98% of respondents have no problem with JUCOs. In fact, despite your insistance on some arbitrary 40% number, as you must hedge every statement, very few if anyone agreed with it. Repondents pointed out that transfer rates were very high in hs recruits and relatively low for jucos, meaning the 2-3 years they spend on campus may be far longer than a hs player. And there was no guarantee hs kids would represent the school any better or worse.
You insist that the best programs dont recruit jucos, when in fact they do. Figures lie and liars figure, any rational person knows that while hundreds, actually upwards of a thousand D1 capable hs seniors qualify a very small percentage do not. That small percentage if they go to juco will continue to represent a small part of the population. Your moronic arguement flies in the face of the fact that an overwhelming amount of kids qualify!! That answers your repeated dumb questionwhy dont the top schools have more of them. Can u follow that? Some "elitist" schools even follow the ignorant and discrimintory notion that all jucos are bad and wont recruit them, luckily i believe that ignorance is minimal.
Additionally, some elite programs such as Als teams and your own bob knights teams relied heavily on them. Both were willing to recruit them more if there were more capable players playing juco, not because of " your numerous illustration" of why they are bad, but because the pool was so small.
Teams come together over a summer and thru the year. Your stance that players gel better being 3-4 years players is ignorant hogwash dreamt up in a cubicle from a person suffering from logorrhea. Rob Jackson and MU really suffered from him being on campus one year and he really never fit in?, Cubicle hogwash. Same can be said of Rodney Hood last year at Duke , or Dean Garrett or keith smart at Iu. How could smart hit that shot he had only been on campus 7 months!!??
As many posters have stated I hope MU continues its open door policy towards jucos and does not succumb to discriminitory and ignorant whims of those in ivory towers. MU should strive to have the best players on the floor and like AL and B Knight i would be fine with them being jucos
For the record, quantity is part of the reason, but it goes way beyond that.
-
Just a fair note to throw in about "geling over years"
Did Davante, Jamil, Chris, and Derrick gel over the past 3 years? Didn't seem like it. DJO and Crowder gelled almost immediately. It has less to do with how long as apposed to with who/ chemistry.
-
Nope...Chicos on page 1 of this thread:
I was responding to Lenny's post. I'm getting old, still don't understand what you are getting at. :-[
-
Just a fair note to throw in about "geling over years"
Did Davante, Jamil, Chris, and Derrick gel over the past 3 years? Didn't seem like it. DJO and Crowder gelled almost immediately. It has less to do with how long as apposed to with who/ chemistry.
Yes, sometimes kids hit it right off....sometime freshmen dominated teams that obviously were never together prior do great. Over the long haul, give me a senior laden team that has been together for four years and they are going to know each other so well that they will outperform those that have not played as long together. Again, talking in the aggregate, over the long haul, not small sample sizes.
-
Davante was always quiet and he struck me as a loner. Mayo was also in his own world.
-
I was responding to Lenny's post. I'm getting old, still don't understand what you are getting at. :-[
Other than veering off topic, quoting the wrong poster and being confused about which thread you were responding to, you did well.
-
The last four APR reports, we have declined slightly in each one. Nothing tragic, but it would be nice to be going the other way. We were at 980 in 2010 season, we are now in the 950's. You need to average 930 over two years or 900 over four years, so we're still ok.
Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here.
09-10 Team: 3 JUCOs
10-11 Team: 5 JUCOs
11-12 Team: 2 JUCOs
12-13 Team: 0 JUCOs
13-14 Team: 0 JUCOs
Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.
-
Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here.
09-10 Team: 3 JUCOs
10-11 Team: 5 JUCOs
11-12 Team: 2 JUCOs
12-13 Team: 0 JUCOs
13-14 Team: 0 JUCOs
Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.
Thats usually how it works when people look into the "facts"
That chicos posts.
Lol
-
Just a fair note to throw in about "geling over years"
Did Davante, Jamil, Chris, and Derrick gel over the past 3 years? Didn't seem like it. DJO and Crowder gelled almost immediately. It has less to do with how long as apposed to with who/ chemistry.
Actually, the Davante and Jamil combo was very good except not so much last year due to the poor perimeter play.
-
Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here.
09-10 Team: 3 JUCOs
10-11 Team: 5 JUCOs
11-12 Team: 2 JUCOs
12-13 Team: 0 JUCOs
13-14 Team: 0 JUCOs
Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.
there is a year or so delay in APR scores being released; in other words the 13-14 APR score isn't even announced until next year IIRC
-
there is a year or so delay in APR scores being released; in other words the 13-14 APR score isn't even announced until next year IIRC
Yes. This is why UConn was punished for the actions of past players.
-
Not sure these last 4 APR reports declining each year help your argument here.
09-10 Team: 3 JUCOs
10-11 Team: 5 JUCOs
11-12 Team: 2 JUCOs
12-13 Team: 0 JUCOs
13-14 Team: 0 JUCOs
Interesting that our APR has declined the last several years yet our number of JUCOs has declined as well.
You do realize how the APR works, right....in terms of the lag in time aligned with graduation?
-
Thats usually how it works when people look into the "facts"
That chicos posts.
Lol
Except, that the data doesn't line up with the classes directly due to the lag times and allowance to graduate beyond four years.
Well done River....it's like you throw boomerangs and they come back and clock you in the face almost with every post of late. Well done...great job. Bob Knight...heavily relied....that was awesome. With you, it is truly like going against a child.
-
You do realize how the APR works, right....in terms of the lag in time aligned with graduation?
I am actually not the most familiar with this. I thought there would be a little lag time (around a year or so), but the way you are saying it, it appears as though the lag time is probably >1 year.