Malcom Moore has MU in his final 4

[NavinRJohnson]

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).

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[d6]

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?

[ChicosBailBonds]

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?

[bilsu]

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.

[NersEllenson]

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??

[jmayer1]

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.

[Marquette84]

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.


 

[Blackhat]

We had plenty of incoming "4 year freshmen" in '07 and '08...most transferred out of the program.

[wadesworld]

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

[jmayer1]

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.

[RJax55]

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.

[Canadian Dimes]

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. 

[jmayer1]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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).

[ATL MU Warrior]

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.  

[MUfan12]

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.

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[Goatherder]

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. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

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.

[RJax55]

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.

[ATL MU Warrior]

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.

[oldwarrior81]

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.