Last Scholarship May Go To........a Juco?

[Lennys Tap]

The difference is that a student going pro is on the student. Admitting someone who cannot graduate is on the university.

May seem small to us but its an important distinction to university administrators.

So they like to live in a fairy tale rather than deal with the real world, all the while making sure their own backsides are covered. Inspiring.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

So they like to live in a fairy tale rather than deal with the real world, all the while making sure their own backsides are covered. Inspiring.

If Marquette takes a potential one and done, they will do everything they can to convince that player to stay and complete their degree. That fulfills their duties as an educational body. Putting a player in an situation where it is impossible for them to graduate is the opposite of that.

This also isn't just about a policy Marquette made up out of thin air. The administration felt they weren't in compliance with NCAA bylaws. Not everyone interprets the policy the same way but I can share that TAMU holds itself to the same standards that Marquette does.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

This seems like an unnecessary stand if we were to adopt a the 'lifetime' scholarship process (if caring for the student is the concern).  That way they can have the path to a degree available but also achieve their dreams like any other college bball player (i.e. I think Lazar was thrown out as an example).

If we do adopt this model, than I agree that this issue would goes away.

Now I'm not advocating taking a risk so often that you blow the APR score, but I think it is really silly to say you won't recruit a JUCO that can't finish but will recruit someone in the top 5 that has indicated he will likely not be a 4 year player.  I guess it makes the administration 'feel better' but it sure seems like a technicality to me.

Technicalities matter though. UConn ended up with a postseason ban because of technicalities. To me, it is more than a technicality. If I recruit a top 5 kid, I have a chance of convincing him to complete his degree. If I recruit someone who won't be able to graduate, I am using him for his basketball talent. If we don't put him in a position to earn his degree, than we fail him as and educational body. It's not a fair trade to say we get your basketball talent and you don't get a degree. Now it worked out in Jae's case because he got an NBA paycheck, but if it hadn't...

Buzz may have pushed the bounds of the risk taking here -- but seems like an over-correction to act as if we own some sort of false moral high-ground. 

The only false moral high-ground I have seen is people acting like those who support the policy are "arrogant," "discriminatory," and "live in ivory towers." If you want to advocate for Marquette taking chances on more students who don't have the grades to make Marquette as a result of growing up in a less privileged environment, please do by all means. I am huge supporter of this and think that Marquette has gotten away from its Jesuit roots by making its education so expensive that only the privileged can afford it without significant help. But then it better be for all students, not just the ones who are good at basketball.

[bilsu]

The policy put in place by the administration was that a recruit must be in a position where it is humanly possible for them to take enough credit hours before their eligibility expires. Potential one and dones are qualified under this rule. Jae Crowder does not. That's the rule. You can say you don't like the rule, but it's not changing. Nor do I personally think it should change. For me, there is an important distinction between "lottery chance possibility" and physically impossible.

I do not have a problem with the rule, except it should be based on five years. I switched majors and it took me 4 1/2 years. I suspect the percentage of students taking 5 years is significantly high, so why limit a basketball player to 4 years. Besides that, if Crowder had turned out not to be so good, he may of stuck around to get his degree. However, if he could not handle normal course work that would move him towards a degree than he should not of been admitted.

I do not think any has mention Artie Green.

[bilsu]

Also Odell Ball

[Nukem2]

Also Odell Ball

He was not a Juco.  He transferred from a Mid-America Conf. School

Edit:  the school was Kent State.

[ChicosBailBonds]

This seems like an unnecessary stand if we were to adopt a the 'lifetime' scholarship process (if caring for the student is the concern).  That way they can have the path to a degree available but also achieve their dreams like any other college bball player (i.e. I think Lazar was thrown out as an example).

Now I'm not advocating taking a risk so often that you blow the APR score, but I think it is really silly to say you won't recruit a JUCO that can't finish but will recruit someone in the top 5 that has indicated he will likely not be a 4 year player.  I guess it makes the administration 'feel better' but it sure seems like a technicality to me.

Buzz may have pushed the bounds of the risk taking here -- but seems like an over-correction to act as if we own some sort of false moral high-ground. 

Marquette voted against the Lifetime Scholarship when Buzz was here during the NCAA governance meetings.  Will be interesting to see if MU changes their stance now and offers those types of scholarships.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

If we do adopt this model, than I agree that this issue would goes away.

Technicalities matter though. UConn ended up with a postseason ban because of technicalities. To me, it is more than a technicality. If I recruit a top 5 kid, I have a chance of convincing him to complete his degree. If I recruit someone who won't be able to graduate, I am using him for his basketball talent. If we don't put him in a position to earn his degree, than we fail him as and educational body. It's not a fair trade to say we get your basketball talent and you don't get a degree. Now it worked out in Jae's case because he got an NBA paycheck, but if it hadn't...

The only false moral high-ground I have seen is people acting like those who support the policy are "arrogant," "discriminatory," and "live in ivory towers." If you want to advocate for Marquette taking chances on more students who don't have the grades to make Marquette as a result of growing up in a less privileged environment, please do by all means. I am huge supporter of this and think that Marquette has gotten away from its Jesuit roots by making its education so expensive that only the privileged can afford it without significant help. But then it better be for all students, not just the ones who are good at basketball.

Both MU & the student athletes are maximizing their benefits from the money-maker called college bball.  The moral highground I was referring to is the fact we will feel good about signing a top-5 recruit who typically is not interested in 4 years of college but putting up barriers to someone like Jae Crowder. 

Said a different way I hope Wojo told HE that he will do everything in his power to get him to the NBA as soon as possible.  I hope he's like Al with Chones and tells him to go get paid as soon as possible.  That will get us more top-5/10 recruits. 

If this causes us not to be able to sleep at night we shouldn't be at alumni events touting that some services rank our recruiting class as #4 nor should we reiterate our commitment to elite college bball.  If we feel bad about using kids for basketball, then we should give them an insurance policy (an education) and ensure they are meeting the academic requirements of our university every semester and making progress towards a degree.

I am not a college administrator which liberates me from the moral dilemma you lay out above.  I understand the argument - as I said earlier I just personally don't agree with it.

[Lennys Tap]

Marquette voted against the Lifetime Scholarship when Buzz was here during the NCAA governance meetings.  Will be interesting to see if MU changes their stance now and offers those types of scholarships.

So Buzz voted against it? Wow. I would have thought that the president or at least the athletic director would make that call.

[River rat]

We know that is all horsecrap anyway.  Mu is not going to put itself under some mandate.  Chicos APR is crap too, the players dont have to graduate in 4 years. Also, guys like Blackledge, Fulce, etc. that come back to MU to finish their degrees do it for free. My goodness after spending hundreds of thousands of dolars do you think MU is going to let these guys hang in the wind a few classes short of their degrees??  Please dont let the borderline psychotic MU hate cloud your common sense.  All the anti-Juco hogwash that has been spewed by Mr. Logorrhea I think everyone knows is skewed at best.  I think the board has long ago learned that anything that Chicos types is suspect and that the board's antagonist in more cases than not types outright untruths that he feels support his agenda.  My guess is the actual 3 anti Juco votes were Chico, hoopaloop, and knight commision.

[ChicosBailBonds]

So Buzz voted against it? Wow. I would have thought that the president or at least the athletic director would make that call.

From what I could tell, Buzz was busy getting the AD ousted.......

[ChicosBailBonds]

We know that is all horsecrap anyway.  Mu is not going to put itself under some mandate.  Chicos APR is crap too, the players dont have to graduate in 4 years. Also, guys like Blackledge, Fulce, etc. that come back to MU to finish their degrees do it for free. My goodness after spending hundreds of thousands of dolars do you think MU is going to let these guys hang in the wind a few classes short of their degrees??  Please dont let the borderline psychotic MU hate cloud your common sense.  All the anti-Juco hogwash that has been spewed by Mr. Logorrhea I think everyone knows is skewed at best.  I think the board has long ago learned that anything that Chicos types is suspect and that the board's antagonist in more cases than not types outright untruths that he feels support his agenda.  My guess is the actual 3 anti Juco votes were Chico, hoopaloop, and knight commision.

I knew you would say that last line, which is why I took a snapshot of my vote...the bolded part lists the vote of the user.



 So in typical wrong fashion that you employ often, you got burned.....again.   Hoopaloop....well I just went to his member page ( http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5607 ) and looks like he hasn't been here since 2012....so you're wrong a second time.   IU relied HEAVILY on JUCOS under Bob Knight (your words)....Knight didn't even recruit his first JUCO to IU until 1985, which was his 14th year, two NCAA titles had already been achieved along with another Final Four, a bunch of Big Ten titles....heavily.  Now, if you were to say Keith Smart played a pivotal role in his last championship year, you would be right....but to say heavily is ridiculous...wrong for the 3rd time.  Al McGuire, relied HEAVILY on JUCOs...again, define heavily.

I never said you have to graduate in 4 years for the APR, but you do have a time horizon and it does matter as long as the NCAA is using the APR, which they are and plan on continuing to do so.

Finally, with all of your other histrionics, no one is against JUCOs, it is the quantity that matters because the risk reward isn't there.   If Wojo feels there is a JUCO player that will help, he'll go after him.  I doubt very strongly we will be in a situation under Wojo where 40% of our players are JUCOs.  I could be wrong....maybe as many times as you were in this thread alone.

[Lennys Tap]

From what I could tell, Buzz was busy getting the AD ousted.......

From what YOU could tell, which is nothing. Is there a History professor you've got a hard on for who happened to be at MU when our President/AD voted on this? Maybe they/you can pin this on him/her.

[wadesworld]

From what YOU could tell, which is nothing. Is there a History professor you've got a hard on for who happened to be at MU when our President/AD voted on this? Maybe they/you can pin this on him/her.

Larry Williams's leaving was 100% related to a lack of ability to work with Bazz Williams.

[River rat]

I knew you would say that last line, which is why I took a snapshot of my vote...the bolded part lists the vote of the user.



 So in typical wrong fashion that you employ often, you got burned.....again.   Hoopaloop....well I just went to his member page ( http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?action=profile;u=5607 ) and looks like he hasn't been here since 2012....so you're wrong a second time.   IU relied HEAVILY on JUCOS under Bob Knight (your words)....Knight didn't even recruit his first JUCO to IU until 1985, which was his 14th year, two NCAA titles had already been achieved along with another Final Four, a bunch of Big Ten titles....heavily.  Now, if you were to say Keith Smart played a pivotal role in his last championship year, you would be right....but to say heavily is ridiculous...wrong for the 3rd time.  Al McGuire, relied HEAVILY on JUCOs...again, define heavily.

I never said you have to graduate in 4 years for the APR, but you do have a time horizon and it does matter as long as the NCAA is using the APR, which they are and plan on continuing to do so.

Finally, with all of your other histrionics, no one is against JUCOs, it is the quantity that matters because the risk reward isn't there.   If Wojo feels there is a JUCO player that will help, he'll go after him.  I doubt very strongly we will be in a situation under Wojo where 40% of our players are JUCOs.  I could be wrong....maybe as many times as you were in this thread alone.

For such an ardent IU fan you sure do have a bad memory.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

If you want to be a student at MU, you have to be able to graduate. That's reasonable.

[ChicosBailBonds]

For such an ardent IU fan you sure do have a bad memory.

No, I really don't.

1971-1985, Bob Knight at IU had zero JUCOs.  He didn't like JUCOs, felt they were academic risks, etc.  I'd invite you to read Season on the Brink.  Ironically, he felt in the mid 1980's that his teams lacked athleticism so he went into the JUCO ranks and signed a few kids, including Keith Smart and Dean Garrett. 

In his entire 29 years at IU, how many JUCOs did he take....since he relied on them so heavily (your words)?  LOL.   

[wadesworld]

If you want to be a student at MU, you have to be able to graduate. That's reasonable.

Be able to?  Sure.  But there are tons of students who went to Marquette that never graduated.  Our governor happens to be one (hah).  And what happens to students who don't graduated in 4 years?  Are they punished?  No.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Be able to?  Sure.  But there are tons of students who went to Marquette that never graduated.  Our governor happens to be one (hah).  And what happens to students who don't graduated in 4 years?  Are they punished?  No.

Depending on how you interpret NCAA bylaws, you shouldn't admit student athletes who can't graduate before their eligibility runs out. It's a strict interpretation but TAMU views it the same way.

[TheBurrEffect]

Not what I said. But if you think about it, all students are accepted with the possibility of graduating in four years. Jae was accepted despite it being impossible for him to graduate in four years. There is a difference. There's a reason you don't see many people transfer into Marquette from a community college.

It's becoming increasingly rare that ANYONE graduates in 4 years these days.

What your essentially arguing is that Jae Crowder shouldn't have been accepted because he couldn't graduate in 4 years. So what you would have rather done is tell the JUCO kid who worked his ass off to become eligible that "sorry we can't accept you because you won't finish by the time basketball is over. Therefore we won't help you get a degree at all." Now we can debate the politics of "student athletes" all day, but what should be the case here is accepting people who are academically eligible. What does it matter if they graduate in 4 years or not?

Jae Crowder never graduated like so many others before him because he could make a living off of playing basketball. Last time I checked, no degree will help you play better basketball in the NBA. Now if Crowder had turned out to be a complete bust/had a career ending injury he would have those 2 years at Marquette to fall back on and help him tremendously. Instead you propose to just give him zero years and zero help.

[BCHoopster]

It's becoming increasingly rare that ANYONE graduates in 4 years these days.

What your essentially arguing is that Jae Crowder shouldn't have been accepted because he couldn't graduate in 4 years. So what you would have rather done is tell the JUCO kid who worked his ass off to become eligible that "sorry we can't accept you because you won't finish by the time basketball is over. Therefore we won't help you get a degree at all." Now we can debate the politics of "student athletes" all day, but what should be the case here is accepting people who are academically eligible. What does it matter if they graduate in 4 years or not?

Jae Crowder never graduated like so many others before him because he could make a living off of playing basketball. Last time I checked, no degree will help you play better basketball in the NBA. Now if Crowder had turned out to be a complete bust/had a career ending injury he would have those 2 years at Marquette to fall back on and help him tremendously. Instead you propose to just give him zero years and zero help.

Second that, Jae got a great education. For a few years he will be the highest paid out of his class.  If he wants to graduate 10 years from now he can.  But if he lasts in the
NBA for 10 years he will be able to retire, and isn't that the reason you go to college, to improve your future? 

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Be able to?  Sure.  But there are tons of students who went to Marquette that never graduated.  Our governor happens to be one (hah).  And what happens to students who don't graduated in 4 years?  Are they punished?  No.

Right, and when those students enrolled, they had acceptable grades, test scores, etc.

MU won't take a kid who doesn't have a HS degree. MU won't take a kid who got a 7 on his ACT.

Why should MU be compelled to take a kid who doesn't have enough or the right credits to be on track to graduate?

[ceh]

How about Connor Frankamp.  Kid's leaving KU, Top 40 guard, can shoot.

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college/big-12/university-of-kansas/article3493896.html

[Lennys Tap]

Right, and when those students enrolled, they had acceptable grades, test scores, etc.

MU won't take a kid who doesn't have a HS degree. MU won't take a kid who got a 7 on his ACT.

Why should MU be compelled to take a kid who doesn't have enough or the right credits to be on track to graduate?

Compelled? No. Who said compelled? Nonetheless, I'm damn glad Jae Crowder came to MU.

[wadesworld]

Right, and when those students enrolled, they had acceptable grades, test scores, etc.

MU won't take a kid who doesn't have a HS degree. MU won't take a kid who got a 7 on his ACT.

Why should MU be compelled to take a kid who doesn't have enough or the right credits to be on track to graduate?

Because that player has a high school diploma and didn't get a 7 on his ACT?  I, at 25 years old, could re-enroll at Marquette University starting in the Spring and pursue a degree that I do not have.  There is no timetable saying, "You must graduate from Marquette University in four years."  Or, "You must have graduated by the end of the school year that you turn 22 years old in."  I could work full time, go to Marquette University part time, and get another degree over the course of 6 years.  Why should we limit student-athletes, who put more time and effort into both the student and the athlete part than I did as just a student, to just 4 years to get a degree?

Just because some students are not on track to graduate in 4 years doesn't mean they aren't on track to graduate at all, or won't graduate at all.