A Positive

[Lennys Tap]

Yes, many of these guys went to JUCO because they're dumber than a box of rocks.  Brent did prove that there are exceptions.  Lowering standards to get JUCO's, imho, is not what MU is all about.

Lowering standards isn't what "MU is all about"? Fine. No Wade, no Final Four, one NCAA tournament win in 9 years under Crean. No Crowder, two fewer Sweet 16s under Buzz. Want to be Notre Dame? Sweet. Just don't be expecting excellence on the basketball court on a consistent basis.

[brewcity77]

Yes, many of these guys went to JUCO because they're dumber than a box of rocks.  Brent did prove that there are exceptions.  Lowering standards to get JUCO's, imho, is not what MU is all about.

I wouldn't go that far. wades mentioned Jae. He worked his ass of to get D1 eligible because of his JUCO situation. However, that still didn't get him on track to graduate. I get the sense the staff wants quality kids that both have their academics in line to be eligible but also have a chance to graduate.

That likely means more sophomore eligible JUCOs like Jimmy and DJO or making contact with guys earlier (like Buzz did with McKay) to make sure the classes they take at JUCO will be accepted here.

Honestly, and this just came to me as I type this, that may be why Marquette is hesitating on JUCO offers. Not only to ensure current targets have their academics in order but also to talk to 2016 kids about what they need to do to get eligible and on track to graduate here.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yes. Risk/reward, like so many things in life.

Some may want to feel bad for coaches who have 'troubled players'... but very often, the signs are there and the high degree of risk is known. Just depends on your appetite.

Unless you are a team that can reload every year, which is tough to do ....even Kentucky missed two years ago....I wonder if it is all worth it.  The approach that Wisconsin and others have taken has been a very solid approach that has paid off dividends over the longer term. 

[brewcity77]

Unless you are a team that can reload every year, which is tough to do ....even Kentucky missed two years ago....I wonder if it is all worth it.  The approach that Wisconsin and others have taken has been a very solid approach that has paid off dividends over the longer term. 

It depends on your ultimate goals. If you are okay with the average ceiling of a team being the Sweet 16 and maybe once a decade making the Final Four, the three star route works. But for that Final Four run, you need a lot to fall into place. Add in a five star, have 2-3 of your 3-stars be NBA quality at the same time, that's a lot of luck.

If you want your ceiling to be the Final Four and occasional national championship shot, you need the four and five star kids. You need McDonald's All Americans. Is 2003 good enough, or do you want the chance to finish the job?

[4everwarriors]

Exactly. Crean had top 10 Noah Vonleh for a year along with a Mickie D AA at the point and it didn't even get him into the NIT.

Yeah, but that's just Crean bein' Crean, ai na?

[mu03eng]

I wouldn't go that far. wades mentioned Jae. He worked his ass of to get D1 eligible because of his JUCO situation. However, that still didn't get him on track to graduate. I get the sense the staff wants quality kids that both have their academics in line to be eligible but also have a chance to graduate.

That likely means more sophomore eligible JUCOs like Jimmy and DJO or making contact with guys earlier (like Buzz did with McKay) to make sure the classes they take at JUCO will be accepted here.

Honestly, and this just came to me as I type this, that may be why Marquette is hesitating on JUCO offers. Not only to ensure current targets have their academics in order but also to talk to 2016 kids about what they need to do to get eligible and on track to graduate here.

This is exactly correct.  Jae was not dumb by any means, but his transcripts were a total mess.  MU had to work really hard and come up with more creative workarounds then they care to so Jae could get in.  He just didn't have good advisers both on where to JUCO and what classes to take in JUCO.

The admissions group has worked on guidelines for potential JUCO recruits in being ready to go to MU but that takes time.  One of the major bones of contention with Buzz was he didn't get the logistics behind getting these kids in and attributed caution and patience to get things right to elitism.

[Brewtown Andy]

This is exactly correct.  Jae was not dumb by any means, but his transcripts were a total mess.  MU had to work really hard and come up with more creative workarounds then they care to so Jae could get in.  He just didn't have good advisers both on where to JUCO and what classes to take in JUCO.

Jae's entire situation was so screwed up, SEC teams were prevented by league rule from recruiting him.

[mu03eng]

Jae's entire situation was so screwed up, S$EC teams were prevented by league rule from recruiting him.

FIFY

[MU82]

It depends on your ultimate goals. If you are okay with the average ceiling of a team being the Sweet 16 and maybe once a decade making the Final Four, the three star route works. But for that Final Four run, you need a lot to fall into place. Add in a five star, have 2-3 of your 3-stars be NBA quality at the same time, that's a lot of luck.

If you want your ceiling to be the Final Four and occasional national championship shot, you need the four and five star kids. You need McDonald's All Americans. Is 2003 good enough, or do you want the chance to finish the job?

I want a national title every year, but I am realistic.

We have the means to be a very good program in a conference that is still in transition and might or might not, over time, be able to compete with the Big 5 in several areas, including recruiting.

I think making the NCAA tournament most years -- say 8 of 10 or so -- getting to the Sweet 16 in half our appearances and getting to the Final Four once in that span would be quite acceptable and satisfying. Lots of luck would go into bettering that.

From 2006-13, we had 8 straight NCAAs, an Elite Eight and 2 Sweet 16s, and I think we were very well respected nationally. I'd take that kind of run every decade and hope that we could get a little lucky to break through to the Final Four once or twice. Once there, you never know.

To accomplish even that, you need lots of 4-stars (and hopefully the right ones, not some of the guys Buzz brought in), a few 3-stars to pan out Gardner-style and the occasional 5-star or juco stud. And you need to not have so many transferring out before we can see how good they really are. Not easy, but doable.

We will never be a Kentucky or Duke that expects FF every year and regular national titles, so if that's what it takes to "finish the job," we will always have a lot of disappointed fans.

[Lennys Tap]

It depends on your ultimate goals. If you are okay with the average ceiling of a team being the Sweet 16 and maybe once a decade making the Final Four, the three star route works. But for that Final Four run, you need a lot to fall into place. Add in a five star, have 2-3 of your 3-stars be NBA quality at the same time, that's a lot of luck.

If you want your ceiling to be the Final Four and occasional national championship shot, you need the four and five star kids. You need McDonald's All Americans. Is 2003 good enough, or do you want the chance to finish the job?

The 3 star route "works" if you have a 3 star who is better than all the 5 stars in his class, an all time NBA great who stays through his junior year. And your center is a 5th year senior 4 star. And your point guard is 4 star NBA player. And your power forward is a four star. And your 6th man is a four star NBA player who's one of the best shooters who ever lived. If 2003 is supposed to be a model for success with 3* guys I have to laugh.

[ChicosBailBonds]

It depends on your ultimate goals. If you are okay with the average ceiling of a team being the Sweet 16 and maybe once a decade making the Final Four, the three star route works. But for that Final Four run, you need a lot to fall into place. Add in a five star, have 2-3 of your 3-stars be NBA quality at the same time, that's a lot of luck.

If you want your ceiling to be the Final Four and occasional national championship shot, you need the four and five star kids. You need McDonald's All Americans. Is 2003 good enough, or do you want the chance to finish the job?

Considering in nearly 100 years of basketball we only have 3 of those Final Fours, that says a lot to me.  You need a few 4 and 5 star kids (if you can get them), but you also need some glue guys too.  We're not Kentucky or Duke, so it doesn't particularly matter in our case.  With the rules setup the way they are, if you aren't Kentucky or Duke, teams are going to have a tough time reloading each year....ask Florida, ask UCLA, etc, etc.  Too much drama with some of these kids and in other situations all you become is a one year showcase for the NBA.   

[brewcity77]

The 3 star route "works" if you have a 3 star who is better than all the 5 stars in his class, an all time NBA great who stays through his junior year. And your center is a 5th year senior 4 star. And your point guard is 4 star NBA player. And your power forward is a four star. And your 6th man is a four star NBA player who's one of the best shooters who ever lived. If 2003 is supposed to be a model for success with 3* guys I have to laugh.

I didn't mean to say that. I meant if you are happy with 2003 as your ceiling it can be done with 3* players. But if you want a chance for every year to be like that (and I'm not saying Final Four every year, I'm saying being one of the 10-15 teams that have a chance to go to the Final Four most years) you need better recruits than that.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I laugh at the absurdity of where players are picked as if this means their CURRENT value.  The NBA drafts on future promise as much as anything.  That top 10 pick was so much of a slam dunk he got sent down to the D-League this year.  Future promise doesn't equate to CURRENT ability in college.  That's why that argument is hogwash and plenty of GMs will tell you this especially is the case around big men.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I didn't mean to say that. I meant if you are happy with 2003 as your ceiling it can be done with 3* players. But if you want a chance for every year to be like that (and I'm not saying Final Four every year, I'm saying being one of the 10-15 teams that have a chance to go to the Final Four most years) you need better recruits than that.

I don't see MU ever in this situation, so it feels like a non-discussion.  In my mind, even some of the blue blood \ top 15 programs are caught up in it and it has backfired on some of them. 

We haven't been a consistent top 15 team since the 1970's.  I'd take consistent top 30 team right now and if that means once every 10 years a Final Four shot is possible, that's fine by me.  I'm a realist. 

[Jay Bee]

Unless you are a team that can reload every year, which is tough to do ....even Kentucky missed two years ago....I wonder if it is all worth it.  The approach that Wisconsin and others have taken has been a very solid approach that has paid off dividends over the longer term. 

I don't mean this in the wrong way but Becky's approach has changed. That's frankly the scariest thing about them -- Bo has brought in (and continues to with Khalil Iverson) more athletic guys than he has in the past.

But.. here's the thing: I don't believe in such a 'strict approach' as I think you do. e.g., there are certain "types" or "flags" that would make you cross guys off the list of being considered.

I believe you must get down to the individual level. Sure, guy A may be a JUCO.. but let's understand him. Sure, guy B may seem like a good kid, hardworker.. but, let's understand him. Details become very important and I don't want that to get lost.

What may seem like a risk level of X% to one person may really only be a level of Y% after due diligence.

[ChicosBailBonds]

I don't mean this in the wrong way but Becky's approach has changed. That's frankly the scariest thing about them -- Bo has brought in (and continues to with Khalil Iverson) more athletic guys than he has in the past.

But.. here's the thing: I don't believe in such a 'strict approach' as I think you do. e.g., there are certain "types" or "flags" that would make you cross guys off the list of being considered.

I believe you must get down to the individual level. Sure, guy A may be a JUCO.. but let's understand him. Sure, guy B may seem like a good kid, hardworker.. but, let's understand him. Details become very important and I don't want that to get lost.

What may seem like a risk level of X% to one person may really only be a level of Y% after due diligence.

It's not that linear for me.  No litmus test.  Treat every individual on their own....absolutely agree.  You are exactly right on the level of risk is different from person to person.   Let me put it this way, when you find out about some of the nonsense that was going on and the red flags that were KNOWN but we took folks anyway, it is enough to make you want to pull your hair out.  That's part of the nonsense of the last few years that was mind blowing.

As for Wisconsin, they're changing on the fringes with a player here and a player there, but their core approach, IMO, has not changed.  It's a smart thing to do, because he also has good will to do it.  He could bring in a few guys that are absolute risks and if they fail the program off the court, people will give him a pass. 

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I don't mean this in the wrong way but Becky's approach has changed. That's frankly the scariest thing about them -- Bo has brought in (and continues to with Khalil Iverson) more athletic guys than he has in the past.

I don't think Khalil Iverson constitutes a sea change in recruiting strategy.

[Jay Bee]

I don't think Khalil Iverson constitutes a sea change in recruiting strategy.

I don't either. Is there something in my comment that would make you believe that I did? If so, slow down and read it again. Take your time; relax.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

I don't either. Is there something in my comment that would make you believe that I did? If so, slow down and read it again. Take your time; relax.

Well you did refer to how "scary" it was that Bo was recruiting more athletic players. Don't count me amongst those who are scared by the prospect of having to play the likes of Iverson.

[Jay Bee]

Well you did refer to how "scary" it was that Bo was recruiting more athletic players. Don't count me amongst those who are scared by the prospect of having to play the likes of Iverson.

smh. Read what I wrote again and read what you wrote again.

[Ellenson Guerrero]

smh. Read what I wrote again and read what you wrote again.

My reading comprehension is fine.  I don't think the same can be said for your ability to convey your point.

[MayaSmart]

My reading comprehension is fine.  I don't think the same can be said for your ability to convey your point.

I am willing to admit my reading comprehension isn't the best (although I could certainly help out a certain Dominican center), but I'm pretty sure Jay Bee was trying to say that Bucky is damn good and adding a player like Iverson might even improve their team in a "scary" way.