Snyder was the exception that proves the rule. Most coaches who rely too heavily on jucos are soon looking for other jobs. I'd hate to see us get any more than 5 or 6 jucos per class, and those just to fill immediate needs.
We've all seen that it can take jucos a whole year or more before they get acclimated to this level, if they ever do. Then we have a good player for only a year before they graduate. With Tuba, we had a good player for only about his last seven games when the light really went on for him.
Even Alvin Bowen took a full year before he finally started performing at a high level. Fortunately, he was a three-year juco.
That assumes there is a rule about JUCO's that is different then high school players. Most coaches that rely on academic risks or marginal players are often looking for jobs, regardless if the players are JUCO or high school. You can recruit a lot of JUCO's if you are doing it correctly.
Exception That Proves The Rule: Used when a rule has been asserted, and someone points out the rule doesn't always work. The cliche rebuttal is that this is "the exception that proves the rule". Many people think that this cliche somehow allows you to ignore the exception, and continue using the rule.
In fact, the cliche originally did no such thing. There are two standard explanations for the original meaning.
The first is that the word "prove" meant
test. That is why the military takes its equipment to a
Proving Ground to test it. So, the cliche originally said that an exception tests a rule. That is, if you find an exception to a rule, the cliche is saying that the rule is being tested, and perhaps the rule will need to be discarded.
The second explanation is that the stating of an exception to a rule, proves that the rule exists. For example, suppose it was announced that "Over the holiday weekend, students do not need to be in the dorms by midnight". This announcement implies that normally students
do have to be in by midnight.
