courtside

Texas, Texas A&M, Connecticut, all offered Goodwin this past weekend.

Kevin Stallings: 1). It took him five years to make the NCAA's at Vandy. He was told prior to the fifth year that he would be fired if he did not make the NCAA's that year. While he would likely had had success more quickly at SLU, he would not likely have been a quick turnaround program coach. 2). In the past he has tried to put his name in for three different Big Ten large state school coaching positions. None of those were his alma mater. They were Ohio State, Illinois, and Indiana. He has always been drawn to the large public state school type of places in the past in top level leagues. It took him a while, but he eventually embraced Vanderbilt and all that it contains, it was a low pressure position. He was friends with the next Chancellor, AD, other coaches. He developed a system and recruited much to that system over the years. He is not a great recruiter and has had to rely upon assistants that have had some turnover. He always seemed to find the next recruiter to be good enough. Pittsburgh is a larger public school in a top level league with less challenges than Vandy. Stallings has always wanted that in the past. He was content at Vandy but with recent underachieving and this year' s team receiving Final Four discussion pre-season, rumblings were getting a little louder. Some of his best recruiters there were King Rice, Yanni Hufnagel, and David Cason. 3). While at Vandy after getting it going, his program became an every other year NCAA team with just miss NCAA's in the in the other years. If he had a few more deeper tourney runs, or turned a few of those just miss teams in to NCAA teams, or had a better league record over time there, he would be thought of more highly than mixed opinions there. He had a few strong teams that were upset early in the NCAA's by smaller, quicker, hot shooting teams. He also had some NCAA success too. It has been four straight underachieving seasons at Vandy. Some were getting restless there. Many realistic Vandy fans appreciate his success there and what he built, but they would like a little more consistency, and a little better results moving forward. Nothing out of the realm of reason. 4). In the past Stallings has repeatedly said he does not want to coach in his 60's. He is I believe 55. 5). Stallings taking another job helps Vandy with his buy out money. Mutual benefit. 6) He's from St. Louis and is in fact a big Cardinal baseball fan. He routinely sat in the booth Vandy baseball games and has been close friends with Vandy baseball coach Tim Corbin for many years. Stallings' son Jacob is a AA catcher in the Pittsburgh Pirates organization. 7). The challenge for Stallings at SLU would have been need for resources, and could he hire strong recruiters. 8) At Vandy he always recruited length for position, not enough ball handlers. His teams were often great shooting, but lacking lateral quickness at both ends. Players had trouble creating their own shot when the offense broke down and they had trouble staying in front of their man at that the other end. Stallings has been an excellent offensive X's and O's coach to compensate, and starting implementing a 2-3 zone several years back on the defensive end to compensate. He has always recruited high character intelligent team players. Festus Ezeli of the Golden State Warriors for example once switched his major from pre-med to a fall back of Economics to make life easier for himself. SLU has an opportunity to get a younger low/mid major successful head coach or a high major assistant that can try to develop something successful and consistent long term. There are several good choices out there. SLU needs to decide if they want to be more than a top 100 basketball budget as it has been in recent years. If not, they will need someone that can do many things well.

SLU is a step up from Loyola Chicago but it doesn't mean Moser would be interested in the job if...if...Moser had some success and the opportunity came up down the road. Moser is from suburban Chicago. If he has some success, he can stay there and enjoy it until other opportunities will come his way besides SLU.

Texas is perceived to be an elite college basketball head coaching position in part because of the in-state talent. For example, Texas A&M has on paper one of the best handful of recruiting classes nationally next year. All four players are from Texas. There are over a hundred d-1 players coming out of there. The perception includes a school willingness to commit to the resources to win. it's not so much as how does the current are recent program there rank with others as much as the opportunity of what it can be. And Texas will draw some high profile coaching candidates. Brian Wardle had been at Green Bay nine years and it was a good time for a change. Bradley has a new highly regarded AD Chris Reynolds, which factored into the situation. Wardle is also from suburban Chicago. He will be making a lot more money in a new more favorable work environment. Moser unfairly gets negatively defined at times from this message board bases on a handful of games. He was a big factor in SLU's recent success. And he is trying to do the difficult task of having success at Loyola-Chicago. If he can do that in the next few years, he would likely either stay or jump over/past SLU in terms of opportunities. Unlike the Wardle situation it doesn't make much sense for Moser to have success and then go back to SLU.

http://www.bbstate.com/info/teams-hoopsbudget Speaking of numbers, these are the numbers for the 2013 hoops budgets. What do people want and expect for SLU? How does SLU compare to other teams? Some schools will outperform their budgets, others won't. Budgets are just one aspect of a program. It's always interesting to take a look. SLU comes in at 98.

It varies based on every individual situation. Some players are encouraged to transfer. Some players unexpectedly transfer. In some cases it is a mutual thing. This can also be applied to a player that turns professional early. Some do it unexpectedly and some have the support and encouragement of the coach.

Chaifetz flirting with an NBA team? I am not sure what you mean by explain it. Majerus said years ago that this was a goal of Chaifetz, to be involved in NBA ownership. That team of course would not be playing in St. Louis. While it will take his time, attention, and physical presence elsewhere, it doesn't mean he still won't be a supporter of SLU. Like others, he can support a college program in one part of the country and an NBA team elsewhere. ...And, when SLU is playing well, he will come in town for more games. Reed played for SLU so I understand the interest.

This thread illustrates the need for balance in recruiting classes. A variety of things can disrupt that. Coaching changes, misses on recruiting, all kinds of things. And, it is important to get back to balanced classes as soon as possible. Otherwise you will be starting over and rebuilding every so many years. One challenge to this is sometimes discouraged kids leave schools during the rebuilding process. Retention of key players becomes more challenging. Try to avoid as much as possible loading most of your better players in one class. Combining classes back to back becomes very important. SLU of course is not alone in this regard. I am sure many of you went to the Vandy game or watched it. Vandy has some very promising Freshman and Sophomores. and despite good moments, they have had their ups and downs. Vandy gets 85% of its scoring from Freshman and Sophomores. What happened at Vandy? A couple of key former players had off the court problems. One kid left school early for the NBA a while back, and many of their top players were in the same class or two. They also had some turnover with assistant coaches too. it has taken the, a few years to get back to the elite level. SLU is going to go through a couple of rebuilding years. There will be many frustrating games etc...As has been mentioned player development is very important, along with combining recruiting classes, balanced classes, player retention, etc...You can't come up with empty classes.

I do appreciate the kind words from Brian, Ace, Torch, and Skip and enjoyed our past discussions. Steve apparently closed the other thread, and he can go ahead and close this one after I post it if he wants. I do believe there is some value for Steve to learn about posters who come and go and why. Anyway, if there is any value, and i already saw at least one incorrect assumption from Tarheelbilliken..I stopped posting for a variety of reasons, none of which has anything to do with the success of the team. 1) Personal reasons, increased time taking care of elderly and disabled relatives among other things. 2) The board had changed, as some former posters had moved on and newer posters came on board. It wasn't as enjoyable for me. I'm all for having fun as long as the main focus remains SLU sports discussion. I just didn't want to take the time to sift through some of the stuff of the board to get into discussions that held more interest for me. I posted often in the offseason as well as discussions involved practice, recruiting, coaching, etc...as opposed to say an in game thread where there were many people who could and did post in those. We obviously had many good discussions in the old soccer threads because many people in them wanted to see SLU successful, enjoyed the strategy components to the sport, while having fun too. It wasn't stand up comedy hour, and as long as you saw the game your thoughts were equally respected regardless of background. Small size helps sometimes. I may have enjoyed pms with some people more than the board itself. As for Tarheels comment in the locked thread, SLU's success has been very enjoyable for me. I'd rather sit back and quietly enjoy the success. The league, the coach, the facilities, many things worked out. Good for SLU. As for reading the board, I have gone many, many months without reading the board, maybe longer, and other times a few to several weeks. So no, I don't read the board regularly. But I have checked once in a while. I do think it is great when a random poster in a random city goes to see a SLU team play, or a recruit, opposing team, or potential target play when possible. I really enjoy that. If you saw the game or practice or recruit etc...your input was valued equally as anybody else. I don't know who still posts and who doesn't but I was always appreciate of the old regulars from my time, as well as some very kind pms from people like Schasz, Bay Area Billiken, Skip, SLUBALLS and others. Very kind and appreciated. I would have slipped this quietly into the other thread but it was locked before I could get the chance.

Yes, also good on set pieces.

Yes. Brandon has always been a good athlete, good speed, in particular closing speed, bouncy, good two way player that can play a variety of positions. Excelled as a two way wide mid. Also spent time in the middle and up top. His sister was a good center back. He is more versatile than some other backs.

That's a very good, very accurate article on Vedad Ibisevic. It covers quite a bit of different things. He is such a unique, skilled talent. Separately related to the piece, St. Louis comes in at 24 out of 25 largest metro areas with a foreign born population. Hopefully that will change moving forward. And hopefully the integrated diversity will come with it. And, hopefully more effort will be made to give more access to more kids from more places in the area to play. It isn't enough of a priority for some.

For those interested, Vitale isn't alone. USA Today's college basketball writers didn't have SLU in its pre-season rankings for next year. And, it included 44 teams. Pretty meaningless.

Evans and McCall were both very highly thought of players out of Chicago, but still a little under the radar in terms of recruiting. Evans played on a very good suburbia Naperville/Aurora area high school team that had a great record but fizzled out in the state tourney against increased competition. He was well respected as a very good high school player on one of the top teams in the Chicago area. But, he was thought of as a 6'5 inside/outside player, but mostly inside, mid-range, where many of the big boy schools would go with someone taller or with better ball handling and outside skills. McCall was a public high league player, well respected and well thought of, and imo not as often discussed, at least initially. He was overshadowed by higher profile teammates. But time and again in a supporting role, McCall would take over games when needed. His high school team was overshadowed by some of the bigger named public high league teams, despite their success. McCall was considered an undersized, good, quick two guard/combo guard. Again, many bigger colleges see the height etc....and overlook. I would say Kwamain Mitchell was less discussed in the recruiting world than either of them initially. Mitchell would play AAU games for Playground Warriors after all the big name college coaches left after the year younger than him played. Johnie Lacy, Jamil Wilson, etc...were higher profile. KM was a later bloomer. But he kept playing well and succeeding and eventually was noticed where Moser and Majerus would watch him play. Again, undersized two guard/combo guard that would need to learn to play elsewhere and in other ways and he did. If some of those guys were several inches taller, or more of a true wing or true point guard etc... at the time, more bigger named schools would have jumped aboard sooner. A key is identifying players who can play and who can overcome those things. But in terms of respect and accolades, Evans and McCall were well respected and played on top area teams in Chicago. Mitchell's attention came later in his high school career. i would also add that all three had quiet on court personalities, hard working, team players, not flashy nor self-promoting. But all were good and had success individually and as a team.

It's one of those challenging situations for the wbb program. It was ridiculous for the women to play there. So, Chaifetz all around is a massive upgrade. Idealistically, the women would play in an on campus few thousand seat arena which isn't going to happen. The comparison between the two is somewhat apples to oranges. SLU spent $80 million for the men's 10,600 arena and all the other bells and whistles. Marquette paid $30 million for a 4k arena and all the other similar bells and whistles. Their womens hoops and volleyball teams play there. They still have their old gym for other purposes. Their coach has made 7 NCAA's and they have been playing in the rugged Big East. Yet, demand isn't for more than the small but nice arena. In 2012, only 24 schools averaged 4k in womens hoops attendance. SLU women averaged 356 fans per game last year. Idealistically SLU women would have enough resources and success to make some NCAA's and get a few thousand fans per game or more long term. Chaifetz Arena is the only place for them to play. It's worked out well for the men's team, for whom it was built, but it's a challenge for the women. But it's still a better situation than West Pine.