Recruiting 2015

[kmbilliken]

Assuming all players want a shot at the tourney, I guess the entire team should go elsewhere... Ugh. This is getting old.

No, but next year is a long shot. A fifth year senior would only be here for one year. Do you think a fifth year transfer is going to look at this years record and what we have returning and think "SLU looks like they're going to the tournament next year, I'll go there"?

[Taj79]

Here's the 2014-15 Transfer list. While a large majority are typical Lancona-type transfers, there are a few noted by "will graduate" that fit the bill of this discussion. I didn't count them,but there are not that many of this type. Some guys transfer just to play (Wayne Sparrow from Richmond to UMBC for example) but I woudl think most want that extra year for a Dance bid.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/10702122/tracking-every-transfer-2014-offseason-college-basketball

[Old guy]

I'm not saying walk-ons can't turn into valuable players - it does happen - but there's a reason they weren't offered scholarships in the first place.

Things do change in a couple of years. He was not offered a couple of years ago when he finished HS and went JUCO. Again he was again not offered for the year 2014 to 2015 (NCAA eligibility was an issue at the time, this may have changed after a year at SLU). He has been attending SLU and playing as a walk on throughout this season.

There may have been any number of reasons not to offer him a scholarship in prior years. Academics may have been a significant issue in prior years. However, he attended SLU for a year and apparently has managed not to flunk out, so he must be doing something right in this regard. He has played as a walk on this year. Who is to say that he could not be worth a scholarship now, or at least a second look? This kid could spend the summer doing all he can to avail himself of such an opportunity, who is to say he is not worth it now because he was passed over in the past?

[cheeseman]

If we use all 2 of the freed up schollies this spring then we will only have 1 for 2016 class. Is that really what you want - talk about an imbalance - we would have 4 freshmen, 6 sophomores, 2 juniors, 1 senior next year. We probably should hold at least one for 2016 unless somebody falls into our laps that is really good. I agree the chance of a 5th year senior who would just want to keep playing who is of any real value wanting to come here is not a real possibility for all the reasons listed by others. I guess you could find a juco for one of the 2 open and that would help with the balance but if you give two away then once again you only have one for 2016.

[Clock_Tower]

Sure sounds like I am in the minority here but I don't want a 5th year transfer even if he is out there. First, as mentioned, there aren't all that many. Second, without putting down our program (AlumniFan), they won't want to come to team in rebuild mode. Third, a new 5th transfer won't know Crews' systems, defense, etc. Fourth, a 5th year transfer will likely bring baggage with him. Team chemistry and leadership is needed, and will be if we clean house. And even if I am wrong on all of the above and he is the perfect player, then what do we do then next year? I want la long-term solution and not a short term fix. Sorry, but we have a youth movement going on and we should not change from this.

Instead, Jim Crews needs to sit down with Reynolds and Bartley and define their roles. IMO, Reynolds is our PG. Commit to them but also have a back up plan and bring in another Freshman PG with 1 of the 2 open scholarships. And no, don't save scholarships. If 2 good guys can help us next year, then use them. And no, balancing classes is not needed. It will take care of itself as kids will leave for on their own for playing time when they are recruited over. Don't get me wrong, don't use scholarships just to use them this Spring. UD did quite well with only 7 scholarship kids and we really only need 12 for next year. If we have a good shot at getting Mr. Tatum and another 1 or 2, then fine. Let's give it our best shot. Otherwise, we simply need to follow up with solid class after solid class, coach up what we bring in and show the door to those who don't listen, don't buy in or don't contribute.

[Deutschkind]

The fifth year transfer worked for Wisconsin football

[AlumniFan]

No, but next year is a long shot. A fifth year senior would only be here for one year. Do you think a fifth year transfer is going to look at this years record and what we have returning and think "SLU looks like they're going to the tournament next year, I'll go there"?

So does that mean that Austin McBroom will likely end up on a tourney team? A lot of people here say he isn't good enough for what people are calling the worst team (SLU) in a down conference (A10) which has a bleak out look for 2015-2016, yet he is going to a tourney bound team because, as a 5th year senior, to them he will be a great addition? What am I missing? Seriously. Maybe the rule is not 100% clear to me.

But more importantly is the very frequent assumption that next year SLU will suck. Maybe we will, but it is just getting old to hear so many people automatically assume that next year is a loss. And then, when a person posts positive things about the team, some people become angry and, at times, downright childish about it. Now I know what Jerry Seinfeld felt like in the Bizzarro World episode.

I apologize if I misunderstood your post, but so many comments now are either outright negative or dripping with sarcasm that it is difficult to tell.

[brianstl]

McBroom can be an important contributor on a good team. Hell, he was an important contributor on last season's team. He just isn't a starter on a good team. I expect McBroom to be a hot commodity among bubble type teams.

[BigMouthBilliken]

So does that mean that Austin McBroom will likely end up on a tourney team? A lot of people here say he isn't good enough for what people are calling the worst team (SLU) in a down conference (A10) which has a bleak out look for 2015-2016, yet he is going to a tourney bound team because, as a 5th year senior, to them he will be a great addition? What am I missing? Seriously. Maybe the rule is not 100% clear to me.

But more importantly is the very frequent assumption that next year SLU will suck. Maybe we will, but it is just getting old to hear so many people automatically assume that next year is a loss. And then, when a person posts positive things about the team, some people become angry and, at times, downright childish about it. Now I know what Jerry Seinfeld felt like in the Bizzarro World episode.

I apologize if I misunderstood your post, but so many comments now are either outright negative or dripping with sarcasm that it is difficult to tell.

Personally I was making the argument for a "good" 5th year transfer. I'm sure we could pick up any mediocre player but where is the benefit in that? A good 5th year wants a tournament shot. They are hard to get. An average 5th year wants to play. Austin wants to play.

[3star_recruit]

Instead, Jim Crews needs to sit down with Reynolds and Bartley and define their roles. IMO, Reynolds is our PG. Commit to them but also have a back up plan and bring in another Freshman PG with 1 of the 2 open scholarships. And no, don't save scholarships. If 2 good guys can help us next year, then use them. And no, balancing classes is not needed. It will take care of itself as kids will leave for on their own for playing time when they are recruited over.

If the coaching staff was interested in committing right now to either Bartley or Reynolds at point guard, they wouldn't have just offered Jahshire Hardnett. Neither kid has earned the spot. If Hardnett opts to go elsewhere and the staff can't find another frosh who projects as a starter, the point guard battle will continue. The guy who proves to be a reliable scorer will likely win the job by default. We struggle too much to score to have a non-scorer at any of the guard positions.

I'll be shocked if the staff can find two guys in the spring who project as starters next year. They spent many months recruiting the frosh we already have and couldn't find two starters. Landing just one who could do the job would be huge.

Penn State had a better record than us but they're about to lose a 20ppg scorer to graduation. They could be headed for a season very similar to one we just experienced. I hope Hardnett, who is visiting there on the 27th, realizes this.

[HoosierPal]

Sure sounds like I am in the minority here but I don't want a 5th year transfer even if he is out there. First, as mentioned, there aren't all that many. Second, without putting down our program (AlumniFan), they won't want to come to team in rebuild mode. Third, a new 5th transfer won't know Crews' systems, defense, etc. Fourth, a 5th year transfer will likely bring baggage with him. Team chemistry and leadership is needed, and will be if we clean house. And even if I am wrong on all of the above and he is the perfect player, then what do we do then next year? I want la long-term solution and not a short term fix. Sorry, but we have a youth movement going on and we should not change from this.

Five, 5th year transfers typically aren't good enough to play pro, even in Europe. They are not program changers. I'll take Glaze over a one and done 5th year transfer. A graduate transfer eligible for 2 years might be a different story.

(I don't agree with your point 4 on bringing baggage. He may or he may not. Some are good kids just looking to extend their basketball career. Very few, if any, are truly interested in a master's degree.)

[moytoy12]

All this jibber-jabber about walk-ons is silly.

[cheeseman]

Sure sounds like I am in the minority here but I don't want a 5th year transfer even if he is out there. First, as mentioned, there aren't all that many. Second, without putting down our program (AlumniFan), they won't want to come to team in rebuild mode. Third, a new 5th transfer won't know Crews' systems, defense, etc. Fourth, a 5th year transfer will likely bring baggage with him. Team chemistry and leadership is needed, and will be if we clean house. And even if I am wrong on all of the above and he is the perfect player, then what do we do then next year? I want la long-term solution and not a short term fix. Sorry, but we have a youth movement going on and we should not change from this.

Instead, Jim Crews needs to sit down with Reynolds and Bartley and define their roles. IMO, Reynolds is our PG. Commit to them but also have a back up plan and bring in another Freshman PG with 1 of the 2 open scholarships. And no, don't save scholarships. If 2 good guys can help us next year, then use them. And no, balancing classes is not needed. It will take care of itself as kids will leave for on their own for playing time when they are recruited over. Don't get me wrong, don't use scholarships just to use them this Spring. UD did quite well with only 7 scholarship kids and we really only need 12 for next year. If we have a good shot at getting Mr. Tatum and another 1 or 2, then fine. Let's give it our best shot. Otherwise, we simply need to follow up with solid class after solid class, coach up what we bring in and show the door to those who don't listen, don't buy in or don't contribute.

So your approach is to sign players to schollies that we do not have available. If you do that then why would any kid come here thinking he is just the next guy around to get dumped. I get that some kid might decide to leave having been recruited over but you can not count on that. RA and MC will be here for 2 more years unless they leave now. As far as the 6 freshmen go - whoever stays on will probably be here also given that any freshmen we get the following year unless it is Tatum will take some time to adjust. I just don't see Crews cleaning house two years in a row.

[billikenfan05]

Ugh you are getting old. Always interpreting things in a negative light. Kmbilliken made a legitimate argument that a decent 5th year transfer would want to play for a team that has a good shot at a tournament appearance. Why would a good 5th year want to play for a dead last conference team? A 5th year has experience and has put in a lot of work and practice and only has one more shot. The players on our team are not entitled to anything. They need to work hard and put in the practice hours. If any player on our team wants to transfer to a tournament bound team then let them. I highly doubt they will receive the minutes that they received here. No one on our team is currently a "stud" but that doesn't meant that one day they can't be

Youre a tool. Shamburger down the road in Columbia joined a team for his fifth year

[BigMouthBilliken]

Youre a ###### tool. Shamburger down the road in Columbia joined a ###### team for his fifth year

I don't think I did anything to warrant your cursing. There are better ways to to counter argue than calling someone a tool. Plus I doubt anyone expected Mizzou to be as bad as they were just like no one expected us to be as bad as we were

[TheA_Bomb]

Seriously this generalization of what fifth year players want is pointless. Their motivations are probably as diverse as the numbers of them available.

[TheA_Bomb]

I don't think I did anything to warrant your cruising. There are better ways to to counter argue than calling someone a tool.

But you're really being a tool

[BigMouthBilliken]

But you're really being a tool

How so? Kmbilliken started the debate then alumni fan made a quick comment that the whole team should transfer if they want to make the tournament. Maybe my assessment on 5th year desires are incorrect, but that doesn't make me a tool. I don't think I am wrong in that our team needs to prove itself

[billikenfan05]

I don't think I did anything to warrant your cursing. There are better ways to to counter argue than calling someone a tool. Plus I doubt anyone expected Mizzou to be as bad as they were just like no one expected us to be as bad as we were

Oh off...I'll curse whenever I want.

[BigMouthBilliken]

Oh ###### off...I'll curse whenever I want.

Ok

[Bizziken]

I would only be in favor of the 5th year Senior option because I think we need to 'save' a second scholarship for 2016. As it stands we have a 10 man rotation for next year assuming Welmer isn't an immediate impact player. That's perfectly fine by me. But I don't see why, if it's possible, bringing in a decent, experienced player to give either our sophomore Guards or sophomore Bigs one more year to develop is such a bad idea.

[billikenfan05]

How so? Kmbilliken started the debate then alumni fan made a quick comment that the whole team should transfer if they want to make the tournament. Maybe my assessment on 5th year desires are incorrect, but that doesn't make me a tool. I don't think I am wrong in that our team needs to prove itself

Your entire presence on this board is tool behavior.

[BigMouthBilliken]

You're entire presence on this board is tool behavior.

Interesting

[AlumniFan]

How so? Kmbilliken started the debate then alumni fan made a quick comment that the whole team should transfer if they want to make the tournament. Maybe my assessment on 5th year desires are incorrect, but that doesn't make me a tool. I don't think I am wrong in that our team needs to prove itself

My reaction was an over-reaction to the ongoing over-reaction of how bad the Billikens were and (according to some) will be next year. The 5th year senior debate is fine, but I do think there are very, very limited situations in which it would work out for the reasons I stated.

[Littlebill]

How so?

Re read some of your GDT posts... Lol