Taj79

The old Vee-Time-Bay-Bee used to rankle me a lot --- just about every post. Thicks is right to call for tolerance. He's gotten better as STLHI and if that is entrepreneurial-manship going down, so be it. I still think the jury is out on the largess for now but time will tell. Back at someone on the Reed qualification. Anybody know anything?

To kshoe: Is your statement true? Here's why I ask: it seems to me that being eligible per NCAA rules is one thing, and if you are eligible in that regard, then it would seem to hold water at SLU. However, and having said that, what if your are not ADMITTED to SLU but still eligible per NCAA standards? Then what? Was this not the case in the great Craig Upchurch fiasco of the early 80's? Where Craig qualified for eligibility per the NCAA (he played as a freshman at Houston) but was denied admittance to SLU based on the same numbers and grades? Granted, that is ancient history but is this kind of situation still doable at SLU? I think out here we are seeing a similar thing at Maryland. The recent Tyree Evans case. I believe this kid was eligible per NCAA standards coming out of his Tennessee JUCO. He was not yet admitted to Maryland when the uproar broke out over his criminal record. Yow claims she knew nothing about his being offered a scholarship but c'mon --- even we have an inkling of who RM is offering and I've got to believe an AD is more in the flow than we could ever hope to be. Its so bad in College Park that Gary Williams might be walking the job line and reading the want ads as early as next year. Evans withdrew his application for admission to end all this flack but i would offer that as evidence that NCAA-eligible is fine but you have to be in the school first and then worry about that. I have this vision of today's high school kid sitting in a class with some of the profs I had at SLU and can't help but think neither will understand what the other is saying. Its like aliens from two different planets. But I guess that what team study halls and studnet tutors are for. I understand and recognize the great cultural bias debate over standardized test scores ---- but never found them that difficult so I guess I truly don't understand. I blame that on middle-aged-white-guy syndrome.

Realistically ----- I don't know how many tiers I have. I have never really sat down and firgured that out. I do know there is an elite level and I think the six teams I mentioned are there --- year-in and year-out. Even when Duke has that off year when I think Collins and Wojo were seniors, they came storming back with no problem the next year. Kentucky was down at the end of the Eddie Sutton era and even on probation if I recall right but didn't Tubby win a national title there after that? They are down now but I fully believe they will charge back under Gillespie. Its what makes kids like Josh Harrelson go "ohh, UK, where do I sign?" The second tier is a group of teams that change little but still do change. Its like the lower teens of the national rankings. Someone creeps in, someone falls out. Its like having six or seven teams from the ACC or Big Ten ranked in the national football polls one week or another. UConn has had a phenominal run lately and is strongly entrenched in that tier. I see Florida in there. If Ohio State can rise to the heights this coming year only two short years after losing Oden and Conley, then they are there. Michigan State. Indiana. Pitt. Georgetown. Texas. Memphis. Maybe an Arizona. Maryland is a prime example of a school that, despite winning a national title a short six years or so ago, is teetering on the brink of dropping off my second tier. They are probably in the grey area between tiers right now and Williams is desparate. How else do you recruit and offer a kid who has a rap sheet with legal violations as long as that recent kid did (Tyree Evans or something like that). The kid moved on "at his decision" but Debbie Yow was caught in a malestorm this past weekend when she claimed not only to not know they were recruiting him, but didn't even know he had been offered a full ride. I guess my third tier is those schools that do well enough in their own conference to become relevant for some extended period of time, definitely not the one-and-doners. They also can fluctuate between tiers and can move in and out as all teams can. Gonzaga is now in the third tier after some extended time in the second. Butler is here. Xavier is here. Creighton. Marquette. Illinois. Butler. This is all purely subjective so debates can rage on all they want. The fourth tier is all the rest, with a way station halfway up for those one-and-done progrmas like Bradley, Mason, Davidson, IUPUI, Belmont, us in the nineties and so on. There is probably also a basement level where the Savannah States have to go and there are probably more and more tiers in there but that's for all the various schools to acknowledge as they try to advance to the level they feel most comfortable at. Top tier schools make the final four a couple times a decade. They end up winning three or so of the ten national championships in that time frame. Second tier schools are in the NCAAs 6 to 8 times a decade --- its more suprising when they are left out than when they get in. Third tier teams are in some form of tourney almost every year --- either NCAA and if not there, NIT for sure. The CBA is immaterial right now. Cinderfellas speak for themselves and the rest, they are just hoping and praying that things go right and we get in "some time in my lifetime." That's where SLU is right now. I'd be happy in the third tier but I am afraid that if we made it there, Xavier would have to go. I find it very difficult to believe that the NCAA would accept two schools from a second tier conference as almost perennial locks for the Big Dance each year. You know someone somewhere is going to win the tourney outside of X and us. The A10 is not to the point where three teams would get immediate consideration if, say, a Temple or GeeDub won the tourney. It would be that winner and whomever the third tier guy is would have the best chance of getting an at-large. I alos beleive there are a lot of A10 schools who see themselves the same way we do ---- aspiring to be that other team besides X. You know Dayton fans alreayd have themselves there. So too would St. Joe fans. Temple. UMass. Rhodey. Charlotte. Duquesne is on a mission, look at their last two recruiting classes. The rest are pond scum ---- and could be eliminated from this league without a second thought. La Salle, the Bonnie, Fordham, Richmond. But Richmond had a good although surprising year and I would bet most coaches would want Fordham in the league as a pipeline selling point to NYC kids going to schools away from home but with an annual chance to return home and play in front of the home crowds. Its the same reason the Big East let South Florida in --- to keep open the door to the fertile recruiting bastion that is Florida. The debate will rage forever.

Actually, Clock, I think you are thinking right along the lines I mention .... I have X in my third tier of schools, but barely. Please note I did say "maybe" in adding X to that mix. X is a good program; not great as in the second tier of schools, but certainly above the fourth level, whatever that may be. You are correct in that they have been sustained at their current level for quite some time. I remember thinking we would never beat them when in the MCC. But they are not the elite, and they are not even the second tier, would you agree? I thought I separated them from the UMass/Temple ranking. I certainly believe X to be closer to the third tier than Umass, Temple or St. Joes. So maybe that takes them off my "maybe" ranking. You are exactly right on about Mason and Davidson and make a great comparison to the Bird years at ISU. These were flashes in the pan. One-and-doners. Cinderalla at the ball and making it to midnight. These will happen almost yearly --- the proverbaila catching ligthening in a bottle. Bradley a few years ago. Bradley with Hersey Hawkins in the 80's. Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Drake. Western Kentucky. Penn, They come and go annually. But short of that miracle run (let's remember one of the modern highlights of our program is commonly referred to as "the Miracle in Memphis") can any team in the A10 aspire to reaching the third tier level? I don't know. X is there, grudginly I guess, so it can be done, but advancing any further requires a pretty enormous run and then a consistent stay at that level. Even though I agree that Xavier has been there for the most part, I'd be willing to to bet that most of today's basketball playing youth might not readily recognize it outside Cincy, Ohio, and the A10 --- until tournament time. In today's times, rising after falling is what is interesting to me. Where has LSU gone since the Baby Davis days of a short two years ago? I am going to be quite anxious to watch what happens in Cincy for a few years to come with the Bearcats. The fall from Huggins seems quite severe right now and playing in the Big East means that there aren't many off days in conference. Has Gonzaga's run ended? Will Butler sustain? Probably, but I'm betting Drake does not. How long can Marquette and DePaul compete in the Big East? Why does Memphis stay in the CUSA/NASCAR Conference? I think they will --- Calipari will waltz through that league with his eyes half open. Of course, he'll probably choke at the usual 8 or 16 level in the NCAAs. I am with you and love the college game. What I never really want is to be that school OJ Mayo or Mike Beasely goes to. The one-and-done experience of the Legend made me believe I want and crave sustainability of four-year players. That's just me.

I'm in the camp with those who believe Temple should downgrade the football program and go Division 1AA. Moving to the MAC is a step down in my overall understanding of college football. The MAC is not a BCS division but whomever said Temple football is insignificant was absolutely right on. Only one college or university plays football in Pennsylvania --- and sometimes even that is debatable. JoPa should stay. JoPa should go. E-I-E-I-OH! Of course, it seems a number of MAC teams do get to go to bowl games at the end of every year. With 34 bowl games adding up to 68 teams making post season appearance, I guess the money lure there is large enough to make the school reconsider. Maybe there is a revenue sharing gig in the conference as well. About the only team not bound by the revenue sharing is Notre Dame ---- and I believe their desire to be greedy and hold on to their deal with NBC and the allure that still exists from their storied history -- no matter how outdated --- keeps them independent in football as well. On the basketball front, frankly I can't really see any of us having a huge play in the national power grid consistently over a multitude of years. UMass's run under Calipari was an aberation. Temple under Chaney was another. St. Joe's perfect regular season and 31 ranking. Xavier's current status could be similar. Only time will tell. Having said that, all four schools are not what I would consider the creme de la creme of the collegiate basketball landscape. They are not the perennials of the college roundball world as are Duke, Kansas, North Carolina, Kentucky, and UCLA. They are not even the second tier schools like Uconn, Indiana, Florida, Ohio State, Arizona, Georgetown and some others. Heck, they are not even third tier (maybe X is) like Gonzaga and Butler and SIU might be. No, we and they are like the Drakes and Davidsons and George Masons of the world --- looking to catch all those breaks and magic moments and make a run to at least the Sweet Sixteen once or twice in a program's immediate lifetime. Philly basketball is not as significant as it used to be outside of the Philly world but it will always survive within SE Pennsylvania. No matter how bad a program might become (see La Salle), they will still always have the other four in the Big Five to rely on and carry the interest through. Of course, if that is it, it will eventually NOT be enough. And the money with the NCAA basketball tournament is nothing to sneeze at. Hitting that Sweet Sixteen spot might be to taht school the equivalent of you or I hitting the lottery. In my entire life, I've spent like maybe $25 total on lottery items. If I were a college basketball program with that kind of spending record, I'd be Savannah State.

Donnie Dobbs was a great player --- but that team worked for him as much as he did for that team. There were multiple bomber options on that team --- Claggett, Highmark, Waldman, Turner ---- so much so that the interior defenders could not help, which left the middle pretty much a free range to roam. Put Dobbs on a team with one shooter (ala Lisch) and the interior space shrinks and Dobbs might not do what he did because of limitations of the team, not the player. Last year's Duke team, which was more apt to take the three than drive to the hole, is a fine example of that kind of makeup. As usual, the answer to the question, in this case "can a team compete with a 6'2" power forward?" is "it depends."

To FAUOwl ---- my only real issue with Brad was what I perceive to be an inability to evaluate talent. Which could be translated into a poor, poor recruiter. each and every year, we seemed to never have any early signing or commitments sans the year he signed the two senior guards already mentioned. Then, after nothing in the fall, we would wait with bated breath for the spring signing and be told all these diamonds in the rough were found. Yet few ever saw the light of day off the bench and actually played once we got through the two now-seniors as freshmen. I think with Brad the team would always be competitive and would be in 75 to 80 percent of all games. The style is not "entertaining" to say the least but that was always supposedly because of the talent level. Of ocurse, if you can't recruit you don't get the talent. So it was a never-ending vicious cycle.

Clock is right ---- the NFL and the NBA have long used the colleges as their "free" developmental league. Why should they pay now for what has been free in the past? Very few high schoolers go right from high school directly to the pros. And if they do, aren't they involved in their own version of "the lottery?" Guaranteed NBA money is only for those in the first round, is it not? Going to the NBDL has got to mean la ife like that of a Single-A baseball player ---- long bus rides, substandard housing, minor meal money, and lots of hard work for coaches like Ron Ekker or Quin Snyder or worse. I do not believe any of these kids (who again see themselves as the next Jordan) have any intention to work their arses off to "prove" themselves to anyone, especially some "failure" on the end of the bench like Ekker or Snyder. The NBA, in its never-ending greed and fear of being passed up, selects these 18- to 19-year-old phenoms because they are afraid to be passed by. Its all "what if." What if Kwame Brown is the next Jordan? What if Eddie Curry is? What if its DeShawn Stevenson? Yoakim Noah? Larry Hughes? DerMarr Johnson? Corleone Young? That Euro-stiff the Pistons took a couple of years ago? Then, when all these guys fail or at least have less-than-expected success, their three year stints are up and they are moving on. That was three long years and $9 million bucks spents for what amounts to a developmental assignment that one used to get for free in places like Durham, Chapel Hill, Gainesville and so on. I also don't think you see the exorbitant amounts of money thrown around at high schoolers going pro in baseball, hockey or soccer. In those particular sports, the norm is to prove yourself first and the money comes later. In the convoluted world that is the NBA and the NFL, you get your money up front first, without ever demonstrating you are worthy of such money. Sure, there are a few Bob Horners and Al Kalines out there. But as with any rule there are exceptions. The only real way to get better in almost any sport is through repitition. You don't get that sitting on the bench. As for soccer, who cares. You can keep all your Peles and Renaldos and Beckhams and Freddie Adus. The sheer size of a soccer field, coupled with the minature size of the ball, makes for poor entertainment vieiwing in my book. This despite going to a soccer school of such proportions. Given the hype of an OJ Mayo, do oyu think for a moment he would be in such a bush league as the NBDL?

I saw this on Outside the Lines just last night. I loved the look Mayo gave the female reporter when she asked him questions in the hall after his NBA declaration press conference. He was obviously caught off guard ---- maybe the key word is caught. I also loved it when the same reporter cornered Guillroy and all she got was "no comment" as his comment in return. I loved his attempt at wry smiles --- as if to say "this is all bullsh*t and I won't dignify it with a response." That might have been the intent but the whole thing screamed "busted" to me. This is the best example of "street agent" I have ever seen. Hey, don't get me wrong ---- the little guy they interviewed as the "snitch" is also dirty and sleazy as well. I am almost certain his whole expose was based on the fact that somewhere in this whole mess, he got stiffed by Guillroy and is looking to "out" the whole bunch now because he's p*ssed. The guy was doing time for selling cocaine right before he hooked onto the Mayo bandwagon. While the whole thing stinks, don't for one minute not believe someone is documenting all this as a veritible "How To ..." book when it comes to "how to be a high school street agent and hit the big one" kind of thing. I heard Kornhesier and Wilbon after last night's show and both were adament about finding out who knew and canning Floyd, canning the AD, slapping USC with all sorts of penalties and calling Carroll in and saying "look, you are not out of the woods with the Reggie Bush thing so you'd better come clean, clean up or whatever and move forward positively." Then they had some huge debate about rescinding the "one year in college" rule and letting these kind of kids just head off to the NBA from the get go. Frankly, I say let them go. As I've said before, I have no allegiance to Larry Hughes. I haven't paid to see an NBA game in my entire adult life and have no plans to ever. I don't own a single piece of crap with any NBA logo on it. I like rooting for the name on the front of the jersey and that is all. Wilbon said the seats Mayo got from Carmelo for the Lakers/Nugget game were $1200 bucks apiece. How many of us have $2400 bucks lying around to drop on a two-hour entertainment event? In our dorm room? This kid is dirty by association --- I am certain Guillroy and his entourage are to blame but the kid knew what was going on --- to the extent that he knew enough to NOT know or try to know what was going on. What you don't know can't hurt you, right? As long as the almighty dollar is involved ---- for Mayo, for Guillroy, for USC, for the NCAA, for the NBA and for the agent now representing Mayo ---- it will never be right. But it is reality. Its only "out" there because the snitch didn't get his money and is offended by that fact. Guillroy must've figured "hey, if I cut this Johnson dude, and the big pay day is coming (NBA Draft), thenmore for me." The street agent from East St. Louis might have been trying this same thing with Tommie and UNLV when prep school was underway. Its a lottery society --- Mayo is Guillroy's winning ticket. He got lucky in that it developed since 9th or 8th grade and that's the rub --- you might get lucky with one guy and you've got that one chance to make it stick. Some smart guy could insert himself into a certain situation, become a player advocate, endure all sorts of hardships, pushing someday for that one, huge payoff. He could call himself some fancy internet name like "St. Louis Hoops Insider" or even go legit and use his real name like "Mel Kiper, Jr." The greed of jsut getting ahead is supplanted by the illusion of being an advocate. Whatever. Everyone knew Mayo picked USC to improve his image and develop his profile, even his mother said that in the interview. This story was just a matter of time. I am sure there are other, scaled-dwon versions out there with guys named Beasely, Rose, James, Durrant and many others.

I did this once before but I'll do it again ---- Racism (ra'-siz'em) n. --- 1. a doctine or teaching, without scientific support, that claims to find racial differences in character, intelligence, etc., that asserts the superiority of one race over another or others, and that seeks to maintain the supposed purity of a race or the races. 2. any program or practice of racial discrimination, seggregation, etc. based on such beliefs --- rac'-ist n., adj. I don't think its a racism issue. The problem here is as described by one of the previous posters, that the actual meaning of the term is not fully understood and that shortcuts are taken to mentally get ones arms around the issue. It like Xerox ----- how many of us have said "go Xerox that." Xerox is a company, a noun, not a verb. But their early dominance of the copying industry made the term "xerox" come to mean "copy." The story makes an obvious point ----- black against white. Therefore, the simple-mind mentally translates that into race, which them becomes racial and racist and all the other shortcut meanings. The issue then gets amplified. Whatever works becomes the motto. I would say that apparently, some parents with players on the Alton High School team don't want Bennett as the coach for their kids and are pushing whatever it is to make that goal become real. Lots of parents have been saying "play my kid" for years now. So many wrongly believe they will then be able to hit the lottery because their kid is surely the next Jordan. They are not going to let some little snot of a high school coach derail their about-to-be-realized dreams of riches. Run him out of town, yessiree. I think that also leads to the manifestation of various AAU programs and these high school diploma mills. We'll get a like guy to coach all the like kids from all the like parents on one team so our like goals are realized. That leads to misplaced emphasis to the detraction of all other avenues and then, when they ain't the next Jordan or whatever, they are the next Nick Kern or Antonio Bobo or Ted Mimlitz or Troy Slaten. What I find interesting is how quick certain groups and certain players play the "race card" as their trump card. I'd offer that most of thsoe accused will immediately back down with fear when faced with that card on the table. A slap on the rump becomes fondling. Isiah and Magic kiss and all of a sudden, they are gay. A coach screams at a player in practice and because that player is black or Hispanic, he's a racist. I think there is certainly a lot of racism out there. I think that the constant use of the race card is starting to desensitive the general public to it. It goes along the lines of those that believe violence in movies and television begets violence in real life. The larger ideal here is probably someone somewhere is going to claim this small group of adults is truly, truly concerned for the welfare of kids obviously under some sadistic Phil jackson wannabee when in reality, the truth is much further away and something as simple as the next Kevin Slaten is alive and living well somewhere in the Alton school district.

What makes you guys believe that if Josh wer a Billiken under Sodie, he wouldn't have met the same fate as Adam and Dustin and Marcus and Anthony? There are a whole lot of ifs out there. On one hand, I support b_roy's stance that if the kid had signed with us out of St. Charles, he could have done the very same thing he did to Western -- had a good to great senior year, increased his views on the national radar, and bolted for whatever reason he deemed worth it. Sodeberg's firing for example. Or, he could have come, and been assessed the same way the other Sodeberg recruits were and then shown the door. All you can do is speculate. I am with the Tower lad, this is a continued demonstration of a guy who's less than stellar in terms of actions supporting his words. The bottom line is we will never know. Only time will tell. For now, let it go.

I think most of the mature posters ------ no that sounds wrong because it implies immaturity and that is not what I mean ----- I think most of the older posters ---- no, that is age discrimminate and I don't mean to do that either ---- I am stumbling for the right word because no matter the choice, it comes out wrong. I think most of those folks with more life experiences in their world log are apt to be less critical of this kid than others. How about that? I think he would have been a fine addition to the team and might have given us some valuable minutes and contribution. Now? Not. Just another example of the sordid world of collegiate athletic recruiting. Neitehr good not bad -- just reality. I'm thinking in the long run more Jeff Carey than Jahidi White. Only time again will tell but we can revisit in a couple-two-three years down the road.

Does anybody really believe that, at this late stage of the game, next year players are even remotely possible? We are well past the usual signing period SLU had employed in the past that brought such gems and legends into the program like the Ikeafors, Dixons, Newbornes, Frericks, Knollmeyers, Mitchells and Relaphordes. There is not some magic basketball recruit store out there that is open all night with stocked shelves waitng for the Johnny-Come-Latelys of the world to stroll in and make a selection. Most of the talent is gone right now. Sure, there might be a servicable one or two out there but they go pretty quick. And does that dearth of talent amplify those out there to where they look better than what they really are. For example, at a remote location, the worker population was mostly male. The few women that were there had their "attributes" amplified and became "JI Tens" because of that lack of competition. On the mainland, they were lucky to get a Three on that 1-to-10 scale. I don't know Kentucky's returning roster makeup but without a guard or two to get him the ball down low, how will that affect JH's play next year? On the other side, we have Lisch and Liddell along with Cotto, Mitchell, Eckerle and John. Had to be the royalty that is Kentucky in college basketball.

C'mon ----- Suggs was a savior. Griffey was a savior. Hansborough was a savior. Names like Roundtree, Booker, Brandenburg, Swopshire, John, Thompson, Powell, Perry, Anderson and others have floated and wafted through the air. Josh Harrelson was an afterthought. So he had a good year and would have probably played a nice role. I remember feeling horrible when guys like McKinney, Miles, Lee, Ellis and even Stipo went off to other places. Carawell, White, Drexler, Mimlitz, Woods, Parker, Jr, and others. Kern didn't qualify. Hollins reneged. Hughes opted out early. I remember being devastated by most of those announcement. Josh Harrelson? In Rick I trust.

I called both my traveling companions for Bill trips when this was going down. When I told them it was us or Kentucky, both essentially laughed and said the same thing ------ "it will be UK" --- and they were right. I am disappointed but still don't know if this kid had iomproved THAT much over one short year. I don't know -- maybe he did, maybe not. Maybe it has to do with who his supporting cast is, who is surrounding him, who he is playing with. Did I want him? Absolutely given our dearth of front court talent. Will we survive? Absolutely given that we have had to do the same over the past number of years. Do I wish him well? No. Do I wish him to fail? No. I echo the thoughts that he is gone and that makes him done and over with as far as I'm concerned. I guess that makes me a part of the problem with the whole recruiting thing to begin with. So be it. Harrelson might have provided some needed depth next year. Now we'll never know. You know what --- I heard that same thing when we "stole" Knollmeyer from Quin and the Mizzou boys. You never really know. I can't wait to see how it plays out at UK. I did not know all that about his mySpace stuff and frankly, it doesn't matter. The kid did not chose us due to reasons only he is privy to. Oh well. I don't know how the jUCO scene works but I am sure that when these JUCO coaches list who they place their kids with, it looks a lot better in the team prospectus to list "Kentucky" over "Saint Louis University." Kentucky is NCAA royalty for crissakes. From now on, I would be suspect if the SWIC coaches approach us with anyone ---- guy has got to have something wrong somewhere or else he'd be off to Indiana, Kentucky or Marquette, don't cha' think? Given what we know, and even given what we don't know, next year is still so bright I have to wear shades. The only real loss is Danny Brown down the stretch. yes, yes, Luke is a loss but he was out of position at the four and that took a lot away. If you are like me and believe that the current regime can judge talent better than the previous regime, and you subscribe to the fact that we have seven pretty darn good players coming in to supplant two all-conference kids, and recognize that despite that next year is a growing year all the same, I am quit ehappy to be where I am now then where I was a year ago. A year ago, given what we know, we were placing a lot of hope on Husak finding a productive niche, and five unproven commodities (Eberhardt, Mitchell, Relaphorde, Maguire and Knollmeyer) proving something. They didn't pan out but again given what we know, who can say they were surprised given the past regime's track record? Hope srpings eternal but a load of sh*t is still a load of sh*t even if it comes in a paper bag, or a decorative, exquisitely wrapped package. Right now I can't see Brett Thompson, Willie Reed or Brian Conklin ever being a Obi Ikeakor or a Horace Dixon or an Adam Knollmeyer or a Jon Siefert or a Vashun Newborne. They might, but I can't see it. I can't see a Kyler Cassity being a Dustin Maguire. He might also. And I can't see a Kwamain Mitchell or a Ruben Cotto being a Dwayne Polk. Josh Harrelson was a minor piece to the puzzle. He wasn't the messiah. Hasta la vista, bay-bee. You move on. P.S. billiken-roy predicted this in pms to me some time ago. Just thought you all should know that.

SS ---- I can honestly say I was IN PERSON at the game in question ---- three rows right behind the Majerus Man inside the Smith Center in Foggy Bottom that warm January night. I can tell you first hand, that the system you are taking to task here, had nothing to do with the outcome that night. That was the proverbial meeting of minds, star-crossed lovers, alignment of the planets --- call it what you want. There were a lot of wide-open looks early in the shot clock and late in the shot clock. There were shots that went halfway down before reverse spin took them back out. Even though this was a bad George Washington team, one with very little talent outside Maureece Rice, they had enough long-armed, atheltic types that they played almost straight up on Tommie, doubled and beat up on Kevin at every turn, and identified quite quickly that there was not a third option on that team at that time (Danny Brown was just starting to make his run). I think Eckerle might have hoisted (and hoisted is a polite term) double digit shots that night. And each one that missed made the next one taken by whomever all the more difficult. As the difficulty increased, the collar got tighter and tighter. This had nothing to do with any sort of Majerus offensive game plan. Yes, 20 points is 20 points and the pundits on ESPN went wild that night. So too did Kornheiser and Wilbon but given they shoot their show right down the street, that was a no brainer of a topic. That was NOT your typical Rich Grawer/Brad Sodeberg "work-the-clock-for-33-seconds-and-settle-for-an-18-footer-not-even- a-three-point-shot" offense. That was George Washington taking advantage of an unsure lineup working through a difficult transition and then making guys unaccustomed to scoring scoring. We will never get the talent Memphis does, ever. We are not a way-station stop on the way to the NBA. Or in some cases, the NBDL. Never will be. Who's teh new guy going to Memphis? Tyreke Evans or something like that. Good for them. I said the same thing about Dontonio Wingfield, Dermarr Johnson, Charles White and even Larry Hughes. See you later. Won't watch you again. I can't have it the "way it used to be." I know that. But if I can't, I rather choose to have the kids that stick around for four years and develop a continuity for the program and the school. I still have a greater care for the name on the front of the jersey, not the back. I believe that deep down, there are some hard-spun truths to every kid that plays D1 ball. Two of them are that each believes himself to be the next Jordan, and, given their druthers, they'd rather run and gun then devote the time to hard work plays and even harder work defensive skills. The game's changed and so too has the collegiate landscape. You can holler and scream about the injustice that is telling a kid like Anthony Mitchell "sorry kid, no scholarship renewal" and how unjust that is. You have to do the reverse as well then and scream and holler to the Kevin Love's of the world as well. They apparently don't see it as a four-year commitment either. Only that's on their terms so its okay. I'd even chang eit and say "to declare is to declare." Screw this "did not hire an agent" crap. But that's me. Bill Parcells was a million dollar coach when he went to Dallas. How many Super Bowls did he win there? None, but if they win any soon, he should get credit because its not Wade Phillips team. It takes time.

Eventually, talent will have an off night. Slashers and athletes will have to recognize and equalizing factor on the other side of the ball, whether that is style, coaching, equal athleticism or whatever. At that point, put me int he camp that wants a coach, not a game manager. Calipari is fine when all he has to do is shuttle guys in and out of 20- to 30-pont blowout games. Its when he has actually coach (i.e 2008 National Title Game) that he usually has a brain cramp and can't move because his ###### is so tight. Certain guys could always coach and prepare --- McGuire, Paterno, Spoon, Belicheck, Bennett, Cheyney, Carnesceca, Shero and others. Other teams would have superior talent but no brains on either the bench or the court. Calipari is always one. I think a lot of Huggy's high-priced talent at Cincy fell apart because of a lack of leadership on the floor. The joke in teh NFl was playing Schottenheimer ball --- run out to a halftime lead, go ultra-conservative, and choke in the stretch run. We will never get the athletes a Memphis gets. Look at a number of reasons --- no tradition, no big pay roll, no girls friends qualified let alone working at the Gold Club, no chump majors, No FedEx boosters slipping cash into the pizza delivery box, whatever. I can't ever see St. Louis University having its entire starting lineup declare for the NBA draft --- ever. We had one in our entire history and the program has yet to recover from that move over a decade ago. If you don't have the equalizing talent, then you have to have something that combats the shortfall. The next best thing, in my book, to a consistent string of players is a consistent coach. Its a well-accepted fact that kids go to a certain school based on a certain coach. If you don't like Majerus or his style, you don't go to his school. Plain and simple. Which means, to me, only a certain type of kid is going to look at his program and if that's the case, hey, past history shows he's pretty good at doing what he can rather well with the kids he gets. No one from Utah is setting the pro game on fire (not that that's a good, bad or indifferent thing). But his track record speaks for itself. With our crappy littellprogram, I'll take that and pray its a step upwards. My crawl-walk-run program is win consistently first, followed by always be in the running for the A10 title and the accompanying NCAA bid, and then who knows, maybe get unbelievably hot for a seven or so game run in March/April. The run part is a pipe dream and like Meatlof says "two out of three ain't bad." Those believing we will have a program like Memphis are sadly mistaken. Our goal should be to be like a Creighton, Butler, Gonzaga and Xavier.

I find it pretty amazing that the A10 has something like nine teams listed on this Top 30 list as well as near misses. That's going to be a lot of talent in the A10 if all that comes true and pans out.

Don't need him. With Eckerle, Cotto and Mitchell on board, we have three point guard types. With Lisch, Liddell, Cassity, John and Conklin on board, we have four guys sharing the minutes possibly at the two or three. Where would Moosman play? Either the 1 or the 2. And, if he transfers, he sits out a year making him a sophomore with all the above sans Eckerle (with Lisch and LIddell graduating). I'd like to see more front court depth coming in. We don't know what Eberhardt really brings and the other three (cross referencing Conklin here as well) bring. Some have already said redshirt and project when referring to Reed so who really knows. I'd throw Ben Hansborough in the same review. Would rather take my chances on a kid who signed here with Majerus first then some kids trying to come home after one-year sabbaticals.

Welcome HK ----- on your third point, you make an assumption, that the chances that all seven stay for four years with the caveat that the history suggests otherwise. So attrition should bear out if the norm follows the standard. I understand the issue but would suggest we cross that bridge if and when we come to it. Given allthat proclaim Rick to be evil incarnate, he will handle this in his usual way and we won't ever really get to that part, right? I seem to recall Rick's intentions were to come back, go another five or six years and then hang it up for good. This first year was the transition, so this recruiting class will be the foundation of the remainder of the run. I for one am quite happy with it. Given the state of this program and its usual performance, I am willing to follow this group as closely as I can. I have never been a fan of the JUCO stop gap and am quite pleased that Rick didn't go that route for now. I am more focused on next year rather than four years down the road. That is probably a shortcoming but so be it for now. As for all these calls that JH is the saving big man --- can we be a little cautious here. The facts are that he's player basketball for five years now and his formative years were not in a good conference. SWIC has or had a monster lineup from what I've been able to gather --- college coaches are over there all the time. Were JH's numbers a product of that chemistry? Will similar chemistry be the norm wherever he matriculates? Two short years ago, this kid was a dunderhead in some estimations and was corrected in selecting Western Illinois as his college choice. Now he's the savior not only here, but at Kentucky? I can predict the future, but that accent is akin to Lazarus and other Easter Sunday strolls from rock tombs. Having said that, do I want JH? Yes and absolutely. Is he the ticket (say it like Jon Lovitz)? I can't really say but I doubt it. We were thrilled when we "stole" Adam Knollmeyer from the Quin at Mizzou. How did that turn out? Oh, yeah, now I remember......

Once again, not a Vee thread. Updates on kids we "shoulda, woulda, coulda" as indicated by a certain somoene. The who is immaterial. I am asking about the results of past recommendations. I have been directly alerted to the new largesse and altruistic means to STLHI residing behind the madness. I applaud that but find it hard to believe, in today's day and age where people are selling goods and services that are at best questionable in value, taht someone would engage in this at no personal gain. He intends to prove me wrong and again, more applause. It good information. That stuff on Locating Leon was excellent. Its nice to know Leon is progressing and will be heard from again. Hopefully, not another Nick Kern. Kowal I recall few of us heard of and then seemed to be not bad given a BCS program came calling and signed him. Now, not as much of a loss as I originally feared. Things like that. I going to take "good old boy" warnings as directed to newcomers on this board. My avice would be that if you have an opinion, express it. Its an open discussion and opinions are what they are. You come on spewing opinion as fact, you might get called on it. That's all. Some good old boys indirectly attacked on here have one thing going for them that has been consistent, they don't seem to change their spots. DP's career still gets an overall F rating in my book. My opinion. Yada-yada.

Its not an attack ---- its calling in marker if you ask me. Vee and I have had a few conversations off the board. I know he's changed his moniker and maybe even his stripes. He assures me he not in the making of a dreaded "street agent." Again, only time and calling in that marker at a later date will tell. Don't tie any emotional baggage on to this -- I think its a fair question. I recall, as someone backed me up on, that the old Vee was calling for each and every one of these kids to get SLU scholarships. He also talked about everyone that got away and should have been offered. The talk bantered back and forth on a variety of topics. And then it was pretty much forgotten ---- later someone else might resurrect it and remember it as "dodging sniper bullets as we landed in Sarajevo" or something to that end. Vee may or may not answer. STLHI might or might not. Its immaterial becasue many of you have already answered and the information is appreciated. For example, the info on Leon is good. So too the update on Kowal ---- many could not fathom how we let such a kid get away and now he's at a program I would consider lesser than ours. I still am of the opinion that if you throw enough goo on the wall, some will eventually stick. This does not make you an expert --- Mel Kiper Jr. excluded. To "CMA" all I have to say is you are right about my locale, however, I would NEVER call the Sun a decent paper. All the complaints about the PD and all I can think of is "at least you guys don't have to live with the Sun." Johns Hopkins lacrosse team is still ranked #15 in the nation while compiling a five-game losing streak --- and they get press coverage in the Sunday paper before Major League baseball, the Masters and the NBA. The Sun runs all local college basketball team scores the day after they play. The rest is just the Top 25 scores. Okay, for both men and women but the rest, who cares. Outside of scores, my interest in college basketball is focused on the Bills. That's why I ask on here. Vee came on here talking a great game. I like to hear new ideas. But proof and legitimacy is in the pudding and I'd like an accounting for past claims. That's all. Again, to all who contributed and will contribute, thanks for the updates. To Vee -- sorry if it sounded like an attack, you know how that TFB sounds!

Anybody got the lowdown on guys that left the program the last few years? What is the end destination (if any) for Obi Ikeakor and Horace Dixon? I know there was a thread below on Sanjay Watts. What's his 20? I'd like to see the old V-meister come back on and give us updates on all those guys he once endorsed for SLU scholarships. Instead of Where's Waldo, we could hear an update on Locate Leon (Powell). In Vee's class of 2007, he endorsed guys named Jarryd Cole, Aulbury Doss, Rolandis Woodson, dave Stewart, Chris Stokes, Alfred Nelson, and Mike Baker among others. How did they do in their first years in college. Its one thing to endorse, how did all that turn out? Same goes for 2008 recommendtions in Reggie Spears and Abel Tillman. Ameechie Baldwon and Darren Hobbs. Anthony James. Cornelius Walker. What's the skinny on 2009 names Lonnie Boga , Jerry Pankey and everyone's favorite, Richard Anderson. How about report cards on those that got away: Xavier Price, Lorenzo Taylor, Will Jones, Kyle Calloway, Mo Smith, James Washington, Sean Kowal and Stephen Jones? I think it woudl be interesting to see how a "player expert" did in predicting who we should have signed. I haven't looked so I really don't know. There was also that kid that got away and walked on at UCLA. The one I do remember and I did look up was legacy pick Monroe Douglas Jr. I did not see him listed at all on the Dayton roster this year when I did look. I hope this question finds him still in school.

One yeaar at a JUCO does not make JH "experienced" in my book. Plus throw in the year it seems for a normal JUCO to acclimate and I think too many people are raising expectations just a little too, too much. I like the fact that our experience is two, four-year players coming back at the engine of college basketball, the guard position. But we still don't have a point guard. Maybe Rueben Cotto is that guard. Maybe its Kwamain Mitchell. I don't know. But it is possible that recruits don't measure up, we've seen that before. The real engine of the collge game is a proven point and while the future is bright, we don't have one that's proven right now. Additionally, we have no proven big men. We can all believe what we want about Thompson, Reed and Conklin but let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Eberhardt might improve ala Mo Jeffers. He might also improve ala Va'Shun Newborne. Again, too early to call. I don't believe things are bleak but let's slow down a little. As for Lunardi and his predicition ---- I beg to differ. Xavier is a safe pick --- they've done it before and they are the class of the league as far as anyone is concerned. But they have very little in terms of overall guard play, let alone a proven point guard, returning. I suspect they will take a while to find themselves next year. Temple? Okay, maybe they return the A10's reigining player o fthe year candidate in Dionte Christmas but they have absolutely little else. Olsmos is a stiff in the middle but at least he showed me more in AC than Bryce did. And Allen was an okay freshman but the rest graduated. temple would have to bring in a stellar cast for next year and maybe I could see that with Cheyney and earlier Temple editions but not now. And Dayton? They don't have any real guard play returning. Roberts and Sandoval graduated. Warren is a horrible option at point guard, one that can't shoot and certainly couldnt' make free throws. Johnson showed some promise late last year but he was more a factor living off Roberts and his creations than anything else. It will be interesting to see what he can do next year. Wright will be a factor and I think his presence makes Little and Huelsman better but once again, without guards, who gets him the ball? You have to ask questions about Richmond. Was last year a fluke? They have everyone back from a fourth place team. Duquesne was also a pretty good story. Will they continue to improve? I don't know what to think about Rhodey given their late season collapse but any team led by the coach's son can't be too bad. Umass loses alot; so too does Lunardi's alma mater in Philly. Fordham lost its entire program and good feel from two years ago and has to start over. La Salle had some good kids but lost Harris to graduation and are never really in the mix when they do have talent (Steve Smith). Charlotte sits quietly and unknown down south while the Bonnies and GeeDub have long climbs out of the cellar. I think next year is wide open and to talk now about bracketology is absolute trivial past time. Much like football BCS ratings, call me after 50% of the season is gone and done with.

I know what you are saying 3star but I'm pretty sure that if you had the four players on and then had Rick, you'd get at least five sides of the story. This is a great example of spin --- and how all of us do it. I believe that Rammer will shill for the program. I have met Rammer and talked to him but I am not near enough to the local radio to hear him over and above that. But I'm betting he'd go that way much like Harry Kalas would pump the Phillies, Sonny Jurgenson the Redskins, John Riggins his own radio show and so on. And I am jsut as certain that someone somewhere will disagree and we'd have to go from there. I don't particularly care for where we are today but this is the reality of it all. Its all about the almighty dollar. Same reason there is a thread on here about problems in Division III. The problem is that there is a lot of subjectivity going in to things that are sadly weighed objectively by wins and losses and going to money-rich tournaments. It is what it is. Mistakes were made. If you hired a guy or gal who was a totally zero, you could fire that person on the spot, once you've documented all the ills associated with that hire in objective fashion. We all know about talent evaluation or waht appears to have been a lack thereof. Happens all the time. Ben Hansborough. Julian Winfield. Ted Mimlitz. Jamal Johnson. Melvin Robinson. Ricky Frazier. Billy McCaffery. Drew Lavender. Jason Edwin. Ricky Cranford. The school and/or coach will spin it one way. The other schools another way. Players another way. Parents another. How many of you believe, to the core, that Saint Louis University and Rick Majerus should have been held to the task of honoring these athletic scholarships for the next ten years (Maguire/Knollmeyer two each, Mitchell/Relaphorde three)? I don't know is this is allowable but I would go to the kid and say look, basketball scholarship is gone,not renewed. We can either help you find another suitable location, agree to honor your time here with an academic scholarships (grades necessary to renew) or we can shake hands and go our seperate ways.