Taj79

... Majerus has been out of coaching for what five years now? John would have been in sixth grade at that time, right? My kid doesn't remember that I told her to turn the computer off five minutes ago, let alone what I said five years ago. And she's John's age as well. Only 5'2" and weighing in at 97 pounds. Not a low post player.

... not right now because its the artificiality that is a major news making event. Some could say "Majerus, what an idiot for going to that place" and they wouldn't be that far off right now. "Envy" is something you still place on programs like Duke, Georgetown, Uconn and the like. If you want to envy programs in the midwest, I would offer Xavier, SIU, Butler, Creighton and the like. But it ain't us. Not by a longshot.

... I think he is closest to a similar event ... Cremins taking over at Charleston or wherever he did. I suspect the Cremins hiring generated the same talk at that school as the Majerus thing does here. Slu'72? Comments? If the buzz there was similar to here, and then I think Cremins took them to the big dance, the momentum was intiated and then sustained. Sustainment is the key gentlemen. Sustainment. Didn't happen after Hughes, didn't happen after the Miracle in Memphis. Could argue on some accounts that it happened after Claggs with Hughes' signing but I'd say that was a stretch. Majerus' hiring is the first step. Getting two or so commits from the St. Louis kids for '08 is the next step. Arena opening is the third step. I don't know if I should squeeze an NCAA appearance in between steps two and three but who knows. Given only Mitchell and Relaphorde to replace Ian, I don't think so but who knows.

I can echo roy's sentiments about "starting over" if the hiring had been a Brian Gregory/Tom Crean/Jimmy Patsos type ... the lead recruiter/first assistant on the bench at a BCS school. A Quin Snyder/Mike Brey/Cuonzo Martin type. I guess Cunonzo was plan B according to some. Now some of these guys (notably Crean with Dwayne Wade) have made some progress on the HC level (let's see the next time Marquette gets to a Final Four though) but for the most part they have not. I am hearing there are rumblings in dayton about canning Gregory if this coming year is a bust. Patsos is doing okay at Loyola in Baltimore but he got a couple of transfers from Maryland when he left Williams and went to the Greyhounds. Fofana was average at Maryland; in the MEAC he's a stud. Same with Andre Collins. We all know Snyder's flop. I would say Brey is in the categoy of beauty in the eye of the beholder at Nore Dame. And who knows what Martin would be .... but SLU has been a graveyard for coaches, not a stepping stone. I also don't think plan C would have worked if plan C were Lavin, Frascilla or Digger a few years back. To me, the hire had to be in the stars as Majerus is or it is still a setback. I was as stunned as the next guy when Brad was let go as late and as unceremoniously and as silently as he was. I was certian the school brass would blow it. Instead, the Majerus hiring blows me away. Frankly I did not think it possible but it happened and its about the only thing that could have happened to make me feel much more above the horizon on this instead of at the horizon or below it. What I also like about the hiring is that I don't particularly see Rick as a one- or two-and-done guy. Cuonzo Maritn gets hired, catches fire, busts SLU's history and tradition, and he's out of here. Right now, even though Majerus seems to have a historylately of flirting with other programs, I don't get the sense that he's flying off to a bigger payday right now. That may change in time but not right now. i think he needs to reestablish some rep and win some here before others come knocking. What will interest me down the line is how Rick does with today's recruit. He's been out for what, five years now? You have to admit that at Utah, he had an in with the fact that the Mormon kids out there had maybe two options for college ball --- Utah and BYU. Utah had the better record and rep at the time so a Britton Johnson or Shawn Bradley might have been limited in faith-tied options. How does his noted ability to alienate some play into today's world where kids and their "entourages" have to be wooed into the fold? Does Rick play that game? Again only time will tell. When folks that were advocating firing Brad were in full fury, I don't recall anyone mentioning Rick Majerus as a possible candidate. Most were talking about some up-and-comer from a Winthrop or an Albany or a Belmont or a Wright State or a BCS top recruiter coming in and making the next step with both his career and us. That would ahve been starting over if you ask me and I think that's where roy was coming from.

I find the third article the most telling .... namely the fact that 1) the review process of Brad was ongoing since February, and 2) that the telling factors were how we finished and the late recruiting period, and 3) that Cheryl was not really, in my opinion, heavily involved in all this. To point #1, I seem to recall the majority of the gripes about Brad starting in that same February time frame. Maybe the pwoers that be had to sit up and take notice. We know they are on this board at times. I would have to go back and look at just when it happened but I believe this was about the same time I was told that Ian's father came over and motivated the young man about not blowing his European pro basketball future. Okay, the NBA is out right now but don't forsake the Euros. Only then did we see some return to last year's form from Ian. To point #2, the finish had to be the one thing that played poorly in all this, the fact that we won not one but two games in Atlantic City. The end of the season was what the trend predicted, win at home and lose on the road. The status was quite in quo there. The Duquesne game was a 50/50 kind of game. I think if brad had lost that one, the boom would have been lowered a lot sooner. But they won and then winning the UMass game, which was a great game to see in person, further complicated the matter by showing the talent was there, the coaching could be done, and brad got his first 20-win season ever. I know the talk at Boardwalk Hall and afterwards that night was glowing optimism and what a 20-win season meant. Then the debacle that was the GeeDub game ruined the high that the Umass game provided. The one thing I took out of New Jersey though was that Cheryl was a tremendous Brad supporter; that's why I was stunned when, after beign away for the week, I came back and saw where Brad was canned. Did they ever reveal the real reason? I think at that point, things were really up in the air but the lack of early signings outside of Mitchell and Relaphorde must have really tilted the dance floor against Brad. I can see Cheryl thinking like I did, that something would come our way, albeit nothing of impact, and that the real key was Kramer and the class of '08. I am guessing that with some input, Biondi said he can't take that chance and went th eother way. Which leads me to point #3, that Cheryl was not only a part of the Brad firing, but was pushed to the background on the negotiations. I think she is right on when she says that a school like SLU, with the so-called aspirations of a top-50 program does indeed need the involvement of the Prez. It had to be Biondi and no one really lower than that. Brad made what a year? Rick is getting a cool million plus upgrades in the facilities package. I've got to believe that with such a major cash decision as that, it is the Prez and the Prez only that can even begin to entertain such notions. I thought in meeting Cheryl in AC, SLU had an AD that could be a huge part of the future. Now, given the "its not about me" at this point comment at the ned of the article, I think it will become about her in the future and she might bolt. When you're "in charge" and you don't make the call on the only revenue producing option in your department, well, you're not "in charge" and I don't know how a person takes to that kind of thing. Time will tell but I 'd hate to see Cheryl leave. Biondi said it best in the article where he said something like not all people like or agree with the decision at hand. True, true. Consensus and majority are 51 to 49 and that means almost half the people are pissed off about the decision. At first, I thought that the call was not good, that the cachet that Brad had built with the '08 class would go for naught. Now, I really don't think he had much of anything cooking. Yet, not only is Majerus named as the coach, but the kick back is that Suggs and Brandenburg might be back in the mix .... if only fleetingly. Hey, it looks like it was more than Brad had even with the Kramer connection. It's also great to see that Lisch and Liddell and Mitchell were all met with and apparently swayed to stay. Majerus has a pretty proven track record but is only one piece of the puzzle in my book. Now, you've got a name coach and a state-of-the-art facility. Maybe the Majerus system makes for more enjoyable game viewing, we shall see. Maybe the name opens some doors to better named opponents on the schedule. If the dean and professor of A-10 coaches is Phil Martelli, we just parred that course, maybe even won with a birdie. Will Majerus be the first piece in lifting the stench that is Saint Louis University basketball (c'mon .. six total NCAA appearances is not a lovely odor!)? The move is growing onme all the time but only time will be the final tally.

... and its seems all the more true as the days pass on, and that is that these guys ---- Bernie, Slaten, Imus, Stern, Kornheiser, Ryan, Wilbon, Hayes, Mariotti, Kiper --- and anybody else that gets some sort of opinionated gig in the media are all yelling and shouting "look at me" and "look how smart I am" and "look at what I know" to the point that the actual truth does not matter. Are they really there to spout facts ... like how the X's and O's and bench moves all translated into a win or a loss. Or, as I would now argue, are they there to irritated, and opine and bring all of us into their world so that we listen and argue and come back at them? The very fact that a BM search would get just as many hits on this site at a CL or RM or BS search i sludicrous when you think about it but not far fetched. That's what these guys are paid to do. We have a DJ who hosts the afternoon drive time here at a local Baltimore station. He talks more than he plays music and farts verbal sunshine about just everything. The minute I hear him, I turn him off. Used to be the same way with the old Greaseman when I was in DC --- until I deciphered the language and understood what he was saying. Only then was he funny. So unsubscrie. Turn him off. Whatever. These guys skewer one and when the blood is all gone, move on to skewer another. Curt Shilling's blood -- real, paint or memorex? Its an evolution that I'm not happy with but it is what it is. All things evolve. Notice there is no more black and white TV? Sad to say if you're just a reporter on a daily paper and don't have a blog, a web site, a radio gig, a national deal, you suck. Maybe Bernie can get a gig and have Jim Everett on and call him "Crissy" like Rome did.

So what? What is your point? That Soderberg didn't get off his *ss and go to the big boys in each class? Okay, he didn't. He was lazy. He wasn't ambitious. He didn't have a plan. He aimed too high/low. (Two other JUCOs --- Stemler and now this Grinkiedinkus kid at Mineral Area or whatever). Frankly I don't know but Brad Soderberg doesn't have to answer to me. But roy brings it back to Romar. Romar also had Hollins and he had top 100's like Pulley and McClain and others like that and where did that get us? I'm done ... you win. Like I said, I can't wait to see what magic Rick is going to wave on all this. Thrity two years of experience tell me its a tough sell. And the school lost it three time when it was on the rise ... with Bonner, with Claggett and with Hughes. You are right ... business is business. But its not. Nike and Reebok and addidas are running the shoe world. Along comes And1. What do they do? Throw money at Hughes and Raef Lafrentz to be the newest shoes on th block spokespeople. Short of money, what do you throw at kids of this caliber to come to your side of the street? Longevity? History? Facilities? Academics? TV? Pipeline to the pros? What the hell is it? Whne you answer that one, please forward to Soderberg so he'll get it in his next job. Is camping out with little to no chance of getting a "foreigner" a good way to spend your recruiting buck? I agree, a plan is better but if its one if by land and two if by sea and they come by air .....

Look at your posts ... your first one said "JUCO players" ----not "top 25 Juco players" as this one now does ------ you then said "top 100 players" and here its now "top 50" and then you closed with "players from outside the midwest" and have now changed to "top 100 player(s) outside the Midwest." I owuld offer that YOU, not I, have messed with the facts. You are asking different questions. My first post was to answer your first question .... but if I answered it truthfully, you change the parameters. I can't argue with that so if you need a debate win, chalk this one up for you. But you can't discount the facts that easily and roy is right when he asks which coach inbcluding Christ could you have come in a do what you want? I can name maybe 20 or so independent, formerly-Catholic or religiously affiliated schools that are going to literally kick our collective butt at the signing table, all things being equal. Does SLU rank ahead of any of these: Marquette, Georgetown, Boston College, Creighton, Gonzaga, Xavier, Dayton, Seton Hall, Notre Dame, St. Joe's, Temple, DePaul, Villanova, Butler, San Francisco, Pepperdine, Srt. John's, etc? No, why should they? These all have recent histories better than ours. And they're not the top of the basketball food chain even. I agree with you in that Soderberg apparently did a poor job of selling, but I wouldn't want that job for all the world. Even if he's the greatest guy in the world, what does he have to sell? No on-campus arena. No nightly sell-outs. No TV contract. Not a single guy placed in the pros, let alone a pipeline. For all the conference crying, I don't think the big boys in high school ever say "yeah, I want to play Northern Iowa" even as much as they say "yeah, I want to play Fordham." I'm all for bringing Rick Magicerius in. I intend to sit back and play the proverbial "show me" game. Show me what you've got. that's neither pro nor con. Just a fact of life.

Now here's some NEW stuff .... Soderberg "ignored junior college players, top 100 players, players from outside the midwest." JUCOs = Frericks, Newborne, Alexander, Morris, etc. Top 100 I can't remember. And players outside the midwest = Dixon, Relaphorde, Vouyoukas, Bryant, and some others. I guess what I'm trying to say is that guys come on here claiming Soderberg's downfall was not recruiting the local talent (the Vtime diatribe) and now we've got the opposite and inverse comment. The bottom line to be is that for whatever reason, he failed. Failure is failure, I'm ready to move on. I can't wait to see how all this turns out. No matter who it is, if they fail, the fault will all be on Biondi.

.... and look what happens. I have been "gainfully" employed rather heavily the last two weeks, basically becoming what seems like a part-time resident of Indiana and without computer access or enough hours in the day to check on the news. This Soderberg firing was news to me ... I didn't see it until I returned late yesterday and accessed the board. And just after I got my two BS bobble heads! What a colector's item I now have! Thanks, ted. I am a virgin in all this ... I haven't read what happened, I don't know what happened, I don't know the particulars ... but I will say this, all those demanding the guy's head now have their wishes complete. I can't wait to see who gets hired and where all the talk goes from there. I pass no judgements; I will offer no opinions on who to hire. We shall see. I like others question the timing of all this. The timing puts us as many have said, behind the power curve but I don't think being ahead of the power curve would have helped much either. I can't see the Lickliters and Gillespies of the world lining up to coach here. I suspect we would have experienced in the coaching ranks what we see in the recruiting ranks .... our opening being held hostage and used as leverage to get where they really want to go. I am also totally amazed that the University is not talking. Not a good sign in my book. I also now feel that the heralded class of '08 in St. Louis is an afterthought for Saint Louis University. We shall see. I've lived through the euphoric hiring that was Grawer ...... Spoonhour ...... Romar. The less fanfare hirings of Ekker ...... Soderberg. BOHICA! Bend Over, Here It Comes Again! I hope five eyars from now, the history has noticably changed. The measuring sticks wil be different if only from the on-campus arena perspective. But if we are still here five, even three years from now, well .... let's see what happens.

Couple of things .... 1) What makes you think the article is/had been updated? I just had an article that was written in August 2006 get posted this past month. It was posted with a March 2007 dateline. Article was like seven months old. All I'm saying is that just because the date of the post is recent, it does not necessarily mean the information is. 2) You know the question has to be asked; Who is th eodd man out in this string? Syracuse, Illinois, Tennesseee, Indiana, St. Louis, Butler, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Nebraska? I think its 50/50 between SLU and Nebraska so its a trick question. 3) Let's remember once again that the ratings ... high, medium and low ... are the kid's stated value of his interest, maybe not exactly thtof the school. However, after saying that, I think the fact that we are mentioned high is good. However, coming back to point 1 ... how old is this stuff? And back topoint 2, if I have an offer from these other guys, who am I picking? 4) As a JUCO with two years of eligibility left, do I want to go play for an NCAA perennial or not? I would. 5) We ain't gonna know anyhting until we know. Signing date is what, April 11? April 16? Relaphorde and Mitchell. Mitcehll and Relaphorde. I don' tknow of anyone that knows anything else right now. What does Lichliter's hiring at Iowa do for Peterson?

Hughes, Winfield, Douglas, Parker, Sr. The Hughes class eclipsed the Claggett class as the top "get" for SLU. With Claggett, you had Highmark, Winfield and Brian Smith. Before that it was Gray and Douglas, but that was more along the lines of saving the program from extinction, not about it getting better. Douglas and Gray came right along the heels of the cutting of the Division 1 hockey program and a 5 - 23 record in Grawer's initial year. talk about aleap of faith .. Gray and Douglas staying home after the Bills posted that mark. In my time, the biggest recruit missd was Stipanovich. With Dressler, DeSmet was seen as a big time player source and we could not break into that circle. Ted Mimlitz was another from the local Catholic circuit and we couldn't get him until he went to Mizzou and then came back. I didn't think he was worth much over the long run. Most of St. louis' biggest names have gone elsewhere .... Miles, Ellis, Lee, Woods, Carawell, White, Buchanon, Thames, etc.

nm

"the point I was making is that one recruit doesn't mean that ... has ... become a player in the big time recruiting wars and a top 50 annual team." Saint Louis University. 1997. Larry Hughes. Case in point. 'Nuff said.

Is that your measure of success? Dancing say seven out of ten years? That's like batting .700 in the major leagues, to compare to another sport. Breaking par 70% of the time? Sure, not a real biggie for Tiger or Phil but to me, that's the creme de la creme of the NCAA elite, not us. You are asking a program to go from an 18 to 19 percent rate of return to 70%? That's a tall order. And there is no guarantee. The closest thing that might qualify for us would then be to join the Horizon League ..... Butler, Wright State, Detroit? Is that the road to advocate? In counter, I would like to see a program that wins much more than it loses, that makes its home games events and must-see-TV for the enrolled crowd, playing a quality schedule, getting on TV at least once a month, and so on. One that is sitting on the edge come Selection Sunday with something to look for rather than not. I do not believe this program will EVER produce a 70% succes rate. No way. As much as I'd love it to, I am not prepared to establish the expectations at that kind of level. Nothing but disappointment will be achieved. Four NCAA bids in the last 33 years (actually longer) is more like a 13% return. The NIT return was like what sevenor eight trips in the last 33 years meaning at best a 25% rate of return. Now oyu want what sounds like 70% for the Dance and I'm guessing 100% on the NIT consdieration? That's pretty steep '72. Pretty dang steep.

AJ's post is one of those posts that really makes me wonder .... Technically, we had five starters back with the top two subs this year along with the fact that three were all-conference performers and out of that came the recent season. Now, the key point missed in AJs post is that a key cog to this year's sucess, the big man, is gone. The rationale cannot be the same. Of the four starters coming back, one (Polk) is a defensive liability and an offensive no-show. Another (Meyer) we all recognize as being played out of position. The top two subs are another offensive liability (Brown) with a fift-year project (Husak) who shows flashes of being competent. Ummmmm, call me optimistic. I'll give you big points for looking on the bright side. Who is the recruit that can "contribute immediately?" And on what do you base that conclusion? I'm not here to argue, just to say that it is ludicrous to make such wide-ranging, sweeping pronouncements like that. We don't know jack about any of these recruits ... and history is such that making statements like these is akin to p*ssing in the wind. I'm tired of the wet pants legs frankly. Even worse when I'm wearing shorts. To say that any one recruit in this program puts us in good or even great shape is a stretch. These kids listing their "interest" has been long proven to mean that it is the kid's interest in the school. There is no correlation between that interest being the school in getting the kid. And its late signing time .... as many have pointed out, few studs are still sitting out there at this time of the year. Again, we shall see. I advocate taking a wait-and-see position. Even on Mitchell and Relaphord. We just don't know.

... Lorenzo Romar went HOME to his alma mater. Huge, huge difference in my book. This was not a case of a guy still climbing the ladder. The stench of his reign at SLU was interrupted before it really clung to him. He was on the path to doom ... he had one aberration in Memphis and the cupboard of recruits was incredibly bare as attested by many on here. He had to jump while the gleam of UCLA and his one-and-done year here had not yet completely wilted. Little to nothing he did here translated into getting the bigger gig. Spoon quit. Plain and simple. He retired and only resurfaced once he made the move out of here. No one came calling for the Spoon-meister and offered bigger and better things. He was out on his own for a few years before UNLV came along. And, if it was such a great gig, how come he didn't stay? I have long advocated our own arena but as many have stated, to believe that it is the biggest obstacle to SLU hoops and to build it remedies things, is blatantly wrong. Lots of school shave their own arenas ..... for years Hinkle Fieldhouse was seen as a big impediment to Butler's program. Now, with Butler's success, its nostalgic as opposed to oppressive. "Hoosiers" was shot there. "Legendary" Hinkle Fieldhouse. What impedes recruits from coming here is still here .... a non-winning tradition. And a one-and-done (Hughes) or a two-and-done(Claggs or Douglas) is not enough to sustain a program. We have been through those and blew it. Frankly, I will always cheer for the alma mater and never trade in the colors. But I am fast approaching the belief that instead of sustainability, the one- and two-and-dones are the best we might have to hope for. It won't be a popular assessment or statement but it might be truer than thinking this program can attain theheights so many belief it has a birthrite to for just being here. Throwing money at the problem doesn't necessarily work either or Danny Snyder and the Washington Redskins would win every Super Bowl in August. The rest of the American League wouldn't play ... there'd be 162 games, then a best-of-seven between the Yankess and Red Sox when they got done with the first 162. Even in our own league, when was the last time Duquesne, St. Bonaventure, Fordham and Richmond were actually consistently good? Back in the old league, how about Tulane or East Carolina or South Florida? What happened the year after Claggs, Hmark and H graduated? Why was there nothing to reap from those two glorious years? What happened after the Legend left? Gray, Dougals and Bonner? Face it, since 1975 this program has hada six really good years .... with the oopsie that was Memphis in 2000. Six in thrity-two which is a paltry percentage of what, 18.8% eh? Rounded up, that's two great years every ten or one in five. But that's an average. Sometimes, its five years in every 25 and it coudl be that years 1 through 20 really suck and the great years are a five year run at the end. We've gone unknown hire in this program (Albrecht, Coleman). We've gone local hero returning home (Grawer). We've gone regional legend moving up (Spoon). We've gone nationally-known, high riser (Romar). And now we've gone off-the radar, midwest product (Soderberg). All have had in my book zero sustainability. Now the calls are to reinvent the wheel again with some guy who's going to be better just because some believe he can't be any worse. Whatever. Go for it. Pull the trigger. I'll still be there. I'll live those rare highs like there's no tomorrow because, well, for the most part, there is none.

Call it what you want ... D-Day, National Letter of Intent Day, Salvation Day, whatever. And I've explained why in previous posts. Of course, let's remember to be careful what you asked for. Count me in the camp that does not see some hotshot, up-and-coming coach saying "Um, Saint Louis University, that's where I want to be." If we do indeed fire Soderberg, what will his next job be? Division II? Division III? NAIA? Nothing? In any case, he is not "moving on up" as the old Jefferson's theme song used to say. Add another coach's career on the dung heap of college basketball that is life after St. Louis University. So what we will have is another fact-enforcing moment that screams "Go to SLU, fail, and get out of basketball for good." Isn't this an anti-anthem to the young-and-coming coach. Doesn't the track record support this conclusion? If so, why would you want to take this on when there are other better things to do? I know I wouldn't. So I believe the next coming is in sight for those of you expressing the impatience. Then, it will start over again and you guys will all start screaming all over when another two or three years of mediocrity sink in again. Because it will take some time for the new guy toe stablish himself as well. BOHICA! Bend Over -- Here It Comes Again!

Nate: C'mon, how come Mustafa's final two choices were UCLA and Harvard? The disparity of those two schools is evident by even more than their opposite coasts distance. Sounds like the kid was a fantastic student (Harvard) with a connection to a basketball school based on camps and coaching clinics (UCLA) if memory serves. This would seem to be in direct contrast to a Hansborough or a Hughes or a Miles who was getting whatever they were getting based purely on basketball ability. Not that it matters, but did anyone offer this kid a full ride for his basketball abilities? Vtime asked a question a long time ago about how come we couldn't get this kid and noted that it was a shame that instead of a full ride at SLU, the poor guy had to go all the way to Los Angeles and get a walk-on tryout. Preferred or not. Your points about the SIU players are noted. I think SIU deserves tons of credit for doing what they did but to juxtapose those four kids onto the SLU roster and decide what happened in Carbondale would have happened in St. Louis is not necessarily true. If that were the case, then my Sixers of the 80s would have won all their games with Erving, McGinnis, Caldwell and Bobby Jones, Dawkins, Free, Cheeks, Toney and the rest on that roster. A part of the team game constantly overlooked is team chemistry. I am also a firm believer in the role of momentum and confidence. Oh well, sound minds can agree to disagree. Also, for all the "Polk should be Porter" talk in another thread, Porter seemed to be Polk yesterday. A big goose-egg-for-nine on his way to what, two of eleven shooting? Hey, it happens. I just don't ever see Dwayne posting 33 of anything on any night. I sure hope so and wish him well but that's not our Polk.

So it may be a little strong .... but it was also based on 16 teams playing, not 8. I'll even agree with you footsie .... you are right, "Missouri is right where it should be." So then you are agreeing that there is only a small percentage of Division 1 caliber kids playing in Missouri high schools at any one given time, correct? And that is somehow based on the state's population, right? I think you are correct there, I recall someone, I think it was Dale Brown, the former coach at LSU, that, once when explaining recruiting, his rationale for going outside of Louisiana to recruit was based on the fact of some sort of per capita equation of blue chippers. His rationale was with more of a population, the chances were greater that getting better players was more easily accomplished by going out of state. Let's say he was right. So then I guess you are saying the same thing for Missouri and St. Louis. Let's agree to agree. Which would then bring me to my point to Vee, that it is impossible to offer every freakin' St. Louis high school senior and still expect to put a viable product on the court. That is a farce. By footes and mine deduction here, Missouri cannot produce enough Division 1 products to do that. Again, the key to me is finding the princes in the frogs. Tatum. Baniak. Trice. Duff. Missavage. Smith. Anderson. Renken. Mimlitz. Mueller. Rohde. Moulder. Polk. Robinson. Parker. Sloan. The list of local frogs that stayed home and stayed frogs is pretty endless as far as I'm concerned.

... to be able to afford the costs of matriculating to La-La Land, live in a high cost area, pay the tuition and books and fees and all that just for some insane "preferred" walk-on status. It was documented a while ago that this kid had a connection with Howland somehow and that's what sent him out there. I don't care what you're argument is going to be, the fact is walk-on and sit your *ss on the bench of a former illustrious program and pay all costs yourself, or get a free ride to another school and play some ball. Sure ... every "next coming" is taking the former and not the latter. Probably might have had a Western Illinois, or a Drury, or a SEMO offer in his back pocket. But you are right, he is there and there is there. Let's see where next year leads him.

Skip could've been Larry Bird based on this logic. Roy could've been Steve Nash. I could've been Kareem but I would have changed my name to Carom Abble-Jabble just to differentiate. Talent has nothing to do with success, its all in the style of play. You be scorin', Vee, you be scorin'.

... in a swamp. Ah, finding the prince, now there's the rub. Pistol says I'm unfair to Abul-Jabul, oh well ..... with 13 of those types on your roster, you'd go far. Let's remember, ol' Vee baby was asking some time ago how a kid can walk on for UCLA and/or Dayton and not get an inkling from us. Twelve minutes in a year, that's how.

With SIU's loss last night, this list gets cut to two, Hansborough and Rush. Abdul-Hamid doesn't play for UCLA as I pointed out in a previous post ... as a walk-on he got like 12 minutes all year. I would think that two kids from the entire state is a pretty interesting statistic that, if wrapped this way or warped that way, is a criminal indictment of the talent level in the overall state.

.. I am not a hs talent guru. But I did see Peterson in the Alhambra against Towson Catholic and echo what AJ is posting above ... at crunch time in the game I saw, this kid was the definition of "floor general." If Correia played against top talent as some have said, how do you not say the same about a kid at DeMatha? This was a team in a title game against the best private school talent in the local (DC/Maryland/Penna) area. I am saying from what I saw, I would have no reservations about this kid at all. Its based on one viewing ... which is more than I usually get. And I don't know if he's two star, five star or one star. He's good enough from what I've seen.