DeSmetBilliken

I don’t think so, but I read sometime in the last few years that a large number of students qualify for close to full scholarships due to grants. If you can get accepted to an Ivy and aren’t an elite athlete to suggest that playing professionally is likely, taking the Ivy route makes a ton of sense, even if you have to pay a fraction of the tuition.

I was just in the Boston area a week ago. Stayed in a town a little bit north of Boston called Swampscott. It looks to be about 5ish feet beyond the arc on the right side of the court. If I don’t hear Rammer say “Jimmerson, from Swampscott...BANG! He got it!”, why are we even doing this?

I also wrote in 1764 St. Louis/St. Louis 1764. I also begged them to not name the team the “Archers”

This. This guy isn’t being hired to recruit. His position probably doesn’t even allow him to travel to recruit. He’s there to offer experience in dealing with day to day stuff.

He was.

That might be correct too. The coach probably shouldn’t have given an actual quote. With that said, quoting a coach about a player he can’t talk about is a weird move.

The NCAA allows retweeting and liking posts. As to the quote in Carter’s article, I’m going to chalk that up to poor journalism. My guess is that most journalists who write recruiting articles have sources within coaching staffs, but know not to put a direct quote, even unnamed, in an article. They know how to frame things differently.

It was a year ago this week. I remember because I was in Germany on vacation when I found out about it, and that was a year ago this week.

If you want a name to have “St. Louis inside joke” potential, while also looking outwardly legitimate, this should be the name.

Yes. We want to sound like a legitimate organization, not a rec league team. A name like Archers skews towards the rec league category and makes us look less legitimate in my opinion.

I like this one, though I probably go with Olympic/Olympique St. Louis.

I don’t like it because I think it’s cheesy and forced. Plus, I thought it was lame when somebody suggested that name for a team over 25 years ago in an issue of Sports Illustrated for Kids. If I as a somewhat dorky 8 or 9 year old could figure out that it was lame, you know it’s bad.

Please no.

I’m mixed on the team name. I watch soccer in Europe, so used to names including FC, United, etc. That said, those names in my opinion are better suited for teams that have been around for a long time. Naming a new team FC, United is a little odd to me. At the same time, my general opinion is that most American teams created in the last 30 years have had stupid names, in large part due to the names being created by people looking at it from a branding or marketing perspective. My pick is St. Louis Rovers. Sounds like a team in England, without the focus being on FC or United. I’d be ok with bringing back a name like the Steamers. My guess is they’ll try to call it St. Louis United.

Yeah, I have the DirecTV Choice package, but have had it for a few years, so they won’t give me the promo pricing. Tried to suggest that I’d drop it and switch to streaming once the new internet got installed, but no response. Very curious about the AT&T TV option, so will see what the word is there.