Billiken Law

I grew up a Michigan State fan and have serious family connections to MSU, but if either Marquette or SLU play MSU I'll be wearing blue. The alma mater comes first.

>That is the attitude I am talking about. All of the >Marquette fans I know seem to have become very shortsighted >since the final four run. During Wade's time at Marquette, >SLU never won a game. Marquette swept both seasons. >However keep in mind that SLU swept when Hughes was here and >in the preceding season. Minus Hughes and minus Wade, the >series has been pretty even. I don't have any stats in >front of me so I can't compare tournament appearances and >all that, but I can tell you that prior to Wade I can't >remember the last time Marquette was ranked in the top >twenty five. Yet I distinctly remember Clagget and >Highmark's team being ranked 17th at one point. I'm sure >you will remind me that Marquette won a national >championship. Like MU, SLU won a national championship >before I could walk. My point - its ancient history. >Marquette may have a little more mystique because of Al >McGuire, but since I've been following the programs over the >last 20 years, they've been pretty evenly matched. -In the past decade MU has 3 conference titles ('94 GMC, '97 CUSA and '03 CUSA. Also made the CUSA tourney title game 2 other times, '96 and '02). They have been to 6 NCAA's (Sweet 16 in 1994, second round in 1996, Final Four last year) and 3 NIT's making the final in 1995 and quarters in 1998. They were pretty consistantly ranked during the 1994, 96 and 97 seasons. Crean is 7-1 against SLU too. In 1994 MU finished the season ranked higher than SLU and I think they swept SLU that year in the regular season (but didn't SLU beat MU in the first round of the GMC tourney, or was that 1995?). >I doubt you would have posted a link to any prediction that >had the Bills 2nd, unless it had Marquette first. When we >signed all the recruits, I saw no positive comments from >you. All I heard was that Marquette backed off on Liddell. >Maybe that's true, but you'll never know that for sure >unless you are related to Tom Crean. No booster or >"insider" will ever admit that his school simply got beat in >a recruiting war. There's always a reason. -It wasn't a booster who told me that Crean stopped recruiting them. Besides, I stated on this board what Crean told me when Tommie verbaled - he really liked his game, saw him a lot and thought he was a heck of a talent. However, if you look at the MU roster they are pretty guard heavy and needed post players in this year's class. > >You haven't jumped on the Soderberg bandwagon yet either. >In fact you stated below that he hasn't done more than Romar >yet and that he was able to land his recruits because of the >path Romar paved in St. Louis. You're nuts if you really >believe that. Romar got who in the area besides Sloan? >Kern, Edwin? Outside St. Louis, he got who? Pulley, >Varner. I would have hated to see who Romar would have >brought when he realized Kern wasn't getting in. I can >guarantee we wouldn't have gotten a player like Ohanon and >when Pulley left we would have never gotten Drejaj. Do you >really think Romar laid the groundwork with Meyer, Liddell, >and Polk. I don't think so. How about Ian or Darren Clark? > If he was in so tight with them, why not even give them a >look from Washington. Going after players 9000 miles away >never was a problem for him at SLU. In conclusion, I just >want you to be more positive about the Bills. Try to see >things a little more objectively. -Didn't say that, re-read the post with what you preach - objectivity. All my post stated that Romar wasn't the Ekker-eque disaster many make him out to be.

>>MU will be just fine this year. There is no replacement for >>Wade but I also don't think there's a true replacement for >>Marque. > >Fine. So if MU will be just fine without Wade then SLU will >just fine without Marque, right? -Marquette isn't going back to the Final Four. I think if they make the Sweet 16 that would be a hell of an accomplishment. When I say "fine" I mead that they'll win more than the lose and make the tourney. However, some on this board have stated that now that Wade is gone MU will fall off the face of the earth and may not even make the CUSA tourney, let alone the NCAA tourney. I think SLU will also be "fine" without Marque but, like MU, will struggle, especially early, to match last year's win totals. When you look at the 2 players they were just as important to their respective teams as the other. But the idea that anyone could replace Marque but MU will never replace Wade that has been perpetuated on this board is short sighted. > > As of last week MU had 5 healthy scholarship >>players for practice. Jackson and Merritt couldn't play in >>Costa Rica due to injuries (in fact I was shocked to see >>NewJax dress, let alone play last night) and they have not >>had an opportunity to develop continuity on offense due to >>the injuries. > >They've had a lot more time than almost any other team due >to the extra practices. Jackson isn't a scorer so his >absence wasn't exactly a huge blow to the offense. Scott >Merritt scored 20+ points in each of Marquette's exhibition >games and the team scored 51 points in the first half >against Team Nike. I don't think continuity on offense was >the problem. I think St. John's defense was. -their 2 starters in the post didn't practice before the Costa Rice trip nor did they play down there. The Johnnie's D was good, I won't deny that, and there are guys on MU's team who don't know their roles yet. That will change. Also, we can't take much, if anything, from exhibition game. If so then we can conclude that SLU, SIU and UMKC are superior to Wake Forest, who looked pretty good last night. > >I agree that it is wrong to project a team's season based on >one game. But I think it's pretty obvious that the offense >won't run as smoothly without Jackson on the inside and the >NBA's #5 pick on the outside.

>B-Law you made a comment about jealousy somewhere below that >I guess was directed at all of us. I hardly consider myself >jealous of Marquette's success. In fact, I was at one point >a big fan of Marquette. However, the attitude you bring to >this board really turns people off. For example, you never >made any positive comments about the Bills' first game, but >you came on here with a link to a site that has them ranked >something like ninth in the conference. You bash the new >arena and I think you may have encouraged a move to the MVC. > No wonder that people get annoyed with you and the other >Marquette people. You're always trying to point out the bad >in SLU and the good in Marquette. We all know Marquette had >a better season last year. Get over it though. At one >point you guaranteed that Marquette would beat SLU this >year. And then you pout when everyone replies. After >seeing that performance last night, you may want to take >back that prediction. The jealousy comment was directed at CentralFloridaBilliken who spends all of his time taking shots at MU. Not anyone else. I couldn't go to the Bills first game (brief worth 60% of my grade in due the next day, also suffering from the flu) so how could I make comments on what I didn't see? As far as the link, it was a national publication's prediction - everyone else here was linking what other mags were predicting. How is it different for me? If SLU had been predicted #2 in CUSA I would have linked it as well. I have never bashed the new arena outside of the cost, and I am hardly the only one to do that. For $80 million I expect marble concourses, solid gold fixtures and leather, vibrating seats for all of the fans. I never "encouraged" a move to the MVC but I really didn't think I was the death of the program everyone here made it out to be. I simply stated that I thought the MVC was a better conferece than many felt and that if SLU were to join they would dominate it and be a regular in the NCAA tourney. Marquette has had more than one better season than SLU. If defending my alma mater is "bashing" SLU then the definition of "bashing" is really convoluted here. Many on this board act like the programs have always been even and that Marquette just got lucky landing Wade and that is the only difference between the programs. Hardly. Some people take themselves way too seriously and think that is someone else says something positive about another it's bashing them. MU will be just fine this year. There is no replacement for Wade but I also don't think there's a true replacement for Marque. As of last week MU had 5 healthy scholarship players for practice. Jackson and Merritt couldn't play in Costa Rica due to injuries (in fact I was shocked to see NewJax dress, let alone play last night) and they have not had an opportunity to develop continuity on offense due to the injuries. If we are going to determine overall success for the season based on the first game then how do you explain Syracuse, who lost to Memphis last year in the first game, winning the title.

Have you all read the previews of UCLA by different mags and the way Ryan Hollins has been hyped - many have described him as being a definite future NBA player. Romar stays, Hollins stays and SLU has one of the best big men in the conference. Was the Romar record great? No, but it wasn't Ekker-esque. I seem to remember a banner raised and a NCAA tourney bid in his time. I also don't think that Brad has yet proven himself to be leaps and bounds better than Romar was either. Brad is a very good coach but is he "that" much better than Romar? Tough to say. However, on the recruiting front he has done better because he already had pre-established ties to the area. I think Romar would have eventually developed those by now. Remember, recruiting kids now starts when they're freshmen, and in some cases earlier. People here treat Romar like he was SLU's own version of Pat Kennedy. Far from it.

they are listed as "The Baby Blues" in there.

Interesting to see how they do with their new coach. As for your other comment, you obviously have the market cornered on 1 of the 7 deadly sins....

when I read the comment asking whether or not this was the same team I just assumed he figured it was similar to squads like EA All-Stars, Team Nike, etc. who have many teams to play regionally. Seriously, seeing that the same team lost to UMKC Roos but beat Wake and Indiana makes one wonder if there are multiple teams.

You are correct, only 1 team. EA Sports has a couple different teams but according to the AIA website it's the same team that plays night in and night out.

Beat Elon 73-62 (could have used Bryce) Lost to SLU - 68-58 (led at half by one) Lost to UMKC 81-68 (trailed entire game) Lost to SIUC - 74-65 (trailed by 19 at the half) Lost to Indiana in OT - 70-68 Beat Wake Forest - 77-75 (last second 30 footer to win) Lost to Cal - 83-75 (trailed entire game) They play LoRo's Huskies tonight. UW beat EA Sports last week 89-78.

>would you prefer we changed our name to "Saint Louis >University: the guy, not the city, but we ARE in the >city...so it works both ways" Kind of reminds me of Wash U now officially being named "Washington University in St. Louis." Before I moved down here I saw a girl up in Chicago wearing at sweatshirt that saw that and laughed. Then I come down here and see it's all over the place on the Wash U campus!

http://www.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/6820668

anyone who thinks Marquette and DePaul (first mention of them - I thought Marquette was the only evil one, the puppetmaster in this whole thing) were the controlling forces in this whole thing and both (especially MU) went out of their way to screw SLU needs to get a grip on the business aspect of college sports. Marquette and DePaul were just as vulnerable as SLU and Charlotte in this whole thing - they too were being screwed over by CUSA. They could have stayed in a watered down conference with even less in common geographically and ideologically than the current conference or they could have looked out for #1 - and that was themselves. Maybe some anger should be directed towards Xavier, St. Joes and Dayton since they obviously didn't stand "shoulder to shoulder" and demand the formation of a Papal Conference. The reality was that no "Papal Conference" was going to form, staying in CUSA was not a realistic option and not all of the programs were going to or could demand to be taken as a package. If the Big East called Marquette and said we want you and DePaul, and Marquette said "only if you take SLU and/or Charlotte too" Xavier and Dayton would be your new Big East members. Seriously, if it had been SLU and DePaul invited would SLU have said "not unless you take Marquette?" I'm sure SLU would have felt the same sense of loyalty as they did to Dayton and Xavier and Evansville in the past when the GMC and CUSA were formed and I wouldn't have blamed them one bit. SLU is better off today than they were 1 year ago. I think things worked out great for them and Woolard deserves credit for making sure SLU would be taken care of. The Bills now have stability and are in a conference with (for the most part) like-minded schools. So is Marquette, so is DePaul and so is Charlotte. It's win-win for everyone and there is no need for anger and bitterness. If you are still so upset think about how Creighton, who had been approaching SLU for years about getting in the same conference with them, just shelled out a ton of money to keep their coach and is moving into a beautiful new facility feels today. THEY got screwed. The best thing for SLU now would be as Andy Katz mentioned today, addition by subtraction. The A-10 has a very good core but they need to jettison a few members (Duquense, Fordham). But even with those 2 the new A-10 is just as strong as CUSA was and the playing fields are MUCH more even. This should be a happy day for all Billiken fans, not one spent wishing ill will upon MU and DePaul. But if you want to continue to believe that Marquette single-handedly deliberately "screwed" SLU and that if not for them the Papal Conference would have been formed then you probably also believe Elvis is alive and he and JFK control the world.

actually Marquette's alumni base in STL is smaller than I thought. I think it's around 400 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if Marquette and DePaul didn't schedule SLU and instead went with the usual Big East MO of playing a weaker non-conference schedule due to the immense strength of the Big East.

more than anything else, Chicago is Notre Dame territory (I think ND has the largest alumni population of any school). A number of Big Ten schools (UI, MSU, UM, UW) are in the top 10 but still trail the Irish. Look at the Chicago Tribune on any Sunday - ND coverage always comes first.

The Horizon over the MVC? Come on! The Horizon is Butler and everyone else. I really think people here are selling the MVC short. Joining the MVC wouldn't be the death knell to the program everyone is making it out to be - joining the Horizon would. The MVC has built in geographical rivalries for SLU. SLU would be the top dog and get to host the conference tourney every year. They would almost assuredly be in the top 3 annually. You all complain about the bottom feeders of the MVC (Drake, Northern Iowa) but think about Youngstown State, Cleveland State, UWGB and um, who else is even in that conference outside of Butler, Detroit and UW-Milwaukee? If the MVC were to add Western Kentucky (rumored to want in) it would be a very good conference, at about the same level as the new CUSA or even the A-10 currently. I don't understand the appeal of joining a conference where the closest school is a 6 hour drive away vs. a conference where the furtherst school is 6-7 hours away.

how can you compare the Globetrotters (with Magic Johnson) to AIA, with, um. Who did they have anyway?

"Randy Pulley is a heck of a point guard. He's a strong kid who makes good decisions." This is the same Pulley who played at SLU, right??

actually they will be when you compare travel costs now to what the new arrangement will be compared to the old. SLU did fit in better geographically than Marquette did in CUSA. Besides, I think the bigger issue will be travel costs for other A-10 schools. SLU will not have a "travel partner" when it comes to the non-revenue sports and that could be a deciding factor in SLU not getting the invite against BU and UNCC. UNCC can be paired up with Richmond and BU with UMass. Right now Dayton and Xavier are paired up.

Was sent this today regarding TCU considering a move to the Mountain West due to travel cost savings over over $200,000 per year compared to the new CUSA. This includes the addition of 2 more Texas schools and loss of the northern schools. I can't imagine travel costs for TCU would be more than they would be for SLU in the A-10. Anyone know if travel costs have been mentioned if SLU does get invited? I have to imagine they will really jump in the A-10 compared to now. TCU considers move to Mountain West 12:40 PM CST on Monday, November 3, 2003 By RICK ALONZO and KEITH WHITMIRE / The Dallas Morning News TCU is weighing whether to accept an anticipated invitation to the Mountain West Conference, and school officials will meet later this week to potentially approve the move, a high-ranking TCU official said. The source, who asked not to be identified, said a financial study has been conducted showing that it would cost TCU an extra $200,000 a year in travel costs by joining the Mountain West as opposed to remaining in Conference USA. TCU's athletic committee is scheduled to meet Thursday to discuss Mountain West membership. The committee is expected to make a recommendation to a meeting of TCU's trustees Friday. Financial advantages and stability are the main attractions to Mountain West membership, the source said, although no official invitation has been extended. Mountain West Conference schools include Air Force, BYU, Colorado State, New Mexico, San Diego State, UNLV, Utah and Wyoming. Conference USA is expected to lose up to five of its most attractive members to the Big East when that conference announces its expansion plans Tuesday. C-USA's revenues could drop significantly with the loss of schools such as Louisville and Cincinnati. When asked whether he has had pointed discussions with the Mountain West, TCU athletic director Eric Hyman said, "I don't think it's appropriate for me to comment. I've talked to a lot of people about a lot of things." Hyman also said, "My responsibility is to get a sense of what the lay of the land is. I've been doing them since the dominoes began to fall. "Obviously with Conference USA there have been a lot of compelling reasons to stay. Conference USA has surpassed TCU's expectations. But it's not the same [after membership changes]. There's no question." TCU chancellor Victor Boschini said his school has not received an invitation from the Mountain West or any other league. Boschini did not deny that the school has done cost studies to move to the Mountain West. "Somebody may have done that; I have not," Boschini said. Boschini added that his goal is to do "what's best for TCU" in regards to the changing landscape of college athletics. TCU's decision could be the latest domino to fall. Earlier this year, the Atlantic Coast Conference announced it would add Miami, Virginia Tech and Boston College from the Big East. TCU provost William Koehler said the school wants to compete at the highest levels. "We've said all along, and this is the party line, that our objective is to position the university to be in a position to compete nationally," Koehler said. "We've kept all of our options open and will continue to do so".

No, I don't think all of them will be tourney teams. However, it will be one competitive conference and that will pay off in the post season, as well as in recruiting (coaches can say you get the play the best every night) and attendence (few teams that will draw zero local interest like CUSA has many of now). Plus, I think the idea that this is a "house of cards" is short-sighted. I've heard from some good sources that isn't the case, this is a permanent solution. Besides, even if it does fall in a few years it's better to be on the inside than the outside when a couple schools are added to the Big East.

You do realize the Big "Least" is going to be the top hoops conference in the nation, right? In fact, I'm pretty sure every team in the new Big East except for Georgetown, West Virginia (who just missed) and Rutgers (and maybe USF) went to the post season last year. Heard a buddy who graduated from DePaul complaining that now that DePaul is going to the Big East "they'll never make the NCAA tourney. This is their last chance while they're still in CUSA." Doesn't sound like the "Least" to me. Who are the weaklings, West Virginia and South Florida?

It's news when an in-state team is picked 6th in a major pre-season poll. I think that's what spurred the article. No poll released no article.

I don't think so. I remember making my picks before heading down to see the EA All-Stars. By the way, since I nailed the record last year (along with 1-1 in the conference tourney and an NIT bid) what do I win??

will the games be held at a neutral site (Gardens or USBank Center) or at Cintas? If that is the case (that it's at X)what does everyone think of giving X and UD home court advantage?