ACE

Perk was never the same after that injury. A really tough break for him because he could have made a decent living for a while playing hoops.

I also thought Okoro ran well for a big.

Hasahn

hmmm, that's a lot of minutes for supposedly the "15th man on the roster."

Not surprising - the mercenary high school scene in many ways is even more troubling than a lot of the nonsense with college sports now. BUT, you gotta take your shot and try to build relationships in recruiting when you can.

It looks like Tate is helping the new staff hit the ground running with local recruiting efforts.

Good podcast with Schertz - https://collegehoopstoday.net/podcast/episode-454-saint-louis-josh-schertz/ He again talks about the challenges of scheduling. He specifically mentions home/homes with teams from power conferences - and specifically mentions K-State - are a thing of the past. It's like Schertz was reading some of my comments about scheduling on this board -

We have a 5-10 scoring guard who other teams will be worried about.

Swope has very productive at his 1st stop. He was able to carry similar production from a lower level to MVC competition.

Schertz struck gold with Conwell and Swope in the transfer market at ISU... and then he again added Swope, Johnson, and Dotzler in the transfer market and got Gibby who was a free agent to return. Why would anyone think the transfer market won't remain very important for Schertz? Of course, he'll recruit high schoolers too, but no doubt he'll be looking at the portal for guards with three of them graduating after this year.

Unfortunately, this is the way of the world for mid majors now. This is not unique to us. The days of home & homes with the likes of Auburn, KState, NC State and Seton Hall are pretty much over. At best hope to pick up a P6 game or two in a neutral site. But in today's system there is no upside for P6 schools to schedule tough mid majors. Someone blaming Ford for this is comical. that's someone who is clueless about what is happening around college basketball. In interviews, Schertz has talked about the real challenges of scheduling in today's environment.

kshoe, totally agree - 96 is the number I have been a proponent of. Here are some thoughts on it: https://athleticdirectoru.com/articles/more-of-a-great-thing-expansion-to-96-teams-in-the-ncaa-basketball-tournament/ I don't agree with everything in the article about seeding it, btw. I 100% agree with you that a 96 team format would actually make the regular season more important for more teams. - Teams would be rewarded for having a strong regular season with the lower seeds earning what would essentially be a first round bye (avoiding having to play that opening "play in" game). Plus, those top four seeds in each bracket would still get to play the bottom for seeds (13-16) comprised of the conference championship teams from the low tier leagues. - Teams with NET in the 40-70 range (many of them from mid major conferences) would be playing meaningful games in late February to try to get into the play-in round. - Imagine the some of the great games between at-large in an opening round "play-in". The opening Tuesday and Wednesday "play-in" days which currently only have four games, would now have compelling games packed all day - more March Madness! -Those teams still have a pathway to make deep runs, it's just gonna be a tougher road than the lower seeds.

I'd be thrilled if we produced three NBA "journeymen" bigs.

I was responding to some folks the loss of even the possibility of “Cinderella” - they have come from the mid major ranks - not the low ranks (seeds 12-16 which are only getting in because they won their conference tournament)- which are typically accounting for about 16 bids a year.

I have talked about the MWC previously - with the collapse of the Pac 12, they are poised to fill the void of a true Western conference and become one of the P6 - in fact, since they play football, they may be in better shape than the Big East to have a seat at the table because they play football.