cheeseman

No that did not work - thanks for trying to help - any other ideas?

Three things: 1. Why are we using Harris-Stowe? What is going on in the West Pine Gym? Just curious. 2. Brad indeed said that for the Richmond game the staff decided that DP would be the best to start - now that does not mean their analysis was accurate. 3. I am sorry but I do not see this great love affair with Luke. He is a good player who in the right situation during the game can be productive. If you watched the Xavier game, that 3ptr he made was possible only because he was so wide open. His release is so low that unless he is standing all alone he can not get it off without it being blocked. This is exactly what happened on his second 3ptr later in the game. I am not saying he should not ever play but lets not make him the second coming. Truth is whoever is recruited for next year including DM will have ample opportunities to win that starting slot opening if they can shoot and play acceptable defense.

Can someone tell me how to get the posts that I have already read to show a different color/highlight so when I look at it later I know which ones I have already read. Mine use to do that but for the last couple weeks all the posts show up as new/unread.

Rammer is only trying to save his gig - if Slaten gets pissed at him he will have him dropped from the show and possibly the station - see Claiborn.

As I said, I did not see the second half yet - it is on Charter tonight at 10:30 pm so I plan to watch it.

I am not doubting your point but if I remember correctly, Brad said that DP changed his shot completely this past summer and had improved immensely. I think Brad said that DP was shooting 40+% from the field in practice. So now the question is will changing again solve it or is it simply a confidence issue?

To play the devil's advocate here - I saw the first half last night but had business that kept me from watching the second half so I did not see how well Luke played or not but when I read the paper today, it talked about Luke throwing the ball away with 20 seconds to play - if he does not turn the ball over then those two clutch FTs everybody is heralding are not even necessary or even happen. I am not knocking the kid just saying that if DP who is absolutely struggling, is called out for his turn overs last night as being inexcuseable then I am sorry - fair is fair - Luke's performance has to be equally diminished as well.

The same can be said for JJ - he is normally the first off the bench jumping up and down with excitement during the game. This is why Brad has said he likes the players he has so much. I just wish DP could find a shot - any shot.

Ibill - I thought the game was well before the Super Bowl - correct? People would still have time to go to the game and then see the big one. I know it might cut into parties but most people who have parties know people kind of drift in and drift out during them.

That is why we have to make hay with the remaining games on our schedule - this will allow us to gain a little but more importantly hold serve so to speak.

I think both Roy and Kappy make very good points in regards to this question. It is most likely all of the above.

Even Wiley said he pushed off - did it have to be called no but it was and it came at a bad time.

The entire team - coach included performed very disappointing tonight. They did not defend the perimeter shot at all and when they got the lead and could pull away, Luke commits a foul to stop our momementum. I am not blaming him just pointing out that they all stunk up the floor tonight. Terrible performace!! I can not even watch the rest of it.

No hypocrisy here - we played Ken State so the info was at least relevant to this year. Lots of people post about coaches who have been at SLU or teams we have played or are going to play - all relevant to some extent. But to post about a team we do not play well that simply belongs on the other side. That post is not being denied but placed where it appropriately belongs. For those of you who can not understand that perspective then that is your problem.

We are not disagreeing on your financial analysis but on if SLU can fill the seats enough to make it worthwhile to keep the additional seats currently in the plans. You say no - I say yes. It is always easier to borrow $ and pay it off in the long term then to try to increase revenue to be used as a pay as you go albeit the year to year operation of the AD overall program which would benefit from the additional funds the extra seats would produce.

SIUC has had in recent years several players who left for the NBA before their 4 years were up. Hudson for one and there were at least 2 others whose names escape me now.

I heard part of it but really he did not say much - he talked about needing to recruit for a team not just individual players, lots of big men on the recruiting board right now, he wants to get kids that fit the team's needs and not throw off the current good chemestry. He thought DM would be a good replacement for AD. That is all I heard.

CCow - where was the comments about common recruits? None - so instead of using some flawed logic try being objective. All I said was if you want to talk about MU put it on the other side. If you want to talk about Richmond then change the RE.

I am not policing - look at your title - unless Richmond are the Tigers then take it to the other side. Once again, why do you have to resort to name calling? I feel sorry for you since you have such a low esteem of yourself.

David, the arena will be paid for with bonds which has nothing to do with operating costs of the AD program. The savings from a smaller arena will not equate out equally - in other words, cutting the size by 1/3 seats will not cut the cost by 1/3. The infrastructure costs will be the same and the overall savings will be basically the cost of the materials. Labor will be about the same - if you have built a structure that is 4x8 or 8x16 you would know that it takes about the same about of time and labor to do both. I realize the example is small but it does kind of make my point. I believe we can fill the arena easily for 1/4 of our games - that would be 4-5 games and that would equate to about $180,000 - $225,000 more money for the AD program. Will we fill the arena the first year at that level - not sure but very possible by the time it is built. If we continue our success then we could easily fill it for 1/2 of the games - thus creating an increase of revenue of between $350,000 to $450,000. I use a $15 average tix and concession number to reach these figures - by the way, I really think the $15 is a low figure. Kappy, Biondi is supporting the arena - he always said the research facility was first. Nothing wrong with him prioritizing his projects.

So who has the link so we can check?

Put it on the other board - this has nothing to do with SLU BB.

I am sorry but some of you advocating a 10,000 seat arena are missing the one major point: The AD program needs to raise a money from the men's BB program to support the other teams which we have to offer to stay D1. Now if the women's BB team draws better then some pressure will be taken off but my guess is that realistically the men's team will still be the work horse revenue provider. The more seats in the new arena the less season tickets have to cost and the less need there is for PSLs. The smaller the arena the higher the ticket price and the more likely more seats will be tagged with a PSL. Now I realize that this is all predicated on us being good enough to fill 13,000 but in the long run most of you will be whining about the cost and how you are being pushed way up to the top and what a bad idea the new arena was and so on and so on. You need to stop trying to make things "perfect" and understand that this is all about "money". SLU will get the money either by selling more tickets or raising prices - period!

I think they were wrong - do not give the other team time to set up a play and make a baseball pass with no time taken off the clock. Sorry, good coaching says the kids should have already been told what to do on defense if they made the shot to take the lead.

Did it occur to you to say something to the parent? Looking at a 6 year old with daggers is not going to do anything. Maybe what the cheerleaders need to do is stop throwing the balls to those in the bottom bowl if they keep throwing them on the floor - send up to top those people will keep them because they never get any up that high. The balls are great - keep doing it but people have to turn the offenders. - period!