courtside

>Stanford is a conference with schools like Washington State >and Oregon State. Duke with Clemson and North Carolina State >etc. Vanderbilt with the whole SEC. > >Because THEY PLAY EACH OTHER IN SPORTS...Get it? > >You are making my argument. All the schools I mentioned are good in sports and academics, not just one or the other. Get it?

You must really love the SLU board. Why don't you go up a few threads and read Bay Area Billliken's post on MVC? That might help you as well. I'll tell you what. Why don't you list me all of the reasons SLU should be in the MVC?(I will expect a long list, also please take into consideration the school's mission) That'd be great. The MVC isn't the best fit for them, and somehow that offends MVC schools and fans. Why I don't know, you would have to tell me. Somehow not best fit is negative or too good ... Now the story once again changes. Now it includes NIT. NNNIIITTT. You must be new to this board. This is all about the NCAA's here. And nowhere in this discussion has the term NNNIIITT been mentioned. People here might throw stones at you if you mention NIT, be careful. 6 teams, 3 teams....all the same right? Again, what is this discussion about? RPI, A10 better fit for SLU. And it even turned into athletics alone, and I allowed for that, when athletics is only part of the equation for SLU. But even in athletics alone, the MVC hasn't achieved much respect outside of the Valley. How is getting 3 teams into the dance with bad seeds something to compare to major conferences?

>Your post belongs on some kind of academic think tank board. > >The rivalries and geographic positives of the MVC are being >touted on on a SPORTS board. > >There's a reason why the University of Chicago isn't in the >Big Ten anymore. Rivalries are generated by competition besides geography. Surely you know that. Louisville and Cincy had many rivalries because of the coaches, because they were good all the time, etc...rivalries are also built. Pittsburgh ahs some heated rivals not close in geography in the Big East due to nastiness between fans and on the court etc..and so on... Michigan, Wisconsin, Northwestern, ...and so on...do pretty well in academics AND athletics, not just one or the other. If you would like to compare academic schools...Georgetown, Boston College, Duke, Stanford, Vanderbilt, and on and on and on....hmm....why aren't these schools playing in a D-3 league with U of Chicago???

Wow...this thread is electric...I will now try to re-set the offense a little bit and let everyone catch their breath. Lon Kruger did alright at Florida for a while. Certainly not BD level. Ok...back to the original topic if I may.... Depth. What is depth? To me it means a lot of things. First, I do believe some teams play with shorter bench and some don't in top 25. mixed. and it depends on the year and what they have. I do believe a kid getting 7-10 minutes a game can provide value to starters, can provide value to himself for experience in situations. Sometimes, you will notice a former starter turns into that 7 minute guy because that 7 minute guy did well. Depth. To me, it means being able to practive against high level competition every day in practice. Depth to me is seeing a red shirt high school All-American practicing every day with the team and providing value. Dpeth to me is a transfer who sits out and dogs his starting teammate every day in practice. Depth to me is an academically ineligible Freshman lighting it up in practice every day, again providing value to the team. Depth matters to many/most if not all teams. A SLU practice? I can't imagine Lisch, Lidell at practice. Obviously teams with great talented starters need less minutes for others. Depth isn't just looking in a box score and counting how many guys play. It is so much more than that. As is talent, as is coaching etc..

I'd say you should have said percentage. It is a big difference. TL is much improved in his shooting etc...and it is great...but he has only 68 attempts this season. I'd say he has been very efficient in his shooting. But to say he is 3rd in the country in 3 point shooting is not completely accurate. It is much tougher to shoot that percentage with many more attempts....I believe the current top 100 plus rankings for attempts, he is no where near it. Obviously people don't want him taking bad shts etc...but if he can shoot this high of a percentage...he should be getting more attempts, much more. Nonetheless it is a great improvement, and nice thing to say about percentage.

>This debate re the A-10, MVC will not end. We see it here >again, as well as at Bernie's Pressbox. > >Without any intention of insulting the MVC, Saint Louis >University, as an institution simply does not belong there, >all things considered. The A-10 is not the optimal choice >for SLU, but given the circumstances that transpired with >all the conference shifting, much of which was completely >beyond SLU's control, the A-10 was probably the best choice >for SLU, even with the geographical problems. > >As for the ratings of these schools, from an academics >standpoint, there is simply no comparison between the MVC >and A-10. Fordham is the 4th highest ranked Catholic >university, #70 overall in the US News and World Report >national ratings. Fordham's Business School is in the top >50. SLU is the 5th highest ranked Catholic university, #77 >overall in the same ratings. George Washington is #52 >overall. UMass is #98, and Dayton is #105. > >Not one Missouri Valley institution is rated among the top >124 national universities. Illinois State and SIUC are >listed as Tier 3; Indiana State and Wichita State are >listed as Tier 4. > >As for the argument that this is about basketball, the >balance of power between the A-10 and MVC is cyclical. One >does not have to look too far back to the time when the A-10 >was above the MVC in hoops. And what about admissions >standards? > >Conclusion: For the press and others to continually rip SLU >about joining and being a member of the A-10 is a bit >unfair, a low blow, a cheap shot, given the totality of the >circumstances. It is because we live in a society of instant gratification and bias. Nobody from the STL Post-Dispatch even follows college sports, outside of its beat writers, let alone college hoops very well at all. It is a pro sports town. And, regionally, the MVC is based in St. Louis, has its tourney there. Every year a few Post guys come out of the woodworks for the tourney and jump on the MVC bandwagon. They don't spend much time traveling for college hoops. The only people who post about this topic on BM press box are the same so many regional people, usually Cardinal baseball fans, etc...and that is why they find themelves on an STL paper's board. It isn't a low blow ett...it is just underinformed. It is lazy more than anything else.

I will greatly anticipate seeing those 6 teams from the MO Valley in the dance, and if so, good for them. Is that what you needed, a a 1.5 year pat on the back? ...because I know its tough being in the Valley, fighting for recognition each and every year. I am also certain you will come back when the MVC doesn't get that many teams in as well. Just like how you posted prior to this past year?

I will join in...the only problem I have with this is...people think RPI is a magic wand, the Holy Grail if you will. It is not. I gave examples in another thread. Obviously MO St proved that last year as did Seton Hall over Cincinnati and so on. Lunardi had 70 RPI UMass in this week. I just think too many people on here think it is a magic ticket. It isn't. There are many other just as important factors. RPI is a game. The mid-majors were one bid leagues and tried to play the RPI game. With the big boys, RPI comes crahing down in conference. Syracuse with that home cookin non-conference has an RPI in the 30's. I believe Roy mentioned Marquette's 80 RPI not very long ago, and it sits at 35. Florida, same thing. Then on the other hand, you can do an SIU. I am posting the link to SIU's schedule. Their RPI is 16. Take a look at their schedule, non-conference...don't see any special wins...I see two home games, that is it, I believe if I am correct. http://siusalukis.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl...skbl-sched.html

>First of all, I could care less about the seeds. Just get >into the tourney. Anything can happen then. > >Lunardi has 3 MVC teams in right now. He also has 2 of the >last 4 out. >I CAN LIVE WITH THAT. That's 1/2 our conference right there >for bids. > >He has the Big Ten with 4 teams in. And 1 team as the last >4 out. > >To me that is very similar and I can live with that. > >And courtside, the VALLEY did pretty darn well last season, >EVEN WITH THEIR POOR SEEDS. > >Even you can't deny that. Though I am sure you will try to. This thread has really gone off course. What you really misunderstand is that I am not a Kool-Aid drinker. Ask anyone here. I don't automatically think the A10 is a better place for SLU than the MVC because that is what SLU chose. Far from it. I do think it was a better choice for SLU...and inevitably this hurts the feelings of MVC fans. It isn't a position of sticking the nose up to the MVC. I have nothing against the MVC. It isn't the best fit for SLU for many reasons we have covered here all season. Apparently in head scratching fashion, that upsets MVC fans. They deem it necessary to post how great they are and how much they don't want SLU etc...if MVC fans didn't want SLU they wouldn't get so upset. They would just ignore. As for your post, you said, "I could care less"....I am going to assume you meant I couldn't care less...otherwise what you are saying is that the seedings bother you, and I want to be clear. More Joe Lunardi press here. Ok, I will play along again. Why is it okay to post thaat oh btw his last 4 out are...when you don't add he has an MVC team as part of his last four in...that isn't misleading and misrepresenting facts? Picking and chooing which things help your cause. It means it is also entirely possible he may pick TWO only. Uh oh. I didn't feel the need to mention it...And actually while we are at selective facts...4 teams out of 10 is not half of the MVC. I wasn't a math major but again you mislead with your presentation. And then you finish in big caps about how the MVC did last year in the NCAA. Of course previously you mentioned the MVC being now treated with the majors. Let me get it exact if I can here... "The MO Valley has been listed among the majors in college basketball." And when pointed contrary evidence, you reply with aw who cares? when I mention their seeds. It matters because for years the MVC wasn't winning those games and wanted better seeds and still didn't get them. This to me would say the MVC is not getting that respect it desires. And your Joe Lunardi example doesn't bring a lot of excitement either. You and other MVC posters ignore even recent history as if it doesn't exist and at same time try to predict the future. In reality there isn't much current distance between the two leagues. The A10 has a much brighter history, much brighter recent past as well. I am not a big A10 guy. SLU wasn't good enough for the Big East and missed out on that one. The A10 overall as a league is closer to where SLU fits as a school and its goals other than basketabll. I don't dislike the MVC, it is a nice conference with basketball. Mark Turgeon said it best when asked the difference between the MVC and the big boys...and he said "height." The MVC has a lot of 6'6 centers etc... I think the MVC has done a good job ahead of many other leagues at how to schedule smart to gain points in RPI. Unfortunately for the MVC the RPI is getting devalued vs some other components for the NCAA. SIU for example, zero high quality non-conference wins, they scheduled a ton of mid level road winnable road games and won a lot of them. Creighton is in same boat, their biggest win was vs Xavier. N. Iowa, etc...Mo State and Wichita St clearly are the two teams that stand out above the rest in non-conference. It's a nice league. But the league doesn't garner much respect outside of the Valley Region. It would need to get several league teams in for many many years and win many games for several years regardless of seed and maybe then it will get more respect, and perhaps it still wouldn't. Like it or not, all the A10 has to have is a couple of good teams and the coverage and respect would be far greater, that's just the way it is in the big city. The MVC will always be clamoring for respect and each year the MVC will be on pins and needles EARLY in the season for that one game they schedule non-conference against a bigger program, hoping they win that one shot at boosting themselves. Their non-league play is more important than their league play. I hope the MVC does well as a league and in the NCAA's. Never said I didn't like the MVC, nor did I say that I wished it didn't do well. I said the league has not proven to be better than the A10 as a league. Maybe that will change with annual results for many many years, and hey, great for the MVC if it does. I believe you said 1.5 years...so either you have a memory problem, or you are so young you can't remembermore than 1.5 years. I also said overall sports and non-sports the the A10 is a better fit for SLU. Finally you conclude needing that pat on the back, needing that acceptance and recognition,...or perhaps best put validation for the MVC as a league as whole. Just enjoy your league. If you came here and said what do you think of our league, it would have garnered a simple positive response. But instead you came here misrespresnting facts multiple times, said the league was way better than the A10...didn't seem to care that even you said it was for 1.5 years, and in reality not a lot of difference in those 1.5 years. And obviously less than A10 the rest of time and no one can predict the future. You said it was considered among the majors when in fact it garners little national respect and has to fight every single year tirelessly to gain any respect. It is treated nationally like the little engine that could each year. Thanks but no thanks for joining the league, but I will be cheering for you.

This year's draft is deep. He wouldn't get drafted at all this year. If you leave school early you should leave early to be a 1st rounder...big difference in 1st and 2nd round $$ and even bigger as not being drafted and trying to mkae a team. At least 2nd rounders are likely to make the season roster after summer ball and get high six figures $$...for a few years and try to sign bigger extensions and stay in the league. Nothing wrong ith being a 2nd rounder. But if you have a chance to improve yourself and improve your chance of getting drafted at all, as opposed to not....no reason you do not return to school. He also needs to show a lot in the games v Texas A&M, UNC etc...and so on. Improving his shot was the best thinghe could do...improving his ball handling and defense and rebounding are next. He imo doesn't have to play point at next level, but needs to also improve other areas of his game. The only way SLU loses Liddell is by transfering. I also disagree with the notion SLU is the perfect place for him. I disagree with what he brings to the table. He hasn't played or practiced against ONE point guard or even other player that can help get him more opportunites, help him learn the point, or a lot of other things. SLU obviously is lucky to have him...that would be a better statement and more accurate than SLU is best place for him.

> That was funny, but you ought to go back and reread my >posts. They predicted a tourney bid this year, as I believe >yours did also. > > I also thought we should wait a bit until we declared the >recruits a failure ... I still think it is silly to label a >recruiting class a failure before they have played 1 D1 >game. Especially when the people labeling them as a failure >have never seen them play. I will say that with UB's obvious >lack of confidence in them, I'm certainly questioning their >future contributions. > > I have said all along that missing out on the fall >recruiting period is not good. Does it make a good class >impossible, No ... but it certainly makes it much, much more >difficult. I don't think you will find a post where I say it >is good or even acceptable to consistently miss out on the >fall recruiting period. > I have never liked or said I liked Luke at the 4. I did say >that early in the year as the freshmen got acclimated I >could understand it, but I have always said I wanted a real >4. I expected that 1 of the 4 would be playing decent >minutes 15-20 by now. > > I hate the pack defense and always have. Again with Luke at >the 4, I understood it, but I absolutely expected 1 of the >4's at the beginning of the year to be playing good minutes >by now. > > I thought Bryce would be playing more by now, in fact UB >said numerous times that he expected Ian and Bryce to be on >the floor together occasionally this year. The fact that >Bryce can't find a minute on the floor puzzles me. I think >he has some deficiencies, but I think he brings some >positives also and him getting a few minutes makes it easier >for us to play Luke at the 3. > > I thought Danny would have been better for us this year. I >was standing right next to UB when he said Danny had been >one of the hardest working players all summer. He said Danny >knew what he needed to do and wanted more minutes and was >working extremely hard to earn them. Clearly I was wrong. >Danny is so inconsistent it is baffling and he is more >consistently bad then he is good. > > I thought Luke was better suited to come off the bench, >subbing in at the 3 and occasionally at the 4 if we were >playing a smaller team. I think I missed the boat on this >one. Luke should be our starting 3. > > I thought Ian would be playing better. I never thought he >was good enough to play in the NBA though. I will cut Ian a >little slack though because I think a very large part of his >problem is having absolutely no other inside presence. > > Dwayne has been about what I expected. I'd much rather see >him off the bench. > > Am I an optimist ... Yes. I would much prefer to see the >positive than the negatives. I also think I have been >objective, more so that those who always see the negative, >without ever recognizing any of the positives ... that >doesn't make you objective, which so many claim to be. It >only makes you overly negative. > > How many of the ABC'ers this year thought we would not make >the tourney and made that preseason prediction. I thought we >would and it seems pretty clear that without winning the >conf tourney we won't. Imo ... that is due more to poor >coaching than it is due to lack of players. Tommie, Kevin, >Luke, and Ian should all be playing 30-32 minutes a game. >The fact that Adam hasn't progressed enough or been given >the opportunity (which is my opinion) to play 15-20 minutes >at this point in the year is a huge problem. The fact that >Bryce can't see 5 minutes a game and JJ imo could play 15. >We just don't use the players we have properly (just my >opinion). Our biggest problem this year has been giving up >offensive rebounds, turnovers, and an inability to beat the >press consistently. I see these problems as coaching >problems. > >1.Offensive boards - due to being so undersized. AK and JJ >should be getting most the minutes at the 4. >2.Turnovers and the press - I can't beleive we have this >problem, we just seem to want to clear out and let the ball >handler get trapped. I'm confused as to why we can be having >this problem against some of the teams we have had it with. >Imo ... it should have been solved. >3. Giving up 3's ... Pack defense, if we had worked our >rotation at the 4 and 5 better we wouldn't have to live in >the pack. > > I will say I think I misjudged UB's coaching ability. I >certainly thought things would be different this year. > > Again, I think wanting to wait and see how the freshmen >turned out is much better than deciding they sucked before >they ever played a game. I never declared they would be >great ... just that we should wait and see. If that is >wrong, I'll always be wrong. > > I have always said that I thought this year would be good >and that we should see how this year turned out. I have >always said every coaching situation should be evaluated >after every year. I did think UB was the man for the job. I >would say I was probably 75% thinking he was. I would say >that based upon the coaching I have seen this year ... my >opinion would be that I am 80% sure he is not. I still think >we need to play this year out and then evaluate. If a >coaching change needs to be made ... than make it. > > I have always argued the gross exagerations that some feel >compelled to make, thinking it validates their point. It >doesn't. If imo ... a stupid exageration is made ... I will >continue to argue it. > > I also realize mine is just an opinion. > > > > > > Official Billikens.com sponsor of H >Waldman > >Official Sponser of the Stemmler and Ahearn could and would >have helped club. Skip...your number two would be helped greatly with a true point guard. Not only does it help with pressure, it also makes some teams not want to pressure your team. I have read some of your other posts that SLU can get by with what it has...I didn't agree and don't agree. Obviously the need is great for insisde help, but everyone devalues the need for a high quality point guard, even if it is a shoot first one. I'd like to see two an one can be shoot first point if you like...but the value is no less great than the inside players. Proof is in the inability to handle pressure game after game after game..and also other areas...winning teams always have a point guard that can creat for themselves, others and can shoot it, while handling pressure.

>I think 'courtside' may have a small case of denial. It's >nothing personal. I am a Mo Valley guy. My team is >Illinois State. We (the Redbirds) stink. > >But I know quite a bit about all things college basketball. > >It maybe just a blip on the radar for a few years, but for >the last 1.5 years the Mo Valley has been listed among the >MAJORS in college basketball. > >Will it continue? Who knows. Coaches are in place as are >facilites. > >I have nothing against the A-10. It is no where near as >strong as the MVC. I think any knowledgeable basketball fan >would say as much. > >And Lunardi's picks are usually right on. He doesn't give >in because it's a BCS team vs. a mid-major. He goes with >whom he thinks is most deserving. (according to how the >committee would look at it.) Let me see if I understand you...more people in the Joe Lunardi fan club..."And Lunardi's picks are usually right on." That is what you said...gotcha. Then why is it that in the best year or years in the history of MVC ball...Joe only picks 3 MVC teams to dance this year? Since you "know quite a bit about all things college basketball,"...and like to only deal with the past 1.5 years, and said...let me check here to get the quote correct..."the MO VALLEY has been listed among the majors in college basketball,"...why is it that only one MVC team was seeded better than 10 in last year." and that one was 7. You mean to tell me the MVC is among college basketball's majors and not one team in the conference received a seed better than 7..? I am not the one in denial.

I am in the camp of those saying your voice is heard with big time cash annually...I do not believe in the a little is better than nothing. Money talks. How about that Final Four section for UNC fans...in order to sit in their section, you had to donate a minimum of $10k just to get a seat. Yes I know not apples to apples...true story, but just ahving some fun. Also, it is the responsibility of the coach, AD and Admin to provide entertainment value to 20-30 something fans to come in the first place. I go to SLU games, not many of those demographics there. If you believe in any effort or cause and take action even the smallest, and it makes you feel better, then props to you. I think people are actually voicing their displeasure and more so just plain indifference by not going. And there are many of those. Gotta give people a reason to go in the first place. I don't want this to come out wrong or offensive...but some day...that old guard will not be around and perhaps those 8000 will seem like a lot some day if changes aren't made. Can you imagine having not packed houses at the smaller new Arena at a school without hoops?

Love college hockey...the Frozen Four is tremendous...people in St. Louis are in a for a real treat this year.

With all of that said...you ended with i think they will get 4. If this is the best ever for the MVC...that means the league will never get more than 4. Ever. I don't care if they have number 1 conference RPI. I think the MVC would get 3-4 this year. I do believe there will be some disppointed MVC fans come selection Sunday for a few of their teams. I am stating that two season is a blip on the radar. And in those two seasons...the seperation isn't a lot. It really isn't. We'll see how many teams each gets. So, would you rather see SLU in the A10 or MVC?

>If you read my full post before spitting out this venom you >would have noticed the point of my post was to say that I >can see why some people are up in arms about us joining the >A-10 over the MVC, but that may be a little unreasonable of >an opinion since you are taking the MVC at its highest point >and the A-10 at one of its lowest. I think if you watched a >lot of college basketball you would realize that the Valley >is definitely making itself known and the A-10 is not even >on the map at this point. I think you could see the voters >and perceptions changing as Wichita State climbed the >rankings earlier in the season and as Valley team after team >beat big conference opponents. It does not look like any of >the Valley teams have truly taken care of business though >and I don't see any one team from that conference getting a >real nice seed. However, the MVC is far ahead of the A-10 >at this point and that cannot be debated. I think looking >at the past and in the long-run the top half of the A-10 is >better than the top half of the Valley. I merely calmly, rationally, matter of factly, pointed out about RPI and MVC vs A10. I don't think it is fair to say the MVC is far ahead of the A10...first, based on what 2 seasons...how would it be fair to say that based on two seasons? 2nd, far ahead means many more NCAA bids...again, that is why they play. Last year was 4 to 2, in the MVC's best season ever. Let's see how many bids each conference gets this year, and just how far ahead the Valey is for two whopping years. See...I would say the Big East is far ahead...but not the Valley. And I disagree with the notion that there is this lovefest nationally with the Valley. Maybe in its region. If season ended today, Wichita St would be watching on tv despite their early season sucess. If they weren't in the Valley, they would get more respect. If the Valley gets all of this respect...no reason SIU shouldn't get a great seed, no reason. So...to recap...what I am saying is, 1) RPI is not the biggest reason for people getting in to NCAA's...people love the buzz of term RPI, and I am not saying it has zero importance...but people seem to calculate RPI...and discuss nothing else. That would be foolish. 2) You cannot predict the future nor change the past. Five times out of last 7 years MVC not have more teams in NCAA's. This is a trend in my book...short term trend one could argue. ...no different than your 1-2 year trend. With this trend I would also add the A10 get more respect than the MVC. Even when it stinks. How can you sit here and say...well x years from now the MVC will be better...looks that way... If the MVC were way ahead, there would be more seperation in NCAA invites. A 20 something RPI Valley team would dance. If SIU continues its great RPI and perhaps wins its league...they will get a monster seed. I do not think the MVC has long term respect as being a better conference than A10. It will take many many years of MVC getting several teams in NCAA's...and many many years of A10 struggling...not a couple. If therefore there isn't a lot of current seperation between A10 and MVC in terms of NCAA invites(those are the facts), and recent past would indicate even more in A10 favor, not to mention distant past/tradition...something not even mentioned yet...all things considered I just don't see the advantages of MVC over the A10...What am I missing? ..considering all the other reasons SLU joined the A10 which don't involve athletics. If you really look closely at it....I think it is very intersting.

>I think one is obviously going to look at trends in a >situation where comparing conferences. The MVC took care of >business last year with 4 teams getting into the tournament >and Bradley making a magical run and have certainly taken >care of business this season and could match the number of >teams that got in last year. They appear to be able to >compete very favorably with teams from the power conferences >and that is evident from top to bottom in their league and >thru recent tournament success. The A-10 on the other hand >is trending down, coming off a season where two teams made >the tournament (would have been one had Xavier not won the >conference tournament) and looks like a one bid conference >this year. The A-10 has not shown the ability to truly >compete with and beat teams from power conferences from top >to bottom. I like the top half of the conference with teams >like Xavier, Dayton, St. Joseph's, Charlotte, UMass, and >George Washington, but the bottom feeders are going to kill >us year in and year out. I mean it is easy to look at the >A-10 at one of its lower points and the MVC at an all time >high and say SLU made a mistake, but is that truly >reasonable. I personally would love it if we could get the >A-10 to a 10 team league and I think that would be a >competitive league. It's a tough crowd based on two seasons. WOW. And...right now..SEVEN MVC teams have an RPI of 62 or better. Just how many teams do you think the MVC will get this year? Surely if they have this great RPI...then they will certainly surpass last year's record four right??? If this is the best times for the MVC...they should get at least 5 right? We'll see what happens. It's all about RPI right? At the end of the day this is about making the NCAA's...that is why people watch games, play games, go on message boards. So the A10 teams that got in in the past 5 years couldn't compete with big conferences? I am lost. Where was the 1 seeded MVC team, like St. Joe's a few years ago. Surely with that monster RPI this year...SIU should get that 1-3 seed right? If this is the best times for the MVC...then I should expect great seeds, more teams than ever getting in...etc.. and this is two years of basketball. It is as if all of the poster's in this thread can predict the long term future and have forgotten the short term past. I forgot only last year counts. Oh...and I forgot...can't really count two teams getting in for A10 under your rules. I thought it was pretty clear when you enter a season..you have two ways to get into NCAA's...your conference tourney, and how you do in regular season. Amazing also how these teams who win their conference tourney's often times get better seeds than the teams who win the regular season of their conference. But that doesn't count in your rules. Only a few short years ago the MVC was ONLY getting their conference tourney winner. Should we just cancel all conference tournaments? You may not like conference tournaments but it is part of the deal, and every team knows going in and has equal chance.

>>Curious as to who the two teams from the A-10 would be? >>Minus the automatic bid from the conference tournament who >>in our conference gets into the NCAA tournament? >Good question. Joe Lunardi's Bracketology Scroll put out >today disses the A-10 quite often. Ahhh good ole Joe Lunardi...ok I will play along with your Joe Lunardi game. Is this the same Joe Lunardi who currently has 70 RPI UMASS...same team with exactly ONE quality non-conference win..in his current bracketology in the NCAA's??? He updated his this morning. Hmm where is Xavier, Dayton...and those 40 something RPI teams??? Hmmm...could the RPI not mean very much to him...and others. Believe me I am no big fan of Joe Lunardi and he is your example not mine. Just so we agree you mentioned him. The same Joe Lunardi who had Xavier in last week until they lost at SLU???...so if Xavier just wins a road game or two and piles up some confernence wins...I am imagine it would be safe to say Joe would have them back. And this doesn't even discuss Dayton or SLU. So, for the record, I am not saying RPI is not important. But I am saying it is not this be all end all, and certainly not the most important factor in getting into NCAA's. I said in my other post "decent chance" A10 gets 2. Conference tourney winner...and posibly reg season winner if it isn't same team...and gasp...it might actually not be reg season winner and might be somebody else...then people can really complain. Overall the beginning of this was about RPI...and MVC vs A10. Maybe because the MVC is based in STL?? Maybe because last year they had a record number of teams, which is still 4? Maybe because of the national dust up with Packer and Nantz? etc... I am not denying that the MVC is a good league. ...and you used Lunardi as your example as a reputable person. Lunardi even had St. Joe's in his brackets recently. wow. You mean those East Coast big city schools, and other bigger named hoops schools like Xavier are getting more buzz than the MVC teams...even after all of the local MVC attention....shocking.

>A big issue with the MVC and A-10 is that, as stated a >thread on here before, a lot of coaches view it as a >stepping stone to the big paying jobs. The MVC is working >to change that, such as Mark Turgeon getting $750,000 a >year, as well as Dana Altman. I don't know about the A-10's >efforts in that regard. And I was basing it on last year >and this year, so far, with the record against BCS teams by >the MVC being pretty good. Let's call it a mix in both leagues...Temple, Charlotte, St. Joe's don't job hop etc...let's for sake of argument say both leagues have job hoppers to advance themselves...and some who stay...not sure I think even that is equal but I will leave it for now... Next...you were basing your entire premise of MVC being better than A10 on two years, one being current year...WOW...seriously...are you kidding? And last...isn't the goal everyone has on the board for SLU to get into NCAA's...isn't that what people want to see? In the best year in the history of the MVC...NCAA said MO St and your 20 something RPI...thanks but no thanks...and it is very posible that number of 4 teams won't be as many this year. Wouldn't this at the very least devalue the whole RPI talk as the only or biggest deciding factor anymore? But I will answer that in the other post.

>Amusingly enough, that top coach leaving for the bigger >school managed to lose to 3 MVC teams, one of them being the >last place team. > >As it were, the MVC of last year and this year is quite a >bit better than the MVC of yesteryear, just as the A-10 of >yesteryear was apparently a bit more well thought of than >the current. I think we have a disconnect. You are going to base all of your opinions on one season. Perhaps not so wise. If the season ended today the big bad MVC(no knock to them) would get 3 teams in the NCAA's. There is a decent chance the A10 would get 2. The MVC has gotten 4 teams once in this time. As for the coaches, the point was they leave...and that means lots of turnover and increased risk to win.

I question Frank's overall knowledge of a lot of thigs college ball, yet he still states his opinions, which is of course what he does, radio and tv. He is in a position of local radio tv guy...some out there automatically believe what they hear. My point was more related to his specific college hoops knowledge...than his opinion of the recruiting of the local team. Many times I have heard him throw out opinions comments etc..on other coaches, teams, not in the area...and he came across very misinformed. I understand your point and your interest in his comments on SLU recruiting based on his past positive encouraging SLU remarks.

Brian, check those one more time thx.

Frank is a nice cheerleader for SLU and also high school sports. That's what he is. I take what he says overall with a grain of salt.

>All it takes is scheduling good away games. That doesn't >seem to be much of a problem since the "big boys" are too >arrogant to leave their home court. Just schedule them and >beat them. When you play Mizzou's non-con opponents and >stay home, you're going to have a bad RPI. Common sense. Mizzou just needs to win a few conference games...had they held on to their late lead at KU even that would have changed their 80ish RPI dramatically. They are 0-4 in conference with 3 of those close losses. They played 4 top 100 RPI teams in non-conference, and their strength of schedule is 40. All they needed to do was win a game or two in conference, or start winning a few. Their schedule is not hindering them, not winning close games has...win a couple of those games, and they would actually be in pretty good shape. Syracuse has a 39 RPI with exactly one road game before January and that was at Canisius. Big boys often gain a lot of RPI ground in conference.

I think everyone would agree that the goal is making the NCAA tourney. A lot of people have run wild with the term RPI. It has become a big buzz word. It isn't the only determining factor in making the NCAA's...Mo St had a great one last year, no invite. Cincinnati had a better one than their conference bretheren Seton Hall and they din't get an invite yet SH did. ...RPI is just but one factor that gets you in the NCAA's. And the MVC which has been covered so much here...since you wanted "short term" facts... Only twice since the year 2000 has the MVC had more teams than what makes up the current group of A-10 teams in the NCAA. The MVC has received 3 teams once, 4 teams once...and the rest with 2 at most.(so that is 2 years out of 7) One of its top coaches left for the bigger school in state, just as Weber did in his state too. Turgeon loves KU and isn't going to get that job anytime soon, ...Nebraska is a football school or I wonder if Altman would have left a long time ago? How long do you really think Lowery will be at SIU? This is a long term decision based on many things.