courtside

That list is a pathetic joke if you actually go through it and shouldn't be taken seriously as to player value or rankings. With that said, any publicity is great and any positive publicity is even better.

SLU needs to do whatever possible to make NCAA's. Now all of a sudden NIT seems acceptable to some. When did that start?

Xavier is the team to root for in that case. If Xavier can win the league or very close to it, they will likely get a bid. The hope then is that Xavier doesn't also win conference tourney...or 1 bid city is a definite possibility. I still think it is a two bid league.

>Have you seen DeSoto play? Despite their small school >stature Desoto and berkely could be the two of the top 5 >teams in the state. > >Desmet is a not a good team. They are bigger than a team >like Desoto so they can manhandle them. A team with size >like McCluer North destroys them. DeSmet also cannot score >more than 50 points in a game. > >I'll agree with you that there isn't a completely dominant >team this year like we have had in the past with Vashon but >my favorite is still North by far, their top three are more >talented than any other team in the area. North's only >losses were at Gateway when one of the top 3 was sick, and >at Haz East, which is a sub north fluke. They man handled >Tech a few weeks ago as well. North has beaten Chaminade >twice, Troy, CBC, Tech and Beamuont. Once North makes it >out of sub north districts they are easily the favorite to >win. Read your own posts some time past and present. You change your story quite a bit here. So let's go with the current one. You like McCluer North...and H Central...ok...but let's go post for post. McCluer North. You list as evidence to support your argument that McCluer North has beaten the following: Chaminade Troy CBC Gateway Tech Beaumont. You said DeSmet isn't very good. I agreed with you. They are decent but it isn't one of DeSmet's strong teams. My point all along was and is, that there is a lot of parity, DeSmet included. But it isn't high end parity. DeSmet as you know has also beaten the following teams: Chaminade Troy CBC Gateway Tech Beaumont. Let's compare those lists and see if we have any overlapping teams. DeSmet has beaten all of the same teams, but to you are not good. You also proceed to tell me that DeSoto is one of best 5 teams in State in your opinion. DeSmet defeated DeSoto last night by 11. ....but somehow in your logic that doesn't count because DeSmet is taller. So in your logic, if a team is tall they are automatically better than anyone else they play? But they aren't good. Just taller. So if DeSoto etc...are among the best in state, and DeSmet can beat them...DeSmet isn't good too? They are just taller? And when smaller teams win...Troy, etc...they are good. So if a smaller team won state, they are good. And if a big team won state, they are merely bigger/taller and not good? DeSmet is also not good because they don't score a lot of points. They play a pretty tough schedule, and in each game, the opposing team can blow them out of the gym if they were so much better, and they haven't been blown out once this year, not once against some good teams, many of whom you have mentioned. The last time you came here you touted Chaminade both times after they played DeSmet. You talked about their speed, athleticism, etc..and how much better they were than a team they defeated by two points. They played again, result, 2 points, and they played a 3rd time and DeSmet won by 2 points. I would say that if a school plays the same school 3 times...and results are all by two points...that is pretty even to me. CBC has had good hoops teams over the years, and this isn't one of them, Beaumont likewise is not competitve either..(since both teams beat them, it doesn't matter anyway) And, you also decide to post that a team missed a key player or players in games that would help your cause or argument. Hmm...when you posted previously two different times regarding Chaminade and DeSmet...you neglected to mention the starters missing for DeSmet in both of those games, ...when Chaminade loses the 3rd won, by same 2 point margin, you are nowhere to be found and for 3rd time DeSmet missed players....but posting missing players only works when you post it? Now, you can post all you like how you don't like DeSmet in general, or don't like their style of play this year(I hate it myself). But results head to head and vs common opponents etc...are just that results. This DeSmet team lacks the players it has been known for, for 35 plus years. Lacks high quality guards, poor FT shooting, uncharacteristic of a DeSmet team, etc...and you say they are not a good team. Well, I don't think they are a good team either. But they are darn sure as good as all of the schools you mentioned, because the results say so. ....So what does that tell you ? Same thing I said a long time ago....parity party...and it is not at a high level. It is at a middling level. About 10-15 teams could beat another on a given day. No question about it, ...of course some of them better than others but that is a true statement. If you don't think Troy or whomever can lace em up with Hazelwood Central or McCluer North this year, you couldn't be more mistaken, and Troy is much smaller than either of those two teams. The point then was the same as now. I don't care if Troy, Webster, Vashon, DeSmet, Hazelwood Central, McCluer North,....goes to state etc...and whichever does, or if none do, I can guarantee you, I will be saying the same thing then....if Troy makes final four...I will be saying...decent club, can beat or be beaten by those same list of teams...etc... As for brackets...Vashon or Gateway will likely make Final Four, unless Chaminade upsets one of them in sectionals.(same Chaminade you highly touted as posssibly doing that, and they could, ..but it is biased and incomplete to say DeSmet or Webster or Troy wouldn't be able to do the same). Hazelwood Central or McCluer North will likely play either DeSmet or Webster to go to State in quarters. Troy is in Springfield/Columbia portion to try to get to State and one will be KC school.

>I have no great affection for Chaminade. They have a played >a very quality schedule and by sheer coincidence happened to >be playing other teams that I wanted to see. I've been >working mainly nights the last few weeks so I haven't been >able to get to many games lately. Almost made the trek out >to Union to watch Wash-Borgia but got called in to work >instead. > >Webster is playing at Haz Central on Wed. I will be at that >game. The statesmen are way overrated in my opinion. They >can't hang with either Central or Mc North. The Sub North >is slept on by most. North and Central are better than >anything the west, south or MCC can turn out. You are aware Hazelwood Central lost by 15 to DeSoto this week at Parkway West Tourney, who then went on to lose to DeSmet for title. Hazelwood Central and McCuer North are nice, good teams. I couldn't disagree more with the assertion Webster couldn't hang with either. I think 10-15 teams can hang with either MN or HC, and Webster would be one of the better ones. Hazelwood Central. What have they done vs the tougher opponents? They lost to Troy, split with St. Charles West, and lost to DeSoto...came back with win over Chaminade in 3rd place game. That doesn't shout head and shoulders above the rest to me. McCluer North, again, ...beat Chaminade twice, split with Gateway Tech, ...both HC and MN have beaten some bad teams too. Record vs the decent ones...nothing head and shoulders above the rest. Those schools might have some athleticism others don't have, and some individual players...but not much stronger teams, and not playing a tough schedule could cost them in post-season. You balked at DeSmet, who beat Chaminade, Gateway Tech, DeSoto...and so on...and while I agree they aren't that great...but that was the example you posted a few times...and my posts in response were that 10-15 area schools could all beat each other without a lot of problem....and they have all season. As for post-season...Vashon gets Gateway Tech in districts, then needs a sectional win over Chaminade to go to Final Four...DeSmet v Webster winner will get McCluer North or Hazelwood Central(who play in districts)...to go to Final Four. Troy has a chance if they can beat the Springfields and Columbia"s...Kickapoo is good, but Troy has a solid shot. Last spot is KC. Any of the teams I mentioned could beat another one on a given night. And that was always the point in the first place...not any great teams...some good solid teams, lots of parity in above average range.

It's certainly an interesting thread. Each individual out there has to decide what is important to them. To some, being close to home is important, others want a new life experience, and so on. Academics and athletics can co-exist, Texas is a very good school. But how many fringe talents can play at a big time athletic school that also has strong academic options? Some kids also consider urban vs suburban or rural, big city vs small. etc...some kids don't want to give up playing sports, and play D-2 or D-3 or even small D-1 ball because they want to do both. Other kids say, well I know I want to go to a bigger school with bigger atlehtics etc...and if I amnot good enough to play, I still want to go there and hang up the sneakers, maybe go intramurals. Of course kids can go to top academic institutions and then get out and not do as well in their career than others. But it still doesn't take away the fact that elite academic schools open more doors more often than those other schools. Big time college athletes also get many doors open to them for different reasons. Strong alumni networks nationally also open a lot of doors. Nobody would sit here and say Wash U doesn't have more academic strength than SLU. Some kids might want a different life experience. Maybe some kids don't want to go to a D-1 basketball only school because it is too small for them and they want more going on...etc.... A Wash U degree doesn't guarantee you better success than a SLU degree. But it has more potential and opportunity in a wider arena than a SLU degree. That doesn't mean that potential is always reached or better served to everyone. If someone received a law degree from Wash U and another from SLU...might not matter a whole lot if you live in that area. It would matter a great deal if you lived elsewhere. If somebody did the same thing in Boston...one could go to Suffolk law school and have great success and opportunity...and another to Harvard. ....move those two people to St. Louis, and it makes a difference. It is the intial door it opens, then it is up to your ability. Some very bright kids take an academic scholarship to a more local or smaller or regional school....and obviously have great potential...another kid might say, it is important to me to also get that reputation, contacts, experience in that environment.

What is up with your Chaminade basketball posts? Haven't seen them lately as before? Losing 3 out of 4 to Vianney, DeSmet and Hazelwood Central will do that. As I said before, parity party in high school hoops this year, 10-15 teams all very similar in ability. The V has the easiest road to the Final Four.(will get yuor Chaminade team in sectionals) Webster,(probably the best STL side area team) DeSmet, McCluer North, H.Central etc...all have to cross paths for the other spot. KC gts a team, and the other is a Springfield/Columbia/rural STL team.

Obviously Cameron is a college basketball institution like Allen Field House etc....and as long as the ACC keeps its wealthy tv deals...(approaching $40 million annually, tops in country), winning basketball...not to mention money Duke gets from BCS football bowl games...being an ACC football member...they dont need any bigger sized Arena. The atmosphere will definitely improve for SLU...as should student attendance playing on campus. It would be nice to get a couple of thousand students a game in new Arena. Arena is small enough that drawing fans won't be a problem. Now SLU just needs to win at higher level, and there should be plenty of atmosphere.

>Tonka said -So, is it really that tough to recruit one >player that is just a step below where these two are at and >then two other Luke Meyer type players who play their proper >position. If you had that, I think we would be a team to >contend with. What am I missing here? > >-the fact that if you get 1 player you are basically >replacing IV, not adding any depth to a roster with little >depth >-we need more, much more, than 1 player >-and yes, it has been that tough for UB to recruit one or >any number of players >-but let's hope his(UB's) words turn into players on the >roster that can add to the team I'd agree with this and to the original queston...yes, recruiting is very very tough, one of the toughest things to do in coaching imo.

Well in cliche fashion, one game at a time....SLU hasn't shown the ability to be a strong road team, save two early season games. 4 of 5 on road doesn't look great for 4-1. There are two ways to get into the NCAA tournament. Nobody ever takes the 2nd way seriously...brushes it aside as lucky, but the conference tournament is something to play for.

>He use to be great, but I really don't think he prepares >himself for the games like he should. I thinks this leads >him to overusing all of his lines and I think it comes >across as lazy. I don't think he is lazy. I just think it >is a result of everything else he has going on leaves him >not enough time for game prep. Actually that isn't true. He spends a lot of time holed up in his hotel room studying. You'd be surprised. He just doesn't always use all of it and gets all off topic etc..

>I do not want to be the only D-1 school offering a kid a >scholarship to play basektball. If he wants to walk-on, that >is great. > >That being said I am with Roy and commend him for realizing >academics are going to take him farther after college than >basketball And I'll disgree with you. Key words being "in St. Louis," in your post. Who said anything about just St. Louis? A Wash U degree will open more doors than a SLU degree...and obviously the same with advanced degrees from either school. If SLU is looking for a bright roster, Brandenburg hit 30 on the ACT too. Too bad Eckerle isn't 6'11

Good eats at the Cracked Egg btw. Exactly, ...Vitale is very positive person, enthusiastic etc...he shouldn't be doing tv analysis, but should be a PR ambassador for the sport. I'd hire him for that in a second, but not tv analysis.

Everybody has a wide range of opininions...and saw a huge long thread on rating female sideline reporters on another board last week, very entertaining the debates and pix. Dick Vitale first of all was very quiet and reserved for years doing college hoops games. Go back and watch his early ESPN years. You wouldn't recognize him. He made a lot of money years later on his schtick. He is a great ambassador for the game and should be doing be PR, not games. Obviously the art of television is that less is more, unlike radio, where you need to let pictures do the talking sometimes. And he hasn't broken anything down in years...he can...he just doesn't do it. However he will always be more likeable to many than Billy Packer in their long feud. Packer is just a miserable guy and carries it over to his on and off court demeanor. He over-critiques plays. If he pulled back a bit, he'd be fine. Obviously he has been doing color for ACC many many years and he played at Wake Forest. Vitale at least is a positive guy, for all of his annoying antics, and will always therefore be more liked by the masses and casual observers who don't sleep college hoops. As for current people, Bilas, Raftery,(what a nice guy off of the court, never met anyone who didn't like Raft)...are very good on color side and very likeable. Majerus is vastly improving his television skills, his effort and knowledge are top notch. I always seperate play by play people from analysts, two very different jobs. McDonough, Lundquist, very good. Shulman is slipping this year, usually like him...but being paired with DV can do that to you. Like his baseball work though, he, Jon, Miller, and Scully my favorite tv baseball pbp people.

That's basically what I was saying....SLU needs more players, better players, and better athletes. and when they get them, they can play in transition and defend...it isn't one or the other. I agree completely with what you are saying...SLU can get out a little more this year but not much. I'd agree with that. So Brad is scratching his head saying maybe you can't play in transition and play good defense at same time, and that notion is preposterous...coach...just recruit more athletic kids, a little better role players and deeper bench, and you can do that just fine. He talks about what can and can't be sucessful all the time based on what he has..when what he has isn't athletic enough, deep enough etc..and so on...what everbody knows....you can't just throw anybody out there and coach em up hard on defense, and expect to win or win consistently, or have any margin for error. So you are saying SLU isn't good enough or athletic enough to play more in transition, and I agree, get more and better players is the answer. The answer is not ..well we aren't effective in transition and defense now...so let's not play in transition. Well sure for now...but we have been saying that for 5 years. At some point you have to bring in the kids who can do both. I think we'd all agree with that.

>I believe that Cincy, Louisville, and USF all joined the Big >East for the football probably even more than the >basketball. Remember this year the Cardinals played in a >lucrative BCS bowl game. Of course that is not true of >Marquette and DePaul but they would also share in the bowl >game money just as any other BE conference team would. The >BE played some darn good and competitive football this year >so one cannot discount it. Actually Schasz no, the basketball only schools in Big East do not get any football money. The 8 football schools get it all, and unlike other football conferences, instead of equal shares, they give the money in tiers based on your league performance that year....so if you finish a little higher, you get a little more. The other BCS conferences split equally. West Virginia pounded Georgia last year as well in BCS game in Georgia. South Florida is on the rise on football as well. People balked at Big East being successful with 16 team conference for hoops. Well...first 8 teams made the NCAA's...nobody thought that would ever happen. Blew it open immediately and set new precedent for league bids. Advavantage Big East. Half of those schools getting bids were hoops only schools, suggesting, their value to diversify the league to non-football schools. Advantage Big East. The Big East signed a $30 million dollar annual deal with ESPN for football and basketball in which nearly all of its basketball games are televised on an ESPN affiliate(the rest are on CBS). Only the ACC can say the same in dollar value and huge exposure. Advantage Big East. Here is where the success of the Big East helps A10, MVC, and other non-football leagues...it shows that a basketball league can be very successful with a lot of non-football schools...get that huge ESPN/CBS money...and exposure...etc...because no hoops only league out there has that. People should hope for the success of the Big East and not its downfall because it elevates the status of basketball only schools. It shows that a high powered conference doesn't have to rely on its football revenues. It helps everyone in the league, and also helps basketball only schools. There will always be a bottom to any league, and pressure on coaches with decent teams at the bottom, but Big East is looking pretty good for now. It will go to an 18 game conference schedule next year up from 16 so everyone can play everyone else at least once.

Could be,'' he said. "My mentor, Dick Bennett, was known as a great defensive coach and he used to say all the time that the harder you go in transition, the weaker your defense gets. He might be right. He probably is right. I have no data to refute him. But what I'm wondering is why you can't be good on defense and on offense. I thought maybe there would have been a little slippage in our defense, but I didn't think it would be to this extent." Interesting to me....Dick Bennett didn't coach the athletic kids who can get out in transistion and also play full and half court defense well, creating turnovers with athleticism, and turning it into transition pts. ...while also playing half court offense. Also, teams who can get easy baskets in transition allow themselves more margin for error for victory. I don't care how good you are, half court defense is not going to be lights out every night. It is easier to score in transition than half court. Getting at least some of those points in a game is necessary to win at a high level. Puts much less pressure half court offense. etc...The very good teams do both. Why can't SLU do both? Because they have kids playing out of position, weaker role players and no bench. Hey coach, you can do it, if you get some players. I see other teams across the country doing it. You don't have to walk it up. Walking it up doesn't equal better probability for better defense.

>Yeah, maybe I should get out more. As a season ticket >holder I would always make a couple of away games every year >like DePaul, Louisville, Memphis, etc. But, they are no >longer in our conference. However, I am not going to act >like a freaking snob and think I'm too good for the MVC. By >the way, who in the hell is our rival? Of course you're >going to say we don't need one. Ah well. > >Maybe in the A10 we can be more competitive than we would be >in any other conference. > >Let's beat them Fordham Rams next time, ok boys? It takes time to build rivals oh impatient one. Do you really think any of your above exampled teams considered SLU a rival when they joined the same conference? Rivalries are built with competitive play. How many times does one need to say it to you. Since you are the well traveled SLU fan, you should know a thing or two about the new conference opponents or at least be willing to learn. Do you think Pittsburgh, Syracuse, UConn, Georgetown etc...considered Marquette a rival when they joined the Big East??? Do you think they do now? or at the very least are starting to? You bet your butt. Why? Competitive play. And, SLU even has Xavier, Dayton and some familar opponents you seem to like. There are some wonderful road trips for you Eddie. Maybe you don't like Fordham...probably not enough for you to do in NYC. It isn't being a snob. Why don't you go back a few pages and read recent threads before posting? I am sure you are too busy. Nobody thinks SLU is too good for the MVC. Just because SLU doesn't want to join that league, the uninformed think SLU is too good for that league. It is a good league. It also isn't a good fit for SLU. How is that being too good for the league? It's not. The reason why Louisville, Memphis etc...had rivals is because they were good teams. Do you really see the following schools as more of a potential rival than the ones you just mentioned. I sure don't. Evansville Drake Illinois St MO St SIU Indiana St N, Iowa Creighton Wichita St. Bradley Those schools aren't going to draw the casual fan to a game at SLU. It never has before. The majority of people aren't especially more interested in seeing these schools. Why, because many have been scheduled and haven't drawn the fans. I do know SLU has drawn a lot more fans vs some of those other teams. The people spoke by not coming to those MVC games. And we walked through all of the other reasons.

Parachute Pants? Shimmy, we need to talk.

>the reason the big east will ultimately break is that the >big payoff, the ncaa tourney is less accessable to more of >those teams. > >for example, louisville and cincy were given's in cusa days. > now they have to fight like hell to make the tourney. both >will likely miss this year. > >depaul and marquette had a chance to make it every year in >conference usa. depaul has become a conference also ran in >the big east. > >no matter how you slice it, but adding those teams, the old >teams also lessened their future appearances. surely they >never thought that they would gain five more ncaa spots and >get 8-10 a year instead of 3-5? > >right now if the tourney was selected today with no upsets >to speak of, pitt, marquette, georgetown and villanova are >givens. and maybe syracuse and notre dame are bubble teams. > >that leaves out uconn, louisville, cincy, depaul, st johns, >providence, and west virginia all looking like nit teams! i >can guarantee you that a few years of that and schools will >be rethinking the 16 team league regardless of how much espn >is paying them because they will be missing out on the >ultimate ncaa payoff. Every school that has had 9-7 conference record has been invited to NCAA's from Big East conference. I would argue that the Big East will build off of last year and continue to put more teams in NCAA's and not less or same in most year's. Syracuse and Notre Dame are locks if season ended today.(that is 6 right there and possibly more in a down year for conference) But really going 9-7 gets you in...and also some 8-8 teams in some years like last year, Seton Hall etc... UConn is incredibly young, so that isn't going to last for long. JB can coach at WV and lost a ton of seniors. I would also add the hiring of Bobby Gonzalez at Seton Hall....they will be very good in a couple of years...and Norm Roberts at St. John's...will only help the league. I see the league in some upcoming years getting even more teams than they did last year. Not this year, but definitely in upcoming years, ...UConn, Louisville,(still a possible NCAA team this year btw) Seton Hall, St. John's, all will be very good...and if you look at the classes and teams coming up for the other ones....I think the NCAA will only be giving more invites to Big East instead of less... 9-7 record has 100% invitation rate for Big East. Last year 8 teams made it and last one out would have been 9. In future strong years of Big East...I see them getting that 9th team wihtout much question and 8-8 might be the new 9-7 etc...

>Yep, you're right.... it's not the allmighty A10. This is the problem I have with MVC people. Apparently you are too lazy to read threads from past few days or weeks before posting. Try reading some of mine on the topic. I, like everyone else here is seeking what is in the best interest for SLU, and also taking into account their stated goals. If I thought the MVC was the proper choice for SLU, I'd say so. ANYBODY here would tell you that. MVC people come here, throw down how SLU should join MVC, people debate why they think otherwise, and this is what ensues every time. EVERY coach in the MVC has said this is the BEST it has ever been. It received one team with a seed of less than 10 last year in NCAA....go look at mock picks for this year...SAME thing. No one here thinks the A10 is greatest thing since sliced bread. But anyone paying attention knows when competing well, it crushes the MVC in respect and attention. Yes that little A10. Everyone here if you polled them would rather be in Big East. Yep, all of those East Coast schools, far away, no geogrpahic rivalries, no long hours of bus trips to middle America. MO St was a 20 something RPI last year....did not get invited. Can you explain that to me? Even when people point out reason after reason why SLU chose A10...the defensive MVC supporters come out and turn it into comments like this. The MVC was a LONG TIME one bid league...meaning you could actually bust your tail all year and know every year, you even win the league, you do not dance. People here like to dance, they want to dance. Ballroom, Hip Hop, Shuffle, Tango, techno, Salsa....you name it... And this ONLY speaks to basketball. When given a choice between two leagues....one has much more media exposure, attention, strong academic schools, East Coast presence, (SLU doesn't want to be the local regional school, ask its President). a league where when all is equal it doesn't dance less. Why would SLU choose Valley? Somehow this offends the MVC people that SLU has thumbed its nose. Hurts their feelings. This is business, not personal. It is a much better business decision. And it is a long term busines decision.

>are we spending considerably more? what does a flight to >wichita or des moines cost as opposed to philly? i dont >know and since they dont break travel out in the budget >numbers we see i dont know what the difference amount is. i >agree it is likely more, but how much is the question. Shoot Roy...major D-1 hoops...let's just bus to those places above. That'll really bring em in.

>Dear Courtside: > >Your meager attempt at humor really makes my response >pointless, but here goes: > >1. The A-10 is, and always will be, an Eastern Seaboard >conference, excluding Xavier and Dayton. First, not only are >they plane trips, but many involve overnight stays in >hotels. And, we're not just talking about men's basketball, >here. How about women's basketball and volleyball, men's >and women's soccer, field hockey, etc. Geography is against >you. >2. While some natives of NY, NJ, and PA might really get >into seeing the Bonnies, the Dukes, the Owls, etc., what is >the likelihood that the casual SLU fan will ever really care >to go to the new arena for these opponents? Probably, the >same interest that Savannah State brings to the table. Most >of them couldn't tell you where Olean, NY really is. >3. At least with regional opponents, the players may have >played in AAU or high school ball against each other. >Maybe, just maybe, a little player-rivalry might help? Just >a thought. > >Make any sense? Or, have I just exceeded your willingness >to consider alternatives? First of all, you, like many others, overestimate this regional rivalry thing. SLU is not packing it in for the MVC schools on their schedule already. Nobody explains that to me. PEople don't go to games when the MVC comes to play SLU. And these are the top MVC teams, can't imagine the bottome dwellers coming to town. The casual fan wants to see a winner.(yours or theirs) Period. If SLU isn't any good, casual fans won't be plucking down cash to see Drake, Evansville, nor the big boys of the MVC. They need entertainment value. So, if SLU isn't good, they aren't going. Also, EVERY school in the country has a Savannah St on their schedule. Do you get to other parts of the country etc...? or even in your MVC, take a look. SIU played only a couple of home games all non-conference. You would have had to have bought that plane ticket to see them play non-conference. Casual fans also want to see SLU play competitive teams. The MVC has nowhere near the history or reputation of the A10. Only twice in even the last 7 years has the NCAA given the MVC more invites to the NCAA. You are common of people who live in the present year, not future, nor recent past. The MVC is still, ...still not respected nationally. I don't want to play in that kind of a league. Best year ever for MVC according to Dana Altman and several other league coaches, straight from their mouths...and it still isn't getting resepcted by national media and NCAA. And, this is combined with a couple year down period with A10. Let's for the sake of argument say the two legaues are a wash, which I don't even agree with, but let's say so. I would rather see SLU play in a league that is more respected, has a more decent shot at annual NCAA teams, has much more media exposure, etc.. SLU is trying to build a long term men's basketball program(I hope), and step one in that process was a no brainer, picking A10 over MVC. SLU hopes to some day long down the road be in a better conference than either one, and that invite will not come if they are in the MVC, period. SLU also has publicly stated their non-basketball goals, and none of those fit in with the MVC. You want SLU to join the MVC because you get excited to see N. Iowa, Indiana St. etc...the MVC is still a league where the coaches bolt for better jobs...SIU, N Iowa Illinois St etc...You also have this tunnel vision mentality that rivals are only built on geography. That simply isn't true. Rivalries often times are built on competitive play between two teams where geography has nothing to do with it. Cincy, Louisville etc...had plenty of rivals in SLU's old conference because they were good teams, not because of where they were located. Last time I checked, Louisville, Notre Dame, Marquette etc..Midwest teams....weren't having trouble drawing fans to Big East games...because they are good teams. DePaul, not drawing as many because they haven't been as good. That is how it works. At some point SLU has to decide does it want to succeed in Athletics or not. Really simple. Basketball brings in all of the revenue for the other sports. So it is safe to say, SLU needs to have a successful basketball program to support those other programs. In order for SLU to have a successful basketball program, they need to go to NCAA's which draws most interest, money etc...get revenue in other ways, get media exposure and so on and so on. You really have to have a plan. Like anything in life you have to build relationships. SLU has never done this very well, in part because they have never had a commitment to being successful, and still don't. SLU didn't want to join the A10, nor the Valley. SLU had to because it was not succeeding in basketball, not building relationships, etc...didn't really have a plan for success. And regardless of league, will not get anywhere until it does.

The one thing I will say in all fairness reading some of these posts...everyone defines success as NCAA's for the school. I agree with that. I just hope the dept gets more funding etc... The baseball team for example obviously plays a much softer schedule and is in weaker league...won conf tourney title etc...and made NCAA's ...baseball team isn't all of a sudden light years than before. The coach still had 17 straight losing seasons against tougher teams. The womens soccer team used to play in a much tougher league which made NCAA invites much tougher than now etc...the men it is and always will be about how they do non-conference, both teams are similar to what they were before. So..yes more NCAA invites....but there are some teams not much better than before the A10....so in judging Levick and non-revenue sports, I would like to see teams improve regardless of just throwing out NCAA stat. Is the baseball program really that much better? etc... Not trying to rain on the parade...but as much as I think Levick has done well and will do well...I am all about fairness too. There is a lot of pressure on SLU's teams to dominate their A10 leagues in many sports, because the leagues aren't as strong(soccer, baseball, etc..)....and so far they are doing that in soccer, have a new coach in womens hoops to turn that around,...volleyball is doing it, ...we will see what baseball holds again...etc... Obviously men's basketball is the sport that needs to get it done for the others.

>Anything that reduces the travel expenses that result from >back-and-forth trips to the East Coast is OK by me. > >Then, that budget can be reallocated to recruiting. That is, >if the coach is up to the challenge. Let's just have SLU play in the Valley and walk to games, or make a league promise that SLU gets all home games. That'll save some money.