Quality Is Job 1

...to add in the definitions of athletic ability and skill that I had posted in the other thread. You'll see that I consider defense a skill.

(I'm reposting this in a new thread at skip's request.) I've gone through and rated the current Billikens in three categories. I would say that athletic ability describes things like speed, quickness, agility, hand-eye coordination, balance, and (maybe) strength. Some of these attributes can be improved somewhat, but mostly they are God-given. Skill describes things that are generally within a person's control -- things he or she learns or acquires the ability to do. In basketball, skills include things like shooting, dribbling, passing, screening, cutting, moving without the ball, court awareness, rebounding, and positioning on defense. (Neither list is complete, I'm sure.) I would define "intangibles" as things like coachability, attitude, and hustle, etc. Please note that all of these ratings are debatable, and everyone is invited to make their own ratings. Use the code {pre} and {/pre} (replacing the curly brackets with square brackets) to sandwich your text (copy and paste my formatted text and replace the numbers) 5 - Elite 4 - Above average 3 - Average 2 - Below average 1 - Ugh! I first list the current players; then I list my assessment of the current team, overall. Then I list some former Bills for reference. Feel free to add your assessments for others, if you desire. There are a total of 12 spaces for the player's name and formatting spaces, if you care about it lining up. [pre] Player Athleticism Skill Intangibles Bryant 4 4 3 Ohanon 4 3 2 Frericks 3 4 5 Drejaj 2 3 5 Newborne ? ? ? Johnson 4 3 1 Clarke 3 3 ? Vouyoukas 2 4 ? Husak 3 ? ? Polk 5 4 3 Meyer 3 ? ? Brown ? ? ? Overall 3 4 4 Fisher 4 4 5 Sloan 3 3 4 Varner 2 4 3 Perry 5 3 3 Hughes 5 4 3 Claggett 3 5 4 Highmark 2 4 5 Bonner 3 5 5 [/pre] I reserve the right to tweak these numbers as I think about them. Let the debate begin.

I've gone through and rated the current Billikens in three categories. I've defined athleticism and skill above. I would define "intangibles" as things like coachability, attitude, and hustle, etc. Please note that all of these ratings are debatable, and everyone is invited to make their own ratings. Use the code {pre} and {/pre} (replacing the curly brackets with square brackets) to sandwich your text (copy and paste my formatted text and replace the numbers) 5 - Elite 4 - Above average 3 - Average 2 - Below average 1 - Ugh! I first list the current players; then I list my assessment of the current team, overall. Then I list some former Bills for reference. Feel free to add your assessments for others, if you desire. There are a total of 12 spaces for the player's name and formatting spaces, if you care about it lining up. [pre] Player Athleticism Skill Intangibles Bryant 4 4 3 Ohanon 4 3 2 Frericks 3 4 5 Drejaj 2 3 5 Newborne ? ? ? Johnson 4 3 1 Clarke 3 3 ? Vouyoukas 2 4 ? Husak 3 ? ? Polk 5 4 3 Meyer 3 ? ? Brown ? ? ? Overall 3 4 4 Fisher 4 4 5 Sloan 3 3 4 Varner 2 4 3 Perry 5 3 3 Hughes 5 4 3 Claggett 3 5 4 Highmark 2 4 5 Bonner 3 5 5 [/pre] I reserve the right to tweak these numbers as I think about them. Let the debate begin.

I would say that athletic ability describes things like speed, quickness, agility, hand-eye coordination, balance, and (maybe) strength. Some of these attributes can be improved somewhat, but mostly they are God-given. Skill describes things that are generally within a person's control -- things he or she learns or acquires the ability to do. In basketball, skills include things like shooting, dribbling, passing, screening, cutting, moving without the ball, court awareness, rebounding, and positioning on defense. (Neither list is complete, I'm sure.) Given these criteria, I'm inclined to agree that, over the years, SLU has not been particularly athletic. They've been average. Heck, Vashon is more athletic than the Billikens. On the flip side, if you're arguing that SLU is below average in SKILL, you're waaaay off the mark. There are individual skills and team skills, and SLU rates highly in both, and that's the reason that they win more than they lose. But I wouldn't say that the team has overachieved, yet.

Billikenbooster, look near the top of this page that you're reading. You should see a link that says, "Conferences." After you click that, you'll be taken to the lobby of these forums. You should see a small flag icon next to a link that says, "You have a message from billiken_roy." Click that link, and you'll be into your PM menu.

>How many years has SLU had a better season than Mizzou? I couldn't care less. I enjoy both teams and the seasons that each team has. I've enjoyed both teams for 16 years, and it doesn't matter to me that one team has been better than the other for most of them. I desire to see both teams do well each year and would like to see each team reach at least a Final Four during my lifetime. >And if you're patting yourself on the back with this >rebuke...I must say it's weak... All I'm saying is that, obviously, your arguments (the evidence of your "critical nature") are not grounded in indisputably correct facts. You claimed that 2003-04 was the first time since the Claggett/Highmark era (1991-92 through 1994-95) that SLU had a better season than Missouri. I disproved your entire claim by pointing out 1997-98 and by demonstrating that, clearly, SLU didn't have a better season than Missouri during the Claggett/Highmark era. I don't need to pat myself on the back, because your trying to turn the point around 90 degrees rather than dealing with the factual substance of the point "is weak."

in Conference USA. And all that is beside the point. Athletic ability isn't the end-all and be-all of a basketball player. Tom Frericks may not be a world-class leaper and sprinter, but he is athletic. He's strong, and he can jump well enough. I imagine, but cannot prove, that Frericks led the Billikens in dunks last season. Other than free-throw shooting, Frericks has enough skill and talent to be in the top third of C-USA centers. Lastly, Frericks's numbers may not be way better than the numbers of the other C-USA centers, but you're trying to change the argument to suit your point. The fact is that Frericks's numbers (results) were better than most of the opposing centers listed. Too bad he's such a stiff (sarcasm).

>Last year, I give SLU the edge over Mizzou by the smallest >of margins. That's the first time SLU has had a better >season than Mizzou since the Highmark/Claggett era. In 1997-98, SLU (led by "diaper dandy" Larry Hughes) went to the second round of the NCAA Tournament (losing to eventual champion Kentucky), but Missouri (in Kelly Thames's final year), failed to win a single road game and made it only to the NIT, despite some really nice home wins over ranked teams, and lost AT HOME to UAB. That was definitly a season when SLU's results were better than Mizzou's. Additional evidence to refute your point is that, at no time during the Highmark/Claggett era did SLU have a better season than Missouri. In 1993-94, SLU reached the NCAA Tournament, but Missouri went undefeated in the Big 8 regular season and went to the Elite Eight. In 1994-95, the two teams were even -- dead even. Each team competed in its conference and went two-and-out in the Tournament (SLU lost to Wake Forest, and Mizzou lost to eventual champion UCLA).

I didn't really think it fit into the discussion. Yes, the Billikens did lose Edwin, Seyfert, and Pulley, and they were replaced by Drejaj and Ohanon in 2002-03.

Now, this doesn't lock anyone in to his/her preseason projections, but we basically know the Billikens' conference games (just not their sequence): • Charlotte @ Charlotte • Cincinnati @ DePaul • DePaul @ East Carolina @ Houston @ Louisville • Marquette @ Marquette • Memphis @ Southern Miss • TCU • Tulane • UAB @ USF We can take a stab at the entire schedule. I'm going to project 11-5. Adding that to my non-conference projection of 10-3, I'm projecting 21-8 going into the conference tournament, where they'll go 1-1 or 2-1 (depending on the matchups) for 22-9 or 23-9 and an NCAA at-large bid.

Vas'shun Newborne will be a junior, and as he's played with Tom Frericks, I'm confident that he'll match Chris Sloan's contributions. Ian Vouyoukas will be more seasoned and will push for more time. Justin Johnson will be around for his third year (second playing), meaning he's no longer a spring chicken, and I believe he'll contribute (his athleticism holds much promise, and maturity should help him fulfill it). Darren Clarke is ready to step up. This is one year that the growth of returning players and influx of talent will make the team better despite the loss of key veterans (virtually an annual occurrence). The loss (graduation) of which of these groups scares you most: Love/Fergerson/Redden/Robertson/Simmons (2000); Jeffers/Baniak/Heinrich/Tatum (2001); Perry/K. Brown/Braun/Diener (2003); Fisher/Sloan/Varner/Hunt (2004); Bryant/Frericks/Ohanon (2005)? Of course, it depends upon who's coming in. The 2000 departees were replaced by Fisher, Sloan, Edwin (didn't finish at SLU) and, McClain (no longer around). The 2001 departees were replaced by Brown (graduated in '03), Pulley (no longer around), and Seyfert (no longer around). In effect, they've been replaced by Bryant, Frericks, and Ohanon. The 2003 departees were replaced by Bryant, Frericks, Johnson, Clarke, and Vouyoukas. The 2004 departees have been replaced by Polk, Newborne, Meyer, Husak, and D. Brown. The 2005 departees will be replaced by Lisch, Liddell (hopefully), and two recruits to be named later. Let's see if I can sum that up graphically: 2000-01: Love, et al --> Fish, Sloan, et al.; 2001-02: Jeffers, Tatum, Heinrich, Baniak --> K. Brown, Pulley; 2003-04: Perry, Brown, et al --> Bryant, Frericks, et al.; 2004-05: Fish, Sloan, et al --> Polk, Newborne, et al.; 2005-06: Bryant, Frericks, Ohanon --> Lisch, Liddell & who knows. So, on paper, the 2001-02 looks the worst, as an all-conference selection and three stauch bigs were replaced by one decent big and little else. But then there's the 2000-01 squad, which lost an all-conference selection and the 2000 conference tournament MVP, replaced by some of the players we're currently concerned about. Neither team reached postseason. And, on paper, the 2003-04 squad looks precarious, as Perry was all-conference (two-time) and Brown was a solid interior player, but we all know how it turned out -- they went to the NIT and won a game. And the 2004-05 squad looks to have gotten the best of the transistion. Polk is, in the words of Coach Soderberg, quicker than Perry, a true point, and a habitual winner; Newborne is a veteran forward; and, best of all, there's an all-conference selection returning. The 2005-06 team might be scary (in either sense of the phrase), depending on who comes besides Lisch. If Liddell stays true and Soderberg nabs a couple of athletic, defensive-minded rebounding forwards, it could be the best of the five transitions (on paper); if not, then it could be the worst of the transitions.

None of the Billikens' non-conference games is unwinnable, but I would also say that no more than a few of them are sure victories. If they were to win all 13 non-conference games, we'd be en route to one of the best seasons in Billiken history.

I don't know if the Bills will be "too young." Dwayne Polk, despite being a freshman, will be the first true point guard SLU has had in a while (no knock on Josh Fisher and Marque Perry, who were excellent players), and he will quarterback the team adequately. Then, Reggie Bryant, Tom Frericks, and Izik Ohanon will be seniors and Anthony Drejaj (the likely backup point guard, in addition to his usual contributions) will be a junior. I believe there's enough experience for this team to improve upon last year's performance.

I think the Bills will win the Pardise Jam and win all non-conference home games. I wouldn't count them out regarding winning a road game, either. If they're going to make the NCAA Tournament with their schedule, they may need to go 11-2 to get the Selection Committee's attention.

>I think the Braves are just begging to see Edmonds, Pujols, >and Rolen.. > >Steve Don't forget Renteria, Walker.... The Cards need to take two out of three in Atlanta -- put it in the Braves' minds for the possible postseason matchup.

Hey, Billiken basketball IS involved, even though peripherally. I don't drink (and it would look odd for me to be buying beer!), so I could I bring A&W Root Beer and just have water? You'd probably need me to be the designated driver.

...that has nothing to do with being able to fly the recruit in on a private plane. The way I read it, the new rules won't prohibit Brad Soderberg from using the university's plane to visit/evaluate a recruit, but it will prohibit SLU from flying a recruit in on said plane for an official visit. Frankly, I doubt the latter practice has been common on SLU's part, anyway.

I'm sure Brad Soderberg knows better than we do. Second of all, think about it: very rarely does ANY Big Ten school have a juco transfer because of the conference's requirements (I believe they still have to sit out a year). Thus, it's not an academic thing, but it's still harder to recruit a juco to Wisconsin than SLU.

The schedule sets aside four games, but I believe they'll probably play just three games. With six teams, they'll probably split them into two pools of three. Each pool would play a round-robin for two games per team. Then the first-place teams would match up for the championship, the teams that finished second in their pools would play for third place, and the remaining two teams would play for fifth place. The only way I could envision there being four games would be to "eliminate" the last-place finishers of pool play (or have them play a "classification game" for fifth place) and have the "top two" of each pool play a semifinal and a final, but I don't think that would happen because of the possibility that teams could play each other twice.

The problem is that NBA teams are franchises intending to earn profit. If the champions play in the Olympics, it will adversely affect the team's ability to last through the next season and defend its championship. Subsequently, the team's attendance would suffer. I think the current system would work if the five or six very best American players in the NBA would commit and the rest of the team were players who could fill roles (defense, screening, shooting, guarding big men on the perimeter, etc.). As it is, an all-star team lacking some of the league's very best players won't win it from here on out. The 1992 team was the last true Dream Team.

I thought it was Earl Austin Jr., who coined "Braditude" last season. If that's true, then the board shouldn't be claiming credit.

The Paradise Jam field looks awful. The Billikens could win it, but it wouldn't be an accomplishment that would distinguish them in the eyes of the NCAA Tournament Selection Committee. They may have to do no worse than 12-2 to get at-large consideration, and anything worse than 10-4 would be a disappointment (and that's being "nice," because I think they ought to be able to win all four Paradise Jam games and win all the home games for a certain 11-3).

>Taj on Left, Gruehls on Right http://www.billikens.com/steve/random2/images/img_0180.jpg "Why'd you bite my finger?! Just like a Billiken!" -->