Quality Is Job 1

Bryce Husak is 7-1, and Ian Vouyoukas is a legitimate 6-11 (I believe Coach Brad Soderberg said that before). Though the SLU roster lists Vouyoukas at 6-10, his Greek team roster lists him at 211 cm, which converts to 83 inches -- one inch short of seven feet. Maybe they're taking an inch away from Vouyoukas and giving it to Darren Clarke, who's 6-3, though the roster lists him as 6-4.

...I would lower my expectations of Ian Vouyoukas, if I were you. I don't think he'll do anything more this year than mimic the numbers Chris Braun gave us last year. Yes, Vouyoukas is behind NBA draft pick Sofoklis Schortsanitis, but Schortsanitis isn't even the best player on the Hellenic team: Costas Vassiliadis is (not only do the stats bear that out, but Sofoklis, himself, said that). I also disagree with your comparison of the play at the Junior World Championships to the competition of the upper tier of Conference USA (I said upper tier, not the conference as a whole). The talent of a few of the Junior World teams is awesome, but more than half of the teams are significantly inferior to the best teams in the tournament. Second, the players in Conference USA are two to three years older than the players in the Junior Worlds. The experience and strength make the competition higher, even if the raw talent is somewhat lower. The fact that Vouyoukas is on his country's team and is seeing at least a little playing time (he scored two points and grabbed four rebounds in four minutes today -- his rebounds per minute easily makes him a superior rebounder to Braun) is good, but I don't think that alone indicates he'll have much impact at the Div. I level this year. Now Missouri recruit, Linas Kleiza, who's tearing up the competition at the tournament, is a lock to be an impact player from Day 1 at Missouri. Lastly, again, I'm not saying that Vouyoukas will never be an impact player for the Billikens; I'm just saying that he won't do a whole lot THIS year.

Don't laugh. Darren Clarke's initials are D.C. D.C. is the capital of our country. That's easy enough, so follow me here. Clarke's nickname should be "Capital D." 1. Clarke's first name starts with a capital D. 2. By the time Clarke leaves SLU, we want him to be a top-notch player. 3. We want him to play "capital D" -- that is, top-notch defense. Darren, I'm not going to call you D.C., because that's too easy. Instead, I'm calling you, "Capital D."

I'm not giving up on Ian Vouyoukas. I'm just saying that I'm expecting much from him as a freshman. He's not going to come in and tear up Conference USA. I believe the talent level at the Junior Worlds is comparable to the talent level of the upper-tier C-USA teams, but the experience of the players in C-USA will make the competition of the conference tougher than the competition of the Junior Worlds. So far Vouyoukas's impact has been lessened by the presence of a more talented player on his team. I believe Vouyoukas will be a good player for the Billikens, but he'll take his lumps this year.

"If realignment occurs, we may wind up with something where people sitting around the table may look more alike than they do in some leagues as they are today."

Please continue to keep us apprised of what's going on in high school and AAU ball. We can never have too many "scouts."

I heard the entire interview, also. Like Billikenbooster said, nothing new to the members of this cyber community (however, many listeners were being exposed to the SLU side of the story for the first time). I didn't find it particularly reassuring. Basically, it seems that SLU (and all of Conference USA, really, is just along for the ride until the Big East decides what it wants to do. I don't feel overly threatened, either. I recorded the interview (it began at 11:39 and ended around 11:50), and I'm going to inquire with KMOX if I can make it available to the Billikens.com community.

(bump)

http://www.fiba.com (easier to read than the other site {http://www.basket.gr/wcj2003/index.asp }, in my opinion, but I got information for this post from both sites) Ian Vouyoukas scored 3 pts (1 of 5 from the field and 1 of 2 from the line), grabbed 5 rebounds (4 offensive), had 1 assist, picked up 2 fouls, and blocked 1 shot in 12 minutes. Greece defeated Iran 103-56 to finish the preliminary round pool 3-0. Greece advances to Group F for the next round of pool play, where it will face Turkey (A2), Slovenia (C2), and Croatia (D1). The United States won all three of its preliminary pool games (just squeaking by Slovenia 84-83 today) and advances to Group E for the next round where it will face Austrailia (A1), Puerto Rico (B2), and Lithuania (D2). The teams that finished third and fourth in the preliminary pools will compose Group G and Group H -- the consolation groups. In 9.3 minutes per game, Vouyoukas is averaging 2.0 ppg and 4.0 rpg. He's shooting 28.6 percent from the field and 33.3 percent from the free throw line. Based on these numbers, I don't expect much from him during his freshman year this season. Then again, he's just replacing the injury-hampered Chris Braun.

>my problem is that we dropped siu and added another slug >game. > >i admit we have always had these games. but i have always >been an advocate not to play them and now that we are >dumping siu in order to have an additional one it really >p!sses me off. I think we should find out why SLU didn't schedule SIU before making accusations that SLU is ducking the Salukis. I sent Ron Jacober a request in e-mail that he ask Doug Woolard why SLU didn't schedule SIU when he has him on the show tomorrow (and when the rivalry will resume). Roy, you act like scheduling is something that comes easily and that every team SLU calls should be happy to open up a slot for the Billikens. Perhaps SIU decided not to schedule SLU this year. They have a new coach who may have a different scheduling philosophy; perhaps he wants to take the team to play a "guarantee" game against Kentucky in the slot SLU offered or they're going to be in an exempt tourney during the slot SLU had open for them.

To wit: NEW CONFERENCE (Football & Basketball) • Syracuse • Boston College • Rutgers • West Virginia • Pittsburgh • Connecticut • Cincinnati • Louisville • Notre Dame* * Basketball-only member NEW BIG EAST (Basketball only) • Georgetown • Providence • St. John's • Villanova • Seton Hall • Marquette* • Xavier* • Dayton* • DePaul* • Saint Louis/Charlotte* *New member ----------------------------------------------------------- That looks great for SLU, unless the Big East decides to go with 10 teams and chooses Charlotte over SLU (which might make geographical sense). My hope is that they decide on 12 teams, keeping all of the above 11 and adding one team. One of the issues is Notre Dame's proposed decision to go with the football playing schools (but if they aligned with the non-football schools, the new Big East could retain its automatic bid to the NCAA Tournament; the new all-sports conference would have to wait some years, anyway). The next question is what happens to the Conference USA schools left out in the cold? •Memphis •UAB •East Carolina •South Florida •Southern Miss •Tulane •Houston •TCU Could they survive as an eight-team all-sports conference, or would they prefer to disband and join other conferences (Sun Belt, WAC, Mountain West)? It's already bordering on mid-major, but they could add teams like Central Florida and Marshall. I feel really bad for Memphis in this scenario. I doubt the ACC would invite Memphis over South Carolina and Kentucky. If the SEC loses a team, would they welcome Memphis (probably over Tennessee's dead body!)? Could Memphis be the new Big East's 12th team if they play football in another conference? Houston and TCU (and maybe Tulane) might feel better in the WAC or MWC. I believe the Atlantic 10 would survive even losing Xavier and Dayton, though it would slip closer to being a mid-major caliber conference. Again, I wish we knew how involved SLU is in all the discussion. They should not cease to toot their horn about what they would bring to the table. I really hope Father Biondi and Doug Woolard are being very vocal among the other schools and are not just along for the ride. My thought is that if SLU gets left out of the new Big East, then it HAS to look to the Mountain West or Western Athletic (WAC). The current memberships of those conferences are: WESTERN ATHLETIC •Boise State •Fresno State •Hawaii •Louisiana Tech •Nevada •Rice •San Jose State •SMU •Tulsa •UTEP MOUNTAIN WEST •Air Force •BYU •Colorado State •New Mexico •San Diego St. •UNLV •Utah •Wyoming Neither league is a great option for SLU, especially considering travel, but they may be more appealing options than the Missouri Valley or the Horizon. The MVC might not even want SLU, considering its conference tournament is played on what is currently SLU's home court. The Valley might figure they'd never be able to send amother team to the NCAA Tournament except for their occasional at-large bid. I'm sorry to keep going on and on about this, folks, but I can't get it out of my head. I hope the resolutions are announced before this October so that I'll be able to enjoy the basketball season without this issue.

>Thicks, you are knowledgeable about RPI, no doubt. >Understand something about human nature though. Expressing >an opinion about not liking that we play 4 cupcakes means >simply that. Everybody plays tuneups, granted, but some of >us think 4 is excessive. Second, as stated in your >analysis, RPI rank is a derivative measure of raw RPI, it >(RPI rank) is not irrevelant as you imply. Further, we >realize from your wonderful analysis (which you also posted >on the board last year and we all appreciated it then as >well) that even raw RPI of opponents is not factored into a >team's own RPI ... but raw RPI of an opponent is composed of >two of the three factors that are included in our RPI !!! >(i.e., 50 percent opponents' winning percentage, and 25 >percent opponents' oppontents' winning percentage). An >opponent with a low RPI is highly likely to have a low >winning percentage and / or its opponets have a low winning >percentage. Playing bad teams only helps with 25 percent of >the RPI factor (i.e., your own winning percentage) but most >likely hurts 75 percent of the RPI factor (i.e., opponents >winning percentage and opponents opponents winning >percentage). > >Everybody has an opinion and we are hear to express it. You >are definitely more of a mathemetician that I ... but the >logic of the previous post was off IMHO. My first point is that how are we to know before the season that all four of SLU's alleged cupcakes won't have a very good winning percentage? Last year's ranking means nothing for this year. The number don't carry over. What I'm saying is that instead of having a hard and fast rule that SLU should not schedule any team from a low-level conference, the rule should be that SLU schedule only teams projected (an imperfect science) to win its conference, if it's not in a high-major conference. If SLU schedules such teams, it will wind up with an attractive RPI ranking because those opponents will wind up with decent RPI rankings. Second, you inferred incorrectly that the RPI ranking is a measure. The ranking doesn't MEASURE anything. All the ranking does is tell where a team stands in the RPI relative to the other teams. If the ranking were a measure, then one could be sure that the difference between the number 10 RPI ranked team and the number 20 RPI ranked team is exactly the same as the difference between the number 210 RPI ranked team and the number 220 RPI ranked team. But that's not the case. Nos. 210 and 220 could be virtually tied, while nos. 10 and 20 could be separated by 0.01, a significant difference. The ranking is not a measure because the differences are not equidistant. Here's a different perspective. Let's compare 10 home-run hitters. The guy in first place has hit 30 home runs, while the guy in 10th place has his 24 home runs. The difference between No. 1 and No. 10 is not nine. It's six. Rather than judge the guy on his ranking, you judge him by the number of home runs he's hit. Lastly, don't fool yourself. I'm no mathemetician.

You're totally reversing what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that SLU should schedule teams that will WIN -- considerably more than half of its games -- regardless of which conference they're in or what their RPI ranking will be.

If Doug Woolard would be half as forhcoming when he chats with Ron Jacober Sunday Morning, I think we would have a better idea where SLU stands and what Fr. Biondi is striving for, and we might breathe a little easier. I like this quote from the Memphis athletic director: >>I think part of it, quite honestly is, the Big East – and this is done at the presidential level, its not done at my level, this is done at much higher than where I am, I think there is a little bit of concern right now about they don’t want to be – “they” being the Big East presidents and chancellors, they don’t want to be perceived as “conference grabbers” as they have talked about the ACC presidents and chancellors. Because of that, I think everything is trying to get calmed down a little bit and I think they are trying to look at what they are going to do within the Big East. I also appreciate the fact that he believes the merger would be a good thing.

First of all, last year's RPI rank is not a particularly good indicator of what SLU opponents' winning percentage will be this year. Second, I insist that we should not worry about what SLU opponents' RPI rankings are. Of greater concern is what their winning percentages are. Listen up and learn, please. RPI rankings lists consist of several different numbers. The ranking, which is between 1 and 325 or so, has NO impact on anything. The crucial number is the actually RPI, which might look like this: 0.5173. This number, the RPI, is 25 percent team's winning percentage, 50 percent opponents' winning percentage, and 25 percent opponents' oppontents' winning percentage. In figuring SLU's RPI, the biggest number is the opponents' winning percentage -- half of SLU's RPI. SLU's opponents RPI ranking is irrelevant; half of SLU's RPI is going to come from the opponents' WINNING PERCENTAGE. Savannah St. will probably have a bad RPI ranking, because it plays in a weak conference that features teams that will lose a lot of non-conference games (to top-tier teams in guarantee road games), but if Savannah St. has a pretty good record (like 17-10), then its winning percentage of 0.630 will do twice as much good to SLU's RPI than its poor strength of schedule does harm to SLU's RPI. Another thing to understand about RPI dynamics is that the difference between the 150th ranked RPI team and the 250th ranked RPI team looks worse than it really is. Last year Ball State was ranked 137 in the RPI rankings with a RPI of 0.5103 at 13-17 (0.433); Texas Southern was ranked 217 in the RPI rankings with an RPI of 0.4657 at 18-12 (0.600). Though there were 80 slots between them, the difference between their RPIs was just 0.0446. The kicker is that even though Texas Southern was ranked 80 slots lower than Ball State, it would have been better to play Texas Southern than Ball State, as Texas Southern's winning percentage was better by 0.167. The moral of the story is STOP LOOKING AT THAT DECEPTIVE RANKING. It is not the team's RPI and it has NO effect on SLU's RPI. The question is, What will the opponent's winning percentage be? Third, if every top-tiered team did as you guys suggest and shunned the low-major teams, then the low-major teams would have no one to play except each other, mid-majors would generally only play mid-majors, and high-majors would generally play only high-majors. Therefore, the RPIs of the high-majors would go down, because their winning percentages would slip towards 0.500, as they would be knocking each other off. Meanwhile, the RPIs of the low-majors would improve because they wouldn't lose as many games. The RPI thing would become even more deceptive than it already is. Am I making any sense?

Vouyoukas played 6:51 and attempted no shots.

I got one response to my e-mail: From: "Ron Jacober" To: "Terrance Hicks" Subject: Re: What is SLU doing to optimize its conference position? Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 14:45:02 -0500 Doug Woolard has already been schedule for Sports On A Sunday Morning at about 11:45 a.m. Ron Jacober Sports Director KMOX If anyone is able to listen, please give a report.

The official athletic website lists the schedule slightly differently, including Grambling: 2003-04 SAINT LOUIS MEN'S NON-CONFERENCE SCHEDULE DATE OPPONENT November FRI. 21 EASTERN KENTUCKY MON. 24 SAVANNAH STATE SAT. 29 NORTH CAROLINA A&T December Wed. 3 at West Virginia / Charleston, W.V. SAT. 6 ARIZONA Sat. 13 at Georgia Tech / Atlanta, Ga. Wed. 17 GRAMBLING Sat. 20 at SMS / Springfield, Mo. SAT. 27 BUTLER Wed. 31 at Dayton / Dayton, Ohio January SAT. 3 KANSAS STATE That would make four guarantee games: the first three and the mid-December game against Grambling. In my opinion, the Billikens would probably have to go 8-3 in those 11 non-conference games to get solid consideration for an at-large NCAA Tournament bid. Right now I see 6-5, though I'm hoping this is the year the Bills get things turned around against SMS.

Following is an e-letter I sent to a number of media outlets. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] From: Terrance Hicks Subject: What is SLU doing to optimize its conference position? Greetings: The conference realignment challenge stemming from the ACC's raiding the Big East of Miami and Virginia Tech is the most crucial piece of the puzzle for Saint Louis University's basketball program. It's bigger than how the Billikens perform during the 2003-04 season, bigger than the recruits SLU signs in 2004 and 2005, bigger than who the head coach is, and bigger than the university's decision to build an on-campus arena for basketball. If SLU is ever to be a Top 25 to Top 40 program, with the possibility of making the NCAA Final Four and winning the National Championship, then it will have to be a member of one of the best seven or eight basketball conferences. A number of possibilities have come to light. The best scenario sees the Conference USA football schools merging with the Big East football schools to form one all-sports conference and the Big East non-football schools merging with the C-USA non-football schools to form a non-football conference. The worst scenario sees the Big East raiding C-USA of Louisville, Cincinnati, Marquette, and DePaul and some schools leaving C-USA for the Western Athletic Conference, leaving SLU searching for a conference, most likely a mid-major conference like Missouri Valley, Ohio Valley, or Horizon. While I don't dislike those conferences, they do not offer teams a feasible opportunity to go the the Final Four. What I would like to see, is some interviewing of SLU president Father Lawrence Biondi and/or athletic Director Doug Woolard or some discussion with them to find out how resolved they are to put SLU in the best possible conference position and what their vision is. My hope is that the SLU administration is being proactive on SLU's behalf and is not just along for the ride. St. Louis needs to know, especially for the sake of SLU's recruiting players for the next two or three years. It disturbs me that Andy Katz writes so ominously of Brad Soderberg's feelings of uncertainty. The coach and the fans need a public affirmation from the university administration. Thank you, Terrance Hicks St. Louis, Missouri I wanted to incude Demetrious Johnson and Kevin Pulley of Sportswave and Charlie Tuna, but I had no way of getting their e-mail addresses. Thoughts?

>My take on the press release is that the Big East wants >Louisville and Cincy for the 2004-2005 season; however, the >CUSA bylaws don't allow them to get out any sooner than >2005-2006. This tells me CUSA is not going to rollover and >is putting the Big East on notice that it shall use all >leverage at its disposal to get the best deal possible. >This is encouraging news to me. I did not know CUSA had >this kind of leverage. I assumed Louisville and Cincy could >just pay a big exit fee and be gone next year (I thought I >read $500k somewhere). I believe CUSA is saying that the >Big East has to negotiate any potential merger while >Louisville and Cincy are still in the conference ... not >after they are already gone and CUSA is in a weakened >condition. Then again, the Big East might just say "fine, >we'll wait till 2005-2006 and then raid at will on our >terms." > >For those who long for a quick end to this saga, I'm sorry. >Looks like there are more enstallments to follow. JJ, you make some very good points. I hadn't looked at it that way. The Big East probably won't want to "wait until 2005-06 and raid on their terms," because by then the new BCS contract will have been finalized and they may wind up out in the cold.

Torch (and Nark, BigMacSLU, and others in that camp), I'm nearly ready to see the light. However, I'm gunshy after crashing and burning last year. I believe I'll maintain a conservative expectation and a wait-and-see attitude.

Andy Katz writes, "Soderberg wants to know what he can say to a recruit if asked about the program's and conference's fate. But he knows the school doesn't have the answer. There is talk of a potential league involving urban, Catholic-based schools like Saint Louis, Marquette, Dayton, DePaul, Villanova, Georgetown, St. John's, Seton Hall and Providence -- which is appealing to the Billikens if C-USA were to fracture. But such a conference is still nothing more than a dream. Reality says the tough demands on forming any new league, including creating bylaws and getting an automatic berth to the NCAA Tournament, are too great to be considered a real possibility." Here's my response to Katz's "reality": In the last 15 years, the Great Midwest, Conference USA, and the Mountain West all found a way to make the "dream" reality. They have (or had) managed to create bylaws and get an automatic NCAA Tournament berth. I don't see any reason why Saint Louis, Marquette, DePaul, Charlotte, Villanova, Georgetown, Providence, St. John's, and Seton Hall couldn't do the same thing other than the fact that some East Coast elitists don't want to see certain schools from the Midwest have a chance to prosper.

Torch, I hope you're right, but very little that I've read in the media (particularly Brad Soderberg's comments in Andy Katz's Weekly Word) instills much confidence in me. I guess what I most want to read/hear is some statement from Lawrence Biondi and/or Doug Woolard that affirms that they are pushing SLU and are not just along for the ride, as if someone else will speak up for SLU's best interests. Well, Marquette, DePaul, and Charlotte might, but only if SLU's administration is proactive. If the four C-USA non-football schools don't stick together and watch out for each other, then SLU is in the weakest position, being furthest west.

7.9.2003 C-USA Board of Directors Discuss Conference Realignment The Conference USA Board of Directors met by teleconference earlier today to discuss issues related to potential conference realignment and the development of process to ensure that they are effectively managed. Following considerable discussion, the Board endorsed a process that will encourage stability and reasoned decision-making. To that end, the Board reaffirmed its commitment to adhering to the existing Conference Bylaws, which, under the circumstances, prohibit any member from withdrawing prior to June 30, 2005. As part of its approach to addressing realignment issues, the Conference will continue to engage in meaningful and open communication among its members and other conferences potentially impacted by any changes that may occur. “I am very pleased with the support and the direction that we have received from our membership and their desire to make sure we address these issues in a strategic and responsible way," said Commissioner Britton Banowsky. “While there may be changes on the horizon, we are comfortable knowing that any future changes will not be effective prior to the 2005-2006 academic year. Obviously, we will continue to explore ways to strengthen the Conference and serve the collective best interests of our members.” ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- To me, that says absolutely nothing. At least, nothing that reinforces the possibilty of something in SLU's best interests. What this says, to me, is that the Big East can still raid Conference USA of some of its best teams, but it will take a little longer.

It's very well researched, but its foundation is that the Big East will do to Conference USA what the ACC did to the Big East -- raid the conference of the best football teams as if they were the best thing to come along since sliced bread. I much, much prefer the idea that C-USA and the Big East will work together on something more mutually beneficial to the members of each conference. Katz says that's just a dream, though. I, like Roy, refuse to believe that. The C-USA presidents should be much more persuasive in protecting the interest of all the C-USA teams, and the Big East should be less cutthroat than the ACC, else they're hypocrites. Father Lawrence Biondi and Doug Woolard should be making phone calls daily and really selling Saint Louis University. If not, then the university is not really serious about being a basketball power. I just wish Brad Soderberg had expressed more confidence the way Louisville's and Memphis's coaches did. Sigh! I hope that Saint Louis University is not destined to always be a little brother of college basketball. As it has been said many times, "It's hard to be a Billikens fan." I'm tired of saying that, though, and would rather say: