Quality Is Job 1

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:

I was just making an analogy!

I'm wondering why the New York Times, Charlotte Observer, and New Orleans Times-Picayune (among others, probably) have picked up on the merger talks and today's C-USA conference call, but the latest thing the Post-Dispatch has about the issue is Jeff Gordon's suggestion that SLU might have to go to a mid-major conference. Here is the text of an e-letter I sent to Jeff Gordon: >>Dear Jeff Gordon: I'm somewhat concerned that you and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have not picked up on the news coming out of the New York Times that Conference USA and the Big East are discussing a merger that would have the Big East non-football schools joining the C-USA non-football schools in a conference and that there will be a Conference USA conference call today. Your recent column wondering what will happen to Saint Louis University as a result of ACC expansion paints a rather dark picture. I find it a concern that there's a much brighter possibility staring us in the face but the Post-Dispatch has not shown that side to its readership. Does the Post stand to benefit only in SLU's worst-case scenario? Terrance Hicks Let's see what happens.

I agree with you that it will be more interesting to see what actually happens than what people around the country have been speculating for many months now. However, the news of "talks" between Conference USA and the Big East and the rhetoric that they will seek the best interests of their respective conference members, probably resulting in some type of merger between the conferences (with the Mountain West, WAC, and MAC also involved) has me salivating (so long as SLU isn't shipped off to the MAC!). All I'm saying is that this is more than just some East Coast columnist's speculation; it's what the involved schools are discussing. It's like the difference between your kids' saying, "we really would love to go to Disney World this summer," and you and your wife making hotel reservations in Orlando and setting aside money and vacation time.

Temple is not a Big East basketball school. Temple is a member of the Big East for football (but not for much longer) and a member of the Atlantic 10 for other sports. Is it your opinion that the article is suggesting Temple will remain a member of the Big East for football and then join the new C-USA/Big East football federation?

The Jeff Gordon story was indeed mere personal speculaltion. Today's story is news and reveals the involvement of the Conference USA and Big East commissioners. There have been talks between the Big East and C-USA, and today C-USA will have a conference call. It's more than speculation.

This is the last paragraph: "All the I-A conferences that may be affected, which would be the Big East, Conference USA, Mountain West, WAC, Sun Belt and Mid-American; they've all kind of agreed that nothing could be implemented before '05-06," said Chuck Neinas, a consultant hired by C-USA. "Taking that into consideration, you've got a good, 60, 90, 120 days to work something out." Something pretty big is in the works. I notice that the Atlantic 10 isn't involved, so I guess no Xavier or Dayton.

Viv Bernstein said that South Florida is a non-football member of Conference USA. That is incorrect; South Florida does play football.

>Looking at the schedule and these players and Brad's >admittedly short history as a head coach, I'll be upset if >we don't come out at least .500. It's possible that we >could be surprised again with a stretch run to the post >season. I rather expect this will be the case. >Next year however I'll be calling for Brad's ouster without >seeing more serious improvement. > >Last year too Happy. This year too Gloomy. You said you'll be upset with anything less than .500; I'm projecting around .500. You said you foresee a stretch run that will get the Bills into the postseason; I recognize the Bills' upside but want to wait to see how the team comes together, with all of the newcomers. Are we really that far apart? I was definitely too hyped last year, but I can't see how I'm so gloomy this year. Let's not talk about next year just yet, but I'll throw out the hint that the thougt of next year has me salivating a little bit (I hope Brad Soderberg lands a couple of more athletic and exciting recruits to go along with Dwayne Polk in the coming months).

>Now let's look at next year. While SLU loses Perry, I think >there's more balance this year with the addition of Bryant, >a more physically mature Ohannon, and any kind of offensive >production from Frericks and the Vouyoukas (please note the spelling). Frericks >only has to make layups to be an upgrade over Brown. The >presence of Frericks and Vouyoukas has to be an upgrade in >rebounding, even if they lose a bit in the defensive >presence. Is it perhaps premature to expect a marked increase in scoring from Izik Ohanon? While it may be true that Tom Frericks need only make layups (AND FREE THROWS) to be an upgrade offensively over Kenny Brown, it's not as automatic as you think. Until he actually plays a game for SLU, we won't know. I think the statement that the mere presence of Frericks and Ian Vouyoukas upgrades the team's rebounding is laughable. Brown was a pretty good rebounder but he didn't have much help. Frericks might not be as good as Brown. The Billikens have been a poor rebounding program with the exception of the last two years of Baniak, Heinrich, and Tatum. Even then, the Bills rebounded as a team, with guards like Justin Love and Maurice Jeffers pitching in a lot. The Bills have a lot to prove in the rebounding area (according to Coach Soderberg, the defensive possession isn't over until the rebound has be secured), and I'll be looking for it -- but we won't be able to just throw Tom Frericks's and Ian Vouyoukas's jerseys out on the floor and outrebound the opponents. >Now let's look at the schedule. The nonconference schedule >should be similar, however I expect CUSA to not be as >competitive. Each of the elite teams will be losing key >components to their team. Marquette losing Wade will be >especially difficult to replace. While each of the elite C-USA teams may be losing key components, they are returning better players who can step up and they are bringing in more talented recruits. Furthermore, other C-USA teams aren't standing in place, either. I expect DePaul, UAB, and Charlotte to be improved. Louisville, Marquette, Cincinnati, and Memphis will still be tough. SLU could easily slip to eighth place. Bottom line: Conference USA will be even more competitive. >With Coach Brad at the helm, I do expect 10 wins or more >from this team in CUSA. For one, the talent will be >upgraded in terms of speed and size. Now skill level is >difficult to judge without seeing anyone, but that shouldn't >be hard to meet given last year's situation. I really think >the schedule should be more favorable for the Billikens with >CUSA in a rebuilding phase. That should equate to around 18 >or more wins this year and a bubble position for the NCAA. You have a lot of guts to say that SLU will go at least 10-6 in conference this year. Remember, they won't have two games against East Carolina. They will play 10 teams once and Charlotte, Marquette, and DePaul twice. Let's see which five teams they'll play at Savvis before announcing 10 wins.

>Is this the team that Izzo is coaching with Romar and Quinn? > Or is it the one Arthur Johnson and Rickey Paulding were >trying out for? All of the above.

Yes, the U.S. team in the Pan Am Games will consist of college players. However, I think that some of the other American (North and South) countries may use the same players they use for the Olympics and World Championships, which means professionals. The whole reason that the United States Olympic Committee started using NBA players in the 1992 Olympics is that our college players were no longer able to win the gold medal in international competitions such as the Olympics, the World Championships (of Basketball) and the Pan Am Games, because the other countries were sending non-amateurs (professionals) that were "volunteering" for their country. If all the other countries had followed the spirit of the amateurism rule in international competitions, then the U.S. would still be sending college players to all the international tournaments.

There are two big international basketball tournaments this summer. Ian Vouyoukas, of Greece, is participating in the Junior World Basketball Championships in Greece. There is also the Pan-Am Games, which may be being held in Dallas, but I really don't know where it is. The Junior Worlds features young men (probably under 20, but I don't know the exact ages. The USA team in that tournament features rising sophomores, incoming freshmen, and rising high-school seniors. The Pan-Am Games features grown men, and I think some of the countries will fill their roster with professional players.