tigerluke

FYI Norm Stewart & Spoon were the ones who made the three-year series happen in the early 2000s, they just both happened to have moved on by the time the games they scheduled were played. So, to say Stewart was a wuss is to be completely ignorant of history. Also, Marquette is a consistently good team, with a rich basketball history, who plays in the BIG EAST. Not the Atlantic 10, the BIG EAST. That's a big boy conference, and Wisconsin has nothing to lose (actually, they probably have more to gain than to lose) by playing an in-state major conference basketball program in their non-conference schedule. To compare Wisconsin-Marquette to Mizzou-SLU is laughable.

God I love swiss cheese. Which hole do I even start with? How about... (1) Are you really quoting all-time-series stats to try and argue that SLU is on par with Mizzou program-wise? SLU has all of, what, SIX (going on seven) appearances in the NCAA Tournament ALL TIME? Compare that to Mizzou's TWENTY FOUR (going on twenty five) trips to the big dance, and how is that comparable? We haven't even talked about league titles or the competition that they play in the leagues either, but I just don't have all the time in the world to set you straight. (2) The idea that playing SLU is the difference between playing a cupcake non-conference schedule or a legit non-conference schedule is, if possible, even more laughable than the idea that SLU and Mizzou are programs on the same level. So it qualifies as "duck season" to play teams like Illinois, Villanova, Cal, and Notre Dame, but adding SLU to that mix would suddenly give it credibility? Don't be ridiculous. I get it, you want to see the game happen. Hell, I'd even enjoy watching the game happen, but let's be realistic about why it's not happening, and quit getting all offended by Alden's decision-making because it makes sense why he's reluctant to sign on.

Been having this convo on twitter, and I'll quote my SLU fan buddy here: "If I were Mizzou I would be doing what they are. Why play a 75-125 RPI team in their Superbowl when you can play a 75-125 team in an easier win?" It might be a fun game to watch, but do you really blame Alden for not making the game happen? As a Mizzou fan, what bothers me about it is the media. Sportswriters only crow about it when SLU is good. There is never an article in the Post-Dispatch calling Mizzou out for ducking SLU when SLU isn't any good; it's only that one out of every five years that SLU is good and all of the sudden it's a crime that Mizzou won't play them. Give me a break.

i'll also be taking one for the team, sporting my white right next to cheesycow tonight. should be a lot of fun.

>As far as watching the NBA for me >it's like watching hockey. I have yet to watch 1 qtr of >regular season hockey and yet I'm glued for playoff hockey. i agree somewhat, i used to hate the association, thought it was too selfish of a league, but i've really turned into an nba fan as of late. i admit that the addition of former mizzou players like rush and dooling to the lone pro tiger holdout (peeler) has helped my interest, but i find especially the playoffs to be the best basketball offensively and defensively anywhere (as it should be). this said, i'd definitely be for a shortened nba regular season, and for that a shortened hockey season, to make the games more important. i mean, i like the blues, i just can't make myself watch that much when i know they'll make the playoffs no matter what happens. the same goes for the nba, i'd watch more if there was less. just a side note, anyone else pulling for anyone out of the east to win it just because everyone (sportscenter) has been so down on it as a whole all year? don't get me wrong, my favorite teams are in the west but i'd kind of like an eastern team to win it just to surprise everyone.

i'm not the antler's biggest fan or anything, but it's just that type of "rude" fan that creates intimidating environments in gyms across the nation. if you walk in to cameron any given night, which is generally regarded as the toughest place to play in the nation, what you'll find is this "rude" or "rowdy" behavior, but by a much larger group of students who are all right on top of the floor. as much as everyone may love to hate the antlers (since, among othe reasons, they are associated with tiger fans like myself), they do help to create an environment that is tough to play in at mizzou.

20, that's up there man! hope you have a great one, happy birthday steve-o!

75, i think you're mistaken on a couple of counts here . . . (1) that quin can't coach their offense (if you ask me it's the total lack of team defense that kills mizzou). the offense comes down to turnovers, not just the three. also aj can dominate but hasn't been as consistent as expected, especially late in the game earlier in the year. plus conley and gardner took some time to find themselves. (2) the only player i feel is better out is pulley who clearly was not the answer at point. true the smaller rotation has helped, but this is mainly because it gives some consistency and chemistry to the lineup, but all in all the tigers are better with kroenke's hustle and linus' talent.

who are you going to leave out in the acc though? the only teams in the acc who don't deserve in are (sadly) my clemson tigers and virginia, other than that (save maybe maryland depending on their performance down the stretch) who will you keep out?

steve, i admire your honesty, we can only hope that you're not only honest but correct.

just in case anyone was curious, here is what was on the university website today about this whole taped conversation thing. http://mutigers.ocsn.com/sports/m-baskbl/s.../121003aaa.html

i'll be with my room mate and we'll both be sporting the orange most likely, i've got longish hair and my room mate is a white guy with a curly fro, so we should be hard to miss. hope to see you then!

thanks for the info. in case you ever want to make it out to clemson i usually take 25 to 123 (if i'm coming from furman) and it only takes me 30-45 minutes (i've got it clocked, my best friend is at furman). anyway, i should be making it down on friday for the slu v. clemson game. i haven't caught a men's game yet this year, although i have seen our women's team (also in the top 25) play, so i'm excited to see them especially against slu in this quality of a game.

i'm going to have to go ahead and disagree about the state of acc football, and not only because i happen to be at an acc school, but because you have neglected to give some credit where credit is due. there are more football teams in the acc than simply florida state and georgia tech. i'd say that virginia has a real good chance at the acc title this year, and also nc state is a solid team. also the you can't count out my school (clemson) who is perpetually above 6 wins and in a bowl game (even if they choke) and does have a national championship under their belt (1981). certainly the acc is a basketball conference, but especially with the recent additions of va tech and miami it is quite solid in football, and actually should be this year without them.

i'm at clemson, actually my room mate is from near charleston, but i'm originally from st. louis.

thanks, i'll have to drive over for one or both of those. it'll be nice to see something from home.

you can go ahead and take out furman, but watch out for clemson. do you know where the games are. i might have to go if it's at clemson or furman since i'm down here and all.

i couldn't agree more, but i think where mizzou could have handled it better would have been to not go after ju-co transfers. i realize that there are talented players there, but i just don't like the idea of building up your team with ju-co kids. i love mizzou, but i don't want to see them turn into k-state football. sure, they're good every year, but the revolving door of ju-co transfers that stocks their sidelines sickens me. mizzou could do itself better to not go after ju-co transfers, they have enough recruiting prowess (even with the alleged infractions) to just get their recriuts straight out of high school. it's just a more reliable formula all around. needless to say i'm glad clemons is out (he was too out of control anyway) and i think mizzou will be even stronger without him this year.

i don't get why all you guys are so anti-mizzou. i definitely root for the tigers (though i don't go to school there, rather at clemson -- totally different tigers with terrible basketball). i don't have it out for the billikens, i'll root for them not against mizzou. now kansas, or illinois, there are teams to hate. of course i am a clemson fan since i go there, but honetly, there's not much there to get excited about, so i have my other tigers to get me through the winter. that is if rickey clemons doesn't prove to be the death of the program . . . but i'm confident mizzou will be okay. much to your dismay i'm sure steve (sorry man, maybe next year).