Billinikens

Most of the board has spent much of the last week whining about spots 63-65. So has the rest of the spots media, really. I think that debate is really missing the point. To me, the heart of the problem is that the way the tournament stacks up now waters down the importance of the regular season, particularly the conference portion of it. Instead of arguing over whether Arizona deserved to be in the tourney (they didn't), I think we should be wondering why Duke, Purdue, Stanford or whoever else finished second or below in their conference deserves to be in the tourney. Didn't we learn over a two month conference season that Duke isn't as good as Carolina? Now that Carolina has relegated them to second in the ACC, how can they now be afforded the opportunity to be the National Champs? I just don't think the two mesh. Second in the ACC but first in the country? Huh? And I'm not ragging on Duke here....Stanford, Purdue, UConn, etc....all finished conference play below the top spot. We learned already that they're not as good as another team in their conference. Here's my solution.... There are 31 conferences, including two unnecessarily large ones (A10 and Big East). Split 6 from the Big East and 4 from the A10 so that the result is 3 10 team leagues and 32 total conferences. The conference winner from each league (not the tourney winner) makes the tournament and you play out a 5 round tournament from there. The non-conference schedule will be freed up then at every level. BCS teams can play whomever they want, no matter how small the school, without fear of tourney repercussions. Playing at a hostile small school environment could be used as an opportunity to prepare for the rigors of playing on the road in conference games. The smaller schools get a taste of what they need to be ready for at tourney time. And, most importantly, we don't have to argue over mediocre teams having a shot at a title they don't deserve. Once again, we know Duke isn't the equal of Carolina this year. Conference play proved that. Let's not give them a shot to render the ACC season meaningless by getting hot at NCAA Tourney time. Now, I know because the tourney is big business this is never going to happen. And I too, despite its shortcomings, love tournament time and the "one and done" drama as much as the next guy. However, it's not really an equitable system for crowning a title as far as I'm concerned whether ISU was selected in place of U of A or not. Neither team won their conference to earn a shot at the title in my book anyway. Alright, I'll let everyone lay into me now...just remember this was an argument for how to fairly crown a champ, not one that considered all the business aspects....

As a former member of Blue Crew, I have to wonder what prompts us to give "Kudos" to this counterproductive moron. This is a group of students that, rather than putting their energy toward the more noble endeavor of recruiting students to come to games as part of Blue Crew, spend their time heckling those that are attempting to recruit fans. I sit behind them every game and have yet to see them spend as much time cheering for the team as they do heckling the Blue Crew. I'm not trying to absolve Blue Crew of its part in the student turnout (or lack thereof), I'm just surprised to see a few of you "regulars" on the board endorsing what seems to be a counterproductive activity to me.

These things are cyclical. Just two years ago the Big Ten had two teams in the final four. Having teams in the final four is not a foreign concept for the Big Ten at all. The fact that they didn't have a great tourney last year really makes no difference. Ohio State and Wisconsin have great chances to get there this year. There's no comparison between the A10 and the Big Ten. Be serious.

I don't know why you guys would use a streaming video that sucks...we can watch it at the bar. Thought I'd spread the word...

I believe I heard on the radio today that the A10 has received 28 bids in the last 10 years as compared to 22 for the MVC.

Misinterpreted. Apologies.

Well I'm coming into this debate a little late, but I can't help offering my opinion... By 1867, when U of I was founded, and most especially by the 1920's when the Chief was introduced, the "mass genocide" was long since over. I believe that the introduction of the Chief and the traditions that followed were not intended to be disrespectful in any way. Rather, I believe the intention was quite the opposite...an attempt by the University to honor the history of the land they now occupied. The Illini Indians, as I understand it, were a collection of several tribes that inhabited Central Illinois. What better way could the state honor the Indians that had been shamelessly eradicated than making them the namesake of their premier institution? To me, the problem exists because Chief Illiniwek is not an Illini indian. He wears a headress that is of Sioux descent for certain, I'm not sure about the clothes or the dance. It seems to me that the University administration must blame themselves for not working with the Illini indians to determine what changes needed to be made to make the mascot the honored image/figure originally intended.

I've heard some of you guys talk about heading up there for games before. I was wondering if you guys knew if they'd have the X game on up there tonight?

Uh...he was talking about DP holding onto the ball with a man on him for 5 seconds. Apparently the 10 count expired before the 5 count on that did.

Tomme with 3 Ian with 2 Lisch a steal and breakaway for 2

I'll be following along with Rammer and Earl. Will keep you posted.

Just looking for a little analysis as to why the bench was so much more effective tonight. JJ was very comfortable out there outside of one bad pass near the end and some silly fouls late. Knollmeyer was solid while he was in there. Danny helped keep the offense in rhythm. Where did this come from suddenly. Is Charlotte just not very good or has Brad finally gotten through to them? I'm not trying to bring anyone down tonight, just looking for speculation on what happened...

True enough. However, if we're arguing about his effectiveness at the 4 position in comparison with Luke, I'm just not sure we gain that much size or strength at that position.

I really don't understand your point here. We're trading AK for DP on offense. Not exactly losing a ton there. Why suddenly is Luke given so much more attention? Just because he is a 3 and not a 4? And by your argument, why would anyone bother since he doesn't take advantage of not being guarded at the 4? Finally, why would you criticize a player for taking open shots that come through the natural flow of the offense and making them at an impressive clip as the fourth option? They can't guard everybody, so having an efficient shooter like Luke to make open shots when they're given to him seems like a luxury to me. It's one we haven't had a lot of recently if you've seen some of the struggles we've had offensively in years past...

Alright this has gone on long enough. When your fourth option on offense scores 10 ppg and does so while shooting over 50%, regardless of whatever you attribute this to, there isn't much wrong with your offense. The problem is the positions it puts us in defensively, which I don't think many people will argue with. As even Brad has pointed out quite a bit lately, our problem has not been scoring enough points, it has been not stopping anyone. If you want to argue our defense would be better with AK rather than LM then I'd listen a little more, although I haven't seen anything that would suggest this is true. To be honest, AK doesn't look much taller or stronger than LM to me when he's out there.

Although you do have to consider the effect this has on defense. Coach says DP is the guy that does the best job on their best scorer so relegating him to 6th man minutes may have an adverse effect at the other end. But, honestly, we haven't guarded well this year anyway so I can't think it'd be much worse.

If possible, I agree with both of you. I disagree with brianstl's tone toward Luke, but agree that a legitimate 4 man would greatly improve this team. I think it would open up Ian more on the inside and with the play of TL and KL drawing most of the attention(if he were healthy) on the outside, Luke would find plenty of open shots at the 3. Just think of Luke getting DP's shots as well as a couple that he's already taking. I see him at the 3 averaging the same as he does now, but the legitimate 4 making Ian more effective, thereby helping make TL and KL more effective (which is scary good in TL's case).

You are aware that Sampson ended up with our main recruiting target last year as well right?

Polk, Polk, Polk, Polk....the kid is likable, what can I say?

This is an excellent summary of where the program is at and what most posters have been saying for the last few weeks. I would love to hear what Billikan has to say about this, since apparently most of us are a bunch of negative know-nothings.

>i think most of the naysayers would >rather see the Bills lose so Brad can be villified in their >repeated and now extremely boring posts. Well you're right about some posters being extremely boring, but I think you've failed to realize that it's you that has become boring to read. Okay, we get it, you prefer to think positive. Most of the board prefers to focus on the fact that this team has grossly underachieved, has wasted spectacular efforts from Tommie Liddell, and has an insufficient core of talent to compete from night to night (when we go to the bench it is such a dramatic drop in talent and competency, it's pathetic). We also have focused on the fact that when looking to the future, our recruiting success (or lack thereof) gives little hope that this situation will be better anytime soon. We have FOUR unused scholarships at this point, have NO recruits signed for SIX open schollies next year, and our best prospect left this year (Powell) appears as likely to sign with Illinois as SLU. Spin it however you want, this program is in trouble.

Great game for the Billikens, especially in the second half. Eight threes in the second half alone, with Dwayne and Kevin helping Tommie shoulder the load. Observation regarding Maguire...he looks VERY nervous out there to me. Watch him without the ball, he's hopping around and whipping his head around in every direction. Also, his shots don't appear to have any rotation at all. However, he did contribute with a few rebounds (one off of his own shot) and I didn't see a drop in D as has been talked about. Seems like with some more minutes to get him comfortable he could be a legitimate option, but I'd like to som rotation on that shot...

A week ago we're talking about going 14-2 in the conference, now we're talking about how RHODE ISLAND is a tough matchup. Boy what a change of fortune... Tommie will need to continue to be assertive...for a full 40 minutes. With Kevin ailing, he needs to score. Luke needs to keep it up on the offensive end. Ian needs to WAKE UP!! Hopefully Kevin can knock in a few deep ones to keep them relatively honest. Dwayne needs to help pick up some slack from Kevin. With 6'8" athletes to guard, they're going to score. We need to be efficient on offense all game, no 4 minutes droughts.

Sounds like a pretty intriguing player for a school like ours. Nobody has any info?

In addition, I think you can infer from my post that as Billikens fans we should be okay with the program ebbing and flowing with the level of talent in St. Louis. For years when the talent is low, which most on here agree that it was, we're going to see that in the Billikens a few years down the road. However, that's only acceptable if you rise with the talent level also. That's what makes 08 so huge for BS and why I say where we stand with that class in recruiting is so vital to Brad. In between good years, we just have to hope for the best to help bridge the gap. That's why I think Ecklerle and Powell are so imperative.