Pistol

I understand how it works very well, and I never "misunderstoof" anything you said. I'll quote my last post: "It's unfortunate that non-revenue men's sports often have to be eliminated or poorly funded, but that's equally due to football and Title IX, which have never fit comfortably." I do understand the fundamental problem Title IX causes with athletic programs that have scholarship football. Could you please provide an example of a congressman or congresswoman who has been voted out of office due to a stance against Title IX? I will also accept an example of one of these individuals being labeled "sexist" and not even voted out. There were certainly members of congress who voted against it in 1972, but keep in mind how shortly after the civil rights and feminist movements that it passed. A lot of those reps were around when blacks had separate drinking fountains and the women who worked outside the home were paid less for the same jobs. This law has been in place for 36 years. Football program or no, athletic departments and universities have had well over 3 decades to figure out how to comply with this law. If that means cutting a few men's programs or spreading the scholarships more thin across them all, that sucks, but it's the cost of having football. If that means creating additional women's programs or scholarships with football revenue, then that's ideal. The point is, universities have had a long time to determine what their priorities are. I don't understand how a "gal who is so-so," in your eloquent words, can receive a full athletic scholarship to a Big Ten school. It is absolutely undeniable that the level of competition for scholarships in every sport, men's and women's, regardless of revenue, is extremely high. If you think the girls getting full rides to Big Ten schools to play sports are just "so-so" then you have unrealistic standards. What does that make SLU's female student-athletes? I can promise you that these are talented women who work very hard. There are plenty of male athletes who did not have a chance to play D-I in their non-revenue sports because of the amount of scholarships allocated to football. That is a shame. However, if they were "top-notch" they would have received scholarships to play somewhere. There are still thousands of scholarship baseball, swimming, track, wrestling, fencing, cross country, soccer, tennis, etc. male athletes playing at the D-I level. How big is your "top notch" for men if so many boys at this level are being denied scholarships? You apparently have a miniscule "top notch" for women if the Big Ten is made up of "so-so" female athletes. Moral of the story to parents and young students: don't bank on athletic scholarships as the golden ticket for college. College is still first and foremost an academic endeavor. If a kid can play sports while going to college, great, but he or she should be a student first.

I actually am aware of that because that's when I was at SLU- and was completely shocked by it. But anyone could tell you that it was just smoke and mirrors. Those Huggins players had to do a great deal less work than regular students in their classes, and had plenty of people looking out for them to make sure they got what they needed. I used to work with a girl who was on UC's dance team and dated a couple players that played for Huggins; she laughs about how little they actually had to do. As soon as Huggins left and Cronin came in, it was clear that these guys weren't real students and a lot weren't going to graduate. You can fake a GPA under a coach who doesn't care and either turns a blind eye or has people in place to help you out, but you can't fake a diploma under someone who does care. People were suddenly held accountable when Huggins was let go. That's why their APR was left in the tank by Huggy and UC's no-nonsense president (who has done wonders to boost the school academically) gave him his walking papers. I absolutely love what Cronin has done (if you couldn't tell) by getting them on solid footing academically first, and then starting to build his own program. I feel bad about them losing their stud freshman PG for the season because they could have made a lot of noise with him and Vaughn in the backcourt. He still faces a big uphill challenge because of the big part of the UC fan base that was blindly loyal to Huggins and have refused to go back...it's bizarre to an outsider like me. http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/men...holarship_x.htm http://bleacherreport.com/articles/6742-fa...good-basketball

Please don't resort to name-calling and politics, especially when your points are wrong. From what I gather, the gist of your post is basically that those who participate in sports that don't generate money (i.e. mostly women) don't deserve scholarships. Female athletes, just like men, receive scholarships at the discretion of college coaches. If they aren't qualified to receive scholarships, they certainly won't because of the amount that each team has to work with. If the male athletes are truly "top flight," they will receive scholarships. I don't understand why you feel the need to compare the abilities of male and female athletes to one another because they generally don't compete for the same teams or scholarships. It's no secret that men and women have different physical abilities, but that is far from the point. "Stupid uninformed voters" play virtually no role in Title IX. The law was enacted in 1972 and has been amended since then. It has also caused some lawsuits to ensure the compliance of certain programs. Never have voters directly had to address this law. Title IX, like any other rules in the NCAA, has far-reaching effects and has achieved mixed results. Removing such a rule would likely be more damaging to the majority of student-athletes, though. The fact is that all non-revenue sports, men's or women's, struggle with scholarship allocation. There are still more men in college athletics than women. It's unfortunate that non-revenue men's sports often have to be eliminated or poorly funded, but that's equally due to football and Title IX, which have never fit comfortably. That's why I don't want to see SLU try to implement a scholarship football program. The NY Times did a great series on the NCAA scholarship issue back in March: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/sports/10scholarships.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/sports/1...&ref=sports http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/12lifestyles.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/12/sports/12envy.html Title IX is not perfect but it seems to be the best we've got at this point. If you can think of a law that would be an improvement and still uphold the rights granted to all US citizens regardless of gender, I would be interested to hear it. I know it takes more work to have an educated opinion, but that would spare us all from the knee-jerk angry rants of a "stupid uninformed voter."

Under Cronin, it would be realistic- he's spent as much of his first few years digging the Bearcats out of the GPA hole/restoring the APR after penalties as actually coaching basketball. Under Huggins, not being accepted for grades is truly an achievement in its own right.

BC now has Tyrese Rice back. He was suspended for the first game. Too bad it wasn't a 3-game suspension. Fordham is terrible this year. They lost a close one to Columbia before the Villanova debacle, and I don't see them winning many games at all.

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/billiken-...nst-kent-state/ He says he will be playing vs. KSU.

That was an obvious intentional foul. I hate the blind eye refs turn for #1 seeds. Of course, if Cage hits both free throws to put them up 4 before that miracle 3 OSU hit, it would not have mattered.

I saw that he was playing two shows that night. It's unfortunate timing because I'll be at a friend's first party at his new house in South City. Otherwise I'd be all over that like congealed cheese smothering a KFC Famous Bowl. What a huge day for entertainment in St. Louis the 22nd will be.

Nice article. Still the gold standard for sports documentaries, and one of the best documentaries in general.

I thought this one was 1:00 all along. I can't wait, it will be my first game at Chaifetz. The Humphrey's event sounds great, too. I'll be throwing elbows Karl Malone-style for that hot dog.

Go ahead, question my credibility if you must. My comment may have been harsh, but how could they possibly have that few people show up? Why do people on this board insist on defending an organization that has been an almost umitigated failure for so many years? What have they done right? I graduated in 2005, so I'm not in the Village anymore. I can guarantee you that I was at more games in my four years than any single member of the Blue Crew. I am an absolutely die hard SLU basketball fan, and I have been since I was a kid. I am a season ticket holder despite the fact I live in Cincinnati. I am a member of the Billiken Club. These are things that most fans, especially SLU fans and recent graduates, would not be willing to do. Keep questioning my credibility and character for making one comment that I think is fair, because I sure don't understand how the Blue Crew can continue to fail with everything it has going for it at this point. Between Blue Crew members, students with season tickets, friends of Blue Crew members, and the general student body, they managed to get 30-40 people to this event. That is so mathematically improbable that I strongly challenge your comment that these current Blue Crew kids "are out there trying." I think they're comfortable with their little group of pals and aren't trying very hard, and therefore doing the rest of the student body a disservice.

Because for the first time we have an on-campus arena! There are so many ways to motivate college kids, even the apathetic ones, to walk across campus for a basketball game. I won't start brainstorming here but it doesn't take much. This is where the excuses end for the athletic department, Blue Crew, administration, and students. We finally have what we've been wanting for decades, so what are the excuses? I'll tell you what doesn't work- an event publicized to no one besides existing members of an insular group via Facebook. My roommates and I have had more people show up to our Village apartment on a weeknight for a party we didn't plan ahead of time. I don't know what nerds are in charge of the Blue Crew these days but they sure haven't shown a lick of ability in leadership, marketing, or even having friends.

I disagree, even if I know you're being a little facetious. 8,000 undergrads, a few thousand more grad students, and the best they can do is a few dozen? Pathetic. The Blue Crew seems to be laying yet another egg when it comes to rallying student support for the team. With an on-campus arena now, the task should be easier than ever for them. They seem to miss the point and miss opportunities every time they come along. Facebook messages to each other? It shouldn't be some exclusive club with members chosen by a few students- we are trying to fill an arena, not discuss the work of Proust. Whatever the Blue Crew is doing, they need to stop. In fact, I would call for the Blue Crew to be disbanded altogether and the athletic department and school work to get the students' butts in the Chaifetz seats in other ways. They're being alienated by a goofy little club that has failed miserably since its inception.

That's what he said. Maybe the alums will shoot for the moon and settle for whatever form of a varsity program they can get.

I'll answer my own question: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/billiken-...-players-today/

Weird. Normally they just have the generic city name apparel, maybe with an Arch or other landmark thrown in for good measure.

Players can start signing those letters of intent today. Anyone know if our commits are ready to fax them over?

Freshman-lheavy teams are unpredictable. Before the exhibition game, I thought we'd win 16 and stay just above .500. I might say 18 now, winning a couple more conference games.

The other team in the MCFC is Miami-OH. I actually attended the Xavier-Marquette club game here at Withrow HS in Cincinnati this past weekend. A buddy of mine is XU's defensive coordinator; he played college ball at the D2 powerhouse Georgetown (KY). Xavier won easily, as Marquette apparently was missing a number of key players and actually had some guys playing both ways. XU's only loss of the year so far was at Lincoln in Jefferson City. A lot of the XU players are from the powerhouse programs in Ohio, but not at the level of guys who got many college offers and just wanted to keep playing. The quality of football isn't the greatest, which has more to do with the limited resources afforded to club teams rather than the talent of the players. XU has a couple of gigantic players- I saw one guy, 79, who is listed at 6'3" 360 and was surprised to see someone that big...until I saw number 72, listed at (I kid you not) 6'6", 475. Needless to say, these guys are beyond slow and the bigger one has some knee problems. Still fun to watch, though. He says there's still a strong push from the Xavier alumni to get a scholarship football program off the ground, with some donors waiting in the wings. I don't know how seriously the administration is taking this push, but it's certainly out there. http://www.xavier.edu/football/

Up to three comments now, and the third has some language that might cause it to be deleted: http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/billiken-...-is-up-to-no-9/ Did anyone else notice that Billiken Beat is no longer listed under Pro & College Blogs when you mouse over the Sports tab on the front page of STLToday? What gives?

I'm not just impressed with the amount Dustin scored, but how he scored. He hit 9 of 12 three-pointers and 12 of 16 overall. I still think he and Rick did the right thing and that he would have struggled for minutes at SLU, but it looks like he's making the most of his new opportunity. Another interesting story about this game is that it wasn't at Louisville, as one would expect for an exhibition, but at NKU's brand new Bank of Kentucky Center. The arena seats about 9,400 for basketball, about a thousand more for concerts, and cost $64 million. http://www.courier-journal.com/article/B2/...0733/1063/SPT01

I'm pretty sure the biggest factor in her assessment was looks. Based on Cassity (I had to look up his picture after talking to her- he could pass for 13) and her boyfriend, she has a thing for young, moppy-haired skinny guys. Sorry, Brett- too tall. She only tops the 5-foot mark in heels. Anyway, I guess it's good for marginal fans to have a favorite player. She'll be keeping an eye on him this season, I'm sure. I'm hoping for a full student section when I get to my first game there against BC. Saturday afternoon, biggest name (if not the best team) on the home schedule, weekend before Thanksgiving- there aren't many reasons for the students not to show up for that one. I'm also hoping for a capacity crowd in general because I want to see how loud the place can get.

I split season tickets with my dad since I can probably only make 5 or so games this year, and he let my 19-year-old sister and her boyfriend have them for the HSSU game. She goes to Meremec CC but has been to a few games at Scottrade in the past. A couple of her observations from the game, paraphrased, seem relevant to this thread: -Parking was easy. We made a right on Olive from Grand and had no trouble finding a spot on the street. -The new arena is really, really nice and a much better size than the last one. -The size of the crowd was good but they weren't loud or into it. There were, like, a lot of old people and maybe only a couple hundred students, tops. -Number 23 [Cassity] is the new player to keep an eye on. He's so fast and so good and does everything well. I like him. -Big number 41 needs to run faster and also jump higher for rebounds. -We got a free poster on the way out and it has the game dates and times so now I don't have to worry about not having it on the tickets. So there you go, some objective, in-depth analysis from my little sister. She had me laughing pretty hard, even if she didn't mean to and especially when she was trying to be nice about describing the crowd. Just having a smaller, newer arena doesn't automatically give us a great atmosphere. We need more students to show up every night and we need all those alums to give a verbal or physical response every now and then. This is one of my biggest pet peeves with SLU fans- it's hard for players to get jacked up in front of a crowd who sits there with their arms folded and mouth shut. I've suspected before that street parking wouldn't be too tough around there, so that's probably what I'll rely on when I'm in town.

He had the same rule last year.

I'm guessing there will be some attrition. A 7-man class followed by a 5- or 6-man class- something's gotta give. The encouraging thing is that all of our freshmen this year are competing for minutes, so maybe the equilibrium can hold for a while.