Pistol

TK made used his source (which is legit), made a prediction of how things would turn out, and it didn't go that way. Big deal, we're all fans, and most importantly Ian is returning, time to move on.

That's what I thought- unless we fired someone on the staff, which doesn't need to happen, Bonner really can't do anything.

What position can Bonner fill? We have a full coaching staff already. I'm sure Bonner would like to talk to Ian in some capacity, though.

I would think that outside those three, we'll see a changing lineup all year unless Brad finds something that really clicks. Maybe we'll have Polk bring it up more and get a faster offense to suit him as a PG. I think we'll see a lot of DB, and I also think Brad will go with a twin towers frontcourt of Ian and Bryce more often- he said he liked it last year, and Bryce should be improving to a point where he can log more minutes. JJ hasn't really ever given us anything in the past, so I don't see him being anything moving forward. A couple minutes a game for him would be fine- any more would probably be a waste. Even if Bonner came in to school him, he's a senior who hasn't gotten any better in the last 3 years, so why would he now? Another question is if AK or Obi can step in and play a 4 for some decent minutes. I like Luke in the lineup, but as a 3. We can go four guards for limited stretches, but not all the time with the way we've shot in the past. If our guys start shooting, that gives our offense a lot more possibilities, and we'll have a number of lineups that we can feel comfortable with, based on what kind of team we're facing.

I appreciate that, Rich. I saw TK getting bashed before anyone really knew anything, and just didn't think it was fair. I think what many perceived as an attitude that he would rather be right than have Ian back came from the fact that he had to go on the defensive as soon as he made his comments. TK, who said he was a SLU alum, is probably a fan like most of us here, and I doubt he really wanted SLU to lose Ian. He probably just wanted to make a bold prediction and see what happens. Most of the anti-SLU fans on here seem to be fans of Mizzou or Dayton who come on the board to stir things up.

Rich, how does my credibility get called into question? I just said not to attack TK before we knew what was up. Maybe there was some validity to his claims, and like others posted, Ian could have gone back and forth on this and TK could have caught the info on a day that Ian felt more confident. You can go back and read the stuff I wrote: I never said Ian was gone, I was just skeptical because things don't always go right for SLU basketball. Don't knock me without any basis just because you like to insult everyone you can.

First off, nice article- I don't know how in the world you found that somewhat obscure piece from 1998, but good work. These weren't exactly project players, though- NBA lottery picks don't develop overnight. Prosser is at Wake now because of his ability to evaluate talent and elevate a program. SLU can't just count on getting lucky and hope that underrated players will fall in our lap. Secondly, Burrell may not have been a ranked player out of high school, but got national attention because he was a very good player at Hargrave Military Academy. David West also went there, and Xavier kept that pipeline going. SLU fans should know that just putting on a Hargrave jersey is going to get a player looks from a lot of coaches, and these two excelled there. I don't think any XU fan would laugh about saying these two were recruited hard.

I sure hope he's back, but it's not official yet. I would hold off on the TK bashing until then. If it is the case, maybe Brad did a nice little piece of "recruiting" in Orlando.

http://goxavier.cstv.com/sports/m-baskbl/s.../061306aaa.html Seems like a lot of people thought he'd be transferring to an ACC school, but he decided to go back to Cincy. Xavier, a school incredibly similar to SLU, has been recruiting very good talent for a long time. I know it's been discussed in the Scott Suggs post below, but there's no reason SLU can't do the same.

All of Xavier's coaches in recent history have been able to recruit better players than the rest of the conference. Skip Prosser, Thad Matta, and now Sean Miller are getting great recruits, not just 3-star players. It's not a stream of McDonald's All-Americans, but they've landed highly-regarded talent. A few guys on their roster now were recruited all over the place (Duncan, Burrell, Lavender, plus a few commitments), plus the guys before that (West, Sato, Chalmers), and even before that (Tyrone Hill, James Posey, Aaron Williams, Brian Grant). Today they just landed a player many thought would transfer to the ACC. Xavier has padded the rest of the roster with 3-star recruits, but you'd have to go back a long time to find a time when they relied on them for wins. This is a very similar school to SLU, and there is no reason we can't be at least on their level in recruiting.

I couldn't have said it any better, Drew. How do people think we're going to become a tournament team by giving up on the best recruits? You can only go so far by trying to get the most out of blue-collar-type players, and a program that relies on that type of player will be a mid-major forever.

But you don't have to pin it on everything that criticizes Brad in any way, shape, or form. No one is perfect, and a discussion board should include both sides of the argument. I'm a Brad fan, but would be downright lying if I said everything he's done is perfect. We shouldn't be completely unwilling to hear arguments against him- and they're not all personal slams against him, either. Many posters take their time, and make well-constructed points. They could just as easily pin a "PBC" Pro-Brad Crew on every positive post about him, but that would just illustrate that attempting to label every post serves no purpose.

I would think that unless Toronto is telling him that they're going to take him with one of their second-round picks, or some other development that no one knows about, he would come back for another year. A good workout in Toronto paired with a great week at camp would have sealed the deal, but it doesn't seem like Orlando will put him over the top. Even if his relationship with Brad isn't very good at all, he's got to keep his career in mind and not do anything irrational. Another year of college ball would be great for him.

Good riddance to Lori. She was not well-liked around the athletic department, particularly among men's sports. She fit in fine with the lackluster, penny-pinching Doug Woolard era, but I don't see her bringing much to the table for a department that wants to go somewhere. What Volfan fails to point out is that these shake-ups need to take place in order for the athletic department to grow, improve, and have a singular mission. They aren't going to bring in tens of millions in their first months; it's a very long-term process.

It sounds like he might have had the ideal game from a SLU fan's standpoint: nothing that would get the NBA scouts drooling, but maybe enough to keep him in mind for next year. Who knows what's being whispered in his ear, but hopefully he comes back, improves in the areas he needs to, has a great season, and gets that NBA paycheck in '07. But that is a best-case scenario, and I'm still very guarded in my optimism.

I agree with you, Skip. Everyone's bashing of TK makes them look pretty confident that Ian is coming back. Haven't SLU fans learned by now not to get your hopes up? Too many things can happen. If Ian goes, TK looks pretty smart and credible. I don't think he was trying to rub it in anyone's face that Ian might be leaving. To me, it looks more like he had to get defensive once everyone came down on him for making a negative prediction. Every fan wants Ian to come back, but the way people on the board are trying to bully everyone into stating their identities and revealing their sources could make for a lot of unnecessary fighting. Give it time, wait for it to play out, and don't trash anyone unless you have a real reason to do so.

To answer your first question, yes, I think Brad can do that. The second question: given that he's signed through 2009, I think the bigger challenge for SLU now is drawing the talent in. We keep losing out on the bigger names, and just landing one or two to start with is the hard part.

You seem to be bringing TK into every post of yours recently- why the hostility? He made a couple predictions, gave his insights, and stuck to his guns. It might not be what everyone wants to hear, but he might be onto something anyway.

You make a lot of good points in there, and you're right about what people have to accept: Brad is signed through 2009, and he's staying put. Landing big recruits is always going to be tougher for us than some of the schools we'll be going up against, but I still think we need to go after them and show we want to be a contender. As far as striving to be an XU, I would take that any day. Look at the list of XU players in the NBA compared to some of the other big programs, and they're right there. The problem XU has is coaching stability- they've been a spring-board for coach after coach who has moved on to bigger programs and paydays. I don't think that will be the case with Brad, so we have an opportunity to build something long-term at SLU, whether he's the guy a lot of posters here want or not. Another program to model our development after should be Gonzaga. They had a coach that stayed put for a while, and a few players made that program something special. Back when they were surprising people for the first time, it was just a matter of Few building his program around guys like Casey Calvary and Dan Dickau (who were probably "blue collar" type recruits out of high school), and the subsequent recruits thereafter have made the team deeper and more talented: Stepp, Turiaf, Morrison, etc. I don't think this kind of development is out of reach by any means, and I think having Lisch and Liddell on board is a step in that direction.

That's an excellent point. I really believe that if Ian thinks he can go in the second round that he'll make the jump. He knows by now that his future is in basketball.

Mizzou, because I like big crowds. I think what it comes down to is that we won't see eye-to-eye on this one. I really believe that Mizzou would be our best bet to get a long-term series going, no matter how bad their program may have looked last season in the wake of the Quin mess. You look at recent history and Mizzou has had a lot more success than Bradley, and unless Anderson can't get it together, they'll have more success moving forward. Developing regional rivalries is important, but if I had to choose between the two, I would just rather do it with the biggest programs, like Mizzou and Illinois, than with teams from the Valley. I like those games (SIU, MSU) on the schedule every year, and I like the idea of playing as many solid regional mid-majors as possible (keeping in mind the alums in nearby cities), but not as the marquee matchups.

Oh yeah, because Bradley's going to be the answer when it comes to intense rivalries. Once the SLU students found out we'd be playing Bradley, there would be lines to the ticket office forming weeks in advance. The Savvis Center would sell out, there would be rioting in the streets, and the media would be swarming. SLU-Bradley would replace Duke-UNC as the most famous rivalry in college basketball. Dick Vitale would finally keel over and die from excitement. If you think there is more potential for mutual "intensity of the rivalry" between SLU and Bradley than SLU and Mizzou, then you have been locked in a time capsule since 1970. Mizzou may have a lot of indifference toward SLU, but the fact that there is even an argument made for BRADLEY is staggering to me. I think we would all like to play Mizzou every year, and people on this board seem fine with settling on a Valley team that has had one winning season in the last several years. Instead of coming up with alternatives, push for Mizzou.

Was Mizzou-SLU one sided for those 3 years (1999, 2000, 2001)? SLU took the first by two points, Mizzou won by a point, and then hit a buzzer beater to win by two. That's the farthest from lopsided you could possibly be. Mizzou had a terrible record last year and is rebuilding. SLU is perpetually in a state of building. I don't see how this is so uneven. Bradley had a good year, but it was their first winning season in years. Now the main player that took them so far in March is history. They could very well be back to the bottom half of the Valley. I just don't see the appeal of this rivalry, and I can't believe that a history of good games with Bradley from 3 and 4 decades ago will get fans in the seats. It might only work for those who get a senior citizen's discount (and I don't mean that to insult the posters on the board who remember the SLU-Bradley heyday). The matchup means very little to anyone from the past couple generations.

Totally agreed with the second half of that- I thought Stokes' buzzer beater would keep the fire going in this one, but Q shot it down. He decided that losing to SLU was too risky for his at-large chances, so he chose to lose to Belmont and Sam Houston St. instead. I'm still holding out that Mike Anderson will do the right thing within a couple years and get this thing going.

Why are you giving up on getting this game on the schedule? Mizzou hired a new coach a matter of weeks ago, so who knows if he'll actually see the value in playing us? I think there's a decent chance. Bradley, Creighton, and SIU make good games, I agree (and so does UWM, but I'm not sure where that came from). Get them on the schedule if you want, but don't replace Mizzou with them if you have the chance (and we do- Brad is trying hard, believe it or not). And you think Temple is the next big rival? They have Villanova, St. Joe's, Penn, LaSalle, and a host of Big East schools within spitting distance. Your whole argument is based on a rivalry being reciprocated. Why would Temple care about SLU as a rival? It's a good in-conference game at best.