brianstl

He didn't exactly have those guys at Ball state and they went 29-3.

I just think you better be set with your basic systems before you do that. I think it is going to get better here before most people do. I think the price we have paid so far will be well worth it before the year is done.

Roy this guy is an MU fan. It isn't even worth the effort.

Some of the Illini boards have been just as entertaining after they blew the Arizona game.

I think having at least four guys around that have run the system before is a huge advantage. Nobody on this roster had played this system before and it is killing us so far. Majerus's first year at Ball State the team struggled to finish 14-14. His second year they finished 29-3. Bernie brought this up earlier today, but I thought it needed to be repeated here.

I disagree. You get done with the growing pains this year. One of the big problems with learning the systems this year is the fact that there are no players to help newcomers to the systems to learn them. I don't want to go through any of this again next year. Pay the price this year.

How has that up-tempo style working at Mizzou when it comes to drawing fans? Winning games, big games especially, is the answer. Attendance won't be a problem at the new building. The new building will be basically sold out before a game is ever played there.

If an exciting style of play is the answer to drawing fans, then why does SLU continue to outdraw Mizzou on a yearly basis? The answer is to start winning games and then the stands will fill up.

Does anyone know for sure what time they plan are starting the main event? I hope I have time to get back for the start. If I remember from past events 10:00 was normally the start of the main event.

RM giving the team Wednesday off pays dividends as we shoot around 45-50%. SLU wins a game in which we dictate the pace 55-50.

Perry from everthing I hear will won't be D-1 eligble coming out.

Actually, I understand what you are saying. The problem is you are very short sighted. What the teams getting no exposure should have asked for is exposure. Not just asked for it, but they should have demanded it. Exposure would help them build their program far more than the small amount of money they received in this deal. It is obvious now that the majority of the conference now agrees with my way of thinking and that is why Bruno is leaving. I am not talking about exposure on local TV, but on the regional networks or on CSTV. Why in the hell didn't somebody at least demand an A-10 double header one night a week on CSTV, plus at least three other games a week on the network? If you were going to give them total control over your TV rights you have to at least guarantee clearance on the network. It is not like they would be asking them to bump big Monday. Here is a link to their awesome schedule tomorrow: http://www.cstv.com/cgi-bin/tvsched.cgi?mo...amp;chosenCal=0 . What CSTV did was come in and lock-up the A-10 long-term on the cheap when the conference was down. This was a terrible move for both the short-term and long-term for the A-10 and all of its members.

I have no problem with the money being divided equally, but this deal was stupid. It seems like some teams just wanted to stick it to some others. I give CL credit. She understood that even though SLU got more money out of this deal it was a bad deal when you look at the long-term impact it had on the program. You have to see beyond the immediate dollar signs in front of you and do a long-term cost benefit analysis of the deal in front of you. When you do that this was a bad deal for everyone in the conference.

The loss of long term revenue is not an unintended consequence and it should not have gone unseen. Shortsightedness like this cost the schools chances to expand there applicantion base. It also made it nearly impossible for alumni around the country a chance to see their team and that doesn't help when it comes to fund raising. The exposure these schools have lost would cost them far more to replace than the money they made off the deal. One reason why we joined this conference is to get the school exposure in areas it has never had it before. That exposure goes both ways. The schools that choose this deal would have to pay far more for ads on tv in markets like DC, St. Louis, Cincy, Philly, and Charlotte. It was a bad deal for everyone in the conference.

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/dhb/dhb0330a07.htm

Moy, did you hear the Justin Jones story?

I am super pumped. I don't think Hatton will win, but Pretty Boy will know he has been in a fight. That hasn't happened often and that will make me happy. The crowd will be insane and I can't wait to see Hatton's entrance. I plan on getting the HD PPV telecast, putting it on the surround sound, and just enjoying the fight.

Somebody needs to get out and see this kid. If that turnover stat is right, he had an assist to turnover ratio of 8.1/0.1. I don’t know how the Florida hs playoffs are set-up, but his team made it to the fifth round.

That turnover total can't be correct, three for the whole season. Wow.

I think it will. I think the slow down in the schedule is the best thing that could happen to this team. I am still pretty optimistic about our NCAA chances. No real terrible damage has been done to our RPI at this point and there is no way we keep shooting this bad. I am always optimistic and sometimes overly so.

Roy you follow the Il side, have you seen this kid? Nate have you seen him or heard anything about him?

Seriously, did anyone really believe we would have a chance to have NCAA tourney bid locked up before the conference tourney? I think the A-10 is improved, but it will still be a chore to place more than two teams in the NCAA tourney. The last two seasons the conference was a one bid conference, if not for an upset conf. tourney winner. The best chance the Bills have is finish in the top 2 in the conference and make the tourney final. Anything less would require winning the conf. tournament or a lot of stuff out of our control going our way.

I will buy that about the TV deal and that is closer to what I remember her saying at the time. It was the statement about eight teams being better off, I had a problem with. Those eight teams might have thought they were better off, but in no way were they actually better off.

If that is what happens then great, but I am not sure it will. We are talking about a conference that had eight votes to approve the CSTV deal. If that kind of thought reigns again, I don't see certain schools sticking around.

There is a difference in believing you are better off and actually being better off. A good commissioner would have had the knowledge to realize and the leadership to convince the other conference members that this was a bad deal. Both the conference and all the conference members need to get as much as exposure as possible. A deal that limits exposure is a bad deal no matter what the dollars are. Those short-term dollars end up costing you far more long-term dollars. Bruno should have realized this and should have convinced the rest of the conference of this. If CL really believed this was a good deal for the majority of the conference (and not just trying to put a happy face on it), then honestly I am happy she is gone.