Clock_Tower

Dayton's facilities are light years ahead of SLU's. 13,500 facility which had been slightly "off campus" but now, with the growth and expansion of the University in that direction, can be considered "on-campus." UD's facility regularly is an NCAA Tourney site because of its facility. SLU's new arena will never be an NCAA site. I recognize that being an NCAA site is not a requirement to a good program/recruiting but keep in mind Gregory currently has an advantage over Brad especially for a guy with only 3 years left. Even after this recruit by Gregory, not sure I would want Gregory here. Agree regarding your comments on "stepping stone." Many on this Board would like our program to equal the schools you listed, those listed by others like Gonzaga. Add XU to that list.

Sure, SLU has a lot to offer but the deficiencies (facilities, exposure and tradition) are glaring. Recruiting obviously got tougher recently with the A10 v. the old Conf USA. Easier to say to a recruit, "Play for SLU and you get home & away against Cincy, Memphis, DePaul & Marquette..." Nothing we can do about this now. We can only hope to rekindle old rivalries with X, UD, etc. With the new facilities being built, SLU will have even more to offer. The secret of the Valley seems to be solid but not spectacular recruiting of player who stay for 4 years (become stars in their Jr. and Sr years), an increase in basketball budgets and facilities and commitments to their coaches to keep them from having to start over every few years. I know we all wanted Brad to get a guy like Stemler to add a positive impact now, for Ian's last year; however, our Jr and Sr talent simply does not stack up with that found in top 50 programs. Next year, now that OI and HD have not panned out, the JUCO route must be used. Assuming we can find at least one (hopefully two) JUCO replacement(s) for Ian, we will finally have the upper classmen talent by which to fairly judge Brad.

Taj79 Your post reads in part: ... no real solutions to overcome said problems. Its seems like we all waiting for that miracle to drop into our laps .... a stellar local class stays home (Gray/Douglas or Claggs/Hmark/Winfield) or someone who walks on water walks through our door (Hughes). Both have happened before but the problem was that no one used the impetus to push on and capitalize. Maybe some believe this is the next step come class of 2008. Actually, since the early 1980's, I think it would be fair to list four (4) real bright spots in SLU's basketball program: 1. Gray, Douglas and Bonner years; 2. Claggett, Waldman and Highmark years; 3. the Larry Hughes year plus his impact of helping bring Tatum, Baniak and Heinrich to the team; and now 4. Lisch and Liddell years. If you agree as to these four (4) "eras", you will note a few common threads with each: * poor talent and results just prior and immediately after each era * inabilitiy to get the additional recruits to get SLU to a higher level Does any of this sound familiar? Without taking much credit away the coaches who recurited, because for whatever reasons the players chose SLU over all others, playing time over 4 years and being a "star" or "re-builder" of the program may be more responsible for their choice than anything else. Solutions: steady building of recruits each year and less coaching changes while SLU works on the issues I listed at the top of this thread (academics excluded). Granted, no doubt that much stated in my post has not been posted before.

As a loyal fan since the announcement of Rick Grawer as head coach at SLU, I have noticed a continual problem at SLU which has plagued not only Grawer, Spoon and Romar but continues to plague Brad as well: lack of depth and quality players. Despite the claims of many on this Board, much of this cannot be laid solely at the feet of our head coach. Without being negative, be honest: 1. SLU's facilities (practice court, weight room, player "lounge", etc) are worse than what most recruits are used to at high school. The new arena in 2008 cannot come soon enough. As mentioned in other threads, this Arena, though, will only eliminate the enormous gap betwen SLU and our competitors for recruits. Not provide us with an advantage. Fault: Biondi and SLU Administration. 2. SLU "TV package" these past few years has been a joke. Local access channel on Charter cable does not provide the program with the much needed exposure. Recruits want to play for schools that get exposure. Recruiting comparisons now have been made by others on this Board between Brad and Anderson/MU. Sorry, there is no comparison. Mizzou is and has been on Fox Sports Midwest and will continue to get exposure when the Big 12 season begins. Charter's local broadcasts and now CSTV is not the same as FSN, ESPN and CBS. Remember when Channel 5 would broadcast some of the games to a large audience. Fault: Woolard and Levick. 3. SLU's "Radio package" on KFNS 590 also is second tier. St. Louis now has 2 major radio stations: 550 and 1120 but we cannot get on either. Only one radio in my home (West County) can pick-up 590. Between the static and need to frequently turn the radio to keep reception, I recall the "old days" - Grawer era - when I listened mostly to static as SLU basketball was intermittently broadcast on AM 1380. Remember when KMOX broadcast the Bills only a few years ago? Fault: Woolard and Levick. 4. SLU's coverage in the local newspaper is woefully inadequate. While many on this Board state that we are the only Div 1 in town, that there is no competition within 100 miles, you would not know such by the amount and quality of press given to the Bills. By comparison, locally, Missouri State gets top billing in Springfield (newspaper, radio and TV) and, other conference foes such as Dayton, likewise get top billing where it is not uncommon for 3 or 4 stories (on page 1) following a big win since there is nothing else going on (NFL, NHL, NBA, etc) in these smaller cities. Fault: Woolard and Levick. 5. SLU's lack of winning tradition -- Easy Ed and Bouska era excepted. Seriously, since the 1950's, SLU has had relatively little success. Many on this Board like to compare SLU to Marquette. Remember, though, that while MU was still basking in their glory (1978), SLU Administration (1980)was discussing cutting scholarships and changing to Division II or III. Fault: Administration but actually plenty of fault to go round. 6. Academics. As you know, SLU's academics are tougher than many competitors. Do other schools have tough academics too? Of course. At the same time, for those who don't recognize this limitation, let me remind you of Craig Upchurch - the type of 4 we need today. Had he been teamed with Bonner, SLU would have been the one going to the NCAA while XU sat home. Others on this Board know more than me, but I believe SLU, at least for a few years, would not take Prop 48 recruits. Do many other programs suffer from some of these problems? Sure. Do many programs face ALL of these problems? Not nearly as many. Are there exceptions who have overcome them? Sure, but they are more rare than common. When they are overcome, are they overcome solely by changing the head coach? No. Would winning by the head coach improve some of the above? Sure. But think about it. Romar came to the program with some talent left by Spoon - Love, Baniak, Tatum & Heinrich - and proved he could coach but had difficulty recruiting at SLU. Brad's last three recruiting classes (decent but not what I would have hoped for) are probably better than what Romar actually did here at SLU. Now that he is at Washington, he has definitely done a good job of both coaching and recruiting, is rightfully labeled an excellent recruiter, but certainly did not show it here. If a guy like Romar had trouble recruiting here, maybe we should look at other issues within the program - other than the head coach. Sometimes, the salesman needs a better product to sell. For that matter, Spoon (IMO SLU's best coach) won many games and went to the NCAAs but could hardly be considered a great recruiter. He won with guard play while his 4's measured only 6'2", 6'4" and/or role players. Only after Larry Hughes committed did Baniak and Heinrich commit. Also, recall that Spoon's recruiting class following that of Larry Hughes was horrible - Virgil Cobbin - recruits had already committed (both fall and spring signings) before Larry surprised everyone by going to the NBA after only season. Grawer had similar problems and had to promise recruits that they would be a "starter", that they would receive a certain amount of playing time or that they would play a certain position (PG for Winfield) to induce a recruit to select SLU. Just some thoughts. PS Longtime "lurker" but first time poster.