Adman

Agree there would be little interest from networks, and having success first would be much better. That’s why I was recommending SLU underwrite. Guaranteeing the financials for the network - production costs, ad revenue, etc - would be major commitment and would deliver both marketing and recruiting results. It would also send message to the BE. SLU has underwritten TV in past - on local and much less expensive basis - with Fox Sports Midwest. And who knows, maybe SLU paid to participate in last yeat’s 2K Classic at MSG as well as other made-for-TV tourneys of the past. Money usually talks. IF there was a big pot of new money available, and SLU was willing to put it in network’s pocket, why couldn’t SLU recruit three other top 75 schools to participate in a made for TV event? Some might even help fund it. Doesn’t have to be regional with Mizzou, IL, SIU. Could be charity game with mix of top 8 conference schools, an up & comers tourney (like us,) even a Jebbie tourney delivering major TV markets with schools coast to coast. A few of many possible concepts. I’m sure there are reasons people would say can’t be done. I’m a half-full guy. Usually, armed with enough $$, a dream, team and network relationships, smart marketers and can-do approach, things can get done.

One thing that hasn't been discussed (I don't think) in the budget discussion is television. The key drivers in the recruits' decision are (not necessarily in this order): big time coach, facility/locker room, playing in NCAA tourney, route to NBA, schedule, crowd size/atmosphere, and... playing on TV. The A10 TV deal is average at best. I know SLU has underwritten TV costs to get more games on Fox Sports Midwest. But that only helps local recruiting and ticket sales to a degree. Again, not knowing current line item budgets, I'd want to look closely at creating and scheduling a made-for-TV event with a name school (or schools) in partnership with ESPN (or other network) and underwriting all or part of it for national broadcast. If Mi$$ou, Illinois, SIU-Carbondale don't want in, we'll find better.

I don't have an opinion on where to spend it since there's no complete line item budget info. But thought might be helpful to resurrect the thread VeniceMenace started a few months back, show how SLU measures up overall in the A10. My comment in this thread also shows how we compare beyond the A10... to similar as well as aspirational Jesuit and Catholic private schools. These metrics are likely somewhat inaccurate as accounting practices differ. But still provides some general info:

I just checked and, yes, SLU is showing exact same revenue as costs for Men’s bball. Either must be counting SLU underwriting, donations from donors, both, counting PR/media value and/or other creative accounting.

Not sure. Line items aren’t broken out for Men’s b-ball, but supposed to include scholarship value, cost of staff, recruiting, game production, travel, etc. One fuzzy area I can imagine is venue rental — school paying large rent to 3rd party for arena vs on campus “school-run” (mostly cost-free). Not sure which side SLU falls in accounting-wise with Spectra.

I did a bit more research to see what similar non-A10 programs are spending. If our goal is to be Xavier, Gonzaga, Villanova, and the Big East in general, I'm less interested in our A10 standings. Our men's bball budget will be an important topic in comparison with the below universities. Especially interesting are the Creighton and Marquette numbers. Not difficult to see the case made by Marquette when stumping for Creighton's admission into Big East. We have some work to do. On other hand, Porter Moser got a lot done with little. Here are the numbers: Saint Louis — $5,590,746 Gonzaga -- $8,874,752 Butler -- $5,489,704 DePaul -- $5,533,811 Creighton -- $7,665,992 Georgetown -- $17,702,377 Marquette -- $11,803,633 Seton Hall -- $6,011,447 Villanova -- $11,120,378 Xavier -- $7,835,880 Notre Dame -- $6,793,853 Loyola Chicago - $2,821,576 By the way, if anyone wants to research further, the data's available for all to see: https://ope.ed.gov/athletics/#/

Thomas Crone, I echo everyone else's compliments. An outstanding read. And must also say, you spent a lot of time researching. Thanks for the time and effort you devoted. It truly shows.

Not sure if willing, but some of the names you mention in your first sentence can write checks of the size needed.

Leadership.

10 of them on the offensive glass.

Pistol, interesting journey you've pieced together! I know you mentioned you didn't know the Creighton Prep story, but any sense of the overall story here? Usually a guy in his 5th high school/prep school would set off alarms.

Thanks a lot for the summary. He clearly didn't do his homework. He's usually better than this. But since he doesn't like basketball or pay attention to us...

roy, i'll go one further. the title ix people hide behind title ix itself, saying, in effect, we have to play by the Fed Gvmt's rules, we're limited in what we can do, if it's unfair to the accused, can't be helped, our policy must be consistent with guidance, etc. this is utter nonsense. there are a couple reasons why. no one is forcing the university to make an unfair decision, a decision weighted against the men. let's not be silly. trump and devos aren't going to march into grand & lindell and pull their funding. if anything, the trump administration - like them or not - leans the other direction and is beginning reform. even more amazing, in the 2017 title ix guidance from the fed gvmt, universities were offered the option of making rulings based on the "clear and convincing evidence standard" -- a medium-level burden of proof of requiring 70-75% confidence -- rather than the existing "preponderance of the evidence standard" -- a low-level 50.1% likely burden of proof. i don't have to tell you which option slu chose to implement in its Policy. given that title ix already eliminates some basic rights of the accused which are hallmarks of our legal system, and this would have, you know, added a modicum of fairness, it is particularly troublesome. they chose to keep it unbalanced. 50.1% likely? GUILTY. but it gets worse. for a moment, forget title ix. let's focus only on the other parts of the SLU Student Handbook/Code of Conduct; the non-sexual assault parts, the parts actually NOT under the fed gvmt's thumb. to slu's great credit, there is a huge "Community Standards" section which prohibits all kinds of behavior unbecoming in a Catholic, Jesuit university. things like bias, hate crimes, theft, filing false or misleading complaints, cheating, alcohol, drugs, assaults and lots more. these are slu's rules, underscoring their mission and values. slu has wide latitude to throw the book at students in these areas. (apparently it is in this area that mr goodwin received his two months for something.) with a caveat that few know the complete story of this situation -- yet much has been reported via various and multiple credible sources -- there are at least 4 areas of the Community Standards likely or highly likely violated by one or more of the women complainants. These areas include Indecent Conduct, Inappropriate Conduct, Abusive Behavior, Filing a false or misleading complaint, and if a false police report was filed, Violation of Law and the University Community Standards. These charges can be brought in the form of a student complaint, or as I read it, the University can initiate this on its own when they become aware of bad behavior and believe it risk to community. Planning and executing an orgy in a dorm room? "2.7.21 Indecent Conduct... Engaging in sexual acts in a residence hall while others are present will be a violation under this community standard." A good attorney would argue that organizing an orgy in the dorm room of a Catholic university is at least as unbecoming as posting and quickly deleting a non-consensual video. This or less got three students expelled or suspended for 1.5 to 2 years. Would we say they're 50.1% likely to have violated the code? GUILTY. So I ask: will the University actually punish the women for planning, organizing and executing an orgy? Office of Diversity: it's section 2.7.21 in case you didn't see above. Did they make misleading statements, later recanted? This is your chance to actually lay down the law about this kind of behavior on campus -- like you did against the men. Your chance to authentically and fairly underscore slu's jesuit, catholic mission. Higher Purpose. Greater Good. Highly doubtful. Because of student confidentiality - a good thing - we won't know officially. But we will. Next game, let's see who if cheer team has full squad. One last thing. This is NOT a defense of the men. Only a diatribe on how disappointed I am about my University's BIAS. Sadly, bias they are largely in control of.

Dlarry, By any chance, have you seen either a written transcription or the actual audio of Bernie's take? I checked website and didn't see. Would like to see/hear what he said. Like him or not, he usually does his homework and I'm surprised he apparently didn't here.

He has become laser-focused on his core audience, like a politician playing to his base. He must have data that shows his audience is avid NFL and college football fans, a sprinkling of Blues fans -- and then talks a bit of BB when he feels guilty about avoiding it. That's too bad - for a couple reasons. First, under Rickma who was his friend, he covered the Billikens well as columnist at the P-D. Coverage sometimes late, but better than not at all. He should be open to it. It seems like a focused effort from Travis with him could pay dividends long term. No idea whether this has already been done. Second reason: Bernie is a guy with strong opinions, takes on stories when injustice is potentially involved. The best writer in town, period. This is a Bernie-type of story. Third: sad because despite the building of Chaifetz and hiring top flight coach, SLU has still not yet become a perennial sports success - a story that must be covered. This could of course change if we'd get out of our own way.

Brian, where has Bernie Milkasz been on this topic? Have you heard anything on his morning show?

Bobby, it's the second oldest in the US period, regardless of river.

Outstanding points. I am not sure whether the HO is biased. But there is no doubt in my mind that any attorney half as good as Rosenblum will show there's plenty of evidence to support reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases. Should never have been assigned to this job. Can you imagine the PR nightmare of a motion being filed in Federal Court for the social media accounts? And press conference announcing? Holy moly.

I went back to the most recent Title IX guidance from the Federal Government this evening and found this most relevant Q & A topic (bold mine): Q. What constitutes an “equitable” investigation? A. In every investigation conducted under the school’s grievance procedures, the burden is on the school—not on the parties—to gather sufficient evidence to reach a fair, impartial determination as to whether sexual misconduct has occurred and, if so, whether a hostile environment has been created that must be redressed. A person free of actual or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases for or against any party must lead the investigation on behalf of the school. Schools should ensure that institutional interests do not interfere with the impartiality of the investigation. This doesn't require actual biases. It says "...or reasonably perceived conflicts of interest and biases." This doesn't say someone free of bias "should lead" or "best efforts to find someone to lead." It says "must lead." To be clear, this was answering a question about investigation. By limited definition of investigation, it could be argued that the investigation was done by outside investigator(s) who by nature of their arm's length relationship with the school, should be free of bias. But the investigation is much bigger than that. Once report is given to school, all kinds of additional investigation occurs. The HO meets with the parties, investigates more, learns more via the cross-examination questions from each party, learns of new evidence presented during these hearings. They investigate all the way to the end. And I seriously doubt the spirit of the Fed. Govt's intention was to exclude the HO who, after all, oversees the investigation.

Much worse. The announced “official” attendance was 5,227. The building was about 20% full. Perhaps 2,000. It’s bad when you lose casual fans. But how sad and embarrassing that likely 50% of your season ticket holders stayed home. I’ll say this: those there got pretty loud in spots and the student section was outstanding, particularly celebrating Roby’s 1000 career points.

I have no intel on what’s happening. Purely speculating. But parties are given 3 business days to file appeal. So it is possible that if decision was really handed down Thursday, they must wait until Tue/Wed (depending on whether Mon is holiday) to see if appeal filed. Or maybe one was filed. Just speculating.

That's right. And if I remember correctly, he made them either back-to-back or two out of three. Unbelievable, regardless.

I'm another half-full guy, trying to remain optimistic. But hate to say it, I don't think there will be final decision until February, earliest. First, there is no official clock in SLU's policy for this stage of the process. They take as long as they think warranted. HO meets with both parties, explains what the investigator found and possible punishments. Then allows each party to submit written questions they'd like the other party to answer. HO then reviews those questions, submits to the other parties, then gets answers back from them. This is a quasi-cross examination. Again, no time clock. Then the HO renders a decision. But even if rumors you mention are correct -- the above steps are complete, and HO decides to make decision this week -- it is not the final decision. Nor will it be announced to the public. Only to the parties. If we hear anything, it will be more rumors, leaks. Then the appeals phase begins. We don't know if one or more parties will appeal the HO decision. If no one does, it's over. But can't imagine no one will. A clock DOES then start, a 10-day clock. Long story short, the University has 10 "business days" (no weekends, holidays, etc) to render a final/final decision on appeal. But that's only if they maintain the 10-day clock in their policy. The SLU policy for every facet of the process, start to end, to be accomplished -- investigation, reports, HO meetings, decision and appeal -- is 60 days unless extraordinary circumstances. And Dr. Pestello has already announced they'll take the time necessary to do a good job. So I wouldn't hold my breath that they'll keep to the 10-day appeals clock any more than they have the overall 60-day clock. By my count, even in the most optimistic scenario with a decision tomorrow, SLU keeping its 10-day appeals clock and counting "business" days only, the earliest final appeals decision date would be Jan 25. But realistically, it's February, or worse.

Yeah, I've been thinking about counter Title IX charges for weeks. But for this to hold water, the players would have to have a believable story about how they did not consent to the activities or were too drunk to consent which, with video available, would be relatively unbelievable. That's why I was leaning towards threat of post-adjudication charges - criminal and with SLU - if falsely accused.

You're preaching to the choir, Clock. My original post on this subject shares this sentiment. Title IX is so slanted towards the accuser. Very, very frustrating. I was wondering about cross-Title IX complaints as a solution. Perhaps a separate criminal complaint? I don't know. But definitely a problem. And the time it has taken just as big a problem. BTW, from everything I've read from the dept of education and SLU's own policy, my understanding is that Title IX does NOT apply to non-students. Agree that other schools have allowed players to play during investigation. But I'm not sure if in those specific instances, it is has been 100% confirmed that the accusers were part of athletic dept operations. My point was that IF our accusers were among this group, I could see not being able to play as a reasonable precaution. Then my strong feeling was that if players couldn't play, in the interest of fairness to both parties, the accusers should have to sit out or have equal interim measure, too. But then I reconsidered after I was reminded by a good atty friend the chilling effect this would cause. And I think those of us with sisters, daughters, moms would understand. On its face, the punishment of an accuser simply for bringing forward a sexual assault would be wrong. So perhaps the solution - if the accused are eventually absolved - is the filing of false accusation lawsuits. I don't know.