Malibubill

Clocktower, My apologies - I agree with you 100%. I'm just playing devil's advocate with those who seem to think SLU/Fr. Biondi was planning all along on not bringing him back. If there was any doubt (which I agree there was not if you believe Chris May and others), I think it would have been more likely due to concerns about his age and health than the administration's desire to get rid of him because he was a maverick. If Fr. Biondi had wanted to get rid of him, he would have just fired him as he did the recent dean of the law school. He is not one to wait until the end of a contact. Thanks for clarifying.

"Granted this next point is circumstantial or supposition, ...." So you are speculating without factual basis. In private conversations between administrators and other alums present in Anaheim last year we were given the exact opposite impression - that while the University would not officially comment on RM's contract because that is private and confidential information, we should not worry about it. Taj79 posts above that Chris May gave similar representations recently to another group. Maybe, just maybe, the University has known all along about RM's health concerns and in the interest of protecting his private information, his health issues, they declined to discuss his contract because it depended in large part on his health - something that he would want kept confidential. Isn't that just as plausible as your speculation? Reading comprehension: You wrote: "As for donors having no say in how a University is managed is very naive on your part. If you've got the cash, you've got clout and you've got some say in how things get done." I wrote: " Input - yes; control, no." Where do I say donors have no say? I expressly acknowledged they have input, but input and control are two different things. And you endorsed the idea that donors should have final say. Sorry, that is not my idea of how a university should be run, and I think it would be a quick recipe for a university's demise. I'd never send my kids to such a school. The University loses RM through no fault of its own, due to the sad news that he has serious health issues, and some of you use this as an opportunity to dump on the university. I guess some people look for any opportunity to criticize. Have at it.

Sorry, but these types of posting cannot go unchallenged. You have absolutely no facts to support most of what you assert, it is pure speculation; and even more galling, you fail to even mention the athletic director's role in all of this. Your statement "even a guy like Dr. C can't take Fr. B out of the process. I really thought after this year, RM's extension would be his decision" pretty much sums it up for me. You have no idea how a university is governed. Dr. C, is a donor. He is not an administrator. He is not a faculty member. Under absolutely no circumstances should a group of alums ever have final say on how a university should be run and who should be hired/fired. Input - yes; control, no. This board should stick to what it thinks it knows, basketball, and not take on issue that it knows very little about - running a university. I'm not trying to defend Fr. Biondi, I agree he has more than his share of issues when it comes to how he governs SLU, but I teach in a university setting and trust me, the challenges and politics of working in such a situation are much more complicated and challenging than any of these e-mails even begin to address. A true fan and supporter of SLU and its athletics has faith in its administrators - including Chris May, notably absent from your e-mail - and does not assume the worst and start bashing the university before the facts are known.

Ha, showing your age with that reference. It was filmed in a little cove a bit north of what most people consider downtown Malibu. Most tourists don't know about it as there really isn't much of a marker indicating where to turn. There is a great little restaurant right on the sand there called Paradise Cove Beach Cafe. I strongly recommend it. If you get a beachfront booth and look to your right you should recognize the spot where the Rockford trailer used to sit.

Actually the issue (whether there exist property rights in the news) raises some rather interesting legal points. The readers on the board who are lawyers may remember reading a famous old case in first year Property where the issue made its way all the up to the U.S. Supreme Court, International News Service vs. Associated Press, 326 U.S. 1 (1918). Now I'm not arguing that the current issue is the same, but it has some similarities. The Court struggled with how to balance insuring that was an adequate incentive for people to gather and distribute news versus insuring that there was adequate competition in the marketplace. The Court actually recognized a "quasi-property" right in news giving some protection to those who invest the time and expense of gathering and distributing the news. Again, I'm not saying it applies to this scenario, but this definitely is an issue of interest for some as electronic distribution of the news makes greater inroads in the distribution process (making it easier and easier for those to reap where they have not sown). OK, this was my break from grading exams, back to that project. See, what is an interesting discussion is all relative. I often come to the board for a break from the monotony of my job, and this was an interesting break for me. (I know what many of you are thinking - if this is an "interesting" break for him I really feel sorry for him.)

I don't know how long this will be up on the LA Times internet page, but for those of you who like to read about (1) Majerus' ability to spot talent that others overlook, and (2) Majerus' basketball brillance, I think you'll enjoy this article. Read the whole article, it will take awhile to see the relevance to this board. http://www.latimes.c...,4708203.column Go Bills.

And you are not being childish by making accusations about his wife? You lost any credibility you might have thought you had with that response. I don't know anyone of this site. I'm not trying to take sides. I live in LA and enjoyed reading about the Billikens because no one in LA is ever going to write about them. I thought it might even be fun to join the discussion. But this type of petty name calling and bickering gets old quickly. I'm joining those posters who have already quit this blog because of this type of pettiness. Why can't a board just stick to Billiken Basketball instead of this type of behavior. It was fun while it lasted. Adios.

This is the type of petty bickering that drives people from the board. You could just as easily warn redbird to be more careful about how he posts. Posts that even hint at a rule infraction should be worded very carefully or you will bring an investigation into the program. The implications of such an investigation are so costly that I think Billikan's reading of redbird's post is completely reasonable and his reaction the more prudent. All he was trying to do was to send a message to posters that they need to be careful about how they word posts when it comes to rule sensitive issues. I see his reaction not only as perfectly reasonable but prudent under the circumstances. He owes no on an apology - if anything we owe him a 'thank you' for pointing that out. People who write and say they have 'inside' information need to be very careful about how they word that 'inside' information. We saw hints of this problem before when someone claimed that RM said that donors could come to the closed scrimmage against Memphis. That would have been a rules violation and it took another poster to clarify/correct the first post. All Billikan was doing here was trying to (1) make sure people who post realize they need to be sensitive about posting when talking about rule sensitive issues; and (2) getting a clarification to this specific post so it did not leave the impression that RM was violating any rules. I say 'good job' to Billkan.

RM warned that this was going to be a tough year. After the first couple of games, some on this board deemed themselves a better judge of talent and potential than RM and got carried away with your expectations. Now that RM's warnings are coming true, rather than admitting that some of you got carried away, you take out your frustrations on the players and the coach. Some of you are a real joke. Go back and read what some of you wrote about the coach and the players during the game. Thank goodness they are the ones publicly representing SLU and not some of the fans posting on this board. True fans support the players through thick and thin. Frustration and disappointment is one thing, disparaging comments about the players is another. It isn't that the comments are critical, it is the tone - completely uncalled for. I learned one thing today - don't bother reading the game thread if the Bills are losing, little insightful or constructive in them, primarily passionate but irresponsible comments.

Agreed - they played DePaul tough in Chicago.

Interesting - I think almost all of these predictions so far have the Bills winning. I wonder how many of those predictors know that Nebraska's victory this weekend was its 27th consecutive non-conference home victory in a row. I'm not saying that the Billikens don't have a chance, but it seems like Nebraska must have a pretty good home court advantage to have that type of record - or they have been very careful in whom they have scheduled out of conference, but I haven't bothered to do the research. I know the people in Vegas do the research when setting the line, and they are a bit more objective than most of us on this website, so it will be interesting to see their prediction.

Welcome to the board Dude, but your comment about Eckerle is not even worth responding to. I look forward to more informed comments in the future. It will be interesting to see how the freshman play in their first game on the road. Nebraska won its 27th consecutive non-conference home game recently. The record speaks for itself. I think the freshman will struggle in such a hostile environment, but the last two games show they can play with heart and play tough whomever the opponent. It will be interesting to see the line on the game.

I understand the students are leaving candles, flowers and notes!! The basketball program is really bringing some fun and spirit to campus. The students are in for some big time college fun that the SLU campus has not seen before. It was a long time coming, but SLU is finally doing it right. I know, there are still some problems, and people can nit-pick if they want, but looking at it from afar and from the big picture, SLU is finally doing it right. Congratulations, and I hope the students and the local alums enjoy it.

The key is how the donors give the money. If they donate money on condition that it be used solely for a particular purpose, the school generally can use the money solely for that purpose. But more often than not, donors don't know to specify exactly how their money is to be spent - typically because they don't know and are too trusting. They may have had discussions with someone (maybe even a coach) about how they wanted the funds to be used, but more often than not they do not specify the purpose at the time they donate. If they do not, the money is usually just added to the general revenue (either for the whole school or for the athletic department, but rarely for a particular purpose). Assuming money was actually given here, the issue is who were the checks made out or whether there was a cover letter that specified how the money was to be used. Absent that, the school treats it like any other donation and can and usually does do what it wants with it - even more so right now due to the unexpected economic conditions and the very difficult situation almost every school is in. Many/most universities are laying off people and freezing spending - don't expect a lot of expenditures on new projects. You can say what you want, but that is the reality of the economic situation at most universities right now - no new building/projects when you are laying off people. Doesn't look good and it isn't the way people should be treated. If the coach has a problem with that, let him go look for a new position in this economic environment. I don't think you will find the usual number of openings in the non-revenue sports as those who have positions are much more likely to hold on to them in this climate.

Disagree - maybe "scared" is not the best word, but he also said "nervous." I think that is the better word. They were not nervous about playing UMSL, they were nervous about playing their first division 1 basketball game (their dream finally coming true) in front of thousands of people in a hyped up atmosphere because of the opening of the new arena. To use an overused phrase these days, it was a "perfect storm" that made this 'first game' unlike almost any other in Billiken history. When was the last time SLU relied so heavily on four freshman on the court at the same time. For most teams, maybe one freshman starts/plays a significant role so that his play is not that important. He can lose himself in the more senior team. These freshman could not just role play their first game - particularly not with Kevin out. They knew going in that they had to step up and be an important part of the team if the team was going to win. If you don't think that is going to make one nervous about his first college game I would submit you don't know much about human nature. They were so excited and so nervous at the same time, they just couldn't control their emotions enough to play at their usual level. I agree they were no more afraid of UMSL than they were of Harris-Stowe, but UMSL was the first game that really counted, the first game in their collegiate career, the first game in the new arena. Too many firsts for them to handle well, but they handled them well enough to win. That is all that counts in first games. Now let's see if they can settle down and play better in their second game. Even though the opponent will be a much more formidable opponent, that will actually take quite a bit of pressure off the freshman. I think early on the freshman will play much better when they are underdogs than when they are favored because they won't have nearly as much pressure on them. Let's see how they play Wednesday.

Roy, I disagree - you want everyone to think it is all about Rickma. Absent your making an issue out of this I think most fans would never have noticed it. Why Rick did it is his call, but in light of the generosity he has shown by giving this kid a scholarship so he can play for a year with his brother, during his brother's senior year - so that whole family can enjoy it - to criticize Rick for not playing him and saying this was Rickma's way of showing that it is all about Rickma is sure overlooking all he has down for the kid and his family. I think it shows your true feelings for Rickma, not Rickma's feelings for the kid.

Considering how the freshman played, I think SLU made the right decision in scheduling UMSL. They wanted to make sure they opened the season and the arena with a victory. I think a 'bigger' named school would have put the outcome much more at risk. Let's hope that now that the freshman have a real game under their belt that they will start to settle down a bit. They know they will be underdogs the next couple of games so I'm betting that will take quite a bit of pressure off of them and they will actually play better. Not saying they will or should win, but I think we'll see better play from most of them.

Agreed. That is the beauty of the freshman. For better or worse, you don't know who is going to show up night in and night out - the freshman who plays like a freshman or a freshman who plays up to his potential. That is why predicting victories this year is so difficult - each game will be an adventure. But the fact that they are freshman and the future is bright will make it easier to enjoy the roller coaster.

"or even having friends." - I don't know who is running Blue Crew, but whomever it is has more credibility than you do after that tasteless comment. At least they are out there trying. And those type of constructive comments will really get any students who are on the fence to come out and spend the evening with a fan like you. Do the students a favor, stay in the Village apartment - the University is trying to turn out graduates of better character than this.

The impatience and lack of understanding on this board never ceases to amaze me. They are STUDENTS. They are supposed to STUDY. Yes, it would be great to see them at the GAMES, but the first game is TONIGHT. Last night was for fun, but whether 40 or 4000 showed up, the bigger issue is how many show up tonight and how they support the team. Give them a break. Just because they have real lives and live for something other than Billiken basketball does not mean they are bad people.

In a prior post in this tread, Roy wrote "i also agree with david that umass, bc and siu are opportunities to win. in fact if lisch shuts down rice, i think more of the chance to beat boston college than kent state." How many of our opponents think their game against SLU is an opportunity for a win. My guess is the number is rather high because of the youth on the team. If that is true, won't some of those games probably be wins? Are we drinking the kool-aid too soon? I love the passion on the board, and I'm as optimistic as anyone - but to expect the billikens to win 20 games seems to be putting the cart before the horse. Let's just let them play the games and enjoy them without saying if they don't win 18-20 games the team will be a disappointment.

I hope we win 18-20 games, and I think we have a very good chance of doing so, but I will not be disappointed if we do not. I think that is a very different statement.

Tonka, I don't have a problem with the word disappointment, I'm just still trying to figure out what you mean by it. Apparently you feel disappointment when we lose even one game. While I'm unhappy when we lose a game, I may or may not be disappointed - it depends on whether I thought we should have won it or not and how we played. If we played UNC this year, I would expect us to lose. I would still be unhappy when we lost, but if we gave them a good game, I would not be disappointed in the team. So maybe we are using the word "disappointment" differently. Moreover, if you feel disappointed after every game we lose, what is the point you are trying to make by saying that you will be "disappointed" if we do not win 18 or 19 games? Why did you pick that number to draw your line in the sand? I think the only reasonable inference is that you will think that this team "under-performed;" that they had a "bad" year; that they were, to some degree, a failure. I disagree with that assertion - and with you making that assertion - for two reasons. First, I assume you are not a graduate of SLU because you apparently do not understand the Jesuit philosophy. Life is about so much more than just wins and loses. To say that you will be disappointed in this team if they do not win 18 or 19 games fails to take into consideration who they are as individuals, as students, on and off the court. It fails to take into consideration the history of the program and the direction of the program. While the number of wins and losses is an important variable in assessing a program, a team, and its performance, to base one's assessment solely on that variable is inconsistent with the Jesuit philosophy. Second, even assuming you were talking only about the on-court team performance, I prefer to adopt RM's approach to the team. He has gone out of his way to remind people that while this team is talented, it is young. He has gone out of his way to try to manage people's expectations by downplaying them. Other respected posters on this board have embraced this philosophy and approach and preached patience and understanding (Billikan; and I think even Nate to mention just a few). This is a future HOF coach who specializes in developing 'diamond in the rough' talent and turning them into over-achievers. He knows how to motivate kids - when to push them, and when to back off. He knows that as freshman trying to adjust to college life, to D-1 basketball, and to his particular system, these kids are under a lot of pressure. Even if privately he would be "disappointed" in this team if they did not win 18 or 19 games he has gone out of his way not to say that and never would publicly. So why would you? I repeat, I just don't understand some fans - but I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I'm not sure if you really meant what you wrote, but if you did, I don't understand that mentality. The Billikens are talented, but they are young - real young. Anything could happen this year - they could gel and have a great year or they could struggle and barely make .500. But either way the future is bright. A great freshman class, maybe the best in Billiken history, and three reported oral commitments who will only add to the bright future for the team and the program. So what is to be gained by saying anything less than 18 or 19 wins will be a disappointing year? For me, it is hard to imagine how anything could be a disappointing year. Sure, if they win 5 games, or 8 games - but that isn't going to happen. Even if they are only a .500 team, or if they are either side of .500 by a couple of games - I can live with anything in light of how bright the future is. Listen to the coach. Be patient. Let the kids grow up without this type of pressure on them. I just don't understand why some fans have to draw this type of line in the sand and say if the team doesn't meet their expectations the year is a disappointment. As long as the team is competitive and the freshmen develop, I'll be happy regardless of the record. It is about building a program, and all signs are RM is doing just what he was hired to do. I'm happy.

You think Kevin would be OK missing the historic opening of the new arena? I've never met him, I've never seen him play - but something tells me he is not going to let a bruised butt keep him out of that game.