Malibubill

OK, I'm confused. What do you mean by "when it comes time for the games, Majerus lets them off the leash." What's the point of having a system if three guys are running it and two are not? Particularly if they are the two who know the system the best?

Sounds like RM does not recruit players per se, he recruits a team - by that I mean he recruits to fit what he thinks he needs to build the perfect team on the court, he recruits a player who fits that need. The players will know their roles and will not be asked to do more than RM thinks they can do. Players will not be asked to play out of their natural role. I like his philosophy. He is building a team, one piece at a time, a team that will greater than its parts. Good kids, committed to athletics, academics and character. It will take time, but I think we are building a program we will all be proud of - not just for what these players do on the court, but also for who they are. He continues what is good about the Billiken tradition while improving the quality of athlete who fits that mold. I just wish I could be in St. Louis to support what will be a great program in short order.

Brian, As an out-of-towner, I did not see the game, but I favor Courtside's interpretation of what probably happened. Having seen SLU play Loyola out west, it was clear that Loyola's stragedy was to pack it in defensively and knock it around the back to see if they could get SLU to chase and to get SLU out of position. SLU did, but I think they did because they were confident enough that even if they did, they could still win the game. SLU was going to attack regardless of what Loyola did because SLU wanted to try to dictate the tempo and wanted to work on their approach - attacking soccer. I had no problem with it against a team like Loyola, and though it did get SLU into a hole, they did come back and tie the game (after falling behind twice). I wondered if SLU would play that way against a top tier team. I'm glad to hear that not only did they not, but that they had the discipline to pull it off after not having played that way up until that game. Shows me not only that the team/coaches have brains but the discipline to pull it off when it ran counter to their style of play up until that game (much harder to do than one might expect - the body and mind get comfortable playing on way and it is hard to suddenly shift mid-season). I think UConn had no doubt scouted the Bills and were expecting/hoping that SLU would not be able to play the type of disciplined style that it took to keep up with UConn's tactic. No doubt they were somewhat surprised when SLU didn't fall for their trap. That actually gives me more optimism for this team. I agree that it has some issues attacking against good defenses, but apparently it also has the brains and discipline to play smart soccer when it needs to. That was an issue I had coming out of the Loyola game. The UConn reports appear to have answered it. I don't think UConn was playing for a tie, at least not initially, it was just they adopted a game plan that we countered with our own brains and discipline. Well done Bills. The bigger issue is the Bills will probably see much more of that style of play as they enter league play. How will the Bills respond? Will they/should they respond the way they did against Loyola - push forward and damn the consequences on the assumption that if they fall behind they can overcome it (which no doubt will come back to bite them sooner or later), or will they/should they response as they did at UConn - respond in kind, being patient and smart, looking for the chance to win but not opening themselves to many chances they will lose?

Clock Tower, Does that mean your tickets for the home opener are for sale?

Question for the board. Last year RM was criticized for allegedly sacrificing a few victories early because of his insistence on installing his system. Don't want to go there, but want to raise a variation of that scenario for this year. I am curious whether people would be willing to sacrifice some victories early on this year to let the freshman get their feet wet. In particular, do you take your lumps with Mitchell and/or Cotto early on at the point (even if it runs of risk of costing you some games), thereby keeping Tommie and Kevin in the positions where most think they are better suited, so that by the end of the season Mitchell and/or Cotto are more comfortable running the point in RM's system?

Final thought - the soccer Bills may actually play better against better competition. First, it is natural for most athletes to get up for the bigger games, which may result in our playing our best ball against better teams. But more than that, I think the quality of ball those teams will play against us will open the game up and let the Bills style of play work better. The weaker teams pack in their defenses. The problem is the Bills don't wait and try to draw the weaker teams out. Instead they appear to attack aggressively/foolishly, almost trying to overwhelm the other team with their power as opposed to their skill. The problem is the Bills power too often is not enough to overcome the packed in defenses, 50=50 balls are forced into areas where they should not be, leaving us vulnerable to the classic counter-attack. I can't tell you how many times Sunday Loyola used the counter-attack successfully against the Bills (you could see our midfielders trailing the play as they tried to run back on defense after being caught up field too far). Our defense did not look that strong against it (Loyola had a couple of breakaways that it did not score on - but the Bills hit the post twice in overtime, so both teams offenses could have put in a few more). Better teams will not pack it in against us but will more likely try to play us equal - if not be just as aggressive as the Bills. That should open up the field more for the Bills. There should be more room for their long passes. I'm not a big fan of long ball soccer, but it has a better chance when there is more room on the field (particularly in the offensive end), which should be the case against the better teams. So as is the norm for a loyal billikan fan (soccer, basketball and all other sports), hope springs eternal.

Went to the Bills soccer game in LA today. They hosted a nice alumni reception beforehand. Heard from a very reliable source that the Bills tried very hard to schedule better teams but consistently were turned down. Apparently the word in the college basketball community is that playing the Billikens next season at home is a 'no-win' proposition for the visiting teams (including teams that have been mentioned on this board - and I'm not just talking the top 20 teams, but teams ranked below that but in the top 100). The word is that the Bills are expected to be weak to so-so next year due to the heavy reliance on the freshmen, but they are expected to be dangerous at home due to talent in the in-coming class and RM's coaching ability. Couple that with the new arena, and playing the Bills in St. Louis was repeatedly deemed a 'no-win' situation for other teams. The teams mentioned would be expected to come into St. Louis and win. If they did, they would not get any benefit from it, but if they were upset, they would take a hit. And the risk of losing - in light of the talent, the new arena, and the coach - was too great to make taking the chance worthwhile. As a number of others have written, until our reputation is strong enough that losing to us will not be a big black mark on the other school's record, we will have trouble getting good teams to come to St. Louis to play us. Let's hope that next year goes well enough that we will have a more respectable reputation and other teams will be willing to come to St. Louis to play us. Just wanted to share the info.

Went to the Bills soccer game in LA today. They hosted a nice alumni reception beforehand. Heard from a very reliable source that the Bills tried very hard to schedule better teams but consistently were turned down. Apparently the word in the college basketball community is that playing the Billikens next season at home is a 'no-win' proposition for the visiting teams (including teams that have been mentioned on this board - and I'm not just talking the top 20 teams, but teams ranked below that but in the top 100). The word is that the Bills are expected to be weak to so-so next year due to the heavy reliance on the freshmen, but they are expected to be dangerous at home due to talent in the in-coming class and RM's coaching ability. Couple that with the new arena, and playing the Bills in St. Louis was repeatedly deemed a 'no-win' situation for other teams. The teams mentioned would be expected to come into St. Louis and win. If they did, they would not get any benefit from it, but if they were upset, they would take a hit. And the risk of losing - in light of the talent, the new arena, and the coach - was too great to make taking the chance worthwhile. As a number of others have written, until our reputation is strong enough that losing to us will not be a big black mark on the other school's record, we will have trouble getting good teams to come to St. Louis to play us. Let's hope that next year goes well enough that we will have a more respectable reputation and other teams will be willing to come to St. Louis to play us. Just wanted to share the info.

I caught the game this afternoon. (I also caught the pre-season game last week in St. Louis against DePaul). The Billikens have several players who are very impressive, but as a team they are not that impressive relative to their ranking. They play long ball. They like to play kick and run. Even some of the more impressive players have their weaknesses, including not have very good first touches. As a team they tend to play impatiently. Rather than working the ball around like Loyola did, forcing us to chase (which wore us down), the Bills tended to play long ball, trying to force in long risky passes that had very little chance of success (and which more often than not were not successful). As much as I hate to say it, many of them do not play smart. They play aggressively, but to the point of being foolish. The Billikens clearly have a handful of stronger players, but Loyola played much better as a team. It did not hurt that Loyola had a 'home field' referee and linesman who blew several calls, but the calls did not factor into Loyola's goals (though they did, arguably factor into the Bills not having a penalty shot when Holmes was clearly taken down on the edge of the penalty box and the ref waived it off after having called a foul on the Bills earlier in the game just outside of the penalty box when there was barely any contact between the Billiken defender and the Loyola forward). In a nutshell, the Bills play for the spectacular, and when it works, it is spectacular. The Bills second goal (by number 5), was a rocket from about 35 yards out. I've seen a good number of college and pro games and I don't know if I've ever seen a more spectacular goal. But those goals will be rare I fear. The Bills style of play, while entertaining, tends not to be very successful at the college level at the level the Bills play. And Dado (spelling? number 10?) appeared to have suffered a rather serious injury late in the second half. He was taken down in the far corner of the field on a hard slide tackle. He rolled around in pain immediately, and when he was assisted off the field several minutes later, he was still unable to put any weight on it. I would guess the best case scenario is he is out several weeks. If it is broken, he probably is done for the season. On a more promising note, there were two high school players from one of the top LA club teams at the game. Word was they hope to be playing for the Bills next year. The Bills appear to be developing a pipeline with one of the most successful club teams in Southern California. That is good news for the future. Wish I had better news. It is early in the season. Maybe the team will come together better as the season progresses - but I fear it is more their style of play that is causing the trouble than their chemistry. Just one person's observations for what they are worth.

We don't want to just win some games. RM - and SLU - need a good record to ensure that people do not begin to think RM has lost it. To improve the program we need better players. To get better players, we need a better program. It is a chicken and egg problem - which comes first? SLU has tried to break out of the catch-22 by building a new arena with state of the art facilitities and by hiring a big name coach that they hope will be able to recruit good players despite the program's overall poor reputation. The problem is if recruits begin to question the coach's ability, they will stop coming. If they stop coming, the program is not established enough to overcome it. We will be mired in mediocrity yet again. I prefer a weaker schedule that not only gives the freshman a chance to get their feet under them but that gives RM and SLU a chance to win 20 or 20+ games. If that happens, particularly if we are playing better at the end of the season, there will be confidence in RM and excitement about next year that we can build on. There are enough tough non-conference games on this schedule, most of them just happen to be out of town. I'd rather those games be at home next year when our freshmen will have the experience to be more competitive in them, particularly in our arena, and they will be supported by another group of good recruits. After all the years this program has struggled, I'm surprised people are not willing to show more patience to our best hope (not our only hope) of breaking that cycle. But everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I, for one, am fine with the schedule - as long as get results.

Just a thought - but might this schedule is damage control. RM's reputation took a big hit last season. He took on a team that was not his team. He had no time to recruit his players. Things didn't go up to the level people expected with RM as the coach - but that arguably is unfair because it was not really 'his' team. Nevertheless, his reputation took a hit. RM and SLU cannot afford another season where the on-court results do not match the expectations created by RM's reputation. Even though we have a team made up primarily of freshmen (or at least our success will depend on how they play), we need to have a good record or people will begin to wonder if RM was away from the game too long and has lost it. Now I know that some/many of you on this board already think that - but frankly our opinions do not matter. What matters are the opinions of the kids we are recruiting and those who advise them. They tend to look more at straight record than who you played that year. If we have another 'bad' year, RM's reputation may take a hit that it will not recover from and we will continue to wallow as a program with a weak reputation. We need to change the reputation of the program. Right now our reputation is tied to RM's reputation. If we have a good record this year, people will think RM still has it and it will make it easier to recruit more of the athletes like those in this year's class. If we have a poor season record wise, it will be a lot harder to keep that pipeline coming - and we may have to start all over again with another coach a few years down the road. While some of you may want that, I would prefer to build on RM's success, not start all over. The goal is the long term success of the program, not the composition of one season's schedule. This is a means to an end, and we should accept it for what it is. You guys are getting lost in the trees - you might want to step back and look at the forest. Patience - he is trying to build a program, not get the best schedule he could this year.

Man you guys are a tough group. I still see the glass as half full. Bills should win the opening game – RM wants to make sure the opening night ends the way it should. Packed house. Everyone goes home feeling good and celebrating. Then two very tough games at home. The hope is that the team, fresh off the emotional victory on opening night, can play tough and at least make those games exciting – maybe steal one. Then they go on a brutal road trip. Probably lose (possibly badly) at both Nebraska and Carbondale, chance to win at Detroit – but may turn out to be a tough game a young team that may be questioning itself after games/losses to Kent State, BC and Nebraska. So need to build the team’s confidence back up before start of conference. The four home games against weaker opponents should do that. That gets the team’s confidence back up (and doesn’t hurt the average fan who just sees a win as a win) before two competitive games on the road again in Las Vegas and a tough game back home against UMBC. Then the game against NC A&T to get the team ready for conference play. This team is not going to get into a tournament (NCAA or NIT) based on its overall record. Its only chance for the NCAA is to win the conference tournament; its only chance for the NIT is to finish strong. I think the scheduling is designed to prepare the team for the conference schedule and then the conference tournament. A mixture of easy and tough games, and the hope that by the end of the season the freshmen are not playing like freshmen. Those of you in St. Louis have great loyalty to Liddell and Lisch, but the future of the program are the freshmen. For Liddell and Lisch’s sake, the schedule gives us as good a chance as any at winning the conference tournament. Looks to me like it was designed with more than an eye to the composition of the team and the realization that the best chance of any tournament play (NCAA or NIT) will be based on how we end the season, not our non-conference play. RM is being realistic – we need to be as well. This is a young team that will play that way early on. The hope is by the end of the season they are not. This schedule maximizes those chances.

SLU72 - Never said RM was our last shot, just that he was our best shot. Agree that SLU can get an up and coming coach as a new coach, but up and coming coaches are much riskier. Some never really make it. Some make it (Romar), but only elsewhere – they don't have enough name recognition to overcome the negatives associated with a program like SLU. You are basically rolling the dice and hoping you pick the right one - and that if you did, he would stay at SLU after having some success (and turn down the bigger programs that would come calling). Yes there is a risk with RM that he will not succeed, or that he will go somewhere else as soon as he does, but that risk is much lower. He is out best shot at turning around the program - not our only shot - but our best shot. I also think Biondi's instructions to RM were to turn around the program, not to get us to the NCAA Tournament as quickly as possible. I think too many people on this board behave as if the latter is the Holy Grail. Biondi wants the former - he is looking long term, as is RM. Patience. It takes time to turn around a program. Give the man a chance.

I agree that Rick should be held to a higher expectation than the most recent SLU coach, but I do not agree that he should be held to his record at Utah. What he did at Utah - taking a mid-major to the championship game - was special. Repeating that, after having been away from basketball for as long as he was, is unlikely. Instead of thinking about this issue as if there are only two standards - that of the previous SLU coaches vs. his record at Utah, I think it best to think of the possible standards as a spectrum with those being the two ends of the spectrum. I agree that RM should be held to a higher standard than the prior coach, but not that much higher (at least in the short run). I think even with a million dollar salary the prior coach would not have been able to change the direction of the program. I think coach Romar's 'success' at SLU shows you how difficult it is to turn around a program that lacks a good reputation. Romar came from UCLA and Pepperdine - schools I'm very familiar with. He was considered one of the top up-and-coming coaches - yet he was not able to recruit the kids he needed to SLU. Yet as soon as he leaves SLU, suddenly he can recruit them. It wasn't the coach - it was the basketball reputation of the program (and all that entails) that held him back. RM is the only big name coach who was willing to take on the challenge of turning around a school with a poor basketball reputation into a school with a good basketball reputation. After Romar's experience, I sincerely doubt any other established coach would have risked it. RM Jesuit connection and his desire to be close to his mother is what gave SLU the inside track on convincing RM to come out of retirement to see if he could work his magic one more time. He does not have to take us to the NCAA championship game to be successful in my book. He doesn't have to take us to the NIT this year to be successful. What he needs to do is by the end of the junior year of this incoming class SLU needs to be recognized as a good basketball program again. If that is the case, we will get two strong years out of this year's recruiting class and kids will want to come here to play. We won't have the recruiting issues we have had in the past. If you build it (a good basketball program), they will come. Patience - let the man have a chance, he is out best chance.

I live out of town and rely in this board for my of my info about the program, but I disagree with SLU72's post. I remember numerous posts last year criticizing RM for 'over-coaching' the team. Does not sound like a coach who has lost his passion and fire. I remember numerous posts this past spring and early summer taking about RM being spotted is small towns and local gyms across the country looking for diamonds in the rough. Does not sound like a coach who has lost his passion and fire. RM has been coaching for decades. He has developed a system that he is confident in - and he is confident in himself. He is going to implement his system his way whether we like it or not. He doesn't really care what people think about his approach. He is too old to change his ways because someone else criticizes what he is doing. He has the wisdom of experience and success to guide him. No doubt he has tried much of what many on this board think he should be doing and he learned that either it did not work for him or he did not enjoy it. This is his last stint. He is going to go out doing it his way - and I am comfortable with that even though I do not agree with everything he does or how he does it. Give the coach credit and time. I think too many of us are judging RM based upon his success at Utah. I would suggest that is an unfair standard. I suggest the more appropriate standard is to judge RM against the 'success' of prior coaches at SLU. As much as I would love it, it is unfair and unrealistic to expect RM to repeat the success he had at Utah. He should be judged based on his performance here at SLU relative to other coaches at SLU. I'm ready to give him a few more years and then grade him based on that standard. Judging RM after last year makes very little sense to me since all admit he came on board too late to affect last year's team composition. Judging RM based on this year is still premature since this really is the 'first' year of his re-building program since this is the first year he has some of his players. RM should not be judged until the end of next year - only then will we have a true sense of the direction of the program. And that is what he was really hired to do - to change the direction of the program. Yes we would love some immediate success, but that was not why he was hired. It takes time to change a program. Give him some time; have patience.

I think some people's expectations were too high last year and still are too year. RM came in too late to affect last year. He knew that and tried to lower people's expectations but most of the people who write on this board are so passionate about the Billikens and were so excited about RM they did not hear it. Coaches don't play the game, players do, and until RM has a team full of his players - experienced players - he knows it will still be transition time. I think RM knows that this year will be hard as well. All of his players will be freshman. Teams tend not to have great success with a team dominated by freshman. Yes Tommie and Kevin will be back, but two seniors and a questionable junior college transfer are not enough to carry this team to the heights some people on this board seem to expect. The earliest I expect to start to see the type of success people are demanding is next year. If we make the NIT this year, it will be a very good year. While I would be ecstatic if we made the NCAA Tournament, not only do I not expect it, I think it would a huge surprise if we did. Patience is what is needed here. I also think this is one of the reasons RM is happy to stay quiet and remain off the airwaves in St. Louis. When he has something to talk about and something to get people excited about, he will. Until then, this board's reaction demonstrates why he does not want to get more people in St. Louis 'excited' yet. He does not want to create false expectations that he cannot satisfy. He cannot control the expectations of those of us on the board, but frankly I think many people went overboard with their expectations last year and still are this year. I enjoy reading the message board because it helps to provide inside information that many of us out-of-town readers cannot access. But in terms of people's expectations for the program, sometimes I think the board leads too much with its heart and not enough with its head. We need passionate supporters of the program, but we also need reasonable expectations.

While this debate over the economics and practicalities of switching over the court is fascinating, I'd be interested in hearing more about the players and their scrimmage. Anybody else have any comments about the players and/or the scrimmage? Which players were there, which were not? Anyone stand out besides Reed?

Maybe a new topic will help get some of you get over your Harrelson blues. My son just wrote that student season ticket requests are now available. I thought you might be interested in how the University is handling the process. I've cut and pasted the e-mail that was sent to the students for your review. How many student season tickets do you think they will sell? Dear fellow Billiken, The inaugural Billiken basketball season in Chaifetz Arena is quickly approaching. The Billiken Ticket Office is now accepting student season ticket requests. If you have not already signed up and you would like to reserve your 2008-2009 men's basketball season tickets, please visit the link below and fill out the information completely. The $135.00 charge for your tickets and Blue Crew membership will be applied to your fall tuition bill: http://slubillikens.cstv.com/tickets/ChaifetzStudent.html Now is the time to make history and be a part of the inaugural season ticket class! Also, please note the new men's basketball student ticket policy. All eligible students will have the opportunity to reserve and purchase 2008-2009 season tickets. However, if demand exceeds supply, the Loyalty Distribution System is automatically initiated. The Loyalty Distribution System is designed to allow the most loyal and committed Billiken fans to have the best chance to obtain season tickets. Priority will be given to returning Blue Crew members and student season ticket holders. Furthermore, all students that redeemed individual game tickets during the previous season will receive loyalty points in the new student loyalty point system. Loyalty points will be based on the following loyalty point structure: -Blue Crew Members – 25 points total -Season Ticket Holders – 20 points total -Individual game ticket redemption for non-Blue Crew member or season ticket holders– 1 point per redeemed ticket If you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact the Billiken Ticket Office at (314) 977-4SLU or by email at [email protected].

Got to agree with Brian. If Josh goes to UK and they go to the final four - so what? They are expected to do that. Even if Josh is a meaningful contributor, he probably won't stay in Kentucky and he'll just be another college graduate. If he goes to SLU he has a chance to go down in history. I think everyone agrees the Majerus has the Billikens on the verge of a resurgence that will rival the success they had with Rich Neimann (spelling?). The local players who are a part of that will go down in St. Louis sports history as part of the group that led the Billikes back to their glory days. Just like with Rich, they will be recognized sports heroes in St. Louis for the rest of their lives. What they do will be special, and because of that, they will be special. If Josh goes to UK, he will be missing out on a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity that would last a lifetime - a chance to be a hometown hero. And if his long term goal is the NBA, he's got a better shot at that with Magerus than Billie G. If he goes to UK, it is understandable, but unfortunate for both him and SLU.

(I accidentally posted this to another thread (novice poster). I hope this time I got it right as a new thread). I would respectfully submit that some of you are missing the point. You are assuming there is a 'perfect' coach (and appear to be upset that Rick is not that 'perfect' coach), when in reality there is no such thing as a perfect coach (and if there were, he sure as hell wouldn't come to SLU - my apologies to those of you who are offended by profanity but I think there are bigger issues here and in the world than that). This debate about Rick and his coaching style misses the boat in my opinion and frankly I don't think anything constructive will come of it, so I offer the following for those of you debating the pros and cons of Rick and his style to consider. And I write as a teacher. When it is all said and done, a coach is nothing more than a teacher (and I think Rick knows that more than most coaches). Learning is a two way street. Teachers have their way of teaching, and students have their way of learning. My way of teaching does not work for every student. No one teacher's style of teaching works for everyone. A good teacher realizes that, accepts that, and does not try to force all of his or her students to learn his or her way. When I teach upper level elective classes, the first thing I do is tell my students my expectations, my teaching style, and then I tell them if they don't like it, there are the doors and they can still drop the course. If they don't like my teaching style, or if my teaching style is not compatible with their learning style, it is not in their best interests to stay in my class (there are other teachers who teach the same course with different teaching styles), and it is not in my best interests for them to stay in the courses. The best case scenario is for me to have a class of students who enjoy my teaching style and who learn best under it. So too for coaching. There are many different coaching styles and many different types of athletes. Not all athletes will strive and develop under each style. The ideal is the perfect match. The perfect match is the coach who is best for that particular player - not for some abstract player, and not for 'my son,' but for the player in question. More than most coaches, Rick knows and understands that. He is looking for the type of player who will strive and develop in his system - just as Brad looked for players that he thought would strive and develop in his system. Seems to me that from a fan's perspective the question we should be asking is whether this coach can recruit enough athletes who will strive and develop in his system that the program will improve. Brad had his chance. From everything I read about Brad, he was a first class, a first rate individual - but unfortunately he could not recruit enough athletes to his system for the program to be successful long term (great year last year, but I think everyone would agree that the cupboard was starting to look bare). The question is whether Rick can recruit enough athletes that will be successful in his system that the program will improve. Too early to tell, but early signs (next year's recruiting class) look promising. So give him a break. Rome was not built in a day, nor are successful basketball programs. Moreover, for those of you who don't like Rick's blunt style, while I have reservations about it as well, it does serve an important service. Rick knows that he is recruiting athletes and that he needs athletes who will 'fit' in his system. Many coaches 'misrepresent' themselves when recruiting athletes on the assumption that if they can get the athlete to come to the program, the kid will be reluctant to transfer out (look like a loser or a quitter). Rick does not misrepresent himself. He is giving notice to all prospective recruits what his expectations are and style is. Like a good teacher, he sees coaching as a partnership. He is willing to work as hard, if not harder, than his players to see them succeed, but the players have to be willing to work as hard as he is. If you are an athlete, and you don't have the drive or discipline for his approach, it would not be in your best interest or Rick's best interest for you to come to SLU. All he is doing is giving the prospective athletes notice - 'this is who I am and what I expect, if you don't like it, there is the door.' I, for one, think that is the best way and the way all coaches should be. Be open and honest with the kids and let them select the coach and program that is best for them. Which bring me to the criticism of Rick's comments that he did not select these kids and they did not select him. All he is doing is being honest again and acknowledging that not all kids strive and develop under his system (or any coach's system for that matter, a fact overlooked by many on this board). That is a fact of life (not an opinion). Transitions are tough on all parties involved, Rick and the current players. All have different expectations. That is unfortunately, but it is inherent in change of this nature. As fans we should do our best to try to support the team to help get all parties involved through this difficult year. Booing them is not the answer. This is our team. They need our support this year more than ever, not this criticism of a trying year. And lastly, remember that TV commercial - most of these student-athletes will be going professional in something other than sports. They will be graduates of St. Louis University who will go out into the community and represent the University. Is Rick recruiting athletes who will represent the University well? I think the answer is yes. I agree that previous coaches did as well. I just wanted to make sure that we keep all of this in perspective. These are not professional athletes. This is not a professional team. This is a college team, these are student-athletes. Rick is teaching them life lessons, not just basketball. He is teaching them skills that will serve them well after their lives as athletes are over. Brad and previous coaches did that as well, and for that we should be thankful that SLU has had a great tradition of great coaches of life's lessons. And isn't that in keeping with our Jesuit tradition. Just a few thoughts from afar from a novice poster.

I would respectfully submit that some of you are missing the point. You are assuming there is a 'perfect' coach (and appear to be upset that Rick is not that 'perfect' coach), when in reality there is no such thing as a perfect coach (and if there were, he sure as hell wouldn't come to SLU - my apologies to those of you who are offended by profanity but I think there are bigger issues here and in the world than that). This debate about Rick and his coaching style misses the boat in my opinion and frankly I don't think anything constructive will come of it, so I offer the following for those of you debating the pros and cons of Rick and his style to consider. And I write as a teacher. When it is all said and done, a coach is nothing more than a teacher (and I think Rick knows that more than most coaches). Learning is a two way street. Teachers have their way of teaching, and students have their way of learning. My way of teaching does not work for every student. No one teacher's style of teaching works for everyone. A good teacher realizes that, accepts that, and does not try to force all of his or her students to learn his or her way. When I teach upper level elective classes, the first thing I do is tell my students my expectations, my teaching style, and then I tell them if they don't like it, there are the doors and they can still drop the course. If they don't like my teaching style, or if my teaching style is not compatible with their learning style, it is not in their best interests to stay in my class (there are other teachers who teach the same course with different teaching styles), and it is not in my best interests for them to stay in the courses. The best case scenario is for me to have a class of students who enjoy my teaching style and who learn best under it. So too for coaching. There are many different coaching styles and many different types of athletes. Not all athletes will strive and develop under each style. The ideal is the perfect match. The perfect match is the coach who is best for that particular player - not for some abstract player, and not for 'my son,' but for the player in question. More than most coaches, Rick knows and understands that. He is looking for the type of player who will strive and develop in his system - just as Brad looked for players that he thought would strive and develop in his system. Seems to me that from a fan's perspective the question we should be asking is whether this coach can recruit enough athletes who will strive and develop in his system that the program will improve. Brad had his chance. From everything I read about Brad, he was a first class, a first rate individual - but unfortunately he could not recruit enough athletes to his system for the program to be successful long term (great year last year, but I think everyone would agree that the cupboard was starting to look bare). The question is whether Rick can recruit enough athletes that will be successful in his system that the program will improve. Too early to tell, but early signs (next year's recruiting class) look promising. So give him a break. Rome was not built in a day, nor are successful basketball programs. Moreover, for those of you who don't like Rick's blunt style, while I have reservations about it as well, it does serve an important service. Rick knows that he is recruiting athletes and that he needs athletes who will 'fit' in his system. Many coaches 'misrepresent' themselves when recruiting athletes on the assumption that if they can get the athlete to come to the program, the kid will be reluctant to transfer out (look like a loser or a quitter). Rick does not misrepresent himself. He is giving notice to all prospective recruits what his expectations are and style is. Like a good teacher, he sees coaching as a partnership. He is willing to work as hard, if not harder, than his players to see them succeed, but the players have to be willing to work as hard as he is. If you are an athlete, and you don't have the drive or discipline for his approach, it would not be in your best interest or Rick's best interest for you to come to SLU. All he is doing is giving the prospective athletes notice - 'this is who I am and what I expect, if you don't like it, there is the door.' I, for one, think that is the best way and the way all coaches should be. Be open and honest with the kids and let them select the coach and program that is best for them. Which bring me to the criticism of Rick's comments that he did not select these kids and they did not select him. All he is doing is being honest again and acknowledging that not all kids strive and develop under his system (or any coach's system for that matter, a fact overlooked by many on this board). That is a fact of life (not an opinion). Transitions are tough on all parties involved, Rick and the current players. All have different expectations. That is unfortunately, but it is inherent in change of this nature. As fans we should do our best to try to support the team to help get all parties involved through this difficult year. Booing them is not the answer. This is our team. They need our support this year more than ever, not this criticism of a trying year. And lastly, remember that TV commercial - most of these student-athletes will be going professional in something other than sports. They will be graduates of St. Louis University who will go out into the community and represent the University. Is Rick recruiting athletes who will represent the University well? I think the answer is yes. I agree that previous coaches did as well. I just wanted to make sure that we keep all of this in perspective. These are not professional athletes. This is not a professional team. This is a college team, these are student-athletes. Rick is teaching them life lessons, not just basketball. He is teaching them skills that will serve them well after their lives as athletes are over. Brad and previous coaches did that as well, and for that we should be thankful that SLU has had a great tradition of great coaches of life's lessons. And isn't that in keeping with our Jesuit tradition. Just a few thoughts from afar from a novice poster.

Best insult - try this one! We live in the LA area and follow the Bills religiously. Today our son, a Freshman at SLU, went to Samy's, the largest camera shop in LA, to buy a camera. When the salesperson asked him where he went to college, he told him St. Louis University. The salesperson looked up, shook his head, and then offered my son a sympathy discount - $20.00 - a dollar for each point scored. We bought the camera - with the discount. Something of a silver lining...you just need to come to LA to get the discount.