cgeldmacher
-
Posts
3,074 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Posts posted by cgeldmacher
-
-
Tyler Cochran out of Toledo seems interesting. From what I can see, he just hit the portal April 19. He has been injury prone during his career, but stayed healthy all of last year. I think he has just one year of eligibility remaining. He shot .495 overall and .356 from three last season. Also, he averaged 6.4 rebounds a game which is impressive for a 6'2" guard. Someone mentioned we will need more rebounding next season from our remaining lineup spots. He could help with that.
-
Dug deep on this one…..Scott Mellanby
-
23 minutes ago, SLUMedBilliken15 said:
I want Hunter. His FT % is great. Therefore, I bet he can shoot. Just needs to take more high percentage shots. Thats where Schertz's system comes into play. I bet he would do well here.
I agree with this. Look for athletes who you know can shoot and defend, but maybe didn't put up numbers at their previous school for whatever reason. Then, let their natural athleticism and shooting ability thrive in Schertz's system where they might be getting many more open shots. That's another reason I feel as if Gibby might have a great final season.
-
Numbers aren't that impressive, but he was highly thought of coming out of high school and has played in a Final Four game.
SLUMedBilliken15 likes this -
13 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:
5 years, $5 million total per year, for football, men's and women's basketball plus selected other women's sports.
Still a great donation, but not nearly as good as it sounded at first.
-
I say that our five best players should be on the floor and get most of the playing time regardless of who they are in our Elite 8 game.
Fraz likes this -
2 hours ago, willie said:
Speaking of the NIL money: In todays article about Missouri looking at the Memphis AD they mentioned that Fed Ex has given their NIL 25 million. Sure would be nice if one of our corporate giants would step up with anything close to this.
I wonder if that is for football and basketball or did it say it was just for their basketball program? Also, was it a yearly donation of $25m or a one time donation that will have to be spread over several years.
-
4 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:
You ever ask a girl out on a date and then realized that it wasn't going to work out during the date?
Yes. Usually when the girl excused herself to go to the bathroom and then didn't come back. So, I totally see what you are saying.
CenHudDude and NextYearBill like this -
4 minutes ago, Zink said:
I'd put Thames over Dotzler tbh - I think Thames could make a leap this year. He is an athletic freak who figured out his shot.
Plus, he was a 1 in HS and has solid court vision, so I think he'll fit the pass and move offense incredibly well and really break out. His trouble has been that he doesn't really have the ball-handling to go with his vision, but I think that the more ball movement pass & cut oriented way that Schertz's team runs (versus dribble-drive) will be to his benefit.
Toward the end of last season, Thames showed an ability to drive into the lane and then pull up over a big to hit a ten foot shot. I hope Schertz sees that when reviewing film and encourages that aspect of his game. If so, and if he improves his three point shooting, I think Thames could have a big breakout season.
Zink likes this -
Why would we invite Turnbull to come to campus, give him a tour, and then tell him we are not interested? That makes no sense. I know everyone wants to think we can do no wrong right now, but I have to think he turned us down.
-
So who is next up on the commitment watch? Turnbull? Someone else?
-
10 minutes ago, cheeseman said:
Maybe his injury history this year was caution for them
I thought the same thing, but this year it was only a broken foot. Usually, that's not much of a concern.
-
28 minutes ago, ACE said:
Sincere Parker to McNeese - strange
Agree. I would think that he could have gotten more to stay here, unless we had reason to tell him he wasn't wanted here anymore. Also strange than another bigger program than McNeese State didn't take a chance on him. Hell, I would think one of the programs who he hung 30 on in the A-10 would have paid him a little more than he's probably getting at NcNeese State.
-
Wanna bump the thread and keep it going. Welcome Amari!!
SLUMedBilliken15 and joe_davola like this -
5 hours ago, thetorch said:
"potential" is the key word.
ESPN is bringing us in to play a televised neutral site event. Why play a possible quad 1 or 2 game when we should get a guaranteed Quad 1 game. No matter what they have coming in or returning, a couple bad losses in their bad conference and Santa Clara is not a good neutral game on our schedule. We have very few opportunities to get Quad 1 wins, why take a chance on one that could just as easily turn into a quad 3 or 4?
But this loser mentality thinking is coming from a couple posters who still wish Ford was the coach.
Exactly how many quad one teams do you think are gonna be willing to play us? Scheduling is always been a problem. We shouldn’t be turning down games just because they might not be quad one.
-
3 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:
Lou Alcindor
Blue Alcindor
-
Hopefully, we are in a soft part of our schedule while they get healthy.
OkieBilliken likes this -
I think I saw on Twitter that it is Hailey Van Lith. If that is correct, and she's the Hailey Van Lith I'm seeing online, she averaged 11.6 points per game at LSU last season. Can that be right?
EDIT - Looking again, the post I saw was from the Midtown Madness Podcast. Not sure if it was a blue ink style post.
-
2 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:
Great post cgeldmacher. I've been preaching for years if some booster wants to throw fortunes and cars, even houses at kids I don't care. But if this is college they should be college kids. They should qualify to get enrolled like any other college student. They should attend classes and pass and be able to prove they are on pace to graduated in their 5 years of eligibility.
The NCAA should put 100% of their police work into this. If the players don't want to be students, let them go pro. Colleges should not be the NBA and the NFL minor leagues
And I'm betting it would not take anything away from the fan experience. The competition would still be there.
I agree that the argument that it would take away from the competition is ridiculous. College football and basketball is already a lesser product from a talent standpoint than the NFL or NBA. We still love watching it even though it is lesser talent. If we lowered the talent level further by making sure that it was only for those wanting to go to college, it would not lessen our passion or our level of enjoyment as long as parity and good competition remained.
-
10 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said:
I think it is either going to be that, or the government will step in and finally divorce college sports from the big business it has become. I understand that universities have made millions on these kids for years (men's football and basketball only). I also understand the argument that the kids should benefit from the millions being made off of them. However, there is another argument that is just as logical as this argument and it is that universities are for students who want to receive an education. That's all. If you really take a step back and see the forest for the trees, it makes about as much sense for universities to be involved in professional sports as it does our national parks or trade unions to be involved in professional sports. By that, I mean it makes no sense. People in Europe can't comprehend why our universities are so involved in sports and, they are the ones that are right, not us.
When college sports started, it was literally guys who agreed to go to the same university for purely academic reasons creating club teams for their spare time. That turned into organized teams. That turned into organized conferences. That turned into TV deal and national championships. That turned into schools creating sham classes so those kids can go to school and play for the school's team. That turned into kids getting paid now to pretend they are students so that they can represent the school's team.
If it were up to me, I would have Congress pass a law that essentially accomplishes the following: If you want to be a professional athlete then go pro. If you want to go to college and play sports, you have to understand that you will not benefit from that situation other than having your tuition paid for and room and board. Then, you have to go to real classes, study, and stay academically eligible. You can't go pro for four years after agreeing to go to college. That will bring the talent level down in football and basketball. It will not lower the passion that fans have for their teams one bit.
I know I sound like an old guy, probably because I sort of am, but that is what I would like to see. I'm not saying to go back to what it was when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's. I'm saying take it back further than that.
billikenbill likes this -
I agree with Zac that Tate isn't really bringing in any high level St. Louis high school talent. However, I think he is a good retention, because:
1. He does seem to have JUCO connections that have helped us with local kids that other programs have missed (Perkins & Parker)
2. I feel like he is a good connection to have for local kids who sign elsewhere and then want to transfer a year or two later
3. He will help Schertz understand and be able to better navigate the local high school basketball scene
Schasz and SLUMedBilliken15 like this -
2 hours ago, ARon said:
Once all the lawsuits work out and unions form we'll see the college teams in revenue sports become professional organizations that are merely "sponsored" by the universities. The universities and their donors will seed them with assets and kick back operating profits to the unis as a way of paying for the right to use the unis' facilities and trademarks.
With that we'll see a complete and total end to transfer restrictions, red-shirts, and academic requirements. We'll probably also start seeing kids getting multi-year contracts as programs try to keep teams together. They'll finally just be professional athletes.
I think it is either going to be that, or the government will step in and finally divorce college sports from the big business it has become. I understand that universities have made millions on these kids for years (men's football and basketball only). I also understand the argument that the kids should benefit from the millions being made off of them. However, there is another argument that his just as logical as this argument and it is that universities are for students who want to receive an education. That's all. If you really take a step back and see the forest for the trees, it makes about as much sense for universities to be involved in professional sports as it does our national parks or trade unions to be involved in professional sports. By that, I mean it makes no sense. People in Europe can't comprehend why our universities are so involved in sports and, they are the ones that are right, not us.
When college sports started, it was literally guys who agreed to go to the same university for purely academic reasons creating club teams for their spare time. That turned into organized teams. That turned into organized conferences. That turned into TV deal and national championships. That turned into schools creating sham classes so those kids can go to school and play for the school's team. That turned into kids getting paid now to pretend they are students so that they can represent the school's team.
If it were up to me, I would have Congress pass a law that essentially accomplishes the following: If you want to be a professional athlete then go pro. If you want to go to college and play sports, you have to understand that you will not benefit from that situation other than having your tuition paid for and room and board. Then, you have to go to real classes, study, and stay academically eligible. You can't go pro for four years after agreeing to go to college. That will bring the talent level down in football and basketball. It will not lower the passion that fans have for their teams one bit.
I know I sound like an old guy, probably because I sort of am, but that is what I would like to see. I'm not saying to go back to what it was when I was growing up in the 80's and 90's. I'm saying take it back further than that.
Old guy, billiken_roy and Billikenbooster like this -
Just now, Pistol said:
I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you saying there will be a lawsuit stating that they can stay eligible within the NCAA indefinitely? They're already not restricted to 4-year careers - athletes have 6 years in which to play 4 full seasons.
Why? What is the point of the restriction. Why shouldn't a kid be able to spend as much time "educating his or herself" and play sports while doing it. Why is there a six year restriction? That's my whole point. Everytime people say, "why is that rule in place, the NCAA can't restrict that," they never consider they ultimate end game of the argument they are spewing.
I, personally, think that the NCAA should be able to put a limit on a college career, should be able to prevent unlimited transferring, should be able to limit pay for play, should be able to restrict NIL, but many out there disagree, and they are winning. The fact that those ideas are winning is killing college sports, or will lead to its demise.
So, I will double down. If it is unlawful to restrict a player transferring whenever they want and making as much money as they want, then why would it be permissible to restrict how long they can play or whether they can transfer mid season?
-
Just now, TRN said:
It definitely will be challenged. That’s why I say just give them 5 years and no exceptions. The NCAA can say they are expanding it from 4 to 5 years to account for all redshirts and hardship situations. After the 5 year clock is over you are done.
They can make a caveat for people that do missions and other similar breaks in school attendance. But, they need to be stringent on allowing no exceptions, it’s becoming a joke.
Four years or five years doesn't matter. It is still a restriction. If restricting to four years is determined to not be allowed by the courts, five won't be any different. My point is that if that challenge is coming and wins in court, the NCAA won't be able to prevent it by making a five year rule.
The same thing is true of the transfer rule. If someone thinks that restricting transferring is unlawful and should be allowed in college sports, then why is that concept restricted to year by year. Why not semester by semester, month by month, week by week, or day by day. You cannot say that transferring should not be restricted, but then arbitrarily apply a one year restrictions from transferring just because that meshes with the college sports season.
Transfers - 2024
in Billikens.com Main Board
Posted
Haven't heard anything. Also not speculating. Just saying that he is a kid that may be obtainable that would fit some needs.
Also failed to mention that he averaged 14.4 ppg last season and MAC co-Defensive Player of the Year.