cgeldmacher

I think you're missing my point. We may agree more than you think. Ruth is one of the all time greats. He dominated his time. But, if you took him in his prime and threw him into today's game, he would not succeed. Back then, he smoked and drank and got fat during his playing days. He used a bat that modern players would consider a cave man club. He was able to do this, because he was much stronger than everyone else and was ahead of his time. If he could be transported back to age 15 and trained like the guys nowadays train, then I'm sure he'd turn himself into a great player. The point people were making is that Tatum is better than McCauley, because McCauley wouldn't be able to play against modern talent. That's an unfair assessment. You can't compare individuals against each other. You need to compare how a player performed in his own era.

Comparing Tatum's athleticism and talent to Easy Ed is a fool's errand. There is no doubt that modern athletes are more talented, better conditioned, and plan games faster and harder than in the past. They're bigger, faster, stronger, more powerful, quicker. Most of them train year round since 8th grade. They don't have part time jobs in the off season. Babe Ruth wouldn't be able to hit today's pitching. Wayne Gretzky would be a skinny kid with talent that wouldn't hold up the speed of the NHL today (watch a video of an NHL game from the 80's if you question this). Dan Dierdorf is in the NFL Hall of Fame and if he played today at his peak condition, he would be the smallest lineman in the league by far. McCauley was one of the best players of his time. Tatum might be that some day, but he's not there yet. He would have to match McCauley's accolades to be considered the best player to come out of St. Louis.

I really like JJ for what he gave Ford as an option. By this I mean that he wasn't a starter, but could come off the bench and really light it up if he was hot. He could carry the team for a stretch with his shooting if he was on. If he wasn't on, then it's no big deal, because he's coming off of the bench anyway. Just send someone else in. I think that coaches always want those types of guys on the bench. If JJ was hot, he was really hot. He was often good for 3-4 threes in a ten minute stretch of the game. Oh well. I hope he's making this decision for the right reasons. I wish him the best of luck.

I didn't even look at the argument you were having above to know what you were posting about. I still haven't looked at it, because I'm not interested. I just wanted to point out that all of your posts are exactly the same. You then responded to my post by denying that this is the case. Except in your response, you followed the exact same formula that you always use and that I predicted. The only difference is that when you got the name calling part, you called me a "coward" instead of an "idiot." If you want, I can draft up a response to this post. We all know what it will look like. You're a one trick pony.

Just summing up for everyone who misses arguing with him.

I don't wish anything bad on Porter either, but I also don't want Loyola becoming the next Creighton or Wichita State. Given their proximity, it could hurt our recruiting. As stated above, it could also make them a viable option for the Big East. I would bet that the Big East wouldn't have a problem with two Chicago teams. In fact, I could see them liking the idea of having two teams develop a conference rivalry in the 3rd biggest market in the country.

I think that a reasonable option for a home and home is Loyola Chicago. They would essentially replace what we have had the past two seasons with Wichita State. They will be top 25 to start the season, which is a huge plus. As far as Loyola Chicago wanting to play us, I have a feeling that they will have the same problem that we have in that no one will want to come to their gym to play them. If no top conference school will go there, they need to look to conferences such as the A-10 for decent competition in their non-conference schedule. SLU or Dayton or both make the most sense since we would be willing to go there and the road game will be close enough for some of Loyola's fans to attend. Also, if Moser is actually planning on staying at Loyola through his new 8 year contract, I'm sure he wouldn't mind building inroads into St. Louis recruiting.

Be careful what you wish for. If that happens, the Loyola jumps over us in line for Big East expansion, if that ever happens.

This may have been discussed multiple times previously over the years, but what qualifies as school for being on a kids "Interest" list? Does that mean the kid has indicated interest in the school? Does it mean that the school has indicated interest in the kid? How does that list come about?

If your way to fix the problems with the NCAA is to allow players to get paid, then I have to disagree. At its core, the problem with the system is the players are supposed to get paid to play professionally and are not supposed to get paid to play in college. If a college player wants to get paid, then leave. Go play in the NBA or in another country if you are good enough. College is for getting an education (by any definition you can look up). Because kids are forced to go to college to have a chance at later getting to the point of getting paid by a professional sports team, we have our current mess. That is it. 100%. It isn't hard to make rules that essentially say that college is for people that want to be there and who are willing to work on the purpose of being in college (education) and the pros are for people who want to get paid. Get the rules in line with that basic concept and all the problems are fixed.

Wasn't Dr. Chaifetz wanting to get into the professional sports team ownership game? I would think his connection to St. Louis may be considered "local" enough.

If you are 6'5", then why are you "Littlebill?"

I love that Ford keeps recruiting guys, at all positions, that love to rebound.

Remember when people on this board really wanted Kevin Stallings. Whatever issues guys have with Chris May, he has to get credit for hiring a coach with this sort of recruiting ability.

Question: Does Ramey's father have a job outside of basketball, or is running the AAU program his means of earning a living?

Also found this interesting - UConn, of the AAC, is ranked #24 in the country. They are 15-9. They've played 22 road games and 2 home games.

Just looked. The AAC has three top twenty five teams. Two of them are in the top eight.

This is another reason why a switch to the AAC might be good for SLU if hope for the Big East appears lost or too distant into the future.

Pearson seems to me to be one of those guys that will take a year or two to figure out how to use to talents and body type to create a niche that will allow him to succeed at the collegiate level. Once he (if he) does that, he will be a star that will be a big part of our success.

My bad. I must have been thinking football. Yes, there are 2 rounds. It needs to be increased to fill up the minor league system I'm proposing. The number of rounds would have to be determined. Maybe 20 is too many, but 2 would definitely be too few.

Ha! I actually almost typed "Not to be a square, but..." I should have just to not leave you the opening.

If a kids chooses to go to the draft, it shows you where his head was in the first place. Baseball has like 40 rounds. The system I described above works perfectly for baseball. Some kids go right from high school into the draft. Some kids spend a few years in college before going pro. Some end up with degrees. There is not a single person, not even yourself, that would say that baseball should change and require kids to go to college for a year or two. The only reason we accept it in basketball is that we've lived with these rules for years. If the NBA is allowed to continue having 7 rounds, the rule changes won't matter, because kids who aren't one and done types will still not have reasonable access to making the league without being forced into college ball.

So, are all these guys just dropping their classwork to go play in this non-NCAA sanctioned event? That seems to work against what we want for a student who spent four years working toward a degree.

I've been advocating a fix for a long time that some are just now discussing. I don't claim that I'm the only one that's thought of this, but here goes: 1. Eliminate the one year after high school rule. 2. Make the NBA create a multilevel (at least 2) developmental program; as a corollary to this one, the NBA expands its draft to 20 rounds. 3. Raise the academic standards to play NCAA college basketball 4. Require those who sign with a college to play college ball for at least two years Some kids go to college to because of the current rules. Some want to try to make that one year run for a championship. If you make it clear that college basketball is only for guys that can handle the classwork, then you will change who decides to go to college. You will start to only get guys that really want a degree, or, at the very least, guys who can handle the academics and want to work on their game to, hopefully, someday, get drafted by the NBA. If the above happens, coaches will be forced to look for guys that can cut it academically. Also, players that know they can't cut it in the classroom have an outlet to still get to the league.

7 spots above Marquette 25 spots above Gonzaga 31 spots above Duquesne 37 spots above Creighton 40 spots above DePaul 53 spots above Dayton And the #1 ranked Health Law program. Guess you forgot these comparisons when you decided it was appropriate to compare the law school to Loyola Chicago and Villanova.