cgeldmacher

Totally agree that the GDTs are a cesspool of terrible overreactions in the moment. Sometimes, I won't read them if we are losing or if we have lost.

Props to Lamont Evans and Sincere Parker for helping out a teammate in need.

I'm bullish on LHJ's future with our program

Let me start this topic by saying that it does not matter as it relates to Coach Ford. He has had 8 seasons to get us to a better place. He has improved us from the Crews era, but only to the point of being where we have typically been historically. Finishing something like 20-11 and 3rd through 6th in the conference is what we already have been. What we want to be and need to be is better than that. When I look at this team to try to evaluate what is going wrong, I am more and more coming to a conclusion that is contrary to what the popular opinion is. That popular opinion, as we have been hearing for years, is that Ford can recruit, but not coach. As I watch this team, however, I still don't see a problem with our scheme on offense or defense. We do almost exactly what I see other successful teams do scheme wise. I see guys getting decent shots and in position to defend. They are just failing to hit those shots and failing to defend. What I see is guys not performing. To be clear, again, it doesn't matter if its talent or coaching, those both are on Ford. I just truly believe that most folks have way over evaluated the talent level on this squad. In other words, I think the problem is the talent level Ford has brought in, not game planning type issues. The reason I say this is because moving forward, we may have to adjust how we go about wanting to reach the heights we want to reach. To this point, many Billiken fans have been infatuated with the idea of keeping St. Louis kids home. We have now done that. Pickett, Collins, Okoro, Hargrove, Perkins, Thatch (sort of), Goodwin, Nesbitt, Zeke Moore, Gillman, Gordon, etc., etc. What has that gotten us? The answer is, right where we are now and right about what we have always been. I'm just wondering if the heavy on St. Louis kids model, that we have always wanted and now have, is the way to go going forward. That is not to say that we shouldn't recruit St. Louis kids. It's just an observation that getting above average St. Louis kids to come here in numbers we haven't seen before, did not put us over the hump that we want to get over.

If this is true, he should to go prison on extortion charges.

If it costs $60,000 to go to SLU and you typically get 30 hours of credit in per year (15 per semester), then giving you 2 credits per semester, 4 per year, is very valuable. By my calculations, you are allowing kids to use about $8,000 of their tuition money on something that they, presumably, love doing, and giving them an easy A on the report card to help the GPA. I think that is more valuable than giving them $250 off of their $60,000 tuition. EDIT - It would be $500 per year if it is $250 per semester. Still doesn't change my point. Giving the credit is more of an incentive than a $500 scholarship.

After getting more information from the responses given by Desmet Billiken and Brett Jolly Comedy Hour, here are my thoughts. I do not think the answer is to pay members of the band. I say this, because I believe that is not the normal practice among universities. As I said in previous comments, there is no way large football school's pay the members of their marching bands. I also do not believe that they give out anything close to full or half scholarships. I just looked it up. The Ohio State Marching band has 228 members. 192 march in the halftime shows each week. I cannot believe they are expending much on compensation or scholarships for that many students. This means that most, if not all, of them are doing it because they enjoy spending their time playing their instrument and proudly representing their school. Short of paying students, there has to be some other incentive to participate it the band. I would reinstate, or create if it hasn't been something in the past, a pep band class. Give students scholastic credit, and an easy A, for participating in the band. This would also create class time for the pep band to practice, so that they don't have use their free time. 0.50 credits is not nearly enough. I would give 2.0 credit hours per semester for participating in the pep band. There is no argument that this is a problem as playing an instrument is a fine art. Fine arts credits are offered at almost every university. As I said earlier, when I was at SLU, I was on the Mock Trial team, and we got 3 credit hours a semester for participating in the Mock Trial class, which was basically practicing for the Mock Trial team. If there wasn't a class for Mock Trial, there wouldn't have been a Mock Trial team, because hardly anyone would put that amount of time into the team without some incentive for doing so. If you increase the numbers of students participating in the band, then the Athletic Department can get extra events covered by using only portions of the band. If there are 60 students in the pep band, you could use groups of 15-20 at a time to cover ancillary events and spread the requirements out.

But then it comes down to the fans. If the fans rise up and demand a band play at the games, the school will have to do something. If the fans don't care about the difference between the band and a DJ, that would tell you something. Myself, I would fall into the camp that I would be upset if we did not have our band playing at games. I would let my feeling be known to the school and the Athletic Department. That being said, I don't know about the rest of the folks who attend games.

No. That gig ended his summer.

If we part ways with Ford, his next stop would be something like Iona, right? So, just do a trade. Pitino for Ford.

Plus, if he had success here, it would drive Mizzou fans crazy.

I don't really know what opinion to have about this, because I don't have information that others might have. I have always wondered why other schools' bands seem to be made up of students, while our seems to be at least half or more non-students. Knowing why this is and and having other facts would inform my opinions. So.... 1. Why is our band have so many older folks when other bands seem to be just students? 2. Do other schools pay their band members? I have to think that the members of large marching bands at big football schools don't get paid, otherwise, that would be a monumental expense. If they put in all that time just for the love of being in a band and playing for their school, why should our band members get paid? If other bands are paid, then our folks should be paid too. 3. Do other schools give more class credit to their students than our band members get? When I was at SLU, I was on the Mock Trial team. There was a class that you took that you received credit for if you were a member of the Mock Trial team. I think you received 2 to 3 credits per semester. This created incentive to participate on the team. If SLU is not giving kids who play instruments proper incentive to participate in the band, then it needs to. 4. What sort of budgets to other schools assign to their bands? If SLU's band is not being financially supported in the same way that the bands are at other schools, that needs to be fixed. 5. What requirements are expected of bands at basketball centric schools like ours? If other bands are expected to be at every basketball game and a few events for other sports, then ours should also. If not, then we should back off and let the just do the basketball games.

If the NET ranking gives credit to blow out wins, I think you will see teams leaving starters in much longer in games. Don't expect as many situations where the end of the bench plays the last five minutes.

Glad the Bills have you in a good mood. We worry about you some games based on the GDT.

Correction, Gus Phelps.

I'm sure the blame will somehow be placed on the NCAA, because whatever is wrong with college sports is always blamed on the easiest target.

I know that its just an opinion, and you are entitled to your opinion, but I don't think that even Jordan would agree with you about that opinion.

I'm a big fan of Coach Majerus, but he put zero Billikens in the NBA. Coach Ford has one. That's the only statistic that matters for this argument. I'm not saying Coach Ford is the better coach. Just saying that we can't argue Majerus would have done more with Goodwin.

Love that the color man called him "The Crime Stopper" Jordan Goodwin. Also, like the moniker "Goody" in the Tweet. My jersey is coming as a Christmas present. Have to wait a few more weeks. Pretty sure I'm getting the red jersey.

Even if his staff does the majority of the recruiting, you never seee a head coach get fired and the coaching staff retained. It's always a package deal. Fire Ford and our staff who is great at recruiting St. Louis will be picked up by Mizzou and Illinois.

Then immediately follows with a basket.

Our bigs are just not very good. Forrester seems helpless right now. Fumbled his 5th pass under the basket, then didn’t get back on D.

With the way, we struggle making bunnies around the rim, maybe we should practice that in the lay up line rather than dunking the ball all the time.

I think we all understand that losses to higher ranked opponents hurt less than losses to lower ranked opponents. I think the question being floated is a bit different. My understanding of the question is this: If you are going to have three losses in the non-conference schedule, would you rather beat your best opponents and lose to weaker ones (therefore, have very good wins on the resume, but also bad losses) or would you rather lose to the best teams and beat all of the weaker ones (therefore, you have no good wins on your resume, but also no bad losses)? Which is better for the NET and for making the tournament?

I think that's a very good question, and I don't know the answer.