cgeldmacher
-
Posts
3,075 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Posts posted by cgeldmacher
-
-
17 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:
Going into A10 play, we are 221 in NET. We are 0-2 against Q1 teams, 1-2 against Q2 teams, 2-2 against Q3 teams, and 3-0 against Q4 teams. Looking at our schedule, based on ranking today, on our schedule we have 4 Q1 games, 4 Q2 games, 9 Q3 games, and 1 Q4 game. That’s not enough to move us up into at large territory if we sweep the A10 regular season. The real issue with why this is so hard to predict is other teams will move up and down in NET ranking based on their results, which makes this a very futile exercise. I probably just wasted my time, but all in all I find it very hard to see how we have any other path into the NCAA other than winning the A10 Conference Tournament.
Thanks for the work putting that together. I've always said that conference season should be a wash overall to a conference's NET rankings since each conference goes .500 overall during the conference season. If you start the conference season with two wins, those two teams you beat end up playing each other. One will win, helping your NET, and one will lose, hurting your NET. Certainly, wins move you up and losses move you down, but no conference should improve or fall in the overall NET rankings due to conference season play.
-
34 minutes ago, HoosierPal said:
The first five games of the Conference Schedule will tell us a lot. Have to have the Loyola home game, as it could be the easiest of the five. Next up a visit to 8-2 George Mason, with a current NET of 76. They have only one win against a top 100 team, Cornell at 84 but will be tough at their house. Following up with a home game against St. Joseph 7-3 with a NET of 54 with two Quad 1 wins, and then road trips to Dayton and VCU. I would consider a 3-2 as a welcome result for these first five games. That likely means taking two at home and one on the road.
I agree with what you are saying, but I think we could go undefeated in conference play and still not make the tournament if we don't run the A-10 tournament. Someone with better analytical skills would have to let me know if that is true or not. My point is that the regular season is just preparation for the A-10 tournament to determine if we can make the field of 68.
-
Assuming Parker is back for conference play, I am very interested in seeing how this team performs in the A-10. Like most fans of most teams, I have high hopes. Now that BE is in the mix and with SP coming back, I feel like should beat the bottom and mid level teams and that we can compete with the top level teams. Then again, I have felt that way before.
CenHudDude likes this -
22 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:
Believe he's redshirting.
I don't know how it is at other schools, but at SLU, when I guy redshirts, it's sort of a statement that now that you are here, and we see you in practice, we don't really think you are good enough to help our team and its probably best if you practice with us this season and then transfer.
-
I do not know what thread to put this in, but Brock Vice has recorded zero stats at Creighton this season. Does anyone know if he is injured? If not, I hope he realizes the amount of minutes he would have been getting if he had kept his commitment to SLU.
gabriel likes this -
17 hours ago, Crewsorlose said:
I'm a big fan of the podcast but absolutely everyone who listened to Zac's take on the Jimerson foul is dumber for it. He fouled because he didn't know the score and thought we were down one. Look at the Billikens after the shot is made. Two guys are already back. When the camera comes back to the action, Jimerson is in the backcourt with his arms over his head because he realized he didn't know the score. He wasn't trying to stop a 3 on 2 fast break.
He's been a great Billiken and we all love him. That's not the point. The point is that you're supposed to be analyzing basketball and you come up with the most implausible take. They had no fast break. I'm flabbergasted that you spend 15 minutes breaking down the last 30 seconds and you cannot even follow the logic of the game. It has nothing to do with "the angle you were watching the play from." Do better.
This is pure speculation, but I have thought it was possible that Jimerson thought TJ's shot was only a 2 and not a 3. I'd have to look again to see if I can tell where Jimerson was on the court when the shot went up. If he thought it was a 2, that would explain him thinking he needed to foul.
-
Done. Thank you for all that you do.
TheA_Bomb likes this -
20 hours ago, billiken_roy said:
well if the weave is a "play", it is most unsuccessful play ever. imo it only serves to run clock so we can hoist up a bad shot with 2 seconds left on the shot clock. if you call that a play, well....................
It is actually several plays. Depends on the particular play they call. The point of the weave is to be able to start a set play, called by the sidelines, without everyone standing still. If you watch, you will notice that when the weave finishes, one guy has the ball (obviously) and the other four guys have moved into the position they are supposed to be in for the start of the play that was called. They then run through several progressions which are intended to get a good shot. If they don't get a quality look out of the first several options, they ball goes back to the point and, if there's time, they will run another set. If not, someone will have to try to get their own shot or drive and kick to someone for a shot.
You can say you don't like the results, but you cannot complain that set, pre-planned plays are not called. There is a plan on just about every offensive possession, and that plan, like with many very successful college teams, starts with a weave.
CenHudDude likes this -
2 hours ago, billiken_roy said:
from watching ford ball for the last decade, i find it hard to believe there is a billiken playbook. maybe a pamphlet or a suggestion list. but no playbook. if there is, none of the ford teams ever learned it very well. there is a lot of standing around and selfishness from my view.
I know it drives you crazy, but everytime they run the weave, that is a set play. They guys look at the bench, a play is called and they run it.
willie likes this -
3 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:
If I were Travis Ford, I would have renegotiated my contract down to 1.5 mil and told the booster that signs the check on that extra mil to donate it to the BVF.
Imagine a business with a $2.5 million contract with another business to supply a certain product. That contract is renewed annually. That business finds out that the customer is now unhappy with the product it is being sold and is likely to cancel the contract. There is a way to salvage the deal. The customer can, after receiving the product, spend $1 million enhancing the product, thus bringing it up to the level of quality it expects. What does the business do? Should they lose the business of this customer altogether? Or should they agree to renegotiate the deal so that the customer gets the product it wants and the supplying business gets to continue making money off of the deal?
-
49 minutes ago, Pistol said:
The NCAA made its own bed. They benefited from a grossly unjust model for over a century. Now the money has grown exponentially in a relatively short amount of time and they can't withstand the pressure from every side. They had every chance - again, for a century - to get out in front of their current problems before they got here. They didn't. They were too greedy.
People can blame congress and make hacky remarks about government all they want but congress doesn't operate in a vacuum, either. They would've left the NCAA alone if not for pressure from constituents who care more about their college football programs more than anything else congress does.
What we're experiencing right now is a market correction. Corrections are uncomfortable. There will be casualties that will include many of the things that make us love college sports in the first place. It didn't have to be this way.
I am responding to your post about this, even though its a bit off topic, because I know that you were one who advocated for college athletes to have free transfer rules (if I'm wrong let me know). I'm not trying to pick on you, but I do value your opinion. So here goes.
The argument seems to be that student athletes should be allowed to transfer at will because they have the same freedoms as everyone else. No one is required to stay at a job, if they would prefer to take another one. Why should student athletes be required to stay at a university for any number of years and why should they have their freedom to make decisions for themselves hindered in any why by the NCAA? There is certainly a lot of sense behind this. If they are performing a job, which many argue they are, then they should be able to change jobs whenever they want.
If this is true, and courts agree and say that it is true, then there should not be any restriction on transfers at all. College athletes should not be told you have to stay at a university for three years, two years, one year, one semester, five games, or even two games. If the logic behind this concept is solid and the courts agree, then the rule should be they can literally transfer whenever they want. A student athlete should be able to play a game on Thursday night, transfer the next morning, and then play a game for another university on Friday night. Then, that same person should, if the logic follows, be able to transfer to another university on Saturday morning and suit up for a game on Saturday night.
The logic of the argument that is leading to all of this has zero to do with academics. If academics were taken into account, then students should be expected to attend a school for four years and get a degree, all the while playing for that school's sports team, just like the old days. There should not be any argument here about being in school or finishing semesters or school years, as those are related to the education and have nothing to do with the athlete playing for a team or being an employee. The arguments that are winning in the courts over this don't have anything to do with academics, so academic schedules, shouldn't be considered.
So, here's my question, if the courts think that student athletes should have freedom to transfer independent of the traditional academic calendars and the NCAA's restrictive rules that have been in effect for 100 years, then where is the line? It would seem that if the courts say that an athlete can transfer at the end of each season, then the court is inserting an arbitrary restriction on the athlete no different than the NCAA. Would it be a shorter time frame than the NCAA's prior rules? Yes, but it is still an arbitrary restriction. Why would the athlete be required to stay for an entire season if the goal is enforcing their freedoms and rights?
-
6 hours ago, slufan13 said:
It's gone from "create a singular thread for all your Ford hatred because it's so annoying to read it everywhere" to "stop posting in your singular Ford thread because it's so annoying to read that thread I asked you to create"
I'll give Ford credit. He has a lot of people that are incredibly loyal to him. They're even posting on the board now
Yeah, even I have to agree. I thought we had reached an understanding few days ago that we were all on, close to, the same page, just tone it down on un-related threads, and then here DOC goes disrupting our fragile peace agreement.
-
So, I'm just curious as to which of these two options the folks on this board would choose
-
19 hours ago, Lord Elrond said:
It’s smart as long as the players go along. If someone else is willing to pay them right away, that may be a reason why they go somewhere else.
But if they go into the portal, they would be foregoing money sitting and waiting for them in the BFV. Obviously, if our player has $20,000 waiting that they are due from the previous season and will get once the portal closes, but another team comes in and offers them $100,000 right now, they will probably go. But, they would probably have gone anyway. I like the way they're doing it.
-
14 hours ago, gobillsgo said:
Surely you can see that your point applies to the other side too, though? I acknowledge that certain fans want to be positive about the team at all times, even if they are not happy with the results. I even respect it, and I can see how the frequent negativity directed mainly at Ford and May would get tiresome. But on the other side of the coin, those of us who have frequently been “negative” are mainly doing so not because we think we aren’t being heard, but because it is critically important for the program’s decision makers to continually understand the fans’ displeasure. SLU fans don’t boo at the games. This is our outlet to say “We are not okay with where this program is headed and we demand change.”
I think we all know that important people read this board. I understand that players probably do too (which is why I try, even if I sometimes fail, to keep the criticism to Ford and May).
We don’t think that nobody is hearing us, or that those who don’t complain are happy with the direction of the program. And we certainly do have better things to do (@ Travis). But we are not willing to risk radio silence on the main Billiken forum being interpreted by the decision makers as fan apathy. If they think the fans don’t care, they have no reason (or at least no urgency) to make an expensive, but necessary change. I’m personally not willing to risk that, so will continue to point out Ford and May’s inadequacies. But we do hear you.
I do absolutely see your side, and some of what you think is your "side" is also my side. I'm just not as vocal about it. I also am fully behind the idea that everyone on this board is entitled to their opinion. Here are my two issues with what I am seeing:
1. The constant negativity leaks into every thread on the board. I just want to be able to discuss some Billiken topics without hearing about how Ford should be fired. Let's suppose I really want to talk about the 1948 NIT championship team. That's a legitimate Billiken discussion topic. If I were to incessantly post about that topic on GDTs, recruiting threads, former player threads, etc. that would really get old for everyone else that wants to focus on a certain topic in those threads.
2. The guys who choose to constantly post about their opinions about Ford go on the attack against any post that isn't ending with "Fire Ford." If someone compliments the team's mental toughness in a win, it gets responded to with "doesn't matter, you're an idiot, why are you praising the team, we will never win again unless we Fire Ford." Someone compliments Bruce's progression over a few games "doesn't matter, your an idiot if you get to attached to Bruce, he'll be gone when Ford gets fired."
So, yes, I see your points. I just don't want read it in every other post.
BuiltFordBills, billikenbill, CenHudDude and 6 others like this -
22 hours ago, slufan13 said:
There are fans who support the team positively no matter what because they love the team and always will. There are fans who will loudly speak out when the team is not performing because they love the team and always will. Every fanbase needs both and should be encouraged to have both. Both are good fans.
I encourage both sides to do what they want to do and not worry about the other side. It's one of the few ways this season is really going to be enjoyable.
This post illustrates the problem we are having. It is not, at all, black and white like you just posted. I am a loyal fan that will support the team no matter what. I am also someone who wants better for our program and has the ability to be critical about the results that have occurred in recent years. Myself and others can be both at the same time. However, you cannot wrap your head around the idea that someone can be both. You insist, and it is frankly getting to the point of being BS that you can't understand this, that if we are not rattling swords and demanding immediate removals, we must be burying our heads in the sand fans that just cheer mindlessly from our seats and don't care about the score of the game. Enough of that already.
EDIT: slufan13, sorry that this post seemed so directly pointed at you. I don't want to change it, because the sentiment remains true, but it should have been more so directed at a larger group.
CenHudDude, MB73, DOC and 2 others like this -
- Popular Post
23 hours ago, TRN said:It’s comical that people asked for a separate thread for people to voice their displeasure with May and Ford. Now, some of those people are coming into that thread to tell people to not complain. You can’t make this stuff up. There’s always going to be a Pollyanna wing of Billikens fandom that thinks it’s never ok to criticize any facet of SLU.
Sorry, but is not what is happening. Many of the people that don't like the constant complaining and calls to fire Ford probably agree with you. They just don't want to hear about it in every other post in every thread. There is nothing wrong with them wanting that. It would be nice to be able to have discussions about Billiken basketball that did not constantly get taken over by "Fire Ford" sentiment. I agree with what a lot of these posters are saying, I just don't want to see it in everything I read on the board. The Wiz puts out his game predictions and the thread is taken over by the "Fire Ford" types. There is discussion about recruit, and it gets taken over by the "Fire Ford" guys. Just because some of us want to have discussions that don't involve firing Coach Ford, doesn't mean we like what is happening or that we disagree with those that take issue with Ford's performance.
-
8 minutes ago, stmdragons said:
I swear TJ hasn’t hit a three all season
That post didn’t age well
BrettJollyComedyHour likes this -
49 minutes ago, TheA_Bomb said:
My anecdote is simply to point out this organization isn't even doing the bare minimum. It's another data point in the indictment of negligent management.
Getting that response is not the point.
I do understand your point and you're probably right. However, instead of just complaining, I like to be active. I'll keep going until something happens. What "we" are looking for is an impact, this is a change that is needed but we need to stop being the "Little Engine that Couldn't" and become something else. We need to decide if we're going to compete or not. Things are changing fast and if we don't act we'll be behind.
Well I appreciate your loyalty and commitment to the Billikens (that's why we all come here) even if I don't agree with your methods or think that they are necessary. I think changes will happen. The people who the changes are going to happen to might even realize that they will occur. If these changes are already going to occur, I just think that your actions are adding unnecessary embarrassment to folks who, regardless of the results, were giving their best effort at making a program we love successful. Did it work out? No. Were they really, truly trying to make it work out? Yes. Are their transgressions worthy of the public embarrassment you are attempting to put them through? No.
SLUMedBilliken15 likes this -
On 12/7/2023 at 12:59 PM, TheA_Bomb said:
I have. I've also considered that many may not even realize how crazy Ford's salary is relative to like schools and results. So that's why I emailed the entire Athletic Department.
As for your point about the response that's bad management. See my previous post on what the response should be. I learned that at SLU. I have a buddy former mayor of a small town he said his secret to success was just listening to complaints. He'd listen, thank them for being a concerned citizen and tell them he'd look into the issue.
Also, this is an insurgency. They may not respond to me, but my message was read by a lot of people. They know there's issues. They know there's unrest. They see the criticism in black and white. If the AD deals with this internally the way they deal with this externally which is to ignore, it'll only cause deeper fissures.
When people are unhappy and there's greater pressure things tend to go wrong. Amping up the pressure during what is already a stressful time makes an event leading to change more likely. Or maybe something already happened and it will come out now. Here's an excerpt of something I wrote,
"If Coach Ford does not resign is may be possible to fire him for cause. Investigation by SLU may uncover that Coach Ford violated SLU policies regarding COVID-19. It is reported that Coach Ford hosted a 21st birthday for his son with the team. After the party many players contracted COVID-19 and it directly affected the season. This action would be in violation of SLU polices during the time, which forbid public SLU gatherings on or off campus. If any other student or employee of SLU was dismissed/terminated due to violation of protocols and Coach Ford, the highest profile employee is allowed to continue to make millions of dollars, this opens SLU up to lawsuits for inequitable treatment. Much has been made of Coach Ford’s bad luck, but you make your own luck. Ford’s actions, roster construction and lack of ability have led us to this point."
So you read that and you or a close coworker got in trouble for violating the COVID policy. Is it true? I don't know, probably. Would be easy to find out. It's inequitable treatment if you got in trouble and Ford didn't. That's the kinda stuff that brings down organizations.
Insurgency Strategery
"Thanks for being a concerned citizen. I'll look into the issue." is your politician friend's polite way of saying I'm going to do what I was going to do anyway but thanks for trying educate me on an issue I was already aware of. I'm pretty sure that the issues with our program will be addressed in some form or another after the season. The decision makers all have two eyes and two ears and a brain capable of critical thought. I just think that some things here may be forgone conclusions, but no one who makes these decisions at SLU will be able to tell you that. No one will be able to give you the response you want which is "Thanks for pointing this out A-Bomb. We're going to take action and at the end of the season some people won't be here anymore." That's not how personnel decisions have ever worked. You can keep getting angrier and angrier and less and less willing to stand for what's happening, but I honestly think that some form of what you want is going to happen regardless of you insurgency. That's why I was saying to just be patient.
billikenbill likes this -
1 minute ago, TheA_Bomb said:
Nope, next phase BoTs and sponsors. Y'all ready?
What I plan to send to BoT is key metrics, they need to be grounded in facts. So if anyone would like to share here with links, sources please do.
For sponsors we can point to diminishing attendance.
Have you considered the fact that the BoT and others you are contacting already agree with you and that these efforts are a bit unnecessary? I would also add that if you are expecting some response to all this, you won't get one. That's not how these things are handled. I just feel like you're spinning your wheels trying to get something done that is possibly already in the works. Maybe patience and a deep breath might be the better path. I'm rather sure than nothing will happen until the end of the season.
-
1 hour ago, cheeseman said:
If you get money to come to a school under the guise that you will help sell potato chips by making a single audio commercial, then in reality you are getting paid to play for that school. Pay to play by any other name is still pay to play
I get that, but I think the NCAA feels they playing field is a bit more fair if those deals have to be done individually rather than collectives just saying "transfer to us and we'll write you a check for $150,000."
-
I interpret this move by the NCAA as a first move in a bigger game. I believe that the NCAA and many of its member institutions are against pay for play. They can't be against NIL, because NIL is law now. But, they don't like that NIL has turned into pay for play. It seems obvious that pay for play will benefit a minority of the universities that are involved to the detriment of the majority. Since the NCAA is really just an aggregate of its member institutions, the majority of those institutions are pushing this, and the NCAA is the governing body that has to make it happen.
I believe that the NCAA is pushing these new rules as a way to say to everyone "see, we are allowing athletes to get paid and we are making it equitable to everyone," and that this will be followed by rules that prohibit pay for play. I don't see how direct contact through an entity like the Billiken Exchange can be eliminated, but I think the majority of institutions would like to make the NIL funds like the BVF obsolete with rule changes.
I see this as a potential life line for schools like SLU. If schools with football teams have to contribute way more than those without, we could come out on the winning end of these new rules.
-
19 hours ago, billikenfan05 said:
We just lost by 39. What does it matter, honestly? We probably will see an entire new staff next year, there are always other players. Do I want to see him and Bruce succeed? Yes. Do I want to see them play more the rest of the season? Yes. Is there any point in getting attached? Even beyond the current status of transferring in college sports, no not really. It's like Welmer, Roby or Crawford. It was great to have them around the first few Ford years, but like if they transferred, best of luck, I ain't mad atchya.
I understand every point you make, and you are not wrong about any of it, but I am going to cheer for the Billikens to succeed in each game and every season, even lost seasons like this one appears to be. I have too much Billiken blue blood in me to not care about winning the next game. Until a guy transfers, I want him to succeed when wearing our uniform.
Adman, billikenbill, thunderdan and 1 other like this
2023-2024 Season
in Billikens.com Main Board
Posted
That's true