cgeldmacher

BTW the guy in the studio show right after the game said that VT was caught off guard by playing an opponent that was “a step up in class.” Still beside myself that after these past three seasons, he was referring to our Billikens.

Triple double require ten or more in three categories. So, he would have needed at least ten blocks or ten assists to get a triple double.

Would have won by double digits if we didn’t get screw job by the refs. It really hurt our dominating defense and inside offense for the last 12 minutes. That was a blowout that was turned into a close game by the refs.

Defense - outstanding Rebounding - outstanding Pounding it Inside - outstanding Shooting - not good at first, but heating up

By the way, that 13U boys Scott Gallagher team might be a wealth of recruiting prospects that could be snagged up if we hire the right coach.

It took me ten seconds to Google this and prove you wrong, troll. Notice the 13U Nation Champions for 2017. http://championships.usyouthsoccer.org/2017_us_youth_soccer_national_champions/

I kid from O'Fallon was just put on the team.

If I were Welmer, that picture would be a poster on the wall of my apartment.

A good friend of mine who is a Mizzou fan has been telling me for a year that Gordon was not going to sign with SLU because a deal was in place that he was going to flip to Mizzou. Over this past weekend, he told me that he heard from his sources that Gordon wanted to flip to Mizzou, but that Mizzou decided they weren't interested anymore. When I heard that I smiled, because I knew this meant that Martin had pestered Gordon one final time last week (or should I say checked to see how strong his commitment was), and was told one final time by Gordon that was signing with SLU. As soon as my friend told me that, I knew it was a done deal.

Commitments deserve separate threads. Signing is a team thing.

Another option without transportation: Come join fellow SLU Billiken fans at historic Hinkle Fieldhouse in Indianapolis to see the men's basketball team take on the Butler Bulldogs! We will have a pre-game reception from beginning at 11:30 am, before heading over to Hinkle for the 2 pm tipoff (all times Eastern). For the reception and a game ticket, the cost is $45, and your game tickets will be available for pick up at the reception. You can also purchase the pre-game only for $20, perfect if you already have game tickets.

It is an amazing commentary on the new digital society that we live in that I am so bummed about the passing of someone I never actually met. It is crazy how the world we now live in allows you to get to know someone without actually ever laying eyes on them. He will be missed. I'll be praying for his family.

If they're truly looking to play together and one is getting big offers and the other is not, SLU might be a decent compromise to keep them in one place.

I also think that we are overestimating some. However, given the depth we have, even if a few guys aren't what we thought, we still should have a solid 5-7 players.

I get the impression that Ford looks at his present situation as being one where he had a lot of guys who are ready to play from the get go. Pearson seems like his opportunity to take a kid that has a huge upside, but that might take a few years to develop.

Wow. You might be right. They have been putting pictures of the players on the tickets in recent years. They may send them all back and ask for something generic looking.

The recent shake up was only because the government got involved. Until the federal government creates a Sports Commission that oversees college and pro sports, the corruption will continue.

The media guys who have been critical of SLU closing practice better not show up, ask about the Situation II, and then leave when they aren't told anything about it. I will also be upset if they are told that they get no info about Situation II and only offer up some crappy token questions, because they feel compelled to. It will be a litmus test to see if they have just been trying to stir up a sensationalized story about the recent problem or are actually interested in the team this year.

My group is going to Indy this year. Waiting on a headcount before getting tickets.

I didn't have that much of a problem with the article. I think the main point was that it is unfortunate that this situation is holding SLU back from promoting the team. That is an accurate sentiment in my opinion.

You're absolutely right. I see it now. My mistake. I was looking at the wrong section.

Last one, I promise. Just wanted to get the pertinent sections out there. D. Determination of Responsibility and Sanctions The Hearing Officer is an administrator designated by the University to determine responsibility and impose, as appropriate, any sanctions. The Hearing Officer will provide both the Reporting Party and Accused Party an opportunity to review the final investigative report and meet with the Hearing Officer separately to discuss the recommended findings and underlying facts. Alternatively, the parties may submit written comments in lieu of an in-person meeting with the Hearing Officer. Any Party may submit written questions that they want to be asked by the Hearing Officer of another Party. The Hearing Officer will review the questions prior to them being asked of another Party to ensure they are appropriate and relevant. At the conclusion of the individual meetings, or upon receipt of additional written comment, the Hearing Officer will make a determination as to whether, based on the preponderance of the evidence standard, the Accused Party committed an act or acts of Prohibited Conduct in violation of this policy. If the Hearing Officer determines that the Accused Party is responsible for one or more forms of Prohibited Conduct, the Hearing Officer will determine the appropriate sanctions. A determination of sanctions will be based on the facts and circumstances of each case and will be designed to eliminate the Prohibited Conduct and prevent any reoccurrence of such Prohibited Conduct. Any determination for sanctions will be rooted in the University’s educational mission, institutional values, and Title IX obligations. Sanctions for Employees and University Contractors are found in the University’s Harassment Policy and Faculty Manual. Sanctions for Students for a violation of this policy may include: expulsion; suspension; disciplinary probation; mandated counseling assessment which may include anger management course(s), alcohol and/or drug education program(s), and other requirements based upon the counseling assessment; restrictions on campus privileges including restrictions on campus housing or participation in student activities; community service; and/or other education sanctions. In determining the appropriate sanction, the Hearing Officer may consider the following factors: • the nature and violence of the conduct at issue; • the impact of the conduct on the Reporting Party; • the impact of the conduct on the University community; • prior misconduct by the Accused Party, including the Accused Party’s relevant prior discipline history, both at the University or elsewhere, and any criminal convictions; • how the University has previously sanctioned similar conduct; • whether the Accused Party has accepted responsibility for the conduct; • maintenance of a safe and respectful learning, living and working environment; • protection of the University community; and • any other mitigating, aggravating, or compelling circumstances in order to reach a just and appropriate outcome in each case. Both the Reporting Party and Accused Party will simultaneously receive a written notice of the outcome of the Hearing Officer’s findings, any sanctions, the rationale for each and the right to appeal. If an Accused Party wishes to return to campus after completing their period of suspension, the University shall notify the Reporting Party if a.) the Accused Party’s request to return has been approved and b.) the Reporting Party is currently enrolled in the University.

Here is the section about the timeframe of an investigation B. Timeframe for Investigation, Determinations and Appeal Except for good cause, the University will conclude its investigation, hearing, and appeal process within sixty (60) calendar days following receipt of a report. Best efforts will be made to complete the process in a timely manner by balancing principles of thoroughness, fairness, and impartiality. The University may extend this time frame for good cause and will communicate any delay in the process in writing to the parties, including an updated timeframe for completion and the reason(s) for any delay. Good cause may exist for a variety of factors, including the complexity of the circumstances of each allegation, the integrity and completeness of the investigation, to comply with a request by external law enforcement, to accommodate the availability of witnesses, to account for University breaks or vacations, or to address other legitimate reasons.

Another potentially problematic section: “Aiding or Facilitating” is when any individual or group of individuals aids, facilitates, promotes, colludes or encourages another to commit a violation under this policy. Aiding or facilitating may also include failing to take action to prevent an imminent act when it is reasonably prudent and safe to do so. Aiding or facilitating includes gaining academic or personal advantage or privilege with negative impact on others or the community through violation of the policy or any other community standards.

Also, here is the applicable section. Just thought I'd post it so that others didn't have to search through the policy. “Sexual Exploitation” occurs when an individual takes non-consensual or abusive sexual advantage of another for their own advantage or benefit, or to benefit or advantage anyone other than the person being exploited, and that behavior does not otherwise constitute any other form of Prohibited Conduct. Examples of Sexual Exploitation include, but are not limited to: • invasion of sexual privacy, including observing or allowing another individual to observe another’s nudity or sexual activity without the Effective Consent of all individuals’ involved; • prostituting another person; • non-consensual video or audio-taping of sexual activity; • engaging in voyeurism; • knowingly exposing another individuals to a sexually transmitted infection or virus without that individuals’ knowledge of the exposure; • exposing or inducing another to expose their genitals without consent; or • inducing incapacitation for the purpose of making another person vulnerable to non-consensual sexual activity.