cgeldmacher

Again, I don't think that's true. Chicago's crime rate is not calculated based upon the entirety of Cook County. It's only based upon the City of Chicago. The crime statisticians aren't going to start using numbers for the whole region, just because the City of St. Louis gets put into St. Louis County.

I think people are truly not understanding what would happen under a merger. The only difference between St. Louis and Chicago or Kansas City is that the City of St. Louis is treated like its own county. That's it. Cook County, Illinois has 130 municipalities, including Chicago. http://blog.cookcountyil.gov/economicdevelopment/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Municipalities-and-Maps.pdf Cook County has elected leadership for Cook County, and Chicago still has a mayor. If a merger happens, the City of St. Louis still exists. It still has the same borders. Crime rates are still calculated using those borders. It isn't going away due to the merger, and neither is Kirkwood, Chesterfield, Florissant, Ferguson, Sunset Hills, etc. The only thing a merger accomplishes is to consolidate some services and some leadership, but this would only be for stuff that a county normally presides over anyway. So, basically you can go look at Phelps County down 44 and figure out what it does in Rolla, compared to what the City of Rolla does for Rolla and that's all that gets changed.

Unfortunately, I think that a merger wouldn't solve this. City's are ranked using their crime statistics regardless of what county they are in. A merger would only put the City of St. Louis into St. Louis County. It wouldn't eliminate its status as a municipality. Much like Kansas City is in Jackson County, St. Louis City would be in St. Louis County, but it's borders as a city would still exist as would the same crime rates.

The other day, I counted three cranes in different locations down by SLU. This is one one of the hottest neighborhoods in town with regard to development. It's possible that in a few years, SLU is in one of the nicer neighborhoods in Saint Louis, which of course is relative.

I agree that Ford is not a Majerus type coach. There are very few of them out there and there was only one Rick. So, when picking a coach, you often end up with someone who's a mediocre recruiter and mediocre X's and O'x guy. It is very rare to get a very talented X's and O's guy or a very talented recruiter. I'm not sure anyone out there is both. So, I'd happily take one or the other. When Majerus was here, we put up with him not being an outstanding recruiter, because we knew the potential existed that he could coach the talent he was bringing in to success. That patience paid off. Majerus is the best X's and O's coach the program has probably ever had. As you point out, Ford is probably the best recruiter we've ever had. Yet, some don't want to give him the same patience we gave Majerus. Majerus's seasons went like this: 1. 16 wins (inheriting a 20 win team), 2. 18 wins, 3. 23 wins, 4. 12 wins (S1), 5. 26 wins. Ford's seasons so far: 1. 12 wins (inheriting an 11 win team left by Crews), 2. 17 wins, 3. this season probably 22 or 23 wins. Majerus's S1 was in his 4th season. Ford's S2 has already happened, and, hopefully, will be the last. We have a guy who has one of the unique talents you look for. He's a great recruiter. Let's give him time. I love next year's recruiting class. I think we get 20-25 wins next year, and the year after that, we are a top 25 team. Patience please. This is not all directed at Billiken Roy, but just a continuation of my rant.

You are absolutely correct. I was arguing stuff other posters had said in response to your post, and that was not fair. I will still disagree with you, though, about this team being fun to watch. I don't always like the results, but I think they are fun to watch.

I liked your post countering some of my points. I appreciate a logical back and forth on a topic like this. To further the conversation, I will say that we are a top team in the A-10, and even top teams in the A-10 are flawed. If we made better passes, effectively attacked a zone (which translates to shoot better), moved the ball better on offense (which you and I might disagree, but I also think this means shoot better, because I think we're getting shots, but just not making them), not making mistakes, then we would be a top 25 team. I think its unrealistic to expect the program that Crews gave us that Ford inherited to go from 12 wins to 17 wins to top 25. I think it is reasonable to very happy with that program to go from 12 wins to 17 wins to 23 or 24 wins, to then taking the next step. That's all I'm saying. The idea that some on this board are unhappy with the progression of this program and are down on Ford has more to do with unreasonable expectations than reality.

I think this comes down to perspective. If you expect them to win every game, and then they don't, that's frustrating and hard to watch. I'm guessing that there are Duke fans this year that find their team hard to watch when their games are close or they don't win. It's all relative. If someone's attitude was NCAA or bust this year, they are probably find any loss frustrating and hard to watch. If our offense was scoring ten points a game more, with the way our defense plays, we would be a top 10 team. Is that what this board expects? It seems to be. Is that realistic? I would say no. This demand that the coaching staff is to blame because we are not a top 25 team, which is what we would be if we had won the games that the board thinks we should have won, is unrealistic. That was our dream for this season. It is not reality. We were 11-21 both of the last two season under Crews. We were 12-21 the first season under Ford which was a transition year. We were 17-16 last season. This season we will end up with 22-24 wins. Are we unhappy with this progression? Seriously? I personally think that this team is enjoyable to watch. I believe that I enjoy watching them more because I had more realistic expectations than most on the board. I like watching Bess turn into what I am hoping is an NBA player. I enjoy watching French do what he does when he's not getting doubled teamed (he's virtually unstoppable one on one). I like watching Bess and Thatch defend. I like watching Isabelle drive to the hoop and dish. I like watching Goodwin grab offensive rebounds left and right and turn them into easy baskets. There is a lot to like about this team. I also like the group that is coming in next year. Let us not ruin the upward path of this team because we demand success earlier than what's normal for a program like ours. The future is bright.

Now that I've had a few days to calm down, here's my take: The Ford naysayers need to remember what we had before him and what we had before Majerus. I think everyone calling for him to go thinks that a new coach we get will procure the same level of talent that Ford brings in, but coach them better. NOT TRUE. Another coach that we bring in will not recruit like Ford has to this program. Who have we had before Ford that recruited better? Keep this in mind before you call for our coach to be fired after a one point loss that should have been a win. The offense that we run, which is very similar to the offense run by most top teams, works if you hit shots. It is much less effective if you don't hit shots. Of course, this is true of any offense. We miss layups, we miss mid-range jumpers, we miss threes, we miss free throws. We get the shots. We get good shots. We miss those shots. If you want to criticize recruiting for not bringing in guys that can shoot, that's fine. Stop lazily criticizing the offense. The guys on this board are really starting to sound like everyone Mizzou Tiger fan ever. The shooters that we had are not here for one reason or another. Once those shooters left, along with some of our key bigs, we probably should have tempered our expectations for this year. Not doing so, and then criticizing the offensive scheme reminds me of the callers to KMOX in the day that would suggest that Cardinals should trade four bench players for Mike Schmidt. It's a lazy narrative pushed by the uninformed when they don't know what else to say. If our guys could consistently hit shots, we would win most games given the amazing defense that Ford coaches. We've got shooter(s) coming in next year. Losing Bess will be big, but all we need is one guy to show as a real threat from outside, and our offense will suddenly look much better. An (consistent) outside threat will all of the sudden make Goodwin a better player. It will make French a better player inside. It will make everyone look better. I know everyone wants to win now, but this is the team we have. I think most on this board overestimated what we were. However, the program is heading in the right direction. Xavier, Gonzaga, Villanova didn't become successful overnight. It was a process that involved them sticking behind a coach. Let's not fall into the trap of not doing so, because you think that switching coaches every three years when some of our fans get frustrated is the proper path.

It's honestly crazy to me that a law has to be passed indicating that someone is entitled to "due process." This is a fundamental, constitutional right.

This is a good listen. After listening to the most recent episode, I subscribed. I recommend it to everyone who needs more of a fix for Billiken discussion than this board satisfies. My only complaint is that you need to record your episodes and get them to drop sooner so that the discussion is not outdated.

Also the Yankees of the late 40s through early 60s. Ten championships in 20 years. 6 championships in 7 years in the middle.

This is the game with all the school kids, right? I hope they're not having to leave in the middle of overtime to get back to school.

I have heard this too from talking heads and others, and have no reason to disagree with them. However, it would seem to me that having 11 teams would be a scheduling nightmare. It works out nicely for having 20 round robin conference games, but not for who plays who when. Think about it. Let's say you have five of your conference's teams play another five of your conference's teams on a Saturday night. You've got one team each weekend that's idle. When can that team play again without their game being too close to the games played on Saturday. They'd have to have a game at the latest on Thursday or at the earliest Monday (who wants a game on a Monday night) or Tuesday. This will happen all season. You will have one team each week that is not allowed to play at the best time to get fans to the game, the weekend. I'm sure they'll work around it. Maybe tell teams to schedule a non-conference game during the conference season, if that's possible, during their "bye" weekend. It's just a consideration for them when figuring all this out.

If UConn wants back in, we have no shot for the next spot.

I agree with this. Sometimes, the national media wants to see certain players in the tournament more than certain teams. If Bess has NBA discussion around him, it can only help our chances.

Love the fact that his first game at DePaul, he got to watch them get thrashed by a team the Billikens handled earlier this season when he was with us. Here's hoping that Seton Hall destroys them next, and he wonders what they heck he was thinking.

Nice call Nostradamus.

I have a group that has gone to a road Billiken game for the past 8 seasons. Rose Hill was my favorite venue, even over Hinkle Field House. Because we qualified for "group sales," our tickets cost $5.00 and we were in the first row. The Fordham fans were great to hang out with, likely because they were just there to have fun and didn't expect much from their team. Before the game, some college kids and some old ladies set up the concessions. By this, I mean they put up a few folding tables on which they placed a hot dog roller, a nacho cheese machine, boxes of candy, etc. Drinks were in coolers behind the tables. It was awesome. Like watching some moms set up for a CYC game. Throughout the game, the Fordham fans kept coming up to us an asking us about our trip and commenting on how cool it was that we were traveling to watch our team. After the game, some Fordham fans approached our group outside. They mentioned that there was an old bar located under the gym and invited us to join them for their after game ritual. I really regret not canceling our dinner reservations that we were heading to and hanging out with those guys underneath Rose Hill in some dusty and probably amazing bar. If anyone gets the chance, I highly recommend a road trip to watch the Bills play at Fordham.

I will respectfully disagree with you about Isabelle. I was with you earlier in the season when his idea of the offense didn't mesh with everyone else's. Now he seems to be developing chemistry with the other guys. At this point, he's the only player we have that can consistently get himself into the lane on a drive. He's mostly using that to pass inside (see French's big dunk in the 2nd half) or to the three point line (good play that just didn't pan out due to a poor shooting night). Him driving to the lane to take a shot is now the minority, and his selectiveness about taking the shot himself is working out. The past few games, when he does drive and put it up himself, it's going in more often than not. I think that Isabelle's skills are crucial to our success this season, especially now that he's getting used to his teammates and their getting used to him.

I was at the game last night. We were hitting almost everything in the warmup before the game and at half. The guys can shoot. It's just a matter of doing it in the game when the pressure is on. Also, in both sets of warmups Ingvi was like 12 for 12 on shooting threes. Too bad there are probably other parts of his game preventing him from getting in.

I thought the same thing. If French fouls out with 3 or 4 minutes left, then we have Hankton guarding their biggest guy on the floor and we're screwed. UMass's coach clearly did not know what we had left on the bench after French.

Early in the season, almost every time he touched the ball, it was clear his mission was to create his own shot. You could see it mostly on Ford and Bess's faces that Isabelle wasn't running the offense that they were practicing. The past several games, he has bought much more into running their system. At the same time, I've been much more forgiving of the times he does his own thing, because he's been more unselfish when he does. When he drive's the lane, which he's very good at, he seems lately to be looking to pass first. The point of my post was to compliment him.

I get what you guys are saying about grad transfers, but I think we'd been in a bad spot this year if we traded out Isabelle for, let's say, another Jacobs. I've been critical of Isabelle, but he's really turned the corner on being a team player, IMO.

So, if I'm reading this thread correctly, we have a recruiting battle between North Carolina and SWIC?