cgeldmacher
-
Posts
3,494 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by cgeldmacher
-
-
43 minutes ago, Box and Won said:
No, but the police departments would be combined. I'm guessing that combining the police force would enable them to provide crime stats based on the total number of crimes committed in the city-county region and the total city-county combined population.
I just don't think that's accurate. Just because this commission says it will happen this way, doesn't mean it will. The merger will not create big Mega City like someone suggested. The City of St. Louis's borders will still exist. The police departments being combined will not change what is the City of St. Louis any more than Chicago trying to claim the crime statistics of Oakbrook. When the articles about crime statistics are written, the authors don't use metropolitan areas and they don't use entire counties. They use city borders, like Chicago, Memphis, Indianapolis.
The idea that merging the City and County will drop our reported crime statistics is as naive as thinking that Detroit should be able to start considering the entirety of Wayne County, Michigan for its crime statistics. Detroit doesn't get to include Dearborn, Michigan in its stats just like St. Louis won't get to count Chesterfield in its stats. The writers of these articles choose not to include entire counties in their numbers for reason. They're not going to be tricked into doing it differently.
-
39 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:
I believe under Better Together's plan, St. Louis city and county would become a metro city of 1.3 million, which would drop St. Louis out of the top 50 in crime.
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.
-
18 hours ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:
If we are serious about growing and competing on a global scale, a city/county merger is crucial. Whether that is Better Together's plan or some other plan I don't really know. We should be competing with the Minneapolis-St. Paul's and Denver's, not the Omaha's and Louisville's (no disrespect to Omahans or Louisvillians). Sadly, you are 100% correct: Perception is reality. Disappearing from negative top 10 list after negative top 10 list is an important first step.
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.
-
28 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:
i dont think the majority of posters are "down" on the program/ford, as concerned for the trend which seems to mirror ford's appearances at other schools in his past. the hope was that along with his excellent recruiting (imo the best recruiter in billiken history) there would be signs of improved practice and game coaching and player improvement/progression. you cant deny that there are signs of seeing the opposite.
personally i am no where close to throwing in the towel yet simply because great recruiting can overcome a lot of bad coaching. my gosh calipari is the best example of that. not to say we are kentucky or duke like with ford recruiting, but the fact he is bringing very good players every year to build on will no doubt give him the full 5-6 years most agree a coach needs to get a program in place. i can wait. hell we have waited how many years. whats a few more.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Pistol said:
I don't disagree with your points. I didn't say anything about the program's progress or that I don't appreciate what individual players bring to the table. I just think the product on the floor as a whole this season has been tough to watch, mostly due to poor shooting at all levels and a high number of turnovers causing every game to be a slow grind to a closer-than-necessary finish. Yes, that's due to the makeup of this team and yes, I still watch every game I can. But please don't argue with me on points I never made.
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.
-
13 hours ago, moytoy12 said:
Just a couple of thoughts on your very valid points/posts:
1. I don't recall anyone saying Ford should be gone. If anyone has said that, then I suspect they are a troll.
2. I think what is frustrating me (and maybe others) is a number of things: sloppy/lazy passes, ineffectiveness/inability to attack a zone, lack of movement/effectiveness on offense, early season mistakes/unforced errors happening in game #20.
3. With #2 being said, you (and others) are right that Ford isn't the one missing shots, etc. The players are making plenty of mistakes that are not on Ford.
4. I fell victim to expecting too much in the pre-season and then reality not matching with my expectations as the season progressed. You do a good job of highlighting the progress we have made under Ford.
5. I don't think any reasonable poster was expecting SLU to be a top 10 team.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Pistol said:
I've found the opposite to be true with this team. Very ugly, frustrating, and hard to watch.
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.
- majerus mojo, cheeseman, GoBills73 and 1 other
-
4
-
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.
-
On 1/20/2019 at 10:38 PM, Quality Is Job 1 said:
I think the Boston Celtics of the 1960s can successfully debate that.
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.
-
5 hours ago, Bills_06 said:
They would go to 11 because you can do a 20 game league schedule in round robin format, playing each team twice. Big 12 just went to a 20 game league schedule and I think ACC is going to that. The thought is the extra conference games look better come selection time compared to 18 they play now. With 12 teams you can't setup the schedule that nicely.
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.
-
On 1/18/2019 at 10:09 AM, Spoon-Balls said:
If Chris May can’t get it done he would have to go down as one of the worst AD’s of all time. No reason we shouldn’t be the first program considered for expansion.
It’s SLU’s to screw up...
If UConn wants back in, we have no shot for the next spot.
-
17 minutes ago, basebill123 said:
Another "eye test" variable that I think will help get more votes as well as off the bubble is if Bess continues to make a name for himself as a legit candidate for the next level. As he starts getting more national attention, so will SLU.
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.
-
-
3 hours ago, GBL_Bills said:
Bills by 12. Goodwin goes off and ends up 3 assists short of a triple double
Nice call Nostradamus.
-
1 hour ago, wgstl said:
Lasalles gym is a high school gym, Rose Hill was really cool when I went two years ago. Loved that place.
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.
-
2 hours ago, Taj79 said:
..... gonna be a long, heart attack-inducing, frustrating, maddening year. This will be a roller coaster aficionado's dream season!
On the ups... we won. The French Foreign Legion has seemed to return. Isabell had a decent game. The defense was pretty good for the most part. We are 2 and 0 in conference, 11 and 4 overall.
On the downs .... Jordan Goodwin remains MIA. And DJ Foreman is on a sabbatical pilgrimage looking for him. Free throw shooting, while good at the start, is what it is and will lose us more than a few games going forward. The bench is incredibly weak offensively in Thatch, Wiley, Hankton and Jacobs; only Thatch contributes with his defense and locomotion. All jump shots are officially dead save Bess'. And no lead is safe with us at this point, there is no killer instinct or least an ability or skill set to apply a killer instinct. Eight minutes at the end without a field goal. Yikes!
Commentary: Hankton's one made shot came when he popped to the middle of the Umass zone, and just shot it. Swish. Why aren't we doing more of that? Is Wiley any better than Rashed Anthony was last year? The guy's legacy will be lost, injury-prone nothingness. I said in the GDT that Umass was resorting to overt physicality in the second half and Holloway was no exception. Given they had a ten- or eleven-man roster to use, they seemed to want to takes us out by physical subtraction. With all the calls Isabell gets for offensive fouls, Pipkins pushed off with his off arm the whole second half. Holloway sucks .. he's just one big fat guy with height. The announcers said they were switching him late for offense/defense -- I just think he can't run a full court length too often. Very good thing they were without Laurent last night or I can't help but think that ends differently.
I personally tend to get frustrated with Isabell more than most. I think that's because of, as Pistol calls it, the high-risk, high-reward aspect of both him and Wiley, I expect a better product. I will have to work on those expectations internally and reduce them. He's just not that good. He did well last night and we desperately need nights like last night to be commonplace for him. However, he is somewhat lackadaisical with the ball. As the free throw team leader, he could be better. The drives and offensive fouls are maddening-- don't do that or stop it! Or do it as you did with French and get the SLAM! And yet Pipkins got a pass. Foreman's fifth foul was because Isabell #1 did not allow DJ to get set and #2 didn't cut the screen as well as a Majerus player would have. This caused Foreman to lean a little and bend his leg out -- BANG -- fouled out. This is where all D1 players have to improve because I see these calls five, six, seven times a game. And then the hedging crap calls on French. And then the French-falling-out-of-bounds-ball-scrum foul. And a few late ones on Bess where the ref making the call had no angle to make it. If you are behind the shooter and he goes up and the defenders arm aligns with the shooters, from behind, you cannot really tell if there is contact. It then becomes perception and yet we call all this crap only to ignore Holloway's offensive tackle mentality and play? How is that correct? As I said in the game time thread --- my philosophy is you get five fouls, make them count. Contest shots. Halt breakaways. A foul 34 feet from the basket is silly, unless you look at a game-ending three.
And in the final seconds, yes, I had a problem with Goodwin's 'good foul.' Not for commission but for doing it so soon. They inbounded at like 8.9 seconds and he sent Pipkins to the line at 7.9. Couldn't we lose another second or two? I know its tough and it worked out well but still I just thought it too quick. Yes, we di dmake two and yes they missed a tying three but given our ongoing plight and issues, it was scary. A sooperdooperlooper rollercoaster ride. We went eight final minutes without a field goal because #1) we can't shoot to begin with and #2) we seemed to elect to have the sphincter close and play tight. Umass zoned us. Duh. So did Rhode island. Here's a prediction for my 'projection' friends ---- La Salle AND Fordham will zone us. Everyone who doesn't play zone will zone us. My fear is 2 and 0 goes to 2 and 2 real fast. Can we lose to La Salle? Can we lose to Fordham. We can lose to anybody.
Lock, load and buckle up ---- children under 12 or weighing less than 48 pounds should not ride this ride. Even if accompanied by an adult because most adults are becoming Scotch-sloshed.
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.
- Buster, 3star_recruit, Cincybill and 1 other
-
4
-
2 hours ago, basebill123 said:
For those that have been to the games, how do we look in shootarounds in warmups or practice? I wonder how much the wear and tear of going extra hard on defense effects our accuracy or if we just aren't good shooters. Considering our poor offensive starts to games I'm assuming it's the latter but haven't seen in person.
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.
-
4 hours ago, billiken_roy said:
i predict we will see more of last night's french. well at least the non-foul shooting french we saw last night. i have to see the 70% foul shooting french more to believe it. honestly, that was such a breath of fresh air and i wouldnt doubt if the success he had at the line also contributed to the rest of his game last night as his poor free throw shooting had to be really getting in french's head prior to last night.
that umass team should be better than it is. the coach is a fool. when foreman fouled out with like 6-7 minutes remaining and the 4 fouls french re-enters the game, tell me why he didnt bring holloway back immediately and then when he did, they didnt really try to get him the ball in an effort to get french fouled out. head scratcher.
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.
-
9 minutes ago, slufanskip said:
How was he not a team player? I think you mean playing within a role on a team. I never thought he wasn't a team player. His role seems to have always been to create offense and be the main scorer. We need that from him, however, we also have Goodwin, Bess, and French (and Gordon until now) that are capable of averaging double digit points.
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.
OT: Midtown Development
in Billikens.com Main Board
Posted
Also, if what you are saying is true about this Super Mayor nonsense, then we would be unlike any other city in the country. Can you imagine Chicago having Super Mayor over all of Cook County? We'd go from being ridiculous one way to being more ridiculous the other.