sludevil
-
Posts
378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sludevil
-
-
Crazy that Mizzou isn't immediately jumping in with this kid.
-
From what I have been told - and saw it in person - that Duke fans can not get tix at home - same with NC - and so they travel to other cities to see their teams play.
Duke (and UNC) students have to camp out (which is a process in itself) for the opportunity to enter a lottery to buy tickets. Duke non-student tickets are obscenely expensive (and also carry a lengthy wait-list), and are often passed down through generations. So, yeah, it's difficult to get tickets in Cameron. And between that and a pretty substantial national fanbase, we tend to fill up opposing gyms. Which makes it strange that against a quality team in NYC - with its massive population and huge Duke alumni base - we didn't even sell out the Garden.
-
St. John's plays over half their games in a 6,000 seat on campus arena. That impacts those numbers.
Gotcha, didn't realize that.
-
all you have to do is watch a St. John's home game and you can see that it is off target. looks like pretty easy ticket.
? St. John's is struggling to hit 50% capacity:
2011 average attendance: 8,431
2012: 8,428
2013: 6,375
-
In other words, well short of a sellout.
Right. And Duke has a pretty substantial alumni network in NYC, too.
-
I'd be willing to bet some beer and NYC pizza that if Duke played UCLA in the garden they'd draw well.
For what it's worth, Duke did play UCLA in the Garden just last season. Attendance was listed at 15,410.
-
I guess I really don't even care if we were a "dirty" program with the understanding that a lot of programs are. I am assuming a program like Duke goes outside of the rules, but nobody really knows that to be the case.
At least from what I can tell/have been told, cheating isn't quite as widespread (at least from an institutional standpoint) as many believe it to be. And a lot of it depends on the particular recruit, too: often, schools won't initiate it, but once a recruit (or, more likely, his "handlers") makes it clear he's going to follow the money/shoes/electronics/etc., then schools will be more inclined to play ball. Of course, some schools will initiate (UCLA under Howland was particularly bad about this. And, of course, Kentucky - generally via World Wide Wes - did its fair share of initiating, too).
It happens with a handful of recruits every year (I can think of a few in Tatum's class already), but it definitely isn't across the board. And a number of schools (including Duke) take a hardline stance against institutional cheating. Though, of course, no matter what a school does, it can't completely stop kids from using their status/future NBA earnings to break the rules. But I think that's a much different case then, say, an agent (with the permission - or even encouragement - of a coach) putting a catalog of in front of a kid and telling him to point to whatever he wants.
-
I don't have any knowledge on Justin Tatum's coaching/recruiting ability, but my hesitation with adding him to the coaching staff now - particularly if we bring in Jayson, a recruit significantly above the level of the typical SLU recruit - is that it creates an appearance of impropriety. And, particularly since the dude is already in our camp, I'm not sure how much there is to gain from it (relative to the potential cost), at least at this point in time.
-
The numbers mostly bear out that Mizzou is the superior program (historically and over the last 15 years), and I think conference affiliation itself is a much bigger deal than people are making it out to be. (And it stands to become an even bigger deal as the divide between power conferences and mid-majors - in terms of money, power, and media exposure - continues to widen.)
There's also a significant distinction between Marshall not leaving for Mizzou because Mizzou is an inferior program, and Marshall not leaving for Mizzou because he'll probably be able to do better than Mizzou next year (why settle for Mizzou if you may be able to snag a Texas or even a Kentucky?).
In the end, Mizzou is the superior program (even though it's in an inferior position at this point in time). Beyond the on-court success, Mizzou plays on a bigger stage, against better ("name brand") competition, and carries a larger budget. In a vacuum, if a coach with no ties to either program is selecting exclusively between Mizzou and Wichita State for his next coaching destination, he picks Mizzou 9 times out of 10.
-
My concern is he'll look at the A10 and think, mid major vs ACC, SEC, Big10, etc.
The A10 seems likely to hurt us here, as it just can't offer the level of competition (/brand names) and national media exposure of the power conferences. That said, though, it probably won't hurt Tatum's draft stock - after all, the #1 overall pick just last year was taken from a "mid-major" conference.
-
The coaching staff needs to just sit down with FBJT, look him in the eyes, and ask him if he wants to be just another typical one and done at a big boy school or if he wants to become a local legend playing basketball for the hometown team. One path would leave him with really no legacy whatsover, while the other path would make him a star at SLU. Imagine all of the family/friends/ or just casual basketball fans coming out to the Fetz to see one of the best basketball talents this city has ever produced...
This. SLU can offer a legacy/hometown hero angle that national programs just can't, which is going to be crucial when up against the bright lights and big budgets of the Kentuckys and Dukes of the world. It sounds like we already have an in with the parents (which is half the battle), but we need to continue putting on the full court press with Tatum - going to all his games, frequently texting/calling, etc. - from now until the day he commits.
-
I could make a pretty solid argument that Wichita State is at the very least an equal job to mizzou.
Wichita isn't exactly a Johnny come lately and has had equal or more success than mizzou throughout.
Wichita State isn't a bad program, but Mizzou is definitely a notch or two above. Mizzou has significantly more NCAA tournament appearances (26 v. 11) and tournament wins (22 v. 13) (though, in fairness, WSU has 2 Final Fours to Mizzou's goose egg). There's something to be said for playing on a bigger stage, against better competition, and with a larger budget, too.
-
Lets be honest, a few really good seasons does not make Wichita State a better program than Missouri. Sure they made a huge run two seasons and followed it up with a great season this year and will be good again next season, but a couple of good seasons does not make them the better program. The Missouri Valley is garbage and he would be wise to jump ship as soon as his team gets bounced from the tournament next spring.
+1. Wichita State is in a better position right now, but it's definitely not a better program than Mizzou. Marshall's choice is the right one, though: his WSU team is going to be very good again next year and he'd be walking into a rebuilding project at Mizzou. Why not wait another year and see what jobs open up? He'll be a hot commodity again next year, and he might as well leverage that into something better than Mizzou.
-
So I have a lot of free time on my hands today, and was curious, so I went ahead and (using ESPN) tallied up the total NCAA tournament appearances, wins, Final Fours, and Championships by each conference. (For these calculations, I included incoming teams - like Davidson - and did not include outgoing teams - like Louisville and Rutgers.) These numbers are far from perfect, but the imperfections (mostly due to the timeline) balance out pretty well between conferences, and the final numbers, I think, show a lot:
AAC
Appearances: 173 (15.72/team)
Wins: 221 (20.90/team)
Final Fours: 22 (2/team)
Championships: 6 (0.55/team)
Big East
Appearances: 224 (22.4/team)
Wins: 266 (26.6/team)
Final Fours: 21 (2.1/team)
Championships: 3 (0.3/team)
A10
Appearances: 139 (9.93/team)
Wins: 121 (8.64/team)
Final Fours: 9 (0.64/team)
Championships: 1 (0.07/team)
-
The Big East, AAC, SEC and A10 had nearly identical conference rankings last year according to Sagarin.
That's fine, but I don't think anyone is arguing that the SEC is not a power conference, nor do I think anyone is arguing that the A10 is a power conference. And looking beyond just the last season, the A10 just doesn't have the horses to match up against the likes of Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, UConn, Cincy, and Memphis. This isn't saying the A10 isn't a good conference - in fact, my aim with using tiers was to point out that the A10 is better than most conferences that get thrown in with us under the "mid-major" grouping. But, at the end of the day, there's a reason why SLU would immediately accept if we were offered membership in the Big East.
-
So you're basically calling us a mid-major conference? Got it
If that's how you define it, then sure. I'm just being realistic: taken as a whole (and especially at the top - the A10 just doesn't have a counterpart to the Georgetowns and UConns of the world), both the Big East and AAC are stronger than the A10.
-
The AAC is just a marriage of convenience/money. These are the schools the power conferences didn't want, and that have subsequently banded together because they can make more money as a group than they could by staying in their respective conferences. There's no history, tradition, or commonality; the only thing tying these schools together is a paycheck. Which makes for an incredibly fragile league, and one that may be torn apart in 8 or 9 years (when the power conference Grant of Rights contracts expire, which may kickstart another round of expansion). UConn and Cincy desperately and openly want out, and I imagine they'll be among the first called by the ACC (or Big 12) should they need to replace someone.
-
Wow, apparently I completely forgot about the AAC. I'd put them on par with the Big East: they're definitely below the power conferences, but, if we're being realistic, any league with UConn, Memphis, Cincy, Temple, and Larry Brown is going to be a step above the A10/MWC.
-
If we really want to be accurate/anal, we can separate conferences into tiers, which is probably a better representation of how conferences are actually perceived in the minds of fans, recruits, and the media. A rough approximation (for basketball):
ACC, B1G, Big 12, PAC-12, SEC
Big East
A10, MWC, Gonzaga
MVC, WCC, CUSA(?)
Everyone else
-
Agree with the above. It would be awesome if the A10 could schedule something similar with the ACC (or, really, any power conference), but I don't see it happening. The A10 just doesn't have the stable of teams (like Georgetown, Villanova, Marquette, and even St. John's) that can draw enough fan and media interest so as to make such an arrangement worthwhile to the power conference. It's probably going to remain on SLU's shoulders to schedule tough/power conference opponents to boost RPI and national media exposure.
-
The Big East feels like a conference caught in the middle. It's clearly not a "power" conference (at least, the five major BCS conferences don't seem to think of it as such), but, in terms of money and prestige, it seems a notch or two above the A10, MWC, CUSA, and other mid-majors. Basically, it's a conference that the B1G and other power conferences won't include in their group decisionmaking, but it is a conference that the B1G will schedule a multi-year basketball challenge with. Sort of a power conference, but not quite.
-
Also, very relevant: http://deadspin.com/5959185/no-lacrosse-is-not-a-regional-game-watch-how-its-conquering-america
"By the 2014-2015 season there will at least 516 NCAA lacrosse teams, a 63 percent jump in one decade. That's just insane."
"The sport has simply exploded in the Southeast and Midwest."
-
I believe it's currently a club sport? But I agree, I think it would be terrific to play it at the D1 level. Lacrosse has been growing by leaps and bounds over the last decade or two, and it strikes me (along with soccer) as having the best opportunity of becoming a "major" sport. And since there aren't too many entrenched powers out there yet, now would be a good time to establish a presence.
-
http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/297690717/why-doesnt-america-read-anymore
Always read the article first
Yup.
OT Rams draft Michael Sam
in Billikens.com Main Board
Posted
I imagine this is what probably sealed his fate with a lot of teams. Sam is good, but he's probably not good enough (in the eyes of most teams) to justify the media circus that is sure to follow him. The memory of Tim Tebow is still fresh, after all.
For context, though, in the last six years, no SEC Defensive Player of the Year has been selected later than 17th overall (according to Deadspin).