Old guy

Billiken blue potential is not reality until the time comes when it becomes reality. For example, it is possible that SLU will win the NCAAB tournament this year, however it is highly improbable it will do so. Speculation, what happens if... is conjecture. It is fun to do at times but it is not real. Again for example what if you buy a Powerball ticket today and win the big jackpot on Wednesday. It is possible but it is very unlikely. However you can play mind games for as long as you want trying to figure out how you will spend the money you are going to win in Powerball next Wednesday if you buy the ticket today. In other words it is not statistics, it is conjecture. And by the way, there is nothing written in stone using statistics either. The closer we get to the end of the season the more likely we will be to be able to predict exactly where we are going to end it. At this time there are all kinds of possible, although not likely, outcomes that could happen IF and only IF certain obstacles can be overcome. It can be fun to speculate using numbers.

That is clever Bonwich, now can you say in English what it means. I mean it could be anything from the regression in the price of oil after the Fed increases rates to the rate of reproduction of fruit flies if the climate changes by +2 degrees next year. What is it?

That is correct 3 star, the bigger the average size the less fluctuation will be observed in the results. However some assumptions are made in a formulation like this which may or may not be correct. In order for such an ordered system to work, we have to assume that all teams involved are reasonably well integrated and that all teams are improving with play. If this is a stable system the improvements by all teams will basically cancel one another and positions will become rather stationary. This, in fact, is what generally happens in the course of a season. However there are events that may disrupt this type of conceptualized model, injuries are a major source of deviations from expected results. Other sources of deviations may be bad chemistry in a team, which may develop slowly, and on the opposite side the discovery by a team's players that they can play together well and that they enjoy it. This is where the number of assists per game become an interesting measure of development in a team. All in all, I think it is too early to cast SLU solidly as a C+ team for the rest of the season. We will see what happens.

Another interesting fact about this game is that by Wiz estimates the margin of victory by SLU, provided we played reasonably well, was 8. By teamrankings the margin of victory by SLU (Vegas inspired) was fixed around 6. We won by 18, much better than the estimates.

Just checked the stats for the game, Reggie had 8 rebounds (5 def and 3 off) and 3 steals in the 14 min he played. Agree he has a lot of TOs but he does contribute significantly to the team.

Hello Wiz, two stats that I thought should be considered. We had 19 assists during this game, highest number of assists in a game so far this season. I like to follow the assists number as a proxy for how well the team is playing together (selfishness vs unselfishness type score). This is good, particularly if the trend for increasing assists per game continues. We also had the highest number of steals in a game this season, 9. We also out rebounded them. Yes, it was a good game

I was there, this is what I have to say. We won by 18, nice, we needed a win. Sloppy they may be but a win is a win. I thought we played much better this time than in the two prior games. Some observations: attendance to the game started very low and steadily grew during the game, there were a lot more people in there at the end than at the beginning, lots of families with kids around where I was sitting, nice to see that. Finally, Bishop had some kind of surgical bandage on his nose during this game, he did not play or even suit for the game but was wearing his bandage, wonder what this was all about.

First of all please take care of your finals, they are the important thing now. After these are over we can have an "enlightenment" chat as you call it. Please do not forget to breathe here and there. I will give you a hint, when you get to go into the working world, that is where people are going to pay you money for work done, you are going to have to take a lot of unpleasant stuff smiling and pretending everything is rosy and you love your job. Respect? my arse.

Yes, the Art Museum had (still has) a special exhibit in Modernism in St. Louis. A prime part of this was the modern architecture built between 1928 and 1968. Those were the days when St. Louis was at the cutting edge. Anyway, this particular building was presented in a lecture as one of the modern architectural jewels in St. Louis. Fortunately it has not been demolished, unfortunately the company that owned it went under and after a string of owners it is now owned by a U Haul facility. Oh how low have the mighty fallen!... It is still a beautiful piece of architectural art.

OK guys, please let this be, the kid has finals and does not need the aggravation. He is young, he will grow up and learn how things are done in the real world.

Your post BigMouthBilliken makes me feel strangely reassured.

Simple, the Chris May you show in that website is located at the University of Nevada, Reno, not at SLU. Just read what he says, he gives his email at unr.edu. The name Chris May is not so rare that every website for Chris May belongs to the same person. This website is interesting but it does not belong to the Chris May AD at SLU

Agree, these guys are ending their blog because the information flow has been cut off. They can post anywhere they want but they still have no information.

Exactly the point that needs to be made, Mays is not going to risk his job by taking what could be considered a rash action by those above him.

OK David, we will see soon enough won't we.

JMM care to explain why I am wrong about budgets?

BigMouthBilliken, there is some flexibility in the budget but only until the money is assigned to the budget for some heading or purpose and the budget is finalized, after that it is fixed and changing it is a major issue. The budgeting process is a lengthy yearly process. Every department and project in the University has to know exactly what their budget is and has to be able to depend upon this number, this is the only way the money flow can be maintained under control. Trying to change the budget is not an easy to do thing after the budget is finalized, and is something that will cause conflict in many ways. Perhaps fortunately or unfortunately (depending on your point of view) the final budgeting for the coming year is done at mid year, that is June July. Since most fiscal years end in December 31st, the budget for next year is probably fixed already and will be hard to change. It is therefore not likely that money will be available for a change in coaches until the next budget for 2017 is finalized sometime mid 2016. The decision to do or not to do the change in coaches, which will have to be incorporated in the budget, has to be made prior to the budgeting process start for the following year. I would say there is very little chance to do anything about this issue until the end of this season. However the decision to do or not to do is entirely in the administration's hands, they may decide not to take action in 2016.

I believe I was sitting last night in a row way up, and the row right behind me had a whole bunch of Riverview players, and I believe Zeke Moore was there among them, there were some adults farther down the row. They were making comments upon how we were missing open shots and saying "they need you" (probably meaning Zeke). If he is as good a shooter as has been told, they are probably right. It was nice, I did not say much to them but it was nice to hear them talk about SLU and the game. I think Zeke will be a really fine addition to our team.

Why is it that whenever someone sees an amount of money they immediately think this is free money available for use in a discretionary fashion. The money made by playing in the NCAA is paid over a number of years, we are still receiving money from this participation in NCAA games. SLU knows this and knows for how long it will get money and how much it will get each year, they know this in advance. What makes you think that this money is not already pledged or assigned to something or the other (salaries, improvements in physical plant, what have you)? If his money is already earmarked for some purpose it is definitely NOT available for other purposes.

How did you guess?

Not a comforting thought is it?

I agree with Wiz statistics do not lie, however it may be difficult to interpret them and come up with projections that fit actual events. This is why a certain number of actual results are needed to reach a satisfactory level of accuracy in the predictions. You may think of this as a gaussian distribution curve. When you have enough data your predictions may be correct say 95% of the time (at least at some levels), that is 2 standard deviations on each side of the median. Getting more data allows you to refine the accuracy of the predictions. The problem is that we are not dealing with a real gaussian distribution here, there are any number of variables that will change the shape of the curve if you may. The curve may get fatter tails outside the 2 standard deviations, or become thin and narrow with tiny tails and an very high level of values surrounding the median. This is what makes statistics fascinating, at least to me if no one else. The test of walking like a duck, quacking like a duck and smelling like a duck (what in heavens do ducks smell like?) is a qualitative test if you may. The numbers, statistics and curves are more of a quantitative test, two very different things, apples and oranges. And yes, Taj, if you cannot dazzle them with brilliancy you can always baffle them with bullshat, is that not what politicians do most of the time?

Coming from a Jesuit upbringing, you know the answer: it was God's will.

The endowment principal is not touched and neither are some of the gains (you want to grow the endowment). The administration decides how to tap it depending on how much profit they make out of it, and how much profit they make out of day to day activities vs the school expenses (personnel, etc...) and previously approved development programs. Believe me a billion dollar endowment does not provide a bottomless yearly capital flow. Do not forget that endowment income is variable and subject to the market trends, and this particular year the market has not been favorable to fixed income and any number of equity sectors, as well as foreign / emerging markets. This means that the projected endowment income may not have been reached because the projected targets were not met, not an uncommon situation when the market is not doing well. To give you an idea of the magnitude of the flows, the director of the Harvard endowment resigned in 2007 and left to join some firm (as a principal). He had been extremely successful in growing Harvard's endowment during his tenure and left as a conquering hero. The following year the market tanked and Harvard's endowment went down BADLY, if I recall correctly about 30-40% loss on its principal valuation. Harvard responded to this by cancelling a major expansion on the other side of the river (Allston) and scrimped for a few years until they got back to a stable situation. Similar situations occurred in Yale and other schools. Do you think SLU's endowment is protected somehow against the whims of the market and does not go up and down with the market as Harvard's does? You have a billion in endowment today, the market goes south, what makes you think you will have a billion endowment next year? The administration has to think about all of these events that do not fit projections and be able to control cash flow to fit actual income. It is not easy to do, some years go OK, others do not.

If I may add my two cents worth to this discussion, I think the fate of Crews has not been settled yet, at least not in the mind of the administration. One key factor in their thinking is money. Regardless of what they do about this issue and when they do it, it becomes a matter between spending a lot of money soon (the combined termination of JC and the hiring of someone else will take a considerable amount of money, just in fees, and salaries plus additional costs for searching and interviewing suitable replacements), or letting things go and either deciding later on upon a rapid exit or doing a slow search for a more suitable candidate before taking action. The faster and most expedient they decide their action will be, the more money it is likely to cost overall. Given the fact that SLU is not swimming in endowment money like Harvard or Duke, major budgetary issues like the cost of this decision have to be balanced against the overall budgetary aims. What I mean to say is: where is the money going to come out of? Once they have this answer and decide that it is better to spend the money in getting a new coach rather than doing whatever they were planning to do with this money, then and only then will they be ready to decide to implement and exit and replacement scenario. From my point of view this is a process that takes time, once it starts going that is. As far as we can determine, this process has not been started yet. In other words, the administration has yet to decide if they want to do something about this situation or not. So, it is not a matter of anger and dismay that will cause the administration to take action, it is and will have to be a matter of budgetary juggling to make it possible to take action. From my point of view they will not juggle with the budgetary plans until and only until the decision to replace the coach has been reached, and the time frame for this event determined. This is not something that will be done lightly or quickly.