Mark Turgeon

[Marlow]

I'm not denying that Brad has responsibility for his own fate, but I am saying there is a sorry trend of mediocrity in this program that has lasted through four coaches, and all four of them have some definite strengths as a coach, and none of them have been able to recruit consistently or establish a winning tradition. Bobby Cremins told Rich Grawer to get out and take the Bradley job when he was offered it, but he stayed and sank. Spoon quit before the ship sank. Romar left before the ship sank. And Brad is on his way out. It's going to take Moses to right this ship. . .and Moses is sure to see that there are better opportunities elsewhere. Let's save all of the posts from the past two weeks and call them back up in another four or five years because I've got a feeling they are going to be quite applicable for whomever the next coach is.

[courtside]

Spoon had one good season in his last four at SLU and that was because SLU was giving out free hearts, or Hughes goes to Syracuse. Spoon didn't recruit. Romar left after 3 years to go to bigger conference, his alma mater...tough break. BS has been slow at best to adjust to running his own D-1 program.

[billiken_roy]

footes, i agree romar had very little success at slu. but the fact up to that point and since leaving lorenzo romar has been gold, only reaffirms in my mind that romar wasnt the problem. it was the environment he was in, i.e. slu.

i have been following slu basketball since the late 70's. no coach has had any sustained success. spoon was he best but even spoon had 3 losing seasons when prior to coming to saint louis university, he had never in his entire coaching career had a losing season.

a coach might come in here and win for a season or two, but rest assured if nothing changes, that will be followed by the roller coaster downturn. until the school actually makes that top 50 committment in ALL aspects of the athletic dept, imo the only thing to do is inch along and build the program over a long period of time. otherwise we will forever be starting over.

[billiken_roy]

courtside said,

"SLU hasn't had a commitment to winning, but I have seen MANY coaches win with little."

if you mean by win have a great season every blue moon, i agree. and slu can say the same. what i want is a sustained top 50 approaching top 25 program year after year. and that wont happen with the support system in place now.

thus, it appears to me that the answer is to mirror the likes of gonzaga that spent about 15 years skrimping to get to the mountaintop and developing internally the coaches that would put them over the top.

[billiken_roy]

hell if i knew that i'd be the athletic director.

i think we should support cheryl levick. she is the one closet to the purse and hopefully she can convince the bean counters that spending now equals riches later.

the only path i know doesnt work is maintaining the same philosophies and budgets we have been using for the last 20+ years and changing coaches every 5 years. that just extends our roller coaster.

somehow the money holders have to realize that what is going on isnt ever going to yield any sustained success. my fear is that is what they want. they want the occasional peak but otherwise are content with a 100 rpi.

[slu72 fan]

Donate money, join the Billiken Club and participate. Help student athletes with internships. Get others to become regular attendees at games.

The problem with the athletic department is that it doesn't have enough money. They are stuck with stupid accounting techniques that charge them for tuition, even though it doesn't cost a penny to add a student in a classroom. They receive no credit for the millions of dollars of free advertising the university receives as a result of the athletic teams. Heck in some part, we picked a conference based on the new exposure the University could get in east coast major markets.

People complain about our lack of marketing, tv, etc. All are legitimate concerns, but folks there are only 6 people in the athletic department dealing with these and countless other issues.

CL is a smart, energetic person. Give her the resources and I'm confident she will raise the level of all SLU sports.

[courtside]

>courtside said,

>

>"SLU hasn't had a commitment to winning, but I have seen

>MANY coaches win with little."

>

>if you mean by win have a great season every blue moon, i

>agree. and slu can say the same. what i want is a

>sustained top 50 approaching top 25 program year after year.

> and that wont happen with the support system in place now.

>

>thus, it appears to me that the answer is to mirror the

>likes of gonzaga that spent about 15 years skrimping to get

>to the mountaintop and developing internally the coaches

>that would put them over the top.

Roy...there have been other cases where schools admin were way behind the times, ....and school hires a coach who can have a little success ...then after having a little success, admin supports more.

Also, I think the AD role is very important. A new AD coming in, used to doing things a different way...etc...will definitely get more admin support...or leave after a few years if not getting it.

Levick is a big key for SLU.

[brianstl]

Could you give an example of one or two of teams that have stayed in top 50 without committing the financial resources for recruiting first? Could you tell me a program that didn't at least have a modern practice facility in place? Could you tell me a program that has done this all in five years?

I am not saying everything is perfect with Brad. It is pretty low right now.

[courtside]

Let me say that yes I believe a school/program that is not doing well currently, and does not have the necessary admin support or $$ can hire a coach that can make the NCAA's within 5 years, and have that program ready to compete for more NCAA's after that 5 year time..i.e have the program moving in right direction etc...and then the University commits more to winning with resources and dollars afte that, but the coach did it first. No program is going to stay in good shape for long if the University doesn't buy in to a coach's initial success. What I merely am saying is that it can be done with a coach first, then bandwagon University etc...to maintain and take to another level. At SLU it seems this is only way it will work. Unless, Levick, whom I like, can really help push admin for more support. I think she can.

I have some examples in my head, but everybody here ******* about how something has to be very similar to SLU, so I will give one. And before I do, let me say I am giving an example or examples of ways it can be done...because it can be done different ways, there are many ways to do it, not just my example. I base all of my posts on the idea of SLU getting to NCAA's and trying to build a program where it becomes a regular thing. That is why I am here. Period. People need to be more open.

Ok...let's try ...well...this mght not be a popular one here, but let's try dreaded Marquette. When Kevin O'Neill was hired at Marquette, the school was behind the times...why can't Marquette win like Al McGuire did? Well...I will tell you why, Big East Conference etc...and so on...McGuire recruited city kids, and those city kids started staying home more going to other conferences etc...Marquette also didn't understand the financial commitment either. And many of the other aspects of a winning program. So back to KO, he was assistant at Arizona, used to all the resources he needed, and laughed at the mom and pop store that was Marquette. Ok, stop for a second, many might be thinking two things...1) Marquette had tradition, SLU doesn't2) Romar...but let's move along...This is directly from Kevin O'Neill's mouth, "I had to pay students $20 to keep bums away from campus visiting athletes."....O'Neill caused friction because he demanded a lot for his program, used to having resources, and Marquette on opposite end. What did he do? He did what he does best, sell. He recruited his butt off. He had zero local ties, however, he had a lot of assistant friends nationally from being one himself many times over. He also did it locally, in state and near by Chicago and regionally. The level of the kids he recruited were high majors who stayed home or went regionally nearby to Marquette. All of this was done on mom and pop budget. Took kids like a TL, KL and took that Frosh class to Sweet 16.(he followed up one strong recruiting class with another and another, he had misses too of course, but many hits) And those young kids played and took their lumps first....however they were higher level than all SLU recruits not named KL or TL)He has temper, foul mouth etc...and grew impatient because admin commitment isn't what he wanted...but a new Ad helped that....O'Neill left on his own....in comes Mike Deane..Ad gets it, and University is now saying...wow this winning basketball thing is great, how'd we do that? Thought process begins to change during this time at Marquette...hmm...winning in basketball came because a coach, came in with nothing, and got players with nothing.(in less time than you mentioned) I might add O'Neill never once embraced the past tradition there. He recruited them and coached them to win. Deane comes in and continues to win, go to NCAA's with a lot of those O'Neill recruits and his own...but Deane was like a Spoon in a way...Marquette was a destination dream job....for O'Neill it was a place to start, win, and get out. He never thought Marquette was destination or could be big in hoops again.(he later regretted leaving and he was wrong about long term) Deane, people may not like for his sideline antics, or 3 timeouts in 30 seconds etc...but he won 100 games in 5 years, went to NCAA's and NIT's(and he could coach)...but near the end, his recruiting slipped, he thought, oh Marquette we will get smart kids to come and coach em up...and he really did get some smart ones...but athleticism was fading with few exceptions and he thought Marquette was a sometimes NCAA sometimes NIT...didn't think it could be more...got to be a fat cat if you will....and at this point, the AD and Admin says, we want more...and not that long prior, mom and pop store.(wow, notice the transformation that came with some success from admin) Instead of small D-1 coach, they took path back to O'Neill, and hired Crean. Now with more people on same page, goal was to get to next level. So, Marquette had 3 coaches in less than 10 years(for those that hate to start over). People can call it needle in haystack, but I really don't. Crean was talented just like O'Neill, just like many others. Yes a coach needs time to adjust to running his own program...O'Neill did it within your time frame with nothing. Deane was mixed, Crean has since elevated it to higher status than any, and as Deane's recruits faded, Crean still turned it around more quickly tha nyour time frame. And he has taken the positives of previous coaches, and also has embraced the past, something the others didn't do, and reached out to them, works tirelessly, finger on all buttons of program. And it wasn't until a few years ago did they get their new practice facility. Wasn't until a few years ago did Crean's salary go way up...because now commitment is there, on same page, and they want to keep him. People can talk about Dwyane Wade...but if you look more closely, look at their Final Four team, Diener, Novak playing in NBA, Merritt is one of top NBDL players, and Rob Jackson was an NBA roster guy after college before breaking a leg...and this doesn't mention the bench.(and their star players were all different classes and ages, continuation in recruiting, very very important) That is a lot of players with high end talent who were developed etc...some better than others. Crean doesn't get any credit for developing Wade. He recruited him, saw the potential, ...oh and that admin support? Wade was their first ever non-qualifier, practiced with team for a year(can u imagine him tearing up those other players in practice) and went on to have 3.0 grades. I don't believe they have had a non-qualifier since, but every once in a while I bet they would accept it now. Then you maintain, and they missed on kids etc...and they chose the inside out recruiting...local, state, regional...works best imo...got into Big East...tv...exposure...and look at their roster now, pretty national recruiting....very young, very good, with good classes upcoming.

Marquette had more tradition than SLU, but they were struggling, and didn't have that support. The coach came in and recruited and won with less. Can you imagine how hard it was to recruit those early good players? I would imagine pretty hard. But it has been done and can be done. Done with the coach first, then later the school buys into it...helps to have a good AD.

SLU is getting new facilities to get in the game and AD who wants to win, and understands success at higher levels. They will need increased support and everyone on the same page...but they also need a coach who can do a little bit with less too. And it is okay if SLU gets a coach who has success and leaves...need to get any success first ...then worry about maintaining or taking to another level after. That example above didn't come without challenges I'm sure etc...but your question was give an example of how it can be done within 5 years without admin support, facilities etc...

For those who think it cannot happen because of academics, money, and so on...that isn't true. Grawer saved program etc...Spoon didn't work hard enough and Romar didn't stay longer than 3 years so who knows, ande let me tell ya..5, 6 years etc...you can get a feel for where you or going....there are people out there who can do it. And not just one or two. Do some homeowrk make good decisions. It can be done, because it happens other places, and it can be done with initial success arriving within your time frame, initial success defined as NCAA.

[brianstl]

With the exception of the two seasons prior to KO's arrival, MU made 21 straight post-season appearances. It was a program in no way similar to SLU. They way you make it sound KO took over the Washington Generals. The mistake they made was the awful coach they hired before KO. Are you sure you are not KO's PR flack?

[Major Majerus]

Thanks to Nark for the use of the Billiken

Great post - I know it took a long time to do it. All your points are right on. My personal opinion is that BS gets the time through the first on campus season - then the admin grades him. Since the arena will be finished in the spring before the 1st season, he'll be on a compititive par with fall recruits because he can show them the future, even if the present isn't so hot. There ought to be some positive momentum. I can wait another year - the biggest change in my personal fan history is in sight.

[Bay Area Billiken]

SLU under Spoon routinely put it to Marquette. SLU was not destitute in those days. The SLU of the Spoonball Era outdrew Marquette. Irrespective of how Spoon inherited or recruited the players, Spoon's teams made 3 NCAA appearances, and we were at minimum on equal footing, if not in fact ahead of Marquette in those days. Marquette rose under Crean. Spoon could beat O'Neill and Deane.

And Larry Hughes once torched Marquette for 40 points in Milwaukee.

It is certainly true that Marquette, overall, has more basketball tradition than SLU.

And although the Marquette teams of Wade beat the Billikens, didn't SLU's Josh Fisher hold Wade to single digits 3 of their 4 meetings? Also, there was that phantom "turnover" on Fisher that was game dispositive in one of those meetings in Milwaukee.

[courtside]

>Could you give an example of one or two of teams that have

>stayed in top 50 without committing the financial resources

>for recruiting first? Could you tell me a program that

>didn't at least have a modern practice facility in place?

>Could you tell me a program that has done this all in five

>years?

>

>I am not saying everything is perfect with Brad. It is

>pretty low right now.

This is what you asked for and this is what I gave. I could have easily started with McGuire, or done Xavier, or Gonzaga etc...and walked through Gillen etc...

No financial resources, no modern facilities, within 5 years. This is what you asked for.

[courtside]

>Thanks to Nark for the use of the Billiken

>

>Great post - I know it took a long time to do it. All your

>points are right on. My personal opinion is that BS gets

>the time through the first on campus season - then the admin

>grades him. Since the arena will be finished in the spring

>before the 1st season, he'll be on a compititive par with

>fall recruits because he can show them the future, even if

>the present isn't so hot. There ought to be some positive

>momentum. I can wait another year - the biggest change in

>my personal fan history is in sight.

Thx

[brianstl]

THat is where you are wrong you didn't answer my question. Mu has been a top 50 program for almost 50 years straight. Xavier has been for 20 and they had a better practice facilty for that whole time. Gonzaga has been a 15 year plus building project that started under Fitzgerald and has continue with asst from his coaching tree being promoted.

[courtside]

>SLU under Spoon routinely put it to Marquette. SLU was not

>destitute in those days. The SLU of the Spoonball Era

>outdrew Marquette. Irrespective of how Spoon inherited or

>recruited the players, Spoon's teams made 3 NCAA

>appearances, and we were at minimum on equal footing, if not

>in fact ahead of Marquette in those days. Marquette rose

>under Crean. Spoon could beat O'Neill and Deane.

>

>And Larry Hughes once torched Marquette for 40 points in

>Milwaukee.

>

>It is certainly true that Marquette, overall, has more

>basketball tradition than SLU.

>

>And although the Marquette teams of Wade beat the Billikens,

>didn't SLU's Josh Fisher hold Wade to single digits 3 of

>their 4 meetings? Also, there was that phantom "turnover" on

>Fisher that was game dispositive in one of those meetings in

>Milwaukee.

I don't know if it is directly or indirectly but this adds to my point. If the point you are making is similar type of school, similar success to some extent, ...why not SLU?

Take a look at it...Grawer could recruit good players and athletes. O'Neill a great recruiter...difference being taking it a bit further by NCAA's...all on mom and pop budget etc..I will disagree with you on O'Neill vs Spoon because they overlapped two seasons, Marquette was more successful in each season as a team, not by light years or anything...but Spoon had 12-17 season, then NCAA, Marquette was better that first year and went to Sweet 16 the next same year as SLU first rounder. O'Neill then left for bigger conference bigger money etc..he was a great recruiter, and good coach and I personally overall would put him up against Spoon anyday. Why? I do not think Spoon's coaching ability could overcome his recruiting shortcomings. Spoon is better compared to Mike Deane, why? Matched up for 5 years...and both then were gone....Both made the NCAA's twice, bothing winning a game but not further, and SLU made NIT once, 1st round defeat, Marquette made it twice, with Finals, and quaterfinals. Spoon's last four years at SLU were 16-14, losing record, Larry Hughes, Losing record. One could very easily make the argument Mike Deane accomplished as much or more than Spoon at SLU during same 5 years. Spoon had two more years and one more NCAA than Deane, who never had the chance to make one more NCAA.

So, the point to me is that you are like a ton of other SLU fans I know...oh they just did it with Crean. Well...no. Or, Oh Spoon was way better than O'Neill or Deane....well...no. We all have stated NCAA's etc is the goal. Too many SLU fans remember that one moment or game. And hold on to it and it defines their opinions. I would classify Deane and Spoon as very similar, very fair to say. But I am wiling to bet that anywhere you go in Billiken Nation.....not one person would ever agree with that. It means to me, too many Billiken fans think they are or were better than they actually were. To take nothing away from either school, both had some success etc...during that period, pretty even, and in same time periods. But not to pick on you ...this is great point...Spoon was mixed, Deane was mixed etc...so if nobody liked Deane, well, his results were pretty similar to Spoon, ...but Spoon is remembered for more. Marquette elevated to another level because they wanted MORE than Deane, SLU didn't elevate because they didn't seek more than Spoon. This is a key point here, picture Mike Deane and many draw negative image or not that great image. Well, perhaps good ole Spoon sole them again. For the record both were solid coaches.

So, the difference? O'Neill was similar to Grawer, Spoon similar to Deane. O'Neill left for what he thought was better job, Grawer was let go, Spoon temporarily retired. Deane was fired. Crean comes in...Romar comes in...leaves after 3 years.

People got complacent with Spoon, Marquette wanted more than Deane. SLU hires Romar who leaves after 3 years. Crean goes to Marquette, has a little success, a taste, then builds and works for a little more, then gets admin support after he has success not before. And they got into Big East and off and running. People said you cannot win big at Marquette today...Crean said I think otherwise. Meanwhile SLU keeps "settling" from top to bottom, from their coach up to higher admin etc...and BS hasn't achieved nearly as much as any of the above.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Re Kevin O'Neill, my memory must be fading a bit with the passage of time, either that or middle age atrophy is kicking in. I remember Spoon used to make O'Neill laugh.

Although Marquette and SLU are very similar schools, Marquette had the much higher basketball tradition with Al McGuire, who was one of my all time favorite coaches and commentators. When I watch games, and when I coached the CYO kids, I often think about some of the things McGwire said, such as, "Games are won and lost at the beginning of the second half," and "The best thing about Freshmen is that they become Sophomores." (By the way, McGuire was a fan of SLU's Erwin Claggett.) And that winning tradition continued with his longtime assistant (and SLU alumnus) Hank Raymonds. Marquette won the national title under McGuire when I was in high school. Earlier, a great Marquette team won the NIT when McGuire spurned the NCAA. That prolonged success made expectations higher at Marquette. Often in those times, the SLU basketball program was struggling for mere survival.

Later, even though Spoon had his bad years, the Spoonball Era at SLU is considered a success overall, whereas I know that is not the case with Deane and Dukiet. I'm not even certain how Marquette people view O'Neill's tenure. But they can't be too upset with him if he took them to the Sweet 16.

[courtside]

While I agree that Marquette had greater tradition, they were not without challenges. I didn't start with McGuire or Raymonds because back then they recruited city kids in places that now have newer conferences....but one can say back then someone can come in and win. Winning didn't fall out of the sky and wasn't eternal forever. You have to start somewhere. In response to your comments I posted again because Spoon did not fair better than Deane nor O"Neill. He did fine. But like you said, it was good enough at one place and not at another. Let me tell ya I bet...nobody cared about that tradition when O"Neill came with nothing in trying times, and he won. When you lose, people get desperate to win anything, just a little. One may argue the challeneges of that tradition etc...to win. The example was very fair, and had a lot for all SLU fans to relate to....All SLU needs is to win a little, then have a coach who either wants to stay, or if he leaves, make sure your standards aren't lowered, they are raised.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Well Courtside, I looked it up.

Spoon was 2-3 in 2 years v. Kevin O'Neill, but SLU beat Marquette in the 1993 GMC Tournament.

Spoon was 8-4 v. Mike Deane. SLU ousted Marquette from the 1995 GMC Tournament and the 1999 C-USA Tournament. Thus, my memory re Spoon getting the best of Deane was accurate.

Thus, the Billikens of Spoon were 10-7 v. Marquette. I would say Spoon more than held his own with the "Golden Eagles."

[courtside]

You continue to illustrate my point, and you are doing it unintentionally.

It isn't about 1 or even 2 games on a schedule. It is results over that long season or seasons. SLU fans beat....fill in your team here...and then automatically assume their season is better than that team. Next you will be telling me how great Tennessee -Martin is and what a great win it was....lol

You are illustrating the tunnel vision often seen on this board and with many SLU fans. It is one of the biggest things people cannot overcome in their fandom. My guess is nobody takes the time to follow other games....I say it all the time on here..I never judge a team on one game.

With your logic Dwyane Wade isn't a very good player, or wasn't then. Obviously that isn't the case. Take the blinders off.

You are illustrating the shortcomings of your argument. Ahhh that Spoon...man he was good, SLU was much better than Marquette, so...why is everyone complaining? SLU is in good shape.

Would I ever conclude that Spoon was better than Mike Deane, no because the results weren't better for Spoon. Marquette obviously thought making the NCAA's etc held more merit than how Deane did vs SLU. Shocking the thinking. People cannot get past their personal likes or dislikes or that one game they remember. Marquette beat #6 Pitt yesterday at Pitt, ...are they doing cartwheels about how much better they are than Pitt, I would bet not, because it was one game. Should Jamie Dixon fold up the tent on the season?

If defining the success of a coach came down to how do you did or do vs one particular team....by your thought process SLU is doing just fine. And people still sit around years later and say we could beat those guys...and year after year...the other team or teams get better and leave SLU in the dust.

It is about a program, full season, and seasons. But you like many other focus so much on one game. Hey, SLU played UNC tough for a half...UNC isn't much better than SLU. Or, man I don't get it, SLU loses to St. Bonnies ....they must be good, why is everyone else beating them?

I don't care what the records were for any of these coaches head to head, ... I care about the NCAA's and dancing. A lot of other people say it here too...but a lot of people on here think like you...and care more about how did SLU do vs Marquette or Ciny or U of L...and not care about the other ones. What matters are NCAA's and lesser NIT's and direction of program etc....and so on. I really believe most people on here think like you.

I said many times Spoon was very comparable to Deane and also to O'Neill, vice versa...I added that O'Neill imo would have done more than Spoon had he stayed.(no not head to head, who cares about head to head?...in results that matter) I do not care about O'Neill"s record vs Spoon. And, that Spoon had similar results to Deane. What more can I say?

And I do not care about Spoon's record vs Marquette. What I care about is NCAA and the other things that are actually important.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I care first and foremost about SLU making the NCAA too. That's why these last 3 weeks have been so darn frustrating, as we see things seemingly slip sliding away. The NCAA is the ultimate goal.

My point is that defining what is success at SLU is a bit different than defining what is success at Marquette, even if they are similar schools, because Marquette is the one with the basketball tradition.

When SLU made the NCAA Tournament in 1994, SLU had not been there in my lifetime. (It is my contention that several of Rich Grawer's teams were NCAA worthy, but the fact is that they didn't get selected.) The last NCAA appearance was in 1957. I was there in Baltimore the next year when SLU won in OT in the first round of the NCAA against Minnesota. Talk about a natural high. It was an incredible feeling, and the Billikens were the talk of the Inner Harbor that night.

At one point, during the Spoonball days, SLU was at least even with Marquette, if not slightly ahead of Marquette, as to where the programs stood at that given time. Once Tom Creane took over at Marquette, that program has returned to the heights.

And believe me, I think a lot of Dwyane Wade. I just remember that SLU was able to stop him 3 times, one of the only teams anywhere, including the NBA, that has been able to contain him. Of course, SLU lost those games.

[courtside]

>I care first and foremost about SLU making the NCAA too.

>That's why these last 3 weeks have been so darn frustrating,

>as we see things seemingly slip sliding away. The NCAA is

>the ultimate goal.

>

>My point is that defining what is success at SLU is a bit

>different than defining what is success at Marquette, even

>if they are similar schools, because Marquette is the one

>with the basketball tradition.

>

>When SLU made the NCAA Tournament in 1994, SLU had not been

>there in my lifetime. (It is my contention that several of

>Rich Grawer's teams were NCAA worthy, but the fact is that

>they didn't get selected.) The last NCAA appearance was in

>1957. I was there in Baltimore the next year when SLU won

>in OT in the first round of the NCAA against Minnesota.

>Talk about a natural high. It was an incredible feeling,

>and the Billikens were the talk of the Inner Harbor that

>night.

>

>At one point, during the Spoonball days, SLU was at least

>even with Marquette, if not slightly ahead of Marquette, as

>to where the programs stood at that given time. Once Tom

>Creane took over at Marquette, that program has returned to

>the heights.

>

>And believe me, I think a lot of Dwyane Wade. I just

>remember that SLU was able to stop him 3 times, one of the

>only teams anywhere, including the NBA, that has been able

>to contain him. Of course, SLU lost those games.

But you get very caught up with head to head...so Spoon had two whole games on Crean. Not very significant is it? I don't think so. What I do think, is that yes the schools had similar paths at that time. I would agree that Spoon was very similar to Deane. No question. But you cannot get caught up in SLU stopping an individual player or an individual player from SLU doing well against another team.

I evaluate coaches on their performance, which includes NCAA's. recruiting, coaching, prgram direction and all other things. I don't care about the other stuff. If anything the point I was making wa stwo things: 1) SLU was similar to Marquette (don't need to quabble further) for a period of quite a few years....and then people cry oh Marquette had tradition. Let's throw tradition card. Neither O'Neil nor Deane embraced tradition. 2) People's recollection of Spoon is more than what it actually was, ...it was fine, solid, good etc..but no better than Mike Deane. And I used that example because Deane has some interesting sideline antics, but really was similar to Spoon.

Marquette did all of this with similar resources to SLU...and when Crean first came, the resources did not come first, his winning did.

[Bay Area Billiken]

What has always been frustrating to me is that SLU has never been able to capitalize on the good times. The Billikens of Spoon had NCAA years in 1994 and 1995 with Claggett, Highmark, et al. Then came an average 16-14 NIT year in 1996, followed by a losing season in 1997. Then Larry Hughes arrived, and SLU was back into the 2nd round of the NCAA in 1998. But then Hughes left for the NBA, Justin Love was injured early in the season, and SLU stumbled to 15-16 in Spoon's last year.

Romar took over, the Miracle of Memphis ensued, and Romar had the Billikens back in the NCAA in 2000. But SLU was never able to capitalize on that in terms of recruiting either.

It is the same old Billiken two step, one step forward, one step back.

I relate the Liddell/Lisch times to the Gray/Douglass and Claggett/Highmark times. There is hope. I would like to see Coach Soderberg follow the leads of Rich Grawer and Charlie Spoonhour and buttress his stars with good role players.

[courtside]

The starting role players, bench role players and continuation in recruiting were all better previously. And this doesn't even yet compare back and forth bench coaching. And the point is this...back then it was falling just a little short of continuing it...having less now...falls way way short.

[kevinfootes]

I think we agree that starting over isn't good. I just don't believe Brad would get any BCS conference offers any time soon.