victor Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 How can anyone say that our hoops program is anywhere close to where it was "pre-Cheyrl?" We were in a much tougher conference and were competing toe to toe with Marq, Depaul, Louisville, Cincy, and Charlotte. We had expectations to win our fair share against those teams. When Spoon was here, and somewhat with Romar, it was expected to beat those teams at home. Why does the upset of #2 Louisville seem so long ago? Why does beating Illinois in the TWA Dome and playing toe to toe with Mizzou 3 years straight seem so far gone. Men's Soccer-- 4 NCAA's in 6 years??? Warming wasn't satisfied with those numbers. SLU had a realistic shot at the Final 4 every year when he was here. Seldom is SLU referred to as a college soccer power as it was "pre-Cheyrl." I firmly belleve Cheyrl is not the right person to lead our athletics department. She is unable to retain staff and is not easy to work for. Many of the staff that she has lost have gone on to other more prestigious athletic departments. As an outsider, I would assume she is not a good leader. Most importantly, her teams are not getting results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basketbill Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 because it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 >How can anyone say that our hoops program is anywhere close >to where it was "pre-Cheyrl?" We were in a much tougher >conference and were competing toe to toe with Marq, Depaul, >Louisville, Cincy, and Charlotte. We had expectations to win >our fair share against those teams. When Spoon was here, and >somewhat with Romar, it was expected to beat those teams at >home. Why does the upset of #2 Louisville seem so long ago? >Why does beating Illinois in the TWA Dome and playing toe to >toe with Mizzou 3 years straight seem so far gone. > >Men's Soccer-- 4 NCAA's in 6 years??? Warming wasn't >satisfied with those numbers. SLU had a realistic shot at >the Final 4 every year when he was here. Seldom is SLU >referred to as a college soccer power as it was >"pre-Cheyrl." > >I firmly belleve Cheyrl is not the right person to lead our >athletics department. She is unable to retain staff and is >not easy to work for. Many of the staff that she has lost >have gone on to other more prestigious athletic departments. > As an outsider, I would assume she is not a good leader. >Most importantly, her teams are not getting results. It seems most of the outrageous posters have anywhere from 1-30 posts...and I never know when I am responding to someone pulling a Metz. But ...I am in the giving spirit. You mentioned a lot of teams who left SLU's conference for greener pastures. SLU was not invited. This wasn't Cheryl's fault. You mentioned Marquette, DePaul, Louisville, Cincy....all in Big East conference now. The A10 was the choice over MVC. And a good choice given what is available. The soccer team is fine for now. How many kids left school early under Warming to play professionally...because they were that good? And ask yourself the same question under DD. You are aware that DD recruited those players under Warming...and you are aware of the the similar results of DD as Warming. It was a fair topic and debated. People talked about DD's quarterfinal appearances as HC and later round appearance...and 2nd rounder this year as an 11 seed overall. He also has had countless players go on to MLS and high European leagues, and this season keeps adding to it...wth another MLS player...and United Soccer league player. "As an outsider I assume she is not a good leader." Really because of all of those years and years of success at Stanford leading...or at Santa Clara. Because of her work to get the Arena project going...because of her hiring new upgraded coaches in some sports already. It is fair to evaluate everyone in the Athletic Dept. Any new leader that comes in...will make changes....that is life. If that hurts your feelings, too bad. I don't see in any case where a program is worse off than before, and she certainly will get fair time to see what she can do as an AD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 vic said, "Most importantly, her teams are not getting results." you do realize that in 2006 slu was ranked 27th overall in division one athletics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 so now you are joining the run levick out of town bandwagon too kshoe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p diddy Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 i'm not that smart, but i see five conference championships and five ncaa tournament bids in four different sports since we've joined the new league. that's pretty good results to me. bad boyz for life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted January 28, 2007 Share Posted January 28, 2007 but you should at least know the correct facts about that ranking. That being said, and these are really my father's words but I agree with them 100%, Cheryl gets a mulligan on this t.v. issue because this is still essentially her honeymoon period but if next year rolls around and the t.v. problem hasn't been fixed you'd better believe I'll be upset with her job performance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 CL had nothing to do with the TV contract thing - she is only one AD out of 14. Go to the previous posts on this topic and you will see that she did everything possible regarding this situation and has assured everyone that it will be different next year. This is an A10 and CSTV issue which will probably require us suing the conf. for breach of contract if they do not get CSTV to live up to what is in the contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 "has assured everyone that it will be different next year." Exactly my point. If its not different next year then who should be blamed? Also, its hard for me to believe that EVERYTHING was done possible when Dayton and Xavier both found a way to get their team on t.v. Somehow their athletic department got it done whereas ours did not. http://www.cstv.com/auto_pdf/p_hotos/s_cho...al-MBB-Schedule http://daytonflyers.cstv.com/sports/m-bask...skbl-sched.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 that is about the most arrogant worthless company in the world. we had a charter exec at our last rotary meeting talking. just as plastic as they come. and he made a point of saying in his speech that whatever problems we have had with charter let him know and he would make sure he fixed them. well when they opened it up to questions i asked him about 1. the billikens, and 2. taking cbs off of high definition with the super bowl and march madness approaching. he refused to even discuss slu. just got red in the face and said he wouldnt talk about it. and then on the high def for cbs said that kmov's parent company is trying to charge them for the feed and if they pay that, charter would have to pass that on to the customers. i asked what the premium we pay for high def is for then? he said the special equipment we have. i said, well i was forced to pay extra when it was installed to cover the cost of the high def feed and box so what equipment is he talking about. he walked out. charter = thieves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 but I don't think they were our only option. Getting a few games on Channel 11 was nice, but why not get the weekday games on local access or something. Hell, I turn channel 8 (whatever that is these days) on a Wed night and there is Iowa vs. Wisconsin. Even if its a crappy broadcast like the one at Pacific where somebody just rented a couple video-recorders and dubbed in the radio broadcast. I'll repeat, I'm not blaming Cheryl for this year per se, but if it isn't fixed next year well that won't say much for our athletic department. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 realize that either 1) a tv station would have to make money on showing the Bills games or 2) the ad would have to buy the time on whatever station. here is the problem, other than the 7000 people at the games, not many are interested in SLU basketball. we are in a tp 20 media market, so buying the time would be expensive. that is another reason why this season at this point is such a dumper, how can you fix tv if no one will watch???? lou fusz can only buy so many commercials Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 local access t.v. currently shows re-runs of shows like "My Two Dads, Growing Pains, etc." You telling me we couldn't get better rating then those shows, or a Wisconsin-Iowa basketball game. Hell, channel 10 shows basketball games between 3rd grade teams from time to time. I'm not saying that Fox should be putting us on instead of American Idol, but there is plenty of air space available for anyone that works hard enough to get it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 the numbers must speak for themselves, or you are saying the ad is not doing its job to get a better tv deal, but markets are generally efficient and if there was demand for slu hoops on tv a deal would no doubt be made the truth is probably somewhere between these two captions...the best salesperson in the world probably could not sell a saddle to a chicken farmer and the UNC game was a sellout Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 fan Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 No offense, but you're totally inaccurate. Xavier and Dayton's local markets already had arrangements with CSTV, so they were the least affected by the new contract. Given the problems between CSTV and Charter, SLU stepped in at the last minute and put the Channel 11 deal for 4 games in place. SLU basically bought the time and is trying to breakeven by selling ad time to sponsors. They HOPE to breakeven on the deal. If you'd like to help, I'm sure Koshay would be happy to sell some commercial time. Cheryl indicated in a meeting I attended a couple of weeks ago, that CSTV promised to the A-10 AD's that it would be better next year. Additonally, she noted that the all the schools in the A-10 were unhappy, even though the agreement with CSTV is very lucrative for the conference schools. SLU has very few, if any, options regarding TV this year or until the A-10/CSTV contract expires. Generally, it sucks, but Cheryl had nothing to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 You are missing one point. Reruns and local access programs cost very little to produce or license. Producing a college basketball game requires multiple cameras, broadcasters, editors, producers, etc. I would guess that the production costs as much or more than the air time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 because we didnt have the rigts. cstv did. it was my understanding that after charter refused to barter, the slu people lined up channel 7 where mi$$ouri eventually landed. the deal was basically silver plattered to cstv but they wanted more. blew the deal. now that is from a third party media guy, but i have no reason to not believe it. i think the problem with suing the a-10 or cstv is that even though we got less coverage, we made money. more than we have in the past on television thus it will be hard to prove that what we got wasnt "better". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 Interesting story about Channel 7 - wonder if it is true. From what CL told me personally, the CSTV contract was not simply about more $ but that in the contract CSTV agreed to make sure that no team was on less then they were the year before. CSTV clearly did not meet that requirement for us and apparently from what CL said for other schools. The problem we have is we can only sue the A10 to make them make CSTV meet their contract expectations since CSTV did not sign with SLU individually. CL also said that next year the contract will either be voided or CSTV will meet the requirements as expected this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 29, 2007 Share Posted January 29, 2007 i am not an attorney but i wonder if a position we were on tv a majority of the games but had to PAY $xx to be on is better than being on less but RECEIVING $xx? to prove our "lessor position" would likely be tough imo. any atty's have thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.