A Top 50 program? Tell us how!

[satrap]

So much has been made on this board about BS's shortcomings as a coach, some I agree with and the vast majority I disagree with. Another avenue, which we should explore and which should probably be led by the anti-Brad faction, is how in the world we are actually going to achieve an annual top 50 rating in today's day and age?

Clearly coaching changes alone have never led to even general top 100 status, so we know they aren't the answer alone. We've also seen recent threads on how the new arena/practice site is NOT alone the answer as well(I somewhat agree with this perspective).

If both of these are true - that coaching changes and a new arena aren't alone enough - what can SLU do?

Personally, I feel we will NEVER be an annual top 50 program, and it's not like I'm glorifying the mediocrity wallow we've been in for years. It's just that the competition is SO intense and there are many schools out there who want the same thing. Check out the latest Sagarin ratings (very good if you asked me):

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt0607.htm

Teams BELOW 50 at the end of this season include Bama, Stanford, Michigan, UMass, Mississippi, LSU, Washington, OK, Mizzou, Providence, NCState, Cal, Iowa, Wake, South Carolina, St. Joe's, Miami-FL, Utah, Cincy, Temple, Minnesota, ad, infinitum. Now we may be able to beat some or alot of these teams in a given year, but outcompete them, over a period of years, with their vastly larger fanbases and superior resources? Preposterous and nearly impossible to me.

Convince me otherwise.

[slu72]

SIU- 6 straight NCAA appearances

Creighton-Seems more able than us to make it.

Gonzaga-8 or 9 straight appearances

Xavier- Seem to go about 3 out of every 4 years

Marquette- Granted they have the Big East now, but they are similar institution w/ no big time football team. Same could be said for Villanova and Georgetown.

Look at some of the schools that dominate smaller conferences:

The point w/ these schools is they are in conferences w/ similar type schools with no greater resources but they out perform them every year.

Winthrop-seem to see them every year

G. Mason-all of a sudden they've become a power

Davidson-more than us, a lot more.

Air Force-go figure a service academy. Granted they didn't make it this year, but they were right there and now in the NIT.

We've got to build a team that is capable of being a dominating force in the A-10 year in and year out. Should this be so difficult? We'll have better facilities than just about anyone save for X and Dayton. In fact, they'll be on par. We need someone to come here and start a little winning tradition and create a little excitement about the program. Also, when he leaves after doing this, he leaves us with an able assistant who keeps it alive. You're saying there's little chance of finding someone like this. I say they are out there and if we don't get one of them, I guarantee you'll be reading about them in 2-3 years. Did any of following HC's start as a HC at a BCS school? Pitino, Matta, Crean, Weber, Gillespie. No they built programs at small schools by being smart, aggressive, and resourceful. We need one of these types. I keep telling you there was a reason UW let Brad go. They didn't see him as a HC at this level, and he was one year removed as head AC on a final four team. When given the job he took them to the dance, but still they released him. There had to be something about him to remove him from a fairly successful run.

[3star_recruit]

>SIU- 6 straight NCAA appearances

>Creighton-Seems more able than us to make it.

>Gonzaga-8 or 9 straight appearances

>Xavier- Seem to go about 3 out of every 4 years

There's a quota system in place for mid-majors. The only way you can hope to emulate these teams' success is to replace one of them in the quota system. The margin for error is practically zero. It's going to take a concerted effort by everyone in the athletic department to get it done.

[satrap]

Look, I agree with you on most of your last paragraph. I just think Brad should be given the chance on a level playing field (or at least one tilted in our direction soon - THANK YOU YAHWEH!!!).

Still, to be an annual top 50 program, we are going to have to displace some schools in that category and hope that others don't too.

Looking at this years top 50, I think the displacables (is that a word?) include SIU (facilities as old as the hills), Butler (same but much older), WA State (who? in the hinterlands) MO State (too much inbreeding of course), Creighton (no natural recruting base), Nevada (will again disappear as Fazekas leaves) Winthrop (my butler) Air Force (war with Iran will deplete them) and maybe Gonzaga (is their time up?).

We just have to make sure the sleeping giants in my original post don't wake up.

[moytoy12]

Don't know if displacables is a word, but i did get a good chuckle out of your post.

[courtside]

>Look, I agree with you on most of your last paragraph. I

>just think Brad should be given the chance on a level

>playing field (or at least one tilted in our direction soon

>- THANK YOU YAHWEH!!!).

>

So how do you explain the lists of schools who have had success without the support? Did they have someone who could do more with less? Unlike Brad? Marquette went to the Final Four a few years ago while in SLU's conference with worse facilites than SLU at the time.

Can anyone at this point defend Biondi or Brad? I just don't see how this is a discussion anymore? SLU needs a commitment from Biondi and others, and needs to bring in a coach who can do all of the things it entails to be a coach. It's incredible the stuff I read on this board.

[moytoy12]

Marquette v. SLU is not an apples to apples comparison. Marquette's basketball tradition was and is head and shoulders above SLU's. That tradition can make up for facilities that are lacking. So at Marquette we have tradition and crappy facilities and at SLU we have no history and crappy facilities...

I don't disagree that we need more commitment from Biondi.

[slufanskip]

I don't think it is that hard. SLU has alot of things going for it. Nice city with good pro sports, beautiful campus, very good academics. What we are missing are the basketball related items.

1. Better recruiting budget. If you want to be top 50, you have to at least spend in the same zip code

2. Playing and practice facilities .... done

3. TV ... who knows

We have gotten 1 of the 3 done. I don't care about Marquette or anyone else ... for every one you can name that did it I can name 19 (maybe more) that haven't with similar situations.

Name me the schools non BCS that have sustained top 50 success? Marquette counts as 1. There are 320? Div 1 schools about 75 of them BCS which leaves 250 that haven't. You can't name 10 that have sustained top 50 status for a 5 year period, which would make the success rate of less than 1 in 25. That is silly ... SLU needs to either put up or shut up.

Imo ... as far as recruiting goes, I rank UB higher than most. Up to 6 months ago he had horrible training and practice facilities, a low recruiting budget and a horrible TV package. He hasn't recruited any worse than his 2 predecesors which tells me it is not all the coach. Now we have the arena and Cheryl has promised to make the TV pack better (will it be good? probably not, but better) We now need to be able to recruit throughout the midwest. Our recruiting budget needs to be on par with the big boys if we want to play with them. If it is not we will continue to look for that needle in the haystack coach.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H Waldman

Official Sponser of the Stemmler and Ahearn could and would have helped club.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Gonzaga keeps being used as an example, on this board, by the SLU coach himself, and today even by one of my friends out here.

But IMO Gonzaga is a truly unique case, primarily because in the last decade, Gonzaga has been able to completely dominate the WCC. Gonzaga can schedule big time non-conference opponents now because Gonzaga knows that it will win the WCC once conference play begins.

IMO Gonzaga would not have made the NCAA this year had Gonzaga been in the A-10 instead of the WCC. Now I know that a school in Spokane, WA is not going to be in the A-10. My point is that the A-10 is better and deeper than the WCC. I doubt Gonzaga would have made the NCAA this year playing out of the Mountain West or WAC either.

SLU has been and still is in a tougher conference than Gonzaga.

As for attendance, Gonzaga's new Kennel seats only 6,000. Thus, Gonzaga playing to capacity will average less than SLU in a disappointing year.

Xavier and Creighton are more akin to SLU on that list. Marquette used to be, but now Marquette is in the Big East with its TV deal, etc.

[satrap]

>

>But IMO Gonzaga is a truly unique case, primarily because in

>the last decade, Gonzaga has been able to completely

>dominate the WCC. Gonzaga can schedule big time

>non-conference opponents now because Gonzaga knows that it

>will win the WCC once conference play begins.

>

>IMO Gonzaga would not have made the NCAA this year had

>Gonzaga been in the A-10 instead of the WCC. Now I know

>that a school in Spokane, WA is not going to be in the A-10.

> My point is that the A-10 is better and deeper than the

>WCC. I doubt Gonzaga would have made the NCAA this year

>playing out of the Mountain West or WAC either.

>

I was thinking the same thing today. Along the lines of: SLU would do better being in 1) a BCS conference, with the built in advantages therein. But impossible or 2) a much WORSE conference with a relatively likely automatic bid, like the Zags or the UNLV of old. I wouldn't want this, but it does have a certain perverted logic.

[Bay Area Billiken]

The old MCC (now Horizon League), at the time SLU was a member, was a lot like the WCC today.

[slu72]

And SIU gets no mention with it's crappy old facilities, and a location that would be attractive only to those two hilljacks in Deliverance. How'd they ever make it to 6 straight dances, out recruit us in our own neighborhood, and get ranked #11 in the country? They must have some great looking coeds in Carbondale is the only reason I can see for going there. Quit giving UB a pass. SLU should not be that hard to recruit to. As for Marquette after Al M. left they went into a bit of a funk. Kids today probably don't even know who Al was or that they won a championship way back in '77. They went through a series of coaches, found the right one, and are doing everything to keep him there. Now they're in the Big East and the road gets smoother. Let's say for example we built on Spoon's success and kept going to dances for 5, 6 years in a row. Made a couple of runs to the sweet 16. The crowds average stayed at 17-18,000. Do you think DePaul would have been invited in over us. Five years ago they couldn't get 1,000 people at Rosemont. And those who came walked out with bags over their heads.

[slu72 fan]

When discussing Marquette, I've wondered if D Wade left after one year and L Hughes stayed for 3 years, would our positions be switched? I certainly don't know, but it may be food for thought. Just our luck, if Larry had only stayed one more year with Love, we might be in an entirely different position.

[Clock_Tower]

Yes. DePaul would have been chosen over SLU even in your example. Chicago's TV market and recruiting base for both players and students is something St. Louis cannot and will not be able to match. Every conference wants a school from a city like that. Just look at the Big 10 and Northwestern.

It's nice to have New York, DC and Philly represented in the A10. The trouble is we have 3 from Philly.

[lefty]

and Northwestern, from a sports standpoint, is just an afterthought. The proximity of many Big 10 schools to Chicago is much more significant than Northwestern being in Evanston. Granted, academically, Northwestern is important to the Big 10 but not athletically. Your thinking is too provincial.

[billiken_roy]

courtside, would marquette have went to the final four without dwayne wade? i dont think so. so if we can find a dwayne wade and get him to stay for three years (i.e. not larry hughes) that might help.

my point is that marquette isnt the example to use.

gonzaga is the better example. i can guarantee the members on this board dont have the stomach to endure what gonzaga went through in building the program under dan fitzgerald until he turned it over to his three assistants, dan monson, mark few and bill grier.

[billiken_roy]

skip said,

"I don't think it is that hard. SLU has alot of things going for it. Nice city with good pro sports, beautiful campus, very good academics. What we are missing are the basketball related items.

1. Better recruiting budget. If you want to be top 50, you have to at least spend in the same zip code

2. Playing and practice facilities .... done

3. TV ... who knows"

i totally agree with the above three items needed, but imo the biggest need goes even further in the budget. putting an athletic dept out there that is more than a graduate project skeleton staff.

we need to have a complete athletic dept staff that is far more experienced and greater in numbers to the point that they are not on crisis management mode 24/7. the marketing, sports information, public relations, day of event staff, and fund raising depts need to be actual depts, not one person each. and the heads should be folks that have the experience and abilitites to be successful.

we have some good folks staffing the athletic dept now that on the enthusiasm and effort meter are off the chart, however, too often they are flying blind and likely put themselves in spots unknowingly that are self fulfilling failures.

i also think that "facilities" needs to be more than the practice court, lockerrooms and training sites. how about the student housing? our athletes need to be in living quarters that wow the recruits when a recruit comes to visit. is that the case now?

[billiken_roy]

all three programs are examples of consistency accomplished by stability.

the reason i like gonzaga is that they accomplished their rise inch by inch with little help from the powers to be.

xaiver was a success before college basketball got crazy, and what they should be admired for is maintaining that level for a long period of time.

creighton also is a great example of stability. altmann was given the keys and left alone even though he too had problems his first few years.

[billiken_roy]

slu72, so many like to tell us about how siu beat us to so many st louis recruits. you do know that falker is the only st louisian on their roster?

also, if you have ever been to siu, it is a very nice campus. it is not "a crappy old facility". while their arena isnt the scott trade, it isnt west pine either. plus it is theirs and they get to practive there.

also keep in mind as a public football school, they have resources to training and such with the cross over from football that helps greatly. they also have a much larger athletic dept to support the team in all the efforts needed to succeed.

last, even though they have switched coaches 3 times in the last ten years, the coaches have been products of weber's system and carried the same philosophy and beliefs from one coach to the next. there wasnt ever a "start over" that will come with a complete coaching switch like we have had when spoon, romar and soderberg took over.