Question

[courtside]

So...if everyone or many are in agreement that SLU lacks a commitment to winning in basketball from Biondi and the administration....that would mean in order for SLU to be successful, at least initially, they need a coach who can do more with less, correct?

My question is do people here think Soderberg is a coach who can do more on and off of the floor with less?(as in less support than needed and desired from Biondi and the school) and, achieve the goals people have for the program?

[moytoy12]

You know the standard response is going to be that Sodie can do it, but it's gonna take time and that it will never happen if we keep reloading every 5 years.

On the other hand, I have not seen and do not believe that Sodie is a coach that can do more with less. And i'm not just saying this based off of one season.

[courtside]

I am just putting the question out there and let people come up with their own answers one way or another or another.

[moytoy12]

Almost every conceivable question about Sodie's tenure as coach has been asked and answered, i don't think you're really breaking any new ground here.

I sure appreciate you telling me how you just put the question out there and let people come up with their own answers...at first i was really confused as to why you asked the question. Honestly. Confused.

[billiken_roy]

i dont think that for slu to be successful that means they have to have a coach that can do more with less.

i think for slu to be successful they have to patiently build brick by brick and make gains when they can, gather more and more boosters, which in turn will allow for more and more amenities and staff and eventually the program everyone wants will be there.

along the way, if a year occurs where more happens with less and a deep run is made in the tourney the financial windfall will come with it and hopefully the program will get a jump in budget that will possibly hurry the process along.

romar is proof that your thinking isnt right. he accomplished more with less at a basketball program that was completely dead in washington.

[moytoy12]

Who knows what Romar would have done in 5 years if he had stayed. And comparing Wash. to SLU is apples to oranges.

[courtside]

>Who knows what Romar would have done in 5 years if he had

>stayed. And comparing Wash. to SLU is apples to oranges.

We agree on something.;-)

[Schasz]

Unfortunately, the resume to date says no as long as the stated goal is Big Dance invites, but I figure he has one more year to show that he can get it done. For the record, I say unfortunately, because I have rooted for Coach Soderberg even though he was not my choice when he got the job because he appears to be a very decent and likable person. However, those good qualities do not necessarily equate to a good D-1 HC.

[courtside]

>i dont think that for slu to be successful that means they

>have to have a coach that can do more with less.

>

>i think for slu to be successful they have to patiently

>build brick by brick and make gains when they can, gather

>more and more boosters, which in turn will allow for more

>and more amenities and staff and eventually the program

>everyone wants will be there.

>

>along the way, if a year occurs where more happens with less

>and a deep run is made in the tourney the financial windfall

>will come with it and hopefully the program will get a jump

>in budget that will possibly hurry the process along.

>

>romar is proof that your thinking isnt right. he

>accomplished more with less at a basketball program that was

>completely dead in washington.

This answer would lead me to believe it doesn't matter that who the coach is....and that in other places coaches aren't doing more with less. Neither imo are true.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I do not agree with the premise that SLU, Father Biondi, and the Administration lack a commitment to winning basketball. Again, building an $80M on campus arena is tangible evidence that your premise is not correct in my opinion.

Admittedly, I have been away from STL since 1985, although my parents are still in the Midwest, and I get back there at least 2-3 times per year. But I do follow what is occurring at SLU as best I can. Plus, I have a somewhat different perspective from those in STL, in that I go to games at various campuses in California and see the facilities, the commitments, etc. In that vein, SLU is far ahead of USF, Santa Clara, St. Mary's, and UOP and will be light years ahead of them once that new arena is completed. Those schools all play in glorified high school gyms. Leavey Center at SCU only sits 4,000, although it is big time now on one side with chair back seats and a few luxury boxes at the top. The other side is the same as Toso Pavilion, bleachers. Spanos Center at UOP seats 6,500, is ok, but is really just a big gym too. It has some chair back seats, but also bleachers. USF's War Memorial Gym seats 5,300 and needs additional renovation. USF has installed chairback seats downstairs. St. Mary's McKeon Pavilion really is a high school gym, and seats 3,500, with a wall at one end. This year SMC put chair back seats on one side downstairs. There are places in the bleachers upstairs in which you have to strain to see a scoreboard. I've never been to a game at San Jose State, but SJSU is below the 4 schools I just listed in hoops. The SLU games have much more of a big game feel than those schools out here. It is all a matter of perspective.

Cal and Stanford are a different story. But those are Pac-10 schools, in Cal's case, the flagship school in the prestigious University of California system, and in Stanford's case, one of the top private schools in the country. And Stanford's Maples Pavilion only seats 7,500.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Re this alleged lack of commitment at SLU, of which I disagree, I can tell you that people at other schools are very impressed, and in fact, marvel that SLU is building a 10,600 seat, $80M on campus arena.

Once that arena is built, SLU will have a better facility than both Stanford and Cal.

[billiken_roy]

you make my point about romar. he was the real deal, yet he won less games each year and by the time he left he had 3 players flunking out, one heading home for home sickness. one recruit changing his mind. surely you arent suggesting had romar stayed another 2 years he would have been a champion at slu?

i loved romar. i fought for him here constantly. and a lot of the same people that were all over him then are wishing he was back now.

as to washington and slu being apples to oranges, you can say that about the advantages of a lot of the bcs schools that have football. nevertheless, washington hadnt done a thing since romar was a player there some 20+ years ago. he turned that around pretty quick. but he couldnt do that here.

gotta fix other things first or it wont matter who the coach is. bringing a new coach in is going on the cheap unless the big picture comes with it.

[billiken_roy]

so please present the program that has the equal support staff in numbers and quality, has as bad of facilities (pre-new arena plans), has the year to year ranking in budget, and has a sustained record of success better. not just one year. that can be lightning in a bottle. year after year.

[courtside]

>I do not agree with the premise that SLU, Father Biondi, and

>the Administration lack a commitment to winning basketball.

>Again, building an $80M on campus arena is tangible evidence

>that your premise is not correct in my opinion.

>

>Admittedly, I have been away from STL since 1985, although

>my parents are still in the Midwest, and I get back there at

>least 2-3 times per year. But I do follow what is occurring

>at SLU as best I can. Plus, I have a somewhat different

>perspective from those in STL, in that I go to games at

>various campuses in California and see the facilities, the

>commitments, etc. In that vein, SLU is far ahead of USF,

>Santa Clara, St. Mary's, and UOP and will be light years

>ahead of them once that new arena is completed. Those

>schools all play in glorified high school gyms. Leavey

>Center at SCU only sits 4,000, although it is big time now

>on one side with chair back seats and a few luxury boxes at

>the top. The other side is the same as Toso Pavilion,

>bleachers. Spanos Center at UOP seats 6,500, is ok, but is

>really just a big gym too. It has some chair back seats,

>but also bleachers. USF's War Memorial Gym seats 5,300 and

>needs additional renovation. USF has installed chairback

>seats downstairs. St. Mary's McKeon Pavilion really is a

>high school gym, and seats 3,500, with a wall at one end.

>This year SMC put chair back seats on one side downstairs.

>There are places in the bleachers upstairs in which you have

>to strain to see a scoreboard. I've never been to a game at

>San Jose State, but SJSU is below the 4 schools I just

>listed in hoops. The SLU games have much more of a big game

>feel than those schools out here. It is all a matter of

>perspective.

>

>Cal and Stanford are a different story. But those are

>Pac-10 schools, in Cal's case, the flagship school in the

>prestigious University of California system, and in

>Stanford's case, one of the top private schools in the

>country. And Stanford's Maples Pavilion only seats 7,500.

You are comparing SLU to the WCC. No offense to the WCC. But other than Gonzaga where is all of the success?

Stanford? $85 million football stadium renovations. Is SLU getting 50,000 for their football games? ...and Maples Pavilion recently had $30 million renovations.

All of this and there are at least 5 other D-1 hoops schools in the area where Stanford exists.

[billiken_roy]

bay, slu didnt donate a cent beyond the ground. a deserted grade school that was an eyesore on the south east corner of the campus.

the arena is being built with new specific arena donations and the remainder to be paid by financing to be paid by the revenue stream from events at the arena.

now if the slu general fund had ponied up the difference after donations, then we can talk about commitment.

[moytoy12]

Come on roy, we both know that it is easier to recruit to and build at wash than it is at SLU.

I don't know if romar was the real deal or not. I think his recruiting strategy was flawed at SLU.

I think over those 2 years Romar would have done better than brad and i think romar is a better coach than brad. If we had one Romar, why couldn't we get another like him?

[billiken_roy]

moy we might get another romar. we might get another spoon. the point is that when he gets here he is gonna hit the same road blocks that they did and find the same roller coaster ride. then in five years we will be arguing again why i dont want to change coaches and you want to find the next soderberg or romar that are playing in that years sweet 16 game.

[moytoy12]

I agree with you re: the administration and i don't know if they'll ever change. I think we disagree on what would make them change (slow and steady v. a romar type).

I guess the roller coaster ride is looking good as compared to the Sodie era since we were at least going to the NCAA's. I hope to be proven wrong in years 6-10 of the Sodie era, i just don't think he can prove me wrong though.

[cheeseman]

Once again we get this so called stated fact that Biondi does not support the BB program and the Athletic Dept does not also. It never ceases to amaze me that after several discussions that have already taken place and figures given, some still think that SLU is not supporting the program. The amount of money being spent is in the top 1/3 of D1 programs. Could it be more - sure but that will come with donations that only comes from success. The recruiting budget matter is a red herring - Brad can have whatever he deems reasonable by simply altering his budget allocations so he must think he is spending enough to get the job done - his future depends on it so why would he short change himself. The arena and practice facilities along with the new training rooms and offices will take care of the issue that many have complained about as being the biggest problem SLU had in recruiting - facilities. Biondi and the Athletic Dept are not Brad's problems if he is not successful.

[billiken_roy]

cheese agreed that the money being spent is in the top 1/3 of D1 programs. that would equate to top 120 teams. to be exact according to mid-majority.com our basketball budget is 89th overall in 2006 and 183rd for the entire athletic budget.

hazard to guess what our average season rpi rating is over the last 9 years (i am using 9 simply because that is all the further back the kenpom site goes)?

91.7

almost exactly what we paid for. the point is most are claiming soderberg should have us as a top 25-50 program. i say it cant happen consistently at the level funded. you get what you pay for.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Stanford rarely had 50,000 at football games at its new stadium. USC drew a big crowd, but that crowd was mostly USC fans, some of whom actually bought Stanford season tickets so they would be assured of getting to go to that game. I was at the opener against Navy, and that game was not that close to a sellout, and many of those that were there were long gone by the start of the 4th Quarter.

It is true that Maples Pavilion underwent renovations. But I'm told you can still usually walk up there and get a ticket, unless Stanford is playing a premier opponent. And the capacity is the same.

Stanford's poor attendance was one, of many reasons, that the football coach was shown the door.

As for comparing SLU to the WCC, at least I am comparing similar type schools. If SLU cannot be compared to the WCC, then how can SLU be compared to the Pac-10?

[Bay Area Billiken]

Who is going to pay for the maintenance and upkeep of the new SLU Arena? Isn't that SLU?

If SLU only gave the land, that land was still worth something.

Who is going to run the place? SLU or some company with whom SLU contracts? So SLU pays there.

As for the funds being privately raised, SLU is a private school. SLU could have asked for that money, or at least some of it, for something else.

To make some blanket premise that SLU is not committed to winning basketball, as some Gospel truth, and fall right in line with the MVC spouting STL media, is quite simply not evidenced by the fact that that arena is being built. I certainly hope there are others out there that see this my way. I know another SLU alumnus does. She is my wife.

[courtside]

>Stanford rarely had 50,000 at football games at its new

>stadium. USC drew a big crowd, but that crowd was mostly

>USC fans, some of whom actually bought Stanford season

>tickets so they would be assured of getting to go to that

>game. I was at the opener against Navy, and that game was

>not that close to a sellout, and many of those that were

>there were long gone by the start of the 4th Quarter.

>

>It is true that Maples Pavilion underwent renovations. But

>I'm told you can still usually walk up there and get a

>ticket, unless Stanford is playing a premier opponent. And

>the capacity is the same.

>

>Stanford's poor attendance was one, of many reasons, that

>the football coach was shown the door.

>

>As for comparing SLU to the WCC, at least I am comparing

>similar type schools. If SLU cannot be compared to the WCC,

>then how can SLU be compared to the Pac-10?

Actually Stanford had 136% increase in ticket sales. Now instead of school roughly the size of SLU(undergrad is smaller at Stanford) playing in an 85,500 seat stadium....it is playing in a state of the art 50,000 plus eat stadium...with hundreds of added higher revenue sky box seats.

Stanford has sold over 75% season tickets for their new stadium.

The coach was shown the door because he couldn't win and couldn't recruit. They are selling the tix just fine, people want to see a competitive team, and they haven't been in a little while. I expect Harbaugh to do well there.

If SLU is compared to WCC...not saying it should or shouldn't be, well than that says a lot about SLU.

[Orange Julius]

I don't think Southern Illinois spends a lot of money on recruiting and they seem to do just fine. Everytime I talk to one of the SLU coaches when they are on a recruiting trip they are on the East Coast or Down South recruiting some one. And SIU just walks into our backyard and takes what they want. Brad didn't even go to the state championship game to watch a kid he offered a scholarship to play for a state title.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Not that many on this board probably care, but here are the attendance figures from 2006 at Stanford's new, state of the art, 50,000 seat football stadium:

9/16/06 Navy 44,022

9/23/06 Washington State 37,498

10/14/06 Arizona 39,317

11/4/06 USC 49,371 (as mentioned previously, many of them USC fans)

11/18/06 Oregon State 38,502

And all of them were losses for Stanford.

What do you have against the WCC? SLU as an institution is a little bigger, but more like the WCC schools than like the Pac-10. The WCC is actually a very fine conference.

Are you trying to say that SLU should be held to the same athletic standards as Stanford?

Finally, before signing off on this, I'm not going to let you make some blanket premise that SLU does not have a commitment to a winning basketball program, and then try to spin something else from there. It's like an expert opinion. The first place to attack it is the base. In this case, your base premise is fundamentally flawed, as shown by the evidence, Exhibit A being the building of a new $80M on campus arena.