moytoy12 Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Despite 20 wins, Arkansas fires Heath. http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=2813245 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 I get your point moytoy, but the situation at Arkansas is just a little bit different. When in recent history you have won a championship, finished second, been to multiple final fours, elite eights, have a great on-campus venue, and a monstorous budget the expections are justifiably different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrKnowItAll Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 >"I get your point moytoy, but the situation at Arkansas is >just a little bit different. When in recent history you >have won a championship, finished second, been to multiple >final fours, elite eights, have a great on-campus venue, and >a monstorous budget the expections are justifiably >different." So.... your telling us.... our expectations of our beloved billikens basketball squad should be lower than those that follow arkansas?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Yes. I would say the same thing for any other non-bcs, non-football playing, and any non-football Big East school on a year in, year out basis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billikan Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 The one comment here peaked my interest on coaches salaries and I went to an article and a database at USA Today on certain NCAA basketball coaches. I was very surprised at the amounts of money being paid. I thought that the big names made a million dollars but the amounts are really staggering! Here are a few! Gottfried--Ala--$1,063,500 Olson--Ariz-----$1,420,567 Calhoun--Conn---$1,500,000 Coach K--Duke---$1,262,753 Donovan--Fla----$1,389,173 plus bonus of $1,943,500 Crean--Marq-----$1,688,487 plus bonus of $1,200,000 Alford--Iowa----$1,269,564 plus bonus of $1,200,000 Self--Kan-------$1,635,700 plus bonus of $1,125,000 Smith--ky-------$2,193,150 plus bonus of $4,000,000 Calapari-mem----$1,326,500 plus bonus of $2,500,000 Izzo--Mich st---$1,795,964 plus bonus of $9,801,935 I assume some of the big bonus payments are part of deferred comp plans that guarantee big amounts if the coaches stay for a certain number of years but the kicker is that the article says that the AVERAGE, not counting benefits, perks or incentives for coaches in the ACC, Big Ten, Pac 10, Big East, Big 12 and SEC is $1,200,000!!! The total number of teams in those conferences is 73 teams by my count so that means for those 73 teams the coaches--in 2006 and I am sure it is up in 2007--earn on average $1,200,000 before benefits or bonuses, perks or incentives. That puts into perspective how hard it is to compete when these schools have this much money to throw around! This does not even count the highly paid assistants, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted March 26, 2007 Author Share Posted March 26, 2007 Do you have a link to that article? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrKnowItAll Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 well... maybe what separates SLU and schools like Gonzaga, Marquette, etc.... are the expectations. we deserve better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 >well... maybe what separates SLU and schools like Gonzaga, >Marquette, etc.... are the expectations. we deserve better. What is not pointed out ....is several things....take Marquette and Gonzaga for just one example...the coaches there had TO WIN FIRST in order to get their money...in order to get their updated facilities etc....They are example of coaches who can initially do more with less. While it would be nice if SLU had a greater commitment to win in hoops and made things easier on its coach, it does NOThave to be the case. Marquette has increased and extended Crean many times because his name came up for jobs every year....in order to keep him...Crean himself lobbied high dollar donors for new facilities, he as the head coach built relationships with people like Dick Strong of Strong Funds....etc...and so on... The kool-aid drinking ....no one is ever allowed to hold Brad accounatble group or poor Brad he doesn't have a school commitment to win group.....conveniently leave ouyt examples of schools similar to SLU who succeed in Athletics and academics and do so in hoops with coaches who can do more with less initially. Brad has shown he has not been capable of that. Many aren't capable....however there are plenty who are.... Even schools who are not as comparable to SLU....Billy Donovan won first, then got paid more...then 5 years later received updated facilities etc... sLU definitely needs more of a commtment to win in men's hoops....but Brad has as equally failed to succeed as a coach to this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 >>well... maybe what separates SLU and schools like Gonzaga, >>Marquette, etc.... are the expectations. we deserve better. > >What is not pointed out ....is several things....take >Marquette and Gonzaga for just one example...the coaches >there had TO WIN FIRST in order to get their money...in >order to get their updated facilities etc....They are >example of coaches who can initially do more with less. >While it would be nice if SLU had a greater commitment to >win in hoops and made things easier on its coach, it does >NOThave to be the case. Marquette has increased and >extended Crean many times because his name came up for jobs >every year....in order to keep him...Crean himself lobbied >high dollar donors for new facilities, he as the head coach >built relationships with people like Dick Strong of Strong >Funds....etc...and so on... > >The kool-aid drinking ....no one is ever allowed to hold >Brad accounatble group or poor Brad he doesn't have a school >commitment to win group.....conveniently leave ouyt examples >of schools similar to SLU who succeed in Athletics and >academics and do so in hoops with coaches who can do more >with less initially. Brad has shown he has not been capable >of that. Many aren't capable....however there are plenty >who are.... > >Even schools who are not as comparable to SLU....Billy >Donovan won first, then got paid more...then 5 years later >received updated facilities etc... > >sLU definitely needs more of a commtment to win in men's >hoops....but Brad has as equally failed to succeed as a >coach to this point. There is one ingredient you fail to mention: TV. It is no coincidence that every one of the coaches mentioned above coaches at a school that gets maximum exposure on TV--they have lucrative TV contracts. Now the money from these contracts is one thing, but the key ingredient is what it does for recruiting. Every player in this country who thinks he has a chance to make it in the NBA craves face time on TV because he knows his talent means nothing if it is not displayed and recognized in everybody's living room. With 5 games on Channel 11 as his calling card, Brad is at a HUGE disadvantage in recruiting the 4 and 5 star players, because they for sure think that TV will pave the golden path. It is no coincidence that the teams left in the Tournament were all on ESPN or Fox many more times than the Bills were on Channel 11. Sure Brad, or any future SLU coach, can rise above this and create a team that forces the TV market to pay attention, but I can almost guarantee you that the market would choose to show a Kentucky team that is 10 and 10 before they would show a 20 and 0 SLU team. It's the greedy nature of the beast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 >>>well... maybe what separates SLU and schools like Gonzaga, >>>Marquette, etc.... are the expectations. we deserve better. >> >>What is not pointed out ....is several things....take >>Marquette and Gonzaga for just one example...the coaches >>there had TO WIN FIRST in order to get their money...in >>order to get their updated facilities etc....They are >>example of coaches who can initially do more with less. >>While it would be nice if SLU had a greater commitment to >>win in hoops and made things easier on its coach, it does >>NOThave to be the case. Marquette has increased and >>extended Crean many times because his name came up for jobs >>every year....in order to keep him...Crean himself lobbied >>high dollar donors for new facilities, he as the head coach >>built relationships with people like Dick Strong of Strong >>Funds....etc...and so on... >> >>The kool-aid drinking ....no one is ever allowed to hold >Brad accounatble group or poor Brad he doesn't have a school >>commitment to win group.....conveniently leave ouyt examples >>of schools similar to SLU who succeed in Athletics and >>academics and do so in hoops with coaches who can do more >>with less initially. Brad has shown he has not been capable >>of that. Many aren't capable....however there are plenty >>who are.... >> >>Even schools who are not as comparable to SLU....Billy >>Donovan won first, then got paid more...then 5 years later >>received updated facilities etc... >> >>sLU definitely needs more of a commtment to win in men's >>hoops....but Brad has as equally failed to succeed as a >>coach to this point. > >There is one ingredient you fail to mention: TV. It is no >coincidence that every one of the coaches mentioned above >coaches at a school that gets maximum exposure on TV--they >have lucrative TV contracts. Now the money from these >contracts is one thing, but the key ingredient is what it >does for recruiting. Every player in this country who >thinks he has a chance to make it in the NBA craves face >time on TV because he knows his talent means nothing if it >is not displayed and recognized in everybody's living room. >With 5 games on Channel 11 as his calling card, Brad is at a >HUGE disadvantage in recruiting the 4 and 5 star players, >because they for sure think that TV will pave the golden >path. It is no coincidence that the teams left in the >Tournament were all on ESPN or Fox many more times than the >Bills were on Channel 11. Sure Brad, or any future SLU >coach, can rise above this and create a team that forces the >TV market to pay attention, but I can almost guarantee you >that the market would choose to show a Kentucky team that is >10 and 10 before they would show a 20 and 0 SLU team. It's >the greedy nature of the beast. What you failed to mention.....Neither Gonzaga nor Marquette had the tv deals that they have now. Marquette was playing in SLU's league. Again, other coaches have done more with less, other coaches haven't...Brad has fallen into the latter category. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 >>>>well... maybe what separates SLU and schools like Gonzaga, >>>>Marquette, etc.... are the expectations. we deserve better. >>> >>>What is not pointed out ....is several things....take >>>Marquette and Gonzaga for just one example...the coaches >>>there had TO WIN FIRST in order to get their money...in >>>order to get their updated facilities etc....They are >>>example of coaches who can initially do more with less. >>>While it would be nice if SLU had a greater commitment to >>>win in hoops and made things easier on its coach, it does >>>NOThave to be the case. Marquette has increased and >>>extended Crean many times because his name came up for jobs >>>every year....in order to keep him...Crean himself lobbied >>>high dollar donors for new facilities, he as the head coach >>>built relationships with people like Dick Strong of Strong >>>Funds....etc...and so on... >>> >>>The kool-aid drinking ....no one is ever allowed to hold >Brad accounatble group or poor Brad he doesn't have a school >>>commitment to win group.....conveniently leave ouyt examples >>>of schools similar to SLU who succeed in Athletics and >>>academics and do so in hoops with coaches who can do more >>>with less initially. Brad has shown he has not been capable >>>of that. Many aren't capable....however there are plenty >>>who are.... >>> >>>Even schools who are not as comparable to SLU....Billy >>>Donovan won first, then got paid more...then 5 years later >>>received updated facilities etc... >>> >>>sLU definitely needs more of a commtment to win in men's >>>hoops....but Brad has as equally failed to succeed as a >>>coach to this point. >> >>There is one ingredient you fail to mention: TV. It is no >>coincidence that every one of the coaches mentioned above >>coaches at a school that gets maximum exposure on TV--they >>have lucrative TV contracts. Now the money from these >>contracts is one thing, but the key ingredient is what it >>does for recruiting. Every player in this country who >>thinks he has a chance to make it in the NBA craves face >>time on TV because he knows his talent means nothing if it >>is not displayed and recognized in everybody's living room. >>With 5 games on Channel 11 as his calling card, Brad is at a >>HUGE disadvantage in recruiting the 4 and 5 star players, >>because they for sure think that TV will pave the golden >>path. It is no coincidence that the teams left in the >>Tournament were all on ESPN or Fox many more times than the >>Bills were on Channel 11. Sure Brad, or any future SLU >>coach, can rise above this and create a team that forces the >>TV market to pay attention, but I can almost guarantee you >>that the market would choose to show a Kentucky team that is >>10 and 10 before they would show a 20 and 0 SLU team. It's >>the greedy nature of the beast. > > >What you failed to mention.....Neither Gonzaga nor Marquette >had the tv deals that they have now. Marquette was playing >in SLU's league. Again, other coaches have done more with >less, other coaches haven't...Brad has fallen into the >latter category. They've always had better TV deals than the Bills have now. The Bills have even had better TV deals than they have now. They recruited Tommie and Kevin and Luke when they had a better TV deal--no coincidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yes but is the tv deal now supposed to wipe away Brad's previous seasons as head coach and assistant at SLU? I do agree with overall value and importance of tv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 A great deal of the Bills current TV problem fall in the lap of the piss poor excuse for A10 Commish Ms Linda Bruno. I was at a recent Alum function in FL and I was advised by a Sr. SLU Representative that this will either change very soon or SLU would view other league options. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 >A great deal of the Bills current TV problem fall in the lap >of the piss poor excuse for A10 Commish Ms Linda Bruno. I >was at a recent Alum function in FL and I was advised by a >Sr. SLU Representative that this will either change very >soon or SLU would view other league options. A lot of it is on Levick....she brings strong experience to her position and she did her homework Schasz...it is up to her to get things done on SLU's behalf...I just hope she doesn't have a heart attack or leave before she gets more freedom and support from Biondi. Apparently that has been an issue so far. SLU is generally slow and late to everything....Levick is not that way....we'll see what she does or doesn't do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 No. And no one said it does. It just certainly makes his mountain one hell of a lot more difficult to climb. Remember, the players Brad recruited at Wisconsin made it to a Final Four. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 >No. And no one said it does. It just certainly makes his >mountain one hell of a lot more difficult to climb. >Remember, the players Brad recruited at Wisconsin made it to >a Final Four. Remember they were coached by Dick Bennett and not Brad...and remember that team finished 6th in the Big 10 that year. But I will credit Brad for that as success for him in his career outside of SLU. Unfortunately Brad did not have any D-1 head experience other than one year and zero D-1 assistant expereince outside of Wisconsin which doesn't help him with recruiting now. His previous relationships were there, and that hasn't helped him at SLU with kids. Brad will be judged on what he does at SLU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrKnowItAll Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 there are schools that get almost no tv time and still manage to make a tournament just about every year (and gets recognized).... and THEN, that particular school starts getting regular season tv time (just look at the missouri valley). why should any network put us in a national time slot? the past two seasons, we were blown out by unc on national television. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STLfan Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 And two consecutive trips to the tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Am continually amazed at how many posters still hold UB unaccountable for his record at SLU. Biondi, TV, the A-10, cell phone bills, West Pine, loss of the school jet, blah ...blah... blah...blah. Meanwhile, we are looking back at two years of dismal recruiting and not enough player development that have resulted in 3 years of mediocrity. When is enough enough? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taj79 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Call it what you want ... D-Day, National Letter of Intent Day, Salvation Day, whatever. And I've explained why in previous posts. Of course, let's remember to be careful what you asked for. Count me in the camp that does not see some hotshot, up-and-coming coach saying "Um, Saint Louis University, that's where I want to be." If we do indeed fire Soderberg, what will his next job be? Division II? Division III? NAIA? Nothing? In any case, he is not "moving on up" as the old Jefferson's theme song used to say. Add another coach's career on the dung heap of college basketball that is life after St. Louis University. So what we will have is another fact-enforcing moment that screams "Go to SLU, fail, and get out of basketball for good." Isn't this an anti-anthem to the young-and-coming coach. Doesn't the track record support this conclusion? If so, why would you want to take this on when there are other better things to do? I know I wouldn't. So I believe the next coming is in sight for those of you expressing the impatience. Then, it will start over again and you guys will all start screaming all over when another two or three years of mediocrity sink in again. Because it will take some time for the new guy toe stablish himself as well. BOHICA! Bend Over -- Here It Comes Again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 That's a pretty depressing scenario/forecast, Taj Mahal '79. First, Zo didn't end up on the "dung heap" of college basketball, neither did Spoon. The supposedly biggest obstacle to SLU hoops will be removed in another year, and I really don't think the fact that SLU's coaches have to pay their own cell phone bills or buy their own ice cream cones will impede recruits from coming here. UB's current test has started. Does he land the needed help in the next 45-60 days to move this team forward in 07-08'? Pretty dicey situation, but he's the one that landed himself in it. What will CL think if he brings in another group of HD's and Obi's this spring? One has to wonder if he hasn't already been told no more "risky project types"? If you were his boss, wouldn't you be telling him that, since it's a waste of resources, both academic, and in Obi's case, medical, we can't afford them. There are good coaches out there, whether they be BCS assistants, mid major HC's, or NBA assistants looking to make their mark. As sure as the sun comes up tomorrow, you will read about them next year in SI. In the event UB gets the pink slip, it's CL's job to find one of them and convince him he can win here. No, we're not going to land a high profile BCS guy like UK or UM will, but to think we can't have a coach who can recruit and then coach and develop his recruits is a line of thinking I'm not buying. If you do, you might as well pick a successful program in your local neighborhood to cheer on. You have two of the best in GU and MD. Scrap your Billiken stuff and head on down to Dick's for your new hats and tee shirts. But, I'm not giving up my Billiken head cover....it looks too good in the bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Pointing out other problems with the program is not defending UB. Pointing out that SLU will never be on the same level as Arkansas year in and year out is not defending UB. Pointing out that the staff cell phone bill is paid out of UB's compensation instead AD budget is not defending the job UB has done over the last 12 months. I gave Brad one of the lowest letter grades of anybody on here for his performance over the past 12 months. Just because SLU will never be what Arkansas should be in basketball doesn't mean you have low expectations. Gonzaga, Marquette, Georgetown, St Johns, and Villanova have never been the program that Arkansas was and should be. These schools have all had success but never the sustained level of success over decades that Arkansas has had. They will never have that kind of success. Arkansas and other programs with football at BCS conferences have too many built in advantages. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think AK had all that much success prior to NRichardson showing up on campus. The Razorbacks were a football school first and foremost. Hoops kind of filled in until they got back on their cleated feet, so to say. Anyone on this board would chomp of their right arm for the success Villanova, Marquette, Zaga, and Georgetown have had. Which I think is more sustained than AK. You are right we are never going to be a BCS power. We don't need to be, nor do I think we want to be. But we sure wouldn't mind joining the ranks of those Catholic schools you mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 without looking, sutton had arkansas in the final four. arkansas has a history. btw, heath was one of those cant miss high profile assts you all think is the end all answer. he couldnt succeed (in arkansas mind) at arkansas with all that tradition built in facilitites and staff of an sec football school. starting over. i hope the razorbacks choke on it. 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.