SLUDrew Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 I was just looking over USA Today's Top 150 seniors which was just updated today, and I noticed that three were going to Gonzaga, two were going to Creighton, and two were going to Pepperdine. Other national powers represented were Montana, New Mexico St., and Texas El-Paso. Of course, most are going to BCS conferences, but it is clearly possible, with an effective recruiter, to get some of these kids to attend non-traditional powers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Gonzaga has a PE major. Look it up. You can go there and study to be a gym teacher, take "Roller Skating 101". Cannot do that at SLU, correct? But everyone says "if Gonzaga can do it..." SLU cannot ever get those key 2-3 guys into school that can provide muscle up front because they cannot hide them like MOST schools can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinfootes Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 and some of the ones you mentioned are football schools that aren't in BCS conferences. Thanks for the info! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUDrew Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 and no one said it would be easy to get these kids to commit to SLU. My point is that it can be done. Let's also be clear here; I am not saying Brad needs to fill every class with top 150 guys. A few sprinkled in now and then along with players that can compete in the A-10 would be nice, and critical if Brad is to build this program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 > > >Gonzaga has a PE major. > >Look it up. > >You can go there and study to be a gym teacher, take "Roller >Skating 101". > >Cannot do that at SLU, correct? > >But everyone says "if Gonzaga can do it..." > >SLU cannot ever get those key 2-3 guys into school that can >provide muscle up front because they cannot hide them like >MOST schools can. It never ceases to amaze me...it just won't end. So why did Marquette succeed? Or the many others I mentioned. Will people just stop with the academic excuse? If you want to come back daily and post it, I will come back and post why it is not a legit excuse for SLU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Today, you can not get a PE degree by taking "cake walk" classes. That is why you see so players getting degrees Rec degrees, Hotel Mang. degrees and Communications degrees. SLU does have the Communications degree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Courtside: The academic issue IS a factor, not the ONLY factor, but a big one in their situation: no PE / cake courses. Obviously, a west coast McDonalds All American would take Stanford (Pac-10 / BCS, football school, superior campus, superior athletic facilities, winning tradition, California weather, etc.) over SLU. BUT when we need a few muscle kids to compement V, TL, and KL, we cannot get 'em. Wouldn't a certain 6'9" 260lb. power forward at Mizzou have looked good at SLU the last 2 yrs, just what we needed. He is studying to be a "personal trainer". JC transfers? No chance. It is tough getting out of the hole, and SLU is in deep trouble. Would be nice if a few power forwards could get in to help the big three, now the big two. Yep, Stanford and Vandy (SEC) and a few others have made it... but they have other advantages as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 who was our last "communications" major on the basketball team? if it is a pass through, we havent used it as such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 courtside, why not just admit that academics is an issue? It is not the only one, but it is an issue. The examples you gave included Vanderbilt, Villanova, and Georgetown. They are good comparisons; but 1. They are in major conferences; and 2. Each of these prgrams have had serious difficulties fielding competitive teams over a decade or longer period of time. Georgetown is terrific and may win the championship this year; but they were not that great just a few years back. And since when has Vanderbilt been that competitive? -- pretty recent developmet there. Villanova has had some success, obviously --but also many down years. Mainly I agree -- despite our academics we need to compete as regularly as possible. But clearly our academics will mean that many potential recruits are eliminated --which is true as well for Vanderbilt, Villanova, and Georgetown. Academics is an issue -- --which is true as well for Vanderbilt, Villanova, and Georgetown. Perhaps they just do a better job dealing with it than we, do, but it is still an issue there, just like here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhiteHall_Billiken Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Gonzaga- Mark Few Creighton- Dana Altman Pepperdine- Vance Walberg New Mexico St.- Reggie Theus Montana, UTEP-??? At the non BCS schools the coach along with other items have to standout. Academics can be a roadblock, but top 150 recruits want to play for these four coaches. I am not anti-Brad...I like Coach Sodorberg but I just don't think he has or will ever have a national reputation. We have to successfully recruit the area and mix that with middle of the road recruits from the midwest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 > >courtside, why not just admit that academics is an issue? >It is not the only one, but it is an issue. > >The examples you gave included Vanderbilt, Villanova, and >Georgetown. They are good comparisons; but > >1. They are in major conferences; and > >2. Each of these prgrams have had serious difficulties >fielding competitive teams over a decade or longer period of >time. Georgetown is terrific and may win the championship >this year; but they were not that great just a few years >back. And since when has Vanderbilt been that competitive? >-- pretty recent developmet there. Villanova has had some >success, obviously --but also many down years. > >Mainly I agree -- despite our academics we need to compete >as regularly as possible. But clearly our academics will >mean that many potential recruits are eliminated --which is >true as well for Vanderbilt, Villanova, and Georgetown. > >Academics is an issue -- --which is true as well for >Vanderbilt, Villanova, and Georgetown. Perhaps they just do >a better job dealing with it than we, do, but it is still an >issue there, just like here. First and foremost one has to agree on a definition of "success." Georgetown's few "down" years are more of the exception in recent modern history for them than the norm. 20 NCAA's in 27 years for JT 2. Immediate success for JT 3. and in between, Esherick was mixed but did recruit Jeff Green and Roy Hibbert(pretty good thing for G-Town)...and the titles, Final Fours, league titles etc...etc...pretty sustained to me. Stanford, 12 NCAA's in 18 years under Montgomery...1 seeds, Final Four, leagues titles....etc...things are looking up for them as possible lottery pick Lopez will return next year. ...Vanderbilt has always been competitive under Newton, Fogler, etc...check your history professor. More up years than down for Nova, and if Wright stays, nothing but up again with monster recruiting class...they were a 1 seed last year, Lappas went to NCAA's 4-5 times prior to his arrival. Marquette has a history of success from past decades to its recent years and only looking up and up for them. We keep going down the list of successful programs and teams. As long as plenty of other schools are competitive and successful, including non major conference schools, I won't tolerate the academic excuse. There are plenty of talented players out there who can handle passing test scores, a low 2 gpa or much better at SLU and stay eligible to compete in basketball. If you want to say perhaps a number of other schools do a much better job of competing despite similar or tougher academic constraints as SLU, fine...which makes the excuse pretty flimsy overall at SLU. The issue was academics...and you tried to move the issue to conference stature.(an entirely different topic and thread) Those are two different issues doc. And, a couple of things with that...Marquette did just fine with it prior to Big East. And Vanderbilt, Stanford, etc...one could argue have it much tougher in such rugged conferences because of academics, and yet they still compete. You are also making the assumption that most of the other schools are "hiding" players or that kids not at smaller private schools automatically are taking an easier path, and that is not a an across the board assumption I would make either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUDrew Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 I refuse to accept that SLU cannot recruit as wide of a geographic area as Creighton. Brad has been at SLU a much shorter period than Altman has been at Creighton, but before Brad was at SLU he was at Wisconsin so he should have plenty of midwest ties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 >Gonzaga- Mark Few >Creighton- Dana Altman >Pepperdine- Vance Walberg >New Mexico St.- Reggie Theus > >Montana, UTEP-??? > >At the non BCS schools the coach along with other items have >to standout. > >Academics can be a roadblock, but top 150 recruits want to >play for these four coaches. > >I am not anti-Brad...I like Coach Sodorberg but I just don't >think he has or will ever have a national reputation. Recruits outside the Midwest weren't coming to Creighton until the last few years either but I see your point. When you look at the success level of offensively conservative, plain-talking mid-major coaches Altman is probably the upside of what Brad can be. The downside is someone like Barry Hinson. The truth is probably somewhere in between. 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.