slu72 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 is the question here. What comes first the money or the on the court success? We obvioulsy blew it during the Spoon years. the money had to be rolling in, attendance in the 17,000 range, TV deal, NCAA money. That would have been the time to start pouring in the bucks, ala Marquette after the final 4 run. So we now need some success to get more funds, but we won't get it from the current HC. I think the resolution of course is a new guy after next year, unless by some miracle, UB pulls a rabbit(s) out of his hat this spring, fall, and next season. While we won't get a big name, we should get the best damn BCS AC or lesser conference HC we can. Someone who can sell pop-sickles to eskimos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Well the university has already made a big investment in the arena project. I realize that it is ultimately going to be paid through donations and self-generated revenue; however, the university is taking the risk of fronting the money. Why not double down and front the money for a bigger-time coach than Brad? A $1 million sure doesn't buy what it did a few years ago, but it could certainly buy a top college assistant with a proven recruiting record and reputation. (Marquette did this by building a new facility and paying top dollar to retain Crean.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I think he judge the talent right on Grimes v. Shaw. I think Grimes would be a complete monster in Lowery's system. His mistake was not realizing he didn't have a shot at Grimes. He should have been going after Shaw at the beginning with the intensity he was going after Grimes. That was his mistake in Grimes v. Shaw. Also I don't believe switching from the pack would have helped that much overall with getting torched from the outside. Even in a zone someone would have still had to help Luke on defense. Next year he will have to be willing to go away from the pack because the personal on the team will demand it. If he doesn't, it will be a log season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Excuses are just that - excuses/rationalizations. Nobody wants to hear why you can not succeed - they want to hear that you will succeed. If you are an above avg. coach/recruiter you can succeed at SLU. If you are avg then with all things being equal it will be 50/50. It is not too much to hope that the boss hires above avg employees. Afterall if all the boss did was shoot for avg employees then the organization would never excel. The real questions here are - is Brad an avg coach/recruiter or an above avg. one? - is Brad running in place as far as his professional growth goes in this area or is starting to improve and turn the corner? This spring and fall along with next season will give the answers. By the way just because a reason comes late to the argument does not make the reason any less important in a discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 When I refer to evaluting Shaw v. Grimes I do it in the context of the likelihood of landing each one. I wouldn't have replaced the pack D with a zone when we were getting burned outside. Instead, I would have had SLU's guards face guard the opponent's outside shooters in a man-to-man system. Brad actually had one or two of his guards do this a few times at the very end of the season. I frankly don't understand the use of the pack d in today's guard-driven college game. You are limiting your fast break opportunities and giving up open jumpers from the outside for the purpose of limiting interior penetration and post play. By playing face defense on the outside (i.e., Spoon's system), you can drive guards away from the hoop, limit open jumbers from the outside, and force the big men away from the basket. The risk is increased penetration, but with a shot blocker like Bryce or Ian on the interior this risk can be negated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 moytoy, the size and scope of experience for the entire athletic dept would not necessarily reflect in the basketball budget. for example, siu has about 3x as many strength and conditioning personnell as slu. that of course is due to the football team and the fact they have more total athletes in the school. yet those strength and conditioning folks all have the ability to work with the basketball team. again, i had no idea the numbers for the overall athletic dept were so far behind the norm of our expectations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 he claimed on the air that stemler told him he was ready to go to slu right up until the indiana visit. i do not think he would lie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I agree with you on the overall use of the pack. I don't like it. Especailly when you state that you want to get out and push the ball on offense. It is a hinderance to your stated goal. I think overall the reason for the oppenents ability to shoot from the outside was greatly enhanced by the help Luke required on defense. It would have happened in any defense they would have played this past season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 very few coaches switch defenses as you suggest brad shoulda done. for example, i have never seen bobby knight play anything but a very similar (to the pack defense) man to man in his entire career. i never saw denny crum not play a full court zone trap that would drop back to a man to man after crossing half court. you never see jim boeheim play anything but his terribly generous 2-3 zone. the truth is brad switched defenses more last year than most coaches switch in a lifetime. if you want to fault anyone when we were getting torched, you need to question why liddell and lisch werent getting out sooner to get a hand in the shooters face sooner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 davidnark said, "Well the university has already made a big investment in the arena project. I realize that it is ultimately going to be paid through donations and self-generated revenue; however, the university is taking the risk of fronting the money." what risk? they more or less will get a loan for the money not donated thus far and pay it back with the revenues from the income from building events. other than donating a shut down grades school, and unused tennis courts, i fail to see the big investment. now if you tell me that the school is paying cash out of the general fund to build the arena and will pay back the fund out of future revenues, that is "fronting money". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 "By the way just because a reason comes late to the argument does not make the reason any less important in a discussion." Agreed. But the motivation for providing such a reason can be called into question since this reason should have been so glaringly obvious before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUSER Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 Roy Roy Roy....what did you just post? Bobby Knight's man man is successful Denny Crum's D, also a success. Jim Boeheim, guess what, is a success. This is why they NEVER changed anything. Brad's defense, not a success. Good one, blame the poor defense on lisch and liddell and not the fundamentals that Brad (supposedly) teaches at practice. EXCUSE #???? When something doesn't work, you use a different approach. you make ADJUSTMENTS in the locker room at halftime. ever heard of this? seriously, roy, stop. give up. Oh, wait, Biondi is in the locker room at halftime doing the coaching. and cheryl levick is bringing the ball down the court. and the billiken club members who DON'T donate enough are setting up the "motion" offense. blame everyone else but the coach and the kids he recruits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inthelou Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 What part of my post don't you understand? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 10, 2007 Share Posted April 10, 2007 I am not privy to the financial details, but according to the university's information approximately $40 million will be funded by donations, which in mortgage-speak amounts to "equity." They started the project somewhether between $7 and $15 million short of this equity. Starting the project with this equity shortfall is a big risk for the university. They are also taking a signficant risk that the revenues generated from the project do not cover the financing expense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 >very few coaches switch defenses as you suggest brad shoulda >done. >the truth is brad switched defenses more last year than most >coaches switch in a lifetime. I think you are wrong. Both Romar and Spoon changed defenses regularly with great success. Plus, Brad's defense failed much of the year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 davidnark said, "I frankly don't understand the use of the pack d in today's guard-driven college game." if i was you i would ask bobby knight. since he plays the same defense, maybe he can tell you why he still utilizes it 99% of the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 i dont remember spoon ever playing anything but denial man to man and romar the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Then Brad shouldn't say he was to get out and push the ball on offense. Bobby Knight doesn't say that. The pack defense makes it much more difficult to do this. Run an offense that suits your defensive style then or how about this next year we just run any kind of offense. Brad really disappointed me this year with the offense. It was a mess. It reminded me of the last few years Of Quinn at MU. Very bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Go back and look at game tape. Spoon had his core defense and regularly made in-game adjustements (maybe for only a few series at a time) to outwit his opponent. I remember Romar doing the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 >Roy Roy Roy....what did you just post? > >Bobby Knight's man man is successful >Denny Crum's D, also a success. >Jim Boeheim, guess what, is a success. > >This is why they NEVER changed anything. Brad's defense, >not a success. Good one, blame the poor defense on lisch >and liddell and not the fundamentals that Brad (supposedly) >teaches at practice. > >EXCUSE #???? > >When something doesn't work, you use a different approach. >you make ADJUSTMENTS in the locker room at halftime. ever >heard of this? seriously, roy, stop. give up. > >Oh, wait, Biondi is in the locker room at halftime doing the >coaching. and cheryl levick is bringing the ball down the >court. and the billiken club members who DON'T donate >enough are setting up the "motion" offense. blame everyone >else but the coach and the kids he recruits. SLUSER is right about this, Soderberg failed to adjust many times, on offense and defense, the seasaon finale GW game was painfull to watch, no adjustments even at halftime, and we have all of those guards but couldn't beat the "trap". BUT I do not hold Soderberg to blame much for his recruiting, no BCS 4*-5* or even 3* recruit in his right mind would go to SLU for reasons out of his control. Now that Romar is at Wash, he get's McDonalds All Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 we increased our ppg by 6 ppg over last year and by 10 ppg over the year before that. are you inferring that knight's teams dont push the ball offensively? i wouldnt confuse a knight team with loyola marymount or the tark unlv teams, but i would call them a dean smith 4 corners team either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Do you think we are running an up-tempo offense? Do you think our offense looked efficient this past season? Roy, I am not one of the ones calling for Brad's head right now, but it is foolish to think that his last twelve months on the job have been good. 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.