Nate Latsch Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 >oh i will read. it is posters like yourself that are >dangerous. you have credibility because of your job and >your love of high school basketball. so your OPINION reads >like fact to others. i most certainly would opine on any >issues i would have with your opinions you post. > >the posters i dont read or those that have no credibility >and come off as fools more than anything. Please enlighten me and point out my opinions from the post that started this thread. There's only one person coming off as a fool here, and it's not me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 why you are so hostile towards Nate. Your conspiracy theory about his anti-SLU agenda hasn't been supported by Nate's posts. Your posts in this thread seemed to be nothing more than unsolicited cheap shots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Latsch Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 >why you are so hostile towards Nate. Your conspiracy theory >about his anti-SLU agenda hasn't been supported by Nate's >posts. Your posts in this thread seemed to be nothing more >than unsolicited cheap shots. According to Roy I am trying to bring down all of Billikens basketball. I was envious of Brad Soderberg and was trying to ruin his career by saying he didn't do a very good job recruiting. Also, I wanted Soderberg to waste his valuable recruiting time by watching St. Louis area high school basketball players. I'm sure I was responsible for most of the Billikens losses in the past season. Not all of them, but most definitely the losses to Duquesne, Fordham and Houston. If I had never posted here, the Billikens would be champions of the world — not just the NCAA tourney, but also the NBA and Olympics. I am sorry for all the pain I have caused Billiken fandom. - Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 >>why you are so hostile towards Nate. Your conspiracy theory >>about his anti-SLU agenda hasn't been supported by Nate's >>posts. Your posts in this thread seemed to be nothing more >>than unsolicited cheap shots. > >According to Roy I am trying to bring down all of Billikens >basketball. > >I was envious of Brad Soderberg and was trying to ruin his >career by saying he didn't do a very good job recruiting. > >Also, I wanted Soderberg to waste his valuable recruiting >time by watching St. Louis area high school basketball >players. > >I'm sure I was responsible for most of the Billikens losses >in the past season. Not all of them, but most definitely the >losses to Duquesne, Fordham and Houston. > >If I had never posted here, the Billikens would be champions >of the world — not just the NCAA tourney, but also the NBA >and Olympics. > >I am sorry for all the pain I have caused Billiken fandom. > >- Nate That's a long line that you are in Nate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 That's all he had to say. Now i understand the hostility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 siu at home and missouri state on the road. i would assume pacific will come here and loyola as well if they were two game series deals. other than that, i dont think there any ooc games that can be assumed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 my above statement "it is posters like yourself that are >dangerous. you have credibility because of your job and >your love of high school basketball. so your OPINION reads >like fact to others. i most certainly would opine on any >issues i would have with your opinions you post." wasnt necessarily about the post that started this string. it was a statement about all your posts and why i open your posts. you arent even making sense now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Latsch Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 >my above statement > >"it is posters like yourself that are >>dangerous. you have credibility because of your job and >>your love of high school basketball. so your OPINION reads >>like fact to others. i most certainly would opine on any >>issues i would have with your opinions you post." > >wasnt necessarily about the post that started this string. >it was a statement about all your posts and why i open your >posts. > >you arent even making sense now. So you are going to trash me every time I make a post and claim I am making stuff up? OK. Got it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 nate has consistently posted this past year information about our staff not recruiting some low ranked suburban players that he thinks would fit our team. he also has insinuated that soderberg did not work hard because he didnt see him at those same suburban players games. that to me is a slap at our program. first off, a lot of those players were/are not ones that would elevate our team. and while it is indeed a fact we ended the year with a short roster, i sure dont want to jam it up for four years with players that are western illinois or austin peay quality players either. second, the ncaa rules state that a coaching staff can only see so many player views per year. to assume that coach soderberg and his staff will utilize those views on just the local players would be stupid imo. he has consistently went out of his way it seems to only post negatively about our efforts. for example he posts we should be viewing signing the kid from borgia. yet did he ever give soderberg credit for flying to philly and closing the deal with relephorde? or how about mitchell? how about mantas? all are better than most of the seniors in st louis that nate wanted him to be viewing. yet no credit was given to that only negative about not viewing those lower level players. hey if nate wants to come here and be positive about our efforts i am fine. or if even he is fair about the true full picture i am fine. but imo he hasnt been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Nate, While you were at it, how did you forget that St. Bonnie's loss. Surely, you stabbed your Billiken Voodoo doll that night too as that was a terrible loss and there had to be some divine intervention that night. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Roy, Evidently, Brad's top superior must not have thought he was doing such a hot job on the recruiting trails either...I mean he did get pink slipped and a good part of it had to do with p!ss poor recruiting...otherwise he would still be coaching SLU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 nate, tell the whole story not just your slant and i got no problem with your posts. but if everyone believed your b.s. .... well lets not forget, nate likes langdon shipley more than kevin lisch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Frank C., as some recruits verified, stated that Sodie didn't work hard enough. I don't know enough about the players to say who is better, but isn't everyone entitled to their opinion about who would be better for the program? No one has any evidence that Sodie and his staff did or did not utilize all of his views. Any arguments, either way, based on such an unknown fact seem silly. It sounds like you have a personal issue with nate. Why haven't you dogged Billikan just as much for only giving one side of the story? Or any of us who have been more negative than positive in our views? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 brad's "piss poor recruiting" increased our win totals in each of the last two seasons and won 20 games for the first time in 10 years. sure there were issues with his recruiting, but soderberg isnt the coach anymore because he alienated the wrong people with the right connections and those same people knew we had a chance to better ourselves with the likes of majerus. in the long run, i totally agree with the end result. hey we got probably one of the ten most celebrated college coaches in the game. it was a fantastic move and will elevate the billikens to a level that we havent seen since the late 40's on a national scale imo. but do any of you honestly think that recruiting the leading scorer from borgia or st charles was going to better the billikens? that is what nate wanted soderberg to do. now if nate is consistent, he will want majerus to do the same, because according to nate, that would better the billikens. that is my b!tch with nate. he has consistently chastized us for not chasing those low end recruits and now majerus wont recruit them either and i am betting we wont hear a peep from nate now about those missed opportunities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Latsch Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 http://uk.gizmodo.com/baby,crying,tantrum-thumb.jpg Roy, Again. You're making stuff up to fit your agenda. Go back and find my posts about who I recommended the Billikens should look at. Are you talking about the 6-foot-9, 250-pound post player who can rebound, pass and block shots ... or the athletic 6-1 guard who can shoot the 3 and is among the best students in his class and good enough to go to SLU on an academic scholarship? Oh, the horror. But yet the Billikens do offer a scholarship to Anthony Mitchell and he suddenly becomes O.J. Mayo? Must be lots of rainbows and pretty colors in Roy_Land. You don't want to jam up the roster with four-year players who are Western Illinois or Austin Peay quality? What do you think Bryce Husak, Dustin Maguire and Anthony Mitchell are, McDonald's All-Americans? I've posted plenty of positive things here over the years. Don't forget I got trashed on this board for writing in the P-D that Luke Meyer had a scholarship offer. The response was NO WAY. THAT COULD NEVER HAPPEN. WE'RE TOO GOOD FOR LUKE MEYER AT SLU. You're ticked off because you want me to make up things and be overly positive like some of the other media people in town. I DON'T COLLECT A CHECK FROM THE UNIVERSITY OR HAVE A JOB THAT'S IMPACTED BY SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY. Funny how those folks changed their tune after Soderberg was fired. Go back and look at my posts about how I commended Soderberg for going after kids who he saw as up-and-coming prospects. You only see what you want to see in my posts, Roy. I have been very fair in my posts here. - Nate >nate has consistently posted this past year information >about our staff not recruiting some low ranked suburban >players that he thinks would fit our team. > >he also has insinuated that soderberg did not work hard >because he didnt see him at those same suburban players >games. > >that to me is a slap at our program. > >first off, a lot of those players were/are not ones that >would elevate our team. and while it is indeed a fact we >ended the year with a short roster, i sure dont want to jam >it up for four years with players that are western illinois >or austin peay quality players either. > >second, the ncaa rules state that a coaching staff can only >see so many player views per year. to assume that coach >soderberg and his staff will utilize those views on just the >local players would be stupid imo. > >he has consistently went out of his way it seems to only >post negatively about our efforts. for example he posts we >should be viewing signing the kid from borgia. yet did he >ever give soderberg credit for flying to philly and closing >the deal with relephorde? or how about mitchell? how about >mantas? all are better than most of the seniors in st louis >that nate wanted him to be viewing. yet no credit was given >to that only negative about not viewing those lower level >players. > >hey if nate wants to come here and be positive about our >efforts i am fine. or if even he is fair about the true >full picture i am fine. but imo he hasnt been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 moytoy said, "Why haven't you dogged Billikan just as much for only giving one side of the story? Or any of us who have been more negative than positive in our views?" no denying it. i love homers for the billikens. as to the rest of you, the difference is the preceived credibility. it was easy to see that folks were taking nates OPINION as fact because of his reporter posiition i guess. if he tells both sides hey i am fine with it. but like i said above, he didnt and imo was making the billikens worse than the truth. second, i think if you think about it moytoy, you will remember i have encountered plenty of the naysayers on their opinions as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 nate, better go check the records, i have never done any cartwheels for bryce or dustin. and because soderberg made that mistake before you want him to continue to make the same mistake? that makes no sense. as to luke, you can go back and check that as well, you didnt hear anything negative about luke from me when he signed at slu. anthony mitchell has far more potential than the kid that couldnt get an athletic scholarship. i would be willing to bet in four years mitchell will have had a better college career than your boy langdon as well. i dont want you to make up anything. but i do want you to present the fair picture. you attack slu for not seeing enough games, yet you know that there is a limit to the number of views a coaching staff can do in a 12 month period. you apparently wanted them to use those views on these sub standard suburban kids. the truth is i dont know of any of them in this senior class that ended up better than slu for next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastSide Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 I would like to see Texas next year. Gotta love beating a Texan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Latsch Posted May 2, 2007 Author Share Posted May 2, 2007 >anthony mitchell has far more potential than the kid that >couldnt get an athletic scholarship. i would be willing to >bet in four years mitchell will have had a better college >career than your boy langdon as well. We already made that milkshake bet, but apparently you forgot that. This senior class wasn't very good, but there were a couple players who could have helped the Billikens. Please drop the same tired arguments about Josh Harrellson signing with the No. 521st best Division I team, "Langdon" Shipley and "sub standard suburban kids." It really shows you have no idea what you're talking about. - Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 There were over 100 D-1 teams that won 20 games last year, so your point is??? Frankly, of the 20 won there were not enough quality wins to get us a post season game. So if you are thrilled with Brad's recruiting after Lisch and Liddell then I am going to guess you are in a minority. Someone correct me if I am wrong but I know I have read that one of the criticisms was that Soderberg was not following up with recruits from the rich Jr. class. Sounds to me like his superiors were worried we would see more of the same when it came to the recent recruiting shortfalls under Soderberg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 This thread is not about which team you would like to see but which teams might actually be on the schedule. I thought last year there was some talk of a home and home series with Miami U. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 i never said i was thrilled, but i was far more than in a mood to label it "p!ss poor". let's not forget that soderberg, romar, spoon, grawer, none had the program upgrades that majerus just got. i just think i would have rather heard who or what soderberg was doing as opposed to nate constantly telling us what he wasnt doing. for instance, we know for a fact that soderberg spent a lot of time in the fall recruiting mike kelly, jacob pullen, zac sweeney and the alexander kid. we never heard details about those "visits" from nate. instead he wanted to tell us that soderberg was not visiting josh harrelson and paul eckerle and how the likes of them would help the billikens. same with the winter time period. we know for a fact he was recruiting relephorde and mitchell who are both superior players to nates bunch. plus we know he continued to recruit alexander, added mantas, eberhardt, pettigrew, and peterson. all again superior players to the suburban players nate continued to tell us we werent recruiting. we also know that soderberg got relephorde and mitchell, and came extremely close on alexander, pettigrew and peterson and still had the attention of mantas and eberhardt up to his firing. add in that he was continuing to recruit the "brad five" as the naysayers liked to call the junior class plus griffey, to say he wasnt doing anything was obviously wrong. now if you want to say he wasnt winning enough, fine. but dont come here and tell us about who he isnt recruiting or insinuating the staff wasnt working hard. that is pure b.s. but please tell me the last time we had nate tell us who brad was recruiting instead of who he wasnt? he wants to tell us that because of this we should be assured that is proof that the billikens coaches were not working hard. the truth might be a lot different. there are limits to the number of contacts a coach can have both specifically for a recruit and in general. what if the coach visited the practice of a player on weds night. by ncaa rule he cannot attend that players game on friday night. if i was a player, i would be more impressed he came to my practice where he was up close and personal than sitting in the crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majerus Magic Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 That deal fell apart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 how does that show i dont know what i am talking about? imo, it appears to me the fact you apparently didnt know that brad was recruiting relephorde, mitchell, eberhardt, pettigrew, peterson, alexander, and mantas that maybe you didnt. and before you say it, if you are going to come back and tell us that you did know that slu was recruiting those kids, then why didnt you tell us that instead of who we werent recruiting. i ask you, what is the difference in what you were doing and what vtime does. basically vtime is our city "we should be recruiting" guy and you are our suburban "we should be recruiting" guy. 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.