Question about open scholies

[slu72]

If the thread below about 4 scholies coming open in the spring, can we surmise that the AC's are pretty confident about signing Leverette, Guitterez, and Harrelson (if he's released from bondage)? Boy that would be a young team with some promise. Still would like to see them land a top rated JUCO pg in the spring. KM may be that good, but a big leap from HS ball to D1 ball especially at that position.

[p diddy]

If the thread below about 4 scholies coming open in the spring, can we surmise that the AC's are pretty confident about signing Leverette, Guitterez, and Harrelson (if he's released from bondage)? Boy that would be a young team with some promise. Still would like to see them land a top rated JUCO pg in the spring. KM may be that good, but a big leap from HS ball to D1 ball especially at that position.

Word on the street is that there was a junior college guard at the Loyola game on Wednesday night. He was either from moberly or three rivers. anybody have any info. i am out of town, so i didn't get to see who it was.

bad boyz for life

[Guest BillikenReport]

I wouldn't be too quick to assume the staff will sign Leverette and Gutierrez.

They might not get scholarship offers from SLU.

The guard at the game Wednesday was Chris Allen from Moberly Area CC. I'll have a story up on my site on him later.

I think you'll see a couple JUCOs to go with the freshmen who have already signed, though if you have several more spots available you could see some more high school kids.

[billiken_roy]

so andy, when will these open spots happen? i know if i was one of the players being kicked out the sooner i left the better. why finish the year when it will cost you a half a year eligibility at the new school where you will undoubtedly finally get to play?

strickland should fill us in on the time frame imo.

[mcglotherirvin]

roy - did you use the phrase "kicked out" when seyfert and the kid from wisconsin left during the soderberg era

so andy, when will these open spots happen? i know if i was one of the players being kicked out the sooner i left the better. why finish the year when it will cost you a half a year eligibility at the new school where you will undoubtedly finally get to play?

strickland should fill us in on the time frame imo.

[SLUDrew]

so andy, when will these open spots happen? i know if i was one of the players being kicked out the sooner i left the better. why finish the year when it will cost you a half a year eligibility at the new school where you will undoubtedly finally get to play?

strickland should fill us in on the time frame imo.

Roy, and I am not accusing you just trying to understand where you are coming from on this, are you insinuating that there is something wrong with Majerus being honest with these kids and telling them that they probably will never get minutes if they stay in the program? Why blow smoke? If these kids want to play ball, which obviously they do or they would not have accepted D-1 scholarships, isn't Majerus doing them a HUGE favor by being honest with them. Let's be honest, the most novice of fans can tell that Knollmeyer and Maguire do not belong at this level. Do you think Majerus is telling them anything they don't already know?

[kmbilliken]

I wouldn't be too quick to assume the staff will sign Leverette and Gutierrez.

They might not get scholarship offers from SLU.

The guard at the game Wednesday was Chris Allen from Moberly Area CC. I'll have a story up on my site on him later.

I think you'll see a couple JUCOs to go with the freshmen who have already signed, though if you have several more spots available you could see some more high school kids.

Who are Leverette and Gutierrez?

[slu72]

I wouldn't be too quick to assume the staff will sign Leverette and Gutierrez.

They might not get scholarship offers from SLU.

The guard at the game Wednesday was Chris Allen from Moberly Area CC. I'll have a story up on my site on him later.

I think you'll see a couple JUCOs to go with the freshmen who have already signed, though if you have several more spots available you could see some more high school kids.

From that report on Guitterez, he sounds like the type of player RM would like. Also has interest from TX and UNLV.

[SLU_Nick]

Who are Leverette and Gutierrez?

Does Leverette have an offer already.

Could someone summarize what the scout.com site thing said about him bc I am not an insider. I have followed Kenny play since he was in 6th grade (my brother played in O'Fallon with him and won the state championship in 8th grade). Kenny has never, never, been outplayed by anyone. Even in the championship game of state, last year, Derrick Rose deferred to their 6'8 PF for all the scoring. I am not saying that Rose wouldnt have killed Kenny if he tried, but I am just saying that it did not happen.

Kenny is not a pure scorer which I think is a positive in Majerus' system, he plays outstanding defense and is just a man among boys on the HS level. His strengths are passing, defense and athletism. He can dunk (that was for VEE) and really has great instincts around the goal. Four years under Majerus and he would be awesome bc he has good fundamentals but he has been able to do whatever he wants on the basketball floor without using good fundamentals, if that makes sense.

[slu72]

Roy, and I am not accusing you just trying to understand where you are coming from on this, are you insinuating that there is something wrong with Majerus being honest with these kids and telling them that they probably will never get minutes if they stay in the program? Why blow smoke? If these kids want to play ball, which obviously they do or they would not have accepted D-1 scholarships, isn't Majerus doing them a HUGE favor by being honest with them. Let's be honest, the most novice of fans can tell that Knollmeyer and Maguire do not belong at this level. Do you think Majerus is telling them anything they don't already know?

It seems some don't like the new attitude of the program, and I'm not saying B'roys one of them. I don't see the harm here either way, unless the kid is just dying to get a SLU degree. But in most cases where a kid takes a scholie he's more interested in keeping his hoops career alive for 4 more years, and that means playing in games. In the recent past we've had a lot of, for lack of a better term, deadwood riding the pines at SLU. It strikes me that RM wants more competitive practices, where the team gets more of a taste of game action and speed. You only improve when you "play up". You aren't going to get much better playing against kids that belong at Savannah State and SIU-Edwardsville.

[billiken_roy]

roy - did you use the phrase "kicked out" when seyfert and the kid from wisconsin left during the soderberg era

seyfert said he was homesick and it was reported that he came to soderberg extremely upset and wanting to leave.

if i would have heard the players now came to majerus and said they wanted to leave, then i wouldnt have said such. instead this strickland guy reports that majerus came to them. that is a little different.

mac, did you ever clarify for us why you left the billikens shorthanded in the middle of a game when you quit on the billikens? i know that was one of the most disappointing scenarios i have went through as a billiken fan.

[billiken_roy]

Roy, and I am not accusing you just trying to understand where you are coming from on this, are you insinuating that there is something wrong with Majerus being honest with these kids and telling them that they probably will never get minutes if they stay in the program? Why blow smoke? If these kids want to play ball, which obviously they do or they would not have accepted D-1 scholarships, isn't Majerus doing them a HUGE favor by being honest with them. Let's be honest, the most novice of fans can tell that Knollmeyer and Maguire do not belong at this level. Do you think Majerus is telling them anything they don't already know?

then let them make that decision on their own. i would have rather seen majerus deal with his existing talent, try to teach them and make them better and gradually bring in his players.

if the players of concern decide along the way that they would rather be elsewhere for whatever reason, then great, move on. just seems to me that wasnt the case. it was more about chasing players off.

the good news is that eventually and sooner rather than later, rickma has his players and then we are all on the same page and the program can survive without further game playing on anyone's part.

[billiken_roy]

Does Leverette have an offer already.

Could someone summarize what the scout.com site thing said about him bc I am not an insider. I have followed Kenny play since he was in 6th grade (my brother played in O'Fallon with him and won the state championship in 8th grade). Kenny has never, never, been outplayed by anyone. Even in the championship game of state, last year, Derrick Rose deferred to their 6'8 PF for all the scoring. I am not saying that Rose wouldnt have killed Kenny if he tried, but I am just saying that it did not happen.

Kenny is not a pure scorer which I think is a positive in Majerus' system, he plays outstanding defense and is just a man among boys on the HS level. His strengths are passing, defense and athletism. He can dunk (that was for VEE) and really has great instincts around the goal. Four years under Majerus and he would be awesome bc he has good fundamentals but he has been able to do whatever he wants on the basketball floor without using good fundamentals, if that makes sense.

i think kenny leaverette is a very good player, but i wouldnt go as far as to say he is a man amongst boys on the high school level. i would say kenny is a more fundamentally sound anthony mitchell. but i dont look at kenny when he plays and see oj mayo or derrick rose. that imo would be man amongst boys like.

[Pistol]

then let them make that decision on their own. i would have rather seen majerus deal with his existing talent, try to teach them and make them better and gradually bring in his players.

if the players of concern decide along the way that they would rather be elsewhere for whatever reason, then great, move on. just seems to me that wasnt the case. it was more about chasing players off.

the good news is that eventually and sooner rather than later, rickma has his players and then we are all on the same page and the program can survive without further game playing on anyone's part.

Roy is right about Seyfert. He left because of homesickness, went back to Montana, and played the rest of his career there. He made the decision close to the time where Romar decided to leave for Washington, but probably still would have left even if Romar stayed.

Soderberg publicly stated that he lived with his recruiting decisions, even if it became clear that he and/or his staff didn't properly evaluate a player, or if the kid just never panned out. You can be sure that Majerus wouldn't have allowed JJ to hang around for 5 years.

It's a tough position for a coach to be in, where Rick is right now. Those guys aren't his recruits, they aren't guys he would have offered, but he also knew what he was getting into. I'm torn on the decision because I want SLU to put the best team possible on the floor, but I also don't want this program ever to slide into poor ethical practices. If Rick went about this the right way, had each of the players in question in his office for a long, honest conversation about each one's future and options, and is truly looking out for the best interests of the student athletes, then I support him. It also has to be the player's decision in the end, even if staying means he won't see the floor much.

If he goes up to the guys and gives them an ulitmatum, then I have a problem with that. Assuming this report is true, it's hard to say how Rick went about this unless he or someone else involved reveals those details.

[cheeseman]

Roy is right about Seyfert. He left because of homesickness, went back to Montana, and played the rest of his career there. He made the decision close to the time where Romar decided to leave for Washington, but probably still would have left even if Romar stayed.

Soderberg publicly stated that he lived with his recruiting decisions, even if it became clear that he and/or his staff didn't properly evaluate a player, or if the kid just never panned out. You can be sure that Majerus wouldn't have allowed JJ to hang around for 5 years.

It's a tough position for a coach to be in, where Rick is right now. Those guys aren't his recruits, they aren't guys he would have offered, but he also knew what he was getting into. I'm torn on the decision because I want SLU to put the best team possible on the floor, but I also don't want this program ever to slide into poor ethical practices. If Rick went about this the right way, had each of the players in question in his office for a long, honest conversation about each one's future and options, and is truly looking out for the best interests of the student athletes, then I support him. It also has to be the player's decision in the end, even if staying means he won't see the floor much.

If he goes up to the guys and gives them an ulitmatum, then I have a problem with that. Assuming this report is true, it's hard to say how Rick went about this unless he or someone else involved reveals those details.

OK - if Brad said he lived with his recruiting decisions then would he have done the same thing about encouraging kids he did not recruit to move on? - hard to say since he was their asst. coach for a year so he kind of had a hand in them in some ways. Also, when he took the offer off the table for Ahern that Romar gave out is that not the same thing as RM is doing now? Finally, the way the post reporting what Strickland said was listed was that these 4 players where encouraged to look at their options ? - that is not an ultimatum only an word to the wise. In RM's book, he never talked about running a kid off who wanted to stay - in fact he gave an example of kid who choose to stay and accepted riding the pines. What he did at Utah according to his book was tell them that he could help them find more appropriate places for them that would allow them to play if they wanted him to or they could stay and accept the outcome.

I know all of this is splitting hairs but unfortunately that is where we are. The same posters complaining about how RM is not getting the most of the players he has here are the same ones not happy with RM's approach with these four players - you can not have it both ways. Either you are in or out - no in between when it comes to this program moving up.

[billiken_roy]

The same posters complaining about how RM is not getting the most of the players he has here are the same ones not happy with RM's approach with these four players - you can not have it both ways. Either you are in or out - no in between when it comes to this program moving up.

cheese, actually you can have it both ways in this case. in my case, i just find it hard to believe that mitchell and relphorde considering their considerable athleticism and size for their positions cant help a team that is in dire need of depth. thus, a big part of my disappointment with "getting the most out of the players".

and if i think they have contributorial skills, then why wouldnt i also be disappointed with the fact they are being asked to move on?

it seems to me that the thoughts do go hand in hand.

that said, i am greatly encouraged by what has happened in at least parts of the last three games. the last four minutes of sam houston was fantastic. siu was very good beginning to end and showed that majerus can still adjust game by game and win by simply out coaching the other team and the second half of the game last night showed that majerus system indeed does work if the players in the game match up to the opponent.

the game last night is actually the biggest reason to bring in more and different players. it shows that the sooner we find the next keith van horne and michael doleac to play together the sooner this system will just soar. so from that standpoint, even i understand what is going on. immediately, the sooner we find those lane players the sooner we go to another level. and 3 out of 4 of the rumored players being asked to go are wing players. we already have two of the best wings in the program history coming back next year. and i wont argue that the reports of john and k mitchell seem to lead one to believe they will be upgrades over those same three. so again, we dont need wings. we need lane players and eberhardt is the only credible lane player we can count on.

so i understand it. i just dont ethically like the fact of how it is happening. (ethically from a humanistic standpoint. i have no thoughts anything is being done wrong rule wise. )

[slufanskip]

cheese, actually you can have it both ways in this case. in my case, i just find it hard to believe that mitchell and relphorde considering their considerable athleticism and size for their positions cant help a team that is in dire need of depth. thus, a big part of my disappointment with "getting the most out of the players".

and if i think they have contributorial skills, then why wouldnt i also be disappointed with the fact they are being asked to move on?

it seems to me that the thoughts do go hand in hand.

that said, i am greatly encouraged by what has happened in at least parts of the last three games. the last four minutes of sam houston was fantastic. siu was very good beginning to end and showed that majerus can still adjust game by game and win by simply out coaching the other team and the second half of the game last night showed that majerus system indeed does work if the players in the game match up to the opponent.

the game last night is actually the biggest reason to bring in more and different players. it shows that the sooner we find the next keith van horne and michael doleac to play together the sooner this system will just soar. so from that standpoint, even i understand what is going on. immediately, the sooner we find those lane players the sooner we go to another level. and 3 out of 4 of the rumored players being asked to go are wing players. we already have two of the best wings in the program history coming back next year. and i wont argue that the reports of john and k mitchell seem to lead one to believe they will be upgrades over those same three. so again, we dont need wings. we need lane players and eberhardt is the only credible lane player we can count on.

so i understand it. i just dont ethically like the fact of how it is happening. (ethically from a humanistic standpoint. i have no thoughts anything is being done wrong rule wise. )

But Roy, how can you not like how it is happening (ethically) you don't know how it is happening. Would you have a problem if they have been told their future chances at playing time are slim to none, so they should explore oportunities more suitable for their talent level. Imo as long as he isn't booting them if they want to stay anyway than he is actually doing them a favor. And the fact is we have no idea what has been said between the parties.

[Pistol]

OK - if Brad said he lived with his recruiting decisions then would he have done the same thing about encouraging kids he did not recruit to move on? - hard to say since he was their asst. coach for a year so he kind of had a hand in them in some ways. Also, when he took the offer off the table for Ahern that Romar gave out is that not the same thing as RM is doing now? Finally, the way the post reporting what Strickland said was listed was that these 4 players where encouraged to look at their options ? - that is not an ultimatum only an word to the wise. In RM's book, he never talked about running a kid off who wanted to stay - in fact he gave an example of kid who choose to stay and accepted riding the pines. What he did at Utah according to his book was tell them that he could help them find more appropriate places for them that would allow them to play if they wanted him to or they could stay and accept the outcome.

I know all of this is splitting hairs but unfortunately that is where we are. The same posters complaining about how RM is not getting the most of the players he has here are the same ones not happy with RM's approach with these four players - you can not have it both ways. Either you are in or out - no in between when it comes to this program moving up.

Look at the team Brad inherited- in Romar's last year, there were no seniors. Romar had two guys signed who opted out when he left, and that was because their recruitments were based on relationships with Romar, not Brad running them off. He had to go out and find fill-ins in the spring; Edwin and Pulley flunked out, Seyfert got homesick, McClain's injury frustrations boiled over, and the team had a lot of different names in a short time span. Not one player was asked to leave.

I would have liked to see those guys stick around, I would have liked to see Romar's recruits stay with SLU, but that wasn't the case. That's also not quite what happened with Ahearn, but I'm not going to get in an argument about him for the hundredth time. Even if taking the offer off the table was the case, that is different than kids actually starting their careers at a school and losing a year of eligibility before being asked to seek other options.

Like I said, we don't know exactly know the details yet or how Rick went about it (assuming it's 100% true). His book is obviously going to paint the most pleasant picture of how things went down; we have all heard plenty of accounts that he can be unpleasant at times as well, so you don't know how he is dealing with this. He might very well be handling it in the best interests of the student athletes (as I said before), and I hope that's the case - none of us know for sure either way.

I think it is completely fair to expect a coach to get the most out of his players and deal with all of his players in an ethical manner - how are these mutually exclusive? I would think that if you are "in" when it comes to the program, you should expect both.

[billiken_roy]

But Roy, how can you not like how it is happening (ethically) you don't know how it is happening. Would you have a problem if they have been told their future chances at playing time are slim to none, so they should explore oportunities more suitable for their talent level. Imo as long as he isn't booting them if they want to stay anyway than he is actually doing them a favor. And the fact is we have no idea what has been said between the parties.

skip if all of the players had no contributorial attributes, then you are right. if you are like me and see the size and athleticism of mitchell and relphorde sitting and believe that surely they have value immediately, then their future chances playing time slim to none is baffling. i think that is a big part of my head shaking.

and since we dont get to see them in games but a minute here or there where they never are in the flow and never with the good squad and never get to see them practice, i cant understand how others are also not wondering what the hell?

but again, the answer that makes sense after last night is that majerus is playing the numbers. he needs lot's of bigs to run through the system next year and not as many guards. so to make that happen he has to bump the more questionable of his guard pool.

again, when i say ethical, i am not insinuating anything rulewise. i just think that it is unfortunate that kids that are athletes that havent done anything wrong but be in the wrong place at the wrong time are going to be sacrificed. maybe i am too soft hearted but if the solution is this is a more gradual changeover than 8 or 9 new players next year at the expense of 4 existing players that are good kids, then so be it.

as to not knowing what is being said, the playing time we are seeing says all we need to know considering the team makeup now.

[mcglotherirvin]

that may have been reported, but i was at a billiken club meeting when soderberg specifically stated that he planned to speak with seyfert about his future with the bills because he didn't see him fitting in. not much different than what majerus is allegedly doing. who reported that he came to sodie wanting to leave?

the other guy whose name escaped me earlier was darren clarke. i don't know the circumstances behind him leaving but i do know that he sat at the end of the bench even after having several good games. in fact, he looked like exactly what we needed but sodie didn't like him and he left. you never complained about that. but you seem shocked that MR, AM, DM, and AK are stuck at the end of the bench.

i would rather not talk about why i left the team. i'm sorry if you were disappointed.

seyfert said he was homesick and it was reported that he came to soderberg extremely upset and wanting to leave.

if i would have heard the players now came to majerus and said they wanted to leave, then i wouldnt have said such. instead this strickland guy reports that majerus came to them. that is a little different.

mac, did you ever clarify for us why you left the billikens shorthanded in the middle of a game when you quit on the billikens? i know that was one of the most disappointing scenarios i have went through as a billiken fan.

[mcglotherirvin]

i don't know where you and roy get your info. maybe he was homesick, but i recall sodie specifically saying at a billiken club meeting that he planned to talk to seyfert and didn't see a future here for him. several of us left that meeting under the impression that he planned to run seyfert off and, sure enough, the guy was gone soon afterwards. i don't believe the statement that he lived with his recruiting decisions in light of what he said about seyfert. i think the reason he didn't run more players off was simply because he didn't have the skills to recruit any replacements.

Roy is right about Seyfert. He left because of homesickness, went back to Montana, and played the rest of his career there. He made the decision close to the time where Romar decided to leave for Washington, but probably still would have left even if Romar stayed.

Soderberg publicly stated that he lived with his recruiting decisions, even if it became clear that he and/or his staff didn't properly evaluate a player, or if the kid just never panned out. You can be sure that Majerus wouldn't have allowed JJ to hang around for 5 years.

It's a tough position for a coach to be in, where Rick is right now. Those guys aren't his recruits, they aren't guys he would have offered, but he also knew what he was getting into. I'm torn on the decision because I want SLU to put the best team possible on the floor, but I also don't want this program ever to slide into poor ethical practices. If Rick went about this the right way, had each of the players in question in his office for a long, honest conversation about each one's future and options, and is truly looking out for the best interests of the student athletes, then I support him. It also has to be the player's decision in the end, even if staying means he won't see the floor much.

If he goes up to the guys and gives them an ulitmatum, then I have a problem with that. Assuming this report is true, it's hard to say how Rick went about this unless he or someone else involved reveals those details.

[slufanskip]

skip if all of the players had no contributorial attributes, then you are right. if you are like me and see the size and athleticism of mitchell and relphorde sitting and believe that surely they have value immediately, then their future chances playing time slim to none is baffling. i think that is a big part of my head shaking.

and since we dont get to see them in games but a minute here or there where they never are in the flow and never with the good squad and never get to see them practice, i cant understand how others are also not wondering what the hell?

but again, the answer that makes sense after last night is that majerus is playing the numbers. he needs lot's of bigs to run through the system next year and not as many guards. so to make that happen he has to bump the more questionable of his guard pool.

again, when i say ethical, i am not insinuating anything rulewise. i just think that it is unfortunate that kids that are athletes that havent done anything wrong but be in the wrong place at the wrong time are going to be sacrificed. maybe i am too soft hearted but if the solution is this is a more gradual changeover than 8 or 9 new players next year at the expense of 4 existing players that are good kids, then so be it.

as to not knowing what is being said, the playing time we are seeing says all we need to know considering the team makeup now.

I hope we can agree that RM has a better eye for talent and knows what players will or won't fit into his system and get future playing time than we do. With that said if you are the kid and RM feels that based upon the players he is bringing in next year and will be bringing on in future years, your playing time will probably be nil ... would you want him to tell you honestly, so you can make an informed decision about the remainder of your career, or would you rather him not say anything and hope you get it, or maybe he could mislead you to believe you will play in the future.

I would want to be told upfront.

It sounds to me like you think you have a better read on the players futures than RM does, sorry, but I find that hard to believe. If you think RM has the better read on their futures than you do, than how can you assume he isn't doing the ethical thing.

Or maybe he could just recruit only players that will allow MR and AM to get playing time in the future. RM has been coaching a long time, I think he has a pretty good handle on the level of talent he expects to bring in, so he probably has a good idea about the future court time of our freshmen and sophs.

Last of all we don't even know if the rumor is true. Just remember Albert Pujols was named in the Mitchell Report.

[slufanskip]

skip if all of the players had no contributorial attributes, then you are right. if you are like me and see the size and athleticism of mitchell and relphorde sitting and believe that surely they have value immediately, then their future chances playing time slim to none is baffling. i think that is a big part of my head shaking.

and since we dont get to see them in games but a minute here or there where they never are in the flow and never with the good squad and never get to see them practice, i cant understand how others are also not wondering what the hell?

but again, the answer that makes sense after last night is that majerus is playing the numbers. he needs lot's of bigs to run through the system next year and not as many guards. so to make that happen he has to bump the more questionable of his guard pool.

again, when i say ethical, i am not insinuating anything rulewise. i just think that it is unfortunate that kids that are athletes that havent done anything wrong but be in the wrong place at the wrong time are going to be sacrificed. maybe i am too soft hearted but if the solution is this is a more gradual changeover than 8 or 9 new players next year at the expense of 4 existing players that are good kids, then so be it.

as to not knowing what is being said, the playing time we are seeing says all we need to know considering the team makeup now.

and just my take on AM and MR. I had heard from someone close that MR was going to come in and contribute this year, that he was a notch below Tommie and Kevin. However after watching him the little he has been on the court, I would say he seems very tentative, even slow. I don't know if that is because he is not confident yet or just not quick enough. I can see where RM might think he will not be a contributor in the future. As to AM ... he's quick and athletic, but has been completely out of control every time he has stepped on the court. If you will look back to the all star game threads I questioned his shot at the time and I still do, I know he hit some in that game, but I can't imagine he can consistently hit the jumper at the mid to high D1 level. I see AM as too short to play the game he seems suited for. Give me AM at 6'7", but not at 6'4"

again just my take.

[billiken_roy]

that may have been reported, but i was at a billiken club meeting when soderberg specifically stated that he planned to speak with seyfert about his future with the bills because he didn't see him fitting in. not much different than what majerus is allegedly doing. who reported that he came to sodie wanting to leave?

the other guy whose name escaped me earlier was darren clarke. i don't know the circumstances behind him leaving but i do know that he sat at the end of the bench even after having several good games. in fact, he looked like exactly what we needed but sodie didn't like him and he left. you never complained about that. but you seem shocked that MR, AM, DM, and AK are stuck at the end of the bench.

i would rather not talk about why i left the team. i'm sorry if you were disappointed.

clarke indeed left on his own because he was recruited over with liddell and lisch.

your memory of seyfert discussion at that billiken club meeting is only half right. soderberg indeed said he questioned romar if he was good enough but then went on to say that he grew to like him.

the next meeting, which would have been the first of the fall) soderberg came back and said that seyfert approached him almost in tears shortly after the previous meeting and said he wanted to go home. soderberg then detailed how short he was on players after that and the scrambling he had to do to cover his roster and wished he still had seyfert.

[MusicCityBilliken]

Look at the team Brad inherited- in Romar's last year, there were no seniors. Romar had two guys signed who opted out when he left, and that was because their recruitments were based on relationships with Romar, not Brad running them off. He had to go out and find fill-ins in the spring; Edwin and Pulley flunked out, Seyfert got homesick, McClain's injury frustrations boiled over, and the team had a lot of different names in a short time span. Not one player was asked to leave.

I would have liked to see those guys stick around, I would have liked to see Romar's recruits stay with SLU, but that wasn't the case. That's also not quite what happened with Ahearn, but I'm not going to get in an argument about him for the hundredth time. Even if taking the offer off the table was the case, that is different than kids actually starting their careers at a school and losing a year of eligibility before being asked to seek other options.

Like I said, we don't know exactly know the details yet or how Rick went about it (assuming it's 100% true). His book is obviously going to paint the most pleasant picture of how things went down; we have all heard plenty of accounts that he can be unpleasant at times as well, so you don't know how he is dealing with this. He might very well be handling it in the best interests of the student athletes (as I said before), and I hope that's the case - none of us know for sure either way.

I think it is completely fair to expect a coach to get the most out of his players and deal with all of his players in an ethical manner - how are these mutually exclusive? I would think that if you are "in" when it comes to the program, you should expect both.

No seniors? I thought that team had Marque Perry. 1st team all CUSA guard.

Also BS had Fisher and Sloan. Two players RM would have loved.