slu72 Posted February 16, 2004 Share Posted February 16, 2004 for a question about TL. If he opts for the prep route, do you think he will stay committed to SLU? It seems UB has established a good relationship with him. Or do you think he'd opt instead for the bright lights of an east coast program considering that is where he'd play prep ball? I ask this not really knowing if his not coming to SLU due to ACT's is a done deal. Of course, I hope he passes and this all becomes a moot issue. Thanks in advance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jalensdad2002 Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 >for a question about TL. If he opts for the prep route, do >you think he will stay committed to SLU? It seems UB has >established a good relationship with him. Or do you think >he'd opt instead for the bright lights of an east coast >program considering that is where he'd play prep ball? I ask >this not really knowing if his not coming to SLU due to >ACT's is a done deal. Of course, I hope he passes and this >all becomes a moot issue. Thanks in advance. St Louis U and Tommie Liddell is a done deal. I know of no circumstance that would change that. SLU was not the only option for Liddell but it was the best one. If you were privy to some of the assurances that Soderberg made to Liddell you would understand why he chose SLU. During the time Liddell was being wooed by Marquette, I almost hate to say this, but Tom had no idea who made the Final 4 that year. He is not a big college b-ball fan as far as viewership. He is so nonchanlant in just about everything. Big Time Programs don't excite him. Soderberg and staff made a connection with Liddell that will be hard to wedge if God forbids Liddell has to attend a prep school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLURadioBoy Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Thanks Jalensdad, that is very reassuring. Even if we have to wait an extra year to get Tommie into Billiken blue, it's better than not at all. Let's just hope he can suit up for us in 2004-2005, as opposed to waiting an extra year. "Praises we sing, to you our alma mater, Praise to the white and blue. Our hymn shall ring, in tribute strong to you, We hail Saint Louis U." Official Billikens.com sponsor of Andrew Latimer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 That's excellent news. I'm sure everyone on this board is more than happy to wait a year for Tommie. Marquette did the same for Dwayne Wade and we know what dividends that paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Based on the academic standards of the University, is it possible that Lidell may not be admitted? The University has a track record of being less than flexible (not a bad thing) when it comes to admission. I have always wondered if we would have admitted Dwayne Wade. My guess is that we might not have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 As long as the NCAA will grant a basketball recruit full or partial eligibility, the university will grant that student admission. Corey Frazier and Justin Tatum are two recent examples of that policy. The problem arises not with high school recruits, but with juco transfers. The NCAA requires juco transfers to satisifactorily complete a certain number of courses that will count toward a degree at the D1 school they are attending. Because SLU doesn't offer degrees in certain juco classes such as physical education, it is often difficult for jucos to qualify at SLU. However, this is an NCAA requirement, not a SLU requirement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 david, i was under the same impressions you were until recently on jucos when i was corrected here at billikens.com. you are correct in the juco part about having the credits to transfer into a slu diploma, but apparently slu even makes it harder on itself by not accepting certain grades as well. for example, it is my understanding that all that kept brandon morris out is that the class he needed wasnt passed with a high enough grade. not that he didnt have the classes, but that his grades in those transfer classes were not high enough for slu standards. talk about trying to compete with one arm tied behind our back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 > >Based on the academic standards of the University, is it >possible that Lidell may not be admitted? The University >has a track record of being less than flexible (not a bad >thing) when it comes to admission. > >I have always wondered if we would have admitted Dwayne >Wade. My guess is that we might not have. If Hughes got admitted Wade would have been too. Wade's GPA was fine, it was his ACT score that kept him from qualifying. Wasn't there a post here back when Liddell committed that the University had guaranteed Liddell admission if he signed with SLU? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 >>The University has a track record of being less than flexible (not a bad thing) when it comes to admission.<< There was the ugly Craig Upchurch incident at the end of Rich Grawer's reign but it is my understanding (and Roy or someone else can verify this) that Father Biondi has made it clear that a high school senior basketball player who our teams wants and who qualifies for admission to D1 under NCAA guideliness shall not be denied admission. That is a departure from pre-Biondi admission policies at SLU. Thus, if Tommie gets a qualifying SAT score, he is in. As to JUCOs, now that is a different story. We have all sorts of admission issues there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 What am I missing here in the comparison between Hughes and Wade? Hughes met all of the eligibility requirements, Wade did not. Are you suggesting something else? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Our standards for admittance out of highschool are no higher than anyone elses in the country. If the NCAA clears a player, then SLU clears him. The days of Craig Upchurch are long over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Wade had better numbers coming out of HS GPA wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 the biggest problem with JUCO admission is not SLU requirements but the new NCAA requirements and SLU's limited offerings compared to bigger publics. Too many JUCO kids load up on PE credits and under the new NCAA rules if they have too many credits that won't have them a certain way though their degree program at the school they're transferring to they won't be cleared to play by the NCAA. It wasn't an issue of Morris not being admitted, it was an issue of not having enough credits to be eligible to play at SLU under NCAA guidelines. By the way, Frericks was exempt from this because he had started out at a 4 year school and was a qualifier out of HS. Transfers like that or a Slaton who were qualifiers out of HS but choose to go the JUCO route have an easier time transferring to schools. The rationale behind the new NCAA rules is reform of JUCO's academic programs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 ...to hear that our standards are no higher than anyone else's standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted February 17, 2004 Share Posted February 17, 2004 Which is kind of a moot point, because he was ruled ineligible. The lack of minimal scores on both GPA and Standardized Tests is the issue, not how much better the GPA was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I am sure any such blanket admission policies/decrees have unspoken contingencies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 The discussion seems to point in two directions. The core unanswered question is whether SLU has a higher standard than other D1 colleges. Let's take the Morris kid. Did SLU's admission policy, Roy suggests, force us to not admit the player. Or is it the credit issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 My understanding is that Brandon got a D in his ethics class and SLU will not accept a D as a trasfer credit,therefore Brandon did not have enough credits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 See my post above. He did not have enough credits because SLU will not accept a D. Some schools will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonka Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 to me before I get really pissed off then. SLU will accept any player that meets the NCAA qualifications? Is this really correct? Somebody pointed out that it was a myth that SLU wouldn't do this. Well, if that is the case, then I bought into that myth. I swear I have heard on this board many times over, that SLU's academic standards are higher than most, and that we won't accept certain players. Now, I'm hearing this isn't the case????? SOMEBODY please exlpain! This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart, and I have heard countless times things other than what I just read on this thread. Any help or clarification would greatly be appreciated! For the record, if what I am reading on this thread is correct - personally, that is music to my ears! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillikenButch Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 That is my understanding, yet other posters suggest that SLU's standards are no different than any other university...thus my confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 out of JUCO that is a different story. It is that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 >to me before I get really pissed off then. SLU will accept >any player that meets the NCAA qualifications? Is this >really correct? Somebody pointed out that it was a myth >that SLU wouldn't do this. Well, if that is the case, then >I bought into that myth. I swear I have heard on this board >many times over, that SLU's academic standards are higher >than most, and that we won't accept certain players. Now, >I'm hearing this isn't the case????? SOMEBODY please >exlpain! This is an issue that is near and dear to my >heart, and I have heard countless times things other than >what I just read on this thread. Any help or clarification >would greatly be appreciated! I don't know if this is the case here but fans of MANY schools like to use the academic standards thing as an excuse for poor performance in sports. Mike Deane used to use it at Marquette to rationalize his inability and unwillingness to recruit blue-chippers, Wisconsin fans constantly used that line to justify why until the mid-90's their sports programs were consistantly at the bottom of the Big Ten (I guess their standards suddenly dropped???), Michigan fans used to use that when they didn't get every recruit they wanted. If Duke and Stanford can compete at the level they are at then there is no such thing as "academic standards too high to compete" these days. There is too much money to be made off athletics now to not take a kid who is so talented that his performance on the field or court could result in millions of dollars in revenue for the school. Admittedly, some schools do have barriers to hurdle once a kid gets into school. SLU can't hide an academic risk player in a program like Sports Management or Agricultural Journalism or another program that will shield the athlete from having to take classes he couldn't pass. A few years ago there was a study released (using football) comparing the average SAT scores of incoming football players with incoming general students. Universally the averages were lower for athletes than general students. Some schools (among them Duke, Stanford, Northwestern, Vandy and Rice) didn't have a significant drop, others (among them Michigan, UCLA, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Clemson) had huge gaps between averages of the 2 classes of students. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 but in defense of some of those statistics you have to think about probabilities. At schools like Duke, Michigan, Stanford, etc. only the top 10% acadmeics or so coming out of highschool are accepted. To field even a reasonably talented sports team you need to take the top 1% of eligible students in that sport. The odds that the same 1% that are good enough to play in that sport are also included in the top 10% academically is 1 in 10 at best, and it gets worse if playing that sport takes away from time spent on academics. Hence, the lower averages. I agree with you that in general people use high academic standards as an excuse. It may be a legitimate excuse if SLU is trying to recruit a juco but is total bull if we are recruiting a highschool kid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 >I am sure any such blanket admission policies/decrees have >unspoken contingencies. Would have to agree that even Don Fr. Biondi might have a problem with felons. 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.