FWIW per Catspause.com Harelson close to committing

[billiken_roy]

By the way, everybody, Avis says "hi."

this is the best post of this string.

[slufanskip]

that is a pretty good and fair post. and you are right i probably write to extremes. i learned to flower my writing in saint louis university avis meyer creative writing classes to make arguments.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding ...

It's not ok when somebody (David in this case) takes UB's faults to the extreme, but it is ok when you take RM's to the extreme.

The thing is you know UB had faults as a coach and most certainly as a recruiter, but you defended those sometimes you defended them to the extreme. With RM it's different his perceived faults ... you attack.

Do you honestly believe you have judged them both with the same standard?

[billiken_roy]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding ...

It's not ok when somebody (David in this case) takes UB's faults to the extreme, but it is ok when you take RM's to the extreme.

The thing is you know UB had faults as a coach and most certainly as a recruiter, but you defended those sometimes you defended them to the extreme. With RM it's different his perceived faults ... you attack.

Do you honestly believe you have judged them both with the same standard?

soderberg isnt worthy of being compared to rickma. he isnt in his class as a coach. that has been my point. when i criticize rickma, it isnt about a comparison to soderberg. soderberg is gone. over.

yet the arguments i get when i criticize rickma on his interpersonal fiasco's is more or less "but otherwise we would have soderberg so accept it and be happy."

no i couldnt care less about comparing him to soderberg.

it is two issues. i defend soderberg on character. i.e. he's gone, what's the point. his faults dont make rickma's faults better.

soderberg wasnt worthy of the level of expectations. coupled with the lack of institutional support i didnt expect him to contend for anything short term. i have higher expectations now for slu because we have a better coach and because we have greater support from saint louis university.

[bonwich]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding ...

It's not ok when somebody (David in this case) takes UB's faults to the extreme, but it is ok when you take RM's to the extreme.

The thing is you know UB had faults as a coach and most certainly as a recruiter, but you defended those sometimes you defended them to the extreme. With RM it's different his perceived faults ... you attack.

Do you honestly believe you have judged them both with the same standard?

Well, in fairness, I don't think they operated on the same field of play. Brad was brought in as a "value-priced" coach and had to work under constraints Rick never did, nevermind the 2x-3x difference in their salaries. Brad was constantly nickel-and-dimed (cell phones to airplane); I also will always contend that Brad was saddled with a bait-and-switch on the arena when he was recruiting Tommy and Kevin. Rick is able to discount all this history in recruiting because he wasn't here, and the arena was started by the time he signed on.

I'm not anywhere near as fervent as Roy, but I do think the U. did poorly by the four players who are leaving the team. The rules appear to have changed midstream for them -- they were recruited under one set of assumptions, and they're leaving because another set replaced them. But stuff happens in real life, so with luck they'll all land well.

[slufanskip]

Well, in fairness, I don't think they operated on the same field of play. Brad was brought in as a "value-priced" coach and had to work under constraints Rick never did, nevermind the 2x-3x difference in their salaries. Brad was constantly nickel-and-dimed (cell phones to airplane); I also will always contend that Brad was saddled with a bait-and-switch on the arena when he was recruiting Tommy and Kevin. Rick is able to discount all this history in recruiting because he wasn't here, and the arena was started by the time he signed on.

I'm not anywhere near as fervent as Roy, but I do think the U. did poorly by the four players who are leaving the team. The rules appear to have changed midstream for them -- they were recruited under one set of assumptions, and they're leaving because another set replaced them. But stuff happens in real life, so with luck they'll all land well.

I don't like what's happening with the kids either, but it's more the NCAA rule that has one standard for the school (dump a kid no penalty) and another for the kid (choose to leave or get dumped) be penalized and have to sit a year.

I would bet though that as everyone of these kids gets established in a new school and is competing with new players and new friends the glow of SLU will dim.

I just wish they didn't have to sit a year and I wish someone would challenge the NCAA.

[slufanskip]

soderberg isnt worthy of being compared to rickma. he isnt in his class as a coach. that has been my point. when i criticize rickma, it isnt about a comparison to soderberg. soderberg is gone. over.

yet the arguments i get when i criticize rickma on his interpersonal fiasco's is more or less "but otherwise we would have soderberg so accept it and be happy."

no i couldnt care less about comparing him to soderberg.

it is two issues. i defend soderberg on character. i.e. he's gone, what's the point. his faults dont make rickma's faults better.

soderberg wasnt worthy of the level of expectations. coupled with the lack of institutional support i didnt expect him to contend for anything short term. i have higher expectations now for slu because we have a better coach and because we have greater support from saint louis university.

It's the ferver in which you defended UB despite his deficiencies and the ferver in which you criticize RM. With RM you don't just state your opinion you're carrying the torch.

[slufanskip]

Well, in fairness, I don't think they operated on the same field of play. Brad was brought in as a "value-priced" coach and had to work under constraints Rick never did, nevermind the 2x-3x difference in their salaries. Brad was constantly nickel-and-dimed (cell phones to airplane); I also will always contend that Brad was saddled with a bait-and-switch on the arena when he was recruiting Tommy and Kevin. Rick is able to discount all this history in recruiting because he wasn't here, and the arena was started by the time he signed on.

I'm not anywhere near as fervent as Roy, but I do think the U. did poorly by the four players who are leaving the team. The rules appear to have changed midstream for them -- they were recruited under one set of assumptions, and they're leaving because another set replaced them. But stuff happens in real life, so with luck they'll all land well.

I agree the expectations are and should be different, but you can't give him those higher expectations and force him to work with 30% less players (4) the next 2 years, about 25% less (3) the third year and still 15% less (2) the 4th year.

There is no way we could be a tourney team under those circumstances. Hell much less severe penalties put on teams for violations hamstring better teams than we've ever been.

[billiken_roy]

It's the ferver in which you defended UB despite his deficiencies and the ferver in which you criticize RM. With RM you don't just state your opinion you're carrying the torch.

good point. maybe, (i have never thought of this before so i am just making a self observation) soderberg deficiencies were not personal almost ethical deficiencies that rickma makes? i.e. i excuse his lack of coaching skills compared to rickma, i dont want to excuse rickma's lack of a degree of decency? those debating me are willing to sacrifice my view of "the right thing" for a chance at future W's maybe.

which brings us back to "why cant we have both?"

[billiken_roy]

I agree the expectations are and should be different, but you can't give him those higher expectations and force him to work with 30% less players (4) the next 2 years, about 25% less (3) the third year and still 15% less (2) the 4th year.

There is no way we could be a tourney team under those circumstances. Hell much less severe penalties put on teams for violations hamstring better teams than we've ever been.

the fallacy i see with your above thinking is that you are assuming that the four players of concern or of absolutely zero use in the future. while i will be the first to agree that i think the likes of cassity, cotto and a hoped for harrelson will exceed the combined college careers of mitchell, relphorde, maguire and knollmeyer, i contend they would have developed and could have contributed more this year if used correctly. i.e. they are not 30%-25%-15% less players unless rickma chooses to treat it as such. that is his choice. not a mandate like a lost recruiting scholarship.

[moytoy12]

good point. maybe, (i have never thought of this before so i am just making a self observation) soderberg deficiencies were not personal almost ethical deficiencies that rickma makes? i.e. i excuse his lack of coaching skills compared to rickma, i dont want to excuse rickma's lack of a degree of decency? those debating me are willing to sacrifice my view of "the right thing" for a chance at future W's maybe.

which brings us back to "why cant we have both?"

Good point Roy. it seems plausible that personal/ethical deficiencies would raise the level of scrutiny.

I would respond; however, i do think you have concluded certain negative things about RM's personal/ethical behavior at SLU without having close to all of the facts (e.g. how did the meeting and decision with the 4 departed players go?).

[brianstl]

Brian, I've seen a few other posters say the same thing. Why do you think it will be Paul taking over? With Porter becoming the "Associate Head Coach" this season, wouldn't he be the logical successor?

IMO Paulie B is a better recruiter and coach than Porter. It is just my opinion and you can make a case the other way. If everything goes like we hope, Porter will get a chance to be a head coach somewhere else while Rickma is still here. I don't think Paulie gets his shot as quick as Porter beacause Paulie has NCAA infraction stain. Leaving Paulie here to move up.

[Box and Won]

IMO Paulie B is a better recruiter and coach than Porter. It is just my opinion and you can make a case the other way. If everything goes like we hope, Porter will get a chance to be a head coach somewhere else while Rickma is still here. I don't think Paulie gets his shot as quick as Porter beacause Paulie has NCAA infraction stain. Leaving Paulie here to move up.

Biancardi was a (roughly) .500 coach at Wright State (Slogan: Wright State, Wrong University), but he did recruit the kids who made up the team that Brad Brownell would take to the NCAA Tournament the year after Paulie left.

[slufanskip]

the fallacy i see with your above thinking is that you are assuming that the four players of concern or of absolutely zero use in the future. while i will be the first to agree that i think the likes of cassity, cotto and a hoped for harrelson will exceed the combined college careers of mitchell, relphorde, maguire and knollmeyer, i contend they would have developed and could have contributed more this year if used correctly. i.e. they are not 30%-25%-15% less players unless rickma chooses to treat it as such. that is his choice. not a mandate like a lost recruiting scholarship.

If they can't compete at the level we want to be at during those 4 years ie ... top 50 then top 25 type team ... it is a loss, just like a loss of a scholarship. We can't be at that level putting kids that can't compete on the floor ... so either we are happy with being less of a team or we need better players. There is absolutely no way we can be a top 25 type team with 4 players that can't compete.

[BIG BILL FAN]

the fallacy i see with your above thinking is that you are assuming that the four players of concern or of absolutely zero use in the future. while i will be the first to agree that i think the likes of cassity, cotto and a hoped for harrelson will exceed the combined college careers of mitchell, relphorde, maguire and knollmeyer, i contend they would have developed and could have contributed more this year if used correctly. i.e. they are not 30%-25%-15% less players unless rickma chooses to treat it as such. that is his choice. not a mandate like a lost recruiting scholarship.

There you go again Roy, blaming the coach for our fab 4's problems. You just can't resist it can you?

I'm sure with a coach like Brad, they would have become all league players. Oh, I forgot, AK and DM rarely ever got off the bench when Brad was here. Why didn't Brad coach them up while he was here?

[NextYearBill]

We got rid of Brad. We got rid of our average players who are not going to compete. What is there to complain about?

We have a hall of fame coach. We have the best recruiting class ever, new arena. What is there to complain about?

My freshmen year of high school I played varsity tennis. 8 players dress varsity. I was no. 7 on the team at that time and the top 6 people played. I dressed varsity, went on all the varsity trips but rarely played. I would have rather been no. 9 on the team and been the top JV player. It is always better to be able to play. These 4 kids would have never played, I imagine they are happier and better off.

[3star_recruit]

Let's say RM is here 4-6 years...

You're the first poster I've seen make that assumption. If you check the old threads we've had discussing this, the consensus was 3-4 years.

if he gets us to crack the Top 25, maybe a sweet 16 appearance, basically get us to the level of Xavier,

That's nowhere near the level of Xavier. Three years of rebuilding and a tournament run doesn't even put you at the level of Kent St.

Biancardi was a (roughly) .500 coach at Wright State (Slogan: Wright State, Wrong University), but he did recruit the kids who made up the team that Brad Brownell would take to the NCAA Tournament the year after Paulie left.

Biancardi may just be one of those guys who does his best work as a recruiter. All Brownell does is win, wherever he is.

[Clock_Tower]

If they can't compete at the level we want to be at during those 4 years ie ... top 50 then top 25 type team ... it is a loss, just like a loss of a scholarship. We can't be at that level putting kids that can't compete on the floor ... so either we are happy with being less of a team or we need better players. There is absolutely no way we can be a top 25 type team with 4 players that can't compete.

Have kept on the sidelines until now....

Believe Roy is correct in that I believe RM did make up his mind on these 4 last Fall before even the first game. For that matter, I suspect made up his mind last Spring/early Summer.

All of this leads me wonder: what did RM say to AM? I hope it was "Son, you're obviously a talented player but I'm not sure you will have much a future here at SLU. Maybe, and hopefully for both of us, I am wrong as you show me on the floor that you belong. I will honor SLU's athletic scholarship this year and then we'll re-evaluate after the season. If RM had doubts as to MR, same discussion. If both had some notice (though both were probably shocked when RM spoke with them after the season, both had/have confidence in their abilities, both had been stars in basketball their whole lives and had never been cut from any basketball team their whole lives, then I have no problem with RM's actions. If no discussion, then IMO these 2 kids became RM recruits and RM should be given less latitude and held to a higher standard. While I believe RM should have the power to release them from the program, I do think RM owed them honesty upfront. Neither added anything to the team this year but both lost a year of eligibility. If I were the Athletic Director, I would have stern dicussion with RM saying we do things a little different here at SLU but nothing more.

As to DM, I have to believe RM had some type of discussion with him and that DM knew, or should have known, (RM's history, DM's unsuccessful first year under Brad, etc.) that his future with the team was in doubt. I just cannot believe DM did not see this coming in that I did from day one. Obviously, some discussion took place since RM and DM decided to redshirt. Quite possible that RM's version of this discussion and DM's version of the same are quite different. I therefore have little problem with RM as to DM since he had some (if not full) notice.

As to AK, believe he was given a fair chance under both Brad and RM. It can be said that AM and DM were not given such a chance. Therefore, I have the least problems with AK. Unfortunate part of the business. If AK were the only one being asked to leave, this would be a 9 reply post.

Same comments as to A. Thorpe. No need to keep him on year after year but a little honesty and notice is, and should be, required. If not, another discussion with RM.

In short, I really would not be too tough on RM since I believe, as head coach, he has significant pressure and expectations to fulfill. Negative actions are part of the job but can still be done in a classy and respectful manner. Because I have not heard to the contrary, I give RM the benefit of the doubt that he had some honest discussions.

Also, am really curious as to what discussions, if any, took place during the winter break when Andy Strickland first published the rumors of the 4 not coming back. Possibly, had honest discussions (whether first or subsequent) at that time allowing them to transfer at that time. Also, last I checked, all 4 of these guys are age 18 (legal adults) and they (as well as their parents) could have initiated such honest discussions regarding their future (retention, playing time, their fit in RM's style of play, likelihood of being further "recruited ove") with RM. Without more information, let's stop the crying for their losses of one year's eligibility

[Clock_Tower]

The bottom line is this: RM is a stop-gap. He's a big-name stop-gap, he's a stop-gap that commands more dough for himself and his assistants but almost no one here expects him to be here long term (> 4 years). One year is in the can, the upcoming season is all about the new players learning the system, the 3rd year we'll subtract two of the top 10? 7? scorers in Billiken history.

If the goal is to be the next Xavier or Gonzaga or even Creighton, someone is still going to have to step in here LONG-TERM to be our Skip Prosser or Mark Few or Dana Altman. He'll have to be able to recruit, to be a very good floor coach, he'll have to be practically all the good things RM is reputed to be. That decision has simply been delayed for a few years.

I do. I expect RM to be here for 4 years or more - health permitting. Dana Altman is not typical in that he would be gone if he could handle the significantly greater stress and pressure of a higher level D-1 program. Instead, he relishes being the big fish in the small pond in Creighton. If we can land such a guy and keep him for a number of years, then great. Otherwise, possibly, one day we can land a successful coach/alum who wants to remain/end his career here at SLU. Until then, any good coach we get will probably leave after 4 to 7 years - which is the length I believe RM will be here. What's the difference if our HC (RM in this case) leaves for retirement v. another program?

[brianstl]

Biancardi was a (roughly) .500 coach at Wright State (Slogan: Wright State, Wrong University), but he did recruit the kids who made up the team that Brad Brownell would take to the NCAA Tournament the year after Paulie left.

He took over a team that was 9-18 the season before he got there. I don't think being 2 games under .500 in two seasons means you are a bad coach.

[ACE]

You're the first poster I've seen make that assumption. If you check the old threads we've had discussing this, the consensus was 3-4 years.

That's nowhere near the level of Xavier. Three years of rebuilding and a tournament run doesn't even put you at the level of Kent St.

Biancardi may just be one of those guys who does his best work as a recruiter. All Brownell does is win, wherever he is.

I did say 4-6, not sure that's all that different from 3-4, but whatever. I know you can't wait to push RM out the door and bring in somebody squeeky clean like Laranaga

Hasn't Xavier been ranked and had some NCAA Tourney success? In my hypothetical season where RM gets us top 25 ranking and sweet 16, that is putting together a season like Xavier. I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously the key to a program like Xavier and Gonzaga is that they have been able to string it together for several years. I got that. We now have a similar facility to Xavier and play in the same league. If RM can put together a roster comparable to what XU has, I'm not sure why it's so far-fetched to say we'd then be on a par with them. Everything would be equal under my scenario when the new coach would take over. It will be up to the next coach to take it and run with it. XU seemed to do just fine going from Prosser to Matta to Miller.

[3star_recruit]

What's the difference if our HC (RM in this case) leaves for retirement v. another program?

There isn't -- neither scenario really helps us in the long term. As for Rick's health allowing him to grind it out for more than four years, there's no way to put this nicely: obese people don't normally become healthier in their golden years.

At some point somebody is going to have to step in and establish a tradition of winning just like at all those other schools we're trying to emulate. And do it with Rick's players. Else we're just going to be in another "wait, we're going to be great once I get my players in and learn my system" situation.

[brianstl]

There isn't -- neither scenario really helps us in the long term. As for Rick's health allowing him to grind it out for more than four years, there's no way to put this nicely: obese people don't normally become healthier in their golden years.

At some point somebody is going to have to step in and establish a tradition of winning just like at all those other schools we're trying to emulate. And do it with Rick's players. Else we're just going to be in another "wait, we're going to be great once I get my players in and learn my system" situation.

We needed some one to come in and get the ship righted quickly. This program would have been drowning in debt with the new building unless something changed quickly.

[3star_recruit]

We needed some one to come in and get the ship righted quickly. This program would have been drowning in debt with the new building unless something changed quickly.

I'm not close enough to the situation but that certainly sounds plausible.

[Band Legend]

I'm not close enough to the situation but that certainly sounds plausible.

Shut this thread down and start a new one. It's all over the place. I say we start a permanent thread manned by BRoy known as "Curmudgeon's Corner".

[kevinfootes]

I did say 4-6, not sure that's all that different from 3-4, but whatever. I know you can't wait to push RM out the door and bring in somebody squeeky clean like Laranaga

Hasn't Xavier been ranked and had some NCAA Tourney success? In my hypothetical season where RM gets us top 25 ranking and sweet 16, that is putting together a season like Xavier. I'm not sure what your point is. Obviously the key to a program like Xavier and Gonzaga is that they have been able to string it together for several years. I got that. We now have a similar facility to Xavier and play in the same league. If RM can put together a roster comparable to what XU has, I'm not sure why it's so far-fetched to say we'd then be on a par with them. Everything would be equal under my scenario when the new coach would take over. It will be up to the next coach to take it and run with it. XU seemed to do just fine going from Prosser to Matta to Miller.

That fact that I find myself agreeing with ace in this thread is amazing! RM will coach SLU as long as he wants to and as long as he's successful. I don't think we'll have a Joe Paterno situation here, but I wouldn't be shocked if his tenure goes beyond 3-4 years. As long as RM doesn't drop dead, we'll see him stooping on the sidelines.

Let's hope Biondi doesn't go cheap the next time around.