Majerus Article

[Cowboy]

while i wont debate the word "committment", i do want to clarify that slu isnt just the terrible program you let your words insinuate. in the last 20 years slu has only been under 500 five times ( once with grawer, 3 times with spoon and once with soderberg). during that same 20 year span, marquette has been under 500 four times.

what is your point here?

[billiken_roy]

all i am saying mb is we arent this big loser that many try to label us with. to me loser means under 500. more losses than wins. i used the marquette example simply to show that our overall records have consistently been above 500.

now if someone wants to say we have been mediocre over the past couple of decades, i wont argue that. but i take exception to insinuating we are this terrible program that is a loser. we are better than that.

[RB2.0]

all i am saying mb is we arent this big loser that many try to label us with. to me loser means under 500. more losses than wins. i used the marquette example simply to show that our overall records have consistently been above 500.

now if someone wants to say we have been mediocre over the past couple of decades, i wont argue that. but i take exception to insinuating we are this terrible program that is a loser. we are better than that.

Roy, you are correct in this last post. I would not say, by any stretch of the imagination, that we are a bad program. We have been mediocre. However, I believe that is changing (albiet not this year) with RM, the new arena, the (hopefully growing) committment from the school, dedicated fan base, etc. Even though we are having another mediocre, I feel I speak for many bills fans when I say this is the most encouraged we've felt about the future of the program in a long time.

[MB73]

all i am saying mb is we arent this big loser that many try to label us with. to me loser means under 500. more losses than wins. i used the marquette example simply to show that our overall records have consistently been above 500.

now if someone wants to say we have been mediocre over the past couple of decades, i wont argue that. but i take exception to insinuating we are this terrible program that is a loser. we are better than that.

OK, yep, I agree with what you say here, we are not "terrible". Just not wanting to compare us with Marquette using one statistic. RM is our best hope to make it to the big time a la Marquette. So far not going as well as I hoped / expected, but need to give him much more time.

[billiken_roy]

OK, yep, I agree with what you say here, we are not "terrible". Just not wanting to compare us with Marquette using one statistic. RM is our best hope to make it to the big time a la Marquette. So far not going as well as I hoped / expected, but need to give him much more time.

marquette isnt bigtime. they are good and better than the billikens, but they are far from breaking into the old boys group.

[MB73]

marquette isnt bigtime. they are good and better than the billikens, but they are far from breaking into the old boys group.

Small Catholic universtiy, but 26-27-19-19-20-25-24 wins last 7 yrs, in Big East, multiple NCAA appearances, etc.

To me, that is big time.

[Cowboy]

Small Catholic universtiy, but 26-27-19-19-20-25-24 wins last 7 yrs, in Big East, multiple NCAA appearances, etc.

To me, that is big time.

-to me there is a hierarchy of teams and where they stand in the whole scheme of things

-roy used the term big time, so i'll assume this is the top of the chart, best of the best, highest of the high, and agree marq would not make this cut

-the big timers, at least to me, would be, in no certain order, ucla, unc, ky, duke, ku - there could be more, but probably not many

-my criteria for big time or highest of the high include multiple championships from more than one class, consistent ncaa tourneys and more than occassional deep runs, recency of success and conf success

-marq might make the next level, but probably would be in 3rd level, which is still way up there relative to a slu, but this is going to change

[billiken_roy]

-to me there is a hierarchy of teams and where they stand in the whole scheme of things

-roy used the term big time, so i'll assume this is the top of the chart, best of the best, highest of the high, and agree marq would not make this cut

-the big timers, at least to me, would be, in no certain order, ucla, unc, ky, duke, ku - there could be more, but probably not many

-my criteria for big time or highest of the high include multiple championships from more than one class, consistent ncaa tourneys and more than occassional deep runs, recency of success and conf success

-marq might make the next level, but probably would be in 3rd level, which is still way up there relative to a slu, but this is going to change

most i have agreed with cowboy in two years. great post cowboy.

[Cowboy]

most i have agreed with cowboy in two years. great post cowboy.

-this must be wrong then!!!!

-actually roy, we agreed on scheduling not that long ago

-we are not always on opposite sides, it just seems that way

[courtside]

about 7,000 of us just about doubled what we were spending between Billiken Club and season tickets, the school built almost $90,000,000 worth and spent about 4 times what they were doing for coaching staff with Soderberg or double what Spoon's entire staff took in. Spoon felt like doing the restaurant and TV show gigs for extra pocket change and RM studies basketball and recruits full time.

RM also trains in the pool, locally about 4-6 days a week, so I think he has a health plan for himself as well so don't bother posting those personal issues.

I'd say wait until year 4 and tell me if you could think of anyone who could have brought us further, faster

I'm not sure you have understood my posts.

Since you are GOSLU68, since 1968 until now, do you think SLU has had a commitment to major college basketball?

I don't believe you put much if any emphasis on anything except right now, and that's very relevant information.

[courtside]

while i wont debate the word "committment", i do want to clarify that slu isnt just the terrible program you let your words insinuate. in the last 20 years slu has only been under 500 five times ( once with grawer, 3 times with spoon and once with soderberg). during that same 20 year span, marquette has been under 500 four times.

I didn't say nor insinuate that SLU was terrible....and of course you would have to define terrible, etc...

Marquette had a greater basketball history, had a commitment to a successful basketball program, and had much deeper, longer relationships across the board, to be invited to join the Big East conference.

You are isolating a very small bit of information to make your comparison. Without providing any disclaimer, you are insinuating that winning records alone over the past 20 years defines terrible or lack of being terrible. And, I never once even entered a discussion regarding "terrible." Lots of insinuations and assumptions going on there for you....

[davidnark]

The biggest challenge SLU faces in obtaining big-time status is that it is about ten or fifteen years too late to the game. The program's increased commitment through new facilities, big-time coaches, and increased budgets is significant and the right thing to do. However, had these things been implemented in the mid-90's when the program had some top-25 rankings, NCAA appearances, and a big-time conference affiliation, the program could have found itself on the invite list for the Big East or, at a minimum, with the credibility and success of a Xavier or Gonzaga. Now, with little recent success and momentum and a less favorable conference affiliation, the path is much more difficult and will take much longer. We can still get there, and with the possiblity of another major conference re-shuffle in the next decade, it is critically important that we do.

[Box and Won]

I'd definitely consider Marquette a big time program.

I'd probably call the UNCs, UCLAs, and UKs of the world the elite programs - the cream of the crop.