The tale of two programs

[RB2.0]

Marquette vs. SLU.

After watching the fantastically exciting MU vs ND game last night, I couldn't help but reflect upon the two drastically different directions two incredibly similar institutions (and basketball programs) have taken. Marquette is now a legitimate powerhouse basketball program. SLU is in the doldrums. So then I asked myself, why?

I don't have the desire nor the time to go back through and highlight the MU success versus SLU but there are many. Perennial NCAA appearances, deep runs in the tourney, invitations to Power conferences, great players, and on and on and on.

So why does MU have such a dramatically better program? SLU is nearly identical to MU in so many ways: mission, ranking, affiliations, off campus arena, urban location setting in the Midwest, enrollment, and lack of football. In fact, I think SLU has more selling points the MU with a prettier campus, top notch engineering program, and now an on campus arena. So how come they succeeded and we didn't? I have a few theories but I want to hear what the board has to say first.

[slu72 fan]

Marquette vs. SLU.

After watching the fantastically exciting MU vs ND game last night, I couldn't help but reflect upon the two drastically different directions two incredibly similar institutions (and basketball programs) have taken. Marquette is now a legitimate powerhouse basketball program. SLU is in the doldrums. So then I asked myself, why?

I don't have the desire nor the time to go back through and highlight the MU success versus SLU but there are many. Perennial NCAA appearances, deep runs in the tourney, invitations to Power conferences, great players, and on and on and on.

So why does MU have such a dramatically better program? SLU is nearly identical to MU in so many ways: mission, ranking, affiliations, off campus arena, urban location setting in the Midwest, enrollment, and lack of football. In fact, I think SLU has more selling points the MU with a prettier campus, top notch engineering program, and now an on campus arena. So how come they succeeded and we didn't? I have a few theories but I want to hear what the board has to say first.

I'm sure there are many, but two come to mind regarding the recent past. First, Dwayne Wade stayed an extra year and Larry the Legend left after one. If Larry had stayed just one more year and played with Love how far might we have gone in the tourney and that would have really got the ball rolling. Spoon would have stayed and the revolving door of coaches would have been at the very least, slowed. At that time, we were about dead even. As I recall, our attendances were about the same, each team would win at home and the games were always close. Many recall, Larry dropped about 30 on them at Milwaukee and we beat them at their place.

Secondly, Crean did a great job inside and outside of the team. He sold the program throughout the community and with Wade staying they backed up his selling. He's obviously a terrific coach, got the right guy at the right time (and he stayed for 2 years on the court, 3 in the program) and he viewed the job as being more than the X's and O's, but included the marketing of the program, on the campus and outside.

[Pistol]

Marquette vs. SLU.

After watching the fantastically exciting MU vs ND game last night, I couldn't help but reflect upon the two drastically different directions two incredibly similar institutions (and basketball programs) have taken. Marquette is now a legitimate powerhouse basketball program. SLU is in the doldrums. So then I asked myself, why?

I don't have the desire nor the time to go back through and highlight the MU success versus SLU but there are many. Perennial NCAA appearances, deep runs in the tourney, invitations to Power conferences, great players, and on and on and on.

So why does MU have such a dramatically better program? SLU is nearly identical to MU in so many ways: mission, ranking, affiliations, off campus arena, urban location setting in the Midwest, enrollment, and lack of football. In fact, I think SLU has more selling points the MU with a prettier campus, top notch engineering program, and now an on campus arena. So how come they succeeded and we didn't? I have a few theories but I want to hear what the board has to say first.

I don't think the engineering program is a highlight of SLU's advantages over Marquette in a conversation about basketball programs. How many D-I players care about that?

"Sorry, Coach Williams, UNC is nice but there is a much, much better engineering school in Rolla, Missouri."

[billiken_roy]

imo there are two big take offs. first the chance to go to the big east was huge which obviously led to the second point of an increased investment in dollars and sense at an earlier point in time.

i think rickma has forced the slu administration to buck up on some things, but we need to go all the way in all aspects of a big time athletic dept. until then it will always be two steps forward and one step back imo. gotta spend the bucks.

[MusicCityBilliken]

The reasons are numerous>

-tradition

-knowing when you made a mistake, correcting it very quickly

-better coaching and recruiting

-putting major resources early on (coaches salary & that practice facility)

-some luck (to bad we could not have gotten another year out of Hughes)

After the Mcquire/Raymonds/Majerus era things did not look so bright for Marquette. They also were members of the MCC and had a terrible coach in Bob Dukiet who was slowly destroying the program. At least SLU had some nice NIT runs with Grawer during that same period.

Then we both bolted to the Great Midwest and for many years (except for one or two O'Neill years) we played pretty much even and then when O'Neill bolted for Tennessee, Spoon completely outshined Deane. They recognized the Deane was a mistake, dumped him, and brought in Crean. Crean was a great coach for them in both representing the university, recruiting and winning ball games. Our overall record since since Crean came was mediocre at best and those big crowds we had in the 90's stop coming.

SLU's big mistake, my opinion, was in '98 or '99, whenever Spoon left. We should have given him a Majerus size salary increase to keep him. Also, when Laurie became principle owner of Kiel, we should made the commitment and built the new on-campus arena/practice facility. That also was around 98 or 99 and I believe then we became 2nd class citizens on our own home court. The increase salary and new on-campus facilities would have kept him and re-lit that spark that we saw in the early Spoon days. Not to mention improve the recruiting.

Also, concerning doing it in 98 or 99, that was the highpoint of the program. Economy was good then so donations would have flowed in. Thank God we did it when we did. If we would have waited till now, it would have been shelved with this economy.

Anyway, I think things appear to be heading in the right direction. We also could have been like Loyola-Chi or Detroit. Two programs that have wonderful traditions but for the past 30 years have been crap.

[slu72]

imo there are two big take offs. first the chance to go to the big east was huge which obviously led to the second point of an increased investment in dollars and sense at an earlier point in time.

i think rickma has forced the slu administration to buck up on some things, but we need to go all the way in all aspects of a big time athletic dept. until then it will always be two steps forward and one step back imo. gotta spend the bucks.

It's not only MU but X and Zaga as well. They move forward while we run in place, sometimes, moving backward. If some five star hoopster from Mars, who knew nothing about college hoops in the US, landed on the planet and were to be recruited by those 4 schools, one would think SLU would stand a good chance of coming out on top, but that's just a hypo. It all boils down to winning...winning....winning...and more winning. Which translates into more TV time and ESPN highlight shows. To MU's credit their admin realized the important marketing tool a good hoops program can be. Just think about how many future highly rated D1 talents watched that game last night and penciled in MU as a possible school to consider. Then think about how many even know SLU exists. Yeah, we have a new arena, a prettier campus, a more well known coach, we may even have better academics than MU, we certainly have a more temperate climate, I'm not sure about the cuter Co-ed factor, or which school offers a better party scene (though my guess would be MU due to the success of their hoops program), but what it really boils down to is FAME and CELEBRITY, we don't have either.....yet! Another way to look at it is if there are two recruits talking and one says "I got an offer from MU".....the other responds, "I got an offer from SLU", who's gonna look like the better player, the bigger star? I really think SLU made their mistake when Zo left. With the arena squarely in Biondi's sights that was the time to hire a high dollar coach. He knew he was going to get it done. He should have planned better and had a HC ready to deliver us a potential sweet 16 team a year or two earlier than the Chey's grand opening. If that had happened, you wouldn't be seeing many empty seats this year. And we wouldn't be discussing this topic.

[sillybilly]

SLU also needs to up their SOS (currently at 318 or so) dramatically. SLU is viewed as a local/regional school at best.

[Clock_Tower]

SLU also needs to up their SOS (currently at 318 or so) dramatically. SLU is viewed as a local/regional school at best.

Do you have nothing better to do than troll? Is this the best can you add to the discussion? Loser.

[Clock_Tower]

The reasons are numerous>

-tradition

-knowing when you made a mistake, correcting it very quickly

-better coaching and recruiting

-putting major resources early on (coaches salary & that practice facility)

-some luck (to bad we could not have gotten another year out of Hughes)

After the Mcquire/Raymonds/Majerus era things did not look so bright for Marquette. They also were members of the MCC and had a terrible coach in Bob Dukiet who was slowly destroying the program. At least SLU had some nice NIT runs with Grawer during that same period.

Then we both bolted to the Great Midwest and for many years (except for one or two O'Neill years) we played pretty much even and then when O'Neill bolted for Tennessee, Spoon completely outshined Deane. They recognized the Deane was a mistake, dumped him, and brought in Crean. Crean was a great coach for them in both representing the university, recruiting and winning ball games. Our overall record since since Crean came was mediocre at best and those big crowds we had in the 90's stop coming.

SLU's big mistake, my opinion, was in '98 or '99, whenever Spoon left. We should have given him a Majerus size salary increase to keep him. Also, when Laurie became principle owner of Kiel, we should made the commitment and built the new on-campus arena/practice facility. That also was around 98 or 99 and I believe then we became 2nd class citizens on our own home court. The increase salary and new on-campus facilities would have kept him and re-lit that spark that we saw in the early Spoon days. Not to mention improve the recruiting.

Also, concerning doing it in 98 or 99, that was the highpoint of the program. Economy was good then so donations would have flowed in. Thank God we did it when we did. If we would have waited till now, it would have been shelved with this economy.

Anyway, I think things appear to be heading in the right direction. We also could have been like Loyola-Chi or Detroit. Two programs that have wonderful traditions but for the past 30 years have been crap.

Taj. You are correct. The mistake was letting Spoon go and then replacing him with Romar. Being in Conf USA with the success we had enjoyed, we did not need to go the "up-and-coming" unknown assistant -especially one from the West Coast. Thanks again Doug Woolard!!

This mistake was followed by the hiring of Brad without giving him the required resources and then allowing the new arena project to stall and flounder.

The new arena should have been built while Spoon was here and then certainly under Romar. Waiting until after we dropped to the A10 and stalled under Brad was way too late.

As to the criticism, put me in the camp that thought RM would do more with existing talent but believe many are missing the boat. Roy, all of our players are not regressing. TL was a one-dimensional player and now plays a complete game. BE went from nothing last year to a slimmed down and stronger contributor. PE has come along way in this, his second year. KL is a bit perplexing. If injury is the case, then that explains this season. If no injury, then yes he would have regressed. If I count correctly, though, that would be 3 improved and possibly only 1 regressed. Why the anger at RM?

As to this year's freshman class, recall that we have 6 guys of which 3 are bigs (slower to develop) and 1 is redshirting. That leaves KM whom all admit is having a great year and KC who is improving but just not scoring. Why are many writing off this year's class as great recruiting class and labeling them merely as a good class? If we had any depth, WR and/or BT would also be redshirting.

Next year, we are bringing in our most talented and athletic 3 and 4 players that SLU has ever seen along with 2 top-notch shooting guards. Next year we do not appear to have as many centers/projects and therefore less of a learning curve.

Sorry for being optomistic in this woe-is me/SLU thread.

[jimbofive]

Taj. You are correct. The mistake was letting Spoon go and then replacing him with Romar. Being in Conf USA with the success we had enjoyed, we did not need to go the "up-and-coming" unknown assistant -especially one from the West Coast. Thanks again Doug Woolard!!

This mistake was followed by the hiring of Brad without giving him the required resources and then allowing the new arena project to stall and flounder.

The new arena should have been built while Spoon was here and then certainly under Romar. Waiting until after we dropped to the A10 and stalled under Brad was way too late.

As to the criticism, put me in the camp that thought RM would do more with existing talent but believe many are missing the boat. Roy, all of our players are not regressing. TL was a one-dimensional player and now plays a complete game. BE went from nothing last year to a slimmed down and stronger contributor. PE has come along way in this, his second year. KL is a bit perplexing. If injury is the case, then that explains this season. If no injury, then yes he would have regressed. If I count correctly, though, that would be 3 improved and possibly only 1 regressed. Why the anger at RM?

As to this year's freshman class, recall that we have 6 guys of which 3 are bigs (slower to develop) and 1 is redshirting. That leaves KM whom all admit is having a great year and KC who is improving but just not scoring. Why are many writing off this year's class as great recruiting class and labeling them merely as a good class? If we had any depth, WR and/or BT would also be redshirting.

Next year, we are bringing in our most talented and athletic 3 and 4 players that SLU has ever seen along with 2 top-notch shooting guards. Next year we do not appear to have as many centers/projects and therefore less of a learning curve.

Sorry for being optomistic in this woe-is me/SLU thread.

Great post. I wish that Tommie could score 20+ 6 games in a row again, but other than that, I agree that he is a more complete player now. I don't know that we'll have as obvious a duo as TL and KL for awhile, but we might have SEVERAL players of that caliber who won't appear to be as good as they are because they won't have to be the "go to guys" in a complete team environment. This is what Xavier has had for awhile now. Even if everything clicks in a couple years and we start going to the tournament, I still don't think we'll see 5 or 6 guys scoring around double figures, just because that's not the kind of game Majerus plays. But I think we'll see multiple effective lineups on the floor and ultimately, more wins.

[billiken_roy]

tommie is no where near the player he was as a sophomore imo. and his shot has continued to get worse form wise after being near perfect his sophomore year.

he is rebounding again this year as opposed to last, but it is my understanding he wasnt supposed to hit the boards last year and has been turned loose again this year. applause.

i will disagree on eckerle. i think he is slower and seems very tenative with the ball and i liked the freshman eckerle better than the sophomore eckerle.

other than mitchell, i dont think any of the freshmen is better than they were early december.

i will say that since xmas mitchell has hit the switch and imo is not a freshman anymore.

next time we go to lunch tower, i will be happy to tell you lisch stories if you want, but the board is tired of billiken roy lisch stories so i wont post them.

[kshoe]

SLU also needs to up their SOS (currently at 318 or so) dramatically. SLU is viewed as a local/regional school at best.

That is one terrible post. As if SLU's schedule this year has anything to do with the differences between Marquette and SLU over the last 10 years. You really have your finger on the pulse of this topic.

[DoctorB]

if MU is where we want to be: then what year was Crean hired?

I'm guessing 8 or 10 years back. I vote for patience, once again; and suggest that if we keep building, in 6-8 years maybe we can be like them, or XU.

another thing -- I am all for getting an NBA type like Wade or Larry Hughes, but many programs succeed with nary a one-- XU has had some pros, but no lottery picks in recent years; then there's Butler, and others (I'm sure others on here can list a few). Long-term success does not depend on a lottery pick.

I welcome it, but we need not require it, let alone expect it.

[TheChosenOne]

XU has had some pros, but no lottery picks in recent years

I guess that is technically correct, but Xavier has had some big time players recently. David West was an All-American and National POY in 2003 and went on to be the 18th pick in the 2003 NBA Draft and was an All-Star last year. The following season Lional Chalmers and Romain Sato led Xavier to the Elite Eight and both were 2nd round picks in the 2004 NBA Draft. They have had some extremely talented rosters of late.

[Pistol]

Taj. You are correct. The mistake was letting Spoon go and then replacing him with Romar. Being in Conf USA with the success we had enjoyed, we did not need to go the "up-and-coming" unknown assistant -especially one from the West Coast. Thanks again Doug Woolard!!

This mistake was followed by the hiring of Brad without giving him the required resources and then allowing the new arena project to stall and flounder.

The new arena should have been built while Spoon was here and then certainly under Romar. Waiting until after we dropped to the A10 and stalled under Brad was way too late.

So your point in these paragraphs is that the AD made two mistakes: hiring Romar and not giving Soderberg the proper resources? Really?

Isn't it possible that Romar could have achieved more with some resources? Isn't it also possible that Romar is a better coach than Soderberg?

I'll go ahead and answer these two questions: yes to both. While you can swear up and down that hiring Romar was a mistake and Brad never got a fair crack (which is amazing to me, as Romar had less resources, no hope of a new arena, not to mention a worse AD in Woolard while Brad mostly had Levick), the rest of the college athletics world must disagree with you, as Brad is the AD at D-III Loras College and Lorenzo is on track to be the winningest coach in University of Washington history.

You're also ignoring another key detail: Lorenzo asked Brad to come on as his assistant after he was fired by Wisconsin. Brad never would have been considered for the job at SLU if he hadn't already been in the program.

Oh yeah, and Romar wasn't hired away from an assistant job. He was the head coach at Pepperdine. He probably only would have been considered an "up and coming" assistant when he actually was an "up and coming" assistant at UCLA, when they won a national championship. If he was a complete unknown to you, it's because you already don't care what's going on west of St. Louis, judging by your dismissive attitude toward the west coast. Using that as a knock against him makes no sense to me, as we should be trying to hire the best coach possible, regardless of where he's from.

Was Doug Woolard a bad AD at SLU? Absolutely. Could we have opened up the war chest to keep Spoon from retiring? Maybe, I don't know. It obviously wasn't a top priority for Woolard or the boosters. Was Romar a bad hire? No, he was the best candidate for the job at the time. And he and Brad both could have had more success at SLU than they did if they were given the resources and support that Majerus now has.

[3Jack]

One big advantage that Marquette has is it's proximity to Chicago. They get alot of good players from there including Dwayne Wade and their current leading scorer McNeal. There is also no comparison as far as tradition and fan support. Marquette has almost always drawn very good crowds even to an off campus arena.

[Pistol]

if MU is where we want to be: then what year was Crean hired?

I'm guessing 8 or 10 years back. I vote for patience, once again; and suggest that if we keep building, in 6-8 years maybe we can be like them, or XU.

another thing -- I am all for getting an NBA type like Wade or Larry Hughes, but many programs succeed with nary a one-- XU has had some pros, but no lottery picks in recent years; then there's Butler, and others (I'm sure others on here can list a few). Long-term success does not depend on a lottery pick.

I welcome it, but we need not require it, let alone expect it.

Some programs succeed without future NBA players, but most that sustain any level of success have future pros on the roster. I don't think these teams need lottery picks necessarily, since most programs don't have lottery picks very often. But I tend to think that you need real talent in college basketball if you're going to win.

Butler hasn't had any pros in a long time and has been a very successful program. But even as good as they've been, they've only been as far as the Sweet Sixteen (twice). Can anyone think of other programs that have been very successful without NBA players?

Oh yeah, and Derrick Brown on Xavier has a shot at being a lottery pick this year or next.

[slufanskip]

Some programs succeed without future NBA players, but most that sustain any level of success have future pros on the roster. I don't think these teams need lottery picks necessarily, since most programs don't have lottery picks very often. But I tend to think that you need real talent in college basketball if you're going to win.

Butler hasn't had any pros in a long time and has been a very successful program. But even as good as they've been, they've only been as far as the Sweet Sixteen (twice). Can anyone think of other programs that have been very successful without NBA players?

Oh yeah, and Derrick Brown on Xavier has a shot at being a lottery pick this year or next.

OU hasn't had many, but has been pretty good with players just under the NBA level. Of course this year is the exception

[MusicCityBilliken]

if MU is where we want to be: then what year was Crean hired?

Doc,

Crean came in 1999. It was the same year Romer started here.

[Clock_Tower]

So your point in these paragraphs is that the AD made two mistakes: hiring Romar and not giving Soderberg the proper resources? Really?

Isn't it possible that Romar could have achieved more with some resources? Isn't it also possible that Romar is a better coach than Soderberg?

I'll go ahead and answer these two questions: yes to both. While you can swear up and down that hiring Romar was a mistake and Brad never got a fair crack (which is amazing to me, as Romar had less resources, no hope of a new arena, not to mention a worse AD in Woolard while Brad mostly had Levick), the rest of the college athletics world must disagree with you, as Brad is the AD at D-III Loras College and Lorenzo is on track to be the winningest coach in University of Washington history.

You're also ignoring another key detail: Lorenzo asked Brad to come on as his assistant after he was fired by Wisconsin. Brad never would have been considered for the job at SLU if he hadn't already been in the program.

Oh yeah, and Romar wasn't hired away from an assistant job. He was the head coach at Pepperdine. He probably only would have been considered an "up and coming" assistant when he actually was an "up and coming" assistant at UCLA, when they won a national championship. If he was a complete unknown to you, it's because you already don't care what's going on west of St. Louis, judging by your dismissive attitude toward the west coast. Using that as a knock against him makes no sense to me, as we should be trying to hire the best coach possible, regardless of where he's from.

Was Doug Woolard a bad AD at SLU? Absolutely. Could we have opened up the war chest to keep Spoon from retiring? Maybe, I don't know. It obviously wasn't a top priority for Woolard or the boosters. Was Romar a bad hire? No, he was the best candidate for the job at the time. And he and Brad both could have had more success at SLU than they did if they were given the resources and support that Majerus now has.

Pistol. Hope you feel better after venting all that anger.

As for Romar, you are correct in that he was the head coach at Pepperdine. My mistake.

As for other mistakes, yours include Romar and resources. First Romar was paid nearly double what Brad was paid. Second, Romar was on UCLA's coaching staff but was not the first assistant so don't give him credit for a national championship. In fact, I think he was more like the third assistant. Best coach in U of Washington history?? If he's the best, that's not much of a history. Third, he coached all 3 of his years in Conf USA with its status, presitage and attraction to recruits.

Romar simply did not get it done here in St. Louis. He won with Spoons' guys and then left the cupboard bare. Less recources? Are you forgetting that he was the coach of a Conf USA team recently after Larry brought his year of success and a really good recruiting class with him as opposed to an A10 team without recent success. As to my West Coach comment, Romar is from he West Coach, went to school there, coached at both UCLA and Pepperdine. How does that help him build a program here in the midwest. The day he was hired, the question was not would he leave but how many years before he would leave - we were his stepping stone. I wanted Brad Stallings.

Don't get me wrong, Brad was a bad hire also, but IMO, he had more recruiting sucess than your hero Romar did. Brad needed to go and I am thilled with his replacement - RM. Still, Brad recruited quite well intially and then "hit the wall." I truly don't think we can underestimate the difficulty Brad faced when we dropped to the A10 and then the Arena project stalled and believe it greatly affected his recruiting. Nonetheless, because he was not a big name, did not have prior success, etc., the task was too tough for him and he failed. He needed to be let go.

If people want our program to be on the level of Marquette, then we have Fr. Biondi to thank for his failure to build the arena in the early 90's as promised and Doug Woolard for his numerous years of ineptitude. Thank goodness he left and Cheryl Levick implemented all of her changes.

To me, the top 5 of recent of Billiken history include Grawer, Spoon, Levick, Chaveitz and now Majerus.

[Pistol]

Pistol. Hope you feel better after venting all that anger.

As for Romar, you are correct in that he was the head coach at Pepperdine. My mistake.

As for other mistakes, yours include Romar and resources. First Romar was paid nearly double what Brad was paid. Second, Romar was on UCLA's coaching staff but was not the first assistant so don't give him credit for a national championship. In fact, I think he was more like the third assistant. Best coach in U of Washington history?? If he's the best, that's not much of a history. Third, he coached all 3 of his years in Conf USA with its status, presitage and attraction to recruits.

Romar simply did not get it done here in St. Louis. He won with Spoons' guys and then left the cupboard bare. Less recources? Are you forgetting that he was the coach of a Conf USA team recently after Larry brought his year of success and a really good recruiting class with him as opposed to an A10 team without recent success. As to my West Coach comment, Romar is from he West Coach, went to school there, coached at both UCLA and Pepperdine. How does that help him build a program here in the midwest. The day he was hired, the question was not would he leave but how many years before he would leave - we were his stepping stone. I wanted Brad Stallings.

Don't get me wrong, Brad was a bad hire also, but IMO, he had more recruiting sucess than your hero Romar did. Brad needed to go and I am thilled with his replacement - RM. Still, Brad recruited quite well intially and then "hit the wall." I truly don't think we can underestimate the difficulty Brad faced when we dropped to the A10 and then the Arena project stalled and believe it greatly affected his recruiting. Nonetheless, because he was not a big name, did not have prior success, etc., the task was too tough for him and he failed. He needed to be let go.

If people want our program to be on the level of Marquette, then we have Fr. Biondi to thank for his failure to build the arena in the early 90's as promised and Doug Woolard for his numerous years of ineptitude. Thank goodness he left and Cheryl Levick implemented all of her changes.

To me, the top 5 of recent of Billiken history include Grawer, Spoon, Levick, Chaveitz and now Majerus.

No anger whatsoever, I was just pointing out the numerous holes in your argument. And yet, there are more.

Romar was not paid nearly double what Brad was paid. I'm not sure where you heard that but it is incorrect. Their salaries were very comparable.

Romar was part of a huge coaching staff at UCLA, with Gottfried and Lavin as the other two assistants and Harrick as the head coach. All 3 of those assistants became head coaches shortly after the championship. It doesn't matter where he was "ranked" among them because he got the head gig at Pepperdine straight after that job.

Washington does not have a storied basketball history, true. But I would still take the honor of being the best head coach at a Pac 10 school instead of AD at a D-III school in Dubuque, Iowa. Just saying.

How does being from the West Coast help Romar at SLU? By attracting recruits from across the country, not just in the Midwest, that's how. How does Pitino get NYC kids to play in the state of Kentucky? I would have loved to see Ryan Hollins in a SLU uniform. Romar was not here long enough to see how this would have paid off.

Romar was here 3 years. Brad was here 5. I know they weren't his players, but Romar did see us into the NCAA tournament. Brad never came close in two extra years.

Brad was a horrible recruiter, with two cornerstone local kids (Lisch, Liddell) that he followed with a wasted class (Knollmeyer, McGuire, Mitchell, Relphorde), a few nice finds early on (Vouyoukas, Bryant, Frericks- despite injuries, Drejaj), a few that never met their potential (Ohanon, Polk, Husak), a couple solid kids (Meyer, Brown), and some embarrassing failures (Johnson, Newbourne, Ikeakor, Clarke). Once again, that was in two more years than Romar had. I would have put money on Romar to come up with a better five-year run than that, no matter how things fell apart when he left, and which we've already discussed in another recent thread.

The conference change was out of the control of the coaches. Other A10 schools have landed future NBA players, plenty of them, so that should not have been much of a loss for Brad. Keep in mind that the bottom half of C-USA was similar to the caliber of the bottom half of the A10. I know the A10 isn't as strong as a conference with Memphis, Louisville, Cincinnati, and Marquette, but I'm not sure recruits see this as a devastating change.

[courtside]

The reasons are numerous>

-tradition

-knowing when you made a mistake, correcting it very quickly

-better coaching and recruiting

-putting major resources early on (coaches salary & that practice facility)

-some luck (to bad we could not have gotten another year out of Hughes)

After the Mcquire/Raymonds/Majerus era things did not look so bright for Marquette. They also were members of the MCC and had a terrible coach in Bob Dukiet who was slowly destroying the program. At least SLU had some nice NIT runs with Grawer during that same period.

Then we both bolted to the Great Midwest and for many years (except for one or two O'Neill years) we played pretty much even and then when O'Neill bolted for Tennessee, Spoon completely outshined Deane. They recognized the Deane was a mistake, dumped him, and brought in Crean. Crean was a great coach for them in both representing the university, recruiting and winning ball games. Our overall record since since Crean came was mediocre at best and those big crowds we had in the 90's stop coming.

SLU's big mistake, my opinion, was in '98 or '99, whenever Spoon left. We should have given him a Majerus size salary increase to keep him. Also, when Laurie became principle owner of Kiel, we should made the commitment and built the new on-campus arena/practice facility. That also was around 98 or 99 and I believe then we became 2nd class citizens on our own home court. The increase salary and new on-campus facilities would have kept him and re-lit that spark that we saw in the early Spoon days. Not to mention improve the recruiting.

Also, concerning doing it in 98 or 99, that was the highpoint of the program. Economy was good then so donations would have flowed in. Thank God we did it when we did. If we would have waited till now, it would have been shelved with this economy.

Anyway, I think things appear to be heading in the right direction. We also could have been like Loyola-Chi or Detroit. Two programs that have wonderful traditions but for the past 30 years have been crap.

In 7 seasons at SLU, Spoonhour won 112 games, or 16 per season. In 5 seasons at Marquette Deane won 100 games, or 20 per season.

In his 7 seasons at SLU, two more than Deane had at Marquette, Spoonhour made 3 NCAA appearances. In 5 seasons at Marquette, Deane made 2 NCAA appearances. Spoonhour also made one 1st round NIT appearance while Deane had an NIT final appearance and NIT quartefinal appearance during this same time period.

I'd say that hardly qualifies as Spoonhour "completely outshining Deane."

It's fair to say the two were comparable. SLU fans somehow don't like to remember it that way. It'd also be fair to say considering O'Neill's success at Marquette, that Marquette overall did better than SLU during that time period.

One could say that SLU was roughly comparable for two decades, but not close to Marquette in previous or subsequent decades and time periods.

You are correct that Deane's results combined with program direction, was not good enough for Marquette's liking. They made the change, and it was a successful one that continues through today. I have debated that I do not think you are correct in your historical comparisons of Deane and Spoonhour. I believe this is relevant and important because Spoon is so fondly remembered by many at SLU. While Deane is not poorly remembered, and his x's and o's knowledge was/is well respected, he doesn't have the historical fondness of Spoonhour. Maybe it was because SLU had much less previous success compared to Marquette? Maybe it was that combined with being a good ol boy folksy charm and local PR for Spoonhour?

The rest of your post is pretty reasonable imo and the one thing it perhaps is lacking is better long term relationships too that SLU never had nor developed.

[MusicCityBilliken]

In 7 seasons at SLU, Spoonhour won 112 games, or 16 per season. In 5 seasons at Marquette Deane won 100 games, or 20 per season.

In his 7 seasons at SLU, two more than Deane had at Marquette, Spoonhour made 3 NCAA appearances. In 5 seasons at Marquette, Deane made 2 NCAA appearances. Spoonhour also made one 1st round NIT appearance while Deane had an NIT final appearance and NIT quartefinal appearance during this same time period.

I'd say that hardly qualifies as Spoonhour "completely outshining Deane."

It's fair to say the two were comparable. SLU fans somehow don't like to remember it that way. It'd also be fair to say considering O'Neill's success at Marquette, that Marquette overall did better than SLU during that time period.

One could say that SLU was roughly comparable for two decades, but not close to Marquette in previous or subsequent decades and time periods.

Okay here is Spoon and Deane head to head record:

94-95 Spoon was 2-0

95-96 1-1

96-97 0-2

97-98 2-0

98-99 2-1 (includes a tourney game)

total 7-4

7-4 looks shining to me.

Concerning O'Neill, Spoon was 5-3 in the 3 years they played. I will admit (which I kind admitted in my post) O'Neill did have nice run at Marquette with a sweet sixteen.

BTW Courtside, you are the first Marquette fan that I met that loved Deane. My son's HS basketball coach is a MU grad and he totally loathed the guy.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Okay here is Spoon and Deane head to head record:

94-95 Spoon was 2-0

95-96 1-1

96-97 0-2

97-98 2-0

98-99 2-1 (includes a tourney game)

total 7-4

7-4 looks shining to me.

Concerning O'Neill, Spoon was 5-3 in the 3 years they played. I will admit (which I kind admitted in my post) O'Neill did have nice run at Marquette with a sweet sixteen.

BTW Courtside, you are the first Marquette fan that I met that loved Deane. My son's HS basketball coach is a MU grad and he totally loathed the guy.

From looking at the old records, here is what I found:

Spoon's record overall against Marquette: 10-7

Spoon's record against Marquette teams coached by Mike Deane (from 1995 through 1999): 8-4

Then the decline in our SLU program, and the rise of Marquette, becomes evident:

Lorenzo Romar's record against Tom Creane coached Marquette teams: 1-5

Brad Soderberg's record against Tom Creane coached Marquette teams: 2-4

To finish this and looking back to the beginning of SLU v. Marquette games in the more modern era, Rich Grawer's record against Marquette was 3-5, but 3 of those losses were during Grawer's last year at SLU (5-23), when he was playing all those freshmen (Claggett, Highmark, etc.).

What do they say about ifs and buts? It is pretty obvious that SLU was right there with Marquette, frankly slightly ahead of Marquette, during the Spoonball Years. Had Spoon stayed ... had SLU been able to keep up that winning consistency against Marquette after Spoon left, had SLU been able to win a few more of those close losses after Creane took over at Marquette, would SLU be in the Big East today instead of the A-10?

I share the emotions of many on this board. We've waited a long time. SLU was there during the Spoonball days. I still have hope that better days lie just around the corner.

I've seen 2 SLU wins in person this year- UMBC and GW. The new Arena is spectacular. My brother-in-law and nephew, Santa Clara alumnus and student, were with us for the GW game. They were mightily impressed, confirming that with Coach Majerus and the new Arena, SLU is big time.

It is tough, and I fall into this too, but we need to let these freshmen grow and develop as players.

Let's all continue to keep the faith.

[MusicCityBilliken]

From looking at the old records, here is what I found:

Spoon's record overall against Marquette: 10-7

Spoon's record against Marquette teams coached by Mike Deane (from 1995 through 1999): 8-4

Let's all continue to keep the faith.

BayArea, that's even better. Must have missed a tourney game.

Agree, we need to keep the faith