The tale of two programs

[courtside]

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.

1) You didn't say "Head to Head" in your original post. And, while 7-4 gives the edge to Spoonhour, I'd hardly call that greatly significant. I'd call it the St. Louis tunnel vision mentality. You are more preoccupied in SLU vs Marquette head to head, as opposed to themselves overall as programs. Is the point really, seriously to say, well, I'm not all that interested in the program or programs, but I remember that time Larry Hughes put 40 up on Mike Bargen? As programs I don't see Spoonhour clearly outshining Deane at their respective times, and I'll stick to what I just posted.

2) If my posts on this "make me a Marquette fan," well, then I must be a fan of a lot of schools, too many too count.

3) If you want a very still small, but hugely bigger sample size of Marquette basketball fans than you have, post the topic and question on one of their boards to get your answer. It'd be a misrepresentation to say that Marquette fans loathed Mike Deane. His x's and o's are well respected. His later years recruiting left something for many to be desired, not all that unlike Spoonhour. Again, they had a lot in common in many ways. If you posted on their board I'd imagine you'd get responses appreciating his years, respecting his x's and o's, plenty that will suggest he liked to drink beer with students, fans, opposing coaches on his dime, that his recruiting could have been better. Deane's downfall was having the approach that Marquette was as good as it was going to be, not much better, complacent, satisfied, would be fair adjectives. But he is hardly loathed by the masses at Marquette. I'm sure you'll find some in any group though.

You are really, really, grabbing at straws if the apparent 7-4 had to head record is the basis of your answer.

You are missing the point. Spoonhour and Deane were roughly comparable. But many SLU fans remember Spoonhour as the Glory Days. This is the point that should be more closely examined by SLU fans.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Many recall, Larry dropped about 30 on them at Milwaukee and we beat them at their place.

Apparently everyone doesn't recall, because it was 40.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Overall, SLU is 23-31 against Marquette, broken down as follows:

Home: 16-11

Away: 4-18

Neutral: 3-2

From the time of being fellow conference members (1990- 2005), SLU was 16-21 against Marquette, but was only 3-9 against Marquette after Spoon left (2000-2005).

It was conventional wisdom that Spoon owned Mike Deane. Spoon was 8-4 against Deane coached Marquette teams, including a 4 game winning streak (1994-1995) and wins in 4 of the last 5 meetings.

Marquette may be a highly ranked team now, but it's not like Marquette is some majestic temple high in the clouds.

[courtside]

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.

You, like many SLU fans, are too preoccupied in defending SLU at all costs, which also allows for envy to creep in of other places. My point was and is that SLU and Marquette were roughly comparable under Deane and Spoonhour. Marquette saw this as not good enough, and SLU saw it as pretty good, even great to some.

It's also important to not dismiss history, tradition, success, and relationships prior to these eras of Spoonhour and Deane. You can't simply say, well, both were at this similar point at that time, Marquette went one way and SLU went another. On the surface that is roughly comparable, but that would not be a complete picture.

SLU builds a shiny new expensive Arena and facilities, and people expect it to rain the first day.

Instead of saying our isolated handful of games over many decades was better than yours, how about thinking a little bigger than that, and without envy?

[MU88]

Most MU alums view Deane as a great coach who couldn't recruit.

MU graduates more engineers than any Catholic school. It is very highly regarded and is about to build a new $100 million Discovery Learning Complex on campus.

MU peaked at the right time to get into the BE. But, truth be told, MU was working on BE membership for 15 years. According to MU's old AD, SJU changed their vote when ND was admitted or MU would have been in the BE in the early 90s. So, I am not sure how much Wade, the Final Four and Crean had to do with it.

I think MUs longterm success has made it a fairly easy job. MU has had something like 40 winning seasons in the past 43 years. The fan support is extremely strong. Attendance has averaged over 10,000 per game for every year but one since the late 60s. Poor facilities led to the downfall of the program in the late 80s and probably hurt recruiting through Crean's early years, but the AL changed all that.

So, why is MU successful? In a radio interview last week, Buzz was asked what surprised him most during his tenure at MU. His response was the administration. He said he has never been around an administration that was so supportive of the basketball team. There is nothing that he has asked for that hasn't been provided. He said it was the finest administration that he has ever been around.

No reason why SLU can't be successful. Although, I am not convinced an on-campus arena is a must. Georgetown does pretty good without one. Other schools like Creighton also do fairly well.

You have a quality coach in place. You have new facilities. Right now, I think all you need is patience. You need your freshman and soon-to-be freshmen to grow up. If the administration at SLU continues to support the team, good things will happen. Viewing it as an outsider, it seems to me, that in the past, SLU's commitment to D-1 hoops was up and down. Romar was learning on the job during his SLU tenure, and why anyone would think hiring Soderburg was a good idea is beyond me. I remember having an ongoing disagreement on this board about the guy after he was hired. While he won at SDSU, his records were worse than the coaches prior to and directly after him. His style of play alienated fans, and he couldn't recruit. Very, very poor choice. Anyway, things are looking up and if you stay the course, you should be at the top of the A-10 shortly.

[courtside]

Overall, SLU is 23-31 against Marquette, broken down as follows:

Home: 16-11

Away: 4-18

Neutral: 3-2

From the time of being fellow conference members (1990- 2005), SLU was 16-21 against Marquette, but was only 3-9 against Marquette after Spoon left (2000-2005).

It was conventional wisdom that Spoon owned Mike Deane. Spoon was 8-4 against Deane coached Marquette teams, including a 4 game winning streak (1994-1995) and wins in 4 of the last 5 meetings.

Marquette may be a highly ranked team now, but it's not like Marquette is some majestic temple high in the clouds.

Again, this is not the first time Bay Area and I have been through this.

Certain posters here hate, despise, can't stand Marquette among some other schools for really little reason. Your repeated posts are all about head to head during certain time periods, which actually makes my point in regards to the way some people here think and the way I do.

No one said Marquette was or is a majestic temple high in the clouds.

I think it is very important and relevant for people to examine what I said, ...many people want the good ole Spoon days. I say, if that is what you want, it is roughly comparable to Mike Deane's era during a roughly similar time period. And apparently that brings out the haters. Perhaps it's because people only remember some head to head games from a certain time period with Marquette as opposed to overall programs? Perhaps because some people live and die with games from a few programs SLU faces? Perhaps people didn't like Deane's use of timeouts, ala Mike Martz? Perhaps they didn't like his glasses or facial expressions? Not really sure. But his body of work was roughly comparable to Spoonhour's during a similar time period. Why does that upset people so much?

[eastsidejoe]

Most MU alums view Deane as a great coach who couldn't recruit.

MU graduates more engineers than any Catholic school. It is very highly regarded and is about to build a new $100 million Discovery Learning Complex on campus.

MU peaked at the right time to get into the BE. But, truth be told, MU was working on BE membership for 15 years. According to MU's old AD, SJU changed their vote when ND was admitted or MU would have been in the BE in the early 90s. So, I am not sure how much Wade, the Final Four and Crean had to do with it.

I think MUs longterm success has made it a fairly easy job. MU has had something like 40 winning seasons in the past 43 years. The fan support is extremely strong. Attendance has averaged over 10,000 per game for every year but one since the late 60s. Poor facilities led to the downfall of the program in the late 80s and probably hurt recruiting through Crean's early years, but the AL changed all that.

So, why is MU successful? In a radio interview last week, Buzz was asked what surprised him most during his tenure at MU. His response was the administration. He said he has never been around an administration that was so supportive of the basketball team. There is nothing that he has asked for that hasn't been provided. He said it was the finest administration that he has ever been around.

No reason why SLU can't be successful. Although, I am not convinced an on-campus arena is a must. Georgetown does pretty good without one. Other schools like Creighton also do fairly well.

You have a quality coach in place. You have new facilities. Right now, I think all you need is patience. You need your freshman and soon-to-be freshmen to grow up. If the administration at SLU continues to support the team, good things will happen. Viewing it as an outsider, it seems to me, that in the past, SLU's commitment to D-1 hoops was up and down. Romar was learning on the job during his SLU tenure, and why anyone would think hiring Soderburg was a good idea is beyond me. I remember having an ongoing disagreement on this board about the guy after he was hired. While he won at SDSU, his records were worse than the coaches prior to and directly after him. His style of play alienated fans, and he couldn't recruit. Very, very poor choice. Anyway, things are looking up and if you stay the course, you should be at the top of the A-10 shortly.

i was excited when they hired spoon and then when they hired romar. i thought the program was heading in the right direction. then they hired Soderburg. i couldn't believe that choice. that set us back years imo. i was so angry and upset i gave my tickets up for a year. i was convinced Biondi and the other higher ups had no intention of improving our program. you have to stay consistent with your hiring after you lose a decent coach. that is where slu dropped the ball imo. that is one of the reasons we are looking up to the teams that we used to be on the same level as. just my thoughts.

[Quality Is Job 1]

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!!

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?

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

You've written a couple of things that need to be corrected.

Lorenzo Romar wasn't an assistant coach when SLU hired him. He'd been the head coach at Pepperdine for three years.

Tommie Liddell has never been a one-dimensional player, and his overall game HAS regressed or slipped (not improved) these past two years.

Your comments may put a cheery spin on the recent past, but I wouldn't call them optimistic, particularly as the program moves forward.

[billiken_roy]

are we talking about the same mike deane that would use all his timeouts before the 12 minute mark of the first half? yeah he was a genius.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Courtside,

Although I enjoy reading your posts, I knew full well that this was coming.

I can assure you that "envy" is not involved. I have 2 close friends and a brother-in-law that all went to Marquette. Absent games against SLU (that no longer are played), I have no problem with Marquette having success.

Marquette is a very similar school to SLU. When I was at SLU during the dark days of the Ron Ekker Era, SLU supporters, and probably SLU itself, compared SLU to Jesuit University "X," which we all knew was Marquette. Marquette was on top then with Al McGuire, having won the National Championship. SLU was at the bottom of rock bottom. But most said that if Marquette can do it, then so can SLU. And that is still the case.

You need to look yourself at the objective facts of won-loss records.

For whatever reason, your memories of the Mike Deane Era are not borne out by the facts, nor by the conventional wisdom of the time.

How far back do you want to go? Al McGuire- advantage Marquette; Ed Hickey- advantage SLU; the Louisiana Purchase? Advantage- SLU.

You always bring up "relationships." I'm not sure what you mean there. What I do know is that Marquette always had a rivalry with Notre Dame, as did DePaul, as they are close in proximity. And Notre Dame probably played a key role in getting them both into the Big East. SLU once had a strong rivalry with Notre Dame, but my Seniors on this board would know more about that. Notre Dame has not played SLU in St. Louis since the early 1970's. SLU played at ND once during the Ekker Era and got blown out. SLU played once at ND under Rich Grawer, and Digger Phelps commented in a negative tone about SLU holding the ball. The next meeting was in that more recent gerrymandered NIT game at the "neutral site" of Ft. Wayne, Indiana.

SLU had "relationships" with Louisville, Marquette, DePaul, and Cincinnati, as well as even South Florida. But they all bolted for the bright lights of the Big East. Football no doubt made Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida attractive to the Big East. And one suspects that Notre Dame had a lot to do with DePaul and Marquette joining them. I really don't know what SLU could have done about that. SLU cannot make Notre Dame play it. Perhaps an appeal to the Vatican was in order.

[courtside]

Courtside,

Although I enjoy reading your posts, I knew full well that this was coming.

I can assure you that "envy" is not involved. I have 2 close friends and a brother-in-law that all went to Marquette. Absent games against SLU (that no longer are played), I have no problem with Marquette having success.

Marquette is a very similar school to SLU. When I was at SLU during the dark days of the Ron Ekker Era, SLU supporters, and probably SLU itself, compared SLU to Jesuit University "X," which we all knew was Marquette. Marquette was on top then with Al McGuire, having won the National Championship. SLU was at the bottom of rock bottom. But most said that if Marquette can do it, then so can SLU. And that is still the case.

You need to look yourself at the objective facts of won-loss records.

For whatever reason, your memories of the Mike Deane Era are not borne out by the facts, nor by the conventional wisdom of the time.

How far back do you want to go? Al McGuire- advantage Marquette; Ed Hickey- advantage SLU; the Louisiana Purchase? Advantage- SLU.

You always bring up "relationships." I'm not sure what you mean there. What I do know is that Marquette always had a rivalry with Notre Dame, as did DePaul, as they are close in proximity. And Notre Dame probably played a key role in getting them both into the Big East. SLU once had a strong rivalry with Notre Dame, but my Seniors on this board would know more about that. Notre Dame has not played in St. Louis since the early 1970's. SLU played at ND once during the Ekker Era and got blown out. SLU played once at ND under Rich Grawer, and Digger Phelps commented, which I took negatively, about SLU holding the ball. The next meeting was in that more recent gerrymandered NIT game at the "neutral site" of Ft. Wayne, Indiana.

SLU had "relationships" with Louisville, Marquette, DePaul, and Cincinnati, as well as even South Florida. But they all bolted for the bright lights of the Big East. Football no doubt made Louisville, Cincinnati, and South Florida attractive to the Big East. And one suspects that Notre Dame had a lot to do with DePaul and Marquette joining them. I really don't know what SLU could have done about that. SLU cannot make Notre Dame play it. Perhaps an appeal to the Vatican was in order.

Your evaluation of the Mike Deane era is limited to his head to head matchups vs SLU. You base your opinion entirely on head to head matchups with SLU, when I base mine on far more material than that, and I've described some of them as such, and I've reasonably concluded based on fact that Deane and Spoon's eras were roughly comparable. I do not see how any reasonable person could say otherwise when basing their opinion on more than a handful of head to head games. The other games count just as much.

My bigger point is that casual SLU fans and even some less casual, remember Spoon's era with mostly great fondness and success. Dean's historical place with many Marquette fans, is a little more mixed than that, mostly because they wanted better than that. His coaching ability, his x's and o's game prep, were very good, but as I and someone else has now said, his recruiting wasn't strong. His personality was gregarious, drinking buddy type, with generosity, which pleased some, disliked by others, and was indifferent to a third group. But, the school's conclusion was that they wanted more than that.

Instead of focusing on the bigger point, you are bogged down on the smaller picture imo.

No one, certainly not me, has said SLU can't have greater or even great success in college basketball. I believe the point MU88 was making, as well as myself, in terms of relationships, is that Marquette didn't just wake up one day and join the Big East. It also didn't just happen because of their program success of level at the time of inclusion. SLU has not been strong in this area over a great long period of time in its past.

[Bay Area Billiken]

1) You didn't say "Head to Head" in your original post. And, while 7-4 gives the edge to Spoonhour, I'd hardly call that greatly significant. I'd call it the St. Louis tunnel vision mentality. You are more preoccupied in SLU vs Marquette head to head, as opposed to themselves overall as programs. Is the point really, seriously to say, well, I'm not all that interested in the program or programs, but I remember that time Larry Hughes put 40 up on Mike Bargen? As programs I don't see Spoonhour clearly outshining Deane at their respective times, and I'll stick to what I just posted.

2) If my posts on this "make me a Marquette fan," well, then I must be a fan of a lot of schools, too many too count.

3) If you want a very still small, but hugely bigger sample size of Marquette basketball fans than you have, post the topic and question on one of their boards to get your answer. It'd be a misrepresentation to say that Marquette fans loathed Mike Deane. His x's and o's are well respected. His later years recruiting left something for many to be desired, not all that unlike Spoonhour. Again, they had a lot in common in many ways. If you posted on their board I'd imagine you'd get responses appreciating his years, respecting his x's and o's, plenty that will suggest he liked to drink beer with students, fans, opposing coaches on his dime, that his recruiting could have been better. Deane's downfall was having the approach that Marquette was as good as it was going to be, not much better, complacent, satisfied, would be fair adjectives. But he is hardly loathed by the masses at Marquette. I'm sure you'll find some in any group though.

You are really, really, grabbing at straws if the apparent 7-4 had to head record is the basis of your answer.

You are missing the point. Spoonhour and Deane were roughly comparable. But many SLU fans remember Spoonhour as the Glory Days. This is the point that should be more closely examined by SLU fans.

How is an 8-4 record head to head "roughly comparable?" IMO not acknowledging the superiority there, a .667 winning percentage, is "missing the point."

[Milwaukee Billiken]

It's been a while since I've chimed in around here, but this question is of particular interest to me. Growing up in Milwaukee and attending Marquette University High School, I've been a Marquette fan longer than I've been a Billiken fan. Since setting foot on the SLU campus as a freshman in 2001, however, my real passion has rested with the Billikens. I'd like nothing more than to see our Billikens take off the way Marquette basketball has in the past decade.

The way schools are viewed by the nation as a whole is largely affected by athletic performance, like it or not. For example, the spring after Marquette made the final four, freshman applications increased four-fold. We're talking a jump from 3,000 applications for admissions to 12,000. Who on this board wouldn't want SLU and SLU basketball to see that kind of exposure?

There are several differences between MU and SLU when it comes to their basketball programs. Many of them have been mentioned here. My focus is a little different.

One difference that several people overlook is luck. Marquette was lucky enough to win the National Championship in 1977 and they were lucky enough to land Dwayne Wade (not even close to being the #1 recuit in the country) for two years. Both instances involved a great deal of luck. Success and winning at the college level is all based on prior winning. Schools like SLU that can't get the ball rolling remain stuck where they've always been: the bottom of the top third. For as many success stories are there are out there (Marquette, Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler), there are more Depauls, Seton Halls, SLUs, and Detroits.

Because of their sustained sucess, MU has established a fan base and recruiting points. And yes, Marquette is at the top to stay. I'm not saying they're always going to be a top 25 team. Who is? Even Kentucky isn't up there anymore. But because of their success, mainly attributable to one player, MU will continue to recuit in the top 25. They regularly sign 4 star recuits. They average over 20,000 fans per game and they recruit their backyard. The best Marquette success stories have been local recruits turned NBA caliber players. Steve Novak, Jim McIlvane, Scott Merritt, and Travis Diener were all Milwaukee area players. I can guarantee SLU would be in better place if Drew Diener was lucky enough to convince his brother Travis to head to SLU. Brad Soderberg might even still have his old job. Unfortunately, without some luck, the program just hasn't and just won't get rolling. Fortunately, lady luck is on the horizon.

Continue to have faith, Billikens. Our time will come. SLU built an arena to lend credibility to a program with none. SLU hired a head coach with more credibility and experience than any other SLU coach in history. Majerus is recruiting at level unparalled in SLU history. One of his recruits is going to break out, and when he does, the program will have something to build on. The school and the athletic department have enough financial support to continue investing in the future. When it comes to sports, unfortunately, a lot of the time, you're investing in a dice-roll. Winning is going to happen eventually. It's just going to take a little luck, a lot of patience, and a lot of time to get rolling.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Most MU alums view Deane as a great coach who couldn't recruit.

MU graduates more engineers than any Catholic school. It is very highly regarded and is about to build a new $100 million Discovery Learning Complex on campus.

MU peaked at the right time to get into the BE. But, truth be told, MU was working on BE membership for 15 years. According to MU's old AD, SJU changed their vote when ND was admitted or MU would have been in the BE in the early 90s. So, I am not sure how much Wade, the Final Four and Crean had to do with it.

I think MUs longterm success has made it a fairly easy job. MU has had something like 40 winning seasons in the past 43 years. The fan support is extremely strong. Attendance has averaged over 10,000 per game for every year but one since the late 60s. Poor facilities led to the downfall of the program in the late 80s and probably hurt recruiting through Crean's early years, but the AL changed all that.

So, why is MU successful? In a radio interview last week, Buzz was asked what surprised him most during his tenure at MU. His response was the administration. He said he has never been around an administration that was so supportive of the basketball team. There is nothing that he has asked for that hasn't been provided. He said it was the finest administration that he has ever been around.

No reason why SLU can't be successful. Although, I am not convinced an on-campus arena is a must. Georgetown does pretty good without one. Other schools like Creighton also do fairly well.

You have a quality coach in place. You have new facilities. Right now, I think all you need is patience. You need your freshman and soon-to-be freshmen to grow up. If the administration at SLU continues to support the team, good things will happen. Viewing it as an outsider, it seems to me, that in the past, SLU's commitment to D-1 hoops was up and down. Romar was learning on the job during his SLU tenure, and why anyone would think hiring Soderburg was a good idea is beyond me. I remember having an ongoing disagreement on this board about the guy after he was hired. While he won at SDSU, his records were worse than the coaches prior to and directly after him. His style of play alienated fans, and he couldn't recruit. Very, very poor choice. Anyway, things are looking up and if you stay the course, you should be at the top of the A-10 shortly.

Thanks for your post re Marquette and the Big East. One suspects that DePaul was brought along to put the Big East into the Chicago market. There's not much SLU could have done about all this, is there?

Had SLU been having the success of the Claggett/Highmark years and the Hughes year under Spoon at the time the Big East expanded, would it have even made a difference? It appears from just looking at the numbers (as in number of teams) that it would not have mattered anyway. I guess we will never know.

[RB2.0]

Thanks for your post re Marquette and the Big East. One suspects that DePaul was brought along to put the Big East into the Chicago market. There's not much SLU could have done about all this, is there?

Had SLU been having the success of the Claggett/Highmark years and the Hughes year under Spoon at the time the Big East expanded, would it have even made a difference? It appears from just looking at the numbers (as in number of teams) that it would not have mattered anyway. I guess we will never know.

It seems there a few major themes most posters have tried to convey through their posts. Correct me if I'm wrong, but they are:

1. Commitment from the school - probably the largest factor. MUs administration apparently has spent the big time money and supported the program at all costs.

2. The lack of a big time hire after Spoon set us back most recently

3. Relationships "cultivated"

4. MUs recruiting of the Chicago area

MU had to have seen something in Creen to have the patience with him. Soderberg was here for what, 4-5 years, and we got nothing from his recruits. Obviously, I think we can all agree that RM has the recruiting prowess to take us to the next level. But realistically, how long will he stay here? I think our next coaching move is critical.

[Bay Area Billiken]

It's been a while since I've chimed in around here, but this question is of particular interest to me. Growing up in Milwaukee and attending Marquette University High School, I've been a Marquette fan longer than I've been a Billiken fan. Since setting foot on the SLU campus as a freshman in 2001, however, my real passion has rested with the Billikens. I'd like nothing more than to see our Billikens take off the way Marquette basketball has in the past decade.

The way schools are viewed by the nation as a whole is largely affected by athletic performance, like it or not. For example, the spring after Marquette made the final four, freshman applications increased four-fold. We're talking a jump from 3,000 applications for admissions to 12,000. Who on this board wouldn't want SLU and SLU basketball to see that kind of exposure?

There are several differences between MU and SLU when it comes to their basketball programs. Many of them have been mentioned here. My focus is a little different.

One difference that several people overlook is luck. Marquette was lucky enough to win the National Championship in 1977 and they were lucky enough to land Dwayne Wade (not even close to being the #1 recuit in the country) for two years. Both instances involved a great deal of luck. Success and winning at the college level is all based on prior winning. Schools like SLU that can't get the ball rolling remain stuck where they've always been: the bottom of the top third. For as many success stories are there are out there (Marquette, Xavier, Gonzaga, Butler), there are more Depauls, Seton Halls, SLUs, and Detroits.

Because of their sustained sucess, MU has established a fan base and recruiting points. And yes, Marquette is at the top to stay. I'm not saying they're always going to be a top 25 team. Who is? Even Kentucky isn't up there anymore. But because of their success, mainly attributable to one player, MU will continue to recuit in the top 25. They regularly sign 4 star recuits. They average over 20,000 fans per game and they recruit their backyard. The best Marquette success stories have been local recruits turned NBA caliber players. Steve Novak, Jim McIlvane, Scott Merritt, and Travis Diener were all Milwaukee area players. I can guarantee SLU would be in better place if Drew Diener was lucky enough to convince his brother Travis to head to SLU. Brad Soderberg might even still have his old job. Unfortunately, without some luck, the program just hasn't and just won't get rolling. Fortunately, lady luck is on the horizon.

Continue to have faith, Billikens. Our time will come. SLU built an arena to lend credibility to a program with none. SLU hired a head coach with more credibility and experience than any other SLU coach in history. Majerus is recruiting at level unparalled in SLU history. One of his recruits is going to break out, and when he does, the program will have something to build on. The school and the athletic department have enough financial support to continue investing in the future. When it comes to sports, unfortunately, a lot of the time, you're investing in a dice-roll. Winning is going to happen eventually. It's just going to take a little luck, a lot of patience, and a lot of time to get rolling.

Good post- and it was SLU's luck, as in bad, that Larry Hughes left SLU after that one great freshman season. But one cannot blame Hughes for answering the call of the NBA

It is hard to look back then and wonder what might have been- Hughes would have played with Justin Love the next season or two.

But would any of this mattered in hindsight?

Hopefully, better days are ahead for our Billikens.

[Quality Is Job 1]

The best Marquette success stories have been local recruits turned NBA caliber players. Steve Novak, Jim McIlvane, Scott Merritt, and Travis Diener were all Milwaukee area players. I can guarantee SLU would be in better place if Drew Diener was lucky enough to convince his brother Travis to head to SLU. Brad Soderberg might even still have his old job. Unfortunately, without some luck, the program just hasn't and just won't get rolling. Fortunately, lady luck is on the horizon.

Great post, all around, except Travis Diener is Drew Diener's cousin, not his brother. Drew's brother, Drake, played at DePaul. Travis's sister, Rachel, played at SLU and is Rick Majerus's secretary.

[Milwaukee Billiken]

Great post, all around, except Travis Diener is Drew Diener's cousin, not his brother. Drew's brother, Drake, played at DePaul. Travis's sister, Rachel, played at SLU and is Rick Majerus's secretary.

He sure is.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Good post- and it was SLU's luck, as in bad, that Larry Hughes left SLU after that one great freshman season. But one cannot blame Hughes for answering the call of the NBA

It is hard to look back then and wonder what might have been- Hughes would have played with Justin Love the next season or two.

But would any of this mattered in hindsight?

Hopefully, better days are ahead for our Billikens.

But, more than that, where would SLU be had they had Chris Carrawell and Loren Woods already in the program when Hughes arrived? Whew!

One of Cardinal Ritter's former assistant coaches told me years ago that Spoonhour could have landed Carrawell and Woods if he'd signed their teammate Brian Brown (I think that was his last name, but my memory is a bit fuzzy on that, now that I'm "over the hill"). But Spoon preferred Troy Robertson over Brown because St. Charles West had won a 4A championship (notwithstanding the fact that Ritter had won a championship, just at a smaller classification).

While we'll never really know if Carrawell and Woods would have played at SLU even if Spoon had signed B. Brown, my hypothetical (or fantasy) scenario holds that, had they been here when Hughes came, Larry would have had to carry less of the load and wouldn't have shine quite as much, probably necessitating at least one more year. By then SLU would have been established as a program that would consistently make runs into the NCAA Tournament's second weekend and would be at or above the level Gonzaga and Xavier currently call home.

[Bay Area Billiken]

But, more than that, where would SLU be had they had Chris Carrawell and Loren Woods already in the program when Hughes arrived? Whew!

One of Cardinal Ritter's former assistant coaches told me years ago that Spoonhour could have landed Carrawell and Woods if he'd signed their teammate Brian Brown (I think that was his last name, but my memory is a bit fuzzy on that, now that I'm "over the hill"). But Spoon preferred Troy Robertson over Brown because St. Charles West had won a 4A championship (notwithstanding the fact that Ritter had won a championship, just at a smaller classification).

While we'll never really know if Carrawell and Woods would have played at SLU even if Spoon had signed B. Brown, my hypothetical (or fantasy) scenario holds that, had they been here when Hughes came, Larry would have had to carry less of the load and wouldn't have shine quite as much, probably necessitating at least one more year. By then SLU would have been established as a program that would consistently make runs into the NCAA Tournament's second weekend and would be at or above the level Gonzaga and Xavier currently call home.

Carrawell, Woods, Hughes, mercy. We're talking multiple NCAA bids there.

Couldn't we have found a place for this Brian Brown?

I don't know if we can call this bad luck, perhaps SLU Flu?

Taking this back a few years, we all remember the Craig Upchurch Fiasco. He would have been paired with SLU's all-time leading scorer, Anthony Bonner. Would Upchurch have played with Monroe Douglass and Roland Gray too?

This just shows that SLU should still be able to get over that hump- some way, some how, it has to happen.

We've had enough of the bad luck or SLU Flu, whatever it is. It's time for good karma, for winning.

[Quality Is Job 1]

Obviously, I think we can all agree that RM has the recruiting prowess to take us to the next level. But realistically, how long will he stay here? I think our next coaching move is critical.

I suspect Majerus will retire from SLU. I don't think he aspires to coach at a BCS school. He never has. He didn't even stick with the NBA, but he could certainly be an NBA assistant coach or head coach. However, I think he really likes the college environment, and he coaches at programs where the students are students, if you get my drift.

The only BCS school he considered was USC, which is still not a state school. If he were to leave SLU and still want to coach, where would he go? He isn't going to Alabama!

[Quality Is Job 1]

Carrawell, Woods, Hughes, mercy. We're talking multiple NCAA bids there.

Couldn't we have found a place for this Brian Brown?

I don't know if we can call this bad luck, perhaps SLU Flu?

Taking this back a few years, we all remember the Craig Upchurch Fiasco. He would have been paired with SLU's all-time leading scorer, Anthony Bonner. Would Upchurch have played with Monroe Douglass and Roland Gray too?

This just shows that SLU should still be able to get over that hump- some way, some how, it has to happen.

We've had enough of the bad luck or SLU Flu, whatever it is. It's time for good karma, for winning.

Had SLU not dropped the ball with Upchurch (and also provided that Rich Grawer had been able to maintain decent oversight of his program), Grawer might now be the Mike Krzyzewski of the Midwest.

[MusicCityBilliken]

Again, this is not the first time Bay Area and I have been through this.

Certain posters here hate, despise, can't stand Marquette among some other schools for really little reason. Your repeated posts are all about head to head during certain time periods, which actually makes my point in regards to the way some people here think and the way I do.

No one said Marquette was or is a majestic temple high in the clouds.

I think it is very important and relevant for people to examine what I said, ...many people want the good ole Spoon days. I say, if that is what you want, it is roughly comparable to Mike Deane's era during a roughly similar time period. And apparently that brings out the haters. Perhaps it's because people only remember some head to head games from a certain time period with Marquette as opposed to overall programs? Perhaps because some people live and die with games from a few programs SLU faces? Perhaps people didn't like Deane's use of timeouts, ala Mike Martz? Perhaps they didn't like his glasses or facial expressions? Not really sure. But his body of work was roughly comparable to Spoonhour's during a similar time period. Why does that upset people so much?

Courtside, read my original post, I don't hate MU, I thought I was very complimentary of Crean and how I admired how MU has put together an outstanding program. Actually also I like Kevin O'Neill. I was working near Knoxville when Kevin was at UT. I heard him speak at a Catholic Business Mens group and he was great. Though I was never big fan of Deane. He seemed to me to be a strange bird on how he treated his players. Most of the MU grads I know also kind of agreed with me concerning Deane. Okay, you know ones that liked him, no big deal. BTW, Spoon had a 8-4 record with Deane, Bayarea corrected me.

Also, so you are big MU fan, no big deal, I consider myself a big biased Bills fan

[Bay Area Billiken]

Courtside, read my original post, I don't hate MU, I thought I was very complimentary of Crean and how I admired how MU has put together an outstanding program. Actually also I like Kevin O'Neill. I was working near Knoxville when Kevin was at UT. I heard him speak at a Catholic Business Mens group and he was great. Though I was never big fan of Deane. He seemed to me to be a strange bird on how he treated his players. Most of the MU grads I know also kind of agreed with me concerning Deane. Okay, you know ones that liked him, no big deal. BTW, Spoon had a 8-4 record with Deane, Bayarea corrected me.

Also, so you are big MU fan, no big deal, I consider myself a big biased Bills fan

I'm a SLU alumnus (x2) and a big, utterly biased Billiken fan too, and am proud of it. SLU is my school, and the Billikens are my team, and always will be.

I will always come to the aid and defense of alma mater when necessary.

[courtside]

How is an 8-4 record head to head "roughly comparable?" IMO not acknowledging the superiority there, a .667 winning percentage, is "missing the point."

116 games in 7 years. 100 games in 5 years. Post-season experiences and success....etc...how is that not roughly comparable? You are isolating a handful of games when the topic is the two programs during those two coach's time periods.