The tale of two programs

[Bay Area Billiken]

Well, looking at it objectively, I still see things a lot differently. Earlier I asked where Marquette was at prior to Deane. I noticed you didn't answer that one, but after looking it up I am even more convinced that Spoon gets the clear nod. Marquette was 44-17 in the two years prior to Deane, won the conference and made the Sweet 16 the year prior to Deane arriving. Compared to Spoon who inherited a 5-win team, that was in a complete shambles with transfers and little time to put together a first recruiting class.

I can see where you would think that at first glance the two were even by looking strictly at some of the numbers, but I like to look a little deeper and put some of those numbers in proper context. You have even discussed all the tradition and university commitment advantages that Marquette has had over SLU, so that's another bigger hurdle Spoon had to try to clear that Deane didn't have to contend with. In your post, I got a chuckle out of this line "I think you simply see Spoon as the guy who took SLU to the NCAA's a few times, and that was pretty unique to SLU" Wow, talk about an understatement. Yeah, I would say it was pretty "unique" - SLU hadn't been to the NCAA Tourney in over three decades! And no, I don't simply see him as the guy who took SLU to the Tourney, I see him as a guy who was able to help get little old SLU to the top 10 in the nation in attendance. That was a major accomplishment. Personally, I am more into the winning than the "aw shucks" stuff, but if that helped fill some more seats in addition to the winning, then that's yet another plus in the Spoon column.

The more I read this debate, the more there should be no way that Deane could be considered anywhere near the equal of Spoon.

Look at it this way- after leaving SLU, Spoon coached at UNLV. In contrast, where has Deane coached- Lamar and Wagner College.

[courtside]

Well, looking at it objectively, I still see things a lot differently. Earlier I asked where Marquette was at prior to Deane. I noticed you didn't answer that one, but after looking it up I am even more convinced that Spoon gets the clear nod. Marquette was 44-17 in the two years prior to Deane, won the conference and made the Sweet 16 the year prior to Deane arriving. Compared to Spoon who inherited a 5-win team, that was in a complete shambles with transfers and little time to put together a first recruiting class.

I can see where you would think that at first glance the two were even by looking strictly at some of the numbers, but I like to look a little deeper and put some of those numbers in proper context. You have even discussed all the tradition and university commitment advantages that Marquette has had over SLU, so that's another bigger hurdle Spoon had to try to clear that Deane didn't have to contend with. In your post, I got a chuckle out of this line "I think you simply see Spoon as the guy who took SLU to the NCAA's a few times, and that was pretty unique to SLU" Wow, talk about an understatement. Yeah, I would say it was pretty "unique" - SLU hadn't been to the NCAA Tourney in over three decades! And no, I don't simply see him as the guy who took SLU to the Tourney, I see him as a guy who was able to help get little old SLU to the top 10 in the nation in attendance. That was a major accomplishment. Personally, I am more into the winning than the "aw shucks" stuff, but if that helped fill some more seats in addition to the winning, then that's yet another plus in the Spoon column.

1) I don't discount anything. You discount the 67 games Grawer won in the 3 seasons immediately before his final season. I'd say Grawer's success was pretty unique to SLU as well during that time period and the recent history before it.

2) You also continue to discount that Rich Grawer recruited the likes of Scott Highmark, Erwin Claggett, etc..Claggett became the 2nd leading scorer in SLU history and was an intregal part of the back to back NCAA appearances. Higmark became the 5th leading scorer in SLU history.

No one is discounting Charlie Spoonhour's value at SLU. I merely pointed out, that he won with a mix of talented players recruited by someone else, and some of his own, which was roughly similar to Mike Deane.

Why did you pick two years prior to Deane's arrival, and only one year prior to Spoon's to advance your point? That isn't consistent. As I said, SLU won 67 games in the three seasons immediate prior to that time and had players who would become 2 of the top 5 scorers in SLU history, not recruited by Spoon. Marquette was 11-18 a couple of years prior to the one's you chose, but you left that one out.

I'd also suggest that Spoon had 7 seasons to Deane's 5 seasons, two more seasons to develop and add more historical reference.

Again, I have nothing against Spoon. I've noted his successes, and my saying his era at SLU was roughly the same as Deane's, during a roughly similar time period, isn't an insult.

[Pistol]

Pistol.

Believe you are wrong on several accounts.

First, Romar clearly made more money than Brad. SLU, as you know, does not publish salary figures but the Business Journal in 2004 said Brad's salary was between $225K and $275K. Romar was hired in at $400K - 3 years earlier!!. When Brad left, after his salary increase by CL, his "buyout" was $325K and he was likely earning $350 to $375. Romar, in contast, was hired in at $400K, was rumored to have been earning $550K and the attached site from UW indicates he was earning approximately $500K. . See site: http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/...p;date=20020403

Second, the ranking of the assistants do matter. The 1st assistant has much more power and responsibility than the 3rd assistant. The fact that all 3 later became head coaches means nothing other than they were working for a smart guy - one who could evaluate and choose good assistant coaches.

Third, as I have said on many occasions, Romar is a good guy and a good coach but a very bad hire for SLU. At his alma mater on the West Coach he is doing well. Don't believe is coming close to eclipsing John Wooden's PAC 10 records as you imply though. Kevin Stallings would have a been a much better hire.

Fourth, Ryan Hollins was the ONLY kid (in 3 years) that Romar brought in. For you to imply a "pipeline" or compare him to Pitino is laughable. I know about national recruiters and coaches - I'm watching one right now in RM.

Fifth. You may have put your money on Romar for 5 years (and being better than Brad is little accomplishment) but Romar simply did not get it done either. Other than your belief and hope, Romar's results were not impressive. Both turned out bad for SLU.

Sixth. Judging where a coach is today is not much of a test. What does that prove? John Wooden, for instance, hasn't won a game in years. Why punish a guy who has a nice gig in Iowa (good salary, works for his sister, no pressures and can watch his kids play/grow up) until he resurfaces - most likely as an assistant and tries to get back to college head coaching. If Romar had stayed one more year, and allowed the SLU program to collapse on himself (Randy Pulley, Nick Kern, Jason Edwin and Floyd McClain all leaving) that job in AD job in Iowa would be looking quite good to Romar nowadays.

Seventh. For you to dismiss the dropping of conference status (one of the few selling points for SLU) who had the worst facilities, bad tradition, no rivals, conference jumpers, and lack of funds/administrative support is also laughable. Sure it was out of the hands of the coaches but saying we now play the A10 teams (outside of X and Dayton) instead of the Conf USA sure makes the whole experience (including West Pine gym) that much worse. Have some coaches overcome the worst obstacles and still succeeded, of course, but that is another thread.

Clock, if you want to keep pulling me back in, fine:

First, your numbers for Brad's salary aren't right. They are low; he never earned under $300,000. Also, your number for Romar is just based on one Seattle Times reporter's speculation. $500,000 would have been rounding up for him.

Second, I'm aware that the assistant rankings do matter. They get paid differently, have different roles, and must have someone ready to step in if the HC leaves suddenly. But you said before that Romar was an "up and coming assistant" from the West Coast, which wasn't true. He and all the other assistants from that UCLA national championship team became head coaches two seasons later. Lavin was top, and he got the job Harrick left open. Gottfried and Romar both got HC jobs elsewhere.

Third, who else was considered besides Stallings and Romar? Did Stallings want the job? I know Stallings had a few really nice years with Illinois State, but the season before the SLU job opened, his ISU team slipped back into the middle of the conference (granted, after losing their studs). Point is, there are a lot of variables when hiring a coach and if I were doing the interviewing, I'd have a hard time passing on Romar.

Fourth, I wasn't comparing Romar to Pitino. That was my example of a guy using his home connections to attract players to an unlikely destination. Obviously Romar was here too short, was too early in his career, and wasn't a $2.3 million-a-year guy recruiting to a huge program with a huge budget. If Romar had stayed and had time to build the program further, who knows, he could have attracted more West Coast kids.

Fifth, we're just going to disagree on this point. I wasn't happy about seeing the coach I liked leave when I was a freshman at SLU, and I was very patient with Soderberg for a few years and wasn't pleased with how things went with him in the end (recruiting failure after TL and KL, particularly). Romar's potential success is just my speculation, but I've argued that here a number of times and if people disagree despite my points, there's nothing else I can say.

Sixth, judging where a coach is today proves exactly what we're arguing - what they can do. A coach has to be judged on his whole body of work, and Romar is the winner by a landslide in that department. The Wooden comparison isn't even relevant, since he is retired and is the winningest coach (title-wise) in history. Romar and Soderberg are both still active, and as nice as Soderberg's gig sounds to us outsiders, he's only there because he couldn't get another job as a D-I head coach, which is what he wants to do (except Detroit, which he turned down). Many say the program would have collapsed on Romar- it's hard to say. My guess is that since all those guys loved him, they all would have stayed. Pulley and Edwin may have been ineligible and/or may have had to transfer. Floyd's chronic injuries couldn't be helped. He may have talked Seyfert out of his homesickness. Nick Kern probably never would have showed up. But all of these guys chose SLU based on their relationships with Romar, and none of them had much time to show what they could bring to the program yet. They're all "incompletes." And I would gladly take a freshman class of Ryan Hollins and Taj Gray to go along with Marque Perry, Josh Fisher, Chris Sloan, Kenny Brown, and the rest of those guys. Plus, the local high school kids and coaches were developing good relationships with him, too (but don't take my word for it, p diddy and others have confirmed this).

Seventh, you're overrating the conference switch. Yes, C-USA was better- I never said otherwise. Marquette, Cincinnati, Louisville, Memphis, DePaul- these are schools I loved playing twice a year and with which we had long-standing conference affiliations. The rest of C-USA I don't miss. The A10 is better than C-USA right now, and we had nowhere else to go. It was unfortunate, but not a deal killer. You're forgetting that we are recruiting high school kids. There are so many more important factors than the conference for them. There are a lot of things about the A10 I don't like (TV, travel distance, lack of history between SLU and others), but there are a lot of things you undersell about it. The schools are similar in size and mission to SLU, some of them have nice histories and rivalries among each other, and we have some natural foes nearby in Dayton and Xavier. There have been a lot of great players in the conference, great coaches, and some programs with the potential to make some noise every year. It could be a lot worse and you are very much dramatizing what this does to recruiting.

[courtside]

The more I read this debate, the more there should be no way that Deane could be considered anywhere near the equal of Spoon.

Look at it this way- after leaving SLU, Spoon coached at UNLV. In contrast, where has Deane coached- Lamar and Wagner College.

1) Not relevant, this is about what they did during comparable time frames at two specific places. 2) I'll play along anyway.

UNLV had success under Bayno winning four conference titles, multiple NCAA's, immediately preceeding Spoon. Spoon didn't even last 3 seasons there, and UNLV chose not to hire his son full time either. Prior to Spoon, Bayno won the league title 4 times and had two NCAA appearances from 95-00, and Lon Kruger has been to two NCAA's in four seasons after Spoon.

Deane chose to not sit out a year after leaving Marquette in the Spring of his final season and was hired over the summer to coach Lamar a couple of months later.

[billiken_roy]

pistol two things,

first, i have it from a pretty good source romar would have gotten the ucla job had he not already taken the pepperdine job when the ucla job opened up. lavin was the only one left.

second, i believe stallings would have gotten the job had he not come to his final interview with great demands. stuff like higher paid assistants, extra tutors, solid plans for a new arena and practice facility, increased majors to accomodate transfers and lesser students, charter flights, etc.

ironically most have now been granted to the current slu coach.

the one biggest factor we should forever be ingratiated to rickma. he changed the rules for the billiken basketball program.

[courtside]

pistol two things,

first, i have it from a pretty good source romar would have gotten the ucla job had he not already taken the pepperdine job when the ucla job opened up. lavin was the only one left.

second, i believe stallings would have gotten the job had he not come to his final interview with great demands. stuff like higher paid assistants, extra tutors, solid plans for a new arena and practice facility, increased majors to accomodate transfers and lesser students, charter flights, etc.

ironically most have now been granted to the current slu coach.

the one biggest factor we should forever be ingratiated to rickma. he changed the rules for the billiken basketball program.

...And Stallings has it going at Vanderbilt.

With risk of not knowing if Vanderbilt is on Roy's list of hated programs, or Stallings of hated people, (we kid people)...

Vanderbilt has had its ups and downs and struggles this season playing several promising, but inexperienced Freshman. Jeff Taylor will be a terrific player. Tinsley, Tschiengang, Goulbourne, Ezeli(Rs-Fr) Ogilvy has had some foot problems this year, and without a true point, due to graduation, due to Bell's transfer, and Beal's style of a 2 in 1's body, it's caused them some ups and downs this season. But there is little doubt they will be a force in a couple of seasons. Jenkins coming next year can fill it up. Three NCAA's in the past five year's, narrowly missing it the two other times. The future is bright for Vanderbilt. The recent $50 million in Athletic Dept upgrades has included updates to the basketball department and facilities too.

And what a beautiful campus and atmosphere. Not a fan of the raised floor, but a great atmosphere. And Vanderbilt has such a nice set up near the bars and restaurants of West End Ave, or The Village on the other side of campus. And all the nearby downtown District options 1-1.5 miles or so away.

Side note: (His kid is going to be a good baseball player at UNC, wanted to go away to school, even though Stallings is close to Tim Corbin, and Vanderbilt's baseball team is very good these days, top 2 National class of 13 kids this year. UNC is also near the top too.)

First bowl win in 53 years too. Top flight academics. 7 top 25 ranked athletic programs each of the past few seasons. Stallings is doing alright.

[billiken_roy]

...And Stallings has it going at Vanderbilt.

With risk of not knowing if Vanderbilt is on Roy's list of hated programs, or Stallings of hated people, (we kid people)...

Vanderbilt has had its ups and downs and struggles this season playing several promising, but inexperienced Freshman. Jeff Taylor will be a terrific player. Tinsley, Tschiengang, Goulbourne, Ezeli(Rs-Fr) Ogilvy has had some foot problems this year, and without a true point, due to graduation, due to Bell's transfer, and Beal's style of a 2 in 1's body, it's caused them some ups and downs this season. But there is little doubt they will be a force in a couple of seasons. Jenkins coming next year can fill it up. Three NCAA's in the past five year's, narrowly missing it the two other times. The future is bright for Vanderbilt. The recent $50 million in Athletic Dept upgrades has included updates to the basketball department and facilities too.

And what a beautiful campus and atmosphere. Not a fan of the raised floor, but a great atmosphere. And Vanderbilt has such a nice set up near the bars and restaurants of West End Ave, or The Village on the other side of campus. And all the nearby downtown District options 1-1.5 miles or so away.

Side note: (His kid is going to be a good baseball player at UNC, wanted to go away to school, even though Stallings is close to Tim Corbin, and Vanderbilt's baseball team is very good these days, top 2 National class of 13 kids this year. UNC is also near the top too.)

First bowl win in 53 years too. Top flight academics. 7 top 25 ranked athletic programs each of the past few seasons. Stallings is doing alright.

news flash courty, not one vandy fan has every written a thing about vandy on this site. how about that autographed picture sport?

[courtside]

news flash courty, not one vandy fan has every written a thing about vandy on this site. how about that autographed picture sport?

I just wrote about Vandy. They must not be on your hated list. I believe they have stronger academic standards than SLU but they are doing better athletically. They have had a nice run in hoops in recent years and they look strong for a long term run in men's basketball. Do you like Valentino's for game day Italian, or are you more of Blackstone Brewery guy?

Note: This would require you to leave the 618 other than for SLU basketball games.

[GoBills]

1) I don't discount anything. You discount the 67 games Grawer won in the 3 seasons immediately before his final season. I'd say Grawer's success was pretty unique to SLU as well during that time period and the recent history before it.

2) You also continue to discount that Rich Grawer recruited the likes of Scott Highmark, Erwin Claggett, etc..Claggett became the 2nd leading scorer in SLU history and was an intregal part of the back to back NCAA appearances. Higmark became the 5th leading scorer in SLU history.

No one is discounting Charlie Spoonhour's value at SLU. I merely pointed out, that he won with a mix of talented players recruited by someone else, and some of his own, which was roughly similar to Mike Deane.

Why did you pick two years prior to Deane's arrival, and only one year prior to Spoon's to advance your point? That isn't consistent. As I said, SLU won 67 games in the three seasons immediate prior to that time and had players who would become 2 of the top 5 scorers in SLU history, not recruited by Spoon. Marquette was 11-18 a couple of years prior to the one's you chose, but you left that one out.

I'd also suggest that Spoon had 7 seasons to Deane's 5 seasons, two more seasons to develop and add more historical reference.

Again, I have nothing against Spoon. I've noted his successes, and my saying his era at SLU was roughly the same as Deane's, during a roughly similar time period, isn't an insult.

Yes, I talked about the role of Claggett and Highmark, this is what I wrote in my earlier post. This is what I said about what Spoon inherited - "A program that hadn't been to the NCAA Tournament in over three decades. A team that had something like just 5 wins the previous year. It was a team in shambles. Players quitting and transferring out. He basically only had two players. Now while those two players were good and blossomed to be outstanding, Charlie deserves credit for developing their talent. He also quickly surrounded those two players with a juco stud - Donnie Dobbs, a big-time, experienced point guard transfer in H Waldman, two excellent juco role players in David Robinson and Carl Turner, plus some nice role players further down the bench like Carlos Macauley, Jeff Harris and Donnie Campbell to add some depth. So after inheriting a 5 win team and having almost no time to put together a recruiting class, he comes back to win 12, which may not sound like much, but considering he was playing with a 7 man roster, that was quite impressive."

If you want me to just point out one year prior to Deane, I would be happy to for the sake of being "consistent" - The year before Deane got there, Marquette won the conference and made the Sweet 16. Contrast that with Spoon who inherited a 5 win team.

Also interesting to note what they left - the season after Deane Marquette went 15-14, very poor by their school's historic standards. Spoon left a team of Love, Jeffers, Perry, Tatum, Baniak and Heinrich - that's a quality roster by SLU standards and a team that was better than the one Deane left behind.

[courtside]

Yes, I talked about the role of Claggett and Highmark, this is what I wrote in my earlier post. This is what I said about what Spoon inherited - "A program that hadn't been to the NCAA Tournament in over three decades. A team that had something like just 5 wins the previous year. It was a team in shambles. Players quitting and transferring out. He basically only had two players. Now while those two players were good and blossomed to be outstanding, Charlie deserves credit for developing their talent. He also quickly surrounded those two players with a juco stud - Donnie Dobbs, a big-time, experienced point guard transfer in H Waldman, two excellent juco role players in David Robinson and Carl Turner, plus some nice role players further down the bench like Carlos Macauley, Jeff Harris and Donnie Campbell to add some depth. So after inheriting a 5 win team and having almost no time to put together a recruiting class, he comes back to win 12, which may not sound like much, but considering he was playing with a 7 man roster, that was quite impressive."

If you want me to just point out one year prior to Deane, I would be happy to for the sake of being "consistent" - The year before Deane got there, Marquette won the conference and made the Sweet 16. Contrast that with Spoon who inherited a 5 win team.

Also interesting to note what they left - the season after Deane Marquette went 15-14, very poor by their school's historic standards. Spoon left a team of Love, Jeffers, Perry, Tatum, Baniak and Heinrich - that's a quality roster by SLU standards and a team that was better than the one Deane left behind.

Spoon gets credit for developing those players, but Grawer should be getting credit for recruiting them. And, this goes to one of my points, that some of Spoon's success came with very talented players. Highmark led a state title team, etc.....you dismiss the recruiting part, and simply focus on developing those players. Spoon was able to get them after the huge learning curve their first season.

Again, you completely dismissed any success of Grawer. And, I explained that Grawer won 67 games prior to his final season, a poor season. He also inherited a much worse situation than Spoon. Spoon had recent success to work with, Grawer's, and a couple of star recruits. Deane also had recent success to work with, and some good players recruited by someone else. Just a few years prior Marquette struggled in O'Neill's early days and the years prior to his arrival. This goes to my overall point that I do not agree that there was a drastic difference in circumstances between Deane and Spoon's time. Spoon was 15-16 his final season, and the first season after he left, SLU had the exact same number of losses as Marquette, 14. And, Marquette actually finished 8-8 in conference that season and SLU finished 7-9. You now have consistently tried to cherry pick things to advance your position, instead of showing all of it, which still shows roughly comparable results for both. I do not see why this is so upsetting to people. If anything had Deane's talented center not developed significant health challenges, his success would have been better. But, it happened. Deane left Marquette's 3rd all time leading scorer and another that finished top 10 in assists and top 20 in points. And, this goes back to my point that overall the results of their eras were roughly comparable, under comparable time periods and conditions. But that objective opinion which is well supported by fact, seems to rankle feathers here. As I've said, if you wanted to compare Spoon and Dukiet, that'd be different.

[GoBills]

Spoon gets credit for developing those players, but Grawer should be getting credit for recruiting them. And, this goes to one of my points, that some of Spoon's success came with very talented players. Highmark led a state title team, etc.....you dismiss the recruiting part, and simply focus on developing those players. Spoon was able to get them after the huge learning curve their first season.

Again, you completely dismissed any success of Grawer. And, I explained that Grawer won 67 games prior to his final season, a poor season. He also inherited a much worse situation than Spoon. Spoon had recent success to work with, Grawer's, and a couple of star recruits. Deane also had recent success to work with, and some good players recruited by someone else. Just a few years prior Marquette struggled in O'Neill's early days and the years prior to his arrival. This goes to my overall point that I do not agree that there was a drastic difference in circumstances between Deane and Spoon's time. Spoon was 15-16 his final season, and the first season after he left, SLU had the exact same number of losses as Marquette, 14. And, Marquette actually finished 8-8 in conference that season and SLU finished 7-9. You now have consistently tried to cherry pick things to advance your position, instead of showing all of it, which still shows roughly comparable results for both. I do not see why this is so upsetting to people. If anything had Deane's talented center not developed significant health challenges, his success would have been better. But, it happened. Deane left Marquette's 3rd all time leading scorer and another that finished top 10 in assists and top 20 in points. And, this goes back to my point that overall the results of their eras were roughly comparable, under comparable time periods and conditions. But that objective opinion which is well supported by fact, seems to rankle feathers here. As I've said, if you wanted to compare Spoon and Dukiet, that'd be different.

Sorry to disappoint you, but you're certainly not "rankling my feathers"... I thought we were just having a debate over a difference of opinion. Just because I don't agree with your conclusions, doesn't mean that I am "cherry picking" things to advance my cause. I have cited facts throughout to help support my case.

The debate was Deane vs. Spoonhour, not Grawer vs. Spoonhour as you are now trying to make it. I didn't dismiss any success of Grawer, I just didn't talk much about him because it wasn't central to the argument. But if you must know, I have the utmost respect for Coach Grawer in the role he played in saving the program. The two NIT runs helped breathe life into the program, believe me I know. I go back with the likes of Randy Albrecht, Ron Coleman and Ron Ekker. But that doesn't change the fact that the program was in a shambles at the time when Spoon took over. I thought I acknowledged the fact that Grawer deserves credit for recruiting Highmark and Claggett, so let me repeat it. But he also left a roster with just 2 players!

Who had greater historical obstacles to climb? In other posts you talk a lot about how superior Marquette has been with history, tradition, administrative support, etc. You notice I didn't dispute any of those statements you made. I agree. I just find it odd that you then don't incorporate those factors into your analysis of Deane vs. Spoon. Spoon inherited a program that hadn't been to the NCAA Tourney in nearly 4 decades! EDGE - Spoon

Who inherited a worse team? Deane inherited a conference championship team and a team coming off a trip to the Sweet 16. Spoon inherited a 5-win team at a program whose claim to fame was that they made the NIT finals a few years earlier. Deane clearly was in a much better situation to hit the ground running with recruiting and sell a program with that kind of success. EDGE - Spoon

Head to head? While I agree with you that this is a not a major point, I still think it is fair to make it part of the analysis. EDGE - Spoon

Who did a better job selling their program? I don't know much about Deane's personality, but you claimed he wasn't very well-liked. As you point out Marquette had a long tradition of fan support, so while he may have turned some fans off, fan support probably remained strong. Although he probably didn't increase fan interest over previous levels, I don't know for sure. What I do know is that Spoon took over a program with no great tradition of fan support and built it into the Top 10 in the country in attendance. EDGE - Spoon

How did they leave their programs? Spoon left a roster that made it to the NCAA Tourney the following year. Perry, Jeffers and Love were all outstanding players. So Spoon played a major hand in all three of SLU's NCAA Tourney trips over the past 50 or so years. Talk about overcoming historical odds. I don't know if it was you or someone else mentioned that Marquette has had something like just 3 losing season in the past 40 something years. In that context, Deane certainly didn't distinguish himnself. EDGE - Spoon

[Quality Is Job 1]

How did they leave their programs? Spoon left a roster that made it to the NCAA Tourney the following year. Perry, Jeffers and Love were all outstanding players. So Spoon played a major hand in all three of SLU's NCAA Tourney trips over the past 50 or so years. Talk about overcoming historical odds. I don't know if it was you or someone else mentioned that Marquette has had something like just 3 losing season in the past 40 something years. In that context, Deane certainly didn't distinguish himnself. EDGE - Spoon

It was four trips to the NCAA Tournament.

Yes, Spoon's tenure means a lot more to the SLU program than Deane's tenure meant to Marquette's (and I believe Courtside has acknowledged that), but I can also see his point. Looking at it from a outsider's viewpoint or from a national point of view, there's not that much of a difference between Spoon's SLU tenure and Deane's Marquette tenure. Does Spoon get the edge? Certainly, but they're in the same ballpark.

Now, can we move on? (Oh, and it doesn't change anything about where either program is right now or their histories or their individual potential. You all started straining at a gnat.)

[courtside]

Sorry to disappoint you, but you're certainly not "rankling my feathers"... I thought we were just having a debate over a difference of opinion. Just because I don't agree with your conclusions, doesn't mean that I am "cherry picking" things to advance my cause. I have cited facts throughout to help support my case.

The debate was Deane vs. Spoonhour, not Grawer vs. Spoonhour as you are now trying to make it. I didn't dismiss any success of Grawer, I just didn't talk much about him because it wasn't central to the argument. But if you must know, I have the utmost respect for Coach Grawer in the role he played in saving the program. The two NIT runs helped breathe life into the program, believe me I know. I go back with the likes of Randy Albrecht, Ron Coleman and Ron Ekker. But that doesn't change the fact that the program was in a shambles at the time when Spoon took over. I thought I acknowledged the fact that Grawer deserves credit for recruiting Highmark and Claggett, so let me repeat it. But he also left a roster with just 2 players!

Who had greater historical obstacles to climb? In other posts you talk a lot about how superior Marquette has been with history, tradition, administrative support, etc. You notice I didn't dispute any of those statements you made. I agree. I just find it odd that you then don't incorporate those factors into your analysis of Deane vs. Spoon. Spoon inherited a program that hadn't been to the NCAA Tourney in nearly 4 decades! EDGE - Spoon

Who inherited a worse team? Deane inherited a conference championship team and a team coming off a trip to the Sweet 16. Spoon inherited a 5-win team at a program whose claim to fame was that they made the NIT finals a few years earlier. Deane clearly was in a much better situation to hit the ground running with recruiting and sell a program with that kind of success. EDGE - Spoon

Head to head? While I agree with you that this is a not a major point, I still think it is fair to make it part of the analysis. EDGE - Spoon

Who did a better job selling their program? I don't know much about Deane's personality, but you claimed he wasn't very well-liked. As you point out Marquette had a long tradition of fan support, so while he may have turned some fans off, fan support probably remained strong. Although he probably didn't increase fan interest over previous levels, I don't know for sure. What I do know is that Spoon took over a program with no great tradition of fan support and built it into the Top 10 in the country in attendance. EDGE - Spoon

How did they leave their programs? Spoon left a roster that made it to the NCAA Tourney the following year. Perry, Jeffers and Love were all outstanding players. So Spoon played a major hand in all three of SLU's NCAA Tourney trips over the past 50 or so years. Talk about overcoming historical odds. I don't know if it was you or someone else mentioned that Marquette has had something like just 3 losing season in the past 40 something years. In that context, Deane certainly didn't distinguish himnself. EDGE - Spoon

I didn't say the debate rakled your feathers, but clearly it bothers some others. Our debate is civil and what the board should be about. We don't agree on this topic, no more, no less.

I do believe you cherry picked a few things that supported your position as opposed to full and complete equal picture, just my opinion.

I'm not making the debate Grawer vs Spoon. You imo have made the case that SLU was in shambles, and hadn't really been successful in recent memory prior to Spoon. I don't agree. I do agree Grawer's last season turned into a mess. But, you cannot discount the kids he recruited, and the 67 wins the 3 previous seasons, etc...You are advancing a point about Kevin O'Neill, and I clearly have stated no disagreement. However, I believe the picture is more fair and complete by also speaking of Grawer's success on and off the floor that helped Spoon as well.

I never said Deane was not well liked. Actually you said that. Deane was well liked and still is well liked. SLU made the NCAA tourney the following season by winning the conference tournament. Their conference record was sub-500. Kenyon Martin broke his leg or things would have been different. Now, making the NCAA's count for Romar's resume, no question. But you are overselling or overstating that point imo.

Debbie Yow's success post SLU speaks for itself at Maryland. While at SLU she engineered the largest SLU athletic's budget in history and raised it. SLU had its best tv deals, most revenue from tv, and SLU entered a significantly better conference the Great Midwest Conference, which was enormous for SLU. Grawer was dealing with far worse support than that for most of his tenure. Those are built in advantages for Spoon. It amazes the disaparity some people give for Spoon over Grawer at SLU. They didn't play on equal playing fields. Spoon didn't have to play at the Old Kiel either as Grawer did. Yow changed that too, and SLU started marketing better and playing in a building more than twice the previous size, and upgraded to a very modern state of the art facility.

I believe you give too much of a proportion of the credit to Spoon instead of Grawer, Yow, etc..and that's my opinion. Spoon did a good job. As I have said all along I believe he was roughly comparable to Mike Deane's era at Marquette. I don't see any big significant difference in Spoon's results in their eras. One of Marquette's "losing seasons" was 4 years prior to Deane's arrival, 11-18. And, that's relevant.

As we go back and forth, I am not saying Deane was way better or even better. I am saying they were roughly comparable. If facts showed me otherwise, I'd say so. I just think it's a reasonable conclusion. Roughly comparable is roughly comparable.

[courtside]

It was four trips to the NCAA Tournament.

Yes, Spoon's tenure means a lot more to the SLU program than Deane's tenure meant to Marquette's (and I believe Courtside has acknowledged that), but I can also see his point. Looking at it from a outsider's viewpoint or from a national point of view, there's not that much of a difference between Spoon's SLU tenure and Deane's Marquette tenure. Does Spoon get the edge? Certainly, but they're in the same ballpark.

Now, can we move on? (Oh, and it doesn't change anything about where either program is right now or their histories or their individual potential. You all started straining at a gnat.)

And, this is the point I made. I am more than satisfied to stop and move on, but I have no problem debating with civility with a good poster. Different new things came up in the subsequent posts. There were some repeats to go with the new information. Roughly comparable, same ballpark, etc...is all that I have said, and nothing more and nothing less. As you say Thicks, I don't think there is any question that Spoon's rememberance will be of more fondness to SLU fans than Deane's to Marquette because of the greater levels of success Marquette has had this past decade, and decades prior to their eras, i.e the 70's...etc...

But as you say, objectively speaking, they weren't all that different.

This is not a GoBills position, or even specifically anyone's position here, ... however I do hold the opinion, right or wrong that some casual SLU observers only remember the glory days of Spoon ball and the couple of years of old barn Arena nostalgia, and that he had a friendly good ole boy MO style demeanor, and he did a lot more endorsements than previous or subsequent SLU coaches. And, people often times remember a certain specific game or two or moment because perhaps they didn't see the rest of the opposing teams' games against other opponents. I know many friends and SLU fans that fall into this category. I believe a lot of people often times only see the opposing team when they come to town, and aren't watching enough of their other games in order to form an opinion. Dwyane Wade certainly didn't look too good in his two stops in St. Louis. One he didn't play well and the other he had the flu and didn't play all that well and SLU played well against him. Now, I know people who say, well, that player isn't all that good, because that is all they see. Well, the other 30 games count too. Overall Spoon is remembered fondly and deservedly so.

[GoBills]

I didn't say the debate rakled your feathers, but clearly it bothers some others. Our debate is civil and what the board should be about. We don't agree on this topic, no more, no less.

I do believe you cherry picked a few things that supported your position as opposed to full and complete equal picture, just my opinion.

I'm not making the debate Grawer vs Spoon. You imo have made the case that SLU was in shambles, and hadn't really been successful in recent memory prior to Spoon. I don't agree. I do agree Grawer's last season turned into a mess. But, you cannot discount the kids he recruited, and the 67 wins the 3 previous seasons, etc...You are advancing a point about Kevin O'Neill, and I clearly have stated no disagreement. However, I believe the picture is more fair and complete by also speaking of Grawer's success on and off the floor that helped Spoon as well.

I never said Deane was not well liked. Actually you said that. Deane was well liked and still is well liked. SLU made the NCAA tourney the following season by winning the conference tournament. Their conference record was sub-500. Kenyon Martin broke his leg or things would have been different. Now, making the NCAA's count for Romar's resume, no question. But you are overselling or overstating that point imo.

Debbie Yow's success post SLU speaks for itself at Maryland. While at SLU she engineered the largest SLU athletic's budget in history and raised it. SLU had its best tv deals, most revenue from tv, and SLU entered a significantly better conference the Great Midwest Conference, which was enormous for SLU. Grawer was dealing with far worse support than that for most of his tenure. Those are built in advantages for Spoon. It amazes the disaparity some people give for Spoon over Grawer at SLU. They didn't play on equal playing fields. Spoon didn't have to play at the Old Kiel either as Grawer did. Yow changed that too, and SLU started marketing better and playing in a building more than twice the previous size, and upgraded to a very modern state of the art facility.

I believe you give too much of a proportion of the credit to Spoon instead of Grawer, Yow, etc..and that's my opinion. Spoon did a good job. As I have said all along I believe he was roughly comparable to Mike Deane's era at Marquette. I don't see any big significant difference in Spoon's results in their eras. One of Marquette's "losing seasons" was 4 years prior to Deane's arrival, 11-18. And, that's relevant.

As we go back and forth, I am not saying Deane was way better or even better. I am saying they were roughly comparable. If facts showed me otherwise, I'd say so. I just think it's a reasonable conclusion. Roughly comparable is roughly comparable.

I enjoy the spirit of this debate. You know some stuff and I agree with some things you have said in other posts, but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw in the Spoon/Deane comparison. I likely won't change your mind, but I don't get where you are coming from with this "cherry picking" allegation. I laid out a very detailed case, providing a lot of facts, including a historical perspective. I laid out multiple areas where I thought Spoon had an edge. I don't see where your method of analysis is any more thorough or valid than mine, regardless of the different conclusions we have drawn in this debate. I could easily counter that some of your points are cherry-picked, such as Spoon's "losing records" - there is no way a reasonable person can hold it against him for having a losing record that first season, following up a 5 win season with 12 wins while playing with 7 scholarship players. For what it's worth Basketball Times named SLU one of the most improved teams in the country that year.

Back to the heart of the debate. The records certainly tell a big part of the story, but not the whole story. Spoon's big hand in all four of SLU's NCAA appearances over the past 50 years is a much more significant accomplishment in my opinion than Deane performing equal to or maybe even slightly below typical Marquette standards.

To draw a comparison to other sports - let's say if you looked at what Urban Meyer did at Utah for example and then compare to a traditional BCS power team during a comparable period. And let's say the two teams had very similar accomplishments - appeared in comparable bowls had similar rankings, etc. I would conclude that a guy like Urban Meyer accomplished more than the traditional BCS power based on Utah's disadvantages. In baseball, let's say over a 4-5 year period, one team has a $60 million payroll and another team has a $100 million payroll. If the two teams have a similar record, postseason appearances, etc. over that period of time, I am going to give the nod to the team with the lower payroll.

[courtside]

I enjoy the spirit of this debate. You know some stuff and I agree with some things you have said in other posts, but I don't agree with the conclusions you draw in the Spoon/Deane comparison. I likely won't change your mind, but I don't get where you are coming from with this "cherry picking" allegation. I laid out a very detailed case, providing a lot of facts, including a historical perspective. I laid out multiple areas where I thought Spoon had an edge. I don't see where your method of analysis is any more thorough or valid than mine, regardless of the different conclusions we have drawn in this debate. I could easily counter that some of your points are cherry-picked, such as Spoon's "losing records" - there is no way a reasonable person can hold it against him for having a losing record that first season, following up a 5 win season with 12 wins while playing with 7 scholarship players. For what it's worth Basketball Times named SLU one of the most improved teams in the country that year.

Back to the heart of the debate. The records certainly tell a big part of the story, but not the whole story. Spoon's big hand in all four of SLU's NCAA appearances over the past 50 years is a much more significant accomplishment in my opinion than Deane performing equal to or maybe even slightly below typical Marquette standards.

To draw a comparison to other sports - let's say if you looked at what Urban Meyer did at Utah for example and then compare to a traditional BCS power team during a comparable period. And let's say the two teams had very similar accomplishments - appeared in comparable bowls had similar rankings, etc. I would conclude that a guy like Urban Meyer accomplished more than the traditional BCS power based on Utah's disadvantages. In baseball, let's say over a 4-5 year period, one team has a $60 million payroll and another team has a $100 million payroll. If the two teams have a similar record, postseason appearances, etc. over that period of time, I am going to give the nod to the team with the lower payroll.

That's an entirely different debate. Thicks summed it up well. If you want to say Spoon did more for SLU than Deane did for Marquette simply because Marquette has had better history before and after their tenures, that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that Deane and Spoon had roughly similar results in a similar era. Those results have more value, and perhaps memory at SLU.

As I have discussed, I believe you undervalue Grawer and Yow in this discussion. You are imo too focused on Grawer's last season as opposed to the kids he recruited for Spoon, as well as the strong previous seasons to Grawer's fnal one. Grawer and Spoon coached under very different circumstances at SLU. I also believe you have oversold the value of a 7-9 conference team at SLU. We can go about this all day and I can say in reference to your post above about holding things against Spoon's first season....that no reasonable person could hold it against Deane for not accomplishing more his first season, being a new coach, and losing Key, McIlvaine, Logterman, to graduation, and returning only one senior and one junior on the roster who played. We can go back and forth, and the end result is still the same for me. Now, the value of Spoon's time for SLU might be greater than the value of Deane's time for Marquette, however, it doesn't change their results and circumstances.

Marquette's resource commitment to basketball was not the same at that time, as it has been the past 10 years. Marquette's practice facility was very similar to West Pine. Ask Majerus about Marquette falling behind the times in terms of resources. He wrote plenty about it in his book too. It would be inaccurate and enormous stretch to compare the two programs to $100 million and $60 million baseball teams. Marquette also alienated quite a few people with their nickname change mess, which occurred just in time for Deane's first season. As I said, roughly comparable. We'll just agree to disagree.

[GoBills]

That's an entirely different debate. Thicks summed it up well. If you want to say Spoon did more for SLU than Deane did for Marquette simply because Marquette has had better history before and after their tenures, that's fine. But that doesn't change the fact that Deane and Spoon had roughly similar results in a similar era. Those results have more value, and perhaps memory at SLU.

As I have discussed, I believe you undervalue Grawer and Yow in this discussion. You are imo too focused on Grawer's last season as opposed to the kids he recruited for Spoon, as well as the strong previous seasons to Grawer's fnal one. Grawer and Spoon coached under very different circumstances at SLU. I also believe you have oversold the value of a 7-9 conference team at SLU. We can go about this all day and I can say in reference to your post above about holding things against Spoon's first season....that no reasonable person could hold it against Deane for not accomplishing more his first season, being a new coach, and losing Key, McIlvaine, Logterman, to graduation, and returning only one senior and one junior on the roster who played. We can go back and forth, and the end result is still the same for me. Now, the value of Spoon's time for SLU might be greater than the value of Deane's time for Marquette, however, it doesn't change their results and circumstances.

Marquette's resource commitment to basketball was not the same at that time, as it has been the past 10 years. Marquette's practice facility was very similar to West Pine. Ask Majerus about Marquette falling behind the times in terms of resources. He wrote plenty about it in his book too. It would be inaccurate and enormous stretch to compare the two programs to $100 million and $60 million baseball teams. Marquette also alienated quite a few people with their nickname change mess, which occurred just in time for Deane's first season. As I said, roughly comparable. We'll just agree to disagree.

I guess I'm like Bay Area Billiken in that the more I think about the debate, the more it looks to me like Spoon gets the clear nod. If you think I am focused too much on the season just prior to Spoon taking over, that's because that season is the most relevant, but if you want to take a look at the year before that, the team failed to make the postseason that year as well. Contrasted to the two season prior to Deane taking over (two NCAA appearances) - no comparison on who faced bigger obstacles. Right off the bat, Deane clearly had a more attractive program to recruit to. I would think recruits would be more impressed with back-to-back NCAA Tourney trips, compared to SLU's NIT runs a few years earlier.

In conclusion, by playing a big hand in all of SLU's 4 NCAA appearance over the last half century, IMO, Spoon gets

the nod over Deane, who performed equal to or below Marquette standards (somebody pointed out only 3 losing seasons in the last 40 something years of the program). Anyway, you haven't changed my opinion and I likely haven't swayed yours either, but I enjoyed the exchange. Nice for an old-timer like me to talk about the past, but I'm ready to talk about the present and future.

[Pistol]

pistol two things,

first, i have it from a pretty good source romar would have gotten the ucla job had he not already taken the pepperdine job when the ucla job opened up. lavin was the only one left.

second, i believe stallings would have gotten the job had he not come to his final interview with great demands. stuff like higher paid assistants, extra tutors, solid plans for a new arena and practice facility, increased majors to accomodate transfers and lesser students, charter flights, etc.

ironically most have now been granted to the current slu coach.

the one biggest factor we should forever be ingratiated to rickma. he changed the rules for the billiken basketball program.

Thanks, Roy. I hadn't heard that about Stallings. He came to the wrong athletic department at the wrong time for that. Until Majerus, SLU's AD was an embarrassing penny pinching machine.

I also hadn't heard that about Romar over Lavin. It's tough to remember the exact timeline of what happened with that situation because it's been a while and it all happened in a short span.