The tale of two programs

[billiken_roy]

no way rickma ball is worse than sodie ball. right now we have some problems, but if you thing what we watched for 4 years before rickma ball was better than we are watching now, let me know what you are smokin or drinkin.

you do know that the only soderberg season that rickma ball outscored soderberg offense was the reggie bryant and tom frericks injury season.

i understand the upside of what is to come, but that wasnt the discussion point. which offense is better now and before.

now pass me what YOU are drinking.

[eastsidejoe]

Joe, not trying to be a jerk here, but could you explained to me what our offense is trying to accomplish when it gets the ball. I can't really decipher it, but I will admit, I'm not a basketball x's and o's guy.

a better question imo would be what did Sodie try to accomplish in 4 years. i understand that rm runs the high picks and always screens on the ball. i personally think we should have some alternative pattern to run. maybe they do, but i don't see anything developing except the high screen ,then nobody recognizes the cutter when he's open mostly because the ballhander is then double teamed after the screen. if we would mix it with something else, i think it would work a lot better

[moytoy12]

a better question imo would be what did Sodie try to accomplish in 4 years. i understand that rm runs the high picks and always screens on the ball. i personally think we should have some alternative pattern to run. maybe they do, but i don't see anything developing except the high screen ,then nobody recognizes the cutter when he's open mostly because the ballhander is then double teamed after the screen. if we would mix it with something else, i think it would work a lot better

I'm not sure Sodie is relevant to a discussion of the current team's offense (other than player personnel, but we're talking x's and o's).

I agree with you, it would be nice to mix in something else. This is where my mild disappointment comes in with Majerus. He's a basketball genius getting paid a lot of money to figure these things out even if it only provides nominal success.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I'm not sure Sodie is relevant to a discussion of the current team's offense (other than player personnel, but we're talking x's and o's).

I agree with you, it would be nice to mix in something else. This is where my mild disappointment comes in with Majerus. He's a basketball genius getting paid a lot of money to figure these things out even if it only provides nominal success.

How about turning loose Tommie Liddell like last year? Liddell has all that talent. Clear out for him, NBA style, let him drive to the hoop, shoot himself, or kick out to Kevin Lisch, who hopefully will bury the 3 like he did in the GW game I saw in person. I think SLU has already been doing some of this, but perhaps more can be done.

Let's deep six the old Ekker pass it around the perimeter stuff. I wouldn't be adverse to dropping the milking of the shot clock correlary. Houston Coach Tom Penders once termed the then Brad Soderberg SLU offense, "keepaway." The issue there is if SLU has the depth to even play a faster tempo game at this point. As much as I'd like to see that, traditionally, it spells disaster for outmanned Billiken teams. SLU would look good at one end, and get beaten right back down the floor.

I'm a fan, not a coaching expert, and I'm sure a future HOF coach with over 400 wins knows a lot more about this than me. I coached CYO ball for 5 years, through the 8th Grade. I was an offensive coach then, and still like to see points. I used to tell my team, if you don't shoot, you can't score.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I'm not sure Sodie is relevant to a discussion of the current team's offense (other than player personnel, but we're talking x's and o's).

I agree with you, it would be nice to mix in something else. This is where my mild disappointment comes in with Majerus. He's a basketball genius getting paid a lot of money to figure these things out even if it only provides nominal success.

When I coached the 8th Graders, we installed a rudimentary "motion" offense, with the pick and go to the spot stuff. After a while, my point guard came up to me during a game in a timeout and said, "Coach, they know what we're going to do." That's when I really knew that I was just an amateur, trying to help the kids have fun, and that my staff and I were really in over our heads.

But seriously, we might be seeing something similar with our Billikens. The opponents seem to know what SLU is going to do. Maybe it's time to change things up, do something different on offense. Turn the players loose.

Or as former Houston Coach Guy V. Lewis once said, "I just throw out the basketballs and let the boys play."

[GoBills]

Well at the risk of "defending SLU at all costs" or speaking out of "envy" I will attempt to weigh in. You certainly seem to know a lot of history about both programs, but I think that is what you are not factoring in enough when analyzing Spoonhour vs. Mike Deane. Admittedly, I don't remember much about Mike Deane, but you point out the numbers are pretty even, but again, I think you underestimate the historical context. I will defer to you on this, but I suspect that Deane probably did about what the prior Marquette coach or maybe even a little worse. How was the program he inherited? How much talent did he inherit? You do talk a lot about Marquette's great tradition and institutional support, etc. I am going to guess this is where Deane had a HUGE advantage overly Charlie. You can speak to the specifics about Deane, but here is what I remember about what Charlie 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. He followed it up with back-to-back NCAA Tournament appearances at SLU - repeat the school that hadn't made the big dance in forever. Also, took a program with a mediocre fan following to top 10 in the country in attendance, which was amazing. I'm trying to look at this objectively and not through my Billiken Blue glasses, but I think Spoon clearly gets the nod considering the obstacles he faced and the advantages Deane enjoyed coming into his program with "tradition", "history" and "success."

Bump

You seemed to be inolved with a lot of other debates, so I am not looking to drag you into another, but just curious about your thoughts on the Deane v. Spoon discussion. You make some well-informed points in other discussions, but I just think you are off on this one.

[moytoy12]

How about turning loose Tommie Liddell like last year? Liddell has all that talent. Clear out for him, NBA style, let him drive to the hoop, shoot himself, or kick out to Kevin Lisch, who hopefully will bury the 3 like he did in the GW game I saw in person. I think SLU has already been doing some of this, but perhaps more can be done.

Let's deep six the old Ekker pass it around the perimeter stuff. I wouldn't be adverse to dropping the milking of the shot clock correlary. Houston Coach Tom Penders once termed the then Brad Soderberg SLU offense, "keepaway." The issue there is if SLU has the depth to even play a faster tempo game at this point. As much as I'd like to see that, traditionally, it spells disaster for outmanned Billiken teams. SLU would look good at one end, and get beaten right back down the floor.

I'm a fan, not a coaching expert, and I'm sure a future HOF coach with over 400 wins knows a lot more about this than me. I coached CYO ball for 5 years, through the 8th Grade. I was an offensive coach then, and still like to see points. I used to tell my team, if you don't shoot, you can't score.

I'd be happy to see something different. anything. Heck, run a full court press for the first 2 minutes. Switch between zone and man more. Clear out for tommy. Go small and run. Hell, something. anything.

[majerusismyhomeboy]

road woes

[courtside]

Bump

You seemed to be inolved with a lot of other debates, so I am not looking to drag you into another, but just curious about your thoughts on the Deane v. Spoon discussion. You make some well-informed points in other discussions, but I just think you are off on this one.

I believe you are asking me?

Imo nobody has done more with less at SLU than Rich Grawer. Spoonhour gets well deserved accolades, but Grawer saved SLU basketball. Grawer had 4 losing seasons in 10 years, Spoon had 3 losing seasons in only 7 years. The level of resources and support between the two were extremely different. Prior to Grawer's arrival, SLU had 9 straight losing seasons. You may disagree but historically I hold Rich Grawer in higher regard at SLU than I do Spoon, in some ways, in terms of being able to do more with less. He had some very good seasons. Spoon also won with some kids that he did not recruit, something you discount. Part of Spoon's success was the year with Larry Hughes, and as everyone knows, had he not had the situation with his brother, he would not have attended SLU. Fair is fair, and it counts imo, but that one fell into his lap. If you take away Hughes, something you can't of course and shouldn't, but for purposes of discussion, those two seasons are all Spoon has of good success. And, as we stated not all of those kids were kids he recruited.

As I have stated I believe some casual SLU fans or observers simply remember Deane as an animated guy on the sidelines who wore specific eye glasses due to an eye problem, who called timeouts early and often. They also remember competitive games and some SLU wins head to head. But that wouldn't tell the whole complete picture. He is 3rd all time in winning percentage in Marquette history. He won the league title at that time. I mentioned some of his other successes.

Now, if you objectively look at it, and break it all down, and discount one guy's good ole boy Lou Fusz commericals, aw shucks I sit in the stands for Cardinal games, and discount the other guy's perceived image from afar, their periods in time were roughly comparable. I believe Spoon's image and likeability in St. Louis also plays a role in some people's minds when evaluating Spoon. Again, Spoon did well for SLU overall, I'm not saying he didn't or hasn't.

Neither showed great abilities in recruiting. Both had success as coaches, and coaching the game. Both were pretty much in their dream jobs. Both won some with other guy's recruits as well with some of their own.

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, and because it wasn't as unique as often to Marquette, you hold Spoon's era with greater to much greater substance than Deane's at Marquette. I can understand a first gut reaction to the issue. But if you consider a lot of things, I see two guys with similar success over similar time frames in a lot of areas and ways.

Some people may disagree or be offended by saying that Spoon and Deane's eras at SLU and Marquette were roughly comparable, but I don't really have any reason to objectively think otherwise. And, that's not a bad thing either.

[Pistol]

Facilities: The AL at Marquette is considered the finest practice facility in the country according to Sporting News. The BC is about 6 blocks from campus (as was the arena before it). It is considered a primary tenant in that building. Until SLU's new arena was built, MU enjoyed a huge advantage over the past few years.

Budgets: MU had the 4th highest bball expenses in the country last year, around $8 million. SLU's budget was around $2.4 million. Even in CUSA, MU spent a lot on hoops.

Recruiting: MU rarely recruits locally. I am not sure if there are any Wisconsin kids on the roster this year, but for Matthews. Al made a name for itself recruiting NY. Chicago has produced many of MU's greats, Ellis, Rivers, McNeal, etc. Sure, a Novak or Chones comes around once in a while, but not all that often.

Wade and BE: Little or nothing to do with MU's entry in the BE. MU almost entered the BE with ND in the early 90s. It was a long term goal put in place by MU prior AD. I think their relationship with ND was MU's foot in the door.

Success: I am not sure Wade is the reason MU is successful now. MU has always been successful to differing degrees. 40 winning seasons in 43 years is proof of that. Joining the BE allowed MU has allowed MU to take a good program and make it better. Is luck a part? Sure, but you kind of make your own luck. 10+ years of banging on the door of the BE coupled with a huge financial investment in the program put them in this position. That said, a few mistakes and it all could slip away. Staying good requires a lot more than luck.

BTW, O'Neil was a huge potty mouth and a pain in the heinie. But, the man could recruit and coach on the defensive end. Deane inherited a Sweet 16 with a top recruiting class coming in. Deane was a terrific, albeit eccentric coach, but he was a terrible recruiter. After his statement that an NIT should be considered a good year and that the best MU fans could hope for was an occasional NCAA run, he was fired. The administration found his comments unacceptable.

You have some good points in there, but you're completely forgetting about the NBA's Milwaukee Bucks. The Bucks are the Bradley Center's primary tenant, just as the Blues are Scottrade's top priority.

[Quality Is Job 1]

You have some good points in there, but you're completely forgetting about the NBA's Milwaukee Bucks. The Bucks are the Bradley Center's primary tenant, just as the Blues are Scottrade's top priority.

Perhaps that's why mu88 said, "a," rather than "the." There is a difference.

I really don't know Marquette's situation, but I suspect Marquette gets and has gotten more respect in Milwaukee than SLU gets or has ever gotten in St. Louis, including matters related to their venue -- until SLU finally went out and built its own place. In the future, Scottrade may beg SLU to hold marque events there, though that's probably still a few years away.

[Pistol]

Perhaps that's why mu88 said, "a," rather than "the." There is a difference.

I really don't know Marquette's situation, but I suspect Marquette gets and has gotten more respect in Milwaukee than SLU gets or has ever gotten in St. Louis, including matters related to their venue -- until SLU finally went out and built its own place. In the future, Scottrade may beg SLU to hold marque events there, though that's probably still a few years away.

I would contend that there can be only one 'primary' tenant. The article doesn't make a difference. The Bucks are still priority #1, as they are the NBA team.

Marquette has definitely gotten more respect, as demand for tickets has been stronger than it has for SLU.

The Bradley Center is not a typical NBA arena- it was done about 1989 if I have my facts right, and it doesn't have very many luxury boxes or other bells and whistles that other NBA arenas have. It's a good size for that market and has good sightlines for basketball but I'm curious to see how long they keep it around.

[Quality Is Job 1]

I would contend that there can be only one 'primary' tenant. The article doesn't make a difference. The Bucks are still priority #1, as they are the NBA team.

Marquette has definitely gotten more respect, as demand for tickets has been stronger than it has for SLU.

The Bradley Center is not a typical NBA arena- it was done about 1989 if I have my facts right, and it doesn't have very many luxury boxes or other bells and whistles that other NBA arenas have. It's a good size for that market and has good sightlines for basketball but I'm curious to see how long they keep it around.

You're technically correct. There is a primary unit, then a secondary unit, a tertiary unit, a quaternary unit, and so on. Each of those would take a the as an article (a definite article). However, in colloquial usage, when an indefinite article (a or an) precedes "primary," then the person means "one of the primary [units]," meaning the primary unit, the secondary unit, and maybe a few more. The poster's point is that SLU wasn't as close to the top at Scottrade as Marquette is at the Bradley Center.

[MU88]

The Bradley Center is not a typical NBA arena- it was done about 1989 if I have my facts right, and it doesn't have very many luxury boxes or other bells and whistles that other NBA arenas have. It's a good size for that market and has good sightlines for basketball but I'm curious to see how long they keep it around.

The NBA is a little different than the NHL. The Bucks rarely play back-to-back home games. Consequently, as primary tenant, MU gets second choice of dates, after the Bucks, but before the Admirals, Iron and concerts. MU has will 4 Saturday games in a row during January and February. I know a lot of schools that get booted out of their off campus arenas for ice shows, etc. That supposedly won't happen as a primary tenant.

As for the BC, its a terrific arena. Its almost in as good shape as the day it opened. However, it does have issues which primarily effect the income stream for the Bucks. The problems really have no effect on MU. The arena is pristine. It only has 40 or so luxury boxes. Too many of the seats are in the upper bowl, instead of downstairs. There is no room for expansion for shops, year round restaurants, a hall of fame, etc. NBA teams make a lot of money off these side businesses. Finally, the arena was build for hockey so some of the sight lines stink since you are a little far from the action. However, being 6 blocks from campus, its almost an on campus arena. From that perspective, its one of the best in the country. I have been to a number of arenas throughout the country, and the BC ranks right up there.

Weighing in on the Spoon vs. Deane debate, I think Deane was probably the equal of Spoon as a coach. Spoon recruited slightly better players. More importantly, Spoon seemed to get people excited about SLU basketball in St. Louis. Deane did the opposite. Deane rubbed certain people the wrong way (although he was always willing to sociallize with the alums). He liked to have cocktails and he didn't pull punches. He also didn't have a lot of vision for the school. You may think MU has limited potential, but you can't say it. Like any fanbase, no one wants to be told you can't be the best.

I think SLU's future is bright. There is no reason SLU can't be battling X each year for the A-10 title. But, you have to be patient. Let Rick's kids get some experience. Next year will be a work in progress, but I see a lot of potential for a terrific year in 10-11.

[MusicCityBilliken]

Some people may disagree or be offended by saying that Spoon and Deane's eras at SLU and Marquette were roughly comparable, but I don't really have any reason to objectively think otherwise. And, that's not a bad thing either.

Courtside, where is Deane now? I know after MU canned him he went to Lamar. How did that work out?

[moytoy12]

but I don't really have any reason to objectively think...

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Courtside, where is Deane now? I know after MU canned him he went to Lamar. How did that work out?

I'll answer re Mike Deane's whereabouts. He's in his 6th Year as the Head Coach at Wagner College (on Staten Island, NY), which plays in the Northeast Conference.

Deane's predecessor at Wagner was Dereck Whittenburg, the current coach at Fordham. SLU plays Fordham at historic Rose Hill Gym in The Bronx on Saturday night. Fordham has struggled with a young team, but won its third game of the season last night, and first A-10 game, on the road at St. Bonaventure.

[Pistol]

You're technically correct. There is a primary unit, then a secondary unit, a tertiary unit, a quaternary unit, and so on. Each of those would take a the as an article (a definite article). However, in colloquial usage, when an indefinite article (a or an) precedes "primary," then the person means "one of the primary [units]," meaning the primary unit, the secondary unit, and maybe a few more. The poster's point is that SLU wasn't as close to the top at Scottrade as Marquette is at the Bradley Center.

I'm so glad I roped you into this. That was a perfect response. MU88 says in his last post that Bucks have first priority, followed by Marquette, and so on. Therefore, I wouldn't call them 'primary,' whether preceded by a or the. They are secondary in the truest sense of the word as a Bradley Center tenant. The Bucks and Golden Eagles cannot share primary status, as blue and red would on the color wheel, as one's scheduling has priority over the other's.

We are all in agreement, but I could not avoid a semantics argument.

[slufanskip]

I'm so glad I roped you into this. That was a perfect response. MU88 says in his last post that Bucks have first priority, followed by Marquette, and so on. Therefore, I wouldn't call them 'primary,' whether preceded by a or the. They are secondary in the truest sense of the word as a Bradley Center tenant. The Bucks and Golden Eagles cannot share primary status, as blue and red would on the color wheel, as one's scheduling has priority over the other's.

We are all in agreement, but I could not avoid a semantics argument.

Did you ever see the movie Primary Colors? I didn't like it all that much

[Quality Is Job 1]

Did you ever see the movie Primary Colors? I didn't like it all that much

And why do we pay so much attention to primaries every four years?

[moytoy12]

Did you ever see the movie Primary Colors? I didn't like it all that much

I prefer Colors, forget all of the primary, secondary hullabaloo.

[Clock_Tower]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

[moytoy12]

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

For some reason, I thought Brad was getting paid roughly $500k/year. But obviously, your research indicates otherwise.

[courtside]

As someone who gets to a lot of venues, the Bradley Center is different from the Savvis Center in that it is walkable from campus, or few block shuttle. Savvis is farther than that. And, the area contains lots of bars and restaurants where Marquette students and alums congregate just off campus but not far from it. And, in my experience, college kids like to get off campus to socialize, part of the time, but have it near campus to have both. It's a much more compact layout than St. Louis. Some other venues like say Freedom Hall in Louisville, are more isolated, not near as much interesting things and activity. Georgetown's off campus situation has picked up because the area near the Verizon Center has really improved a lot in recent years. Can't take Metro to games, but they do well with shuttles, or the metro to Foggy Bottom and then the bus to Georgetown.

It's very nice for college, especially in Marquette's situation where they are in a big conference having success, etc...where capacity is 18k...and I believe they can get up to 19k in there. I believe Scottrade can get up to 22k. Scottrade upper level boxes are so high, I believe they are brutal for seeing anything. The Bradley center is not the greatest for revenue streams as mentioned for an NBA team. Instead of two levels of luxury suites all the way around, it has only one level of them all the way around. Concourses are nice, but cramped. I like the feel of the Bradley Center better than Scottrade, but they are not dramatically different. Savvis is much more cavernous in feel, which imo unless it's almost filled, it leads to a tough atmosphere. Some sight lines at the Bradley Center aren't great due to the extra space in the corners for hockey purposes, similar to Scottrade Center

It is located immediately across the street from the old Mecca, an 11k seat arena that Marquette played in up until about the late 1980's. It's the equivalent of walking to the Sheraton Hotel or closer in St. Louis. In recent memory, during Bo Ryan, then Bruce Pearl, and now Rob Jeter, the building has been renovated as best as possible. Milwaukee's indoor soccer team plays there and annual draws amongst the league's best. It's good for noise, and has been renovated, but it's seen better days. Leg room is tight and seats are small.

Marquette didn't really have the need for an 80-100 million on campus Arena. The Bucks get first priority, however, Marquette is the number 2 tenant above all other events, and if you look at their schedule in recent years, they play some big home games on Friday and Saturday nights, and many others are Saturday games. Their big weeknight games are tv games, i.e. Big Monday, etc...where they will gladly take the National TV exposure. Marquette draws fans, period. So, they will get treated well as a tenant.

As far as students go, Marquette gets well over 4000 students at games. SLU has a long way to go for that, but 2k is a reasonable expectation.

And for the Deane question, Deane is, to my knowledge, content coaching at low major schools, doing his x's and o's with lesser talent and trying to coach up his lack of talent, and make his few hundred grand per year and then retire. At least that's my opinion. He's much more comfortable in the Northeast than in rural Texas. That's more his style.

I think the point that was made about vision and possibilities was a good one. Crean had a lot of big ideas and although not all of them worked, he was a tireless worker, that had his hands on the controls of everything. Deane was a guy who wanted to coach ball, buy the frats some kegs before games, and have fun. Crean is a guy that can do more with less, as was O'Neill. Crean is unique in that many coaches do not have their fingers on the pulse of everything, including picking the theme music to player intros. He's that detailed.

Finally, Mark Miller who visits here on occasion runs a first rate Christmas Holiday High School basketball tournament every year at the Al McGuire Center, which is Marquette's 5000 seat on campus Arena for women and volleyball and men's hoops facility with game and practice courts. That's about a $30-$35 million facility a few years old, a very nice facility, on campus. Marquette's campus is night and day to even 10 years ago or more, much improved.

[GoBills]

I believe you are asking me?

Imo nobody has done more with less at SLU than Rich Grawer. Spoonhour gets well deserved accolades, but Grawer saved SLU basketball. Grawer had 4 losing seasons in 10 years, Spoon had 3 losing seasons in only 7 years. The level of resources and support between the two were extremely different. Prior to Grawer's arrival, SLU had 9 straight losing seasons. You may disagree but historically I hold Rich Grawer in higher regard at SLU than I do Spoon, in some ways, in terms of being able to do more with less. He had some very good seasons. Spoon also won with some kids that he did not recruit, something you discount. Part of Spoon's success was the year with Larry Hughes, and as everyone knows, had he not had the situation with his brother, he would not have attended SLU. Fair is fair, and it counts imo, but that one fell into his lap. If you take away Hughes, something you can't of course and shouldn't, but for purposes of discussion, those two seasons are all Spoon has of good success. And, as we stated not all of those kids were kids he recruited.

As I have stated I believe some casual SLU fans or observers simply remember Deane as an animated guy on the sidelines who wore specific eye glasses due to an eye problem, who called timeouts early and often. They also remember competitive games and some SLU wins head to head. But that wouldn't tell the whole complete picture. He is 3rd all time in winning percentage in Marquette history. He won the league title at that time. I mentioned some of his other successes.

Now, if you objectively look at it, and break it all down, and discount one guy's good ole boy Lou Fusz commericals, aw shucks I sit in the stands for Cardinal games, and discount the other guy's perceived image from afar, their periods in time were roughly comparable. I believe Spoon's image and likeability in St. Louis also plays a role in some people's minds when evaluating Spoon. Again, Spoon did well for SLU overall, I'm not saying he didn't or hasn't.

Neither showed great abilities in recruiting. Both had success as coaches, and coaching the game. Both were pretty much in their dream jobs. Both won some with other guy's recruits as well with some of their own.

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, and because it wasn't as unique as often to Marquette, you hold Spoon's era with greater to much greater substance than Deane's at Marquette. I can understand a first gut reaction to the issue. But if you consider a lot of things, I see two guys with similar success over similar time frames in a lot of areas and ways.

Some people may disagree or be offended by saying that Spoon and Deane's eras at SLU and Marquette were roughly comparable, but I don't really have any reason to objectively think otherwise. And, that's not a bad thing either.

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.