moytoy12 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/billiken-...tter-than-a-10/ Also, at the end, does Majerus imply that Paul won't be back? “Next year, there won’t be another team that won’t have a junior or a senior. It will be a good challenge for the guys. It will be fun for fans to grow up with the team.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Moy, I think you may be reading too much into it. Majerus has the tendency to be very forgetful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 that is a good interview. and i think majerus is right. what he didnt touch on and i dont blame him for it is the effect that the bottom feeders for the a-10 have on the overall perception and analysis of the league. no doubt the rpi's are greatly affected by those 2-4 teams. if we just cut it off at the top 10 programs, the conference rankings would sour i bet. maybe kwyjbo can help us here. as to his other comments, the money and the marketing is without a weakness but that goes to the individual programs as well. count slu in that. they all need to start acting and spending big time and i bet it comes back to them quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Paul will be back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/billiken-...tter-than-a-10/ Also, at the end, does Majerus imply that Paul won't be back? I appreciate RM standing up for the A-10 but there is no way we were better than the Pac-10 this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 that is a good interview. and i think majerus is right. what he didnt touch on and i dont blame him for it is the effect that the bottom feeders for the a-10 have on the overall perception and analysis of the league. no doubt the rpi's are greatly affected by those 2-4 teams. if we just cut it off at the top 10 programs, the conference rankings would sour i bet. maybe kwyjbo can help us here. as to his other comments, the money and the marketing is without a weakness but that goes to the individual programs as well. count slu in that. they all need to start acting and spending big time and i bet it comes back to them quickly. By any objective measure (Sagarin, Pomeroy, RPI, etc.) the Mountain West was a better conference than the A-10 (which was 8th in RPI and Sagarin but 9th in Pomeroy). If you stick to the top 10 in each conference the A-10 does moves up on but not over the BCS conferences but does climb over the MWC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
satrap Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 that is a good interview. and i think majerus is right. what he didnt touch on and i dont blame him for it is the effect that the bottom feeders for the a-10 have on the overall perception and analysis of the league. no doubt the rpi's are greatly affected by those 2-4 teams. if we just cut it off at the top 10 programs, the conference rankings would sour i bet. maybe kwyjbo can help us here. as to his other comments, the money and the marketing is without a weakness but that goes to the individual programs as well. count slu in that. they all need to start acting and spending big time and i bet it comes back to them quickly. First of all, WHO CARES how good the bottom feeders are or aren't. It has absolutely nothing to do with SLU's success. Michigan State wasn't apologizing for how bad Northwestern was when they won the NCAA tournament, UCLA/Oregon St, etc. etc., let it go. Secondly, since I'm in a particularly anti-Majerus mood right now, I'll comment that the money for marketing went out the window when we had to pay this coach his oversized contract. SLU is too limited an athletic dept. to have it both ways. It's either/or and RM's contract won out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 First of all, WHO CARES how good the bottom feeders are or aren't. It has absolutely nothing to do with SLU's success. Michigan State wasn't apologizing for how bad Northwestern was when they won the NCAA tournament, UCLA/Oregon St, etc. etc., let it go. Secondly, since I'm in a particularly anti-Majerus mood right now, I'll comment that the money for marketing went out the window when we had to pay this coach his oversized contract. SLU is too limited an athletic dept. to have it both ways. It's either/or and RM's contract won out. it does indeed matter. the rpi for the a-10 says we are not the 7th conference yet we get 3 spots in the ncaa tourney and almost a 4th? the reason is that the top of the conference is indeed that strong but the bottom teams pull the overall ranking down. as to the budget, i disagree on the both ways. slu is by no means a poor school. all i am proposing is the athletic budget is temporarily subsidized by the university until the reality happens and the teams take off and can stand on their own with the revenue to support the bigger budget. if they dont do that, they may forever be playing the chicken or the egg scenario. now if say 5 years from now the success and revenue still isnt there, well then rickma should be fired and the subsidy should stop or at the very least be reevaluated. my guess is that rickma's track record is such that this worst case scenario wouldnt happen and the marketing and capital infusion investments would be headstarts that would pay off huge down the road and we would be miles ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 that is a good interview. and i think majerus is right. what he didnt touch on and i dont blame him for it is the effect that the bottom feeders for the a-10 have on the overall perception and analysis of the league. no doubt the rpi's are greatly affected by those 2-4 teams. if we just cut it off at the top 10 programs, the conference rankings would sour i bet. maybe kwyjbo can help us here. as to his other comments, the money and the marketing is without a weakness but that goes to the individual programs as well. count slu in that. they all need to start acting and spending big time and i bet it comes back to them quickly. "Sour" or "soar"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 "Sour" or "soar"? good catch. bad typo! i meant soar. thanks thicks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheA_Bomb Posted March 26, 2009 Share Posted March 26, 2009 First of all, WHO CARES how good the bottom feeders are or aren't. It has absolutely nothing to do with SLU's success. Michigan State wasn't apologizing for how bad Northwestern was when they won the NCAA tournament, UCLA/Oregon St, etc. etc., let it go. Secondly, since I'm in a particularly anti-Majerus mood right now, I'll comment that the money for marketing went out the window when we had to pay this coach his oversized contract. SLU is too limited an athletic dept. to have it both ways. It's either/or and RM's contract won out. Yeah because the $600,000 more we spent on Majerus would have really made a big difference in marketing the A10 to the country. Your arguments are weak SLU contributes to the A10 but is not responsible for the overall marketing of the conference which is what the statements were about. Besides that the $1mil that we spent on Majerus to coach in the A10 probably paid more dividends in conference exposure than spending it one commercials would have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.