Mike Anderson on FSN

[kevinfootes]

So I guess I should join you in the whining and hand-wringing. I have very low standards? What excuses are you talking about? Throughout this discussion you continue to misrepresent what myself and Brian are saying.

A new building with much higher ticket prices was supposed to magically boost attendance? Missouri's coach was brought up in this original discussion. They had a brand new building a few years ago, yet had poor attendance, until they started winning late this last season. I am sure they have a much bigger marketing budget than SLU, but people weren't going because they weren't winning. Their coach seems like a decent guy, but frankly rather dull. He doesn't strike me as a media salesman type. Again, it wasn't until they started winning that people starting showing up. That's the way it is at most programs, inlcuding SLU. Winning! I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

So you didn't expect any excitement and improved attendance with a new building? You anticipated a collective yawn? The excuses I keep reading about include poor scheduling for one thing.

If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats. Where is the SLU scandal that makes this a reasonable comparison? You won't find one.

Obvioulsy winning will improve attendance, but you can check out my John Davidson example to see that you can get a jump start on enthusiam. We've seen in the past that fair weather fans will back a winner.

You must be the kind of guy who hands out trophies to kids after they lose soccer games 10-0.

[brianstl]

I believe that after I made about 5 posts saying that RM could have done more, I DID make a post saying that RM and SLU botched an opportunity to draw better in the new building. I still don't think I used the term "huge" or "big" difference...that's you putting words in my mouth. Making the rounds with local media is a part of that, even though you keep denying it would make a difference (see the John Davidson roadmap). There are other parts of it as well, like having a decent schedule.

If you've been paying attention to the posts I've made for more than a year, I'm willing to give RM a chance to do it his way. You tend to point out all of the disadvantages RM faces without acknowleding the fact that he also has more resources than any other coach in SLU's history.

BTW, it's funny that you keep citing the schedule as an excuse. Who makes the schedule? RM believes things will be better for the program scheduling the way he does. Again, I'm fine with it for the time being. I'm just able to recognize that it will cost us in terms of attendance.

I never said it wasn't part of Rickma's job to make the rounds. I am glad to see that you now agree he didn't have to become media ***** to help attendance. You must agree with this because the Blues with John Davidson were losing fans with decreased ticket prices until thay started to win. Once you start winning that other stuff doesn't matter.

[brianstl]

The Bills ranked 71st in the country in attendance last year, just behind Penn State, Washington St., Oregon, Florida State and Cincinnati - all schools from the BCS. The Bills also ranked ahead of Georgia Tech, Seton Hall, San Diego State, Baylor, Stanford, Mississippi, Butler, SIU, USC, and Boston College to name a few- many BCS and all better recent performance than SLU on the floor. I would also venture to guess that SLU has much higher ticket prices than most of these teams. The sky is not falling. Now if the Bills are still averaging 7,600 two years from now when we are battling for a conference title, then I will be disappointed, but that won't be the case.

I like Footes, but he doesn't know when to walk away from a losing argument.

[GoBills]

So you didn't expect any excitement and improved attendance with a new building? You anticipated a collective yawn? The excuses I keep reading about include poor scheduling for one thing.

If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats. Where is the SLU scandal that makes this a reasonable comparison? You won't find one.

Obvioulsy winning will improve attendance, but you can check out my John Davidson example to see that you can get a jump start on enthusiam. We've seen in the past that fair weather fans will back a winner.

You must be the kind of guy who hands out trophies to kids after they lose soccer games 10-0.

You continue to leave out an important point that the ticket prices went way up with the new building. Brian also raises a good point about the way they count attendance now. I have heard this discussed at other schools like Oklahoma State. As for Mizzou's poor attendance, you bring up scandals to justify it. Look who is making "excuses" now for Missouri? The NCAA has a very nice site regarding attendance. I suggest you look at it for some perspective. Back to Missouri. They averaged 8,000 fans in 2008. Just 400/per game than SLU did this past season, even though they play in a bigger building in a BCS conference and even though the "scandals" you talk about, were a few years old by then. Last year, they saw the 4th highest jump in attendance, up 1,800/ game. Why? Certainly not Mike Anderson's dynamic personality or that all important "marketing" effort... it was winning.

[kevinfootes]

The Bills ranked 71st in the country in attendance last year, just behind Penn State, Washington St., Oregon, Florida State and Cincinnati - all schools from the BCS. The Bills also ranked ahead of Georgia Tech, Seton Hall, San Diego State, Baylor, Stanford, Mississippi, Butler, SIU, USC, and Boston College to name a few- many BCS and all better recent performance than SLU on the floor. I would also venture to guess that SLU has much higher ticket prices than most of these teams. The sky is not falling. Now if the Bills are still averaging 7,600 two years from now when we are battling for a conference title, then I will be disappointed, but that won't be the case.

Let's see...Cincy AND XU both outdrew us last year. They are in the same city, one that is smaller than St. Louis. They are also in close proximity to many good D1 programs like OSU, Kentucky, Louisville, Dayton, etc.

If you're really going to try to use numbers like this you should put things in context. The capacity at GA Tech is about 9,200. The capacity at Ole Miss is 8,700. The capacity at Stanford is 7,400. The capacity at Boston College is 8,600.

If Stanford had sold out every game they couldn't have beaten us.

I'll ask this question because I really don't know the answer...have San Diego State and Ole Miss been better than SLU on the floor recently?

[kevinfootes]

I like Footes, but he doesn't know when to walk away from a losing argument.

Brian, here's a perfect example of how a little effort can improve attendance. The BLues dramatically improved attendance in '07-'08 despite finishing with fewer points.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories...14/story10.html

I like Brian, but he chickens out when it comes to answering direct questions.

For at least the third time...who makes the schedule?

I look forward to Brian's humble retraction of this post.

[kevinfootes]

I never said it wasn't part of Rickma's job to make the rounds. I am glad to see that you now agree he didn't have to become media ***** to help attendance. You must agree with this because the Blues with John Davidson were losing fans with decreased ticket prices until thay started to win. Once you start winning that other stuff doesn't matter.

Brian, you are 100% full of sh!t here. Here's an article from the StL Business journal talking about how the Blues had an increase in attendance of 41% in the '07-'08 season, including 20 sellouts. They finished 2 points worse than the previous season. Now let's see if you have the cajones to address this.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories...14/story10.html

[kevinfootes]

You continue to leave out an important point that the ticket prices went way up with the new building. Brian also raises a good point about the way they count attendance now. I have heard this discussed at other schools like Oklahoma State. As for Mizzou's poor attendance, you bring up scandals to justify it. Look who is making "excuses" now for Missouri? The NCAA has a very nice site regarding attendance. I suggest you look at it for some perspective. Back to Missouri. They averaged 8,000 fans in 2008. Just 400/per game than SLU did this past season, even though they play in a bigger building in a BCS conference and even though the "scandals" you talk about, were a few years old by then. Last year, they saw the 4th highest jump in attendance, up 1,800/ game. Why? Certainly not Mike Anderson's dynamic personality or that all important "marketing" effort... it was winning.

HMMM, I did address the ticket prices in this post:

"If you look at most pro and college teams for the past 20 years you will typically see improved attendance with a new venue. There are some exceptions, like when a team deliberately reduces the number of seats in order to raise prices. SLU's example is pretty unique in that capacity was reduced by more than 50%. Based on ticket prices, required donations, parking revenue, not paying rent, etc., SLU probably came out ahead financially this past season. Where we lost out IMO was that the home court advantage could have been better with more people in the seats. It was certainly better than recent years at Kiel, but less than it could have been."

So you think that pointing out a long run of scandals at mizzou while noting that SLU doesn't have any is "defending" mzzou? Wow!

[billiken_roy]

Having a record over .500 is not what constitutes winning in college basketball. "Winning" in college basketball means conference championships and/or postseason tournament appearances (well, NCAA or NIT). A record of 17-16, or whatever in that vicinity, isn't really winning.

Besides that, your facts are wrong. Romar had a losing season in Year 3 and Soderberg had a losing season in his Year 3.

As a non-BCS, get to 20 regular-season wins, and then we can talk about the season in complimentary terms.

if the comments were more akin to "all will be well when the billikens are going to the sweet 16 every year", i dont make the statement. but the fact is the billikens have had winning seasons aka over 500.

as to your romar and soderberg statements, i said one losing season. soderberg's 2004-2005 season. romar was 19-14 in 99-2000, 17-14 in 00-01, and 17-14 in 01-02. you are wrong.

and you are also wrong that 17-16 season isnt winning. they won more than they lost, so it sure isnt a losing season. thicks it is either a winning or a losing season. no other choice. and 17-16 or 16-14 sure wouldnt be labeled a "losing season".

[brianstl]

Brian, you are 100% full of sh!t here. Here's an article from the StL Business journal talking about how the Blues had an increase in attendance of 41% in the '07-'08 season, including 20 sellouts. They finished 2 points worse than the previous season. Now let's see if you have the cajones to address this.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories...14/story10.html

Do you realize that the Blues won 25 of their first 40 games in 07-08 and everyone hockey fan in this town believed they had turned the corner before they were hit with injuries? They were dramatically better than the year before and would have made the playoffs if the season ended then. Without the winning at the beginning of the year the Blues don't generate the interest to sell tickets.

[Clock_Tower]

You continue to leave out an important point that the ticket prices went way up with the new building. Brian also raises a good point about the way they count attendance now. I have heard this discussed at other schools like Oklahoma State. As for Mizzou's poor attendance, you bring up scandals to justify it. Look who is making "excuses" now for Missouri? The NCAA has a very nice site regarding attendance. I suggest you look at it for some perspective. Back to Missouri. They averaged 8,000 fans in 2008. Just 400/per game than SLU did this past season, even though they play in a bigger building in a BCS conference and even though the "scandals" you talk about, were a few years old by then. Last year, they saw the 4th highest jump in attendance, up 1,800/ game. Why? Certainly not Mike Anderson's dynamic personality or that all important "marketing" effort... it was winning.

Yes, with the new way they now count attendance (actual attendance v. seats sold), believe our attendance figures now more accurately indicate the number of actual Bills fans attending games. Stealing from another poster in another thread, many SLU fans had long supported the program by purchasing "coat seats" as a way to contribute to the basketball program. When seats cost "only" $250 per year or so, buying 6 seats when a booster only needed 4 seats was considered a $500 donation to the basketball program. Now, with a $400 per seat arena fee (Gold) or even a $150 per seat arena fee, many boosters dropped down to the 4 seats they really need. When their kids come back in town over Chirstmas break, they either make due with their 4 seats or will buy 2 extra seats for that particular game. For each booster/family in this example, this represents a decrease of 32 (16 games x 2 tickets) as there is now only 1 game purchasing 2 tickets. Further, if this booster cannot/does not attend 6 games and cannot give away the tickets to someone who will use them to actually attend and be counted for attendance purposes (and demand for tickets around St. Louis has not increased), this is another decrease of 24 (4 x 6 gamers) towards the season attendance. Comparing attendance figures from last year to this year can be very misleading.

Finally, if SLU could have sold 13,200 seats (like Mizzou did when KU came to Columbia) for 1 or 2 of our sellouts (instead of being limited 10,600 (against U Mass and UD), our attendance figures would have been much higher like they had been in years past. During the Conf USA days, we would often have 12,500 to 15,000 show up for a Saturday afternoon game against Marquette, DePaul or Cincy a few times during the year. An extra 8,000 tickets sold for 1 game increases average attendance over a 16 game home schedule by 500 per game.

Footes. With all this said, I do agree and hope/expect a much needed shake-up in the Athletic Department. Also, believe RM will be proud and less embarassed with this year's team than he has been the past and therefore a little more available to the media and less hiding from them. Don't get me wrong, he still won't like them or feel the need to talk to them in that RM is a unique guy who is set in his way.

[kevinfootes]

Do you realize that the Blues won 25 of their first 40 games in 07-08 and everyone hockey fan in this town believed they had turned the corner before they were hit with injuries? They were dramatically better than the year before and would have made the playoffs if the season ended then. Without the winning at the beginning of the year the Blues don't generate the interest to sell tickets.

If, if, if.

The Blues worked their asses off to improve corporate sponsorships that season...BEFORE the season started. Here's a quote from the article:

"One of my goals was to reconnect with the Blues' friends, the St. Louis community and the business community, and as a result significantly grow attendance," McLoughlin said. "We feel we accomplished a lot there."

I think they sold out the first 2 or 3 games that year...BEFORE they were hot. Before the winning generated interest.

[kevinfootes]

Yes, with the new way they now count attendance (actual attendance v. seats sold), believe our attendance figures now more accurately indicate the number of actual Bills fans attending games. Stealing from another poster in another thread, many SLU fans had long supported the program by purchasing "coat seats" as a way to contribute to the basketball program. When seats cost "only" $250 per year or so, buying 6 seats when a booster only needed 4 seats was considered a $500 donation to the basketball program. Now, with a $400 per seat arena fee (Gold) or even a $150 per seat arena fee, many boosters dropped down to the 4 seats they really need. When their kids come back in town over Chirstmas break, they either make due with their 4 seats or will buy 2 extra seats for that particular game. For each booster/family in this example, this represents a decrease of 32 (16 games x 2 tickets) as there is now only 1 game purchasing 2 tickets. Further, if this booster cannot/does not attend 6 games and cannot give away the tickets to someone who will use them to actually attend and be counted for attendance purposes (and demand for tickets around St. Louis has not increased), this is another decrease of 24 (4 x 6 gamers) towards the season attendance. Comparing attendance figures from last year to this year can be very misleading.

Finally, if SLU could have sold 13,200 seats (like Mizzou did when KU came to Columbia) for 1 or 2 of our sellouts (instead of being limited 10,600 (against U Mass and UD), our attendance figures would have been much higher like they had been in years past. During the Conf USA days, we would often have 12,500 to 15,000 show up for a Saturday afternoon game against Marquette, DePaul or Cincy a few times during the year. An extra 8,000 tickets sold for 1 game increases average attendance over a 16 game home schedule by 500 per game.

Footes. With all this said, I do agree and hope/expect a much needed shake-up in the Athletic Department. Also, believe RM will be proud and less embarassed with this year's team than he has been the past and therefore a little more available to the media and less hiding from them. Don't get me wrong, he still won't like them or feel the need to talk to them in that RM is a unique guy who is set in his way.

You correct in that one or two big crowds can boost the numbers. That's the tradeoff of the smaller venue. I'll also concede that all of the effort in the world won't get people very excited about North Carolina A&T (or AT&T as Guy would say) on a Tuesday night in November. I'm hoping that in the next couple of years we'll be at or near capacity for every conference game at least.

[Quality Is Job 1]

if the comments were more akin to "all will be well when the billikens are going to the sweet 16 every year", i dont make the statement. but the fact is the billikens have had winning seasons aka over 500.

as to your romar and soderberg statements, i said one losing season. soderberg's 2004-2005 season. romar was 19-14 in 99-2000, 17-14 in 00-01, and 17-14 in 01-02. you are wrong.

and you are also wrong that 17-16 season isnt winning. they won more than they lost, so it sure isnt a losing season. thicks it is either a winning or a losing season. no other choice. and 17-16 or 16-14 sure wouldnt be labeled a "losing season".

The Billikens' record in 2001-02 was 15-16. Look it up. So, my friend, I am not wrong on this.

Perhaps 17-16 and 16-14 aren't losing records, but they sure don't meet the goal. The goal is the NCAA Tournament. There are three choices: losing, mediocre, and "winning." I put quotation marks around winning because it requires the qualifications of postseason play. Coaches don't keep their jobs for long if their "winning" means records one or two games over .500. I'm not saying SLU's program has been a loser, but I also think it would be a mischaracterization to call it a winning program when it has had only one NCAA appearance in 10 years.

[kevinfootes]

The Billikens' record in 2001-02 was 15-16. Look it up. So, my friend, I am not wrong on this.

Perhaps 17-16 and 16-14 aren't losing records, but they sure don't meet the goal. The goal is the NCAA Tournament. There are three choices: losing, mediocre, and "winning." I put quotation marks around winning because it requires the qualifications of postseason play. Coaches don't keep their jobs for long if their "winning" means records one or two games over .500. I'm not saying SLU's program has been a loser, but I also think it would be a mischaracterization to call it a winning program when it has had only one NCAA appearance in 10 years.

17 or 18 wins is certainly not meeting the goals for a top-50 program. That said, for those folks who weren't around in the '70s or 'early '80s don't know what bad is really like.

[GoBills]

So you think that pointing out a long run of scandals at mizzou while noting that SLU doesn't have any is "defending" mzzou? Wow!

Yes, you are defending the fact that Mizzou drew only 400 people per game in 2008 than SLU did last year, in spite of the fact that they play in a better conference, in a bigger building and (your favorite) have a much bigger marketing budget. In your words, "making excuses" for their fans.

[kevinfootes]

Yes, you are defending the fact that Mizzou drew only 400 people per game in 2008 than SLU did last year, in spite of the fact that they play in a better conference, in a bigger building and (your favorite) have a much bigger marketing budget. In your words, "making excuses" for their fans.

This is complete bullsh!t. I'm not defending anything. Someone made a post saying that SLU outdrew mizzou and I replied that it wasn't true. mizzou's early season attendance is and has been horrible. that's why they should be playing us.

You are the one who is making excuses for poor marketing at SLU. Over and over again. If mizzou has a bigger budget or does a better job, then we need to change that. Your "oh, how can we compete with mizzou" cr@p is pathetic. If you think we can't compete with mizzou in terms of marketing budget that's your problem.

BTW, what is mizzou's marketing budget? You're saying it's bigger, so give us the numbers please. I'd like to see how we compare.

[GoBills]

This is complete bullsh!t. I'm not defending anything. Someone made a post saying that SLU outdrew mizzou and I replied that it wasn't true. mizzou's early season attendance is and has been horrible. that's why they should be playing us.

You are the one who is making excuses for poor marketing at SLU. Over and over again. If mizzou has a bigger budget or does a better job, then we need to change that. Your "oh, how can we compete with mizzou" cr@p is pathetic. If you think we can't compete with mizzou in terms of marketing budget that's your problem.

BTW, what is mizzou's marketing budget? You're saying it's bigger, so give us the numbers please. I'd like to see how we compare.

Calm down little buckeroo and wash your mouth out with soap. Try to get a grip on that anger issue. One of my good friends is a very big Mizzou booster. He has invited me to several football games and the occasional basketball game over the years. He's not at the Bill Laurie level, but he gets the royal treatment when we go and they all seem to know him in the athletic department. He is well connected. I don't need to know the exact "numbers" to know that a BCS school with a huge network of boosters is going to have a MUCH bigger marketing budget than SLU. You are incredibly naive or misinformed if you think otherwise. In addition to that, Mizzou has most of their games available on tv throughout the entire state on Fox Midwest or other outlets, plus an extensive radio network. In spite of all of those huge advantages, just a year ago Mizzou only drew 400/game more than SLU. You deride those who talk realistically about factors contributing to SLU's attendance as "making excuses", yet you turn around and make excuses for Mizzou fans "If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats."

They increased attendance by 1,800/game last year and it wasn't because of a magical new marketing plan or Coach Anderson giving a bunch of interview. It was winning. It is not too complicated.

[kevinfootes]

Calm down little buckeroo and wash your mouth out with soap. Try to get a grip on that anger issue. One of my good friends is a very big Mizzou booster. He has invited me to several football games and the occasional basketball game over the years. He's not at the Bill Laurie level, but he gets the royal treatment when we go and they all seem to know him in the athletic department. He is well connected. I don't need to know the exact "numbers" to know that a BCS school with a huge network of boosters is going to have a MUCH bigger marketing budget than SLU. You are incredibly naive or misinformed if you think otherwise. In addition to that, Mizzou has most of their games available on tv throughout the entire state on Fox Midwest or other outlets, plus an extensive radio network. In spite of all of those huge advantages, just a year ago Mizzou only drew 400/game more than SLU. You deride those who talk realistically about factors contributing to SLU's attendance as "making excuses", yet you turn around and make excuses for Mizzou fans "If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats."

They increased attendance by 1,800/game last year and it wasn't because of a magical new marketing plan or Coach Anderson giving a bunch of interview. It was winning. It is not too complicated.

PLEASE! I'm "defending" mizzou but you're going to mizzou games with their "big" boosters. Why isn't you're name "GoTigers"? Of course yo don't have the guts to answer the legitimate points I raised, but that's not a surprise from you. If you want to be a top 50 program like Biondi claimed so long ago then make it happen. Maybe you sacrifice the occasional fountain or painting to do it, but you make it happen. Who cares about attendance last year? I made a comment that mizzou didn't outdraw us THIS year in response to a misinformed post. That's it. Only a complete moron would have a different take on that. If our attendance was pretty pathetic in a BRAND NEW BUILDING. If you're new to the board, maybe you missed all of the posts telling us that the new building would bring packed houses and an improved home court advantage. I'm still hoping those things will happen, but I was uninspired by last year. I guess you have low standards. Congrats to you!

In case you don't remember, at one point our games were on Fox Midwest.

Don't let the truth get in the way of your excuses for pathetic marketing by our athletic depratment. Anyone who can sit back and say everything is fine in terms of attendance is just blind or stupid.

Seriously truman tiger, why are you on this board? Shouldn't you be on tigerboard or something?

You and a couple of others on here would have made great marketing executives for Bill Bidwill. He had the "we're an NFL team, we don't need to market" approach for about 40 years. If marketing is so unimportant with sports, why do the Cardinals have giveaways? In many cases they're sponsored, but why bother? Attendance will just take care of itself, right?

You want to keep our program in the dark ages. Good for you!

[GoBills]

Truman Tiger, that's funny. Seriously, how old are you? It seems you never learned how to debate in a civil manner. Maybe that style is a product of the culture we live in today. Sad.

You did make a comment in response to a comment I made about Mizzou's poor attendance. You certainly seemed to be making excuses for their fans with this comment, "If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats." I guess you have "low standards" for Mizzou attendance? You have a built in excuse for their pretty pathetic past attendance. Heck, even my Tiger buddy was hacked off about how poor their attendance was in their BRAND NEW BUILDING.

I will try to keep it simple for you, since you seem to go on a million tangents. Did Mizzou's increased attendance have to do primarily with improved play or a better marketing effort? Did SLU's attendance begin to increase in the late 80s and then even more in the mid to late 90s due to an improved marketing effort or improved play on the floor?

[GoBills]

The Billikens' record in 2001-02 was 15-16. Look it up. So, my friend, I am not wrong on this.

Perhaps 17-16 and 16-14 aren't losing records, but they sure don't meet the goal. The goal is the NCAA Tournament. There are three choices: losing, mediocre, and "winning." I put quotation marks around winning because it requires the qualifications of postseason play. Coaches don't keep their jobs for long if their "winning" means records one or two games over .500. I'm not saying SLU's program has been a loser, but I also think it would be a mischaracterization to call it a winning program when it has had only one NCAA appearance in 10 years.

That's a fair analysis. When put into that context, our current attendance is not as dire as the chicken littles make it out to be. Our attendance is not bad for a program that has not made the NCAA Tournament since 2000 and hasn't earned an at-large bid since Larry Legend. I am glad we have a coach who is focused on what is most important - assembling the best team possible. SLU fans have a solid core of loyal fans who are paying good money to support the program. Those fans on the fringes will come along when the winning increases and the postseason appearances happen.

[Quality Is Job 1]

That's a fair analysis. When put into that context, our current attendance is not as dire as the chicken littles make it out to be. Our attendance is not bad for a program that has not made the NCAA Tournament since 2000 and hasn't earned an at-large bid since Larry Legend. I am glad we have a coach who is focused on what is most important - assembling the best team possible. SLU fans have a solid core of loyal fans who are paying good money to support the program. Those fans on the fringes will come along when the winning increases and the postseason appearances happen.

Fixed it.

[billiken_roy]

The Billikens' record in 2001-02 was 15-16. Look it up. So, my friend, I am not wrong on this.

misprint in the 2008-09 media guide. the record at the bottom of the year shows 17-14 but if you count the actual games listed you are correct it is 15-16. i am sorry thicks.

[kevinfootes]

Truman Tiger, that's funny. Seriously, how old are you? It seems you never learned how to debate in a civil manner. Maybe that style is a product of the culture we live in today. Sad.

You did make a comment in response to a comment I made about Mizzou's poor attendance. You certainly seemed to be making excuses for their fans with this comment, "If you want to use the mizzou example don't leave out the fact that the building opened during a series of pretty big scandals. They also thought it was a good idea to add seats." I guess you have "low standards" for Mizzou attendance? You have a built in excuse for their pretty pathetic past attendance. Heck, even my Tiger buddy was hacked off about how poor their attendance was in their BRAND NEW BUILDING.

I will try to keep it simple for you, since you seem to go on a million tangents. Did Mizzou's increased attendance have to do primarily with improved play or a better marketing effort? Did SLU's attendance begin to increase in the late 80s and then even more in the mid to late 90s due to an improved marketing effort or improved play on the floor?

I'll try to make this very easy for you, as you seem to be fairly dense. I don't believe I made any posts about the marketing effort at mizzou. If so, please post a link (or apologize for making things up). Someone made an inaccurate post that SLU outdrew mizzou this past season, which was false. I pointed out that this was false, and the person acknowledged this. That's it.

I did say that mizzou has drawn poorly due to their various scandals (and lackluster effort until last year).

Have fun attending mizzou games with your high-rolling tiger pals, Truman.

[GoBills]

I'll try to make this very easy for you, as you seem to be fairly dense. I don't believe I made any posts about the marketing effort at mizzou. If so, please post a link (or apologize for making things up). Someone made an inaccurate post that SLU outdrew mizzou this past season, which was false. I pointed out that this was false, and the person acknowledged this. That's it.

I did say that mizzou has drawn poorly due to their various scandals (and lackluster effort until last year).

Have fun attending mizzou games with your high-rolling tiger pals, Truman.

I posed a couple of basic questions, but rather than attempt to address them, you seem more comfortable delivering more personal insults.