STLfan Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 With basketball season getting close I took a look at the schedule to see how many games I would be able to watch/DVR and only 7 games are going to be televised with 6 of those on CBS College Sports. A lot of people don't even get that channel(me included unless it will be on CBS) and the final tv game is on ESPNU which is a channel I get but again plenty of people still don't have. I knew our TV deal sucks but is it really this bad or will more games be on TV than what is currently listed on the schedule? It is sad that we can't get more games on ESPN, ESPN2, Fox Sports Midwest, or at least some local channel. SLU now has a high profile coach with Majerus and our own on campus arena where we don't have to schedule our games around the Blues so I would have expected to get more games on TV. Also is the Chicago Invitational Challenge really not going to be on TV anywhere? Besides the Billikens there is also a Big 12 team, a Big Ten team, and Notre Dame. It might be crazy but it seems to me every Saint Louis University Basketball game should be available on some channel within the St. Louis metro. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STLfan Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 For Comparison from the same conference Xavier has 29 games on TV including games on their local Fox Sports channel (Fox Sports Ohio). That has to help with recruiting and providing good exposure for their program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knight_rider Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 It's amazing to me how many people don't even know who Rick is now. (1998 was a long time ago) And if they do know of him, they certainly didn't realize he was our coach due to lack of coverage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FromDaEastSide Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Per the notes from the Billiken Club meeting last week. CM is finalizing the local TV deal for this year. Should be announced this week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The dates of the Channel 11 games are typically released later. Don't freak out just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 The dates of the Channel 11 games are typically released later. Don't freak out just yet.As I posted last week Rich Gould said they were planning on showing games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STLfan Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 Great news guys. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GOSLU68 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 As I posted last week Rich Gould said they were planning on showing games. Sorry but to those of us who live, locally, and are seaon ticket holders we need away game coverage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinfootes Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 For Comparison from the same conference Xavier has 29 games on TV including games on their local Fox Sports channel (Fox Sports Ohio). That has to help with recruiting and providing good exposure for their program. Also for the sake of comparison, there is no local NHL team in Cincy. XU competes with the Bearcats, OSU ,etc. but no pro teams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinfootes Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 It's amazing to me how many people don't even know who Rick is now. (1998 was a long time ago) And if they do know of him, they certainly didn't realize he was our coach due to lack of coverage. Many of us wish RM spent a little more time with the local media to help get the word out, but that's not how he rolls. After 2.5 years of RM limiting himself locally, the local media doesn't go out of their way to talk to him. In the end, he'll be judged by his wins, losses, and big dance appearances. I'm still thinking he'll get us there by year 4. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Many of us wish RM spent a little more time with the local media to help get the word out, but that's not how he rolls. After 2.5 years of RM limiting himself locally, the local media doesn't go out of their way to talk to him. In the end, he'll be judged by his wins, losses, and big dance appearances. I'm still thinking he'll get us there by year 4. Majerus doesn't have to be a media darling or even media friendly. However, SLU as a program has to be more aggressive and more capable with the media, and with marketing. How is it that some local media frequently, and seemingly endlessly complain about Majerus' lack of accessability with them, and no SLU representative is at the ready to take on that challenge and roll? It doesn't have to be Majerus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheA_Bomb Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 CBS Sports is a good channel for me. I get that channel. I get FSMW as well. When I was in college most of the games were televised on FSMW (late 90s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinfootes Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Majerus doesn't have to be a media darling or even media friendly. However, SLU as a program has to be more aggressive and more capable with the media, and with marketing. How is it that some local media frequently, and seemingly endlessly complain about Majerus' lack of accessability with them, and no SLU representative is at the ready to take on that challenge and roll? It doesn't have to be Majerus. I don't really care who the point person is, but somebody needs to do it. Agreed that RM doesn't HAVE to be a media darling, but he'd be the best choice as he's very good at it when he wants to be and is very well known in basketball circles. Since he won't do it, let's find someone else to step up. IMO, RM can do whatever he wants as long as he wins and doesn't cheat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLIKNS Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Checked out X tv schedule,and the game with them will be televised on Fox Ohio,so there is another one right there.Wouldn`t be surprised if more pop up,say Duquesne on Fox-pittsburgh,or some others on the opponents network,I hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLIKNS Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Hate to say it,but this is MUCH better than the Brad days,us out of towners were lucky to get 2 games to watch.Aw the salad days of tv, when Lorenzo was here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 fan Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Sorry to disagree, and this is not anti RM remark, it does have to be him. Occasionally, the media will accept Porter Moser, but he's not the head coach. RM has a way of running his program, and, frankly, we all have to admit, it is not marketing friendly. No Midnight Madness No Blue and White Game No open practices Doesn't always attend booster meetings Doesn't drum up support at outside events (attends the MAC meeting, but that's about it) Not involved at all locally All are terrific opportunities to market his program. Conversely, when he does reach out, he's very marketable. When he attends Billiken Club meetings he is informative. He's always appreciative of people attending games and meetings. He is having the Meet the Team event. Unfortunately, on balance the program is minus in my opinion on reaching out to the masses. Hope he wins, cause he's betting everything on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Sorry to disagree, and this is not anti RM remark, it does have to be him. Occasionally, the media will accept Porter Moser, but he's not the head coach. RM has a way of running his program, and, frankly, we all have to admit, it is not marketing friendly. No Midnight Madness No Blue and White Game No open practices Doesn't always attend booster meetings Doesn't drum up support at outside events (attends the MAC meeting, but that's about it) Not involved at all locally All are terrific opportunities to market his program. Conversely, when he does reach out, he's very marketable. When he attends Billiken Club meetings he is informative. He's always appreciative of people attending games and meetings. He is having the Meet the Team event. Unfortunately, on balance the program is minus in my opinion on reaching out to the masses. Hope he wins, cause he's betting everything on it. Good post! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Sorry to disagree, and this is not anti RM remark, it does have to be him. Occasionally, the media will accept Porter Moser, but he's not the head coach. RM has a way of running his program, and, frankly, we all have to admit, it is not marketing friendly. No Midnight Madness No Blue and White Game No open practices Doesn't always attend booster meetings Doesn't drum up support at outside events (attends the MAC meeting, but that's about it) Not involved at all locally All are terrific opportunities to market his program. Conversely, when he does reach out, he's very marketable. When he attends Billiken Club meetings he is informative. He's always appreciative of people attending games and meetings. He is having the Meet the Team event. Unfortunately, on balance the program is minus in my opinion on reaching out to the masses. Hope he wins, cause he's betting everything on it. I agree with everything you say but I don't give a sh#t as long as he wins. Must be my old age but I'm tired of not winning. Roy won"t like this but all I care about is winning as long as it's done without cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I agree with everything you say but I don't give a sh#t as long as he wins. Must be my old age but I'm tired of not winning. Roy won"t like this but all I care about is winning as long as it's done without cheating. willie you should correct your post to say, "but i'm tired of not winning big." our record over the years show we win, just havent won big. i too want to win. and of course i too want to win without cheating. i just want to also win with class from all angles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 willie you should correct your post to say, "but i'm tired of not winning big." our record over the years show we win, just havent won big. i too want to win. and of course i too want to win without cheating. i just want to also win with class from all angles. A couple games over .500 is not "winning." I really don't care what the technical definition is, if you aren't playing in postseason tournaments named the NCAA or even NIT then you shouldn't call yourself a winning program. You should appreciate this Roy, would we still be considered a "winning" program if you threw out all the buy games and just counted home and homes and conference. I doubt it. In my opinion, we haven't been a consistent winning program since Spoon retired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 willie you should correct your post to say, "but i'm tired of not winning big." our record over the years show we win, just havent won big. i too want to win. and of course i too want to win without cheating. i just want to also win with class from all angles. To me winning would be top 1/3 of the A-10 every year. Making the dance at least 2 out of every 5 years. Roy John Wooden is 99 years old. I'm not sure who your perfect coach is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 A couple games over .500 is not "winning." I really don't care what the technical definition is, if you aren't playing in postseason tournaments named the NCAA or even NIT then you shouldn't call yourself a winning program. You should appreciate this Roy, would we still be considered a "winning" program if you threw out all the buy games and just counted home and homes and conference. I doubt it. In my opinion, we haven't been a consistent winning program since Spoon retired. spoon had more losing seasons than any of our last 5 coaches. and again, we are talking semantics thus the reason it should be written "win big". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 spoon had more losing seasons than any of our last 5 coaches. and again, we are talking semantics thus the reason it should be written "win big". Its a shame Pomeroy has taken down his historical RPI rankings because I'm fairly certain that in Spoon's final season when we were 1 game below .500 we still had an RPI about the same as Brad's last season when we finished with 20 wins. For a guy that hates soft schedules its interesting that you always want to take shots at Spoon for a team that played an incredibly difficult schedule based on the presumption that Hughes was coming back. And anybody that criticizes Spoon for his record in his first year in the program is insane. He took over a team with 5 wins and somehow got them into 12 or so wins. The Spoon years were, on average, the best years of this program since before most of us were born, and nobody can dispute that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Its a shame Pomeroy has taken down his historical RPI rankings because I'm fairly certain that in Spoon's final season when we were 1 game below .500 we still had an RPI about the same as Brad's last season when we finished with 20 wins. For a guy that hates soft schedules its interesting that you always want to take shots at Spoon for a team that played an incredibly difficult schedule based on the presumption that Hughes was coming back. And anybody that criticizes Spoon for his record in his first year in the program is insane. He took over a team with 5 wins and somehow got them into 12 or so wins. The Spoon years were, on average, the best years of this program since before most of us were born, and nobody can dispute that. Roy. Don't understand the shots at Spoon. RM, I understand. Spoon I don't. Believe Kshoe is right with his comments. While you are technically correct, "winning" (at least to me) does mean that you have more wins than losses at the end of the season, it is not a stretch to say that some of our "winning" seasons included some soft scheduling. Would you not agree that the level of competition we played, during the Spoon years, was tougher than we had played both prior to 1992 and since. Conf USA in its heyday was a darn good conference and there were no easy wins and teams like Duquesne, St. Bona, LaSalle, etc. Also, would you not agree that 20 win seasons today are nothing compared to 20 win season 10 to 20 years ago? Also, Spoon inherited the remnants of a 5-23 disastrous team and had to basically recruit Highmark and Claggett back to SLU. Believe Claggett was all but gone to N. Iowa and that Highmark was leaning toward Mizzou and SMS (had Charlie stayed there). Their staying at SLU was not a foregone conclusion and I, for one, give Spoon full credit for them staying at SLU. Was Spoon on par with John Wooden?? Of course not. But national rankings, long winning steaks, 20,000 plus sellouts, wins over Top 5 programs. Don't recall seeing any of these during the "winning" years of Romar and Brad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Its a shame Pomeroy has taken down his historical RPI rankings because I'm fairly certain that in Spoon's final season when we were 1 game below .500 we still had an RPI about the same as Brad's last season when we finished with 20 wins. For a guy that hates soft schedules its interesting that you always want to take shots at Spoon for a team that played an incredibly difficult schedule based on the presumption that Hughes was coming back. And anybody that criticizes Spoon for his record in his first year in the program is insane. He took over a team with 5 wins and somehow got them into 12 or so wins. The Spoon years were, on average, the best years of this program since before most of us were born, and nobody can dispute that. i totally agree our "best years" were the spoon ncaa teams. but you cant deny the 92-93, 96-97, and 98-99 were very frustrating and LOSING seasons. as to strength of schedule in spoon seasons, while spoon managed to get us some marquee games with top teams, he also had his share of weak sister out of conference games. the 93-94 season, which might have been the best of all of spoons teams, was one of the last undefeated teams and i still remember the espn crew begging the pollsters to put us in the rankings. however that particular season the non conference schedule was a stinker and kept us out of the rankings. yes i am sure researching previous rpi seasons would show strong schedules though mainly because we had the cusa schedules to bring the rpi up each season. but other than the one or two big games that some of the seasons had on the non conference schedule, spoon didnt play a particularly tough non conference schedule. that said, again, he didnt have to because of the strong conference schedule. but back to the original premise, we indeed did win with spoon 4 out of 7 seasons. romar never had a losing season in his three year term. soderberg had 1 out of 5 losing seaons. grawer had 4 out of 10 losing seasons, but i give him a pass on the first three seasons trying to overcome the dispicable ron ekker years. rickma has never had a losing season. so in 27 seasons the billikens have had 8 losing seasons and 19 500 or better seasons. granted a lot of mediocrity there, but not a losing program. 446 wins and 386 losses for a 536 winning percentage. and if you only go back 25 seasons (ekker reflex) the winning percentage goes up to a 554 winning percentage. once again, my point is the billikens win. they just havent won big consistently. and i have no problem with willie saying i just want to win big. that would be a true statement as to something the program hasnt done. 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.