All Decade Team

[Cowboy]

i dont know why dont we all use his full given name? why not say Ricky Raymond Majerus? what's the difference?

-just wondering if you are taking a shot at him every time you use that

[billiken_roy]

-just wondering if you are taking a shot at him every time you use that

no i was just shortening ricky raymond majerus. how would "rickma" be a shot at him? that is really a reach imo. is it ok if i go back to rickma? if not, i will in the future use ricky raymond majerus in an effort to not offend you or anyone else.

[drkelsey55]

no i was just shortening ricky raymond majerus. how would "rickma" be a shot at him? that is really a reach imo. is it ok if i go back to rickma? if not, i will in the future use ricky raymond majerus in an effort to not offend you or anyone else.

I vote for "rickma" RM is too impersonal and I can spell Rickma!

[kevinfootes]

no i was just shortening ricky raymond majerus. how would "rickma" be a shot at him? that is really a reach imo. is it ok if i go back to rickma? if not, i will in the future use ricky raymond majerus in an effort to not offend you or anyone else.

I think you should call him "Coach Knight".

[mcglotherirvin]

broy, you have a point, but i still think i have a hard time giving romar the coach of the decade award. he won that year with spoon's players. love, perry, jeffers, heinrich, tatum, etc were all spoon recruits if i'm not mistaken. who did romar ever bring in on his own? players have to be considered.

are you saying because romar went to one tourney and grawer never did then if you have to choose a coach of the century for the bills and its down to those two, you pick romar? one year of going to the tourney means more than bringing in talent and turning a bad program around/

romar got the billikens to the ncaa tourney. rickma has not. i read the majority of you over and over say nothing else matters. well if that's the case, then romar is the best of the three. WHEN rickma does, then he can be recognized accordingly. until then, the fact is rickma hasnt accomplished at slu what romar did.

[NH]

If romar wanted the SLU job right now, I would take him in a heartbeat.

[willie]

I think you should call him "Coach Knight".

I have always been a Coach Knight hater. I thought he was a bully who treated his players like ###### and coached through intimidation. That said I really like him on ESPN. His basketball knowledge is unsurpassed,but he keeps it simple enough to follow and doesn't use terms like their running a UCLA cut.I really liked him the last couple of weeks when he threw Callipari and Kentucky under the bus. I thought he might get in trouble with ESPN for getting on the establishment, but he and Musberger had a long conversation during one of the games they were doing. Besides Callipari he got on the NCAA for their 1 and done policy. Good stuff.

[kevinfootes]

If romar wanted the SLU job right now, I would take him in a heartbeat.

Are you saying the 2009-2010 Romar is the same coach that we had? He's had a lot more success recently and should be able to take advantage of it. When he was at SLU, Romar was still relatively unknown. He came in second place with quite a few good recruits, but they didn't come to SLU and he never seemed to have a backup plan. His teams grew worse each year at SLU, as Spoon's players fazed out and his players took their spots. Keep in mind that Romar was about the 4th choice at Washington, behind Quinn Snyder for one. Let's not pretend that he was their front-runner.

Romar has had a nice run at Washington, but I don't think we can assume he would have had the same success at SLU.

[GOSLU68]

Are you saying the 2009-2010 Romar is the same coach that we had? He's had a lot more success recently and should be able to take advantage of it. When he was at SLU, Romar was still relatively unknown. He came in second place with quite a few good recruits, but they didn't come to SLU and he never seemed to have a backup plan. His teams grew worse each year at SLU, as Spoon's players fazed out and his players took their spots. Keep in mind that Romar was about the 4th choice at Washington, behind Quinn Snyder for one. Let's not pretend that he was their front-runner.

Romar has had a nice run at Washington, but I don't think we can assume he would have had the same success at SLU.

if we was still here we would all be talking about how if he had talked the administration into letting Darius Miles into college that the program would be recruiting all the great local talent. Romar was a very personable guy and I liked him; he let them play on the floor but he was no great strategist and it was time to pick up

his marbles and go home when his Alma Mater called. I wish him well; at least he did not treat his

luck as a public auction the way Spoon did after being co-coach of the year with Norm Stewart and telling the press he was open to offers-that killed his recruiting.

RM is making SLU a destination not a stepping stone

[victor]

I see that not one person mentioned Chris Braun on your all decade team. We must remember the bigs of the Braun/Baniak era played against much tougher, bigger, and more skilled competition than the current guys (REED).

I go with:

Perry

Love

Jeffers

Braun

Heinrich

Bench: Fisher, Liddell, Lisch, Reed, Sloan, Bryant, Voyouskas

[NashvilleBilliken]

I see that not one person mentioned Chris Braun on your all decade team. We must remember the bigs of the Braun/Baniak era played against much tougher, bigger, and more skilled competition than the current guys (REED).

I go with:

Perry

Love

Jeffers

Braun

Heinrich

Bench: Fisher, Liddell, Lisch, Reed, Sloan, Bryant, Voyouskas

I actually thought long and hard about adding Chris Braun but ultimately decided to go with Baniak. I always felt that Braun WAY underperformed. What was he, 6-11 with shooting and dribbling skills? I seem to remember him being too weak to play the 5...both in strength and aggressiveness. Coulda been a hell of a player tho.

[RUBillsFan]

I see that not one person mentioned Chris Braun on your all decade team. We must remember the bigs of the Braun/Baniak era played against much tougher, bigger, and more skilled competition than the current guys (REED).

I go with:

Perry

Love

Jeffers

Braun

Heinrich

Bench: Fisher, Liddell, Lisch, Reed, Sloan, Bryant, Voyouskas

Not trying to bash you, but why did this post deserve its own thread? IMO you should have just replied in the All-Decade thread.

Even with the disparity in competition, I don't think Braun or Heinrich should EVER be put ahead of Vouyoukas. IV was probably the best 5 SLU has had. He was better than both Braun and Heinrich in almost every stat category and based on the eye test he was much better as well. Those guys were nice role players for solid team, but IV was the best player on the team.

[Clock_Tower]

romar got the billikens to the ncaa tourney. rickma has not. i read the majority of you over and over say nothing else matters. well if that's the case, then romar is the best of the three. WHEN rickma does, then he can be recognized accordingly. until then, the fact is rickma hasnt accomplished at slu what romar did.

Roy. Again. I don't understand the pedestal thing with you and Romar. Zo started with probably one of best set of players SLU has seen in the modern era and then only won 19 and 17 games with them. He then failed to replace them. The few guys who did commit were not quality players or people (why the double standard?? You rip RM for his personal issues and yet Zo gets no blame for bringin in/trying to bring in guys who showed no interest in school, who not only dropped out of school (Edwin) but never went to class (Pulley) and who could/would never make grades (Nick Kern whom last we heard from was shot outside some YMCA). Zo was very personable and sounded quite convincing but Ryan Hollins was one guy and it is quite tenuous to state that he was the beginning of some West Coast infusion of talent. After a losing record in his third and final year, Zo did that crying thing on camera and said he was so sorry to leave. If Zo really had a truthful moment during that sobbbing episode, his tears would have been shed for how he squadered the once promising program by his ineptitude. The guy I really feel sorry for was Brad: He did his best recruiting early, he then suffered when the team dropped from Conf USA to A10 and he again suffered when Woolard proved how bad of an AD he really was when the Arena project stalled and donor were offended. As bad as the team was when RM inherited it, at least he had TL and KL for 2 years. Brad started with even less. With a few breaks, maybe things would have been different for Brad. Who knows.

Yes, Romar and Justin Love caught lighting in a bottle. Yes, Romar made the Tourney. W/o winning all 4 games and Love carrying the entire team on his back, we'd have missed the Tourney and have had a similar 17-14 underperforming year like RM did in his second year.

As you can tell, I would not give any award to Romar.

[Pistol]

I actually thought long and hard about adding Chris Braun but ultimately decided to go with Baniak. I always felt that Braun WAY underperformed. What was he, 6-11 with shooting and dribbling skills? I seem to remember him being too weak to play the 5...both in strength and aggressiveness. Coulda been a hell of a player tho.

Braun was too soft. Not a winner. Numbers weren't great, either, and he wasn't nearly as good a post defender as Kenny Brown. He probably wouldn't make my top 20 this decade, let alone top 12.

[billiken_roy]

clock, i am just using the standards that fans have used to excuse decisions for the program up to now. if that no longer matters then fans should quit using it as the be all end all.

by the way, i dont have a problem with a coach bringing a kid in that might be borderline academically. just about every coach we have had in the last few decades has done so including ricky raymond majerus. and if those players dont change their academic habits to be able to exist as a student athlete at saint louis university they should leave just as pulley and edwin did. ironically, both got opportunities at other d-1 programs even though they had been proven failures. pulley couldnt last again, but edwin played out his collegiate eligibility.

in both cases, the players decided their own fate. big difference. i dont see that as a double standard.

[Clock_Tower]

clock, i am just using the standards that fans have used to excuse decisions for the program up to now. if that no longer matters then fans should quit using it as the be all end all.

by the way, i dont have a problem with a coach bringing a kid in that might be borderline academically. just about every coach we have had in the last few decades has done so including ricky raymond majerus. and if those players dont change their academic habits to be able to exist as a student athlete at saint louis university they should leave just as pulley and edwin did. ironically, both got opportunities at other d-1 programs even though they had been proven failures. pulley couldnt last again, but edwin played out his collegiate eligibility.

in both cases, the players decided their own fate. big difference. i dont see that as a double standard.

I noticed your choice of words before your comments. I agree that winning is not the only thing. At the same time, a coach like Romar who brings recruit after recruit who fails indicates that the Coach is part of the problem. Edwin, McClain, Pulley, Seffert all failed out under Romar. Nick Kern couldn't even get into SLU and yet was one of his prized recruits. Why no blame for Zo? Why is he such a great guy? Where the West Coast pipeline proof? RM has been accused of winning at the expense of the student athlete b/c he drove a few kids away in his first year. Since then, RM has brought in quality kids. For sure, no guys like Zo did or guys like Brad did: Horace Dixon and Obi.

Still RM is against the student athlete and yet Romar, who ingnored the student in favor of the athlete, receives nothing but praise??

[billiken_roy]

I noticed your choice of words before your comments. I agree that winning is not the only thing. At the same time, a coach like Romar who brings recruit after recruit who fails indicates that the Coach is part of the problem. Edwin, McClain, Pulley, Seffert all failed out under Romar. Nick Kern couldn't even get into SLU and yet was one of his prized recruits. Why no blame for Zo? Why is he such a great guy? Where the West Coast pipeline proof? RM has been accused of winning at the expense of the student athlete b/c he drove a few kids away in his first year. Since then, RM has brought in quality kids. For sure, no guys like Zo did or guys like Brad did: Horace Dixon and Obi.

Still RM is against the student athlete and yet Romar, who ingnored the student in favor of the athlete, receives nothing but praise??

i dont recall seffert and mcclain leaving due to academics. my memory was that seffert left to go back to montana because he was homesick and mcclain left when his injury situation left him unable to play basketball at that time. both showed up with other division one teams later.

again, all of the recent billiken coaches brought in borderline academic kids. some of those student athletes took the opportunity and turned their lives around and did ok, others like pulley and edwin under romar did not. i dont have a problem with bringing the kids in like that. i am glad to see they wanted a chance. now if they dont make it fair and square or if they behave in a manner that shows they are not good citizens, they should leave. and that would be their own doing. i think i have been very consistent with that opinion.

ricky raymond majerus forced kids to leave that indeed were doing ok academically. i dont recall romar doing that. you want to knock the guy that indeed gave them a chance academically to rise up. i want to knock the guy that took away that academic opportunity. i am confused why you believe that blocking the borderline kid from even coming is right, and sending the kid packing that was succeeding academically is also right? would seem to me you have it backwards from a purely student viewpoint.

(note to board, i didnt start this discussion and i am done with it on this string. sorry to debate it)

[RUBillsFan]

Roy. Again. I don't understand the pedestal thing with you and Romar. Zo started with probably one of best set of players SLU has seen in the modern era and then only won 19 and 17 games with them. He then failed to replace them. The few guys who did commit were not quality players or people (why the double standard?? You rip RM for his personal issues and yet Zo gets no blame for bringin in/trying to bring in guys who showed no interest in school, who not only dropped out of school (Edwin) but never went to class (Pulley) and who could/would never make grades (Nick Kern whom last we heard from was shot outside some YMCA). Zo was very personable and sounded quite convincing but Ryan Hollins was one guy and it is quite tenuous to state that he was the beginning of some West Coast infusion of talent. After a losing record in his third and final year, Zo did that crying thing on camera and said he was so sorry to leave. If Zo really had a truthful moment during that sobbbing episode, his tears would have been shed for how he squadered the once promising program by his ineptitude. The guy I really feel sorry for was Brad: He did his best recruiting early, he then suffered when the team dropped from Conf USA to A10 and he again suffered when Woolard proved how bad of an AD he really was when the Arena project stalled and donor were offended. As bad as the team was when RM inherited it, at least he had TL and KL for 2 years. Brad started with even less. With a few breaks, maybe things would have been different for Brad. Who knows.

Yes, Romar and Justin Love caught lighting in a bottle. Yes, Romar made the Tourney. W/o winning all 4 games and Love carrying the entire team on his back, we'd have missed the Tourney and have had a similar 17-14 underperforming year like RM did in his second year.

As you can tell, I would not give any award to Romar.

I don't know that you can say Romar left the cupboard empty for Brad in terms of talent. Romar left behind Marque Perry, Josh Fisher, Chris Sloan, Kenny Brown, Chris Braun, Drew Diener, and Ross Varner. Also Brad was not able to keep Hollins from going elsewhere. I'm not sure who did the work on Drejaj and Ohannon, but they were freshmen when Brad started. Also I'm not sure who did the work on getting Reggie Bryant to pick SLU after transfering, but he chose SLU right around the change from Romar to Brad.

I'm too young to remember all of the circumstances around the switch from Romar to Brad, but I would say that is a pretty decent group of players. Not as good as Romar had when he started, but IMO better than Rick inherited when Brad left.

[RUBillsFan]

ricky raymond majerus forced kids to leave that indeed were doing ok academically. i dont recall romar doing that. you want to knock the guy that indeed gave them a chance academically to rise up. i want to knock the guy that took away that academic opportunity. i am confused why you believe that blocking the borderline kid from even coming is right, and sending the kid packing that was succeeding academically is also right? would seem to me you have it backwards from a purely student viewpoint.

(note to board, i didnt start this discussion and i am done with it on this string. sorry to debate it)

We are talking about student-ATHLETES here. They are on athletic scholarships. IMO if they are not succeeding in school that is one reason to give them the boot (they are not fulfilling the student part). Also if they are not succeeding on the court that is another reason to pull their scholarship (they are not fulfilling the athlete part). It is a slippery slope, but IMO SLU/Rick have every right to not offer a kid an athletic scholarship for the next year if they failed athletically.

I do not see it as Rick forcing the kids out. We do not know the circumstances around these decisions. Obviously they were not going to play, so Rick talked to them and they (the player and/or Rick) decided it was best for them to move on.

[Clock_Tower]

i dont recall seffert and mcclain leaving due to academics. my memory was that seffert left to go back to montana because he was homesick and mcclain left when his injury situation left him unable to play basketball at that time. both showed up with other division one teams later.

again, all of the recent billiken coaches brought in borderline academic kids. some of those student athletes took the opportunity and turned their lives around and did ok, others like pulley and edwin under romar did not. i dont have a problem with bringing the kids in like that. i am glad to see they wanted a chance. now if they dont make it fair and square or if they behave in a manner that shows they are not good citizens, they should leave. and that would be their own doing. i think i have been very consistent with that opinion.

ricky raymond majerus forced kids to leave that indeed were doing ok academically. i dont recall romar doing that. you want to knock the guy that indeed gave them a chance academically to rise up. i want to knock the guy that took away that academic opportunity. i am confused why you believe that blocking the borderline kid from even coming is right, and sending the kid packing that was succeeding academically is also right? would seem to me you have it backwards from a purely student viewpoint.

(note to board, i didnt start this discussion and i am done with it on this string. sorry to debate it)

Roy. Your thoughts on RM and the 4 guys who left are well known. I respect your opinion, find you very consistent and am not trying to change your opinion. Instead, I again question why Romar is given a vaulted or pedestal status for, IMO, destroying a program by replacing a very good squad of players with knuckleheads and/or nobody. Brad wasn't the first to fail to land players. I believe Randy Pulley was Romar's only recruit the one year. His leaving left a gaping hole. The loss of Edwin (high scorer) along with McClain, Seyfort (somewhat remember a drug issue with him) was devastating. Again, this isn't a post about RM and his treatment of student athletes (though I point out that he does care for his kids and he hasn't brought in any knuckleheads) whereas the great Zo (coach of the decade!!) squandered a fledgling program. Regarding the few players he did bring in, the great Zo brought in guys who had no interest in academics. These guys weren't "borderline kids." Instead, this IS a post about why the great Zo is placed on a pedestal and there is NO criticism of his recruiting non-academic athletes and his many misses as a head coach recruiter. Still, the perception is that the guy could and did recruit and should even be our coach of the decade!! If not awarded to RM, then I'd say Brad and/or A. Thorpe deserves the credit over Zo.

[Clock_Tower]

We are talking about student-ATHLETES here. They are on athletic scholarships. IMO if they are not succeeding in school that is one reason to give them the boot (they are not fulfilling the student part). Also if they are not succeeding on the court that is another reason to pull their scholarship (they are not fulfilling the athlete part). It is a slippery slope, but IMO SLU/Rick have every right to not offer a kid an athletic scholarship for the next year if they failed athletically.

I do not see it as Rick forcing the kids out. We do not know the circumstances around these decisions. Obviously they were not going to play, so Rick talked to them and they (the player and/or Rick) decided it was best for them to move on.

When a HC repeatedly has guys who fail to go to class and drop out of academic reasons, IMO the HC shares some responsibility. At a minium, he should not be praised a recruiter of STUDENT-athletes, put on a pedestal and rewarded with "coach of the decade" honors even from an internet chat board.

[kevinfootes]

If not awarded to RM, then I'd say Brad and/or A. Thorpe deserves the credit over Zo.

Angres Thorpe as coach of the decade? HUH!

[mcglotherirvin]

roy, you keep failing to acknowledge a statement your man soderberg made at a billiken club meeting during his first year as head coach or possibly during his last year as assistant. he specifically said he thought he needed to talk with seyfert about finding another place to play. whether or not that's why seyfert left - i don't know. but your man soderberg was just as open to running players off (as you like to call it) as coach majerus. the problem was he never had enough players to begin with. he'd be running guys off to fill their spots with male cheerleaders.

i dont recall seffert and mcclain leaving due to academics. my memory was that seffert left to go back to montana because he was homesick and mcclain left when his injury situation left him unable to play basketball at that time. both showed up with other division one teams later.

again, all of the recent billiken coaches brought in borderline academic kids. some of those student athletes took the opportunity and turned their lives around and did ok, others like pulley and edwin under romar did not. i dont have a problem with bringing the kids in like that. i am glad to see they wanted a chance. now if they dont make it fair and square or if they behave in a manner that shows they are not good citizens, they should leave. and that would be their own doing. i think i have been very consistent with that opinion.

ricky raymond majerus forced kids to leave that indeed were doing ok academically. i dont recall romar doing that. you want to knock the guy that indeed gave them a chance academically to rise up. i want to knock the guy that took away that academic opportunity. i am confused why you believe that blocking the borderline kid from even coming is right, and sending the kid packing that was succeeding academically is also right? would seem to me you have it backwards from a purely student viewpoint.

(note to board, i didnt start this discussion and i am done with it on this string. sorry to debate it)

[billiken_roy]

roy, you keep failing to acknowledge a statement your man soderberg made at a billiken club meeting during his first year as head coach or possibly during his last year as assistant. he specifically said he thought he needed to talk with seyfert about finding another place to play. whether or not that's why seyfert left - i don't know. but your man soderberg was just as open to running players off (as you like to call it) as coach majerus. the problem was he never had enough players to begin with. he'd be running guys off to fill their spots with male cheerleaders.

you took that out of context. i was sitting 3 feet from soderberg that day and he first said, seyfert was tremendously homesick and came to him in tears about wanting to go home. THEN soderberg said, i need to find him another place to play.

[mcglotherirvin]

Actually, Roy, I am not taking anything out of context. Below is a link to a discussion you, I, and others had about this very topic two years ago. Read it because what you are saying right now is different than what you said two years ago. I will give you the benefit of the doubt given how long ago the conversation was. But as you will see in this thread you and others acknowledged that Sodie wanted Romar to have a talk with Seyfert because he wasn't cutting it. Romar was the one who wasn't willing to do that. Sodie was.

I think either Coach Majerus deserves an apology from you or you should acknowledge that Sodie was just as unfair (as you would say) in wanting players to move on if they weren't good enough.

http://www.billikens.com/forum/index.php?s...13890&st=20

you took that out of context. i was sitting 3 feet from soderberg that day and he first said, seyfert was tremendously homesick and came to him in tears about wanting to go home. THEN soderberg said, i need to find him another place to play.