Would ya?

[bauman]

There is an interesting "discussion" going on under the "Kowal investigation" thread so it is basically buried in the wrong place, so I thought I'd give it a cahnce to breath on its own.

I'll use Scott Suggs as an example and as a point of reference only, not intended to hold a grudge against him.

At this point in the RM regime if SS wanted to come back to SLU, "Would ya" give up a scholarship to get him? What are the pros and cons of doing so? Note I said, "At this point." Clearly, we would have welcomed any above average D1 player in yrs past-you can probably list 10 or more who we have welcomed back over the past 30 yrs or so.

To be perfectly clear, I do not hold a grudge once a player leaves-I loved Jim Roder and others like him "coming home." However, I believe we are now at the point where we should not be the fallback (I can always come home if things don't work out at XYZ U.) I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing players we recruited to come back to us later. By allowing these returns to SLU we are basically saying, "Go ahead and try the other school."

Therefore to answer my own question, no return allowed for SS or any other players in his category, e.g. JH or BB. Sure it would be nice to add a player of SS or BB's ability to our roster as a transfer, but I think we are better served by having the deterent policy of not being the fallback. I like, "We want you now, not later."

[brianstl]

I thought this thread was going to be something totally different.

[BACKHANDtheRICAN]

There is an interesting "discussion" going on under the "Kowal investigation" thread so it is basically buried in the wrong place, so I thought I'd give it a cahnce to breath on its own.

I'll use Scott Suggs as an example and as a point of reference only, not intended to hold a grudge against him.

At this point in the RM regime if SS wanted to come back to SLU, "Would ya" give up a scholarship to get him? What are the pros and cons of doing so? Note I said, "At this point." Clearly, we would have welcomed any above average D1 player in yrs past-you can probably list 10 or more who we have welcomed back over the past 30 yrs or so.

To be perfectly clear, I do not hold a grudge once a player leaves-I loved Jim Roder and others like him "coming home." However, I believe we are now at the point where we should not be the fallback (I can always come home if things don't work out at XYZ U.) I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing players we recruited to come back to us later. By allowing these returns to SLU we are basically saying, "Go ahead and try the other school."

Therefore to answer my own question, no return allowed for SS or any other players in his category, e.g. JH or BB. Sure it would be nice to add a player of SS or BB's ability to our roster as a transfer, but I think we are better served by having the deterent policy of not being the fallback. I like, "We want you now, not later."

Wow, there really must be nothing going on with the basketball team to post this.

I only opened this bc I thought there would be a picture of a fat chick and Id have to think whether I would or wouldnt.

[StlBills]

Wow, there really must be nothing going on with the basketball team to post this.

I only opened this bc I thought there would be a picture of a fat chick and Id have to think whether I would or wouldnt.

All right then let's make it interesting! Would Ya?

[bonwich]

I figured it was an introduction to this year's Saintsations.

[ACE]

There is an interesting "discussion" going on under the "Kowal investigation" thread so it is basically buried in the wrong place, so I thought I'd give it a cahnce to breath on its own.

I'll use Scott Suggs as an example and as a point of reference only, not intended to hold a grudge against him.

At this point in the RM regime if SS wanted to come back to SLU, "Would ya" give up a scholarship to get him? What are the pros and cons of doing so? Note I said, "At this point." Clearly, we would have welcomed any above average D1 player in yrs past-you can probably list 10 or more who we have welcomed back over the past 30 yrs or so.

To be perfectly clear, I do not hold a grudge once a player leaves-I loved Jim Roder and others like him "coming home." However, I believe we are now at the point where we should not be the fallback (I can always come home if things don't work out at XYZ U.) I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing players we recruited to come back to us later. By allowing these returns to SLU we are basically saying, "Go ahead and try the other school."

Therefore to answer my own question, no return allowed for SS or any other players in his category, e.g. JH or BB. Sure it would be nice to add a player of SS or BB's ability to our roster as a transfer, but I think we are better served by having the deterent policy of not being the fallback. I like, "We want you now, not later."

It is a good topic and you summarize it nicely. I would judge it on a case by case basis. Majerus has shown the ability to land players around the country and even around the world. I would never say never to a transfer coming home, but I think we can afford to be very selective now.

Regarding Kowal, that was a unique situation because he would have been instantly eligible without having to sit out a year and it would have just been a one-year deal. I would have definitely gone for it. If it is a player like Anthony Booker, no way. We have better players. Josh Harrelson, no way. Scott Suggs - it depends. Not an impact player from what I have seen, but a nice player. If it is a case where we have a strong roster, and can stash one player to sit out a year (kind of like we have done with Barnett), then a player like Suggs makes sense. If we have more pressing needs on the roster, then I think we'd be just fine without Suggs. Now regarding Beal, if by some miracle he wanted to come back and he is all that he is cracked up to be, then of course you take a player like that.

[NashvilleBilliken]

There is an interesting "discussion" going on under the "Kowal investigation" thread so it is basically buried in the wrong place, so I thought I'd give it a cahnce to breath on its own.

I'll use Scott Suggs as an example and as a point of reference only, not intended to hold a grudge against him.

At this point in the RM regime if SS wanted to come back to SLU, "Would ya" give up a scholarship to get him? What are the pros and cons of doing so? Note I said, "At this point." Clearly, we would have welcomed any above average D1 player in yrs past-you can probably list 10 or more who we have welcomed back over the past 30 yrs or so.

To be perfectly clear, I do not hold a grudge once a player leaves-I loved Jim Roder and others like him "coming home." However, I believe we are now at the point where we should not be the fallback (I can always come home if things don't work out at XYZ U.) I think we shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing players we recruited to come back to us later. By allowing these returns to SLU we are basically saying, "Go ahead and try the other school."

Therefore to answer my own question, no return allowed for SS or any other players in his category, e.g. JH or BB. Sure it would be nice to add a player of SS or BB's ability to our roster as a transfer, but I think we are better served by having the deterent policy of not being the fallback. I like, "We want you now, not later."

When a local recruit decides to go elsewhere, I stop caring about him. At that point, I could care less what the kid does the rest of his basketball career. And admittedly, if some crap goes down at his new school and screws him over, I may even take a tiny bit of joy in it. That being said, we should never turn away a recruit that has a chance to be an impact player on our team. If the kid sucks, then don't pay him any attention. However, if Rick and co. think a kid like Suggs could come home and upgrade the team, it would be stupid to keep the kid away simply because of a grudge. It's a case by case basis.

I too thought there may be a good pic to ponder when I opened the thread...

[bsheldon]

All right then let's make it interesting! Would Ya?

Not even with your D*%k.

Wow, that is impressively frightening. It's stash really brings out the colors of the butterflies on it's shirt.

[billiken_roy]

IF we had an OPEN scholarship, and if that player was as good or better than our existing players, of course we should take him.

if not on either end, see ya, go somewhere else. he missed his chance when in high school.

[slu72]

Not even with your D*%k.

Wow, that is impressively frightening. It's stash really brings out the colors of the butterflies on it's shirt.

I tthink Jimbo's gonna be real po'd when he finds out you ID'd his lady. As to the topic, I too thought we might have restarted the weekly cheerleader deal. As to Bauman's post, we should take any transfer that makes us a better team, except for JH. And I'm not so sure he's an improvement of anyone we've got. Speaking of JH, I played golf with a KY fan yesterday and he said JH may get some PT if the Turkish kid doesn't show. However, he's pretty confident that Calimari will some how find a way to beat the clearinghouse on this and get the kid's coach to retract his story. Would you bet against it? He** no. All JC has to do is wire this coach a couple of hundred grand and he'll say he was mistaken about the Turk being paid to play. And while the UK fan is all for this kid coming, a one and doner for sure, he said he'd heard this guy can hardly speak English. Gotta figure his ACT's must have been a whole lot higher than CE's, so I'm sure that won't be a problem for the clearinghouse either.

[bonwich]

All right then let's make it interesting! Would Ya?

Yup, it's off-season. Everything always degenerates into Carbondale-bashing.

[willie]

I tthink Jimbo's gonna be real po'd when he finds out you ID'd his lady. As to the topic, I too thought we might have restarted the weekly cheerleader deal. As to Bauman's post, we should take any transfer that makes us a better team, except for JH. And I'm not so sure he's an improvement of anyone we've got. Speaking of JH, I played golf with a KY fan yesterday and he said JH may get some PT if the Turkish kid doesn't show. However, he's pretty confident that Calimari will some how find a way to beat the clearinghouse on this and get the kid's coach to retract his story. Would you bet against it? He** no. All JC has to do is wire this coach a couple of hundred grand and he'll say he was mistaken about the Turk being paid to play. And while the UK fan is all for this kid coming, a one and doner for sure, he said he'd heard this guy can hardly speak English. Gotta figure his ACT's must have been a whole lot higher than CE's, so I'm sure that won't be a problem for the clearinghouse either.

I'll bet against it. The NCAA has a found a new religion. The big boys are no longer exempt. I don't know if it's because Miles Brand has left or what but the big guys are getting hit. See Usc-Tenn-Nc and others.

[P.B.]

All right then let's make it interesting! Would Ya?

Absolutely, I have no problem doing Majerus' sister

[Cowboy]

I'll bet against it. The NCAA has a found a new religion. The big boys are no longer exempt. I don't know if it's because Miles Brand has left or what but the big guys are getting hit. See Usc-Tenn-Nc and others.

-not to turn this very ????? titled thread in a different direction, but the usc reggie bush situation has me intrigued, it is my understanding usc has self imposed the punishment to this point, what will the ncaa add to it, if anything?

-i guess part of usc's attempt to mitigate further penalities is to say they have a new ad so the lack of institutional control is hoped to be corrected

-but it sure seems like it was a free for all, at least for some, in trojanland

[JamminJamalJohnson]

-not to turn this very ????? titled thread in a different direction, but the usc reggie bush situation has me intrigued, it is my understanding usc has self imposed the punishment to this point, what will the ncaa add to it, if anything?

-i guess part of usc's attempt to mitigate further penalities is to say they have a new ad so the lack of institutional control is hoped to be corrected

-but it sure seems like it was a free for all, at least for some, in trojanland

Pretty sure USC was penalized by the NCAA, Tennessee is attempting self imposed penalties...

[Box and Won]

Would ya?

The Lindenwood Dance Squad:

L-R: No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No

[Clock_Tower]

Would ya?

The Lindenwood Dance Squad:

L-R: No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No

Which one is BT??

[jbizzle09]

Which one is BT??

BT's the one in the back with the spirit fingers raised high.

[thetorch]

Which one is BT??

He quit after the dance coach told him he was too fat to fit into the outfits.

[brianstl]

Would ya?

The Lindenwood Dance Squad:

L-R: No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No

Do they come with a meth habit?

[moytoy12]

Greatest.Thread.Ever.

[bsheldon]

Would ya?

The Lindenwood Dance Squad:

L-R: No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No

L-R: No, Maybe after 12 pack, ", ", ", ", No, No, No, No F'in way, ", ", ", "

After a second look, I might have to throw in several shots as well.

I am sure they are all nice young ladies and this picture was just taking in bad light with an unfortunate costume choice and then you have to remember that the camera adds 10 (or so) pounds.

Oh, who am I kidding, back in my college days--I did worse. Booze is a bad thing.

[dlarry]

Would ya?

The Lindenwood Dance Squad:

L-R: No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No, No

unless you are happily married, and I dont think anybody is, or gayer than aids I find it hard to beleive you would not do at least one of those hookers.

Myself, Id probably bang them all. I would just have to drink more for some of them.