How many recruits have we lost for academic reasons?

[BillikenButch]

Since Soderberg has been in charge?

[billiken_roy]

edwin, pulley, morris, liddell and kern. i cant think of anyone else.

[BillikenButch]

Thanks.

I could care less about Edwin and Pulley, they had an opportunity and wasted it.

I am a bit concerned that of late we are losing the stars of our recruiting classes to academics.

[billiken_roy]

the first thought that comes to mind is that there is a reason a player like tommie liddell wasnt gobbled up by the big timers. coach soderberg rolled the dice he might be able to get his academic position in order in time to come to st louis. the so called big time coaches take a look at the situation and say why use my time and go on to the next kid who is as good on the floor and has no flaws academically.

sure it is a risk. but that concern and care that brad showed. the loyalty that he demonstrated to tommie, hopefully will pay off in november when tommie recommits. from all indications, tommie was real close to making it. had he made it, brad would have looked pretty darn smart. he still can. just a year later than we first expected.

morris was close as well.

kern wasnt brad's project.

[davidnark]

While Soderberg was in charge?

The fair answer is Liddell and Morris. Both of which were calculated risks. The expectation is that the Liddell risk will still pay off.

Edwin and Pulley flunked out right about the time Brad took over as head coach, so they were really on Romar's watch. Nick Kern was a Romar recruit who never qualified. Again, by the time Brad took over as head coach Kern's fate was already sealed.

[Billikan]

I agree. Kern, Pulley and Edwin were all "gone" before Brad took over as head coach. Morris and Liddell are the two who have not qualified under Coach Brad. Further, so far, no one has left because of academic failure like Pulley and Edwin and we have had a number of high achievers in the classroom.

[3star_recruit]

Qualified top 100 players have been the primary targets of the high major elite since their sophomore years. That's just reality. We wouldn't be in the hunt for Marcus Landry if he was already qualified.

[BillikenButch]

...that because of our competitive position and the approach taken by out staff, we are interested in the recruitment of academically fragile players?

Was Dennard A. a Romar or Soderberg recruit?

[kshoe]

if you could have a 4.0 student that is also a top player (Dwayne Polk, Luke Meyer, Reggie Bryant, perhaps Kevin Lisch) those guys are ideal. However, the Billikens have shown a willingness to recruit the occasional player that is academically suspect. Sometimes it burns us, but sometimes it has helped (Marquee did not qualify until late in the summer of I recall). The leap the coaching staff has not made (and I hope they never make) is to recruit "bad" kids. Kids with suspensions, crime records, etc. There is a big difference between recruiting academic suspects that are good kids and recruiting thugs.

[3star_recruit]

In the vast majority of cases, yes, we're going to have to focus at-risk kids if we intend on signing a top 100 caliber recruit. At risk kids are the only ones that are left after the top top tier programs in the Big 6 conferences are done picking their primary targets. The Kevin Lisches of the world who are ranked lower than their ability because they choose not to participate in the AAU circus don't come along very often.

If we ever reach the status of a perennial top 30 program, the at-risk strategy won't be necessary.

[waterboy]

We lost Craig Upchurch in the late '80s due to SLU academic standards (not NCAA standards, I believe). He would have been teamed with Douglas, Gray and Bonner and may have helped Grawer get into the NCAA versus NIT those two years. I know that Upchurch starred at Houston and may have been all conference for them.

[Norman_Dale]

They ever catch that gorilla that escaped from the zoo and punched you in the eye?

No mama, the search continues

-Bobby Boucher, The Waterboy

[Sheltiedave]

The puzzling matter with Kern was his lack of attendance his first three semesters at Vashon, and one semester where his grade average was less than a tenth of the Mendoza line. SLU coaches knew he would not qualify in any shape or manner, yet the schollie offer was tendered and accepted. In Tommie's case, it was nip and tuck at the end.

SLU has to actively pursue an academic risk two out of every three years in order to keep pipelines open to programs that routinely generate potential prospects. While such students will struggle to catch up will pursuing a rigorous college courseload, it is essential that opportunities exist.

John Chaney has argued for 14 and 15 scholarships, because marginal students deserve the chance to succeed. Discipline, love, and a dedication to excellance are the same qualities that can make one a success on the court, and in the classroom.

[kshoe]

with Cheany's argument is that for every Cheany that truly wants marginal students to improve their lot and will make sure they go to class there is a Bob Huggins that could care less if his players attended class. The system would end up being abused.

[Sheltiedave]

The system is being abused anyway, Kshoe. Cheany impressed me with his insistence on having the main practice at 5 am, so the players would be able to concentrate on classes during the day. Getting up at 3:30 or 4 am so you could make practice REALLY sets the tone that this is some serious sheeit, and Coach made it stick for years. I hold a lot of respect for the old time coaches that know the game and life, as compared to coaches like Q, Alford, and Tommy Amaker, who have the young genius label and little else.

I've seen my share of Chicago flashes through the years that have crashed and burned when they realized that superior physical skills in high school were no guarantee of future success. Other marginal talents bloomed in college, caught up physically, and a resevoir of hard work and good habits led them to the NBA promised land.