Open Gym

[kshoe]

Im pretty sure this was the same situation that Kowal was in. He graduated from Northern Illinois and yet was denied entrance into SLU. It wouldnt of mattered much considering that was the year we went 12-18 but it seemed a bit unfair nonetheless

As Roy mentioned, the Kowal situation was muddied because Northern Illinois accused SLU of tampering with him before he was released. Whether we did or not, nobody really knows for sure. Wells was essentially told to leave by Xavier so obviously no tampering accusations would be made there.

Like many semi-well intentioned rules by the NCAA, the 5th year senior that has already graduated one is starting to be abused by many of the bigger programs. Here is a good article that discusses it.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegebasketball/story/19066606/transfer-rule-positive-for-kids-but-a-predicament-for-coaches

[Clock_Tower]

-who was the juco we were trying to get? i am not remembering

-also, while i believe SLU could take some endowment money and start a cotton candy major program as compared to the rest of the curriculum offered, i am thinking it is a bad idea to do that as i don't see how you get enough students pursuing that major as i am guessing a kid off the street would not pay SLU tuition to major in said cotton candy field and i can't see enough scholarship athletes to fill the desks

No. You're missing my point. It was one or two JUCOs. It was/is a whole class of JUCOs which no HC here at SLU can pursue b/c of the new NCAA rules. Spoonhour would not be able to do what he did (reload each year with JUCOs) under today's NCAA rules. Yes, most schools are not going the JUCO route like they used to - in large part b/c kids are now going to prep school (5th year highschool)... But still, the current NCAA rules say that incoming student/athletes must not only make grades, etc. but also must have their transcripts accepted by their new school and be on pace to graduate with the new school.

To make my point, I am going to generalize and make huge assumptions; however, if most kids go JUCO b/c of their bad grades in highschool, if they take the easier classes (Phys Ed type classes which are taught at EVERY major public university -- not cotton candy as you suggest -- at JUCO to not only play right away at JUCO but to make sure they have good grades for their Jr and Sr years at their new 4 year college but then if SLU does not have the degrees offered to accept these JUCO kids, then SLU basically cannot accept JUCOs. The pool of JUCO kids for SLU to choose from is simply much smaller than it is for our competition.

By way of example, EVERY good basketball team eventually goes through substantial and unexpected roster changes due to changes of the head coach, kids leaving for the NBA, kids leaving for other schools, injury or bad recruiting classes where kids simply turn out to not be very good college players. If the better schools can reload with a quick fix (JUCO/transfer), then you can avoid a 12-18 season which shakes the foundation of the fanbase, not only stops momentum but deflates the program and hurts donations. Sure, we would not have made the NCAA Tourney just b/c of the addition of Kowal but a winning season and maybe an 18 -12 season would not have been that farfetched.

Go back to Brad as our HC. If only he could have landed a good JUCO to play with TL and KL... If only RM could have done the same early on...

[Duff Man]

Go back to Brad as our HC. If only he could have landed a good JUCO to play with TL and KL... If only RM could have done the same early on...

Brad didn't need to land a JUCO to play with TL and KL, he simply needed to build on that class with another solid class of incoming freshmen. That was his make or break point. Don't chalk up Brad's recruiting failings to lack of viable JUCO transfers.

Also, on the 2010-11 season - from the recruiting standpoint, they had the open scholarship for Kowal and that fell through, but it's unrealistic even under the old rules to expect a coach to be able to find players to replace Willie and Kwamain on such short notice. Remember KM and WR were not suspended until mid-October (the timing of which is a whole other discussion). Majerus was never a JUCO fan anyway, preferring to develop his guys over 4 years (e.g. Conklin).

Even if those guys were suspended over the summer, and it was possible to find JUCO replacements (although you had to at least keep 1 schollie open for KM to return), by 'avoiding' the 12-18 season (highly doubtful we were going to the dance with a bunch of freshman, improving but pre-BEAST Conklin, plus JUCO transfers) we'd be compromising the long term development of the roster. Conklin, Evans, Jett, and McCall all play fewer minutes alongside the band-aid JUCO transfers and who knows how the 2011-12 season would have turned out.

[Cowboy]

No. You're missing my point. It was one or two JUCOs. It was/is a whole class of JUCOs which no HC here at SLU can pursue b/c of the new NCAA rules. Spoonhour would not be able to do what he did (reload each year with JUCOs) under today's NCAA rules. Yes, most schools are not going the JUCO route like they used to - in large part b/c kids are now going to prep school (5th year highschool)... But still, the current NCAA rules say that incoming student/athletes must not only make grades, etc. but also must have their transcripts accepted by their new school and be on pace to graduate with the new school.

To make my point, I am going to generalize and make huge assumptions; however, if most kids go JUCO b/c of their bad grades in highschool, if they take the easier classes (Phys Ed type classes which are taught at EVERY major public university -- not cotton candy as you suggest -- at JUCO to not only play right away at JUCO but to make sure they have good grades for their Jr and Sr years at their new 4 year college but then if SLU does not have the degrees offered to accept these JUCO kids, then SLU basically cannot accept JUCOs. The pool of JUCO kids for SLU to choose from is simply much smaller than it is for our competition.

By way of example, EVERY good basketball team eventually goes through substantial and unexpected roster changes due to changes of the head coach, kids leaving for the NBA, kids leaving for other schools, injury or bad recruiting classes where kids simply turn out to not be very good college players. If the better schools can reload with a quick fix (JUCO/transfer), then you can avoid a 12-18 season which shakes the foundation of the fanbase, not only stops momentum but deflates the program and hurts donations. Sure, we would not have made the NCAA Tourney just b/c of the addition of Kowal but a winning season and maybe an 18 -12 season would not have been that farfetched.

Go back to Brad as our HC. If only he could have landed a good JUCO to play with TL and KL... If only RM could have done the same early on...

-i don't know what the new ncaa rules regarding juco's are but if these rules are as you hint dealing with making sure the kid is making academic progress in courses identical to those offered at SLU or whatever school they choose to attend, then i don't have a problem with it and seems like this is not a rule or enforcement directed at SLU like CE's situation, it impacts the whole landscape from ky to prairie view

-my recollection on SLU's juco history is that the players that added benefit for two seasons are rare and mostly they contributed for one season, not sure we ever got the top ranked juco's but this mirrors our general recruiting in that we don't get top ranked players without circumstances, let me know if i am not remembering a score of jucos that helped us for 2 years

-jucos were a good option to fill a gap but the ncaa and prep schools seem to have lessened their impact

-i agree that SLU's pool of recruits (juco, transfer or high school) is limited versus major public universities because state u will have majors SLU doesn;t offer, i don't see how that is going to change or how that is the blame of the ncaa which i thought was your original point

-brad's problem wasn't limited to only not getting juco's, he didn't get quality recruits to add on the success of getting TL and KL to have a complete roster and Rick talked about juco's but his preference was the 4 or 5 year player

[ACE]

-i don't know what the new ncaa rules regarding juco's are but if these rules are as you hint dealing with making sure the kid is making academic progress in courses identical to those offered at SLU or whatever school they choose to attend, then i don't have a problem with it and seems like this is not a rule or enforcement directed at SLU like CE's situation, it impacts the whole landscape from ky to prairie view

-my recollection on SLU's juco history is that the players that added benefit for two seasons are rare and mostly they contributed for one season, not sure we ever got the top ranked juco's but this mirrors our general recruiting in that we don't get top ranked players without circumstances, let me know if i am not remembering a score of jucos that helped us for 2 years

-jucos were a good option to fill a gap but the ncaa and prep schools seem to have lessened their impact

-i agree that SLU's pool of recruits (juco, transfer or high school) is limited versus major public universities because state u will have majors SLU doesn;t offer, i don't see how that is going to change or how that is the blame of the ncaa which i thought was your original point

-brad's problem wasn't limited to only not getting juco's, he didn't get quality recruits to add on the success of getting TL and KL to have a complete roster and Rick talked about juco's but his preference was the 4 or 5 year player

Jucos were huge for Spoon - Dobbs, Robinson, Turner, Fergerson, Love and Jeffers. Agree jucos are less important now throughout college basketball.

Agree on Sodie. He didn't need jucos, he just needed to find a few decent 4-year players to surround TL and KL with, but he completely struck out over several recruiting periods.

[Clock_Tower]

A few more comments and clarifications.

Agree that Brad's problem (and downfall) was his inability to recruit incoming freshmen. Not attempting to blame the NCAA and JUCO rules. Brad was his own worst enemy.

Also agree that RM preferred using 4 year players (develop a Conklin) as opposed to quick fix JUCOs for a whole number of reasons.

Agree that Spoon built and reloaded his teams using JUCOs.

Agree that the landscape has changed such that JUCOs aren't quite as valuable in the past due to prep school, etc.

Agree that JUCOs are usually not the most effective from day 1/the whole two (2) years.

Instead, my points are that

1. if you are going to miss on recruits (Brad did and RM did not), then lack of the JUCO quick fix can hurt. Sometimes, a band-aid is what is needed. When you have upperclassmen and need to win now, bringing in a freshmen usually won't do it.

2. Of course the goal is to recruit quality and depth each year and to develop the same. As mentioned, though, in the event a need should arise (due to bad recruiting, transfer, NBA, injury, coaching change, etc.) the JUCO is largely not an option for SLU but it remains an option for our rivals.

3. JUCOs (many but all) end up taking only general education and physical education classes. These classes transfer into the public schools but not SLU. As such, from day 1, the average JUCO graduate is eligible to play at our rival school but not at SLU. This limits our pool of JUCOs and changes should be made by Fr. Biondi.

4. Even though RM preferred 4 year players, he did seem to look at JUCOs each Spring. While in the end it is true that he never landed one, that does not mean he did not want to. Maybe if the pool of JUCOs were larger, RM would have taken 1 or 2 along the way and maybe our rebuilding process would have come sooner.

[Cowboy]

3. JUCOs (many but all) end up taking only general education and physical education classes. These classes transfer into the public schools but not SLU. As such, from day 1, the average JUCO graduate is eligible to play at our rival school but not at SLU. This limits our pool of JUCOs and changes should be made by Fr. Biondi.

-what changes are you advocating?

-not sure i would spend time and money on trying to make SLU more attractrive to juco's when it appears the importance of juco's is waning, although may be the thought is jucos regain some steam if the basketball factory prep schools are knocked out by the ncaa

[JMM28]

1. if you are going to miss on recruits (Brad did and RM did not), then lack of the JUCO quick fix can hurt. Sometimes, a band-aid is what is needed. When you have upperclassmen and need to win now, bringing in a freshmen usually won't do it.

In my opinion, you need to launch a failed recruit once you realize he is a failed recruit. To consistently win at a high level you cant have a bunch of failed recruits taking up scholarships for 2 or 3 years. Turn and burn baby.

[billiken_roy]

In my opinion, you need to launch a failed recruit once you realize he is a failed recruit. To consistently win at a high level you cant have a bunch of failed recruits taking up scholarships for 2 or 3 years. Turn and burn baby.

cold.

the coach has no responsibility in correctly identifying or coaching up a recruit?

cold.

your theory is my biggest problem with rickma. bad kid or bad student, yes, they need to leave. but not the player you expected? you picked em. live with it.

[Clock_Tower]

-what changes are you advocating?

-not sure i would spend time and money on trying to make SLU more attractrive to juco's when it appears the importance of juco's is waning, although may be the thought is jucos regain some steam if the basketball factory prep schools are knocked out by the ncaa

I would implement the necessary changes to truly make SLU a Top 50 basketball program. Ever since Fr. Biondi uttered that statement when Spoon was hired in the early '90's, SLU's actions never matched their words.

First, we have an honest discussion and admit that if the better basketball players needed, year in and year out, are not going to be scholar athletes. While we should strive for a team full of kids like KL, KC and BC, they are probably more the exception than the rule. Anyone judging the quality of their own SLU degree (I have one as well) by the academic performance of our basketball players is off base. Instead, we admit that SLU has had its fair share of marginal to dumb student athletes in the past and that while some have been kicked away, others have graduated while significantly underperforming as compared to the average student sitting in the chair next to them. The question is not whether to draw a different line for the student athletes (we've already done this years ago) but where this different line should be drawn.

Second, we go through and make sure that SLU does not have higher admission standards for the basketball players than the NCAA. Personally, I don't think this is the problem as it seems easier to admit the dumb players but harder to keep them enrolled and in good standing at SLU.

Third, we go through and see what majors and academic support (from study skills to tutors) are required and are offered by our competition for these lesser academic basketball players need whether they are JUCOs, transfers or high school seniors. Whether or not RM is the HC, his requirements of Fr. Biondi should be guaranteed to each successive HC. In short, don't buy the Hummer and then complain of gas mileage.

Fourth, we make adjustments to our current curriculum to accommodate the players. Recognizing that SLU's budget is limited, we add and offer some but not all the major offered by the large public competition. If this means adding a Phys Ed and nutrition program, then so be it. If it means we add 5 other majors, then let's do it. I would, however, not offer basket weaving and welding courses. Again, it is where the draw the line and not if we draw a different line.

In short, we set lofty goals of student athlete excellence and strive to meet these goals while we water down the academic standards and offer more choices to accommodate the superior basketball player who is a marginal student. The goal is not only to admit these kids but to keep them and graduate them. Personally, I pay the money and go to the games to watch them play basketball and not to watch their academic skills or lack thereof.

[Cowboy]

-clock, i too want a consistent top performing program, heck i hope we can get every team to be top performing

-i agree that an institution's academic reputation is not judged by the grades of athletes

-the ncaa has admittance requirements, SLU has a certain number of classes/majors we offer, i don't think we do the kids any favors admitting them and then even with all the help and support we can provide they are not going to make grades

-i don't think you are advocating different grading criteria for athletes so how do we keep those who get in by moving the line eligible? i guess the new majors is a big part of this

-for those in the know, are SLU's admittance requirements for athletes the same as the ncaa's eligibility requirements?

-not sure i can see FrB going in the direction of offering new majors that allow an easier path to graduation and i think we can have consistent success without these new majors, but that recipe has some elements we have not found

-so without a football program to provide 100 students, who is going to fill the desks in these new majors? i don't see enough kids off the street paying SLU tuition for these degrees to be added to a few athletes who get in this way

-are there still the philosophy and theology requirements for all students to graduate? if so, are you waving those? perhaps that is what you mean by adjusting the curriculum or are there enough of those classes that any one can get through?

-trying to see the whole picture and not go too far in the woods with some of these

[slufanskip]

cold.

the coach has no responsibility in correctly identifying or coaching up a recruit?

cold.

your theory is my biggest problem with rickma. bad kid or bad student, yes, they need to leave. but not the player you expected? you picked em. live with it.

Is the student stuck with the school even if it's not what he thought it was? We've discussed this many times before, and I have no problem with not renewing the scholarship for any reason ... IF the rules and penalties for both sides were equal.

[billiken_roy]

Is the student stuck with the school even if it's not what he thought it was? We've discussed this many times before, and I have no problem with not renewing the scholarship for any reason ... IF the rules and penalties for both sides were equal.

the student has to sit out if asked to leave for a season. the coach gets to pick another recruit for the next season. i dont consider that equal.

i really dont want to focus on that though. my issue is that a teenager planned his future around a saint louis university degree path aided by a scholarship offer from the billikens. the billikens likely sat in that living room and promised they would help guide that young man and get his degree for him. instead because he doesnt jump as high or shoot as well, he gets kicked to the curb?

[JMM28]

instead because he doesnt jump as high or shoot as well, he gets kicked to the curb?

Yes.

[slufanskip]

the student has to sit out if asked to leave for a season. the coach gets to pick another recruit for the next season. i dont consider that equal.

i really dont want to focus on that though. my issue is that a teenager planned his future around a saint louis university degree path aided by a scholarship offer from the billikens. the billikens likely sat in that living room and promised they would help guide that young man and get his degree for him. instead because he doesnt jump as high or shoot as well, he gets kicked to the curb?

How about if he just doesn't give a good effort or put in the neccessary work to be good. How about if during those recruiting visits the kid claimed he'd work his but off and really would do everything possible to be great, but in reality doesn't?

[billiken_roy]

How about if he just doesn't give a good effort or put in the neccessary work to be good. How about if during those recruiting visits the kid claimed he'd work his but off and really would do everything possible to be great, but in reality doesn't?

if he is a liar then that's a bad kid and he should be gone. if that is just an opinion of the coach, and more likely an excuse to cover his bad recruiting decision and poor homework (a coach that does their homework would have gotten from scouts, high school coaches and fans how hard a player works and known the answer before that kid came to campus) on the student athlete, then no, the coach should live with his recruiting mistake and try to coach that player up.

[moytoy12]

What if the coach is truthful with the player, tells him there are better opportunities for the kid at other schools (maybe a D.II school) and the kid decides he agrees with the coach and transfers?

[ACE]

if he is a liar then that's a bad kid and he should be gone. if that is just an opinion of the coach, and more likely an excuse to cover his bad recruiting decision and poor homework (a coach that does their homework would have gotten from scouts, high school coaches and fans how hard a player works and known the answer before that kid came to campus) on the student athlete, then no, the coach should live with his recruiting mistake and try to coach that player up.

It is a two-way street. Coaches and schools also spend a lot of resources recruiting and offering scholarships to kids. I'm not saying that kids shouldn't be allowed to leave and they do have to sit out a year, but it can be frustrating as hell for coaches when a decent player will leave because they are impatient OR think they are a superstar and deserve more playing time OR just want to go to a bigger name program.

[Clock_Tower]

if he is a liar then that's a bad kid and he should be gone. if that is just an opinion of the coach, and more likely an excuse to cover his bad recruiting decision and poor homework (a coach that does their homework would have gotten from scouts, high school coaches and fans how hard a player works and known the answer before that kid came to campus) on the student athlete, then no, the coach should live with his recruiting mistake and try to coach that player up.

Sounds like tenure for basketball players.

[billiken_roy]

if the player indeed wants to leave and wasnt "forced" out, and was treated equally all season, fine. the player is gone and now has to sit out his year.

[billiken_roy]

Sounds like tenure for basketball players.

the one year scholarship thing wasnt created to allow coaches to cream their rosters and correct their recruiting mistakes. it was to give a way to get rid of bad students and/or bad citizens. however over the years some coaches have sadly used that rule to their advantage and some student athletes have suffered because of it.

[slufanskip]

if he is a liar then that's a bad kid and he should be gone. if that is just an opinion of the coach, and more likely an excuse to cover his bad recruiting decision and poor homework (a coach that does their homework would have gotten from scouts, high school coaches and fans how hard a player works and known the answer before that kid came to campus) on the student athlete, then no, the coach should live with his recruiting mistake and try to coach that player up.

it would be ridiculous to think a kid just isn't working as hard as he should.

your statement that a coach should know which kid will work hard and which won't is just obsurd.

I wonder why we've gotten to a place in the world where so many young people have no work ethic and thinks everything should be just handed to them

[JMM28]

Roy, your theory sounds somewhere between the everyone gets a trophy theory and lack of pension reform...

[billiken_roy]

it would be ridiculous to think a kid just isn't working as hard as he should. your statement that a coach should know which kid will work hard and which won't is just obsurd. I wonder why we've gotten to a place in the world where so many young people have no work ethic and thinks everything should be just handed to them

skip, just curious how many of the players that were pushed out of slu in the last 20 years, were players that just refused to run the suicides, didnt listen to instruction or hustle in practice and games and gave the coach and his teamates the finger when asked to perform a certain way? apparently with your bold statement above, you think most of them.

count me in the corner of someone that believes that is a rare occurance and considering the vetting a coach indeed does with his recruits, believes that the truth is more that the kids will break their neck to keep their spot. a college athlete, especially one that isnt one of the elite players, understands how lucky they are and the vast majority arent what you are describing. they know they have to sacrifice. they are slaves to the school and devote their lives to the school compromising their academic schedules, giving up a personal life, practicing long long long hours and devoting time in the gym and weight room.

the fact we have a far greater percentage of kids leaving than the average should be enough smoke for you to wonder where that fire is coming from imo. actually the roster is lucky we are up against the APR wall. probably saved a couple of players the last couple of years.

[NH]

How about if he just doesn't give a good effort or put in the neccessary work to be good. How about if during those recruiting visits the kid claimed he'd work his but off and really would do everything possible to be great, but in reality doesn't?

Even in that hypothetical I don't think you should hold a 17 yr-old to the same standard that the coach who has been doing it for years is held to.