JMM28 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I personally like the idea of Ben Howland at SLU. I view him a lot like I viewed Bruce Weber last year. I'd love to have had Bruce here for this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 The fact of the matter is that Majerus was our all time good break, a complete fluke of luck. He chose us, brought in good 2-3* kids that fit his system that wanted to play for a HOF legend. That is over. NOW he is gone, and we will have a terrible time, back to our former situation, unless we get in the New BE. That will help. TV exposure, TV money, much better competition. The New BE for us does not "ensure" anything. But it will help, a lot. Attract a better coach who will attract better players in conjunction with the much better conference. We might even get a local 4* - 5* to stay some day... MB. You are avoiding my question. According to your logic (and the others who are now silent with respect to my question), then Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and St. Johns should have been rolling in the recruits, should have had a line of top coaches out the door, etc. with all the TV exposure, TV money, better competition, etc. in that they played not only Marquette and Georgetown (the best of the new Big East) but also Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt and W. VA while they were dominating college basketball by all standards -- wins, impressive wins, Tournament appearances, Sweet 16s, Final Fours, National Championships. And yet, these schools did not succeed. As good as the new Big East is now, and may be with us and Dayton, it is nowhere near what the old Big East was. In contrast, Butler became a national power thanks a two (2) special coaches and despite all the disadvantages of being in the Horizon Conference. Same with X (who was left out of the Great Midwest/Conf USA and yet helped make the A10 what it is today), Gonzaga (which put the WAC on the map) and I'd even add SLU since the hiring of RM. We got to be A10 Champs, A10 Tourney Champs and a #4 seed and yet we didn't have the name conference, we haven't had superior competition, we made only $400,000 per year in TV revenue, our budget is still relatively low, we haven't had a "fluke" 5 star recruit like Larry Hughes. Why did we have the year we had and yet Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and St. John's have the seasons they had. The answer, of course, is that we had RM. Now don't get me wrong. I'd rather be in the new Big East than the current A10 (w/o Temple, X and Butler) but don't, for a minute, think conference affiliation means we are going to remain in the Top 25. The only way we remain the Top 25 is by hiring a special coach. Personally, I'd be content playing in the Horizon, Valley or the like if I knew that RM would be our coach during our stay there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West Pine Jim Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Some guy named McCarthy or something like that at Mississippi State in the 50'sAh, Babe McCarthy. Ol' Magnolia Mouth.I think he became the original coach of the Memphis Tams in the ABA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 MB. You are avoiding my question. According to your logic (and the others who are now silent with respect to my question), then Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and St. Johns should have been rolling in the recruits, should have had a line of top coaches out the door, etc. with all the TV exposure, TV money, better competition, etc. in that they played not only Marquette and Georgetown (the best of the new Big East) but also Syracuse, Louisville, Pitt and W. VA while they were dominating college basketball by all standards -- wins, impressive wins, Tournament appearances, Sweet 16s, Final Fours, National Championships. And yet, these schools did not succeed. As good as the new Big East is now, and may be with us and Dayton, it is nowhere near what the old Big East was. In contrast, Butler became a national power thanks a two (2) special coaches and despite all the disadvantages of being in the Horizon Conference. Same with X (who was left out of the Great Midwest/Conf USA and yet helped make the A10 what it is today), Gonzaga (which put the WAC on the map) and I'd even add SLU since the hiring of RM. We got to be A10 Champs, A10 Tourney Champs and a #4 seed and yet we didn't have the name conference, we haven't had superior competition, we made only $400,000 per year in TV revenue, our budget is still relatively low, we haven't had a "fluke" 5 star recruit like Larry Hughes. Why did we have the year we had and yet Seton Hall, Providence, DePaul and St. John's have the seasons they had. The answer, of course, is that we had RM. Now don't get me wrong. I'd rather be in the new Big East than the current A10 (w/o Temple, X and Butler) but don't, for a minute, think conference affiliation means we are going to remain in the Top 25. The only way we remain the Top 25 is by hiring a special coach. Personally, I'd be content playing in the Horizon, Valley or the like if I knew I never said the underlined part of your diatribe, or some of the other parts, either, though we are not that far apart. I agree, we need a good coach who can also recruit. I'll say, again, that it would be a huge advantage to be in the new Big East and make things easier as compared to the diluted decimated new A-10 as it relates to 1) getting a quality coach if we do not go with Crews and 2) recruiting some top notch players that never would have normally considered us, but now will be in a Big 6 conference, on national TV, and be playing against a much stronger opponents with national recognition status (GT, Nova, Marq, etc...to boot, the A-10 has 7-8 weaklings, new Big East only has a few). And Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns have a better chance at getting back into the limelight than Fordham and the other A-10's worst-of-the worst. Hell, even DePaul could make a comeback with the right coach and the plentiful Chicago talent pool. If we stick with Crews, he will be better off, too, selling kids that they will be on national TV and in the better conference. Majerus was a miracle worker to get kids here in the A-10. Answer me this: if we do not get in the new BE, what top notch candidate will want to coach here? What top notch kids will want to play here? This team, every player, came to play for Rick Majerus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I never said the underlined part of your diatribe, or some of the other parts, either, though we are not that far apart. I agree, we need a good coach who can also recruit. I'll say, again, that it would be a huge advantage to be in the new Big East and make things easier as compared to the diluted decimated new A-10 as it relates to 1) getting a quality coach if we do not go with Crews and 2) recruiting some top notch players that never would have normally considered us, but now will be in a Big 6 conference, on national TV, and be playing against a much stronger opponents with national recognition status (GT, Nova, Marq, etc...to boot, the A-10 has 7-8 weaklings, new Big East only has a few). And Providence, Seton Hall and St. Johns have a better chance at getting back into the limelight than Fordham and the other A-10's worst-of-the worst. Hell, even DePaul could make a comeback with the right coach and the plentiful Chicago talent pool. If we stick with Crews, he will be better off, too, selling kids that they will be on national TV and in the better conference. Majerus was a miracle worker to get kids here in the A-10. Answer me this: if we do not get in the new BE, what top notch candidate will want to coach here? What top notch kids will want to play here? This team, every player, came to play for Rick Majerus. I might be high, but I think you're both right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GW Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Yes. They were HOT. Many of the 3's were from NBA++ range, you cannot cover that effectively. And we were NOT, many of ours were from very deep, too. We were not "covered" any better than we "covered" them on the 3's. Just one of those things. If you go out that far around the screen, the little guard blows by you and takes it to the hoop, dishes it to one of their bigs. Routine. BOTH coaches chose not to chase the guard around the screen and their guards hit the shot like goddam Downtown Freddie Brown. Ours did not (KM, MM, CE, RL uncontested). Just a bad night.We started 0-10, they started 4-6. Post game,announcers were joking that they do not think Oregon could hit 8-11 in practice, ever. If we both hit 30-35-38%%, give or take, the game is tied. It was not an issue with the game plan. What game plan do you suggest? We chase their guard 10 feet out from the "3" line around the screen? Explain. (It was one of those things... I know a guy, never hit a home run his whole life, hit TWO home runs in one game. Then never hit another one the rest of his life. True story.) I agree with most of this. Their 3 point shooting was not due to our poor defense. Our defense could have been off the floor entirely leaving them completely uncontested and on a normal day they probably shoot less than 50% from 3. So, by defending them, we somehow improved their percentage from what it would be completely uncontested at less than 50% up to the 72% they shot at? How exactly does that work? Free throws are uncontested and closer in than 3's. Oregon shot 62.5% on free throws. Would they have been able to shoot at 85% had we been allowed to defend the free throws (sadly, last night they probably would....)? When a team shoots better than they are expected to even if they were completely uncontested there is no other choice but to attribute the result to "being hot" or luck. If I flip a coin 11 times and get 8 heads, that doesn't make me a great coin flipper.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 MB. Sorry, but as I addressed my post (#62) to MB and others, I am not necessarily responding only to you and I did not mean to quote every word you have written. Instead, I have been reading post after acting like those of us who would even question whether JC should be our next permanent head should shut up and get with the program. To me, whether or not Crews won against Oregon has no real bearing on my view. As I said before, even if JC had won the National Championship, I would still question whether he should be our next coach. Some, of course, think I was crazy for that statement. Now, not only b/c JC did not win the National Championship but also b/c we lost in the Round of 32 (just like last year) but also since it can reasonably be said that we did worse -- this time in a 20 point blowout loss to a #12 seed (unlike a close game to a #1 seed last year) -- with what was a better team, I could be using this to support my argument. Instead, and to be consistent, the performance by Jim Crews as the head coach of this veteran team (none of which who were recruited by Crews) is really not indicative of how JC would be going forward (good or bad) as our head coach. Instead, the performance by JC as our interim head coach showed me more about only one (1) aspect of being a head coach. Granted, JC could have failed as the driver of our bus with our team going .500 this year and we would all be demanding a new head coach but again, "driving the bus" (as JC liked to say) is only part of the job. Now. Had I seen JM make big strides this year. .. had I seen GG do more than start the game/half to add a component of high energy and a layup or 2 as a real bonus... had I seen JB develop into a reliable key component..., had I seen CR become a reliable contributor on the inside.... had I seen RL add a new dimension to his game... or had someone other than DE been able to take over the 4 position which BC had held last year... then I would have less concern about JC and his ability to develop players. So I guess it IS all related. Had our player development (especially our bigs) done better, we'd probably still be playing ball right now. And MB, I totally disagree with your premise. DePaul, Seton Hall, Providence, St. Johns, etc. (despite their advantages of conference, exposure, money...) are NOT getting better recruits than a whole number of schools without such benefits. For instance, in the state of New York, St. Bonaventure landed some better power forwards than St. Johns did and used these guys to win the A10 Tourney last year and get the NCAA Tourney. Also, I'd say that it is probably easier to take a bad program and get it into the NCAA Tourney than it is to take a doormat from a major conference and to get it into the Tourney. By way of example, Valpo or Detroit can land 2 or 3 good players (with guys who are late bloomers, who are a bit smaller/slower, who did not play/star in AAU ball, who prefer to stay close to home, etc) and dominate Horizon competition while consistently making the NCAA Tourney whereas DePaul would have a tougher time landing 2 to 3 kids who win, game in and game out, against the tough Big East. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 MB. To answer your question, I obviously don't share your view that SLU will never be able to land another splash hire coach like RM. Sure, there is only one RM and we are truly glad he came out of retirement and chose SLU. And yes, we were quite fortunate that he wanted a smaller private school, that he liked the Jebbies, that he wanted to be within a shorter drive to be close to his mother... At the same time, if we offer $2 million in salary, we will find more quality coaches than you might realize. Sorry, if I have higher aspirations than taking a chance on an no-name assistant of a BCS school or a relatively unproven upstart from a lower level D1 school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DD3 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 MB. To answer your question, I obviously don't share your view that SLU will never be able to land another splash hire coach like RM. Sure, there is only one RM and we are truly glad he came out of retirement and chose SLU. And yes, we were quite fortunate that he wanted a smaller private school, that he liked the Jebbies, that he wanted to be within a shorter drive to be close to his mother... At the same time, if we offer $2 million in salary, we will find more quality coaches than you might realize. Sorry, if I have higher aspirations than taking a chance on an no-name assistant of a BCS school or a relatively unproven upstart from a lower level D1 school. Not even sure you'd need $2 million. Alford just signed a 10-year extension at UNM for about $1.1 million in base with approximately additional $600K available in performance incentive compensation. Incentives for wins, but also academic success, etc. http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/212350161394newsmetro07-21-10.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 I'm not convinced we win that game last night with Majerus as coach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Chaifetz's exact words with regards to joining the NBE (while on Bloomberg Sportfolio): "Money will be no object." Dr. Chaifetz gives around $600k a year to the university for the naming rights to the arena, he is not T. Boone Pickens. That is a significant amount of money, but I feel like people may overstate his giving. For the 2010-11 season, our basketball expenses were a little under $3 million which puts us in the company of programs like Fordham, Bradley, Duquesne, and Rhode Island. So if "money will be no object," he and the other significant donors better step up their game. This hire along with whether or not we get a bid from the Big East will determine the future of this program. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
showthebill Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Remember once upon a time when people on this board were calling for Majerus' head Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Dr. Chaifetz gives around $600k a year to the university for the naming rights to the arena, he is not T. Boone Pickens. That is a significant amount of money, but I feel like people may overstate his giving. For the 2010-11 season, our basketball expenses were a little under $3 million which puts us in the company of programs like Fordham, Bradley, Duquesne, and Rhode Island. So if "money will be no object," he and the other significant donors better step up their game. This hire along with whether or not we get a bid from the Big East will determine the future of this program. We need several Chaifetzes. It's too bad Rex Sinquefield seems to have little interest in basketball. He may be the wealthiest alum we have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Dr. Chaifetz gives around $600k a year to the university for the naming rights to the arena, he is not T. Boone Pickens. That is a significant amount of money, but I feel like people may overstate his giving. For the 2010-11 season, our basketball expenses were a little under $3 million which puts us in the company of programs like Fordham, Bradley, Duquesne, and Rhode Island. So if "money will be no object," he and the other significant donors better step up their game. This hire along with whether or not we get a bid from the Big East will determine the future of this program. Well, yeah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
For-DaLove Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 FWIW I have been hearing Bob Knight's name for a while now Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRN Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 FWIW I have been hearing Bob Knight's name for a while now Seriously? He's 72, maybe 15 years ago. All this would ensure is we end up with his wonderful son, Pat, as our next coach. Yuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Do you think that Keno Davis would be good? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Do you think that Keno Davis would be good? Not really. One good season as HC with players he inherited from his dad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobby Metzinger Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Not really. One good season as HC with players he inherited from his dad. Guess you're right...kinda got lucky getting the Providence job after Drake, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoctorB Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Based on your posts, I really need to ask, in the interests of full disclosure so that there can be intelligent discussion going forward: Are you a relative and/or close personal friend of Jim Crews's? This entire post is so seeped in blind homerism and Jim Crews-flavored Kool-Aid that I don't even know where to begin addressing its glaring flaws. No, I'm not a personal friend or relative. I'm on faculty at SLU, and known to many people on here. I understand the complexities of the argument, probably much more than you do, and there are no glaring flaws in what I wrote. You sound like a law student -- lots of heavy breathing but little substance. show me the glaring flaws. Kool-Aid? good one -- I've been panned on here over the years for pointing out many many indiscretions. I was just called the other day mister glass half empty when I suggested we could lose to Oregon. Seriously, give me a break .... Here's what I just don't get-- calling for a new coach within hours of losing?? Because we ran into the buzz saw?? Again -- I just simply do not get the lack of respect and the classless dismissal of the body of work over the past 3 months. Unprecedented adversity got even worse on Dec. 1. We could've easily folded our tents and gone home. It's hard to figure. Some really juvenile stuff has been directed at this issue on here. And I love the comment about "intelligent discussion going forward" -- funny stuff! Maybe they teach that phrase in Law 101. As I wrote in another thread: I'm really getting tired of blowhards coming on here and saying disrespectful things about Coach Crews. After such a great season... Does that make me a "homer"?? I really really hope he wants to stay. FYI: in big time sports usually results are found to be strong reasons for keeping someone on in a job. YES IT WAS HEARTBREAKING against the Ducks, but the better team won that night, so we gotta get over it. That loss does not characterize the season, and still this year was a great ride. why change it up, if the Coach wants to stay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMDG Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Here's what I just don't get-- calling for a new coach within hours of losing?? Because we ran into the buzz saw?? Again -- I just simply do not get the lack of respect and the classless dismissal of the body of work over the past 3 months. Unprecedented adversity got even worse on Dec. 1. We could've easily folded our tents and gone home. It's hard to figure. Some really juvenile stuff has been directed at this issue on here. And I love the comment about "intelligent discussion going forward" -- funny stuff! Maybe they teach that phrase in Law 101. As I wrote in another thread: I'm really getting tired of blowhards coming on here and saying disrespectful things about Coach Crews. After such a great season... Does that make me a "homer"?? Crews himself said that he hasn't done anything to change this team. I'm sure he's a nice guy, but all the credit for this season goes to the players and what Coach built. Great story until we were thoroughly out coached and game planned last night. He doesn't want to recruit, he has no track record of success. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sludevil Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 why change it up, if the Coach wants to stay? Because the coach can't recruit. Or, at least, has never shown an ability to recruit at a high level in his many years as a head coach. His recruiting prowess may improve with the weight of SLU/Chaifetz Arena behind him, but you're not going to turn a frog into a prince overnight. (I also worry that he may still have one foot out the door.) So, if we can do better (Howland?), why not try? Otherwise, we're essentially just Illinois bringing in Bruce Weber. He's a solid tactician but, unless he can bring in players that can compete at a high level, the program will in time revert back to mediocrity/irrelevance. And at such a crucial stage for the program, we need to do better than that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kshoe Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Tweet from joe Strauss earlier tonight: @JoeStrauss: Monday P-D column filed: Crews, SLU moving toward rapid, positive resolution No matter how people feel about Crews I would hope that most serious long term fans will get behind his hiring if he is indeed hired. I mean what would be the point of being negative on someone before even giving him a chance to succeed on the recruiting trail (he has clearly already succeeded on the court)? Just go on record that you don't like the hire but support him after that. It's that simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Tweet from joe Strauss earlier tonight: @JoeStrauss: Monday P-D column filed: Crews, SLU moving toward rapid, positive resolution No matter how people feel about Crews I would hope that most serious long term fans will get behind his hiring if he is indeed hired. I mean what would be the point of being negative on someone before even giving him a chance to succeed on the recruiting trail (he has clearly already succeeded on the court)? Just go on record that you don't like the hire but support him after that. It's that simple. +1 We should all be Billiken fans first and foremost and then fans (or not fans) of RM, Jim Crews, Brad S, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUDrew Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 He definitely deserves our support but I would be lying if I said I am not concerned about his ability to recruit. Crawford has some eye popping numbers but so did Dustin Maguire while in high school. Crawford received a grand total of one division 1 offer I believe. That scares me If I had to put a milkshake on it I would be we are a .500 team in the A-10 and in the CBI or CIT after the 2014-2015 season. I hope more than anything that I am wrong 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.