'Raising the Bar at Saint Louis U.'

[slufanskip]

Sure, but a lot of teams in the tournament could make very similar claims.

How many teams played Sunday and again Thursday? and how many of those very few traveled 3000+ miles?

[Duff Man]

Editor's Note: I think McKernan is one of the few local media personalities who offers opinions that are insightful and simultaneously isn't afraid to piss people off while not blatantly trolling fanbases with contrarian opinion. I've been a fan of his ever since publicly he spoke out against thundersticks during the 2005 NLDS.

^That's an appropriate length for an editor's note. We don't need a rough outline of your fuoking autobiography.

I agree with many of the fundamental points McKernan is making, but the column is a mess because he's trying to tie things together that don't really apply.

Yes, SLU got a pass this year when they fell short of NCAA tournament expectations while last year's Mizzou team was judged much more harshly despite the fact that they actually played much better against Norfolk State than SLU did against Oregon. You lose as a 2-seed to a 15-seed, you're not getting a pass. Period.

Yes, the bar needs to be raised at SLU in terms of expectations.

No, these things have virtually nothing to do with each other - UNLESS you're arguing that a coaching change needs to be made - which McKernan is not.

You can both pat SLU on the back for a nice season, AND maintain that the bar needs to be raised. It does the program no good for the fans and local media to spend the next week lamenting how poorly SLU played on Saturday. It's over, move on.

Mizzou gets the harsh treatment year after year, and they keep falling short of expectations year after year. Probably because how your local media and fanbase reacts in the immediate aftermath of a disappointing loss has practically ZERO impact the following season - again, unless you're trying to rally support to run the head coach out of town, which some people on this board are doing (and that's their right as fans and Americans), but McKernan is not.

Raising the bar means

-devoting more resources to recruiting

-scheduling more aggressively in the non-conference

-holding the coaching staff accountable when goals are not achieved

SLU won their regular season conference championship and postseason conference tournament and advanced to the second round of the NCAA tournament. That's a good season for pretty much any program outside of the blue bloods. Given the special circumstances, it was a great season, regardless of the fact that they underperformed in the NCAA tournament.

[TheA_Bomb]

Guys so now if we all just raise our expectations and get angry after every loss SLU will win the Championship next year.

How 'bout this build a top flight on campus arena and hire a future HOF coach. Oh sh#t we already did that and it didn't happen? Well maybe our collective vile for losing a game will propel SLU to the top of the NCAA hierarchy.

[hsmith19]

Actually, the Cardinals are 16-22 at AT&T Park since it opened. Over that time period, they are only 21-23 against the Giants in St. Louis, so that is not much of a road park detriment at all. And if you want to take the discussion back even further, it's still not true. Since 1990, the Cardinals are 44-51 in San Francisco. That's a better record than they have in Midwestern cities like Chicago and Cincinnati over the same time period, and those teams haven't been competitive as often as the Giants have.

That whole "been to lots of the games" thing is interesting and all, and I don't doubt your perception that the team doesn't "look good" there to you. The problem is that in terms of the actual results your perception is demonstrably false. The Cardinals don't struggle mightily in terms of winning games there. The two painful games at the end of last season do not a trend make.

[slufanskip]

Sure, but a lot of teams in the tournament could make very similar claims.

8 teams played Sunday

2 played Thursday the other being VCU which traveled all the way to Michigan and even then seemed a bit lethargic in their 5th game in 8 days.

[slufanskip]

Guys so now if we all just raise our expectations and get angry after every loss SLU will win the Championship next year.

How 'bout this build a top flight on campus arena and hire a future HOF coach. Oh sh#t we already did that and it didn't happen? Well maybe our collective vile for losing a game will propel SLU to the top of the NCAA hierarchy.

Well, I know I'm damn mad and things better improve or else I'll even get madder. Not only that, I'll go on a message board and express my disappointment very agressively.

[Bay Area Billiken]

Actually, the Cardinals are 16-22 at AT&T Park since it opened. Over that time period, they are only 21-23 against the Giants in St. Louis, so that is not much of a road park detriment at all. And if you want to take the discussion back even further, it's still not true. Since 1990, the Cardinals are 44-51 in San Francisco. That's a better record than they have in Midwestern cities like Chicago and Cincinnati over the same time period, and those teams haven't been competitive as often as the Giants have.

That whole "been to lots of the games" thing is interesting and all, and I don't doubt your perception that the team doesn't "look good" there to you. The problem is that in terms of the actual results your perception is demonstrably false. The Cardinals don't struggle mightily in terms of winning games there. The two painful games at the end of last season do not a trend make.

I don't think playing sub-.500 baseball on the road is good, not for a traditional team like the Cardinals.

16-22 at AT&T Park jives with what I remember when I looked it up last year. That's .421 ball, not good at all. Over a 162 game season, that's 68-94, not good. The Cardinals should be better than that.

I also remember the Card's old West Coast Death Marches in the '70's. The Dodgers were good then, it was still cold in SF, and thank heavens the Padres were in existence to at least salvage something.

I was taught that you win the Pennant by winning at home and playing at least .500 baseball on the road.

[TheA_Bomb]

Well, I know I'm damn mad and things better improve or else I'll even get madder. Not only that, I'll go on a message board and express my disappointment very agressively.

Now you're getting it. It is kinda' like the opposite of the ending of the movie "Elf". You see in that film people in jaded NYC needed to really believe in Santa Claus to get his sleigh off the ground. Now here at SLU we really need to hate losing to get our team out of the first round. I suggest that students place kick me signs on players backs in the quad until they get their act together. No more seconds at Griesedieck cafeteria until they produce.

[Bay Area Billiken]

I don't think playing sub-.500 baseball on the road is good, not for a traditional team like the Cardinals.

16-22 at AT&T Park jives with what I remember when I looked it up last year. That's .421 ball, not good at all. Over a 162 game season, that's 68-94, not good. The Cardinals should be better than that.

I also remember the Cards' old West Coast Death Marches in the '70's. The Dodgers were good then, it was still cold in SF, and thank heavens the Padres were in existence to at least salvage something.

I was taught that you win the Pennant by winning at home and playing at least .500 baseball on the road.

[jimmy two times]

8 teams played Sunday

2 played Thursday the other being VCU which traveled all the way to Michigan and even then seemed a bit lethargic in their 5th game in 8 days.

So what? We played Thursday morning, looked sharp and blew out NMSU, who despite being large and athletic, looked like they had never touched a basketball before. Wasn't that an advantage we earned and received? Playing a far inferior opponent and not having to expend a ton of energy (by the way, these are 20 year olds we're talking about also).

We then had 54 more hours to get acclimated and adjusted to that brutal Pacific Time Zone and play against Oregon. I think your argument would hold at least a little bit more water if we lost on Thursday, but given that we looked very good, I can't accept this had much of an impact on Saturday night's game.

[jimmy two times]

Did a lot of teams go up against a squad that had the best shooting performance in 19 tournaments? It can't all be bad defense.

It wasn't all bad defense. Just like it wasn't all bad luck. That's the point.

[majerus mojo]

It wasn't all bad defense. Just like it wasn't all bad luck. That's the point.

I think that's the point we're trying to make with you. Sh t happens. Sh t happened at the worst possible time. It was a combination of things, travel, location, defense, their ability to hit every jumper. Thought they would have to cool off in the second half for us to have any chance at a comeback. They didn't. We didn't.

[sludevil]

Now you're getting it. It is kinda' like the opposite of the ending of the movie "Elf". You see in that film people in jaded NYC needed to really believe in Santa Claus to get his sleigh off the ground. Now here at SLU we really need to hate losing to get our team out of the first round. I suggest that students place kick me signs on players backs in the quad until they get their act together. No more seconds at Griesedieck cafeteria until they produce.

I don't think anyone is arguing that our responses are going to produce immediate results. (Long-term, it might pressure the administration. But that's another issue.) Instead, the discussion revolved around the proper context in which to view SLU's recent tournament run (or lack thereof). I'm not sure what you take issue with there. But if you're proposing that we should accept a one-and-done tournament because our reactions won't produce direct results, then that's an awful argument. Of course we should be disappointed; whether that disappointment does or does not affect the program is completely outside the scope of this discussion.

[slufanskip]

I don't think anyone is arguing that our responses are going to produce immediate results. (Long-term, it might pressure the administration. But that's another issue.) Instead, the discussion revolved around the proper context in which to view SLU's recent tournament run (or lack thereof). I'm not sure what you take issue with there. But if you're proposing that we should accept a one-and-done tournament because our reactions won't produce direct results, then that's an awful argument. Of course we should be disappointed; whether that disappointment does or does not affect the program is completely outside the scope of this discussion.

What's the discussion? Who has said they weren't disappointed? I've never understood fans claiming they weren't going to accept a lack of success or a bad game. What exactly are you going to do, if you're not going to accept it?

[RiseAndGrind]

What's the discussion? Who has said they weren't disappointed? I've never understood fans claiming they weren't going to accept a lack of success or a bad game. What exactly are you going to do, if you're not going to accept it?

1) Come to a message board and call people homophobic slurs;

2) Highjack every thread so that people know you're pissed;

3) Call for everyone from the University President to the HC to be fired;

4) Advocate for SLU to drop Nike as its official clothing provider; and

5) Call out other fans for not being pissed off enough.

Did I miss anything?

[TheA_Bomb]

1) Come to a message board and call people homophobic slurs;

2) Highjack every thread so that people know you're pissed;

3) Call for everyone from the University President to the HC to be fired;

4) Advocate for SLU to drop Nike as its official clothing provider; and

5) Call out other fans for not being pissed off enough.

Did I miss anything?

6) Make decisions on how other people should spend their money.

7) Jump to the worst possible conclusions for every situation yet to be decided.

8) Accept no excuses for a lack of success at SLU but advocate for retreads from top programs (UCLA, UK) that didn't achieve the level of success their demanding fan bases wanted.

[jimmy two times]

I think that's the point we're trying to make with you. Sh t happens. Sh t happened at the worst possible time. It was a combination of things, travel, location, defense, their ability to hit every jumper. Thought they would have to cool off in the second half for us to have any chance at a comeback. They didn't. We didn't.

But I'm not really saying that it was sh*t happens. I don't think that location and travel had much to do with it, nearly as much as we got totally outplayed. The location and travel had a lot to do with this game? For a 28-6 team, the #4 seed...our backs were already against the wall before the opening tip? No. I'd give our team a lot more credit than that.

There were several factors that led to this loss and all of them happened on the basketball court at after 6:10p.m. CST on Saturday. When the dust settles and everyone calms down and Crews (or whoever the HC is) and our returning players do a post mortem on this loss, you think the first few things out of their mouth are the travel and the location? I doubt it and you and I better hope not. How can you use this experience to get better otherwise? We didn't get screwed, we got beat. Plain and simple.

[sludevil]

What's the discussion? Who has said they weren't disappointed? I've never understood fans claiming they weren't going to accept a lack of success or a bad game. What exactly are you going to do, if you're not going to accept it?

Did you read the article? I'm in almost total agreement with the author. And I'm just using "accept" as the inverse of disappointment. In other words, I think disappointment is justified here, rather than softly patting the team on the head for simply making the NCAA tournament. The time has passed to continue treating SLU like the little engine that could.

[billiken_roy]

He's trying to have it both ways. He says on one hand that he's not trying to equate Oregon with Norfolk State, just trying to equate the "treatment" the '12 Tigers received with what the '13 Bills received. Well, the team you get the "treatment" from is pretty damned germane to the discussion. This incoherence of message pretty much renders the entire column meaningless, in my opinion. Yeah, everyone should've expected more than the Round of 32 from this team, and should expect more from the program going forward. No duh. We don't need little Timmy to tell us that. This level of "insight" is on par with a bleacherreport article.

while i agree that we dont need to be the little engine that could, timmy spent a lot of time trying to make sure we understood how much better and far ahead his beloved tiger$ still are. i was especially entertained by his attempt to make norfolk state = oregon. hillarious stuff. second most entertaining claim, he was some sort of rickma insider. please. rickma patronized his butt to the top of the hill and back and little timmy was so thrilled a legend was offering him a brautwurst out of his back pocket he thinks he was in the loop. hillarious. he's an A$$CLOWN tigerhack.

[slufanskip]

Did you read the article? I'm in almost total agreement with the author. And I'm just using "accept" as the inverse of disappointment. In other words, I think disappointment is justified here, rather than softly patting the team on the head for simply making the NCAA tournament. The time has passed to continue treating SLU like the little engine that could.

I believe we're all disappointed.

Is there anyone who isn't disappointed?

I'm overall happy with the season. We won a tournament game for only the 3rd time in the last 50 years and set the school record for wins in a season. In addition we won a conference championship for the 1st time in about 40 years.

I'm dissapointed we lost in the 2nd round. I thought and hoped we would go farther.

I'm happy with the growth of the program over the last 5 or so years. I really hope that we do the things it takes to get to a level where 1 and done is a rarity not one of the 3 best seasons of the last 50 years.

We didn't simply make the tournament. We won a game

[billiken_roy]

1.claggett, highmark and h won a game the second time they made the tourney

2. larry legend won a game vs umass in his one year run at the ncaa tourney

3. last year we beat memphis

4. this year we won a game.

[majerus mojo]

But I'm not really saying that it was sh*t happens. I don't think that location and travel had much to do with it, nearly as much as we got totally outplayed. The location and travel had a lot to do with this game? For a 28-6 team, the #4 seed...our backs were already against the wall before the opening tip? No. I'd give our team a lot more credit than that.

There were several factors that led to this loss and all of them happened on the basketball court at after 6:10p.m. CST on Saturday. When the dust settles and everyone calms down and Crews (or whoever the HC is) and our returning players do a post mortem on this loss, you think the first few things out of their mouth are the travel and the location? I doubt it and you and I better hope not. How can you use this experience to get better otherwise? We didn't get screwed, we got beat. Plain and simple.

Alright.. we got beat. By a team that played the best game of their season Totally agree. So what are we arguing then? I'm giving a lot of the credit where credit is due.. to the Oregon Ducks. They played a helluva game.

[slufanskip]

1.claggett, highmark and h won a game the second time they made the tourney

2. larry legend won a game vs umass in his one year run at the ncaa tourney

3. last year we beat memphis

4. this year we won a game.

My bad 4th time. Damn, that changes my entire perspective. Now I'm pissed and I demand better. I will no longer accept a season like this one. Had it been just our 3rd time in the last 50 years ... I'd have been ok with it. Thanks for ruining my day Roy

[sludevil]

I believe we're all disappointed.

Is there anyone who isn't disappointed?

I'm overall happy with the season. We won a tournament game for only the 3rd time in the last 50 years and set the school record for wins in a season. In addition we won a conference championship for the 1st time in about 40 years.

I'm dissapointed we lost in the 2nd round. I thought and hoped we would go farther.

I'm happy with the growth of the program over the last 5 or so years. I really hope that we do the things it takes to get to a level where 1 and done is a rarity not one of the 3 best seasons of the last 50 years.

We didn't simply make the tournament. We won a game

Sure, and all of that is progress. But I contend that some evidence of progress is not enough. I mean, if we can speak candidly, this program has been mostly irrelevant for a quite a while. But now we have a new arena, and (what I hope is) increased support from the administration, and increased fan support, and more national media coverage.

So, yes, we won the conference. That's something, I guess. But the big ticket is the NCAA tournament. And here, in the best year SLU has had in modern times, SLU could only manage a single victory over an inept NM State team. And then we get run off the court in our next game. That's not something to be proud of. If anything, that just reaffirms SLU's status as a mid-major program, beneath power conference teams.

Granted, there's reason for hope. We're slowly becoming relevant, and we need to build on the momentum of the last two years. But for a season that promised so much, to fall so flat when it counted - that's very disappointing. And I agree with the author of the original article that, as a fan base, we should be disappointed. We should expect bigger things from our program.

[billslasttermdropout]

Longtime Slu fans know we pretty much hurdled "the bar" this year. Sure, the last attempt we were kinda sure of ourselves and so moved the landing mat to show off our prowess which made for a rough landing, but let's not get crazy here. You wanna raise the bar a few cm, fine, but lets not get too carried away like we're Javier Sotomayor or some damn body.