Rammer has spoken

[JettFlight5]

I don't get the whole "recruiting rankings" bit. Who cares if a guy's 1* or 5*? Let's see how the guys who choose to don the Blue and White of SLU play and rate them that way?

Dwayne Evans is a pretty good player, and he was 2*...and so on.

[TRN]

The only people that give a about star rankings are the dorks who work for Rivals and the dorks who pay $10 a month to get their recruiting fix. Spike Albrecht was a one star, Michigan shouldn't have given him a scholarship, right?

There's a reason coaches evaluate talent on their own and don't rely on a recruiting service's rankings. It is not the end all and be all.

[sludevil]

The only people that give a ###### about star rankings are the dorks who work for Rivals and the dorks who pay $10 a month to get their recruiting fix. Spike Albrecht was a one star, Michigan shouldn't have given him a scholarship, right?

There's a reason coaches evaluate talent on their own and don't rely on a recruiting service's rankings. It is not the end all and be all.

Spike Albrecht had one good game, dude. His numbers are pretty terrible on the season. Meanwhile, Robinson: five-star; McGary: four-star; Burke: four-star; Hardaway: four-star.

I agree, rankings aren't everything. But they're something. And they tend to be a pretty useful proxy for whether your coach can recruit, and whether top talent actually wants to play at your school. Because low-rated recruits becoming stars is definitely the exception, rather than the rule.

Of course, SLU has done pretty well with low-rated recruits. But even our diamond-in-the-rough-type players still have ceilings, and when we've played teams that do recruit at an elite level (this year, it was Kansas), the talent gap has been obvious. If we want to continue to improve as a program, we're going to need to continue to improve our recruiting. Which means, generally, going after higher-rated recruits.

[Fansince59]

As I understand it from talking to people in Tipton, that Mike Crawford was NOT highly regarded by colleges after his junior year because he played in a smaller classification school and because he didn't attend the usual camps and play AAU ball. But he came on strong his senior year (AFTER he signed with SLU, in November.) He was then noticed, and finished high in the Mr. Basketball voting. We may be lucky on this kid. I saw him play twice and I think he will contribute his freshman year. I saw Brett Thompson at Vienna twice and wondered why we recruited him--he was less than dominant. Also saw that kid from the east side about 4 years ago, with the flattop haircut, who wasn't any good; he wasn't dominant in high school. I can't think of his name, but he left after freshman year. A group of us watched Kyle Cassity at Pickneyville and it was obvious he had a lot of skill and drive. Could be wrong, but I am saying Crawford has it, was totally dominant in high school, and will be a good player for the Billikens. Like Dwayne Evans and Jordair Jett, not every valuable player is ranked a #3 or #4. These are kids who develop at different speeds. Watch Crawford.

[billikenfan05]

GOSEETHEKIDSPLAY

[TheA_Bomb]

I hope our coaches are in on this amazing strategy of only recruiting can't miss kids. If only we'd instituted this years ago.

Spike Albrecht had one good game, dude. His numbers are pretty terrible on the season. Meanwhile, Robinson: five-star; McGary: four-star; Burke: four-star; Hardaway: four-star.

I agree, rankings aren't everything. But they're something. And they tend to be a pretty useful proxy for whether your coach can recruit, and whether top talent actually wants to play at your school. Because low-rated recruits becoming stars is definitely the exception, rather than the rule.

Of course, SLU has done pretty well with low-rated recruits. But even our diamond-in-the-rough-type players still have ceilings, and when we've played teams that do recruit at an elite level (this year, it was Kansas), the talent gap has been obvious. If we want to continue to improve as a program, we're going to need to continue to improve our recruiting. Which means, generally, going after higher-rated recruits.

[sludevil]

I hope our coaches are in on this amazing strategy of only recruiting can't miss kids. If only we'd instituted this years ago.

I know, right? Think of the possibilities. If basketball had the full support of the administration, with the full complement of resources. And we recruited top-100 kids, instead of settling for "diamonds-in-the-rough." Maybe then only winning a game in the tournament would be cause for disappointment, rather than celebration.

[slu72]

I know, right? Think of the possibilities. If basketball had the full support of the administration, with the full complement of resources. And we recruited top-100 kids, instead of settling for "diamonds-in-the-rough." Maybe then only winning a game in the tournament would be cause for disappointment, rather than celebration.

Full support of the admin? Does that mean we send kids and their AAU houndogs cash in Fed Ex boxes? Look, the guy that saved UL's bacon this year was a transfer from Geo Mason. I doubt he was more than a 3 star. And how Calapari do with all his 4-5 stars this year? Give these kids time to develop and keep them together is a safer and proven way to win in the NCAA. Yes, Calipari won w/ a lot of 5 stars last year, but only because he had some upperclassmen who were leaders. This year the formula didn't work because he had no leaders.

Just look at how some of RM's low rated recruits worked out. DE, MM, KM, CE, Conklin, et al. So, yes with these type of guys we've won our first games in the dance. But we went up against MSU last year, who had a lot of upperclassmen as well. This year to Oregon, who had some experienced transfers and juniors. Plus if we could have hit about 5 more 3s we'd have been with them at the end.

All that means most of us like the way we run our program, ie 2-3 stars and develop them. If the classes are evened out we'll do just fine going forward.

I think your problem is you're thinking we're still in the Brad years. Back then we were getting 0 star players, except for KL and TL, and no one stuck around long enough to develop. Those were the dark days. These days we at least have a light at the end of the tunnel.

[Littlebill]

Maybe then only winning a game in the tournament would be cause for disappointment, rather than celebration.

I don't think anyone here thought our tournament "run" this year was a success based on what we should have done. Definitely no cause for celebration. You come here thinking us SLU fans have this small-time mentality, when in all reality, we expected so much out of this team in the tournament, and only getting to the round of 32 was a disappointment. I think, and I know many here agree with me, we were a final four caliber team who underachieved. Even with the terrible recruits that we had playing. Dwayne Evans only a two? He's really terrible nowadays eh?

P.S. keep thinking we're small-time, but ill gladly play your devils this year, and be pretty confident against your five stars.

[sludevil]

Full support of the admin? Does that mean we send kids and their AAU houndogs cash in Fed Ex boxes? Look, the guy that saved UL's bacon this year was a transfer from Geo Mason. I doubt he was more than a 3 star. And how Calapari do with all his 4-5 stars this year? Give these kids time to develop and keep them together is a safer and proven way to win in the NCAA. Yes, Calipari won w/ a lot of 5 stars last year, but only because he had some upperclassmen who were leaders. This year the formula didn't work because he had no leaders.

Just look at how some of RM's low rated recruits worked out. DE, MM, KM, CE, Conklin, et al. So, yes with these type of guys we've won our first games in the dance. But we went up against MSU last year, who had a lot of upperclassmen as well. This year to Oregon, who had some experienced transfers and juniors. Plus if we could have hit about 5 more 3s we'd have been with them at the end.

All that means most of us like the way we run our program, ie 2-3 stars and develop them. If the classes are evened out we'll do just fine going forward.

I think your problem is you're thinking we're still in the Brad years. Back then we were getting 0 star players, except for KL and TL, and no one stuck around long enough to develop. Those were the dark days. These days we at least have a light at the end of the tunnel.

Do we have a light at the end of the tunnel, though? That's my point. What are you hoping to achieve? SLU is definitely better today than we were a few years ago. And, all else equal, I'd much rather consistently make the tournament than consistently not make the tournament. But, for me, that's not good enough. Just making the tournament sucks. And only winning one game isn't much better.

We should be striving - and seriously aiming - for Final Fours and championships. And the only way we can accomplish this is by recruiting at a higher level. I mean, you can dismiss the rankings all you want, and you can point to any number of instances of a low-rated recruit having a good game, or an underdog team beating a top-tier team. But these are the exceptions, not the rule. The teams that are consistently good are the teams that recruit top-100 talent. There's no way around it: you cannot expect to win in the tournament with a team composed of two- and three-star recruits. Diamonds-in-the-rough are great - and you can put together a solid team with those types of players - but if you want to break into the next level, you can't rely on "hidden gems."

And haven't the results borne this out? Whenever SLU has played a top-tier team - whether it's Kansas, or Duke, or UNC - the talent gap has been obvious, and the result has always been the same. Again, I appreciate that SLU has been able to find these overlooked recruits and develop them in college. But when you put together a team of those types of players, you give yourself a ceiling. And that ceiling is too low.

Now, do I think it's realistic to expect us to out-recruit Kansas or Duke or UNC? No. But can we be consistently competitive (or even superior) to the Xaviers and Villanovas and Marquettes of the world? I don't see why not. And to do this, we need to be engaging these schools in recruiting battles - and winning some of those battles. Which means the rankings should be a useful proxy moving forward of whether we are in fact making progress.

[Littlebill]

sludevil:

You just don't get it. You keep saying how we were happy about our second round exit as if we "were just happy to be there," but we were all very disappointed. We thought we could beat any team in the country. We didn't think it was ridiculous to get to the Final Four, even with the tough region we drew. We knew we *could* beat Louisville. Would we consistently beat them? No one here thought that. Could we provide the most matchup problems of any team in the tournament? Of course. We were full of upperclassmen, and plenty of talent, even with our awful recruiting. If we don't run into a team that shot the lights out of HP, we're playing in Indy with realistic hopes of a trip to Atlanta. If we hadn't gotten such a crap draw, or were in Gonzaga's region (we would have been far and away the best team in that region) we would have made a helluva run. They would have called us a Cinderella if we got to Atlanta. Would any of us had been surprised? Not really.

Did we get outplayed by Oregon? Yes. Were we the better team? Of course. You don't get it Devil. It isn't about getting the best athletes or highest-rated recruits. It is about getting the best possible player that fits in your system.

Dwayne Evans: 3 Stars. Offers from Northwestern, Kent St., Loyola IL, N. Illinois.

Kwamain Mitchell: 3 Stars. Offers from N. Iowa, Loyola IL, UW-Green Bay.

These are two of the best Billikens in program history. They weren't the most talented or highly-touted out of high school, but RickMa knew they would fit our system perfectly, and he saw the talent they had. In the tournament, Kwamain DOMINATED Memphis's NBA Prospect guards. He dominated Michigan State's 5 star recruits. This year, Dwayne Evans was not going to be stopped. He fit our system perfectly and is as skilled in the low post as anyone in the nation. He knows how to find an open shot, and when to post up, and he'll put up 25 on any given night. He is the best rebounder (for his size) in the country.

I also find it funny that you said we'll never out-recruit teams like UNC, X, Villanova and MArquette. We were much better than any of those teams this year. Worlds better, really. We'll be better than them again this year.

Casual fans like you may be thinking small-time, but all of us here want to be elite more than anything, and this year we were well on our way.

BOTTOMLINE: We aren't Duke. We aren't Kentucky. We don't need to be. We can beat you without these "five star" recruits. We finsihed as a top 15 team this year. We expect something similar out of next year's team, but a better tournament result.

[BillikenLaw]

I wouldn't say "just making the tournament sucks" when we're talking about SLU, but it should be the bare minimum benchmark of a successful season, given where our program has advanced now. To settle for less is to admit that we are regressing back to the dark ages.

[sludevil]

sludevil:

You just don't get it. You keep saying how we were happy about our second round exit as if we "were just happy to be there," but we were all very disappointed. We thought we could beat any team in the country. We didn't think it was ridiculous to get to the Final Four, even with the tough region we drew. We knew we *could* beat Louisville. Would we consistently beat them? No one here thought that. Could we provide the most matchup problems of any team in the tournament? Of course. We were full of upperclassmen, and plenty of talent, even with our awful recruiting. If we don't run into a team that shot the lights out of HP, we're playing in Indy with realistic hopes of a trip to Atlanta. If we hadn't gotten such a crap draw, or were in Gonzaga's region (we would have been far and away the best team in that region) we would have made a helluva run. They would have called us a Cinderella if we got to Atlanta. Would any of us had been surprised? Not really.

Did we get outplayed by Oregon? Yes. Were we the better team? Of course. You don't get it Devil. It isn't about getting the best athletes or highest-rated recruits. It is about getting the best possible player that fits in your system.

Dwayne Evans: 3 Stars. Offers from Northwestern, Kent St., Loyola IL, N. Illinois.

Kwamain Mitchell: 3 Stars. Offers from N. Iowa, Loyola IL, UW-Green Bay.

These are two of the best Billikens in program history. They weren't the most talented or highly-touted out of high school, but RickMa knew they would fit our system perfectly, and he saw the talent they had. In the tournament, Kwamain DOMINATED Memphis's NBA Prospect guards. He dominated Michigan State's 5 star recruits. This year, Dwayne Evans was not going to be stopped. He fit our system perfectly and is as skilled in the low post as anyone in the nation. He knows how to find an open shot, and when to post up, and he'll put up 25 on any given night. He is the best rebounder (for his size) in the country.

I also find it funny that you said we'll never out-recruit teams like UNC, X, Villanova and MArquette. We were much better than any of those teams this year. Worlds better, really. We'll be better than them again this year.

Casual fans like you may be thinking small-time, but all of us here want to be elite more than anything, and this year we were well on our way.

BOTTOMLINE: We aren't Duke. We aren't Kentucky. We don't need to be. We can beat you without these "five star" recruits. We finsihed as a top 15 team this year. We expect something similar out of next year's team, but a better tournament result.

Did you read my post? At all?

That's great that you want to find players that fit your system. But what do you think other schools are doing? Just about every coach has a system, dude. And other schools are still finding ways to bring top recruits into those systems. It's a novel concept, I know. So you can tout whatever system you want, but if you can't find quality players to fit that system, then you're going to keep coming up empty.

And by empty, I mean empty as a team. That's great that Mitchell had a solid performance against x team. I never disputed that lower-rated recruits could turn out to be solid players. I simply said it's the exception, not the rule. And it is. Again, I don't care how awesome your system is: you can't build a consistent, top-level team with lower-rated recruits. You have to do better than that.

Now, you can make all these excuses about the other team having a lucky game, or us getting a poor draw, or whatever, but the results speak for themselves. If we want to not have to make these types of excuses in the future, we need to bring in better recruits. That's all there is to it.

I don't know where you got me saying we'll never out-recruit X, Villanova, and Marquette. In fact, I think I specifically said the opposite of that. And we'll need to start beating them in recruiting battles if we want to take that next step. That we did better than a few of these teams this year is irrelevant; I'm talking about establishing a program, not just a blip on the radar.

Also not sure why you insist on bringing Duke into this. Repeatedly. I agree; we aren't Duke. That's great that you think we could beat Duke. Unfortunately, the result of that game would not depend on your feelings. And, like I pointed out in my earlier post: whenever we play a team of Duke's caliber (including Duke itself a few years ago), the talent gap has been obvious. Of course, I don't think it's completely fair to compare us to Duke, or Kansas, or UNC, or any other blue-chip team - which is why I've tried to avoid those direct comparisons, despite your protests to the contrary. But I think we're well-positioned to start competing with the next rung of schools in Marquette, Nova, etc. To do that, however, we need to start pulling higher-rated recruits.

[kshoe]

Sludevil,

Are there some 4 or 5 star recruits available in this spring signing period that you thing SLU should be recruiting and has a chance of getting? If so, can you name them for all of us. Thanks in advance for that list.

[Schasz]

Did you read my post? At all?

That's great that you want to find players that fit your system. But what do you think other schools are doing? Just about every coach has a system, dude. And other schools are still finding ways to bring top recruits into those systems. It's a novel concept, I know. So you can tout whatever system you want, but if you can't find quality players to fit that system, then you're going to keep coming up empty.

And by empty, I mean empty as a team. That's great that Mitchell had a solid performance against x team. I never disputed that lower-rated recruits could turn out to be solid players. I simply said it's the exception, not the rule. And it is. Again, I don't care how awesome your system is: you can't build a consistent, top-level team with lower-rated recruits. You have to do better than that.

Now, you can make all these excuses about the other team having a lucky game, or us getting a poor draw, or whatever, but the results speak for themselves. If we want to not have to make these types of excuses in the future, we need to bring in better recruits. That's all there is to it.

I don't know where you got me saying we'll never out-recruit X, Villanova, and Marquette. In fact, I think I specifically said the opposite of that. And we'll need to start beating them in recruiting battles if we want to take that next step. That we did better than a few of these teams this year is irrelevant; I'm talking about establishing a program, not just a blip on the radar.

Also not sure why you insist on bringing Duke into this. Repeatedly. I agree; we aren't Duke. That's great that you think we could beat Duke. Unfortunately, the result of that game would not depend on your feelings. And, like I pointed out in my earlier post: whenever we play a team of Duke's caliber (including Duke itself a few years ago), the talent gap has been obvious. Of course, I don't think it's completely fair to compare us to Duke, or Kansas, or UNC, or any other blue-chip team - which is why I've tried to avoid those direct comparisons, despite your protests to the contrary. But I think we're well-positioned to start competing with the next rung of schools in Marquette, Nova, etc. To do that, however, we need to start pulling higher-rated recruits.

I see you are new to the board so maybe you are not aware we beat Nova one season ago in the tourney in Anaheim one season ago. My recall was it was a rather easy win by the Bills who beat OK to capture that tourney. Let's see this year we were 5 for 5 VS Butler and VCU who both have made recent Final Four visits. Do I want to see Coach Crews get even better athletes you bet but I happen to think we are on a par with the teams you want us to be this year. To be on level playing ground with the best if the best of the BCS we will have to get some Top 100 Recruits. Let's see what Coach Crews can do.

[sludevil]

Sludevil,

Are there some 4 or 5 star recruits available in this spring signing period that you thing SLU should be recruiting and has a chance of getting? If so, can you name them for all of us. Thanks in advance for that list.

From the last page:

"Meh, I don't think it's reasonable at this point to expect four-star (or five-star) recruits to come to SLU. We're going to need more than just two seasons of making the tournament for those top-100 recruits to start seeing SLU as a viable option. It's a building process. But would we have gotten Agbeko two or three years ago? I don't think so; he probably would've bolted for Oklahoma or another BCS school. So I do think this is progress. The question now is whether we can continue to pull Agbeko-caliber (and better) recruits from here on out."

Do I think we can pull a four-star recruit right now? Absolutely not. But nowhere in this entire thread did I say we could. My argument (again) is that we're going to have to start pulling those types of recruits in the coming years if we want to take that next step.

[slufanskip]

I don't exactly understand what you are arguing sludevil

You're saying if we want to be a consistent top 25 type team we'll have to step up recruiting and get some 4 star type guys and hell some 5 wouldn't hurt. Is anyone really in disagreement with that?

You're saying despite the fact Crews has gotten 2 recruits that look to be decent he needs to show more. Is anyone disagreeing with that?

Like many of the newer posters you come on with the attitude that you can tell us all something ... I doubt you can. So far you really don't seem to say anything different than the majority of the board. However, you seem to be able to come across as a jack off while doing it. Is calling people bro supposed to be cool?

[slufanskip]

http://indianarecruitingguide.com/prospect-rankings/class-of-2013/

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/playerrankings/_/state/indiana/class/2013/view/state

At Crawford's level, it looks like we'd be recruiting against such powerhouses as Illinois State, Ball State, William & Mary, and Valpo. Yikes, bro.

Now you can get your undies in a bunch over every word I type, or you can engage in rational discussion. I'm not saying that Crews isn't still being judged. Just like I wasn't saying we should literally hold a parade, or that Crews should be compared to John Calipari. What I'm saying is that Crews' current recruiting tells us very little, and that it would be silly to extrapolate too much from his current results. Because, again, he has one guy (Crawford) who no one seemed to want, and another guy (Agbeko) who is more promising, but is still a three-star - and, like any three-star, is going to be raw, and is going to need to develop substantially while in college. So we should probably give it a year or two before we anoint him the second coming of Lebron James.

No, I'm not literally saying we should compare Agbeko to Lebron James.

No, I'm not literally saying we should compare Agbeko to Lebron James.

So what exactly are you saying?

I believe the recruit ranking is preseason. Someone posted that exact same list when he first comitted. My point wasn't, nor did I say he'd be a 4 star recruit. You were making the case he was a guy no one wanted. I simply said he didn't play much if any AAU ball going into his Sr year so he may not have been on many schools radars. However with being named 2nd team all state and having been in the running for Mr Basketball or whatever they call it in Indiana he most likely would have been recruited by more schools and I'd suspect even some majors would have shown interest. However, we'll never know. In fact, you've taught me we won't know how good he'll be until he actually plays a couple of years.

Thanks for letting us know we have to wait and see a recruit play before we know exactly how good he'll be. Brilliant.

[sludevil]

I don't exactly understand what you are arguing sludevil

You're saying if we want to be a consistent top 25 type team we'll have to step up recruiting and get some 4 star type guys and hell some 5 wouldn't hurt. Is anyone really in disagreement with that?

You're saying despite the fact Crews has gotten 2 recruits that look to be decent he needs to show more. Is anyone disagreeing with that?

Like many of the newer posters you come on with the attitude that you can tell us all something ... I doubt you can. So far you really don't seem to say anything different than the majority of the board. However, you seem to be able to come across as a jack off while doing it. Is calling people bro supposed to be cool?

This is getting exhausting. But if I have to hold your hand, so be it. My arguments:

*We can't extrapolate much from the guys Crews has recruited. Crawford is a two-star who wasn't recruited by anyone. Agbeko is (probably) a three-star who, like any three-star, could go either way once he gets to college.

*Crews has a lengthy history of mediocre recruiting to overcome. Agbeko may be a solid first step, but still only a very small first step. So let's give it some time before we all start saying "See? Crews' past recruiting was just the result of his institutional limitations."

*SLU is in a much better shape than it was a few years ago. But if we want to break into that next level, we're going to need to do it on recruiting.

*To that end, the recruiting rankings (published by ESPN et al) will be a useful measuring stick for both Crews and our program.

And that's about it. I agree with you; I don't think any of these positions are particularly controversial. And I'm not claiming to have some new wisdom. But apparently my emphasis on recruiting (and the rankings) has angered the hivemind here, and my positions (and me) have been attacked by you and Adam Sandler up there. I'm not sure what you find controversial about these opinions, why you feel the need to make such a fuss about them, or why you see fit to attack me personally. But if that's how you choose to do business, then go for it.

[jimbofive]

sludevil = biondi? i'm so confused.

[sludevil]

sludevil = biondi? i'm so confused.

If I was Biondi, I'd already be threatening slufanskip with the Sword of Loyola.

[brianstl]

How many top 100 players were on Gonzaga this year? One. How many top 25 recruiting classes has Gonzaga had in the last decade? One.

[sludevil]

How many top 100 players were on Gonzaga this year? One. How many top 25 recruiting classes has Gonzaga had in the last decade? One.

So... what's your point? This year Gonzaga cruised through a butter-soft conference before barely escaping Southern in the 1st round and falling to Wichita State in the second. I'd hope we'd be aiming above Gonzaga's pay grade.

If anything, I think a reasonable mid-term goal for us is Marquette. Marquette and SLU are alike in a lot of ways, and Marquette is almost always a solid team. They recruit a lot of four-stars, but, if we capitalize on our recent success, we should be able to start to beat them in some recruiting battles.

[slu72]

So... what's your point? This year Gonzaga cruised through a butter-soft conference before barely escaping Southern in the 1st round and falling to Wichita State in the second. I'd hope we'd be aiming above Gonzaga's pay grade.

If anything, I think a reasonable mid-term goal for us is Marquette. Marquette and SLU are alike in a lot of ways, and Marquette is almost always a solid team. They recruit a lot of four-stars, but, if we capitalize on our recent success, we should be able to start to beat them in some recruiting battles.

You really are clueless. MU has played in the real Beast and done quite well They got on TV a lot. They had the legacy of Al M. They won a national championship under him. MU had a lot going for them. Here at SLU, we did not. Not until RM showed up. He didn't recruit 4-5 stars hard because he knew they'd never come to SLU. So he went after guys who were on winning teams but still under everyone's radar. How did that work out? We've been to 2 straight NCAA's. We've won two games those two years.

You are what I'd call a true message board moron when you come on here and say we should be competing w/ MU... like now... today.

It takes time, moron. And if you didn't appreciate this past season, you're not only a true moron, you're not a Billiken fan. So go back to mommy's basement and find somewhere else to spew your garbage. I'll give you this, you're aptly named.

[sludevil]

You really are clueless. MU has played in the real Beast and done quite well They got on TV a lot. They had the legacy of Al M. They won a national championship under him. MU had a lot going for them. Here at SLU, we did not. Not until RM showed up. He didn't recruit 4-5 stars hard because he knew they'd never come to SLU. So he went after guys who were on winning teams but still under everyone's radar. How did that work out? We've been to 2 straight NCAA's. We've won two games those two years.

You are what I'd call a true message board moron when you come on here and say we should be competing w/ MU... like now... today.

It takes time, moron. And if you didn't appreciate this past season, you're not only a true moron, you're not a Billiken fan. So go back to mommy's basement and find somewhere else to spew your garbage. I'll give you this, you're aptly named.

"Mid-term" goal. You don't read too good?

I think I'm starting to understand what this is all about, though. At first I was taken aback by the paranoia, the groupthink here. As soon as I dare suggest we recruit higher up the food chain, I'm attacked. And not just attacked, but fervently attacked.

I'm being attacked because you're scared. Because what if SLU tries to recruit against big, bad Marquette, and gets absolutely laughed out of the room? That's what the fear is, right? That SLU really is just the little engine that could? That if we dare venture into the deep end, we'll drown amidst a sea of superior programs? It's much safer to keep recruiting those two-star kids that fit into our "system." It's much easier to recruit against Ball State than Villanova. And if we get lucky, we can keep a steady stream of diamond-in-the-roughs and, if we get a lucky seed, maybe even win more than a game in the tournament. I get it. And it makes sense. SLU has been bad for a long time; you've developed a defense mechanism for whenever someone tries to push you out of your comfort zone. Low expectations have become the norm.

My only hope is that this board is not representative of the larger SLU fanbase. Because the qualities displayed by this board - arrogance, intolerance, paranoia - are, ironically enough, supposed to be characteristic of the fan base of my other team. And if this board is representative, then, yeah, we're going to be stuck for the next few decades in much the same place we were over the last few decades.

I don't want that. I suspect you all don't, either. But the fear of failure - maybe spectacular failure - is a powerful deterrent. I had a good four years at SLU, and I liked and admired the people I met there. They had vision. I hope this board is just an aberration, a bunch of grumpy old men who are too set in their ways to think bigger.

SLU can do better than what you all seem to assume. We can continue to improve. We can challenge Marquette in a few years time. And we can start doing serious damage in the tournament.

Now, I imagine I'll be mercilessly attacked for such a clueless/arrogant/elitist/etc. post. But I wanted to say my piece. So, let's get on with it.