Rammer has spoken

[billslasttermdropout]

Spoon nearly OWNED Marquette.

Grawer

89-90 1-1 MCC (Horizon)

90-91 2-1

91-92 0-3 Great Midwest

3-5

Spoon

92-93 1-1

93-94 1-1

94-95 3-0 first year as "Golden Eagles"

95-96 1-1 Conference USA

96-97 0-2

97-98 2-0

98-99 2-1

10-6

Romar

99-00 1-1

00-01 0-2

01-02 0-2

1-5

Soderberg

02-03 0-2

03-04 1-1

04-05 1-1

2-5

Totals

16-21

I'd rather be the Blue Demons than the Blue and Golden Hilltop Avalanche. I hate these guys (in a harmless, spirited, St. Louis way)

[jbizzle09]

You know what? It has just become gospel on this board that Crews is a sh!tty recruiter. That he has never been able to get anybody of any note during his coaching career. That he absolutely hates doing what is necessary to get the needed players for the level that he is coaching at. That, basically, he is just a MEDIOCRE RECRUITER ^tm. Well, I thought I'd look at his past record and see what we can actually extrapolate:

1. Crews coached 2 guys at Evansville that made an NBA roster; Dan Godfread and Scott Haffner. Haffner transferred from Illinois after his freshman year to Evansville and Godfread was recruited out of high school by Crews. Considering that Crews was recruiting to the MWC and later the MVC, it is pretty impressive that he put two kids into the NBA.

2. Much has been made about Crews only getting Evansville to 4 NCAA appearances in 17 seasons there. Now, I have already pointed out that Evansville hasn't made a tourney appearance since Crews was fired after the 2001-02 season. Also, the coach they hired to replace Crews didn't have a winning season in the 5 seasons he had there and was subsequently fired. However, another point here should be that Evansville played in two different conferences while Crews coached there: The MCC and the MVC. During those 17 years, those conferences sent a total of 26 teams to the NCAA tournament. 7 of those seasons, the conference was a one bid conference. One season the conference they played in didn't get a bid (1993-94: MCC only had 6 teams and NCAA didn't give them an auto-bid.) Basically, Evansville was stuck in a conference that was stuck as a Juan Bid conference, at best a 2 bid one, while he coached there.

3. Besides the two players he sent to the NBA, he sent many players overseas to play pro while coaching at Evansville. A few names of note are:

Ian Hanavan - F

Craig Snow - F

Marcus Wilson - G

Kwame James - F/C

Chris Hollender - F

4. Rick Majerus himself stated that Crews was one of the greatest basketball minds he knew. Other men of note, such as Brad Stevens, Andy Katz and Joe Lunardi, openly pushed for Crews to be hired on as SLU's head coach well before the season ended.

5. Crews coached on amateur USA teams with Majerus, as well as with other well-respected coaches. One could say that he was able to use that experience to look at certain talent and see what level they should play at.

6. Finally, this spring might be busiest we've ever seen in terms of recruiting activity. Considering that spring is usually the toughest recruiting time (due to need), and Crews was supposed to be a sh!tty recruiter coming off of a lame-duck interim season, it is pretty encouraging to see the amount of players who are interested in signing on with SLU, as well as the fact that he already has two signed (Crawford; Agbeko.)

Basically, I guess what I am saying is this: It is really easy to sh!t all over Crews. It really is. You can say that he was a MEDIOCRE RECRUITER ^tm because that is easy to say when looking at his overall record, considering that he coached at Evansville and Army. But it is easy to say that when you don't bother to look deeper into it. When you just decide to jump onto a message board and spout off about stuff and don't bother to research anything. When you decided, beforehand, that a guy MUST suck at something and then just look at the current results and see how that falls into your pre-conceived notions.

So, if you think Crews sucks at recruiting, nothing that happens over the coming weeks is going to change your mind. And nobody can change your mind, because we won't know the results for months or years down the line. So, basically, you get to spout off about it and point out how right you are to be 'concerned' until something occurs to finally quiet you. But, that won't happen for quite a while, so just keep on whining about it, I suppose...

[Quality Is Job 1]

"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.

You really haven't been around long enough to get a handle on this cyber-community's "group think." Generally, we want SLU to be an excellent program. That takes talented and experienced players rolling through the system. No one here would turn down watching a team with three or four players of the caliber of Larry Hughes or Anthony Bonner, but not always is a team of *stars* better than a TEAM which is "greater than the sum of its parts." Recruiting ranking and "stars" don't always tell the whole story or present the clearest picture.

If a "Top-100" player wants to come to SLU, you can be sure that Jim Crews won't turn him down. Moreover, you can be sure that if such a player manifests himself in a manner which suggests he can cut it academically at SLU and would find SLU appealing, Crews will certainly offer him a scholarship. But even if the roster isn't chock full of McDonald's all-Americans, this can still be a Top 30 program.

Let's take Bonner as an example. While I didn't start following college basketball until Bonner's junior year (and even then I didn't start following SLU until the NIT run), I don't think he was a McDonald's all-American or Top 100 player. I don't think he was a can't-miss recruit. But he WORKED and WORKED until he made himself into an NBA player. The bottom line is that SLU doesn't have to limit itself, like Romar basically did, to pursuing four- and five-star recruits to be successful.

But feel free to stand in your bully pulpit.

You know what? It has just become gospel on this board that Crews is a sh!tty recruiter. That he has never been able to get anybody of any note during his coaching career. That he absolutely hates doing what is necessary to get the needed players for the level that he is coaching at. That, basically, he is just a MEDIOCRE RECRUITER ^tm. Well, I thought I'd look at his past record and see what we can actually extrapolate:

1. Crews coached 2 guys at Evansville that made an NBA roster; Dan Godfread and Scott Haffner. Haffner transferred from Illinois after his freshman year to Evansville and Godfread was recruited out of high school by Crews. Considering that Crews was recruiting to the MWC and later the MVC, it is pretty impressive that he put two kids into the NBA.

2. Much has been made about Crews only getting Evansville to 4 NCAA appearances in 17 seasons there. Now, I have already pointed out that Evansville hasn't made a tourney appearance since Crews was fired after the 2001-02 season. Also, the coach they hired to replace Crews didn't have a winning season in the 5 seasons he had there and was subsequently fired. However, another point here should be that Evansville played in two different conferences while Crews coached there: The MWC and the MVC. During those 17 years, those conferences sent a total of 26 teams to the NCAA tournament. 7 of those seasons, the conference was a one bid conference. One season the conference they played in didn't get a bid (1993-94: MWC only had 6 teams and NCAA didn't give them an auto-bid.) Basically, Evansville was stuck in a conference that was stuck as a Juan Bid conference, at best a 2 bid one, while he coached there.

3. Besides the two players he sent to the NBA, he sent many players overseas to play pro while coaching at Evansville. A few names of note are:

Ian Hanavan - F

Craig Snow - F

Marcus Wilson - G

Kwame James - F/C

Chris Hollender - F

4. Rick Majerus himself stated that Crews was one of the greatest basketball minds he knew. Other men of note, such as Brad Stevens, Andy Katz and Joe Lunardi, openly pushed for Crews to be hired on as SLU's head coach well before the season ended.

5. Crews coached on amateur USA teams with Majerus, as well as with other well-respected coaches. One could say that he was able to use that experience to look at certain talent and see what level they should play at.

6. Finally, this spring might be busiest we've ever seen in terms of recruiting activity. Considering that spring is usually the toughest recruiting time (due to need), and Crews was supposed to be a sh!tty recruiter coming off of a lame-duck interim season, it is pretty encouraging to see the amount of players who are interested in signing on with SLU, as well as the fact that he already has two signed (Crawford; Agbeko.)

Basically, I guess what I am saying is this: It is really easy to sh!t all over Crews. It really is. You can say that he was a MEDIOCRE RECRUITER ^tm because that is easy to say when looking at his overall record, considering that he coached at Evansville and Army. But it is easy to say that when you don't bother to look deeper into it. When you just decide to jump onto a message board and spout off about stuff and don't bother to research anything, When you decided, beforehand, that a guy MUST suck at something and then just look at the current results and see how that falls into your pre-conceived notions.

So, if you think Crews sucks at recruiting, nothing that happens over the coming weeks is going to change your mind. And nobody can change your mind, because we won't know the results for months or years down the line. So, basically, you get to spout off about it and point out how right you are to be 'concerned' until something occurs to finally quiet you. But, that won't happen for quite a while, so just keep on whining about it, I suppose...

You make some great points, and I don't want to take anything away from them. However, your use of "MWC" is incorrect. "MWC" stands for Mountain West Conference, and Evansville never played in it. Evansville played in the Midwestern Collegiate Conference, which was properly abbreviated "MCC" (until the name changed to "Horizon"), before joining the Valley (MVC).

[jbizzle09]

You really haven't been around long enough to get a handle on this cyber-community's "group think." Generally, we want SLU to be an excellent program. That takes talented and experienced players rolling through the system. No one here would turn down watching a team with three or four players of the caliber of Larry Hughes or Anthony Bonner, but not always is a team of *stars* better than a TEAM which is "greater than the sum of its parts." Recruiting ranking and "stars" don't always tell the whole story or present the clearest picture.

If a "Top-100" player wants to come to SLU, you can be sure that Jim Crews won't turn him down. Moreover, you can be sure that if such a player manifests himself in a manner which suggests he can cut it academically at SLU and would find SLU appealing, Crews will certainly offer him a scholarship. But even if the roster isn't chock full of McDonald's all-Americans, this can still be a Top 30 program.

Let's take Bonner as an example. While I didn't start following college basketball until Bonner's junior year (and even then I didn't start following SLU until the NIT run), I don't think he was a McDonald's all-American or Top 100 player. I don't think he was a can't-miss recruit. But he WORKED and WORKED until he made himself into an NBA player. The bottom line is that SLU doesn't have to limit itself, like Romar basically did, to pursuing four- and five-star recruits to be successful.

But feel free to stand in your bully pulpit.

You make some great points, and I don't want to take anything away from them. However, your use of "MWC" is incorrect. "MWC" stands for Mountain West Conference, and Evansville never played in it. Evansville played in the Midwestern Collegiate Conference, which was properly abbreviated "MCC" (until the name changed to "Horizon"), before joining the Valley (MVC).

Thanks. I made the corrections to my original post.

[brianstl]

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.

Let's get to the Gonzaga level, then worry about taking the next step. Also, in the last decade Gonzaga has made more tourney appearances and won more tournament games than Marquette.

[Taj79]

ESPN's Top 100 recruits for next year have signed with: Duke, Kentucky, Arizona, Indiana, Florida, LSU, Kansas, Arkansas, Memphis, North Carolina, Notre Dame, St. John's, NC State, Michigan, Cincinnati, Marquette, Syracuse, Tennessee, West Virginia, Florida State, Louisville, UCLA, Iowa State, Maryland, Missouri, Pitt, Ohio State, Villanova, Baylor, Illinois, Georgetown, Purdue, Oklahoma State, Alabama, UNLV, Colorado, Oregon, Vanderbilt, Wisconsin, Texas, Xavier, Connecticut and Virginia. I'd say all these schools have had success both recently and over time. Does our recent two year run move us into this elite echelon? I'd say no for now. Romar went after four- and five-star recruits out on the left coast. How did that workout for us? Sodie's supposed failings were aiming too high and having no backup plan. Ninety-nine of the 100 are signed; only #1 remains available in Andrew Wiggins. And I don't think he's coming here.

Odd ball signings are: Cal, Washington, UTEP, BYU, So Carolina, SMU, Providence, South Florida, Texas Christian, UC-Irvine, San Diego State, DePaul, St. Joe's, and Rhode Island. These are programs not traditionally considered basketball powers of any sort. Kind of like us. Cals' kid is from California. Washington's is from neighboring Oregon. BYU's kids are both from Utah so likely Morons. The South Carolina kid is from South Carolina. The SMU, South Florida, Irvine, SD State, DePaul and TCU kids are in-state to those schools. The St. Joe's kid is from nearby Jersey. Sounds alot like what happened to us in terms of Larry Hughes. Guys staying home for whatever reason.

So protect the home fires right? Sure .... Hughes stayed home for a reason. Lee. McLemore. Beal. Beischeid. Woods. White. Carrawell. Miles. Ellis. All headed off to programs in the first list for obvious reasons. I seem to recall Majerus not even trying for such stars as he seemed to know how unrealistic it was. He went for 2/3 star players that were raw, under the radar, and ones able to accept him, his style and his system to achieve success over a four-year stay in school. That's the key ---- sustainability and the passing of the torch.

You can advocate the recruitment of fours and fives but you will always come up empty for now. These two years of success are only the beginning, and I think this is what makes it the most critical time for this program ever. I was not a Crews endorser. I don't know that I am now. I will support and adopt a wait-n-see attitude. He deserved it. No matter who you replace him with, you start over. He is the continuation, albeit the only oen we have right now.

One thing that seems different now is that there seems to be some good talent still available for the late signing period. I don't think Agbeko is a Dixon/Ikeafor clone (could be) but a lot more talent either seems content to wait, or is taking advantage of a full season at their respective high school or JUCO to decide. Maybe this is because schools like Kentucky lose so many that folks seem more content to wait and see rather than commit too soon.

[jimbofive]

sludevil - you want to know why you're being received with animosity? because you only showed up here after we had a bit of success and then told us we still weren't good enough. who wouldn't get pissed off at that?

we want to be better. but we also know it's not going to happen overnight. you come off as extremely fairweather, and if you even make it to the start of next season, i guarangotdamntee you that if we have a sub-par (or God forbid, a losing) season, we'll never hear from you again, except for maybe a final, fleeting "i told you so."

fuoking chill out. it's the offseason. we got some solid to really solid recruits, we locked up the national coach of the year and it's time for **** and bullsh!t.

hasta.

[ACE]

sludevil - you want to know why you're being received with animosity? because you only showed up here after we had a bit of success and then told us we still weren't good enough. who wouldn't get pissed off at that?

we want to be better. but we also know it's not going to happen overnight. you come off as extremely fairweather, and if you even make it to the start of next season, i guarangotdamntee you that if we have a sub-par (or God forbid, a losing) season, we'll never hear from you again, except for maybe a final, fleeting "i told you so."

fuoking chill out. it's the offseason. we got some solid to really solid recruits, we locked up the national coach of the year and it's time for **** and bullsh!t.

hasta.

I'm pretty sure "sludevil" has been here before and didn't just show up.

[slu72]

I'm pretty sure "sludevil" has been here before and didn't just show up.

Billiphan? Postcard? Only the shadow knows.

[slufanskip]

It's the way you make your statements ... for example I don't remember the exact quote but, I'm encouraged by SLU's early results but I wouldn't throw a parade yet. Or We need to wait 2 years on Agbeko before comparing him to Lebron James. Or statements like no one wanted Mike Crawford which we can disgree on how much his ranking may have improved with his Sr year but saying a guy no one wanted was over the top.

You're statements seem to be a way of saying you guys are overexagerating the success and the possible successes of the future when in fact no one or few seemed to be going off the deep end.

You began it with me with some smart ass statement but then tell me to not over react basically. Maybe being a smart ass wasn't your intent, but it's certainly how you come accross. Some of us have been posting here for 10 years or so and we're not going to take kindly to people who come accross as you did with under 100 posts. We've seen too many idiots come in and be a smart ass and stir things up for a short period and then leave over the years. Time will tell if you last. I have no problem with your disagreeing or even your stance. I tend to agree that to sustain long term success we need to recruit more than just 2 and 3 star guys. I agree that there are misses in the rankings both high and low, but in general you can get an idea of how you're doing recruiting wise with them. I agree that I'm encouraged by Crews start but his past recruiting and results leave me leery. However, for me ... he's our coach and I'm going to support him 100%. In time, that may change, but I'm not going to assume he's going to be mediocre without giving him a fair shot.

[Cowboy]

It's the way you make your statements ... for example I don't remember the exact quote but, I'm encouraged by SLU's early results but I wouldn't throw a parade yet. Or We need to wait 2 years on Agbeko before comparing him to Lebron James. Or statements like no one wanted Mike Crawford which we can disgree on how much his ranking may have improved with his Sr year but saying a guy no one wanted was over the top.

You're statements seem to be a way of saying you guys are overexagerating the success and the possible successes of the future when in fact no one or few seemed to be going off the deep end.

You began it with me with some smart ass statement but then tell me to not over react basically. Maybe being a smart ass wasn't your intent, but it's certainly how you come accross. Some of us have been posting here for 10 years or so and we're not going to take kindly to people who come accross as you did with under 100 posts. We've seen too many idiots come in and be a smart ass and stir things up for a short period and then leave over the years. Time will tell if you last. I have no problem with your disagreeing or even your stance. I tend to agree that to sustain long term success we need to recruit more than just 2 and 3 star guys. I agree that there are misses in the rankings both high and low, but in general you can get an idea of how you're doing recruiting wise with them. I agree that I'm encouraged by Crews start but his past recruiting and results leave me leery. However, for me ... he's our coach and I'm going to support him 100%. In time, that may change, but I'm not going to assume he's going to be mediocre without giving him a fair shot.

-Skip speaking the truth here, Amen

[BillikenLaw]

Billiphan? Postcard? Only the shadow knows.

This slays me. Same with me being accused of some guy who went to Marquette. It's like people here can't wrap their mind around the idea that may people don't get off on the practice of changing their usernames for no reason and coming back and saying things that they don't like to hear.

[JMM28]

This slays me. Same with me being accused of some guy who went to Marquette. It's like people here can't wrap their mind around the idea that may people don't get off on the practice of changing their usernames for no reason and coming back and saying things that they don't like to hear.

You're accused of being that guy because you have the same posting name as he does, except he is Billiken Law with a space between. It is kind of confusing, but obviously not your fault.

[TheA_Bomb]

SLU should only get those 4 and 5 star recruits but we can't land them at this time?!?! I'm so confused.

[Box and Won]

SLU should only get those 4 and 5 star recruits but we can't land them at this time?!?! I'm so confused.

WHY AREN'T WE TARGETING SIX-STAR RECRUITS?????

[billikenfan05]

WHY AREN'T WE TARGETING SIX-STAR RECRUITS?????

We need a 10* lock

[TheA_Bomb]

Because we have a "little engine that could" mentality. We enjoy losing in the second round. 6 Stars will not accept it.

WHY AREN'T WE TARGETING SIX-STAR RECRUITS?????

[ACE]

This slays me. Same with me being accused of some guy who went to Marquette. It's like people here can't wrap their mind around the idea that may people don't get off on the practice of changing their usernames for no reason and coming back and saying things that they don't like to hear.

When slu72 was talking about billiphan/postcard he was refererring to sludevil, yet you felt compelled to respond. Hmmmm....

[Zink]

To add a point, we are actually going after some "higher caliber" recruits in this years Jr class. JP Macura is getting looked at by Big 10 schools and wants to sign before his Sr season starts (has been a recipe for past successes, eg MM). Sean O'Mara is just outside of the top 100 nationally, and is a top 10 center. Jordan Barnett is well within the top 100. Even if we don't sign any of these guys, we are competing locally and nationally for guys who fit the SLU ethos and have the talent to contribute over the four years they will be on campus.

We are moving up the food chain, step-by-step.

[jimbofive]

When slu72 was talking about billiphan/postcard he was refererring to sludevil, yet you felt compelled to respond. Hmmmm....

YOU SHOULD STOP WASTING YOUR TIME AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY HUNTING FOR WITCHES ON THE INTERNET AND GET TO HUNTING FOR ALUMINUM CANS BEHIND IT.

[slufanskip]

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 agree with this 100%

I believe RM's ability to find and develop under the radar talent was extraordinary. Most of the teams that are consistently top 25 or 30 get 4 star recruits. I'm not saying all 4 star, but you have to be able to land a few. Without looking I'd bet the number of 2 star recruits contributing at a decent level to these programs is minnimal. There are exceptions but to win consistently you need better players or a coach like RM and I don't think there are other RM's out there. I don't believe JC is one

[kshoe]

I agree with this 100%

I believe RM's ability to find and develop under the radar talent was extraordinary. Most of the teams that are consistently top 25 or 30 get 4 star recruits. I'm not saying all 4 star, but you have to be able to land a few. Without looking I'd bet the number of 2 star recruits contributing at a decent level to these programs is minnimal. There are exceptions but to win consistently you need better players or a coach like RM and I don't think there are other RM's out there. I don't believe JC is one

I agree but you do have to admit that there's some circular logic in how players get rated. Take for example a 2 star recruit. If he get's offered by Duke, he'll immediately be upgraded to a 3 star and maybe even a 4 star. I mean, why would a program even offer a 2 star unless he was really a 3 or 4 star caliber player. There is a lot of "group-think" when it comes to the ratings.

[slufanskip]

I agree but you do have to admit that there's some circular logic in how players get rated. Take for example a 2 star recruit. If he get's offered by Duke, he'll immediately be upgraded to a 3 star and maybe even a 4 star. I mean, why would a program even offer a 2 star unless he was really a 3 or 4 star caliber player. There is a lot of "group-think" when it comes to the ratings.

I agree with that. I'm sure the ratings aren't 100% infallible. I think Crawford may end up being an exception as not playing AAU ball hurt his exposure. We'll see

[joe_davola]

When slu72 was talking about billiphan/postcard he was refererring to sludevil, yet you felt compelled to respond. Hmmmm....

ACE is all over it. He has dominated so many posters in the past calling them out. In ACE we trust.

[White Pelican]

This slays me. Same with me being accused of some guy who went to Marquette. It's like people here can't wrap their mind around the idea that may people don't get off on the practice of changing their usernames for no reason and coming back and saying things that they don't like to hear.

There's a poster who goes by Billiken Law (note the space) who joined way back in 99. I don't know if he has ties to Marquette but it is possible you are being confused with him. It might only be that.