Recruiting - 2014

[Billikenswin]

Billikenswin.

Do you feel better after venting all that rage inside you? I sure hope so.

First, I am against over-signing as well. Re-read my first sentence.

Second, you are not a member of the Athletic Department either so therefore you are nothing more than a fellow message board moron like the rest of us.

Third, no one on this Board speaks for SLU or the Jim Crews regime. Thank goodness: see Brett Jolly.

Fourth, Rick Majerus and SLU accepted Ruben Cotto and Kyle Cassity (Spring signing period) prior to showing the door to the existing players such as Knollmeyer, Mitchell, etc. (end of school year) so we did over-sign 6 or 7 years ago and we did welch on commitments to existing players/students (not recruits).

Fifth, like it or not, over-signing is done by a lot more programs than you probably care to recognize. Doesn't make it right, but it does exist.

Your facts are wrong and just because none of us is a member of the

Athletic Dept does not mean that there is no knowledge of what is going on.

I know for a fact that we would never put a committed recruit who we offered in a position where we did not have a

scholarship for him once the time came for him to sign. For us to put all this bs on the public internet

suggesting that we might not have enough scholarships when that is totally bogus--at a time when

new recruits are about to sign their LOIs-- is stupid--in my opinion.

[brianstl]

Still avoiding the actual question. We get you'd do it. So McCaw wants to commit and he's the 7th ... it's August no one is transfering, how do you handle it?

Someone on the roster gets shown the door before we ever get to August. Is it really that hard to understand? It is the same thing that has happened at SLU before, except you get the kid before you show the other kid the door.

The goal is to get the best players you can under the rules. If you think it is ugly and don't like it start a petition to have SLU drop to D3. If you are D1 and built a arena like Chaifetz, you better be all in.

[billslasttermdropout]

I don't think the demand for spots is great enough yet that we can afford to act like we are good 'ol Ken Tuck U. But maybe you are right. Maybe this would be our best chance, right now, to make a big splash and solidify ourselves nationally, and to miss out would leave us in MO-VELL damned for all eternity. But maybe it backfires; the highly sought recruit tanks and our postseason chances right along with him and we are still damned and can only get 2 star recruits forward because of our soiled reputation. You are damned if you do, damned if you don't--Murphy's law and such. I'm glad I don't have to make any big important decisions.

[Old guy]

Brianstl, a commitment is a contract. It is not fully executed until the player sign the LOI but it is an implied contract. This implied contract means that we, SLU, will provide the student this and that and the other thing (meaning a scholarship and whatever else it is that we promise them) in exchange for the student providing us with this and that and the other thing (meaning performance in court, academic, and behaviorally), it is also implied that both parties enter this contract in good faith and not with the intention of breaking their implied promises. This is not an implied contract that says: "if I find someone else I like better than you I will get rid of you." On this basis, and taking a offer commitment as an implied contract, SLU has the obligation to provide what it promised, in exchange for what the student promised to deliver. This is not a flim flam deal with a con artist, it is a contract with a respectable institution. The only way out of the contract SLU has is if the student does not deliver what was expected of him, either academically, athletically, or in general behavior and attitude. Only then can SLU end its contract with the student (implied or signed at the time). You can let go students because they do not fulfill their portion of the contract, but you really have no legal basis that allows you to overfill your quota of student athletes and then eliminate someone who has committed to SLU in good faith and is fulfilling his promises to SLU in favor of a newcomer, period. I know this is done by other institutions, however, we are NOT dishonorable like other institutions have been and do not want to be like them either. I also know there is a lot of dishonesty around all over in day to day life, but does this mean that we should not keep our standards and should instead join the general level of dishonesty? I believe that we (SLU) should and will fulfill our contracts as entered, and that will not act dishonorably to anyone committing to our athletic programs. This is the way, it has been(hopefully) and will continue being, period. I personally would not want to work for an organization that deals with people as you indicate SLU should deal with its committed athletes, and I hope most of us in this board share this point of view with me. There is a vast difference between getting rid of someone who is not meeting his requirements, and letting someone go for no fault of his own, just because you found someone else you like better.

[JMM28]

That was a lot of words to be wrong about everything old guy.

[Clock_Tower]

Knollmeyer, Mitchell, etc. were shown the door before the semester ended. Shortly after the season ended they were told. We did not over-subscribe that year.

Shoe and BWin. Both of you should check your facts before you tell others they are wrong.

When RM's first season ended (March 2008), we had 8 players who were then on athletic scholarship and who still had additional eligibility with SLU: Eberhardt, Eckerle, Lisch and Liddell together with the 4 freshmen who were Maguire, Knollmeyer, A. Mitchell and Relephorde. I am not counting the graduating Seniors who also were then on athletic scholarship but who had completed their eligibility such as Brown, Polk, Meyer and Husak. I am also not counting walk-ons such as Jacks and Jones.

In the Fall of 2007 before that season began, we had signed LOI's with 5 incoming freshmen who were Conklin, John, K. Mitchell, Reed and Thompson. When I add these 5 to the above 8, I come up with the NCAA maximum of 13 scholarship players. Nonetheless, Kyle Cassity gave his verbal commitment to the Bills on March 21st (Good Friday) and Ruben Cotto announced his acceptance that same Easter weekend. With these announcements, our numbers increased to 15 players for 2008-2009 season. Even if Eckerle was considered a walk-on, we still had 14 or 1 over the limit of 13 on March 24th. And remember, during this same time frame, there was alot of talk about SLU possibly landing Josh Harrelson and another European big as well. If SLU had offered Harrelson and the European big at this time, then they would have been scholarships #15 and #16!!

Not until April 11, 2008 (21 days later) did SLU announce that it granted the release of the four (4) freshmen. When did RM tell them I do not know. My personal belief is that he promised them a chance (1 year) soon after RM arrived on campus but nothing more. I do know, however, that Cassity and Cotto had already had their press conferences and we were already posting about them long before April 11th rolled around.

That same year, of course, the Spring signing period began on April 16th and continued thru May 21st. So yes, Cassity and Cotto did not sign their official LOI until after the 4 Frosh were shown the door but formalities is not what is being discussed: over-subscribing and commitments to a youngster is what is being discussed. So yes, Billikenswin, we did NOT have room for Cassity and Cotto on the day they made their verbal commitment but we did have room for them after April 11th. And yes Shoe, I do call this over-subscribing.

[brianstl]

The letter of intent is a one year agreement for the school. SLU has already dumped players because they were not good enough basketball players. It will happen again.

I am just being honest about the situation ahead of time. Many of the same people saying they want no part of it will twist themselves into knots trying to justify it when it does happen. We will start getting posts about how the staff already knew some player was being a problem child or was homesick. Maybe we will get a kid all of sudden deciding to redshirt like at ND. About the only person who will be consistent in their outage will be Roy.

It may not happen this year, but it is coming. It is what big time college hoops is now. It is far from perfect, but I have made peace with it.

[HoyaBilliken]

The letter of intent is a one year agreement for the school. SLU has already dumped players because they were not good enough basketball players. It will happen again.

I am just being honest about the situation ahead of time. Many of the same people saying they want no part of it will twist themselves into knots trying to justify it when it does happen. We will start getting posts about how the staff already knew some player was being a problem child or was homesick. Maybe we will get a kid all of sudden deciding to redshirt like at ND. About the only person who will be consistent in their outage will be Roy.

It may not happen this year, but it is coming. It is what big time college hoops is now. It is far from perfect, but I have made peace with it.

This is the norm in big time college ball today whether we like it or not. SLU may have to implement this strategy at some point especially if we expect to be in the Big East.Whether we think this is right or not is a whole different story.

[Old guy]

HoyaBilliken it is not a matter of thinking whether it is right or not, it is not right, period. It is not right, period. By this I mean if there is no cause for dismissing the committed students other than getting someone with better stats or prospects. I am not debating the fact that other schools do this regularly, that is the way they wish to operate and it is up to them to deal with this. I just do not think it is a good way to do things on the long run. For example, Kentucky had a totally stellar roster in their basketball team 2012-2013 and did not make the NCAA tournament.

[milwaukeebill]

Old guy. If you are going to take a scholarship really literally as you did then we should be oversigning. Those scholarships are on a year to year basis. And they are based on performance. If player x doesn't perform like I hoped freshman year and player y wants to sign I'm doing nothing against the contract to not gove player x a scholarship for sophomore year. These are one year agreements I'm doing nothing against the contract

[Clock_Tower]

The letter of intent is a one year agreement for the school. SLU has already dumped players because they were not good enough basketball players. It will happen again.

I am just being honest about the situation ahead of time. Many of the same people saying they want no part of it will twist themselves into knots trying to justify it when it does happen. We will start getting posts about how the staff already knew some player was being a problem child or was homesick. Maybe we will get a kid all of sudden deciding to redshirt like at ND. About the only person who will be consistent in their outage will be Roy.

It may not happen this year, but it is coming. It is what big time college hoops is now. It is far from perfect, but I have made peace with it.

Brian.

There is just so much that we (the avid fans) have no idea about such as the attitude of the players especially when not playing and/or recruited over and how the others are affect by this... Remember that nearly all college D1 players were the best (or top 2 or 3) players on their middle school and high school teams. Sitting the bench, dealing with adversity, being a bit too slow, being a bit too short, lacking enough mental toughness... is something they have never experienced before. Attending class, getting good grades but being an ass in the locker room is not acceptable. IMO, Roy's position is certainly noble and consistent but leaves no room for the coach (who knows what's best for the whole team/himself) to make changes. At the same time, I would be less proud of my alma mater if we turn the situation is a completely unethical mess on a consistent basis. Like Roy, you are being honest and upfront. You are also pointing out the reality that is upper level D1 basketball. Even SLU has pushed kids out the door for years. The difference, here in recent years, is that we no longer have left-over unused scholarships each year and we have 8 to 10 players who could be starters as opposed to the old days where we had only 2 to 3 players who should have a been starters. In short, things are much more noticeable now. I am not totally against over-signing but would prefer this to be the infrequent exception rather than than the rule each year. Good winning programs can still land quality programs in the Spring to fill roster spots and we are still not putting kids into the NBA...

[HoyaBilliken]

HoyaBilliken it is not a matter of thinking whether it is right or not, it is not right, period. It is not right, period. By this I mean if there is no cause for dismissing the committed students other than getting someone with better sta

ts or prospects. I am not debating the fact that other schools do this regularly, that is the way they wish to operate and it is up to them to deal with this. I just do not think it is a good way to do things on the long run. For example, Kentucky had a totally stellar roster in their basketball team 2012-2013 and did not make the NCAA tournament.

Old Guy, I actually agree with you that it is not right, and not the direction we should be going, but I have a hard time thinking of a high level program that isn't doing it. So question should probably be is this the direction we are headed.

[William Iken]

Old guy. If you are going to take a scholarship really literally as you did then we should be oversigning. Those scholarships are on a year to year basis. And they are based on performance. If player x doesn't perform like I hoped freshman year and player y wants to sign I'm doing nothing against the contract to not gove player x a scholarship for sophomore year. These are one year agreements I'm doing nothing against the contract

If I'm reading old guy and others right, their outrage is against recruiting over and pulling the scholarship of an incoming freshman. I don't think SLU would do it nor would I agree with it.

As for recruiting over current players, everyone does it and clock tower's excellent post showed we do it (even if it means temporarily over-commiting).

[brianstl]

Brian.

There is just so much that we (the avid fans) have no idea about such as the attitude of the players especially when not playing and/or recruited over and how the others are affect by this... Remember that nearly all college D1 players were the best (or top 2 or 3) players on their middle school and high school teams. Sitting the bench, dealing with adversity, being a bit too slow, being a bit too short, lacking enough mental toughness... is something they have never experienced before. Attending class, getting good grades but being an ass in the locker room is not acceptable. IMO, Roy's position is certainly noble and consistent but leaves no room for the coach (who knows what's best for the whole team/himself) to make changes. At the same time, I would be less proud of my alma mater if we turn the situation is a completely unethical mess on a consistent basis. Like Roy, you are being honest and upfront. You are also pointing out the reality that is upper level D1 basketball. Even SLU has pushed kids out the door for years. The difference, here in recent years, is that we no longer have left-over unused scholarships each year and we have 8 to 10 players who could be starters as opposed to the old days where we had only 2 to 3 players who should have a been starters. In short, things are much more noticeable now. I am not totally against over-signing but would prefer this to be the infrequent exception rather than than the rule each year. Good winning programs can still land quality programs in the Spring to fill roster spots and we are still not putting kids into the NBA...

Well stated.

[brianstl]

If I'm reading old guy and others right, their outrage is against recruiting over and pulling the scholarship of an incoming freshman. I don't think SLU would do it nor would I agree with it.

As for recruiting over current players, everyone does it and clock tower's excellent post showed we do it (even if it means temporarily over-commiting).

I was never suggesting we pull the scholarship offer from an incoming player.

[moytoy12]

Brian hates puppies too.

[brianstl]

[HoyaBilliken]

No matter whatever decisions JC takes regarding recruiting I think he has earned most of our trust that program is in good hands and headed in a positive direction

[billiken_roy]

I was told years ago by a former AD that the spirit of the "one year contract" athletic scholarship is not to over recruit and enable a coach to cut a lesser player. It was a means to gid rid of the player that was a cancer to the team. Bad student, or not a good citizen.

Coaches go into the living rooms of those high school players and they don't tell that student athlete to be and their parents "hey lots of competition. If another player comes in that's better, you will have to start over somewhere else and it probably won't be as good of a school either."

That coach will brag about the total Saint Louis University experience great academic opportunity, up and coming athletic program a top basketball arena, etc. That coach will promise Mom graduation rates, future job opportunities, and promise he will be the Dad for that student athlete for the next four years.

That coach will promise to coach and develop the basketball skills of the player.

I think a coach should live up to that. If the student athlete is giving the effort on the floor, in the classroom and in the community, that coach should coach that player and help that player "be a billiken" and get their degree

[billiken_roy]

Double post dam phone

[slufanskip]

Thanks for answering and clarifying your opinion.

I don't have a problem not renewing if a guy isn't contributing. There are some sketchy lines you cross here however. It seems everyone might do it, just the circumstances in which we would do it would differ.

I can only really state what I would do or what I hope we would do. For some my opinion will be too far and for others not far enough to compete in the real world.

I would reconsider each player individually at the end of every year. I would hope I'd be strong enough to make my decision on that player based upon his performance on and off the court. To get an over commit and then boot a guy means I wasn't planning on not renewing the guy based upon his own merits. Imo, and for me, that would be wrong.

[JettFlight5]

As the former spokesman for the "Win if you can, lose if you must, but always cheat" committee, I was totally for releasing anybody the team didn't want.

The controversy that came up with Jared Drew (who earned his dismissal) made me look closer at that.

[cheeseman]

Brianstl, a commitment is a contract. It is not fully executed until the player sign the LOI but it is an implied contract. This implied contract means that we, SLU, will provide the student this and that and the other thing (meaning a scholarship and whatever else it is that we promise them) in exchange for the student providing us with this and that and the other thing (meaning performance in court, academic, and behaviorally), it is also implied that both parties enter this contract in good faith and not with the intention of breaking their implied promises. This is not an implied contract that says: "if I find someone else I like better than you I will get rid of you." On this basis, and taking a offer commitment as an implied contract, SLU has the obligation to provide what it promised, in exchange for what the student promised to deliver. This is not a flim flam deal with a con artist, it is a contract with a respectable institution. The only way out of the contract SLU has is if the student does not deliver what was expected of him, either academically, athletically, or in general behavior and attitude. Only then can SLU end its contract with the student (implied or signed at the time). You can let go students because they do not fulfill their portion of the contract, but you really have no legal basis that allows you to overfill your quota of student athletes and then eliminate someone who has committed to SLU in good faith and is fulfilling his promises to SLU in favor of a newcomer, period. I know this is done by other institutions, however, we are NOT dishonorable like other institutions have been and do not want to be like them either. I also know there is a lot of dishonesty around all over in day to day life, but does this mean that we should not keep our standards and should instead join the general level of dishonesty? I believe that we (SLU) should and will fulfill our contracts as entered, and that will not act dishonorably to anyone committing to our athletic programs. This is the way, it has been(hopefully) and will continue being, period. I personally would not want to work for an organization that deals with people as you indicate SLU should deal with its committed athletes, and I hope most of us in this board share this point of view with me. There is a vast difference between getting rid of someone who is not meeting his requirements, and letting someone go for no fault of his own, just because you found someone else you like better.

First of all like it or not all schollies are a one year offer - or contract in your words - so after each year the school can in fact pull the schollie for whatever reason they choose - no reason must be give other then thanks for the memories but don't let the door hit you on your way out. You can talk about ethics but when you bring in the "legal" point then the door is wide open for the school. I am not saying we should do this but it is technically within the rules - right or wrong.

[cheeseman]

The letter of intent is a one year agreement for the school. SLU has already dumped players because they were not good enough basketball players. It will happen again.

I am just being honest about the situation ahead of time. Many of the same people saying they want no part of it will twist themselves into knots trying to justify it when it does happen. We will start getting posts about how the staff already knew some player was being a problem child or was homesick. Maybe we will get a kid all of sudden deciding to redshirt like at ND. About the only person who will be consistent in their outage will be Roy.

It may not happen this year, but it is coming. It is what big time college hoops is now. It is far from perfect, but I have made peace with it.

Actually I think you are right about how it may very well happen - is it a lock no but your outline is more likely then not. A solution to this issue is to simply make sure that those you offer and who call you to accept are really who you want - in other words don't panic and accept anybody who may be a project early just to pare your list of schollies to be give out - let it play out and see what happens. Once you accept this project then you find yourself in this situation. I also agree if the kid from ND and McCaw say they want to come I bet the staff finds a way to make this happen.

[milwaukeebill]

^^this. Legal. Yes, totally.

Ethical? I think it's situational