GDT Thread - SLU vs. UM-SL

[DoctorB]

The crowd was about the smallest ever, at the Fetz. Did anyone notice the announced attendance??

I've been about as down as anyone, on this team. The very first starter announced, literally as I walked into the stands, was BJ. It seemed eerily inauspicious, and was a very big let-down, to be honest. The first 16 minutes were brutal, especially once we got about 12 or 14 pts. I think we were 0-8 on 3's in first half, something like that. I am becoming impatient with Coach Crews's sense of lineups and minutes -- or maybe I'm just not seeing the logic. Overall, I almost left at half-time. then, at halftime the guys I spoke with were lamenting the entire season, it looked that bad. And against UMSL, a team that seemed pretty bad too. The crowd was as apathetic and silent as I've ever seen.

The good news: the first 15-16 minutes of second half showed some life. There were very few turnovers, and most of those were by MY making poor judgments ( sound familiar??) -- The main thing in 2nd half = much better shooting, I think at one pt something like 7-11 on 3's in that stretch. And the shots just looked good --and the shooters more confident. Could the first 15 minutes of the game be more jitters than prophetic??

As for the offense we are running -- actually, despite a few negative comments, I like what I see. 30 seconds definitely feels less. That will help us a lot on defense, because many teams including us, cross midcourt with only 22-21 seconds which is not much. Our offense is screening and moving a lot more, usually on both sides of court with little 2-man games, and I think we will have shots on the outside much more easily -- but of course we must make them. that was a huge difference in the 2 halves -- we made some in the second.

I don't have much to add about individual players, to what has already been said. But Miles looked better with the ball in his hands, and more reliable. Bishop too. I don't expect much scoring from Bishop, at least not this year. Neufelt is going to really help but how much this year? He and RA were fed the ball inside many times and they tried to score, which I liked. But Both are, as scorers, works in progress. Both can play D and rebound. RA especially is very unsure with ball in his hands and I assume they work on this with him every single day. MY also had numerous shots blocked pretty easily, so again, he has work to do. MY is really such a mystery to me; he is a terrific rebounder, as is RA. Our bigs may be the key this year: MY, RA, MN. AG = big, but more on perimeter. These guys should all improve as the year wears on. So overall -- I'm a little less down than I was yesterday. Just not much.

[thetorch]

A few observations

UMSL is a bad D-II team. A couple of their starters didn't start in HS.

We had one of the worst starts I've ever seen at least against this level of competition.

We played a zone defense. We also constantly switched on defense in our M2M. Why?

From watching practices and seeing what our actual sets are, I saw us run them on offense on only a couple occasions. We do place a bigger emphasis on getting the ball into the post.

Crews' lineups still boggle my mind. Why would Jolly and Reynolds start? They are our two worst players. Reynolds led the team in minutes? Put our best lineup on the floor and leave it there. Find a rotation and stick with it.

Jolly should never play.

Reynolds cannot run the offense. He was finishing his drives, his added strength helps him out. That is all he can do, take his man off the driblle and take a contested layup. His defense was bad against terrible competition.

Crawford was really flat. He can't miss wide open 3s.

Roby is a solid role player at this stage he isn't our pg though/

Yacoubou had a nice game. Not many moments where he was out of control.

Yarbrough on the other hand. He is a black hole on offense. He doesn't move if he doesn't have the ball. Continues to force the play in the perimeter and the post. He can rebound against this type of competition but he will get eaten alive playing this sloppy in the A10.

Agbeko needs to be utilized more. Clear out for him in the post and let him do his thing. His number needs to be called several times a game.

Gillmann needs way more shot attempts as well from the outside.

Neufeld looked like he belonged. Bishop didn't.

Bartley again he can't play the point or play defense on point guards. He did hit a couple shots.

We don't have a go to player. This season won't be pretty. We can be competitive if we put it all together but I don't think our rebounding and defense is good enought to keep us in most games. Nothing has changed for me. I still see less than 10 wins on this schedule.

[Old guy]

OK so this kind of proves what has been often said: multiple people look or witness an event and remember very different things. This theme is a staple in literature and movies (Rashomon), but is also confirmed by police questioning of witnesses (tall or small, wearing jeans or pants, old or young, etc...). So, we all saw what we wanted to see to some degree or the other. Unquestionably, the stats are more truthful than perceptions are. We will soon see what this season holds for us

[JMM28]

You smarmy bastards and your craft beer at college basketball games. Cry me a river. In my day we used to pound Icehouse and Stones before going to the games and then try to fake our way to a few Bud Lights if we were lucky.

Enjoy your suites, fancy boys.

[bonwich]

The crowd was about the smallest ever, at the Fetz. Did anyone notice the announced attendance??

I've been about as down as anyone, on this team. The very first starter announced, literally as I walked into the stands, was BJ. It seemed eerily inauspicious, and was a very big let-down, to be honest. The first 16 minutes were brutal, especially once we got about 12 or 14 pts. I think we were 0-8 on 3's in first half, something like that. I am becoming impatient with Coach Crews's sense of lineups and minutes -- or maybe I'm just not seeing the logic. Overall, I almost left at half-time. then, at halftime the guys I spoke with were lamenting the entire season, it looked that bad. And against UMSL, a team that seemed pretty bad too. The crowd was as apathetic and silent as I've ever seen.

The good news: the first 15-16 minutes of second half showed some life. There were very few turnovers, and most of those were by MY making poor judgments ( sound familiar??) -- The main thing in 2nd half = much better shooting, I think at one pt something like 7-11 on 3's in that stretch. And the shots just looked good --and the shooters more confident. Could the first 15 minutes of the game be more jitters than prophetic??

As for the offense we are running -- actually, despite a few negative comments, I like what I see. 30 seconds definitely feels less. That will help us a lot on defense, because many teams including us, cross midcourt with only 22-21 seconds which is not much. Our offense is screening and moving a lot more, usually on both sides of court with little 2-man games, and I think we will have shots on the outside much more easily -- but of course we must make them. that was a huge difference in the 2 halves -- we made some in the second.

I don't have much to add about individual players, to what has already been said. But Miles looked better with the ball in his hands, and more reliable. Bishop too. I don't expect much scoring from Bishop, at least not this year. Neufelt is going to really help but how much this year? He and RA were fed the ball inside many times and they tried to score, which I liked. But Both are, as scorers, works in progress. Both can play D and rebound. RA especially is very unsure with ball in his hands and I assume they work on this with him every single day. MY also had numerous shots blocked pretty easily, so again, he has work to do. MY is really such a mystery to me; he is a terrific rebounder, as is RA. Our bigs may be the key this year: MY, RA, MN. AG = big, but more on perimeter. These guys should all improve as the year wears on. So overall -- I'm a little less down than I was yesterday. Just not much.

I don't think they ever announce attendance at exhibition games. As I said before the game, I didn't think we'd break 1,000 and I'm pretty sure we didn't. The student section was so freakin' small that I was able to count them -- 58 in the first half, and, inexplicably, 14 of them disappeared by the early part of the second half. But if we only have an arena on campus, more students will show up.

I also don't think the composition of the lineups meant anything. Do those of you talking about it really think the coach is going to run entire line changes at the first substitution?

I was a bit disappointed that the first half was largely last year's around-the-perimeter-and-jack-a-prayer offense (and against UMSL no less), but it was less painful because it lasted five fewer seconds.

Last night's game was a moderate morale booster as a blowout, but it probably helped that the Rivermen were truly awful. (That said, where does UMSL get a recruiting budget for trips -- or probably one trip for both -- to Greece and Serbia? Or were those guys simply mail-order brides?)

If the SLU on the scoreboard and the BILLIKENS on the women's uniforms are part of the new identity, I'm hopeful on that front.

Sunday will be an interesting additional set of data points. Did we actually have the foresight to start at 4 p.m. to avoid conflict with the Rams game?

[Pistol]

So everything I'm reading about this game leads me to the conclusion: There isn't a lot to take away from it one way or the other. Is this pretty much the case?

[bonwich]

So everything I'm reading about this game leads me to the conclusion: There isn't a lot to take away from it one way or the other. Is this pretty much the case?

I'll be the first to take the bait: 50/50.

[jimbofive]

You smarmy bastards and your craft beer at college basketball games. Cry me a river. In my day we used to pound Icehouse and Stones before going to the games and then try to fake our way to a few Bud Lights if we were lucky.

Enjoy your suites, fancy boys.

HATE. I tried to get fancy once. I pounded an entire mini-keg of Heineken right before going to the Billies game while I watched the Goonies to get fired up. I threw up out the passenger window as Westy paid for parking out the driver's. I learned my lesson and just drank the cheap for that game and every one to follow.

Fancy boys.

[hsmith19]

I'm still pissed a large Budweiser is more expensive than a "craft" draft. Also, I didn't see the Crown Valley concession stand last night. I will miss the bison reubens if they are gone this year.

[SShoe]

If you're looking for positives, there was not a lot to really hang your hat on. Most of the time, we looked like crap. You also can't take too much away from a game vs. UMSL.

That said, Ash's shot looked much improved from last season. Better shooting from him specifically would be a big boost for this team.

[TheA_Bomb]

If you're looking for positives, there was not a lot to really hang your hat on. Most of the time, we looked like crap. You also can't take too much away from a game vs. UMSL.

That said, Ash's shot looked much improved from last season. Better shooting from him specifically would be a big boost for this team.

AY playing and playing well is a big positive. If he can be consistent this year that will help a lot.

Defense played well had 9 steals.

We were really concerned about TOs after the Bahamas and they kept them to an acceptable number eventhough we have a carousel of players handling the ball.

Those 3 things were better than expected and hopefully will trend in the right direction.

As for rebounding and low post presence that is about what we expected.

Playing a zone a big thing for SLU as I can't recall when we've employed it regularly.

So I think overall positive, though I didn't see the game.

[slufan13]

Ash is always going to dominate lesser athletic opponents. But once guys start to match his athleticism and frustrate him at the rim, he starts forcing things and loses technique on his jumper. Same thing when he's taxed defensively. He loses his legs. Ash is a very important player for us, but the game comes easy for him against lesser opponents. I'm still concerned about how he'll do in February.

[Dwayne's_World]

People who describe "plenty of good stuff" from last night are really reaching. The team played a D-III team in UMSL, and they struggled a lot with the simple things. The offense didn't really have a rhythm or flow to it, the rebounding looked mediocre against a MUCH smaller team, no go to player, some players appeared completely unmotivated, etc. I guess the one positive was that we didn't inbounds to half court but again, we were playing UMSL for crying out loud.

I did not really have any positive takeaways, because there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to even look like we are struggling against a D-III team. No reason whatsoever. Who cares that we won big, the fact that we didn't look good doing the small things doesn't bode well for real opponents.

I will wait for us to play legitimate teams before I start saying that we've significantly improved from last season.

[bonwich]

People who describe "plenty of good stuff" from last night are really reaching. The team played a D-III team in UMSL, and they struggled a lot with the simple things. The offense didn't really have a rhythm or flow to it, the rebounding looked mediocre against a MUCH smaller team, no go to player, some players appeared completely unmotivated, etc. I guess the one positive was that we didn't inbounds to half court but again, we were playing UMSL for crying out loud.

I did not really have any positive takeaways, because there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to even look like we are struggling against a D-III team. No reason whatsoever. Who cares that we won big, the fact that we didn't look good doing the small things doesn't bode well for real opponents.

I will wait for us to play legitimate teams before I start saying that we've significantly improved from last season.

UMSL is a mediocre D-II team, but that doesn't drop them an entire division.

[billikenbill]

People who describe "plenty of good stuff" from last night are really reaching. The team played a D-III team in UMSL, and they struggled a lot with the simple things. The offense didn't really have a rhythm or flow to it, the rebounding looked mediocre against a MUCH smaller team, no go to player, some players appeared completely unmotivated, etc. I guess the one positive was that we didn't inbounds to half court but again, we were playing UMSL for crying out loud.

I did not really have any positive takeaways, because there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to even look like we are struggling against a D-III team. No reason whatsoever. Who cares that we won big, the fact that we didn't look good doing the small things doesn't bode well for real opponents.

I will wait for us to play legitimate teams before I start saying that we've significantly improved from last season.

Correcton, UMSL is D-2, not D-3. They play in the Great Lakes Valley Conference, one of the strongest D2 conferences in the country. Not that we shouldn't have handled them with ease.

[billikenfan05]

Ash is always going to dominate lesser athletic opponents. But once guys start to match his athleticism and frustrate him at the rim, he starts forcing things and loses technique on his jumper. Same thing when he's taxed defensively. He loses his legs. Ash is a very important player for us, but the game comes easy for him against lesser opponents. I'm still concerned about how he'll do in February.

UMSL didn't have any white guys. What are you talking about less athletic?

[bonwich]

UMSL didn't have any white guys. What are you talking about less athletic?

This is a very unusual form of color-blindness. You might want to have it checked out.

[Old guy]

Yes, UMSL had a lot of eastern European kids, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, and even a Greek. None of these were black in any way. Let's not confuse race with athleticism or ability in the court, these kids were not bad,

[jimbofive]

Yes, UMSL had a lot of eastern European kids, Serbian, Croatian, Bulgarian, and even a Greek. None of these were black in any way. Let's not confuse race with athleticism or ability in the court, these kids were not bad,

black guys are better athletes and basketball players than white guys. them's the rules, i didn't write 'em.

[Dwayne's_World]

Correcton, UMSL is D-2, not D-3. They play in the Great Lakes Valley Conference, one of the strongest D2 conferences in the country. Not that we shouldn't have handled them with ease.

Ah my mistake, for some reason I was thinking D-III in my head but that wouldn't make any sense come to think of it. Still, my outlook remains the same.

Maybe if the team flops this year then they'll schedule next year's exhibition against D-III St. Louis Community College?

[TheA_Bomb]

People who describe "plenty of good stuff" from last night are really reaching. The team played a D-III team in UMSL, and they struggled a lot with the simple things. The offense didn't really have a rhythm or flow to it, the rebounding looked mediocre against a MUCH smaller team, no go to player, some players appeared completely unmotivated, etc. I guess the one positive was that we didn't inbounds to half court but again, we were playing UMSL for crying out loud.

I did not really have any positive takeaways, because there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for us to even look like we are struggling against a D-III team. No reason whatsoever. Who cares that we won big, the fact that we didn't look good doing the small things doesn't bode well for real opponents.

I will wait for us to play legitimate teams before I start saying that we've significantly improved from last season.

Yeah probably shouldn't be positive at all, hate early, hate often.

You must be a lot of fun at parties. Don't get invited to parties? No way.

[bonwich]

Ah my mistake, for some reason I was thinking D-III in my head but that wouldn't make any sense come to think of it. Still, my outlook remains the same.

Maybe if the team flops this year then they'll schedule next year's exhibition against D-III St. Louis Community College?

Harris-Stowe and Fontbonne are NAIA, n'est-ce pas?

[hsmith19]

Ah my mistake, for some reason I was thinking D-III in my head but that wouldn't make any sense come to think of it. Still, my outlook remains the same.

Maybe if the team flops this year then they'll schedule next year's exhibition against D-III St. Louis Community College?

Fontbonne is D3 and they've done exhibitions with them before. I have always wanted to see a Billikens vs. Gorloks game. From watching a bunch of SLIAC games over the years (one of the very bottom D3 conferences) I have always thought the difference between D2 and D3 tends to get exaggerated just a tad.

[hsmith19]

Harris-Stowe and Fontbonne are NAIA, n'est-ce pas?

Nope, Fontbonne has been NCAA D3 since SLIAC was formed.

[Pistol]

Fontbonne is D3 and they've done exhibitions with them before. I have always wanted to see a Billikens vs. Gorloks game. From watching a bunch of SLIAC games over the years (one of the very bottom D3 conferences) I have always thought the difference between D2 and D3 tends to get exaggerated just a tad.

There are a couple differences between D-II and D-III, and the main one is that a partial athletic scholarship may be granted in D-II and no athletic scholarships may be granted in D-III. The other difference has to do with scheduling within football and basketball (D-II schools have to play at least 50% of their games against other D-II - and/or FCS in football - schools).

D-II is intended to represent the cross-section between D-I - where student-athletes have a more intense athletic experience - and D-III, where student-athletes are students first and foremost. But in reality, D-II is sort of a poor man's D-I, where the schools simply lack size and funding to compete in D-I (because if they think they can be a D-I school, they try to move up to D-I). It also offers a logical place for schools with individual programs that compete at the highest division but can't compete in other programs, like Alaska-Anchorage, which competes in high-level college hockey. And honestly, there are some lower-tier D-I schools that probably make more sense in the D-II level.

In practice, the difference in quality of play between most of D-II and D-III is negligible. Instead of having a more competitive athletic environment in D-II because of partial athletic scholarships, high school kids who know they aren't going to have D-I aspirations focus their attention more on the academic environment and what it means for their future, so many of them choose academic scholarships or financial aid at D-III schools instead of partial athletic money at a D-II school. Overall, D-III schools are mostly private and D-II are a mix of private and public, and D-III schools tend to be higher ranked and better funded.

Chaminade had a guard a couple years ago named Andy Kleinlein. He probably could've played at any number of D-II schools but instead plays at D-III Washington & Lee, an excellent academic school that's probably going to open up more doors for him than, say, Illinois-Springfield.

The one area where D-III gets dragged down athletically is that it has schools like Cal Tech and Bard, which have virtually no interest whatsoever in athletics (but are still required by the NCAA to have programs) and have extremely rigid acceptance standards, so very few HS athletes attend and the teams are glorified intramural squads.

Anyway, the tl;dr version: There is not a ton of difference in level of competition between D-II and D-III and it doesn't make a lot of sense to think of D-I, D-II, and D-III in a clear heirarchy.