2025-26 ROSTER

[willie]

3 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i seriously doubt the university bucked up a cent.   what money we paid out last year was whatever our whales ponied up which obviously wasnt enough.  i would bet the university will continue to cry "we are in debt" while they have their multi billion dollar endowment that "cant be touched".   (which is b.s.  they can always cash investments in they will just have to pay penalties or substitute alternate collateral)  when you are talking billions.   a penalty will be paltry compared to the balance.  remember, a billion is 1,000 million.   keep it in perspective.   the time is now.  we either go big or we are doomed to mid level in the conference which will never get us a D1 invite when the inevitable split comes.  

Filling the team with a couple of players who will never see the floor makes no sense to me unless Schertz goes May and says these players can help. What happens to the walk-on's ? Are they out of a job? Give it up on the Endowment Fund. I guarantee you no university is using general Endowment money to support athletics. 

[willie]

I will also add the university is potentially going to lose many millions of dollars in research grands due to DOGE. Finances at the university could become very tight. 

[HoosierPal]

Stu just dropped a StuOnSLU that addresses many of the questions brought up today. 

[billiken_roy]

1 hour ago, willie said:

Filling the team with a couple of players who will never see the floor makes no sense to me unless Schertz goes May and says these players can help. What happens to the walk-on's ? Are they out of a job? Give it up on the Endowment Fund. I guarantee you no university is using general Endowment money to support athletics. 

think outside the box.   these are desparate times.   we either act in the very very near future or join washington U conference imo.  

[billiken_roy]

55 minutes ago, willie said:

I will also add the university is potentially going to lose many millions of dollars in research grands due to DOGE. Finances at the university could become very tight. 

Im not a fan of any grants at this point in time since we are currently $36,000,000,000,000 in debt.   So no sympathy from me.  

[Bay Area Billiken]

I have fought this good fight before, and evidently have finally lost it, but when did SLU and the A10 become "mid-major?"

Both were once High Major, No Football.  The line of demarcation was a mid-major was a one bid league.  Regrettably, that is what the A10 has become, Juan Bid in 2 of the last 3 seasons, more by the war of attrition with the Big Five and Football Power 4 with its infamous rigged NET, than by what the A10 has done and not done. 

Next question:  What is the line of demarcation between a mid-major and a low con?  Where do the MAC and MAAC fit in those categories?  The MAC was Conference NET #23 of 31 and the MAAC was Conference NET #26 of 31. 

[HoosierPal]

1 hour ago, billiken_roy said:

well you never know when we are going to have 4-5 players get season ending injuries and/or players leave the program in the middle of the season.   i would have never thought we would lose all of our middle of the roster players and be left with our starters and the bottom 4 players on the bench as we had happen this past year.   we keep 2 or 3 of those out players it would have changed the whole season imo.   

so fill the roster with the best basketball players you can get.   spend the money.   dont leave money on he table imo.  

What I suggested leaves no money on the table.  Give the 15th schollie to Holmes or Patton.  If our 15th player sees meaningful minutes, (7 players on the DL), then you can kiss the season goodbye.  Holmes/Patton know their job, mop up, maybe 25 minutes for the year, and won't be a distraction in the locker room. 

No matter what some posters desire, Schertz is not going to go 9 to 10 deep.

[almaman]

with all the uncertainty it seems semi pointless to think that rosters are set till fall semester starts

[ACE]

31 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

I have fought this good fight before, and evidently have finally lost it, but when did SLU and the A10 become "mid-major?"

Both were once High Major, No Football.  The line of demarcation was a mid-major was a one bid league.  Regrettably, that is what the A10 has become, Juan Bid in 2 of the last 3 seasons, more by the war of attrition with the Big Five and Football Power 4 with its infamous rigged NET, than by what the A10 has done and not done. 

Next question:  What is the line of demarcation between a mid-major and a low con?  Where do the MAC and MAAC fit in those categories?  The MAC was Conference NET #23 of 31 and the MAAC was Conference NET #26 of 31. 

Joe Lunardi said it well this year... the A-10 hasn't changed much in the last few years, it's just the world of college basketball around it has changed. Unfortunately, you have the P6 as the multi-bid leagues and everyone else - the one bid leagues. The "mid-major" is close to being extinct. The MVC, A-10 and AAC were leagues that you could count on for multiple bids in the past. Then even when teams from these conferences do well, the committee will still find a way if it can to screw them... Indiana State last year with a NET of 28: this year VCU had a Top 35 NET, but probably would have gotten snubbed if they didn't win the conference tourney, due to lack of Q1 wins.

 

[almaman]

49 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

Im not a fan of any grants at this point in time since we are currently $36,000,000,000,000 in debt.   So no sympathy from me.  

Across Forest Park rivalry might be fun. Play a yearly outdoor game like NHL outdoor classic in front of the 2 hundred faithful fans

 

[3star_recruit]

51 minutes ago, Bay Area Billiken said:

I have fought this good fight before, and evidently have finally lost it, but when did SLU and the A10 become "mid-major?"

Both were once High Major, No Football.  The line of demarcation was a mid-major was a one bid league.  Regrettably, that is what the A10 has become, Juan Bid in 2 of the last 3 seasons, more by the war of attrition with the Big Five and Football Power 4 with its infamous rigged NET, than by what the A10 has done and not done. 

Next question:  What is the line of demarcation between a mid-major and a low con?  Where do the MAC and MAAC fit in those categories?  The MAC was Conference NET #23 of 31 and the MAAC was Conference NET #26 of 31. 

A low-major is a program that plays in a glorified high school gym and operates on a shoestring budget.  If most of the programs in your conference look like that, you're in a low-major conference. 

The A10 has been a mid-major for most of the years we've been in it.  A strong mid-major can produce 4-5 bids when its hitting on all cylinders.  In this new era of the rigged NET, that will fall to 2-3 bids at best.  In some years it will be Juan Bid.  In those years, we're spending a lot more money than low-majors without anything to show for it.

[cheeseman]

4 hours ago, willie said:

Filling the team with a couple of players who will never see the floor makes no sense to me unless Schertz goes May and says these players can help. What happens to the walk-on's ? Are they out of a job? Give it up on the Endowment Fund. I guarantee you no university is using general Endowment money to support athletics. 

I am sure you are correct about the endowment funds but we still have to have enough players to practice 

[brianstl]

5 hours ago, willie said:

Filling the team with a couple of players who will never see the floor makes no sense to me unless Schertz goes May and says these players can help. What happens to the walk-on's ? Are they out of a job? Give it up on the Endowment Fund. I guarantee you no university is using general Endowment money to support athletics. 

Schools have and many, also, have endowments where you specify your endowment gift to be restricted to use for athletics.

[willie]

32 minutes ago, brianstl said:

Schools have and many, also, have endowments where you specify your endowment gift to be restricted to use for athletics.

You are not talking about a schools general endowment fund. One could endow a specific scholarship thru an athletic department for a special purpose. The great T Bone Pickens set up a special athletic fund at Oklahoma State but that was not part of the schools general endowment. That fund which used some creative funding ended up collapsing. 

[brianstl]

1 hour ago, willie said:

You are not talking about a schools general endowment fund. One could endow a specific scholarship thru an athletic department for a special purpose. The great T Bone Pickens set up a special athletic fund at Oklahoma State but that was not part of the schools general endowment. That fund which used some creative funding ended up collapsing. 

At almost all those schools those funds get rolled into what you would call the general endowment for investment purposes. The general endowment is nothing but a bunch of smaller endowments rolled into one and that is the value you see when a school endowment is listed.  At private schools on average those endowments have 55% percent of their funds restricted for specific purposes by the donors.  Last time I saw SLU’s number it was somewhere in the 30-40% range.  State universities are much more restricted on how they can use their’s with 80% in average of their endowment money restricted by the source.

[WUH]

7 minutes ago, brianstl said:

At almost all those schools those funds get rolled into what you would call the general endowment for investment purposes. The general endowment is nothing but a bunch of smaller endowments rolled into one and that is the value you see when a school endowment is listed.  At private schools on average those endowments have 55% percent of their funds restricted for specific purposes by the donors.  Last time I saw SLU’s number it was somewhere in the 30-40% range.  State universities are much more restricted on how they can use their’s with 80% in average of their endowment money restricted by the source.

I may well be wrong, but I believe the restricted monies comprise way more than 30-40% of the SLU endowment.

[brianstl]

32 minutes ago, WUH said:

I may well be wrong, but I believe the restricted monies comprise way more than 30-40% of the SLU endowment.

So I went and checked for the latest numbers.  According to the last audited financial statement 31.8% of SLU’s endowment money is restricted by the donor.

https://www.slu.edu/business-finance/departments-and-offices/financial-services/-pdf/fy-24-financial-statement.pdf

[willie]

Getting back to the original point. Roy wants to use Endowment funds to support the athletic department. That is not going to happen. 

[WUH]

1 hour ago, brianstl said:

So I went and checked for the latest numbers.  According to the last audited financial statement 31.8% of SLU’s endowment money is restricted by the donor.

https://www.slu.edu/business-finance/departments-and-offices/financial-services/-pdf/fy-24-financial-statement.pdf

I stand corrected.

[brianstl]

1 minute ago, WUH said:

I stand corrected.

I was shocked when I saw the report from a few years ago.

[Old guy]

There are two truths that should be evident:

1. Donors can do anything they want with their money, and this includes determining how it will be spent by the school. 

2. Any school that wishes to stay alive as a higher education venue should restrict expenses to the level of their income plus the profits achieved by their endowments. Of course, this places the endowment managers in a situation where they should try to make as much profit as they can from the endowment, but also requires that they maintain the endowment's principal safe. These two goals are very difficult to achieve simultaneously.

It is very difficult to anticipate the non endowment level of income that will be received by a school in any given year.

[ACE]

Schertz has wasted little time. Here is the latest roster now on 4/3 after starting this thread a few weeks ago...

 

In his post-game comments Schertz talked about "overhauling" the roster this offseason. More athleticism is what he kept going back to. The current roster is not good and there is a lot of uncertainty with some injured players. A lot of work needs to be done. Next year will be a 15-man roster. Here is how it stands heading into portal season...

1) Avilla

2) Anya - Good defender and rebounder, but limited offensively. Got a lot more playing time than originally planned due to Casey and Thames injuries. Hopefully he goes down to about 15-18 mpg next year. Still a valuable player

3) McCottry - Rough around the edges, but the upside is very exciting. Athletic and versatile. I think Schertz should have given playing time sooner when Thames went down, but he did get valuable experience down the stretch. A key player heading into next season, gotta keep him. With a bigger role, he should really help our defense.

4)  Thames - Who knows. I hope they figure out what the deal is. I feel bad for the kid. I really liked the potential he flashed early in the season. I will feel much better about the roster if he returns and is back at 100%.

5) Dotzler - Another injury question. Not really sure what we have since he didn't really play much. I would like to see him back. (GONE)

6) Casey - You can learn a lot of by listening to Schertz interviews. In the preseason, he would often talk about Thames and Hughes (returning players) - of course he said positive things about all the players, but he talked a lot more about Thames in glowing terms than Hughes.. that's when I figured he wasn't very high on Larry. In the same way, he would often talk about the two new transfer bigs at the same time (Anya and Casey). He was much more positive about Anya. This is a long way of saying, even before the injury, I don't think Casey was going to have a big role. Now with the injury, I'm fine if we free up the scholarship. GONE

5) Warlick - I think he's a good "glue guy" to keep in the system for a while - I think Schertz likes him, although he doesn't have the "athleticism" Schertz has talked about needing on the roster. I hope he stays, but not crushed if he leaves.

6)  Pikaar - I liked the potential he flashed in the William Woods game, but then again it was William Woods. On the season averaged just 1 ppg and 1 rbg. With the lack of depth, there were opportunities for Max to get some PT, and Schertz didn't give it to him. I'm fine seeing what he can do in year two, but Schertz is bringing in two other skinny bigs next year. I think if Schertz believed in his upside, there was an opportunity for more minutes throughout the season, especially with all the injuries on the roster.

9) Brockhoff - I just don't see anyway he's coming back. If he couldn't get playing time on this depleted roster, it's not likely to happen in the future.

7) Hutson - He had a big HS season, he could be a nice scorer off the bench. The kid seems like a winner

Laczkowski - Seems like a little shorter Pikaar type player. I never expect tall skinny freshmen to contribute their first year and just hope I'm wrong

9) Kerr - Same expectation for tall, skinny freshmen

10) Otieno

11) Jones

12) Green

13) Brown

14) Open

15) Open

I see a minimum of 4 available scholarships and as many as 7. (It turns out there were 6 scholarships to fill)

[Box and Won]

15 hours ago, brianstl said:

I was shocked when I saw the report from a few years ago.

Wow, that is way lower than I would've expected.

[OkieBilliken]

https://x.com/madeformarch/status/1907815507073360368

 

Playing SEMO next year.  Didnt want to start a new topic

[TheA_Bomb]

19 minutes ago, OkieBilliken said:

https://x.com/madeformarch/status/1907815507073360368

 

Playing SEMO next year.  Didnt want to start a new topic

They were 1st place in OVC last year (202 kenpom) which we know is better than 6th place in the SEC. Based on MBM logic. 

So should be tough. 

 

Not a SoS killer for buy game.  Also probably saves $ playing a regional team due to less travel costs.