xu95 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Sorry. I guess I am so used to being the sarcastic ones on messageboards that I don't catch it when someone else does it. xu95 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 SLU is in a tough spot. the choices in my estimation are all unapealling. staying in a disintegrating CUSA jumping to a respected conference (A10) that really isn't a great fit overall. moving to a very good mid-major conference (MVC)- that doesn't have the national recognition - but offers some geographic proximity and natural rivalries. IMO MVC fans don't want SLU - as SLU doesn't bring much to the table today. What St louis has is potential - and a lot of it - whether that potential will be realized has yet to be seen - but there is a lot of reason to be optomistic. Also - it is very clear that the bills dont bring any stability with them to the MVC - which is one of the things that makes the conference attractive both to its current members and some potential members. SLU would bolt at the first opportunity to better its situation - and would screw the MVC in the process. Also - just adding SLU would probably not happen - if bills joined the MVC - then likely another school would have to be added to balance the schedule - which would eliminate the round robin play and creat 2 divisions. Most fans of the league are not in favor of that. Many here have said that any MVC school would gladly bolt for the A10. I respectfully disagree. While there are some schools in the A10 that I would like to play - I would rather play them in non conference action and continue the rivalries and great tradition in the Valley. Once the papal conference becomes a reality - and makes geographic sense - all bets are off though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 "...if SLU were in the valley we would be picked to win it this year" That is arrogant - and wrong. "Creighton is "reloading"? Reloading what? You consider Creighton to be reloading? There's a big difference between reloading a BB gun and reloading high-powered automatic assault rifle. Creighton is a BB gun; Arizona is an assault rifle! (Note this is not to say that SLU is great or is reloading -- or even rebuilding; SLU is building.)" This is not only arrogant - but condescending. Creighton has been to the NCAAs the last 5 years straight and post season play the last 6 years - something that SLU has never done in its history. I don't know anyone intelligent who would compare CU's program vs Arizona. Apples and oranges my friend. "Who does Bradley have that Illinois or Marquette would kill for? Sommerville is probably the only one. Even if there's one or two more, that's a few, not "several."" Sommerville and Philip Gilbert to name two. Obviously Danny Granger was good enough for New Mexico to tamper and illegally (regardless of the NCAAs ruling or not) go and get. "Please think before you post - or you just show yourself to >have a very low hoops IQ. I reiterate that." You have proven to me that in this instance you are south of triple digits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 >"...if SLU were in the valley we would be picked to win it >this year" > >That is arrogant - and wrong. First of all, I didn't make that statement; rather, I was saying that I don't think the person who made the statement was being arrogant. Just because someone says something you don't like or agree with makes him arrogant? >"Creighton is "reloading"? Reloading what? You consider >Creighton to be reloading? There's a big difference between >reloading a BB gun and reloading high-powered automatic >assault rifle. Creighton is a BB gun; Arizona is an assault >rifle! (Note this is not to say that SLU is great or is >reloading -- or even rebuilding; SLU is building.)" > >This is not only arrogant - but condescending. Creighton >has been to the NCAAs the last 5 years straight and post >season play the last 6 years - something that SLU has never >done in its history. Nowhere did I say SLU had equalled Creighton in recent accomplishments, but just because SLU isn't Creighton's equal doesn't mean Creighton has done something special on a national scale that it can be said to be reloading like a powerhouse. >I don't know anyone intelligent who would compare CU's >program vs Arizona. Apples and oranges my friend. You're right, but I didn't compare Creighton to Arizona; rather, I compared Creighton to a BB gun and Arizona to a high-powered automatic assault rifle. Not apples to oranges, but applesauce to apples. >"Who does Bradley have that Illinois or Marquette would kill >for? Sommerville is probably the only one. Even if there's >one or two more, that's a few, not "several."" > >Sommerville and Philip Gilbert to name two. Obviously Danny >Granger was good enough for New Mexico to tamper and >illegally (regardless of the NCAAs ruling or not) go and >get. > >"Please think before you post - or you just show yourself to >>have a very low hoops IQ. > >I reiterate that." > >You have proven to me that in this instance you are south of >triple digits. I think I've proven to hold an idea you don't like, even though any national college basketball analyst would say it. You still haven't shown me how two is "several." I would argue that Philip Gilbert was a steal for Bradley, but I don't think Illinois, Purdue, Missouri, and Kansas thought so highly of him that they recruited him heavily. SLU obviously landed a fantastic player in Marque Perry, but that doesn't mean that programs from the Big 10 "would've killed to get him." There are plenty of talented players out there, and the teams from the Big XII, Big 10, SEC, etc., can't get them all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 (beating head against wall) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Why? Don't you enjoy a good debate? I'm enjoying this. You're trying to sell me on why SLU should want to be a member of the MVC (even though the MVC doesn't want SLU, according to the fans), and I'm trying to make you understand why I'm not in the market for your product. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 no - i am not trying to sell you why the MVC is good for SLU - i have been on record here since day one saying it wasn't a good fit for reasons previously posted. i also have posted why most mvc fans don't want SLU in the MVC. i have pointed out that the statement - SLU would win the MVC is arrogant - you disagreed...whatever. you brought up a ridiculouis comparison between CU and Arizona - and then hid behind rhetoric when I called it ridiculous - whatever. You asked for examples of players that major conf schools would want from bradley - i gave them to you. you poo poohed - whatever. i am not going to beat my head against the wall debating someone who clearly is not interested in intelligent discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 >i have pointed out that the statement - SLU would win the >MVC is arrogant - you disagreed...whatever. Yeah, whatever! I think SLU would have a good shot at winning the Missouri Valley Conferene this year. By no means would it be a runaway, but the Billikens' chances would be as good as any team in the conference. It's not arrogant; it's true. >you brought up a ridiculouis comparison between CU and >Arizona - and then hid behind rhetoric when I called it >ridiculous - whatever. You are the one using rhetoric. I'm sorry you can't interpret a metaphor. Can't you see that it's nothing special to say Creighton is reloading? If Creighton is "reloading," then it has reached its pinnacle and we can expect nothing more from it than what we've been getting: bids to the NCAA Tournament. But if Arizona (and programs like it) is reloading, then that means they once again have the potential to reach the Final Four and win the National Championship. >You asked for examples of players that major conf schools >would want from bradley - i gave them to you. you poo >poohed - whatever. Okay, there are two Bradley players that a serious Final Four contender (like Illinois) would want on its roster -- one of which (Gilbert) flew under the radar. Two is not "several." If Bradley truly had "several players high-major programs would kill for," Bradley would be in line to duplicate Marquette's 2003 run. Tell me whether or not that's true. >i am not going to beat my head against the wall debating >someone who clearly is not interested in intelligent >discussion. Other than using a metaphor that you dislike, how has my debating lacked intelligence? I've attacked your substance with substance, so if anyone is not engaging it "intelligent discussion," it must be you. You may not like the points of my debate, but I'm confident they are reasonable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 well - now you are backtracking. you are now saying that SLU would have a good chance to win the MVC versus my disagreement with the original statement that SLU would win the MVC. IMO SLU would not be picked to win the MVC - they would be in the mid-pack along with SIU and SMS etc. i was not the one that made an assinine comparison between CU and AZ - you did - when i said it was such - you said that you weren't comparing them but CU to a bb gun and AZ to an assault weapon or whatever - but by using them in the same paragraph pursuant to the same subject you were clearly making a comparison - your backing away from it was simply your rhetoric. CU is at its pinnacle? How can you figure that - Altman has consistently improved his recruiting - the new facility will be in its inaugaral season - Altman has year in and year out turned down overtures from the likes of Illinois, Georgia, Iowa State, etc. The fact that CU goes to the NCAAs everyear is a testament to reloading and not rebuilding - i am sorry you can't understand that. On Bradley - again you shift the debate - I originally said that Bradley had players that schools from "Major" conferences would love to have. you have now changed this to final four contenders. you also don't seem to know the definition of "several" Being of a number more than two or three but not many - taken directly from dictionary.com. so why should i question both the veracity and intelligence of your posts? see above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 If by being "civil" you mean that I have to smile and say, "I agree," when they say, "The best place for the Billikens is in the Valley, even though we don't want them and they couldn't even be in our upper division, let alone upper third, and going to the A-10 is a huge mistake," then the only "civil" thing they're going to get from me is "civil" war! I'm not going to ask them to desist from posting here, and I'm not going to call them names, but I won't agree with the notion that SLU belongs in the MVC and I won't hesitate to point out where I think the MVC is inferior to my vision for SLU, inspite of the fact that I tend to want to see MVC teams do well in the NCAA Tournament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 >well - now you are backtracking. I'm not backtracking one bit; I'm standing firm. >you are now saying that SLU would have a good chance to win >the MVC versus my disagreement with the original statement >that SLU would win the MVC. IMO SLU would not be picked to >win the MVC - they would be in the mid-pack along with SIU >and SMS etc. No, what I'm saying is that, because I think SLU has as good of a chance to win the Valley as any team in it, I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to say SLU would be picked to win the conference. Just because you hold an opinion does not mean that someone out there couldn't disagree. Given SLU finish last season and its recruiting class, I think it's reasonable that some analysts would pick SLU to win the Valley this year, thus, I don't think the poster who originally made the statement was being arrogant. He may well be incorrect, but being incorrect doesn't automatically equate to arrogance. >i was not the one that made an assinine comparison between >CU and AZ - you did - when i said it was such - you said >that you weren't comparing them but CU to a bb gun and AZ to >an assault weapon or whatever - but by using them in the >same paragraph pursuant to the same subject you were clearly >making a comparison - your backing away from it was simply >your rhetoric. I never backed away from my metaphor of CU as BB gun and Arizona as high-powered automatic assault rifle. If I read a preseason magazine say that Creighton has "reloaded" for this year, I won't be quaking in my boots, but if it says, "As usual, Arizona just reloads," then I'll be like, "Darn, the Wildcats will mop up Savvis with my Bills en route to another Final Four in San Antonio!" The more you beg the question by calling it assinine and ridiculous, the more confident I am that I'm correct. >CU is at its pinnacle? How can you figure that - Altman has >consistently improved his recruiting - the new facility will >be in its inaugaral season - Altman has year in and year out >turned down overtures from the likes of Illinois, Georgia, >Iowa State, etc. The fact that CU goes to the NCAAs >everyear is a testament to reloading and not rebuilding - i >am sorry you can't understand that. Look, either a team reloads or it builds. A building (or rebuilding) team sees the need for improvement. But if a team reloads, it expects to be able to duplicate its prior performance despite losing key personnel. I never said I think Creighton has reached its pinnacle; however, if it's reloading (rather than trying to build on its recent run), as you say, then you apparently think it has reached the end of the line of its success. You said, "Altman has consistently improved his recruiting." If that's true (and I have no reason to dispute that), then Creighton is still trying to build the program to where Altman wants it to be, but it's not "reloading." I'm sorry you can't understand THAT. >On Bradley - again you shift the debate - I originally said >that Bradley had players that schools from "Major" >conferences would love to have. you have now changed this >to final four contenders. you also don't seem to know the >definition of "several" > >Being of a number more than two or three but not many - >taken directly from dictionary.com. > >so why should i question both the veracity and intelligence >of your posts? see above. Now you're the one backing away. I believe there's a difference between "kill to have" (your original terminology) and "love to have." If a program would "kill" to have a player, that means it was recruiting him early, often, and hard (and possibly illegally), and was devastated when he chose to go elsewhere. I don't think that describes Philip Gilbert when he was being recruited out of high school. Now that they've seen how good he is, would they "love" to have recruited him? Of course. I know what several means, and your having given me three names of players "major" programs would "love to have" (let alone your reducing it from "kill to have"), still does not meet the criteria of "several" by the definition you provided, since three is not "more than two or three." You can question the intelligence of my posts all you want, but it just makes it appear you can't recognize intelligence. Your trying to discredit my ability to debate doesn't address the substance of my arguments. All you've done is beat around the bush and rehash the same statements. As far as your questioning my veracity, please point out a lie in my posts. I'm sure it's possible I may have made a mistake or been wrong, but never has it been my intent to deceive. Keep 'em coming -- I'm enjoying this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 god i wish we played creighton. you talk and act like creighton is a far superior team to the billikens and imo they arent and never have been. they feasted off of inferior mvc competition. and got hot at the right time (tourney time) to build their rep. now korver is gone and we will see how they "reload". however once again we seem to be getting your "creighton is superior" speech. if you ever want to move up to be a tiger fan, you got the attitude down already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 i had no animosity towards the mvc before the recent past. but the way some of you "valley boys" are over here spouting off, i can see myself becoming a valley hater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 the only arrogance i see is cujayblue or whatever the heck your moniker is. you say we have to prove we arent a triple digit rpi, well the billiken rpi the last 5 seasons are 88,47,87, 94 and 66. while i am not ready to proclaim the billikens as improved, i do believe they will remain as good as the average of the last 5 seasons. if any program has any proving to do, i want to see how good your precious jays will be without the best player in the program's history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 When he said that I'm south of triple digits, he wasn't talking about SLU's RPI, but he was talking about my basketball IQ. Is my basketball IQ less than 100?????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 thicks i think what we have is a grand case of envy by mr bluejay that the billikens are going to get a chance to move to a better conference when it appears that creighton will stay in the mvc. how that is justification for him to rip away on the billikens is beyond me. i believe creighton is above the mvc. and like the billikens has nothing in common with the conference membership. but to take that frustration out on us billiken fans is misplaced. he needs to start the movement to get creighton moved to a different conference. now creighton is the perfect example of a team that might be better served with one of the western conferences with a little more clout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnekess Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 That's the funniest thing I have read on hear in the last week!!! (no disrespect to anyone) I can't really explain why it was funny but I got a good "Laugh out Loud" chuckle out of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 this blue jay guy said, "i have pointed out that the statement - SLU would win the MVC is arrogant" please tell us which billiken fan here at billikens.com made the statement we would win the mvc. i think most of us believe that slu would compete year in and year out for the upper echelon of the mvc if we were mvc members, but i dont remember anyone saying we would win the conference each year. where did that get started? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 i agree with thicks. the statement "reloading" used as you did, infers national power. you never said "reloading to win the mvc conference". there are few programs that i would associate "reloading" with. duke, arizona and kansas come to mind. north carolina a few years ago would have qualified. creighton now or ever does not. again, arrogance is something that you need to look in the mirror at it seems to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Just what I enjoy seeing...another cat fight, err, in this case more like a bird fight. No pun intended but his arguments are for the birds!!! SLU belongs and has proved that they belong in a stronger conference than the MVC. I will lose a lot of respect if we don't land in the A-10, or a conference at least the equal of it. I am pleased beyond belief that the folks in the MVC are happy with their conference. It just isn't the proper fit for our Billikens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 geez roy - reread my post - i don't think i said anything inflammatory about the bills. the one thing that got my ire up - and became a fruitless discussion with Terrance (who i really do like as a poster - we just had some bad juju today) was that "The Torch" posted that SLU would be picked to win the MVC - this year. That is arrogant. I pointed out that SLU has a lot of questions to answer this season - as you of all people should know. There are some penciled in answers to those questions - but until the season starts we don't know. As a Billiken fan - I have addressed those with friends and fellow hoops fans that the Bills are improving - and as Brad gets more experience - and as he fills some recruiting holes - the Bills are on the upswing - they aren't there yet - but things are looking good. Surely even the blue colored glasses that you wear can't be far off from what i have just synopsized. As for my arrogance - in my book - reloading means that CU isn't going to have a "down" year - that Creighton, while maybe not the valley favorite this season, will be in contention. I am sorry so many disagree with that. As for the state of the two programs respectively - the Bills are building on a good finish - and post season play in the first year of a new coach. But surely you aren't comparing - the current run the jays are having - 5 straight NCAA tourneys. 6 years of post season play. one honorable mention all american, one 2nd team all american, 2 nba draft picks, etc in that run. CU's program currently is superior to St Louis. I don't think too many would dispute that. HOWEVER, I also think that SLU has more potential as a program than Creighton does - based on current situations. I am in no way jealous about SLU's move to the A-10. I think it is really the best choice of several bad choices. If creighton were to move to the a10 - i would be unhappy - for many reasons that i have previously mentioned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted October 13, 2003 Share Posted October 13, 2003 Good response. I'm glad to see that you haven't lost respect for me as a person and a poster. I feel the same way about you. I won't take back anything I said in our debate, however. But on the basis of your jab that my basketball IQ is south of triple digits and johnekess's giddy reaction to it, I concede and declare you the winner of the debate. Regarding Creighton this year, I believe they'll still compete for the top of the Valley, but an invitation to the NCAA Tournament once again isn't etched in stone. I hope, for your sake, that Dana Altman is looking to build on the momentum of the Bluejays' recent success as opposed to reloading (the way I mean reloading). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 i think we are on same page with CU. my optimisim is what is coming back - namely altman, that the players expected to step up have all contributed significantly in the past as altman goes 10 deep so that being on the court should not be a new experience for them. that some of the newcomers fill holes that are questionmarks from last year seniors...and that every time that people think that CU will be down altman has the next group ready - buford begat sears and walker who passed the baton to korver - nate funk and michael grimes are who i am looking to this season to really be important factors. still feel the same way as i did about you as a poster - and am glad there are no hard feelings. i also stand behind what i said - today was just our day to disagree. the truth is that i think my position gets misinterpreted by folks here. i am a valley fan and a slu fan - i think some people forget that i have been a bills fan for a very long time. i also recognize that the valley is not in the company that the bills wish to keep - and if there are higher aspirations for the program - it would not be the wise move to make. however - i will defend the valley and the schools in it. so everyone best watch themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 cujaysfan said, "i think some people forget that i have been a bills fan for a very long time." with the way you posted today, it is no wonder "some people forget". i rarely see anything in what you say that indicates you are a bills fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cujaysfan Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 on the bills fandom scale from one to ten - you are a 213 i am probably a seven. however - based on your misread of post below which TH corrected you on - I think you are selective in what you see - or what your billiken brain lets you see. rest assured i am a fan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.