Saint Louis University

[FromGreeceWithLove]

I am a recent graduate of Saint Louis University and on this board I continually read about how it is tough to get recruits because of our high academic standards. When I applied to SLU, I did it because I knew I would get in and it was basically a "safety school." I have never heard about SLU being such an impressive institution till I started reading this board. SLU is a great school and a fine academic institution, but it is no Stanford or Duke. SLU is a good school, but none of my friends in highschool had any problems meeting their acceptance requirements and these are kids who would count among their greatest achievements strapping 40s to their hands and finishing them in under 10 minutes. I am proud to be able to say I have degree from Saint Louis Universtiy and it has served me very well, but I don't understand where this sense of superiority comes from.

[DoctorB]

Hmmm......

Well, I wonder where you went to high school? That may affect the success of your classmates at SLU more than you might think. Your beer guzzling buddies might be valedictorians at Beaumont of Roosevelt High here in the city. Also, if you think booze and drugs and wild sex is prominent at SLU, try hanging out in Bloomington or columbus in April. nuff said -- that crap does have its appeal for college athletes, in case you have not been following the duke lacrosse rape trials.

Are we like Duke or Stanford? well, case by case, I think. I do hope our lacrosse guys are not lunatic fringe-types. Course-wise: All 3 schools have their puff courses, which most students know about. All 3 have very tough classes and professors, which students know about (and many like, by the way). I think what you are really describing is some sort of academic reputation, which is based on lots of unmeasurables, I think.

Actually, once you get into Harvard these days, it is not a very tough school scholastically. Several good articles about this recently, one last spring in the Atlantic. On the other hand, at state schools, there is a lot of nonsense being touted as education--plus lots of great classes and teachers.

Bottom line: in context of this board; again--yes, there are lots of top athletes that are going to be scared off by the likes of Duke, Stanford -- and, yes, SLU, and Creighton, and other similar programs. Then again, there are lots of good athletes (and parents, mind you) who want their kids passing on the gangster programs like mega state school swamps (or like cincinnati used to be) and enrolling at a BC or a SLU. Those should be our target demographic -- spoken like a true educator and lover of that good old term, "student athlete"!!!!!

[moytoy12]

Isn't the heart of the issue the ability to get into SLU and if i recall, SLU was considered moderately selective when I applied and was accepted (I could be wrong, it has been awhile, but I am fairly certain that SLU was not in the upper echelon of selectivity). Moderately selective isn't exactly the toughest mountain to climb.

Doc, your point seemingly addresses the ability to stay in school, which is not the core issue when addressing SLU's academic rigors in connection with a recruit's ability to get into SLU. And isn't that what we are really talking about? How tough it is for a recruit to qualify and get into SLU as opposed to some other school?

[3star_recruit]

Private schools, for the most part, simply don't have the diversity of course offerings and thus the abundance of powder puff majors that public state universities provide. If you're a high school player who is more focused on playing at some level of pro ball than on settling down in an office job after college, it makes more sense to go to UAB than to struggle through the courses at SLU or Creighton.

[Taj79]

Another issue is our ability to have cake degrees. Most talk about Duke but therre was a recent SI article that showed how most of the Dooies were sociology majors. I can't remember th ewhole thing but it cast a wary eye at just what those particular "student atheltes" were up to as far as class requirements go. Is that any different here at SLU or elsewhere? I doubt it but I beleive that our ability to offer a multitude of "cake" degrees is what might be different.

Do we offer Tourism? We all know we have no Physical Education degrees. How about General Humanities? What about African-American studies? I know we didn't have that when I was there but maybe we do now. For every Shane Battier taking some sort of Theology or Philosophy degree, there are about 50 to 60 Bobby Brannens taking Aerobic Training and Badminton.

I don't know t hat I agree that our school is any tougher than what is commonplace across the country. I do believe that if you are a student at SLU, scholastics is required rather than optional and there are not a lot of junk items to hide behind fro four years, while making the required NCAA progress towards a degree.

If you go to Stanford and are a pre-med major in physical chemistry pulling a 3.75 while playing Division I basketball ... damn you're good an dmy hat's off to you. It loses a little luster if its at Notre Dame taking General Humanities and playing football. It loses even more if its Sociology at Duke. But all those in percentage points are much mor eimpressive than Phys Ed at Cincinnait or Mizzou.

Its a sliding scale and I think we are on the serious end of academics, above the 50th percentile.

[Pistol]

I also recently graduated from SLU and am amazed by how much people here hype up the school's academics. Of all the schools I applied to, SLU was definitely the "safety" school, and just happened to give me the best offer of the six.

Soderberg has said that it is a pretty good school academically, and that we would only be able to accept about half of the top 200 recruits in the country any given year because of academics. That percentage goes way down for Stanford, who accept about 12% of applicants per year, about the same as the Ivies. It might be a little easier to let in athletes that coaches are pushing for, but they can only make the committee stretch so far.

Duke operates in a different echelon altogether- they get who they want, most of which otherwise wouldn't be accepted as regular students, but who can make it by.

SLU's a good school, but let's not kid ourselves here. It makes recruiting a little tougher when we don't have the PE and agriculture majors (sorry, Brandon Morris), but we can't use this as too much of an excuse. The classes I took at SLU for the most part weren't any tougher than anything I saw in high school. Athletes don't struggle at SLU any more than they would somewhere else.

It's not a great party school, either, but I'd strap on a couple 40s any weekend at school.

[pompeytir]

I think the idea is that SLU is not willing to lower its academic minimums (too much at least) to allow a Student-Athlete to attend the university.

Because a 700 qualifies you for Division I athletics doesn't mean that SLU is going to accept you on a basketball scholarship or give you that opportunity to attend here.

At another university (Univ of Miami) a 700 and your in.

In order to award a scholarship, academics are also evaluated by an advising committee (High school grades/achievement). With Stanford, Harvard, etc...you have to be accepted academically as any other student before they can award the scholarship. The issue with SLU is that they don't want to or won't accept fringe academics (Liddell went to prep school btw).

Thus the stance on why SLU needs to let up on the academic standards. Personally, I don't know SLU's true stance on student-athletes but the 'Urban Legend' is that if you don't have the scores you don't get in (even if you’re a great player).

[Pistol]

This is all true, except I don't know that SLU needs to "let up" on the academic standards. I think we can get by with the same policy. A lot of more academically-inclined schools are having a lot of athletic success recruiting athletes who don't only want to be athletes, and SLU basketball can do the same. The last thing we need is a scandal where academics can be called into question. Let Mizzou take care of that.

[billiken_roy]

far be it from me to not toe the billiken line. no one wears bluer glasses than me, however, it has long been my understanding that incoming freshmen have no tougher academic standards than the lowest possible ncaa academic standards.

the only academic disadvantage slu has is for transfers because of the rule about having the necessary credit hours to fit into an existing slu major. thus those juco or transfer athletes that had an emphasis in subjects that do not fit into a slu major will get locked out.

many conferences and schools wont even take partial qualifiers but as recent as justin tatum and before that corey fraizer, we know that slu at least used to and i suspect still would. i do not admittedly know if the a-10 has different guidelines on that issue than what cusa had.

[Pistol]

Roy, I think the policy is closer to what you claim than some stringent academic policy. The catch is that our coaches won't start recruiting a kid in the first place if he's got major academic baggage. Tatum was an exception because he was a package deal with Larry, but we haven't had any real issues recently- Tommie qualified in his prep year. Nick Kern might have been a non-qualifier his freshman year, but that's a moot point after Romar's departure.

[DoctorB]

Guys, with all due respect, some of what is being said here is just not correct.

Again, I have taught at 2 major Big Ten schools, and believe me, the academic standards are much higher at SLU.

and yes, it is not just about admitting them into SLU, but of course we better be making sure they can succeed once they get here.

We are not a Stanford, granted. But there are around 300 Division I programs in basketball and SLU is a lot tougher scholastically than most of them.

I repeat my question about where some of you came from. If you went to chaminade or SLU High, and then on to SLU, what sort of contact have you had with public schooling?

I have taught public high school, have supervised teaching in 70 schools in the St. Louis region (public, private, and catholic), and taught at 2 major public universities. I think it is not an overstatement to claim I may possibly know a bit about this.

[Pistol]

I'm not saying the academic standards are low at SLU, but it doesn't pose a major threat to our recruiting strategy. Occasionally, it will backfire or hurt us, such as with Brandon Morris, but we don't have to go scouring elite prep schools for recruits.

Also, SLU as an institution recruits its students a lot harder at Catholic schools around the midwest than at public schools. When a student body is approximately 50% Catholic, that's quite different than the typical state school demographic breakdown.

I really don't think you're saying anything different than what we already know. SLU's a good school, but not the best. We make sure our student athletes succeed here- just look at how SLU has stacked up within the CUSA or A-10. SLU is tougher than most of the 300+ D1 basketball schools, but not at the top. I don't think anyone's disagreeing about any of that.

SLU just isn't an elite school or program that isn't giving anyone a sniff because the academics are so hard. That isn't true at all, no matter where you went to high school. I knew a girl there who got a 20 on her ACT (on the second try) and got accepted without any conditions or extra credits required. She then proceeded to graduate with over a 3.0 without too much sweat. This isn't the case with every SLU student, but enough to let you know that it's a far cry from Stanford.

[billikenmetz]

Are you Dr. Baworowsky by any chance? If so, then the posts FromGreeceWithLove made have been met with statistical evidence from a man who knows what he's talking about.

[moytoy12]

The focus of the thread starting this post questioned "getting" recruits in lieu of SLU's higher academic standards. I surmise that the divide between "getting" recruits and SLU's academic standards is not as great as many think and that other schools which perform consistently better on the court also face tougher academic standards in "getting" recruits.

I attended public schools up until SLU. SLU was a fall back choice. I found certain of SLU's philosophy classes challenging, otherwise, i did not find it particularly difficult.

I think it is not an overstatement to claim that you have an overinflated view of yourself.

[slu72]

Face it, if SLU and Big State U are going after the same kid and on his visits he hears from Kevin Lisch "you've got to go to class", and then hears from BSU's star player, "class, what's that?", where's he gonna go if his only interest is playing hoops and quarters for four years? That's the big difference between SLU and other programs. We are the 78th ranked school in the country, not bad, but we still want you to learn something while you're here.

[3star_recruit]

Getting a kid to come isn't just about entrance requirements. If a kid who is basketball-centered can go elsewhere and stay eligible more easily, why would he come to SLU?

[moytoy12]

That's a good point and something I thought about after i posted. The lack of cake majors and having to attend class (as mentioned) below) do make a difference. I will still say, and i think most agree (or are closer to agreement on this than many other things on the board ), SLU's academic rigors do not cause as grievous a hardship on its recruiting as some think. But your point is well taken

For Roy's benefit, I have refined my opinion based on a good point someone made.

[Billiken Rich]

"I have refined my opinion based on a good point someone made."

This is not something that has happened much in the history of internet discussion boards. You get the Allan Bloom award for proving that the American Mind is still open.......

[FromGreeceWithLove]

I am not sure I really agree with you. I am pretty sure almost every school in the country is going to encourage their student athletes and help them to get thru their education and leave with a diploma. I don't see SLU doing anything different than any other school. I don't necessarily think Sodie cares whether or not his players graduate over any other coach in the country, as long as his guys stay eligible throughout the season. I have had classes with several of the basketball players who have graduated recently and I did not receive the impression that they were at SLU for academic reasons.

I believe Pistol was in a calculus lab group with Randy Pulley, Jason Edwin, and Floyd McClain during his freshman year.

[DoctorB]

my opinion of myself is not overinflated. I try to keep it inflated to just the right level. You should do the same.

I can't figure out what is controversial about my statements. anyway plese let me know.

My main point is that our academic level, whatever it is (that seems to be under scrutiny)--does affect the kinds of student athletes we are approaching. that is just a matter of reality and even though I am truly overinflated, I can assure you that the present regime is completely in tune with that reality.

If you don't agree, then I may just take my ball and go home. . . .

[moytoy12]

"My main point is that our academic level, whatever it is (that seems to be under scrutiny)--does affect the kinds of student athletes we are approaching. that is just a matter of reality and even though I am truly overinflated, I can assure you that the present regime is completely in tune with that reality."

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with the broad statement that our academic level affects the kinds of student athletes SLU is approaching.

The extent to which you push your credentials leads me to the conclusion that you are self-absorbed and bask in the glow of your accomplishments. In my experience, people who bask in this glow generally have an overinflated view themselves.

[Billiken Rich]

I'm thinking you have to treat Doc B like a water bed overfilled with raw sewage. Maximum sharps precautions......

[billikenmetz]

Well, I think we're using our "academic standards" to justify Brad not landing top recruits. That's "horse-hockey," to quote Roy D. Mercer. Our academic standards, while continuing to make Saint Louis a prestigious insitution of higher education are on par with several institutions that have had similar, if not better athletic success as SLU. Biondi needs to realize we're never going to eclipse Georgetown or Boston College in the academic field, so we need to eclipse them on the fields of play. It CAN be done. We have the resources financially to make Saint Louis a place where great student-athletes and great athletes want to play. Let's get it done.

[moytoy12]

"How big an ole boy are ya?"

The sweet sounds of Roy D. Mercer...now you're talking!

[billikenmetz]

Levick told Malloy to "pack himself a lunch" because it's gonna be an all-day ass whoopin.