bauman Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Although I'm not usually on the case of Mr. Politically Correct, today he really got to me. On his 3 p.m. show, during a discussion of last nights poor MO performance (a loss to Belmont at MO) he said that there is no need to compare MO and SLU because they are "on different planets." Nice, Mr. Voice of the Billikens. I guess that means Belmont would have killed the Bills at Savvis. I for one would like to get the toothless Tigers "on our planet" so they would agree to play us. If pretty Q is avoiding us due to RPI concerns, then I wonder what last nights game is going to do for State U's RPI. Bob, you don't have to always put the Bills down to keep your gig on pro-Mizzou KFNS. Claiboure and Maracek need you to fill time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billikan Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I am fed up with Ramsey. He must think that he has some Missouri gig in his future because he obviously continues to bad mouth the Billikens at every opportunity. As I said before, he does not care for the Bills or the program. He is not a fan of the Bills. He is merely a radio shill that keeps the Bills job because it is the only job he has been offered. I cannot imagine why the athletic department continues to hire him. Ridiculous!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 SPUMAC has a slimy HC who cheats and SLU has one that plays by the rules, so they are on different planets. Hey, I guess Bullit Bob is right on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quality Is Job 1 Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 ...but that's not necessarily a negative statement. You seem to be putting words into Bob's mouth. Granted, I didn't hear Rammer's comments, but I doubt he was saying SLU would have lost to Belmont just because the Bruins won at Missouri. It just doesn't transfer over. Also, I think Brad Soderberg could adjust better and more quickly than Missouri's Quin Snyder could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 We all know what Ramsey meant by his statement. He is a patronizing a$$hole who regularly demeans SLU. The man should be fired. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3star_recruit Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I heard the comment. Marasek was discussing with Bob whether he thought Mizzou would still make the NCAA tournament and Bob pointed out what a strong conference the Big 12 and how Mizzou has continued to make the Dance even with a mediocre conference record. For some reason Marasek asked him to compare their season outlook to SLU and Bob said it didn't really make any sense to compare the two programs because they were on different planets. I thought it was obvious that Bob was talking about talent level but I still didn't appreciate that remark. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bauman Posted January 1, 2004 Author Share Posted January 1, 2004 Trust me, I was listening and he was not being positive towards SLU-he was clearly saying that MO is in a much higher class than SLU. While they do have better "talent" than SLU, I would welcome our nice little team of overachievers getting a shot at the poorly coached Mighty Mizzou-too bad pretty Q ducks us. After the loss to "who in the hell is Belmont" we now know why Q avoids SLU. These two teams are a great example of how superior coaching can take lesser individual talent and beat a group of more skilled players. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tseugnekillib Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I heard Rammer's "on different planets" comment and I assumed he was talking about the talent level of the respective Missouri vs SLU rosters. While there is a big difference in physical talent, one would think that SLU's announcer could have stated his thought better. I'm not sure if Rammer was intentionally taking a shot at SLU, or if he is just not that bright of a guy! I'm leaning toward the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I caught Ramsey's comments just as soon as as I sat in my car this afternoon. I believe a couple of you have the context of the statement wrong though. Maracek made the comment that he like what Soderberg was doing from what he read in today's paper ie shortening the bench and firmly setting a rotation (I was shocked to hear a + comment about SLU from Maracek) and how Maracek thought maybe that is what Mizzou needs to do. Ramsey's response: First off SLU and MU are on entirely different planets, then he goes on to respond to Maracek's comments. Is this a new policy at KFNS that any mention of SLU and Mizzou within a certain time frame requires one of the hosts to mention that Mizzou is totally superior to SLU, or is this just Ramsey's demented new rule. These type of comments repeatedly coming out of the mouth of the supposed "Voice of the Billikens" is unacceptable. To make it worse Ramsey was on location in Dayton getting ready to call the game tonight on of course SLU's tab. I will be e-mailing and writing letters to every staff person I can find at SLU in the athletic dept. and tell them to quit playing this cruel joke on SLU's fans and get a real broadcaster. I think Ramsey wants to lose his job at this point why else would he going out of his way to insult SLU at every turn. This reminds me of the "Seinfeld" episode where George wants to get fired from the Yankees. Will we be seeing Ramsey drinving in circles in the SLU parking lot with the Billiken statue being dragged behind his car while yelling profanities to Father Biondi out of a bullhorn? SLU has a world class acedemic reputation, world class campus, a world class coach, building a world class arena, why do we need a second rate broadcaster? Fire Ramsey now and lets get Costas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Ramsey really, really bothers me for two reasons: (1) The SLU basketball program faces an uphill battle in obtaining respect for its efforts to develop a big time program in St. Louis (the right way). The university's broadcasting partners should be assets in gaining this respect (see Frank Cussumano). Not only is Rammer not an asset, he frequently undermines the university's efforts on his radio station. He did it on several ocassions regarding the conference shakeup, and he does it on a regular basis during college baksetball discussions on his radio show. If I were Woolard, I would be pi$$ed and would be strongly considering alternative broadcasters. (2) On his radio show, he repeatedly patronizes his callers no matter how intelligent their comments or questions may be. During a cardinal stadium discussion, I once heard Bob go off on a caller for suggesting that downtown has better highway access than the the St. Peters area. (Hey Bob, last time I checked four major highways--40, 44, 55, and 70--intersect downtown and only one highway intersects St. Peters.) The way Ramsey "educates" his callers, you would think he had a PhD from Harvard, not a communications degree from Lindenwood. Bob is a two-faced SOB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SluSignGuy Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 One thing that could be a good idea is at the Billiken Banquet, let Frank be the MC, not Ramsey. Just a way to show: "We are not liking what you are doing, so cut it out. We aren't cutting the cord yet because of how long you have been with us, but be warned that we are taking notice" I think that is a good plan of action to take, make Frank the face of the Billikens more than Ramsey for the time being. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gister Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I second that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjray Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 OK, this one sends me over the top. I've been defending Rammer since last year and his "worst billiken team in 20 years" comment but this breaks the camel's back. Mizzouri, as a team, is no more than above average despite the oustanding individual talent they possess. No fair minded basketball observer would say that SLU could not hang with them. It does not matter if he intended only to refer to "talent level". This man knows he is talking to an audience and his comment was not qualified in such a way. He has trashed the program and that is unfair for, at it's core, I think our basketball program is much more solid than Mizzou. That house of cards build by Q is going to crumble and sooner rather than later. All right, I'm with you. Rammer has to go!!! Let's start a letter writing campaing to Doug Woolard: [email protected] . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Finally! I started a thread after the SMS game about Rammer's comments and a few supported my being angry with his poor comments about SLU and not giving a true picture of the game. Many attacked me by saying what a great announcer he is and he is not a full time employee of SLU so he can say what he wants. I heard his comment today and I simply thought to myself - here he goes again but far be it from me to say anything about it given the last reception I got. So,I am glad to see that others took his comments negative also. I agree as the voice of the Bills he has to be held accountable for his comments. I assure you if you email Woolard he will respond about Rammer. My only regret is that if Woolard did talk to Rammer after his last comments and he goes and does this than I am not sure what to think. I am sorry, I am tired of Rammer not being a supportive voice for SLU - that has to stop and I don't care how or what Woolard has to do to get it cleaned up. Enough of this sh## is enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aj_arete Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 will be a good series if it's ever resumed. I have no doubts that this SLU team could be competitive with Mizzou, who would have difficulty maintaining the patience and discipline to execute on both ends of the court. Plus, you have SLU, who would be highly energetic and motivated to play at their optimum level. Then you have Mizzou, who is tight, because they know that the public is expecting them to destroy SLU everytime they play. It's not surprising that the games have been closely contested. SLU fans should know all about because of SMS and SIUC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetorch Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 >Then you have Mizzou, who is >tight, because they know that the public is expecting them >to destroy SLU everytime they play. What public? The Mizzou moron faithful? This is always a fallacious argument when brought up by Mizzou backers. Mizzou is expected to blowout Belmont not SLU. When the two teams did play I never saw Mizzou favored by double digits. Having the pseudo responsibilty of having to blow out SLU is not a viable excuse. The only Mizzou fans who think they should destroy SLU also think Norm should come out of retirement, ie it is a very small minority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlumniFan Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Any statement which contains the phrase "the public is expecting them (Mizzou) to destroy SLU everytime they play" is highly indicative of the biased position of the speaker. After three years of games where Mizzou was beaten once and BARELY, JUST BARELY won the other games, no rational person would expect SLU to be destroyed. That is simply a ridiculous statement, unsubstantiated by facts. Additionally, I hear most people say that they always expect it to be a very close game every time it is played. Besides, the people who really get up for these games are the fans. Many of the players at both schools are not even from the area and have no idea of the intense distaste each alumni group has for the other's school. SLU really gets up for teams like Cincy, Marquette, and nationally ranked teams like Arizona, G-Tech, etc., but unless Mizzou is highly ranked, it is not as big of a game to SLU as Mizzou fans want to think it is. I have talked to far too many players about this issue over the last 20 years to conclude anything to the contrary. I am not saying it isn't a big game, but it is the Mizzou fans' hubris, not reality, that leads them to think of it as SLU's superbowl. If I had one wish for this new year it would be that posters would refrain from outlandish statements. Or, if they make those types of statements, they should have some degree of rhetoric to at least back them up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 2, 2004 Share Posted January 2, 2004 Talent isn't just the ability to jump high or run fast. Talent is the ability to do all the things that make you as a team (since this is a team game ) a winner. There are no individual high jumping contests during the game, or length of court races. I have always hated the notion that if a team wins consistently 80-70 they are more talented than a team who wins 60-50 because they have the ability to score more points I question wether Mizzou is more talented than SLU ... going into the season I thought they were ... but at this point I am not so sure. Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman 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.