Brad's show and recruiting

[bbill]

Brad mentioned that it is very difficult for him to have a good recruiting year when St. Louis talent is down (like in '07). Basically, he said it is tough for him to recruit outside a 100 mile radius.

I understand where's he's coming from, but that is a major copout. Sure, he and his staff need to work much harder when St. Louis talent is down, but plenty of other programs recruit well with a regional and even national recruiting scope.

Just like Ian, Brad needs to get much more aggressive.

[SLUDrew]

I will stand by what I have always said about Brad; I think he is a good coach and an even better guy, but I do not think he is the guy to take a program to the next level. I don't think he likes the dog and pony show that one must be a part of to land big-time recruits, and I think he is very parochial.

He would be better suited at a SEMO or UMKC where he wouldn't be expected to recruit nationally and could just focus on getting the most out of what he has.

[Taj79]

Just what would that be? Not to take a slap at SLUDrew but where are we now? And where is the next level? That gets talked about in cliches but I have to wonder if we can seem to have a definition about where "we are" and where "we are going" (i.e. "the next level).

How do you define success? League championships? We haven't won one of those in how long? Tournament championships? Okay, you don't win the league outright but you win the post season tournament. How many of those have we won? I think that answer is one in the last 35 to 40 years. Dance invitations? Four times over the same past 40 years .. two with Claggs, one with Hughes and the Miracle in Memphis.

So I would offer that our level ain't too high to begin with. Are you saying Brad isn't the one to get us above our current doldrum level? Right now are we above the current level of SEMO and UMKC? I'd like to get to a very high level but it is difficult to know where you are going if you don't know where you currently are or where you've come from. So, are you saying Brad can't get us to the next level, which would be --- to me --- an annual player on the national stage.

[ACE]

>Brad mentioned that it is very difficult for him to have a

>good recruiting year when St. Louis talent is down (like in

>'07). Basically, he said it is tough for him to recruit

>outside a 100 mile radius.

>

>I understand where's he's coming from, but that is a major

>copout. Sure, he and his staff need to work much harder

>when St. Louis talent is down, but plenty of other programs

>recruit well with a regional and even national recruiting

>scope.

>

>Just like Ian, Brad needs to get much more aggressive.

If he did say that, it is a copout. In the past, the program has been able to pluck some nice players from outside the area - Marque, MoJeffers, Love, Dobbs.

And on a different recruiting tangent, we should be able to land a player every recruiting year who is at least able to crack our 8-man rotation in his first season. We didn't do that this past year. Even after we didn't land Stemler, is it too much to ask for landing a juco player who could contribute this year? I'm not even asking for a superstar, but just a nice role player. I'm thinking of players from the past like David Robinson or Carl Turner.

[SLUDrew]

When Romar decided to take the Washington job was it the job of the search committee to go out and find someone to maintain the status quo? I would sure hope not. What are we saying about our program if we don't expect it to constantly be improving? Why would the Chicago Cubs ever fire a manager? They haven't won a World Series in nearly 100 years. Why is it fair to expect any manager to achieve success if no one else could?

This program is not as deprived of tradition as you make it out to be either. You say 4 invites in the past forty years. Isn't it more accurate to say 4 invites in the last 14 years?

To answer your question, I would say the "next level" is consistently playing on the level of other very similar programs (Xavier, Creighton, Gonzaga, Marquette). There is no reason for us not be on par with those programs. I understand it takes time, but if after this season (Brad's fifth) if we are not in the NCAA tourney AND Brad hasn't landed a stellar recruiting class (evidence of moving the program forward) then we need to make a change.

[slu72]

Obviously it is, Ace, cause it didn't happen.

[TheRaginCajun]

Its a joke and I am tired of excuses. If Obi, Horace, and JJ are the best they can do after 5 seasons, it is time to bring in some new blood. Bring in some assistant coaches who are going to work tirelessly to bring in some legitimate players into this program. When is Brad going to hold his staff accountable? If we cannot recruit someone to start at the power forward position over Luke Meyer, something needs to be done. No excuses.

[VTIME]

>Brad mentioned that it is very difficult for him to have a

>good recruiting year when St. Louis talent is down (like in

>'07). Basically, he said it is tough for him to recruit

>outside a 100 mile radius.

>

>I understand where's he's coming from, but that is a major

>copout. Sure, he and his staff need to work much harder

>when St. Louis talent is down, but plenty of other programs

>recruit well with a regional and even national recruiting

>scope.

>

>Just like Ian, Brad needs to get much more aggressive.

If the talent is so down, why couldnt he land a fall commitment from one of the top guys available, like Powell, O'Rear, Harrellson, Pearson. My sleeper of the year is Rodney Ford, the 6'5 pg from Affton. He's lacked the exposure he's needed, but he led the metro area in assists last season and is a good rebounder and defender who picks and chooses his spots to score. He's currently averaging 16.7ppg 8.67 asts, 8.0 rebs and 4.67 blks.

[lefty]

there is a distinct JUCO flavor. These guys need to play now. Don't you all think recruiting will be much easier with the new on-campus arena?

[moytoy12]

You can't have a sleeper if you recommend everyone.

[Bay Area Billiken]

In addition to the 4 NCAA bids, Rich Grawer's teams were very close at least 3 times. Two of his teams were flat out snubbed by the NCAA, one that finished 25-10, and another that finished 27-10 and was the NIT runner-up. As I recall that latter team had an RPI of 47 on Selection Sunday. But SLU at the time was in the MCC, which was considered a 1 bid league, and SLU could never get past Xavier.

Even though the NCAA number is 4, in a sense it more fairly should be 6.

I think it is fair to say that SLU should be able to be on the level of Marquette, Creighton, Xavier, Gonzaga, etc. Frankly, why shouldn't SLU be able to be even with Marquette and above the others? SLU is ranked higher than all of them, #5 academically nationally among all Catholic schools. Only Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, and Fordham are currently ranked higher academically than SLU. SLU is a good school. The campus has improved dramatically. It is a good place.

SLU is much higher than UMKC and SEMO in the basketball pecking order.

In hoops, Gonzaga currently has a built-in advantage out here because the Zags are head and shoulders above the rest of the WCC. Gonzaga pretty well knows that it will be in the NCAA Tournament each year. But it wasn't always that way. When I was first out here, Gonzaga was a middle of the conference WCC team.

Re recruits, it may not be best for Brad Soderberg to say things publicly like this, even if it is the truth. It has been shown time and time again that when SLU wins, the nucleus of the team is home grown. This is not to say that SLU should not recruit nationally. But SLU seems to have the better chance of landing the true stars if they are local players, i.e. Scott Highmark, Erwin Claggett, Larry Hughes, Anthony Bonner, Monroe Douglass, Roland Gray. SLU wins when the borders are sealed, especially from that state school 100 miles to the West.

[ACE]

>there is a distinct JUCO flavor. These guys need to play

>now. Don't you all think recruiting will be much easier with

>the new on-campus arena?

Nothing wrong with playing now. If Brad didn't think we could've used a player to help now, he wouldn't have recruited Stemler. If we recruited a comparable player to Robinson, he'd be starting at the 4 for us. Yes, recruiting should be easier with the new arena and expectations should be even higher.

[billiken_roy]

you do realize that man that most perceived to be the lead assistant on coach soderberg's staff left over the summer? i.e. maybe he is "holding his staff acccountable".

[NashvilleBilliken]

I'm not going to rehash all the debates from the summer and don't want to turn this into anything like that.

But are you saying that if when we DO make the tournament and the recruiting class isn't what you think it should be, we should fire the coach? I think that's absurd. Forget about my alleged loyalty to Brad. Who the hell is gonna want to come to a program who has made the tourney "4 times in the last 14" years, but then fires a coach who makes that 5? You said that was our tradition. Unfortunately, it is pretty weak at this point. But, making the tournament is OBVIOUSLY not the status quo, so I'm not sure how you can argue that point.

[TheRaginCajun]

Beane was held accountable by Soderberg and that came in the form of his removal, but the other coaches were promoted and Jamal was hired along with a director of basketball operations who has no coaching or playing experience to fill the lower positions. I just don't understand. I know very little about Jamal, as a coach or a recruiter, and no disrespect is meant to him. I just feel like we could use someone with name value on our staff or someone with a proven track record as a coach or recruiter and we dont have that.

[Box and Won]

We were even victims of our own success back in the 40's. Had we gone to the NCAA Tournament instead of the (then) more highly regarded NIT, we'd have a few more tourney appearances to brag about.

Grawer deserved at least one, if not two, bids back in the 80's. It was painful to be left out in the cold back then.

[ACE]

Brad has repeatedly said that getting Ian was all Beane because he had played in Greece and a friend referred IV. Maybe that was the only thing Beane was able to accomplish??? Jamal has the connection with Redlands juco which is probably why we are or were in the running for Alexander. It would be nice if one of our assistant could establish some connections outside of the area, whether it is jucos, Chicago or where ever.

[Taj79]

... and it was painful. But it was what it was. I recognize that it is 4-in-14 for some of the young studs floating around this board, but it is also 4-in-40 for some of the older guys and gals. The point is that I don't know what level folks think we're at right now, and that's what I was asking. The last time we went to the NCAA's legally, legitimately, on merit was 1997, Hughes one adn done year. We've been shut out for ten years now. So if you break it down, 1975-1992 ZERO apperances, 1993 -1997 FOUR aapearances, and 1998 - present ZERO appearances. In 40 years, this program has had one five-year walk on the wild side. No wonder we are laughed at as heartily as we are.

[courtside]

>In addition to the 4 NCAA bids, Rich Grawer's teams were

>very close at least 3 times. Two of his teams were flat out

>snubbed by the NCAA, one that finished 25-10, and another

>that finished 27-10 and was the NIT runner-up. As I recall

>that latter team had an RPI of 47 on Selection Sunday. But

>SLU at the time was in the MCC, which was considered a 1 bid

>league, and SLU could never get past Xavier.

>Even though the NCAA number is 4, in a sense it more fairly

>should be 6.

>

>I think it is fair to say that SLU should be able to be on

>the level of Marquette, Creighton, Xavier, Gonzaga, etc.

>Frankly, why shouldn't SLU be able to be even with Marquette

>and above the others? SLU is ranked higher than all of

>them, #5 academically nationally among all Catholic schools.

> Only Notre Dame, Georgetown, Boston College, and Fordham

>are currently ranked higher academically than SLU. SLU is a

>good school. The campus has improved dramatically. It is a

>good place.

>

>SLU is much higher than UMKC and SEMO in the basketball

>pecking order.

>

>In hoops, Gonzaga currently has a built-in advantage out

>here because the Zags are head and shoulders above the rest

>of the WCC. Gonzaga pretty well knows that it will be in

>the NCAA Tournament each year. But it wasn't always that

>way. When I was first out here, Gonzaga was a middle of the

>conference WCC team.

>

>Re recruits, it may not be best for Brad Soderberg to say

>things publicly like this, even if it is the truth. It has

>been shown time and time again that when SLU wins, the

>nucleus of the team is home grown. This is not to say that

>SLU should not recruit nationally. But SLU seems to have

>the better chance of landing the true stars if they are

>local players, i.e. Scott Highmark, Erwin Claggett, Larry

>Hughes, Anthony Bonner, Monroe Douglass, Roland Gray. SLU

>wins when the borders are sealed, especially from that state

>school 100 miles to the West.

No, it is not good for Soderberg to say this publicly because it isn't correct. SLU needs to win with local, regional players to start, but in order to maintain any sort of national success, or move up the ladder a lot on the totem pole of programs, they will also have to recruit nationally and into other regions at some point after achieving local and regional success. You use accumulated contacts in other regions and other parts of the country to land players too. It is called networking.

Soderberg does not like the recruiting aspect and sales aspect of the job. It is part of the job. He can go coach D-II or DIII ball if he just wants to coach kids and not deal with anything else. This is major D-I ball, and there is much mroe to it, and it can be done successfully at high levels, doing it the right way without compromising integrity.

I am all for a good guy like BS to do well. I am also all for him getting the commitment and support of the University too. But this isn't about the little engine that could, or root for the nice good guy who tries hard. Need to see some results too, and results need to be at a certain level to be acceptable regardless of how nice someone is...etc...Some SLU fans are similar to a lot of St. Louis fans in general, we'll take the nice guy regardless of talent and coach em up and do our best. Good kids go to the other schools mentioned above too.

I do believe it will take a special, unique person to sell SLU and get the program to another level, considering where it has been. Is BS that guy? That is what people are finding out. I do have concerns when the coach tells me that he doesn't enjoy recruiting, and doesn't enjoy the business side of the game to the point where it is more than just something everyone says. He just wants to coach ball and there is more to the job than coaching ball.

[billiken_roy]

courtside, i have never heard coach soderberg say that. i can imagine any coach thinking that as recruiting is nasty. it is the one aspect of division one athletics that makes me the most sick.

that said, i recall brad at a billiken club meeting a couple of years ago make the statement when asked what aspect of coaching does he think he is better at than folks think and without missing a beat he said recruiting.

when did he say the opposite?

[TheBand]

The last time we went to the NCAA's legally,

>legitimately, on merit was 1997, Hughes one adn done year.

>We've been shut out for ten years now. So if you break it

>down, 1975-1992 ZERO apperances, 1993 -1997 FOUR

>aapearances, and 1998 - present ZERO appearances.

Are you forgetting the Memphis run in 2000? or does it not fit into your classification system? Just want a clarification. Also, technically, the Hughes bid was in 98.

[courtside]

>courtside, i have never heard coach soderberg say that. i

>can imagine any coach thinking that as recruiting is nasty.

>it is the one aspect of division one athletics that makes me

>the most sick.

>

>that said, i recall brad at a billiken club meeting a couple

>of years ago make the statement when asked what aspect of

>coaching does he think he is better at than folks think and

>without missing a beat he said recruiting.

>

>when did he say the opposite?

To me privately. Told me more than once that he likes the idea of coaching smaller level ball more where all you do is coach.(He would never go back and do that of course voluntarily, just speaking out loud matter of factly about it.) He isn't a fan of the other things necessary at major D-I. He likes the level of play and winning at that level, but all things being equal, he prefers to just coach ball and let others do the Arena selling, recruiting etc...I can tell you he doesn't enjoy recruiting. Some coaches do enjoy recruiting.

You said Brad made a comment that people underestimate his ability to recruit. I am saying his heart isn't in recruiting. It is necessary evil to him. There are coaches out there who embrace the recruiting aspect of the game much more than BS. He may believe he is underestimated as a recruiter. I wouldn't expect BS to say otherwise about himself. He is a proud man, and I am sure he genuinely believes it. But I guarantee you, he would be just as happy coaching some D-III ball or high school ball somewhere where he doesn't have to put up with the other BS. Coaching major D-I is a challenge for him, and that is why he is doing it.

If he can get the elite local and regional players in strong years, he will do fine and build a foundation and move forward. If he can't add to Lisch and Liddell in two seasons after...the momentum is lost of getting a couple of top local players, and he starts all over again.

[bknightsfan]

V-time, those stats are only through 3 games this year, they don't mean much

[Taj79]

The interpretation was "legally, legitimately on merit." Everyone refers to the Memphis win as the Miracle in Memphis and I agree. That was one of those Cinderella stories, an oddity, where we got hot and the breaks went our way. I'd compare that to Mizzou's run through the Big 8 tourney in the 70's, the Detroit run through the MCC in the mid-80's and many other "lucky runs" that permeate the landscape.

As I recall, that team threw up a pretty good clunker against Utah in Cleveland in the NCAA first round. Score was like 47 to 45 or something. We were not there on merit and if Memphis had not happened, we most likely would have been sitting at home that year. I recall going into that post-season as the eighth or ninth seed in CUSA.

[p diddy]

V time, I'm glad you came around to my way of thinking about rodney ford as the sleeper of the year in st. louis. we talked about this during the summer. we were discussing ford and you really like the griffin kid from hazelwood west (who is a nice player by the way.)

bad boyz for life