SLUDrew Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 As long as Brad is running a clean program, and not having any more 9-21 seasons, he will be the Coach at SLU as long as he wants. Many of us have said that if he doesn't land a stud recruting and or make the tournament, then he should be let go. It has been five years of very little if any progress and a change needs to be made. However, unless this team completely falls apart, they will make the NIT. I will admit Levick may break the cycle, but even a tiny amount of "success" (ie making the NIT) is more than enough to keep you on at this University where it is clear that winning athletics is not a priority. So, we will make the NIT, Brad will sign some "project" in the spring that somehow nobody else could intentify as a D-1 player, and we will start the same thing again next year. We will have a couple nice wins, and more ungodly losses, and scrape together enough wins in a terrible conference to get yet another glorious NIT bid. Contrary to what some say on this board, it is not pre-destined that this scenario plays out. We can and should expect more. We have a great ooprtunity to get a coach in here, and let him recruit at least one class of his own to open the new arena. The door will be opened when the new arena opens for SLU to gain some noteriety. However, that opportunity will be flushed with more 33 point efforts or losses to teams that would have trouble beating St. Louis U High. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 I agree, UB will not be fired, I dont quite think he should fired yet though. However when you say "I will admit Levick may break the cycle, but even a tiny amount of "success" (ie making the NIT) is more than enough to keep you on at this University where it is clear that winning athletics is not a priority." They are a priority, just not nearly as important as academics, and they shouldn't be. I think UB has been mediocre in his tenure at SLU but that is not enogh to get him fired Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLUDrew Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share Posted January 6, 2007 Just ask those at Stanford, Duke, Notre Dame, UCLA, UNC, BC, and countless others. The "we are focusing on academics" excuse is a tired one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NH Posted January 6, 2007 Share Posted January 6, 2007 A college is supposed to focus on academics that is their purpose. You misunderstand my post. I am not trying to say because we focus on academics we dont have to worry about sports, I am saying that we should focus on acaademics more than sports but that is not an excuse for poor sports programs (which I am not saying SLU has) 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.