Bruce

Not good news for our programs.  While I can understand to some extent the lack of enthusiasm around SJSU, Idaho, Utah St., etc., all of those schools are more legitimate D-1 programs than half of what is left in the Southland.  With the loss of Texas St. and UTSA, you're down to 10 Southland members.  Nicholls has no business being a D-1 program, and all of the non-McNeese/LU Southland East Division programs are barely legitimate D-1 programs.  And those schools look downright appealing compared to what the Southland might have to turn to to fill their membership back up: Tarleton St.?  Delta St?  Houston Baptist?  Ick. The reason that the WAC was appealing was less about how incredibly awesome the WAC is; it's more about the fact that the Southland of 2015 will look like a Division II or NAIA conference--and that's going to drag down any efforts that the legitimate athletic programs in the conference (LU, SFA, SHSU, McNeese) make to raise their profile. Here's hoping maybe there is some possibility for LU to rejoin the Sun Belt.  It might be our last legit shot at moving up in profile.

Well, given the candidates left, I'd go with Skelton first, then Knight, but I don't think Bubba is even on the shortlist.  While I don't like that Knight hasn't won, I also have to be honest--Lubbock has got to be about the most difficult place on the planet to recruit basketball players to.  It's a medium-sized town in the middle of absolutely nowhere; it's virtually all white, and football will always be king there.  It can't be easy to recruit talent there--especially when your opposition are the likes of Kansas and Texas. The Southland ain't the Big XII, that's for sure.  If Knight can run a program, I think he'd have a good chance of success here.  Of the rest of the guys, I don't think Sutton is actually in the running at all because of the legalities; Cyprien bothers me because of the whole resume thing at USL, and I'll admit I don't really know much at all about Monarch or Seltzer. Frankly, I'm glad that Evans was honest/loud-mouthed enough to make it clear he really didn't want to be here, and his heart is in Oklahoma.  I think he'd have been a fine coach--his resume was very impressive, but if he really doesn't want to be here, we're probably better off without him--he'd have left the first chance he had to upgrade, anyway. As far as excuses, UNLV, there are none.  This is still an awful conference, with three or four schools that shouldn't even be Division I.  Any good coach, given decent recruiting abilities, should be able to win given the advantages in facilities, funding, and fan base that LU has over most of the Southland.

I'm sorry, I just don't get it.  I see the appeal of Sutton (as well as the risk).  I see the appeal of Knight, if you believe he was in over his head too soon at Tech.  I can see the appeal of Evans, Cross, or Skelton given their successes at lower levels of hoops. I still think Brooks is on these lists as a courtesy given his previous ties to LU: 54-84 at the U of H isn't what we're looking for.  But I understand why the media and other folks mention his name. Why is Abatemarco even being mentioned?  Ever?  Comedy?  Irony?  The guy has had three coaching jobs.  After leaving Lamar, he was fired from Drake for abusing players having essentially spawned a mutiny.  He went 13-66 at Sacramento State, although I'm not sure anyone could win there.  He's had no success as a head coach at the college level, clearly has a habit of being abrasive to players and the community (and, mind you, I wasn't even living in the area when whatever-it-was went down with Abatemarco and the local community--actually, I'm curious as to exactly what it was that happened if one of you old-timers knows :)).  Frankly, I just don't get it.  I understand if folks say he's a good X's-and-O's tactician, but when you've got a reputation as being that big of a jerk, it's clear that he can't recruit good enough players for his programs to be competitive on a consistent basis.  He's a born assistant.  We just got rid of a guy who fit that profile perfectly.  What could possibly possess us to do that again?  Don't get me wrong, one of the "prime candidates" might end up not being the answer, either, but at least they are truly unknowns.  Abatemarco, like Brooks, is a proven failure.  You could say Knight is as well, but there's a hell of a difference between failing in the Big XII at a young age versus doing so at programs like UH or Drake.  I'm still not sure who my favorite candidate is at this point--I'm leaning a bit to Evans at this point, but think Sutton deserves a second chance if he's interested, and I can't imagine Knight couldn't coach at this level.  I just think Cross is too young, but I wouldn't be upset if he got the shot; I'd absolutely love it if he became an assistant--especially if one of the bigger names takes the job who we all know might look to jump ship in a few years if they're successful.

It is quite hard for me to believe that anyone could be surprised this move was made.  And the fact that there *are* some people who probably *will* call for the head of the new coach three months into next season doesn't change the fact that success is not optional in the college coaching profession. Sorry, Nick.  This isn't the Big XII.  It's not the ACC.  Hell, it's not even the Sun Belt.  This is one of the worst conferences in the country--Texas State, who finished (tied) for second in the conference, had losses to NAIA Our Lady of the Lake and should-be-NAIA Houston Baptist on its record.  Northwestern State, who beat Lamar twice and finished tied for second in the conference, lost to LSU-Shreveport.  These are not the resumes of quality teams, and it is not a quality basketball conference--and LU hasn't been respectable in the conference for three years.  With the advantages in support and season ticket sales LU has, we should be a dominant player in this conference, routinely finishing in the top 3-4.  To finish behind all but three teams in this godawful basketball conference is not acceptable.  Roc had his chances.  I didn't shift to the "Fire Roc" side until mid-season this year--you do give the local guy with a good recruiting rep an extra chance.  He had the chance, and couldn't deliver.   I am sorry it has come to this.  Roc did care about LU, he did work hard, and he did some good things, including his solid graduation record.  I wish him the best in landing an assistant job, and want to thank him for being professional at a time that it had to be tough--being out on the recruiting trail last weekend even when he had to think the axe might fall.  

This is pathetic.  And, honestly, that isn't a strong enough term.   I agree with you, Cards.  Roc's lineup decisions are arbitrary and at this point appear to be driven by either spite or complete, bipolar desperation. I'll make it clear: if you look at my post from the end of last year, I was OK with giving Roc one more year.  I wasn't one of the folks dying to run him out of town after last season, unacceptable as it was.  I wanted to see Roc succeed: he bleeds Lamar red, he works hard, this was the job he wanted, and, yes, he had a quality rep as a recruiter.  I really hoped that he would get the job done. It was clear he felt the pressure: he went out and recruited a boatload of scorers.  I was happy--a lack of shooters to me was the biggest problem the team had the last two years.  The guys were athletic, more so than I had seen at Lamar in my time watching them.  But what has happened this year only serves to validate every criticism hurled at Roc by his detractors over the last few years.  With the talent on this team, there is no excuse for this team not to be in the top 2 or 3 in the conference.  To finish out of the conference tournament--again--is so far beyond "unacceptable" it isn't even funny.  In reality, I'm not sure what has happened in the last three weeks doesn't justify *immediate* termination--the season is lost, and at this point, I think Roc is more likely to go Bob Knight (the chair-throwing, player-choker--not the player-graduating tactical guru) than turn this thing around. I've been a basketball season ticket holder for fifteen years.  At no time did the thought of not renewing my season tickets *ever* cross my mind.  Not after last year.  Not during the Deane era.  Never.  Not once.  Just in case any of the powers that be read this board, I will make it clear: if Roc is back to coach this team next year, I will not be back.  I do not demand success every year--even the greatest coaches, coaching at the most reputable schools, have had bad years.  On the other hand, I *do* demand a commitment to excellence: an understanding that LU will do its utmost to make the programs at LU as competitive as possible.  If they bring back a coach who has demonstrated immaturity, incompetency, and incoherence, I must make the assumption that LU doesn't really want to win--and that I can not accept, nor do I feel any obligation to support it.

Agreed.  Sure, UCA isn't very good, but we were completely dominant in every facet of the game, and winning on the road is never easy in this conference.  I still am amazed at how many boards Lamb gets given his size, and James was terrific once again. We'll see what happens Wednesday in a rivalry game against a better team, but today's performance was certainly all anyone could have hoped for in the conference opener.  Great job, guys!

With this officiating crew, we'll need to play damned well to win this game.  As usual, road officiating in the Southland is a joke.

It's put-up-or-shut-up time for Roc.  Two years ago, the team was plagued with a *lot* of injuries; last year's team just didn't have a ton of talent.  These issues aren't there this year. The players Roc has brought in this year have talent, but are routinely losing games when leading early as teams adjust to our strategy.  This is a coaching issue, pure and simple, as many of you have pointed out.  The team is still coming together, to be fair--a lot of these guys are new to the team and the system--but conference success is a must.  Let's face it, if we put it together in conference, we'll forget about Rice... and ULL... and Tulane... and Canisius... pretty quickly.  (Ok, maybe it'll take longer than I thought). But the fact is, a failure of this team to win in a Southland that is not very strong this year should be Roc's ticket out of town.  The talent is there.  Failure this year is a clear failure of coaching.  I still hope that maybe Roc was using the pre-conference schedule to constantly fiddle with the lineup to give everyone a chance to prove their ability in preparation for conference play, but my hope is waning.  

I think it's simply important that we keep our options open and are examining all avenues.  This should include both FBS and possible new FCS conferences.  To me, the key point is that LU cannot be in the Southland Conference in five years, as it is very likely the conference will not even exist at the D1 level: Texas State and UTSA are already gone, and the impending budget crisis is going to take out several of the Louisiana schools.  Refilling the spots in the Southland will consist of bringing in very low-level schools that will drag the reputation of the conference to D2 levels, and depending on how many teams are lost, it could put the automatic NCAA hoops bit in jeopardy.   I have to question as well whether any big-time programs will ever come to Beaumont if we go FBS, but the bigger deal to me is that the arguments on this board often seem to come between those who have an aggressive vision for LU (go FBS, ASAP!) and those who are (relatively) satisfied with remaining an FCS school and trying to develop a program that can develop into an FCS power.  To me, either is good (I've vacillated on which option I prefer many times, and still am not sure), but the point is that *neither* of these goals are feasible with LU in the Southland, because the Southland of 2015 is going to look more like a Division 2 conference than the Southland of 2010 the way things look now.  

Attitude matters. Talent matters. Work ethic matters. Nothing else does.  Got more tattoos than Dennis Rodman?  As long as you listen to the coaches and work hard, I could care less.  Got more piercings than a punk band?  Same deal.  Be on time, put in the effort, put the team first, and I'm good with it. I don't care if our starting QB has a crew cut, dreadlocks, no hair, orange hair, or Troy Polamalu hair.  I care if he has the talent to win games, a "team first" attitude, and the willingness to work to improve.  If he doesn't, I don't want him.   The idea that we are good enough to be making arbitrary decisions about what a player should "look like" before we "allow" him on our roster is either asinine, naive, or both.  To be successful at our level, we're always going to need to be taking chances on guys who are a little short on ability (size, for example), who have had issues in the past, or who are looking for playing time after transferring.  To reject a guy with exceptional talent and *four* years of potential eligibility because his hairstyle doesn't meet someone's standards doesn't even deserve serious debate on this board.   Welcome to LU, JJ.  

While I think we'd all like to see LU playing quality competition at home, it just doesn't seem possible to get this done any more.  The "power" conference schools won't play anyone from a smaller conference on the road, instead choosing to pad their records by playing 8-10 home games before the conference season starts.  Sadly, the NCAA hasn't--and won't--put a stop to this by forcing teams to play a balanced home/road schedule (and the various rankings for college BB vastly underestimate the effect of home court advantage: Sagarin's, for example, assume a *four* point advantage for home court.  Think any coach in America wouldn't voluntarily start any game down 8-0 to move it from a road venue to a home one?).  Even the better rated mid-major teams don't want to play teams from the lower-rated D-I conferences any more. About the best we can hope for is some 1-for-1 deals with teams in slightly-higher-to-comparably-rated conferences.  I do admit I'd rather see that than the parade of Chickenmania games that are on the schedule this year, and wish Roc/Tidwell would work toward that goal... but that said, if my choices are playing 3/4 of our out-of-conference games on the road versus playing D-IIs and other such scrubs at home, I'd rather play the scrub teams.  I'd hate to see a nine-game home schedule for season ticket holders, and think it would affect the number of buyers adversely. As for a prediction?  As others have said, this one's going to be ugggggly.  125-57.

Gut feel is that Roc will pack it in a zone to give us a shot; hence, a lot less points--both scored and given up. I think our shooters keep it a bit interesting, but we're unable to really put a scare in the Horns. UT 77 LU 64 Prove me wrong, guys!

They'd better figure this out soon.  This is a team with a lot of new parts, so I'm more than willing to give them some time to jell as a team defensively, but you shouldn't allow the Lakers to shoot 70% against you, much less an SMU team that has losses to UC-Riverside and UALR on their resume. I still like the overall athleticism of the team, and think they'll be OK on the offensive end (this, in itself, is an improvement over the last two years), but, obviously, the defensive efforts have been horrid.  Needless to say, we won't be making any noise in the conference playing defense like we did this past weekend.

        I've got no idea why people can be down on this team.  Personally, I expected a 3-8 season; 4-7 at best, figuring that we'd beat the NAIA tomato cans at home and maybe beat one of the other new programs (S. Alabama or Ga. State).  To likely go 5-6 with two wins over "real" FCS teams is a great season.          Do we have flaws?  Of course!  We're a first year program!  Given the number of injuries we've had, the struggles with the running game, and the unfortunate regression of Andre Bevil during the season, we've done pretty well.  While 71-3 was embarrassing, we had to expect we'd take a whooping like that at some point in the season given the youth of the team.  In reality, I felt the only unacceptable performance we put up all year was against South Alabama--for a game against another new program, we should have made a much better showing that we did.  But young teams sometimes play bad games.          Let's see what a full off-season of conditioning, another recruiting class, and a little more experience can do for us--we'll need it given the difficulty of next season's schedule.  And... by the way, just to show that I can be critical: please, Ray--get another damned kicker.  I understand Stout was hurt this year--I'm not saying that we have to run him off--but to not have ANYONE ELSE on the roster that can kick a kickoff to avoid giving the other team the ball on the 40 every time is inexcusable.  I will also say it was disappointing to see the number of empty seats at P-U last night: if it had been pouring rain, I could see the sparse crowd, but the weather, while blustery, was hardly that bad.  I mean, I'd far prefer to go a game with the weather of last night than the sweatbox for the game against Webber.          It would be nice to come out next week and put a serious hurting on a team we should smoke, first year squad or not.  It'd be a good springboard into the off-season.

Against a team like Lyon, you can't get too excited about a blowout, but the quickness and athleticism of the team was very impressive. Last year, when we played La. College and almost lost, I was as down on the program as I've been since first moving to the area in 1995 and becoming a season ticket holder.  Against these types of teams, we should be getting 10+ breakaway dunks/easy layups a game simply because the opponent can't handle our athleticism and speed.  Last year, that wasn't happening.  We'd have lost to La. College if Nabors hadn't had about 250 rebounds in the game to keep us going. This year seems very different: we got those easy baskets, our hands were very quick, and we've got a lot of shooters.  We also seem to have a ton of depth--the talent level really didn't drop off appreciably at any point until the very end of the game when the really young guys were in there (not a knock on them--Osas/Tre/Darius are all freshmen).   It was very telling in the second scrimmage, as well as last night, that our newcomers are our best players.  We'll see if Roc can coach them up well enough to compete with better-quality foes.   As for our tournament opponents: UC-Riverside got blasted last night at UNLV, 85-41. Portland State beat Pepperdine 83-81. SMU lost at home to Arkansas-Little Rock 57-47.  Interestingly, SMU went only eight deep the whole game, with only a total of 47 bench minutes.  If they've really got that little depth, the fact we get them the third day of a three-consecutive-day tournament could be to our advantage, especially if our depth is the real deal. I want to drink some Kool-Aid, guys--let's see you win this thing next weekend!

I'm pretty happy with what I saw tonight.  I'm glad to see a significant increase in offensive firepower, and the team should be pretty deep.  It seems like the overall athleticism of the team has taken a step up: I'm very glad to see this, in particular from Brazier, Nelson, and Davis. We'll see what they can do Friday.  Last year, I was very disappointed in our performances against these low-end teams and it foretold a lot of our struggles.  You can't assume a great team if you beat Lyon by 50, but if you're only beating them by 10, it's a bad sign.  Anyone know the status of Harper?  He came off hobbling and was on the bike for a while in the 2nd half, but didn't come back in.

I'm not sure I even want to venture a guess on this one.  South Alabama seems to be capable of running the ball, which scares me to death, yet their schedule is *so* weak that I don't think you can read much into it.  USA did beat Nicholls in their only game against a D-I school, but Nicholls is *not* a good team. Their collective opponents are 6-21, with their six opponents victories coming over 3 DIII schools, 2 NAIA school, and one DII school.  That set of "victories" makes their record, and frankly, their statistics, almost irrelevant.  That said, it doesn't mean that USA isn't good, just that their opponents are absolutely godawful. Yes, they did clobber their NAIA opponents, we have not.  So that concerns me.  Yet their NAIA opponents have poor records, whereas both Webber and Langston were ranked in the latest NAIA poll (and are 7-4 between them, with 2 of the 4 being LU of course). I'm going to be a pessimist and predict a 7-point loss, 27-20.  That said, I wouldn't be surprised if this is a 20-point game--either way.  

I've got to think Mathis and Davis won't be back--they barely played and would both be around only one more year anyway.  From the following link, [Hidden Content] it doesn't appear that Nuno is coming either--although there's a chance he "re-committed" after this blog post was made. Lopez was a walk-on, right?  Does he matter?  I know there's a scholarship limit--is there a roster limit as well? Getting some legit scorers in could really make a difference for this team.  I just hope Lamb and Davis actually make it to the roster, we've had other prospects magically "disappear" before the year.

DirecTV the game is on 721.

Sam might actually pull this off...  What a move by Mitchell with the behind-the-back fake... Murray State dumps Vanderbilt at the buzzer!

It'd be nice to see Anthony develop into a consistent scorer.  I certainly hope that some of the recruits coming in are a big help, as I see a serious lack of offense next year given the loss of Nabors and the fact the team was not good offensively this year. ESPN still shows Nuno as coming here next year (along with Lynch, Kyser, and Demetris Smith from Pflugerville)--is this actually true?  I've assumed he was a lost cause after the weird "citizenship" (a visa, I assume?) issue arose that kept him from enrolling this year.  (Too bad, he looked like a fine prospect).

Unacceptable. I'm disappointed Bob West didn't at least bring up the team in today's column.  If recruiting is Roc's strength, we should never be finishing lower than 6th or so, even in a rebuilding year.  We aren't getting the level of athlete that other schools are getting, even in this lousy conference, and that is crazy.

I think Roc gets one more year.  That said, I think he's doomed. The reality is that this team actually ended up better than I thought they'd be, winning five conference games after they were pushed to the wire by a Division 3 school they ought to beat by 40 (La. College).  But our best player is leaving (without whom I don't think we win more than four or five games all year), and there is nothing to replace him. In reality, is there anyone on the current roster that should be a starter, even in the Southland?  Maybe Miles if you surround him with good players.  Brown and Minor have some skills and are young enough to develop into useful players, but I don't think they'll be anything special.  We need an upgrade at all five positions, and only Kyser and Lynch look like they might have that kind of skill coming in.  (And given that we seem to "lose" our top prospect every year--Nuno, for example--there's no guarantee these guys will actually end up at LU).  We just don't have scorers, and you've got to have scorers to win... How does this team really think it can go .500 next year losing Nabors? I'm just frustrated as h*** with Roc's moves.  Harris doesn't play for 2/3rds of the season... then he's starting?  Minor's PT has been erratic.  We haven't had an outside shooting threat since Curry Todd.  Roc's married to dribble-penetrate even when he doesn't have the players to do it.  We bring in JuCo guys with limited eligibility... then don't play them.  The doghouse seems deep and random--guys go from getting tons of playing time to getting none. I think he gets another year... injuries have just decimated the roster over the past two years, and that's not his fault.  We were thin at forward this year, and Hall's injury really made it tough.  But unless he has one h*** of a recruiting haul, or I see a lot more out of guys like Harper, Wesley, et al., especially on the offensive end, I don't think there's much hope. 

I've heard this one before, and it's one of the biggest concerns I have for LU's future in athletics.  I'm admittedly skeptical of the talk that Lamar is looking to go FBS in football (can we really draw 20,000+ a game in Beaumont?)... but I'm not worried about playing at the 1-AA level in football, as it is reasonably competitive, and I just can't see how there will be the resources at LU to be legitimately competitive with the proverbial "big boys" in 1-A football. In basketball, though, the potential for a mid-to-low major to put together teams that are legitimately competitive at the highest level is much higher.  Sometimes, these periods are very short because of one or two exceptional players (Davidson, George Mason); other times, they can go on for some time (Gonzaga).  This is what low- and mid-major fans live for: the chance to line up with a big-time school in the tournament, and the possibility of knocking off a giant.  But if the Big East and their ilk have their way and kick the bottom half of Division to the Children's Table, I think it has devastating effects on the schools that end up in the "1-AA Basketball" tier.  There is no way their championship gets a lick of media attention in the midst of "March Madness" (the reason 1-AA football gets at least a little love from the media is that they have a legitimate playoff versus the hideously extended bowl season of 1-A).  Right now, an LU or SHSU or SFA has at least a fighting chance of landing a player who might otherwise go to a "higher profile" school (not a top major, mind you, but a low major or mid-major) based on the promise of additional playing time and the chance to play in the Big Dance.  Take that away, and it will be hell to recruit kids to come to 1-AA schools.  I also think you'll see a bunch of schools drop athletics altogether (or at least drop to D3) if this happens.  I can't see a Nicholls State that draws 300 people a game (a number which might drop even more if they were forced into 1-AA) continuing at the D1 level in anything without the slim chance of a March Madness payout. From an LU perspective, I think we'd lose half our basketball season ticket holders if we were forced to a 1-AA.  And that might be an understatement.

Not too bad for early on, although I admit I was hoping for a little more of a crowd Saturday. Anybody know what it costs to run a program year-over-year at FCS level?  I've seen numbers as low as $1M and high as $4.5M.  I'm hoping we'll get to 5,000 season tickets minimum before the season--It'd be great if they had $1M "in the bank" before the sell any walk-off tickets, sell any merchandise, or anything else. I'm also curious as to how much more cash the Cardinal Club will pull in.  As I'm not an alumni, I'd never given, even though I've been a basketball season ticket holder since '96.  For football, I did give to be able to get some Big Red section seats, and I can't imagine I'm alone.  Should be another nice boost for the University.