Once a giant in the sport of college soccer they are now 1-3-2. They very rarely get any big national American or St. Louis recruits and have tried using the foreign player route which obviously hasn't worked either. When Mike McGinty was hired I Thought he would be a good coach since he recruited the players that won a title at UVA. He has been a horror show. Two NCAA appearances in six years (they won't make it this year either) with one win and two losses. The sad part is that administration at the school doesn't seem to care.
Have you seen the teams they are playing in their non-conference schedule, not exactly full of cup-cakes.
A couple of things. First, according to our lord and savior Gaucho Dan, SLU currently has played the toughest schedule in the country. http://rpiupdatemenssoccer.blogspot.com/2016/08/saint-louis.html As such, their RPI is 28 meaning if they have an above-.500 showing in their conference schedule, they should be in decent shape for an at-large bid. Second, the aforementioned conference is not that strong. That makes recruiting tough. The best players in St. Louis don't tend to go to Saint Louis anymore because they want to go to school in the power conferences. Indiana, Creighton, Northwestern, Wisconsin, Marquette, Notre Dame, Memphis, Tulsa and UAB all have St. Louis-area players on their rosters. That's the Big Ten, Big East, ACC, American and CUSA, all conferences that are much more highly-ranked than the A-1o is for soccer. I'm not suggesting McGinty couldn't do better. He probably could. But the days of the best players in Missouri automatically going to SLU are long over and that's likely not gonna change unless SLU finds a way to get in the Big East.
They were 8-7-2 last year? What makes you think they will be much better than that this year? Their RPI will take a beating once conference play starts right?
They were 8-7-2 last year. They have been to the tournament twice in six years. Winning once and losing twice. This for a program that won this tournament every year. They haven't been to College Cup since 1997. Haven't won the tournament since 1974. It has more to do with just this year.
Is that true for a program with 10 NCAAtitles? That is how many SLU has. They won those between 1959 - 1973. What data do you have to back that up?
their 10 titles are no longer relevant. the last was in 1973 as you stated yourself. today's players' parents wouldn't even remember their 1973 championship team. we had a few slu guys posting here over the last few seasons. where are they?
IU will get to eleven (they have eight) before SLU. I don't know where the slu guys have gone. That is more disappointing to me that people are apathetic to the program anymore. The SLU forum was one of the liveliest forums not just in this thread but on this site. JohnBender, BillikenTom where have you all Gone? I go to one game a year. Last year it was IU, this year Louisville. It is a shame they don't get better teams to travel to St. Louis. Would have loved to see Wake Forest or Denver and NC at SLU this year. That never happens anymore.
If you arbitrarily keep raising the bar, everyone will fail at some point. There are many measures of success other than 40-year-old championships. Any recruiting scandals lately? What is the graduation rate? As for "data", there are 205 D1 programs currently. 48 of them get into the NCAA tournament, less than a quarter. 2 trips in 6 years 33%, almost 50% better than "average".
You are new here so I will be gentle with you. First of all, almost all of us here know SLU's history. And we know how little it's done since making the 74 final. We have had many discussions here over the years about why programs like SLU are no longer dominant. SLU's early dominance needs to be viewed through the correct historical lens. In the early of the years of the NCAA men's soccer tournament, which was first held in 1959, not many bigger colleges emphasized or even sponsored varsity soccer. Hence, it was possible for teams from smaller schools like SLU, San Francisco, Hartwick, Howard, West Chester and Philadelphia Textile to be national powers. Same with the Ivies, which saw Brown, Cornell, Columbia and Harvard all make the Final Four in the 60's and 70's. Also Army and Navy each made 4 final fours in the 60s and Navy won a national title. There were exceptions, like Maryland and Michigan State, but most of the early powers in college soccer were smaller, often private schools and the bigger schools from the big athletic programs didn't put much emphasis on college soccer. That started to change in the early 70s as UCLA took advantage of the soccer boom in SoCal to become a national power, Clemson hired I.M. Ibrahim and became a force and Indiana agreed to let it's club coach, Jerry Yeagley, take his program to the varsity level. Suddenly big athletic departments were part of the college soccer landscape. It's not a coincidence that Indiana's first varsity season is also the last time SLU won a national title. In 1981 Connecticut won the national title followed by Indiana (82, 83, 88), Clemson (84, 87), UCLA (85, 90), Duke (86) and Virginia (89 and 91-94). Since 1981, only three schools that aren't from the ACC, Big Ten, Pac-12 and Big East/AAC (they were Big East at the time), have won the national title in men's soccer: Santa Clara, which shared the 89 title w/ Virginia, UC Santa Barbara in 2006 and Akron in 2010. Over that time, the same power conferences have claimed 75 percent of the slots in the Final Four and it's only increased since the advent of MLS and HS kids wanting to use college soccer as means to a pro career. Just like in other sports, the best kids want to go to the big programs in the big conferences and play the other good kids and big schools. When SLU last made the Final Four, the other three teams there were Indiana, UCLA and Virginia. Here are the Final Four teams since: Note that Creighton, which was in a smaller conference, is now in one of the big soccer conferences and SMU is now in the American, which is an off-shoot of the Big East. 98 - Indiana, Stanford, Santa Clara, Maryland 99 - Indiana, Santa Clara, Connecticut, UCLA 00 - Connecticut, Creighton, Indiana, Southern Methodist 01 - North Carolina, Indiana, Stanford, St. John's 02 - UCLA, Stanford, Maryland, Creighton 03 - Indiana, St. John's, Maryland, Santa Clara 04 - Indiana, UC Santa Barbara, Maryland, Duke 05 - Maryland, New Mexico, Clemson, Southern Methodist 06 - UC Santa Barbara, UCLA, Wake Forest, Virginia 07 - Wake Forest, Ohio State, Virginia Tech, Massachusetts 08 - Maryland, North Carolina, St. John's, Wake Forest 09 - Virginia, Akron, Wake Forest, North Carolina 10 - Akron, Louisville, Michigan, North Carolina 11 - North Carolina, Charlotte, UCLA, Creighton 12 - Indiana, Georgetown, Creighton, Maryland 13 - Notre Dame, Maryland, New Mexico, Virginia 14 - Virginia, UCLA, Providence, UMBC 15 - Stanford, Clemson, Akron, Syracuse If you look at the schools on this list that aren't from the power conferences, many of them have a lot in common: SMU, New Mexico, Akron, Massachusetts, Charlotte - all big schools, mostly public, with big athletic departments that, while not in a power conference still offer football and have big basketball TV money. That means they have a big athletic profile regionally and sometimes nationally and are at schools with a lot of resources. (Not that they're spent on soccer.) The exceptions are Santa Clara, which like SLU has faded as a national power and for similar reasons, UCSB and UMBC, which was a historical Cinderella run. That's the landscape of college soccer now and it's only going to increase as the bigger programs push for longer seasons and pour more resources into D-I. We are looking at an era where we should, but likely won't, have a D-I and 1-AA in college soccer so that schools like SLU can still compete but don't have to go against the Indianas, UCLAs and North Carolinas. Some of this explains why SLU doesn't do better in the A-10. If you aren't getting the elite players, like SLU no longer is because those players tend to go to the programs in the bigger conferences, then you are left scuffling with programs with similar talent for one or maybe 2 NCAA tournament spots a year. SLU has to compete with George Mason, VCU, Dayton, Rhode Island, Davidson - all schools that get similar talent. It's now a pretty even playing field, which leaves SLU in a situation where they are fortunate to make the NCAA Tournament every 3 years or so. Could they be doing a little better and dominate the A-10 like Akron dominates the MAC? Sure, that's possible. And maybe that's what the expectation should be for SLU so you can blame the coaches for not doing that. But Akron is an exception. If it was easy to be Akron, there would be more Akrons. But comparing SLU to what happened when Kennedy and Johnson and Nixon were POTUS is just not reasonable because the landscape has changed so dramatically since then and those titles are as relevant in college soccer as Loyola-Chicago's national title in basketball or Lafayette and Chicago being college football national champions back in the dark ages.
It is not arbitrarily raising the bar. The bar at SLU has been lowered. No recruiting scandal So? In soccer? Really? If that is the case SLU should go to Division II and maybe they could compete on that level.
I understand all of that. Actually know that. So SLU just continues to try and sell themselves as big time even though they are not. SLU needs to work harder. You just can't throw your hands up in the air and say it is to tough. Either that or go to Division II for soccer and maybe they can compete at that level?
It seems you have already reached the conclusions that suit you and don't want any explanations or debate. That's fine. Just stop asking questions here then. And stop making unrealistic suggestions like going to D-II. That's not how the NCAA works.
There have been schools that have been in different divisions in different sports. The only thing I would ask them to do is take the ten stars they have on their jerseys off. That is just embarrassing.
Please name me a program that is Division I for all sports but in a lower division for one or two sports. (And I-AA football doesn't count as that's still D-I.) I'll wait.
No recruiting scandals and a high graduation success rate are things a college coach in any sport can be proud of. And if you don't think it happens, West Virginia's women's soccer program was penalized last year. Why would a school that has a recent record of acceptance in the national championship tournament want to compete at a lower level?
Before the 70's, schools could pick and choose the level for each sport. When the 3 division split was formalized, a few schools that had national-level programs in ice hockey and lacrosse were allowed to keep the D1 status for those teams even though the rest of the school's teams were competing in D3. Since then the rules have tightened up so that it is essentially impossible to move teams individually to different levels. Of course, they could always go club level and compete in PDL like BYU does.
http://www.ncaa.org/about/who-we-ar...nces-and-history-multidivision-classification Adopted by all three divisions to permit a member institution to petition to be classified in a division other than its membership division in a sport in which the only NCAA Championships opportunity is a National Collegiate Championship for which all divisions are eligible. Adopted by Divisions I and III to permit a member institution that has a sport classified in Division I to apply the rules of both divisions, or the more stringent rule if both divisions have a rule concerning the same issue except that in either instance, the institution may apply the Division I playing and practice season regulations of Bylaw 17 in the Division. I didn't find an example of a school in multiple divisions but did find this on the NCAA website which applies I think. I can only assume since these rules are in place there have to be member institutions following them?
I guarantee that every player at BYU would love to trade places to play Division I College Soccer instead of PDL at BYU...
They might want to compete at a lower level because maybe they might be able to win that lower division tournament as opposed to going one and out? They have only been in two of the last six years. Not very good in my opinion. Not when this school used to be in this tournament EVERY year. That West Virginia soccer scandal at WVU led off a SportsCenter I think. PTI talked for days about it as well. Neither happened. The no recruiting scandal should be a GIVEN. If it is not the coach is gone immediately. Again, just because there haven't been any recruiting scandals maybe means SLU isn't trying to recruit.
So their 10 titles are about the same timeframe of UCLA and their ten titles in college basketball. Does that mean the UCLA titles are irrelevant as well? I wouldn't think so.
except for the fact that ucla won a title in 1995 and went to final fours in 06, 07, and 08 and have continued to win conference titles? give it up, man. sandon gave you the answer. we're done here.