Jump to content

Next Head Coach at Mizzou?


Bills_06

Recommended Posts

On 2/1/2017 at 4:02 PM, cheeseman said:

I talked with someone who is kind of knowledgeable about the Missouri situation.  I was told that the school has so many negatives that the only person who would take the job is an up and comer who tends to cheat.  This is the last thing the school needs at this point - another scandal.  Additional I was told that Andersen's future for next year is going to be how the new AD decides to evaluate him right now - in other words who knows.  I was also told that if Andersen is retained then he will have to clean house on his staff.  You can take whatever you want from this but this person is not some MBM.

Hahaha, I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that this is complete bs. I am a huge Mizzou fan and I certainly acknowledge that there are some issues (specifically the current academic investigation and to a lesser extent the moron that "starved" himself), but the bottom line is that Mizzou has a very solid basketball tradition, nice facilities, and plays in the SEC where their athletic department is making more money than ever before. Hiring a quality coach should not be a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

6 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said:

True. The bigger issue is that mizzou sucks. 

I wouldn't phrase it that way exactly, but the incompetence from those calling the shots is certainly a bigger hindrance in them making quality hires than money. I am hopeful the new athletic director is better equipped to make a quality coaching hire than Alden (Frank Haith and then followed that up with Kim Anderson, holy smokes)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said:

Hahaha, I would be willing to bet a large amount of money that this is complete bs. I am a huge Mizzou fan and I certainly acknowledge that there are some issues (specifically the current academic investigation and to a lesser extent the moron that "starved" himself), but the bottom line is that Mizzou has a very solid basketball tradition, nice facilities, and plays in the SEC where their athletic department is making more money than ever before. Hiring a quality coach should not be a problem.

But don't you think this so-called tradition was based upon the glory days of Norm Stewart in the Big 8/12? A lot of that tradition has died in the SEC. You just can't go from the hatred of MU-KU to the manufactured/astroturfed rivalries ESPN wants Mizzou to have. Now, I get the Arkansas geographic rivalry and the South Carolina rivalry since both schools are located in a town called Columbia -- but think about both Missouri and Texas A&M here. Both schools lost, arguably, their biggest rivals in Kansas and Texas, in the pursuit of money. If media rights/revenue are now the name of the game, kiss tradition goodbye, 'cause it's gone, baby. Gone. I was at the last game aTm played against Texas in 2011 - it wouldn't matter if both teams came in 0-11 on Thanksgiving night - they both wanted to kill each other out there and judging by some parking lot fisticuffs, the fans did too. It was one of the most exhilarating college football atmospheres I've been lucky enough to witness and unless the two schools meet in a meaningless bowl game, it will never happen again. That's sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said:

True. The bigger issue is that mizzou sucks. 

I can't really argue that point at the moment.

I have no idea if any of the powers that be have any interest in competing in basketball is my bigger concern.

But money by itself should not be an obstacle. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Bobby Metzinger said:

But don't you think this so-called tradition was based upon the glory days of Norm Stewart in the Big 8/12? A lot of that tradition has died in the SEC. You just can't go from the hatred of MU-KU to the manufactured/astroturfed rivalries ESPN wants Mizzou to have. Now, I get the Arkansas geographic rivalry and the South Carolina rivalry since both schools are located in a town called Columbia -- but think about both Missouri and Texas A&M here. Both schools lost, arguably, their biggest rivals in Kansas and Texas, in the pursuit of money. If media rights/revenue are now the name of the game, kiss tradition goodbye, 'cause it's gone, baby. Gone. I was at the last game aTm played against Texas in 2011 - it wouldn't matter if both teams came in 0-11 on Thanksgiving night - they both wanted to kill each other out there and judging by some parking lot fisticuffs, the fans did too. It was one of the most exhilarating college football atmospheres I've been lucky enough to witness and unless the two schools meet in a meaningless bowl game, it will never happen again. That's sad.

they still could both make the playoffs. Following MU took major hit for me in both FB n BB when they left Big 12. The Columbia Bowl you mention has been must c tv in both sports 4 me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, MUTGR said:

I can't really argue that point at the moment.

I have no idea if any of the powers that be have any interest in competing in basketball is my bigger concern.

But money by itself should not be an obstacle. 

 

I am not sure anyone has said that money alone would be the deciding factor.  As in all these kinds of decisions lots of things factor in with some carrying more weight than others.  To say that money is not something that will be considered is not being realistic.  Yes I see your wording - not and obstacle - and you may be right.  By the way the person I talked to never brought up money and my post did not include it.  I have talked about money being a factor previously but once again I never said it would be the deciding factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I am not sure anyone has said that money alone would be the deciding factor.  As in all these kinds of decisions lots of things factor in with some carrying more weight than others.  To say that money is not something that will be considered is not being realistic.  Yes I see your wording - not and obstacle - and you may be right.  By the way the person I talked to never brought up money and my post did not include it.  I have talked about money being a factor previously but once again I never said it would be the deciding factor.

Cheeseman, there is no way Andersen is back next year. No matter what you've heard or how many financial issues they are having: he's gone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kshoe said:

Cheeseman, there is no way Andersen is back next year. No matter what you've heard or how many financial issues they are having: he's gone.

First of all I never said he was gone.  I only shared what I was told and he never said he was gone or staying just what he was told the deciding process would be.  Once again money was never the reason I said he would or would not be gone just a factor and the guy I spoke to never mentioned money.  At this point I am done sharing info on this topic because obviously nobody can read for understanding when it comes to this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A SEC program is never going to let money stand in the way of a tire fire coaching regime in football or basketball. There is too much money on the table. 

The biggest turn off to Mizzou would be the general toxicity of the campus right now. There hasn't been much positive coming out of the Boone County Correctional Facility lately in any way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regardless of how we very biased SLU fans feel about the place, Mizzou is an attractive job. There's a ton of money and opportunity there. No question.

My only point earlier is that it's not necessarily more attractive than some of the other BCS jobs (Cal, Washington) that people think coaches might leave. They'd only leave those if they're forced out, not to jump to Mizzou.

It's still a little early to know who the high flyers are in the lower ranks, and who is going to get fired from BCS jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if Mizzou's next coach is someone none of us are talking about yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Pistol said:

Regardless of how we very biased SLU fans feel about the place, Mizzou is an attractive job. There's a ton of money and opportunity there. No question.

My only point earlier is that it's not necessarily more attractive than some of the other BCS jobs (Cal, Washington) that people think coaches might leave. They'd only leave those if they're forced out, not to jump to Mizzou.

It's still a little early to know who the high flyers are in the lower ranks, and who is going to get fired from BCS jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if Mizzou's next coach is someone none of us are talking about yet.

Well, Mizzou did have a coach leave for Tulsa, which is (arguably) a notch below, with regard to conference prestige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quality Is Job 1 said:

Well, Mizzou did have a coach leave for Tulsa, which is (arguably) a notch below, with regard to conference prestige.

I think there were some special circumstances there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JMM28 said:

A SEC program is never going to let money stand in the way of a tire fire coaching regime in football or basketball. There is too much money on the table. 

The biggest turn off to Mizzou would be the general toxicity of the campus right now. There hasn't been much positive coming out of the Boone County Correctional Facility lately in any way. 

Agree.  

And yet the general toxicity of the campus is probably the number 1 reason why Anderson MIGHT actually be retained.  Not that Anderson has done much to earn another year as head coach but Mizzou have actually be better off having Anderson stay another year to let the football program get back on its feet, let the campus wide scandals pass or at least die down, save the money you have to pay to buy him out, put Anderson on a short leash to ensure no further scandals and/or to clean house inside the program this year, consider firing Anderson halfway through next year to appease boosters and allow the program time to shop, market the program and land a big name or "splash" hire a year from now when toxicity levels are reduced and likelihood of sanctions/loss of scholarships is better known.  The goal is to be better in 3 years from now and if waiting a year to make a head coaching change improves the selection of candidates, then wouldn't this be better than agreeing to a new 5 year plan now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Pistol said:

I think there were some special circumstances there.

To an extent.  Haith knew he was on the hot seat and couldn't get an extension, so he left for a place with more job security.  But he went from the ACC to the SEC (via Big XII) to the American (high level, but not "Power 5").  That's not an upward trajectory.  And I think some of the circumstances point towards evidence that Missouri has a questionable reputation among the coaching circle.  It's probably a good job for the right person, but the administration hasn't gotten its act together to assemble the right package.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said:

Agree.  

And yet the general toxicity of the campus is probably the number 1 reason why Anderson MIGHT actually be retained.  Not that Anderson has done much to earn another year as head coach but Mizzou have actually be better off having Anderson stay another year to let the football program get back on its feet, let the campus wide scandals pass or at least die down, save the money you have to pay to buy him out, put Anderson on a short leash to ensure no further scandals and/or to clean house inside the program this year, consider firing Anderson halfway through next year to appease boosters and allow the program time to shop, market the program and land a big name or "splash" hire a year from now when toxicity levels are reduced and likelihood of sanctions/loss of scholarships is better known.  The goal is to be better in 3 years from now and if waiting a year to make a head coaching change improves the selection of candidates, then wouldn't this be better than agreeing to a new 5 year plan now?

I can see what you're saying, but I just can't see how Mizzou can possibly continue with Anderson.  And I like the guy -- but I'm starting to feel sorry for him, too.  It's painfully obvious he's not equal to the task, despite being a "true son" Mizzou alum.  Even if they can't make a big-name hire this March/April, I think they have to go in a different direction.  They can't afford to become an even bigger laughingstock than they've become.  If I were a betting man, I'd wager that some of the teams cornerstone (such as it is) players will transfer out if Anderson is retained, because they want to have a chance to win before they graduate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, 3star_recruit said:

There's no reason to retain Anderson with inexpensive upgrades like Dan Muller and Kermit Davis available.

Kermit Washington has a fighting chance, according to sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/3/2017 at 9:56 AM, Pistol said:

Regardless of how we very biased SLU fans feel about the place, Mizzou is an attractive job. There's a ton of money and opportunity there. No question.

My only point earlier is that it's not necessarily more attractive than some of the other BCS jobs (Cal, Washington) that people think coaches might leave. They'd only leave those if they're forced out, not to jump to Mizzou.

It's still a little early to know who the high flyers are in the lower ranks, and who is going to get fired from BCS jobs. I wouldn't be surprised if Mizzou's next coach is someone none of us are talking about yet.

I would think Cal would be a challenging place to compete year in and year out in the Pac 10.   Washington seems like a pretty good job - Romar certainly has recruited well there, he just hasn't been making it to the tourney near enough. Strange.  It sounds like Illinois will be looking, and obviously that's a better program than Mizzou, although I wonder if the prospect of coaching in the B1G is really a plus for prospective coaches because it's such a meat grinder of a league. 

 

I think Ford was a good hire for SLU.  He did pretty well at OSU in a tough league.  Can obviously recruit well.  I was in school when he was a Freshman.  I remember seeing him walk into Fieldhouse with Doug Smith and Anthony Peeler.  Quite a sight really.  He was wearing a black mock turtleneck and a gaudy gold chain with a big medallion, like Run DMC or something.  I'm not making fun of him, it was the times.  Seems like a good dude. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...