Chat Mizzou sports with Dave Matter at 11 a.m. Thursday
Bring your Tigers football, basketball and recruiting questions, and talk to Mizzou beat writer Dave Matter in a live chat at 11 a.m. Thursday.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Drinkwitz said when he got hired he wasn't going to have one of those overgrown staffs that have analysts all over the place. I believe he might have used the phrase "too many cooks in the kitchen." Right now Mizzou doesn't have any high-profile analysts:Cole Cook, former NC State O-lineman and older brother of Case CookKegan McDanielJeff Smart, former Colorado linebackerJack Abercrombie
-
Dave: 2 quick ones; 1. How much do you think Tillman’s poor free throw shooting will affect his stock at the NBA level? 2. Mitchell Smith’s inaccuracy with the 3 ball allowed KY to dangerously close the gap last nite. Does CM’s coaching philosophy include some point where he will shut down ill-advised 3’s by guys who should be passing the ball, or do the guys on the floor have the green light at their discretion? Thank you for all you do for the Tigers!
-
1. I doubt Tilmon's free-throw shooting will make or break his prospects of getting to the NBA. It's a weakness if he doesn't improve; but teams are going to be drafting him or NOT drafting him based on his foul shooting.2. I don't know what more to say about Smith's 3-point shooting. I published Martin's quote on the topic last night. He wants him making those shots, especially in the corner.
-
-
The other week BenFred said that he thought all of Mizzou's players could benefit from taking advantage of the extra year of eligibility. I know in previous chats you expect all the main upperclassmen to leave. Is this still the case or do you think a few might stick around? If none of the upperclassmen stick around it looks like it will be a pretty difficult season next year with not very much potential. Do you agree with this statement or will Cuonzo be able to put together a competitive tournament bound team next year?
-
I would not expect any of the five seniors to stick around. Three of them are in their fifth year of college. Tilmon has been wanting to get paid for the last two years. He's benefited from this season - but I don't see how he'd get that much better with another year of playing for free.So much of the expectations/forecast for next year hinges on Pinson. If he returns this team will be much more competitive with a nucleus of Pinson-Pickett-Brown. But you don't have a proven lead guard without Pinson. It's a total rebuild otherwise.
-
-
-
-
-
First of all let me say, that I am not predicting that coach Drinkwitz will become the next Nick Saban of college football. But if by chance Drinkwitz is successful and becomes one of the hottest coaches on the market, would Mizzou ever pay what other schools would be willing to pay to keep him? I think they should, because even if you have to double his 4 million dollar salary, it would pay off for the school in the long run. Yes $8 million a year is a lot of money. But by paying it you can keep a coach that is filling up the stadium because he wins consistently, your recruiting will be in the top10 almost every year, fans will show up in droves to every game and buy more merchandise and spend more money on a TOP 10 program. You'll be in a major bowl game with bigger payouts each year, You'll be on TV more. It just seems to me the salary would be worth paying to keep a coach who'll bring in more money to the school because of his success. Mizzou would make much more money by paying a higher salary to keep a great coach, instead of letting him go. Does this make sense in your opinion? Or should we remain a stepping stone for coaches looking for a better job? And Mizzou can remain mediocre forever.
-
One problem: Where is Mizzou getting that money to pay a head coach $8 million? They're operated at a budget deficit for several years - and that was before a revenue-busting pandemic. MU just tapped into two donors for $10M each. If Drinkwitz wins enough games to the point where he's commanding $8 million on the open market, he'll be coaching somewhere else. I understand your logic. Yes, a nationally elite program will help pay for itself over time, but there is no finish line when it comes to these costs in college athletics. The more these schools make, the more they spend. That's how they operate. They can't net huge profits, because then they can't justify not paying the labor. So, as long as the coaches know how the system works and they see these revenues climb, the $8 million coaches will command $10 million and the $10 million coaches will command $12 million. Given how the system works, Mizzou just isn't in that tier when it comes to spending money - and doesn't have the demographics to feed its program with the kind of revenue it would take to pay a coach that much money.
-
-
-
-
-
-
You noted earlier that you ranked Mizzou at #12 this past, and I agree. I thought they got punished pretty harshly for losing at Auburn even though people noted over and over again that Auburn with Cooper is basically a top 25 team. It was almost as if the polling was suggesting that it was a bad loss. That said, the NET rankings are worse and continue to rank Mizzou around 30. How much of a factor will that be in seeding in the tourney?
-
-
If I recall, Watson averaged around 30 a game in high school and put up 57 in a state tourney/championship game ... and now the young man rarely sees the floor after three years of shooting struggles. Is the transition from high school stardom to quality college player that difficult, or are some of these kids just not a good fit for their respective schools (see Kentucky last night)?
-
Watson played in a lower classification in high school and wasn't doing his damage against the elite programs in the state. Good high school player with great numbers. I don't think anyone considered him to be one of the very best players to come out of St. Louis in the last few years.He's shown he can be a good shooter but I'm just not sure he's equipped fin other areas. Ball-handling, on-ball defense, etc. By all accounts, the coaches and teammates love the guy. But they see him in practice every day and if they thought he could help this team with a larger role it would be in their best interest to play him more.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I'm not sure how to really explain this but I noticed that some of the rankings are really skewed. For example. The Big 10 and 12 have half of their teams ranked. Many were pre-season ranked. They loaded up on non-conference cupcakes to maintain a good record and once the conference games started almost all of their games are against ranked teams. If the win...it's against a ranked team (helps the RPI), if they lose..... against a ranked team (helps their RPI). So they end up getting more quadrant 1 wins....which helps in seeding in the tournament. Compare this with SEC where you get few games against a ranked team to help out the RPI. It's kind of a cycle but seems skewed.
-
I'm not sure I agree with that. Some of it is about the eye test, too. Teams like Iowa and Ohio State aren't at the top of the Big Ten standings - that would be Michigan and Illinois right now - but when I watch them play, they look better than the third and fourth place teams in the SEC. Same with the Big 12.
-
-
-
Do you think NCAA will address the mysterious "analyst" positions in the future? I know Odom had several bigger names, but isn't this one way they're circumventing the number of coaches allowed and harms parity.
Former coaches with a buyout can move to a new team and pull down FB salary as an analyst while collecting two paychecks. The top teams will always pull in the top analysts and pay them the most. -
-
I don't think it's a concern for the NCAA. What's the downside? They're technically not allowed to coach on the field. They're essentially hired to conduct scouting reports. Some coaches put more stock in having those experienced coaches in the building. Other coaches don't want all that ego under the same roof.
-
I absolutely think this year's MBB team has been refreshing. I don't want any conceived negative questions to lead you to believe I'm disappointed in team's effort and results.
I think this team can get further into both the SEC and NCAA tournaments than we've seen since what, 2013? I'm thinking SEC finals and Sweet 16. -
-
-
-
-
Earlier you mentioned Saban and his continuous winning ways. This year it's been well documented how the BB Bluebloods are having a down year. Looking at FB compared to BB how do you think the bluebloods aren't up to par? Is it because of one and done compared to the three years for FB? Or FB gets 85 scholarships vs 14 so one missed recruiting year is felt more? Is this year just an oddity or are we seeing more parity in BB?
-
I think it's clearly just a basketball trend. Teams that rely heavily on high-profile freshmen (Duke, UNC, Kentucky) didn't have as much time together during the summer and preseason ... and you're seeing more veteran teams that have common experiences on the floor and in the locker room thrive. Missouri, Michigan, Oklahoma, Drake, Boise, Colorado. Those are some of the most experienced teams per KenPom's metric. All are having good seasons. Some of theD least experienced: Duke, Kentucky, Kansas State. All having bad seasons. (K-State isn't a blue blood but still struggling like those others.)
-
-