Correct -- but only if the team is convinced it will get no production from Carpenter and Fowler. That is not the case. Clearly. The team is a lot more optimistic than the fan base regarding these two.
He's playing about as well as can be expected from that role. He's been a good soldier. Still wonder if the Blues would flip him if another team loses a starting goalie, but we will see. It speaks highly of Jake's play that he could be desirable for another team that finds itself with a goalie crisis, right?
The Cardinals said they gave all of their guys specialized instructions on things to work on this offseason. It's the offseason of accountability, 2.0. We were not offered a detailed breakdown of what each player has been asked to work on. Some of that will be discussed at Winter Warm-Up and spring training, for sure.
There needs to be some clarity here from Mizzou. Clarity in terms of what, exactly, was appealed. Clarity of what, exactly, must now be served. Along with the postseason bans for three sports, the other penalties were: a 5-percent reduction in scholarships for football, baseball and softball during the 2019-20 academic year; recruiting restrictions for the 2019-20 academic year, including a seven-week ban on unofficial visits, a 12.5 percent reduction in official visits, a seven-week ban on recruiting communications, a seven-week ban on all off-campus recruiting contacts and evaluations and a 12.5 percent reduction in recruiting-person or evaluation days; a fine of $5,000 plus 1 percent of each of the football, baseball and softball budgets. My understanding is that those were not applied while Mizzou was appealing, so my hunch would be that they are applied the upcoming season, now that the appeal has been decided against Mizzou. Sterk will need to clear some of this up today.
The NCAA does not like people within the NCAA being overly critical of the NCAA. It's like any other big organization in that sense. It prefers company men touting the company line. That is why Mizzou was always trying to walk a tightrope here. It cooperated with the investigation. Even got a pat on the head from the NCAA for that publicly. But then Mizzou felt it got shafted on the punishment, so it created the #MakeItRight campaign and created a discussion about a common sense question -- if schools that cooperate get blasted worse than schools that resist investigation and cooperation at every turn, then what is the point in cooperating? The NCAA does not like people bringing that up. You have to think that played a part both in the appeal taking so long, and the appeal's verdict. All of these things have a political element to them. Always. There seems to be two clear paths here. Either cooperate entirely and sing the NCAA's praises all the time, or bar the door and tell the NCAA to kick rocks. Anything in between, and you get Mizzou'd.
If you are convinced the coach needs to go, better to rip the Band-Aid off. No reason for a lame duck season. The recruiting restrictions would be applied to the upcoming season now that the appeal is done, I think. So, the contract of the new hire would have to reflect all of these things -- that the new hire is taking over a program on probation with recruiting limitations in year one. All of that can be dealt around. All of that can influence the qualifications of the coaches available and interested in the job. That's not said to influence anyone's opinion of Odom. It's just reality. If Sterk is convinced Odom isn't the answer, he should make the move. If he does make the move, he's going to have to sell this program based on what it can be, not what it is at this moment.
Bowl games don't help or hurt recruiting nearly as much as anyone thinks. Especially the middle tier ones. Recruiting helps recruiting. Cool jerseys help recruiting. Winning helps recruiting. All of these things matter a lot more than bowl games in terms of creating interest in a program. I think people would be shocked to find out how few high school players are sitting around watching full football games during bowl seasons. They're watching Instagram, seeing highlights there or seeing what pops up on ESPN's Twitter. They're paying attention to the playoff, maybe. The one thing the bowl ban this season does is potentially make Sterk's decision on Odom easier -- if he is leaning toward a coaching change. What happens Saturday against a lousy Arkansas team doesn't matter now. At all. So much for the suspense.
I hear you. Respectfully, I just don't like the idea. Watering down base stealing would only lead to an opposite complaint of it becoming too easy. If teams value that, and the Cardinals have re-prioritized it under Shildt, then they should work to get better at it, like the Cardinals did. Don't change the rules to make it easier.
That would be refreshing, but I doubt it will. A bunch of politicians will be fired up about it and release scorched-earth statements. Missouri State majority leader Caleb Rowden was the first. There will be more I'm sure. Andy Humes, Mizzou's executive associate AD for compliance, downplayed the idea of a potential lawsuit in the past. Teams volunteer to be in the NCAA. And the rulings are all over the place, so it would be hard to prove much. Mizzou could lead a charge among Power 5 schools to leave the NCAA. That would be something, for sure. Realistic? Probably not.
That's one of the most insane things about this entire thing: LA wanted no team, so the NFL gave them two! And another in Las Vegas!
It makes it easier if he is leaning toward a change, because now the game against Arkansas does not decide a bowl or not, and he does not have to wrestle with what to do with a team that could be heading to a bowl game, and that coaching situation. Judging Odom's future on the Arkansas game, good or bad, was always a bad idea. That's a very bad team.
The NCAA should explain this. That explanation will be pursued. Don't hold your breath on getting much of an answer. The more the NCAA talks, the less sense it makes, so it tries to limit the talking.
Thanks. It's always more interesting and informative to revisit a trade when the book closes on it than pre-judge it in the moment.
No. Mizzou is banned from a bowl this season -- whether it wins enough games to be bowl-eligible or not. That's my understanding. The bowl ban does not wait until a team is bowl-eligible to kick in.
Hard to disagree with any of this. Money will play a part in the decision. Remember, Mizzou just found out it's NOT getting that postseason slice of the pie from the SEC. Because teams that are banned from postseason participation don't get that cut. That's $8 or $9 million. Now, that had been budgeted in already, I understand. Worse-case scenario stuff. But now there will be no bowl bump either, if Mizzou would have made one. Donors are tapped for the end zone project. Mizzou does not have some of the heavy hitters found at other schools. All of these things are a factor.
Paul DeJong? Matt Carpenter? Tyler O'Neill? It's impossible to answer at the moment. Maybe Player TBD?
Gotta run folks. Need to get cranking on this Mizzou stuff. Thanks for the abbreviated chat today. Talk next week!
Sorry about the abbreviated chat today. News got in the way, eh? We'll pump it up again next week. Thanks for participating.