Bring your Tigers football, basketball and recruiting questions, and talk to Eli Hoff in a live chat at 11 a.m. Thursday.
Transcript
Eli Ǵڴ:Good morning all, and welcome to another Mizzou chat! We've got transfer portal, hoops, the usual football and more to discuss — your questions dictate where this goes! Let's get to 'em...
Senior scramble: I hope Gates can add some very crucial pieces to this roster. Porter is an upgrade on Shaw but not much. Still believe some of the freshmen will leave. Very difficult to get a good center in the portal. Harper awesome hire. Check everyday if she has found a good player in the portal. Right now the good players from last year are still at Mizzou. Thanks for the chat.
Ǵڴ:That's an apt way to think of Porter. I see him as somewhere between 8th-10th in the rotation, unless he makes a leap or there's just something I'm missing. Somebody's got to play that role, and it can be important, but Mizzou has spots in the starting five to fill in the portal.
Part of where the Porter add has me curious is the math — Mizzou's needs vs. its open spots. I think I've outlined this here before, and I talked about this a little bit on KTRS last week, but I see four needs for MU: a traditional center, two shooters (maybe one combo guard, one wing?) and a ball-handler. The last one is the lowest priority, since I could see Ant and T.O. just being the PG duo next year. When Shaw entered the portal, that opened four spots. Seemed like it could be a straightfoward portal window. Then Porter reportedly committed (there still hasn't been an announcement that he's signed, by the way) and brought the spots back down to three. Not your question — just something interesting to me.
Harper's been working the portal and told writers the other day that she's had interest. There are some of her former Tennessee players still in college ranks, so those are potential adds. She's got plenty of spots to work with. The cycle at large is moving sort of slowly (we'll get to that in the next question) but I think she'll be able to make some competitive adds.
dzԳ:Good morning Eli-I thought the portal numbers would have heated up after Sunday. What gives? Is the pool waiting for the market to give direction on portal values? Any ideas?
Ǵڴ:As I alluded to in that last answer, this portal cycle does seem to be moving slowly. Everything is happening a week later than last year, but even then, there has been a rush of entries but not a rush of commitments.
There are some national-level folks who think the market is out of whack. Mid- and low-major guys trying to make the jump to high-major have ridiculous asking prices. Coaches do have some limits in what they can spend, even if it doesn't always seem like it, and they might not be willing to pay that. There are So. Many. Names. for coaches to wade through as well.
Then there's the revenue sharing component. The federal court approval hearing for the House v. NCAA case (the House settlement, as you've probably heard of it) is next Monday. I've been told not that administrators aren't expecting a ruling from that judge right on Monday, but revenue sharing could either be confirmed or tossed out of the window at any point next week, basically. That greatly dictates compensation models for rosters next year. It wouldn't surprise me if a day after the House settlement is approved (which is the likely outcome) you see a rush of commitments because offers to players in the portal become more concrete.
Florida Al: Morning, Eli. I really enjoy your coverage of Mizzou sports and these chats. You have a gift for making your pieces interesting and fact based within the constraints of a beat writer’s charter. I found your comments to a chatter last week explaining those constraints interesting. Along those lines, do you, and other journalists, consider an opportunity to be a columnist a more desirable path, or is that just a coin flip depending on the individual? Also…do you ever read some of the comments posted in response to the pieces you write? If so, do you find any value in them in terms of taking the pulse of your readership, or is the sample size just too small?
Ǵڴ:Well thanks, Al! As I hope is clear from my chats, I'm always happy to peel back the curtain and explain my approach/how my job works as much as I can.
Columnist jobs have a lot of appeal. You're more of a name/face, you get to have a little bit more of your voice, it's often your opinion, and you can write about whatever you like, really. In the golden age of newspapers, being a columnist was a big deal. It still is at a lot of shops, including ours — Hochman, Lynn and Gordo have earned their respective platforms. Many of the best newspaper writers out there now are columnists: Bill Plaschke at the L.A. Times, the late John Feinstein and Candace Buckner at the Washington Post. I grew up reading the late, great Sid Hartman at the Minneapolis Star Tribune. It's something that tends to come with time, wisdom and excellence in this profession. It's not something everyone aspires to, either. Some folks really, really enjoy the entrenchment and flow of working a beat.
I read the comments sometimes, but not all the time. It's helpful for me to know what the Mizzou fanbase is thinking about — good or bad. But these chats are a great way for me to take that temperature. Y'all are engaged and informed, so what you guys are wondering during a given week is helpful for me to think about. The challenge is that commenters on our site and y'all (and I recognize that's an overlapping group) are near the top of the pyramid in terms of knowledge and engagement. There's a saying in our business that 10% of the people account for 90% of the comments we receive, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's the way it goes. Maybe an iceberg is a better metaphor — I also have to write for the folks "underwater." I don't want you folks to read a piece and think "I knew all of that already," but I also don't want other folks to feel like they're trying to board a train moving at full speed. I don't think I tread that line even close to perfectly, but I try.
Which is where I should note: I'm always happy to receive feedback on my work — positive or negative. While some people choose to do that in the comments (and there's nothing wrong with that), I don't always see it. My email, which is out there on our site and in the paper, is much better for that. I don't respond to public-facing comments on our site outside of these chats, but I do my best to respond to good-faith email conversations. You can even tell me I'm wrong and know nothing, as long as you're polite about it! Otherwise, I don't engage with folks who are just trying to stir something up. Both people get soaked in a spitting contest, and most days, I prefer to stay dry.
ٰ:Doesn't the Porter signing just reaffirm that Gates has a blindspot for size for size's sake? When you like it Porter's pretty poor shooting numbers, it's hard to see those improving against the brutal physicality of the SEC. I have begun to grow weary of how often Mizzou plays 4 on 5 or even 3 on 5 on offense under Gates . . . PS I watched that YouTube link about the Mizzou scouting report. Thanks. It was interesting to see how accurate they were on an individual level, especially when you adjust for the 10-20% overstatement (good or bad) that all scouting reports seem to include.
Ǵڴ:I'd say it affirms that Gates really wants a tall shooter and the ability to play five-out offense at times — see Porter, Pierce, Crews and what Carter and Vanover were thought to be. Porter happens to have some rebounding production too, though he's not going to offer much scoring inside the arc. Maybe that's size for the sake of it, but I'd argue it's the combo of size and shooting. I have plenty of questions about how his shot and the rebounding translate to the SEC. Is he someone who can keep Mizzou playing 5v5 on offense? I'm not sure.
Glad you liked that scouting report video! I kept having "Wow, yep, that's exactly what they do" moments while watching it.
ٰ:Eli: What do you feel the expectations are in general for Mizzou men's hoops independent of who's coaching? I worry that those expectations have fallen from where they once were (conference championships, consistent top 20 rankings) because of all the chaos of the last fifteen or so years, with the Haith awfulness, the K Anderson disaster, the no-offense Cuonzo years, and the winless Gates season. Mizzou got a lot of hype with its big wins this year, but at the end of the day, 22-12 is a mediocre season, especially when you take away the blood donor games. Just 13-12 against the real part of their schedule. It's fair to be happy that this season proved that last season was a fluke, not a trend, but in the end, 22-12 has basically been the ceiling for this team for well over a decade.
Ǵڴ:That's a fascinating question, and one that I'd actually turn back to all of you. I'll try to make a poll here in the chat window after I type this out. My first thought is that making the NCAA Tournament, especially if the SEC is going to get this many spots on the regular, is the bar for passable. Other standards I could see as the "expectation": finishing inside the top 25, 25 wins, making it to the second weekend of the tournament. But I'm very curious how all of you would view this.
(Poll embedded in chat window above)
ٰ:But where's the shooting? His 3-point numbers are pretty bad (32%).
Ǵڴ:It's not great, but for someone who can play as a 4 that's not terrible. 32% beats what Perkins and Mitchell shot from 3 this year. Again, nothing spectacular but I get the sense Gates likes having big wings who can knock down a 3 if left open, popping out of a screen, etc.
ٰ:I'm sorry--I meant within the athletic department. Do you have a sense of what the bar Mizzou is setting for itself with the program because I get the sense that they have just conceded the SEC is a tough conference and conference titles aren't a reasonable expectation, and if that's the case, it's sad. This ain't football. There's no reason that football-first programs like Alabama and Auburn should have left Mizzou in the dust.
Ǵڴ:Oh, I see! Apologies for interpreting that incorrectly. My open question to y'all still interests me and stands.
I'd imagine there's a very real expectation of making the NCAA Tournament each season because that comes with "units," which is basically just TV money for teams in the field. Missing out on the postseason is also missing out on a valuable bit of revenue. If there's an expectation of Gates building something, which I think there is, then improving would also be part of that. Making the second weekend and/or getting back in double bye territory probably constitutes.
That said, I get the sense that Mizzou is pushing to be a football-first school. Look at the investment in Drinkwitz, the team and the facilities. It's not that MU is neglecting basketball by any means, but football is the show. Maybe that's a factor.
Ѳ:As always, thanks for the articles and chat. Despite last season and the Drake (and Princeton) games, love having Gates as the coach. Seems like a genuinely good guy who wants to build more than just a basketball program. They were so easy to root for this year, and I think that says something when you have other coaches (in the final 4) with baggage. If they can ever break through, it will be that much sweeter. But the Porter thing confuses me beyond his numbers - a DUI in CoMo only a year ago, going 70 in a 40, AFTER his brother killed someone while drunk driving? Leaves a sour taste being a fan
Ǵڴ:I don't know how much this factors into belief in your head coach as a fan, but there's no doubting what Dennis Gates does for his players from a growing up/character/becoming a man standpoint. He brings in a lot of guys from a lot of different walks of life and brings them together. I've thought about this a lot in the couple weeks since the Drake loss: I was talking to Tony Perkins in the locker room after the game. He'd just lost his final college game, so it's not like I expected it to be a fun conversation. The first thing he wanted to talk about? How much comfort the thought that he'd be at the weddings of every player in the room gave him. I don't think you hear that many other places.
Fair or unfair to Jevon, his family baggage follows him around (and his DUI is his own baggage). It's certainly going to predispose some fans and frankly some coaches to feel negatively toward him. Some people look past it, some look past it until they don't want to, others don't. I've never met Jevon, and I won't tell anyone how to feel about him as a person — definitely not my place. I assume Gates and the Mizzou staff heard what they needed to out of him to extend him a spot on the roster.
Scott Stewart: Don't all schools have to be football first in this day of increased compensation since football pays the bills?
Ǵڴ:Have to? Maybe not, but many choose to because there's so much revenue in college football. Athletic directors ignore football at their own peril. This will be especially interesting to evaluate when revenue sharing takes effect, seeing what breakdown schools use for their $20.5 million. How many give 70% to football? 75%? 85%? I hope enough schools publicize those figures for us to be able to weigh investment with achievement and see what that picture looks like. And it's not really our question, but I do think every school has to try to get as much revenue out of its football program as it can — regardless of winning. So few other sports can make money like football does, so every dollar coming in that way is important.
:Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like Gates' focus in the portal over the last few seasons has been centered around quantity over quality or "high floor" over "high ceiling" guys. I think this makes sense as in each of the last 2 seasons he was sort of building his roster. Going into this season he has his recruits really starting to come into their own and I'd imagine he probably expects more out of the 2025-26 team than what he expected going into the previous 2. Do you expect him to adjust his portal approach accordingly?
I'm thinking about this in the context of Jayden Quaintance. I think in the previous 2 off seasons Gates would be more likely to sort of spread the wealth as opposed to splurging on a high profile guy.
Ǵڴ:That's interesting. The ceiling vs. floor debate is such a common one, but I don't recall us ever really talking about it here in relation to Gates' transfer portal focus. Last year, they did go get "a guy" to a degree with Mitchell, but he wasn't what Quaintance is to this cycle. Going back to MU's needs I mentioned above (center, shooters being the biggest ones) there has to be some aiming for the ceiling. Grill was the best 3-point shooter in the country for a stretch there. Bates led the nation in free-throw percentage. Mizzou would certainly benefit from guys like that whose ceiling is All-SEC. But could the center add — not talking Quaintance here but someone more like Gray — be a floor focus? Probably. Like I said, it's an interesting context for each of the open spots.
Now, on Quaintance in a general sense: Obviously, Mizzou's been in the mix for him before. There was one point during his high school recruitment where I'd gotten a text from someone that he was meeting with coaches in the Tiger Hotel and it seemed like it might happen for MU — then it didn't. I'd be shocked if Gates isn't re-kindling the connection to inquire. There will be a very, very steep price. I'm sure many teams in the country want him, and a decent number will be willing to pay it. Is Mizzou in that mix? I just don't know. But I fully expect them to at least be in touch to see what it would take to get JQ in black and gold.
ϳܱپDzԲ:What did you think of Buzz Williams going to Maryland? It'll make it easier on Gates as his teams seem to have problems with Buzz-ball-syle teams. On the other hand, Texas hiring Sean Miller will probably make things harder.
Ǵڴ:I saw a tweet this week that said there's a snail chasing after Buzz Williams that catches up to him once every five years or so, and that's why he has to leave to take jobs when he was. Made me laugh out loud when I saw it. For Buzz's sake, I'm not sure that it's really an upgrade or downgrade or anything. I'm also not sure how A&M fans feel about it. Probably depends on the hire down there.
But yes, I doubt Gates is sad about not having to face Buzz ball every year. Those matchups were always so rough for the Tigers. Texas will be a tough style too, but even then I don't know if it'll look like the Aggies under Buzz. I like Buzz a lot as someone to cover, but I won't miss having to watch some of his teams play!
ٰ:In this context, some food for thought: I think a lot of people were scratching their heads when Kevin Willard jumped from Maryland to Villanova. Maryland has a long history of great basketball. It won a title under Gary Williams. 'Nova obviously has a deep tradition too, but the Big East these days is an afterthought. Then, someone pointed out that without a DI football program, 'Nova can focus the vast majority of its revenue share to hoops. That made total sense to me. A sign of the time.
Ǵڴ:There'd been some ponderings about this idea, and then the last couple of weeks have made it very concrete. Let's say you're an SEC school planning to go all in on revenue sharing... that's $20.5 million across all sports. Say you're going to give 15-20% to men's basketball (I'd guess that's the most common). That comes in around $4 million. Now, let's say you're Villanova. You aren't going in at the full $20.5 million. But maybe you can get to $8 million. And without football, you can funnel, say, $6 million to men's basketball. All of a sudden you have more buying power than an SEC school.
Obviously the exact numbers will look a little different at each school/league. But don't be surprised at all if the Big East takes a big step forward because of this. If I were a coach, the No. 1 thing I'd be looking for in a job is money to spend. From that standpoint, Willard ditching Maryland for 'Nova makes perfect sense.
dzԳ:Hey Eli-I do believe that the Senior MU Leadership team places the BB as a 'top-bill' versus prior administrations. With that said, I am of the opinion that 25/26 is another pivotal year for Coach Gates. I think anything short of another NCAA bid is a loss. He's gotta deliver.
Hoff: I agree. Maybe it's football 1A, men's basketball 1B. That's one of the interesting things to watch at a macro level under Laird Veatch, and why I really hope Mizzou makes public its revenue sharing percentage breakdown. That cuts through any rhetoric.
Taking a quick look at the poll results, it looks like most of you say the bar is making the tournament. A good chunk of you say it's the Sweet Sixteen. Seems like it really is tourney or a bad year, at least in the eyes of y'all.
:I'd be pumped if they got him, but not terribly disappointed if they don't. His family says he'll be back in September...whether you believe that or not I don't think we could expect him to be fully healthy till Braggin' Rights
Ǵڴ:To fill folks in, Quaintance is coming off an ACL tear. This is actually a part of the portal process that really fascinates me. Does Quaintance undergo a medical anywhere before he signs? That's standard practice in pro sports, and I compare the state of college sports to pro soccer a lot because it's the most similar in my eyes. That's what would happen there. But does JQ agree to that? Is there a school who's willing to fork over a lot of dough without getting their training staff a look? Putting on the "if I were a coach" hat again, I wouldn't feel comfortable spending what I'd have to spend without my personnel getting a medical and getting a two-year deal so that I'm not just paying for 20 games this season — or whatever it ends up being. I'd be interested to know if that happens during any of his visits.
And with that, we'll wrap up this week's chat. Thanks a bunch to everyone who stopped by with questions. Let's do it all again next Thursday!
-
-
-
-
