Rufiosghost

Keatts might end up a better coach, but the chance you're taking on him is much greater. With Martin, you know the floor, and it looks like the ceiling can still go quite a bit higher. I'm happy with the decision Sterk made.

Illinois, however, I think is gonna be screwed. Indiana's clearly a better job. Depending on whether you believe Finebaum, we got the guy Illinois wanted. Groce earned his fate after five years without ever finishing above .500 in conference play, but I suspect they're not going to get much better than him.

Alabama's an entirely different situation. Sure, they have money, but if Marshall wants to be somewhere that basketball's #1, that ain't Bama. It could be Mizzou. If both basketball and football were good at the same time, I'm not sure which would get more attention. Probably football, but probably not by that much. Mizzou definitely gets behind a great basketball program.

His peak at Marquette without Wade was just OK.

His peak at Indiana was a Sweet 16, both times followed by sub-.500 conference finishes.

He would likely give us some good years. But we wouldn't be consistently good. If he can't maintain success at Indiana, how would he do it here?

Most people who have been fired weren't given $600k to go away.

I don't think Cuonzo Martin is aiming high.

I'd be fine with him, but he's far from elite.

I hope there is enough support to make a serious run at Marshall.

I think we could offer him everything else he would want as long as the money is there. I imagine being in a major conference (but one that isn't that hard) is appealing. So is coaching against Calipari every year. We have good history and good resources. I don't see anything at Mizzou that would hold him back from reaching elite levels.

No matter how many times it gets repeated, college basketball as a sport in general and Mizzou in particular do not require four- to five-year turnarounds.

Even after Dave Bliss trying to cover up one of his players murdering another, it only took Scott Drew four years to get Baylor back to what they were before the scandal. In year five, they won 21 games and made the NCAA tournament. Baylor hadn't won 20+ games before that since 1987, and they'd only won 20+ two other times in their entire history. They'd been to the NCAA tournament four times. Ever.

Scott Drew did that. A coach many think isn't even that good.

Four years to rebuild from about as close as you can get to the death penalty while still having a program. That includes a year where they were not allowed to play non-con games.

Please, please, please stop with this moronic stuff about Mizzou being a four- or five-year rebuild.

It's not.

This is a job that a good coach can rebuild right away.

We have a history of at least competence if not real success. We have resources in state. We have all kinds of money to give a coach whatever he needs. We're in a conference where we could very quickly rise out of the basement. The roster as it stands has a lot of hard-working role players, and there's enough flexibility for a new coach to add a couple impact players right away.

This is a good job.

This is a program that can turn around in a hurry.

Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant.

Odom's 3-4 at Memphis was similar to the 49ers' 3-4 in that it was an attacking 3-4, not the typical type with three big linemen clogging things up so linebackers could make plays. Very similar to 4-3 in a lot of ways.

I definitely think we have the personnel to run that. Guys like Frazier and Howard are athletic enough to play OLB in the way Aldon did in SF, which didn't require much coverage responsibilities. It was more about getting after the quarterback and setting the edge against the run. And given the three big juco linemen we signed and the fact that we just hired a second linebackers coach, I think it's very plausible we see something like that next year: a 3-4 with a lot of 4-3 principles.

I also think it's very unlikely that we bring in three juco DT and none of them start.

I'm beginning to wonder if you even follow college basketball.

New coaches don't need to "build a recruiting base." Quin came in and signed Rush right away, then turned around a year later and signed arguably the best collection of freshman talent we've had in a couple decades. No building needed.

Haith's problems after that first year had nothing to do with needing to build a recruiting base and everything to do with the fact that he didn't want to try to deal with the issue in a responsible way.

Reality is Kim Anderson has been awful for three years, and any excuse about "it takes time" is bull. Pay attention to the college basketball landscape. Good coaches come in and turn things around quickly every single year.

No one's talking like any halfway decent mid-major guy should be able to come in and win 30 games with this bunch, but there are probably a dozen attainable coaches who could easily win several more games next year. All we'll see is progress going forward.

Walton has been among our best 3-5 players in advanced stats over the past two years.

He doesn't excel in any single area, but he contributes a little bit everywhere.