I've mentioned all these names, but want to put a little more info and thought into some early possible replacements for Tim Fuller.
Anthony Grant: My first reaction when someone floated this name to me last week was "No way they can get him." And I think that's probably true. Grant's going to have options. He was considered a very good assistant coach and has a ton of D1 experience now at Florida, VCU and Bama. To me, he can check off every single box on a list of things Missouri would be looking for in a candidate. But can Mizzou get him? I don't know. As I said yesterday, I've heard his name. I think Missouri would be very interested. But I don't know if Grant would.
Rick Ray: You talk to people around college basketball, not one of them has one negative thing to say about Rick Ray. He's one of the most liked and respected guys in the business and the general thought is that he got screwed over at Mississippi State. Ray has worked at Clemson and Purdue as well as Indiana State and Northern Illinois. He's been around, he's a veteran guy on the bench (which many think Missouri needs). He was considered a strong recruiter at Purdue. I guess the question is whether he'd be considered a strong recruiter now that he's seven or eight years older. I can tell you there are people connected to Missouri basketball (I stress connected…not the people who will be making the decision) who would really like Ray to get the job.
Corey Tate: Tate was the shooter of perhaps the greatest shot I've witnessed in person in Missouri basketball history, beating previously unbeaten kansas in double overtime in 1997. That, of course, has nothing to do with whether he's qualified for this job or not, but I wanted to mention it. Tate has been the head coach at Mineral Area College for 11 years. He's won three district titles and six conference titles. He's got a lot of connections in Missouri, especially in St. Louis (he is a Pattonville alum) and is also the head coach of the St. Louis Eagles 16U team (until reading that on his bio, I didn't even know that was legal). He has coached Jayson Tatum. Most believe Tatum is a long shot for Mizzou and maybe even an extreme long shot. Would hiring Tate change that? I don't know for sure. If it would, I think you absolutely have to consider it. Even if it doesn't get you Tatum, Tate is a guy that many believe would certainly improve in-state recruiting. On the downside, he's never coached a Division One game. Detractors will say one of Mizzou's issues last year was a lack of Division One experience on the coaching staff. In replacing Fuller with Tate, Mizzou would go from not very experienced to almost completely inexperienced (again, at this level…they've all coached, but none would have more than one season in the last 15 at the Division One level).
Michael Porter: Porter is an interesting candidate. He's currently an assistant on Robin Pingeton's women's staff. He has been an assistant for three seasons now after three as the director of basketball operations. Before that, Porter coached AAU girls basketball. Tate would be considered inexperienced, but he's been coaching for longer than Porter. Porter has been at the Division One level, but not on the men's side. Obviously, Porter's son, Michael Jr., is one of the top prospects in the country for the 2017 season. I said yesterday that if you can get the younger Porter by hiring the older Porter, you have to consider it, but he has to be able to bring things to the table beyond the ability to get his son. Everything I said about the inexperience of the staff with Tate would be true with Porter as well. I think the other questions that needs to be asked are these: "Do you need to hire Porter to get his son?" and "If you hire Porter, does that ensure you get his son?" I don't know the answer to either question right now. Porter's two daughters are already going to be playing for Missouri (Bri already does, Cierra will be a freshman next year). His family is settled in Columbia and has a lot of connections to Mizzou. If he remains on the women's staff throughout Cierra's career, does hiring him as a men's assistant change anything? Now, on the flip side, I've heard a lot of talk in the last couple of weeks that Lorenzo Romar is going to try to hire Porter for his staff at Washington this offseason. So, Missouri has to not only weigh how much it would help in getting Porter to hire his father, but also has to weigh the risk of what it means if he's hired by another Division One men's school. Very, very interesting situation here.
I'm not sure which direction Missouri will go. At this point, I think Ray, Tate and Porter are the major contenders, but I'm sure there are plenty of other guys out there and I'm sure Mizzou will do a wide search. I don't expect this hire to be done before the Final Four. Every guy on this list has some positives, but there are also legitimate questions about each. I don't, by any means, believe that this hire will determine Kim Anderson's success or failure at Missouri, but given where the program currently stands, we all know how important the next season or two will be. So it needs to be a good hire. It needs to address (like any assistant hire) two major areas:
1. Does it improve the practice and game day coaching of the staff?
2. Does it improve recruiting and bring in players?
Given the makeup of this list, it's almost (to me) like there are two different camps of candidates. Do you go with the experienced D1 coach, who will likely help in the first area, but you don't know in the second? Or do you go with the inexperienced guy who has ties to players, which will help number two, but could cause some growing pains in number one while he cuts his teeth at the Division One level? It's not my job to answer that question, but it's going to be very interesting to see where Anderson and Mizzou go.
This post was edited on 3/25 6:42 AM by GabeD
This post was edited on 3/25 6:50 AM by GabeD
Anthony Grant: My first reaction when someone floated this name to me last week was "No way they can get him." And I think that's probably true. Grant's going to have options. He was considered a very good assistant coach and has a ton of D1 experience now at Florida, VCU and Bama. To me, he can check off every single box on a list of things Missouri would be looking for in a candidate. But can Mizzou get him? I don't know. As I said yesterday, I've heard his name. I think Missouri would be very interested. But I don't know if Grant would.
Rick Ray: You talk to people around college basketball, not one of them has one negative thing to say about Rick Ray. He's one of the most liked and respected guys in the business and the general thought is that he got screwed over at Mississippi State. Ray has worked at Clemson and Purdue as well as Indiana State and Northern Illinois. He's been around, he's a veteran guy on the bench (which many think Missouri needs). He was considered a strong recruiter at Purdue. I guess the question is whether he'd be considered a strong recruiter now that he's seven or eight years older. I can tell you there are people connected to Missouri basketball (I stress connected…not the people who will be making the decision) who would really like Ray to get the job.
Corey Tate: Tate was the shooter of perhaps the greatest shot I've witnessed in person in Missouri basketball history, beating previously unbeaten kansas in double overtime in 1997. That, of course, has nothing to do with whether he's qualified for this job or not, but I wanted to mention it. Tate has been the head coach at Mineral Area College for 11 years. He's won three district titles and six conference titles. He's got a lot of connections in Missouri, especially in St. Louis (he is a Pattonville alum) and is also the head coach of the St. Louis Eagles 16U team (until reading that on his bio, I didn't even know that was legal). He has coached Jayson Tatum. Most believe Tatum is a long shot for Mizzou and maybe even an extreme long shot. Would hiring Tate change that? I don't know for sure. If it would, I think you absolutely have to consider it. Even if it doesn't get you Tatum, Tate is a guy that many believe would certainly improve in-state recruiting. On the downside, he's never coached a Division One game. Detractors will say one of Mizzou's issues last year was a lack of Division One experience on the coaching staff. In replacing Fuller with Tate, Mizzou would go from not very experienced to almost completely inexperienced (again, at this level…they've all coached, but none would have more than one season in the last 15 at the Division One level).
Michael Porter: Porter is an interesting candidate. He's currently an assistant on Robin Pingeton's women's staff. He has been an assistant for three seasons now after three as the director of basketball operations. Before that, Porter coached AAU girls basketball. Tate would be considered inexperienced, but he's been coaching for longer than Porter. Porter has been at the Division One level, but not on the men's side. Obviously, Porter's son, Michael Jr., is one of the top prospects in the country for the 2017 season. I said yesterday that if you can get the younger Porter by hiring the older Porter, you have to consider it, but he has to be able to bring things to the table beyond the ability to get his son. Everything I said about the inexperience of the staff with Tate would be true with Porter as well. I think the other questions that needs to be asked are these: "Do you need to hire Porter to get his son?" and "If you hire Porter, does that ensure you get his son?" I don't know the answer to either question right now. Porter's two daughters are already going to be playing for Missouri (Bri already does, Cierra will be a freshman next year). His family is settled in Columbia and has a lot of connections to Mizzou. If he remains on the women's staff throughout Cierra's career, does hiring him as a men's assistant change anything? Now, on the flip side, I've heard a lot of talk in the last couple of weeks that Lorenzo Romar is going to try to hire Porter for his staff at Washington this offseason. So, Missouri has to not only weigh how much it would help in getting Porter to hire his father, but also has to weigh the risk of what it means if he's hired by another Division One men's school. Very, very interesting situation here.
I'm not sure which direction Missouri will go. At this point, I think Ray, Tate and Porter are the major contenders, but I'm sure there are plenty of other guys out there and I'm sure Mizzou will do a wide search. I don't expect this hire to be done before the Final Four. Every guy on this list has some positives, but there are also legitimate questions about each. I don't, by any means, believe that this hire will determine Kim Anderson's success or failure at Missouri, but given where the program currently stands, we all know how important the next season or two will be. So it needs to be a good hire. It needs to address (like any assistant hire) two major areas:
1. Does it improve the practice and game day coaching of the staff?
2. Does it improve recruiting and bring in players?
Given the makeup of this list, it's almost (to me) like there are two different camps of candidates. Do you go with the experienced D1 coach, who will likely help in the first area, but you don't know in the second? Or do you go with the inexperienced guy who has ties to players, which will help number two, but could cause some growing pains in number one while he cuts his teeth at the Division One level? It's not my job to answer that question, but it's going to be very interesting to see where Anderson and Mizzou go.
This post was edited on 3/25 6:42 AM by GabeD
This post was edited on 3/25 6:50 AM by GabeD
