I assume your reaction was the same as mine. She's going where?
First of all, let me say some of this is my opinion. But it's based on conversations I've had not just today but over the last few years. I'm not just throwing stuff against the wall.
A few months ago (I can't remember the exact timeline), Desiree Reed-Francois' name popped up as a potential candidate at USC. It made some sense. She was doing a really good job here, she was a California native, there was a fit. I posted that on this board. Less than five minutes later I got a phone call "She has no interest in USC. She is not leaving Columbia for Los Angeles."
Now she's leaving for a worse job at a worse athletic department in a worse conference. So, yes indeed, what the hell?
Mizzou athletics has been a duck for the last 18 months or so. On the surface, it's gliding along. It's not making many waves. The water is glass. The duck looks majestic. And under the water, those little webbed feet are cranking 300 miles an hour splashing water all over the place creating chaos. But you never see it. All you see is the duck floating along the water. We (and by that I mean, all of us, especially me) should have paid more attention to what was going on underwater.
To understand what happened today, we have to go back more than four years.
December 10, 2019: Eli Drinkwitz was hired as the football coach to succeed Barry Odom. It was a hire that came with some risk, but largely was viewed positively. There was optimism about the hire and that optimism has been rewarded. However, the process to get there was a mess. Jim Sterk brought three candidates to the Board of Curators. Their reaction? "Abso-effing-lutely not." They told Sterk to start over and find someone better. Eventually, Mizzou found Drinkwitz. Whether Sterk found him or someone else did, I don't really know. But I know the coach he hired wasn't his first choice.
That's not a shot at Drinkwitz. He's done a good job here. But the result of that hire was that the Curators saw him as their football coach. Not Sterk's. This is not my phrase. Many people over the years have told me this. "Drink reports to the Curators" is something I've been told frequently.
Eventually, it led to Sterk's departure. On June 26, 2021, Jim Sterk "resigned" from Mizzou. It was not his choice. He was out. He had screwed up the hiring process, the guy they eventually got was recruiting like a madman and Sterk had lost the trust to make the right decisions.
In August, Mizzou hired Desiree Reed-Francois to replace Sterk. She immediately began overhauling the game day experience, mostly to positive reviews. She fired Cuonzo Martin and hired Dennis Gates. She played a part in Missouri being on the absolute forefront of figuring out how to use NIL to its advantage in a quickly changing landscape of college athletics. Things were going so well. The duck was just gliding along. After eight years of awful, Missouri was finally doing things well.
In November 2022, Drinkwitz was a middling coach who 15-16 in two-plus years. But the recruiting was really good, there were a lot of reasons to be optimistic. On Nov. 5, 2022, the morning Mizzou was set to play Kentucky, news broke of a contract extension raising Drinkwitz from $4 million to $6 million per year. I reported at the time the extension was Curator driven. I do not know that it was against the wishes of the Athletic Director, but I do know that it was driven by the Curators, not DRF or Mun Choi. Again, he was their football coach.
It needs to be said, they've been right about him. He went 11-2 this year, finished No. 7 in the country and has Missouri still recruiting like it never has. Point, BOC. No question. How much friction did that extension and the negotiation cause? I don't know. I know it wasn't none.
Fast forward to this past year when there was a ton of build up for a Curators meeting when this grand plan for the future of Mizzou athletics was going to be revealed. The school had put out a press release outlining some of it in October. A month later the meeting came and it was some minor improvements to Faurot Field and a North end zone project. It was not what anyone was expecting. It was not what the athletic department was expecting. The original plan was a near complete overhaul of the facilities impacting every sport on campus. And all that got approved was the North end zone project. There's been no explanation of what happened because, publicly, nothing happened. They made some improvements, everyone said the right things and the duck kept swimming. How much friction did the back and forth here cause? I don't know. I know it wasn't none.
Fast forward to February 8. Missouri announced the formation of a new Intercollegiate Athletics Special Committee. I didn't even write a story on it because I thought it was a big nothing burger. A way for four Curators who like sports more than the rest of them do to be somewhat involved. Whether I'm right or wrong, that's obviously not how it was viewed by Reed-Francois. I'm quoting from the Columbia Missourian article here:
"University of Missouri System leadership established a new oversight committee Thursday that will monitor Mizzou athletics amid broad changes to college sports and rising spending by the athletic department."
Is it not the AD's job to "monitor Mizzou athletics among broad changes to college sports?" It's literally his or her entire job. If someone formed a committee and gave the committee your job description, what would you think? It's pretty obvious today what Reed-Francois thought.
DRF leaving for Arizona (a worse athletic department in a worse conference) can mean only two things:
1) She was encouraged to look around
2) She felt that the environment at Missouri was not one in which she could continue to work and she looked elsewhere and took a worse job.
These are the ONLY two explanations. There are no others. Which is true? I don't know.
I'll be up front: I think she's done a good job and I like her. My track record with the Curators involves less of me thinking those things. So I'm sure that colors my opinions here. I'll admit that. No situation like this has all the blame on one side. I am sure there are things that DRF could have and should have done better as well.
My main takeaway is this: It was going well. You were winning in your most important sport. Gymnastics and volleyball were better. Basketball was better, then worse, but there's hope on the horizon. The money is pouring in. The state is legitimately rewriting laws to help you. Considering all that, could both sides not have swallowed their egos and made it work?
The answer, sadly, is no. Again, who's to blame? I'm sure both sides to some degree. I'll let every person assign their own percentages because I don't know. But rather than look at it and say "We might not love each other, but damn, we're doing pretty well together," they split up. That's too bad for you guys in my opinion.
This doesn't mean Missouri can't continue to do well. The duck might be flopping around today, but it can get back swimming pretty easily. The NIL money is still there. The football program is still good. The only thing that fundamentally changed today is the person at the head of it all. You might very well be able to go find another person who can grab the wheel and keep this thing pointed in exactly the same direction. Maybe even put his or her (if I would wager on which of those two I'd put every penny I own on his) foot on the gas and increase the speed. Today doesn't have to mean everything sucks and you're about to crash. But there's the risk of that. Because it was going well. The duck was swimming and those involved couldn't just let it swim. So now you make a change. And any time you make a change, there's risk.
Again, my guess would be you try to call Wren Baker. I don't think he'd take it. I think Laird Veatch is a candidate and he's who I'd put my money on. He was a candidate last time. I had someone mention John Currie's name to me. A couple have brought up Mark Alnutt. Someone told me Jamie Pollard at Iowa State would be interested. That's for another day. Today is about processing what went down and reacting to it. That's what I've tried to do here. I'll go live at 3:00 if you want to jump on with questions and thoughts. This came out of nowhere for me and everyone I've talked to. Maybe it shouldn't have, but it did. We'll process it together.
First of all, let me say some of this is my opinion. But it's based on conversations I've had not just today but over the last few years. I'm not just throwing stuff against the wall.
A few months ago (I can't remember the exact timeline), Desiree Reed-Francois' name popped up as a potential candidate at USC. It made some sense. She was doing a really good job here, she was a California native, there was a fit. I posted that on this board. Less than five minutes later I got a phone call "She has no interest in USC. She is not leaving Columbia for Los Angeles."
Now she's leaving for a worse job at a worse athletic department in a worse conference. So, yes indeed, what the hell?
Mizzou athletics has been a duck for the last 18 months or so. On the surface, it's gliding along. It's not making many waves. The water is glass. The duck looks majestic. And under the water, those little webbed feet are cranking 300 miles an hour splashing water all over the place creating chaos. But you never see it. All you see is the duck floating along the water. We (and by that I mean, all of us, especially me) should have paid more attention to what was going on underwater.
To understand what happened today, we have to go back more than four years.
December 10, 2019: Eli Drinkwitz was hired as the football coach to succeed Barry Odom. It was a hire that came with some risk, but largely was viewed positively. There was optimism about the hire and that optimism has been rewarded. However, the process to get there was a mess. Jim Sterk brought three candidates to the Board of Curators. Their reaction? "Abso-effing-lutely not." They told Sterk to start over and find someone better. Eventually, Mizzou found Drinkwitz. Whether Sterk found him or someone else did, I don't really know. But I know the coach he hired wasn't his first choice.
That's not a shot at Drinkwitz. He's done a good job here. But the result of that hire was that the Curators saw him as their football coach. Not Sterk's. This is not my phrase. Many people over the years have told me this. "Drink reports to the Curators" is something I've been told frequently.
Eventually, it led to Sterk's departure. On June 26, 2021, Jim Sterk "resigned" from Mizzou. It was not his choice. He was out. He had screwed up the hiring process, the guy they eventually got was recruiting like a madman and Sterk had lost the trust to make the right decisions.
In August, Mizzou hired Desiree Reed-Francois to replace Sterk. She immediately began overhauling the game day experience, mostly to positive reviews. She fired Cuonzo Martin and hired Dennis Gates. She played a part in Missouri being on the absolute forefront of figuring out how to use NIL to its advantage in a quickly changing landscape of college athletics. Things were going so well. The duck was just gliding along. After eight years of awful, Missouri was finally doing things well.
In November 2022, Drinkwitz was a middling coach who 15-16 in two-plus years. But the recruiting was really good, there were a lot of reasons to be optimistic. On Nov. 5, 2022, the morning Mizzou was set to play Kentucky, news broke of a contract extension raising Drinkwitz from $4 million to $6 million per year. I reported at the time the extension was Curator driven. I do not know that it was against the wishes of the Athletic Director, but I do know that it was driven by the Curators, not DRF or Mun Choi. Again, he was their football coach.
It needs to be said, they've been right about him. He went 11-2 this year, finished No. 7 in the country and has Missouri still recruiting like it never has. Point, BOC. No question. How much friction did that extension and the negotiation cause? I don't know. I know it wasn't none.
Fast forward to this past year when there was a ton of build up for a Curators meeting when this grand plan for the future of Mizzou athletics was going to be revealed. The school had put out a press release outlining some of it in October. A month later the meeting came and it was some minor improvements to Faurot Field and a North end zone project. It was not what anyone was expecting. It was not what the athletic department was expecting. The original plan was a near complete overhaul of the facilities impacting every sport on campus. And all that got approved was the North end zone project. There's been no explanation of what happened because, publicly, nothing happened. They made some improvements, everyone said the right things and the duck kept swimming. How much friction did the back and forth here cause? I don't know. I know it wasn't none.
Fast forward to February 8. Missouri announced the formation of a new Intercollegiate Athletics Special Committee. I didn't even write a story on it because I thought it was a big nothing burger. A way for four Curators who like sports more than the rest of them do to be somewhat involved. Whether I'm right or wrong, that's obviously not how it was viewed by Reed-Francois. I'm quoting from the Columbia Missourian article here:
"University of Missouri System leadership established a new oversight committee Thursday that will monitor Mizzou athletics amid broad changes to college sports and rising spending by the athletic department."
Is it not the AD's job to "monitor Mizzou athletics among broad changes to college sports?" It's literally his or her entire job. If someone formed a committee and gave the committee your job description, what would you think? It's pretty obvious today what Reed-Francois thought.
DRF leaving for Arizona (a worse athletic department in a worse conference) can mean only two things:
1) She was encouraged to look around
2) She felt that the environment at Missouri was not one in which she could continue to work and she looked elsewhere and took a worse job.
These are the ONLY two explanations. There are no others. Which is true? I don't know.
I'll be up front: I think she's done a good job and I like her. My track record with the Curators involves less of me thinking those things. So I'm sure that colors my opinions here. I'll admit that. No situation like this has all the blame on one side. I am sure there are things that DRF could have and should have done better as well.
My main takeaway is this: It was going well. You were winning in your most important sport. Gymnastics and volleyball were better. Basketball was better, then worse, but there's hope on the horizon. The money is pouring in. The state is legitimately rewriting laws to help you. Considering all that, could both sides not have swallowed their egos and made it work?
The answer, sadly, is no. Again, who's to blame? I'm sure both sides to some degree. I'll let every person assign their own percentages because I don't know. But rather than look at it and say "We might not love each other, but damn, we're doing pretty well together," they split up. That's too bad for you guys in my opinion.
This doesn't mean Missouri can't continue to do well. The duck might be flopping around today, but it can get back swimming pretty easily. The NIL money is still there. The football program is still good. The only thing that fundamentally changed today is the person at the head of it all. You might very well be able to go find another person who can grab the wheel and keep this thing pointed in exactly the same direction. Maybe even put his or her (if I would wager on which of those two I'd put every penny I own on his) foot on the gas and increase the speed. Today doesn't have to mean everything sucks and you're about to crash. But there's the risk of that. Because it was going well. The duck was swimming and those involved couldn't just let it swim. So now you make a change. And any time you make a change, there's risk.
Again, my guess would be you try to call Wren Baker. I don't think he'd take it. I think Laird Veatch is a candidate and he's who I'd put my money on. He was a candidate last time. I had someone mention John Currie's name to me. A couple have brought up Mark Alnutt. Someone told me Jamie Pollard at Iowa State would be interested. That's for another day. Today is about processing what went down and reacting to it. That's what I've tried to do here. I'll go live at 3:00 if you want to jump on with questions and thoughts. This came out of nowhere for me and everyone I've talked to. Maybe it shouldn't have, but it did. We'll process it together.
Last edited:
