It's no secret that Mike Alden's biggest red mark at Mizzou was the basketball program, in terms of poor results, off-the-court issues and constant coaching turnover. It's aruable whether basketball was the biggest red mark, or simply the most visible (and you could argue who's fault it is, but we're talking about the CEO who ultimately is responsbile). Regardless, to me it's the most pressing issue whether that is addressed by patience or a change.
And now in his last year we have a team that is shooting for double digit wins in the conference tournament, which has experienced numerous suspensions for a variety of reasons.
How will the new AD interact with the hoops program and how short of a leash will the current staff have?
What we know:
1. Rhoades presided over three coaches in six season at Houston.
2. He terminated Penders after an NCAA tournament appearance (the only appearance for Houston in the past 20 years)
3. He terminated the football coach after back to back 8 win seasons. Only 3 teams in the past 20 years had won more than 8.
4. Anderson was not hired by Rhoades
5. Anderson's hire was met with some level of criticism.
6. Rhoades has no issue making splash/controversial hires (See both Hermann and Sampson recently)
What I think, but don't know:
1. Loftin is intimately involved with campus athletics.
2. Loftin may not have pushed out Alden, but I believe there was some element of looking in a new direction, getting a "loftin guy."
3. Loftin is a ball-buster and doesn't have much patience with underachieving.
4. Rhoades is much the same way, based on his hiring/firing history of revenue coaches.
5. Rhoades/Loftin are all about capital development. Losing is one thing, losing and not making money where there's money to be made is entirely another.
6. Alden was not someone that attracted high level candidates for the hoops program by the end of his tenure.
How does this affect our basketball program? Does it shorten the time frame Anderson was initially hired under (coupled with his poor showing in year 1)? Does it have no effect? Does it raise the stakes as far as what Anderson needs to achieve?
I wouldn't imagine any change would be made now, absent something off the court occuring. But I was of the opinion that three years was a minimum, perhaps 4, no matter the on the court results.
Your thoughts?
This post was edited on 3/9 3:15 PM by mizzoucobra
And now in his last year we have a team that is shooting for double digit wins in the conference tournament, which has experienced numerous suspensions for a variety of reasons.
How will the new AD interact with the hoops program and how short of a leash will the current staff have?
What we know:
1. Rhoades presided over three coaches in six season at Houston.
2. He terminated Penders after an NCAA tournament appearance (the only appearance for Houston in the past 20 years)
3. He terminated the football coach after back to back 8 win seasons. Only 3 teams in the past 20 years had won more than 8.
4. Anderson was not hired by Rhoades
5. Anderson's hire was met with some level of criticism.
6. Rhoades has no issue making splash/controversial hires (See both Hermann and Sampson recently)
What I think, but don't know:
1. Loftin is intimately involved with campus athletics.
2. Loftin may not have pushed out Alden, but I believe there was some element of looking in a new direction, getting a "loftin guy."
3. Loftin is a ball-buster and doesn't have much patience with underachieving.
4. Rhoades is much the same way, based on his hiring/firing history of revenue coaches.
5. Rhoades/Loftin are all about capital development. Losing is one thing, losing and not making money where there's money to be made is entirely another.
6. Alden was not someone that attracted high level candidates for the hoops program by the end of his tenure.
How does this affect our basketball program? Does it shorten the time frame Anderson was initially hired under (coupled with his poor showing in year 1)? Does it have no effect? Does it raise the stakes as far as what Anderson needs to achieve?
I wouldn't imagine any change would be made now, absent something off the court occuring. But I was of the opinion that three years was a minimum, perhaps 4, no matter the on the court results.
Your thoughts?
This post was edited on 3/9 3:15 PM by mizzoucobra
