With the regionals starting today, some coaches will be done by the end of the weekend. We put out some names that we'd heard earlier this week. It's not something we're going to cover anything like a football or basketball search. We're just not really equipped to do so, nor does it make sense to devote the resources to doing so. If we hear anything, we'll pass it on.
But speaking of resources, that's what this post is about. It's been talked about a lot.
Dave Matter talked to Steve Bieser a couple of weeks ago. He wrote about some of Mizzou's challenges and also talked about it on his podcast yesterday (listen below)
podcasts.apple.com
Dave mentioned that the Tigers took a 13 hour bus ride back from the SEC Tournament in Hoover. You think anyone else in this league is doing that? Yes, Missouri has put a little more money into the program, but we're talking six figures, not eight. Yeah, they paid a pitching coach more money than they were in the past, but part of that is due to the fact that their previous pitching coach died shortly before the season. Dave said that baseball players are currently receiving no NIL money. There just isn't any there for them.
The gap between 1 and 13 in SEC baseball (resources, expenditures, general give a damn) is probably smaller than the gap between 13 and Mizzou. If Mizzou wants to do anything approaching competing in this league, we all know that has to change. And we're not talking, a few more bucks for an assistant or power washing the bleachers or nicer transportation. We're talking major outlays of money (into the tens of millions).
Missouri's not going to be able to hire a decent coach without doing that. And if they aren't going to do that, to me, it doesn't make any sense to have fired Steve Bieser.
That said, do you think Missouri should do it?
Mizzou is not swimming in cash like many of its conference mates. That's not to say Mizzou is poor. It has money. But everyone knew when they joined the SEC, just making more than Big 12 schools was no longer the point. Yes, Mizzou got a truckload more money when it came to the SEC. But everyone else is getting that money too. In terms of sheer dollars, they have far more than they did in the Big 12. In terms of where they stand in relation to everyone else in their league, they actually went down. The analogy I've always made is this: In the Big 12, Missouri lived in an average to above average house in an upper middle class neighborhood. When they moved to the SEC, they moved to the rich trendy neighborhood. Yes, their house is much bigger, newer and nicer than the one they used to live in. But in comparison to the other houses in the neighborhood, it's below average.
So given that, do you pump 20, 30, 40 million dollars into baseball?
I'm torn on this. If you want to be competitive across the board (and it seems like Desiree Reed-Francois does) then you probably have to do that. But also, you need to improve in the two sports that matter too. Missouri needs to be better in football. In basketball, while last season was nice, that should be the expectation in a sport that Missouri values more than most of the SEC. You should be in the top four regularly (not every year, but at least half of them), not once every 5-10 seasons. So for an athletic department that doesn't have as much money as some of those against which it competes, I could easily argue that you should be pumping more money into football and basketball. If those are up and running, it naturally benefits everything else and provides more resources for the entire department. And then you use that to pour into other sports once the two that move the needle have every single thing they would ask for.
I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. Thought I'd start up a thread for the weekend to see what you all think before we see where Mizzou is going in baseball (for what it's worth, I think when Missouri announces its new coach, the only thing that really gets people excited is if they also announce a new stadium that day--and again, this post is really about whether that's a direction they should go or not).
But speaking of resources, that's what this post is about. It's been talked about a lot.
Dave Matter talked to Steve Bieser a couple of weeks ago. He wrote about some of Mizzou's challenges and also talked about it on his podcast yesterday (listen below)
Mizzou's Eli Drinkwitz heats up talkin' season at SEC meetings : Eye on the Tigers
Podcast Episode · Eye on the Tigers · 06/01/2023 · 46m
podcasts.apple.com
Dave mentioned that the Tigers took a 13 hour bus ride back from the SEC Tournament in Hoover. You think anyone else in this league is doing that? Yes, Missouri has put a little more money into the program, but we're talking six figures, not eight. Yeah, they paid a pitching coach more money than they were in the past, but part of that is due to the fact that their previous pitching coach died shortly before the season. Dave said that baseball players are currently receiving no NIL money. There just isn't any there for them.
The gap between 1 and 13 in SEC baseball (resources, expenditures, general give a damn) is probably smaller than the gap between 13 and Mizzou. If Mizzou wants to do anything approaching competing in this league, we all know that has to change. And we're not talking, a few more bucks for an assistant or power washing the bleachers or nicer transportation. We're talking major outlays of money (into the tens of millions).
Missouri's not going to be able to hire a decent coach without doing that. And if they aren't going to do that, to me, it doesn't make any sense to have fired Steve Bieser.
That said, do you think Missouri should do it?
Mizzou is not swimming in cash like many of its conference mates. That's not to say Mizzou is poor. It has money. But everyone knew when they joined the SEC, just making more than Big 12 schools was no longer the point. Yes, Mizzou got a truckload more money when it came to the SEC. But everyone else is getting that money too. In terms of sheer dollars, they have far more than they did in the Big 12. In terms of where they stand in relation to everyone else in their league, they actually went down. The analogy I've always made is this: In the Big 12, Missouri lived in an average to above average house in an upper middle class neighborhood. When they moved to the SEC, they moved to the rich trendy neighborhood. Yes, their house is much bigger, newer and nicer than the one they used to live in. But in comparison to the other houses in the neighborhood, it's below average.
So given that, do you pump 20, 30, 40 million dollars into baseball?
I'm torn on this. If you want to be competitive across the board (and it seems like Desiree Reed-Francois does) then you probably have to do that. But also, you need to improve in the two sports that matter too. Missouri needs to be better in football. In basketball, while last season was nice, that should be the expectation in a sport that Missouri values more than most of the SEC. You should be in the top four regularly (not every year, but at least half of them), not once every 5-10 seasons. So for an athletic department that doesn't have as much money as some of those against which it competes, I could easily argue that you should be pumping more money into football and basketball. If those are up and running, it naturally benefits everything else and provides more resources for the entire department. And then you use that to pour into other sports once the two that move the needle have every single thing they would ask for.
I think there are legitimate arguments on both sides. Thought I'd start up a thread for the weekend to see what you all think before we see where Mizzou is going in baseball (for what it's worth, I think when Missouri announces its new coach, the only thing that really gets people excited is if they also announce a new stadium that day--and again, this post is really about whether that's a direction they should go or not).
