I'll start by saying I know the argument that's coming, so go ahead and have it after I try to make my points. I've read a lot of discussion yesterday and this morning that Anderson's comments about recruiting are seen as "settling" or admitting he can't recruit high-level players or an indication he wants to build the program on the backs of three-star kids.
For those who didn't see the comments or don't know what I'm referencing, here is the quote: "I think what we have to do at Missouri is, and every school has to do this, I think they have to know who they can recruit. Who fits the University of Missouri? And I'm not saying that, I think you have to know who you can successfully recruit and then recruit those people. I think that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to recruit guys that fit into our program, guys that want to be here, guys that we can develop and good players."
Wanted to give my take on this discussion. Doesn't mean I'm right and I'm not trying to convince anybody that Kim Anderson is John Calipari or anything along those lines. But I do think this brings up a really good point and an interesting discussion.
First, I know that a die hard fan board isn't the right audience to hear this message: Missouri's basketball program is solid. It's historically pretty good. It isn't a whole lot more than that. There's a decent tradition, not a great one. That's just reality. I think we start there. You can't recruit like Kentucky or Carolina or kansas or Duke or a few others. That's just fact. I think everyone knows that. It doesn't mean you can never beat those schools for an individual kid. It means that you're never going to beat them on a consistent basis or in class rankings, etc.
On that premise, I heard Bo Ryan's comments about not wanting to build with "rent-a-players." You know why? Because he can't get them to go to Wisconsin. Every single coach in America would have taken Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones and Karl Anthony Towns and Devin Booker and others. Every one. There's not one school that those kids could have called up and tried to commit and the coach would have said, "No thanks, we're full." But there are only a handful that get those kids on any sort of a consistent basis.
That doesn't mean other schools never get McDonald's all-Americans or five-star players. Of course they do. You know when they do? When there's a connection. Missouri had a chance with Thomas Bryant because of Rob Fulford. And this is the crux of the discussion when it comes to the highly ranked kids. Anderson isn't saying you don't recruit them. But really, there has to be a REASON to recruit them.
This is where I tie it into football. Missouri has had a lot of good players from a lot of good places. But the Tigers have never signed a five-star from outside the state of Missouri or the immediate area (Beckner was a five-star by a lot of people and he's from Illinois, but it's right across the border so you get my point). They haven't signed a ton of four-stars from outside the state. So you get good players from all over. And when you have a national star in your own state, you pour everything into getting him. Missouri football has had success doing so. They've lost a few (Ofodile, Elliott in recent years) but overall, they've gotten more than they've lost. If Blaine Gabbert, Sheldon Richardson, DGB or Jeremy Maclin grows up in pretty much any other state in America, Missouri's not going to get them. That's simply a statement of fact. And I believe Gary Pinkel's greatest strength is that he recognizes that. Sure, Pinkel would love to have signed Byron Cowart last year. And Missouri probably offered him. But I'm sure they didn't spend much time recruiting him. The simple fact is there are limited man hours and resources and visits and such. So you don't pour many of them into a kid you might have a 3% chance of signing. What Pinkel has done is largely get the "can't miss kids" from Missouri's recruiting area and supplemented it with kids who aren't considered elite recruits from outside that area. And it's obviously worked quite well. Pinkel knows what his program is.
Of Missouri's three hoops coaches prior to Kim Anderson, I think only one really knew what his program was. That was Mike Anderson. He had a connection to a big-time transfer (DeMarre Carroll) and got him. He had a connection to an elite point guard (Phil Pressey) and got him. He had Marcus Denmon and Leo Lyons and Mike Dixon in state and he got them. And then he supplemented it with guys like Kim English and JT Tiller and Zaire Taylor good players, but not the top level recruits in America that had their choice of anywhere in the country to go to school. I know the counterargument coming that he didn't recruit well in the state, especially the McLemore/Beal time period and you're right about that. I think Mike almost went a little TOO far in that he seemed to almost not even WANT the all-American type talent. I don't know if Missouri could have gotten those guys or if it was Anderson's fault they didn't, but if I'm applauding him for his approach, it's only fair to recognize his flaws.
Quin Snyder chased a lot of big fish. He got some of them too. But he missed on quite a few others. What could Quin have gotten with the extra time that he spent recruiting Luol Deng and Jason Kapono and Olu Famutimi? We'll never know. Frank Haith chased some big fish too (for the record, I think Haith had a much better idea of what the program was than Quin). He may have gotten some with the likes of Wright and Gant. We won't know that for a year or two. But his staff also spent a lot of time recruiting guys whose names were all over top 100 lists and didn't get many. Would those resources have been better served on some other kids? Maybe. I'm not saying yes. I don't know. But the bottom line is, if you don't GET the kids, your approach is questionable.
Now, I don't know if Kim Anderson can follow the Pinkel model and make it work. Maybe he can't. The news that Jayson Tatum won't have Missouri in his top four is most definitely a blow. If he can make up for it by getting Tyler Cook and Michael Porter, he's maybe on his way to emulating what Pinkel has done. If he misses on those guys, well, he's not going to replace them with equal talent from other states. We know that. So it's very important that he get guys like that because we all know you can't win at a high level without some stars. Sure it's been done, but it's very rare and very difficult. Whether it will work is a question, but what isn't a question is that Missouri (especially now) HAS to do it this way. Don't spend your time recruiting the top 20 kid from Ohio or Louisiana or Arizona because unless there's some connection to a coach or Missouri, you're probably not getting him. Pour everything you've got into the big talent close to home and find other guys to supplement it.
A lot of rambling here and I'm not sure I made my point very well, but wanted to put some thoughts out there for you guys to chat about.
For those who didn't see the comments or don't know what I'm referencing, here is the quote: "I think what we have to do at Missouri is, and every school has to do this, I think they have to know who they can recruit. Who fits the University of Missouri? And I'm not saying that, I think you have to know who you can successfully recruit and then recruit those people. I think that's what we're trying to do. We're trying to recruit guys that fit into our program, guys that want to be here, guys that we can develop and good players."
Wanted to give my take on this discussion. Doesn't mean I'm right and I'm not trying to convince anybody that Kim Anderson is John Calipari or anything along those lines. But I do think this brings up a really good point and an interesting discussion.
First, I know that a die hard fan board isn't the right audience to hear this message: Missouri's basketball program is solid. It's historically pretty good. It isn't a whole lot more than that. There's a decent tradition, not a great one. That's just reality. I think we start there. You can't recruit like Kentucky or Carolina or kansas or Duke or a few others. That's just fact. I think everyone knows that. It doesn't mean you can never beat those schools for an individual kid. It means that you're never going to beat them on a consistent basis or in class rankings, etc.
On that premise, I heard Bo Ryan's comments about not wanting to build with "rent-a-players." You know why? Because he can't get them to go to Wisconsin. Every single coach in America would have taken Jahlil Okafor and Tyus Jones and Karl Anthony Towns and Devin Booker and others. Every one. There's not one school that those kids could have called up and tried to commit and the coach would have said, "No thanks, we're full." But there are only a handful that get those kids on any sort of a consistent basis.
That doesn't mean other schools never get McDonald's all-Americans or five-star players. Of course they do. You know when they do? When there's a connection. Missouri had a chance with Thomas Bryant because of Rob Fulford. And this is the crux of the discussion when it comes to the highly ranked kids. Anderson isn't saying you don't recruit them. But really, there has to be a REASON to recruit them.
This is where I tie it into football. Missouri has had a lot of good players from a lot of good places. But the Tigers have never signed a five-star from outside the state of Missouri or the immediate area (Beckner was a five-star by a lot of people and he's from Illinois, but it's right across the border so you get my point). They haven't signed a ton of four-stars from outside the state. So you get good players from all over. And when you have a national star in your own state, you pour everything into getting him. Missouri football has had success doing so. They've lost a few (Ofodile, Elliott in recent years) but overall, they've gotten more than they've lost. If Blaine Gabbert, Sheldon Richardson, DGB or Jeremy Maclin grows up in pretty much any other state in America, Missouri's not going to get them. That's simply a statement of fact. And I believe Gary Pinkel's greatest strength is that he recognizes that. Sure, Pinkel would love to have signed Byron Cowart last year. And Missouri probably offered him. But I'm sure they didn't spend much time recruiting him. The simple fact is there are limited man hours and resources and visits and such. So you don't pour many of them into a kid you might have a 3% chance of signing. What Pinkel has done is largely get the "can't miss kids" from Missouri's recruiting area and supplemented it with kids who aren't considered elite recruits from outside that area. And it's obviously worked quite well. Pinkel knows what his program is.
Of Missouri's three hoops coaches prior to Kim Anderson, I think only one really knew what his program was. That was Mike Anderson. He had a connection to a big-time transfer (DeMarre Carroll) and got him. He had a connection to an elite point guard (Phil Pressey) and got him. He had Marcus Denmon and Leo Lyons and Mike Dixon in state and he got them. And then he supplemented it with guys like Kim English and JT Tiller and Zaire Taylor good players, but not the top level recruits in America that had their choice of anywhere in the country to go to school. I know the counterargument coming that he didn't recruit well in the state, especially the McLemore/Beal time period and you're right about that. I think Mike almost went a little TOO far in that he seemed to almost not even WANT the all-American type talent. I don't know if Missouri could have gotten those guys or if it was Anderson's fault they didn't, but if I'm applauding him for his approach, it's only fair to recognize his flaws.
Quin Snyder chased a lot of big fish. He got some of them too. But he missed on quite a few others. What could Quin have gotten with the extra time that he spent recruiting Luol Deng and Jason Kapono and Olu Famutimi? We'll never know. Frank Haith chased some big fish too (for the record, I think Haith had a much better idea of what the program was than Quin). He may have gotten some with the likes of Wright and Gant. We won't know that for a year or two. But his staff also spent a lot of time recruiting guys whose names were all over top 100 lists and didn't get many. Would those resources have been better served on some other kids? Maybe. I'm not saying yes. I don't know. But the bottom line is, if you don't GET the kids, your approach is questionable.
Now, I don't know if Kim Anderson can follow the Pinkel model and make it work. Maybe he can't. The news that Jayson Tatum won't have Missouri in his top four is most definitely a blow. If he can make up for it by getting Tyler Cook and Michael Porter, he's maybe on his way to emulating what Pinkel has done. If he misses on those guys, well, he's not going to replace them with equal talent from other states. We know that. So it's very important that he get guys like that because we all know you can't win at a high level without some stars. Sure it's been done, but it's very rare and very difficult. Whether it will work is a question, but what isn't a question is that Missouri (especially now) HAS to do it this way. Don't spend your time recruiting the top 20 kid from Ohio or Louisiana or Arizona because unless there's some connection to a coach or Missouri, you're probably not getting him. Pour everything you've got into the big talent close to home and find other guys to supplement it.
A lot of rambling here and I'm not sure I made my point very well, but wanted to put some thoughts out there for you guys to chat about.
