Bring your Tigers football, basketball and recruiting questions, and talk to Eli Hoff in a live chat at 11 a.m. Thursday.
Transcript
Eli ±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýGood morning all! Plenty to talk about today, from spring football (lots of gridiron coverage coming over the next couple weeks as I catch up on what I missed during spring ball to cover the hoops postseason) to the transfer portal to big picture college sports things. But as always, y'all dictate what we talk about. Onto your questions!
Senior Scramble:Â Been waiting all week to ask you some questions. The chat is great for us long time Mizzou fans. I read where Gates really believes that the 4 freshmen who will be sophs next year can develop into decent players who can help next year. I have been disappointed with the portal until we got the player from UCLA , not sold on Porter and was confused on the center from Oklahoma I don't see were he helps much. If everyone stays on the roster we have 2 portal picks left any names you are hearing. I got to admit I was starting to wonder when Coach Harper was going to start to get her first portal player. She has at least 6 more to get, she has to get some good bigs if Mizzou is going to at least compete with the lower middle half of the SEC. any names she is looking at. Last thing if the judge rules in favor of the Ncaa where is the money to pay the athletes coming from. As always thank you for the chat.
Hoff:Â I'm happy to deliver answers where I can, though I don't have much to give you on the men's basketball portal, mostly because I don't really understand the approach at the present. I want to preface this by saying that just because I (or you or anyone else) don't understand the vision for this portal window doesn't mean there isn't a vision or it won't turn out completely fine. It absolutely could. But at the moment, it feels to me like the margin for error is very, very slim for the rest of the window. I wrote as much earlier this week.Ěý
I've run through this math here before so I won't belabor the point, but I saw four needs: 2 shooters, a big and a ball-handler, with the ball-handler being a tier of priority lower than the others. Mizzou's departures created those spots. Sebastian Mack, the UCLA guard, checks that last box. I'm thinking of him very loosely as a Tony Perkins-type player. He and Ant Robinson can be the starting backcourt with T.O. Barrett as a heavily utilized sub. I get the vision there.
Where I don't get the vision is the frontcourt. MU lost Aidan Shaw (which made a lot of sense) and Marcus Allen (which was more of a surprise). Porter might bring more to the table than Shaw did, but do the forward additions — add Northweather in here — made this a net gain? I'm not sure. Maybe Northweather winds up at the end of the bench. That's fine, but he's taking up a roster spot and the two incoming freshmen (PG Aaron Rowe and F Nicholas Randall) are probably also end-of-bench guys. You can only have so many guys you don't want to play on the roster.Ěý
Now there are two spots left and what I see as three needs: Two shooters and a big man. I don't see anyone on the roster who Mizzou would want to leave to clear a spot. So one of those needs is going to go unfilled. It's tough to compromise on a center — see 23-24 for how that went. But unless Crews or Pierce can take a leap as a shooter (which is possible), there just isn't going to be much in the way of 3-point shooting.
The only name I was watching was Kyan Evans, a KC-area guard who'd been at Colorado State. He fit the shooting/combo guard mold, but then committed to North Carolina last night. Maybe MU getting Mack was a factor. Maybe that wasn't. Mizzou's operated pretty quietly in the portal, so we'll see where things go from here.
I similarly haven't heard names that Harper might be after, but given that her first add was Saniah Tyler, an Incarnate Word product who'd been at Kentucky, I think that makes sense as an archetype: players who have Missouri connections already and/or know the SEC.
To your final question... that's the $20.5 million question. It's up to schools to find that revenue to share with athletes. It's why you won't see non-P4 schools get to that level. Very, very, very few athletic departments have $20+ million lying around. Mizzou is not one of them and has received financial support from campus side in recent years. That will almost certainly continue.Ěý
To put it simply, MU and other athletic departments flat out need to make more money. That's why you've seen Missouri raise ticket prices and really push fundraising. Every dollar in (and relatedly, every dollar out) matters more now with another $20.5 million expense on the budget each year. Oh, and that threshold will go up each year, so this will remain a challenge.Ěý
¸éłÜ˛ő˛ő:ĚýGood morning, Eli. Complements on your article about the House settlement and Coach Drinks reaction. My question: Will the salaries or pay for individual players be ever published? In other words, will we know what schools pay for players like we know for pro sports? If there is information on this, I've never seen it. Are there legal issues concerning privacy for college students?
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýThanks, Russ. If anyone missed it, this story on the House settlement developments and Drinkwitz's reaction is worth reading. There are some stories in which I'm best off letting his voice do all the heavy lifting, and this is one of them. He's got some good and interesting thoughts, and sums up how a lot of us feel: "I don't know what the crap is going on."
I'll preface my answer here by saying I don't really know because I don't think anybody does, but I'd be shocked if we ever really get to know the specifics of player salaries moving forward, for several reasons.Ěý
As you alluded to, there's FERPA/student privacy rules. Schools can claim that (rightly or wrongly, I don't know the nuances there) as a way not to disclose this stuff. They could probably argue it's proprietary information and not an open record that way, too. I've never seen a Mizzou NIL contract and I don't expect to for that reason.Ěý
Second, compensation could come from multiple places. A football player might have a $1 million deal with the university, then have a $200k NIL deal with a car dealership, make $50k for a commercial, etc. (Those numbers are completely made up.) The terms of the House settlement will demand NIL to be more of what it was supposed to be — endorsement compensation, not pay for play — but those deals will still stick around. And we won't definitely won't know those external values, just like how we don't know how much Patrick Mahomes gets for appearing in an insurance commercial or something.
Third, college sports is not transparent on this and has no real incentive to become transparent. Sometimes you'll see a school leak figures to show that it has cash to spend — see Texas Tech right now, which must want everyone to know how much money is flowing to players. But the compensation piece I'm trying to get Mizzou to publicize isn't how much any given athlete is making. I want to know how they're going to break down the $20.5 across sports. Georgia has been up front and said it will give 75% to football, 15% to men's basketball, 5% to women's basketball and spread the remaining 5% across the rest of sports. I don't think disclosing that has diminishing UGA's spot in the marketplace. But Mizzou has yet to do the same. I've asked and will keep asking because I think that's a fair and reasonable thing to publicize so that fans, who are fueling this revenue being shared with athletes, know what sports it's going to. But it takes seeing value in transparency to do that. I'm holding out hope that MU will answer that question after the settlement is finalized, but if not, then there's your answer about how transparent it'll be.
°Őľ±˛µ±đ°ů˛ő77:ĚýHave you heard any details regarding Jahkai Lang's departure from Mizzou? Reasoning behind it? Potential landing spots?
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýIt's not surprising. Drinkwitz expects to lose upwards of eight players this spring. Lang is No. 2 and departing the most crowded room on the roster. There's still Darris Smith, Damon Wilson II, Eddie Kelly Jr., Zion Young, Nate Johnson, Langden Kitchen and Javion Hilson there. Those are seven guys who could conceivably see the field, which Drinkwitz verbalized this week. If one more of them left, that wouldn't surprise me either. Players want to play, and it seems like a good player or two will wind up playing less than he might elsewhere because of the depth there. Edge rushers coach Brian Early suggested it's playing time for Lang, too, in a social media post yesterday.
As far as landing spots go, I'm not sure. I don't think he'd have to go down too far — Lang tied for second in sacks on an SEC team last year and has plenty of eligibility remaining. Maybe he goes to the Big 12 or ACC? Or a high-end Group of Five? This is where I'll admit I don't always know what the scouting report is on a guy like Lang, but I don't see him transferring down to a college football bottom-feeder.Ěý
˛úľ±˛µ°ů´Ç˛Ô:ĚýHave you been surprised that Mizzou hasn't lost more Bball players to the portal?
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýNot really. I'd said either here or on KTRS that the over/under on departures for me was 2.5. Shaw hopping in the portal made too much sense. And I didn't necessarily know who, but probability suggested at least one of the five freshmen would transfer, and that's been the case. There are still about two weeks left, so you can't rule out another departure. But the 2-3 range was where I thought Missouri would end up from the start. We'll see if I'm still correct on April 23, when the portal is closed.
¶Ů°äłŇ:ĚýEchoing the opening chat question a bit, I am just baffled by Gates's infatuation with untalented big guys. This ain't 1974. I've said this before, but one of Gates's blindspots is his willingness to play shorthanded on offense, which you really can only get away with if you have some super talented guys on the floor with the offensive dud. Mizzou doesn't have that. Especially in the age of the 3-pointer, you're better off playing smaller and have 5 guys who can shoot.
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýSo here's a thought/course of action for Mizzou to think about: What if the Tigers don't bring in a center and instead target a scoring/shooting guard and a shooting wing? Then the starting five looks a lot like it did this past season: Ant, second PG (Mack/Barrett), combo guard, wing (Crews/Pierce?), Mitchell. Then the hope would be the group of Marshall, Burns, Porter and Northweather yields two playable guys down low, knowing they'll come off the bench and be 15ish minutes a night roles. I'm not endorsing that, but I did have that thought. If MU can't get a center it likes, maybe it's better to pivot away...
łľÂáłółŮľ±˛µ±đ°ů:ĚýEli: I'm assuming the Penn State QB transfer and Horn are going to compete for the job as the starter? Has the incoming freshman fully recovered from his High School injury?
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýYes, that's exactly the QB competition moving forward. I'll write more about it soon, but Drinkwitz said it's Horn and Pribula — and that was evident pretty quickly during spring practice. Hence why Pyne hit the portal, too. Zollers has been practicing, and I haven't seen any limitations. Given how gnarly that injury looked, it seems he made great progress to be practicing this spring. The coaches have been quite pleased with that.
łľÂáłółŮľ±˛µ±đ°ů:ĚýDo you see Marshall or Burns as future starters or even impact players at the 5?
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýI mean, Burns is 7-5 with some skills... that could certainly be impactful if his frame comes around and he's healthy. Mizzou absolutely believes it has a unicorn with him. Marshall has the frame to be a startable center in the SEC, so it comes down to his technique/footwork/use of that size. There are paths to both getting there. Now, is that this upcoming season? I don't know... which is why I'd thought MU would target a veteran center to play ahead of them.Ěý
łľÂáłółŮľ±˛µ±đ°ů:Ěýany insight on why Allen departed? I would have thought he was in line for serious playing time next year.
Hoff: Allen has not said, so I won't really speculate.ĚýI thought the same about the opportunity for him, and Shaw's exit cleared a path. And then Missouri brought in Jevon Porter at the same position as Allen.Ěý
ł˘łÜ:ĚýRE: Burns and Marshall outlook as it relates to the portal strategy... this has to be the reason we haven't signed a big right? to clear minutes for these guys. Hope one of them can rebound. As it stands right now it looks like this team will have the same rebounding prowess as the 23-24 squad
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýMaybe. The market is always tough for big men, too — proven centers are costly and competitive to get in the portal. But because we don't really know the vision, I think it's worth considering a world in which there isn't a center addition. The hope with Porter is that he can be a plus rebounder. He was in the WCC. Can he do that in the SEC? Add that to the list of questions for next season.Ěý
łľÂáłółŮľ±˛µ±đ°ů:ĚýBoateng is a real enigma. Such a huge recruit. What happened?
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýEnigma is a good way to put it. He certainly had the hype and earned some opportunities early in the season, particularly with those starts. Some of him not playing may not really have been about his skill level. Warrick, Bates and Grill were directly ahead of him at the 2/3 spots, and they were always going to get minutes ahead of him. The 22, 23, 24 year old players tend to be better than then 18, 19 year old ones. But even if Mizzou adds a couple of players at that spot with what's left of the portal, there's going to be more of a runway to Boateng minutes next year. That'll either show that he's been developing or raise more questions about what his potential is at this level.Ěý
¶Ů°äłŇ:ĚýRe: Boateng and Shaw, one of the things that I've thought ridiculous for years is the whole recruit rating concept. The idea that anyone actually sees all these high school players play in meaningful situations (i.e. not AAU garbage) against good competition is laughable. The idea that Shaw was a 4 star given his clear lack of skills is a perfect examples. I'm sure what people saw was a great basketball body that could jump out of the gym and finish lobs, put backs, etc., but he was rarely facing someone as athletic as he is with his size. It was a little like Mo Diarra being the no. 1 JUCO player. Watch some film and you realize it was men against boys as JUCO ball is no longer filled with DI caliber players who couldn't qualify academically. Boateng looked as athletic as you could want, but are the skills really there? Being that athletic against HS competition can distort how good a player really is. I saw this all the time when I was coaching in south Florida (you can't believe the number of unbelievable but skill-raw athletes down there).
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýCan't argue with you there. It would never happen, but it would be great if the stars were based on athleticism or skills. You could have a guy with four-star athleticism and a two-star jumper, but the former is his rating and you have to hope you can teach the jumper. I'm no fan of the rating system for a lot of reasons, part of that being that I really can't get myself invested in high school recruiting too much these days. More power to those who can and do.Ěý
There's also the SEC component to this. It was the best basketball conference ever assembled this past season (or up there with them, but that's a separate point). Sure, there were good freshmen, but a lot of that was 4th, 5th, 6th year players. You're supposed to take an 18-year-old who was dominating high school games and make that a smooth transition into that level? It takes readiness from a physical, mental and skill standpoint. Not really your point, but something I've thought about with recruiting.
¶Ů°äłŇ:ĚýEli: Do you see the possibility of scholarships becoming multi-year contracts? It seems to me this is the only way to create fairness to both sides. While I was always a proponent of players being compensated for their names and images, and not having to sit a year to transfer, this is crazy. The moment a player in a mid-major shows a glint of promise, big schools come in and swoop them up. Coaches like Rich Pitino (you now, the guy who used to preach culture and family and all that) now says he's not even going to recruit HS kids. Freshmen want to jump ship if they don't get the PT they want in year one, and sometimes that's the right thing for them, but a lot of times, it's people in their ears pressuring them and not caring about real development. So, I would think that making a scholarship offer a two-year binding agreement would make a lot of sense. A kid isn't tethered to a school forever if he doesn't see a fit, but a team can still try to develop a player. Any chance of this happening?
±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ĚýThis seems like a path forward to me, and a good one. I've heard some rumblings about multi-year deals, including at MU, but I don't know enough to confidently report what they look like or how they work. I'd be curious what the contractual mechanism is for portal entries (to deter that and what happens if there is one). There's also the matter of what future compensation looks like. Let's say you sign a freshman to a two-year deal. (And it's hard to imagine either team or player wanting to sign anything longer than two years.) After the first year, there's a good chance one party is going to want to change the compensation. How is that handled?
Then there's the "are athletes employees" question, which is already in the mix but would be to a greater degree with structured multi-year deals becoming the norm. And collective bargaining, how standard these are from program to program... a whole lot of things.Ěý
So the simple answer: Yes, it seems possible. It might even be happening in some capacity now. But like anything with the business model of college sports, it's secretive, controversial and absolutely subject to change.Ěý
-
-
-
-
-
