Quote:
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho
That’s a fair point. It also should take a cautionary page from what has befallen programs with more resources (Nebraska and Tennessee are great examples) that have been impatient with coaches and cycled through a bunch.
Finding the right coach is like finding a partner when you don’t believe in soul mates. Sometimes you know right away, sometimes you need to give it some time.
Missouri’s ceiling as a program is doing something like what Wisconsin or Virginia Tech or Oklahoma State have done. It can’t elevate itself into the truly elite tier without the combination of a historically great coach and a money man willing to spend a fortune supporting the program. (You could argue Okie Lite fits that criteria, and it isn’t elite, either).
It took Barry Alvarez and Bud Foster more than 4 years to get things rolling in their jobs.
Sometimes it just does.
I’m not all in on Odom, and the letdowns are maddening. I’m just not going to blindly expect literally anyone to be better.
The biggest gripe with him is the perceived poor recruiting in-state. That’s driven almost entirely by St. Louis. That’s a very weird recruiting dynamic, where the “Country of St. Louis” attitude (ie St Louis kinship over state kinship) is alive and well.
Personally, I’m not sure how often the St. Louis stars are worth the trouble (in football). Mizzou always has to do more than other schools - even peer programs - to get those kids, it seems.
|
Matt Ruhle would've been the guy.
STL has been a thorn in Mizzou Athletics since Norm Stewart. I don't get it and we had money men in Kroenke and Laurie....but, that bridge will never be rebuilt.