Home run hire Mike Anderson misses NCAA Tourney aGAIN

[Coach34]

with his opening game loss to a hot SC team...And this guy inherited a top 10 recruiting class plus returning starters

SEC basketball has just really deteriorated the last 5-7 years- and I dont think it's the coaching. The rise of football and the AAU culture is killing basketball in the Southeast

[MarketingBully01]

I'll take Mike Anderson 100x out of 100 over Rick Ray any day.

[Coach34]

I'll take Mike Anderson 100x out of 100 over Rick Ray any day.

maybe you would- but with what he walked into- he is sucking dick like a Bunny Ranch ho

[Dawg61]

For the 6th straight season Arkansas has been put out in their first game of the SEC tourney. Ouch

[HailState39110]

with his opening game loss to a hot SC team...And this guy inherited a top 10 recruiting class plus returning starters

SEC basketball has just really deteriorated the last 5-7 years- and I dont think it's the coaching. The rise of football and the AAU culture is killing basketball in the Southeast

S Carolina will make the NCAAT next year. You heard it hear first

[engie]

I'll take Mike Anderson 100x out of 100 over Rick Ray any day.

Yeah -- He's dominating. At a traditional power, no less.

You'd probably kick doors down for Billy Gillispie too, wouldn't you?

[MarketingBully01]

Nope, but Anderson has made an elite eight run at Missouri which Gillespie never did.

[engie]

Nope, but Anderson has made an elite eight run at Missouri which Gillespie never did.

Gillespie made a Sweet 16 at aTm -- their first in 27 years and only 3rd ever.

Anderson was Mizzou's 5th Elite 8 -- their 3rd since 94 -- and their 3rd coach in a row to make one.

[Coach34]

If Ray had inherited what Anderson did- Ray would have made an NCAA Tourney imo

[Schultzy]

with his opening game loss to a hot SC team...And this guy inherited a top 10 recruiting class plus returning starters

SEC basketball has just really deteriorated the last 5-7 years- and I dont think it's the coaching. The rise of football and the AAU culture is killing basketball in the Southeast

I thought Anderson would be crazy good at Arkansas. There has to be something to this rise in football/AAU influence contributing to the decline of SEC basketball. Players just aren't as talented or hoops savvy as they used to be.

[chef dixon]

The SEC has an immature brand of basketball. A lot of flying around the court, turnovers, wild shot selection. I think they may need to divide time of possession up into 3 parts for the amount of loose balls per game. The players are not coming in ready, and they aren't leaving much better for the most part.

The only team in the conference that plays a composed, crisp, intelligent brand of basketball is Florida and all they did was go 18-0.

[engie]

I thought Anderson would be crazy good at Arkansas. There has to be something to this rise in football/AAU influence contributing to the decline of SEC basketball. Players just aren't as talented or hoops savvy as they used to be.

I agree.

Hence why some of us find it asinine to think that we've got to follow the same recruiting model as others around the conference. One that clearly isn't working -- for a bunch of guys considered excellent coaches/recruiters before they got to the conference. I'm fine with a midmajor approach to underrated/underevaluated players that can be developed, bringing them along slowly, and developing real basketball savvy that can carry you deep into March. That seems to be our approach -- we just had to baptize guys by fire instead of bringing them along at a pace conducive to winning and slow development on the front end.

[dawgs]

pointing out a previously successful coach hasn't been as successful at his new stop does not prove anything with regards to our coaching search/hire/situation/results the past 2 seasons.

[engie]

pointing out a previously successful coach hasn't been as successful at his new stop does not prove anything with regards to our coaching search/hire/situation/results the past 2 seasons.

It proves that the formula many of you want to follow is failing ALL around us.

[smootness]

pointing out a previously successful coach hasn't been as successful at his new stop does not prove anything with regards to our coaching search/hire/situation/results the past 2 seasons.

You're right to some degree. Except that, as engie pointed out, it is relevant when discussing the best route to go for the program. I think bringing in a guy like Kenny Payne would be insane given that guys who are recruiting plenty well and have much better reputations as actual coaches than Payne are not having success in the league.

[dawgs]

You're right to some degree. Except that, as engie pointed out, it is relevant when discussing the best route to go for the program. I think bringing in a guy like Kenny Payne would be insane given that guys who are recruiting plenty well and have much better reputations as actual coaches than Payne are not having success in the league.

never said i would have wanted kenny payne anywhere in my top 10 choices.

[smootness]

never said i would have wanted kenny payne anywhere in my top 10 choices.

Well, we have evidence to show that guys who have proven themselves successful as mid-major head coaches often struggle when they come into the SEC. We have evidence to show that coaches who can bring in 4- and 5-star guys still often struggle in the SEC.

So I'm not sure what plan our fans wanted us to follow. Pretty much everyone I've heard has fallen into those categories.

But pointing out that other coaches who fall along the lines of the type of guy everyone wanted us to hire are struggling in the SEC is relevant.

[Westdawg]

i think the same approach that Mullen has taken with football has to happen with basketball. We are not going to have tons of talent draw immediately to us. we need to find good players with high ceilings that have not reached their full potential, bring them in and take the time to teach and coach them up in the game - let them gain the experience and knowledge needed to be successful. I think next year will be a much better year. we did marvelous in the first half of most of the games this year. it was the second half where we did not have fresh bodies to put on the floor that killed the team. That changes a lot with at least 6 players either coming in or coming off of redshirt year that we can add to the quality and depth of the team overall. that will make a HUGE difference.

[smootness]

i think the same approach that Mullen has taken with football has to happen with basketball. We are not going to have tons of talent draw immediately to us. we need to find good players with high ceilings that have not reached their full potential, bring them in and take the time to teach and coach them up in the game - let them gain the experience and knowledge needed to be successful. I think next year will be a much better year. we did marvelous in the first half of most of the games this year. it was the second half where we did not have fresh bodies to put on the floor that killed the team. That changes a lot with at least 6 players either coming in or coming off of redshirt year that we can add to the quality and depth of the team overall. that will make a HUGE difference.

Really good post, and I agree. Our fans need to accept that we're just not going to bring in the kind of talent Stans did, at least to begin with - and it doesn't really matter who we hire. He was a very good recruiter, regardless of how he went about it, and he also didn't always coach them up the way some others could. Those are both facts. I think we can ultimately be better by bringing in a slightly lower level of talent but coaching/developing them better. And I think that if we start winning, the recruiting will follow.

Our fans also need to understand that while Stans brought in talent, a lot of times it was talent with baggage. I don't know if we got them more because other programs backed off or not (in Sidney's case they obviously did), but guys like Kodi Augustus, Ravern Johnson, DJ Gardner, Walter Sharpe, etc. had some issues. Those issues worsened when they got to State, but they were always there. And I would always rather bring in a guy with a little lower ceiling who will buy in fully than a guy with more natural ability that will be tough to coach and rein in.

[dawgs]

Well, we have evidence to show that guys who have proven themselves successful as mid-major head coaches often struggle when they come into the SEC. We have evidence to show that coaches who can bring in 4- and 5-star guys still often struggle in the SEC.

So I'm not sure what plan our fans wanted us to follow. Pretty much everyone I've heard has fallen into those categories.

But pointing out that other coaches who fall along the lines of the type of guy everyone wanted us to hire are struggling in the SEC is relevant.

but i can point out former mid-major coaches in other major conferences that have come in and been successful.

[smootness]

but i can point out former mid-major coaches in other major conferences that have come in and been successful.

That isn't as relevant as what's happening in the SEC. Mike Anderson was as slam-dunk a hire as a program like that can make - and it isn't working. Why not go completely outside the box?

[dawgs]

Really good post, and I agree. Our fans need to accept that we're just not going to bring in the kind of talent Stans did, at least to begin with - and it doesn't really matter who we hire. He was a very good recruiter, regardless of how he went about it, and he also didn't always coach them up the way some others could. Those are both facts. I think we can ultimately be better by bringing in a slightly lower level of talent but coaching/developing them better. And I think that if we start winning, the recruiting will follow.

Our fans also need to understand that while Stans brought in talent, a lot of times it was talent with baggage. I don't know if we got them more because other programs backed off or not (in Sidney's case they obviously did), but guys like Kodi Augustus, Ravern Johnson, DJ Gardner, Walter Sharpe, etc. had some issues. Those issues worsened when they got to State, but they were always there. And I would always rather bring in a guy with a little lower ceiling who will buy in fully than a guy with more natural ability that will be tough to coach and rein in.

why not recruit talent without baggage? i'm fine with a slightly lower talent that's going to buy in. but right now i don't see slightly lower talent on the horizon, i see significantly lower talent.

[smootness]

why not recruit talent without baggage? i'm fine with a slightly lower talent that's going to buy in. but right now i don't see slightly lower talent on the horizon, i see significantly lower talent.

Because it's obviously much harder to get talent without baggage to Mississippi State because better programs want them a lot more than they want the guys who have talent with baggage. That was my point.

And we'll see on the 'significantly'. Houston, Black, Dante Scott, etc. - these guys may be significantly lower-ranked that Rodney Hood, but they're not really far away from a lot of the guys Stans really built the program around - the Zimmerman's, Bowers', Power's, Hansbrough's, Frazier's, Varnado's, Stewart's, etc.

Let's see what they do before we proclaim the amount of talent they have.

[Political Hack]

it's damn near impossible to get a scholarship at an sec school playing basketball. if each school averages 3 a year, that's about 42 scholarships a year for students across the entire SEC. Football??? 350 scholarships.

roughly speaking, you're 8.3 times more likely to get a scholarship in football than basketball if all things are equal. Investing time on the hardwood just doesn't pay off for athletes like it does in football or baseball. Also, an "indoor" sport isn't a necessity in the south nearly as much as it is up north. You don't see as many football players from the north because they're splitting their time more evenly between the indoor and outdoor sports.

[Coach34]

Our staff deserves a little more credit on certain things. Black for instance. Instead of just leaving him in Jackson in the JPS system and hope he passes his classes while receiving very little coaching- our staff gets him to IMG in Fla to get better coaching and instruction in the classroom. Black is going to come in at least a little more prepared because of his year at IMG.

[engie]

but i can point out former mid-major coaches in other major conferences that have come in and been successful.

How is what's happening on the other side of the country relevant to the SEC? It's not. They are pulling from an entirely different culture and talent pool.

Mike Anderson was a high-major coach at a borderline elite basketball school that took his team to the Elite 8. He was as proven as anyone in the SEC sans UK can EVER hope to hire...and thusfar, he hasn't panned out... at a school that is probably a top 20 all-time basketball school(#18 all-time in win percentage)...

[dawgs]

How is what's happening on the other side of the country relevant to the SEC? It's not. They are pulling from an entirely different culture and talent pool.

Mike Anderson was a high-major coach at a borderline elite basketball school that took his team to the Elite 8. He was as proven as anyone in the SEC sans UK can EVER hope to hire...and thusfar, he hasn't panned out... at a school that is probably a top 20 all-time basketball school(#18 all-time in win percentage)...

but nothing is ever a 100% slam dunk. i don't know the intricacies of what's gone on at arkansas outside of just a passing interest as a fan of a sec program, but he's won 21 games this year. his worst season through 3 seasons was his 1st and he still went 18-14 (6-10). each season he's been there, they've improved. similarly at mizzou, it took him a couple of years to get rolling, but his worst season was year 2 when they went 16-16.

so to act like he's been an unmitigated disaster is wrong. at worst he has maintained solid competitiveness while rebuilding the program, even if the ncaa level success hasn't come as fast as arkansas fans were hoping.

[engie]

but nothing is every a 100% slam dunk. i don't know the intricacies of what's gone on at arkansas outside of just a passing interest as a fan of a sec program, but he's won 21 games this year. his worst season through 3 seasons was his 1st and he still went 18-14 (6-10). each season he's been there, they've improved. similarly at mizzou, it took him a couple of years to get rolling, but his worst season was year 2 when they went 16-16.

so to act like he's been an unmitigated disaster is wrong. at worst he has maintained solid competitiveness while rebuilding the program, even if the ncaa level success hasn't come as fast as arkansas fans were hoping.

They weren't "rebuilding". He walked into a good situation with an 18-win team -- and a talented group of sophs already on roster. That team should have been dancing in year 1.

Consistently in the NIT isn't good enough for a program that has been dancing 29 times, with 24 conference titles, 10 Elite 8s, 6 final 4s, a runner up, and a title. Stan Heath got his ass fired for 21 wins while making the NCAAs in year 5. Pelphrey got fired for 18 wins in year 4.

[HancockCountyDog]

They weren't "rebuilding". He walked into a good situation with an 18-win team -- and a talented group of sophs already on roster. That team should have been dancing in year 1.

Consistently in the NIT isn't good enough for a program that has been dancing 29 times, with 24 conference titles, 10 Elite 8s, 6 final 4s, a runner up, and a title. Stan Heath got his ass fired for 21 wins while making the NCAAs in year 5. Pelphrey got fired for 18 wins in year 4.

Watching all of these coaches fail, makes me wonder if we made the right call even more.

STans was by no means perfect, but when you look at the results and compare them to what I consider to be really good coaches - Fox, Grant, and Anderson - its simply not close in regards to winning% and tourney bids.

I just worry that we threw the baby out with the bath water.

[HoopsDawg]

Watching all of these coaches fail, makes me wonder if we made the right call even more.

STans was by no means perfect, but when you look at the results and compare them to what I consider to be really good coaches - Fox, Grant, and Anderson - its simply not close in regards to winning% and tourney bids.

I just worry that we threw the baby out with the bath water.


that was always the biggest fear in firing Stans. This point was brought up millions of times when Coach34 went on one of his rants. Let's hope we don't become AU.

[smootness]

that was always the biggest fear in firing Stans. This point was brought up millions of times when Coach34 went on one of his rants. Let's hope we don't become AU.

There's always a risk. I defended Stans 100% for a long, long time and always felt like we would rue the day we let him go. However, after his last 2-3 years, even I had decided that I'd rather take that risk and see if we could end up better off than continue down the road we were on, which had continuously diminishing returns.

Had Stans continued to get us into the Tournament at least every other year, there is no way I would have advocated for making a change, regardless of whether or not we made the Sweet 16. I always felt like that was just a matter of time/luck.

But once that last team couldn't even make the Tournament, it became clear to me that it was absolutely worth the risk. We were never going to have more talent on one team than we did with that team - I think it had more talent than even our Final 4 team - yet we still struggled in a weak SEC and had a first round exit in the NIT. That simply was no longer good enough.

So the question to me was not, is winning an SEC title and merely going to the Tournament good enough? It was, is NIT trips with underachieving teams good enough? And I decided that for me, it wasn't. Our program was not the same program it had been even 4-5 years earlier, and I don't know why some can't see that.

[dawgs]

There's always a risk. I defended Stans 100% for a long, long time and always felt like we would rue the day we let him go. However, after his last 2-3 years, even I had decided that I'd rather take that risk and see if we could end up better off than continue down the road we were on, which had continuously diminishing returns.

Had Stans continued to get us into the Tournament at least every other year, there is no way I would have advocated for making a change, regardless of whether or not we made the Sweet 16. I always felt like that was just a matter of time/luck.

But once that last team couldn't even make the Tournament, it became clear to me that it was absolutely worth the risk. We were never going to have more talent on one team than we did with that team - I think it had more talent than even our Final 4 team - yet we still struggled in a weak SEC and had a first round exit in the NIT. That simply was no longer good enough.

So the question to me was not, is winning an SEC title and merely going to the Tournament good enough? It was, is NIT trips with underachieving teams good enough? And I decided that for me, it wasn't. Our program was not the same program it had been even 4-5 years earlier, and I don't know why some can't see that.

i agree with everything you said 100% except the part about stans last team being more talented than the final 4 squad. but i know what you are getting at - there was too much talent on that last team to **** it up the way we did. we just differ on at what point it becomes fair game to openly question rick ray and whether rick ray's evaluation should be tied to our coaching search or completely separated from our coaching search. i think it's fair to question him now, but i wouldn't advocate firing him after this season unless we had a pearl-esque hire already committed to the job. but it's also impossible for me to not take into account the coaching search debacle when discussing ray, so yes, that's going to lead me to have a shorter leash and be more skeptical of ray than say someone like cohen (or tom crean to stick with the indiana basketball analogies folks toss around) until proven otherwise. sorry, that's just how it is.

[SheltonChoked]

I think the big problem in the South is exactly that Football has become so much bigger.
No way would have Derunya Wilson played football for MSU 10 years ago.

So now the Bowers, Zimmerman, Gholar, Stewart, Bullard, type players are playing WR or DB. Not basketball. It's the specialization of kids at a young level. There is no play the sport in season anymore. It's decide when you are 6 and stick to it.

[Percho]

I would be interested to know who you all think would have been the top two coaches we could have hired that it would have been a 95% surety of them coming?

[Coach34]

The problem was timing. All the problems plus losing all the talent we did narrowed down people that wanted the job significantly. Not stepping up pay apparently did too if some people are to be believed. No idea on that part

[Schultzy]

UGA up by one! Doubling up taking New Mexico -5 over Boise hope to stay lucky.

[Dawg61]

The problem was timing. All the problems plus losing all the talent we did narrowed down people that wanted the job significantly. Not stepping up pay apparently did too if some people are to be believed. No idea on that part

Stricklin just panicked and made the hire too quickly to save a recruiting class. You never rush a hire to save a single recruiting class. We should of learned from Tennessee football rushing the Derek Dooley hire. Not like I didn't point it out twenty times though. Now we sit in the bed. Would it have really hurt to do a couple more interviews and ask around a little more? Would we actually be worse than 14th in the SEC if we had taken an extra 2-3 weeks before rushing a hire?