ÃÛÑ¿´«Ã½

Transcript

Eli ±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýGood morning, everyone. Thanks for dropping by this week's Mizzou chat. As always, I'll be here for a few hours to answer your questions and weigh in on your offseason takes — just drop them in the chat bar! Let's get rolling. 

Tom O.: What did Drink see in our new portal quarterback from Penn. that caused him to pick him for Missouri over other quarterbacks in the portal?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýPribula was ranked as the No. 12 quarterback available in the portal this offseason per 247Sports, and has the rushing ability that Mizzou seems to want to keep present at the position. He was in the tier of quarterbacks who look to be immediately playable, but came at decent value because he is unproven as a starter. 

It's not like Drinkwitz and company had honed in on Pribula from the start, though. They hosted USC transfer Miller Moss on a visit, but he chose Louisville over MU. There were links to Cal transfer Fernando Mendoza as well. In the end, Pribula was the QB to commit who had the skillset and price tag Mizzou was comfortable with.

¸é³Ü²õ²õ:ÌýEli, with the debate whether the SEC should go to a 9-game conference schedule, is the 3-6 still the likely format? In other words, 3 teams every year, and rotate the others with in a 6 game home and home?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýIt seems the answer is yes, and I say "seems" only because this hasn't been finalized yet. The proposal that has been circulating around the SEC for the last couple of years would give each team three permanent opponents — largely rivalries where possible. But for schools without three true rivals in the SEC, those so-called permanent opponents could be re-evaluated and changed every so often to mix things up. The other six games would bounce around the rest of the league. Teams would alternate having four SEC home games one year and five the next. To make that easy, I could see the conference doing what it has done in 2024 and '25 and keeping opponents the same between the two seasons but flipping the locations — though I haven't seen if that is the exact plan. 

Generally, though, you're right on track: three consistent opponents, six that probably alternate home and away.

²ú¾±²µ°ù´Ç²Ô:ÌýGood morning Eli, thanks again for the great coverage of Mizzou sports, does Mizzou still have a scholarship open for the mens Bball team and if so do they plan to use it?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýYes, the men's hoops team still has an open spot. I had assumed they would fill it (and written as much here in the past) because we all know how much Dennis Gates likes a deep roster. As time has gone by, that has become increasingly unlikely to where I'd now be surprised if Mizzou added one more player. Players have all moved in for the summer and are starting summer practices. It's very, very late in the portal cycle. There aren't many players left out there and frankly, I doubt much money either. This would be a walk-on level add if anything because of that. So at this point, I'm not expecting that spot to be filled — and very much not expecting it to be filled with any sort of impact. 

Mizzou Fan - Dallas: Good Morning - I don’t think we should over look the challenges the Tigers will have on the field this season. There will not only be several new faces on both sides of the ball, but also, the number of new faces that will be starting. Although HCED has indicated that talent could be the best he’s had since arriving at Mizzou, that does not necessarily mean instant success. I always enjoy Eli’s optimism, but I think we need to pump the brakes on expectations. And of course…injuries will always be a factor. Does 7 wins sound more realistic? Thank You.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýYour line of thinking there is exactly what has some folks cooler on this Mizzou team than many MU fans. I don't think it's fair to expect Drinkwitz to do something that has never been done at Missouri before and win 10-plus games in three consecutive seasons. Is it possible? Certainly, but I don't think that should be the bar for this team. 

So what is the bar to meet expectations? The schedule is quite favorable again. Vegas has set the over/under at 7.5 wins. We've talked in past chats about how that seems low. If you follow the sportsbooks' logic, seven wins is realistic but a slight underperformance. Maybe eight is the bar? I've really struggled to settle on a specific total that would count as meeting expectations.

³Ù´Ç³¾:ÌýWhat are the next steps for Mizzou baseball and softball programs following this season? thanks!

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýFor baseball: Find as many healthy pitchers as possible. That group became so rundown as this past season went, and then a handful have already entered the transfer portal. I doubt the program will have the kind of money to go after the sport's upper tier of transfers, so mining JUCO ranks for talent will probably remain key. Try to find some players who can bring some edge and squeak out a few more SEC wins next season. And just hope to avoid the injury bug that made this past season go even worse than it was likely to.

For softball: Find talent, and lots of it. The team sorely missed an ace, so whether that's going to be Harrison/McCann taking a step forward or a transfer coming in, that would help. But really, it's the bats that need big gains. The Tigers struggled to replace the top hitters from 2024, and now they've turned over their top hitters again from this year. It doesn't really matter the position, they just need some firepower from the top end of the portal to get back toward the upper half of the SEC.

°Õ¾±²µ±ð°ù²ú´Ç³ú:ÌýPut on your fortune teller's hat. Does Sam Horn transfer or declare for the MLB draft if he doesn't win the QB job?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýI don't make this kind of prediction because it's unfair to the guy. But I'll offer a few relevant thoughts on the matter for consideration. Horn is a top 100 prospect in this year's MLB Draft, per ESPN's big board. I don't keep up with baseball draft things, but that suggests he'll be taken this year, no? If Horn decides to go pro in baseball before this football season, that puts the football program in a real pickle. Pribula becomes the starter by default, which would be completely fine, but the No. 2 quarterback would be true freshman Matt Zollers. No knock on Zollers, but being one turned ankle away from starting a true frosh is not ideal. Regardless of whether he's going to be the starter, football needs Horn in the mix for 2025.

But if he doesn't land the starting job this year, how long does Horn keep playing football? There's money in it, but at some point that question becomes more pressing him.

¶Ù°ä³Ò:ÌýI mentioned this a couple of weeks ago in the chat, but the idea of having to replace starters in college football is basically how it works, even in this era of the portal. So, I still have high expectations for Mizzou because they have talent. In the past, the expectation was new faces go out and perform. That's still the expectation. Look at the history of QB and RB at Mizzou in the last 20 years. They have replaced experience time and again with new faces that performed right away. If I were still a gambling man, I'd take the over on the 7.5 and giggle all the way home. I think Mizzou is suffering from a general historical perception issue, which is why they fell so quickly last season after squeaking out two wins against teams that turned out to be good. Mizzou will always be picked lower than it should for this reason.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýThere were some great points from that recent chat about replacing talent. Underrating Mizzou does seem to be a factor in the low betting line, but I also wonder how much of it is giving credit to other SEC teams for their improvements. Arkansas, Auburn and Oklahoma should all be improved from last year. We'll see if that's the case — and even if it is, MU still has a favorable schedule — but that probably has an influence too. 

¶Ù°ä³Ò:ÌýYou say Ark, Aub and OK should all be improved, and I say, "Why?" Again, perception. What has Sam Pittman ever done to suggest he can right that ship? He's had two losing seasons out of 5. Two other 7-6 seasons. Auburn? They've been a sinkhole for almost a decade now. What has Hugh Freeze done there in his first two years to show that's going to change? Oklahoma did get probably the best QB transfer, so that's big, but is Venables a good coach? Two losing seasons out of three at that school. That's hard to do. I think if you took all the talent and the coaching staff from Mizzou and plopped them down in Knoxville, the perception would be different. Conversely, if you took whatever's going on in Ark and plopped it down in Columbia, no one would be expecting improvements.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýPoint taken. I'll say for my takes on those programs: I'm not saying any of them become SEC/CFP contenders, but I think they're all tougher outs than they were a year ago. I think Taylen Green underperformed at Arkansas last year. That could be team context, and probably is to some degree. Maybe he overcomes that a little bit. Freeze has done well on the recruiting trail for Auburn. Is this the year that pays off? Does it over? I don't know, but I think it gets better from a year ago. Oklahoma did really well to get both Arbuckle and Mateer to keep that partnership intact. I think that'll pay dividends without any Venables factor. It's simplistic takes on all three teams and heavily influenced by name recognition and returners because that's all I go off of until I grab an issue of the Lindy's preview to actually dig in to who's where and the prognoses. When that's the same way people form their baseline for this Mizzou baseline, we end up where we are with a 7.5 win line.

¶Ù°ä³Ò:ÌýOn a different note, I don't really understand the machinations of the CFP system and the proposals. A couple of questions along those lines: could you explain what's different for this season as opposed to 2024. Second, isn't it a bit silly to guarantee slots to any conference? I don't think that's in play for 2025, but I know Sankey proposed it for the future. Who knows what a conference will look like from year to year? Finally, a comment, not a question--while unsurprising, it's a joke that ND is now eligible for the bye. No conference championship. Handpicked schedule of teams including all the academies and teams that were good in 1991.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýIt's not easy to keep up with all of these twists. The only thing different for 2025 from 2024 is the seeding. It will now be straight seeding as opposed to the conference champs getting the first four seeds. Last year, for example, Boise State and Arizona State got the 3 and 4 seeds because they were conference champions, which wound up not looking too great for the bracket. Under the new model, Boise would've been the 9 seed (its CFP ranking) and ASU would've been 12, while third-ranked Texas and fourth-ranking Penn State would've received those seeds and the corresponding byes. This year, the rankings are the seeds. 

It's not just the SEC looking at guaranteed/autobids moving forward. The Big Ten seems to be driving that particular train. Proponents of the system like their conference having the guarantee because that becomes spots (which means $$$) they can count on. Guarantees of spots also open up a path for conferences to have play-in games: Say the SEC has four auto bids. It could give two to the top two teams, then have No. 3 host No. 6 and No. 4 host No. 5 for the remaining two spots. Those are two more big games that draw eyeballs and money. Like with everything in college sports, the financial factor is the big one. Secondarily to that, there seems to be some desire to take the process out of the selection committee's hands. I don't think that's as strong of an influence, but SEC folks feel hard done by last year's 'Bama omssion. Silly? A bit, but money talks. This would be for 2026, not this year, too.

I'd have to think Notre Dame's schedule would keep it from getting a bye unless it goes undefeated. The SEC has hammered the strength of schedule point so much this offseason and it will continue to be a talking point in who the top four spots go to this entire fall. 

Todd H.: Good day to you Eli--hope all is well your way. Regarding a few things you said to me last week in replies to questions I had, and I an going to quote them(I copied them and now will paste them!) "Mizzou athletics has not had enough money in recent fiscal years to cover its current level of spending." And I'd like to know, why is that always the case with this school? It seems like it's always crying poor on an annual basis and maybe I just don't understand the inner workings of athletic budgets and revenue streams enough, but I thought part of joining the SEC was because we were going to be getting a lot more $$$ from this conference as opposed to the Big 12. And that's apparently still not enough? Do we just not get as many big-time deep-pocketed donor alums as other schools? (I imagine however they've uh at least tried making some phonecalls to the likes of Stan Kroenke. And Stan Kroenke being Stan Kroenke probably said nah, I'm not interested in helping my alma mater simply because I'm a [word I can't paste in from the question]!)?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýIt's not just Mizzou. Institutional support (aka financial help from a campus to an athletics department) is a fairly normal thing in college sports, and I'd expect only becomes more leaned on with revenue sharing. There is more money coming in because MU is in the SEC and had a couple strong football seasons, but winning and being competitive in the SEC also comes with a higher price tag. This isn't a perfect example because separating individual sports out of the budget isn't as clean as it sounds, but we can see this with Mizzou football in 2023 (11 wins, Cotton Bowl) compared to 2022 (not 11 wins, Gasparilla Bowl).

Missouri football's "operating margin" was $8.6 million in 2022. It earned more in 2023 but also spent more to a degree that the margin shrunk to $3.5 million. That doesn't factor in NIL or, moving forward, what revenue sharing will entail. 

So sure, Mizzou would probably like to have some more big name donors and corporate support. Every school would. Donor bases around the country have been asked for so, so much over the last five years and those requests won't stop anytime soon. But it's also not realistic to expect MU athletics to perform financially like Georgia or Alabama or Texas. Missouri just isn't one of those schools. Laird Veatch is trying to get the revenue stream up to the middle of the SEC — that led to the raising of ticket prices. But if every school could push a button or make a call and have $250 million in revenue to play with, more than a very select few would have that kind of money.

´³´Ç³ó²Ô³¢:ÌýHey Man-Your take on the Tim Fuller hire for GM? I am not impressed. I just don't see a high level track record of success anywhere he has been. His prior stint here was 'marginal' and did not produce the high level of recruiting we were sold over a decade ago. MU should have promoted Charlton to that role. Help us understand the hire. I don't...

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýI don't think they could've promoted C.Y. given that he had a higher-ranking position and left for a spot on the new Miami staff. I'm awaiting Fuller's new contract to see where he falls from a salary standpoint but I'm thinking it'll be on level with an assistant position — though you'll see a story about that as soon as Mizzou returns my records request. 

I understand folks who were unimpressed by what Fuller accomplished here as a recruiter a decade ago, but here's the case for him: He understands the NIL-age recruiting landscape as well as anyone working in the sport right now because of his work with Overtime Elite. That model was quick to give players a pathway to salaries and the pros — see the Thompson twins in the NBA. But it has also produced quite a few top recruits for colleges. He knows how that kind of high-level academy-type format works and has a lot of connections in that universe. 

Working with agents is a key part of his job. He did that at Overtime Elite, as a marketing exec at Nike and back in college ranks under Kim English at Providence. Fuller will also do well connecting with alumni — another part of the job. He'll help with roster construction and NIL aspects, but the final say on all of this remains with Dennis Gates. Fuller is just able to dedicate all of his energy to it and specialize. 

That's where it's still difficult for me, at least, to really evaluate college GM hires. These aren't general managers like we think of in pro sports. I'll need to see it in action to feel out the nuance of how much power/responsibility there is to the role — and that'll vary place to place, I'm sure. I don't know who else Mizzou talked to for this position, but Fuller is the type of candidate I thought made sense. I'd argue the newness of this position means it needs a year or two before really knowing if it was a good hire or not.

´³´Ç³ó²Ô³¢:ÌýWas Charlton 'kind-of-sort of' told to leave? The Miami gig, on paper, is a step back to a program with a new leadership group and a down grade conference.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýNot to my knowledge. C.Y. seemed universally liked around the program, from everything I saw. He had a chance to go coach back home, where he still has a lot of connections, and took that.

senior scramble: can Mizzou football win 9 games with Oklahoma, Auburn, South Carolina, Texas AM, Ala all being much better.

Hoff: Can it? Sure, it's certainly possible. The balance to those teams being theorectically better (which I mentioned earlier in the chat) is that Mizzou's home/away breakdown is more favorable this year. No six-figure crowds at A&M and Alabama to brave — those teams come to CoMo. A road slate of Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Auburn and Oklahoma is about as favorable as it gets in the SEC.

Getting to nine wins probably requires dispatching Central Arkansas, Louisiana and UMass and then holding off Kansas to go perfect in noncon. When you look at the SEC slate, it seems like Vandy, Arkansas, Mississippi State are the three simplest wins. Then it's about finding two more out of South Carolina, A&M, Alabama, OU and Auburn. There's a recipe for nine in there, but it depends how talented this MU team actually is.

-

-

-

-

-