Seven games into Kim Anderson's third season as the Missouri men's basketball coach, the Tigers have done little to quiet the masses concerning Anderson's job security. The team is 4-3 and suffered a particularly embarrassing non-conference loss at home to North Carolina Central — a common occurrence for Anderson's teams.
The Tigers were also handled by Davidson in their second game of the Tire Pros Invitational, less than 24 hours after they nearly upset No. 11 Xavier, a game they quite clearly could have and should have won. Mizzou avoided another bad loss on Saturday by escaping with a three-point win over Western Kentucky, pushing it above .500.
It's fair to question if Anderson is the right man for this job. And it always has been fair. He has zero experience as a Division-I head coach.
It's also fair to point out what a mess he inherited thanks to the Frank Haith hurricane that is poised to continue its torrid and destructive path, improbably, throughout the college basketball landscape. Year three, usually, is a pivotal year for a head coach. It's when his first recruiting class has reached their junior season and a clear foundation and direction for the program should be laid out. By year three, you usually have a good idea of what you have in a coach.
To me, however, that has never applied to Anderson. He inherited a program that had been stockpiled with transfers and academically and behaviorally problematic players. In his first year he did well to hold onto a pair of four-star talents Haith recruited in Jakeenan Gant and Namon Wright and added another four star in Teki-Gill Ceaser. NCAA sanctions then came down midway through his first season for violations that occurred under Haith. Coupled with increasing APR concerns and overall awful play on the court, a complete gutting of the roster was not only necessary, but a foregone conclusion.
Thus, Anderson started completely from scratch in year two. His first real recruiting class was somewhat underwhelming on paper but possessed some decent building blocks in point guard Terrence Phillips, forward Kevin Puryear, shooting guard Cullen VanLeer and combo guard K.J. Walton. Due to the roster gutting alluded to above, the Tigers were without their leading scorer and most experienced player last season in Jonathan Williams III, who elected to transfer to Gonzaga, as he no doubt felt the onus of playmaking for a bad team lying squarely on his shoulders.
With just one senior in Ryan Rosburg, arguably one of the least impactful four-year players to ever come through Columbia, and a team full of freshmen needing to play important minutes, Mizzou limped to a 10-21 season.
And, again, with growing APR concerns and miscellaneous reasons still unknown, Wright, Gant and fellow sophomores Tremaine Isabell and Deangelo Allen all transferred at the end of the season. And thanks to junior Wes Clark electing to not attend class, leading to his dismissal, Mizzou entered this season with zero players remaining from the Haith era, just two years after he left.
It's an excuse all Mizzou fans are tired of hearing, but it remains true: it is a very young team, the youngest in the country. In fact, outside of JUCO transfer Russell Woods, a senior, the Tigers are entirely made up of freshmen and sophomores. None of whom are blue chippers.
That can be labeled as an excuse, but it's also a legitimate reason as to why there appears to be little progress in Anderson's third season. If you're a Mizzou fan and entered this season believing the team needed to come close to making the NCAA Tournament and playing in some sort of postseason such as the NIT, then you had Anderson fired before the year began. It's not a realistic goal for this team at this time.
For me, Mizzou needs to hover around the .500 mark for its overall record, which likely means going 8-10 or 7-11 in the SEC. That is an attainable goal and one that would qualify as progress for this program. And it **should** be enough to convince new AD Jim Sterk that Anderson deserves a fourth season.
Many will scoff at that notion, but the reasoning behind it is rooted in big-picture thinking. Do I believe Anderson is a great coach? Hell no. There are plenty of things to not like about his in-game coaching, particularly his usage of certain players and his inability to consistently find cohesive lineups conducive to success. VanLeer, who is the Tigers ninth or tenth most efficient player, continues to lead the team in minutes. He is treating an average role player, whose job should be coming off the bench for 10-15 minutes a game and knocking down a couple threes and making some hustle plays, like the team's best player. It is a massive coaching blunder and one that could have made the difference in the loss against NCCU or Xavier in which VanLeer played 30-plus minutes, had, say, KJ Walton, the team's most capable scorer, received those minutes.
There's plenty not to like. But this program, more than ever, desperately needs some stability. There are some interesting pieces on this team, to be sure, and they appear to genuinely care about playing for Mizzou and turning it around. A lack of effort is not the issue and hasn't been in a single game this season. That wasn't the case the past three or four seasons. They appear to enjoy playing with each other, which could lead toward some quality chemistry going forward. That's a credit to Anderson.
This is a program that is struggling to draw 5,000 people at Mizzou Arena, which is one of the nicest home venues in college basketball. The product on the court is obviously the most direct reason for this. But another element is that over the past few years the casual fan could not name three players on the team. There's very little connection between team and fan base. Another coaching change after this season will most likely lead to a massive overhaul in the roster. It then adds another three years to the rebuilding process and that's assuming you get the "right guy." That would be five coaches in the 16 years since legendary coach Norm Stewart retired. It's hard to establish a culture and feel a connection between team and fan base with that level of instability.
It could be a very intriguing squad assuming everyone returns next season and lack of experience will no longer be a crutch for poor performance. You also would have a clear idea of what you have in Anderson as a head coach, as he will have been given an appropriate amount of time to turn things around. If next season doesn't bring any postseason play and yields more of the same results, then you move on.
But this season, barring another 10 or 11-win disaster, should not close the book on the Anderson era.
