Staying or Going?

It is the argument that has raged on the Internet in Missouri circles for the better part of the last six months: Will Kim Anderson be back for a third season?

Anderson’s second season is now over for the Tigers and it is a debate that has gone beyond message boards and Twitter. The coach was asked if he expected to return after Saturday’s 82-72 loss to Florida that ended the Tigers’ year at 10-21.

“I hope so, yeah. I got three more years on my contract, so I hope so,” he said. “But then again, I know how this business is. So I’m hopeful I get the opportunity. I think we’ve built some stuff. Obviously we didn’t win as many games as people want, I understand that. But I certainly can’t fault our effort. Can’t fault the fight we had. Obviously we need to do some more recruiting and these guys need to get better.”

There isn’t really a correct answer to that question. In Anderson’s position, what else could he have said? He’s not going to say he expects to be fired, but he also hasn’t obviously been guaranteed he won’t be. The coach said he has met with Mack Rhoades two or three times and expects those meetings to continue. It’s possible--probably even likely--that a meeting has taken place at some point since Anderson answered the question.

For his part, Rhoades hasn’t said anything. That is, in part, why the speculation continues. If Rhoades knew he was bringing Anderson back, there’s no reason not to have told everyone. Since he hasn’t, it is logical to think it’s at least a conversation in the athletic department.

This isn’t a debate about what Rhoades should do. First of all, my opinion doesn’t matter. Second, I’ve never found it a good approach to call for the jobs of people you cover on a regular basis. But it’s equally poor to pretend it’s all rainbows and unicorns and there’s nothing for Anderson to be concerned about this week.

So let’s just lay out the argument. Both sides have some valid points. Let’s start with the side that seems to be much more vocal in our little corner of the Internet: Why should Rhoades move on and end this after only two seasons?

The obvious point is 19-44. That’s the record Missouri has in 63 games under Anderson. The last time Missouri was worse over a 63-game span was 1966-68. The Tigers went 11-52 in the final two seasons of Bob Vanatta (6-43) and the first 14 games of Norm Stewart’s tenure (5-9). Since 1971, Missouri has won at least 19 games in 28 of its 43 seasons...much less in two combined.

The record is dreadful. Nobody would dispute it. But if you’re evaluating whether to fire a coach, you’ve got to go beyond the simple number of wins and losses. Sticking with the why should he go theme, let’s look at some other reasons:

*The roster needed to be balanced out. Anderson took over a team that had one senior (he would add Keith Shamburger as a fifth-year transfer), one junior and three sophomores (one of whom would be kicked off the team). His first year featured two seniors, two juniors, two sophomores and six freshmen.

After transfers (those we know about so far anyway) and dismissals, next year’s roster will feature one senior, four juniors (including a walk-on), four sophomores and three freshmen as it stands today. The balance is improving and with one more year would seem to be pretty even...if everyone sticks around. But it's still not ideal.

*And that brings us to point number two. Program and roster stability was a major issue. Players were committing and decommitting, transferring in and transferring out, at an alarming rate when Anderson got here. Since he arrived, Anderson has taken one transfer and lost three (which, again, doesn’t include anything that may happen the rest of this year). Two players have been kicked off the team. And that doesn’t even address the situations of Wes Clark (who seemed to take exception to the idea he was dismissed) and Martavian Payne (who just kind of disappeared). Anderson took over an unstable program. It hasn’t exactly been a rock for the last two years.

*Fan support. This might be the biggest dagger in Anderson’s balloon. Missouri was last in the SEC in average attendance this year. The Tigers averaged 6,295 fans per game. That figure resulted from 5,842 fans for eight non-conference games and 6,697 for nine SEC contests.

The entire season featured just two crowds of at least 50% capacity and one of those was the Rally For Rhyan game that raised money for pediatric cancer research. Mizzou filled just 41.79% of its available seats in 17 home games. Attendance is down across the country...but not like that. That’s a 20% decline just since last year, which was already the lowest home attendance in quite some time.

A coaching change isn’t a magic elixir to put butts back in the seats, but coming off two seasons with fewer than 20 combined wins, will the numbers fall even further if there is no major change? It’s a question Rhoades has to answer.

Like I said, this isn’t a diatribe trying to run Anderson out of town. There are reasons to argue he should be kept around too. So let’s take a look at those now.

*First of all, you can argue any coach deserves three seasons. There simply aren’t many coaches who have gotten just two years without NCAA or legal problems. Does it happen? Sure. But not very often. The counter is that these are the worst two seasons in 50 years, so it doesn’t matter what else has happened at other places.

*People are tired of hearing about the situation Anderson took over, but it absolutely has to be a factor. Even Rhoades himself has mentioned it over and over. Anderson came into a program whose on-court results had diminished each of the last two seasons. He also took over a team that lost Jordan Clarkson, Jabari Brown and Earnest Ross, who accounted for 70.5% of Missouri’s scoring, 69% of its field goal attempts, 42% of its rebounds and 66% of its assists.

Add in Torren Jones, Tony Criswell, Shane Rector and Stefan Jankovic, none of whom would ever play a game for Anderson and here is what he returned: 2,616 minutes (19.7 per game), 16.2 points per game, 14.5 rebounds and 3.1 assists.

He also took over a program whose APR sat 79 points below the NCAA threshold for sanctions being doled out that was under investigation (a fact the guy who hired him failed to disclose).

By any measure, that’s terrible.

*The freshman class. Anderson’s group of four combined for 28.6 points, 11.9 rebounds and 5.6 assists per game. Kevin Puryear was the team’s leading scorer, Terrence Phillips was its leader, period, and K.J. Walton came on strong at the end of the year. It’s a quartet that is consistently referred to as a “core group.” I’ve talked before about how tough it is to evaluate this group. They put up numbers, but how many of those numbers were due simply to the fact that somebody has to put up numbers and these freshmen were asked to play quite a bit more than those of the recent past. If it’s a core group, the core of what? An NCAA Tournament team down the road? An improved team? A team that’s going to win ten games again next season? I don’t know, but that’s the question Mack Rhoades has to answer.

Those, to me, are the main factors on each side of the discussion. Now let me address a couple of points that absolutely shouldn’t be factors here.

*First of all, many who want Anderson gone likely did not want him hired to begin with. But it happened. To me, it doesn’t matter if you thought he should have gotten the job or not. He did. And once he got it, you have to allow him to prove if he can or can’t do it. Some will say he’s already proven he can’t. I would say he’s given you plenty of reason for doubt, but he hasn’t had enough time to absolutely prove he can’t get it done. Next year is 100% his program, his roster and his team. If he's not significantly better next year, I think you have your answer.

*He’s a Missouri guy. I don’t care. Where a guy went to school shouldn’t be a factor in whether you hire him. Whether he can do the job should be. In fact, often times, if I were making a hire (and I never have), the alma mater might work against candidates. Because of the emotional ties for many fans, it’s harder to get rid of a guy that’s one of your own. There will be some who are angry that Missouri fired Anderson (again, if they do) because he played here and coached here under Norm Stewart. That doesn’t matter to me. When you decide it’s time to fire him, it shouldn’t matter what diploma hangs on his office wall.

As I said, I did not set out to decide whether Kim Anderson should keep his job or not. I did not set out to convince anyone to change his or her mind. I set out to put all the information out there. And I think the information here is all relevant.

The decision is Mack Rhoades’. When he’ll make it, we don’t know. And so we wait.

Talk about it with Mizzou fans in The Tigers' Lair, our premium forum.

If you are not yet a subscriber, get your premium membership started today!