Ïã¸ÛÈý¼¶Æ¬

Transcript

Eli ±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýGood morning, everyone, and thanks for coming by this week's Mizzou chat. We've got the next few hours to talk all things Tigers and college sports, so drop your questions and takes here. Straight on to your questions!

¶Ù±ð²Ô²Ñ¾±³ú³ú´Ç³Ü:ÌýHello, Mr. Hoff. Thank you for the chat and your excellent coverage of Mizzou. I imagine you didn't have much chance to watch women's softball, given all of your other coverage responsibilities. But I was wondering if you had any thoughts on what went wrong with the team this season? Was it just a bad year or has the program stagnated under Anderson? I know you reported that at least one of the team's best hitters has entered the transfer portal. I could ask similar questions about the baseball program, but I fear that program is a lost cause. Given the university's emphasis on the revenue-generating football and basketball programs, does it have the resources to boost the softball and baseball teams as well? Thanks.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýThank you for the question! You're right that I didn't watch a whole ton of Mizzou softball (or baseball, for that matter) this season, so I'll broadstroke this answer a bit. To me, softball just didn't have the talent. It was always going to be a tall task replacing the likes of Alex Honnold, Jenna Laird and Laurin Krings — the latter especially, given how she carried a sluggish offense through the postseason last year. I don't think MU came especially close to replacing any of them. And when the bats didn't really take steps forward, it strained a pitching staff that didn't have an ace like Krings. The team has already fired one of the hitting coaches, so it seems there was some dismay with that effort. And yes, two of the top players from this season — slugger Madison Walker and closer Taylor Pannell — have entered the portal, which further complicates the rebuild.

The baseball program is not designed to be competitive right now. There isn't the infrastructure or resources of other SEC teams for that to be the case. That's just the reality and will be until proven otherwise. Laird Veatch has been adamant about putting more money into that sport, but I just don't know where that money comes from — or what it comes at the expense of. 

That gets at your last question. Mizzou absolutely can compete in softball. There's a nice stadium there and that team has won a lot recently. Last year at this time, MU was prepping for a softball super regional, which is what makes missing the NCAA Tourney entirely this year such a letdown. If anything, the pressure on that program to right the ship next season is an indicator that there is enough support to create expectations.

The same is not true over on the baseball diamond. It might be in time. But finishing out the artificial turf there, while an investment, is not going to fix things. I've yet to be convinced that spending a few million to fire and hire a new coach would be either. From my perspective, it's several million over several years, at a minimum, to get baseball to a level where it makes real noise in the SEC, without a lucky season, should that be possible.

°Õ´Ç³¾:ÌýThere has much discussion of the fact that Mizzou has only one high school recruit committed as opposed to the other SEC schools who have at least 5 or more. Are you concerned?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýAfter two decommitments, Mizzou is down to one verbal commit in the 2026 cycle (for now). The only other SEC school with one is Kentucky, and 13 of the 16 teams in the conference have five or more. But am I concerned? Not one bit, and I don't think anyone should be. It's a matter of what high school recruiting means in 2025.

It doesn't mean much. How often does a player stick around and develop for a couple of years before winning a starting job now? It's not exclusive to MU — that just doesn't happen all that often. If we look at Mizzou's projected starters in 2025, I count six at most on offense (Tollison, Norfleet, Manning, Johnson, then Reichert and Horn if they wins the RG/QB jobs) who signed with Mizzou out of high school. On defense, it's probably two (Carnell and Burks). Sure, there are other players who will contribute and signed with the Tigers out of high school, but it's half the contributors on the high end. 

Look at the 2024 recruiting class that Drinkwitz invested in and got so much hype. Nwaneri, Lacy, Crutchfield and Brown left after something like six months on campus. That whole effort/expenditure amounted to a handful of garbage time snaps and development that will ultimately benefit another team. 

I was already cynical about high school recruiting, but the last year or so has really tanked my view of it. If a program gets a big verbal commitment, cool. If they're lucky, the kid will not flip and ultimately sign. If they're lucky, he'll stay for a second season. If they're really lucky, he'll be SEC-ready in year three and contribute. To me, that's just not reason to get too worked up, happy or mad, about recruiting. The transfer portal is far, far more important these days.

¶Ù¶Ù¶Ù:ÌýAny insight on Al Davis leaving? Kind of out of the blue and he hasn't gone elsewhere.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýDefensive line coach Al Davis resigned for personal reasons to attend to a family matter, which Drinkwitz accepted. 

²ú¾±²µ°ù´Ç²Ô:ÌýWill the mens bball team add another player before the season starts?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýThere's one more roster spot to work with, and we know how much Gates likes to fill all of those. That makes me think probably, but I wouldn't expect it to be an immediate contributor, necessarily. The agency of a European prospect named Ognjen Stankovic has said he's heard from Missouri, but I don't know how serious that contact is from either party. 

²ú¾±²µ°ù´Ç²Ô:ÌýIf you had to name a starting lineup today for the mens bball team who would be starting? Boateng was the highest rated freshman last year, what attributes did he have that made him rated that high. And what do you expect from him this year. Also the 7'5" Burns what can we expect from him this year?

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýI'll cheat and throw out two potential starting lineups simply because Gates tends to vary between trying to go big/small with those combos. The smaller one, which I think more likely, would be Ant Robinson, Sebastian Mack, Annor Boateng, Trent Pierce and Mark Mitchell. The bigger one would be Ant/Mack/Pierce/Mitchell/Shawn Phillips Jr. 

Boateng drew some comparisons to Anthony Edwards coming out of high school as a two-way player with good strength, a clean jumper and a build that could translate to the college game quickly. That's all still there, it's about getting his game feel up to SEC level. If he's not starting or in the top 7-8 of the rotation, something has gone wrong. He should be contributing at a notable level this season.

I really don't know what to expect from Burns. Coaches loved what they saw from him in workouts last season, and his height makes him so unique. I could see him getting pushed around in the SEC, but I haven't seen him actually going live against anyone so I can't say that for certain. I've seen him shoot in practice/warmups, but again, without seeing that in a game it's an open question. If he's ready this year, he could spring a big surprise.

¶Ù°ä³Ò:ÌýEli: It's interesting to see how the football landscape has changed in terms of annual expectations. It used to be normal for a previously successful team to enter a new season with inexperienced players at key positions (most notably QB) and still be ranked highly. Alabama transitioned from Tua to the completely unknown Mac Jones, and was a high preseason rank and lived up to it. That was commonplace in college football. Now, there seems to be the assumption that if you don't have an experienced QB, you won't be good. I use this all as context for the pretty negative view of Mizzou going into the '25 season. Ten years ago, the story would be that the team had great QB competition with two talented guys, which bodes well for the season. Now it's that they're going to struggle because it. Honestly, it just seems like lazy evaluation, especially since having a transfer QB with experience doesn't guarantee anything.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýIt's fascinating, isn't it? Mizzou's offense is undergoing the kind of "generational" turnover (as in a "generation" of players departed, not like it's once-in-a-generation stuff) that has always been the norm in college football, yet it seems so unique and is holding back the Tigers in the national eye — and ours to some degree, too. I see there being a couple of potential dynamics at play.

One, there's been less of this turnover over the last few years because so many players received, fifth, sixth, seventh years. The idea of having a starting quarterback in his second or third season, which is not abnormal in the grand scheme of college football, looks a lot scarier compared to a 24-year-old with three years of starting experience, no? That taking place has re-wired us to some degree, I think. 

Two, in the portal age, we put a lot of stock into name recognition because players move around so much. It's the crutch for not being able to keep track of movement. If someone can look at a team's two-deep and recognize the quarterback's name as the returning starter or someone who I'd watched somewhere else, that carries a lot of weight. 

Third, it seems to me a lot of observers/pundits/etc have drifted toward valuing experience over upside. This is probably intertwined with the first two factors, and is maybe exacerbated in the context of Mizzou, which will be going from a three-year starter to a QB who hasn't thrown more than 13 passes in a game (Pribula) or a QB with eight total passes (Horn). 

You're right that all of this can (and does) coalesce into lazy analysis. It's hard to find good, thorough national-level analysis these days. The reality that so much of that process is just figuring out who went where doesn't help, but doesn't excuse it either.

²Ï³Ü±ð²õ³Ù¾±´Ç²Ô²õ:ÌýI know this is a Mizzou forum.I appreciate you doing it and I always get value from it. But... since your fine mini-gig covering City SC, and since you know your soccer, and since it's summer, I'm hoping you let me sneak in a non-Mizzou question. In short, what's wrong with City SC? Talent? Coaching? Payroll? Management? I understand if this is not the place for my question.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýI'll allow it, partly because while I watch a lot of football and basketball for "work" (and enjoy both greatly), soccer is my favorite sport. I haven't watched every City SC game this season but from what I've seen and heard from folks who know MLS well, it's a couple of things. Having an open designated player spot is rarely the sign of a top-tier team. Mellberg was an unknown quantity as a coach, and this is a big step for him. Navigating that transition is hard enough, but it becomes tougher once it starts spiraling. The injuries have been a legit factor. 

That said, I don't see an attacking setup that shows much connectivity going forward. I asked him about it after Saturday's loss and he said he didn't like what he'd seen with that either. Some of that is personnel and how they do and don't combine. Some of it is just not being set up to get anything out of open play and then not doing much with set pieces. The defensive press will look great and disruptive at times and like swiss cheese at others. To me, it just looks uncomfortable for everyone on the pitch. I don't think you can say it's all the tactics or the players or the roster build — which I know isn't fun to hear. There probably need to be changes to all three to get this team competing.

The goals conceded late in games obviously needs to be buttoned up. But my big thing would be finding better ways to create in the final third, whether that's better support to the strikers or finding someone who can generate some real chances by themselves up there.

Dr. Girlfriend: Hypothetically do you see high school recruiting, particularly in football, shifting more to G6 schools who will then act as pseudo minor leagues for P4 schools? I think you see schools at the Mizzou level seeing it more financially prudent to spend more on players who have proved it at the college level, than on 18 year olds who will not play (ie. Williams Wanaeri(sp))

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýI could definitely see it. Not saying it's likely (and I don't think anyone would really know how likely it is), but who's going to say something like that is impossible, especially as the P4s (Big Ten and SEC in particular) continue to ull away. The route taken by someone like RB Ahmad Hardy, who was underrecruited, went to the Sun Belt, starred and now is in line to be a key guy for an SEC school, can work for others too.

What I wonder with this — and to tie this chat back to soccer for the second time today — is when we see a "loan" deal in college football. In soccer, it's commonplace for big clubs to sign players but not have a path for them to get playing time because they're young/raw, so they loan them to a lesser team to get experience. City SC might loan someone to a USL club to get them reps. In turn, City can get a younger player from a top European club on loan, perhaps (and hypothetically, I don't actually know who all is in/out on loan for them right now).

What if Alabama wants a recruit but knows he won't touch the field until Year 2 or 3 and thinks he could benefit from reps. Could the Tide "loan" him to, say, South Alabama for the year, giving him a chance to play, them a top young player and then Bama keeps his rights after that? The sport might not be there yet, but that seems like something we could see soon to me.

¶Ù°ä³Ò:ÌýI would suggests that the general arrogance of football coaches ("I know best," "a kids is better learning from me while sitting than playing somewhere else under a different coach") combined with their general paranoia ("if the kids isn't on my campus, something bad is going to happen or someone is going to get in his ear and make him want to transfer") would probably nix that "loan" concept.

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýI can't argue with you there at all. The coaching element would be part of the challenge... if I'm a wideout committing to Ohio State, it's probably because I think Brian Hartline can turn me into a pro, and I want that coaching versus playing time at a C-USA program. 

There'd definitely be the transfer paranoia, since that's present already, and what happens with an injury? Similarly, how to cover a player's salary wouldn't be easy — it works in soccer because it is a salary, but who covers that and the legality would also be a hurdle. Maybe as this all slows down for the next couple months I'll write a column asking some folks about whether this could even work.

Senior scramble: Is Horn headed to professional baseball his stock is rising if that happens what happens with Mizzou football. Harper needs a good big she has some good pieces but you can't win in the SEC without a good big,

±á´Ç´Ú´Ú:ÌýMaybe Horn gets drafted, but I don't know. He only threw 10.2 innings all baseball season, and even though he was touching the upper 90s the other day in the SEC Tournament, is that enough? I don't follow the baseball draft enough to really tell you. If he isn't on the football roster this fall — which I want to stress is purely a hypothetical with a couple of variables at this point — that makes Pribula the starter by default and creates a pinch behind without much depth besides true frosh Matt Zollers.

Harper's approach does seem to be pretty guard-heavy so far, and I agree a big is helpful. If the roster composition isn't perfect in year 1, there won't be much panic. 

-

-

-

-

-