TODAY'S QUESTION: Who should be Missouri's next basketball coach?

Thursday, March 24, 2011 | 11:20 a.m. CDT; updated 3:42 p.m. CDT, Saturday, March 26, 2011

COLUMBIA — Mike Anderson traded his tiger stripes Wednesday night to become the new men's basketball coach for the Arkansas Razorbacks.

Athletics Director Mike Alden said MU was in the process of offering Anderson a pay increase of nearly $500,000 — making his total yearly salary $2 million — when the  coach told Alden that he wanted to speak with Arkansas. Alden said he told Anderson negotiations at MU would stop if he chose to communicate with his former employer.

By Wednesday night, Anderson was in Alden's office resigning from his post as head basketball coach.

Arkansas announced on its website that it had a new coach shortly before Alden held a news conference that let MU fans know he is in the market for a new coach.

Reports from Arkansas media outlets said the contract Anderson accepted stipulates that he will receive $2.2 million per year for seven years, which will mark about a $650,000 increase compared with his 2010-11 salary at Missouri.

Anderson was hired in 2006 and went 111-57. He succeeded coach Quin Snyder, who was hired in 1999 and stayed with the Tigers for six seasons. Before him, Norm Stewart led the Tigers for 32 years.  

Who should Missouri men's basketball hire as its next head coach?

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Jeremy Calton March 24, 2011 | 1:31 p.m.

If you want to go through the revolving door every 5 years, keep hiring out of state talent that just want to take the money and run.
(And that may be best if you just want to win and don't care about anything else.)
If you want some stability, you've got to get someone with strong local roots. Having an in-law in the area doesn't cut it. Somebody from Missouri or who attended MU, preferably.
(Best for long-term considerations, may not be best for winning.)
Local coaches don't recruit like high-profile ones. Remember that Norm's best recruits were NCAA violations from Detroit (for which Rich Daly took the fall).
It just depends on what the school wants for the program. Do they want to put people in seats and games on TV and dollars in the athletics dept or do they want generations to love and identify with the Tigers?
I'd be happy either long as they want to win.

(Report Comment)
Jeremy Calton March 24, 2011 | 1:36 p.m.

Also, I've given this a lot of thought, and since it's all about the NCAA tournament/Final Fours/championships....rather than give them $2 million per year, why not pay coaches $1 million per NCAA victory?
Sure, one coach would get $6 million, one would get $5 million, two would get $4 million, etc, but the VAST majority of coaches would get nothing.
I'm quite sure if your school wins the big dance, you reap enough revenue (and prestige and free advertising) from it to pay him that.
Um, needless to say under this system, the players still get nothing. But that's on the NCAA, not me.

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 24, 2011 | 2:11 p.m.

Maybe it is time to eliminate athletics at the collegiate level altogether. Perhaps the time has come to organize the collegiate teams and let them become the semi-pro "clubs" they wanna be anyway.

2.2 million a year to COACH BASKETBALL? Are they nuts? WHAT planet are they living on?

I find it obscene any athletic director, coach, player makes seven figures...we have life changing research going on here in do we continue to legitimize such salaries?

Here's hoping the next U of Missouri President can get this right.

(Report Comment)
Alex Tilley March 24, 2011 | 4:24 p.m.

Ms. Douglass, need I remind you that these people are the ones actually making money for the school so that this research can occur. They deserve every penny. You clearly underestimate the time commitment by both players and coaches. Guaranteed Coach Anderson puts more hours in doing his job than any other non athletics employee on campus. Im an NAIA athlete and the time commitment for me is substantial. I can only imagine the hours these coaches put in recruiting, scouting and developing game plans. And I've never heard of any life changing research come from Mizzou. When you cure cancer then we can talk.

(Report Comment)
David Clements March 24, 2011 | 4:58 p.m.

Larry Drew: MU alumn from KC, 10 year NBA Player, 17 years as head or assistant coach in NBA. Currently the Hawks coach with a 3-year $5M contract...affordable, loyal, proven...what else could you ask for? Why can't we talk about coaching prospects here, not the role/importance of basketball vs. research on campus?

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 24, 2011 | 5:37 p.m.

None of the money from athletics ends up in research. It all goes back into the athletic department...every penny. Where do you think the $$$ comes from to pay 2.2 million to a coach?

If you do not believe me, ask David Russell the Missouri Commissioner of Higher Ed (and more than likely the next pres of the U of MO).

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 24, 2011 | 5:42 p.m.

I suggest those doubting the U of Mo research credentials to read up on aureomyacin, the balloon cardiac surgery and the benefit to mankind of the hybrid agricultural products you eat daily engineered or developed at the U of MO.

You will likely be amazed at the list of accomplishments...see the Research department website...or better yet, just give Rob Duncan a phone call and ASK. Or Brady Deaton...Mike Middleton is conversational to boot...give it a go.

NONE of the research you will find was done on athletics money.

FYI: coaches have the same 24 hours in their day as the custodians and professors. Whoa! Was that the earth tilting?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 24, 2011 | 5:53 p.m.

"...these people are the ones actually making money for the school so that this research can occur."


Where do you think M.I.T., University of Chicago, Johns Hopkins University and CalTech get money for their research? From athletics? All four are NCAA Division III athletic programs, but somehow - SOMEHOW - they turn out world class research. They get their funding from the same sources that MU and MS&T do: contracts with businesses, foundations, technical associations, federal or foreign governments, etc.

How much cash do you think MS&T's sports programs generate for research at MS&T in aeronautics, glass technology and metallurgy? Less than 20 minutes worth.

Hopefully not many people hold your view of how things are funded, which I find downright scary.

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 24, 2011 | 6:01 p.m.

To Mr Tilley:

How nice for you to be an athlete. Me, too. I grew up to realize using my brain is the far superior sport. I am appalled you know so little about the U of Mo and how things are funded. I don't know who sold you the bill of goods, but MU is indeed a world class leading research institution with an athletic department that exists to serve itself...just like every other team in our athletic class / competition. Always has and always will be that way...UNLESS...MY point is to take the athletic department public...MU keeps 51% and then lets out stock or shares to actually fund University operations, salaries and scholarships to ALL students (not just athletes.

Talk about entrepreneurial...why hasn't this hit the Forsee "incubator"???

I recommend to you personally to check out and READ the history of the University of Missouri...first clue, the U of MO is the oldest land grant insitution (look it up...) west of the Mississippi...founded in can take if from there on your own. I recommend it before you dig a deeper hole.

(Report Comment)
James Boss March 24, 2011 | 6:15 p.m.

I joined up just to put my 2 cents worth in. My suggestion would be a Mizzou alum who played very successfully at MU and for the past several years has been extremely successful at the division II level, being nationally ranked several times and then some. It is another Anderson, Kim Anderson at University of Central Missouri. He does a great job there and you can only ask if he wants that challenge, spotlight, can be all 3 easily. But you do have to love the kids that are there, the talent, the drive to succeed and how they play hard for each other and the MU faithful. Those kids deserve someone who will help them compete at the highest level...which they were...just needed the little something to get them over the top. If Kim is interested I believe he could handle the challenge AND provide them with what they need to succeed. He has been there, done that.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 24, 2011 | 6:40 p.m.

Send them to IRAQ!!!

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 24, 2011 | 8:21 p.m.

@ Mary Douglas:

Correct. University of Missouri is the oldest public university west of the Mississippi; MS&T is the oldest technical institute west of the Mississippi and the first public institution in the United States to teach mining and metallurgy.

For a less orthodox view of University of Missouri history I recommend "UM-Rolla: A History of MSM/UMR," by historians Lawrence O. Christensen and Jack B. Ridley, University of Missouri Press (1983), 324 pages. At least one copy should be available at Ellis Library. The title appears to deal only with Rolla campus, but you will learn things about the university as a whole.

(Report Comment)
David Clements March 24, 2011 | 9:52 p.m.

Kim Anderson...I like it...definitely worthy of consideration

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 24, 2011 | 10:45 p.m.

@ Ellis:

Viles, J & Colleagues, (1939). The University of Missouri: a Centennial History. The University of Missouri Press.

The citation is not APA 6th ed, the Missourian blog program won't allow certain fonts, etc.

Regardless...this is a fascinating old book about the EARLY days of Missouri State University (MSU...pronounced MIZZOU, thus MU). The development of the 4 campus system we have today came much later...mid 20th century 60's and 70's really.

quote facing the preface page "Religion, morality, and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools, and the means of education shall foreveer be encouraged." -- Ordinance of 1787

Perhaps a course on the history of the University should be required to graduate with every degree...might make some changes in statewide support down the road if more people understood the value the U of Mo brings to the so many ways.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 25, 2011 | 3:56 a.m.

@ Mary Douglass:

I apologize for misspelling your last name in my previous post.

A required course in university history could be useful. Isn't MU in the process of establishing a required course in "sensitivity"? Given the number of ABET-required credit hours for a U. S. engineering degree, how many more hours of such "required" subjects are reasonable? Somebody has to pay for all that. One-third of MS&T students come from homes with under $40,000 annual income.

From the book I've referenced you will learn that MSM sued the Curators in the Missouri Supreme Court in 1915 over a curriculum issue - and won. You'll also learn why no buildings on the MS&T campus or streets in Rolla are named "Jesse" or "Middlebush." :)

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 25, 2011 | 8:14 a.m.

Not to worry about the name mother often got it wrong...long funny story, short ending no problem.

FYI: The Rolla campus is indeed close to my each campus is for its own special reasons. The U of Mo would not be what it is without each one. Each of our 4 campuses makes a mark in meeting the land grant mandate that is the U of Mo.

If not a required class (I agree with your points on cost and course overload), perhaps we could encourage faculty to bring threads into their existing classwork? Surely an engineering school could discuss the various architechtural feats on the various campuses for school could explain why students can not afford tickets to good seats at sporting med could explain why politicians froth at the mouth...oh, wait, I digress...but you get the idea. We could do more in simple no cost ways to improve the University, the image, and the quality and value of a degree from the U of Mo.

Sadly, I think there are many Missourians who do not have an appreciation for the U of Mo and the value to them. Outside the US, when people discover you are "with" the U of MO, you have their attention. Maybe it is time to make the case very public for the people of Missouri...

(Report Comment)
Clara Allen March 25, 2011 | 8:38 a.m.

@Mary - College is in many ways the nurturing of intelligence. There is more than one kind of intelligence: Spatial, Linguistic, logical-mathematical, body kinesthetic, musical, interpersonal, naturalistic and, last (so far) but not least, existential.

Body kinesthetic can be translated linguistically at least in large part as Athletic.

Not everyone is logical. Not everyone is musical. Not everyone has great communication skills and not everyone is athletically gifted. But there are, of course, those who are.

Athletic intelligence is real, and you're insisting that it doesn't count and should be ignored.

Biased much?

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 25, 2011 | 9:58 a.m.

We have 4 campuses with multiple colleges and many, many degree areas because you are correct, no two of are alike and good at the same things, or every thing.

I never suggested athletics be ignored or is without value.

My point is 2.2 million to be a coach is just nuts.

And, since the powers that be don't seem to see a problem with paying 2.2 million to coach grown men playing a game, I have in fact suggested the athletic department be converted to a publicly held entity through stock or shares with the U of Mo holding the majority ownership.

Let's capitalize on the insanity for the benefit of the majority of the Missouri citizenry that is NOT good at athletics and must, darn their luck, make a living another way. For less than 2.2 million per perks and bonuses and, and and...

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 25, 2011 | 10:16 a.m.

Well, Mary, there's another and VERY current way to look at this.

Thanks to Mike Anderson we now find ourselves in a situation where there will be two ongoing job searches: a university system president and new MU basketball coach. Which do we expect to be offered the higher salary?

Obviously, the basketball coach. After all, anyone is capable of running a large, multi-campus public university, but basketball is serious business.

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 25, 2011 | 11:04 a.m.

Indeed. Well put Ellis. Yes, well, perhaps all the attention going to the coach search will keep the pundits all a-twitter and thus will allow the curators to select a genuinely qualified president with less villification of the process.

Perhaps Anderson's departure will turn out to be a blessing in disguise and we will attain a stellar candidate to lead the U of Mo, and higher ed across the state by example.

And yes, we have people locally and on every campus qualified to do just that. Question is, can we get one of them to do it?

(Report Comment)
Kevin Smalley March 25, 2011 | 1:29 p.m.

Actually, Iowa State was the first land grant institution west of the Mississippi.

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 25, 2011 | 2:13 p.m.


Iowa State 1858

Missouri State 1839


(Report Comment)
Bruce Hughes March 25, 2011 | 2:48 p.m.


I think the point being made there was that you were claiming MU was the oldest Land Grant institution. While the point that Kevin was making appears to be the ISU was the first land grant college since the land grant designation refers to the Morrill Act (1864). The claim as the oldest school west of the Miss with land grant status is MU's. The claim as the first land grant school west of the Miss is ISU's. Aside from the fact that this is all sound and fury signifying nothing, ... your attempt to mock Kevin's point by referring to the school's founding dates falls a little flat when you consider that both of those dates were BEFORE there were any land grant schools. The land grant designation refers to an act after either school's founding. Why you felt the need to take a fairly simple comment from someone that was in no way attacking you and to try to turn it into an opportunity to mock, (which ultimately simply made you look bitter), escapes me.

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 25, 2011 | 2:57 p.m.

not mocking anyone...I was looking for a rationale as to how 1858 is older than 1839...and now there is hair splitters version...good grief.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 25, 2011 | 3:33 p.m.

Kevin is correct. Iowa State College of Agriculture & Mechanic Arts, now Iowa State University of Science & Technology, was the first "blue sky" state institution of higher leaning west of the Mississippi to be chartered and built under the terms of the Morrill Act (Federal Land Grant College Act), signed into law by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862. The first "blue sky" institution in the United States founded and built under the Morrill Act was Michigan State College, now Michigan State University.

Missouri didn't address the Morrill Act until 1870, at which time rather than adopting systems used by states like Michigan and Iowa, or totally different systems used by states like Illinois and Wisconsin, they used neither. A second campus was both chartered and physically created, but only to teach mining and metallurgy. That was done over strenuous objection by the MU faculty, which wanted everything located at Columbia.

So, while today's MS&T is truly a child of the Morrill Act it is not and has never been a "stand alone" institution.

Thoroughly confused? It's covered in the book I referenced above.

(Report Comment)
Mary Douglass March 25, 2011 | 4:32 p.m.

bottom line...U of Mo was founded in 1839 and was known then as the Missouri State University. It is the oldest public land grant institution west of the Mississippi. You want to split hairs over who was what first go for it. MSU was founded in 1839 and has evolved into a premier 4 campus system, The University of Missouri.

No slights to any other institution or contributors.

Reality is there are fine scholars at all the land grants and this is the important point. The Morrill act did a fine service to the USA...and continues to do so.

(Report Comment)
oliver blase March 25, 2011 | 5:01 p.m.

kim anderson is the best man for the job

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 25, 2011 | 11:29 p.m.

Missouri's history with the Morrill Act can be summarized as follows: Missouri kept the bath water and threw out the baby.

An old building on the Iowa State University campus was named Morrill Hall, so tiny compared to the more recent George Washington Carver building (named for ISU's most famous alumnus). Carver was a Missourian, so why didn't he enroll at MU? I guess everyone knows the answer to that.

(Report Comment)
terry walker March 26, 2011 | 4:05 a.m.

well whoever it might be atleast he won't start 4 guards.

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt March 28, 2011 | 7:15 a.m.

A better question might be, why do we care? Our country and lives might be better served if we spent this much worry and effort on elected government officials. Just a thought.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.