Pendergast wrote:
So everyone saw that Mizzou was ranked higher at the end of the season in both football AND basketball? Us Tiger fans measure most of our progress in terms of beating Kansas, and not really anyone else
Dude, you're not kidding.
As for the Memphis question: they have the best defense in the country as rated by Pomeroy. http://kenpom.com/team.php?y=2009&team=Memphis
They went to Gonzaga a month ago and totally shut them down (Gonzaga = #6 offense nationally). They brought back all their better defenders from last year's runner up team and they're even better defensively this year.
Interesting chart. 2 things jump out: (1) hardly any hoops success South of the Mason-Dixon line. Without Florida's wins this decade, they've basically contribued a giant goose egg to college hoops. Odd given that they are so dominant in football.
(2) Tons of history in the UNC-Duke corridor - but look at the Kentucky/Louisville/Indiana area. 3 places within a couple hours, that have won like crazy. I wonder why that's such a hot spot compared to the NorthEast which hasn't done squat given their population.
Also interesting to look at the Bay Area schools - combined four titles and nine final fours - yet the thought of any of them getting back seems pretty remote.
On the NE schools - it just seems like none of those schools are ever able to maintain any consistency. If one of them does make it to a championship, it seems like it is a gaurantee that they will subsequently implode into obscurity. About the only team up there I can think of that has had multiple peaks of success under the same coaching regime is UConn.
Maitre D wrote:
(2) Tons of history in the UNC-Duke corridor - but look at the Kentucky/Louisville/Indiana area. 3 places within a couple hours, that have won like crazy. I wonder why that's such a hot spot compared to the NorthEast which hasn't done squat given their population.
Don't ya know, big city people don't care about college sports!
MidWestSider wrote:
wow.. City College of New York - 2 FF, 1 Championship
Not as big a fall to obscurity as USF - 2 ncaa titles and one of the best players of all time is apparently not enough to guarantee permenant relevance.
LenexatoKCMO wrote:
Not as big a fall to obscurity as USF - 2 ncaa titles and one of the best players of all time is apparently not enough to guarantee permenant relevance.
You said it - they got their titles for one reason. Too bad Wilt couldn't even get us one. By the way, how sweet is this pic of Russell in college? What exactly is he doing?
“If someone were to say you had to bet today whether or not Mike Anderson would ever win a Big 12 tournament or conference championship again, my vote would be no.”
Kevin Kietzman, 810 AM
GregHall: Why KK has taken this stance I do not know. Jealousy? Bitterness? Those would be two good guesses.
Maitre D wrote:
“If someone were to say you had to bet today whether or not Mike Anderson would ever win a Big 12 tournament or conference championship again, my vote would be no.”
Kevin Kietzman, 810 AM
GregHall: Why KK has taken this stance I do not know. Jealousy? Bitterness? Those would be two good guesses.
Its awfully hard to win a B12 championship when you are coaching in the SEC.
Maitre D wrote:
“If someone were to say you had to bet today whether or not Mike Anderson would ever win a Big 12 tournament or conference championship again, my vote would be no.”
Kevin Kietzman, 810 AM
GregHall: Why KK has taken this stance I do not know. Jealousy? Bitterness? Those would be two good guesses.
Is it worse to be KK or be so enthralled with him to point out everytime he says something incorrect...I think we all know the answer.
Maitre D wrote:
“If someone were to say you had to bet today whether or not Mike Anderson would ever win a Big 12 tournament or conference championship again, my vote would be no.”
Kevin Kietzman, 810 AM
GregHall: Why KK has taken this stance I do not know. Jealousy? Bitterness? Those would be two good guesses.
Where is Greg Hall still writing? Used to love reading his stuff, but I lost track of him a few years ago.
LenexatoKCMO wrote:
Not as big a fall to obscurity as USF - 2 ncaa titles and one of the best players of all time is apparently not enough to guarantee permenant relevance.
Since when is having a coach with 800 wins resurrect your program NOT make you relevant?
&&&
If it doesn't have street-level retail, it's an abortion.
The North Carolina Tar Heels, who reached the national semifinals in two of the past four years, is once again the most valuable team in college basketball, worth $25.9 million. Last year the Tar Heels generated $16.4 million of operating income (second to only Louisville's $16.6 million) making North Carolina one of only a handful of colleges that made more money from basketball than football.
The defending national champion Kansas Jayhawks moved up three spots to become the fifth most valuable team, worth $21.7 million. Basketball-related merchandise royalties, driven by sales of Final Four emblazoned products, totaled $2 million last year and accounted for 80% of the school's licensing business. The Jayhawks collected $10 million in gate receipts from 20 games at Allen Fieldhouse and posted an operating income (in the sense of revenues less operating expense) of $12.9 million. With revenues down across their conference last year, the Jayhawks were the only Big 12 team to make our list.
The value of the top 20 teams increased by 3.4% last year to an average of $17.5 million, while operating income grew by 5.7% to an average of $10.8 million. Still, not all teams saw gains. Missouri dropped off our list as operating income tumbled 17% to $8.1 million after the team failed to qualify for last year's tournament.
Maitre D wrote:
“If someone were to say you had to bet today whether or not Mike Anderson would ever win a Big 12 tournament or conference championship again, my vote would be no.”
Kevin Kietzman, 810 AM
GregHall: Why KK has taken this stance I do not know. Jealousy? Bitterness? Those would be two good guesses.
Keitzman has always been a fan of Anderson until this season. Now every compliement is always backed up with something negative.
kcmetro wrote:
The Most Valuable College Basketball Teams
The North Carolina Tar Heels, who reached the national semifinals in two of the past four years, is once again the most valuable team in college basketball, worth $25.9 million. Last year the Tar Heels generated $16.4 million of operating income (second to only Louisville's $16.6 million) making North Carolina one of only a handful of colleges that made more money from basketball than football.
The defending national champion Kansas Jayhawks moved up three spots to become the fifth most valuable team, worth $21.7 million. Basketball-related merchandise royalties, driven by sales of Final Four emblazoned products, totaled $2 million last year and accounted for 80% of the school's licensing business. The Jayhawks collected $10 million in gate receipts from 20 games at Allen Fieldhouse and posted an operating income (in the sense of revenues less operating expense) of $12.9 million. With revenues down across their conference last year, the Jayhawks were the only Big 12 team to make our list.
The value of the top 20 teams increased by 3.4% last year to an average of $17.5 million, while operating income grew by 5.7% to an average of $10.8 million. Still, not all teams saw gains. Missouri dropped off our list as operating income tumbled 17% to $8.1 million after the team failed to qualify for last year's tournament.
Absent from that list is Alabama. Alabama isn't going to out bid Mizzou for Anderson unless they are willing to subsidize their basketball coach with a great deal more money from their football program, which I imagine would be a big no, no for Alabama.
I think the fact that Mizzou stayed on that list until last year speaks to the programs value. With the success we have had this year we should be back in the top 20 next year.
jlbomega wrote:
Alabama isn't going to out bid Mizzou for Anderson unless they are willing to subsidize their basketball coach with a great deal more money from their football program, which I imagine would be a big no, no for Alabama.
From the talk coming out of Alabama, that's exactly what they're planning to do. Not that any of it is realistic, but they were talking Izzo early on (never happen IMO). I heard that Alabama was willing to go $2+ million for this hire. Not saying they will for Anderson - just that they're looking to buy their way to credibility with a "name" coach (most likely with $$ generated by Seaban being there).
If it doesn't have street-level retail, it's an abortion.
I still don't see much practical upside in the move for him other than the geographic roots but I keep hearing rumblings that it is supposedly a done deal.
