2018 Tiger Mailbag: 11th Edition

GD: This question is like a flashback to a simpler time, when we only had one question to answer. Ahh, those were the days.

GD: Odds say no. Of the quarterbacks we know have offers, four of them are four-stars. Lance LeGendre is committed to Kansas, Graham Mertz to Wisconsin, Grant Gunnell isn't coming here and Grant Tisdale doesn't seem likely. There aren't any in-state quarterbacks rated that highly. Could the Tigers get one? Sure. But I wouldn't say it's likely.

GD: I'm 99% certain that Michael already has an insurance policy. Leonard Fournette had one for $10 million, so I guess that price tag isn't impossible (but it would be one of the highest ever). First off, if he cashed it in, ten million is only a fraction of what he'd probably make between an NBA contract and endorsement deals.

But the thing is, this isn't just about the money. It's about being an NBA player. All the money in the world can't replace being an NBA player...or an NBA superstar. The decision to stay or go simply isn't strictly a financial decision.

GD: The two guys that immediately jumped to mind for me are Brad Smith and Danario Alexander. They were just both so fluid on the field. The way they moved, I've got a hard time believing they couldn't have been very good at basketball or track. I'm sure there are guys that I'm forgetting, but those two are the ones that just seemed like they moved at a different speed than everyone else.

GD: Not only doesn't he make it, he isn't even on the ballot. He has scored 14 points in 25 minutes and is shooting 33%. No offense, but no way. Here would be the guys that have to be in the discussion:

Willie Smith

Jon Sundvold

Steve Stipanovich

John Brown

Derrick Chievous

Doug Smith

Anthony Peeler

Melvin Booker

Then some others that would merit consideration: Al Eberhard, DeMarre Carroll, Marcus Denmon, Kareem Rush, Larry Drew.

GD: Those are two pretty big assumptions at this point in time. They could both happen and for the premise of this question, we'll assume they do. I'm assuming you also count Michael Porter Jr. as going pro.

If those things all happen, I'd think you start Ramey, Porter, Tilmon, K.J. Santos and Kevin Puryear. Torrence Watson, Geist and a transfer point guard or Xavier Pinson come off the bench, along with Reed Nikko and/or Mitchell Smith.

At first blush, that lineup doesn't have a true two guard, but I'm thinking Santos can help fill that role. I may be wrong. If I am, put Geist in his place.

GD: Obviously Jeremiah Tilmon, Kassius Robertson, Jordan Geist and Kevin Puryear continue to start. So the question becomes which Porter goes into the starting lineup. I'd go with Michael. He's probably a little more suited to guard a small forward like Jordan Barnett did. And I don't want to mess with Jontay's role. He's been really, really good as the sixth man. And the way Cuonzo Martin subs, he's in the game by the 18-minute mark anyway. There are 200 minutes in a game. Missouri has six guys. Robertson's going to play 40. Geist probably plays 35. So you've got 125 minutes to divide up between the other four. That's an average of a little more than 31 minutes per player. Starting isn't gonna matter. They're all gonna play till they drop or foul out.

GD: I assume he'd have gone pro, along with DeAndre Ayton, Mo Bamba and some others (Marvin Bagley if he reclassified, but that didn't really become a thing until the one-and-done rule was instituted). I mean, if somebody came to you and said, "I want to give you ten million dollars. You can have it tomorrow, or you can go to school and have it a year from now," what are you doing? Because I know what I'm doing. And I know what the vast majority of everyone else is doing.

GD: I'd go with Chievous or Doug Smith. I'd probably lean Chievous because I still think he's the best player I've ever seen in a Mizzou uniform. He went to the free throw line nearly 1,000 times in his career and made 764. That's insane. So my answer isn't necessarily specific to this team. Give me ANY Missouri team and Chievous is probably my answer. Doug Smith could step out and shoot it and he'd be a great choice to, but I'm taking the Band-Aid Man.

GD: 1. Is there any good reason to have conference tournaments other than for financial reasons?

Not really. I mean, they're fun. I like being able to watch basketball at noon on Thursday. But not really. I agree with your premise that the regular season champ should go to the NCAA Tournament.

2. If it is for financial reasons, do they really make THAT much money? (Specifically for the mid majors)

A quick Google search doesn't tell me how much money a major conference tournament makes. I assume it's probably mostly folded into the television contract that the league has so it's tough to say exactly what portion of that would be from the tournament.

3. Wouldn't abolishing conference tournaments and instead give each team two more regular season home games make the same amount of money for each school that the conf tournament does?

I don't want to abolish conference tournaments. I like them. I think it would be cool to have an automatic bid for the regular season champ AND the conference tournament winner. How many at-large spots there are would vary by season. Obviously you have teams that win both, so that league takes only one spot. If every single conference had a different regular season champ than tournament champ, then there are only four at-large bids for that season. Obviously that's probably never going to happen. So let's say there are 12 leagues who have two auto bids due to different teams winning the regular season and the tournament. That leaves 24 at-large spots. That's enough for me. It will never happen, but it makes the regular season AND the conference tournament mean something. Are there some teams that would be left out? Sure. But are you really going to pitch a fit if Oklahoma, St. Bonaventure, UCLA and Syracuse aren't in this year? I'm not. Want to get in? Do more. Life ain't always fair.

4. Why would mid-major conferences risk having its best team (1st in regular season standings) lose in the conference tournament and not just give them them the auto-bid? Wouldn't its best team have the best shot to win an NCAA tournament game or 2 and theoretically increase the brand of that league?

Because the conference tournament has to mean something. If it doesn't, why play it? And they've always played them. So they'll keep playing them.

5. If we insist on keeping conference tournaments, could you still have it where the tournament winner gets the NIT bid (If they don't get in to the NCAA tournament)? The regular season champ would get the auto-bid to NCAA tournament and would sit out the conference tourney.

Addressed that one in the answer to No. 3 and 4. An NIT bid doesn't mean anything. Fans aren't going to show up to find out who gets to go to the NIT.

GD: If I'm a betting man, I say no. The men could make it. But Xavier's a one seed for a reason. Between 2001 and 2010, 87.5% of the one seeds made the Sweet Sixteen. That means an average of one top seed lost every two years. So it's far from unheard of...but not likely.

The women are simply trending the wrong direction. They've lost two of their last three and didn't play well in the one win. They turn the ball over a lot and if they aren't making shots, they're in trouble. Plus, they're going on the road for the second game if they get there. They have a better chance than the men and I'd guess if they played at Stanford 10 times, they'd win three or four. So if we give the men a 12.5% chance, the women have probably about triple that.

I was a little bit surprised Mizzou didn't host, but that's because I didn't pay a lot of attention to the situation going in. The RPI was 24. So going by that, they're actually a little overseeded. And the two teams they lost two down the stretch (Georgia and Texas A&M) were four seeds. Georgia beat the Tigers twice. Once UGA came up as a four seed, I was pretty confident Missouri wasn't getting to host.

GD: I think he would have been a top ten player, which would have put him just ahead of Linas Kleiza as the second-highest rated recruit in Mizzou history.

GD: Have to go with Michael. Missouri fans haven't been able to see it, but this kid was dominant. Jontay is really good, but he was never on the level of Mike coming up. Odds are he hasn't forgotten how to do the things that made him the top player in the country that some people thought could have gone in the top three of the 2017 NBA Draft...when he was a senior in high school.

GD: It's possible. I don't even know if he's had surgery yet, so I don't know what a timetable is. Optimistically maybe nine months, which would put him back around the start of SEC play next year. It will be interesting to see when he can come back and how that whole situation is handled. Because eating up a scholarship for two more years (including a loaded 2019 recruiting class) on a guy who was averaging two-and-a-half points, is hardly ideal.

GD: Wrestling top five. We asked Brian Smith earlier this year and he admitted a national title would be really tough. Think Ohio State and Penn State are clearly the best teams.

Karissa Schweizer is the most decorated athlete in Mizzou history. Five national titles. I'm not going to necessarily say she's the best athlete, but she's the most accomplished.

Baseball--I'd lean no, but ask me after this week when they play four games against Wichita State and LSU.

Softball--No

Golf and track? Sure, maybe those are happening. I'm not sure.

GD: If anybody asks me to play a game of horse for my life, just go ahead and do the deed. But I'd take Cullen VanLeer. But only with the torn ACL. And still likely lose.