Voice of the Scantlebury: The past and present of Mizzou hoops
My Missouri sports fandom began in spring 2005, when I was wait-listed by Notre Dame and, as a clearly rational 18-year old from Atlanta, Ga., said “Screw it, I’m going to Mizzou.” I remember firing up my XBox and playing a game of NCAA 2005 with Missouri and Brad Smith (Excuse me, QB #16).
I think in that moment -- born out of rejection and shame -- I legitimately became a Missouri fan, without knowing at the time how fateful that would be.
I don’t know why I was thinking about this as I watched Missouri slog through another disappointing basketball loss, this time to Tennessee. Missouri went 9-25 from 3-point range, was plus-eight in turnovers and points off turnovers, and still lost by ten. I’m not going to break down Missouri’s struggles — I’m not even able to, as I’m admittedly not a basketball guy.
What went through my head, after the rash decision that led to me become a Missouri fan, was this: does it matter? Does this kind of loss in this kind of season even move the needle anymore?
There’s an upcoming lost generation of Missouri basketball fans, fans who began supporting the team after Norm Stewart, long after the heyday of the Big Eight and Big 12. Fans who remember the Elite Eight run in 2009, but those memories are fading, man. Since Norm Stewart left, what’s been added to Missouri basketball culture?
Nothing remains of the one coach that built something successful beyond a string of jokes (not unmerited) about his flirtations with other jobs, and one of his more successful players patrolling the visitor’s bench on Tuesday night.
Maybe Cuonzo Martin gets Missouri where it needs to be. Maybe it clicks and the development of players on the court, coupled with one or two high-profile recruiting wins, provides the momentum into a run of consistently competitive, tournament-bound teams.
It needs to. Because the Norm Stewart Era moves further away every day, and there’s an upcoming generation of Missouri fans that won’t understand why it even matters.
Big 12, Big Regrets
This column by The Oklahoman’s Berry Tramel has already generated plenty of discussion on our message board, but I wanted to chime in with my thoughts on Tramel’s thesis.
Which is, essentially, this portion:
“When the Big 12 thrived, its North Division teams were the primary reason. Nebraska, Kansas State, Colorado, Missouri. All had their moments.”
Tramel argues that the Big 12’s decline isn’t solely because of Texas’ problems or which new schools were added. Instead, he says it’s because of who they lost, singling out Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri above.
I think he left out one aspect for why the Big 12, overall, has declined so much:
It absolutely needs divisions.
Even when the strength of the Big 12 was concentrated in the South, the teams in the North still had a chance for special seasons if their ascension coincided with their schedule conveniently missing the traditional powers in the South. Missouri didn’t have to play Texas and Oklahoma in the same regular season; more so, it didn’t have to play Oklahoma State and Texas Tech in the same season.
Kansas, famously, missed both Texas and Oklahoma during its historic 2007 season.
The rotational scheduling of divisions allowed for the Perfect Storm 2007 season, where five of the 12 teams won at least nine games, four won double-digits and those same four also all finished in the Top 10.
It was absolutely a blow to the Big 12 to lose those teams. But while the “One True Champion” scheduling idea seemed like a great idea, the lack of divisions makes it nearly impossible for the conference to approach the heights it did in 2007 and 2008. It needs both Oklahoma and Texas to be consistent national powers, but it also needs teams like Baylor and TCU and Oklahoma State to be in the conversation, as well.
Without divisions, those goals are mutually exclusive.