MIKE ANDERSON: SHOULD HE STAY OR SHOULD HE GO?

Who’s to say Mizzou head basketball coach Mike Anderson’s job shouldn’t be on the line as rumors swirl about him possibly leaving for the Arkansas head coaching job.

First let me say, I’m not calling for his job.  He has done a masterful job bringing the Missouri basketball program back from the ruins it was left in by the previous regime.  He has an Elite Eight appearance in the NCAA Tournament on his resume.  And he has brought an exciting brand of basketball to Columbia that makes every game exciting, no matter the opponent.

But herein lies the problem.

Anderson’s Forty Minutes of Hell or Fastest Forty Minutes or whatever you want to call it has worn out its welcome.  In his five years at Missouri, he has never had a player taller than 6 feet, 9 inches.  Now, that may be a product of the system, but yes, size does matter.  Without an inside presence, the Tigers have no one to bang the boards for defensive, or more importantly, offensive rebounds.

When your game is predicated on fast break, run-and-gun scoring, never allowing the opponent to set its defense, shots, many shots are going to be missed, and as the offense is running down the court to take these shots, many times there’s no one there under the basket to get the rebound.  And even when Missouri sets up in a half-court offense, it’s run so inefficiently.  They are still usually out-sized by their opponent.

There is no question the Tigers can put up the points.  Mizzou was near the top of the Big 12 in team scoring all season long, but that means nothing if they aren’t able to defend, especially near the end of the game when everything seems to fall apart for them.

The other obvious problem for Anderson and the Tigers this season has been playing on the road.  Everyone always says it’s tough to win on the road in the Big 12.  Well, it’s tough to win on the road anywhere, and in any sport.  The Tigers finished league play with a dismal 1-7 road record and 8-8 overall.  People have their theories as to why the Tigers don’t play well in other’s houses: lack of focus/concentration, playing style doesn’t suit the road team, they’re young, bad officiating etc.

I don’t have a theory about their road woes because they’re probably all true and probably all false, but what I will say is that winning on the road, or the lack thereof, has been an epidemic since Anderson arrived.  During his tenure, the Tigers are 13-27 in Big 12 road games with the best season coming in the 2008-2009 season when the Tigers made that Elite Eight run and finished the season 31-7.  They were 12-4 in the conference that season.

Now, I come to the one statistic that gets under the skin of Mizzou fans more than any.  Mike Anderson boasts a 1-9 record against archrival Kansas in his five years at Missouri.  I’ll say that again: Anderson is 1-9 against the Tigers most-hated rival, the Kansas Jayhawks.  That lone win came on Feb. 9, 2009.  It was the first time both teams met ranked since 2003.  The Tigers had to make a furious second-half comeback capped by a Zaire Taylor jumper with 0:01.3 seconds left in the game to give Mizzou the 62-60 win in Columbia.

So, even this win was barely a win.  OK, a win is a win, but over those 10 games against Kansas, Anderson and the Tigers haven’t been very competitive, so is this even still a rivalry if one team has been that dominant?

I present these facts, not to paint an ugly picture of Mike Anderson, but for fans to make an educated judgment whether he’s the right coach to lead the Tigers.  I like the guy.  I thought he was the right hire when Athletic Director Mike Alden chose him to clean up the program.  He’s done that, and he’s built a solid and winning program, but is he the right guy to take the Tigers to the next level, and if not, who is?

SALUTE THIS!

A few days have now passed since Kansas State wide receiver Adrian Hilburn gave a salute to fans after what could have been a game-tying touchdown near the end of the game had the Wildcats converted a two-point conversion.  However, the officials saw the salute as “excessive” celebration and called it a player drawing attention to himself.  He was flagged for a 15-yard penalty.  So instead of trying for two points from the three-yard line, the Wildcats had to attempt the conversion from the 18.  They had no chance.  Kansas State lost to Syracuse 36-34 in the Pinstripe Bowl.  Because of the referee's call, my father-in-law ironically noted that this truly was a Pinstripe Bowl in more ways than one.

We all know that football is a game filled with emotion, good and bad, and sometimes things can get a little out of hand.  That emotion rises to a new level in a postseason game because so much more is on the line.  Teams are playing for pride, for their conference, maybe for a departing coach or for a senior’s last game.

There have been strict rules set in place at the high school and college levels governing celebration so as not to show up the other team and ostensibly incite a riot.  Although, I don’t think it would ever come to that.  The underlying reason for this is to teach good sportsmanship so that these players will learn and grow taking that discipline with them through their playing careers.  Who knows, they may be so lucky to make it to the pro level.  But we’ve seen how foolish a lot of these guys can act as a professional.

Since that K-State/Syracuse game, I’ve watched several college bowl games, and I’ve seen actions a whole hell of a lot worse than the salute that probably cost the Wildcats the game.

BRIEF DISCLAIMER: Before I go on, I want to say that I am in no way making any type of political, patriotic or religious statement regarding what happens on the football field.  The rules are the rules, and they should either be enforced or changed to reflect a stricter definition.  Ambiguous language in the rules, such as the word “excessive,” leaves too much gray area for the officials to interpret, and that’s where the problems begin.

Now back to my rant.

So a college football player salutes after a touchdown and is flagged for unsportsmanlike conduct.  It wasn’t political.  It wasn’t religious.  It was either patriotic or a gesture toward the fans cheering him in the stands.  I don’t believe he was in any way trying to draw attention to himself.

Now, having said that, how is that any worse than when a player scores a touchdown or makes a great play, he either points to the sky or kneels down in prayer?  Is that not drawing attention to himself?  Is there a difference between a religious act and a patriotic one, and who, if anyone, makes that decision?

Should players be allowed to high five or jump in each other’s arms after a touchdown or big play?  What’s considered excessive or drawing attention to themselves in that situation?

Why are players allowed to incite their fans into a frenzy from the sidelines by waving their arms or towels around?  Isn’t that drawing attention to themselves, or at least the team?

Is there a difference of where the celebrations take place, say the field versus the sidelines, and just where does an official’s jurisdiction end?

Just where do we draw the line on this?

Obviously, there are many questions to be answered here, and there are probably many more to be asked.

I think I have a simple solution to all of this.  Allow for celebration on the sidelines only.

When a player scores a touchdown, he must set the ball down on the ground or hand it to the official and head back to the sideline and do whatever he wants with his teammates there.  Done.  It’s not on the field of play so it doesn’t distract from or interfere with what’s going on out there.  If they want to high five, hug, kiss, Ickey Shuffle, let ‘em.

So what to do after a big play such as a sack, tackle for a loss, pass break up, etc.?  Nothing.  Go back to the huddle and get ready for the next play.  Celebrate when you are back on the sidelines.  Easy.

Some may say this will take away from the excitement of the game, but if the NCAA, or whatever governing body rules on such sportsmanship matters, wants to avoid such controversy as salute-gate, then a stricter policy needs to be enforced.  Look, I have no problem with what Hilburn did.  In fact, I’d like to see some of the stodgy rules in college sports relaxed.  I’d have no problem with seeing spikes after a touchdown, but as long as a group as hypocritical as the NCAA continues to oversee this money-making machine, controversies like this will continue to persist.