It seemed like the University of Missouri was a just a few minutes from pulling a major upset and landing Purdue coach Matt Painter to lead its basketball program. But fate took the last shot, and the buzzer beater saw Painter staying in West Lafayette, Ind., and Mizzou still on the lookout for somebody—anybody—to coach the Tigers. It was apparent that VCU's Shaka Smart wasn’t heading west and neither was Butler’s Brad Stevens. Tubby Smith also reportedly turned down an offer from MU, though Mizzou athletic director Mike Alden has said otherwise.
The search officially came to an end on Monday with the hiring of Frank Haith, formerly of the University of Miami.
Many people aren’t happy in Tiger Land.
Whether Haith makes Missouri a winner remains to be seen. Instead, what fans should be wondering is why the school always seems to get the short end of the stick when it comes to bowl games, tournament seeds—and now—coaching selections.
But did Mizzou really settle for less? Or did Mizzou get the best it could?
I think it is the latter.
When potential coaches are deciding whether to pull up stakes and move to Missouri, the latest headlines don't go unnoticed: proposals to eliminate child-labor laws, senators who'd like to lower dog-breeding standards while neglecting the will of the people, steps to gut public education, legislators who are unwilling to help those in desperate need of unemployment benefits. Our state’s image grows worse every day, and it's likely detrimental to the University of Missouri—even when it comes to matters of college athletics.
Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan has suggested that St. Louis and Kansas City join Illinois and Kansas, respectively, and leave the rest of the state to fend for itself. I’m sure the good citizens of Columbia, Mo., would want to arrange a move, too—maybe to Iowa. Then the best coaches and bowl games might actually consider the University of Missouri—because it would not be in Missouri.
