Cuonzo Martin resigns, heads to Mizzou

Doesn't matter, you'd criticize whatever play was called if it didn't work; and if it did work you'd probably either say nothing or claim we got lucky.

Not to mention, again, it was a bullsh** charge call, and if anything, Stokes was the one fouled.

Why you fighting with some dude that in 2017 doesn't know how to spell McRae? Dude you can't fix that kinda ignorant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
I think people forget how fortunate we were with the tourney matchups too. Almost lose to Iowa in the play-in game, beat a extremely overmatched UMass team who's best player was like 5'7 and was way overseeded, then played Mercer when Duke choked as they do so much.

I don't know, I always thought he caught a lucky hand there.

He did but you can't hold that against him. You play the teams you play. That's why it's so important to make the dance. Just keep going and you'll make a run eventually.
 
more money than the football coach --- lol is Hamilton the AD there ?

Geez. No kidding.

Is Mizzou more of a basketball or football school anyway? They don't have any sort of long-term track record of success at either. The "legendary" figure in the basketball program is Norm Stewart, whose biggest accomplishment was making the Elite Eight twice in 32 years (and one of those appearances is when it was only a 32-team tournament).
 
Last edited:
I think people forget how fortunate we were with the tourney matchups too. Almost lose to Iowa in the play-in game, beat a extremely overmatched UMass team who's best player was like 5'7 and was way overseeded, then played Mercer when Duke choked as they do so much.

I don't know, I always thought he caught a lucky hand there.

His hand was quite lucky, but nobody outside of Tennessee fans (especially Cuonzo detractors) remembers that. Nobody really remembers how you got there as time goes on; they just remember that you got there.

I think the Cuonzo haters have been vindicated, personally, and I was a person that disagreed with them for a long time.
 
Geez. No kidding.

Is Mizzou more of a basketball or football school anyway? They don't have any sort of long-term track record of success at either. The "legendary" figure in the basketball program is Norm Stewart, whose biggest accomplishment was making the Elite Eight twice in 32 years (and one of those appearances is when it was only a 32-team tournament).

He has a better track record than the football coach=higher salary.

Mizzou is neither a basketball or football school, similar to Iowa, WVU, and Wisconsin.

Most fans think we have a better chance of winning the title in basketball, but the 2013 football team always makes fans wonder if we can indeed be elite in football.
 
He has a better track record than the football coach=higher salary.

Mizzou is neither a basketball or football school, similar to Iowa, WVU, and Wisconsin.

Most fans think we have a better chance of winning the title in basketball, but the 2013 football team always makes fans wonder if we can indeed be elite in football.

Except all 3 of those schools would consider themselves football first schools. WV you might argue but only based on recent success, historically they are football. Iowa and Wisconsin it's not even debatable.
 
He has a better track record than the football coach=higher salary.

Mizzou is neither a basketball or football school, similar to Iowa, WVU, and Wisconsin.

Most fans think we have a better chance of winning the title in basketball, but the 2013 football team always makes fans wonder if we can indeed be elite in football.

Mizzou had been a basketball school until Pinkel got there. Now it doesn't know what it is.
 
He has a better track record than the football coach=higher salary.

Mizzou is neither a basketball or football school, similar to Iowa, WVU, and Wisconsin.

Most fans think we have a better chance of winning the title in basketball, but the 2013 football team always makes fans wonder if we can indeed be elite in football.

2007 went pretty much along the same lines.
 
Except all 3 of those schools would consider themselves football first schools. WV you might argue but only based on recent success, historically they are football. Iowa and Wisconsin it's not even debatable.

Wisconsin basketball played in a national title game. Their football team has never made it close. In fact, Mizzou football has been closer to the national title game than Wisc football ever has (2007, 2013). Wisconsin is neither a true football or a basketball school
 
Wisconsin basketball played in a national title game. Their football team has never made it close. In fact, Mizzou football has been closer to the national title game than Wisc football ever has (2007, 2013). Wisconsin is neither a true football or a basketball school

You don't seem to understand what makes something a "insert sport" school. Whichever one is the most popular is what constitutes what kind of school they are. I don't care what Wisconsin basketball has done, their football program is more popular than their basketball program. To say Wisconsin isn't a football school is pretty ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
You don't seem to understand what makes something a "insert sport" school. Whichever one is the most popular is what constitutes what kind of school they are. I don't care what Wisconsin basketball has done, their football program is more popular than their basketball program. To say Wisconsin isn't a football school is pretty ridiculous.

UNC is a women's lacrosse school.
 
You don't seem to understand what makes something a "insert sport" school. Whichever one is the most popular is what constitutes what kind of school they are. I don't care what Wisconsin basketball has done, their football program is more popular than their basketball program. To say Wisconsin isn't a football school is pretty ridiculous.

I disagree. I think it is natural for football to be more popular, since it is Americas favorite sport. I think football is extremely popular in places like UNC and UK, they just haven't had near the same success as their football programs. The difference in success between UNC football and basketball programs caused UNC basketball to gain popularity.

Schools like ISU are basketball schools because it allows them to be somewhat relevant. Their football program has never won 9 games ever, but their basketball program has been competitive recently.

Younger Mizzou fans probably look at MU as a football school, whereas middle aged fans think of us as a basketball school.
 
I disagree. I think it is natural for football to be more popular, since it is Americas favorite sport. I think football is extremely popular in places like UNC and UK, they just haven't had near the same success as their football programs. The difference in success between UNC football and basketball programs caused UNC basketball to gain popularity.

Schools like ISU are basketball schools because it allows them to be somewhat relevant. Their football program has never won 9 games ever, but their basketball program has been competitive recently.

Younger Mizzou fans probably look at MU as a football school, whereas middle aged fans think of us as a basketball school.

Football is popular at those places, but it isn't as popular as basketball and yeah I can agree it's because they are better, but that's not the only factor. Basketball is clearly more popular in those schools. A place like Wisconsin may have had more success in basketball, but football is still way more popular, hence they consider themselves a football school.

Same for a place like Arkansas. In the past 20-25 years, they've had way more success in basketball but they are clearly a football school.
 
I disagree. I think it is natural for football to be more popular, since it is Americas favorite sport. I think football is extremely popular in places like UNC and UK, they just haven't had near the same success as their football programs. The difference in success between UNC football and basketball programs caused UNC basketball to gain popularity.

Schools like ISU are basketball schools because it allows them to be somewhat relevant. Their football program has never won 9 games ever, but their basketball program has been competitive recently.

Younger Mizzou fans probably look at MU as a football school, whereas middle aged fans think of us as a basketball school.

I think it may have some to do with what sport a school's big money boosters support. I don't have any knowledge of the boosters at either school (UK and UNC), but I know there is huge fan support for football in Kentucky, but until the last few years (since Mark Stoops arrived), UK never really invested much of the AD money into the football program (stadium improvements, training facilities, etc.). The UK football fans had been frustrated for years for the lack of support the football program got from the AD. I think the increased revenue from the SEC Network is allowing SEC programs like UK to invest more money into the football program whether the big money boosters contribute or not.
 
So the reason so many people hate Counzo is the way he left? I really am trying to figure out why so much of the fan base doesn't like the guy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
So the reason so many people hate Counzo is the way he left? I really am trying to figure out why so much of the fan base doesn't like the guy.

I like Cuonzo as a whole but he painted this fanbase as as racist . That was a low blow. The People wanting Pearl wanted him for what he won here not because he was white.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
So the reason so many people hate Counzo is the way he left? I really am trying to figure out why so much of the fan base doesn't like the guy.

its a bunch of things.

1. Its hard to follow a good coach, especially when there is debate on the events around Bruce being fired.
2. Bruce was a coach who embraced the fans, painting his chest, bringing pizza to students waiting before the game, stuff like that. To Cuonzo who never did, and ended up calling us all racists.
3. Style of play, Bruce won with exciting play, that gets butts in seats and games on TVs. Cuonzo won with defense, which works, sometimes, but its not going to be popular. Bruce's system made a lot of UT fans UT Basketball fans, once that excitement was gone you are going to have some discontent.
4. Winning. Probably the biggest factor. Bruce built support by winning 70% of his games, Cuonzo was around 60%. Cuonzos most wins would have been Bruce's 4th most wins in a season. Also Bruce made the NCAA every year, Cuonzo didn't. further Bruce had some big wins, Kansas and Kentucky when they were 1 & 2. and Bruce's worst finish in the SEC would have been tied for Cuonzo's second best finish.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
So the reason so many people hate Counzo is the way he left? I really am trying to figure out why so much of the fan base doesn't like the guy.

In general CCM was a very guarded guy.
He wasn't warm and fuzzy. Bruce was borrowing private planes and was friends with everybody. Remember him painting his chest? Remember Pat singing Rocky Top? Never would have happened without Pearl. Practice facility and TBA facelift also happened due to Pearl.
People forget how significant his impact was. Then in comes Martin. I'd never heard his name until the day he was announced. He never seemed excited or grateful to be here. Sure, the petition was stupid but Martin did nothing to endear himself with the fan base. Distant, and I thought at times aloof. Combine this with who he followed. The privileged Pearl enjoyed were pulled back. Not because he was black. That crap was nonsense. It was because billy big bucks doesn't mind lending you his plane for a recruiting trip, but he might want you to make a cameo at his Christmas party.

Pearl loved schmucking it up, and Martin would not even entertain this stuff.
 

VN Store



Back
Top