Matter: Mizzou should take a shot at Ohio State’s Chris Holtmann | Mizzou Sports News

Here are the highlights from our weekly chat with Post-Dispatch readers. 

Q: If money was not an issue and you could select the new men’s MU basketball coach, who would you select? Also, if Mizzou can’t get a top level experienced head coach, what’s your opinion on Jerome Tang at Baylor, who’s been an assistant there for 19 years, and seems to be an excellent recruiter. Would Tang be a better fit than English at Mizzou? Thanks for the chat.

A: If money were no issue and we’re playing fantasy hire, I’d hire Steve Kerr. If not Kerr, then Scott Drew or Brad Underwood or Eric Musselman.

Those choices aren’t realistic.

If you’re talking about more realistic college options, I’d explore Chris Holtmann at Ohio State. Offer him $4 million over five or six years with a strong incentive package and see if a fresh start with that kind of security is more appealing than his situation at Ohio State. If fans in Columbus are truly getting restless, maybe he’s ready for a reset. He’s got an affordable buyout, recruits well and develops talent. It’s worth a shot.

As for Tang, he knows how a championship program at the highest level looks, sounds, smells and feels. But he’s not the guy in charge. Knowing how the machine operates and being able to operate the machine on your own are two completely different challenges. I’m intrigued by Tang but not convinced. You have to ask why he’s been content as an assistant for 19 years? I know he’s interviewed for other head coaching jobs. ​

Q: Unfortunately, the Missouri basketball program attractiveness is no longer the gem it was now over a decade ago. There are eight to 10 other schools looking besides MU. To that end, us Tiger fans need to accept that a higher risk pick may be the direction we need to go. These coaches have a winning history and may offer the gamble our program needs. Mark Turgeon, Avery Johnson, Travis Steele, and, yes, Kim English.

A: I’ll touch on these one at a time:

A couple of months ago I figured Travis Steele could be an appealing option, but he was just fired at Xavier because his program has fallen behind in the Big East. I don’t think you fire Cuonzo Martin to hire a guy who was six games under .500 in the Big East and finished sixth, seventh and eighth the last three years.

Mark Turgeon is a Jayhawk through and through. You can’t sell that at Missouri.

Avery Johnson recruited pretty well at Alabama but couldn’t win at a high level. Hard pass.

Kim English, I believe, will get a strong look. He had a tough first year as a head coach, but he’s got an impressive upside. He’ll recruit at a high level. He’ll excite the fan base and work tirelessly to build a winning program. There’s a lot of risk hiring a 33-year-old whose only year as a HC was a struggle. But also just as much upside, if not more, than any of the mid-major names out there.

Q: Do you know if there was any kind of offer made to Cuonzo where he could stay but he would need to replace some of his staff to do so? Also, any chance you know Jon Sundvold’s opinion on the firing? Thank you. 

A: I don’t want to speak for Jon. I talk to him regularly and I have a sense for how he feels about things. But that’s not for me to share publicly. He’s not involved in this search in any capacity.

As I reported a few weeks ago, there were some very prominent boosters who have given A LOT of money to the basketball program who favored keeping Martin but wanted to see some staff changes. I don’t believe he was given any kind of ultimatum — fire the staff or you’re fired — but I have learned that administrators talked to him last year about possibly making staff changes and Martin did not believe that needed to happen. So, I doubt he was willing to make that change this time around.

Q: What’s your overall take on JT Daniels? He seems like an upgrade over what we’ve got with a big arm and some experience, but maybe not the Heisman candidate he was once thought to be. Can he stay healthy and get the ball to Burden and company?

A: He’s got an arm. There’s no doubt. He’s not a dual threat by any means. He’s a pocket passer without the running ability that you’d get from Cook or Macon. But he’s a very skilled passer. Drinkwitz wouldn’t be pursuing him so heavily if he didn’t see a serious need there. Health has to be a concern. He was never OK last year, and Georgia seemed reluctant to play him when he wasn’t 100 percent. Daniels’ camp has questions about Mizzou’s offense. They want to know what the talent looks like at receiver, running back, O-line. There’s definite interest.

Q: Is the kid from Truman State making good progress at running back?

A: Back on March 8, I asked Drinkwitz if Cody Schrader has a chance to play. Here’s his full answer: “Absolutely he’s got a chance. He and Nate Peat are right next to each other night just as far as pushing each other, being on time, working hard in the weight room and learning the offense. He earned his number (20) in the scrimmage on Saturday. He’s doing a lot of things the right way, has got great vision, toughness, hard runner. Better than average foot speed. So absolutely. Obviously T-Man (Tavorus Jones) is not here yet, but I feel confident we’ll have a running back for next year.”

Q: It has been stated many times that college basketball today is more about recruiting than coaching. Some say has high as 90/10 recruiting coaching. Do you agree? From the list of names we have seen…Who, in your opinion, would be the BEST RECRUITER at Mizzou?

A: I don’t agree that it’s 90% recruiting. Coaches do more than recruit and coach games. They build staffs; they organize practices/workouts; they develop systems/schemes; they have to instill a team culture; they have to do a lot of public relations; they have to schmooze donors. And these days, they have to manage NIL — or at least delegate staffers to navigate those waters. Yes, coaches are a reflection of the caliber of player they recruit and those players have the most impact of whether the coach wins or loses, but if it truly was just 90% recruiting, then schools wouldn’t hire coaches and just hire corporate head-hunters and pay them to go land the best players and let a few high school coaches handle the Xs and Os.

OK, I’m kidding to a degree, but I do think coaching matters, developing skills, squeezing the most of out of your players’ abilities, putting them in the best…