Mizzou Hoops: What lessons can the Tigers draw from hunting for a center? (2024)

It’s rare when recruiting outcome qualifies as a fait accompli, but Josh Gray’s commitment to Missouri on Sunday is as close as it gets.

When the South Carolina transfer first emerged in late April, the supply of centers had steadily dwindled. But there was still enough diversity and time to think MU’s hunt had ample room to maneuver. Over the past two weeks, though, that path narrowed. Once UC Irvine’s Bent Leuchten withdrew from the transfer portal, Gray became entrenched atop the Tigers’ recruiting board.

All that remained was jetting into Columbia for an official visit — a trip that unfolded early last week — and a promised bat signal from coach Dennis Gates.

Gray’s commitment, while practical, also signifies a somewhat anticlimactic end to the portal season. Over the course of a month, MU shifted its focus from the ambitious plans it had at the start of spring’s retrofitting and embraced a practical end goal.

What prompted the shift? Put simply, Mizzou’s process didn’t quite sync with a swift-moving sector of the transfer market. More broadly, the dynamics driving the demand and relatively high cost for proven centers impart a more elemental lesson: nurture your talent in a climate where growing conditions get harsh.

But first, let’s run through the Tigers’ original plan.

Entering March, speculation simmered whether Michigan’s Tarris Reed, a St. Louis native, might move on from Ann Arbor, where the Wolverines slogged to an 8-24 campaign. Once Juwan Howard was fired, it became a mere question of when. After Reed entered the portal, MU quickly zeroed in on the former top-40 recruit. Had the Tigers executed a quick homecoming, the program would still possess ample time to pursue veteran ball handers.

Except that brisk courtship never came to pass.

Reed’s potential, which surpassed 9.0 points and 7.2 rebounds, made him one of the more attractive options on the market. The resulting leverage also allowed him to bide his time until he had the optimal pool of suitors. MU remained engaged over the first three weeks of the portal window but could never book Reed for an official visit.

Instead, a slow-motion process dragged on—into a dead period that didn’t lift until April 11. That date is an important cutoff, and the graph below illustrates why. Look at the gold line, which indicates the number of top 50 centers still on the market.

The market, bearing a faint resemblance to the Matterhorn, peaked on April 13 with 32 big men still up for grabs. However, the elevation swiftly plummeted. Fourteen players were snapped up in the six days after the dead period — and its moratorium on visits — ended. By April 20, only 19 names remained. The top-tier options, like Jonas Aidoo, Clifford Omoruyi, Vlad Golden, and Brandon Garrison, were making moves, trimming lists, or committing. This group included Tarris Reed, who committed to UConn on April 17, further intensifying the competition for big men.

Now, MU wasn’t exactly twiddling its thumbs. When a long-awaited commitment surge started in mid-April, Dennis Gates locked down Tony Perkins, Marques Warrick, and Mark Mitchell in five days. Those additions can’t be undersold, but the shelves in the aisles for big men were growing barren.

Therein lies the rub.

The NCAA’s decision to shorten the portal window to 45 days compressed timelines. On average, a top-50 center needed roughly three weeks to find a new home. That’s almost 10 days shorter than last spring.

Next, let’s tie these strands together.

As MU played a waiting game with Reed, suitable alternatives were busily arranging itineraries to hit campuses by mid-April. Exercising patience potentially cost MU’s staff a week to rearrange its board, reach out to handlers, and plot a different course. Admittedly, Gates can point out a reasonable caveat: Mark Mitchell.

The Duke hybrid hit the portal on April 9, and MU didn’t hesitate. It convened a Zoom call within a day, and a week later, the former five-star recruit and two-year starter was in the fold. MU requires an athletic and skilled option at the four spot — also called the Boss — to power Triangle-inspired elements of its offense. The Tigers also needed all the help they could get to upgrade perimeter defense. Mitchell ticked those vital boxes.

Ultimately, we have to hold two thoughts in our heads. MU probably expended too much time on Reed. It also reacted swiftly to commit resources that cleared the field for Mitchell. So, the Tigers did pivot — to fill another positional slot. I also didn’t hear anyone grumbling about the tradeoff. Reeling in Mitchell also meant scaling back expectations for the type of center MU might target.

Yet all these machinations didn’t leave the Tigers’ depth chart undisturbed. A day after Mitchell committed, freshman Jordan Butler, who might have noticed MU’s trawling, announced his departure. It also left MU staring at the possibility of feeding heavier minutes to a pair of freshmen in Peyton Marshall and Trent Burns. Snagging Gray forestalls that scenario and comes with the added benefit of giving Marshall a sparring partner during practice.

You can also get lost in all the permutations of what MU should have done.

Hypothetically, MU could have moved off Reed earlier. Perhaps the program could have chucked some NIL budget at an option like Washington State’s Rueben Chinyelu. (That’s a move I would have lauded.) Plotting that course, however, might have stripped MU of the requisite liquidity to reel in Mitchell.

As a result, the Tigers would start 2024-25 with Trent Pierce, Aidan Shaw, and Marcus Allen as options at the four. Nobody in that trio is ready to reprise Kobe Brown’s role, and there would still be moaning if MU made a price-conscious move for a player to fit its scheme.

Once you stop playing armchair GM, it’s easy to soak in a critical lesson for future offseasons: If MU needs an elite center, it should get ready to pay — and gear up for long-haul recruitment. Otherwise, the program might need to reassess its options once April 1 rolls around. This decision might also preserve some of its budget.

Doing so might keep you from getting stuck in a time crunch, as shown in the graph below.

Last spring, the market for bigs was more of a rolling hill or knob. Even in mid-May, 15 of the top 50 centers in On3 Sports’ composite index were weighing their options. That topography allowed MU’s search to progress leisurely, letting some quality options go elsewhere, passing on developmental prospects, and leaving some stopgaps unvetted.

This year, the terrain proved more punishing. For its part, MU quickly hunkered down and homed in on Gray in late April. However, the lag between targeting the veteran and getting him on campus undoubtedly impacted the optics. As days passed and the board emptied, it became easier to shade Gray’s addition as settling instead of prudent.

Watching MU navigate the market reinforces why relying on the portal as a mode of roster building might be a miscalculation. Whether programs realize it or not, they’ve been operating in a pair of bubbles. The first is an abundant supply of veterans who can use a COVID exception to play a fifth season, allowing staff access to proven producers. Yet that vein of talent will be exhausted after this year.

Second, there’s also a (potential) NIL bubble as boosters and collectives engage in a fundraising arms race. But how long before donor fatigue sets in if those dollars don’t reap immediate returns on the hardwood? Washington reportedly shelled out $2 million in compensation to Great Osobor. Yet the rest of the Huskies’ roster barely projects as a bubble team. Pursuing Osobor might chew up a large chunk of the budget at many high-majors.

Yet the talent drain of fifth-year seniors might create enough scarcity to keep prices inflated. Agents are also acutely aware of programs like Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, and Louisville that each stashed war chests of $4 million to flip their rosters. Even now, blue-bloods like North Carolina possess ample stores of powder to burn to fill pressing needs for a stretch four and center. They can also turn programs like Kansas State or St. John’s into stalking horses to bid up offers.

Using EvanMiya’s forecasts for Bayesian Performance Rating, we can see that the quality of centers in the transfer market is similar. The forces outlined above might have programs shelling out more dollars for relatively equal talent. This is also another reason why it would be handy to have a precise accounting of NIL compensation across the sport.

I’m in the same camp as college football wonk Parker Fleming, thinking that the real differentiator won’t be the size of a program’s bankroll. Sure, a handful of programs could still splash the cash. However, schools anticipating market forces and using those insights can build rosters ahead of the curve.

Intelligent programs might find it cost-effective to develop solutions in-house. That means returning to the high-school market, identifying prospects who fit, developing them on campus, and paying to retain that talent as it improves. Aside from efficiently deploying NIL, a program manufactures another important commodity: roster continuity.

Of course, the sport’s transitory and transactional nature likely means compromising to use a scheme that splits the difference.

At last weekend’s EYBL stop, the only live period of the spring, coaching staffs weren’t just tracking top targets. They were slipping off to watch players they might want to pursue in the portal two years from now. As one national scout aptly said, “Send a guy out to bring him back home.” In an interview last week, Toledo’s Tod Kowalczyk admitted his staff has pushed him to be more open to the Rockets acting as a “stepping stone” to high-major finishing schools.

Prioritizing Reed and even Pepperdine transfer Jevon Porter makes sense through that prism. Each had logged two years of collegiate experience and flashed potential. What they needed were programs whose model could yield consistency. Ultimately, Reed picked the defending national champs, who can boast about Adama Sanogo and Donovan Clingan. Meanwhile, the Porter family’s close ties to Lorenzo Romar endured as he moved to Loyola Marymount.

Don’t get me wrong, Josh Gray is a solid backup option in this market. His game fits some essential needs for MU, while his forecasted BPR (2.64) is right around the average for a top 50 center in the portal this spring. His ceiling might not be vaulted, but the floor is sturdy. He also fits into MU’s budget, which has to underwrite retaining Tamar Bates and Caleb Grill while rounding up a 10-man recruiting class that’s among the top 15 nationally.

Adding Gray, however, comes with added opportunity cost in not getting to develop Butler. While the freshman’s transition to SEC play came with turbulence, his last 10 games offered some promise. Butler’s presence on the floor during that closing stretch didn’t dent the Tigers’ net rating. Lastly, Butler’s forecasted BPR (1.82) isn’t far behind the veteran taking his spot. Gates and associate head coach Charlton Young can also boast about identifying and molding post players while at Florida State.

Down the line, this spring might have taught us that the best search tactic is to not launch one at all. But if the goal has been to balance needs, finances, and risk, Gray’s addition might strike a fragile — and necessary — balance.