Missouri Blogger Responds to Josh Kroenke/Spencer Laurie Bashing Responses

Matt ThielSenior Analyst IJuly 23, 2008

Allow me to rant for a moment.

Yesterday I made a post speculating as to whether or not Tony Temple would have been granted his appeal had he not withdrawn it.  I compared his situation to that of former Tiger and current MO State b-baller Spencer Laurie, who was in a very similar situation and was given an extra year of eligibility. 
The entire post was purely speculative and hypothetical.  I admit it was somewhat of a non-issue, but I felt it was interesting to think about—and based on the 11 comments it's gotten so far, so have several people who choose to read this blog. 
I also did a little bashing of Laurie and his cousin Josh Kroenke in the post.  Well, leave it to Tigerboarders to read the post and immediately start making personal attacks on the postee.  You'll notice a Tigerboarder at the bottom of the page who refers to me as "trash" because I "don't know what I'm talking about" and "bash my own players."
I could use this space to discuss all the mindless stories coming out of Big 12 Media Day (Josh Freeman a No. 1 pick?  Really?), but that's no fun.  I would much rather provoke the Tigerboard crazies.  So let me refute those claims.
If you are going to say I don't know what I'm talking about, then please explain why you think that.  All I did was make a comparison and bring up a hypothetical situation.  That's what blogs do. 
And I suppose I shouldn't bash our own players.  I should ignore any flaws that may appear in their games, no matter how obvious, and argue that every one of them are wonderful players.
On second thought, Josh Kroenke was a great player.  The value of those 2.9 points per game he brought to the table during his senior year were immeasurable to our missing the NCAA Tournament.
And to everyone who says Kroenke and Laurie weren't great but solid players—you're wrong.  I'm sorry, but they were awful.  Laurie couldn't hack it running the point as a sophomore in a season where we were so desperate for point guard help that we decided to try the Randy Pully Experiment.
As for Kroenke, I'll say this: He was horrible defensively (slower than Matt Lawrence, if possible) and didn't bring much to the table offensively, but he didn't make a lot of mistakes.  But his forte was he was a pure shooter and a tough player.
Well, he shot 38 percent from the field (although 38 percent from behind the arc as well) and averaged 1.2 rebounds.  I do think he led the team in flagrant fouls though. 
Here's the problem I've had with Kroenke—he got way more minutes than he ever should have, and I think the reason probably had something to do with Papa Kroenke.  The guy started over Linas Kleiza, for crying out loud. 
Feel free to disagree with me on this.  I mean, I'm sure the family that used their money and influence to have a state of the art college basketball arena named after their daughter who had no connection to the university wouldn't use that same political clout to land their relatives basketball scholarships, right?