Missouri Will Not Move to the SEC<<<

[QBUMizzou]

I realize this is an ISU board, and that there is already a thread about Mizzou (Haith situation) today, so I apologize if this thread is offensive.

However, I know there has been a lot of talk about Mizzou potentially moving to the SEC with Texas A&M. From what I have read on this board, ISU fans want Mizzou to stay. I think you are going to get your wish.

Here's why.

1. I believe Mike Alden. He has said that the university has had no communication with the SEC. All of the officials from the SEC confirm this. IMO, A&M wants Mizzou to move with them to soften public criticism, and to create a new western front. They are trying to use Mizzou just as the Big 10 did last year. I don't think it's going to work because Mizzou will not make the first move in that direction.

2. The current chairman of the Board of the Big 12 is from Mizzou. His name is Brady Deaton. He has repeatedly stated that Mizzou is not leaving. The idea of Mizzou negotiating a conference transition while its president is serving as the Big 12 Chairman is a PR nightmare. I do not think Missouri officials want that kind of egg on their face.

3. Mizzou officials want to maintain a middle-America identity. This could continue in the Big Ten, but not the SEC. There is a huge cultural divide. It is possible that Mizzou will ride out expansionpalooza until the Big 12 completely folds or merges with another conference. This is a possibility on two fronts: Mountain West schools merge into the Big 12, or a combination of Big East/ACC and Big 12 schools merge.

No one is certain about anything relating to expansion, but everything out of Columbia, Kansas City and St. Louis is pointing to Mizzou staying. Mizzou is letting others drive this bus, trusting that the destination is desirable and profitable. Of course, this is maddening to me because I feel Mizzou should continue to flirt with other conferences or risk being left in the cold.

.

 

[StLouisClone]

Good. I can see the Big 12 surviving (and maybe even thriving) if Mizzou stays put.

 

[Frak]

I believe that Mizzou is too big of a player to be left out in the cold. They can wield too many TV sets.

 

[cstrunk]

I hope you are right, I'd like to see them stay. It means that the Big 12 will likely be around for a while yet.

 

[Goldfinger]

I think most Cyclone fans want to believe you and we want mizzou also, the remaining 9 Big12 schools need to stick together and I have no reason to believe that they won't. We'll replace A&M and move on. BYU will be a more than adequate replacement and I for one am not ruling out adding Notre Dame and a third school as well.

 

[isuno1fan]

This seems obvious

 

[QBUMizzou]

I think most Cyclone fans want to believe you and we want mizzou also, the remaining 9 Big12 schools need to stick together and I have no reason to believe that they won't. We'll replace A&M and move on. BYU will be a more than adequate replacement and I for one am not ruling out adding Notre Dame and a third school as well.

I'm just a fan, friend, albeit a rather rabid one. :spinny:

I could be completely wrong, but Mizzou is handling the SEC situation far differently than they handled the Big Ten's overtures last year. There were no public denials last year, but just about everyone with the university has dog-piled on the SEC "rumor." They have all (seriously all) said there is no substance to it.

Now, things could change. Maybe the SEC makes a call and Mizzou is forced to accept or decline it, but I see no reason for the school to outright deny the rumor other than simple truthfulness.

Seeing this reaction makes me reevaluate the Big Ten debacle of last year. I now believe the Big Ten really did contact Mizzou. The school never would confirm or deny it happened. Unfortunately the powers-that-be at Missouri weren't good at expansion poker, and didn't realize they were being played for a fool.

 

[QBUMizzou]

This seems obvious

Perhaps, but I think I speak for a lot of Mizzou fans when I say we are tired of seeing the school's name tied to every expansion rumor over the past year. The school gets compared to a slut because the perception is that "we're lifting our skirt" at other conferences when, in fact, most of the chatter is fan and media driven.

IMO, we haven't been proactive enough, and have let the media create a perception that is fictitious and harmful.

 

[Cydkar]

I think ISU, Baylor, and T. Tech are the Big 12 schools that are probably most at risk. KSU also if they aren't tied to KU at all.

 

[CloneIce]

3. Mizzou officials want to maintain a middle-America identity. This could continue in the Big Ten, but not the SEC. There is a huge cultural divide.

Yep, and the dividing line of the cultural divide is basically I-70. KC, St. Louis, Columbia are basically part of the Midwest/North. South of those cities, you enter Missouraaaah, which in many ways has more in common with the South than the Midwest/North.

 

[GMan]

Correct me if I'm wrong QBUMizzou, but it's my understanding that the reason Mizzou wanted to go to the Big 10 last year was almost solely driven by the fact that Big 12 TV revenues were so bad. Unlike Nebraska and Texas A&M, whose moves are mostly driven by Texas envy, Mizzou is really only interested in the economics. Now that the Big 12 TV revenue is on par with the Big 10 and SEC, they really don't have a reason to move except for stability. However, even if conference Armageddon goes down, there's a 0% chance Mizzou will be left out, so they are safe even if they just sit around and wait for things to unfold before making a move.

 

[benjay]

Losing Missouri or Kansas/K State would be devastating from ISU's perspective. The partnership we have is just about the only security we have should the Big 12 implode.

 

[Goldfinger]

Perhaps, but I think I speak for a lot of Mizzou fans when I say we are tired of seeing the school's name tied to every expansion rumor over the past year. The school gets compared to a slut because the perception is that "we're lifting our skirt" at other conferences when, in fact, most of the chatter is fan and media driven.

IMO, we haven't been proactive enough, and have let the media create a perception that is fictitious and harmful.

The fact that the Missouri chancellor is the the chairman of the Big 12 board of directors is all I need to know. He would have very little professional integrity to sit in charge of that group and deny mizzou's interest in SEC if it weren't true.

 

[Three4Cy]

I'm just a fan, friend, albeit a rather rabid one. :spinny:

I could be completely wrong, but Mizzou is handling the SEC situation far differently than they handled the Big Ten's overtures last year. There were no public denials last year, but just about everyone with the university has dog-piled on the SEC "rumor." They have all (seriously all) said there is no substance to it.

Now, things could change. Maybe the SEC makes a call and Mizzou is forced to accept or decline it, but I see no reason for the school to outright deny the rumor other than simple truthfulness.

Seeing this reaction makes me reevaluate the Big Ten debacle of last year. I now believe the Big Ten really did contact Mizzou. The school never would confirm or deny it happened. Unfortunately the powers-that-be at Missouri weren't good at expansion poker, and didn't realize they were being played for a fool.

Missouri would need to apply before they can be accepted/declined. The SEC doesn't want to play with fire and poach a team, Missouri would be the one making the move.

Overall, the perception is Missouri seems pretty content with the Big12.

 

[ricochet]

Correct me if I'm wrong QBUMizzou, but it's my understanding that the reason Mizzou wanted to go to the Big 10 last year was almost solely driven by the fact that Big 12 TV revenues were so bad.

I think Missouri has wanted to go to the Big 10 since the Big 8 days. Last year I never got the impression that getting out of the Big 12 was their primary motive, but rather getting into the Big 10 was. Nebraska and Texas A&M on the other hand both just want to get away from Texas. I think Colorado has always had an urge to go to the Pac 10 but I think they paniced a little and jumped the gun when they thought the Big 12 was going down in flames.

 

[CyDude16]

I don't believe for a second that Mizzou had a legitimate shot at the SEC. I was waiting for a debacle like last summer. Boy that was funny.

 

[justcynn]

Perhaps, but I think I speak for a lot of Mizzou fans when I say we are tired of seeing the school's name tied to every expansion rumor over the past year. The school gets compared to a slut because the perception is that "we're lifting our skirt" at other conferences when, in fact, most of the chatter is fan and media driven.

IMO, we haven't been proactive enough, and have let the media create a perception that is fictitious and harmful.

1) I hope Missouri Stays 2) Obviously they thought they had their ticket punched to the Big 10 last time, made some noise thinking they were exiting and were not invited, so no I don't buy what anyone at Missouri says or doesn't say. The embarrassment of talking about it and being snubbed again would be too much. 3) Missouri has had a heck of a run on football for several years now, no way they continue that in the SEC unless they are willing to do some serious cheating.

 

[cyingreen]

I do hope Mizzou stays put. They are close, and the fans I've met from down there are as good as opposing fans get.

If UT were really concerned with conference well being and stability, they'd be out in front of having the TV revenues divided equally among conference members, like the Big 10/12 and SEC do it. End of problems and squabbling.

I understand the un-even distribution based on demographics (I guess), but still, if the Horns truly wanted contented, loyal, never a bad word about the situation conference members, they'd be wanting to even up the money.

 

[Sammy11]

Glad to hear this if in fact MIZ-ZOU is sticking around! Now lets go get BYU!

 

[Klubber]

I do hope Mizzou stays put. They are close, and the fans I've met from down there are as good as opposing fans get.

If UT were really concerned with conference well being and stability, they'd be out in front of having the TV revenues divided equally among conference members, like the Big 10/12 and SEC do it. End of problems and squabbling.

I understand the un-even distribution based on demographics (I guess), but still, if the Horns truly wanted contented, loyal, never a bad word about the situation conference members, they'd be wanting to even up the money.

The Big XII basically shares TV revenue equally now. The split was changed following conference spring meetings. It's now 76% split equally, 24% split according to TV appearances. That 24% encourages schools to play a challenging non-conference schedule (more likely to get on TV). It also encourages schools to change games say scheduled on a Sat. to say a nationally televised open slot on ESPN Thurs. night. In that scenario, the Big XII conference also would reimburse the school for any lost ticket revenue from moving the game.

I actually really like our revenue sharing model. Note this change occurred only after Nebby left the conference, which tells you a lot about who really was against anything approaching equal revenue sharing.