Can you point to the "references" that call Missouri a basketball powerhouse? From me or anyone else?
Big 12 North?
- Thread starter QBUMizzou
- Start date
Can you point to the "references" that call Missouri a basketball powerhouse? From me or anyone else?
Now I have heard EVERYTHING. MU won't recruit KC as well because they moved to the SEC? Seriously?
Maybe you're right. And maybe Mizzou won't be able to recruit COLUMBIA very well either. After all, nobody there has followed the SEC before.
I'll cut you guys a lot of slack, but this might be the most ridiculous realignment outcome yet mentioned . You know they're not PHYSICALLY moving the MU campus to the southeast, right?
Why exactly would MU lose recruits to those schools? NU doesn't even play in this conference. KU and ISU are in a constant state of rebuilding. KSU is still in Manhattan.
Just because I'm not doing a victory dance on CF doesn't mean I'm not thrilled about the SEC move. I am. Normally, fearful people don't react with overwhelming joy and relief when their "fears" are realized.
For claiming that they don't care, the Beakers and Kitties in KC sure spend a lot of time discussing Mizzou's move. But don't be fooled; they don't represent the whole of the KC fanbase. KC is still in Missouri. That's SEC country now.
I was refering to this comment. "You don't think it's noteworthy that half of the Big 12 north is gone? "
Sorry, I had a dumb On!!:spinny:
Now I have heard EVERYTHING. MU won't recruit KC as well because they moved to the SEC? Seriously?
Maybe you're right. And maybe Mizzou won't be able to recruit COLUMBIA very well either. After all, nobody there has followed the SEC before.
I'll cut you guys a lot of slack, but this might be the most ridiculous realignment outcome yet mentioned . You know they're not PHYSICALLY moving the MU campus to the southeast, right?
Why exactly would MU lose recruits to those schools? NU doesn't even play in this conference. KU and ISU are in a constant state of rebuilding. KSU is still in Manhattan.
Just because I'm not doing a victory dance on CF doesn't mean I'm not thrilled about the SEC move. I am. Normally, fearful people don't react with overwhelming joy and relief when their "fears" are realized.
For claiming that they don't care, the Beakers and Kitties in KC sure spend a lot of time discussing Mizzou's move. But don't be fooled; they don't represent the whole of the KC fanbase. KC is still in Missouri. That's SEC country now.
I think the problem we all have here is, it appears you are doing a victory dance on CF. Which is why no one is really interested in reading it. I'm also beginning to wonder how your comments are advancing any legitimate discussion at this point.
Last edited:
Now I have heard EVERYTHING. MU won't recruit KC as well because they moved to the SEC? Seriously?
Maybe you're right. And maybe Mizzou won't be able to recruit COLUMBIA very well either. After all, nobody there has followed the SEC before.
I'll cut you guys a lot of slack, but this might be the most ridiculous realignment outcome yet mentioned . You know they're not PHYSICALLY moving the MU campus to the southeast, right?
Why exactly would MU lose recruits to those schools? NU doesn't even play in this conference. KU and ISU are in a constant state of rebuilding. KSU is still in Manhattan.
Just because I'm not doing a victory dance on CF doesn't mean I'm not thrilled about the SEC move. I am. Normally, fearful people don't react with overwhelming joy and relief when their "fears" are realized.
For claiming that they don't care, the Beakers and Kitties in KC sure spend a lot of time discussing Mizzou's move. But don't be fooled; they don't represent the whole of the KC fanbase. KC is still in Missouri. That's SEC country now.
Just keep living in denial son. You think that KC kids don't enjoy getting to play neighboring states such as Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska? You think that didn't use to mean a little extra to them? You think the Border War means as much in Sikeston as it does in St. Joseph? Now you tell me who is living in denial.
There is no question that this move will affect Missouri's influence in the KC region. That is inarguable, unless of course you are a mouth-breathing tigger fan. The question is only how much, and only time will tell. You know this, as do most rational people, and you are scared to admit it, as your response so clearly demonstrates.
So yes, enjoy your move. Take your 2 national championships and 7 Big12 championships on with you. We will keep on overachieving and building towards the future with our 19 national championships and our 12 Big12 titles. Suck on that.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOkEoA30DLM"]FB: Troy Davis vs. Missouri (1996) - YouTube[/ame]
For the next year or two when they still remember Missouri as the new addition to the conference...
Then five years from now people will wonder who the hell that is kinda like they do right now with Vanderbilt.
KC is in Missouri geographically but that's it. KC is already a bigger KU city than Mizzou and I think this move will make it a wider margin in the future.
Now I have heard EVERYTHING. MU won't recruit KC as well because they moved to the SEC? Seriously?
Maybe you're right. And maybe Mizzou won't be able to recruit COLUMBIA very well either. After all, nobody there has followed the SEC before.
I'll cut you guys a lot of slack, but this might be the most ridiculous realignment outcome yet mentioned . You know they're not PHYSICALLY moving the MU campus to the southeast, right?
Why exactly would MU lose recruits to those schools? NU doesn't even play in this conference. KU and ISU are in a constant state of rebuilding. KSU is still in Manhattan.
Just because I'm not doing a victory dance on CF doesn't mean I'm not thrilled about the SEC move. I am. Normally, fearful people don't react with overwhelming joy and relief when their "fears" are realized.
For claiming that they don't care, the Beakers and Kitties in KC sure spend a lot of time discussing Mizzou's move. But don't be fooled; they don't represent the whole of the KC fanbase. KC is still in Missouri. That's SEC country now.
Your forgetting that KCMO is closer to Lawrence and KU than it is to Columbia. Lot's of KU people in KC, so it's not SEC country anymore. Big XII basketball tourney is there as well. Good luck getting a tourney in STL or KC for the SEC.
He must be referring to the commentary about their impressive NCAA Tournament run last season. :wideeyed:
Cincinnati Cruises To 78-63 Win Over Missouri In The NCAA Tournament - SBNation.com
I think the B12 is stable for the short-run, which is the next 6 years in which the GOR is in effect. The question is: Will the league stabilize for the long-run? I don't think we know the answer to the question yet; however, the path to realizing stability is clear. Will the Big 12's Tier 3 revenue scheme be successful?
We know Kansas has made about $10M per year for quite some years by selling its Tier 3 basketball games. It was Kansas' success that caught Texas' attention. And yes, I do think an additional $10M per year is in the realm of "success." This is significant additional income.
My school, Texas, had only been making something like $200,000 per year off Tier 3 revenue as we had no plan in place to develop same. Now Texas does. The LHN. Amazingly, ESPN agreed to pay Texas $300M over something like 20 years, which, after ESPN recoups its $300M (if it does), then Texas gets 70% of the net proceeds thereafter. Some speculate the deal could be worth $1B to Texas over the life of the contract.
There are 2 critical schools in the B12 that can undermine the league's continued existence: Texas and Oklahoma. There is no other conference out there, including the SEC, which will allow Texas to keep the LHN in its present configuration except one: The Big 12. Independence is not a realistic option for Texas due to its non-football sports. Texas officials have stated time and again that independence is not an option for Texas. Texas will not go independent.
If the LHN finds success, then Texas will stay in the Big 12 long-term. If the LHN is successful, I would guess that Texas stays in the Big 12 even if Oklahoma were to leave the B12, which I believe is very doubtful (and you already know the most common reasons for that doubt). But also keep in mind that OU, too, is working on a school network. Like Texas, if OU's network is successful, then OU drops all thoughts of going elsewhere, too. Plus, OU is apparently linked to OSU, which is apparently a very heavy anchor for the Oklahoma schools if they look elsewhere.
In fact, given that the B12 embraces atypical revenue streams with respect to Tier 3 income, which no other conference, including the SEC, allows to the extent the Big 12 does, it may well be that if networks like the LHN are successful, other schools will swiftly see the advantage to obtaining same. Perhaps a FSU comes knocking someday, for example? Or maybe a Notre Dame, who knows?
Texas is going nowhere for 6 years. Neither is OU. If their respective networks thrive, then they will never go anywhere in all reasonable probability. Hence, long-term stability may not be far away. Many schools hate the LHN. I suggest that for the other schools in the B12, the LHN is the key to league stability, and, hopefully, will illuminate the path for additional revenue streams for all schools.
I do hope that ISU also jumps into network building. An ISU network might well catapult ISU far beyond IU going into the future. Iowa certainly cannot put anything up to compete with an ISU network under current B1G rules. ISU is a very important part of the B12, and everyone wants ISU to stay, prosper, and succeed.
We know Kansas has made about $10M per year for quite some years by selling its Tier 3 basketball games. It was Kansas' success that caught Texas' attention. And yes, I do think an additional $10M per year is in the realm of "success." This is significant additional income.
My school, Texas, had only been making something like $200,000 per year off Tier 3 revenue as we had no plan in place to develop same. Now Texas does. The LHN. Amazingly, ESPN agreed to pay Texas $300M over something like 20 years, which, after ESPN recoups its $300M (if it does), then Texas gets 70% of the net proceeds thereafter. Some speculate the deal could be worth $1B to Texas over the life of the contract.
There are 2 critical schools in the B12 that can undermine the league's continued existence: Texas and Oklahoma. There is no other conference out there, including the SEC, which will allow Texas to keep the LHN in its present configuration except one: The Big 12. Independence is not a realistic option for Texas due to its non-football sports. Texas officials have stated time and again that independence is not an option for Texas. Texas will not go independent.
If the LHN finds success, then Texas will stay in the Big 12 long-term. If the LHN is successful, I would guess that Texas stays in the Big 12 even if Oklahoma were to leave the B12, which I believe is very doubtful (and you already know the most common reasons for that doubt). But also keep in mind that OU, too, is working on a school network. Like Texas, if OU's network is successful, then OU drops all thoughts of going elsewhere, too. Plus, OU is apparently linked to OSU, which is apparently a very heavy anchor for the Oklahoma schools if they look elsewhere.
In fact, given that the B12 embraces atypical revenue streams with respect to Tier 3 income, which no other conference, including the SEC, allows to the extent the Big 12 does, it may well be that if networks like the LHN are successful, other schools will swiftly see the advantage to obtaining same. Perhaps a FSU comes knocking someday, for example? Or maybe a Notre Dame, who knows?
Texas is going nowhere for 6 years. Neither is OU. If their respective networks thrive, then they will never go anywhere in all reasonable probability. Hence, long-term stability may not be far away. Many schools hate the LHN. I suggest that for the other schools in the B12, the LHN is the key to league stability, and, hopefully, will illuminate the path for additional revenue streams for all schools.
I do hope that ISU also jumps into network building. An ISU network might well catapult ISU far beyond IU going into the future. Iowa certainly cannot put anything up to compete with an ISU network under current B1G rules. ISU is a very important part of the B12, and everyone wants ISU to stay, prosper, and succeed.
Good Post. I completely agree...until your last paragraph. That is way off.
ISU will never catapult far beyond Iowa. A 3rd tier network really only brings in a fraction of a team's TV revenue. So the revenue isn't a huge deal. If the 3rd tier network is about prestige, I don't see that being a huge deal either.
And ISU being a very important part of the Big 12? As much as everybody likes to trash ISU, the reality is that we're just an average member of the Big 12. We don't make or break the conference. In reality, we're like Mizzou minus the trashy fans and big # of TV sets in the state. If the Big 12 exists for 10 more years, we'll be competitive in football and basketball. The last 5 years have been rough, but things will be on an upswing. We'll have good years and bad just like Mizzou. Are we replaceable? Yes, just like most every other member, but we're a lot more competitive than most realize.
I really think you sell ISU short, cyman05. First, remember: Kansas brings in $10M a year in its Tier 3 basketball revenue. Yes, Kansas is an elite basketball school, but the Kansas fanbase -- Is it any larger than the ISU fanbase? Ten million dollars per year is a lot of money for any university.
If ISU set up a nice, professional school network (you have the know-how to do it at Iowa State University), I bet you would watch it, cyman05. As would a lot of Iowa, South Dakota, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas high school kids and potential recruits. I think a Cyclone Network would be a bonanza for ISU, not just financially, but also in recruiting your state footprint and surrounding areas. That's how you could eclipse Iowa. And Missouri.
Look, I'm not here to shill the LHN to you -- I know ISU fans could care less about the LHN -- but this coming weekend (Fri 6 thru Sunday), ESPN is providing the LHN over the internet for free (trying to drum up Texas' fan interest to influence the big carriers). Why don't you tune into the LHN for a few minutes this weekend, and then extrapolate all the Longhorn programming into Cyclone programming? I guarantee you, you will immediately perceive the possibilities for ISU. Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/longhornnetwork/
Watch only 30 minutes, and you'll see what I mean. Practice reports, game highlights, coaches' comments, etc., etc. It's really, really cool. No other conference allows school programming in the way the Big 12 does. Watch 30 minutes and then tell me you don't think an ISU network would be a big deal. Tell me that big-time QB over in Mason City or Souix Falls isn't going to tune into a Cyclone Network his senior year just because he can. But you have to set up the network if you want the kids to tune into it.
Another thing: While ISU may be average in sports in most years, you guys are absolutely not average in academics. You are full-scale AAU, and have been for years and years. ISU, Kansas, and Texas are the only schools that are keeping the Big 12 Conference from becoming the Big Dummy Conference. As a university with research prestige, ISU really is not replaceable, at least not easily. Texas likes Tulane as a potential conference member precisely because it is AAU (ok, ok, trips to the Big Easy may have something to do with it as well).
You know, maybe someday you guys will get that offer from the B1G, I don't know, and nobody will begrudge you for going to the B1G if and when that day comes. Until then, any thinking fan of the Big 12 is damn glad you guys are a part of the Big 12 conference, and I hope ISU takes advantage of the benefits available in our conference.
If ISU set up a nice, professional school network (you have the know-how to do it at Iowa State University), I bet you would watch it, cyman05. As would a lot of Iowa, South Dakota, Missouri, Minnesota, Kansas high school kids and potential recruits. I think a Cyclone Network would be a bonanza for ISU, not just financially, but also in recruiting your state footprint and surrounding areas. That's how you could eclipse Iowa. And Missouri.
Look, I'm not here to shill the LHN to you -- I know ISU fans could care less about the LHN -- but this coming weekend (Fri 6 thru Sunday), ESPN is providing the LHN over the internet for free (trying to drum up Texas' fan interest to influence the big carriers). Why don't you tune into the LHN for a few minutes this weekend, and then extrapolate all the Longhorn programming into Cyclone programming? I guarantee you, you will immediately perceive the possibilities for ISU. Here's the link: http://espn.go.com/longhornnetwork/
Watch only 30 minutes, and you'll see what I mean. Practice reports, game highlights, coaches' comments, etc., etc. It's really, really cool. No other conference allows school programming in the way the Big 12 does. Watch 30 minutes and then tell me you don't think an ISU network would be a big deal. Tell me that big-time QB over in Mason City or Souix Falls isn't going to tune into a Cyclone Network his senior year just because he can. But you have to set up the network if you want the kids to tune into it.
Another thing: While ISU may be average in sports in most years, you guys are absolutely not average in academics. You are full-scale AAU, and have been for years and years. ISU, Kansas, and Texas are the only schools that are keeping the Big 12 Conference from becoming the Big Dummy Conference. As a university with research prestige, ISU really is not replaceable, at least not easily. Texas likes Tulane as a potential conference member precisely because it is AAU (ok, ok, trips to the Big Easy may have something to do with it as well).
You know, maybe someday you guys will get that offer from the B1G, I don't know, and nobody will begrudge you for going to the B1G if and when that day comes. Until then, any thinking fan of the Big 12 is damn glad you guys are a part of the Big 12 conference, and I hope ISU takes advantage of the benefits available in our conference.
I think you're GROSSLY underestimating the cost, time, and complexity of setting up a dedicated cable/satellite network with content focused on just one team. There is a reason the BTN partnered with Fox Sports, and the LHN partnered with ESPN to develop their networks: putting together a high-quality engaging television product is REALLY, REALLY hard!
MU owns the NBC affiliate for central Missouri, and even with that resource, nobody seriously entertained the notion of a Mizzou-only network. Anything locally developed by a single school would have "Boom Goes the Dynamite" talent and production quality.
There's no proven model that ANY single team has the resources, visibility, and regional or national fanbase to make the economics of a single-team network viable...UT included. If it as simple as you describe, it would have been tried prior to the LHN.
CONFERENCES have those elements, and that's why you're seeing more of them follow the BTN model of pooling Tier 3 content and packaging it with other sports and analysis, distributed at a higher per subscriber cost within the conference's region.
I just can't see how the ability to lose a bunch of money trying to market your own Tier 3 content is a selling point for other teams to join the Big 12?
What's more, when did academics become a key component of this conference? The Big 12 was never set up to be a collection of top-quality academic institutions - it was set up to match the eyeball-rich, regionally-weak SWAC refugees with the regionally-solid, eyeball-poor Big 8, in the hopes of creating some lucrative football matchups.
To be fair, neither the SEC nor the Big East was, either. Only the Big 10 and the Pac 12 claim to be academically superior. (a claim that might be in doubt with the additions of Nebraska and Utah, respectively)
Heck, I'm just happy that, with the N-S divisions gone, it is now much easier to see that the Big 8 continues its run of dominating the top 3 slots in the conference, even without Nebraska or the once-good Colorado (i.e., only the "Big 6" remain).
The interesting thing about re-alignment's impact on the old conference is that it really hasn't been that big of a deal.
CU going away was a trifle: they were as much of an outlier as West Virginia - just on the other side of the "Midwest." Plus they had gotten annoyingly bad.
I would have thought that the loss of Nebraska would have hurt the conference more, but, in exchange for one "extra" solid opponent, we instead "enjoy" the benefits of a rigorous round-robin.
TCU is a lateral replacement for A&M, if not an on-field upgrade.
If it makes economic sense, I am really enjoying the structure of the 10-team conference. It actually hearkens back to the old Big 8 in surprising ways, but without the quality issues you can run into in some years with too small of a conference.
The interesting thing about re-alignment's impact on the old conference is that it really hasn't been that big of a deal.
CU going away was a trifle: they were as much of an outlier as West Virginia - just on the other side of the "Midwest." Plus they had gotten annoyingly bad.
I would have thought that the loss of Nebraska would have hurt the conference more, but, in exchange for one "extra" solid opponent, we instead "enjoy" the benefits of a rigorous round-robin.
TCU is a lateral replacement for A&M, if not an on-field upgrade.
If it makes economic sense, I am really enjoying the structure of the 10-team conference. It actually hearkens back to the old Big 8 in surprising ways, but without the quality issues you can run into in some years with too small of a conference.
