They don't care, because they get to chant SEC. They'll take 0-12 to do that stupid chant.
Mizzou to SEC "inevitable and imminent"
- Thread starter ISU_Alum_2000
- Start date
They don't care, because they get to chant SEC. They'll take 0-12 to do that stupid chant.
Can somebody please help me with the definition of "imminent" as at is in Missouri? It seems to me that this "imminent" move is a week old and the overall Mizzou to the SEC thing has been brewing for much longer. I have to think that if they were actually going anywhere, this would be done already.
Maybe...it's not like we haven't been there before.
Although, if we still have 4 NC games, our scheduling strategy is going to be even softer than it was before. We usually sign up 1 BCS opponent, 1-2 mid-majors (like the MAC or MWC), and 1 FCS school. You play an SEC schedule, and you don't need to worry about SOS.
So that's 3-4 wins right there. Even if only beat Vandy and Kentucky, we're still about bowl eligible. Sneak out another win or two, and that's a successful season.
I'm not arguing we won't get killed by the top of the SEC. But I don't think we'll lose to EVERY SINGLE middle team (Ole Miss, MSU, Ark., SC, etc.) EVERY SINGLE year.
Even when we stunk, we still routinely drew 50K+ for home games. It'll be fun to see what happens.
It's my opinion (and I could be totally off on this as I can only read so much of the super thread and I only get my info here), but I think Slive wants Mizzou. I just don't think that the rest of the SEC does. I think aTm had an informal invite all along. A definite, "We'll take you when you are ready." thing. I don't think Mizzou has that at all. They seem to love to raise a stink and be very vocal about every little piece of info they get, but they haven't gotten anything that allows them to jump out and say "We are gone no matter what." I believe you, if they could go to the SEC, they'd be gone.
I'm definitely at a point now where I can't wait til they go. I believe they are the last piece that's holding up any kind of stability in the Big XII. Get rid of the cry baby members and lets find schools that would actually like to be here. I'm going to miss the old Big XII, but for crying out lout I'm sick of hearing about Misouri. They've been in the center of this crap since it started last year. Just go and be gone so the rest of us can get back to football. If you don't, you know we'll hear the same crap next year. Not to mention, will they ever sign the grant of rights, even if they don't go to the SEC? If we don't get rid of mizzou, imo, the stability gets even worse next year.
So....you're ok with success at Mizzou being 7-8 win seasons, when it could be BCS seasons in the Big 12?
We are gone no matter what. :smile:
(actually...I have no inside information on that. But it's the only thing that makes sense at this point)
I don't disagree with you; TAMU is the prize, and Missouri is the nice round number that can provide a good sized TV market and decent competition. I do disagree that we've "raised a stink" over the past few months. Show me one published report of a identified Mizzou administrator bashing the Big 12, other members schools, or publically praising the SEC in the past 6 months. They haven't.
Maybe they learned from last year's debacle...who knows?
Mizzou is under no obligation to meet anyone's timeline but the Big 12 (who've given them until the end of the year) and the SEC.
Why would the board give Deaton first the authority to explore new conferences, and THEN the authority to actually sign with a new conference if they didn't know what was about to happen? And why would Deaton, Alden, etc. support a move if they didn't know for sure that the SEC would take them?
If this WAS just a ploy to get UT to cave to demands...what are they? We knew the he said/she said details from the OU/UT almost-to-the-Pac-12 runaround a month ago. How could MU's "demands" not leak out, in the most over-reported city on Earth (Columbia)?
Is the Big 12 really that much of a dogs*** league compared to the SEC? I totally disagree.
Who are the "weak" programs in the Big 12 this year? When lowly TTU can knock off Oklahoma on the road? KSU is tough, OKSt. is tougher still. OU and UT are always high profile. So's TAMU.
Granted, the top of the SEC has proven itself better than the the top of the Big 12 for several years. But there are more weak sisters in the SEC than you realize. Especially when you don't have to play every team like in the 10-team Big 12.
In fact, I'd say it EASIER to pad your record with 4 OOC games in the SEC East than it is in the B12, at least this year.
I still say, because if the SEC really wanted you that badly, you'd be in the fold now, so they could work out all the scheduling as soon as possible. You may be gone, but I'm not sold that the SEC is 100% sure where you'll land.
Meh, it's just like the thought of ISU going to the B1G. Yeah, this year it would have been nice to have that schedule. But in reality, our recruiting lanes change and who we compete with for those recruits change. So to say in 3 or 4 years we still have the same level of talent on our team as we do today, is a pretty big stretch. No matter what the schedule looks like, your recruiting strategy is going to change and I'm not convinced that you'll be bringing in the same talent you were before. Just because the weak sisters of the SEC looks like an easier path now, doesn't mean it will be in 3 or 4 years when you are competing with all of them for recruits.
The real question is when will Mizzoulander be gone? Take you little SEC woody somewhere else.
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
The SEC is that much better, yes. The big difference between the SEC and the Big 12 (or any other conference) is that their top programs are always top programs. Florida hasn't had fewer than 6 wins in a season since 1979. Georgia and LSU have been to a bowl game every year in the past decade. Other than the 08/09 fluke, Auburn has finished 1st or 2nd in their division in that same time span. Alabama is one the most storied programs in history and almost always has a chance. South Carolina and Arkansas are on the uptick and are establishing themselves as perennial threats.
The Big 12 has only Texas and Oklahoma to rival this level of consistency, and even they have faltered as of late. Probably the most telling fact is that 4 different SEC teams have won the last 5 national championships, whereas the Big 12 has raked in one in the past decade.
If only you Missery clowns realized just how in over your heads you are...
You and I must have different definitions of what constitutes of a "top program." Six wins per year? Seriously? That's a sign of not being really bad. Not a sign of a top program. Florida's had a great run, and they'll continue to be good. But they're not elite this year.
I'm impressed by UGA and LSU's bowl record. You know who else who has been to a bowl for ELEVEN straight years? The mighty Red Raiders of Texas Tech. Very intimidating. There's too many bowls.
I'm confused as to how EVERY team in a conference can be elite. They all play EACH OTHER, right?
I'm not arguing that the top of the SEC isn't better than the top of the Big 12. It is. I'm saying that you're GROSSLY overestimating the middle. If not, how is lowly Mizzou 8-2 against the SEC over the past 10 years?
Well if Arkansas and South Carolina are on the up tick so are Mizzou and Okie St. Sure LSU and Bama are elite but besides that, the B12 and SEC are very similar, as of now.
D
DistrictCyclone
Guest
Can you tell me how many seasons the Gators have had where they've won 6 games or less in the last 32 years? Not very damned many (hint: it's greater than 0, but less than 2). Missery's 5-year ride doesn't even hold a flame to that kind of dominance. You're an absolute fool if you don't count UF among the top 5 programs of this generation.
And how many of Texas Tech's bowls have been BCS? How many national championships have they won? If you're honestly trying to put them in the same league as LSU and UGA, again, you're an absolute fool.
I assume your 8-2 record includes A&M? Also note that it doesn't include Florida, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, or Tennessee...you think that maybe, just maybe, your record would look a little different if you'd played them in the last 10 years? I'm sorry, but Ole Miss, Arkansas, and SC are not representative of the SEC as a whole. Not. Even. Close.
There is no middle in the SEC; in any given span, there are 4 perennial doormats (UK, Vandy, the Mississippi schools) and 8 teams that could finish the season ranked or even contend for a title (in fact, 8 schools have won one). The number of national championships held by the conference is second to only the Big 10, and most of theirs are from ancient history. The SEC's bowl record is hands-down the best of anyone's in recent memory. The league's teams become elite and stay elite by competing against themselves, which takes a huge amount of financial and fan support. Missery will have to boost their athletics budget and increase their stadium capacity by 50% just to be middle of the road in the SEC, and if it ever happens, who knows how long that will take to trickle down to results on the field.
Look, Missery's had a nice little 5-year run with Gary Pinkel, a couple good quarterbacks and some great receivers. But before 2007-2008, do you know when the last time Missery had double-digit wins was? 1960. That was also the last year you had an outright conference title. You have a losing record playing in Poulan Weedeater bowls. Christ, you're only dead even in your rivalry with Kansas, one of the most historically inept football programs ever. In the overall picture, these last 5 years are a fluke for you guys. Missery has done nothing--absolutely nothing--to demonstrate that they can be competitive in the SEC. All of the evidence suggests the exact opposite.
Last edited by a moderator:
What are we arguing about?
I completely agree, the SEC has the best collection of great teams in college football. Who WOULDN'T want to play against UGA, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida, etc.? That's why we're leaving.
And I agree, there are 4 "doormats" (depending on the year). Win your OOC games, and beat the doormats, and that's 6-8 wins per year. That's a good foundation to build on; most of us would be happy with that.
Nobody's expecting to compete with the SEC with a Big 12 budget. The athletics budget has steadily increased over the past decade. The facilities are on par with most other programs (or so said Adam Rittenberg, ESPN's Big 10 blogger). If we increased the capacity of Faurot Field by 50% (from 71K to 106.5K) we'd have the largest stadium in the conference (along with Tenn.) and one of the largest in the nation. That's PROBABLY not necessary...
The SEC TV payout is better, and very few on the Missouri side believe the optimistic numbers tossed around for the Big 12's next deal.
Let's be careful flinging those stones so close to the glass house, District. I can't believe I'm DEFENDING KU here, but most inept football program? Hardly.
LIFETIME WINNING PCT:
Missouri - .547
Kansas - .506
Iowa State - .461
Fortunately, there's KSU, and it's .433 winning pct. to make us all feel better.Missouri - .547
Kansas - .506
Iowa State - .461
You don't need to quote Missouri history for me. We were good, then we were just OK, then we were really bad, and now we're good again. It is what it is.
What I want to make clear is that even if we struggle in the SEC, we're still going to keep competing. Just like ISU wouldn't want to downgrade conferences despite their record, Missouri's not going to tire of the SEC because we lose a lot to elite teams. We do that already.
Lots of teams have moved conferences in the past 15 years. Show me ONE that wished they were in their old conference (assuming it is still around) after moving. Is Missouri going to be the first?
C
CyBer
Guest
Why is a Missouri fan on our boards? Does he not like his eyes bleeding from tigerboard? I can understand that.
