*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****
- Thread starter CloneFan4
- Start date
- Status
Might as well give it up. Some people can't get over that "shiny new toy" syndrome you reference. I'd bet my house if we had an offer to go to the P12 right now with KU that 50% of this board would be in favor of such a move. I'm proud to say I'm not one of them though.
SEC is in a bit of a pickle for #14. Sure they'd prefer another school, but I do think they would take Mizzou if the chance to was there since there are no guarantees they can steal anyone from the ACC.
Stupid move for Mizzou though as already discussed.
I actually don't think he would. Not unless the money were just miles and miles ahead of the Big 12 (which it isn't).
The only conference ISU would consider outside the B12 is the B10. SEC/PAC/ACC would not be considered.
I wouldn't claim to speak for ALL Mizzou fans, or even the ones who visit here at CF. From my perspective, we want the SEC because:
1. We are DESPERATELY afraid of being left behind when this conference mess finally plays out. Stability is the key to avoiding that, and no other conference (other than maybe the B1G) has more stability than the SEC.
2. We do NOT believe that the Big 12 will last long term. It's only a matter of time before TX/OU and others move to another conference, or go indy. The "handcuffs" of TV rights would bind most schools, but if you have deep enough pockets, you can negotiate your way out of anything. (or just dissolve the conference) At that point, it may be harder for MU to find a good landing spot.
3. We may get ****ed in the SEC (at first), but the big difference from the MWC is that we're going to get ****ed on a HUGE PILE OF MONEY. Money that can be used to improve our program, increase athletic budgets, fund other programs, etc. I don't see how TV networks that are unwilling to pay big bucks for L-ville, BYU, TCU, etc. games now are all of sudden going to pony up when they're a part of the Big 12.
4. I think we get to pay our players more in the SEC than in the Big 12, right?
I do worry that Mizzou hasn't historically taken football as "seriously" as much of the SEC. But we'll take our lumps, and we'll adjust. We'll get better. We've lived in the shadow of bigger, more historically successful programs before, and we've done fine. Nobody's ever jumped conferences and been a doormat forever.
If you're a true competitor, you want an opportunity to beat the best. If ISU fans didn't feel the same way, then they'd be satisfied to watch the Big 12 dissolve, move to the MWC, and enjoy whipping up on Wyoming or UNLV. But 15,000+ posts on this string prove that Cyclone fans are the same - they want to play in a major conference too, and get a shot a beating top-notch competition (even if wins are rare).
If/when the Big 12 falls apart, I hope ISU continues to get that shot.
This mentality is the very definition of self-fulfilling prophesy.
I disagree. I don't think any acc school would turn down an sec invite. No brainer for them.
Say waaat?
The Pac 10 is a cool conference. It has cool teams and hot babes. I'd join the Pac.
1) Will the university of Missouri be better represented academically by switching to the SEC?
Not being a university administrator, it's difficult for me to answer. Personally, both conferences seems pretty equal. Are UT, KU, and ISU better than Vandy and UF? Probably not. Neither conference was built primarily for academic reputation; however, one seems to be gaining AAU institutions (TAMU, MU?) and one seems to be losing them (NU, CU, TAMU).
2) Will UofM be significantly better off athletically by switching to the SEC?
Depends. On football win/loss record, probably not at first. But if you don't believe the Big 12 will exist as a major conference in 5-10 years, then absolutely yes.
3) Will UofM be better positioned to market the university to potential students, faculty and researches by switching to the SEC?
I don't know how much we market to potential students outside of our region (which includes SEC territory to the south and east); most of our student body comes from MO, IL, and the suburban parts of KS. I do know that enrollment is growing, and has been for several years.
4) Will UofM further it's mission statement by switching to the SEC?
"To provide all Missourians with world-class research university?" Definitely a big sell for the B1G - not sure how an SEC switch would affect it.
5) Is there dire consequences for not switching to the SEC or will the University of Missouri be fundamentally and unequivocally better off by switching to a different athletic conference.
Most definitely. We are at a unique point where circumstances have given us an opportunity for improvement and a move away from uncertainty. It's easy to say "if no schools left, then the Big 12 would be stable." The fact TX will continue to run the conference for the betterment of UT, or they will leave. And because of their resources, they will be able to choose any conference they wish.
When the stability of your conference hinges on the ties that bind TTU to UT (and OKSt to OU, to some extent), your conference is not sustainable.
Not being a university administrator, it's difficult for me to answer. Personally, both conferences seems pretty equal. Are UT, KU, and ISU better than Vandy and UF? Probably not. Neither conference was built primarily for academic reputation; however, one seems to be gaining AAU institutions (TAMU, MU?) and one seems to be losing them (NU, CU, TAMU).
2) Will UofM be significantly better off athletically by switching to the SEC?
Depends. On football win/loss record, probably not at first. But if you don't believe the Big 12 will exist as a major conference in 5-10 years, then absolutely yes.
3) Will UofM be better positioned to market the university to potential students, faculty and researches by switching to the SEC?
I don't know how much we market to potential students outside of our region (which includes SEC territory to the south and east); most of our student body comes from MO, IL, and the suburban parts of KS. I do know that enrollment is growing, and has been for several years.
4) Will UofM further it's mission statement by switching to the SEC?
"To provide all Missourians with world-class research university?" Definitely a big sell for the B1G - not sure how an SEC switch would affect it.
5) Is there dire consequences for not switching to the SEC or will the University of Missouri be fundamentally and unequivocally better off by switching to a different athletic conference.
Most definitely. We are at a unique point where circumstances have given us an opportunity for improvement and a move away from uncertainty. It's easy to say "if no schools left, then the Big 12 would be stable." The fact TX will continue to run the conference for the betterment of UT, or they will leave. And because of their resources, they will be able to choose any conference they wish.
When the stability of your conference hinges on the ties that bind TTU to UT (and OKSt to OU, to some extent), your conference is not sustainable.
#Mizzou fans want out of the #Big12, but Deaton & BOC meeting now with presser around 5:30 (CST). Gut feeling is they stay, but just a gut.
UNL is not an AAU school and everyone knew they wouldn't be one by the time they started playing football. Other than that, cool story.
So basically you leave because of your own fears for the future? Your school is in a better position than that. You can always find a good home. And the SEC is just basically football. Would you sell your soul for that?I wouldn't claim to speak for ALL Mizzou fans, or even the ones who visit here at CF. From my perspective, we want the SEC because:
1. We are DESPERATELY afraid of being left behind when this conference mess finally plays out. Stability is the key to avoiding that, and no other conference (other than maybe the B1G) has more stability than the SEC.
2. We do NOT believe that the Big 12 will last long term. It's only a matter of time before TX/OU and others move to another conference, or go indy. The "handcuffs" of TV rights would bind most schools, but if you have deep enough pockets, you can negotiate your way out of anything. (or just dissolve the conference) At that point, it may be harder for MU to find a good landing spot.
3. We may get ****ed in the SEC (at first), but the big difference from the MWC is that we're going to get ****ed on a HUGE PILE OF MONEY. Money that can be used to improve our program, increase athletic budgets, fund other programs, etc. I don't see how TV networks that are unwilling to pay big bucks for L-ville, BYU, TCU, etc. games now are all of sudden going to pony up when they're a part of the Big 12.
4. I think we get to pay our players more in the SEC than in the Big 12, right?
I do worry that Mizzou hasn't historically taken football as "seriously" as much of the SEC. But we'll take our lumps, and we'll adjust. We'll get better. We've lived in the shadow of bigger, more historically successful programs before, and we've done fine. Nobody's ever jumped conferences and been a doormat forever.
If you're a true competitor, you want an opportunity to beat the best. If ISU fans didn't feel the same way, then they'd be satisfied to watch the Big 12 dissolve, move to the MWC, and enjoy whipping up on Wyoming or UNLV. But 15,000+ posts on this string prove that Cyclone fans are the same - they want to play in a major conference too, and get a shot a beating top-notch competition (even if wins are rare).
If/when the Big 12 falls apart, I hope ISU continues to get that shot.
With the ACC getting two more schools, they are now stable. I see them as having a large population base with good bball. They are staying.
- Status
