Expect news on Mizzou and SEC/Big 12 any minute

[bgrch1350]

Big 8!!! Lets bring it back.

 

[Big Old Booger]

I agree the Big 12 will continue, if they can find stability. It won't ever be what it was, though.

Disagree with the other stuff. KC isn't a ku city. There may be a greater percentage of ku fans than MU fans, but it's a pretty even split. Also disagree MU is committing football suicide. If MU leaves, the likely division will be Alabama, LSU, Arkansas, A&M, Ole Miss, Mississippi State and Mizzou. Mizzou has been better than A&M for several years and is no worse than Arkansas (beat them handily in 2007). MU is a level below the top two and definitely better than the two Mississippi teams. I think MU settles into the second tier of SEC teams with Ark, A&M, SC, UT and UGA, finishing between third and sixth most years... Which is pretty much where we are now in the Big 12.

This is a clown post.

Never, ever, will Mizzou be on the same level as either Tennessee or Georgia. Both have won NC's in the modern era and both will beat Mizzou 90% of the time when they play.

MU is more than a level below Bama and LSU...I'd say 2-3 levels. You guys lost to ASU and last year you lost to a Big 10 team in your bowl game. Wasn't it the year before that when MU lost to Navy in the Houston Bowl?

You are a typical Mizzou fan. You think after a few decent years of football (no conference championships) that Mizzou is a top-level football program. How many wins does Pinkel have vs OU and Texas? 1...that's it. The SEC has 5 (maybe 6) programs on the same tier as OU and Texas.

I can remember when Woody Widenhofer and Bob Stull were churning out 1-10, 0-11, 2-9 seasons with regularity in Columbia. If you go to the SEC, it won't be that bad, but 4-8, and 5-7 would be the norm with winning seasons as the exception.

 

[Sam]

Sawyer are you really Kim English? On twitter he too seems upset that people are taking shots at Mizzou football.

 

[WaymanFan]

You are a typical Mizzou fan. You think after a few decent years of football (no conference championships) that Mizzou is a top-level football program. How many wins does Pinkel have vs OU and Texas? 1...that's it. The SEC has 5 (maybe 6) programs on the same tier as OU and Texas.

I agree with the first part of that paragraph, but there is no conceivable way there are 5 or 6 SEC teams on par with OU and Texas. Alabama, LSU and Florida = 3. That's it. Everyone else is either one, two or three tiers below.

Missouri will be going from the second best college football conference to the best. Realistically, that means they'll likely be winning one or two games less per year than they do now...meaning a lower-tier bowl invitation would be a realistic annual goal for them.

 

[stoops4pres]

I agree with the first part of that paragraph, but there is no conceivable way there are 5 or 6 SEC teams on par with OU and Texas. Alabama, LSU and Florida = 3. That's it. Everyone else is either one, two or three tiers below.

Missouri will be going from the second best college football conference to the best. Realistically, that means they'll likely be winning one or two games less per year than they do now...meaning a lower-tier bowl invitation would be a realistic annual goal for them.

Agreed.

And if you want to go historically (which I'm presuming the posters in this thread are applying, since Mizzou has been a very good program recently over the last half-decade but historically they've been irrelevant), only Bama is on OU's level. No other program in the SEC is on par with OU from a historical standpoint.

 

[Sawyer]

Agreed.

And if you want to go historically (which I'm presuming the posters in this thread are applying, since Mizzou has been a very good program recently over the last half-decade but historically they've been irrelevant), only Bama is on OU's level. No other program in the SEC is on par with OU from a historical standpoint.

Depends on what part of history you're talking about.

Don Faurot and Dan Devine both had historically significant tenures at Missouri.

Mizzou won more games than any other program during the decade of the 60s (including a season in 1960 that would have been a national title using the standards of more modern eras).

Faurot essentially created the option offense at Missouri. Inventing an offensive philosophy that dominated for 70 years (and in many ways still does dominate) is historically relevant.

But as I've always maintained, all history is more or less irrelevant. Stull and Woody have nothing to do with MU's success going forward. I have yet to see any of the "Mizzou will get killed in the SEC" proponents address the fact that Mizzou completely dismantled Arkansas in '07, manhandled Ole Miss twice in he past several years and beat South Carolina in a bowl game, as well. None of those SEC teams were outstanding (although Arkansas did have three backs who are now NFL starters), but those games do show today's MU can hang with the mid-level SEC teams just fine.

(As an aside, Stull would've been very successful today; his staff included Andy Reid, Marty Mornhinweg, Dirk Koetter and another few very well known guys; he was a victim of the tail end of Mizzou academics destroying football).

 

[bocabull]

And all of that gets you 34th place. Congrats. DO yourself a favor and look at the alltime AP rankings, then compare the top 20 teams on that list to the top 20 ranked recruiting classes.

Correlation

There is Missouri right down there with their peers from the AP list while the top AP teams and current recruiting classes are basically a mirror image.

 

[stoops4pres]

Depends on what part of history you're talking about.

Don Faurot and Dan Devine both had historically significant tenures at Missouri.

Mizzou won more games than any other program during the decade of the 60s (including a season in 1960 that would have been a national title using the standards of more modern eras).

Faurot essentially created the option offense at Missouri. Inventing an offensive philosophy that dominated for 70 years (and in many ways still does dominate) is historically relevant.

But as I've always maintained, all history is more or less irrelevant. Stull and Woody have nothing to do with MU's success going forward. I have yet to see any of the "Mizzou will get killed in the SEC" proponents address the fact that Mizzou completely dismantled Arkansas in '07, manhandled Ole Miss twice in he past several years and beat South Carolina in a bowl game, as well. None of those SEC teams were outstanding (although Arkansas did have three backs who are now NFL starters), but those games do show today's MU can hang with the mid-level SEC teams just fine.

(As an aside, Stull would've been very successful today; his staff included Andy Reid, Marty Mornhinweg, Dirk Koetter and another few very well known guys; he was a victim of the tail end of Mizzou academics destroying football).

I wasn't talking about relevance from an offensive philosophical standpoint, I was talking about winning and losing on the field. Point taken about how they were in the 60's, so I'll qualify my post: From 1970 until 2007 (a pretty big sample size), they have--for the most part--been irrelevant. You don't have to agree, but I think going 37 years without winning 10 or more games doesn't exactly shout relevancy throughout college football.

And I agree with you about how they've been lately, as I've stated before. I don't know how Missouri will be going forward, but over the last several seasons stats and relevant data have indicated that they have been much better than what some believe.

 

[tycat947]

I wasn't talking about relevance from an offensive philosophical standpoint, I was talking about winning and losing on the field.

:ez-roll::ez-roll::ez-roll:

 

[Sawyer]

I wasn't talking about relevance from an offensive philosophical standpoint, I was talking about winning and losing on the field. Point taken about how they were in the 60's, so I'll qualify my post: From 1970 until 2007 (a pretty big sample size), they have--for the most part--been irrelevant. You don't have to agree, but I think going 37 years without winning 10 or more games doesn't exactly shout relevancy throughout college football.

And I agree with you about how they've been lately, as I've stated before. I don't know how Missouri will be going forward, but over the last several seasons stats and relevant data have indicated that they have been much better than what some believe.

I agree MU was pretty irrelevant on a national scale between Devine and Pinkel. I would look at more than just 2007-present, though. Mizzou has been trending upward since about about 2002.

Using the information boca's pushing—the all-time rankings which have Mizzou in the mid-30s—Mizzou's about 9th in the SEC (out of the proposed 14). That's behind Ole Miss, Arkansas and A&M, though, three programs that IMO Mizzou is better than now.

I said in this thread I think Mizzou eventually settles into the middle tier of the SEC and finishes between 3-6 most seasons. A third place finish would be the equivalent of 2007. That's the absolute peak of what I'd expect, not what I think would be the norm. If MU continues to be what it has been over the past several years, that 5-6 area of the SEC isn't at all out of the realm of possibility.

Whether or not you want to call that relevant is up to you. As an MU fan, I'd have zero shame in that.

Plus... THIS IS A BASKETBALL BOARD. The SEC sucks in hoops outside of a few teams. MU will compete very well in that regard if they do make the move.

 

[CoachTalk]

I said in this thread I think Mizzou eventually settles into the middle tier of the SEC and finishes between 3-6 most seasons. QUOTE]

I was thinking that would be their record every year going into their last couple games!

 

[DenverSooner]

Mizzou has been better than A&M for several years and is no worse than Arkansas (beat them handily in 2007). MU is a level below the top two and definitely better than the two Mississippi teams. I think MU settles into the second tier of SEC teams with Ark, A&M, SC, UT and UGA, finishing between third and sixth most years... Which is pretty much where we are now in the Big 12.

Having more conference wins than A&M per year over the last several years does not mean Missouri is clearly better than A&M. A&M was forced to play a much tougher schedule than Missouri. The North has been extremely weak for a decade. Missouri won a weak division of the Big XII twice. A&M won the South 3 times and the Big XII Title once.

Nebraska won the North 6 times, CU won it 4 times, and KSU won it 3 times. All of those schools have actually won the Big XII. Best case argument for Mizzou is they are the fourth best program in what was the North. Your Texas recruiting will get weaker after you join the SEC. I think Missouri will be a bottom of the SEC west program from the inception and quickly deteriorate.

 

[WTSooner]

Having more conference wins than A&M per year over the last several years does not mean Missouri is clearly better than A&M. A&M was forced to play a much tougher schedule than Missouri. The North has been extremely weak for a decade. Missouri won a weak division of the Big XII twice. A&M won the South 3 times and the Big XII Title once.

Nebraska won the North 6 times, CU won it 4 times, and KSU won it 3 times. All of those schools have actually won the Big XII. Best case argument for Mizzou is they are the fourth best program in what was the North. Your Texas recruiting will get weaker after you join the SEC. I think Missouri will be a bottom of the SEC west program from the inception and quickly deteriorate.

Yep. Cracks me up when people don't understand unbalanced schedules.

 

[thebigabd]

yep. Cracks me up when fans of big 12 north teams try to tout their records don't understand unbalanced schedules.

fify.

 

[Big Old Booger]

I agree with the first part of that paragraph, but there is no conceivable way there are 5 or 6 SEC teams on par with OU and Texas. Alabama, LSU and Florida = 3. That's it. Everyone else is either one, two or three tiers below.

Missouri will be going from the second best college football conference to the best. Realistically, that means they'll likely be winning one or two games less per year than they do now...meaning a lower-tier bowl invitation would be a realistic annual goal for them.

I would say Georgia is on the same level as LSU and Florida as a whole (Florida was the KSU of the SEC before Spurrier took over; LSU was pretty bad for a long time too). I would also say Tennessee and Auburn are on that level too.

I would agree with StoopsforPres that OU and Bama are above any of the other 4 SEC schools mentioned in the previous paragraph.

I would say all 6 SEC programs are at least 1 and probably 2 or 3 levels above Mizzou. Pinkel has beaten OU and Texas 1 time total in his entire tenure at MU. I would say Mizzou could beat Tennessee or Georgia in Columbia once in a while (if Georgia and Tennessee don't improve, which they will) but that's it. Mizzou will go back to irrelevance in football and it won't take long.

 

[Big Old Booger]

Having more conference wins than A&M per year over the last several years does not mean Missouri is clearly better than A&M. A&M was forced to play a much tougher schedule than Missouri. The North has been extremely weak for a decade. Missouri won a weak division of the Big XII twice. A&M won the South 3 times and the Big XII Title once.

Nebraska won the North 6 times, CU won it 4 times, and KSU won it 3 times. All of those schools have actually won the Big XII. Best case argument for Mizzou is they are the fourth best program in what was the North. Your Texas recruiting will get weaker after you join the SEC. I think Missouri will be a bottom of the SEC west program from the inception and quickly deteriorate.

This post is 100% accurate.

Arkansas went to the SEC coming off a few SWC championships and a lot of success in the SWC. They immediately went into the SEC West cellar and have only had 5 seasons in 20 (that they have been an SEC member) where they finished with a winning conference record. I believe Arkansas is a better program than Mizzou and it's not even close. More tradition, better facilities, better fanbase/support, etc.

 

[WTSooner]

Wait until Georgia gets rid of Richt. That program is just waiting to blow up. Tennessee has the same potential, but I'm not sold on their current coach either. As long as Petrino is at Arkansas, I'd probably rate them as a better program than Mizzou. That guy has built a nice program.

 

[thebigabd]

Wait until Georgia gets rid of Richt. That program is just waiting to blow up. Tennessee has the same potential, but I'm not sold on their current coach either. As long as Petrino is at Arkansas, I'd probably rate them as a better program than Mizzou. That guy has built a nice program.

Yep, Georgia can recruit with anyone. Its a sleeping giant football program.

The right coach can get them rolling fast.

 

[Sawyer]

Having more conference wins than A&M per year over the last several years does not mean Missouri is clearly better than A&M.

I didn't say it did.

I was thinking more of the 4-1 record Mizzou's had against A&M since Pinkel took over.

 

[DenverSooner]

Don Faurot and Dan Devine both had historically significant tenures at Missouri.

Mizzou won more games than any other program during the decade of the 60s (including a season in 1960 that would have been a national title using the standards of more modern eras).

Devine was 4-8-1 against OU. That means OU had a 65% winning percentae against Devine. During the 1960s, Missouri was 4-5-1 against OU. Faurot was 3-15-1 against OU. OU won 82% of the time. Honestly, if this is the best you got, your school shouldn't even play football. You are literally talking about a coach that lost 82% of the time to OU and a coach that lost 65% of the time to OU. Not one of the three eras that you cite included a winning record against OU. (I call them three eras because Devine's career at Missouri included more than just the 1960s).

Pinkel is another one that should really put fear into the hearts and minds of OU fans. Pinkel is 1-7 against OU. That means OU has an 88% winninger percentage against that clown. Most impressive is the fact that Pinkel managed to lose to OU twice during arguably his best season and three times over a two year stretch that were clearly his best seasons at Missouri.

I really don't get why you think 1960 would be a Championship under modern standards. Most think the modern era is post WWII. Additionally in 1960 the Bowl System and polls determined the winner. Missouri lost a game to KU that was later forfieted. However, when the voting took place I am pretty sure that loss was still on the books.