Expect news on Mizzou and SEC/Big 12 any minute

[stoops4pres]

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.

There is no doubt that the North has been weaker than the South over the last several seasons.

Nevertheless, I don't think there is really much debate on which program has been better over the last 5 seasons when comparing Missouri vs. A&M. IMO, Missouri has been a better program, despite playing an easier conference schedule.

-Missouri hasn't had any losing seasons like A&M had in 2008 (in which A&M lost to teams like Arkansas State and typical-bottom feeder Baylor).
-Missouri's performed better against SEC competition
-Missouri's had a winning record vs. A&M (2-1)

Plus, it's not like A&M has performed great against Big 12 North teams, either. They have only been 8-7 vs. North teams since 2006.

I'm not saying Missouri is this juggernaut program, by any stretch of the imagination... I just think some people perceive them to be worse than they actually have been lately, just because they were terrible for ages while in the Big 8.

 

[stoops4pres]

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.

Well, they had a few seasons the first half of the past 10 years where they were pretty bad. So I don't know if I would consider them to be on the rise that far back. But I see where you are coming from.

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.

Agreed. A&M and Mizzou could very well be the two best basketball teams in the (newly-formed) West.

 

[DenverSooner]

There is no doubt that the North has been weaker than the South over the last several seasons.

Nevertheless, I don't think there is really much debate on which program has been better over the last 5 seasons when comparing Missouri vs. A&M. IMO, Missouri has been a better program, despite playing an easier conference schedule.

-Missouri hasn't had any losing seasons like A&M had in 2008 (in which A&M lost to teams like Arkansas State and typical-bottom feeder Baylor).
-Missouri's performed better against SEC competition
-Missouri's had a winning record vs. A&M (2-1)

Plus, it's not like A&M has performed great against Big 12 North teams, either. They have been 8-7 vs. North teams since 2006.

I'm not saying Missouri is this juggernaut program, by any stretch of the imagination... I just think some people perceive them to be worse than they actually have been lately, just because they were terrible for ages while in the Big 8.

I am not saying A&M was not worse than Missouri over the last couple of years; however, the period of time you talking about is just over a single recruiting class. It is fairly meaningless. A&M went through coaching changes and even with A&M being down and Missouri essentially being at its all time high, Missouri only won 66% of the time (one game above .500). Lets not get too carried away simply because one booger eating Texans from the Dallas area played quarterback for Missouri.

 

[Sawyer]

Congratulations on proving OU is and pretty much always has been better than Missouri in football with the exception of one decade of relative equality. I didn't realize anyone had suggested otherwise, or that it was even relevant to anything, but good job with the research.

Regarding 1960, MU finished the season 10-1 (at the time) and #5 in the polls. They beat #4 Navy in the Orange Bowl.

#1 Minnesota lost to #6 Washington in the Rose, and #2 Mississippi won the Sugar Bowl (beat an unranked Rice team). #3 Iowa didn't play in a bowl game.

The problem, though, is the final voting took place before the bowl games (why I say things would be different in a more modern environment). Minnesota, the 1960 national champions, finished with two losses and lost their bowl game. Ole Miss was undefeated, but beat a nobody in their bowl game. Missouri finished with one loss and an Orange Bowl win over another top 5 team.

I was wrong to be so definitive in saying Mizzou would have won the title. Ole Miss might have if the final voting took place after the bowls. I think Mizzou's win over Navy, plus the fact that the kansas game was forfeited before the bowls, would have given MU the edge, though.

 

[Sawyer]

Well, they had a few seasons the first half of the past 10 years where they were pretty bad. So I don't know if I would consider them to be on the rise that far back. But I see where you are coming from.

We were bad when Pinkel took over, and he did have some pretty bad seasons. But if you look at what we were when he took over and track the improvements (in the record, in recruiting, in facilities) each year he's been here, it's been consistently moving in a positive direction. That wasn't always winning seasons early, but there's been pretty consistent improvement.

 

[stoops4pres]

I am not saying A&M was not worse than Missouri over the last couple of years; however, the period of time you talking about is just over a single recruiting class. It is fairly meaningless.

Not sure how exactly you reached that conclusion, when their seasons in 2006 and 2007 (when they were a Top 5 team) had players contribute that span further than just a single recruiting class.

And I disagree on that time frame being "meaningless". In fact, I think it is a more relevant way to predict how a team can be going forward than looking at data over 15 years ago, in which players and coaches in the 90's have no bearing on how Missouri could perform against SEC competition next year.

A&M went through coaching changes and even with A&M being down and Missouri essentially being at its all time high, Missouri only won 66% of the time (one game above .500). Lets not get too carried away simply because one booger eating Texans from the Dallas area played quarterback for Missouri.

Actually, it goes both ways... The year A&M defeated Missouri (2006) was the 2nd best season A&M had in over a decade. And Missouri beat A&M last season as well. So A&M wasn't exactly crumbling during the time frame stated.

Furthermore, Missouri finished higher in the Top 25 last season with Gabbert, not Booger Daniel, than A&M has finished in over a decade.

No one's getting carried away; in fact, I prefaced that I'm not saying Missouri is this tremendous program. They've just been better than A&M has been lately.

 

[stoops4pres]

We were bad when Pinkel took over, and he did have some pretty bad seasons. But if you look at what we were when he took over and track the improvements (in the record, in recruiting, in facilities) each year he's been here, it's been consistently moving in a positive direction. That wasn't always winning seasons early, but there's been pretty consistent improvement.

That's true. I see what you're saying now.

 

[DenverSooner]

Congratulations on proving OU is and pretty much always has been better than Missouri in football with the exception of one decade of relative equality. I didn't realize anyone had suggested otherwise, or that it was even relevant to anything, but good job with the research.

Regarding 1960, MU finished the season 10-1 (at the time) and #5 in the polls. They beat #4 Navy in the Orange Bowl.

#1 Minnesota lost to #6 Washington in the Rose, and #2 Mississippi won the Sugar Bowl (beat an unranked Rice team). #3 Iowa didn't play in a bowl game.

The problem, though, is the final voting took place before the bowl games (why I say things would be different in a more modern environment). Minnesota, the 1960 national champions, finished with two losses and lost their bowl game. Ole Miss was undefeated, but beat a nobody in their bowl game. Missouri finished with one loss and an Orange Bowl win over another top 5 team.

I was wrong to be so definitive in saying Mizzou would have won the title. Ole Miss might have if the final voting took place after the bowls. I think Mizzou's win over Navy, plus the fact that the kansas game was forfeited before the bowls, would have given MU the edge, though.

You actually don't have to research anything about OU football. It is all easily available at Soonerstats.com. It is an excellent website.

 

[Sooner04]

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

The right coach can get them rolling fast.

That's only been said about every person to stroll through Athens before Herschel Walker arrived and after Herschel Walker left.

 

[Sawyer]

That's only been said about every person to stroll through Athens before Herschel Walker arrived and after Herschel Walker left.

It's also been said about Missouri (probably most notably by Tom Osborne).

 

[Tony]

Guerin Emig:

Quick reporters chat w #OU pres David Boren. Look for Big 12 expansion soon. Don't expect Missouri to stick around.

https://twitter.com/#!/GuerinEmig/status/121720761923809280

 

[bocabull]

It's also been said about Missouri (probably most notably by Tom Osborne).

LOL @ this farmer.

In georgia there is a top 90 recruiting list. In Missouri there is only a top 20 and the best of those pick OU, Nebraska or somebody else over Missouri all the time.

See ya farmers. You are being forced out.

 

[ben]

Mizzouri is the battered person who leaves a relationship because he/she couldn't defend herself to only fall in with another abuser... unfortunately this one will have no teeth and believes that "The South will rise again".

 

[campbest]

It's also been said about Missouri (probably most notably by Tom Osborne).

lol, context. He said that in reference to the weak North Division, no competition.

 

[boksooner]

Various twitter reports are saying that Mizzou doesn't have enough votes to join the SEC. I am not sure how credible the reports are.

 

[tycat947]

Various twitter reports are saying that Mizzou doesn't have enough votes to join the SEC. I am not sure how credible the reports are.

Poor Mizzou! They can't buy a conference home! B1G didn't want them, SEC appears lukewarm towards them. Mizzou pretty much started this crap last year! Talk about confusing yourself with someone important!!!

 

[campbest]

Various twitter reports are saying that Mizzou doesn't have enough votes to join the SEC. I am not sure how credible the reports are.

This would be hilarious, hope it is the case.

 

[tycat947]

One good thing to come of Mizzou's departure is that hopefully, the Big 12 conference basketball tourney would be moved to OKC. OKC is much more centrally located for the conference, especially with NU, CU and probably MU leaving. OKC has been as successful as KC with regards to the men's tourney and definitely more successful with the women's tourney. No reason at all to keep in KC if Mizzou goes.

 

[campbest]

One good thing to come of Mizzou's departure is that hopefully, the Big 12 conference basketball tourney would be moved to OKC. OKC is much more centrally located for the conference, especially with NU, CU and probably MU leaving. OKC has been as successful as KC with regards to the men's tourney and definitely more successful with the women's tourney. No reason at all to keep in KC if Mizzou goes.

I actually prefer having the game on a rotation. Go between OKC and KC, both do a good job hosting the tournament.