Mizzou to SEC effective July 1, 2012

[bocabull]

You know what else? The SEC & Missouri really don't understand the state of Texas. They think this move gets them a strong footprint into Texas and they are wrong.

Texas, of all states, has this go it alone, independent, we're Texas, don't mess with Texas, etc attitude. Texans don't grow up jizzing over the SEC, the Big XII or anything except TEXAS. The Big XII is going to be branded as the TEXAS conference. A&M will be portrayed as the weakling who could not stand on their own two feet even with the resources of Texas. The SEC will be considered the enemy.

 

[ben]

What a bunch of crybaby pussies that have to run away because they've gotten stomped for too long. But it's ok, they have a great journalism school.

 

[Sawyer]

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/GetOneInstitutionData.aspx

Reporting Year: 7/1/2010 - 6/30/2011

University of Kansas total athletics revenues: $70,028,683

University of Missouri total athletics revenues: $59,005,954

Didn't realize their budget had jumped $15 million in the past two years. I don't doubt it — our athletic department is operating with a $65 million budget this year, which is a $6 million increase in one year. I do know they also have nearly $60 million in debt they're working to pay off.

Yep. If they were consistently winning the conference, they wouldn't be bolting for other destinations. It's the bitter ones that were making moves (except Colorado, I thought the Pac10 was always more logical for them).

Three teams in the Big 12 consistently win championships in the sports that generate revenue. Only Nebraska is moving to a situation where they're likely to start winning more (and even that's debatable). The running away from competition angle would hold water if the four departing teams were going to weaker conferences, but that's not the case.

It is a fact that WVU would not get the required votes from SEC schools because Kentucky, Miss St, South Carolina, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Vandy did not want another guaranteed loss. Those schools viewed WVU as a competitive threat and Mizzou they don't because they know at worst they will all split with Missouri.

I am confident the ACC and Big 10 distribute more money per school than the SEC. The Big XII will too now that we don't have to subsidize sorry programs like Missouri, Colorado & A&M.

I'm always a fan of the boca facts. Rarely is there any actual evidence of their veracity, but you never let that deter you. Your "confidence" is enough...

Speaking of confidence, Mississippi State (a team that apparently fears WVU) played a home and home series with WVU a few years ago.

Sawyer, the answer to your question is the SEC gains a new television market...Make no mistake my friend, thats what these moves (you and aTm) are all about. They will spread their "footprint"

Somehow, someway, we will find a way to replace the numerous championships and countless streams of revenue that mighty Mizzou has brought to the conference.

So the SEC adds MU because they want the money we bring... but you don't care because we bring no money.

And by we, you mean Texas, right?

You know what else? The SEC & Missouri really don't understand the state of Texas. They think this move gets them a strong footprint into Texas and they are wrong.

I think it's you who misunderstands the SEC and Missouri.

Texas A&M will retain a significant following in that state. People aren't going to quit following the team they've loved for so long because they're in a different conference. They're one of the most-watched teams in the country. The SEC doesn't to own the state of Texas. Adding just the fraction of the state that cares about A&M is still a major addition.

Mizzou never had a "strong" recruiting footprint in Texas and no one expects improvement in that regard with a move. Our strategy in that state has been to own the mid-lower tier, not beat UT, A&M and OU for the best the state has to offer. Texas pride aside, those kids aren't stupid. They're not going to turn down MU and the SEC for a mid-major team. The Big East legitimizing Houston and SMU will hurt us more than our move will.

I will also add that our recruiting of non-athletes in Texas has been steadily increasing and has been a big part of our major growth in undergraduate enrollment. I don't know how much of that is because of football or what impact that may have on football in the future (probably minimal in both regards), but the commitment to that state is not something I foresee Missouri changing, athletically or academically.

What a bunch of crybaby pussies that have to run away because they've gotten stomped for too long. But it's ok, they have a great journalism school.

Boren's "very warm and constructive discussions" with the PAC 12 (and their ultimate rejection of expansion because they didn't want to deal with the LHN and didn't want OU/OSU without Texas) of course were perfectly understandable...

Does OU have any schools that can really be considered great?

 

[stoops4pres]

Three teams in the Big 12 consistently win championships in the sports that generate revenue. Only Nebraska is moving to a situation where they're likely to start winning more (and even that's debatable). The running away from competition angle would hold water if the four departing teams were going to weaker conferences, but that's not the case.

First off, the Big 12 has long been a tougher conference than the Big 10. For over a decade, in fact. So I don't see how that's "debatable" that they'll start winning more in their current Big 10 atmosphere. The sample size is large enough at this juncture to suggest that it's not really up for debate; they should start winning more there.

And it's not "running from competition" that I was asserting, it's the fact that they're bolting simply because they are bitter with their current situation of the inability to bring home hardware. In my opinion, I think bitterness can cloud judgement, which is certainly what has happened with Texas A&M and Missouri. So yeah, I think that assertion holds water.

 

[AdaSooner]

I think if MU continues with its status quo we will struggle, but I also think the move will force us to raise our game.

There are many high level donors who have said they'll step up with major donations if/when MU moves to the SEC (I've spoken with one personally). I'd expect MU to evaluate pretty much everything about the athletic department as we transition to the SEC.

Why would any school wait for a move to a differnt conference to raise their game? That makes no sense at all.

I also don't understand why MU's donors would wait to show their support monetarily? Do they really believe moving to another conference will change everything? Money...correction, more money, is not a recipe for success in any sport. Better facilities, coaching, etc. helps. But one could argue that Mizzou will also face stiffer competition in the SEC, especially in football.

Despite the fact that I happen to believe MU is making a huge mistake, I wish the Tigers and their fans well. Not that I'll be cheering for you to win anymore. lol

 

[Sawyer]

First off, the Big 12 has long been a tougher conference than the Big 10. For over a decade, in fact. So I don't see how that's "debatable" that they'll start winning more in their current Big 10 atmosphere. The sample size is large enough at this juncture to suggest that it's not really up for debate; they should start winning more there.

And it's not "running from competition" that I was asserting, it's the fact that they're bolting simply because they are bitter with their current situation of the inability to bring home hardware. In my opinion, I think bitterness can cloud judgement, which is certainly what has happened with Texas A&M and Missouri. So yeah, I think that assertion holds water.

The Big 12 is tougher than the Big 10, no doubt. I think it's debatable because I still don't think Nebraska's going to win much. Ohio State (when they're not in turmoil) owns that conference. Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State, Michigan State and Michigan are all either playing at a pretty high level now or have history suggesting they will if they figure out a few things.

Nebraska just lost to Northwestern and they're in a five-way tie for third. I think they've just about peaked as far as it comes to their potential under Pelini (the Suh year being his apex). Will they win more in the Big 10 than in the Big 12? Maybe. But I don't think it'll amount to many titles.

Regarding bitterness on Mizzou's part because we don't have titles, I don't think that's accurate (maybe it does describe A&M; I don't know their mindset that well). I do think there has been some bitterness in other regards, the Big 12 pushing for kansas over Mizzou for the 2007 Orange Bowl being a prime example of that.

I can tell you that the approach Alden has taken at Mizzou over the past 14 years isn't a championship-oriented one. It's about steadily raising the bar over time and doing things "the right way." As long as we're not awful in anything and our student-athletes are doing well academically, he feels like we're doing fine. I don't think the lack of Big 12 trophies really matters to him at this point.

I believe Deaton feels the same way (and he worked hard to keep Mizzou in the Big 12). Deaton is a stereotypical academic and he places a lot of value on collegiality and cooperation, and I think a major factor in the move was his perception that the Big 12 didn't offer that (which was a fairly new point of view for him), while the SEC did. Regardless of the personal opinion anyone has about Mizzou's fit in the SEC, the future of the Big 12, or the importance of inter-conference cooperation, I don't really think there's much debate about how the two conferences differ in this regard.

 

[tycat947]

Texas A&M will retain a significant following in that state. People aren't going to quit following the team they've loved for so long because they're in a different conference. They're one of the most-watched teams in the country. The SEC doesn't to own the state of Texas. Adding just the fraction of the state that cares about A&M is still a major addition.

Only their cult following will remain! I doubt if anyone outside Rice, Texas Southern or Lamar will ever schedule the Aggies again. So all these Texas kids will be only playing in Texas for their A&M home games. When these Aggies get beat down by Arkansas, LSU, Alabama, Auburn, etc, etc and never play Texas, Baylor, Tech, we'll soon see how significant that following is. I'm guessing after yesterday's game that OU will never play them either. The band always plays the visitors fight song during pregame....didn't happen yesterday. The University always in the past 8-10 years has recognized a long-time OU season ticket holder and long-time season ticket holder of visiting team.....yesterday, didn't happen. I don't think these were accidents.

 

[Sawyer]

Why would any school wait for a move to a differnt conference to raise their game? That makes no sense at all.

I also don't understand why MU's donors would wait to show their support monetarily? Do they really believe moving to another conference will change everything? Money...correction, more money, is not a recipe for success in any sport. Better facilities, coaching, etc. helps. But one could argue that Mizzou will also face stiffer competition in the SEC, especially in football.

Despite the fact that I happen to believe MU is making a huge mistake, I wish the Tigers and their fans well. Not that I'll be cheering for you to win anymore. lol

I didn't mean to suggest we've been waiting. Alden established a set of goals when he took over at Mizzou 14 years ago and we've seen steady improvement since then. We're now competitive with most of the Big 12 when it comes to resources (both facilities and financial resources).

Only UT, OU and A&M have larger football stadiums than Mizzou, and I believe we are fifth in the Big 12 (behind those three and kansas) in overall athletic budget. In the SEC, we're 10th in stadium capacity and probably about there in overall athletic spending. We've been working to improve and have been pretty successful in doing that, but the bar has been raised.

As for donors giving conditionally on a move to the SEC, I think it's simply people with more money than they know what to do with who are using that money to get their way. These are apparently the types of people who already are at the highest donation levels, so they're showing their support. The promise is to up the commitment even more. Those types exist everywhere.

I don't think their money will make Mizzou a better athletic program. But I do think it shows a commitment to compete that you have to have in the SEC. We aren't going to move and just expect to be fine as is. Will that mean we actually are competitive? I certainly hope so, and I do think we will be. But it's not a guarantee.

 

[Sawyer]

Only their cult following will remain! I doubt if anyone outside Rice, Texas Southern or Lamar will ever schedule the Aggies again. So all these Texas kids will be only playing in Texas for their A&M home games.

Their cult following is pretty big. They're one of the largest universities in the country. It's not like they're some tiny little school that's pulled in a few bandwagon fans. Whether they remain as relevant in Texas as they are or fall back, I don't know. But they'll remain influential.

 

[WaymansFadeaway]

Sawyer, we'll agree to disagree on the move.

Good luck to you and Mizzou.

It would actually warm my heart to see you guys go in there and push some people around, I just dont see it though. Lord knows I've been wrong before.

Peace.

 

[stoops4pres]

The Big 12 is tougher than the Big 10, no doubt. I think it's debatable because I still don't think Nebraska's going to win much. Ohio State (when they're not in turmoil) owns that conference. Wisconsin, Iowa, Penn State, Michigan State and Michigan are all either playing at a pretty high level now or have history suggesting they will if they figure out a few things.

Nebraska just lost to Northwestern and they're in a five-way tie for third. I think they've just about peaked as far as it comes to their potential under Pelini (the Suh year being his apex). Will they win more in the Big 10 than in the Big 12? Maybe. But I don't think it'll amount to many titles.

I'm not saying the Big 12 is a gauntlet compared to the Big 10, but I honestly don't see how it's "debatable" that Nebraska will do better at this juncture. Ohio State has been the only consistent power there for over a decade. None of the other programs in the Big 10 have been on their level as far as consistency has been concerned. The rest have been sputtering in and out of top-notch football, if that. Given that Ohio State is in turmoil, Nebraska might not even have any powers to face to the extent of OU and Texas for the foreseeable future. Therefore, I really don't think it's up for debate at all as far as where Nebraska has a better chance to win conference titles. Their chances of winning that league are greater than winning the Big 12, if the past decade serves as any indication.

Also, I disagree that this is about as high as the Pelini era will get. You acknowledged that their zenith was the Suh year, when I would also contend that last year's team is better as well. This season they've been hampered with injuries and an underwhelming defense. There's no telling how much worse their record would be in a significantly stronger Big 12 this season.

Regarding bitterness on Mizzou's part because we don't have titles, I don't think that's accurate (maybe it does describe A&M; I don't know their mindset that well). I do think there has been some bitterness in other regards, the Big 12 pushing for kansas over Mizzou for the 2007 Orange Bowl being a prime example of that.

I can tell you that the approach Alden has taken at Mizzou over the past 14 years isn't a championship-oriented one. It's about steadily raising the bar over time and doing things "the right way." As long as we're not awful in anything and our student-athletes are doing well academically, he feels like we're doing fine. I don't think the lack of Big 12 trophies really matters to him at this point.

I believe Deaton feels the same way (and he worked hard to keep Mizzou in the Big 12). Deaton is a stereotypical academic and he places a lot of value on collegiality and cooperation, and I think a major factor in the move was his perception that the Big 12 didn't offer that (which was a fairly new point of view for him), while the SEC did. Regardless of the personal opinion anyone has about Mizzou's fit in the SEC, the future of the Big 12, or the importance of inter-conference cooperation, I don't really think there's much debate about how the two conferences differ in this regard.

Fair enough. I'll agree to disagree, but you certainly know enough about Mizzou where I respect that opinion, though I may not completely agree with it.

 

[sys]

i don't think mu will struggle in the sec any more than they've struggled (or not) in the big 12. but i think their fans will suffer in the near term.

just from personal experience, more than a decade later, i still care less about playing the 4 swc teams that joined the big 12 than i do about the original big 8 teams. in a couple of decades, i'm sure that newer fans will know no difference, but i can't imagine the current fans will enjoy playing sec teams as much as they have big 12 teams.

 

[Max Power]

Didn't realize their budget had jumped $15 million in the past two years. I don't doubt it — our athletic department is operating with a $65 million budget this year, which is a $6 million increase in one year. I do know they also have nearly $60 million in debt they're working to pay off.



Three teams in the Big 12 consistently win championships in the sports that generate revenue. Only Nebraska is moving to a situation where they're likely to start winning more (and even that's debatable). The running away from competition angle would hold water if the four departing teams were going to weaker conferences, but that's not the case.



I'm always a fan of the boca facts. Rarely is there any actual evidence of their veracity, but you never let that deter you. Your "confidence" is enough...

Speaking of confidence, Mississippi State (a team that apparently fears WVU) played a home and home series with WVU a few years ago.



So the SEC adds MU because they want the money we bring... but you don't care because we bring no money.

And by we, you mean Texas, right?



I think it's you who misunderstands the SEC and Missouri.

Texas A&M will retain a significant following in that state. People aren't going to quit following the team they've loved for so long because they're in a different conference. They're one of the most-watched teams in the country. The SEC doesn't to own the state of Texas. Adding just the fraction of the state that cares about A&M is still a major addition.

Mizzou never had a "strong" recruiting footprint in Texas and no one expects improvement in that regard with a move. Our strategy in that state has been to own the mid-lower tier, not beat UT, A&M and OU for the best the state has to offer. Texas pride aside, those kids aren't stupid. They're not going to turn down MU and the SEC for a mid-major team. The Big East legitimizing Houston and SMU will hurt us more than our move will.

I will also add that our recruiting of non-athletes in Texas has been steadily increasing and has been a big part of our major growth in undergraduate enrollment. I don't know how much of that is because of football or what impact that may have on football in the future (probably minimal in both regards), but the commitment to that state is not something I foresee Missouri changing, athletically or academically.



Boren's "very warm and constructive discussions" with the PAC 12 (and their ultimate rejection of expansion because they didn't want to deal with the LHN and didn't want OU/OSU without Texas) of course were perfectly understandable...

Does OU have any schools that can really be considered great?

The College of Earth and Energy and the School of Meteorology

 

[ksSooner13]

The College of Earth and Energy and the School of Meteorology

Don't forget the world class Dance Program here at OU.... not even kidding about that, 3rd most people per department, from out of state, in the University, behind Meteorology and Petroleum Engineering

 

[Max Power]

Don't forget the world class Dance Program here at OU.... not even kidding about that, 3rd most people per department, from out of state, in the University, behind Meteorology and Petroleum Engineering

I did not know that, that's actually pretty cool

 

[ksSooner13]

I did not know that, that's actually pretty cool

Yupp, I was shocked to learn that as well, forgot what class it was in, but that's the only thing I took away from that lecture lol

 

[Sawyer]

Don't forget the world class Dance Program here at OU.... not even kidding about that, 3rd most people per department, from out of state, in the University, behind Meteorology and Petroleum Engineering

I hope I never see anyone mocking MU's School of Journalism again...

 

[Max Power]

I hope I never see anyone mocking MU's School of Journalism again...

I like how you ignore Earth and Energy and Meteorology.

 

[ksSooner13]

I hope I never see anyone mocking MU's School of Journalism again...

Why would you mock the MU school of Journalism, it's the best part of that University. I know alot of people that HATE missouri, but suck it up because that program is incredible.

 

[Tony]

Wait, what's wrong with dancing?