Thanks Craig for your insight. I appreciate your perspective and the wealth of info you provided. So if you were to rank your team within the current football and basketball programs already competing in the SEC where you would see yourselves fitting in? I think you were trying to say you would be at the top of the middle of the SEC which if you look at this years standings in the West would put you right in there with Arkansas. Again, I probably only watch your team play once a year and have lost some interest in Mizzou since Chase moved on, but I think that might be a bit of a stretch. Maybe the better way to look at this is based on the normal rankings in the west with Bama & LSU at the top being rounded out with Arkansas and Auburn representing the middle do you think you can compete year in and year out with Arkansas and Auburn and challenge Bama and LSU every so often? Or do you think you can consistently compete at the top of the conference regardless of division...?
I looked at the final AP poll rankings going back to the 2000 season and in 2007 y'all finished 4th behind LSU (1) and Georgia (2). In 2008 Missou finished 19th behind Florida (1), Alabama (6), Georgia (13), Ole Miss (14). In 2010 Missou finished 18th behind Auburn (1*), LSU (8), Alabama (10), Arkansas (12) and Miss State (15). Outside of those years (2007, 2008, 2010) Missou did not finish in the Top 25. Your highest finish was 4th while the SEC has had (as you know) 4 different teams win it all over the that time...
Thanks for your insight. I am not attacking I am just trying to understand this from a competitive nature.
Mizzou is a program that has gone through some rough times. But for the past six or seven years, this football team has been very good. It coincides with a major upgrade in facilities, and the fact that there has been almost no turnover in our coaching staff. We have also established a strong foothold in Texas recruiting, which, thanks to A & M being a part of the SEC now, wouldn't have to be lost. All teams go in cycles. Mizzou will have some bad years, and it will have some good years. We have a young team now, and despite an unbelievable number of injuries (our running backs corps was reduced from 5 to 1, we lost 3 of our linemen), we still have a solid team. Again, I would say that we can compete with the top of the SEC sometimes, but we're not at the level of the top teams consistently. Nobody disputes that. We're fully aware of the fact that being in the SEC will force our program to step it up a lot of we want success. But other than Oklahoma, there's nobody in the Big 12 with a consistent record of success comparable to the top teams in the SEC. Texas sucked last year, and they're not that good this year, and despite every competitive advantage, they consistently under-perform, a few great years notwithstanding. But if you were to put Mizzou's collective body of work over the past seven or eight years up against Ole Miss, Miss St., Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Vanderbilt, and South Carolina, I'd take Mizzou's. Arkansas is very good this year, and they're rarely bad (though we embarrassed them the last time we played them in the Cotton Bowl).
Moreover, I think being in the SEC will improve our recruiting, not hurt it. Of course, the decision as to which teams to include in the SEC are largely driven by business decisions and television markets, not so much wins and losses (though compare Mizzou to Texas A & M over the past decade--we win that battle, though they may be pretty good this year). So if you're looking to bring a world-beater to the best conference in college football, you're not really going to find one (maybe Oklahoma, but trust me, you'll get sick of them really fast). But if you're looking for a team that is going to be a solid contributor, Mizzou's your team.
If you do end up in the SEC, you will learn that there is a HUGE difference between Bama and Auburn, and you will not get us confused.
