On this day in 2012, Mizzou and A&M officially join the SEC. Regular season conference records since last SEC Expansion...Football records since then.....
Both newbies have a 48-48 record. Not too bad, actually.
Both newbies have a 48-48 record. Not too bad, actually.
and MO has benificted by a weak East for the past several years. .
I still hope the SEC can replace MO one day. .
What I dont get is that a good chunk of this board says this over and over, but when it comes to the question if "Mac is a good coach" the whole bad East argument is ignored.
Will never happen. The markets in KC and St Louis are big reasons why the SECN exist and continue to thrive, and a big reason why the LHN continues to dwindle. I still dont see why so many folks have this animosity towards Missouri, and continue to go out of their way to give them credit for actually doing far better than what any sane poster on here thought.
I agree with you about this. Missouri was for market share but we could have done a lot worse. Missouri is traditionally a mid-pack football team and they fit in here pretty well. I am neutral on Mizzou, neither love nor hate them -- thus far.
I think it had more to do with A&M unable to beat LSU. A&M padded their conference record against the bottom feeders of the SEC.A&M had a good coach. (Sumlin's winning % at TAMU is higher than Coach Bryant's at TAMU). But he, much like many of the SEC coaches that have resigned or been fired over the last 10 years aren't being fired because they're losing. They're getting fired because they're losing to Alabama and/or that they're not Alabama (Nick Saban). It's really an unfair standard to be held to, as the run Alabama is on right now is truly historic and may not be duplicated ever again. But it is what it is.
If Im being honest, I was hoping for Virginia Tech as a fan, but Missouri was always my #2 pick for the companion of aTm. I think future expansion is going to be done like the 2nd expansion rather than the 1st. The SEC already has many behemoths, but is always in the market for more profitable markets. Thats why I believe NC St is more likely to get am invitation before OU if it came down to it.
But anyways, the point is that Missouri was a market pick, and it was a great one. I still dont get why there is such dislike towards a team that we've only played twice since 1979. If its their competitiveness then why arent people up in arms about the other .500 and below teams on that list?
I think Missouri was the plan B when we did not get Oklahoma. What the Sooners lack in TV market size they more than make up for in prestige and tradition. After all we are talking about one of the top 3 blue bloods in all of the sport.
The shocker has got to be that Auburn is only one game better than MSU.
Our losses (for those who like me start musing):
2012 ATM
2013 Auburn
2014 Ole Miss
2015 Ole Miss
2017 Auburn
Auburn being 3-9 in 2012 helps them look like the poor team they are. Take that year away and they are 25-15 since 2013. TN being equal with Vandy for that period is really the shocker.I saw that and was also surprised to see the numbers showing Auburn's record as bad as it is for that period. Guess I haven't been paying much attention. I also would have guessed A&M had a bit better record than that, and that UF and LSU were better than UGA.
I saw that and was also surprised to see the numbers showing Auburn's record as bad as it is for that period. Guess I haven't been paying much attention. I also would have guessed A&M had a bit better record than that, and that UF and LSU were better than UGA.
Mizzu has never "felt" right, but that ship sailed and they'll never give up the $$$.
I think the thing that needs fixing is to get them in the SECW, where they geographically belong. That would probably mean putting Auburn in the east. Probably won't happen, but right now it would give a little more balance between the two divisions.