Bama fans do understand that Mizzou fans stopped thinking Big10 long ago, right?

[CraiginKC]

That article that ESPN keeps pushing, based on an anonymous Missouri "official," is so obviously planted to stir up trouble that it's not even funny. The facts are these:

1. In a 4 hour meeting of the Board of Curators on Tuesday, the Big 10 did not come up even once.
2. Yes, a year and a half ago, Mizzou was flirting with a Big10 bid that never came. Nobody was even speculating SEC expansion then.
3. While if you look hard enough, you can find someone on campus to dis the SEC and express hopes for the Big10, 90% (and I base that on the polls that have been taken, the message boards, and everyone I've spoken to) of those affiliated with Mizzou are excited about and committed to the SEC. In the same way that nearly every happily married man was once infatuated with some other girl in high school, the past is the past, and we all get that. I'm sure you can find someone on the campus in Tuscaloosa who sings the praises of Auburn and bad-mouths the Tide. It doesn't mean anything and says nothing about how the University of Alabama feels. There's a woman on Mizzou's faculty that has been vocal about her opposition to the SEC because the salary average is lower than Mizzou's. Nobody listens to this woman, except Chip Brown, the mouthpiece propagandist of Texas.
4. These articles with unnamed sources filled with gems aimed at stifling the Mizzou to SEC momentum are going to continue until the the ink is dry on a Mizzou-SEC deal. That's just the nature of the beast. Texas, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Baylor...these schools have a vested interest in keeping Missouri in the Big 12. They'll plant stories wherever they can to make it happen. There will never be a name attached to the source, and it will always be featured prominently on ESPN (because of their ties with the Longhorn Network), but they'll keep coming.

Finally, you may have your own reasons why you don't want Mizzou in the SEC. Fine. I respect that. But imagining that this unnamed source quote is reflective of the attitude of Missouri fans is not a legitimate reason. It's false. Thank you for your time, and for giving me the privilege of posting on your board.

 

[buzzincuzzin]

I consider that to be a sane and rational overview. Good luck with that and welcome to the board.

 

[tambo410]

Welcome... I can certainly accept that the majority of Mizzou fans want to be part of the SEC. I know only one but this time last year she was telling me this was the case. I wonder if you could share with us, from your perspective, why the SEC should want Mizzou? What attributes of Mizzou should the SEC value as factors for membership to our conference. I in no way intend to belittle your program with my questions, I just know very little of your program and would like the perspective of a Mizzou fan. Roll Tide.

 

[rhm54]

I may be in the minority but I could care less if Missouri still has the Big 10 tops on their list. I am not too proud to say I would be willing to fight for Missouri. Missouri represents a major economic benefit to the SEC that I think we would be insane to pass up.

 

[KrAzY3]

I'm not a Missouri fan, but to summarize things a bit.
Good academics
Population of almost 6 million with two major markets and only one D1 football program.
Usually top 30 in football attendance.
Good basketball program.
Borders three SEC states.

They're one of the best fits possible, financially, geographically and the fact is they have better football attendance than West Virginia, Georgia Tech, and Miami so even their enthusiasm for football makes them a good fit.

 

[CraiginKC]

Thank you.

I think there are several reasons for thinking Mizzou would be a good addition to the SEC.

1. Missouri can compete in the SEC. We may not have the success in football that Alabama has, nor LSU, nor Florida, but much as they've been in the Big12 all these years, they should be near the top of the middle, and break out of the middle from time to time. And their basketball program should be even more competitive than their football program in the SEC. I say this to point out that it's not like they'll bring the SEC's status down. They won't.

2. Missouri borders Arkansas, Kentucky, and Tennessee. There is the potential for natural rivalries with these schools, and in fact, Mizzou already considers Arkansas a rival (and there's no love lost between these schools).

3. Missouri expands the media footprint of the SEC into two solid markets (KC and STL).

4. Missouri is an AAU university, with a solid academic reputation.

5. Missouri is a border state comprising several different cultures, both Midwestern and Southern, urban and rural. South of Columbia has more in common with much of Alabama than it does with Northern Missouri. This talk of cultural incompatibility is overstated, I think. Atlanta has little in common with the Bayou country in Louisiana, and the coast of South Carolina has little in common with parts of rural Mississippi, other than that they were once all part of the Confederacy 150 years ago. Personally, I see the differences in culture to be precisely what makes me and others excited about the SEC. Who wouldn't rather spend time in Tuscaloosa than Manhattan, Kansas or Iowa City? And if the geographic center of the lower 48 is in northern Kansas, then 80% of Missouri is in the Southeast quadrant.

6. Mizzou fans are very gregarious, we love tailgating, we put on a good show in Columbia and are pretty welcoming to visitors (unless they're from Kansas).

7. We have great Barbecue!

8. We will be so grateful that the SEC accepted us that it will take years before we stop being in awe of how lucky we were to be a part of your conference. Missouri has a complex, you see. We tend to think that bad things always happen to us. We got screwed by the fifth-down play, Tyus Edney's last second shot to keep us out of the Final Four....the list is long and you don't want to hear it. So we're grateful to people when they recognize that it's a good place. I'm sure there are other reasons. Those are the reasons that pop into my head.

 

[Jessica4Bama]

Sorry. I just don't like it. Maybe if I knew more about your school, but it just seems to me it will take ya'll years to be competitive in the SEC football wise that is. I just like things to remain the same, but I guess it's going to happen rather I want it to or not.

 

[GP for Bama]

That article that ESPN keeps pushing, based on an anonymous Missouri "official," is so obviously planted to stir up trouble that it's not even funny. The facts are these:

1. In a 4 hour meeting of the Board of Curators on Tuesday, the Big 10 did not come up even once.
2. Yes, a year and a half ago, Mizzou was flirting with a Big10 bid that never came. Nobody was even speculating SEC expansion then.
3. While if you look hard enough, you can find someone on campus to dis the SEC and express hopes for the Big10, 90% (and I base that on the polls that have been taken, the message boards, and everyone I've spoken to) of those affiliated with Mizzou are excited about and committed to the SEC. In the same way that nearly every happily married man was once infatuated with some other girl in high school, the past is the past, and we all get that. I'm sure you can find someone on the campus in Tuscaloosa who sings the praises of Auburn and bad-mouths the Tide. It doesn't mean anything and says nothing about how the University of Alabama feels. There's a woman on Mizzou's faculty that has been vocal about her opposition to the SEC because the salary average is lower than Mizzou's. Nobody listens to this woman, except Chip Brown, the mouthpiece propagandist of Texas.
4. These articles with unnamed sources filled with gems aimed at stifling the Mizzou to SEC momentum are going to continue until the the ink is dry on a Mizzou-SEC deal. That's just the nature of the beast. Texas, KU, K-State, Iowa State, Baylor...these schools have a vested interest in keeping Missouri in the Big 12. They'll plant stories wherever they can to make it happen. There will never be a name attached to the source, and it will always be featured prominently on ESPN (because of their ties with the Longhorn Network), but they'll keep coming.

Finally, you may have your own reasons why you don't want Mizzou in the SEC. Fine. I respect that. But imagining that this unnamed source quote is reflective of the attitude of Missouri fans is not a legitimate reason. It's false. Thank you for your time, and for giving me the privilege of posting on your board.

Very nice post...appreciate you letting us know the true feelings of Mizzou fans. I think the only problem we Bama fans have is that we want to keep our annual game with Tennessee.

 

[RJ YellowHammer]

Nice post Sir. Appreciate the Mizzou perspective.

 

[CraiginKC]

I totally get that. I just hope there's a way around it.

 

[patriot34]

Mizzu gives the SEC a good TV market, a solid basketball program, and an AAU school. That's it. As far as football is concerned, they will be a slight step above Ole Miss (this year), Kentucy (this year), and Vandy (most years) - that's it. Mizzu has more to gain than the SEC in this deal. But, who else is willing and able to join the conference?

 

[CraiginKC]

Very nice post...appreciate you letting us know the true feelings of Mizzou fans. I think the only problem we Bama fans have is that we want to keep our annual game with Tennessee.

I forgot to show who I was responding to above. Sorry.

But I do get it, and hope Mizzou makes it in anyway. And who knows, maybe some day you'll feel as intensely about the Mizzou game as you do about Tennessee.

 

[TideEngineer08]

I'm fine with the addition of Missouri. I think the only opposition within the ranks of the SEC ADs is preservation of rivalries. Auburn wants out of the West division, but they also want to keep the yearly game with Alabama. This does not work for the preservation of the Alabama/Tennessee game, a major rivalry in the SEC. Auburn is cool with it because they escape to the weaker division.

I think those who oppose the move right now are Alabama, LSU, and Tennessee and it's all about the divisional alignment. I say put Missouri in the East and be done with it.

 

[CraiginKC]

Mizzu gives the SEC a good TV market, a solid basketball program, and an AAU school. That's it. As far as football is concerned, they will be a slight step above Ole Miss (this year), Kentucy (this year), and Vandy (most years) - that's it. Mizzu has more to gain than the SEC in this deal. But, who else is willing and able to join the conference?

I would agree with you that Mizzou has more to gain than the SEC, because it would be such a good thing for us to be in the SEC (and not be in our failing conference). But I can guarantee you that Mizzou will have a winning record in the SEC next year. We're not to the level of you guys, nor LSU, nor Florida, and Auburn will probably be on probation by next year, so they'll be easier to beat. But we're 15-8-3 against the SEC, and we've won 7 of our last 8 games against the SEC. I'm not talking smack, I'm simply saying that to compare us to Vanderbilt in football reflects you haven't been paying attention to Missouri football.

 

[Wyatt]

Showing my age, I actually enjoyed the home and home in the 70's.

 

[KrAzY3]

I would agree with you that Mizzou has more to gain than the SEC, because it would be such a good thing for us to be in the SEC (and not be in our failing conference). But I can guarantee you that Mizzou will have a winning record in the SEC next year. We're not to the level of you guys, nor LSU, nor Florida, and Auburn will probably be on probation by next year, so they'll be easier to beat. But we're 15-8-3 against the SEC, and we've won 7 of our last 8 games against the SEC. I'm not talking smack, I'm simply saying that to compare us to Vanderbilt in football reflects you haven't been paying attention to Missouri football.

I'm not sure if he really meant to disparage Missouri football, but there is an elitist attitude amongst some SEC fans. For instance, during expansion discussions some thought (and some still think) that only Texas and Oklahoma were worthy additions. And, some of the same people seem to think Arkansas isn't even worthy of being in the SEC, and all they've done is go to 38 bowl games.

So, sometimes SEC fans buy into the hype a little too much and think adding anyone that hasn't competed for a championship in the last ten years is a bad addition. We've even recently seen the argument that Alabama should never lower themselves to playing a non-BCS school, so apparently they think we're sending robots out there to play these games instead of student athletes or something. Perhaps they'd be happier if Alabama scheduled the Saints and Packers as their OOC games.

Not directing it at patriot34 specifically mind you but you will run into some with a really unrealistic view of things. I think at this moment Missouri would fall just below Arkansas, in the west they'd be above Miss. State and Ole Miss as he said but jumping Arkansas might not be such an easy task. I'd also place you guys above Kentucky as well and South Carolina most years. Vandy is a given...

 

[TommyMac]

I would agree with you that Mizzou has more to gain than the SEC, because it would be such a good thing for us to be in the SEC (and not be in our failing conference). But I can guarantee you that Mizzou will have a winning record in the SEC next year. We're not to the level of you guys, nor LSU, nor Florida, and Auburn will probably be on probation by next year, so they'll be easier to beat. But we're 15-8-3 against the SEC, and we've won 7 of our last 8 games against the SEC. I'm not talking smack, I'm simply saying that to compare us to Vanderbilt in football reflects you haven't been paying attention to Missouri football.

According to the CFB Data Warehouse, you're 19-8-1 against the SEC. The only two teams in the SEC that have an advantage over y'all are Georgia, 1-0 and Kentucky, 2-1. You hold a 2-1 advantage over Alabama.

You're certainly welcome as far as I'm concerned.

 

[tambo410]

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.

 

[TIDE-HSV]

I'm fine with the addition of Missouri. I think the only opposition within the ranks of the SEC ADs is preservation of rivalries. Auburn wants out of the West division, but they also want to keep the yearly game with Alabama. This does not work for the preservation of the Alabama/Tennessee game, a major rivalry in the SEC. Auburn is cool with it because they escape to the weaker division.

I think those who oppose the move right now are Alabama, LSU, and Tennessee and it's all about the divisional alignment. I say put Missouri in the East and be done with it.

I think you're right. I've had too much confirmation from the *U sources. That's a dangerous approach, though, because the balance of power has swung back and forth over the years from east to west. It's worth noticing that several of the east schools are in much more favorable recruiting areas than any of the western teams. Overall, in terms of available recruits, the east has the better hand...

 

[TideEngineer08]

I think you're right. I've had too much confirmation from the *U sources. That's a dangerous approach, though, because the balance of power has swung back and forth over the years from east to west. It's worth noticing that several of the east schools are in much more favorable recruiting areas than any of the western teams. Overall, in terms of available recruits, the east has the better hand...

I agree. It's incredibly short-sighted by Auburn, but that's not abnormal for them.