(09-23-2017 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

I wish Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska,and Missouri never left. Go crazy for a mega conference lol add TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Utah, BYU, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse at the last round of realignment.

West: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa St
South: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Right, guys?? Anyone!?

Not many around here want to admit it, but it was the networks that have been picking the Big 12 apart. They are the ones that enticed away those properties that left. They are the ones that agreed to hold the rest in place with a generous TV package and played favorites with the T3 by giving Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas more than everyone else. They are the ones that balked at expansion with G5 schools, and they are the ones fighting over the prizes. And, they are the ones who figured out a decade ago that the only place the PAC could grow out of was the Big 12. They'll use their leverage over the Big 12 properties to gain concessions from the PAC.

If you look at the natural demographics, the money, and the fit it was the ACC that probably should have been the first victim. Their Northern properties would be more at home in the Eastern Big 10 (and better paid) and their Southernmost schools would have been more at home in the SEC (and better paid). Instead Skipper parked the Big East teams there that he was afraid Delany would grab. They kept the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida by guiding F.S.U. to the ACC and later adding Miami and they did that so the state wouldn't cost them too much for either their own ACC (100% of the rights) or the SEC. In fact they've followed that model in most of the large states where they hold rights and want to do it in Texas too. And they tried to do it in Virginia and North Carolina with the Va Tech & N.C. State to the SEC stuff 7 years ago.

The Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC have not been guilty of collusion. But they've all been guilty of doing the bidding of FOX and ESPN because that's who pays them.

So we get what we have today because of their agenda, and not our own. Why else would Missouri be in the SEC, Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big 10, and Colorado in the PAC. Of all of those Colorado is the best fit. I guarantee you nobody in Birmingham woke from a deep sleep and in a Citizen Kane like moment whispered, MIZZOU!

I have nothing against the Tigers and they are family now, but nobody in the SEC pondered them when we added A&M. A&M is a decent fit for the SEC. One of their oldest rivals is L.S.U. and former conference mate Arkansas. I'm just making one point. The idea came from the network which pays us.

i think the Big 10 took Nebraska because they wanted 2 divisions and wanted some balance to the West. So I don't hold the networks as responsible for that one other than they were trying to dislodge enough components of the Big 12 to make Texas and Oklahoma move. When nobody flinched over Nebraska's move it was time to nibble at A&M and Missouri, especially in the wake of Colorado's departure.

When FOX figured out that ESPN was trying to scoop the product and it became apparent that a bidding war for them would ensue the GOR's were slapped into place. The Big 12's to hold things in place until they could figure out a division of the property, and the ACC as a reaction to vulnerability when Maryland bolted. I think clearly they had an agenda 7 years ago that got fouled up and what we have been in since was an intentional stalemate until they could figure out how and when to kill off the Big 12. But that's just my opinion from following all of this.

Many SEC folks have these thoughts regarding Missouri. Missouri knows this. I love the SEC. I live in the SEC. I have laughed at the various comments regarding Mizzou leaving the SEC if the B1G calls. Lately I am feeling more and more that maybe it might happen. Not sure if we are "northern" enough though. There will come a time Missouri will tire of trying to be good enough or southern enough for the SEC. Culturally we fit. Everyone seems all caught up with the maps. Colorado fits with the PAC 12 culturally, but not geographically. Is Kentucky any different than Missouri? Is Arkansas or Tennessee? I have spent a lot of time in these states and they all seem culturally the same to me. Hell, I live on the Mississippi Alabama border and they are just like Missouri folks. Just my rant here... sorry.

It's not the conference they joined that is to blame. Nebraska was struggling in the Big XII, so were Texas A&M and Colorado; Missouri was okay but they never won the conference, even Kansas can make that claim. Nebraska and A&M used Texas as an excuse of their mediocrity but who can they blame now?

Nebraska needs the right coach, that's it. They have the conference, exposure, resources, history and fan base to make it happen.

(09-24-2017 01:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

I wish Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska,and Missouri never left. Go crazy for a mega conference lol add TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Utah, BYU, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse at the last round of realignment.

West: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa St
South: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Right, guys?? Anyone!?

Not many around here want to admit it, but it was the networks that have been picking the Big 12 apart. They are the ones that enticed away those properties that left. They are the ones that agreed to hold the rest in place with a generous TV package and played favorites with the T3 by giving Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas more than everyone else. They are the ones that balked at expansion with G5 schools, and they are the ones fighting over the prizes. And, they are the ones who figured out a decade ago that the only place the PAC could grow out of was the Big 12. They'll use their leverage over the Big 12 properties to gain concessions from the PAC.

If you look at the natural demographics, the money, and the fit it was the ACC that probably should have been the first victim. Their Northern properties would be more at home in the Eastern Big 10 (and better paid) and their Southernmost schools would have been more at home in the SEC (and better paid). Instead Skipper parked the Big East teams there that he was afraid Delany would grab. They kept the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida by guiding F.S.U. to the ACC and later adding Miami and they did that so the state wouldn't cost them too much for either their own ACC (100% of the rights) or the SEC. In fact they've followed that model in most of the large states where they hold rights and want to do it in Texas too. And they tried to do it in Virginia and North Carolina with the Va Tech & N.C. State to the SEC stuff 7 years ago.

The Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC have not been guilty of collusion. But they've all been guilty of doing the bidding of FOX and ESPN because that's who pays them.

So we get what we have today because of their agenda, and not our own. Why else would Missouri be in the SEC, Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big 10, and Colorado in the PAC. Of all of those Colorado is the best fit. I guarantee you nobody in Birmingham woke from a deep sleep and in a Citizen Kane like moment whispered, MIZZOU!

I have nothing against the Tigers and they are family now, but nobody in the SEC pondered them when we added A&M. A&M is a decent fit for the SEC. One of their oldest rivals is L.S.U. and former conference mate Arkansas. I'm just making one point. The idea came from the network which pays us.

i think the Big 10 took Nebraska because they wanted 2 divisions and wanted some balance to the West. So I don't hold the networks as responsible for that one other than they were trying to dislodge enough components of the Big 12 to make Texas and Oklahoma move. When nobody flinched over Nebraska's move it was time to nibble at A&M and Missouri, especially in the wake of Colorado's departure.

When FOX figured out that ESPN was trying to scoop the product and it became apparent that a bidding war for them would ensue the GOR's were slapped into place. The Big 12's to hold things in place until they could figure out a division of the property, and the ACC as a reaction to vulnerability when Maryland bolted. I think clearly they had an agenda 7 years ago that got fouled up and what we have been in since was an intentional stalemate until they could figure out how and when to kill off the Big 12. But that's just my opinion from following all of this.

Many SEC folks have these thoughts regarding Missouri. Missouri knows this. I love the SEC. I live in the SEC. I have laughed at the various comments regarding Mizzou leaving the SEC if the B1G calls. Lately I am feeling more and more that maybe it might happen. Not sure if we are "northern" enough though. There will come a time Missouri will tire of trying to be good enough or southern enough for the SEC. Culturally we fit. Everyone seems all caught up with the maps. Colorado fits with the PAC 12 culturally, but not geographically. Is Kentucky any different than Missouri? Is Arkansas or Tennessee? I have spent a lot of time in these states and they all seem culturally the same to me. Hell, I live on the Mississippi Alabama border and they are just like Missouri folks. Just my rant here... sorry.

Medic, Missouri fit the Big 8, perfectly. The Big 12 well. And you aren't a bad fit for the SEC but by the nature of your state, a border state, you can blend with the Big 10 or SEC but are just different. You shouldn't try to be like the SEC in anything but passion. And passion doesn't leave the stadium well over half empty by half time! You will see some empty end zones in most any of our stadia when a game is a blowout, but most of our fan bases keep their seats until the start of the 4th quarter when that is happening and even then the stands are easily more than half full at the end of the game.

Kentucky probably does share more characteristics with Missouri fans in that regard but even at their worst most of the Cats fans stuck it out through the 3rd quarter.

Your stands tonight on the home team side of the field were over half empty by halftime. Obviously it doesn't "just mean more"' in Missouri.

I don't know of anyone that I've heard who said you weren't Southern enough. What they've shaken their heads over are the social issues at Mizzou, the "threat of the player's strike", and some of the ways your administration has handled some of its campus issues. The Missouri people who have traveled have all been well received and they're nice folks. I'm sure people from Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado are as well as I've known folks from all of those places. I like Big 10 folks too. I lived up there with them when Woody, Duffy, and Bo were prowling the sidelines.

Big 10 passion for the games kind of matches the passion of the SEC schools. If Ohio State and Michigan joined the SEC (hypothetical here folks don't wig out) their fans would blend in well at our games. They'd eat different foods and talk with an accent that would seem just as funny to us as ours seems to them, but the commitment to the support of their schools would be pretty much the same.

Texas and Oklahoma would never be a perfect fit culturally with the South that SEC folks know, but again the passion and commitment are there.

I couldn't pretend to know everything going on in the minds of Missouri fans, but I would be quick to assume that they are dearly missing playing Kansas, Colorado, Iowa State, Nebraska, and the Oklahoma schools. Outside of A&M Missouri hadn't played any SEC schools more than a handful of times, and many not even that, when they entered the SEC.

I think in that regard the experience would be similar in the Big 10 with the exception of playing Illinois. And I don't think Mizzou lacked passion before entering the SEC. I think your attendance problems and your level of tangible support from the fans has flagged because we are so unfamiliar to them and most of the Big 10 would have been as well.

I only see one remedy to some of these issues. If you are to stay in the SEC then perhaps the SEC needs to make sure that you have Kansas, and Iowa State, and Oklahoma to add to your new games with Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Your folks need games they care about. IMO, Kentucky should be your permanent rival when you are finally moved to the West. I only hope we expand to at least 18 so that we can provide your fans and those of A&M with some familiar foes to care about.

If Missouri is to remain committed to the SEC and the SEC to Missouri then we need to use realignment to build a MidWestern division to go with the East and the West. It's easier to raise a strong family through adoption if you adopt all of the siblings.
It's terrible on a child to leave their brothers and sisters to be adopted as the only new child in an established family, and that is what you are feeling. But our family already has differences. L.S.U. and Vanderbilt aren't like anyone else, let alone each other. And from what I've seen so far A&M is a whole different dynamic. The reason A&M fits in pretty well is they did have ties to Arkansas and L.S.U., but more importantly they are happy being themselves. Mizzou is the only Old Big 8 school now in the SEC. You just need more of your family here to feel comfortable. Even that red headed bastard of a cousin you call Kansas!

(09-24-2017 01:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

I wish Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska,and Missouri never left. Go crazy for a mega conference lol add TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Utah, BYU, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse at the last round of realignment.

West: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa St
South: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Right, guys?? Anyone!?

Not many around here want to admit it, but it was the networks that have been picking the Big 12 apart. They are the ones that enticed away those properties that left. They are the ones that agreed to hold the rest in place with a generous TV package and played favorites with the T3 by giving Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas more than everyone else. They are the ones that balked at expansion with G5 schools, and they are the ones fighting over the prizes. And, they are the ones who figured out a decade ago that the only place the PAC could grow out of was the Big 12. They'll use their leverage over the Big 12 properties to gain concessions from the PAC.

If you look at the natural demographics, the money, and the fit it was the ACC that probably should have been the first victim. Their Northern properties would be more at home in the Eastern Big 10 (and better paid) and their Southernmost schools would have been more at home in the SEC (and better paid). Instead Skipper parked the Big East teams there that he was afraid Delany would grab. They kept the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida by guiding F.S.U. to the ACC and later adding Miami and they did that so the state wouldn't cost them too much for either their own ACC (100% of the rights) or the SEC. In fact they've followed that model in most of the large states where they hold rights and want to do it in Texas too. And they tried to do it in Virginia and North Carolina with the Va Tech & N.C. State to the SEC stuff 7 years ago.

The Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC have not been guilty of collusion. But they've all been guilty of doing the bidding of FOX and ESPN because that's who pays them.

So we get what we have today because of their agenda, and not our own. Why else would Missouri be in the SEC, Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big 10, and Colorado in the PAC. Of all of those Colorado is the best fit. I guarantee you nobody in Birmingham woke from a deep sleep and in a Citizen Kane like moment whispered, MIZZOU!

I have nothing against the Tigers and they are family now, but nobody in the SEC pondered them when we added A&M. A&M is a decent fit for the SEC. One of their oldest rivals is L.S.U. and former conference mate Arkansas. I'm just making one point. The idea came from the network which pays us.

i think the Big 10 took Nebraska because they wanted 2 divisions and wanted some balance to the West. So I don't hold the networks as responsible for that one other than they were trying to dislodge enough components of the Big 12 to make Texas and Oklahoma move. When nobody flinched over Nebraska's move it was time to nibble at A&M and Missouri, especially in the wake of Colorado's departure.

When FOX figured out that ESPN was trying to scoop the product and it became apparent that a bidding war for them would ensue the GOR's were slapped into place. The Big 12's to hold things in place until they could figure out a division of the property, and the ACC as a reaction to vulnerability when Maryland bolted. I think clearly they had an agenda 7 years ago that got fouled up and what we have been in since was an intentional stalemate until they could figure out how and when to kill off the Big 12. But that's just my opinion from following all of this.

Many SEC folks have these thoughts regarding Missouri. Missouri knows this. I love the SEC. I live in the SEC. I have laughed at the various comments regarding Mizzou leaving the SEC if the B1G calls. Lately I am feeling more and more that maybe it might happen. Not sure if we are "northern" enough though. There will come a time Missouri will tire of trying to be good enough or southern enough for the SEC. Culturally we fit. Everyone seems all caught up with the maps. Colorado fits with the PAC 12 culturally, but not geographically. Is Kentucky any different than Missouri? Is Arkansas or Tennessee? I have spent a lot of time in these states and they all seem culturally the same to me. Hell, I live on the Mississippi Alabama border and they are just like Missouri folks. Just my rant here... sorry.

Just like JRSEC and others, I'm getting tired of ESPN & FOX controlling conference expansion and other issues dealing with conference membership. If Mizzou is happy in the SEC, let them stay in the SEC. I do wish the SEC would embrace Missouri more, instead of treating them like the red-headed stepchild. A big reason Mizzou has not been moved to the western division is problematic conditions related to the (Deep South's Oldest Rivalry " (UGa-AU) and the Third Saturday in October ('Bama vs UT). We really do need to scrap divisions, IMO, and just go with permanent rivals with everyone else rotating, IMO. USAFMEDIC, would you really have a problem with only playing Arkansas & /or Texas A&M &/or Kentucky every year, and everybody else rotating on & off your conference schedule? Out of all the teams in the SEC, which teams are you the most interested in seeing Missouri play?

(09-23-2017 10:58 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Big Ten thought that Missouri would still be available as an expansion partner for Rutgers, ...

Why would the Big Ten need that ... both Rutgers and Missouri were #14's, waiting on a #13. Turned out the first #13 to need Mizzou was headed for the SEC rather than the Big Ten.

you can't "scrap divisions"

you have to have divisions to have a CCG unless your conference plays a full round robin and the SEC SEC SEC would not dot hat even if they could and of course they can't with 14 teams

if your conference does not play a full conference round robin then they have to have divisions where everyone in the division plays each other and the division winners play in the CCG

that was part of the rule that the Big 10 pushed and that the SEC SEC SEC was in favor of that everyone thought "screwed the Big 12" when it actually screwed the ACC

because the Big 12 can have a CCG, they can play a full conference round robin with only 10 teams OR the could go to divisions and not play a full conference round robin (which would actually be the intelligent thing to do with 8 or better yet 7 conference games)

and no one cares what MU wants so doing anything to get them in yearly games with A&M and Arkansas is not something the SEC SEC SEC even thinks about

and MU will probably never be in the Big 10 because the Big 10 does not trust them to keep their mouth shut about conference business which is why they were passed over in favor of NU in the first place

(09-24-2017 02:07 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 01:05 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 11:16 PM)JRsec Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:56 PM)BePcr07 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:44 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  I wish I could wave a magic wand and return Nebraska and Missouri to the BXII. TCU is doing more there than Texas A&M did anyway.

I wish Texas A&M, Colorado, Nebraska,and Missouri never left. Go crazy for a mega conference lol add TCU, Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Utah, BYU, Pittsburgh, and Syracuse at the last round of realignment.

West: Utah, BYU, Colorado, Nebraska, Iowa St
South: Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Baylor, TCU
North: Oklahoma, Oklahoma St, Kansas, Kansas St, Missouri
East: Louisville, Cincinnati, West Virginia, Pittsburgh, Syracuse

Right, guys?? Anyone!?

Not many around here want to admit it, but it was the networks that have been picking the Big 12 apart. They are the ones that enticed away those properties that left. They are the ones that agreed to hold the rest in place with a generous TV package and played favorites with the T3 by giving Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas more than everyone else. They are the ones that balked at expansion with G5 schools, and they are the ones fighting over the prizes. And, they are the ones who figured out a decade ago that the only place the PAC could grow out of was the Big 12. They'll use their leverage over the Big 12 properties to gain concessions from the PAC.

If you look at the natural demographics, the money, and the fit it was the ACC that probably should have been the first victim. Their Northern properties would be more at home in the Eastern Big 10 (and better paid) and their Southernmost schools would have been more at home in the SEC (and better paid). Instead Skipper parked the Big East teams there that he was afraid Delany would grab. They kept the SEC from gaining total leverage over Florida by guiding F.S.U. to the ACC and later adding Miami and they did that so the state wouldn't cost them too much for either their own ACC (100% of the rights) or the SEC. In fact they've followed that model in most of the large states where they hold rights and want to do it in Texas too. And they tried to do it in Virginia and North Carolina with the Va Tech & N.C. State to the SEC stuff 7 years ago.

The Big 10, SEC, PAC and ACC have not been guilty of collusion. But they've all been guilty of doing the bidding of FOX and ESPN because that's who pays them.

So we get what we have today because of their agenda, and not our own. Why else would Missouri be in the SEC, Nebraska and Rutgers in the Big 10, and Colorado in the PAC. Of all of those Colorado is the best fit. I guarantee you nobody in Birmingham woke from a deep sleep and in a Citizen Kane like moment whispered, MIZZOU!

I have nothing against the Tigers and they are family now, but nobody in the SEC pondered them when we added A&M. A&M is a decent fit for the SEC. One of their oldest rivals is L.S.U. and former conference mate Arkansas. I'm just making one point. The idea came from the network which pays us.

i think the Big 10 took Nebraska because they wanted 2 divisions and wanted some balance to the West. So I don't hold the networks as responsible for that one other than they were trying to dislodge enough components of the Big 12 to make Texas and Oklahoma move. When nobody flinched over Nebraska's move it was time to nibble at A&M and Missouri, especially in the wake of Colorado's departure.

When FOX figured out that ESPN was trying to scoop the product and it became apparent that a bidding war for them would ensue the GOR's were slapped into place. The Big 12's to hold things in place until they could figure out a division of the property, and the ACC as a reaction to vulnerability when Maryland bolted. I think clearly they had an agenda 7 years ago that got fouled up and what we have been in since was an intentional stalemate until they could figure out how and when to kill off the Big 12. But that's just my opinion from following all of this.

Many SEC folks have these thoughts regarding Missouri. Missouri knows this. I love the SEC. I live in the SEC. I have laughed at the various comments regarding Mizzou leaving the SEC if the B1G calls. Lately I am feeling more and more that maybe it might happen. Not sure if we are "northern" enough though. There will come a time Missouri will tire of trying to be good enough or southern enough for the SEC. Culturally we fit. Everyone seems all caught up with the maps. Colorado fits with the PAC 12 culturally, but not geographically. Is Kentucky any different than Missouri? Is Arkansas or Tennessee? I have spent a lot of time in these states and they all seem culturally the same to me. Hell, I live on the Mississippi Alabama border and they are just like Missouri folks. Just my rant here... sorry.

Medic, Missouri fit the Big 8, perfectly. The Big 12 well. And you aren't a bad fit for the SEC but by the nature of your state, a border state, you can blend with the Big 10 or SEC but are just different. You shouldn't try to be like the SEC in anything but passion. And passion doesn't leave the stadium well over half empty by half time! You will see some empty end zones in most any of our stadia when a game is a blowout, but most of our fan bases keep their seats until the start of the 4th quarter when that is happening and even then the stands are easily more than half full at the end of the game.

Kentucky probably does share more characteristics with Missouri fans in that regard but even at their worst most of the Cats fans stuck it out through the 3rd quarter.

Your stands tonight on the home team side of the field were over half empty by halftime. Obviously it doesn't "just mean more"' in Missouri.

I don't know of anyone that I've heard who said you weren't Southern enough. What they've shaken their heads over are the social issues at Mizzou, the "threat of the player's strike", and some of the ways your administration has handled some of its campus issues. The Missouri people who have traveled have all been well received and they're nice folks. I'm sure people from Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Colorado are as well as I've known folks from all of those places. I like Big 10 folks too. I lived up there with them when Woody, Duffy, and Bo were prowling the sidelines.

Big 10 passion for the games kind of matches the passion of the SEC schools. If Ohio State and Michigan joined the SEC (hypothetical here folks don't wig out) their fans would blend in well at our games. They'd eat different foods and talk with an accent that would seem just as funny to us as ours seems to them, but the commitment to the support of their schools would be pretty much the same.

Texas and Oklahoma would never be a perfect fit culturally with the South that SEC folks know, but again the passion and commitment are there.

I couldn't pretend to know everything going on in the minds of Missouri fans, but I would be quick to assume that they are dearly missing playing Kansas, Colorado, Iowa State, Nebraska, and the Oklahoma schools. Outside of A&M Missouri hadn't played any SEC schools more than a handful of times, and many not even that, when they entered the SEC.

I think in that regard the experience would be similar in the Big 10 with the exception of playing Illinois. And I don't think Mizzou lacked passion before entering the SEC. I think your attendance problems and your level of tangible support from the fans has flagged because we are so unfamiliar to them and most of the Big 10 would have been as well.

I only see one remedy to some of these issues. If you are to stay in the SEC then perhaps the SEC needs to make sure that you have Kansas, and Iowa State, and Oklahoma to add to your new games with Arkansas, Tennessee and Kentucky.

Your folks need games they care about. IMO, Kentucky should be your permanent rival when you are finally moved to the West. I only hope we expand to at least 18 so that we can provide your fans and those of A&M with some familiar foes to care about.

If Missouri is to remain committed to the SEC and the SEC to Missouri then we need to use realignment to build a MidWestern division to go with the East and the West. It's easier to raise a strong family through adoption if you adopt all of the siblings.
It's terrible on a child to leave their brothers and sisters to be adopted as the only new child in an established family, and that is what you are feeling. But our family already has differences. L.S.U. and Vanderbilt aren't like anyone else, let alone each other. And from what I've seen so far A&M is a whole different dynamic. The reason A&M fits in pretty well is they did have ties to Arkansas and L.S.U., but more importantly they are happy being themselves. Mizzou is the only Old Big 8 school now in the SEC. You just need more of your family here to feel comfortable. Even that red headed bastard of a cousin you call Kansas!

I don't believe Missouri misses the old Big XII schools that much, save Oklahoma and Kansas. Fans did leave. We were down 31-7 at halftime. I think the whole racial incident was overblown and not a true reflection of the whole university. Our attendance was fine until the last couple years. I guess we will see how it all pans out.

this report gives the Fall 2017 numbers

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2017...ed-decline

new freshman 4,134

total enrollment 30,870

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases...ening-day/

and this report has Fall 2014 total enrollment of 34,935 and Fall 2015 35,050

http://munews.missouri.edu/news-releases...-semester/

the MU stories have Fall 2014 34,935 total enrollment and Fall 2015 35,050 total enrollment (both before the buffoonery) and then Fall 2016 33,266 and Fall 2017 30,827

so a drop of about 4,223 total students post buffoonery or about 12.04% (latest article says 12.9%)

and freshman class according to the latest news story is down 2,060 to 4,134 in Fall 2017 from Fall of 2015 or a drop of 33.26%

the latest report also says there are 972 fewer sophomores, than 2016, 402 fewer Jrs, 315 fewer grad/professional students and international students are down 12.1% from 2016

only the Sr class it says did not have a decline

so you are looking at a university that is losing students from every single group except the ones that were pretty much locked in to MU because of their class standing/credit hours/time to graduate

so the latest article says they are down 33.26% on the freshman class from 2015 to 2017 and they are down 546 in Fall of 2017 from Fall 2016 or 11.67%

so even if things stabilize they are going to be looking at total enrollment dropping as these lower numbers filter from class level to class level over the years

add in the fact that the economy is better now than in 2014-15 which generally means a decrease in students going to grad school especially at the masters level and there are numbers that already show a decline on masters students as well so there is more pain to come there

you can't lose 33%+ of a freshman class over a 2 year period and 11%+ over a 1 year period and expect that to not translate to the classes of the future

even if they were to stabilize at 4,134 freshman next year that is still not going to mean anything other than a university that is dramatically smaller in enrollment going forward

they could well be looking at an enrollment of under 27,000 students in the next few years as these smaller freshman classes matriculate and if the freshman classes continue to decline even a few % next year and the year after you could be looking at a university down to 25,000 or so in enrollment

the high enrollment was 35,050 in fall of 2015 and the freshman class since then is down over 33% in two years

so even if that stabilizes at the current number of freshman and "retention" improves to greatly you can be looking at an enrollment decline of 25% total over the next few years and 35,050 X .75 = 26,287.5

and even PhD enrollment and post professional is declining, but they are not a large number of those total students and masters enrollment is down from 2015 as well

so it is not hard to imagine a university that is looking at freshman classes that are down 33% from their high dropping total enrollment 25% or more from that same year high.....and that would be with AMAZING retention gains and again with stabilization of the freshman class decline to the current 2017 numbers.....any % decrease from 2017 just means the trend is further downward for all future class levels

ESPN controled demise of BE
ESPN held B-12 together to keep Fox out of noon time slot

I wish Oklahoma weren't so inexplicably stuck on staying in a conference with Oklahoma State. They can play the most lopsided rivalry game in all of CFB and not subject their current or future conference mates to regular visits to Stillwater.

Maybe the B1G reconsiders and adds KU and Mizzou. Maybe the SEC lands KU and OU.

But I wish those schools would come West, where North and South don't mean so much and where there's a little more leeway for reinvention and rejuvenation. I think it would do Mizzou some good.

PAC East: Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Mizzou, Arizona, ASU, Utah, Colorado.
Two schools each from the Border, Mountain States, Missouri Valley, and Southwest.

To be fair you should include the negatives of remaining in the previous conference. The B12 was a mess. Literally every member was talking to multiple conferences.

The rivalry issue is overstated. There is no reason Missouri can not play Kansas, every sport, every year. They may not see Kansas State or Baylor as often but is that such a big deal? Same for Nebraska and Oklahoma. It will take time for those secondary rivalries to develop but that is ok.

Ultimately the B12 stayed together (for now) but they are a shadow of their former selves. All things considered, I think the moves were good.

If I were King of Realignment:
KU, Mizzou, UT, and OU to PAC.
NC State to SEC.
WVU to ACC.
UNM and CSU to Big8 (BigXII remnants)

PAC East vs Big8 challenge with annual CFB and MBB rival and a 2nd MBB only rival.
Mizzou vs ISU (KSU BBall)
KU vs KSU (ISU BBall)
OU vs OkSU (TTU BBall)
UT vs TTU (OkSU BBall)
AZ vs Baylor (TCU BBall)
ASU vs TCU (Baylor BBall)
CU vs CSU (UNM BBall)
UU vs UNM (CSU BBall)

Big8 plays "CCG" vs MWC champ.
PAC#2 vs Big8/MWC champ: Fiesta Bowl

(09-23-2017 08:47 PM)ColKurtz Wrote:  Nebraska is better off in the B1G.

Most Big 10 schools get 3-6x as many freshman applicants as Nebraska. The Huskers should count their lucky stars. It's rare than an exclusive club admits a member that looks nothing like the others in significant respects.

(09-24-2017 09:47 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  To be fair you should include the negatives of remaining in the previous conference. The B12 was a mess. Literally every member was talking to multiple conferences.

The rivalry issue is overstated. There is no reason Missouri can not play Kansas, every sport, every year. They may not see Kansas State or Baylor as often but is that such a big deal? Same for Nebraska and Oklahoma. It will take time for those secondary rivalries to develop but that is ok.

Ultimately the B12 stayed together (for now) but they are a shadow of their former selves. All things considered, I think the moves were good.

"There is no reason Missouri can not play Kansas, every sport, every year."

There is 1 little reason. Kansas will not play Missouri anymore. See Texas/A&M for an example of realignment bad blood in case you weren't aware of the politics in Missouri and Kansas and Senators trying to force the games to happen. Kansas won't do it. Texas won't play A&M. They destroyed their relationships when they left for "greener pastures"

(09-23-2017 11:18 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:46 PM)IWokeUpLikeThis Wrote:  

(09-23-2017 10:39 PM)Once a Knight... Wrote:  I agree that Mizzou and Nebraska may not be the best fit for their respective conferences but I can see why they made the move. Stability and $$$. The one that stands out to me as a misfit and didn't need to happen at all was Maryland to the Big Ten. ACC is very stable and a solid conference and THE BEST for basketball as well which is Maryland's strong point. Not to mention Maryland has a long history with the ACC.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920AZ using CSNbbs mobile app

Maryland to B1G was definitely the most shocking realignment move ever.

Rutgers was the most shocking move ever. I mean New Mexico St joining the PAC shocking.

Nah. They'd been talking about them for 20 years. After Notre Dame finally told the Big 10 no, they were seriously considering expansion with Missouri, Kansas and Rutgers before deciding not to.

(09-24-2017 01:57 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It's not the conference they joined that is to blame. Nebraska was struggling in the Big XII, so were Texas A&M and Colorado; Missouri was okay but they never won the conference, even Kansas can make that claim. Nebraska and A&M used Texas as an excuse of their mediocrity but who can they blame now?

Nebraska needs the right coach, that's it. They have the conference, exposure, resources, history and fan base to make it happen.

You are correct. That Big XII championship game when Texas was given two attempts to hit a field goal to win the game the year Nebraska left supports your argument well.

(09-24-2017 11:17 AM)billybobby777 Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 09:47 AM)Wolfman Wrote:  To be fair you should include the negatives of remaining in the previous conference. The B12 was a mess. Literally every member was talking to multiple conferences.

The rivalry issue is overstated. There is no reason Missouri can not play Kansas, every sport, every year. They may not see Kansas State or Baylor as often but is that such a big deal? Same for Nebraska and Oklahoma. It will take time for those secondary rivalries to develop but that is ok.

Ultimately the B12 stayed together (for now) but they are a shadow of their former selves. All things considered, I think the moves were good.

"There is no reason Missouri can not play Kansas, every sport, every year."

There is 1 little reason. Kansas will not play Missouri anymore. See Texas/A&M for an example of realignment bad blood in case you weren't aware of the politics in Missouri and Kansas and Senators trying to force the games to happen. Kansas won't do it. Texas won't play A&M. They destroyed their relationships when they left for "greener pastures"

Kansas's loss. Well, Kansas loses all football games. Kansas's double loss?

(09-24-2017 12:05 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 01:57 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It's not the conference they joined that is to blame. Nebraska was struggling in the Big XII, so were Texas A&M and Colorado; Missouri was okay but they never won the conference, even Kansas can make that claim. Nebraska and A&M used Texas as an excuse of their mediocrity but who can they blame now?

Nebraska needs the right coach, that's it. They have the conference, exposure, resources, history and fan base to make it happen.

You are correct. That Big XII championship game when Texas was given two attempts to hit a field goal to win the game the year Nebraska left supports your argument well.

I agree. Although I have to make a correction on Kansas. They never won the Big XII title but they went to the Orange Bowl and beat the ACC rep. Missouri was passed for Kansas (both had identical records) because the Orange Bowl believed they would bring more fans to Miami than Missouri. That says a lot about your program when Kansas which is in a smaller state has more weight than you.

(09-24-2017 12:05 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 01:57 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It's not the conference they joined that is to blame. Nebraska was struggling in the Big XII, so were Texas A&M and Colorado; Missouri was okay but they never won the conference, even Kansas can make that claim. Nebraska and A&M used Texas as an excuse of their mediocrity but who can they blame now?

Nebraska needs the right coach, that's it. They have the conference, exposure, resources, history and fan base to make it happen.

You are correct. That Big XII championship game when Texas was given two attempts to hit a field goal to win the game the year Nebraska left supports your argument well.

way to "misremember" history

Texas was not given 2 chances at a field goal 1 second was put on the clock because the replay ruled the ball had hit out of bounds with 1 second on the play clock on the throw away pass on the prior play

and the chancellor of NU has made it 100% clear that NU did not leave the Big 12 because of anything having to do with Texas

NU was 100% in favor of unequal revenue sharing

NU was not in favor of a conference network unless the revenue was shared unequally and when that was not an option NU was head of Texas in getting their own network started

NU had no issue with the conference offices in dallas and the chancellor of NU voted in favor of the conference CCG in dallas because he did not like sitting in the stands in the cold

the only major decision that NU and Texas had a difference of opinion on was partial qualifiers and that was 11-1 in favor of doing away with them so that was not because of Texas

the chancellor NU has also made clear that when he pressed Texas to commit to the Big 12 Texas said they would if NU did and NU declined to do so

(09-24-2017 12:35 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 12:05 PM)chess Wrote:  

(09-24-2017 01:57 AM)UTEPDallas Wrote:  It's not the conference they joined that is to blame. Nebraska was struggling in the Big XII, so were Texas A&M and Colorado; Missouri was okay but they never won the conference, even Kansas can make that claim. Nebraska and A&M used Texas as an excuse of their mediocrity but who can they blame now?

Nebraska needs the right coach, that's it. They have the conference, exposure, resources, history and fan base to make it happen.

You are correct. That Big XII championship game when Texas was given two attempts to hit a field goal to win the game the year Nebraska left supports your argument well.

way to "misremember" history

Texas was not given 2 chances at a field goal 1 second was put on the clock because the replay ruled the ball had hit out of bounds with 1 second on the play clock on the throw away pass on the prior play

and the chancellor of NU has made it 100% clear that NU did not leave the Big 12 because of anything having to do with Texas

NU was 100% in favor of unequal revenue sharing

NU was not in favor of a conference network unless the revenue was shared unequally and when that was not an option NU was head of Texas in getting their own network started

NU had no issue with the conference offices in dallas and the chancellor of NU voted in favor of the conference CCG in dallas because he did not like sitting in the stands in the cold

the only major decision that NU and Texas had a difference of opinion on was partial qualifiers and that was 11-1 in favor of doing away with them so that was not because of Texas

the chancellor NU has also made clear that when he pressed Texas to commit to the Big 12 Texas said they would if NU did and NU declined to do so

That's why I don't feel bad for A&M and Nebraska. They were part of the problem in the Big XII being dysfunctional. They had no issues and regrets in getting more money than Texas Tech, Iowa State and the rest. It's easy to blame Texas (they're not angels either) and to some extent Oklahoma but those two blamed Bevo for their shortcomings and left when they had a chance (I don't blame them, it's the B1G and SEC) but who can they blame now? They have more money, more exposure, and play in a better conference. What's the excuse? It can't be Texas being a bully and dictating terms anymore. Colorado was a school I thought (of all the defectors) that deserved to go to a better conference and I was indifferent to Missouri. TCU has done more in the Big XII in six seasons than A&M in 16 seasons. West Virginia was a better football and basketball replacement than Missouri.