Missouri's SEC campaign

[ukvols]

Anything but Memphis.

Not sure why I'm spending part of a second post to defend UofL, but I think it depends on where one sets the bar regarding the size of a fan base. They're not UT, sure, but they by no means have a small fan base.

 

[volger]

Why do I believe MU will have their ass handed to them in the SEC? If they dont improve the D, it will be ugly early and often.

 

[volmaniac18]

All those schools publicly said they weren't interested, not sure what else I need to say on the part regarding them.


I and many others have all gone through the faults in the "tougher teams & schedule alone" idea with regards to conference expansions I don't know how many times now; there's not a need for me trot it all out every single time someone brings up their thoughts or feelings that the best and only way to go is a route where we invite the teams who have been the most successful recently (or those arguing geography should be the sole deciding factor - I've seen people arguing to take ECU on that front); it becomes tiresome to have to fetch it all up each and every time someone else brings it up

I understand you wish to look at it from a simplistic stance (as you put it) but this (conference expansion) just isn't that simple of a matter; it can't be. There are too many factors - too much at stake, too much that has to be allieved or compromised (with regards to both new members, existing members, and former conferences) and other factors that have to be taken into account when all this is being done.

Ignore me if you wish and have fun doing so, but the options you wanted/listed just aren't there...and in all likelihood won't be there unless something drastic (unlikely) happens in the next 6 years, which is too long a time period to be holding on to 13 teams anyways.

I do have to chuckle a bit about the "you don't have or use a brain" shot you took (especially while I'm in the middle of researching a developmental neuroscience paper regarding cognitive changes in the development/growth of the human brain)
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Ahhh, perhaps this is why we don't necessarily see eye-to-eye. A scientist disagreeing with a lawyer. Perhaps I didn't give enough credence to you posts because I assumed the worst. My apologies. I'll have to retract my not acknowledging you comment.

As for your "too much at stake" argument, do you not believe that sitting back and making a "best for the conference" assessment is better than ruching into things?

 

[volmaniac18]

Anything but Memphis.

Not sure why I'm spending part of a second post to defend UofL, but I think it depends on where one sets the bar regarding the size of a fan base. They're not UT, sure, but they by no means have a small fan base.

:lolabove:

 

[milohimself]

I do not know that the share of the KC and StL markets is large enough to warrant the choice. If the SEC just wants Mizzou, then choose Mizzou; however, if they think Mizzou is the best option as Team 14 due to those markets, I have to think that the market research is off. Mizzou competes heavily with Illinois in the StL market and KU and K-State have much larger shares (at least from my own experience) of the KC market than does Mizzou.

Therefore, if the markets will only be a marginal boon, then why not go ahead and take Memphis or Louisville (teams that are regional and have rivalries with SEC Schools).

If this is about recruiting exposure, I just don't see Missouri adding anything.

I understand that the A&M addition brings with it revenue and recruiting. I understand that they need to have a 14th team, now. However, I think the SEC should look for a basketball school, simply in an effort not to have the conference schedule even more rigorous than it already is. Missouri, Memphis, and Louisville seem to fit this bill; Memphis and Louisville are regional.

I doubt any decisions in this whole thing are made with basketball in mind whatsoever; look at Memphis being absolutely left in the dust, and for a while there when the Pac-16 smokescreen was up, it looked like KU and KState would be SOL.

The bottom line is this: With a new SEC network in the works, they would get more money for every household that network enters. Not so much who actually tunes in, but how many houses it's in, very much like the Big Ten Network. Louisville and Memphis, aside from adding to would-be patsy games for the SEC, respectively provide little and no market expansion. STL and KC, while they might have split interests (and what big market doesn't?), would at least provide the most households and thus the most to add to the pie.

The money is what it really comes down to, and that's how it's determined. Does a school add more to the pie than it takes up by taking up another slice? For Missouri, the answer is unequivocally 'yes.'

 

[TrueOrange]

No I won't.

OU
Okie State
Texas

Those are three right off the top of my head

Texas isn't an option. The conference would not allow them to have their own network with their own ESPN deal while also excused from sharing revenue. Their reluctance regarding the network was part of the reason the deal with the Pac12 fell threw for everyone.

Orange pearl's right about ok St. Just because theyre having a good season now doesn't make them a good take overall.


OU is an odd situation...for reasons most outside the school are not sure about, their president and board are completely averse to the idea of Oklahoma ever joining or taking part in the SEC. There are multiple speculations on this front: some feel that the powers that be view the SEC as a cesspool in regards to academics and that the big 12 or PAC 12 give them a better reputation, others feel that it's because the SEC is too tough (in their opinion) and they'd much rather take part in a conference where it is easier to win or there is less opposition.

Real reason is who knows though
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[milohimself]

Why do I believe MU will have their ass handed to them in the SEC? If they dont improve the D, it will be ugly early and often.

Probably, but don't (and this goes for TAMU as well) discount how the recruiting pitch will change if/when they join the SEC officially.

 

[ukvols]

I doubt any decisions in this whole thing are made with basketball in mind whatsoever; look at Memphis being absolutely left in the dust, and for a while there when the Pac-16 smokescreen was up, it looked like KSU and KState would be SOL.

The bottom line is this: With a new SEC network in the works, they would get more money for every household that network enters. Not so much who actually tunes in, but how many houses it's in, very much like the Big Ten Network. Louisville and Memphis, aside from adding to would-be patsy games for the SEC, respectively provide little and no market expansion. STL and KC, while they might have split interests (and what big market doesn't?), would at least provide the most households and thus the most to add to the pie.

The money is what it really comes down to, and that's how it's determined. Does a school add more to the pie than it takes up by taking up another slice? For Missouri, the answer is unequivocally 'yes.'

Happens to even the best of us.

 

[milohimself]

Good eye. Thanks.

 

[volmaniac18]

Two hours 'til kickoff,then all of these diverse views turn into one united front to cheer for the Vols kicking some Roll Tide a$$. I love it.

 

[volger]

Probably, but don't (and this goes for TAMU as well) discount how the recruiting pitch will change if/when they join the SEC officially.

I agree on the recruiting angle. Just saying as an MU fan for over 40 years, coming to a tougher conference has me wondering if this wont turn MU back to a BB school. Kind of like the new Kentucky of the SEC.

 

[milohimself]

I agree on the recruiting angle. Just saying as an MU fan for over 40 years, coming to a tougher conference has me wondering if this wont turn MU back to a BB school. Kind of like the new Kentucky of the SEC.

I dunno. I think Pinkel has done a reasonable job there, and if they can take advantage of new recruiting windows, they could come into the SEC and be somewhere around middle of the pack along with the other former SWC/Big 8 schools.

 

[TrueOrange]

I agree on the recruiting angle. Just saying as an MU fan for over 40 years, coming to a tougher conference has me wondering if this wont turn MU back to a BB school. Kind of like the new Kentucky of the SEC.

UK though seems less the norm and perhaps isn't the best example to use for comparison


Perhaps it might be better to look as reference somewhere between how Arkansas and South Carolina (who both made similar moves) have managed/turned out

 

[therealUT]

I dunno. I think Pinkel has done a reasonable job there, and if they can take advantage of new recruiting windows, they could come into the SEC and be somewhere around middle of the pack along with the other former SWC/Big 8 schools.

Arkansas's almost twenty years in which it has been in the SEC has easily been its worst twenty year span since 1952.

 

[volger]

UK though seems less the norm and perhaps isn't the best example to use for comparison


Perhaps it might be better to look as reference somewhere between how Arkansas and South Carolina (who both made similar moves) have managed/turned out

I may have worded if funny. I meant revert MU back to being a BB school like Kentucky is.

I also see them as a middle of the pack FB team. Hopefully with the recruiting avenues widening, they can make a solid addition to the SEC. We shall see.

 

[TrueOrange]

Ahhh, perhaps this is why we don't necessarily see eye-to-eye. A scientist disagreeing with a lawyer. Perhaps I didn't give enough credence to you posts because I assumed the worst. My apologies. I'll have to retract my not acknowledging you comment.

It's fine.

I can actually understand such assumption; I've had to study in one of my classes what's called online disinhibition effect (or humorously sometimes called "Greater Internet F--kwad Theory"), part of which deals with how people just assign traits and characteristics (often negative) to others during online discussion

(it's actually pretty interesting. if you or anyone cares to read about it, wikipedia gives a pretty good summary: Online disinhibition effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

(my acting silly often also probably doesn't help my presentation much either)

As for your "too much at stake" argument, do you not believe that sitting back and making a "best for the conference" assessment is better than ruching into things?

I don't think this is being rushed into, though. I think a lot of time, thought, deliberation, etc, behind the scenes has gone into all of these moves. I don't think any of these have been made haphazardly, and the benefits for the conference have been considered in each and every step.


I also don't believe this is a situation, though, where sitting and waiting is terribly available as an option (or just, with how everything's looking like it will go, one can't turn down a good or really good option if it were to come up for the hope that a great one might appear further down the road).


With the way the current landscape is going, the conference would, likely, be in what appears to be a much worse position regarding looking for members, in a likely drier market next year.
All the big 12 members (the most likely source of stray teams) are going to (as of next year) have their rights locked into the conference for the next 6 seasons.
I don't think - barring a massive, sudden, unexpected schism - much anything at all will change in the ACC (if anything they seem now to be as strong/solidified as the SEC does currently).
That really just leaves the big east (I cannot see the SEC going after a CUSA or MAC team)...and neither louisville nor west virginia are either all that appealing or all that worthwhile of an option for the conference (despite what the mountaineer fans might try to argue).


(please, feel free to correct me if I might have misunderstood something you might have meant)


There's also the issue of holding onto of a setup of 13 teams (NCAA waiver or not) which, realistically, isn't a viable option for more than one season. (balancing it for, I don't know say, 3-6 years, more than likely has the potential to turn into an absolute mess)


But then there are also benefits missouri brings to the SEC (balance, market, expanding of ones brand further, the AAU - since the presidents vote on membership - helps especially with consideration to how the rest of the nation views the academics of all the current members, as well as some other things involving network, etc), so it's not like the conference is grabbing straws because because it's scared.

It just seems very unlikely that this was a case of just "who came first to the SEC" either (or that the powers that be didn't go through quite the consideration first)


(...and sorry for any wording errors i might have missed; having to multitask between quite a few things while I wrote this)

 

[TrueOrange]

I may have worded if funny. I meant revert MU back to being a BB school like Kentucky is.

I also see them as a middle of the pack FB team. Hopefully with the recruiting avenues widening, they can make a solid addition to the SEC. We shall see.

ah gotcha

 

[milohimself]

Arkansas's almost twenty years in which it has been in the SEC has easily been its worst twenty year span since 1952.

Didn't say that Arkansas has been all that successful or that Mizzou would be in the SEC, just that they'd be middle of the pack -- a solid tier above Vandy, KY and the MS schools.

 

[MizzouMan]

I do not know that the share of the KC and StL markets is large enough to warrant the choice. If the SEC just wants Mizzou, then choose Mizzou; however, if they think Mizzou is the best option as Team 14 due to those markets, I have to think that the market research is off. Mizzou competes heavily with Illinois in the StL market and KU and K-State have much larger shares (at least from my own experience) of the KC market than does Mizzou.

Therefore, if the markets will only be a marginal boon, then why not go ahead and take Memphis or Louisville (teams that are regional and have rivalries with SEC Schools).

If this is about recruiting exposure, I just don't see Missouri adding anything.

I understand that the A&M addition brings with it revenue and recruiting. I understand that they need to have a 14th team, now. However, I think the SEC should look for a basketball school, simply in an effort not to have the conference schedule even more rigorous than it already is. Missouri, Memphis, and Louisville seem to fit this bill; Memphis and Louisville are regional.

This post isn't correct. I live in the STL area and mizzou has a much larger fanbase here than illinois. Its not even close. As far as KC goes KU and Mizzou have about an even split with some KState fans mixed in. To say ku and kstate have larger shares in KC is just ignorant. And adding missouri does open up another solid recruiting ground. Right now they have the #1 recruit in the nation (according to rivals) in dorial green-beckham.

 

[therealUT]

To say ku and kstate have larger shares in KC is just ignorant.

It most definitely is not ignorant. I will grant you your personal knowledge of StL loyalties; I have a lifetime of experience in Kansas City, though.

 

[MizzouMan]

It most definitely is not ignorant. I will grant you your personal knowledge of StL loyalties; I have a lifetime of experience in Kansas City, though.

Mizzou and KU are the "bigfish" in the KC market with Kstate having a solid fanbase there. Mizzou definitely doesn't have the smallest share of that market as you said earlier. As far as the STL market goes, mizzou owns it.

 

[therealUT]

Mizzou and KU are the "bigfish" in the KC market with Kstate having a solid fanbase there. Mizzou definitely doesn't have the smallest share of that market as you said earlier. As far as the STL market goes, mizzou owns it.

From my experience (30 years of calling Kansas City home), they absolutely have the smallest share of the KC market (in fact, I would even argue that Nebraska football has a larger share of the market in KC than Mizzou football).

Your insistence regarding the KC market is going to make me question exactly how firm your knowledge of the StL market is.

 

[MizzouMan]

Your insistence regarding the KC market is going to make me question exactly how firm your knowledge of the StL market is.

This is a forum on anything STL: Forums

Notice how much more active the mizzou forum is compared to the illinois one. I know its just a forum, but hopefully that gives you a better idea on the STL market's rooting interest.

 

[TrueOrange]

From my experience (30 years of calling Kansas City home), they absolutely have the smallest share of the KC market (in fact, I would even argue that Nebraska football has a larger share of the market in KC than Mizzou football).

Your insistence regarding the KC market is going to make me question exactly how firm your knowledge of the StL market is.

Just wondering, do you still live in KC? (not questioning/deriding your thoughts on the matter with this)

 

[Stripes314]

From my experience (30 years of calling Kansas City home), they absolutely have the smallest share of the KC market (in fact, I would even argue that Nebraska football has a larger share of the market in KC than Mizzou football).

Your insistence regarding the KC market is going to make me question exactly how firm your knowledge of the StL market is.

:lol: Mizzou does not have the smallest Fanbase in K.C. I realize your a Jayhawk fan but lets be serious. Unless you are counting half of the state of kansas along as the K.C. Metropolitan then that is nowhere near accurate.