Missouri's SEC campaign

#301
#301
Here is my biggest aforethought about all of this "conference expansion" nonsense. Can you, as a fan, say that you will be happy with adding Texas A&M and Missouri to the conference if the Pac-12 adds Ok, TX, and maybe Ok State, Tx Tech? Are you satisfied with our level of competition at that point. What if the Big 10 adds Notre Dame? I'm not saying any of this happens but you have to consider, overall, is Missouri the best we can do? In my opinion no, they jsut don't fit.
 
#302
#302
volmaniac18 said:
From a Southeastern perspective, yes. I just think that the further west and north that we move the less the title "Southeastern" has any relevant meaning. As the conference stands this year, I was very happy with just a 12 team conference. If we're going to add Missouri then we might as well change the name of the conference because it will lose its meaning (like the Big East would if it added Boise State).
I was not stocked about adding Tx A&M because it continues to dilute the "SEC" geography, but they do have a football culture and program tradition that compliments the rest of the SEC so i moved on. I thought that the 14th team needed to come from the east coast though in order to offset the geographic debacle. I was hoping for Georgia Tech to come back to the SEC or maybe grabbing Virginia Tech or Clemson.
Click to expand...

Clemson, the VT, (and I feel the NC schools have also done this) have all publicly released statements saying they're not interested in leaving their conference nor in joining the SEC


Ga tech left the conference giving them the bird on the way out, and hasnt been happier since leaving and the latter joining of the ACC; they're never coming back nor honestly should they


...but seriously, if your main argument here is pretty much that "it's called southeastern, so all members should only be from the southeast!" (with a possible "or else other fans might make fun of us") that's a poor argument, and more times than not, a losing one at that

It's a coalition of universities, not a country club
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#303
#303
volmaniac18 said:
Here is my biggest aforethought about all of this "conference expansion" nonsense. Can you, as a fan, say that you will be happy with adding Texas A&M and Missouri to the conference if the Pac-12 adds Ok, TX, and maybe Ok State, Tx Tech? Are you satisfied with our level of competition at that point. What if the Big 10 adds Notre Dame? I'm not saying any of this happens but you have to consider, overall, is Missouri the best we can do? In my opinion no, they jsut don't fit.
Click to expand...

Got it, chest thumping argument.



Screw what's good for all member schools, we should wait and offer the Texas or the New Orleans Saints :ermm:
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#304
#304
volmaniac18 said:
From a Southeastern perspective, yes. I just think that the further west and north that we move the less the title "Southeastern" has any relevant meaning. As the conference stands this year, I was very happy with just a 12 team conference. If we're going to add Missouri then we might as well change the name of the conference because it will lose its meaning (like the Big East would if it added Boise State).
I was not stocked about adding Tx A&M because it continues to dilute the "SEC" geography, but they do have a football culture and program tradition that compliments the rest of the SEC so i moved on. I thought that the 14th team needed to come from the east coast though in order to offset the geographic debacle. I was hoping for Georgia Tech to come back to the SEC or maybe grabbing Virginia Tech or Clemson.
Click to expand...
There is a gentleman's agreement between some SEC presidents to keep a few ACC teams from coming in, GaTech and Clemson being two of them. Besides that, some administrators out there are old enough to remember Tech throwing a hissy fit and leaving in the 60's.

I would also love to see VaTech, I think it's a great fit geographically, culturally, football-wise they'd come in and compete pretty quickly (anybody think they couldn't win the east this year?), etc. The problem with them is they are already king of their own castle, and with the new ACC market expansion, I can't imagine the SEC being a significantly better financial situation than the ACC. That would be what it would take for them to jump. NC State, or UNC/Duke would be a great grab as well, but I don't see those four splitting up; they have always called the shots in the ACC, and the four of them being banded together in one conference has always been advantageous.

volmaniac18 said:
Here is my biggest aforethought about all of this "conference expansion" nonsense. Can you, as a fan, say that you will be happy with adding Texas A&M and Missouri to the conference if the Pac-12 adds Ok, TX, and maybe Ok State, Tx Tech? Are you satisfied with our level of competition at that point. What if the Big 10 adds Notre Dame? I'm not saying any of this happens but you have to consider, overall, is Missouri the best we can do? In my opinion no, they jsut don't fit.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, yes they are. VaTech is the only ACC program with an even somewhat outside shot of jumping to the SEC, and that's highly doubtful. Mizzou is easily the best option for a 14th team out there.

And I don't pay nearly as much attention to true regional constitution... As I said earlier, Arkansas isn't even southeastern, but they've fit in alright. And I have spent my whole life following Pac-whatever football, and would have been psyched if they grabbed four schools from Texas and Oklahoma. The four of them in a division with the Rockies and Arizona schools would make for great football, and would allow for another division with the original Pac-8.

It's the way of the future, man. Embrace it.
 
#305
#305
I know which schools have said they will not come into the conference. I am just looking at the expansion from an SEC perspective. To include the considerations of who is will in to come in and who isn't would expand this argument greatly. I am just saying from a purely simplistic perspective Missouri doesn't fit. There's too many other possibilities are better. Moreover, I think that the teams that have said they won't come to the SEC could change in the near future. I mean, isn't that what Tx A&M was saying at this time last year? Pretty sure it was.

TrueOrange- I'm no longer acknowledging your posts. You have yet to make even a single sound argument in response to what I have said. All you are basically saying is "No way that will work" to all of my arguments without giving reasons. It's simple to sit back and throw stones but how about exercising that brain just a little bit every once in a while. It'll work wonders for you.

milohimself- I completely agree with what you are saying for the most part. Especially with the teams you said you'd like to see come in. I haven't put any real consideration into it but why not Louisville? I understand that the SEC said they weren't going to take someone from a state that already has an SEC team but if they were to go back on that statement, would Louisville be an equally as viable option as Missouri? For the most part it falls within most of the parameters of the SEC. They aren't too far away and Charlie Strong is building a program up there. There athletics have just as much potential as Missouri's do.
 
#306
#306
What does Louisville offer? Missouri has competitive football, basketball, two big TV markets and a sizeable fanbase. Ville has none of those.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#307
#307
volmaniac18 said:
I know which schools have said they will not come into the conference. I am just looking at the expansion from an SEC perspective. To include the considerations of who is will in to come in and who isn't would expand this argument greatly. I am just saying from a purely simplistic perspective Missouri doesn't fit. There's too many other possibilities are better. Moreover, I think that the teams that have said they won't come to the SEC could change in the near future. I mean, isn't that what Tx A&M was saying at this time last year? Pretty sure it was.

TrueOrange- I'm no longer acknowledging your posts. You have yet to make even a single sound argument in response to what I have said. All you are basically saying is "No way that will work" to all of my arguments without giving reasons. It's simple to sit back and throw stones but how about exercising that brain just a little bit every once in a while. It'll work wonders for you.

milohimself- I completely agree with what you are saying for the most part. Especially with the teams you said you'd like to see come in. I haven't put any real consideration into it but why not Louisville? I understand that the SEC said they weren't going to take someone from a state that already has an SEC team but if they were to go back on that statement, would Louisville be an equally as viable option as Missouri? For the most part it falls within most of the parameters of the SEC. They aren't too far away and Charlie Strong is building a program up there. There athletics have just as much potential as Missouri's do.
Click to expand...

Louisville isn't even close to being as attractive as Missouri.
 
#310
#310
milohimself said:
What does Louisville offer? Missouri has competitive football, basketball, two big TV markets and a sizeable fanbase. Ville has none of those.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I was just considering that adding Louisville would continue the Kentucky-Louisville rivalry, they are within the regional southeast, they've made 8 final-four appearances and made 37 NCAA basketball postseasons so I think their basketball would be competitive in our conference. I known their baseball is not exceptional and there football has not been consistent (but is that any different than Missouri's program) but there's always room for program improvement (if that is part of our consideration for Missouri). I am not saying they are a good pick, I just threw that out there off the top of my head. It's one of those let's look left while everyone else is looking right considerations. It was just a consideration, not a team I was seriously arguing for.

Missouri's just one of those teams where it doesn't get my blood pumping for adding them to the league. I just want to get excited when a team gets added to the SEC and i'm just having trouble buying into the Missouri campaign.
 
#312
#312
Missouri really does not have that much to offer. They have two decent sized TV markets that are split between competing loyalties (KC: KU, KSU, Mizzou; StL: Mizzou, Illinois). Mizzou's football program is not even close to being competitive in the BigXII; also, the addition of Mizzou will force SEC teams to play in miserable weather in November. Further, I have never been under the impression that the state of Missouri is a hotbed for either football or basketball recruiting (sans Rush brothers).
 
#313
#313
You hit on the only thing that matters: TV markets.

But, if the SEC has to add a 14th team and no ACC teams are available, who do you take? And be realistic, not just OU without OkSt, etc.
 
#314
#314
therealUT said:
Missouri really does not have that much to offer. They have two decent sized TV markets that are split between competing loyalties (KC: KU, KSU, Mizzou; StL: Mizzou, Illinois). Mizzou's football program is not even close to being competitive in the BigXII; also, the addition of Mizzou will force SEC teams to play in miserable weather in November. Further, I have never been under the impression that the state of Missouri is a hotbed for either football or basketball recruiting (sans Rush brothers).
Click to expand...

I'm just glad there's someone else out there that is acknowledging that maybe a team other than Missouri would be a better option.
 
#317
#317
milohimself said:
You hit on the only thing that matters: TV markets.

But, if the SEC has to add a 14th team and no ACC teams are available, who do you take? And be realistic, not just OU without OkSt, etc.
Click to expand...

I think that rather than picking someone right now we should just let the football season play itself out and then wait until February or March and start the 14th member campaign again. Things change rapidly in the NCAA climate.
 
#319
#319
iuvol2012 said:
No I won't.

OU
Okie State
Texas

Those are three right off the top of my head :p:p
Click to expand...

Oklahoma won't go without Oklahoma State.

You seriously think Oklahoma State is a better option than Missouri?

Adding Texas would be horrible.
 
#322
#322
milohimself said:
You hit on the only thing that matters: TV markets.

But, if the SEC has to add a 14th team and no ACC teams are available, who do you take? And be realistic, not just OU without OkSt, etc.
Click to expand...

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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#323
#323
volmaniac18 said:
Not disagreeing, but would like a little further explanation.
Click to expand...

Which part?

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are attached at the hip. Realistically, you'd only want one(Oklahoma). They own the state of Oklahoma. If it was possible to pry just Oklahoma State away, Missouri is still the better choice. They have their own state and market while Oklahoma State takes the backseat to Oklahoma.

And Texas, they have their own network. The SEC wants no part of that. Especially with their sense of entitlement. They've always thought they deserve a bigger cut. With the addition of A&M, don't need Texas.

Missouri and Virginia Tech seem to be the only teams/markets that make sense but nobody believes VT will leave the ACC. That leaves Missouri
 
#324
#324
volmaniac18 said:
I know which schools have said they will not come into the conference. I am just looking at the expansion from an SEC perspective. To include the considerations of who is will in to come in and who isn't would expand this argument greatly. I am just saying from a purely simplistic perspective Missouri doesn't fit. There's too many other possibilities are better. Moreover, I think that the teams that have said they won't come to the SEC could change in the near future. I mean, isn't that what Tx A&M was saying at this time last year? Pretty sure it was.

TrueOrange- I'm no longer acknowledging your posts. You have yet to make even a single sound argument in response to what I have said. All you are basically saying is "No way that will work" to all of my arguments without giving reasons. It's simple to sit back and throw stones but how about exercising that brain just a little bit every once in a while. It'll work wonders for you.

milohimself- I completely agree with what you are saying for the most part. Especially with the teams you said you'd like to see come in. I haven't put any real consideration into it but why not Louisville? I understand that the SEC said they weren't going to take someone from a state that already has an SEC team but if they were to go back on that statement, would Louisville be an equally as viable option as Missouri? For the most part it falls within most of the parameters of the SEC. They aren't too far away and Charlie Strong is building a program up there. There athletics have just as much potential as Missouri's do.
Click to expand...

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
 
#325
#325
The_Orange_Pearl said:
Which part?

Oklahoma and Oklahoma State are attached at the hip. Realistically, you'd only want one(Oklahoma). They own the state of Oklahoma. If it was possible to pry just Oklahoma State away, Missouri is still the better choice. They have their own state and market while Oklahoma State takes the backseat to Oklahoma.

And Texas, they have their own network. The SEC wants no part of that. Especially with their sense of entitlement. They've always thought they deserve a bigger cut. With the addition of A&M, don't need Texas.

Missouri and Virginia Tech seem to be the only teams/markets that make sense but nobody believes VT will leave the ACC. That leaves Missouri
Click to expand...

Exactly what I was looking for. I appreciate being able to understand the reasoning behind disagreements. I completely understand where you are coming from now.:good!:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top