Why Is Missouri In The SEC?

#27
#27
Missouri was much more appealing to the conference when they were admitted than they are currently, but that resides more with the university's administration over the tenure in the conference than anything else. From time to time we are seeing member institutions racked by division, politics, meddlesome boosters, resulting in poor leadership at the university level, which results in poor hires within the athletics departments, it wasn't that long ago the Tennessee football program was an embarrassment going winless in the conference, Warlick's last years at the Lady Vol helm were disgraceful, Donny Tindall enough said and the baseball team was mediocre at best not even close to a conference tournament game. Auburn is tracking the leadership problems that befell Tennessee not so long ago and from time to time member institutions will struggle in this regard, it happens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TennesseeTarheel
#28
#28
GregAmsler said:
And even then, they won because they got the worst SEC West teams. In each of those years, they lost head to head to the true best team in the East (SC and Georgia), but those teams lost to better West teams.
Click to expand...
In 2013, SC lost to UGA and Tennessee, not a West team. In 2014, UGA lost SC and Florida. Also, not West teams. Not sure how that makes them the "true best team in the East" over Mizzou those years.
 
#29
#29
whobethis16 said:
In 2013, SC lost to UGA and Tennessee, not a West team. In 2014, UGA lost SC and Florida. Also, not West teams. Not sure how that makes them the "true best team in the East" over Mizzou those years.
Click to expand...

You’re right. My memory had SC and UGA losing to West teams. It looks like Georgia played a tougher West schedule than Missouri in 2014, but beat them anyway (including #9 Auburn). In both of those years, Missouri lost head to head against the top challenger (SC in 2013 and UGA in 2014). Missouri also lost to Indiana in 2014.

But yeah, 13 SC and 14 UGA dropped some games against East teams they shouldn’t have. It just felt like Missouri wasn’t the best team in the East either year, but backed into the SECCG, only to get blown out by the West champion. Hell, 2013 SC beat #6 Clemson.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77
#31
#31
It was initially believed that Mizzou was heading to the Big Ten. They are a member of the American Association of Universities (AAU). Every current member of the Big Ten is also a member of the AAU, except Nebraska. The Big Ten commissioner (at the time) said AAU membership was an important part of being in the Big Ten. USC and UCLA are also members of the AAU. For future Big Ten expansion - Oregon, Washington, and Stanford are also members,
 
  • Like
Reactions: grandjason, Volfan1000 and ArmchairQB
#32
#32
Volfan1000 said:
Why did the SEC not select West Virginia or another school to join along with Texas A&M when they expanded in 2012?

I do not see what Missouri brings to this conference.
Click to expand...

Mainly To bring the Kansas City and St Louis tv markets into the fold. That is the main and foremost reason. When that expansion frenzy kicked off, they offered the most of all the teams that were willing to switch conferences.

Plus, At the time they joined, they were a better, more stable program under Pinkel. His cancer(?) diagnosis and subsequent retirement was a really big blow to that program. A couple of bad coaching hires and lackluster recruiting and here they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: grandjason, MemphisVol77 and murfvol1
#34
#34
I'd say TV market and at one point they had an exciting brand of offense under Pinkel. But since then, not sure exactly? I guess the SEC would like some of those Big 12 teams to join to expand the conference?
 
#35
#35
St. Louis is a big market, but I'd be curious to know what the ratings are specific to college sports. It feels like much more of a pro sports state than any other state represented by the SEC. They couldn't have timed it any better in terms of a small window of being decent in football combined with the East being collectively terrible. The exchange for that deal was having to suffer through Cuonzo for 5 years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Volfan1000 and murfvol1
#38
#38
I get the sentiment on Missouri as they don't really seem to be adding much value to the conference...but (and maybe you were just throwing out a random name) WVU, IMO, would be a worse addition. WVU is 1-5 in the Big12 how much worse would they be in the SEC? The town (Morgantown) sucks, the state sucks, their fanbase is roughly the same size as Missouri, people have already mentioned the markets. Your just not getting anything better in any area that I can see in WVU and in many areas are probably getting much worse.
 
#39
#39
Volfan1000 said:
Why did the SEC not select West Virginia or another school to join along with Texas A&M when they expanded in 2012?

I do not see what Missouri brings to this conference.
Click to expand...
Because West Virginia is a dump of a school...Granted they would be perfect additions to the SEC only because of location but nobody watches them outside of thier own state...Not to mention thier fans are absolutely HORRIBLE!!..I remember a video once of them sliding down a muddy hill at a game once and in the background it had porta potties submerged in the water and these clowns were swimming in it....No joke
 
  • Like
Reactions: TrueOrange, MemphisVol77 and Jeff Clark
#40
#40
VOLnMiami said:
Because West Virginia is a dump of a school...Granted they would be perfect additions to the SEC only because of location but nobody watches them outside of thier own state...Not to mention thier fans are absolutely HORRIBLE!!..I remember a video once of them sliding down a muddy hill at a game once and in the background it had porta potties submerged in the water and these clowns were swimming in it....No joke
Click to expand...
200 (7).gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77 and NEWDAYVOL
#43
#43
GAVol said:
A much better TV market than anything they’ve got in Morgantown.
Click to expand...

SEC is like the NFL…a national brand. Given WVa’s past 20 years in football and basketball, I think WVa woulda been a better choice on all fronts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeff Clark
#44
#44
unfrozencvmanvol said:
Let's at least beat them this year so that we have a winning record against them before we kick them out of the conference.

View attachment 512302
Click to expand...
I never looked at Missouri as an SEC team, but at the same time they beat us the first 3 times we played them and they went to their first 2 SEC Championship games against Auburn and Alabama. So much for not belonging, lol.
 
#46
#46
barknoxbrawler said:
They have been good enough to beat us 50% of the time. Much better than what Vandy (or other sec programs) can say. They are down like we were and they came into that league like a storm playin good ball.
Click to expand...
So a handful of "good" years equates to belonging?
 
#49
#49
Stacmot said:
Better question is why is Vanderbilt in the SEC?
Click to expand...

Because they used to beat the crap out of Tennessee on a regular basis. And even up to the 1980s - mid 19902, games were competitive.They are why we hired General Neyland. Now, just to gather some "Dayum you, WoodsmanVoil," I offer this
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top