does anyone else think Mizzou made a mistake by going to the SEC?

[mattp]

obviously they'll make more money, and it'll be nice to be out from under the control of Texas, but their teams aren't even going to be remotely competetive in the SEC. they were barely any good in the Big12. they lost their best rivalry and move to a conference that's so well established that they'll always be an afterthought. they're like the BC of the SEC, except at least now BC has a couple of neighbors in their conference.

i'm not sure how much more they stand to make in the SEC, but it can't be enough to justify destroying all of your tradition and hopes to be competitive. you build yourself by winning, not being an eternal punching bag at the cool kids table

 

[HuskyHawk]

Huge mistake. A childish tantrum essentially. They don't fit, aren't remotely "southern" and lose both important rivalry games, and major influence. Missouri (KC) was the center of the Big XII. Now it is the outskirts of the SEC. So the state itself has taken a financial hit, that is probably much greater than anything the extra revenue from the SEC brings in.

They will be among the better basketball programs in the SEC, but football will be behind LSU, Bama, UGA, UF, Arkansas, South Carolina and Auburn. Bottom half of the league most years.

 

[epark88]

Money, power and greed are slowly eroding the essence of college football. Within a decade we're going to have the NFDL on our hands.

Games like KU-Mizzou, the Backyard Brawl, aTm-Texas, etc. are the reason folks like me got into cfb in the first place. Sure Mizzou's gonna get paid in the $EC, but frankly they're only relevant to the nation when they're playing the Border War.

So, NO...

 

[06029]

they lost their best rivalry

They can maintain that rivalry as a few SEC teams play a rivalry game out of conference: FL/FSU; SC/Clemson; GA/GaTech.

When you are invited to the best and richest conference and the alternative is to stay in a conference that is barely above the BE in terms of viability where TX and OK determines your fate, you go. And to project their current state of FB as being their state forever, well that does not work. The SEC affiliation will grab some midwest recruits that want to play in the SEC but stay closer to home.

 

[RS9999X]

No mistake. More money. Basketball will rise to the top. There is pressure on them now to upgrade all their facilities. They are getting calls from 5 star recuits. Less drama. They can still book their major rivalry.

Texas and the Oklahomas threw them under the bus twice in 2 years over their PAC-12 romance. Fool me once...Fool me twice....

There was no option except a lockup and full knowlege Texas would shop the lockout agreement every year trying to improve their financial situation

 

[uconNYC]

If Texas, TT, OU and OSU had gone to the PAC-12, Missouri would have been royally screwed, so after a close call like that I can understand them jumping for the security of the SEC.

 

[ShakyTheMohel]

No mistake. More money. Basketball will rise to the top. There is pressure on them now to upgrade all their facilities. They are getting calls from 5 star recuits. Less drama. They can still book their major rivalry.

Texas and the Oklahomas threw them under the bus twice in 2 years over their PAC-12 romance. Fool me once...Fool me twice....

There was no option except a lockup and full knowlege Texas would shop the lockout agreement every year trying to improve their financial situation

I agree. While money was part of the equation, I think this is all about stability. And considering our position, I can't blame them. Texas A&M left for emotional reasons. They were fed up with being led around by Texas. Missouri left for logical reasons...they didn't want to be scrambling for a conference 5 years from now when Texas flirts with other conferences or independence.

 

[SAMCRO]

I think they did the right thing. They can still maintain the border war, even if they take a few years off (it will continue), and they will be no more/less relevant than they are now, and they will make significantly more $$ for their program and university. Will they win as many games each year? Who knows. The SEC East is not the SEC West, so we'll see. That aside, the B12 is not a stable conference, and there is no guarentee it will be the same league in 5-6 years time. Mizzou was damn close to being in a league that lost UT, aTm, TT, OU, and OSU, shortly after they lost Nebraska and Colorado. . They've wanted out of that league for a long time (not long after it came into existance, and ceased being the B8), and they locked themselves into the premiere football league in the country. Their preference was the B10, and I'm guessing they got a pretty good indication that an invite to that league was never going to happen.

In my opinion, at the end of the day, it was the right decision for Mizzou.

 

[mattp]

they can't book their rivalry b/c Kansas said they'd never schedule them OOC. call it sour grapes if you want, but the rivalry's dead. most of the other rivalries you mentioned that were maintained OOC were all interstate, so there's probably political pressure to maintain it. this is out of state so the political pressure will be to tell the other one to piss off.

 

[upstater]

It was an easy decision.
First, they haven't competed at the top of the Big12 in eons.
Secondly, the SEC usually has 4 top schools, and a bunch of other schools that everyone else can play with. So what if Missouri is relegated to finishing between 5-11 for the next few decades. That's what they were doing in the Big12.
Stability.
Money.
Out from under the craziness of Texas.

Of course it was the right move.

 

[HuskyHawk]

they can't book their rivalry b/c Kansas said they'd never schedule them OOC. call it sour grapes if you want, but the rivalry's dead. most of the other rivalries you mentioned that were maintained OOC were all interstate, so there's probably political pressure to maintain it. this is out of state so the political pressure will be to tell the other one to piss off.

They also already had an OOC rivalry game with Illinois. They gain possible games with Arkansas, which helps. But I think most of all they just don't fit.

 

[MattMang23]

If your rival is Kansas in football then it's ok to move. Put one more relevant game on the schedule. Plus, what does KU care? They have KState

 

[HuskyHawk]

If your rival is Kansas in football then it's ok to move. Put one more relevant game on the schedule. Plus, what does KU care? They have KState

It's not the same. Spent three years at KU. KState is the little brother you tease. Missouri is hated. Quantrill burned Lawrence down in 1863. K-State on the other hand feels the in-state rivalry more strongly.

 

[ZooCougar]

I saw a really funny tweet about Mizzou's move:

"Mizzou said to the SEC: We bring the same thing Vanderbilt brings to the table, only without the academics".

I think Mizzou will get curb stomped.

 

[ctchamps]

I think they should ask BCU.

 

[gioff23]

Not the right decision, but the best one. I firmly believe the B12 is a dead man walking. The entire conference depends on maintaining peace between OU and UT - it can't be sustained long-term. For WVU and maybe UL, before you jump on o that ship, you might want to ask one of the passengers departing why they are leaving.

 

[upstater]

Not the right decision, but the best one. I firmly believe the B12 is a dead man walking. The entire conference depends on maintaining peace between OU and UT - it can't be sustained long-term. For WVU and maybe UL, before you jump on o that ship, you might want to ask one of the passengers departing why they are leaving.

Big 12 conference circa 2019:

Kansas St
Kansas
Iowa St
Baylor
TCU
West Virginia
Louisville
Cincinnati
UConn
Rutgers
USF
Houston or SMU
Notre Dame (ex. football)

 

[auggie22]

all i see is one more SEC school that I will not be watching on TV.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Mizzou football may not survive. But Mizzou basketball will absolutely rape SEC basketball. Mizzou will find their niche. They'll be fine. And they'll be competitive once they put that extra dough into athletic facilities.

 

[Jericho]

If you ever read Frank the Tank's blog, he does a great job spelling out why Missouri had to make the move.

It's not just about money (although the school should get more). It's not just about stability (which cannot be understated given how Missouri was this close to being left in a conference wasteland). It's obvious something was/is rotten in the Big 12. It's why Colorado left. It's why Nebraska left. It's why Texas A&M left. And it's why Missouri left. And it's also why Oklahoma twice made serious overtures to the Pac-10/12 in the last year. Every other school (except Texas) in the conference isn't wanted by themselves, so they have to take it. But those that could leave did so.

People claiming Missouri will get stomped in the SEC seem to forget Missouri wasn't very good in the Big 12. I can't recall them ever winning a football or basketball title. No one really seems to care about the other sports, but I don't think they won many of those either. So it's hard to go down from where they are. In fact, given Tennessee and Florida's post-Meyer struggles, Missouri could do decently well in the SEC East short term.

Does it suck to abandon rivalries? To an extent. However, Colorado and Nebraska (both former Big 8 members) already left. Missouri may be able to establish good rivalries with border state schools like Vanderbilt or Arkansas. And while losing a Kansas rivalry would suck, that's really on Kansas. Missouri seems very willing to continue scheduling the game, both in football and in basketball. And while Kansas is currently taking a petulant approach to the whole conference realignment, the ball's squarely in their court to continue was supposed to be a big rivalry. If Kansas does want to continue it, it's their choice. But it also suggests the game really wasn't that important it Kansas says no (I mean let's be fair, would Notre Dame and USC stop playing if Ntotre Dame joined a conference?)

In the end, Missouri should be fine and they won't have to worry about Texas leaving them in a third rate conference leftovers.

 

[gars44]

If you ever read Frank the Tank's blog, he does a great job spelling out why Missouri had to make the move.

It's not just about money (although the school should get more). It's not just about stability (which cannot be understated given how Missouri was this close to being left in a conference wasteland). It's obvious something was/is rotten in the Big 12. It's why Colorado left. It's why Nebraska left. It's why Texas A&M left. And it's why Missouri left. And it's also why Oklahoma twice made serious overtures to the Pac-10/12 in the last year. Every other school (except Texas) in the conference isn't wanted by themselves, so they have to take it. But those that could leave did so.

People claiming Missouri will get stomped in the SEC seem to forget Missouri wasn't very good in the Big 12. I can't recall them ever winning a football or basketball title. No one really seems to care about the other sports, but I don't think they won many of those either. So it's hard to go down from where they are. In fact, given Tennessee and Florida's post-Meyer struggles, Missouri could do decently well in the SEC East short term.

Does it suck to abandon rivalries? To an extent. However, Colorado and Nebraska (both former Big 8 members) already left. Missouri may be able to establish good rivalries with border state schools like Vanderbilt or Arkansas. And while losing a Kansas rivalry would suck, that's really on Kansas. Missouri seems very willing to continue scheduling the game, both in football and in basketball. And while Kansas is currently taking a petulant approach to the whole conference realignment, the ball's squarely in their court to continue was supposed to be a big rivalry. If Kansas does want to continue it, it's their choice. But it also suggests the game really wasn't that important it Kansas says no (I mean let's be fair, would Notre Dame and USC stop playing if Ntotre Dame joined a conference?)

In the end, Missouri should be fine and they won't have to worry about Texas leaving them in a third rate conference leftovers.

I like this post. But, really, who cares what Missouri does? It's hard to come to a reason why this should matter to anyone. I do agree with everything you said, however.

 

[NHUConnfan]

People claiming Missouri will get stomped in the SEC seem to forget Missouri wasn't very good in the Big 12. I can't recall them ever winning a football or basketball title. No one really seems to care about the other sports, but I don't think they won many of those either. So it's hard to go down from where they are. In fact, given Tennessee and Florida's post-Meyer struggles, Missouri could do decently well in the SEC East short term.

Maybe they didn't win a basketball title with Kansas around...but I sure as hell remember playing them in the Elite Eight in 2009 and a very young Kemba Walker bailing us out in that game.

I also seem to recall the game last week where Mizzou stomped #18 Cali by 30 or 40 points. Whatever it was...it was a freaking massacre.

 

[mattp]

If you ever read Frank the Tank's blog, he does a great job spelling out why Missouri had to make the move.

It's not just about money (although the school should get more). It's not just about stability (which cannot be understated given how Missouri was this close to being left in a conference wasteland). It's obvious something was/is rotten in the Big 12. It's why Colorado left. It's why Nebraska left. It's why Texas A&M left. And it's why Missouri left. And it's also why Oklahoma twice made serious overtures to the Pac-10/12 in the last year. Every other school (except Texas) in the conference isn't wanted by themselves, so they have to take it. But those that could leave did so.

People claiming Missouri will get stomped in the SEC seem to forget Missouri wasn't very good in the Big 12. I can't recall them ever winning a football or basketball title. No one really seems to care about the other sports, but I don't think they won many of those either. So it's hard to go down from where they are. In fact, given Tennessee and Florida's post-Meyer struggles, Missouri could do decently well in the SEC East short term.

Does it suck to abandon rivalries? To an extent. However, Colorado and Nebraska (both former Big 8 members) already left. Missouri may be able to establish good rivalries with border state schools like Vanderbilt or Arkansas. And while losing a Kansas rivalry would suck, that's really on Kansas. Missouri seems very willing to continue scheduling the game, both in football and in basketball. And while Kansas is currently taking a petulant approach to the whole conference realignment, the ball's squarely in their court to continue was supposed to be a big rivalry. If Kansas does want to continue it, it's their choice. But it also suggests the game really wasn't that important it Kansas says no (I mean let's be fair, would Notre Dame and USC stop playing if Ntotre Dame joined a conference?)

In the end, Missouri should be fine and they won't have to worry about Texas leaving them in a third rate conference leftovers.

i think you convinced me. if they stayed they'd also now have WVU that's better than them year in year out. i guess it's not really that big of a drop from the #5-6 B12 team to #9-10 SEC team

 

[huskyjawz]

If you ever read Frank the Tank's blog, he does a great job spelling out why Missouri had to make the move.

It's not just about money (although the school should get more). It's not just about stability (which cannot be understated given how Missouri was this close to being left in a conference wasteland). It's obvious something was/is rotten in the Big 12. It's why Colorado left. It's why Nebraska left. It's why Texas A&M left. And it's why Missouri left. And it's also why Oklahoma twice made serious overtures to the Pac-10/12 in the last year. Every other school (except Texas) in the conference isn't wanted by themselves, so they have to take it. But those that could leave did so.

People claiming Missouri will get stomped in the SEC seem to forget Missouri wasn't very good in the Big 12. I can't recall them ever winning a football or basketball title. No one really seems to care about the other sports, but I don't think they won many of those either. So it's hard to go down from where they are. In fact, given Tennessee and Florida's post-Meyer struggles, Missouri could do decently well in the SEC East short term.

Does it suck to abandon rivalries? To an extent. However, Colorado and Nebraska (both former Big 8 members) already left. Missouri may be able to establish good rivalries with border state schools like Vanderbilt or Arkansas. And while losing a Kansas rivalry would suck, that's really on Kansas. Missouri seems very willing to continue scheduling the game, both in football and in basketball. And while Kansas is currently taking a petulant approach to the whole conference realignment, the ball's squarely in their court to continue was supposed to be a big rivalry. If Kansas does want to continue it, it's their choice. But it also suggests the game really wasn't that important it Kansas says no (I mean let's be fair, would Notre Dame and USC stop playing if Ntotre Dame joined a conference?)

In the end, Missouri should be fine and they won't have to worry about Texas leaving them in a third rate conference leftovers.

This is not a good comparison: (I mean let's be fair, would Notre Dame and USC stop playing if Ntotre Dame joined a conference?).

Notre Dame joining a conference makes no difference to USC.

Missouri going to SEC is a huge blow to Kansas.

 

[Jericho]

This is not a good comparison: (I mean let's be fair, would Notre Dame and USC stop playing if Ntotre Dame joined a conference?).

Notre Dame joining a conference makes no difference to USC.

Missouri going to SEC is a huge blow to Kansas.

In what sense? Missouri leaving the Big 12 does hurt the conference, and indirectly a weaker conference hurts Kansas. But we are talking about Missouri here, not Texas. They're not irreplaceable.

I gather you're talking about from a rivalry standpoint. I don't know the plans for all sports, but Missouri seems very willing to continue playing both basketball and football with Kansas. If that's the case, what's the real harm to Kansas? If you don't like the Notre Dame comparisson, how about Florida/Florida State, Georgia/Georgia Tech, and Clemson/South Carolina? All maintain good rivalries while playing in different conferences. Heck, South Carolina left the ACC and Clemson once upon a time. And Georgia Tech left the SEC and Georgia. These things can survive and be meaningful. Even the great Red River rivalry (Texas-Oklahoma) was an out of conference game until the mid-1990s.

I'll grant you Kansas would love to be in Missouri's shoes and be able to leave to go to a better conference. The stink of Texas has caused everyone who can leave to do so (except Oklahoma, who has to drag OSU wherever it goes). But Missouri leaving does not mean the rivalry ends (And let's be honest, Kansas football should love having an actual meaningful game on their schedule)