Blog Entry

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

Posted on: October 4, 2011 8:12 pm
Edited on: October 4, 2011 9:02 pm
 

Since it started it, maybe Missouri figures it can finish it.

Or as finished as conference realignment can ever be.

Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton got permission Tuesday night from the school's board of curators to seek new conference membership. Nothing surprising there. In case you haven't been following, this would the first move toward Missouri becoming the SEC's 14th team. One problem. No one is sure if the SEC even wants a 14th team at the moment, much less Missouri being that school.

The hand-wringing, then, will continue from BYU to the Big East. Missouri's decision controls the fate of several teams and conferences, including their current one, the Big 12. The fractured league cannot move on with expansion, or even a future, without knowing if Missouri is going to be a participant.

And all indications are Missouri is going to take its good, old time. That was evident when Missouri AD Mike Alden met with the curators for four hours on Tuesday. Perhaps Missouri was contemplating the fact  it kicked off this latest round of realignment. Reacting to Dec. 9, 2009 statement that the Big Ten was considering expansion, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon quickly added:

"I want to look at what options the Big Ten may have to offer. This is not something that should be kept on the sports page and treated with the back of the hand. We have an obligation to make our schools as excellent as they can be."

Big 12 nervousness followed. In the next month, Nebraska began talking with the Big Ten. In June, issues came to a head at the 2010 Big 12 spring meetings. Shortly thereafter, Nebraska left for the Big Ten. Colorado went to the Pac-10.

"The [Missouri] governor's remarks got me going. We had to do something, and fast," CU AD Mike Bohn said at the time.

Turns out Missouri wasn't near the top of the Big Ten's list. Now things have come full circle. Everyone can blame Texas for throwing its weight around, but how is Missouri different at this point? It suddenly has leverage. It is holding a league hostage. It is making a perceived money grab.

It could be the fourth school to leave the Big 12 in 16 months -- and it doesn't care. Expect the next few weeks -- if not months -- to be a period of introspection for Brad Pitt's school. Missouri has to decide if it wants to leave its ancestral home. The Big 12 has roots that go back 104 years for Missouri.

It has to decide if it wants to change its culture from a Midwestern school to one with its base in the heart of Dixie. Does it want to be Bubba or Brad? Does it want to be at the center the Big 12 or a western outpost in the SEC?

There is no right answer. The difference in revenue is negligible. Missouri could stay in the Big 12 and be secure at least the next six years. But the SEC would provide long-lasting security. Missouri football is an above middle-of-the-road program in the Big 12. It would be a middle-of-the-road program in the SEC.

But this isn't about football. This is about emotion, which can be a dangerous thing. That's why Deaton merely has permission at this point. The last two presidents to get similar permission from their boards of regents, came to different conclusions. Texas A&M went to the SEC. Oklahoma, eventually, stayed in the Big 12.

For now. 


Category: NCAAF
Tags: Big 12, Missouri, SEC
 
Comments

Since: Aug 22, 2006
Posted on: October 5, 2011 9:44 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

I hope they do not join the SEC, we do not need a sub par team to join the SEC. We needs to go after Clemson, Georgia tech, West Virginia, or Virginia tech true southern schools. And who in there right mind would enjoy a football game at the end of november in Missouri where it's cold as heck. If you wanted to go to a game way up there you would have to fly to St. Louis or KC and then drive 1 1/2 hours just to get there. Just not a good fit.



Mizzou not a cultural fit?  Have you been to the Ozarks?  To Branson?  Missouri fought with the Confederacy against the Kansas Jayhawkers, not that that matters, but Southern roots and sympathies go way back in Missouri.  Mizzou is far more like Arkansas than it is like Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas and the rest of the Midwest.  I think Missouri would be a fine addition, and would add the St. Louis and KC markets for T.V. revenue.  That is after all what this is all about- the ESPN-CBS factor.



Since: Jun 10, 2010
Posted on: October 5, 2011 9:24 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

@HolySmokes

No, greed and envy are the conference killers.  But, I'm one of the few Texas-Exes who would rather have seen a more collaborative effort among the membership.  A Big 12 Network would have more appeal to me.

Having said that, what UT and ESPN are attempting with LHN is unprecedented.  Don't kid yourselves - nobody else would have turned down $300MM over 20 years, either!  The unfortunate truth is the three defectors didn't have the brand strength, marketing acumen or business savvy to maximize their individual Tier 3 revenue streams.  Here's what NU, CU and A$M earned last year.

NU = $4.4MM
CU = $156K
A$M = $0.....zip, nada, zilch, donut hole

I can't blame them for taking the "easy money" and trying to reinvent themselves in other conferences.  Starting your own network is hard work, as UT and ESPN have discovered with their lack of major carriers.  Hopefully, the programming and consumer demand will improve and we'll be able to sell LHN to Time Warner, Dish Network, DIRECTtv, etc. 

If not, a Big 12 Network may be a better option.

J.B.TexEX, you get it!  LHN is the conference killer.




Since: Mar 28, 2007
Posted on: October 5, 2011 9:09 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

Schmolik wrote "As for West Virginia to the ACC, academics. Or for you West Virginia fans: y'all ain't smart enough to be in the ACC."

I'm an ACC fan, a Dukie (yes, I have a Porsche and a hot wife, but that's for later!Tongue out), but think this is unfair. West Virginia gets a bad rap. They aren't my first choice, to be sure, but they have a solid university and a good football program (that's currently on par with or superior to the best of the ACC). This "hillbilly" thing gets old, and they're as good as anyone.





Since: Jan 4, 2007
Posted on: October 5, 2011 8:55 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

I hope they do not join the SEC, we do not need a sub par team to join the SEC. We needs to go after Clemson, Georgia tech, West Virginia, or Virginia tech true southern schools. And who in there right mind would enjoy a football game at the end of november in Missouri where it's cold as heck. If you wanted to go to a game way up there you would have to fly to St. Louis or KC and then drive 1 1/2 hours just to get there. Just not a good fit.



Since: Aug 21, 2006
Posted on: October 5, 2011 8:27 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

Would love to see Missouri bolt and see the B12 pick up BYU. Much more interesting and much better academically. The SEC is a perfect fit for Mizzou. 



Since: Apr 25, 2008
Posted on: October 5, 2011 7:33 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

Good for you Mizzou.  Get out while the gettin' is good.



Since: Aug 5, 2008
Posted on: October 5, 2011 7:29 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

Your rankings come from usnews.com which is an unofficial ranking system.  In fact, 25% of the rankings are based on "peer assessment", some of which come from surveys filled out by high school counselors.  Haha, nice source dumb dumb. 
You continue to underwhelm:

If this is the unofficial system, site us to the "offical" system. Oh, wait, there isn't one.

"Peer assessment" isn't high school counselors as they aren't peers to universities. Site me to where it says that 25% of the figures are high school counselors.

While there is a lot of controversy over college rankings in general, the usnews rankings are, in fact, considered to be the best of imperfect systems. What source do you site to that would show the rankings to be other than what I listed? Didn't think so.






Since: Nov 2, 2006
Posted on: October 5, 2011 6:33 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

> In a post several months ago I mentioned the attempt should be made to detach Illinois and Indiana from the Big-10.

Illinois or Indiana leaving the Big Ten for the Big 12? That's a good one!



Since: Nov 2, 2006
Posted on: October 5, 2011 6:31 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

SEC, please take a 14th team and get it over with so the ACC can finally add UConn! Right now, the ACC would have to invite dead weight Rutgers along with them. They don't want to invite UConn and Rutgers and then see the SEC swipe a member like Virginia Tech or Florida State and be stuck with Rutgers and then have to find a 16th team with no good choices left (forget Notre Dame, ACC!)

If the SEC takes Missouri or West Virginia, then the ACC can safely add UConn and Rutgers. But if they raid the ACC, then the ACC takes just UConn to get to 14.

I know Clemson going to the SEC will likely be blocked by South Carolina but if Clemson left for the SEC the ACC would finally have gotten rid of them, would get to add Connecticut, and Rutgers would be left behind.

I personally wouldn't miss Virginia Tech (the ACC didn't really want them in the first place) but of course they have dominated ACC football until this season.

The one team I really don't want to see the SEC to take is Florida State. That would really take away much of the ACC's presence in Florida (we'd be down to death row Miami).

If the ACC has to take Rutgers to take UConn, I can live with it. But the nightmare situation for UConn is if the SEC decides to wait on #14 and leave the ACC hanging.

As for West Virginia to the ACC, academics. Or for you West Virginia fans: y'all ain't smart enough to be in the ACC.



Since: Oct 30, 2008
Posted on: October 5, 2011 3:56 am
 

Missouri officially looking (unofficially at SEC)

J.B.TexEX, you get it!  LHN is the conference killer.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com