Missouri-----DENIED------

[HuskerCradle2Grave]

Nope, that's a stone cold FACT son.

Mizzou, across ALL sports mens and womens, have the LEAST amount of conference titles of all schools in conference. They are the WORST ATHLETIC PROGRAM IN THE HISTORY OF THE BIG 12.

Thats not an opinion.

Jeeez, he is right in this instance.

 

[Tex McGruder]

Denied...as is tradition fer Missery.

 

[Tex McGruder]

Ain't too sure why but that sound makes me laugh each and/or every time. Two whiskey filled boots fer yer post.

 

[starbigd]

Jeeez, he is right in this instance.

This is why I've been asking what the appeal is to Mizzou. There are people on this board that act like adding Mizzou is some sort of win.....how? They don't win anything, in any sport, ever......and they don't control any media markets as Missouri as a state is pro sports driven.

 

[Tex McGruder]

This is why I've been asking what the appeal is to Mizzou. There are people on this board that act like adding Mizzou is some sort of win.....how? They don't win anything, in any sport, ever......and they don't control any media markets as Missouri as a state is pro sports driven.

Only people actin' like they ain't already missery fans think this would be a dang win. This is a penguin punchin', gum on the bottom of the shoe eatin' school.

 

[HighTide]

Actually Mizzou is tied with KSU for least amount of titles according to this,

List of Big 12 Conference champions - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But still, lol.

 

[Volbound1700]

The appeal for Missouri is not what they have done on the field, it is the $$$ the SEC can get from adding them. Also Missouri is a great area to recruit as well.

The hope for Missouri is that they will upgrade their program like South Carolina has/is doing. USC was a nobody until they joined the SEC. Granted they haven't won an SEC Championship but they are a lot more relevant now then they ever where before joining the SEC.

 

[uncfan103]

Yeah I think they could be that dumb. I am happy to see that my team was at least a deciding factor in Mizzou not coming aboard. Whatever the reasons for not wanting them right now, the main issue is that they are just not SEC caliber.

I hope you arent talking about on the football field. Because Missouri would be in the middle of the conference in football. Ahead of Ole Miss, Vandy, and Kentucky, and in the same group as Georgia, Miss State, and Tennessee.

 

[starbigd]

The appeal for Missouri is not what they have done on the field, it is the $$$ the SEC can get from adding them. Also Missouri is a great area to recruit as well.

The hope for Missouri is that they will upgrade their program like South Carolina has/is doing. USC was a nobody until they joined the SEC. Granted they haven't won an SEC Championship but they are a lot more relevant now then they ever where before joining the SEC.

Elaborate. WHAT money?

 

[tabascojet]

i said weeks ago the third saturday in october was going to go away with 2 west expansion teams. So obviously bama and tenn are against. who are the other 2?

 

[Volbound1700]

To starbigd... Money as in new SEC TV contract after we are adding Missouri and Texas A&M. Stop trolling... you knew that.

Tabascojet: Yeah I think that was one of the main factors. I think even if they did add two west teams, Alabama would have two permanent locked rivalries with both Auburn and Tennessee. Alabama would just rotate less East games then the other teams.

 

[fordman84]

LMFAO!!!!

Missery is such a bunch of dumbfucks.....

I'd like to date you because my wife is a bitch and the girl I really want to date don't want me.......

And this is why A&M jumped at first sign to the SEC. SEC showed interest, A&M showed interest, the 12 is dying, and the school traditions/cultures fit. Plus, just showing interest in a conference doesn't mean you will get in. We have seen the PAC shoot down OU and TU, and now the SEC shoot down Mizzou.

 

[fordman84]

The appeal for Missouri is not what they have done on the field, it is the $$$ the SEC can get from adding them. Also Missouri is a great area to recruit as well.

The hope for Missouri is that they will upgrade their program like South Carolina has/is doing. USC was a nobody until they joined the SEC. Granted they haven't won an SEC Championship but they are a lot more relevant now then they ever where before joining the SEC.

SC's biggest gain by joining the SEC was getting a coach with some recruiting name/power.

I'm hoping A&M can do the same in a couple of years. Get a coach that wants to be in the SEC, and has the recruiting name. "I want to play for Spurrier/Miles/Bowden...etc"

 

[fordman84]

To starbigd... Money as in new SEC TV contract after we are adding Missouri and Texas A&M. Stop trolling... you knew that.

Tabascojet: Yeah I think that was one of the main factors. I think even if they did add two west teams, Alabama would have two permanent locked rivalries with both Auburn and Tennessee. Alabama would just rotate less East games then the other teams.

His point is that Mizzou doesn't control their TV market though. It is like SMU and TCU. They are in DFW, but they don't have the TV market here. A&M, UT, Tech, OU etc own the DFW TV market even though they don't call dallas or Ft worth home.


ps: FML for agreeing with starbigd on something.

 

[Volbound1700]

His point is that Mizzou doesn't control their TV market though. It is like SMU and TCU. They are in DFW, but they don't have the TV market here. A&M, UT, Tech, OU etc own the DFW TV market even though they don't call dallas or Ft worth home.


ps: FML for agreeing with starbigd on something.

I listened to the radio this morning from SEC insiders and that is the draw they are talking about. Whether it is correct or not doesn't really matter.

Colorado doesn't really pull Colorado Springs/Denver; Utah doesn't really get Salt Lake City. Yet the Pac12 got a great media deal based on adding those markets.

I am sure the SEC will get credit for adding the Kansas City and St Louis markets even if those markets are really dominated more by pro sports then college sports.

Also Missouri has a bigger following then you realize.

 

[TexasFight98VI]

I listened to the radio this morning from SEC insiders and that is the draw they are talking about. Whether it is correct or not doesn't really matter.

Colorado doesn't really pull Colorado Springs/Denver; Utah doesn't really get Salt Lake City. Yet the Pac12 got a great media deal based on adding those markets.

I am sure the SEC will get credit for adding the Kansas City and St Louis markets even if those markets are really dominated more by pro sports then college sports.

Also Missouri has a bigger following then you realize.

No they don't. They can't even sell out their home games. The Rams and Chiefs dominate those markets. SEC will pick up TV sets when MIZZOU plays the relevant teams like Bama, LSU, UF, etc. The same as it is right now when MIZZOU plays Texas, OU, KU (rivalry), etc......

 

[starbigd]

To starbigd... Money as in new SEC TV contract after we are adding Missouri and Texas A&M. Stop trolling... you knew that.

Tabascojet: Yeah I think that was one of the main factors. I think even if they did add two west teams, Alabama would have two permanent locked rivalries with both Auburn and Tennessee. Alabama would just rotate less East games then the other teams.

Why is it when I ask people to elaborate I'm accused of trolling?

Mizzou doesn't control any markets, every city they are in is pro sport driven. The ratings bear this out. The SEC isn't adding any markets they probably aren't already doing decent in as is. I haven't looked it up, but I'm willing to bet the SEC draws equal or better ratings than Mizzou IN KC and St Louis right now.

And here's another for you......there is no new TV deal. They aren't forced to tear up a brand new contract just because you added teams, it doesn't work like that.

 

[ForkEmBucky]

Missouruh is funny.

 

[Volbound1700]

Why is it when I ask people to elaborate I'm accused of trolling?

Mizzou doesn't control any markets, every city they are in is pro sport driven. The ratings bear this out. The SEC isn't adding any markets they probably aren't already doing decent in as is. I haven't looked it up, but I'm willing to bet the SEC draws equal or better ratings than Mizzou IN KC and St Louis right now.

And here's another for you......there is no new TV deal. They aren't forced to tear up a brand new contract just because you added teams, it doesn't work like that.

Actually there is an agreement in both the SEC CBS and ESPN contact for a renegotiation of the contract should their be major change in the product. Adding new markets is a major change. That is why Mike Slive is making the move for expansion.

There is no point in adding a new team and cutting from the other team's pie.

Sorry for calling your a troll but your posts sound like a troll because you make comments that no one agrees with and you seem out of touch with issues that have been posted on SI, ESPN, Rivals, and that every other sports writer is talking about.

To me it just seems like your trolling SEC/Texas A&M/Missouri fans.

 

[starbigd]

Actually there is an agreement in both the SEC CBS and ESPN contact for a renegotiation of the contract should their be major change in the product. Adding new markets is a major change. That is why Mike Slive is making the move for expansion.

There is no point in adding a new team and cutting from the other team's pie.

Sorry for calling your a troll but your posts sound like a troll because you make comments that no one agrees with and you seem out of touch with issues that have been posted on SI, ESPN, Rivals, and that every other sports writer is talking about.

To me it just seems like your trolling SEC/Texas A&M/Missouri fans.

Many don't agree with my posts because they have an agenda. I back my posts with stats and facts most of the time.

I'm more in touch with whats going on than most of this board, because I don't simply read a blog or something, I actually research what's going on. My opinion isn't the popular one, and that's fine.....but more times than not, it is the INFORMED one.

I'm often wrong in my opinions, and have no problems admitting to that. But I at least attempt to base them on facts and not blind hatred of programs.

Take Mizzou for an example. Most on this board don't know they are the worst athletic program in the history of the Big 12. That statement alone will get me called a troll, but it is a fact that cannot be argued. Having that info makes you question what the appeal of such a program can be. Teams with a long history of losing don't perform well media market wise either.

Can you follow my line of thinking here? Do you find that in the least bit trolling? This opinion is against what all the media puts forth, because most of them haven't actually looked at mizzou and what they offer.