re: Consensus on Mizzou joining SEC

quote:

---

Missouri was horrible before Pinkel got there.

---

I know. That's why I said "recently". You must have missed that part.

quote:

---

A&M has been very competitive both last year & again this year.

---

Huh? What have you competed for past couple years?

Natl Champ? Nope

B12 Champ? Negative again

A winning record & shitty bowl invite does not make you "very competitive".

quote:

---

I guarantee you Mike Slive cares about that.

---

No, he doesn't. Neither does anyone else.

quote:

---

a top research institution

---

Again, makes no difference. It has nothing to do with the invite.

quote:

---

Do a little research

---

What research would you have me do? Watch more medioce Aggie football?

I don't think Mizzou is SEC culture-ready. There are a few other teams & fan bases that could plug right in and work out well - aTm is one of them; also I think WVU, VA Tech, Clemson, FSU, GA Tech could all fit right in. But Mizzou is always going to be that one damned shoe that doesn't quite fit. Maybe in time, but how long?

I never said it wasn't about money, as it's the majority of the driving force in expansion, but it's not ONLY about money. You tried to claim Mizzou makes more sense than us because they have had more success than us in football over the last 5 years. As you pointed out, we bring more money to the SEC than any other viable option, and it's not even remotely close. We also bring that money regardless of how good our football program may or may not be. Houston alone has more viewers THAN THE ENTIRE STATE OF ALABAMA.

However, athletics do matter and we would have been very competitive this year in the SEC in football. Aside from that, we are a perennial Top25 Men's Basketball program, and a Top10 Baseball program. Alabama is neither. Upon joining the SEC, we have the 2nd best Athletic Dept. in the SEC behind Florida with LSU not far behind. That matters just like Mizzou being solid in both football and basketball makes them a good add, in addition to their TV markets. Money is driving the train, but the quality of athletics is also important. Hell, there was a lot of buzz about UNC, but when was the last time they won anything in football?

Last I checked, the SEC strives to be the nation's best athletic conference. That's more than just football, and we make the SEC a stronger conference in almost every sport we play, including football. Assessing the value of A&M's entire AD based solely on the worst stretch in our football program's history is both ignorant and short-sighted.

quote:

---

I suppose the SEC should have kicked you out when Mike Shula was the coach

---

You talking shite about Shula? He actually won the Cotton Bowl so the way I see it - Shula>Sherman

It's called sarcasm. You weren't exactly winning SEC championships under Shula, so by your definition you weren't "competitive." Now that you have back-tracked and acknowledged that playing in the Cotton Bowl is noteworthy, I will go ahead and assume you are also acknowledging that A&M has been competitive this year and last. Whether or not Shula is a better coach than Sherman is yet to be determined. Thank you though, for making yourself look like a jackass.

I'm not sure how you putting words in my mouth makes me look like a jackass. I never said Shula competed for championships or that him going to the Cotton Bowl was anything special. I said he is a better coach than Mike Sherman.