Big 12 Giving Mizzou Time

"If Missouri truly feels it belongs elsewhere, fine. This isn't the same thing as losing Nebraska. We'll continue as one of the strongest conferences in college sports.

"The Big 12 will remain a powerful, successful entity for a long, long time."

If by one of the strongest he means 4th best he's probably right. As for how long, we shall see. They may have plugged the current leak, but the foundation is still suspect.

quote:

---

The Big 12 is the 2nd or 3rd best conference year in and year out.

---

The Big 12 is OU, UT, and currently OSU. Bill Snyder is 72 yrs old and is the only reason that KSU is a top 25 team. Baylor without RG3 is nothing, and with him has wins over TCU, Stephen F Austin, Rice and Iowa State.

The Big 12 will battle the Pac 12 for 3rd and 4th place, and as much as I hate USC, they will not be down forever.

Historically, yes. But losing Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, and A&M, and you aren't left with much. Missouri could have its 4th 10 win season in 5 years if they finish strong.

The new Big XII will most likely turn in to the old ACC. Yes, you have OU/tu, just like the ACC has Florida St and Virginia Tech. There is strength at the top, but there is almost nothing after that.

Now, it is almost moot, as in my mind, Bob Stoops is one of the top 3 coaches in all of college football, and the pedigree and resources of OU will dictate that they are top 5 year in and year out. They have been to 4 BCS title games in 11 years, and they are probably heading to their 5th. As long as they have as Stoops lead OU, the Big XII remains strong and viable.

quote:

---

There is strength at the top, but there is almost nothing after that.

---

Disagree completely. Kansas St is good football team, and OSU looks like it will stay near the top with all the money from Pickens. TCU has been consistently good and Baylor might actually be getting better.

Looking at the conference objectively, they could very well have 5 out of 10 teams ranked every year for the next 5 years.

quote:

---

TCU has been consistently good and Baylor might actually be getting better.

---

TCU has been good for a dozen years playing in 3 weak conferences. No way of knowing how long they can sustain success in a bcs conference.

Nothing in the history of Baylor suggests that they are about to get better. They've been to 1 bowl game since '94 and that was last year. Don't see them getting better after RG3 leaves.

quote:

---

""Culturally, it's a Midwestern school. Same with geography. And in the major sports, Missouri would be committing suicide with its recruiting. They've worked hard to get a productive pipeline with kids in Texas, which would basically disappear if they leave the Big 12."

Mizzou really needs to stay in the big 12. I don't think leaving helps it's athletic programs in the future and it will be less competitive in the SEC. Mizzou Football will be like Kentucky or Vandy. If that's what they want, then fine, but I doubt they want that.

---

That's why I think they aren't 100% for the SEC. If you can't beat the K-States, OU's, Texas', etc. How the hell are you going to compete with Bama, LSU, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, Tenn, Arkansas(when hot) etc on a yearly basis. Mizzou better stay in the Big 12. See no point of them joining the SEC.

Still haven't heard anyone talk Mizzou football in SWMO. I hear more STL Cardinals talk and more people(OU fans) talking about the LSU vs Bama game coming up.

I think Mizzou isn't going anywhere.

They would join the B1G in a New York minute but I doubt they'll bolt for the SEC.

This is just for negotiating leverage.

Should end about as well as Oklahoma's flirtation with the Pac 12.

quote:

---

Mizzou really needs to stay in the big 12. I don't think leaving helps it's athletic programs in the future and it will be less competitive in the SEC. Mizzou Football will be like Kentucky or Vandy. If that's what they want, then fine, but I doubt they want that.

---

I've read garbage like this on here for the last few days and just had enough.

How in the hell does that writer, or you, or anyone else, know how recruiting will be affected if Mizzou leaves. You think HS players from Texas don't jump the border to play in the SEC...really?
You might want to look at the SEC rosters stocked full of Texas kids who are STARTING FOR SEC SCHOOLS. Lastly, someone needs to notify LSU recruiters of this fact; they obviously didn't get the memo.

Like so much of the crap that's coming out against the move, this "hurting their recruiting base" is just another illogical fallacy.

For those of us who remember the inclusion of Arkansas and South Carolina into the SEC, the same exact crap was floated about these 2 schools.
Who wants to attempt to make an argument against that fact that both are better off today? Has there been a learning curve, has there been growing pains, do they have a few more loses? Maybe, maybe not. LSU, Bama, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida (the guys we think of as the "Big Boys" of the conference) have ALL SUFFERED NOT SO SUCCESSFUL SEASONS since 1992 (the year the Razorbacks and Gamecocks came in). There's nothing magical about winning in the SEC; you have to have a serious financial commitment to the sport of football...football is King in the SEC and that's where the money is. The schools that don't make this commitment, Kentucky, Vandy and to a lesser extent Miss St. and Ole Miss, haven't been successful on a regular basis for 30 years. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
If Mizzou makes the commitment, they'll be competitive...period and end of story.

quote:

---

For those of us who remember the inclusion of Arkansas and South Carolina into the SEC, the same exact crap was floated about these 2 schools.
Who wants to attempt to make an argument against that fact that both are better off today? Has there been a learning curve, has there been growing pains, do they have a few more loses? Maybe, maybe not. LSU, Bama, Georgia, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida (the guys we think of as the "Big Boys" of the conference) have ALL SUFFERED NOT SO SUCCESSFUL SEASONS since 1992 (the year the Razorbacks and Gamecocks came in). There's nothing magical about winning in the SEC; you have to have a serious financial commitment to the sport of football...football is King in the SEC and that's where the money is. The schools that don't make this commitment, Kentucky, Vandy and to a lesser extent Miss St. and Ole Miss, haven't been successful on a regular basis for 30 years. Doesn't take a genius to figure out why.
If Mizzou makes the commitment, they'll be competitive...period and end of story.

---

Mizzou is a bad fit for the SEC. They haven't been relevant in FB since Dan Devine was their coach. A few years ago they won 10 or 11 games and was passed over by the Orange bowl in favor of Kansas.

They begged to be taken by the big ten and the big ten looked them over and realized they weren't up to big ten stadards.

Mizzou is a great academic school and has a decent sports tradition. They are a basketball school that's been to no final fours. I don't see what value added they add to the SEC. There is no SEC cable network and there's no evidence that there's gonna be one in the future. The number of Illinois and Kansas and Nebraska fans in MO equals the number of Mizzou fans.

If the SEC wants schools that the big ten passed on then go ahead.