Bio not provided
@MrTomPinney @tonydemaria5 @JamesSammons @pfeister It's too bad your theory will not be tested. I am no FSU fan, but I think FSU would beat NIU by three touchdowns or more, having seen both teams play. If you could remove your NIU homer blinders for just a moment, you'd see the difference in athletes across both sides of the ball is startling, even at quarterback. Jordan Lynch is an excellent college quarterback, but Jameis Winston is freakish and extraordinary.
4 days, 19 hours ago on The BCS Title Game: Five Teams, Two Slots, One Test Of Blind Resumes
@mellemellem @WryObserver @John at MrSEC @gregorybright17 What you say is true in every sport, but it does not negate the fact that the NFL leads the world in their analysis of pre-draft athletes for their league. These are people who make their living being more right than wrong. There are very specific reasons why the SEC has more draft picks, and it has nothing to do with bias or stupidity on the part of GMs and coaches in the NFL, no matter how you would like to spin it.
@Flip13 It is a great feat, it is just completely irrelevant to this year.
@matt90 @nb686 @rutherfordvangleason Statistically, Mizzou is better balanced comparing offense and defense, both running offense, running defense, scoring offense and scoring defense are highly ranked, as an example, and better on the defensive side of the ball than Auburn. To me, that makes Mizzou better balanced. But games aren't won on stats. It should be a heck of game, highly entertaining, and hopefully the best team wins. Two exciting teams, and the nation will be watching.
5 days, 3 hours ago on The BCS Title Game: Five Teams, Two Slots, One Test Of Blind Resumes
@mellemellem @John at MrSEC @gregorybright17 Yes, the NFL is renowned for buying into the "myth" of players. That's why their pre-draft testing and workouts are more in-depth than any other sport. Seriously? Nobody is infallible, but now you're just being silly.
@the_voice @olmizzou23 Luck will run out for both AU and MU in Atlanta? You mean somehow both teams will lose? Even if Ohio State doesn't lose to Michigan State, if either team wins out they end up #2 in the country. I'll take that bad luck any day of the week. But that's the great thing about college sports, we don't know what is going to happen. Ohio State hasn't passed the eye test against anybody with a pulse, and they were "lucky" that they won against a mediocre Michigan squad. Michigan State has a good defense but isn't great on offense. I expect Ohio State to still win, but questions will linger as to how good they are, and the fact remains that Michigan State has a good enough defense to stop them. If the do, Auburn or Mizzou ends up in the national championship game, and we still don't know yet what will happen with Jameis Winston.
1 week ago on The BCS Title Game: Five Teams, Two Slots, One Test Of Blind Resumes
@XEN610 Only not so much. Late season losses count more than early losses, where teams have a chance to play their way back in. Thus, Baylor's late season loss hurt them, but it hurt them even more that Okie State absolutely OBLITERATED them in that game, to the point that it was embarrassing, thus proving the weakness of Baylor's schedule. Had Okie State not lost to an awful West Virginia team, they would be in the top five also.
Mizzou's only loss was to a Top 10 ranked South Carolina team in double overtime. Mizzou played without their starting quarterback James Franklin and All-SEC cornerback EJ Gaines.
You sound like an Arkansas fan, not a Missouri fan. You finished 3rd in your own division, lost to the two teams ahead of you (and were dominated) and didn't play Georgia, who won the East. Sorry, that is not top tier. Georgia won their division. As I said 4th best. In the SEC, not too shabby. Admittedly, you had a very good year, but one year does not make a great program. It is continuity. Certainly Arkansas has been on the rise, and you may even be better this year. Top tier teams challenge to win the conference every year. Arkansas isn't quite there yet, but one day they may be. And that is no slam. That is Missouri's task as well.
1 year, 6 months ago on Examining The SEC’s Budgets Over A Six-Year Span
John, how do you account for the fuzzy math that some schools use in showing capital expenditures? If a given school has a capital campaign to add on to their stadium, do those dollars get shown as a part of their athletic expenses at the the time they pay for the improvements, or is that accounted for separately? If it is included, it can skew budgets drastically.
Move us to the upper tier like Arkansas? Arkansas isn't upper tier in the SEC. They had one good year and still finished about 4th in the conference. Missouri has put together a master plan for the program, and SEC membership is only a part of it. As a Missouri alum, I would be disappointed if all we wanted to do was be an also-ran. Instead, I think you will see coordinated growth in fundraising, facilities and sports programs at Missouri, starting now and continuing for several years. If it was just to get a few million more a year in revenue, Missouri joining the SEC makes a lot less sense for those of us who care about the program. Missouri looks at the SEC as a more fair, stable playing field where they have the opportunity to be excellent.
The way Mike Slive seems to operate, he builds the case so that it is unanimous. If it isn't it will likely not happen. While that technically gives any school a veto, in reality it means that all the minds have to wrok to come together to understand the advantage of adding any school.
1 year, 7 months ago on Here We Go Again: As Summer Starts, Realignment Chatter Heats Up
"Say what you want but with the whiners gone from the conference smoother seas are ahead"
Sadly, the "whiners" in the Big12 comprised a majority of the membership, inlcuding the largest/most succesful programs. That does say something important.
"The SEC raided a neighboring conference in an attempt to crumble the league and add geography and money"
The SEC didn'traid, poach or entice anyone. They had no need. They already had the most athletic success and the most revenue. A&M and Mizzou approached them. That fact that it was a "win win" agreement only demonstrates that the Big 12 wasn't handling things correctly.
"Once aTm left there was equal revenue sharing."
You mean except for the 300 million dollars that the LHN provides Bevo? Is that EQUAL revenue sharing? Oh yes, that's right. George Orwell wrote over a hundred years ago that "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You mean that kind of equal?
"I personally dont' give a crap if we add 2 or 6 teams cutting deep into ACC/SEC/Big 10 geography. This is what those conferences started, now they can reap what they have sown."
Easy to name conferences. I can do it too. Why not include the PAC in your comment? It's just as likely as two of the other three. In the case of the B1G, the teams seem to like being together, are bound together geographically, have true revenue sharing, and Jim Delany is no idiot. In the case of the SEC, there is an open door policy with a no fee exit, yet interestingly, nobody wants to bolt. Once again, Mike Slive is no idiot.
Right now, as a going concern, the Big 12 is at a competitive disadvantage compared to the PAC, B1G, and the SEC. We'll see how that plays out. But at least we know it's going to be interesting.
Agree with everything you said there Old Army. Both A&M and Mizzou were excellent "gets" for the SEC that will put more money into everyone's pockets and make the SEC even more competitive athletically and academically, both of which continue to build the brand. The thing that people don't want to acknowledge is that Mike Slive has so far proven himself to be the smartest man at the table with regard to conference realignment and television contracts. He has a stategic plan which leads to an SEC network, greater revenue than any other conference, and a continued advantage over other competitors.
The SEC has no penalty whatsoever for anyone leaving the conference. Why? It is because Mke Slive builds concensus and makes the right moves for the benefit of every member. That says something important.
In my view also, membership comes with responsibilities for schools to continue to invest and build their programs, and I believe that was part of the negotiation process between A&M, Mizzou and the SEC. Why would Mike Slive and other conference members want this? It builds the brand and therefore notoriety and revenue.
For those who see college athletics as a zero sum game, Mike Slive is proving that instead, a rising tide will lift everyone's boat.
"right after the SEC poached the bottom feeder aTm and downward spiral Mizzou. Nice(???)."
Nothing says "downward spiral Missouri" better than seven straight bowls, lol. During that seven years they won 63 games, which is an average of 9 wins a year. A year ago they had two juniors taken in the top 10 of the NFL draft. So if that's a downward spiral maybe you should wish for your team to downward spiral like that.
You sound like a butthurt Big 12 fan.
Sucks to be you.