WryObserver
- 7 comments
- 1 likes given
- 2 likes received
Bio not provided
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.
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.
"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.