*****The Super, Mega, Huge Big 12 Expansion Thread*****

[Mizzoulander]

Mizzoulander, just for yucks, if MU ends up staying in the Big 12 and not going to the SEC, would you cry like a baby??? Serious question.

Maybe a little. Although last year's debacle with the B1G was very instructive in how to handle disappointment/embarrassment...:smile:

Seriously...it's hard NOT to get wrapped up in it. It's bigger than any single game or season. Scary to think that something you care about might get "relegated" to a lesser league, to play worse competition and not get the opportunity to compete for the big prize.

Of course, if Mizzou stays, then NEXT year we'll just "lift our skirts" for the ACC, and start the whole thing over. Then the monster thread can hit 20K.

We're only 950 miles from Chapel Hill! :smile:

 

[cyclonedave25]

Maybe a little. Although last year's debacle with the B1G was very instructive in how to handle disappointment/embarrassment...:smile:

Seriously...it's hard NOT to get wrapped up in it. It's bigger than any single game or season. Scary to think that something you care about might get "relegated" to a lesser league, to play worse competition and not get the opportunity to compete for the big prize.

Of course, if Mizzou stays, then NEXT year we'll just "lift our skirts" for the ACC, and start the whole thing over. Then the monster thread can hit 20K.

We're only 950 miles from Chapel Hill! :smile:

Good honest answer!

 

[Mizzoulander]

Guess I answered my own question...

DaveBriggsCDT Dave Briggs



Missouri AD Mike Alden just arrived at curators meeting at UMKC. Curators to go into closed session in minutes.

Curators have stated that there won't be any news on conference realignment until tomorrow.

Then they added, "if there's any news to report at all."

We're new to the whole "keeping secrets" thing. :smile:

 

[Palmer]

Much of that *** backwards state still believes in the Confederacy...good riddance.

 

[ISUAgronomist]

Much of that *** backwards state still believes in the Confederacy...good riddance.

Pretty sure that is Question 1 on the SEC application:


Will the South Rise again? Y / N (circle one)

 

[royhobbs09]

I'll try...it's really not a dealbreaker for Mizzou. Here's why:

1. Don't pay too much attention to the East/West designations; some of the schools closest to Missouri (UK, UTenn, Vandy) are in the east, while some of the furthest away (Auburn, LSU) are in the West. Might as well call it "Leaders" or "Legends" or some bulls***.

2. If you had to pick a division in the SEC to join based on competition RIGHT NOW, it would clearly be the East.

3. Only football and a couple of other sports use the division designations; for most of the non-revenue sports, divisions don't apply.

4. If/when the SEC moves to 16 teams, depending on who they take, they'll reshuffle the divisions again anyway. The location of the new teams (WVU or NCST in the east, or OU/OSU in the west) will influence how that's divvied up.

I can respect that the SEC wants to keep some matchups protected. They already added TAMU in the West, so this makes sense. It's not like the B12 would break up OU/TX or KU/KSU just because they added WVU.

Well, you'll play in Texas once about every 5 years in the East rather than twice a year in the Big 12 and every other year in the West. Good luck selling that to Texas recruits. Better hope you can establish some Florida recruiting in-roads asap, but do you really think Florida recruits are going to go to Missouri over Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, LSU, Florida State, Miami, etc? You'll be a lot further down the totem pole in Florida than you have been in Texas for the past several years.

Iowa State has been the Northernmost outpost in a Southern based football conference for a long time. It has not gone well for football recruiting. It hasn't worked out well for Washington State, BC, or Kentucky either. Missouri will be reaping that with their move to the SEC. So, you'll get your stablility and a couple million dollars more every year, but at the price of winning. Best of luck to you.

 

[Cyclonestate78]

Mizzoulander, just for yucks, if MU ends up staying in the Big 12 and not going to the SEC, would you cry like a baby??? Serious question.

Nothing changes for them either way. Mizzou will still get passed over by other teams for better bowl games because their fans suck, they will continue to not win conference championships in football, BCS bowl's will remain a pipe dream for them, Mizzou fans will still strive to be more like "superfan" Cletus, etc...

 

[RayShimley]

In the current footprint, OKC is the most central. However, the current will not be what the conference will look like in two weeks much less three years when a new site will be selected.

There are two conferences that I have found already that CURRENTLY host tournaments in states without members. Give any excuse you want, but there is precedence. Those other conferences didn't have a history at those sites before hosting. So although, they may have tourism over KC, KC has a history advantage over the other ones when comparing reasons why a conference would host a tournament in a state outside of its footprint.

ALSO, the school that is currently closest to Sprint Center is not leaving. It's not like the conference tournament is in Columbia or St. Louis. It is in KC.

History or not, you're forgetting that this is something that is going to be voted on by the B12's conference members not decided by the commissioner. Like I said before, if the B12 expands East with Louisville, I could see them getting the votes to stay in KC, but do you honestly believe UT, TTU, Baylor, TCU, OU, OSU give 2 flips about the "history" of our tournament in KC? Most of those teams weren't even in the Big 8, and I think its obvious how OU and OSU would feel about hosting the tournament in their home state versus KC.

It may not be unprecedented for a Conference to hold it's basketball tournament in a state where no conference school resides, but it certainly is unlikely. 30 of the 31 D1 basketball Conferences have Conference Tournaments and ONLY 2 have that tournament in a state where no member resides (WCC and WAC) and both of those are in Las Vegas, NV. You are trying to make a rule out of an exception, and for reasons I pointed out above, Las Vegas is a major exception.

 

[alarson]

History or not, you're forgetting that this is something that is going to be voted on by the B12's conference members not decided by the commissioner. Like I said before, if the B12 expands East with Louisville, I could see them getting the votes to stay in KC, but do you honestly believe UT, TTU, Baylor, TCU, OU, OSU give 2 flips about the "history" of our tournament in KC? Most of those teams weren't even in the Big 8, and I think its obvious how OU and OSU would feel about hosting the tournament in their home state versus KC.

It may not be unprecedented for a Conference to hold it's basketball tournament in a state where no conference school resides, but it certainly is unlikely. 30 of the 31 D1 basketball Conferences have Conference Tournaments and ONLY 2 have that tournament in a state where no member resides (WCC and WAC) and both of those are in Las Vegas, NV. You are trying to make a rule out of an exception, and for reasons I pointed out above, Las Vegas is a major exception.

I dont get this obsession over the state where the university is based in. KC is still very much within the KU area of influence (its a longer drive for most of us that go from DSM to Ames than it is to go from Lawrence to the Sprint Center!) State borders dont matter, especially when you're talking about a metro area that splits the state border anyways. If we'd had the tourney in a more Mizzou-centric area like St. Louis then yeah, but not KC.

Now, could i see a rotation happening with KC and OKC? Definitely. But this whole 'omg, we cant have events in a state we dont have a school in' thing needs to stop.

 

[HoopsTournament]

History or not, you're forgetting that this is something that is going to be voted on by the B12's conference members not decided by the commissioner. Like I said before, if the B12 expands East with Louisville, I could see them getting the votes to stay in KC, but do you honestly believe UT, TTU, Baylor, TCU, OU, OSU give 2 flips about the "history" of our tournament in KC? Most of those teams weren't even in the Big 8, and I think its obvious how OU and OSU would feel about hosting the tournament in their home state versus KC.

It may not be unprecedented for a Conference to hold it's basketball tournament in a state where no conference school resides, but it certainly is unlikely. 30 of the 31 D1 basketball Conferences have Conference Tournaments and ONLY 2 have that tournament in a state where no member resides (WCC and WAC) and both of those are in Las Vegas, NV. You are trying to make a rule out of an exception, and for reasons I pointed out above, Las Vegas is a major exception.

WAC has a team in Nevada. The other without a team in the host state is A-10. Plus I didnt look at about 20 conferences, so unless you have done the research, are you sure it is ONLY 2? Try to follow the conversation. I stated these things in prior posts.

I don't think that the tournament will be in KC every year. That is too much to expect, but the influence of KU and compromise having the FB championship (when it comes back) will get SOME of the years in KC.

 

[RayShimley]

State borders DO matter when you're talking about $$.

 

[Mizzoulander]

History or not, you're forgetting that this is something that is going to be voted on by the B12's conference members not decided by the commissioner. Like I said before, if the B12 expands East with Louisville, I could see them getting the votes to stay in KC, but do you honestly believe UT, TTU, Baylor, TCU, OU, OSU give 2 flips about the "history" of our tournament in KC? Most of those teams weren't even in the Big 8, and I think its obvious how OU and OSU would feel about hosting the tournament in their home state versus KC.

I think most agree that having the tournament in KC was a good thing, and still could be. Mizzou's status doesn't change that.

But I also think that this whole tourney situation illustrates the dysfunction of the Big 12.

By any measure, the old Big 8 tourament was a HUGE success in KC. Lots of fans, dollars, and interest for all. When it became the B12 Tourney, it was still one of the premier BB tournaments in the land.

So what does the Big 12 do? Moves it to Dallas. Attendence drops...it's too far away from the schools that care about BB. And now that Missouri is leaving, they probably will take it away from KC entirely. This conference just can't get out of its own way...even when it has a good thing going.

Why? It's the same reasoning that applies to tournaments, bowls, league offices, networks, etc.

It's the Big 12's mantra: Anything Worth Having is Worth Having in Texas.

 

[RayShimley]

WAC has a team in Nevada. The other without a team in the host state is A-10. Plus I didnt look at about 20 conferences, so unless you have done the research, are you sure it is ONLY 2? Try to follow the conversation. I stated these things in prior posts.

I don't think that the tournament will be in KC every year. That is too much to expect, but the influence of KU and compromise having the FB championship (when it comes back) will get SOME of the years in KC.

You're right, I don't know how I got the A-10 and WAC mixed up but I am 95% sure those are the only 2. Feel free to check. Also, none of the major conferences, whose tournaments generate the most money, have their championships outside of a member state.

 

[RayShimley]

I think most agree that having the tournament in KC was a good thing, and still could be. Mizzou's status doesn't change that.

But I also think that this whole tourney situation illustrates the dysfunction of the Big 12.

By any measure, the old Big 8 tourament was a HUGE success in KC. Lots of fans, dollars, and interest for all. When it became the B12 Tourney, it was still one of the premier BB tournaments in the land.

So what does the Big 12 do? Moves it to Dallas. Attendence drops...it's too far away from the schools that care about BB. And now that Missouri is leaving, they probably will take it away from KC entirely. This conference just can't get out of its own way...even when it has a good thing going.

Why? It's the same reasoning that applies to tournaments, bowls, league offices, networks, etc.

It's the Big 12's mantra: Anything Worth Having is Worth Having in Texas.

To be clear, I'm not saying having the tourney in KC is a bad thing. Clearly that is a good thing for ISU, at least in comparison to having it in Dallas or OKC. However, the reality of it is that if we lose Mizzou we are further de-stabilizing the North-South balance and there simply won't be the votes to keep it in KC.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I'll try...it's really not a dealbreaker for Mizzou. Here's why:

1. Don't pay too much attention to the East/West designations; some of the schools closest to Missouri (UK, UTenn, Vandy) are in the east, while some of the furthest away (Auburn, LSU) are in the West. Might as well call it "Leaders" or "Legends" or some bulls***.

2. If you had to pick a division in the SEC to join based on competition RIGHT NOW, it would clearly be the East.

3. Only football and a couple of other sports use the division designations; for most of the non-revenue sports, divisions don't apply.

4. If/when the SEC moves to 16 teams, depending on who they take, they'll reshuffle the divisions again anyway. The location of the new teams (WVU or NCST in the east, or OU/OSU in the west) will influence how that's divvied up.

I can respect that the SEC wants to keep some matchups protected. They already added TAMU in the West, so this makes sense. It's not like the B12 would break up OU/TX or KU/KSU just because they added WVU.

OU/OSU are not going to the SEC. OU's goal is much different than MU or A&M.

1. They want to go to a National Championship. SEC makes that much more difficult to do. But staying in the Big 12 still provides them enough competition for high ratings without it being a killer schedule every year.

2. They can make just as much money (or more) long-term in Big 12 as in SEC once they have their own network.

3. They don't need to leave because of perceived instability. They know that if there ever comes a day where the Big 12 implodes (which it won't), they will be able to find a home. The point is that they will not be leaving unless Big 12 no longer exists. They aren't going to just leave. And them staying keeps Big 12 intact.

4. They want to be in same conference as Texas and Texas is not going to SEC.

when you look at it from OU's point of view and not the media's or SEC's or Mizzou's, it doesn't make sense (despite what the media has led you to believe).

 

[HoopsTournament]

To be clear, I'm not saying having the tourney in KC is a bad thing. Clearly that is a good thing for ISU, at least in comparison to having it in Dallas or OKC. However, the reality of it is that if we lose Mizzou we are further de-stabilizing the North-South balance and there simply won't be the votes to keep it in KC.

I disagree.

 

[mt85]

Up until this point, I've really hated the idea of losing Missouri, but if they don't want to be a part of this conference I wish they would just leave. When your girlfriend keeps pulling up her skirt every time a guy walks by, there comes a point when you need to realize that the relationship is over. I have to be honest, I've sadly reached that point with Missouri.

The sun will come up tomorrow. We will move forward with those that want to be with us.

As to the Missouri fans that are so excited about their new boyfriend, why are you here with the ones you are so excited to leave? I don't get that. Do you need our blessing?

If you want to break up with someone does it make sense to be talking with them about your new boyfriend?

Are you here because you subconsciously don't want to leave?

Shouldn't you be on the SEC boards telling them how you're going to rock their world?

Is it that your new friend doesn't love you as much as you love him?

Won't they return your phone calls?

I look at Missouri fans just like someone that finds a new love interest. The euphoria of something new overwhelms them to the point where they ignore all the warts, but one day that euphoria will wear off, and they will realize there are warts. They may have more money, but they might not be happy. Then what, will they start hiking their skirt again?

 

[Mizzoulander]

Well, you'll play in Texas once about every 5 years in the East rather than twice a year in the Big 12 and every other year in the West. Good luck selling that to Texas recruits. Better hope you can establish some Florida recruiting in-roads asap, but do you really think Florida recruits are going to go to Missouri over Florida, Georgia, Auburn, Alabama, South Carolina, LSU, Florida State, Miami, etc? You'll be a lot further down the totem pole in Florida than you have been in Texas for the past several years.

Iowa State has been the Northernmost outpost in a Southern based football conference for a long time. It has not gone well for football recruiting. It hasn't worked out well for Washington State, BC, or Kentucky either. Missouri will be reaping that with their move to the SEC. So, you'll get your stablility and a couple million dollars more every year, but at the price of winning. Best of luck to you.

You're cherry-picking, Hobbs. You could have picked Nebraska, UWash, or Tennessee...all northern outposts in southern-based football conferences. Except they've all won championships. ISU, Wazzou, and UK have never competed for championships in football (as far as I can remember), but that has more to do with history, resources, and neighboring programs than with relative location.

I'll respect the Texas recruiting argument, and I hope Mizzou dumps the O-O-C MAC teams we've played (Bowling Green, Miami OH, Ball St.) and starts scheduling some home-and-homes with North Texas, UTEP, Rice, etc. Arkansas has managed to have some success recruiting outside ofTexas. Maybe we will too.

 

[HoopsTournament]

I think most agree that having the tournament in KC was a good thing, and still could be. Mizzou's status doesn't change that.

But I also think that this whole tourney situation illustrates the dysfunction of the Big 12.

By any measure, the old Big 8 tourament was a HUGE success in KC. Lots of fans, dollars, and interest for all. When it became the B12 Tourney, it was still one of the premier BB tournaments in the land.

So what does the Big 12 do? Moves it to Dallas. Attendence drops...it's too far away from the schools that care about BB. And now that Missouri is leaving, they probably will take it away from KC entirely. This conference just can't get out of its own way...even when it has a good thing going.

Why? It's the same reasoning that applies to tournaments, bowls, league offices, networks, etc.

It's the Big 12's mantra: Anything Worth Having is Worth Having in Texas.

The only people that have been saying that the tournament is moving is media, twitter and message board posters. NO ONE in the conference has made any statements about the tournament moving. So using something that media, etc. says and not the conference and it's schools says to conclude dysfunction about the conference is completely flawed logic. It points to dysfunction about the media, twitter and message boards.

 

[boone7247]

You're right, I don't know how I got the A-10 and WAC mixed up but I am 95% sure those are the only 2. Feel free to check. Also, none of the major conferences, whose tournaments generate the most money, have their championships outside of a member state.

Who cares if it is outside of a member state if it is within the footprint of the conference. As a matter of fact I think the B12 would be smart to keep the tourney there to keep the viewership of the KC market (which we probably won't lose because KC has a ton of KU and KSU grads), but it would be smart to have something in that large of a market.