Mizzo is on the way to the SEC...

[fishwater99]

Mizzo coming on strong..

The New York Times is reporting Missouri's decision to officially apply
for membership in the Southeastern Conference is "inevitable and
imminent."</p>

The newspaper, citing an official familiar with school
decisions involving conference affiliation, reported Monday night that
Mizzou officials expect to get enough votes among SEC presidents to
become a member, although the school would still need to be formally
invited to join the conference.</p>

Missouri curators, who must
approve any change in conference alignment, are scheduled to next meet
at the University of Missouri, Kansas City on Oct. 20-21.</p>

 

[fishwater99]

Mizzo coming on strong..

The New York Times is reporting Missouri's decision to officially apply
for membership in the Southeastern Conference is "inevitable and
imminent."</p>

The newspaper, citing an official familiar with school
decisions involving conference affiliation, reported Monday night that
Mizzou officials expect to get enough votes among SEC presidents to
become a member, although the school would still need to be formally
invited to join the conference.</p>

Missouri curators, who must
approve any change in conference alignment, are scheduled to next meet
at the University of Missouri, Kansas City on Oct. 20-21.</p>

 

[Dental Dawg]

If it happens, the one positive is Auburn to the East.

 

[vandaldawg]

nm

 

[GloryDawg]

bd

 

[Sterling Archer.nafoom]

badchoiceku

 

[Incognegro]

I don't know what better optionrealisticallythere was for us to get out West besides them to be honest.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

We are not going to get an ACC school: Virginia Tech spent its political capital to get in the ACC, which has been its goal for many many years. Clemson is the reason the ACC was created. Florida State, while they had SEC aspirations in the past have appeared to move on. We are not getting a Carolina school & we're not interested in Georgia Tech, Miami, or Boston College. Maryland, if they want to move & I doubt it, would be more interested in the Big Ten.

 

[maroonmania]

13 team league is just too big of a pain in the rear to deal with.

http://www.outkickthecove...irtual-impossibility.php

 

[patdog]

Yeah right. That said, it makes plenty of sense to add Missouri as #14. This is a good move for the SEC.

 

[Incognegro]

But I still think we could get one. I know I may sound like a broken record on this, but I really believe that if the SEC went out to the ACC, their best shot at getting a school from there is NCState and personally... I don't think that is a terribleacquisition. Only problem from going East though, is that I don't see any other teams that the SEC would realistically go after (NCState included) and would hop over. Like you said, the bigger (and better) options more than likely aren't coming. Makes me worry about WVU a bit...

 

[Sutterkane]

Most years, we should beat them in football. I don't care what their 2000s record is, they've been in a seriously weak *** division with Iowa State, Kansas, K-State, and until last year a very underwhelming Nebraska and Colorado. Couple that with playing Baylor when they sucked(never thought I'd say "when" here) and that's a pretty easy schedule. I'd like to think Croom would do well in that division.

They add a little bit of power in basketball. Usually Mizzou is pretty good here; they've been to 2 elite 8s in the last decade, which is better than almost every SEC school.

 

[maroonmania]

and you are right, its certainly not impossible but as I said, its a total pain in the rear to do it and screws up a lot of things.

 

[patdog]

Missouri makes sense to add. It will be interesting to see what the SEC does about who to move to the East (Auburn or maybe Missouri?) andhow many conference games they have (I really hope they stay at 8, but that leaves very long gaps between playing non-permanent opponents in the opposite division)

 

[EAVdog]

I like it!</p>

 

[BUSMAN.sixpack]

Mizou to the East.... .Alabama and UT Refused to vote them in unless they could keep their rivalry.

 

[klerushund]

New West would be:<div>
</div><div>A&M</div><div>Mizzou</div><div>Arkansas</div><div>LSU</div><div>Ole Miss</div><div>MSU</div><div>Bama</div><div>Auburn</div><div>
</div><div>Someone has got to go East...only makes sense that it's Auburn, if they could guarantee the Iron Bowl every year.</div>

 

[FISHDAWG]

.

 

[Dawgbreeze]

It would make more sense to mkove Auburn to the east or Mizzou and also move Vandy to the west. Otherwise you have Fla, Ga, S.C. and the rest who are not very good while the west would be top heavy with good teams. Surely Slive is not going to screw Bama like that.

 

[saltslugs]

You are not factoring in the change in recruiting (not to mention revenues, which lead to better coaches, facilities, and in turn, players) that Mizzou will enjoy after joining the SEC. They will be consistently better than us. Let's face it--this is a bigger school, in a better market, in a better position to recruit. All it's missing is the SEC label.<div>
</div><div>By 2015, Missouri will be a consistent competitor in the SEC West.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>
</div>

 

[patdog]

It allows the Bama-UT game to continue as an SEC game while still keeping 8 conference games. Everyone just assumes Mizzou has to go to the West, but if you let Arkansas be their permanent West opponent they're not that much further from most of the East schools than a lot of the West ones. They're actually closer to UGA than they are to Texas A&M for example.

 

[klerushund]

1. West: A&M, Mizzou, Arkansas, LSU, MSU, Ole Miss, Bama; East: Auburn, Florida, Georgia, S. Car, Vandy, Kentucky, Tennessee<div>
</div><div>You'd have to assure that Bama & Auburn got the Iron Bowl every year for this to work.</div><div>
</div><div>2. West: A&M, Mizzou, Arkansas, LSU, MSU, Ole Miss, Vandy; East: Bama, Auburn, Florida, Georgia, S. Car, Kentucky, Tennessee</div><div>
</div><div>This would put all the bell cows (save LSU) in one division so it's not likely even though it make sense geographically and rivalry-wise</div><div>
</div><div>3. What they will do: Whatever screws State the worst, i.e., something like this... "West": LSU, Bama, Arkansas, Auburn, Florida, Georgia & MSU***</div>

 

[Sutterkane]

Mizzou wasn't exactly blowing up Texas and Oklahoma for recruits in the big 12; plus they simply do not care about football as much up there. consider me unconcerned.

You really think Bama, LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas are going to let Mizzou even have a small slice of the pie when they won't even let us have a sliver? No way in hell are they contenders.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

...but if there are 9-game conference schedules and two permanent cross-divisional rivals, I could see Texas A&M and Arkansas as theirpermanent opponents.

 

[maroonmania]

and give us Ole Miss as our annual crossover game and I'm as happy as a pig in slop. I'll be glad to drop having to play Alabama and LSU every year.

 

[patdog]

They've only been in the same conference for 15 years and until this year they weren't even in the same division of that one.It's not like you're busting up some great rivalry game. The fact is, Arkansas is the only SEC school within easy driving distance of Missouri. I can't see the SEC not having those two schools play every year.</p>

 

[idog]

nm

it's "Muck Fizzou"

 

[saltslugs]

MSU a school of around 20,000 in a state with two SEC schools that has a population of about 3 million.<div>
</div><div>Mizzou is a school of 34,000 in a state with one SEC school (assuming they do join) that has a population of about 6 million.</div><div>
</div><div>
</div><div>Practically, the only reason we ever land out of state recruits is the prospect of playing in the SEC. Missouri is, let's face it, a better school with a huge recruiting edge. You are totally kidding yourself if you think we will outperform Missouri in football. Residents may not care as much about football right now, but that will all change in a big way.</div><div>
</div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">"You really think Bama, LSU, Auburn, and Arkansas are going to let Mizzou even have a small slice of the pie when they won't even let us have a sliver? No way in hell are they contenders."</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">
</span></div><div>Missouri is in a totally different pie. It will start pulling-in recruits from all surrounding states that don't currently have an SEC school. The same reason SEC officials want Missouri is the same reason they will beat us two out of every three years--proximity to high population and a new recruiting base.</div>

 

[Maroon Eagle]

When Arkansas and South Carolina joined the SEC, they were set up as permanent crossdivisional rivals largely to keep scheduling as simple as possible.

If Arkansas and Missouri are permanent rivals, that would make Texas A&M and South Carolina permanent rivals-- which doesn't work for me.

 

[maroonmania]

but TX A&M having SC as their permanent opponent to me makes no less sense than Arkansas having SC as their permanent opponent. Given the proximity of Missouri and Arkansas I could certainly see switching Arkansas over to Missouri and then matching up TX A&M and SC simply because they are the two left. My main concern would not be losing KY as ours since that is one team we seem to have a pretty good chance of beating every year in the league.

 

[patdog]

They're both just a pretty random game because none of those 4 schools has any real natural or traditional rival in the opposite division and they needed a permenent opponent. Our game with Kentucky is kind of the same, but at least we had made the switch to get them as a permanent opponent before the league expanded to 12 (they were due to replace Alabama as our 5th permanent opponent in 1992).

To respond to maroonmania, I think we'll keep Kentucky as our permanent opponent and they'll justmake Missouri-Arkansas and A&M-USC permanent opponents and keep everyone else the same.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

They've played every year since 1992, which was the first year they played each other.
USC has never played Texas A&M.
Arkansas has only played Missouri five times.
And Missouri has played Texas A&M eleven times.</p>

 

[fishwater99]

It would be the easiest thing to do with the scheduling issues and would keep Bama happy.
It really doesn't matter with travel much anymore with most teams flying anyway...

 

[maroonmania]

KY, TN and Vandy would be easier trips for them than LSU and Auburn. And like someone else said its actually closer to Athens, GA from Columbia than it is to College Station, TX.