Supposedly, Mizzou to the SEC is a done deal
- Thread starter Incognegro
- Start date
to continue with Bama and Tigers. 17ing East gets Vandi, Kentucky, and now Missouri. Even A&M is stronger than Missouri.
This **** of playing those two last night plus the Pigs with their new 28 million football complex each year sure screws up a winning schedule. Hell, the Bears will fire Nutt and get a new coach and that easy win could be rough every other year....
This **** of playing those two last night plus the Pigs with their new 28 million football complex each year sure screws up a winning schedule. Hell, the Bears will fire Nutt and get a new coach and that easy win could be rough every other year....
I do agree that aTm is probably the overall better football school, but Mizzou ain't no slouches. They'd compete in the East, especially with how mediocre it's become. I don't think it would make the East that much better since there's no one team that is just that much better than the rest.
S
Sterling Archer.nafoom
Guest
and UT and UF were winning everything. There's no sense in worrying about which division will be tougher, because it will change. And hell, we may have three divisions in a few years. Who knows.
experience. I think I read were SEC was thinking about reducing one of the games played vs east. If so, then it doesn't make much of a difference.
With 6 division games and 1 permanent cross-division, you've got to think we'll want 2 rotating cross-divisions soon. Maybe not next year, but within the next few.
Then again... I feel that splitting the divisions into pods or just having 4 divisions altogether would be a better idea. I'm more pro 4 divisions in that case simply because you could realistically keep 4 permanent teams (one permanent being in another division) and just rotating the other 4. Even if teams decided to vote for having 5 permanents, that still leaves 2 rotational games with the last conference game acting like a semi final for the highest ranked teams in conference play and/or bowl position/eligibility matchups for everyone else. I feel that would work out just fine.<div>
</div><div>Either way, I feel that the current divisional set up is in more jeopardy than the amount of conference games played is. Only way I see 9 games happening is under extreme circumstances, and I don't see too much making that happen.</div>
</div><div>Either way, I feel that the current divisional set up is in more jeopardy than the amount of conference games played is. Only way I see 9 games happening is under extreme circumstances, and I don't see too much making that happen.</div>
S
Sterling Archer.nafoom
Guest
Mizzou is good in football, good in basketball, good in academics(not that it matters since this is all about money and sports), and they will help expand the SEC footprint for media and viewers.
Who should have been taken instead?
Who should have been taken instead?
because these morons are only going to state "pipe dream" teams.
Mizzou makes the most sense of all the teams that were "available" for the picking.
Mizzou makes the most sense of all the teams that were "available" for the picking.
.......facts. The TV market angle is bull. The whole country watched LSU and Alabama last night. And why? Because they have large TV markets? Nope.
Also, I think some of y'all are related to Simpleton. Until Texas, OU, and OSU are a lock for the PAC12, you hold a spot for them. Especially..........ESPECIALLY...knowing the BigNorth told Missouri "No thanks". They have nowhere to go! They will be there if Texas, OU, and OSU go elsewhere.
Also, I think some of y'all are related to Simpleton. Until Texas, OU, and OSU are a lock for the PAC12, you hold a spot for them. Especially..........ESPECIALLY...knowing the BigNorth told Missouri "No thanks". They have nowhere to go! They will be there if Texas, OU, and OSU go elsewhere.
And no, the TV market argument is not bull. Of course the whole nation watched LSU-Bama. It was #1 vs. #2. But how many watched Arkansas-South Carolina? Not very many outside of those 2 states, even though is was a matchup of 2 top 10 teams. And that's the point. There are 6 million people in Missouri. Missouri is the only major university in that state. That translates into a lot of TV viewers. Throw in the fact that they're very solid in all the major sports and you've got a damn good addition for the conference.
No. You don't. First of all, no legitimate major conference is going to even consider Texas because of the baggage they would bring. As for OU and OSU, it's not worth it to bring in such a small state if you have to take 2 schools to do it.
The SEC and PAC would roll out the red carpet to land Texas. Besides they are going to have to play ball sooner or later too with everyone leaving their conference.
But yeah! People watched because it was two top ranked teams playing. Texas and OU bring that potential for more 1 v 2 matchups.
Missouri is a decent school. However I don't see the need to expand now. Not until you know for sure where UT and OU are going and how many spots it will take to land them.
But yeah! People watched because it was two top ranked teams playing. Texas and OU bring that potential for more 1 v 2 matchups.
Missouri is a decent school. However I don't see the need to expand now. Not until you know for sure where UT and OU are going and how many spots it will take to land them.
You're really showing how little you understand about the Tv market argument. Team rankings have little to do with viewing when it comes to particular markets. Tv markets become important when it's talking about conference games, and games in local areas. Because Missouri is pretty much the only major university in the state, the chances a huge chunk of the people in KC and St. Louis will watch their games is pretty high, which helps with ratings which also helps in the money the SEC as a whole will get from the views.<div>
</div><div>Not only that, but with how people in the SEC are, we'll watch SEC games that don't even have our teams in it. If we can get people in those two cities so invested in the SEC that they'll watch even MSU games if they're on tv in their area, that does nothing but help ratings for the whole conference. It's not that hard to understand. Week in and week out you don't always get top 10 matches even in the SEC. Tv markets become critical when talking about every other week.</div>
</div><div>Not only that, but with how people in the SEC are, we'll watch SEC games that don't even have our teams in it. If we can get people in those two cities so invested in the SEC that they'll watch even MSU games if they're on tv in their area, that does nothing but help ratings for the whole conference. It's not that hard to understand. Week in and week out you don't always get top 10 matches even in the SEC. Tv markets become critical when talking about every other week.</div>
No FSU because of Florida. No Clemson because of South Carolina. No GT because of UGA. No Texas because, well, they are perhaps more full of themselves than Bama.
VT? Yeah they aren't in a state with a current SEC member, but they have a 20mil buyout and who knows if they want to leave for a host of reasons.
Really, who else?
UCF would even get nixed. They seem to be on track to be the largest damn school in the world, but Florida would obviously block em.
Memphis? Besides being terrible in football, would UT ever ok it?
Like you said, they make the most sense. But it's apparently a horrible decision.
VT? Yeah they aren't in a state with a current SEC member, but they have a 20mil buyout and who knows if they want to leave for a host of reasons.
Really, who else?
UCF would even get nixed. They seem to be on track to be the largest damn school in the world, but Florida would obviously block em.
Memphis? Besides being terrible in football, would UT ever ok it?
Like you said, they make the most sense. But it's apparently a horrible decision.
If you don't understand that Texas or OU vs anyone in the SEC grabs more TVs nation wide, I can't help you.
I'm not the one that needs help since it's obvious you have not a single clue about the matter. I'm not claiming that I'm an expert, but for the most part, this matter is not that difficult to comprehend regardless of you not seeming to get it. Let me break this down for you as to why Mizzou is a better get vs Oklahoma first.<div>
</div><div>Missouri is the number 18th ranked state by population with close to 6 million people. Oklahoma is 28th and a little more than half the population of Missouri with about 3.7 mil. Of course... that's not where the buck stops.</div><div>
</div><div>Here is a list of the 100 toptv markets in the U.S. You should see at 21 and 31 are St. Louis and Kansas City respectively. Not only those 2, but for extra measure, Missouri has a 3rd in Springfield that's currently residing at 74. The state of Oklahoma, in comparison, has 2, and they are ranked at 45 (Oklahoma City) and 61 (Tulsa). Not only does Missouri have a larger population than Oklahoma, they also have more of the largest tv markets than Oklahoma (3 - 2). aGAIN, not only that, but they have more top 50 tv markets than Oklahoma (2 - 1), and to bring this home just a little bit more.. BOTH of those tv markets are ranked higher than Oklahoma's. Finally, to go ahead and end this... Missouri is really the only MAJOR university in that state. Unless they have another school that's even competing in the FBS that's for some reason invisible, it is safe to say that the majority of the college football fans in a relatively large state are extremely likely to watch a game that has Missouri in it.</div><div>
</div><div>If that last line didn't run it home for you about Oklahoma, maybe this will. I just told you that Missouri is pretty much the only major university in terms of athletics in the state... well.. Oklahoma has 2, and you can even make an argument that Tulsa may even take some of the viewers attention away from the other 2. To make matters worse about picking up Oklahoma, the chances of the SEC picking Oklahoma up without taking OSU is practically slim to none. Why the hell would the SEC want to take OU and OSU over Missouri when the tv markets for one school is much better than that of a combo package?</div><div>
</div><div>As far as tv markets with Texas, I don't think there is any denying Texas has the largest tv market in the Big XII and would probably be the biggest in the SEC if we admitted them. What kills them is the drama that they bring. Someone else already pointed out that they're not as attractive as you once thought since the Pac-12 already denied their admittance BECAUSE of their Longhorn Network and the drama they bring. It's not a coincidence that conference they step into end up dying. Do I think Texas will eventually make it to the Pac-12? Yes, I do, but only when they decide that they have to play by the Pac-12's rules.</div><div>
</div><div>Lastly, the argument that you're really standing by is brand recognition more than anything. I can almost assure you, adding Texas and OU will not give us national viewership which is what you're thinking. Yes, both schools probably have a large amount of alumni in states other than their own, but unless both schools are ranked nationally, the chances of a majority of their games showing up on tvs across the nation are slim, and even if they are ranked, I can bet you that not as many states are going to watch their games over the respective teams in their states unless the implications of the matchups are just as high as the Bama/LSU game and that is not going to happen all the time. You can probably count on 2 hands the amount of times number 1 and number 2 matched up in the same conference.</div><div>
</div><div>If you can't understand all of that... then I can't help you.</div>
</div><div>Missouri is the number 18th ranked state by population with close to 6 million people. Oklahoma is 28th and a little more than half the population of Missouri with about 3.7 mil. Of course... that's not where the buck stops.</div><div>
</div><div>Here is a list of the 100 toptv markets in the U.S. You should see at 21 and 31 are St. Louis and Kansas City respectively. Not only those 2, but for extra measure, Missouri has a 3rd in Springfield that's currently residing at 74. The state of Oklahoma, in comparison, has 2, and they are ranked at 45 (Oklahoma City) and 61 (Tulsa). Not only does Missouri have a larger population than Oklahoma, they also have more of the largest tv markets than Oklahoma (3 - 2). aGAIN, not only that, but they have more top 50 tv markets than Oklahoma (2 - 1), and to bring this home just a little bit more.. BOTH of those tv markets are ranked higher than Oklahoma's. Finally, to go ahead and end this... Missouri is really the only MAJOR university in that state. Unless they have another school that's even competing in the FBS that's for some reason invisible, it is safe to say that the majority of the college football fans in a relatively large state are extremely likely to watch a game that has Missouri in it.</div><div>
</div><div>If that last line didn't run it home for you about Oklahoma, maybe this will. I just told you that Missouri is pretty much the only major university in terms of athletics in the state... well.. Oklahoma has 2, and you can even make an argument that Tulsa may even take some of the viewers attention away from the other 2. To make matters worse about picking up Oklahoma, the chances of the SEC picking Oklahoma up without taking OSU is practically slim to none. Why the hell would the SEC want to take OU and OSU over Missouri when the tv markets for one school is much better than that of a combo package?</div><div>
</div><div>As far as tv markets with Texas, I don't think there is any denying Texas has the largest tv market in the Big XII and would probably be the biggest in the SEC if we admitted them. What kills them is the drama that they bring. Someone else already pointed out that they're not as attractive as you once thought since the Pac-12 already denied their admittance BECAUSE of their Longhorn Network and the drama they bring. It's not a coincidence that conference they step into end up dying. Do I think Texas will eventually make it to the Pac-12? Yes, I do, but only when they decide that they have to play by the Pac-12's rules.</div><div>
</div><div>Lastly, the argument that you're really standing by is brand recognition more than anything. I can almost assure you, adding Texas and OU will not give us national viewership which is what you're thinking. Yes, both schools probably have a large amount of alumni in states other than their own, but unless both schools are ranked nationally, the chances of a majority of their games showing up on tvs across the nation are slim, and even if they are ranked, I can bet you that not as many states are going to watch their games over the respective teams in their states unless the implications of the matchups are just as high as the Bama/LSU game and that is not going to happen all the time. You can probably count on 2 hands the amount of times number 1 and number 2 matched up in the same conference.</div><div>
</div><div>If you can't understand all of that... then I can't help you.</div>
Having a huge TV market doesn't really matter if the folks in that TV market don't really give a **** about Mizz football. Can you understand that?
Having a huge TV market doesn't really matter if the folks in that TV market don't really give a **** about Mizz football. Can you understand that?
I too believe adding missouri is a big steaming pile of monkey spunk. They are just another number on the way to 16 teams. They don't fit. Hey, I know lets add purdue next they fit as well as missouri and are about as interesting. Since there is such a push for boring fringe schools.
Oklahoma blows Mizz out of the water when it comes actual TV ratings. The argument about Mizz TV market size is bogus. Because the size of the local tv market doesn't matter. All that matters is how many people actually watch the games.<div>
</div><div>If Missouri cared so much about Mizz football then why does it have a state popuation of 6million yet they can only get about 64k per home game. The school it's self has 33k students. And Missouri has nobody in the state to compete with on Saturdays. Meanwhile Oklahoma has 3.75milion population and OU and OSU pull together about 135k on saturdays (OU being about 85k of that 135k)</div><div>
</div><div>Missouri's 64k is only about 10k better than our attendance. And MS only has a population of around 3 million + we share the state with another SEC school.</div>
</div><div>If Missouri cared so much about Mizz football then why does it have a state popuation of 6million yet they can only get about 64k per home game. The school it's self has 33k students. And Missouri has nobody in the state to compete with on Saturdays. Meanwhile Oklahoma has 3.75milion population and OU and OSU pull together about 135k on saturdays (OU being about 85k of that 135k)</div><div>
</div><div>Missouri's 64k is only about 10k better than our attendance. And MS only has a population of around 3 million + we share the state with another SEC school.</div>
<div>
</div><div>Let me ask you something... why do you think there's more emphasis on tv markets a school is in instead of the average tv ratings a school gets? The tv ratings a school gets will mainly effect games that they play in and that's about it. It does help the conference some, but not that much in terms of other conference games. Conferences want schools that's in large tv markets because not only will they more than likely watch their respective teams, but they will also watch other conference games as well theoretically.</div><div>
</div><div>It's not that hard to understand... Even though Mizzou only averages a little over 60k per home game, it's not like their stadium seats 80k... I'll say this one last time... tv markets are more important than individual school ratings. One of the bigger reasons is because a school's tv average ratings are cyclical. When the school is good, their ratings are good. When they're bad, their ratings are bad. What the hope is, is that even if Mizzou happens to be bad a few years, the SEC won't lose that much money because people in KC and St. Louis will still watch SEC games as a whole.</div>
The networks like bigger numbers of sets. <div>
</div><div>So State will make more a lot more SEC TV money because the SEC added Missouri (and Texas A&M). And Missouri is a more 'beatable' team than some of the others that were talked about (like Florida State). So that's better for State, too. </div>
</div><div>So State will make more a lot more SEC TV money because the SEC added Missouri (and Texas A&M). And Missouri is a more 'beatable' team than some of the others that were talked about (like Florida State). So that's better for State, too. </div>
I wonder who our next SEC East team would be after SC.....I thought Tenn was coming on next year.
Yea, but how often is Oklahoma a bad team? They pretty much own all the records in college football winning seasons, weeks ranked, and awesomeness in general. <div>Incognegro said:
</div><div><div>I don't want either Oklahoma or Missouri in the SEC. I'd rather have Missouri in the SEC simply because they would be an easier opponent. But I still believe the TV market size is a bunch of crap. The state of Missouri's lack of support for their only college football team tells me how much they care about college football in general. And I'm just assuming here but seems like their would be a lot of Big12 fans, Big 10 fans, and SEC fans since it's right in the middle of everything. And I don't see the Big12 or Big10 fans their watching much more SEC football than they already do simply because Missouri switched conferences.</div></div>
The SEC is a business, and it when it comes to maximizing your profits with teams, you take the best options for you. I can assure you that there will be more people in Missouri watching SEC games the first few years just because they're new to the SEC. Economically it just makes more sense to go for Missouri instead of Oklahoma, especially when you'll have to take OSU along with Oklahoma. If you can get those types of tv Markets with just adding 1 team, and you won't get anywhere near those markets by adding 2 teams... it just doesn't make that much sense to go with OU and OSU.<div>
</div><div>Also... I still don't get where you keep getting that Mizzou has weak fan support. I had to go all the way to 2007 to find a year that they were out of the top 30 for average fan attendance and they were right at 31. Their stadium only seats 71,004, so you're using an argument that they don't fill up that stadium as having weak fan support is rather absurd when they get around 64,000 on average. How is that weak? You also keep looking at that as saying that people in Missouri aren't that passionate about football and again... that's rather absurd.</div>
</div><div>Also... I still don't get where you keep getting that Mizzou has weak fan support. I had to go all the way to 2007 to find a year that they were out of the top 30 for average fan attendance and they were right at 31. Their stadium only seats 71,004, so you're using an argument that they don't fill up that stadium as having weak fan support is rather absurd when they get around 64,000 on average. How is that weak? You also keep looking at that as saying that people in Missouri aren't that passionate about football and again... that's rather absurd.</div>
that "no one in Missouri watches Mizzou football"? Because it is just flat out wrong. The entire state follows theTigers.
Mizzou's fan base is every bit as rabid as Arkansas, minus the inbreeding and delusionalness.
Mizzou's fan base is every bit as rabid as Arkansas, minus the inbreeding and delusionalness.
He's only saying that because they don't sell out their stadium week in and out which is pretty weak.