Supposedly, Mizzou to the SEC is a done deal

[missouridawg]

day 1. But when their team is relevant, the stands are packed... just like any other mid-level BCS school.

Is it really this difficult to see that Mizzou is probably the best school for the SEC to take that is actually available for the taking? They fit geographically, academically, and athletically.

 

[Incognegro]

whether people don't want them in the conference is another thing... but to say they don't add much to the conference is beyond me.

 

[MStateFan22]

day 1. But when their team is relevant, the stands are packed... just like any other mid-level BCS school.

Is it really this difficult to see that Mizzou is probably the best school for the SEC to take that is actually available for the taking? They fit geographically, academically, and athletically.

And it was actually 61k and not 64k as I previously said.<div>
</div><div>

</div>

 

[MStateFan22]

He's only saying that because they don't sell out their stadium week in and out which is pretty weak.

What I was saying is that the argument about TV market size was bogus because a team like Oklahoma might not have as big of a TV market but they would add more people tuning in to SEC games if they were to join.

 

[Incognegro]

is not even looking at their schedule. When it comes to big name teams, they show up, but as of late their home games have not been that impressive, but the fans still show up even if it may not be sellouts. You're comparing a team that has had a winning tradition damn near since college football began to one that's just recently started winning consistently. That doesn't mean that the fans are not enthusiastic about football. The state of Missouri is far from being unenthusiastic.<div>
</div><div>I know this won't necessarily change your mind, but here's an article on their recent decline.</div>

 

[mstate1977]

that ESPN, CBS and ABC don't make any money off of the people that actually go to the games? Because they're not watching it on t.v. They couldn't care less how many people actually go to see the games. The best case scenario for them would be a team with 6 million fans that all stay at home to watch the game on t.v.

P.S. you're arguing with someone either from, or living in, the state of Missouri about how many people in Missouri follow Missouri football. Just stop.

 

[MStateFan22]

team? Oh, he's from Missouri? Gosh. I guess that means I know nothing of the state.

 

[engie]

They are WELL on their way to creating their own tv network with millions already invested. Hence why they are staying in the Big12 with Texas until the very end. Both of them are using the rest of that group as pawns in order to get their networks up and running, obtain sustainability from the profits of those networks, and then declare independence. Absolutely NO major conference will let Texas in with The Longhorn Network as it is currently set up, and Oklahoma is following the same path. The Pac 12 has already told them both thanks but no thanks. So, Ok has not been an option ever since they started the wheels turning on their network.

Slive is already renegotiating the TV contract, which is today the WORST of the major conferences. Mizzou will independently add an additional ~ $3-4 million/year for Mississippi State. A&M will add an additional ~ $8 million/year. Realistically, from a financial standpoint, A&M was an absolute grand slam. Best possible school available to the west(Tx and OK were NOT on the table). Where Mizzou sits in the pecking order, exactly, I don't know. But I do know that we made ~ $17 million on the tv contracts last year. We will make $30-32 million next year...and hence the reason we should absolutely NOT be complaining about expansion. An additional $12 million increases our athletics budget by about 30%, much more noticeable for us than the 12% increase at Bama/Lsu/ect...