TIME TO FREAK OUT AGAIN ABOUT CONFERENCE REALIGNMENT! THE BIG 12 IS DEAD! MAYBE!

[Highlander]

.

[AllThingsKC]

I am talking overall conference, not championships and mythical championships. The SEC did not deserve at least a couple of those BCS championships - a 2 loss LSU team, c'mon. In basketball, the SEC has two programs of any accomplishment; Kentucky and Florida. LSU came on for a bit but has quickly faded. Vandy and Tennessee have been OK at best at times.

You say you're not talking about "championships and mythical championships," then proceed to talk about why the SEC doesn't deserve some of its "championships and mythical championships." I don't disagree with you about that at all. But, in that time, what has the Big 12 accomplished that the SEC hasn't?

I hate arguing this subjective stuff, but SEC homers at Mizzou act like they are now in the NFL and NBA.

I don't consider this to be arguing, just debating. I know we disagree on some of these things, and that's perfectly fine. I look forward to knowing what your opinion is on these subjects because I know it will be different than mine. You some unique points that the SEC homers ignore. So, even though we disagree, I still like knowing your opinion. It is very possible that within a few years from now, I will say, "Wow, Highlander was right." And that's why I like knowing your opinion. But, I don't mean to argue, just debate. Even though I disagree, your opinion is perfectly fine with me.

That bias has contributed to a lot of SEC football championships; like last years Alabama-LSU mythical championship game that never should have happened.

That match-up could have been avoided. The SEC proposed to the NCAA that a new rule that would have kept 2 teams from the same conference from competing for the national title. The Big 12 blocked it, and the rule never went into effect.

Conferences should be regional grouping of schools of like academic and cultural affinity.

I fully agree. But, that's the sad state of college sports right now. SDSU to the Big East? West Virginia to the Big 12? I wish Mizzou was still in the Big 12 with the original 12 members. But, when the Big 8 became the Big 12, and the headquarters was moved to Texas, the Big 12 ceased being a Midwestern conference. Only 5 of the original 12 members were considered to be in the Midwest, according to how the gov't defines "Midwest." Texas, Oklahoma, and Colorado aren't considered to be in the Midwest. Now, only 3 of 10 schools are considered to be in the "Midwest."

Donations (why would any alum ever donate to an athletic cause when funding for academics are struggling - I'd never call that a plus, it's a horrible misplacement of priorities) and ticket sales are up because it's new and there was a perceived need and impassioned plea to increase stadium capacity. I bet ticket sales are not up for basketball. Recruiting - well, we'll see.

I could be wrong, but I believe donations to Mizzou are up overall, not just in athletics. If it is just athletics, then yes, I agree that is misplaced priorities. Ticket sales are up because the SEC is new. We will see how long they stay that way. Same with recruiting.

As far as being in a good place, Missouri could not even beat Georgia at home this year. They struggled against ASU last night. Georgia isn't a bad team but they aren't a good team either. Last year's Georgia team was highly rated too and the best in the east division and their highly touted defense was totally destroyed by Kellen Moore and Boise State playing in Atlanta. Mizzou football is fun to watch - although it will be a long year with a questionable offensive line - but Mizzou doesn't have a great program. It was middle of the conference big XII, it will be middle of the conference SEC. I think that's the best you can expect; the SEC isn't going to do anything for progressing Mizzou's football program. It just won't, you are dreaming if you think that is the expected end result.

"Middle of the pack" in the SEC is exactly where I expect Mizzou to be. I certainly do not think Mizzou will be ranked year in and year out. But, "middle of the pack" in the SEC tends to be viewed as being more impressive than "middle of the pack" Big 12, because the SEC is the tougher conference. But, even if Mizzou goes 0-8 every year, that is worth more respect than going 0-9 in the Big 12 (Kansas). So, even in winless seasons, Mizzou will still have a better TV deal and be making more money than winless Big 12 teams. Not that going winless is the goal.

I'm not a huge fan of Texas either but the big XII originally had 6 schools from northern states, 4 from Texas and 2 from Oklahoma. Texas, while it shares a lot of the same culture of the SE, especially in the eastern rural areas, is also pretty dissimilar to southern states in the east; the state identifies more with the SW. Texas was barely populated at the time of the civil war, the southern cause mentality is here but not nearly deeply ingrained as it is in Mississppi, Georgia or Alabama. In any event, the old SW conference was a basket case and that allowed Missouri to make some serious inroads in recruiting in Texas once the Big XII came into existence. The SEC has had long established recruiting heirarchies so don't expect the same kind of recruiting benefit the Tigers got from the Big XII. ATKC may be impressed by one year's crop but most if not all of the big names were Missouri kids.

Academically, the old Big XII was much better than the SEC before the departure of 4 high quality schools. UT is way up there; far and above the best institution in both conferences. A&M, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Kansas are all top notch state institutions. While it's true that KSU, ISU and OSU aren't quite on the same plane, nor are Miss St, Ole Miss, or SCar, LSU, Kentucky or Arkansas. The big XII is down right now in terms of the academic reputation of its members but that is only because 4 very good academic programs left the conference; something that Mizzou's courting the Big X had a lot to do with.

Would it be fair to say that you want the Big 12 to be how it was prior to 2010? I do too. I understand where you're coming from. I miss Nebraska. I miss Colorado. In time, I will probably miss K-State, Kansas, and Oklahoma, because I grew up with those teams and those are the only conference teams I've known Mizzou to play. So, yes, the change is a little weird in some ways. While I wouldn't say the Big 12 was better than the SEC, I did think that the Big 12 was on its way to over-taking the SEC (prior to 2010). But, since money and greed have taken over college sports, I know we're not going back to the old Big 12. So, I make the most of what I've been dealt.

[MoMan]

Academically ...UT is way up there; far and above the best institution in both conferences.

Not to quibble, but...
UT is an outstanding, progressive, and wealthy university, light years ahead of all other current Big XII schools academically. But it isn't Vanderbilt's superior, and it certainly isn't "far and above" Florida.

[beautyfromashes]

Nebraska-NR
Mizzou-NR
Texas A&M- NR
Colorado- worst team in college football

TCU-16
West Virginia-7

Upgrade.

[bobbyhawks]

Colorado- worst team in college football

You have to be pretty bad for KU's QB of last year to seem like a good idea.

[AllThingsKC]

It will be hilarious if the Big 12 allows a team from the weak Big East and a team from the Mountain West to dominate the conference.

[KC-wildcat]

It will be hilarious if the Big 12 allows a team from the weak Big East and a team from the Mountain West to dominate the conference.

Likewise, if will be hilarious if Mizzou, who never sniffed a BigXII title, won the Division and competed for an SEC title in its first year.

WVU would clown MU and A&M. Don't know about TCU. They're down this year.

[AllThingsKC]

Likewise, if will be hilarious if Mizzou, who never sniffed a BigXII title, won the Division and competed for an SEC title in its first year.

Agreed. Same with A&M. It would make the SEC look bad if 2 Big 12 teams actually competed in that conference in their first year. But, at least the SEC gets 2 AAU school and tens of millions of new viewers. The Big 12 doesn't really get the same benefits from TCU and WVU, which is probably why both the ACC and SEC rejected WVU. So, it's not illogical to conclude that the Big 12 really hasn't been upgraded much, if at all.

Conference realignment kind of puts Big 12 fans in a weird position, IMO. Outside of your favorite team, who do you root for and why? I can understand not rooting for the teams that left the Big 12. But, it seems like you'd want A&M and Mizzou to at least be competitive in the SEC (maybe not to compete for their divisions, but have a respectable showing in their games). Meanwhile, seems like you wouldn't want WVU and TCU to do overly-well since they're from weaker conferences. But, on the other hand, you want the Big 12 to look like they upgraded. In that case, you'd want WVU and TCU to do well.

So, I can see both sides of rooting for or against Mizzou/A&M/WVU/TCU. That's why I think it kind of puts Big 12 fans in a odd position.

[KC-wildcat]

I thought your barb was just related to the level of competition that WVU and TCU bring.

I mean, we can all agree WVU and TCU are upgrades over MU. Debatable about A&M, historically speaking.

No question MU and A&M bring more TVs, hence more $$$.

Academics, I'd rank em TCU, MU, A&M, WVU.

[KC-wildcat]

Conference realignment kind of puts Big 12 fans in a weird position, IMO. Outside of your favorite team, who do you root for and why? I can understand not rooting for the teams that left the Big 12. But, it seems like you'd want A&M and Mizzou to at least be competitive in the SEC (maybe not to compete for their divisions, but have a respectable showing in their games). Meanwhile, seems like you wouldn't want WVU and TCU to do overly-well since they're from weaker conferences. But, on the other hand, you want the Big 12 to look like they upgraded. In that case, you'd want WVU and TCU to do well.

So, I can see both sides of rooting for or against Mizzou/A&M/WVU/TCU. That's why I think it kind of puts Big 12 fans in a odd position.

I root against MU and NU. Don't care about A&M and CU.

Not worried about how WVU and TCU make the BigXII look nationally. Fact is, SEC continues to be recognized as the best football conference (and would be w/o A&M and MU). BigXII is clearly second, w/ 6 teams ranked in the Top 25, including WVU and TCU. They may have come from weaker conferences, but they're still recognized nationally as power programs. WVU is ranked #7 with a hesiman QB and TCU is #16 in a down year.

Despite being from weaker conferences, both programs would beat MU and A&M this year. And, I'm confident that would be the national consensus.

[AllThingsKC]

BigXII is clearly second, w/ 6 teams ranked in the Top 25, including WVU and TCU.

Just curious: What criteria do you use to determine the second best conference?

Despite being from weaker conferences, both programs would beat MU and A&M this year. And, I'm confident that would be the national consensus.

Mizzou and A&M have already played ranked teams, TCU & WVU have not. But, they do seem good enough that they wouldn't have to wait for Missouri State to take out their starters so they can score a touchdown and they both could probably beat North Texas by more than 14 points.

[longviewmo]

Mizzou and A&M have already played ranked teams, TCU & WVU have not. But, they do seem good enough that they wouldn't have to wait for Missouri State to take out their starters so they can score a touchdown and they both could probably beat North Texas by more than 14 points.

I'm not sure why K-State got brought in mid-argument there, but did you watch any of their games last year?

[AllThingsKC]

I'm not sure why K-State got brought in mid-argument there, but did you watch any of their games last year?

Yes. I watched or followed every one, as I do with all 3 local teams.

[KCPowercat]

Mizzou and A&M have already played ranked teams, TCU & WVU have not. But, they do seem good enough that they wouldn't have to wait for Missouri State to take out their starters so they can score a touchdown and they both could probably beat North Texas by more than 14 points.

Are you being serious right now? Come on.

[MoMan]

Despite being from weaker conferences, both programs would beat MU and A&M this year. And, I'm confident that would be the national consensus.

TCU couldn't beat one of the most hapless programs in Division 1 football by more than 2 touchdowns. I'm not sure why you're convinced Mizzou and A&M would be no problem for them.

And until West Virginia faces some legitimate competition, I wouldn't be so quick to jump on that bandwagon either. Polls mean little this early in the season--ask Wisconsin, Arkansas, or USC.

[Highlander]

.

[AllThingsKC]

Not that I'm trying to take anything away from TCU's success, but isn't easier to go undefeated when you play in the Mountain West? This year is probably TCU's toughest schedule in years. Their last 4 games are against currently ranked teams. Maybe they really are that good. But, I would think a BCS-conference team could do the same thing if they played UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, and Southern Methodist every year. Of course, TCU did beat 2 or 3 ranked teams each of those years, so who knows?

[phxcat]

Not that I'm trying to take anything away from TCU's success, but isn't easier to go undefeated when you play in the Mountain West? This year is probably TCU's toughest schedule in years. Their last 4 games are against currently ranked teams. Maybe they really are that good. But, I would think a BCS-conference team could do the same thing if they played UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, and Southern Methodist every year. Of course, TCU did beat 2 or 3 ranked teams each of those years, so who knows?

A very good one, yes. Arkansas (and several PAC teams), apparently no. For Colorado that looks like a murderers row.

[KC-wildcat]

But, I would think a BCS-conference team could do the same thing if they played UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, and Southern Methodist every year.

Did you really just cite New Mexico? The same team that beat Missouri by 2 scores in Columbia in 2010.

[AllThingsKC]

But, I would think a BCS-conference team could do the same thing if they played UNLV, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado State, Air Force, and Southern Methodist every year.

Did you really just cite New Mexico? The same team that beat Missouri by 2 scores in Columbia in 2010.

What are you talking about?

http://www.mutigers.com/sports/m-footbl ... 09aaa.html