Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7963183)

No, I think that's a fair point. I don't know why it took so long to come around to it. Oh yeah, because first you wanted to blame it on the competitive and recruiting disadvantage of the LHN. Please, pull up where I said I didn't think stability wasn't a big deal. But, you do realize, right now, you are as much the cause of the instability as anyone else. It seemed somewhat hypocritical when OU used this rationale, and I don't think it is any less so when MU does.

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy (Post 7963193)

The PAC would take my dog and a jar of change if Texas was included in the bargain. Texas becoming independent and trying to be the next Notre Dame is not a worst case scenario, it was the endgame for Texas before the super conference mentality became all the rage. Texas truly believes that they are on that level of national following.

Plus, Texas can go independent in football but let the rest of their sports stay in what remains of the BIG XII. Since everyone in this conference is their bitch, they could get away with it. Is Kansas going to be for giving Texas the complete boot if they want to pull out in football? I doubt it.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7963183)

No, I think that's a fair point. I don't know why it took so long to come around to it. Oh yeah, because first you wanted to blame it on the competitive and recruiting disadvantage of the LHN. Please, pull up where I said I didn't think stability wasn't a big deal. But, you do realize, right now, you are as much the cause of the instability as anyone else. It seemed somewhat hypocritical when OU used this rationale, and I don't think it is any less so when MU does.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7963197)

They are the strongest football conference in the country. Academics, sports other than football and baseball, they aren't nearly as strong. Remember when MU was going on and on about the academics in the B1G as the reason they wanted to leave last year? Well, you and Vanderbilt will now probably have two things in common if and when you go there.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7963197)

They are the strongest football conference in the country. Academics, sports other than football and baseball, they aren't nearly as strong. Remember when MU was going on and on about the academics in the B1G as the reason they wanted to leave last year? Well, you and Vanderbilt will now probably have two things in common if and when you go there.

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy (Post 7963215)

This is bullshit. This only works if the BIG XII were to dissolve without Mizzou, which no one thinks will happen. Texas is just as much to blame, due to their inability to negotiate and compromise. Why shouldn't Mizzou go to a place where they will be treated better?

In the SEC, B1G, PAC, etc. the teams are equals off of the field. They understand that when their conference is strong and everyone works together, everyone makes money. Texas doesn't get it. They think they deserve a different set of rules. That is fine and dandy as long as they get away with it, but don't bitch when schools start bailing out and look out for the own self-interest.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7963227)

You guys are arguing both sides. Did the PAC stick to their guns and business plan and say no to the Longhorn Network or would they take them, your dog and a jar of change?

Notre Dame is located relatively close to both the upper midwest and the Atlantic Coast, so their options for non revenue sports is greater. Texas would have to endure some great travel costs and cultural misfits to do so. Its not nearly as easy as you seem to propose. Texas wants the Big XII, it gives them the best of both worlds. It didn't want it if OU bolted. But the PAC said no to OU and OU said no to the SEC. Rumor has it the B1G also said no to OU. So, why would they leave a conference where they make a lot of money and have a great path to the BCS? They won't unless Texas wants to alter the LHN.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 7963239)

That wasn't THE reason why. Once again...you are full of shit and cherry picking things to create disingenuous characterizations of these issues. It was "a" reason why among others.

Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7930426)

It's about stability at this point, and I have absolutely no confidence that we won't be revisiting this whole thing in the near future.

Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 7948810)

Interesting read from Tramel at the Oklahoman.

Just because the Bedlam plot of the Big 12 soap opera has ended — we're staying right here, in this vampire of a conference — doesn't mean the story is over.

Your turn, Missouri.

Your turn to decide whether this Dark Shadows league that can't be killed is the best place for you.
I don't know if the SEC wants Missouri, and I don't know if Missouri wants to go. But this I know. The SEC should want Mizzou, and Mizzou should want the SEC.

The Big 12 will survive without Missouri. I said something off hand 18 months ago, not sure even if I really believed it, but danged if it hasn't come to pass.
As long as you've got OU and Texas, you've got a league. As long as you've got the Sooners and the Longhorns, which means you've got OSU and Texas Tech, too, you've got a conference. Even if it's a ghastly shell of what it once was.

So Missouri doesn't hold the Big 12's fate in its hands. Sure would be nice if the Tigers stayed, because don't look now, but good football programs suddenly are in short supply.

But the Big 12 will endure. Nothing short of a stake through Bevo's heart will end the Big 12. OU, OSU and Tech aren't going to the Pac, Texas has everything it wants and Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor and K-State are just happy to have a place to hang their hat.

Do the math. That's eight schools. Heck, don't expand at all and you still could have a league. It's been done before.

So Missouri, do whatever you want. Don't worry about putting Iowa State out of business or getting sued by Kenny Starr. Misery loves company, so we'd love for you to stay, but whether Missouri loves company or Missouri loves misery, well, that's up to you.

But the SEC would be nuts not to take a crack at Mizzou. If the ACC has closed the door to raiders — imagine that, a conference with the vision and leadership to proactively safeguard its house — then the SEC's options are limited.

The powerhouse league can't stay at 13 schools. That's just goofy. Got to get to 14, which means if OU isn't interested (and the Sooners most definitely are not), then Missouri and West Virginia are the viable candidates.
Mizzou brings much better markets for television contracts, thanks to Kansas City and St. Louis; much better academic reputation, which could start to appeal to the SEC with the addition of another stellar school in Texas A&M; and, don't forget, good football.

Maybe you could argue West Virginia trumps Missouri on the gridiron. But I would argue otherwise, that if you put Mizzou in the Big East the last several years, the BCS bowls would have rolled into Columbia.

So why should Missouri go? I know, everyone says the same about Mizzou they said about A&M, that the Aggies will be squashed in the SEC.

I don't believe it for either the Tigers or Aggies. They won't contend regularly in the current SEC West landscape, but they won't be doormats.

And it's not like Missouri or A&M has been tearing up the Big 12. Missouri has made two Big 12 title games, 2007 and 2008, winning neither. A&M has made two Big 12 title games, 1997 and 1998, winning the latter. In a huge upset.
That's the success rate at stake in the Aggies' move and the Tigers' decision? Two division titles in 15 years? One major bowl berth (the '98 Aggies in the Sugar) between them in 15 years?

That's what Missouri is gambling with? Mizzou could make a lot more money, find conference stability and leave the Longhorns behind. And the Tigers should forego all that because they might win two North Divisions in 15 years?

Missouri's frustration with Texas is only now bubbling. Nebraska's feelings were well-documented. Then A&M's. Finally, OU's.

Now, Mizzou football coach Gary Pinkel carries the banner. His disgust with the Longhorn Network no longer is hidden.

Why would Missouri leave? Why in the world would Missouri stay?

If the SEC is interested, there's only one thing that should keep the Tigers in the Big 12.

The Big Ten. Missouri sort of started this mess 18 months ago, with its glee at Big Ten expansion. Turns out the Big Ten wasn't interested.

But Mizzou still would love to be in the Big Ten, both for academics and athletics. If Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany gives Missouri any reason for hope that his conference could expand in the future and Mizzou would be a prime candidate, that would prompt Missouri to, just like the Sooners did, swallow its pride and hold its nose and put on a happy face.

Otherwise, Missouri has little reason to turn down the SEC, which has many reasons to offer.

Not that it will make much difference back here in the shadows of darkness.


Read more: http://newsok.com/missouri-should-fo...#ixzz1ZDZTv9q2

Originally Posted by Saul Good (Post 7931312)

That has nothing to do with why I want out as an MU fan. I want out because the conference isn't stable. Eventually, there will be a huge game of musical chairs, and I want to make sure we have a nice, comfy seat when the music stops.

K-State has beaten Texas several times. What do you think that's worth when it comes to realignment?

Originally Posted by Stewie (Post 7953032)

It's no longer about rivalries. It's about going somewhere that seems stable.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7963270)

Hey, I was just following the conversation. I think you have this idea of what the conversation is in your head and assume everyone else is following your narrative. When I asked, you and everyone else just gave me a bunch of generalities. Would it really have been so hard to just say: "Financial payoff and stability"? No, you had to blather on about the obviousness of the big bad LHN and now you are just backtracking.

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7963270)

Hey, I was just following the conversation. I think you have this idea of what the conversation is in your head and assume everyone else is following your narrative. When I asked, you and everyone else just gave me a bunch of generalities. Would it really have been so hard to just say: "Financial payoff and stability"? No, you had to blather on about the obviousness of the big bad LHN and now you are just backtracking.