Creed Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 Does anyone esle think letting the SEC get Missouri was a mistake? I realize Missouri is no Neb or ND but they are still a Top 25 FB & BB team over the last 10-15 years, bring in a market share and they are AAU. Quote Link to comment
NUance Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Does anyone esle think letting the SEC get Missouri was a mistake? I realize Missouri is no Neb or ND but they are still a Top 25 FB & BB team over the last 10-15 years, bring in a market share and they are AAU. Yeah, maybe should have grabbed Mizzou and Kansas during all the turmoil in the Big 12 last year. Quote Link to comment
VectorVictor Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Does anyone esle think letting the SEC get Missouri was a mistake? I realize Missouri is no Neb or ND but they are still a Top 25 FB & BB team over the last 10-15 years, bring in a market share and they are AAU. Yeah, maybe should have grabbed Mizzou and Kansas during all the turmoil in the Big 12 last year. Not really. Mizzou academics are on par with that of Nebraska and Kansas, and Kansas technically has been to more BCS bowls than Missouri. Plus, Kansas has a much nicer basketball pedigree and is a national power, while Missouri fans can't even be bothered to show up for their bowl games. Plus, there's no way in hell the SEC will let them join another conference--not without significant and long-lasting fiscal harm to the Missouri athletic program. And as long as Kansas stays put in the Big XII, they will be low-hanging fruit for the Big 10 to nab. If anything, it would raise the basketball pedigree of the Big 10 well over that of the ACC on a yearly basis. Plus, adding Notre Dame and Kansas to Nebraska's football schedule would be like adding two more home games a year, so I don't see why we would be upset with that. Quote Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I don't really see why we as fans of an individual team would want the B1G to expand to 14 or 16 teams... More teams in the conference means it would be that much more difficult to win the conference or the National Championship. I'd just rather have the B1G stay at 12 teams like it is today. If we were to do any reformatting, I would love to see Minnesota, Purdue, and Indiana out of the conference and replace them with some perennially good football schools. But I know this will never happen because the B1G puts academics above pretty much everything else... Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 To avoid overquoting... 1. Dropping Minnesota, Indiana and Purdue solely on football is utter blasphemy. Two are founding members and the third has been in for more than a century. They're academic powers, strong in basketball and two of them have had their own glory years in football. Most Big Ten fans wouldn't like the idea obviously including myself. 2. Letting Missouri get away was a huge mistake. They're now a consistent performer athletically, a strong school academically (yes, they are better than NU), and bring in two large metropolitan viewing bases which combined have just as many residents as Boston and probably more, add to that the alumni base twice the size of BC's and a lack of competition from a successful pro franchise. Also, its a school in the part of our country that actually cares about college football, has much better recruiting than Mass and is a manageable road trip for many in the western bits of our footprint. We share a culture, have geographic continuity and already have a rival for them in Illinois. Also keep in mind that, as far as I have been able to find, the SEC does not charge an exit fee so attracting them would be much easier than stealing BC away from the ACC and its $20 Million exit fee. Add to all of that the fact they actually want to join and Mizzou still makes my list. I want them and Notre Dame for 14. Quote Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 To avoid overquoting... 1. Dropping Minnesota, Indiana and Purdue solely on football is utter blasphemy. Two are founding members and the third has been in for more than a century. They're academic powers, strong in basketball and two of them have had their own glory years in football. Most Big Ten fans wouldn't like the idea obviously including myself. Yeah, my bad. I gotta be honest, I did not know that 2 of them were founding members, but I was just throwing it out there. I wouldn't really want that to happen necessarily, but I guess I am just kind of skeptical of conference expansion. We will see how the SEC works out with 14 teams I guess... Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 To avoid overquoting... 1. Dropping Minnesota, Indiana and Purdue solely on football is utter blasphemy. Two are founding members and the third has been in for more than a century. They're academic powers, strong in basketball and two of them have had their own glory years in football. Most Big Ten fans wouldn't like the idea obviously including myself. Yeah, my bad. I gotta be honest, I did not know that 2 of them were founding members, but I was just throwing it out there. I wouldn't really want that to happen necessarily, but I guess I am just kind of skeptical of conference expansion. We will see how the SEC works out with 14 teams I guess... No worries, if I HAD to pick three schools to drop they would definitely be in the mix....just don't enjoy entertaining the thought. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.