So we've batted around plenty of topics over the last 24 hours (holy crap, it hasn't even been 24 hours since this broke). But really, you're all here for one thing: What's it mean for Mizzou?
I'm going to jump around here, but try to hit on a few different topics.
WOULD MIZZOU SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA?
It is my belief they would. I haven't made a ton of calls on it, but in seeing what Eli Drinkwitz said today, in talking to some people, it's my belief Missouri would green light the additions. Now, I know many of you are going to say (or already have said) "WHY THE HELL WOULD MISSOURI DO THAT? SCREW TEXAS, THEY WERE THE REASON THE SWC BROKE UP AND THE REASON THE BIG 12 BROKE UP AND THEY'RE MEANIES AND I HATE THEM." And trust me, I get that. Nobody really likes Texas. But it's one of college sports' most valuable commodities (BTW, Texas won the Director's Cup this year, which is a judgment of the best overall athletic program in the country). And the SEC is the only place that has the swagger to tell them, "If you're a part of this, you're just a part of it. You're not in charge and you don't push everyone else around. You're 1/16th of this league." I understand why you are skeptical that would happen, but I really think it would happen.
There seems to be much less vitriol about adding Oklahoma. Most fans don't necessarily love it, but they don't hate it like they do Texas. I think it's important that Deloss Dodds isn't at UT anymore and that David Boren isn't at Oklahoma anymore. The irony of the whole thing is that even after all of Dodds' blabbermouthing last time, Missouri was going to stay until Boren started talking. It was really Boren that drove Mizzou out for good. From the five-year anniversary story I did (God did Mike Alden have some gems in there):
“They had this emergency meeting of the CEO’s, everybody put their hand in the middle, we're all together, ready, break. That kind of thing. I’m telling you, Brady and the CEO’s, they’re saying we’re all together, we've got to focus on this stuff right now, so we’ve got to be solid with, how many did we have at that time, nine?
So when Senator Boren came out with that comment, ‘We will not be wallflowers,’ that’s completely polar opposite of what he said at a meeting with all the CEO’s where we were all together.
“We have a high respect for OU as a school. But as a leader, the ego that goes along with that when you’re elbowing your way in and saying 'This is who we are,' I’m gonna take this press conference over somebody else. It’s just like he’s doing right now. Now he comes out with a comment that says maybe we’re not going to expand. Who are you? Who made you the head of the Big 12 Conference? You know who did? Senator Boren made himself.”
So Mizzou hated Boren, but I don't really think it ever hated Oklahoma for any reason other than Oklahoma beat Missouri a lot. It's been ten years and you can get over that, especially when the leadership at both places is completely different. Mizzou and Oklahoma have history. And not 17 years in the Big 12 together history. Like actual history. Like Billy and Norm and Barry Switzer and the loss in Norman in 2007 and the win in Columbia in 2010. That matters. Especially when you're in a league where you've got a forced rivalry with Arkansas and maybe something developing with Kentucky and South Carolina and you hate Tennessee because everybody hates Tennessee, but you don't have what you used to have. Maybe you can never have it again, but there are still enough of us that remember Oklahoma for it to matter. And it's a step in that direction.
The history isn't really there with Texas. Missouri likes Texas less than Oklahoma (or anyone else in the Big 12 other than Kansas). So why sign off on it?
First of all, I don't think it gets this far down the road without being almost done anyway. You don't have Ross Dellenger and Brett McMurphy and Pete Thamel getting sourced quotes confirming interest if you aren't a long way down the track already. When Missouri was moving there were denials forever. NOBODY denied the report from yesterday. And now everybody's confirming it. So what's the point of fighting it and rocking the boat if it's almost certainly going to happen anyway? If you're Texas A&M, yeah, you publicly piss and moan because it looks good to your fans and you have to and that's your rival. Missouri and Texas aren't rivals. They might not like each other much, but this isn't like Bill Self asking to join the SEC. I promise you Missouri would fight that.
The SEC is big on unity. It's a little hokey but it's actually real. Again, a quote from Alden:
"When we were named SEC East champions in 2013, I’m being serious, by the end of the next day every athletic director in the SEC, every single one, had called me or texted me. First one was Jeremy Foley. But every one said congratulations. Amazing. When Jeremy called me, he said first of all, 'Congratulations, this is great for the league, it’s great for Mizzou and I just got to tell you something when you experience this in Atlanta, other than the national championship games Florida had played in, this is the best experience you're ever going to have.' Where we came from? That wouldn’t have happened.”
Is there some feeling that Alabama gets advantages other schools don't get? Sure. But the SEC pride is a real thing. Present a united front. I wouldn't be surprised if this comes to a vote if it's actually 14-0. It might end up 13-1 because A&M objects for appearance sake and I think if it happens you might even see A&M and UT in different groups so they aren't playing every year as a concession, but one or two schools I don't think will torpedo this.
SO IF IT HAPPENS, WHAT WOULD THE ALIGNMENT LOOK LIKE?
Obviously there are going to be a million theories. I've already thrown one out and so has pretty much everyone else.
Let me interject here to say that I'm not sure the SEC Network is throwing up hypothetical alignments without some blessing from the league office. Maybe it is. But maybe there's some insight there already. If you're going four pods, I think those four probably make the most sense.
Here's what I'd tweak: Rather than playing two teams from every other pod, you play your own pod and one other complete pod every year. Then you play a team from each of the other two pods like the NFL does. I'd like to see it if you finish third, you play the third place team in the other two pods. I'm not smart enough to lay that all out, but I think it makes sense. But you could also simply rotate the teams you play from the extra pods every year. Obviously it means a nine-game league schedule (which I think has to come). It means every year, seven of the nine opponents are going to be the same for every team in your pod so it keeps schedules relatively balanced. It allows you to make sure that every player in the league is playing every other team in the league at least once even if they stay only three years. It means you're going to get home and away games against almost everybody, if not everybody, during the course of your career. It means you aren't going 7 years between playing anyone in the league.
BUT WON'T THAT BE HARD FOR MISSOURI?
Sure. It's hard now. I get you want to win games and obviously that's important. But if the idea was just "win as many games as we can every year" you'd be in the MAC. Just line up a bunch of bad teams if you want to go 12-0 every year. Plus, Missouri's last conference title was 52 YEARS AGO. So they might not win an SEC title under this new alignment? Have they won one without it? Did they win one in the Big 12? Missouri's going to have to get better to win conference titles...whether Oklahoma and Texas join or not.
Under the setup above, here's a hypothetical Missouri schedule:
at Oklahoma
vs Texas
at Arkansas
vs LSU
at MIssissippi State
vs Ole Miss
at Texas A&M
vs Auburn
at South Carolina
Some years it will be easier, some it will be tougher. But remember, Oklahoma and Texas are also facing six of those teams. Plus you get them head to head. And if you beat one of them, you have the tiebreaker (when Missouri left the Big 12 everyone talked about how much harder the schedule was going to get...now we're adding two Big 12 teams to the mix--granted one of them is very good--and that's going to make it harder again?) Maybe a little. But not significantly harder than it is right now in my opinion.
Plus, playing a schedule like that is going to mean you don't HAVE to win every game. You're going to have a 12-team playoff. In a 16-team SEC, no more than one team is going to go unbeaten and a lot of years none of them will. But you're going to have a top 20 strength of schedule. A lot of your losses will be good losses. You'll be in a 12-team playoff with one loss. You'll often be there with two. Some years, you might be there with three. "I'm scared of the competition" shouldn't be a reason not to do it. If you're scared, see if you can join CUSA.
I'm going to jump around here, but try to hit on a few different topics.
WOULD MIZZOU SUPPORT THE ADDITION OF TEXAS AND OKLAHOMA?
It is my belief they would. I haven't made a ton of calls on it, but in seeing what Eli Drinkwitz said today, in talking to some people, it's my belief Missouri would green light the additions. Now, I know many of you are going to say (or already have said) "WHY THE HELL WOULD MISSOURI DO THAT? SCREW TEXAS, THEY WERE THE REASON THE SWC BROKE UP AND THE REASON THE BIG 12 BROKE UP AND THEY'RE MEANIES AND I HATE THEM." And trust me, I get that. Nobody really likes Texas. But it's one of college sports' most valuable commodities (BTW, Texas won the Director's Cup this year, which is a judgment of the best overall athletic program in the country). And the SEC is the only place that has the swagger to tell them, "If you're a part of this, you're just a part of it. You're not in charge and you don't push everyone else around. You're 1/16th of this league." I understand why you are skeptical that would happen, but I really think it would happen.
There seems to be much less vitriol about adding Oklahoma. Most fans don't necessarily love it, but they don't hate it like they do Texas. I think it's important that Deloss Dodds isn't at UT anymore and that David Boren isn't at Oklahoma anymore. The irony of the whole thing is that even after all of Dodds' blabbermouthing last time, Missouri was going to stay until Boren started talking. It was really Boren that drove Mizzou out for good. From the five-year anniversary story I did (God did Mike Alden have some gems in there):
“They had this emergency meeting of the CEO’s, everybody put their hand in the middle, we're all together, ready, break. That kind of thing. I’m telling you, Brady and the CEO’s, they’re saying we’re all together, we've got to focus on this stuff right now, so we’ve got to be solid with, how many did we have at that time, nine?
So when Senator Boren came out with that comment, ‘We will not be wallflowers,’ that’s completely polar opposite of what he said at a meeting with all the CEO’s where we were all together.
“We have a high respect for OU as a school. But as a leader, the ego that goes along with that when you’re elbowing your way in and saying 'This is who we are,' I’m gonna take this press conference over somebody else. It’s just like he’s doing right now. Now he comes out with a comment that says maybe we’re not going to expand. Who are you? Who made you the head of the Big 12 Conference? You know who did? Senator Boren made himself.”
So Mizzou hated Boren, but I don't really think it ever hated Oklahoma for any reason other than Oklahoma beat Missouri a lot. It's been ten years and you can get over that, especially when the leadership at both places is completely different. Mizzou and Oklahoma have history. And not 17 years in the Big 12 together history. Like actual history. Like Billy and Norm and Barry Switzer and the loss in Norman in 2007 and the win in Columbia in 2010. That matters. Especially when you're in a league where you've got a forced rivalry with Arkansas and maybe something developing with Kentucky and South Carolina and you hate Tennessee because everybody hates Tennessee, but you don't have what you used to have. Maybe you can never have it again, but there are still enough of us that remember Oklahoma for it to matter. And it's a step in that direction.
The history isn't really there with Texas. Missouri likes Texas less than Oklahoma (or anyone else in the Big 12 other than Kansas). So why sign off on it?
First of all, I don't think it gets this far down the road without being almost done anyway. You don't have Ross Dellenger and Brett McMurphy and Pete Thamel getting sourced quotes confirming interest if you aren't a long way down the track already. When Missouri was moving there were denials forever. NOBODY denied the report from yesterday. And now everybody's confirming it. So what's the point of fighting it and rocking the boat if it's almost certainly going to happen anyway? If you're Texas A&M, yeah, you publicly piss and moan because it looks good to your fans and you have to and that's your rival. Missouri and Texas aren't rivals. They might not like each other much, but this isn't like Bill Self asking to join the SEC. I promise you Missouri would fight that.
The SEC is big on unity. It's a little hokey but it's actually real. Again, a quote from Alden:
"When we were named SEC East champions in 2013, I’m being serious, by the end of the next day every athletic director in the SEC, every single one, had called me or texted me. First one was Jeremy Foley. But every one said congratulations. Amazing. When Jeremy called me, he said first of all, 'Congratulations, this is great for the league, it’s great for Mizzou and I just got to tell you something when you experience this in Atlanta, other than the national championship games Florida had played in, this is the best experience you're ever going to have.' Where we came from? That wouldn’t have happened.”
Is there some feeling that Alabama gets advantages other schools don't get? Sure. But the SEC pride is a real thing. Present a united front. I wouldn't be surprised if this comes to a vote if it's actually 14-0. It might end up 13-1 because A&M objects for appearance sake and I think if it happens you might even see A&M and UT in different groups so they aren't playing every year as a concession, but one or two schools I don't think will torpedo this.
SO IF IT HAPPENS, WHAT WOULD THE ALIGNMENT LOOK LIKE?
Obviously there are going to be a million theories. I've already thrown one out and so has pretty much everyone else.
Let me interject here to say that I'm not sure the SEC Network is throwing up hypothetical alignments without some blessing from the league office. Maybe it is. But maybe there's some insight there already. If you're going four pods, I think those four probably make the most sense.
Here's what I'd tweak: Rather than playing two teams from every other pod, you play your own pod and one other complete pod every year. Then you play a team from each of the other two pods like the NFL does. I'd like to see it if you finish third, you play the third place team in the other two pods. I'm not smart enough to lay that all out, but I think it makes sense. But you could also simply rotate the teams you play from the extra pods every year. Obviously it means a nine-game league schedule (which I think has to come). It means every year, seven of the nine opponents are going to be the same for every team in your pod so it keeps schedules relatively balanced. It allows you to make sure that every player in the league is playing every other team in the league at least once even if they stay only three years. It means you're going to get home and away games against almost everybody, if not everybody, during the course of your career. It means you aren't going 7 years between playing anyone in the league.
BUT WON'T THAT BE HARD FOR MISSOURI?
Sure. It's hard now. I get you want to win games and obviously that's important. But if the idea was just "win as many games as we can every year" you'd be in the MAC. Just line up a bunch of bad teams if you want to go 12-0 every year. Plus, Missouri's last conference title was 52 YEARS AGO. So they might not win an SEC title under this new alignment? Have they won one without it? Did they win one in the Big 12? Missouri's going to have to get better to win conference titles...whether Oklahoma and Texas join or not.
Under the setup above, here's a hypothetical Missouri schedule:
at Oklahoma
vs Texas
at Arkansas
vs LSU
at MIssissippi State
vs Ole Miss
at Texas A&M
vs Auburn
at South Carolina
Some years it will be easier, some it will be tougher. But remember, Oklahoma and Texas are also facing six of those teams. Plus you get them head to head. And if you beat one of them, you have the tiebreaker (when Missouri left the Big 12 everyone talked about how much harder the schedule was going to get...now we're adding two Big 12 teams to the mix--granted one of them is very good--and that's going to make it harder again?) Maybe a little. But not significantly harder than it is right now in my opinion.
Plus, playing a schedule like that is going to mean you don't HAVE to win every game. You're going to have a 12-team playoff. In a 16-team SEC, no more than one team is going to go unbeaten and a lot of years none of them will. But you're going to have a top 20 strength of schedule. A lot of your losses will be good losses. You'll be in a 12-team playoff with one loss. You'll often be there with two. Some years, you might be there with three. "I'm scared of the competition" shouldn't be a reason not to do it. If you're scared, see if you can join CUSA.
