SLU, Mizzou game talk thread

[TFord and TRavs]

[Taj79]

Sadly, nothing new here.

[TFord and TRavs]

36 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Sadly, nothing new here.

Well i thought only Ford was the one who openly talked about it. Haven't seen anything from Cuanzo. 

[TheChosenOne]

8 minutes ago, TFord and TRavs said:

Well i thought only Ford was the one who openly talked about it. Haven't seen anything from Cuanzo. 

Frank C directly asked both coaches about it as he does every summer.

[Taj79]

This is as bad as 'coachspeak.'  No one is going to come right out and say 'it does us no benefit to play them' as has been argued in just about every public/private school debate about scheduling no matter the sport.  It is the same argument you used to hear with Kentucky/Louisville until legislation was threatened.  And its the same ol', same ol' we have here every time this gets brought up.  "Finding dates that work" is a somewhat subjective response whose answer, 'oops, couldn't find any," could easily be contrived. 

As noted, KU doesn't play Wichita State.  Does, and should, someone like Texas play UT-San Antonio?  TCU?  SMU?  Houston?  Texas A&M?  Every year?  Does Indiana play Notre Dame?  Valpo?  IUPUI?  Evansville?  The one thing about the state of Missouri is you have us and Mizzou.  But there are times the argument can be made for Missouri State.  What if SEMO and UMKC rise above ashes?  I think all D1 schools should play in-state D1 competitors -- maybe not annually -- but at least in some rotational basis.  Problem is some states are more loaded than say a Providence/Rhode Island opportunity. 

We all want it.  And it annually gets discussed.  Has been for decades.  As bad as we were in late 70's, David Burns and Kelvin Henderson almost beat mighty Mizzou in overtime at the Checkerdome in 79-80.  It was likely the greatest SLU game I had ever seen to that point and our first contest with Mizzou since 1970. We played Mizzou annually from 1963 to 1970.   Then in 80-81, we went up there and got hammered by 22 and the Mizzou attitude was ho-hum, business as usual for the then proud and successful Mizzou crowd.  I know.  I was there too.  SLU?  Yeah, where you from?  Then the nearly 20 year hiatus until 99-00-01.  Three games, two losses, and a point differential of 9 points over three games. 

The annual debate bores me.  Because it makes sense to do it (from my perspective).  But it never gets done.

[prebilliken]

Agree to disagree but the fact that a Mizzou coach even acknowledged the question with an answer is the most I have ever seen a Tiger coach talk about it. 

[slufan13]

"With existing contracts and 18 game conference schedules, we just can't find a place for it on our schedule" - Mizzou next year. 

[JMM28]

Ford is the type that would bring this up on the recruiting front too. Especially now that Mizzou and SLU are going after a lot of the same recruits. 

[billiken_roy]

why should we bring down our rpi to play mi$$ouri.   we have nothing to gain.

 

[hsmith19]

1 hour ago, Taj79 said:

But there are times the argument can be made for Missouri State.  What if SEMO and UMKC rise above ashes?

Okay, so SEMO won their conference tourney that one time. But UMKC is basically their version of SIUE. Play them or don't play them, but they should have little bearing on whether Mizzou schedules SLU.

That said, you're right about the coachspeak, and it's nothing new. Mike Anderson and Haith both gave similar answers every time Cusumano asked them. Can't remember whether Kim ever really bothered to humor the idea.

[Cowboy]

-excuse my repetition, but if we do this series in whatever form my belief is we play a game in Chaifetz for every game played in CoMo

[goonaha]

2 hours ago, Taj79 said:

This is as bad as 'coachspeak.'  No one is going to come right out and say 'it does us no benefit to play them' as has been argued in just about every public/private school debate about scheduling no matter the sport.  It is the same argument you used to hear with Kentucky/Louisville until legislation was threatened.  And its the same ol', same ol' we have here every time this gets brought up.  "Finding dates that work" is a somewhat subjective response whose answer, 'oops, couldn't find any," could easily be contrived. 

As noted, KU doesn't play Wichita State.  Does, and should, someone like Texas play UT-San Antonio?  TCU?  SMU?  Houston?  Texas A&M?  Every year?  Does Indiana play Notre Dame?  Valpo?  IUPUI?  Evansville?  The one thing about the state of Missouri is you have us and Mizzou.  But there are times the argument can be made for Missouri State.  What if SEMO and UMKC rise above ashes?  I think all D1 schools should play in-state D1 competitors -- maybe not annually -- but at least in some rotational basis.  Problem is some states are more loaded than say a Providence/Rhode Island opportunity. 

We all want it.  And it annually gets discussed.  Has been for decades.  As bad as we were in late 70's, David Burns and Kelvin Henderson almost beat mighty Mizzou in overtime at the Checkerdome in 79-80.  It was likely the greatest SLU game I had ever seen to that point and our first contest with Mizzou since 1970. We played Mizzou annually from 1963 to 1970.   Then in 80-81, we went up there and got hammered by 22 and the Mizzou attitude was ho-hum, business as usual for the then proud and successful Mizzou crowd.  I know.  I was there too.  SLU?  Yeah, where you from?  Then the nearly 20 year hiatus until 99-00-01.  Three games, two losses, and a point differential of 9 points over three games. 

The annual debate bores me.  Because it makes sense to do it (from my perspective).  But it never gets done.

Well both coaches are new so it's not the same "annual debate". And Texas plays TCU because they're in the same conference now. Indiana plays Notre Dame and Butler in alternating years. They're playing Indiana State this year for the first time in awhile. 

[cheeseman]

I still believe that we do not have to play Missouri - there is as much or not in it for us as there might be for them.  If we do do I will attend and cheer us on but if we don't I will attend and cheer us on for the opponent at that time.  I really do not care.

[goonaha]

28 minutes ago, cheeseman said:

I still believe that we do not have to play Missouri - there is as much or not in it for us as there might be for them.  If we do do I will attend and cheer us on but if we don't I will attend and cheer us on for the opponent at that time.  I really do not care.

I disagree. I think the creation of an annual non conference rivalry game can be very beneficial. If both programs keep improving, it's a game that could become a regular on ESPN. National exposure is good for the program and for recruiting. 

[Taj79]

prebilliken:  I have seen Mizzou folks acknowledge it before.  All the way back to Alden who came on as the AD back in 1983 or so.  hsmith says both Anderson and Haith said similar things and while I do not recall exactly who said it, I do recall it being acknowledged as "doable" by Mizzou.  Majerus talked long and hard about doing it but it seems Mizzou was the stumbling block.

roy:  I understand where you are coming from and I'm 50/50 with you on it.  Part of me says "screw Mizzou" and "we don't need them" but other points like a good in-state rivalry, possible national TV exposure, and the ability to get rid of dead weight schools like EIU, SC-Upstate, Samford and Son, and a few others has got to better than keeping them for our RPI sakes.

My only point about other states with other schools was that in some states, it not just one school and done.  I played with Texas and Indiana just to model the differences.  I know Indiana plays some other state schools and I know it's rotational.  That's fine.  I'm okay with that and could live and work with such if it should happen in every state ----- why does SLU play Florida A&M when Missouri State is there --- but am aware that some are too populous to make it happen --- Califronia, Indiana, Texas, Florida, North Carolina and so on.  And where do you draw the line?  While I agree and second hsmiths' opinion on SEMO and UMKC,  much like us, would those schools and their alumni agree with such an assessment?  Doubt it.  And there was no bearing at all factored into playing these schools as some sort of prelude to Mizzou and SLU playing.  The two are not related at all, just comparisons in parallel.

Finally, I am with Cowboy 100% ---- we go to the CoMo barn, they come to the Compton Palace.  None of this "at their place and then a neutral site for us" mentality.  I strongly believe that a 22,000 or 35,00 seat venue like Savvis or the Dome would be filled by Mizzou fans and not ours, making such a de facto home game for them.  Let our folks sell out Chaifetz and let the Mizzou backers sit outside and try to scrap eout some high priced seats inside.  Cie la vie.

[TheChosenOne]

6 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

Finally, I am with Cowboy 100% ---- we go to the CoMo barn, they come to the Compton Palace.  None of this "at their place and then a neutral site for us" mentality.  I strongly believe that a 22,000 or 35,00 seat venue like Savvis or the Dome would be filled by Mizzou fans and not ours, making such a de facto home game for them.  Let our folks sell out Chaifetz and let the Mizzou backers sit outside and try to scrap eout some high priced seats inside.  Cie la vie.

I think this is the reason the game ended after the most recent three game series.

[hsmith19]

17 minutes ago, Taj79 said:

While I agree and second hsmiths' opinion on SEMO and UMKC,  much like us, would those schools and their alumni agree with such an assessment?  Doubt it.  And there was no bearing at all factored into playing these schools as some sort of prelude to Mizzou and SLU playing.  The two are not related at all, just comparisons in parallel.

I highly doubt UMKC fans would feel entitled to an annual game against Mizzou just because we got one. But hell, they already get to play Mizzou pretty often. I don't think SEMO fans would either, although the ones I know would really like to play us every year.

And I totally agree on needing to get a straight home and home to play Mizzou. None of this neutral site nonsense. If they don't want to play a game at Chaifetz every other year, then hard pass.

[MusicCityBilliken]

I would rather have OOC games with Marquette, Xavier or ND.

I have no feelings one way or another about Mizzou, especially how they played the last 6 to 7 years.

[STLsportsfan]

I would be 100 percent in favor of this game.  As people have mentioned, as the teams continue to get better it would be a great chance to build a rivalry as well as a resume booster. 

[Box and Won]

20 minutes ago, tarheelbilliken said:

I would rather have OOC games with Marquette, Xavier or ND.

I have no feelings one way or another about Mizzou, especially how they played the last 6 to 7 years.

Me too.

[HoosierPal]

Such a game would have more appeal to me than games against Houston and Oregon State, but about the same as a game with Butler.

[wgstl]

Could we do this game like once every 3 years?  I really dont care about playing them every year. 

[goonaha]

I guess I'm confused by the mixed reactions. Everyone on the board likes to make fun of Mizzou or gets mad at the Post for being biased, etc, but those same people aren't interested in the chance for it to become a legitimate rivalry where we can win bragging rights on the actual court? While it would never get to the level of Duke-NC or Louisville-UK, developing a rivalry along the lines of UC-Xavier or UW-Marquette would be pretty cool and good for the program.

[Tilkowsky]

6 hours ago, Taj79 said:

This is as bad as 'coachspeak.'  No one is going to come right out and say 'it does us no benefit to play them' as has been argued in just about every public/private school debate about scheduling no matter the sport.  It is the same argument you used to hear with Kentucky/Louisville until legislation was threatened.  And its the same ol', same ol' we have here every time this gets brought up.  "Finding dates that work" is a somewhat subjective response whose answer, 'oops, couldn't find any," could easily be contrived. 

As noted, KU doesn't play Wichita State.  Does, and should, someone like Texas play UT-San Antonio?  TCU?  SMU?  Houston?  Texas A&M?  Every year?  Does Indiana play Notre Dame?  Valpo?  IUPUI?  Evansville?  The one thing about the state of Missouri is you have us and Mizzou.  But there are times the argument can be made for Missouri State.  What if SEMO and UMKC rise above ashes?  I think all D1 schools should play in-state D1 competitors -- maybe not annually -- but at least in some rotational basis.  Problem is some states are more loaded than say a Providence/Rhode Island opportunity. 

We all want it.  And it annually gets discussed.  Has been for decades.  As bad as we were in late 70's, David Burns and Kelvin Henderson almost beat mighty Mizzou in overtime at the Checkerdome in 79-80.  It was likely the greatest SLU game I had ever seen to that point and our first contest with Mizzou since 1970. We played Mizzou annually from 1963 to 1970.   Then in 80-81, we went up there and got hammered by 22 and the Mizzou attitude was ho-hum, business as usual for the then proud and successful Mizzou crowd.  I know.  I was there too.  SLU?  Yeah, where you from?  Then the nearly 20 year hiatus until 99-00-01.  Three games, two losses, and a point differential of 9 points over three games. 

The annual debate bores me.  Because it makes sense to do it (from my perspective).  But it never gets done.

Indiana has played ND 70 times most recently last December 19th.

Legislation by the Kentucky legislature is why Kentucky/Louisville play each year. It wasn't threatened - it happened.

 

 

[willie]

11 minutes ago, Tilkowsky said:

Indiana has played ND 70 times most recently last December 19th.

Legislation by the Kentucky legislature is why Kentucky/Louisville play each year. It wasn't threatened - it happened.

 

 

Are you sure about this? I thought the schools agreed to play because of the threat but it never became law.