[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

I like that youre here, tigerluke.... You make a good kickball.

Personally, I'm having a blast, haha.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

As always, until Mizzou accepts SLU's challenge, I will consider its athletic department heads, coaches, players, and fans gigantic *******.

I can't wait until Lindenwood has a really good year in Division II and their fans start calling out SLU on their message boards, saying that Chris May is ducking them. I bet they could even get Burwell to write an article in the Post.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

A natural rivalry with Arkansas? Woah. We really are living in the 90's now. Talk about irrelevant over the past 5 years.

That's really funny, because isn't the 90s the last time SLU was relevant?

It's a natural rivalry because of (a) proximity - a shared border, ( b ) Mike Anderson - us Mizzou types don't care for him much, and ( c) history - Norm v. Nolan back in the 90s was classic, I'll give you that

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

SLU is older than mizzou. mizzou is has never made a final four. in fact, by winning the 1948 NIT (at time when the NIT was more prestigious than the NCAA tournament), SLU is actually closer to having won a national title than mizzou. the only thing mizzou has is that it is bigger, so therefore, david/goliath is more apt. except for the fact that goliath wasn't scared to face david.

Seriously, is this what you want to spend your time talking about? The fact that SLU is technically older than Mizzou, so I should have said "big brother" instead of "older brother." Would that make you happier? The fact is, Mizzou has a much better basketball pedigree than SLU, and the only person that would argue otherwise is someone totally in the tank for SLU. I hate Kansas more than anything in the world, but I would never find some asinine fact (such as an NIT championship from 1948) to drag up to try and claim that Mizzou basketball was better than Kansas. It only undermines your arguments when you make claims that just don't pass the laugh test.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Here's another thought, as the bigger program, even if a loss to SLU doesn't hurt Mizzou, it does help SLU immensely.

If the thought is that Mizzou and SLU are ever competing for recruits, then anything that helps SLU and their ability to recruit in the State of Missouri, by extension hurts Mizzou (if only a tiny bit). Discuss.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

SLU and MIzzou playing each year would be good for basketball in the state of Missouri

That's probably true, but Alden's job is not to promote basketball at all institutions in the State of Missouri, it's to look out for his program.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

you seem to be 100% in agreement the game need to be made.

If the game is made, great, I'll be there in person and I'm sure I'll enjoy it, but my point all along has been that Mizzou has plenty of reasons to not make the game happen, so for me, if it doesn't happen, I'm fine because it's probably better for the Mizzou program that way.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

I know you seem a bit "sensitive" but that post made absolutely no sense. You seem to think SLU is at the same time both "too small (David) for a Goliath (your own arrogant interpretation of MU's place in the world)" and "likely to beat Mizzou in years in which SLU is terrible".

---There are few years in which losing to SLU would be a "bad loss" but in the rare chance SLU is a bad loss; you would rightly have it count against you. There is nothing tricky about that. In fact, by logical extension you should be arguing to improve Mizzou's schedule they should schedule a little harder. It looks like SLU could actual provide an improvement in that area so shouldn't you be arguing that Mizzou needs to schedule SLU?

---Considering your "arguments", such as they are, seem to change every few minutes I would suggest you stick with the "because we have been to more NCAA tourneys than you we can do what we want". It is not a coherent argument but unlike your other attempts to tap dance around the obvious it is consistent.

---You need to be careful about those vague "national perception" arguments--they seem intentionally vague.

Let me be clear about my national perception argument, lest I be accused again of being intentionally imprecise: posters on this board have made the argument that other state schools play smaller private schools in their own state, so by extension Mizzou should play SLU. Those examples were Marquette & Louisville. To be clear: SLU is nowhere near as well-respected, well-thought-of, or recognizable a program as Marquette or Louisville, so the argument that Mizzou should play SLU because Wisconsin & Kentucky play schools in their state, is a fallacy. The reason SLU is a bad loss is because of their national perception, which is not that great, and it's those national folks that determine who gets into the big dance, so it matters.

Also, I already said that the David & Goliath analogy was misplaced. I'm trying to stick with the older/younger brother thing now. Forgive my laziness in going to the David & Goliath cliche. However, I never said, as you claimed (and even put in quotes as if you were quoting me) that SLU was "likely to beat Mizzou in years in which SLU is terrible"... my point was this: however good SLU is in a given year, they are more likely to play above their normal level against Mizzou, no matter the year, thus they are more likely to beat Mizzou more often than they should based on the quality of the team, because of the hatred of Mizzou as the big bad in-state bully.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

There is a risk Missouri could lose to the 200-300 RPI opponents they play all the time (if they played away non-conf games), but losing to 30 RPI SLU would be considered a "bad loss"? Hardly. Why Play SEMO? Why Binghampton? Missouri could play most teams they asked, SLU it's not so easy to get those teams on the schedule.

There's always a risk you'll lose in every game you play, but as has been said multiple times already, it's a bigger risk for Mizzou to play SLU than a comparable out-of-state team b/c of the motivation for SLU. It's the same reason Mizzou doesn't play Missouri State: all the motivation is on the side of the kid brother to take on his older and larger sibling. From that standpoint, The only thing beating SLU does for Mizzou is give them a win over a team of whatever quality SLU happens to be in that season; beyond that it means nothing. To SLU, it's a statement win if they beat Mizzou. You don't want to give other teams statement wins. If Mizzou can get the same benefit most years from playing St. Joseph's or Dayton, I'd rather Mizzou play those teams every day of the week, because they don't care about Mizzou on a personal level, and they likely won't play way over the heads b/c of a "rivalry."

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Define "everything". What would Mizzou really stand at risk to lose?

As for "nothing" to gain, I would say that most importantly they would gain relevance in Novmember when nobody cares about going to a Mizzou basketball game except about 5,000 people a night. This will be even more of an issue in the future when SEC football will be in full swing.

I would contend there is no downside to playing a sold-out game in November that the local media will talk about for weeks. Don't give me the BS about recruiting either...kids aren't going to choose not to go to MIZ becuase they lose a game to SLU once and a while. They choose a school based on relationships with the staff, players and comfort level with the campus. Risking a loss to SLU is no worse than risking a los to Oral Roberts from a perception standpoint.

I, like everyone, am guilty of hyperbole from time to time. Delete "nothing" insert "next-to-nothing" to gain. The only real plus I can see of a Mizzou-SLU game (from Alden's perspective, not a fan perspective) is playing another game in St. Louis, and another likely ESPN nationally-televised game could help recruiting in the St. Louis area, an area which Mizzou has consistently struggled to get basketball players out of. It would only help recruiting, but it could potentially hurt NCAA tournament selection, like I said above, in marginal years. Your point about Oral Roberts is right on. I never understood why Mizzou agreed to play on the road at Oral Roberts either, it just isn't worth it from the program perspective.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

I think the topic is germane and tigerluke makes some relevant and likely-used points. I think all large state schools should play all large® private and state schools in their states within reason. Gonzaga/Washington. Indiana/Purdue/NotreDame/Butler. Ohio State/UC/Dayton/Miami/Ohio (the state of Ohio could be problematic). Penn State/Pitt/Temple/Nova. Alabama/UAB. Kentucky/Louisville. LSU/Tulane. Memphis/Tennessee. The problem is the whole big/little brother attitude that is evident in all these encounters. Learn some lessons --- look at WI/Marquette and Kentucky/UofL. Records don't matter to the BCS boys -- you get in with sub.500 records already.

Here you go tigerluke, answer this one: what's Alden's excuse? The main one? Not baiting, just curious.

I think the main rationale is just that the risk outweighs the reward. Mizzou doesn't want to be sitting there on selection Sunday, in a season where they weren't great, and they're hoping to get in as an at-large team, and have to worry about the committee saying "well, they lost to SLU... that's a bad loss," when they can keep their RPI in tact and set themselves up for a better chance to get in the tournament by beating a comparable team who doesn't have years of hatred built up to motivate them to play above their normal level against the tigers. It just makes sense, there truly is nothing to gain for Mizzou until the national perception of SLU is raised. Majerus has helped that, and if they can sustain this for three to five years in a row, then maybe that'll help, but as it stands now, there's no motivation for Mizzou to rush in to this game.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

this guy is the definition of the arrogant mi$$ouri fan that is the reason i hate the tiger$ passionately. dont waste your time with him. he enjoys playing bingerhappyton and the rest of those winner schools that bring in a 5,000 person crowd each year.

as to the great success he is referring to with all those wonderful ncaa appearances. he can thank the fact they are somehow in the big 12. all the bcs schools have to do is finish 500 in their conference race and they get in by the corrupt committee each year that goes out of it's way to put in as many bcs schools as possible. probably half of those ncaa appearances werent justified. but let him sit in his basement wearing his crown and be happy that their ass beatings from kansas are finally over. of course now they can get it handed to them by the ethical giants like calipari and donovan. i hope they all get bit by snakes in the swamps of mississippi and louisiana.

Jealousy isn't a pretty color on you. There's nothing in here for me to respond to, so what's the fun in that?

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

p.s hows that big rivalry game with the now ever underachieving illini working out? if you cant see the fiscal sense in a slu tiger matchup annually you are an idiot.

See my previous comment re: football & money. It's never going to be about the money for Mizzou. That's a non-starter.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Yes, today... That logic makes sense today. But how long have those teams been playing? How long has Mizzou refused to put SLU on its schedule? Especially during the 90's when both teams were nationally relevant? When SLU and Mizzou were both consistently ranked? When they were both producing NBA players? When SLU was Top 10 (look it up its true) in National average attendance? Were we not worthy of Truman's best efforts back then?

So then what about now? Next year. After what could be a banner year for the Bills? After what arelady has been a banner year for the Tigers? When you lack a natural rival due to your dance down to dixie? SLU is a top 30 RPI team... Has been ranked in the AP and Coaches Top 25 this year. Is second in a fantastic conference (who has members that have BCS conference rivals who do not shy away from a good game.) Why not now?

Your argument about the past is stronger than your argument about the future. Why not now? I've already said it about ten times: national perception. Plus, Mizzou is walking into at least one natural (and definitely heated) basketball rival in Arkansas by joining the SEC, & there's always still the game with Illinois, so it's not like they'll have no one to hate.

The reason not to play SLU, past or present, has always been the same. All the animosity SLU has towards Mizzou (just look at how much of a kerfuffle I caused by poking my nose in over here today) is such a gerater motivator than anything Mizzou would have in a game against SLU, so it's just not worth it. It would be fun for the fans, I'd go to the games and enjoy them, but I just don't see it happening.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

The Mizzou-educated local sports media bothers you, and you are a Mizzou fan. This indicates you will never, ever be happy with the media.

Yes, we do blame Alden for not allowing it to happen. He has a chance to play a series that means more money for his program, which has to pay millions to the Big 12. Perhaps you don't remember the distant past (1999-2001), but there was a sold-out game at Mizzou's place in Columbia, a sold-out game at our place, and a crowd of 27,000 at the Dome. The largest margin of victory in the three games was 2. Fans of both sides absolutely loved it. Then Mizzou stopped returning calls.

It's very clearly not about the money for Mizzou. Big money in college athletics comes from one main source: football. Mizzou will never be motivated by money enough to play SLU because they don't need to. That's one of the reasons it's easy for Alden to not bother with it. To Mizzou, it's only about the cost/benefit analysis of playing the game in the context of the basketball team. From that standpoint: almost nothing to gain, everything to lose. Plain and simple.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

wah........

I'm still here, I can take it, I just wanted to point out the difference in tone of some (certainly not all) of the comments.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

"and not just throwing haymakers...". Oh, you mean like you did in your opening comments on another team's forum? Highway 70 west - take it.

Making a statement you may not agree with about the SLU basketball team is not the same as making ad hominem attacks like those that were thrown at me as soon as I got on here.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

So when Marquette was in the CUSA and Wisco still played them... That isn't realatable to SLU-Mizzou? Marquette is basketball rich, I agree. But has suffered many a drought like non-football schools. Their lone National Championship is back in the 70's, but I would most def cede that they have more basketball history than SLU. But that's not why that game happens, it happens because people want it to and the schools abide! Mizzou has this BS Penn State like view of "We are the only team in the state, if you're a fan of sports you have to be a fan of us." Its pathetic.

Why wouldn't I throw haymakers at a TIGER fan talking sh!t on a Billikens board?

For the record, I came over here b/c there was a story in the P-D that involved Mizzou & SLU, so I thought it would be fun to talk to you guys about it. It's not all that fun to talk to a bunch of Mizzou fans who just agree with each other.

The reason the game happens is only partially b/c of the fans. The reason this game isn't happening and Wisconsin-Marquette or Kentucky-Louisville does is that the national awareness/opinion of Marquette and Louisville are substantially higher than that of SLU. College sports are all about rankings, and rankings are all about perceptions, and whether or not SLU might be better than Marquette of Louisville in a given year is irrelevant, because the SLU program is not as nationally recognizable as they are, so it's a much bigger hit for Mizzou to lose to SLU than it is for Wisconsin to lose to Marquette or Kentucky to lose to Louisville.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Mizzou is by no means Goliath. From where I sit they have never won anything of relevance. I guess maybe it is because I grew up in Florida where the so called "large schools" won championships.

Fair, Mizzou isn't an "elite" basketball program, but the fact remains that there is a very real gap in program size, relevance, and national opinion between SLU and Mizzou.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

You think you are goliath? You really have an inflated self worth, if a team has trouble motivating itself for ANY game on their schedule than it has some real problems.

Probably shouldn't have said the David & Goliath thing, the big brother/little brother analogy was more apt. Just having so much fun getting you guys all riled up, haha.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Hey, hey now. Take it easy on him, after all he did only go to a public technical college in Boone County.

I didn't go to Mizzou, I went to Clemson & then to Wash U. - I'm a Mizzou fan b/c family all went there and I grew up going to every football & basketball game with my dad until I left for college.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Mizzou has been ducking SLU no matter what conference we are in. UK/UL and Marquette/UW were playing when SLU was in the same conference as UL and Marq. The conference argument is weak.

The conference argument isn't weak, because when Kentucky was playing Louisville and Wisconsin was playing Marquette while they were in C-USA with SLU, guess what, C-USA had Marquette, and Louisville, and Cincinnati, and Memphis, and was a pretty good basketball conference. Then Marquette and Louisville went to the Big East and were in an even better conference, so again, it wouldn't damage Kentucky or Wisconsin much to lose to teams from a strong conference. Say what you want, but since the big boys abandoned C-USA, SLU has not been in a conference that anyone nationally sees as "big boy basketball." So I think the conference argument still stands.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Ive never understood the entire "we have nothing to gain from it. It a lose lose situation. if we win we are supposed to if we lose its a bad loss" type arguments.

Couldnt those same arguments be used when they play the Binghamptons of the world?

Wouldnt a loss to one of these cupcakes they schedule be much more damaging?

The argument isn't about how good SLU or Binghampton ACTUALLY is, the argument is that since SLU is small school in the state, and Mizzou is the large state school with the bigger program, that SLU would be much much much more motivated to play the game against Mizzou than vice versa, so Mizzou would have a better chance of losing to SLU (to whom beating Mizzou would mean the world) than to a comparable team that has no reason to hate Mizzou or feel that little brother/big brother thing that motivates SLU when they get a shot at Mizzou. It's about risk management, and if you want to call it ducking then I guess that's fine, but it doesn't make sense to set up a game where the other team has all the motivation to be David and take down Goliath.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Not that I want to defend Mizzou and/or the Big 12, why is everybody acting like Mizzou will get pounded in the SEC? It's not any better than the Big 12 in basketball, which I assume is what we're talking about.

Thing is, going forward, we're not a 75-125 program. So if you're going to resume this series, now is the time since we're set up for longer term success.

Cool, let's actually talk about reality. Thanks for having an actual conversation and not just throwing haymakers as soon as a tiger fan hops on here. If it's going to happen you are correct, this is the time, as both teams seem set up for a good next 3-5 years or so. My original point was just that it bothers me that the media blow it up like this when everyone knows it didn't make sense for them to be playing the last 5-10 years.

[Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU]

Stewart was a wuss (and one of THE MOST OVER RATED COACHES) and wouldn't play Charlie.

Man up. Wisconsin plays Marquette, they did during MU's down years and vice versa. This is a relationship and a rivalry that could benifit both schools. Sack up Tigers, let's ball.

FYI Norm Stewart & Spoon were the ones who made the three-year series happen in the early 2000s, they just both happened to have moved on by the time the games they scheduled were played. So, to say Stewart was a wuss is to be completely ignorant of history.

Also, Marquette is a consistently good team, with a rich basketball history, who plays in the BIG EAST. Not the Atlantic 10, the BIG EAST. That's a big boy conference, and Wisconsin has nothing to lose (actually, they probably have more to gain than to lose) by playing an in-state major conference basketball program in their non-conference schedule. To compare Wisconsin-Marquette to Mizzou-SLU is laughable.