Is it over?

[cheeseman]

But for only one of them would it be worth it.

Actually, if Pinkel would upgrade his non conf schedule you could sell those games - for how much would depend on the value of the opponent. McNeese State or Furman is not going to do it.

[cheeseman]

They really should do a name switch of some sort.

Why - A10 has 14 teams and no body is confused. The Big 10 has had 11 teams for years and nobody is confused. This is not rocket science. The Big 12 will only have 10 teams in 2011 but the name can stay if they choose to leave it.

[cheeseman]

Wrong: http://msn.foxsports.com/cfb/story/FedEx-w...ort-says-061210

10 mil annually, and while that may be a rounding error for Texas, it still increases the wealth of the league. Weak football, good to great basketball, not very good academics. Will be interesting to see what happens...

I am shocked - I would want to get that in writing and money having to be paid each year or Memphis is out.

[slufanskip]

chose to build a brand ie. exist within the most populous market.

But Texas had a much better brand than Missouri long before it was as populous as it is. Is there a reason Missouri has won less conference championships than the 2nd tier school in Iowa?

[cheesycow]

But Texas had a much better brand than Missouri long before it was as populous as it is. Is there a reason Missouri has won less conference championships than the 2nd tier school in Iowa?

Yeah but Oklahoma doesn't have nearly the brand that Texas does- does that mean they haven't worked hard enough for it? Could Nebraska have started their own network with their "brand?"

[cheesycow]

Actually, if Pinkel would upgrade his non conf schedule you could sell those games - for how much would depend on the value of the opponent. McNeese State or Furman is not going to do it.

So you're suggesting if Mizzou played tougher opponents they could start their own network? Have you given any thought to how much it costs to run a network?

[slufanskip]

Yeah but Oklahoma doesn't have nearly the brand that Texas does- does that mean they haven't worked hard enough for it? Could Nebraska have started their own network with their "brand?"

I don't think OU was whining about not getting a large enough hand out.

How about those 6 conference championships.

Should I get an equal share of Paris Hilton's dough? Afterall she was just born with it and I wasn't.

[cheesycow]

I don't think OU was whining about not getting a large enough hand out.

How about those 6 conference championships.

Should I get an equal share of Paris Hilton's dough? Afterall she was just born with it and I wasn't.

You're switching the argument. It's about whether or not the schools are equal in their ability to start their own network. Only Texas can. Their brand is so strong because they're the best school in a very populous state that's very passionate about college football. Nebraska obviously wanted equal revenue, but they couldn't start their own network. OU has been very successful in all sports, but they were still beholden to whatever decision texas made. Texas isn't far and away the best school in the league at everything, they just have by far the most money.

[MUTGR]

Actually, if Pinkel would upgrade his non conf schedule you could sell those games - for how much would depend on the value of the opponent. McNeese State or Furman is not going to do it.

They need to upgrade the nonconference schedule. At least Mike Alden is quoted in the post acknowledging this fact. To paraphrase, he said it was up to them to win more games and to look at scheduling to get more TV games to increase their revenue.

I, for one Mizzou fan, am very happy with this turn of events, if not the process. Our conference football schedule just got tougher and our basketball conference will be one of the strongest in the country.

[MUTGR]

But Texas had a much better brand than Missouri long before it was as populous as it is. Is there a reason Missouri has won less conference championships than the 2nd tier school in Iowa?

We just learned that the only sport that matters is football-at least in these BCS conferences. Ask Kansas about that. So our "brand" is limited to our football team. Our brand in football may not be very good nationally, but it is a whole lot better than the 2nd tier school in Iowa. If the big 12 blew apart completely, I'm fairly confident we still would have landed in either an expanded big 10 or the SEC, but we would have been one of the last, if not dead last, school chosen and it would have been scary for us Mizzou fans.

Texas has been winning championships since the 1950's. Nebraska has a better brand because they were winning big consistently from the 1960s until not that many years ago.

If Mizzou had sustained the success it had in the 1960's for the next 4 decades, we'd have one helluva a brand, too, but obviously we stunk for about 25 years.

[slufanskip]

Actually, I like Mizzou football and really like Pinkel. I just got so tired of hearing Mizzou fans whine about how big bad Texas was picking on them and holding them back .... I got just as stupid back.

I agree there should be some sort of revenue sharing. However, I don't think it should be 100% equal. Those that bring in the most should get a larger portion. Just giving to the weaker teams, doesn't make them better. In every conference including the ones that share TV money equally the same few schools generally dominate and the same few schools generally bring up the rear.

[MUTGR]

Actually, I like Mizzou football and really like Pinkel. I just got so tired of hearing Mizzou fans whine about how big bad Texas was picking on them and holding them back .... I got just as stupid back.

I agree there should be some sort of revenue sharing. However, I don't think it should be 100% equal. Those that bring in the most should get a larger portion. Just giving to the weaker teams, doesn't make them better. In every conference including the ones that share TV money equally the same few schools generally dominate and the same few schools generally bring up the rear.

I don't blame you. There is a lot of stupid going on out there. Texas drives revenue so Texas should get more revenue. After all, we are not (yet) communists.

I don't know why some of my fellow fans have a hard time with this concept.

Missouri is a pawn. I just learned that. I think we would have been okay, but we don't know for sure that we would have been okay. I've been more worried about the b-ball program, which I think would die in a MWC.

So, I am pretty relieved, although the process admittedly makes MU look bad. But hey, you guys get to kick us around awhile for that, so maybe it's a win-win.

[slufanskip]

I don't blame you. There is a lot of stupid going on out there. Texas drives revenue so Texas should get more revenue. After all, we are not (yet) communists.

I don't know why some of my fellow fans have a hard time with this concept.

Missouri is a pawn. I just learned that. I think we would have been okay, but we don't know for sure that we would have been okay. I've been more worried about the b-ball program, which I think would die in a MWC.

So, I am pretty relieved, although the process admittedly makes MU look bad. But hey, you guys get to kick us around awhile for that, so maybe it's a win-win.

Imo 10 team conferences are ideal. Everyone plays 9 conference games in football and 18 in basketball. It is equal for everyone which is one problem I have with the larger conferences. Everyone doesn't play an equal schedule.

It will be a heck of a basketball conference. No one is getting through that without getting beat up a little.

[Clock_Tower]

We just learned that the only sport that matters is football-at least in these BCS conferences. Ask Kansas about that. So our "brand" is limited to our football team. Our brand in football may not be very good nationally, but it is a whole lot better than the 2nd tier school in Iowa. If the big 12 blew apart completely, I'm fairly confident we still would have landed in either an expanded big 10 or the SEC, but we would have been one of the last, if not dead last, school chosen and it would have been scary for us Mizzou fans.

Texas has been winning championships since the 1950's. Nebraska has a better brand because they were winning big consistently from the 1960s until not that many years ago.

If Mizzou had sustained the success it had in the 1960's for the next 4 decades, we'd have one helluva a brand, too, but obviously we stunk for about 25 years.

Yah, and we'd have one helluva brand for basketball, too, if SLU had the success it had in the 1940's for the next 6 decades.

It's one thing to dress 50 kids in jerseys/pads, etc. and it's another thing to truly support the football program. As a kid going to football games in the 1970's, Faurot Field was a joke. Mizzou had some good years in the '70's and yet the stadium was like a bigger high school facility. Beginning in the '80's physical improvements were slowly made even though they resulted in less seats. Still no comparison to some of the other Big 12 facilities though the new Hearnes Center is quality.

Mizzou has always got a few decent head coaches (IMO, not Mizzou's problem these past 4 decades) but I suspect there has never been the money for the extras - deficient facilities, smaller budgets for assistant coaches, travel, etc.

Also, non-televised games has been the norm. Just getting most games on TV in recent years has been a huge success. Thoughts of Mizzou getting its own network is not even on the radar screen.

Personally, I split company with Mizzou years ago over Norm Stewart over his ethics (or lack thereof), his cowardice and his anti-urban bias. Like Skip and others, though, I am a proud Missouri resident and truly don't want our state's public flagship school to play also-rans from the MountainWest - which is where I saw Mizzou going despite true desires to join the Big 10 and SEC.

[MUTGR]

Yah, and we'd have one helluva brand for basketball, too, if SLU had the success it had in the 1940's for the next 6 decades.

It's one thing to dress 50 kids in jerseys/pads, etc. and it's another thing to truly support the football program. As a kid going to football games in the 1970's, Faurot Field was a joke. Mizzou had some good years in the '70's and yet the stadium was like a bigger high school facility. Beginning in the '80's physical improvements were slowly made even though they resulted in less seats. Still no comparison to some of the other Big 12 facilities though the new Hearnes Center is quality.

Mizzou has always got a few decent head coaches (IMO, not Mizzou's problem these past 4 decades) but I suspect there has never been the money for the extras - deficient facilities, smaller budgets for assistant coaches, travel, etc.

Also, non-televised games has been the norm. Just getting most games on TV in recent years has been a huge success. Thoughts of Mizzou getting its own network is not even on the radar screen.

Personally, I split company with Mizzou years ago over Norm Stewart over his ethics (or lack thereof), his cowardice and his anti-urban bias. Like Skip and others, though, I am a proud Missouri resident and truly don't want our state's public flagship school to play also-rans from the MountainWest - which is where I saw Mizzou going despite true desires to join the Big 10 and SEC.

I think the facilities are finally up to par for the most part. Pinkel has gotten the team to bowl games in 6 of the last 7 years, which is a huge improvement. He hasn't been able to compete with the big boys in conference and for the most part won't schedule them in the non-conference. I think this new configuration is going to be a challenge to Pinkel to try to take the next step. Time will tell if he can succeed. As a fan, I'm happy about it.

[Box and Won]

I think the facilities are finally up to par for the most part. Pinkel has gotten the team to bowl games in 6 of the last 7 years, which is a huge improvement. He hasn't been able to compete with the big boys in conference and for the most part won't schedule them in the non-conference. I think this new configuration is going to be a challenge to Pinkel to try to take the next step. Time will tell if he can succeed. As a fan, I'm happy about it.

And really, there's no problem with the approach he's taken. It means that there will be a few games every year that we don't get to see on TV, but other than that, I don't really see what Mizzou stands to gain by putting together a difficult non-conference schedule.

[cheeseman]

So you're suggesting if Mizzou played tougher opponents they could start their own network? Have you given any thought to how much it costs to run a network?

A network is not something you start physically from scratch - you farm that out as part of the cost and sell the product. It may not cost anything if you don't have someone interested in buying it. Additionally, all you have to do sell the games that the conf or NCAA do not pick up. I am sorry I forgot how literal you can be.

[cheesycow]

A network is not something you start physically from scratch - you farm that out as part of the cost and sell the product. It may not cost anything if you don't have someone interested in buying it. Additionally, all you have to do sell the games that the conf or NCAA do not pick up. I am sorry I forgot how literal you can be.

I'm not trying to be literal I thought the conversation was literally about a "mizzou network," not farming out non-con games.

[slufanskip]

And really, there's no problem with the approach he's taken. It means that there will be a few games every year that we don't get to see on TV, but other than that, I don't really see what Mizzou stands to gain by putting together a difficult non-conference schedule.

especially not now. In conference Mizzou will have UT, OU, TT, and OSU, and A&M every year. The new Big 12 needs Mizzou to stay at least as good as they've been for the last few years.

[Clock_Tower]

And really, there's no problem with the approach he's taken. It means that there will be a few games every year that we don't get to see on TV, but other than that, I don't really see what Mizzou stands to gain by putting together a difficult non-conference schedule.

At some point, the better programs get on TV because THEY are the ones on TV and not b/c of the team they play. In the past, the few televised games for Mizzou were against schools like OU and Nebraska. I am not in the field of media, television, etc. and do not know the ratings that a home Mizzou game against a less name school would bring in but with all the cable choices, I find it difficult to believe there is NO market/interest for such a game. If UT plays this same no name school, then there would be a market/interest. How much more success does Mizzou need to achieve before even these games get televised?

[cheesycow]

At some point, the better programs get on TV because THEY are the ones on TV and not b/c of the team they play. In the past, the few televised games for Mizzou were against schools like OU and Nebraska. I am not in the field of media, television, etc. and do not know the ratings that a home Mizzou game against a less name school would bring in but with all the cable choices, I find it difficult to believe there is NO market/interest for such a game. If UT plays this same no name school, then there would be a market/interest. How much more success does Mizzou need to achieve before even these games get televised?

Needs to be sustained success. This has been a great 3 years but ultimately it's just 3 years. Really only 2 years with a decent rebuilding year.

[billiken_roy]

Not sure why this is confusing - the Big 10 is still the Big 10 and the Big 12 is still the Big 12 unless they change their name. So, I am talking about the current Big 12 members not counting CO and NE in 2011

weak attempt at humor. not directed at you as actually confusing. sorry.

[kshoe]

Why - A10 has 14 teams and no body is confused. The Big 10 has had 11 teams for years and nobody is confused. This is not rocket science. The Big 12 will only have 10 teams in 2011 but the name can stay if they choose to leave it.

One conference has 10 teams and is called the Big 12. Another conference has 12 teams and is called the Big 10. Silly me for thinking people could be confused by those names.

The A-10 is different since there is no other conference to compare with. If there was a conference out there called the Atlantic 14 and it only had 10 members, I would think there would be a significant amount of confusion.

I'm pretty sure the Jay Leno's of the world will be making jokes about those two names on a fairly regular basis until something changes.

[slufanskip]

One conference has 10 teams and is called the Big 12. Another conference has 12 teams and is called the Big 10. Silly me for thinking people could be confused by those names.

The A-10 is different since there is no other conference to compare with. If there was a conference out there called the Atlantic 14 and it only had 10 members, I would think there would be a significant amount of confusion.

I'm pretty sure the Jay Leno's of the world will be making jokes about those two names on a fairly regular basis until something changes.

I can't imagine the Big 10 letting someone else use that moniker and I highly doubt the Big 12 would give up it's name without getting the Big 10 in return, and that would only happen if they had no plans on adding new teams.

It seems to me that in this age of conference hopping they'd remove the numbers from their names completely.

[Clock_Tower]

It seems to me that in this age of conference hopping they'd remove the numbers from their names completely.

But then, we'd have two (2) conferences with the same name: Big