Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU

[billiken_roy]

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.

[Taj79]

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.

[RiseAndGrind]

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?

I was gonna jump in here but it looks like Prebil has taken care of this.

[tigerluke]

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.

[tigerluke]

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.

[bonwich]

1) Hey, kids, where are your manners? This reminds me of the early days of dear, departed Gruehls. This guy luke jumps on here and is literate and relatively reasonable and everyone just takes pot shots at him. I think this is bad form.

2) Here's one version of the back story of how the last round of SLU/MU games came about.

The foundation for the three-game series -- the Billikens will play at Hearnes Center next season, and the Tigers will visit Kiel Center in 2001 -- began to form at a church service: A fellow parishioner of Woolard's invited him to a gathering at Greenbriar Country Club in Kirkwood, knowing that Alden would be present.

"That was in September of 1998, " recalled Alden, who had come to Mizzou about a month earlier. "We talked a little bit, just to visit with each other. And then as we were departing, we both just said, 'You know, we really need to talk about maybe playing a basketball game.'"

Once discussions began, the process went smoothly. Input from officials of the St. Louis Sports Commission and the Convention and Visitors Commission helped iron out the rough spots.

"It came together after a few meetings, " Woolard said.

Alden said, "The more we worked together, the more we found out there really weren't any hurdles."

Alden's insistence that a two-game series begin in Columbia could have bogged down the process. "But I don't think it was a deal-breaker, " said Woolard, who proposed playing the first game at the Dome and creating the three- game set. "I said, 'Shoot, that sounds good, '" Alden recalled.

By late April, the contracts had been signed and the announcement was made.

Which, everyone involved agrees, is a fine development. The obvious question, though, is: If it was so easy to reach an agreement, why did it take so long to happen?

The answer is about as murky as the muddy Mississippi River. But this much seems clear: At various times during the gap, for assorted reasons, there was reluctance on each side to resume play.

SLU and Mizzou first met in 1931, the Tigers prevailing 25-23 in St. Louis. Beginning in 1933, they met at least once annually through 1942. After a two-year break, the Bills and Tigers played each year from '45 through '49. A 13-year interruption preceded an eight-year run, through 1970.

There were no meetings for the next eight years. In 1979, Missouri topped SLU 77-75 in overtime in St. Louis, then won again in '80 at H earnes Center. And that was that - until Sunday afternoon.

"In the early or mid-'80s, there wasn't any real interest in playing them, " said former Mizzou athletic director Joe Castiglione, "because the (SLU) program appeared to be in disarray, almost to the point where one began to wonder whether they were going to continue to play Division I."

When Rich Grawer, Spoonhour's predecessor, righted the Billikens ship in the late '80s, talks about resuming the series started again. But a barrier of some sort always blocked the way.

"We assumed that they felt they had everything to lose and nothing to gain, " said Maryland AD Debbie Yow, who ran SLU's athletic department from 1990-94. "Their fans would expect them to win, so if they won, so what? If they lost, it could be very damaging, perhaps, to their recruiting in the St. Louis area."

Castiglione, now athletic director at Oklahoma, said he agreed with Yow's theory "to a degree." Alden disagrees.

"When I heard that, it didn't make a lot of sense, " he said, "because I knew Marquette was playing Wisconsin, and I knew that Louisville played Kentucky, and I knew that Evansville played Indiana. I didn't understand why it would be different in Missouri than it was in all these other states."

Stewart insisted that he was strongly in favor to scheduling the Bills. "We worked hard trying to get this done, for a long time, " he said. "Everybody always thought that Missouri didn't want it. I'm going to tell you something: We would've played that game a long time ago."

Spoonhour maintained that "it wasn't me" who blunted attempts at picking the series back up. "I said I'd be happy to play, and that was it, " he said. "It wasn't up to me."

Anyway, Spoonhour added, there's nothing to be gained by dwelling on past differences.

"Why would we worry about what might've been? Let's talk about what's happening, " he said. "They're going to play, it's going to be a heck of a game, both teams are off to a good start. I think it's going to be a lot of fun."

[tigerluke]

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?

[tigerluke]

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.

[kappy96]

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.

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.

Mike Alden better get off his high horse soon or he'll be begging to play SLU once the "Faith in Haith" train derails in a few months.

[DuckFayton]

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.

[Littlebill]

Sack up Tigers, let's ball.

Really all that needs to be said. If you really are te better team, you won't lose. So whats the problem? You'll just win against a team better than 90% of the teams you play (RPI wise)

[tigerluke]

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.

[kwyjibo]

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.

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.

[kwyjibo]

relatively reasonable

Really? How bad have things gotten where incoherent rambling becomes "reason".

[tigerluke]

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."

[kwyjibo]

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.

Since your argument against the game being about "marginal selection" makes little sense and your arguments for it seem to be "relatively reasonable" (as the kids say nowadays apparently) you seem to be 100% in agreement the game need to be made.

Personally, I could care less but if it helps Mizzou I am all for it.

[tigerluke]

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.

[Deutschkind]

I just want to jump in here and say that we're all using the wrong WI example. Besides playing Marquette every year Sconnie plays UW-Milwaukee and UW-Green Bay from the Horizon, every single year. Those might be 2 for 1's rather than home and homes, but they still do it. They are ok with going into little tiny Green Bay, WI to play the Phoenix, and last year they lost up there. Bo Ryan believes that no matter the outcome, playing those school is good for basketball in the state of Wisconsin. SLU and MIzzou playing each year would be good for basketball in the state of Missouri

[tigerluke]

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.

[tigerluke]

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.

[tigerluke]

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.

[prebilliken]

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.

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

Ok, sure so SLU has only been good for one year lately. That's fine, national perception and all that (the Media loves Majerus, loves the Bills, look at any National reporter talking about an unkown darling this year and they're talking about us.)

But let's talk about the future. So you're heading to the SEC and ya did it for football. The SEC is a weeeeaaaak basketball conference. This move is going to end up hurting the hardwood Tigers. No longer can you recruit KC telling kids that they are going to play KU every year. No longer can you recruit Texas telling kids they'll get to play all the Texas schools. Good luck trying to sustain a basketball program in the SEC when your name isn't Kentucky or Florida. Teams go in and out of relivancy in that conference faster than any other BCS conference (save the Pac-12.) Your coach is being investigated for his actions at another school.

SLU loses only two players next year. Gains two solid recurits. Will probably be preseason favorites (or just behind at #2) to win the conference next year. Majerus gets back his field general who understands his offense, or more importantly, his defense.

Will the tigers play us then? How many good season's does SLU have to have for MU to play us? A decade isn't good enough (see: the 90's.) Maybe 15?

[JMM28]

I just want to jump in here and say that we're all using the wrong WI example. Besides playing Marquette every year Sconnie plays UW-Milwaukee and UW-Green Bay from the Horizon, every single year. Those might be 2 for 1's rather than home and homes, but they still do it. They are ok with going into little tiny Green Bay, WI to play the Phoenix, and last year they lost up there. Bo Ryan believes that no matter the outcome, playing those school is good for basketball in the state of Wisconsin. SLU and MIzzou playing each year would be good for basketball in the state of Missouri

Yeah but you can't compare Bo Ryan to Frank Haith or Quin Snyder types. Bo runs a clean upstanding program and has sustained success in the premier Midwestern conference (that SPUMAC could only hope to join). The Scandal Plagued University of Mi$$ouri at Columbia features obviously a scandal plagued program with limited stretches of any sort of success. They've won approximately 0 Big12 titles in the past existence of said conference, and only 15 in the previous 90 years of the Big8.

Bo Ryan & Wisconsin is like big brother, and Frank Haith and SPUMAC are like little brother in that idea.

I do agree with Bo that it is good for all teams involved. Good for him.

[AMDG]

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.

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.

[eastsidejoe]

who gives a rats a@@ about Mizzlouser. I don't want to play them anyway. There is better competition out there that will now be willing to play us. They will get killed in the SEC. Then you will see that tail of theirs. It will be a pleasure to watch them get pounded