Burwell Article - MU vs. SLU

[Pistol]

-SLU is not David. The A10 is the best non-BCS basketball conference, and SLU locked up second place this season. SLU has always been in strong basketball conferences.

-Mizzou is not Goliath. It is one of 17 BCS conference programs to have never made a Final Four.

-The 'nothing to gain' argument is about as limp as any in sports. What is to be gained by playing SEMO, Binghamton, Northwestern State, Navy, Kennesaw State, Mercer, Niagara, or Old Dominion over SLU? Any fan making the 'nothing to gain' argument has no pride whatsoever.

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

[prebilliken]

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.

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.

Boom. Exactly. Its not about glory, or past glory. Its about what's coming up. Mizzou is scared to play SLU because know that SLU is on track again they could over take the Tigers as the better program in the state. Its as simple as that.

[kshoe]

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.

Here's a thought. By not playing SLU, MU and their fans risk having to hear people suggest SLU could be a better team. It didn't happen much this year because MU had an outstanding season but it may happen next year with 5/7 of your team gone and SLU only losing one key contributor.

Wouldn't it be better just to play the game, wipe the floor with us, and end all the discussion about whether SLU might have a better team that season? Recruits won't have to wonder, your fans won't have to wonder and you won't have to hear the media ***** for a game. There is actually a fair amount to gain by playing us and beating us. Instead, by playing chickensheat, you leave the door open for people to say that not only are you not as good as SLU, but your also afraid of them.

[tigerluke]

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.

[Pistol]

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.

As a Mizzou fan, you suffer from an inferiority complex to KU and you take it out on anyone who challenges you. It all boils down to one simple fact: Mizzou is afraid to play SLU.

[prebilliken]

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

Awww... Like kitties? Tigers... Kitties... *******... I get it... Its adora...

Oh... No that's more insulting, we'll go with what you meant.

[tigerluke]

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

[AMDG]

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.

claiming that mizzou has a better basketball pedigree isn't fact, it's opinion. there is nothing in the world you could drag up to claim that missouri is better than kansas. the fact is, mizzou fans think they're some basketball power when they've never even gotten past the elite 8. the fact is, I supported my statement with facts, you tried to pass off opinion as fact.

[BilliKat]

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

[tigerluke]

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.

[JMM28]

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.

Realistically, this point is like arguing who is the tallest midget. Neither team in the past 20+ years has been consistently relevant.

Mizzou has 2 players currently playing in the NBA, neither of which is worth a ######. \

They routinely get pounded by their biggest "rival" to the tune of a 70% winning percentage for KU in Big12 play.

0 final four apperances.

Obviously 0 national titles.

No league titles in Big12 play.

1 conference tournament championship in the last 20 years.

A handful of All Americans.

So don't come on here and act like Mizzou is some nationally relevant program. Because it is not. We know what SLU is. You obviously don't understand what Mizzou is.

[tigerluke]

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

Personally, I'm having a blast, haha.

[prebilliken]

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

-The tone must not have come through. The comment was sarcasm, referring back to how SLU was relevant in the 90's.

-Im from Arkansas, I had no idea it shared a border with Missouri. We just call everything north of Fayetteville "yankee land."

-You're saying you don't want to play SLU but Arkansas was under .500 4 times in the 2000s. Twice as many times as SLU.

[Pistol]

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.

Irrelevant. Not the same Division. That'd be an exhibition game, and I'd be happy to have it, as would most other SLU fans. Won't happen, though, as long as Soderberg is there.

You're dodging the simple fact that Mizzou is afraid to play SLU.

[tigerluke]

Realistically, this point is like arguing who is the tallest midget. Neither team in the past 20+ years has been consistently relevant.

The word that saves you there is "consistently" because in the last 20 years, while SLU has racked up a stunning 4 NCAA tournament births and 0 wins outside the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament, Mizzou has managed 12 visits to the Big Dance, featuring 3 Elite Eight appearances. Mizzou has been a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, and ranked in the top 5 multiple times during the last 20 years.

Mizzou is not an elite program, as I said before, but they are at least a relevant program in the last 20 years.

[tigerluke]

-You're saying you don't want to play SLU but Arkansas was under .500 4 times in the 2000s. Twice as many times as SLU.

Arkansas will be a conference game, thus it has no bearing on the argument about whether Mizzou should play certain teams as a part of their non-conference schedule.

[prebilliken]

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.

Comparing Lindenwood and SLU to Mizzou and SLU. Are you sure you went to Wash U? That doesn't make sense.

We should probably play your alma mater, right? DIII powerhouse Wash U... That translate's, I bet they would give us a good game.

[kappy96]

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."

I hear your argument but quite honestly I interpret it as an extremely paranoid" position to take. If MIZ's chief concern is giving SLU a "statement" win then you have larger insecurities at play within your program.

[tigerluke]

You're dodging the simple fact that Mizzou is afraid to play SLU.

You're missing the difference between a decision made out of fear, and one made out of well-reasoned logic.

Mizzou has never been afraid of SLU, Alden just understands that the program has very little to gain from playing them, so he chooses what's in the best interest of the program, as he should. If the roles were reversed, Chris May would do the same thing, I guarantee it.

[Pistol]

The word that saves you there is "consistently" because in the last 20 years, while SLU has racked up a stunning 4 NCAA tournament births and 0 wins outside the first weekend of the NCAA Tournament, Mizzou has managed 12 visits to the Big Dance, featuring 3 Elite Eight appearances. Mizzou has been a #1 seed in the NCAA tournament, and ranked in the top 5 multiple times during the last 20 years.

Mizzou is not an elite program, as I said before, but they are at least a relevant program in the last 20 years.

What do you mean by "tournament births" - babies born during the Tournament? Is this something you learned about at Clemson, one of the finest universities in South Carolina, or was it at Wash U?

[tigerluke]

We should probably play your alma mater, right? DIII powerhouse Wash U... That translate's, I bet they would give us a good game.

I'll admit I was just trying to poke the bear with that Lindenwood comparison.

[tigerluke]

What do you mean by "tournament births" - babies born during the Tournament? Is this something you learned about at Clemson, one of the finest universities in South Carolina, or was it at Wash U?

Yeah, yeah, berth not birth, I know. Thanks for pointing out the typo.

[Pistol]

You're missing the difference between a decision made out of fear, and one made out of well-reasoned logic.

Mizzou has never been afraid of SLU, Alden just understands that the program has very little to gain from playing them, so he chooses what's in the best interest of the program, as he should. If the roles were reversed, Chris May would do the same thing, I guarantee it.

What is the logic? Can you or your boy Alden give me a reason playing SLU is worse for Mizzou than playing Old Dominion, Mercer, Niagara, SEMO, Binghamton, Northwestern State, William & Mary, Kennesaw State, or Navy? A logical one, of course.

The last three SLU-Mizzou games either sold out or exceeded 27,000 in attendance, proving the amount of regional interest in the series. No one lost money on the deal.

I see no logic, only fear. Mizzou is afraid to play SLU.

[tigerluke]

The last three SLU-Mizzou games either sold out or exceeded 27,000 in attendance, proving the amount of regional interest in the series. No one lost money on the deal.

I see no logic, only fear. Mizzou is afraid to play SLU.

How many times do I have to say this? THE DECISION TO PLAY SLU OR NOT TO PLAY SLU IS NOT ABOUT MONEY FOR MIZZOU. Mizzou has football, and football makes them more money than God, especially going into the SEC next year. They don't need the money from one basketball game against SLU that 27,000 attend when they're packing in 70,000+ for football games and getting an equal share of TV revenue from the most popular conference in the most popular sport.

It's also not about the fans (you can argue that it should be, but that's a different argument). The clear reason Alden doesn't sign on the dotted line to play SLU every year is that Mizzou doesn't see much to gain from it.

[tigerluke]

I hear your argument but quite honestly I interpret it as an extremely paranoid" position to take. If MIZ's chief concern is giving SLU a "statement" win then you have larger insecurities at play within your program.

Call it what you want, but I'm not complaining if Alden decides to play it safe, not because I think Mizzou would lose to SLU consistently (I don't), but because there's no point to it from Mizzou's program perspective, other than to have a fun game for the fans, and that's probably not enough.