By "join," I don't mean legally join. I mean become part of the cultural identity. For instance, Arkansas and USCarolina legally joined the SEC in 1991, but at least until fairly recently, I've met people who felt that they were still transitioning into the SEC (and they might still feel that way). The same goes for PSU in the B1G and FSU in the ACC (who were both '91 adds).

Obviously it's different for each school and each conference, but I am interested in earing SEC fans' perspectives as I think that question is interesting, given that every major conference is assimilating lot right now.

(05-26-2014 08:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  By "join," I don't mean legally join. I mean become part of the cultural identity. For instance, Arkansas and USCarolina legally joined the SEC in 1991, but at least until fairly recently, I've met people who felt that they were still transitioning into the SEC (and they might still feel that way). The same goes for PSU in the B1G and FSU in the ACC (who were both '91 adds).

Obviously it's different for each school and each conference, but I am interested in earing SEC fans' perspectives as I think that question is interesting, given that every major conference is assimilating lot right now.

Straight up there are several ways to answer this question. Winning titles definitely seems to help cement a schools place in the conference. Florida State fans don't seem to love the ACC but they very much feel a part of it. South Carolina found its niche in the SEC with baseball and the championships they have won there. Getting a traditional SEC coach for football seems to have helped as well.

But let's face it, as long as a school represents the farthest outpost of any conference they are not going to quite feel they belong. Add A&M and Missouri to Arkansas and maybe the hogs start feeling more at home. Through in an Oklahoma school, a Kansas school and another Texas school and then their division feels like home.

I think those are the issues that will eventually lead us to larger conferences with more regional oriented divisions. Add Maryland and Rutgers and Penn State is no longer on an island either. If the PAC added a Kansas school and an Oklahoma school and a Texas school then Utah and Colorado won't seem like such outliers either.

Of all of the realignment configurations that don't seem to have a remedy for outliers the West Virginia situation is probably the most extreme. With Missouri it is a matter of building relations with neighbors in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas. Additions in Oklahoma and Kansas would help them tremendously. Then their division would essentially become neighbors and they would feel at home.

How long? It will vary based upon how successful each school is, how many neighbors are added, and how long it takes to form new and meaningful rivalries.

this is why I love conference realignment. it really isn't over even after the schools join because the integration is the hardest part of the move. the answer to your questions varies among three things.

1. the demographics of the new school.

-is it a cultural match?

-is it a geographical match?

-are their traditional recruiting, rivalries, student body located in this particular conference footprint.

2. the willingness of the new conference to accept this new school.
-properly integrating a new school into a conference requires sacrifice on the part of the older members to help cater to the needs of the new school.

-how far a conference is willing to go, and the amount of resources they are willing to spend to do this is a huge factor in the time it takes to adjust.

-but at the same time you can also have the reverse happen. if the old members are unwilling to treat the new member as their equal or unwilling to help during the transition period then we will only see this process take longer.

3. the attitudes of fans
-how big of a stink will the traditionalists throw over the move? and how long will it take them to get over it?



personally I don't think most of the b12 schools ever really integrated particularly nebraska & colorado. those schools lost the most in the formation of the b12 and the b12 did absolutely nothing to help them ease that transition nor compensation/make up for nebraska losing the OU rivalry and colorado getting squeezed out of the texas recruiting grounds.

that is why it is no surprise that they decided to jump so quickly.

meanwhile miami took no time getting used to the acc and the same will be said for CU/utah with the pac12.

as for the sec I think it is safe to say that it will take mizz much longer to really become a true SEC member than it will with aggie

(05-26-2014 09:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  this is why I love conference realignment. it really isn't over even after the schools join because the integration is the hardest part of the move. the answer to your questions varies among three things.

1. the demographics of the new school.

-is it a cultural match?

-is it a geographical match?

-are their traditional recruiting, rivalries, student body located in this particular conference footprint.

2. the willingness of the new conference to accept this new school.
-properly integrating a new school into a conference requires sacrifice on the part of the older members to help cater to the needs of the new school.

-how far a conference is willing to go, and the amount of resources they are willing to spend to do this is a huge factor in the time it takes to adjust.

-but at the same time you can also have the reverse happen. if the old members are unwilling to treat the new member as their equal or unwilling to help during the transition period then we will only see this process take longer.

3. the attitudes of fans
-how big of a stink will the traditionalists throw over the move? and how long will it take them to get over it?



personally I don't think most of the b12 schools ever really integrated particularly nebraska & colorado. those schools lost the most in the formation of the b12 and the b12 did absolutely nothing to help them ease that transition nor compensation/make up for nebraska losing the OU rivalry and colorado getting squeezed out of the texas recruiting grounds.

that is why it is no surprise that they decided to jump so quickly.

meanwhile miami took no time getting used to the acc and the same will be said for CU/utah with the pac12.

as for the sec I think it is safe to say that it will take mizz much longer to really become a true SEC member than it will with aggie

It won't take Missouri that long if the administration makes it clear to the B10 loving Missouri fans that their home is in the SEC and nowhere else. That's all it takes for SEC fans to embrace Missouri fully. If they ever leave for the Big 10 there will not be a single SEC program that will ever take pity upon them on any field of competition and the score will be ugly even if it is tiddly winks. The only thing keeping Missouri from being fully accepted now are the carpetbaggers in their own damn camp. I haven't seen any of them at the games, just a few loud mouths spewing venom on some message boards and you can never be sure if they are really Missouri fans or not. Likely as not they are just trolls.

The sooner they make up their minds that they are fully committed the quicker they are fully in. And you and they had better do it soon. This is one issue that is over. If the Big 10 had wanted them they would have taken them. ESPN wanted them and that is why they are here. They form a large market Northwest corner to the SEC and give us a level line of demarcation on the Northern border. They have a home now. But anyone my age knows that there have been few marriages that held together if one of the partners pined for a former sweetheart. That stuff wears thin in a hurry. IMO the Missouri administration has tried to make that clear. We'll see. I can say that as far as SEC folks are concerned they are in. When the SEC folks believe that they are fully committed they will be fully accepted. For many of us that has already happened, but for the rest they are waiting for more evidence.

But John your thoughts on this matter will be moot if an Oklahoma or a Kansas school, or both, joins the SEC. Then their old home will be Missouri's new divisional home. IMO that is why we still need two more from the West.

The boundaries being formed now are going to have to be comfortable for quite awhile. If that means joining with familiar faces makes it easier then that needs to be a priority of the SEC. Texas isn't necessary for that level of comfort, Oklahoma or Oklahoma State may be. And a Kansas school wouldn't hurt either.

JR-

I respectfully disagree.

Texas a&m has two natural rivals in arky & LSU. Mizz meanwhile has zero. if you ask your typical mizz fan who their biggest non b12/former b12 historical rival is 9 out of 10 would say illinois before the SEC move and that notion is still true to a certain extent today. laugh all you want at that but at only 24 games they are mizz's most common non-b12/former b12 opponent. in fact Mizz has played nebraska, illinois, iowa, purdue, minnesota, northwestern, michigan state, & ohio state more times each than any SEC team not named a&m.

so while the b10 ship has obviously sailed it is pretty obvious that historically missouri has looked towards every direction except towards the SEC and that is going to be a pretty big adjustment for them over the next few years.

as things stand right now I can't think of any SEC team that you could really build anything with mizz at this time. forget tennessee as they are the most saturated SEC team when it comes to rivalries. you could argue with arky, lsu or aggie but all 3 of them are SEC west teams and they will only have one as a fixed rival and it doesn't do much because all 3 happen to have deep rivalries with each other which would overshadow any momentum built between them & mizz. that really leaves only UK & vandy. vandy isn't really a cultural fit which brings us to Kentucky. no disrespect to kentucky but if a new conference wants to build a rivalry with their new additions it is strongly advised against making it your weakest program.

you can cite OU or KU joining. but until that day happens we have to look at what we have now and it isn't exactly the most idea situation in terms of conference integration. i strongly believe that building rivalries is one of the most important steps in conference integration.

texas a&m & mizz were b12 schools in name only. one is historically a b8 school the other an swc school. they have different demographics and facing completely different situations within the conference. they do not have a whole lot of similarities hence the reason their integration into the SEC will be anything but.

(05-27-2014 12:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  JR-



as things stand right now I can't think of any SEC team that you could really build anything with mizz at this time. forget tennessee as they are the most saturated SEC team when it comes to rivalries. you could argue with arky, lsu or aggie but all 3 of them are SEC west teams and they will only have one as a fixed rival and it doesn't do much because all 3 happen to have deep rivalries with each other which would overshadow any momentum built between them & mizz. that really leaves only UK & vandy. vandy isn't really a cultural fit which brings us to Kentucky. no disrespect to kentucky but if a new conference wants to build a rivalry with their new additions it is strongly advised against making it your weakest program.

John,

LSU and Arkansas are moving their Golden Boot game to earlier in the year to allow the Razorbacks and MTigers the chance at starting an end of year tradition of their own. Since Mizzou is an SEC East team, this will constitute their crossover game.

Where you are correct is that the current SEC alignment is untenable in the long term. I felt Mizzou in the east would give them the chance to have schools with large fanbases travel to Columbia, MO and give a welcome the Ole Miss and Miss St wouldn't be able to provide.

But it can't last IMO, which is why I think the SEC will expand again relatively soon. An SEC division with all of the West of Mississippi schools would be ideal, but any configuration would do, be it 3 x 4, 4 x 4 or 3 x 6.

I also agree that Mizzou/Arkansas has a lot of potential. Fayetteville and Columbia MO are two of the closest campuses in the SEC and a natural border war.

I would definitely not mind adding Kansas if they ever become available to give Mizzou back their strongest rivalry and strengthen SEC basketball.

(05-26-2014 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't take Missouri that long if the administration makes it clear to the B10 loving Missouri fans that their home is in the SEC and nowhere else. That's all it takes for SEC fans to embrace Missouri fully. If they ever leave for the Big 10 there will not be a single SEC program that will ever take pity upon them on any field of competition and the score will be ugly even if it is tiddly winks. The only thing keeping Missouri from being fully accepted now are the carpetbaggers in their own damn camp. I haven't seen any of them at the games, just a few loud mouths spewing venom on some message boards and you can never be sure if they are really Missouri fans or not. Likely as not they are just trolls.

The sooner they make up their minds that they are fully committed the quicker they are fully in. And you and they had better do it soon. This is one issue that is over. If the Big 10 had wanted them they would have taken them. ESPN wanted them and that is why they are here. They form a large market Northwest corner to the SEC and give us a level line of demarcation on the Northern border. They have a home now. But anyone my age knows that there have been few marriages that held together if one of the partners pined for a former sweetheart. That stuff wears thin in a hurry. IMO the Missouri administration has tried to make that clear. We'll see. I can say that as far as SEC folks are concerned they are in. When the SEC folks believe that they are fully committed they will be fully accepted. For many of us that has already happened, but for the rest they are waiting for more evidence.

But John your thoughts on this matter will be moot if an Oklahoma or a Kansas school, or both, joins the SEC. Then their old home will be Missouri's new divisional home. IMO that is why we still need two more from the West.

The boundaries being formed now are going to have to be comfortable for quite awhile. If that means joining with familiar faces makes it easier then that needs to be a priority of the SEC. Texas isn't necessary for that level of comfort, Oklahoma or Oklahoma State may be. And a Kansas school wouldn't hurt either.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the Mizzou fans are all in for the SEC. The question has always been with the administration. Not that I believe they are actively seeking B1G membership, but if Delany made an offer, could you really fault those in the Ivory Tower for accepting?

(05-27-2014 07:54 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-26-2014 09:54 PM)JRsec Wrote:  It won't take Missouri that long if the administration makes it clear to the B10 loving Missouri fans that their home is in the SEC and nowhere else. That's all it takes for SEC fans to embrace Missouri fully. If they ever leave for the Big 10 there will not be a single SEC program that will ever take pity upon them on any field of competition and the score will be ugly even if it is tiddly winks. The only thing keeping Missouri from being fully accepted now are the carpetbaggers in their own damn camp. I haven't seen any of them at the games, just a few loud mouths spewing venom on some message boards and you can never be sure if they are really Missouri fans or not. Likely as not they are just trolls.

The sooner they make up their minds that they are fully committed the quicker they are fully in. And you and they had better do it soon. This is one issue that is over. If the Big 10 had wanted them they would have taken them. ESPN wanted them and that is why they are here. They form a large market Northwest corner to the SEC and give us a level line of demarcation on the Northern border. They have a home now. But anyone my age knows that there have been few marriages that held together if one of the partners pined for a former sweetheart. That stuff wears thin in a hurry. IMO the Missouri administration has tried to make that clear. We'll see. I can say that as far as SEC folks are concerned they are in. When the SEC folks believe that they are fully committed they will be fully accepted. For many of us that has already happened, but for the rest they are waiting for more evidence.

But John your thoughts on this matter will be moot if an Oklahoma or a Kansas school, or both, joins the SEC. Then their old home will be Missouri's new divisional home. IMO that is why we still need two more from the West.

The boundaries being formed now are going to have to be comfortable for quite awhile. If that means joining with familiar faces makes it easier then that needs to be a priority of the SEC. Texas isn't necessary for that level of comfort, Oklahoma or Oklahoma State may be. And a Kansas school wouldn't hurt either.

I'm thoroughly convinced that the Mizzou fans are all in for the SEC. The question has always been with the administration. Not that I believe they are actively seeking B1G membership, but if Delany made an offer, could you really fault those in the Ivory Tower for accepting?

I think their second year in the SEC sealed the deal. I can't find a Mizzou fan who now favors a move to the B1G. I sure there are a few. Most Mizzou fans never envisioned the SEC as even a remote possibility five years ago. Tailgates have been incredible and the SEC schools all have made the new Missouri folks feel right at home. That is all the Missouri fans talked about the first year on the Tiger boards ... The administration should realize the academic potential they bring to the SEC. If Missouri fans didn't get a grip on the significance of SEC membership three years ago, I certainly believe they do now. The one thing as a Missouri guy, that I get a little upset about, is the fact that we are considered by some as an outlier. I think we can agree that A&M is pretty far west. I will concede their culture is more SEC, but not geographically. We border three SEC states, and are less than 100 miles from Mississippi. We had a southern history in the 1800's as well. About half the state still does, which can also be said for Texas. That said, I think Missouri has done well, and are very happy with all the good things the SEC brings for them, and it just keeps getting better. Time tends to take care of this kind of issue.

(05-27-2014 12:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  JR-

I respectfully disagree.

Texas a&m has two natural rivals in arky & LSU. Mizz meanwhile has zero. if you ask your typical mizz fan who their biggest non b12/former b12 historical rival is 9 out of 10 would say illinois before the SEC move and that notion is still true to a certain extent today. laugh all you want at that but at only 24 games they are mizz's most common non-b12/former b12 opponent. in fact Mizz has played nebraska, illinois, iowa, purdue, minnesota, northwestern, michigan state, & ohio state more times each than any SEC team not named a&m.

so while the b10 ship has obviously sailed it is pretty obvious that historically missouri has looked towards every direction except towards the SEC and that is going to be a pretty big adjustment for them over the next few years.

as things stand right now I can't think of any SEC team that you could really build anything with mizz at this time. forget tennessee as they are the most saturated SEC team when it comes to rivalries. you could argue with arky, lsu or aggie but all 3 of them are SEC west teams and they will only have one as a fixed rival and it doesn't do much because all 3 happen to have deep rivalries with each other which would overshadow any momentum built between them & mizz. that really leaves only UK & vandy. vandy isn't really a cultural fit which brings us to Kentucky. no disrespect to kentucky but if a new conference wants to build a rivalry with their new additions it is strongly advised against making it your weakest program.

you can cite OU or KU joining. but until that day happens we have to look at what we have now and it isn't exactly the most idea situation in terms of conference integration. i strongly believe that building rivalries is one of the most important steps in conference integration.

texas a&m & mizz were b12 schools in name only. one is historically a b8 school the other an swc school. they have different demographics and facing completely different situations within the conference. they do not have a whole lot of similarities hence the reason their integration into the SEC will be anything but.

John you make some valid points with regards to the SEC scheduling issues. But who in the Big 10 does Missouri have a long standing rivalry with? They have occasionally played Illinois, even less Iowa. Nebraska was good for them but they too are a former Big 8 school. While Kansas if it goes to the Big 10 would add to your position, an ESPN controlled Kansas to the SEC would add to ours. Because of the tenuous situation that still lies just under the surface in the ACC, I doubt the SEC ever expands out of the ACC because ESPN simply won't want it unless it is absolutely necessary (sheltering ACC properties in the SEC in the event of a Maryland lawsuit loss and future Big 10 raids). So if the SEC does expand out of the Big 12 again an Oklahoma and Kansas school would be likely. Missouri shares 3 borders with the SEC now. They simply need to be in the West division and Auburn needs to be in the East. By moving Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East we can solve virtually every scheduling issue we have presently and only be left with 1 (Vanderbilt and Tennessee) which is not Tennessee's preferred rivalry anyway. Then Missouri's permanent cross divisional rivalry could be with Kentucky for hoops more than football. Missouri would then have Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky on their schedule. A&M and L.S.U. would simply supply the names they need and that is without having further additions. If Oklahoma and Kansas are added it ought to be Mizzou heaven. Then Mississippi State can move to the East. Starkville is almost on the Alabama line anyway and 1 and half hours from Tuscaloosa. Ole Miss and L.S.U. need to stay together.

So the idea that Missouri has anymore rivals in the Big 10 than they do in the SEC is only valid in as much as you cite Nebraska. Arkansas is certainly a reasonable substitute until further additions are made.

'Bama to the East would be a dream come true for LSU. And honestly it would do the Tide no favors since there would be too many dissenting interests (UGA, UF, UT) precluded 'Bama from getting their way.

(05-27-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  JR-

I respectfully disagree.

Texas a&m has two natural rivals in arky & LSU. Mizz meanwhile has zero. if you ask your typical mizz fan who their biggest non b12/former b12 historical rival is 9 out of 10 would say illinois before the SEC move and that notion is still true to a certain extent today. laugh all you want at that but at only 24 games they are mizz's most common non-b12/former b12 opponent. in fact Mizz has played nebraska, illinois, iowa, purdue, minnesota, northwestern, michigan state, & ohio state more times each than any SEC team not named a&m.

so while the b10 ship has obviously sailed it is pretty obvious that historically missouri has looked towards every direction except towards the SEC and that is going to be a pretty big adjustment for them over the next few years.

as things stand right now I can't think of any SEC team that you could really build anything with mizz at this time. forget tennessee as they are the most saturated SEC team when it comes to rivalries. you could argue with arky, lsu or aggie but all 3 of them are SEC west teams and they will only have one as a fixed rival and it doesn't do much because all 3 happen to have deep rivalries with each other which would overshadow any momentum built between them & mizz. that really leaves only UK & vandy. vandy isn't really a cultural fit which brings us to Kentucky. no disrespect to kentucky but if a new conference wants to build a rivalry with their new additions it is strongly advised against making it your weakest program.

you can cite OU or KU joining. but until that day happens we have to look at what we have now and it isn't exactly the most idea situation in terms of conference integration. i strongly believe that building rivalries is one of the most important steps in conference integration.

texas a&m & mizz were b12 schools in name only. one is historically a b8 school the other an swc school. they have different demographics and facing completely different situations within the conference. they do not have a whole lot of similarities hence the reason their integration into the SEC will be anything but.

John you make some valid points with regards to the SEC scheduling issues. But who in the Big 10 does Missouri have a long standing rivalry with? They have occasionally played Illinois, even less Iowa. Nebraska was good for them but they too are a former Big 8 school. While Kansas if it goes to the Big 10 would add to your position, an ESPN controlled Kansas to the SEC would add to ours. Because of the tenuous situation that still lies just under the surface in the ACC, I doubt the SEC ever expands out of the ACC because ESPN simply won't want it unless it is absolutely necessary (sheltering ACC properties in the SEC in the event of a Maryland lawsuit loss and future Big 10 raids). So if the SEC does expand out of the Big 12 again an Oklahoma and Kansas school would be likely. Missouri shares 3 borders with the SEC now. They simply need to be in the West division and Auburn needs to be in the East. By moving Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East we can solve virtually every scheduling issue we have presently and only be left with 1 (Vanderbilt and Tennessee) which is not Tennessee's preferred rivalry anyway. Then Missouri's permanent cross divisional rivalry could be with Kentucky for hoops more than football. Missouri would then have Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky on their schedule. A&M and L.S.U. would simply supply the names they need and that is without having further additions. If Oklahoma and Kansas are added it ought to be Mizzou heaven. Then Mississippi State can move to the East. Starkville is almost on the Alabama line anyway and 1 and half hours from Tuscaloosa. Ole Miss and L.S.U. need to stay together.

So the idea that Missouri has anymore rivals in the Big 10 than they do in the SEC is only valid in as much as you cite Nebraska. Arkansas is certainly a reasonable substitute until further additions are made.

-i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

(05-27-2014 06:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  JR-

I respectfully disagree.

Texas a&m has two natural rivals in arky & LSU. Mizz meanwhile has zero. if you ask your typical mizz fan who their biggest non b12/former b12 historical rival is 9 out of 10 would say illinois before the SEC move and that notion is still true to a certain extent today. laugh all you want at that but at only 24 games they are mizz's most common non-b12/former b12 opponent. in fact Mizz has played nebraska, illinois, iowa, purdue, minnesota, northwestern, michigan state, & ohio state more times each than any SEC team not named a&m.

so while the b10 ship has obviously sailed it is pretty obvious that historically missouri has looked towards every direction except towards the SEC and that is going to be a pretty big adjustment for them over the next few years.

as things stand right now I can't think of any SEC team that you could really build anything with mizz at this time. forget tennessee as they are the most saturated SEC team when it comes to rivalries. you could argue with arky, lsu or aggie but all 3 of them are SEC west teams and they will only have one as a fixed rival and it doesn't do much because all 3 happen to have deep rivalries with each other which would overshadow any momentum built between them & mizz. that really leaves only UK & vandy. vandy isn't really a cultural fit which brings us to Kentucky. no disrespect to kentucky but if a new conference wants to build a rivalry with their new additions it is strongly advised against making it your weakest program.

you can cite OU or KU joining. but until that day happens we have to look at what we have now and it isn't exactly the most idea situation in terms of conference integration. i strongly believe that building rivalries is one of the most important steps in conference integration.

texas a&m & mizz were b12 schools in name only. one is historically a b8 school the other an swc school. they have different demographics and facing completely different situations within the conference. they do not have a whole lot of similarities hence the reason their integration into the SEC will be anything but.

John you make some valid points with regards to the SEC scheduling issues. But who in the Big 10 does Missouri have a long standing rivalry with? They have occasionally played Illinois, even less Iowa. Nebraska was good for them but they too are a former Big 8 school. While Kansas if it goes to the Big 10 would add to your position, an ESPN controlled Kansas to the SEC would add to ours. Because of the tenuous situation that still lies just under the surface in the ACC, I doubt the SEC ever expands out of the ACC because ESPN simply won't want it unless it is absolutely necessary (sheltering ACC properties in the SEC in the event of a Maryland lawsuit loss and future Big 10 raids). So if the SEC does expand out of the Big 12 again an Oklahoma and Kansas school would be likely. Missouri shares 3 borders with the SEC now. They simply need to be in the West division and Auburn needs to be in the East. By moving Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East we can solve virtually every scheduling issue we have presently and only be left with 1 (Vanderbilt and Tennessee) which is not Tennessee's preferred rivalry anyway. Then Missouri's permanent cross divisional rivalry could be with Kentucky for hoops more than football. Missouri would then have Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky on their schedule. A&M and L.S.U. would simply supply the names they need and that is without having further additions. If Oklahoma and Kansas are added it ought to be Mizzou heaven. Then Mississippi State can move to the East. Starkville is almost on the Alabama line anyway and 1 and half hours from Tuscaloosa. Ole Miss and L.S.U. need to stay together.

So the idea that Missouri has anymore rivals in the Big 10 than they do in the SEC is only valid in as much as you cite Nebraska. Arkansas is certainly a reasonable substitute until further additions are made.

-i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

Are we calculating mileage now John? There is not a dimes worth difference in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas. For that matter I now live in Mississippi and it reminds me of all my homes in Missouri. I live 50 miles from Alabama and have relatives there. Yep, looks and feels like Missouri too. Georgia? Yep. Them too... You need to spend a little time in these places before making these ridiculous assumptions. Apparently you haven't been talking to the Arky folks I have been talking to on the other SEC boards. They are crazy excited about the new rivalry.

(05-27-2014 06:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  -i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

Yes, Mizzou/Arkansas is a contrived rivalry, no one is disputing that. The Battle for the Boot was similarly manufactured an to the extent necessary, work. All the MTigers and 'Backs matchup needs to do is create an atmosphere that further integrates to two programs into the SEC culture.

I'm sure you would admit that the fact that MSU/PSU never really took off as a rivalry exacerbated the the folks in Happy Valley feelings about being an outlier in the B1G. Sometimes these things work, and sometimes they don't.

(05-28-2014 12:28 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  JR-

I respectfully disagree.

Texas a&m has two natural rivals in arky & LSU. Mizz meanwhile has zero. if you ask your typical mizz fan who their biggest non b12/former b12 historical rival is 9 out of 10 would say illinois before the SEC move and that notion is still true to a certain extent today. laugh all you want at that but at only 24 games they are mizz's most common non-b12/former b12 opponent. in fact Mizz has played nebraska, illinois, iowa, purdue, minnesota, northwestern, michigan state, & ohio state more times each than any SEC team not named a&m.

so while the b10 ship has obviously sailed it is pretty obvious that historically missouri has looked towards every direction except towards the SEC and that is going to be a pretty big adjustment for them over the next few years.

as things stand right now I can't think of any SEC team that you could really build anything with mizz at this time. forget tennessee as they are the most saturated SEC team when it comes to rivalries. you could argue with arky, lsu or aggie but all 3 of them are SEC west teams and they will only have one as a fixed rival and it doesn't do much because all 3 happen to have deep rivalries with each other which would overshadow any momentum built between them & mizz. that really leaves only UK & vandy. vandy isn't really a cultural fit which brings us to Kentucky. no disrespect to kentucky but if a new conference wants to build a rivalry with their new additions it is strongly advised against making it your weakest program.

you can cite OU or KU joining. but until that day happens we have to look at what we have now and it isn't exactly the most idea situation in terms of conference integration. i strongly believe that building rivalries is one of the most important steps in conference integration.

texas a&m & mizz were b12 schools in name only. one is historically a b8 school the other an swc school. they have different demographics and facing completely different situations within the conference. they do not have a whole lot of similarities hence the reason their integration into the SEC will be anything but.

John you make some valid points with regards to the SEC scheduling issues. But who in the Big 10 does Missouri have a long standing rivalry with? They have occasionally played Illinois, even less Iowa. Nebraska was good for them but they too are a former Big 8 school. While Kansas if it goes to the Big 10 would add to your position, an ESPN controlled Kansas to the SEC would add to ours. Because of the tenuous situation that still lies just under the surface in the ACC, I doubt the SEC ever expands out of the ACC because ESPN simply won't want it unless it is absolutely necessary (sheltering ACC properties in the SEC in the event of a Maryland lawsuit loss and future Big 10 raids). So if the SEC does expand out of the Big 12 again an Oklahoma and Kansas school would be likely. Missouri shares 3 borders with the SEC now. They simply need to be in the West division and Auburn needs to be in the East. By moving Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East we can solve virtually every scheduling issue we have presently and only be left with 1 (Vanderbilt and Tennessee) which is not Tennessee's preferred rivalry anyway. Then Missouri's permanent cross divisional rivalry could be with Kentucky for hoops more than football. Missouri would then have Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky on their schedule. A&M and L.S.U. would simply supply the names they need and that is without having further additions. If Oklahoma and Kansas are added it ought to be Mizzou heaven. Then Mississippi State can move to the East. Starkville is almost on the Alabama line anyway and 1 and half hours from Tuscaloosa. Ole Miss and L.S.U. need to stay together.

So the idea that Missouri has anymore rivals in the Big 10 than they do in the SEC is only valid in as much as you cite Nebraska. Arkansas is certainly a reasonable substitute until further additions are made.

-i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

Are we calculating mileage now John? There is not a dimes worth difference in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas. For that matter I now live in Mississippi and it reminds me of all my homes in Missouri. I live 50 miles from Alabama and have relatives there. Yep, looks and feels like Missouri too. Georgia? Yep. Them too... You need to spend a little time in these places before making these ridiculous assumptions. Apparently you haven't been talking to the Arky folks I have been talking to on the other SEC boards. They are crazy excited about the new rivalry.

it has nothing to do with milage but basic geography. MO and those KY/TN borders are not the same as regular border rivalries.

border rivalries are great because the fanbase are so close and have overlap. is that really the case with MO and those two sec programs when they share less than 5% of their border with each state?

(05-28-2014 08:08 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  -i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

Yes, Mizzou/Arkansas is a contrived rivalry, no one is disputing that. The Battle for the Boot was similarly manufactured an to the extent necessary, work. All the MTigers and 'Backs matchup needs to do is create an atmosphere that further integrates to two programs into the SEC culture.

I'm sure you would admit that the fact that MSU/PSU never really took off as a rivalry exacerbated the the folks in Happy Valley feelings about being an outlier in the B1G. Sometimes these things work, and sometimes they don't.

arky-lsu worked so beautifully because you had LSU who needed a solid end of year rivalry with a program that was their undisputed #1 SEC rival because they lacked that themselves. it had all the right ingredients to build a successful contrived rivalry.

missouri-arkansas doesn't really have those same ingredients and is coming in under completely different circumstances. you could argue that aggie with their lsu rivalry would deemphasize arky-lsu freeing up arky-mizz (which appears to be what the sec is trying to do). but that is hard to predict how the fans will truly react to that and it doesn't account for the big elephant in the room of aggie-arky being historic rivals.

the psu-msu thing pisses me off and i really wanted that to take off as a rivalry. but apparently osu-psu was the one that took off(for one side at least) and i am still dreaming on UNL though. I think part of the failures with msu-psu was that it felt too much like a shotgun marriage and a lack of shared demographics

(05-28-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:28 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 12:18 AM)john01992 Wrote:  JR-

I respectfully disagree.

Texas a&m has two natural rivals in arky & LSU. Mizz meanwhile has zero. if you ask your typical mizz fan who their biggest non b12/former b12 historical rival is 9 out of 10 would say illinois before the SEC move and that notion is still true to a certain extent today. laugh all you want at that but at only 24 games they are mizz's most common non-b12/former b12 opponent. in fact Mizz has played nebraska, illinois, iowa, purdue, minnesota, northwestern, michigan state, & ohio state more times each than any SEC team not named a&m.

so while the b10 ship has obviously sailed it is pretty obvious that historically missouri has looked towards every direction except towards the SEC and that is going to be a pretty big adjustment for them over the next few years.

as things stand right now I can't think of any SEC team that you could really build anything with mizz at this time. forget tennessee as they are the most saturated SEC team when it comes to rivalries. you could argue with arky, lsu or aggie but all 3 of them are SEC west teams and they will only have one as a fixed rival and it doesn't do much because all 3 happen to have deep rivalries with each other which would overshadow any momentum built between them & mizz. that really leaves only UK & vandy. vandy isn't really a cultural fit which brings us to Kentucky. no disrespect to kentucky but if a new conference wants to build a rivalry with their new additions it is strongly advised against making it your weakest program.

you can cite OU or KU joining. but until that day happens we have to look at what we have now and it isn't exactly the most idea situation in terms of conference integration. i strongly believe that building rivalries is one of the most important steps in conference integration.

texas a&m & mizz were b12 schools in name only. one is historically a b8 school the other an swc school. they have different demographics and facing completely different situations within the conference. they do not have a whole lot of similarities hence the reason their integration into the SEC will be anything but.

John you make some valid points with regards to the SEC scheduling issues. But who in the Big 10 does Missouri have a long standing rivalry with? They have occasionally played Illinois, even less Iowa. Nebraska was good for them but they too are a former Big 8 school. While Kansas if it goes to the Big 10 would add to your position, an ESPN controlled Kansas to the SEC would add to ours. Because of the tenuous situation that still lies just under the surface in the ACC, I doubt the SEC ever expands out of the ACC because ESPN simply won't want it unless it is absolutely necessary (sheltering ACC properties in the SEC in the event of a Maryland lawsuit loss and future Big 10 raids). So if the SEC does expand out of the Big 12 again an Oklahoma and Kansas school would be likely. Missouri shares 3 borders with the SEC now. They simply need to be in the West division and Auburn needs to be in the East. By moving Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East we can solve virtually every scheduling issue we have presently and only be left with 1 (Vanderbilt and Tennessee) which is not Tennessee's preferred rivalry anyway. Then Missouri's permanent cross divisional rivalry could be with Kentucky for hoops more than football. Missouri would then have Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky on their schedule. A&M and L.S.U. would simply supply the names they need and that is without having further additions. If Oklahoma and Kansas are added it ought to be Mizzou heaven. Then Mississippi State can move to the East. Starkville is almost on the Alabama line anyway and 1 and half hours from Tuscaloosa. Ole Miss and L.S.U. need to stay together.

So the idea that Missouri has anymore rivals in the Big 10 than they do in the SEC is only valid in as much as you cite Nebraska. Arkansas is certainly a reasonable substitute until further additions are made.

-i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

Are we calculating mileage now John? There is not a dimes worth difference in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas. For that matter I now live in Mississippi and it reminds me of all my homes in Missouri. I live 50 miles from Alabama and have relatives there. Yep, looks and feels like Missouri too. Georgia? Yep. Them too... You need to spend a little time in these places before making these ridiculous assumptions. Apparently you haven't been talking to the Arky folks I have been talking to on the other SEC boards. They are crazy excited about the new rivalry.

it has nothing to do with milage but basic geography. MO and those KY/TN borders are not the same as regular border rivalries.

border rivalries are great because the fanbase are so close and have overlap. is that really the case with MO and those two sec programs when they share less than 5% of their border with each state?

It has everything to do with culture, and the Mississippi River doesn't impede that. Missouri and Arkansas have not played each other for a lot of reasons, but once they do, it will be on. My statement on cultural similarities stands. Go to any of these states as a Missourian, shut your eyes, and turn around three times. When you open your eyes and start talking to the folks, there is no difference. You will think you are somewhere close to home...

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:28 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 11:29 AM)JRsec Wrote:  John you make some valid points with regards to the SEC scheduling issues. But who in the Big 10 does Missouri have a long standing rivalry with? They have occasionally played Illinois, even less Iowa. Nebraska was good for them but they too are a former Big 8 school. While Kansas if it goes to the Big 10 would add to your position, an ESPN controlled Kansas to the SEC would add to ours. Because of the tenuous situation that still lies just under the surface in the ACC, I doubt the SEC ever expands out of the ACC because ESPN simply won't want it unless it is absolutely necessary (sheltering ACC properties in the SEC in the event of a Maryland lawsuit loss and future Big 10 raids). So if the SEC does expand out of the Big 12 again an Oklahoma and Kansas school would be likely. Missouri shares 3 borders with the SEC now. They simply need to be in the West division and Auburn needs to be in the East. By moving Missouri and Vanderbilt to the West and Alabama and Auburn to the East we can solve virtually every scheduling issue we have presently and only be left with 1 (Vanderbilt and Tennessee) which is not Tennessee's preferred rivalry anyway. Then Missouri's permanent cross divisional rivalry could be with Kentucky for hoops more than football. Missouri would then have Vanderbilt, Arkansas, Ole Miss, and Kentucky on their schedule. A&M and L.S.U. would simply supply the names they need and that is without having further additions. If Oklahoma and Kansas are added it ought to be Mizzou heaven. Then Mississippi State can move to the East. Starkville is almost on the Alabama line anyway and 1 and half hours from Tuscaloosa. Ole Miss and L.S.U. need to stay together.

So the idea that Missouri has anymore rivals in the Big 10 than they do in the SEC is only valid in as much as you cite Nebraska. Arkansas is certainly a reasonable substitute until further additions are made.

-i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

Are we calculating mileage now John? There is not a dimes worth difference in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas. For that matter I now live in Mississippi and it reminds me of all my homes in Missouri. I live 50 miles from Alabama and have relatives there. Yep, looks and feels like Missouri too. Georgia? Yep. Them too... You need to spend a little time in these places before making these ridiculous assumptions. Apparently you haven't been talking to the Arky folks I have been talking to on the other SEC boards. They are crazy excited about the new rivalry.

it has nothing to do with milage but basic geography. MO and those KY/TN borders are not the same as regular border rivalries.

border rivalries are great because the fanbase are so close and have overlap. is that really the case with MO and those two sec programs when they share less than 5% of their border with each state?

It has everything to do with culture, and the Mississippi River doesn't impede that. Missouri and Arkansas have not played each other for a lot of reasons, but once they do, it will be on. My statement on cultural similarities stands. Go to any of these states as a Missourian, shut your eyes, and turn around three times. When you open your eyes and start talking to the folks, there is no difference. You will think you are somewhere close to home...

cultural similarities doesn't apply here IMO. syracuse and ann arbor "look the same" but you don't see me pimping a cuse-michigan rivalry.

id say your statement to be a lil offensive because I don't think that anyone from any state "looks different" from another.

(05-28-2014 11:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:28 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-27-2014 06:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  -i am not saying the b10 has any rivalries with mizz. all i was saying was that missouri has historically looked more towards midwest/texas teams than SEC teams hence the reason they have played a number of b10 teams more than any SEC team. now illinois is the lone exception (other than the very obvious UNL). for the record I don't consider that a rivalry but i have frequently seen mizz fans refer to it as one.

-while MO is a border state of TN & KY it is by mere technicality. it is not like arkansas or south carolina-georgia that share a long border but rather the tips of each state just touching. you don't see the sort of fanbase demographics here as compared to other border rivalries.

-arkansas is a nice match for them. but the two have no history whatsoever and end of the year game be damned ==> arky fans will care more for aggie/lsu most of the time.

Are we calculating mileage now John? There is not a dimes worth difference in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas. For that matter I now live in Mississippi and it reminds me of all my homes in Missouri. I live 50 miles from Alabama and have relatives there. Yep, looks and feels like Missouri too. Georgia? Yep. Them too... You need to spend a little time in these places before making these ridiculous assumptions. Apparently you haven't been talking to the Arky folks I have been talking to on the other SEC boards. They are crazy excited about the new rivalry.

it has nothing to do with milage but basic geography. MO and those KY/TN borders are not the same as regular border rivalries.

border rivalries are great because the fanbase are so close and have overlap. is that really the case with MO and those two sec programs when they share less than 5% of their border with each state?

It has everything to do with culture, and the Mississippi River doesn't impede that. Missouri and Arkansas have not played each other for a lot of reasons, but once they do, it will be on. My statement on cultural similarities stands. Go to any of these states as a Missourian, shut your eyes, and turn around three times. When you open your eyes and start talking to the folks, there is no difference. You will think you are somewhere close to home...

cultural similarities doesn't apply here IMO. syracuse and ann arbor "look the same" but you don't see me pimping a cuse-michigan rivalry.

id say your statement to be a lil offensive because I don't think that anyone from any state "looks different" from another.

Now you are just being silly John. Everyone here knows what I am talking about when I compared our SEC states. My comment was " Looks and feels like Missouri". I was referring to the way folks act, think, and yes, the geography. If you cannot grasp that comment of mine, just ask others for assistance. As for you earlier comments regarding Missouri looking historically at the Texas schools...um, No. That all started in 1992 with the Big XII, and you can verify that with 10th Mountain if you care to ... As far as Illinois as Mizzou's biggest rival, that series ceased to exist before we even joined the SEC.

(05-28-2014 11:32 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:24 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:18 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 11:04 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(05-28-2014 12:28 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  Are we calculating mileage now John? There is not a dimes worth difference in Missouri, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Arkansas. For that matter I now live in Mississippi and it reminds me of all my homes in Missouri. I live 50 miles from Alabama and have relatives there. Yep, looks and feels like Missouri too. Georgia? Yep. Them too... You need to spend a little time in these places before making these ridiculous assumptions. Apparently you haven't been talking to the Arky folks I have been talking to on the other SEC boards. They are crazy excited about the new rivalry.

it has nothing to do with milage but basic geography. MO and those KY/TN borders are not the same as regular border rivalries.

border rivalries are great because the fanbase are so close and have overlap. is that really the case with MO and those two sec programs when they share less than 5% of their border with each state?

It has everything to do with culture, and the Mississippi River doesn't impede that. Missouri and Arkansas have not played each other for a lot of reasons, but once they do, it will be on. My statement on cultural similarities stands. Go to any of these states as a Missourian, shut your eyes, and turn around three times. When you open your eyes and start talking to the folks, there is no difference. You will think you are somewhere close to home...

cultural similarities doesn't apply here IMO. syracuse and ann arbor "look the same" but you don't see me pimping a cuse-michigan rivalry.

id say your statement to be a lil offensive because I don't think that anyone from any state "looks different" from another.

Now you are just being silly John. Everyone here knows what I am talking about when I compared our SEC states. My comment was " Looks and feels like Missouri". I was referring to the way folks act, think, and yes, the geography. If you cannot grasp that comment of mine, just ask others for assistance. As for you earlier comments regarding Missouri looking historically at the Texas schools...um, No. That all started in 1992 with the Big XII, and you can verify that with 10th Mountain if you care to ... As far as Illinois as Mizzou's biggest rival, that series ceased to exist before we even joined the SEC.

it's not a matter of not grasping your geography comment but that comment not mattering. using your logic upstate new york is not that different from california because as far as I can tell because the folks there act & talk the same. at the same time i am not even sure if i should believe you because I have seen others on this own forum say that mizz isn't as culturally aligned with SEC schools as you are trying to make them out to be. now history is history. doesn't matter if it was 1914-1920 or 1996 to 2011 ==> it's there. and TBH you are wrong on that comment as even before 1996 mizz had racked up more games with smu/texas than they have today with any sec team today.

granted Mizz prior to 96 looked closer to the midwest teams to than texas teams. at the same time they still looked closer to texas teams than sec teams.