Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
The Enigmatic Plan B: Is it all coming together?
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #61
RE: The Enigmatic Plan B: Is it all coming together?
(04-29-2017 10:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:37 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  OK let me chime in here. BYU in the SEC is the silliest proposition I have ever read on this board, and all the old Big East expansion/replacement options were pretty silly. Yes, there was a time Mizzou would have been happy to be a B1G member. The SEC was not even an option for them during that era. Today, as things stand, there is no way Missouri will uproot itself from the SEC. They left a messy, corrupt conference in the Big XII to join a solid, caring, and fair SEC. To buy in to the B1G and their egotistical offers of 1/2 profit conference shares for years is nonsense.

There were no Big East replacement scenarios. If FOX and ESPN divide the properties of the current Big 12 using the SWC / Big 8 division lines it is both geographically and equitably compelling. The Texas schools are really too far (except Tech and possibly T.C.U.) from the PAC, and Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa are all much closer to Colorado and the Big 10 and that doesn't even account for Oklahoma's depression connection to California. West Virginia is just a total outlier. It is equitable because ESPN would acquire the #1 & #4 brands of the Big 12 while FOX acquired the #2 and #3 brands.

Add to that the fact that UT's #1 issue is keeping their buddies in Texas with them and that historically the old SWC schools shared more games with L.S.U. and Arkansas and it makes sense.

It's the off season so B.Y.U. was kicked around since they are an ESPN property and we are likely headed toward a College Football world in which the PAC and Big 10 are FOX properties and the SEC and ACC are ESPN properties and the relationships between Network properties will not only include more cross conference games, but may in the future share cable footprints. Therefore the reason that X and ATU brought up B.Y.U. is that they would be a lone outpost for ESPN in the West and possibly excluded from the PAC / Big 10 scheduling.

AS to Missouri, it is not unfair to assume that there are still academics and alums that want them in the Big 10. Why? They have a danged hard time controlling the mouths of those who work for them who publicly pine for their Northern brethren, or who disparage the political leanings of the South. It is a conflicted school and that political divide has reared its ugly head these past two years. It's divided at the school because the entire state is conflicted and because the PC elite on your campus confuse an athletic association that is a huge blessing for that school with their own damned political leanings and yearn for an association with Chicago and/or Berkeley.

The SEC has 13 schools inside it that love their associations with one another and state so publicly, and there alums show it at games, and if they have a professor that feels otherwise you never hear about it because those profs know the commitment of their school historically and financially so they don't act like jerks in public.

Nobody in the SEC is clamoring for Mizzou's departure, but most of the alums and folks I talk to from other SEC schools are just as perplexed as I am over the division within your ranks that still gets airtime and gives the impression that too many on your campus still want to be elsewhere. Our response is a simple one. If you want to be part of us then be part of us wholeheartedly and without reservation and we'll love you as an equal. But if you can't make up your mind or govern your unofficial statements by faculty, and sanction or release the recalcitrant faction on your campus which constitutes a constant source of embarrassment for not only the school but for us, then leave.

I haven't talked about this because I know where your heart is in this matter and I respect you. But no other SEC school expresses this from within faculty and staff like Missouri. We have some fans of other SEC schools who are old and opine for lost rivalries like Arkansas fans do with Texas, but that's about it. However, I can't ignore the widespread feeling among other conference member's alums that Missouri will never fit in until they get their house in order, and that house is in the news far too often for our liking. You will never be voted out because that is not our way, but your administration has tried our patience because of their inability to manage this for these past two years running and they are the ones who are wearing out the welcome that would remain yours as family if it was publicly reciprocated. Missouri's inability to present a unified front is disenchanting to those who were happy to receive you, and disgusting to those who were not enthralled with your entrance but who were willing to give it a shot.

Your travel fans are great, your sports teams, although down these past two years, remain competitive, but your administration's ability to govern its the plethora of internally expressed opinions leaves us all shaking our heads and when there are still blogs or news articles where those on your campus express desires to be elsewhere, or give interviews to that effect, I hope you can understand the destructive quality of having a member where that happens.

I have squelched open talk about that on this board, out of respect for you, and because in house I consider such to be inappropriate. But the reality is that the vast majority of the SEC folks are not liking the fit and almost all of the reasoning behind that sentiment can be laid at the feet of your administration's inability to constrain in a productive way their opposing factions on campus. While your president and A.D. have expressed constant support of the decision to move to the SEC, there remains those on your campus who have not. That needs to stop. I can't imagine a business anywhere that allows individuals in their employ to keep their paychecks while undermining the direction chosen by its leadership! And of course they are free to express their political views, but conference affiliation for athletics doesn't fall under that realm.
The sword cuts both ways Jr. For five years I, along with a multitude of Missourians, have read posts and reports regarding our geography, cultural fit, competitiveness , and a plethora of reasons why we do not fit in the SEC. Every time the subject of realignment comes up, someone is willing to throw us to the wolves. It gets really frustrating. Many at the university were wary of being accepted by the SEC. Most SEC folks have, however, some within the SEC have not. Sure, some academia will never be happy. Liberal B1G factions exist at Columbia. They exposed themselves publicly when the whole racial issue blew up. Time will remove them. Apparently the majority were in favor of the SEC, or we would still be in the Big XII. At the same time Missouri has apparently become an SEC problem child, with Missouri having "conflicts", Kansas and BYU are being discussed as SEC possibilities. Having a really tough time swallowing that one. Everything takes time to gel. If it doesn't, I guess Texas will take our place. I promise the SEC will regret that. I guess time will tell. Thanks for your honesty Jr.

For the record I was for Missouri's entrance. I just know the non reactionary folks were growing uncomfortable with the continual negativity centered around those factions you mentioned. It's truly mor of a PR problem than a real one. But the longer you let a perception grab the headlines over the facts the more of a reality of its own that perception takes on.

It does take time to gel. The first year was a great start and the second wasn't bad. But from then on it has been an intentionally generated steady stream of negativity. That's one issue. But then the constant backdrop of people claiming to represent Mizzou, or actually who are employed there expressing time and again regrets over their affiliation just doesn't set well. And, I don't think anyone should expect it to do so.

I believe they are in the minority of the Missouri family, but they have, and still do make themselves very vocal. That's why the administration has to clamp it down. But I don't suppose the left leaning media up there wants to let that go.

Still this is the SEC and you aren't going anywhere unless you want to. We don't ask folks to leave, never have, never will.

And I still have the utmost respect for you Medic. It's just sometimes its better to discuss uncomfortable issues than to ignore them.
04-29-2017 10:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #62
RE: The Enigmatic Plan B: Is it all coming together?
(04-29-2017 10:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:37 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  OK let me chime in here. BYU in the SEC is the silliest proposition I have ever read on this board, and all the old Big East expansion/replacement options were pretty silly. Yes, there was a time Mizzou would have been happy to be a B1G member. The SEC was not even an option for them during that era. Today, as things stand, there is no way Missouri will uproot itself from the SEC. They left a messy, corrupt conference in the Big XII to join a solid, caring, and fair SEC. To buy in to the B1G and their egotistical offers of 1/2 profit conference shares for years is nonsense.

There were no Big East replacement scenarios. If FOX and ESPN divide the properties of the current Big 12 using the SWC / Big 8 division lines it is both geographically and equitably compelling. The Texas schools are really too far (except Tech and possibly T.C.U.) from the PAC, and Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa are all much closer to Colorado and the Big 10 and that doesn't even account for Oklahoma's depression connection to California. West Virginia is just a total outlier. It is equitable because ESPN would acquire the #1 & #4 brands of the Big 12 while FOX acquired the #2 and #3 brands.

Add to that the fact that UT's #1 issue is keeping their buddies in Texas with them and that historically the old SWC schools shared more games with L.S.U. and Arkansas and it makes sense.

It's the off season so B.Y.U. was kicked around since they are an ESPN property and we are likely headed toward a College Football world in which the PAC and Big 10 are FOX properties and the SEC and ACC are ESPN properties and the relationships between Network properties will not only include more cross conference games, but may in the future share cable footprints. Therefore the reason that X and ATU brought up B.Y.U. is that they would be a lone outpost for ESPN in the West and possibly excluded from the PAC / Big 10 scheduling.

AS to Missouri, it is not unfair to assume that there are still academics and alums that want them in the Big 10. Why? They have a danged hard time controlling the mouths of those who work for them who publicly pine for their Northern brethren, or who disparage the political leanings of the South. It is a conflicted school and that political divide has reared its ugly head these past two years. It's divided at the school because the entire state is conflicted and because the PC elite on your campus confuse an athletic association that is a huge blessing for that school with their own damned political leanings and yearn for an association with Chicago and/or Berkeley.

The SEC has 13 schools inside it that love their associations with one another and state so publicly, and there alums show it at games, and if they have a professor that feels otherwise you never hear about it because those profs know the commitment of their school historically and financially so they don't act like jerks in public.

Nobody in the SEC is clamoring for Mizzou's departure, but most of the alums and folks I talk to from other SEC schools are just as perplexed as I am over the division within your ranks that still gets airtime and gives the impression that too many on your campus still want to be elsewhere. Our response is a simple one. If you want to be part of us then be part of us wholeheartedly and without reservation and we'll love you as an equal. But if you can't make up your mind or govern your unofficial statements by faculty, and sanction or release the recalcitrant faction on your campus which constitutes a constant source of embarrassment for not only the school but for us, then leave.

I haven't talked about this because I know where your heart is in this matter and I respect you. But no other SEC school expresses this from within faculty and staff like Missouri. We have some fans of other SEC schools who are old and opine for lost rivalries like Arkansas fans do with Texas, but that's about it. However, I can't ignore the widespread feeling among other conference member's alums that Missouri will never fit in until they get their house in order, and that house is in the news far too often for our liking. You will never be voted out because that is not our way, but your administration has tried our patience because of their inability to manage this for these past two years running and they are the ones who are wearing out the welcome that would remain yours as family if it was publicly reciprocated. Missouri's inability to present a unified front is disenchanting to those who were happy to receive you, and disgusting to those who were not enthralled with your entrance but who were willing to give it a shot.

Your travel fans are great, your sports teams, although down these past two years, remain competitive, but your administration's ability to govern its the plethora of internally expressed opinions leaves us all shaking our heads and when there are still blogs or news articles where those on your campus express desires to be elsewhere, or give interviews to that effect, I hope you can understand the destructive quality of having a member where that happens.

I have squelched open talk about that on this board, out of respect for you, and because in house I consider such to be inappropriate. But the reality is that the vast majority of the SEC folks are not liking the fit and almost all of the reasoning behind that sentiment can be laid at the feet of your administration's inability to constrain in a productive way their opposing factions on campus. While your president and A.D. have expressed constant support of the decision to move to the SEC, there remains those on your campus who have not. That needs to stop. I can't imagine a business anywhere that allows individuals in their employ to keep their paychecks while undermining the direction chosen by its leadership! And of course they are free to express their political views, but conference affiliation for athletics doesn't fall under that realm.
The sword cuts both ways Jr. For five years I, along with a multitude of Missourians, have read posts and reports regarding our geography, cultural fit, competitiveness , and a plethora of reasons why we do not fit in the SEC. Every time the subject of realignment comes up, someone is willing to throw us to the wolves. It gets really frustrating. Many at the university were wary of being accepted by the SEC. Most SEC folks have, however, some within the SEC have not. Sure, some academia will never be happy. Liberal B1G factions exist at Columbia. They exposed themselves publicly when the whole racial issue blew up. Time will remove them. Apparently the majority were in favor of the SEC, or we would still be in the Big XII. At the same time Missouri has apparently become an SEC problem child, with Missouri having "conflicts", Kansas and BYU are being discussed as SEC possibilities. Having a really tough time swallowing that one. Everything takes time to gel. If it doesn't, I guess Texas will take our place. I promise the SEC will regret that. I guess time will tell. Thanks for your honesty Jr.

For the record I was for Missouri's entrance. I just know the non reactionary folks were growing uncomfortable with the continual negativity centered around those factions you mentioned. It's truly mor of a PR problem than a real one. But the longer you let a perception grab the headlines over the facts the more of a reality of its own that perception takes on.

It does take time to gel. The first year was a great start and the second wasn't bad. But from then on it has been an intentionally generated steady stream of negativity. That's one issue. But then the constant backdrop of people claiming to represent Mizzou, or actually who are employed there expressing time and again regrets over their affiliation just doesn't set well. And, I don't think anyone should expect it to do so.

I believe they are in the minority of the Missouri family, but they have, and still do make themselves very vocal. That's why the administration has to clamp it down. But I don't suppose the left leaning media up there wants to let that go.

Still this is the SEC and you aren't going anywhere unless you want to. We don't ask folks to leave, never have, never will.

And I still have the utmost respect for you Medic. It's just sometimes its better to discuss uncomfortable issues than to ignore them.
Our Missouri "B1G mouthed" liberals are representative of the noisy liberals who are making all the noise in our nation these days. When the racial problems came to light the liberals used it as a reason to bash anything or anyone conservative which is a direct shot at the South. Maybe the liberal alums and academia in the other SEC schools are quiet presently, but sooner or later they will spill their political views publicly. Missouri just beat them to the punch. We did vote red in November by a 14% landslide, so there's that... lol
(This post was last modified: 04-29-2017 10:35 PM by USAFMEDIC.)
04-29-2017 10:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #63
RE: The Enigmatic Plan B: Is it all coming together?
(04-29-2017 10:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:37 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  OK let me chime in here. BYU in the SEC is the silliest proposition I have ever read on this board, and all the old Big East expansion/replacement options were pretty silly. Yes, there was a time Mizzou would have been happy to be a B1G member. The SEC was not even an option for them during that era. Today, as things stand, there is no way Missouri will uproot itself from the SEC. They left a messy, corrupt conference in the Big XII to join a solid, caring, and fair SEC. To buy in to the B1G and their egotistical offers of 1/2 profit conference shares for years is nonsense.

There were no Big East replacement scenarios. If FOX and ESPN divide the properties of the current Big 12 using the SWC / Big 8 division lines it is both geographically and equitably compelling. The Texas schools are really too far (except Tech and possibly T.C.U.) from the PAC, and Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa are all much closer to Colorado and the Big 10 and that doesn't even account for Oklahoma's depression connection to California. West Virginia is just a total outlier. It is equitable because ESPN would acquire the #1 & #4 brands of the Big 12 while FOX acquired the #2 and #3 brands.

Add to that the fact that UT's #1 issue is keeping their buddies in Texas with them and that historically the old SWC schools shared more games with L.S.U. and Arkansas and it makes sense.

It's the off season so B.Y.U. was kicked around since they are an ESPN property and we are likely headed toward a College Football world in which the PAC and Big 10 are FOX properties and the SEC and ACC are ESPN properties and the relationships between Network properties will not only include more cross conference games, but may in the future share cable footprints. Therefore the reason that X and ATU brought up B.Y.U. is that they would be a lone outpost for ESPN in the West and possibly excluded from the PAC / Big 10 scheduling.

AS to Missouri, it is not unfair to assume that there are still academics and alums that want them in the Big 10. Why? They have a danged hard time controlling the mouths of those who work for them who publicly pine for their Northern brethren, or who disparage the political leanings of the South. It is a conflicted school and that political divide has reared its ugly head these past two years. It's divided at the school because the entire state is conflicted and because the PC elite on your campus confuse an athletic association that is a huge blessing for that school with their own damned political leanings and yearn for an association with Chicago and/or Berkeley.

The SEC has 13 schools inside it that love their associations with one another and state so publicly, and there alums show it at games, and if they have a professor that feels otherwise you never hear about it because those profs know the commitment of their school historically and financially so they don't act like jerks in public.

Nobody in the SEC is clamoring for Mizzou's departure, but most of the alums and folks I talk to from other SEC schools are just as perplexed as I am over the division within your ranks that still gets airtime and gives the impression that too many on your campus still want to be elsewhere. Our response is a simple one. If you want to be part of us then be part of us wholeheartedly and without reservation and we'll love you as an equal. But if you can't make up your mind or govern your unofficial statements by faculty, and sanction or release the recalcitrant faction on your campus which constitutes a constant source of embarrassment for not only the school but for us, then leave.

I haven't talked about this because I know where your heart is in this matter and I respect you. But no other SEC school expresses this from within faculty and staff like Missouri. We have some fans of other SEC schools who are old and opine for lost rivalries like Arkansas fans do with Texas, but that's about it. However, I can't ignore the widespread feeling among other conference member's alums that Missouri will never fit in until they get their house in order, and that house is in the news far too often for our liking. You will never be voted out because that is not our way, but your administration has tried our patience because of their inability to manage this for these past two years running and they are the ones who are wearing out the welcome that would remain yours as family if it was publicly reciprocated. Missouri's inability to present a unified front is disenchanting to those who were happy to receive you, and disgusting to those who were not enthralled with your entrance but who were willing to give it a shot.

Your travel fans are great, your sports teams, although down these past two years, remain competitive, but your administration's ability to govern its the plethora of internally expressed opinions leaves us all shaking our heads and when there are still blogs or news articles where those on your campus express desires to be elsewhere, or give interviews to that effect, I hope you can understand the destructive quality of having a member where that happens.

I have squelched open talk about that on this board, out of respect for you, and because in house I consider such to be inappropriate. But the reality is that the vast majority of the SEC folks are not liking the fit and almost all of the reasoning behind that sentiment can be laid at the feet of your administration's inability to constrain in a productive way their opposing factions on campus. While your president and A.D. have expressed constant support of the decision to move to the SEC, there remains those on your campus who have not. That needs to stop. I can't imagine a business anywhere that allows individuals in their employ to keep their paychecks while undermining the direction chosen by its leadership! And of course they are free to express their political views, but conference affiliation for athletics doesn't fall under that realm.
The sword cuts both ways Jr. For five years I, along with a multitude of Missourians, have read posts and reports regarding our geography, cultural fit, competitiveness , and a plethora of reasons why we do not fit in the SEC. Every time the subject of realignment comes up, someone is willing to throw us to the wolves. It gets really frustrating. Many at the university were wary of being accepted by the SEC. Most SEC folks have, however, some within the SEC have not. Sure, some academia will never be happy. Liberal B1G factions exist at Columbia. They exposed themselves publicly when the whole racial issue blew up. Time will remove them. Apparently the majority were in favor of the SEC, or we would still be in the Big XII. At the same time Missouri has apparently become an SEC problem child, with Missouri having "conflicts", Kansas and BYU are being discussed as SEC possibilities. Having a really tough time swallowing that one. Everything takes time to gel. If it doesn't, I guess Texas will take our place. I promise the SEC will regret that. I guess time will tell. Thanks for your honesty Jr.

For the record I was for Missouri's entrance. I just know the non reactionary folks were growing uncomfortable with the continual negativity centered around those factions you mentioned. It's truly mor of a PR problem than a real one. But the longer you let a perception grab the headlines over the facts the more of a reality of its own that perception takes on.

It does take time to gel. The first year was a great start and the second wasn't bad. But from then on it has been an intentionally generated steady stream of negativity. That's one issue. But then the constant backdrop of people claiming to represent Mizzou, or actually who are employed there expressing time and again regrets over their affiliation just doesn't set well. And, I don't think anyone should expect it to do so.

I believe they are in the minority of the Missouri family, but they have, and still do make themselves very vocal. That's why the administration has to clamp it down. But I don't suppose the left leaning media up there wants to let that go.

Still this is the SEC and you aren't going anywhere unless you want to. We don't ask folks to leave, never have, never will.

And I still have the utmost respect for you Medic. It's just sometimes its better to discuss uncomfortable issues than to ignore them.
Our Missouri "B1G mouthed" liberals are representative of the noisy liberals who are making all the noise in our nation these days. When the racial problems came to light the liberals used it as a reason to bash anything or anyone conservative which is a direct shot at the South. Maybe the liberal alums and academia in the other SEC schools are quiet presently, but sooner or later they will spill their political views publicly. Missouri just beat them to the punch. We did vote red in November by a 14% landslide, so there's that... lol

As to liberal professors spilling their political views publicly, it's not likely. They know who the donors are, they know that the administration gives them the grace to air their spleens in the class room, but they also know the administration would find reasons to replace them if they cost the school scholarships or donors. That's how the real world works. And until your "Big Mouths" are confronted with facts in public and made to defend their absurd claims, which the press lets go unsubstantiated, it will continue. Down here when a donor goes to the administration with a beef it is almost always with a study of the facts in hand.

I once had to stop a high school history teacher that my daughter had from going unchallenged on not only ridiculous claims, but claims that were not remotely historically true. My favorite from the guy was that the Republicans ordered the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that every war had been started by a republican.

So Woodrow Wilson was a Republican. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Republican. John F. Kennedy followed by Lyndon Johnson were Republicans. He was right about one. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. He had even forgotten that Harry Truman was not a Republican. And he was a teacher of American History. Shame on him and shame on those who had allowed this ingrate to go unchallenged while teaching our children. And he was in a public Georgia High School and had tenure.
04-29-2017 10:58 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
USAFMEDIC Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 5,914
Joined: Jun 2010
Reputation: 189
I Root For: MIZZOU/FSU/USM
Location: Biloxi, MS
Post: #64
RE: The Enigmatic Plan B: Is it all coming together?
(04-29-2017 10:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 11:26 AM)JRsec Wrote:  There were no Big East replacement scenarios. If FOX and ESPN divide the properties of the current Big 12 using the SWC / Big 8 division lines it is both geographically and equitably compelling. The Texas schools are really too far (except Tech and possibly T.C.U.) from the PAC, and Kansas, Oklahoma and Iowa are all much closer to Colorado and the Big 10 and that doesn't even account for Oklahoma's depression connection to California. West Virginia is just a total outlier. It is equitable because ESPN would acquire the #1 & #4 brands of the Big 12 while FOX acquired the #2 and #3 brands.

Add to that the fact that UT's #1 issue is keeping their buddies in Texas with them and that historically the old SWC schools shared more games with L.S.U. and Arkansas and it makes sense.

It's the off season so B.Y.U. was kicked around since they are an ESPN property and we are likely headed toward a College Football world in which the PAC and Big 10 are FOX properties and the SEC and ACC are ESPN properties and the relationships between Network properties will not only include more cross conference games, but may in the future share cable footprints. Therefore the reason that X and ATU brought up B.Y.U. is that they would be a lone outpost for ESPN in the West and possibly excluded from the PAC / Big 10 scheduling.

AS to Missouri, it is not unfair to assume that there are still academics and alums that want them in the Big 10. Why? They have a danged hard time controlling the mouths of those who work for them who publicly pine for their Northern brethren, or who disparage the political leanings of the South. It is a conflicted school and that political divide has reared its ugly head these past two years. It's divided at the school because the entire state is conflicted and because the PC elite on your campus confuse an athletic association that is a huge blessing for that school with their own damned political leanings and yearn for an association with Chicago and/or Berkeley.

The SEC has 13 schools inside it that love their associations with one another and state so publicly, and there alums show it at games, and if they have a professor that feels otherwise you never hear about it because those profs know the commitment of their school historically and financially so they don't act like jerks in public.

Nobody in the SEC is clamoring for Mizzou's departure, but most of the alums and folks I talk to from other SEC schools are just as perplexed as I am over the division within your ranks that still gets airtime and gives the impression that too many on your campus still want to be elsewhere. Our response is a simple one. If you want to be part of us then be part of us wholeheartedly and without reservation and we'll love you as an equal. But if you can't make up your mind or govern your unofficial statements by faculty, and sanction or release the recalcitrant faction on your campus which constitutes a constant source of embarrassment for not only the school but for us, then leave.

I haven't talked about this because I know where your heart is in this matter and I respect you. But no other SEC school expresses this from within faculty and staff like Missouri. We have some fans of other SEC schools who are old and opine for lost rivalries like Arkansas fans do with Texas, but that's about it. However, I can't ignore the widespread feeling among other conference member's alums that Missouri will never fit in until they get their house in order, and that house is in the news far too often for our liking. You will never be voted out because that is not our way, but your administration has tried our patience because of their inability to manage this for these past two years running and they are the ones who are wearing out the welcome that would remain yours as family if it was publicly reciprocated. Missouri's inability to present a unified front is disenchanting to those who were happy to receive you, and disgusting to those who were not enthralled with your entrance but who were willing to give it a shot.

Your travel fans are great, your sports teams, although down these past two years, remain competitive, but your administration's ability to govern its the plethora of internally expressed opinions leaves us all shaking our heads and when there are still blogs or news articles where those on your campus express desires to be elsewhere, or give interviews to that effect, I hope you can understand the destructive quality of having a member where that happens.

I have squelched open talk about that on this board, out of respect for you, and because in house I consider such to be inappropriate. But the reality is that the vast majority of the SEC folks are not liking the fit and almost all of the reasoning behind that sentiment can be laid at the feet of your administration's inability to constrain in a productive way their opposing factions on campus. While your president and A.D. have expressed constant support of the decision to move to the SEC, there remains those on your campus who have not. That needs to stop. I can't imagine a business anywhere that allows individuals in their employ to keep their paychecks while undermining the direction chosen by its leadership! And of course they are free to express their political views, but conference affiliation for athletics doesn't fall under that realm.
The sword cuts both ways Jr. For five years I, along with a multitude of Missourians, have read posts and reports regarding our geography, cultural fit, competitiveness , and a plethora of reasons why we do not fit in the SEC. Every time the subject of realignment comes up, someone is willing to throw us to the wolves. It gets really frustrating. Many at the university were wary of being accepted by the SEC. Most SEC folks have, however, some within the SEC have not. Sure, some academia will never be happy. Liberal B1G factions exist at Columbia. They exposed themselves publicly when the whole racial issue blew up. Time will remove them. Apparently the majority were in favor of the SEC, or we would still be in the Big XII. At the same time Missouri has apparently become an SEC problem child, with Missouri having "conflicts", Kansas and BYU are being discussed as SEC possibilities. Having a really tough time swallowing that one. Everything takes time to gel. If it doesn't, I guess Texas will take our place. I promise the SEC will regret that. I guess time will tell. Thanks for your honesty Jr.

For the record I was for Missouri's entrance. I just know the non reactionary folks were growing uncomfortable with the continual negativity centered around those factions you mentioned. It's truly mor of a PR problem than a real one. But the longer you let a perception grab the headlines over the facts the more of a reality of its own that perception takes on.

It does take time to gel. The first year was a great start and the second wasn't bad. But from then on it has been an intentionally generated steady stream of negativity. That's one issue. But then the constant backdrop of people claiming to represent Mizzou, or actually who are employed there expressing time and again regrets over their affiliation just doesn't set well. And, I don't think anyone should expect it to do so.

I believe they are in the minority of the Missouri family, but they have, and still do make themselves very vocal. That's why the administration has to clamp it down. But I don't suppose the left leaning media up there wants to let that go.

Still this is the SEC and you aren't going anywhere unless you want to. We don't ask folks to leave, never have, never will.

And I still have the utmost respect for you Medic. It's just sometimes its better to discuss uncomfortable issues than to ignore them.
Our Missouri "B1G mouthed" liberals are representative of the noisy liberals who are making all the noise in our nation these days. When the racial problems came to light the liberals used it as a reason to bash anything or anyone conservative which is a direct shot at the South. Maybe the liberal alums and academia in the other SEC schools are quiet presently, but sooner or later they will spill their political views publicly. Missouri just beat them to the punch. We did vote red in November by a 14% landslide, so there's that... lol

As to liberal professors spilling their political views publicly, it's not likely. They know who the donors are, they know that the administration gives them the grace to air their spleens in the class room, but they also know the administration would find reasons to replace them if they cost the school scholarships or donors. That's how the real world works. And until your "Big Mouths" are confronted with facts in public and made to defend their absurd claims, which the press lets go unsubstantiated, it will continue. Down here when a donor goes to the administration with a beef it is almost always with a study of the facts in hand.

I once had to stop a high school history teacher that my daughter had from going unchallenged on not only ridiculous claims, but claims that were not remotely historically true. My favorite from the guy was that the Republicans ordered the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that every war had been started by a republican.

So Woodrow Wilson was a Republican. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Republican. John F. Kennedy followed by Lyndon Johnson were Republicans. He was right about one. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. He had even forgotten that Harry Truman was not a Republican. And he was a teacher of American History. Shame on him and shame on those who had allowed this ingrate to go unchallenged while teaching our children. And he was in a public Georgia High School and had tenure.
True and sad. Our colleges and universities are being poisoned by professors and teachers. Like actors and musicians, they need to keep their beliefs and opinions at home. In many ways they are doing the same thing as radical Islamic schools are doing... getting inside the minds of our youth.
04-30-2017 12:14 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 37,892
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 7737
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #65
RE: The Enigmatic Plan B: Is it all coming together?
(04-30-2017 12:14 AM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:58 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:27 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:18 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(04-29-2017 10:02 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  The sword cuts both ways Jr. For five years I, along with a multitude of Missourians, have read posts and reports regarding our geography, cultural fit, competitiveness , and a plethora of reasons why we do not fit in the SEC. Every time the subject of realignment comes up, someone is willing to throw us to the wolves. It gets really frustrating. Many at the university were wary of being accepted by the SEC. Most SEC folks have, however, some within the SEC have not. Sure, some academia will never be happy. Liberal B1G factions exist at Columbia. They exposed themselves publicly when the whole racial issue blew up. Time will remove them. Apparently the majority were in favor of the SEC, or we would still be in the Big XII. At the same time Missouri has apparently become an SEC problem child, with Missouri having "conflicts", Kansas and BYU are being discussed as SEC possibilities. Having a really tough time swallowing that one. Everything takes time to gel. If it doesn't, I guess Texas will take our place. I promise the SEC will regret that. I guess time will tell. Thanks for your honesty Jr.

For the record I was for Missouri's entrance. I just know the non reactionary folks were growing uncomfortable with the continual negativity centered around those factions you mentioned. It's truly mor of a PR problem than a real one. But the longer you let a perception grab the headlines over the facts the more of a reality of its own that perception takes on.

It does take time to gel. The first year was a great start and the second wasn't bad. But from then on it has been an intentionally generated steady stream of negativity. That's one issue. But then the constant backdrop of people claiming to represent Mizzou, or actually who are employed there expressing time and again regrets over their affiliation just doesn't set well. And, I don't think anyone should expect it to do so.

I believe they are in the minority of the Missouri family, but they have, and still do make themselves very vocal. That's why the administration has to clamp it down. But I don't suppose the left leaning media up there wants to let that go.

Still this is the SEC and you aren't going anywhere unless you want to. We don't ask folks to leave, never have, never will.

And I still have the utmost respect for you Medic. It's just sometimes its better to discuss uncomfortable issues than to ignore them.
Our Missouri "B1G mouthed" liberals are representative of the noisy liberals who are making all the noise in our nation these days. When the racial problems came to light the liberals used it as a reason to bash anything or anyone conservative which is a direct shot at the South. Maybe the liberal alums and academia in the other SEC schools are quiet presently, but sooner or later they will spill their political views publicly. Missouri just beat them to the punch. We did vote red in November by a 14% landslide, so there's that... lol

As to liberal professors spilling their political views publicly, it's not likely. They know who the donors are, they know that the administration gives them the grace to air their spleens in the class room, but they also know the administration would find reasons to replace them if they cost the school scholarships or donors. That's how the real world works. And until your "Big Mouths" are confronted with facts in public and made to defend their absurd claims, which the press lets go unsubstantiated, it will continue. Down here when a donor goes to the administration with a beef it is almost always with a study of the facts in hand.

I once had to stop a high school history teacher that my daughter had from going unchallenged on not only ridiculous claims, but claims that were not remotely historically true. My favorite from the guy was that the Republicans ordered the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And that every war had been started by a republican.

So Woodrow Wilson was a Republican. Franklin D. Roosevelt was a Republican. John F. Kennedy followed by Lyndon Johnson were Republicans. He was right about one. Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. He had even forgotten that Harry Truman was not a Republican. And he was a teacher of American History. Shame on him and shame on those who had allowed this ingrate to go unchallenged while teaching our children. And he was in a public Georgia High School and had tenure.
True and sad. Our colleges and universities are being poisoned by professors and teachers. Like actors and musicians, they need to keep their beliefs and opinions at home. In many ways they are doing the same thing as radical Islamic schools are doing... getting inside the minds of our youth.

Brother, that is an excellent analogy! Truth for truth's sake is sacrificed by the Godless for the sake of their worldly agendas. Expediency to whatever cause is their first rule of conduct and frequently we lose because we have a moral code to follow and they don't. And if we abandon our moral code to fight them we lose, and worse we lose our reputations. But no matter how you cut it, the truth is what we must seek, it is what we must use to confront their lies and expose them and with them their agenda. Listening to that High School teacher try to defend what he had taught my daughter in front of his principal was priceless. The fact that he retained his position because his principal didn't want to mess with a tenured teacher was beyond disgusting. I just always figured they wanted parents to feel that righteous action was futile. Much of the government operates that way too.

But my daughter also had good teachers. Evil is easy to spot and gains notoriety. Goodness is everywhere but humble. It is felt and not seen and so evil paints it as powerless. And yet, it has survived persecution by all who have come against it because humility is so hard to see. So our faith must be in that which is not seen and our faith must remain in the goodness of others.
04-30-2017 12:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.