Missouri to SEC Press Conference: Go East, Young Men -- There's Gold in Them Hills

by cocknfire on Nov 6, 2011 7:51 PM EST in Conference Realignment

There wasn't too much new news in the official press conference re-announcing that Missouri has moved to the SEC for 2012, but here are a few tidbits for those who missed it:

Missouri will go to the SEC East. That's not really a huge surprise given the scheduling headache that the Tigers would have caused if they had been in the SEC West. The names are a little ridiculous, but you can actually draw clean line between the SEC East and the SEC West (even if it's not really a north-south line) so it's not like some of the other conferences out there (cough cough ACC cough cough Big Ten cough).
A cross-divisional rival to be named later. I didn't hear anyone directly address which team would be Missouri's rival from the SEC West, though Texas A&M has to be the front-runner for now. The other two additions to the conference were paired with each other in the 1992 expansion (Arkansas and South Carolina), which is both a pattern and a reason to keep those two teams together. If we go to a nine-game schedule (dicey) and two cross-division rivals (unlikely), Missouri might get Arkansas as its other annual foe from the SEC West.
The most telling moment of the press conference was when Mike Slive didn't know. There were several mentions of how Missouri would be a full member of the SEC from day one -- HELLO BIG 12 -- but the best veiled shot probably came when a reporter asked Mike Slive what the SEC's policy was toward a grant of rights, a television term that's gotten a lot of play in the Big 12 as that conference tries to piece itself back together on slightly more equitable footing. "I'm not sure I know what a grant of rights means," Slive responded. One of the things we can be grateful for as SEC fans is that our league has never decided to allow some teams to become wealthy by leaving others behind. There's a reason why teams are more eager to join this conference than to leave it.

In addition, it was pretty clear that the SEC and Missouri really expect this to take place for 2012. I have a hard time believing they would make a point of this if it's a losing battle. The Big 12 seems to have given up on Missouri as a member, and will instead take its chances that the courts will rule in favor of West Virginia on the exit requirements.

There are still plenty of details to be ironed out over the next few months, but the SEC finally appears to be done with the big-ticket expansion issues. Finally.

Read all of Team Speed Kills' conference realignment coverage.

Tweet Comment 20 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I'm still a proponent of switching Missouri to Arkansas

and giving Carolina the A&M game. Just feel like Mizzou has a much more natural rivalry with the Pigs than the Ags, and it’s my impression that Carolina and Arkansas would both welcome the change.

But my biggest personal concern was addressed today. This is just a minor preference that doesn’t directly affect me or my team.

Heel for school, Vol for life!

Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!

by Incipient_Senescence on Nov 6, 2011 7:59 PM EST reply actions 1 recs

When available...

Rivals should absolutely border each other

by Caban on Nov 6, 2011 8:11 PM EST up reply actions

This^^^ If we're still stuck with Arkansas,

I’ll be pretty ticked off. With expansion, Arkansas went from the #6 choice for South Carolina’s West rival to #7.

"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall

by GwinnettGamecock on Nov 6, 2011 9:26 PM EST up reply actions

ok

If you lose Arkansas, you’re just gonna get A&M. I don’t see how that’s better for you. South Carolina doesn’t touch any western division states. Florida and LSU aren’t complaining.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 6, 2011 9:44 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

It's just in the best interest of Mizzou...

and doesn’t affect South Carolina in any meaningful way, so why not?

by Caban on Nov 6, 2011 9:48 PM EST up reply actions

Some Mizzou fans do prefer A&M because they feel it's better for recruiting.

A guaranteed chance to play in Texas every other year and to have a Texas team come up on the remaining seasons. I can see good things for Missouri either way – an emotional rivalry with Arky or a logistical recruiting benefit with A&M (even if I believe that benefit is smaller than people seem to make it out to be).

by David Hooper on Nov 6, 2011 11:41 PM EST up reply actions

I think being on TV in texas all the time is probably more important

which they will be

Heel for school, Vol for life!

Bolts, Preds, Canes (childhood team, home state team, hometown team). Canes mini-STH. Southern hockey solidarity!

by Incipient_Senescence on Nov 6, 2011 11:48 PM EST up reply actions

See, that's where I'm at.

It’s nice to argue that you can play back in your home state, but honestly, that’s for a maximum of two weekends in a four-year career and you’re so busy that you really can’t enjoy friends and family while you’re there.

But again, I’m not in their shoes.

by David Hooper on Nov 6, 2011 11:50 PM EST up reply actions

I'm just wondering

why he’s down on playing Arkansas so much.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 7:52 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

Did you see the game this weekend?

I’m usually one of the biggest S.C.-Arkansas boosters there is, because I’ve grown to regard them as the third- or fourth-most hated team (behind Clemson, Georgia and maybe Florida or Tennessee), but this is getting tiresome. Arkansas has ruined almost as many seasons for S.C. as it has for LSU. (Granted, the stakes are usually higher for LSU, but still.) See: this season, 2001, and I could go on for a while if I had a bit longer to think about it.

I’m still in favor of keeping the rivalry when it gets down to it, mostly because I’m the kind of person who’s too competitive for my own good and would hate to drop a rivalry at least until we’ve shown that we’re better than Arkansas (however long that might take). But I can understand the sentiment.

Team Speed Kills. All SEC, all the time.

by cocknfire on Nov 7, 2011 10:21 AM EST up reply actions

right

I just got the feeling there were other reasons why they were his last choice.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 11:15 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

What do Florida and LSU have to do with this?

I would prefer LSU over Arkansas too.

A&M is less than two hours from Houston and Austin, so it is a better roadtrip for fans, and could also lead to recruiting benefits.

Fair or not, A&M also feels like a bigger name than Arkansas. For going on a decade, the Hogs have usually had a better team than national reputation. A&M often seems to be the exact opposite. There is more upside to beating A&M than Arkansas, and it would likely be slightly easier to defeat the Aggies under Sherman than the Hogs under Petrino.

"Lattimore, as the kids can say, can ball, and sometimes does it to the extent one might say [he] is out of control in his balling." - Spencer Hall

by GwinnettGamecock on Nov 7, 2011 12:02 AM EST up reply actions

the Florida-LSU thing

was because I misread who you were replying to. I thought you were saying “this” to having a western division rival that you border. Sorry.

As for the rest, I guess I still don’t see a big difference for SC between playing Arky and playing A&M. I suppose if you travel to that game every two years, I could see why you’d prefer the easier logistical travel, but other than a few thousand people having to find their way into Fayetteville, I don’t get what the big difference is. And its much more valuable to Mizzou in recruiting now than it would ever be for you. The only reason it probably feels like a bigger game to you is because its new and different. Arkansas is definitely a better program than A&M has been the last decade. And Sherman will probably be gone in another year and Petrino might too, so that’s not really a good argument.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 8:03 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

I don't think there's a big difference either

which is why I don’t think there would be too much complaint if that rivalry was broken up. The Gamecock fans should be the ones to speak to this, but from my perch it seems that they don’t have enough emotional investment in Arkansas, and that Arkansas is really just a rival because they have to be. Switching to A&M would be no worse than that, even if it’s no better. So if it works out better for Arkansas and Missouri to play each other, does anybody else really lose anything?

(And yes, that’s assuming Mizzou would rather have Arkansas over A&M.)

by David Hooper on Nov 7, 2011 10:59 AM EST up reply actions

I'm all for whats easiest

I just don’t see why he’d be that ticked off if Mizzou and A&M wanna keep playing each other. That’s what I’m not getting, why is Arkansas such a destestable west division rival to have for SC over A&M.

by Mark Mandingo on Nov 7, 2011 11:18 AM EST via mobile up reply actions

I prefer playing SC

Mizzou would be okay, but I like us staying with SC.

by starry on Nov 6, 2011 10:48 PM EST up reply actions

Why not

make Arky and Mizzu rivals (border clash)
make Kentucky and A&M rivals (Bear Bryant past)
and then make Miss St and So Car rivals (which just makes more sense to me than Arkansas anyways).

Perfect (pur-fec-t): the only person on earth, besides Tim Tebow, in the 21st century to be without fault is gatorhippy.

by ECFIVESTER on Nov 7, 2011 10:16 AM EST reply actions