Part II: Why the Big 12 Needs to do Everything It Can to Keep Missouri - Bring On The Cats
Here's where you can find Part I.
about 2 years ago
Seth C
17 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
It is a shame
That this author feels negativity towards Texas Tech. Otherwise, he does make some good points, but seems to be a bit skittzo about the whole thing. There is little we fans can do as the conference jugerheads will deal with all possiblities.
TTpilk
He does show a decided slant against Tech, as do the posts from Mizzou fans I’ve read (not to mention their synaptically-challenged governor). Gosh, I hope I can sleep tonight. Maybe it’s just a Big 8/B12 North mindset. I admit to a SWC/B12 South mindset and wouldn’t care much if the whole north division (except NU) fell off the face of the earth.
I can see where there could be some financial consequences if Mizzou jumps ship, but I sense a bit of Chicken Little here as well. From what I’ve read, the Big Eleven schools are dithering over the subject (and have rejected the expansion notion several times in the past) so it could be much ado about nothing. Much like the BCS/bowl situation, it is a little sickening to see everyone groveling at the feet of the almighty dollar to the exclusion of all other considerations.
I too recognize the slant against Tech, can't blame them.
I guess it’s not to be unexpected, Mike leach has certainly put some schalakings on K-State in recent years…
2009 66-14 Red Raider victory
2008 58-21 Red Raider victory
2007 did not play
2006 did not play
2005 59-20 Red Raider victory
2004 35-25 Red Raider victory
I too would be bitter I f i played Tech evey year…
Nothing in that post...
…was intended to be negative toward Texas Tech. The only mention of Tech at all was in the part discussing Dan Beebe’s comments. When I dismissed Missouri’s “rivalry” with Texas Tech, it wasn’t because I hate Tech. It was because a “rivalry” with Texas Tech would not be a reason for Missouri to stay in this conference.
Flip the situation for a minute. Imagine Tech had an offer to join the SEC. They’d get a lot more money from the conference each year than they do currently. Would any of you say, “No, we can’t go to the SEC, because we just couldn’t bear to lose our rivalry with Missouri.” Of course not. That’s all I meant. It doesn’t have anything to do with the North vs. the South, and it’s not about on-field shellackings K-State’s taken from Tech. It’s about looking at the situation objectively and assessing it. My objective assessment is that playing Texas Tech twice every four years would not be a reason for Missouri to stay in this conference.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
yeah, i don’t see the bias either.
good writeup, though I don’t think that it’s probable that IF the big XII loses Missouri that the big XII folds. More likely, we try to poach another school looking to move up (outside of the state of Texas). With luck it’d be a school with a tv market.
Boise is not a market team. Their appeal is in their gimmick. I’m not a fan.
Utah would be a more likely candidate, having the largest metro, so far as I can tell, of those teams available to the Big XII. The question is if we would be able to lure them away from the mountain west, who is quickly gaining momentum to becoming an official BCS conference, and convince them to move conference leaving behind their in-state rival.
I think the only way we pick up a bigger market would be by convincing an established school currently in the big ten, Arizona or Arizona State from the pac-10, or LSU from the SEC to join our band of misfits. And as discussed at length, the current TV and profit sharing deal for the big 12 makes that highly unlikely.
understood
I understand the concept of the all mighty dollar. I was just adding my own not so passive aggressive personal slight. While I think the loss of Missouri would be worth noting it is not worth losing sleep over. The Big XII is one of the premier conferences in the nation. I find it hard to believe the conference would unravel with a depature of one team. There are many strong programs that would jump at the chance to join a conference that gets so much exposure as the Big XII. Maybe said replacement wouldn’t have the market share, but a competitive program would only add to the strength of the conference.
Maybe we are looking short term here… While I am ignorant to what each conference generates from a dollar standpoint, It is apparent that the Big XII is increasing in competitive nature. A reference to bullying of Texas and OU is becomeing less apparent. Programs such as Tech, Ok St, Baylor, Kansas that have historically been bottom feeders in respective conferences have increased their level of competitive play and for that reason the conference has become stronger. The dollar will follow assuming the competitive nature continues.
TCU, Houston, Arkansas, Boise St, Utah, BYU any of these teams could do well in the Big XII.
Replacement for Mizzou
Mizzou may go to hell or whichever conference they may choose, the world would not fall apart, earth will not shatter and Big XII would only gain if we can find a team that will be equal or better replacement for Mizzou. TCU could be a last choice but how about Utah or Boise State?
You're from Texas, right?
Look, I realize for most Texans, it’s hard to imagine that any other state is important, but Missouri is important to the Big 12. It’s the second-largest state in the conference, and it has two of the top five TV markets. Whether you want to believe it or not, that’s a big loss.
I don’t necessarily think the Big 12 would fold if Mizzou left, and I never said that. My point was that the Big 12 is inevitably weaker without Missouri than it is with them. Look at the TV markets of those schools you suggest. Utah brings Salt Lake City, which is on par with KC, but not all that close to St. Louis. Plus, it’s pretty far out there geographically. Boise is even farther away, and the Boise TV market isn’t even on the same level as SLC.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Dec 21, 2009 9:17 PM CST up reply actions
You may have a better idea of the Mid West market than I do, and correct me if I am wrong, but does Mizzou really bring in that much? I mean it shares Kansas City with KU and K-State fans and if the Big X fan boards are to be believed St.Louis has a pretty big Illinois fan base, to the point that Big X fans do not see the point in bringing Mizzou into the Big X. If that is true Mizzou doesn’t bring in revenues from at least 2/3rds of the Kan.City market and about half of the St.Louis market is lost to the fighting Ilinii. So, doesn’t that make the argument about Big XII losing huge revenue loss due to Missouri leaving a bit of an exaggeration?
Yeah, they do bring in that much
There are six million people in Missouri, which is 1 million more than the next largest state, which is Colorado. What’s more, there’s only one major university in Missouri, which is astounding when you consider that Kansas and Oklahoma divide much smaller populations.
While there are a lot of Illinois alums in St. Louis, it’s still primarily a Mizzou town. KC is less of a loss, because we’d still carry the market with KU and K-State, but make no mistake, the loss of Missouri would hurt TV ratings in KC. I actually live in a suburb of KC on the Missouri side, and there is plenty of black and gold over here.
Tech fans have a reason to be pissed off at Missouri right now. The comment by Governor Nixon was absolutely unnecessary. And Missouri has been a historic underachiever in almost all athletic endeavors. But in the current college sports climate, TV sets and money can outweigh the fact that a program has been only moderately successful. The Big 12 could probably go on without Missouri, but it would be weaker, and if there’s a way to keep the Tigers, it’s worth it. That’s all I’m saying.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Dec 21, 2009 9:47 PM CST up reply actions
So, the question is does population of a state benefit the state team that much, even if its a perennial underperformer? though this may be partly correct, it may not be entirely true. Because if that was the case Missouri would attract more tv revenuew and enjoy more media time than schools from less populated state like Oklahoma or Nebraska, because both of these states have less population than Missouri, but clearly that is not the case. I would find it hard to believe that Missouri will be a bigger draw than NU or OU for the TV channels.
To really analyze MU’s influence money-wise, you’d have to have a market survey to determine who is actually tuning in to watch what, not just take a head count of potential viewers in the state. And you’d really have to go beyond that into the realm of ‘what would you watch if X was being offered’. As much money as there is on the line, you can bet the Big Ten-Eleven guys are doing some serious bean counting in this area regarding any potential 12th team.
Take Houston for example. There’s upwards of 5-6 million people in the greater Houston-Golden Triangle region alone. Are they all UH fans? Hell, they can’t even fill a 30,000 seat stadium. That tells me most folks are watching somebody else’s games. That just adds validity to what jef was saying above – not all of MO TV sets are automatically tuned to Mizzou. Does Mizzou sell out an 80,000 seat stadium like NU does?
OTOH, Utah for example is a smaller potential market but they may be getting 90% of viewers in their area. They don’t have the pro teams or the nearby big-name colleges to compete with that Mizzou does.
You may be completely right, but broad assumptions don’t make a very compelling case. OTOH, a detailed analysis would probably make my eyes glaze over. :-)
I agree with that...
…but I disagree that the pro market influence is stronger in Missouri than it is in Utah. The only pro sports team in Missouri that anyone cares about is the Cardinals. The Royals games are on in the KC metro area and that’s it, the rest of the state gets STL. The NFL teams in Missouri are a combined 4-24 this year, and the Chiefs just had their first blackout in more than a decade this week. Utah has the Jazz and BYU to divide its much smaller market with (SLC equals KC, and Utah has less than half the population of Missouri).
With respect to Missouri and selling out its stadium, its official capacity is 68,000, although they’ve had crowds as large as 75,000 (lots of SRO on the grass/rock area). They averaged more than 64,000 per game this year. Given that Columbia is a town of about 100,000 and the two biggest centers of population for Mizzou alums (KC and STL) are two hours away, that’s pretty good. Nebraska sells out an 85,000 seat stadium in large part because there is literally nothing else to do in Nebraska on a fall Saturday, and because Lincoln is a town of 250,000, while Omaha (450,000) is only 40 miles away.
Now, as you said, this is nothing but broad conjecture, and you’re right that a detailed study would be required to determine how much of an impact. However, this is the best information we have to go on, and given what we know, the Utah/SLC market would be at best a wash with Missouri. When you throw in the fact that Missouri is much better geographically than Utah, the scales really should tilt in Mizzou’s favor.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Dec 22, 2009 7:55 AM CST up reply actions
Governor Nixon's comments aside...
…I’m really surprised by some of y’alls’ animosity toward Missouri on this issue. Tech is one of the teams that would stand to benefit from equal revenue sharing in this conference. If the “Mizzou to the Big 10” talk ever gets really serious or an offer seems imminent, it will be incumbent on the Big 12 to pull out the stops to keep them. That would include equal revenue sharing (good for Texas Tech) and opening new revenue streams, such as a Big 12 Network (also, good for Texas Tech).
Plus, you’d get to stick it to Texas and Texas A&M with the equal revenue sharing? Y’all would really enjoy that, wouldn’t you?
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
