Well, I don't know that Missouri is negotiating with Texas at all. Are they?

Probably because they feel we would disappear in the SEC, as opposed to the whopping 2 Big XII title games we've been to in the past 15 years (and how did each of those go?). Seriously, now that there is no Big XII title game, we have literally zero chance of ever winning a title. What are the odds that OU AND UT both have a down year, AND we don't shit the bed against a team we should have beaten at least once?

I don't see any difference between the conferences ad far as our performance. We're an average team in the Big XII and the SEC, and if anything I see Mizzou building a 50 foot wall around the State of Missouri as far as recruiting goes if we do make the move.

The only real difference between the conferences is one plays fair with all its members, one doesn't.

That's the premise of Mellinger's article. I don't have personal knowledge of the negotiations, but you'd think Mizzou would be exploring all options, including the option of improving the B12 enough to make it worth sticking around.

Sorry, but Mellenger clearly still doesn't get it.

He was on the right track until he spun right off the rails with a line straight out of the Kevin Keitzmann handbook:

Repeat after me: A 10 team XII is nothing more than a dead conference walking. Pledge media rights all you want - this conference will come apart the day after that 6 year period expires (if not before; UT and OU could pretty much deal with any penalty clause they wanted to if it came right down to it).

In the current landscape, you're growing or you're dying. There isn't stability in this conference, IMO. There won't be stability in this conference unless some serious pride is swallowed and leadership wakes the !@#$ up (I don't anticipate either).

If they scrap the entire set of by-laws and conference regulations, take the B1Gs and adopt them, add at least 3 more teams (at least one of which is BYU and only one of which is a city college) and sign long-term contracts (i.e. ten years) with completely cost-prohibitive poison pills, then maybe the conference can stay together, stablize and become a viable long-term home.

But I really don't see any of that happening. There is too much wounded pride in Norman and way too much ego in Austin.

And even if it did - I still think I'd want to jet. There's something to be said for running with the big dogs every week.

Thanks for your response.

But with all that said, do you (personally) think there's any chance that a reformed B12 is even likely?

Again, from the outside looking in, as long as the B12 exists, it's going to be X amount of teams being Texas' bitch. I don't see Texas giving a shit if Missouri leaves, they'll just invite some other suckers to take a shit deal and join the B12.

As I don't have a dog in the fight, I don't understand the loyalty to "rivalries." If one of my teams (Chiefs/Cardinals/Blues) were moved to a different division/conference, I really wouldn't give a shit.

Since you don't see any other real differences, which conference would you want to see Mizzou in if both conferences played fair with all of their members and why?

Yeah, but assuming that they are going to try to get back to 12 - MU would dominate the "North" in football giving a Big 12 title game & possible BCS bowl game nearly every year.

You won't get that in the SEC.

You are spot on about Mellinger's article and I agree if everything was equal I think MU should stay in the Big 12. But we know that is not the case and I don't believe it ever will be with Texas running the show.

Mizzou has to get out while they can! The Big 12 is doomed & who wants to bend over for Bevo all the time?

I'd say that the odds are against the B12 reforming to the extent I'd like to see. I think it's possible that it will reform far enough that Mizzou decides to stay, either out of inertia and a sense of tradition or based on hopes of eventually getting into the B1G. But I think the most likely outcome is that it doesn't reform enough to keep Mizzou and Mizzou goes to the SEC.

I think you are forgetting though that MU would have been in the 2007 NC game if it wasn't for the Big 12 title game.

Really?

I'd be bummed if the Chiefs left the Raiders and Broncos, especially if it were a lateral move.

And I'd be pissed if the Cardinals ended up in that glorified shithole of a softball league - the AL.

If all things are equal, I understand the 'rivalry' aspect of it. However, A) All things aren't equal and B) The rivalry element will never be dispositive. In college football, moving to the SEC w/ the history and tradition of the conference trumps the XII rivalries w/ Kansas and...well really only Kansas.

Stated perfectly!

90% of MU fans see it the same way. Why doesn't everyone??????

Can you please describe this shit deal and tell us how it compares to the SEC deal MU would get by moving?

SEC

I understand the negative impact the move would have on Kansas City, I don't really buy that it would impact any local rivalries. Just agree to play KU every year as part of the non conf. schedule in both football and basketball and call it a day. I'd rather have only 1 loss to KU in bball every year anyway. Plus, you could make it towards the final week of non conf play, maybe during the New Year time period, maybe even have it neutral site every now and then. That sounds more fun than getting pounded twice a year in the conference schedule to me.

I would rather see teams like LSU, Bama, Tenn, FL, etc. come to Columbia and play football. That would be fun if you ask me. Plus the money and exposure for the school and program should be better. I don't actually know that last point after all the TV contracts get renegotiated and what not, but it seems highly likely.