Faurot was built in 1925, IIRC.

It's been updated a couple of times, but there's no question that the bones of the stadium are closing in on a century old at this point.

They have an 'SEC caliber' pressbox and suite setup, but the rest of it just doesn't look up to par. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for them to go to the donors and ask for some capital improvement money.

Unfortunately the Laurie door may have slammed shut with the Paige Sports Arena debacle, but perhaps the Kroenke's have some spare change in their couch cushions.

I will say this, however - when Faurot is really rocking and the stakes are high, it can stand with most stadiums in the country:

http://missourisportsblog.com/wp-con...-shot-Copy.jpg

It isn't a terrible stadium, but it could use an upgrade. That wide bowl look just seems dated; I'd like to see them go to a 2-tier stadium with steeper angles, but that's just me.

I don't think there's any reason to believe that Mizzou will always lose to OU. Mizzou is competitive now and everything could change dramatically the next time the two schools change coaches or one of them whiffs on a QB. Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska all went through several down years at one point in the not so distant past. I was at Texas during the Mackovic years in the early 90s when they were in the middle of a 15 or 20 year slump. Oklahoma wasn't any good during the 90s either. And Nebraska struggled for several years after Tom Osbourne left.

I think Mizzou can be competitive in the SEC too.

As always it will probably come down to who you lost to, when and where you lost to and if any of the other teams have 1 loss.

Just remember that year Ohio State went to the Championship game with 1-loss in conference the next to last week of the season at home against an unranked Illinois team with no Big 10 title game.

It could absolutely use an upgrade, but it's not absolutely necessary to be part of the SEC, as implied.

I guess all the stars can align, I just don't really see a clear path to the NC game in either a 9 or 10 team Big XII, or the SEC. Also that was TOSU, Mizzou got passed over for the orange bowl that year for ****ing KU. That should tell you all you need to know about where Mizzou will rank if there is another team to consider in the mix.

Not saying you're wrong, but with the UT and OU of the past decade is hard to imagine ever having another 15-20 year slump. I agree, MU will be just as competitive in the SEC. Perennial 8 maybe 9 win team, then once every 4 or 5 years a dark horse favorite with a shot to make it to an SEC title game.

Potentially stupid question because I don't follow CFB that closely, but since I've seen a few people talking about BCS bids and the like:

Assuming Mizzou goes to the SEC - wouldn't it be possible that they could be say, 9-3 and be ranked higher in the BCS rankings because they play a much tougher schedule in the SEC than if they were say 10-2 in the B12 playing the weak sisters of KSU/KU/ISU?

The chances are pretty slim that a one-loss Big 12-whatever team would rise back to No. 1 in the rankings, but it is possible.

Recipe:

The one loss must come in the first half of the season
Must be fairly highly rated at the time of the loss
The loss must be to a team/in a fashion that doesn't crush your rankings
There must be no more than one undefeated team in the country
If the undefeated team isn't from the SEC, all SEC teams must have at least two losses
Teams ahead of you after the loss will have to lose

Basically, exactly what happened in 2007. Missouri fell from 11 to 14 or so after the loss in Norman. Then Oklahoma lost once more, to give the Sooners two regular season losses. And everyone in front of Mizzou lost at least once before the end of the regular season.

LSU lost twice, and the SEC had no other team in that range.

I mean, in 2007, substitute Missouri's win vs. Texas A&M for a win versus Texas and the win against Colorado for a win against oSu. At the end of the season, Missouri would have been 11-1, having just defeated the number 2 team in the country the same week that No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 all lost (remember: West Virginia and Ohio State both choked in the closing weeks).

They would have been a shoe-in to the title game at that point. Only the loss to OU knocked 'em out.

From what I hear, Mizzou's demands are very unlikely to all be met, and it's unlikely they stay unless all demands are met.

I'm sure Neinas will make a pitch, but unless that includes neutering the LHN (No buying/selling of Big 12 games, no high school games, no high school highlights, etc) and adding some really high-quality members (BYU is that level, but Lousiville/Cincy are just awful), there's not much to sell to Mizzou at this point.

What are the implications of not having aTm or NU on our schedule? Will our SOS be high enough to get us to #1? Even if we beat OU and UT and win the "title," what if there is an undefeated PAC and and undefeated SEC team? If we beat OU and UT, it's pretty likely at least 1 of them didn't finish the season ranked. Would we even stand a chance at getting the NC game under the BCS system?

I realize that in today's CFB, your scenario where everything aligns perfectly is probably more likely than an undefeated school from 3 conferences.

Higher ranked - yes. But currently only 2 teams from each conference can go to a BCS bowl. With expansion they are looking to petition that so that, say, 3 SEC teams could go to BCS Bowls.

At that point, honestly, it would probably depend on which teams were ranked higher at the start of the season. I'd assume the SEC team gets one spot. The PAC spot would depend on who it was (and honestly, the 12-team PAC really is no better than the current Big 12-3).

Look at this season. UT and OU are both ranked (OU really highly and UT at a middle level). Oklahoma State is highly regarded. Going undefeated through that gauntlet would be more impressive than anything a PAC team could do.

Really would depend on the year, though. I don't think the additions of Utah and Colorado exactly turn the PAC into a monster.

USC is down (and will be for a while, thanks to the hits)
UCLA is even more disappointing as a program than Mizzou
Stanford is probably due for another spell of mediocrity after Luck goes No. 1 (to the Chiefs!)
Oregon is really good but also facing sanctions.

The rest of that league is not very impressive right now.

So who ya got? Big ?? or SEC and why?

The biggest problem for the Big XII is not having a conference champ. game.

All else being equal a SEC, ACC, Big X or Pac-12 team would get the nod.