All I see from those facts is KU won the BCS Orange bowl and MU got skipped, then MU plays an easy 2013 schedule has a good season and gets skipped in the BCS bowl invites again.

Bevo didn't treat Mizzou like anything. I don't think UT even noticed Mizzou was in the conference. Sure hasn't hurt us since they left. Only more $$ now.

repeating the cycle…again and again

Mizzou did have a great season in 2013 going into the bowl games. Unfortunately, Auburn and Alabama had a little bit better one. Which is why those two got the BCS conference invites and Mizzou got left out. You can make a legitimate argument for those two deserving a BCS spot over Mizzou.

In 2007, Kansas got picked over Mizzou because your AD guaranteed ticket sales. Nothing more. NO argument can be made that Kansas was MORE deserving of a BCS bowl bid, period. That's the difference.

Mizzou got what they deserved this year, they did not in 2007. That's what sticks in the craw of Mizzou fans.

Easy. Yes. Sure. Call it that. You're lying to yourself, though.

Mizzou played an easy schedule that was the 24th toughest in college football this year.

KU played a _________ schedule that was the 74th toughest in college football in 2007.

Fill in the blank.

Kansas had one loss. They beat Virginia Tech with exciting play and impressive athletes.

Missouri just didn't provide the same entertainment value. The Orange Bowl got exactly what they wanted.

Also, if you're not playing in the national championship game, I don't see a giant difference in the next 5-7 top bowls. I just don't. If you don't win the last game played every year, what does it matter?

The BCS is some corporate creation with little meaning. Can you tell me who won the Orange Bowl the year after you did? Or the Sugar Bowl in 2010? Not without looking it up. Personally, I call a season a success if you're in the running to make the biggest game of the year. Mizzou made it to the play in game twice in the last 5 years...I don't see how that can be considered anything but a success.

I understand the only thing in the history of your football program you have to hang your hat on is a freak circumstance Orange Bowl. If you knew anything about the actual sport though you'd know that in comparison of prestige and history, there's really little separating the Sugar, Orange, Cotton, and Rose.

Everyone outside of the SEC knows its overrated. Its Alabama, LSU, Auburn and nobody else. The media driven by ESPN keeps teams in the SEC rated high so that the conference will look better. The SEC is by far the most top heavy conference in the NCAA.

Except for the Cotton picks teams just from the SEC and Big 12

Congratulations, you are officially in the Legion of 'tard with the other two.

This is just stupid too. Care for some more facts??

The Cotton Bowl pits the SEC against the Big 12 on a yearly basis.

In the last 11 years, the SEC is 10-1 against the big 12. The lone year the SEC did not win this matchup? Mizzou putting a beatdown on Arkansas in 2008.

Outside of that, how would you explain the overall bowl records of conferences the past 10 years? I won't look it up but I can guarantee you the gap b/w the SEC and second place is quite large. And just so you know, they send more than 4 teams to bowls every year.

Why does this list of teams that makes the SEC "top heavy" change every year?

Missouri is ready and willing. You're a fan and an alum (I'm assuming), so write the powers-that-be in Lawrence telling them to stop being pussies and bring the Border War showdowns back to life.

First of all, you can't use the V-Tech game in your argument since we're discussing pre bowl placement. That's moving the goalposts.

And you're right about the Orange Bowl getting what they wanted; your sleezy A.D. took care of that.

That still doesn't change the fact, though, that Mizzou was more deserving of that BCS spot. It is what it is.