I thought Texas was your 'flagship'?? Now it's Oklahoma? Does it change year to year based on who is doing the best??

I was merely using Mississippi as an example. If you prefer, I can cite K-State making Texas their bitch on an almost yearly basis?

I'm excited to see what he can do. Iowa State is pretty loaded at the skill positions. Let's see if he can get some production out of the QB and OL.

Huh? Why would Texas be the flagship? You never heard me say that.

Oklahoma rules in FB, KU in basketball, OSU in golf/wrestling, maybe Texas is our baseball?

UT hardly reps the Big 12 in football nowadays. Obviously they can return to that position perhaps one day but when Oklahoma is pounding the team that won 3 out of the 4 last NC's into submission I think it's pretty safe to say who's #1 in the Big 12.

Texas is the #1 money maker in all of college football. Isn't that a rather BIG part of the entire discussion that's been had in this thread?

And they're the last Big 12 team to rep your conference with a National Title in college FB, the engine that drives the machine that we speak of. If that doesn't make them the flagship school for the Big 12, then I guess we have differing definitions of 'flagship'.

I know the OK win over Bama was a big feather in your conference's cap, but methinks we might be losing sight of the big picture here.

There's a reason ESPN financially backed The Longhorn Network as opposed to the Sooner Network, the Jayhawk network, the Cowboy network, etc. etc.

I guess my point was its all vis a vis other league teams. I would strongly challenge your assertion it "worked out well" so far when you judge Mizzou against the top half of league teams either now or in the Big 12. Drinkel has done a good job winning against peer programs but he has to prove it vs elites. Just my .02

2 years in the SEC and already an appearance in the SEC Title Game and Cotton Bowl victory over a top tier Big 12 FB school. Mizzou shouldn't have to apologize for anything they did last year, irregardless of what you or anyone else thinks.

And in Mizzou's last 2 years in the Big 12, 'Drinkel' managed to knock off Texas and Oklahoma. Would you consider them 'elites'?

I'm interested to see what Strong does at Texas. He seemed to do well and get good production out of his players while having that positive team atmoshoere. Mack always under achieved with one of the most talented rosters in the nation.

Missouri doesn't have the same resources as other SEC teams in terms of in-state talent production (Georgia, Florida, Texas A&M and Alabama/Auburn will always have an advantage there, and LSU will in most years) and it doesn't run the AD budget quite as high as most SEC schools.

And yes, all schools are going to get equal payouts that are ridiculous.

But it's about competing with their peer institutions in the SEC and other local leagues. Dwarfing local Big 12 schools and tying or exceeding local Big 10 schools allows Missouri to step up above KU, KSU, ISU, IU, U of I and to be in the same competition area as Oklahoma State and Nebraska (narrowing the money disparity with those teams is a big deal).

Missouri's long-term strategy has to involve getting more top tier talent from surrounding midwest states - Kansas, Iowa and Illinois are part of that, as - it appears - is Indiana. It has to sell playing in the SEC while staying in the Midwest, getting a little bit better education (than if you went to Arkansas or Tennessee), and still being close to home for family.

Missouri needs to become THE school in some key areas (East St. Louis, which seems to already be happening with this recruiting class, and Suburban Kansas side of KC, which is showing some positive trends, come to mind. They're also making stronger efforts in Indianapolis and the surrounding regions than when in the Big 12).

Missouri football will always need a coach who can succeed in player identification and development, like Pinkel has. Bringing in a stronger recruiting coach when Pinkel eventually retires could reduce how much the program depends on player ID and development, but it will always be an important component (and is important even if you're at Texas, as the past few years under Mack Brown has proven).

Anyway, ultimate point is that it looks like the SEC Network is going to be wildly successful financially (and honestly, considering how generally excellent Slive is at his job and how rarely he has made a misstep, that was to be expected) and increase exposure of school and league while making piles of cash for everyone.

If the Big 12 was smart, it would be working to turn the Longhorn Network into a legitimate Big 12 network. Teams that make a lot from their Tier 3 payouts would likely make more, and it would strengthen the brand of the league a lot.

Is Jake Campos going to play this year? Still think he's a very high end OT prospect and wish Missouri could have held on to him. He and Rhodes would make for very nice bookends, IMO.

:LOL: ....you have to excuse me here LMAO

I excuse you constantly, just like I do all mentally challenged people.

In talking about TV payouts, Missouri and other SEC schools are nearing that range. You can project the CURRENT setup of the SEC network (28 million in footprint, 47 million out of footprint) to bring in $611 million in gross revenue. Even if you assume the network's operating costs exceed ad revenue by $100 million AND a 50/50 split between ESPN and the league (which is the model used for B1G) , you're talking about a payout to the league of $256 million. Or about $18 million/school.

And all signs indicate TWC and DirecTV will be on board at launch as well, which adds another 40 million subscribers. Not sure what those numbers will break down as in the footprint, but I know TWC is huge in the Southeast. Let's assume 1/4 of those are in-footprint (which is lower than the current percentage in-footprint). Now you're up to $809 million in gross revenue off subs. Apply the same formula ($100 million in operating costs, 50/50 split) and you're talking about a payout to the league of $355 million. Or $25 million/school.

The money potential here is huge. But keep F***ING DOUBTING the SEC Network and Mike Slive. It's worked out pretty well for you so far...

25$ per school. That's great. But it doesn't "dwarf" what the other local schools bring in. Not even close. Especially Kansas.

Just stop.

The Big 12 paid out, what, $22 million last year? I know it's posted somewhere down the thread but don't have that at the top of my head (I remember it being like $2 million more than the SEC payout, and those schools got something like $20.5 million).

Even the biggest Tier 3 rights for those local schools in the Big 12 are producing what, $8-10 million/year (Kansas?) So they're looking at $30-32 million a year at the top end. That's about in line with what the B1G has received recently (actually a little more than full members like Iowa are receiving... which Nebraska is not until 2017).

That's what I'm referencing when I'm talking about "Dwarfing." SEC schools are looking at a potential payout of around $45 million/year at the top end in year 1. Or about 150 percent of what the other local schools yanked in.

If I made $50,000 a year and you made $75,000, would not consider that salary to DWARF the first one?

If my numbers are off for the Big 12, let me know.

He's second string currently. They were talking about him looking real good in the spring and potentially starting... But I don't think he will yet.

Shoot, should have stuck with Missouri. SEC money and weight training would have him ready to start right away (LOL).

Can't fault a local kid who grew up an Iowa State fan for staying home, honestly. Good for the kid and hope he's successful.