The BigXII shot itself in the foot yesterday with the round-robin setup. 4 of the 5 P5 conferences have a championship game. The higher seed in each of those games got into the playoffs...whether those are the 4 top teams or not. I don't think FSU or OSU are a top 4 team...but that's for another thread.
The Big12 is going to be relying on the lower seed to win one of these championship games from her on out if they choose not to have a B12 CCG. IMO, that isn't a good way to get your conference represented in the playoffs...
The round-robin is cute...but until they expand to 8 teams. The B12 could find themselves in this situation more often than Not.
The Baylor vs KSU was the championship argument is flawed as is the B12 could have had 2 teams in the playoffs...
So....to get the B12 back to....12 teams, what two teams would you add?
College basketball WOULD be a major player in realignment IF the NCAA didn't exist and post season basketball was set up similarly to football in terms of the schools getting the money directly. As of right now in CBB there is little value in being a blue blood over a regular shitty tournament team due to how they distribute revenue.
It has less to do with ppl not caring about bball (football ppl love to say this) and much more about how revenues are distributed from the tournament. [Reply]
Obviously you don’t follow much college football, but don’t be surprised when Mizzou is once again a perennial top 25 team again
I mean, I certainly don't watch much Missouri football at all, but I do know what perennial means... and MU has never ended in the top 25 3 consecutively years and even the best under Pinker was 5 times in 8 years and consecutive years only twice.
So, someone who clearly rates MU's past higher than it was is wants to convince me I don't know WTF I'm talking about and MU is on it's way again... okay. :-)
And again, the SEC gives no shits they beat Arkansas in a pointless bowl game, lol... some business analysts answered the door and figured out that it would be beneficial to tell the networks that the SEC can cover the St Louis and KC markets. They figured out it's a net positive for their bottom line, and the other schools agreed because the team payout would increase.
Missouri is the ditzy semi-attractive girl who thinks they got the news channel job because of all the hard work at a Communications degree and interview skills... but the SEC likes her rack and will put her on TV even if she's a complete shitshow because people will still tune in for Alabama and Georgia and the big dogs anyway... and if she does get her shit together, that's cool, too. That rack though... unbutton that a bit, honey.
{insert some witty KU analogy that completely misses the point}
And some of these teams will stick around just for the money, because fuck the sports, while programs with an ounce of integrity will eventually leave when they realize money isn't the solution to all of their problems,, especially going up against the Alabamas and Georgias every year.
It's a cycle across industries.. if you really think you're a CFB expert and have this realignmentstuff figured out, I'd actually suggest paying less attention to all the media narratives and what you think you know about football and start paying attention to the business side of it, because like all mergers/acquisitions, it has nothing to do with the day-to-day like beating Arkansas once (lol) and little to do with the product (NFC East, Rutgers, etc.), and everything to do with advertising dollars and TV contracts.
And that's fine for MU, besides maybe a bruised ego to that fake superiority complex in believing anyone wanted you for things you can control or that MU has never been more than a "top-25-every-couple-years" team. They objectified you down to your nice rack and you got out from under Texas, which was a fine goal. And that rack has netted a bunch of money, too! Good job. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
College basketball WOULD be a major player in realignment IF the NCAA didn't exist and post season basketball was set up similarly to football in terms of the schools getting the money directly. As of right now in CBB there is little value in being a blue blood over a regular shitty tournament team due to how they distribute revenue.
It has less to do with ppl not caring about bball (football ppl love to say this) and much more about how revenues are distributed from the tournament.
Yeah, I drew the same conclusion a while back researching a bit on how it works... and football is more popular obviously but you're still talking profits in the millions for basketball... I think the main thing is the TV contracts.
From a butts in seats perspective, they fill freakin' football stadiums for some of the tournament games, for a game that takes place between the 40s.... yet MU fake superiority complex tells us no one cares.
CBB isn't a non factor, but again, it's far more about leveraging your national reach into better TV contracts than a school being good at football... that reach pertains to both CBB and CFB, even if CFB is a bigger slice of profits.
It's not about convincing the TV networks that anyone gives a shit about Rutgers football or basketball, the B1G just wants to be able to say they've laid claim to the NYC market. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
I mean, I certainly don't watch much Missouri football at all, but I do know what perennial means... and MU has never ended in the top 25 3 consecutively years and even the best under Pinker was 5 times in 8 years and consecutive years only twice.
So, someone who clearly rates MU's past higher than it was is wants to convince me I don't know WTF I'm talking about and MU is on it's way again... okay. :-)
And again, the SEC gives no shits they beat Arkansas in a pointless bowl game, lol... some business analysts answered the door and figured out that it would be beneficial to tell the networks that the SEC can cover the St Louis and KC markets. They figured out it's a net positive for their bottom line, and the other schools agreed because the team payout would increase.
Missouri is the ditzy semi-attractive girl who thinks they got the news channel job because of all the hard work at a Communications degree and interview skills... but the SEC likes her rack and will put her on TV even if she's a complete shitshow because people will still tune in for Alabama and Georgia and the big dogs anyway... and if she does get her shit together, that's cool, too. That rack though... unbutton that a bit, honey.
{insert some witty KU analogy that completely misses the point}
And some of these teams will stick around just for the money, because fuck the sports, while programs with an ounce of integrity will eventually leave when they realize money isn't the solution to all of their problems,, especially going up against the Alabamas and Georgias every year.
It's a cycle across industries.. if you really think you're a CFB expert and have this realignmentstuff figured out, I'd actually suggest paying less attention to all the media narratives and what you think you know about football and start paying attention to the business side of it, because like all mergers/acquisitions, it has nothing to do with the day-to-day like beating Arkansas once (lol) and little to do with the product (NFC East, Rutgers, etc.), and everything to do with advertising dollars and TV contracts.
And that's fine for MU, besides maybe a bruised ego to that fake superiority complex in believing anyone wanted you for things you can control or that MU has never been more than a "top-25-every-couple-years" team. They objectified you down to your nice rack and you got out from under Texas, which was a fine goal. And that rack has netted a bunch of money, too! Good job.
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
I mean, I certainly don't watch much Missouri football at all, but I do know what perennial means... and MU has never ended in the top 25 3 consecutively years and even the best under Pinker was 5 times in 8 years and consecutive years only twice.
So, someone who clearly rates MU's past higher than it was is wants to convince me I don't know WTF I'm talking about and MU is on it's way again... okay. :-)
And again, the SEC gives no shits they beat Arkansas in a pointless bowl game, lol... some business analysts answered the door and figured out that it would be beneficial to tell the networks that the SEC can cover the St Louis and KC markets. They figured out it's a net positive for their bottom line, and the other schools agreed because the team payout would increase.
Missouri is the ditzy semi-attractive girl who thinks they got the news channel job because of all the hard work at a Communications degree and interview skills... but the SEC likes her rack and will put her on TV even if she's a complete shitshow because people will still tune in for Alabama and Georgia and the big dogs anyway... and if she does get her shit together, that's cool, too. That rack though... unbutton that a bit, honey.
{insert some witty KU analogy that completely misses the point}
And some of these teams will stick around just for the money, because **** the sports, while programs with an ounce of integrity will eventually leave when they realize money isn't the solution to all of their problems,, especially going up against the Alabamas and Georgias every year.
It's a cycle across industries.. if you really think you're a CFB expert and have this realignmentstuff figured out, I'd actually suggest paying less attention to all the media narratives and what you think you know about football and start paying attention to the business side of it, because like all mergers/acquisitions, it has nothing to do with the day-to-day like beating Arkansas once (lol) and little to do with the product (NFC East, Rutgers, etc.), and everything to do with advertising dollars and TV contracts.
And that's fine for MU, besides maybe a bruised ego to that fake superiority complex in believing anyone wanted you for things you can control or that MU has never been more than a "top-25-every-couple-years" team. They objectified you down to your nice rack and you got out from under Texas, which was a fine goal. And that rack has netted a bunch of money, too! Good job.
Mizzou was a perennial top 25 team for the last 10 years of Pinkels time at Mizzou. The only year they didn’t touch the AP top 25 was 2012 which was the first year in the SEC. Then he went on to win back to back SEC east division titles, and finish in the AP top 5 for the second time in 10 years. What a bottom feeder program we had. I know it’s not as long term as your place in ESPN’s bottom 10, but it was still a perennial spot in the rankings.
You may want to tell your athletic director to start thinking of this shit as a business instead. While I love hearing you admit that KC is a Mizzou market, it’s a little more than just TV markets. It’s overall marketability as well. At the time of the move to the SEC we had sustained success in most major sports (Mizzou won the Big 12 in its final season in basketball, Mizzou baseball just had its most successful pitcher of all time in Scherzer, and the football team had the success mentioned before)
It may have been a nice fake breast enhancement at the right time, but it sure beats being the ugly chick who put all her chips into one career choice only to find that the career she chose wasn’t in demand when she graduated so she ended up sucking dicks on the street corner to make ends meet.
If only your athletic director would have put ANY effort into the football program to make the games watchable again, you could have been playing in front of some fans to make your university seem a little more marketable than 1 winter sport that doesn’t get much attention until the tournament. It’s always been about marketability and KU just doesn’t have enough value spread out. They instead focus all of their attention on 1 sport and it’s why you’ll end up in a conference eventually with just a focus on basketball. Which as you said, you’ll be fine with, but Mizzou fans actually care about the football program so it would be a tough place for us to be in. [Reply]
If only your athletic director would have put ANY effort into the football program to make the games watchable again, you could have been playing in front of some fans to make your university seem a little more marketable than 1 winter sport that doesn’t get much attention until the tournament. It’s always been about marketability and KU just doesn’t have enough value spread out. They instead focus all of their attention on 1 sport and it’s why you’ll end up in a conference eventually with just a focus on basketball. Which as you said, you’ll be fine with, but Mizzou fans actually care about the football program so it would be a tough place for us to be in.
The ncaa BB tournament is a feeding frenzy even for people that don't follow college basketball.
But I think a lot of KU alumni watch a lot of KU basketball all season long. So if you live and die by what other people think and watch, maybe you have a point. But as far as KU fans and alumni... No.
But sure BB gets hosed, as has been discussed plenty, as far as revenue. [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Mizzou was a perennial top 25 team for the last 10 years of Pinkels time at Mizzou. The only year they didn’t touch the AP top 25 was 2012 which was the first year in the SEC. Then he went on to win back to back SEC east division titles, and finish in the AP top 5 for the second time in 10 years. What a bottom feeder program we had. I know it’s not as long term as your place in ESPN’s bottom 10, but it was still a perennial spot in the rankings.
You may want to tell your athletic director to start thinking of this shit as a business instead. While I love hearing you admit that KC is a Mizzou market, it’s a little more than just TV markets. It’s overall marketability as well. At the time of the move to the SEC we had sustained success in most major sports (Mizzou won the Big 12 in its final season in basketball, Mizzou baseball just had its most successful pitcher of all time in Scherzer, and the football team had the success mentioned before)
It may have been a nice fake breast enhancement at the right time, but it sure beats being the ugly chick who put all her chips into one career choice only to find that the career she chose wasn’t in demand when she graduated so she ended up sucking dicks on the street corner to make ends meet.
If only your athletic director would have put ANY effort into the football program to make the games watchable again, you could have been playing in front of some fans to make your university seem a little more marketable than 1 winter sport that doesn’t get much attention until the tournament. It’s always been about marketability and KU just doesn’t have enough value spread out. They instead focus all of their attention on 1 sport and it’s why you’ll end up in a conference eventually with just a focus on basketball. Which as you said, you’ll be fine with, but Mizzou fans actually care about the football program so it would be a tough place for us to be in.
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Mizzou was a perennial top 25 team for the last 10 years of Pinkels time at Mizzou. The only year they didn’t touch the AP top 25 was 2012 which was the first year in the SEC. Then he went on to win back to back SEC east division titles, and finish in the AP top 5 for the second time in 10 years. What a bottom feeder program we had. I know it’s not as long term as your place in ESPN’s bottom 10, but it was still a perennial spot in the rankings.
You may want to tell your athletic director to start thinking of this shit as a business instead. While I love hearing you admit that KC is a Mizzou market, it’s a little more than just TV markets. It’s overall marketability as well. At the time of the move to the SEC we had sustained success in most major sports (Mizzou won the Big 12 in its final season in basketball, Mizzou baseball just had its most successful pitcher of all time in Scherzer, and the football team had the success mentioned before)
It may have been a nice fake breast enhancement at the right time, but it sure beats being the ugly chick who put all her chips into one career choice only to find that the career she chose wasn’t in demand when she graduated so she ended up sucking dicks on the street corner to make ends meet.
If only your athletic director would have put ANY effort into the football program to make the games watchable again, you could have been playing in front of some fans to make your university seem a little more marketable than 1 winter sport that doesn’t get much attention until the tournament. It’s always been about marketability and KU just doesn’t have enough value spread out. They instead focus all of their attention on 1 sport and it’s why you’ll end up in a conference eventually with just a focus on basketball. Which as you said, you’ll be fine with, but Mizzou fans actually care about the football program so it would be a tough place for us to be in.
Absolutely. That's also exactly why B1G went after Rutgers. Football program success.
Marketability. LMAAAAOOOO
Bro, MU is not a brand. Literally nobody outside of Missouri and Kansas could even name your mascot or have anything to say about the school. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Absolutely. That's also exactly why B1G went after Rutgers. Football program success.
Marketability. LMAAAAOOOO
Bro, MU is not a brand. Literally nobody outside of Missouri and Kansas could even name your mascot or have anything to say about the school.
It’s overall marketability. No one’s talking about brands. The fact is that Mizzou was selling out its football stadium for years and Kansas has been playing in front of a half full football stadium for almost a decade now. The fact is, that no matter how shitty Mizzou football is, a Saturday night football regular season matchup will have nearly twice as many viewers as any of your regular season college basketball games. It’s a market and the market is primarily football for obvious reasons. (Bigger stadiums, more emphasis on every game, much bigger TV market)
You all can put all your chips into the basketball program and continue to ignore the signs of the times. I’m sure idiots like Bearcat will still go out and buy Missouri Valley championship bottles of wine and continue to boast of their success in whatever smaller division you all eventually end up in, but it won’t change the fact that you all ****ed up by not putting ANY sort of investment into the football side. I know none of you Kansas fans will miss KU football when it inevitably disappears in the next decade or so, but I think most people still enjoy college football enough to still want a place at the table at least every year. You Kansas fans are a rare breed of college fans. I’ll give you that. I don’t think many people could stand being the football laughing stock you all have been for so long now. [Reply]
