The case for Mizzou NOT going to the SEC
Posted: Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:57 pmI know the media has anointed Mizzou as the 14th member of the SEC. I'm not so sure. Here's why.
First, I realize I might be totally wrong. In that case, if Mizzou does go to the SEC, then I will pretend like I never posted this and will claim I knew it all along.
The argument that Mizzou will be the SEC’s 14th school appears to be based on three assumptions: (1) that the SEC must get to 14 schools; (2) that Mizzou is the best option for the SEC to get to 14; and (3) that Mizzou adds the most value with respect to upcoming television rights negotiations (ie. money). Mizzou seems to have bought into each of those assumptions with gusto, which once again demonstrates that Mizzou is run by a bunch of idiots.
Assumption No. 1: I don't think the SEC feels any urgency to add a 14th member. If there's one thing about how the SEC has behaved up to this point, its been their determination not to expand unless and until the right candidate comes along. The SEC does not settle just to fill slots.
When the SEC took A&M, there was no clear cut 14th member out there. But they took A&M nonetheless because the Aggies represented a huge value-add to the conference. If the 14th member was that important in the short term, the SEC would have been more proactive when they took A&M. The SEC will add a 14th member when they are good and ready, and it will only be a school that they feel contributes significantly to the conference. They won't settle for Mizzou or anyone else just to get to 14.
Assumption No. 2: Why is Mizzou simply assumed to be the best option out there? The football program has been a middle-of-the road program in the Big-12. That's it. Before that, the football program was a total disaster. Mizzou brings very little athletic pedigree. The academics are good and Mizzou is AAU, which is admittedly in their favor. But the bottom line of all of this is that football rules the roost. And Mizzou does not bring much to the table there.
But what about Mizzou's ability to "deliver" the Kansas City and St. Louis television markets? That brings us to Assumption No. 3.
Assumption No. 3: The St. Louis television market is the 21st largest market in the country. Kansas City is the 31st largest. Combined, these two markets deliver approximately 2,100,000 television households. Not bad. But compare that to DFW.
DFW is the 5th largest market, recently surpassing the San Fransisco/Oakland/San Jose market. The DFW market delivers approximately 2,600,000 television households. In other words, the DFW market alone is significantly larger than St. Louis and Kansas City combined. Plus, the DFW market is one of the fastest growing in the country. Kansas City and St. Louis are flat. They're not growing.
In addition, does Mizzou "deliver" the Kansas City and St. Louis markets? I don't know. But here is an interesting quote I found: "By no means does Mizzou "own" the Kansas City and St. Louis markets -- they split Kansas City with Kansas, Kansas State and others, while St. Louis has always been a solid Big Ten foothold outside of its Mizzou influence." Food for thought.
Finally, taking Mizzou will once again put the SEC in the position of “raiding†the Big-12. I really don’t think the SEC wants that label. The loss of Mizzou likely would impact the Big-12’s television deals. That won’t sit well with the other members. As demonstrated by the A&M switch, the SEC is not interested in getting involved in big money litigation with the Big-12 schools. Yet that is conceivably what could happen if they poach Mizzou.
So there’s my argument. I think Mizzou to the SEC is a bunch of hot air. I don’t see it happening. Obviously, the Mizzou President, AD, and Board think it might happen. Which is why they have violated the cardinal rule of conference brinksmanship. . .don’t bluff. They tried it last year with the Big-10 and it almost blew up in their faces. Oklahoma tried it this year with the same result. Texas holds all the cards in the Big-12 and they know it. So for Mizzou to act like its holding some cards of its own is foolish. Unless Mizzou has a solid commitment from the SEC that there’s a place for them (and I don’t think they do) they’ll end up looking stupid once again when UT calls their bluff.
First, I realize I might be totally wrong. In that case, if Mizzou does go to the SEC, then I will pretend like I never posted this and will claim I knew it all along.
The argument that Mizzou will be the SEC’s 14th school appears to be based on three assumptions: (1) that the SEC must get to 14 schools; (2) that Mizzou is the best option for the SEC to get to 14; and (3) that Mizzou adds the most value with respect to upcoming television rights negotiations (ie. money). Mizzou seems to have bought into each of those assumptions with gusto, which once again demonstrates that Mizzou is run by a bunch of idiots.
Assumption No. 1: I don't think the SEC feels any urgency to add a 14th member. If there's one thing about how the SEC has behaved up to this point, its been their determination not to expand unless and until the right candidate comes along. The SEC does not settle just to fill slots.
When the SEC took A&M, there was no clear cut 14th member out there. But they took A&M nonetheless because the Aggies represented a huge value-add to the conference. If the 14th member was that important in the short term, the SEC would have been more proactive when they took A&M. The SEC will add a 14th member when they are good and ready, and it will only be a school that they feel contributes significantly to the conference. They won't settle for Mizzou or anyone else just to get to 14.
Assumption No. 2: Why is Mizzou simply assumed to be the best option out there? The football program has been a middle-of-the road program in the Big-12. That's it. Before that, the football program was a total disaster. Mizzou brings very little athletic pedigree. The academics are good and Mizzou is AAU, which is admittedly in their favor. But the bottom line of all of this is that football rules the roost. And Mizzou does not bring much to the table there.
But what about Mizzou's ability to "deliver" the Kansas City and St. Louis television markets? That brings us to Assumption No. 3.
Assumption No. 3: The St. Louis television market is the 21st largest market in the country. Kansas City is the 31st largest. Combined, these two markets deliver approximately 2,100,000 television households. Not bad. But compare that to DFW.
DFW is the 5th largest market, recently surpassing the San Fransisco/Oakland/San Jose market. The DFW market delivers approximately 2,600,000 television households. In other words, the DFW market alone is significantly larger than St. Louis and Kansas City combined. Plus, the DFW market is one of the fastest growing in the country. Kansas City and St. Louis are flat. They're not growing.
In addition, does Mizzou "deliver" the Kansas City and St. Louis markets? I don't know. But here is an interesting quote I found: "By no means does Mizzou "own" the Kansas City and St. Louis markets -- they split Kansas City with Kansas, Kansas State and others, while St. Louis has always been a solid Big Ten foothold outside of its Mizzou influence." Food for thought.
Finally, taking Mizzou will once again put the SEC in the position of “raiding†the Big-12. I really don’t think the SEC wants that label. The loss of Mizzou likely would impact the Big-12’s television deals. That won’t sit well with the other members. As demonstrated by the A&M switch, the SEC is not interested in getting involved in big money litigation with the Big-12 schools. Yet that is conceivably what could happen if they poach Mizzou.
So there’s my argument. I think Mizzou to the SEC is a bunch of hot air. I don’t see it happening. Obviously, the Mizzou President, AD, and Board think it might happen. Which is why they have violated the cardinal rule of conference brinksmanship. . .don’t bluff. They tried it last year with the Big-10 and it almost blew up in their faces. Oklahoma tried it this year with the same result. Texas holds all the cards in the Big-12 and they know it. So for Mizzou to act like its holding some cards of its own is foolish. Unless Mizzou has a solid commitment from the SEC that there’s a place for them (and I don’t think they do) they’ll end up looking stupid once again when UT calls their bluff.