http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/coll...er_invitations_to_UrBXmt748ilkyfwbS9KsNK#ixzz Take everything ESPN reports about the Big East with a grain of salt. They are trying to kill the conference because they know they are going to lose the TV rights to Big East basketball to NBC/Universal. ESPN hopes that Big East football dies so that NBC might pass on a basketball only TV package. When the $$$ figures come out on the Big East's new TV deal, all the remaining schools are going to be very pleased.
WVU > Mizzou. Not equal. I'm not talking about academics, because frankly I could not care less about academics when I tune in on a Saturday to watch a college football game...or when I tune into watch Big Monday college hoops.
Over the last 5 years... Mizzou: 48-19 WVU: 49-16 Not to poop all over the Big East (ok, maybe I am pooping on them), but I'm more impressed with what Mizzou has done in the Big 12 recently over WVU. What WVU accomplished in the hayday of Big East football (05-07) was impressive, but it hasn't been nearly as competitive lately. I'm not sure that WVU will be to perform in the Big 12 as they did in the Big East (although the same could be said for Mizzou in the SEC), and they certainly don't bring as much $$$ to the table. The basketball program is a nice addition, though.
Mizzou has finished in the Top 10 exactly one time in the last 40 years (4th in 2007); WV finished in the Top 10 three times in a row from the 2005 season through the 2007 season...as well as Top 10 finishes in 88 and 93. If you wanna talk Top 25 finishes: Since 1970, Mizzou has finished in the Top 25 eight times; in that same period of time, WV has finished in the Top 25 thirteen times. This isn't really close. Add in the the basketball program and it's really not close.
It isn't really close which program/school I would rather have in my conference, either. Edit: The programs are strikingly similar historically, from a performance perspective. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Tigers_football http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_Mountaineers_football
I disagree with that based entirely on the Top 10/25 finishes I just posted. And I'll say again, when I sit down to watch a game on a Saturday, I don't care very much about the market the university is situated in or how great the professors are at the university. That means very little on the field. I don't go out to root for Rice because it's a great school.
That looks a bit lopsided to me too. I don't think it matters how good that program was 50 years ago. If so, maybe they should add Princeton and their 28 National titles.
Then you're just cherry picking. Over the course of history, bowl records, all americans, W/L percentage, etc. are similar. WVU has had higher highs and probably lower lows, but on the whole, they hang out in the same neighborhood. And obviously, as it relates to this discussion, the topic seems to be about recency... what is going to happen in the next 5-10 years... not what happened 40+ years ago. On that note, I can't say WVU is a better football program than Mizzou, at least in terms of how either program would perform in the Big 12 over the next few years. That looks to be a wash, if not a slight tip of the hat towards Mizzou. And obviously when you factor in the rest of what makes a football program desirable, it's kind of a no-brainer you take Mizzou.
I don't think it's cherry picking to stop at 40 years. If you wanna take it back to the 1930's, be my guest...but I think at some point you draw a line. Looks like Mizzou was really, really good in the 1960's. A non-factor in the 50's...had a couple of top 25 finishes in the 40's. Not sure it matters. I don't think there's anything to suggest that Mizzou will be better that WV over the next 5 years or so. Recruiting classes come and go. WV has done more over the past 10 seasons or so to suggest that they have the more solid program.
They've definitely had more on-the-field success, but how much of that is a result of the conference they play in? For example, in 2008, Mizzou had 4 losses - 2 were to teams that finished in the top 5, and 1 was to a top25 team that had 3 losses, each to top-3 teams. West Virginia plays maybe 1 or 2 ranked opponents a year. I think if you switch their leagues, Mizzou might have more top 10/25s and WVU would definitely have less. ESPN doesn't seem to show rankings for opponents before 2008, but since then, WVU has played 6 ranked teams and is 2-4 against them. Mizzou has played 15 ranked teams and is 4-11. This year alone, Mizzou has 6 teams currently ranked on their schedulel; WVU has 1. That's a lot of losses Mizzou is going to collect that a WVU isn't.
It's not cherry picking to stop at a certain year, it's cherry picking to use one factor, such a top ten finishes, as your sole barometer. The argument wasn't really to suggest Mizzou will be better, the argument is to suggest that they will be just as good as WVU. Which recent history shows as fairly likely (which is why going back 40+ years is kinda... pointless). WVU did some good things under Rich Rod, but he's gone, and as much as I like Holgerson, I don't think he's going to last (Pinkel may not be great, but he's been consistently good, at least, and he's been there for 10+ years now). I'm guessing if you take WVU and put them in the Big 12 over the last 10 years, their record would look a lot like Mizzou's... if not worse. If you want to say WVU is historically better, sure, I'll give you that (though not by a whole bunch). But if you want me to bet on which program will fare better (conference affiliation, SOS, not withstanding) over the next 5-10 years (which is what this discussion is really about), I think it's more of a coin flip, instead of "not really close".
how about top 25 finishes? will that work? 'cause I kinda thought where you were ranked at the end of a season was kinda important.
well i'm not sure that either of us knows enough about the upcoming recruiting classes at Mizzou or WV to have any discussion at all then. i think, ultimately, programs are judged on history.
I think it's going to be become a crappier conference because they are losing great programs and because most of the schools aren't happy here. I also think it's a boring conference in terms of the geography and places to visit, with Boulder and Lincoln being the only two really interesting places to go. And I think in the new conference alignment, A&M, Mizzou, Nebraska and Colorado are making upward or lateral moves, while TX/OU ended up in a worse conference than they were 2 years ago, which is ridiculous for programs that can control their own destiny. But I've never said the Big12 with Nebraska, A&M, Colorado, and Mizzou was a bad football conference. It was consistently the #1 or #2 conference in the country. And the Big East is as bad as, or worse than, the MWC was when they had TCU, Utah, and BYU. So even a future crappier Big12 is better than that mess of a conference.
Twitter is all a-twitter about Big 12 telling WV to hold their horses until Mizzou makes decision and they fully consider Louisville.
