College Basketball 2011-2012

[illiniguy]

Kansas should keep playing Missouri. Had they had the chance to do what Missouri is doing they would have jumped as well. It's just no one wants them and now they are all butt hurt.

 

yeah, look at kansas, their program is in shambles.

Their football program is and that's all that matters on conferences wanting schools.

[snoodmonger]

Missouri needs the rivalry more than Kansas does.

 

In football, nobody gives a flip about the game outside of the two fanbases. I've been alive for 36 years, and the game has had national importance once. So discontinuing it really doesn't affect either team, aside from bragging rights.

 

In basketball, the game gets some national attention, almost entirely because Kansas basketball is always really good.

 

So we either get the, "Highly ranked Kansas takes on bitter rival Missouri, a game that's always tough for KU." (Except for the 65% of the time we win.)

 

Or, occasionally we get, "Kansas and Missouri--two ranked teams that hate each other--go toe to toe for conference supremacy." (Or, more likely, KU is playing for conference supremacy and MU is playing for 5th place.)

 

But the vast majority of the time, the game gets attention because we're really, really good. In a non-conference scenario, we could play games with much more national interest. Teams like Arizona, Duke, UCLA, Mich St, Syracuse, UNC, UK, Florida, etc. Those games are much better for our national brand than a regional game that usually only gets hype because we're highly ranked and Missouri has a puncher's/rival's chance at actually beating us.

 

Aside from "fan interest" (and most KU fans I know don't want to play MU anymore), you can't name one reason playing Missouri OOC is a benefit to KU.

[illiniguy]

Living in Kansas City snood I gotta say many people on both sides want the rivalry to continue. None of my friends are happy about it and they fall on both sides of the fence.

[snoodmonger]

well I went to KU, and I don't know any fans who want to play them. Regardless, I said "aside from fan interest," give me a good reason.

 

As Self said, Missouri should be trying to market new rivals, not cling to an old one. And it's best served for KU to strengthen the national perception of its existing conference rivalries (KSU, UT) rather give national attention to a team outside of our conference.

[SouthSideRyan]

well I went to KU, and I don't know any fans who want to play them. Regardless, I said "aside from fan interest," give me a good reason.

 

As Self said, Missouri should be trying to market new rivals, not cling to an old one. And it's best served for KU to strengthen the national perception of its existing conference rivalries (KSU, UT) rather give national attention to a team outside of our conference.

 

Don't forget West Virginia and TCU!

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

College sports are not about the fans, they're about money. Repeat that in your head until you believe it. Now consider that Mizzou almost cost Kansas millions of dollars every year for an indefinite amount of time until a football playoff system emerges. I don't blame Mizzou for leaving, but Kansas has a legitimate beef.

 

I also agree with Snood that Kansas' basketball resources are spent better elsewhere. They gain absolutely nothing recruiting or money wise from playing in Missouri, and Missouri has everything to gain. It's the same reason that BCS schools hate playing their mid major little brothers except now it's on a larger scale.

[illiniguy]

College sports are not about the fans, they're about money. Repeat that in your head until you believe it. Now consider that Mizzou almost cost Kansas millions of dollars every year for an indefinite amount of time until a football playoff system emerges. I don't blame Mizzou for leaving, but Kansas has a legitimate beef.

 

I also agree with Snood that Kansas' basketball resources are spent better elsewhere. They gain absolutely nothing recruiting or money wise from playing in Missouri, and Missouri has everything to gain. It's the same reason that BCS schools hate playing their mid major little brothers except now it's on a larger scale.

It's a great story, but I really doubt KU s gonna start playing games against other name programs unless it's part of a tournament, odds are that will turn into another cupcake game at home. Great entertainment.

[SouthSideRyan]

Now consider that Mizzou almost cost Kansas millions of dollars every year for an indefinite amount of time until a football playoff system emerges.

 

That's what makes it so funny.

[CubColtPacer]

College sports are not about the fans, they're about money. Repeat that in your head until you believe it. Now consider that Mizzou almost cost Kansas millions of dollars every year for an indefinite amount of time until a football playoff system emerges. I don't blame Mizzou for leaving, but Kansas has a legitimate beef.

 

I also agree with Snood that Kansas' basketball resources are spent better elsewhere. They gain absolutely nothing recruiting or money wise from playing in Missouri, and Missouri has everything to gain. It's the same reason that BCS schools hate playing their mid major little brothers except now it's on a larger scale.

It's a great story, but I really doubt KU s gonna start playing games against other name programs unless it's part of a tournament, odds are that will turn into another cupcake game at home. Great entertainment.

 

And that's the issue. Kansas already has a certain number of slots for their name schools on their schedule. They play in many tournaments, so there is already limited room. Scheduling Missouri would take one slot away from that limited room. They aren't going to give up a cupcake to schedule Missouri every year because the home revenue is just too much to pass up. Is the rivalry so good that it takes them away from playing teams like Ohio State this year? Apparently for Kansas it isn't.

 

I support Kansas in this even though I've been on the other side of the fence this year. The Kentucky-Indiana series is in jeopardy because Kentucky has too many non-conference rivalries to get the correct number of home games per year, and if they have to get rid of one the Indiana one might be the one that is axed. It's been speculated that Indiana's win this year might have saved the series for now.

[Guest]

There's plenty of Mizzou fans who are saying that they're done with playing KU now too, and while I'm certain that there are a few who legitimately feel that way, for most it's a false equivocation. There's a reason tickets for Saturday's game are going for thousands of dollars.

 

 

For the money, at the very worst case scenario, you're talking about an incredibly trivial portion of each school's resources in order to provide something that the fans like a great deal. In a more likely scenario, there are positive externalities beyond the little we can see into AD budgets that make taking one non-conference game a good idea. More to the point, the people from both schools are idiots if they can't make a rivalry as passionate as the Border War a financially good idea.

 

And Mizzou did not almost cost Kansas millions of dollars each year for an indefinite period of time. As hilarious as that would have been, it's not remotely accurate.

[snoodmonger]

There's plenty of Mizzou fans who are saying that they're done with playing KU now too, and while I'm certain that there are a few who legitimately feel that way, for most it's a false equivocation. There's a reason tickets for Saturday's game are going for thousands of dollars.

 

 

For the money, at the very worst case scenario, you're talking about an incredibly trivial portion of each school's resources in order to provide something that the fans like a great deal. In a more likely scenario, there are positive externalities beyond the little we can see into AD budgets that make taking one non-conference game a good idea. More to the point, the people from both schools are idiots if they can't make a rivalry as passionate as the Border War a financially good idea.

 

And Mizzou did not almost cost Kansas millions of dollars each year for an indefinite period of time. As hilarious as that would have been, it's not remotely accurate.

 

The ticket is costing so much because the title is on the line and because it's the last time we'll play. It's not completely indicative of how important the ticket would be under normal circumstances.

 

 

The bottom line is, KU can make the same amount of money and cost Mizzou an opportunity at national exposure. Keeping MU out of the limelight could ultimately to more tangible benefits for KU. It's not petty. It's not being butt-hurt. It's smart business.

 

Missouri doesn't want the game because they love the rivalry and care about the fans. They want to garner more national exposure, maintain their footprint in KC, and collect the big bucks that come with playing KU. KU gets all that, whether we play MU or not. There's nothing in it for KU, aside from fan interest.

[illiniguy]

Missouri did replace Kansas with a better blue blood on the schedule tho.

[Formerly Snayke]

Missouri did replace Kansas with a better blue blood on the schedule tho.

 

Nailed it.

[snoodmonger]

Missouri did replace Kansas with a better blue blood on the schedule tho.

 

Good for them. Maybe they can stop complaining.

[snoodmonger]

Missouri did replace Kansas with a better blue blood on the schedule tho.

 

Nailed it.

 

But they'll never be your rival. When you lose to a team 60-70% of the time, you need a century of hate to make it into a rivalry (since your performance in games can't generate that interest.)

[Formerly Snayke]

Missouri did replace Kansas with a better blue blood on the schedule tho.

 

Nailed it.

 

But they'll never be your rival. When you lose to a team 60-70% of the time, you need a century of hate to make it into a rivalry (since your performance in games can't generate that interest.)

 

That's irrelevant. If Mizzou Arena can fill up for a game a January game against Texas Tech, they can fill up against Kentucky. Missouri does not need KU. Some fans may want to see it continue, but the program itself will be fine without that game.

[snoodmonger]

Missouri did replace Kansas with a better blue blood on the schedule tho.

 

Nailed it.

 

But they'll never be your rival. When you lose to a team 60-70% of the time, you need a century of hate to make it into a rivalry (since your performance in games can't generate that interest.)

 

That's irrelevant. If Mizzou Arena can fill up for a game a January game against Texas Tech, they can fill up against Kentucky. Missouri does not need KU. Some fans may want to see it continue, but the program itself will be fine without that game.

 

Mizzou filled a Jan game against Texas Tech this year, when they're ranked top 5. In most years, there are plenty of people disguised as empty seats unless KU or UT come.

 

They'll fill up for UK and Arkansas. That Wednesday night game against Miss St? Doubt it.

 

Face it--MU needs KU to stay nationally relevant. Getting blasted by UK when there's no built-in interest does not make an interesting matchup.

 

Seth Davis agrees:

 

If Missouri is going to convince Kansas to change its mind, it's going to have to overcome more than just the hurt feelings of a jilted lover. The hard truth is, Missouri needs this game significantly more than Kansas does. The Jayhawks have won three national championships and have been to 13 Final Fours. Missouri has never even been to one. Kansas can recruit on a national scale, while Missouri has to focus on the Midwest. If injected with truth serum, I'll bet Haith would tell you the move to the SEC is making his job harder. So why would Self do something that will only make it easier?

 

Besides, it's not like Kansas has trouble scheduling nonconference games. The Jayhawks still have two years left in the Champions Classic that will rotate them with Kentucky, Duke and Michigan State. They are a perennially plum choice for all the major Thanksgiving and Christmas week tournaments. Their decision to participate in an intersectional matchup guarantees that it will be broadcast on ESPN or CBS. If Kansas agreed to play Missouri, it would be providing the Tigers with a national platform they currently lack. Hard to see the upside in that for the Jayhawks.

 

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/seth_davis/02/06/kansas.missouri/index.html#ixzz1nEWE4g8o

[illiniguy]

Missouri did replace Kansas with a better blue blood on the schedule tho.

 

Good for them. Maybe they can stop complaining.

I think you know that won't happen. I hate seeing that rivalry die.

[Guest]

It's okay to admit that KU fans care about the rivalry.

 

As for starving Mizzou of the benefit of the game, they're really not doing anything. In the absence of a KU game, they'll probably just schedule a BCS school(perhaps playing in KC) that winds up on ESPN anyway. Mizzou is on national TV for half of their games this year and have always played games in KC, and the incremental revenue they'd get from a KU game would be a fraction of a percent of the athletic budget they'll have starting next year. If the rationale is that they want to hurt Mizzou by giving them the business version of a paper cut rather than play the game the fans want to see, then that's okay I guess. It's still petty.

 

And even then, those aren't even terrible reasons, even though the impact is exaggerated. But everything out of Zenger and Self's mouth about the issue is "nope can't play em, they're leaving, nope". They can't even articulate their narrative properly without coming across as spurned and vindictive.

[abuck1220]

when mizzou looks after their best interests, it's not petty (because it's millions of dollars). but when ku looks after their best interests, it's petty (because it's not millions of dollars).

[NeifiIsMyHomeBoy]

One thing I'm interested in is how moving to the SEC will influence Mizzou basketball's instate recruiting. You're always going to be sport number two in the SEC, and no one outside of Kentucky (maybe Arkansas?) cares about basketball in the SEC. SLU is on the way back up and may provide some heat in state for Mizzou. Kansas seems to always be in the mix for top Missouri talent (Beal, McLemore), and unless you're an elite recruit that wants to play for Calipari or Donovan, there's really no reason to hoop in a remote outskirt of the SEC unless that remote outskirt is an elite program. Mizzou is much more of your typical "state school" than Illinois is though, and from my years in St. Louis I would say the "big city" does a much better job supporting the state school than Chicago.

[Guest]

Yes, that's what the word means.

[snoodmonger]

when mizzou looks after their best interests, it's not petty (because it's millions of dollars). but when ku looks after their best interests, it's petty (because it's not millions of dollars).

 

Exactly.

 

I don't blame MU for leaving. They're being obtuse if they think KU's approach now doesn't make sense. It's not strictly about $.

 

KC is already a KU town. But there are plenty of MU and KSU fans too. Moving forward, KU is going to try to own KC. If MU thinks they can maintain local interest with an annual BCS non-con vs Cal or whatever, go for it. Obviously they know games like that won't capture the minds of the KC locals, or they wouldn't be groveling for a shot to play us.

[Guest]

One thing I'm interested in is how moving to the SEC will influence Mizzou basketball's instate recruiting. You're always going to be sport number two in the SEC, and no one outside of Kentucky (maybe Arkansas?) cares about basketball in the SEC. SLU is on the way back up and may provide some heat in state for Mizzou. Kansas seems to always be in the mix for top Missouri talent (Beal, McLemore), and unless you're an elite recruit that wants to play for Calipari or Donovan, there's really no reason to hoop in a remote outskirt of the SEC unless that remote outskirt is an elite program. Mizzou is much more of your typical "state school" than Illinois is though, and from my years in St. Louis I would say the "big city" does a much better job supporting the state school than Chicago.

 

It's hard to tell because we don't have much to go on with Haith's recruiting at Mizzou, but for a long while Mizzou's recruiting has been pretty far flung. Using this year's senior class as a starting point, they have recruited 5 Missouri kids, 4 transfers from other schools(none from MO), the Presseys from Texas, 2 WV kids for 2012, then individual guys from Virginia, Maryland, New Hampshire, Kansas, Florida, Arizona, Tennessee, and Canada.

[Formerly Snayke]

when mizzou looks after their best interests, it's not petty (because it's millions of dollars). but when ku looks after their best interests, it's petty (because it's not millions of dollars).

 

Exactly.

 

Ha.

 

I don't blame MU for leaving. They're being obtuse if they think KU's approach now doesn't make sense. It's not strictly about $.

 

Well, it doesn't make sense, as you go on to explain...

 

KC is already a KU town. But there are plenty of MU and KSU fans too.

 

KU is a five-star program; Missouri is a second-tier school. Only in the rarest instances will they be able to outdo KU for prospects. The best prospects in the KC area are going to choose KU; Missouri being in the SEC will not change that. So really, what else qualifies as "KU's best interests" here?

 

Obviously they know games like that won't capture the minds of the KC locals, or they wouldn't be groveling for a shot to play us.

 

I've yet to see them "grovel" but OK.