snoodmonger

not sure why you're worried. you have missed a few shots, but we haven't actually forced a miss yet.

well, i guess if you're gonna lose, might as well get smoked.

man they are just taking it to us.

flop flop flop flop flop

god the reffing in this game is awful

Best team ever? Marcus Fizer laughs at you. Not saying it'll happen but they will have the potential to be that good. Man I don't know, that Fizer team was the second best team in America that year(IMO). The committee screwed them. I agree. That ISU team was bananas. I think the clones will be good next year. They'll have a real chance to win the Big 12 if Royce White comes back. But I don't think they'll be better than that team.

Iowa St. would fare about as well as Nebraska has in the B1G. as evidenced by the B12's 4-1 record against the B10 this year. yes, definitely. Any conference that has Iowa St. in 4th place is hot garbage. With Mizzou leaving next year it's going to be Kansas and a whole bunch of bad basketball going forward. lol. Iowa State and Purdue are one spot away from each other per kenpom. (34th and 35th) Mere percentage points. They'd probably have a very similar record to your team. 6th is a fair assessment. Nebraska? No. As for the Big 12 moving forward, WVU has been consistently equal to or better than Missouri. I think we come out ahead in terms of basketball on that exchange. TCU is worse than aTm, but aTm is overall a pretty big who cares in hoops. KU, UT, WVU, KSU, and BU will all be solid programs. I love what the Mayor is doing in Ames. After Mizzou, they're the Big 12 team I'd least like to play again. I think they'll continue to get better. OSU has players. Ford is an awful coach though. Hard to say where he'll take that program. I have no idea what to think about OU. TCU and Tech are awful and look to be awful for the foreseeable future.

I've yet to see anything close to whining in this thread about it, just laughing at how whiny Bill Self sounds. I am completely indifferent to Missouri playing KU. Missouri rarely wins, and they'll have enough issues with Kentucky twice a year. The funny thing is, Self didn't sound whiny at all. He's very complimentary of Mizzou and says he understands their decision. Where is he whiny?

Self's shaman paralyzed his typing fingers.

Exactly. Ha. Well, it doesn't make sense, as you go on to explain... 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? I've yet to see them "grovel" but OK. It's about more than just basketball. It's about more than athletics even. The more KU can marginalize MU in KC, the better for our school. It can help enrollment, merchandise sales, general perception, etc. We'll never convert MU fans into KU fans. But people without a die-hard rooting allegiance can be pushed more toward KU. And there are lots of those in KC. And I'm seeing plenty of begging and whining in this thread and from your administration.

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.

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

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.)

Good for them. Maybe they can stop complaining.

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.

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.

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.

It doesn't benefit KU at all to play Missouri in either sport. Football is obvious. We suck and only have 3 non cons. No sense in scheduling an uphill battle in any of those. Basketball-- We're on national TV almost every time we play. We don't need to schedule Missouri to get on TV. (But Missouri usually does need us to be a national story.) We use non-cons as a recruiting opportunity. Would rather play in areas where we're trying to maintain a recruiting footprint then play a regional game. We don't need Missouri to sell out AFH. We do it against everyone. Missouri generally does need us. Playing Missouri keeps them more in the conversation locally. Clearly, KU is trying to use this whole thing as an opportunity to marginalize MU in KC. Keeping the rivalry going makes no sense if that's the goal. And why reward a team that bailed on the conference? Sorry, that is a legit reason. UT isn't playing aTm either.

this about sums it up.

Missouri's defense is a combination of illegal hand checks and flopping. It's no prettier than KSU's. No, it's far worse. This game has been Frank Martin's dream, just throw bodies everywhere, pick up the pieces for rebounds/points where you can, and hope the officials don't have the spine to call 40 fouls on one team. No, it's not far worse. Mizzou's guards hack non stop. English hacks constantly down low, but refs don't seem to call it because he's so much smaller than his defender. And Missouri flop flops flops on the plays they don't hand check. If I had to watch one team play, however, I'd pick Missouri because they actually run an offense.

oh give me a break on that English foul.

Missouri's defense is a combination of illegal hand checks and flopping. It's no prettier than KSU's.

fuggin Keiton Page has 36 points so far and is 16-16 from the FT line vs Texas.

i would just eliminate them entirely as fouls, as most every referee can't seem to get them right and can use them to dictate the outcome of the game. i think players should earn fouls for flopping.

that's paul hewitt-bad It ain't Turner Gill bad, though.