|
|
|
I’ve never written an editorial type column in all the time I’ve been doing these stories. Well, I’m about to break that silence. Such an article is strictly an opinion, and I feel strongly enough about the subject to express mine.
I’ve observed for several months now all of the rhetoric concerning the University of Missouri’s decision to move to the Southeastern Conference while severing ties with the Big 12 Conference after this current school year.
I watched as the University of Colorado and the University of Nebraska chose to do the same thing one year ago. Colorado moving to the now Pacific 12 and Nebraska moving to the Big 10 both happened last year. I realize there was some discussion at the time, but those two moves are a “done deal” and we have moved on.
Now all of a sudden, Missouri is being made out as the villain because we are making a similar move one year later. More accusations and harsh statements have been directed toward Mizzou than I heard toward the other two institutions a year ago. Texas A & M University has gone pretty much unscathed even though they have chosen to make the same move as Missouri to the SEC after this year also.
It hasn’t been that many months ago that the universities of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas were surveying the horizon to see if they might be allowed to break ranks with the Big 12 Conference and join the Pacific 12 Conference. Had this been allowed, it would have left the remaining six institutions in the old conference high and dry with only a skeleton crew of the original group.
However, they were denied their request and remained in the Big 12, then proceeded to add Texas Christian University and the University of West Virginia to the present conference teams with the hopes of keeping the status quo. But when Missouri applied and was accepted into the SEC, all of a sudden Mizzou became the rebel school that should be ashamed of itself.
Before Missouri’s relocation became official, conference officials attempted to appease MU by saying meetings were being held to attempt to divide conference revenues equally among all of the participating schools. My question: Why wasn’t this being done all along?” How and when did we ever agree to this sort of biased arrangement to begin with?
If the conference “powers that be” were so concerned about the well-being of Mizzou and seeing them be treated fairly, where were they in 2007 when a neighboring institution, who is also a member of the Big 12 conference, and who Mizzou defeated earlier and finished higher than in the final conference standings, was allowed to finagle MU out of the BSC bowl invitation to the Orange Bowl with its increased revenues and prestige and forced the Tigers to accept the Cotton Bowl invitation instead?
Is it the right move for the University of Missouri? Only time will tell. I have two pet statements I make to kids that I feel might fit in this situation. When a kid would tell me he was going to do this or that, I would simply reply, “Show me!” Or when a kid would tell me he had made a decision to do something, I would advise, “Don’t look back!”
I’ve never written an editorial type column in all the time I’ve been doing these stories. Well, I’m about to break that silence. Such an article is strictly an opinion, and I feel strongly enough about the subject to express mine.
I’ve observed for several months now all of the rhetoric concerning the University of Missouri’s decision to move to the Southeastern Conference while severing ties with the Big 12 Conference after this current school year.
I watched as the University of Colorado and the University of Nebraska chose to do the same thing one year ago. Colorado moving to the now Pacific 12 and Nebraska moving to the Big 10 both happened last year. I realize there was some discussion at the time, but those two moves are a “done deal” and we have moved on.
Now all of a sudden, Missouri is being made out as the villain because we are making a similar move one year later. More accusations and harsh statements have been directed toward Mizzou than I heard toward the other two institutions a year ago. Texas A & M University has gone pretty much unscathed even though they have chosen to make the same move as Missouri to the SEC after this year also.
It hasn’t been that many months ago that the universities of Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas Tech, and Texas were surveying the horizon to see if they might be allowed to break ranks with the Big 12 Conference and join the Pacific 12 Conference. Had this been allowed, it would have left the remaining six institutions in the old conference high and dry with only a skeleton crew of the original group.
However, they were denied their request and remained in the Big 12, then proceeded to add Texas Christian University and the University of West Virginia to the present conference teams with the hopes of keeping the status quo. But when Missouri applied and was accepted into the SEC, all of a sudden Mizzou became the rebel school that should be ashamed of itself.
Before Missouri’s relocation became official, conference officials attempted to appease MU by saying meetings were being held to attempt to divide conference revenues equally among all of the participating schools. My question: Why wasn’t this being done all along?” How and when did we ever agree to this sort of biased arrangement to begin with?
If the conference “powers that be” were so concerned about the well-being of Mizzou and seeing them be treated fairly, where were they in 2007 when a neighboring institution, who is also a member of the Big 12 conference, and who Mizzou defeated earlier and finished higher than in the final conference standings, was allowed to finagle MU out of the BSC bowl invitation to the Orange Bowl with its increased revenues and prestige and forced the Tigers to accept the Cotton Bowl invitation instead?
Is it the right move for the University of Missouri? Only time will tell. I have two pet statements I make to kids that I feel might fit in this situation. When a kid would tell me he was going to do this or that, I would simply reply, “Show me!” Or when a kid would tell me he had made a decision to do something, I would advise, “Don’t look back!”
