CSNbbs

Full Version: Kansas Coach Still Avoiding Mizzou BB Series
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
Bill Self still cold towards any renewal of a series that has been played 268 times. Sounds like a sore loser. 03-weeping Mizzou happy to oblige.

http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketb...ers-series
Much like KU/WSU, the NCAA will have to schedule it for him. Maybe he won't get boatraced by 15 in this one.
Self was quoted as saying:
"We're going to do what's best for us," Self said. "We're not interested in what's best for Missouri or best for Missouri fans. But if it's best for us to play them, we will. It's not a complicated deal."

"I'm not going to say never," Self said. "But I don't think there's been any change in our position as far as the university goes. I'm the spokesman, I guess, on this, but trust me, I'm not the only one that feels that way. There was a very large contingent of KU people who weren't happy that we were doing this initially -- until they realized it was a good cause."

As long as Self is coach @ Kansas,
they will NEVER schedule a regular season game w/ MIzzu
KU needs to play Mizzou in all sports. Period. Even if Bill Self thinks KU has nothing to gain. You have to play your arch rival.
Kansas is simply making Missouri lay in the bed that they chose for themselves. The Tigers were desperate to get out of the Big 12 and the cost of that was losing their rivalries. They chose money over tradition and the folks at Kansas are interested in letting them have their cake and it eat it too by recieving $EC money in addition to keeping traditional opponents coming to their stadium, filling seats, and paying premium ticket prices for a big game. Kansas can still collect a nice pay day once a year when either Texas or Oklahoma come to town so they are doing just fine on the football front. In basketball, they are they are the Kansas Jayhawks, a blue blood who will do just fine wth or without Missouri.
(10-22-2017 08:12 PM)johnintx Wrote: [ -> ]KU needs to play Mizzou in all sports. Period. Even if Bill Self thinks KU has nothing to gain. You have to play your arch rival.

Disagree 100%
Conference realignment = cake and eating it too.
(10-22-2017 08:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Kansas is simply making Missouri lay in the bed that they chose for themselves. The Tigers were desperate to get out of the Big 12 and the cost of that was losing their rivalries. They chose money over tradition and the folks at Kansas are interested in letting them have their cake and it eat it too by recieving $EC money in addition to keeping traditional opponents coming to their stadium, filling seats, and paying premium ticket prices for a big game. Kansas can still collect a nice pay day once a year when either Texas or Oklahoma come to town so they are doing just fine on the football front. In basketball, they are they are the Kansas Jayhawks, a blue blood who will do just fine wth or without Missouri.

Exactly.

Missouri made their choice to join a conference where their new b-ball foes are Mississippi State, LSU, Vanderbilt, Auburn, Ole Miss, et cetera ...

Missouri can enjoy all those games that draw 4000 fans and are seen by almost nobody on the SEC Network.
Missouri was 100% correct in bolting for the SEC. In conference realignment terms, it was a complete no-brainer regardless of any emotional attachments to prexisting rivalries. Mizzou has an exponentially better conference home than Kansas and shouldn’t ever make apologies for it. Given the choice, every Big 12 school other than Texas would take an invite to any of the other P5 leagues. Kansas would *love* to do the same, so people shouldn’t get all sanctimonious about Mizzou’s actions (as they sound like the old Big East football schools that all complained about the ACC poaching, but then bolted for the ACC and other power leagues themselves at the first opportunity).

By the same token, Kansas, as arguably the bluest of the blue blood basketball schools (as you can’t get more blue blood than James Naismith himself starting the program there), also is 100% within its rights to not GAF about Mizzou and schedule whoever it wants during its non-conference schedule. It’s an age old complaint that the school with less power whines that the more powerful school won’t play them. The more powerful school doesn’t and shouldn’t care one iota.
(10-22-2017 09:44 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-22-2017 08:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Kansas is simply making Missouri lay in the bed that they chose for themselves. The Tigers were desperate to get out of the Big 12 and the cost of that was losing their rivalries. They chose money over tradition and the folks at Kansas are interested in letting them have their cake and it eat it too by recieving $EC money in addition to keeping traditional opponents coming to their stadium, filling seats, and paying premium ticket prices for a big game. Kansas can still collect a nice pay day once a year when either Texas or Oklahoma come to town so they are doing just fine on the football front. In basketball, they are they are the Kansas Jayhawks, a blue blood who will do just fine wth or without Missouri.

Exactly.

Missouri made their choice to join a conference where their new b-ball foes are Mississippi State, LSU, Vanderbilt, Auburn, Ole Miss, et cetera ...

Missouri can enjoy all those games that draw 4000 fans and are seen by almost nobody on the SEC Network.

You play your rivals every year. It's not that difficult, Kansas just had their feelings hurt and took their ball and went home.

South Carolina had a very ugly exit from the ACC and Clemson had no problem continuing to play us every year. Because they wanted to beat us. That's what rivals do.

I can almost see football because there are lots of moving parts and few slots. But basketball has 10+ out of conference games every year and this would be extremely easy to schedule.
They are playing an exhibition game at the sprint center for hurricane relief (A&M/UT are as well in Houston)

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/college...16556.html
Missouri-Kansas and Texas-texas A&M should be playing every year in basketball now and other non football sports. Football schedule are so far out that it’s a different issue. Ideally, Missouri would play Illinois in St. Louis and Kansas in kc every year for hoops.
Lots of rivals do not belong to the same conference. Kansas would bolt from the Big XII in a minute if the B1G ever called. No one is saying they have to play us, but it would be good for the fans. I liken it to having your best employee leave for greener pastures. Nothing against your company... just had to take the better offer, and they did. Nothing was personal between Mizzou and most other Big XII schools. Texas is acting like a baby with the Aggies as well, so this must be a Big XII butt hurt thing.
(10-23-2017 08:50 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-22-2017 09:44 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-22-2017 08:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Kansas is simply making Missouri lay in the bed that they chose for themselves. The Tigers were desperate to get out of the Big 12 and the cost of that was losing their rivalries. They chose money over tradition and the folks at Kansas are interested in letting them have their cake and it eat it too by recieving $EC money in addition to keeping traditional opponents coming to their stadium, filling seats, and paying premium ticket prices for a big game. Kansas can still collect a nice pay day once a year when either Texas or Oklahoma come to town so they are doing just fine on the football front. In basketball, they are they are the Kansas Jayhawks, a blue blood who will do just fine wth or without Missouri.

Exactly.

Missouri made their choice to join a conference where their new b-ball foes are Mississippi State, LSU, Vanderbilt, Auburn, Ole Miss, et cetera ...

Missouri can enjoy all those games that draw 4000 fans and are seen by almost nobody on the SEC Network.

You play your rivals every year. It's not that difficult, Kansas just had their feelings hurt and took their ball and went home.

South Carolina had a very ugly exit from the ACC and Clemson had no problem continuing to play us every year. Because they wanted to beat us. That's what rivals do.

I can almost see football because there are lots of moving parts and few slots. But basketball has 10+ out of conference games every year and this would be extremely easy to schedule.

Even with more on-paper flexibility in basketball, there's still a massive imbalance of power of where Kansas is compared to where Missouri is in that sport. EVERY school in the country wants a home-and-home with Kansas. So, if Bill Self or the Kansas AD only have 1 or 2 home-and-home basketball series available per year for budgeting purposes (as they're always committed to the Champions Classic with the other blue bloods of basketball), Mizzou simply isn't a priority at all. Kansas fans would *legitimately* rather have a game against Kentucky, UNC, UCLA, Syracuse, Michigan State, et. al. and it's not just sour grapes posturing. In contrast, Kansas is by FAR the #1 potential non-conference game on the schedule for Mizzou (and I say that as an Illini guy that loves the Braggin' Rights Game and personally loathes Kansas on-the-court).

When one school is a blue blood, absolutely no one can expect that such school is going to go out of its way to help out a lower profile rival that left for a different conference. I don't begrudge Kansas for not scheduling Mizzou or Texas not scheduling Texas A&M or any other school that is higher on the pecking order not scheduling a previous rival or in-state school. Those Big 12 schools should use their leverage completely in their own self-interests just as the schools that left the Big 12 correctly chose different conferences in their own respective self-interests. I can't fault any of the parties involved for those choices.
(10-23-2017 01:06 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-23-2017 08:50 AM)Gamecock Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-22-2017 09:44 PM)Nittany_Bearcat Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-22-2017 08:59 PM)Fighting Muskie Wrote: [ -> ]Kansas is simply making Missouri lay in the bed that they chose for themselves. The Tigers were desperate to get out of the Big 12 and the cost of that was losing their rivalries. They chose money over tradition and the folks at Kansas are interested in letting them have their cake and it eat it too by recieving $EC money in addition to keeping traditional opponents coming to their stadium, filling seats, and paying premium ticket prices for a big game. Kansas can still collect a nice pay day once a year when either Texas or Oklahoma come to town so they are doing just fine on the football front. In basketball, they are they are the Kansas Jayhawks, a blue blood who will do just fine wth or without Missouri.

Exactly.

Missouri made their choice to join a conference where their new b-ball foes are Mississippi State, LSU, Vanderbilt, Auburn, Ole Miss, et cetera ...

Missouri can enjoy all those games that draw 4000 fans and are seen by almost nobody on the SEC Network.

You play your rivals every year. It's not that difficult, Kansas just had their feelings hurt and took their ball and went home.

South Carolina had a very ugly exit from the ACC and Clemson had no problem continuing to play us every year. Because they wanted to beat us. That's what rivals do.

I can almost see football because there are lots of moving parts and few slots. But basketball has 10+ out of conference games every year and this would be extremely easy to schedule.

Even with more on-paper flexibility in basketball, there's still a massive imbalance of power of where Kansas is compared to where Missouri is in that sport. EVERY school in the country wants a home-and-home with Kansas. So, if Bill Self or the Kansas AD only have 1 or 2 home-and-home basketball series available per year for budgeting purposes (as they're always committed to the Champions Classic with the other blue bloods of basketball), Mizzou simply isn't a priority at all. Kansas fans would *legitimately* rather have a game against Kentucky, UNC, UCLA, Syracuse, Michigan State, et. al. and it's not just sour grapes posturing. In contrast, Kansas is by FAR the #1 potential non-conference game on the schedule for Mizzou (and I say that as an Illini guy that loves the Braggin' Rights Game and personally loathes Kansas on-the-court).

When one school is a blue blood, absolutely no one can expect that such school is going to go out of its way to help out a lower profile rival that left for a different conference. I don't begrudge Kansas for not scheduling Mizzou or Texas not scheduling Texas A&M or any other school that is higher on the pecking order not scheduling a previous rival or in-state school. Those Big 12 schools should use their leverage completely in their own self-interests just as the schools that left the Big 12 correctly chose different conferences in their own respective self-interests. I can't fault any of the parties involved for those choices.

I understand the reasons, but it's just idiotic that they don't play Missouri every year. Find a way to get it done. Realignment shouldn't impact rivalries.
(10-22-2017 08:12 PM)johnintx Wrote: [ -> ]KU needs to play Mizzou in all sports. Period. Even if Bill Self thinks KU has nothing to gain. You have to play your arch rival.

"needs" 03-lmfao

You are a fan of OU, who, as soon as the Texas schools joined the Big 12, basically said, "Go away, Nebraska, we don't need to play you every year."

Anyway, what Self is really saying is that KU has some extremely generous donors who absolutely don't want KU to schedule Mizzou, and that he has good enough self-preservation instincts to not cross the money guys on things they really care about.
I always hate to see rivalries die, whether it's KU-Mizzou or something minor like Idaho-Boise State that was a big deal for decades. Of course most of that has to do with economics and/or competitive disadvantage, I don't think anyone expects LSU-Tulane to become a real thing anymore. But when teams have a lot in common and play around the same level it's kinda sad imo, though I completely understand why. It's just the age we live in.
(10-23-2017 02:39 PM)Wedge Wrote: [ -> ]
(10-22-2017 08:12 PM)johnintx Wrote: [ -> ]KU needs to play Mizzou in all sports. Period. Even if Bill Self thinks KU has nothing to gain. You have to play your arch rival.

"needs" 03-lmfao

You are a fan of OU, who, as soon as the Texas schools joined the Big 12, basically said, "Go away, Nebraska, we don't need to play you every year."

Anyway, what Self is really saying is that KU has some extremely generous donors who absolutely don't want KU to schedule Mizzou, and that he has good enough self-preservation instincts to not cross the money guys on things they really care about.

The decision by OU leadership to accept a Big 12 structure with no permanent cross-division opponents turned out, in hindsight, to be a mistake for the conference. OU wasn't going to accept a permanent crossover game with Nebraska while Texas had, say, Iowa State, as a permanent opponent. In 1996, when the Big 12 was formed, Nebraska was at its all-time peak. OU was in its worst stretch since World War II. In the short-term, it was a benefit to OU. We had no clue in 1996 that the OU program would ever bounce back. In the long-term, it hurt both OU and Nebraska. Perhaps a permanent OU-Nebraska game would have caused Nebraska to think twice about leaving. Perhaps not. We'll never know.

For what it's worth, OU and Nebraska have signed home-and-home contracts for 2021-2022 and 2029-2030. It won't be the same, but the relationship and the history are still there.

OU vs. Nebraska was a different kind of rivalry. The two fan bases are separated by geography. They don't live together, and usually don't work together. It became a rivalry because of the stakes involved: conference and national championships. The fan bases never hated each other. On a smaller scale, Florida-Tennessee is similar. They didn't play regularly until 1992, but then played a series of nationally relevant games with championship implications. Those games are entertaining to those of us on the outside, but the two schools could live without each other.

For OU's parallel to KU-Mizzou, think OU-Texas. Same level of mutual disgust. Only difference is that OU and Texas played each other for 80 years while in different conferences. Texas is OU's historical rival. A closer parallel would be Florida-Georgia. They are historical conference rivals with a mutual level of hate. If those two ever quit playing each other (won't happen...ever), it would be a big loss to both sides.

Frank is right when he says KU is well within its rights to tell Mizzou to take a hike. That's a price you pay when you trade KU, K-State, and Iowa State for Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina. Mizzou did what they thought they had to do, and I don't blame them for doing so under the circumstances. The whole thing is a negative consequence of realignment.

My point is simply that I think that blood rivals ought to play, especially two rivals that go back to the Civil War, before they had universities and intercollegiate athletics.
Usually when a rivalry series dies it's because one school wronged the other. Texas and Kansas are perfectly justified in refusing to play them. The Penn St--Pitt series died in part because Pitt was less than helpful in realizing Paterno's vision of an all sports league. Pitt did vote to let them in the Big East but by then the damage was already done.

You also have series like Pitt-WVU and WVU-VT that die not because the schools can't reach an agreement but the rigidity of OOC scheduling won't allow for it but this is not one of those cases.
Among Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou, how many B12 schools have actually scheduled any of them during the regular seasons in fb and bb?

Kansas State and Mizzou no longer play bb either, right? Yet, KSU has been scheduling other SEC teams in fb such as Vandy and Mississippi State. I expect KSU would receive displeasure from other B12 members if they did schedule Mizzou. Not sure Mizzou has been interested, but KSU usually has a decent program.

Some of this is pettiness. In several years when there is more turnover in key personnel, perhaps attitudes change some and grudges subside.

I will say this, with Self's remarks, they must have already struck off the SEC for future conference affiliation. If schools in the B12 start scrambling for new homes in a few years, they may not want to burn any decent options, even ones that appear remote at best.
(10-23-2017 08:25 PM)OdinFrigg Wrote: [ -> ]Among Texas A&M, Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou, how many B12 schools have actually scheduled any of them during the regular seasons in fb and bb?

OU played Mizzou in the Big 12/SEC challenge in 2015. OU played A&M in a neutral-and-neutral (OKC, Houston) series in 2013 and 2014.

Mizzou and A&M participate in the Big 12/SEC Challenge when asked. I remember Iowa State playing A&M. In this event, though, Mizzou has not played KU, and A&M has not played any of the Texas schools. Interestingly, West Virginia has played both Missouri and Texas A&M in this event. Safe, non-controversial matchups.

A&M did play Texas in a tournament in the Bahamas a couple of years ago. I don't believe that was purposely scheduled.

Last year, IIRC, KU played a home game in men's basketball against Nebraska. They've also played Colorado in hoops (I don't remember if it was a home-and-home).

The rub is between KU-Mizzou and Texas-A&M. I think Texas and A&M will eventually play. As for KU and Missouri: they won't play for a long time.
Pages: 1 2
Reference URL's