Regardless of athletic performance, changing the name from SW Mo St to Missouri State U and becoming the flagship school of the state college system in Missouri has and will do wonders for the school. Despite not being a land-grant institution, having a flagship name and actually being one will push Missouri St into the reaches that were previously unthinkable until recently.

Same thing for Texas St. Changing their previous name from SW TX st to Texas State and becoming the flagship of the State College system has done wonders for them and has them reaching more academically and athletically than can be thought of till recently. While UTSA has made in-roads academically, they are still under UT-Austin. Tx St being a flagship for the state college system will be able to get great success over the course of the next 20 years.

Names do play role in the general population especially when you can take out the regional name and put a more state name to it.

(08-21-2017 10:21 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Valley should invite UAB, USM, MTSU, WKU, LTU, UNT, Rice, and NMSU.

UTEP and UTSA join the Sun Belt.

James Madison, App State, Georgia State, Georgia Southern, and Coastal Carolina join C-USA.

Oral Roberts and the four Dakota schools join the WAC.

Bradley, Drake, Evansville, Indiana State, Valparaiso, and Loyola all join the Summit.

LOL. Zero chance of our joining CUSA

(08-23-2017 03:55 PM)panama Wrote:  

(08-21-2017 10:21 PM)chargeradio Wrote:  The Valley should invite UAB, USM, MTSU, WKU, LTU, UNT, Rice, and NMSU.

UTEP and UTSA join the Sun Belt.

James Madison, App State, Georgia State, Georgia Southern, and Coastal Carolina join C-USA.

Oral Roberts and the four Dakota schools join the WAC.

Bradley, Drake, Evansville, Indiana State, Valparaiso, and Loyola all join the Summit.

LOL. Zero chance of our joining CUSA

What conference would Georgia State eventually like to join?

LOL

Next question

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-23-2017 09:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Regardless of athletic performance, changing the name from SW Mo St to Missouri State U and becoming the flagship school of the state college system in Missouri has and will do wonders for the school. Despite not being a land-grant institution, having a flagship name and actually being one will push Missouri St into the reaches that were previously unthinkable until recently.

Same thing for Texas St. Changing their previous name from SW TX st to Texas State and becoming the flagship of the State College system has done wonders for them and has them reaching more academically and athletically than can be thought of till recently. While UTSA has made in-roads academically, they are still under UT-Austin. Tx St being a flagship for the state college system will be able to get great success over the course of the next 20 years.

Names do play role in the general population especially when you can take out the regional name and put a more state name to it.

this is not true at all Texas State is not the flagship of that system

the Texas State University System was and still is and will continue to be what is known as a "weak system" without a flagship and where each member lobbies the legislature for themselves

this Vs a "strong system" with a flagship and where the system lobbies the legislature for the members

the Texas State System always was and will continue to be a system with no flagship university

(08-23-2017 05:11 PM)TodgeRodge Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 09:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Regardless of athletic performance, changing the name from SW Mo St to Missouri State U and becoming the flagship school of the state college system in Missouri has and will do wonders for the school. Despite not being a land-grant institution, having a flagship name and actually being one will push Missouri St into the reaches that were previously unthinkable until recently.

Same thing for Texas St. Changing their previous name from SW TX st to Texas State and becoming the flagship of the State College system has done wonders for them and has them reaching more academically and athletically than can be thought of till recently. While UTSA has made in-roads academically, they are still under UT-Austin. Tx St being a flagship for the state college system will be able to get great success over the course of the next 20 years.

Names do play role in the general population especially when you can take out the regional name and put a more state name to it.

this is not true at all Texas State is not the flagship of that system

the Texas State University System was and still is and will continue to be what is known as a "weak system" without a flagship and where each member lobbies the legislature for themselves

this Vs a "strong system" with a flagship and where the system lobbies the legislature for the members

the Texas State System always was and will continue to be a system with no flagship university

That would have been awesome ok me dropped as leaflets in German from WWII bombers.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

(08-23-2017 09:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Regardless of athletic performance, changing the name from SW Mo St to Missouri State U and becoming the flagship school of the state college system in Missouri has and will do wonders for the school. Despite not being a land-grant institution, having a flagship name and actually being one will push Missouri St into the reaches that were previously unthinkable until recently.

FWIW, Missouri State is not the flagship of the state college system, as there is no 'state' college system. The University of Missouri system however includes Mizzou (Columbia), UMKC (Kansas City), UMSL (St. Louis), and Missouri S&T (Rolla), though none of the other schools have any relation to each other.

But yeah, the name change does a lot to shift perception for MSU. For a while people still called it SMS, not so much anymore. Springfield and the southern part of the state is growing as well, that doesn't hurt.

(08-23-2017 07:53 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  

(08-23-2017 09:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Regardless of athletic performance, changing the name from SW Mo St to Missouri State U and becoming the flagship school of the state college system in Missouri has and will do wonders for the school. Despite not being a land-grant institution, having a flagship name and actually being one will push Missouri St into the reaches that were previously unthinkable until recently.

FWIW, Missouri State is not the flagship of the state college system, as there is no 'state' college system. The University of Missouri system however includes Mizzou (Columbia), UMKC (Kansas City), UMSL (St. Louis), and Missouri S&T (Rolla), though none of the other schools have any relation to each other.

But yeah, the name change does a lot to shift perception for MSU. For a while people still called it SMS, not so much anymore. Springfield and the southern part of the state is growing as well, that doesn't hurt.

they share the same system president and board of curators so they have a relationship to each other

The Missouri State University System consists of Missouri State and a junior college in West Plains.

The University of Missouri System consists of UM, UMKC, UMSL, and MU Science and Technology.

All other schools are independent.

Too bad Missouri State couldn't take over the land grant functions for the state of Missouri. Could help out the state a lot. Same thing with Arkansas State too!!

According to the numbers in the OP, Missouri has 504 more in-state students than Missouri State. Doesn't seem like a very big goal.

(08-21-2017 11:20 PM)Kittonhead Wrote:  Why doesn't the valley recruit 6 MAC schools then upgrade ISU, UNI, MoSt, SIU to FBS.

Why would a school leave an existing FBS conference, that some have been a part of for 50+ years, to join a conference that isn't FBS and still would not qualify unless some of the existing schools upgrade?

It seems more likely that the MAC would add a couple of the MVC schools.

(08-24-2017 06:13 PM)Wolfman Wrote:  Why would a school leave an existing FBS conference, that some have been a part of for 50+ years, to join a conference that isn't FBS and still would not qualify unless some of the existing schools upgrade?

It seems more likely that the MAC would add a couple of the MVC schools.

No incentive for the MAC to do that unless if it was a pre-meditated split. Even the. You would likely see the MAC add two to each "side" (I'll use Missouri State, Northern Iowa, James Madison, and Delaware in this example) for football only, then six schools depart the MAC for the MVC (or CAA) to birth the new FBS conference.

You then have a conference with 16 teams, 8 of which are FBS, and 6 of which just joined. Presuming 2 of the 8 other schools want to upgrade to FBS, you still have to find homes for at least 4, if not all 6 of them. I doubt the MVC or CAA wants to look like this:

West - Drake, Bradley, Loyola-IL, Indiana State, Evansville, Valparaiso
East - Elon, Charleston, William & Mary, UNCW, Drexel, Hofstra

(Northeastern to America East to replace FBS-bound Stony Brook)

Most likely the MVC if it was "orphaned" would add 4 from the OVC (SIUE, EIU, Murray State, SEMO) who adds 4 from the Big South, who adds the non-FBS schools in the CAA.

If the CAA were "orphaned" then it adds 4 from the Big South, but I see a harder time with the Big South adding from the OVC, which would free up space for the non-FBS MVC schools.

I think some people are joking in this thread. Specifically the ones suggesting that 20 schools play conference musical chairs.

I think f the Sun Belt adds two schools? It would be Missouri State on the west and either James Madison U. or Chattanooga on the east. As it is, there are still possible 4 seats open in FBS. 2 in the Big 12 and 2 in SBC.

(08-28-2017 12:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think f the Sun Belt adds two schools? It would be Missouri State on the west and either James Madison U. or Chattanooga on the east. As it is, there are still possible 4 seats open in FBS. 2 in the Big 12 and 2 in SBC.

I think the Sun Belt is in no hurry to add anyone. We like our members and our geography so we can take our time and be picky about adding new members while we grow our brand.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-28-2017 12:39 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 12:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think f the Sun Belt adds two schools? It would be Missouri State on the west and either James Madison U. or Chattanooga on the east. As it is, there are still possible 4 seats open in FBS. 2 in the Big 12 and 2 in SBC.

I think the Sun Belt is in no hurry to add anyone. We like our members and our geography so we can take our time and be picky about adding new members while we grow our brand.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using CSNbbs mobile app

I think the Belt wanted Chattanooga before they picked you guys.

(08-29-2017 01:13 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 12:39 PM)Georgia_Power_Company Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 12:20 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  I think f the Sun Belt adds two schools? It would be Missouri State on the west and either James Madison U. or Chattanooga on the east. As it is, there are still possible 4 seats open in FBS. 2 in the Big 12 and 2 in SBC.

I think the Sun Belt is in no hurry to add anyone. We like our members and our geography so we can take our time and be picky about adding new members while we grow our brand.

Sent from my SCH-S968C using CSNbbs mobile app

I think the Belt wanted Chattanooga before they picked you guys.

That would be a "NO", especially not without baseball.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/mis...75616.html

Missouri State University has topped Mizzou as the No. 1 choice among high school students who took the ACT exam in Missouri.

(09-13-2017 06:09 PM)msu_bears Wrote:  http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/mis...75616.html

Missouri State University has topped Mizzou as the No. 1 choice among high school students who took the ACT exam in Missouri.

That very impressive. Mo St now needs to keep the momentum and go FBS even though their were shut out by UND.

(08-23-2017 09:05 AM)MWC Tex Wrote:  Regardless of athletic performance, changing the name from SW Mo St to Missouri State U and becoming the flagship school of the state college system in Missouri has and will do wonders for the school. Despite not being a land-grant institution, having a flagship name and actually being one will push Missouri St into the reaches that were previously unthinkable until recently.

Same thing for Texas St. Changing their previous name from SW TX st to Texas State and becoming the flagship of the State College system has done wonders for them and has them reaching more academically and athletically than can be thought of till recently. While UTSA has made in-roads academically, they are still under UT-Austin. Tx St being a flagship for the state college system will be able to get great success over the course of the next 20 years.

Names do play role in the general population especially when you can take out the regional name and put a more state name to it.

Unless something has changed in the last couple years, Texas State is not a flagship campus, though it is in a de facto sense.