Well, nothing like laying down conditions. Right?
This is somewhat hypothetical as Missouri has already pledged to play in the Big 12/10 in 2012. Didn't they? Of course we fully realize that pledge means nothing if the SEC says "Missouri Tigers--come on down, you are the next contestant on the Price is Right".
Oh wait, we meant to say "Galactic Realignment".
According to reports late Friday night and Saturday, Alabama has stated they would support Missouri moving to the SEC...as long as they play in the SEC East.
Makes logistical sense....doesn't it?
Read the whole story from Al.com/Birmingham News RIGHT HERE
Sure, we get Alabama's logic..to an extent. They apparently want to keep their rivalry game with Tennessee and the real reason--They don't want Auburn to go to the East and gain a recruiting advantage in Florida and Georgia.
Doesn't sound petty at all...does it?
Here's our question. Why is the SEC so fixated on Missouri? Or are they fixated on Missouri? The writers and pundits all seem to think it is a done deal and a great fit for TV purposes.
We don't totally agree.
Does Missouri really give the SEC more cache' than say a North Carolina State? Or Virginia Tech? Or even a Louisville? Academically, yeah, they probably do. But in football, they are somewhat equal (okay, Va. Tech is a little more equal). But essentially they are all the same school.
It is our opinion (ok, mine), that the SEC and Mike Slive are a little trickier than that. Don't be surprised if Missouri never makes it to the SEC. Heck, the al.com story quotes a Missouri official who told the Associated Press they prefer the Big 10, but will take the SEC because "That's what's left".
No, Missouri is too obvious and it appears they are willing to go, but not incredibly excited to do it. There are other schools out there and our money goes on one of them making the SEC whole at 14.