Should Missouri join the SEC? Some folks think it would be a good fit. Others don't.
Why is this even a topic of discussion? Because last year's conference realignment talk featured a few good moves, a lot of bad ideas, and one line of thinking that refuses to die: "Texas A&M should be in the SEC."
As one of the folks who thinks Texas A&M would be a good fit, let me start off with this: the SEC does not need to expand right now. The brand is strong, the sports are strong, and the money is strong. Any moves made should be decidedly win-win moves, or they aren't worth it, from a conference standpoint. Unless the additions verifiably increase the conference's worth, they are not worth making.
I can see what TAMU brings to the table. I can also guess that, if they are invited, they will not refuse the SEC a second time. And in the land of narratives and memes the TAMU to the SEC is a strong one.
Missouri is only present in the discussion because of the question "what school would the SEC take to balance the numbers, if TAMU gets an invite?" First of all, I don't think that's a good enough reason.
While I don't think Mizzou would be a detriment to the SEC, I don't see them bringing a whole lot to the table. I don't think they fit the win-win mold that the SEC needs to be looking for when considering targets for expansion. Because of this, Mizzou becomes part of a growing list of schools that would love an SEC invite, but probably won't get one because there just isn't enough brought to the table to make it worthwhile, or there is already an SEC school that is a rival of the invitee who isn't ready to deal with that rival in-conference.
That list includes, but is not limited to:
Georgia Tech - a school that would bring absolutely nothing to the table for the SEC.
Tulane - see Georgia Tech
Clemson - a good cultural fit in a terrible television market.
Florida State - see Clemson.
Virginia Tech - see Clemson.
West Virginia - a less than appropriate cultural fit, less potential, and a less valuable television market than Clemson.
Oklahoma - more tied to the success of University of Texas sports than Texas A&M
Texas - will never join the SEC, and might destroy the conference from the inside if they do
Louisville - interesting opportunity, but a risky bet
North Carolina - DO WANT, but Kentucky basketball is not going to let the Tar Heels into their division
Missouri is different enough from most of those to understand why the idea might grow legs. It doesn't own any TV market, but is close to two big ones. It isn't a cultural fit, but isn't a cultural clash. Their athletic programs aren't big brand names, but they've got a lot of potential in several sports.
.
Showing posts with label Missouri. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri. Show all posts
Disaster Politics
Unsurprisingly, there are a few individuals (mostly website comment trolls) who consider themselves on "the left," who are taking the opportunity of the Tornado disasters and Mississippi River flooding to oversimplify the political beliefs of Southerners and write us all off as Tea Partiers demanding smaller government. By virtue of our assumed collective hatred for TEH SOCIALIZMS of disaster recovery, they think we should live our values now and not ask for any Federal aid. Viewing the South through such a lens, they then descend into "blame the victim" territory so ably applied by their political rivals.
Beyond the fact that their finger-wagging is an absolute failure of narrative building (at which they simply are not prepared to compete with the right), they end up running into other folks on "the left" who despise the concepts of collective blame, political marketing, and false equivalence.
Folks with more crediblity are ready to stop them in their tracks:
Thanks for that.
It also got me thinking. Most importantly, disasters don't check your voter registration before they come crashing through the door. Anyone, anywhere. There but for the Grace of God go I.
But there are apparently plenty of folks who do concern themselves with the voting patterns of Southerners as it relates to the current state of disaster. Not that it should matter, but look at this map alongside the one of where flooding is the worst. Look at the 2008 election returns in Tuscaloosa and Jefferson Counties in Alabama.
Which way did the disaster victims vote, again? And, again, why does it matter?
I hesitate to bring that up. The chorus of "why do you live by a river" is already warming up in the national narrative, and I'm sure there are plenty of right wing elements who are going to use the "handouts" to flood victims and anecdotes of government ineffectiveness in their own states in order to raise some political capital for the next election. I'd expect the same demagougery from Democratic or "liberal" elements as well. Same as it ever was.
.
Beyond the fact that their finger-wagging is an absolute failure of narrative building (at which they simply are not prepared to compete with the right), they end up running into other folks on "the left" who despise the concepts of collective blame, political marketing, and false equivalence.
Folks with more crediblity are ready to stop them in their tracks:
Hating on the South in the comments for voting Republican will get you banned, permanently. I'm in no mood.
Thanks for that.
It also got me thinking. Most importantly, disasters don't check your voter registration before they come crashing through the door. Anyone, anywhere. There but for the Grace of God go I.
But there are apparently plenty of folks who do concern themselves with the voting patterns of Southerners as it relates to the current state of disaster. Not that it should matter, but look at this map alongside the one of where flooding is the worst. Look at the 2008 election returns in Tuscaloosa and Jefferson Counties in Alabama.
Which way did the disaster victims vote, again? And, again, why does it matter?
I hesitate to bring that up. The chorus of "why do you live by a river" is already warming up in the national narrative, and I'm sure there are plenty of right wing elements who are going to use the "handouts" to flood victims and anecdotes of government ineffectiveness in their own states in order to raise some political capital for the next election. I'd expect the same demagougery from Democratic or "liberal" elements as well. Same as it ever was.
.
Labels:
Arkansas,
infrastructure,
left-wing,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Missouri,
narratives,
right wing,
United States
The Flood
Jerz and I have often spoken of government waste over the years.
Is anyone ready to start questioning why the best plan available to the Midwest and South is to blow up the levees?
I mean, if you have to destroy something and cause a catastrophe in order to escape and even bigger catastrophe, what does that tell you?
.
Is anyone ready to start questioning why the best plan available to the Midwest and South is to blow up the levees?
I mean, if you have to destroy something and cause a catastrophe in order to escape and even bigger catastrophe, what does that tell you?
.
Labels:
flood,
Illinois,
infrastructure,
Louisiana,
Mississippi,
Missouri,
Tennessee
Another Reminder
Why would anyone think that agents of the US government might blow up levees and flood some areas in order to save others?
I haven't heard a satisfactory answer so far.
.
I haven't heard a satisfactory answer so far.
.
Labels:
History,
infrastructure,
Media,
Missouri
Remember
When black people thought the government had bombed some levees to flood low property value areas to save high property value areas, they were considered crazy conspiracy lunatics who were uneducated and trying to guilt the government into giving them a hand-out.
Because everybody knows that levees don't get blown up by the United States government.
< / narrative >
.
Because everybody knows that levees don't get blown up by the United States government.
< / narrative >
.
Labels:
infrastructure,
Missouri,
United States
When the Levee Breaks
My heart goes out to the residents of Missouri suffering from a water overflowing their levees.
It just goes to remind us that water, given enough time, pressure, or volume, will overwhelm man's defenses. Maybe it is time man started thinking beyond mounds of dirt as our only defense.
.
It just goes to remind us that water, given enough time, pressure, or volume, will overwhelm man's defenses. Maybe it is time man started thinking beyond mounds of dirt as our only defense.
.
Labels:
infrastructure,
Missouri
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Blog Archive
- August (2)
- August (52)
- July (41)
- June (58)
- May (60)
- April (73)
- March (76)
- February (49)
- January (90)
- December (53)
- November (51)
- October (23)
- September (7)
- August (28)
- July (7)
- June (10)
- May (7)
- April (46)
- March (15)
- February (8)
- January (11)
- December (15)
- November (9)
- October (12)
- September (17)
- August (12)
- July (18)
- June (5)
- May (8)
- April (12)
- March (12)
- February (9)
- January (11)
- December (7)
- November (10)
- October (15)
- September (7)
- August (3)
- July (4)
- June (7)
- May (10)
- April (48)
- March (3)
- February (3)
- December (4)
- November (5)
- October (8)
- September (3)
- August (8)
- July (3)
- June (7)
- May (8)
- April (6)
- March (5)
- February (8)
- January (10)
- December (15)
- November (18)
- October (10)
- September (7)
- August (8)
- July (8)
- June (15)
- May (11)
- April (4)
- March (10)
- February (3)
- January (8)
- December (21)
- November (20)
- October (20)
- September (15)
- August (26)
- July (32)