It's not that we're "staggeringly ignorant", it's just that we don't care.

It's a joke, you rube.

LMAO

Who would hire him?

Nobody worth a shit.

But that being said, I think that is where Charlie made his mark in football. Christ, he made Cassel look competent for a stretch of games.

I would think that someone would hire him to be a QB coach at the very least.

Why was Weis hired in the first place? It was obvious to just about everyone (including some ku fans) that Weis was a horrible choice. Why throw that much money at a guy you KNOW won't win anything?

To get the fans interested in a "name" guy would be my guess.

Everybody relax. Weis isn't going anywhere.

The point is that Kansas has a lot more money than Mizzou does.

Good thing with all the football coaches on the roster, amirite?

With the state of the program the way it was and still is, it wouldn't be an attractive job. Your choices are probably just to hire someone else who's had success in a mid-major (like Turner Gill) or someone like Weis who's trying to resurect his career.

Those inflatable chairs they lined up behind the end zone are probably a lot of upkeep.

Hey, pleather doesn't just grow on trees.

How is it not an attractive job? 5 years guaranteed? **** yeah...

B ball recruits are expensive. Funny when Beaks try to knock Cal ROFL

Kansas earns more than Mizzou. Not sure what they'll do with it.

They should probably hide it somewhere safe where nobody can find it. Memorial Stadium seems like a logical spot.

It's amazing how they do so little on the field with so much revenue at their disposal.

Those McDonald's All-Americans don't come cheap.

Their AD wins a lot actually. Yours is the one who cannot ever break through with a big achievement. Probably because you don't generate enough dough to compete.

Don't they have a losing streak going that will soon be entering its fourth year?

LMAO

You have a 75 year final four drought and a 44 year BCS quality drought.

You didn't answer his question.

I'm trying to figure out what a final four would accomplish for Mizzou. I doubt most people recall the teams from final fours, while most could name a champion or two. kansas should be thrilled with their basketball titles, but a final 2, 4, 8, or whatever doesn't seem meaningful.

How is all this money helping football?

They love raising banners for losing. If not for a fluke shot a few years back that's all they'd have in a loooooong time....

Fortunately for you, you'll never have to wonder about that.

It doesn't. It helps keep Wiggins from going to Kentucky though. :D

But, but, but Cal cheats!!! Whiny bitches

Winning a BCS game would bring me a lot more pride than appearing in a final four. It's football.

Mizzou was in what was a "Final 4" in football against OU a few years back. Didn't feel real good losing that, but they love celebrating it in hoops.

Why do you say that? The tourney is a bit of a crapshoot. Heck, they played in an elite eight when I was a student there (and may have other times; I have no idea).

I'm guessing they could get hot/lucky again and make a final four. I can't imagine anyone outside of Mizzou fans caring, though. It's akin to a BCS game this season. I'm sure it would be fun, but it's not the National Championship game. Nobody is going to remember/care about a non-title BCS game, outside of the people that attend. Mizzou has had a great season either way, but a national title is what would be remembered.

ORANGE BOWEL BABAEY!!1!1!1

-Obligatory

It would be great (and should allow us to recruit a bit), but I don't anybody outside of Mizzou circles would remember a few years down the road.

Alot of good that did for the ole football program ROFL Even the recruits sensed an undeserving bid.

Kansas won a National Championship last year.

Still waiting on MU's...

Are you kidding me? Beg, borrow and steal to get to a BCS game if MU makes it. It's incredible.

You're right that nobody outside of the school's fans is going to care about winning a BCS game in a few years if it's not the national championship, I would just see it as a nice milestone along the way pointing to the football program's growth.

No need to wonder, just ask your nearest Kansas fan which is better.

Turns out that winning an Orange Bowl means a six year slide into historic futility... I'll take the Cotton Bowl win, the top five finish, and 70+ wins and counting.

Nonsense. Everyone at Mizzou and Kansas State still talk daily about our Orange Bowl champs.

yeah, that's a pretty bad lie, even for you.

lol

The scary part is that you actually believe it.

The Final Four drew higher ratings and higher viewership than the BCS bowls did:
http://collegebasketballtalk.nbcspor...in-tv-ratings/

Even with the Mighty Jayhawks not making the Final Four last year? Are you sure?

Apparently people would rather watch Wichita State play basketball than the Fiesta, Cotton, Orange or Sugar Bowls. At least the Rose did better.

The 2013 Final Four was the highest rated since 2006.

This year will be even higher with numerous superstars playing for all the biggest name teams.

Starting with tomorrow night it's going to be a circus.

I'll admit this - I'm not a basketball guy, either pro or college, but I really enjoy watching the tournament. However, I somewhat lose interest as the tourney goes on. Watching teams get TO the Final Four is way more interesting to me than watching the teams that are IN the Final Four.

And I know that this will get all kinds of eye rolling from my Jayhawk fiends, but college basketball doesn't have much competition in way of other sports. The NBA is boring compared to college, and hockey just doesn't have the draw (even though they have rabid fans). College BB is really about the only thing going on then. Not sure that's much of a compliment.

Wichita State was the classic Cinderella story. Of course people tuned them in. Doesn't mean any of those other bowl games drew poorly, mind you.

College Basketball earns more advertising revenue than anything in sports except the NFL.

All sports find their time of year. The only time you see real "competition" is when the World Series is forced to go against the NFL.

Everything else puts their major events on nights/times there won't be much to compete against.

Last years BCS National Championship Game between arguably the two most storied programs in the history of the sport drew 26.4 million viewers.

23.4 million watched two second tier programs play for the National Title in basketball.

But you are correct. If you loosely equate the Final Four to the BCS Bowls then college basketball ratings are much higher.

Of course not, never said as much. Studies on tourney ratings suggest viewers tune in for Cinderellas more so than traditional powers.

I'd stipulate all those points but I post the viewership data to dispel the myth college football is so vastly more popular. It is but the margin isn't all that great. Both sports don't draw flies relative to the NFL. It's so dominant that even the garbage Pro Bowl draws great ratings.

In fairness, it's the NCAA Tournament that draws big viewership, not the weekly matchups.

Sure. If the tourney disappeared and was replaced by a BCS style beauty pageant the sport would become irrelevant. Obv with the 800M per year in fees that would never happen but...

Not really comparable. If KU, Duke, UK etc only played 12 times a year the ratings would be through the roof. There simply isn't enough eyeballs to go around to keep ratings similar to football.

I like college basketball but even I'm surprised just how huge the Tournament is. Nothing is more valuable save the Super Bowl.

We will see what the Final Four ratings are when they move to TBS instead on over-air CBS.

For most of the country, there is a 3 week period of the year when they are watching a lot of college hoops. In March there isnt much else to watch.

Football drives revenue and it drives television contracts and conference realignment as a result. Basketball is the second most important sport in the collegiate ranks, obviously

Nonsense, but let's suppose it's true. So what? It's still incredible exposure. Kansas-UNC in the Elite 8 drew almost 12M viewers compared to 6M that ABC Saturday Night Football Primetime averaged the prior fall. Besides, what are people watching the 1st week of January that's provides so much competition to BCS games anyway?


Just the control of dollars. Football revenues are kept by the conference, whereas the NCAA Tourney revenues are kept by the NCAA. That's the difference. It's not "popularity" or advertising dollars in whole. That's the concept we are helping you understand here.

Hoops is a secondary sport. If that toots your fancy, more power to ya. Always has been always will. America is a football country and that's what gets respect when your team wins.

College Basketball earns more advertising dollars than college football. It always has and probably always will.

It's quite fulfilling for the teams that take advantage of such a huge cash flow.

Per game? Per team?

Yeah, you sure get national "respect" when you play in the Shreveport Bowl in front of 1800 viewers. People just respectin' ya all over the country. Lulz.


Fewer people watched MU play OU in the 2007 Big 12 Title Game than watched KU play UNC in the Elite 8. Respect..

For the total.

For a single game the Super Bowl is still tops but as an entire season College Basketball and the NFL stand alone.

http://kantarmediana.com/sites/defau...V-Ad-Spend.jpg

http://kantarmediana.com/intelligenc...-trends-report

The Northeast doesn't really give a wet fart about college football. It's not surprising, pretty much everyone that way sucks badly at it.

But they do love college basketball. And there are a ton of people there.

So yeah, college basketball does well in the ratings because it's well-liked in a high population density area. Congrats, I guess.

Still don't care. It's still just a clank-fest most nights where way too many uncontested shots are missed, way too many easy passes are missed.

That's the major difference between college football and college basketball. College football is a different sport than the NFL. The rules are different, the rosters are different. The ways you can succeed are significantly different. It's just a vastly different sport than the pro version.

College basketball, OTOH, is just the minor league version of the NBA. It's like watching a far shittier version of pro-basketball where guys miss open looks, are slow on their rotations and come March, just stand behind a short 3-point line chucking 3 balls hoping to knock off superior opponents in a crap-shoot of a tournament.

If I feel like watching basketball - I'm gonna watch the NBA. It's simply a far superior product. If I feel like watching football...well then it just depends on the mood. Both are equally outstanding in their own ways.

I can't tell someone what to enjoy in life, but I do find your logic here a bit awkward. You like the NBA because it's a superior product, fair enough. That same logic would force you to like the NFL far more than college (as most Americans not living in the Deep South already do). You seem inconsistent here in your logic.

The NFL isn't a superior product to me. The rules and how they are enforced in the NFL simply make it a much different product. 20 years ago, you'd have been right.

Now, however, it's just a much different game.

I recognize there's a lot of editorializing here, but every time I watch a college basketball game it just looks like the same as a pro game, only far far more poorly played. It's much more basic, it's much more sloppy. It's a lesser version of the same product.

I don't feel that way about college football. It's simply a different product.

Most people who watch college football take about 3 seconds and say. Well, that team has better players than the other team.

Trying to say one sport so much better than the other just shows your bias. You can poke holes into just about anything and make it work the way you want it.

Trying for one second to pretend that college football is anywhere near the same level of play as the NFL is laughable.

I love any sport that has 58 fouls called in a 40 minute game. 72 free throws? Sign me right up.

44 shots made versus 45 free throws made? Hell yes.

Where is college football? What are the ad revenues for the bowl season?

It's not the same level. But the NFL is so much of a 'team' sport that the differences in respective skill sets isn't so obviously manifested on a play to play basis.

For instance, a battle in the trenches in the college game is going to be between two players that are obviously inferior to a pro equivalent. However, they offset and the results are almost exactly the same as they would be in a pro game.

In college basketball, those errors are just incredibly stark because there are 10 guys on the court instead of 22 and so much of the game is done at an individual level. A guy with bad handles is just obvious. A guy that can't hit an uncontested 12 footer is just smacking you right in the fact.

And because everyone on the court shoots and/or handles the ball at some point or another, there's simply a higher rate of flat out obvious clanks or guys dribbling the ball off their shoes. It's not that the disparity is any wider, it's that it's more clearly manifest in what you see.

The difference in the levels of play is far more apparent in a college basketball game than it is a college football game. It's the nature of the respective sports.

Fair enough. But all sports can be broken down based on number of participants and influences on the game by a single player.

I happen to think that the stark difference between a single player making an impact on a CFB vs an NFL game is very apparent.

I thoroughly enjoy all 4 sports we're talking about here so it doesn't hold that much importance for me. They all fit into their own time and nowadays plenty of coverage of all 4 is available for anyone to get their fill.

I have no idea why someone would call college basketball "sloppy" but not see the same with college football. I can't remember the last college football game I watched where some dude didn't break off a 75 yard TD run without being touched. No matter, college football's main problem is it doesn't really produce that many upsets. Example: Sagarin's rating system has been 90% effective in determining who wins this year.


In college basketball Northern Iowa can beat Kansas, Robert Morris can beat Kentucky, Butler can nearly win the national title. In football it's the same damn mega-schools (all in the South) that win every year. Why is that fun? Why is that enjoyable as a fan?

That actually annoys me a bit about college ball.

I know the casual fan likes upsets, but to me they dilute the product, especially in the tournament. Some team like Oral Roberts goes out there and upsets a team that will beat them 19 times out of 20, then gets thumped a round later to make it easier for another squad to advance. I hate that crap.

The problem is the 3-point line. The 3-ball is the great equalizer in basketball. It's worth a full 50% more than a normal shot and in the college game it's just too close. Hell, up until 2007 they literally played on a High School court. A sub-20 foot 3 pointer is pathetic. Now moving it out to 21ish is more acceptable, but it's still more than a foot shorter than the WNBA. I think we will all concede that a major college mens team should be able to house a WNBA squad pretty easily, so WTF are they doing getting 3-balls from a foot closer in?

If you push the 3 point line out to a more difficult level, you'd put an end to these teams that build around unathletic, unsound 'distance' shooters that just stand around all day chucking 3s. It's a horribly boring game and it's as bad when they're on as it is when they're off. Teams would get their focus back on working around the rim; crisp interior passing, hard screens and movement without the ball. They'd have to get smart in small spaces or die. The game would improve a hell of a lot, IMO.

When a 3-ball is actually difficult, you'll have kids that bother developing the muscle memory to stroke a mid-range jumper. I think you'll see more transition basketball. I think you'll just get a much better game.

Boise St can beat Oklahoma.

There are all kinds of things they could do to encourage CFB upsets. First and foremost being the elimination of stopping the clock after every first down. The games are simply too long thus the more talented team wins out nearly all of the time.

Don't we want the more talented team winning most of the time?