Mizzou’s New Nike Duds Not As Bad As they Might Have Been

April 16th, 2012 11:43 AM║ Posted By: John Pennington ║ Permalink ║ Schools: Missouri
Tags: Dorial Green Beckham, MU, SEC, West Virginia

First, let me just say that after last week’s short nugget about what Missouri insiders were saying about the school’s soon-to-be-released new Nike uniforms, it’s clear that Mizzou and its fans will have no problem fitting in with their new SEC brethren.

Under our post, many Tiger fans jumped into our comment boxes to claim that we were attacking their school, should keep our mouths shut, etc, etc. Some comments were so nasty that they had to be deleted after some claimed they were offensive. That’s A-1, standard, paranoid SEC overreaction. Reading something into a story — “obviously we’re the redheaded stepchild of the SEC” type of jibber-jabber for instance — that isn’t even hinted at in the actual story? Why that’s real SEC passion right there.

Anyone who doubted that Mizzou fans had the passion necessary to be overly sensitive or too easily angered by throwaway blurbs need only study the drama unleashed by our quick “ugh” remark regarding… a uniform. Some readers even ignored the fact that we included a quote that made it clear these unis were designed to attract recruits first and foremost. They ignored the fact that we also took a shot at Georgia’s garish, laughable 2011 Power Ranger uniform. And that we ended by saying we hoped the uniforms “wouldn’t be as bad as feared” when finally released to the public. Instead of grasping all that, some saw only our clear haaaaaaate for MU.

That type of buffet reading — “I’ll read this, misinterpret that, and totally ignore that” — is pure SEC gold.

And speaking of gold, now that that uniforms have been unveiled, I’ll still say that I’m not a fan. I prefer old, shiny, metallic gold to yellow. That’s a personal preference and I’m sure you have your own take on that one. I’ll try not to be offended if you prefer yellow to gold as it’s really not that big of a deal and won’t cost me any sleep tonight.

The main unis — complete with the oval Tiger-head logo on a black helmet — aren’t nearly as Oregon-esque as some Mizzou officials had hinted. We at MrSEC.com see that as a positive, you may not.

The alternate football uniform — the one with the yellow jersey and the big yellow Tiger head on a matte-finish black helmet that looks like its been splattered by a paintball — is rather CFLish, if you ask this scribe. That’s the alternate uni at left. Ick. Sue me.

A few Tiger fans aren’t happy that grey — I’m sorry, “anthracite” — has been added to some of the uniforms, but I don’t think it looks too bad on the road white unis. Of course, “anthracite” was first introduced by Nike as part of its Pro Combat design for West Virginia a couple of years ago. Not sure how much coal mining is done in Missouri, but anthracite’s now part of the Tiger brand for better or worse.

The basketball uniforms are — in my opinion — worse than the football unis. The grey-on-black-on-grey Tiger stripe patterns are just too funky for an old-timer like me and I’m not big on uniform numbers that are the same color as the uniform itself, either. Again, just my take.

But these jerseys and pants and helmets weren’t designed for impartial critics like yours truly. They weren’t designed for Mizzou fans, for that matter. They were designed to appeal to 17- and 18-year-old kids who are actually wowed by abominations like this. So again, things could have been much, much worse.

The biggest drawback to this non-MU guy is the loss of the big block M on the helmet. Yeah, yeah, I know. Supposedly people confused Missouri with Michigan. Is it just me or does anyone else think that’s a total crock? Michigan has one of the most iconic helmets in the country and it’s got nothing close to a block M on it. So we’re not going to buy the “they confuse us with Michigan” line even if Mizzou and Nike officials want to keep pitching it.

We liked the previous Tiger uniforms and thought they looked more traditional. These unis are more modern and that’s part of the school’s new branding efforts. So be it.

If recruits like Dorial Green-Beckham sign after seeing them and if the Tigers win games while wearing them, they’ll end up being a huge success. Regardless of what fans or fashion critics or independent sites like this one are saying today.

So much for our sartorial review.

« LSU To Introduce Jones As New Hoops Coach Today

Apparent Suicide Jumper Dies After Fall From UF’s Stadium »

48 comments

Newest | Oldest

Mike007

This conference move for Mizzou is ridiculous; what, because the president of the SEC and a Missouri lawyer practiced law together once upon a time....Mizzou''s record against the SEC in football is very impressive; guess SEC advocates want to level the wins/loses record about 10 games. This is a poor conference fit...

KC Tiger

@Mike007

Mike, it's time to move on and get with the program. The ship has sailed. Only time can vindicate a prophet. Give it some time and you can brag on here to your hearts desire in a few years if the move is a bomb.

Mike007

@KC Tiger KC Tiger, I lived in the deep south for over 20 years; you can't imagine the jocularity and disdain they have for mid-west football. On the contrary, I don't want to "I told you so" in a few years. I would rather hang Missouri's record of 17 wins 8 losses, and 1 tie vs the SEC around their necks; and leave it at that.

Sheizman

@Mike007 @KC Tiger It has been a long time since I have heard or seen jocularity used in a sentence. You almost used it correctly :)

So MU should have stayed in the failing Big 2 and Little 8 so you don't have to say "I told you so" and you can hang onto ancient history to claim your superiority? Are you a Chickenhawk in Tiger clothing? Nice logic.

MU is joining the current top conference in football and is doing everything they can to compete favorably. The uniforms are part of that. Why don't you give them a chance and see how things work out. If they fail, you can tell all of us positive fans "I told you so!" But, if that would make you happy, you aren't a real fan in the first place.

KC Tiger

@Mike007Thanks for the rousing welcome. You need to direct your animosity to Mr. Slive.....oh of course he only suggested Mizzou join the conference because of an old relationship...Makes sense to me. The Southern history of Mizzou has been posted on the board many times. Sorry we are not part of the "Deep South"

We are midwestern in your mind so we don't belong and we automatically will get our ass kicked. What about Ole Miss and MSU. They're part of the "Deep South" and don't exactly have a sterlng football record? but I guess since they are family, they're protected

This is about athletes and coaching. SEC is a great conference and Mizzou will represent it well. We'll take our lumps and be better for it. I guess to you we are like the mother-in-law you never liked but had to put up with because she's part of the family. You're welcome in Missouri anytime. Maybe we'll grow on you.

rutherfordvangleason

I have to disagree with my fellow alum BryLaw. Missouri's new unis do not suck...I have seen suck and it is the Maryland "flag" uniform from last year. That said, they are a mixed bag, which is to be expected with, what is it now...13123 different combinations? The all black gear is fantastic. The yellow jersey looks like the bastard child of a Cal and a West Virginia uniform after a weekend of hate sex. And the alternate Tiger logo makes me think I root for the Hamilton Tiger-Cats of the CFL.

But what WE think about the jerseys don't matter to people like us because they aren't for us. They are for the 18 year old recruits who do, in fact, absolutely love them. Oregon is better, in part, because of the uniforms. LaMichael James has said himself he wanted to go to Oregon BECAUSE of those uniforms and you know he wasn't the only one. Nike has become a billion dollar empire because it knows how to sell to kids. I used to sell shoes at a sporting goods store and the more ridiculous the shoe looked to me, the harder it was to keep in stock. So while the uniforms aren't Oregon's only selling point, they aren't a small selling point, either.

I read here earlier that this new look will ruffle the feathers of the old guard of the SEC who are already wary of our presence here. I am sure that it will. But if the uniforms can help land more Dorial Green-Beckhams and lead us to division titles...well, Missouri won't be the only one around here sporting the flamboyant cyborg look before long.

BryLaw

All one has to do is look at the uniforms and know they weren't designed for adults with any sense of tradition. My point, guys, is that Alabama, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Auburn, Ohio State and Michigan all recruit impresisonable 18 year olds too. Look at Urban Meyer's first recruiting class. Now compare it to Oregon's. Winning records and quality coaching in a competitive league makes a mighty impression on teenagers too, it seems to me. The teams in the SEC that feel the need to play with their clothes are the Kentucky's and, recently, the Tennesse's of the world. There's a reason for that. Mizzou has nothing to apologize for where tradition and winning are concerned and we're not moving to the NFL or from a Division II conference. We can and will win in the SEC, which will result in better players and it would have happened with or without the change. I worry that we look like the insecure high school girl who puts on too much makeup and buys too short a dress because dhe's afraid the high school quarterback who invited her to the prom might be disappointed.

And yes, Maryland proves it could have been worse.

KC Tiger

We didn't change from a traditional uniform. The Mizzou uniform has changed many, many times over the past 50 years. We do not have a static, traditional uniform to change from! The new duds look fine. We have just made a once in 50 year change with the move to the SEC. Maybe with the new threads we can begin some type of tradition and consistency with our new threads as well as greater commitment to excellence with our athletics.

rutherfordvangleason

Of course, nothing beats winning. I am not saying otherwise. I do think that Missouri can win in the SEC and that has nothing to do with the uniforms. BUT as good as Missouri has been the past 15 years or so, it's not been elite like Oregon. It just hasn't. The closest Missouri as come to being where Oregon is right now is getting to number 1 after that glorious win over dirty, filthy Kansas in prime time and then the next week getting throttled by OU in the Big 12 Championship. And yes Missouri was unfathomly screwed by not getting a BCS bowl bid that year, but the fact remains Mizzou still has never been to a BCS bowl. That matters. Things are looking up, no doubt. And I feel as good about the football team as I ever have. Still, Missouri has a ways to go before they can count on blue chippers committing regularly and that's the only way it can ever truly be on the same level as an Alabama or an LSU. Those schools CAN sell tradition. Missouri can't, not unless there are bunch of supremely talented 16-18 year olds who would also be impressed with what Dan Devine did in the 60's or the fact that Don Faurot invented the Split T.

Oregon was the same way, frankly. And Oregon, to its credit, realized it had to do something different to get the recruits it needs to compete with USC. Part, along with the facilities, of its sales pitch was the uniforms. Can you argue with the results?

As far as how we look to the other schools in the SEC? We shouldn't worry about that. Missouri can line up with leather helmets or they can dress up in silver sparkled clown suits it doesn't matter. If we win, and don't act the fool, everyone will come around. If we don't, they wont. It's that simple.

Mizzoumatt85

@rutherfordvangleason I agree 110% with this post. Btw, I'm lmao at "or they can dress up in silver sparkled clown suits it doesn't matter" ;-D

BryLaw

I should start by saying that I have thoroughly enjoyed reading (and recommending) this site since discovering it during the whole "will Mizzou go SEC or won't they?" drama last year. As a Mizzou alum, contributor and old Big 8 guy who felt the league was ruined the day they invited Texas and its in-state posse to join, I recognized (sadly) that the Bevo 12 was not going to change and it was time for Mizzou to go somewhere where it wasn't treated with equal measures of disinterest and scapegoating. For all its provincialism and good-natured snobbery, the SEC is an egalitarian operation, protects its own fiercely from outsiders and is the definition of stable. And among all the punditry and, again, good natured snobbery that accompanied the chorus of "Mizzou's not good enough" tripe I had to read/listen to last year, this site has been fair, welcoming and clear-eyed about what it dod and did not know about Missouri and approached its inclusion with an open mind. Thanks for that.

The uniforms suck. The excuses for doing it have been worse. The notion that Oregon is better because Nike changed their uniforms is ridiculous and I cringed when I read one of our coaches suggesting it was. In any event, it's the Pac ??, ACC and Big East that are populated with teams that have to use packaging gimmicks to attract recruits. I had thought one of the benefits of SEC membership was gaining more respect and attention from recruits and that the winning tradition of the league was a playa magnet. Has Alabama EVER changed its uniforms? I have been impressed with your research abilities and would love to see a breakdown of the top, championship-winning programs and their approach to "uniform theory" in the post Oregon/Nike Age. I think I know what you'd find. And to those who say "that's becuase they have tradition and they win games and that's why they dopn't need to change duds" I say -- exactly. Win, in the SEC, and they will come. And the old fogies whom everyone at Mizzou seems to be discounting will still write the checks that buy the uniforms.

Having bled off that poison, I will say they're not as bad as I had very, very much feared. The gold looks more old gold in person than it does in some of the photos and isn't Baylor yellow, and the primary helmet is the best they could do without keeping the M. (BTW, the next time someone from Mizzou says that we risked being confused with Marshall or Minnesota I may throw something.) I can't stand gray shoulder pads on the white jerseys. The ship may have sailed on two-tone jerseys, but I think it looks like Arena League or high school. Oh well . . . M-I-Z.

Sheizman

BryLaw--As a fellow old Big 8 guy, I would agree with most everything you said, but I would like to point out something about the change in uniforms. As of 2012, MU doesn't have the history of most of the SEC clubs and the process of rebranding the school is a step forward in the evolution of MU. I can't say that I love all the new looks, but they aren't as bad as some originally feared. I actually really like the yellow jerseys and I think the road look is cool, although I am not crazy about the grey on the shoulders. It'd be great if they replaced the big Tiger head helmet with the Pro Combat from 2009 (you can hardly see the block M--or maybe a darkened chrome Oregon look with the oval tiger. That would look sweet). If the recruits are happy with the uniforms and it helps them look closer at coming to Columbia, that is a good thing. Remember, it ain't all X's and O's--it's Billys and Joes. The previous uniforms were fine and all, but nothing to write home about. I certainly don't remember hearing one positive comment on the previous look, from fans, announcers, journalists--anyone. At least these unis have you, me and many others talking about MU. i think that is a good thing. Just my 2 cents. I'll now get off your lawn :)

pmb442

When people confuse us with michigan is with fan gear. For example if you are walking in JFK airport and you walk past someone with a dark colored hat with a yellowish-gold block M on it, most people will instantly think Michigan, not Mizzou. Removing the block M from the helmets isn't because Michigan uses it on theirs, it's because they use it with all of their gear and Mizzou wants to use the tiger head logo more often

Kp Kilpatrick

Two points:

1. Anthracite was first introduced with the 2009 Missouri Pro Combat uniforms. The WVU uniform was based off of the Missouri P.C.

2. Miss the old block M as well. What can you do? Throwback....

Mizzoumatt85

I'm a total traditionalist, and I've never been crazy about the new "power cat" logo (reminds me too much of K-State's silly logo), but as you say, it's all about recruiting, so I'm down with it. Whatever it takes to step up our recruiting to match the UGAs and USCs of the SEC East. I agree with most of your article, but as a lifelong Mizzou fan of 40+ years, believe me when I say that the block M is CONSTANTLY mistaken for Michigan's M. Btw, Mizzou fans are so happy and proud to be joining the SEC.....

jlw62987

1 Like

I LOVE the black and white uniforms. The yellow uniforms were not as bad as I expected. I do like the matte black helmet with the tiger head but only as an alternate uni. I say for home games the Tigers should go ALL black and ALL white for road games. Only go the alternate jerseys a few times a year. I think the home black jerseys look pretty traditional and sharp. The white uni's look like the Pro Combat uni's Nike revealed a few years back and I enjoyed those for a change of pace. Thanks John for the article and I respect your opinion. Can't wait to play in the SEC! MIZ!

KC Tiger

John at MrSEC -- Good article on Mizzou's new uniforms. Personally, I prefer the block "M" on the football helmet and wish they would have retained it as one option. In fact, the new matte black helmet would have been a lot better with an old gold block "M" on it rather than the ugly (too large) yellow Tiger.

While I'm not an old timer, I am also not a 17 year old potential Mizzou recruit and the University has made clear that members of that group are the only stakeholders Mizzou wished to serve with the new uniforms. As we are all aware, several Universities are part of the race to the bottom in uniforms to attract recruits. It is difficult to predict where this will end. Several years from now though I bet recruits will be wooed by tradition in uniforms and then there will be a race to change back to traditional uniforms. Just look at the Mizzou hat DGB wanted to wear at his coming out party, a historic Mizzou hat. Tradition has its place right along side modernism with recruits. Universities that overlook this abandon the old money donors and perhaps recruits at their own peril. Universities considering changing uniforms should do themselves a favor and take measured steps to gradually introduce new modern flavors that will be exciting to recruits while still keeping the traditional uniforms available for a couple of games a season. That might be the perfect combination to serve all stakeholders.

TigerinMO

1 Like

Just for the record, the uniform pictured represents the biggest change. The other two are really quite similar to our old uniforms and represent what I would call minor tinkering. This helmet shown is also the "alternate" helmet that probably will be used in only one game a year. The regular helmet will have the oval tiger that has been our logo for several years on the side in place of the block M. I've worn Block M baseball hats for years, and people ALWAYS thought they were Michigan hats. Black and gold is apparently difficult to distinguish from maize and blue.

John at MrSEC moderator

TigerinMO...

We wrote that the uniform pictured is the alternate and is the worst of the changes.

I wouldn't call the other two "minor tinkering," but they are less offensive than the alternate. And, as I stated in the piece, I have no qualms with the oval Tiger head logo helmet.

That said, MU has said they have 24 combinations available with all the mix-and-match options. I've not seen anyone say that the alternate uni -- as shown in the photo above -- will only make one appearance per year. In fact, the helmets, jerseys and pants can all be thrown together at any time. And if Mizzou does what Oregon does, the team leaders will pick the unis each week... and that could mean 12 different looks over 12 different weeks.

Thanks for reading the site,

John

pmb442

@John at MrSEC the equipment manager has said that we will wear the alternates only once a year. The standard home jerseys are the black top, gold pants and oval tiger head helmet. The road jersey will be white top, rotating different pants, and the oval tiger head helmet

Moi

i'm a charter member of uniwatch (www.uniwatch-blog.com), which gives a nod to both traditional and unique uniforms -- basically anything which is not covered with corporate douche-baggery, etc. I have no opinion of Mizzou, nor will I ever, but these uniforms are rancid. Living nowhere near SEC country, my vision of the conference is the last bastion of good, traditional football uniforms. When Mizzou was allowed to enter the SEC, I presumed they would try to become more traditional, not less. I was wrong. These are CFL / Mountain West uniforms, which I suspect will change every 2-3 years. The Mizzou program has no identity and little following outside of Santorum-land (middle America), and I personally cannot wait for the LSUs, Bamas and UFs of the traditional world to wax their corporate douche-bag butts!

Outlaw Josey Wales

Santorum-land ?!?!?! That is the Big 10 plus 2 !!!!!!! Not the Great State of Missouri

Kevin

2 Like

Really, a charter member of uniwatch? Funny, the uniforms actually got a positive review over there.

But to say "I have no opinion of Mizzou" and then spout your post tells me you are either a disgruntled Kansas fan trolling or possibly an Arkansas fan embracing the idea of a 'new rivalry' and just trying to get some heat going.

MU had plenty of tradition in football. Long long ago in (50s/early60s) they would have qualified as one of the country's elite programs. The program hit its nadir when it hired Woody WIdenhofer, and fell so far off the face of the competive earth, it took DECADES to bring the program back. (yeah yeah no BCS bowls, but we were truly screwed in 2007, but that's now the past. nothing to do about it).

You also spout SANTORUM as if he is somehow connected to MO. He's from Pennsylvania! get out a map and take a geography lesson.

But more importantly, how is changing uniforms suddenly "Corporate douche-baggery?" I guess any college that has Nike or Under-Armour make their unis falls under this category? Seriously? Only schools where the players' moms sew the uniforms by hand would be acceptable. (go back and look at your uniwatch site. Mizzou's don't fall under your 'corp/douche' mantra....charter member, yeah right.

I guess we should've gone more 'traditional.' Create throwback outfits right out of the 60s. Maybe use helmets with no facemask. Better yet, just the leatherneck versions! -- Now that's tradition. Honestly though, if Mizzou had gone to a more traditional helmet, that would have been going back to numbers on the helmets, and then I'm certain we'd been accused of trying to be like Bama.

If you are basing anything just by skimming all your sites, then maybe you should click on ANY SITE to see the real unis. Not the single photo shown here, which is the 'special' once-a-year version.

Please let us know what university you claim as your own. I can't imagine how 'awesome' their unis must be! ... Oh, and then we can hope Mizzou schedules that school, so we can come and 'wax your little butts!' M-I-Z

Mizzoumatt85

Z-O-U!

John at MrSEC moderator

Kevin...

See all that red text in the story? Those are links to photos of the other uniform options Missouri unveiled.

John

Kevin

@John at MrSEC Exactly! I'm saying I wish "moi" had bothered to look t all the uniform pix instead of just skimming articles... Felt like he was basing his opinion on that one little thumbnail. That's all....

TigerinMO

1 Like

Geez. Take an aspirin, and call your doctor in the morning.

Kevin

As a long time Mizzou fan, I will state for the record, that yes indeed, the block M was ALWAYS confused with Michigan! I graduated before they ever incorporated that Tiger Head logo, and the baseball caps I always wore featured black/gold with the M logo. -- well, every time, and i mean EVERY TIME i traveled anywhere outside of Missouri (and hey I live in California now) people would always stop me and say "Michigan!" or "Go Blue!" -- and I'd look at them and point out the freaking hat was BLACK/GOLD. -- didn't matter. It was MICHIGAN to all. I was glad to have that tigerhead appear just to avoid those damn Michigan quotes.

John at MrSEC moderator

Kevin...

Interesting. I just can't imagine anyone looking at a Michigan helmet and a Missouri helmet and confusing the two. I realize Michigan has a Block M logo for other merchandise, but even that logo has the word Michigan written across it.

But I'll defer to you.

Thanks for reading the site,

John

sfury

@John at MrSEC

The Helmet didn't need to be changed as no one would confuse the Missouri Helmet with Michigans but thye decided if they were doing away with the Block M on all branding and going to the oval tigerhead that they woud be better off doing it on the helmets also.

JeffMcCartney

2 Like

"aren’t nearly as Oregon-esque as some Mizzou officials had hinted. We at MrSEC.com see that as a positive, you may not."

Thats a big positive, I was genuinely relieved Saturday when I saw them that weren't too over the top, don't care for the yellow masquerading as gold either, but what ya gonna do! I, for one am just glad y'all are recognizing us on this page finally MIZ-SEC!

MoKelly

1 Like

OK --- I am fine with the new uniforms. I was never in love with the block M and the tiger is fine. Now, if the Cardinals ever messed with the STL on the hat or the birds on the bat --- then you would see angst never seen anywhere!

Mizzoumatt85

@MoKelly No doubt about the Cards....120+ years of tradition, 11 World Titles...THE true passion in the eastern half of Missouri.

John at MrSEC moderator

MoKelly...

Agree completely. I'm not even how I felt about St. Louis' gold-trimmed, World Series' celebrating, opening weekend attire. One of the top 10 unis in sports.

Thanks for reading,

John

mitchs3

1 Like

Agreed, but I'm OK with the gold version of the birds on the bat for two games at the start of the season because it means the last season ended very well.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

old_timer_vandy_fan

I agree with you about preferring old gold to yellow. But then, I'm a Vandy fan.

Not that it really matters, or that Nike actually did the research, but there is some very limited coal mining in Missouri. By very limited, I mean miniscule compared to West Virginia. Missouri used to be the world capital in lead and zinc mining, but that was quite a while ago and most Missourians are probably ignorant of that heritage.

John at MrSEC moderator

RB...

Maybe they should have found a way to work zinc into the design.

Many thanks for reading the site,

John

(And I didn't know that about Missouri, by the way.)

1 Like

Good grief man. I like your stories for the most part but they are really becoming pretty predictable. At some point in nearly every article you will point out how Fanbase X sent you angry emails; subtly point how how stupid they are because you included some small, overlooked comment that absolves you of all criticism; and then mention how it really doesn't bother you all that much. This, along with the antiqued jokes that commonly appear in your pieces, its pretty easy to see you are quickly becoming the "Get off my lawn" archetype in your old age.

We get it man. Fans, particularly those who frequent SEC-specific sites, are hypocrites. They hate it when you are critical of their teams and love it when you are the same of their rivals. I have no doubt you receive a lot of nasty-grams on a daily basis. Its unfortunate that journalist have to deal with it but its the nature of the beast. Sadly, because of this I'm forced to skim through roughly a third of each of your pieces before I can actual find content that is relevant to the topic at hand.

In other words, please stop writing about how terrible we are as readers. Its getting in the way of my drone-like search for all those who may disparage my alma mater.

Big Ben

Al, you hit the nail on the head.

To the writer: Please take some advise from Al. Your stories often contain good content surrounded by lines of defensive writing and explanation of how you were previously right about something. I appreciate this site because it covers all SEC schools in a fairly unbiased manner but your stories are MUCH better when you stick to the facts and lay off of the opinion. There is no need for you to be defensive either as all SEC fans are going to gripe about any possible slight anyway.

Please, primarily stick to facts, lay off the opinion, stop being so defensive, and quit griping about your readers.

John at MrSEC moderator

Big Ben...

This site is drenched in opinion. There's not a story that doesn't include some opinion. That's why we're so often able to point out what we got right ahead of others out there. I'd think having someone break things down correctly before other sites would be a positive, not a negative. And to point out when we're correct is simply to advertise for those people who might be first dropping by this site.

Also, I'll continue to write any way I like. And anyone who thinks I'm griping about all our readers is probably one of the ones being griped about.

The vast, vast, vast majority of our readers are FANTASTIC. They're highly educated. They provide quality insight. And they're loyal.

But those who come here to tell us how to write, who get ugly in the posts, who misquote and misread our stories, who take offense when there's nothing to actually take offense to... well, I'll pick on those folks whenever I feel like it.

If you feel that you have the right to tell me how to write -- because I give you a comment box -- then trust me, I have just as much right to tell you how to be a better reader.

Thanks for stopping by,

John

Big Ben

John, I was simply making a suggestion. I would think you would be more concerned with your readers' opinions. I have regularly read this site for several years and have enjoyed watching it grow but I am disappointed in your blatant disregard of opinion on how to improve. I stand by my previous opinions and would like to point out that you were quite defensive and unprofessional in your reply. Today, sir, you have lost more than one reader.

Ben

John at MrSEC moderator

Al...

Could it be that I feel the need to have to fend off the ugly emails and comments in the piece itself? Everything we write is misinterpreted. From headlines to blurbs to long stories. People will always read something into a piece that isn't actually there. I write from an almost defensive posture in an attempt to a) make my thoughts very clear and b) try to fend off the nutbag misinterpretations of what I write.

If you don't like the site, you're welcome to try and find another that brings you more info on a daily basis than ours and does so without fan bias.

Best of luck in finding that.

John

John at MrSEC moderator

1 Like

PS Al...

Since we're on the topic of reading into things, could you point out to me in the above story where I "point out how stupid" Missouri fans are?

Thanks,

John

BCarr

John: As a fairly new reader of this site, would you have thought that posting such an innocuous article like the one originally written about the Mizzou uni's would have resulted in so many comments? Glad to know we Tiger fans are adapting well to SEC customs, traditions, etc.

John at MrSEC moderator

2 Like

BCarr...

Yes.

Our demographics show that the we have nearly THREE TIMES the number of college-educated and grad-school-educated readers as the average internet site. For that reason -- I believe -- we normally don't get a lot of comments. I think most well-educated folks -- MOST -- tend to read stories and move along without commenting. I've never read someone's story at another site and left a comment. I may agree or disagree with the contents but I've never been moved enough to comment, much less insult someone who's simply stating their opinion on a subject.

Some, however, like to post their takes and they do so in a respectful manner. Often they bring up great points that we ourselves had not thought of initially.

But say something about some school's uniforms and you're sure to draw out some crazies... and by crazies I mean the people who read things into the story, get mad, claim prejudice against their institution, etc. Normally, when I see a story take off with angry comments, I assume that most of those doing the commenting are either a) sidewalk alumni who never actually attended the school -- 'cause how many intelligent people would really get ANGRY over my view of a helmet design? -- or b) they're folks attending that school right now who might be so young and hot-blooded that they'll take anything -- even a little gig over a uniform -- as an attack on their school, its history and its future.

So in answer to your question, I'm far from shocked that so many people took things as they did. Which is too bad because we work awfully hard around here to be bias-free. When people read things into stories that we didn't even write, well, that's disappointing, but not unexpected.

Personally, I think the internet has made everyone -- college attendees and non-college attendees alike -- too sensitive. It's as if people are always looking to find a slight. And when you look to be slighted, you'll definitely find a slight... real or just perceived.

Again, we're talking about a limited number of people here and stereotyping is always dangerous. But I will say -- as I've said many times before -- that Mizzou fans will be plenty passionate enough for the SEC. Last week's little story proves it.

All the best and thanks for reading the site,

John

omahahog

I agree 100% with your comment about the internet making every sensitive. I'm guilty myself and need to get better. I also agree that many readers peruse articles and make comments because of what they "thought" they saw. I'm guilty myself. I had to apologize to Sojo a few days agao when I had misinterpreted, no actually mis-read, his statement. If you recall it was the same article you did the same thing to me. Claiming I referred to "your Tennessee" when clearly I had hit the reply and commented to Sojo (who is a TN fan). We all do it, but I am trying to be more careful. I agree that most articles should just be read and move on. I'm not a high voume poster and need to become even less so. Thanks!

JaredHam

2 Like

@BCarr I had my doubts about y'all coming in even having grown up just down the road from COMO. But y'all have proved you can make it with your comments. Welcome to the SEC.

This entry was posted on Monday, April 16th, 2012 at 11:43 am and is filed under Homepage, News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.