But what about Missouri? They've already got some bad blood with Illinois, and I kind of think the Iowa-Missouri thing could get real entertaining, real quick. Something about states that border Iowa that make them hate us. Feels fun. It brings the St. Louis media market into play, and a little less so Kansas City. St. Louis is probably more than enough. They're ranked as the #102 university in the country; not great, and it'd be the worst in the Big 10 Which Is Actually 12. But it's hardly an embarrassment, and merely aligning with the BXI could prop that ranking up to the standards of the rest of the conference.
Of course, that all depends on whether Missouri actually, y'know, wants to leave the Big XII. The Big 10 would have to make the case that it's in the school's best interest to join our conference instead and make it convincing enough that Delany doesn't have to go through the embarrassment of Missouri triumphantly announcing that they're staying in "the best conference in the land" or whatever they'd declare the Big XII to be in that scenario. Frankly, none of us have the stomach for that.
Philosophically, the case has already been made for expansion, and emphatically so. I don't think anyone's going to argue against a 12th team because 11 would be better than 12 for a conference. That's all settled. I just can't figure out who, aside from Missouri, would make any sense from a purely practical standpoint.
-- From Barry Alvarez's Expansion Talk Has A Logistical Problem at Black Heart Gold Pants
8 months ago
RPT
142 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
That's actually a solid summary.
I really do think expansion would come down to Mizzou to the west and Syracuse/Rutgers/Pitt to the east (this is ruling out Notre Dame, of course). Of those, I’d think only Mizzou would truly add a new TV market to the equation, as I’m doubting Rutgers has a bigger presence in the NY market than Penn State already does.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
You know...
I’m at the point with this argument that you were at with Pinkel/Barnett in 2005. I’ll staunchly defend one side without much support (staying in the Big 12), but if it did finally happen, I don’t think I can really be angry about it.
Plus, you know the higher-ups in the UM system would SALIVATE over this opportunity.
That last point, I think, is more important than we're making it.
And really, while I’m really fed up with the Big 12 in some ways, I’m not fooling myself into thinking the Big Ten would be some utopia where all of our problems would be solved and everything would be perfect. There are plenty of issues with heading to the Big Ten — two-thirds of our games would be at 11am (blech), and we’d be heading into a worse conference in terms of football and (sometimes) basketball, not to mention the fact that the Big Ten Network isn’t exactly found nationwide. And it’s unknown how much this would or would not affect our ability to recruit the state of Texas, which has obviously been a humongous part of our football recruiting strategy. Plus, as I think ZD said a while back, we’d be escaping the grips of UT, etc., … and ending up right in the grips of Michigan and tOSU. We’d get rid of some our problems and add a few more.
But I’m trying to leave my own opinions/biases out of this. Between the equal revenue sharing, the fact that UM/tOSU’s grip isn’t as strong as UT’s, and perhaps most importantly, the academic boost we would see, I absolutely think Mizzou would accept the opportunity to jump, whether I think it’s a good idea or not (and I go back and forth on the idea daily).
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
two-thirds of our games would be at 11am (blech)
THERE SHALL BE NO PAM WARD, DAMN IT.
It comes with the move.
We have to know and prepare for that in advance.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
Hawkeye fan here...
And while 11 AM games do indeed suck balls, what’s worse? Having Pam Ward call your game on ESPN 2 to a national audience, or playing a 1 PM on pay-per-view (which Mizzou did, what? At least 3 times I can recall (I live in Sedalia, work in Columbia)).
Moving to the Big Ten is win/win exposure wise because any game that doesn’t get picked up by ESPN/ABC ends up on the Big Ten Network, readily available in every market in the country, including the majority of sports bars. Besides, if Mizzou gets picked up by FSN for an early game, that’s at 11:30…what’s another 30 minutes of sleep anyway?
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 3:59 PM CST up reply actions
It was only two games this year
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 12, 2009 4:06 PM CST up reply actions
Ok, so still...2 games.
Every single one of Iowa’s games this year were available coast to coast. That can’t be underestimated.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions
Agreed. I enjoy it here.
Though I do like living in Columbia much more. I lived there for 5.5 years before I met my wife and got married. She owned her house here before we got married, so I just made the move and suffer the 60 minute commute.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 4:19 PM CST up reply actions
You know
I’ve been in business school long enough to learn that there are some advanced market mechanisms by which a house in a less desirable location can be exchanged for what we know as “money”, allowing one to…
Oh wait, MARRIED. Welcome to the world of compromises eh :)
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
Exactly!
Though we are looking at moving back to Columbia soon if a couple of factors fall in the right manner. Here’s hoping!
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 9:29 PM CST up reply actions
cant blame you there
once i started here at MU, i loved going back to sedalia for breaks but i fell in love with CoMo
Great moments are born from great opportunity.
Big Ten Network is NOT available in every market in the country
Only if you have DirecTV.
I prefer our VS/FSN/ABC-ESPN contract.
Quite frankly, by joining the Big Ten, we would move off of TV as the new guy in the pecking order unless we’re in contention in the West Division.
"Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee is for closers." ~ Blake (Alec Baldwin), Glengarry Glen Ross
And DirecTV is available in every market...
so how is the BTN not available in every market?
With the BTN you are guaranteed to be on a network available, as I said, in every market. Mizzou had two games on pay-per-view which is essentially untelevised. Ridiculous for a major conference team.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 13, 2009 4:51 PM CST up reply actions
Not everyone has DirectTv
I know that’s hard to fathom in Missouri where nearly every cable co. sucks and you almost have to have a dish, but in the rest of the country, some of us either can’t get it because we live in an apartment, or don’t want it because we’re satisfied with what we have. Your argument is moot anyhow because FSN easily reaches more TV’s than BTN.
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 13, 2009 5:51 PM CST up reply actions
BTN might not be there now.
But if Mizzou did join the BXI, the BTN would be inserted into the cable markets around missouri, just as FSN did.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Dec 14, 2009 9:32 AM CST up reply actions
I live in San Diego
That’s the whole point. Right now, with the Big 12 TV deal with FSN/Versus/ESPN, I can watch them…nearly every game that’s televised. Moving to the Big 10 puts them on the BTN and there’s no incentive for Cox or Time Warner or any of the other cable companies out here to carry it. Add to the fact that I’m in a Mountain West city and there may be contractual reasons they can’t carry it here.
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 14, 2009 10:28 AM CST up reply actions
With you being out west, I can understand that.
BXI fans outside of the major BXI markets have to deal with the same thing.
"You don't become a Hawkeye fan, You're born with Black and Gold in your veins." - Me
by BStylin Hawkye on Dec 14, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
LHJK made my point for me. I should have clarified that DTV is not available in
cities with high population density. Or too many tall buildings. Or sometimes if you have trees you can’t get it.
And if you are an apartment dweller, you can’t have a dish most places.
"Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee is for closers." ~ Blake (Alec Baldwin), Glengarry Glen Ross
If this were to happen,how soon of an impact would it have on Mizzou? Immediate?
Plus if we left the Big 12, who do you suppose would take our spot? I can see maybe Arkansas since they are the farthest west SEC team, or definately TCU I believe they wanted in when the old southwest conference dissolved.
It'll be TCU or Houston
It's a funny name.
by Turd Ferguson on Dec 12, 2009 10:59 AM CST up reply actions
I assume Arkansas would say no...
…being that I don’t think teams really leave the SEC. Gotta figure the #1 option would be TCU, then I guess Houston. The problem for the Big 12 is that there’s really not another more northern team available. Colorado State? Memphis? Not exactly appealing options.
Really, I think these would be the resulting scenarios if the Big Ten were to flirt with Mizzou…
1. The Big 12 gives in and attempts to incorporate revenue sharing or some other perk to keep somebody from leaving.
2. Mizzou jumps, and Colorado starts looking toward the Pac-10, setting off an interesting chain reaction and conference realignment.
3. Mizzou jumps, and the Big 12 simply plugs in TCU or Houston.
4. Mizzou says no, I guess.
Can’t decide the % chances of each one of those.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
For the love of God...
…make Dan Beebe and all the conference officials think you’re leaving so we can push for equal revenue sharing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
by TB on Dec 12, 2009 3:52 PM CST up reply actions
Arky has no incentive to jump.
They’ve got themselves a pretty sweet gig.
TCU immediately comes to mind, but that would cause a restructuring on the Big 12’s part.
TCU makes some sense
although they’d be a basketball black hole. Do you think the Big 12 would try for an MWC team? Utah or even BYU would be an attractive target.
by Transmogrified Tiger on Dec 12, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions
TCU seems like the logical choice
but if the MWC can convince Boise to join, I’d imagine that the odds of the MWC becoming an AQ BCS conference jump significantly. I think TCU would love the opportunity to remain top dog in their conference while also having the benefit of being in an AQ conference.
by The Mexican't on Dec 12, 2009 5:46 PM CST up reply actions
Hawkeye Fan in Omaha....
…I’d say Northern Iowa or Colorado State or a smaller school from NoDak, SoDak, or even Wyoming… someone who doesn’t have the pull, but my have a budding program.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
I guess I'll just have to be as blunt as possible
If Mizzou moves to the Big 10, they’ll lose my support…and I guarantee I’m not the only one feeling that way. Part of what makes Mizzou appealing as a sports fan is their proud history. What does that say about our traditions and our history if we jump ship and go see what’s on the other side of the fence? Without looking, Mizzou has been part of the Big6/7/8/12 since it’s inception and I believe the Big 6 was a spin off from the original Missouri Valley Conference.
Honestly, and no offense intended, but I generally file the “Mizzou to the Big 10” talk in the same category as “Fire Gary Pinkel” and “Mizzou needs a fullback.”
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 12, 2009 11:27 AM CST reply actions
It comes up often...
…and is certainly usually all talk, but this is the first time somebody with “status” (i.e. Alvarez) within the Big Ten hierarchy (and no, Paterno doesn’t count in this regard) has mentioned it, so that makes it at least 1% more relevant.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
Plus...
…it’s not like we’d be leaving for some new-fangled Big Midwest conference or something…it is the Big Ten…and we do have at least some history with quite a few of those teams…
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
With who?
Illinois? Playing them in basketball since 1980 and football (on a regular basis) since 2002 doesn’t count as history. Iowa? When was the last time we played them in football or basketball? Who are our supposed rivals in the Big 10?
I can tell you who our rivals are in the Big 12. Kansas, Nebraska, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State….those are the teams that I consider our rivals. Schools that we’ve played for most of the last century.
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 12, 2009 11:36 AM CST up reply actions
We played Ohio State, Michigan, Penn State, Michigan State...
…very often during our formative football years (1930s-1950s) and continued into the 1960s with Minnesota. These are relatively small samples, but I think you’d be surprised how quickly some of these rivalries took off. I’ve got plenty of worries/annoyances in thinking about the move, but this isn’t one of them.
Rock M Nation
Thrust nunchuk upward!
If this realignment talk is so that the Big 10 can have 12 teams and a conference championship game
then we either need to go to a system like the one I proposed or a complete overhaul of the FBS conferences, similar to how the NCAA handles hockey.
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 12, 2009 11:33 AM CST up reply actions
Growing up in Big 10 country
without any connection to Mizzou, this has always been an idea that intrigues me. While someone brought up that we’d be in a similar situation with OSU/Michigan as with Texas/OU/NU, I really don’t think that’s the case. Because many of the Big 10 are similar sized schools(and is not a 15 year old mishmash of older conferences) there really isn’t a ton of kow-towing to the big dogs. Plus, Michigan sucks at basketball.
As for whether it’s the right thing for Mizzou, I don’t really know. I think if the football staff said that they would still be able to recruit well, then there wouldn’t be much of a disadvantage. Wisconsin doesn’t have much trouble convincing St. Louis kids to go up there to play football and play most of their games out of travel and TV range. Obviously you still have to schedule Kansas in the non-con in sports(wonder how a basketball game at the Sprint Center would work?), but I don’t think the rivalries with other schools are so strong that it would hurt to move.
by Transmogrified Tiger on Dec 12, 2009 11:49 AM CST reply actions
Forgot to add
the big team hurt by this is the Baseball team. It’s the only sport I can think of(I guess softball too) where this move would be a huge step down.
by Transmogrified Tiger on Dec 12, 2009 12:21 PM CST up reply actions
The Kansas game seems mildly troubling for football
Obviously we’d want to keep it as the capstone game to end our season – THAT is the kind of tradition and rivalry that you don’t want to mess with.
But that means we have to put one of our non-con games at the end of the year, against a (presumably) pretty solid team – which messes with the "schedule a lot of cupcakes and mid-majors at the beginning of your year to tune up your team and make sure you don’t wrack up L’s that tank your ranking (it’s stupid that this is how rankings work, but for worse or worser they do).
I guess on the other hand we’re losing Texas and OK as near-sure losses from our schedule. tOSU might replace one of them, maybe, but I don’t see another team nearly as dominant as those two.
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
putting the kU game at the end of the year simply would not happen
However, dont be fooled into thinking the tradition is to have that game at the end of the season either. That game was during the year FAR more often than it was at the end of the season in the last 15 years. Trust me, I like the THOUGHT of it being to close the season, but it is certainly not like it has been in November a ton of late.
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation
There are a lot . . .
of non-conference rivalry games played at the end of the year: Georgia/GT, Clemson/SC, Florida/FSA, etc.
The Missouri-Kansas game got moved up in the season when there were far fewer games on TV in an effort to get in on television when the league didn’t offer other attractive games. That’s not nearly as big an issue now.
by Michael Atchison on Dec 12, 2009 1:54 PM CST up reply actions
I realize this on the placement of our game
but so often Mizzou fans lean on an argument of tradition that is not always entirely there in reality. And honestly, the argument of rivalry vs. reality is likely what the discussion of this move will boil down to for a lot of people. Also, only once was the game MOVED for television…the rest of the time, it was the conference scheduling the game simply in the middle of the year.
And actually, the three games you mentioned…those are the three games…there is no etc…everything else is within conferences.
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation
Playing KU on that date might not be tradition, but the rivalry is, and the drama of a last-day grudge match makes for excellent viewing, especially when (and if) both teams have some kind of national significance. We don’t HAVE to play it then, but it works so well to do it.
And if MU had skipped out on the Big VII, potentially messing up the alignment of hte North a whole lot, that might make the match even more acrimonious, making for even better teevee.
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
Yes...recently it has worked out well...
the Big XII, us and them could not have been more lucky for the 2007 game.
Considering how regimented the Big 10 scheduling currently is, I have little doubt we would be able to pull off the game where it currently is. However, I also have little doubt we would not just move the game into the slot currently held by Illinois. There were a lot of reasons our game with kU was moved to kC for a few years. Don’t think this was not a thought..just to make sure it was viable were a move to occur
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation
Yeah, you could be right
that they would move it to the start of the year. And sure the stars are never likely to align nearly so well as they did in 2007, but we’ve had 3 years in a row of nailbiters, it seems a shame to drop something that has a reasonable prospect of remaining pretty high entertainment that will command a lot of eyeballs (read $$$).
As for regimented scheduling – adding a 12th team would bollix ALL of it up… it’d presumably take a few years to unwind everything and implement a switched up schedule, right?
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
Depends on how the move would happen
And here is where I think some people would be quite surprised…
…it took Penn State just shy of FOUR YEARS to join the conference athletically. They agreed in Dec. of 89 but did not begin playing until 1993. I dont know how far out in advance the Big 10 does their conference scheduling, but that sort of cushion would eliminate your potential bollix
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation
or at the very least, postpone it for quite some time, yeah.
For better or worse, football scheduling is done so far in advance that I simply can’t imagine them tearing up next years schedule for the whole big 10, and working out a completely new rota of conference games. Quite WHY everything has to be planned 3 and 4 years in advance I have no idea, but they seem to feel pretty strongly about it.
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
Not that big a deal, I think
We can still schedule 3 cupcakes at the begining, and bye week before conference play starts. Kansas at the end of the season would just replace Illinois at the start.
Hell, for that matter
We could schedule Illinois as our first game and have an identical season to what we’ve got now.
As a non-revenue sport, baseball would get screwed
the Big 10 does have some decent teams, but nowhere near the depth the Big 12 has.
Chicago White Sox Examiner — I wish I could cuss right now.
by UribeAuction on Dec 12, 2009 1:00 PM CST up reply actions
are we really considering this?
I know the big12 is doing some terrible things right now, but come on. There is no way in hell I would want to move to the Big10. The teams we’ve built rivalries with in the B12 far outweigh our Illinois (rivalry). furthermore, I like the competition in the big12, there are great teams and bad teams, and I believe we’re right where we want to be, with our texas recruiting base firmly in the ground, a great young QB, lots of fan support, and competition within the conference. Moving to the Big10 would be a terrible and horrible move that would make no sense. I like the Big12 It’s where we belong, It’s where we need to stay. period.
I really hope this is just a hypothetical “what-if” scenario b/c if not. well, I don’t really know what I would do if we moved to the Big10
" If I had a gun on a boat I would shoot you right here, right now"
The only rivalry I can think of that's considered much of anything
is with Nebraska in football. Considering there’s potential for equally compelling football rivalries with say, Iowa or Wisconsin if we were to move to the Big 10, I don’t think that’s a very compelling reason.
by Transmogrified Tiger on Dec 12, 2009 12:59 PM CST up reply actions
For the record (having written the original post)...
I don’t think anyone at Missouri is actively considering such a move at this point. This is all long, long down the road.
More to the point, all the consideration is all on the Big Ten’s side right now. A one-division, 11-team conference is really unwieldly, and the geographic layout of the schools doesn’t lend itself to many easy opportunities for expansion. Missouri’s one of the few “School X”s that might work for the Big Ten. Whether anyone at the school would actually jump at the opportunity obviously isn’t known.
Awesome discussion, guys. I really knew very little about how this kind of talk would fly down there, so this is all very informative. Thanks.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
I'd love to have another crack at Missouri
And I think they could be a good fit in the Big Ten
by LincolnParkWildcat on Dec 12, 2009 7:08 PM CST up reply actions
Iowa is not hurt by Texas recruiting.
I don’t know what their current percentage is, but it’s been 50% this decade. I can’t imagine you’d lose that.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
I think a move creates more potential problems than it fixes for Mizzou sports
Academically this is a no brainer…
But, the Big 10 is held hostage to a crappy network and the Rose Bowl.
I think we’d do better to work harder at getting revenue sharing on the table in the Big 12.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
The Big Ten network is not my idea of a problem with this
and the Rose has a history of sqeezing in an extra Big Ten team, thereby increasing the conference payout. The network problem of limited households, for myself personally, would be a blessing. I get sick of regional broadcast or none at all. Shelling out $30 for PPV for a bad game just sucks. Giving up hating nu, ku and ou is different. I like the burn it gives me.
Respect and honor your opponent, unless that opponent is a fictional bird. In which case you hit him until he falls, kick him until dead and burn the remains.
You can start hating Iowa.
We’ll let ya. We already love that Minnesota and jNWU hate us. At least Mizzou is actually good.
In the past 10 years, just four team owners have not paid a luxury tax and are not on pace to pay one this year: Donald Sterling, Jerry Reinsdorf, Chris Cohen (Golden State), Bob Johnson (Charlotte).
Two owners’ teams averaged an operating income of over +$10 million per year while their teams have lost over 60% of their games: Donald Sterling and Jerry Reinsdorf.
The Big 10 network is just one piece of their TV puzzle
and I believe would help guarantee more MU games being on TV.
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation
I actually get the Big Ten Network
It’s pretty impressive. The quality of production is light years better than the stuff the Big 12 does with FSN.
by Michael Atchison on Dec 12, 2009 1:56 PM CST up reply actions
For the record...
The BTN clears a TON of money, and is one of the reasons why the Big Ten brings in the most TV revenue of any conference—even after the SEC’s mammoth ESPN deal.
No, it’s not nationwide, but neither is a regional Fox Sports network.
I got more rhymes than Wade Lookingbill's got dunks
The Big XII Fox Sports Network games are not regional.
I get all the FSN Big XII games on FSN Florida.
The BTN is pretty widely available. DirecTV and Dish both have it, as do AT&T and Verizon, and almost all of the major cable companies, including Comcast, Time Warner, Cablevision, etc. have it, at least on a digital tier. I think the only cable subscribers who don’t have the option of getting the BTN are those who are served by mom&pop cable companies and don’t have access to satellite or telephone-provider service. Only Mizzou fans who fall into that limited class would see fewer games than they see today, and the mom&pop cable companies in Missouri would fall into line pretty quickly.
I like the Big Ten Network quite a bit. In addition to guaranteeing coverage of all home football games and nearly all home basketball games, all games are in HD, there’s much more opportunity to watch non-revenue sports such as baseball, and the studio programming is pretty good.
The Crimson Quarry, SB Nation's Indiana Hoosiers blog
by John M (The Crimson Quarry) on Dec 12, 2009 2:11 PM CST up reply actions
Widely available in Big 10 Country...
Chances of me getting that network here in San Diego are exactly 0%. At least with the Big 12 games on FSN, I can still watch them on FSN West.
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 12, 2009 3:31 PM CST up reply actions
I get the BTN
I live in Denver and it is available with the Sports Tier on Comcast.
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
This is just not true.
It’s available on the satellite companies service as well as several of the major cable companies.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 4:09 PM CST up reply actions
Okay, fine...I'll let you win the point
but I’ll leave you with this…How many more people get a Fox Sports regional channel that carries the 11am Big 12 games compared to who get the Big Ten network? Look at it that way.
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 12, 2009 4:12 PM CST up reply actions
That's just it.
The regional part is what ruins it. Not only do you have to get picked to be on a regional network, not every single FSN network runs those games. The BTN carries every single Big Ten game. Every single one of them.
And that’s just football. Mizzou wrestling, baseball, softball, gymnastics all start to get nationwide coverage. As I said, from my perspective, it’s win/win for Mizzou exposure.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 4:14 PM CST up reply actions
As I posted above...
What’s worse? Being on a “crappy network” that’s broadcast nationwide, or being relegated to pay-per-view which no one but fans are watching? A situation MU found itself in at least 3 times this season that I can recall.
Like someone else said earlier, it comes down to a reality vs. tradition argument. Iowa recruits well in Texas and has no connection to the state at all. Other than Hayden Fry being from there. Moving to the Big 10 opens the Chicago market, not to mention Pittsburgh/Philly/New Jersey/New York.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 4:08 PM CST up reply actions
... and Ohio
for which Pinkle should be able to recruit out of.
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
Absolutely.
Pinkel’s inroads in Ohio are as good as any coach whose school isn’t in the state in the country.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 4:18 PM CST up reply actions
MU needs to at least threaten to bolt
to gain some leverage with the Big 12 and perhaps limit some of the pro-Texas decision making (i.e Texas-centric bowl agreements which favor teams closer to site). Flirt with the Big 10, at lest. Heck, explore it. research to see what the benefit could be. Maybe, beyond all the history with Big 8 teams, there are some immediate — and.or long term advantages for MU to be in the Big 10. The Big 10 Network alone might prove more lucrative. Most important, MU needs to wrestle control of the situation and make the Big 12 stop screwing with us.
This times a million.
There are only a select few teams the Big XII really gives a damn about; Nebraska, OU, Texas, Texas A&M and KU basketball. Those are its only concerns. I honestly don’t think MU’s current situation benefits it more in any way, shape, or form than being a member of the Big Ten would.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 4:17 PM CST up reply actions
i would make this move tomorrow if possible
and not think twice about it
academically there’s no question its an improvement
the only real rivalry we have is with kansas. the rest of the big 12 teams i really don’t care about. ohio st, mich, penn st, iowa are much more interesting to me in football. plus mich st and indiana in bball. we would dominate baseball and softball and the competition in wrestling and soccer would be great. the only negative from my view is not playing cu anymore, but that’s selfish on my part since i live in co.
i think we could still recruit texas pretty well and this might open up ohio and penn to us. recruiting to me is a non-issue. pinkel will get the same type of players.
the big 10 is a more respected conference and not just concerned with the top end: texa$
do it, alden. the naysayers will get over it
question about the academics side:
i know that big ten schools tend to be better academically than the big 12, but how much of this is due to the conference, and why would our move to the big ten help us? does the conference set academic standards or something? i’ve always wondered about this.
also, possibly my favorite part about a move to the big ten would be the addition of men’s soccer. and then we could start up a hefty rivalry with slu on that front. but at the same time, are there other lower-tier sports we would have to give up?
capital letters suck.
The B10's heart beats in its academics.
The strength of the B10 is not derived from its athletic programs, but by their academic consortium, which includes all 11 teams in the athletic conference, plus the U of Chicago. As a result, the B10 presidents wag the tail of this dog, not the athletic directors.
When PSU was asked to join, their academicians went NUTS with pleasure. My understanding is that this was viewed as an incredible opportunity to enhance PSU’s standing nationally and internationally. As beneficial as it has been for them athletically (noting the decline of nearly all other independents), it was the academics that really enticed them. Some have called the day that they joined the B10’s academic consortium the day that PSU was legitimized as a top-drawer university.
So, to answer your question: yes, Mizzou joining the academic consortium would indeed help the standing of your university. I suspect your president and professors would JUMP at the chance.
About soccer: I love it. And the conference is pretty good out east. But no one is adding men’s sports these days, so unless you already have a scholarship team going, I doubt you’d see any soccer except on the women’s side.
If it's not too much trouble, search your soul--and then ask yourself if maybe I might have a point.
by The Director on Dec 12, 2009 3:58 PM CST up reply actions
Big Ten Academics....
The Big Ten’s traditional strengths academically are as large research institutions. They, by and large, have very good to excellent graduate programs. They are also research oriented, and all 11 are currently members of the AAU. Missouri is a member of that prestigious organization, so that wouldn’t be an issue.
Realistically, Missouri is the best option for the Big Ten academically, as Notre Dame isn’t a large, research-based school, nor are they looking to become one. Rutgers is too far east, Pitt doesn’t bring the cachet, and WVU, Cincinnati, Louisville, etc. aren’t good enough academic institutions.
All in all, I’m not sure Missouri should want to move, but their academics would certainly receive a boost as a member of the CIC
Ripple Effect
Let’s say Mizzou leaves for the Big 10. I see a ripple effect happening.
The Big 12 board would meet and dismiss Baylor. They would then add TCU and Houston. I am not sure how the divisions would line up with 5 Texas schools, but that is what I would foresee.
I dont see CU going to the Pac-10… but if that does happent the B12 would have to choose between Houston and TCU. Of the two I see Houston as a more viable candidate. Forget the recency of TCU being undefeated this year. Houston has a decent squad and improving to the B12 would help recruiting throughout Texas. Houston is better at hoops than TCU (historically).
The Mizzou-Illinois rivalry would take off immediately and wouldnt have to be artificially instigated. Who on here doesnt already despise Illinois… even if it is just for a week in Sept and a week in Dec. Seriously.
We had a home and home vs Iowa a few years back. i wanted to win, but didnt hate them. I hate Illinois and look towards that game each year.
We would need to establish a hoops rivlary with KU, probably in KC at the Sprint Center. it’d replace Illinois as the Xmas week game.
The KU football game would also be in KC. Hell, we play Illinois in both sports in StL, why not KU in both in KC.
As for hoops, our style would be an interesting transition in the slow tempo of the B10. I see us falling in line, in terms of conference standings, as we are in the Big 12. There are perenials there (Michigan State and tOSU to a lesser extent) that would be to us what KU/UT are.
It’d be interesting to see what would happen in football. So far the spread hasn’t worked in the B10 (Michigan). Not sure if that is the coach, the players or what, but it hasn’t worked. Obviously Mizzou would need to revamp the D to get run stoppers, but that could happen.
All in all, I think the trade off is the KU rivalry vs the Illinois rivalry. I hate Nebraska football, but that is because they pounded us for so long. I dont care what they do outside of the Mizzou game. KU is different. I like them to be embarrassed. That is what itd be like with Illinois.
I have written too much already (and probably misspelled a lot).
The end.
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
I have thought about it...
And maybe Nebraska means more to some than it does to me. I will concede that point.
And as an aside. I grew up in Columbus, Ohio and truthfully didnt know there were schools in the Big 10 not named Michigan until I was about 15 years old…
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
I'm not convinced
Mizzou would need more run stoppers. Seems like we’ve done pretty well stopping the run this year. Mainly I think our run stoppers need more experience.
I'm with William Quantrill. Go Missouri, beat Kansas.
I smell a poll coming
I’m curious….how many people who favor the move to the Big 10 have roots at Mizzou? What I mean by that is, who’s a local or a child of an alum…and who had no ties to the University until they became a student there….I somehow feel that some of the non-locals who go/went to Mizzou look at the rivalries with Nebraska, Iowa State and Kansas State a lot differently than those of us that “grew up” in the CoMo area and oppose a move…
If that makes sense….
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 12, 2009 4:34 PM CST reply actions
I'd prbobably agree
I had no ties until I became a student.
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
I grew up in SE MO
and I followed Mizzou sports from there. I was never really that into it (watched/was disgusted at the Independence Bowl against Arkansas, rooted for Mizzou when they made the Elite Eight in ‘03, but that’s pretty much all I remember) until I became a student in ‘05. Since then I have become a Mizzou junkie and will talk Mizzou sports with anyone, anywhere. Honestly, I really don’t like the Big 10. I think they are soft. I think since some of the schools have the history that they do, they get a free pass. True, UT and OU get free passes in the Big 12, but they have the teams to back up those free passes more often than not. I honestly got pissed when tOSU made two straight NT games when I didn’t think they were anywhere near a top 2 team. I hate that they have to make sure that everyone knows they are “THE” Ohio State. Maybe that would help me hate them as a rival if we move to the Big 10, but I don’t really want to. To me, the Big 12 is home, and I don’t want to leave, warts and all. We have begun to make headway in this conference, both in football and basketball in the last few years, and I think that if Pinkel and Anderson continue to recruit as he has, we will become powers in the conference. Maybe not on the level of UT or OU, but become a team that will consistently get to the Big 12 Championship game in football, occasionally win it, and routinely be a top 3 team in basketball. I want to see all the growth that I’ve seen happen in my time here as a student continue to pay off to where we are no longer the doormat to UT and OU, and that will make beating them all the sweeter. To me, I’m Big 12, now and for the long standing future.
by darklighter09 on Dec 12, 2009 4:52 PM CST up reply actions
All due respect...
But if you think Big 10 football is “soft”, which is what I assume you were referring to, then you haven’t watched any Big 10 football my friend. The Big 10 is a far more physical conference than the Big XII. That is NOT to say it is a superior conference…all I’m saying is that the style of play is much more physical and demanding than the style of play in the Big XII.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 9:34 PM CST up reply actions
i can't disagree more
the big ten is bottom two in terms of physicalness every single year in football. did you watch the ‘07 and ’08 title games? the big ten may be physical when they’re playing each other, but out of conference they’re one of the softest leagues around.
jd is legend for Cardinals' closer 2010!!
by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 12, 2009 9:39 PM CST up reply actions
I'm going to have to totally disagree with you there.
How exactly are you defining “soft” in your estimation?
i guess "soft" is not the word i'm using
they’re just simply not as good. they may play the most physical game on the planet when the play each other, but out of conference it just doesn’t show.
jd is legend for Cardinals' closer 2010!!
by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 12, 2009 9:57 PM CST up reply actions
Agree to disagree.
I watched both of those Missouri losses in the Big XII title games. I didn’t see physical football. I saw Big XII style football, which is not as hard-hitting as the Big 10. Again; this is NOT trying to argue that the Big 10 is better by any stretch of the imagination. What I am saying is that defenses, generally speaking, hit harder in the Big 10 than in the Big 12.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 10:43 PM CST up reply actions
fair enough
when putting the big 12 up against the big ten in comparison, i’ll go ahead and give you that the big ten probably plays a more physical style of defense. however, the difference in offensive results more than makes up for this lack of physicality.
but more physical defense doesn’t equal better teams (like you’ve said). so really, it’s a moot point.
jd is legend for Cardinals' closer 2010!!
by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 12, 2009 10:56 PM CST up reply actions
even if something isn't "better" it can still be tricky to adjust to
passing isn’t “better” than rushing, but some teams use more of one than the other, and some teams are better when facing someone who does one or the other. Mizzou may thrive in the face of big 10 style play, collapse in the face of it, or just take it in stride with some minor adjustments. WHo knows. It’s a source of unpredictability. A known unknown if you will.
but mizzou doesn't have to adjust to anything if they don't want to
i fully believe mizzou runs a better offensive system than anyone in the big ten. the offensive system can beat the big 12, and that same offensive system can beat the “more physical” big ten.
let’s put it this way. illinois was a bad big ten team this year. i would equate them with say, colorado in the big 12. mizzou beat colorado 36-17. mizzou beat the equally bad (relative to conference standings) illinois 37-9. does this mean mizzou would have beaten iowa and ohio state this year? no, but i bet those games would have been a lot closer than mizzou-texas was.
jd is legend for Cardinals' closer 2010!!
by stlcardinalsfang on Dec 13, 2009 12:41 PM CST up reply actions
who knows
you can make these linear extrapolations and they’re better than nothing but I wouldn’t bet a whole lot of money on them. It’s a reasonable guess, but that is all.
The problem with that scenario is that Colorado is coached by someone who is at least somewhat competent.
Illinois on the other hand, is coached by this guy:
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 13, 2009 4:54 PM CST up reply actions
More so than Zook!
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 13, 2009 6:09 PM CST up reply actions
No doubt at all.
To be clear, I don’t think Hawkins is competent whatsoever, but when compared to Zook, I’d say he’s at least a step ahead of El Zookerino.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 13, 2009 6:36 PM CST up reply actions
I’ve grown up in the Chicago area, but with parents and an extended family that had all attended Big 8/12 schools, mainly Nebraska and Iowa State. After seeing the appeals of bother conferences, I choose the Big 12. No one really wants to deal with the superiority complexes of Michigan and Ohio State.
Bullshit you don't.
That right there is half the fun! Getting to play against the perennial powerhouses of the conference, and being able to ‘stick it in their eye’, or getting to churn the guts of their fans with the uncertain games! They get all pouty and pissed, and you can just stand there like a proud jackass because you just ripped them a new one/took it to the brink.
Only in football
Believe me, these superiority complexes for these two teams only exist in football. (Native Michigander living in Missouri here, my two cents).
Basically, everyone else in the conference hates both of these teams. They might historically be the best two schools in football, but they’re only two schools. It’s not like the Texas schools in the Big 12, where it seems that every whim of theirs is met. I mean, who has a bigger superiority complex than a Texan?
And besides, they might have complexes in football, but in basketball they are weak. Indiana, Purdue and Michigan State (maybe Illinois) rule the roost when it comes to basketball. Everyone else
Ya
I’m Canadian, no ties whatsoever until I came here… so from an outsider (mostly academic) perspective, the big 10 has a lot more status than the big 12, even if they ARE a lot snottier about it.
From a sports perspective, I would say that Mizzou has been building competent competitive teams, more than they have been building status in the big 12 per se. To the extent that the latter is true, it is completely due to the former. And that competence can be exported into another conference. If Mizzou arrives in the Big 10, and within a year or two is beating lots of people, and competing for the championship pretty intensely… I don’t know quite HOW that will get taken (by us OR them), but I suspect we’d all adapt to it a lot quicker than we think.
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
“I can tell you who our rivals are in the Big 12. Kansas, Nebraska, Kansas State, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Iowa State….those are the teams that I consider our rivals. Schools that we’ve played for most of the last century.”
+1
Funny, y'know
how when we’ve had big games against Nebraska of late, we’ve had to have lengthy debates with ourselves over whether it was a TRUE rivalry (consensus seemed to be "not quite yet, but getting there). Kansas is the only slam dunk of that lot. Kansas State we have our unholy alliance, OS and IS are just teams that we’ve been at a ROUGHLY similar competitive level with over an extended average of the past, and OU has beaten us out of our big 12 title games, which always stings. I bet we don’t register in the least on their “rival” ometer.
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
honestly
i would like to see iowa state jump to the big 10 and us add tcu. i think it would elevate our conference, at least in a football sense, which is probably the most important thing. yeah, it wouldnt be great for basketball, but everyone already knows whos gonna dominate that (ku).
not to mention
allowing us to keep rivalries with kansas and nebraska. true, we would still be under the thumb of ou and ut, but i think we are certainly making strides in football to at least be more competitive with those schools
by darklighter09 on Dec 12, 2009 6:03 PM CST up reply actions
I don't see the big 10 wanting iowa state under any circumstances.
Missouri’s academic prestige is on the borderline of what they would want to bring into their collective image, Iowa State would never fly with them. They would be too scared of “diluting” their high flying research school brand to include any potential member of a “farmageddon”.
and the Mustache of Truculence (formerly Canada4Mizzou)
Also, no new media market
Iowa State offers nothing that the U of Iowa doesn’t already have (namely: the Des Moines and Omaha/ Council Bluff media markets). Maybe a solid wrestling team, but that’s it.
Moving to the BigTen doesn't necessarily mean that Mizzou has to quit playing Nebraska and KU.
The move frees up an OOC game (Illinois) and there’s no reason that Mizzou couldn’t schedule both Neb and KU each year.
by The Mexican't on Dec 12, 2009 6:08 PM CST up reply actions
Just doesn't leave as much room for the cupcakes
Unless we can find more of them INSIDE the big 10. We could have one of the hardest schedules around… and that’s the opposite of what the national rankings reward.
TCU
\TCU will not be in the Big 12.
Their enrollment is roughly 8000. Right now Baylor is the smallest with 13000. OK St is second smallest with 26000. People are saying Baylor is too small for the conference. TCU has 5000 less students.
Another knock on Baylor is that it is the only private university in the conference. TCU is similarly private and religiously affiliated.
Houston’s 30000 students is the most likely choice.
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
Hoops records
We all know they have been a good football squad of late, but here are their recent hoops records
01-02 14-14
02-03 9-19
03-04 12-17
04-05 21-14 (NIT)
05-06 6-25
06-07 13-17
07-08 14-16
08-09 14-17
09-10 5-4
43% wins this decade.
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
While I like the idea of Houston...
…Robertson Stadium holds 30,000 when it’s filled to the gills. That would be the smallest stadium in the conference by 20,000. That, and the general lack of fan support — commuter school in a big city with a lot of other stuff to do — could be a drawback.
We'll carry the banner high!
Bring On The Cats
Yes, but, lots of UT, TT, A&M, even OU and OSU grads there
They would basically guarantee a filled stadium ever time they played one of those schools, which would be often. Plus, huge Houston media market.
FYI
Enrollment (according to WIkipedia)
ISU – 28k
KSU – 23k
CU – 30k
KU – 30k
Mizzou – 30k
NU – 23k
Baylro – 13k
Ok St – 23k
TAMU – 48k
Tech – 30k
OU – 29k
UT – 50k
www.Big12Hoops.com
Twitter: @MizzouHoops
Some thoughts on the notion of rivalry
I know as this discussion continues, many people will bring up the idea of rivalry with our conference foes. I got to thinking about the notion of rivalry versus that of commonality, and I will admit I was surprised by a few things I found. I started looking at the all-time records against our former Big 8 mates…not so much for the records, but for something else.
For comparison purposes, we just played our main rival, kU for the 118th time, the most played rivalry west of the Mississippi
Who is our next most-played rival? NU at 103 times…but how many of you knew we had played Iowa State 102 times?
k-State? 95 times
OU? Still 93 times (would be 99 if not for the Big XII rotation)
CU and Okie State really did not make the list.
Anything over 100 would scream big time rival to me in most cases, but our rivalry against NU is only recently rekindled, and I certainly dont consider kSU and ISU too much of a rival. We dont even play OU every year anymore. But there they are…either over or coming up on 100 games. So is it rivalry? Or just commonality?
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." - Anonymous
Rock M Nation
If I play cards every Friday night with my buddy for a couple of years
we’ll easily hit a hundred games. But he’s not my rival, he’s just someone I have a shared history with. Rivalry means more competitive intensity to me. Some dislike. I think perhaps the best single definition of a “rival” I can come up with is “a team you hate so much you hope they lose to OTHER teams”.
I disagree
That’s not a rival – Penn State is quickly becoming Iowa’s rival, at least in terms of football. However, I would say 90% or more of Iowa’s fans actively root for Penn State whenever we’re not playing them, and from what I’ve seen, that is reciprocated. Significant mutual respect there.
To me a rival is best described as “the team you absolutely must beat in order to have a successful season”. 11-1 isn’t a complete success if that 1 came against the rival.
What you described is how most everyone in the B10 feels about tOSU, but other than Michigan, none of us can say we’re rivals. We want to see them lose, often so much it’s even to our own detriment. I don’t have a good word for this, but rival isn’t it.
I believe the word you are searching for is
NEMESIS.
Black and Gold Blood: Cubbie Blue Heart
Follow me on Twitter: @MattLaCasse
by MissouriHawk on Dec 12, 2009 9:41 PM CST up reply actions
So by your definition
(which is a reasonable one), you can only really have 1 rival. Two at most. So all these people who think that Mizzou is rivals with more than half the big-12 just aren’t using it the same way you are. By this score it’s Kansas and KU alone for us.
I’d buy that.
comparing to Man U...
Their true rivals will always be Liverpool…Man City and Leeds have been playing in different divisions or irrelevant for years…Yeah, United fans hate City fans, but it’s like picking on your kid brother…here’s a quick table to illustrate:
Mizzou=Man United=All that is good in the world
Kansas=Liverpool=All that is wrong with the world
Iowa State=Man Citeh=That kid brother that is annoying
Nebraska=Leeds=You love to hate them when you’re both relevant (or it’s a Cup tie)
Illinois=Chelsea=A flash in the pan…the Illinois game goes away after next year…Chelsea wasn’t relevant except for an FA Cup in the 50’s until Abromovich bought them…
Kansas State=Arsenal=a stretch, but as much as I hate Wenger, I respect them…just like I hate K-State, but I respect them…
Okay, maybe I went too far with this train of thought….
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 13, 2009 12:37 AM CST up reply actions
hey!
pool fan here…i accept your analogy, although i would have chosen the mizzou and kansas roles differently.
capital letters suck.
sucks to be you
how’s 7th in the table feel?
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 13, 2009 2:35 PM CST up reply actions
well i think pretty much everyone knew coming into the season how much would hinge on the health of gerrard, torres, etc.
liverpool is not a deep team who depends heavily on their star players, almost all of whom have been hurt. with them coming back, and the 20 million man himself aquilani finally making an appearance, the rest of the season should turn out much better. top of the table though…i think we’re just looking to make the top 4 at the moment.
capital letters suck.
naaailed iiit <- sing song Jon Steward voice
Except maybe I’d argue that Nebraska is really Aresnal – a LONG history of being pretty successful, and with a large rabid fan base.
I like that explaination as well
I’m a Michigan State fan and while we certainly do not like many teams in the Big 10, the only team we really MUST beat is Michigan. I mean, sure, they have that stupid “Land Grant Trophy” rivalry with Penn State and it’s nice to beat them, but no one cares about winning a trophy or anything other than the fact that it’s a nice win. And on the basketball court, I’ll admit that it has me jumping for joy whenever Sparty ruffles the slicked-back hair of Bo Ryan and his Badgers (for example), but I do not hate them. I’d say Michigan has two rivals: tOSU and Michigan State (although they will not admit that we are a rival, but they all want to kill themselves whenever they lose to us because, I guess, it’s ‘embarrassing’ for them, but I think that makes us a rival).
So for Mizzou to have one, maybe two rivals isn’t all that uncommon. I’d say KU could be the one and only, and what’s wrong with that?
I'll say it
I’m a Spartan fan and I absolutely loathe Bo Ryan and UW.
Light a man a fire, he'll stay warm for a day.
Light a man afire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
Big 10 benefits
So I hate to say it this way, but every year, the Big XII North is pretty much seen as the whipping boy of the South. As much as you try to spin it, it’s been like that for quite a while, especially with the Texas’ and Oklahoma’s, and even historically the Nebraska’s have been the real power in the North. With the way in which Mizzou is becoming more and more relevant, maybe it’s time to go to the Big 10 and start anew; new teams to play, where we can build a new reputation, without having to play against not only the other teams in the Big XII, but also the stereotype which comes with being in the lesser division. Joining the Big 10 will also be good for the academics. IF we do move, I think it would be interesting to see: A.) for football how our wide open offense would fare in a different type of overall game; B.) basketball where not as many teams in the Big 10 are as athletic nor run the floor like we do.
All in all, there are going to be positives and negatives no matter how you look at it, and the only negatives which I see popping up again and again are about “rivalries”, and the only ones really that border on obsessiveness for the fans that I have seen while at Mizzou are the KU and NU ones, but as has been posted hundreds of times above me, the Nebraska only in the recent years when we have become relevant in college football again
People are coming out the woodworks for this debate
If we chose to stay in the Big XII after being invited to the Big Ten, a conference with significantly higher academic standards (sorry to sports fans who give a shit less about academic environments, it is the most important aspect of any university. Or it should be.) and comparable competition in most sports (not to mention a TV/revenue sharing deal that would be more beneficial in most cases) in order to protect tradition or rivalries, we would be making a very poor decision. I repeat, if we stay in the B12 over the B10 (if invited) in order to protect tradition or rivalries, or because of a simple “BIG TEN SUX, BIG 12 RULZ” preference, we would be making a very poor decision for the vast majority of students at Mizzou. And they are the primary shareholders in this equation.
This just in: Mangino fired along with 75% of KU cafeteria staff.
That's a pretty strong argument. I suspect this might be how it would play if it did ever come to pass.
Though being a sports site we have a strong propensity to looking at it through our sports goggles.
Out of curiosity:
What direct benefits do students see from the move? There’s no doubt that Mizzou’s perception academically is boosted by the move, but do you have insight as to the tangible benefits for students? I mean, the Big Ten isn’t the AAU (of which Missouri is already a member). It’s an athletic conference. Is there something in the signaling of the switch that results in a direct advantage for students?
CIC
The ‘Big Ten’ is just the name given to the athletics part of the conference. Every school in the Big Ten (plus UChicago and UIllinois Chicago) is also a member of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC). This is a research and information sharing organization that holds many conferences throughout the year to share ideas. See link.
Does the Big 12
or at least the old Big 8 not have something similar, or is that what the AAU is?
by leghumpingjihadkiller on Dec 13, 2009 5:57 PM CST up reply actions
Bingo
The CIC hands out awesome opportunities to students, including easier access to grad schools within the CIC (including U of C, incredible school, though not in the Big 10 athletically) and an awesome cross-institution study abroad program among other things. The entire Big 10 is involved with AAU as well. Especially for the J-school, being tied more closely with Northwestern would be beneficial.
Half of becoming an academically prosperous institution is creating an environment with high expectations for students. Now a move to the BigTen wouldn’t immediately make Mizzou a better school, academically. It may not even change the education that students are receiving, individually. But involvement with the CIC would open doors for both undergrads and graduates as well as boost Mizzou’s reputation (which again is probably just as important in terms of creating a challenging academic environment as actually changing what we do in the classrooms).
This just in: Mangino fired along with 75% of KU cafeteria staff.
Also, if we're being totally honest here
among profs, benefiting students is of ludicrously low concern compared to advancing their research agendas. It’s not that they don’t care about students, many of them do, and some of them a lot, it’s that as a professor ALL of hte professsional rewards hinge on research productivity and associations. All of them. Winning gold chalk awards is seen as nice, but slightly quaint. Kick pubs out in the top journals and you are a superstar, in demand at conferences, and have your phone ringing from prestigious schools wanting to recruit you. Be a fantastic teacher and you might get some feel good trophy for your wall. Teaching essentially happens in private – none of your other peers see it, so they don’t really care about it.
It’s not personal, it’s a structural thing. So while profs are all in favor of helping students, as a group their research interests (at an R1 school anyway) are going to hold WAY more sway over their behavior. If the Mizzou faculty was looking at a more prestigious academic alignment, that would be a very powerful force pushing it… and if it also helped students, that would be seen as a nice bonus.
The exception to this, is students WHO HAVEN’T ENROLLED YET. Attracting large numbers of students to join is also a major prirority. See the rec center renovation (ask 18 year olds what they are looking for in a school, they don’t say “smart professors,” they say “an awesome gym”… hence millions of recruiting dollars piled into fantastic interior decor.
If we’re gonna talk about how universities actually make decisions, might as well face facts here. Nursing a potential sports rivalry with Nebraska would be about a fifteenth priority in this shuffle.
Although to be fair, the CIC came after the Western Conference (Big Ten) was formed.
Remember, the Western Conference was formed in 1896.
CIC came about in 1958.
But either way, a move to the Big Ten would benefit Mizzou academically greatly. Reputational rankings (see US News and World Report’s annual rag for that) would increase. One of the potentially biggest beneficiaries would probably be Trulaske COB, as most of the rest of the Big Ten is ranked top 30 for the undergraduate program and probably about the same for the grad programs.
The potential of a NW/Mizzou unholy alliance against Illinois in athletics also makes my heart sing a little. :)
"Put. That coffee. Down. Coffee is for closers." ~ Blake (Alec Baldwin), Glengarry Glen Ross
Think about how terrifically biting the blog jabs would be
This just in: Mangino fired along with 75% of KU cafeteria staff.
Academics
The CIC was a big reason for Penn State joining the Big Ten. A lot of people at Notre Dame are still angry that the football program vetoed Big Ten membership because they wanted the academic benefits. Sports other than football also thought the Big Ten was a great fit.
U of Illinois at Chicago is not a CIC member – UIC is part of the overall University of Illinois system and gets access through UI. I think the same is true for some others like Wisconsin-Milwaukee – depends on how the school itself is organized. So there could be benefits to other Missouri schools.
All BigTen schools are members of the American Association of Universities –
http://www.aau.edu/
Not true of Big 12 – Baylor, TTU, KSU, OU and OSU are not.
University of Chicago was a founding member of the Big Ten and the CIC. Now it plays Division III. CIC needs Chicago – largest university press in the country, enormous library, control of two national labs (Fermilab and Argonne) and many other resources.
Correction
AAU is Association of American Universities. I had the A’s reversed. It is made up of 60 American and 2 Canadian universities – the leading research universities in North America. They get most of the research dollars – the others battle for the scraps. Only two athletic conferences have all their members also members of the AAU. One is the Big Ten. The other is NOT the Ivy League – Dartmouth is not a research unviversity. A Division III conference also makes the cut – the University Athletic Association, a pretty impressive bunch and also the only non-regional DIII conference -
http://www.uaa.rochester.edu/
there is an article over on the KC Star webpage about this very topic
check it out.
i assume you’ve all seen it.
If Big Ten Called, Missouri Would Listen
By Mike DeArmond – Posted on 14 December 2009
it’s a pretty good read. some of the Mizzu fans around the office today caught wind of the ESPN story, and basically said good for Mizzu, screw the Texas schools & Nebraska.
this place smells like feet. i’ll bring a can of lysol next week.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Fighting mob mentality since Oct. 2007
Have you purchased your copy of the 2010 Missouri Football Preview yet?
Related FanPosts on Rock M Nation
Related FanShots on Rock M Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
