Local Support for Missouri to B10
The Maneater (?), which looks like a student-run Missouri campus paper, has an opinion article today in support of Missouri joining the Big 10. HT to Dr. Saturday.
http://www.themaneater.com/stories/2010/2/9/missouri-should-move-big-te…
I like Pitt better, but Missouri is the next best choice in my mind if we decide to expand.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:10 AM ^
I should note that there's not too much new information in this, just serves as another data-point going forward. From what I remember reading Missouri seems to be the most internally-positive about going the Big 10.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:35 AM ^
Mizzou is a decent sports school, and the football team should win nine out of ten against them once it gets back to an elite level. Playing them in basketball is a nice visual, too; everybody wears a block M.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:46 AM ^
Playing them in basketball is a nice visual, too; everybody wears a block M.so THAT'S why we let Minnesota into the big ten! But really, what a horrible reason to expand a conference...
February 10th, 2010 at 8:25 PM ^
Minnesota doesn't exactly have a block M. They have more of a "trapezoid M."
Missouri's M is the same as ours, just in a different color. I don't like the idea of having two schools with the same logo in the conference - that seems like a bad idea from a marketing standpoint.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:55 AM ^
and the football team should win nine out of ten against them once it gets back to an elite level.
So that's where the term "Michigan arrogance" comes from. Missouri is no slouch.
Missouri is my first choice to enter the conference, aside from Notre Dame of course. They would add another dimension to the conference in football and basketball with their spread offense in football and their "40 minutes of Hell" offense in basketball. THe conference would actually expand in size geographically (adding Pitt would not) and Missouri has good programs in footbal and basketball as opposed to Syracuse or Rutgers. Unless Maryland or some other school comes out of nowhere, I'd like Missouri to enter the conference.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:43 AM ^
Granted, I am totally biased and absolutely hate the University of Missouri; however, I do not understand why the B10 would consider them for inclusion. Here is Missouri in a nutshell:
No athletic tradition whatsoever except for the dubious reputation of being considered the best basketball program never to reach the Final Four;
Sub-par academics and unimpressive research endowment;
No high profile TV markets (before St. Louis is pouted out as a key market, recognize that St. Louis splits its market in about 4 ways: 1) Missouri; 2) Illini; 3) Jayhawks; and, 4) all the other schools that transplants to the city graduated from);
Other than a relatively recent rivalry with Illinois, Missouri has no history with the B10...
I just don't understand. Simply because Missouri wants to join the B10 does not mean they should!!! I really hope the conference identifies more strategic locations for expansion: east.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:50 AM ^
I appreciate a lot of what you are saying. I am. . . ambivalent about Mizzou joining the Big 10, honestly. I guess Pitt makes more sense, but personally, I'd love to have Nebraska. That being said, one quibble with your response. I grew up in the St. Louis television market as an Illinois fan (don't worry- I went to U of M; my whole family went to Illinois and my friends from home are big fans). I must disagree re: the St. Louis tv market. It is about 75% Mizzou coverage- that is the main college they cover. They also keep up with St. Louis University basketball, and Illinois as well, but not very much. (I was perpetually frustrated by the lack of U of I coverage). For example, KMOX (50,000 watt superstation like WJR in Detroit) broadcasts all Mizzou football games, etc. And I would definitely not agree that it is a Kansas market. There may be Kansas alums there, but the only time KU gets an pub is when they're playing Missouri, and that is because they are rivals. Also, Mizzou has a very good journalism school. (I know- that's minor, really: Ohio U has a good j-school, too, and I don't consider them to be a very good academic school)
February 10th, 2010 at 11:52 AM ^
Also, I don't know if I would characterize the U of I-Mizzou rivalry as "relatively recent." At least in basketball, it has been a rivalry as long as I can remember, and both schools are more basketball schools than football schools. The football game between the two is more recent, though.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:20 PM ^
I too grew up in StL and share your annoyance regarding the pub that Mizzou got. However, as a whole, I found the city pretty well divided. When I lived out in the suburbs (Chesterfied/Town and Country/Wildwood), Mizzou was definitely the favorite team. However, when I moved down to Clayton/U.City/and closer to the city, the demographics of fanhood changed drastically. Illinois/KU and several other schools really dominated.
Also, I totally agree that Mizzou has a great Journalism School. That's really fantastic - but that is it!!! That is literally the only reputable program that Mizzou has - and, no offense to the journalists out there, it's not exactly a major money maker. Journalism simply does not garner the type of research grants that would make Mizzou an academically attractive B10 candidate. Their colleges of Medicine, Law, Business, Engineering, Economics, etc. are not highly ranked and would definitely be towards the bottom end of the B10.
The reality of this situation is that Mizzou would benefit 100% from joining the B10...The B10, however, would not greatly benefit. Why not find a school where there is a mutual benefit and better fit?
February 10th, 2010 at 12:50 PM ^
But after US News'ing it..
MIZZOU: 102
Nebraska: 96
Frankly neither of those schools are good enough academically to be in the Big Ten and would be the worst school in the Big Ten.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:17 PM ^
Mizzou was like 70 a couple years ago. I think they have fluctuated a ton, and score better in non-usnews rankings. They also have a top 2 journalism school and the foundation for future academic growth.
Just that ranking doesn't really do Mizzou justice.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:34 PM ^
"Well Sparty has a great Ag Program and their sod was used in the World Cup!"
One good program does not make a good school. Mizzou is not a good school and neither is Nebraska IMO if they aren't better than MSU (worst school in the Big Ten) then we shouldn't add them.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:13 PM ^
Yes, if we are weighting academics, I honestly think that the only possibilities are ND (I know, I know) and Pitt. I just wish...I don't know. Pitt was located where Mizzou/Nebraska are. I guess I just wish their football was stronger. I know- it isn't terrible, and they have been around a long time, etc, and their hoops team has been strong for the past 10 years, etc. It also might just be my own biases from where I grew up, and where I live now (Chicago) which is closer to the center/west of the B10 footprint. And I grew up near St. Louis, which is the southern tip of B10 country as far as the footprint is concerned.
Also, I totally agree on the "one good program" meme. That's why I cited Ohio University in my original comment. I completely agree.
I guess that, basically, for a mix of academics, sports, tradition, and footprint, Pitt is the most likely school.
Also, in response to the poster above who also is from the STL area- I agree with you that folks who live in the city are fans of varying teams, with Kansas getting a big chunk. I was more focused on the media coverage in the area than the fans/alums, but I certainly see your point, and it is a valid one.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:27 PM ^
ND doesn't really fit either because they are:
1. A small private institution
2. Grad programs... um... blow or are non-existant
3. Not a large publicly funded research institution of higher learning
For all of those reasons ND doesn't fit in (except as a snooty rival for Northwestern).
February 10th, 2010 at 2:52 PM ^
They have good Law and Business schools. They are basically Northwestern without a medical school, but with a much better football program.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:25 PM ^
Granted it's all free access so I can only see the Top 10s
In Business:
In the Top 10s of:
Marketing: NW, UM
Finance: NW
Management: NW, UM
Accounting: Ill, UM, Indy
Overall:
NW (3)
UM (13)
Indy (22)
OSU (26)
UW (28)
Purdue (33)
Minne (33)
ND (33)
So um in sum for Business no ND is not on par with NW at all
Law Schools (overall rankings):
UM (9)
NW (10)
MN (20)
UIUC (23)
UI (23)
ND (23)
So to compare ND to NW is um.... wrong. ND is NOT a good grad school. They are ONLY good at undergrad. They are NOT a public research institution and thus do not match the "IDEAL" candidate for a Big Ten school.
February 10th, 2010 at 3:26 PM ^
Ehh, I don't really agree with that. Northwestern has a pretty good journalism and theatre school, while ND does not. Kellogg (grad) blows Mendoza out of the water, and Northwestern's law program is consistently ten to fifteen spots ahead of ND's.
If anything, Notre Dame is Northwestern without the programs and with the arrogance.
February 10th, 2010 at 1:18 PM ^
Why weaken the academic strength of the conference? I think the Big East targets (Pitt, Syracuse, and Rutgers) are better choices in that area.
Additional notes about Big Red (Nebraska): Their basketball program is *legendarily* bad. I don't think they have hockey.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:19 PM ^
I think you're right about the demographics as you shift to downtown/closer to the city, because I think a lot of the people that live there trend toward younger, college-educated types who root for their alma mater. The kinds of younger, upwardly mobile alumni in professional industries. For example, most of the friends of mine (late 20's-early 30's) who live in St. Louis are actually Illini fans or alums. I think this isn't unlike the situation in a lot of cities. At least in Chicago, I know, in the city in the neighborhoods populated by 20 and 30something alums, there are all types of strong fan bases representing the entire Big 10 and a lot of other schools from the south and east. Granted, Chicago is much larger and more of a city that people move to from all over, but St. Louis is a bit similar, if on a smaller, more regional (midwestern) scale.
February 10th, 2010 at 11:45 AM ^
1. Notre Dame
2. Pitt
3. Missouri
February 10th, 2010 at 12:43 PM ^
1. Arizona State
2. Hooters Training Academy
3. Rhode Island School of Design
4. Charm School: Flavor of Love Girls
February 10th, 2010 at 1:14 PM ^
1a. Notre Dame
1b. Texas
----
Way, way further down
----
3. Pitt
4. Mizzou
Yep, Frank the Tank has me convinced. If Notre Dame or Texas aren't interested, I'm not sure we should expand at all.
February 10th, 2010 at 2:44 PM ^
Slightly tweaking your rankings:
1a. Notre Dame
1b. Texas
2. Stay at 11 schools
3/4. Pitt/Mizzou
I think it's at least 50/50 that we stay at 11 schools this go 'round. The B10 is a conservative bunch. Conservatism favors the status quo.
Pitt or Mizzou would be an OK/meh choice, but waiting longer for a bigger fish might be worth it.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:06 PM ^
If we are going into the Big 12, I would rather pull go after Nebraska. Far more history, and a much bigger name nationally.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:58 PM ^
Not to mention the football program turns a hefty profit in a state that advertises "we got nuthin'."
see: recent thread on "most valuable football programs" -- I believe Nebraska was valued higher than Michigan.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:16 PM ^
1.) Notre Dame
2.) Pitt
3.) Boise St. (I can dream)
4.) Nebraska
5.) Missouri
February 10th, 2010 at 12:17 PM ^
Why not Maryland?
February 10th, 2010 at 12:30 PM ^
Way too far east and they don't even have a good tradition for anything.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:52 PM ^
Maryland is about as far from Ann Arbor as Missouri. They might not have great tradition, but better academics than Mizzou and Pitt, a constantly solid basketball team, and potential for a good football team. It would expand the Big Tens footprint, and Maryland as a state produces a lot more D1 recruits than Missouri.
That being said, I don't see Maryland wanting to leave the ACC for its basketball team...
February 10th, 2010 at 4:40 PM ^
While that's true they aren't a Mid-Western school and don't fit the profile of the Big Ten. PSU is pushing it but since they aren't really THAT far east and they are out in the middle of no where they fit in that regard (i.e. more of a midwestern mentality than that of an eastern mentality). Let the teams on the coast stick with the coast - I don't want some coastal team invading the pride and tradition of the Mid-West.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midwestern_United_States
I hold to this day that the Mid-West is the best place in area of the country and part of me died when we let in PSU - don't make it worse by including some team from the coast.
February 10th, 2010 at 12:26 PM ^
NYU should start a D1 team and it should join the big ten!!!!!!!!!!!11 Academics are plus, and it will tap into the NY Market!!!!!!!11
February 10th, 2010 at 3:42 PM ^
I live in Kansas City (moved from Chicago) and I can tell you that MIZZOU fan is VERY excited about the idea of joining the B10. The consensus is that they would have never been demoted to the Texas Bowl if in the B10 and that with the Texas schools in control they will never get the love they could get as a B10 member. So although ND is my first choice and Pitt might be tied for second in my eyes I think Missouri is by far the most welcome to the idea of leaving and becoming a B10 member.