Mizzou and the Big Ten

Submitted by Beavis on

So I feel like this board has been pretty slow with topics relavent to actual Michigan subjects (which is a given, seeing as how it's the offseason for Football and BBall). 

I work in St. Louis and today people all over the office have been talking about Mizzou joining the Big Ten. 

Apparently word slipped from the local Columbia, MO news station that Mizzou's board was in the process of putting an offer together to join the conference and it would be announced "within a couple of days".  Other ideas were mentioned about what other Big 12 teams would jump ship / who would fill their roles, but that doesn't matter to us. 

How solid are my sources?  I have no freaking idea.  I just thought it was worth mentioning since I doubt there are many other Missouri-based Wolverines in the loop. 

Beavis

April 30th, 2010 at 4:13 PM ^

Let me clarify that it is just putting the offer out there and announcing they are gunning for the Big 10.  Not "within a couple of days" that the Big 10 will accept their offer.

Jedelman11

April 30th, 2010 at 4:31 PM ^

I think Mizzou makes the most sense in terms of expansion westward.

If we're not going to ass Pitt or try and capture the NY market with UConn/Rutgers, I think nabbing the STL market is the next best option. The school fits the profile of the other B10 schools, and the fanbase fits with the "midwestern" atmosphere.

In terms of raiding the Big 12, I prefer adding Mizzou to the B10 over Nebraska, but that's just me...

WolvinLA2

April 30th, 2010 at 4:47 PM ^

Missouri would be one of the better options to add, IMO.  Good sports, decent population that probably doesn't include a lot of Big Ten fans already (Missouri is about the same size of Indiana and Wisconsin and bigger than Minnesota and Iowa).  A large school that graduates a lot of students and sends them all over (similar to the lower end of the current Big Ten schools).  And they have a passionate fan base.  Missouri-Nebraska and Missouri-Kansas would be the top OOC games every year.  

A lot of positives to this.  Not nearly as good as ND, but a pretty good next option.  I like it better than Pitt and about the same as Nebraska (maybe Neb has a slight edge).

M2NASA

April 30th, 2010 at 5:11 PM ^

I agree that Missouri would go in a second if asked, and fits in the large state-school profile of the Big Ten.  But why would the Big Ten presidents want to add the worst academic school of any of the candidates thrown out there.

Indiana is ranked the lowest in the Big Ten at #71.

Missouri is #121.

joeyb

April 30th, 2010 at 9:39 PM ^

They are looking for 4 things in the schools. Only ND has all 4. They are a good football program, good basketball program, academics, and TV Viewers. They don't have academics, but they have a football program, and a good basketball program, and they add St. Louis, Kansas City, and a gateway to the south.

Syracuse had a football program and will probably be back soon enough. They have a great basketball program, just as poor of an academic program as Missouri, and won't get us NY like they think it will.

Rutgers is basically a clone of Indiana.

Pitt has a good football program on the rise, a great basketball program, good to great academics, but won't bring the BTN to any new markets.

So, you have to give up on something and if you consider that this whole thing is just for money, you will realize that Missouri makes the most sense out of all of the schools that have been brought up except ND.

dakotapalm

April 30th, 2010 at 10:04 PM ^

Now as I've learned more, I actually think KU is a stronger candidate (logically) than Mizzou. Missouri's football team is not perrenially that much better than Kansas', while the Jayhawk basketball team is a national powerhouse. Frank the Tank's blog has recently written that subscriptions are not the holy grail that advertising actually is, and adding on top of that, the Big Ten has already saturated the STL marked because of the presence of Illinois alums. Kansas City is a large market on the opposite side of Missouri, but the Jayhawks are actually a greater force in that city than the Tigers.

 

Since advertising is a huge factor in this and the Jayhawks are pulling in viewers all over the country with their basketball team, I think that could put Kansas over the top in the eyes of the Big Ten.

Bronco648

April 30th, 2010 at 5:19 PM ^

I would like to see this happen as it gives Illinois a real rival (not UM despite what Illini fans think).  But, I really think it will be Pitt, if only one school is chosen.  If the conference expands by three (or more), then I think Mizzou will be asked to join.  Just my $0.02, I have no inside info (either).

M2NASA

April 30th, 2010 at 5:23 PM ^

The only way Pitt goes is as part of a package with Syracuse and Rutgers.

1) Pitt doesn't bring a single new TV set to the Big Ten Network.

2) Pitt primarily recruits Pennsylvania and Ohio, and competes with Penn State and Ohio State.

3) By bringing Pitt into the conference, Penn State elevates a recruiting rival to their playing field.

Steve in PA

April 30th, 2010 at 7:49 PM ^

Bad blood and Joe doesn't want them on the schedule.  Like most of their non-conference games, PSU scheduled them until they showed glimpses of getting good again.  When Pitt beat them, that was the last until Pitt declines again.

I think publicly PSU will embrace them but behind the scenes they are trying to make sure it doesn't happen.  Until recently Joe owned PA and NJ for recruiting.  Now kids are spurning them for OSU and Pitt.  Pitt in B10 will only make it worse.

I can't think OSU would welcome it either.  I would imagine that had Pitt been in B10, TP would have given them a strong look.

 

"For those of you who are unfamiliar with the history, Pitt and Penn State was once one of the more storied rivalries in college football. The all-time record is in favor of PSU, 50-42-4. The game was last played in 2000, when Pitt defeated Penn State, 12-0, in front of 61,221 strong at Three Rivers Stadium. The game ended a seven-game Penn State winning streak versus the Panthers."  from Mondesi's House Blog

MaizeAndBlueWahoo

April 30th, 2010 at 5:46 PM ^

Frankly, my #1 criterion for Big Ten expansion is the combination of athletic prowess and geographical fit, and Missouri fits very nicely IMO.  I'd rather reassert the ineffable Midwesternness of the Big Ten than take a potshot at the NYC market with Rutgers or Cuse.  Adding Mizzou would make me happy.  Besides, they have the coolest campus architectural feature this side of the Lawn at UVA as well as TJ's original tombstone.  I dig Mizzou.

michiganfanforlife

April 30th, 2010 at 6:07 PM ^

in the OP's first sentence related to actual Michigan topics. What site are you on right now? Granted, there are some threads that are unrelated to football, but that subject still dominates this board at all times.  He makes it sound like nobody is talking about this expansion thing right now, which couldn't be further from the truth.

Beavis

April 30th, 2010 at 6:15 PM ^

Don't tread on me, son.

11 out of the last 20 threads have "OT" in the title.

If you remove this one, that's out of 19 threads.  If you add the 1991 Cornell Hockey Games as OT, then that's 12 out of 19, or 63% of the most recent topics have been OT.

So again.. how was I wrong?