If there was anyone at Mizzou waffling on this decision, and I see no reason why there would be, that interview should push them over the edge.

No doubt in my mind that Mizzou will bite the Big 10's hand off when they come knocking.

The main thing I get out of that is that Beebe knows MU & NU are gone...he is trying to hang on to CU.

LMAO :bravo:

Hey Big Tweleve see ya bundle of stickss

LMAO

"Today is a good day to die".

LMAO

We've come full circle.

Greg Hall

great read. thanks! who is this Greg Hall?

He's a sports media critic. He used to work for the Kansas City Star. He left them and spent a brief time on sports talk radio before moving on to become a columnist for various internet (e.g. KC Confidential) and small local paper outlets (e.g. Platte County Landmark).

Good read, thanks. Kietzman obviously took some liberties with his interpretations, but what I think GH didn't consider is Beebe's intellect and attitude (both seemingly lacking). IMO, with that factored in, KK isn't too far off.

kepp *hearts* KK

Recently, yes :)

http://dennis-dodd.blogs.cbssports.c...ogEntryListCnt

Someone's finally done it. Bravo, to the Columbia Missourian for filing a Freedom of Information ACT request with the University of Missouri.

The intent was to see if there has been any communication between the school and the Big Ten. But as you can see if you read the school's response, Missouri may have provided key information about the Big Ten negotiations by denying the request.

The school said it was protected from releasing any information that includes "sealed bids and related documents until the bids are opened," or "documents related to a negotiated contract." While Missouri would not confirm or deny whether such documents exist, that is its stance. The paper's attorney said the school's response was "correct, as long as you have contract negotiations going on."

We may have found the first smoking gun in the Big Ten expansion shoot out.

The Big 12 spring meetings are June 1-4 in Kansas City where commissioner Dan Beebe has promised to find out "who's on the plane when it takes off."

I'm glad someone posted GHall stuff.
I've missed that guy the past few years, as I just stopped looking for his columns.

Well, if you can't beat 'em, join a different conference. At least you'll get paid more to be a sparring partner.

Has KU ever beat a good team from the south?

For some reason this just reminds me of Jim Breuer in Half Baked. "Who's coming with me?"

The "plane" he speaks of might not stay in the air too long. I'm guessing the only ones who are going to stay on board are the only ones who don't have other offers.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/kI7ujwuKwzE&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/kI7ujwuKwzE&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

That's so far from the motivation for this move, it isn't funny.

I've seen a lot of ku fans make this argument. If it's just about moving to a conference where Missouri can "beat em," why is traditional Big 8/12 powerhouse Nebraska moving as well?

It's about dollars and academics. The athletics are a secondary concern. The athletic department doesn't run the university, and it isn't the group that will make this decision for Missouri.

As for Dan Beebe... who wants to be on a plane that is destined for a crash burn? I would LOVE to see him trying to "play hardball" in the conference negotiating room. Would love it.

That would be an interesting meeting. I'm thinking maybe Lou Perkins will get "classy" again and spew profanities at Alden and Osborne.

Don't respond. Honestly, if it is down to that being their angle, you've already won the argument. KU fan can't comprehend a school making a decision based in large part on academics and it isn't difficult to understand why.

Elaborate.

Which is why the move couldn't be more exciting. It's tremendous for past graduates and current and future students.

ROFL We've beat your ass plenty, Padawan.

Move along people; nothing to see here.

Well, sure. Almost exactly the same number of times we've beat your ass.

:spock:

Still not seeing your being a jerk about the KU stuff, right? Of course, that's part of the rationalization those considering the move would offer...doesn't necessarily make it true those, does it???

Heh.

So you really think that the decision to change conferences (if invited, of course) would be left to the athletic department for the most part?

Exactly. It's a dumb take.

If they both leave, I could see OSU and OU moving to the north division and UH and TCU being invited to join the south. That would actually work out well for everyone... not a HUGE talent dropoff and both have solid academics

No way they move OU to the North that would mean no more Texas OU game every year. Nebraska alone probably brings in more revenue then both UH and TCU.

Only issue with that is that it even further weakens the Big 12's ability to negotiate a new TV deal. Adding more Texas schools doesn't improve the conference's ability to deliver TV sets.

The Big 12 would have to add new markets to survive, or partner extremely closely with the Pac-10. Or both.

I think the most likely thing is the Big 12 dies as its pieces are bitten off by conferences with competant leadership.

Yep...as much as they hate to admit it, losing MU would be very difficult to overcome in terms of negotiating a new TV contract.

There would still be an annual Texas vs OU game. It would be played at Reliant Stadium or Texas Stadium and would be called the Big XII Championship Game.

Touche

That is pretty much how I see it for Missouri.

But the Nebraska issue is different, they will be missed, and they have won something numerous times. The glory days are fading in people's memories, but they were one of the top programs for many years.

No, but it's driven more by money than anything else. It's just transparent and lame then to rationalize it further by adding...'oh, yeah; we like the academics too' when the difference isn't nearly that big of a deal.

omfg. get it done or GTFO!

No kidding. Seems like a lot of posturing and posing from 4th grade drama queens to me....

surely the Big 12 wouldn't want to add more Texas teams ... they have that T.V. market covered with Texas,A&M and TT.

How do you figure? The teams involved aren't even commenting.

It's definitely driven by money, you're right about that. But to say the difference in academics isn't a big deal is just plain wrong.

Aside from dubious opinions from over-blown egos who think more highly of themselves than is warranted .... and a couple of schools who've sucked up to the right people in some "ratings" organizations, I'd say you are just plain wrong. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree though.

Part of the money outlay is tied to academics. The Big Ten's academics rank so well in large part because of the CIC fund. The annual disbursement to memeber schools from that is equal to or higher than Mizzous slice of the finding pie from the state legislature.

Being a member of that increases research prestige significantly. And with the reactor and the state-of-the-art life sciences center (which is mostly empty), Mizzou faces very real and tangible bonuses to it's ability to attract donors (which in turn helps pay for it's slice of the cic pie)

Rob:

The academics is a big deal. The big 10 has a far better rep (and I hold a Ph.D from Oklahoma). Two grads - 1 from big 12 and 1 from big 10 - all things being equal I would hire the one from the Big 10. The Oklahoma's of the world don't hold a candle to the N'Westerns or Ohio's.

Terry, when are things ever, truly, "all things being equal?" Seriously? Northwestern, yeah...okay. Otherswise not a huge difference. That's my point...

If we are talking about top 2-3% types in highly competitive market situations, you have a point. In 98% of the cases, most employers are swayed by other factors farther down the list--experience, interviews, recommendations and references, networking, and other factors...not to mention intangibles; at least when we are talking roughly comparable levels of schools.

There are two places where dick measuring of this type is important: reputations among ratings organizations and the "elite," and in academic conversations that are not too relevant in the real world to about 98% of the population (yeah, I know that means some research money--though having famous alumni and donors can trump that.)

There is a huge difference, however, between the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana and the likes of say Iowa State and Oklahoma State.

Academically speaking, the only Big 12 institution that is either on par with the Big 10 schools or compares favorably to them is Texas. Then you have Colorado, then Mizzou, then KU, then Nebraska.

Admittedly, the last three are clustered pretty close together.

http://www.cic.net/Libraries/Reports...2008.sflb.ashx

...from page 12:

I'm pretty sure famous alumni can't trump that.

6 billion each?

No. The smallest piece of the pie was $121 million, while the largest was $474 million.

I see. While that may be quite a chunk for schools like KU and MU who's endowment funds are 1.2 and 1.1 billion respectively, for schools like Texas, it's chump change.

True, but that's $121 million ON TOP OF normal funding sources.

Even the smallest slice of that - the $121 million Purdue received - would more than double what the Columbia campus spends on research from its endowment.

Mizzou loses a lot of professors because they have a hard time finding funding for their research projects. It has some research jewels (the reactor and life sciences center, as well as the Donald Reynolds Journalism Institute) that will take off given more funding.

Inclusion in the Big Ten should also help attract more out-of-state kids while also keeping more of the "high achievers" in-state rather than departing for other institutions. Enrollment is going to increase (thankfully, the school invested heavily in infrastructure improvement over the past decade).

More students, more great professors, more impact-driven research projects... all those factors create a building effect which is self-perpetuating. I've talked to someone in the academic financial management, and heard a little about the financial model of the university... the move to the Big Ten would benefit it in every way and put it in a position to continually keep improving (Penn State is an excellent example. It has improved a lot academically and sustainability-wise since joining the conference).

THat's why the AD has no real impact on this decision. Alden could be screaming from the rooftops that he doesn't want to go, and it wouldn't matter.

Yeah, it's an amazing deal. And I already know that ADs don't get much say in this whole thing.

Brady Deaton won't care one bit what Alden or Pinkel thinks of the Big 10. The academic opportunities will trump any athletic opportunities.

:facepalm:

I think that's really starting to hit home. The initial discussions about the B10 brought lots of "OH NOES, IT WILL HURT OUR TEXAS RECRUITING FOR FOOTBALL!!!!!!" Lately, I see very little of that and more and more people excited about the long-term academic and economic benefits to the university.

Sounds like the Big 10's main motivation with potential expansion would be to tap into the Sun Belt markets.

Misery and Nebraska aren't in the Sun Belt last I checked.

You bring up a good point. I'm sure the Big Ten is clamoring to see New Mexico State play Penn State. It's a natural rivalry.

http://www.cbssports.com//story/1339...football;cover

Pretty interesting article, it is mostly just bragging on Mizzou but it does bring up a few good points

http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextr...1_ANYONE178350


Missouri can't hold its own in the Big 12

ANYONE vaguely interested in Missouri's interest in leaving the Big 12 for the Big Ten knows how the numbers seven and 22 factor into the decision.

Mizzou officials have told us for months about how every Big Ten team makes $22 million a year off the conference's TV network, while some Big 12 schools make as little as $7 million from the league's TV deals.

Ever since this debate began last December, when Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany said his conference might expand, there have been two more numbers Missouri folks never mention.

Four and eight are numerals the Tigers prefer to keep hidden in the closet. Or locked in the attic like a crazy relative.

Here's why: Since the Big 12 started competition in 1996, Missouri has won or shared four regular-season championships and eight titles overall when you include postseason Big 12 tournaments.

No, I'm not talking about just football or men's and women's basketball championships. That is the combined number of titles the 18 men's and women's teams have won for Mizzou over the past 14 years!

And that's counting two Big 12 North football titles. And those came against only the five other teams that make up that division.

By comparison, including tournament titles, Oklahoma has won a combined 45 championships and Oklahoma State 35. OU fields 18 men's and women's teams in Big 12 play, while OSU has 16.

Here's what underachieving Mizzou really wants to keep quiet: It's the only Big 12 school with single-digit championships. Yup, Baylor, the league's so-called weakest link, has captured a combined 36 championships.

Mizzou's telling the truth about the desire to get away from Texas. And here's the real reason why — the Longhorns have amassed 113 combined championships over the same stretch the Tigers won eight.

Yes, Texas supports the most teams in the conference and has the biggest budget. Some league members would argue that the Longhorns' 23 championships in men's and women's swimming and diving shouldn't count because several schools don't sponsor those sports.

Mizzou, however, couldn't make the argument. Of the combined 20 championships awarded each year, including indoor and outdoor track, men's tennis is the only sport where a Missouri team doesn't compete.

Nebraska, the other Big 12 school reportedly on the Big Ten's hit list, has won a combined 76 championships, which is second only to Texas' massive haul.

No wonder Big Ten coaches are in favor of adding Missouri, but want nothing to do with overachieving Nebraska.

Conversely, logic suggests that's really why Big 12 coaches don't want to lose the Tigers.

When an athletic program wins only eight championships in 14 years, that's the kind of creampuff foe conference members want on their schedules.

Mizzou apologists will contend their sports teams will become more competitive in the Big Ten because the athletic department budget will grow because of the added TV revenue.

No one is denying Missouri will make millions more if the Tigers bolt. But will all that money remain in the athletic department?

History suggests the Tigers' athletic department won't be allowed to keep all it earns.

The tight purse strings Mizzou keeps on sports is precisely why Joe Castiglione resigned from his "dream job" as Mizzou's AD 12 years ago to become Oklahoma's AD.

When I went to Columbia, Mo., to interview Castiglione about why he had made a decision that stunned Mizzou fans, he was very candid.

"It's not my intention to criticize Missouri to make Oklahoma look better," Castiglione told me in May 1998. "But I sensed a much stronger commitment at OU. Commitment is just one word, but it means everything to me."

MU's athletic budget was $13.7 million compared to OU's $24 million when Castiglione changed jobs. Today, OU's budget is $81,404,991, while Missouri's is $58,604,216.

Even though MU's budget ranks ahead of Texas Tech, Kansas State, Colorado, Iowa State and Baylor, the Tigers are dead last in the Big 12 when it comes to overall team championships.

Doesn't that suggest its athletic department can't figure out how to do more with less like the five Big 12 schools that have more titles than the Tigers with smaller budgets?

Mizzou's budget would rank ninth out of the 11 schools in the Big Ten. But given the overall strength of the two leagues, the Tigers might be right in assuming they can be more competitive for championships in the Big Ten than the Big 12.

Missouri officials insist academics will be as big as athletics in their decision-making process if they receive a formal invitation to join the Big Ten. Other Tigers aren't so sure.

"As an alum, I would like to see them stay in the Big 12," said one Mizzou graduate who has closely followed the Big Ten expansion story. "There's a be-careful-what-you-wish-for element to this. Miami joined the ACC in football and has become darn near irrelevant."

"It's a money grab disguised as 'a good academic fit' by the chancellor."

Sometimes it requires ingenuity to win titles more than just taking your ball and going to a new home. It's a numbers concept, which those Mizzou academic folks apparently have yet to figure out.
By DAVE SITTLER World Sports Columnist

And this has nothing at all to do with their countless NCAA violations, poor academic standards, recruitment of less-than-moral players, coaching changes, as well as U of Florida swallowing up all great recruits...

This argument has become stupid. It's a great deal for MU. It's going to screw the Big XII, so those who aren't going to be invited to the dance are trying to discredit MU while acting like it's no big deal. Newsflash: It's a BIG F***ING DEAL that is going to transform the entire landscape of college sports, and Mizzou is at the forefront of it.

I'm beyond stoked about this.

My wife works for the university, we both have post-grad degress from MU and both have a stake in Columbia, MO. The revenue, the prestige and the security will all be incredible boosts for the community and the University.

And all of these "well screw MU, we'll be better off without them" people couldn't sound more like jaded ex-girlfriends. Every single one of those schools would absolutely bolt for the Big 10 if asked (and I exclude TX and OU because their backers simply don't care). If the B10 came for Kansas, they'd be out the door in a heartbeat.

If the B10 came for Kansas State, they'd.....damn, almost made it through that thought with a straight face. The Big 10 extending an invite to Kansas State - that's ****ing rich.

Don't you all worry about the door hitting MU in the ass on its way out. We'll be through that door and down the street before the door hits its jams.

Enjoy Conference USA.

Eh, maybe I'm being a homer, but IMO Nebraska is the linchpin here. If Mizzou leaves, yes, that hurts the Big XII, but it can still move on from that. However, if Mizzou and Nebraska both leave, that WILL screw the Big XII, because then the north will have no credibility whatsoever.

Exactly.

I've been in OKC this week and all these folks on the radio are saying is "Screw missouri, we don't need them."

Guess what folks -- Mizzou damn sure doesn't need the Big XII if they get an invite from the Big 10.

It's an incredible amount of sour grapes.

All the brave faces and false bravado in the world won't change things. The Big XII could very well fall here and for people to act as though Mizzou is just bailing because they can't compete is absurd. MU is moving up in the world and there's simply no rational argument to be made to the contrary.

is this some angry KU/KSU fan that writes for some no name paper in the middle of the dust bowl?

or does he just hate the fact that someone is talking about a B12 team not named OKLA?

Nope.

This is pretty much all I'm hearing in Oklahoma right now.

Mostly it appears to be a whole bunch of terrified OSU fans that realize they don't have shit to offer anyone. They're the #2 school in a backwater state with the academic standards of your average community college.

If the Big XII goes down, the SEC isn't going to bring in OU and OSU if they can avoid it and OU isn't going to burn itself to protect their reeruned little brother either. OSU is doing anything it can to protect its meal ticket, even if that means discrediting anyone that presents a threat to the conference.

so what's the word on OK being able to move on without OKST if need be?

i'm assuming that's been discussed on the talking box.

In the air.

There seems to be a handshake agreement between TX and A&M that one doesn't leave without the other. Nobody can really figure out if such an animal exists between OU and OSU, but the prevailing opinion is that it does not.

Right now you have OSU fans yelling that the legislature needs to step in and ensure that OU is unable to leave without OSU. They're yacking about Ann Richards pulling strings to get Baylor in the Big 12 so someone in Oklahoma needs to do something similar to save OSU.

Ultimately, nobody seems to be real sure. The smart money is on OSU following OU, but if Texas leaves the Big 12, OU may not be in the position to make demands.

I think you're being a homer. Missouri brings Saint Louis and Kansas City to the table. Nebraska doesn't have a major media market in the state. Texas subsidizes the entire conference as it is in terms of major markets. If they lose KC and Saint Louis, that's 2 of the 3 biggest markets outside of the state of Texas. If there's a lynch pin besides MU, it's Colorado. If they break once MU leaves, there will no longer be a Big XII. It just can't survive without a market outside of Texas.

Well if this is all about grabbing TV markets and nothing else, then what you're saying is the future of college sports is one where a school's relevancy is going to be dictated by the market they're in (which I find disturbing). And if that's the case, why has the Big 10 courted Notre Dame in the past? What market do they deliver that isn't already covered by the Big 10?

Notre Dame is a national team. They have a following all over the country plus they are a great academic institution. This isn't all about market share, but it's at least 50% of the equation. That's why you get teams like Rutgers tossed around.

Which has a bigger impact - where MU football goes or where KU basketball goes? I believe one has a significantly greater impact on the college sports landscape than the other.

Well, he's right about MU's AD being pretty much complete garbage. It's not being jaded to say that the only reason MU is getting an invite is because of their location and the big TV markets. That's the only quality they have as far as B10 is concerned.

I 100% agree that this is horrible for the B12, though, and have no qualms saying that MU is doing the right thing by moving. I know KU would do it in a heartbeat along with the other 9 or 10 schools in the Big 12.

Basketball has almost no impact on the college sports landscape, so it would be MU football by a mile. Throw in the fact that the state of Missouri has triple the population of Kansas, and it's kind of a silly question.

There is a reason that one team is preparing to leave for much greener pastures while the other is going to be clamoring to join a mid-major.

"all about...and nothing else" - no, of course not.

But let's face it, Mizzou is the only major school in Missouri, a state with a top 20 population base and 2 major metropolitan areas (with a combined 6 major leage sports teams between them).

Very few schools can claim that kind of market saturation in a relatively major state.

Combine that with the #1 journalism school in the country (not altogether unimportant when you're looking for media exposure; program directors are still loyal to their schools) and things like the nuclear reactor and MU has an incredibly strong argument for inclusion and a whole lot to offer the Big 10.

And the Big XII will absolutely miss Mizzou if it walks. Stiff upper lip and all that, but losing MU (as well as most of the Big XII's motivation for holding any major conference events in KC) will absolutely leave a mark.

The same market that allows Notre Dame Football to sustain itself without being in a conference (i.e. the entire United States). ND is probably right up there with Texas, tOSU and other money giants in the college world. Those schools get to dictate their own terms.

When basketball is a national brand, it matters a lot. Ask Duke, Kansas, NC and Kentucky. KU AD generates a lot more money than MU even though our football has been absolute shit. Of course the bluebloods in football make a shit ton more money than bluebloods in basketball do, but I assure you, MU football vs KU basketball has nothing to do with the B10 invite.

If you had a choice between getting your ass beat for 8 million a year and getting your ass beat for 22 million a year, by all means, take the money. The primary fact still remains... you're getting your ass beat regardless of who's doin' the beating.

Maybe not jaded, but it's stupid. MU has the highest average ACT score of incoming freshmen in the Big XII. They are a strong research school and will fit in well with the rest of the Big 10. They have played in 2 Big XII championship games in the last 3 years in football and are bringing in strong recruiting classes every year. They were in the Elite 8 2 years ago in basketball and also won the Big XII tourney that year. They won a tournament game last year and are a preseason top 10 this year in some polls.

The academics are a good fit, maybe the best fit in the Big XII outside of Texas.
The demographics are a good fit, maybe the best fit in the Big XII outside of Texas.
The location is a good fit, probably the best fit in the Big XII.
The athletics are a good fit, probably the best overall in basketball and football in the North.

Other than that, it really doesn't make any sense.

LMAO

I have to admit that the school is going to be better off no matter what happens to their AD, though. I don't think Deaton cares one bit that their football (or any other sport for that matter) might suffer.