I'll be pissed if we bring Texas into the Pac-10. They won't get the benefits from our conference, that's for sure. They don't like it, they can form their own conference. We don't need them.

How about Oregon? They deserved to be there, not Nebraska.

They aren't going play the same team more than once in a year unless its in the Championship game no matter what happens.

Texas will go to the SEC

They had one loss just like NU. The only argument you can make in their favor is that they won their conference, but that wasn't part of the BCS formula that year.

That's possible, but it's more likely that they go independent. Imagine the size of the television contract alone. It would dwarf anything the SEC could ever dream of.

If Texas wanted to join a conference, they would probably just join the Big 10. They have the most money, and Texas has an open invitation just like ND.

That's the ONLY argument? I can make 63 arguments just based on the Colorado game Nebraska played just one game earlier. This, by the way, is the same team that Oregon then dismantled in their bowl game.

I am curious how long it will take for something like this to go final

Why do Mizzou fans all seem to think one game defines a season? NU had just beat the #2 team in the nation a couple weeks earlier. You can make all the arguments you want, but the fact is the BCS formula that was used that year determined NU was the deserving team.

And at the time, no one knew that Oregon was going to destroy Colorado in the Fiesta Bowl so that argument holds no water.

There was some stuff out recently arguing that Texas will never go to the SEC because of academic issues. The claim was that they were much more likely to join the PAC 10.

The point is that the Cornhuskers had no business being in that game over the Ducks. The results of both games proved it beyond any possible doubt.

I am not yet convinced the Big 10 will expand past 12, it doesn't make economic sense.

The Big 10 network throws off what, about $20M per team? Expanding to 12 to get a football championship game would probably be worth it and generate more than $20M, but after that?

Given the cash cow the conference has, which would have to be shared to new teams coming in, it would economically make no sense to expand beyond 12 unless each additional team would cause the Big 10 network to generate more than $20M new profit per team. I dont see how Missouri brings in another $20M, and I sure as hell dont see how Nebraska does it.

I believe this will end up being much ado about nothing, the Big 10 will likely expand to 12 and thats it. If they go to 14, the extra 2 teams will probably be some east coast schools located in heavily-populated areas. Missouri might end up being #12 to help them get the football championship game, but if Missouri is not the Big 10's #1 target (assuming ND is off the table), I just dont see it happening.

That's kind of how I see it. Don't forget about the research grant that the Big 10 has, either. They would have to split up that pie as well, and it doesn't grow as schools are added the way a television contract does.

Yes, in hindsight a Duck/Canes matchup may have been better, but you don't know how that would've played out. That Miami team was loaded, they might have went right through Oregon as well. Nebraska obviously had an edge somewhere in the formula over Oregon, it wasn't a popularity contest like the Big XII uses to slot their bowls.

It cracks me up that somehow athletic affiliation has ANYTHING to do with academics. "The Big 10 is better academically than XYZ"... bullshit. Most of the Big 10 schools are huge, hence, they have the resources to get grants ad nauseum. Northwestern actually has really strict guidelines for admittance, the rest not so much. I know, I know, Ohio State has the 60,000 smartest students known to man. :rolleyes:

Yea, Michigan...what a chump in academics.

I have a difficult time believing UT would ever get a contract like that. Texas may have some nation wide appeal. But ND's appeal is that it's a Catholic university and every catholic somehow feels they are a natural alum.

They'll go to the PAC. Or maybe UT and ND can form their own two man show. Play each other 11 times a year in football.

Oh, and for the person who mentioned in passing that there may be a law that doesn't allow KU/KSU to be broken into different conferences: Incorrect. No law like that exists.

Either way, just wave at us KSU folks when we pass into the newest conference: The Big Oblivion

No, it was East Coast bias. Which is perfectly fine with me. **** the Ducks.

Oh, sorry! They have the smartest 40+K of students... the rest go to Ohio State. Do you really believe that a public school has anything over the private big-money schools that can pick and choose students?

By academics, what is typically meant is the kind and quality of research being done by graduate programs, not how good the gen-ed classes are for for the thousands upon thousands of undergrads.

My point exactly. And this has to do with an athletic affiliation how? Publish or perish. It's a huge ****ing game.

Aside from all of that...

With more than 70% of UM's 200 major programs, departments, and schools ranked in the top 10 in the United States, UM's academic reputation has led to its inclusion on Richard Moll's list of Public Ivies.[66] The university routinely has led in the number of Fulbright Scholars in the late 1990s and 2000s, and has also matriculated 26 Rhodes Scholars.

That is pretty ****ing impressive.

Because conference alignment doesn't only have to do with athletics?

OK, tell me the metrics. I'm pretty sure the local community college teaches the theory of relativity. There are no big hidden secrets out there... although it appears the Big 10 knows something we don't.

OK. They want Mizzou because they excel in what?

At this point you are just sounding like a butthurt Kansas fan.

Missouri does fine for itself...good in research top notch J School.

"MU is one of only six public universities that houses a law school, medical school, and a veterinary medicine school all on the same campus. In Missouri, MU is the designated land-grant university (along with Lincoln University), the largest public research institution, and the only university that is both a member of the Association of American Universities and designated as a "Doctoral/Research Extensive" university by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Only 34 universities in the nation have both such designations. The University of Missouri Research Reactor Center is located in the MU Research Park and is the largest university research reactor in the U.S."

I'm not. I thought you had something substantial to add. I thought the NCAA was the National Collegiate Athletic Association. If the first "A" were "academic" it would matter. I suppose MU moving to the Big 10 makes all the undergrads smarter by association.

So you are going to knock someone for not bringing anything substantial and then end your post with that?

You can sit here and set up straw men all you want. Nobody is saying this is a magic pill. But Missouri has decent academic chops and schools that don't are not part of the equation. The Big 10 has a reputation for academics. Even if you think it came from thin air, reputations come about for a reason.

Who cares? Kansas has two universities that divide the curriculums. Just because the state of Missouri decided to pile everything into one campus isn't a sign of anything.

The Big 10?

Someone bringing admissions to the discussion and being from Kansas is fun.

Why do you care Stewie?

There is no reason the Ohio St is better than a community college! They both teach relativity!

There was a pretty telling list brought up in the last enormous thread about this shit.

All I remember is vailpass trumpeting Iowa academics and somebody posting a study from a reputable source listing academic standings by conference...

I might dig it up.

Yea, I don't think anyone is making any crazy claims when discussing the possible move or how it effects academics. It is all interesting stuff.

As much as stewie wants to prop up straw man arguments.

I'll tell you why. It's just like all the other BS surrounding athletics. "We're going to the Big 10 because we'll get smarter!" It's a money grab by the Big 10. Nothing more, nothing less. Woohoo! We're piling numbers in our bank account... we're the Big 10!!!

You know you are reaching when you literally have to pull false shit out of your ass to make an argument.

But I thought the academics were the important part! It's been regurgitated here ad nauseum.

It is an important part. I said nobody is making the crazy claims. Like the ones you are making up.

I KNOW the students at MU won't get smarter. It starts with the Antlers and goes down. I'm really wondering why the Big 10 wants you at all. It has to be numbers and money.

Yea, you are right...this has nothing to do with you being a butt hurt Kansas fan...
ROFL

I'm just repeating what has been said in this thread by the MU folk.

Yeah, I graduated from KU. It was the Big 8 when I was there and that was much better than the Big XII. Being a non-money school sucks balls. I've heard recently that big BCS schools are thinking about dumping the NCAA and doing their own thing. We can only hope the NCAA is put in their place.

Divide the curriculums? No. That's silly and untrue.

We're globo gym and we're better than you and we know it! /some ku fans

Actually, I think that would be great. Let the bloated super programs play against each other and stop pounding the **** out of the rest of us who only have a fraction of the resources to draw on.

I wish the Yankees and Red Sox would do it, too.

The average incoming ACT score at Missouri has been higher than Kansas for years.

I hope this happens it should make my degree look a little better. On the subject of admissions I don't know what KU's ACT requirement is, but Mu's has gone from a 22 to a 24 in the three years I have been there

Missouri State University.

And the number of universities doesn't necessarily have any effect on the curricula. The University of Missouri is simply a superior academic institution to the majority of the other Big XII schools. Similarly, it's not arguable to claim that the University of Texas is academically superior to Mizzou; it's a fact.

Why the **** do the corn****ers get to come to the party?!?!?

Shit.

Billay; I ****ing hate you. :cuss::D

ROFL

Stewie, in light of this thread, I think you should change your avatar back to the crying baby.

Because that's what you're coming off as - a jealous, whining, crying, left-out-of-the-party little bitch.

A lot of incorrect information in this thread.

Big-10 schools are better academically than Big-12 and SEC schools by almost every measure. Yes, they win more research grants. But they are also more selective in who is admitted to their undergraduate programs. Their students have higher average ACT/SAT test scores. The expectations of performance are higher. There are exceptions. Texas and Vanderbilt more closely match the profile of a Big 10 school.

The idea that a community college offers the same education as a major university just because the offer the same material is a joke. A student earning a C in a course at a community college would probably not earn a passing grade in the same course at a major university. The expectations of performance definitely change with the level of the school.

Missouri is ranked just about the same as other big 12 schools.

Being affiliated with the Big 10 would definitely be a good thing for Missouri. Would it change their ranking overnight. No. But it certainly helps the perception of academic quality to be associated with other strong schools. And over time, perception can become reality.

I feel that debating which university is better is simply asinine. Both Kansas and Missouri are public universities that have programs within it that are distinguished and both schools are in the Association of American Universities (which only consists of 63 public and private universities). What makes Missouri more appealing besides the larger market and money associated with that is that in regards to researching Missouri has better/more facilities and researching opportunities, its no knock on Kansas, but as everyone knows that Missouri technically consists of 4 schools (The main campus – Columbia and it’s 3 sister schools in KC, St. Louis, and Rolla (approx total of 64,000 students)). The Columbia campus and each of its sister campuses are all involved in their own research as well as cooperative research with each other and that simply draws more water than KU.
Obviously if this deal goes down the fact that Missouri has the market size (ie cash) and the fact that from an academic standpoint it fits in with what the Big 10 requires / prefers from a research perspective is what makes Missouri one of the more talked about names when it comes to Big 10 expansion.
I am in graduate school at UMKC and am currently involved within some related research opportunities pertaining to my field of study so from an academic standpoint, I support the potential move due to the possible increases in funding that we might see. From an athletic standpoint, I would rather see a return to the Big 8 days, but those days are long gone and it seems that moving to the Big 10 is a much better option than being bullied by Texas and the Texas minded Big 12 office.

That's not a rebuttal. No one denies that KU Med is a tremendous asset that represents a sizable portion of KU's prestige. But pointing out its existence is not a rebuttal to the point.

Dear Michigan, Ohio State and Iowa:

Bring it on.

Regards,

Sam Hall
Hardcore Husker fan

Maybe you should re-read my post....We all know that KU med exists and just like EVERY med school / pharmacy school ,etc in the nation there is research being done.

Exactly!,

I feel maybe my post is mis-read or something, all I am saying is that MU's research facilities / oppurtunities fits in with what the Big 10 prefers / requires.

KUMC.

I'll never forgive them for selling off transplant organs.

Good grief guys.

Fixed.

Good, The Hawkeyes need a couple more easy wins :p

Atleast Mizzou will beat Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, ect.

That would really shake up the ohio state fans to have to split their focus from michigan. Being a missouri in columbus, I would love it.

Big ten football would be a lot different and it would better.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/05/01...k=omni_popular

That's why MU will end up going to the Big Ten.

I just want it to get done if it's happening, or get shot down with authority if it's not.

My fear is that Mizzou reps are on the phone with Beebe trying to negotiate a bigger slice of the pie instead of telling him they're leaving.

For one thing, if MU leaves, it will **** up the KC sports scene.

This whole thing is a little bit bizarre.

i dunno. does my disgust for KU come from their participation in our conference, or from their arrogant attitude? a combination of both, but more the latter. and that's not going to change.

Good to see Bull from Night Court getting work!

Nice article.

Kansas - Missouri = North Dakota.

Ouch.

LMAO

LMAO Oh, wow. That'll leave a mark.

Hey, stop me when I tell a lie. :D

LMAO

:grr:

I gotta stop eating and drinking when i come here. cause now it's all over my lap.

ROFL

You are stupid.

I haven't read all the thread, but what's the chance that KU and Texas (plus whatever required teams to make it work) leave the Big 12 for the Pac 10?

I'd love to have KU in the Pac-10. Too good to be true.

Seems like a natural fit to me.

AFC West, College Style.

The time zone differences would be horrible. I couldn't imagine a 10pm Central Tip.