[bowener]

Originally Posted by Laz

oh come now ... Mizzou was on the leading edge of this from the very beginning. Don't act like MU was some kind of unknowing victim. MU saw an opportunity and took a shot ... now it looks like it might not work out.

If Nebraska hadn't backdoored ya you guys would be strutting around singing *we are the champions* and laughing at everyone still left in the Big 12.

The only people who weren't neck deep in this shit from the beginning were OU,OSU,ISU,KU and KSU. I'm not even sure about OU/OSU ... they may have been whispering in Texas's ear the entire time too.

I haven't searched long and hard, just a typical google search and refinement, but all I can come up with is this for Mizzou "taking a shot":

Mizzou would listen to Big Ten on expansion
Posted by John Taylor on December 15, 2009 4:01 PM ET
With the release of a Big Ten statement on expansion expected any minute now, at least one school rumored to be a possibility for a 12th in the conference has said it's all ears.

According to the Kansas City Star, Missouri Chancellor Brady Deaton confirmed that his school would be willing to listen if the conference wanted to talk Big Ten turkey.

"The University of Missouri has not been contacted by the Big Ten. Should there be an official inquiry or invitation, we would evaluate it based upon what would be in the best interest of MU athletically and academically."

Missouri is one of a handful of schools whose names have been tossed around as possibilities if the Big Ten decides to expand from 11 to 12 teams.

In the statement this afternoon, the Big Ten is expected to announce that they will explore the viability of adding a 12th team over the course of the next 12 to 18 months.

That is from December 15th, and it in no way shows that Mizzou instigated anything, all it shows is that Mizzou gives the same tired and annoying statement for everything, that they will listen and evaluate what is best for the school. It doesn't say that they are delighted to be considered and that they want to escape the buttrape contract they have with Texas and the revenue.

This snippet is from the following day, December 16th:

08:26 AM ET 12.16 | Missouri Chancellor Brady Deaton issued this response to a post on The Star's Campus Corner blog about the school's willingness to listen to an overture to join the Big Ten: "The University of Missouri has not been contacted by the Big Ten. Should there be an official inquiry or invitation, we would evaluate it based upon what would be in the best interest of MU athletically and academically."

What is interesting about that piece is that Mizzou spoke in "response to a post on The Star's Campus Corner blog." So Mizzou was responding to rumors and was trying to shoot them down.

From a local Columbia paper, The Missourian, an article was written on December 15th stating the same thing, that Mizzou would listen to any offers and evaluate to see what is best for the school. If you read that article you will actually see it tries to make the case against leaving the Big 12.

Now from those early days where it was complete specualtion, and as Deaton said multiple times, there has/had been no invitation, just reporters calling and asking questions, then spinning that into official sounding rumors... then it grew into shit like this:

Jan. 18
Mizzou's mega Big Ten payday

Was playing catch-up on the random weekend news – Saturday scores and NFL Sundays usually take up all my work time – when I saw this Big Ten expansion tidbit from the Sporting News:

Missouri could see $10 million windfall by joining Big Ten.

That's a lotta dimp. But is it enough to lure the Tigers away from the Big 12?

Missouri says it still hasn't been contacted by the Big Ten, the Kansas City Star had this quote from chancellor Brady Deaton last month: "should there be an official inquiry or invitation, we would evaluate it based upon what would be in the best interest of MU athletically and academically."

Translation: If those numbers are correct, it'd be tough to turn down. I mean, who's saying no to an extra 10 mil a year? (I've said Pitt would be a nice fit, but Missouri's just as good.)

Besides, the Big Ten is arguably a step up in academics and just as good in athletics. A move would possibly derail a long-standing rivalry with Kansas (but isn't that what non-conference schedules are for?) and could hurt the school's recruiting efforts in Texas, but it would adjust.

For $10 million, you find a way.

Shit like this started cropping up all over the net, none of which was true, factual, or official, all just fan speculation and happy wishful ****ing thoughts. Then places like ESPN started getting in on it...

Missouri makes most sense for Big Ten expansion
May, 8, 2009

By Adam Rittenberg

Posted by ESPN.com's Adam Rittenberg

Big Ten expansion has been a hot topic this week, with Penn State head coach Joe Paterno stumping for a 12th team and league commissioner Jim Delany essentially shooting it down.

It's worth reiterating that expansion is not a front-burner issue for the Big Ten right now. But things always change, and it's undeniable that the league loses something -- certainly from a marketing standpoint and possibly from a competitive standpoint -- without a championship game that ends the regular season on the same day as the other BCS conferences.

Let's also reiterate that Notre Dame has been and always will be the best option for Big Ten expansion. The two parties last talked in 1999 but didn't get too far. Notre Dame obviously has some tremendous advantages as an independent, and purely from a business standpoint, joining a league doesn't make much sense. The dilemma for the Big Ten is whether to add a 12th team or wait until its home-run choice decides it wants to join a league, which may or may not happen.

I've heard just about every suggestion for a 12th team this week. There are the usual suspects (Pitt, Rutgers, Syracuse, Iowa State, Missouri, Louisville, Cincinnati, Connecticut), a few reaches (West Virginia, Nebraska) and several fuhgetaboutits (any MAC school, Northern Iowa, Southern Illinois).

Of all the realistic possibilities, Missouri makes the most sense.

Before getting to Missouri specifically, consider the two leagues producing the candidates -- the Big East and the Big 12 (North division). You have to consider geography, the fan bases and how the programs mesh with the Big Ten culture.

Whether you want to admit it, there remains a cultural disconnect between Penn State and the rest of the Big Ten, and geography plays a role. Fans of Big 12 North teams just seem a lot more like Big Ten fans than those of Northeast teams. They live in similar places, they value similar things. Expansion isn't about getting Penn State a rival. The Ohio State rivalry is growing, the Michigan rivalry will grow when Penn State starts winning more and even the Michigan State series has started to get legs.

When I look at the Western half of the Big East, I see some options in Cincinnati, Louisville and West Virginia that just don't fit the total package the Big Ten seeks. Academic rankings do play a role. Pitt is a little closer to what the Big Ten wants, but Pitt might not want to leave the nation's best basketball conference to join a new league.

That leaves the Big 12 North, with Missouri and Iowa State as the most realistic options. Both schools rank among the top 100 national universities, according to U.S. News & World Report. Both already have rivalries in the Big Ten, Iowa State-Iowa and Missouri-Illinois. Given their locations, both schools could spawn new rivalries -- Iowa State with Minnesota and Wisconsin, Missouri with Iowa, etc.

But from an athletics standpoint, Missouri is the clear choice and here's why (tip of the cap to colleague Graham Watson, who formerly covered Missouri for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and provided me some very helpful information):
Missouri has elevated its profile in both football and men's basketball the last few years, competing for the Big 12 title in football two years ago and reaching the Elite Eight in hoops last year. There's little doubt that Missouri could be a first-division team in both sports in the Big Ten if it joined the league today.
The school has upgraded its facilities, which are some of the best in the Big 12. It would have little trouble recruiting at the same level as most Big Ten programs. Heck, Missouri already recruits against Illinois and other Big Ten schools.
Missouri would give the Big Ten a greater presence in the St. Louis market. Sure, it's not New York, but New York will always be a pro town, while St. Louis could become a true Big Ten city with fans of both Missouri and Illinois, two teams that happen to play there every year in football and basketball.
Though Missouri was an original Big 8 member with strong ties to the league, it seemingly would have an easier time leaving than, say, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma or Texas.
As for rivalries, Missouri-Kansas could become what Missouri-Illinois is now, at least in football. The two teams could play every year in football, perhaps at a neutral site like Kansas City. The Mizzou-Illinois rivalry is already strong, and an Iowa-Mizzou rivalry would be very exciting to see. There would be some disappointment about losing the Kansas rivalry in basketball, but there's no reason why those teams couldn't still play once a year.
The Big 12 likely would have an easier time replacing Missouri than the Big East would with Rutgers, Pitt, etc. While Arkansas has always been discussed as an addition to the Big 12, the rise of the Mountain West opens up possibilities for teams like TCU and Utah.
If and when the Big Ten decides to expand, Missouri should be at the top of Delany's list. But will the Big Ten be willing to add a 12th team and risk passing on Notre Dame down the line?

Articles like this, posted on sites like ESPN, may have made things seem more sure or official than they really were, I don't know, that is all I can really think of for the blame Mizzou shit storm to take off.

I have to wonder how many of these reporters or authors of blogs or what the **** ever, are Mizzou grads from the J-school and were just writing hopeful pieces or arguing their case, but the point remains that from the start ~Dec 15th, Mizzou has been rather beige/bland/lame/boring/pussywhipped/thoughtful/correct/polite/dignified in their rather typical response of "doing what is best for the school."

I am still on a quest to find the very first reported piece so if anyone knows what it was or where it is please let me know. I am not real good at searching for published articles on google, mostly just trial and error for me, but Dec. 15th seems to be the earliest I can find... I think I may have found a post on tigerboards that was from Dec. 13th... but that is an MU version of CP, or maybe WPI.