I guess this makes Round #139...

I perused some Big Ten blogs this morning to see what the prevailing opinions were, of both Big Ten expansion and of Mizzou. Expansion-wise, it appears that everybody pretty much acknowledges what this is about: money, money, money. The football coaches wouldn't want to add an extra game, it might break up some rivalries (like the Big 12 did for Nebraska-Oklahoma), et cetera. Actually, the humbly-titled Greatest Blog in the World had a couple other interesting points. I hadn't thought of this one:

4) Here are some more conference championship game issues:

a) Where do you play? The Big Ten boasts three of the four largest stadiums in college football, and nine of the top forty (including ND). As is only fair, you'd have to play at a neutral site, preferably one centrally located. Plus, playing in December in the Midwest, you probably need to play indoors. What are your options?

* Lucas Oil Stadium - 70,000 (Indianapolis)
* Ford Field - 65,000 (Detroit)
* HHH Metrodome - 64,035 (Minneapolis)

Now you've got lots of unhappy fans, because they can't get tickets since you sold your soul to the television. You've got a half-crowd of people who care, because everyone else is just there because they got free tickets from your corporate sponsors.

Of course, fan considerations won't matter at all with that much money involved, but it's an interesting point. It would almost make more sense money-wise if they were to play the championship game in Ann Arbor or Columbus or Happy Valley, and that would be...strange.

As for how Mizzou's regarded to Big Ten fans? Well...it ain't all that pretty. MGOBLOG summarized in a pretty common way:

Missouri

PROs: Geographic fit with decent academics. Natural basketball rivalry with Illinois. Opens up Missouri, St. Louis.

CONs: Hasn't won anything in football since 1969. That won't change in the Big Ten. Basketball program mostly known for having gel-slicked cheater Quinn Snyder in charge for way too long.

Verdict: Meh.

Not entirely untrue, but not entirely fair either. Even though this opens me up to accusations that a) I'm thinking way too much about this, and b) I'm supporting leaving more than I actually am, I thought it would be interesting to look into where Mizzou would stand in the Big Ten.

Most of these numbers come from Wikipedia (where else?).

Enrollment

1. Ohio State - 51,818
2. Minnesota - 51,194 (had no idea it was that high)
3. Michigan State - 45,166
4. Indiana - 42,247
5. Penn State - 41,289
6. Wisconsin - 41,169
7. Illinois - 40,670
8. Michigan - 40,025
9. Purdue - 39,228
10. Iowa - 29,642
11. Missouri - 28,253
12. Northwestern - 13,407

Other candidates
Rutgers - 34,696 (would be 10th)
Pittsburgh - 32,105 (10th)
Iowa State - 26,700 (11th)
Nebraska - 21,792 (11th)
Syracuse - 18,247 (11th)
Notre Dame - 11,479 (12th)

Varsity Teams

1. Ohio State - 34
2. Penn State - 29
3. Michigan - 27
4. Michigan State - 25
4. Minnesota - 25
6. Indiana - 24
6. Iowa - 24
8. Wisconsin - 23
9. Illinois - 21
10. Missouri - 20
10. Purdue - 20
12. Northwestern - 19

Notre Dame - 24 (6th)
Rutgers - 22 (9th)
Nebraska - 21 (9th)
Syracuse - 18 (12th)
Pittsburgh - 17 (12th)
Iowa State - 16 (12th)

Football Stadium Capacity

1. Michigan - 107,501
2. Penn State - 107,282
3. Ohio State - 101,568
4. Wisconsin - 80,321
5. Michigan State - 75,005
6. Iowa - 70,585
7. Illinois - 69,249
8. Missouri - 68,349
9. Minnesota - 64,172
10. Purdue - 62,500
11. Indiana - 52,180
12. Northwestern - 49,256

Nebraska - 85,197 (4th)
Notre Dame - 80,795 (4th)
Pittsburgh - 65,050 (8th)
Syracuse - 50,000 (11th)
Iowa State - 45,814 (12th)
Rutgers - 41,500 (12th)

Basketball Arena Capacity

1. Ohio State - 19,500
2. Indiana - 17,456
3. Wisconsin - 17,142
4. Illinois - 16,618
5. Iowa - 15,500
6. Penn State - 15,261
7. Missouri - 15,061
8. Michigan State - 14,992
9. Minnesota - 14,321
10. Purdue - 14,123
11. Michigan - 13,751
12. Northwestern - 8,117

Syracuse - 33,000 (1st)
Iowa State - 14,092 (8th)
Nebraska - 13,595 (11th)
Pittsburgh - 12,508 (11th)
Notre Dame - 11,418 (11th)
Rutgers - 8,000 (12th)

Okay, so as a whole, Mizzou matches up (more or less) as well as any of the other candidates in these areas. What about actual performance on the field/court/mat?

Football

Going by Phil Steele's pre-season ratings, here's where Mizzou falls:

1. Michigan (#5)
2. Penn State (#10)
3. Ohio State (#15)
4. Wisconsin (#16)
5. Missouri (#19)

Basketball

Mizzou lost on the road to Purdue and on a neutral court (barely) to Illinois. They both finished 9-7 in conference last year, so my guess is that Mizzou would have been in the 6-10/7-9 range last year (good for about 9th place). With all their returnees, they could probably expect to be predicted in the #6-7 range in 2007-08.

Baseball

Would have finished in the top 2 with Michigan in 2007.

Wrestling

Would have finished in the top 2 with Minnesota in 2007.

Volleyball

The Big Ten was more successful than usual in 2006, and with Mizzou in a slightly-rebuilding state (though they were one game away from the regional semifinals), they'd have finished around 4th or so. In a normal year, they could expect to finish in the top 3 with Penn State and maybe Minnesota.

Softball

Would have finished in the top 4 with Ohio State, Northwestern, and Michigan.

Women's Basketball

The Big Ten was weak this season, and Mizzou could have expected to finish in the 6-8 range, slightly better than their 10th place finish in the Big 12.

Other Sports

Missouri would be average or below average in other sports. They have some individual talent in track, X-country and golf, and they showed potential for a while in soccer, but they've trended downhill recently.




So basically, they'd be above average in football, average in men's basketball, top-notch in the second-tier revenue sports (baseball, volleyball, wrestling...though not women's basketball), and average to below-average in most other sports. In other words, they'd fit in pretty quickly.

UPDATE, 6:19: For the record, I love this idea.