More Big Ten Conference Talk...

This time, it comes from Stewart Mandel of SI.com and he doesn't mention MU. But, Bill has this thing for the Big Ten, so I thought I'd mention it.

In his article, Mandel talks about the perfect match that is the Big Ten and Notre Dame. And, he has a lot of strong points. It is no longer 1988 when there were 25 indepedent D-1 football programs. Notre Dame needs the help that being able to play a weak non-conference schedule at the start of the season against the service academies would provide.

While the Big Ten does not need to add Notre Dame to legitimize the conference, but it's new cable network sure could use the help. As Mandel says, even just having a couple of Notre Dame road games each season would probably get the Big Ten Network on cable networks outside of the Great Lakes and the Northeast.

Does it happen? Probably not. But, I think it has a far better chance than the Big Ten welcoming in any other school in the near future.

Read More...

Summary only...

Well...That’s That, I guess...

Five (or so) days of total conjecture and fun projections go by the wayside in one fell swoop.

During a Big Ten tour last week, Delany told Des Moines Register reporters the league needs to look at adding a 12th team. Why? To increase programming and add a new TV market for the soon-to-be-launched Big Ten Network.

Delany stopped short of saying he was misquoted but said expansion is hardly imminent. He told Big East Commissioner Mike Tranghese that he never mentioned Rutgers and Syracuse—two schools included in the Register story as possible Big Ten additions.

"We don't plan to expand, but we analyze it on a regular basis," Delany said Tuesday. "We haven't looked at it since we had those conversations with Notre Dame in the late '90s."

Later, he added: "By expanding, are you a better, stronger conference? We've never been able to answer that [with a] yes."

I realize this debate pops up every 6-12 months, and I had never actually let myself get sucked into the debate—it wasn’t even remotely realistic, so why bother talking about it? Well...this time around, I got sucked in. It felt more realistic to me for some reason. I do wish the conference would just go ahead and expand...simply so this issue stops hanging overhead like a rain cloud. Make your decision, expand, and let the recurring rumors stop, that’s what I say. And it’s all about me, you know.

That said, I’ve learned my lesson—never cross Dave Matter. It’ll never happen again, Dave.

Read More...

Summary only...

Well...THIS is something…

After I wasted a good portion of my weekend discussing something that probably wasn’t going to happen (and after Dave Matter was more than happy to point out that it probably wasn’t going to happen), well...it’s let’s just say that people outside of Missouri have now officially mentioned it.

In a Des Moines Register story Thursday, July 26, reporter Randy Peterson says the new Big Ten Network, to be activated this school year, may occasion a conference look at expanding to 12 teams.

"I think we need to look at it in the next year," Big Ten Commissioner Jim Delany told Peterson, who cited possible contacts with Rutgers and Syracuse of the Big East.

But the REAL school the Big Ten is after, collegeBLITZ.com learns, is Missouri, a likely addition in some 3-5 years.

"According to what I'm hearing," one well-placed source said, "the Big Ten has already made the offer and Missouri is working to try to find ways to get out of its (Big 12) league commitments."

Now...I’m not going to pretend like this is anything but an Internet rumor, but...it’s the most substantiated rumor that’s hit the airwaves so far. And honestly...if the Big Ten’s goal is to add to their total TV markets, the only two true options are Rutgers (NYC) and Mizzou (StL and KC...really, the only one on the table who can bring in two different markets). Well...as I noted the other day, Rutgers’ facilities (and overall athletic department beyond football—for now—and women’s basketball) are not up to snuff...they're comparatively tiny. The conference already has one Northwestern. While this wouldn’t be as ballsy a move as the University of Toronto, it really does make sense.

Now...if there were truly an offer on the table (and again, this is only an Internet rumor from a website called College Blitz), would we accept? The more I think about it, the more I think the answer is yes. But there’s more to it than that. Whether we were to accept or not, getting an honest-to-god offer from the Big Ten would be huge because it would, for the first time, give Mizzou some leverage within the Big 12. The only way the Big 12 revenue sharing dilemma will be solved is if Mizzou (or somebody else in the conference, for that matter) had the ability to leave for greener pastures if things weren’t fixed.

But I shouldn’t waste any more words on this right now since we’re still dealing in rumors, but...yeah, this topic—for better or worse—ain’t going away any time soon.

(I should point out, though, that the thought of Mizzou playing Penn State—his favorite team growing up—every couple of years has The Beef peeing his pants. I’d imagine he’s already got a Happy Valley road trip planned in his head for 2014 or whatever.)

Read More...

Summary only...

Mizzou Links, 7-30-07

• Dave Matter discusses Chase Daniel and ranks the Big 12 teams, bottom to top. Meanwhile, on his blog, he mentions the latest round of Big Ten Expansion talk (he's taking it a wee bit less seriously than I did this weekend).
  
• More bad recruiting news: Bonne Terre's Will Compton followed Blaine Gabbert's lead and committed to Nebraska last week. Leading to this recruiting year, we were hoping that the MU staff's tight relationship with Gabbert would lead to a chain reaction of commits from the top recruits in the state...but it looks like MU will only land 1 of Rivals' Top 5 in the state. One more reason to win and win big this season, eh?
  
• Meanwhile, on the basketball recruiting front, Jeff Ermann at Inside Mizzou takes a look at the current 2008 recruiting board.
  
• The Jets are happy with Brad Smith's progress at WR, so they're breaking him in at QB now. Very good for Brad...and for The Beef, whose Jets are 2nd to only Mizzou in his heart (unless the Jets are 1st?).
• Speaking of former Tigers, Garrett Broshuis blogs! (Since the article didn't actually provide a link, here it is.)
• Too bad skeet shooting's not a varsity sport...we'd sooooooo have ourselves a conference title!
  
• Rest in peace, Mel Sheehan, Mizzou AD from 1972-78.
  
• And finally, the University of Toronto's mascot? The Varsity Blues! That's fantastic! Now I really hope the Big Ten targets them for expansion!
  

Read More...

Summary only...

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.

Read More...

Summary only...

Round #138 of Big Ten talk...

I was going to post this as a "Mizzou Links" item, but I think it grew out of that and into its own post. With the latest "Big Ten looking for a 12th team" talk, Mike Dearmond talked to Mike Alden about if Mizzou had been contacted. Here's a blurb from the article:

“We have eight states,” [Big Ten Commissioner Jim] Delany told the Des Moines Register Wednesday. “With expansion, you could have nine.”

Syracuse or Rutgers — seen as a scheduling partner with Penn State — would seem to fit that bill and are already the subject of strong speculation.

Nebraska has also been considered, in the not-so-recent past, as a possible target of the Big Ten.

Notre Dame, wooed unsuccessfully by the Big Ten in 1999, would not qualify as bringing another state with Indiana and Purdue already in the Big Ten. But Notre Dame’s national following certainly makes the Irish attractive.

Alden said any talk of Missouri and the Big Ten probably would come at the level of the system’s Board of Curators — if it comes at all.

I would have to imagine that if the Big Ten really did put out some feelers, they'd have to contact Syracuse, Missouri, maybe Nebraska, maybe Rutgers, and probably Notre Dame and Pitt even though they wouldn't add an extra state. With recent discussions of inequality in the Big 12, you have to think Missouri would at least listen. Would it go any further than listening and pondering? I'd put the chances at about 40%. There's an academic draw to the Big Ten, and let's face it, there might be better chance of both money and athletic success there for Mizzou.

Predictably, this has also been the source of discussion on Big Ten message boards. A buddy of mine from Michigan State sent along this thread from Spartan Tailgate. I only bring it up because it's interesting to read the level of skepticism about Jim Delany. It appears that quite a few Big Ten people aren't totally sold on the Big Ten Network idea, nor are they sold on Delany. Delany's a polarizing figure, but from an outsider's perspective, I sure wouldn't mind my conference having what he's brought to the table. But it's worth looking into the reasons for skepticism, especially if Mizzou fans are going to be re-running the "Big Ten?" debate over the next few months (or years). MGOBLOG had this to say about some Delany statements last month:

A couple emailers have passed this along but they didn't need to, since the Big Ten actually sent me this email they blasted out to apparently everyone from actual newspapers to two-bit bloggers:

DELANY CALLS ON COMCAST TO APOLOGIZE

STATEMENT BY BIG TEN COMMISSIONER JAMES E. DELANY

REGARDING THE CHARACTERIZATION OF BIG TEN CONTESTS AS ‘SECOND AND THIRD TIER’

“Comcast recently has characterized events that will be on the Big Ten Network as ‘second and third tier.’ I believe Comcast owes every Big Ten university an apology. The comments are an insult to Illinois, Iowa, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Minnesota, Northwestern, Ohio State, Penn State, Purdue and Wisconsin: To the universities, their students, their fans and alumni and their communities. There are no second-rate contests in the Big Ten.”

I... what do you do with that? Comcast has a tough-talking guy who correctly characterizes most of the sports on the Big Ten network as uncompelling, so the Big Ten throws a public hissyfit and demands an apology? Is Jim Delaney a fifteen-year-old girl? Is he having a super sweet sixteen party later?

Delany is a bit, shall we say, reactionary? Sensitive? Crazy? Here's more from The Hoosier Report:

Unfortunately, this is just the latest public statement by the commish that casts doubt on his fitness to lead a major conference. Let's not forget, just months ago, this ridiculous broadside against the SEC, including:

I love speed and the SEC has great speed, especially on the defensive line, but there are appropriate balances when mixing academics and athletics. Each school, as well as each conference, simply must do what fits their mission regardless of what a recruiting service recommends. I wish we had six teams among the top 10 recruiting classes every year, but winning our way requires some discipline and restraint with the recruitment process. Not every athlete fits athletically, academically or socially at every university. Fortunately, we have been able to balance our athletic and academic mission so that we can compete successfully and keep faith with our academic standards.

First, it's idiotic for a conference commissioner to issue any sort of statement, snippy or otherwise, to serve as a self-described response to "recruiting services and talking heads." Second, why impugn an entire conference? No one will soon confuse the SEC with the Patriot League, but our fine league, which I think is great, has had its share of black eyes in the last decade. The scandals involving the Michigan and Minnesota basketball programs were among the most breathtaking in the history of the sport. The disclosures about the class loads of Andy Katzenmoyer and Greg Oden make one wonder whether the typical Buckeye is getting anything approximating a college education. To be fair and balanced, one could note that one of the few Big Ten programs that has never been found guilty of an NCAA "major violation" hired a coach with a less-than-pristine compliance record. What an odd decision by Delany. And again, this wasn't an off-the-cuff temper tantrum in front of a live mike; this is a letter that remains on the Big Ten's website months later.

So yes...a move to the Big Ten would be accompanied by having to put up with a crazy commissioner's monthly rants and generally insane statements, and it would insert Mizzou into a conference whose schools, from time to time, go to even more unethical lengths to win than Big 12 schools. But would this be a deal breaker? In the end, I doubt it. Let's remind ourselves that our commissioner just quit to take a job with the Big Ten...as a planning and development guy for their TV network. VP of P&D for the Big Ten Network was seen as a better opportunity than Big 12 Commissioner? Not necessarily--both Weiberg and the conference are obviously taking huge risks here, especially since details for this coming season's coverage are still up in the air--but the perception of the move still does not reflect well on the Big 12.

I've expressed my opinion on this issue before--I won't cry if we leave, I won't cry if we stay...I know, I'm quite the polarizing figure--but I think two things have become obvious heading into the 2007-08 sports year: 1) the days of "Mizzou would never ever leave the Big 12" are gone--we might not leave, but if asked, there's no doubting that we would seriously consider it; and 2) the hiring of the new Big 12 Commissioner is absolutely huge. Never mind Mizzou--the Big Ten might go after Nebraska too. The Big 12 cannot let this happen. To make sure that it doesn't, they need the new commissioner to step in and almost immediately a) quell some of the anxiety, and b) get this conference back to living up to the potential it's shown for quite a while.

How's the Commish search going? Well, last week the conference hired a consultant, Parker Executive Search, to help...which doesn't lead you to believe a decision is forthcoming in the next week or two. Naturally, the interim commissioner, Dan Beebe, would love to get 'interim' removed from his title, but I'd say it's smart of the conference to perform a wide-reaching search first. Other names being thrown around? Our old friend, Joe Ca$h, for one, but he just got a nice raise. Beebe, for another. Conference USA commish Britton Banowsky, too, not to mention Mountain West head Craig Thompson. Beyond that, who knows. I'm sure there are about 26 other candidates that nobody's mentioned. Personally, I've always taken a liking to Joe Ca$h (for no real reason)--I think he has the right personality for this type of job, and I wouldn't mind the conference taking another run at him (even though it would mean an insane amount of money and power). I have no idea what to think about the other candidates. CUSA just lost half its teams to the Big East, so I'm not exactly sold on Banowsky; meanwhile, my perception of the Mountain West is that it's allowed the WAC to make up ground in the last few years. But that doesn't mean either of them wouldn't do a good job. Guess that means I'm putting my faith in Parker Executive Search, huh?

I used to get so damn sick of the "Big Ten?" debate when it came up once a month on Tigerboard--it wasn't on the slate, so it was a pointless discussion...plus, I grew up in Big 8 Country and had no interest in moving away from the rivalries I knew and loved--but I'm much more open to discussing the idea at this point. I'm not worried about the long-term future of Mizzou Athletics, but if we would be better served by switching conferences (and starting an utterly massive domino chain that would be fun to watch), it's an idea that should be taken seriously.

Of course, the Big Ten might just invite Syracuse and quickly end all discussion. Who knows?

Read More...

Summary only...