OT: Mizzou to Big 10 interview w/Alden

[TheBand]

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/d...and-temptation/

"Another thing that probably is frustrating a little bit for Missouri — and that’s not to disparage any other programs, because there are really fine academic institutions in our entire league, they all are — but academically our student-athletes have done a great job and they’ve really performed at a high level. I think that the perception of the league has to continue to grow because if that doesn’t happen, that doesn’t help Missouri. We’re somewhat of an outlier with how our kids are doing academically. The affiliation with a league that is perceived to be really strong academically is really important to our institution."

And

Q: The Big Ten is officially talking about expanding. What would be the advantages of the Big Ten for Mizzou?

A: Right now, we have a tremendous advantage in the Big 12. I think we do. The teams we compete against and the footprint we’re in is certainly an asset to our institution. I think the focus needs to be on what do we need to do to make Mizzou better and hopefully by Mizzou being better, the Big 12 gets to be better.

I don’t know if there are advantages or disadvantages. The image of the Big Ten, all schools are AAU (Association of American Universities) members, like Mizzou is. There are only 34 publics in the whole country that are part of that. Mizzou is one of those schools, and that means nationally, academically, we’re seen as a really strong program, just like all of the schools in the Big Ten are. That’s a strength the Big Ten would have.

… (Former Big 12 Commissioner) Kevin Weiberg was quoted as saying this a few days ago in USA Today — he was commenting on the Big Ten — he said, “Rest assured, this will not be about athletics.” Everybody in our world thinks this is about athletics, but it’s not. Conference realignments are always based primarily on academics. From Weiberg, a guy that used to be our commissioner and the No. 2 guy in the Big Ten, he’s got a pretty strong knowledge base. It has to do with similarities of institutions, similarities of academic mission, similarities of research, professional schools that they have, contiguous ideals, regionalization, things like that.

[Cowboy]

-a very interesting article and a well done interview

-i will call bull**** on the thought that conference realignments are based primarily on academics - i think in 1930 it was, in 1979 and in 2009 i don't believe that to be the case

[TheA_Bomb]

The Big10 Conference wishes to expand to add a Conference FB Championship game for academic purposes.

[cheesycow]

The Big10 Conference wishes to expand to add a Conference FB Championship game for academic purposes.

Well for the Big 10 it's all about money. For Missouri (or Pitt or Rutgers or Louisville, etc.) Academics play a role. Being able to join the CIC is a boon for those institutions.

[slufanskip]

I mentioned before there is a lot of talk and support of Texas joining the Big 10. Another guys opinion and a really good breakdown of why it makes sense.

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/...hade-of-orange/

[kevinfootes]

I mentioned before there is a lot of talk and support of Texas joining the Big 10. Another guys opinion and a really good breakdown of why it makes sense.

http://frankthetank.wordpress.com/2009/12/...hade-of-orange/

Interesting. One thing the author doesn't mention is that Texas wouldn't be able to call the shots as much in the Big 12. Also, while it might be be nearly as lucrative, I think the big 12 will move towards something like the Big 10's tv deal.

15 years ago there were many rumors that Texas would join the Pac 10 and A&M would join the SEC. If Texas were really shopping itself around, don't rule out the PAC 10 as a possible destination for them. You could point to many reasons why that would be just as good for them.

[BillikenROAR]

I believe the Big Ten should stop trying to add a new team. If the BCS turns into a playoff, it could benefit the Big 10 now because if there were a playoff, it would mean more games in the post season, which would give the big ten an advantage with the weeks off, especially if the playoffs moved the schedules of games up a week or 2.. and secondly..if they didnt have a clear cut argument on who the number one team in the conference was..wouldnt this give them more of an argument to send multiple teams? say if both teams were in the top 5 at the end of the regular season, and one team pummels the other, the loser likely drops out of that playoff picture..and wouldnt mizzou suffer greatly from joining the big 10 in terms of getting recruits? just a thought

[billiken_roy]

roar it is my belief that the ncaa is trying to set up a psuedo playoff/tourney by moving towards a scenario that would create an even 64 team tourney. if they had 4 bcs conferences with 16 teams each, and each conference had their own "playoff" of sorts you got it. so take the 6 bcs conferences and turn them into 4 conferences of football only schools, ..........

[lawyerbilliken07]

roar it is my belief that the ncaa is trying to set up a psuedo playoff/tourney by moving towards a scenario that would create an even 64 team tourney. if they had 4 bcs conferences with 16 teams each, and each conference had their own "playoff" of sorts you got it. so take the 6 bcs conferences and turn them into 4 conferences of football only schools, ..........

I'm not sure whether there is anything consciously being done like this, but I have to agree about the general direction of major NCAA sports. At some point, I believe the BCS-type schools are going to attempt to "secede" in some fashion from the rest of Division I. I don't think football is as much of a problem, but in basketball, Division I is simply too big. Having 300+ schools attempting to compete at the same level is unsustainable in the long run. Because of that, I suspect that the power conference schools would love to create some sort of separation.

Of course I'm not sure where that leaves SLU. We're certainly not at the level of some of the schools that have no business playing D-I basketball, but are more of a true mid-major. In an ideal world, schools like SLU would still be D-1, but the bottom 100-150 would be more like a D-1AA.

[slufanskip]

Interesting. One thing the author doesn't mention is that Texas wouldn't be able to call the shots as much in the Big 12. Also, while it might be be nearly as lucrative, I think the big 12 will move towards something like the Big 10's tv deal.

15 years ago there were many rumors that Texas would join the Pac 10 and A&M would join the SEC. If Texas were really shopping itself around, don't rule out the PAC 10 as a possible destination for them. You could point to many reasons why that would be just as good for them.

Texas isn't going to the Pac 10 for a lot of reasons. First and foremost money. Second, exposure. Mizzou won't get to go to the Big 10 unless Texas turns the Big 10 down.

[kevinfootes]

Texas isn't going to the Pac 10 for a lot of reasons. First and foremost money. Second, exposure. Mizzou won't get to go to the Big 10 unless Texas turns the Big 10 down.

Exposure? You don't think California provides exposure? As far as money goes, the Pac 10 could make a lot more with Texas in the mix and quickly approach anything the Big 10 has to offer.

Perceived academics aside, why not put Florida on the list if you're going to include Texas? Big state, successful teams, etc. Unless the Big 10 changes some of its standards, I don't see a lot of these schools eager to make the jump. Texas has research facilities, etc., but they also don't have the same admission requirements for athletes that you see in the Big 10.

mizzou? I don't recall mentioning them in my post. Was that comment directed at me or someone else?

[kevinfootes]

roar it is my belief that the ncaa is trying to set up a psuedo playoff/tourney by moving towards a scenario that would create an even 64 team tourney. if they had 4 bcs conferences with 16 teams each, and each conference had their own "playoff" of sorts you got it. so take the 6 bcs conferences and turn them into 4 conferences of football only schools, ..........

roy, I believe the WAC went to a 16-team lineup for a couple of years, and then the Mountain West teams split off. 16 is unwieldy.

What do you mean by "football-only schools"?

Also, please give us the lowdown on our practice schedule over the holidays. You told us they were practicing 27-hrs per day, so I'm sure you have an inside source. No need to name names, please just let us know how long the practices went...like 9 AM to 1 PM or whatever. You can reply to my original question in the other thread if you like, so we don't derail this topic. You must have missed my question before.

[ACE]

Texas isn't going to the Pac 10 for a lot of reasons. First and foremost money. Second, exposure. Mizzou won't get to go to the Big 10 unless Texas turns the Big 10 down.

This topic recently came up on the radio. If academics is a factor then Mizzou has no chance, as they are worse in that area than all current Big 10 schools.

[billiken_roy]

I don't think football is as much of a problem, but in basketball, Division I is simply too big. Having 300+ schools attempting to compete at the same level is unsustainable in the long run. Because of that, I suspect that the power conference schools would love to create some sort of separation.

actually i think it would be easy. the ncaa splits about $140,000,000 for the tourney. that alone could fund nearly a half a million dollars per d-1 program if the ncaa chose to split it evenly amongst everyone. add to that the individual schools own fund raising, i could see the individual schools making out just fine.

in reality the big schools will never agree to split with everyone, but in the same sense when only 4 or 5 schools outside of the bcs schools are getting at large bids, it is pretty obvious how the money is getting split up and who is getting it now and in no way is that anywhere near equitable.

however for the ncaa to split the top tier schools in basketball the same as they have in football will kill that $140 million golden goose or at least seriously wound it. while in football the bowls have always been dominated by the top schools, and thus one can see them not sharing at all with the lesser schools, the truth of the charm of the ncaa basketball tourney is not the big boys but rather the cinderella hopefuls. folks turn in first to see their favorite programs and second to see the cindy's scare if not upset the big boys. take that away and go to a 64 team tourney for basketball made up of soley the revamped big four conferences, imo would lose a lot of charm and a lot of casual viewers that will quit watching when their favorite big school is out.

conversely, creating an event that brings even more butlers and george masons and gonzagas and saint louis universities etc in the tourney will only serve to bring more casual viewers to watch.

[kevinfootes]

conversely, creating an event that brings even more butlers and george masons and gonzagas and saint louis universities etc in the tourney will only serve to bring more casual viewers to watch.

Are you calling for an expanded NCAA basketball tourney?

[Postcard]

This topic recently came up on the radio. If academics is a factor then Mizzou has no chance, as they are worse in that area than all current Big 10 schools.

You're right. SLU or Mizzou wouldn't cut it.

[jimbofive]

Mizzou sucks.

[someoneelse]

This topic recently came up on the radio. If academics is a factor then Mizzou has no chance, as they are worse in that area than all current Big 10 schools.

I think Mizzou is comparable to a Michigan State, lower tier for sure. The only perceived candidate out there with true Big 10 academic credentials is Rutgers. And with their new stadium, they may make a good candidate to get into the NYC media market. New York is pro town, with not much college football enthusiasm.

Even further off topic, why isn't Mizzou as good of a school as Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana?

[cheeseman]

I am sorry, but I can not see Texas going to the Big Ten - Talk about an odd looking conference make up - makes SLU and the A10 look like a perfect geographic match. Texas may be a good school but if they could graduate the likes of Vince Young then they are fooling themselves if their expectations for their players is considered to be a cut above others. Missouri may go but I also find that hard to believe also but I guess stranger things have happened. It just seems to me the the more natural fit for them would be to expand east. Now I guess if they want to be an all big state university conference then they would have to get NW to leave and then they could go Texas and MO - how do you think Pinkel is feeling about this possibility right now - his entire brand of football would not be a great fit in the Big Ten.

[slufanskip]

Exposure? You don't think California provides exposure? As far as money goes, the Pac 10 could make a lot more with Texas in the mix and quickly approach anything the Big 10 has to offer.

Perceived academics aside, why not put Florida on the list if you're going to include Texas? Big state, successful teams, etc. Unless the Big 10 changes some of its standards, I don't see a lot of these schools eager to make the jump. Texas has research facilities, etc., but they also don't have the same admission requirements for athletes that you see in the Big 10.

mizzou? I don't recall mentioning them in my post. Was that comment directed at me or someone else?

I just mentioned Mizzou as their seems to be talk about them, nothing directed to you.

The west coast gets very little east coast air time as the games start too late. Texas isn't going to take the Pac 10 to Big 10 money, not even close. Pac 10 is relatively low now. Fla does pretty well in the SEC and I don't see them leaving it.

Texas doesn't really care much for the Big 12 north schools (and who can blame them) the money in the Big 12 even for Texas which gets a Lions share is much less than the Big 10. The only schools Texas cares to play in the Big 12 is A&M and OU.

I do know there is a lot of talk and support for looking at the move among Texas fans. I still think the Big 10's first choice would be ND even though Texas would open up a very large market they currently have no peice of to them.

[slufanskip]

actually i think it would be easy. the ncaa splits about $140,000,000 for the tourney. that alone could fund nearly a half a million dollars per d-1 program if the ncaa chose to split it evenly amongst everyone. add to that the individual schools own fund raising, i could see the individual schools making out just fine.

in reality the big schools will never agree to split with everyone, but in the same sense when only 4 or 5 schools outside of the bcs schools are getting at large bids, it is pretty obvious how the money is getting split up and who is getting it now and in no way is that anywhere near equitable.

however for the ncaa to split the top tier schools in basketball the same as they have in football will kill that $140 million golden goose or at least seriously wound it. while in football the bowls have always been dominated by the top schools, and thus one can see them not sharing at all with the lesser schools, the truth of the charm of the ncaa basketball tourney is not the big boys but rather the cinderella hopefuls. folks turn in first to see their favorite programs and second to see the cindy's scare if not upset the big boys. take that away and go to a 64 team tourney for basketball made up of soley the revamped big four conferences, imo would lose a lot of charm and a lot of casual viewers that will quit watching when their favorite big school is out.

conversely, creating an event that brings even more butlers and george masons and gonzagas and saint louis universities etc in the tourney will only serve to bring more casual viewers to watch.

TV ratings don't bear out your thoughts on why people watch the tourney. They claim thats the way it is, but in reality the G Mason final 4 did not have good ratings.

[slufanskip]

I am sorry, but I can not see Texas going to the Big Ten - Talk about an odd looking conference make up - makes SLU and the A10 look like a perfect geographic match. Texas may be a good school but if they could graduate the likes of Vince Young then they are fooling themselves if their expectations for their players is considered to be a cut above others. Missouri may go but I also find that hard to believe also but I guess stranger things have happened. It just seems to me the the more natural fit for them would be to expand east. Now I guess if they want to be an all big state university conference then they would have to get NW to leave and then they could go Texas and MO - how do you think Pinkel is feeling about this possibility right now - his entire brand of football would not be a great fit in the Big Ten.

Geography is over rated. It won't play as much as you think. What do you know about Vince Young's academics? Do you have some inside info, or did you decide he couldn't really deserve a degree from a good school by an interview you saw on TV?

[billiken_roy]

skip, if you are going to quote me, please put the quote in total context.

[slufanskip]

skip, if you are going to quote me, please put the quote in total context.

Nope, that would ruin it for me.

[ACE]

I think Mizzou is comparable to a Michigan State, lower tier for sure. The only perceived candidate out there with true Big 10 academic credentials is Rutgers. And with their new stadium, they may make a good candidate to get into the NYC media market. New York is pro town, with not much college football enthusiasm.

Even further off topic, why isn't Mizzou as good of a school as Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana?

This was Mizzou's announcer, name escapes me, who said this about their academics. It is ranked worse academically than all of the Big 10. To his credit, he has a more realistic view than most of their delusional fans.