You are herePerhaps Mizzou Should Bolt to the Big Ten After All
Perhaps Mizzou Should Bolt to the Big Ten After All
Traditionally, I've been one of the scoffers whenever someone suggests - and they do it just about every year - that Missouri should drop out of the Big 12 Conference and join the Big Ten.
I'm not scoffing now. Not with the fact - and it is a fact, not a rumor - that the Insight Bowl is even considering inviting a 6-6 Iowa State team to its bowl instead of 8-4 Missouri.
Fortunately, I'm not alone. Big 12 Commissioner Dan Beebe just told me - you can read a teaser to the more complete story due for publication in The Star print edition on Thursday under Breaking News on the sports front - he doesn't like that possibility either.
"I am concerned about a bowl that would select a team that has two less wins and was beaten by that team head to head."
Those are Beebe's exact words.
Now, do they carry any weight?
Not under current Big 12 bowl contracts.
The Big 12 cannot dictate choices to the bowls. And no, there is no rule that says a 6-6 team can't leap over an 8-4 team in the bowl process.
Beebe told me they could considered amending their bowl contracts to make the announced pecking order not a matter of choice.
But the Commish also said that would result in a drop in bowl revenue. The bowls pay for the right to pick and choose.
The underlying truth of a third straight year in which Missouri may be shafted in the bowl process is this.
With the exception of Nebraska and Oklahoma, the Big 12 has become the old Southwest Conference.
Texas, Texas A&M, Oklahoma and Nebraska (in football) have their voices heard first. No one else does.
When I mentioned this to Beebe, he agreed that the current bowl lineup with so many bowls in the state of Texas does favor the Texas schools.
He then suggested a bowl game in Kansas City or St. Louis.
Baloney.
I'll repeat a rant I made some weeks ago that angered Big 12 official Ed Stewart.
The Big 12's bowl agreements and lineup stinks.
Stinks to high heaven.
And if the Big 12 doesn't change that, then Missouri SHOULD petition the Big Ten for admission.
Cut ties with all Big 12 schools except Kansas. Still play the Border War in football and basketball. But tell the rest of the Big 12 to take a hike, that Missouri will take its Kansas City and St. Louis TV markets and play elsewhere.
Maybe the Big Ten (plus one), could then call itself The Real Big 12 Conference.
Posted in
I think this is being way over-blown! Look, the people at the insight bowl are going to have their perception of us, as Mizzou fans, that they're going to have regardless of what we say. The same perception cost us the Orange Bowl two years ago.
Is going to the Big 10 the answer? Of course not...even IF they wanted us and I think that's highly doubtful. The conference we're in now, is where we should be. We need to win the North next year, and then win the title game to avoid all of this. This should just light a fire in us...crying or whining about it isn't going to accomplish anything and believe me...even though I'm upset about all of this too, the more we say, the more we talk about leaving the conference, the more we complain, just sounds like whining to people who aren't Mizzou fans.
... who are piling on right now.
It is true that there is a perception among Missouri fans (and I am a huge one) that Mizzou continually gets dissed by the conference, as well as the local and national media. Much of it is probably just "the way the cookie crumbles" as they say, and it's just hyper-sensitivity on our parts.
And we don't just feel this way about the bowl games. Just in the past 20 years it's the 5th down game and the Nebraska cheating kick in the endzone (yes we know how you feel Irish soccer fans) in football. It's the 2nd rate newspaper (and particularly) tv coverage in the KC area (when compared with KU). It's the idea that Ricky Clemons becomes a national joke, but a Kansas player can climb through a drive-through window and assault someone - and it's forgotten the next day.
ALL OF THIS doesn't really matter though. Really what this is is just a further indictment of the ridiculous bowl system - a system which means almost nothing. It's further proof that college football should have a 16 team playoff (which Missouri would not qualify for this year under the remotest situation). Moving to the Big 10(11) doesn't help anything, this is a much bigger problem
Call your congressmen and get them to look into this! (Just kidding, they have more important things to do).
You do realize that many KU fans call it the MU Star? Just as some MU fans call it the KU Star. It's the KC Star, and I've worked at it for 37 years and am proud to do so.
Just my two cents.
... in addition to my other comments, I now realize that my phrase "2nd rate newspaper coverage" unintentionally makes it sound as if the newspaper is 2nd rate. I meant for 2nd rate (to borrow a grammatical phrase) to modify the word coverage.
... I read your articles everyday from Chicago. The Star's Sports section is the first read on my crackberry every morning. The Star's sports coverage (to the dismay of many posters on these boards) is AT LEAST as good as the Chicago Tribune or SunTimes for the local teams here. I made no comments about the quality of writing for the Star.
If anything, I only suggested that, on occasion, it seems as if the Star carries more articles/info about Kansas stuff. Not that I'm really all that concerned about it (which probably reflects some degree of chauvinism), but a case in point would be updates on Kansas women's basketball which appear on the KC Star website.
My bigger point is that when I come home to KC I can find Kansas playing an exhibition hoops game on at least MetroSports. Missouri, on the other hand, has been bumped (on many occasions) to tape delay, or the game is not shown at all, for real games (and not just those against Coppin State). I get that Kansas has won national titles, and MU has not. I get that KU is geographically (minimally in my mind) closer to KC. But it is part of the perception (and the reality in my mind) that MU "gets the shaft" a lot.
You say you do but yes, Kansas has won national titles and is almost always highly ranked. They are more in demand. KC has a big Mizzou base but it is more of a KU town. You sound a bit like you and Mr. DeArmond share the same inferiority or persecution complex. The world isn't out to get you just because Mizzou is not the most marketable team.
Why is Mizzou so persecuted you think? You think these bowls want to lose money? Is it a conspiracy against poor Mizzou? I mean if all of these bowl types, corporate money types don't want Mizzou, why would the big 10 want Mizzou?
Mike,
How is the insight bowl picking one big 8 team (ISU) over another big-8 team (MU) some kind of comment on the dominance of the old SW Conference in the bowl selection process? Also, check out how the Big 10's selection goes. Every wonder why Iowa routinely gets New Year's Day bowl invites? Its because half the state flocks to their bowl games. Even when they got invited to the Alamo Bowl, they packed San Antonio with tourists. Moving to the big-10 would compound Mizzou's bowl problems, as Big-10 fans travel very well.
Mizzou getting "shafted" by the Insight bowl has absolutely everything to do with Mizzou fan's travel habits to all bowl games.
If Mizzou wants its voice heard, put your money where your mouth is....
The Insight Bowl in and of itself isn't reflective of the old SWC. The makeup of the Big 12 and its dominance of bowl games in Texas that prefer Texas schools - or Oklahoma - as a representative is reflective of that.
Even the Big 12 commissioner admits that's a problem.
And as regards MU not traveling to bowls, that is a myth. MU traveled to Shreveport the first year very well and to San Antonio and to Dallas for the Cotton Bowl.
I agree there are too many Texas bowls for the Big-12, but I don't think MU getting dropped 3-years in a row has anything to do with it.
Just my 2-cents, but I wonder if the folks in Shreveport, San Antonio, and Dallas agree with your assertion that MU fans travel well, and that any statement of the opposite is a "myth". There's a reason why the Insight wants ISU, and its because despite a crappy team (most years) their fans are incredibly loyal and travel well.
Mizzou has trouble selling out all their home games, and don't have a reputation of traveling well. I am positive if Mizzou over-runs Houston with MIZ-ZOU chants for the Texas bowl, you'll see better bowl bids the next year...
Did Perkins guarantee a certain number of Orange Bowl seats would be filled by KU fans? Maybe, probably, likely. Did KU fans fill those seats? YES! Is this right? NO. Is this reality? Unfortunately...
Missouri averages more than 64,000 for home games. And you look back on that Orange Bowl and it was not well attended, much less by KU fans.
Look just at this season.
With an 8-4 team MU averaged 64,120 fans to six home games. Iowa State drew an average of 46,242 at home.
Over the last five years, Missouri has averaged 59,630, ISU 47,199.
Both MU and ISU played at Arrowhead Stadium this year.
The MU-KU game drew 29,000 more than the KSU-ISU game.
In the last six years, Missouri has gone to five bowl games. The average attendance 53,757.
In ISU's last five bowl games the average crowd was was 39,634.
You're trying awfully hard here to shape a reality that does not exist.
Sorry, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. As you will to yours.
Outside of the BCS bowls, Bowl games hae nothing to do with home attendance. Cities and bowls like to know you will come to the city, stay a few days, spend money. That is all. TV audience doesn't matter.
KSU stadium sits just over 50k, but KSU brought over 50k to the Cotton Bowl in the 90s and over 40k there in 2000. Plus over 30k to the Fiesta Bowl in 1997.
If the Insight Bowl thinks Iowa State fans will spend money in their town than Mizzou fans, then they have a obiligation to take ISU. The locals help fund the bowl sponsorship hoping out-of-towners will spend the money. It has nothing to do with a "We don't like Mizzou" mentality.
I'm on board just explain that one to me. If it isn't about travel, why does the Insight, and Orange and Gator believe that they would make more money on these other teams? I'm following along here but there a a major void in your logic, they are either choosing to knowingly lose money or there is some other reason for their hatred of Mizzou. What is the reason?
Nate,
If I knew the answer to that I'd give it to you in a flash. I don't have the answer. Part of it is likely because Missouri hasn't done a good enough job selling itself. Part of it is because MU played in the Big 12 title game and was ripped twice by OU.
I'm not saying anyone hates MU. I'm saying they consistently give the school the shaft and part of that is the preponderance of bowl games in Texas.
Nebraska is Nebraska. A storied program. The rest in the North seem to suffer.
And it isn't just MU. K-State feels the same way, as does CU. And I suspect KU in football as well with one notable exception of the Orange Bowl season.
At base, I don't think anyone is out to get Missouri. But you can't ignore the notion that MU's record the last three years on the field indicated better bowl placement all three years.
Can you?
I still don't see how that makes sense. Mizzou isn't getting dumped for OU, Neb or Texas. We are talking about KU being picked over them once, wanted a second time and now ISU being wanted over them. I don't disagree with you about the influence of Texas, it just doesn't apply to this discussion.
The rest of the north hasn't suffered this fate with the exception of KSU. ISU is usually a pretty desired bowl team when eligible, same with KU and CU.
I think there is a bit of insecurity at play here, a trait Mizzou shares with KSU. If ISU is picked over them this year and had KU been picked over them last year then I would agree their play on the field indicated a better bowl placement. In 2007 there is a case to be made that they should have gone over Illinois but those are BCS rules, not conference affiliation issues.
OK, let me get this straight. Because Missouri might not get an invite to the highly prestigious and sought after insight bowl we are getting another dose of " perhaps mizzou should bolt to the big ten after all ". While the big ten probably would give the Tigers a better shot at competing in football currently, are we absolutely sure the big ten has an open invitation to MU? Do they have this same never ending open invitation to other schools as well? Or is it just Mizzou with their rich and glorious football tradition? Sorry for the sarcasm but perhaps instead of whiny threats to pack up and leave every time any hint of disrespect is perceived, more attention should be given to actually enjoying the modest successes of MU football in the past few seasons and being happy about a bowl game irregardless of how prestigious or not it actually is.
At least the big ten does not have a conference championship game for football. No more game over at halftime embarrassments to superior Oklahoma teams in conference title games. Careful what you wish for, it might come true.
As I've mentioned to Mike DeArmond in a previous e-mail, a switch by Mizzou to the Big Ten is not, and should not be, all about football. As a student at MU in the fabulous, football Devine '60's, there was rampant talk of this switch. Very frankly, academically, Mizzou fits with the more prestigious universities that make up the Big Ten. That is true now as it was then. Mizzou is one of the very few universities that has a medical school, veterinary school and law school----that is, all THREE. Our acedemic standards overall are much more in tune with the great schools of the Big Ten. As the oldest MAJOR conference, the Big Ten still wields the power that it always did. In short, it is just more prestigious. The Big Ten actually wanted them then and there is no doubt (given Mizzou's higher academic requirements) that they would welcome them now (after the fine addition of Penn State) to make, as Mike so aptly put it, the "True Big 12". Mizzou would be aligned with higher acedemic institutions and the conference would then be fully complete.
Worthless, Beebe, bowls in StL or KC are NOT the answer. Bowls in Memphis or Nashville or in florida are (partly) the answer. Too many bowls in Texas and in cities that are not prime tourist destinations (Dallas, Houston, El Paso, Shreveport) while Big 10 and SEC schools are enjoying fun in the sun (Florida). That said, all Big 12 fans would flock to Music City, and both Liberty (MU took 15-20,000 in 1978) and Music City bowls are closer to the Big 12 north. Plus, every two or three years we play 4 games in Texas already. Aside from Cotton, none of the rest are worth it (and texas is flat and boring and not a place to vacation in the winter). If we don't get some satisfaction ASAP, the Big 10 talk needs to heat up.