St. Louis attitude: MU to Big 10

**swiacy** · 12-22-2009, 06:57 AM

Spent the week-end in St. Louis. Its a "Pro Town", all about the Cardinals. Mizzou is an after thought dependant upon the current win totals of whatever sport is in season. Kansas City, on the other hand, is split between the Chiefs and KU basketball (Lawrence is considered a suburb of KC). The St. Louis media and the powers-that-be (UM Pres., Guv, etc.) strongly state that Mizzou needs to take a serious look at the Big 10, which surprised me greatly. What I read between the lines was that IF the Big 10 would let Mizzou in they should jump at the opportunity.

**herbicide** · 12-22-2009, 07:11 AM

Doesn't surprise me. Face it, the Big 10 has a better bowl package, TV, etc. Than the Big 12.

**CyCloned** · 12-22-2009, 07:21 AM

The Big 10 has a lot of things that the Big 12 does not, good revenue sharing, good TV contract, good media coverage, and it has some teams that are very beatable. (not as bad as the Big 12 North this year, but still a lot of average teams)

**Al_4_State** · 12-22-2009, 07:46 AM

Pretty much anyone in the Big 12 North (sans Nebraska) would be bat **** crazy to not join the Big 10 if offered. Personally I think Mizzou has a WAY better shot than Pitt (honestly, Pitt adds nothing more than ISU except a more prestigious program) and are probably a wash w/Rutgers (NYC just doesn't care about CFB).

**TheHelgo** · 12-22-2009, 07:52 AM

I live in STL, and when college sports are discussed, it is primarily Mizzou with Illinois a distant (but relevant) second. i imagine some of the thought about the big 10 in this area stems from the desire to have the 2 primarily represented teams in the area be in the same conference. it would make their 'rivalry' that much more relevant.

**CycloneWarning** · 12-22-2009, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by swiacy

Spent the week-end in St. Louis. Its a "Pro Town", all about the Cardinals. Mizzou is an after thought dependant upon the current win totals of whatever sport is in season. Kansas City, on the other hand, is split between the Chiefs and KU basketball (Lawrence is considered a suburb of KC). The St. Louis media and the powers-that-be (UM Pres., Guv, etc.) strongly state that Mizzou needs to take a serious look at the Big 10, which surprised me greatly. What I read between the lines was that IF the Big 10 would let Mizzou in they should jump at the opportunity.

This may work to ISU's favor. Hopefully, the threat of MU dropping the Big 12 will force the conference to adopt revenue sharing to intice MU to stay.

**ahaselhu** · 12-22-2009, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneWarning

This may work to ISU's favor. Hopefully, the threat of MU dropping the Big 12 will force the conference to adopt revenue sharing to intice MU to stay.

I agree somewhat, but I think its just as likely that the Big XII powers that be wouldn't mind dropping most of the north teams in favor of more Texas teams, such as TCU and Houston.

I really don't think they'd get too concerned unless Nebraska (football) or Kansas (basketball) wanted to leave.

**CloneIce** · 12-22-2009, 09:25 AM

Any Big 12 North team would be wise to jump at the opportunity to join the Big 10, where they revenue share and care about the welfare of all of their schools, not just enriching Texas.

**CycloneErik** · 12-22-2009, 09:28 AM

Originally Posted by ahaselhu

I agree somewhat, but I think its just as likely that the Big XII powers that be wouldn't mind dropping most of the north teams in favor of more Texas teams, such as TCU and Houston.

I really don't think they'd get too concerned unless Nebraska (football) or Kansas (basketball) wanted to leave.

I agree. I don't want to, but I don't think they care much about the teams in the conference that welcomed them in.

**jbhtexas** · 12-22-2009, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by CycloneWarning

This may work to ISU's favor. Hopefully, the threat of MU dropping the Big 12 will force the conference to adopt revenue sharing to intice MU to stay.

Presently, the Big 12 equally splits around 82% of the conference generated revenue. The other 18% is awarded according to TV appearances (at least that's how the numbers worked out in 2007-2008).

Although the distribution numbers have not been published yet for 2008-2009, MU may have actually have gotten less money if the Big 12 equally split all of the revenue, since MU was on TV quite a bit due to the success of their FB and MBB programs.

**jbhtexas** · 12-22-2009, 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by CloneIce

Any Big 12 North team would be wise to jump at the opportunity to join the Big 10, where they revenue share and care about the welfare of all of their schools, not just enriching Texas.

The athletic directors and presidents of the Big 12 schools are the ones who make the decisions for the conference. This is made quite clear in the conference by-laws. Could you explain why the presidents and ADs of the other 11 schools would willingly sacrifice the well being of their own schools to enrich Texas?

**Melvin** · 12-22-2009, 10:00 AM

Don't count out the Academic Aspects. The Big 10 presidents will push for Pitt over Mizzou in that regard. Everyone laughs that off, but it is a big deal. I believe Pitt would fit nicely in the Big 10 where as Mizzou would be lagging a little bit.

I would hate to see Mizzou go, but this could result in change for the Big 12 policies that Improve the TV package and Increase Revenue Sharing.

**Melvin** · 12-22-2009, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

Presently, the Big 12 equally splits around 82% of the conference generated revenue. The other 18% is awarded according to TV appearances (at least that's how the numbers worked out in 2007-2008).

Although the distribution numbers have not been published yet for 2008-2009, MU may have actually have gotten less money if the Big 12 equally split all of the revenue, since MU was on TV quite a bit due to the success of their FB and MBB programs.

The Mizzou games with Baylor and Iowa State were not Televised, there is probably another one or two that I can't remember.

Winning has nothing to do with being on TV. ISU and MU were both Bowl Eligible and not Televised. The Big 12 TV package is a joke.

**MNCyGuy** · 12-22-2009, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by jbhtexas

The athletic directors and presidents of the Big 12 schools are the ones who make the decisions for the conference. This is made quite clear in the conference by-laws. Could you explain why the presidents and ADs of the other 11 schools would willingly sacrifice the well being of their own schools to enrich Texas?

poor foresight in the initial formation of the conference?

**Al_4_State** · 12-22-2009, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Melvin

Don't count out the Academic Aspects. The Big 10 presidents will push for Pitt over Mizzou in that regard. Everyone laughs that off, but it is a big deal. I believe Pitt would fit nicely in the Big 10 where as Mizzou would be lagging a little bit.

I would hate to see Mizzou go, but this could result in change for the Big 12 policies that Improve the TV package and Increase Revenue Sharing.

This is important, but at the end of the day, Mizzou brings many more TV sets than Pitt. Most of the sets Pitt brings, already have an eye on PSU. It's like adding Iowa State. They make great sense in the fact that they already have a rival in the Big 10, and they have strong academics, but TV revenues are big. That's why Rutgers is the most likely Big East school, and I think Mizzou is the most likely school period.