They don't. Kevin Kietzman (the talk show host who is making these claims) is a complete clown. He's whiffed on a few stories citing his sources already this year and we're not even half way through the year, lol. I don't know whether or not those schools have been offered, but I'd want a better source than Kevin Kietzman. I'll believe it when other people with ties to those programs start talking.

That's based on carriage of the Big Ten network in Missouri alone. The theory (largely correct) is that if Missouri joins the Big Ten network will become a standard cable channel here. I think there are around 2.5 million cable subscribers in Missouri, and 50 cents a pop per month for the network comes out about right.

The University of Missouri has put out its statement:
"MU is a member of the Big 12 Conference and will not respond to speculation about conference realignment.”

The KC Star is reporting that university officials had a two-hour conference call Thursday to discuss conference realignment.

I'm not as harsh as meanstrosity but the reporter in this case sometimes gets it right and sometimes gets it wrong. But this story is big enough and detailed enough that if he's wrong on this one, he'll be a laughing stock.

He's also very careful to describe this as initial offers -- nothing on paper, nothing in writing, no dollar amounts. Essentially he's reporting that the Big Ten has told this schools it wants to extend an official invitation but wants them to commit to saying yes before they get asked. That's a scenario I buy.

But did Kietzman originally lead with this explanation (unofficial invitation) or as the day progressed did he add this on? I didn't listen, but I wouldn't be surprised if he's covering his backside after others came out and disputed his claims. So then he adds that these aren't official invites, blah blah blah.

Oh and when was the last time you remember Kietzman breaking a legit scoop from a source of his? It's been a long while. He was wrong about the Lance Stephenson to KSU scoop. He was wrong about the Big 12 investigating Kansas' Orange Bowl bid. That was my favorite simply because he played a few gullible MU fans for an entire week on that, lol. He was wrong about Selby to Kansas and Lamb to Kentucky. I'm sure I'm missing some of his other blunders. The only reason the guy hosts a radio show is because he owns a part of the station.

lol

I would avoid FOFC for about a week after those games.

Except St. Louis already carries the Big Ten network for the fighting Illini so slice that number by about 30% before we even get started and then Directv also has it so thats another big chunk unless you already took that out of the 2.5 million which seems like an awfully big number.

Yeah Kietzman is an idiot. He sure does suck Mizzou fans in all the time about "How much they hate him". I never really understood why they listen to him. (The same phenomenon happens here in St. Louis with Kevin Slaten) I liken it to the political threads where people talk about hating Limbaugh, Beck, Franken, etc and keep giving them the press they so much desire by talking about them all the time.

Kietzman sucks every fan base in with these crazy conspiracy theories. I don't know if this one is true or not, but he has a history of being wrong more than right. The guy is a complete and utter clown. I love the fact he attacks athletes' characters given his past indiscretions.

Big 10 Fans, get ready for RutgersAL.

No, he said it from the get go that these initial invitations. He described the contact made so far as being similar to what happens when teams are waiting to hire a new coach -- making contact and making sure that the coach will listen or say yes before they ask permission to contact or make an offer. Kietzman pointed out from the beginning that nothing would be official until an offer was in writing and the state got involved.

Kietzman's best reporting days are behind him and I disagree with a lot of his takes, but this is a different scenario. In regard to those recruiting stories, that was purely speculation on his part -- not sure he ever said his sources said they were done.

I don't know who his sources are other than I know he's got connections with some people at the Big Ten Network and I think that's where this story is coming from. If you read the online story, the one compelling piece of evidence is in regard to MU subscriber numbers for the network. That makes me think his source is with the network.

Oh no, I heard him talk about Selby and Lamb. Those were based on his sources. I know this because it was exactly opposite of what every other source was suggesting. The Orange Bowl bid was another one of his "sources" and he spent almost a week on it telling everyone that KU was under investigation despite the fact that Big 12 officials denied his story from the beginning. So you can't downplay any of those. I actually heard those stories myself. The guy is wrong more often than he is right. At least this time he covered his backside early in the story.

Didn't DeArmond and the University of Missouri shoot Kietzman's theory down? I'm not a huge DeArmond fan, but he clearly has better sources at Missouri than Kietzman.

I'm the first person to suggest that MU is likely gone from the Big 12 especially if the Big Ten expands to 16. But I'll believe it when someone with connections better than Kietzman suggests it. If this rumor were true Kietzman would be one of the last people to air the story and you'd be hearing it from everybody and their sources.

Fantastic thread title change.

I despise that hairy fuck.

At some level, KK isn't even really breaking this story. Much of this information was already out there late last week. It's just one more layer of smoke more than anything else. The school denials are pretty amusing at this point, but I suppose it's what they re supposed to say.


It's all the same situation and will end up with the same result. This isn't like a job offer where you're applying to join a list of candidates. It's more like a background check. They're asking for your formal information. If everything checks out and meets their standards for admission to the conference, you're in.

You're throwing me a giant softball here. Must resist.

I have been hearing this a lot lately about Mizzou (and I guess the same could be said about KU). When did Iowa, Minnesota, and Illinois become the Ivy League of the Midwest?

I actually wasn't thinking in terms of academics, but have you seen where those three schools are ranked in the US News and World Report rankings? Illinois is #39, Iowa is 71, and Minnesota is 61. In comparison Missouri is 102 and Kansas is 96. Nebraska is tied with Kansas at 96. KSU isn't even in the same tier.

People have already pointed it out in this thread. That report often encourages schools to do things that can be detrimental to the overall health of the school if you want to increase your ranking. The schools that no longer participate in that list, some very prominent small academic institutions, now numbers around 100. In addition, it's been clearly documented over the past couple of years the great lengths that some schools go to in order to secure a high ranking, despite some actions that would seem to be contrary to what's best for the students and the institution. A prime example is the week long instructional classes held to teach schools how to optimize their score on the US News rankings.

News: 'Manipulating,' Er, Influencing 'U.S. News' - Inside Higher Ed

Other examples involve where universities lower class sizes in some classes by increasing attendance in other classes that were not used in the rankings calculation. They also saw where presidents had given lower scores to competitor universities to improve the standing of their own university. Misleading salary reports can also boost the score of a university. There's no audit process to actually verify the information provided, so there's no way to verify the validity of the rankings.

Do Not Place Too Much Emphasis on U.S. News College Rankings | The Digital Student Blog

It's quickly become a situation where the top presidents call for higher rankings when they take a job and then manipulate the system to artificially raise their rankings. It's sounds more like something that a Wall Street CEO would do rather than the president of an academic institution, yet that's exactly what's happening.

In recent weeks, they've also announced that future ratings will include the opinions of school execs, which will likely only further skew the bias towards certain universities and reduce the ranking of others based on perception rather than any real measurement.

U.S. News & World Report Changes Ranking Process

Anyone who uses these rankings as a measurement is wasting their time. They're a good starting point if a student want to get a list of universities to consider, but should never be used in terms of comparison of schools. They lack any real validity in that regard.

Wow, and a higher ed expert to boot!

Yeah I was talking more along the lines of elite vs good. You don't see Obama picking a Mizzou grad for the Supreme Court but I don't think an Iowa Hawkeye or a Michigan State Spartan were in the running either.

I know a lot about bratwurst too, but just haven't found the right thread for that yet. I ate two of them this weekend. Fantastic stuff.

This stuff is likely true, but then again nothing is saying that the current Big Ten schools are doing this stuff any more than Missouri, Kansas, etc. US News and World Report isn't the end all be all, but it's just one of a few ways to compare colleges. Earlier in this thread you wanted to use freshman ACT scores which is worse IMO given each school has different standards of admission that have nothing to do with the quality of education you receive. So you pick your poison.

Well, your statement on standardized scores is only partially true. Nevertheless, you won't find me disagreeing that both are an unreliable measure overall. Neither are worth much relatively speaking. A school is only as good as what it can offer each individual student. Outside of that, it's a worthless pissing match as panerd rightfully pointed out.

He is right on the uselessness of the rankings, but I don't think anyone really would boast the academic prestige of those schools previously mentioned with or without the those rankings.

I am definitely not arguing the merits of Mizzou at all. I went there obviously and think they did me right but I know plenty of guys from my high school that also got in that weren't the brightest bulbs in the world. I am just saying that a lot of Big Ten people (I live in St. Louis so we have a lot of Illinois and Iowa graduates at my work and in my neighborhood) claim that Mizzou is not up to the prestige of the Big Ten's academics. And for that I wonder what the hell they are talking about?

I remember you being a Pac-10 guy and I would never try to take on Cal, Stanford, UCLA, etc in a academic argument, but not sure where the Big Ten gets all their firepower.

Silly question:





Northwestern is pretty solid too when it comes to academics.

And no one has argued that they aren't good institutions. Each conference has their top dogs and some lower hanging fruit. In the end though, the institutions being considered fit in just fine amongst the Big Ten member institutions and all of them have strengths that compliment those esisting members well.

Outside of that, it's nothing more than a baseless fan pissing match.

I am not even following this argument, so don't pull me into this. I just read panerd's post and decided it was time to post an ginormous Block M for school pride and such.

Personally, I never really consider the Big Ten as anything other than an athletic affiliation. I never considered the academic reputation of any other Big Ten school as having any kind of an impact on the academic reputation or quality of academics at Michigan. I also never really considered that fans would have a pissing match over the quality of academics at other schools in the conference. Does that really happen? Weird.

The Big Ten has always put a focus on their strong academics. So that's probably why people talk about "academic fit". Do I think it has anything to do with their current expansion? No. They are solely in it to open up new markets just as every other conference will look to do in the very near future. Hence why I originally laughed at MBBF's statement regarding "meeting the Big Ten's standards for admission".

Come on man, Rutgers is USC on the Weekend and Harvard during the week because of Al.

I agree that the Big Ten as a conference certainly claims it puts a focus on their strong academics. Then again, the NCAA claims to be all about the "student athlete" too. It's all a bunch of malarky. The Big Ten and NCAA are all about the Benjamins. This is expansion talk is all about $$$$.

Also, while I understand when a Conference would play up its academics and say it focuses on strong academics, since, you know, they are univserities at all, I just find fans bragging or engaging in pissing matches about their conference's academics (or any college's academics, other than their own alma matter or university) to be really, really odd and silly. But, people brag and engage in pissing matches about more ridiculous things.

Oh lord, please don't let Missouri go to the Big Ten.

I think MBBF comparing Mizzou to Ohio State and Michigan in prestige would just about drive me from FOFC entirely.

I'm excited for the year and a half (or so) between Missouri accepting and joining, when MBBF can legitimately claim that Mizzou is undefeated in the Big Ten. :)

.

Since we own Illinois every year we sort of are. :)

You should tune into the MLB thread. I always laud that the Royals are undefeated......when they're 0-0.

Agreed. Prestige is a crutch for schools that don't have a successful program. Ohio State and Mizzou don't have that issue.

You can consider that the first salvo.

Just for the record, this is not correct. St. Louis is currently only charged 10 cents per subscriber since it is outside of the state of Illinois. I'm 100% positive about that. That rate will go up to 70 cents per subscriber once Mizzou becomes a member of the Big Ten. All subscribers in Missouri and Nebraska will have the same change.

I don't know what Ohio State is successful for. Missouri has a succesful journalism school, I do know that. Of course, if I lived in Ohio, had to hear Hang on Sloopy all the time, and was forced to live in Colombus (something I wish on nobody), I'd probably know what Ohio State was famous for more than Mizzou.

At first I thought this was successful program in sports...then I realized that Missouri was mentioned and that couldn't be true, with no Final Fours and no football conference championships since the 1960s.

Well at least Ohio State doesn't.

Otherwise, you're getting into Monty Python level silliness.

Missouri makes Georgia Tech look like USC/Duke/Notre Dame all rolled into one.

Appreciate you making my point. Not only that, but you fit your argument to ignore basketball, where Mizzou has had multiple conference championships and #1 rankings.

Prestige is a crutch used by those who aren't successful. Ohio State and Missouri both have basketball and football programs currently that are very successful.

Mizzou has a very good program on both fronts. Two North titles in the last three years in football. Two very successful years with the basketball program. I'm not sure why that's not considered successful.

Mizzou aren't even in the conference yet and already I'm contemplating how I'm going to deal with them and tarcone in a couple years.

Maybe I'll just start following the MAC, go Huskies.

Just an addendum to help sooner fan out a bit. Here's the records over the past three years in basketball and football. There's two programs that have done well and one that has not. I'll let you read the fine print for yourself. I'm not even sure I knew how bad it was until I looked it up for myself.

Football records last three years

OSU 32-7
Mizzou 30-11
Michigan 16-20

Basketball records last three years

OSU 75-32
Mizzou 70-34
Michigan 44-53

Currently successful. But let's see, you're relying conference championships. Missouri hasn't won a regular season conference title since 1994, one conference ago. It has won a single Big XII Tournament title, last year (beating the 11th, 7th, and 9th best teams en route, but it's still quite an accomplishment).

Football has taken a big step up. They've been to two Big 12 Title Games which is pretty good. But, they haven't beat Oklahoma or Texas since the 1990s.

I will give you that Missouri has been successful. Very successful is probably something I won't give you, and I understand that we'll be disagreeing about that until I'm convinced otherwise. Very successful, to me, is elite. Very successful in the past 10 years would not include Michigan either.

Dola,

I never said Michigan was better than Missouri. Academically, sure...I don't think you would argue that. Athletically, Missouri has had a better three years like you have said. They probably have had a better ten years, or at least even given the latter-half of the Quin Snyder era. So, I don't need statistics to point it out...I even said as much in my last post before I even saw your response above mine.

Also, Mizzou has had a great three years. A conference tournament basketball title and an Elite 8, and two appearances in the Big 12 Championship game for football. Maybe that's even very successful in the very short window. But, let's be honest, it's not something that's been going on for much longer than that. You can call it prestige bias or whatever you want, but being the third-most-successful program in the conference over the past three years doesn't make you an elite program.

I'll respect Mizzou's last three years. I've been in the conference and I've watched it happen. Don't expect others to give three years as much credit as the past fifty when they've not been paying as much attention in their conference which you are desperate to join. That's my point I guess.

I'm simply speaking in the present and it appears you agree with that assessment.

Just for reference, OU is one game better in football (31-10) and four games worse in basketball (66-36) during that same timeframe. So roughly the same level of success between the two programs.

Update: Mike DeArmond of the Kansas City Star is reporting that Missouri officials have begun discussing the possibility of joining the Big Ten. The rumors that circulated yesterday saying that the Big Ten had offered Nebraska, Notre Dame, Rutgers and Missouri membership in its soon-to-be-expanded conference are untrue, however, according to DeArmond and other reports. While there's no indication which way these Missouri officials are leaning with regards to joining the Big Ten, the fact remains that, if it is offered a spot, the school will likely have a tough time saying no.
--
Following up on yesterday's post, St. Louis-Post Dispatch columnist Bryan Burwell writes that there's no reason why Missouri shouldn't say yes to the Big Ten, if and when it offers to bring the school on board as part of its expansion plan.

The media in Big 12 country continue to harp on the uneven balance of power in the conference that leans heavily toward the South Division where Texas and Oklahoma reside. Also, teams are not given equal amounts from TV revenue in the Big 12, whereas in the Big Ten, each school is given $22 million (Mizzou currently rakes in $9 million). If the Big Ten could bring in two conference rivals (say Nebraska and/or Kansas), then the move would only make more sense for Missouri.

You do realize that there are more than two collegiate sports and that three years is by no means a definitive time frame? Oh wait, of course you don't.

Using that indicator, sure. I'll go a step further and rely on the 3-0 head-to-head record in football (including two in Big 12 Championship Games at neutral sites) and a 2-1 record in basketball (although both teams won their home games). And I'll raise your Elite Eight by a Final Four. Also, I'll take two BCS games over zero, but you can have your three game men's basketball+football aggregate record advantage. FYI, the period you picked also included the worst season under Bob Stoops and the worst basketball season since the early 1981, but we still came out only three games worse aggregate with more accomplishments to boot.

Again, I'll give you that the past three years have been good for Mizzou. I won't give you that it means you're all of a sudden a big-time player in college athletics. That's something you have to earn over time. OU doesn't have a National Championship in basketball and that hurts our reputation despite going to the Final Four twice in the last decade. Just because we have been a "good" basketball team and sometimes even "very successful" over a three-year period, doesn't mean that we have national respect, or even that we should have earned that respect.

I'm using a current frame of reference to show how programs have done of late and comparing apples to apples given the discussion.

If you're interested in talking about women's diving, golf, and softball, go right ahead. With all due respect to those other sports, 99% of the general population couldn't give a flying rip about anything outside of the big two sports.