Agree with you on the latter, the first is kind of laughable. Seriously maybe baseball or if you are really looking to stretch women's basketball or hockey but basketball and football (and I would say probably really only football) is what they are thinking about when determining conference expansion. I don't think they are wondering how Nebraska's track team or Mizzou's gymnastics' team are going to fit in the Big 10.

I can see MBBF wanting to exclude women's basketball, considering Coach Anderson's daughter plays for the Longhorns.

Just to be clear, DeArmond is saying that there has been no formal bid offered. If you go to both of the MU fan boards where he regularly posts (PowerMizzou and Tigerboard), Mike makes it very clear that he's believes they've already informally offered a bid.

Here's a good interview from this morning of Mike's son (Gabe) that talks about the current situation and also talks about much of the build up that got us in this situation with regards to the Texas schools.

http://vmedia.rivals.com/images/Riva...010RivalsR.wma

The one that got away. :D

Here's a comparison between the Director's Cup rankings of Big 10 and Big 12 athletic programs since 2000. The Director's Cup tracks 10 men's sports and 10 women's sports at each school, and is based solely on competitions, not revenue.

NACDA OFFICIAL ATHLETIC SITE - Directors Cup

Good job, cartman!

There is elite: Texas, Michigan, OSU and then there is everybody else. Mizzou would barely crack the top 10 in the Big Ten.

Just a bunch of upstart jackanapes!

What about only the past three years, only taking into account the Director's Cup points earned in football and men's basketball?

Looking at less than 10 years worth of performance makes it rather useless. You have to see performance over time, not just "what have you done for me lately".

The sooner you guys realize that Missouri is solely getting into the Big Ten on their elite athletic merits the better off you guys will be. ;)

PS: I love how MBBF picks and chooses the years for his arguments. Two years in basketball. Three in football. I wonder what happened in the years before that to get them excluded from his argument? Were they simply erased by the NCAA?

I dunno, maybe Butler is going to be the supersecret next invitee ;)

What a surprise
Big Ten quashes latest expansion rumors - College Football - Rivals.com

I'll say it again. The guy who started the rumor yesterday (Kevin Kietzman) is a complete clown. His only sources are tied to KSU athletics and I highly doubt anyone at KSU has any idea who was and wasn't floated an initial query from the Big Ten. Kietzman is notorious for throwing out crazy conspiracy stories based on his supposed sources. Gary Patterson to KSU being another one of my favorites.

That being said, I wouldn't be surprised if the Big Ten has sent out feelers to various programs to gauge their interest. I also wouldn't be surprised if offers weren't officially extended later this year or even longer. I know there are supposed dates, but I can't see the Big Ten rushing their decision simply to expand.

I wouldn't put much stock in Delaney offering a denial. That was as standard as a denial gets if you ask me. I mean people didn't believe USC when they say they didn't cheat did they?

I would put even less stock in anything that Kevin Kietzman says. I find it odd that a big news story such as multiple schools being offered (even under the table) spots in the Big Ten was broken by a clown like Kevin Kietzman with no other sources breaking that same news across the nation. All Kevin Kietzman did was take the various rumors that we've been hearing for the last few weeks and he attempted to make them "official" with his sources.

I realize that you're not looking for rational discussion, but I included three years of both sports, which would have included the bad year of basketball for Mizzou and a good year for Michigan.


Agreed. It's a standard response that didn't change much of anything other than to give reporters another story to write about this topic today.

And as mentioned before, if you're a big fan of all college sports, more power to you. You've definitely got me there. Our women's equestrian team and men's swimming team bring us down every single year. Curses!

Actually, my comment was in regards to your saying: "Two North titles in the last three years in football. Two very successful years with the basketball program." It just seems like you're picking the years that put MU in a much better light. Are you suggesting that's a coincidence?

Well, I was speaking about current success in the programs. That usually involves highlighting, well, current success.

I appreciate your fervor to try to downplay every post I make, but it comes off as a bit stalkerish at this point.

I find it humorous also. The KU fans hang out at the Mizzou boards all the time telling us how much they don't care about Mizzou. (not implying the meanstrosity is a troll, just debunking the Mizzou is irrelevant to KU fans debate) And everyone on this board is so quick to try and counter your arguments that are "ridiculous" and that "they don't care about". They sure spend a lot of time worrying about a new poster who doesn't know your views being unduly influenced by you. (I know you enjoy it also so I do not wish that they ignore you just saying that both sides are pretty ridiculous) Arguing academics and the tenth sport after basketball, football, women's basketball, track, baseball, soccer, field hockey, swimming... is the epitome of insanity.

I'd certainly note that I have two daughters and I would think it was fantastic if they decide to play a sport at the HS, college, or professional level. I'd be extremely proud of them and watch all of their games/events. With that said, any excitement that I might have on a personal level for their success still wouldn't change the fact that basketball and football are king at the college level and the rest of the sports don't mean a hill of beans in comparison.

I agree that it was the standard denial, but there have been rumors of schools being offered and provisional acceptance. If there was acceptance, why deny it?

Actually, no you didn't. You should really re-read what you post. The original post had nothing to do with "current success". You were responding to a post regarding "success". Not "current success". Just plain success. You have since added "current success" because Sooner and others called you on it. I just find it humorous you can only go back three years when talking about Missouri's "success". You're getting into the Big Ten because of tv and state population. Isn't that enough? It's enough for Notre Dame why can't it be enough for Missouri?

Good thing you came in and told everyone what Sooner and I were saying. There's certainly no one here who could have read it themselves.

Relax. Goodness me.

I'm as big a Missouri fan as a KU guy can be. My family's home town is where Norm Stewart grew up so you can bet they are die hard Tigers. So believe me when I say I have absolutely nothing against the Tigers. I have tons of respect for guys like Brad Smith and Clarence Gilbert for the class way they handled themselves while at Missouri. And everyone on these forums knows how I feel about Norm Stewart. One of the great Big 8 coaches and best soundbyte.

I call any fan out that tries to make their program out to be more than what it really is. MBBF is one of those fans who has a tendency to want to tell people how great their program is even when it's not. So rather than coming off as a MU fan he comes off as a tool. He needs to figure out that it's ok to criticize your program once in a while. MU has a great athletic department. Definitely a better overall department than my alma mater. But it's by no means perfect and it's ok to say that.

Two words: Notre Dame.

Everyone's waiting on their decision. As soon as that happens, the Big Ten will be ready to extend formal invites. They're not going to announce anything until they know exactly which schools will be added to the conference. They know they're adding three, they just don't know if they're adding two more in addition to those three and which two those would be.

So now you're mad at me for correcting you? There's no need to get so defensive. You got confused with two conversations. It happens.

And you aren't looking for a rational discussion either by only looking at three years in two sports.

I loved how he danced around his reasoning for taking the last three years in his initial "successful program" argument, lol. He couldn't have been more obvious yet he still won't actually come out and say why he only mentioned the successful years. He picked the last three years because they were "current". And five years isn't? Oh man, MBBF if I didn't know any better I could swear you were a sock MU poster, lol.

oh yeah well if we just look at 1980 and only at water polo then MIZZOU IS DA SHIT!!!

I still blame Quin Snyder for the Tiger water polo team's demise.

I appreciate that others may be interested in other sports. I am not. I'm only interested in the sports that matter at any relevant level. I engaged in a conversation about the recent years because as I mentioned before, prestige is often brought out as a crutch for programs that are currently not performing at a successful level. Michigan and Ohio State were used as examples. I showed that Ohio State and Missouri have nearly identical won/loss records in recent years and I showed that Michigan hasn't even been remotely close to performing at the same level. Michigan may have a great history/prestige, but they've sucked of late

Mizzou does not have a water polo team.

How does this change the fact that you aren't looking for a rational discussion, only one that paints Mizzou in the best possible light?

Excellent. We'll agree that five years is current. Here are the numbers, which don't change the discussion at all. OSU improves even more under this scenario and would still be considered successful (understatement). Mizzou still has a very healthy football winning percentage and surprisingly good basketball percentage given how rough those two extra years were. Michigan remains in third place under this scenario and still doesn't measure up to Mizzou by your own definition of what is considered current. My argument holds up whether it's three years (the measure I used) or five years (the measure you preferred).

Football records last five years

OSU 54-10
Mizzou 45-21
Michigan 38-27

Basketball records last five years

OSU 136-42
Mizzou 100-62
Michigan 88-77

Which simply isn't true. I just don't care about the Director's Cup as much as you do. I don't think we'd be holding parades in Columbia if we won the Cup (also known as the 'Title IX' cup by most college fans).

I'm with Cartman on this one. You're basically taking the three years that MU has had success and then trying to draw comparisons that MU is equal or better. You compared OU and MU in one argument without even discussing the fact that they played each other multiple times in those three years in both football and basketball. MU won one game compared to five losses to the Sooners in football and basketball. As Cartman said, you're not looking to have a rational discussion you're simply looking to paint Missouri in a bright black and gold light of your choosing. I would love it if you could have a fair and unbiased discussion about Missouri athletics. In this thread alone you've suggested Missouri has a bigger or stronger fan base than Nebraska without showing any proof whatsoever. Missouri is equal or better than the Sooners in football and basketball despite having only one win over the Sooners to show for it. You're a Missouri sock aren't you? You have to be!

With all the bickering, I'm kinda confused. What IS the discussion, anyway?

Never heard it called that. It's usually referred to as the Stanford Cup. Nobody actually cares about the cup, but it does generally dictate the ability of your athletic department

Yet you continually use the term 'Mizzou's athletic program', and the Director's Cup is widely regarded as the measuring stick to use to compare OVERALL athletic programs, not cherry picked sports in a program. But since Mizzou doesn't score as well as you'd like, you dismiss it. I guaran-damn-tee that if Mizzou had a historically good scoring in the Director's Cup, it would be one of the metrics you would tout.

While wins/losses are probably the most important aspect, I think you would also have to look at postseason success and NBA/NFL players produced to get a good idea of a program's prestige.

Actually, it shows OSU is much stronger than your original argument gave them credit for. Your earlier numbers had MU and OSU nearly equal. Five years spells a different picture. I guess I'm not sure why you're comparing MU to Michigan since they've really not had much success recently. What was your reasoning for picking Michigan in the first place? Both football and basketball are in the middle of fairly new coaching regimes so it's kind of like comparing MU to Colorado.

Pants or shorts?

The comment was made that someone couldn't wait to start seeing the comparisons between OSU, Mizzou, and UM. I didn't select the teams.

It's hard to tell. At least cartman and I have presented some actual information related to the discussion. A poster said they couldn't wait to see the OSU/Mizzou/UM comparisons, so I went ahead and did it.

Agreed. But my point didn't center around prestige. I actually noted that it did not involve that because prestige is often used as a way to save a program from how lousy they've been of late. Prestigious programs that do well don't need to trumpet their past.

I wouldn't, though I'm sure some would. I care about football and basketball and little else. If you're hung up on me referring to the football and basketball programs as the 'athletic program', then I'll grant you that you're technically correct. But those two programs run the ship and the rest are just tag-alongs as far as I'm concerned.

Oh my

Okay, well when you've figured out what the discussion is, let me know and I'll go back and read the actual information you've posted relating to it.

It's what the discussion always is.

Missouri: Great Program or Greatest Program?

The UCLA program is another fine example of a program which has 'prestige' and holds onto that for dear life given their recent results.