Column:

Missouri should move to Big Ten

By Jake Kreinberg

Published Feb. 9, 2010

Last week, the rumor mills claimed the University of Pittsburgh was preparing to accept an invitation to the Big Ten Conference.

Although this rumor turned out to be false, it made some members of the MU community pause. When the Big Ten issued a statement in December about exploring expansion to 12 teams (from 11 — they need a name change), Missouri was considered one of the early favorites.

The Big 12 is no laughing matter. It is one of the six major conferences, and its universities are competitive in every NCAA sport in which they participate. The conference dominates its portion of the nation, as well as the "country" of Texas. On paper, a move to the Big Ten seems questionable, because it would cause a big commotion for an inconsequential transfer from one prestigious conference to another.

Should Missouri accept a Big Ten invitation, MU would make significant gains both financially and in reputation. And in this world we live in, is there anything else that matters?

In 2008, Missouri athletics received the sixth-highest payout from the Big 12 at $8.4 million. Texas collected $10.2 million. The contract rewards teams that appear on television more often, and, surprise, the Longhorns are awarded more airtime. The same is true for Kansas in basketball. If teams at the forefront of the Big 12 keep receiving more exposure, the schools at the bottom of the conference (i.e. Iowa State) will start finding it difficult to even turn a profit as athletic costs increase.

The Sporting News estimates MU would gain $10 million per year through athletics should it switch conferences. The Big Ten possesses more lucrative television contracts in addition to its own Big Ten Network, allowing it to pay member schools $20 million each year. The probable addition of a football championship game accounts for the increased revenue necessary to sustain a 12th team. Its schools are located in higher populated states, providing more exposure for the conference.

Gains would also be made inside the classroom. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon attributes part of Missouri's programs' lack of exposure to the Big 12.

"I'm not going to say anything bad about the Big 12, but when you compare Oklahoma State to Northwestern, when you compare Texas Tech to Wisconsin, I mean, you begin looking at educational possibilities that are worth looking at," Nixon told The Associated Press in December.

Two arguments for staying with the Big 12 include jeopardizing the rivalry with Kansas and football recruiting from areas in Texas. The situation with the Jayhawks would mirror Missouri's arrangement with Illinois, with a neutral site football game and a single basketball game. Yes, the loss of a basketball game per year cannot be quantified but could still develop into a Kentucky-Louisville atmosphere. Honestly, watching that game every year, I sometimes forget they are in different conferences.

No doubt Missouri football coach Gary Pinkel would be the guy on campus most against the move. Moving to a conference based around the Great Lakes would severely hamper the visibility of MU in Texas, where Missouri attracts most of its players. Although some players would still commit, Pinkel would have to fill the gaps with players from new areas of the country.

In the modern era of college athletics, if you snooze, you lose. That's why if I were on the UM system Board of Curators, I would take the money, exposure and reputation of the Big Ten.