The Kansas City Star's Missouri Tigers cheerleader beat writer Mike DeArmond has been banging the secession drum, saying Mizzou might leave the Big 12 for the Big 11 Ten ever since the Insight and Independence bowls took a pass on the 8-4 Tigers, sending them to Houston to play in the Texas Bowl.
The story in yesterday's edition of the Star is pretty straightforward; the same can't be said for DeArmond's Campus Corner blogs. His musings have sounded like a spoiled child whining about spending December in Houston.
"If Big Ten Called, Missouri Would Listen,"
DeArmond titled his Monday blog. He claimed Missouri's willingness to listen "with an enthusiastic
ear" was more than "just some ploy to gain leverage with the power
brokers of the Big 12."
No. Couldn't be a ploy to get some of the Big Ten's sweet, sweet TV and bowl money.
DeArmond has been calling the Big 12 the "New Southwest Conference," a
reference to the domineering influence of the Texas schools that joined
the Big 12 after the demise of the old Southwest Conference. DeArmond argues that Missouri is a second-class citizen in the Big 12.
Mike,
you got passed up for the 6-6 Iowa State Cyclones for the Insight Bowl. I'm a Cyclone
fan, and rarely does life choose not to punt us in the nuts. Yeah, I'd
be pissed, too. Missouri had the better record. But the conference sold
out to the bowls, allowing them to invite whomever they want. Deal with
it. You think it's going to be much better with Penn State, Ohio State,
Michigan or even Iowa?
Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton released this statement in response to DeArmond's Mizzou to the Big Ten speculation:
"The University of Missouri has not been contacted by theThe Big Ten also released a statement saying they're exploring the idea of expansion but not talking to any institutions but there's no timetable.Big Ten. Should there be an official inquiry or invitation, we would
evaluate it based upon what would be in the best interest of MU
athletically and academically."
be surprised if the Big Ten wanted Missouri. The Kansas City/St. Louis
market is a good one, but Penn State is feeling awfully lonely on the
East Coast. The Big Ten has always coveted Notre Dame. Pittsburgh and
Rutgers would also top my list before Missouri. So would Nebraska.
If
Missouri wants to leave, I say see ya -- and enjoy yearly thumpings
from Penn State and Ohio State and hot rivalry with Illinois.
Meanwhile, DeArmond is no detached observer. He's Mizzou class of '72.
Showing 1-11 of 11
Do you have your Medical Marijuana Card and are you looking for your Marijuana Caregiver? Check out this website and find a Medical Marijuana Caregiver in your city today!
I think you could pick up that comment and use it as a blog post. What you wrote is great advice any way that you look at it.
As a Mizzou graduate I find, as I often do, examples of so-called journalists as yourself are nothing more than disappointing. Mizzou has been the unabashed redheaded stepchild of this (big 12) conference. It is plainly masochistic to stay in the conference after being slapped incessantly all these years.
>>Missouri had the better record. But the conference sold out to the bowls, allowing them to invite whomever they want. Deal with it. You think it's going to be much better with Penn State, Ohio State, Michigan or even Iowa?<<
--
Justin, if you would have attended the journalism school at Mizzou, you would have thought to check and compare policies at the Big 12 and Big Ten before writing your "article" (you probably wouldn't sound so childishly bitter in your rant, either).
As David Streuss points out above, moving to the Big Ten would guarantee that what has happened to MU the past three years in football would not happen again.
Plus, there's more money, better academics and more prestige in the Big Ten.
Regardless of what happens, Mizzou will be fine, and will be the odds-on favorite to win the North in football again next year if in the Big 12.
The Chicago Tribune makes a good point, too. The Big Ten could be after as many as three schools.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...
As a Big Ten alum (Michigan State), I think Missouri is the best fit. Lonely as Joe Pa might be, neither Rutgers nor Syracuse makes sense. Neither buys the NYC market and makes travel to/from Minnesota and Iowa very difficult. Further, Rutgers isn't a basketball or football power (their stadium was only recently expanded from 41,000) and Syracuse is dominated by Boeheim who won't want to leave the Big East.
Pitt also doesn't make sense. Why lock down the PA TV market - it doesn't get the Big Ten Network anything it doesn't already have. Finally, with regard to the Big East teams, taking one leaves a logical landing spot for Notre Dame - no way the Big Ten makes it easier for ND to land in the Big East for football.
Missouri is a geographic expansion but is still a midwestern state, buys the STL and KC markets for the BTN, and allows potential rivalries with Illinois and Iowa to really flourish. MU can keep its rivalry with Kansas through a non-conference game, gets better bowl tie-ins, and becomes a member of a conference that treats its members more equitably.
That being said if ND says 'yes' - which it won't - they're the one.
@ David, Since when is DeArmond a columnist. He's a reporter. He's not a columnist. He has no objectivity in this argument.
Actually Justin, the bowl selection would be better in the Big 10. B10 has rules prohibiting their bowls to take a 6-6 team over an 8-4 team. B10 is a well designed, well run conference. The B12 was set up like a poorly devised contract. Leads to chaos.
Rutgers opens up NY, but nobody follows Rutgers. Would be like the LA Raiders...big city, nobody shows up.
Nebraska may flirt with the idea, but they want to stay home and get an even better deal from the B12 in all of this.
Pitt is the only serious rival in the bunch that would provide MO competition in this race. Pitt makes some sense.
Oh, by the way, since when are columnists not supposed to have opinions or even be fans? What planet did you come from?
Is the fact that DeArmond is an MU alum any different than the fact the Star's sports editor is a KU alumn? The latter seems to have much more of an impact on the Star's sports coverage...
like
dislike
