(11-16-2015 06:22 PM)DavidSt Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 12:35 PM)LUSportsFan Wrote:  

(11-16-2015 01:45 AM)DavidSt Wrote:  Lets not forget that the Big 12 do not have much of a large tv markets for their schools. Texas, Tech, TCU and Oklahoma are pretty much it. Losing Colorado, Missouri and Texas A&M hurts.

Missouri State came up because Springfield, MO. have their own tv market. If the Big 12 really wants to get back into Missouri and can't have Missouri back? Missouri State might be a replacement like Colorado State could replace the Denver market lost.

Beggers can't be choosers anymore when it comes to expansions, and who you could add that could sell your conference network.

Missouri State would really need to step up the commitment.

Based on the Department of Education's OPE Equity in Athletics database, Missouri State's total athletic expenses for the 12 month period ending June 30, 2015 is a little over $16 million. In comparison, the spending on football alone for all but one or two current Big12 members is considerably over that amount. Total annual athletic expenses for Big12 members range from around $64+ million up to $152+ million.

http://ope.ed.gov/athletics/

Yeah. What is keeping them down is the attitude of some of their leaders.

The only way Missouri State sees the "Big 12" in our lifetime is if the current Big 12 disbands, the rights to the name are sold, and a Midwest G5 conference is created under the banner and invites them. That's it.

There is no way Missouri State sees the current Big 12 in our lifetimes. No. Way.

For SWMS to even become MSU, it had to pledge it wouldn't duplicate programs offered by MU. The notion to rename had nothing to do with mission or scope, it was enrollment. MSU sounds like it fits in with ISU, KSU, and OSU...the "-SU" is probably the only commonality.

There's some likeness to MAC schools, but "flagship" and "land grant" are not distinctions given to Mo State. Missouri State would have to throw it down with Mizzou, duplicating programs and alter its mission (good luck when the state will give Missouri what it wants every time) to even begin looking like a Big XII school. What's an honest timeline for such change?

(11-17-2015 05:31 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  For SWMS to even become MSU, it had to pledge it wouldn't duplicate programs offered by MU. The notion to rename had nothing to do with mission or scope, it was enrollment. MSU sounds like it fits in with ISU, KSU, and OSU...the "-SU" is probably the only commonality.

There's some likeness to MAC schools, but "flagship" and "land grant" are not distinctions given to Mo State. Missouri State would have to throw it down with Mizzou, duplicating programs and alter its mission (good luck when the state will give Missouri what it wants every time) to even begin looking like a Big XII school. What's an honest timeline for such change?

Most states want to create more than one school to be like an AAU school status type. State of Missouri would try and change Missouri State into a very high research school. Why would these states legislators want this? So that they can bring in more Federal Grants into the state.
Missouri, Missouri State and Missouri S&T could become that distinction. Missouri is big enough to have more schools to be AAU type in academics.
Texas is working on getting more schools to be very high academics besides Texas and Texas A&M. Houston, UTEP, North Texas, UTSA and West Texas A&M seemed to be the targets to upgrade them to be piers to Texas and Texas A&M.
Colorado State is working on to be a Pier to Colorado.

I would disagree with that. Texas is set to cannibalize Houston by adding a commuter school in Houston.