Big Ten blog regulars know I've been stumping for Missouri as a possible addition to the Big Ten for quite some time.

Unless Notre Dame changes its tune about relinquishing its independent status, Missouri makes a lot of sense for the Big Ten. So do some others, but none fits as well geographically and from a competitive standpoint in the two major sports (football, men's basketball).

Since the Big Ten's public announcement of an expansion push in December, there has been a ton of buzz around Missouri, trying to gauge the school's interest.

So does the Big Ten make sense for Mizzou?

If you haven't done so already, check out this report that lays out the pros and cons for Missouri as a Big Ten expansion candidate. The main negatives are leaving the Big 12 and its rivalries, and possibly losing recruiting pipelines to Texas.

I was most interested in two reasons for Missouri to leave: the Big 12's lack of revenue sharing and the increased revenue the Big Ten would provide the school.

From the story:

What can’t be debated is the Big Ten’s superior wealth and exposure. ... The conference has agreements with the Big Ten Network at $2.8 billion for 25 years, and ESPN for $1 billion over 10 years. The deal is expected to pay the 11 conference members some $17 million to $20 million annually over the life of the contract, and the conference shares its revenue equally.

The Big 12 deals: $480 million with ABC/ESPN for eight years through 2016, and $78 million with Fox Sports through 2012. Last year the conference gave out between $7 million and $10 million per school, primarily through its media and bowl contracts.

Missouri’s athletic director, Mike Alden, sees MU and other Big 12 schools falling behind those in the Big Ten and Southeastern Conference, which also has lucrative media contracts.

"Illinois and Indiana will make $9 million more from its televisions contracts this year," Alden said. "Arkansas and Mississippi will make even more. That’s our comparison. In five years, they’ll have generated almost $50 million more than us without selling a ticket."

Translation: from a purely financial standpoint, Missouri would be crazy not to join the Big Ten if the opportunity presents itself.

Rivalries and traditions are great, but college athletics are about money. To dismiss this is naïve. And while the Big 12 isn't small beans by any means, the Big Ten brings in more money for programs trying to keep up.

Earlier this month, I made my first visit to Columbia, Mo. Though my trip wasn't work related, I made sure to check out Missouri's athletic facilities. From Faurot Field to Mizzou Arena to the athletic and training complex, Missouri's facilities were as good -- or in some cases, better -- than the ones in the Big Ten.

Facilities are only one part of the equation, albeit a big part. Missouri must maintain and eventually upgrade its facilities, and it won't be cheap. The Big Ten provides better revenue streams, not to mention a pot that gets divided equally among its members.

Texas and Oklahoma aren't getting any weaker, and the Big 12's power balance most definitely has shifted to the South division.

If the Big Ten comes calling, Missouri should listen. And while Mizzou's heart is in the Big 12, the heady move might be to take the money and run.