QUESTION: As Mizzou courts Purdue coach Matt Painter, the question arises: Is the Mizzou job a better one than the Purdue job? And, perhaps of more importance, does the Big 12 offer the long-term competition and viability of the Big Ten?

BRYAN BURWELL

The debate over which job is better is all relative. The fact that Matt Painter wants to consider another job other than his alma mater leads me to believe that something’s not all there with Purdue. What makes a great job anyway? Nowadays it is a commitment to the program, and that is something Missouri seems more willing to do.

Regarding the viability of the conferences, I am not so sure that it matters in this debate. Would you rather be sinking to the middle class in the Big Ten or rising to the championship class in the Big 12?

KATHLEEN NELSON

Purdue is a better job. Sure, Missouri is the only BCS-affiliated Division I school in the state. That fact SHOULD make in-state recruiting easier, but you still have to sign the kids. Mike Anderson didn’t crack the code on this side of the state, and his best recruits came from out-of-state. Sometimes, they want to go away to school. Sometimes, they don’t like a coach’s style. Recruiting in-state is a source of pride for alums but doesn’t have much value if you can successfully poach better players from other states. So that advantage for Missouri – its biggest – is in theory only.

Purdue’s biggest advantage is belonging to the Big Ten. Schools want to join the league. The value of belonging to the Big Ten isn’t going anywhere, other than up. Schools wanted to flee the Big 12. That instability should give pause to a coach from another power conference. He could find himself at Missouri – or Iowa State or Oklahoma State – scrambling to be accepted by a lesser conference in a few years. A lateral move could become a step back.

STU DURANDO

If you’re a coach examining every detail to determine where you want to be, you could find reasons to like one over the other. But they seem pretty similar to me at this point. Both have been on the rise for a few years. They’re in similar towns. Monetarily it seems Mizzou is more generous at this point. But at Purdue, you should benefit from the Big Ten Network and the extra money it generates for every school. Missouri has new facilities, but Purdue is building a practice facility/academic center/offices. As near as I can tell it comes down to personal preferences and, probably, salary.

TOM TIMMERMANN

I don’t know that the Mizzou job is that much better than the Purdue job, but if Mizzou is going to offer you $1 million more per year in salary, well, that seems to make a pretty strong case it’s a better job, especially if there’s a commitment to spend money on the program, which Mizzou seems to be doing. As for the relative levels of the Big 12 and the Big Ten, the Big 12 has Kansas and Texas, two consistent powers, and Kansas State. Is the Big 12 printing money like the Big Ten is? No, but it will provide a consistent level of good competition.

BILL COATS

I’d rate the Mizzou job as slightly better than Purdue. The reasons are better facilities, being the only major-conference school in the state, and having two in-state urban areas to recruit from. The Big 12 is every bit as good a conference as the Big Ten, year in and year out. And the Big 12 will actually be stronger overall with Colorado and Nebraska, which typically finish near the bottom of the standings, leaving next year. That will really ratchet up the in-conference competition.

JEFF GORDON

Big 12 (Minus-2) teams have won national titles in the past and will win them in the future. The conference doesn’t have its own TV network, but it gets massive national TV exposure. Minus Colorado and Nebraska, it should reign as the highest RPI conference. Purdue should be a bigger job right than Mizzou, due to its recent success, but the school has been slow to provide the staff top-level resources. Purdue will either fix that and keep Painter or go back or roll the dice with the next coach.