As opposed to a dead one, of course. Missouri Student Association President Tim Noce is lobbying for an actual tiger to be present on the sidelines for Mizzou football games. He’s gone so far as to contact breeders about buying a tiger – the going rate is $13,000 for a tiger – and the St. Louis Zoo about renting a tiger six times a year.

I can’t say I’m a big a fan of the idea. Seems a bit trite, but whatever. I like tigers. They’re big and strong and striped. They’re fast and powerful and scary. What’s not to like? Actual tigers don’t follow football, though, so I imagine it’d be pretty boring for him or her to lay around on the sidelines for three hours on a Saturday. Also, the Missouri Tiger represents civil war era toughs who called their band of vigilantes “Tigers.” Mizzou could have live civil war reenactors on the sidelines. There’s a thought.

The Missourian’s original piece drew a scathing letter from a Columbian woman noting that live tigers are costly to get and to maintain. She also threw in:

What exactly might a tiger feel living here in Columbia, in confinement or on a leash for hours on a football field with gyrating, screaming, drinking fans while the band blares on? Also, live mascot tigers are sedated, declawed and perhaps have a few teeth removed. And very likely they are castrated.

Is she talking about Tiger Woods?

Hire me, I need the money….

Anyway, I agree with irate lady – we don’t need a live tiger or Tiger.

Now, the alternative might work. A dead tiger would be much cheaper, I’d think. Really, what’s one need with a dead tiger? We buy a dead tiger at the beginning of the year and mark the season’s progress by its decomposition. It’d be a learning experience. By November the games would include maggots and buzzards and fainting dead tiger handlers. We could position the corpse along the opponents’ sideline making them too ill to compete at a high level. Plus, they’d have to dodge the aforementioned buzzards.

So, who wants a tiger at the games? Dead or alive.