Anyways, Chip Brown from Orangebloods.com reports OU may apply to the Pac-12 by the end of the month.
Oklahoma will apply for membership to the Pac-12 before the end of the month, and Oklahoma State is expected to follow suit, a source close to OU's administration told Orangebloods.com.
Even though Pac-12 commissioner Larry Scott said Friday the Pac-12 was not interested in expansion at this time, OU's board of regents is fed up with the instability in the Big 12, the source said.
The OU board of regents will meet within two weeks to formalize plans to apply for membership to the Pac-12, the source said.
Messages left Sunday night with OU athletic director Joe Castiglione and Oklahoma State athletic director Mike Holder were not immediately returned.
If OU follows through with what appears to be a unanimous sentiment on the seven-member Oklahoma board of regents to leave the Big 12, realignment in college athletics could be heating back up. OU's application would be matched by an application from Oklahoma State, the source said, even though OSU president Burns Hargis and mega-booster Boone Pickens both voiced their support for the Big 12 last Thursday.
There is differing sentiment about if the Pac-12 presidents and chancellors are ready to expand again after bringing in Colorado and Utah last year and landing $3 billion TV contracts from Fox and ESPN. Colorado president Bruce Benson told reporters last week CU would be opposed to any expansion that might bring about east and west divisions in the Pac-12.
Currently, there are north and south divisions in the Pac-12. If OU and OSU were to join, Larry Scott would have to get creative.
Scott's orginal plan last summer was to bring in Colorado, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Oklahoma and Oklahoma State and put them in an eastern division with Arizona and Arizona State. The old Pac-8 schools (USC, UCLA, Cal, Stanford, Oregon, Oregon State, Washington and Washington State) were to be in the west division.
Colorado made the move in June 2010, but when Texas A&M was not on board to go west, the Big 12 came back together with the help of its television partners (ABC/ESPN and Fox).
If Oklahoma and Oklahoma State were accepted into the Pac-12, there would undoubtedly be a hope by Larry Scott that Texas would join the league. But Texas sources have indicated UT is determined to hang onto the Longhorn Network, which would not be permissible in the Pac-12 in its current form.
Texas sources continue to indicate to Orangebloods.com that if the Big 12 falls apart, the Longhorns would consider "all options."
Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe held an emergency conference call 10 days ago with league presidents excluding Oklahoma, Texas and Texas A&M and asked the other league presidents to "work on Texas" because Beebe didn't think the Pac-12 would take Oklahoma without Texas.
Now, it appears OU is willing to take its chances with the Pac-12 with or without Texas.
There seemed to be a temporary pause in any possible shifting of the college athletics' landscape when Baylor led a charge to tie up Texas A&M's move to the Southeastern Conference in legal red tape. BU refused to waive its right to sue the SEC over A&M's departure from the Big 12, and the SEC said it would not admit Texas A&M until it had been cleared of any potential lawsuits.
Baylor, Kansas and Iowa State have indicated they will not waive their right to sue the SEC.
It's unclear if an application by OU to the Pac-12 would draw the same threats of litigation against the Pac-12 from those Big 12 schools.
If Missouri HAS to move now, the only thing really on the table is the SEC. I would prefer the BiG over the long haul, but I'm not sure they make a move now.
I would not be crushed if Missouri waited for a few years if they were certain the SEC would be on the table at a later date. This looks like a possibility IF the ACC holds together and the SEC truly doesn't want to add anyone from inside its current footprint. UNC/Va. Tech/Virginia/Maryland aren't happening. That leaves Missouri in pretty good shape as it regards to SEC expansion (unless the SEC looks ready to settle for West Virginia).
I have some real misgivings about the move to the SEC. It would not be as rosy as many Mizzou fans assume. I think the presence and importance of aTm in Texas is severely overstated by Aggies and pro-SEC movers alike. If the Big 12 still exists, aTm/SEC is still the second-best show in state. And the SEC still has to recruit through the Big 12 bubble that has held schools like Arkansas out - or at least limited their imprint.
I think moving to the SEC with the Big 12 still in place would be damaging to Missouri's Texas recruiting efforts. It MIGHT help in-state. It MIGHT help in Louisiana and Florida.
I've seen some Mizzou fans claim it would be an easy sell to Midwest border states (come play in the best conference in America!), but the only state that has significant talent is Illinois (Chicago), and those kids are Big Ten all the way.
It would probably be a strong move for hoops and good for the overall athletic department. But football would take some hits on the recruiting trail until it sunk better contacts in LA and FL and GA. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP:
The biggest problem for the Big XII is not having a conference champ. game.
All else being equal a SEC, ACC, Big X or Pac-12 team would get the nod.
I'll buy SEC and BiG.
Not so much on ACC or PAC.
The ACC is an unimpressive football conference unless/until Florida State and Miami get rolling again.
The PAC generally has one really good team, a top 25 team, and a bunch of crap. Unless Stanford sustains its run sans Luck and Harbaugh (unlikely), it's USC and Oregon (which doesn't carry the weight of Oklahoma and Texas).
The Big 12's top 4 most years will compare favorably with the top 4 in the ACC/PAC. Big 12 schools could also help themselves by playing a serious out-of-conference opponent every year (something OU already does). [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
I'll buy SEC and BiG.
Not so much on ACC or PAC.
The ACC is an unimpressive football conference unless/until Florida State and Miami get rolling again.
The PAC generally has one really good team, a top 25 team, and a bunch of crap. Unless Stanford sustains its run sans Luck and Harbaugh (unlikely), it's USC and Oregon (which doesn't carry the weight of Oklahoma and Texas).
The Big 12's top 4 most years will compare favorably with the top 4 in the ACC/PAC. Big 12 schools could also help themselves by playing a serious out-of-conference opponent every year (something OU already does).
I said all things being equal. If you have undefeated Oregon/Stanford or an undefeated Va Tech/FSU/Miami and they win another quality game in a conf. champ. while the Big XII team sits idle, the Big XII team will get jumped in the rankings. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
If Missouri HAS to move now, the only thing really on the table is the SEC. I would prefer the BiG over the long haul, but I'm not sure they make a move now.
I would not be crushed if Missouri waited for a few years if they were certain the SEC would be on the table at a later date. This looks like a possibility IF the ACC holds together and the SEC truly doesn't want to add anyone from inside its current footprint. UNC/Va. Tech/Virginia/Maryland aren't happening. That leaves Missouri in pretty good shape as it regards to SEC expansion (unless the SEC looks ready to settle for West Virginia).
I have some real misgivings about the move to the SEC. It would not be as rosy as many Mizzou fans assume. I think the presence and importance of aTm in Texas is severely overstated by Aggies and pro-SEC movers alike. If the Big 12 still exists, aTm/SEC is still the second-best show in state. And the SEC still has to recruit through the Big 12 bubble that has held schools like Arkansas out - or at least limited their imprint.
I think moving to the SEC with the Big 12 still in place would be damaging to Missouri's Texas recruiting efforts. It MIGHT help in-state. It MIGHT help in Louisiana and Florida.
I've seen some Mizzou fans claim it would be an easy sell to Midwest border states (come play in the best conference in America!), but the only state that has significant talent is Illinois (Chicago), and those kids are Big Ten all the way.
It would probably be a strong move for hoops and good for the overall athletic department. But football would take some hits on the recruiting trail until it sunk better contacts in LA and FL and GA.
I appreciate your take on this. I would note, however, that LSU has little trouble recruiting Texas, even without an A&M. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP:
I said all things being equal. If you have undefeated Oregon/Stanford or an undefeated Va Tech/FSU/Miami and they win another quality game in a conf. champ. while the Big XII team sits idle, the Big XII team will get jumped in the rankings.
Fair enough. Of course, it would depend on the situation each year.
I'm just thinking of all the times the ACC championship game has been a stinker (one good, top 10 team vs a fringe top 30 team). I thnk the PAC game is going to be like that most years. [Reply]
Damn, Clay Travis at Outkick The Coverage has just been killing it on the SEC expansion storyline. If any Mizzou fan isn't reading him by now you should be.
Originally Posted by :
Reality: There Are No Barriers To Missouri in SEC
Published on: September 30, 2011 | Written by: Clay Travis
Trust me, Missouri fans, your fan campaign to push the Missouri Tigers in to the SEC has been a complete and total success. Now you've got to keep up the SEC fight for just a couple of more weeks. I told you earlier this week I'd give you an update based on what I'm hearing so here it is: You're still the front-runner to be the SEC's 14th. Even more so than you were a week ago. Indeed, your board of curator meeting on Tuesday just happens to be the day before the SEC athletic directors will be meeting on Wednesday. Coincidence? Maybe. But I doubt it.
Let's dive in and consider the situation that Missouri faces so you guys have better information to combat those who would argue that Missouri's fate is hemmed in by the buyout that would be owed under the Big 12 bylaws, by lawsuit threats, or by other nonexistent issues. Missouri factions that don't want to leave are saying the cost would be $40 million and that a lawsuit would ensue that could cost even more. Please. That's not the case. The actual cost to Missouri for jumping to the SEC would be in the neighborhood of $12 million. And if the school really fought it could end up being nothing at all.
Let's discuss these details so you're armed with actual facts as opposed to propaganda from those who don't want the Tigers to leave.
OKTC broke down the bylaws for a proposed Texas A&M move to the SEc over a month ago, but now we're going to do the same for Missouri. Here is the relevant portion of the Big 12 bylaws when it comes to a member leaving:
3.1 Membership.
Each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference until July 1, 2006 (the “Current Term”) and during any Additional Term (as defined below). Unless a Member Institution gives written notice that it will withdraw from the Conference at the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term to all other Member Institutions and the Conference (a “Notice”) not less than two (2) years before the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be, each Member Institution shall remain a member of the Conference for an additional five-year period after the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be (each, an “Additional Term”) unless such member is a Breaching Member. Each Member Institution agrees that in the event such Member desires to withdraw from the Conference, that it will in good faith give Notice not less than two (2) years before the end of the Current Term or any Additional Term, as the case may be. No Member Institution shall be entitled to distribution of the then-current revenues from the Conference after the effective date of its withdrawal, resignation, or the cessation of its participation in the Conference (the “Effective Date”).
3.2 Effect of Giving Notice.
If a Member Institution gives proper Notice pursuant to Section 3.1 (a “Withdrawing Member”), then the Members agree that such withdrawal would cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore, in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that the amount of revenue that would have been otherwise distributable to a Withdrawing Member pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the then current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%), with the remainder to be distributed to the other Member Institutions who are not Withdrawing Members or Breaching Members (as defined below) as additional Conference revenues in accordance with Section 2 herein. The Member Institutions agree that such reduction in the amount of revenues distributed to a Withdrawing Member is reasonable and shall be in the form of liquidated damages and not be construed as a penalty.
3.3 Effect of Withdrawal From Conference Other Than by Giving Proper Notice.
If, other than by giving a proper Notice pursuant to Section 3.1, a Member Institution (a “Breaching Member”) withdraws, resigns, or otherwise ceases to participate as a full Member Institution in full compliance with these Rules, or gives notice or otherwise states its intent to so withdraw, resign, or cease to participate in the future (a “Breach”), then the Member Institutions agree that such Breach would cause financial hardship to the remaining Member Institutions of the Conference, and that the financial consequences cannot be measured or estimated with certainty at this time. Therefore, in recognition of the obligations and responsibilities of each Member Institution to all other Member Institutions of the Conference, each Member Institution agrees that after such Breach, the amount of Conference revenue that would otherwise have been distributed or distributable to the Breaching Member during the two (2) years prior to the end of the Current Term or the then-current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by an amount that equals the sum of the aggregate of such revenues times the following percentages (such sum being the “Aggregate Reduction”); if Notice is received less than two years but on or before eighteen months prior to the Effective Date, 70%; if Notice is received less than eighteen months but on or before twelve months prior to the Effective Date, 80%; if Notice is received less than twelve months but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%; or if Notice is received less than six months prior to the Effective Date, 100%.
After such Breach, none of the revenues that otherwise would be distributable to a Breaching Member shall be paid to the Breaching Member until the aggregate amount so withheld (the “Withheld Amounts”) equals the Aggregate Reduction; thereafter, all revenues that would otherwise have been distributable to the Breaching Member shall be so distributed. If the Withheld Amounts are less than the Aggregate Reduction, then the Member Institutions acknowledge and agree that the Conference shall assess such Breaching Member an amount that equals the difference of the Aggregate Reduction less the Withheld Amounts, and the Breaching Member agrees that on or prior to the Effective Date it shall repay to the Conference such amount from revenue that previously had been distributed to such Breaching Member. The Withheld Amounts and any such repayment of the difference of the Aggregate Reduction less the Withheld Amounts shall be distributed to the other Member Institutions who are not Withdrawing Members or Breaching Members as additional Conference revenues in accordance with Section 2 herein. The Member Institutions agree that such reduction in the distribution of revenues to a Breaching Member is reasonable.
... 1. The relevant portions of the Big 12 bylaws that will now be discussed are in bold. Let's start with the liquidated damages provision for leaving early.
The worst case scenario for Missouri is damages in the neighborhood of $26.1 million. How do I arrive at this number? This year the Big 12 distributed $145 million to its member institutions. That's around $14.5 million per school. So the way I'm reading this contract the most the Big 12 could withhold from a member institution is around $14.5 million a year. (This number will grow over the next several years, but not excessively).
That's because Missouri would fall into this portion of the Big 12 bylaws: "if Notice is received less than twelve months but on or before six months prior to the Effective Date, 90%." The rough total that would be owed if the full buyout was to be paid? $26.1 million.
This, by the way, is the same provision of the bylaws that Texas A&M's depature is governed by. So the Aggies have decided that this amount of money is no barrier to departure. So long as Missouri notifies the Big 12 of its departure prior to December 1, 2011, it will fall under the same provision of the bylaws as Texas A&M. That's important because A&M and Missouri would be treated the same.
2. But Missouri and A&M will probably pay much less than $26.1 million. Why? The precedent already set by Nebraska and Colorado.
Recall that Nebraska and Colorado left the Big 12 last season. Reports were that the two schools would face substantial buyouts. Indeed the Big 12 initially demanded $19.4 million from Nebraska and over $14 million from Colorado. But then Nebraska paid a settlement of $9.25 million and Colorado paid a settlement of $6.86 million.
What happened?
The Big 12 bylaws came into play.
Look back at the liquidated damages provision of the bylaw for the true ticking time bomb: "each Member Institution agrees that the amount of revenue that would have been otherwise distributable to a Withdrawing Member pursuant to Section 2 herein for the final two (2) years of the Current Term or the then current Additional Term, as the case may be, shall be reduced by fifty percent (50%)."
Okay, that means the payment amount is actually going to come from 2015 and 2016, the final two years of the "Additional Term."
Only, you guessed it, A&M and Missouri would be gone by then so neither school will receive a dime of revenue from the Big 12 in 2015 or 2016.
So if you apply the above language, 90% x 0 = 0.
Uh oh.
Now, I don't think the legal argument would win -- most judges would probably apply the intended liquidated damages clause holding that the purpose of a liquidated damages clause is actually to have a liquidated damages clause -- but it's definitely yet another flaw in a tremendously flawed Big 12. And could a judge be unwilling to give the benefit of the doubt to a huge entity like the Big 12 that made this drafting mistake? Of course.
This is a flaw that's so gigantic the Big 12 might not want to sue under the contract for fear of losing and providing notice to all members that the exit fee for the next couple of years is $0.
'I'm also cognizant of the risks associated with litigation," Perlman said last year. "What I think is the law may not turn out to be the law. I'm disappointed, as an academic, that my curiosity about the legal claims won't be resolved. But when you look at everything, I think it made sense in this setting to get this behind us and avoid the risks of litigation.'"
That settlement represented 47.6% of the payout that both schools would have owed under the bylaws. If A&M and Missouri did the same with its projected $26.1 million that would come to $12.4 million.
That, my friends, is no penalty at all.
3. The Big 12 lawsuit risk is dead.
The SEC admitted Texas A&M without receiving waivers from the remaining Big 12 schools that are still holding out.
Any potential lawsuit is even more undercut now for two reasons: a. the Big 12 is going to raid another conference to add a member. The conference, therefore, has unclean hands in any lawsuit. How can any member of the Big 12 argue against taking a team from another conference when it is doing the same? and b. Interim commissioner Chuck Neinas made a blockbuster comment that hasn't received much attention. Asked whether the Big 12 would survive without Missouri Neinas said:
“Yes, I think it could be viable because there’s a lot of strength in the conference."
So if the conference is still viable without Missouri, how could there be any damages other than those included in the Big 12 bylaws if a member leaves?
Put simply, Ken Starr's threat of a lawsuit is dead.
4. Missouri's revenue opportunities in the SEC are massive.
That's because an SEC Network in partnership with ESPN is coming.
Texas A&M and Missouri are a big part of the SEC's plans for that network. So are Virginia Tech and N.C. State. But that's in the future. For now, Missouri and Texas are important footprints and markets for the network.
5. So what needs to happen for Missouri to join the SEC?
Just follow Texas A&M's roadmap.
Give your leaders the authority to explore conference options, then divorce from the Big 12, then accept the SEC's offer.
It's as simple as one, two, three. Do that Mizzou, and welcome to the SEC.
SEC presidents are thrilled with your academics, you'll fit in well athletically, and the SEC Network is about to make it rain down money.
If Missouri wants to join the SEC, it's barriers to entry are minimal. OKTC told y'all nearly a month ago that Missouri was the SEC's 14th. Now I'm telling you this, it's close to fruition if the Mizzou fans keep up the push to go South.
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
I appreciate your rake on this. I would note, however, that LSU has little trouble recruiting Texas, even without an A&M.
LSU has 14 Texas kids on its roster, and its national imprint is a lot higher than Mizzou's. Baton Rouge is also closer to Dallas/Houston than Columbia, MO.
They're still only averaging somewhere between 2 and 3 Texas kids a year. Not that impressive, IMO. I know their main focus is on LA kids, but still...
Missouri will have to do much better in Texas than either Arkansas or LSU currently do to keep its program at the current level. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58:
Potentially stupid question because I don't follow CFB that closely, but since I've seen a few people talking about BCS bids and the like:
Assuming Mizzou goes to the SEC - wouldn't it be possible that they could be say, 9-3 and be ranked higher in the BCS rankings because they play a much tougher schedule in the SEC than if they were say 10-2 in the B12 playing the weak sisters of KSU/KU/ISU?
Very possible. Off the top of my head Mississippi State was ranked 4 or 5 spots ahead of MU at the end of last season, and they had one less win. [Reply]
Post #19376
South Bend, IN
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: ND to Big 12? Reply
________________________________________
I have heard this, although a slightly different version.
What I've heard on this front is that the Big 12 would add BYU, TCU, West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati, thereby killing the Big East in its current version as a football conference. The Big 12 would then invite Notre Dame into the league for its applicable olympic sports but football would remain independent. The Big 12 would then be at 14 schools and Notre Dame would agree to a situation similar to what Kevin White agreed to with the Big East in football, basically that Notre Dame play three Big 12 teams per year. Don't be surprised if Notre Dame changes up its Thanksgiving week routine and Texas becomes an annual series there, replacing the Longhorns game with Texas A&M. That's the hope from Texas at least.
With Notre Dame a partial member of the Big 12 at 14 schools, Notre Dame would have the first right of refusal to join in full with football should the next conference realignment step force Notre Dame into a football conference, i.e. suddenly there are four 16-team super conferences and break away from the NCAA. That doesn't mean Notre Dame would be locked into the Big 12, but they'd at least have a foot in the door there.
Post #19376
South Bend, IN
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: ND to Big 12? Reply
________________________________________
I have heard this, although a slightly different version.
What I've heard on this front is that the Big 12 would add BYU, TCU, West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati, thereby killing the Big East in its current version as a football conference. The Big 12 would then invite Notre Dame into the league for its applicable olympic sports but football would remain independent. The Big 12 would then be at 14 schools and Notre Dame would agree to a situation similar to what Kevin White agreed to with the Big East in football, basically that Notre Dame play three Big 12 teams per year. Don't be surprised if Notre Dame changes up its Thanksgiving week routine and Texas becomes an annual series there, replacing the Longhorns game with Texas A&M. That's the hope from Texas at least.
With Notre Dame a partial member of the Big 12 at 14 schools, Notre Dame would have the first right of refusal to join in full with football should the next conference realignment step force Notre Dame into a football conference, i.e. suddenly there are four 16-team super conferences and break away from the NCAA. That doesn't mean Notre Dame would be locked into the Big 12, but they'd at least have a foot in the door there.
Post #19376
South Bend, IN
MyFanPage
Add Buddy
Ignore
Re: ND to Big 12? Reply
________________________________________
I have heard this, although a slightly different version.
What I've heard on this front is that the Big 12 would add BYU, TCU, West Virginia, Louisville and Cincinnati, thereby killing the Big East in its current version as a football conference. The Big 12 would then invite Notre Dame into the league for its applicable olympic sports but football would remain independent. The Big 12 would then be at 14 schools and Notre Dame would agree to a situation similar to what Kevin White agreed to with the Big East in football, basically that Notre Dame play three Big 12 teams per year. Don't be surprised if Notre Dame changes up its Thanksgiving week routine and Texas becomes an annual series there, replacing the Longhorns game with Texas A&M. That's the hope from Texas at least.
With Notre Dame a partial member of the Big 12 at 14 schools, Notre Dame would have the first right of refusal to join in full with football should the next conference realignment step force Notre Dame into a football conference, i.e. suddenly there are four 16-team super conferences and break away from the NCAA. That doesn't mean Notre Dame would be locked into the Big 12, but they'd at least have a foot in the door there.
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
the issue isn'treally football and basketball, it's all the non-revenue sports - baseball, lacrosse, soccer, volleyball, wbb, etc that would be costly to travel great distances.
Wow, that is the first post I have seen mentioning this. That would be a big deal [Reply]
