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.
Originally Posted by UCF Knight:
So you really don't think airing high school football games/highlights would be beneficial for the Longhorns?
How much more beneficial can it really be? Are you suggesting Texas doesn't get their pick of Texas recruits already? They can only take so many each year. The ones that didn't grow up dreaming about playing for Texas weren't going to sign with them anyway. The others that do don't need a LHN to convince them any more. We don't compete for those recruits. The only school that does is OU, and even they can't pry the majority of them away, they just make sure they don't go to some other Texas school. So, what is the huge recruiting benefit you see? [Reply]
Originally Posted by beer bacon:
What is there for him to be wrong about? He didn't say anything definitive.
The tone of what he said seems to indicate Mizzou is leaning towards staying when an opportunity to go to the SEC is there. I hope he is wrong, and that Mizzou is not swayed by these last minute arguments, which are probably empty promises by Texas, OU, etc., and that we take the opportunity to leave those cheating whores of conference mates behind. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
The tone of what he said seems to indicate Mizzou is leaning towards staying when an opportunity to go to the SEC is there. I hope he is wrong, and that Mizzou is not swayed by these last minute arguments, which are probably empty promises by Texas, OU, etc., and that we take the opportunity to leave those cheating whores of conference mates behind.
The fact that there was no mention of new concessions by UT is a good sign for Mizzou fans that want the SEC. If UT made significant concessions in this meeting, they would want Chip to brag about it to help frame the storyline that they are the good guys here. I think a final offer has been made, and it is time for Mizzou to show its hand. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
The tone of what he said seems to indicate Mizzou is leaning towards staying when an opportunity to go to the SEC is there. I hope he is wrong, and that Mizzou is not swayed by these last minute arguments, which are probably empty promises by Texas, OU, etc., and that we take the opportunity to leave those cheating whores of conference mates behind.
What else are they going to say?
I think that is good news because we didn't hear any "...proud members of the Big 12" statements. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
The fact that there was no mention of new concessions by UT is a good sign for Mizzou fans that want the SEC. If UT made significant concessions in this meeting, they would want Chip to brag about it to help frame the storyline that they are the good guys here. I think a final offer has been made, and it is time for Mizzou to show its hand.
I can see that and agree. Today probably was the final pitch, and no word of major changes or concessions has been leaked. Now the big question is.....Mizzou has to show its hand...what will it be? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mizzou_8541:
What else are they going to say?
I think that is good news because we didn't hear any "...proud members of the Big 12" statements.
True as well. I think I said earlier in this thread that every day we go without a "proud member of the Big XII" statement is a day closer Mizzou gets to leaving. Tuesday cannot get here fast enough. I am sure twitter will be on fire tomorrow, if it is not already, with speculation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
We can argue all day about it, but the facts are that LHN is viewed as a major problem by some schools and so far Texas is unwilling to make a change for the good of the conference. If it really is no big deal, as UT will always get the recruits they want and will make more money than God, then why can't they make a concession for the good of the conference?
Because they don't view the LHN as an athletics only venue. Sure, that's the part that gets all the initial attraction, but they use that channel to promote their educational and cultural aspects as well. Much of that money goes to the academic costs, not the athletics ones.
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
To address the LHN problem, it seems clear a Big 12 Network needs to be a solution. A Big 12 Network without Texas is worthless, so getting them into the fold is mandatory. A potential solution I have thought about would be folding LHN into a legit Big 12 Network, but with UT getting a floor on revenue that is no less than the current LHN arrangement ($15MM per year) and the upside as every other team; so once total network revenue in a 10-team league exceeded $150MM per year, each school would get an equal payout.
There is no way that is going to happen, highlighted by the reasons I just pointed out above. Its not just an athletics channel to UT. By saying such a network is "worthless" without UT, I think, is very demeaning to the rest of the field. They have trouble selling that network as it is. I bet if the Texas cable companies sold the Big XII and LHN as some sort of package, most Texans would buy both.
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
UT could do this and still save face (which is clearly important for them), as there is no chance they will lose money. The Big 12 could save face by arguing this special arrangement makes sense as UT provided initial funding to get LHN off the ground.
If it was about money, they would have joined the PAC. That system, even without Texas, is projected to make more than Texas will on their own. This isn't about money to Texas, its about what Texas values in the LHN. To me, it looks like everyone was fine with the revenue system for 3rd Tier until Texas showed how much they were worth on their own. All of a sudden, everyone got nervous about their place with feelings of inadequacy.
The sooner we stop focusing on the LHN, the sooner everyone will realize the original mole hill we made into a mountain. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
I can see that and agree. Today probably was the final pitch, and no word of major changes or concessions has been leaked. Now the big question is.....Mizzou has to show its hand...what will it be?
Should be a fun few days. Hopefully the BOC pulls the trigger. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
The tone of what he said seems to indicate Mizzou is leaning towards staying when an opportunity to go to the SEC is there. I hope he is wrong, and that Mizzou is not swayed by these last minute arguments, which are probably empty promises by Texas, OU, etc., and that we take the opportunity to leave those cheating whores of conference mates behind.
If they stay, the way I'd read it is that they wanted to stay all along but wanted to extract as many concessions as possible from Texas before taking the deal. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
Because they don't view the LHN as an athletics only venue. Sure, that's the part that gets all the initial attraction, but they use that channel to promote their educational and cultural aspects as well. Much of that money goes to the academic costs, not the athletics ones.
Right, because they are trying to promote UT over the Big 12, which is driving the wedge here. Why didn't OSU or Michigan feel the need to say "no thanks" to a Big Ten Network and start a school-specific one? Why have other conferences said LHN simply would not be allowed if UT came knocking?
Originally Posted by :
There is no way that is going to happen, highlighted by the reasons I just pointed out above. Its not just an athletics channel to UT. By saying such a network is "worthless" without UT, I think, is very demeaning to the rest of the field. They have trouble selling that network as it is. I bet if the Texas cable companies sold the Big XII and LHN as some sort of package, most Texans would buy both.
I agree it won't happen, but it would be a solution to this mess and resolve a significant amount of internal conflict.
And sorry if you don't like the term "worthless", but that is exactly how ESPN, Fox, etc would view the revenue potential of a Big 12 Network without Texas. The Big Ten Network would be worthless without OSU and Michigan. The upcoming SEC Network will be worthless without Florida and Alabama.
Originally Posted by :
If it was about money, they would have joined the PAC. That system, even without Texas, is projected to make more than Texas will on their own. This isn't about money to Texas, its about what Texas values in the LHN. To me, it looks like everyone was fine with the revenue system for 3rd Tier until Texas showed how much they were worth on their own. All of a sudden, everyone got nervous about their place with feelings of inadequacy.
The sooner we stop focusing on the LHN, the sooner everyone will realize the original mole hill we made into a mountain.
This point goes back to the prior that a Big 12 Network is worthless without Texas. With LHN, Texas is eliminating upside from a potential Big 12 Network from schools like ISU, KSU, KU, etc.
Don't worry, hopefully the last of the complainers will be gone shortly and you guys can forget this mess ever happened. Schools like Mizzou, A&M, Nebraska, and Colorado just don't understand the great vision of LHN. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
How much more beneficial can it really be? Are you suggesting Texas doesn't get their pick of Texas recruits already? They can only take so many each year. The ones that didn't grow up dreaming about playing for Texas weren't going to sign with them anyway. The others that do don't need a LHN to convince them any more. We don't compete for those recruits. The only school that does is OU, and even they can't pry the majority of them away, they just make sure they don't go to some other Texas school. So, what is the huge recruiting benefit you see?
Recruiting advantage and if you really can't see it I can't help you. Period. [Reply]
Originally Posted by UCF Knight:
Recruiting advantage and if you really can't see it I can't help you. Period.
I didn't ask for your help, I asked you to explain it. I explained why I didn't think it was, your only return seems to be "because I said so". This leads me to believe it is only a recruiting advantage in your mind because you can't describe it for anyone else. [Reply]