Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread - Page 148

The old one has AIDS.

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.

Stay tuned.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by kstater:
Tell me which conference shares Tier 3.

Technically the B1G does, no?

My understanding is that they not allowed to negotiate their Tier III rights outside of the B1G Network.

The SEC is contemplating a similar setup.

But ultimately the Tier III rights are somewhat irrelevant. They're a drop in the bucket for most schools and when it gets right down to it, the only schools that make a lot in tier III revenue have virtually limitless revenue streams anyway (i.e. Texas). Tier III rights aren't worth detonating anything over.

The LHN could possibly be much ado about nothing. But then again, so was Poland in 1939, so there's that.

I just don't know what kind of 'concessions' could be granted to satisfy me here. The XII is just too top-heavy and too dependent on 2 teams that have shown a willingness to burn everyone if its in their own best interests.

But the fact that we know UT and OU have a bit of a wandering eye at this point and the entire XII will collapse if they leave is enough for me to want out.
[Reply]

Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Jesus HH, what is the point of you shitting all over this thread? Anyone with a functioning brain understands the allure of the SEC. It is the premier athletic conference in the country with unprecedented revenue upside. Continuing to play devil's advocate in this thread just makes you look clueless and devalues your opinion.

All right, I'll refrain from commenting any further until the resolution comes forth. I'll just say in leaving that my position has been grossly distorted. It started out with my position that Texas would never give up their LHN and 3rd Tier rights and that the LHN itself, with the NCAA restrictions in play, does not represent an unfair recruiting advantage. It got turned into that I somehow said the Big XII is just as good as the SEC and Mizzou would be crazy for leaving it.

I did say that I thought Mizzou would be better off in the Big XII and that the stability reasoning won't seem as comforting once they are actually there and the conference can use Missouri's TV markets to make everyone richer, sans sacrificing traditional rivalries, a less taxing competition schedule and lower conference academic profile, but that the stability and increased payout may in your minds offset that for Missouri fans.

I have also said that I want MU to stay but I would understand if they left and it wasn't until after much tooth pulling that most of the people decided a general "stability" answer was the reason they were wanting to leave and that the LHN was the cause of the instability. Apparently pointing out that all the member institutions had agreed to this structure in the past didn't prepare them for the shock of what Texas could realize in the venture and now they want to go back on it. As we all know, UT had even originally invited A&M which refused them. So, if the LHN is the cause of all the instability, it is only because everyone else said "yes" to this plan originally.

My position has and will continue to be that the obsession with Texas (whether from the UT perspective or others complaining about it) is the real problem. A lack of leadership from Texas for the conference and a lack of vision by other institutions that comprise it are what cause the "instability".

What I think the real issue is, if I may be so bold, is that from the Mizzou perspective, they don't believe Texas will ever adopt the position of the conference leader because it ignores it to favor the "do what is best for Texas". To me, that is the problem. The LHN is just the physical embodiment of that sentiment. Can and will Texas take more of a conference leadership role even with the LHN in place? If MU answers that question in the negative, and they actually have a spot in the SEC, then they will go.

But, that is a two way street. Can the other conference members accept any future action by Texas as being a leader in the conference if the LHN is still up and running? In other words, everyone voted for this type of structure, Texas is the one that really ran with it. If Texas claims they will do what is best for the conference after the fact it is in place, will anyone believe them? Stability is born of trust and cooperation, but that has to be a two way street and the focus must be put there.
[Reply]

Interesting response back from a Mizzou Curator this morning.

Originally Posted by :
The athletic conference topic has generated intense fan interest and a division of opinion. Some from the KC area want to stay in the Big 12; however, a majority of the state favors the SEC, it seems. Some like the Big 10, but are wary because of the way they treated us a couple of years ago when Nebraska was favored over Missouri for membership.
Thanks for your continuing interest in and past support of the U. of Mo. There may come a time - perhaps soon - when you will be asked to help the U. of Mo. once again with respect to meeting some of its financial needs, and I hope we can continue to count on your support.

Rest assured, the Curators know of and have received literally thousands of messages such as yours. I can’t predict how this will play out, but it’s clear to me that a majority of the fan base favors getting out of the Big 12.

[Reply]