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.
PAC-16 Top 40 TV Markets
#2 Los Angeles
#5 Dallas
#6 San Francisco
#10 Houston
#12 Phoenix
#14 Seattle
#18 Denver
#20 Sacramento
#22 Portland
#28 San Diego
#33 Salt Lake City
#37 San Antonio
30% of the Top 40 TV Markets thats not too bad. [Reply]
Why not? ANYTHING would be better than going to a completely worthless conference playing completely worthless teams(which describes every non major conference). You don't think KU could easily negotiate a national contract for BBall alone to televise every game with either ESPN or Fox Sports for serious money? Once they the contract in place scheduling is fairly straight forward. If they have the contract set up right then it's merely a case of saying 'For that game we'll split say 40% of revenue' with accelerators for name programs or top 25 teams. This isn't rocket science. KU has a national BB brand why wouldn't they leverage it rather than play for a complete shit conference? [Reply]
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD:
Why not? ANYTHING would be better than going to a completely worthless conference playing completely worthless teams(which describes every non major conference). You don't think KU could easily negotiate a national contract for BBall alone to televise every game with either ESPN or Fox Sports for serious money? Once they the contract in place scheduling is fairly straight forward. If they have the contract set up right then it's merely a case of saying 'For that game we'll split say 40% of revenue' with accelerators for name programs or top 25 teams. This isn't rocket science. KU has a national BB brand why wouldn't they leverage it rather than play for a complete shit conference?
You're insane. There's a reason that there are no basketball independents. How are you going to schedule 30+ games when every other team in the country is playing conference games the second half of the season? [Reply]
Originally Posted by CrazyPhuD:
Nah won't happen(at least for KU). Well at least not for BBall. Frankly it wouldn't even be that much of a big deal. KU would go independent at least for BBall. For football who really cares?
As this person explained it later, the agreement is that UT keeps their network in name only. The revenue split will be identical for all schools. Because 1/16th of the the Pac-16's TV deal will be worth more than all the proceeds from the LHN. So all 16 teams will get an even split. That lets UT save face, but get the deal together.
For the stability of your new conference I hope your right, but I wouldn't trust Texas. Even if the LHN gets assimilated into the Pac 16 down the road Texas will find a way to take a hold of the drivers seat. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
You're insane. There's a reason that there are no basketball independents. How are you going to schedule 30+ games when every other team in the country is playing conference games the second half of the season?
You join the MWC, but just call yourself an "independent."
We've decided to play these teams; best preparation for the tournament. [Reply]
It's easy. They will just have quality teams from power conferences take a break from their conference seasons fly to Lawrence in late February. It makes perfect sense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kchero:
For the stability of your new conference I hope your right, but I wouldn't trust Texas. Even if the LHN gets assimilated into the Pac 16 down the road Texas will find a way to take a hold of the drivers seat.
You are assuming that the Pac-12 minus Texas was inherently as weak as the Big-12 was minus Texas. They weren't. Not even close.
Pac-10 owns all of the western US TV Markets.
LA, San Diego, SF, Seattle, Sacramento, Portland, Phoenix, Colorado, SLC
Texas has no leverage to demand much of anything. Their departure from the Pac-16 won't destroy the conference like it would the Big-12.
It's not like UCLA, USC, Stanford, Cal, ASU, UA, Washington, Oregon are going to join the Mountain West. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
So our 'soft landing spot' in the Big East is hemorrhaging schools, eh?
Mizzou is very very ****ed.
Nicely done, fellas.
I be no expert in these here matters, but if I were the Mizzou folk I'd get my begging shoes on and I'd be calling everyone in the SEC 5 minutes ago.
"We have more teeth than those West Virginia fellers, take us, take us."
I wouldn't wait around for a Big 10 invite, even if it's a better fit. It's pure speculation but I still wouldn't rule out some kind of Big 12/Big East merger, but will that conference get to be a BCS Superconference, or will it just be a basketball conference that happens to play some football. [Reply]
