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.
Winning the Orange Bowl was in my top 5 sports moments of all time. With this setup I can see KU getting back sooner than I thought.
Are you guys rehiring Mangino? Is he going to eat Snyder?
It would be an accomplishment if Radio ever won more than 2 Big 12 games in a season. No way ku sniffs a North title in that setup as long as Snyder is at KSU and BYU/WVU remain relevant. [Reply]
Petro had a decent idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants:
Petro had a decent idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.
hardly Petro's idea....it's been mentioned by many over the last week. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants:
Petro regurgitated a decent and obviously stolen unoriginal idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.
Originally Posted by alnorth:
Interestingly, people are now reporting that Mizzou originally asked everyone to make a 13-year commitment to the Big 12, but Texas and a couple others balked at such a long period of time, so everyone compromised at 6 instead. Kind of puts the lie to their "official" reason for looking around, which was that since the Big 12 wants a 6-year commitment they should evaluate their options first, when in reality Mizzou was probably upset at not locking everyone down for 13 years.
No, it doesn't put the lie to it. Whether 6 years or 13 years, prior to making a long-term commitment is the time to evaluate whether you want to be committed for the long term. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
Interestingly, people are now reporting that Mizzou originally asked everyone to make a 13-year commitment to the Big 12, but Texas and a couple others balked at such a long period of time, so everyone compromised at 6 instead. Kind of puts the lie to their "official" reason for looking around, which was that since the Big 12 wants a 6-year commitment they should evaluate their options first, when in reality Mizzou was probably upset at not locking everyone down for 13 years.
Doesn't "put a lie" to it at all. Mizzou is looking because the Big 12 wants a six year commitment. Mizzou wanted more. You are implying that Mizzou lied because it was not willing to make a six year commitment. The reality of it is that Mizzou want a longer term commitment for TX and OU. Didn't get it, so they decided to shop around.
Since the Big XII wants such a short commitment time, Mizzou decided to look around. Nothing wrong with that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
Doesn't "put a lie" to it at all. Mizzou is looking because the Big 12 wants a six year commitment. Mizzou wanted more. You are implying that Mizzou lied because it was not willing to make a six year commitment. The reality of it is that Mizzou want a longer term commitment for TX and OU. Didn't get it, so they decided to shop around.
Since the Big XII wants such a short commitment time, Mizzou decided to look around. Nothing wrong with that.
not quite, patteu's response was more on the mark.
I'm saying that publicly Mizzou is saying "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time! We gotta think about it first" while privately they were saying "6 years? Just six stinkin years? Are you kidding, thats not enough, we don't trust you, we're looking around now" [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants:
Petro had a decent idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.
That is a silly idea. No one can leave if their rights are owned for the next 6 years, you'd have to figure out a way to get the votes needed to dissolve the conference. So, this is basically college football's equivalent to the Scientology billion-year contract.
The B1G has an extremely long-term commitment, but even they have not asked their schools to commit forever and ever till the end of time. (or end of conference) [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
not quite, patteu's response was more on the mark.
I'm saying that publicly Mizzou is saying "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time! We gotta think about it first" while privately they were saying "6 years? Just six stinkin years? Are you kidding, thats not enough, we don't trust you, we're looking around now"
See, I don't think that the "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time!" line of thinking is the correct perception of what Mizzou said. That Mizzou had wanted a 13 year commitment was known around the same time as their announcement. We are debating interpretation at this point. Most Mizzou fans did not see six years as a long enough commitment. [Reply]
