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 jAZ:
your assumption that acadmics play no role in the decision making of an athletic conference.
You're right that I should have qualified my original statement. In a perfect world, these conferences would want to add institutions that bring everything to the table: athletics ($), television markets, and high-quality academics.
When put to the test, though, we've seen that these same conferences are more than willing to disregard the last of these three. See: Utah, Nebraska, and the likely additions of OSU and TT.
This is why I laughed about the premise of adding Rice. Sure, it's great that it's a fine academic university, but without the Houston market, outside conference wouldn't even want to urinate on this institution.
Academic branding is such an ancillary point in all of this that, yes, it's laughable. [Reply]
Just wondering....Would KU fans here be more attracted to the ACC (if it turns into the mega-basketball conference some on the radio are predicting) or to one of the power conferences (B10, Pac12)? [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Just wondering....Would KU fans here be more attracted to the ACC (if it turns into the mega-basketball conference some on the radio are predicting) or to the B10?
Originally Posted by vailpass:
Just wondering....Would KU fans here be more attracted to the ACC (if it turns into the mega-basketball conference some on the radio are predicting) or to one of the power conferences (B10, Pac12)?
Only a fucking idot would pick the ACC over the B1G. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini:
You don't want em'.
I edited my post to include B10, Pac12, power conferences.
I don't have any particular interest in seeing KU in the B10 due to their lack of a football program but I respect them as an institution. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Only a ****ing idot would pick the ACC over the B1G.
I hear a lot of KU fans here say they care more about hoops than football. So, I was wondering if they would rather be in a power b-ball conference than a prime BCS conference. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass:
I edited my post to include B10, Pac12, power conferences.
I don't have any particular interest in seeing KU in the B10 due to their lack of a football program but I respect them as an institution.
B1G Network needs some winter programming as well and KU would provide some basketball ratings. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
B1G Network needs some winter programming as well and KU would provide some basketball ratings.
That makes sense. We watch B10 hoops in the winter as it is but it would be fun to have KU mixed in.
No matter if it is KU or someone else they won't seem like a B10 team.
Hell I still don't think of Penn State as B10. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jAZ:
In the short term, academia can't compete with in-house design teams. That's not the point, and it's not designed to work that way. Academia, even in CS and MIS (my department), we conduct basic research. We provide the tools and understanding that companies use to inform their next level of applications.
I happen to be in a program that commercializes IT research better than many others. Just had one of our top professors have his 8 year old "startup" acquired for the 2nd time. This time by IBM for $1/2 a billion dollars. The research began with DARPA and similar funding and the publications.
But companies typically will license this research after it's done. Not fund it before it gets started.
Honestly no, academia in computers(especially systems) does not generally do 'primary research'. I've been on both sides of this fence at the very highest levels and I've seen what happens. One of the problems is that academia generally doesn't know what has been done before and so they 'publish' a lot of old work. Now that isn't always bad because it is useful to publish ideas that have been developed before but haven't been published previous. But it isn't really novel and that does make it somewhat disappointing. You don't really get to appreciate this until you actually know what happens behind the curtain to know exactly how far behind academia really is.
There is a real question of who is doing primary research these days. The reality is, big industrial labs aren't, academia generally isn't(there are always exceptions), is it startups then? Not really because once you get funded you're productizing and not really doing research.
Academia should be the place where primary research is done, but really it isn't. Part of the reason is that they don't have the resources to really tackle 'bigish' problems that really have to work. Cute little ideas sure, big problems not as much. Academia also rewards more publications and the best way to get 'more' is to publish a lot of a smallish safeish ideas. Try something big and revolutionary and it doesn't work and your tenure case is screwed(or your thesis etc).
That is one of the real problems in the computer field today and realistically I'm not sure the best way to solve that. It is an important issue because we're really not pushing the envelop like we used to. Everything today is evolutionary. Where did the revolutionary ideas go? [Reply]
