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 DJ's left nut:
Much closer? It's still just Arkansas; it's not going to kill Mizzou based on geography.
And yeah, an SEC move will hurt Mizzou's TX recruiting, but it will help it in other parts of the south. Was Mizzou the best option in the XII outside of TX before Pinkel came? Of course not, it was right alongside KU and ISU - remember? Pinkel made Mizzou an attractive destination while he was building that pipeline.
There's no reason he can't build another one.
You're good at your job or you aren't. Gary Pinkel is very very good at his job and he'll do just fine getting the programs recruiting bases back up to speed in the SEC. Especially if the XII implodes and the TX schools end up distributed in a bunch of different conferences anyway.
I'm sorry, but kids in the deep south are not going to Mizzou in any significant numbers. For Mizzou, it is going to be Texas or bust, and in the SEC it will probably be bust. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
Well, the problem is that I don't think Mizzou can even be Arkansas, which would be their absolute improbable ceiling. In the Big 12 north they have the potential to be quite a bit better than Arkansas.
Okay, and I will continue to assume you really don't know much of anything about college football. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Do you think MU fans will be more happy in the SEC or in the days where they were playing in Big 12 title games and beating Nebraska? I know that MAY not be an option now.
I think they'll look back on the 2005-2010 run as one of the brighter ones in the program's modern history.
They'll also recognize that the ship has sailed and that if they want to actually build off that burst of success, they need to seize on the momentum to try to build their program further.
There is no conference in the country that can give you a better platform from which to develop a football program than the SEC. Can Mizzou make the leap? Who knows - perhaps not. But they'd be absolute fools not to try it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP:
So the 7th to 9th best teams in the SEC can finish a season top-12 nationally?
No. But the 7th -9th overall best program can finish that high in a given year. They may have a great team one year and finish top 3-4 in the conference, but still in general not have as good of a football program on the whole. KU finished 7th in 2008, so yes I think A&M, Arkansas, or MU can finish top 12 if they have a great time or few breaks leading to a great season. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
And I doubt you can find one Arkansas fan that regrets the move.
Why?
Because winning a bunch of games against shit opponents in a shit conference is less exciting than playing great games in the best conference in the country.
That and the whole "Southwestern Conference blowing up" thing.
Yeah - getting the hell out of the SWC was a pretty good idea for the Hogs. [Reply]
Being in the SEC has absolutely ZERO percent change of hurting a program's recruiting.
Hell yes it does, for Missouri. If you are a school in the deep south or Texas, then the SEC may help or at worst be a lateral move. Missouri will take a hit. If you are in Texas and you want to play with or against the 4 Texas Big 12 schools, Missouri is basically option #3, maybe #4 at worst.
In the SEC, Mizzou is so far down the list you won't even be able to see them in the pitch-dark hole, behind just about every other SEC team other than maybe Kentucky and a couple others. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Okay, and I will continue to assume you really don't know much of anything about college football.
how in the holy hell do you expect kids in Texas or the deep south to go to Columbia, other than being a talent that virtually no one else in the SEC wants?
You think you can win in the SEC with just Missouri kids? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I think they'll look back on the 2005-2010 run as one of the brighter ones in the program's modern history.
They'll also recognize that the ship has sailed and that if they want to actually build off that burst of success, they need to seize on the momentum to try to build their program further.
There is no conference in the country that can give you a better platform from which to develop a football program than the SEC. Can Mizzou make the leap? Who knows - perhaps not. But they'd be absolute fools not to try it.
Fair enough. However, can you not envision MU fans becoming frustrated after a season or two of finishing in the bottom half of the SEC after that five year run in the Big 12? I understand where you are coming from and you might be right, I'm just telling you what will happen with the masses IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
Hell yes it does, for Missouri. If you are a school in the deep south or Texas, then the SEC may help or at worst be a lateral move. Missouri will take a hit. If you are in Texas and you want to play with or against the 4 Texas Big 12 schools, Missouri is basically option #3, maybe #4 at worst.
In the SEC, Mizzou is so far down the list you won't even be able to see them in the pitch-dark hole, behind just about every other SEC team other than maybe Kentucky and a couple others.
Question for you: Who has a better football program right now, West Virginia or Missouri? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Fair enough. However, can you not envision MU fans becoming frustrated after a season or two of finishing in the bottom half of the SEC after that five year run in the Big 12? I understand where you are coming from and you might be right, I'm just telling you what will happen with the masses IMO.
You're making an assumption that we will finish in the bottom half of the SEC when there is no evidence to support that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Uh...they didn't - remember?
Boren made it clear that OU would have taken off to the PAC if the invite was there. It wasn't, so he stayed. And the reason it wasn't was because UT wasn't going to come without major concessions that nobody in the PAC would make.
Without UT, OU just wasn't all that interesting to the PAC. Though at least it does appear that you can join KU fans screaming about the anchor schools holding you back.
The reason it wasn't there is because OU is packaged with OSU. [Reply]
