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:
How's that explain Duke?
Coach K's legend, I guess? I don't know.
Do you consider UCONN to be on par with Duke? I don't. Duke has been a constant powerhouse since we were able to understand what sports are. UCONN has 1 less NC, but nobody considers them to be the elite year in and year out.
Anyway, all this basketball talk is giving this thread HPV. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
You don't think UNC could ever get a Garry Patterson and sneak in a couple NCs? Ever? Snyder almost did it with ****ing K-State. Look, I'm not arguing here that should a school have a rich tradition in both sports it would consider itself a basketball school over a football one. But a school's history definitely plays a huge part in how the fans perceive things. If KU had a top 25 football program for the last 10 years, we would still be calling ourselves a basketball school today.
Name 1 school with a consistently good football team that considers itself a basketball school.
I would submit that there are around 30 schools that are consistently good in football. If you're right, at least 1 of them should be a basketball school. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
Name 1 school with a consistently good football team that considers itself a basketball school.
I would submit that there are around 30 schools that are consistently good in football. If you're right, at least 1 of them should be a basketball school.
Are there schools that have a rich basketball tradition that are consistently good in football?
There aren't any. I still maintain my previous statements, though. Tradition determines how a fanbase views itself. Is there a school with a rich basketball tradition that doesn't consider itself as such? I would submit that should a school with a rich basketball tradition become a perennial top 25 program in football, it would still consider itself to be a basketball school. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Are there schools that have a rich basketball tradition that are consistently good in football?
There aren't any. I still maintain my previous statements, though. Tradition determines how a fanbase views itself. Is there a school with a rich basketball tradition that doesn't consider itself as such? I would submit that should a school with a rich basketball tradition become a perennial top 25 program in football, it would still consider itself to be a basketball school.
Like I said - watch North Carolina whenever they're winning football games.
If they had a program like, I dunno, VaTech's - I think they'd consider themselves a football school. I'm almost certain they would if they had a program like Auburn's.
UCLA, Kansas and maybe Duke are the only schools that wouldn't 'turn', IMO. And if any of those schools had a run of about 10 years where their football program was as successful or more successful than their basketball program, I think they would as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Are there schools that have a rich basketball tradition that are consistently good in football?
There aren't any. I still maintain my previous statements, though. Tradition determines how a fanbase views itself. Is there a school with a rich basketball tradition that doesn't consider itself as such? I would submit that should a school with a rich basketball tradition become a perennial top 25 program in football, it would still consider itself to be a basketball school.
I would say that Florida, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Pitt, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Missouri, and Notre Dame have all been at least pretty good at both sports in recent history. Do you think any of these schools consider themselves to be basketball schools? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
I would say that Florida, Arkansas, Texas, Oklahoma, Ohio State, Michigan, Pitt, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Michigan State, Missouri, and Notre Dame have all been at least pretty good at both sports in recent history. Do you think any of these schools consider themselves to be basketball schools?
I think Michigan State would probably consider itself to be a basketball school, but I'm not sure. Once again, you're arguing a different side of what I'm trying to say. Either one of Notre Dame, Michigan, Ohio State, Texas or Oklahoma could win every single basketball championship from today till the end of days and they would still be a football school because that's what their tradition dictates. Schools with no real tradition are going to gravitate towards football as it is the more popular sport and is much bigger.
If I'm starting a program today, all my resources would go to football. You won't find me arguing otherwise. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Like I said - watch North Carolina whenever they're winning football games.
If they had a program like, I dunno, VaTech's - I think they'd consider themselves a football school. I'm almost certain they would if they had a program like Auburn's.
UCLA, Kansas and maybe Duke are the only schools that wouldn't 'turn', IMO. And if any of those schools had a run of about 10 years where their football program was as successful or more successful than their basketball program, I think they would as well.
UCLA would turn in a heartbeat.
Its a moot point, though. I say that guys who walk around with feces smeared on their faces don't bang supermodels. Pants says that a if a guy who had feces smeared on his face banged a supermodel, then he probably would keep walking around covered in shit.
That will never happen, though. Duke and Kansas are about as likely to win national titles in football as tubgirl's twin brother is to bang Gisele. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Like I said - watch North Carolina whenever they're winning football games.
If they had a program like, I dunno, VaTech's - I think they'd consider themselves a football school. I'm almost certain they would if they had a program like Auburn's.
UCLA, Kansas and maybe Duke are the only schools that wouldn't 'turn', IMO. And if any of those schools had a run of about 10 years where their football program was as successful or more successful than their basketball program, I think they would as well.
You could be right, man, I don't know. I think UNC will always be basketball simply because His Airness went there. I think you can put Kentucky in the category of would never turn. Would the fans go nuts if all of a sudden their school was good in football? Of course. Kansas fans did in 2007. They would still be the proud owners of that "Most winning-est basketball program in the history of basketball" though. [Reply]