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:
I love the thought of going to the East and having a crossover with Arkansas; freakin' love it.
Oh, and if you are salivating at the idea of the SEC - do NOT read Joe Strauss's twitter right now. It's not sunshine and roses.
"Insecurity in its DNA" was his last one.
Seriously, Mizzou, if you blow this, I will seriously **** you up.
He's saying there's insecurity in MU's DNA? Because of the Big 10 thing? I'm pretty sure this is different, but then again, they were probably sure the invite was there the 1st time as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
Georgia is beatable. They're tough, but they're beatable. Florida was good under Spurrier, down under Zook, up under Urban, and TBD under Muschamp.
Originally Posted by Pants:
He's saying there's insecurity in MU's DNA? Because of the Big 10 thing? I'm pretty sure this is different, but then again, they were probably sure the invite was there the 1st time as well.
Yes, and the evidently MU (as an entity) hasn't even completely decided if they'd leave the XII.
It's Strauss essentially saying the same thing the MU fatalists have been saying for months: "We're Mizzou - we will fuck this up"
I sometimes feel that the whole program is little more than a kicked puppy.
C'mon dammit - don't fuck this up. 3/4s of the schools in the country would dream of this shot, don't waffle and blow it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
Carolina's 247sports website The Big Spur just published an update to VIP/pay members that basically states:
1. Mizzou does have the votes for acceptance if placed in the East.
2. Alabama is adamant that they not loose their rivalry game with Tennessee.
3. Alabama is also demanding that Auburn not be moved to the West, due to the fact it moves the Iron Bowl to earlier in the season.
4. Article states that with Mizzou in the East, they would get Arkansas as the cross divisional opponent. Carolina, would be paired with Texas A&M.
The BIG news from this update states that the SEC presidents/chancellors will meet this weekend with Commissioner Slive to vote on Mizzou.
Originally Posted by Pants:
It all stems from the old arguments we used to have how KU is a BB school. Naturally, MU fans would all start clamoring about how they're a "football" school. In reality, though, MU is just a school. One that is mediocre in both sports and severely lacking trophies.
Is MU football better than KU football right now? Obviously. Is MU more valuable to other conferences? Yes.
So they got that going for them.
Agreed, but to say the football programs of both of these schools hasn't been cyclic, would be dishonest.
History would show us, both have periods of being door mats, and then getting stronger and more competitive.
Neither has sustained a high level of play for more than a few years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Agreed, but to say the football programs of both of these schools hasn't been cyclic, would be dishonest.
History would show us, both have periods of being door mats, and then getting stronger and more competitive.
Neither has sustained a high level of play for more than a few years.
What you say is true, but Mizzou should have always been much better than it has been in football. (Due to several factors, including the fact that it's the only major university in a state with two decently large cities.)
What Mizzou's done recently should have been the norm all along. Pinkel, for all his flaws, has built a program. They expect to be good year in and year out. Players know they can come to Mizzou and be drafted highly into the NFL... the expectation is to win. It's a shift in attitude and commitment, and I don't see it going the other way any time soon. [Reply]
