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.
The bylaws are the bylaws, you can't wave your hands at them and claim they no longer mean anything, and they most certainly DO specify the penalty for leaving without adequate notice. The Big 12 merely made a business decision that it was better to waive part of the penalty in the past. I don't know for sure that they wouldn't do that with MU too, obviously, but the Big 12 commissioner is talking like, in a sharp contrast to the past 3 schools, that Mizzou will be held to the full penalty.
It doesn't work that way. Once you set the market, its extremely difficult to get the horses back into the barn. Given that MU signed onto a 12 team league that is missing 25% of the original signees, and its extremely unlikely that they will be able to collect anywhere near $25 million. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
It doesn't work that way. Once you set the market, its extremely difficult to get the horses back into the barn. Given that MU signed onto a 12 team league that is missing 25% of the original signees, and its extremely unlikely that they will be able to collect anywhere near $25 million.
Well, the contract doesn't say $25MM, it is based on a percent of their share for the last 2 years, and in the contract they signed they agreed ahead of time that if they leave without notice, then they admit that they will have damaged the conference and they agreed, ahead of time, that they have no defense. They can try to worm their way out of it by whining about Colorado, but you can't easily claim they would win. [Reply]
I read the bylaws (applicable part starts on page 13), and there is nothing remotely specific regarding damages. In fact, it goes so far as to say that the specific damages can't be determined in the bylaws.
Throw in the fact that the bylaws spell out the members (including Neb, Col, and aTm), and you've got a pretty flimsy case if you're the conference, IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
I read the bylaws (applicable part starts on page 13), and there is nothing remotely specific regarding damages. In fact, it goes so far as to say that the specific damages can't be determined in the bylaws.
Throw in the fact that the bylaws spell out the members (including Neb, Col, and aTm), and you've got a pretty flimsy case if you're the conference, IMO.
You were confused by the legal language. When all parties agree that someone will be damaged when something bad happens, but they also agree that the amount of damage will be hard to determine, it is common to agree ahead of time to something that the law refers to as "liquidated damages". That is what was done here. Often you will sign a contract saying "we agree that if *bad thing* happens, rather than fight about the proper penalty, which we also agree that the amount would be tough to determine, we'll just simply agree ahead of time to a fine of $X"
Mizzou agreed that if they left with notice less than a year but greater than 6 months, then they forfeit 90% of what they made for the last 2 seasons they were in the conference. The Big 12 would then refuse to pay Mizzou anything for the last part of this season (which is more than 10% at this point) and send Mizzou a bill for what they owe, which would be 90% of 2010, plus 90% of 2011 less what was withheld. [Reply]
One of the blogs out there, I can't remember which one, broke down the BIG XII by-laws and showed that they were very poorly worded, and that it would be difficult to win in court. It made sense at the time, as many were wondering why CU and NU got such good buyout deals. If that is the case, I expect Mizzou to get a similar deal, since the BIG XII is not so confident in its legal standing. I tend to agree with Saul, if the BIG XII did not get the max out of CU and NU when the conference was at its strongest, I don't see how they get 25 mil out of aTm and Mizzou. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
One of the blogs out there, I can't remember which one, broke down the BIG XII by-laws and showed that they were very poorly worded, and that it would be difficult to win in court. It made sense at the time, as many were wondering why CU and NU got such good buyout deals. If that is the case, I expect Mizzou to get a similar deal, since the BIG XII is not so confident in its legal standing. I tend to agree with Saul, if the BIG XII did not get the max out of CU and NU when the conference was at its strongest, I don't see how they get 25 mil out of aTm and Mizzou.
That is also reportedly true, I've read stories on that too. I am by no means confidently predicting that Mizzou will ultimately be held to the full penalty. High-dollar lawyers smarter than any of us can judge that better than us. I'm just saying the Big 12 has a contract that they can try to enforce, that contract does not look crazy on its face, and that the Big 12 commissioner appears to be signalling that this time they will enforce it.
It also makes sense in light of the fact that there may have been some objection from OU, based on their comments, to heavily penalizing a school that wants to leave. That, and a court fight never looks good.
Now that OU has no options and the stakes are much higher though, you can imagine a scenario where the conference decides to let CU and NU go, but digs in on MU. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
ChipBrownOB Chip Brown Sources tell Orangebloods.com #BYU is no longer a candidate to join the #Big12 because BYU wants to be independent.
screw them and their strange hieroglyphic underwear. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
no way are the numbers real. The SEC tv deal is worth about $15mil/school. No way are Tier 3 rights worth and additional $12mil/school.
SEC schools received $18.3MM in revenue from Tier 1 and 2 contracts last year.
As has been stated ad nauseam in this thread, the SEC is not adding teams just to have more mouths to feed. Slive has even stated publicly that the contracts contain look-in provisions to renegotiate if the conference adds new members.
The ACC has publicly acknowledged that renegotiating their contract with ESPN was a key reason that they expanded. Take a look:
Originally Posted by :
The opportunity to reopen its 12-year, $1.86 billion deal with ESPN was a significant factor in the ACC’s decision to expand with Syracuse and Pittsburgh, Commissioner John Swofford told SportsBusiness Journal. The ACC signed that media agreement in May 2010, but subsequent rights-fee deals signed by the Big 12 and Pac-12 were considerably richer than the ACC’s.
Originally Posted by :
The ACC’s contract with ESPN, which is valued at $155 million a year, contains a standard line called a “composition clause” that allows either the conference or ESPN to reopen the deal if membership increases or decreases by at least two schools. The conference or the network can act on that clause any time the conference’s membership changes by at least two schools.
The agreement does not permit the ACC to take its rights to the open market. But the addition of two schools does create the opportunity for a new negotiation and, undoubtedly, more money. If the two sides cannot come to an agreement, the deal would go to an arbitrator. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
ChipBrownOB Chip Brown Sources tell Orangebloods.com #BYU is no longer a candidate to join the #Big12 because BYU wants to be independent.
Post 4556
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
ChipBrownOB Chip Brown
Sources tell Orangebloods.com #BYU is no longer a candidate to join the #Big12 because BYU wants to be independent.