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 Saul Good:
Unless and until Missouri withdraws from the conference, they are a member in good standing and should be treated as such.
This is true - outside of the good standing part. MU has refused to participate in votes that affect the conference - eventually, they'll either have to vote (commit to the conference) or say "We're leaving" and deal with the exit fees. [Reply]
Anyone else think it is interesting that the Big 12 is making this big public push towards equality, yet is forcing TCU to take a partial share of TV revenue for its first five years?
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
Laugh all you want. Its one thing for rival fans to flip Missouri shit over this speculation. Its another thing for the conference to publicly threaten one of its members when said member has done nothing out of bounds. The conference should be protecting its members, not throwing one to the wolves.
Unless and until Missouri withdraws from the conference, they are a member in good standing and should be treated as such. Keep it up, though. We're preparing for a divorce, and Neinas is leaving threatening voicemails. When the court date comes, the judge is going to get to hear those messages, and I'm sure he will be impressed.
How is Neinas throwing you to the wolves? By saying that he expects you to pay your exit fees as stipulated by the by-laws or did I miss something? [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Anyone else think it is interesting that the Big 12 is making this big public push towards equality, yet is forcing TCU to take a partial share of TV revenue for its first five years?
The Big 12 will never learn.
SEC did the same with TAM I believe. B1G did the same with NU. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
This is true - outside of the good standing part. MU has refused to participate in votes that affect the conference - eventually, they'll either have to vote (commit to the conference) or say "We're leaving" and deal with the exit fees.
Why? Why would they have to vote or make a new commitment to the conference? There's already an agreement in place. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
You can't have it both ways. You can't play the "Missouri can wait as long as the Big 12 does so that it doesn't have to pay exit fees" card & then turn around and play the "Why won't the Big 12 just kick us out - they are being mean" card.
These positions are not ad odds with one another. The Big XII can either resolve the dispute amicably and let everyone get on with our lives, or Mizzou can play hardball. The end result is going to be about the same. Only the amount of collateral damage is yet to be determined. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
This is true - outside of the good standing part. MU has refused to participate in votes that affect the conference - eventually, they'll either have to vote (commit to the conference) or say "We're leaving" and deal with the exit fees.
Originally Posted by patteeu:
Why? Why would they have to vote or make a new commitment to the conference? There's already an agreement in place.
I guess I'm just making an assumption that eventually...at some point....MU will either have to comply with what has been voted on already, and approved, by the rest of the Big 12 - giving up TV rights for 6 years or whatever it was - or move on. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
This is true - outside of the good standing part. MU has refused to participate in votes that affect the conference - eventually, they'll either have to vote (commit to the conference) or say "We're leaving" and deal with the exit fees.
We haven't refused anything. By all accounts, we were active members in the process and then abstained. There is nothing wrong with abstaining. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
These positions are not ad odds with one another. The Big XII can either resolve the dispute amicably and let everyone get on with our lives, or Mizzou can play hardball. The end result is going to be about the same. Only the amount of collateral damage is yet to be determined.
So, it's either "Let MU have what they want" or "The Big 12 loses". Gotcha. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
We haven't refused anything. By all accounts, we were active members in the process and then abstained. There is nothing wrong with abstaining.
True....but I'm saying that I would assume that at some point, you would either be required to vote on it or it would go through without your vote. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
I guess I'm just making an assumption that eventually...at some point....MU will either have to comply with what has been voted on already, and approved, by the rest of the Big 12 - giving up TV rights for 6 years or whatever it was - or move on.
I'm sure there is a point of no return where a commitment will be forced on Mizzou if they're still around, but I'm equally sure we haven't arrived at that point yet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
How is Neinas throwing you to the wolves? By saying that he expects you to pay your exit fees as stipulated by the by-laws or did I miss something?
Why is he even referencing exit fees? He should just say that we are members in good standing, and that's it. [Reply]