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 tk13:
I don't really know anything special. I don't have any rooting interest in any of these schools, and to be honest I don't like the whole superconference idea. I just have a decent memory I guess. Here you go. This was reported as fact by ESPN (and many other outlets) last year:
Thanks, guess I totally missed that one or just wasn't paying attention. It is very relevant to the information I was forming my opinion from. It changes things significantly.
Like you, I don't like the superconference idea, and prefer tradition. It just seems like more and more everything is about money. [Reply]
"Rutgers’ Board of Governors is expected to give athletic director Tim Pernetti the authority to pursue conference options during a regularly scheduled meeting Wednesday."
Sounds like Delaney & the B1G might be waking up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
Kansas is as faithful as it's options. Don't pretend that you're doing the noble thing by standing by your man when nobody else is calling.
KU has to stand by Bevo & Boomer Sooner or they'll end up cuddling with Colorado St & Wyoming or Louisville & Cincinnati. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
Sounds like Delaney & the B1G might be waking up.
I don't understand why this isn't getting more attention. This likely either means that they are going to the ACC or to the B1G. If they go to the ACC, I would guess that they are going with West Virginia or UCONN, but neither seem all that likely. I suppose Cincy or Louisville could be a dark horse, but that doesn't make much sense.
The B1G is interesting because Pitt already went to the ACC, and they were supposedly a B1G target last time. Who would be partnered with Rutgers? Notre Dame? Texas? Mizzou? Neinas has to be shitting in his Depends right now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
Was there ever any credible sources saying that KU and or K-State were talking to other conferences?
If they weren't, then the chancellor should be fired. It is fine to publicly play the loyal soldier and to quietly tell everyone you won't leave unless the conference falls apart, but if they weren't trying to find a landing spot just in case OU left, then they are too F-ing stupid to lead a university. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
If they weren't, then the chancellor should be fired. It is fine to publicly play the loyal soldier and to quietly tell everyone you won't leave unless the conference falls apart, but if they weren't trying to find a landing spot just in case OU left, then they are too F-ing stupid to lead a university.
OU & OSU were already out the door with Ut & TT until Scott slammed the door in their faces. How come they didn't feel any heat from KU/KSU/ISU? [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
If they weren't, then the chancellor should be fired. It is fine to publicly play the loyal soldier and to quietly tell everyone you won't leave unless the conference falls apart, but if they weren't trying to find a landing spot just in case OU left, then they are too F-ing stupid to lead a university.
I have little doubt they were, but I thought they kept the information confidential, thus not causing further instability. That is why I was asking if something was out there that I missed.
It was obvious to me by Bill Self's comments, that shit must be real behind closed doors. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
I have little doubt they were, but I thought they kept the information confidential, thus not causing further instability. That is why I was asking if something was out there that I missed.
It was obvious to me by Bill Self's comments, that shit must be real behind closed doors.
There was all kinds of "we have options" talk. The PAC 10 plane had called the ball. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
OU & OSU were already out the door with Ut & TT until Scott slammed the door in their faces. How come they didn't feel any heat from KU/KSU/ISU?
Until the university presidents slammed the door in their faces because no one wants to deal with Texas and its bullshit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
This all bolsters our case. Missouri can go to court and say that they were treated in a hostile manner by a conference that should be acting as an advocate. After all, MU is still a member in good standing, has broken no rules, has not stated any intention to withdraw, and has not applied for membership of any other conference.
What we are receiving is nothing short of abuse by the commissioner. Why the **** would we stay in a conference that treats its remaining members this way?
WTF !?!? Geezus there are so many posts on here that are absurdly laughable debating the penalties with some crackpipe legal analysis, and some rather delusional justifications going on.
1st, the Big 12 can seek the maximum penalty for MU leaving. Each member signed the contract and has a duty specific to the contract. I don't know if that's 25 mil or whatever it is, but nothing legally restricts the B12 from going after the max / more than 6 mil. Last year the remaining members SETTLED with CU & NU on 6 mil. That doesn't mean that the contract was ratified as the new max, just that they agreed on a price for the B12 to not seek further legal action- a decision that would be cleared by all the remaining member institutions including MU. So there is little room to claim that defense since they were a party to its proceeding last year.
Contract disputes can be enforced, broken, seek damages or specific performance or otherwise remedy thru equitable justice. If the lang of the contract regarding the damages section spells out a percentage, then the figure could be higher than 25 mil, but I doubt that would be the case. If it went to court the judge has discretion so long as there is no unjust enrichment.
As to the B12 Commish's comment, how are they out of line when MU held a news conf stating their intention to explore switching confs. He is well within his duty and legal standing to respond to questions since its an ongoing and unsettled matter of the B12 once MU made their announcement and it looks like competing factions within MU are leaking info left and right to either push MU to go or try to kill the chances of it. [Reply]
