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 Pants:
I think it's more MU fans just expecting envy to be there. What is there to be envious about at this point? As long as B12 is alive, KU and KSU fans are happy. Personally, I'd be a little envious if you guys got an invite from the B10, other than that... meh.
If we can replace you with L'ville/WVU, it'll just be icing on the cake. :-)
I would be crushed if we wound up in the B1G instead of the SEC. The Corndogs can have their junior membership. SEC or bust. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
The envy & jealousy is palpable from the KU & KSU posters. You guys will land on your feet when Bevo decides to move to a prettier girl.
Of course it is... some MU fans are practically demanding it, so I can see why your mind would spin every post from a KU or KSU fan into envy and jealousy.
If someone could just let me know what I'm supposed to be jealous about... :-)
I've watched the SEC for years and love SEC football, but there's no way in hell I'd want to watch KU football get slaughtered every week. If it gets to a point that KU is going to the MVC, then sure, I'd be jealous of every team that found a new/better home.... MU, Nebraska, Colorado, A&M. I'd hate to watch KU in the Big Ten, and they don't really fit geographically with anyone else, so hopefully the Big 12 survives, because I'd much rather watch tournament games in KC than Atlanta or wherever. So, outside of being completely left out of a competitive conference.... meh. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Of course it is... some MU fans are practically demanding it, so I can see why your mind would spin every post from a KU or KSU fan into envy and jealousy.
If someone could just let me know what I'm supposed to be jealous about... :-)
I've watched the SEC for years and love SEC football, but there's no way in hell I'd want to watch KU football get slaughtered every week. If it gets to a point that KU is going to the MVC, then sure, I'd be jealous of every team that found a new/better home.... MU, Nebraska, Colorado, A&M. I'd hate to watch KU in the Big Ten, and they don't really fit geographically with anyone else, so hopefully the Big 12 survives, because I'd much rather watch tournament games in KC than Atlanta or wherever. So, outside of being completely left out of a competitive conference.... meh. :-)
As long as B12 is viable, it's by far my #1 choice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Of course it is... some MU fans are practically demanding it, so I can see why your mind would spin every post from a KU or KSU fan into envy and jealousy.
If someone could just let me know what I'm supposed to be jealous about... :-)
Originally Posted by kstater:
But, but, but 12 million dollars more.
Ignoring the need to spend another 30 million just to be middle of the pack
I honestly don't give a shit about the money. More money just means that the university has to spend more keep up in the arms race that is college athletics. It has very little to do with the product on the field. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
I honestly don't give a shit about the money. More money just means that the university has to spend more keep up in the arms race that is college athletics. It has very little to do with the product on the field.
Not true.
More money = ostensibly better facilities = advantage in recruiting = better product on the field. [Reply]
More money = ostensibly better facilities = advantage in recruiting = better product on the field.
Which is why it's so nice to see donor funds having to be secured for all that crap. :-)
I also think the money grab is being driven by the universities, and not so much by the athletic department. With the possibilities of lower amounts of research dollars, rising tuition costs and less attendance, they have to make up ground somehow. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
Which is why it's so nice to see donor funds having to be secured for all that crap. :-)
I also think the money grab is being driven by the universities, and not so much by the athletic department. With the possibilities of lower amounts of research dollars, rising tuition costs and less attendance, they have to make up ground somehow.
Which makes sense. Could be difficult for a university to go hat in hand to state politicians crying about the need for more funding if they just turned down (in Mizzou's case) the potential for $12 million more per year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
Which is why it's so nice to see donor funds having to be secured for all that crap. :-)
I also think the money grab is being driven by the universities, and not so much by the athletic department. With the possibilities of lower amounts of research dollars, rising tuition costs and less attendance, they have to make up ground somehow.
State appropriations are decreasing and significantly so in some cases. However, tuition is always rising and economic downturns result in high enrollment.
Most large institutions are far less dependent on state appropriations, but the decrease greatly affects the state regional university.
Anyway, this is all a long way of saying that the increased revenue will basically be a boon only for the athletic department, since the likes of $12M isn't shit when it comes to the operating budget of a place like Mizzou.
Fed. grants, private donations, state appropriations, and tuition dollars are driving research funding. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Hilarious how petty and vindictive Team Bevo is. UT's not used to any of its hoes stepping out of line.
It will be hilarious when UT comes back to the table in about three years after Jerry Jones offers each them a few mill to play annually at JerryWorld.
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
I honestly don't give a shit about the money. More money just means that the university has to spend more keep up in the arms race that is college athletics. It has very little to do with the product on the field.
That's a really good point. When you think about it, what good has all that extra money done for SEC schools in terms of its product on the field? Other than 5 straight national championships, I mean. [Reply]
