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 Bowser:
And I have a problem with that. If you've got a deal, jump on it. Quit flirting with the ****ing B1G, and go play football on CBS on Saturdays.
Mizzou's not flirting with anyone. I highly doubt the Big 10 is a factor in this. Mizzou is going to the SEC.
They're just taking their time and doing it properly. (following the advice of the lawyers... and A&M's exit strategy) [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
Whomever they get to replace Mizzou is going to have to be available to play in the league next year, or the Fox Tier 2 TV deal will fall apart. It requires the league to be at ten teams. BYU is the best immediate option, unless they can get Louisville out of the Big East without the 27 month penalty.
Not necessarily. If the TV people are convinced the conference will be expanding and that the product is worth it, they won't void the deal. In fact, if the conference goes back to 12 teams, they would be getting a bargain. TV CAN void the deal if the membership falls below 10, it doesn't mean it automatically does.
Add to that, if the Big XII does pick up three Big East schools, TCU which was going to be in the Big East, and then the two that went to the ACC, there wouldn't technically be a football conference to speak of and the 27 month rule may not even matter. [Reply]
I agree it "probably" won't happen. Why would Mizzou take money out of Columbia and take one of their conference home games off their schedule? Of course, its Mizzou, so they might make that move. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
Not necessarily. If the TV people are convinced the conference will be expanding and that the product is worth it, they won't void the deal. In fact, if the conference goes back to 12 teams, they would be getting a bargain. TV CAN void the deal if the membership falls below 10, it doesn't mean it automatically does.
Add to that, if the Big XII does pick up three Big East schools, TCU which was going to be in the Big East, and then the two that went to the ACC, there wouldn't technically be a football conference to speak of and the 27 month rule may not even matter.
I agree. The 27 month thing doesn't seem likely to hold up. It needs to be dealt with, but I don't see it being insurmountable. That said, its going to be hard for the Big XII to try to collect exit fees from Mizzou while replacing them with teams that have 27 month notice requirements. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
I agree. The 27 month thing doesn't seem likely to hold up. It needs to be dealt with, but I don't see it being insurmountable. That said, its going to be hard for the Big XII to try to collect exit fees from Mizzou while replacing them with teams that have 27 month notice requirements.
I have no idea on what the "difficulty" meter is for lawyers and it really concerns me little. I don't imagine it will be "easy" on either side. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
I agree it "probably" won't happen. Why would Mizzou take money out of Columbia and take one of their conference home games off their schedule? Of course, its Mizzou, so they might make that move.
Haha!!! Stupid Mizzou.
I agree that probably wont happen.
But I also figure they're smart enough to know it's time to GTFO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
I agree it "probably" won't happen. Why would Mizzou take money out of Columbia and take one of their conference home games off their schedule? Of course, its Mizzou, so they might make that move.
They do that already with the KU game and I wouldn't suggest doing every year but the first year...definitely.
Florida vs MU at Arrowhead...that would be awesome [Reply]
I tell you what, though, if KC offered to pay KU double whatever it was going to give Mizzou to play that game in Arrowhead, then I would do it. None of this equal split stuff, though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ferrarispider95:
What ku or ksu fan that wouldn't trade mizzou for louisville in a heartbeat? Yeah it will add a bit more footprint, but a better college, better facilities, and better town.
Honestly it we can drop Mizzou, get back to 12 with BYU, Louisville, and WVU we will be stronger than at 10 with Mizzou.
This is an interesting point; if the league will actually be stronger without Mizzou, why are so many people butthurt over them leaving? It would seem they should be congratulating us on the way out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
I tell you what, though, if KC offered to pay KU double whatever it was going to give Mizzou to play that game in Arrowhead, then I would do it. None of this equal split stuff, though.
Mizzou would go for that. After all, we need a big name on our schedule to supplement the no-names in the SEC. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
This is an interesting point; if the league will actually be stronger without Mizzou, why are so many people butthurt over them leaving? It would seem they should be congratulating us on the way out.
Absolutely. Louisville is a beautiful city. Their academics are stellar. Their football program is strong. They really deliver the huge state of Kentucky because they are the most popular university in the state. The Big XII would be upgrading. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
Mizzou would go for that. After all, we need a big name on our schedule to supplement the no-names in the SEC.
I could see Mizzou going for that, if only that they know KU will be an ass about it and refuse it, thus absolving MU of any blame whatsoever. No one in their right mind would not blame KU for the rivalry ending if KU turned down a double payday to play MU at Arrowhead. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
This is an interesting point; if the league will actually be stronger without Mizzou, why are so many people butthurt over them leaving? It would seem they should be congratulating us on the way out.
I think you are over simplifying what we're upset about. We're upset that (a) you think so little of the common regional rivalries that you are willing to toss them aside and (b) the impact it has on KC. Its not that we will miss Missouri, its the periphery implications of Missouri leaving. I've been on record saying that I think the conference is stronger with Missouri in it. But, if they don't want to be here, it isn't like its some death blow to the conference. WVU would be an equivalent to Mizzou except for proximity. There's just no way to get around the proximity issue or the importance it gives KC.
Basketball becomes much better in the conference, undoubtedly. It just sucks that KC won't get to host it. [Reply]