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 mnchiefsguy:
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.
There is zero chance that Mizzou takes a 1\3 share when its a favor to KU that we even play them. [Reply]
WVU football is such a great program, They just had a really bad day. If they joined the best conference next year they could easily win against kentucky and vanderbilt for a 2-10 season. Missouri football program is pathetic and the sec would be dumb to pick them over wvu. Who says mizzou's fanbase is bigger than ours? We have some fans in Pittsburgh, DC, and even New York. Not to mention, Missouri already said they'd rather join the big10 over the sec. Anyway, we'll continue playing in our depleted but competitive conference for the rest of the year and maybe end up 1st place. When was the last time mizzou could say they participated in a bcs bowl game? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Spott:
They could just put North Dakota St back on the schedule to give you more wins.
It isn't like we don't need them. Look, I really want KU to get their football program on track. But, do you really think football smack really gets in the way of the obtuse nature of our basketball pride? [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
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.
Missouri CLEARLY doesn't want to toss aside the rivalry with KU; I'm not sure they could have been clearer about that point. The conference certainly doesn't make the rivalry.
The impact on KC could be minimal as well. Right now, I'm not sure how anyone would know. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
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.
You can't have it both ways. If KC is such a KU town, then Mizzou leaving should not negatively impact KC at all, as KU should step up to the plate and use its big basketball weight to keep the tourney here. So, either MU and KU are on more equal footing in the KC metro than you are willing to admit, or Mizzou leaving should not really impact anything at all. Which is it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
Missouri CLEARLY doesn't want to toss aside the rivalry with KU; I'm not sure they could have been clearer about that point. The conference certainly doesn't make the rivalry.
The impact on KC could be minimal as well. Right now, I'm not sure how anyone would know.
How can you say that? For the greatest majority of its existence, it has been a conference game. Most of the truly outstanding rivalries are conference games. Even the OU-Texas rivalry skyrocketed in animosity once it became a conference game.
Like I said, the game, if at Arrowhead, would always be in Missouri. That means the monetary benefits derivative thereof, would also largely go to Missouri. So, if KC really wants to see that game continue even as a non conference affair, it should pay KU more to even out the revenue streams. I mean, if MU is that clear about it, they shouldn't care KU gets paid more for it if that's what it tales to continue it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
You can't have it both ways. If KC is such a KU town, then Mizzou leaving should not negatively impact KC at all, as KU should step up to the plate and use its big basketball weight to keep the tourney here. So, either MU and KU are on more equal footing in the KC metro than you are willing to admit, or Mizzou leaving should not really impact anything at all. Which is it?
OK, first of all, I never argued this "KU town" thing, so don't place that in my mouth. Second of all, it isn't about whether or not there are enough KU fans to make the tournament successful (they're absolutely are). The matter is putting conference dollars in a non conference state. That's just bad business, no other conference does that. KC would have to make some enticing offer above the ability to sell the tournament out and its just sad Mizzou has put their own city in that position. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
How can you say that? For the greatest majority of its existence, it has been a conference game. Most of the truly outstanding rivalries are conference games. Even the OU-Texas rivalry skyrocketed in animosity once it became a conference game.
Like I said, the game, if at Arrowhead, would always be in Missouri. That means the monetary benefits derivative thereof, would also largely go to Missouri. So, if KC really wants to see that game continue even as a non conference affair, it should pay KU more to even out the revenue streams. I mean, if MU is that clear about it, they shouldn't care KU gets paid more for it if that's what it tales to continue it.
The bolded part is not true if you are referring to Mizzou. You could argue that it would be true to the state of Missouri itself, but Mizzou would see no more benefit than KU money wise in terms of payout. KU would actual benefit more, since more Mizzou fans buy tickets to Arrowhead anyway...so a 50-50 split of revenue would favor KU since they are filling less than 40% of the seats. [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.
Maybe I am mis-reading it, but I don't see anyone butt hurt anymore. I think most of us just want them gone, and lets move on.
I am starting to think Mizzou is enjoying more publicity than the teams have gotten them in quite some time, so they are milking it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
The bolded part is not true if you are referring to Mizzou. You could argue that it would be true to the state of Missouri itself, but Mizzou would see no more benefit than KU money wise in terms of payout. KU would actual benefit more, since more Mizzou fans buy tickets to Arrowhead anyway...so a 50-50 split of revenue would favor KU since they are filling less than 40% of the seats.
Of course, the whole argument is why would KU continuously put money into a non Big XII state? Its Missouri's market. We're not talking about having this game on each other's campus, right? We're talking about KC, MO and Arrowhead. Mizzou is the STATE school of Missouri. [Reply]
