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 patteeu:
It doesn't matter who walked out first. There's no more reason to believe that Texas was desperate to get into the Pac12 than there is to believe that the Pac12 was desperate to have them. They both saw the possibility of a benefit and pursued it for a while, but in the end, neither got what they wanted and the talks broke down. That's my point. Larry Scott's statement and your posts based on a Pac12 source are spun to cast the Pac12 in the best possible light. I'm sure DeLoss Dodds could tell the exact same story with a more favorable Texas flavor and both would be true. The Pac12 isn't crying because Texas left them at the altar but Texas isn't either.
That's all true. Texas being able to screw the rest of the Big 12 puts them in a satisfying position. Of course the Pac 12 overall is definitely in a better position financially than the rest of the Big 12. But Texas isn't like the rest of the Big 12, which has been the problem for the rest of the Big 12.
Originally Posted by kstater:
I didn't quote the post directly above me, that probably confuses you, but it was a response to the statement "do you think they might just leave Texas out of the equation and go after OU and OSU?"
Not confused at all. Thanks for the redundancy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mosbonian:
But do you really think this is the end of their conversations?
Or at minimum, do you think they might just leave Texas out of the equation and go after OU and OSU?
I guess I am different than most...I truly think Texas' ego could eventually get them in trouble. They're not ND and I don't think they would be as successful as an Independent from a standpoint of viewership.
And who's to say anyone would oblige scheduling them if the superconference ideas form around them?
In the end I am hoping to see them get their "kick in the balls".
The Pac-12 wants to leave TT, OSU, and K-State out of the equation. And bring in UT, OU, KU and MU. That's their plan. My guess is that two things screwed that up.
MU holding out for SEC/B1G and state level political pressure holding the 2nd schools to the primary schools.
Speculation here: Had Scott been able to get those 4 school alone... and not diluted the revenues with OSU, TT and K-State, I suspect it would have been more worth his while to stay at the table longer. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Laz:
so the Big-12 is staying together because Texas is such a bunch of assholes that other leagues have second thoughts about wanting them?
i sure as hell hope that KU is still looking for another league.
Originally Posted by jAZ:
The Pac-12 wants to leave TT, OSU, and K-State out of the equation. And bring in UT, OU, KU and MU. That's their plan. My guess is that two things screwed that up.
MU holding out for SEC/B1G and state level political pressure holding the 2nd schools to the primary schools.
Speculation here: Had Scott been able to get those 4 school alone... and not diluted the revenues with OSU, TT and K-State, I suspect it would have been more worth his while to stay at the table longer.
If this happens then the conference will be able to poach a few weaker individual universities.
Originally Posted by :
Among the changes: removing of Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe; adopting common rules for individual networks like the Longhorn Network; phasing in revenue sharing from primary television rights; and requiring a commitment of rights of more than five years from conference schools, which would commit all of their game revenues to the Big 12 during that time and make moving to another league difficult to impossible.
Originally Posted by jAZ:
That's all true. Texas being able to screw the rest of the Big 12 puts them in a satisfying position. Of course the Pac 12 overall is definitely in a better position financially than the rest of the Big 12. But Texas isn't like the rest of the Big 12, which has been the problem for the rest of the Big 12.
If you are talking about the penny-ante 3rd tier money, Texas is "screwing over", by maybe a couple million each, 4 or 5 schools. Kansas has the 2nd-best tier 3 deal in the big 12, and one of the greatest in the country. Mizzou is 4th-best in the Big 12 and would break even if we all shared. If all schools shared tier 3, Kansas would lose money.
And in the end, if we share tier 1/2, then all schools are almost perfectly equal, with Texas and Kansas getting a few million more. Don't like it? Improve your value to advertisers, its almost equal now, and the difference is basically irrelevant. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jAZ:
The Pac-12 wants to leave TT, OSU, and K-State out of the equation. And bring in UT, OU, KU and MU. That's their plan. My guess is that two things screwed that up.
MU holding out for SEC/B1G and state level political pressure holding the 2nd schools to the primary schools.
Speculation here: Had Scott been able to get those 4 school alone... and not diluted the revenues with OSU, TT and K-State, I suspect it would have been more worth his while to stay at the table longer.
The PAC declared the honeymoon over when they felt UT was going to walk away. It was mutual/non mutual face saver. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Laz:
so the Big-12 is staying together because Texas is such a bunch of assholes that other leagues have second thoughts about wanting them?
i sure as hell hope that KU is still looking for another league.
I don't understand complaining about Tier 3 money, but especially from KU fans.
Kansas benefits from not sharing the piddly little T3 pool of money more than anyone not named Texas. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Laz:
so the Big-12 is staying together because Texas is such a bunch of assholes that other leagues have second thoughts about wanting them?
i sure as hell hope that KU is still looking for another league.
You'll never know what KU is doing or not doing.
It's great leadership. I feel 100% comfortable with BGL.
God knows where'd KU would be if Sweet Lew was still around. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
I don't understand complaining about Tier 3 money, but especially from KU fans.
Kansas benefits from not sharing the piddly little T3 pool of money more than anyone not named Texas.
I don't get it either.
UT will always have so much more than everyone else. Switching conferences will just lead to another big fish (Ohio State, USC, etc etc...)
The best feeling in sport is building a program with less and winning on the field. Running away to another conference will never fix this feeling of inferiority masked as anger. [Reply]
