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 RustShack:
OU and OSU have because they are the only two schools who don't have to vote and the Presidents can just make that decision. The other schools have agreed in principle they just have to vote to finalize it. It will happen whether you tards want it to or not. But if Mizzou has a problem with it they can just go independent I guess, since they don't have an offer from the B1G or SEC like you idiots want to think.
Hey look - another asshurt XII clinger.
Look - I understand that nobody will want your shithole of a school once the XII inevitably collapses, but you really don't have to be a prick about it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
alnorth is a Kansas guy.
Yeah - makes sense now.
He's just like Rustshack - militantly in support of a back-asswards conference out of sheer terror that the alternative is the Mountain West.
Whatever. I'd roll the dice and take my chances at this point. Maybe MU ends up in the pisswater athletic conference with the rest of the dregs for all I know - but I'm willing to take that chance.
I want this conference dead in the worst way. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I think it's likely that a re-stabilized Big 12 would be able to get the big contract that alnorth envisions because they're still a consistently good football conference and they still have a presence in a lot of pretty good college football markets. I don't see why stability would be a concern as any risk that the conference could implode could easily be anticipated by the contract to protect the networks.
If the conference re-stabilizes like alnorth envisions, UT and OU would have no choice but to stick around. Is UT going to leave the conference if the Big 12 still controls their Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights? What conference would accept them without those rights?
There's a big if you have in there and my very reason to doubt this whole scenario....if the conference re-stablizes. Two years in a row this conference has come close to folding. Tell me what guarantees we won't see this same scenario next year...or the next?
Aren't you the least bit concerned about how OU and UT have suddenly become bed partners? I am....
And how will this league be attractive if OSU, MU and Texas Tech have a couple of bad years. We already have ISU, KU, Baylor and K-State with very little horsepower when it comes to football. Since we are using "if" scenarios I will throw out this one:
If no one but OU and UT has banner years for the next 2 or 3 years, who will want to hand over a check for $300 million to a 2-Horse league? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mosbonian:
Actually I've very good at math (Accounting/Credit person here)...but even better at understanding just how little contracts mean these days which seems to escape you. If you think that OU and UT won't find a way out of that contract they've agreed to then you are being a pollyanna.
I'm still waiting for you to answer the first question about why you think that the contract will be for more than the PAC 12? I see you've managed to dodge that one.
Football makes more and more money every year for one. Its kind of common sense that a TV deal will be worth more than one signed six years ago. Big12 is still one of the better football conferences. They will be a lot more stable in five years when this happens, among other reasons. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
Kansas won't be assout. Their BB program is too good for that.
Villanova and Georgetown are but a few pretty compelling counterarguments against this idea.
Syracuse is a basketball school only, and they just downgraded leagues for FB purposes. I think that's a pretty strong statement about the importance of basketball in the grand scheme. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
He's been clutching to the XII thing the whole time.
I have no idea what his college affiliation is, but it's becoming apparent to me that he's attached to one of the KS schools and is afraid that they'll end up with no life raft. As a consequence, he's thinking with his heart and arguing in support of that position.
Not to start anything here but why do MU fans think that MU wouldn't be left with the same "no life raft" scenario?
The Big 10 has no interest in MU. The SEC has no interest in MU.
The Big 12 is the best option for MU. This is fact. Your administration knows this. They are not idiots like so many of you want to believe. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RustShack:
OU and OSU have because they are the only two schools who don't have to vote and the Presidents can just make that decision. The other schools have agreed in principle they just have to vote to finalize it. It will happen whether you tards want it to or not. But if Mizzou has a problem with it they can just go independent I guess, since they don't have an offer from the B1G or SEC like you idiots want to think.
Getting a bit touchy, aren't we? Every school, tard or not, would be smart to NOT sign such an agreement until members are ensured equal treatment. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mosbonian:
There's a big if you have in there and my very reason to doubt this whole scenario....if the conference re-stablizes. Two years in a row this conference has come close to folding. Tell me what guarantees we won't see this same scenario next year...or the next?
Aren't you the least bit concerned about how OU and UT have suddenly become bed partners? I am....
And how will this league be attractive if OSU, MU and Texas Tech have a couple of bad years. We already have ISU, KU, Baylor and K-State with very little horsepower when it comes to football. Since we are using "if" scenarios I will throw out this one:
If no one but OU and UT has banner years for the next 2 or 3 years, who will want to hand over a check for $300 million to a 2-Horse league?
You are the one playing the "if" game. If Texas and Oklahoma are the only two teams ranked over the next five years? Sorry that isn't happening. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wickedson:
Not to start anything here but why do MU fans think that MU wouldn't be left with the same "no life raft" scenario?
The Big 10 has no interest in MU. The SEC has no interest in MU.
The Big 12 is the best option for MU. This is fact. Your administration knows this. They are not idiots like so many of you want to believe.
TV markets for one
A far more profitable football team for another
A far better football team for yet another.
I do find it funny, however, that you want to claim that the administration that signed off on the hiring of Frank Haith is somehow wiser than the public.
What we all know is that none of us know anything about what is happening behind closed doors. But what we do know is that Missouri is a far more marketable brand as a school and program than any other team left in this conference that isn't OU or Texas. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RustShack:
Football makes more and more money every year for one. Its kind of common sense that a TV deal will be worth more than one signed six years ago. Big12 is still one of the better football conferences. They will be a lot more stable in five years when this happens, among other reasons.
The problem is you aren't accounting for cyclical events......You are making the assumption that the teams on the rise, MU included, will continue to have good years. In the post to patteau I already outlined the case for worry should the other teams beside OU and UT start on the downward slide.
Everyone is basing their idea of how strong the conference will be on teams that haven't shown a long history of good football. The only Teams that have it in our conference are Sooners and Longhorns...the rest of us are all johnny-come-lately's. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Garcia Bronco:
Kansas won't be assout. Their BB program is too good for that.
I agree.
Kansas will land somewhere. Ultimately, the Texas/PAC implosion may really save them. Their best slot to land is, IMO, the PAC and had the most recent proposal gone through, KU might have been in some trouble until the B1G decided to move to 16 (I think they're basketball crazy enough to take KU).
KU will be just fine. K-State better hope that KU brings them along for the ride.
(Iowa State, on the other hand, may well be up shits creek) [Reply]
