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 eazyb81:
Sure, but from a Mizzou fan's perspective, I absolutely do not want to go to a conference where the rules are bent from the beginning to allow UT to do whatever benefits them. That is exactly what caused the demise of the Big 12.
OK, but you do realize they already have that same setup in the SEC, right. University of Florida has their own network. If you believe the rumors, the B!G might bend their rules if it means they could get Texas and Notre Dame. That basically leaves the PAC where everything is shared, but I've heard lots of MU fans say they don't like the time zone spread.
Are you saying it just Texas, then? Would you not go to the B1G if Texas was one of the other schools? Why would you join an academically inferior, athletically tougher, and potentially less payout SEC? Tell me more about this "Mizzou perspective". [Reply]
Fuck ND to the big 10!
Big 10 wont bend rules for Texas either. Thats just not going to happen.
Now if OU & TU wanna join & play by the same rules as the rest of the Big 10 schools.
Im all for it. Cant be just 1.they both need to join the Big 10 or forget it. Ive tried two weekends in a row to cheer for Big 10 schools playing out of conference games. IT SUCKS! [Reply]
Originally Posted by LiveSteam:
**** ND to the big 10!
Big 10 wont bend rules for Texas either. Thats just not going to happen.
Now if OU & TU wanna join & play by the same rules as the rest of the Big 10 schools.
Im all for it. Cant be just 1.they both need to join the Big 10 or forget it. Ive tried two weekends in a row to cheer for Big 10 schools playing out of conference games. IT SUCKS!
Notre Dame will be in the Big 10 in a few years. [Reply]
I've heard some insiders say the SEC will be the first major conference to 16 teams. Could they add A&M, Mizzou, FSU, and Virginia Tech/West Virginia in one fell swoop?
It has never made sense to me that the SEC would not want FSU just because it doesn't add to their footprint. FSU is a powerhouse program and Florida is a huge state for talent, it makes sense to add another big-time program there and lock up the state.
FSU will never join the SEC. Florida won't allow it, ever. [Reply]
I'd like to see Mizzou go to the same conference that the Longhorns end up in. Double good if the Longhorns agree to a more egalitarian funding model. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
OK, but you do realize they already have that same setup in the SEC, right. University of Florida has their own network. If you believe the rumors, the B!G might bend their rules if it means they could get Texas and Notre Dame. That basically leaves the PAC where everything is shared, but I've heard lots of MU fans say they don't like the time zone spread.
Are you saying it just Texas, then? Would you not go to the B1G if Texas was one of the other schools? Why would you join an academically inferior, athletically tougher, and potentially less payout SEC? Tell me more about this "Mizzou perspective".
Schools selling their third tier rights is nothing new and has been around forever. That is completely different than ESPN backing and funding LHN, a channel for UT's rights, when they also own the Big 12's first tier rights. This creates massive issues, especially when the Big 12 divides first and second tier revenue based on tv appearances (sec splits this equally). ESPN has a direct incentive to now push UT over other conference schools and can push typical UT first tier games to LHN, impacting the revenue of other schools. The whole thing is a very slippery slope that no secure conference will accept in its current form. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Schools selling their third tier rights is nothing new and has been around forever. That is completely different than ESPN backing and funding LHN, a channel for UT's rights, when they also own the Big 12's first tier rights. This creates massive issues, especially when the Big 12 divides first and second tier revenue based on tv appearances (sec splits this equally). ESPN has a direct incentive to now push UT over other conference schools and can push typical UT first tier games to LHN, impacting the revenue of other schools. The whole thing is a very slippery slope that no secure conference will accept in its current form.
You realize that the LHN is for 3rd tier right? [Reply]
Research in most departments generates zero dollars for the university as a whole. It does increase the overall prestige and marketability, thus ostensibly increasing enrollment, which is the major driver of budgets.
I don't believe anyone is arguing that athletics (primarily) fund an institution.
Where is anyone in this thread saying that schools want to join the Big 10 because it will generate them more research dollars.
Again, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Universities in the Big 10 and the Pac 12 hold their collective brands high. And that the academic reputations of UCLA, USC, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Cal and most of the Big 10 is a factor in deciding which teams they let in.
This discussion has nothing to do with CIC claiming they can get Nebraska or Notre Dame more research funding. The article suggests that bogus. I believe it. But it has nothing to do with this discussion.
And to the second point that the English Department (as well as possibly the the majority of departments on any given campus) generates zero dollars in research funding... has nothing to do with anything. It certainly doesn't make the UA's $600M in research funding any smaller or the UA's Athletic depatment's $50M any bigger. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini:
Notre Dame will be in the Big 10 in a few years.
Not going to happen. They are happy with the tons of money they make on their own and like the connection to the Big East in football. No way the Big Ten gives on their own network, the other schools would be in an uproar. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jAZ:
Where is anyone in this thread saying that schools want to join the Big 10 because it will generate them more research dollars.
Again, that's the opposite of what I'm saying. I'm saying that the Universities in the Big 10 and the Pac 12 hold their collective brands high. And that the academic reputations of UCLA, USC, Arizona, Stanford, Colorado, Cal and most of the Big 10 is a factor in deciding which teams they let in.
This discussion has nothing to do with CIC claiming they can get Nebraska or Notre Dame more research funding. The article suggests that bogus. I believe it. But it has nothing to do with this discussion.
And to the second point that the English Department (as well as possibly the the majority of departments on any given campus) generates zero dollars in research funding... has nothing to do with anything. It certainly doesn't make the UA's $600M in research funding any smaller or the UA's Athletic depatment's $50M any bigger.
At this point, I have no idea what you're trying to argue. Let's get to this specific question: how are the funds for research generated?
It seems like you're conflating quite a few points. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kstater:
You realize that the LHN is for 3rd tier right?
Did you even read my post? Of course it is for third rights, but since ESPN also owns the leagues's first rights, the strong possibility exists for the lines to get blurred. I.e. The rumor that ESPN threatened Texas Tech with less first tier tv appearances in the future if they didn't agree to have their game against UT on LHN. I have to say it is hilarious watching some ku and KSU fans white knight LHN. [Reply]