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 ferrarispider95:
Honest question to Mizzou fans, do you have an invite if A&M doesn't leave the big 12?
Lets just say, you wanted to be the catalyst after hearing Texas flirt with the Pac and A&M was content following Texas, but they both decided to stay in the big 12, so no race to get to 16.
The article posted earlier indicated that yes, Mizzou had discussions w/ Slive regarding admission to the SEC when it appeared that the XII was going to dissolve and A&M was going to the PAC.
So yeah, MU would've been attractive to the SEC even without A&M as this was the exact contingency that was initially discussed.
MU would probably not have been enough to get the SEC to expand to 13 without the PAC expanding, but ultimately I don't really care. [Reply]
Originally Posted by HemiEd:
He has said it so many times in this thread, it is now validated as gospel.
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
And then Missouri reaffirmed it's membership in the conference after NU and CU left, happily taking it's portion of the exit fees.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Again - this didn't actually happen. The meetings after Colorado and Nebraska left led to a lot of non-binding crap and hippy handholding sessions where everyone said they'd agree to get along in the future and explore things as necessary.
In fact, my understanding is that the exit fees haven't been paid yet, either.
There is no new 'membership' contract. The by-laws remain the same. The potential fees and arguments w/ them remain the same.
Exit fees aren't "paid", they are withheld from media payments.
MU attended these "hippy handholding" sessions and by all accounts made no stink or move then about the membership changing, so you don't have any basis for using that as an excuse. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
Exit fees aren't "paid", they are withheld from media payments.
MU attended these "hippy handholding" sessions and by all accounts made no stink or move then about the membership changing, so you don't have any basis for using that as an excuse.
Except that there were no actual binding results from said sandbox sessions.
You're the one citing reaffirmations (a legal term of art, by the way) and/or written contracts/novations that simply do not exist.
They can show up to as many of those meetings as they want and sing kumbayah all day - it doesn't mean shit when they start talking exit fees. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
ah, so only what's on paper counts?
Uh...yes, actually.
This is not a contract of indefinite duration (it would have had a sunset date) and it would have taken more than 1 year to complete (they're not going to sign a 1 year 'reaffirmation'). As such, it is subject to the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing to be enforceable.
And that's still if there were even legitimate contact terms discussed, not just 'agreements to agree' as has been universally reported.
There are some theoretical estoppel arguments that could be raised, but those wouldn't activate any liquidated damages provisions, would require actual damages, and would be virtually impossible to establish/prove up.
Sweetheart - you're out of your league here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Uh...yes, actually.
This is not a contract of indefinite duration (it would have had a sunset date) and it would have taken more than 1 year to complete (they're not going to sign a 1 year 'reaffirmation'). As such, it is subject to the Statute of Frauds and must be in writing to be enforceable.
And that's still if there were even legitimate contact terms discussed, not just 'agreements to agree' as has been universally reported.
There are some theoretical estoppel arguments that could be raised, but those wouldn't activate any liquidated damages provisions, would require actual damages, and would be virtually impossible to establish/prove up.
Sweetheart - you're out of your league here.
and what's on paper points to about $25 million in fees, right? [Reply]
