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 KChiefs1:
MU would have to expand their stadium if they joined the SEC.
Faurot was built in 1925, IIRC.
It's been updated a couple of times, but there's no question that the bones of the stadium are closing in on a century old at this point.
They have an 'SEC caliber' pressbox and suite setup, but the rest of it just doesn't look up to par. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for them to go to the donors and ask for some capital improvement money.
Unfortunately the Laurie door may have slammed shut with the Paige Sports Arena debacle, but perhaps the Kroenke's have some spare change in their couch cushions.
I will say this, however - when Faurot is really rocking and the stakes are high, it can stand with most stadiums in the country:
It isn't a terrible stadium, but it could use an upgrade. That wide bowl look just seems dated; I'd like to see them go to a 2-tier stadium with steeper angles, but that's just me. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants:
And how would we get to the NC game with a regular season loss to OU, in a Big XII without a title game? If I'm interpreting your post correctly that is.
I don't think there's any reason to believe that Mizzou will always lose to OU. Mizzou is competitive now and everything could change dramatically the next time the two schools change coaches or one of them whiffs on a QB. Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska all went through several down years at one point in the not so distant past. I was at Texas during the Mackovic years in the early 90s when they were in the middle of a 15 or 20 year slump. Oklahoma wasn't any good during the 90s either. And Nebraska struggled for several years after Tom Osbourne left.
I think Mizzou can be competitive in the SEC too. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants:
I was at the game, I'm aware of their ranking at the time and the implications of the loss. I'm saying we lost to OU in the regular season in 2007. If that happens now, with no title game, what are the chances we are ranked #1, are in a position to win a Big XII title and go to the NC game? How do you win a 9 or 10 team league with a conference loss? If all the stars do align and you win the Big XII "title" with a conference loss, what are the odds you're #1 in the country and get a NC game bid?
As always it will probably come down to who you lost to, when and where you lost to and if any of the other teams have 1 loss.
Just remember that year Ohio State went to the Championship game with 1-loss in conference the next to last week of the season at home against an unranked Illinois team with no Big 10 title game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Faurot was built in 1925, IIRC.
It's been updated a couple of times, but there's no question that the bones of the stadium are closing in on a century old at this point.
They have an 'SEC caliber' pressbox and suite setup, but the rest of it just doesn't look up to par. It wouldn't be the worst thing in the world for them to go to the donors and ask for some capital improvement money.
Unfortunately the Laurie door may have slammed shut with the Paige Sports Arena debacle, but perhaps the Kroenke's have some spare change in their couch cushions.
I will say this, however - when Faurot is really rocking and the stakes are high, it can stand with most stadiums in the country:
It isn't a terrible stadium, but it could use an upgrade. That wide bowl look just seems dated; I'd like to see them go to a 2-tier stadium with steeper angles, but that's just me.
It could absolutely use an upgrade, but it's not absolutely necessary to be part of the SEC, as implied. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
As always it will probably come down to who you lost to, when and where you lost to and if any of the other teams have 1 loss.
Just remember that year Ohio State went to the Championship game with 1-loss in conference the next to last week of the season at home against an unranked Illinois team with no Big 10 title game.
I guess all the stars can align, I just don't really see a clear path to the NC game in either a 9 or 10 team Big XII, or the SEC. Also that was TOSU, Mizzou got passed over for the orange bowl that year for fucking KU. That should tell you all you need to know about where Mizzou will rank if there is another team to consider in the mix. [Reply]
Originally Posted by patteeu:
I don't think there's any reason to believe that Mizzou will always lose to OU. Mizzou is competitive now and everything could change dramatically the next time the two schools change coaches or one of them whiffs on a QB. Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska all went through several down years at one point in the not so distant past. I was at Texas during the Mackovic years in the early 90s when they were in the middle of a 15 or 20 year slump. Oklahoma wasn't any good during the 90s either. And Nebraska struggled for several years after Tom Osbourne left.
I think Mizzou can be competitive in the SEC too.
Not saying you're wrong, but with the UT and OU of the past decade is hard to imagine ever having another 15-20 year slump. I agree, MU will be just as competitive in the SEC. Perennial 8 maybe 9 win team, then once every 4 or 5 years a dark horse favorite with a shot to make it to an SEC title game. [Reply]
Potentially stupid question because I don't follow CFB that closely, but since I've seen a few people talking about BCS bids and the like:
Assuming Mizzou goes to the SEC - wouldn't it be possible that they could be say, 9-3 and be ranked higher in the BCS rankings because they play a much tougher schedule in the SEC than if they were say 10-2 in the B12 playing the weak sisters of KSU/KU/ISU? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants:
I was at the game, I'm aware of their ranking at the time and the implications of the loss. I'm saying we lost to OU in the regular season in 2007. If that happens now, with no title game, what are the chances we are ranked #1, are in a position to win a Big XII title and go to the NC game? How do you win a 9 or 10 team league with a conference loss? If all the stars do align and you win the Big XII "title" with a conference loss, what are the odds you're #1 in the country and get a NC game bid?
The chances are pretty slim that a one-loss Big 12-whatever team would rise back to No. 1 in the rankings, but it is possible.
Recipe:
The one loss must come in the first half of the season
Must be fairly highly rated at the time of the loss
The loss must be to a team/in a fashion that doesn't crush your rankings
There must be no more than one undefeated team in the country
If the undefeated team isn't from the SEC, all SEC teams must have at least two losses
Teams ahead of you after the loss will have to lose
Basically, exactly what happened in 2007. Missouri fell from 11 to 14 or so after the loss in Norman. Then Oklahoma lost once more, to give the Sooners two regular season losses. And everyone in front of Mizzou lost at least once before the end of the regular season.
LSU lost twice, and the SEC had no other team in that range.
I mean, in 2007, substitute Missouri's win vs. Texas A&M for a win versus Texas and the win against Colorado for a win against oSu. At the end of the season, Missouri would have been 11-1, having just defeated the number 2 team in the country the same week that No. 1, No. 2 and No. 3 all lost (remember: West Virginia and Ohio State both choked in the closing weeks).
They would have been a shoe-in to the title game at that point. Only the loss to OU knocked 'em out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KChiefs1:
Per Twitter: DaveSittler Source: Neinas "working hard at re-recruiting Mizzou and talking them down off the ledge" and away from jumping to SEC.
From what I hear, Mizzou's demands are very unlikely to all be met, and it's unlikely they stay unless all demands are met.
I'm sure Neinas will make a pitch, but unless that includes neutering the LHN (No buying/selling of Big 12 games, no high school games, no high school highlights, etc) and adding some really high-quality members (BYU is that level, but Lousiville/Cincy are just awful), there's not much to sell to Mizzou at this point. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
The chances are pretty slim that a one-loss Big 12-whatever team would rise back to No. 1 in the rankings, but it is possible.
Recipe:
...
They would have been a shoe-in to the title game at that point. Only the loss to OU knocked 'em out.
What are the implications of not having aTm or NU on our schedule? Will our SOS be high enough to get us to #1? Even if we beat OU and UT and win the "title," what if there is an undefeated PAC and and undefeated SEC team? If we beat OU and UT, it's pretty likely at least 1 of them didn't finish the season ranked. Would we even stand a chance at getting the NC game under the BCS system?
I realize that in today's CFB, your scenario where everything aligns perfectly is probably more likely than an undefeated school from 3 conferences. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58:
Potentially stupid question because I don't follow CFB that closely, but since I've seen a few people talking about BCS bids and the like:
Assuming Mizzou goes to the SEC - wouldn't it be possible that they could be say, 9-3 and be ranked higher in the BCS rankings because they play a much tougher schedule in the SEC than if they were say 10-2 in the B12 playing the weak sisters of KSU/KU/ISU?
Higher ranked - yes. But currently only 2 teams from each conference can go to a BCS bowl. With expansion they are looking to petition that so that, say, 3 SEC teams could go to BCS Bowls. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants:
What are the implications of not having aTm or NU on our schedule? Will our SOS be high enough to get us to #1? Even if we beat OU and UT and win the "title," what if there is an undefeated PAC and and undefeated SEC team? If we beat OU and UT, it's pretty likely at least 1 of them didn't finish the season ranked. Would we even stand a chance at getting the NC game under the BCS system?
I realize that in today's CFB, your scenario where everything aligns perfectly is probably more likely than an undefeated school from 3 conferences.
At that point, honestly, it would probably depend on which teams were ranked higher at the start of the season. I'd assume the SEC team gets one spot. The PAC spot would depend on who it was (and honestly, the 12-team PAC really is no better than the current Big 12-3).
Look at this season. UT and OU are both ranked (OU really highly and UT at a middle level). Oklahoma State is highly regarded. Going undefeated through that gauntlet would be more impressive than anything a PAC team could do.
Really would depend on the year, though. I don't think the additions of Utah and Colorado exactly turn the PAC into a monster.
USC is down (and will be for a while, thanks to the hits)
UCLA is even more disappointing as a program than Mizzou
Stanford is probably due for another spell of mediocrity after Luck goes No. 1 (to the Chiefs!)
Oregon is really good but also facing sanctions.
The rest of that league is not very impressive right now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
At that point, honestly, it would probably depend on which teams were ranked higher at the start of the season. I'd assume the SEC team gets one spot. The PAC spot would depend on who it was (and honestly, the 12-team PAC really is no better than the current Big 12-3).
...
The rest of that league is not very impressive right now.
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
At that point, honestly, it would probably depend on which teams were ranked higher at the start of the season. I'd assume the SEC team gets one spot. The PAC spot would depend on who it was (and honestly, the 12-team PAC really is no better than the current Big 12-3).
Look at this season. UT and OU are both ranked (OU really highly and UT at a middle level). Oklahoma State is highly regarded. Going undefeated through that gauntlet would be more impressive than anything a PAC team could do.
Really would depend on the year, though. I don't think the additions of Utah and Colorado exactly turn the PAC into a monster.
USC is down (and will be for a while, thanks to the hits)
UCLA is even more disappointing as a program than Mizzou
Stanford is probably due for another spell of mediocrity after Luck goes No. 1 (to the Chiefs!)
Oregon is really good but also facing sanctions.
The rest of that league is not very impressive right now.
The biggest problem for the Big XII is not having a conference champ. game.
All else being equal a SEC, ACC, Big X or Pac-12 team would get the nod. [Reply]
