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 mnchiefsguy:
Last year Mizzou preferred Big 10. But after getting screwed by them and left at the alter, maybe not so much this year. I think the quote in question really refers to last year's sentiments and not the current ones.
I could see Chip Brown saying that. I can see Texas putting him up to it, despite Wickedson's claims about how wonderful and honest a business partner Texas is.
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
If both the B10 & the SEC offered MU, which do you think they would take? Today, not last year.
I honestly don't know. I would lean toward B1G, but I do not think it is a slam dunk. It would depend on whether B1G would make us a full member or a junior member. If Mizzou had to wait 5 years like NE to get full financial benefits, then I think the SEC might still be the favorite. [Reply]
Originally Posted by vailpass:
B1G didn't "screw" anybody.
I think the B1G led Missouri on, and if NE had not basically thrown themselves at B1G like a two dollar whore, then they would have taken Mizzou. Just my opinion though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
Last year Mizzou preferred Big 10. But after getting screwed by them and left at the alter, maybe not so much this year. I think the quote in question really refers to last year's sentiments and not the current ones.
I could see Chip Brown saying that. I can see Texas putting him up to it, despite Wickedson's claims about how wonderful and honest a business partner Texas is.
ChipBrownOB Chip Brown
I don't know who @Gswaim and @OKStateTweets are, but them saying I'm an "administrator" quoted in an AP story is hilarious - and a lie. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
I think the B1G led Missouri on, and if NE had not basically thrown themselves at B1G like a two dollar whore, then they would have taken Mizzou. Just my opinion though.
IMHO it was up to Mizzou to control their business and to not say "yes" before B1G had popped the question. They needed to make it clear they were in exploratory phase and that nothing had been signed and to downplay any premature assumptions.
This is a lesson MU has obviously learned as evidenced by how they are handling the SEC issue.
Personally I would very much have liked to see the MU program join the B1G. They are a solid all-around school and program. [Reply]
@GregSwine Greg Swine
I have it from good sources that OU wants the B1G w/Texas, and the MVC has an agreement to take KU and KSU. Stay tuned for more information. [Reply]
Majority of SEC presidents favor Missouri, but not yet enough
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama -- Missouri demonstrated it's ready to publicly dance with the SEC. But will enough SEC presidents agree to the overture?
Two sources familiar with the SEC's discussions about Missouri told The Birmingham News Wednesday that as of now it appears that a majority of SEC presidents and chancellors would support Missouri's application. But the sources said that majority falls just short of the nine votes required to add a new member.
One source said there's a group of presidents that wants to sit tight, believing the SEC can do better than Missouri and that No. 14 should come from the East. According to both sources, Alabama wants to look East and not risk losing its annual game against Tennessee, while Auburn favors adding Missouri and moving to the Eastern Division.
The majority that support Missouri like the school's academic profile, getting the SEC into the St. Louis and Kansas City TV markets, and avoiding the awkwardness of an unbalanced 13-team schedule. SEC athletics directors spent about four hours meeting in Birmingham on Wednesday, after which two ADs said only 13-team scheduling concepts were considered, not 14.SEC expansion these days resides on two different tracks: the one trying to line up No. 14 and the one trying to build 13-team schedules. Both are bumpy journeys that will merge at some point, but it's not clear when or who will be aboard.
On Tuesday, Missouri Chancellor Brady Deaton received authority from his board to look elsewhere. Deaton also took the necessary -- and long overdue -- step of resigning as chairman of the Big 12 board of directors to avoid a conflict of interest.
Those actions make an Associated Press story Wednesday out of Missouri all the more bizarre. The AP quoted an anonymous Missouri official as saying the school hopes to join the SEC but preferred a Big Ten offer that never came.
"That's what's left," the Missouri official said, referring to the SEC.
Talk about a clumsy PR way to win support from the SEC, whose large ego doesn't like the appearance of accepting leftovers, especially the Big Ten's. Was this simply one Missouri official's opinion, a last-ditch plea to the Big Ten, or an attempt to sabotage moving into the SEC?
Either way, it should be troubling to the SEC that Missouri continues to trip over itself when trying to leave the chaotic Big 12. Public flirting with the Big Ten last year left Missouri with egg on its face. At this rate, Missouri would instantly become the most unstable SEC member in a conference fiercely concerned about stability and speaking with one voice.
Missouri isn't a good SEC fit. While it would alleviate unbalanced schedules and add cable subscribers for a potential SEC Network, it's a cultural head-scratcher, the SEC's version of Boston College in the ACC.
Meanwhile, SEC ADs met Wednesday to consider how to schedule with 13 in all sports with the least amount of disruption and most amount of fairness. Good luck.
The "simplest" option in football may be giving Texas A&M four teams from each division and let the dominoes fall from there.
Sure, Texas A&M could play an SEC schedule for one year but not be eligible for Atlanta. But that would be a shocking and unnecessary move by the SEC. Once you're a member, you should be a full member.
Consider the headaches in men's basketball. Changes will be necessary to the new 18-game model that would have kept two annual games between old division foes.
Then there's how to stage an SEC basketball tournament with 13. Leave one team at home? Keep five teams home? Stage a play-in game between the 12th and 13th seeds? Give the regular-season champion, which might have played an easier schedule than others, two byes into the semifinals?
Baseball could easily keep eight teams for its tournament in Hoover. But how is it determined who qualifies? Would there be more SEC games, even perhaps jumping from 30 to 36? And how might that affect NCAA Tournament bids?
Mississippi State AD Scott Stricklin said a couple of football models, which he wouldn't identify, received more consensus than others and probably affect the fewest number of current schedules. But, he cautioned, "There's a lot of moving parts."
None more so than the elephant in the room at the ADs' meeting: Will Missouri be No. 14? There's support, but not yet enough. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
ChipBrownOB Chip Brown
I don't know who @Gswaim and @OKStateTweets are, but them saying I'm an "administrator" quoted in an AP story is hilarious - and a lie.
Like Chip Brown is going to admit to doing it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
Like Chip Brown is going to admit to doing it.
That smelled like a deliberate sabotage attempt when I read it, trumpeted of course by the unholy fucks at ESPrickN. I can't imagine it would actually sway anybody in the SEC with a brain, but could hurt us in public opinion arena.
Would be nice if it could be proven that this Texa$$ turd was the source of it. Seeing him get professionally ruined would absolutely make my day. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
@GregSwine Greg Swine
I have it from good sources that OU wants the B1G w/Texas, and the MVC has an agreement to take KU and KSU. Stay tuned for more information.
This only makes sense from a "what OU wants perspective" Texas would not want the B1G for the same reason they could not agree with the PAC...they would have to give up there Tier 3 rights and the LHN would cease to exist. All B1G teams give their third tier to the B1G network. I do not seeing Texas willing to do that anytime soon. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
This only makes sense from a "what OU wants perspective" Texas would not want the B1G for the same reason they could not agree with the PAC...they would have to give up there Tier 3 rights and the LHN would cease to exist. All B1G teams give their third tier to the B1G network. I do not seeing Texas willing to do that anytime soon.
