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 alnorth:
That is a silly idea. No one can leave if their rights are owned for the next 6 years, you'd have to figure out a way to get the votes needed to dissolve the conference. So, this is basically college football's equivalent to the Scientology billion-year contract.
The B1G has an extremely long-term commitment, but even they have not asked their schools to commit forever and ever till the end of time. (or end of conference)
It is not forever, it is a true six year penalty from the date of the school in question leaving. Under the current six year plan, Texas could stick around for four or five years, establish the LHN network, and then bail. Their penalty in that situation would be a drop in the bucket compared to the mass pile of money they would have accumulated in that time. So the six year commitment that is currently on the table really is not worth six years, it is more of a three or four year band aid that does not provide any real stability. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
See, I don't think that the "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time!" line of thinking is the correct perception of what Mizzou said. That Mizzou had wanted a 13 year commitment was known around the same time as their announcement. We are debating interpretation at this point. Most Mizzou fans did not see six years as a long enough commitment.
I agree. It's really about time you guys left for the SEC. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
It is not forever, it is a true six year penalty from the date of the school in question leaving. Under the current six year plan, Texas could stick around for four or five years, establish the LHN network, and then bail. Their penalty in that situation would be a drop in the bucket compared to the mass pile of money they would have accumulated in that time. So the six year commitment that is currently on the table really is not worth six years, it is more of a three or four year band aid that does not provide any real stability.
Uhhh a rolling agreement is forever, you doofus. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
I agree. It's really about time you guys left for the SEC.
I just don't think that the perception that Mizzou was willing to commit for less than six years is a defenseable one. Mizzou wanted a longer and stronger commitment than what TX and OU were willing to give. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Uhhh a rolling agreement is forever, you doofus. :-)
Until one breaks it. Would it be tough to break? Sure. But if Texas really wanted to get out, they could come up with the money. Plus they would shift some of their content to the LHN to minimize the cost.
Also, agreements like this are rarely fully enforced. They would negotiate a settlement and get out of it. With a longer agreement, that settlement gets bigger. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
See, I don't think that the "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time!" line of thinking is the correct perception of what Mizzou said. That Mizzou had wanted a 13 year commitment was known around the same time as their announcement. We are debating interpretation at this point. Most Mizzou fans did not see six years as a long enough commitment.
No, they were pretty clear about their "official story" in the press conference. Some people may have speculated what they really wanted (Big 12 network? tier 3 sharing? longer commitment? what?), but publicly they were saying that since they are being asked to commit for 6 full years, they needed to evaluate their options first. There was no implication in the PC that the "official story" is that 6 years wasn't enough.
There's a good reason for that, too. Legally, to head off Baylor lawsuits or whatever, Mizzou needs to appear like there is no pre-conceived notion that they ever wanted to leave, whether for the SEC or anyone else, and the SEC needs to appear like they are fully happy with 13. So Mizzou decides to look around at their options just to make sure they should commit to the Big 12 for 6 years, when a sudden flash of inspiration strikes. "Why Gosh, the SEC looks pretty good! It never even occurred to us to join that conference!", with the SEC responding with "why heck, we weren't looking at expanding and hadn't even given Mizzou the slightest thought, but since you asked, why sure, come on in!"
Behind the scenes Mizzou might be using the threat of leaving for leverage, and SEC may or may not be giving assurances, and everyone in the world may know whats going on, but publicly, they can't admit that in anything that would leave a paper trail. Just closed non-public un-discoverable off-the-record discussions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
It is not forever, it is a true six year penalty from the date of the school in question leaving. Under the current six year plan, Texas could stick around for four or five years, establish the LHN network, and then bail. Their penalty in that situation would be a drop in the bucket compared to the mass pile of money they would have accumulated in that time. So the six year commitment that is currently on the table really is not worth six years, it is more of a three or four year band aid that does not provide any real stability.
It is forever because no conference will want you if they can't have your rights. This isn't some cash penalty you pay, it eliminates your value to anyone else. Maybe they could stomach you being a useless spare tire in the conference for 1 year, but not six. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
No, they were pretty clear about their "official story" in the press conference. Some people may have speculated what they really wanted (Big 12 network? tier 3 sharing? longer commitment? what?), but publicly they were saying that since they are being asked to commit for 6 full years, they needed to evaluate their options first. There was no implication in the PC that the "official story" is that 6 years wasn't enough.
There's a good reason for that, too. Legally, to head off Baylor lawsuits or whatever, Mizzou needs to appear like there is no pre-conceived notion that they ever wanted to leave, whether for the SEC or anyone else, and the SEC needs to appear like they are fully happy with 13. So Mizzou decides to look around at their options just to make sure they should commit to the Big 12 for 6 years, when a sudden flash of inspiration strikes. "Why Gosh, the SEC looks pretty good! It never even occurred to us to join that conference!", with the SEC responding with "why heck, we weren't looking at expanding and hadn't even given Mizzou the slightest thought, but since you asked, why sure, come on in!"
Behind the scenes Mizzou might be using the threat of leaving for leverage, and SEC may or may not be giving assurances, and everyone in the world may know whats going on, but publicly, they can't admit that in anything that would leave a paper trail. Just closed non-public un-discoverable off-the-record discussions.
Baylor lawsuits were no longer a factor once the Commissioner of the BIG XII said the league would be just fine without Mizzou. Mizzou's statement was simply that they were looking around, and that the Big XII wanted a six year commitment, and that Mizzou would do what is best for Mizzou. That's it. If anything, Mizzou wanting and willing to give a longer commitment shows that Mizzou is commited to the long term of the BIG XII.
I know you love slandering Mizzou and you are a KU guy, and that is fine. I just think saying Mizzou was "putting a lie" on at the presser was not the correct interpretation of the presser. We can agree to disagree. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
It is forever because no conference will want you if they can't have your rights. This isn't some cash penalty you pay, it eliminates your value to anyone else. Maybe they could stomach you being a useless spare tire in the conference for 1 year, but not six.
Probably true. But given the vast value of what Texas athletics had become, you cannot say that there is a 100% chance of that occurring. I agree that the six year rolling agreement is as close to a true complete lockdown as you can get, I just don't think it is completely impossible to get out of. When there is that much money involved, there seems to always be a way to bend the rules in your favor. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
No, they were pretty clear about their "official story" in the press conference. Some people may have speculated what they really wanted (Big 12 network? tier 3 sharing? longer commitment? what?), but publicly they were saying that since they are being asked to commit for 6 full years, they needed to evaluate their options first. There was no implication in the PC that the "official story" is that 6 years wasn't enough.
There's a good reason for that, too. Legally, to head off Baylor lawsuits or whatever, Mizzou needs to appear like there is no pre-conceived notion that they ever wanted to leave, whether for the SEC or anyone else, and the SEC needs to appear like they are fully happy with 13. So Mizzou decides to look around at their options just to make sure they should commit to the Big 12 for 6 years, when a sudden flash of inspiration strikes. "Why Gosh, the SEC looks pretty good! It never even occurred to us to join that conference!", with the SEC responding with "why heck, we weren't looking at expanding and hadn't even given Mizzou the slightest thought, but since you asked, why sure, come on in!"
Behind the scenes Mizzou might be using the threat of leaving for leverage, and SEC may or may not be giving assurances, and everyone in the world may know whats going on, but publicly, they can't admit that in anything that would leave a paper trail. Just closed non-public un-discoverable off-the-record discussions.
Minor correction: They said that the conference was asking members to sign on to a long term commitment of at least 6 years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
Baylor lawsuits were no longer a factor once the Commissioner of the BIG XII said the league would be just fine without Mizzou. Mizzou's statement was simply that they were looking around, and that the Big XII wanted a six year commitment, and that Mizzou would do what is best for Mizzou. That's it. If anything, Mizzou wanting and willing to give a longer commitment shows that Mizzou is commited to the long term of the BIG XII.
I know you love slandering Mizzou and you are a KU guy, and that is fine. I just think saying Mizzou was "putting a lie" on at the presser was not the correct interpretation of the presser. We can agree to disagree.
This is not slander, its pretty clear. I mean, I could pull quotes if I have to, but I shouldn't have to because everyone listening heard Deaton basically say that since the conference was asking for a 6-year commitment, which he said he understood they probably should be asking for, but since they were asking, they need to evaluate their options. The official story wasn't that the Big 12 failed to ask everyone to make a big enough commitment, it was that since they asked for any commitment at all, they needed to look first.
As for the legal implications, of course it matters. The case may or may not be weak, but why the hell would you give anyone any ammo at all if you don't have to. Just put together the kabuki dance and no one can sue (or if they sue anyway, it can be knocked out quickly and cheaply). Even if you think you could win, lawyers are still expensive and no one needs a long legal fight if they can avoid it while still getting what they want. Mizzou would be morons to publicly say that they have been talking to the SEC and are now taking them up on their offer to leave. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
This is not slander, its pretty clear. I mean, I could pull quotes if I have to, but I shouldn't have to because everyone listening heard Deaton basically say that since the conference was asking for a 6-year commitment, which he said he understood they probably should be asking for, but since they were asking, they need to evaluate their options. The official story wasn't that the Big 12 failed to ask everyone to make a big enough commitment, it was that since they asked for any commitment at all, they needed to look first.
As for the legal implications, of course it matters. The case may or may not be weak, but why the hell would you give anyone any ammo at all if you don't have to. Just put together the kabuki dance and no one can sue. Even if you think you could win, lawyers are still expensive. Mizzou would be morons to publicly say that they have been talking to the SEC and are now taking them up on their offer to leave.
Which is why Mizzou said what it said. What they said is open to interpretation and we differ on that. You think they were less than honest and have made that clear. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I just disagree. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy:
Which is why Mizzou said what it said. What they said is open to interpretation and we differ on that. You think they were less than honest and have made that clear. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. I just disagree.
Fair enough, I'm just a little surprised at your partisanship because what you think they said, in regards to whether they said they were leaving because they didn't get the 13 years they wanted vs needing to evaluate after being asked to make a commitment, simply has no basis in reality.
I could claim that it was president Carter who asked the Soviets to "tear down this wall", you respond by saying that I'm wrong because it was president Reagan, and I could then say well I disagree, and we'll just have to agree to disagree because you are anti-Carter, but that doesn't mean my opinion isn't clearly false. [Reply]
