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 DJ's left nut:
Here's something that I think is kinda strange, and it's a point I made last season during the B1G thing:
Why does everyone keep saying "it's all about moneyA" without acknowledging where that money goes and what it's used for?
You're absolutely right that it's all about money - but here's the thing: General revenue cannot be used for athletic programs (well, not above a certain nominal threshold). If you're Missouri and you want to upgrade your facilities, it has to be done through private donors or revenue generated by the programs themselves.
So yeah, of course this is about money. But why don't we say what the true end game is? It's about larger facilities. It's about upgraded amenities. It's about new and improved athletics complexes and additional exposure.
It's not about increasing profit. It's not about downsizing staff. It's about improving the University of Missouri. It's about trying to give us an advantage in an environment where there are precious few places you can actually gain a competitive advantage if the geography doesn't allow for it.
So yeah - keep on calling it a money grab if it makes you feel better. But that's simply ignoring the fact that money means something very very different for a major university than it does for a Fortune 500 company or a private individual. It means the ability to elevate the school.
You belong to a conference for two reasons:
1. Money
2. Scheduling convenience
That's it. The rivalry thing is woven into the scheduling convenience. If any of you think that any other reason trumps either of those two items, you are deluded.
DJ's point is spot on. Look at what South Carolina and Arkansas have been able to build (both facilities and program) since joining the SEC? It's sick. Both schools are far better off than they were.
This has NOTHING to do with grits or sweet tea. Eat and drink what you want...I want what is best for Mizzou, period. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
I didn't think I would have to explain this, but if the SEC reworks their TV deals, every other SEC member will also see a revenue increase.
I'm sure a move to the SEC & the creation of an SEC network will immediately put MU into the top 10 in profit for football. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
In fairness - it seems damn unlikely.
Mizzou's gonna make more. Mizzou's gonna make quite a bit more. But $30 million more?
I've seen anywhere from $12 - $20 million, but never anywhere near $30-$40 million.
Some figures I've heard (from a buddy who works in administration/donations at Mizzou):
Current deal is expected to pay out around $18 million/team at 14 teams. However, the SEC is expected to renegotiate first tier rights with the addition of 31 million people to its home-state footprint (which is around 60 percent of current footprint, if I remember correctly). This should bump things up to around $24 million/school.
The rest of the potential bump would come from the creation of an SEC network, which Slive plans to do with the increased TV markets.
I think $30-40 million is an extremely high estimate. Something like $30 million total is more likely when all is said and done.
It's hard to project on these contracts, though. A lot of moving parts. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
Some figures I've heard (from a buddy who works in administration/donations at Mizzou):
Current deal is expected to pay out around $18 million/team at 14 teams. However, the SEC is expected to renegotiate first tier rights with the addition of 31 million people to its home-state footprint (which is around 60 percent of current footprint, if I remember correctly). This should bump things up to around $24 million/school.
The rest of the potential bump would come from the creation of an SEC network, which Slive plans to do with the increased TV markets.
I think $30-40 million is an extremely high estimate. Something like $30 million total is more likely when all is said and done.
It's hard to project on these contracts, though. A lot of moving parts.
If you had said $30 million total, I could see that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by evenfall:
Personally I don't give a rip what happens after we move on. We upgraded, a the big whatever is okay... Fine. Enjoy it. Everybody wins.
Originally Posted by Stewie:
The PAC is out of the question. Do you pay attention?
They've been angling for an exit for years. For big money schools with football programs like that, there will be options. They were just very nearly gone. It will happen eventually. You guys won't understand until you come home to the note on the kitchen table, but trust me, they don't love you. They've been running around on you for years. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Jerm:
Can't wait to see what excuses the hypocrite media comes up with when TCU and WVU come into the Big XII and get smashed...look at the fucking cupcake conferences they've been playing in.
I'm just glad this shit is almost done so EVERYONE can move on.
Just hope we don't have to wait until 2013 to move to the SEC.
And love idiots like you that think TCU is going to get smashed. We've beat the big teams and our recruiting classes keep getting better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by evenfall:
They've been angling for an exit for years. For big money schools with football programs like that, there will be options. They were just very nearly gone. It will happen eventually. You guys won't understand until you come home to the note on the kitchen table, but trust me, they don't love you. They've been running around on you for years.
3 straight years Texas has been trying to get out of the Big 12. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC native:
And love idiots like you that think TCU is going to get smashed. We've beat the big teams and our recruiting classes keep getting better.
I think that they will compete, but beating the big teams week in and week out is a whole different ball game.
BTW, I am happy as hell to have TCU in the 12. :thumbsup: [Reply]
Originally Posted by |Zach|:
Missouri fans are overwhelmingly for this movie. Feed back to the University as well as sentiment amongst pretty much every group of fans I have seen backs this up.
I know you are not a big fan of reality though. You never have been.
Serious question, no BS or shit slinging intended.
Are the mass of MU fans glad to be leaving because of the angst over the Texas schools running the conference, or are they just wanting a fresh start in the SEC? [Reply]
Originally Posted by buddha:
You belong to a conference for two reasons:
1. Money
2. Scheduling convenience
That's it. The rivalry thing is woven into the scheduling convenience. If any of you think that any other reason trumps either of those two items, you are deluded.
DJ's point is spot on. Look at what South Carolina and Arkansas have been able to build (both facilities and program) since joining the SEC? It's sick. Both schools are far better off than they were.
This has NOTHING to do with grits or sweet tea. Eat and drink what you want...I want what is best for Mizzou, period.
I went to South Bend last weekend and walked around their campus.
It's pretty incredible, it really is. That said - there was nothing about it that couldn't be duplicated. The stadium was actually a relic (they did a 'Soldier Field' style facelift by adding an additional facade around the outside of the stadium). But they just built a Hockey Complex that was just stunning - HOCKEY! The basketball arena is next. And all of it is around a massive quad that is simply stunning. The entire area is a HUGE boost for the overall attractiveness of the University.
The proposed renovations at Arkansas are similar.
If this was couched as "Move to the SEC and they'll upgrade every building, all the equipment and all overall attractiveness of the University" it would be pretty hard for people to call those that were in favor of the move a bunch of greedy assholes - but that's exactly what a "money grab" means in this context.
This is all done to make the University better. [Reply]