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 mikeyis4dcats.:
ah, so only what's on paper counts?
An oral contract is a contract the terms of which have been agreed by spoken communication, in contrast to a written contract, where the contract is a written document. There may be written, or other physical evidence, of an oral contract – for example where the parties write down what they have agreed – but the contract itself is not a written one
Is an Oral Contract as Good as a Written Contract?
An Oral Contract is as legally binding as a Written Contract, the issue with an Oral Contract is in proving its existence. To begin, the existence of a Written Contract is fairly obvious, either there is a writing or there isn’t. An oral contract, by definition, does not have a writing to support its terms, conditions or even existence. So how can we prove that it exists? One way is to use witness testimony. If A and B enter into an oral agreement, and C and D are present at the time the oral contract is made, C and D can be used to prove the existence of the oral contract. Their testimony that they heard the terms of the agreement will be sufficient to prove the existence of an Oral Contract. [Reply]
The early June meeting of the Big 12 board in Kansas City, (Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe) had all the presidents, chancellors and all the athletic directors in one room. There were 24 of us there, plus Beebe and a few of his staff. Beebe polled the board and said he wanted us to declare whether we were committed to the Big 12 or not.
Three schools didn’t commit at that point, and the answer I gave was different from everyone else’s. I said that A&M was committed to the Big 12 as it is today. I chose those words very carefully. Since then, I have been accused of being a liar because I committed based on a 12-team conference as it was structured in June 2010. I said my words very carefully because I was not going to set myself into a situation where the conference was radically changed and we would be committed to being in a conference we didn’t really want to be a part of.
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
and what's on paper points to about $25 million in fees, right?
This has already been discussed. Several times, in fact. The contract is governed by by-laws which are poorly written and arguably unenforceable. If there is a legal challenge, there's a good chance that the liquidated damages provision doesn't stand up at all. I've already explained why, but as I've noted, I'm pretty sure some of you don't read any posts that you don't write.
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
An Oral Contract is as legally binding as a Written Contract, the issue with an Oral Contract is in proving its existence.
Well shit, if Wikipedia says so....
(Yeah - that's not accurate. Not even a little bit) [Reply]
Originally Posted by |Zach|:
No large entity will get nailed by an oral contract.
Because virtually every contract a large entity enters into would be subject to the SOF (by the mere nature of the needs of a massive legal entity).
Additionally, as there was an existing contract in place (which was never put into Breach by MU or any other of the remaining members), you're really talking about a novation here, which would absolutely require a writing to be enforceable.
This argument is really really dumb. Then again, that appears to be the sole purview of Mikey at this point, so I shouldn't be too terribly surprised. [Reply]