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.
There's likely a chance of them getting UCF, Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati instead of going elsewhere, and they still can retain their P5 status and the auto bids. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coach:
I doubt the Big 12 dissolves.
There's likely a chance of them getting UCF, Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati instead of going elsewhere, and they still can retain their P5 status and the auto bids.
Originally Posted by Coach:
I doubt the Big 12 dissolves.
There's likely a chance of them getting UCF, Houston, Memphis, and Cincinnati instead of going elsewhere, and they still can retain their P5 status and the auto bids.
I can’t even imagine what the re-negotiations for a TV contract would look like in that scenario lol….holy shit.
Not only that but no one would ever make the CFP, I don’t care what their record is. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
Would Kansas be on the Big Ten's short list? Believe it or not, football remains the primary revenue driver at KU. Its languishing football program might be a plus in realignment. Big Ten football is strong enough to absorb a team that would be an automatic W despite it subtracting from overall schedule strength. It would be a no-brainer because Jayhawks basketball is a historically great program.
Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla:
That’s, clearly, not an auto-bid league.
Look, OU and Texas has stated that they will honor the current agreement until it expires (which I don't take it face value anyways).
So hypothetically, given how par the Big 12 have been in their proactiveness and shitty product and if OU and Texas leaves before the 2025 expiration, I would not be surprised if the expectation would be to replace the outgoing two with four schools and have it be 12 programs.
Down side is that it does slicing the revenue 12 different ways. However, an argument can be made that increased inventory would be the compromise to leave the television deal intact for the rest of the rights agreement and not be triggered into a renegotiation.
Another argument is that Houston is the 4th moth populated in the United States. There's untapped viewership right there, especially if Houston can get good.
And these KU fans who are saying they'll be going to the Big10, no. Even if the Big 10 wanted any of the leftovers, the idea that they will want them when they have to buyout is silly, and that'll be a non-starter for them.
These moves are being driven by football, football, football and the only football item KU offers is a FCS level opponent without the stigma of playing an actual FCS opponent. Sure, the basketball team would be a nice pickup for any conference, but again, basketball isn't driving the bus.
What the Big 12 really need to do is get proactive and shop their shit to Amazon or Hulu or Netflix or whatever streaming company will pay. Sure that streaming only will cost us some older viewers, but the possible flip side is that it will probably suck in a lot of younger viewers, particularly cord cutters. That grows the brand in a way, where a normal TV contract cannot. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Coach:
Look, OU and Texas has stated that they will honor the current agreement until it expires (which I don't take it face value anyways).
So hypothetically, given how par the Big 12 have been in their proactiveness and shitty product and if OU and Texas leaves before the 2025 expiration, I would not be surprised if the expectation would be to replace the outgoing two with four schools and have it be 12 programs.
Down side is that it does slicing the revenue 12 different ways. However, an argument can be made that increased inventory would be the compromise to leave the television deal intact for the rest of the rights agreement and not be triggered into a renegotiation.
Another argument is that Houston is the 4th moth populated in the United States. There's untapped viewership right there, especially if Houston can get good.
And these KU fans who are saying they'll be going to the Big10, no. Even if the Big 10 wanted any of the leftovers, the idea that they will want them when they have to buyout is silly, and that'll be a non-starter for them.
These moves are being driven by football, football, football and the only football item KU offers is a FCS level opponent without the stigma of playing an actual FCS opponent. Sure, the basketball team would be a nice pickup for any conference, but again, basketball isn't driving the bus.
What the Big 12 really need to do is get proactive and shop their shit to Amazon or Hulu or Netflix or whatever streaming company will pay. Sure that streaming only will cost us some older viewers, but the possible flip side is that it will probably suck in a lot of younger viewers, particularly cord cutters. That grows the brand in a way, where a normal TV contract cannot.
There is no evidence at all that the Big 12 will be proactive about this process in any way. The time to be proactive was in 2010 (expanding to 12 then). But their actions to appease Texas both back then and now (LOL) show they are just going to be reactionary every step of the way until there isn't a conference anymore. [Reply]
The boss move for the Big 10 would be to try to add USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Colorado or Kansas, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and Notre Dame.
They would create a national conference, dominating most of the major media markets and would stay true to their academic-focused/AAU approach (except for Notre Dame who isn't AAU, but I am sure the Big 10 would make an exception for them). [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
There is no evidence at all that the Big 12 will be proactive about this process in anyway. The time to be proactive was in 2010 (expanding to 12 then). But their actions to appease Texas both back then and now (LOL) show they are just going to be reactionary every step of the way until there isn't a conference anymore.
The next domino to fall will likely be pushed by the B1G. They could add 2-6 teams from mostly the PAC maybe 1 or 2 Big12. The rest probably merging together for the weakest conference. Or if they stand pat the PAC and Big12 might try to raid each other and decide which one dies lol [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
The boss move for the Big 10 would be to try to add USC, UCLA, Washington, Oregon, Colorado or Kansas, UNC, Duke, Georgia Tech, Virginia, and Notre Dame.
They would create a national conference, dominating most of the major media markets and would stay true to their academic-focused/AAU approach (except for Notre Dame who isn't AAU, but I am sure the Big 10 would make an exception for them).
There won’t be any teams leaving the ACC for like 10 years. [Reply]