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 Wickedson:
I don't get it either.
UT will always have so much more than everyone else. Switching conferences will just lead to another big fish (Ohio State, USC, etc etc...)
The best feeling in sport is building a program with less and winning on the field. Running away to another conference will never fix this feeling of inferiority masked as anger.
This is true and it's why I make fun of the "We had options/The PAC plane is on the way!!!!111/ KSU is our anchor..IT'S NOT FAIR" crowd.
It's why NU left and it's why MU fans want out so badly. They'd be buried so deep in the SEC they'd never sniff another division title.
Beat them on the field and it's a non factor. [Reply]
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pretend that everything is hunky dorey and we have nothing to worry about now without some changes.
Our problems stem from the LHN, but not because of the money. The fans are obsessing over the money, but that is not why schools are pissed. We have 2 problems. (well 3, including distrust that other schools are about to leave, but you can fix that by forcing them to sign away their T1/2 TV rights for several years so that it is basically impossible to leave)
1) If the LHN shows high school ball, even highlights, then Texas could exploit that for a recruiting advantage.
2) The LHN apparently intends to work out deals with Fox/ESPN to poach some of our T1/2 games. (Kansas is complicit in this, because we accepted a big bribe to let them show our KU/UT game on the LHN) If Texas wants to show non-conference games that are not picked up, fine, go nuts and feel free to keep what you make. If Texas wants to show a conference game, they should split all revenue from that game.
This is fixable. If Texas doesn't show high school and splits anything they get from conference games, we're cool. The 3rd tier money they get otherwise is not enough to bother with. [Reply]
Originally Posted by alnorth:
Don't get me wrong, I don't want to pretend that everything is hunky dorey and we have nothing to worry about now without some changes.
Our problems stem from the LHN, but not because of the money. The fans are obsessing over the money, but that is not why schools are pissed. We have 2 problems. (well 3, including distrust that other schools are about to leave, but you can fix that by forcing them to sign away their T1/2 TV rights for several years so that it is basically impossible to leave)
1) If the LHN shows high school ball, even highlights, then Texas could exploit that for a recruiting advantage.
2) The LHN apparently intends to work out deals with Fox/ESPN to poach some of our T1/2 games. (Kansas is complicit in this, because we accepted a big bribe to let them show our KU/UT game on the LHN) If Texas wants to show non-conference games that are not picked up, fine, go nuts and feel free to keep what you make. If Texas wants to show a conference game, they should split all revenue from that game.
This is fixable. If Texas doesn't show high school and splits anything they get from conference games, we're cool. The 3rd tier money they get otherwise is not enough to bother with.
The high school thing shouldn't happen and won't happen. Even if there are literally 18 people in this country that subscribe to the LHN. It was a dumb thing to try and pull and I don't think anyone's going to be worried about that going forward.
It is annoying that there is a possibility of conf games getting poached by the LHN. This year the KU got taken. If KU was better on the field then they wouldn't have agreed to it and it would have been put on ABC or FSN or whatever. I live in NYC which will NEVER have the LHN. So no matter where I go I won't be able to watch KU-UT this year. That sucks. But if KU doesn't have the pull on the field to say no then that's their own fault. I'm going to give them this year because it will be a good payout for them and most of the KU fans won't be screaming about not seeing it because the team will most likely not win. [Reply]
Anyway, I said money is not really the issue, now that everyone has agreed to share Tier 1/2, so lets break it down. (I'll also assume we expand to 10)
We currently have a weird situation where our tier 2 contract is a lot bigger than our tier 1 contract, because we made our deal with Fox recently. That tells us that our tier 1 deal will probably be massive. (maybe we can renegotiate after dropping A&M and adding BYU?)
Tier 1 (ESPN): expires in 2016, $60MM/year, $6MM per school
Tier 2 (Fox): expires in 2025, $90MM/year, $9MM per school
Money each school gets from TV if they don't make a dime on Tier 3: $15MM/year
Tier 3 (owned by each school): 2009-2010 school year
Texas: ~$15MM/yr (not 09-10, based on future from LHN)
Kansas: ~$7.3MM
OSU: ~$6.4MM
MU: ~$4.1MM
KSU: ~$3.3MM
ISU: ~$2.6MM
OU:~$300k
TTech and BU: basically zero
average: ~$4.3MM
If everyone splits evenly, each school gets about ~$19.3MM
If no split, Mizzou gets about ~$19.1MM. Baylor gets ~$15MM [Reply]
PAC 12: $250MM/year, locked in through 2024
Big 10: $212MM/year, T1 (100/yr) done in 2016, T2 basically locked in forever (2030's through BTN)
SEC: $205MM/year, locked in through 2024, which is probably why they'd like to expand to give them an excuse to renegotiate
ACC: $155MM/year, locked in through 2023, but maybe they can now renegotiate?
Big 12: $150MM/year, details above
Big East: $42.3MM/year, T1 expires next year, T2 expires in 2013, if the conference makes it that far [Reply]
Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish:
This is true and it's why I make fun of the "We had options/The PAC plane is on the way!!!!111/ KSU is our anchor..IT'S NOT FAIR" crowd.
It's why NU left and it's why MU fans want out so badly. They'd be buried so deep in the SEC they'd never sniff another division title.
Beat them on the field and it's a non factor.
That has nothing to do with why I want out as an MU fan. I want out because the conference isn't stable. Eventually, there will be a huge game of musical chairs, and I want to make sure we have a nice, comfy seat when the music stops.
K-State has beaten Texas several times. What do you think that's worth when it comes to realignment? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wickedson:
The high school thing shouldn't happen and won't happen. Even if there are literally 18 people in this country that subscribe to the LHN. It was a dumb thing to try and pull and I don't think anyone's going to be worried about that going forward.
It is annoying that there is a possibility of conf games getting poached by the LHN. This year the KU got taken. If KU was better on the field then they wouldn't have agreed to it and it would have been put on ABC or FSN or whatever. I live in NYC which will NEVER have the LHN. So no matter where I go I won't be able to watch KU-UT this year. That sucks. But if KU doesn't have the pull on the field to say no then that's their own fault. I'm going to give them this year because it will be a good payout for them and most of the KU fans won't be screaming about not seeing it because the team will most likely not win.
Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish:
This is true and it's why I make fun of the "We had options/The PAC plane is on the way!!!!111/ KSU is our anchor..IT'S NOT FAIR" crowd.
It's why NU left and it's why MU fans want out so badly. They'd be buried so deep in the SEC they'd never sniff another division title.
Beat them on the field and it's a non factor.
Nebraska had flirted with the Big 10 for 20 years now. I wanted out because the Big 12 conference sucks. I had to pay 40 bucks to watch Nebraska play Western Kentucky? Aside from that I like the history and traditions the Big 10 has. Would much rather player in the Rose Bowl than the Fiesta Bowl. Also haven't seen many people on the Big 10 boards talking about basketball in September. [Reply]
Originally Posted by WilliamTheIrish:
The PAC declared the honeymoon over when they felt UT was going to walk away. It was mutual/non mutual face saver.
From the beginning the Pac-12 had a high bar for taking anyone else. They have the best media deal in the country and they are going to be the first conference with international distribution rights in Asia. And to divide that pie with Texas and OU makes sense. To add OSU and TT makes little sense, other than to get UT and OU.
The Pac would be better with Texas on the same terms as USC and UCLA. But they weren't ever going to accomidate Texas above USC and UCLA. Texas was going to get whatever those schools get. And they were going to get whatever Texas gets.
And the LA schools have wanted a B12/UT-like deal from the Pac-10 for years... for obvious reasons. So there was no "saving face" necessary on the Pac-12's part. None.
That's not so say that it couldn't have been very good for the Pac12 to become the Pac16. But only under certain conditions. And Texas was going to have to accept them ultimately.
They weren't willing to. They said no. Scott said fine. And the Pac voted to stand pat... where pat is a very good position. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini:
Nebraska had flirted with the Big 10 for 20 years now. I wanted out because the Big 12 conference sucks. I had to pay 40 bucks to watch Nebraska play Western Kentucky? Aside from that I like the history and traditions the Big 10 has. Would much rather player in the Rose Bowl than the Fiesta Bowl. Also haven't seen many people on the Big 10 boards talking about basketball in September.
For the record I never really wanted out, but after losing the OU/NU game yearly and being force fed a rivalry with Colorado things never felt the same. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bo's Pelini:
Nebraska had flirted with the Big 10 for 20 years now. I wanted out because the Big 12 conference sucks. I had to pay 40 bucks to watch Nebraska play Western Kentucky? Aside from that I like the history and traditions the Big 10 has. Would much rather player in the Rose Bowl than the Fiesta Bowl. Also haven't seen many people on the Big 10 boards talking about basketball in September.
Really?
I see the Big 10 as more of a bball conf nowadays. No sniff of a title since Maurice Clarett. Wow thats a long time [Reply]