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:
Thanks. This list also helps my point.
Syracuse is a bball school. They were in demand by the ACC.
They aren't more profitable in football because the Big East has a shitty TV deal because they are a shitty basketball conference.
You call them a basketball school. Why do you think they want to leave the best basketball conference if basketball matters? Its because a shitty football program in a mediocre football conference still generates more profit than a good basketbball school in the premier basketball conference. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
They aren't more profitable in football because the Big East has a shitty TV deal because they are a shitty basketball conference.
You call them a basketball school. Why do you think they want to leave the best basketball conference if basketball matters? Its because a shitty football program in a mediocre football conference still generates more profit than a good basketbball school in the premier basketball conference.
Of course you want to be in a conference that has good balance.
All the conferences that are deemed desirable to be in have football and bball money rolling in.
Big East Football is not good. Pitt leaving makes it worse.
If the Big 12 had shitty football everyone would want to leave as well. [Reply]
This thread seem to be developing a case of the AIDS as well. Let's see if I can pro-tease inhibitor it back to respectability...
Talked to a few people this morning. I'm convinced of a few things:
1) The national media outlets assuming Missouri is GOOD in the Big 12 are overlooking what I think is obvious to those of us who follow Mizzou closely: Last night was a warning shot fired over the bow of the rest of the Big 12. That looked like a very carefully scripted show, designed to set Missouri up to either bolt or make big demands of OU and Tex.
2) The phrase "Proud members of the Big 12" was purposely left out by Deaton. If you start hearing them use this phrasing, we'll know Missouri is staying put.
3) The SEC wants to get to 14, and it wants to do it with Missouri if the Tigers can extricate themselves from the mess that is the Big 12.
4) If UT and OU make the concessions Missouri wants, the Tigers might stay. Of course, UT didn't even make all the concessions OU wanted, so its doubtful they make them for 'lil ole Missouri.' [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
This thread seem to be developing a case of the AIDS as well. Let's see if I can pro-tease inhibitor it back to respectability...
Talked to a few people this morning. I'm convinced of a few things:
1) The national media outlets assuming Missouri is GOOD in the Big 12 are overlooking what I think is obvious to those of us who follow Mizzou closely: Last night was a warning shot fired over the bow of the rest of the Big 12. That looked like a very carefully scripted show, designed to set Missouri up to either bolt or make big demands of OU and Tex.
2) The phrase "Proud members of the Big 12" was purposely left out by Deaton. If you start hearing them use this phrasing, we'll know Missouri is staying put.
3) The SEC wants to get to 14, and it wants to do it with Missouri if the Tigers can extricate themselves from the mess that is the Big 12.
4) If UT and OU make the concessions Missouri wants, the Tigers might stay. Of course, UT didn't even make all the concessions OU wanted, so its doubtful they make them for 'lil ole Missouri.'
4) If UT and OU make the concessions Missouri wants, the Tigers might stay. Of course, UT didn't even make all the concessions OU wanted, so its doubtful they make them for 'lil ole Missouri.'
This is key.
What concessions would need to be made to make Missouri, as well as the rest of the Big 12, happy and content with this league's future?
To me, the linchpin in all of this is LHN, and I don't see any scenario where UT modifies it. More likely, I expect they will either bring OU into the fold, or pair with ESPN to help OU do something similar. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Wickedson:
Methinks that if your list here factored in what Kansas makes off it's $6 million a year IMG deal for basketball it may look a bit different.
just sayin
I will give you 6 million of pure profit. You still can't touch University of Colorado football. Who barely looks like they know how to play football.
