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 CrazyPhuD:
Heh in computers almost no one in industry funds research at academia with the intent to get anything back from academia. Generally speaking academia is 3-5 years behind industry. Industry funds academia to get recruiting access to students for recruiting. Most big money still comes from NSF/Darpa to my knowledge.
In the short term, academia can't compete with in-house design teams. That's not the point, and it's not designed to work that way. Academia, even in CS and MIS (my department), we conduct basic research. We provide the tools and understanding that companies use to inform their next level of applications.
I happen to be in a program that commercializes IT research better than many others. Just had one of our top professors have his 8 year old "startup" acquired for the 2nd time. This time by IBM for $1/2 a billion dollars. The research began with DARPA and similar funding and the publications.
But companies typically will license this research after it's done. Not fund it before it gets started. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DeezNutz:
It's all about money. Nothing more, nothing less. People bring up the other bullshit to try to fool themselves and make the whole thing appear more legitimate.
Here was the original point, Jaz, and it remains accurate. The Big 10 didn't seek out Nebraska because of its stellar academic reputation. The conference added this school because of its behemoth football program, which is a revenue-generating machine. Regional exposure, opening new markets, etc...revenue is the common denominator.
Then you started talking about a school's overall operating budget, which is primarily driven by tuition, state appropriations, and grants. None of which have much to do with conference realignment. Tuition perhaps could enter the debate if a few additions would then increase the marketability and brand of a conference (individual school) enough to drive up enrollment.
Solid academic conferences have added lesser academic institutions over the past 12 months. Why? Pretty simple answer.
Finally, it's not just doctoral students who can apply for research funding, as you surely know, but I understand that you're at a point in your life that this is your primary focus (based on your initial fiscal analysis of a university, which seems to have been a point of discussion in Intro. to Grad. Studies at the southwest branch of KU--read U of A--, and your final post to me).
No, here's the original point and posts.
Originally Posted by DeezNutz:
Originally Posted by jAZ:
A great post on one of the boards I frequent had the following to share. It's from a trusted poster with ties to the Pac-12 office.
Oklahoma has an invite to Pac-12... OSU is not an automatic invite with the Sooners. OU realizes that OSU might only be a part of certain scenarios.
If OU comes and Texas balks, Mizzou and Kansas come into play. OSU and Tech are fillers.
There is some interest on a play for Rice as a 4th addition as this has been floated to UT. The Houston market and Rice's academics are intrugiuing as a partner for Texas.
The Texas to the ACC stuff is nonsense and a negotiation ploy being floated out by UT. The Pac 12 is the only option being considered by the UT.
Longhorn Network, it is no impediment as ESPN would gladly drop it in favor of more Pac 12-16 games in the current deal. Apparently it's a financial mess all around.
The dream scenario for Larry Scott is Texas, Oklahoma, Mizzou and Kansas. Four huge schools with 2 big football and 2 big hoops traditions. 3 AAU members and 5 big new TV markets along with 3 other good, medium sized markets.
Mizzou badly wants to be in the Big 10, but views themselves as more SEC compatitable with less travel there too.
Mizzou has talked to Scott and KU would do anything to make it happen as they want to stay West.
Yeah, this is complete bullshit. Rice? :-). Academics aren't a factor in this equation. Not in the slightest bit.
You said about my original post "this is complete bullshit".
You based your sweepingly wrong statement on the baseless fact that you just don't believe that anyone at the league office was talking about Rice as a +1 to Texas because of the academics and the Houston market.
You subsequently completely twisted the facts to make an ignorant argument based on your assumption that acadmics play no role in the decision making of an athletic conference.
You then went on to completely contradict your original sweepingly wrong statement by agreeing with HH, and I quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade:
... In the ACC, it appears to be academic standing, location, and basketball. ...
The B1G strikes me as the classic big academics/big athletics college fraternity. I think academic standing standing or perception does matter to them.
Well said. I agree with all of this.
You are wrong in one or the other of your statements. Either for some conferences it's about money AND academics... or it's about money, nothing more and nothing less.
You don't get to have it both ways just because you want to feel right.
And NONE of that changes the fact that the vast majority of the information I shared in my original post, which you called "complete BS", has since come out and been confirmed if not yet proven true.
And you have no way of knowing if Rice was being discussed by people at the league office, but given that my source seems to have been completely correct at this point, I am certain that it was discussed.
I am also now certain about what I initially just assumed. You didn't know what you are talking about when you called the whole post "complete BS".
What I don't understand is why you can't seem accept that you were almost certainly wrong. It's not like you are expected to know the discussions going on in the Pac-12 offices. Or expected to know how important academics and research funding are these days to both the funding and the branding of certain conferences. Or expected to believe some unconfirmed rumor posted and reposted on the internet.
It's perfectly reasonable to have assumed it was BS then.
Ugh, the Pitt, syracuse, and uconn news is a kick in the nuts for TCU. I have no idea of where we'll land but at least I know Chris del Conte is working to get TCU the best outcome. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Absolutely miserably bad leadership.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I'm leaning more and more your direction every day.
The Pac-10 and ACC are inferior on the field.
Make that matter. The Big 12 officials get paid way too much money to just sit around and let things crumble.
IF OU-OSU-UT-TT all end up in the Pac-16 and then all of a sudden there's an Pac-16 office in Dallas and Dan Beebe somehow has a job there then I give up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Jesus, man, MU will be fine.
Probably - but not for lack of effort.
What has the administration done to actually help MU's transition here? Apart from droning on and on about how "The XII is our first priority and we are certain we can keep it together" blah blah blah - what have they done?
MU has been a pawn in all this. That's it and that's all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Probably - but not for lack of effort.
What has the administration done to actually help MU's transition here? Apart from droning on and on about how "The XII is our first priority and we are certain we can keep it together" blah blah blah - what have they done?
MU has been a pawn in all this. That's it and that's all.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Probably - but not for lack of effort.
What has the administration done to actually help MU's transition here? Apart from droning on and on about how "The XII is our first priority and we are certain we can keep it together" blah blah blah - what have they done?
MU has been a pawn in all this. That's it and that's all.
How naive do you have to be to think that public facing comments are all that is happening.
Originally Posted by Wickedson:
I'm leaning more and more your direction every day.
The Pac-10 and ACC are inferior on the field.
Make that matter. The Big 12 officials get paid way too much money to just sit around and let things crumble.
IF OU-OSU-UT-TT all end up in the Pac-16 and then all of a sudden there's an Pac-16 office in Dallas and Dan Beebe somehow has a job there then I give up.
