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.:
IF the rights agreement goes through at 12-13 years as has been rumored, the Big 12 WOULD be a very stable conference for that period. He is correct in that. He is also correct in stating that there is nothing prohibiting an SEC team from leaving - though it is not likely anyone would.
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Do you realize how laughable it is to sit there and say or type that the Big 12 - after losing 4 schools in the last year - is more stable than anyone, let alone the SEC?
Seriously, I get you feel jilted by Mizzou's actions, but that is no reason to just make illogical and ridiculous comments.
mikey clearly says "IF the rights agreement goes through at 12-13 years as has been rumored, the Big 12 WOULD be a very stable conference for that period." [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
IF the rights agreement goes through at 12-13 years as has been rumored, the Big 12 WOULD be a very stable conference for that period. He is correct in that. He is also correct in stating that there is nothing prohibiting an SEC team from leaving - though it is not likely anyone would.
and there is nothing prohibiting Texas from taking its ball and leaving, as long as it retains ownership of its third-tier rights, which the LHN network exists to show.
Without Texas, this conference is dead, dead, dead.
It could survive losing that money for a year while the Big 12 imploded if necessary.
The Big 12, without Missouri and aTm and Nebraska and Colorado, and WITH untrustworthy Texas and OU, is not going to be stabilized by adding BYU and some city-based private schools.
Rumors that rights will be signed over for 12-13 years are wild conjecture, anyway. It is known that six years was agreed to in principle, but Missouri wanted longer commitments. THose thinking the longer commitments will be put on the table are really just hoping for that to happen, because there's no indication Texas will budge on that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr. Plow:
mikey clearly says "IF the rights agreement goes through at 12-13 years as has been rumored, the Big 12 WOULD be a very stable conference for that period."
Why does everyone ignore the elephant in the room when the handcuffs are discussed?
LHN is Tier 3. ESPN backs LHN. If Texas pledges their Tier 1 and 2 revenue for 5 years, 13 years, or 1000 years, they can still leave at any moment because they have a full network in place to broadcast all their games. And OU has publicly acknowledged that they are starting their own network too.
The vaunted pledging of media rights only keeps the rest of the teams in place, not UT or OU. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
Here's a list of the teams that have played in the SEC title game in the past 10 years:
East Division
Florida
Georgia
Tennessee
South Carolina
West Division
Auburn
Alabama
LSU
Arkansas
LSU
Nine of the 12 teams in that conference have played in the title game. 75 percent. Much more parity in that league than the Big 12, which has seen only six teams in the Big 12 title game over the past 10 years. 50 percent.
The SEC also has great teams at the top. But the four super elites do go through cycles.
Florida is currently in a bit of a down cycle after a long run with Urban Meyer (that followed an extreme down cycle under Zook)
Alabama is riding high under Saban, but the guy is 60. There's no guarantee they'll get it right when he retires. They didn't with Shula, Price, etc.
LSU was a pretty middling school in football before Saban (their history looks a little like Missouri's - big dark period in the 80s and early 90s) and Miles rolled in. Miles is 58.
Auburn is a classic up-and-down program.
My point: If you look at the past 25 years, the SEC has always been great, but programs have cycled up and down. They've moved from the second tier to the first tier and vice versa. Some have even had years where they cycle into the third tier, fighting just to make a bowl.
Yes, the SEC is tough as hell. But what makes it tough is the depth, not that the super powers are that much more super than anyone else.
With the right coach and commitment to football, a team can find great success down there.
Great post. This is why I think Mizzou, after an adjustment period, has a chance to do well.
I was wondering about LSU, I could not think of any great teams before the Saban/Miles era. Florida was a doormat before Spurrier, and almost became one again under Zook. All the teams in the SEC have had a down time in the past 25, and almost all of the them have had success, and more of them have had greatness than the BIG XII, which seems content to let OU and UT carry the banner forever. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Why does everyone ignore the elephant in the room when the handcuffs are discussed?
LHN is Tier 3. ESPN backs LHN. If Texas pledges their Tier 1 and 2 revenue for 5 years, 13 years, or 1000 years, they can still leave at any moment because they have a full network in place to broadcast all their games. And OU has publicly acknowledged that they are starting their own network too.
The vaunted pledging of media rights only keeps the rest of the teams in place, not UT or OU.
All I was saying that he never said the Big 12 would be more stable than anyone, you seemed to think he did.
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Do you realize how laughable it is to sit there and say or type that the Big 12 - after losing 4 schools in the last year - is more stable than anyone, let alone the SEC?
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
The conference that just added 31 million people to its footprint... which is a 56 percent increase in its footprint.
Yeah. TV deal will bump up, considerably.
IIRC the current CBS contract expires in 13 YEARS, CBS doesn't have to renegotiate.....they would be stupid to not enforce the current terms. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiefsCountry:
Since the state of Missouri is so important for the Big 12 I guess Missouri State should be getting a call soon then. :-)
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
IIRC the current CBS contract expires in 13 YEARS, CBS doesn't have to renegotiate.....they would be stupid to not enforce the current terms.
Slive has already said in public interviews that the contracts contain look-in provisions to renegotiate.
Do you really think the SEC is going through all this trouble just to add more mouths to feed? Does that make any logical sense? [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
IIRC the current CBS contract expires in 13 YEARS, CBS doesn't have to renegotiate.....they would be stupid to not enforce the current terms.
Isn't there a clause that says if the SEC expands, they can reopen negotiations for Tier1 and Tier2?
Also, since the SEC is going to binding up all of their Tier 3 rights together and form a network, ala the B1G, CBS will want in on that as well, which means they will want to stay in the good graces of the SEC and keep Mr. Slive happy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eazyb81:
Do you realize how laughable it is to sit there and say or type that the Big 12 - after losing 4 schools in the last year - is more stable than anyone, let alone the SEC?
Seriously, I get you feel jilted by Mizzou's actions, but that is no reason to just make illogical and ridiculous comments.
It IS a fact, despite KK touting it, that a Big 12 under those terms would be rock solid. IF a long term (12-13 yr) rights agreement is agreed to, no team would leave the Big 12. The loss in revenue would be prohibitive. That has ZERO bearing on the past. If you don't understand that you are a fucking moron. Nowhere have I posted that the SEC would be less stable, only that the Big 12 would be. On paper, it is a detraction that the SEC has no exit fee, but as I stated, it's academic as no member has a foreseeable reason to leave.
I don't care if MU leaves....just do it and lets get back to SPORTS. [Reply]
Originally Posted by duncan_idaho:
and there is nothing prohibiting Texas from taking its ball and leaving, as long as it retains ownership of its third-tier rights, which the LHN network exists to show.
Without Texas, this conference is dead, dead, dead.
It could survive losing that money for a year while the Big 12 imploded if necessary.
The Big 12, without Missouri and aTm and Nebraska and Colorado, and WITH untrustworthy Texas and OU, is not going to be stabilized by adding BYU and some city-based private schools.
Rumors that rights will be signed over for 12-13 years are wild conjecture, anyway. It is known that six years was agreed to in principle, but Missouri wanted longer commitments. THose thinking the longer commitments will be put on the table are really just hoping for that to happen, because there's no indication Texas will budge on that.
Even UT wouldn't walk away from 12 or 13 YEARS of revenue loss on 1st and 2nd tier.....that's upwards of 100mil. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KcMizzou:
The oragebloods report I read said that's what Mizzou wanted, but Texas balked.
That doesn't mean with the progression of events that yesterdays discussions didn't change things....thats the rumor anyway.
With regard to the SEC contract I don't recall if it was Petro or who, but the talking heads the other morning seemed to read into it that CBS didn't HAVE to renegotiate terms for some time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
It IS a fact, despite KK touting it, that a Big 12 under those terms would be rock solid. IF a long term (12-13 yr) rights agreement is agreed to, no team would leave the Big 12. The loss in revenue would be prohibitive. That has ZERO bearing on the past. If you don't understand that you are a ****ing moron. Nowhere have I posted that the SEC would be less stable, only that the Big 12 would be. On paper, it is a detraction that the SEC has no exit fee, but as I stated, it's academic as no member has a foreseeable reason to leave.
I don't care if MU leaves....just do it and lets get back to SPORTS.
WTF do you not understand about LHN? Seriously this isn't that complex.
Tell me why Texas could not leave with LHN and go independent for football. I really want to hear it. [Reply]
