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.:
Why are you all suddenly believing the media knows the whole story and reports the truth? If that was the case MU left for B1G last year and BYU is in the Big 12. And Jay Nixon singlehandedly pushed MU into the SEC.....sounds a lot like a certain senator.
But don't let your agenda steer your perception....
What DJ is saying is being borne out right in front of us. What you've claimed has been systematically refuted by everyone involved. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
MU has publicly and REPEATEDLY said since CU and NU left that they were proud and happy members of the Big 12.
And I haven't seen ANYTHING that explicitly stated MU refused anything, just that 3 schools had reservations.
If Missouri signed something, where are the new bylaws? Holy shit, there's no way you possibly believe that Mizzou signed onto some new contract. Nobody is that stupid. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Because there are actual Senators that are calling for hearings to corroborate said reports. There were actual scheduled press-conferences cancelled that further corroborate same.
As opposed to KK, who pretty much just makes shit up as he goes and changes it day to day.
The old school media rules were you try to get 3 sources on a story. Those have gone out the window for the media, but it's still a pretty sound rule. We have a widely reported story, a cancelled press conference and a US Senator calling for an investigation; yeah, I'd say that qualifies as 3 solid sources.
But hey, don't let your idiocy steer your argument.
And if you REALLY think that qualifies as 3 solid sources you're a moron.
Tons of widely reported stories have proven false.
No one has any clue what the news conference was for....it could have been to announce a Big 12 move, but that could have been premature on WVUs part - in fact I'd say that since the final vote had obviously not been taken, it WAS premature.
And of course WVU's senator is raising a stink. He gets touted as the hero and "man of the people" through all of this. And eventually the story will peter out and he'll spend less on his re-election campaign.
I've lived through "It's Patterson!". I know the real story behind it, and it's not good. But I also know the media jumped the gun and ruined the deal - and that's probably the same thing that happened here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
If Missouri signed something, where are the new bylaws? Holy shit, there's no way you possibly believe that Mizzou signed onto some new contract. Nobody is that stupid.
Where did I say they signed anything?
I said they were in the meetings in 2010, and they have continued to state publicly until October 2011 that they were proud and happy members of the Big 12. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
Those senators are just butthurt. :-)
And if you REALLY think that qualifies as 3 solid sources you're a moron.
Tons of widely reported stories have proven false.
No one has any clue what the news conference was for....it could have been to announce a Big 12 move, but that could have been premature on WVUs part - in fact I'd say that since the final vote had obviously not been taken, it WAS premature.
And of course WVU's senator is raising a stink. He gets touted as the hero and "man of the people" through all of this. And eventually the story will peter out and he'll spend less on his re-election campaign.
I've lived through "It's Patterson!". I know the real story behind it, and it's not good. But I also know the media jumped the gun and ruined the deal - and that's probably the same thing that happened here.
You're right - your scenario is far more likely.
I was foolish to think that the schools that have been at each others throats off and on for months and have been looking for ways to better-deal their conference for over a year were engaged in underhanded conduct that could undermine conference unity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Then you haven't read much.
Loftin expressly stated that MU was one of the 3 schools that refused to commit to the conference.
source?
The only public statement I've read from Loftin is this
Originally Posted by : Q: Did you feel uncomfortable that Texas was trying to persuade A&M to tag along with it to the Pac-10? Loftin: Clearly we weren’t driving the train. We were passengers at best, and that was a concern. You don’t want to have your destiny usurped by someone else. We slowed things down, and there was political pressure to not allow the Big 12 to dissolve. As we got to the early June meeting of the Big 12 board in Kansas City, (Big 12 commissioner Dan Beebe) had all the presidents, chancellors and all the athletic directors in one room. There were 24 of us there, plus Beebe and a few of his staff. Beebe polled the board and said he wanted us to declare whether we were committed to the Big 12 or not. Three schools didn’t commit at that point, and the answer I gave was different from everyone else’s. I said that A&M was committed to the Big 12 as it is today. I chose those words very carefully. Since then, I have been accused of being a liar because I committed based on a 12-team conference as it was structured in June 2010. I said my words very carefully because I was not going to set myself into a situation where the conference was radically changed and we would be committed to being in a conference we didn’t really want to be a part of.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You're right - your scenario is far more likely.
I was foolish to think that the schools that have been at each others throats off and on for months and have been looking for ways to better-deal their conference for over a year were engaged in underhanded conduct that could undermine conference unity.
I never said it DIDN'T happen, just that you are in an awful big hurry to condemn the Big 12 for it. I think WVU is largely at fault for jumping the gun.
And as evidenced by his statements, the Senator has no clue what REALLY happened, only that it was reported that McCallan had a hand in it. It's also being reported that the runway at Morgantown is too short, and that's the reason for the holdup.....you believe that too? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saul Good:
If Missouri signed something, where are the new bylaws? Holy shit, there's no way you possibly believe that Mizzou signed onto some new contract. Nobody is that stupid.
He makes a good point - he doesn't appear to be stupid enough to suggest that Mizzou signed anything.
He's just stupid enough to ignore every tenant of contract law and try to argue that some oral statements which don't even begin to constitute the necessary elements of a contract are in some way binding on a University. And that's not even addressing the agency law issues whereby an individual who had no authority to actually bind the university made said statements.
He's pretty stupid, but lets go ahead and accurately identify why he's stupid. [Reply]
The only public statement I've read from Loftin is this
Originally Posted by :
"I said, 'Texas A&M is committed to the Big 12 as it is today.' That was a very important thing for me to say, because I didn't want to commit to something I had no idea what it was going to be."
Especially after three schools, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, didn't give commitments, he said.
"I understood that. It didn't bother me, exactly. But I wasn't about to commit my institution to something I didn't understand," he said, adding, "If you begin shaving off this member and that member, and others come and go, then what do you have?"
Like I said - some of you folks really need to work on reading posts you didn't actually write. It would help your arguments a great deal if you could educate yourselves a little more. [Reply]
The only public statement I've read from Loftin is this
"I said, 'Texas A&M is committed to the Big 12 as it is today.' That was a very important thing for me to say, because I didn't want to commit to something I had no idea what it was going to be."
Especially after three schools, Colorado, Nebraska and Missouri, didn't give commitments, he said."
Originally Posted by frazod:
What? You mean backing into a BCS game because you didn't beat anybody worth a shit all year long isn't a mark of greatness? It's so confusing following beaker logic.
We beat pretty good OSU and ATM teams and then VT of course. It was great. I hope you experience watching MU in a BCS bowl sometime. Beaker logic is very simple: we played in the Orange Bowl and won and have a trophy to show for it. Your sour grapes about how we "backed into it" just makes it that much sweeter. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
He makes a good point - he doesn't appear to be stupid enough to suggest that Mizzou signed anything.
He's just stupid enough to ignore every tenant of contract law and try to argue that some oral statements which don't even begin to constitute the necessary elements of a contract are in some way binding on a University. And that's not even addressing the agency law issues whereby an individual who had no authority to actually bind the university made said statements.
He's pretty stupid, but lets go ahead and accurately identify why he's stupid.
where am I arguing that anything is binding? My argument has simply been that YOU want to let MU off the hook because NU and CU left. My argument is simply that MU has repeatedly publicy stated they are happy members of the conference, including after NU and CU left. That takes a lot of wind out of their sails that they are damaged and owe less buyout. [Reply]
