New Conference re-alignment thread

[Saulbadguy]

The old one has AIDS.

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.

Stay tuned.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think you have to know what the specific concessions are to believe that they'd be good for the little sisters of the league. It would be nice to know them, but I think it's highly unlikely that Mizzou is trying to cut a deal that only benefits Mizzou and leaves the conference just as unstable as before.

Well, I don't know that Missouri is negotiating with Texas at all. Are they?

[Dr. Gigglepants]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Question for Mizzou fans:

Why in God's name do those of you that would "prefer to stay in the B12" feel that way?

Probably because they feel we would disappear in the SEC, as opposed to the whopping 2 Big XII title games we've been to in the past 15 years (and how did each of those go?). Seriously, now that there is no Big XII title game, we have literally zero chance of ever winning a title. What are the odds that OU AND UT both have a down year, AND we don't shit the bed against a team we should have beaten at least once?

I don't see any difference between the conferences ad far as our performance. We're an average team in the Big XII and the SEC, and if anything I see Mizzou building a 50 foot wall around the State of Missouri as far as recruiting goes if we do make the move.

The only real difference between the conferences is one plays fair with all its members, one doesn't.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Pants

Well, I don't know that Missouri is negotiating with Texas at all. Are they?

That's the premise of Mellinger's article. I don't have personal knowledge of the negotiations, but you'd think Mizzou would be exploring all options, including the option of improving the B12 enough to make it worth sticking around.

[DJ's left nut]

Sorry, but Mellenger clearly still doesn't get it.

He was on the right track until he spun right off the rails with a line straight out of the Kevin Keitzmann handbook:

There would be no better path to the national championship than through a nine- or 10-school Big 12 without a league title game.

Missouri has won 40 games in four seasons in this conference, and it’s able to make a legitimate claim to being one of the nation’s top 20 programs without having to run the SEC gantlet.

Missouri could compete in the SEC, but it would have better access to the BCS and other major bowl games through the Big 12.

Repeat after me: A 10 team XII is nothing more than a dead conference walking. Pledge media rights all you want - this conference will come apart the day after that 6 year period expires (if not before; UT and OU could pretty much deal with any penalty clause they wanted to if it came right down to it).

In the current landscape, you're growing or you're dying. There isn't stability in this conference, IMO. There won't be stability in this conference unless some serious pride is swallowed and leadership wakes the !@#$ up (I don't anticipate either).

If they scrap the entire set of by-laws and conference regulations, take the B1Gs and adopt them, add at least 3 more teams (at least one of which is BYU and only one of which is a city college) and sign long-term contracts (i.e. ten years) with completely cost-prohibitive poison pills, then maybe the conference can stay together, stablize and become a viable long-term home.

But I really don't see any of that happening. There is too much wounded pride in Norman and way too much ego in Austin.

And even if it did - I still think I'd want to jet. There's something to be said for running with the big dogs every week.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by patteeu

"Prefer to stay in the B12" comes with a caveat. I'd only prefer to stay in the B12 if the reformed B12 is the better deal. Why in God's name would a Mizzou fan rather go to another conference if staying in the B12 is the better deal and how can they rationalize that?

The reason I would like to see the reformed B12 end up being the better deal is that I live in Kansas City and the city benefits from being in the heart of a conference that contains all the local major schools rather than on the edge of two different conferences and also because of the traditional rivalries.

Thanks for your response.

But with all that said, do you (personally) think there's any chance that a reformed B12 is even likely?

Again, from the outside looking in, as long as the B12 exists, it's going to be X amount of teams being Texas' bitch. I don't see Texas giving a shit if Missouri leaves, they'll just invite some other suckers to take a shit deal and join the B12.

As I don't have a dog in the fight, I don't understand the loyalty to "rivalries." If one of my teams (Chiefs/Cardinals/Blues) were moved to a different division/conference, I really wouldn't give a shit.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants

Probably because they feel we would disappear in the SEC, as opposed to the whopping 2 Big XII title games we've been to in the past 15 years (and how did each of those go?). Seriously, now that there is no Big XII title game, we have literally zero chance of ever winning a title. What are the odds that OU AND UT both have a down year, AND we don't shit the bed against a team we should have beaten at least once?

I don't see any difference between the conferences ad far as our performance. We're an average team in the Big XII and the SEC, and if anything I see Mizzou building a 50 foot wall around the State of Missouri as far as recruiting goes if we do make the move.

The only real difference between the conferences is one plays fair with all its members, one doesn't.

Since you don't see any other real differences, which conference would you want to see Mizzou in if both conferences played fair with all of their members and why?

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants

Probably because they feel we would disappear in the SEC, as opposed to the whopping 2 Big XII title games we've been to in the past 15 years (and how did each of those go?). Seriously, now that there is no Big XII title game, we have literally zero chance of ever winning a title. What are the odds that OU AND UT both have a down year, AND we don't shit the bed against a team we should have beaten at least once?

I don't see any difference between the conferences ad far as our performance. We're an average team in the Big XII and the SEC, and if anything I see Mizzou building a 50 foot wall around the State of Missouri as far as recruiting goes if we do make the move.

The only real difference between the conferences is one plays fair with all its members, one doesn't.

Yeah, but assuming that they are going to try to get back to 12 - MU would dominate the "North" in football giving a Big 12 title game & possible BCS bowl game nearly every year.

You won't get that in the SEC.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by patteeu

I don't think you're reading the article right. Mellinger isn't telling you to root for MU to get the best deal they can by leaving the conference. He's telling you to root for them to get whatever concessions they think are necessary from Texas to convince them that staying is the better option. The assumption is clearly that whatever those concessions are (and you're right that he's not very specific about them), they're the same things that KU, KSU, and ISU want but don't have the leverage to demand.

I'm OK with going to another conference, but I'd much rather see Big 12 reform that makes staying put the better option. For example, if Texas agreed to transform the Longhorn Network into a Big12 network with all revenue shared equally (admittedly an unlikely prospect), that would be a huge incentive for Mizzou to re-commit to the Big 12 and an enormously stabilizing development, IMO.

You are spot on about Mellinger's article and I agree if everything was equal I think MU should stay in the Big 12. But we know that is not the case and I don't believe it ever will be with Texas running the show.

[KChiefs1]

Mizzou has to get out while they can! The Big 12 is doomed & who wants to bend over for Bevo all the time?

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Thanks for your response.

But with all that said, do you (personally) think there's any chance that a reformed B12 is even likely?

Again, from the outside looking in, as long as the B12 exists, it's going to be X amount of teams being Texas' bitch. I don't see Texas giving a shit if Missouri leaves, they'll just invite some other suckers to take a shit deal and join the B12.

As I don't have a dog in the fight, I don't understand the loyalty to "rivalries." If one of my teams (Chiefs/Cardinals/Blues) were moved to a different division/conference, I really wouldn't give a shit.

I'd say that the odds are against the B12 reforming to the extent I'd like to see. I think it's possible that it will reform far enough that Mizzou decides to stay, either out of inertia and a sense of tradition or based on hopes of eventually getting into the B1G. But I think the most likely outcome is that it doesn't reform enough to keep Mizzou and Mizzou goes to the SEC.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants

Probably because they feel we would disappear in the SEC, as opposed to the whopping 2 Big XII title games we've been to in the past 15 years (and how did each of those go?). Seriously, now that there is no Big XII title game, we have literally zero chance of ever winning a title. What are the odds that OU AND UT both have a down year, AND we don't shit the bed against a team we should have beaten at least once?

I don't see any difference between the conferences ad far as our performance. We're an average team in the Big XII and the SEC, and if anything I see Mizzou building a 50 foot wall around the State of Missouri as far as recruiting goes if we do make the move.

The only real difference between the conferences is one plays fair with all its members, one doesn't.

I think you are forgetting though that MU would have been in the 2007 NC game if it wasn't for the Big 12 title game.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

As I don't have a dog in the fight, I don't understand the loyalty to "rivalries." If one of my teams (Chiefs/Cardinals/Blues) were moved to a different division/conference, I really wouldn't give a shit.

Really?

I'd be bummed if the Chiefs left the Raiders and Broncos, especially if it were a lateral move.

And I'd be pissed if the Cardinals ended up in that glorified shithole of a softball league - the AL.

If all things are equal, I understand the 'rivalry' aspect of it. However, A) All things aren't equal and B) The rivalry element will never be dispositive. In college football, moving to the SEC w/ the history and tradition of the conference trumps the XII rivalries w/ Kansas and...well really only Kansas.

[KChiefs1]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Again, from the outside looking in, as long as the B12 exists, it's going to be X amount of teams being Texas' bitch. I don't see Texas giving a shit if Missouri leaves, they'll just invite some other suckers to take a shit deal and join the B12.

Stated perfectly!

90% of MU fans see it the same way. Why doesn't everyone??????

[Pants]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath58

Again, from the outside looking in, as long as the B12 exists, it's going to be X amount of teams being Texas' bitch. I don't see Texas giving a shit if Missouri leaves, they'll just invite some other suckers to take a shit deal and join the B12.

Can you please describe this shit deal and tell us how it compares to the SEC deal MU would get by moving?

[Dr. Gigglepants]

Originally Posted by patteeu

Since you don't see any other real differences, which conference would you want to see Mizzou in if both conferences played fair with all of their members and why?

SEC

I understand the negative impact the move would have on Kansas City, I don't really buy that it would impact any local rivalries. Just agree to play KU every year as part of the non conf. schedule in both football and basketball and call it a day. I'd rather have only 1 loss to KU in bball every year anyway. Plus, you could make it towards the final week of non conf play, maybe during the New Year time period, maybe even have it neutral site every now and then. That sounds more fun than getting pounded twice a year in the conference schedule to me.

I would rather see teams like LSU, Bama, Tenn, FL, etc. come to Columbia and play football. That would be fun if you ask me. Plus the money and exposure for the school and program should be better. I don't actually know that last point after all the TV contracts get renegotiated and what not, but it seems highly likely.