Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread - Page 139

**Saulbadguy** · 09-12-2011, 07:57 AM

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.

Al Bundy · 10-02-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

I didn't ask for your help, I asked you to explain it. I explained why I didn't think it was, your only return seems to be "because I said so". This leads me to believe it is only a recruiting advantage in your mind because you can't describe it for anyone else.

You post what you believe to be the reason it won't be. Prospects get plucked from the state of Texas that even the might Longhorns are after every year. You give the Longhorns this, and it is yet another recruiting tool they will use over and over.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

All right, drag me into the infield, explain it instead of using obscure analogies to hide what appears to only be an insecurity rationale.

You swung and missed on your characterization of the PAC situation. They didn't want Texas because they knew the LHN was going to screw everything up.

Aside from that it seems obvious Texas intents was to use this frayed Big 12 to get the LHN up and running and then bolt to be independent when it started raining down money. They over played their hand and now you have this complete mess.

Why, with all the success the Big 12 have had are all these teams bolting? Pinkel said it best...this league has problems and everyone knows what they are.

LHN network has the ability to skew all kinds of advantages towards Texas...and that is fine this is a free market. They have the right to do that but those other teams also have a right to call bullshit and try to form a conference situation that works for everyone and isn't completely toxic because the greed of Texas made it that way.

This whole thread you keep asking why this and why that...why would people leave the Big 12? Why not.

Mr_Tomahawk · 10-02-2011, 08:38 PM

So I take it there has been no new news?

HolyHandgernade · 10-02-2011, 08:42 PM

[QUOTE=eazyb81;7961560]Right, because they are trying to promote UT over the Big 12, which is driving the wedge here. Why didn't OSU or Michigan feel the need to say "no thanks" to a Big Ten Network and start a school-specific one? Why have other conferences said LHN simply would not be allowed if UT came knocking?

See, I think this notion of "over the Big XII" is your perspective. I think they just see it as promoting a UT network for Texans. Your comparing a conference that been together for not even 2 decades against conferences that have over half a century of relationships. The Big XII came together because of TV contracts, and now you think there should just be a bunch of camaraderie. It doesn't make any sense. You can't force the appearance of decades long relationships.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

I agree it won't happen, but it would be a solution to this mess and resolve a significant amount of internal conflict.

And sorry if you don't like the term "worthless", but that is exactly how ESPN, Fox, etc would view the revenue potential of a Big 12 Network without Texas. The Big Ten Network would be worthless without OSU and Michigan. The upcoming SEC Network will be worthless without Florida and Alabama.

I think that's just conjecture. I don't think anyone has tried because the whole conference thought in terms of self interest. It was like they assumed the right to keep third tier control only meant an individual network. So, everyone was excited about their own network and how to make that work, but considers any collaborative effort to be folly. Makes perfect sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

This point goes back to the prior that a Big 12 Network is worthless without Texas. With LHN, Texas is eliminating upside from a potential Big 12 Network from schools like ISU, KSU, KU, etc.

Don't worry, hopefully the last of the complainers will be gone shortly and you guys can forget this mess ever happened. Schools like Mizzou, A&M, Nebraska, and Colorado just don't understand the great vision of LHN.

Well, I think all those schools left for different reasons. CU used the excuse of Texas but had been wanting to move west for quite some time because they identified with that culture more and most of their alumni on the west coast. NU was upset over the partial qualifier and the disrupted series with OU. Many of the things this conference has now was because NU wanted it that way. My guess is they wouldn't have been nearly as upset if their program hadn't gone in the tank like it did for a number of years. A&M has an inferiority complex, their issue was ruled in their favor and they still thought the SEC was the only way to carve out their own identity. If anyone really had a beef with a recruiting imbalance with the LHN, it would have been them.

MU doesn't compete for the same recruits UT does. There is no real recruiting advantage the LHN ensures over MU that UT didn't already possess. I'm not saying Texas isn't a headache to deal with, they obviously are. I just think this LHN issue has been blown way out of proportion. I think this is an opportunity for MU to play like one of the big dogs. I just don't know if they know the new kennel they want to run to isn't going to make them one of the runts again, even more so than they ever were in this conference.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

I think this is an opportunity for MU to play like one of the big dogs. I just don't know if they know the new kennel they want to run to isn't going to make them one of the runts again, even more so than they ever were in this conference.

More Kansas fans telling Missouri how scared they should be.

/eye roll

HolyHandgernade · 10-02-2011, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UCF Knight

You post what you believe to be the reason it won't be. Prospects get plucked from the state of Texas that even the might Longhorns are after every year. You give the Longhorns this, and it is yet another recruiting tool they will use over and over.

Yes, but that's because the state of Texas produces more talent than any one school (or even 7) in the state can legally take. UT gets who they want and wants them. If a recruit didn't want UT in the first place, the LHN isn't going to change their mind because they showed some high school highlights. The only recruits Texas loses are the ones that didn't want them or weren't ranked high enough for Texas to want. That won't change, LHN or no.

Mr_Tomahawk · 10-02-2011, 08:47 PM

Guess not...

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Yes, but that's because the state of Texas produces more talent than any one school (or even 7) in the state can legally take. UT gets who they want and wants them. If a recruit didn't want UT in the first place, the LHN isn't going to change their mind because they showed some high school highlights. The only recruits Texas loses are the ones that didn't want them or weren't ranked high enough for Texas to want. That won't change, LHN or no.

LHN will turn into a money making machine and when they don't need the B12 anymore they will bolt.

That is fine...Texas is free to do that because they can. But if Missouri can avoid being a part of that mess they will.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk

Guess not...

Big 12 had meetings today to try and entice Missouri to stay...Texas puppet Chip Brown said the talks were encouraging.

**DeezNutz** · 10-02-2011, 08:49 PM

At this point, the situation is not at all complicated: if Missouri can leave, they should. Period.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

At this point, the situation is not at all complicated: if Missouri can leave, they should. Period.

Eactly...

But HH asks with his wide pouty Disney eyes....

But why?

Al Bundy · 10-02-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Yes, but that's because the state of Texas produces more talent than any one school (or even 7) in the state can legally take. UT gets who they want and wants them. If a recruit didn't want UT in the first place, the LHN isn't going to change their mind because they showed some high school highlights. The only recruits Texas loses are the ones that didn't want them or weren't ranked high enough for Texas to want. That won't change, LHN or no.

In your mind.. yes. But it doesn't always happen that way.

HolyHandgernade · 10-02-2011, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

You swung and missed on your characterization of the PAC situation. They didn't want Texas because they knew the LHN was going to screw everything up.

No, they absolutely wanted Texas, they just don't want the LHN. That, and they didn't want Tech and OSU as well. Our rules already allowed for the LHN, the PAC's didn't, now you want to be retroactive to what MU and the others voted for.

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Aside from that it seems obvious Texas intents was to use this frayed Big 12 to get the LHN up and running and then bolt to be independent when it started raining down money. They over played their hand and now you have this complete mess.

There's no doubt about that, but they didn't do anything that was outside of the rules all the institutions voted to install. It seems disingenuous to say, "you can do this" and then be surprised at how successfully they do it, and then try to make them turn it into something for everyone else because we feel inadequate about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Why, with all the success the Big 12 have had are all these teams bolting? Pinkel said it best...this league has problems and everyone knows what they are.

There's no doubt, all I'm asking is what does Missouri think is needed to make it right. I mean, if it involves tearing something down your by-laws said you could create, just so you can come to terms with a feeling of disparity, I think the other member institutions have just as much of a hand in "the problems". What's funny about that is this comes from an area that if this were a public "problem" they would call it "socialism". But, apparently socialism is OK as long as you're a conference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

LHN network has the ability to skew all kinds of advantages towards Texas...and that is fine this is a free market. They have the right to do that but those other teams also have a right to call bullshit and try to form a conference situation that works for everyone and isn't completely toxic because the greed of Texas made it that way.

This whole thread you keep asking why this and why that...why would people leave the Big 12? Why not.

I guess I would say because of all the reasons you think you will find somewhere else. Look, if running away from the problem is your and these other school's method of solving it, that's your right. I just personally believe that the real problem is your own focus. I can't control someone else's intentions, I can only control mine. So maybe, if everyone stops envying what Texas has, they could instead look towards at what they can try to build. But, you seem to want to give up, call it worthless, and move away.

HolyHandgernade · 10-02-2011, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Eactly...

But HH asks with his wide pouty Disney eyes....

But why?

Why can't we have a mature conversation about this? Has anything I have discussed with you really been a pout? What is it about sport's fans mentalities that unless you reduce someone else to a cartoon of their position, you can't make a thoughtful point? I thought we were having a decent conversation until this point.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

I just personally believe that the real problem is your own focus. I can't control someone else's intentions, I can only control mine. So maybe, if everyone stops envying what Texas has, they could instead look towards at what they can try to build. But, you seem to want to give up, call it worthless, and move away.

You assholes have to pick something and go with it. Are we throwing our hands up and going away because it is too hard or are we foolish for going to another conference because we will get killed.

You can't have both.

If Missouri has a chance to go to a more stable and profitable conference then it would be silly not to. If we are forced to stay and put all of this humpty dumpty conference back together again then so be it but if we have the chance to move on up in the world we would be stupid not to.

09-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Saulbadguy When a nightmare becomes real Join Date: Nov 2003 Casino cash: $796966	New Conference re-alignment thread 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.
Posts: 47,020

10-02-2011, 08:38 PM	#2073
Mr_Tomahawk Prestige Worldwide Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Spring Hill, KS Casino cash: $1590526	So I take it there has been no new news? __________________ Adopt-A-Chief: John Dorsey
Posts: 18,467

10-02-2011, 08:47 PM	#2077
Mr_Tomahawk Prestige Worldwide Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Spring Hill, KS Casino cash: $1590526	Guess not... __________________ Adopt-A-Chief: John Dorsey
Posts: 18,467