Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread - Page 143

**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.

mnchiefsguy · 10-02-2011, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

No, I think that's a fair point. I don't know why it took so long to come around to it. Oh yeah, because first you wanted to blame it on the competitive and recruiting disadvantage of the LHN. Please, pull up where I said I didn't think stability wasn't a big deal. But, you do realize, right now, you are as much the cause of the instability as anyone else. It seemed somewhat hypocritical when OU used this rationale, and I don't think it is any less so when MU does.

This is bullshit. This only works if the BIG XII were to dissolve without Mizzou, which no one thinks will happen. Texas is just as much to blame, due to their inability to negotiate and compromise. Why shouldn't Mizzou go to a place where they will be treated better?

In the SEC, B1G, PAC, etc. the teams are equals off of the field. They understand that when their conference is strong and everyone works together, everyone makes money. Texas doesn't get it. They think they deserve a different set of rules. That is fine and dandy as long as they get away with it, but don't bitch when schools start bailing out and look out for the own self-interest.

HolyHandgernade · 10-02-2011, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

The PAC would take my dog and a jar of change if Texas was included in the bargain. Texas becoming independent and trying to be the next Notre Dame is not a worst case scenario, it was the endgame for Texas before the super conference mentality became all the rage. Texas truly believes that they are on that level of national following.

Plus, Texas can go independent in football but let the rest of their sports stay in what remains of the BIG XII. Since everyone in this conference is their bitch, they could get away with it. Is Kansas going to be for giving Texas the complete boot if they want to pull out in football? I doubt it.

You guys are arguing both sides. Did the PAC stick to their guns and business plan and say no to the Longhorn Network or would they take them, your dog and a jar of change?

Notre Dame is located relatively close to both the upper midwest and the Atlantic Coast, so their options for non revenue sports is greater. Texas would have to endure some great travel costs and cultural misfits to do so. Its not nearly as easy as you seem to propose. Texas wants the Big XII, it gives them the best of both worlds. It didn't want it if OU bolted. But the PAC said no to OU and OU said no to the SEC. Rumor has it the B1G also said no to OU. So, why would they leave a conference where they make a lot of money and have a great path to the BCS? They won't unless Texas wants to alter the LHN.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

No, I think that's a fair point. I don't know why it took so long to come around to it. Oh yeah, because first you wanted to blame it on the competitive and recruiting disadvantage of the LHN. Please, pull up where I said I didn't think stability wasn't a big deal. But, you do realize, right now, you are as much the cause of the instability as anyone else. It seemed somewhat hypocritical when OU used this rationale, and I don't think it is any less so when MU does.

Yes. Because this is the first time stability has been brought up in regards to talking about Missouri wanting to leave.

HH: Why would Missouri leave?

Zach: Gives a lot of reasons...one of them stability.

HH: Show me where I said stability wasn't a big deal.

I have never been trolled so hard by someone in my life. I am not even mad it is amazing.

mnchiefsguy · 10-02-2011, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

They are the strongest football conference in the country. Academics, sports other than football and baseball, they aren't nearly as strong. Remember when MU was going on and on about the academics in the B1G as the reason they wanted to leave last year? Well, you and Vanderbilt will now probably have two things in common if and when you go there.

I can see Mizzou being in football about where they are now. It is not like Mizzou has been dominating in football. Football is a work in progress and will continue to be so regardless of where Mizzou is. Basketball could even be better, especially if we get a real coach.

As for the AAU stuff, Vandy, Florida, and A & M are all AAU schools, so Mizzou would be the elite of academics in the SEC. I see no problem with that.

As to the SEC not being strong in other sports....they are least there. If there is no BIG XII, does it matter how weak the other SEC sports are? At least Mizzou will be in a major conference.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

They are the strongest football conference in the country. Academics, sports other than football and baseball, they aren't nearly as strong. Remember when MU was going on and on about the academics in the B1G as the reason they wanted to leave last year? Well, you and Vanderbilt will now probably have two things in common if and when you go there.

That wasn't THE reason why. Once again...you are full of shit and cherry picking things to create disingenuous characterizations of these issues. It was "a" reason why among others.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

This is bullshit. This only works if the BIG XII were to dissolve without Mizzou, which no one thinks will happen. Texas is just as much to blame, due to their inability to negotiate and compromise. Why shouldn't Mizzou go to a place where they will be treated better?

In the SEC, B1G, PAC, etc. the teams are equals off of the field. They understand that when their conference is strong and everyone works together, everyone makes money. Texas doesn't get it. They think they deserve a different set of rules. That is fine and dandy as long as they get away with it, but don't bitch when schools start bailing out and look out for the own self-interest.

Look, anyone that threatens to leave is causing "instability". Instability doesn't mean "collapse". I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "equals off the field". Financially, sure, for the most part. But, I think you're kidding yourself if you think the SEC heavyweights are going to look at you any different than heavyweights of another conference. USC and UCLA get extra considerations in the PAC. Florida in the SEC. There are somethings that size and population will get you. It may be more muted, but it isn't as "equal" as you make it out to be.

mnchiefsguy · 10-02-2011, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

You guys are arguing both sides. Did the PAC stick to their guns and business plan and say no to the Longhorn Network or would they take them, your dog and a jar of change?

Notre Dame is located relatively close to both the upper midwest and the Atlantic Coast, so their options for non revenue sports is greater. Texas would have to endure some great travel costs and cultural misfits to do so. Its not nearly as easy as you seem to propose. Texas wants the Big XII, it gives them the best of both worlds. It didn't want it if OU bolted. But the PAC said no to OU and OU said no to the SEC. Rumor has it the B1G also said no to OU. So, why would they leave a conference where they make a lot of money and have a great path to the BCS? They won't unless Texas wants to alter the LHN.

Travel costs mean nothing in any of this. Football by far incurs the most travel expenses, and Texas plays football wherever it wants now.

So SEC country is a bunch of cultural misfits then? It is that kind of arrogance that has helped create this whole fiasco in the first place.

I do not think we are arguing both sides at all. Folks in this thread have given multiple reasons why Mizzou leaving is good for the school in the long run. That is what we care about. What is best for Mizzou. I fail to see how it is okay for Texas and OU to do whatever they want, with no regard for anyone else, and that is somehow okay...but don't let Mizzou think about doing anything...that would be horrible.

HolyHandgernade · 10-02-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

That wasn't THE reason why. Once again...you are full of shit and cherry picking things to create disingenuous characterizations of these issues. It was "a" reason why among others.

Hey, I was just following the conversation. I think you have this idea of what the conversation is in your head and assume everyone else is following your narrative. When I asked, you and everyone else just gave me a bunch of generalities. Would it really have been so hard to just say: "Financial payoff and stability"? No, you had to blather on about the obviousness of the big bad LHN and now you are just backtracking.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

It's about stability at this point, and I have absolutely no confidence that we won't be revisiting this whole thing in the near future.

Oh Hi there September 21st.

Al Bundy · 10-02-2011, 10:07 PM

Holy, are you a KU fan?

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Interesting read from Tramel at the Oklahoman.

Just because the Bedlam plot of the Big 12 soap opera has ended — we're staying right here, in this vampire of a conference — doesn't mean the story is over.

Your turn, Missouri.

Your turn to decide whether this Dark Shadows league that can't be killed is the best place for you.
I don't know if the SEC wants Missouri, and I don't know if Missouri wants to go. But this I know. The SEC should want Mizzou, and Mizzou should want the SEC.

The Big 12 will survive without Missouri. I said something off hand 18 months ago, not sure even if I really believed it, but danged if it hasn't come to pass.
As long as you've got OU and Texas, you've got a league. As long as you've got the Sooners and the Longhorns, which means you've got OSU and Texas Tech, too, you've got a conference. Even if it's a ghastly shell of what it once was.

So Missouri doesn't hold the Big 12's fate in its hands. Sure would be nice if the Tigers stayed, because don't look now, but good football programs suddenly are in short supply.

But the Big 12 will endure. Nothing short of a stake through Bevo's heart will end the Big 12. OU, OSU and Tech aren't going to the Pac, Texas has everything it wants and Iowa State, Kansas, Baylor and K-State are just happy to have a place to hang their hat.

Do the math. That's eight schools. Heck, don't expand at all and you still could have a league. It's been done before.

So Missouri, do whatever you want. Don't worry about putting Iowa State out of business or getting sued by Kenny Starr. Misery loves company, so we'd love for you to stay, but whether Missouri loves company or Missouri loves misery, well, that's up to you.

But the SEC would be nuts not to take a crack at Mizzou. If the ACC has closed the door to raiders — imagine that, a conference with the vision and leadership to proactively safeguard its house — then the SEC's options are limited.

The powerhouse league can't stay at 13 schools. That's just goofy. Got to get to 14, which means if OU isn't interested (and the Sooners most definitely are not), then Missouri and West Virginia are the viable candidates.
Mizzou brings much better markets for television contracts, thanks to Kansas City and St. Louis; much better academic reputation, which could start to appeal to the SEC with the addition of another stellar school in Texas A&M; and, don't forget, good football.

Maybe you could argue West Virginia trumps Missouri on the gridiron. But I would argue otherwise, that if you put Mizzou in the Big East the last several years, the BCS bowls would have rolled into Columbia.

So why should Missouri go? I know, everyone says the same about Mizzou they said about A&M, that the Aggies will be squashed in the SEC.

I don't believe it for either the Tigers or Aggies. They won't contend regularly in the current SEC West landscape, but they won't be doormats.

And it's not like Missouri or A&M has been tearing up the Big 12. Missouri has made two Big 12 title games, 2007 and 2008, winning neither. A&M has made two Big 12 title games, 1997 and 1998, winning the latter. In a huge upset.
That's the success rate at stake in the Aggies' move and the Tigers' decision? Two division titles in 15 years? One major bowl berth (the '98 Aggies in the Sugar) between them in 15 years?

That's what Missouri is gambling with? Mizzou could make a lot more money, find conference stability and leave the Longhorns behind. And the Tigers should forego all that because they might win two North Divisions in 15 years?

Missouri's frustration with Texas is only now bubbling. Nebraska's feelings were well-documented. Then A&M's. Finally, OU's.

Now, Mizzou football coach Gary Pinkel carries the banner. His disgust with the Longhorn Network no longer is hidden.

Why would Missouri leave? Why in the world would Missouri stay?

If the SEC is interested, there's only one thing that should keep the Tigers in the Big 12.

The Big Ten. Missouri sort of started this mess 18 months ago, with its glee at Big Ten expansion. Turns out the Big Ten wasn't interested.

But Mizzou still would love to be in the Big Ten, both for academics and athletics. If Big Ten commissioner Jim Delany gives Missouri any reason for hope that his conference could expand in the future and Mizzou would be a prime candidate, that would prompt Missouri to, just like the Sooners did, swallow its pride and hold its nose and put on a happy face.

Otherwise, Missouri has little reason to turn down the SEC, which has many reasons to offer.

Not that it will make much difference back here in the shadows of darkness.

Read more: http://newsok.com/missouri-should-fo...#ixzz1ZDZTv9q2

Oh hey Stability.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That has nothing to do with why I want out as an MU fan. I want out because the conference isn't stable. Eventually, there will be a huge game of musical chairs, and I want to make sure we have a nice, comfy seat when the music stops.

K-State has beaten Texas several times. What do you think that's worth when it comes to realignment?

Oh hey...stability.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stewie

It's no longer about rivalries. It's about going somewhere that seems stable.

Even a Kansas fan gets it.

|Zach| · 10-02-2011, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Hey, I was just following the conversation. I think you have this idea of what the conversation is in your head and assume everyone else is following your narrative. When I asked, you and everyone else just gave me a bunch of generalities. Would it really have been so hard to just say: "Financial payoff and stability"? No, you had to blather on about the obviousness of the big bad LHN and now you are just backtracking.

I did that because I find it really hard to believe someone with a working brain hadn't seen those answers in this thread.

So if I was wrong at any point I was wrong for assuming how smart you were.

Apologies.

**dirk digler** · 10-02-2011, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Hey, I was just following the conversation. I think you have this idea of what the conversation is in your head and assume everyone else is following your narrative. When I asked, you and everyone else just gave me a bunch of generalities. Would it really have been so hard to just say: "Financial payoff and stability"? No, you had to blather on about the obviousness of the big bad LHN and now you are just backtracking.

There is many reasons why. Pinkel has stated he absolutely hates the LHN because he believes it gives Texas a huge recruiting advantage.

09-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Saulbadguy When a nightmare becomes real Join Date: Nov 2003 Casino cash: $1836966	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: 46,998

10-02-2011, 10:07 PM	#2140
Al Bundy Damnit Peg Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Overland Park Casino cash: $4911831	Holy, are you a KU fan?
Posts: 23,410