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.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I was wondering when someone would bring that up.

SEC is the second choice, and they know it but probably don't really care. They will just yell scoreboard to the B1G.

Hopefully that's the way it goes, and not "Hey! We're not second best to anyone! Enjoy getting ass raped by Bevo for the foreseeable future". Dumbass person making dumbass quotes.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by talastan

You guys still provide a great game in B-Ball against us. Should be a good season this year with Weems returning to the Bears lineup.

Agreed, those were some fun games to watch last year, and the Shockers are valid again. We used to take that for granted, but Eddie Fogler put the program in a 20 year tailspin that they are finally recovering from.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Hopefully that's the way it goes, and not "Hey! We're not second best to anyone! Enjoy getting ass raped by Bevo for the foreseeable future". Dumbass person making dumbass quotes.

I am confident the powers to be are above that, and they have met in person to get these obstacles behind them. Hopefully the people putting these deals together are a little sharper than some of fans.

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

10 is not a good number, dumbshit. You can't have a conference championship game with 10 teams. With 4 of the 6 BCS conferences having a championship game, and the only other league that doesn't being the laughable Big East, then your conference is shit without a conf. champ. game.

But the hillbilly league is at 14 now with a championship game. Who cares? Let me know when Vanderbilt or Kentucky plays in that game. It's a ****ing joke. Since Texas and Oklahoma don't play in a conference as good as the hillbilly conference I guess it's easier for the rest to win a bogus national championship. Sounds good.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

MU leaving for the SEC is great for KU. Kansas was never going to get an SEC invite. If everything goes to 16, it opens up a spot in the B1G that KU might get instead of MU.

At least you said it and not some idiot KU fan!

[Stewie]

Originally Posted by Bowser

If the SEC rejects Mizzou, I'm putting the blame on that ESPN article. "The B1G was our first choice, but the SEC is all that is left (paraphrase)". JFC

I saw that as odd, too. They did this to show the Big 10 they were available again? If it fails we can make the SEC look like the Ivy League with good football?

[beer bacon]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I was wondering when someone would bring that up.

SEC is the second choice, and they know it but probably don't really care. They will just yell scoreboard to the B1G.

The SEC was always the first choice for the athletic department and football program. The Big 10 was the first choice for the faculty.

[Rams Fan]

Originally Posted by Stewie

The estimated next Tier 1 TV contract for the Big XII with aTm and MU as part of the equation was expected to be in the $350 million range. That contract is going to be negotiated in three years, or so I've heard. Of course, that number will change without aTm and MU in the mix. If MU leaves and the Big XII adds BYU and TCU, or some combination of worthy additions it might not be far off.

The reason against 16-team leagues is dilution of TV money. The bottom 1/2 or 1/3 of the league is a drain on resources.

TCU isn't going anywhere if the BE doesn't dissolve.

BYU is a football independent.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by Stewie

But the hillbilly league is at 14 now with a championship game. Who cares? Let me know when Vanderbilt or Kentucky plays in that game. It's a ****ing joke. Since Texas and Oklahoma don't play in a conference as good as the hillbilly conference I guess it's easier for the rest to win a bogus national championship. Sounds good.

Jesus.....just stop already.

[OmahaChief]

I do not understand why a lot of the detractors like Keitzman fail to think that at some point Mizzou can actually improve. All that is being talked about is a decline in Football. Mizzou has a pretty fertile recruiting base in our home state, that we might not miss out on some of these kids being in a conference like the SEC. If we can get into some of these Sothern states and get some of those kids to Mizzou there is no reason to think we could be in the top half of that conference. I am not saing it would happen but there is a chance it would.

I will miss the Big 12 and the regionality of the conference as I think it is a better fit but it the league changed with NU, CU and A&M already gone. Some of that histoy that people are talking about has already walked out the door. The league will never be the same, I don't see the league on the rise unless the Big 12 gets a team like ND to join. Adding teams like TCU, Louisville and the like does not make it a stonger conference. It only makes for an easier conf. for the top teams to win.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by KcMizzou

KK "Kansas City is not on Mizzou's radar. They don't care about us."

He said Missouri (the state).

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Stewie

But the hillbilly league is at 14 now with a championship game. Who cares? Let me know when Vanderbilt or Kentucky plays in that game. It's a ****ing joke. Since Texas and Oklahoma don't play in a conference as good as the hillbilly conference I guess it's easier for the rest to win a bogus national championship. Sounds good.

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.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

KK: "The Big XII will be more stable than the SEC."

You can't make this shit up.

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.

[eazyb81]

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.

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.

[eazyb81]

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.

Probably too many facts for this crowd though.