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.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Fair enough, I'm just a little surprised at your partisanship because what you think they said, in regards to whether they said they were leaving because they didn't get the 13 years they wanted vs needing to evaluate after being asked to make a commitment, simply has no basis in reality.

I could claim that it was president Carter who asked the Soviets to "tear down this wall", you respond by saying that I'm wrong because it was president Reagan, and I could then say well I disagree, and we'll just have to agree to disagree because you are anti-Carter, but that doesn't mean my opinion isn't clearly false.

Your Carter/Reagan analogy does not apply. We can play the tape and see who said it. We are not disagreeing as to WHAT Mizzou said. We are disagreeing about what Mizzou MEANT and what Mizzou INTENDED. The only ones who know the complete truth of the latter are the Missouri Curators, the chancellor, and the AD.

I choose to look at Mizzou in a favorable light. You choose not too. Don't sit there and try to say the fact you are a KU'er does not color your opinion of what Mizzou meant in its message.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Your Carter/Reagan analogy does not apply. We can play the tape and see who said it. We are not disagreeing as to WHAT Mizzou said. We are disagreeing about what Mizzou MEANT and what Mizzou INTENDED. The only ones who know the complete truth of the latter are the Missouri Curators, the chancellor, and the AD.

I choose to look at Mizzou in a favorable light. You choose not too. Don't sit there and try to say the fact you are a KU'er does not color your opinion of what Mizzou meant in its message.

We might have a fundamental misunderstanding. I could not care less what they meant or intended. I could easily believe that they were quietly upset about not getting 13 years.

Their carefully-crafted statement does not convey that message at all, and in fact conveys a very different message, not because they wanted to be deceitful or anything like that, but because their lawyers understandably ordered them to.

This is not a slam on Mizzou, at all. If this was any other team in the same situation, they would need to say basically what Mizzou said regardless of the real reasons.

[mnchiefsguy]

Now there are reports that the BIG XII voted to approve the six year commitment, but that Mizzou abstained from that vote as well. Interesting.

[Mr_Tomahawk]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Now there are reports that the BIG XII voted to approve the six year commitment, but that Mizzou abstained from that vote as well. Interesting.

Very interesting. Almost as if I have heard this before...

[alnorth]

I think at this point Mizzou is going to abstain from everything to prevent a conflict of interest, until their situation is settled.

If they eventually left, the other members would obviously prefer they not vote. If the SEC says no, or if UT/OU/whoever cries uncle and Mizzou elects to stay, then they will start voting again.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Question for MU fans.

If tomorrow morning it was announced that TCU, BYU and Louisville were joing the Big 12 would you still want to leave?

one down.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by alnorth

I think at this point Mizzou is going to abstain from everything to prevent a conflict of interest, until their situation is settled.

If they eventually left, the other members would obviously prefer they not vote. If the SEC says no, or if UT/OU/whoever cries uncle and Mizzou elects to stay, then they will start voting again.

Yeah, I don't think them abstaining means one thing or another, they are just staying neutral at this point.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Now there are reports that the BIG XII voted to approve the six year commitment, but that Mizzou abstained from that vote as well. Interesting.

Although I agree that having MU in the league is a good thing, what they "do" or "don't do" is getting less and less interesting to the rest of us firmly committed to the Big 12.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Although I agree that having MU in the league is a good thing, what they "do" or "don't do" is getting less and less interesting to the rest of us firmly committed to the Big 12.

You are free to not post and go back to your corner kissing Texas ass at any time if this thread is boring you.....

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Although I agree that having MU in the league is a good thing, what they "do" or "don't do" is getting less and less interesting to the rest of us firmly committed to the Big 12.

Like you have a ****ing choice.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by frazod

Like you have a ****ing choice.

I don't know whats worse.

Not having a choice or your choice not mattering to anyone.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

You are free to not post and go back to your corner kissing Texas ass at any time if this thread is boring you.....

This thread is about conference realignment.

TCU is moving to the Big 12.

MU is just one of many schools either moving or pondering moves.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Although I agree that having MU in the league is a good thing, what they "do" or "don't do" is getting less and less interesting to the rest of us firmly committed to the Big 12.

Clearly, since this board is on the verge of having two threads catch AIDS from too many posts, over 80% of which are from non-Mizzou fans.

[Frazod]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

I don't know whats worse.

Not having a choice or your choice not mattering to anyone.

Judging by the endless KUnt butthurt in this thread, I'd have to go with not having a choice.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

I don't know whats worse.

Not having a choice or your choice not mattering to anyone.

I do. Not having a choice is clearly worse.