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.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Pretty sure Mizzou has won 9 of 12.

LOL...close!!

[Bambi]

Still trying to figure out what Texas has ever done to Missouri.

Maybe someone will give us a reason here one day.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Pretty sure Mizzou has won 9 of 12.

[Crush]

It looks like Rutgers has also decided to put itself on the market.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

Still trying to figure out what Texas has ever done to Missouri.

Maybe someone will give us a reason here one day.

Every time I think you have reached the threshold of your ignorance, you say something to push the threshold.

Sometimes I think you love Texas more than Texas fans, you go down on them enough.

[alnorth]

Among the TCU and high school restrictions, I missed this rather important LHN concession:

And there are new provisions for a school carrying more than one of its own football games on its network; it must obtain league permission, and the participating schools would give up their shares of league-wide network proceeds from the game.

That pretty well wraps up the concerns about ESPN perhaps having a conflict of interest and causing a UT game to fall to tier 3. They have to get permission from the conference to show more than 1 conference game, and even if they do get permission, both schools forfeit any claim to proceeds from that game. So basically "UT wants to show a 2nd conference game on LHN and the school they are playing is fine with it? OK fine, but we're taking the money and neither school gets a cut of that game"

That pretty well solves just about every major concern about school networks.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

So how is bball going to work then with 14 teams and no divisions? Will everyone play each other at least once? How will it be determined which opponents you play twice?

They have to figure that out, even with 13 teams. They made the move before Texas A&M joined the league. With 12 teams the way it was going to work for next season was 16 conference games.

2 games each against your original division foes = 10 games
1 game each against the other division = 6 games

They were then going to either keep a 16 conference game schedule switching up the games, move to an 18 game conference schedule, or a 22 game round-robin conference schedule (least likely).

Now with 13 and possibly 14 teams they'll have to re-evaluate.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Among the TCU and high school restrictions, I missed this rather important LHN concession:



That pretty well wraps up the concerns about ESPN perhaps having a conflict of interest and causing a UT game to fall to tier 3. They have to get permission from the conference to show more than 1 conference game, and even if they do get permission, both schools forfeit any claim to proceeds from that game. So basically "UT wants to show a 2nd conference game on LHN and the school they are playing is fine with it? OK fine, but we're taking the money and neither school gets a cut of that game"

That pretty well solves just about every major concern about school networks.

That solves all of the except the biggest one. If Texas has its own network, there can be no viable conference network (like the B1G Network).

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That solves all of the except the biggest one. If Texas has its own network, there can be no viable conference network (like the B1G Network).

Schools are free to start their own network though, correct?

[Infidel Goat]

Originally Posted by Crush

It looks like Rutgers has also decided to put itself on the market.

Rutgers is praying that they will eventually be team #16 in the ACC.

I can't see the Big 10 taking them.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

That solves all of the except the biggest one. If Texas has its own network, there can be no viable conference network (like the B1G Network).

The conference doesn't want a conference network. And by conference, I mean more than just Texas and OU, it has always been overwhelmingly voted down by the north schools as well. The Big 12 wants the SEC sharing model.

So given that, LHN really isn't a problem anymore.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Infidel Goat

Rutgers is praying that they will eventually be team #16 in the ACC.

I can't see the Big 10 taking them.

I could see the B1G taking them If they chose to expand, but that is a big if.

Rutgers sounds like a funny name, which might make some people think they are a weird private school that noone cares about, but they aren't. Rutgers is the flagship public school of New Jersey, without any significant collegiate competition in that market. If Rutgers is not an attractive school, then the STL and KC markets are irrelevant to MU's case as well.

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The conference doesn't want a conference network. And by conference, I mean more than just Texas and OU, it has always been overwhelmingly voted down by the north schools as well. The Big 12 wants the SEC sharing model.

So given that, LHN really isn't a problem anymore.

I don't know what "the conference" wants, but Missouri might want a conference network and that's all that matters at the moment.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The conference doesn't want a conference network. And by conference, I mean more than just Texas and OU, it has always been overwhelmingly voted down by the north schools as well. The Big 12 wants the SEC sharing model.

So given that, LHN really isn't a problem anymore.

The other Big 12 schools don't like money now?

BTN has proven that it is much more lucrative overall to pool tier 2 or 3 rights together and market them as a package to broadcasters, rather than having each school try to market their own tier 3 rights.

This is why the PAC and SEC are following in their footsteps, and it is why the Big 12 will continue to fall behind the pack in terms of overall conference TV revenue.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

The conference doesn't want a conference network. And by conference, I mean more than just Texas and OU, it has always been overwhelmingly voted down by the north schools as well. The Big 12 wants the SEC sharing model.

So given that, LHN really isn't a problem anymore.

The SEC is going to a B1G-style network. It's a license to print money.