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 Bewbies

No shit.

Mizzou has a better shot of ever winning a national title playing in the SEC than they do in the Big 12. Same goes for A&M.

If you can build your team to be good enough to win the SEC, they are more than good enough to win the whole thing.

I think it was Dak earlier in the thread pointed out that a higher percentage of SEC teams have been to the title conference game than Big 12 teams. The way I see it, the top of the SEC is slightly better than the top of the BIG 12, but mid-level teams in the SEC are tougher by a fair amount. I think Mizzou can adjust and compete with the mid grade teams, and maybe occasionally take out one of the big dogs. I don't see Tiger football being in the bottom of the SEC.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

What are you talking about? I said MU would probably be about 7th or 8th in the conference most years. Arkansas is about the 7th best program in the conference so I'm giving you that you can be Arkanas. What I won't give you is LSU, Alabama, Florida, Auburn, Georgia, and probably South Carolina. MU can beat a good team in a given year ,but I just don't see them as even being more then the 7th-8th best football program in the conference. Will they have some years they might creep up to a 4th or 5th place finish? Possibly, but they possibly could have some years where they drop to 9th or 10th as well.

MU can be compete annually with Georgia and South Carolina easily.

Florida, Bama and LSU are the hogs in the conference and they'll likely be similar to OU, NE and UT for us when there was a healthy 12-team league in the XII.

But you'll note that there hasn't been a healthy 12-teamer in these parts for a bit now and it doesn't seem real likely that TCU is going to solve what ails us.

Getting out of the XII is the right move. In the SEC we'll be about where we've been for the last decade or so in the XII. Only we'll be getting paid more to do it. I can live with that.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

So, what you're saying is that MU can be a current top-10 team while in, by far, the best college football conference?

After 3 or 4 games, yes I think they can in a given year. But the more that I look at the more MU looks like the 9th best program in the conference overall in the SEC.

[kstater]

Originally Posted by icepick64

I doubt mizzou regrets moving to the SEC. Look at arkansas, they sure did build that program up, mizzou will do the same thing.

If mizzou is an arkansas in several years, i think that would be considered successful.

What? Arkansas won like 13 conference championships before joining the SEC, they've won 0 since.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

Sorry, but if you spends thousands of dollars on season tickets for baseball, or any other sport for that manner, just about anyone with common sense would classify you as a fan of that team. Either that or incredibly stupid for lighting that much money on fire.

You just don't want to admit you are a Yankees fan. Which is funny, because as hated as the Yankees are, they have a history that their fans certainly can be proud of.

I had season tickets when it was at the old stadium. And that was only for two years and it was shared with a few other guys.

The new stadium is a joke and I've only been like three times.

Didn't go once this year.

Citi I went to about 4 times this year. It's practically free.

Just like the old Yankee Stadium was.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy

I think it was Dak earlier in the thread pointed out that a higher percentage of SEC teams have been to the title conference game than Big 12 teams. The way I see it, the top of the SEC is slightly better than the top of the BIG 12, but mid-level teams in the SEC are tougher by a fair amount. I think Mizzou can adjust and compete with the mid grade teams, and maybe occasionally take out one of the big dogs. I don't see Tiger football being in the bottom of the SEC.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

MU can be compete annually with Georgia and South Carolina easily.

Florida, Bama and LSU are the hogs in the conference and they'll likely be similar to OU, NE and UT for us when there was a healthy 12-team league in the XII.

But you'll note that there hasn't been a healthy 12-teamer in these parts for a bit now and it doesn't seem real likely that TCU is going to solve what ails us.

Getting out of the XII is the right move. In the SEC we'll be about where we've been for the last decade or so in the XII. Only we'll be getting paid more to do it. I can live with that.

Considering Florida, Bama, and LSU are a combined 10-3 in BCS bowls while OU, UT, and Nebraska are a combined 7-7.. I"m going to go with the top of the SEC being more than a little better than the top of the Big XII.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Yes, it's very tough winning conference titles and playing for national titles all the time. Nice trolling attempt though.

Tough? You have a great football program, maybe the best ever. And even with that, the PAC still wouldn't take you. That has to hurt.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

MU can be compete annually with Georgia and South Carolina easily.

Florida, Bama and LSU are the hogs in the conference and they'll likely be similar to OU, NE and UT for us when there was a healthy 12-team league in the XII.

But you'll note that there hasn't been a healthy 12-teamer in these parts for a bit now and it doesn't seem real likely that TCU is going to solve what ails us.

Getting out of the XII is the right move. In the SEC we'll be about where we've been for the last decade or so in the XII. Only we'll be getting paid more to do it. I can live with that.

Do you think MU fans will be more happy in the SEC or in the days where they were playing in Big 12 title games and beating Nebraska? I know that MAY not be an option now.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Still can't win? Do you even follow football?

Arkansas was in the Sugar Bowl just last year. They are a top 10 team right now. Petrino is one of the highest paid coaches in the country because Arky is a big time program.

Saying Mizzou could become Arky as if it is some type of insult shows how clueless you truly are about all of this.

Well, the problem is that I don't think Mizzou can even be Arkansas, which would be their absolute improbable ceiling. In the Big 12 north they have the potential to be quite a bit better than Arkansas.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

After 3 or 4 games, yes I think they can in a given year. But the more that I look at the more MU looks like the 9th best program in the conference overall in the SEC.

So the 7th to 9th best teams in the SEC can finish a season top-12 nationally?

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Arkansas has a much closer proximity to the deep south and Texas. They get an OK number of recruits and still can't win. Mizzou gets their Texas recruits because they are the best Big 12 option after UT/OU and they play against 4 Texas teams. Texas kids who want to play against Texas A&M or for the SEC will have Mizzou pretty far down their list. Just about every major SEC team from Bama to Miss to Auburn to LSU would have to say no before they settle for Columbia.

Leaving for the SEC is going to crush Mizzou's Texas recruiting pipeline.

Much closer? It's still just Arkansas; it's not going to kill Mizzou based on geography.

And yeah, an SEC move will hurt Mizzou's TX recruiting, but it will help it in other parts of the south. Was Mizzou the best option in the XII outside of TX before Pinkel came? Of course not, it was right alongside KU and ISU - remember? Pinkel made Mizzou an attractive destination while he was building that pipeline.

There's no reason he can't build another one.

You're good at your job or you aren't. Gary Pinkel is very very good at his job and he'll do just fine getting the programs recruiting bases back up to speed in the SEC. Especially if the XII implodes and the TX schools end up distributed in a bunch of different conferences anyway.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Tough? You have a great football program, maybe the best ever. And even with that, the PAC still wouldn't take you. That has to hurt.

No, even if that is the way it went down personally I want OU to stay in the Big 12.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by kstater

What? Arkansas won like 13 conference championships before joining the SEC, they've won 0 since.

And I doubt you can find one Arkansas fan that regrets the move.

Why?

Because winning a bunch of games against shit opponents in a shit conference is less exciting than playing great games in the best conference in the country.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Bewbies

Mizzou has a better shot of ever winning a national title playing in the SEC than they do in the Big 12. Same goes for A&M.

If you can build your team to be good enough to win the SEC, they are more than good enough to win the whole thing.

Your second sentence presumes your recruiting won't take a major hit. It will. Missouri will have a far better chance at a championship in the Big 12, not because of the competition, but because they won't be able to convince as many high schoolers to go to Columbia if they are in the SEC.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Your second sentence presumes your recruiting won't take a major hit. It will. Missouri will have a far better chance at a championship in the Big 12, not because of the competition, but because they won't be able to convince as many high schoolers to go to Columbia if they are in the SEC.

Being in the SEC has absolutely ZERO percent change of hurting a program's recruiting.