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.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Well, if Neinas said it, you can take it to the bank. I look forward to seeing us play at Kemper Arena one last time.

That's what I was wondering. Assuming MU has the invite, I see no reason for them to stick around 1 year.

[Saul Good]

Neinas has zero say in the matter. This is between MU, the SEC, and the lawyers. I don't think some 80 year old guy who just took over as commissioner is going to call the shots here.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Neinas has zero say in the matter. This is between MU, the SEC, and the lawyers. I don't think some 80 year old guy who just took over as commissioner is going to call the shots here.

Which is why I was asking.

[mnchiefsguy]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

Neinas has zero say in the matter. This is between MU, the SEC, and the lawyers. I don't think some 80 year old guy who just took over as commissioner is going to call the shots here.

Neinas is just doing his job, trying to make the Big XII look as stable and strong as possible. I don't think his statements mean all that much.

[KcMizzou]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

Which is why I was asking.

I think a lot of it is ESPN's spin with the headline. They have a vested interest in Texas and the LHN.

[KCSupersized]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

That's what I was wondering. Assuming MU has the invite, I see no reason for them to stick around 1 year.

IIRC CU planned on staying a year later than NU, but the Big 12 said no thanks. That's why they paid less in exit fees.

I would think MU would do something similar.

[Saul Good]

I don't know what the conference can say about MU leaving after they negotiated reduced exit fees with Nebraska and Colorado. The conference didn't fight to keep the league together, so Mizzou should be able to walk.

As far as I'm concerned, the conference is in violation of the contract.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

In reading that 45 page report that everyone's talking about, it sounds like the SEC schools stand to increase their television revenues by 45% from $20 million to $29 million per year from the addition of aTm and Mizzou when they re-work their contract.

Not a bad move for Slive.

no way are the numbers real. The SEC tv deal is worth about $15mil/school. No way are Tier 3 rights worth and additional $12mil/school.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

no way are the numbers real. The SEC tv deal is worth about $15mil/school. No way are Tier 3 rights worth and additional $12mil/school.

I want you to know that I trust your analysis based on nothing more than I trust this exhaustively researched piece.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I want you to know that I trust your analysis based on nothing more than I trust this exhaustively researched piece.

and I'll take your word for it on contract law, dipshit.

I never knew MU fans were such conceited, self-assured, douchebags as many here and on Tigerboard have revealed. Thanks for that....

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

and I'll take your word for it on contract law, dipshit.

You don't have to. You are welcome to look at the history of what has happened:

1. Nebraska breaks their contract and pays around 6 million.

2. Colorado breaks their contract and pays around 6 million.

and conclude that:

If Missouri breaks their contract (with a 12 team league that is now at 9 teams), they will be on the hook for 25 million.

Have fun.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

no way are the numbers real. The SEC tv deal is worth about $15mil/school. No way are Tier 3 rights worth and additional $12mil/school.

He's probably referring to the renegotiation of tier 1 and 2. It may be that with a new contract the SEC could get a pretty good raise, but this analysis ignores the fact that the Big 12 is stuck with a way under-market tier 1 deal which comes up in 2015. In the end, the potential difference would probably be more like 5 or 6 million instead of 12.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You don't have to. You are welcome to look at the history of what has happened:

1. Nebraska breaks their contract and pays around 6 million.

2. Colorado breaks their contract and pays around 6 million.

and conclude that:

If Missouri breaks their contract (with a 12 team league that is now at 9 teams), they will be on the hook for 25 million.

Have fun.

Its not like a court ruled in favor of NU and CU. The Big 12 decided it was in their best interests to let them go with a small penalty. However, since then the Big 12 has significantly altered their rules on leaving the conference, and the commissioner appears to be signalling that the Big 12 is in no mood at all to let MU off cheap. It could cost them 25 million to leave in 2012, which is why he's suggesting Mizzou will opt for the longer notice and the lower penalty.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

Its not like a court ruled in favor of NU and CU. The Big 12 decided it was in their best interests to let them go with a small penalty. However, since then the Big 12 has significantly altered their rules on leaving the conference, and the commissioner appears to be signalling that the Big 12 is in no mood at all to let MU off cheap. It could cost them 25 million to leave in 2012, which is why he's suggesting Mizzou will opt for the longer notice and the lower penalty.

1. The league established a precedent. The contract does not establish a set amount of penalty. Its based on "damages". If the damages have been set at $6 million in a 12 team league, it's not going to be higher now that the league is down to 9 teams.

2. The league hasn't changed anything regarding Missouri. They can't unilaterally change the contract.

3. The contract may have been undervalued with Nebraska, Colorado, and aTm. I doubt it gets revised upward with whatever teams replace them plus the existence of LHN.

My guess is that the conference decides that they need to move forward and can't afford to play a prolonged game of chicken with MU, especially if they are battling the Big East for teams. I think, if MU leaves, they settle for 3-6 million. If those numbers are off, they are more likely to be an over-estimate than under.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

1. The league established a precedent. The contract does not establish a set amount of penalty. Its based on "damages". If the damages have been set at $6 million in a 12 team league, it's not going to be higher now that the league is down to 9 teams.

2. The league hasn't changed anything regarding Missouri. They can't unilaterally change the contract.

3. The contract may have been undervalued with Nebraska, Colorado, and aTm. I doubt it gets revised upward with whatever teams replace them plus the existence of LHN.

My guess is that the conference decides that they need to move forward and can't afford to play a prolonged game of chicken with MU, especially if they are battling the Big East for teams. I think, if MU leaves, they settle for 3-6 million. If those numbers are off, they are more likely to be an over-estimate than under.

http://www.big12sports.com/fls/10410...ook/Bylaws.pdf

The bylaws are the bylaws, you can't wave your hands at them and claim they no longer mean anything, and they most certainly DO specify the penalty for leaving without adequate notice. The Big 12 merely made a business decision that it was better to waive part of the penalty in the past. I don't know for sure that they wouldn't do that with MU too, obviously, but the Big 12 commissioner is talking like, in a sharp contrast to the past 3 schools, that Mizzou will be held to the full penalty.