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.

[Rooster]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

I had heard BYU was not wanting to share it's books with the league.

Too many wives on the books?

[HemiEd]

Mizzou might be playing this deal just right.

Sooner rather than later, I would guess the Big 12 gets tired of their shit and would just like to see them gone. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by kstater

The sec makes about 1.2 milion more than missouri will make this year(and will actually make less than the reported 20 million big 12 members wl make next year but that will be ignored). Neinas is basing his numbers of of that.

No, he was basing it off of all SEC teams making an extra $12 million which is stupid.

Incidentally, if you think that the Big XII is going to get some fat new contract without aTm, Nebraska, or Colorado, you're more optimistic than I am.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Mizzou might be playing this deal just right.

Sooner rather than later, I would guess the Big 12 gets tired of their shit and would just like to see them gone. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

From your lips to God's ears...

What the hell good does it do to hold Mizzou hostage? Does it really make a league look attractive to other schools? As long as Mizzou is trying to escape, there will be zero stability to the conference.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

From your lips to God's ears...

What the hell good does it do to hold Mizzou hostage? Does it really make a league look attractive to other schools? As long as Mizzou is trying to escape, there will be zero stability to the conference.

We want your $$. Thanks.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

From your lips to God's ears...

What the hell good does it do to hold Mizzou hostage? Does it really make a league look attractive to other schools? As long as Mizzou is trying to escape, there will be zero stability to the conference.

We agree on this 100%. They need to get it behind them and move on. Two years in a row, good bye.

Kind of like the girlfriend caught cheating the second time, its over and she should not have been given a second chance.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

I wasn't confused by anything. The conference agreed that a team leaving an intact league would cause damages of $6million. The conference is going to have a hell of a time showing that a team leaving an already fractured league owes more in damages than the first schools that left.

You are talking about a negotiated settlement where the conference didn't want the bad press and ugliness of a public fight in court. That settlement does not automatically have an impact on the penalties that are in the bylaws. The Big 12 did not waive, forever and ever, their rights in the bylaws.

It may be better to again avoid the ugliness of a court fight and negotiate another settlement, but that is up to the conference. Mizzou is not entitled to a settlement if the Big 12 decides they want to play hardball, they have to convince a judge to ignore their contract.

[alnorth]

All that said, I think Neinas' public statements that basically signalled a possible unwillingness to bend on the 2 year 90% penalty is stupid. The conference gains nothing from this, either they have the right to the penalty or not. Feel free to talk behind the scenes, but they shouldn't be publicly waving it in MU's face like this.

If MU were to voluntarily decide not to leave, they would need to do so out of a perceived position of strength, as if they were magnanimously doing it for the good of the rivalry. Now, if MU doesn't leave (and people in the SEC don't come out saying they didn't want MU or something), some might perceive that the Big 12 bullied them into staying because of the penalty.

Because of this bonehead move by the commissioner, I think Mizzou only stays if the SEC decides they'd rather have an East team to balance out the divisions, leaving MU with no options, but still pissed at the Big 12 and ready to leave ASAP, basically another TA&M situation.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by alnorth

All that said, I think Neinas' public statements that basically signalled a possible unwillingness to bend on the 2 year 90% penalty is stupid. The conference gains nothing from this, either they have the right to the penalty or not. Feel free to talk behind the scenes, but they shouldn't be publicly waving it in MU's face like this.

If MU were to voluntarily decide not to leave, they would need to do so out of a perceived position of strength, as if they were magnanimously doing it for the good of the rivalry. Now, if MU doesn't leave (and people in the SEC don't come out saying they didn't want MU or something), some might perceive that the Big 12 bullied them into staying because of the penalty.

Because of this bonehead move by the commissioner, I think Mizzou only stays if the SEC decides they'd rather have an East team to balance out the divisions, leaving MU with no options, but still pissed at the Big 12 and ready to leave ASAP, basically another TA&M situation.

Bingo

[alnorth]

If I'm Mizzou, I'm probably going to be so outraged by this development, that if I had any inkling at all of staying, that is gone now. If, as Mizzou, I have an SEC invite in my pocket, I don't wait. Screw the penalty, fight it in court, and even if I lose, I rely on increased alumni donations and/or bigger SEC payments to tide me over, and even if that doesn't happen, I just eat the penalty rather than allow the public to perceive that MU is meekly crawling back under the cloud of a monetary threat by the Big 12.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

You are talking about a negotiated settlement where the conference didn't want the bad press and ugliness of a public fight in court. That settlement does not automatically have an impact on the penalties that are in the bylaws. The Big 12 did not waive, forever and ever, their rights in the bylaws.

It may be better to again avoid the ugliness of a court fight and negotiate another settlement, but that is up to the conference. Mizzou is not entitled to a settlement if the Big 12 decides they want to play hardball, they have to convince a judge to ignore their contract.

The Big XII didn't waive anything, but they did set a baseline. It isn't binding, but it will absolutely be taken into consideration by the courts.

If an intact conference loses a member and settles for $6 million, what damages are due when a member leaves after 27% of their original partners have left?

I would say that if this goes all the way through the courts (which won't happen), there is a better chance of a judge ruling that the contract signed by Mizzou has been voided by the loss of members than for Mizzou to be forced to pay more than Nebraska or Colorado settled for.

I stand by my estimate of 3-6 million.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by alnorth

If I'm Mizzou, I'm probably going to be so outraged by this development, that if I had any inkling at all of staying, that is gone now. If, as Mizzou, I have an SEC invite in my pocket, I don't wait. Screw the penalty, fight it in court, and even if I lose, I rely on increased alumni donations and/or bigger SEC payments to tide me over, and even if that doesn't happen, I just eat the penalty rather than allow the public to perceive that MU is meekly crawling back under the cloud of a monetary threat by the Big 12.

I don't see the Big12 as the bad guy here, Mizzou put itself out there two years in a row. Just get it over with already.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I don't see the Big12 as the bad guy here, Mizzou put itself out there two years in a row. Just get it over with already.

Naw. We want their exit fees. Why let them walk when we can make them pay?

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by alnorth

All that said, I think Neinas' public statements that basically signalled a possible unwillingness to bend on the 2 year 90% penalty is stupid. The conference gains nothing from this, either they have the right to the penalty or not. Feel free to talk behind the scenes, but they shouldn't be publicly waving it in MU's face like this.

If MU were to voluntarily decide not to leave, they would need to do so out of a perceived position of strength, as if they were magnanimously doing it for the good of the rivalry. Now, if MU doesn't leave (and people in the SEC don't come out saying they didn't want MU or something), some might perceive that the Big 12 bullied them into staying because of the penalty.

Because of this bonehead move by the commissioner, I think Mizzou only stays if the SEC decides they'd rather have an East team to balance out the divisions, leaving MU with no options, but still pissed at the Big 12 and ready to leave ASAP, basically another TA&M situation.

This all bolsters our case. Missouri can go to court and say that they were treated in a hostile manner by a conference that should be acting as an advocate. After all, MU is still a member in good standing, has broken no rules, has not stated any intention to withdraw, and has not applied for membership of any other conference.

What we are receiving is nothing short of abuse by the commissioner. Why the **** would we stay in a conference that treats its remaining members this way?

[tk13]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

I don't see the Big12 as the bad guy here, Mizzou put itself out there two years in a row. Just get it over with already.

Yeah but that's a double edged sword because the teams calling the shots have basically put themselves out there two years in a row as well. That's where I see the hypocrisy in this. I wouldn't blame MU, KU, ISU or any of them for trying to leave. If UT and OU had their way, they would be in the Pac 12 right now and everyone else would be out to dry.
Posted via Mobile Device