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.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

I was starting to get worried that we'd have a day without the analogies.

I'm excited for "MU to SEC" thread. Saul Good is going to blow a gasket.

You're perfectly welcome to avoid this thread until the Big XII announces that it has added a city school. Until then, realignment doesn't really involve KU.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

That would be make-believe, Chief.

Especially since you just claimed that you haven't listened to KK in a year and that's the only show he plays an active role on (and is often critical of the school).

Go ahead and tip-toe away from this one, you're showing your ass right now.

Harry is on tv with a segment called Jack smack. Maybe you've heard of it...

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/subinde...ts/jacks_smack

As far as being critical of the school, from what I hear, KK is often crtical of KSU.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

He's mis-characterized and flat out fabricated shit for the last 10 years. KU fans are absolutely justified in taking some shots at him at this point as he's been an absolute caricature.

Oh look what I did there. This can be said about Jack Harry, too!

KK is infamous for fabricating shit, I'm not surprised this is news to you, though, because you really do seem to be rather uninformed on the whole KC sports radio scene (which is not a negative, BTW). They're both huge trolls.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by Saul Good

You're perfectly welcome to avoid this thread until the Big XII announces that it has added a city school. Until then, realignment doesn't really involve KU.

Jesus man. Relax a little bit...try to actually enjoy moving to the SEC instead of feeling like you have to better than everyone. You've let this thread & move to the SEC get to you to much.

[Pants]

You did have a good point, Plow.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

Harry is on tv with a segment called Jack smack. Maybe you've heard of it...

http://www.nbcactionnews.com/subinde...ts/jacks_smack

As far as being critical of the school, from what I hear, KK is often crtical of KSU.

Ah yes, his 2 minute snippets every couple of days where he rants about something to drive ratings. On balance, that's what, 30 minutes of airtime a month? It's limited, it's scripted, its rehearsed and its designed to generate ratings, nothing more.

Meanwhile he's on the radio all the time with KK and its generally an hour or more of unscripted conversation. As is his custom, he is usually playing some sort of devil's advocate to KK. When KU is playing well and KK is giving them credit for it, it's his role to argue back with KK about something.

He's not a homer, he's just a guy that gets paid to argue. He's the Skip Bayless of the KC sports scene.

[mikeyis4dcats.]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Ah yes, his 2 minute snippets every couple of days where he rants about something to drive ratings. On balance, that's what, 30 minutes of airtime a month? It's limited, it's scripted, its rehearsed and its designed to generate ratings, nothing more.

Meanwhile he's on the radio all the time with KK and its generally an hour or more of unscripted conversation. As is his custom, he is usually playing some sort of devil's advocate to KK. When KU is playing well and KK is giving them credit for it, it's his role to argue back with KK about something.

He's not a homer, he's just a guy that gets paid to argue. He's the just like Kietzman (and Whitlock, etc).

fyp. How does KK get you all to listen to him? Troll you, so you all come running back and posting online what he had the gall to say.

[Saulbadguy]

You guys are all kinda dumbasses.

[Reerun_KC]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

You guys are all kinda dumbasses.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

fyp. How does KK get you all to listen to him? Troll you, so you all come running back and posting online what he had the gall to say.

Because my alternative is silence (not a fan) or Nick Wright (uber douche).

Like I said - I don't generally find KK objectionable. I disagree with him fairly frequently, but that doesn't make him useless. On this particular front, however, he's being a sobbing jackass and the more he tries to claim he isn't, the more obvious it becomes.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.

fyp. How does KK get you all to listen to him? Troll you, so you all come running back and posting online what he had the gall to say.

I've really got no problem with Kietzman. He's a dipshit, but he's entertaining. The alternative is Nick Wright who is not entertaining. Generally, Kietzman's not this far gone. In this instance, I just enjoy the schaadenfreude.

[eazyb81]

Another well-reasoned article from Clay Travis. I'm beginning to really like his work. He actually uses logic and history instead of female PMS emotion to make his points.

http://outkickthecoverage.com/why-mi...in-the-sec.php

Why Missouri and Texas A&M Football Will Thrive In the SEC



Published on: October 20, 2011 | Written by: Clay Travis

As we near Missouri's invite to become the SEC's 14th -- a likelihood first reported by this site back in early September -- one of the most consistent tropes in the anti-Missouri and anti-Texas A&M to the SEC argument is that Texas A&M and Missouri can't compete in football. I think that argument is completely wrong. Now, if you're arguing that Missouri and Texas A&M won't win many SEC titles, that may well be true. After all, in an SEC championship game era that now spans nearly twenty years three schools have never been to the SEC title game: Kentucky, Vanderbilt, and Ole Miss and three more schools have never won a title: Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina. (Arkansas has been three times while the other two schools have each been once).


Six schools have won titles, the so-called traditional powers of SEC football: Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida and Tennessee, have won all 19 of the SEC titles and comprise 33 of the 38 total appearances.


If you look at this grouping you'd say that Missouri football has more in common with Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina than it does the traditional powers. I'd argue that with the benefit of being in the SEC, A&M will have more in common with the six traditional powers, but that remains to be seen. Regardless, lazy analysts and media critical of Missouri and Texas A&M's move to the SEC are saying that neither school will be able to compete in football. (To be fair you hear this more about Missouri than Texas A&M, but you definitely hear it a ton about both).


Generally that argument focuses on how dominant the SEC has been over the BCS era, snagging 7 titles in 7 title game appearances while also winning the past five consecutive titles. The only traditional power that has not won a national title since 1998 is Georgia and that's primarily because LSU got to beat Ohio State in 2007 instead of Georgia.


The Pax SECana era during which the conference has won five consecutive national titles has clearly been characterized by national dominance at the top of the conference. But the rising tide of SEC football dominance has actually lifted all programs during this period. Those of us who paid attention to the conference could see this coming when the SEC added a national television package second only to the NFL. (The Florida Gators appeared on national television more times during the Tim Tebow era than any NFL team did). The conference's brand has become a desirable location from top to bottom. Recruits want to play in the SEC because the SEC has the best football in the country. The more top players who come to the conference, the better the conference gets. It's a cycle of dominance that replenishes itself anew every February. And every single program is benefiting.


As the equally distributed revenue has flowed into individual team coffers, just about everyone has taken their program to new heights relative to past program success. (The only real exception to this is Tennessee, which has floundered since firing Phil Fulmer and hiring Lane Kiffin). The Pax SECana ear, or ManifeSECt Destiny if you prefer, has seen the conference take over the nation. The SEC brand is second only to the NFL when it comes to football. Again, that dominance at the top has been duly noted, but the growth of the other programs has been mostly overlooked.


That is, even the programs that are beneath the national radar have stepped up their games. Indeed, one of the lazy rationales trotted out is that the SEC is a top-heavy league and no one can compete if they're outside the top half of the conference. Compete for consistent conference championships? Perhaps. (Although does anyone doubt that Missouri could have competed this year for the SEC East title?) But outkick the historical accomplishments of their past programs? Virtually every SEC school is doing that right now.


Let's consider the "bottom" six's performance since Florida won the SEC's first of five BCS national titles in 2006.

1. Arkansas
Bobby Petrino has taken the Razorbacks to heights unseen in the program's modern era. The Razorbacks look likely to follow up last year's 10-3 BCS bowl appearance record with a 10-2 regular season and another top bowl game. Whether Bobby Petrino can ever beat Nick Saban remains to be seen -- so far Saban owns Petrino's offense -- but the Razorbacks are far from floundering in this modern era.


Indeed, the Razorbacks were in Atlanta as recently as 2006 and were poised to spring an upset until their punt returner decided to field a punt that was over his head while running full speed backwards at his own two yard line. The resulting fumble led to a touchdown and the Gators were off to Arizona where they walloped Ohio State to begin the SEC's reign of dominance.


If you had to pick one of the "bottom" six that's most likely to win a national title, it would be Arkansas. In fact, prior to the Knile Davis injury the Razorbacks were a trendy dark horse national title pick.

2. Kentucky
During the SEC's five consecutive national wins Kentucky had been to five straight bowl games, winning three of them. In the entire history of the program prior to 2006 the Wildcats had been to just ten bowl games.
Never in the program's history had Kentucky been to five straight bowl games.


The Wildcats also beat LSU in its 2007 national title season, a victory over a number one team that may be the biggest win in the program's history.
Joker Phillips' team is bad this year, but if the Cats fired Joker and hired Mike Leach, who has openly lobbied for the job, they could quickly return to program heights unseen. And, hell, as impossible as it is to believe, Kentucky could still get to 6-6 and go to a bowl game for a sixth straight season.

3. Mississippi State
The Bulldogs hold the ignominous distinction of being one of only two programs in the SEC -- the other is Vanderbilt -- to have an all-time losing record in football. They've also only won a single SEC title, in 1941.
But the Bulldogs won a New Year's Day bowl game last year for the first time since 1941 last season. The team they beat back then? Georgetown.
The Bulldogs beat Michigan 52-14 in what may be the program's biggest win since World War II.


So, yeah, it has been a long time for Mississippi State to be this nationally relevant again. While the Bulldogs may take a step back this season, if they beat Kentucky and Ole Miss they should be bowl eligible. As long as Dan Mullen is in Starkville the Bulldogs will be much better than they have been historically.

4. Vanderbilt
Vandy has their man in James Franklin. After Saturday's win over Army Franklin will be at 4-3 in conference, poised to make a run at a bowl game if his program can beat Kentucky and just one more team on the schedule. Already Franklin's 30-7 win over Ole Miss was the biggest SEC margin for the Commodores since 1972.


What's more in 2008 the Commodores notched their first bowl victory since 1955. That team's 7-6 record represented the most wins for a Commodore football team since 1982.


As the SEC has risen in football, so too has Vanderbilt's performance.

5. Ole Miss
Since the SEC added a title game in 1992, Ole Miss is 8-1 in bowl games.
I know they've been awful the past year and change, but prior to that Ole Miss won back-to-back Cotton Bowl games in 2009 and 2010.


Those were the biggest bowl wins -- and best seasons -- for Ole Miss since 1970.

6. South Carolina
The Gamecocks won the SEC East last season to advance to Atlanta for the first time in program history.


While Marcus Lattimore was just knocked out for the season, the Gamecocks are presently in first place in the SEC East at 4-1 and would advance to Atlanta for a second consecutive season if they could beat Tennessee, Arkansas, and Florida.


Once a perennial laughing stock program, the Gamecocks have now asserted themselves as a legitimate threat to contend for the SEC East division crown. And maybe, who knows, something more someday. The Gamecocks have the second best chance of any program in the "bottom" six to win a national title -- or BCS game -- someday.


...


Now, a couple of caveats, yes, it's easier to make a bowl game today because there are now 12 regular season games and because there are more bowls to go to, but the fact remains, each of these programs has advanced to new program heights even as the top of the conference has risen to unseen heights. Five consecutive national titles has, amazingly, helped the bottom half of the SEC as much as it has helped the top half.
It's a cliche, but a rising tide really is lifting all SEC boats to heights of program prominence not seen before.


Can the SEC make Missouri and Texas A&M national title contenders? Not consistently. But can the SEC take Missouri and Texas A&M to heights heretofore unseen by their football programs? The evidence suggests that contrary to what the doubters would say, the answer is yes.

[evenfall]

Nice article. Good to see some facts applied to that argument.

[Bambi]

If MU has Jack Harry and KSU has Kietzman who does KU get? Nate Bukady??

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

If MU has Jack Harry and KSU has Kietzman who does KU get? Nate Bukady??

Duh.

Bob Fescoe.