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.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

They have three, KU, ISU and UT. Mizzou's upswing (if you can call it that this year) is in serious jeapordy as they will try and transition to new recruiting grounds while losing influence in Texas.

But WVU should transition seamlessly as they replace the dregs of the Big East with the Oklahoma and Texas schools.

And over the last five years WVU has won 49 games in the craptastic Big East versus Mizzou 48 in the same timespan.

Let's not even get into WVU's inability to admit the SEC academic casualties now that they have to operate under a real conference's academic requirements....

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Mizzou's upswing (if you can call it that this year) is in serious jeapordy as they will try and transition to new recruiting grounds while losing influence in Texas.

This factor has been severely overstated.

If Missouri were going somewhere else (Big Ten, Big East, PAC) it apparently would be an issue. Actual research and conversations with Texas recruits show that moving to the SEC is not a severe problem for most of them.

There are a few guys the Tigers will miss on (probably 1-2 a year) because they're in the SEC rather than the Big 12, but projecting a drastic drop-off is not based in fact.

I was beating this drum before I embraced the move, but the facts aren't on its side.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

But WVU should transition seamlessly as they replace the dregs of the Big East with the Oklahoma and Texas schools.

And over the last five years WVU has won 49 games in the craptastic Big East versus Mizzou 48 in the same timespan.

Let's not even get into WVU's inability to admit the SEC academic casualties now that they have to operate under a real conference's academic requirements....

Yeah, West Virginia has benefited greatly from playing in the Big East.

Recent conference titles:

2003 (8-5, 6-1)
2004 (8-4, 4-2)
2005 (11-1, 7-0)
2007 (11-2, 5-2)
2010 (9-3, 5-2)

Missouri - along with several other Big 12 schools - could have done just as well. The Tigers likely win the Big East in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and would have been right there in 2009 (when I believe flippin' UCONN won the league).

Their basketball program is unarguably better than Mizzou's (though that probably doesn't last past Huggy bear and probably takes a hit playing in the Big 12-2-1-1+? with less ties to New York), but their football program is perceived as better only because they've dominated a cupcake league.

[HolyHandgernade]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

This factor has been severely overstated.

If Missouri were going somewhere else (Big Ten, Big East, PAC) it apparently would be an issue. Actual research and conversations with Texas recruits show that moving to the SEC is not a severe problem for most of them.

There are a few guys the Tigers will miss on (probably 1-2 a year) because they're in the SEC rather than the Big 12, but projecting a drastic drop-off is not based in fact.

I was beating this drum before I embraced the move, but the facts aren't on its side.

Well, when Arkansas moved to the SEC, their Texas recruiting dropped off dramatically.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

But WVU should transition seamlessly as they replace the dregs of the Big East with the Oklahoma and Texas schools.

And over the last five years WVU has won 49 games in the craptastic Big East versus Mizzou 48 in the same timespan.

Let's not even get into WVU's inability to admit the SEC academic casualties now that they have to operate under a real conference's academic requirements....

West Virginia's athletics stand to take a hit. Travel will suck, and no more partial qualifiers spells trouble.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Well, when Arkansas moved to the SEC, their Texas recruiting dropped off dramatically.

How are they doing now? 15 years ago, the SEC wasn't the dominant football conference that it is today.

[kchero]

Good pick up for the Big Leftover conference compared to what teams are available. For those of you who think it is an upgrade over Mizzou are kidding yourselfs. Let's be honest, if Kansas was in the Big East, they would rack up twice as many wins in that weak football conference.
Other than that though, I am curious to see if they stay at 10 or add some more of these city schools to put them back to 12.

[|Zach|]

You can pretty much add on "I hope" to a lot of HH's posts that have predictions about Mizzou.

They are more legit that way.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade

Well, when Arkansas moved to the SEC, their Texas recruiting dropped off dramatically.

Some facts that would be helpful in that analysis...

1) The period around joining the SEC (1991) was a low part in Arkansas football because of coaching turmoil. Jack Crowe was an unmitigated disaster, and was fired after losing a game to The Citadel in 1992. They played out the string with an interim coach in 1992 and then brought in Danny Ford, who was washed up and had been retired before coming to Arkansas.

Hard to maintain recruiting ties when you go through four coaches in a four-year span.

2) TV was different back then . The SEC was not on TV as much, and didn't have the reach on ESPN and CBS it currently does.

3) The brand was different. The SEC, while being a great conference, was not yet the clear and undisputed best overall conference like it is now.

4) There was not a team in Texas in the SEC for Arkansas to regularly play. The SWC was still in existence, and Rice, SMU, Houston, etc. were much bigger players for Texas players than currently, in addition to UT, aTm, Oklahoma, Baylor, Tech.

It's a different situation for Missouri than it was for Arkansas. The Tigers enter the SEC with a strong, established coach, a program that - 2011 hiccup aside - is in the best shape it has been since the 1960s. From all indications, Texas A&M will be Missouri's cross-division rival, so they'll be in Texas frequently. And the SEC is all over the place as far as TV broadcasts.

I like the idea of playing from the SEC East, with aTm as the cross-division rival, for recruiting purposes, too. Having home-and-away with Georgia and Florida gives the Tigers the chance to do the same thing in those states it has in Texas - mine overlooked kids to build the athleticism of the roster.

I'd expect the Tigers to land a few more in-state kids, get a few less from Texas, and shift emphasis from Oklahoma to beefing up efforts in Florida and Louisiana and Georgia.

[Mr. Laz]

West Virginia to Big 12 (if it hasn't been posted yet)

[Los Pollos Hermanos]

I hope the Big 12 stays at 10. I want to see K-State play in Fort Worth every other year. And once a year in BB.

[Saulbadguy]

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

Yeah, West Virginia has benefited greatly from playing in the Big East.

Recent conference titles:

2003 (8-5, 6-1)
2004 (8-4, 4-2)
2005 (11-1, 7-0)
2007 (11-2, 5-2)
2010 (9-3, 5-2)

Missouri - along with several other Big 12 schools - could have done just as well. The Tigers likely win the Big East in 2003, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2010 and would have been right there in 2009 (when I believe flippin' UCONN won the league).

Their basketball program is unarguably better than Mizzou's (though that probably doesn't last past Huggy bear and probably takes a hit playing in the Big 12-2-1-1+? with less ties to New York), but their football program is perceived as better only because they've dominated a cupcake league.

Mizzou played in the Big XII North + 3 rotating south games. Is it that much different than the Big East?

I would buy your argument if Mizzou won the Big XII. Ever.

...or if they won the Big 8 since I was born.

[Mr. Plow]

http://espn.go.com/college-sports/st...ay-source-says


Source: Big 12 to accept WVU soon


The Big 12 has told West Virginia it will be accepted into the conference pending formal approval, which could happen as soon as later Tuesday, a Big 12 source said.

Earlier Tuesday, multiple media reports said that West Virginia was headed from the Big East to the Big 12.

West Virginia will be accepted into the conference as a replacement for Missouri, which the conference believes is departing for the SEC. However, according to the source, West Virginia's acceptance into the Big 12 is not contingent on Missouri leaving.

The only thing holding up Missouri's departure is legal concerns, according to multiple reports.

The Big 12 still wants Missouri to play in the conference next season, as to not open the possibility of television renegotiations if the league were to drop to nine teams. The conference feels comfortable at 10 teams but still will consider 12 teams in the future, the source said.

The Big 12 is adding West Virginia because of its football strength, having finished in the BCS standings in four of the past five years, as well as the men's basketball program having reached the NCAA tournament six of the past seven years.

The Big East could try to keep West Virginia for up to 27 months and negotiations on that point would figure to ensue.

At a Big 12 board of directors meeting on Monday, the conference urged Missouri to stay -- and Missouri chancellor Brady Deaton, who had been given permission by the university's governing body to make decisions on the future of the university's athletic program, did not inform the conference that Missouri intended to leave.

But late Monday, Deaton gave some clue as to Missouri's intentions, giving a statement to KOMU-TV in Columbia, Mo., in which he wished the Big 12 "the best and all of that."

"There's no delays here at all," he said, referring to the school's step toward leaving the Big 12. "There's some very specific things that have to be addressed. We want to address those. We really can't rush these things. These are things you can't rush."

The Big 12 also is discussing a conference media network, which a source said could even include content, if not games, related to the University of Texas, which founded its own Longhorn Network in association with ESPN.
Neither conference would confirm Monday that West Virginia was moving from the Big East to the Big 12.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Mizzou played in the Big XII North + 3 rotating south games. Is it that much different than the Big East?

I would buy your argument if Mizzou won the Big XII. Ever.

...or if they won the Big 8 since I was born.

You're absolutely correct.

Congratulations on your upgrade, I'm sure you'll all be very very happy together.

Dueces.

[duncan_idaho]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Mizzou played in the Big XII North + 3 rotating south games. Is it that much different than the Big East?

I would buy your argument if Mizzou won the Big XII. Ever.

...or if they won the Big 8 since I was born.

It's a lot different, in that Texas and Oklahoma is always on Missouri's schedule.

The point is that the Big East, in addition to not having as many teams or a conference championship game, is a much, much easier league than the Big 12.

There's been no one in that league during West Virginia's run that can compare to Texas or Oklahoma. Since Miami and Va. Tech bailed, the Big East has been basically the Big 12 North division.