Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread - Page 465

**Saulbadguy** · 09-12-2011, 07:57 AM

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.

DJ's left nut · 10-25-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Nobody is saying that. Why are you being so dramatic?

It was just interesting that you mentioned if you replace the TV markets Missouri leaves behind.

I was interested in hearing more about that.

Well they might be able to.

It'll take 3 schools to turn the trick, but they could pull it off.

**notorious** · 10-25-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

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.

Mizzou fans are just upset that there is already a team of their equal sitting in their still warm chair.

And the talk that Mizzou will maintain a consistant Texas recruiting pipeline makes me

.

Reerun_KC · 10-25-2011, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah, no. We don't care.

Most of us are kinda tired about having to defend bullshit generalizations or outright misrepresentations concerning the beliefs of our fanbase, but that's about it.

feeling are mutual buddy...

Most of us really dont give two shits about it. Most of it is made up fabrication by people here..

Stewie · 10-25-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by evenfall

I like you guys, I hope it works out that the football program can keep playing well and there is a place at a good table for KSU when all this is over, which I guess won't be until OU/UT find a permanent place imo... Always admired Snyder and have had good dealings with K State fans in the past.

Where are OU and UT going to go? The SEC? The PAC is now out of the question.

**DeezNutz** · 10-25-2011, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by notorious

Mizzou fans are just upset that there is already a team of their equal sitting in their still warm chair.

And the talk that Mizzou will maintain a consistant Texas recruiting pipeline makes me

.

Not that this is the driving factor because it's not, but you do realize that the combined academic standing of the conference has taken a serious hit with the departures of Colorado, A&M, and Missouri?

**buddha** · 10-25-2011, 02:05 PM

There is no way for any of us to know what the final figure could be in the SEC. We don't have to say the final figure for Mizzou because in THAT conference, they share equally...what a concept? Once the SEC Network gets going, all bets are off. The conference will print money. The Big 10 Network has been good to the BIG, but the SEC Network will be even bigger.

For the Mizzou fans who are wishing to stay put...it's based on nothing but wishful thinking and fond memories of a conference that no longer exists. The Big 8 was terrific. The Big Tex conference sucks and has sucked since Texas took over.

Anybody in KC who can't see that it was freaking Texas that moved the tournament the first time, moved the conference offices, etc. It's all Texas. Anybody who could leve the Big 12 either has or will in the not too distant future.

Texas sucks!

ChiefsCountry · 10-25-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by duncan_idaho

You all want proof Kietzmann is making shit up?

Look no further than his claim that the Rams are more important to St. Louis than Mizzou. Absolute, complete and utter bullshit.

The Rams had a halfway decent following in St. Louis when they were the best team in the NFC for like three years. Their following currently is a joke, and enough of one that there is serious discussion they might move cities once again.

I love listening to people who don't live in St. Louis and have never lived in St. Louis talk about Missouri's fan following there. It's good for a nice laugh.

I think most of the St. Louis talk about not supporting MU is bc for whatever reason MU can't seem to recruit the top basketball players from St. Louis.

rageeumr · 10-25-2011, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by epitome1170

1. You should like sweet tea anyway... delicious.

2. I think the preference has been the B1G, but with that shit storm that came in last year that is not really a viable option.

3. I personally am now leary of staying in the Big XII because of the possiblity of this same thing happening next year (see last year's fiasco)... the whole conference has given me a sour taste at this point. Additionally, I think it would be a PR nightmere at this point. It has become a point of no return.

I know the B1G isn't really an option. But when conferencemageddon 2010 was going down, I could look at Mizzou to the B1G and say "ok, that makes sense". I don't have that feeling with the SEC.

And I agree that we're probably past the point of no return. I'm just concerned that we're leaving for a conference that isn't a great fit. The strength and viability of the SEC is encouraging, but that's no guarantee that it will be a successful move.

Jerm · 10-25-2011, 02:07 PM

Can't wait to see what excuses the hypocrite media comes up with when TCU and WVU come into the Big XII and get smashed...look at the ****ing cupcake conferences they've been playing in.

I'm just glad this shit is almost done so EVERYONE can move on.

Just hope we don't have to wait until 2013 to move to the SEC.

Mr. Plow · 10-25-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

where we could make $30-40MM more annually in a stable conference.

Just to clarify. It looks like in 2010 MU made a profit on football of $11,618,417 - adding your estimates to it....

You expect MU football to jump from $11 million to $41-$51 million?

For the record, $41 million would put you ahead of Alabama, Tennessee, & Auburn in the SEC. $51 million would make you the 2nd most profitable program in the SEC behind Georgia.

**DeezNutz** · 10-25-2011, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerm

Just hope we don't have to wait until 2013 to move to the SEC.

Yes.

**notorious** · 10-25-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Not that this is the driving factor because it's not, but you do realize that the combined academic standing of the conference has taken a serious hit with the departures of Colorado, A&M, and Missouri?

I really care about academics when it comes to my Saturday entertainment.

Really.

All kidding aside, all that I want is good sports. That goes for over 95% of the country. I still have yet to figure out what academics or money have to do with any of this when it comes to the fans.

It's not putting a single penny into any of our pockets.

DJ's left nut · 10-25-2011, 02:08 PM

Here's something that I think is kinda strange, and it's a point I made last season during the B1G thing:

Why does everyone keep saying "it's all about moneyA" without acknowledging where that money goes and what it's used for?

You're absolutely right that it's all about money - but here's the thing: General revenue cannot be used for athletic programs (well, not above a certain nominal threshold). If you're Missouri and you want to upgrade your facilities, it has to be done through private donors or revenue generated by the programs themselves.

So yeah, of course this is about money. But why don't we say what the true end game is? It's about larger facilities. It's about upgraded amenities. It's about new and improved athletics complexes and additional exposure.

It's not about increasing profit. It's not about downsizing staff. It's about improving the University of Missouri. It's about trying to give us an advantage in an environment where there are precious few places you can actually gain a competitive advantage if the geography doesn't allow for it.

So yeah - keep on calling it a money grab if it makes you feel better. But that's simply ignoring the fact that money means something very very different for a major university than it does for a Fortune 500 company or a private individual. It means the ability to elevate the school.

**buddha** · 10-25-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DeezNutz

Not that this is the driving factor because it's not, but you do realize that the combined academic standing of the conference has taken a serious hit with the departures of Colorado, A&M, and Missouri?

DeezNutz, do you think anybody on here cares about conference academic standing? BTW, nice move to leave the Bugeaters off the brain list. They got kicked out of the AAU at just the right time. If it had happened a year earlier, they would have never been invited to join the BIG. As it is, they are the "Cousin Eddie" (Vacation movies ref) of the BIG.

eazyb81 · 10-25-2011, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reerun_KC

I do think alot of you guys are butthurt over the fact that some of us KU fans are not butthurt that you are leaving..

business is business...

ku fans would not admit they were butthurt if they were demoted to D2. I don't think even the most delusional Mizzou fan expected ku fans to bow down and admit how pissed they are that we left for the best conference.

09-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Saulbadguy When a nightmare becomes real Join Date: Nov 2003 Casino cash: $736966	New Conference re-alignment thread 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.
Posts: 47,020

10-25-2011, 02:05 PM	#6966
buddha You may think you know... Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: California Casino cash: $10006184	There is no way for any of us to know what the final figure could be in the SEC. We don't have to say the final figure for Mizzou because in THAT conference, they share equally...what a concept? Once the SEC Network gets going, all bets are off. The conference will print money. The Big 10 Network has been good to the BIG, but the SEC Network will be even bigger. For the Mizzou fans who are wishing to stay put...it's based on nothing but wishful thinking and fond memories of a conference that no longer exists. The Big 8 was terrific. The Big Tex conference sucks and has sucked since Texas took over. Anybody in KC who can't see that it was freaking Texas that moved the tournament the first time, moved the conference offices, etc. It's all Texas. Anybody who could leve the Big 12 either has or will in the not too distant future. Texas sucks!
Posts: 2,183

10-25-2011, 02:07 PM	#6969
Jerm Mahomes > God Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $4818996	Can't wait to see what excuses the hypocrite media comes up with when TCU and WVU come into the Big XII and get smashed...look at the ****ing cupcake conferences they've been playing in. I'm just glad this shit is almost done so EVERYONE can move on. Just hope we don't have to wait until 2013 to move to the SEC.
Posts: 10,123

10-25-2011, 02:08 PM	#6973
DJ's left nut Sauntering Vaguely Downwards Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Columbia, Mo Casino cash: $979099	Here's something that I think is kinda strange, and it's a point I made last season during the B1G thing: Why does everyone keep saying "it's all about moneyA" without acknowledging where that money goes and what it's used for? You're absolutely right that it's all about money - but here's the thing: General revenue cannot be used for athletic programs (well, not above a certain nominal threshold). If you're Missouri and you want to upgrade your facilities, it has to be done through private donors or revenue generated by the programs themselves. So yeah, of course this is about money. But why don't we say what the true end game is? It's about larger facilities. It's about upgraded amenities. It's about new and improved athletics complexes and additional exposure. It's not about increasing profit. It's not about downsizing staff. It's about improving the University of Missouri. It's about trying to give us an advantage in an environment where there are precious few places you can actually gain a competitive advantage if the geography doesn't allow for it. So yeah - keep on calling it a money grab if it makes you feel better. But that's simply ignoring the fact that money means something very very different for a major university than it does for a Fortune 500 company or a private individual. It means the ability to elevate the school. __________________ "If there's a god, he's laughing at us.....and our football team..." "When you look at something through rose colored glasses, all the red flags just look like flags."
Posts: 63,565