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.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by tredadda

The biggest myth of the SEC is that it is tough from top to bottom.

No conference is elite from top to bottom. However, the top of our conference is usually the best in the country (this year LSU destroying Oregon/WVU and Bama beating PSU) and the mid-to-bottom of our conference is usually better than the middle-to-bottom of other conferences. Hell, this year even our bottom feeders Vandy beat UConn (middle of Big East) and Ole Miss beat Fresno St (#1 in the WAC). Tennessee (towards the bottom of the SEC East) also beat Cincinnati (#1 in the Big East).

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Hey. This is a great take. You really had a good feel for this stuff after all...

I'm convinced. Let's round up the Kansas teams and go to the Big East. It just feels right.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

No conference is elite from top to bottom. However, the top of our conference is usually the best in the country (this year LSU destroying Oregon/WVU and Bama beating PSU) and the mid-to-bottom of our conference is usually better than the middle-to-bottom of other conferences. Hell, this year even our bottom feeders Vandy beat UConn (middle of Big East) and Ole Miss beat Fresno St (#1 in the WAC). Tennessee (towards the bottom of the SEC East) also beat Cincinnati (#1 in the Big East).

Tennessee is a lot better than their record. A lot people are down on Dooley, but they have been killed with injuries. It wouldn't shock me at all if they won the East next year with Tyler Bray and Justin Hunter back on the field.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by tredadda

Granted they will not win it for a few years

Yes. They'll win the SEC just after they win the Big 12.

[DaKCMan AP]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Tennessee is a lot better than their record. A lot people are down on Dooley, but they have been killed with injuries. It wouldn't shock me at all if they won the East next year with Tyler Bray and Justin Hunter back on the field.

They have talent, no doubt. Florida's also had a ton of injuries and should be much better next season. I read somewhere than we have 33 underclassmen making up our 2-deep roster.

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by tredadda

That is why I do not understand why people think Mizzou would struggle in the SEC. Granted they will not win it for a few years as they are clearly not on the level of an Alabama or LSU, or in most years a Florida. But they are good enough to be mid to upper tier (except this year which is a down year) there. The biggest myth of the SEC is that it is tough from top to bottom. That is not the case at all. The top teams are clearly elite, but there are plenty of average to below average teams in the conference as well. As long as Missouri keeps its Texas pipeline open then they should be alright. If they lose it then it could be a few years before the rebuild it elsewhere in SEC country.

I'll be curious to see how they adjust to the grueling season. The main thing I see in the SEC is the depth that is necessary to compete, because you're going to have significant injuries every year (watch the way Bama and LSU play defense if you want to see why). The better SEC teams are able to plug people in to fill those key positions (look at Arkansas at QB last year when Mallett went down and Wilson stepped in or at our receiving corps or at our runnning backs) whereas the lower tier teams crumble when they experience a few key injuries.

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

No conference is elite from top to bottom. However, the top of our conference is usually the best in the country (this year LSU destroying Oregon/WVU and Bama beating PSU) and the mid-to-bottom of our conference is usually better than the middle-to-bottom of other conferences. Hell, this year even our bottom feeders Vandy beat UConn (middle of Big East) and Ole Miss beat Fresno St (#1 in the WAC). Tennessee (towards the bottom of the SEC East) also beat Cincinnati (#1 in the Big East).

Don't forget Kentucky. Saul Good told us they were awesome, but South Carolina is done.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Don't forget Kentucky. Saul Good told us they were awesome, but South Carolina is done.

Isn't that why the BigIIX was flirting with Kentucky, because of the pure awesome factor they bring to the table?

[HemiEd]

Originally Posted by Bowser

Isn't that why the BigIIX was flirting with Kentucky, because of the pure awesome factor they bring to the table?

It must be, because it couldn't be their basketball prowess. That sport doesn't matter.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

It must be, because it couldn't be their basketball prowess. That sport doesn't matter.

Well, duh.

[Saulbadguy]

Mizzou, in their best years in the Big XII (2005-2010) is 8-12 vs South teams. That includes 2 Big XII title game losses.

In those 6 seasons, i'd argue Mizzou really took advantage of a down Big XII North.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by NewChief

I'll be curious to see how they adjust to the grueling season. The main thing I see in the SEC is the depth that is necessary to compete, because you're going to have significant injuries every year (watch the way Bama and LSU play defense if you want to see why). The better SEC teams are able to plug people in to fill those key positions (look at Arkansas at QB last year when Mallett went down and Wilson stepped in or at our receiving corps or at our runnning backs) whereas the lower tier teams crumble when they experience a few key injuries.

In the skill positions we'd probably be fine. Prior to actually witnessing their performance this year, I'd have said we'd be fine along the D-line and linebackers as well (but beyond Hamilton, the D-line has been abysmal and the LBs have been invisible).

The secondary is garbage among the starters - so how much worse can the backups be? That counts as 'depth' right? The O-line evidently doesn't have a backup tackle on it, we've been playing with 4 guards on the field for most of the year, so yeah, we'll need some help there as well.

I'm trying to temper my pissivity right now. This season has just been a disappointment on every single level on the field. If you try to pin me to a prediction for next year, I'd say they win 1 game in the SEC then excoriate James Franklin some more. However, that's probably just coming from pure rage and isn't really fair to the team. They're better than they've shown this year and I suspect they'll be ready to go once they finally start the SEC slate.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Mizzou, in their best years in the Big XII (2005-2010) is 8-12 vs South teams. That includes 2 Big XII title game losses.

In those 6 seasons, i'd argue Mizzou really took advantage of a down Big XII North.

I'll blame Stoops for the majority of that. He has absolutely ahd Pinkel's number over the years. And no real defense here - Mizzou straight up hasn't been good against the South. I think they were competitive by and large, but that doesn't win you anything.

The SEC could possibly break Pinkel after a few years if he doesn't pick up his game. The whole program will need to step it up.

[Saul Good]

Originally Posted by HemiEd

Don't forget Kentucky. Saul Good told us they were awesome, but South Carolina is done.

I could have sworn I said that Kentucky' football program has improved even as the rest of the conference got tougher as evidenced by the fact that they have been to 5 straight bowl games after going to 10 in the 60 years prior. What a stupid observation on my part.

South Carolina's season is completely ****ed. They lost their QB and Heisman-candidate RB last week.

You got me.

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by Saulbadguy

Mizzou, in their best years in the Big XII (2005-2010) is 8-12 vs South teams. That includes 2 Big XII title game losses.

In those 6 seasons, i'd argue Mizzou really took advantage of a down Big XII North.

Mizzou will lose to LSU and Bama just like they lose to OU and TX now, and just like almost every team loses to those teams now.

Ex OU and TX (combined 1-7 if my math is correct), Mizzou is 7-5 against the remaining South teams, which have been comparable to the mid-tier SEC teams.

So hopefully win the 4 non-con games, and go 4-4 or 5-3 in the SEC. I'll take an 8-9 win season in the SEC with a nice New Year's Day bowl in Florida every year.