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.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by alnorth

I wouldn't, even if the SEC held a press conference to announce they are ready to accept. That is not to say Mizzou shouldn't play poker, if they have some cards to play to make sure Tier 1/2 is shared, force the Big 12 to put up rules on showing tier 3 conference games and make sure the LHN doesn't show high school, then by all means, play those cards. More power to MU if they can get those reforms.

However, if we all get that, then there's not much of a reason, other than emotion, to leave the conference for the SEC. The Big 12 TV contracts are temporarily low and will be comparable to everyone else in a few years. Tier 3 money isn't enough to complain about and the SEC also does not share Tier 3 money anyway, so you gain nothing there. "stability" is an artificial fake complaint since you can force stability if everyone really wants it, and once we get a new contract in 2015 there wont be any financial reason to leave anyway.

All you really get is long pain-in-the-ass road trips, and a smaller chance of ever making it into a BCS bowl. Its a somewhat more realistic option for Texas schools due to geography and culture.

I know you put me on ignore, but I'm answering this to the general populace, mostly because you are making assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

The Big 12 contracts are low because they need to be renegotiated and will be when they expire. But yours, and others, assumptions that they will surpass the PAC 12, SEC or Big 10 is at best, childlike.

Why would anyone pay exhorbitant money for a conference that has shown horrid instability, is weighted HEAVILY towards 2 teams at best, and has not shown it's drawing power outside the midwest?

And, you are assuming that Texas and OU will even stay around for the new contract. They aren't going to agree to lock themselves in to a contract that ties their hands....their egos are too large.

I'm betting that if UT and OU make any concessions to keep the B12 intact they will only be to the extent that they are minor.

[RustShack]

You realize they have already agreed to this six year deal.. right?

[RustShack]

Meaning Oklahoma and Texas are staying around for the new contract. You might not be very good at math, but five years does come before six years.

[RustShack]

The Big12 is also going to reach out to aTm about returning to this more stable conference before adding other schools, but aTm is expected to say no thanks.

[RustShack]

johnehoover John E. Hoover by GSwaim



Our source says Boren wanted either BYU, TCU or Air Force added to Big 12 to get 10, or all 3 for 12. That doesn't change. #Sooners

[patteeu]

Originally Posted by Mosbonian

I know you put me on ignore, but I'm answering this to the general populace, mostly because you are making assumptions that aren't necessarily true.

The Big 12 contracts are low because they need to be renegotiated and will be when they expire. But yours, and others, assumptions that they will surpass the PAC 12, SEC or Big 10 is at best, childlike.

Why would anyone pay exhorbitant money for a conference that has shown horrid instability, is weighted HEAVILY towards 2 teams at best, and has not shown it's drawing power outside the midwest?

And, you are assuming that Texas and OU will even stay around for the new contract. They aren't going to agree to lock themselves in to a contract that ties their hands....their egos are too large.

I'm betting that if UT and OU make any concessions to keep the B12 intact they will only be to the extent that they are minor.

I think it's likely that a re-stabilized Big 12 would be able to get the big contract that alnorth envisions because they're still a consistently good football conference and they still have a presence in a lot of pretty good college football markets. I don't see why stability would be a concern as any risk that the conference could implode could easily be anticipated by the contract to protect the networks.

If the conference re-stabilizes like alnorth envisions, UT and OU would have no choice but to stick around. Is UT going to leave the conference if the Big 12 still controls their Tier 1 and Tier 2 rights? What conference would accept them without those rights?

[kstater]

ChuckCarltonDMN Chuck Carlton
MT @ChrisLevel: Tech's Guy Bailey tells @AaronDickens and I that MU Chancellor Deaton told him MU doesn't have SEC offer, will stay in B12.
42 minutes ago

[eazyb81]

Originally Posted by alnorth

I wouldn't, even if the SEC held a press conference to announce they are ready to accept. That is not to say Mizzou shouldn't play poker, if they have some cards to play to make sure Tier 1/2 is shared, force the Big 12 to put up rules on showing tier 3 conference games and make sure the LHN doesn't show high school, then by all means, play those cards. More power to MU if they can get those reforms.

However, if we all get that, then there's not much of a reason, other than emotion, to leave the conference for the SEC. The Big 12 TV contracts are temporarily low and will be comparable to everyone else in a few years. Tier 3 money isn't enough to complain about and the SEC also does not share Tier 3 money anyway, so you gain nothing there. "stability" is an artificial fake complaint since you can force stability if everyone really wants it, and once we get a new contract in 2015 there wont be any financial reason to leave anyway.

All you really get is long pain-in-the-ass road trips, and a smaller chance of ever making it into a BCS bowl. Its a somewhat more realistic option for Texas schools due to geography and culture.

I normally like your posts, but your takes are pretty terrible on this situation.

No one with a functioning brain would turn down an offer from SEC - or B1G or PAC for that matter if the geography made sense - to stay in this zombie conference. UT has pushed the envelope since they came in, and the leadership has not been in place to prevent it.

Your entire premise is based on ifs and maybes. If UT gives into demands. If LHN is modified. If the new first tier contract is awesome.

When you have schools like Nebraska, Colorado, and now Texas A&M leave in one year, it should be obvious that something is rotten in Denmark.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by RustShack

You realize they have already agreed to this six year deal.. right?

Who? MU has not signed off on a six year deal.

[Garcia Bronco]

Big 12 needs to get to 12 teams or no more championship game and a little less revenue.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by RustShack

You realize they have already agreed to this six year deal.. right?

No they haven't.

They've agreed on pushing for a 6 year deal, but Deaton said last night that absolutely nothing has been signed.

Boren made vague allusions to it in his presser (which was absolutely reeruned, BTW), but that's all been clarified this morning.

Anyone that is willing to talk thus far has said only that they have a philosophical agreement to move forward towards a 6 year deal but they have 'agreed' to absolutely nothing at this point.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by RustShack

Meaning Oklahoma and Texas are staying around for the new contract. You might not be very good at math, but five years does come before six years.

Actually I've very good at math (Accounting/Credit person here)...but even better at understanding just how little contracts mean these days which seems to escape you. If you think that OU and UT won't find a way out of that contract they've agreed to then you are being a pollyanna.

I'm still waiting for you to answer the first question about why you think that the contract will be for more than the PAC 12? I see you've managed to dodge that one.

[RustShack]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Who? MU has not signed off on a six year deal.

OU and OSU have because they are the only two schools who don't have to vote and the Presidents can just make that decision. The other schools have agreed in principle they just have to vote to finalize it. It will happen whether you tards want it to or not. But if Mizzou has a problem with it they can just go independent I guess, since they don't have an offer from the B1G or SEC like you idiots want to think.

[Mosbonian]

Originally Posted by kstater

ChuckCarltonDMN Chuck Carlton
MT @ChrisLevel: Tech's Guy Bailey tells @AaronDickens and I that MU Chancellor Deaton told him MU doesn't have SEC offer, will stay in B12.
42 minutes ago

Interesting that they didn't mention it in last nights press conference.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by eazyb81

I normally like your posts, but your takes are pretty terrible on this situation.

No one with a functioning brain would turn down an offer from SEC - or B1G or PAC for that matter if the geography made sense - to stay in this zombie conference. UT has pushed the envelope since they came in, and the leadership has not been in place to prevent it.

Your entire premise is based on ifs and maybes. If UT gives into demands. If LHN is modified. If the new first tier contract is awesome.

When you have schools like Nebraska, Colorado, and now Texas A&M leave in one year, it should be obvious that something is rotten in Denmark.

He's been clutching to the XII thing the whole time.

I have no idea what his college affiliation is, but it's becoming apparent to me that he's attached to one of the KS schools and is afraid that they'll end up with no life raft. As a consequence, he's thinking with his heart and arguing in support of that position.