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.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Of course you would.

Well I guess for however improbable it would be, it makes some sense. You improve PAC's basketball rep with KU and Mizzou to a lesser extent while adding a good program in Mizzou and one that can succeed in KU if they have the right Hutt -errr Mangino at HC.

[notorious]

Isn't it obvious through all of this that nobody gives a **** about basketball when it comes to conference alignment?

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Well I guess for however improbable it would be, it makes some sense. You improve PAC's basketball rep with KU and Mizzou to a lesser extent while adding a good program in Mizzou and one that can succeed in KU if they have the right Hutt -errr Mangino at HC.

Nobody cares.

[Discuss Thrower]

I know that. I'm saying an MU/KU add to the Pac12 wouldn't be too horrible all things considered.

[alnorth]

Originally Posted by notorious

Isn't it obvious through all of this that nobody gives a **** about basketball when it comes to conference alignment?

It is less important, not irrelevant, and the PAC 12's options are extremely limited. If they had the guts to tell OU/UT to drop their little brothers, then they would absolutely want Texas, OU, KU, and MU

[tk13]

Originally Posted by alnorth

It is less important, not irrelevant, and the PAC 12's options are extremely limited. If they had the guts to tell OU/UT to drop their little brothers, then they would absolutely want Texas, OU, KU, and MU

I think the 2nd part of your post is probably correct... although largely due to academics, not athletics. Kansas University fans are the only people in the entire world anywhere I've seen saying basketball has any relevance in any of this. I don't understand it, and my favorite college sports event is definitely March Madness. But it's just not realistic, I don't know why people think that. Even on ESPN the other day, Andy Katz said this is all about football, and he's their big basketball writer.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by beer bacon

I think it is great Texas got rejected by the PAC.

Make no mistake, the Pac 12 would be thrilled to get Texas, OU even if that meant OSU and Tech coming with. They couldn't get them to absorb the LHN and agree to terms with revenue sharing. The Pac deciding they aren't going to expand is really kind of funny, it's more or less that Texas doesn't want to come and share revenue, same with Oklahoma. If they HAVE to share revenue, even if the tier 1 and tier 2 then why not stay in the Big 12..as you have seen.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by alnorth

It is less important, not irrelevant, and the PAC 12's options are extremely limited. If they had the guts to tell OU/UT to drop their little brothers, then they would absolutely want Texas, OU, KU, and MU

I doubt it. Kansas barely turns a profit in football. I just looked up basketball and football revenue figures and KU is third to last in division 1 football profits. Revenue isn't all that much either.

If I was Pac 10, I'd want Oklahoma State over KU. Decent at football, Top 20 program in basketball. Throughout this I never thought of Oklahoma State as being the little brother of Oklahoma the same way K-State is to KU. OSU IMO is a legitimate school with a legitimate athletic program.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

Nobody cares.

You're right.

Those football powerhouses that were gobbled up by conferences last week; Syracuse and Pitt, are sure having some great showings today.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

You're right.

Those football powerhouses that were gobbled up by conferences last week; Syracuse and Pitt, are sure having some great showings today.

It isn't my fault you can't see the big picture.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by BWillie007

Well, duh. I realize the money and if they went to a different conference they would lose a little bit. They wouldn't be poor though if they went to the ACC or Big 12 though. Just too may traditional rivalries for them to leave and obviously the $. If they came to the Big 12 though they could start their own network and get tier 3 money.

BTW, where did you get that list? Crazy to think that Iowa's football team is virtually as profitable as Ohio States.

This list that keeps getting posted is really just ticket sales from what I can tell. The biggest stadiums are all at the top.

Not including TV deals, merchandise etc that create revenue outside of ticket sales.

That's why the bball school numbers appear so low.

It's just cherry picking, but who really cares at this point.

Why else would a school like Iowa be listed alongside Ohio State.

In reality the schools aren't even close in value.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by |Zach|

It isn't my fault you can't see the big picture.

eh, when the football powerhouse Missouri gets invited to another conference then I'll believe you.

You've been wrong from the beginning.

It's actually quite pathetic to watch at this point.

[Bambi]

Originally Posted by BWillie007

I doubt it. Kansas barely turns a profit in football. I just looked up basketball and football revenue figures and KU is third to last in division 1 football profits. Revenue isn't all that much either.

If I was Pac 10, I'd want Oklahoma State over KU. Decent at football, Top 20 program in basketball. Throughout this I never thought of Oklahoma State as being the little brother of Oklahoma the same way K-State is to KU. OSU IMO is a legitimate school with a legitimate athletic program.

Yet Kansas has the 2nd largest endowment and the 2nd largest 3rd tier TV deal in the Big 12 behind Texas.

I wonder why that is??

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

eh, when the football powerhouse Missouri gets invited to another conference then I'll believe you.

You've been wrong from the beginning.

It's actually quite pathetic to watch at this point.

Actually you were the one who thought it was silly talk that A&M was going to leave and to call you when they actually do. I've made no grand claims. Just watched you spin spin spin.

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by Wickedson

This list that keeps getting posted is really just ticket sales from what I can tell. The biggest stadiums are all at the top.

Not including TV deals, merchandise etc that create revenue outside of ticket sales.

That's why the bball school numbers appear so low.

It's just cherry picking, but who really cares at this point.

So, that doesn't include football merchandise either? Oh shit.