Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread - Page 99

**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 · 09-26-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

UCLA is a city school. You can't define a result and then proclaim that UCLA's round peg doesn't fit the square hole you constructed.

You have state flagship schools and state land-grant schools, and BCS schools tend to fit under those two buckets. Then you have other major state schools, private schools, directional schools, and city schools. You can't include "they must suck" into the definition of city school.

Eh, fine - they still suck at football.

You can have 'em if you want 'em. I would consider UCLA to be a 'regional' school more than a city school (Just as I would consider UNLV), but that's fine. I think of them as more of a "K-State" style program rather than, say, Memphis, but I'm not going to be picky. I mean technically Cal is Cal-Berkely, no? So is Cal a city school? I would certainly never consider them as such.

It doesn't seem that UCLA is a square peg at all, but again, I'll assume they are for the sake of argument.

The Bruins still can't hang with the big time programs with any regularity. They're a mediocre program with spurts of success.

**alnorth** · 09-26-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

If true, that clears the legal obstacles to joining the SEC.

given that OU decided to stay? Yeah, pretty much. The contract wont fall apart with them in the conference, and so Baylor has no damages. All they have to worry about are exit fees.

eazyb81 · 09-26-2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

Texas A&M is not even close to driving the bus in Texas. MU and TA&M are replaceable, in terms of not impacting the contract. People around the country are curious about OU and UT games. Hardly anyone outside the Midwest cares about Mizzou, and Kansas City is a KU town.

You clearly have no idea how TV contract negotiations work. Mizzou doesn't have to be the f'n Florida Gators for their loss to negatively impact the value of a TV contract due to the loss of eyeballs. The Big 12 will completely lose airtime in St. Louis, a top 20 metro area, while losing meaningful share in Dallas, Houston, and KC. Wake the fuck up.

eazyb81 · 09-26-2011, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

where they will be about as relevant as Arkansas.

Arkansas was in a BCS bowl game last year and is a top 15 program this year.

College football fans know Arkansas has a very good program.

**alnorth** · 09-26-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Eh, fine - they still suck at football.

You can have 'em if you want 'em. I would consider UCLA to be a 'regional' school more than a city school (Just as I would consider UNLV), but that's fine. I think of them as more of a "K-State" style program rather than, say, Memphis, but I'm not going to be picky. I mean technically Cal is Cal-Berkely, no? So is Cal a city school? I would certainly never consider them as such.

It doesn't seem that UCLA is a square peg at all, but again, I'll assume they are for the sake of argument.

The Bruins still can't hang with the big time programs with any regularity. They're a mediocre program with spurts of success.

Fair enough, I don't think anyone expects a city school to become the next Michigan or Florida. Just that a city school is not automatically a laugh-out-loud "what the hell?" choice. There aren't many, but there are a few of them who can at least pull their own ore.

KChiefs1 · 09-26-2011, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaKCMan AP

You're missing that WVU gets better recruiting classes and has close to 3 times as much viewership as TCU.

I understand that WVU has better recruits but do they come from West Virginia? I guess I'm thinking Dallas/Ft Worth is more a football hotbed than Morgantown. I see what you are saying though.

**alnorth** · 09-26-2011, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

Arkansas was in a BCS bowl game last year and is a top 15 program this year.

College football fans know Arkansas has a very good program.

they have recently been good. In the last several years they have been a reliable 4-to-6 loss team. Sometimes average, sometimes good, occasionally bad.

KChiefs1 · 09-26-2011, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

where they will be about as relevant as Arkansas.

But be in a better conference. Wish KU & MU could go to the B1G together but that's not happening.

DJ's left nut · 09-26-2011, 12:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

Fair enough, I don't think anyone expects a city school to become the next Michigan or Florida. Just that a city school is not automatically a laugh-out-loud "what the hell?" choice. There aren't many, but there are a few of them who can at least pull their own ore.

And I'm not really saying that they're all dogshit - afterall, the world needs ditch-diggers too.

I am saying (and have said before), that there's a reason the metropolitan conference died. The city schools just don't draw the kind of prestige and following that the major state Us do. If the XII wanted to bring 1 in, okay I suppose that wouldn't be the end of the world (though I'd prefer avoid it). But damn, if they bring in Cincy, Memphis and Louisville - may as well just re-brand the Metro and call it a day.

It signals a watering down of the conference, IMO. I'd much prefer we avoid it. (Actually, I'd much prefer to get the hell out of dodge, but you knew that already)

**alnorth** · 09-26-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

You clearly have no idea how TV contract negotiations work. Mizzou doesn't have to be the f'n Florida Gators for their loss to negatively impact the value of a TV contract due to the loss of eyeballs. The Big 12 will completely lose airtime in St. Louis, a top 20 metro area, while losing meaningful share in Dallas, Houston, and KC. Wake the fuck up.

The networks have already basically told the Big 12 that if TA&M were to be replaced with BYU, they would have no problem with that at all. Central and East Missouri is not a bad market, but you have no national following, at all. OU, Texas, and a school like BYU does. (Kansas in basketball, but not football) They can sell those teams outside the midwest.

So yeah, Mizzou is replaceable.

|Zach| · 09-26-2011, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

My argument is that Texas and OU account for well over 80% of the reason why the Big 12 can command huge contracts. Perhaps even over 90%.

To the extent that losing Mizzou or TA&M hurts at all, they are mostly replaceable (especially with BYU, which has a national following) for an almost-irrelevant slice.

But you didn't answer my question. Who exactly to you replace Missouri with. TV markets....solid programs.

I am not saying Missouri is a juggernaut that will bring the conference down but you are saying...they are easily replaced. Ok. With who?

|Zach| · 09-26-2011, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

So yeah, Mizzou is replaceable.

Please...

Go on...

**DeezNutz** · 09-26-2011, 12:40 PM

I'd be thrilled to sit back and let fans of other schools worry about how easily replaceable Missouri is or is not to a conference...after the institution leaves.

Deuces (I hope).

Frazod · 09-26-2011, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alnorth

they have recently been good. In the last several years they have been a reliable 4-to-6 loss team. Sometimes average, sometimes good, occasionally bad.

Nice backpeddling, douche.

DJ's left nut · 09-26-2011, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by eazyb81

You clearly have no idea how TV contract negotiations work. Mizzou doesn't have to be the f'n Florida Gators for their loss to negatively impact the value of a TV contract due to the loss of eyeballs. The Big 12 will completely lose airtime in St. Louis, a top 20 metro area, while losing meaningful share in Dallas, Houston, and KC. Wake the fuck up.

Eh, the loss won't hurt that much.

The XII television contract is paying primarily for the national recognition of the flagship schools, not the handful of eyes in STL and KC.

It may hurt a little, but ultimately not a hell of a lot, IMO.

The XII will move on without MU and probably not bat an eye - until the PAC comes calling again and w/ more favorable terms the next time.

09-12-2011, 07:57 AM
Saulbadguy When a nightmare becomes real Join Date: Nov 2003 Casino cash: $796966	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