forums

MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

Advertisement
Cane6 said:
No

You’re stupid

Stop posting
Click to expand...

People High Quality GIF


You seem to be in a bad mood. What happened, did your vaginoplasty operation go poorly? Just know I'm rooting for you and accept your life choices.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
OrangeBowlMagic said:
No, my bad, I didn't mean to make it sound like what you posted wasn't worth posting. I was just adding that what he's saying in the video spot tonight is consistent with the same tune he's been singing for a while now. Miami is very much in play for the B1G, and vice versa.
Click to expand...
Said the next two to be added to the B10 are Oregon / Washington ... currently being held up by ONE vote from Wisconsin who wants more "fit evaluation" completed first.

-Said originally they were not B10 targets for 10 years or so but with the collapse of the Pac 12 FOX wanted to pick them up for half shares to be able to
get them into scheduling with B10 games to peak interest in the region.

-ACC programs of interest FSU / Clemson / Miami of primary interest with possibly Va Tech later ... issue at the moment is financial evaluation due to
not knowing the cost of getting out of the ACC.

ALL new additions to the B10 are 100% being vetted based on FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO NETWORK PROGRAMMING / COMMERCIAL REVENUE PROJECTIONS. AAU membership is not really a factor. They run the simulated game matchups (Michigan Vs ND, OSU vs Clemson, FSU vs Penn State) and they can calculate with an 88% probability the viewership and financial modeling. Minimum viewership per game target range is 4.0 million viewers and Clemson, FSU are above that and Miami is close (3.9 million) based on simulations run. Very possible that Cal / Stanford are added after Oregon / Washington if there are delays in the ACC teams getting OUT of the ACC, and they would be added later. Doesn't matter if the conference expands to 24 or 26 as long as the programs added meet the revenue criteria established BY THE NETWORKS.

IT is all business ... nothing rah rah about it.
 
Been listening to a bunch of stuff, and talking to a lot of people.

Still very confident on Miami's position.

What I'm coming around to in the last 5 days is the concept that the Big 10 might go REALLY big. And that, perhaps, the SEC is really stuck on being a regional conference with a flagship-school fetish.

Setting aside all the one-off rumors...the fake Twitter accounts...the obviously self-centered fake rumors coming out of certain schools...

I can acknowledge that an "8-team bump" could happen. Particularly if Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon take half-shares. And there is no way in **** that the Big 10 will completely bypass the southeast, and are likely to take 4 out of Miami, F$U, Clemson, North Carolina, GaTech, and possibly UVa or Pitt.

Keep in mind...I told people to keep their eyes on Cal/Stanford when @calinative umstudent was spewing his Oregon love. And I have pointed out that Clemson is gunning for academic respectability (AAU/Big 10) and that F$U and UNC were ****-gobbling wildcards.

In particular...if the Big 10 goes to a full 24...and they need more time slots/channels...then taking 4 from the ACC gets them a niche/limited spot on ESPN, particularly if they demand premium spots and they bring the GOR rights over without there having to be a buyout. Oh, and also...ESPN gets some Big 10 teams (by default) when they play at Miami, at F$U, at Clemson, and at anyone else.

Also, and this should go without saying...Notre Dame is ABSOLUTELY going to be doing a scheduling deal with the Big 10. Beyond obvious.

Finally, as I've been saying all along..."cord-cutting" has been vastly overrated. Big networks are still interested in live-broadcast college football, as long as it's not Iowa State vs. Duke.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Been listening to a bunch of stuff, and talking to a lot of people.

Still very confident on Miami's position.

What I'm coming around to in the last 5 days is the concept that the Big 10 might go REALLY big. And that, perhaps, the SEC is really stuck on being a regional conference with a flagship-school fetish.

Setting aside all the one-off rumors...the fake Twitter accounts...the obviously self-centered fake rumors coming out of certain schools...

I can acknowledge that an "8-team bump" could happen. Particularly if Cal, Stanford, Washington, and Oregon take half-shares. And there is no way in **** that the Big 10 will completely bypass the southeast, and are likely to take 4 out of Miami, F$U, Clemson, North Carolina, GaTech, and possibly UVa or Pitt.

Keep in mind...I told people to keep their eyes on Cal/Stanford when @calinative umstudent was spewing his Oregon love. And I have pointed out that Clemson is gunning for academic respectability (AAU/Big 10) and that F$U and UNC were ****-gobbling wildcards.

In particular...if the Big 10 goes to a full 24...and they need more time slots/channels...then taking 4 from the ACC gets them a niche/limited spot on ESPN, particularly if they demand premium spots and they bring the GOR rights over without there having to be a buyout. Oh, and also...ESPN gets some Big 10 teams (by default) when they play at Miami, at F$U, at Clemson, and at anyone else.

Also, and this should go without saying...Notre Dame is ABSOLUTELY going to be doing a scheduling deal with the Big 10. Beyond obvious.

Finally, as I've been saying all along..."cord-cutting" has been vastly overrated. Big networks are still interested in live-broadcast college football, as long as it's not Iowa State vs. Duke.
Click to expand...
You really wanna act like I wasn't supporting Oregon, Stanford, AND Cal to the Big10, while you were on here trying to talk ****? The hilarity.

Personally I still would lean AT LEAST Clemson and UNC going SEC. Big10 full share is gunna be like $75M. Half share is still double what the Pac just got from Apple lol. So obviously they'd take it especially if in the future they had ability to become full rev share. Like I've BEEN saying Id pay Oregon, Washington, Stanford $100M before I would Rutgers and some other B10 schools.
 
calinative umstudent said:
You really wanna act like I wasn't supporting Oregon, Stanford, AND Cal to the Big10, while you were on here trying to talk ****? The hilarity.

Personally I still would lean AT LEAST Clemson and UNC going SEC. Big10 full share is gunna be like $75M. Half share is still double what the Pac just got from Apple lol. So obviously they'd take it especially if in the future they had ability to become full rev share. Like I've BEEN saying Id pay Oregon, Washington, Stanford $100M before I would Rutgers and some other B10 schools.
Click to expand...


You're so full of ****. You were all about Oregon-Washington and you ALWAYS put Oregon first in that listing. I always list Washington first because it's the bigger and better school.

And you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Washington-Oregon were flat-out dropped by the Big 10 before crawling back at half-price. Which is NOT something you ever advocated for.

As for the Big 10 share, it's going to be 90 million, not 75 million. And Rutgers/Maryland STILL do not have full shares, but will by 2026. So stop bringing up bull**** comparatives like "I'd pay Oregon 100M before Rutgers".

What you won't admit is that I've been right ALL ALONG. And when there is new information, I take that into account. Unlike you, who wants to make a ridiculous claim, stick to it, and then go back and explain how your prior incorrect claims were actually correct.

Just stuff your belated corrective musings back up your west-coast ******.
 
Advertisement
My two cents which mean shut at this point. Big ten wants, along with the networks, marquee games every week. Adding teams like miami, fsu, Clemson, unc and va tech creates this. As does Virginia to an extent. We are eventually going to a model where players get paid through revenue from the school. Those teams can compete in football and basketball long-term and if you can get those 6 in along with Louisville and notre dame you find a way to do it. Perhaps you even think about adding Duke. I would argue you can take the whole acc and make it work. I still think a super regional model is in the works with great games every week and they eventually topple the sec
 
TheOriginalCane said:
You're so full of ****. You were all about Oregon-Washington and you ALWAYS put Oregon first in that listing. I always list Washington first because it's the bigger and better school.

And you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Washington-Oregon were flat-out dropped by the Big 10 before crawling back at half-price. Which is NOT something you ever advocated for.

As for the Big 10 share, it's going to be 90 million, not 75 million. And Rutgers/Maryland STILL do not have full shares, but will by 2026. So stop bringing up bull**** comparatives like "I'd pay Oregon 100M before Rutgers".

What you won't admit is that I've been right ALL ALONG. And when there is new information, I take that into account. Unlike you, who wants to make a ridiculous claim, stick to it, and then go back and explain how your prior incorrect claims were actually correct.

Just stuff your belated corrective musings back up your west-coast ******.
Click to expand...
Translation - “I’m a fake insider who just makes **** up because I have no self esteem and my goal is to talk down to people every time they post because nobody likes me and cialis no longer works”
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
You're so full of ****. You were all about Oregon-Washington and you ALWAYS put Oregon first in that listing. I always list Washington first because it's the bigger and better school.

And you refuse to acknowledge the fact that Washington-Oregon were flat-out dropped by the Big 10 before crawling back at half-price. Which is NOT something you ever advocated for.

As for the Big 10 share, it's going to be 90 million, not 75 million. And Rutgers/Maryland STILL do not have full shares, but will by 2026. So stop bringing up bull**** comparatives like "I'd pay Oregon 100M before Rutgers".

What you won't admit is that I've been right ALL ALONG. And when there is new information, I take that into account. Unlike you, who wants to make a ridiculous claim, stick to it, and then go back and explain how your prior incorrect claims were actually correct.

Just stuff your belated corrective musings back up your west-coast ******.
Click to expand...

I can only laugh man.
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Alright, if anyone wants an educated guess as to what is really happening here...

Clearly, the ACC has some "undertainty" about the timing, cost, and/or likelihood of escaping the GOR.

I believe that EARLIER, one or more potential defectees were hopeful that someone would pay (or subsidize) their bar tab, and that they wouldn't have to pay the bill in full.

But when a couple of drunk butterfaces showed up at last call and offered half-price BJs (Washington/Oregon), I think the money available for GOR buyouts disappeared as if Thanos snapped his fingers.

And now a couple of ACC schools are hesitant to put their money where their mouths were, though F$U is a particularly beliigerent *****.

UM is keeping its powder dry. I'm not saying we WANT to pay a lot of money to get out of the GOR, but we don't have to answer to any state politicians either.

I've said it before, and I while I WOULD LIKE TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT, we need to challenge the original GOR and/or the extension as unenforceable.



View attachment 249143
Click to expand...
I hope you are right! Sounds logical.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top