MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread(Its still personal)

[TheOriginalCane]

Yes obviously that’s not why you asked smart guy. But you’re acting as if there’s reporting out there or that you know for a fact that Miami opposed or wouldn’t have voted yes and have you not shown any evidence supporting your belief. But you then flip it and ask for evidence of the opposite and use the lack of evidence to show that you’re right even though you’ve shown even less evidence for your argument. Again, anyone with a brain can see right through your little games. Other than a few of your friends in here, nobody is impressed that you spend so much time trying to make internet strangers feel less than. But I’m glad it makes you feel smart and important.

Whatever your prior log-in name was, I'm so sorry that I crushed you back then.

Well, not really. You are just weak.

You are also a very unintelligent poster who cannot process logic. You are choosing to attack me personally, and you have misstated the premise, because you are doing this out of your personal animus towards me.

I'm going to do this once, because you don't deserve an ounce of my attention past this point.

The reason I pointed out Gator Adelson's sole reporting of Miami "being in favor of expansion" is not a debate between herself and myself on who is "right". It is, quite simply, to illustrate the vast gulf between her arrogant comment of "what was certain" and the fact that absolutely nobody else has reported this. So, no, it is NOT "certain". If it was so "certain", then everyone could easily report that information (and now MIGHT report Gator Adelson's assertion under The Human Centipede effect of sports journalism). And THAT also stands in contrast to the reporting done on the four schools in opposition which, in a moment of rare lucidity for you, even you can acknowledge has been reported by many (regardless of The Human Centipede effect).

That's what you can't comprehend. That my challenge to produce "confirmation" of Gator Adelson's "what is certain" comment was an illustration of how UNCERTAIN her reporting is. It has nothing to do with me.

But keep taking shots at me. I don't really care about weak and pathetic porsters such as yourself who choose to white-knight for Andrea Adelson while attacking me simply because I've out-argued one of your previously-banned log-in names.

 

[Hoyacane1620]

 

[cocanes]

His mouth wrote checks his *** couldn’t cash.

 

[2FNFST4U]

The 4 schools left need to just merge into the Mountain West. And maybe try to bring Gonzaga in to bolster basketball.

 

[Cane6]

Whatever your prior log-in name was, I'm so sorry that I crushed you back then.

Well, not really. You are just weak.

You are also a very unintelligent poster who cannot process logic. You are choosing to attack me personally, and you have misstated the premise, because you are doing this out of your personal animus towards me.

I'm going to do this once, because you don't deserve an ounce of my attention past this point.

The reason I pointed out Gator Adelson's sole reporting of Miami "being in favor of expansion" is not a debate between herself and myself on who is "right". It is, quite simply, to illustrate the vast gulf between her arrogant comment of "what was certain" and the fact that absolutely nobody else has reported this. So, no, it is NOT "certain". If it was so "certain", then everyone could easily report that information (and now MIGHT report Gator Adelson's assertion under The Human Centipede effect of sports journalism). And THAT also stands in contrast to the reporting done on the four schools in opposition which, in a moment of rare lucidity for you, even you can acknowledge has been reported by many (regardless of The Human Centipede effect).

That's what you can't comprehend. That my challenge to produce "confirmation" of Gator Adelson's "what is certain" comment was an illustration of how UNCERTAIN her reporting is. It has nothing to do with me.

But keep taking shots at me. I don't really care about weak and pathetic porsters such as yourself who choose to white-knight for Andrea Adelson while attacking me simply because I've out-argued one of your previously-banned log-in names.

I hate Adelson as much as I hate Nancy Pelosi, along with Notre Dame Ohio St and Florida Gators

Let’s not forget when she was constantly bashing Miami with how they handled the transition from Manny to Mario

Fuq her and David Hale

 

[sigmar]

Adelson is a shill for the SEC and ESPN

 

[oso4lyf]

I hate Adelson as much as I hate Nancy Pelosi, along with Notre Dame Ohio St and Florida Gators

Let’s not forget when she was constantly bashing Miami with how they handled the transition from Manny to Mario

Fuq her and David Hale

And Karen Rovell

 

[Tony4Canes]

 

[Ispyin]

Wait, so you’re telling me that a conference that only has four members depends upon what two members decide?

Well, that is some next level reporting.

 

[Tony4Canes]

**** it. Come on ACC. Just have no vote.

 

[TooColdToHold]

**** it. Come on ACC. Just have no vote.

Stanford has some very influential supporters, so this isn’t surprising.

 

[CaneinBroward]

**** it. Come on ACC. Just have no vote.

The ONLY way they should vote for this is if ND joins fully. Otherwise, nothing gained at all.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

**** it. Come on ACC. Just have no vote.

Yeah, this one is going to be a bad mixture of factors, and will likely prove out some of our basic predictions on "avenues for exit".

First, to be clear, there are two possible extreme ends of the "outcome" spectrum, and a lot of possibilities in between. One extreme is to go "scorched earth" and to have 8 or more schools vote to dissolve the ACC. The other extreme is that everyone is nice and polite and the ACC lets everyone leave who wants to leave, and takes enough additional schools to replace them, and there are no GOR implicaations, and everyone who leaves happily pays their exit fees.

Personally, I'd love to see the latter outcome. I don't want to see yet another conference collapse if it doesn't need to happen that way. But my realistic side says that we are probably closer to the first outcome because certain schools will not want to compromise, thus schools that want to leave have to "hold hostage" the concept of expansion as a bargaining chip.

Having said that...

It's tricky...

I am sure that some schools are trying to convey cooperativeness on the expansion issue as a way to continue to figure out a pathway that takes them out of the ACC, without being subject to spurious claims of collusion and bad-faith bargaining. Fine. Whatever. And on an academic basis, Stanford-Cal would be amazing additions.

But we can't ignore the math. Either in what has led us to this point (widening revenue gap between the ACC and the Big 10/SEC) and what can happen when you add more "Together 4ever" voices to a voting bloc.

The brutal reality is that NONE of these steps are going to bring the ACC $75M per school. NONE of these steps are going to force ESPN to do something that ESPN doesn't want to do.

Therefore, no matter what pie-in-the-sky and stars-in-the-eyes that seem to come from this illusory "Era of Good Feelings" where nobody has given notice and it LOOKS LIKE other schools actually want to sign on to our disastrous GOR and GOR extension to 2036, the truth is that there are still some schools lookig for the door.

I've made it clear, I am anti-Frenk. And if Frenk overrules Rad and casts a Miami vote in favor of inviting Stanford-Cal WITHOUT EXTRACTING SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW MIAMI TO EXIT THE ACC AND JOIN THE BIG 10 WITHOUT OPPOSITION AND AT MINIMAL COST, then I am going to do everything I can as an alum to see that Frenk is removed as UM President as soon as possible.

If Beta Blake and BC (and Syracuse and Duke and Wake and everyone else) want to have a still-existing conference once we leave, that's fine, but it's going take some compromise.

A vote to "expand" the ACC before we solve all our other problems is both stupid and self-sabotage. So, sure, it seems like something that is JUUUUST dumb enough for ACC Presidents to actually do.

"Destined for Failure". That should be the name of the ACC *** tape and/or the subtitle on the retrospective history of the conference once known as the ACC.

 

[Angry Ibis]

Yeah, this one is going to be a bad mixture of factors, and will likely prove out some of our basic predictions on "avenues for exit".

First, to be clear, there are two possible extreme ends of the "outcome" spectrum, and a lot of possibilities in between. One extreme is to go "scorched earth" and to have 8 or more schools vote to dissolve the ACC. The other extreme is that everyone is nice and polite and the ACC lets everyone leave who wants to leave, and takes enough additional schools to replace them, and there are no GOR implicaations, and everyone who leaves happily pays their exit fees.

Personally, I'd love to see the latter outcome. I don't want to see yet another conference collapse if it doesn't need to happen that way. But my realistic side says that we are probably closer to the first outcome because certain schools will not want to compromise, thus schools that want to leave have to "hold hostage" the concept of expansion as a bargaining chip.

Having said that...

It's tricky...

I am sure that some schools are trying to convey cooperativeness on the expansion issue as a way to continue to figure out a pathway that takes them out of the ACC, without being subject to spurious claims of collusion and bad-faith bargaining. Fine. Whatever. And on an academic basis, Stanford-Cal would be amazing additions.

But we can't ignore the math. Either in what has led us to this point (widening revenue gap between the ACC and the Big 10/SEC) and what can happen when you add more "Together 4ever" voices to a voting bloc.

The brutal reality is that NONE of these steps are going to bring the ACC $75M per school. NONE of these steps are going to force ESPN to do something that ESPN doesn't want to do.

Therefore, no matter what pie-in-the-sky and stars-in-the-eyes that seem to come from this illusory "Era of Good Feelings" where nobody has given notice and it LOOKS LIKE other schools actually want to sign on to our disastrous GOR and GOR extension to 2036, the truth is that there are still some schools lookig for the door.

I've made it clear, I am anti-Frenk. And if Frenk overrules Rad and casts a Miami vote in favor of inviting Stanford-Cal WITHOUT EXTRACTING SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW MIAMI TO EXIT THE ACC AND JOIN THE BIG 10 WITHOUT OPPOSITION AND AT MINIMAL COST, then I am going to do everything I can as an alum to see that Frenk is removed as UM President as soon as possible.

If Beta Blake and BC (and Syracuse and Duke and Wake and everyone else) want to have a still-existing conference once we leave, that's fine, but it's going take some compromise.

A vote to "expand" the ACC before we solve all our other problems is both stupid and self-sabotage. So, sure, it seems like something that is JUUUUST dumb enough for ACC Presidents to actually do.

"Destined for Failure". That should be the name of the ACC *** tape and/or the subtitle on the retrospective history of the conference once known as the ACC.

What makes you think Frenk would overrule Rad?

Does Frenk not care about anything (B1G is better for Miami for academics) or are we looking for a convenient non-Rad villain?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

What makes you think Frenk would overrule Rad?

Does Frenk not care about anything (B1G is better for Miami for academics) or are we looking for a convenient non-Rad villain?

It is not specific, but from the very first reports of "The Vote That Never Happened", there were a couple of comments about some Presidents and ADs who happened to be on conflict on expressing one unified position.

And given Frenk's distinct lack of sports and sports-industry knowledge, and his need to rely on Joe and Rudy for making decisons on the Athletic Department, I could certainly envision a Twilight Zone scenario where Mr. Topless Staring decides that Stanford-Cal are wonderful academic institutions that should not be forced to wander in the desert for 40 years.

Again, I'm in favor of "letting the ACC live" if they will make it easy for us to leave.

I'm not "looking for a convenient non-Rad villain". I simply feel that if you look at years of predicate behavior, where Radakovich realized that the ACC was dying and began to take steps (both at Clemson and Miami) to find alternatives, that he will SUDDENLY have a last-minute reversal and change of heart involving Stanford-Cal religion and a come-to-Jesus conversion experience.

But, yeah, some CIS porsters are going to try to equate the hiring of Arteaga with how Frenk votes on expansion, assuming that he actually ever votes on expansion.

 

[NorthernVirginiaCane]

Yeah, this one is going to be a bad mixture of factors, and will likely prove out some of our basic predictions on "avenues for exit".

First, to be clear, there are two possible extreme ends of the "outcome" spectrum, and a lot of possibilities in between. One extreme is to go "scorched earth" and to have 8 or more schools vote to dissolve the ACC. The other extreme is that everyone is nice and polite and the ACC lets everyone leave who wants to leave, and takes enough additional schools to replace them, and there are no GOR implicaations, and everyone who leaves happily pays their exit fees.

Personally, I'd love to see the latter outcome. I don't want to see yet another conference collapse if it doesn't need to happen that way. But my realistic side says that we are probably closer to the first outcome because certain schools will not want to compromise, thus schools that want to leave have to "hold hostage" the concept of expansion as a bargaining chip.

Having said that...

It's tricky...

I am sure that some schools are trying to convey cooperativeness on the expansion issue as a way to continue to figure out a pathway that takes them out of the ACC, without being subject to spurious claims of collusion and bad-faith bargaining. Fine. Whatever. And on an academic basis, Stanford-Cal would be amazing additions.

But we can't ignore the math. Either in what has led us to this point (widening revenue gap between the ACC and the Big 10/SEC) and what can happen when you add more "Together 4ever" voices to a voting bloc.

The brutal reality is that NONE of these steps are going to bring the ACC $75M per school. NONE of these steps are going to force ESPN to do something that ESPN doesn't want to do.

Therefore, no matter what pie-in-the-sky and stars-in-the-eyes that seem to come from this illusory "Era of Good Feelings" where nobody has given notice and it LOOKS LIKE other schools actually want to sign on to our disastrous GOR and GOR extension to 2036, the truth is that there are still some schools lookig for the door.

I've made it clear, I am anti-Frenk. And if Frenk overrules Rad and casts a Miami vote in favor of inviting Stanford-Cal WITHOUT EXTRACTING SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW MIAMI TO EXIT THE ACC AND JOIN THE BIG 10 WITHOUT OPPOSITION AND AT MINIMAL COST, then I am going to do everything I can as an alum to see that Frenk is removed as UM President as soon as possible.

If Beta Blake and BC (and Syracuse and Duke and Wake and everyone else) want to have a still-existing conference once we leave, that's fine, but it's going take some compromise.

A vote to "expand" the ACC before we solve all our other problems is both stupid and self-sabotage. So, sure, it seems like something that is JUUUUST dumb enough for ACC Presidents to actually do.

"Destined for Failure". That should be the name of the ACC *** tape and/or the subtitle on the retrospective history of the conference once known as the ACC.

Lots of words. You still yipping and yapping about things you don't understand?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Lots of words. You still yipping and yapping about things you don't understand?

You own "nobody leaves the ACC until 2036". We'll be revisiting that one soon.

 

[Tony4Canes]

Does Stanford and SMU have that much money they can join with no shares??

Why wouldn’t B1G make that deal with Stanford??

 

[RVACane]

Lots of words. You still yipping and yapping about things you don't understand?

You own "nobody leaves the ACC until 2036". We'll be revisiting that one soon.

For me, the TOC/NVC subplot is the best part of this thread.

We should all want TOC to be right because it’s better for us that we can get out of the ACC but there is a part of me that thinks it would be entertaining on the subplot side to watch TOC tell NVC why we’re stuck in the ACC until 2036 but it isn’t what he said or thinks it is.

 

[doohcane]