ChiefsPlanet
Page 243 of 732 « First 143193233239240241242 243 244245246247253293343 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Funny Stuff New Conference re-alignment thread (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=249847)

KC native 10-06-2011 11:50 AM
Kinda surprised by the Big 12 invite for TCU. It will be an interesting dynamic because our AD is not likely to kis UT's ass.

eazyb81 10-06-2011 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 7972307)
I like this.

Winning the Orange Bowl was in my top 5 sports moments of all time. With this setup I can see KU getting back sooner than I thought.
Are you guys rehiring Mangino? Is he going to eat Snyder?

It would be an accomplishment if Radio ever won more than 2 Big 12 games in a season. No way ku sniffs a North title in that setup as long as Snyder is at KSU and BYU/WVU remain relevant.

ChiTown 10-06-2011 11:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyb81 (Post 7972300)
I bet old man Snyder is loving this. If he stays on for a few more years he could have KSU dominating the North again.

North:
KSU
KU
ISU
Louisville
BYU
Cincinnati/West Virginia
I think Old Man Snyder will miss Mizzou though. He is 14-5 against the Tigers, soon to be 15-5 after this weekend.:D

eazyb81 10-06-2011 11:54 AM
Tulane?

DaveSittler Dave Sittler
by dennisdoddcbs
Big 12 source: "BYU, West Virginia and Tulane also on list."

Dr. Gigglepants 10-06-2011 11:54 AM
Petro had a decent idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.

mikeyis4dcats. 10-06-2011 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants (Post 7972351)
Petro had a decent idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.
hardly Petro's idea....it's been mentioned by many over the last week.

eazyb81 10-06-2011 11:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiTown (Post 7972349)
I think Old Man Snyder will miss Mizzou though. He is 14-5 against the Tigers, soon to be 15-5 after this weekend.:D
He is a damn good coach, no doubt. Wonder what would have happened if Prince wasn't so terrible.

Dr. Gigglepants 10-06-2011 11:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants (Post 7972351)
Petro regurgitated a decent and obviously stolen unoriginal idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.
fmp

patteeu 10-06-2011 11:59 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7972337)
Interestingly, people are now reporting that Mizzou originally asked everyone to make a 13-year commitment to the Big 12, but Texas and a couple others balked at such a long period of time, so everyone compromised at 6 instead. Kind of puts the lie to their "official" reason for looking around, which was that since the Big 12 wants a 6-year commitment they should evaluate their options first, when in reality Mizzou was probably upset at not locking everyone down for 13 years.
No, it doesn't put the lie to it. Whether 6 years or 13 years, prior to making a long-term commitment is the time to evaluate whether you want to be committed for the long term.

mnchiefsguy 10-06-2011 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7972337)
Interestingly, people are now reporting that Mizzou originally asked everyone to make a 13-year commitment to the Big 12, but Texas and a couple others balked at such a long period of time, so everyone compromised at 6 instead. Kind of puts the lie to their "official" reason for looking around, which was that since the Big 12 wants a 6-year commitment they should evaluate their options first, when in reality Mizzou was probably upset at not locking everyone down for 13 years.
Doesn't "put a lie" to it at all. Mizzou is looking because the Big 12 wants a six year commitment. Mizzou wanted more. You are implying that Mizzou lied because it was not willing to make a six year commitment. The reality of it is that Mizzou want a longer term commitment for TX and OU. Didn't get it, so they decided to shop around.

Since the Big XII wants such a short commitment time, Mizzou decided to look around. Nothing wrong with that.

eazyb81 10-06-2011 12:05 PM
Tulane's last two football games are a 3 TD loss to Duke and a 45-6 loss to Army.

I expect some epic battles with ku.

DaKCMan AP 10-06-2011 12:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wickedson (Post 7972307)
I like this.

Winning the Orange Bowl was in my top 5 sports moments of all time. With this setup I can see KU getting back sooner than I thought.
In that conference you'd have to win it to make it to a BCS bowl. As long as UT and OU are still in, KU isn't winning the conference.

alnorth 10-06-2011 12:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy (Post 7972376)
Doesn't "put a lie" to it at all. Mizzou is looking because the Big 12 wants a six year commitment. Mizzou wanted more. You are implying that Mizzou lied because it was not willing to make a six year commitment. The reality of it is that Mizzou want a longer term commitment for TX and OU. Didn't get it, so they decided to shop around.

Since the Big XII wants such a short commitment time, Mizzou decided to look around. Nothing wrong with that.
not quite, patteu's response was more on the mark.

I'm saying that publicly Mizzou is saying "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time! We gotta think about it first" while privately they were saying "6 years? Just six stinkin years? Are you kidding, thats not enough, we don't trust you, we're looking around now"

alnorth 10-06-2011 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Gigglepants (Post 7972351)
Petro had a decent idea, make the 6 year commitment a "rolling" 6 years, i.e. your TV rights belong to the conference for 6 years after you leave. To me, the 6 year commitment isn't enough, why not go 20 like the B10? 6 years doesn't do anything but further highlight what the real issue here is, which is distrust of UT.

That is a silly idea. No one can leave if their rights are owned for the next 6 years, you'd have to figure out a way to get the votes needed to dissolve the conference. So, this is basically college football's equivalent to the Scientology billion-year contract.

The B1G has an extremely long-term commitment, but even they have not asked their schools to commit forever and ever till the end of time. (or end of conference)

mnchiefsguy 10-06-2011 12:26 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by alnorth (Post 7972399)
not quite, patteu's response was more on the mark.

I'm saying that publicly Mizzou is saying "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time! We gotta think about it first" while privately they were saying "6 years? Just six stinkin years? Are you kidding, thats not enough, we don't trust you, we're looking around now"
See, I don't think that the "whoa there, 6 years? Thats an awful long time!" line of thinking is the correct perception of what Mizzou said. That Mizzou had wanted a 13 year commitment was known around the same time as their announcement. We are debating interpretation at this point. Most Mizzou fans did not see six years as a long enough commitment.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:26 PM.
Page 243 of 732 « First 143193233239240241242 243 244245246247253293343 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.