ChiefsPlanet
Page 563 of 612 « First 63463513553559560561562 563 564565566567573 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   Nzoner's Game Room (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=1)
-   -   Other Sports Big 10 Report: Conference Realignment (https://chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=227561)

Frazod 09-05-2011 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 7880063)
You getting the feeling that I always act like I know more than I actually do says more about you than it does me.

I have never ever acted like I was an insider of any kind.

You don't have to be an insider to shoot down things in this thread that are absolute non starters...like KU going to the B10 or the SEC and other hilarious things.

But yea, I took pictures in Columbia once so now Frazod gets to make some idiotic comment. What a sick burn that was. LMAO
Poor Zackipoo, if only you were actually as smart as you think you are.

I never accused you of being an *snicker* insider. That much is obvious.

I accuse you of being a pompous douche. In much the same way I accuse the sun of rising in the east.

|Zach| 09-05-2011 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut (Post 7880067)
Point out where I'm wrong.

I live here. My Granparents have over 70 years of experience teaching at the University. My aunt still works there, as does my wife. Hell, the Curators are technically one of my clients.

I hear plenty about the University's leadership and I'm awfully damn vested in the success of this school. You can sit around and plug your head in the sand. You can ignore the continued massive failures of this administration.

But there's a lot riding on a thriving University of Missouri for me. I don't just watch the football team - I've grown up with the school. Part of my mortgage is paid for with checks with their logo on it. I've spoken with people that know this administration very well and have learned a lot for my trouble.

And I know Richard Wallace wouldn't have put up with this shit. I know MU wouldn't be flapping in the breeze w/ competent leadership in place.

But hey - maybe we'll get lucky. It doesn't make you informed. It doesn't make you accurate. It just means that you stuck your head in the right hole when the storm came passing through.
You can't be bold and not be risky. Those things do not go together.

Like the Painter situation. What could they have done? What could they have really done to avoid that except for being too big of pussies to go after Painter in the first place.

You secure an agreement with someone and they have a last min. change of heart. Info that was leaking about the situation was coming from the other side.

Lots of similar things with the Big 10 fiasco. In the process of being bold enough to try and better the situation of MU you are left with risks and things not under your control can blow up in your face.

Mizzou isn't perfect but it also can't be blamed time and again for things that simply are not totally in its control you know what I am saying?

Missouri still is a very attractive candidate when conference instability causes and arms race for universities for a wide number of reasons which you are aware of.

WilliamTheIrish 09-05-2011 11:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeezNutz (Post 7879598)
I'm more than willing to counsel all Planeteers about their individual areas of work/interest, because naturally the depths of my expertise are greater.

PM lines are open. DeezNutz are standing by.

In the interim, I'm researching the location of the Big East plane.
LMAO

kcfan82 09-05-2011 11:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by |Zach| (Post 7879913)
It wasn't that long ago you could get into KU by simply graduating high school from the state of Kansas.

I am sure the Big 10 is falling over themselves to get that university into their conference.
You could get into any state school by simply graduating from a Kansas HS I believe.

It was a stupid law.

BWillie 09-05-2011 11:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infidel Goat (Post 7879845)
Yeah, but how does it look after the Big 10 and the ACC are finished raiding it?!
They may not have to. I honestly believe that the Big 10 and SEC are not sitting in their meetings going, man we HAVE to get to 16. They are going to do it much more carefully than you think. The Pac12 has a no brainer offering OU, TEXAS, TECH, OK ST because that will add more money PER TEAM to the conference. It's all about equal money per team. I think the want and need of the SEC and Big 10 to get to 16 teams is greatly overstated. The Big 10 doesn't want to add anybody else except ND, TEXAS or OU. Getting anybody else is just going to dilute their average revenue per team.

Braincase 09-05-2011 11:30 AM
Apparently, a report from ESPN Radio has Texas turning down the PAC due to the PAC's demand that Texas give up the LHN.

Found on Phog.net: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=172&f=2485&t=7874068

BWillie 09-05-2011 11:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7880068)
No, not necessarily. You would be a big fish in a smaller pond. TCU in the conference keeps your Texas recruiting lines open and USF opens up Florida possibilities. Your actual chances that you go to and win in this conference go up dramatically which increases your national ranking which puts you in better spot for BCS opportunities.
This is actually true. I'm fine with the Big East if the cut out their dead weight like Providence, St. Johns etc. The Big 12 is still in better shape than the Big East is in football even without OU. That is how bad the Big East is and they STILL get a BCS game. Merging with the Big East is a win for both of the remaining conferences should UT, OU, OSU, and Tech bolt. Bring Baylor with you, they do have a decent program now and you have two schools in Texas, ton of the midwest, some of the south, South Florida, alot of the east coast. That is a solid conference anyway you slice it.

kcfan82 09-05-2011 11:33 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braincase (Post 7880094)
Apparently, a report from ESPN Radio has Texas turning down the PAC due to the PAC's demand that Texas give up the LHN.

Found on Phog.net: http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=172&f=2485&t=7874068
I'm not even sure why that discussion occured, Texas opted to stay in the Big 12 in the first place so they could start their own network.

No conference is going to allow it..... Well at least not the Pac 12, Big 10, or SEC.

Titty Meat 09-05-2011 11:33 AM
Lost in all of this is how the **** do all these people involved in the debacle still have jobs?

tk13 09-05-2011 11:43 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BWillie007 (Post 7880095)
This is actually true. I'm fine with the Big East if the cut out their dead weight like Providence, St. Johns etc. The Big 12 is still in better shape than the Big East is in football even without OU. That is how bad the Big East is and they STILL get a BCS game. Merging with the Big East is a win for both of the remaining conferences should UT, OU, OSU, and Tech bolt. Bring Baylor with you, they do have a decent program now and you have two schools in Texas, ton of the midwest, some of the south, South Florida, alot of the east coast. That is a solid conference anyway you slice it.
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I doubt you'd ever get the Big East to think Providence and St. John's are dead weight. Both of those programs have some basketball tradition and play in big markets... and St. John's plays all their games in the Garden and is a NY draw.

No matter how much some of you Big 12 fans click your heels together, there is no way on earth the Big East is going to abandon New York City for Manhattan or Lawrence, KS. Or unfortunately, even Kansas City.

|Zach| 09-05-2011 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 7880114)
No matter how much some of you Big 12 fans click your heels together, there is no way on earth the Big East is going to abandon New York City for Manhattan or Lawrence, KS. Or unfortunately, even Kansas City.
LMAO

eazyb81 09-05-2011 11:49 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7879997)
The CIC angle has me more convinced than ever that the B1G is not expanding. That's a huge reduction in institution funds that football expansion cannot make up. Assuming its an equal 13 way split, that 460 million dollars per institution in research funds per year. If the B1G expands to 16, that split goes down roughly 100 million dollars per school.

There are no football contracts that are going to make up that amount of money for the B1G institutions. I'm sure the B1G is a little gun shy anyway since NU went and lost its AAU standing after they joined. That means the SEC is the only viable option Missouri has unless the SEC decides to go to 16. And they would have to have assurances from CBS/ESPN they are willing to expand the contract by 17 million per school per year.

Perhaps there's some bigger payoff somewhere that I'm just not getting, but I cannot for the life of me see how these expansion scenarios really benefit anyone outside of the PAC structure (which is genius by the way. I am very envious of it.) Missouri, you have competition and fewer options than you may think at this point. I wouldn't be too cocky just yet.
It is interesting how so many people have no clue about what the CIC really is and how it operates.

The CIC is a consortium of the Big Ten member schools and University of Chicago intended to share research. It absolutely does not share grant money or dole out funds to individual schools. The CIC did not give Nebraska X amount of research grant funds for joining; Nebraska is responsible for generating their own funds. It would be the same for any other school that joined.

The CIC angle has been blown WAY out of proportion. CIC funds are at $5.6BB because the members are traditionally very good universities that excel in research, not because the CIC is some cash flow tooth fairy.

Here is a link that provides further details if you want to learn more.

http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/10/...nd-the-cic-are

BWillie 09-05-2011 11:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by tk13 (Post 7880114)
Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I doubt you'd ever get the Big East to think Providence and St. John's are dead weight. Both of those programs have some basketball tradition and play in big markets... and St. John's plays all their games in the Garden and is a NY draw.

No matter how much some of you Big 12 fans click your heels together, there is no way on earth the Big East is going to abandon New York City for Manhattan or Lawrence, KS. Or unfortunately, even Kansas City.
But but but I thought basketball wasn't a player in this at all! St. Johns, Providence plays basketball only, they should be beyond worthless to BCS conferences. You still have Syracuse, UCONN and Rutgers. You can't have it both ways. Basketball doesn't matter, or it does matter.

You don't have to get the Big East to think those schools are dead weight. You just need to come to an agreement with the schools to make a NEW conference. If you can propose more money than they make now and stability, I don't think it matters much.

eazyb81 09-05-2011 11:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 7879997)

Perhaps there's some bigger payoff somewhere that I'm just not getting, but I cannot for the life of me see how these expansion scenarios really benefit anyone outside of the PAC structure (which is genius by the way. I am very envious of it.) Missouri, you have competition and fewer options than you may think at this point. I wouldn't be too cocky just yet.
By the way, you need some more hay for that impressive strawman you are building.

I haven't seen any Mizzou fans, other than maybe Zach, who are thumping our chests about how we are somehow guaranteed to land in a great spot. All Mizzou fans had a nice helping of humble pie last year, so there's really no reason for anyone to get cocky.

Keep on fightin' the good fight though.

HolyHandgernade 09-05-2011 11:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by eazyb81 (Post 7880124)
It is interesting how so many people have no clue about what the CIC really is and how it operates.

The CIC is a consortium of the Big Ten member schools and University of Chicago intended to share research. It absolutely does not share grant money or dole out funds to individual schools. The CIC did not give Nebraska X amount of research grant funds for joining; Nebraska is responsible for generating their own funds. It would be the same for any other school that joined.

The CIC angle has been blown WAY out of proportion. CIC funds are at $5.6BB because the members are traditionally very good universities that excel in research, not because the CIC is some cash flow tooth fairy.

Here is a link that provides further details if you want to learn more.

http://www.maizenbrew.com/2010/6/10/...nd-the-cic-are
Thanks for the link, I admit my knowledge isn't the most complete. I would imagine "overblown" doesn't necessarily mean "none", however.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:40 AM.
Page 563 of 612 « First 63463513553559560561562 563 564565566567573 Last »
Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

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