(07-09-2015 11:07 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I completely understand the situation. I just don't foresee this happening anytime soon...

That's fine, as long as you understand.

It would be to K State, Iowa St, etc benefit if it happens now. In ten years they likely don't get a spot in the P4.

(07-10-2015 07:30 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  It would be to K State, Iowa St, etc benefit if it happens now. In ten years they likely don't get a spot in the P4.

Exactly.

They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

(07-09-2015 11:07 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I completely understand the situation. I just don't foresee this happening anytime soon...

Let me save a lot of headaches for you (and the rest of us).

H1 already knows what's going to happen. It's already set and decided and everyone has agreed.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 12

WVU and Oklahoma State to the SEC

Texas independent with an ACC agreement. Baylor and Cincinnati join the ACC

PAC takes Iowa State, Kansas State, TT, TCU join the PAC.

If you think any of that is unlikely, then you are stupid. It is already done.

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

(07-10-2015 11:26 AM)Lou_C Wrote:  

(07-09-2015 11:07 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  I completely understand the situation. I just don't foresee this happening anytime soon...

Let me save a lot of headaches for you (and the rest of us).

H1 already knows what's going to happen. It's already set and decided and everyone has agreed.

Oklahoma and Kansas to the Big 12

WVU and Oklahoma State to the SEC

Texas independent with an ACC agreement. Baylor and Cincinnati join the ACC

PAC takes Iowa State, Kansas State, TT, TCU join the PAC.

If you think any of that is unlikely, then you are stupid. It is already done.

Oh Lou, you are fun.

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's simply an outlandish concept that goes way outside of the norm. It would be like my suggestion that occurred long before yours that if the ACC implodes the PAC will take ND, Pitt, SU, and BC for eastern exposure. I said that in jest, but even if I firmly believed it, I wouldn't tout it as something that was logical and natural to come about.

None of the above is to say outlandish moves haven't been made before and may be made again in the future. But the fact that it is an outlandish concept is one you need to accept and understand that the majority of posters have the hardcore evidence as to why it is not likely to happen on their side.

If it was likely to happen, you wouldn't be getting the push back on this that you have experienced for several months now and looking on the bright side you wouldn't be able to brag about it in the future if it does indeed occur.

Cheers,
Neil

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

It's pretty easy to understand.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

(07-10-2015 06:04 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

It's pretty easy to understand.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN

No, that belief just makes it easier for you to understand.

(07-10-2015 05:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's simply an outlandish concept that goes way outside of the norm. It would be like my suggestion that occurred long before yours that if the ACC implodes the PAC will take ND, Pitt, SU, and BC for eastern exposure. I said that in jest, but even if I firmly believed it, I wouldn't tout it as something that was logical and natural to come about.

None of the above is to say outlandish moves haven't been made before and may be made again in the future. But the fact that it is an outlandish concept is one you need to accept and understand that the majority of posters have the hardcore evidence as to why it is not likely to happen on their side.

If it was likely to happen, you wouldn't be getting the push back on this that you have experienced for several months now and looking on the bright side you wouldn't be able to brag about it in the future if it does indeed occur.

Cheers,
Neil

What, because the common rabble mob has history on it's side in terms of accurately knowing what the future holds?

I'm sure if I would have been my usual charming self around here, people would find the concept much more appealing. Then again, perhaps that isn't what I want to happen?

(07-10-2015 08:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's simply an outlandish concept that goes way outside of the norm. It would be like my suggestion that occurred long before yours that if the ACC implodes the PAC will take ND, Pitt, SU, and BC for eastern exposure. I said that in jest, but even if I firmly believed it, I wouldn't tout it as something that was logical and natural to come about.

None of the above is to say outlandish moves haven't been made before and may be made again in the future. But the fact that it is an outlandish concept is one you need to accept and understand that the majority of posters have the hardcore evidence as to why it is not likely to happen on their side.

If it was likely to happen, you wouldn't be getting the push back on this that you have experienced for several months now and looking on the bright side you wouldn't be able to brag about it in the future if it does indeed occur.

Cheers,
Neil

What, because the common rabble mob has history on it's side in terms of accurately knowing what the future holds?

I'm sure if I would have been my usual charming self around here, people would find the concept much more appealing. Then again, perhaps that isn't what I want to happen?

And you keep telling yourself that will make it happen will cause it to happen right? Because you're the all knowing realignment magician!

It makes ZERO sense for the Pac 12 to add Baylor, TCU, K-State and Iowa State. None at all. Those schools are not worth 23M a year. There is zero initiative for the Pac 12 to add the the little sisters of the poor from those states. That would be like the SEC adding Pitt, Cincinnati, N. Illinios, and Michigan State. Come on man.

Stop believing everything The Dude and Chip Brown puts out there.

(07-10-2015 09:23 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 08:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's simply an outlandish concept that goes way outside of the norm. It would be like my suggestion that occurred long before yours that if the ACC implodes the PAC will take ND, Pitt, SU, and BC for eastern exposure. I said that in jest, but even if I firmly believed it, I wouldn't tout it as something that was logical and natural to come about.

None of the above is to say outlandish moves haven't been made before and may be made again in the future. But the fact that it is an outlandish concept is one you need to accept and understand that the majority of posters have the hardcore evidence as to why it is not likely to happen on their side.

If it was likely to happen, you wouldn't be getting the push back on this that you have experienced for several months now and looking on the bright side you wouldn't be able to brag about it in the future if it does indeed occur.

Cheers,
Neil

What, because the common rabble mob has history on it's side in terms of accurately knowing what the future holds?

I'm sure if I would have been my usual charming self around here, people would find the concept much more appealing. Then again, perhaps that isn't what I want to happen?

And you keep telling yourself that will make it happen will cause it to happen right? Because you're the all knowing realignment magician!

It makes ZERO sense for the Pac 12 to add Baylor, TCU, K-State and Iowa State. None at all. Those schools are not worth 23M a year. There is zero initiative for the Pac 12 to add the the little sisters of the poor from those states. That would be like the SEC adding Pitt, Cincinnati, N. Illinios, and Michigan State. Come on man.

Stop believing everything The Dude and Chip Brown puts out there.

Now you are just being an ass. I don't follow Dude or Chip Brown. People like you follow Dude or Chip Brown.

(07-10-2015 08:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:40 AM)Marge Schott Wrote:  They may not get a spot even if it happens now. I don't think the timing makes much difference.

Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's simply an outlandish concept that goes way outside of the norm. It would be like my suggestion that occurred long before yours that if the ACC implodes the PAC will take ND, Pitt, SU, and BC for eastern exposure. I said that in jest, but even if I firmly believed it, I wouldn't tout it as something that was logical and natural to come about.

None of the above is to say outlandish moves haven't been made before and may be made again in the future. But the fact that it is an outlandish concept is one you need to accept and understand that the majority of posters have the hardcore evidence as to why it is not likely to happen on their side.

If it was likely to happen, you wouldn't be getting the push back on this that you have experienced for several months now and looking on the bright side you wouldn't be able to brag about it in the future if it does indeed occur.

Cheers,
Neil

What, because the common rabble mob has history on it's side in terms of accurately knowing what the future holds?

I'm sure if I would have been my usual charming self around here, people would find the concept much more appealing. Then again, perhaps that isn't what I want to happen?

You have a "charming" side?!?



Cheers,
Neil

(07-10-2015 09:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 08:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:05 PM)ClairtonPanther Wrote:  Exactly. If the Pac turned down Oklahoma, OSU, and two more, what makes me think that the Pac would open up their hand for Texas Tech, TCU, Iowa State, and Kansas State? And would TV Networks really offer the PAC $100M a year just for those four names? Oh hell naw!!!

They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's simply an outlandish concept that goes way outside of the norm. It would be like my suggestion that occurred long before yours that if the ACC implodes the PAC will take ND, Pitt, SU, and BC for eastern exposure. I said that in jest, but even if I firmly believed it, I wouldn't tout it as something that was logical and natural to come about.

None of the above is to say outlandish moves haven't been made before and may be made again in the future. But the fact that it is an outlandish concept is one you need to accept and understand that the majority of posters have the hardcore evidence as to why it is not likely to happen on their side.

If it was likely to happen, you wouldn't be getting the push back on this that you have experienced for several months now and looking on the bright side you wouldn't be able to brag about it in the future if it does indeed occur.

Cheers,
Neil

What, because the common rabble mob has history on it's side in terms of accurately knowing what the future holds?

I'm sure if I would have been my usual charming self around here, people would find the concept much more appealing. Then again, perhaps that isn't what I want to happen?

You have a "charming" side?!?



Cheers,
Neil

For those I find worthy of it.

(07-10-2015 09:45 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 09:42 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 08:30 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:59 PM)omniorange Wrote:  

(07-10-2015 05:31 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  They would because if they don't then there is a massive Opportunity Cost for an entire Decade. I get it that it doesn't make sense for their brands alone. It's bigger than that though. It blows me away how that concept is so hard for folks to understand. I understand that it is very different from how realignment has worked previously but that doesn't mean it always works the same way.

The concept isn't hard to grasp. It's simply an outlandish concept that goes way outside of the norm. It would be like my suggestion that occurred long before yours that if the ACC implodes the PAC will take ND, Pitt, SU, and BC for eastern exposure. I said that in jest, but even if I firmly believed it, I wouldn't tout it as something that was logical and natural to come about.

None of the above is to say outlandish moves haven't been made before and may be made again in the future. But the fact that it is an outlandish concept is one you need to accept and understand that the majority of posters have the hardcore evidence as to why it is not likely to happen on their side.

If it was likely to happen, you wouldn't be getting the push back on this that you have experienced for several months now and looking on the bright side you wouldn't be able to brag about it in the future if it does indeed occur.

Cheers,
Neil

What, because the common rabble mob has history on it's side in terms of accurately knowing what the future holds?

I'm sure if I would have been my usual charming self around here, people would find the concept much more appealing. Then again, perhaps that isn't what I want to happen?

You have a "charming" side?!?



Cheers,
Neil

For those I find worthy of it.

You are more than welcome to think that what I present here is the extent of my personality, but when it comes to me, you are extremely ignorant. You are smart enough to realize that is not an insult, its just a statement of fact.