NCAA football, 2013-14

[Valmy]

Hotty Toddy, Mack Brown.  Time to retire and grow that pony tail you've always wanted.

It was time to retire after the OU game last year.  Now it is just getting sad.

[Valmy]

  Still playing that losing hand, eh?  Given that the Big Ten has used the Grant of Rights for decades now, and it has been discussed on B10 boards by knowledgeable posters for years now, I'd guess I know more about it than someone who didn't know the term two years ago!

But go ahead and insist that you are right in spite of the evidence.  And throw in the ad homs, because they are amusing.

Um what you said was that the Big 12 was still unstable and MBM said it was stable now because of the grant of rights.  Not sure what you were right about and what he was wrong about.

[MadBurgerMaker]

It was time to retire after the OU game last year.  Now it is just getting sad.

I'm starting to wonder if he'll ever actually retire/step down or if they'll have to just fire him to make him go away.

[Ed Anger]

Zook4Longhorns

[grumbler]

No one said you didn't know about GoR's in general, just that you didn't know about the fact that the Big 12 had one.  It was pretty obvious that you didn't.  Because if you did, you wouldn't have said what you did, because it didn't make even a little bit of sense in that context.  You were insisting that some teams might still leave the Big 12.   If you knew about the GoR, you'd have known that this would mean they would lose the rights to their TV $$ for the length of the GoR.   Yep.  That's going to happen.

But, of course, your statement is not true.  If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so.  They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be.  This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.

The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.

[Valmy]

But, of course, your statement is not true.  If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so.  They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be.  This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.

The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.

Well fortunately the Big 12 has few schools outside of Texas anybody else still wants so I think they are good.  If OU had little interest I doubt somebody is going to swoop in to grab might West Virginia and Texas Tech.

[MadBurgerMaker]

But, of course, your statement is not true.  If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so.  They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be.  This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.

The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.

And you said this in the last thread, right?  Oh wait, no you didn't.  Because you didn't know about them needing to do all this massively expensive shit, because when you bleated out your initial comment, you thought it was the same as when the other teams left with just an exit fee.  You confirmed that you thought this with your next comments.  You also never mentioned who, exactly, is going to be doing this stuff that you didn't mention.

[dps]

But, of course, your statement is not true.  If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so.  They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be.  This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.

The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.

Well fortunately the Big 12 has few schools outside of Texas anybody else still wants so I think they are good.  If OU had little interest I doubt somebody is going to swoop in to grab might West Virginia and Texas Tech.

You might want to watch out for the ACC.  They'll take anybody--after all they took Pitt.

[MadBurgerMaker]

You might want to watch out for the ACC.  They'll take anybody--after all they took Pitt.

Damn.  Iowa State is as good as gone.

[grumbler]

Um what you said was that the Big 12 was still unstable and MBM said it was stable now because of the grant of rights.  Not sure what you were right about and what he was wrong about.

What I said was that ND may have preferred the ACC because it seemed more stable (and, in fact, when  made the comment, the B12 had eight teams, and then added 2 more, which doesn't define "stable" for me - the Big Ten added two more teams as well, so it's membership wasn't stable either).  All the rest of it was bogus arguments about "pacts of steel" and name-calling.  I don't mind the name-calling and bogus arguments; I find them funny.

[grumbler]

But, of course, your statement is not true.  If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so.  They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be.  This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.

The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.

And you said this in the last thread, right?  Oh wait, no you didn't. 

  I said just that:

The grant of rights/assignment of rights that the Big 12 schools have signed is the same as the Big Ten and Pac Ten/Twelve have used for years.  What it means is that the school that leaves doesn't take its TV money with it.  Clearly, it gives the conference a lot more leverage to make a departure expensive if it wants, which is why conferences want them.  It doesn't make departure impossible, though.

Because you didn't know about them needing to do all this massively expensive shit, because when you bleated out your initial comment, you thought it was the same as when the other teams left with just an exit fee.  You confirmed that you thought this with your next comments.  You also never mentioned who, exactly, is going to be doing this stuff that you didn't mention.

I also said in that thread

And, please, tell me more about what I know and why I post what I post.  I love that stuff.

It still applies. 

Care to resume the name-calling, and to tell me again that you will never again respond to anything I post?

[Ed Anger]

I forgot about the fake Dan Beebe account.

GOOD NIGHT EVERYBODY AND ENJOY YOUR SWEET DREAMS OF INTERIM HEAD COACH GREG ROBINSON

Ow.

[MadBurgerMaker]

What I said was that ND may have preferred the ACC because it seemed more stable (and, in fact, when  made the comment, the B12 had eight teams, and then added 2 more, which doesn't define "stable" for me - the Big Ten added two more teams as well, so it's membership wasn't stable either).  All the rest of it was bogus arguments about "pacts of steel" and name-calling.  I don't mind the name-calling and bogus arguments; I find them funny.

Yes, you were talking about ND joining, etc (also lol at trying to turn it so you were talking about adding two members the next month as being "unstable").   Here is what you said that was responded to:

Plus, the Big 12 is still pretty shaky membership-wise, unlike the fairly solid ACC.

They just signed a 13 year grant of rights along with their new TV deal.  The Big 12 isn't even remotely shaky.

Shaky membership wise?  How can that be possible?  Not only did every single unhappy school already leave but everybody signed their rights away for 13 years.  Whereas in the ACC the football schools are pissed off about them bringing in more and more Basketball schools and a couple of them voted against the exit penalty.  This baffles me.  Is this a troll?

Really? I thought they had lost 4 teams in the last 2 years.  Must be the other Big 12 Conference I am thinking of.

Again, they just signed a 13 year grant of rights.  So, yes.  Really.  Could you possibly be more of a douche about it?

Is this 2010?  Thats weird I thought it was 2012.

Grumbler is a complete idiot that spouts off shit that is undeniably wrong on a regular basis. If you call him on it he just reverts to douchebag troll mode and becomes even more unbearable than you might have previously thought possible.

He's also never once admitted he's ignorant of anything. Like in this case if he remotely understood that the Big XII members had signed a 13 year grant of rights and what that actually means he'd never have said membership is shaky.

The only thing that could kill the Big XII would be Texas and Oklahoma leaving, which just looks highly unlikely. Texas makes the most money of any FBS school in the Big XII so have no incentive to move elsewhere, and no other conference would permit them the institutional influence and control. Oklahoma probably isn't 100% happy in the Big XII but from what I can see Oklahoma politics would dictate that OU take OSU with them wherever they go, which makes it hard for OU to find a home (I don't know how true that is, and I'll openly admit to that.)

Dunno why you are so butthurt about the Big 12's problems.  Yeah, they just signed a TV deal, but they had a TV deal when they lost 1/3 of their membership. You can feel free to argue that the Big 12 looks as stable for the future as the ACC, but don't expect everyone to buy it.

And so on.  I was wrong, however, because you did finally start talking about lawsuits three or four pages in, and finally mentioned a GoR about 4 pages into the discussion.  You pretty clearly had no idea what was going on up to that point though.  OvB pointed that out with his google-fu comment.  I like how you were calling the ACC stable too, except that apparently adding members means they aren't stable, and so....wait what?  Bottom line:  If you knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't have said several of those things.  Sorry big guy.  You're just not going to be able to grumbler your way out of that.  It's okay though.  Like I said before, it's fine not to know everything.  Happens to everyone.

[katmai]

It was time to retire after the OU game last year.  Now it is just getting sad.

I'm starting to wonder if he'll ever actually retire/step down or if they'll have to just fire him to make him go away.

that is no way to talk about grumbler

[Eddie Teach]

But, of course, your statement is not true.  If a team wanted to leave the Big 12 tomorrow, it could do so.  They would sue to get their TV rights back, and then the courts would determine what the cost of that would be.  This is the exact case that faced the rumblings from Penn State about leaving the the Big Ten, and was discussed at length by people who know about this stuff.

The Grant of Rights just gives the conference additional leverage (because it likely raises the costs beyond the old exit fee); it isn't a magic bullet, as you believe.

Well fortunately the Big 12 has few schools outside of Texas anybody else still wants so I think they are good.  If OU had little interest I doubt somebody is going to swoop in to grab might West Virginia and Texas Tech.

I still want to give TAMU back.