Key tweets, and it's all gone to Hell.

[Fishy]

The goal of Cal State schools is to provide accessible, high-quality, affordable public higher education that prepares a diverse student body for the workforce and fosters social mobility. Most of the Cal States (other than SDSU) have a lot of commuters, part-timers and people that can't otherwise afford the more traditional college experience. 89% of Sacramento State students commute to school (but the school is considering implementing an on-campus requirement).

Imagine you're a kid in the Sacramento area attending Sacramento State and you get hit with a few thousand dollars in fees to pay for your crappy football team to play in a crappy FBS league. I'd be livid. If I wanted that experience (and cost) I'd go to community college for a couple years and transfer to a Cal school. This is a total fiduciary breach.

This is a school with literally no revenue. The guy said he had $50M in NIL ready to go....his total athletic donations are under $900,000 a year. His ticket sales are under $500,000 a year.

He loves announcing splashy partnerships like a $7.5M deal with a local tribe, but the fine print gets dicey....is $7.5M trading hands? Ehhh....it's valued at $7.5M, whatever that means.

The whole thing is an athletic Fyre Festivals.

 

[John]

But implicit in that explanation is the fact that being a member of the lawsuit didn't prevent them from joining the ACC, right?

let's agree to disagree so we can stop annoying the other users of the board.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I explained why one of them is a ACC member, so now we're down to Pitt.

Did Clemson and Florida State sue the ACC? Are they still in the ACC?

 

[CL82]

let's agree to disagree so we can stop annoying the other users of the board.

Sure. There's not much point in it anyway. In the end facts are facts in trying to wordsmith around them is a pointless exercise.

 

[ZooCougar]

Really there's nothing to explain is there. If being being a plaintiff in that lawsuit disqualified people from being in the ACC then Pittsburgh and Virginia Tech, definitionally, would not be members of the ACC. Thus, being a member of that lawsuit was not disqualifying. That isn't a particularly hard concept in no amount of bluff or bluster from you will ch

let me help you @CL82

"Led by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the football schools that would be left behind under this initial plan — UConn, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Virginia Tech, and West Virginia — filed two lawsuits, one against the ACC, and the other against Miami and BC, accusing them of improper disclosure of confidential information and of conspiring to weaken the Big East. Syracuse was not named as a defendant in part because they made no public comments about the ongoing situation."

2005 NCAA conference realignment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Thanks for posting this. Hilarious.

 

[ZooCougar]

Did Clemson and Florida State sue the ACC? Are they still in the ACC?

The master of false equivalence and bad faith arguments.

 

[ZooCougar]

Sure. There's not much point in it anyway. In the end facts are facts in trying to wordsmith around them is a pointless exercise.

whatever it takes to make you feel better.

 

[ZooCougar]

This is a school with literally no revenue. The guy said he had $50M in NIL ready to go....his total athletic donations are under $900,000 a year. His ticket sales are under $500,000 a year.

He loves announcing splashy partnerships like a $7.5M deal with a local tribe, but the fine print gets dicey....is $7.5M trading hands? Ehhh....it's valued at $7.5M, whatever that means.

The whole thing is an athletic Fyre Festivals.

Did you see that Sac State estimates that MAC Football will have a $975M economic impact? Honestly I think this will end up as some sort of real estate scam.

 

[CL82]

Thanks for posting this. Hilarious.

You're welcome. Unsurprisingly, after all this discussion and an impressive amount of bluff and bluster, on your part, you are still unable to explain how if being a plaintiff in the big east lawsuit against the ACC disqualifies people from being a member of the ACC, two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are actually currently members of the ACC.