If you’re going to ask Brooklyn Decker to pay you for sleeping with her, please, I’m begging you, get someone to video it and post it to The Boneyard. The Boneyard glory will be well worth the blackeye and inevitable TRO you will get.Their "really good plan" is to ask ESPN to pay them both more money than they're getting and more money than they're worth. It's equivalent to my "really good plan" for sleeping with Brooklyn Decker.
BL,Their "really good plan" is to ask ESPN to pay them both more money than they're getting and more money than they're worth. It's equivalent to my "really good plan" for sleeping with Brooklyn Decker.
BL,
I imagine that you could come up with a far better plan for your goal than what the ACC is currently devising for theirs. That said, I am fully confident that neither you nor the ACC can pull it off.
I was thinking that at a minimum you would need a ski mask, chloroform and a van.Define "good." Does drugging and kidnapping count?
MH ver3@MH ver3 · 9m
Newsome can’t block the UCLA move to B10 but the regents may force UCLA to share the B10 money with Cal
MH ver3@MH ver3 · 2m
Hearing that Pac is going to invite 2 schools to replace USC/UCLA defections. ESPN changing course on additions and wants Pac to act quickly. SDSU for sure. Either Fresno or SMU for the second.
MH ver3@MH ver3 · 2m
ESPN also advising the additions will not increase their current tv offer. B12 contact thinks this is ESPN being proactive to get ahead of AZ/CU defections to B12 and to keep PAC stable-ish.
That way of thinking kept us out of the ACC more than anything else, imo.USC Old Money Influence > Oregon Phil Knight Nouveau Riche
I understand why Swofford did it, and in truth it is the only thing keeping the ACC together, but that GOR way past the SEC and B1G renegotiating their deals is really an albatross for them. Had they done it for a few years past those leagues windows, maybe they could have squeezed more money for themselves in the near future. With them being locked in till 2036, why would ESPN offer them more money? Even the PAC and Big 12 redo their deals before then no?
That way of thinking kept us out of the ACC more than anything else, imo.
It is and was Dickie B’s modest operandi to Sue everything and everyone to get attention. I don’t think he cared about resultsAgree. UConn didn't have the 2-3 generation deep relationships in the rooms where decisions were being made. And, that's where the actions by Dickie B to personally sue individuals burned fences. That was a case where people who have been yachting and skiing the Alps together for years would have talked to Dick about not being that guy who thinks he can waive cash or a contract in the air and get people to move their positions.
At the end of the day, he took the offer back to the presidents and they all signed it.And everyone in the negotiating room but Swofford knew it was a sucker deal presented by a man who needed something to hold his conference together back then. The only reason ESPN did it was due to the length of the deal; that was the part which hooked the addict. It made no sense for ESPN to offer a 5-10 year deal to the ACC. It had to be ridiculously long.
It was basically a pay day loan shop giving you that pay day cash you so desperately need.
I can't find a link now, but I remember the reports at the time being that the Presidents were the ones pushing for the longer term because they were tired of all the realignment activity and were looking for some peaceAt the end of the day, he took the offer back to the presidents and they all signed it.
Im sure school presidents are weakest in the inner workings of these athletic departments and the long term implications of their decisions.I can't find a link now, but I remember the reports at the time being that the Presidents were the ones pushing for the longer term because they were tired of all the realignment activity and were looking for some peace
At best, Frank the Tank has outlined a sequencing issue. if you want to break the GOR by dissolving the conference, get your dissolution vote in prior to giving your withdrawal notice. It’d be easy enough to have a vote on dissolution and make the effective date far enough in the future so that everyone meets their Notice of withdrawal obligations. Now people are probably saying well if you dissolve the conference should there be any notice of withdrawal obligation. Perhaps not, but the non-exiting members of the client conference could indicate that they had acted in good faith and relied upon the withdrawal period being honored.While I agree with most of FTT's commentary, I do question how dissolution of the conference would not be a way out. If the rights weren't granted to the conference, who were they granted to? If the rights were granted to the conference, I imagine some language on successor could keep the rights intact but I would need to see this to fully believe it could be enforceable.
If it's dissolved (which I don't think they have enough votes for) there wouldn't be any non-exiting members.At best, Frank the Tank has outlined a sequencing issue. if you want to break the GOR by dissolving the conference, get your dissolution vote in prior to giving your withdrawal notice. It’d be easy enough to have a vote on dissolution and make the effective date far enough in the future so that everyone meets their Notice of withdrawal obligations. Now people are probably saying well if you dissolve the conference should there be any notice of withdrawal obligation. Perhaps not, but the non-exiting members of the client conference could indicate that they had acted in good faith and relied upon the withdrawal period being honored.
I agree. Something has to happen. A few schools, like UNC, Duke and UVA, have too much to lose and endless resources.Something will “give” in the ACC. The ACC can’t have all of the top schools in their conference unhappy for the next 10 plus years.