Jump to content

TKthunder2

Burnt Ends
  • Posts

    3,859
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TKthunder2

  1. 13 minutes ago, BurntOrange&White said:

    Because it wouldn’t be for just football they’d bring basketball and baseball too. 

    Bingo.

    If we assume it’s the Big Ten, SEC, and Big12 in a 3x24 setup with the ACC falling apart you’d have 22 spots in total maximum. That would be enough to take the new ACC+ND+PAC2+2 more like UConn/Memphis.

    That clearly won’t happen because it’s just diluting the product. I don’t see the SEC going past 20 and I doubt the Big Ten does either though they are more likely open to it than the SEC.

    My feeling is that we’ll see the Big Ten hold until they can get ND and then maybe Stanford, while the SEC will take FSU/Clemson/UNC/UVA when the opportunity arises.

    Then the Big 12 will take the top remaining 8 from the ACC. Miami, VT, NCSU, Pitt, Louisville, and Duke are sure things. The final 2 could be Syracuse and GT but I could see passing on GT (markets not as big of a deal anymore) and letting Yormark make a signature move on UConn (they did just win another).

    That lineup would be pretty salty with Miami, Oklahoma St, TCU, Utah, VT, K State and Pitt headlining the football side Duke, Kansas, UConn, Louisville, Baylor, Syracuse, and Houston headlining the basketball side, both with plenty of depth in between with teams like NCSU, West Virginia, Iowa St, BYU, Cincy, TX Tech, and Colorado.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  2. 7 minutes ago, CHIEF said:

    I remember both my parents and Mrs. CHIEF’s family both told us, “if you wait until you think you can afford kids, you will never have them.” This was about five years into our marriage. Mrs. CHIEF and I had been living in apartments, and were waiting until we could purchase our first home. My parents helped us, and said there is more support if you need it. Her parents did as well. 
    Children are expensive, time consuming, and are a bunch of trouble. However, the day your first born arrives is the best day of your life. Everything pales in comparison. At least it does for me. 
     

    CHIEF

    1234

  3. I work in Tech my wife works in health care finance, we BOTH took 12 weeks leave for each of our children and both got promoted within 12 months of returning (separate times). This is just anecdotal obviously, but the whole it sets your career back doesn’t seem to be as true as it once was.

    The hard part is going back to work and putting the kids in expensive daycare. Many I know had a hard time affording that and their job performance suffered while they struggled to take care of their kid and do their job all day. I think that’s a real problem that could use some legislation to help. I’ve always found it weird that we cover grade school with taxes but not daycare when both serve the same purpose.

  4. 16 minutes ago, HornOnTheBayou said:

    I have figured out the solution to all of the world's problems. @TKthunder2 will go on radio, television, and the internet and explain female fertility to all listeners. Yes, a man will explain the female reproductive system to everyone, including women. Anyone see any problems with this?

    Anyone see a problem that we can’t have a legitimate discussion talking about awareness and education of scientific facts and it turns into a controversy somehow? You could debate the effectiveness but instead you attack the messenger. As someone who has been attacked from both the right and the left leaning posters on this site…stupid shit like this why our country is so damn divided. Which is a shame.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  5. 1 minute ago, Burt Macklin said:

     

    I hate to break this you, but it’s going to be pretty hard for us to win the Big 12 this year.  

    Look at the picture. They don’t reference which conference we won. It just say “Conference Champions” now.

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
  6. The conversation is about population decline. Women control that far more than men in Western countries. The bare minimum you can do is to provide education/awareness. You want to go further, you can look to other Westernized nations which have government mandated maternity leave/benefits, subsidized childcare, child healthcare and even cash payments. None of those have been proven/confirmed to be effective (as the birth rate continues to drop), but I agree with @Celery Man that the bar people think they need to be at to “comfortably” start a family is higher than ever which is also concerning.

  7. 58 minutes ago, YGIFS said:

    It was hyperbole to reflect the arrogant, condescending stupidity of some above posts that women need a special class to wrap their heads around when they may be out of time to procreate.  I picked 500 to reflect 13 cycles a year between ages 13-51.  And because it's a nice round number to use for effect.  I mean, I knew we were in a time where men would be dictating women's reproductive rights, IVF, dictating pregnancy completion despite outlier conditions, birth control, etc.  But we've now truly crossed the rubicon, "Women need to be taught in school that they have a finite number of eggs with which to reproduce."  Yeah, can't wait to see what this twisted sick-fuck misogynist iPhone app looks like.  

    Have any of you ever watched a PSA? Have you ever seen a PSA and thought Holy Shit I didn’t know that? No? Because generally people on here this site (with some major exceptions) have above average intelligence. Do you think we need PSA about being nice to people, not littering, that fathers are good? No, the majority of people don’t NEED these PSAs because we know these obvious things already.

    But still we run them anyway, in hope that young people hear this message early and often for the betterment of society. Argue that PSAs don’t work or are ineffective, but you can’t argue that people don’t know because there are very real examples of smart people making not smart decisions because society tells them there is no rush. For example…

    Here is a NYT op ed discussing why having a child later in life is no big deal and a WAPO article about a woman who believed all the rhetoric and ultimately was unable to have the child she always wanted. Maybe she would have trouble conceiving no matter what, but the sentiment that you can have it all on your own timeline is in stark contrast to science/logic/reality.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/05/opinion/prenatal-postpartum.html

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/01/27/feature/she-championed-the-idea-that-freezing-your-eggs-would-free-your-career-but-things-didnt-quite-work-out/

    This has nothing to do with men. If a woman chooses not to have a kid then great, power to her. But if she wants a child, she should not start thinking about that at 35 and I’m still not sure how that is a controversial message since it is literally what every OBGYN would tell you.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  8. 1 hour ago, Pancho said:

    I’m not saying your example doesn’t happen. You’re just making it seem as if because you know a few women who thought this that means nearly all of them do. You even suggested a class solely for women on this very situation. It’s stereotyping. 

    You’re also not accounting for the number of men who a) don’t have the soldiers anymore to conceive, b.) who also may not know about the eggs things, and c.) who either don’t want children or may want them later in life but they themselves can’t. Those aren’t the fault of a woman. 

    Of course many or most women know and understand this, but many women don’t. You can find ton of those dumb you tube pod cast thing where women saying stupid things. They don’t represent ALL women, however they do represent a portion of women who could use more education and awareness.

    The government is running PSAs about how beneficial it is to have a father in the home. Obviously MOST men understand this, but we’re still running these education/awareness campaigns because the hope is to reach the ones who don’t consciously realize this or don’t think about it.

    And it’s completely fair to lump men into this conversation however men are still very fertile until their 50s. Men can always find younger woman to procreate with. Biologically speaking, women do not have that option. Either way, education and awareness help with both situations.

  9. 16 minutes ago, Pancho said:

    WTF? This is not the flex post you think it is. 

    What data do you have that shows 30 year olds and older “don’t realize” they’ve lost 90% of their eggs? Is it not highly possible they know the odds are lower at that age but that just so happens to be the age they are personally ready to try? 

    Why is it just women not understanding their priorities when just as many men don’t want kids as well and just want to fuck around? 

     

     

    Flex post? I know multiple women who have said they wanted to wait and others who have froze their eggs, only to be devastated when they were unable to conceive in their 30s. This is very common. Some spent thousands of dollars on fertility treatments, others end up adopting and it works out, but all of them go through significant mental anguish because they believed that it would just happen when they were ready. But that is not reality, and society is actively telling these women that they can have it all, which is true, as long as they understand HOW (which many do not). More education and awareness is the answer, I’m not sure how this is a controversial statement.

  10. Women used to care about finding a man who could provide and protect.

    Our society is generally safe (most crime at historic lows, despite steep rise in property crime) so they don’t need protectors.

    More women than men are getting advanced degrees and able to support themselves.

    As a father of a young daughter these are great advancements which are generally beneficial to all.

    That being said, what is out of whack is women’s understanding of their own priorities. Only 5% of women claim they do NOT want children, however more and more are waiting until their mid to late thirties to pursue that goal.

    As a country we do a great job of showcasing women’s empowerment in the workforce, but we do a horrible job of explaining the basics of fertility.

    Honestly this is something that should be required to be taught in high school, reviewed regularly by OBGYN’s with their patients, and something the government should have running on PSAs.

    If knowing the data, you CHOOSE to wait or not have kids until later then that is okay, but the number of 30 years olds who don’t realize they have already lost 90% of their eggs is astounding and that should not be the norm.

    • Hook 'Em 2
  11. 4 hours ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    Why?  We've been told over and over how the haves shouldn't be subsidizing lesser programs, and how boring those games are.  This eliminates all of that.  Every member would be a major financial contributor, and every division/conference game is against a helmet school.  Need to have some breathers?  Do it in the non-conference.

    It almost seems like you're just trying to advocate for the shittiest possible version of college football as it would relate to my interests, as ISU would either be one of the first schools out or one of the last in, and frankly both of those outcomes would be worse than what we have today (for me).  I doubt that's your intent, but 40-48 schools going their own way would suck.

    I have nothing against Iowa St. but I also don’t view everything through a lens where I’m taking their program into account when thinking about this topic. I’m an alumnus of a school that doesn’t have to worry about being left out so the considerations are different.

    To answer your question, a league of 16 would be ridiculous. Yes Texas/OU wanted more big time football programs on their schedule but that does not mean we want ALL of them. It’s all about moderation. If Texas played a conference schedule of LSU, Bama, Tenn, OU, UGA, UF, Aub, FSU, Clemson, aggy it would be lead to a bad product and performance would decline. If every game is a Super Bowl, then no game is. A 9 game 3-6-6 schedule is just about perfect in the SEC. We’d play OU/Arkansas/aggy each year plus some combo of LSU/Bama/Aub or UF/UGA/TN which means our fans would would Immediately care about 2/3rds of the schedule versus 1/3 in the Big 12.

    I don’t think we’re as concerned about subsidizing those few schools. Sure, it could be better, I’d trade Miss State for UNC in a heartbeat but overall the SEC still very high quality pound for pound. We play Mississippi State this year before back to back games with OU and Georgia followed by Vandy, then Florida, Arkansas, Kentucky, and aggy. Those teams serve a purpose.

    Also you need some coverage across the other states to keep viewership interest and also for political coverage. One big reason I think the Big 12 will hang around is that it provides that coverage for a good chunk of these schools (WV, CO, UT, AZ, KS) without requiring the Big Ten/SEC to pay/play these schools directly.

    If the ACC breaks up and the Big 12 adds its tier 2/3 schools like Pitt, Louisville, NCSU, and Virginia Tech that could be a great solution for go from a P4 to a P3 and drops another 6 or so schools from the P3 club in the process increasing postseason revenue for those who remain.

    Other than trying to keep up financially, the biggest issue standing in the way of the Big 12 now is the postseason. If the SEC decided to run their own 4 team conference tournament and go back to the old bowl system pairing their tournament winner against the Big Ten’s 4 team tournament winner then I don’t really see a way for them to break into that. Which is why it’s in the Big 12 and Notre Dame’s interest to keep the SEC/B1G in the CFP despite all else.

  12. 4 hours ago, TxEx84 said:

    And curious how those numbers are determined.  LHN is not rated. So does Texas get a zero viewership for two out of twelve games?

    Yes the only tier 3 network that is rated is the Big Ten and now I believe Peacock. The SECN, LHN, PACN, ACCN, and ESPN+ which includes SoonerVision and Big12Now are not rated and do not have totals in the aggregate number.

  13. 2 hours ago, CustersDoctor said:

    The 4th column is a schools % of 8,470,000,000 annual CFB regular season viewership. 5th column is the aggregate total. So as oft been said, the top 18 teams have 52% of the viewers. The top 52 schools have 90% of the viewers. Dumping the bottom 18, at worst, costs you 10% of the viewers. But you'd increase overall views by not having those terrible performers in the mix.

    Screenshot_20240418_165340_Drive.jpg

    Screenshot_20240418_165357_Drive.jpg

    Screenshot_20240418_165412_Drive.jpg

    What year(s) is the data from?

    I’ll be curious to see this data in 3 years and compare the 2021-23 data with the 2024-26 data especially for the B12.

    I imagine you’ll see an decrease in schools like Oklahoma State, TCU, and WVU as the Texas/OU bump they’ve historically been able to pad their ratings with an extra 20 million viewers a year (and that’s a conservative estimate) will be no more a most of them will fall below the 100 million mark.

    That bump could also be transferred to Arkansas, Mississippi State, and South Carolina since they’ll get on ABC/ESPN more often. Maybe they can capitalize on Colorado/Prime having another season of wild expectations and crazy ratings (and without early games against USC/Oregon) but absent that and without an annual blueblood matchups I’m assuming we’re seeing the peak for the Big 12 schools here.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  14. 23 minutes ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    I'd much prefer that the top 16-18 brands break away in their own association/conference/whatever you want to call it.  Kick 2/3rds of the Big 10 and the bottom half of the SEC to play in a division with current Big 12 and ACC schools.

    16-18 is too small. You could cut schools like Vandy and Northwestern sure, but those schools serve a purpose of providing wins and great travel destinations to population centers in the middle of the conference. You could still cut a school like Mississippi State or Purdue who doesn’t check many boxes but there is not a lot of fat in the SEC/B1G that the presidents want to unanimously reject as it sets a bad president for those historically less successful teams.

    I think 40-48 schools is as close as you’ll get to your “big brands breakaway league”. The SEC/B1G it sits at 34 so an easy jump to 40 would be ND, FSU, Clemson, UNC, UVA and then a wildcard school like Miami or Stanford. If they go to 48 you’d likely see some others from the B12/ACC as well, but I doubt it gets that big without a true league forming which could collectively agree that they need representation in the Four Corner states for viewership and political cover.

  15. 14 minutes ago, statsman said:

    Although, I do understand why the M2 teams want revenue sharing with the P2 and salary caps. 

    I also want a piece of that revenue sharing for me too if we’re just giving things away…and a line of super models ready to blow me on demand whenever I feel like it, while we’re at it.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  16. 1 hour ago, Al_4_ISU said:

    When there's a playoff that all these leagues feed into, instead of provincial bowl games, I think that would go away.  Because all of these divisions feed into the same national playoff, every game has theoretical relevance in relation to every other game.  NFL fans on the east coast don't ignore the games on the west coast because at the end of the day those are all teams that their team could have to play, and the big brands would draw eyeballs from everywhere in this arrangement.

    These aren't conferences that are little clubs of like-mindedness and camaraderie.  They are divisions that constitute a larger league.  Because every D1 fanbase in America has a stake in this final outcome, there will be nationwide interest.

    If the SEC and Big 10 wall themselves off, no one outside is going to care all that much.  There are enough people "inside" that circle to be quite financially viable, but maxing out financially tends to come from having the most people invested and watching.  The NFL has never outright attempted to alienate potential viewers.

    There are 32 NFL teams. Talk to fans in San Diego and St. Louis and previous other cities/markets like Cleveland, Baltimore, and Houston about them never alienating viewers (as a former Oiler fan but not Texan fan I laugh at that).

    If people don’t go to games, buy merchandise, or watch they pack up and leave. Acting like the NFL would NEVER pull a Super League plan out of its ass is folly. If they expanded from 32 to 60 teams and half the league was being subsidized you can absolutely bet that the Dallas Cowboys and most successful friends would cut bait and abandon ship.

    The NFL is also not a good model for CFB due to their TV deals and market agreements. Without the Sunday ticket most people can only watch 6 games a week live. It’s not the same.

  17. 4 hours ago, 'stache said:

    I like it but it’s 50 years too late. This is what it should have been from the start (with some variations). A bunch of those programs would say no.

    Yep. A super league of all teams isn’t a super league. The whole plan where they say the teams with the most eyeballs takes home the biggest paycheck and regional divisions don’t align. USC will get more eyeballs in the Big Ten than they did in the P10, Texas will get more in the SEC than the SWC. That’s of the big reasons why reverting back to regional conferences would not happen.

    • Hook 'Em 1
  18. Look I’m fine if the answer is it’s not cost effective BUT again we’re spending millions upon millions in water conservation, recovery, and reuse efforts that would be far less effective. The potential proposal of the desalination effort is also NOT cost effective but we keep reviewing that every decade or so.

  19. 59 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I for one support the idea of a deeper lake that never gets to the water level it might have otherwise achieved.  I bet all those marinas and waterfront homeowners would be thrilled with permanent rocks and random grass for their lakefront view & use.

    About 5 years ago when last flooded, they left the flood gates open for FOUR WEEKS. We absolutely could have used more capacity.

×
×
  • Create New...