Jump to content

bullet

Full Members
  • Posts

    3444
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by bullet

  1. On 2/3/2024 at 7:32 AM, ButtFumble said:

    yea I don't think this will work out how people think it will

    Charter and ESPN just went through a long negotiation about cramming channels on lower tier cable packages like the ACCn and the SEC SEC SECn and there have been other pushes against it before.....several systems took the BTN off their lower tiers several years back

    the ACC is sitting there thinking they are going to get $1.23 per sub per month for all of California, and Texas based on Cal, Stanford, and SMU now being "in state" and there is no chance that cable companies are going to let that go on forever even if current contracts call for it

    now I am seeing a lot of reports that all the magical "streaming" is going to shit too because companies are doing the exact same shit....putting 400 channels no one wants and no one gives a fuck about in their packages and streaming charges are getting as high or higher than cable bills.....and ESPN still sucks complete cocks at streaming they are probably the worst of the worst and they think they are just going to bypass cable companies, cram all their shit in a package and either offer it themselves for $20+ a month or make streaming companies take all of their shit

    people are dropping streaming left and right already and even more are going with the periodic sign up when there are sports seasons they are interested on or others are signing up and binge watching the good shows and then dropping it a couple of months later and doing other shit with their money

    if you cut out 88 plus D1-A teams from D1-A you can count on a very high % of people just not signing up for anything ESPN at all and their revenues will go to shit....of course some will say "well those 40 in the highest division will just take the bulk of the money", but as it is now with "cramming" of channels the bulk of the money for ESPN is people that do not give a fuck about sports at all....start losing rabid fans from 88 teams and it is going to be an issue

    college sports is not like major leagues and really a lot of things about major league sports are pretty shitty and getting shittier....not really something to emulate especially with ESPN in the lead of making it happen

    With UVerse we've had one of the 4 local network channels off the air for several weeks.  Just yesterday another one was off.  The cable companies are not rolling over for anyone.

  2. 6 hours ago, ButtFumble said:

    yea I don't think this will work out how people think it will

    Charter and ESPN just went through a long negotiation about cramming channels on lower tier cable packages like the ACCn and the SEC SEC SECn and there have been other pushes against it before.....several systems took the BTN off their lower tiers several years back

    the ACC is sitting there thinking they are going to get $1.23 per sub per month for all of California, and Texas based on Cal, Stanford, and SMU now being "in state" and there is no chance that cable companies are going to let that go on forever even if current contracts call for it

    now I am seeing a lot of reports that all the magical "streaming" is going to shit too because companies are doing the exact same shit....putting 400 channels no one wants and no one gives a fuck about in their packages and streaming charges are getting as high or higher than cable bills.....and ESPN still sucks complete cocks at streaming they are probably the worst of the worst and they think they are just going to bypass cable companies, cram all their shit in a package and either offer it themselves for $20+ a month or make streaming companies take all of their shit

    people are dropping streaming left and right already and even more are going with the periodic sign up when there are sports seasons they are interested on or others are signing up and binge watching the good shows and then dropping it a couple of months later and doing other shit with their money

    if you cut out 88 plus D1-A teams from D1-A you can count on a very high % of people just not signing up for anything ESPN at all and their revenues will go to shit....of course some will say "well those 40 in the highest division will just take the bulk of the money", but as it is now with "cramming" of channels the bulk of the money for ESPN is people that do not give a fuck about sports at all....start losing rabid fans from 88 teams and it is going to be an issue

    college sports is not like major leagues and really a lot of things about major league sports are pretty shitty and getting shittier....not really something to emulate especially with ESPN in the lead of making it happen

    28 members of FBS were FCS or not even playing football 30 years ago.  19 of those weren't FBS or weren't playing football only 20 years ago.  16 of those moved up 2012 or later.  There is a lot of FBS that wouldn't be missed.  As for Division I, 40 years ago over 100 of the 364 were Division II, III, NAIA or not playing sports.  You could lop the bottom 10 conferences out of NCAA basketball and nobody would notice as they hardly have any fans.

  3. 4 hours ago, YGIFS said:

    This has got to be an awkward moment for some of them.  Actual, credentialed academic leaders from Wisconsin, Northwestern, Michigan, et. al. having to sit with dipshits from Tennessee, South Carolina, and Alabama.  Some of those SEC schools have leadership that can barely read.  Meantime, the leading research public Ivies have to make nice with them to achieve some monetary gains?  Whew...

    Well the current Alabama president IS an aggy.

  4. 1 hour ago, mdmost said:

    I guess going hard at Tennessee was a bad choice for the NCAA. 

    Interview with the two commissioners

    https://sports.yahoo.com/sec-big-ten-uniting-to-tackle-pervasive-issues-in-college-athletics--pressures-are-mounting-172832810.html

    Two key quotes from that article:

     

    "The joint advisory board is tasked with tackling the most pressing challenges before the industry in what Big Ten and SEC commissioners describe as an “urgent” mission to find solutions for issues such as ongoing antitrust lawsuits, most notably the multi-billion dollar House case; disagreements over the NCAA’s new governance proposal, Project DI; and the unsettled landscape of athlete transfer movement, tampering charges and name, image and likeness (NIL) inducements....

     

    Settling on an acceptable athlete compensation model is perhaps the most pressing issue before the Big Ten and SEC’s advisory group, as well as the other FBS leagues. A new model could rectify both the House v. NCAA antitrust case and the current landscape of college football and basketball recruiting — a space which coaches and administrators describe as a pay-for-play, unregulated free agent marketplace...."

  5. https://www.on3.com/teams/florida-state-seminoles/news/fsu-takes-aim-at-former-acc-commissioner-john-swofford-in-amended-complaint/

    FSU amends their lawsuit.

    "In a 59-page amended complaint for declaratory judgment — 21 pages longer than the original complaint Florida State filed in December — the university took sharp aim at former ACC Commissioner John Swofford for a number of allegedly self-serving actions it says cost member schools millions upon millions of dollars. FSU’s attorneys also rebutted several claims from, and questioned the legality of, the ACC’s complaint...."

  6. On 1/17/2024 at 10:42 PM, Biff Tannen said:

    Gotta have a meeting about having a meeting. 

    WSU and OSU didn't have all their legal ducks in a row so they asked for more time.  They did approve the 8 team minimum to qualify as a conference.

    When you look at the whole BCS/CFP era, in 26 years the current G5 would only have gotten 17 bids in a 6/6 model.  Most of those #5 and #6 champs are schools now in the P4, either BE schools or the Big 12 newbies (UL, TCU, Cincy, UH, UCF).  So a 5/7 gives the current G5 teams better access than they would have had in the past with a 6/6 when the Pac 12 was still around.  And 8 of those 17 would have been Boise when they had their great streak.

  7. On 1/26/2024 at 11:17 AM, Al_4_ISU said:

    That's because of the volume of games in the first couple rounds.  I never lock on to ANY first round game other than ISU, or if it's the only one going at the moment or if there's an upset brewing.  There are just too many games going on at any one time.

    If the 16/1 games were just shitty high major teams against the elite ones, I'd bet ratings would be even worse.

    No, more people would probably watch.  I don't watch 16/1, 15/2 games.  Most often they are ugly, even in the rare occasions when its close.

    Cinderellas are relative.  NCSU was a Cinderella in 1983.  10 conferences could disappear from Division I and nobody would notice.  Probably 15.  The tourney was a big deal when there were 250 Division I teams instead of 364 and it was a 48 team tourney.

    Now if you were to take gambling out, then that hurts viewership!  64 does make for nice brackets.

     

  8. I don't see how the P4/5 stay in a 364 school Division I basketball tourney with the NCAA keeping the bulk of the revenue.  Some sort of breakaway seems inevitable.  But is it a P4/5?, FBS?, or FBS + BE?, or FBS + BE + 3-5 other conferences?  Its not going to be all 31 Division I conferences (not counting Pac 12).  If 10 conferences dropped to Division II, nobody would notice.

  9. https://sports.yahoo.com/with-college-sports-at-a-critical-juncture-is-project-di-the-answer-everything-is-on-the-table-161809460.html

    P5 commissioners (guess Kliavcoff hasn't been excommunicated yet) meeting with NCAA president Baker.  SEC and Big 10 don't like Baker's proposal.

    Good stuff in article.  But this is a big takeaway:

     

    "...In no secret, the two commissioners of the behemoths, SEC’s Greg Sankey and Big Ten’s Tony Petitti, have developed a close relationship, communicate regularly and hold the power to steer college football’s future.

    Its direction is quite clear. Both Sankey and Petitti have expressed an intent to both accelerate NCAA governance and condense the amount of schools operating under a single umbrella. “How do you take larger groups and make them smaller to drive forward?” Petitti asked in an interview last year with Yahoo Sports...."

     

     

  10. On 1/11/2024 at 7:33 PM, GreenspointTexas said:

    I dont understand the move. He wont see the field

    He apparently wants to be a coach and will work the coaching staff as well as being backup in case of injury.

  11. On 1/12/2024 at 6:57 PM, Ignatius said:

    So if the victim knew that this ‘routinely’ happened, why the fuck did she decide to get in the car with the obliterated chick driving in the first place? Maybe because she was every bit as fucked up? Drunk or sober, people who drive like assholes determine their own fate.

    Ain’t that America….

    From the video when they got in the car,, yes, she was probably in worse shape than the driver.

  12. 1 hour ago, Texasrocks said:

    Never mind. I was wrong. The NCAA page doesn't say the top 4 champions get the top 4 seeds. However, the announcement did say that. So your original scenario could play out.

    This doesn't say the top 4 spots are reserved for champs: https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2023-12-03/how-12-team-college-football-playoff-will-work-teams-schedule-bids

    This one does: https://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2022-12-01/college-football-playoff-expand-12-teams-starting-2024-season

    Its simple.  The top 4 champs get the byes.  Everyone else plays the first round.

    I haven't heard specific discussion on whether the top 4 champs are seeded 1 to 4 or if they simply get the bye.  I suspect they are 1-4.  The fourth, regardless of whether they are ranked #4 or #14, will still get the toughest 1st round winner  in the 2nd round.

  13. On 1/9/2024 at 11:07 AM, Js1 said:

    I have a hard time reconciling any CFP team finishing outside the top 4. Don’t care how good UGA looked against the FSU opt outs and 

     Georgia had one less loss than Bama.  They lost by the narrowest of margins.  Had 4 common opponents and blasted two who Bama narrowly beat and did better against UK who both stomped and won solidly over Auburn who Alabama beat on a prayer.  In the SEC CCG, Bama got a few breaks and just wanted it more that day.  The rest of the season UGA was a better team.  It wasn't a fluke they were ranked #1 before the Bama loss.  Its not just about FSU.

  14. On 1/4/2024 at 12:39 PM, alphahydro said:

    yeah, my bad.  i meant building a team that is good enough to be a legit title contender in 8/9 out of 10 years.  

    Just a slightly different ceiling from being able to build a team like 07 LSU.  

    I actually think there are decent odds that Sark has the ability to this next step, given what he's shown so far.  *knock on wood*  I would say some of the key components are

    • high quality assistants 
    • high level recruiting
    • high level understanding of how to address roster needs / build a complete roster over time
    • high level problem solving to address the inevitable deficiencies you'll have on your roster
    • luck w/r/t QB development, injuries, etc.

    Some guys are brilliant x's and o's coaches, but can't recruit at a high level, or they hire their buddies as assistants, or they are stubborn in their approach to football and get caught flat footed when they are lacking in a position group that is a key component to the offense/defense they want to run.  So they can get to 07 LSU quality team, but they can't get to that next step. 

    The hardest step to take, imo, is getting to that next level where you can reload every year.  I think it's really just hard to build a successful program and have it shed complacency every year.  You prolly have to be a bit of a psychopath. 

    I like your point a lot, though.  It helps me articulate why the loss isn't as devastating as it could be.  If you had a coach in year 9 the AD was never gonna fire, and it was clear that 07 LSU was your ceiling, a loss like the Sugar Bowl would be a little tougher to take.  Because that's it, that's your chance.  

    But if you see more potential for what's being (re)built at your program, and you see the potential for a coach (whether it's Sark or someone who takes the baton) to get to that next level, you can see the Sugar Bowl as a step on the journey.  

    Will be interesting to see how we view that game in 4/5 years. 

    One thing to feel good about is that we didn't have luck with injuries.  Ewers missed 2 games.  Brooks was lost for the season in game 10--we had good depth, but Brooks really is a difference maker.  Sanders, Whittington and Worthy were banged up pretty much the whole 2nd half of the season.  Mitchell may have been the only key offensive playmaker at full strength throughout (and maybe he was hampered and I missed it).  

    • Hook 'Em 1
  15. 3 hours ago, B00M said:

    This thread has been a mix of sarcasm and nice stories about kids becoming fans. You’re the only one that cares about what aggy makes fun of anyway. Maybe these idiots should read this thread and reflect because they’re what the rest of college football is judging us for. How not to deal with it:
     


     

    Don't know how many of you noticed it, but the OU player getting a humanitarian award did a horns down while getting the award.  He got roundly booed.  OU being OU.

    Seemed like almost all the Texas fans left real quick after the incompletion.  Its hard to get out of the Superdome.

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...