cornfed24-7

I disagree. It is a numbers game. And the 41 schools apparently think that too.

I didn't say they wouldn't be. But however you slice it 41>14. Edit-I guess its technically 41>16 now.

An alliance that has the potential to shape the future of college football probably needs more than a few weeks to hammer out the details and put something down in writing.

And if you REALLY want to turn the knife you could offer them a two game home for one visit contract in the future. Maybe even three if you're especially jaded

Sorry. Random guy you knew in the Army? Better?

Maybe you have another little anecdote about your friend that could REALLY bring your point home ;)

Agreed. I think how that plays out is we still end up in the Big Ten. But we're a package deal with Kansas. Possibly Iowa St.

The NBA has aged him.

And Imagine if he figures out how good he can be

Sorry you can't see the correlation

That's like saying beer and pepsi are the same because they're both liquid. Edit - didn't see reddons post but basically that

Was it though? But to answer your question NO I would not be happy with Texas or OU in the BIG TEN. But, in my perfect world the BIG 8 still exists so take my opinion for what it's worth

I agree with this. A couple more points in why I don't see this working. Viewership trends in football in general have been in decline. If you want to accelerate that concerning college football I think this is how you do it. Take away the essence of what makes college football great. Also, I am skeptical of the riches being promised via NIL. Let's see how that plays out. You want to use that as a pitch go ahead. But just wait until the opposite pitch comes through. "Oh they promised you'd make 50k in NIL. Just remember what happend to thier 5star QB a couple years back. Made 50K his freshman year. Then blew out his knee. Pulled his ship. Now hes at community college working at Taco Bell. We will make sure you get an education. Prepare you for life and football. Yada yada" I think those scenarios are much more like than kids striking it rich. We'll see. Of course all the pitfalls I see will take at least a decade to manifest and by then college football may be a shell of what it once was.

If this is thier ultimate goal I think they are seriously over playing thier hand. Maybe I'm naive, but if I had a child that was talented enough to garner a scholarship offer in football I absolutely would be 100% against them going to an institution/an entire conference whose priority is football then academics. I don't believe I'd be a small minority either. Again, probably naive.

I'll spitball with ya! I am wondering what this next TV contract looks like. A lot of eggs being put into the "this is a done deal of an astronomical payday" basket. At some point ESPN is going to just be bidding against itself. I know the number is going to be big but this will always be a supply and demand issue. The bet is the demand for marquee matchups is worth increasing the supply of those matchups within the SEC. With so many different ways to consume now, cable, satellite, anyone of the numerous streaming services this seems like a big bet to me. Feels like a bubble.

I wonder though if these legislators have a different view of a "rule" like that now. My thinking is if you want those two schools to stay together they both end up getting left out when the dust settles. If I were them and I could get 1 school in a power conference I take that option everyday and twice on sunday.

Because this is about money. Those teams dilute the pool. I don't like it either.

Those guys came with it tonight. Kept taking shots. Both those goalies...man. We led in fouls! And goals

I get you are explaining one principle of the system. And this principle is established in case law. And the presumption of innocence is not innocent. As far as this particular case this gentleman has been given the presumption of innocence. As I said He'll get his day in court. We can define torts next if you like. And yes it's not the reality of our system. The reality of our system is perpetrators of sexual assault are much more likely to be set free or not charged than an innocent person wrongly accused regardles of all the anecdotal evidence.

Just don't agree. The system is built on Justice is blind. That's the system. Not presumed innocents. That's what you get as a defendant. Semantics maybe. The system then judges on the facts. Blindly. But I too think this is an idealistic and completely unrealistic reality. It just doesn't work that way. Like I said the entire time. He'll get his day in court.

All jurors should go in ready to evaluate the facts of the case. And after the facts are laid out determine if the defendant is not guilty or guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Sure but then google Bill Cosby.

It's not too bad actually. Angel's landing that is. Heights and snakes are my 1a and 1b biggest fears. I was able to tackle it twice. The 1st time I had to be coaxed up by my hiking partner. There is one part that's probably 36in wide with a 12in path...if you look down it's about 1000ft drop straight down. I looked down. Then my hiking partner had to sweet talk me past it. Took about 20 min to get me to attempt it again. And let me be clear this was an easy part with a chains and stuff. A 10 year old past me. I was letting f bombs fly. It was great

Sure I'll cast stones. If you have sins to repent that are on par with sexual assault of a minor that's on you.

No but you seem to be blindly ignoring reality. 4 charges. 4 separate instances. A girl between 12 and 16. You want to die on the "Innocent until proven guilty" hill be my guest. He'll have his day in court.