Ghost of LL

So is your point that UNC and Clemson are slam dunks to be admitted to the SEC or the B1G in 2034 (or whenever)?

Yeah, I'm sorry, but I think that's dead wrong. I think all the media deals we've seen, and just the word that has leaked out over time, is that basketball really has little value. In negotiating media deals, it has about a tenth the value of football. If basketball were valuable, you'd have seen Kansas getting a lot more attention from the SEC and the B1G. But there's a reason the SEC was eager to take Oklahoma and didn't give Kansas a first, much less a second, look. Basketball just has no value. And I stand by my initial take. A lot of UNC's basketball value is wrapped up in its rivalry with Duke (and to a lesser extent with NC State and Virginia). Take those away, and UNC basketball is similar to Kentucky or Louisville or Kansas. Which is to say, "not very valuable at all." As to Clemson, I'm not arguing that it's a "pretty good historical program." But there are a lot of "pretty good historical programs." Washington is a pretty good historical program. Washington got into the B1G with a lot of hesitation on the conference's part and, ultimately, with a reduced share. Are we all so sure the SEC is going to do the same with Clemson in ten years? For the record, I'm not saying the answer is "no." I'm just saying that I'm not nearly as sure the answer is "yes" as everyone else seems to be.

I guess I disagree with that a bit. There are a handful of programs that are of national interest irrespective of on-the-field performance. Texas falls into that group. So does Notre Dame. Michigan, Ohio State, USC, . . . I don't know--maybe Alabama. But those programs are pretty limited in number. And then there are a lot of programs that are of national interest when they're good enough to be challenging for a national championship. I think Clemson is the archetype for this category. Clemson is obviously of national interest right now. Pretty much all of us watched them get their clocks cleaned by Duke Monday night. But pretty much all of us remember pre-Dabo Clemson, when that program wasn't particularly good. And when it's not challenging for a national championship, Clemson is of little interest outside the Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson megalopolis. . . . and actually that point is why I'm a bit skeptical when people act like its just a done deal that Florida State, Clemson, and UNC are all leaving the ACC in 7 or 12 or 14 years (depending on the GOR situation, which seems really murky). I mean, Florida State--ok. They may be in that top group of programs that are of national interest regardless. But Clemson and UNC? The SEC and B1G have enough members right now that they don't need expansion. They can expand, but they don't need to. So if they're going to expand, those new teams need to bring in more in additional revenue than their cut would be. They need to expand the pie bigger than the slice they're taking. And I really don't understand the argument for how UNC does that. UNC football is of no real interest to anybody, even in North Carolina. UNC is all about basketball. But a lot of UNC's appeal in basketball is about its rivalries (particularly with Duke). Take away those ACC rivalries, and does anybody care about UNC regular-season basketball? Which brings us back to Clemson. Yeah, Clemson is a property now. But Clemson wasn't a property 15 years ago, when they went 7-6 and lost to Nebraska in the Gator Bowl--a result that was pretty par-for-the-course for Clemson pre-Dabo. And one wonders whether Clemson will be a property 15 years from now, with every other program in college football paying players and Clemson's on-the-field results consequently flagging. At least, that's what the SEC and the B1G will be wondering.

I was there, but I don't really remember who won that game. I honestly have never been that drunk at a game. And I've been really drunk at a lot of games. Some genius on this board had the foresight to call over to a bar near campus to get them to open at 8:00 AM, which is when I showed up and started pounding the 9.1% ABV double IPAs they had on tap (I think they were brewed on site). That was a huge mistake a 7,200 feet above MSL. We went back to that place after the game. I have some vague recollection of standing on a table singing The Eyes of Texas. That's all I have to say about that.

I'm going to hope OU is our opponent in the Big 12 CG for one reason: it's the only chance we have to win the game. Yeomark has made pretty damned clear over the past few months--and Big 12 officials have made very clear over the last few years--that the conference doesn't want Texas winning anything on its way out the door. The only hope we have of getting something resembling a fairly officiated game is to have OU as our adversary.

That may have been the most entertaining game of the weekend.

I guess that counts.

Come in, Clemson—turn it over one more time.

This game is unreal.

Haha—fuck your, Tech

Perhaps Yeomark shoulda picked another team to pull for.

Haha—eat shit, Baylor

That’s the implication.

Because the starter had led them to a total of 13 points into the 3rd Quarter against Central fucking Arkansas.

TD Wyoming

Oh my god—TCU is terrible.

Yeah--and this is exactly when the court of appeals should administratively stay a district court's order in aid of its jurisdiction.

I distinctly feel like you don't understand the concept of "risk." It's not certain that SMU is going to be a great program in the ACC. But what is the alternative? Staying in the AAC? SMU may not be a great program in the ACC. But it will definitely never be a great program in the AAC. SMU will make more money in the ACC--the math was done for you some pages ago--even without T1 television money. So even if they continue to "suck" (though I would dispute that characterization), it comes at no monetary or reputational cost. There's genuinely no risk based on the place from which SMU starts. SMU and TCU have never been in "equivalent conferences." And NIL support hasn't existed for 30 years because . . . and I think this is kinda important . . . NIL hasn't been a thing for thirty years. Look at the world over the past two years since NIL has been a thing. SMU has done very well in the transfer portal. And that's with them getting kneecapped when their coach left for TCU. But as queried above--would that happen today now that SMU is in the ACC?

There's no risk here. At all. SMU's goal was to be in a Top-4 conference. It's now in a Top-4 conference. What's the risk? That the ACC may lose FSU, Clemson, and UNC in a decade? I mean, ok. But it also might not. And regardless--the playoff and media landscape is going to be entirely different in ten years. This is an obvious decision for SMU. The notion that they should stay in the AAC with the likes of North Texas and Memphis when they can get into the ACC is absurd in the extreme. They're in a better conference. They have more NIL support. And they have vastly better alumni/donor support. On a purely forward-looking basis, that puts SMU in a better position. That's not to say that SMU is going to be able to turn all that into a better program than TCU's. But it is to say that it puts them in a place where they ought to be able to.

As an SMU Law alumnus and someone who is generally sympathetic to the Ponies' cause, I am pretty fucking gruntled this morning. You could conceive of a scenario in which SMU, with all its NIL money, recruits Dallas the way Miami recruits South Florida and builds a similar program. Not a program that is going to contend for national championships. And not really a program that anybody in its home city gives a shit about. But something that is still very competitive and fun to watch. And yeah--SMU's situation is now far better than TCU's. I think the point is that it's great for Dallas even if nobody in the city cares much about SMU. First, it's going to have conference games that are meaningful in the national college-football picture. And second, hosting a bunch of Olympic sports brings both money and exposure.

. . . or is shot.

Yeah--this is kind of tough. Because I think the "prospective tip" was something that, ten years ago, was only for if you wanted a prime spot up front. Probably 20 years ago, I went to Del Mar for the races, and I had a flight out of SAN that afternoon, so I was going to want to get out of there in a hurry. So I gave the guy a $20 bill on the front end and asked him to keep the car close so that I could get out of there. He did, and I did. But since then, I definitely think the prospective tip to the valet has become less of a "this is an unusual deal where I need you to take good care of my car" and more of a "it is expected that I do this on the front end so that you don't fuck up my car." And I don't like that. This sounds pretty reasonable. But there are some problems with it. What about complimentary valets? Am I tipping 20% of $0? That doesn't seem to make much sense. And I am starting to get a lot tougher on tipping valets as the tip rate for valets goes up. If I'm going to tip you $5 or $10, then you need to take the little tag off my keychain, take the slip from off my dash or underneath my windshield wiper, return my seat to its original position, and not take my headlights off the "AUTO" setting. If you can't do those basic things to restore my car to the condition in which I handed it over, you're not providing me a service. You're inconveniencing me. And why should I tip you for inconveniencing me?

It's a country full of absolute slaves. They may have legally abolished serfdom in 1863, but they'll never get rid of that servile mentality.

I think we're going to do a Silversea cruise next year through the Panama Canal. I've always wanted to do the Panama Canal ever since reading David McCullough's book 20 years ago. And a cruise is really the only way to see it properly. It being Silversea, you avoid most of the issues y'all are (rightly) identifying. There aren't any fat trashy people on that boat; there aren't many people on that boat at all. And to @SydneyCarton's point, my experience on Silversea (though it's very outdated experience) is that there aren't any limits on drinks. They'll serve you whatever, whenever. And they'll just stock your minibar in your room with whatever you want. So if you just want to sit on your balcony and drink, you can do that. Which maybe, come to think of it, . . . .