Football ...
Basketball ...
Baseball ...
Other Sports ...
Futbol ...
🤫995🤫 ...
Gambling ...
Movies & TV ...
Music ...
Hobbies ...
Lulz ...
Food & Travel
...
Daily Texan ...
Business & Markets ...
Cloak Room ...
Help ...
For Sale ...
Board Discussion ...
Advertise...
Tailgate Donations
gatormarc
-
Posts
810 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Store
Downloads
Recruiting - 2020
2019-2020 Football Season
Football
Entertainment
Sports
News and Business
Cloak Room
Transfer Portal
Recruiting
Events
Everything posted by gatormarc
-
No, he stated that USC and UCLA were no longer along the member institutions represented on the board. He didn't say they relinquished their positions. There is a direct quote in the story you were responding to and everything. And they also made it perfectly clear with Colorado... also a direct quote the article. The next day, Pac-12 general counsel Scott Petersmeyer sent Colorado’s legal officer a letter that included the following: “Chancellor DiStefano provided CU’s written notice of withdrawal to Pac-12 Commissioner George Kliavkoff on July 27, 2023. Under Section CB 2-3 of the Pac-12’s Constitution and Bylaws, Chancellor DiStefano and CU’s representation on the Pac-12’s Board of Directors automatically ceases effective immediately, and CU no longer has the right to vote on any matter before the Board.”
-
Getting spicier... TL;DR: Under oath this summer in the Comcast case, Klaivkoff stated that USC, UCLA had been removed from the board as they had officially withdrawn. And they also have a letter from him this summer removing Colorado for the same reason; all contrary to what he's saying in court right now supporting that all 12 members should still be on the board since none have "officially" withdrawn. https://www.mercurynews.com/2023/10/12/pac-12-legal-fight-in-sworn-statement-in-comcast-case-kliavkoff-admitted-usc-and-ucla-had-been-removed-from-pac-12-board/
-
I assume most of the barking is saved for Jax.
-
Why did they even bother to make that protected unless it was simply because the rest of the B1G wanted to make sure they would play both less frequently?
-
It's getting cockblocked.
-
I just assume Hugh Freeze is too much of an imbecile to be made privy to future scheduling approaches, therefore this is just him flippantly and ignorantly wishcasting. It could just be a shot across the bow at the Auburn admin since they were one of the votes against the 9 game schedule in May or at least they refused to commit .
-
It all comes down to who do you trust? The idiot that tells you to "stay very tuned" or the psycho that writes their entire missive in Copperplate?
-
I know for other sports, the NCAA can set a minimum number of members in order to get an conference autobid to the postseason tournament but it shouldn't be able to dissolve a conference.
-
FSU needs to do their own homework sometime and stop blaming others for them being in the remedial class.
-
I think the confusion is that from Texas's viewpoint, the ideal pod and 3 permanent rivals look the same. That's not the case for the rest of the conference. For pods to work, they would have to add additional protected crossover games since the top rivalries don't all fit in the same 4 team buckets. Let's just go ahead and make some pods: Texas - Oklahoma - A&M - Arkansas Alabama - Auburn - Tennessee - Vanderbilt Florida - Georgia - South Carolina - Kentucky Missouri - LSU - Ole Miss - Miss St. This is a great pod solution for most rivalries but it kills Auburn-Georgia game, so it's pretty much a non starter. Crosspod rivals would have to be locked down as well. By having a single 16 team conference with no divisions or pods and with each having their own personal set of 3 rival games, you secure more rivalries and you can secure the quickest rotation. It's like each school has their own personal pod.
-
It's really not.
-
Not with Pods. They would need to add permanent crossovers because not everyone's rivals fit nicely into the same pod. Example: UGA needs to play UF and AU Bama needs to play UTn and AU One of those matchups cannot happen with pods unless you add permanent crossovers and lengthen the rotation. That's why 3-6-6 wins.
-
I see you've been to Florida.
-
It doesn't. That's why 3-6-6 is better than Pods.
-
I'm not sure there is a "latest" on pods. As of the spring, the Sankey said it would be one of two models: 1-7 or 3-6. No divisions. No pods. They couldn't get the required votes for either so they made the 2024 bridge schedule. This IT piece is the only place I've seen pods brought up again, and they gave no details. Feels more like clickbait.
-
I don't get why people still want pods. There's no advantage over a simple 3-6-6 schedule.
-
How can you revert to something that has never been?
-
Yeah. it's crap that they haven't done that. Had the same thing happen vs Kentucky in 2018, snapped a streak of 20 straight made field goals.
-
lil ah towel
-
It's pure lowest common denominator. They have no shame. They will invent hills to die on if necessary and imagine a hill if they can't create one.
-
You have already learned the most important lesson: Avoid and ignore secrant's existence unless it's right after a win.
-
I haven't seen the P12 bylaws but it seems that most conferences have language that basically makes those who have already begun the process of leaving the conference as non-voting members for voting situations that involve future membership etc. as they are now "non interested" members.
-
I don't even fully understand it. It had something to do with NCAA tournament payouts to the conference and who gets it if/when teams leave. Not sure what the gap/delay is between tournaments and the payout. Found a piece about it by Mr. Wilner. https://sports360az.com/2023/08/pac-12-finances-estimating-the-ncaa-tournament-cash-available-for-the-remaining-schools/
-
I don't even fully understand it. It had something to do with NCAA tournament payouts to the conference and who gets it if/when teams leave. Not sure what the gap/delay is between tournaments and the payout.
