Pac12 expansion - looking to add 4 teams

[michaeljordan_fan]

It’s always hilarious hearing this while you argued how one of the largest media markets is “miniscule”.

Or how Iran prefers Trump.

Window licking Oscar strikes again!

This thread is about your faggotry. No need to derail it by making stuff up.

 

[ralphiewvu]

This is coming from someone that lives deep in ACC country. I don't know why anyone would want to join this conference. Unless it is mainly for academics. By the end of the season, the ACC will probably have two ranked teams. I didn't and still don't see the reasons for adding Cal and Stanford especially in a sports sense. SMU maybe a tiny bit, but still way out of region, not that that matters anymore. Currently, the PAC 12 wouldn't be looking for so many teams to try and reconstruct the conference if Cal and Stanford stayed put.

It honestly depends how many teams the ACC would lose when this GoR gets figured out/ends. But the common sentiment for teams like USF, Memphis and Tulane (teams rumored to get an invite should the ACC lose teams) is that joining the ACC is still better than staying in the AAC. Both with competition and money. Although should they lose enough teams, it may be negligible.

I believe CalFord was added so that if the ACC did lose a few teams, they wouldn’t be under the thresh hold for violating their media rights deal from ESPN.

An argument can be made that had Cal and Stanford stayed, Utah and the arizonas may not have followed through with joining the B12.

 

[ralphiewvu]

This thread is about your faggotry. No need to derail it by making stuff up.

I’ve made nothing up, you just are in this thread because again I’ve ruined you.

You are like a jaded ex that can’t get over she was dumped for something better.

 

[Collegefbfan]

It honestly depends how many teams the ACC would lose when this GoR gets figured out/ends. But the common sentiment for teams like USF, Memphis and Tulane (teams rumored to get an invite should the ACC lose teams) is that joining the ACC is still better than staying in the AAC. Both with competition and money. Although should they lose enough teams, it may be negligible.

I believe CalFord was added so that if the ACC did lose a few teams, they wouldn’t be under the thresh hold for violating their media rights deal from ESPN.

An argument can be made that had Cal and Stanford stayed, Utah and the arizonas may not have followed through with joining the B12.

Oh for sure with the media rights deal ESPN. And joining the ACC is better than what teams would have with the AAC. That one part I did forget about.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

An argument can be made that had Cal and Stanford stayed, Utah and the arizonas may not have followed through with joining the B12.

Only a moron would believe that. Arizona/Utah signed the same day as Oregon/UW

 

[ralphiewvu]

Only a moron would believe that. Arizona/Utah signed the same day as Oregon/UW

An argument could be made, given none of them wanted to leave. Never said it would happen, just an argument.

It's great to see your window licking retardation stays consistent with every post.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Oh for sure with the media rights deal ESPN. And joining the ACC is better than what teams would have with the AAC. That one part I did forget about.

It just honestly depends how many they lose.I don't think the ACC will be able to add any B12 teams given that instability unless there is a merge.

 

[ericd7633]

I mean it should be obvious to anyone that watches CFB that Wyoming or UNM isn't a rival is Wazzou. So me asking about them in a PAC expansion thread shouldn't be interrupted as a reference to Washington state rivals. You answered that question in the previous post even.

No, his side is not the correct one. Hell he even accused me of stating UNM and Wyoming were "natural rivals." When that was never once stated. And you didn't say anything about him being wrong on UNLV realignment. Yet here you are, interjecting in to tell me I'm wrong. Funny how that works.

We can just agree to disagree.

I'm not sure how you're not understanding this.

For the final time, @wazzu31, as a Washington State fan, wanted to add Idaho, because they are a potential rival. He talked about the game Saturday (against Boise State) and the addition of Gonzaga. He said we would be little brother or something to that effect. How can he be speaking from a conference perspective using that language? It makes no sense to say "we'd be little brother" when speaking on behalf of the conference. None whatsoever. He was pretty clearly talking about Washington State and Washington State only. It's clear as day. So when you mention the schools you mention, he doesn't want them because they aren't a rival school to Washington State. This isn't hard.

 

[ericd7633]

It honestly depends how many teams the ACC would lose when this GoR gets figured out/ends. But the common sentiment for teams like USF, Memphis and Tulane (teams rumored to get an invite should the ACC lose teams) is that joining the ACC is still better than staying in the AAC. Both with competition and money. Although should they lose enough teams, it may be negligible.

I believe CalFord was added so that if the ACC did lose a few teams, they wouldn’t be under the thresh hold for violating their media rights deal from ESPN.

An argument can be made that had Cal and Stanford stayed, Utah and the arizonas may not have followed through with joining the B12.

I don't get this? Utah, Colorado, ASU and Zona joined the Big 12 4 weeks before Cal and Stanford joined the ACC. If anything it should be reversed. Cal and Stanford had nothing left to stay in, except for Washington State and Oregon State.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I'm not sure how you're not understanding this.

For the final time, @wazzu31, as a Washington State fan, wanted to add Idaho, because they are a potential rival. He talked about the game Saturday (against Boise State) and the addition of Gonzaga. He said we would be little brother or something to that effect. How can he be speaking from a conference perspective using that language? It makes no sense to say "we'd be little brother" when speaking on behalf of the conference. None whatsoever. He was pretty clearly talking about Washington State and Washington State only. It's clear as day. So when you mention the schools you mention, he doesn't want them because they aren't a rival school to Washington State. This isn't hard.

You are never going to get this, or pretending you don't. And I doubt this very much is the final time for you.

My question was about the PAC, in a PAC thread. Anyone that follows college football knows Wyoming and New Mexico aren't rivals, natural rivals, fuck buddies whatever you want to call it with Washington State. It's quite clear knowing this my question was about the pac. Getting an answer like "not rivals" made me think he was alluding to only rivals being added.

Yes, this isn't that hard. But you refuse to see where I'm coming from because....reasons???

 

[ralphiewvu]

I don't get this? Utah, Colorado, ASU and Zona joined the Big 12 4 weeks before Cal and Stanford joined the ACC. If anything it should be reversed. Cal and Stanford had nothing left to stay in, except for Washington State and Oregon State.

Cal and Stanford (if they would have) proclaim they are staying to rebuild. Utah and the Arizona's stay along with OSU and WSU. That's 7.

SDSU already had given the MWC notice of leaving and is a presence in SoCal. Yeah not a huge precedence but it's there. Thats 8

SMU's donors would have paid to get there and an ACC type deal. Thats 9

Colorado is wildcard. If they stay that's great and #10. If not grab someone like Rice to appease (academia minded) Cal ford which also gives a travel partner to SMU.

A conference like that gets close to what the B12 is making now imo if not the same with less travel for everyone compared to now. (Except maybe Rice)

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Cal and Stanford (if they would have) proclaim they are staying to rebuild. Utah and the Arizona's stay along with OSU and WSU. That's 7.

Amazing how you can completely ignore the timeline of events in your alternate reality.

You might as well claim that they can convince the LA schools to stay as well

 

[ericd7633]

You are never going to get this, or pretending you don't. And I doubt this very much is the final time for you.

My question was about the PAC, in a PAC thread. Anyone that follows college football knows Wyoming and New Mexico aren't rivals, natural rivals, fuck buddies whatever you want to call it with Washington State. It's quite clear knowing this my question was about the pac. Getting an answer like "not rivals" made me think he was alluding to only rivals being added.

Yes, this isn't that hard. But you refuse to see where I'm coming from because....reasons???

I said I understood where you're coming from. I said it previously in this thread. The problem is you didn't (and still don't) understand where @wazzu31 was coming from and his point of view. You asked a question about something he was not talking about. Because you didn't understand his point of view, his follow up response to your question, didn't make sense to you, bc you misinterpreted what he said.

Do you understand, now, that he was only talking about Washington State in his post that got all this started. If not, you aren't going to to understand his point.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Amazing how you can completely ignore the timeline of events in your alternate reality.

You might as well claim that they can convince the LA schools to stay as well

Understand Utah and the Arizona’s didn’t want to come to the B12. They did it out of panic because the PAC/remaining teams had ZERO plan. If CalFord comes out and says “let’s rebuild” and do it like this…they may have stayed. Which is my whole argument here.

It truly is amazing how you continue to show your retardation.

 

[michaeljordan_fan]

Understand Utah and the Arizona’s didn’t want to come to the B12. They did it out of panic because the PAC/remaining teams had ZERO plan. If CalFord comes out and says “let’s rebuild” and do it like this…they may have stayed. Which is my whole argument here.

It truly is amazing how you continue to show your retardation.

Doubly amazing how you claim Colorado was a wildcard when they left before UO/UW

Pure idiocy

 

[ericd7633]

Cal and Stanford (if they would have) proclaim they are staying to rebuild. Utah and the Arizona's stay along with OSU and WSU. That's 7.

SDSU already had given the MWC notice of leaving and is a presence in SoCal. Yeah not a huge precedence but it's there. Thats 8

SMU's donors would have paid to get there and an ACC type deal. Thats 9

Colorado is wildcard. If they stay that's great and #10. If not grab someone like Rice to appease (academia minded) Cal ford which also gives a travel partner to SMU.

A conference like that gets close to what the B12 is making now imo if not the same with less travel for everyone compared to now. (Except maybe Rice)

Huh? Do you realize Cal and Stanford left after the 4 B12 schools left. There was nothing left to commit to other than Washington State and Oregon State. You're very wrong about this.

 

[ralphiewvu]

I said I understood where you're coming from. I said it previously in this thread. The problem is you didn't (and still don't) understand where @wazzu31 was coming from and his point of view. You asked a question about something he was not talking about. Because you didn't understand his point of view, his follow up response to your question, didn't make sense to you, bc you misinterpreted what he said.

Do you understand, now, that he was only talking about Washington State in his post that got all this started. If not, you aren't going to to understand his point.

You have stated I’m wrong on this and don’t get it. You’re doing it again.

So he didn’t know I knew New Mexico and Wyoming weren’t rivals with Wazzou?? (As most college football fans know)

Look what the thread is called dude. It’s quite obvious I meant the PAC, him stating “not rivals” made me think he was alluding to only rivals being added which is why I brought up USU.

You still refuse chastise him on this or anything else that was utterly wrong he said because….. reasons?

It is what it is.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Doubly amazing how you claim Colorado was a wildcard when they left before UO/UW

Pure idiocy

Which is exactly why I’m stating they may come back or they may leave you fucking retard.

 

[ralphiewvu]

Huh? Do you realize Cal and Stanford left after the 4 B12 schools left. There was nothing left to commit to other than Washington State and Oregon State. You're very wrong about this.

I didn’t say they didn’t. I said if there was a strong commitment from CalFord to stay right after UW and UO left, Utah and the Arizona’s may not have signed on with the B12. I’m not wrong on this at all. Again you aren’t understanding what I’m saying.

 

[ericd7633]

You have stated I’m wrong on this and don’t get it. You’re doing it again.

So he didn’t know I knew New Mexico and Wyoming weren’t rivals with Wazzou?? (As most college football fans know)

Look what the thread is called dude. It’s quite obvious I meant the PAC, him stating “not rivals” made me think he was alluding to only rivals being added which is why I brought up USU.

You still refuse chastise him on this or anything else that was utterly wrong he said because….. reasons?

It is what it is.

Yes, you misunderstood what his point was. He meant one thing, you meant another thing. And here we are. His response to "not rivals" was coming from a Washington State perspective, because his initial post was from a Washington State perspective. You were looking at things through a Pac perspective, which is fine, just not where @wazzu31 was coming from.

You responded to him, so it's ultimately on you to understand where he was coming from.