UK football is a charity case in the SEC. Truly SEC in name only. When one thinks SEC Football Kentucky never, ever comes to mind. Ever
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Here's what there is evidence of, or what's intuitive:That's not the point. You were speculating that conferences like the SEC might do that to schools like Vanderbilt and Kentucky. There simply isn't evidence they are even considering that.
Here's what there is evidence of, or what's intuitive:
And you're speculating that none of that matters to the SEC.
- Every conference, every team wants more money.
- The escalation in conference media contracts will end or at least slow down at some point.
- If you're a new conference member and you're not perceived as bringing as much to the table, you're not going to get the same share of money. And the conference members decide that.
- Along with a handful of others, LPT and Vandy are P5 football bottom feeders. And each has a long history showing that's not changing. (LPT proudly calls itself a "basketball school"...)
- The SEC has a majority of schools focused on football.
- In the interests of self-preservation, any bottom feeder will sacrifice in order to stay in a P5 conference. The alternative is college athletics suicide.
LPT Football: We'll start shining shoes and licking boots...
All I need is logic, and not a$$hat logic. Deny that everything on that list makes sense--if it hasn't already happened. Like I said, you're speculating against what is logical.Sorry, no. None of that is evidence to support your position. Not at all. That's you completely pulling something out of your ass. The SEC has not in any way, shape, or form indicated that it considering reducing payouts for Kentucky and Vanderbilt. No conference official has said that. No school president or athletic director has said that. Nobody in the media has even spoken about that. It hasn't happened, it isn't happening, and you have no evidence at all that it's going to happen in the future.
All I need is logic, and not a$$hat logic. Deny that everything on that list makes sense--if it hasn't already happened. Like I said, you're speculating against what is logical.
LPT Football: Nonsense...
Don't take it personally, but I don't believe that an interloping a$$hat knows anything without a link. If you want to make your point, bring one along. Otherwise, just an a$$hat.No, you need evidence, of which you have none.
Remember, you are the guy who won't believe anything without a link.
Don't take it personally, but I don't believe that an interloping a$$hat knows anything without a link. If you want to make your point, bring one along. Otherwise, just an a$$hat.
And in the absence of info either way, I'll speculate all I want, thank you. Like I said, my side of the debate at least makes sense.
LPT Football: Still nonsense...
Not "doing it"? The ACC didn't have a network until this week. How do you know what the SEC is "doing"? And why would they discuss it publicly?No, you side of the debate makes absolutely no sense. The SEC isn't even talking about doing it.
That will never happen because:
1) There are only a few schools would benefit or vote yes
2) The goal is to improve the conference so taking money from the programs that need it the most doesn't serve that purpose. The SEC wants Vandy and UK to be better in football
Not "doing it"? The ACC didn't have a network until this week. How do you know what the SEC is "doing"? And why would they discuss it publicly?
The Haves are taking from the Have-nots in college football every year. The next step is within-conference, and there's no better place for that to start than the SEC where the difference between best and worst teams is huge.
LPT Football: Ignorance is bliss...
I've read a few articles about the idea of the top teams consolidating the money and locking the non-performers out.
Here's one that maybe stretches reality, but it shows at least that zipp isn't the only one thinking about these possibilities.
To me, it's cynical but if there's one thing I've learned about sports, it's follow the money. If the top schools can conspire together to find a way to shut out schools like UK and UofL, keeping more or themselves, they'll do it.
Link: http://www.foxsports.com/college-fo...10-years-alabama-ohio-state-notre-dame-051616
...you don't know what the SEC is doing either. No clue at all. The difference between you and me is, you are just making up something completely out of thin air, and saying, "Prove me wrong." Sorry, doesn't work that way. You are the one making a claim without any sort of evidence to back it up, so you are the one that has to have something concrete to back it up. You can't say, "Well, you can't prove the aren't doing that." What you are doing is a classic debating fallacy, in which you are asking an opponent to prove a negative. That's a classic strategy one adopts when he can't actually prove his point with facts.
Double-M highlights an analogous piece of SPECULATION on the part of its author that has nothing but logic and intuition underpinning it as well. Namely, that the Haves will always, forevermore be seeking out systems and situations that grant them more money at the expense of the Have-nots. And the lack of hard evidence as to who is "doing it" in the present day matters not one iota.That's not what the other poster is talking about. He's saying Kentucky and Vanderbilt will still be in the SEC, but they just won't get the same payout. Again, no basis in fact for this at all. It's just a guy making up something he wants to be true, and then proclaiming his completely made up scenario to be fact.
That's not what the other poster is talking about. He's saying Kentucky and Vanderbilt will still be in the SEC, but they just won't get the same payout. Again, no basis in fact for this at all. It's just a guy making up something he wants to be true, and then proclaiming his completely made up scenario to be fact.
Double-M highlights an analogous piece of SPECULATION on the part of its author that has nothing but logic and intuition underpinning it as well. Namely, that the Haves will always, forevermore be seeking out systems and situations that grant them more money at the expense of the Have-nots. And the lack of hard evidence as to who is "doing it" in the present day matters not one iota.
[Now, I happen to think this Fox Sports writer is missing a few key considerations. A big one is that too small a group of Haves will be regulated back down to the pack of Have-nots. For example, for a state the size of Alabama, there's no chance that a majority of America is gonna look the other way while TWO of the Chosen 24 hail from the "Yellowhammer State". Indeed, that is the problem paring back much smaller than four conferences of 64 teams total. Not enough critical mass. But no one's gonna require all those 64 teams to be identically compensated, not when a handful are just sucking from the teats on the rest...]
Just different ideas on the same theme, and all of it speculative. Only an interloping a$$hat wouldn't see the commonalities.
LPT Football: #2 in Kentucky (on a good day)...
Something like what Zipp suggests could happen. Or something like what the author of the article I linked. Another possibility is having divisions and the worst performer drops down to a lower division, the best moves up, like some soccer leagues. I have no idea what will happen but I think it's very likely the top schools will try to consolidate wealth in some way, putting the squeeze on under-performing schools. Whether it's kicking a UK out of the league, demoting them to a lower division, or splitting the pot less evenly, I don't know. But eventually there's going to be some sort of correction.
I know Louisville isn't out of the woods yet depending on how deep the cuts go. That's why we can't afford to rest on our laurels, entering a new league and thinking the work is done. We have to continue trying to improve in winning, making our fanbase bigger, and financially. I trust with Jurich this will continue to happen. Hopefully we'll be positioned in a way where we'll make the next cut.
So find me where I called conference fortune-telling "fact". And take your time looking.No, I'm just calling you out for pulling stuff out of your ass and trying to pass it off as fact...
So find me where I called conference fortune-telling "fact". And take your time looking.
Other than links, the only "fact' in this thread is probably who is and who's not an a$$hat.
LPT Football: That includes us...
You're changing your a$$hat argument. Once again. You said I tried to pass off something that wasn't fact as fact. Now, you're speaking in hypotheticals because you're a true-to-form a$$hat who can't stay on course.You can't. That's the problem. You simply can't use your opinion as part of an argument until something comes out to back it up. What I'm telling you is, you're simply shit out of luck.
You're changing your a$$hat argument. Once again. You said I tried to pass off something that wasn't fact as fact. Now, you're speaking in hypotheticals because you're a true-to-form a$$hat who can't stay on course.
And I'm free to speculate here like the rest of the world does. Some interloping a$$hat isn't playing traffic cop, though he tries.
LPT Football: Did someone holler "a$$hat"?...
And find where I said that was what the SEC was planning. Find where I said that was even likely to happen. Find where I said that was even more likely to happen than any other prediction about where conference alignments and changes result....The SEC isn't planning on cutting Kentucky's pay, or Vanderbilt's. You just made it up and pulled it out of your ass...
And find where I said that was what the SEC was planning. Find where I said that was even likely to happen. Find where I said that was even more likely to happen than any other prediction about where conference alignments and changes result.
Or take the a$$hat approach and just make it up.
LPT Football: That generally works for us...
Indeed, I think that's a future dynamic in all conferences, esp. a weaker one in order to keep it together.
There's nothing set in stone that will restrict an unbalanced revenue model to NEW conference members. It can and should happen to any team siphoning off from better teams. I'd look for that to start getting serious consideration when the NCAA basketball revenue model is turned on its ear,
Here's what there is evidence of
The Haves are taking from the Have-nots in college football every year. The next step is within-conference
...The SEC isn't planning on cutting Kentucky's pay, or Vanderbilt's...
I think (?) that was the conference revenue share including all media and bowls, not just the SECN revenue.I wonder what the amount that Louisville will get from the ACCN? For example UK got like $31.2 million for the SECN..
All of those comments are simply my speculation on future events. Nowhere did I say that stuff was "happening" or that conferences were "doing it". That's your a$$hat commentary and conclusions and fabrications.
The last thing I'm gonna do is accept the logic of an a$$hat.
And you don't have a clue what the SEC is planning, nor will you be anywhere close to the first to know. You'll be trolling around like other a$$hats waiting for it.
LPT Football: He can hang out here...
tiger = a$$hat who knows nothing pointing at other people while saying they know nothing.
So, why are you here??
LPT Football: Wondering the same thing...
I'll give it a shot while this space remains a$$hat free. Deal?Here's an idea. Why don't you hold your breath while we're waiting for the SEC to stop paying Kentucky.