The Athletic scoop - UNC’s secret realignment planning

[superrific]

Are you back on your trolling kick? You surely understand the reason players are moving around so much now. But, I'll take you on the face of your comments, you are against letting players have the freedoms that are afforded to their coaches, in addition to the financial freedoms. Got it.

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. None. I never took you for an idiot but there's always room to change my mind.

Their coaches do not in fact have the freedom to just change jobs when they feel like it. They are under contract -- contracts that contain buyouts, so that the coach can only move if the coach or someone else is willing to pay the buyout.

I really don't know what goes through your head when you start talking sports. It's as if your brain just mushifies all at once.

 

[stankeylegjones]

What a dumb comment? What is wrong with you? That's literally the whole issue. I guess we have to do this thing where basic principles get explained to you.

If Anne doesn't like X because of A, it means that if A ceases, she will like X. If you say that she really doesn't like X because of B, but her position doesn't change if B or not B, then her feelings toward X has nothing to do with B.

If you say that the players getting paid doesn't affect why I don't like the current situation, then you're saying that players getting paid isn't my reason at all. Which is of course the truth, and what I've been saying, and yet despite your admission you are still making the same accusation.

This is a matter of simple logic. I'm embarrassed for you that it has come to this, but here we are.

I said that you don't like that the players can get paid and have the freedom to move around. Giving everyone 1000 dollars won't change that you don't like them getting paid for their work or that they can move around (relatively) freely.

Regarding "simple logic," that's something that I understand better than most. Judging from you misunderstanding of contrapositives I'm not sure you do. But, it could have been an off night for you.

 

[stankeylegjones]

You have no fucking idea what you are talking about. None. I never took you for an idiot but there's always room to change my mind.

Their coaches do not in fact have the freedom to just change jobs when they feel like it. They are under contract -- contracts that contain buyouts, so that the coach can only move if the coach or someone else is willing to pay the buyout.

I really don't know what goes through your head when you start talking sports. It's as if your brain just mushifies all at once.

I see you missed the point, again. You're fine with coaches moving freely from one team to the next. (Do you think they're paying their own buyout when they do move???)

 

[stankeylegjones]

I say you're trolling because a lot of your comments don't seem to come from someone of your self-proclaimed high level of education and intelligence...perhaps I'm wrong, and you're not really trolling.

 

[superrific]

I said that you don't like that the players can get paid and have the freedom to move around. Giving everyone 1000 dollars won't change that you don't like them getting paid for their work or that they can move around (relatively) freely.

Regarding "simple logic," that's something that I understand better than most. Judging from you misunderstanding of contrapositives I'm not sure you do. But, it could have been an off night for you.

You struggle with circularity. Let me try to explain this ever more simply.

1. I said nothing about players getting paid.
2. You inferred that I have an issue with players getting paid because I complained about the inconstancy of college sports. One of those aspects was the way rosters can turn over 100% in any given year -- something that is not possible in any other sports league I've ever watched.
3. I said it has nothing to do with players getting paid. If they were paid $1 or $1K or $1M, I still wouldn't like the fact that nothing is constant. If a person's views on B isn't modified by whether A is true or not true, then you can't say that A is a cause of B. You just can't.
4. You recognize that my position doesn't depend on players getting paid.
5. Now we're back to #1 and you think you've made some sort of point?

All along, you drew an inference that was not there. Period. Full stop. You've admitted that the reasoning behind the inference is false. Yet you continue with the accusation. On what basis? None.

Why do you do this? You're just randman at this point.

 

[superrific]

I see you missed the point, again. You're fine with coaches moving freely from one team to the next. (Do you think they're paying their own buyout when they do move???)

They are paying their own buyout. Good lord. You really don't know how anything works.

Here's a clue: you're paying the employer portion of SS tax. It comes in the form of a lower salary. So too with a coach. If not for the buyout, there would be more competition for the coach and the coach could command a higher salary. Why do you think the buyout even exists? Because administrators like to jack off?

I'm done with this conversation. It's beneath me. You are making no sense at all. Everything you have said is false. At least when Calla says stupid shit, it's about something important.

 

[stankeylegjones]

You struggle with circularity. Let me try to explain this ever more simply.

1. I said nothing about players getting paid.
2. You inferred that I have an issue with players getting paid because I complained about the inconstancy of college sports. One of those aspects was the way rosters can turn over 100% in any given year -- something that is not possible in any other sports league I've ever watched.
3. I said it has nothing to do with players getting paid. If they were paid $1 or $1K or $1M, I still wouldn't like the fact that nothing is constant. If a person's views on B isn't modified by whether A is true or not true, then you can't say that A is a cause of B. You just can't.
4. You recognize that my position doesn't depend on players getting paid.
5. Now we're back to #1 and you think you've made some sort of point?

All along, you drew an inference that was not there. Period. Full stop. You've admitted that the reasoning behind the inference is false. Yet you continue with the accusation. On what basis? None.

Why do you do this? You're just randman at this point.

No need to try to simplify any further, it was already broken down as far as it (basically) can be. You complained about players moving around. It's clear to (almost) everyone the reason they move around. You then tried to through in a condition to give yourself room to wiggle out of what you said. It's clear to (almost) everyone that your further condition has no bearing on your personal beliefs - you still won't like it if players move around, and they would continue to do so if they were able to get a more fair share of the revenue they generate. This is obvious to (almost) everyone. It's clear to (almost) everyone that you have an issue with players trying to gain compensation from their work.

What is now clear to me is that you're right, you are not trolling. You simply can't see what your comments at the time implied, and now that you do, you can't just admit that you misspoke/mistyped and move on. You double-down, triple-down, trying to bring in arguments from logic, in attempts to gain freedom from your original comments. (As an aside, you could use more time studying the principles of logic and logical arguments.) But, unlike our current collegiate-athletics model (thankfully), you can't. You're stuck with your beliefs.

At the end of the day, you're entitled to not like college sports because it resembles the minor leagues to you, with all of the players moving around for better contracts. I don't understand why you just can't accept that, and own it. But that's you, I guess. And for me, it's clear that you've had a struck nerve, so, before taking it to the point that you go and punch a wall, again, I'll chill and let you do your thing. Before I leave, I do want to acknowledge the clear amount of time you've put into your studies of writing, as you are a good writer, and to point out a few words that might have slipped through your endless hours of study: humble, self-aware, self-reflective, and honest - you never know, you might open up a whole new world once you understand their meanings. Enjoy your evening super.

 

[SnoopRob]

I know Jack about the law but could t you argue the idiots who signed the deal were acting in the best interest of the conference and not the school and for that reason didn’t perform their duties properly and the contract is toast.
Or pay the 150 million.

1. There's no way that argument would stand up in court. IANAL, but the university presidents are not dumb people nor did any of them sign without their university's legal counsel reviewing the agreement. There's no way your argument would work.

2. It's not $150m, it's an unknown number approaching $150m PLUS your media rights stay with the ACC until the GOR expires. The entire cost is estimated to be between $600-$700m for a school to leave.

 

[stankeylegjones]

They are paying their own buyout. Good lord. You really don't know how anything works.

Here's a clue: you're paying the employer portion of SS tax. It comes in the form of a lower salary. So too with a coach. If not for the buyout, there would be more competition for the coach and the coach could command a higher salary. Why do you think the buyout even exists? Because administrators like to jack off?

I'm done with this conversation. It's beneath me. You are making no sense at all. Everything you have said is false. At least when Calla says stupid shit, it's about something important.

I didn't see this until after I posted before. As I signed off before, I'll keep this one short. Your first "paragraph" makes zero sense to what you're commenting on. Maybe read what I said again. I can appreciate the attempt at insults to distract one from your missteps, even if that move has been played out for a while now.

Glad to hear you are done with the conversation. That's at least better than continuing to try to wiggle out.

 

[SnoopRob]

We have no legal route to "decamp" until 2036, unless and until (1) FSU and/or Clemson succeed in their lawsuits (which I think is unlikely), or (2) we are prepared to make a massive (likely crippling) financial outlay to the other ACC schools.

The "smart" rumors seem to suggest that around 2030 the remaining costs to exit the conference will get low enough and the gap between the ACC and P2 will get large enough that it will make sense for schools to leave pending a deal with a P2 conference. It's unlikely that a school will actually forgo their actual media rights and will likely negotiate a settlement that agrees to monetary damages to the ACC in exchange to a release from the GOR.

 

[superrific]

(As an aside, you could use more time studying the principles of logic and logical arguments.)

Said nobody ever about me. As for what people can see, look at how many thumbs up my post got. Are they also player haters? Or does that apply just to me for reasons you can't explain?

I am a great writer. I know you're trying to poke at me with faint praise, but I'm also a better thinker than you. Do you really doubt my bio? How exactly does a mere "good writer" know most of the Supreme Court cases decided in the last decade and a half. There's not a lawyer here who doubts my bona fides. Everyone who knows anything can see that I know what I'm talking about.

Well, you don't get to be a law professor by being unable to reason. The law professoriate is a bit strange. On the one hand, actual credentials aren't very important; you don't need more than a law degree to teach, and often people get jobs at Ivies coming out a clerkship with no experience. On the other hand, it's highly selective. The vast majority of professors graduated at the top of their classes at a handful of law schools: Harvard, Yale, Columbia, NYU, Stanford, U of M and to a lesser extent Penn and Berkeley. Yes, I graduated from one of those. And you know how you get accepted to schools like that? It isn't by being an idiot. I got a perfect score on the LSAT. That doesn't mean much, and I wish schools used LSATs less than they do. However, you cannot get a 180 on the LSAT by being unable to reason.

As for humility, I mean just GTFOH. For some reason, you've decided that you know what I think better than I do, and you declared war. So be it. It's going to be King Arthur fighting the Black Knight. You're going to whine and moan and deflect and come back with bullshit endlessly like randman, hoping to cover up the fact that you've got neither legs nor arms. I've been through this dance before.

 

[superrific]

I didn't see this until after I posted before. As I signed off before, I'll keep this one short. Your first "paragraph" makes zero sense to what you're commenting on. Maybe read what I said again. I can appreciate the attempt at insults to distract one from your missteps, even if that move has been played out for a while now.

Glad to hear you are done with the conversation. That's at least better than continuing to try to wiggle out.

You said "do you think they are paying their own buyout when they move?" The answer is yes, and it's not a matter of dispute. Economics is apparently something else you don't know anything about, because this is a settled question. Since I taught corporate law and corporate finance, and wrote professionally on executive compensation, I know the literature. It's also common sense.

You probably think consumers don't bear the burden of tariffs. It's the same thing.

The idea that I'm attempting to distract, when your position keeps shifting and your justifications changing and your arguments increasingly confused -- I mean, it's risible. That's a synonym for laughable, by the way. And LOL also at the idea that I'm using insults here. You fucking started a flame war with me, unprovoked, with no sense at it all. Now that it went so poorly for you, and you were humiliated (completely foreseeable), you're trying to project all of your bullshit to me. In the end, you're no better than a MAGA. An arrogant, clueless, unreasonable, projection machine.

 

[stankeylegjones]

That’s an awful lot of self-praise, combined with a lot of self-infatuation (and probably masturbation), and self-defense for a conversation that “is beneath” you.

Clearly a nerve has been struck by pointing out the obvious implications in what you wrote, in addition to a few of your inadequacies.

1. Don’t punch a wall. Full stop.
2. Go enjoy your evening.

 

[Centerpiece]

Your statements here, combined with your posts about athletes being overpaid, makes it seem like your issue is with players being compensated for their work.

You seem to draw petty conclusions reading between lines.

See what I did there?

 

[OGtruthhurts]

super sounding like braggadocious donald dump lmmfao but at least he is leader of the free world and you are bragging on an irrelevant internet messageboard.

i assure you that you are a nobody just like everyone else on this tiny pebble. you will be just like everybody else when you die and become a fart in the wind. go figure.....the almighty superific will die just like someone who was given by no choice a lowly 60 iq.

theres not one ounce of importance in your being. im certain your life has been full of crutches regardless which is as weak and simple-minded as life gets.

 

[rodoheel]

The "smart" rumors seem to suggest that around 2030 the remaining costs to exit the conference will get low enough and the gap between the ACC and P2 will get large enough that it will make sense for schools to leave pending a deal with a P2 conference. It's unlikely that a school will actually forgo their actual media rights and will likely negotiate a settlement that agrees to monetary damages to the ACC in exchange to a release from the GOR.

Yes, that's option 2 in my post, and you're right that the number needed to get out will get smaller the closer we get to 2036. I just want people to understand that the number it would take at this moment is likely not possible for UNC to manage.

 

[wmheel1287]

Yes, that's option 2 in my post, and you're right that the number needed to get out will get smaller the closer we get to 2036. I just want people to understand that the number it would take at this moment is likely not possible for UNC to manage.

It's not possible for us to manage. To me, the case has to be made to ESPN that we (and anyone else in the league they value) only remain valuable as television products if we escape the ACC. It is up to ESPN to break that grant of rights. That's the only way out...and it's a hell of a hail mary.

 

[rodoheel]

It's not possible for us to manage. To me, the case has to be made to ESPN that we (and anyone else in the league they value) only remain valuable as television products if we escape the ACC. It is up to ESPN to break that grant of rights. That's the only way out...and it's a hell of a hail mary.

ESPN just picked up the option through 2036 - there's no "breaking" the GOR by them now. Not picking up the option was the only thing they could have done that would have mattered. And it never made any financial sense for ESPN to engineer an outcome where it pays more for our TV rights than it already does. ESPN has no interest in playing favorites - if we fall off while SEC teams rise, ESPN wins anyway.