ADVERTISEMENT

Realignment 2022

Wow.....Devil gets his panties in a wad when facts are given to him.

And Vegas.....really? Anti-american cultist?

It appears feralfeli hit a nerve when he just pointed out the truth. THE STATES ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE LAWS! He also points out that the states laws CAN be changed if you vote different people into the state positions.....but you don't want to hear that....just keep screaming and ignore the truth.

To be clear, I am ok with abortions with restrictions. Once we have a heartbeat, we have a life and any abortion is killing that little person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dmanminer, denverutep and Rocketsr
I don't know taking away the autonomy of a woman's body seems like only POS self-righteous pricks would be OK with that. No one forced women to have abortions, but it's their right if they choose to have one(sometimes necessary). It's their body. The constitution doesn't say blowjobs are legal yet you ****s don't mind that, right? It's a privacy thing.
 
develman said:
I don't know taking away the autonomy of a woman's body seems like only POS self-righteous pricks would be OK with that. No one forced women to have abortions, but it's their right if they choose to have one(sometimes necessary). It's their body. The constitution doesn't say blowjobs are legal yet you ****s don't mind that, right? It's a privacy thing.
Click to expand...

You forgot that men can get pregnant too. 🙄
 
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: MinerFan79, Dmanminer, UTEPfan1966 and 2 others
develman said:
I don't know taking away the autonomy of a woman's body seems like only POS self-righteous pricks would be OK with that. No one forced women to have abortions, but it's their right if they choose to have one(sometimes necessary). It's their body. The constitution doesn't say blowjobs are legal yet you ****s don't mind that, right? It's a privacy thing.
Click to expand...

You're comparing a blowjob to an abortion? 🧐
 
UTEPfan1966 said:
THE STATES ARE SUPPOSED TO MAKE THE LAWS!
Click to expand...
I guess you're OK with colored only water fountains then? I've read the Constitution once and I don't see "water fountain" or "hotel" or "segregation" any where in there.

If the states make the laws and we're no longer respecting newly created rights, I'll assume the Court upheld the NY gun statute 9-0 since New Yorkers are in the best position to determine how to run their militia than some unelected people in Washington and the opinion is just a long apology for wasting people's time by taking the case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: develman
denverutep said:
So a woman can have an abortion at 8 months?
Click to expand...
YES! BTW that's a strawman argument, being "late-term" abortions are rare and happen when the woman's life is in danger or the pregnancy went wrong(stillborn).
 
STexMiner said:
I guess you're OK with colored only water fountains then? I've read the Constitution once and I don't see "water fountain" or "hotel" or "segregation" any where in there.
Click to expand...
The 14th Amendment has the Equal Protection Clause, which was supposed to guarantee colorblindness of the law. But the Supreme Court, in Plessy v Ferguson, made up the "Separate but Equal" rule out of thin air in a perfect example of judicial activism.

When the courts make crap up to arrive at a predetermined outcome, that's when troubles arise.

No, I'm not okay with segregation because it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It took an act of egregious judicial activism to circumvent that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: denverutep
It seems realignment is on hold now because of Norte Dame?
I imagine as the conferences continue to consolidate, independence will no longer be as profitable for them?
 
STexMiner said:
I guess you're OK with colored only water fountains then? I've read the Constitution once and I don't see "water fountain" or "hotel" or "segregation" any where in there.

If the states make the laws and we're no longer respecting newly created rights, I'll assume the Court upheld the NY gun statute 9-0 since New Yorkers are in the best position to determine how to run their militia than some unelected people in Washington and the opinion is just a long apology for wasting people's time by taking the case.
Click to expand...
You're kidding right? That's gotta be the dumbest comparison you could have come up with.
It the states job to make laws for their states. We elect state reps to help create these laws. Colored water fountains? Where the hell do you get this garbage? There hasn't been segregation in my entire lifetime. WTF does that have to do with the fact that states make up the laws? If a state makes a ridiculous law, it can be challenged and removed.
For the record, dude, it's no where in the constitution saying you have the right to an abortion either. Maybe read ALL of my comments before coming across like an idiot. (note: I stated I believe abortion should be legal up until a heartbeat)

I'm done with this horse....I need a drink.....peace out
 
  • Like
Reactions: colominer, Rocketsr and denverutep
develman said:
I don't know taking away the autonomy of a woman's body seems like only POS self-righteous pricks would be OK with that. No one forced women to have abortions, but it's their right if they choose to have one(sometimes necessary). It's their body. The constitution doesn't say blowjobs are legal yet you ****s don't mind that, right? It's a privacy thing.
Click to expand...
I guess the baby has no rights?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinerFan79 and denverutep
Whats clear is that without UCLA and USC, there is no way the pac can maintain their tv rights payout. The largest media marketss they can go after are San Diego, Fresno, perhaps Hawaii. MWC would have to look at the El paso market as a potential replacement no?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MinerInWisconsin
jdubb66 said:
Whats clear is that without UCLA and USC, there is no way the pac can maintain their tv rights payout. The largest media marketss they can go after are San Diego, Fresno, perhaps Hawaii. MWC would have to look at the El paso market as a potential replacement no?
Click to expand...
The Pac 12 could certainly raid the Big 12, or merge with them.
 
Football (non NCAA)
4 power conferences (64 schools) with an 8 team playoff.

4 major conferences with (66 schools) with an 8 team playoff.

Add every 2 year relegating to make it exciting
 
  • Like
Reactions: minerfan_14 and Rocketsr
axingfools1 said:
Football (non NCAA)
4 power conferences (64 schools) with an 8 team playoff.

4 major conferences with (66 schools) with an 8 team playoff.

Add every 2 year relegating to make it exciting
Click to expand...
I think there will only be two power conferences. The Big Ten and and SEC aren't expanding to share power with other power conferences. They're expanding to take over. The media rights will put those two in their own stratosphere and will be worth at least twice as much as the big 12 and PAC 12. Even in an expanded playoff (8 teams) they will want at least three teams in each if not four. Maybe 10 teams with a play in round. Even with that you have 2 mega conferences and a G8. That is if those 2 conferences don't break away completely.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kickballpro, axingfools1 and Lil_Train
FeralFelidae said:
The Pac 12 could certainly raid the Big 12, or merge with them.
Click to expand...
The talk now is that Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah are all talking to the Big 12. The Big 12 has the upper hand. If I was the Pac 12, I would either merge, or essentially it will become the MWC2.0 as CUSA did when everyone left for the Big East then the AAC after UTEP joined.
 
Rocketsr said:
The talk now is that Arizona, Arizona State, Colorado and Utah are all talking to the Big 12. The Big 12 has the upper hand. If I was the Pac 12, I would either merge, or essentially it will become the MWC2.0 as CUSA did when everyone left for the Big East then the AAC after UTEP joined.
Click to expand...
They probably have had conversations with them, but it’s too early to say the Big 12 has the upper hand. If the “Pac 10” is able and willing to stay together, they could still take BYU and add Gonzaga or SDSU and call it a day. Only until another round of team(s) leave, can you say the Big 12 has an upper hand.

It would make sense for them to merge, but why would they really want Oregon St and Washington St?

Beat case for UTEP is that the Pac 10 is able to expand and they take several MWC schools.
 
  • Like
Reactions: denverutep and MinerInWisconsin
NoNCAAWinsSince1992 said:
They probably have had conversations with them, but it’s too early to say the Big 12 has the upper hand. If the “Pac 10” is able and willing to stay together, they could still take BYU and add Gonzaga or SDSU and call it a day. Only until another round of team(s) leave, can you say the Big 12 has an upper hand.

It would make sense for them to merge, but why would they really want Oregon St and Washington St?

Beat case for UTEP is that the Pac 10 is able to expand and they take several MWC schools.
Click to expand...
Who has the better TV deal? Pac 12 looks like it may be in desperation mode because their TV deal will end in 2024, and they are going into negotiations for them soon. The Big 12 can show a new TV deal starting in 2024 that has already been signed that is worth 3 billion dollars, or 35 million over 10 years per team. That to me is the upper hand.
 
Rocketsr said:
Who has the better TV deal? Pac 12 looks like it may be in desperation mode because their TV deal will end in 2024, and they are going into negotiations for them soon. The Big 12 can show a new TV deal starting in 2024 that has already been signed that is worth 3 billion dollars, or 35 million over 10 years per team. That to me is the upper hand.
Click to expand...
They will have 12 members slated to draw from that 300 million a year. That means 25 million per team. The 35 million was the payout with 10 members. If they add four more teams that goes down to 18.75 million. That doesn't sound like the upper hand. The Big 12 won't get to renegotiate just because they add four more teams. The members of the pac-12 will be better off waiting to see what the numbers look like for their new deal before making any move. 18 million ain't great.
 
Taco1977 said:
They will have 12 members slated to draw from that 300 million a year. That means 25 million per team. The 35 million was the payout with 10 members. If they add four more teams that goes down to 18.75 million. That doesn't sound like the upper hand. The Big 12 won't get to renegotiate just because they add four more teams. The members of the pac-12 will be better off waiting to see what the numbers look like for their new deal before making any move. 18 million ain't great.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think the Pac 12 without UCLA or USC (the Los Angeles TV market) is going to get a better deal than the Big 12? Secondly, it is likely Oregon jumps ship, (all hinges on Notre Dame) then they are really left with nothing.

My guess is that if you wait around a la UTEP did when invited to the MW years ago, you are going to get stuck into a worse situation. Better to take what is in front of you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lil_Train and MineroFanatico
Rocketsr said:
Do you honestly think the Pac 12 without UCLA or USC (the Los Angeles TV market) is going to get a better deal than the Big 12? Secondly, it is likely Oregon jumps ship, (all hinges on Notre Dame) then they are really left with nothing.

My guess is that if you wait around a la UTEP did when invited to the MW years ago, you are going to get stuck into a worse situation. Better to take what is in front of you.
Click to expand...
I think the pac-12 covers a larger population base than the Big 12 the way they sit today. In that scenario I do think they will be able to get a better deal than what the Big 12 is going to be able to offer. All the pac-12 will have to do is be able to beat more than 18 million per team in TV rights. That's a fairly low bar to beat. Now if Oregon and Washington leave all bets are off at that point. I'm only talking about where the conference is stand in realignment currently today.

Any team that joins the Big 12 at this point is just diluting the per team TV payout. That contract is already signed and the ink is dry. It really would only make sense for G5 schools to join the Big 12.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Minerforlife and minerfan_14
Taco1977 said:
I think the pac-12 covers a larger population base than the Big 12 the way they sit today. In that scenario I do think they will be able to get a better deal than what the Big 12 is going to be able to offer. All the pac-12 will have to do is be able to beat more than 18 million per team in TV rights. That's a fairly low bar to beat. Now if Oregon and Washington leave all bets are off at that point. I'm only talking about where the conference is stand in realignment currently today.

Any team that joins the Big 12 at this point is just diluting the per team TV payout. That contract is already signed and the ink is dry. It really would only make sense for G5 schools to join the Big 12.
Click to expand...
The PAC 12 as of now* has much bigger brands than the Big 12. The Big 12 is a mediocre conference that did the best they could after losing their two national brands. As of now The Big 12's biggest brands are BYU, Okie State, Texas Tech and Iowa State. Nobody is paying Big $ money for those schools. UH helps with market and potential and probably has the highest ceiling of any of the schools but it won't help monetarily that much. Kansas is a name but has zero brand rating for football. TCU and Baylor are names but are small private schools who aren't bringing alot of eyeballs. To this point The Pac 12 has the better brands and dominates their markets. If Washingron and Oregon stay put ( which I don't think they will). You can build off that. Right now the PAC 12 is slightly better because the brands are better and there is no sharing markets like will have in the Big 12 with big 10 and SEC schools. The fact is both are done as "Power Conferences" Their new media deals will probably be worth a fourth of what the SEC and Big 10 will get. Right now it's The Pac 12 is slightly more attractive but that could change tommorow. It's like picking between a one leged or blind greyhound to race with. Both are done being power conferences.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Taco1977
Taco1977 said:
Any team that joins the Big 12 at this point is just diluting the per team TV payout. That contract is already signed and the ink is dry. It really would only make sense for G5 schools to join the Big 12.
Click to expand...

The Big 12 deal is up after the 24-25 season. USC and UCLA are joining at the start of that season. So any team that joins the Big 12 in 24-25 would have to go 1 year with the old tv deal. That is nothing. Not an obstacle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: techsloth, Rocketsr and Taco1977
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Parker Thune

UTEP in final two for three-star TE Isaiah Butler-Tanner after his official: "Coach Walden, he's a ball of fire"

Replies
1
Views
735
MinerDigs
MinerFan79
M
Parker Thune

UTEP angling for No. 1 class in Conference USA, trending strong for two more targets

Replies
5
Views
1K
MinerDigs
Rot
R
Parker Thune

Miners now hold the No. 1 recruiting class in Conference USA

Replies
12
Views
2K
MinerDigs
Dmanminer
D
Parker Thune

Miners expecting ten official visitors in El Paso for a major recruiting weekend

Replies
0
Views
1K
MinerDigs
Parker Thune
Parker Thune
Parker Thune

UTEP in final two for three-star TE Isaiah Butler-Tanner after his official: "Coach Walden, he's a ball of fire"

Replies
0
Views
241
The Mine Shaft
Parker Thune
Parker Thune
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back