Smoke your cigars and enjoy the band while you can....

[Katpappy]

Big XII Crocodiles 

HELLO, WE ARE THE KANSAS STATE DOBERMANS OF THE CROCODILE LEAGUE. NICE TO EAT YOU.

I'll take a dish of Clemson with a side helping of Florida State. 

[Panjandrum]

That Boneyard thread is very interesting.

On page 3, the valuation guy posted the following:

When "Texas to the Pac-10" rumors started swirling in 2010, it's b/c Texas was seriously at the precipice of jumping to the Pac-10. When "Texas to the Pac-12" rumors ramped up again in 2011, it was ESPN trying to drum up pressure to get the ACC to accept Texas and the LHN. But, if you really must see a "link" to believe it..............

So, ESPN guided Pitt and Syracuse to the ACC, and they were trying to get Texas to join the ACC as well.  My assumption is that the end goal would have been to make ND #16.

It's ironic that after all of that the ACC is now the weakest conference.

Further down the line:

The other dynamic at play is that if the Big XII brings in 2 more teams, be they FSU & Clemson or others, they'll be able to reap the rewards of a conference championship game. And still further, the addition of 2 more teams opens back up the conference's Fox Sports contract, which is well undervalued, b/c it was signed in haste to raise the conference's payout to prevent further defections. Their FSN contract has a "fair market value" clause in it, which will allow the conference to get a fair market value if the contract is reopened. This clause is not present in the SEC or ACC's contracts, which is why they won't get the bump in payout that they would on an open market.

At this point, I'm praying to God this happens.

[Panjandrum]

Ah, Hell, I'm just going to post all of this guy's good crap.  Mods, can we get him to post here somehow?

First, let me say, I have worked for (been on teams that did valuations for) ESPN/ABC many, many, many times. But, the only major conferences we've been hired directly by are the Big XII, SEC, and Big Ten. When you work with the conferences, you work with the Presidents & ADs, which allows you insight into individual schools & the conference. Since I've never worked with the ACC, I don't have a direct connection to FSU, Clemson, etc. But, I hear a lot through work. And, since I have worked with the Big XII, I maintain professional friendships in the Big XII office and w/in several teams.

Per people in the Big XII office, there won't be any movement until there is a new commissioner hired by the Big XII. No school with options is going to jump in bed w/ a conference that doesn't have a commissioner, b/c the commissioner establishes the conference's vision and direction, maintains order, advances the conference's mission, leads all TV discussions, etc. As is documented, one of the biggest gripes by teams in the ACC is they feel it's an NC-centric conference that caters to the NC schools and the basketball schools, all at the expense of the football schools. The entire reason the ACC schools initially would be interested in hearing from one of the major conferences is b/c of their disdain for Commissioner Swofford. So, WHO the commissioner is, and WHAT he stands for is very important to those school.

This is somewhat of an aside, but informally, some of the things FSU has complained about in discussions w/ Big XII unofficial representatives is the ACC's seemingly intentional efforts to make football success difficult for the non-NC schools. A couple of examples: Every season, FSU asks the ACC to either schedule their bye week the week before the Florida game, or allow them to schedule an OOC opponent, so they can have a pre-Florida cup cake. Instead, the ACC always schedules a conference game for FSU the week before their annual Florida game. And, every other year, they schedule an away game to the far NE the week before. This year they were at home before Florida, but last year, they were @ Maryland the week before the Florida game. On the flip side, the SEC allows Florida to schedule an OOC game the week before the FSU game. They use that game to schedule a cup cake: Furman, Citadel, Appalachian State, Florida Atlantic, and Florida International are the 5 most recent pre-FSU games they've played. So, FSU is put at a competitive disadvantage. They play a tough opponent, half the time an away game, while Florida rests their starters against a cup cake at home.

Another example they've given is that EVERY YEAR, the ACC schedules a Thursday away game for them (never a home game). Half the time, they're given a bye before their Thursday game, and half the time they aren't. Last year, they played NC State at home, then turned around and flew 1,200 to play BC 5 days later. Conversely, North Carolina plays Thursday games every other year (at most), and they are ALWAYS given a bye week before their Thursday game. So, any ACC school that is truly interested is going to do their due diligence and make sure the conference will be balanced w/ regards to representation, and that the commissioner will work on behalf of the league, not individual teams.

In addition several schools have expressed reservations about the length of the consignment of each schools TV rights to the conference. They would like to see it extended beyond 6 years. I haven't heard otherwise, but I can't imagine any of the teams would have an issue w/ this if they're getting a high caliber team in return.

Once a commissioner is in place, they'll have more substantive discussions w/ the teams they're interested in, and are likewise interested in them. Like I said previously, I don't know if the Big XII has made formal contact w/ any team, but I do know they have informally (i.e. through unofficial channels, so they can't get burned by Freedom of Information Act requests). Unofficially, Clemson is very interested. Miami is very interested. Florida State is mildly interested. Georgia Tech isn't interested. Louisville is obviously beating down the door for an invite. Cincy is VERY interested (but has almost no chance). BYU is very interested. Pitt is mildly interested. Arkansas is faintly interested (that might surprise some people). VA Tech, NC State, and Maryland are all on the list, but I don't know if contact has been made with them.

[Panjandrum]

    The only way the ACC could make as much money as the Big XII, SEC, Big Ten, and Pac-12 is if (a) they signed Notre Dame, or (b) a number of teams took huge steps forward to being regular national championship contenders. The ACC has a great footprint. Unfortunately, the further north you go in their footprint, the less and less people watch college football. But, they've just locked in a new contract for 12 years, starting this football season. So, any improvement they make as a conference (product on the field wise) won't be represented in their TV revenue until the 2024/25 season, which is when their next contract would start. So, they have to sign someone big in order to move the needle on their contract. They already screwed the pooch with Texas, and none of the SEC or Big Ten teams are going to move over. And, they've shown an unwillingness to compromise on academics (though WVU darn near got enough votes for acceptance). So, it's either Notre Dame or bust.

[Panjandrum]

    progrocks said: ?

        Fromtheinside, do you know why big 10 chose Nebraska over Mizzu? Mizzu seemed more of a natural fit and they were begging for entrance. Nebraska came out of nowhere in my mind.

    Missouri's fan support and TV #s are p-a-t-h-e-t-i-c!!! Despite being in a heavily populated state, Nebraska destroys them in TV #s. Even Kansas beats them in TV #s. In the Big XII, Texas, A&M, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, and Kansas all surpassed them. And some seasons, so did Oklahoma State and Iowa State. In addition, as the guy above me said, Nebraska is a far more prestigious program. What the Big Ten needed (and wants) was more competition at the top-end of their conference. That's one area where they've seriously lagged the last decade. I think most expect the days of Nebraska competing for championships to be over. But, they should be an annual top 25 team. Missouri, despite a couple flashes in the pan, has only had 5 ranked teams in their 16 year Big XII history, and has missed the post-season 6x. Nebraska's been ranked 11x, and has missed the post-season just twice. The only thing Missouri has going for it is a better basketball program (which has also been spotty - 2 top 25 teams in 16 years) and academics.

[Panjandrum]

    First, you have to know something about Gene........he is one of the most insecure, Napoleon-esque complex guys you'll ever meet. Very few people like him. I honestly think he'd die if he went 3 minutes without mocking someone or belittling someone through sarcasm. Second, he carries a big chip on his shoulder and an over-inflated sense of self-worth. Every bit of what he said was for the purpose of (a) making BC seem a lot more important than the are, and (b) kicking UConn while they were down. The only thing he said that was spot on was that ESPN was (to an extent) driving the boat. People actually read too much into that comment though, b/c it would be illogical to think they wouldn't at least have a hand on the steering wheel. You're not going to haul off and expand w/o getting insight from the very person who pays your bills.

    This actually ties into ND, which I've mentioned ad nauseum. ESPN does not want to miss out on the opportunity to control ND's tv rights. So, they absolutely were giving direction as to whom to go after and whom not to. My commentary about the ACC expanding w/ Notre Dame in mind was not meant to imply it was one unified voice, but rather that's the voice that won out. There are plenty of programs that couldn't care jack diddly squat about ND joining the ACC. But, with ESPN's direction, they were building a case for ND. Why do you think ESPN decided against West Virginia? WVU has better TV #s, better fan support, and a wider geographic TV representation than Pitt or Syracuse. Yeah, a lot of people like to say academics, and that certainly was a strike against them. But, WVU doesn't get ND. Neither does Rutgers. Neither does Louisville. Neither does Kansas (who practically threw themselves at the ACC in 2010 - behind closed doors of course). I'm not going to say there weren't other factors that were considered beyond simply ND. But, they were the primary focus. And yes, it is my opinion, but I do believe, based on what I've seen and heard, had UConn had a long-term series with ND instead of Syracuse, they would have gotten the extra votes instead of Syracuse. ND was used a discussion point in their meetings, and it certainly was a focus of ESPN's POV.

    As for Pitt, I don't know if they were in the original discussion or not, b/c we weren't brought in until after they'd already settled on which teams to do feasibility studies on. But I do know that Pitt was headed to the Big XII with WVU (tentatively) up until Boren (the OU pres) developed diarrhea of the mouth around Aug/Sept '11. The Big XII had been working that one hard. But, once Boren come out about forming a committee to look into leaving the Big XII w/o Texas, that killed Pitt & the Big XII. They then reached out to the ACC themselves. Where they initially ranked in all of this, I don't know.

    As for the ACC wanting Syracuse 8 years ago...........you're right. But, a lot changes in 8 years. 8 years ago, Syracuse was coming off of a NC in basketball, and had had 9 ranked teams over the previous decade and a half in football. They'd won 3 conference championships over the prior half-decade, and had had multiple top 10 teams. They were cranking! But, fast forward and UConn, who'd been a nobody, is all of a sudden a growing force in the BE, and Syracuse is one of the worst football programs in college football. There are a lot of reason to pick UConn over Syracuse. So then, why did they get the nod over UConn? There is no plausible answer. TVs aren't better. Regional dominance isn't better. Fan support isn't better. On field & on court production isn't better. (Heck, Syracuse hasn't won the BE in basketball in 7 years, 6 at the time.) The tipping point from what I understand, was ND. BC has one vote. DeFilippo's comments about stopping UConn from coming into the conference were a lot like a scrawny nerd saying he stopped a burglar, all the while ignoring his dad standing behind him w/ a sawed off shotgun.

    Also, ESPN's desire was to kill off the BE, then they'd have told the ACC to grab UConn and Rutgers (or WVU). But, they baited the hook for ND, then stepped back and waited. Nothing more, nothing less. Now, fwiw, I do think (and this part is opinion) that when the BE decided to try to play other networks off ESPN to drive up the price of their contract, that ESPN didn't like the idea of paying that much $$$ for that much dead weight. And, no matter how you want to spin it, you have to admit, there's a lot of dead weight in the BE. DePaul, Providence, and Seton Hall all add very, very, very little value to the BE's contract (and there are a couple more you could add to that as well). Teams would actually make more $$$ individually just by cutting them. From a financial perspective, it certainly makes sense to support the ACC's desire to take a few teams from the BE, b/c you can take the cream from the BE, pay a little more to the ACC, and ding the BE significantly due to the loss of value. Plus, it totally undermined the BE's negotiating power. Whomever ends up signing the BE will sign them for pennies on the dollar (on a per team basis). Those 3 losses will be pretty significant financially. But, the MO wasn't to kill off the BE, but rather strengthen their only fully in house brand, the ACC. The icing on top is just that ESPN will end up spending a lot less for the new ACC/BE than they would the old ACC/BE.

[Panjandrum]

[Sigh.] Those numbers are from Nielson.........you know, the company that tracks TV trends & viewership nationwide. They are provided w/in the industry on a daily basis, and are currently sitting on my computer in pdf form. If other websites are regurgitating them, then that's where they came from. I would imagine they were leaked from Nielson's recent year-end report on the state of sports viewership, which is where I got them from.

As for the #s themselves, they represent the average number of viewers for each conference (divided out by sport). My apologies for not stating that in my previous post. The SEC averaged 4.45M viewers per football game. That is NOT 9% of the US population.

As for the Big XII's contract...........I am amazed that for someone who's so hell bent on disproving who I am, you know so little about network sports contracts. For Tier 1 & Tier 2 programing, the market a team is in has minimal impact on the overall value that team has to a network contract. The most important variable is two-part: (a) the number of markets tuned in, and (b) the number of sets turned on. There is an algorithm that looks at total markets, total sets, national market share, regional market share, and length of viewership (i.e. how long someone has the TV tuned into the game). Colorado is and has been, dead weight for the Big XII. It doesn't matter that they're "in" the Denver market. Fans don't tune in. In the 6 years I've been at my job, they have never ranked higher than 8th in TV viewership in the Big XII. Their value to the Pac-12 was simply that while CU doesn't turn on sets, there are a ton of Californians in Colorado who would tune in to watch Pac-12 games. And, when Pac-12 games are on, CO isn't a state that gets Pac-12 coverage (unless there isn't a competing Big XII game). So, CU gives them entrance into a market they wouldn't always have otherwise.

Missouri was similar to Colorado in that they are not very popular in their home DMA. And, that's one of the reason they weren't amongst the SEC's top 10 choices for expansion. But, their fans do tune in significantly better than do CU's fans. And, it's a market that SEC games often aren't broadcast in when up against Big XII games (same as the Pac-12 and CO before adding CU). So, they expand the conference's viewership footprint.

The Big XII didn't "lose" any major markets, they simply lost priority coverage in St. Louis & Denver, and the viewers each team drew. The two big losses were actually Nebraska and Texas A&M. Nebraska's fans would watch anything Big XII related. So, even when Nebraska wasn't playing in the game on TV, they'd tune in. It's one of the reasons they're such a valuable entity. A&M was similar, but more watered down. That's largely b/c being a Nebraska fan is a matter of birth, while being an A&M fan is more a matter of having attended college there. So, there are far more Nebraska fans than A&M fans, despite the fact that A&M is in a larger state. FWIW, West Virginia out draws all of the teams the Big XII lost, except for Nebraska. Now, what we won't know until they start playing in the Big XII is if there is any cross-marketing; meaning, if WVU isn't playing, whether their fans will tune in. That's what makes Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and to a lesser extent, A&M so valuable to a TV contract......b/c you're not just getting their fans when they're on the TV, you're getting their fans when any quality Big XII game is on the TV (this is also why the SEC & Big Ten dominate, b/c they're fans are even more rabid in their viewership). TCU, is much like Boise State in that they actually draw decently well on a national scale, but not as strong regionally. That's due in large part b/c of the novelty factor that successful mid-majors present. If TCU performs poorly (same with BSU), their viewership will tank, b/c they don't have large fan bases. So, TCU could be a better draw than CU & Missouri, but could also be worse. In the end, the Big XII lost in terms of "value added" to their TV contract........just not as much as you'd expect.

And dude, seriously, stop running around trying to grasp onto anything you can to justify branding me a fraud. A week before it happened, I posted on this board how much the Big XII would get out of their ABC/ESPN deal, and what the total payout would be per team. Do you think I just "guessed" right? Come on! Babe Ruth would have applauded calling that shot. Yet, you still are grasping at straws, trying to find some way to distort & contort my words, so you can make yourself believe I don't know what I'm talking about, so thereby, your own theories/logic won't be proven faulty. Do you really think some guy off the street would know as much, and have as much insight into sports network contracts, valuations, etc as I have? If it wouldn't get me in hot water, I'd gladly give you deeper insight and information, all of which could corroborate who I am and what I do for a living. But, that's not going to happen. So, rather than taking every post I make and trying to twist it into something it's not, how about you engage in actual dialog. I've thrown insight after insight after you, and repeatedly you ignore the meat of my posts and toss back some sort of fraud reference.

[Panjandrum]

From a value standpoint to a conference, BYU would be a no brainer for any conference in the country. They have strong TV #s, though it's largely concentrated in the pacific & mountain time zones. They have strong football & basketball attendance. Their athletic revenue is excellent. If BYU were in Kentucky, the Big XII, SEC, and ACC would be fighting to add them. The only things working against them are geography & having a reputation as more self-focused than conference-focused. As a fan, I'd like to see them in the Big XII. But, they'll have to decide they're in it for the Big XII, rather than themselves.

Houston has great potential to be a high-caliber addition to any conference. But, the reason TCU was added had nothing to do with TCU vs Houston, and everything to do with Big XII vs SEC. The SEC was starting to court TCU, and there was no way the Big XII could allow the SEC to get a foothold into East Texas and the Dallas metroplex. Texas, Baylor, Tech, Oklahoma, and OSU were all unanimous in adding TCU to prevent the SEC from getting them. There is a chance Houston could be added down the road if they prove themselves to be truly serious about building an elite athletic program. But, for years and years, they neglected to invest in their programs. And, the results were proven on the field. I think Houston's had something like 1 ranked team in football or basketball over the last 20 years. That's neither here nor there, b/c at the end of the day, TCU was a defensive maneuver. The original goal was BYU and one other. When they got too big for their britches, it became WVU & Pitt. When Pitt wavered due to the league's uncertainty & the SEC started visiting Ft. Worth to talk expansion, the Big XII turned their focus to defending their stake in the Metroplex.

[Panjandrum]

NEforceUConn said: ?

    Inside - I firmly believed that the ACC expanded by 2 to invoke the ESPN renegotiate clause and at the time they believed each team would get about $5m more (with SyraPitt getting a diluted share). Now that we see that the number may by just $1.7m and the ACC had to lenghten the contract and throw in some tier rights (I think that's correct) aren't they pissed? I hope your firm was not involved with the ACC and estimated $5m (not trying to be cute). I do know, quite reliably, that $5m was the number talked about. What a miscalculation and FSU and Clemson who agreed to the much higher $20m exit fee have to be even more upset that their yearly take only goes up by $1.7m

No, as I've said throughout this thread, we did the valuations for ESPN. The ACC actually kept their valuations internal (smh). I don't know anything about them expecting to get a $5M bump, but if so, that's pretty sad. To assume you'd get $5M from Pitt & Syracuse, you'd have to value both programs at $70M per year.........b/c $70M divided by 14 teams is $5 year per team.

FWIW, FSU & Clemson (amongst others) talked the ACC down to $20M from the $34M exit fee they were trying to pass.

[Panjandrum]

Regarding point #4, Schulz and Currie are Goddamn visionaries.

sooner85 said: ?

    FromTheInside:

    Sooner/ B12 fan here. Interested on your take on the following questions (secondarily relevant to UConn fans, given possible impacts on ACC):

    1. Whether 2012 valuations are doing any discounting of B12 due to perceived instability, or is that perception no longer a factor?

    2. If the selection of the next B12 commissioner is linchpin in B12 expansion success, who moves the needle the most: ND AD Jack Swarbrick, Conf. USA Commissioner Britton Banowsky, NCCA guru Greg Shaheen or former NBC Sports Chairman Dick Ebersol?

    3. Regarding tier III rights, why would an OU game that Fox did not in previous years select for tier II broadcast and which would then fall to PPV status, now become attractive enough to pay to put on FSW or FOK? In other words, how does Fox’s valuation of Oklahoma’s available games differ from that of Learfield Sports, so as to justify paying more for the new deal to put OU content on Fox regional networks?

    4. Regarding tier III rights, how are valuations done for agreements to carry games on the internet, such as the K-State model? And do you see this type of model becoming profitable for schools with available tier III rights, in the foreseeable future?

    5. Do you have any information whether the ABC/ESPN-B12 tier I contract extension requires the B12 schools to extend their assignment of media rights to the conference for the duration of the extension, or at least beyond the current six year period?

    6. You stated in the other thread that the new B12 tier I contract has provisions for increasing the payout, if certain schools are added to the conference. You also speculated on who the B12 is or may be approaching. Are all of these schools included in the contract clause, and are there any more included that you did not mention? (Louisville and BYU are notably absent).

(1) We do the valuations, but we're not involved in the negotiations. So, I don't know if ESPN applied anything like that to our numbers. But, I said on page 1, nearly a week before the contract was announced that the ABC/ESPN contract would put the Big XII in the $19M - $23M payout range, and they came in towards the lower end of my expectations. So, there doesn't appear to have been any discounting. And, I never got the sense that ESPN considered the Big XII to be unstable. Once their TV rights were assigned to the conference, they were locked in. And, I know that members are open to the idea of extending that granting of rights if need be.

(2) I really have no idea on who moves the needle the most with regards to the next Big XII commissioner. I haven't heard anything with regards to who's being interviewed or how those candidates are perceived by potential target programs, etc.

(3) There are a lot of reasons why an OU game that would get passed on by FSN for Tier 2 would suddenly have value as a Tier 3 program. But, you have to understand Tier 2 contracts. They are not for "all" games not selected by a conference's Tier 1 partner. They're for a set number of games. And, every conference has stipulation on how many games the provider must select from each university. So, as is/was the case with a handful of OU games each year, there are games that are passed from almost every university......not b/c the Tier 2 partner doesn't want to broadcast them, but b/c they can only broadcast so many games, and they have to broadcast a certain # of games from every program. If they didn't do that, then smaller drawing teams like Baylor would never make it on TV, and that would put them at a competitive disadvantage. Tier 3 broadcasts have a lot of value, and it isn't very hard to turn a serious profit. Take the OU contact for instance. They're going to provide FSN with 1,000 - 1,500 hours of programing a year. Because the number of hours are huge, it doesn't take a ton of ad revenue to make a serious profit.

(4) Internet based media valuations are almost always done in house, b/c the formula is much more simplistic. You generally have a straight-forward subscription based service + targeted ad placements - operating costs, which are generally minimal. Internet based Tier 3 programing is a very profitable model, b/c it doesn't require carrier negotiations (ala DirecTV, etc). It's hard for me to imagine a time when we watch TV on the internet. But, w/ the direction of technology & the continuing increase in computer screens, I could easily see this type model being highly lucrative in 5 years or so. Just think about it.......if you sold 50k subs for $5/mo, you're looking at $3M/yr in revenue, not counting ad revenue. It's not hard to imagine a day when technology allows the internet to be monetized to a significant degree w/ regards to Tier 3 broadcasts.

(5) I don't believe the ABC/ESPN contract requires an extension of their assignment of their TV rights. But, I do know that the topic has been discussed, especially if the Big XII moves forward w/ expansion plans (an extension is something FSU has mentioned as wanting in conversations w/ unofficial Big XII representatives).

(6) I do not know with certainty which schools are on the list. But, the schools that I know are of interest to the Big XII are: FSU, Clemson, GA Tech, Miami, NC State, VA Tech, Maryland, Pitt, Louisville, Arkansas, and BYU. That doesn't mean there aren't more, or that all of them would be considered acceptable expansion targets. But, I know they have come up during internal Big XII meetings/discussions. There are others that have as well, such as Cincy & Rutgers, but not w/ as much fanfare.

[Houstoncat93]

I agree we need to get that guy over here

[bws]

Yeah that thread is good stuff and required reading if you are at all interested in this.

You never know if stuff like that is accurate, but if that guy is lying, he's pretty good at it.

[Katpappy]

Pan, you're a true FB fan.  Thanks for all the info. 

[Deez Nutz]

That crap was already quoted six posts ago there, pc5k.  You need to pull your head out of your ass.   

[pc5k]

That crap was already quoted six posts ago there, pc5k.  You need to pull your head out of your ass.   

sorry dood, removed

[TheHamburglar]

I'm posting this because I don't think I've seen it anywhere else in this thread.

Here are the details of the $9MM that the Big12 gave to WVU for their Big East buyout.  For 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 WVU will get a perctage of Big12 per team payout (50, 67, 84 respectively).  Beginning in 2015-2016 WVU will start getting full shares, however from 2015-2016 thru 2019-2020 WVU will have to pay back the Big12 $1MM per year.  So basically the $9MM was a $4MM gift and a $5MM no-interest loan that is repaid in years 4-8.

[Katpappy]

I'm posting this because I don't think I've seen it anywhere else in this thread.

Here are the details of the $9MM that the Big12 gave to WVU for their Big East buyout.  For 2012-2013, 2013-2014, and 2014-2015 WVU will get a perctage of Big12 per team payout (50, 67, 84 respectively).  Beginning in 2015-2016 WVU will start getting full shares, however from 2015-2016 thru 2019-2020 WVU will have to pay back the Big12 $1MM per year.  So basically the $9MM was a $4MM gift and a $5MM no-interest loan that is repaid in years 4-8.

Now if we could only make MU pay for this as a penalty for leaving the Big XII on short notice.

[BMWWcat]

Remeber when those butthurt Texans were sooo afraid a tornado would hit the NBAF and they thought their proposal near San Antonio would be sooo much safer:

http://gma.yahoo.com/tornado-hits-san-antonio-severe-weather-rattles-south-081802531--abc-news.html


Hopefully they quit screwing around and get the funding to build it.
I apologize if this was the wrong thread for this, thought that we had talked about the NBAF in this one.

[0.42]

Remeber when those butthurt Texans were sooo afraid a tornado would hit the NBAF and they thought their proposal near San Antonio would be sooo much safer:

http://gma.yahoo.com/tornado-hits-san-antonio-severe-weather-rattles-south-081802531--abc-news.html


Hopefully they quit screwing around and get the funding to build it.
I apologize if this was the wrong thread for this, thought that we had talked about the NBAF in this one.

God that storm last night was amazing. Thunder nearly made me fall out of my bed at 3 am. ITT Kansans are jelly that they don't get good storms anymore

[GoodForAnother]

The epic Cigars thread has taken so many turns. I used to hate (but still had to) read this thread, now I relish in it.

It's like, I used to think all the other conferences were assholes.  But now, we're the assholes.  And it feels good.  Real good.

[MadCat]

The epic Cigars thread has taken so many turns. I used to hate (but still had to) read this thread, now I relish in it.

It's like, I used to think all the other conferences were assholes.  But now, we're the assholes.  And it feels good.  Real good.

In the end it will turn out we were the assholes the entire time. 

[SkinnyBenny]

The epic Cigars thread has taken so many turns. I used to hate (but still had to) read this thread, now I relish in it.

It's like, I used to think all the other conferences were assholes.  But now, we're the assholes.  And it feels good.  Real good.

Yeah, remember when we were praying for an invite to the Big East?  Lol.

Just lol.

[Katpappy]

The epic Cigars thread has taken so many turns. I used to hate (but still had to) read this thread, now I relish in it.

It's like, I used to think all the other conferences were assholes.  But now, we're the assholes.  And it feels good.  Real good.

Yeah, remember when we were praying for an invite to the Big East?  Lol.

Just lol.

Thank God, those days are over.... hopefully 

[GoodForAnother]

The epic Cigars thread has taken so many turns. I used to hate (but still had to) read this thread, now I relish in it.

It's like, I used to think all the other conferences were assholes.  But now, we're the assholes.  And it feels good.  Real good.

Yeah, remember when we were praying for an invite to the Big East?  Lol.

Just lol.

"You know, that wouldn't be so bad, guys!" - us

LOL 

[Deez Nutz]

At this point, I will be upset if the B12 stays together and we don't get a loser B12 school/BE mashup. 

You would, huh? 

yes