MEGA Conference Realignment and lawsuits Megathread: Stories, Tales, Lies, and Exaggerations

[DeanCane]

Did all the teams sign off on this extension?

 

[Gennaker Cane]

I normally don’t chime in on this albatross of a thread, but when certain statements r made, I have to correct them.

1. UCLA’s main goal for joining the B1G was the huge deficit they were left w/ due to Covid, Under Armour reneging on its endorsement, & the **** poor PAC-12 contract. It was a perfect crescendo. They will be out of the red in approx. 2-3 yrs.

2. OSU’s #’s r a bit fudged, & some of those #’s r based upon fewer home games during the 2023-4 season vs. the 2022-23 season. I’m sure that $37m will be completely absolved once the #’s come in for the 2024-5 season.
OSU, TAMU, UT, Bama, & UofM r by far the most profitable ADs.

So to ur point, competitive with the ACC? Sure; but, competitive with the bigger programs in said conferences? It’s going to get much more difficult, especially when different escalators hit, & these pYearograms can continue to reinvest in themselves generating more revenue opportunities outside of media rights deals.

Yeah, good luck to UCLA for getting out of the red when the deficit is getting bigger. They have much bigger issues than they thought, this deal just isn't the panacea they convinced themselves it would be. And OSU is losing money, despite a championship year, with a playoff that gave them an extra sell out at home.

 

[Rellyrell]

Yeah, good luck to UCLA for getting out of the red when the deficit is getting bigger. They have much bigger issues than they thought, this deal just isn't the panacea they convinced themselves it would be. And OSU is losing money, despite a championship year, with a playoff that gave them an extra sell out at home.

Lol; OK.

I’m sure u didn’t see it was from the 2023-2024 season, but go off my ninja.

 

[Ryanmilli]

Yeah, good luck to UCLA for getting out of the red when the deficit is getting bigger. They have much bigger issues than they thought, this deal just isn't the panacea they convinced themselves it would be. And OSU is losing money, despite a championship year, with a playoff that gave them an extra sell out at home.

Your overall point is valid, but just FYI ticket revenues for CFP went to the CFP. Schools got parking and concessions. And they got paid by the CFP for each round of course.

 

[Rickd]

Eh, easier path to the playoffs certainty. ACC was two plays away from having three bids this year.

I'm reading the articles to heavily imply that revenue will increase. Tbd

If you believe that the championship playoff criteria aren't dramatically changing initiating with the 2026 season .. don't know what to tell you. The ACC and B12 will have very limited access to the CFP while the P2 will have AT LEAST 4 auto bids. And that is for starters. ACC will be lucky to continue with ONE.

 

[Virginia_Cane]

The Genetics vs Flugaur beef on twitter has been gold today

 

[CaneinBroward]

Bottom line by staying IN the ACC we are guaranteed

-to earn considerable LESS revenue annually than the Big 10 and SEC even with the incremental bonus payout
for a). record / winning and b). Viewership (brand strength).

-the P2 conferences are pushing for 4 auto bids each ... and they have actual contractual control of CFP structure from
2026 for the term of the agreement (7 years?).

-The P2 will be getting significantly more nationally broadcast games than the ACC and that pushes FUTURE revenue more
and is a huge recruiting plus. It is going to be much more difficult to attract elite recruits to non P2 conferences.

Miami needs to be out of the ACC as soon as possible. Will that be 2030 or is it possible it can be accomplished sooner? ESPN controls ... everything.

Your predictions are quite believable and probably end up as you state.

Continuing to post false statements to back up said predictions is weak though. P2 doesn't have "actual contractual control" of the CFP structure. Each conference has its own vote. They need the majority of conferences and ND to pass changes to the playoff structure and selection criteria. The P2 may want a guaranteed 3 or 4 spots each in the playoff every year, but they don't just snap their fingers and it happens.

 

[NorthernVirginiaCane]

If you believe that the championship playoff criteria aren't dramatically changing initiating with the 2026 season .. don't know what to tell you. The ACC and B12 will have very limited access to the CFP while the P2 will have AT LEAST 4 auto bids. And that is for starters. ACC will be lucky to continue with ONE.

Nope.

I think it's easier for miami to get one of 1-2-3 acc than 3-4 sec or big 10 bids, Indiana this year notwithstanding

 

[Peachycarnahan]

I have started a Substack and have written my first substantive article on the ESPN/ACC deal and its implications. Give it a read here: https://srizzo.substack.com/p/espn-picks-up-option-on-acc-deal

Excellent work. Very tight writing.

 

[No_Fly_Zone]

Integral folding knives, where the frame and handle are made from a single piece of material (typically titanium or steel), offer unique advantages and some challenges when it comes to everyday carry (EDC). Here’s a detailed breakdown of their pros and cons, along with a few notable brands and models from the US.

Pros of Integral Folding Knives for EDC:​

1.​

• One-piece construction: The integral design makes the knife more structurally robust. Because there are no joints or screws holding the frame together, there is less chance of the knife failing under stress or wear over time. This leads to a higher level of durability compared to traditional multi-piece knives.
• Resistant to warping or cracking: Since the handle and the frame are forged from a single piece, integral knives often resist twisting or warping, which can sometimes happen in knives with multiple parts.

2.​

• Balanced feel: Integral knives tend to have excellent balance. The weight distribution is typically more even across the entire handle, making them feel more natural and stable in hand during use.

3.​

• Clean, seamless design: Integral knives are visually striking due to their smooth, uninterrupted lines. The seamless nature of the frame adds a level of sophistication and uniqueness to the design, often appealing to those who appreciate minimalist and high-quality craftsmanship.

4.​

• Fewer moving parts: With no screws or pivots holding the handle parts together, integral knives tend to have fewer potential weak points. This can lead to a more reliable knife over time with less maintenance required.

Cons of Integral Folding Knives for EDC:​

1.​

• Higher price: The complexity of manufacturing an integral knife leads to higher costs. It requires more skill and time to machine the handle from a single block of material, which can push the price point up compared to standard folding knives.

2.​

• Heavier construction: Integral knives are often heavier than traditional multi-piece folding knives due to the dense materials used in their construction (often titanium or steel). This can be a downside for those seeking ultra-lightweight EDC options.

3.​

• Fewer handle options: Since the handle is integral and crafted from a single piece, it’s not easy to change or modify it for different textures, colors, or grips. In contrast, traditional knives allow for more varied and customizable handle materials.

4.​

• Difficulty in repairs: If the frame becomes damaged, it can be difficult or even impossible to repair an integral knife. Traditional knives, with multiple parts, are often easier to disassemble and fix or replace individual components.

Notable US Brands and Models for Integral Folding Knives:​

1.​

• Model: Chris Reeve Sebenza 31
  Known for pioneering the integral folding knife, Chris Reeve’s Sebenza series remains a gold standard. The Sebenza 31 is crafted from titanium, features a frame lock mechanism, and is highly regarded for its smooth action, robustness, and reliability. It’s a favorite in the EDC community, though it comes at a premium price point.
• Pros: Excellent fit and finish, renowned for smooth action, strong and lightweight.
• Cons: Expensive, weightier compared to some other EDC options.

2.​

• Model: Hinderer XM-18
  Hinderer’s XM-18 is another great example of an integral knife design, known for its modular approach. It allows for some level of customization with different handle scales and the ability to swap parts, but the frame itself remains integral. It’s durable and tough, designed for heavy-duty use.
• Pros: Tough and versatile, excellent blade geometry, highly customizable in terms of accessories.
• Cons: Heavy for EDC, expensive, and can be bulky for smaller pockets.

3.​

• Model: ZT 0393
  Zero Tolerance is known for producing high-end, heavy-duty knives, and their ZT 0393 features an integral titanium frame with a smooth, buttery action. It’s built for tough, everyday use but also retains a sleek design. The blade steel is usually premium (like CPM 20CV), adding to its high-quality build.
• Pros: Solid build, premium materials, robust blade.
• Cons: On the larger side for EDC, pricey.

4.​

• Model: Spyderco Shaman (a traditional folding design, though they’ve explored integral folding knives with some custom collaborations)While Spyderco generally doesn’t focus solely on integral folding knives, they occasionally release custom or limited-edition models that feature integral frames, often in collaboration with well-known designers like Peter Rassenti.
• Pros: Ergonomically designed handles, excellent edge retention, unique collaborations.
• Cons: Less emphasis on integral knives as a regular offering.

Final Thoughts:​

Integral folding knives make for excellent EDC tools for those who value durability, performance, and design aesthetics. While they come with certain drawbacks like cost, weight, and limited customization, the benefits of strength, balance, and reliability often outweigh these cons for many users. Brands like Chris Reeve, Hinderer, and Zero Tolerance lead the charge in producing high-quality, integral folding knives, and these are excellent options to consider if you’re looking for a knife that combines artistry with functionality.

 

[TOcane]

When I was kid we played in a conference called the Big East...and we won a championship. I wonder what the wage gap was back then.

 

[RVACane]

Nope.

I think it's easier for miami to get one of 1-2-3 acc than 3-4 sec or big 10 bids, Indiana this year notwithstanding

Forgive me for not knowing where things stand in here as I don’t read this thread religiously. So after all of the back and forth, were you ultimately the winner in the argument that we aren’t getting out of the ACC and are stuck until 2036 or whatever the date was?

 

[Calinative]

Really comes down to how much this is going to increase our revenue, and if it adds an exit plan after 2030. Not as good as getting out asap or within 2-3 years and into the B1G or SEC, but certainly possible it's better result than any other alternative, especially idiots who thought we should go to B12, which never made a lick of sense.

2024 Distributions, I think were:
- B12 - $34M. But projected to be closer to $50M next year with new TV Deal I think.
- ACC - $45M. No idea what we're expected to get going forward.
- SEC - $51M. But supposed to be like $67M/yr on average until 2033 I think?
- B1G - $61M. But supposed to average $72M/yr on average until 2030. With it being closer to $100M by the time it's 2030 I believe

ACC made $706M in revenue. Stanford and Cal only get 30% payouts currently which is about $13M each. SMU receives 0% payouts. Notre Dame received about 37% payout which was about $17M this season. So taking those numbers out and continuing them as is, leaves like $663M to distribute between 14 programs. If the bottom 7 received like 70% payout, the middle 3 85%, and the top 4 100% payouts, it'd be something like $41M/$50M/$58M per year respectively. So bottom 7 would be taking a $4M/yr reduction vs current, middle 3 would get a $5M increase vs current, and top 4 (us, FSU, Clemson, UNC) would get a $13M/yr increase vs current. Then after that you'd do performance bonuses and CFP appearance distributions where only the teams participating keep the money.

The thing about doing it this way is it really depends on what the B12 payouts are. If they are significantly lower than ACC on average then it is entirely reasonably that the bottom half of the ACC should only receive distributions comparable to B12 schools average, and the top 4 programs should receive substantially more. Because ultimately what separates the ACC from the B12 IS that the ACC still has a handful of marquee brands + Notre Dame. If that were the same as 2024 it'd only be $34M/yr which is equivalent to 56% distribution. So in my scenario of giving 70%, this is actually still quite good for them...

Ultimately if the B10 is at $72M/yr, the SEC is at $67M/yr, we need to hopefully be around $62M/yr....