-
-
Whenever I see someone referring to their, um, challenging traits as arising from Scottish heritage, I, a Scot myself, have to post this John Cleese bit. I know others here have seen it already, but it makes me laugh every time:Originally posted by Viking View Post
The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent terrorist threats and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved.” Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even “A Bit Cross.” The English have not been “A Bit Cross” since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance.” The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.
The Scots have raised their threat level from “Pissed Off” to “Let’s get the Bastards.” They don’t have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 400 years.
The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from “Run” to “Hide.” The only two higher levels in France are “Collaborate” and “Surrender.” The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France’s white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country’s military capability.
Italy has increased the alert level from “Shout Loudly and Excitedly” to “Elaborate Military Posturing.” Two more levels remain: “Ineffective Combat Operations” and “Change Sides.”
The Germans have increased their alert state from “Disdainful Arrogance” to “Dress in Uniform and Sing Marching Songs.” They also have two higher levels: “Invade a Neighbor” and "Lose.”
Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels.
The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy. These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy.
Australia, meanwhile, has raised its security level from “No worries” to “She’ll be alright, Mate.” Three more escalation levels remain: “Crikey!” and “I think we’ll need to cancel the barbie this weekend” and “The barbie is canceled.” So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.“There is a great deal of difference in believing something still, and believing it again.”
― W.H. Auden
"God made the angels to show His splendour - as He made animals for innocence and plants for their simplicity. But men and women He made to serve Him wittily, in the tangle of their minds."
-- Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential is invisible to the eye."
--Antoine de Saint-ExuperyComment
-
lolOriginally posted by LA Ute View PostOne of the grandest benefits of the enlightenment was the realization that our moral sense must be based on the welfare of living individuals, not on their immortal souls. Honest and passionate folks can strongly disagree regarding spiritual matters, so it's imperative that we not allow such considerations to infringe on the real happiness of real people.
Woot
I believe religion has much inherent good and has born many good fruits.
SUComment
-
it is always nice to see that every fanbase is equally delusional about the state of its own program.
Reminder: this poster is talking about Kansas State.
http://goemaw.com/forum/index.php?topic=14482.0
Serious q for those of you in the know. I'm assuming that in some ways, being a blue blood is a good thing during realignment talk. But- I was just wondering if it could also be hurting us right now. Football heavyweights = automatic losses, does a conference really want to poison itself by letting too many blue bloods in? Thus conferences don't want K-State to join- we will make their conference stronger since we're blue blood but we'll also be shelling out automatic loses to its current conference members like it's going out of style.
Look at the SEC, it is loaded with heavyweights, we're not going to get in there- do they really want more loses? no. As is the B10. No one in the Big East or ACC care about football and both conferences suck at football, maybe that's why there is so much discussion about us going to one of those two conferences.
It would be nice to be the Texas of the ACC or Big East and have all the other schools letting us rape them for $$ and other great perks like UT has (LHN, etc).
Imagine the television contract we would sign if we hooked up with some other blue bloods, hmmm ya, I think the US Mint just called my cell phone- they're running out of money over there just thinking about it. LOL, time will tell. .
Hey, Fort Knox, get off our nuts.
Fitter. Happier. More Productive.
sigpicComment
-
They just beat powerhouse Eastern kentucky 10-7 I can see why they would be puffing their chests right about now.Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Postit is always nice to see that every fanbase is equally delusional about the state of its own program.
Reminder: this poster is talking about Kansas State.
http://goemaw.com/forum/index.php?topic=14482.0
*Banned*Comment
-
Maybe it's just me...but I think this guy is looking at it the wrong way as far as automatic wins and losses are concerned.Originally posted by TripletDaddy View Postit is always nice to see that every fanbase is equally delusional about the state of its own program.
Reminder: this poster is talking about Kansas State.
http://goemaw.com/forum/index.php?topic=14482.0
Comment
-
Wouldn't something like this be more favorable to BYU joining the PAC 12? If Texas goes to the BIG 10, wouldn't the PAC 12 have to take a serious look at BYU? Oklahoma and OSU would move to the PAC12. I guess they could look at Missouri and Kansas.Originally posted by Gaffords View Post"To the man who only has a hammer, everything he encounters begins to look like a nail."
—Abraham MaslowComment
-
What I did find insulting was they went straight for CB as the main message board..Comment
-
Fitter. Happier. More Productive.
sigpicComment
-
As a Tongan... I'll always respect a fighter. Got in some good brawls in the name of BYU back in the day (specifically with Wyoming fans).Originally posted by Viking View Post
And that K-State thread actually feels funny, rather than the nasty feeling I used to get from all the rest of the MWC schools not named Utah (I'm guessing the black people line is TIC). I spent two years in the Midwest and love the good ol' boys out there (they had no idea what a Polynesian was, and all thought I was a big Puerto Rican). Other than my few KKK run-ins, I just got a kick out of the ultra-friendly nature of the flatlands. Hopefully Viking is right and this happens, and sooner rather than later.
If your wrong Vike, you can't go man.Comment
-
They simply don't have the money to indemnify themselves from the losses that could result from their departure from the Big 12. Do the math - it's a LOT of money!Originally posted by Donuthole View Post
Here - I'll do it for you...
I dont think there's anyone out there who would say that A&M's departure hasn't made the Big 12 significantly less stable. A&M's departure is also part and parcel to the formation of the first "Super Conference."
What happens to Baylor or Iowa State, if the Big 12 goes tits-up, Super Conference realignment does indeed happen, and they get left out in the cold? They've got demonstrable losses of $10-$15 million a year (plus bowl revenue & Big 12 money from the NCAA BB tourney, etc) that they can directly attribute to A&M breaking its contract with the league. If A&M had just honored the contract that everyone in the Big 12 signed in good-faith, Baylor & Iowa State keep getting their payday. But since they left...
Let's just assume those two schools get left out of the Super Conferences, and that their losses from TV, Bowl & NCAA Tournament revenue is $15 million a year per team. There are 5 years left on their TV contract * $30 million per year = $150 million in direct losses that Baylor and Iowa State could argue A&M caused them. Even if they settle at 50-cents-on-the-dollar, A&M is looking at a $75 million nut - half to each school. That's not chump-change. $100 million sounds like an awful lot of money, but in this case, it doesn't seem unreasonable. Isn't $100 million what BYU wanted inserted into the Big 12 agreement as a penalty for early departure from the conference? It seems a lot more reasonable once you put some numbers behind it...
But a $75 million - $100 million settlement is actually being ridiculously kind to A&M. Baylor & Iowa State could easily argue that their Big 12 membership should have rightfully yielded them $15 million a year in perpetuity, and that changes the loss numbers just a bit...
The value of a $15 million annuity payment to Baylor and Iowa State, over 30 years, with a discount rate of 5%, is $230 million. EACH. If you bump up the discount rate to 10%, the present value drops to "only" $140 million. EACH.
Ouch.
But there's more!
The above assessment assumes no growth in the payments expected from the Big 12 - it's $15 million a year for the next 30 years. But since the league's inception, Big 12 revenues disbursed to member schools have actually grown at an average of 7.6% per year.
If you want to see some SERIOUS loss/damage numbers, use the historical 7.6% annual growth rate on what starts as a 30 year $15 million annuity! With a 5% discount rate, you get a present value of $656 million per team. Using 10%, you get a much more affordable $332 million per team!
I think there's a reasonable chance that Baylor and/or Iowa State could convince a jury that A&M's actions & bad faith directly disrupted an ongoing stream of cashflows of $15 million a year, whose present value is somewhere between $140 million & $230 million to each team ($280 million - $460 million total exposure to A&M). And I don't think it's much of a stretch to envision a damages award that uses the historical revenue growth rate, jacking A&M's potential liability as high as $665 million - $1.312 BILLION.
For A&M to be able to settle for something around $75 - $100 million would be fantastic for them. That's a crap-load of money - and there still isn't any guarantee that either school would accept a settlement at that amount. But a $75 million - $100 million buyout would be a steal!
A&M could, in theory, be on the hook for up to 1.3 billion dollars! Which is exactly why the SEC wants nothing to do with A&M until it gets waivers for any & all losses associated with its departure from the Big 12, from any & all parties who might be able to claim such losses. It's also exactly why the SEC wants NOTHING to do with anything that looks like it could be considered 'tortious interference' - cuz then they could also be on the hook for making teams like Baylor and ISU whole...Last edited by statman; 09-08-2011, 01:06 PM.Comment
-
-
Na... I'd need a good reason too. Besides, my family is better known for finishing fights... not starting them.Originally posted by Viking View PostComment
-
Bloody vikings...Originally posted by Viking View Post
BTW - The Scottish half is really half Norwegian, as well. That makes you 75% raging Viking and 25% simpering Brit.Comment
-
Again...you don't indemnify yourself. And you don't actually need any money to offer an indemnification, especially if you believe the claim is without merit. My understanding is that the SEC wants an indemnification from aTm regarding a potential lawsuit for tortious interference with contract, which is a claim that has not been successful in the past when conference schools tried to prevent conference jumping.Originally posted by statman View Post
As far as aTm's potential liability is concerned, it has already received a release from the B12 to leave without lawsuit. I don't know if aTm has a different contractual arrangement with Baylor that would provide the grounds for a separate lawsuit.
But all of this is moot if OU commits to the B12 and they invite a replacement for aTm. No lawsuit would be successful, or even filed, if that happens.Comment
Tweet
Comment