(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

"He's been more correct ..."

His tweets or official reports, yes. His person opinion isn't any better than anyone else's.

"... and/or their direct surrogates." & "... people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents ..."

Nope. Doesn't work. Everything prior to when the 10 men get into the room, pretty much goes out the window.

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

McMurphy has said several times on radio now that none of the Big 12 presidents will talk to him.

I also disagree with your assumption that the Big 12 was not going to expand before July 19, and did an about face when the ACCN was announced, so McMurphy wasn't wrong.

I posted a couple of times before July 19 that the Big 12 was going to announce expansion, and likely name the teams later. I based that on what I heard that Big 12 officials told Memphis officials. Expansion has been discussed and planned by all 10 Big 12 presidents since at least February of this year.

Some in the Big 12 did say that the ACCN perhaps influenced their vote, but that was going to be the same outcome, regardless, IMO. They had done too much work and spent too much money, to do otherwise at that point.

We can debate this forever, b/c there is no way to prove either side, for now, but hopefully, we will find out more about that some day.

(10-12-2016 11:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  "He's been more correct ..."

His tweets or official reports, yes. His person opinion isn't any better than anyone else's.

"... and/or their direct surrogates." & "... people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents ..."

Nope. Doesn't work. Everything prior to when the 10 men get into the room, pretty much goes out the window.

I agree with your conclusion that everything prior goes out the window when the 10 presidents get into the room. However, I just get frustrated with the grouping of legit reporters along with bloggers/Tweeters as if they were all equal. It gives an easy pass to disregard legitimate reports simply because it doesn't provide an answer that the readers wants to hear.

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

I agree McMurphy is the top on this issue, but he was wrong on July 19th. He wasn't talking to the people making the decisions. The info they got moved it into higher speed and maybe got some presidents off the fence, but there was never a consensus to kill expansion.

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

what's your opinion on clay travis, jon wilner, and a jersey guy

(10-12-2016 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

I agree McMurphy is the top on this issue, but he was wrong on July 19th. He wasn't talking to the people making the decisions. The info they got moved it into higher speed and maybe got some presidents off the fence, but there was never a consensus to kill expansion.

Agree. My impression was the expectation going forward before the July 19 meeting was that the vote would be yes. A long time before the AACN creation became public.

I also agree that McMurphy over the years has been better than almost everybody else with realignment, but that does not immunize him from being wrong, especially when the only legit sources won't talk to him.

(10-12-2016 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

what's your opinion on clay travis, jon wilner, and a jersey guy

Travis - Complete hot take opinion person. No real information comes from him.

Wilner - If the Pac-12 is involved, then he may get information. Otherwise, not really much from him on a national level or with respect to the Big 12 in general.

A Jersey Guy - Information is likely coming from former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese (who UConn has retained as a consultant). So, information on Big 12 expansion is coming from UConn-tinged glasses. Some of that info might be right with respect to UConn specifically, but everyone should be wary of any specifics in his reports with respect to the Big 12 decision-makers overall. Essentially, if UConn hears something, then he's a decent resource for relaying what UConn has heard on the back-end. I just wouldn't put much stock on what he states about Big 12 decisions on the front end.

I take it as a good sign that the presidents, who hold the votes, aren't talking to reporters, etc. before the meeting.

I'd sure like to be a fly on the wall at that meeting! The debate should be very interesting.

Frank #24,

Fair, and agree.


PlayBall,

Yes, exactly. I really think you could have even just one president rise up, give a great argument, and sway a lot of the other presidents one way or another. That's why all of the TRUCK LOADS of talk and talk and talk on this issue, is just pretty much worthless.

(10-12-2016 11:18 AM)BamaScorpio69 Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 08:59 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 08:38 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 08:09 AM)EvilVodka Wrote:  I think Oklahoma wants out, and I think Texas is tired of dealing with old Big 8 tag alongs...

I don't disagree, but to me it boils down to the fact that UT and OU both want something that is, quite simply, impossible: to be at the geographic and political "center" of a league that is the financial/media peer of B1G and SEC. That is just not going to happen in this lifetime, and I think a lot of the drama we've witnessed over the past year or so is really just some of UT's and OU's frustration spilling out into the open.

I agree. Both have determined that the days where the Big 12 remains the financial equal of the B1G and SEC are numbered. The SECN and the new B1G deals mean that going forward, the Big 12 will be at a big financial disadvantage, schools in those conferences will soon be making $10 million, maybe even more, per year in conference revenue. That is why they refuse to sign the GOR, and it is why they do not want to expand. Expansion would just mean (a) splitting dollars with new teams, and (b) nobody added would solve the fundamental revenue problem anyway.

Both Texas an OU are now focused on moving on to a situation that, in terms of revenues derived from conference membership or independence, would make them the financial equals of the schools in the B1G and SEC.

The Big 12 could be on the same financial footing with the SEC and B1G. The reason it will not happen is because of Texas and OU and the instability those two programs cause for the conference.

I don't think so. The Big 12 is just fundamentally less valuable than the B1G and SEC, and the new deals make that clear.

(10-12-2016 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

what's your opinion on clay travis, jon wilner, and a jersey guy

Travis - Complete hot take opinion person. No real information comes from him.

Wilner - If the Pac-12 is involved, then he may get information. Otherwise, not really much from him on a national level or with respect to the Big 12 in general.

A Jersey Guy - Information is likely coming from former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese (who UConn has retained as a consultant). So, information on Big 12 expansion is coming from UConn-tinged glasses. Some of that info might be right with respect to UConn specifically, but everyone should be wary of any specifics in his reports with respect to the Big 12 decision-makers overall. Essentially, if UConn hears something, then he's a decent resource for relaying what UConn has heard on the back-end. I just wouldn't put much stock on what he states about Big 12 decisions on the front end.

really appreciate that.

who are so other sources we should look at besides mcmurphy?

(10-12-2016 12:12 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  "He's been more correct ..."

His tweets or official reports, yes. His person opinion isn't any better than anyone else's.

"... and/or their direct surrogates." & "... people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents ..."

Nope. Doesn't work. Everything prior to when the 10 men get into the room, pretty much goes out the window.

I agree with your conclusion that everything prior goes out the window when the 10 presidents get into the room. However, I just get frustrated with the grouping of legit reporters along with bloggers/Tweeters as if they were all equal. It gives an easy pass to disregard legitimate reports simply because it doesn't provide an answer that the readers wants to hear.

Bowlsby said in a newspaper the day before the 19th that they are talking about expanding, and said it was not tabled. He was wrong at that time. His reports are not 100% correct like this is not 100% now either. Lots of reports by local newspapers have been more accurate than McMurphy.

It is the correct call.

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

I agree. To the opposite of McMurph is The Dud of West Virginia who gets nothing right.
Cheers!

(10-12-2016 12:54 PM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 12:21 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  

(10-12-2016 11:09 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Yeah but I find it hard to believe that he's basing his personal opinion on any direct conversations with the presidents.

Just "insiders" and "sources".

He's been more correct on conference realignment stories over the past several years than any other writer. He could very well be talking to presidents and/or their direct surrogates.

I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time, and then the Big 12 presidents decided to change their minds after the ACC Network deal came to fruition. This would be like saying that a reporter that stated on Twitter that the Giants were winning at the beginning of the 9th inning last night in the NLDS (a true statement) was "wrong" because the Cubs ended up winning the game. The fact that the outcome of a story ends up being different than the interim status that was reported previously doesn't invalidate those previous interim reports.

I've read essentially every realignment report that has been release over the past 6 years in great detail. I'd put McMurphy at the VERY top of the list in terms of accuracy in *reporting* (which need to be distinguished with interviews where he's giving his opinion). If he isn't getting information directly from university presidents, then he's certainly got as much access to people that are privy to the thinking of those presidents as anyone out there.

what's your opinion on clay travis, jon wilner, and a jersey guy

Travis - Complete hot take opinion person. No real information comes from him.

Wilner - If the Pac-12 is involved, then he may get information. Otherwise, not really much from him on a national level or with respect to the Big 12 in general.

A Jersey Guy - Information is likely coming from former Big East commissioner Mike Tranghese (who UConn has retained as a consultant). So, information on Big 12 expansion is coming from UConn-tinged glasses. Some of that info might be right with respect to UConn specifically, but everyone should be wary of any specifics in his reports with respect to the Big 12 decision-makers overall. Essentially, if UConn hears something, then he's a decent resource for relaying what UConn has heard on the back-end. I just wouldn't put much stock on what he states about Big 12 decisions on the front end.

Agree on this except I think Wilner has fabulous info on the PAC. His sources with Stanford and Cal are obviously key to his PAC info. He's decently solid with BYU and MWC too. He doesn't follow the AAC at all...
Cheers!

(10-12-2016 11:33 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote:  I think everything that McMurphy has supposedly gotten "wrong" was never wrong at all. For instance, the notion that he reported that the Big 12 wasn't expanding was supposedly "wrong" is very misguided. He was accurately reflecting the Big 12's position at the time

If this is true... then its probable that McMuph doesn't have a clue right now, given that certain Big 12 Presidents have indicated they still have an open mind on expansion.
If there is an open mind, positions are subject to change.

Who knows how it will go. I don't think McMurphy does. He may end up getting it right, but it will be because he guessed. We have all heard the leaks. I'd probably go on the radio too, if I was a talking head, and make an educated guess. That doesn't make it news.

HoD,

They may not add anyone - for now. But that doesn't mean that's the correct decision.

(10-12-2016 06:35 PM)billybobby777 Wrote:  Agree on this except I think Wilner has fabulous info on the PAC. His sources with Stanford and Cal are obviously key to his PAC info. He's decently solid with BYU and MWC too. He doesn't follow the AAC at all...
Cheers!

Wilner's sources are at Stanford and in the Pac-12 offices. He appears to also have sources at SJSU, not sure about any other MWC schools.

Here is what we know:

1. The B12 is holding a press conference for Monday to issue a statement.

2. McMurphy is hearing no chatter on expansion.

If expansion was imminent than McMurphy would be talking about X,Y,Z school preparing for a press conference.

It's possible they say they have decided to expand by #'s schools and they will make selections at the conclusion of the football season.

The fat lady is about to sing...