🎉 Will Weatherford Day 🎉

[Ghostbuster]

3 minutes ago, puc86 said:

I conceded Miami right after the hard FSU no, the swing vote in this instance then becomes UNC that claimed to be fine with expansion but wanting something closer and well that’s the one thing we got. 

Look the main points are

A) it's likely we faced more no votes than SMU

B) (Most important) We don't *know* MK failed to make that pitch 

3 minutes ago, puc86 said:

If you have anything showing we didn’t laugh at the foolishness of people giving to much for things that seem to be working and actually offered them more I would love to see it.

That's not how it works.  You can't crucify someone for failing to make a decision (sell out for Prime/ACC) without evidence, and then turn around and say the burden is on everyone else to disprove your own unsubstantiated claim.

I fully agree, knowing what we know now, that we should have gone full steam for those two.  But us internet folk have 0 proof one way or the other so I'm saying it's pointless to get upset about that. 

11 minutes ago, puc86 said:

For skirting nil and diverting money it’s not my job and I’ve not invested much time on it 

Right but you're still saying we aren't doing something we could, when you don't really know that we could.

That's a lot of pent up anger over things that you don't know MK failed to do.  (And there's plenty of known things to be upset over.)

[puc86]

4 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

Look the main points are

A) it's likely we faced more no votes than SMU

B) (Most important) We don't *know* MK failed to make that pitch 

That's not how it works.  You can't crucify someone for failing to make a decision (sell out for Prime/ACC) without evidence, and then turn around and say the burden is on everyone else to disprove your own unsubstantiated claim.

I fully agree, knowing what we know now, that we should have gone full steam for those two.  But us internet folk have 0 proof one way or the other so I'm saying it's pointless to get upset about that. 

Right but you're still saying we aren't doing something we could, when you don't really know that we could.

That's a lot of pent up anger over things that you don't know MK failed to do.  (And there's plenty of known things to be upset over.)

Yes that’s exactly how it works. If I say we should have done what SMU did but whoring ourselves out even more and then someone says well we did try but failed some evidence of that try needs to be presented.

People like to pretend that we are just the tightest ship of secrecy and that everyone we deal with only likes to honor our discretion but when you are the only one not being leaked ever from any side it’s probably more likely because you aren’t making any serious moves worth discussing. Even if we can pretend that we are just a well oiled machine in that regard where exactly has this amazing tight lipped close to the vest approach gotten us?

Put it out there what your trying to accomplish and what you are willing to do in order to accomplish it and hope some others take up your cause in the court of public opinion. We more than likely started off with more votes than SMU but their idea was mostly met with laughter to begin with and they didn’t have the the votes until they did. 

The ACC is supposed to be be conference VPMK knows best, it has members we used to be conference mates with, it had a major member publicly not happy about the move west and it became a head to head with SMU, that’s a battle you should want to go into with everything you’ve got and yet we didn’t hear a single chirp? Why? How is that helping us advance at all?

[Triple B]

29 minutes ago, puc86 said:

Yes that’s exactly how it works. If I say we should have done what SMU did but whoring ourselves out even more and then someone says well we did try but failed some evidence of that try needs to be presented.

People like to pretend that we are just the tightest ship of secrecy and that everyone we deal with only likes to honor our discretion but when you are the only one not being leaked ever from any side it’s probably more likely because you aren’t making any serious moves worth discussing. Even if we can pretend that we are just a well oiled machine in that regard where exactly has this amazing tight lipped close to the vest approach gotten us?

Put it out there what your trying to accomplish and what you are willing to do in order to accomplish it and hope some others take up your cause in the court of public opinion. We more than likely started off with more votes than SMU but their idea was mostly met with laughter to begin with and they didn’t have the the votes until they did. 

The ACC is supposed to be be conference VPMK knows best, it has members we used to be conference mates with, it had a major member publicly not happy about the move west and it became a head to head with SMU, that’s a battle you should want to go into with everything you’ve got and yet we didn’t hear a single chirp? Why? How is that helping us advance at all?

Before I declare that 4 paragraphs of utterly complete, but well written, gibberish, has there been some hard evidence out there that this ACC thing became a head to head between us and SMU?

[Bull Matrix]

6 hours ago, puc86 said:

Yes that’s exactly how it works. If I say we should have done what SMU did but whoring ourselves out even more and then someone says well we did try but failed some evidence of that try needs to be presented.

People like to pretend that we are just the tightest ship of secrecy and that everyone we deal with only likes to honor our discretion but when you are the only one not being leaked ever from any side it’s probably more likely because you aren’t making any serious moves worth discussing. Even if we can pretend that we are just a well oiled machine in that regard where exactly has this amazing tight lipped close to the vest approach gotten us?

Put it out there what your trying to accomplish and what you are willing to do in order to accomplish it and hope some others take up your cause in the court of public opinion. We more than likely started off with more votes than SMU but their idea was mostly met with laughter to begin with and they didn’t have the the votes until they did. 

The ACC is supposed to be be conference VPMK knows best, it has members we used to be conference mates with, it had a major member publicly not happy about the move west and it became a head to head with SMU, that’s a battle you should want to go into with everything you’ve got and yet we didn’t hear a single chirp? Why? How is that helping us advance at all?

MK’s work with the OCS & IPF has been nothing but pure genius…

[Rocky Style]

6 hours ago, Triple B said:

has there been some hard evidence out there that this ACC thing became a head to head between us and SMU?

I've never seen anything to indicate that.  I think we were hoping we were in the mix, but I don't see how that would be possible with FSU and UM sitting there.

[Ghostbuster]

6 hours ago, Triple B said:

Before I declare that 4 paragraphs of utterly complete, but well written, gibberish, has there been some hard evidence out there that this ACC thing became a head to head between us and SMU?

Lol I'll go ahead and declare it as gibberish.  "[x] happened, I have no proof, and the burden rests with all of you to prove me wrong.  Since no one has disproven me, that proves me right.".  That'd get you laughed outta any debate club.

But I get it.  An AD has been grossly incompetent when it comes to evaluating head coaches, so some people want to just transfer that failure to every discussion.

However if you're gonna do that, make a reasonable argument like "Whether or not he made the same pitch to the ACC is irrelevant because the end result is we failed to move up".  At least then you're upset about something that objectively happened.  As opposed to "He didn't even try to get us into the ACC, see how dumb he is", where the failure is PURE UNPROVEN conjecture.

[puc86]

7 hours ago, Triple B said:

Before I declare that 4 paragraphs of utterly complete, but well written, gibberish, has there been some hard evidence out there that this ACC thing became a head to head between us and SMU?

Sorry, to my knowledge SMU ran unopposed on the we’ll be the third for zero tv dollars ticket,. To me that seems like a pretty good horse to race to the ACC and it would be nice to know that we actually entered the race and tried to beat them to the line as no one seemed to mention it in any of the coverage of the race.

[puc86]

3 minutes ago, Ghostbuster said:

Lol I'll go ahead and declare it as gibberish.  "[x] happened, I have no proof, and the burden rests with all of you to prove me wrong.  Since no one has disproven me, that proves me right.".  That'd get you laughed outta any debate club.

But I get it.  An AD has been grossly incompetent when it comes to evaluating head coaches, so some people want to just transfer that failure to every discussion.

However if you're gonna do that, make a reasonable argument like "Whether or not he made the same pitch to the ACC is irrelevant because the end result is we failed to move up".  At least then you're upset about something that objectively happened.  As opposed to "He didn't even try to get us into the ACC, see how dumb he is", where the failure is PURE UNPROVEN conjecture.

Every single time a team is going full throttle at realignment the world knows about it, win or lose. SMU did not have the votes for months, we always knew about it and their offer. They raised the offer and kept trying and eventually it got them over the finish line. They were not afraid to be bold, they were not deterred when the world laughed at their idea and many were still laughing when they got in. 
 

If we said 10 years no TV and they said no deal we just love SMU too much then I cannot begrudge VPMK of that but that’s certainly an argument you should be fighting hard enough that someone would have actually heard it.

[puc86]

1 hour ago, Rocky Style said:

I've never seen anything to indicate that.  I think we were hoping we were in the mix, but I don't see how that would be possible with FSU and UM sitting there.

Because FSU voted no to SMU anyway and UNC voted no to SMU and seemed to indicate publicly an interest in an alternative should one present itself. We didn’t get a solid look at beating SMU to the ACC because we saw all of the reasons it couldn’t be done where as they stayed focused on finding the one way that it could.

[00Bull]

I don’t know what has or hasn’t happened behind the scenes but I too think USF should have been out there publicly making noise. Lack of doing so certainly comes across as  passivity at a time when the spoils went to the bold. 

Seems like the Jacksonville University grad, Will Weatherford, is one of the lone voices out there effectively advocating for USF. 

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by 00Bull