Oregon Ducks Sports Message Board Forum
https://ducksattack.com/forum/
I read pretty much everything about Pac-12 realignment I can find, BS or not, just because I enjoy the drama of it all. So far, Wilner has been the gold standard of reporting information that best reflects reality. JC seems to be following his lead, so I can't really give him the same amount of credit, but he's on that same flight path. He's one of the few who isn't running wild with rumors and heresay. McMurphy, on the other hand, is one of the worst.This conference realignment/TV deal story is the most blatant case; he’s literally being fed misinformation by the pac-12 to help their cause.
Trust him more than some of the national guys who barely have any contacts within the Pac-12 footprint.Zyme wrote:You had faith in JC? Not a good place to put it.greenyellow wrote:I've lost faith in a few reporters/journalists with how they've covered this whole media deal thing.
I have a hard time seeing Stanford that high even though they have so many high performing teams with their football attendance and viewership. I actually thought Oregon would be lower, that just shows for Oregon how much revenue the football team brings in to make up for the fact that we have way less varsity teams than schools like USC and Stanford. Still don’t know why we have an acrobatics and tumbling team, but that’s for another discussion.Duck07 wrote:
Well you definitely have a better grasp on the reporting than I do because I haven’t been following it as closely as you. Typically JC either repeats what’s already been said and labels it as “sourced” or just makes stuff up. With this he’s seemed to be just carrying water for the conference but I could be wrong. Like you said, we’ll see.pezsez1 wrote:I read pretty much everything about Pac-12 realignment I can find, BS or not, just because I enjoy the drama of it all. So far, Wilner has been the gold standard of reporting information that best reflects reality. JC seems to be following his lead, so I can't really give him the same amount of credit, but he's on that same flight path. He's one of the few who isn't running wild with rumors and heresay. McMurphy, on the other hand, is one of the worst.This conference realignment/TV deal story is the most blatant case; he’s literally being fed misinformation by the pac-12 to help their cause.
We'll see when the rubber meets the road.
That document is inaccurate, there is no consistency in its source data.Duck07 wrote:
5$ wrote: That document is inaccurate, there is no consistency in its source data.
So the numbers reported to the Dept of Education are wrong?
I thought the numbers looked crazy because it didn't seem plausible based on expected TV money and attendance but then I suspected that donor funds are added in there and how each university decided to allocate donations. Everyone looks at Stanford with their mediocre attendance and equal share PAC-10 money and it seems like there is no way that they could be that high, but they receive huge donations which could explain why they report so much to this survey.Duck07 wrote:5$ wrote: That document is inaccurate, there is no consistency in its source data.So the numbers reported to the Dept of Education are wrong?
Look for yourself, there's zero consistency of the numbers reported to the website the creator of that document relied on. This information is about as trustworthy as an internet meme.Duck07 wrote:5$ wrote: That document is inaccurate, there is no consistency in its source data.So the numbers reported to the Dept of Education are wrong?
Okay, care to show where all of the correct numbers are since you know what they are?5$ wrote: Look for yourself, there's zero consistency of the numbers reported to the website the creator of that document relied on. This information is about as trustworthy as an internet meme.
Honestly I really don't care to put in the necessary effort to educate you when you can figure it out for yourself with a modicum of effort. You are combative in your responses and I don't understand why. I'd suggest you conduct your own assessment of USC's numbers and comprehend how they net exactly $0, but Notre Dame nets a profit.Duck07 wrote:Okay, care to show where all of the correct numbers are since you know what they are?5$ wrote: Look for yourself, there's zero consistency of the numbers reported to the website the creator of that document relied on. This information is about as trustworthy as an internet meme.
If these numbers were derived from an official, standardized tax document, for instance, this would be a different situation. However there is no explanation on exactly how the numbers are derived, and if the data is not standardized, then the conclusions of that spreadsheet data are falsely equivalent...5$ wrote:Honestly I really don't care to put in the necessary effort to educate you when you can figure it out for yourself with a modicum of effort. You are combative in your responses and I don't understand why. I'd suggest you conduct your own assessment of USC's numbers and comprehend how they net exactly $0, but Notre Dame nets a profit.Duck07 wrote:Okay, care to show where all of the correct numbers are since you know what they are?5$ wrote: Look for yourself, there's zero consistency of the numbers reported to the website the creator of that document relied on. This information is about as trustworthy as an internet meme.
Typically in a normal conversation when someone has presented information and someone says it's bullshit, the onus is on the person calling bs to prove why that information is wrong and not just tell that person they're wrong or that they're somehow combative for asking you to prove it.5$ wrote:Honestly I really don't care to put in the necessary effort to educate you when you can figure it out for yourself with a modicum of effort. You are combative in your responses and I don't understand why. I'd suggest you conduct your own assessment of USC's numbers and comprehend how they net exactly $0, but Notre Dame nets a profit.Duck07 wrote:Okay, care to show where all of the correct numbers are since you know what they are?5$ wrote: Look for yourself, there's zero consistency of the numbers reported to the website the creator of that document relied on. This information is about as trustworthy as an internet meme.