Big Ten considering Washington, Oregon, Stanford, Cal. (link)

[Radio Zero]

Sources: Big Ten has begun preliminary talks to potentially add Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford

The Big Ten has been reluctant to move to 20 teams, even if many in college athletics believe expansive superconferences are inevitable.

sports.yahoo.com

 

[mcmurtry66]

Sources: Big Ten has begun preliminary talks to potentially add Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford

The Big Ten has been reluctant to move to 20 teams, even if many in college athletics believe expansive superconferences are inevitable.

sports.yahoo.com

Madness

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

And FSU wants OUT of the ACC unless they "radically" change the distribution of TV money.

No more equal distributions anywhere soon - IU will get a 5% cut so the Big 2 can compete with Oregon, USC and UCLA.

Meanwhile, we talk about dedicated weightlifting space as the issue that matters.

 

[Jackskip23]

And FSU wants OUT of the ACC unless they "radically" change the distribution of TV money.

No more equal distributions anywhere soon - IU will get a 5% cut so the Big 2 can compete with Oregon, USC and UCLA.

Meanwhile, we talk about dedicated weightlifting space as the issue that matters.

I predicted this months ago. FSU won’t be the last school to say they expect to receive compensation at least somewhat consistent with whatever revenues they generate. And no one suggested the weight room issue was the one that matters, only that it was a favorite of the “Can’t Crowd”.

 

[td75]

There was an article stating that Clemson and Florida State could be Big Ten bound.

 

[Tommaker]

Sources: Big Ten has begun preliminary talks to potentially add Oregon, Washington, Cal and Stanford

The Big Ten has been reluctant to move to 20 teams, even if many in college athletics believe expansive superconferences are inevitable.

sports.yahoo.com

Did you scroll down? The Soopa-conferense, she's-a here. https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...GZvJQABkfYEUcrSuvHx_8g6KyRcq1SlE5s075wVGbkedI

 

[Tommaker]

Did you scroll down? The Soopa-conferense, she's-a here. https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...GZvJQABkfYEUcrSuvHx_8g6KyRcq1SlE5s075wVGbkedI

I can see OSU jumping at it, maybe Penn State (if they are considered a worthy contender and eyeball draw-er). ND (with a lot of hand wringing, wailing and gnashing of teeth...yet still doing it), Bama, Texas, Florida, Miami, Maybe USC? Michigan might stand pat and work on being the BIg Dog in the BT, but hubris might make that impossible. Georgia, LSU, maybe Clemson....who else?

 

[Radio Zero]

And FSU wants OUT of the ACC unless they "radically" change the distribution of TV money.

No more equal distributions anywhere soon - IU will get a 5% cut so the Big 2 can compete with Oregon, USC and UCLA.

Meanwhile, we talk about dedicated weightlifting space as the issue that matters.

Everyone (quite rightly) enjoys heaping scorn and derision on BRCB, but we’re on the verge of seeing (it appears) the first instance of what he’s always clucking about: the relegation of P5 teams (Oregon State and Wazzu) to a lower level of competition. Maybe in my head I always pictured it as the university presidents assembling and voting to cast a school out — which isn’t how this is happening — but the result is the same.

 

[kmathum]

And FSU wants OUT of the ACC unless they "radically" change the distribution of TV money.

No more equal distributions anywhere soon - IU will get a 5% cut so the Big 2 can compete with Oregon, USC and UCLA.

Meanwhile, we talk about dedicated weightlifting space as the issue that matters.

And the 5% cut isn't worth being cannon fodder for the big boys. That's where I say so long. Let's see how you get along without your whipping boys. Your record might look a lot different.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Did you scroll down? The Soopa-conferense, she's-a here. https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...GZvJQABkfYEUcrSuvHx_8g6KyRcq1SlE5s075wVGbkedI

capitalism takes different forms, and most think only about the most romanticized form.

a capitalist can see a river with no bridge, and build one and charge a toll a use.

or, a capitalist can see a free passage public bridge over a river with 20,000 vehicle crossings a day, and think how can i become the management of that bridge and use that management of that bridge to enrich myself.

what we have been seeing in college sports is the later form of the two of capitalism.

many have tried to start new pro leagues with varying levels of success.

but building a loyal fan base of tens of millions and adding hundreds of billions/trillions in facilities and land and media distribution isn't that easy for pro sports league start ups, especially with the NFL and NBA already established..

so much easier to just take over college athletics from within, who's fan base and facilities and land ownership and media contracts and distribution built over 2 centuries are already on par with, or superior to, the NFL or NBA, and just using the frog in the pot approach, transition college athletics that took 200 yrs to build, to something you now manage and can use that management of to monetize to the max something that wasn't built with the intent of maxing revenues, and enrich yourself and a small handful of others in the C-Suite positions beyond your wildest dreams, and far beyond what you can likely achieve starting your own new pro leagues.

and best of all, do it all with public and other people's money, rather than having to invest so much as 1 cent yourself.

and in doing so, you also inherit the monopoly status and tax free status of the entities you have inhabited and transitioned to being managed by you.

of course you still have partners, the universities themselves, that you have to share revenues and control with.

all that is happening as we speak, and has been happening for some time.

as to the linked article about private equity just buying everything,

for those still on the outside who see hijacking college athletics, it's fan base, facilities, land, etc, as a far superior way to acquire one's own pro sports leagues, to benefit themselves and financial backers, i suppose the next option would be to just buy from the outside the already hijacked college athletics, from those who already hijacked it from within.

i personally don't see that happening, mainly because you can't use the frog in the pot approach again to circumvent public outcry and political push back.

never the less, the original hijacking from within of college athletics for the enrichment of the very few at the expense of everyone else, and at the expense of the end of college athletics as we knew them in favor of a 2 new pro leagues, football and basketball, has already happened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

on a side note, when this conference realignment spun as "expansion" first started in earnest 10-12 yrs ago with Neb, UMD, RU, to the B10, Mizzou, TAM, to the SEC, Col to the PAC, with the PAC going after Texas and OU and the B10 hoping UMd would be the first domino bringing UNC and UVa as well at the time, i stated here many times at the time that this wasn't about "expansion" at all, or the local markets, it was about CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION 101, and eliminating competing major conferences for media contracts as much as possible, as monopolization was/is where the money is for schools and conferences that already enjoyed national distribution in all their contracts without taking on added equal shares of an already national revenue pie just to enhance a few markets that were already being monetized.

CORPORATE CONSOLIDATION 101.

these are no longer primarily sports leagues, they are PRIMARILY NEGOTIATING CARTELS put together to monopolize negotiating leverage as much as possible.

they are no longer being run by administrators for the greater good of the universities, athletes, alumni, students, and fans, they are now being run by media execs with corporate raider activist hedge fund manager mentalities, with one and only one agenda in mind.

 

[Jackskip23]

And the 5% cut isn't worth being cannon fodder for the big boys. That's where I say so long. Let's see how you get along without your whipping boys. Your record might look a lot different.

We’ll very likely get more than 5% but we‘re far less likely to get more than we’ve generated. We might want to leave in a huff, but our righteous indignation will come with a heavy cost.

 

[kmathum]

We’ll very likely get more than 5% but we‘red far less likely to get more than we’ve generated. We might want to leave in a huff, but our righteous indignation will come with a heavy cost.

Should we be satisfied with getting our asses kicked every fricking week? Who in their right minds would come to see that blood bath?

 

[Jackskip23]

Should we be satisfied with getting our asses kicked every fricking week? Who in their right minds would come to see that blood bath?

That’s our harsh reality . . . Play to actually compete and win, or decide not to and remain a tackling dummy.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

And FSU wants OUT of the ACC unless they "radically" change the distribution of TV money.

No more equal distributions anywhere soon - IU will get a 5% cut so the Big 2 can compete with Oregon, USC and UCLA.

Meanwhile, we talk about dedicated weightlifting space as the issue that matters.

Renegotiating splits may well come to the BIG once the dust settles. that concept isn't new. As a legacy member with the top BB program, solid academics and deep sucess in non-rev sports we would see a fair shake and more than we generate. We wouldn't get what the big FB schools get.

 

[Courtsensetwo]

Should we be satisfied with getting our asses kicked every fricking week? Who in their right minds would come to see that blood bath?

Btown will always be a draw on a FB Sat but you are right, we need to get competitive at least with the middle third of the league.

 

[Pazhoosier85]

I wonder if college football eventually ends up in a soccer style premier league and a lower league where teams can move up and down at the bottom and top of their respective leagues.

 

[HoosierAlum07]

Get as many teams to join the conference as possible, finally get rid of the B10 name, and start a collegiate semi-pro league!

Maybe separate from the NCAA where players can optionally choose to attend a college but not use a full free athletic scholarship if they are receiving NIL $!?

 

[IUCrazy2]

We’ll very likely get more than 5% but we‘re far less likely to get more than we’ve generated. We might want to leave in a huff, but our righteous indignation will come with a heavy cost.

At that point I stop watching so they aren't making money off of me. I will find something else to do. As will a whole bunch of other people.

 

[Jackskip23]

At that point I stop watching so they aren't making money off of me. I will find something else to do. As will a whole bunch of other people.

I think they’re going to chase a ton of people away with all of this. I get the money grab, but the notion that any of the presidents or athletic director’s care much for the student athletes went out the window some time ago. They’ll either be employees or independent contractors in due course, and they’ll collectively bargain for working conditions, wages, and benefits just like other labor groups. Too much money on the table.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

At that point I stop watching so they aren't making money off of me. I will find something else to do. As will a whole bunch of other people.

You’ll be paying for its content regardless(not tickets or merch). They don’t necessarily need your eyeballs.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

I think they’re going to chase a ton of people away with all of this. I get the money grab, but the notion that any of the presidents or athletic director’s care much for the student athletes went out the window some time ago. They’ll either be employees or independent contractors in due course, and they’ll collectively bargain for working conditions, wages, and benefits just like other labor groups. Too much money on the table.

Wrong. They might get paid by the university as a salary (already get a stipend)but the Supreme Court will not allow them to ban NIL. They will still make side money. You won’t overturn antitrust.

 

[Jackskip23]

Wrong. They might get paid by the university as a salary (already get a stipend)but the Supreme Court will not allow them to ban NIL. They will still make side money. You won’t overturn antitrust.

Never said they’d ban NIL, nor do I think they could if they wanted to. But they’ll become employees or independent contractors and bargain for a share of the conference revenues, just like pro sports labor groups do.

 

[Jackskip23]

You’ll be paying for its content regardless(not tickets or merch). They don’t necessarily need your eyeballs.

We already pay for the content, and eyeballs are overwhelmingly the most valued and valuable commodity. Without eyeballs, this falls apart. Just ask the PAC12.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

We already pay for the content, and eyeballs are overwhelmingly the most valued and valuable commodity. Without eyeballs, this falls apart. Just ask the PAC12.

No it’s not. The PAC tried to use streaming as a base. Market area pays for content regardless if it’s on the base cable and streaming. That’s why the B1G is positioned so well. They went after markets more than a decade ago because they knew they could get the content on everyone’s cable bill.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

Never said they’d ban NIL, nor do I think they could if they wanted to. But they’ll become employees or independent contractors and bargain for a share of the conference revenues, just like pro sports labor groups do.

This I agree with. The real problem for the ncaa is that nil is a states rights thing. The feds kicked it to the individual stats. If your state has no rules then the ncaa guidelines are used. If you Mr state has rules then the NCAA is basically powerless.

 

[IUCrazy2]

You’ll be paying for its content regardless(not tickets or merch). They don’t necessarily need your eyeballs.

I currently have the cord cut. I will turn it back on to catch the games right now but I can tell you I am not really missing not having it at the moment. On the broadcast channels they make money from advertising, which is tied to eyeballs on the game. If they went to a superleague that didn't include Indiana I would probably never watch. And I think the younger generations they need to keep things going would be on the same page. College football without your connection to the pageantry of your picked school is inferior to the NFL. The super league would be popular in the south, in California (although they don't exactly pack them in out there) and a handful of spots in the Midwest.

I don't think all of these football schools are the ratings juggernauts they think they are. If Indiana is out of the equation people from this state aren't going to flip to Michigan and Ohio State fans, they will be Colts, Bears, Bengals, Browns, etc. fans. And I think Notre Dame would flounder in that super conference as well. They aren't truly competitive with any of those big schools at the moment which is part of the reason they want no part of joining the Big Ten or SEC until they are practically forced to.

Go ahead and compete while you can but this whole model is unsustainable in the long run. Schools can hand out what, 85 scholarships for football each year. To be competitive with those schools say you have to average $50k to $100k per player. So you have to go to your fan base and other partners and secure $4M to $8.5M a year. Then add on another few million for the basketball team. So $10M a year. Where is all that money going to come from?

"Hey alumni, we would like you to buy season tickets, you gotta donate to get good seats, please donate to our education fund and oh yeah, after all that could you kick in some more to pay the players unless you want to see us suck?" That is the shittiest model of a pro-league on planet earth. That is particularly true when the schools are bragging about $100M (potential) a year paydays from their broadcasting rights. And they have so much money to waste that it is a race to build the coolest lockerroom or weight room or sports. Taj Mahal that 99% of the people that support the school get zero benefit from.

IMO that well is only so deep. The schools are going to have to share revenue with the players and even then they will need participation from some of the schools who don't maybe have the following to have a truly successful league. If they broke it off and had a streaming service that put the North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Purdue, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan St., etc. of the world in a separate league, I think that league would steal viewers from the football super league.

 

[12375CAT]

AzCats 2 B12(?)

Sources: Arizona amid final steps to join Big 12

Arizona is in deep discussions about joining the Big 12, sources told ESPN, with a deal expected to be finalized in the near future.

t.co

 

[Jackskip23]

No it’s not. The PAC tried to use streaming as a base. Market area pays for content regardless if it’s on the base cable and streaming. That’s why the B1G is positioned so well. They went after markets more than a decade ago because they knew they could get the content on everyone’s cable bill.

But it still all predicated on eyeballs. All of it. The PAC12 went after streaming because they couldn’t muster the sort of pet school payout they wanted via traditional platforms. In other words, they couldn’t deliver the eyeballs.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

I currently have the cord cut. I will turn it back on to catch the games right now but I can tell you I am not really missing not having it at the moment. On the broadcast channels they make money from advertising, which is tied to eyeballs on the game. If they went to a superleague that didn't include Indiana I would probably never watch. And I think the younger generations they need to keep things going would be on the same page. College football without your connection to the pageantry of your picked school is inferior to the NFL. The super league would be popular in the south, in California (although they don't exactly pack them in out there) and a handful of spots in the Midwest.

I don't think all of these football schools are the ratings juggernauts they think they are. If Indiana is out of the equation people from this state aren't going to flip to Michigan and Ohio State fans, they will be Colts, Bears, Bengals, Browns, etc. fans. And I think Notre Dame would flounder in that super conference as well. They aren't truly competitive with any of those big schools at the moment which is part of the reason they want no part of joining the Big Ten or SEC until they are practically forced to.

Go ahead and compete while you can but this whole model is unsustainable in the long run. Schools can hand out what, 85 scholarships for football each year. To be competitive with those schools say you have to average $50k to $100k per player. So you have to go to your fan base and other partners and secure $4M to $8.5M a year. Then add on another few million for the basketball team. So $10M a year. Where is all that money going to come from?

"Hey alumni, we would like you to buy season tickets, you gotta donate to get good seats, please donate to our education fund and oh yeah, after all that could you kick in some more to pay the players unless you want to see us suck?" That is the shittiest model of a pro-league on planet earth. That is particularly true when the schools are bragging about $100M (potential) a year paydays from their broadcasting rights. And they have so much money to waste that it is a race to build the coolest lockerroom or weight room or sports. Taj Mahal that 99% of the people that support the school get zero benefit from.

IMO that well is only so deep. The schools are going to have to share revenue with the players and even then they will need participation from some of the schools who don't maybe have the following to have a truly successful league. If they broke it off and had a streaming service that put the North Carolina, Duke, Indiana, Kentucky, Kansas, Purdue, Minnesota, Iowa, Michigan St., etc. of the world in a separate league, I think that league would steal viewers from the football super league.

Super league probably won’t happen. I just don’t see all the big dogs together as there isn’t enough teams to beat on or have winners. You still have to have the have nots.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

But it still all predicated on eyeballs. All of it. The PAC12 went after streaming because they couldn’t muster the sort of pet school payout they wanted via traditional platforms. In other words, they couldn’t deliver the eyeballs.

They did it with their last model too. That’s why they flubbed this up. Wasn’t just this one. So you are telling me that UCLA and Rutgers get eyeballs? You don’t have to watch the games to still pay. They went after the largest viewing markets overall not the largest football viewing markets. Sure some does play into it. Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA were purely getting those giant top 5 total markets.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

Looks like the Washington/Oregon to the B1G is almost done. Lots of people now saying as early as next fall. Supposedly taking a lesser share. PAC 12 schools have been told as well as the regents. Arizona and ASU are leaving for the big 12. Done deal folks.

 

[Radio Zero]

Oregon, Washington to Join Big Ten, Leave Pac-12

Check out Brett McMurphy's report on Oregon and Washington joining the Big Ten and leaving the Pac-12 in the latest realignment move.

www.actionnetwork.com

 

[Jackskip23]

They did it with their last model too. That’s why they flubbed this up. Wasn’t just this one. So you are telling me that UCLA and Rutgers get eyeballs? You don’t have to watch the games to still pay. They went after the largest viewing markets overall not the largest football viewing markets. Sure some does play into it. Maryland, Rutgers, USC and UCLA were purely getting those giant top 5 total markets.

They had the same issue when they did this previously . . . There isn’t enough of a sustainable audience to generate the kind of revenue that would enable the payouts other conferences were getting for their members. It’s precisely why SC and UCLA willingly jumped ship. Not enough eyeballs meant they got a lousier deal. The Big Ten fixed that for them while getting access to the SoCal market, which is flush with BT alums. Eyeballs dictate everything.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Never said they’d ban NIL, nor do I think they could if they wanted to. But they’ll become employees or independent contractors and bargain for a share of the conference revenues, just like pro sports labor groups do.

the conference schools all agree to grant their media rights to the conferences, as a condition of being a member of the conference..

players always had NIL rights, but in the past granted those rights to the schools as a condition of a scholly. (just as schools grant rights to conferences).

schools could require that grant of NIL rights again, but couldn't successfully do so unilaterally any more than they could before.

the whole NIL thing is both a total scam/fraud and a total clusterfk beyond belief, and i'm curious what the reason is for not replacing it with a far better for the sport alternative immediately, rather than saying they'll address the issue later.

 

[Jackskip23]

the conference schools all agree to grant their media rights to the conferences, as a condition of being a member of the conference..

players always had NIL rights, but in the past granted those rights to the schools as a condition of a scholly. (just as schools grant rights to conferences).

schools could require that grant of NIL rights again, but couldn't successfully do so unilaterally any more than they could before.

the whole NIL thing is both a total scam/fraud and a total clusterfk beyond belief, and i'm curious what the reason is for not replacing it with a far better for the sport alternative immediately, rather than saying they'll address the issue later.

Players didn’t always have rights to their names, images and likenesses. That’s simply and categorically incorrect. And the courts have ruled that schools can no longer possess those rights, so schools can’t and will not attempt to claim them. Any effort to claim those rights from players would be futile.

Repeating the same inaccuracies, as you continue to do, doesn’t suddenly make them truthful or valid.

 

[Victorbmyboy]

the conference schools all agree to grant their media rights to the conferences, as a condition of being a member of the conference..

players always had NIL rights, but in the past granted those rights to the schools as a condition of a scholly. (just as schools grant rights to conferences).

schools could require that grant of NIL rights again, but couldn't successfully do so unilaterally any more than they could before.

the whole NIL thing is both a total scam/fraud and a total clusterfk beyond belief, and i'm curious what the reason is for not replacing it with a far better for the sport alternative immediately, rather than saying they'll address the issue later.

Good grief. No more of the underhanded and under the table cluster “the haves” had. So screw the have nots just so you goofs can hold onto your stupid rosary. The NCAA was always a fraud.

 

[Rags to Roses]

Super league probably won’t happen. I just don’t see all the big dogs together as there isn’t enough teams to beat on or have winners. You still have to have the have nots.

I can see the B1G eventually moving to an upper division and lower division arrangement (isn’t that what European soccer teams do?). The winner of the lower division team gets added to the upper division the next year, trading places with the worst of the upper division. That would allow for differential payouts based on merit. (Upper division getting more than the lower division)

 

[i'vegotwinners]

But it still all predicated on eyeballs. All of it. The PAC12 went after streaming because they couldn’t muster the sort of pet school payout they wanted via traditional platforms. In other words, they couldn’t deliver the eyeballs.

wrong.

you have absolutely no idea how the pay tv/streaming world works. (nor do many).

while eyeballs matter to advertisers, what matters most to pay tv/streaming providers, thus any networks bidding for rights that they then parley into monthly per sub fees, isn't the number of eyeballs, but how many passionate eyeballs, and just how passionate.

ie, how many subs would switch their pay tv/streaming provider, if their school's/teams/news channel/favorite network, was no longer available on their current provider, but available on another provider.

or drop their pay tv/streaming service altogether.

it's about the $150-$250 plus a month in sub fees including internet , not Nielsen ratings or incremental ad revenue.

the entire pay tv/streaming revenue model breaks literally every anti trust anti competitive collusion/monopoly law there is, and should have been deemed totally illegal 20 yrs ago.

our media consumers, including all sports watchers, are effectively being taxed by the govt whether they watch sports or not, rather than buying or not buying what they do and don't want.

and being taxed big bucks every month, effectively without anyone's consent.

only the fact that the politics/news networks, (primarily Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and to a lessor degree CBS, ABC), and the providers, (primarily Comcast/AT&T/Directv) are now literally connected at the hip to the parties to the point that they are now literally the media arms of the parties themselves, i'll assume is the only reason this greatest anti competitive monopolistic insanity in history that literally steals big bucks from every household every month is allowed to exist.

and what's crazier, is that zero exaggeration or misrepresentation has been done by me here. this is literally what's going on.



and i could go on about the insanity of distribution also owning content as well.

and the insanity of the entities owning/controlling the providers, the distribution, the news and political content, the major studios, and the nation's wired and wireless internet infrastructure, also owning/controlling big oil, big war, big banks/finance, big pharma, and everything else BIG.

and yes, that's actually going on as we speak, and not some exaggeration or misrepresentation.

and 99% of the citizenry/voters have absolutely no idea this has occurred. (because they own/control all the media of scale, regardless of any party affiliation or not. and they aint about to tell anyone and you'll never so much as hear Hannity or Rachel or Anderson Cooper so much as mention it ever.)

 

[i'vegotwinners]

Players didn’t always have rights to their names, images and likenesses. That’s simply and categorically incorrect. And the courts have ruled that schools can no longer possess those rights, so schools can’t and will not attempt to claim them. Any effort to claim those rights from players would be futile.

Repeating the same inaccuracies, as you continue to do, doesn’t suddenly make them truthful or valid.

just not true, and no matter how often you repeat that lie, it still won't be true.

everyone has a legal right to their name, image, likeness, absent assigning over that right.

it isn't something SCOTUS just gave us.

Bellamy, Rayl, McGinnis, Buckner, Isiah, Alford, ect could all have been paid to do commercials or endorsements, photo shoots, etc, absent assigning over those rights.

just ask Alford.

 

[Jackskip23]

wrong.

you have absolutely no idea how the pay tv/streaming world works. (nor do many).

while eyeballs matter to advertisers, what matters most to pay tv/streaming providers, thus any networks bidding for rights that they then parley into monthly per sub fees, isn't the number of eyeballs, but how many passionate eyeballs, and just how passionate.

ie, how many subs would switch their pay tv/streaming provider, if their school's/teams/news channel/favorite network, was no longer available on their current provider, but available on another provider.

or drop their pay tv/streaming service altogether.

it's about the $150-$250 plus a month in sub fees including internet , not Nielsen ratings or incremental ad revenue.

the entire pay tv/streaming revenue model breaks literally every anti trust anti competitive collusion/monopoly law there is, and should have been deemed totally illegal 20 yrs ago.

our media consumers, including all sports watchers, are effectively being taxed by the govt whether they watch sports or not, rather than buying or not buying what they do and don't want.

and being taxed big bucks every month, effectively without anyone's consent.

only the fact that the politics/news networks, (primarily Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and to a lessor degree CBS, ABC), and the providers, (primarily Comcast/AT&T/Directv) are now literally connected at the hip to the parties to the point that they are now literally the media arms of the parties themselves, i'll assume is the only reason this greatest anti competitive monopolistic insanity in history that literally steals big bucks from every household every month is allowed to exist.

and what's crazier, is that zero exaggeration or misrepresentation has been done by me here. this is literally what's going on.



and i could go on about the insanity of distribution also owning content as well.

and the insanity of the entities owning/controlling the providers, the distribution, the news and political content, the major studios, and the nation's wired and wireless internet infrastructure, also owning/controlling big oil, big war, big banks/finance, big pharma, and everything else BIG.

and yes, that's actually going on as we speak, and not some exaggeration or misrepresentation.

and 99% of the citizenry/voters have absolutely no idea this has occurred. (because they own/control all the media of scale, regardless of any party affiliation or not. and they aint about to tell anyone and you'll never so much as hear Hannity or Rachel or Anderson Cooper so much as mention it ever.)

Ooooookay.