MillerLiteTime

quote:

---

You obviously still don't understand. The person swerved to avoid the vehicle in front of her because she was going to rear end him. Lacy was behind all of them.

---

Now explain how the charger passing 4 cars around a curve in a no pass zone had no correlation to that. Wish Lacy were still with us. It would be an interesting trial with both sides having a good case. I would bet it would have been settled as reckless driving and he’s back playing. Tragic.

quote:

---

To say this, you need to show that this accident would have happened even if Lacy's car wasn't there.

---

Agree. The attorney’s side is certainly mitigating evidence that perhaps could’ve gotten charges reduced, but he clearly has a role in this passing 4 cars in a no pass zone. People weren’t slamming on brakes and swerving into traffic for no reason.

quote:

---

LACEY NEVER SHOULD HAVE KILLED HIMSELF

---

Of course not and it’s a tragedy that he did.

quote:

---

They have objective tangible data

---

What is objective about his attorney running a 50 minute infomercial with no opposing opinions or evidence presented. There is a reason grand jury’s indict 99% of the time hearing only one side of the evidence.

quote:

---

2. The lady directly behind him is actually the one who swerved into traffic and caused the accident.

---

Either way none of this happens if Lacy doesn’t pass 4 cars around a curve in a no passing zone. There is a reason you have no passing zones which is to prevent accidents like this one.

I never wished for Lacy’s life to be ruined because of this mistake and hated to hear he took his life eventually, but acting like he has no responsibility here is completely false.

Lacy should have fought this in court. I don’t think he would be totally cleared but there’s enough mitigating evidence that he probably still has a career ahead of him.

It’s a tragedy for the person who died in the accident and that Lacy took his life. But I’m not sure this video is 100% exoneration. He passed 4 cars around a curve in a no passing zone (admitted by his attorney), then the crash happened only 72 yards from where he got back in his lane. 72 yards sounds like a lot, but it’s about 1 second from collision with two cars both driving towards each other.

After watching more of the video I do think there is a lot of mitigating evidence and wish he would have waited for his day in court. He wouldn't be totally cleared but he had a good chance at reduced charges. Even if convicted he still had a life and career ahead of him.

quote:

---

Blue bloods have been teams with enough long term connections and pull to get away with paying players. Now that every one can pay players that term will mean less and less

---

The last 2 title winners under the most extreme unlimited NIL where anyone is allowed to do anything have been blue bloods Michigan and Ohio St.

From what I can find online about the actual structure of this, there is nothing groundbreaking going on and the revenue is really just moving money around into different pockets, not adding 2 billion in additional revenue. The new revenue is whatever this PE firm pays for a 5% ownership stake in the league's revenue, plus any additional value the B10 thinks this new partner can add in increasing revenues.

It's a new organization with 20 shares. 18 shares go to the 18 schools, 1 goes to the B10 conference office, 1 goes to this unknown private equity partner that will buy their share and manage the business side of this like a CEO in exchange for 5% ownership and 5% of profits. And they will be pooling TV revenue plus other licensing into the new org. So it's not like they keep their current TV money + 2 billion.

If anything, the structure seems very short-sighted. It's a similar arrangement to the ownership agreement the SEC has with ESPN to run and market the SEC Network. Except in that case we badly needed ESPN for their expertise in running a cable sports channel and bundling monopoly power over the TV providers. In the B10 scenario, why do they need to sell a share of their conference in perpetuity to have this private equity partner handle their TV and licensing negotiations for them? Why can't the B10 office do that or pay attorneys to handle it instead of selling 5% of the conference? Sure they will get a one time influx of cash (likely not 2 billion in new revenue) but you lose a piece of the conference forever and add a corporate partner that may have very different motivations than member schools long term.

It's the equivalent of adding a 19th university. Except in this case you make the school pay the conference to join (like Memphis tried to do to join the B12). And the new school has no athletic program to add value, only a really good business school that promises to use their knowledge to help increase your conference revenue. Sounds like a raw deal to me.

If yall are looking for consistent 8-10 win seasons, the B12 or ACC would happily take you. Otherwise you better appreciate that Stoops keeps UK marginally competitive in the SEC.