Ohio
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
8mo ago
I also remember CNN's refusal to call Ohio for Bush in 2004, even though it was clear by the time I stopped watching the results that Kerry had no chance of winning. It was a lot less close than 2000 Florida.
SSCReader
8mo ago
Trump won in 2016 by ~50,000 votes across 5 states. The other primary candidates who would have likely been the alternatives would have lost badly because they would have picked the wrong topics to focus on and they weren't going to flip rustbelt states which were required to win the presidency for the first time in the generation with another Romney 2.0. A guy like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush wouldn't have even won in Ohio demonstrated by Romney loss there in 2012.
But would Romney have lost in 2016, after a two term Democratic president? That is the question. The pattern is that after two terms the leadership usually swings. So yes my contention is that Romney probably would have won Ohio in 2016. 2012 was a different election with different fundamentals.
My experience with being in politics is that people vastly overrate the ability of the media and politicians to gaslight the people. At best we hope to find something that resonates then run hard on it, but we have much less power to actually persuade people than is commonly believed. I know, it used to be my job. It isn't Trump's charisma that drove his win, because he inspires hate in about as many people as he does adoration. Look at Brexit, despite the media going hard, it still happened. The people have their own opinions formed by their social groupings much more than driven by the media or politicians in my direct experience.
Put it this way if we had two boring uncharismatic, candidates in this election, with the economy as it is, with Biden being dumped for Boring Dem 2.0, who would you put your money on? I submit the smart money would be on Republican 2.0 all else being equal. High inflation, low economic confidence, some push back on woke stuff like trans, a one term President who can't run for a second term because he can barely cope with a debate. Setting aside who is running, the fundamentals I think lean Republican.
Bleep
8mo ago
Being behind Trump in a primary against Trump does not mean that you would run behind a Democrat in the general.
I'm sorry I wasn't more clear, but what I meant to say is these generic Republicans, the many nameless candidates no one knows, are all running behind Trump and have been for months with that difference finally closing in the remaining weeks of the election. We can go down a list of every generic GOP running for Senate, House, etc., and we can see they're behind Trump in the same exact polls by significant margins.
Most people vote for parties not candidates, the impact of charisma is not zero, but it is massively overrated in my opinion
I honestly don't understand how this is a defensible position. Were all the GOP registered voters voting for the party when they picked a 1990s Democrat reality TV star from NYC? Was the Obama wave in 2008 in primary voting for party? Was him winning a landslide in 2008 due to people just voting Democrat? Was him beating Romney despite 4 years of incredibly unpopular policies just people voting for party?
Kamala is a good counterexample, but I think she's the exception which proves the rule. As long as you have every institution, nearly every major media conglomerate, the government bureaucracy itself trying to win you an election, as well as those major media institutions essentially running your campaign while you hide, I agree that charisma is likely overrated.
Trump won in 2016 largely because he was a Republican following two Democratic terms with a not great economy.
Trump won in 2016 by ~50,000 votes across 5 states. The other primary candidates who would have likely been the alternatives would have lost badly because they would have picked the wrong topics to focus on and they weren't going to flip rustbelt states which were required to win the presidency for the first time in the generation with another Romney 2.0. A guy like Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio or Jeb Bush wouldn't have even won in Ohio demonstrated by Romney loss there in 2012.
As an example Rishi Sunak's Tories got beaten by Kier Starmer's Labour, and would have if they were running a re-animated Maggie Thatcher, Tony Blair converted to the Tories or an Angelic Winston Churchill descended from Heaven (ok well maybe not the last one!) Because the economy was shot and the Tories were in charge at the time.
I honestly don't follow UK elections or know much about them at all. I barely know the parties, but didn't Reform UK, a party started in 2024, cannibalize much of the Tory vote? Do you think an uncharismatic rando would have been able to accomplish something like that? I doubt it.
"It's the economy stupid" is the dominating factor. Candidates, GOTV, scandals, and the like are very secondary.
Institutions and media are able to gaslight people into thinking pretty much anything within a wide band for long enough for the economy to not be the controlling factor.
Without GOTV, you just lose. Without registration machines, you just lose. In my experience, they're the necessary foundations to win at all. There are ways to substitute for them, like having a guy so charismatic he drives voters to the polls.
Rov_Scam
8mo ago
On Prognostication
Over the past several weeks, I've become increasingly irritated by discussions, both here and elsewhere, involving election predictions. While I agree that speculation can be fun, I think too many people try to read too much into the day-to-day ups and downs of the election cycle. While I agree with Nate Silver on a lot of things, there's something I find inherently off-putting about his schtick. I read The Signal and the Noise around the time it hit the bestseller lists and had an addendum about the 2012 election. One of the themes of the book is that the so-called experts who make predictions on television don't base their predictions on rational evidence and don't face any consequences when their predictions fail. No in-studio commentator on The NFL Today is losing his job solely because he picked too many losers.
Around this time, I became interested in probabilities, and I was regularly hitting up a friend who had majored in math and was pursuing a doctorate in economics at Ohio State. At one point he told me "Probability is interesting, but when it comes down to it, the only thing it's good for is gambling. We say there's a 50/50 chance of drawing a black ball from an urn when we know that the urn has 50 black balls and 50 white balls. When we talk about probabilities in the real world, it's like talking about the chances of drawing a black ball from an urn we don't know the size of." When discussing cards or dice, we're discussing random events based on repeatable starting conditions. When discussing elections, we're discussing a non-random event that will only happen once.
Beyond that, though, the broader question is: What's the point of all of this? This isn't a football game where scoring points confers an obvious advantage. If Trump is up by 5 points in June or Harris is up by 5 points in July, it has absolutely no effect on the actual election. My irritation with this started a couple weeks ago when someone posted here about Trump having large odds of winning on some betting site. I mean, okay, but who cares? What am I supposed to do with this information? I guess it's marginally useful if I'm thinking of putting a little money on the line, but I'm not much of a gambler, and the poster wasn't sharing this information to spark discussion on good betting opportunities. I pretty much lost it, though, last weekend, when news of the Selzer poll showing Harris winning Iowa hit and had everyone speculating whether Ms. Selzer was a canary in a coal mine or hopelessly off. Again, who cares? Selzer's prediction may be correct, or it may be incorrect, but it has no bearing on the actual election. Harris doesn't get any extra votes because Selzer shows her doing better than ABC or whoever. Trump doesn't get any extra votes because of his odds on PredictIt.
I will admit that polling is useful to campaigns trying to allocate resources and determine what works and what doesn't. But they have their own internal polling for that. But unless you're actively employed by a campaign, there's nothing you can do with this information. As much as arguing about politics in general may be an exercise in futility, there's at least some chance you can influence someone else's position. Arguing about who's going to win the election doesn't even go this far, since no one is arguing that you should vote based on polling averages. The only utility I see in any of this is entertainment for the small subset of people who find politics entertaining. Which brings me back to my original criticism of Silver: The reason these professional prognosticators don't get called out on their inaccuracies is because their employers understand that their predictions are ultimately meaningless. Terry Bradshaw may predict the Browns to beat the Bengals, but at a certain time we'll know the winner and if the Bengals win the sun will rise the next morning and his being wrong about it will have no effect on anything.
For the record, a think Harris will probably win, but my prediction is low-confidence and isn't based on anything that's happened since campaign season started. In 2016, a lot of people in swing states voted for Trump because he was an unknown quantity and they preferred taking a chance with him rather than Clinton. In 2020, a certain percentage of these people regretted their decision and voted for Biden. I haven't seen anything in the past four years that suggests that any of these people are moving back to Trump. Electorally, the Republicans haven't shown anything, despite the fact that the first half of the Biden presidency wasn't exactly a cakewalk. But that's just my opinion. I don't know what you're supposed to do with it. You can disagree with it, and you may have a point, but after tomorrow what I think and what you think won't matter. The votes will be counted, a winner declared, and Dr. Oz's midterm performance won't matter, and my being wrong about it won't have an effect on anything.
hydroacetylene
8mo ago
Ok, fair, I’d forgotten about Todd Akin.
I stand by my statement that Iowa voting for Obama in 2012 doesn’t make it competitive for democrats. So did Maine’s 2nd district, so did Ohio, so did Florida.
hydroacetylene
8mo ago
Democrats aren't competitive in Ohio anymore, either. This isn't 2012, when Missouri elected a democrat for the senate.
bolido_sentimental
8mo ago
I am a native of Tennessee, have lived in Kentucky, and currently live in Ohio. None of these could be described as "blue states." Pretty much everyone that I talk to on a daily basis lives and votes in one of these three states.
For the last three or four months, almost every person I know has been assaulting my ears, unsolicited, with monologues about how Trump is a racist, sexist and fascist, and he must be kept out of the White House. Literally - I'm not saying that as a stock example, I mean that people have actually used those terms, in series, in sentences to describe him and his politics. Additionally, multiple people have told me they wish the would-be assassin's bullets didn't miss their mark. These people include my dad - a blue-collar tradesman; my coworkers, at a blue-collar manufacturing firm; my mom, a retail worker; a close friend of mine who joined the Army; and a guy I know who works in construction. No matter their age, race, or who the winners' policies would be likely to benefit, there is a lockstep consensus, even though these are all people who are the types of people, in the appropriate states, that you'd expect to support Trump. The only exceptions that I personally have are my fiancee and her family, a close friend from church, and an old coworker. All other people are happy to start venting about Trump to me.
(Notably - and this is not meant to be boo outgroup - I never hear anyone talk about how the election outcomes, or the policy outcomes that follow from that, will affect them personally. One guy I work with did at least reference his neighbors who are voting for Trump because they don't want their taxes to go up, which he described as "greed.")
My subjective impression, is that this is primarily caused by the successful capture by liberals of so many institutions, resulting in leftism becoming the "default position" in America. When all the big companies, all the media, and all the artists and musicians push in the same direction, you have to be a serious non-conformist to push the other way; and that is an uncommon trait. With that in mind, I don't know how the Republicans ever win any elections.
Quantumfreakonomics
8mo ago
I am surprised that opposing the euthenasia of animals for questionable human health reasons is obviously read as having a right-wing valence. It was easy to see the angle for the ducks and cats thing in Ohio because it was immigrants (allegedly) doing it, but what the hell does Trump or Kamala have to do with squirrels?
Lizzardspawn
8mo ago
I mean in Ohio they at least have the decency to eat the cats and the dogs.
WhiningCoil
8mo ago
I mean it's nice the head of the Democratic party is finally just dispensing with subtlety and is being honest. If concerned parents being added to FBI watchlist, people defending themselves being thrown in prison, functional communities being utterly destroyed by federal human trafficking didn't already give it away. How is it not manifestly obvious these are policies of hate and destruction? They consider felons and illegals more legitimate constituents than people who want property rights, safe communities, and schools that won't teach their children to sterilize and mutilate themselves.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
8mo ago
The reason why the Puerto Rico as trash island gaffe may be cutting through in a way which the average "Republican says something vaguely racist" or "Democrat insults the rustbelt" story doesn't is that it isn't just an attack on the outgroup. The much bigger issue is that it may be, and can be spun as, a mask-off moment about who the outgroup is.
The big positive message of the MSG rally, and in my view the Trump campaign more generally, is "Real America is uniting behind Trump to crush the external enemy (illegal immigrants and an unspecified subset of undesirable legal immigrants) and the internal enemy ("far-left lunatics", which has a deliberately ambiguous meaning but appears to include the Democratic politicians letting the external enemy in). To make this work, Trump has to define "Real America" broadly enough to have enough votes. And, at the margin, the key groups that the Trump campaign have successfully included in their idea of "Real America" in a way previous identarian-right movements failed to do are black men with otherwise-conservative views and well-assimilated Hispanics. And the big threat to that outreach is the not-unreasonable fear among well-assimilated Hispanics that Trump's coalition don't see them as Real Americans, even as Trump himself insists that they are. If Musk or Vance or some other sufficiently prominent Trump supporter said "Actually, Puerto Ricans aren't real Americans" and didn't get slapped down then Trump would be toast.
Apart from Hinchcliffe, every other speaker who does a funny bit is clowning on MAGA's outgroup (mostly named Democratic politicians, but also California, flag burners, art fags etc). And that is what you expect at a unity rally. There is a time and a place for equal-opportunity clown-on-everyone comedy, but right after prayers and the national anthem isn't it - and in any case from reading the transcript of Hinchcliffe's bit, the nearest thing to an ingroup roast is where he suggests his own mother might have joined in the pet-eating in Ohio. There are, for the obvious good reasons, no jokes about inbred West Virginians, SSDI cheats, or fat divorced middle-aged men, and I do not think the audience would have laughed at them if there had been. It certainly looks like Hinchcliffe was put on the agenda to clown on the outgroup - probably a poor choice (and definitely a poor choice in hindsight) because his MO as a comedian is to go after everyone.
So when Hinchcliffe calls Puerto Rico a trash island and the audience laughs (from listening to the video, my guess is that a lot of them don't, but Hinchcliffe treats the half-laugh as a slow audience to warm up rather than a joke that went down badly, which does the Democrats' work for them spinning it), the message sent is "MAGA considers Puerto Ricans to be the kind of people it is okay to clown on straight after the national anthem at a unity rally." And that message is not consistent with the appeal to assimilated Hispanics that Trump has, to date, been making successfully. "Trump hates Puerto Ricans" is spin, but it is true that Hinchcliffe and the rally attendees who laughed at him think Puerto Ricans are their outgroup, that the Trump campaign chose Hinchcliffe to speak straight after the national anthem, and that Trump is sending flacks to deflect blame for what Hinchcliffe said rather than using his bully pulpit to say how much he loves Puerto Ricans.
Is any of this going to affect the election? Probably not, because nothing seems to be affecting the election - from outside it feels like everyone made their mind up within 2 weeks of Biden pulling out, and we are just waiting to see which side in a 50-50 nation has the better GOTV operation. But "Republicans think Puerto Rico is trash" is news in a way which "Biden thinks Republicans are trash" is not, so if anything is going to affect the election at this late stage, Hinchcliffe's gaffe is a candidate.
gattsuru
8mo ago
That's an interesting and complex question.
The big problem is that as the government funding -- and other government capabilities -- take over larger and larger portions of the economy, that line becomes more and more complicated to hold. It's long been policy that "separation of church and state" (technically, the establishment clause: socas is just Jefferson's take) doesn't prohibit the government from paving a road or cleaning up a sidewalk just because a church might use it. Otherwise, you're discriminating against religious organizations as compared to everyone else. When government-granted services and opportunities were not omnipresent, that was not especially hard to handle, because no one (... except... ) cares about a road being paved.
In the modern era, everything from roof repairs to STEM programs to YMCAs to battered women's shelters to horses-for-healing to opera houses to, yes, schools, get cash money. And that's just the Ohio One Time Strategic Community Investment Fund! In the whole-scale situation, the government gets involved everywhere from permitting to insurance to background checks and so on.
To say these things can't draw on government funds is not to avoid government entanglement; it's to provide massive additional constraints specific only to religious projects.
gattsuru
8mo ago
Wise To The World
Ohio Capital Journal reports:
Westerville City Schools Board of Education voted 4-0 last week to end a religious release time policy that allowed LifeWise Academy to take public school students out of class to conduct Bible instruction during school hours. [...]
In Ohio, school districts may choose to allow students to earn up to two high school credits, during non-'core' education school hours, subject to a number of limitations such as on funding (solely private) and parental consent (written).
Why are they popular? My impression from what I've been able to gather of their curricula -- admittedly, the full contents of which they play pretty close to the chest -- is more Lutheran Sunday School than anything Hellfire Baptist. I'm not hugely tied into the fundie religious parents, but what contacts I do have, these programs are seen as offering a good compromise. Unlike homeschooling, the student is still getting core curricula and socialization with the general public (uh, for better or worse). Unlike the school's non-core programs, there's some integration with religious processes. Why not just do those things outside of school hours? The growth of after-school extracurriculars and increased reliance on those successes for college acceptance or scholarships have made 'traditional' afternoon or weekends religious programs harder and harder to maintain, while the reduced presence of religious programs elsewhere has made transportation overhead more costly.
What were the big arguments against these policies? Parents Against LifeWise has a more varied set of issues on their web page, for those who want a (very) deep dive. At least from my read, the vast majority of concerns are hypotheticals and/or trivialities, but perhaps a more critical eye will pick up something I've missed. OCJ offers:
“I was raised to know that religious teaching belongs in the home, at the church, with your friends, with your family, and those various people that believe the way you do,” said Dr. Allison Baer, an Associate Professor at the University of Findlay, and mother of Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer. “If this program, and this teaching, is so vital to their Christian life, why isn’t it offered after school, which would help working parents with free after school child care?”
“Westerville City Schools preaches diversity, equity and inclusion. But diversity, equity, and inclusion does not call for every human being to be a Christian,” said Luke Bauman, a Westerville resident. “It is the goal of LifeWise, tied closely with Project 2025, to dismantle public education from the inside out.” [...]
LifeWise is a gold level sponsor of the Essential Summit, a two-day conference organized by religious lobbying organization the Center for Christian Virtue, who’ve helped craft school choice laws and anti-trans bills in Ohio. CCV is listed as a hate group, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center [ed: good luck figuring out why?]. The keynote speaker of the CCV summit was Project 2025 architect Kevin Roberts.
Which... seems more to cut to the quick, here. Opponents are not driven by the terror of a slightly disrupted school schedule, or a flyer mentioning a religious organization being printed on a school printer. They're appalled that broad-scale religious organizations exist in the public square, and have defenders. And a purple town in a purple-leaning-red state agreed.
Well, is this just a one-off? Each school board covers a relatively small area, so it's not that weird if some random people did something kinda meh.
The Huron City School Board decided in a majority vote to end their released time policy on Aug. 20 this year. Prior to them, the Vermillion Board of Education also voted on June 29 against starting their own program. Bowling Green City Schools, Johnson-Monroe City Schools, Gahanna-Jefferson City Schools, and Sylvania City Schools have also come out against the released time policy.
There's some !!fun!! legal discussion about how this sort of policy change based on a fig leaf of organizational difficulty on top of overt disquiet with religious belief -- there's a certain comparison to the animus in Cleburne that I don't think either side of this debate would find particularly complimentary. But in practice school boards outside of Florida have pretty free reign to pick and choose supported programs, and courts can and will treat that fig leaf as if it were substantial when they want.
There's a bill in the state house requiring schools to permit released time programs, but it's unlikely to go anywhere and poorly written enough that it has no enforcement mechanism against school boards that defy it or find 'secular' cause to ignore it. And, again, courts can and will treat that fig leaf as if it were substantial when they want.
What sorta solutions might come up, instead?
ProPublica [bleh] reports:
Following Hurricane Katrina and the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, some federal taxpayer dollars went toward repairing and improving private K-12 schools in multiple states. Churches that operate schools often receive government funding for the social services that they offer; some orthodox Jewish schools in New York have relied on significant financial support from the city, The New York Times has found. But national experts on education funding emphasized that what Ohio is doing is categorically different.
“This is new, dangerous ground, funding new voucher schools,” said Josh Cowen, a senior fellow at the Education Law Center and the author of a new book on the history of billionaire-led voucher efforts. For decades, churches have relied on conservative philanthropy to be able to build their schools, Cowen said, or they’ve held fundraising drives or asked their diocese for help.)
The Ohio One-Time Strategic Community Investment Fund, a widely available fund of the type that Trinity Lutheran expressly prohibits governments from blocking out religious organizations. You might make one of many arguments that this is a graft (why is the dayton airshow getting state grants?). Opponents might argue that puts an increasing wide and variety of education funding outside of the domain of electoral control (uh, admittedly with a little bit of hypocrisy).
What did you think "teacher's unions are unambiguously and emphatically against the Republican Party" meant? Vibes? Papers?
I Told You Those Stories, So I Could Tell This One
[way more]
Come for the Gender Unicorn; stay for the hilarious claim that Donald Trump would simultaneously call all undocumented immigrants animals but not use the word 'illegal immigrant'. Okay, that's trite, and there are some distinctions, here. Lifewise operated in school hours with solely private funding; the New Haven Social Justice Academy program operated during the summer with at least some of public funding. Lifewise is a religious organization, the Social Justice Academy is... well some of these programs get a little on the nose with the extent that they're replacements for religion, but afaict the New Haven Program here avoids direct reference to the topic except to call George Floyd an austere religious scholar mentor.
There's a lot of snark to be made, here, but there's also a more serious point.
A complete rando talking about Lifewise offers :
"Whether Lifewise is a good program or a secretly evil program with a long term goal of eroding the public school system and the separation of church and state, the way that it has emboldened the Christofascists in my town to speak without a hint of self awareness makes me extremely wary of my neighbors (and one of them... lives on my street.)"
The DailyWire's piece quotes a complete rando "Director of Outreach" from an aligned political group :
“This summer program should have been advertised as an indoctrination camp where ideologues who spell the word ‘women’ with an x feed students propaganda about defunding the police, transgenderism, and oppression."
These programs all say a lot about fragmentation. I'm writing about them -- I'm reading about them -- because people want each and every one from the other team removed. Deleted. Unalived in minecraft lava, if you will. The possibility that someone might take the wrong choice, or defend the possibility of taking the wrong choice, is enough.
Happy Halloween, everyone!
Tiber727
8mo ago
I wouldn't expect Republicans of a given swing state to be able to thoroughly investigate the electoral procedures of their blue island cities.
Why not? State power trumps local power, and a swing state likely has enough Republican power to have a decent shot at investigating it. I also don't buy that the right is only just now thinking about election fraud. This has been a talking point for decades, even if it ramped up in 2020.
A low level government bureaucrat probably belongs to the group of people least likely to defect, save for those in criminal groups where defectors are killed. It's their job, for many it's the best they can get, why would they defect? Moral concern begs the question.
It's a low level job, and low level jobs typically cycle a lot of people in and out. Hell, isn't it a common saying that young people have no respect for their jobs and barely even show up? Plus for many it's a temp job.
As for why they would defect, let me put it this way. Stormy Daniels got $130,000 for the rights to her story about sleeping with Trump. Let's say I have solid proof of voter fraud. If I took said evidence to Fox News, how much do you think I could get them to pay for it?
With regards to moral concern, it's a numbers game. According to a quick search there were 774,000 poll workers in 2020. And some states like Ohio and New York explicitly require a mix of party affiliation. The point is that a conspiracy requires pretty much everyone at a given location to be in on it.
MollieTheMare
8mo ago
As someone who did not attend what would currently be considered one of the top tier football schools, I used to think some of the appeal was the team acted as a sort of martial manifestation of your Alma mater. Before the transfer portal, there was at least a thin veneer of the players being students and future alumni of your school. I guess supper fans, and people at schools that are perennial contenders, care about national championships but in the BCS and earlier eras every game mattered for the quality of bowl your team could hope for an invite to. As @Rov_Scam pointed out there are far more schools that consider themselves top tier than can truly contend for a national championship in any given year. A far more reasonable standard for a good year would be to have a strong enough regular season to get invited to a decent quality bowl, and to win that bowl game.
I do think this naturally limits viewership, since you only follow your own school and maybe a few marque rivalry games. On the other hand I do think NCAAF is in extreme danger of becoming NFL B league.
Speaking of which:
Northwestern Illinois Purdue
Never up to the standard of the marque Big Ten teams in the modern era, but all three were at the founding conference for the Big Ten. This predates the NCAA. They have been members of the Big Ten longer than Ohio State, and much much longer than Pen State. I would lament a realignment that destroys some of the history and tradition of college football. Without that it's more or less just professional football at a lower standard of play. This weekends Illinois–Michigan game will be the 100th anniversary of their meeting for the dedication of Memorial Stadium; that is the dedication of the stadium to alumni killed in WWI. For once the game might actually be competitive, it would be a shame if it were never competitive again because Michigan has 5x the NIL money to spend from exclusive TV deals.
Rov_Scam
8mo ago
I know this is the NFL thread, but it seems like a good place as any to discuss college football as well, as discussions I had at a tailgate party over the weekend have had me thinking about how incredibly goofy the college football landscape has become over the past several years, and what the future may hold.
Part I: Project Rudy
Last week, an article at Yahoo Sports revealed that a group of former Disney executives who now run a private equity firm called Smash Capital have been shopping a proposal to college ADs over the past several months. They propose to form a 70 team super-league. While they don't have any particular teams in mind, the assumption is that the league would include all the current Power 4 teams, plus independent Notre Dame and the Pac-12 rump of Oregon State and Washington State. The league would keep current conferene alignments intact (presumably to avoid conference pushback by preserving the phony baloney jobs of the commissioners) but would negotiate a league-wide grant of media rights that would see teams paid based on 3 tiers. They assume that the first tier of the top 16 teams would get something like double what the Big 10 and SEC are currently getting, the second tier of 22 teams would get about what the Big Ten and SEC are currently getting, and the remaining teams would get something comparable to what the ACC and Big 12 are currently getting. G5/FCS games would be eliminated and replaced with marquee matchups of the top teams that would partially drive the increased revenue, and the backers are supposedly putting up 5.4 billion. There's also supposedly an expanded playoff format as well, but the whole presentation hasn't leaked and details are sparse.
This is one of those proposals that looks good on the surface until you start thinking about it and looking closely at the details. It hits some of the high notes of what college football fans want: Conference stability, promotion/relegation, more playoffs, not playing 3 creampuffs a year, etc. The schools should be salivating at the potential to double their revenue. But there's no way in hell that this pans out, and the effect on fans of schools that aren't blue-bloods isn't clear. First, there's the possibility of an antitrust violation, but that's the least of my concerns. The bigger problem is that schools that can't compete won't necessarily make more money. If your team is in the ACC or Big 12, this is neutral at worst, but if you're a fan of a bottom-tier Big 10 or ACC team, a pay cut is almost certain. If Purdue goes 3–9 now, they still get the same national TV money as Ohio State. Under the proposal, they'd be making less than they are now, and Ohio State would be making significantly more. Furthermore, if a marquee team has a bad year, they aren't going to be happy taking less money. Part of the perversity of college sports is that bad teams often have better ratings (and thus drive more revenue) than good teams. Florida is not going to be happy making Big 12 money just because their record dictates that they do.
The plan, of course, anticipates this, and puts two safeguards in place. The first, dumber, proposal is that 8 teams with huge revenue streams would become "permanent" members of the top tier, and would always get the big bucks. This fails for the simple reason that there are more than 8 teams that think they deserve this distinction. If you make the permanent members Alabama, Ohio State, Michigan, Texas, USC, Clemson, Georgia, and LSU, it seems okay at first glance. But there's no way Penn State accepts this arrangement. Neither does Florida, or Nebraska, or Oregon. Texas A&M won't, and Oklahoma won't either. And don't get me started on Florida State. The second guardrail, which is more reasonable in one sense and stupider in another, is that promotion/relegation decisions won't be made based on any kind of statistical formula, but on an opaque process determined by some sort of committee. In fact, I can't find anything to indicate that the "top teams" will even be determined by record and not simply based on how valuable the committee feels they are to the brand. If Baylor wins the national title, one can imagine them still being considered Tier 2 due to lack of sustained national interest, not to mention if Northwestern manages to finish at 16 after a good season where they don't actually win anything.
So you already have a system where there isn't any incentive for any individual school to buy in, other than the possibility of the absolute top-tier doubling their incomes. But even if you do get buy-in from everybody, it still doesn't solve the entire problem. The 5.4 billion that Smash Capital is putting up? Well, that's borrowed from future revenues. the idea is that there's a three year transition period, and the money will be paid back when the new league negotiates a new media deal. This isn't entirely unprecedented; schools that change conferences often forgo a full share for the first several years in exchange for interest-free loans that are paid back in future years. This is supposed to ease the burden of dilution on existing schools while giving the new entrants ready cash. The difference is that the amounts involved are relatively small compared to the total revenues, and are based on what the conference is already making. And it only applies to one or two teams in the conference. 5.4 billion needing to be paid out of revenues, presumably with interest, requires some serious revenue increases. By comparison, the power conferences plus Notre Dame currently gross about 2.7 billion in TV money related exclusively to football. revenues would probably have to increase by at least 30% just for them to tread water once the payoff period begins, let alone for them to get the eye-watering increases that are promised. And if the revenues aren't there, who ends up holding the bag? It's not going to be Smash Capital. This proposal is nothing but hot air.
Part II: Insert Joke About Billable Hours Here
Late last year, the Atlantic Coast Conference, anticipating litigation, preemptively filed suit against Florida State in North Carolina. Florida State quickly filed their own suit against the ACC in Florida. Last February, Clemson, who had initially said they weren't pursuing litigation, filed a similar but slightly different suit against the ACC in South Carolina, and the ACC filed their own suit against Clemson in North Carolina the next day. At issue here are conference exit fees and grant of rights agreements.
In 2004, the ACC raided the Big East, perceived to be the weakest major conference, by poaching Miami, Virginia Tech, and Boston College, the first two of which were perceived to be the strongest programs. The Big East responded by raiding the mid-major Conference USA, and was able to limp along for a few more years, until the ACC came calling again in 2011. The departures of Pitt and Syracuse effectively killed the conference, and West Virginia soon jumped ship to the Big 12. Inspired by this new alignment, the Big 10 poached Maryland from the ACC. Maryland wasn't a strong program, but at the time, media deals involving the nascent Big Ten Network made weak programs in big markets particularly lucrative. The ACC responded by increasing its exit fee to be so large that no school would dare leave. When it renegotiated its broadcast rights with ESPN in 2016, the member schools agreed to grant their media rights to the ACC through the end of the deal, which was soon extended to 2036.
In 2020, the Big Ten and SEC signed lucrative media deals that would pay their members double what ESPN was paying the ACC. Florida State and Clemson, who envision themselves as among college football's elite, were no longer happy with their lot. The ACC money had always been lower, but it wasn't that much lower. Additionally, both of those leagues had since started expanding at a breakneck pace, gobbling up any team that would add value. Surely, another conference would be willing to offer Clemson a better deal than they were currently getting. Surely, Miami and North Carolina thought the same thing, but were biding their time. Florida State, however, made no bones about their wanting out, and the situation was exacerbated when the Playoff committee snubbed an undefeated Seminoles team in favor of an Alabama team with a loss.
The stumbling block, however, is that the current exit fees and grant of rights would make leaving financially ruinous. Exit fees have been around for a while, but they aren't necessarily enforceable. There's a principle in contract law that says that damages have to be proportionate to the actual loss. In some cases the law allows the contracting parties to agree on damages in advance, but courts will only enforce these clauses to the extent that they're a reasonable attemt to estimate damages that would be difficult to prove in the event of breach. Courts will not enforce them to the extent that they are meant to penalize the breaching party. The result of past conference raids was that the remaining members would sue whoever was leaving to collect the exit fee and they'd eventually negotiate a settlement. the Grant of Rights is an entirely different animal, though. Instead of a naked attempt at getting damages for breach, it's essentially no different than an agreement granting a copyright or patent license. If the ACC owns the broadcast rights, then it doesn't matter where Florida St. plays, they get the money from it, and since Florida St. wouldn't be in the conference, they wouldn't get a share of it. How this would actually play out in real life is anyone's guess, and I don't know enough about this kind of thing to make any predictions about what the court would do, but suffice it to say that the cost of Florida St. leaving is estimated to be between 200 and 500 million, and they're suing for declaratory judgment that the exit fee and grant of rights provisions are unenforceable.
As I mentioned above, I'm less interested in the legal details than I am of the overall consequences of these lawsuits. There are two interesting wrinkles. The first is that there's also a fifth lawsuit that was filed by the Florida Attorney General that seeks to make to contents of the ESPN deal public. It came out in litigation that the schools don't actually have their own copies of this agreement due to a confidentiality clause, and the only way they can see it is through personal inspection at ACC headquarters. The more interesting aspect is that it also came out that the ESPN deal doesn't definitively extend until 2036, as was originally thought, but that ESPN has a unilateral option to extend the deal until that date, and that they must make that election by February 2025. If Florida State's suit is successful, there is widespread consensus that it could mean the end of the ACC. It's not so much that the league wouldn't survive without them, but that the absence of any financial penalty would instigate a mass exodus of the stronger teams, leaving the weaker ones holding the bag.
This puts ESPN in an interesting situation. All other things being equal, an freshly-negotiated ACC deal is likely to be worth significantly more than the current deal, so in a normal world, it would be a no-brainer for ESPN to exercise their option. But the litigation changes things. If Florida St. is successful, and the predicted exodus were to occur, the contract would be worthless. And with the other conferences locked into their deals until 2030, it may be to ESPN's benefit to blow the whole thing up. When the ACC's current deal expires in 2026, they'll be in the same position the Pac-12 was last spring. With no TV deal, there's no grant of rights to worry about, and the biggest barrier keeping teams in is removed. To be clear, most ACC members want the conference to survive. The problem is that no one wants to be left without a seat when the music stops, so everyone is behooved to jockey for position early.
At least that was the theory until late last week, when yet another wrinkle emerged in this mysterious deal: It's not a full option like it had been reported. It's actually a complicated situation, the details of which I won't bore you with, but the consensus now is that ESPN is expected to pick up the option because not doing so would put them in a weird situation where they could be subsidizing a television network without any teams, but that's another story entirely. Another wrinkle in this is that it's not entirely clear that Florida St., or anyone else, would even get an invitation to join the SEC or Big Ten even if they could get out of the ACC. Florida St. fans seem to think they'll waltz right into the Big Ten, but that's far from certain. The current Big Ten deal, which runs through 2030, doesn't make any accommodation for expansion. Any increased revenue a new member could provide wouldn't be realized until after that date, and existing members will be reluctant to share too much of the current pie. When the Big Ten added Oregon and Washington at the last minute following the Pac-12's imminent demise, both teams were forced to accept shares far less than the other members, shares that aren't any more than what they had been getting in the Pac-12. Oregon doesn't have to worry about this, with Phil Knight willing to pony up whatever they need, but, aside from some semblance of stability, Washington isn't going to benefit for a while.
Note that that's only a semblance of stability. One possibility is that the new so-called Power 2 renegotiate even larger deals come 2030 that will be enough to feed everybody. The other, and the one some think is inevitable, is that the bigger teams cut the dead weight and form a super conference. If Florida St. isn't content to subsidize Wake Forest and Georgia Tech, then why would they be content to subsidize Illinois and Rutgers? While the dedicated network deals are still lucrative, cord-cutting, and the willingness of networks to pay eye-watering sums for premiere matchups, mean that they aren't the primary drivers of revenue that they once were. Sure, Maryland may get you higher carriage fees in the Baltimore and DC markets, but those pale in comparison to how much you're paying them from a national deal that they don't make much more attractive. One suspects that once the TV deals are up in 2030, the big schools will cut the remnants of the Big Ten and SEC loose and form that new super league, freed of NCAA restrictions and of the Mizzous and Purdues of the world. These schools have no exit fees or grants of rights, because there's no threat of leaving. Until, at least, the blue bloods start talking among themselves about how much money they could be making, and people start getting ideas. Thus is the real reason why Florida St. and Clemson want out. If there's going to be a super league, they don't want their ACC commitment to get in the way, and if it means making less money for a few years, then so be it.
Part III: Burning Down the House to Kill the Cockroaches
I want to shift the talk away from realignment and towards the other big changes that college football has seen the past few years, namely, player payments and the transfer portal. Just to be clear, it used to be against the rules for schools to pay players. In fact, it used to be against the rules for anyone to pay players, to the point that even part-time employment was considered suspect (after all, what does one think when a big donor pays a top recruit a ton of money to ostensibly work at his car dealership one hour per week?) The rule also used to be that if an athlete transferred schools, it came at the cost of a year of eligibility. Transfers still happened, but only if the situation was dire. First, the court ruled that the NCAA couldn't prohibit athletes from monetizing their name, image, or likeness, leading to so-called NIL deals. These deals were ostensibly for promotional purposes, like endorsements, but in reality most of them don't require the recipient to do anything other than play sports. Then, courts ruled that the NCAA couldn't put any prohibitions on transfers, especially since these could prevent them from getting NIL money (in practice, the NCAA had already loosened transfer restrictions). Finally, courts cleared the way for schools to make direct payments to student athletes.
A few years ago, coaches from big schools would recruit student athletes with promises of playing for huge crowds, of playing on TV, or of having a decent chance of getting to the NFL. Coaches from smaller schools would point out that their environment was less competitive and they were thus more likely to get playing time. But if a lesser program managed to snag a gem, they had a chance of making a run for it. Now, schools have to contend with the additional factor of how much money they can get, and they have to contend with this every year. They no longer recruit high school kids but people who are already on the team. After all, if another school is offering better money, there's nothing to stop them from transferring. At first it was thought that lesser schools might benefit from the transfer portal because good players who couldn't get playing time at big schools would be able to transfer more easily. The result, though, was that playing time became less of an inducement to go to smaller schools in the first place. After all, every kid who is offered a scholarship at a top program thinks he can be the starter. Under the old system, he maybe could have been reasoned with. Now, there's no reason not to go to Alabama. Take your shot at the starting job. If you get it, great. If you get benched, transfer. It's a totally different landscape.
While I may bemoan these changes, I really can't argue with them. Jurists from both sides of the aisle concede that the system that was in place for college sports throughout most of its history is ridiculous in any other context, and antitrust law prohibits it. A conservative would bemoan the changes and try to reverse them, or at least limit them. But that's just delaying the inevitable, and probably not by very long. My solution is to accelerate them; blow up the system so violently and completely that whatever remaining shreds of credibility are destroyed. Do something so radical that even the fans of the biggest programs will turn up their noses in disgust. Something that goes beyond what donor money and NIL deals and the transfer portal can accomplish. We need to destroy the last vestiges of NCAA eligibility requirements, and the path is clear.
The recent changes were driven by antitrust law. An athlete sues the NCAA for unreasonably restraining trade, the court agrees (because NCAA restrictions look ridiculous if applied to ordinary businesses), and block in the Jenga tower comes out. But most of these are simply taking them off the top, I want to go after the piece that holds up the whole tower: Time restrictions. Current NCAA rules are complicated but effectively limit players to 4 years of eligibility, and they must be used before your 28th birthday. Of course, there are exceptions for redshirt and COVID years, but the idea is that you get 4 years, and then you're done. If an entire industry had rules limiting how long employees could work there, and there wasn't some seriously good public policy interest at stake, it's unlikely a court would allow this. After all, they're preventing perfectly willing employees from working for companies that want to hire them for entirely arbitrary reasons. There's no conceivable reason that the same shouldn't apply to college football. Players who graduate can already play, provided they're enrolled at the university. If a player graduates after 4 years on the team and still wants to play, why shouldn't he be able to? This makes increasing sense in the world of NIL money, where you're unreasonably restricting his ability to earn a living due to arbitrary criteria. This was basically the same argument in the transfer case brought by the New York AG—the kid wants to transfer because he can make more money, and your arbitrary rules tell him he can't do that.
The effect of this would be dramatic. Most athletes don't peak until their late-20s, but only a few college athletes have any eligibility left by this point. There are plenty of guys out there who could make a college roster if they were only allowed to. And with the money involved, there are plenty of guys in the CFL and whatever the USFL is called now who would do better to stay in college. Once this rule is eliminated, these guys will just enroll in some class at the school where they can get the most money and continue their careers. The top levels of college ball will be dominated by these guys, since they exponentially increase your chances of winning. the practice of signing 30-year-olds who graduated years ago will be mocked at first, but any college team that's serious about winning championships won't have a choice. Pretty soon the 18 to 22-year-olds who dominate the game now will be slowly phased out.
This will have a downstream effect of ruining the NFL as well, because the 21 and 22-year-olds they're used to drafting simply won't have enough playing time to get a good read on. The only draftable players will be in their mid-20s, and guys will be on rookie deals into their 30s. I hate to see this happen and I hope the effect isn't too severe, but it's an inevitable consequence. The endgame here is that the increased ridiculousness of college football effectively becoming a b-league is that the traditional college players, who aren't getting playing time, form a union and strike a deal with whomever the powers that be are. Once a collective bargaining agreement is in place, antitrust rules no longer apply, and some of the provisions that are currently being struck down are implemented again, and maybe new restrictions are imposed that at least recognize that it's a professional league and that if we want to maintain the illusion of amateurism and parity then they need to do some things that were previously unthinkable. I don't know what it will look like, but I think it's inevitable that some kind of breaking point is reached where the product becomes so disgusting that it's forced to change.
Part IV: Conclusion
The last section may seem a bit ridiculous, but it it underscores a point: Nothing is sacred. Not to the courts, and certainly not to anyone who stands to profit. The NCAA is a more or less defunct entity at this point; I don't know how any of their current regulations are defensible under the way the laws have recently been interpreted. I also want to make a larger point, and one that it seems most college football fans don't understand: No changes will be made that cost the big schools money. This would seem so obvious as to be tautological, but it seems like most college football fans haven't figured this out. The internet is full of various proposals to "fix" college football by realigning conferences to more traditional alignments, improving revenue parity, imposing top-down organization, imposing NIL restrictions, or any number of other things. But none of these things improve revenue, so they won't happen. That's one thing about Project Rudy that actually makes sense, even if the rest of it doesn't. It doesn't present itself as anything other than a revenue generator. It doesn't eliminate creampuffs because they're idiotic schedule padding, but because better games are more attractive to TV networks (ironically, they fail to understand that this benefit probably isn't outweighed by the fact that the big schools would lose a home game or two, but TV guys can be myopic). It's main selling point is that it's lucrative. And, for better or worse, that's what we have to deal with.
naraburns
nihil supernum
8mo ago
You can say conservatives are too stupid to be held accountable, but you can't note that people do this?
While I would not exactly endorse Goodguy's post, (1) other people's behavior is irrelevant to your own and (2) here is what he actually said:
to me supporters of those theories generally just seem like they are stupid
First off, "to me" and "seem" do some work here: reporting on your own perception in a very clear way does not excuse flagrantly bad behavior, but in the interest of encouraging honesty of self-report, it does provide some cover. Second, "supporters of those theories" is a reasonably specific group in this context, in a way that "conservatives" simply is not.
Now to what you said:
They're dumb, they're ignorant, they can't help themselves and we shouldn't expect anything of them. We practically talk about Trump supporters in anthropological terms with all these fucking Ohio diner ethnographies. It's on the rest of us to manage them.
Any time you find yourself slipping into "us" versus "them" language, odds are pretty good you're running afoul of the rules somewhere. At minimum, it tends toward consensus-building or antagonism. You didn't even don the fig leaf of "it seems to me that they are ignorant." Maybe this is because what you wrote there was taking a certain outside perspective--"they" switches from "conservatives" to liberals" in your second paragraph, so you are raising the defense that "this is what some people think, not me but some people." But the level of heat you put into what "some people" think still falls on the wrong side of the rules, I think.
TavernSurvivor
8mo ago
I did note it. He’s just derailing things, as are you, about whether Trump supporters do or don’t believe his lies.
During ABC's presidential debate, Trump said: "In Springfield, they are eating the dogs. The people that came in, they are eating the cats. They’re eating – they are eating the pets of the people that live there." But city officials have told BBC Verify there have been “no credible reports" that this has actually happened. -BBC
For Jamie McGregor, a businessman in Springfield, Ohio, speaking favorably about the Haitian immigrants he employs has come to this: death threats, a lockdown at his company and posters around town branding him a traitor for hiring immigrants. -NYT
zeke5123a
8mo ago
Well the cat thing seems to be directionally true even though it isn’t technically true.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
8mo ago
That might sound weird, given the murderous pedophile thing, but to me supporters of those theories generally just seem like they are stupid and prone to weird fantasies and LARPs but have always been that way, whereas people who are existentially shattered by Trump seem like they might have been different at one point, but then suddenly Trump appeared in the corner of their reality and traumatically inverted it into some new configuration of dimensions.
This epitomizes general differential expectations of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives are regarded (and to a shocking degree, regard themselves) as lacking in agency to the point of being almost animalistic. When a conservative raves about cities are shitholes full of degenerates and criminals, that's just how they are. FEMA death camps, Birtherism, Jewish Space Lasers, etc... They're dumb, they're ignorant, they can't help themselves and we shouldn't expect anything of them. We practically talk about Trump supporters in anthropological terms with all these fucking Ohio diner ethnographies. It's on the rest of us to manage them.
Liberals, though. They're supposed to be better, smarter, more accountable. Apparently. When they think a guy who says he wants to be a dictator wants to be a dictator, they're supposed to exercise some critical thinking and realize he's not serious, that's just him being bold and masculine. They're not supposed to say West Virginia's a shithole full of drug addicts even though it objectively is. They're supposed to be adults in the room.
Rov_Scam
9mo ago
I think you're taking too narrow a view of "claim to this land". There's a common perception that these primarily involve claims involving a fee interest in the surface that arises from something like an unresolved estate, divorce, etc. The reality of the situation is much more complex. Consider a typical rural parcel in Western Pennsylvania, Northern West Virginia, or Southeastern Ohio:
A 20 acre tract with a house was purchased by the current owners in 2004. It has a clean chain of title with no gaps going back to patent. It was never part of an estate, lawsuit, divorce, bankruptcy, Sheriff's sale, or anything like that (the last two sentences are wholly atypical, but I'm simplifying things here). In 1901 the surface owner sold the Pittsburgh Seam coal to an intermediary who in turn sold it to a mining company, and through several further sales and corporate mergers it's now owned by Consol. In 1917 the oil and gas was leased to Allegheny Heat and Light Company, who drilled a well on the property in 1919. In 1922 the surface owner conveyed the property by deed and reserved "1/2 the oil and gas" underlying the property. The owner of the severed interest has since passed and the reserved 1/2 interest is now shared among 16 individuals, in unequal proportions. In 1940, the surface owners conveyed the Freeport Seam, but this coal was never mined. It is currently owned by Massey Energy. The 1919 well is still producing, meaning the 1917 lease is still in effect. Through various mergers and assignments, the lease is now held by Tri-Star Energy, LLC. In 2012, Tri-Star assigned the production rights to deep formations to Noble Energy. Noble then assigned the deep rights to Chevron but reserved an overriding royalty interest equal to the difference between 18% and the existing royalty burden. Statoil then assigned these rights to Rice Energy, who then merged with EQT. EQT, looking to develop the oil and gas, entered into a joint operating agreement with Chevron involving the Marcellus formation. 10.575 acres of the 20 acre tract were made part of the Piston Honda Unit. Piston Honda was then included as part of a $1.2 billion mortgage to Wells Fargo. EQT then sold the deeper Utica formation rights to Pennzoil Production Company. Over the years, there have been several recorded easements involving the property. The owners are aware of a gas line that crosses the road near the house and runs along the property's western edge, and some old telephone lines that cross the back corner of the property and may or may not be operational. When the property was purchased in 2004, it was financed through a mortgage with Wesbanco that is still in effect. In 2015, the owners took out a $25,000 revolving credit line with Dollar Bank that remains unreleased.
Under your proposed system, I count at least 27 potential claims to the property, and that's assuming that the surface owners won't have to make their own claim. "Contact us" is also vague, because in any reasonable system "contact us" means "file suit for quiet title". I say reasonable because no land registration system worth its salt would simply take a naked assertion of an interest in real property at face value. What's realistically going to happen in this situation is that every mortgage company, coal company, oil and gas company, telephone company, power company, water company, and other potential lienholder is immediately going to look through their records and file in rem actions against any piece of property upon which they have a plausible claim, seeking declaratory judgment that their claim is valid and that their interest can be recorded in the land registry. I don't even know how this would work in practice, because all those claimants would theoretically have to provide notice of the suit to all the other potential claimants, which would result in a huge mess of lawsuits that no calendar control judge could possible make heads or tails of, and there are additional complications that I won't even get into here. The worst outcome would be that the couple who bought the land in 2004, got title insurance, and haven't had any problems since are now going to find themselves defending numerous claims, and are likely going to have to spend a ton on legal fees just to maintain what they have. Is that 1965 power line easement still valid or not? West Penn Power is going to argue that it is. Companies will never concede that any right of record has been invalidated.
This is why land registration systems typically put the burden of proving title on the surface owner. In the Progressive era, this was touted as a reform over traditional title, and something like a dozen states implemented land registration systems between around 1900 and 1917. Most of these have been abolished, and the remaining ones are just pale ghosts of what they were intended to be, vestigial remnants of ill-considered reform. The problem is exactly what I stated earlier: If you're going to make title ironclad, you have to ensure that the registration accounts for all existing interests. And to accomplish this, you have to provide anyone with an interest due process to ensure that their property rights are respected. What this means in practice is that someone seeking to register title under these systems was required to conduct a thorough search and file suit in court, with any conceivable interest holder notified in the suit. Even in the early 20th Century, with fewer than 100 years having passed since patent and things like mortgages and mineral leases in their infancy, this proved an expensive prospect, which brings me to your second point:
It's a one time payment that permanently does away with 'running titles', so it's still probably worth it in the long run.
Is it? The problem is that it places all of the burden on the person seeking to register the title. I've handled partition suits before, which are similar but much more limited actions, and you're still looking at 5 figures to resolve the suit. Get into a situation where you have to notify every party with an interest in the property, and you're now looking at the cost ballooning exponentially. All the minor claims that a title insurance company would ignore under the presumption that no one would raise them (and that if they were raised, it was rare enough that they'd just pay), now have to be litigated. And how is a court to determine if you've done the proper due diligence? If a title is registered, it's supposed to be indefeasible. But what if a critical party wasn't properly notified of the action? What if the party seeking the registration intentionally did a half-assed job in the hope that potential claimants would slip under the radar? This became a problem in states with registration as the 20th Century wore on, as the process essentially became a way for people with questionable titles to legitimize their claims so that they were beyond reproach. Otherwise, what's the benefit to the landowner? Pay $25,000 (conservatively) now so that future purchasers can save a couple thousand bucks on title insurance?
Rov_Scam
9mo ago
I worked as a title attorney for a decade. It's not a scam. Most of what you're paying for isn't to theoretically pay off future claims, but to pay for work done up front to prevent future claims. This requires them to send someone down to the courthouse to gather all of the title documents, which are than sent to an attorney who looks for issues and drafts a list of exceptions that the policy won't cover. If the exceptions are minor things like utility easements and the like that don't really affect the value of the property, the company will write the policy. About a third of the time, though, there are major issues that require the insurance company to do further curative work before they'll move forward. The reason such a small percentage goes toward paying out claims is because the vast, vast majority of your premium is spent on getting assurance that there won't be any claims.
Now, theoretically you could forgo the insurance and research the title on your own, but this will inevitable cost you more than just getting the damn insurance because you're now paying the full hourly rate for an attorney who may or may not have any significant experience doing title work, whereas the insurance company has an attorney on its payroll for a lot less, and this guy does nothing but titles. And they'll also be able to delegate a lot of the legwork to other staff, who also do nothing but titles. So you're paying less for a superior product. Theoretically you could also do the research yourself but I highly, highly would not recommend even thinking about even attempting this. Even having spent ten years doing titles that were much more complex than typical residential real estate transactions, there's no way in hell I wouldn't buy title insurance. I've seen too much.
Other countries (not the US) have central land registries and dispense with title insurance altogether.
The problem there is that we would have to essentially run a full title for all land going back to patent. Most title insurance companies only do a 60 year search, because claims beyond that are rare enough that occasionally having to pay one isn't a big deal. But it becomes important if you're making ironclad assurances. You could theoretically get around this by passing a marketable title that acts as an effective statute of limitations on claims, but you stil don't avoid the basic problem: It would still be really expensive. How long and how much do you think it would cost to run full title on all 585,000 parcels in Allegheny County? You're probably talking billions, when you consider that a lot of these are going to be industrial and commercial properties that have much more complex titles than a simple residential subdivision lot. Rural counties have fewer parcels, but rural work poses its own problems; those titles are almost never easy. Then there are the associated costs of curing all those titles (a buyer can always walk away), developing and implementing the system, and dealing with the inevitable lawsuits that follow. I did a lot of work in Ohio right when oil and gas was starting to take off. The state had passed a dormant mineral act that sought to simplify things: Rather than having to track down the innumerable hard-to-find heirs of someone who severed a mineral interest in 1919 and then forgot about it, any interest that hadn't seen any action within the past 20 years would merge with the surface. Seems simple enough on its face. This led to a decade of wrangling and counting, with the Ohio Supreme Court getting involved on several occasions, to determine when an interest is actually terminated. We basically had to hold off on interpreting it for a while while the cases worked their way through the courts. I doubt the wholesale termination of old surface interests would be that much different.
I am originally from Tennessee, and UT is the SEC school there; I wonder how similar the experience is. Throughout the state, there is this sort of low-level obsession with UT; when I tell people I'm from Tennessee, even now, they say, "Oh, did you go to UT?" even though I grew up 200 miles away from UT's campus.
Then as now, I was not interested in the "SEC lifestyle." It all sounded like a very poor match for my own personality, and I never even considered going there, though many people from my high school did. I ended up going to a much calmer public university in Tennessee; one which had a Greek life, but where the Greek life was not the center of all social life by any means. There, I was able to just nerd out and focus on academics in relative peace. I made friends and found romantic interests through "normal" channels - through classes, campus clubs, intramural sports etc. After various twists and turns, I am living the normal middle-class lifestyle of a State U grad.
I wonder where I'd go if I'd grown up in similar circumstances in Alabama. Maybe UAB? Or UNA?
I feel like even now, I mix more often with people that, like me, went to places like Northern Alabama, Northern Kentucky, UT-Chattanooga or whatever than I do with Ohio State/Michigan/Alabama/Duke sort of people. I'd be keen to read more about that kind of social sorting. I probably missed out some access to elites, but I don't think I belong in that stratum anyway.
Something I'll be watching as an Ohioan: we'll be getting a new Senator to replace Vance. I wonder who it could be? Governor DeWine has to appoint someone for the rest of the term. There are local GOP functionaries like Frank LaRose, or maybe it's a chance for Vivek Ramaswamy? Either way, someone will have a chance to raise their national profile.
https://www.10tv.com/article/news/politics/elections/what-happens-ohios-senate-seat-when-jd-vance-becomes-vp/530-c6edb043-1c1b-45d4-b99f-1a4e704418af
More options
Context Copy link