good discussion on longhorn network/aggies

did texas really think that the other schools would just take it up the chute with that hugely unfair deal?

 

this is the kind of misinformation that leads to the skewed perception. the longhorn network HAS NOT and CAN NOT broadcast high school games. the ncaa was very clear in their judgment on this and espn has rescinded the idea.

red55, the difference in revenues in 2011 from conference distributions will not actually be that great and texas a&m and oklahoma will make the same amount of money that texas does. again, misinformation. if texas domination is what killed the swc, why did they only win two conference championships in the last 17 years of the conference?

mobius, as is discussed in the article, texas DID approach tamu in 2009 and 2010 about doing the network together. tamu balked at it each time. they only came back and wanted a piece of the pie after the contract was signed.

luv, what is hugely unfair about it? is it hugely unfair that lsu gets over $7M of unshared revenue off its third tier content and mississippi state gets $0?

 

I think there is entirely too much money in the system. Eventually, it will ruin the game.

 

Ohhhhh so close. It is true that the NCAA told the bong horns that they could NOT broadcast high school games but they COULD show highlights. Hmm, so how does that fit into recruiting?? Well we won't show Johnny's entire game, we will just show the clips of him scoring. Hows that for ya?

Give me a break. texass is so full of themselves they can't get out of their own way. Their greed alone has sent the big 12 right off the cliff and only now are they circling the wagons trying to keep it together. What a croc of monkey turds. Nice job whornes.

 

Yes, I understand this. My point is, when TAMU realized their mistake and came back to UT, should UT have kept them out? I know the standard thinking of "they took all the risk and should reap the reward etc." but at the end of the day, at all points in time, they should do what's best for their school. So, they obviously felt that blocking TAMU out was what was best for them. In reality, if Oklahoma and TAMU leave and they have to either go independent (which will be tough because they aren't as strong nationally as Notre Dame), or join the Pac-10 and lose the LHN, then blocking TAMU was not the best move for them.

It will be interesting to look back ten years from now and understand that UT probably could have avoided all of this if they had let TAMU back into the network when they finally wanted in. My contention is that it was not in their best interest to block them out even though it appeared to be. I still think Dodds and that other guy from UT have at least floated the option of letting A&M into the LHN (rebranded of course), to save the conference and thereby put the school in a better position.

 

I don't understand this. Not saying you're wrong but can you explain this to me?

 

shane, not really interested in engaging in childish nonsense.

mobius, because texas put in all the work and risk. if you went to your neighbor and said that you had a plan for turning a bunch of ****ty houses into a beautiful neighborhood but it would take both of you putting in capital, blood, sweat, and tears and your brother said no, he didn't believe it would work...would you give him half the millions you made by doing it on your own post hoc? that's a bit ludicrous in my opinion.

big tiger...every team has the opportunity to sell their third tier rights in bcs conferences. that's all texas did with the longhorn network and is actually relatively late to the party on this. most teams in the sec did so a while back including lsu. but not all can as their may be no purchaser who believes they can make money off of those rights due to a lack of demand. in 2009/2010, lsu made over $7M off those rights and mississippi state made $0.

see here:

School-Specific Broadcasting Revenue «

 

Call it what you want slick, it is the hubris (just for you martin) of ut that will eventually bring this thing down. The absolute best part is they are going to have to throw their 300m dollar network right into the crapper if they want to play football anywhere but the ACC or become an indy. Good luck with that short whornes

shouldn't you be on orangebloods or bevo.com or something? I thought there was a stench around this place.

 

Read my post. None of that matters. It's in the past. The question is, what is the best thing for UT right now today. I would argue that it may be to let A&M into LHN. It may not be. But burying your head in the sand and not doing what's best for your university because three years ago, you took all the risk is what is ludicrous. Listen, I'm not saying they should give them a share. They should be fairly compensated for the work they put in etc but none of that matters. What is best for UT right now? The reality is, if the Big12 breaks up, UT is MUCH worse off.

 

I say we just reach into Texas and grab A&M, Tech, and Baylor. Then grab Miszou. Miteaswell

West
Mizzou
Baylor
Texas A&M
Texas Tech
Arkansas
LSU
Ole Miss
Miss. St

East
Auburn
Bama
Tenn
Georgia
Vandy
UK
UF
SC