You can say this hundred more times, it doesn't make it true.[/QUOTE] By them there standards you can't say anything anyone says in this here thread is true ya rascal. Go re-read everything then get back to me. I've read everything. Earn your wings. Go see if I said anything important for yourself. Go see if you've said anything that hasn't already been said before. Maybe this thread wouldn't be so long if you did small fry.
This poses an interesting question. Just because UT could create the LHN, does that mean they should have?
By them there standards you can't say anything anyone says in this here thread is true ya rascal. Go re-read everything then get back to me. I've read everything. Earn your wings. Go see if I said anything important for yourself. Go see if you've said anything that hasn't already been said before. Maybe this thread wouldn't be so long if you did small fry.[/QUOTE] After I read your last 2, 3 posts, I know I don't need to read the rest. You have nothing.
Debatable. But what school wouldn't? As a TAMU alumni who is supposed to hate the Horns, I thought LHN was pretty cool (in theory) and would give UT even more visibility -- across all sports. I'd want that for TAMU (although I'd prefer SEC football to an indie-network, so no jealousy). They also got tons of money. Maybe they approached it the wrong way... trying to push high school games. Stepping on everyone's dick. Seriously though who could turn that down? Oh wait... the Aggies did. Hehehe. But still.
I agree. No one is going to turn down that stream of revenue. Even if it keeps them from certain conferences, they'll be just fine. They're creating a national brand in a way similar to what ND did years ago.
I don't blame them for trying. I think ESPN significantly overpaid for it and I don't think there will be much of an audience at all, but we'll see. What I question is them basing much bigger decisions around it. Picking the LHN over a conference that everyone in the admin prefers (based on where we were headed last year) just seems silly. Everyone talks about not walking away from $15MM/yr, but the Pac16 Network would generate about that much (it's already estimated at $11-12MM, without a TX and OU), so that's a wash. Other people talk about the publicity and promotion, but a Texas regional network as part of the Pac16 would do that pretty well too - it's not like Texas has 24/7 programming on now anyway. So unless Texas is scared of Texas Tech getting promotion, that argument doesn't hold either.
Would isn't the debate. It's should. As in, in the end, will it be worth it? There are some things money can't buy, etc. I guess we'll find out in a few years.
Annoying troll continues to be an annoying troll. Start posting in this thread when Rice is actually relevant in anything people give a crap about, baby dick.
Maybe the school now cherishes it's independence like ND does, as far as the network is concerned. I'd hate to be a trendsetter on something and give it away in a year.
As a TAMU alumni, I always thought it would just be another upper tier network that I never bother to look at until they have the one or two exclusive games a year, and, the occasional girls volleyball tournament because I love those shorts. But I wouldn't pay for it, like I wouldn't pay for view for the Aggie/Idaho game. I don't ever see $300 million dollars value in it.
It could really hurt Texas. But I think the demise of the Big 12 is a good thing and will move college football forward. And I'm an Aggie. So it seems like a good thing.
But Texas has stated that they have no interest in going independent. They want to be in a conference. They really want to be in the Big12. They would like to be the Pac16, or maybe the Big10. But they look like they might take the ACC. However you want to put it, Texas played their hand and it's unlikely to end the way they wanted it to. For all the talk about "Texas can do what it wants; everyone will want them; etc" - that doesn't seem to be the case. Maybe Texas does value the LHN more than their conference choice - and that's certainly up to the school. But I guarantee you that a year ago when all this started, being in the ACC without any of their big rivals or even secondary rivals was not the end result they envisioned or even remotely wanted.
This is a complete pipedream. UT doesn't have anything close to a national brand like ND does and never will. ND is a very unique school that is not wedded to geography. I'm from Indiana and have never considered ND an Indiana school. In fact I've despised them my whole life. A good number of people felt the same way when I left 25 years ago. IU and Purdue are the schools everyone from Indiana roots for. UT sports is like IU and Purdue except on a much grander and successful scale. When you go outside of Texas (especially far away), nobody gives a flip about them. On the other hand, ND inspires emotion almost anywhere you go. Max, I know you aren't a UT guy, but if you feel that way, I wonder how many UT partisans are truly delusion enough to think the Longhorn Network can create a national "brand".
Notre Dame is dying because of the decision they made to create a national brand, they underestimated the need to be part of a competitive conference, and as such have killed their own brand. DD
But I think the demise of the Big 12 is a good thing and will move college football forward Horsecrap, inter-regional and historic rivalries are what stir the emotions of college football. The chance of bragging rights over the threat of being ridiculed by your neighbor and co-workers. How are you ever going to huff and puff at South Carolina grads after a big win now? It makes 'seasons' insignificant, and non BCS bowl teams irrelevant. They're creating a national brand in a way similar to what ND did years ago. Are there as many Texans as there are Catholics? Are both now anachronisms?
They play one of the most compelling schedules in the nation year-in and year-out and they have a sweeter TV deal than any conference could dream up. They're dying because they suck. Not because of a lack of a conference affiliation.
$300 million value isn't Texas' problem, its ESPN's. You'd say no to $300 million? I'm paying for Idaho/TAMU.
UT partisans? It's ESPN people that think they can create the national brand. ITS ESPN PEOPLE. UT Just took money and visibility. We'd all do the same.
So you believe, that no matter the consequences, UT should have done this? I don't buy the line that "We'd all do the same". I think there are some programs out there, in particularly tightknit conferences, that wouldn't do this deal based on what it would mean outside of the money. I'm like you, I fault the Big 12 for even opening the door to this... but then again, we all know the influence UT had over the Big 12... would that really have stopped them?
