Texas potentially in trouble?

[StPaulHusker]

You have not made one convincing argument as to why not one network has refused to pick up the Texas story. ESPN aside, if there was something to this, another channel would have done something with it if this had teeth.

 

With regards to Charlie Sheen, which bares ZERO correlation to Texas, EVERY network reported on him for that short time. This includes CBS who had to fire him and risked potentially losing money. I don't see the CBS exec's not allowing their news people or celebrity reporting shows to report on him out of fear.

 

Does that make sense to you? Because this discussion between you and I has gone on longer than it probably should have.

 

 

Please dude, get a clue. Money makes the world go round. ESPN doesn't crap where it eats. It's going to NOT run the story because of the money it has invested in the Longhorn network. This isn't rocket science. ESPN is the LARGEST network out there for sports...period. Most other networks just play catchup to them all the time. Most of the reporting on this issue has been done outside the normal channels (read: ESPN).

 

Like I said, it's not rocket science and I'm really amazed that you're calling me out about it...it's a pretty easy conclusion to draw.

This is where your delusions take over, I suppose. Why is NO OTHER network covering it, then? Talk about getting a clue.

[ADS]

http://www.thestreet.com/story/11770367/2/5-dumbest-states-in-america.html

 

Look who checks in at #3

 

[GSG]

[ZRod]

yeah, I guess the wheels of justice always move slowly... the bigger question is why won't any media outlet touch this?

ESPN won't because they are in League with ye Old Whornes. Tarnishing them means losing viewers of the LongWhorne Network.

Right. Because controversy always makes people change the channel.

That's why no one watches First Take...

[StPaulHusker]

yeah, I guess the wheels of justice always move slowly... the bigger question is why won't any media outlet touch this?

ESPN won't because they are in League with ye Old Whornes. Tarnishing them means losing viewers of the LongWhorne Network.

Right. Because controversy always makes people change the channel.

That's why no one watches First Take...

That show sucks out loud.

[StPaulHusker]

You have not made one convincing argument as to why not one network has refused to pick up the Texas story. ESPN aside, if there was something to this, another channel would have done something with it if this had teeth.

 

With regards to Charlie Sheen, which bares ZERO correlation to Texas, EVERY network reported on him for that short time. This includes CBS who had to fire him and risked potentially losing money. I don't see the CBS exec's not allowing their news people or celebrity reporting shows to report on him out of fear.

 

Does that make sense to you? Because this discussion between you and I has gone on longer than it probably should have.

 

 

Please dude, get a clue. Money makes the world go round. ESPN doesn't crap where it eats. It's going to NOT run the story because of the money it has invested in the Longhorn network. This isn't rocket science. ESPN is the LARGEST network out there for sports...period. Most other networks just play catchup to them all the time. Most of the reporting on this issue has been done outside the normal channels (read: ESPN).

 

Like I said, it's not rocket science and I'm really amazed that you're calling me out about it...it's a pretty easy conclusion to draw.

This is where your delusions take over, I suppose. Why is NO OTHER network covering it, then? Talk about getting a clue.

 

I put a theory out there...and you piss all over it stating that I'm delusional? Boy you sure know how to debate well and take the opposing stance.

 

Your "theory" is very unconvincing. ESPN is not afraid of reporting on this. If anything it will bring viewers into the Longhorn Network. This is like you trying to say that CBS would be afraid of reporting on Tiger Woods because they may lose viewership of the Masters. There is no reporting of it on ANY NETWORK because none of them obviously think there is anything that note worthy to report. Or maybe Texas is only important to the states of Texas and Nebraska since we talk about how much we hate that team so much.

[kchusker_chris]

yet another devnet controversy. yippy.

[StPaulHusker]

 

Your "theory" is very unconvincing. ESPN is not afraid of reporting on this. If anything it will bring viewers into the Longhorn Network. This is like you trying to say that CBS would be afraid of reporting on Tiger Woods because they may lose viewership of the Masters. There is no reporting of it on ANY NETWORK because none of them obviously think there is anything that note worthy to report. Or maybe Texas is only important to the states of Texas and Nebraska since we talk about how much we hate that team so much.

 

Here's where my theory IS convincing...it's happening right now. There is controversy surrounding Paula Deen. If the opposing point to my theory is true, Paula Deen should still be at Food Network and still spokesperson for Smithfield Foods. But executives are short sighted and quick to wrath/anger, so she's gone from both of those places...

 

Now, I'm not saying it's right or wrong...don't care about that. What I am stressing here is that these TV execs care about money and money alone. It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the reasons ESPN isn't covering this is simply about money they might lose. Just my theory remember.

The 2 have nothing to do with each other. Firing someone for being a racist and fear of backlash from viewers is not the same as being a news reporting agency and not reporting a scandal for fear people will not tune into a different channel.

 

The reason why your logic is flawed is because, again, there is no other news agency reporting on this. Why is NBC, CBS, Fox, FSN, etc...not saying anything either? Do you think they give 2 craps about the LHN? I would think not. I would venture to guess that they would LOVE to stick it to ESPN if given the chance. Yet nobody is covering it. So it has ZERO to do with viewership.

 

The point you keep glossing over is the other news agencies are not covering it either.

[GSG]

 

Your "theory" is very unconvincing. ESPN is not afraid of reporting on this. If anything it will bring viewers into the Longhorn Network. This is like you trying to say that CBS would be afraid of reporting on Tiger Woods because they may lose viewership of the Masters. There is no reporting of it on ANY NETWORK because none of them obviously think there is anything that note worthy to report. Or maybe Texas is only important to the states of Texas and Nebraska since we talk about how much we hate that team so much.

 

Here's where my theory IS convincing...it's happening right now. There is controversy surrounding Paula Deen. If the opposing point to my theory is true, Paula Deen should still be at Food Network and still spokesperson for Smithfield Foods. But executives are short sighted and quick to wrath/anger, so she's gone from both of those places...

 

Now, I'm not saying it's right or wrong...don't care about that. What I am stressing here is that these TV execs care about money and money alone. It's not out of the realm of possibility that one of the reasons ESPN isn't covering this is simply about money they might lose. Just my theory remember.

The 2 have nothing to do with each other. Firing someone for being a racist and fear of backlash from viewers is not the same as being a news reporting agency and not reporting a scandal for fear people will not tune into a different channel.

 

The reason why your logic is flawed is because, again, there is no other news agency reporting on this. Why is NBC, CBS, Fox, FSN, etc...not saying anything either? Do you think they give 2 craps about the LHN? I would think not. I would venture to guess that they would LOVE to stick it to ESPN if given the chance. Yet nobody is covering it. So it has ZERO to do with viewership.

 

The point you keep glossing over is the other news agencies are not covering it either.

 

And to add to this, sites like CBS, Yahoo, and Deadspin have broken some of the bigger sports stories over the past few years. Like St. Paul said, there is no reason for the other companies to NOT cover a Texas scandal

[StPaulHusker]

The 2 have nothing to do with each other. Firing someone for being a racist and fear of backlash from viewers is not the same as being a news reporting agency and not reporting a scandal for fear people will not tune into a different channel.

 

The reason why your logic is flawed is because, again, there is no other news agency reporting on this. Why is NBC, CBS, Fox, FSN, etc...not saying anything either? Do you think they give 2 craps about the LHN? I would think not. I would venture to guess that they would LOVE to stick it to ESPN if given the chance. Yet nobody is covering it. So it has ZERO to do with viewership.

 

The point you keep glossing over is the other news agencies are not covering it either.

 

As I already stated....it's not about what she said/did or who is right or wrong. It's about controversy and how a company dealt with it. If you want a sports example, just look at Tiger Woods and his fallout a few years back. Companies don't run toward controversy...they ditch and dump whenever they think they're going to lose money OR in our case, lack the due diligence of publishing news. Notice I said think they'll lose money...it doesn't even have to be a real loss...it can just be a potential one.

 

I've tried to show you how I logically arrived at said theory and instead of having a good discussion, I've had to fight tooth and nail just to get you to understand logical concepts like a company not wanting to lose money. As I said, it's just a theory...nothing more.

 

If you don't think ESPN has the pull to do most of this...then we should agree to disagree.

You clearly didn't read my Tiger Woods analogy, did you? Can you see the difference?

Food Network firing someone over a controversy for fear of losing money by lack of viewership is vastly different than a news reporting agency not reporting the news for fear of viewership makes zero sense because that's what sells for them. Controversy. That's why it is called news.

 

And again, I ask you, why is there no one else reporting this scandal? They would have NOTHING to lose due to the fact that they are not heavily invested in LHN. Like I mentioned before. It probably has more to do with the lack of news appeal and less to do with TV sets.

[StPaulHusker]

The 2 have nothing to do with each other. Firing someone for being a racist and fear of backlash from viewers is not the same as being a news reporting agency and not reporting a scandal for fear people will not tune into a different channel.

 

The reason why your logic is flawed is because, again, there is no other news agency reporting on this. Why is NBC, CBS, Fox, FSN, etc...not saying anything either? Do you think they give 2 craps about the LHN? I would think not. I would venture to guess that they would LOVE to stick it to ESPN if given the chance. Yet nobody is covering it. So it has ZERO to do with viewership.

 

The point you keep glossing over is the other news agencies are not covering it either.

 

As I already stated....it's not about what she said/did or who is right or wrong. It's about controversy and how a company dealt with it. If you want a sports example, just look at Tiger Woods and his fallout a few years back. Companies don't run toward controversy...they ditch and dump whenever they think they're going to lose money OR in our case, lack the due diligence of publishing news. Notice I said think they'll lose money...it doesn't even have to be a real loss...it can just be a potential one.

 

I've tried to show you how I logically arrived at said theory and instead of having a good discussion, I've had to fight tooth and nail just to get you to understand logical concepts like a company not wanting to lose money. As I said, it's just a theory...nothing more.

 

If you don't think ESPN has the pull to do most of this...then we should agree to disagree.

You clearly didn't read my Tiger Woods analogy, did you? Can you see the difference?

Food Network firing someone over a controversy for fear of losing money by lack of viewership is vastly different than a news reporting agency not reporting the news for fear of viewership makes zero sense because that's what sells for them. Controversy. That's why it is called news.

 

And again, I ask you, why is there no one else reporting this scandal? They would have NOTHING to lose due to the fact that they are not heavily invested in LHN. Like I mentioned before. It probably has more to do with the lack of news appeal and less to do with TV sets.

 

I'm not sure I believe it's the lack of news appeal more than it is lack of real testimony/evidence. Once things start moving forward, I'd think this will gets its turn on all the other networks except ESPN.

Oh. Okay. So ALL other major networks are not reporting it due to lack of testimony/evidence while ESPN is out of fear.

 

Then when things progress, ALL major networks will run with the story but ESPN will remain out of it because of fear.

 

You do know there is a lawsuit filed, right? http://collegesportsblog.dallasnews.com/2013/03/former-ut-track-coach-bev-kearney-suing-university.html/

 

[Kiyoat Husker]

http://www.mysananto...way-4368627.php

 

So, I did a little google search to see what was up with the Bev Kearney case. Apparently:

 

Kearney's lawyer filed a complaint against UT with the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Texas Workforce Commission alleging racial and gender discrimination, as well as retaliation.

 

The EEOC has 180 days to investigate Kearney's claim before she can sue UT, which her lawyer,Derek Howard, said she intends to do. The 180-day window expires Sept. 8.

 

In the meantime, multiple staffers at UT — including in the athletic department — could be subject to questioning. Howard said he has knowledge of “in excess of 10” inappropriate relationships between UT staffers and subordinates.

 

 

Sucks to have to wait, but at least this stuff will come out just in time for football season!

Mark your calendars...

 

I'm sure the lawsuit will be filed in a couple days, but we may not hear anything about it. Just had to knock the rust off of this thread...

 

 

I really hate Texas.

[Ric Flair]

Yeah, the way it works is that the EEOC has 180 days to investigate. Then they issue a letter with their findings. In reality, the EEOC and their state offices are so overwhelmed that they are often unable to make a finding in that timeframe. But even if that's the case, you can file once the 180 day period has expired.

 

If this is litigated, she will have a very uphill climb. Courts don't like discrimination lawsuits and do what they can to dismiss them. So they deck would be stacked against her. Any jury would have at least a couple of members who are Texas fans, making things even more difficult for her.

 

But from Texas' perspective, this is obviously a PR nightmare. So I would expect they will be working to try to settle things quietly. The last thing they want is an aggressive team of lawyers asking uncomfortable questions, uncovering what actually transpired and airing their dirty laundry.

[TheRedCarver]

They're in trouble vs BYU right now.