Longhorn Network

[redblooded]

"No his point was that Nebraska warned about the Texas centric swing"

 

What does this even mean? I'd like you to name one important conference vote (revenue sharing, use of partial qualifiers, location of conference HQ, location of conference title game, etc.) where EVERY SINGLE TEAM (except for Nebraska) didn't vote EXACTLY THE SAME as Texas. When the rest of the conference acts in unanimity, why is that called a "Texas centric swing" ?

 

Here's the remainder of that quote, It explains exactly what I meant:

 

...of the league and Texas getting ESPN to trade a conference television game to help launch Texas's new network is the start of what Nebraska had been warning about coming to pass. It is Texas indirectly using the clout it has through its partnership with ESPN to use the entire league for its own benefit and it's benefit alone.

 

Did you not understand the remainder of that paragraph was putting that half sentence you quoted into context and explaining exactly what I meant? Are you playing dumb? I can't tell.

 

Ohh goody the league formation votes again. You realize that just prior to those votes Texas had threatened to not join the conference if it didn't get its way. You don't get unanimous votes through threats. Or well I guess you do, but do they really count?

 

I have a feeling in a few years we'll see just how unanimous the remaining big 12 will be feeling about Texas. Off to a great start, 7 days without Nebraska and Colorado in the league and Oklahoma is starting to wonder if what they signed on for was such a good idea. Good luck with that Longhorn.

[knapplc]

What does this even mean? I'd like you to name one important conference vote (revenue sharing, use of partial qualifiers, location of conference HQ, location of conference title game, etc.) where EVERY SINGLE TEAM (except for Nebraska) didn't vote EXACTLY THE SAME as Texas. When the rest of the conference acts in unanimity, why is that called a "Texas centric swing" ?

 

This isn't rocket science. Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Missouri are staring down the barrel of conference irrelevance if they lose the Big XII. Right now the Big XII is hanging on to AQ status by the simple fact that Texas has not decided to go Independent. Financially that's a viable possibility, and a decision that Texas will make if it benefits them, just like every other school.

 

So the fact that these schools vote in lockstep with Texas does not indicate agreement, but rather lack of choice. This point is further illustrated by the fact that so many of the fundamental votes in the Big XII have benefited Texas and their interests. The only schools who will, without question, land on their feet if Texas pulls out are Oklahoma and Texas A&M. Tech, Baylor and the North schools are likely screwed. Missouri will not be joining the Big Ten, and what AQ conference is going to bring in Iowa State or Kansas State? Kansas has an outside shot at an AQ conference due simply to their basketball team, but that's hard say.

 

The Texas schools are tied at the hip by their legislature.

 

What's so hard to understand about this?

[Nebula]

What does this even mean? I'd like you to name one important conference vote (revenue sharing, use of partial qualifiers, location of conference HQ, location of conference title game, etc.) where EVERY SINGLE TEAM (except for Nebraska) didn't vote EXACTLY THE SAME as Texas. When the rest of the conference acts in unanimity, why is that called a "Texas centric swing" ?

 

This isn't rocket science. Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Missouri are staring down the barrel of conference irrelevance if they lose the Big XII. Right now the Big XII is hanging on to AQ status by the simple fact that Texas has not decided to go Independent. Financially that's a viable possibility, and a decision that Texas will make if it benefits them, just like every other school.

 

So the fact that these schools vote in lockstep with Texas does not indicate agreement, but rather lack of choice. This point is further illustrated by the fact that so many of the fundamental votes in the Big XII have benefited Texas and their interests. The only schools who will, without question, land on their feet if Texas pulls out are Oklahoma and Texas A&M. Tech, Baylor and the North schools are likely screwed. Missouri will not be joining the Big Ten, and what AQ conference is going to bring in Iowa State or Kansas State? Kansas has an outside shot at an AQ conference due simply to their basketball team, but that's hard say.

 

The Texas schools are tied at the hip by their legislature.

 

What's so hard to understand about this?

I think the difficulty in comprehension stems from an inability to detach reason from blind loyalty by the Texas fan who wrote that blog and may or may not be posting in this thread.

[knapplc]

I think the difficulty in comprehension stems from an inability to detach reason from blind loyalty by the Texas fan who wrote that blog and may or may not be posting in this thread.

 

Considering the fact that this blog was written by a "Dr Drunkenstein," and the Texas fan "Dr Drunkenstein" from Tiger Droppings lists his location as Washington, DC and our friend "Machine from 8MM" posts from Annapolis, I'd say you're most likely right.

[husker_99]

What does this even mean? I'd like you to name one important conference vote (revenue sharing, use of partial qualifiers, location of conference HQ, location of conference title game, etc.) where EVERY SINGLE TEAM (except for Nebraska) didn't vote EXACTLY THE SAME as Texas. When the rest of the conference acts in unanimity, why is that called a "Texas centric swing" ?

 

This isn't rocket science. Iowa State, Kansas, Kansas State, Oklahoma State and Missouri are staring down the barrel of conference irrelevance if they lose the Big XII. Right now the Big XII is hanging on to AQ status by the simple fact that Texas has not decided to go Independent. Financially that's a viable possibility, and a decision that Texas will make if it benefits them, just like every other school.

 

So the fact that these schools vote in lockstep with Texas does not indicate agreement, but rather lack of choice. This point is further illustrated by the fact that so many of the fundamental votes in the Big XII have benefited Texas and their interests. The only schools who will, without question, land on their feet if Texas pulls out are Oklahoma and Texas A&M. Tech, Baylor and the North schools are likely screwed. Missouri will not be joining the Big Ten, and what AQ conference is going to bring in Iowa State or Kansas State? Kansas has an outside shot at an AQ conference due simply to their basketball team, but that's hard say.

 

The Texas schools are tied at the hip by their legislature.

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

[VectorVictor]

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Whoa...slow down there. Going independent doesn't kill championship ideas--in fact, it makes them easier to obtain, because champion programs cost money to make, and money to maintain.

 

Any independent worth a bunch of money (read: Texas, BYU) will be able to take advantage of the current Notre Dame 9-win BCS threshold. That means Texas could get a BCS game and all the prestige and money without having to split it with its have-not bumpkin cousins in MO, KS, and OK.

 

Plus, Texas gets to craft their own schedule, and it will likely look similar to that of ND or BYU--a lot of fluff, little filler. And even if Texas keeps their OU and A&M tilts, they could still lose both of these matches and one more to some random scrub and still take home millions in BCS excess simply because they have nine wins and an orange, pointy uterus on their helmet.

 

The real, significant challenges in going independent are scheduling and network access, and I think we all know that Texas has the later all wrapped up.

[VectorVictor]

This point is further illustrated by the fact that so many of the fundamental votes in the Big XII have benefited Texas and their interests. The only schools who will, without question, land on their feet if Texas pulls out are Oklahoma and Texas A&M.

 

Personally, I would add Kansas*slash*Missouri to the list--one of them will make the cut if the B1G goes to 14--both if full frontal Conference Armageddon occurs.

 

And I only say this because Texas leaving the Big XII-II would kill the conference off and either be the start or result of Conference Realignment II: The Realigning.

[husker_99]

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Whoa...slow down there. Going independent doesn't kill championship ideas--in fact, it makes them easier to obtain, because champion programs cost money to make, and money to maintain.

 

Any independent worth a bunch of money (read: Texas, BYU) will be able to take advantage of the current Notre Dame 9-win BCS threshold. That means Texas could get a BCS game and all the prestige and money without having to split it with its have-not bumpkin cousins in MO, KS, and OK.

 

Plus, Texas gets to craft their own schedule, and it will likely look similar to that of ND or BYU--a lot of fluff, little filler. And even if Texas keeps their OU and A&M tilts, they could still lose both of these matches and one more to some random scrub and still take home millions in BCS excess simply because they have nine wins and an orange, pointy uterus on their helmet.

 

The real, significant challenges in going independent are scheduling and network access, and I think we all know that Texas has the later all wrapped up.

 

Actually it does kill Championships. BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all. They were told that when they went independent but they don't care about that. Texas doesn't have a long history of being an independent like Notre Dame does. Hell the Big 12 was worried that they would lose their BCS status because us and Colorado left. Notre Dame also has to win a certain number of games(9 i think) and be ranked in like the top 6(i think) to even be considered for a BCS bowl.

[redblooded]

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Whoa...slow down there. Going independent doesn't kill championship ideas--in fact, it makes them easier to obtain, because champion programs cost money to make, and money to maintain.

 

Any independent worth a bunch of money (read: Texas, BYU) will be able to take advantage of the current Notre Dame 9-win BCS threshold. That means Texas could get a BCS game and all the prestige and money without having to split it with its have-not bumpkin cousins in MO, KS, and OK.

 

Plus, Texas gets to craft their own schedule, and it will likely look similar to that of ND or BYU--a lot of fluff, little filler. And even if Texas keeps their OU and A&M tilts, they could still lose both of these matches and one more to some random scrub and still take home millions in BCS excess simply because they have nine wins and an orange, pointy uterus on their helmet.

 

The real, significant challenges in going independent are scheduling and network access, and I think we all know that Texas has the later all wrapped up.

 

Actually it does kill Championships. BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all. They were told that when they went independent but they don't care about that. Texas doesn't have a long history of being an independent like Notre Dame does. Hell the Big 12 was worried that they would lose their BCS status because us and Colorado left. Notre Dame also has to win a certain number of games(9 i think) and be ranked in like the top 6(i think) to even be considered for a BCS bowl.

 

BYU should still be able to get an at large bid into the BCS based on their rank or into the MNC game if they are in the top two. They don't have a sweetheart deal like Notre Dame as far as "win x games you get an Automatic bid." However that really isn't any different for them, they didn't leave an AQ conference to go independent.

 

Texas really does look like its making all the moves it can to set itself up to go independent. They know the big 12 isn't going to be a long term solution if any one of the three conferences surrounding the big 12 come knocking again, and they don't seem to like the fact that they have to share money with anyone. So you can rule out the big ten and pac12 as possible destinations. I'd look for Texas to start trying to grease the wheels on a sweetheart deal with the BCS that is similar to Notre Dame once its network is established in a couple years... The difference between them and BYU is Texas has money enough to do it. Until then look for them to continue to use the big12 in any way possible to get that network established, including adding more conference games on it if needed.

[VectorVictor]

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Whoa...slow down there. Going independent doesn't kill championship ideas--in fact, it makes them easier to obtain, because champion programs cost money to make, and money to maintain.

 

Any independent worth a bunch of money (read: Texas, BYU) will be able to take advantage of the current Notre Dame 9-win BCS threshold. That means Texas could get a BCS game and all the prestige and money without having to split it with its have-not bumpkin cousins in MO, KS, and OK.

 

Plus, Texas gets to craft their own schedule, and it will likely look similar to that of ND or BYU--a lot of fluff, little filler. And even if Texas keeps their OU and A&M tilts, they could still lose both of these matches and one more to some random scrub and still take home millions in BCS excess simply because they have nine wins and an orange, pointy uterus on their helmet.

 

The real, significant challenges in going independent are scheduling and network access, and I think we all know that Texas has the later all wrapped up.

 

Actually it does kill Championships. BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all. They were told that when they went independent but they don't care about that. Texas doesn't have a long history of being an independent like Notre Dame does. Hell the Big 12 was worried that they would lose their BCS status because us and Colorado left. Notre Dame also has to win a certain number of games(9 i think) and be ranked in like the top 6(i think) to even be considered for a BCS bowl.

 

Considering that the Federal Government is investigating the BCS for anti-trust violations (among other things), I seriously doubt the BCS was told "BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all" or anything along those lines.

 

And frankly, considering the size of the fanbase and the better TV contract BYU got when it went independent, BYU is all but assured of sharing Notre Dame's sweetheart BCS backdoor deal, especially since Notre Dame can't seem to capitalize on it. Texas too, for that matter.

 

And I did address the nine-win requirement, and how that's easy for Texas to achieve, even if they're only a hair above mediocre (or a bit below as they were last year). Texas would likely keep A&M and Oklahoma, mix in one annual contender, fill the rest with fluff, and *poof* instant nine-win season, even if Texas chokes to A&M and OU.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Whoa...slow down there. Going independent doesn't kill championship ideas--in fact, it makes them easier to obtain, because champion programs cost money to make, and money to maintain.

 

Any independent worth a bunch of money (read: Texas, BYU) will be able to take advantage of the current Notre Dame 9-win BCS threshold. That means Texas could get a BCS game and all the prestige and money without having to split it with its have-not bumpkin cousins in MO, KS, and OK.

 

Plus, Texas gets to craft their own schedule, and it will likely look similar to that of ND or BYU--a lot of fluff, little filler. And even if Texas keeps their OU and A&M tilts, they could still lose both of these matches and one more to some random scrub and still take home millions in BCS excess simply because they have nine wins and an orange, pointy uterus on their helmet.

 

The real, significant challenges in going independent are scheduling and network access, and I think we all know that Texas has the later all wrapped up.

 

Actually it does kill Championships. BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all. They were told that when they went independent but they don't care about that. Texas doesn't have a long history of being an independent like Notre Dame does. Hell the Big 12 was worried that they would lose their BCS status because us and Colorado left. Notre Dame also has to win a certain number of games(9 i think) and be ranked in like the top 6(i think) to even be considered for a BCS bowl.

 

Considering that the Federal Government is investigating the BCS for anti-trust violations (among other things), I seriously doubt the BCS was told "BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all" or anything along those lines.

 

And frankly, considering the size of the fanbase and the better TV contract BYU got when it went independent, BYU is all but assured of sharing Notre Dame's sweetheart BCS backdoor deal, especially since Notre Dame can't seem to capitalize on it. Texas too, for that matter.

 

And I did address the nine-win requirement, and how that's easy for Texas to achieve, even if they're only a hair above mediocre (or a bit below as they were last year). Texas would likely keep A&M and Oklahoma, mix in one annual contender, fill the rest with fluff, and *poof* instant nine-win season, even if Texas chokes to A&M and OU.

 

We capitalized on it jus fine after they changed the rules to pay us for not going to a BCS bowl in 2007.

 

I'm quite sure that an eligible Texas team would never get excluded as if Texas went independent then the BCS as we know it is already dead.

[VectorVictor]

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Whoa...slow down there. Going independent doesn't kill championship ideas--in fact, it makes them easier to obtain, because champion programs cost money to make, and money to maintain.

 

Any independent worth a bunch of money (read: Texas, BYU) will be able to take advantage of the current Notre Dame 9-win BCS threshold. That means Texas could get a BCS game and all the prestige and money without having to split it with its have-not bumpkin cousins in MO, KS, and OK.

 

Plus, Texas gets to craft their own schedule, and it will likely look similar to that of ND or BYU--a lot of fluff, little filler. And even if Texas keeps their OU and A&M tilts, they could still lose both of these matches and one more to some random scrub and still take home millions in BCS excess simply because they have nine wins and an orange, pointy uterus on their helmet.

 

The real, significant challenges in going independent are scheduling and network access, and I think we all know that Texas has the later all wrapped up.

 

Actually it does kill Championships. BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all. They were told that when they went independent but they don't care about that. Texas doesn't have a long history of being an independent like Notre Dame does. Hell the Big 12 was worried that they would lose their BCS status because us and Colorado left. Notre Dame also has to win a certain number of games(9 i think) and be ranked in like the top 6(i think) to even be considered for a BCS bowl.

 

Considering that the Federal Government is investigating the BCS for anti-trust violations (among other things), I seriously doubt the BCS was told "BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all" or anything along those lines.

 

And frankly, considering the size of the fanbase and the better TV contract BYU got when it went independent, BYU is all but assured of sharing Notre Dame's sweetheart BCS backdoor deal, especially since Notre Dame can't seem to capitalize on it. Texas too, for that matter.

 

And I did address the nine-win requirement, and how that's easy for Texas to achieve, even if they're only a hair above mediocre (or a bit below as they were last year). Texas would likely keep A&M and Oklahoma, mix in one annual contender, fill the rest with fluff, and *poof* instant nine-win season, even if Texas chokes to A&M and OU.

 

We capitalized on it jus fine after they changed the rules to pay us for not going to a BCS bowl in 2007.

 

I'm quite sure that an eligible Texas team would never get excluded as if Texas went independent then the BCS as we know it is already dead.

 

BYU wouldn't either--while they haven't had past success on the scale that Notre Dame has, their fanbase and following is, if you go by TV money, better than Notre Dame.

 

And frankly, if you had, say, Army go 9-3, the BCS would be hard pressed to exclude them considering the current environment of investigation, especially if it's a weak year for BCS teams.

[husker_99]

Texas won't go independent. Unless they want to stop playing in BCS bowls or NCG. I don't see the NCAA granting a public school a waiver that would allow them what Notre Dame is allowed to do. Texas wants to win championships and going independent kills that idea. BYU doesn't care because they haven't been playing in BCS bowls year after year.

What's so hard to understand about this?

 

Whoa...slow down there. Going independent doesn't kill championship ideas--in fact, it makes them easier to obtain, because champion programs cost money to make, and money to maintain.

 

Any independent worth a bunch of money (read: Texas, BYU) will be able to take advantage of the current Notre Dame 9-win BCS threshold. That means Texas could get a BCS game and all the prestige and money without having to split it with its have-not bumpkin cousins in MO, KS, and OK.

 

Plus, Texas gets to craft their own schedule, and it will likely look similar to that of ND or BYU--a lot of fluff, little filler. And even if Texas keeps their OU and A&M tilts, they could still lose both of these matches and one more to some random scrub and still take home millions in BCS excess simply because they have nine wins and an orange, pointy uterus on their helmet.

 

The real, significant challenges in going independent are scheduling and network access, and I think we all know that Texas has the later all wrapped up.

 

Actually it does kill Championships. BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all. They were told that when they went independent but they don't care about that. Texas doesn't have a long history of being an independent like Notre Dame does. Hell the Big 12 was worried that they would lose their BCS status because us and Colorado left. Notre Dame also has to win a certain number of games(9 i think) and be ranked in like the top 6(i think) to even be considered for a BCS bowl.

 

Considering that the Federal Government is investigating the BCS for anti-trust violations (among other things), I seriously doubt the BCS was told "BYU now can't go to a BCS bowl at all" or anything along those lines.

 

And frankly, considering the size of the fanbase and the better TV contract BYU got when it went independent, BYU is all but assured of sharing Notre Dame's sweetheart BCS backdoor deal, especially since Notre Dame can't seem to capitalize on it. Texas too, for that matter.

 

And I did address the nine-win requirement, and how that's easy for Texas to achieve, even if they're only a hair above mediocre (or a bit below as they were last year). Texas would likely keep A&M and Oklahoma, mix in one annual contender, fill the rest with fluff, and *poof* instant nine-win season, even if Texas chokes to A&M and OU.

 

The Federal Government was investigating Roger Clemens too and look at how that ended up, mistrial. the biggest beef is that if you let Texas become an independent and they get good money deal then you will start to see other big schools trying to go the route too. Once the floodgates open it's hard to close them.

[Mavric]

According to SNL Kagan, a media research company, Longhorn Network has lost $48 million in its first five years of operation.

The Texas Longhorns launched “LHN” on Aug. 26, 2011.

The initial business plan called for the network to broadcast prominent Texas high school football games, which the NCAA squashed. The LHN receives just two lower-tier Texas football games to broadcast each year. And cable providers were slow to add the station, which charges a fee of just 29 cents per subscriber.

ESPN has had to eat most of the costs. The company signed an agreement with the University of Texas to create the network just one year after coach Mack Brown led his team to a 13-1 finish with a loss to Alabama in the national championship game.

According to the San Antonio Express-News, ESPN signed a 20-year, $295 million contract, and also agreed to “absorb LHN production costs pegged at an estimated $26 million a year.”

...

The SEC Network reaches an estimated 69 million homes, according to the report. Meanwhile, LHN reaches between 7.5 million and 20 million, depending on whether you trust the SNL Kagan study or ESPN.

 

Link

[Mavric]

BTN is in 60 million homes per their web site.