Quote:When you set your goals for the Longhorn Network five years ago or whatever, is this kind of what you envisioned, or have the goals changed over the years?

"The goals didn't change, but it's changed. When we started, and I don't know what it was, 5 years, 6 years, we were looking at Fox and our second-tier stuff, and they had all our baseball, softball, volleyball, swimming, they had everything, and did nothing with it. They just warehoused it.

"So we talked about, 'We need to get that back. We need to put it on TV so that these kids can get some exposure. No sense in warehousing it. We ought to have it out there where parents can see it, where coaches can see it, high school coaches.' So that's where it started. We assumed we were probably going to have to pay for it. We were gonna have to hire people to do it or whatever. We assumed it was gonna cost us money.

"I called Bill Byrne over at A&M and said, 'You know, I don't think we've got enough money or inventory to put on a 24/7 channel, but are you interested in helping us be a part of it?' And he pretty much said no. So we just kept digging and digging and digging and Fox got a little interested and said they'd do it and that they'd pay us, and we said, 'Well, that's good stuff.' Then ESPN got interested and they said they'd do it and pay us more. So we are where we are."

Read more from this Tulsa World article at http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/OU...TLIN310926

They go into A&M and OU rivalries, tier 3 revenue, equal revenue sharing and other points as well. Good read and makes a lot of sense.

This quote was very meaningful IMO:

Quote:With the Big 12 announcement (Monday) that equal revenue sharing is now affirmed for Tier 1 and Tier 2 television revenue, can you explain why Texas won't share any of its LHN money or Tier 3 money?

"It's never been shared before. There's never been any there. We've worked it. We've made something good out of it. Nobody else in the country shares it, except Big Ten and Pac-12 because they did conference stuff. They did conference networks. Florida doesn't share their third-tier."

I bet it's awesome to belong to a conference that does "conference stuff."

(10-05-2011 11:43 AM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  I bet it's awesome to belong to a conference that does "conference stuff."

Post of the Day...but it's early yet.

Cheers,
Neil

(10-05-2011 11:43 AM)FreshPrinceOfDarkness Wrote:  I bet it's awesome to belong to a conference that does "conference stuff."

+1 million. Delosss has no care for this conference.

Quote:Isn't that game as important to Texas, too?

"That game - the rivalry game for us has always been Oklahoma. The A&M game's been a great game and all of that. And we may play 'em. But it's not something that we have to do. I think the Oklahoma game is something we have to do."

Yeah, OK. Damn, Deloss is arrogant.

Quote:Whether the criticism is coming from Texas A&M or Nebraska or the college football world at large, the perception is that Texas is being painted as the bad guy, the evil empire or whatever. Longhorn Network probably helps perpetuate that. Does that concern you as the man in charge here, that the Texas brand is taking a PR hit?

"We're good people. And we do it the right way. And we've got 550 kids that we love, and we treat them the way they're supposed to be treated. And we're in it for kids. We didn't do the Pac-12 (because of) the kids. It wasn't money, it wasn't anything else. We don't want to put our kids in airplanes and have them in airplanes half their life going back and forth.

Freaking BS Deloss. You didn't care about travel last summer when UT almost bolted for the PAC. UT isn't headin west because of the travel, it's because of the LHn and Texas greed. Student travel is an excuse and he can spin it it anyway he wants but the plain truth is Larry Scott told you to drop the LHN or look someplace else. No one wants to deal with UT or th LHN. Simple as that.

Damn, I hate UT. Rant over

1) Yeah, the OU game was SO important to them during the 80's and 90's when both of them were rarely ranked and rarely bowl caliber teams. Lets face it, the A&M/UT series is waaay too close for comfort for them since the schools achieved more or less parity in the 70's and they know that a SEC A&M team will probably start beating them way more often than not so they have to stop playing us to maintain their illusion of supremacy. It's the same principle that let them claim to be the best team in Texas the last few years instead of TCU.

2) All LHN is asking is that you Big 12 (hence forth known as the BevOcho) member schools (henceforth known as the Beev-otches) to do is provide conference material that will be sold without your consent, on a distribution platform that will not pay you for your participation because you are not the half of the game that matters!

It's wishful thinking that A&M will be able to beat Texas more often than not when they're in the SEC. Texas will still get better recruiting classes than A&M. 11-1/12-0 Texas will be more attractive to kids in Texas than 7-5/8-4 A&M, SEC label or not.

(10-05-2011 01:05 PM)Hokie4Skins Wrote:  It's wishful thinking that A&M will be able to beat Texas more often than not when they're in the SEC. Texas will still get better recruiting classes than A&M. 11-1/12-0 Texas will be more attractive to kids in Texas than 7-5/8-4 A&M, SEC label or not.

See, if Deloss agreed with you, he'd love to continue the series. They HATE the fact that the series is almost dead even (with a slight advantage to A&M) in the modern era of college football and if they really thought that they would get to consistently beat a SEC team because the Big 12 will make them so much better then he would never be questioning the continuation of the series.

I haven't really paid attention to the LHN since the Rice game broadcast fail. Have they been able to sign any major carriers? Can't imagine all this continuous realignment uncertainty has helped their negotiating position with the carriers.

10thMountain Wrote:1) Yeah, the OU game was SO important to them during the 80's and 90's when both of them were rarely ranked and rarely bowl caliber teams. Lets face it, the A&M/UT series is waaay too close for comfort for them since the schools achieved more or less parity in the 70's and they know that a SEC A&M team will probably start beating them way more often than not so they have to stop playing us to maintain their illusion of supremacy. It's the same principle that let them claim to be the best team in Texas the last few years instead of TCU.

Since 1970 it is 22-19 Texas but A&M had 11-1 from 1984 to 1994. Any slight advantage to A&M depends on what year you define modern era.

11-5 (1995-Present)
1-11 (A&Ms Run from 84-94)
10-4 (1970-1983)

I would say that middle run is an abberation more than an indicator on equality as it is the only time since before the 60s UT was averaging less than 8 wins as they averaged around 6. I view that run more as UT being down than anything else. The late 80s and early 90s were the exception and not the rule. It was the only time A&M has won any significant amount against them.

Sorry but when you consider that A&M was shadier than SMU was (only they were wiser in how they hid it) in the "Trans A&M" and FedEx days of Sherrill and early Slocum that accounts for much of A&M keeping it close "in the modern era" and how it is sandwiched between 2 periods of getting dominated I don't think A&M scares UT that much.

As for the series being discontinued, the pure smear campaign your admin have set against them (and to a lesser extent the rest of the Big 12) won't make anyone want to play you guys on that principle alone. Add in a tougher than normal non-conference game when SOS will already be strong here and what is the point? To give a stage to the jerk who smeared you in the press?

Also the hypocritical thing about many ags whining about the game ending is that if A&M was concerned about rivalries they would have not been going so quickly and putting the UT game in jeopardy and all but ending BU-ATM and TT-ATM with their move.

10thMountain Wrote:2) All LHN is asking is that you Big 12 (hence forth known as the BevOcho) member schools (henceforth known as the Beev-otches) to do is provide conference material that will be sold without your consent, on a distribution platform that will not pay you for your participation bcause you are not the half of the game that matters!

1- All schools voted to retain 3rd tier rights so consent given at that point and they can decline any games of any sport that are otherwise likely to be picked up. The others can do the same to UT once their distribution platforms are running like KSU has done. Not the same reach but similar in principle. Nice red herring.

2- Each school can market it's 3rd tier its own way. So UT will get paid for KSU at UT baseball but the Cats get paid for their home inventory vs UT. Not the same payout but still UT is not "getting paid for [their] participation".

Personally, I see nothing wrong with a school having its own deal for Tier 3. This aspect of the revamped Big 12 sounds fine to me - and this 6-year agreement all the schools were asked to sign sounds like a model the Big East needs to follow, if it survives.

Solid post Sammy.

In all honesty, it would not shock me if Texas was still talking to the ACC. I doubt they pull the trigger, but I really do suspect that Texas and ND are considering joining the ACC together at some point. And no, I don't think Texas cares at all about any agreement to keep the Big 12 around.

Can you imagine the egg on Bolen if that went down?

"Rivalry" not "rivalries" Sammy. We don't care at all about ending the BU or TT series.

As for the whorns, we aren't begging them. We have just said "we would like the series to continue OOC like many other rivalries, but if you guys don't feel the same way too then oh well." Continuing the LSS game is not so important to us that we would give up our ticket out of the BevOcho for it.

And if they are fine with a home slate of New Mexico, Wyoming, Baylor and Iowa State then good for them. Clearly with a schedule like that there is no room for any OOC games except UTSA and directional Louisianas.

(10-05-2011 03:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  "Rivalry" not "rivalries" Sammy. We don't care at all about ending the BU or TT series.

Apparently UT feels the same about you.

Quote:As for the whorns, we aren't begging them. We have just said "we would like the series to continue OOC like many other rivalries, but if you guys don't feel the same way too then oh well."

You aren't begging but the "they aren't playing us because they are scared" bit makes you-
1- Appear very bothered by it ending so not exactly "oh well"
2- Sound like SWC4 schools probably smack talked the aggies, horns, bears, and raiders about "fear" being the reason a rivalry that the smack talker cares more for isnt being played.

Quote:And if they are fine with a home slate of New Mexico, Wyoming, Baylor and Iowa State then good for them. Clearly with a schedule like that there is no room for any OOC games except UTSA and directional Louisianas.

UNM and Wyoming as non conference home games is 2012, and no other year is that crappy.

2013 Ole Miss.
2014 BYU
2015 Cal
2016 Notre Dame
2017 Maryland
2018 USC
2019 Notre Dame

All home games.

(10-05-2011 04:09 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 03:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  "Rivalry" not "rivalries" Sammy. We don't care at all about ending the BU or TT series.

Apparently UT feels the same about you.

Quote:As for the whorns, we aren't begging them. We have just said "we would like the series to continue OOC like many other rivalries, but if you guys don't feel the same way too then oh well."

You aren't begging but the "they aren't playing us because they are scared" bit makes you-
1- Appear very bothered by it ending so not exactly "oh well"
2- Sound like SWC4 schools probably smack talked the aggies, horns, bears, and raiders about "fear" being the reason a rivalry that the smack talker cares more for isnt being played.

Quote:And if they are fine with a home slate of New Mexico, Wyoming, Baylor and Iowa State then good for them. Clearly with a schedule like that there is no room for any OOC games except UTSA and directional Louisianas.

UNM and Wyoming as non conference home games is 2012, and no other year is that crappy.

2013 Ole Miss.
2014 BYU
2015 Cal
2016 Notre Dame
2017 Maryland
2018 USC
2019 Notre Dame

All home games.

So they have one OOC a year scheduled? Not exactly a full slate. But as you said, doesn't matter. If they don't want to play us (for whatever reason they can come up with) then it's over.

The series has gone on hiatus before, and maybe this is just temporary. Like I said, keeping that one game is not worth it to us enough to stay in the Big Whatever.

(10-05-2011 04:20 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 04:09 PM)Sammy11 Wrote:  

(10-05-2011 03:48 PM)10thMountain Wrote:  "Rivalry" not "rivalries" Sammy. We don't care at all about ending the BU or TT series.

Apparently UT feels the same about you.

Quote:As for the whorns, we aren't begging them. We have just said "we would like the series to continue OOC like many other rivalries, but if you guys don't feel the same way too then oh well."

You aren't begging but the "they aren't playing us because they are scared" bit makes you-
1- Appear very bothered by it ending so not exactly "oh well"
2- Sound like SWC4 schools probably smack talked the aggies, horns, bears, and raiders about "fear" being the reason a rivalry that the smack talker cares more for isnt being played.

Quote:And if they are fine with a home slate of New Mexico, Wyoming, Baylor and Iowa State then good for them. Clearly with a schedule like that there is no room for any OOC games except UTSA and directional Louisianas.

UNM and Wyoming as non conference home games is 2012, and no other year is that crappy.

2013 Ole Miss.
2014 BYU
2015 Cal
2016 Notre Dame
2017 Maryland
2018 USC
2019 Notre Dame

All home games.

So they have one OOC a year scheduled? Not exactly a full slate. But as you said, doesn't matter. If they don't want to play us (for whatever reason they can come up with) then it's over.

The series has gone on hiatus before, and maybe this is just temporary. Like I said, keeping that one game is not worth it to us enough to stay in the Big Whatever.

They have 3 but I simply listed the quality home games. Most schools run with 1 big home game per non-con year and 1 easy one if there are 3 slots open.

A&M is one to talk about bad noncon scheduling.

A&M has used Arky as a big neutral site game from 2009-now.
2011 SMU is as close as you get to a good noncon home game
2010 Nothing good
2009 Nothing good
2008 was Miami and Army
2007 was pretty barren except maybe Fresno for you guys.
2006 had no good home games and a San Antonio "away" game vs Army.
2005 had SMU and Texas State.

7 years and what do we have:
3 Arky games not at home.
2 Army games that I guess might be a decent ticket
2 SMU games and 2005 was a bad year for them
1 Miami game

So at most 8 games in 7 years with over half of them being away from campus or against subpar opposition. (Army, 2005 SMU)

Other than LSU, the entire SEC does this crap too so I don't see why you think UT would do any different.

Bama:
1 MAC - Kent State
1 Sun Belt - UNT
1 FCS- Ga State
1 good opponent - H&H with PSU

Auburn
1 WAC - Utah St
1 sun belt - FAU
1 FCS - Samford
1 good opponent - H&H clemson

Up until the last few years, the entire Big 12's OOC scheduling was pretty lame. However, after getting called out on it, most of the schools have added at least one respectable game a year in OOC and that's a good thing. This year is a good example with Baylor/TCU, Texas/UCLA A&M/Arkansas, Oklahoma/FSU, Mizzou/Arizona State, Kansas/GT etc. Its a huge improvement over the Bill Snyder heydays.

The other thing about the SEC's OOC schedules is that they includes several OOC instate rivalry games.

UF-FSU
USC-Clemson
UGA-GT
UT-UM
UK-UL

so A&M/Texas would not be out of place at all in the SEC. But it's unlikely that it will continue for at least a few years.