- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So How Bad Did the LHN Hurt Texas?
Posted on 11/2/11 at 1:20 pm to ehidal1
Posted on 11/2/11 at 1:20 pm to ehidal1
I think it has hurt their national brand and image more than anything. Before LHN, most people nationally had a favorable image of Texas football. Most of us cheered for them against USC, liked their cowgirl cheerleaders, and loved Austin. Deservedly or not, the LHN turned Texas into a bully and as a national symbol for everything wrong with college sports. If you polled America and asked what single event caused conference realignment, the vast majority would say the LHN.
In fact, I recently read an article about the failure of the LHN, and it stated that unlike the Big Ten network where customers forced cable companies to broadcast it, the LHN has had the opposite effect. People are calling cable companies all across America letting them know they will drop them if they add the LHN and force them to pay for it. National people like me wanted the Big Ten network to see a variety of games. No one outside of Texas wants to pay for a network that promotes only one university and a university that now has such a terrible image.
Bottom line.....the nation hates the LHN and therefore, the nation hates Texas football. Huge mistake by UT and an even bigger mistake by ESPN.
In fact, I recently read an article about the failure of the LHN, and it stated that unlike the Big Ten network where customers forced cable companies to broadcast it, the LHN has had the opposite effect. People are calling cable companies all across America letting them know they will drop them if they add the LHN and force them to pay for it. National people like me wanted the Big Ten network to see a variety of games. No one outside of Texas wants to pay for a network that promotes only one university and a university that now has such a terrible image.
Bottom line.....the nation hates the LHN and therefore, the nation hates Texas football. Huge mistake by UT and an even bigger mistake by ESPN.
1
Posted on 11/2/11 at 1:30 pm to ehidal1
quote:
which will definitely cut into their recruiting in the Dallas area.
Long live one of the dumbest memes in the history of the Internetz.
How can one argue with such irrefutable logic like the OPs?
With TCU in the Big XII, Texas won't have a prayer against mighty TCU when it comes to recruiting kids in the Metroplex.
And with A&M in the SEC, I guess Texas won't be able to recruit any more kids from Houston.
But thank God they have the Longhorn Network. That'll get recruits to come to UT!
Posted on 11/2/11 at 1:36 pm to CGSC Lobotomy
I don't know anything about Bishop's academics, but he made my teammates and I look absolutely silly one time in high school. I still vividly remember seeing him getting hit and STILL throwing a long completion as he was falling down. That was probably our defensive highlight of the day.
But back to the LHN, has anyone figured out if Texas gets the full announced value of the contract regardless of subscribers, or was that the potential value? The copy of the contract I saw was redacted, so I don't know if the full terms have been disclosed.
But back to the LHN, has anyone figured out if Texas gets the full announced value of the contract regardless of subscribers, or was that the potential value? The copy of the contract I saw was redacted, so I don't know if the full terms have been disclosed.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 1:46 pm to PowerTool
quote:
But back to the LHN, has anyone figured out if Texas gets the full announced value of the contract regardless of subscribers, or was that the potential value? The copy of the contract I saw was redacted, so I don't know if the full terms have been disclosed.
No definitive word has come out.
My best guess? ESPN wrote themselves a few escape clauses into there to limit the downside payments to Texas if the subscriber base doesn't reach certain levels.
If the network is still a turkey in a few years, they'll eat the startup costs and give Texas the finger.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 2:33 pm to Cdawg
quote:I think it does matter. Money is driving college athletics...more money means better facilities and the ability to pay coaches better. These smaller schools in the Big 12 will now receive more money per year than they did before all this sillyness started. It won't hurt Texas, but it certainly helps everyone else who had smaller shares of the pie.
Doesnt' matter. UT will always have big money.
quote:Disagree...Texas Tech is in no-mans land in West Texas...not a recruiting hot bed...whereas TCU is in a huge metro area...studs in Dallas can go "out of town" for college, but still be in the metroplex and compete in the Big 12.
About as much as Texas Tech IMO.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 2:35 pm to Monticello
Texas has f.u.'ed college football. For that they deserve our eternal hatred.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 3:45 pm to Chicken
quote:
It won't hurt Texas,
See, you said it yourself.
quote:
Disagree...Texas Tech is in no-mans land in West Texas...not a recruiting hot bed...whereas TCU is in a huge metro area...studs in Dallas can go "out of town" for college, but still be in the metroplex and compete in the Big 12.
Of course you disagree. I'm disagreeing with your disagree. More people care about Tech than TCU. I'm sure more people will become a little more interested once in the big 12 but they will be no more than a Texas Tech.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 4:06 pm to Cdawg
quote:
Of course you disagree. I'm disagreeing with your disagree. More people care about Tech than TCU. I'm sure more people will become a little more interested once in the big 12 but they will be no more than a Texas Tech.
And, people in the metroplex do not care about TCU for the most part. Professional and high school sports dominate that area. In Lubbock, there is very little to give a damn about. High school sports are big, but Texas Tech is a much bigger deal with a much larger fan base than TCU.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 4:21 pm to Cdawg
quote:My original post had nothing to do with it hurting Texas...it was about helping the other schools. There is no refuting that.
See, you said it yourself.
And TCU being more relevant doesn't help Texas at all. The last thing Texas wants is more competition for recruiting.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 4:24 pm to TK421
This isn't about fanbases or public interest in the school's respective area. This is about there being another option for high school football players in Texas to play in a BCS conference and stay close to home.
I guarantee you that TCU missed out on recruits because they belonged to that crappy Mountain West conference...
I guarantee you that TCU missed out on recruits because they belonged to that crappy Mountain West conference...
Posted on 11/2/11 at 4:27 pm to Chicken
But the thing you all seem to be missing is the real reason most recruits go to a certain school. Most football players at LSU grew up as LSU fans and always dreamed of playing here. That was their primary motivation. If LSU was terrible, they might have reconsidered, but LA Tech being in a major conference would likely not affect them one way or the other.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 4:30 pm to TK421
quote:
But the thing you all seem to be missing is the real reason most recruits go to a certain school. Most football players at LSU grew up as LSU fans and always dreamed of playing here. That was their primary motivation.
When it comes to Blue Chip recruits, I really don't think this is as important as you think it is.
Maybe for some of them, and maybe for the lower rated recruits
This post was edited on 11/2/11 at 4:31 pm
Posted on 11/2/11 at 4:44 pm to Chicken
quote:
My original post had nothing to do with it hurting Texas...it was about helping the other schools. There is no refuting that.
And TCU being more relevant doesn't help Texas at all. The last thing Texas wants is more competition for recruiting.
Texas has always had to deal with it even with out-of-state schools. It' will be interesting to see though after Mack is gone and if A&M does get better.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 4:52 pm to TK421
I'll agree with Wiki on this. Playing time and getting to the next level is probably a bigger motivation to most recruits.
If LSU was terrible, they'd be going elsewhere, like FSU(Travis Minor) or Colorado(Kordell Stewart) back in the day.
If LSU was terrible, they'd be going elsewhere, like FSU(Travis Minor) or Colorado(Kordell Stewart) back in the day.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 5:14 pm to TK421
LA Tech is a bad example. If Tulane went to a BCS Conference and raised it budget and got serious about football, it would have an effect on LSU.
Posted on 11/2/11 at 6:07 pm to PuntBamaPunt
quote:
Message
Posted by PuntBamaPunt
UTx will always hand pick instate talent.
That's not true. In the early 90's A&M was hand licking the talent. Athletes go to play for a team competing for titles.
Also, A&M will get a small bump in the SEC for recruiting. But it won't last if we don't win. FTR, we've recruited top 25 classes almost every year in this prolonged period of suckage we are in.
Thirdly, UTa doesn't get that much money from the LHN. A&M will get more money once the SEC renegotiated it's TV deal and starts a SEC network. It won't even be close
Posted on 11/3/11 at 12:17 am to Big Kat
Did the B10N hurt the B1G? As it sits rights now the LHN is making more money per team then the initial launch of the B10N.
Trying to put value or even attempt to say that the LHN is even close to a failure is not only extremely short sighted, but also show an extreme misunderstanding of initial offering of RSN's.
As far as Mizzou or A&M leaving, the LHN is a convenient excuse for then to leave, nothing more. If the LHN was a problem, then A&M would have never applied last year for the SEC before the launch of the LHN. It is not a root cause, and so far has been a political rallying cry to rally the masses.
Smart move on their part to push the concept, but the real decision makers have know for a long long time about the LHN, the contract associated, and the potential ramifications.
Trying to put value or even attempt to say that the LHN is even close to a failure is not only extremely short sighted, but also show an extreme misunderstanding of initial offering of RSN's.
As far as Mizzou or A&M leaving, the LHN is a convenient excuse for then to leave, nothing more. If the LHN was a problem, then A&M would have never applied last year for the SEC before the launch of the LHN. It is not a root cause, and so far has been a political rallying cry to rally the masses.
Smart move on their part to push the concept, but the real decision makers have know for a long long time about the LHN, the contract associated, and the potential ramifications.
Posted on 11/3/11 at 2:45 am to laxtonto
quote:
Did the B10N hurt the B1G? As it sits rights now the LHN is making more money per team then the initial launch of the B10N.
Trying to put value or even attempt to say that the LHN is even close to a failure is not only extremely short sighted, but also show an extreme misunderstanding of initial offering of RSN's.
Lol. Are you serious? The LHN hasn't been picked up by near the amount of providers as projected by now. Not even close. And it was originally thought there would be HS content as filler which has now been disallowed. I don't even see the channel lasting because it will struggle to meet the requirements set forth in the contract. What's funnier is the LHN is only giving the Texas AD (already the richest) an extra 3-4 million per year. Was that little of money worth the PR black eye and loss of conference members? Which will devalue the conference and in the end mean the LHN actually didn't add value. Especially if it's scrapped it definitely cost the Texas AD money.
quote:
the LHN is a convenient excuse for then to leave, nothing more. If the LHN was a problem, then A&M would have never applied last year for the SEC before the launch of the LHN. It is not a root cause
we applied last year because Texas tried to back door broker a 6 team deal to the PAC 12 you dummy. Sorry, bruh. Texas doesn't make our decisions for us
Posted on 11/3/11 at 11:04 am to TK421
I agree with Wiki too. When you're a Top 100 recruit, you're looking at the NFL. You want to go to a school that will best prepare you to do that.
Almost 30% of the 2011 recruiting class was out-of-state. Those players, and probably most of the black in-state ones, went to LSU because they want to go to the NFL. Not because of any family loyalty to LSU.
Almost 30% of the 2011 recruiting class was out-of-state. Those players, and probably most of the black in-state ones, went to LSU because they want to go to the NFL. Not because of any family loyalty to LSU.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News