re: If the Big12 fails, who does Texas play in non-football sports?

quote:

---

SandStorm

---

You have no clue what national brand means. It has nothing to do with titles, and everything to do with money.

It means people will watch. Notre Dame sucks, but people still watch. USC was half-assed last year, but people watched. People will watch Texas.

Money-wise, go into a Champs store in any mall. You ALWAYS see Carolina shite, Texas, Miami, USC, Michigan, Duke, etc.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

ESPN signed the deal why? Because it makes them money...

And seeing as though Texas has one of the largest student bodies in the nation, something tells me they have enough fans to go around.

Funny how on here people bitch about the vast amount of UT 't-shirt fans' and whatnot, and now all of a sudden for this discussion their fanbase isn't big? It's a top 5 fanbase in the U.S.

quote:

---

I live one state away from UT and have ZERO interest in their athletic program.

---

Then why are you posting in this thread...and I don't mean that sarcastically.

Negative attention is still attention.

It's like the bitchy girl in school that everyone hated. Sure, she was hot...but a true bitch. Everyone kept an eye out just to see what she would do next, bust arse on a pom-pom or something. That is UT.

I am not saying people like them. I can't stand USC or Notre Dame...but they still get attention from me on gameday, just because I tune in to see a score, see if they are losing, etc.

And...what is your interpretation of 'national brand'?

quote:

---

A national brand is bigger than just one program. Notre Dame is the sole exception to this rule and that is due to religious aspects/media hype.

---

Here's where we disagree...no problem. I think Notre Dame is on a tier with other schools, Texas being one of them.

quote:

---

UT is a great program, no doubt, but they are not going to hit their marks if they are independent.

---

Earlier in the thread, I agreed to this. I was just arguing the point with another poster about UT's stance within the nation. He tried to say that Miami and USC (of all teams) were 'national brands', but not Texas.

quote:

---

This is just weird. A lot of these conference members would not be in a BCS conference, and would make a lot less $, if not for Texas. For schools like A&M and OU who chose to stay, they are accountable for their own actions and it is silly to feel sorry for them.

---

they're in that conference and making the money because they joined before college football was a business... iowa state, kansas state, washington state, oregon state, mississippi state, texas tech, baylor, etc. were accidents of history

if we reformed the BCS conferences today, some schools would be kicked out and some not currently in BCS conferences would be added. i'm thinking we'd mostly have one BCS school per state, maybe two if they can be supported

And don't forget A&M has 50,000 students. One of the largest schools in the nation. There's a lot of Ags in Texas. Especially Houston which is only 85 miles from A&M

Outside of Texas, what other states will pick up the LHN on their cable packages? I'm guessing a couple to none. The Big 10 Network is basically on DirecTv and the cable companies within the Big 10 Footprint. If the LHN doesn't get on DirecTv, then their will be a lot of PO'd Texas fans that won't be able to see a couple of games a year.

yall keep ragging on BYU's schedule but i'd put:

@ Ole Miss
@ Texas
Utah
UCF
@ Oregon State
@ TCU
@ Hawaii

up against any major conference schedule. most of that is major conferences and UCF and Hawaii are two of the biggest non-AQ programs

now yeah the other teams they play are cupcakes, but for their "conference" games, that's 5 on the road and 2 at home

2012 BYU notable games scheduled

Oregon State
Hawaii
@ Utah
@ Boise State
@ Georgia Tech
@ Notre Dame

quote:

---

it's under the Mothership's banner, it wont matter where you live as long as (a) you have digital cable & (b) whatever cable provider you have access to offers ESPN

---

So it isn't a separate network? Fox owns 49% of the BTN, but it is still a separate network and channel. I'm guessing that the LHN will have to be a separate channel from the regular ESPN channels.

quote:

---

it's a complete separate network in and of itself

but in today's times, where have you heard any cable company offering ESPN without ESPN2 ??

my point is that geography no longer has bearing

---

Some cable companies don't even carry ESPN Classic. The LHN will have a tough fight on their hands to get on cable outside of Texas. Would you want to pay for the LHN as part of your cable outside of Texas if you were not a Texas fan?