That was great!

Glad we turned down our 30%.

Now that is click bait worth clicking,!!

That article was spot on, arrogance knows no bounds.

Yep, all we got were millions of dollars and a lot of UT programming. It was terrible.

I think Rock is courting y'all.

Rock is an equal opportunity offender…

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/other/nebraska-matt-rhule-are-better-off-without-the-disingenuous-sanctimony-of-trev-alberts/ar-BB1k0yNy

Could ANY school create enough sports content to fill a network?

sleepybeagle said:

---

Could ANY school create enough sports content to fill a network?

---

The Big Ten set the model for pairing cable-style community access programming with the sports content. I think they still have some but it mostly doesn't drive eyeballs so it's a bit of a limp rag. I think the notion is just a slight bit lame…

Considering how much money poured into the Texas Athletic Department coffers, was the network really a failure? Maybe no one watched, but does that matter? I bet everyone on the 40 Acres will tell you is was a great success and their bank account proves it.

Do you think Vanderbilt really cares if they stink at just about every sport? Of course not, because they're cashing those SEC royalty checks every year. While the 'Dores may not win but 3 or 4 football games every year, I'm sure they consider being in the SEC a success.

Guy writes for Mike Farrell. How prestigious.

Someone's butthurt

This article is spot in, been saying all this for years.

It was doomed from the start, having been built to showcase live UIL sports as a recruiting tool. Except for once they didn't get their way. It was probably even used against them by rivals. "Go there and play before TV audiences of tens of people."

It was built because Texas was playing at a national level in all three major sports. In basketball, we rose to #2 during the first year. Football had just played in the national championship game and was an installment in the top 7. Baseball the same.

The LHN debuted and all three sports went right down the toilet. Even that basketball team plunged. Terrible timing for ESPN. Or maybe it was a curse. It was great watching football related programming and replays. The early crew doing the halftime and postgame shows was really fun. Not so much the last few years.

The network was not created for UIL games. The idea was floated and shot down likely for good reasons. There was no sinister plot between Texas and ESPN to boost Texas recruiting.

Someone at espn is very fond of tu. Nostalgia is a very strong emotion.

Quote:

---

The network was not created for UIL games. The idea was floated and shot down likely for good reasons. There was no sinister plot between Texas and ESPN to boost Texas recruiting.

---

Everything texas does is sinister

NyAggie said:

---

Quote:

---

The network was not created for UIL games. The idea was floated and shot down likely for good reasons. There was no sinister plot between Texas and ESPN to boost Texas recruiting.

---

Everything texas does is sinister

---

Yea that is BS. The network was created to give tu every advantage possible and take over that section of the country. The UIL broadcast was just a pillar of that plan and thankfully A&M said no and enough people raised hell. ESPN has always had a soft spot for tu, certainly tu has had success but it also has to do with the journalism department and the power of the media.

Nebraska: it ain't like it used to be

RVHorn said:

---

It was built because Texas was playing at a national level in all three major sports. In basketball, we rose to #2 during the first year. Football had just played in the national championship game and was an installment in the top 7. Baseball the same.

The LHN debuted and all three sports went right down the toilet. Even that basketball team plunged. Terrible timing for ESPN. Or maybe it was a curse. It was great watching football related programming and replays. The early crew doing the halftime and postgame shows was really fun. Not so much the last few years.

The network was not created for UIL games. The idea was floated and shot down likely for good reasons. There was no sinister plot between Texas and ESPN to boost Texas recruiting.

---

You know we read the contract, right? Maybe you should…here's an explanation of it with text callouts:

https://businessofcollegesports.com/television/texas-contract-with-espn-for-the-longhorn-network/

What a great article! And this had me rolling….
"Yet, when you examine Texas as a football brand, it is a lot of ten-gallon hats without much cattle. "

my favorite thing to do with ChatGPT is ask it to summarize articles (tho I'd never trust it if the article contained critical information)

summarize this article for me: https://mikefarrellsports.com/college/longhorn-network-flop-lack-of-nattys-expose-texas-as-a-legend-in-its-own-mind

The article delves into the underwhelming performance of the Longhorn Network (LHN) and the University of Texas' recent sports struggles. Launched in 2011 with a 20-year, $300 million deal with ESPN, the LHN was intended to highlight Texas athletics but failed to garner the anticipated viewership and impact. Critics argue the network's niche focus limited its broader appeal.

Simultaneously, the University of Texas' sports teams, particularly football, have not lived up to their historical reputation. The Longhorns have not secured a national championship in football since 2005, and their recent seasons have been marked by mediocrity, leading to the perception that Texas is a "legend in its own mind." This phrase underscores the gap between the school's storied past and current performance.

The article also touches on the repercussions of the LHN and Texas' sports underperformance on the Big 12 Conference. The network contributed to tensions within the conference, with schools like Texas A&M and Nebraska citing it as a factor in their departures to other conferences. Overall, the article paints a picture of an ambitious but flawed venture in the LHN and a university grappling with the reality of its current athletic capabilities.

Luke The Drifter said:

---

Considering how much money poured into the Texas Athletic Department coffers, was the network really a failure? Maybe no one watched, but does that matter? I bet everyone on the 40 Acres will tell you is was a great success and their bank account proves it.

Do you think Vanderbilt really cares if they stink at just about every sport? Of course not, because they're cashing those SEC royalty checks every year. While the 'Dores may not win but 3 or 4 football games every year, I'm sure they consider being in the SEC a success.

---

It wasn't a failure in terms of filling their pockets/draining ESiPN's. That's a certainty. That monetary flop on Disney's part is the reason tu got shoehorned into the SEC in the first place.

The failure was insomuch as Dodds and tu had these delusions of becoming some kind of Notre Dame-level "national brand" and reaping all the advantages (recruiting and otherwise) that came with it. And it turns out, beyond this state's borders…….nobody really gives a sh** about them. In fact that network made them a bit of a laughingstock

Meh the LHN provided a lot of airtime for Longhorn fans for secondary sports, and gave Texas an income stream beyond the normal TV money. Win, win for Texas.

Terrible deal for ESPN. Then again ESPN's deal with the ACC allowed the conference to add teams at full shares thinking it would be teams like Notre Dame, and instead they added Stanford, Cal, and SMU (after the Big 12 was done picking through the leftovers) and those teams kicked back portions or all of those shares to the other conference members for a period of years at ESPN's expense.

ESPN is no stranger to terrible contracts.

Faustus said:

---

Meh the LHN provided a lot of airtime for Longhorn fans for secondary sports, and gave Texas an income stream beyond the normal TV money. Win, win for Texas.

Terrible deal for ESPN. Then again ESPN's deal with the ACC allowed the conference to add teams at full shares thinking it would be teams like Notre Dame, and instead they added Stanford, Cal, and SMU (after the Big 12 was done picking through the leftovers) and those teams kicked back portions or all of those shares to the other conference members for a period of years at ESPN's expense.

ESPN is no stranger to terrible contracts.

---

If ESPN or another network had offered us $15Million a year for our own tv network, we would have done it too. Especially back then when you weren't guaranteed to be on tv every week.

I had forgotten reading that, thanks for the reminder. Good retort when they try to mock A&M for claiming titles way back when (one year, when A&M was undefeated and unscored-upon, which I have no problem with).

So texas really has three titles.

I'm so tired of bashing the sips. Let's focus on our team. Hard to lash out at them when we've had so little success; including a complete failure of a coach who we are still paying millions to.