There was never any real official word this would happen so much as wishful thinking from UT fan sites in the hopes that SECN doesn't get wider distribution in Texas than LHN

(06-07-2013 11:22 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 01:34 PM)STLfan Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 06:43 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 11:47 PM)USAFMEDIC Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 01:20 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO ESPiN would make more money on a WVU network. There are West Virginia natives in every state in the USA, since the State of West Virginia has been exporting its people to the rest of the nation for over 100 years now. Texas fans are more centered, since the economy in Texas has always been pretty good. Texas grads usually don't need to leave their state to find work, while WVU grads do, unless they're very lucky...

True. UT just can't seem to relate to the fact that the rest of the country doesn't really care about Austin Texas... I know it is painful.

If killing the network completely isn't an option, maybe ESPN can package the LHN with SECNet. A 'Deep South Sports Package' might be the thing to get people interested in Texas.

Supposedly ESPN isn't going to bundle them together.

From this article
SEC Network won't be used as vehicle to help Longhorn Network reach more homes

“These are two different networks,” said Connolly, who became head of college network programming in December. “They stand alone. We talk about them alone. When we do big renewals with distributors — I mean the ESPN portfolio — both of these networks will be in that conversation. But we don’t look at it as tying these networks together.”

I guess in time we'll see if that's true.

I cannot seriously believe anyone would think Slive and the SEC would have ever agreed on a bundle with the LHN.

If you are ESPN, it would make sense. how else does ESPNU or ESPNEWS wind up in so many different homes? Besides packaging is different than intergration in that the networks would remain seperate entities.

I would submit that Slive would care little if packaging the two networks in the end increased the overage carriage of the SECNetwork. I am simply trying to project option the mouse might take before pulling the plug on the LHN. I think trying to morph into the B12 Net is also a possibilty, but entails working with FOX. That in my opinion would be the last option.

Any B12 network right now is DOA because it would not have access to the conferences 3 biggest properties in UT sports, OU sports or KU basketball.

WVU will have its tier 3 contract in place by the start of the 2013-14 season, removing another valuable property from conference access. Hopefully, John Raese won't be a part of it...

(06-09-2013 09:08 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  WVU will have its tier 3 contract in place by the start of the 2013-14 season, removing another valuable property from conference access. Hopefully, John Raese won't be a part of it...

So this lack of an ability to create a Big XII network puts the conference behind the other P5 conferences that will have a network. What will this eventually do to the Big XII? It's that old "haves" and "have nots" again, which has always been the main problem...

IMO the folks that bailed on the B12 made too much of that situation. WVU dealt with a similar situation in the east for decades, and we learned how to maximize what we were left with, and created our own market. Part of that was by injecting ourselves into rival markets, like we did in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and New Jersey. We've even pushed our market a bit into Ohio State's territory. We'll end up doing the same in Texas, given time. The other part was by maintaining the loyalty of our alums, who have scattered all over the country. How else could a school in a small state with no market become such a valuable asset, with such a loyal nationwide following? The former B12 schools could have done similar, if they'd tried. But like most of the eastern schools, they saw greener pastures elsewhere and ended long time rivalries to seek them out...

It has nothing to do with haves and have nots. It's about making your own way, no matter the circumstance. No school has done more with less than WVU. Nobody helped us. Mountaineers did it in spite of everyone doing all they could to keep us down. The B12 schools that left the conference had nobody keeping them down but themselves, and blamed Texas for all their supposed miseries. You guys know nothing about such things. Had you been a Mountaineer fan for the last 50 years or so, you'd really know what that's like...

(06-10-2013 01:13 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the folks that bailed on the B12 made too much of that situation. WVU dealt with a similar situation in the east for decades, and we learned how to maximize what we were left with, and created our own market. Part of that was by injecting ourselves into rival markets, like we did in Pittsburgh, Maryland, and New Jersey. We've even pushed our market a bit into Ohio State's territory. We'll end up doing the same in Texas, given time. The other part was by maintaining the loyalty of our alums, who have scattered all over the country. How else could a school in a small state with no market become such a valuable asset, with such a loyal nationwide following? The former B12 schools could have done similar, if they'd tried. But like most of the eastern schools, they saw greener pastures elsewhere and ended long time rivalries to seek them out...

It has nothing to do with haves and have nots. It's about making your own way, no matter the circumstance. No school has done more with less than WVU. Nobody helped us. Mountaineers did it in spite of everyone doing all they could to keep us down. The B12 schools that left the conference had nobody keeping them down but themselves, and blamed Texas for all their supposed miseries. You guys know nothing about such things. Had you been a Mountaineer fan for the last 50 years or so, you'd really know what that's like...

I see your point regarding WVU. There were many reasons why four schools left the Big XII. Network issues were just one. I seriously think Mizzou saw the conference blowing up soon and a bunch of us winding up in the Big East. Missouri and the SEC got real serious when Boren at OU made his comments about "options". Who would have thought the PAC 12 would say NO. That saved the Big XII. I think it has worked out well for everyone in the end.

IMO the Pac screwed up big by saying no to Oklahoma. Had they accepted them, Texas would have eventually come on board, since many other schools would have bailed on the Longhorns and sought out other conference homes. I kind of doubt they'll ever have such an opportunity again...

(06-11-2013 12:16 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  IMO the Pac screwed up big by saying no to Oklahoma. Had they accepted them, Texas would have eventually come on board, since many other schools would have bailed on the Longhorns and sought out other conference homes. I kind of doubt they'll ever have such an opportunity again...

Biggest conference mistake in recent memory. Missouri and others were almost certain that OU and some others were gone... Up til the time the PAC presidents voted No, everyone in America seemed to believe it was a done deal. I think their commish lost a ton of credibility that night

Yep. Had they accepted OU, there'd now have 16 teams in the Pac, B1G, SEC, and ACC, and the B12 would be history...

(06-11-2013 06:43 PM)bitcruncher Wrote:  Yep. Had they accepted OU, there'd now have 16 teams in the Pac, B1G, SEC, and ACC, and the B12 would be history...

The PAC 12 presidents absolutely had the fate of the Big XII in their hands. A Yes vote would have started an avalanche of moves, which the Big XII would never have survived... I can't remember another time where one conference had that kind of control over another. Now the PAC 12 is out of real expansion options for a long time...