King Barry's Back
9/14/2011, 07:33 PM
I just want to throw something out here for debate.
I know that ESPN has bet hard on the LHN, and I know that ESPN knows lots more about sports TV than I do, but I think the whole concept is a mistake.
When I lived in DC, I used to occasionally watch the Big 10 Network. You might catch, say, Mich St v Wisky in volleyball (cute, tall, college girls in shorts!), or Indy-Purdue hoops, or a classic Michigan-OhSU match up.
That's a lot of varied programming, that catches the direct interest of fans from all the member schools.
The LHN, or any one-school network, just doesn't seem very interesting to me. You could catch Texas baseball, or Texas swimming, or Texas softball, or a classic Texas football game, or Texas hoops. You get my point.
Honestly, I am not sure how much I'd even want to watch an OU network, once the novelty wore off.
A Big XII Network, or any conference network, I think would in the long-term be of far more value to ESPN than this lumbering beast they have created.
I know TX doesn't give a hoot about the content of the network, they are counting only dollars, but they are destroying (or at least massively altering) college football as we have known it since at least 1950, for something that is going to be (I believe) marginally successful and marginally interesting.
ESPN clearly sees something that I don't, but I think even Austin is wondering if this deal will ever be worth the trouble. I think in five years time, the LHN may be seen as one of the biggest blunders ever made in TV.
But again, ESPN has been right pretty often.
One other thought: Does anybody think it was stupid for ESPN to announce that they wanted to show high school football games featuring UT recruits? Would have been much smarter to have announced that they wanted to highlight "the great high school football played in the great state of Texas," which would have been a legitimate programming decision, and just let viewers figure it out when every game featured players that UT was chasing. But that's just me...
I know that ESPN has bet hard on the LHN, and I know that ESPN knows lots more about sports TV than I do, but I think the whole concept is a mistake.
When I lived in DC, I used to occasionally watch the Big 10 Network. You might catch, say, Mich St v Wisky in volleyball (cute, tall, college girls in shorts!), or Indy-Purdue hoops, or a classic Michigan-OhSU match up.
That's a lot of varied programming, that catches the direct interest of fans from all the member schools.
The LHN, or any one-school network, just doesn't seem very interesting to me. You could catch Texas baseball, or Texas swimming, or Texas softball, or a classic Texas football game, or Texas hoops. You get my point.
Honestly, I am not sure how much I'd even want to watch an OU network, once the novelty wore off.
A Big XII Network, or any conference network, I think would in the long-term be of far more value to ESPN than this lumbering beast they have created.
I know TX doesn't give a hoot about the content of the network, they are counting only dollars, but they are destroying (or at least massively altering) college football as we have known it since at least 1950, for something that is going to be (I believe) marginally successful and marginally interesting.
ESPN clearly sees something that I don't, but I think even Austin is wondering if this deal will ever be worth the trouble. I think in five years time, the LHN may be seen as one of the biggest blunders ever made in TV.
But again, ESPN has been right pretty often.
One other thought: Does anybody think it was stupid for ESPN to announce that they wanted to show high school football games featuring UT recruits? Would have been much smarter to have announced that they wanted to highlight "the great high school football played in the great state of Texas," which would have been a legitimate programming decision, and just let viewers figure it out when every game featured players that UT was chasing. But that's just me...