Would you want NT games on the LHN?

[All About UNT]

Not that this is in the works or even a possibility but as the Longhorn Network is having issues finding games to fill slots. Would you want some of North Texas's games to air on their network?

[ColoradoEagle]

If the options were not being on TV versus being on there, then sure.

[Harry]

Absolutely!

[kellygreen]

I'm not up to date with everything longhorn network but how would this affect viewing NT games for people outside of the southwest?

[GreenGuy123]

No no no, never never, no no, never.

Two Reasons

1. Pride

2. UTSA games are currently televised on LHN...are we equivalent to a start up football team?

3. Does it really lead to more POSITIVE exposure?

[Mean Green 93-98]

No no no, never never, no no, never.

Two Reasons

1. Pride

2. UTSA games are currently televised on LHN...are we equivalent to a start up football team?

3. Does it really lead to more POSITIVE exposure?

I believe, that's three, not two. Anyway, going in reverse order . . .

3. I don't see how not being televised at all is a positive thing. Unless maybe you receive a mighty whupping that you hope nobody notices happened. Otherwise giving people an opportunity to watch the games and grow attached to them is a very good thing. In the 80's and 90's, the Cubs and Braves built large national followings because they could watch their games on cable TV. Now if it's between ABC and the LHN, give me LHN every time. But it's not going to be a black mark on our program because we were televised on the LHN.

2. We are less than that start up football team in a sense if their games are televised and ours are not.

1. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

[UNT90]

Isn't being on the LHN like not being on TV at all?

Way worse than ESPN3

Just sayin

[GRN-WHT]

Yes, any TV is better than no TV. Even if it is LHN.

Think about this, if we have a big win and its not on TV, nobody will have highlights to show. If we are on TV, that takes away the excuse that the game wasn't televised so we don't have highlights to show on the evening news.

[MeanMag]

No. LHN prevents being picked up by better networks. Networks that more people care about than UT fans.

[Green Mean]

LHN > ESPN3 > No TV

[MDH]

National coverage>ESPN>LHN>ESPN3>Al Jazeera

I just want to see my team play.

[ADLER]

It was presented by UT before A&M bolted that they could rename it the Lone Star Network and show colleges other than Texas. I know UTSA games are going to bee shown on the network and there were plans to show some of UT's Big Twelve minions as well.

Why don't they just change it to Lone Star Network?

[greenminer]

National coverage>ESPN>LHN>ESPN3>Al Jazeera

I just want to see my team play.

Shooting i the dark here: The people that rank LHN>ESPN3 are the same people that don't get ESPN3.

[Mean Green 93-98]

Shooting i the dark here: The people that rank LHN>ESPN3 are the same people that don't get ESPN3.

Or to look at it another way--your reversal of the order might relate to the fact that you are the only one I know of on this board who considers ESPN3 "nationally televised."

[Keith7]

No. There are few things I want to fail worse than the longhorn network.

[greenminer]

Or to look at it another way--your reversal of the order might relate to the fact that you are the only one I know of on this board who considers ESPN3 "nationally televised."

Something to think about: will the LHN be archived and available "on-demand"? Will it be streamed via XBOX or Sony's PS network? Can you watch 4 instances at once?

[GreenGuy123]

I believe, that's three, not two. Anyway, going in reverse order . . .

3. I don't see how not being televised at all is a positive thing. Unless maybe you receive a mighty whupping that you hope nobody notices happened. Otherwise giving people an opportunity to watch the games and grow attached to them is a very good thing. In the 80's and 90's, the Cubs and Braves built large national followings because they could watch their games on cable TV. Now if it's between ABC and the LHN, give me LHN every time. But it's not going to be a black mark on our program because we were televised on the LHN.

2. We are less than that start up football team in a sense if their games are televised and ours are not.

1. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

Congratulations on catching my typo.

3. That is your perspective. Why do you think the only LHN game UT could get was Rice?

2. Yeah, well if you are going by that logic Denton Ryan is more established than we are since they have already been on national TV more times than we have this season.

1. Have some pride.

[GreenGuy123]

I believe, that's three, not two. Anyway, going in reverse order . . .

3. I don't see how not being televised at all is a positive thing. Unless maybe you receive a mighty whupping that you hope nobody notices happened. Otherwise giving people an opportunity to watch the games and grow attached to them is a very good thing. In the 80's and 90's, the Cubs and Braves built large national followings because they could watch their games on cable TV. Now if it's between ABC and the LHN, give me LHN every time. But it's not going to be a black mark on our program because we were televised on the LHN.

2. We are less than that start up football team in a sense if their games are televised and ours are not.

1. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

1. And like Corby Davidson once said, "Church Sucks."

[Rudy]

It was presented by UT before A&M bolted that they could rename it the Lone Star Network and show colleges other than Texas. I know UTSA games are going to bee shown on the network and there were plans to show some of UT's Big Twelve minions as well.

Why don't they just change it to Lone Star Network?

The Lone Star Network would be a fantastic idea, unfortunately, t.u. would have to share money and exposure.

Or to look at it another way--your reversal of the order might relate to the fact that you are the only one I know of on this board who considers ESPN3 "nationally televised."

ESPN is on the world wide web, therefore, it's international coverage

[oldschoollefty]

This brings to mind the old philosophical question:

If the Mean Green lay a beatdown on their opponent and no TV cameras are there to broadcast it, did it really happen?

Think about it.

[MeanGreenTexan]

I mean, this is really a no-brainer. If the choices are LHN or no TV, give me the game on LHN.

[golfingomez]

if the choices are LHN and no TV... give me my camera phone and I'll put the game on youtube...

the only games they would broadcast would be the home games... and I'm already gonna be there... i want the LHN to fail and i refuse to support them...

but... even if they were on the LHN I don't know that anyone would be able to watch them

[untcampbell]

The "have nots" must figure out how to leverage their position against the "haves."

If there is money to be made in whor(n)ing to the LHN, I think you have to. Not that I am sure there is with a network that has less than 500,000 potential viewers.

The best way for us to make money off the "haves" is this:

When they super conference into four geographical regions around the country, the price to take a week off against the approximately 60 "have nots" has to go up.

Even now, the value of a national championship or BCS bowl game means each loss by the "haves" is potentially the difference between a $1.5 mm bowl game in December and a $17 mm game after New Years Day.

Thus the value of taking a week off from beating yourself up against the other "haves" has gone up.

"Have nots" should not give a week-off game to any BCS team for less than $3 mm. EVER again.

There must be firm pricing agreement by the non-BCS teams (I guess that is collusion/price fixing but I am not sure collusion can be called here when pricing against a monopoly). The only other options for the BCS teams then are to play lower division games (which hurts their scheduling ranking) or risk an early season loss against one of the other "haves."

This is our leverage....don't cheapen the currency.

GMG

[KRAM1]

Absolutely...why not. Much better than ESPN3 and I recall when UNT paid to get on TV. If UNT could be on LHN and make a few bucks as well, great! Don't see much downside when the question is no TV at all or the LHN.

Maybe a better question is: Would you watch the LHN network when/if it showed UNT games?

Me...of course I would.

[UNT 90 Grad]

Money. That's why not for me. I don't want to give any money to support anything having to do with UT. If we had a deal with the LHN, I'm guessing that squashes opportunity for UNT to be aired on channels I already pay for or get for free. The original question was if we want NT games on LHN, not would you rather see UNT aired on LHN or not at all.