Immortal13 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 You need to learn to read better. I said the NFL, not the Cowboys. The Cowboys are apart of the NFL, and work together with other teams to ensure that the league is competitive and that nobody has an unfair advantage. Obviously the Cowboys making more money than everyone else has in no way helped their performance the last few years. Yes, the Cowboys are part of the NFL last time I checked. And yes, the salary cap would definitely equate to Socialism. However, your analogy regarding the LHN is still a fail. It's the polar opposite of socialism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unclejohn Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Would you say that the NFL is socialistic? Not only is the nfl but every major sport is. Even the USA had major socialism on a daily basis. Funny how that word "scares" some people yet they live it everyday. Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
h-town12 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Goodness. No no no. I copied this from an article dealing with the subject... Socialism, by definition, is the control of industry by government (the State), which in its quest for power, “levels” income privately produced. Leveling, or “redistribution of wealth,” is done through coercion – via progressive taxation, property seizure, etc., – such that private wealth is “capped” for the “collective good.” Were they (the owners) coerced by Roger Goodell, the commish, to help the Packers? Did a quasi-government panel pass a law to make it so? Hardly. The owners voted to share revenue, practicing volitional democracy, quite different than “central planning.” TV revenue, moreover, isn’t tax money, seized by government to engineer outcomes (state-run health care, statist schools), it’s money generated by private business (networks) which receives it from other businesses, so that the latter can win customers. The Kansas City Chiefs don’t spend the TV revenue they receive in the same manner as the San Diego Chargers – the marketing and merchandising are different, as are decisions on player personnel – and it’s each team’s management – the owner, the coach, the scouts and front-office – which must use it efficiently. Were the NFL, Marxist, the owners would be circumscribed, regulated in their outlays, and hamstrung in their effort to improve the bottom-line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobos2004 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Owned LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Owned LOL wow, aggys are dumb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TripleDogDare Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 1. Tech was not forced. 2. Obviously ESPN did not pass. If they had they would have made a "business" decision to not show Tech, it would have been their right. Other than what has been contractually obligated, they don't owe anyone. ESPN is not a government entity. That is a very strange analogy. It is my understanding that the WAC holds the rights to the game and ESPN was proposing to broadcast it on LHN. Tech wants nothing to do with LHN. Though you say they were not forced, it certainly seems they had little say in the matter. Apparently they felt their only option for avoiding LHN was to cancel the game. They had no plans to schedule a replacement, rather they were prepared to play an 11-game season if necessary (a bit extreme in my opinion). I have no idea what Tech stood to gain on the broadcast fee for this game. However, Texas St. is not one of the bigger games on the schedule. Also, unless I missed something, LHN is still not very widely available. Therefore, while the wisdom of Tech's position regarding LHN could be debated, I don't see that they stood to lose a great deal by cancelling (except perhaps a much needed win). Tech fans are pleased that the AD took a stand in which principle trumps payout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Ignorant comment. Ignorant act by Tech. I'm sorry but no one wants to see Texas Tech and Texas State. ESPN doesn't want to air it. If the only way it's going to be televised is on the LHN, Tech should be thankful someone is willing to pick it up. That comment can be stuck back to a place where the sun don't shine. We have Texas, OU, West Virginia coming to our stadium plus the fact that we will likely have other regional games broadcasted on FX and Fox Sports SW. Quite honestly, we could very much care less if the Texas State game is broadcasted or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Not to be mean but truth hurts. What truth? I'm pretty sure if I took a straw poll on the matter, a large portion off Tech students, faculty, administration would either: a.) Would be very po'ed about the game being broadcasted on LHN b.) Could care less because it's not a big game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB2point0 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Not to be mean but truth hurts. Kind of like going to the SEC?! Yes the truth does hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GloryBound Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 You need to learn to read better. I said the NFL, not the Cowboys. The Cowboys are apart of the NFL, and work together with other teams to ensure that the league is competitive and that nobody has an unfair advantage. Obviously the Cowboys making more money than everyone else has in no way helped their performance the last few years. Well, except for the ignorant owner. They may have won it all if he was out of the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manup2009 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Well, except for the ignorant owner. They may have won it all if he was out of the picture. They've won it all 3 times with him in the picture, guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Do you really want to go there. You know the answer don't kid yourself. Actually no, because there's no logic behind it at all. We stand to have our game shown on a rival's network where they are going to benefit from it, it's not a big game anyway and most importantly, we have FX and Fox Sports Southwest that will be broadcasting at least 4-7 of our games easily in Big 12 Play. Most likely ABC will be interested in getting the UT-Tech game since it brings them so much money year in and out for primetime at night in Lubbock. So I don't know what pipe dream you are talking about and quite frankly, I'm offended that UT would have the nerve to pull this stunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicMike Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 So I don't know what pipe dream you are talking about and quite frankly, I'm offended that UT would have the nerve to pull this stunt. Do you mean that you are offended that ESPN and the WAC have the nerve to pull this stunt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Do you mean that you are offended that ESPN and the WAC have the nerve to pull this stunt? I could give 2 cow chips what the WAC does since they arew very insignificant other than the year Hawaii went to the Sugar Bowl and Boise St. Add ESPN to the list then in addition with UT since they're name is on it and have viable say so with ESPN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagicMike Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 I could give 2 cow chips what the WAC does since they arew very insignificant other than the year Hawaii went to the Sugar Bowl and Boise St. Add ESPN to the list then in addition with UT since they're name is on it and have viable say so with ESPN. The WAC controls the game, not UT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The WAC controls the game, not UT. UT has part ownership of Longhorn Network along with ESPN. They should of made a statement of not being for it as well. Again the WAC in the grand scheme of college football is but a little fish in an ocean so they can have a coke and a smile and keep quiet. Now if the WAC wants to use their own sports network to broadcast the game or Fox Sports Southwest, then that's fine with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB2point0 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 UT has part ownership of Longhorn Network along with ESPN. They should of made a statement of not being for it as well. Again the WAC in the grand scheme of college football is but a little fish in an ocean so they can have a coke and a smile and keep quiet. Now if the WAC wants to use their own sports network to broadcast the game or Fox Sports Southwest, then that's fine with me. Maybe Tech should've kept Leach, remained relevant, won lots of games and kept playing nationally televised games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bordertown Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 DLine06, curious how you would feel about Texas v Tech in either basketball or baseball being shown on LHN. I am assuming it is available on Directv or Dish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Immortal13 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 UT has part ownership of Longhorn Network along with ESPN. They should of made a statement of not being for it as well. lol wut? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Maybe Tech should've kept Leach, remained relevant, won lots of games and kept playing nationally televised games. What are you talking about...last time I checked this past season we beat Oklahoma in Norman on ABC after we had a delay due to inclement weather. We also got smacked by Ok. State on ABC and even had the Tech-Mizzou game on ABC as well. I don't think we can get more nationally televised than that. So in conclusion, what season were you watching? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 DLine06, curious how you would feel about Texas v Tech in either basketball or baseball being shown on LHN. I am assuming it is available on Directv or Dish. Tough call honestly because both sports, Tech is weak in however we might be a lot better in basketball this year due to the athletes Billy G recruited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DB2point0 Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 What are you talking about...last time I checked this past season we beat Oklahoma in Norman on ABC after we had a delay due to inclement weather. We also got smacked by Ok. State on ABC and even had the Tech-Mizzou game on ABC as well. I don't think we can get more nationally televised than that. So in conclusion, what season were you watching? I'm saying that Tech should've never gotten to the point where they have to lobby for decent TV coverage or gripe about being on something like the LHN. They should've stood up to the James family and kept their program going in the right direction....best for the school. Had they done that they'd still be relevant and even the Texas State game would've been picked up by FSSW at least. I'm talking about the seasons without Leach. That is proving to be a killer fire for the Red Raiders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I'm saying that Tech should've never gotten to the point where they have to lobby for decent TV coverage or gripe about being on something like the LHN. They should've stood up to the James family and kept their program going in the right direction....best for the school. Had they done that they'd still be relevant and even the Texas State game would've been picked up by FSSW at least. I'm talking about the seasons without Leach. That is proving to be a killer fire for the Red Raiders. I disagree because we've had gotten much better athletes that haven't translated to their full potential. Also Tech did not fire Leach just for the James incident but disobeying orders for not giving them an answer before the bowl game and instead got on the plane to act in defiance. One head coach is not bigger than the administration that hired him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawemoff Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 One head coach is not bigger than the administration that hired him. Leach was at Tech and is at WSU.. Tech was too stupid to realize this. No doubt in my mind that could have been Tech in Oklahoma States place last season, or better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLine06 Posted July 6, 2012 Share Posted July 6, 2012 Leach was at Tech and is at WSU.. Tech was too stupid to realize this. No doubt in my mind that could have been Tech in Oklahoma States place last season, or better. We had out chance in 2008 and, we got our behinds handed to us in Norman, Oklahoma. Btw, our current head coach was able to do something that 99% of the country couldn't do: Beat Big Game Bob in Norman! Only Gary Patterson and I think Les Miles and maybe one other coach has did that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now