Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="topdecktiger" data-source="post: 129502785" data-attributes="member: 1459051">You are all over the place. Here is what Boren says:He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network.Ok, well what the means is, the $4-6 million they are losing is the amount they would get paid from a conference network. So, no, I'm not saying Boren is lying. What I'm saying is, you don't understand Boren's comment.You have arbitrarily made up this $8-9 million figure. Boren's comments clearly indicate what the payouts would be for a Big 12 network: $4-6 million a year to each school. That makes sense, because that's inline with that the SEC and Big Ten already get.What I am saying is wrong is your back-of-the-napkin calculations you used to arrive at the $8-9 million figure.Also, I didn't imply anything about the Big 12's coverage being lesser somehow. You inferred that because you have you antenna up looking for anything anti-Big 12. You said that Texas would get more national coverage from a Big 12 network than the LHN. I said that wasn't true, because the Big 12 is not automatically nationally broadcasted. As I pointed out, a Big 12 network would have to be purchased as an add-on in some areas, which is no different than the situation with the LHN now.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="topdecktiger, post: 129502785, member: 1459051"] You are all over the place. Here is what Boren says: [I]He (Boren) said Big 12 schools are losing $4 million to $6 million per year because of the lack of a conference network. [/I] Ok, well what the means is, the $4-6 million they are losing is the amount they would get paid from a conference network. So, no, I'm not saying Boren is lying. What I'm saying is, you don't understand Boren's comment. You have arbitrarily made up this $8-9 million figure. Boren's comments clearly indicate what the payouts would be for a Big 12 network: $4-6 million a year to each school. That makes sense, because that's inline with that the SEC and Big Ten already get. What I am saying is wrong is your back-of-the-napkin calculations you used to arrive at the $8-9 million figure. Also, I didn't imply anything about the Big 12's coverage being lesser somehow. You inferred that because you have you antenna up looking for anything anti-Big 12. You said that Texas would get more national coverage from a Big 12 network than the LHN. I said that wasn't true, because the Big 12 is not automatically nationally broadcasted. As I pointed out, a Big 12 network would have to be purchased as an add-on in some areas, which is no different than the situation with the LHN now. [/QUOTE]

Name