re: Well A&M I guess your argument that Texas is scared to play you is shot to shite

quote:

---

Because y’all wanted to split the costs and media inventory requirements in half but then get more of the revenue split. The “Lonestar Network” proposal was just another example of arrogant Texas bullshite.

---

Almost correct. Not "split" costs, not in the end.

The first offer was a 50/50 split but A&M couldn't afford the initial payout for startup costs.

A&M didn't have the liquidity at the time to split the significant startup costs, so the compromise proposed was that UT was going to be on the hook for building the entire production facility, communications setup, all the other static broadcast hardware and take a different percentage. UT was willing to do this because they were planning are dumping cash into their broadcast journalism program anyways, so it was partially earmarked already.

A&M didn't believe at the time it would ever break even to balance out the cost to hardwire their other infrastructure to provide broadcast feeds (much less split costs on a shared facility), so they declined in the end.

Once again, at the time I cant blame them because the Conference Network model was an unknown and very simply the payout by the media deals made these types of "gambles" hard to go with considering 08 and 09 weren't banner years and so the cash made sense to be spent elsewhere.

The revisionist history on these things are mind blowing.