The joys of being on ESPN ...

[lobodude]

...... I usually wouldn't bring up such a small incident as this --- because I feel like it's already been done to death -- but since complaints about our TV situation are *still* coming up, I thought I would share this little reminder of how it's like to be under the thumb of ESPN.

The CSU-Nevada game was originally scheduled to be an afternoon game. ESPN decided at the last minute that it wanted to broadcast the game as part of its WAC contract, so, at the last minute, it was changed to start at 8:30 p.m., Colo.-N.M. time. Not so bad for fans; there are things to do in Reno. But the Rammies had to sit around all day waiting for a game that was supposed to be an afternoon game. And they finally landed back home at about 3:30 a.m.

But hey, they got to be on ESPN! ... But wait. That was ESPNUUUU. Not ESPN. Not ESPN 2. Not ESPN 8 ("The Ocho"). ..... ESPNU. The channel ESPN started only because it felt threatened by College Sports TV (now CBS College Sports). A channel I can't even get. And I'll bet a lot of you can't get it either. Jerked around just to fill time on a channel few people see.

So when I hear some of you whine about being on "ESPN." I assume you all are under the very much mistaken impression that returning to "ESPN" means we would be treated just like the SEC, Big Ten or even, be still my heart, the Pac-10. You *must* realize that we would be treated like the WAC, with the start times and even the days of games changed at the last minute solely on the whim of a janitor in Storrs, Conn., who always has the college athlete's best interests at heart, I'm sure. (I can't wait to see what BYU's times will be on the new ESPNBYU channel, shown only at 3 a.m. on weekdays as competition to the Shamwow commercials.)

Yeah, the mtn. is far from perfect and I'm hoping the next TV contract is better than what we have now. But since the mtn. started, I've seen more Lobo sports in any *one* year than I saw in all the years we were on ESPN *put together.* So in the future, when someone here pines for "ESPN," I'll assume you mean the ESPN-BCS contract, which, until we get into the BCS, is like sitting around wishing for unicorns.

[Mark]

EspnU is 2 channels up from espn. Not sure what the big differnce is ..?
I'll take that any day of the week vs CBS college sports hidden in the 600's.

[DaddyLongStrokes]

Comcast doesnt have ESPNU. So if UNM played on the channel, I'm screwed. And no matter what people say about Comcast, it has a HUGE amount of customers

[Mark]

Thanks. I didn't know that being a DTV guy. Ok, point taken.

[dcrowley]

EspnU is 2 channels up from espn. Not sure what the big differnce is ..?
I'll take that any day of the week vs CBS college sports hidden in the 600's.

See, that's an argument I really don't get. Because of the guide/favorites and the search function, it's not really more difficult to get to that channel than it is to get to ESPN. Is having ESPN on 206 really that much more convenient than the mtn on 616? Another thing you can do with the DirecTV guide is set it up so instead of going to the grid first, it goes to categories. From there you select sports and then the number of channels to scroll through to look for games is considerably less. On Dish, ESPN was 140 and VS and CBSCS were in the 150s. So one could argue that it's an issue with how DirecTV has their channels organized.

It's kind of like not dating a hot chic because her name is Yolanda and you have to scroll all the way to the end of your contacts list in your phone to call her.

[Roob]

See, that's an argument I really don't get. Because of the guide/favorites and the search function, it's not really more difficult to get to that channel than it is to get to ESPN. Is having ESPN on 206 really that much more convenient than the mtn on 616? Another thing you can do with the DirecTV guide is set it up so instead of going to the grid first, it goes to categories. From there you select sports and then the number of channels to scroll through to look for games is considerably less. On Dish, ESPN was 140 and VS and CBSCS were in the 150s. So one could argue that it's an issue with how DirecTV has their channels organized.

It's kind of like not dating a hot chic because her name is Yolanda and you have to scroll all the way to the end of your contacts list in your phone to call her.

Abby was alway my favorite - now I know why. She wasn't very hot, but I was lazy. (No comments about Abby Normal, please)

[dcrowley]

Haha. I also have a friend who doesn't like driving south of Montgomery because he thinks it's the "bad" part of town. LOL.

[Mark]

Speed dial bruh.

[Digital Lobo]

See, that's an argument I really don't get. Because of the guide/favorites and the search function, it's not really more difficult to get to that channel than it is to get to ESPN. Is having ESPN on 206 really that much more convenient than the mtn on 616? Another thing you can do with the DirecTV guide is set it up so instead of going to the grid first, it goes to categories. From there you select sports and then the number of channels to scroll through to look for games is considerably less. On Dish, ESPN was 140 and VS and CBSCS were in the 150s. So one could argue that it's an issue with how DirecTV has their channels organized.

It's kind of like not dating a hot chic because her name is Yolanda and you have to scroll all the way to the end of your contacts list in your phone to call her.

Here's another question. Even if you can use channel search function to find the game on ESPNU after ESPN changed it at the last minute, how many college football fans around the country are going to give a rat's arse about CSU versus Nevada?

[pjamj]

See, that's an argument I really don't get. Because of the guide/favorites and the search function, it's not really more difficult to get to that channel than it is to get to ESPN. Is having ESPN on 206 really that much more convenient than the mtn on 616? Another thing you can do with the DirecTV guide is set it up so instead of going to the grid first, it goes to categories. From there you select sports and then the number of channels to scroll through to look for games is considerably less. On Dish, ESPN was 140 and VS and CBSCS were in the 150s. So one could argue that it's an issue with how DirecTV has their channels organized.

It's kind of like not dating a hot chic because her name is Yolanda and you have to scroll all the way to the end of your contacts list in your phone to call her.

Let me introduce you to Yolanda...

http://www.wallpaperbase.com/celebs-...acardona.shtml

[Gonzlobo]

We're never on espn, but our band always plays their sound blurb (3 seconds of trumpets.... tadadat tadadat!).

[loboray]

FWIW, I left comcast awhile back and signed up for a Qwest bundle with Direct TV. I really like my TV package and am saving 85.00/month from the old services I had. I really enjoyed their NFL red zone coverage today.

[Loboexpat]

Yeah, the mtn. is far from perfect and I'm hoping the next TV contract is better than what we have now. But since the mtn. started, I've seen more Lobo sports in any *one* year than I saw in all the years we were on ESPN *put together.* So in the future, when someone here pines for "ESPN," I'll assume you mean the ESPN-BCS contract, which, until we get into the BCS, is like sitting around wishing for unicorns.

Since we're rehashing this old saw, I'll provide the other perspective:
You get to watch more Lobos sports than ever before. People outside of the very limited market don't and have no idea that it exists. If I were to take a survey of college football fans where I live I gaurantee that 10 out of 10 would not have the MTN as part of their cable package, 9 out of 10 would not have it as part of their satellite package, and 10 out of 10 would have never even heard of the MTN channel. I also gaurantee that 10 out of 10 would have ESPNU and 10 out of 10 would know about it. 7 out of 10 would watch the game on there if they wanted to see some college football action irrespective of kickoff time or who was playing.

The analogy for this argument is if you and your best friend were trying to start a music career and MTV refused to show your music videos. But the local community cable access channel had a local music show that showed them every day. In the meantime, your best friend gets his video shown every once in a while on MTV2 and very rarely on MTV. Who do you think has more people see their music video and therefore reaches a bigger audience? So while you're blowing up in your hometown, your friend is slowly (but surely) starting to actually make a global splash.

The "complaints" about the MWC current TV situation aren't people griping, it's reality: it limits viewership by a ton. The satellite deal was a step in the right direction but it's difficult to continue to justify a situation in which having your product on a channel with very limited viewership and even more limited name recognition is better than being on the family of channels with the biggest viewership and the best name recognition.

It needs to get fixed, period.

[Mark]

Since we're rehashing this old saw, I'll provide the other perspective:
You get to watch more Lobos sports than ever before. People outside of the very limited market don't and have no idea that it exists. If I were to take a survey of college football fans where I live I gaurantee that 10 out of 10 would not have the MTN as part of their cable package, 9 out of 10 would not have it as part of their satellite package, and 10 out of 10 would have never even heard of the MTN channel. I also gaurantee that 10 out of 10 would have ESPNU and 10 out of 10 would know about it. 7 out of 10 would watch the game on there if they wanted to see some college football action irrespective of kickoff time or who was playing.

The analogy for this argument is if you and your best friend were trying to start a music career and MTV refused to show your music videos. But the local community cable access channel had a local music show that showed them every day. In the meantime, your best friend gets his video shown every once in a while on MTV2 and very rarely on MTV. Who do you think has more people see their music video and therefore reaches a bigger audience? So while your blowing up in your hometown, your friend is slowly (but surely) starting to actually make a global splash.

The "complaints" about the MWC current TV situation aren't people griping, it's reality: it limits viewership by a ton. The satellite deal was a step in the right direction but it's difficult to continue to justify a situation in which having your product on a channel with very limited viewership and even more limited name recognition is better than being on the family of channels with the biggest viewership and the best name recognition.

It needs to get fixed, period.

This is a excellent post. It's not about the channel, it about distribution.

[LoboInTheLair]

Abby Garchek was the only reason I ever showed any interested in women's basketball...

Abby was alway my favorite - now I know why. She wasn't very hot, but I was lazy. (No comments about Abby Normal, please)

[Tybot]

Since we're rehashing this old saw, I'll provide the other perspective:
The analogy for this argument is if you and your best friend were trying to start a music career and MTV refused to show your music videos. But the local community cable access channel had a local music show that showed them every day. In the meantime, your best friend gets his video shown every once in a while on MTV2 and very rarely on MTV. Who do you think has more people see their music video and therefore reaches a bigger audience? So while your blowing up in your hometown, your friend is slowly (but surely) starting to actually make a global splash.

The "complaints" about the MWC current TV situation aren't people griping, it's reality: it limits viewership by a ton. The satellite deal was a step in the right direction but it's difficult to continue to justify a situation in which having your product on a channel with very limited viewership and even more limited name recognition is better than being on the family of channels with the biggest viewership and the best name recognition.

It needs to get fixed, period.

I agree, this is the best analogy yet on the subject. The only problem is, BOTH sides are correct. Will national attention helps make a team like Boise St as successful as they are, it is still vitally important for local and regional fans to see the games that they can't make it too. So honestly, our TV coverage is both better AND worse than ever. A lot of Lobo fans got to watch UNM vs Texas Tech and that wouldn't be true a couple years ago. In 2 weeks, Boise St will blow out NMSU in Las Cruces and nobody in Boise will see more than 10 seconds of the game on sportscenter. On the flip side, there will be UNM basketball polls released in a couple months that leave people back East scratching their head because they don't know how a team they've never seen play can be ranked so high.

Better than ever but so very far away from good.

[Loboexpat]

I agree, this is the best analogy yet on the subject. The only problem is, BOTH sides are correct. Will national attention helps make a team like Boise St as successful as they are, it is still vitally important for local and regional fans to see the games that they can't make it too. So honestly, our TV coverage is both better AND worse than ever. A lot of Lobo fans got to watch UNM vs Texas Tech and that wouldn't be true a couple years ago. In 2 weeks, Boise St will blow out NMSU in Las Cruces and nobody in Boise will see more than 10 seconds of the game on sportscenter. On the flip side, there will be UNM basketball polls released in a couple months that leave people back East scratching their head because they don't know how a team they've never seen play can be ranked so high.

Better than ever but so very far away from good.

Especially in the current climate, insular thinking needs to be suspended, and the fact that the true national/global reach and resources of ESPN are needed to survive at the level of competition that UNM wants to be at needs to be recognized (not to mention the benefits it has for recruiting, fund raising, etc., etc., etc.). We should be able to benefit from both types of distribution. It can be done, I've seen it in action at other schools (as have other people that live outside the MWC region, I'm sure).

[pitboss]

Especially in the current climate, insular thinking needs to be suspended, and the fact that the true national/global reach and resources of ESPN are needed to survive at the level of competition that UNM wants to be at needs to be recognized (not to mention the benefits it has for recruiting, fund raising, etc., etc., etc.). We should be able to benefit from both types of distribution. It can be done, I've seen it in action at other schools (as have other people that live outside the MWC region, I'm sure).

ESPN is rapidly become the arbiter of college sports. That can not be allowed to continue, id there is any hope for small market teams, like UNM and the MWC.

Cheers,
Pitboss

[txlobo95]

Is having ESPN on 206 really that much more convenient than the mtn on 616?

I guess it must be, since ESPNU used to be on channel 614, but it's now on channel 208 next to ESPN and ESPN2.

[RustyTX]

How many of you Comcast people saw the Texas Wyoming game (Fox Sports SW...regional game not national unless you have one of the two satellite providers)? How many saw CSU get drilled (ESPNU)?

Our TV deal is decent. It does need to get better...and it will with addition of Boise St. The rest of the nation wants to see them play. Same with TCU. If either one makes the national championship game this year the cable providers will start to line up to broadcast The MTN. If the Mtn Network and MWC execs are smart they will show most of the marquee teams' games on The MTN and keep them from VS.

[lobodude]

Since we're rehashing this old saw, I'll provide the other perspective:
You get to watch more Lobos sports than ever before. People outside of the very limited market don't and have no idea that it exists. If I were to take a survey of college football fans where I live I gaurantee that 10 out of 10 would not have the MTN as part of their cable package, 9 out of 10 would not have it as part of their satellite package, and 10 out of 10 would have never even heard of the MTN channel. I also gaurantee that 10 out of 10 would have ESPNU and 10 out of 10 would know about it. 7 out of 10 would watch the game on there if they wanted to see some college football action irrespective of kickoff time or who was playing.

The analogy for this argument is if you and your best friend were trying to start a music career and MTV refused to show your music videos. But the local community cable access channel had a local music show that showed them every day. In the meantime, your best friend gets his video shown every once in a while on MTV2 and very rarely on MTV. Who do you think has more people see their music video and therefore reaches a bigger audience? So while you're blowing up in your hometown, your friend is slowly (but surely) starting to actually make a global splash.

The "complaints" about the MWC current TV situation aren't people griping, it's reality: it limits viewership by a ton. The satellite deal was a step in the right direction but it's difficult to continue to justify a situation in which having your product on a channel with very limited viewership and even more limited name recognition is better than being on the family of channels with the biggest viewership and the best name recognition.

It needs to get fixed, period.

I may not be interpreting your comment correctly, but it reads as if the conference has to make a choice between broadcasting games in a way that all Lobo fans can see it somewhere (either get the mtn at home or get a sports bar to rotate the ol' satellite dish) with control over when games are played (yea! always Saturday afternoon) and even offer replays for people who missed the live broadcast or want to see a good Lobo game again ....... or ...... broadcast just 2, maybe 3 games per season, and broadcast them to a wider potential audience, beyond just "Lobo fans", but have games possibly at odd hours, odd days, last-minute changes and, I think, no replays (at least I've never seen a WAC game replayed. Maybe it does happen.). I know which choice I prefer, even if the only-2-3 games, jerked-around, national-cable option helps the team on the national stage at the expense of Lobo fans. Maybe I'm just being greedy.

Just as a sample, I checked Boise's TV sked and they do get 6 games on ESPN -- they didn't used to get that many games on ESPN, but then again, they are the No. 3 team in the country. -- the game against Wyoming is on CBS-CS *only* because of the CBS contract with the Mountain West -- otherwise, it would not be broadcast -- , and 5 games that apparently will not be broadcast at all anywhere by anybody. Now that's the very high end. The Lobos would never get anywhere near that. In fact, as I've posted before, ESPN has fought the WAC when the network wanted to show another Boise game instead of a game between the two last place teams, at the time, the only broadcast game those last-place schools would get (now *that* would be the Lobos right there. ESPN fighting the MWC *not* to show any of our games).
As a 2nd sample, I checked Fresno. A decent football program and much better than ours. ... They get the Cincinnati, Illinois and Boise games on ESPN2, mainly because of the opponent than because of Fresno. Utah State on a local station. At Ole Miss on Comcast Sports South, but again that's mainly because of the opponent. I hope Fresno is able to pick up Comcast Sports South. And 7 games are "TBA". Even now, with the season well under way, Fresno doesn't know if 7 of their games will be shown by anyone. (Heck, they don't even know if those games will be played on the time and days listed. Let's ask the ESPN janitor.) And, again, that's a better situation than the Lobos would get with an ESPN pact. But those 3 early Fresno games will get a decent audience. Maybe the Lobos need to schedule more big-time teams with big TV contracts. And, seriously, maybe Lobo fans wouldn't mind not seeing 9-10 games each season. As long as the TCU and Air Force games go big-time. And I don't even want to think about what would happen with the basketball schedule.

I know we all want every game on national TV in prime time on the best days and, while we're making wishes, have every game on over-the-air broadcast TV in every decent-size market West of the Mississippi, just because I'm sometimes in a situation that doesn't have cable. Now I am being greedy. But none of that is going to happen in an ESPN deal. If we go back to ESPN, ESPN not only totally controls the 2-3 games we get to see each season, no one will be broadcasting the 9-10 games that ESPN doesn't show (no way the mtn. would be allowed to exist to show non-ESPN games, replays and features on the various schools. Mtn. just vanishes. No way games will get to show up on CBS College Sports or Versus and certainly not on regular CBS). But more people will be seeing those 2-3 games. On the other hand, I don't think that late-night game on ESPNU against Nevada is going to help CSU land one recruit, but I could be wrong.

The correct musical analogy is you and your buddy both have 10 music videos. All of yours get played locally, you blow up, some A&R guys see a few of those videos, like what they see, maybe they surprise you by loving that No. 7 or 8 video that you didn't think had a chance, so more than one guy offers you a contract and you get some say over the terms. You have options. You have choices. ..... Your buddy has only one of his 10 videos shown on MTV. It's shown at hours when almost no one is watching, but his friends can stay up and tune in. Yea! But him and his friends can see only one of his videos. And he doesn't have any input on which one video gets played. Now if he's lucky and MTV makes the right choice and shows a really good video, he may get a contract too, but he's already bought and paid for (MTV doesn't show videos out of the goodness of its heart), so his options in a record deal are very narrow.

Lastly, I don't want to argue too much about your survey of college football fans in your area, but I seriously seriously doubt 7 out of 10 saw CSU-Nevada. I seriously doubt 2 out of 10 saw it. And those 2 only had it on as background noise during a party or while working on a computer in another room, with little idea of who was playing and no idea of what the score was without looking at the bottom of the screen. Now if it had been a Saturday afternoon game like it was supposed to be, and like it was scheduled to be for months before the ESPN janitor got antsy ......

[lobodude]

Oops. One last small point just occurred to me. I was at work during the Tech game so I had to watch an Internet feed of the mtn. ... Now the "chat" box of that Internet feed was flooded with tons of Tech fans and the feed had hundreds of viewers, according to a counter under the viewing screen. And it just now occurred to me that Tech -- again a much better football program than ours, in a BCS conference that has a big-time TV contract -- had to depend on the mtn. --- the mtn.!! -- to see that game at all. The only option Tech fans had was an Internet feed of the mtn.

We have a choice. See all games. Or have the joy of knowing non-Lobo fans nationwide can see a small number of our games (assuming they choose to tune in), while even the most rabid Lobo fans will not be able to see most of our games. Even football programs much bigger than ours are not able to broadcast all of their games. Luckily they had the mtn (and the Internet).

[RustyTX]

Oops. One last small point just occurred to me. I was at work during the Tech game so I had to watch an Internet feed of the mtn. ... Now the "chat" box of that Internet feed was flooded with tons of Tech fans and the feed had hundreds of viewers, according to a counter under the viewing screen. And it just now occurred to me that Tech -- again a much better football program than ours, in a BCS conference that has a big-time TV contract -- had to depend on the mtn. --- the mtn.!! -- to see that game at all. The only option Tech fans had was an Internet feed of the mtn.

We have a choice. See all games. Or have the joy of knowing non-Lobo fans nationwide can see a small number of our games (assuming they choose to tune in), while even the most rabid Lobo fans will not be able to see most of our games. Even football programs much bigger than ours are not able to broadcast all of their games. Luckily they had the mtn (and the Internet).

I've watch Lobo games via the internet while in China from time to time.

[wallyhopp]

lobo expat,

Honestly, I've done this and I suggest others do as well.

Look at our past schedule and see how many games were on the ESPN family of networks in any given season?

The lobos would essentially be a sell out to ESPN, for that "one" game. Currently, the lobos can be seen MORE often...

I guess you weigh the options there...

1 game on ESPN, 5 on SPORTSWEST (KRQE locally) and THATS it

or.

9 games on TV, with 7 of them on a SATELITE channel, but no all mighty ESPN.

ESPNU is that no that widespread btw. Comcast does not have it.

The new deal is way more fan friendly for those that actually support the program. The move helped in that regard.. Has the ONE time a year ESPN deal helped NMSU and the WAC??? Think about it.

[Mark]

It's all relative Wally. That was then and this is now. I've been telling everyone for 2 years the the higher ups in the conference hate the exposure we DONT get. Now you see the major flaws in it with realignment. Does anyone think I'm BSing now? And the only reason you don't see more speak out is because theres a gag order placed on every member.
The deal sucks and we aren't getting the exposure we need to showcase our conferance. It's a absolutle joke.
I'm not the biggest fan of ESPN but I know what feeds the chickens. The terrible thing is we told them to F off instead of just doing our own thing. Now there going to try and stick us.
I remember someone telling me (not associated with UNM) that there's two people in sports you never want on your bad side. One is Nike, the other, ESPN.

[lobodude]

I remember someone telling me (not associated with UNM) that there's two people in sports you never want on your bad side. One is Nike, the other, ESPN.

Sometimes you have no choice. Thwarting "The Project" probably pissed off ESPN (as much as ESPN can be angry at the little guys), and they probably had more to do with the initial idea than BYU did. (I've said before that I think they went after BYU, instead of our best teams, like TCU, because it was easy to flatter those egomaniacs into believing that it would be better off without us losers.) But I don't think the answer there was to let ESPN gut the Mountain West to build up its boys in the WAC just because we don't want to get them mad. Yeah, I'd love to get ESPN on our side, and you have to weigh the cost, and if we're willing to pay it, sure, let's sign a one-sided deal. But sometimes, the little guy has to show a little pride. We may not be the SEC, but we're also not what ESPN thinks we are.

[Mark]

The reason espn was trying to kill the MWC is because they saw more $ and a great way to get back at us after we told them to get bent.

[MRLobo]

The reason espn was trying to kill the MWC is because they saw more $ and a great way to get back at us after we told them to get bent.

I really think it was the other away around. ESPN offered us less money, less coverage and worse time slots so they told use to bend over and we said no thank you. I still believe the conference made the correct decision at the time. The mistake the conference made seems to be the length of the contract.

[Tybot]

Why oh why does life have to be so complicated. I doubt this will ever happen because of the rift that is the mtn vs ESPN, but:

Have the mtn air all the Mountain West games EXCEPT the "big" games. Have ESPN pay the mtn more for those games than the mtn would have made from airing them but less than ESPN would make from them.

Literally everyone wins. Everyone has their opinion, but the reality is, the mtn is the best thing to ever happen to the Mountain West for non-revenue sports and full coverage of nearly all football and basketball games. It is also the worst thing that ever happened from a National coverage prospective for basketball and football. IMO, both are equally good as they are bad. MWC teams will never achieve elite status until they are aired nationally and frequently. Until then, it will always be the arguement of which is more important, fans seeing the games or UNM becoming a household name? The interesting thing is, we were still voted up to #8 last year in baseketball, so it's not like the lack of exposure is killing us from a media exposure perspective. It has to be hurting us from a recruiting perspecitve though we seem to be holding our own their too. Parents want to see their kids on TV if they can't make it in person. Heck, kids want to see themselves on TV just to be on TV.

Notre Dame might be the ONLY team that gets it their way 100% of the time with their NBC contract. Not only is it (extremely) profitable for the school but they get every game aired (I believe) in prime time slots. It's kind of a chicken and egg thing since they were big before the contract, but I'm sure the NBC deal has helped them monumentally as a program, especially through these lean times. Zero other losing programs would have a major network fighting to show their games. Zip. Boise st AND/or TCU being in the BCS championship game is seemingly our only hope to have some negotiating room with ESPN. Money rules all and if one or both of those programs wins the national title, ESPN will forget all about their plans to destroy the MWC and will start talks with the mtn to air big games. If one or both of them fail to make the title game, ESPN will probably continue to ignore the MWC. They call themselves "the worldwide leader in sports" for a reason. They do dominate the sports world and domination in any medium comes with positives and negatives.

[Loboexpat]

It's all relative Wally. That was then and this is now. I've been telling everyone for 2 years the the higher ups in the conference hate the exposure we DONT get. Now you see the major flaws in it with realignment. Does anyone think I'm BSing now? And the only reason you don't see more speak out is because theres a gag order placed on every member.
The deal sucks and we aren't getting the exposure we need to showcase our conferance. It's a absolutle joke.
I'm not the biggest fan of ESPN but I know what feeds the chickens. The terrible thing is we told them to F off instead of just doing our own thing. Now there going to try and stick us.
I remember someone telling me (not associated with UNM) that there's two people in sports you never want on your bad side. One is Nike, the other, ESPN.

The most amazing thing about this topic is how the red herring gets them every time. RPS couldn't be more plain or clear about it. I think I've made my points pretty clear. Tybot seems to get it. I'm not sure why Lobo fans would not want what other people already have. It's like the MTN has been sending subliminal messages through their broadcasts that their screwed up contract is the only true way for Lobo fans to enjoy their Lobo sports.

Other schools get their games on ESPN AND get their other games on the conference/local cable sports channel. It's win/win. The MWC is the only one stupid enough to isolate themselves completely from the rest of the country and put up the "Mission Accomplished" banner and try and convince us that this was the best of all possible deals.

I would think that Alford's word would have some sway around here, but apparently even his frank views on the subject are rejected. I guess most Lobo fans would rather cut off their nose to spite their face?