Should the ACC be afraid of the Longhorn Network?

Conference realignment season this year has been more interesting than usual as the Big 12 appears to be imploding, having lost two teams last year (Nebraska and Colorado)  and at least one team this year (Texas A&M) and potentially more teams (Oklahoma flirting with the PAC-12) and now there is talk that Texas is exploring the ACC as a landing spot if that conference does finally give up the ghost.

As a fan of the ACC and Virginia Tech I have a lot of thoughts on that, but for now want to concentrate on the Longhorn Network and how it might or might not fit into the ACC.  The Longhorn Network is Texas's own cable network, run by ESPN,  and is thought to be the driving force in tearing apart the Big 12 since the other Big 12 schools fear the revenue and exposure that the LHN would bring Texas would put them all at a long-term disadvantage (and they are probably right).

Would that be the case in the ACC, if Texas to the ACC even  had a realistic chance of happening?

The Longhorn Network's penetration into ACC country would be minimal

If Texas joins the ACC, I don't see cable systems in North and South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Florida, etc., adding the Longhorn Network just because Texas joins the ACC.   I think the appeal of the LHN would be limited to Texas, Oklahoma, and that region.

That was a huge problem for other Big 12 schools because that puts the LHN in their backyards, directly affecting their local market position and recruiting.   But I don't think adding Texas would put the LHN into the backyards of other ACC schools, so that threat is not present.   And even if it did get onto cable systems in ACC country (perhaps because ESPN pushes it on or gives it away in those areas to help exposure), I don't see many fans in ACC country watching it.

It's worth noting that this also limits the upside of the LHN, since Texas joining the ACC would probably NOT mean significant LHN penetration into new markets.  

The ACC's exposure in Texas would increase with the Longhorn Network

Simply put, if Texas joins the ACC, then the LHN will be featuring a lot of ACC teams, when they play Texas.  This is pure upside for the otehr ACC teams, as it gives them exposure in Texas markets that they are not getting today.   And even if the LHN did show Texas high school football, the threat of which was the straw that broke the camel's back for the Big 12 (even though it didn't happen) that would not negatively affect ACC recruiting in the areas where league schools currently recruit.

Revenue inequalities are the biggest ACC problem with the Longhorn Network

One of the key tenets of the ACC is equal revenue sharing.  Lack of equal revenue sharing has been a main cause of instability in every conference I can think of that didn't have it:  the late Metro, the Big East, and now the Big 12.  Despite the advantages of having Texas, adding an unequal partner may be too high a price for the ACC to pay to get any school.     And we shouldn't think Texas would behave because the ACC saved it from conference oblivion.  Remember the Big 12 was formed as a result of the Big 8 saving Texas (and three other schools) from conference oblivion in the mid 90's as the SWC was dissolving, and look how that turned out for them.

Conclusion 

In my opinion, if Texas joined the ACC the Longhorn network would represent upside with little downside for the ACC in the areas of exposure and recruiting.  As a matter of fact I think joining the ACC would limit Texas' upside for the LHN, though that may also be the case with the PAC-12 and the Big Ten for similar reasons, if those leagues would even allow the LHN to exist.  This is probably why Texas's preferred solution is survival of the Big 12, because it's within the Big 12 footprint that the LHN really works for Texas.

But I'm not sure if I (or the ACC powers) would agree that upside would balance the downside of having an unequal revenue partner in the conference.  A partner that has blown up every conference it's touched, btw.

More: 

This post from Kristi Dosh, the SportsBizMiss has more on why/how the LHN could fit in with the ACC

In this post, Chadd Scott gives the opposite case.

Did you know Pink Floyd was named after a Chapel Hill blues musician?

There's always something to learn about the Piedmont area of North Carolina.  Yesterday I caught parts of a State of Things broadcast on WUNC while in my car.  They were discussing bluesman Floyd Council, who was born and lived in Chapel Hill and is buried in Sanford.  Today (Sept 2) would have been his 100th birthday.

This wasn't the focus of the broadcast, but it was mentioned that he is the Floyd of Pink Floyd.  Pink is SC bluesman Pink Anderson.  Turns out Syd Barrett saw their names side by side on the liner notes of a blues album  and liked the juxtaposition.  This is confirmed on Wikipedia, so I guess it was already reasonably well known but I didn't know it!

I wonder if the Health Information included "Don't eat the hot dogs (or the baked goods)"

Finally, Sprint's 4G network comes in handy

I had blogged earlier that I didn't find much value in Sprint's 4G network because it's not that widely deployed and having 4G enabled is a major battery eater in the HTC EVO phone.  99% of the time I have 4G turned off on my phone.

However I have attended the last two Virginia Tech football games and at one of them I wished I had 4G and at the other I got value from it.

First one was a Thursday night game in Blacksburg.  I quickly learned that when you are in a stadium with over 60,000 other people, probably 50% of them smart phone users, you may have full 3G signal but it's unusable simply because everyone else is also using it.  The network is totally swamped.   I had to wait until I got  home after the game to upload my pictures, updates, etc to Facebook, ESPN Score center couldn't keep up, etc.

The next game was a Saturday in Chapel Hill.  One difference between Chapel Hill and Blacksburg is that Chapel Hill has 4G coverage.  Once again in Kenan Stadium I found the 3G network unsuable even though I had full bars.  However in Chapel Hill, I turned on 4G and it was like having my own network.   Fast, no failures, etc.  Now because 4G is such a battery hog I turned it on when I wanted to use it and then back off until the next time I needed it.  But I was able to upload pictures and updates, and get score updates on the ESPN app with no delay.

One reason for this is the better bandwidth of 4G but I think the bigger factor is that hardly anyone else has 4G yet, so the network was not loaded to any significant level.  We'll see in a few years as more people move to 4G if this remains the case, but for now it's nice.

Seen in Cary: the coolest riding mower ever

Get your workout, maintain your yard, and save the earth from small engine exhaust all at once!

Three weeks with Evo -- detailed Evo vs. iPhone comparison (updated 10/5/10)

I got my Evo on August 2nd and after about  two months it's definitely a keeper .  I had been trying to decide between it and an iPhone4 and decided on it mainly because Sprint's network is superior to AT&T's.  Now after three weeks of heavy use I'm ready to make an informed comparison of the Evo to an iOS device, as my wife has an iPhone 3GS and I have an iPod Touch running iOS4. So let the overly detailed comparison begin:

Where the Evo is better

(in no particular order)

1. Superior 3G network coverage.  Works just about everywhere, including many places my wife can't get any data or calls on her iPhone. Note that even though Sprint supposedly has a 4G network in my area, I've found the 4G network to be mostly a  nonfactor. It doesn't have coverage most places I try it, including in my office right in the heart of RTP. So I usually keep 4G turned off to save battery.  That said,  Sprint is just a better network than AT&T, and it's cheaper. My desire to stay on Sprint and avoid AT&T was a huge factor in choosing the Evo over the iPhone 4.

2. Screen size:  The bigger Evo screen is nice.  I wear glasses for nearsightedness and I often had to take them off to do anything on the iPhone's screen. I usually don't have to that with the Evo.  The screen isn't that much bigger on paper, but it reads much bigger and clearer during real world use, in my opinion. It's more comfortable to use than the iPhone's smaller screen, no matter how much better the iPhone's screen supposedly is.

3. Google integration: Google has an excellent Gmail client for Android, and also the phone integrates with Google Voice so I can automatically have my calls made with Google Voice.  There's a Google search widget, Google maps, etc. They all have native Android clients instead of the inadequate  HTML 4 substitutes that Google provides for iOS.  Also when I configured the phone for the first time it automatically downloaded and synched with all my Google contacts and calendar, which I had previously synched from my old Blackberry.  It was the easiest migration of contacts and calendar from one phone to another ever.

4. Facebook integration:  When I gave the Evo my Facebook login, it went out and grabbed Facebook information (including profile picture and additional phone numbers and email addresses) for all of my contacts who are also Facebook friends. It also allows me to link contacts together so I can tell it, for example, this contact is the same person as this Facebook friend  and is also the same person as this Gmail contact (useful for cases where the names aren't spelled exactly the same in each place).  Then the Facebook profile picture is displayed where-ever that contact is used on the phone, for example in text messages and call logs and incoming calls and in the Gmail client when displaying an email from that person, etc. Incoming calls also show the person's facebook status under their picture.  This seems like minor window dressing, but it's pretty cool.  I would love to show a screen shot of this, but see Evo disadvantage #3 below.

5. Integration between apps: It surprised me that this is better on the Evo than on the iPhone.  On the Evo, if one app calls another (for example clicking a link in the Gmail client that launches a browser, or going to the Amazon mp3 store from SoundHound), the "back" button returns from the called app to the calling app, and puts you back where you were in the calling app.  This isn't possible on iOS devices -- on iOS a trip from one app to another is one-way.  To return to the original app on iOS, you have to do it manually by clicking the home button and then relaunching the calling app -- and many times, it relaunches from scratch instead of returning to where you were in it when it called the other app.   Also on Android, holding down the home button brings up a menu of the last several apps you were in.  These two features make interactions between apps much smoother and intuitive on Android.

6. Removable battery and SD card.  'nuff said.

7. Haptic feedback.  I didn't think I would like this but I do.  This just means the phone vibrates to let you know when it finishes something.  For example when Soundhound identifies a song it vibrates slightly, nice to know when holding the phone up to a speaker in the Miata with the top down.  There are a lot of other small events that cause small vibration which I've found to be very handy.

8. Open architecture. I almost put this in the "wash" category because in my opinion it's mainly a religious war between adherents of one company vs another.  As a regular user I don't really see much difference except one -- no decent Google apps on iPhone. Since Google integration, especially Google Voice and Gmail, are an advantage for Android, and Apple blocks those Google features from iPhone, there is a real world advantage to the  more open platform.  Maybe. After all since Google owns Android, even if it weren't open it would probably have those Google apps I depend on.

9. Can start using immediately.  iPhone requires you to download and install iTunes on a computer to even activate the phone.  This can be a lengthy and annoying process. Evo works out of the box.

10. Flash support.  I had originally said this was a wash because for the first few months I owned this phone, I never found any websites where the Android Flash support actually worked.  Since then I have found several, usually imbedded videoes on news sites, so this is starting to show as an Android advantage so I moved it here


Where the iPhone is better

1. Music:  The iPod music player and iTunes store are  better than the DoubleTwist app and Amazon app store, though as I use DoubleTwist more and learn its capabilities, the gap is narrowing.    DoubleTwist is a significant improvement over the basic Android music player and it  tries to make the experience better on Android by importing your iTunes library, but it's much slower and has several bugs and limitations.  Hopefully it will be improved as time goes on but for now there are several areas where it is deficient:

• DoubleTwist finds and uses all the .mp3 files in your system, and  it doesn't discriminate.  So you can be shuffling songs on DoubleTwist and it mixes in voicemail messages, podcasts, etc.  Anything that's an .mp3 file.  It's pretty annoying to be rocking out in a song shuffle and then you get an old voicemail message or a 1 hour podcast mixed in! Note: this problem is not as bad now that I've installed a separate podcast catcher program (see below) that keeps the podcasts separate.   Still happens with voicemail and other sound files though. 
• on the iPod player, you can pick an artist and have all that artists' songs listed and played with one command, regardless of which album a song is on.  DoubleTwist only does the listing by album, so if I have 2-3 songs per album for an artist (which I often do), I can't list all that artist's songs.  I can play all of an artist's songs by  pressing on and holding down the name of the artist, but there is still no way to list all of an artist's songs. 
• iTunes store is much easier for navigation and exploring albums, artists, etc.  On the Amazon .mp3 store I can see the average user rating of an album or a song, but there's no way to view the actual reviews!  
• iTunes does a better job with podcasts.  For podcasts on Android, it's necessary to load a separate podcatcher, and I use Google Listen.  It's pretty good, but not as good as iTunes built-in support.

2. The iOS devices are "walk up and use" friendly.  Except for the requirement to download and install iTunes first.  I did a lot more work over the last two weeks to get my Evo configured to work the way I want it to.  And in more cases than on Android, the iPhone "just works."

3. It's easy to get screen shots on iOS devices, and requires a convoluted procedure on Android that includes installing an software development kit and being plugged into a PC.  This may be a minor consideration, but it's why you probably won't be seeing any Evo screen shots on this blog.

4. The iPhone build quality is better.  All the connectors are solid.  I was googling to figure out what kind of connector the Evo has (it's micro-USB) and I found instead a bunch of reports of the charging port breaking, and Sprint refusing to fix them under warranty. Considering this phone hasn't been out that long and I have a 2 year contract this is a concern.  The iPhone charging port may be proprietary, but it's strong and durable.

5. The iPhone has better PC integration and backup.  I'm still surprised to see that there is no PC client to help manage and back up the  Evo.  With iTunes you can completely back up an iPhone, reset it to factory defaults (or replace it with another) and then completely restore it as if nothing had happened (except for wifi passwords, those don't back up for some reason).  On the Evo the data is stored on an SD card which is removable, so data can easily be moved  but there's no way to back up the whole system in one swell foop, including settings and apps in phone memory.

6. Web Browsing.  Even though there are about 10 browsers to choose from on Android, none of them are as good as Safari on iOS.  It does everything well.  Of the Android browsers, they all have strengths and weaknesses but none of them works as well as Safari.   I find I have to keep at least two browsers available on my Android phone, Opera mini for most of my browsing, and the default browser for the few sites Opera can't handle.   Opera is pretty close to all I need but every once in a while I find a site where it just can't handle the sign-in forms and have to switch to the default browser to use them. And neither browser supports pinch zoom like Safari, as there are only a couple of sizes to choose from. And I have yet to find a browser on Android that handles java hover menus, while Safari does it with aplomb.

7. iPhone is smaller and lighter.  This is simply the flip side of the Evo advantage of a bigger phone

8. iPhone battery life is better. I guess after three years and with restricted multitasking, Apple has figured out the battery puzzle.  But brand new, the Evo can barely get through a day without a charge.  It can,  but by the time I get it home at night, it needs to be plugged in.  This might be more of a problem as the battery gets older (but at least I can replace it on the Evo!). I don't think I really do much more battery intensive stuff with the Evo than I did with my iOS device, for example I don't talk that much on it, mainly using data and music playing.

Where it's a wash

1. App selection.  There is only one app on the iPhone that I really wish was nearly as good on Android, and that's ForeFlight. But I use ForeFlight mostly on an iPad anyway.  Except for that I haven't found apps lacking at all on Android like I feared I would.



Conclusion

I'm happy with the Evo and would have been just as happy with an iPhone4.  The tie breaker is the network.  It's worth any Evo disadvantages to stay on Sprint.

That can't be good for the transmission (or the suspension!)

This picture was captured on US 64 today on my way home from work.

Yes, this is a Mazda Miata towing a trailer with a riding mower.  That's not something you see every day!  I wish I could have got a better picture but when on the road photography conditions are far from ideal.

I have a Miata and it actually looks a bit like this one.  But I wouldn't tow something like this with it! I once saw a Miata website where someone had modified a Miata to tow a motorcycle trailer.  That's probably about the kind of weight a Miata can handle, not this!  You can't really tell from the picture, but the rear of the Miata was riding pretty low.