Missouri Inches Closer to SEC

I thought the coming SEC Network was just about Tier 2, like the BTN? Is it supposed to encompass Tier 3 as well? My current understanding is "no".

I'm pretty sure Florida will go on raking in Tier 3 money, along with other SEC schools.

Which makes the aggy defection from the B12 all the more comical. aggy runs away from the Big 12 because the Big 12 allows each school to keep its Tier 3 money. aggy runs to the SEC where the SEC allows each school to keep its Tier 3 money. How very aggy.

But the truth is the aggy just wanted to go to the SEC and simply used the LHN as an excuse. I don't know why aggy has to keep lying.

SEC's a pretty nice conference. Maybe Texas will go ahead and buy it someday and make it our own. It's not like we couldn't join the SEC any time we snapped our fingers, and little old Texas A&M couldn't do a damn thing to stop it.
 
ACC and SEC are both ok with the LHN and will gladly take Texas with the LHN intact. Big12 exists because Texas wants it to.

If Mizzou leaves, the Big12 should absorb (merge with) the Big East and seriously consider adding some of the quality BBall programs of the Big East as well. Have 14 members in Football by adding:

Louisville (10)
WVU (11)
Cincinnati (12)
UConn (13)
Rutgers (14)

And then go to a 20 team BBall conference by adding:

Notre Dame
Georgetown
Marquette
St. Johns
Villanova
Providence

Maybe that is retarded. Maybe not. I don't know. I've had a lot of wine so I am not sure what is going on.
 
I'm one of the very few that think aggy will be very successful in the SEC. I'm not sure about Mizzou.

According to all the best sources, Mizzou will be added to the SEC east division to balance things out. If true, they better book some major travel costs. That's Gainesville, Knoxville, Columbia, S.C., Athens, Nashville and Lexington. Throw in a couple of SEC west games against Auburn or Bama and they may go broke.

The SEC is counting on KC and St Louie TV's but KC is a KU/KSU market and St. Louis is baseball, baseball, baseball.
 
Touchdown,
Aggies would do well in SEC if they reopen their Fedex account. Didn't they do research on how to recruit players in the SEC?
 
A&M essentially lost much of the (relatively short) lifespan of the Big 12, in football, by keeping a cherished coach on the decline for too long and by making a single bad choice of a replacement coach, then sitting with that coach too long. The situation is not that dissimilar from the Akers/McWilliams/Mackovic era at Texas, where there were some pretty good years and some pretty dismal ones. A&M hasn't yet (pending Sherman's continued success or lack thereof) found its Mack Brown, but that doesn't mean it's incapable of finding one, especially with a significantly higher athletic budget in the coming years.

It's not hard to see A&M returning to the Sherrill/early-Slocum era level of success; all the ingredients are there except for the right coach. A&M is currently ranked 5th out of the 13 teams in the reconfigured SEC and played the next higher ranked team to within 4 points; that doesn't scream "unable to compete", does it? A&M has a major problem on defense, and we all know it; on offense A&M is as good as pretty much any team in the nation. It is possible to recruit better defense players and put together a much stronger defense. Will it happen? Who knows -- but again, there's an easy way to see that it could happen in a straightforward fashion.

It's of course possible that A&M will continue to struggle to find a solid coach and the potential will never materialize. But there's a pretty solid set of reasons why it's fairly likely that A&M will do very well in the SEC.
 
88ag, you do understand that in approximately 120 years of football, you guys have had 10 years of sustained success. Helped along by one of the biggest criminals in college football. So, should I put my money in FEDEX now? I need to make a bundle before I retire.
 
It's not quite that bad (there were some periods of sustained success way-back-when), but if you limit it to modern history you're right. Of course, modern history limits it to about a 40-year window, before which A&M was in no position to have a period of sustained success given the resources it had. Subsequent to that A&M has been between mediocre and very good.

If you believe that either 1) cheating was the primary reason for A&M's success or 2) that A&M did things that Texas, and OU, and NU, and 'Bama, and Florida, and on and on, haven't done on a regular basis, I have some beautiful oceanfront property conveniently located in Arizona to sell you, cheap. I know we're supposed to be the dumb, naive ones, but that's on the far end of gullible. It doesn't excuse it, nor do I think we either will or need to cheat to win, but, if Texas can win in the current climate without cheating, why is it impossible for A&M to win without cheating?

Stepping away from the argument from history: tell me what about A&M makes it incapable of having a sustained period of success in the future? What makes it impossible for the 7th largest university in the country, in the middle of fertile recruiting grounds, soon to be in the most desirable conference, with one of the largest alumni bases, funding bases, plenty of players in the NFL, increased athletic department revenue, etc, to have sustained success in football? Account, in your answer, for sustained success in nearly every other sport, which takes out arguments based on incompetence, ineptitude, lack of resources, lack of will, etc. Do they do something to the water in B/CS that only affects football players?

For bonus points, if historical prowess determines future success in all cases, explain the Akers/McWilliams/Mackovic years, last year's 5-7 record, and this year's limited success at Texas.

I'm perfectly willing to concede that there's no proof, at all, that A&M WILL be a success in the SEC. However, I don't see any rational reason, based on anything other than a boneheaded "aggy sux!" 5-year-old mentality, for claiming that it's assured that A&M will NOT be a success in the SEC.
 
88ag,

Unfortunately for you guys this is just the kind of thinking that brings on the hand-wringing desperation of your fan base when aggy returns to their inevitable place. You refer to the Sherrill era like it is the norm when it is anything but. Unless you find a way to cheat even more than he did your chances in the new neighborhood are slim and none.

Understand I don't for an instant think you, or thousands more like you will accept that statement as fact. Right now your group is so drunk on the small amount of recognition you are enjoying you can't see what is on the horizon. Hell, you apparently have already justified and put out of mind your most recent back-to-back 2nd half collapses. That was the real aggy, not the one you are dreaming of. And that is not the behavior of a team that will do well against the Bama, Auburn, Arky, Florida, Georgia, etc. teams of the world.

Enjoy the rest of this season, life for aggy is about to return to normal. It always has, and I see nothing on the horizon that makes next year any different.
 
Why is it impossible for aggy to win without cheating?? Maybe cause you have never done it. And I guess its OK to cheat cause everyone else is doing it?? What about that aggy honor code??
wink.gif
 
So to summarize the last two responses -- and tell me if I get anything wrong:

1) A&M is doomed because they're doomed. That's enough, no one needs to think anything more about it. Past history is a 100% predictor of the future; nothing can change.

2) A&M can only win via cheating. Everyone else of course is pristine, but something about A&M makes it so only they have to cheat to win. [Note for the reading impaired: I'm not saying here, nor anywhere else, that it's ok because everyone else does it. I'm saying that you seem to be asserting that cheating is both unique to and necessary for A&M, but not giving any reason why either is true.]

Would "it's that way because I say it is, and I don't need facts or logic or any sort of argument, you should just believe me" sway you if someone said it to you? Are you willing to let me issue the same level of definitive proclamations regarding your future based on the recent past and let them go unchallenged?

Didn't think so.
 
WOW agroid!!! You read all of that into that 2-3 sentence post. You have issues. Maybe you should go back to the agroid board so you can feel the validation you are seeking. But, while the past is no guarantee of the future, Its usually a pretty good indicator. Why have'nt you done anything yet? Or did you just yesterday become the 7th largest institution. You're doomed because your aggy. You bring it on yourself. And to come back at you, no where did I say everyone was pristine. But, here again, your only sustained period of success was the result of cheating. And still, you won nothing. So your not very good at that. All the teams you implicated has atleast won without cheating. Even OU.
 
I think Aggie will be fine in the SEC. They will be below the LSU's and Bamas, ahead of the Ole Misses and Vandys, and on par with the Arkys and Tennessees. They will rarely do better than 9-3, nor worse than 5-7 (I expect them to follow the SEC practice of scheduling 3-4 gimmies every year against Citadel, UAB, Chatanooga and ULaMo).

The idea that they can't compete in the SEC is just wrong. Like in the Big 12, they won't win many championships (maybe once every 15 years or so), but they will fluctuate between mediocre and good from year to year.

This year the Aggies would probably be the 5th best team in the SEC, behind LSU, Bama, Arky and probably S. Carolina (who will now drop w/o their RB), but ahead of everyone else. (Sagarin would actually have them third behind the top two).

Next year they will slide back with all of their seniors graduating.

In short, their records over the next 10 years will probably be very similar to their last ten years -- a mix of winning and losing, with the occasional break out year thrown in.

What they will lose, however, is a 100 year old rivalry with the only rival they have ever had. Indeed, no school in the country is more defined by their hatred for a foe than aTm -- it embodies everything they do (school song, bonfire, silly greetings and chides), and they will lose a lot of their sense of self when its gone. No one in the SEC will view aTm as their main rival -- you can't manufacture that out of thin air. They will also cease playing schools they have played for a 100 years. That can't be replaced.

But in terms of championships, they will be in the same spot they have always been in -- well behind two powers in their own division (UT/OU vs. Bama/LSU) that they will rarely -- if ever -- beat both in the same year. Those four teams have up years and down years (indeed, LSU and Bama have probably had more downs than UT and OU overt he past 15 years), but one of them has always been, and will always be, better than aTm 19 years out of 20.
 
That sort of analysis I can respect, Zona Horn. I think there's a fairly decent chance that we'll actually do better than that, but in a lot of ways, if we do no worse than we are now in football, it's probably still an overall win, since we gain a lot of things that aren't football-related. For non-football sports, and for matters outside athletics, it'll do us good to be out of Texas' shadow on a national stage. A&M is more than ready for it; with the exception of the UCs, which are a different story altogether, A&M is the top "second school" in any state; we should have a separate identity.

I disagree somewhat with your assessment of the rivalry, or maybe I just have a different take on it. Aggies are less defined by the rivalry than you think we are, and Texas students/ex-students are more defined by it than y'all like to think you are. Yes, we reference Texas in our fight song and bonfire's always been about Texas, etc. If you "chides" you mean "UT" and "tea-sips" than again I agree (but we do that for everyone, and so do most fan bases).

But your song references us too, lest you forget, and you've got the Hex Rally, which (at least when I was a student in the 80's -- perhaps it's lost steam now?) my Texas friends assured me was "every bit as important to us as bonfire is to you". Texas boards are full of "aggy" as well, and there are at least as many Texas folks over on TexAgs as there are Aggies here. And we've been the top-priced game at DKR for quite a while. Note that I'm not claiming A&M is your "real rival" or any such thing, just that the obsession runs both ways much more than a lot of Texas folks would like to admit.

The difference I see is that Aggies by and large (except for some idiots, and we know EVERY school has its idiots) understand the rivalry for what it is; we put Texas down because that's what we do, we hate y'all because that's what we do, etc., but we don't let it define our entire understanding of Texas. Perhaps the same comes the other way, and it's just masked in message-board bravado, but I see way too many people who really seem to believe that the idiots, the jokes, etc, are the reality. A&M and UT-Austin are the two flagship schools in this state, and the state and all of us are better off for both schools being strong. We know that; I'm just not sure it's always returned.

To the extent that it IS in our heads, getting away from y'all as a constant on-field competition is a good thing. I don't think we'll be lost without the rivalry; 40 years ago we would've, but A&M has a lot more to define itself by than being the anti-Texas. I also think A&M athletics, and especially football, will be improved by NOT having the Texas game every year. I can think of a couple times where a coach that should've been fired bought a year or two by beating Texas; however important that game is as a rivalry, it shouldn't define things to that extent.

I do think we're losing something by losing the on-field rivalry, though. I wish we weren't; I honestly couldn't care less about losing the other games (Baylor, Tech, etc) and we never really had any tradition with OU and the rest. But we're (both of us) losing something in not wrangling with y'all in athletics, and I hope that your administration will figure that out sooner rather than later. I don't hope it because we "need" you on our schedule in any sport; we don't, we'll have plenty of solid competition both in and out of conference. I hope it because it hurts the fans of both schools who grew up with the rivalry to not have it anymore.
 
Consolidating replies a bit:

I agree that the PAC idea is an interesting one. However, the travel would've been a nightmare (even with a pod scheme) and it completely blows up any notion of geographical allegiance (Pacific Coast? really?). A&M is arguably South-Eastern, to at least some extent, if you squint. It's nowhere near the Pacific Coast.

More practically, it still leaves us in the position of being UT's little brother in terms of perception. That's not just an inferiority issue, it affects perceptions from outside observers with no connection to either school. The narrative would've been that Texas brought along poor A&M who couldn't make it on their own, and that's how people would've seen it.

Purely on academics, if Missouri does indeed move the SEC will have 4 AAU schools. That still puts it well behind the B1G and PAC, but well ahead of the Big Whatever. The SEC is also sending a message by adding two AAU schools. One of the reasons to go with Mizzou vs. WVU is that Mizzou brings more academic credibility. Nowhere am I claiming that the SEC is a superior academic conference, just that it's taking a rapid jump.

As far as moving up in the rankings, A&M is accomplishing that on its own. I don't think being in the SEC will preclude A&M from continuing to move up from the 50's to the 30's. We're currently the 19th-rated public university; Texas is 13th. Room to go, but closer than you think, and I don't see the SEC as holding us back. A&M is very unlikely to fall back in the rankings; I'm not sure what you'd base that on, but both Texas schools are on a far sounder financial footing than many of the public universities ahead of us. Simply from the pressures they face I would expect both to move up a few slots over the next decade.

In terms of scheduling: in football, of course you're right about being scheduled. It's not unheard of to cancel a game -- Texas has had no problem doing it in the past -- but I understand not wanting to. That doesn't make it not a shame that it's impossible to schedule the game. In other sports, that isn't the case; none of the other sports are scheduled out 8 years into the future.

In terms of whether playing A&M has anything to offer Texas, I'd say that the likely $2M extra DKR gate revenue of A&M versus, say, Wyoming, is a pretty significant benefit. A&M also offers SOS in most other sports, which is important in basketball and baseball at least. The Aggies are either ranked or receiving votes in every sport in which we compete. It depends on how many tough OOC games Texas wants in any particular sport. A&M would be favored in most sports; if we win, that's what's expected, where if Texas wins it's A&M underperforming ("as usual", if you're a Texas fan). See how that flip-flops? I agree that 10 years ago it would've worked the other way in many sports, but the days where Texas is such a favorite that it has nothing to gain and A&M has nothing to lose are long gone.

However, my comment about it being regrettable was entirely about the rivalry. Whether or not it's conceded in any particular message-board post, A&M and Texas between them have 4.5 million fans and the game has been very high profile in the state since before most of us were born. Far more people will miss the game than will not care or will be happy it's gone, on both sides of the fence.

Finally: I'm not sure where you live, upset_horn. I live in Round Rock and work in North Austin and my experience differs. The vast majority of vehicles I see which support either school have only that school's bumper stickers (which is sufficient to make the case that most Aggies are not that obsessed with Texas). However, I see slightly more anti-A&M stickers on UT vehicles than vice-versa. Interestingly, I see far more anti-A&M stickers on Texas cars than I see anti-OU stickers or the like; in fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen anything anti-OU on a Texas-sticker-sporting vehicle, while I've seen plenty of anti-A&M things.
 
^^^
I've been in Texas since 1960, when I enrolled in the University of Texas. I now live in Dallas, having lived in Austin for a few years after graduation.

I have NEVER seen an 'anti aggy' sticker on any vehicle, unless you're confusing the horns under those "piss on..." stickers on pick-up trucks with somehing you hold on to with a ewe.
 
I've seen the "piss-on" stickers with an ATM logo getting rained on many a time. I've seen circle-slash ATM logos. I've see "Mommas don't let your babies grow up to be AGGIES" stickers. I've seen eATMe bumper stickers. I've seen thumbs-down. I've seen thumb-cut-off (mocking the horns cut off). I've seen defaced Old Sarges.

However, and repeating: the point is not which fan base has more vehicles pointing to the other. Are some Aggie fans obsessed with Texas to the point of near-insanity? Of course. Are some Texas fans obsessed with A&M to the point of near-insanity? Obviously.

The point in what I said originally was that MOST Aggie fans are NOT obsessed with UT to the point where it's a major part of their self-image. The presence of some A&M vehicles with anti-Texas bumper stickers doesn't contradict that; I said all along that we have some that are obsessed. It's the dozens and dozens of A&M vehicles that have nothing whatsoever about UT on them that make the point. Most of us are much more level-headed and much less defined by UT than was claimed.
 
notanative: I've never seen an anti-aggie bumper sticker either. I have seen some T-shirts, but never a vehicle bumper sticker. Of course, aggie's lie all the time. Lying is genetically encoded in their DNA.
 
Again, I agree that the PAC would've been an interesting option. I still see the same problems with it that I saw before -- on a national basis, the perception would've been that Texas and OU brought along some little schools that couldn't. And I don't see a lot of camaraderie there. Mind you, I like the PAC schools -- I lived in the San Jose area for a few years -- but they're not a good fit for any of us culturally, and they'd be at pains to remind us of that.

I also don't see the academics argument, really. The PAC is not the B1G; they don't do a whole lot to bolster each other academically. Texas got to #13, and A&M to #19, without having a strong academic conference to bolster us, and I see both schools continuing to improve.

And, I get the "if it's a plane it's a plane" argument. It doesn't necessarily hold up, though; a plane flight to the PAC will likely run you 2-3 times as long in the air as a plane flight to the SEC. Do I care as a fan? Not really. Does it matter to student athletes going to away games? Probably.

Finally: 4-5 local games? Huh? That was the SWC; you're dating yourself back to when I was in school. Our "best" years for that we'd have both Baylor and Texas away (such as last year), and yes that's nice. Aside from that, Tech, OU, and OSU are the next closest, and LSU is closer. Arkansas (who we'll probably play in Dallas, taking one of those advantages away) is not much farther than Lubbock, and a viable road trip. The others are plane trips (well, the way I treat driving, Old Miss, MSU, and 'Bama are fine -- I've driven to or near all three, in one day, with kids in the car -- but a lot of people would think they're too long).

However again in the Big 12 everything but Baylor, Texas, and perhaps Tech, OU, and OSU were plane flights for most people. And half of those will be home game in any one year. Toss in that Arkansas will probably stay in Dallas, and you're looking at going from 2 1/2 driving trips a year to 1 1/2 driving trips a year, and that's if you really think MSU and Old Miss are so much farther than OU, OSU, and Tech that it tips the scales to plane flights.

Simply doing math, the average distance from College Station to the SEC West schools is about 50 miles greater than the average distance to the distance to the current Big 12-2 schools. Yes, no one's as close as Baylor or Texas; that does stink. However, the flip side is we'll have two additional largely-home OOC games (one from an 8-team SEC schedule, one from Arkansas becoming a conference game) and a conference game in Dallas.

I just don't see the distance argument being as significant as you want it to be. If it were 4-5 games, sure. But it's about a 1-game difference, for conference games. The past two years A&M has played 8 games in the state of Texas. Most likely next year, and for the near future, A&M will play 8 or 9 games in the state of Texas, depending on whether Arkansas is officially a home or away game that year. So I'm just not sure what we're really losing. As a bonus, we'll be able to count on away games being on TV, and on a network people actually get (no, that's not an LHN jab -- that's a jab at ESPN3, ESPNU, FSSW, etc; our Big 12 away games would never have been on the LHN, so whether or not we could get it is irrelevant).

Aside from football, it's worse, and I'll grant that. However given that Texas and Baylor were really the only road trips most people made, and a lot of people will swap the (farther) LSU in, you're dropping one road trip.
 
It looks like pretty much a done deal after today's vote to give chancellor Brady Deaton the authority to move the school out of the Big 12. It also appears that any obstacles in the SEC have waned and that Missouri wants to be there by next season, not 2013.

Link

So who replaces them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top