Some Questions Regarding A&M vs UT and Realignment

I agree with this last paragraph. I think most of us are saying on this board is you're not winning any more than you did in the Big 12, so the seemed pompous attitude of $EC, etc, just got you money, that's it. Not more notoriety, not more respect, just more money. And that's cool.....Still waiting on Jimbo's ability to not only get 'em to BCS, but to beat the "Big Brothers of the $EC".....I'm thinking 4 full years of Jimbo will tell.....if he does it faster, will tip the hat as it were....
Click to expand...

How many of these things fill your trophy case?
When you had JFF both Texas and OU were in a down cycle.
Aggy probably could have won the conference and possibly been closer to playing for a MNC since 1939.
That's exposure. Not televising every beat down by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, etc.
Yes, you managed to beat Alabama with JFF. How does that look in your trophy case.
You are the latest version of Arkansas.
Relegated to the middle of the pack.
Enjoy counting your money and chanting $ec, $ec.....
That's as far as aggy will ever get.
Click to expand...

If you two are saying the only metric of success for the move is winning football championships (conference or national) that would be a very limited view. If that were the metric it would have made more sense to move to the AAC. A&M could have easily won conference championships there.

If championships alone are the measuring stick UT would have to say leaving the Southwest Conference for the Big 12 was a mistake.

As far as the 2012 season goes, if A&M had gone undefeated in the Big 12 (which I doubt would have happened given the league's familiarity with defending HUNH offenses) we still wouldn't have made the championship game as both Notre Dame and Alabama would have also been undefeated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who gets left out in that group.

As for getting beat down by Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Auburn... everybody gets beat down by Bama. We haven't even played Georgia yet. We're .500 vs Florida and just shy of that vs. Auburn. We're one of 5 schools with a winning conference record in the SEC since expansion. We're actually doing better in the SEC than we were under the same period in the Big 12. And recruiting has seen a major boost. In the 7 years prior to the SEC move A&M signed 9 ESPN Top 300 players. In the 7 years since, A&M signed 65 ESPN Top 300 players.

Seriously, there have been so many positives to this move and so few negatives I don't see how anyone can deem it a mistake.
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
Full Disclosure: I'm an Aggie ('92)

Congratulations on defeating UGA in the Sugar Bowl. That was a stellar win and it disappointed me greatly. You had one job, Georgia, ONE JOB!!!

I spend most of my time on TexAgs (natch), so I'm familiar with our narrative regarding realignment. I'm not well-versed on the UT narrative.

So on to my question...

  1. What, in your opinion, was Dodds' motivation for refusing to continue the series?
  2. For two schools that had played each other since before conferences even existed, why would Dodds care what conference A&M was in?
  3. When A&M refused to go to the PAC, the deal was still there for the remaining five schools plus Utah. Would you prefer to be in that version of the PAC 16 or the current Big 12?
Thank you in advance for your replies. Also, if you have any questions regarding our take on realignment feel free to ask.

Mr. Irrelevant
Click to expand...

1. Texas from an AD standpoint viewed both Oklahoma and A&M as a partnership of sorts. Yes we are competitors and we want to beat you, but from a business standpoint we have always had a strong mutual interest.

Texas came to aggsy and offered an opportunity to join in creating a network to share with aggsy. Aggy laughed and wanted no part of it.

Then when ESPN approached Texas about this network and was tossing around huge numbers, here comes aggsy wanting in. Well by then it was too late, Texas had proceeded without your help and wasn't about to share.

You guys got mad.

Then when all the BS started to happen with teams wanting to bail and it became evident that the Big 12 was on pretty shaky ground Texas got together with it's partners and wanted to join a more stable conference. The SEC wasn't going to just take 4 new members, neither was the Big 10. Fact is the only conference that would entertain the ideal of taking the block of teams was the PAC. You guys didn't want to go in that direction and chose to go to the SEC and thus you broke up our partnership.

Deloss was pissed, both schools were stronger together than separate, but you didn't feel that way. So Texas severed all ties, just like it did with Houston.

2. Don't think it was about the conference as much as it was about the broken trust. Sort of like a divorce. The biggest issue about the conference is now there is a much stronger presence of LSU, and Bama in the state of Texas.

3. The deal to go to the Pac was contingent on Texas not having the LHN. Texas felt that their best choice was to keep the LHN, let it develop as a network and then revisit the situation in a few years when there was better data on its success. Texas could go anywhere it wants if it goes alone or with just Oklahoma, but it doesn't want to be on an Island.

The SEC is not a smart decision for Texas simply because it knows that from a competition standpoint it doesn't make sense. Why be another blue blood program in a conference of 2 or 3 other blueblood programs. Much rather be in a conference where it has a shot at one of the other 2 or 3 playoff spots. If the playoffs were to expand to say 8 teams then going to the SEC is not a bad decision. Still, it comes down to Texas wanting to pick it's spot under it's most favorable circumstances. We shall see what that means in about 5 years when all this comes back around.
 
LonghornDave said:
Ok, so I know I am in the vocal minority (maybe the only poster) that wants to play ANM every Thanksgiving as God intended. I really don't think about who benefits from a football rivalry. Play the game. But
1) and 2) Deloss is not the issue. There was a sh*t storm that involved several factors that took ANM to SEC. Doesn't really matter to me. ANM can leave, Texas can leave or stay. No good guys, no bad guys, just you and me and we just disagree. Let's all get over it.
3) PAC 12 screwed this up. ANM and Texas both refused to go under the circumstances. So what? PAC probably blew it in the short term. (personally I'm ok w Big 12 as is but would prefer to add two teams that could be added from Big 10, SEC or Pac. But going any, well, the west Coast time zones are killers. The lower tier teams of Big, ACC, Pac and SEC are killers.
Click to expand...

Here is my take on this.

Texas versus aggsy isn't about us old dudes, some of us didn't attend either school but we love the game. This is 100% about the current students. The two schools haven't played since 2012. (now that I think about it, maybe this is why the Mayan Calendar ended that year). So there is a whole segment of students who have gone through Texas and aggsy that didn't get to experience the game once. And that to me is sad. I can remember these games back to when I was a small kid. It was tradition. Now students on both sides don't get it. Why, because a bunch of old dues on both sides are butt hurt.

People need to remember that the University is for the students not the graduates.

That to me is the only real reason to start this game back up.
 
Just as an aside, as bad as some people say the LHN is, the PAC-12 Networks are 100% worse. Since the PAC-12 Network is actually 6 separate networks, the plan was to have the LHN to just folded into the PAC-12 Networks. ESPN said no unless they got the entire group (which would have been a savior for the PAC-12).
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
If you two are saying the only metric of success for the move is winning football championships (conference or national) that would be a very limited view. If that were the metric it would have made more sense to move to the AAC. A&M could have easily won conference championships there.

If championships alone are the measuring stick UT would have to say leaving the Southwest Conference for the Big 12 was a mistake.

As far as the 2012 season goes, if A&M had gone undefeated in the Big 12 (which I doubt would have happened given the league's familiarity with defending HUNH offenses) we still wouldn't have made the championship game as both Notre Dame and Alabama would have also been undefeated. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know who gets left out in that group.

As for getting beat down by Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Auburn... everybody gets beat down by Bama. We haven't even played Georgia yet. We're .500 vs Florida and just shy of that vs. Auburn. We're one of 5 schools with a winning conference record in the SEC since expansion. We're actually doing better in the SEC than we were under the same period in the Big 12. And recruiting has seen a major boost. In the 7 years prior to the SEC move A&M signed 9 ESPN Top 300 players. In the 7 years since, A&M signed 65 ESPN Top 300 players.

Seriously, there have been so many positives to this move and so few negatives I don't see how anyone can deem it a mistake.
Click to expand...
ok, so you got more money and feel better about yourself.....we're just pointing out nothing really has changed from your big 12 years....Jimbo might change that, but until then, nothing really has changed except for $ in your pocket......
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
If you two are saying the only metric of success for the move is winning football championships (conference or national) that would be a very limited view. If that were the metric it would have made more sense to move to the AAC. A&M could have easily won conference championships there.
Click to expand...

So there you have it. Winning championships is irrelevant, its being associated with champions that counts for aggy...oh and money. That paragraph sums up everything for their pathetic program. As we already suspected its more important to lose to Alabama than to actually win.
 
If you two are saying the only metric of success for the move is winning football championships (conference or national) that would be a very limited view.
Click to expand...

@Vol Horn 4 Life beat me to it, but this has to be the most aggy statement I have ever heard.

Yes, winning is the ONLY metric of success. Winning football games games is what matters, whether they are non-conference games, conference games, rivalry games, conference championship games, bowl games or national championship.

It is not about moral victories, which is all that aggy has.
 
I am 71 yo and my favorite game has always been the Aggie game, especially at Kyle. And we beat them. The best time is leaving the stadium with them still singing about sawing the horns off

Whoop, as they say
 
Austin_Bill said:
1. Texas from an AD standpoint viewed both Oklahoma and A&M as a partnership of sorts. Yes we are competitors and we want to beat you, but from a business standpoint we have always had a strong mutual interest.
Click to expand...

If UT considered A&M a partner, it would stand to reason UT would have at least asked A&M if it was interested in going to the PAC 10. Instead, UT negotiated with the PAC 10 and gave assurances that the other 5 schools would fall in line. When President Loftin started hearing rumors about the PAC 10 deal he asked President Powers about it and Powers said, "I can't talk about it, but don't worry, we'll take care of you." That's not how partnerships work.

Texas came to aggsy and offered an opportunity to join in creating a network to share with aggsy. Aggy laughed and wanted no part of it.
Click to expand...

This is incorrect. A&M conducted a feasibility study and found the millions of dollars in startup costs and the lack of demand for the channel would mean the channel would be a net loss over time.

Then when ESPN approached Texas about this network and was tossing around huge numbers, here comes aggsy wanting in. Well by then it was too late, Texas had proceeded without your help and wasn't about to share.
Click to expand...

A&M AD Bill Byrne did indeed approach Dodds about the possibility of moving forward with the Lonestar Network. It was due diligence. Byrne fully expected Dodds to reject the offer. The reason A&M declined in 2007 was because the startup costs were too high.

You guys got mad.
Click to expand...
Nope. We got mad when UT started changing the agreed content and the League Office didn't challenge it.

Then when all the BS started to happen with teams wanting to bail and it became evident that the Big 12 was on pretty shaky ground Texas got together with it's partners and wanted to join a more stable conference.
Click to expand...

Wrong. The BS began when UT started negotiating with the PAC in February of 2010. Nebraska got wind of it, realized the conference would collapse once six teams left, and decided to make sure they ended up in a good spot. It was UT's actions that put the Big12 on shaky ground. UT saw the money the Big 10 schools were getting from the BTN and wanted in. UT tried to negotiate a move to the Big 10 but couldn't because of the "Tech Problem". UT then took that same plan to the PAC 10 and spent months working out the details. One of those details was the PAC 16 Network. ESPN offered the ridiculous LHN money because it knew that the PAC wouldn't allow one member to have its own network.

From the Denver Post:
“In the 11th hour, after months of telling us they understand the TV rights, they’re trying to pull a fast one on the verge of sealing the deal in the regents meeting,” the source said. “They want a better revenue sharing deal and their own network. Those were points of principle. (The Pac-10) wants to treat everyone fairly. It’s been that way for months of discussions.”

Texas, OU, OSU staying in Big 12 – The Denver Post
 
Htown77 said:
@Vol Horn 4 Life beat me to it, but this has to be the most aggy statement I have ever heard.

Yes, winning is the ONLY metric of success. Winning football games games is what matters, whether they are non-conference games, conference games, rivalry games, conference championship games, bowl games or national championship.

It is not about moral victories, which is all that aggy has.
Click to expand...

So, did TCU make a mistake by joining the Big 12?
 
The BS began when UT started negotiating with the PAC in February of 2010.
Click to expand...

Which only happened because Missouri started looking into the Big 10 in December of 2009. Look, there is a bunch of stuff we can disagree on and look at the same thing from different angles because we all have our biases. But the deliberate refusal to even acknowledge this fact is more than just having some bias, it's an open admission that one has no intention of any semblance of objectivity at all.

Some quick googling found an old hornfans thread from 2009/12/15 entitled "Big Ten wants 12th team" which immediately starts out talking about Missouri leaving and only Missouri (all other speculations on thread about Texas leaving began with the assumption that Missouri would leave and that Texas leaving would be a response to this). It even answers the silly complaint about Missouri's clout: "When Arkansas left the SWC for the SEC, it set in motion the breakup of the stagnant SWC . . . Missouri could be the Arkansas of the demise of the B12."

Or on another thread from 2009/12/13 that had this exchange:
A: "A little help, please. I'm out of country, travelling and working and not getting much news or connectivity. Why are we talking about conference realignment?
B: "There's noise about Mizzou jumping to the Big 10(1)."

Or this one from TexAgs if you prefer - 2010/3/2 but it's all about the Big Ten, Missouri leaving there, and all other leavings are assumed in response to that one: "Mizzou leaving would have the same effect as Texas leaving. It would be like someone yelling FIRE ! in a theater. Big XII members will be looking to CYA, every man for themselves. The kindling is dry and a spark is all that is needed."

Nebraska got wind of it, realized the conference would collapse once six teams left, and decided to make sure they ended up in a good spot.
Click to expand...

Except, again, Nebraska was already doing this before Texas was talking to the PAC.

A&M conducted a feasibility study and found the millions of dollars in startup costs and the lack of demand for the channel would mean the channel would be a net loss over time.
Click to expand...

Two completely contradictory things that the A&M fanbase has held to for a decade now:

1) The LHN was always going to be a complete failure and an insane waste of money that accomplished nothing.

2) The LHN was so insanely unfair and was going to accomplish so much for Texas that it ruined the entire conference and made coexisting impossible.
 
Nebraska and Missouri started this. Ag delusion is preventing mr irrelevant from seeing the truth.
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
This is incorrect. A&M conducted a feasibility study and found the millions of dollars in startup costs and the lack of demand for the channel would mean the channel would be a net loss over time.
Click to expand...
aggy logic and business acumen at its finest. What start-up costs were they looking at? At the time the deal was under discussion, the deal was whichever network was chosen (Fox or ESPN) would be responsible for all costs. EPSN offered more money than Fox and got the contract. It was actually a relatively simple agreement.

Mr. Irrelevant said:
A&M AD Bill Byrne did indeed approach Dodds about the possibility of moving forward with the Lonestar Network. It was due diligence. Byrne fully expected Dodds to reject the offer. The reason A&M declined in 2007 was because the startup costs were too high.
Click to expand...
"Byrne fully expected Dodds to reject the offer." Dodds could not turn down an offer that was never made. Texas was the one making the offers.
 
mchammer said:
Nebraska and Missouri started this. Ag delusion is preventing mr irrelevant from seeing the truth.
Click to expand...

In the course of falling dominos, Arkansas departure to SEC and larger CBS TV $$$ helped tip the creation of the Big 12 of Big 8 + 4 SWC survivors. Texas politics made sure that Baylor and Texas Tech were added to the Texas and TA&M public universities.

In the course of falling dominos, Colo departed for the Pac 10 in June 2010 helped tip the realignment of the B12 with Neb, Mizzo and TA&M departures and eventual addition of TCU and WVA.

All the conversation of woulda, coulda, shoulda but didn't are interesting but history is that schools left their conferences for more TV money.

The self interest is evident.

The Big 12 is fine and is getting record payouts for member schools and third party TV rights are in addition to the Big 12 Grant of rights money.

It will all change when the GOR expires and the value of live TV sports content gets a new look in the age of cord cutting, direct broadcast and new media players.

Until then we are waiting for a bowl for Texas and TA&M to meet on the football field.
 
PecosBill said:
In the course of falling dominos, Arkansas departure to SEC and larger CBS TV $$$ helped tip the creation of the Big 12 of Big 8 + 4 SWC survivors. Texas politics made sure that Baylor and Texas Tech were added to the Texas and TA&M public universities.

In the course of falling dominos, Colo departed for the Pac 10 in June 2010 helped tip the realignment of the B12 with Neb, Mizzo and TA&M departures and eventual addition of TCU and WVA.

All the conversation of woulda, coulda, shoulda but didn't are interesting but history is that schools left their conferences for more TV money.

The self interest is evident.

The Big 12 is fine and is getting record payouts for member schools and third party TV rights are in addition to the Big 12 Grant of rights money.

It will all change when the GOR expires and the value of live TV sports content gets a new look in the age of cord cutting, direct broadcast and new media players.

Until then we are waiting for a bowl for Texas and TA&M to meet on the football field.
Click to expand...
Respectively disagree. I am waiting for Texas to play in the CFP while the aggys lose to Baylor or Tech in the Texas bowl.
 
So, did TCU make a mistake by joining the Big 12?
Click to expand...

My turn for a late response:
TCU since joining the Big XII in 2012:
National Titles: 0
Top 5 finishes: 1 (#3 2014)
Top 10 finishes: 3 (#3 2014, #7 2015, #9 2017)
Top 25 finishes: 3
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Wins: 1 (2014 Peach)
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Appearances: 1 (2014 Peach)
Conference Titles: 1 (2014)
Conference Championship Appearances: 1 (2017)
Tier 2 Bowl Wins: 2 (2015 and 2017 Alamo Bowls)
Total Bowl Wins: 4
12 win seasons: 1
11 win seasons: 3
10 win seasons: 3
Overall record: 58-33 (0.637)
Conference record: 36-27 (0.571)

A&M since joining the SEC in 2011:
National Titles: 0
Top 5 finishes: 1 (#5 2012)
Top 10 finishes: 1 (#5 2012)
Top 25 finishes: 3 (#5 2012, #18 2013, #16 2018)
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Wins: 0
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Appearances: 0
Conference Titles: 0
Conference Championship Appearances: 0
Tier 2 Bowl Wins: 3 (2012 Cotton Bowl, 2013 Chick-fil-a Bowl, 2018 Gator Bowl)*
Total Bowl Wins: 4
12 win seasons: 0
11 win seasons: 1
10 win seasons: 1
Overall record: 60-31 (0.659)
Conference record: 30-26 (0.536)

Your post makes no sense. TCU has won a conference title, won a tier 1 bowl, had 3 11 win seasons and 3 top 10 finishes since joining the Big XII. TCU has won things since joining the Big 12.

A&M's only great season was its first in 2012 with Manziel, and A&M still did not win a tier 1 bowl or a conference or even division title that season.

A&M has been consistently good with one great team, but TCU has been great multiple times despite inconsistent rebuilding seasons.

I'll note A&M has an overall stronger record than TCU due to the scheduling of more cupcakes and fewer conference games.

*Prior to 2014, the Cotton Bowl and Chick-fil-a Peach Bowls were not tier 1/NY6/BCS bowl games.
 
"I think it's great for college football"


"College Football" couldn't care less if we play or not. Games are for the fans and the casual watchers will watch whatever is on TV. If the fans don't want it then don't do it. I am guessing the less we want them to play the more emotionally impactful it will be on us if they do play. The hatred of the other school intensifies.
 
Htown77 said:
My turn for a late response:
TCU since joining the Big XII in 2012:
National Titles: 0
Top 5 finishes: 1 (#3 2014)
Top 10 finishes: 3 (#3 2014, #7 2015, #9 2017)
Top 25 finishes: 3
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Wins: 1 (2014 Peach)
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Appearances: 1 (2014 Peach)
Conference Titles: 1 (2014)
Conference Championship Appearances: 1 (2017)
Tier 2 Bowl Wins: 2 (2015 and 2017 Alamo Bowls)
Total Bowl Wins: 4
12 win seasons: 1
11 win seasons: 3
10 win seasons: 3
Overall record: 58-33 (0.637)
Conference record: 36-27 (0.571)

A&M since joining the SEC in 2011:
National Titles: 0
Top 5 finishes: 1 (#5 2012)
Top 10 finishes: 1 (#5 2012)
Top 25 finishes: 3 (#5 2012, #18 2013, #16 2018)
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Wins: 0
New Year's Six/Tier 1 Bowl Appearances: 0
Conference Titles: 0
Conference Championship Appearances: 0
Tier 2 Bowl Wins: 3 (2012 Cotton Bowl, 2013 Chick-fil-a Bowl, 2018 Gator Bowl)*
Total Bowl Wins: 4
12 win seasons: 0
11 win seasons: 1
10 win seasons: 1
Overall record: 60-31 (0.659)
Conference record: 30-26 (0.536)

Your post makes no sense. TCU has won a conference title, won a tier 1 bowl, had 3 11 win seasons and 3 top 10 finishes since joining the Big XII. TCU has won things since joining the Big 12.

A&M's only great season was its first in 2012 with Manziel, and A&M still did not win a tier 1 bowl or a conference or even division title that season.

A&M has been consistently good with one great team, but TCU has been great multiple times despite inconsistent rebuilding seasons.

I'll note A&M has an overall stronger record than TCU due to the scheduling of more cupcakes and fewer conference games.

*Prior to 2014, the Cotton Bowl and Chick-fil-a Peach Bowls were not tier 1/NY6/BCS bowl games.
Click to expand...

No, it is your comparison that doesn't make sense. To determine if TCU changing conferences is a mistake you don't compare TCU to A&M, you compare TCU's 7 years in the Big 12 to the preceding 7 years in the Mountain West.

There are two competing premises here:

Mine: There are many things to consider when determining whether a change in conference was a smart move or a mistake.
Seriously, there have been so many positives to this move and so few negatives I don't see how anyone can deem it a mistake.
Click to expand...

Hornfans: Winning is the only metric.
@Vol Horn 4 Life beat me to it, but this has to be the most aggy statement I have ever heard.

Yes, winning is the ONLY metric of success. Winning football games games is what matters, whether they are non-conference games, conference games, rivalry games, conference championship games, bowl games or national championship.

It is not about moral victories, which is all that aggy has.
Click to expand...

I believe TCU's move to the Big 12 has been a tremendous success even though they've won far fewer games. They have received more coverage, money, etc. Based on Hornfans logic though, it has been an abject failure.

NRbWYG9.png


I believe A&M's move to the SEC has been a success as well. In addition to receiving more coverage, money, etc. A&M has won more games in a tougher conference.

xklru9c.png


Not sure how you could paint either school's conference change as a mistake.
 
I_Dont_Exist said:
Don't waste your time waiting on a unbiased response. It's more about feeling like big brother than anything else. I'd love to see the annual game renewed but won't care if doesn't.
Click to expand...

I get why the Longhorn fans don't want to renew the rivalry. In truth there is plenty of butthurt from fans on both sides.

What I'm asking is why is Belmont clamoring to renew it after being dead-set against it? What does Belmont see as the benefit for UT? Is Belmont getting marching orders from Gov. Abbott? Is Belmont worried about the revenue it will lose when the Irwin Center is demolished? What is the motivation?
 
Vol Horn 4 Life said:
"I think it's great for college football"


"College Football" couldn't care less if we play or not. Games are for the fans and the casual watchers will watch whatever is on TV. If the fans don't want it then don't do it. I am guessing the less we want them to play the more emotionally impactful it will be on us if they do play. The hatred of the other school intensifies.
Click to expand...

The game has really only had regional appeal. Since UT and A&M have only played a handful of games where both were ranked it has never really had any national impact. Notre Dame vs. USC, Texas vs. OU, OU vs. Nebraska, Miami vs. Florida State... these games have decided championship aspirations for decades. Since the A&M vs. UT rivalry almost never did, there really isn't much interest outside of the state.
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
A&M has won more games in a tougher conference.
Click to expand...

Well, that's like, your opinion man ;)
You also added a couple of cupcake games to your schedule.
B12 ooc games have gotten stronger not softer.
And yes, winning is everything for Longhorn football.

You just displayed the difference in UT and aggy mindset.
We would never compare ourselves to the TCU cockroaches.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

NEW: Pro Sports Forums

Cowboys, Texans, Rangers, Astros, Mavs, Rockets, etc. Pro Longhorns. This is the place.

Pro Sports Forums

Recent Threads

Back
Top