Some Questions Regarding A&M vs UT and Realignment

[Statalyzer]

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

That may be true, but I'm not certain of that. Just the fact that it's a every-year rivalry game gets people's attention. I often want to tune into games like UCLA vs USC, Oregon State vs Oregon, Michigan State vs Michigan, Alabama vs Auburn (this one seems a stretch but Auburn until very recently was pretty similar to A&M. Each had one national title from the 30s through 00s, they were in nearly the same place in all-time wins and winning percentage, and they both even had the early 90s undefeated season while ineligible) for just that reason.

 

[Htown77]

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.

Hornfans: Winning is the only metric.

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.

You just do not get it.

Winning in the Big XII means more than winning in the Mountain West.

Winning in the Mountain West means more than winning in an FCS conference.

Winning in an FCS conference means more than winning in DII or DIII.

The SEC likes to say "it just means more". Well, the difference in overall quality between the best power 5 conference and worst power 5 conference in any given season is marginal. Even if the SEC is "tougher" (this is highly unlikely, especially given that A&M and Missouri had no problems competing in the conference with mostly Big XII roster.. A&M's best season was with a Big XII rosters), it is only so marginally. On the whole, with only 8 conference games, a cupcake strategically placed in November and 3-4 non-conference cupcakes at home a year, an SEC schedule is actually less grueling than most Big XII or even Pac12 schedules.

However, the difference between any the Mountain West and any power 5 conference is not marginal. It is a substantial step up.

In short, you cannot compare a transition from the Mountain West to the Big XII to a transition from the Big XII to the SEC. The Big XII and the SEC are comparables aka "like things". The Big XII and Mountain West additionally are not "like things".

Now, to the point of "does a conference help a team winning". In A&M's case, the jury is out, but A&M has yet to do anything to show the SEC has helped A&M win more. A&M is no closer to a conference title or tier 1 bowl game in the SEC than it was in the Big XII. A&M has not yet shown it can compete with Alabama or LSU or even win 10 games on a consistent basis. So far A&M is in the same boat as the Big XII. However, A&M is doing a bit better than most of its Big XII tenure and is currently on par with how Texas Tech was good but not really great except for once or twice in the 2000s. The problem for A&M is, this is not attributable to the SEC. A&M's "rise" to "Mike Leach Texas Tech level success" began with Mike Sherman in 2009. Sherman may not have been the best overall coach, but he upgraded the talent and A&M had already improved by the time it entered the SEC. Kevin Sumlin capitalized on what Sherman built year 1 and, more or less, kept things at the same level until his last season when there was a drop off. Jimbo appears to be improving things at this time, but will have to be able to beat both Alabama and LSU (among others) consistently to take A&M from being stuck in "good" to "great".

TCU, on the other hand, had success in the Mountain West and continues to have success in the Big XII. The difference is, they have a better shot of winning at national title now as Big XII wins mean more than Mountain West wins. Being in the Big XII, an undefeated season almost certainly guarantees a playoff appearance. TCU went undefeated in 2010 and was left out of the national title. Based on the current committee makeup and decision making, it is unclear (but currently seems unlikely) that an undefeated non-power 5 conference team would make the playoff. TCU also has the benefit of likely making a tier 1 bowl with a 1 or 2 loss season, as opposed to the Mountain West where they would have to be the best of all non-power conference teams to make a tier 1 bowl. 1 loss for a non-power conference team could eliminate them. Finally, as I said earlier, wins against Big XII or any power 5 team mean more than wins against non-power 5 teams. Yes, from a winning and national title perspective, TCU is better off. Yes, TCU has won big (1 top 5 finish, 3 top 10 finishes, a conference title and a tier 1 bowl win) proving they made the right call. They have shown they can win the Big XII and can potentially reach the playoff and go for a national title. Hopefully, they do not and it is Texas playing for the national title instead.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

You just do not get it.

Winning in the Big XII means more than winning in the Mountain West.

Winning in the Mountain West means more than winning in an FCS conference.

Winning in an FCS conference means more than winning in DII or DIII.

The SEC likes to say "it just means more". Well, the difference in overall quality between the best power 5 conference and worst power 5 conference in any given season is marginal. Even if the SEC is "tougher" (this is highly unlikely, especially given that A&M and Missouri had no problems competing in the conference with mostly Big XII roster.. A&M's best season was with a Big XII rosters), it is only so marginally. On the whole, with only 8 conference games, a cupcake strategically placed in November and 3-4 non-conference cupcakes at home a year, an SEC schedule is actually less grueling than most Big XII or even Pac12 schedules.

However, the difference between any the Mountain West and any power 5 conference is not marginal. It is a substantial step up.

In short, you cannot compare a transition from the Mountain West to the Big XII to a transition from the Big XII to the SEC. The Big XII and the SEC are comparables aka "like things". The Big XII and Mountain West additionally are not "like things".

Now, to the point of "does a conference help a team winning". In A&M's case, the jury is out, but A&M has yet to do anything to show the SEC has helped A&M win more. A&M is no closer to a conference title or tier 1 bowl game in the SEC than it was in the Big XII. A&M has not yet shown it can compete with Alabama or LSU or even win 10 games on a consistent basis. So far A&M is in the same boat as the Big XII. However, A&M is doing a bit better than most of its Big XII tenure and is currently on par with how Texas Tech was good but not really great except for once or twice in the 2000s. The problem for A&M is, this is not attributable to the SEC. A&M's "rise" to "Mike Leach Texas Tech level success" began with Mike Sherman in 2009. Sherman may not have been the best overall coach, but he upgraded the talent and A&M had already improved by the time it entered the SEC. Kevin Sumlin capitalized on what Sherman built year 1 and, more or less, kept things at the same level until his last season when there was a drop off. Jimbo appears to be improving things at this time, but will have to be able to beat both Alabama and LSU (among others) consistently to take A&M from being stuck in "good" to "great".

TCU, on the other hand, had success in the Mountain West and continues to have success in the Big XII. The difference is, they have a better shot of winning at national title now as Big XII wins mean more than Mountain West wins. Being in the Big XII, an undefeated season almost certainly guarantees a playoff appearance. TCU went undefeated in 2010 and was left out of the national title. Based on the current committee makeup and decision making, it is unclear (but currently seems unlikely) that an undefeated non-power 5 conference team would make the playoff. TCU also has the benefit of likely making a tier 1 bowl with a 1 or 2 loss season, as opposed to the Mountain West where they would have to be the best of all non-power conference teams to make a tier 1 bowl. 1 loss for a non-power conference team could eliminate them. Finally, as I said earlier, wins against Big XII or any power 5 team mean more than wins against non-power 5 teams. Yes, from a winning and national title perspective, TCU is better off. Yes, TCU has won big (1 top 5 finish, 3 top 10 finishes, a conference title and a tier 1 bowl win) proving they made the right call. They have shown they can win the Big XII and can potentially reach the playoff and go for a national title. Hopefully, they do not and it is Texas playing for the national title instead.

The Hornfans premise was that the ONLY thing that mattered was winning. There was no caveat given to quality of opponent. By Hornfans logic, TCU made a mistake joining the Big 12 because they have won fewer games.

@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.

Where in your quote do you mention quality of opponent? No where. And as for the Big 12 being a significant step up from the Mountain West, shouldn't TCU have become a middle of the road program in the Big 12 if that were the case? Instead, TCU has thrived in the Big 12. Maybe the Mountain West and the Big 12 are basically the same.

 

[mchammer]

The Hornfans premise was that the ONLY thing that mattered was winning. There was no caveat given to quality of opponent. By Hornfans logic, TCU made a mistake joining the Big 12 because they have won fewer games.



Where in your quote do you mention quality of opponent? No where. And as for the Big 12 being a significant step up from the Mountain West, shouldn't TCU have become a middle of the road program in the Big 12 if that were the case? Instead, TCU has thrived in the Big 12. Maybe the Mountain West and the Big 12 are basically the same.

There is also timing. OU and Texas was down when TCU had their best seasons in the B12.

 

[militaryhorn]

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.


Hornfans: Winning is the only metric.


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.

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.

Not sure how you could paint either school's conference change as a mistake.

Let's go with the premise that the SEC is the best conference and use your argument that A&M is better off now.

You showed that your record is better in the SEC than the Big XII. By my estimation, A&M is about on par as far as talent, performance, and results now as they were when playing in the Big XII. Yet they have a better record in the SEC than the Big XII, does this prove that the Big XII is a tougher conference to play in or disprove that the SEC is not as bad *** as most think and just a normal conference where you have a couple great teams and everyone else is beatable on any given day?

Does that record reflect just conference games or include out of conference games? If it includes OOC games then I would be willing to bet that having 3 cupcake games and one good to mediocre matchup would result in a better overall record.

Objectively I can't make a determination about how good or how bad the move was since I don't follow your program as closely as I do Texas. On the other hand, I think it was a bad move, just like Nebraska. Mainly because in the Big XII the top four programs, IMHO, were Texas, A&M, OU, and Nebraska without question. The problem you have now is that you have to compete with the likes of Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida as the blue bloods of the conference and unfortunately you just don't have the pedigree based on winning championships...not traditions.

Yeah, you might have more money, exposure, and great opponents to play (God knows that I would love to play the SEC west every year) but what good is money and notoriety if you don't win it all. It's like going to the strip club and paying for the hottest one there for dances but leaving empty handed at the end of the night. As Tom Herman said when he first got to Texas, winners go home with the hot chicks.

In conclusion, yes winning is all that matters and is what you are judged by in the end... not by the size of your pocket book. Hell, Texas is considered the top program when it comes to money but as you can see by the media and non UT fans alike we aren't considered a threat until we win.

 

[moondog_LFZ]

There was no caveat given to quality of opponent.

This is what I mean that arguing with an aggy is like arguing with a drunk.
This is another example of the difference in mindset between Horns and aggy.
Of course quality of opponent matters.
That goes without saying.
Because winning a championship will always depend on the strength of schedule.
And winning championships is the only goal.
You're being ridiculous.

 

[Htown77]

Where in your quote do you mention quality of opponent? No where.

It should be a given that beating power 5 conference teams means more than beating non-power 5 conference teams and FCS/1AA teams... although I guess it is not for A&M and the SEC based on their miserable out of conference scheduling.

A&M non power 5 non-conference wins while in the SEC:
2012: 4 (Louisiana Tech, SMU, South Carolina State and Sam Houston State)
Notes: TWO FCS TEAMS!
2013: 4 (Rice, Sam Houston State, SMU and UTEP)
2014: 4 (Lamar, Rice, SMU and Louisiana-Monroe)
2015: 3 (Ball State, Nevada and Western Carolina)
2016: 3 (Prairie View A&M, New Mexico State and UTSA)
2017: 3 (Nicholls State, Louisiana and New Mexico)
2018: 3 (Northwestern State, Louisiana-Monroe and UAB)

That is 24 wins against non-power 5 opponents! 8 of those wins are against FCS teams. I mean, Lamar, Prairie View and Western Carolina? Really? Do season ticket holders really want to see that poop?

That same period UT has played 0 FCS teams and the following non-power 5 opponents:
2012: 2 (Wyoming and New Mexico)
2013: 2 (New Mexico State and BYU*)
2014: 2 (North Texas and BYU*)
2015: 1 (Rice)
2016: 1 (UTEP)
2017: 1 (San Jose State)
2018: 1 (Tulsa)

*I do not usually include BYU as non-power 5 and personally usually group them with Notre Dame as a "power independent", but in this case I will consider them non-power 5 as it does not really make a poop.

That's 10 total games against non-power 5 opponents and 8 wins. UT has played 10-11 power 5 teams in the regular season this entire time period.

Meanwhile, A&M has been playing pansy schedules of 8 home games a year and sometimes only 8-9 power 5 opponents in the regular season.

In short, A&M has inflated win/loss records due to cowardly scheduling. A&M is actually playing an easier schedule since joining the SEC.

And as for the Big 12 being a significant step up from the Mountain West, shouldn't TCU have become a middle of the road program in the Big 12 if that were the case? Instead, TCU has thrived in the Big 12. Maybe the Mountain West and the Big 12 are basically the same.

Actually, some programs and, more specifically head coaches, will thrive regardless of conference affiliation. As you said, TCU is not dominating like they were in the Mountain West, but they are continuing to have success.

A&M continues to be mediocre regardless of conference.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

Let's go with the premise that the SEC is the best conference and use your argument that A&M is better off now.

You showed that your record is better in the SEC than the Big XII. By my estimation, A&M is about on par as far as talent, performance, and results now as they were when playing in the Big XII. Yet they have a better record in the SEC than the Big XII, does this prove that the Big XII is a tougher conference to play in or disprove that the SEC is not as bad *** as most think and just a normal conference where you have a couple great teams and everyone else is beatable on any given day?

Does that record reflect just conference games or include out of conference games? If it includes OOC games then I would be willing to bet that having 3 cupcake games and one good to mediocre matchup would result in a better overall record.

The stats I provided broke down both overall wins and conference wins. As for "good to mediocre", where on that scale do you slot Clemson?

Objectively I can't make a determination about how good or how bad the move was since I don't follow your program as closely as I do Texas. On the other hand, I think it was a bad move, just like Nebraska.

So you can't make a determination on it being a good or bad move, but then you say it was a bad move.

Mainly because in the Big XII the top four programs, IMHO, were Texas, A&M, OU, and Nebraska without question. The problem you have now is that you have to compete with the likes of Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida as the blue bloods of the conference and unfortunately you just don't have the pedigree based on winning championships...not traditions.[\quote]

In a previous quote you implied that the SEC was just a "normal conference with a couple of great teams..." but in this quote the SEC is a bad spot for A&M because it has to run the gauntlet of blue bloods. Which is it?

Yeah, you might have more money, exposure, and great opponents to play (God knows that I would love to play the SEC west every year) but what good is money and notoriety if you don't win it all. It's like going to the strip club and paying for the hottest one there for dances but leaving empty handed at the end of the night. As Tom Herman said when he first got to Texas, winners go home with the hot chicks.

So what good is money and notoriety if you play a bunch of meaningless teams and still have to watch OU go home with the hot chick?

In conclusion, yes winning is all that matters and is what you are judged by in the end... not by the size of your pocket book. Hell, Texas is considered the top program when it comes to money but as you can see by the media and non UT fans alike we aren't considered a threat until we win.

Interesting that UT crows so loudly about it's revenue since it clearly doesn't matter. What's up with that?

Also, why is Belmont clamoring for the renewal of the rivalry when it seems 90% of its fans don't want the game? I still haven't heard a peep about that.

Thank you for your measured response. I appreciate that you made your points without attacking me. We both have very interesting seasons ahead of us, and I can't wait for it to start.

 

[AC]

I’m sorry but we’re all wasting valuable time and brain cells on this thread. Arguing with Mr. I is fruitless. He’ll never change his mind. Aggie brainwashes everyone who attends. I have always just kept my mouth closed when my Aggie friends try to argue academic quality or football with me. I just hope LSU beats them down this year. Last year was a travesty! LSU got robbed!

 

[X Misn Tx]

That is 24 wins against non-power 5 opponents! 8 of those wins are against FCS teams. I mean, Lamar, Prairie View and Western Carolina? Really? Do season ticket holders really want to see that poop?

..........

*I do not usually include BYU as non-power 5 and personally usually group them with Notre Dame as a "power independent", but in this case I will consider them non-power 5 as it does not really make a poop.

 

[ViperHorn]

Do season ticket holders really want to see that poop?

obviously, in collie station they do

Last year was a travesty! LSU got robbed!

Nope. LSU spit the bit halfway through the 4th quarter and never should have been close enough for aggy to catch-up.

 

[militaryhorn]

The stats I provided broke down both overall wins and conference wins. As for "good to mediocre", where on that scale do you slot Clemson?



So you can't make a determination on it being a good or bad move, but then you say it was a bad move.

I said that 'Objectively' I couldn't determine if it was a really bad move or not, meaning that I don't follow the program that closely to make a factual determination. Then, I said 'I think' it was a bad move and stated my case. Since you did not respond to the argument, are you agreeing with my premise?

The stats I provided broke down both overall wins and conference wins. As for "good to mediocre", where on that scale do you slot Clemson?

Playing a top team for 2 years then taking a break for 3 to 4 years between does not make for a consistent tough out of conference schedule. I can only say that I know for a fact that Texas has scheduled a top 10 team for the next 10 years based on current power teams over the last few years. Who knows...some of those future teams might be poop when we play, including Texas.

Mainly because in the Big XII the top four programs, IMHO, were Texas, A&M, OU, and Nebraska without question. The problem you have now is that you have to compete with the likes of Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Florida as the blue bloods of the conference and unfortunately you just don't have the pedigree based on winning championships...not traditions.

In a previous quote you implied that the SEC was just a "normal conference with a couple of great teams..." but in this quote the SEC is a bad spot for A&M because it has to run the gauntlet of blue bloods. Which is it?

This reference from my post was dealing with why I thought it was a bad move for A&M based on the perceived "best teams" for each conference. I was trying to point out that A&M was considered one of the best teams in the Big XII and that the other four teams were the best teams of the SEC. The point was A&M left a good situation to only have to start over and reestablish their reputation, which I think is bad for the school since you will have to consistently beat those teams to get that respect again.

So what good is money and notoriety if you play a bunch of meaningless teams and still have to watch OU go home with the hot chick?

I think I already said that money didn't matter because we have plenty of it and yet we still have to prove we are starting to belong back in the conversation for championships but haven't done that yet. You are correct OU has been going home with the hot chicks but at least we had a chance to take her home last year.

No problem on my response, I don't insult anyone during an argument or discussion since it puts them on the defensive right away and they can't focus on my opinion or facts without being clouded.

I personally think that you want A&M to be considered a top notch program within the SEC but fail to see that there is a lot more work to be done. I also don't want to play you guys any longer since my perception is that you ran away from a great conference where your stature was better than what it is now. As far as Belmont is concerned, I don't know enough about it to know why they want the game when most fans from both sides don't want it. I am sure it stems from a monetary aspect like most things in college athletics today.

 

[AC]

obviously, in collie station they do


Nope. LSU spit the bit halfway through the 4th quarter and never should have been close enough for aggy to catch-up.

You can tell from my posts that Aggie just repulses me, so no I don’t watch that ****. I thought I remembered some kind of bs call but who knows.....my memory ain’t what it used to be!

 

[Statalyzer]

I thought I remembered some kind of bs call but who knows.....my memory ain’t what it used to be!

There was a 4th down conversion by A&M that looked like a horrid call because the guy was clearly a good yard short of the yellow line. Turns out the yellow line was about 2 yards further down field than it should have been though, and A&M did actually make the first down.

 

[Horngal12]

I am not sure that the Aggies are really better off in the SEC, SEC, SEC. They have never made it to the SEC final game and they have only beat Bama once in Football. They are not all that competitive in the other men's sports year in and year out. The SEC money contract is more in general, but because there are 16 teams there cut is smaller I believe than the 1/10th that UT gets. Plus we get the $$ for the LHN. And they are launching the network for the others. So if they had held out and stayed in the Big XII they would've ended up with a better deal. There jealousy of being the little brother may have cost them. And their fans are so caught up in their Aggie butthurtness that they can't see the forest from the trees, as per usual. Just my $0.02.

 

[Horn6721]

Aggie butthurtness

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I am not sure that the Aggies are really better off in the SEC, SEC, SEC. They have never made it to the SEC final game and they have only beat Bama once in Football. They are not all that competitive in the other men's sports year in and year out.

A&M has won a conference title or conference tournament in basketball and baseball and made the regionals in baseball every year. A&M pretty much owns SEC men's tennis and is very competitive in Track & Field having won two conference titles in 7 years.

The SEC money contract is more in general, but because there are 16 teams there cut is smaller I believe than the 1/10th that UT gets. Plus we get the $$ for the LHN. And they are launching the network for the others. So if they had held out and stayed in the Big XII they would've ended up with a better deal.

So much fail here. First, the SEC has 14 teams, not 16. The SEC generated $627.1 million in the 2017-18 athletic year. Each SEC team received $43.1 million. The Big 12 teams received $38.8 million. The SEC contract with CBS is woefully undervalued and is likely to be renegotiated soon.

Could A&M be bringing in more in the Big 12 by monetizing its Tier 3 rights? Unlikely. Also, who wants to play schools like Baylor, Tech, and Kansas when you can play Alabama, LSU, and Auburn?

There jealousy of being the little brother may have cost them. And their fans are so caught up in their Aggie butthurtness that they can't see the forest from the trees, as per usual. Just my $0.02.

You just keep on telling yourself that while you get to watch that stellar Big 12 lineup every year. A lineup so appealing that the Big 12 has decided to play their most attractive matchups at 11:00 a.m.! Enjoy those 9 a.m. tailgates!

 

[moondog_LFZ]

who wants to play schools like Baylor, Tech, and Kansas when you can lose to Alabama, LSU, and Auburn?

FIFY

 

[Austin_Bill]

So I'll ask again, why is Belmont clamoring for the renewal of the rivalry when it seems 90% of its fans don't want the game?

Tom Herman continues push for Texas, Texas A&M to revive football rivalry: 'I think it’s great for college football'

M O N E Y

It would be the biggest game of the college football season.

 

[zuckercanyon]

M O N E Y

It would be the biggest game of the college football season.

I believe it but so are games with LSU Oklahoma etc etc

 

[Austin_Bill]

Aggy is better off now. They are winning about as much as they won in the SEC, the difference is they are happy getting steam rolled by Bama and LSU and even cheers for them to get the best recruits and the win championships. Clearly aggy likes its conference more than their school. Clearly winning takes a back seat to conference pride and money.

Texas is in a really good place also, we are on an upswing, clearly the aggy move to the SEC hasn't affected recruiting since we have 2 top 5 recruiting finishes. We are in a strong place to make the playoffs, much more so that aggy, but they don't care, they have Bama and LSU to cheer for.

 

[PecosBill]

M O N E Y

It would be the biggest game of the college football season.

I disagree completely. Texas has come a long way in the last couple of years under Herman to be relevant again in the Big 12. Texas has a couple of years to prove that "it is back" and worthy of CFP participation.

TA&M has made a significant investment and has made it to mid tier SEC West for the last several years. They are not knocking on the SEC CCG door.

Until both teams are involved their respective CCG consistently the idea that a game hold national appeal is just hyperbole. Regional bragging rights in the state of Texas sure.

If a rematch was the "biggest game"etc then ESPN, CBS et all would make it happen.

It isn't.

Tom Herman talks about playing TA&M because he recruits in Texas.

 

[Austin_Bill]

I think if Texas and aggy got on the schedule, who ever had that game would hype it up like no ones business. Easily it would be the ESPN Game day game.

It's funny, if Texas makes the playoffs and gets the 2021 class we are possibly looking at, it's going to be the aggys who come to us looking to restart the rivalry.

It should be a given that between the two schools, the one that is down will likely want to schedule with the other.

 

[Detective Shilala]

They have never made it to the SEC final game and they have only beat Bama once in Football.

And its going on what 8 years? They are not exactly the new kid on the block anymore... another 8 years of that kind of record and they will cement their place in the SECs second tier.

 

[Phil Elliott]

Of course quality of opponent matters.
That goes without saying.

Not when talking to aggie it doesn't.

I will say this about a$m's move to the SEC - it's going better for them than it did for Arkansas.

 

[Austin_Bill]

Not when talking to aggie it doesn't.

I will say this about a$m's move to the SEC - it's going better for them than it did for Arkansas.

Not by much. When Arkansas got to the SEC within 4 or 5 years they were in the SEC title game. Of course they haven't done squat since then but they made it which is more than can be said for aggy.

This thread has proven once again that aggys care more about the name on the jersey across from them than the name on their jersey. But hey, if you can't achieve great things might as well associate yourself with those who can.

 

[Dionysus]

Texas vs A&M will never be as big as Texas-OU.

If it does happen it will be out of some stupid “good for the state of Texas” meaningless nostalgia trip. There’s no there there.

 

[Mr. Irrelevant]

I believe it but so are games with LSU Oklahoma etc etc

I'm pretty sure UT is either #1 or #2 in revenue every year so I don't think money is an issue. Like zuckercanyon notes, UT will sell out any game they play against top notch teams (see USC last year) so there are 10 to 15 schools UT could get the same monetary gain from scheduling without pissing off a large portion of its fan base. Money is clearly not the reason.

With Steve Patterson gone I can't imagine that Belmont is so tone deaf that it doesn't realize that a large contingent of its fans want nothing to do with A&M. Yet still, the consistent message is in favor of playing A&M.

Why?

 

[Dionysus]

the consistent message is in favor of playing A&M.

From who?

 

[Austin_Bill]

I happen to think the decision to play the game should rest 100% on the majority vote by the respective student bodies of both schools. This is their University not just the alumni. If I can ask any alumni what was their best memory of playing this game everyone has one. Except for students from 2012 to today. They don't have one. That is the reason I think the game should be played.