Some Questions Regarding A&M vs UT and Realignment

Sorry, Mr Irrelevant.

A&M was never considered for a move to the PAC; not in 85-87. nor any time since. Deloss had the deal done to send A&M to the SEC the first time. but you wouldn't know that because no Aggie nor Aggie administrator knew what was happening. Neither were the Oklahoma schools to be involved until the new SWC was formed.
 
I’m saying we are a big rival.
Click to expand...

A&M is a big rival of Texas, but as shown above, the rivalry is not "big" as far as national relevance or historically mattering outside of bragging rights.
 
For me Thanksgiving suffers because of the loss of this game. I could care less about whether the country cares or if aggie "benefits" every three years.
 
If you have to tell everybody how great you are then you're probably not great. UT's athletic records and academic rankings speak for itself. The game lost its luster once aggy took time off cheating and Mack won most of them. The games were not selling out anymore, and really wasn't much of a rivalry. If you discount the many aggy cheating years then there was basically no rivalry.
 
LonghornDave said:
For me Thanksgiving suffers because of the loss of this game. I could care less about whether the country cares or if aggie "benefits" every three years.
Click to expand...

Seems we rarely play on Thanksgiving anymore anyway.
I do miss stuffing my face and then settling in for the game.
If the game is on Friday it doesn't carry the same weight for me.
And I would rather try to hook up with someone other than aggy.
Notre Dame, Nebraska, USC...so many options better than aggy.
 
I guess it may be understandable that Texas fans who weren't around in the FedEx years would think renewing this game is a good idea. I was around then. I hope we never play those loons again.
 
SabreHorn said:
Sorry, Mr Irrelevant.

A&M was never considered for a move to the PAC; not in 85-87. nor any time since. Deloss had the deal done to send A&M to the SEC the first time. but you wouldn't know that because no Aggie nor Aggie administrator knew what was happening. Neither were the Oklahoma schools to be involved until the new SWC was formed.
Click to expand...
Did you not even pay attention in 2010? There were 6 Big 12 teams that were given invitations to the PAC and A&M was one of them. A&M wanted to weigh its options and was given a 72-hour ultimatum to either decide or be left behind. None of the other schools had options and were on board. But during that 72-hour period the Big12 ponied up more dough and ESPN whispered "$300 million" in Dodds' ear. If A&M hadn't tapped the brakes to weigh its options Baylor would be in the SWAC where it belongs and you'd be complaining about irrelevant games that end at midnight. Instead, you have full ownership of a conference and your own network. You're welcome.
 
Source? I'm saying it never happened. No invite. no interest. Stanford, Berzerkley, Oregon & Washington were too afraid of 1986.
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
Did you not even pay attention in 2010? There were 6 Big 12 teams that were given invitations to the PAC and A&M was one of them. A&M wanted to weigh its options and was given a 72-hour ultimatum to either decide or be left behind. None of the other schools had options and were on board. But during that 72-hour period the Big12 ponied up more dough and ESPN whispered "$300 million" in Dodds' ear. If A&M hadn't tapped the brakes to weigh its options Baylor would be in the SWAC where it belongs and you'd be complaining about irrelevant games that end at midnight. Instead, you have full ownership of a conference and your own network. You're welcome.
Click to expand...
Ha, while I am certainly no fan of Baylor, it has had much more football success in the last 10+ years than A&M has.
 
We already have a great annual rivalry game with OU. That is one I'd like to see continue regardless of current or future conference affiliation. I do not believe we must have an instate rival. For example, consider the Michigan and Ohio State annual rival. Obviously they are not in the same state, but are in the same conference, it's generally each program's season finale, and that game is much bigger than the MSU and Michigan game. Obviously, tOSU has no instate rival near its caliber, unless Ohio U is, which I doubt.

I agree with some of the posts above and believe we should have a top opponent each year on TD or T+1 if we want to continue to play on one of those days, but not with aggy. Perhaps negotiate a long term contract with an OOC perennial powerhouse program that will schedule a home and home each year for a number of years with an option to extend, which has the potential to generate significant viewership numbers nationwide. Texas vs aggy doesn't provide that.

Otherwise, my position is to leave the current situation as is. The conference realignment discussions will most likely pick up again in 2021 or 2022. Who knows what will happen then. The only game of importance I believe should be maintained is Texas - OU, annually, in Dallas during the State Fair.
 
A separate issue from the rivalry or not of TX and Tamu the presence of NFL and other live sports have diluted the TV market on T day.
In the end whether the game is televised to a large TV audience will go a long way to determining what happens. on Thanksgiving.
 
SabreHorn said:
Source? I'm saying it never happened. No invite. no interest. Stanford, Berzerkley, Oregon & Washington were too afraid of 1986.
Click to expand...

Again, did you pay any attention at all in 2010? Of course A&M had an offer to join the PAC 10.

Texas A&M trying to choose between Pac-10, SEC

While Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, Texas and Texas Tech appear headed to the Pac-10, Texas A&M officials remain on the fence between going west or moving to the Southeastern Conference.

A highly placed official from a Big 12 school told the Austin American-Statesman that the Aggies have a 72-hour timetable to decide whether to accept the Pac-10's offer.
Click to expand...
 
WOW! No mention of Chuckie NeinASS, who had his nose up the Pope's *** while FSU & the Sons of Klem had their applications gathering dust?

Again, PAC never wanted A&M, Tech, or oSu. Talk to Dr Boren and/or Deloss and get the real story. Study the plan for the "new SWC", and maybe you'll understand that Stanford, Berzerkley, Washington & Oregon were NEVER going to allow that many teams to enter the PAC. Factor in the athletic hating libtards in the Cali-prune-ya legislature, and Deloss & Dr Boren weren't going to waste time.
 
SabreHorn said:
Factor in the athletic hating libtards
Click to expand...

Libtards?
Yea, I thought I had you pegged.
I read your name dropping, name calling crap on here and I am not impressed.
You always have a lot of degrading names and things to say about people that aren't here to defend themselves.
You are obviously a legend in your own mind.
Well, keep your politics to yourself.
 
Last edited:
moondog_LFZ said:
Libtards?
Yea, I thought I had you pegged.
I read your name dropping, name calling crap on here and I am not impressed.
You always have a lot of degrading names and things to say about people that aren't here to defend themselves.
You are obviously a legend in your own mind.
Well, keep your politics to yourself.
Click to expand...
Can't we just all get along?

These days you can't sit down to talk about anything without politics interrupting a pleasant discussion....both ways.....left and right
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
Again, did you pay any attention at all in 2010? Of course A&M had an offer to join the PAC 10.

Texas A&M trying to choose between Pac-10, SEC
Click to expand...
Wish you all the best, MI, but A&M leaving opened the door (wider) for the SEC to cherry pick. Intended or not, it's real. I'm willing to give you another decade in the SEC to see if things improve for you, especially with Jimbo…. No matter what went on, when one chooses the separation/divorce, then one cannot come back from lower ground like nothing happened....
 
Bottom line aggy felt it was better for them to lose to Alabama, LSU, Georgia, Mississippi (State and Ole) than to continue to lose to Texas and ou (with Baylor and Tceh beginning not to be give me's). Their decision for which one would have thought they would take responsibility with all of their military bearing and all. A result of this was their desire to end a lot of what they considered rivalries.
 
Agree with Zucker about parking politics. It has its place, somewhere, but not occupying 100% of everybody’s free time.
Supreme Court Justice Byron White (CU All-America HB) when seen reading the sports section and questioned about it. “I would prefer to read about man’s successes before his failures. Ergo, sports first.” Hook ‘em Horns.
 
hornde68 said:
Agree with Zucker about parking politics. It has its place, somewhere, but not occupying 100% of everybody’s free time.
Supreme Court Justice Byron White (CU All-America HB) when seen reading the sports section and questioned about it. “I would prefer to read about man’s successes before his failures. Ergo, sports first.” Hook ‘em Horns.
Click to expand...
What an ironic quote in a thread started by an Aggie about Aggies.
 
Sorry Sabre, but I did NOT find anything offensive in your post---and often enjoy reading them. Didn't realize anyone would be stepping on someone's toes by referencing someone from Cali as "a mentally-challenged, left-wingist" (to be politically correct)--as having a sibling married to someone who was once in the halls of Bellmont, I, too, heard that the PAC was really only interested in the Big Dawgs of Texas and ousux...carry on
 
BevoJoe said:
We already have a great annual rivalry game with OU. That is one I'd like to see continue regardless of current or future conference affiliation. I do not believe we must have an instate rival. For example, consider the Michigan and Ohio State annual rival. Obviously they are not in the same state, but are in the same conference, it's generally each program's season finale, and that game is much bigger than the MSU and Michigan game. Obviously, tOSU has no instate rival near its caliber, unless Ohio U is, which I doubt.

I agree with some of the posts above and believe we should have a top opponent each year on TD or T+1 if we want to continue to play on one of those days, but not with aggy. Perhaps negotiate a long term contract with an OOC perennial powerhouse program that will schedule a home and home each year for a number of years with an option to extend, which has the potential to generate significant viewership numbers nationwide. Texas vs aggy doesn't provide that.

Otherwise, my position is to leave the current situation as is. The conference realignment discussions will most likely pick up again in 2021 or 2022. Who knows what will happen then. The only game of importance I believe should be maintained is Texas - OU, annually, in Dallas during the State Fair.
Click to expand...
The problem I see for Thanksgiving is that it must be a school where the fans can reasonably drive to the stadium after lunch. aggie and Austin provided access to 100,000s of fans every year. The only choice i can think of is LSU/Texas in Houston which would work. I think a home and home is probably too much distance in each direction and Tiger stadium is a not fun as the fans are too drunk. Vomit and football don't mix on T day and BR has no airport or two lane Interstate.
 
SabreHorn said:
WOW! No mention of Chuckie NeinASS, who had his nose up the Pope's *** while FSU & the Sons of Klem had their applications gathering dust?

Again, PAC never wanted A&M, Tech, or oSu. Talk to Dr Boren and/or Deloss and get the real story. Study the plan for the "new SWC", and maybe you'll understand that Stanford, Berzerkley, Washington & Oregon were NEVER going to allow that many teams to enter the PAC. Factor in the athletic hating libtards in the Cali-prune-ya legislature, and Deloss & Dr Boren weren't going to waste time.
Click to expand...

Wow! So the PAC never wanted A&M, Tech, or OSU, but were willing to take Utah? Gimme a break!

Do you believe Larry Scott spent months laying the foundation for this salvo without the approval of all members of the conference? That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. Sheesh!
 
Mr. Irrelevant said:
Wow! So the PAC never wanted A&M, Tech, or OSU, but were willing to take Utah? Gimme a break!

Do you believe Larry Scott spent months laying the foundation for this salvo without the approval of all members of the conference? That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works. Sheesh!
Click to expand...
The only 2 Big XII teams that any conference wanted (outside of the Big East wanting Kansas for basketball) were ou and Texas. ou's baggage was (and still is) any move they make will be a package that includes OSU. Unless that Oklahoma Statute is changed that will limit ou to the $EC (or more correctly any realigned conference in the next realignment go around). The PAC-12 would have let Texas bring Tceh just to balance the divisions. As far as I can remember there was never any talk of aggy to the PAC-12 as Cal and Stanford wanted nothing to do with aggy.
 
Last edited:
ViperHorn said:
The only 2 Big XII teams that any conference wanted (outside of the Big East wanting Kansas for basketball) were ou and Texas. ou's baggage was (and still is) any move they make will be a package that includes OSU. Unless that Oklahoma Statute is changed that will limit ou to the $EC (or more correctly any realigned conference in the next realignment go around). The PAC-12 would have let Texas bring Tceh just to balance the divisions. As far as I can remember there was never any talk of aggy to the PAC-12 as Cal and Stanford wanted nothing to do with aggy.
Click to expand...

This is hilarious! Four... count 'em, four schools left the Big XII. That means your premise that only OU and Texas were of value to other conferences is demonstrably false. In fact, A&M was so valuable to the SEC that its addition nearly doubled the amount of money the SEC network was able to generate for the conference.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top