Stinkin cheapshot steelers never change

[The Gipper]

And that is only true in the sense that we cancelled it as a fixture by moving conferences (therefore it was no longer a set conference game). But we were willing to clear out non-con schedule to play it. Furthermore, IIRC, the league was willing to let us use our valuable Thanksgiving day/weekend spot on the game, despite the value of pairing us with LSU that weekend (which did not happen until our third season in the league, and would not have happened if Texas had taken the offer).

Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.

They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:

2015 Cal and Notre Dame

2016 Cal and Notre Dame

2017 Maryland and USC

2018 Maryland and USC

In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.

And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa

But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)

[Flugel]

Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.

They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:

2015 Cal and Notre Dame

2016 Cal and Notre Dame

2017 Maryland and USC

2018 Maryland and USC

In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.

And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa

But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)

 

Good points Gipper; but I liked your points related to the subject heading a lot better. I hate to see you distracted on college football when you were just getting warmed up to bend steel. Let's get back to our show and tell session with Steeler Stu. He needs more of that inconvenient truth; because only people willing to tell the truth to Pittsburgh fans are Cleveland fans. Those poor bastards have been rooting for flunkies, junkies, rapists and domestic violence poster boys since the 70s.

 

Some of them even bring their pom poms to crack houses in the offseason to chant "Here we go Steelers - Here we go!" How else do you think they got autographs from guys like Bell and Blount?

[wargograw]

A&M has more SWC titles than Houston and Ruce combined. Houston won 4. Rice won 8. We won 18. Predictably, you will say "well Houston was only in the league from 76-95." We won 6 in that period. So spare me. You say you don't have a dog in the fight, yet your intentions are clearly to tear down A&M. That's fine, but stop the ruse that you are neutral.

 

Here is what you posted, and it's actually worse than I thought.

 

"Prediction: Texas A&M will join a reconstituted "Southwest Conference".

 

Or at least they should."

 

If you want to get all nuanced about what you meant then fine. But merely winning games isn't an end unto itself. See what I said about CUSA.

 

Post the national reports that agree with you. I guarantee you I've followed this thing a lot more closely than you have and you will not be able to provide such reports without an equal (and more accurate) counter. Maybe some from Chip Brown, who I listen to almost every morning on the radio here and is a shill for the university.

 

Yes, the Big 12 does allow them to keep all their TV money, because OU is the only conference member with any clout, and they're tied to OSU so their power is somewhat diminished. And even if it weren't, they still don't wield near the power that Texas does. Not only does Texas keep all the money from the Longhorn Network, they also receive a larger share of the conference's TV package, a perk they also offered to A&M in 2010. None of the other power 5 conferences allow that. Makes for an unhappy and unhealthy league. In the SEC, Vandy gets the same money as Alabama.

 

The article (and its included quotes from A&M officials) is from 2011. Not sure how that qualifies as "NOW."

[wargograw]

Well, looking at Texas's future schedule, it does not appear that they could schedule a game vs. A&M at least until like 2020.

They have two prime opponents on their non-conference schedules the next several years:

2015 Cal and Notre Dame

2016 Cal and Notre Dame

2017 Maryland and USC

2018 Maryland and USC

In 2019 and 2020 they play LSU...so they have their SEC team committment. And in years beyond that I see they have both Ohio St. and Michigan on their schedules.

And yes, they do have their "cupcakes" on their schedule: Rice, UTEP, UCF, Tulsa

But they only have one per year (no the typical 3 that the SEC usually schedules....and those are not even SEC type cupcake teams from lower conferences. Those are WAC/CUSA type schools)

Many of those were scheduled after we left. Especially LSU. And they have a necessity to schedule marquee OOC opponents in order to put butts in the seats, a necessity we don't share because our conference games alone are enough to sell season tickets.

[The Gipper]

A&M has more SWC titles than Houston and Ruce combined. Houston won 4. Rice won 8. We won 18. Predictably, you will say "well Houston was only in the league from 76-95." We won 6 in that period. So spare me. You say you don't have a dog in the fight, yet your intentions are clearly to tear down A&M. That's fine, but stop the ruse that you are neutral.

I am not here to tear A&M down....nor to prop Houston up. I am only saying that A&M historically had about the same national profile as those schools....and a far inferior profile than Texas.

 

Here is what you posted, and it's actually worse than I thought.

 

"Prediction: Texas A&M will join a reconstituted "Southwest Conference".

 

Or at least they should."

You are like another Texas boy: Sheldon Cooper. He too has serious trouble recognizing saracasm (You really didn't see that that is what that was? Do I have to hit you over the head with a frying pan? Though it was sarcasm, there was truth in it. What I was saying is that the Big 12 should go by the wayside and that it should be renamed the Southwest Conference in which old SWC members like Rice and Houston are brought back in....and A&M if that were the case)

 

If you want to get all nuanced about what you meant then fine. But merely winning games isn't an end unto itself. See what I said about CUSA.

Yea, sorry. I forgot you were from Texas...where nuance is a bit beyond your DNA.

Maybe its good that I sent my daughter down there to give the state a bit of an upgrade to the gene pool.

(Hint Sheldon...that too was sarcasm)

 

Post the national reports that agree with you. I guarantee you I've followed this thing a lot more closely than you have and you will not be able to provide such reports without an equal (and more accurate) counter. Maybe some from Chip Brown, who I listen to almost every morning on the radio here and is a shill for the university.

Well, it was the ones that I found. I really didn't have to look too far...you know, like the top 5 google listings.

 

Yes, the Big 12 does allow them to keep all their TV money, because OU is the only conference member with any clout, and they're tied to OSU so their power is somewhat diminished. And even if it weren't, they still don't wield near the power that Texas does. Not only does Texas keep all the money from the Longhorn Network, they also receive a larger share of the conference's TV package, a perk they also offered to A&M in 2010. None of the other power 5 conferences allow that. Makes for an unhappy and unhealthy league. In the SEC, Vandy gets the same money as Alabama.

I dunno. Baylor/TCU/OK/Kan. St....and who else in the B12 defeated them last year no? I guess if they are unhappy the best payback is to open up a can on them. Fait accompli

 

The article (and its included quotes from A&M officials) is from 2011. Not sure how that qualifies as "NOW."

Well, now as in post the time they had canceled the game up until the current time.

Are you saying A&M no longer wants the game?

Show a source.

 

And, honestly, if you are saying now that A&M don't want it, and Texas don't want it, then fine, it is really no hair off my ass. Better rivalries have come and gone. The aforementioned Miami/Florida game. The Oklahoma/Nebraska rivalry is one I miss. Penn St./Pitt no longer play.

I mean, really, it was hard to tell who was playing who in Texas.....it could have been Texas/Tex. A&M Texas/Texas Tech Texas/Texas Christian. It was pretty much all the same to us here in the land of the greatest rivalry of all.

While I hope that Ohio St. continues to dominate I suspect that with Harbaugh at Michigan it will get real stupid real fast....and by stupid, I really mean stupid....as in he will probably say and do ridiculous things.

Maybe I should sic you on Woody....and you can argue TAMU and Meshuganan.

[The Gipper]

Many of those were scheduled after we left. Especially LSU. And they have a necessity to schedule marquee OOC opponents in order to put butts in the seats, a necessity we don't share because our conference games alone are enough to sell season tickets.

I doubt that Texas needs those games to put butts in the seats. I suspect they can get their 100K in there playing Rice and Houston.

But...to get national TV eyeballs on them....sure.

[wargograw]

And that's ridiculous to say, as Houston has only ever been in a major conference for 20 years. Now you are just being sense.

 

How would further splitting the pie with teams like Houston and Rice that add nothing to said pie help the teams? Again, advocating the reconstitution of the SWC is just dumb, and really shows a lack of knowledge of how CFB works. It's about TV viewers.

 

If they're so easy to find, then they should be easy to post. Given that I'm the only one in this conversation to actually provide a source of any kind, the reports so far are in my favor. Post the proof or stop asserting it.

 

That Texas lost to some teams in a given season says nothing about their level of power.

 

I posted quotes from 2011 (prior to us actually joining the conference, but after the announcement that we would be) about how we wanted to continue to play Texas. You responded "yeah, NOW A&M's guy wants to revitalize the game," as if the article I posted was from 2014. It wasn't. It was 2011. Literally the same month we announced the move I think.

 

I'm not saying definitively that A&M no longer wants the game. At the current moment, I don't think they do. There's no official proof of that yet other than the fact that A. the game has not been scheduled and B. little messages sent out from university officials such as the tweet from A&M's chancellor that I mentioned earlier.

 

You are the most scatterbrained individual I've ever seen.

[wargograw]

I doubt that Texas needs those games to put butts in the seats. I suspect they can get their 100K in there playing Rice and Houston.

But...to get national TV eyeballs on them....sure.

More proof you don't know what you're talking about.

 

http://www.burntorangenation.com/football/2014/12/16/7401767/texas-longhorns-football-attendance-charlie-strong-steve-patterson

 

Texas is also hemorrhaging season ticket holders lately because they don't like the actions re: tickets of new AD Steve Patterson.

 

http://www.firestevepatterson.com/

[The Gipper]

And that's ridiculous to say, as Houston has only ever been in a major conference for 20 years. Now you are just being sense.

How long was Houston in the SWC...and what does that have to do anything we are talking about?

 

How would further splitting the pie with teams like Houston and Rice that add nothing to said pie help the teams? Again, advocating the reconstitution of the SWC is just dumb, and really shows a lack of knowledge of how CFB works. It's about TV viewers.

I think you are being a bit obtuse. I am saying that the Big 12 should change its name to the Southwest Conference....which is just as marketable a name as the Southeast Conference....and then they would have to be worried that their names sound foolish mathematically.

I am also saying that that conference should expand to 14 teams...which is where the major conferences are going with their numbers. This newly retitled SWC would have the current Texas Schools/OK/OK St/Kansas/Kan. St./Iowa St....plus 4 others that they should bring in. I advocate for Houston and a few others. Since you are in that part of the country, you are welcome to suggest a few.

And of course it is about TV viewers....an expanded SWC nee Big 12 would have to go out seeking some decent markets to bring into the fold. I suspect they could raid the SEC territory the way the SEC raided it......Tulane or La Tech in LA. Maybe an Arkansas St.....which is FBS...and may want to upgrade its program to the higher (Big 12/SWC) type level. Maybe Memphis St.. Maybe Southern Miss. Western KY? South Alabama? Or it may want to look west to Colorado St., New Mexico, Utah St/BYU, or Boise.

 

If they're so easy to find, then they should be easy to post. Given that I'm the only one in this conversation to actually provide a source of any kind, the reports so far are in my favor. Post the proof or stop asserting it.

I told you...Sporting New, USA Today.

 

That Texas lost to some teams in a given season says nothing about their level of power.

Financial power.....it says something about their football power. At one time it would have been embarassing as hell for them to lose to Baylor/TCU/Kansas St.

 

I posted quotes from 2011 (prior to us actually joining the conference, but after the announcement that we would be) about how we wanted to continue to play Texas. You responded "yeah, NOW A&M's guy wants to revitalize the game," as if the article I posted was from 2014. It wasn't. It was 2011. Literally the same month we announced the move I think.

 

I'm not saying definitively that A&M no longer wants the game. At the current moment, I don't think they do. There's no official proof of that yet other than the fact that A. the game has not been scheduled and B. little messages sent out from university officials such as the tweet from A&M's chancellor that I mentioned earlier.

 

You are the most scatterbrained individual I've ever seen.

On the contrary....You are the scatterbrained one. You can't freeking decide if you want that game or not. I mean, I really don't give a shit if they do. I think they should play....but if all y'all are too stupid and stubborn to git it done it ain't no sweat off my back. It was a minor rivalry on the national scope anyway.

I mean, play it, or don't play it. Around here we know what a rivalry is all about.

[The Gipper]

More proof you don't know what you're talking about.

 

http://www.burntorangenation.com/football/2014/12/16/7401767/texas-longhorns-football-attendance-charlie-strong-steve-patterson

 

Texas is also hemorrhaging season ticket holders lately because they don't like the actions re: tickets of new AD Steve Patterson.

 

http://www.firestevepatterson.com/

Well, I guess I did misjudge the passion of the state of Texas football fan. I guess their passion for the game is overrated.

(I am learning that an awful lot about that state is overrated)

[wargograw]

I meant dense. They were in the SWC for 20 years. I've said that before. P5 teams have far greater national recognition than non-P5 teams so to pair us with Houston or Rice just shows your bias.

 

Yes renaming the Big 12 and expanding it might be a smart move. But all of those options have been bandied about for awhile and haven't come to fruition. Those low-level teams, even though they grow the market geographically, don't add much to the pot. In the case of most of these schools, they don't even pay for themselves.

 

It also could be that the Big 12 isn't making moves because they know it will implode soon enough. If I had to guess, ESPN will find a way to end the Longhorn Network, then Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU will go to the PAC 12.

 

Post links, because I can't find them. And given my knowledge on the facts here, that leads me to believe they don't exist.

 

Over the long term, football power will be determined by financial power. Texas has it in spades over all of those schools. Losing to them once is irrelevant.

 

My contention from the beginning was that we left the Big 12, then still wanted to play it. Texas turned down all attempts to get the game on the schedule. So now we don't really care because the game helps them more than us. Your attempts to turn this into a fellatio of the OSU-Michigan rivalry despite the fact that you're the one that brought up the topic of A&M and Texas reveal your scatterbrainedness.

[wargograw]

Well, I guess I did misjudge the passion of the state of Texas football fan. I guess their passion for the game is overrated.

(I am learning that an awful lot about that state is overrated)

Austin is the most overrated city in America. And I live here. UT fans have always been fair-weathered and terrible.

[calfoxwc]

"sigh"

Meanwhile, some things squealer never change. Seems that not only did they draft a cheapshot

artist db, but their LT is ...

all of a sudden.... bigger and stronger. Go figure. Reckon they are hard up to get back to

the superbowl? I wonder what the Vegas odds are of them injuring another qb or two to get there.

http://www.behindthe...m-small-no-more

[Mudfly]

why does every thread on this board now turn into some kind of SEC Texas bullshit....everytime.....Ive heard more about Texas on this board than I have my entire life and I go there 4 times a year....wtf

 

This is a "Browns" board, right?.......

[The Gipper]

I meant dense. They were in the SWC for 20 years. I've said that before. P5 teams have far greater national recognition than non-P5 teams so to pair us with Houston or Rice just shows your bias.

Actually, it shows yours. You think more of A&M than the rest of the country does. From that Big 12 conference the powerhouse teams were Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. Texas A&M was in among the likes of OK St., Kansas, Iowa St. in terms of national recognition.

Getting JMZ, and moving to the SEC have given it somewhat of an upgrade in national profile.

 

Yes renaming the Big 12 and expanding it might be a smart move. But all of those options have been bandied about for awhile and haven't come to fruition. Those low-level teams, even though they grow the market geographically, don't add much to the pot. In the case of most of these schools, they don't even pay for themselves.

Yes, I know that they haven't been all that in the past.....but if TAMU can upgrade its profile by moving to a perceived stronger conference...then perhaps those schools could as well.

 

It also could be that the Big 12 isn't making moves because they know it will implode soon enough. If I had to guess, ESPN will find a way to end the Longhorn Network, then Texas, Tech, OU, and OSU will go to the PAC 12.

That doesn't make a lot of sense to me....not that these schools and conferences would ever do the sensible thing if they thing there is an extra buck in it. If those schools go to the Pac 12....where does that leave the rest of the schools? The Big Ten for some of them? The SEC? Maybe that Texas/A&M rivalry would be restarted if Texas joined the SEC party. (but then that will have defeated A&M's plan to get out of Texas's shadow by making that move)

 

Post links, because I can't find them. And given my knowledge on the facts here, that leads me to believe they don't exist.

 

Over the long term, football power will be determined by financial power. Texas has it in spades over all of those schools. Losing to them once is irrelevant.

 

My contention from the beginning was that we left the Big 12, then still wanted to play it. Texas turned down all attempts to get the game on the schedule.

OK, but naturally, your vision is skewed:

Texas A&M decided to move to the SEC. Texas A&M decided to make LSU their season ending game.

Texas AD Dodds: "They're the ones that decided not to play us. We get to decide when we play again. I think that's fair."

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football/2014/4/2/5571774/texas-texas-a-m-non-rivalry-timeline

 

So now we don't really care because the game helps them more than us. Your attempts to turn this into a fellatio of the OSU-Michigan rivalry despite the fact that you're the one that brought up the topic of A&M and Texas reveal your scatterbrainedness.

My point about OSU/Michigan is that it is the best rivalry in the nation....and that it is of such value that neither school would ever dream of terminating it....as TAMU decided to terminate it rivalry with Texas.

If you think that is scatterbrainedness....then you don't have a brain to scatter.

[wargograw]

why does every thread on this board now turn into some kind of SEC Texas bullshit....everytime.....Ive heard more about Texas on this board than I have my entire life and I go there 4 times a year....wtf

 

This is a "Browns" board, right?.......

People's panties get in a wad due to my avatar. I haven't started any of these discussions. It's actually pretty hilarious.

[wargograw]

The period at the end of the SWC was a period in which A&M was dominating. If the country didn't regard A&M highly after it won the SWC in 91, 92, and 93, then you're basically calling the rest of the country stupid, rather than successfully tearing down A&M (which we know is your goal).

 

Yes, they could upgrade their profile. But they don't offer enough value to the conference to be deemed worthy.

 

The other schools don't matter. Baylor and TCU never should have been in a major modern conference. So when that PAC move happens, they will be relegated again to the little leagues, where they should be. Or Texas will go independent/Big 10 on their own and then the Big 12 will be not much better than the old Big East and will probably get any big time automatic bids stripped. You ask if some will end up in the Big 10. You really want to bog the conference down and share your money with Baylor and Texas Tech? Well ok, suit yourself.

 

Texas could never join the SEC. Yet another example of your lack of knowledge on CFB. It takes 3/4 of the schools (now 11) in the SEC to accept a new member. A&M, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have a voting bloc committed to keeping Texas, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson from the conference.

 

Your density shows yet again. I already addressed the fact that we left the conference, which automatically cancels the game. You keep throwing that out there again as if I still think we're still in the Big 12. I'm not sure you even understand how these game contracts work. The games are automatically set up by the conference. So when a team leaves said conference, those games are automatically cancelled. Now, both teams can still choose to set them up on their own, which A&M attempted to do and Texas declined to reciprocate.

 

I like how the article you post is from a week ago, and you're using it to form judgments about things that happened in2011. Meanwhile, I post an article actually from 2011 and you reject it. Ok buddy.

 

The fact that you cited an article that uses emoticons and distills the series into one huge break up for comedic purposes tells me you have no articles of any actual intellectual heft to back you up.

 

Btw the LSU series was set up (according to YOUR article) in late 2012. We gave Texas a year to put the game back on the schedule. They didn't want to. So we moved on. How long, pray tell, were we supposed to keep the spot open?

 

That OSU/Michigan is a better rivalry has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here. Just more of your ego and scatterbrainedness on parade.

[larryfine]

Well, what do ya know. Just like Troy Pollyfullapoopoo, their new draftee db,

Senquez Golson, is also a player who will cheapshot an offensive player and apparently try

to end his career.

 

Steelers only win that way, too. The refs kicked the wrong player out of a game for it.

 

http://www.commercialappeal.com/sports/columnists/zack-mcmillin/ole-miss-memphis-fight-college-football-gary-wunderlich-kicker-ejected-rebels-tigers-senquez-golson

Do you get a penny for every post you start no matter how stupid or a waste of time reading? Are you saving up to buy 1989 Dodge Diplomat?

[The Gipper]

The period at the end of the SWC was a period in which A&M was dominating. If the country didn't regard A&M highly after it won the SWC in 91, 92, and 93, then you're basically calling the rest of the country stupid, rather than successfully tearing down A&M (which we know is your goal).

 

I don't know about a very few short number of years....but I have been watching college football since the early 60s....and I don't EVER remember Texas A&M being a player on the National Championship stage. I fact here is there ranking history:

SeasonAP rankCoaches rank19391N/A19406N/A19419N/A195517141956551957910197416151975111219767819781918198567198613121987109198920-199015131991121319927619939819948-199515151997202119981113199923202010192120125520131818

Yea, I know, that sucks....it won't post right. Just to boil it down, they won a title in 1939. They had never been a factor in the National Championship race again until possibly 2012 with Johnny., when they finished 5th. You can't say the same for Texas, OK, Nebraska.

I am not trying to tear them down....just tell the facts. TAMU has historically been a weak sister to those former Big 8/12/SWC brethren. Sorry if you can't handle that fact.

Yes, they could upgrade their profile. But they don't offer enough value to the conference to be deemed worthy.

 

The other schools don't matter. Baylor and TCU never should have been in a major modern conference. So when that PAC move happens, they will be relegated again to the little leagues, where they should be.

Except, of course those two schools just finished higher in the National rankings than A&M has finished in over 75 years.

I would not have like A&Ms chances if they had played last year.

 

 

Or Texas will go independent/Big 10 on their own and then the Big 12 will be not much better than the old Big East and will probably get any big time automatic bids stripped. You ask if some will end up in the Big 10. You really want to bog the conference down and share your money with Baylor and Texas Tech? Well ok, suit yourself.

Not my problem, not my money. If they want to bring those schools in it will be because they see an economic benefit.

 

Texas could never join the SEC. Yet another example of your lack of knowledge on CFB. It takes 3/4 of the schools (now 11) in the SEC to accept a new member. A&M, Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina have a voting bloc committed to keeping Texas, FSU, Georgia Tech, and Clemson from the conference.

My knowledge of college football far exceeds yours. But, I guess you are right....I guess I underestimated what chicken asses many of the SEC schools are.

But, I would not worry about FSU/GA Tech/Clemson....head to head the ACC this past year proved to be the far stronger conference. They had I think like a 6-2 record during the year vs. the SEC

 

Your density shows yet again. I already addressed the fact that we left the conference, which automatically cancels the game. You keep throwing that out there again as if I still think we're still in the Big 12. I'm not sure you even understand how these game contracts work. The games are automatically set up by the conference. So when a team leaves said conference, those games are automatically cancelled. Now, both teams can still choose to set them up on their own, which A&M attempted to do and Texas declined to reciprocate.

Automatic or otherwise....it is still a fact that it was the actions of A&M cancelled the games....just like I said. You should have a new nickname: The Obfuscator.

I like how the article you post is from a week ago, and you're using it to form judgments about things that happened in2011. Meanwhile, I post an article actually from 2011 and you reject it. Ok buddy.

I don't think I rejected anything....except for your attempt to make TAMU into something it isn't and never has been in my lifetime...that is, anything resembling a force in college football. Oh, and your attempt to make it out like it was not A&Ms fault that the rivalry was cancelled.

 

The fact that you cited an article that uses emoticons and distills the series into one huge break up for comedic purposes tells me you have no articles of any actual intellectual heft to back you up.

Sorry your vagina got sore by a few emoticons. I had no interest in spending much time at all on what you think you want. I just posted the first that popped up on Google.

Besides, YOU admit that it WAS A&M that cancelled the rivalry. That is all I have ever said, that is all this has ever been about.

Sorry you are feeling guilty about that.

 

Btw the LSU series was set up (according to YOUR article) in late 2012. We gave Texas a year to put the game back on the schedule. They didn't want to. So we moved on. How long, pray tell, were we supposed to keep the spot open?

Well, when you cancelled them, they had no interest in putting you back on the schedule.

And I guess the answer is that you can grovel as long as Texas wants you to.

 

That OSU/Michigan is a better rivalry has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing here. Just more of your ego and scatterbrainedness on parade.

Well, the discussion was rivalries....the thing that prompted this whole discussion was my listing of what is considered the top rivalries in the game....and then we went to why one that was perceived to be a good one got terminated.

I am simply demonstrating to you what a real rivalry is all about...one that will not be whimsically terminated. Sorry you couldn't keep up.

[miktoxic]

People's panties get in a wad due to my avatar. I haven't started any of these discussions. It's actually pretty hilarious.

 

last year, people might have because of all the influx of JF fans. now, not so much.

 

depending on his 'game' this year, manziel might help us rid all the boy/toy fans from the depths of this here piece.

 

not saying you're one or anything...

[BaconHound]

I'm biased because I'm a Browns fan but I've always felt there is a component of dirty play associated with the Steelers. i was nervous the Browns had one of those guys in TJ Ward, was at the Stadium when he hit Shipley from the Bengals horrible cheap shot.

[wargograw]

Now your argument has shifted from "A&M was on par with Houston and Rice in national perception" to "A&M was not on par with Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska." Well, I never argued the latter so it's pointless to bring up.

 

I'm pretty sure the 2012 team isn't in the top 5 A&M teams closest to a national championship. We had at least a couple that lost the last game of the season, a bunch of one loss teams, and several that went undefeated. So chalk that up as example #4,174,104,395 of you talking out of your ass.

 

The happenings of one year are irrelevant long term. Baylor and TCU are not even close to as well suited for success as A&M is going forward.

 

And yet A&M tried to get the games back on. So you can say all you want "it was A&M's actions that cancelled the games." Sure. Great. But if you're looking for the REASON why the game is NOW not being played, look to Austin.

 

You claim we are now "groveling" to Texas to get the game back, yet your first post on this subject in this thread said "Tell your AD there to stop playing with his vagina and grow a pair and reschedule what is supposed to be one of the best rivalries in the nation."

 

So which is it, flip flop? You're going to dance around, split hairs, and argue semantics all day long. Because that's what you do. But the spirit of your original statement was that A&M is too chicken to play Texas ("your school did the typical SEC thing and chickened out on that rivalry."). That has been found manifestly untrue by the facts. If we were "chicken," why would we be "groveling" (both your words) to get the game back? Argument is not your strong suit. That contradiction is about as blatant as the fact that you were dropped on your head about twice a year as a kid.

 

Pathetically attempting to score points by saying I have a sore vagina does not a good argument make. The article you posted lacked any credibility whatever.

 

"Well, the discussion was rivalries....the thing that prompted this whole discussion was my listing of what is considered the top rivalries in the game....and then we went to why one that was perceived to be a good one got terminated. "

 

Actually the discussion followed after I said "we're going to be generally better than Texas going forward," which immediately triggered the butthurt you have towards me. You asked "how do you figure?" So no, our little subdiscussion within this thread did NOT start out as just a "listing of what [you] consider to be the top rivalries in the game." In the future, please attempt to have a better command of the facts before you go spouting off about stuff you really know nothing about. Or at least know to stop arguing prior to contradicting your original statements.

[The Gipper]

Now your argument has shifted from "A&M was on par with Houston and Rice in national perception" to "A&M was not on par with Texas, Oklahoma, and Nebraska." Well, I never argued the latter so it's pointless to bring up.

Well, I don't know exactly how to grade them....but I would put A&M historically to being closer on par with Houston and Rice than with TX/OK/NB...they were the weak sisters of the league they were in together.

 

I'm pretty sure the 2012 team isn't in the top 5 A&M teams closest to a national championship. We had at least a couple that lost the last game of the season, a bunch of one loss teams, and several that went undefeated. So chalk that up as example #4,174,104,395 of you talking out of your ass.

I don't know every detail of every season that A&M has ever played.....but I do know one fact: They have NEVER in my lifetime...which I suspect is about double the length of yours been a factor in the National Championship race. Their 2012 season was their highest season ending AP ranking they have had since 1939.

You can enjoy your alma mater all you want....it has NOT been a major force on the college football scene.

 

The happenings of one year are irrelevant long term. Baylor and TCU are not even close to as well suited for success as A&M is going forward.

OK....but the happenings long term are relevent long term. And long term A&M has been Barely more of a factor on the national scene than TCU/Baylor.

If you look at the last 10 years in fact here is what you have: Texas A&M: 1 AP Top 10 finish.....Baylor: 1 Top Ten finish....Houston: 1 Top Ten Finish....TCU: 4 Top Ten finishes.

 

And yet A&M tried to get the games back on. So you can say all you want "it was A&M's actions that cancelled the games." Sure. Great. But if you're looking for the REASON why the game is NOW not being played, look to Austin.

 

You claim we are now "groveling" to Texas to get the game back, yet your first post on this subject in this thread said "Tell your AD there to stop playing with his vagina and grow a pair and reschedule what is supposed to be one of the best rivalries in the nation."

 

So which is it, flip flop? You're going to dance around, split hairs, and argue semantics all day long. Because that's what you do. But the spirit of your original statement was that A&M is too chicken to play Texas ("your school did the typical SEC thing and chickened out on that rivalry.").

 

Right....they chickened out....and now they want back in....and Texas has said no.

You are really arguing with yourself.

The only possible fact that I may have been wrong about is the fact that A&M did now want to resume the rivalry.

So be it....I don't sniff the A&M programs butt every time they fart. As noted....they have not been significant enough for me to pay that much attention to them.

 

 

That has been found manifestly untrue by the facts. If we were "chicken," why would we be "groveling" (both your words) to get the game back? Argument is not your strong suit. That contradiction is about as blatant as the fact that you were dropped on your head about twice a year as a kid.

I get paid to argue.....the fact that you can't keep up is not my problem. Like I said, your primary argument is with yourself.

You denied that A&M was responsible for the shut down of the rivalry in the first place....then you admitted that they were.

You stated that A&M first wanted the rivalry back on track after terminating it.....then that they changed their mind again and didn't want itt....then now you blame Texas for not allowing it to happen again because apparently now A&M would like it back on. Which is it? and how many times are they and you going to change your minds about wanting it or not?

Pathetically attempting to score points by saying I have a sore vagina does not a good argument make.

That wasn't an argument...that was an observation.

 

The article you posted lacked any credibility whatever.

Well, the argument quoted the Texas AD....if it lacks credibility then I guess it is your claim that it is the Texas AD that lacks credibility. And I doubt that is a fact. The fact is....anyone and anything that doesn't agree with your delusions about the grandeur of Texas A&M football you are going to say lacks credibility.

 

"Well, the discussion was rivalries....the thing that prompted this whole discussion was my listing of what is considered the top rivalries in the game....and then we went to why one that was perceived to be a good one got terminated. "

 

Actually the discussion followed after I said "we're going to be generally better than Texas going forward," which immediately triggered the butthurt you have towards me.

See....here is an example. You think TAMU is going to be generally better than Texas going forward. Most neutral observers...and I am one, would say that is a delusion. You see...YOU are the one with the emotional involvement in this...I am not. You desperately want something to be true that likely will not be true. I simply state what the facts are....and the facts are that Texas was, is, and probably will continue to be the far superior football program in that part of the country....and TAMU will likely be a weak sister in the SEC West behind Alabama/Auburn/LSU/ maybe Arkansas.

 

You asked "how do you figure?" So no, our little subdiscussion within this thread did NOT start out as just a "listing of what [you] consider to be the top rivalries in the game." In the future, please attempt to have a better command of the facts before you go spouting off about stuff you really know nothing about. Or at least know to stop arguing prior to contradicting your original statements.

Here is what I know to be the truth....again. Texas A&M is a minor player on the national college football scene. There has never been any contradiction on that.

The ONLY thing I may have gotten wrong is the fact that TAMU is/has been desperate to rekindle the rivalry. OK, my mistake....I thought they were not because of their new found love affair in the SEC.

Everything else holds.

[The Gipper]

For historical perspective, here are the number of AP Final poll Top 10 finishes for Tex. A&M and its former and current associated schools since 1960 (which is just slightly before I started paying attention to these things)...and see how it ranks:

 

Top 10 AP Poll finishes;

 

Alabama 29

Nebraska 27

Oklahoma 25

Texas 19

Auburn 14

LSU 13

Arkansas 12

Missouri 6

Texas A&M 6

Ole Miss 5

Kansas St. 5

TCU 4

SMU 3

Kansas 3

Oklahoma St. 2

Houston 2

Baylor 1

Rice, Texas Tech/Iowa St/Miss. St. -0-

 

(and just for local knowledge: Ohio St. 28, Michigan 27, Penn St. 20

And other national power programs: USC: 20, Notre Dame 19, FSU 18, Miami 16, FLA 15, Georgia 14, Tennesse 14, South Carolina 3, Kentucky 1, Vanderbilt -0-

[wargograw]

They went 12-0 only like 20 years ago. They either had one loss, didn't get their second loss until the last game (ie were "in the national championship discussion most of the year) of the regular season, or went undefeated 8 times since that last national championship. If you don't remember it, sounds like a personal problem.

 

I don't think I ever said A&M had been a "major force" on the national scene. I have no delusions of grandeur about A&M. In fact, the only statements I made related to their "grandeur" at all is that they've been more of a force than Houston and Rice, and that they're better positioned for future success than Texas. So you are, as usual, arguing against a straw man. Which of course is really all you can do, since the premise you started this entire conversation on (that A&M should stop being chicken and play UT) has, by your own admission, been proven to be completely bogus. So I don't blame you. Losing arguments is hard. You should know.

 

So now we've gone from evaluating how A&M compared with Rice and Houston in the SWC days--since that was an utter failure for you--to using the records of only the last ten years (less than 10% of CFB history) to prove how much we suck. I seem to recall you rambling on and on about 80 year history when people tried the same with the Browns? I don't blame you for that, but be consistent.

 

So your contention is that we shouldn't have moved to the SEC--an utterly brilliant move by all accounts--just so that we wouldn't be considered "chickening out of playing Texas," even though we always wanted the game. Gotcha. If you are in a field even distantly related to any kind of sports management, I pray for your clients' sakes you don't charge much.

 

Say, when you call someone to reschedule an appointment because, say, Jim Brown invited you to go golfing with him. But you told the cancellee that you would still really like to meet with them. Do you count that as "chickening" out of meeting with the guy? No. It's going to the best opportunity. You still want to meet with the guy. You just have to do something more important first. If that guy is too butthurt to let you go meet Jim Brown and reschedule your meeting, then it's their problem.

 

Your belief that Arkansas, of all teams, might be in a better position to succeed than A&M has now been added to the long list of reasons you are completely unknowledgeable on the current dynamics of college football. I mean, really, we can piss back and forth about A&M vs. Texas and I'm not gonna argue about LSU or Auburn or Alabama, but Arkansas? Lol.

 

In your mind, what has always happened will always happen again. Texas has always been better than A&M therefore they always will be. If that were the case, then there's really no point in even playing sports. Why do it when you already know the outcome? And if what has happened always will happen, how do you explain the struggles in Cleveland the last 15 year? This is some sort of fallacy which name I can't think of at the moment. But then, you knew that counsel. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the move to the SEC is a seismic shift in the landscape of the state. Since you constantly use the "trust me, I know" argument, then trust me, I know the situation on the ground here.

[wargograw]

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-longhorn-network-is-all-hat-no-cattle-051115

 

"Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas."

 

The SEC Network is set to make 22x as much as the Longhorn Network this year (for 14 teams).

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/texas-a-m-passes-texas-in-houston-050515

 

This here is the best article summarizing the effects of the seismic shift:

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/realignment-changes-lone-star-state-football-future-062514

[The Gipper]

They went 12-0 only like 20 years ago. They either had one loss, didn't get their second loss until the last game (ie were "in the national championship discussion most of the year) of the regular season, or went undefeated 8 times since that last national championship. If you don't remember it, sounds like a personal problem.

Here is their history: http://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/texas-am/

The only year they have been undefeated since the 60s was 1994.....but even then they only came in ranked 8th in the final AP poll. Apparently another indication of how they are perceived nationally.

And you are right....since I don't really give a shit one way or another, I am not intimately familiar with their history. I can't recite every detail about similar schools such as Kansas St., Ole Miss., et al either.

Again...I just know that they have never been considered national championship caliber in my lifetime...only coming close perhaps with JFF there.

 

I don't think I ever said A&M had been a "major force" on the national scene. I have no delusions of grandeur about A&M. In fact, the only statements I made related to their "grandeur" at all is that they've been more of a force than Houston and Rice, and that they're better positioned for future success than Texas. So you are, as usual, arguing against a straw man. Which of course is really all you can do, since the premise you started this entire conversation on (that A&M should stop being chicken and play UT) has, by your own admission, been proven to be completely bogus. So I don't blame you. Losing arguments is hard. You should know.

No, I am arguing against you and your foolish statement that A&M is positioned better for future success than Texas.

If you want to get down to it.....tell us why on earth you think that is the case.

(as for your position re Houston....they have been top 10 twice...A&M 6 times.....A&M has been far more on par with Houston than it has been to UT/OK.

 

So now we've gone from evaluating how A&M compared with Rice and Houston in the SWC days--since that was an utter failure for you--to using the records of only the last ten years (less than 10% of CFB history) to prove how much we suck. I seem to recall you rambling on and on about 80 year history when people tried the same with the Browns? I don't blame you for that, but be consistent.

I use whatever data is of interest to me....or that seems relevent.

I could use the data from the entire history of college football going back to 1869 if you would like. I did use the data that applied to me and my lifetime experience when I chose 1960 forward. And I included the data from the last 10 years just so we had a picture of what has been happening in more recent times.

Is it really that hard for you to comprehend this information and it relevency at various points?

Is this the type of education A&M provides where you do not gain the ability to understand a simple flow of events?

 

So your contention is that we shouldn't have moved to the SEC--an utterly brilliant move by all accounts--just so that we wouldn't be considered "chickening out of playing Texas," even though we always wanted the game. Gotcha. If you are in a field even distantly related to any kind of sports management, I pray for your clients' sakes you don't charge much.

Oh, I understand that A&M went to the SEC for the fucking money. Of course it always comes down to that. You were whores. I get that....that has never been the question.

I am saying that for traditions sake....for the sake of geographic sensibility and maintaining the sanctity of college football I would have like to have seen them stay where they were. Wouldn't you have also liked that? Or do you too only care about the money?

 

Say, when you call someone to reschedule an appointment because, say, Jim Brown invited you to go golfing with him. But you told the cancellee that you would still really like to meet with them. Do you count that as "chickening" out of meeting with the guy? No. It's going to the best opportunity. You still want to meet with the guy. You just have to do something more important first. If that guy is too butthurt to let you go meet Jim Brown and reschedule your meeting, then it's their problem.

That is a totally inapt analogy. Not sure where you are trying to go there. A better analogy would be far simpler: "I had an appointment with client X, but I cancelled it because Client Y wanted to see me at the same time....and Client Y was gonna make me a shitload more money....so I bugged out on client X"

 

Your belief that Arkansas, of all teams, might be in a better position to succeed than A&M has now been added to the long list of reasons you are completely unknowledgeable on the current dynamics of college football. I mean, really, we can piss back and forth about A&M vs. Texas and I'm not gonna argue about LSU or Auburn or Alabama, but Arkansas? Lol.

Historically, Arkansas has been the better program. And of recent vintage....Arkansas and A&M have been very similar in terms of performance. Since 2000 Arkanas has finished in the AP Top 20 three times with final rankings of 5, 12, 15. Since 2000 A&M has finished in the AP Top 20 three times with final rankings of 5, 18, 19.

Again...what factors, what evidence do you have that A&M is by any means superior to Arkansas? You can't even use the "we're in the SEC and they aren't bogus dodge, because Ark. jumped ship there before you did. In fact they were probably your model"

 

In your mind, what has always happened will always happen again. Texas has always been better than A&M therefore they always will be. If that were the case, then there's really no point in even playing sports. Why do it when you already know the outcome?

No certainly not....and you are an idiot if you think that is an argument that I have made. While it is a fact that Texas has by far been the better program.....and while it is also a fact that reputation as THE powerhouse program in Texas will help them going forward, that is not the only thing Texas has going for it. It clearly has access to more money and more resources that will allow it to do whatever it takes to bring in the best coaches/recruiters, administrators, provide the best facilities etc. etc.

They STILL have A&M beat in all those areas and all that will serve them well going forward. What does A&M have? SEC membership? So don't Arkansas and Missouri...not sure that is that big of a deal.

Do you think that A&M joining the SEC holds that much swag in the State of Texas?

If you say yes...then yes, I would be surprised. (and I would scratch my head at how fickle that sounds)

 

And if what has happened always will happen, how do you explain the struggles in Cleveland the last 15 year? This is some sort of fallacy which name I can't think of at the moment. But then, you knew that counsel. And that's to say nothing of the fact that the move to the SEC is a seismic shift in the landscape of the state. Since you constantly use the "trust me, I know" argument, then trust me, I know the situation on the ground here.

OK, I will trust you....yet, I will still have to ask the question: "Why? Why is the move to the SEC a seismic shift in the landscape of the state? What does that give you that you think that just that factor alone gives you an edge over the power and money that UT has in that state?

Why do you think that gives you an edge over say TCU....who can point to a Big 12 championship....and 4 AP Top Ten finishes in the last 8 years?

And a decent argument that they should have been included in the inaugural College Football Playoff?

I will play Ronald Reagan....I will trust you....but I will want verification.

[The Gipper]

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/the-longhorn-network-is-all-hat-no-cattle-051115

 

"Indeed, the biggest irony of the Longhorn Network is this: In deciding to create its own channel, Texas made much more money for two Big 12 schools that left for the SEC -- Texas A&M and Missouri -- than it's going to make for itself. That's because both Texas A&M and Missouri stand to make much more money off the SEC Network than Texas will ever make off the Longhorn Network. Nebraska, in the Big Ten, will also be making more television money than Texas."

 

The SEC Network is set to make 22x as much as the Longhorn Network this year (for 14 teams).

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/texas-a-m-passes-texas-in-houston-050515

 

This here is the best article summarizing the effects of the seismic shift:

 

http://www.foxsports.com/college-football/outkick-the-coverage/realignment-changes-lone-star-state-football-future-062514

OK, I will look at this stuff and see what it says.

 

Edit: after reading that last article....I find it to be speculative. The writer thinks and apparently hopes that all that stuff he says will come true. He makes plausible arguments for it......But nothing he says is an absolute fact (except that Baylor and TCU have actually been the best teams in the state for the last few years.)

I think we all have to wait and see if all that happens long term.

Certainly JFF gave the school a big boost. (But that "good feeling" could certainly be diminished if he fails to make it in the pros.....then he would become just another David Klingler or Andre Ware....which does no good for the school). And the move to the SEC gave A&M publicity...and maybe money (though I am not sure that the money edge will be retained). I do think Sumlin is a good coach....and that he probably gave A&M a temporary recruiting edge over the tired out Mack Brown. But I am not positive that will last for any long term. Charlie Strong seems to be a pretty brilliant guy.

So...I for one will take a wait and see approach.

But I will note this.....NEITHER school finished in the AP Top 25 last year, where TCU finished #3 and Baylor #7. So they both have some ground to make up on their in state competition.

 

And...oh yea, to keep it relevent to the thread title: Pittsburgh sucks. (can we agree on that?)

[calfoxwc]

And...oh yea, to keep it relevent to the thread title: Pittsburgh sucks. (can we agree on that?) Gipper

***********************************

 

 

(just kidding)

[wargograw]

I said they started 12-0 in 92. I'd call that much closer to a national championship than the 2012 team which had 2 losses by the 7th or 8th game. I'm not sure why the 94 team only finished 8th.

 

Sorry, my education doesn't tell me that conveniently picking random dates from which to compile data is all that legitimate. And besides, you were the one that chose to bring up that 90s era and say we were barely above Houston and Rice, despite our winning 3 straight conference championships, winning some 3 or 4x as many SWC championships as both of them combined, and generally dominating them in every way (19-12, 52-27 against them respectively). Furthermore, there were other years (even since 1960) such as 1975 when we were squarely in the national championship hunt.

 

It's not just the money. It's the recruiting that comes from being in the SEC. Our recruiting has taken off astronomically since we made the move. THAT is the number one benefit. So no, I would not have liked to see them stay in the Big 12. We play about twice as many big time games per year now, we're in prime time with far more frequency and we're never not untelevised, which we were in the Big 12 all the time. Why would I want to stay in the Big 12? It's a terrible conference.

 

The analogy is good because you are IMMEDIATELY calling client X and saying "hey let's reschedule ASAP." Again, if client X doesn't understand that meeting with Jim Brown (or client Y) is more important and refuse to accommodate then that's their problem.

 

See there you go again. You claim you're not using the fallacious logic that what has happened in the past will continue to happen, yet your number 1 reason for why Arkansas will be better than us going forward is that they were better in the past.

 

The problem for Arkansas is that their state does not produce much talent. Per Rivals.com, the state had five 4/5 stars in the class of 2015 (indeed one went to Ohio State). In 2014, the state only had 2 (1 of which went to Alabama). In 2013, the state had 2, and Alabama again stole 1. So who is Arkansas supposed to get?

 

LSU practically has a chastity belt on Louisiana talent (which there is a ton of, it produces the most NFL players per capita), signing the vast majority of it. Since I've been following A&M recruiting (class of 08), we've signed a whopping ONE player from Louisiana that LSU really wanted, Speedy Noil. We've gotten some kids outta there, but they were scraps that LSU didn't want.

 

Any Mississippi and Alabama talent that comes up (not much but not the dearth that exists in Arkansas) is immediately bombarded by pretty much the entire SEC, not to mention the 2 state schools that have the geographical advantage in each of those two states. Is Arkansas supposed to go in there and beat out Ole Miss, Mississippi State, Alabama, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Florida, Florida State, and Tennessee for the little talent in those states? Not likely.

 

Georgia produces some talent but again, everyone goes for it and there are two major programs in state.

 

In Florida, there are THREE major programs although there is an absolute boatload of talent. One of Arkansas' elite RBs is from Florida so power to them.

 

Oklahoma produces jack for talent, and there are two state schools anyway.

 

In Texas, A&M and UT for the most part get their pick of the litter (and Sumlin has ransacked both Strong and Mack Brown for recruits both have vied for). Teams like Alabama and LSU usually get 3-5 Texas kids combined. Oklahoma and Baylor are next to feed, then the TCUs, Techs, OSUs, and Arkansass of the world get the scraps.

 

Again, that's not necessarily how it's been IN THE PAST. And certainly Baylor, TCU, and to a smaller degree Arkansas have been able to win more with less. Great for them. But there hasn't been a single national champion in recent memory that didn't do it with a TON of talent top to bottom. I will grant you that the SEC advantage will continue to make Arkansas more appealing as the brand becomes even stronger.

 

Texas does have a lot of money. There is no evidence they have more than A&M going forward. You can again cite history as evidence if you want. But we just spent half a BILLION (with a dollars renovating Kyle Field only two years after completely overhauling our baseball stadium. We both pay our coaches top 5 salaries. We just made John Chavis the highest paid DC in CFB. We dropped some obscene amount of money for the Birmigham law firm that got Johnny out of his NCAA troubles. We footed the bill for Cedric Ogbuehi's insurance policy to come back as a senior. Yeah, we have plenty of dough to go around.

 

Their boosters are very good at "playing the game," (Vince Young had an Escalade during his time on campus....) and we saw that when Charlie Strong made a late push for Kyler Murray last year and was able to land 5 solid Florida players late in the year. So their ability to do that will always help them. And I take nothing away from them for that. But they do NOT have more money going forward than we do generally.

 

You cited Texas having the "best facilities." They don't. Our stadium is bigger and better than theirs (and we actually fill it up), we just redid our football facilities and many call them the best in the country and Texas' facilities are known right now for being sorely outdated. I'm obviously smart enough to realize they'll upgrade soon, but we won't be outdone.

 

Thanks for trusting me and somewhat civilizing the conversation. If you're not here to just throw bombs at a&m, then I'm happy to entertain any discussion on the CFB landscape. I love talking ball. Been on A&M messageboards since I was 16 years old. I only hope my NFL knowledge will get up to par soon (this boards helped with that).

 

That said, I've provided a lot of reasons why the SEC move was "seismic" in this post. To recap:

 

-Recruiting to the SEC. This is first and foremost. Even when the SEC wasn't the best conference, it still recruited itself in the region just because of the tradition and the respect its members have for each other. Many households in the south watch the SEC almost exclusively and their kids grow up to reflect that. I remember watching the MTV show Two-A-Days (about Hoover High School's dominant football program) and the kids would constantly talk about wanting to attend SEC schools (we're talking about regular students, not even necessarily football players), and I remember one specific case where the cups in the locker room all had the SEC logo on them. I screenshotted it a long time ago. Maybe I can find it. I just provide that one anecdote to make the case that these kids are inundated with SEC love early on.

 

-SEC viewership means SEC schools make the most conference TV money (yeah, money is #2, although the rest of these will be in no particular order)

-The big names on the home conference schedule allow the AD to charge more for season tickets

-Obviously that means much higher attendance as well

-Those big home conference games have a tremendous impact on the local economy. College Station as a city has changed night to day since the move.

-The NCAA doesn't have enough of a spine to crack down on SEC teams when they cheat. Not a huge factor and I realize that could change (hell I said in the other thread that I hope it does), but I doubt it. And even if it did, the coaches and boosters would just be more creative.

-The grueling SEC schedule means you win most bowl games (were 3-0 since joining, pasting the Big 12 co-champion in 2012 despite us only finishing 5th in our conference)

-All the money has allowed us to make the best stadium in the country (for now) and it's also the 3rd largest if I'm not mistaken

-Same with facilities

-100% of our games are on TV, trust me this was quite frustratingly NOT the case in the Big 12

-Many more games on ESPN/on prime time

-Treatment as an equal conference member instead of the tiered system that exists in the Big 12

 

If I think of any more I will post them. Those are just off the top of my head. There's lots of good literature on this out there.