Quote:

---

I'm looking the 100 year decision all the way through. I'm certain that a team capable of winning the west is going to beat the tar out of Texas most of the time. I'm also certain that we won't win them all. Allowing Texas access to our schedule dilutes the advantages we gained in the SEC. I want to maximize the benefits of moving.

---

What will be diluted?

Are you worried about them having an SEC team on the schedule? They already have the SEC on their schedule. If anyone does not "need" something, it is Texas does not need A&M to have the SEC on their schedule.

TXAggie2011 said:

---

1) He does not want to play FCS teams.

---

That isn't what he said. He said he'd rather play Texas than an FCS team. And I said we don't need Texas to eliminate FCS opponents from our schedule. In the context of that statement I also inferred that he thinks we need Texas in order to solve the other problems he listed. I could be wrong on that, but seems like a logical assumption to me.

Back up one sentence. You're one in a line that has responded to claims this game would be fun, exciting, it'd make money, and all of those things while having a power-5 opponent on our schedule by going with the "we don't need them for that..." which is usually a mis-characterization of the argument. We've gotten off track.

My point is your points get us no closer to filling out the schedule. Heck, even if you think Texas is necessary, at least we have a schedule.

Anyways, we'll agree to disagree on this and move to this business about the comparative benefits and this "diluting our move to the SEC..." thing...

1. He has us as a "rival." Pretty lame he thinks we need more of what he can't provide.

2. Remember what happened prior to our entrance into the SEC? We started a yearly series with a former rival. Texas should do that with Norte Dame so they can get into the ACC.

3. A series with Texas puts part of our inventory on their channel. You know the one: the one strategically designed to leverage the trademarks and branding of their conference mates and keeping all the revenue AND preventing a conference network again as a matter of strategy.

Hell no. Isolate them and ignore them and forget them. Change the war hymn, remove the sawing, dust your feet off and never look back. They aren't worthy of trust.

Champ Bailey said:

---

It's just common sense, guys.

Quote:

---

"The Texas-Texas A&M game ought to be played every year ... It's a great game for the state of Texas, [and] also for college football," Muschamp told Brent Zwerneman of the Houston Chronicle.

---

---

TXAggie2011 said:

---

Anyways, we'll agree to disagree on this and move to this business about the comparative benefits and this "diluting our move to the SEC..." thing...

---

Sorry I had to go live my life for a few hours, and I'm sure we're all about to be very busy for the next few days.

But briefly, a major unforeseen benefit of the move has been loosening the grip in-state media has on the A&M brand. They can feel it, they hate it, and they've lashed out because of it. And it's why they're drumming up this crap every 3 months. Why they've fabricated stories about us ducking Texas. They've pushed the core values narrative and tried to discredit Sumlin. They goal tend for Charlie non stop. There's the now famous headline comparison from the DMN about our win over UCLA vs theirs over Notre Dame. None of it has mattered. 12-2 with a Heisman mattered. Finishing in the top 10 mattered. 2 years of collapsing and finishing middle of the pack mattered. Only what we do/don't do matters.

The national narrative has moved away from constantly judging what we do relative to Texas. It's now only about what we do in the SEC and if are legit title contenders. That's our only check against an in-state media that will never give us our due. It makes them far less relevant. Putting them on the schedule gives that up,and it turns the national discussion back to Texas instead of just us.

I used the Fran example earlier because that 4th year win did NOTHING for us. Was there a string of articles wondering if A&M was back, if we were turning the tide, if Mack had lost control in the state? No way. Flip the situation around and you bet that's the new narrative.