Texas A&M Football
Sponsored by

A&M Should Make the First Move; Regardless of what t.u. does...

102,745 Views | 285 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by greg.w.h
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Not getting to play t.u. every year is simply disinformation designed to scare an Aggie fanbase into submission. F- that.

I want A&M to make a pre-emptive, solitary move that forces t.u. to deal with the consquences and new dynamics of such a move. For the last year (at least since the conference realignment talk started), fans, media, etc., have been talking about where t.u. will go and whether A&M will follow. I posit that A&M officials need to be thinking about A&M first (because Dodds is looking out for #1 and that doesn't mean he has A&M's best interest at heart, only t.u's). If we make the first move it puts all the conjecture about whether A&M is strong enough in its own right to rest for good. It makes t.u. look like bumbling idiots caught with their pants down because we essentially beat them in a chess match of constantly moving peices.

It forces them to deal with a situation that we've created instead of the other way around. A&M making the first move will dishearten their fans (even though they wouldn't admit it). All the horns would be thinking, "Why did DeLoss let Byrne make the first move? What is this guy thinking? How can we be outmaneuvered by A&M?" If we left them holding their jocks, and ran off to the SEC without their input, it would scar them long-term: It would be a big blow to the t-sip EGO for A&M to make the ballsy, aggressive move...

A&M in the SEC without t.u. is also BIG recruiting advantage for A&M and I think it probably scares the crap out of them. They will do almost anything to keep a scenario of A&M to SEC and t.u. to PAC-16 off the table. Including trying to scare our officials by floating rumors of no annual game with them.

If we went separate ways, I know A&M would be all too willing to schedule them for Non-Conference on Turkey Day going forward. If they refused to play us, we could use that to our advantage as well. What Texas recruit is going to play for a team that is too scared to play their natural rival in-state? It would be a media blood-bath.

I love the pre-emptive strike. Let's ambush Texas while we have the chance.

"Good bye to Texas University, so long to the Orange and the White...."
Bajan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
tell us how you really feel
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote from horn1:
quote:

Like it or not, but UT is the big Prize. The PAC-10 needs the state of Texas to survive financially. The PAC-10 is willing to get down our their knees and slobber the knob of the entire state of Texas.

1) UT knows this. UT can and will dictate the terms. UT wants A&M, OU, OSU, and Tech to come along (politics and $$$$).

2) The Texas legislature will not let Texas and A&M separate. After the SWC dissolved, it was written into law. Yup...you're stuck with us and we're stuck with you.

3) Old Rivalries will still be intact. It's always been about Texas, A&M, and Tech...now add OU and OSU. Baylor...well...pray we schedule you in non-conference.

5) A&M has the best chance to be successful in a PAC-16 league. In the SEC, you would be doomed. Texas could struggle as well. The state of Texas would be open to $EC recruiting. Just ask Arkansas how the SEC is treating them.

Come on Ags...join us!


Desperation, can you feel it?
magnumtmp
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Couldn't agree more.
Kramer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The problem is, nobody wants just A&M. You'd have to have AT LEAST OU on board.

And any conference would take tu by themselves in a second.

But the problem for the other conferences is the same as it is for A&M: tu is an unpredictable partner because they want their own network. So everybody has to look at a deal both in terms of it having tu AND of it not having tu because they leave in 5 years.

I guarantee you the PAC 16 payout would not be nearly as large without tu.
SWCBonfire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:

2) The Texas legislature will not let Texas and A&M separate. After the SWC dissolved, it was written into law. Yup...you're stuck with us and we're stuck with you.


Laws can be changed... especially when you don't have a Baylor and tt grad as governor/lt. governor. Bullock was a double whammy with an undergrad from tt and a law degree from baylor.

I'm sure that David Dewhurst playing basketball at the University of Arizona has nothing to do with all this...
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
SEC would take A&M without t.u. for the markets. A&M has alumni in Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, and people will tune in to wath A&M vs LSU, A&M vs Arkansas, etc.

t.u. will NOT go to the SEC (academics, ego), so they will do everything they can to keep us from going instead. If t.u. can't deliver the Texas Market, then A&M will.
frisco09
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I agree, we need to look out for A&M's interest and not the rivalry. We can still play Texas but honestly the SEC move would be better exposure in a ESPN/CBS TV deal than a Fox Sports deal, even if it is a couple million less (according to rumors).
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Posted on another thread from an LSU fan:

http://www.andthevalleyshook.com/2010/6/4/1501256/just-say-no-to-texas-but-what

quote:
The SEC doesn't need another power program, we need more depth. That means the SEC should be more interested in Texas A&M than Texas.



quote:
Both schools can deliver the Texas market. As anyone who has ever met an Aggie can tell you, they are slightly fanatical. They are a better cultural fit in the SEC than Texas, they already have a historic rivalry with LSU (and let's face it, we could use a conference rival), and they actually, you know, WANT to be in the SEC. They have many of the positives of Texas (loads of money, dedicated fanbase, huge media markets in Texas, tradition) with none of the negatives of Texas. While Texas is the prettiest girl at the ball, the Longhorns would be a terrible fit for the SEC.


quote:
In the end, Texas just doesn't make sense for the SEC and vice versa. But Texas A&M does, and they also follow the previous model of SEC expansion. Don't add the elite, add more depth. Texas A&M is at a historic low, but it is still a top 20 program all-time. They "fit" in the SEC and expanding into Texas has two other benefits, one for the SEC and one for LSU, specifically.


quote:
Texas A&M might not be the prettiest girl at the dance, but she might be the one you'd rather marry.
Morbo the Annihilator
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I'm not sure why A&M's policy decisions should be made simply as a way to attempt to even some non-existent "score" with our friends from Austin.

Rather, A&M should do what's best for A&M. What helps or hurts anyone else should be irrelevant.

Vito Andolini
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
2) The Texas legislature will not let Texas and A&M separate. After the SWC dissolved, it was written into law. Yup...you're stuck with us and we're stuck with you.


Where exactly can one find a copy of this statute?


Do you have citation?
SWCBonfire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It was political threat by Bullock & Richards to cut t.u. and A&M out of the university fund if they didn't play along.

Yes, the denial of state funds was threatened if we didn't advance the agenda of a private institution (Baylor). This is how great Texas politics are. I fear that Dewhurst is going to get involved, as he has a hell of a lot more stroke in this matter than Perry.
shulaball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Mike Slive (SEC Commisioner) has already stated that the SEC will take a "wait and see" approach to expansion.

General consensus from the current SEC meetings is that the majority of SEC coaches feel that the SEC is in the driver's seat on this.

Also of note...
quote:
If the SEC expanded, it wouldn't be due to TV dis­tribution, Slive said. He noted that SEC football games are on 73 million homes for its syndicated game, 100 million each on ESPN and ESPN2, 70 million on ESPNU, which continues to be picked up by more ca­ble providers plus the un­told millions over the air­waves on CBS.



and this...
quote:
Texas is exploring its own television network, mainly for non-revenue sports and coaches' shows. If Texas joined the SEC, a Longhorns TV network would remain possible because SEC mem­bers in 2008 retained their multi-media rights to mone­tize them.



I have to say it's nice to see <INSERT SEC TEAM> playing on TV every week either on ESPN, CBS or PPV.

My point is that is may be better to let Texas make the first move and go west or north or where ever...

[This message has been edited by shulaball (edited 6/4/2010 11:40a).]
transplant
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I don't think we deliver as many eyeballs as you think. Hell we are barely on TV each year. tu is on every week.

My biggest fear is the LOSS we would take in recruiting as kids would leave the state for greener SEC grounds than what we have - plus they would not have to pass the TASP test to play for those other schools.
FDT 1999
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
quote:
kids would leave the state for greener SEC grounds than what we have - plus they would not have to pass the TASP test to play for those other schools.


They have been leaving for the SEC anyways. This won't change.
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
The other big side of this is that A&M and OU DO NOT WANT t.u. having their own TV network. So we either have to go to a different conference than them. Or we have to make sure that whatever conference we are both in will not llow t.u. to have their own TV Network.

I think that's what is holding t.u. up from committing to anything. This is why we are exploring our options aggressively.
John David Stutts
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I theory, the idea of making our move first sounds great. Getting away from tu and into a better conference sound even better........but there is a big problem.

The whole reason that the PAC 10 marriage with the 6 Big 12 schools may happen is because the PAC 10 is the only "super-conference to be" that is willing to take the Texas 3 (us, sips, Tech). If the politicians are telling tu that they have to bring Tech along, are they going to let us run off without Tech? I don't think so. Unless the SEC is willing to take all 3 Texas schools, we aren't going there......UNLESS they would take us and Tech so the sips could go to the Big 10.
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I don't think ANYONE knows where the politics are on this one.

If t.u. and A&M are mutually agreeable to part ways... it will happen.
Bilbo Aggins
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
If the politicians are telling tu that they have to bring Tech along, are they going to let us run off without Tech?


It may not be politicians. It makes sense to have another Texas school in a supposed Pac10 east (travel reasons being one) and tech being public (and more west for asu, au, and cu) probably gives it an edge over baylor (as well as being a better football school).

I doubt politics plays a lot into. If it did, I am sure the tech politicians could not do a whole lot since we control the governor's office (which we didn't during the formation of the B12). Also, I think tech would be totally fine with us going somewhere if they still got a spot in a decent conference (especially one as high profile as the proposed pac16).

I said in another thread let nu take our place in that eastern division. They are probably not going to get into the b10 anyway.

The sec will be interested in A&M if it means keeping Pac16 from dominating the two most populous states in the union.

quote:
If t.u. and A&M are mutually agreeable to part ways... it will happen.

Agreed.

[This message has been edited by Bilbo Aggins (edited 6/4/2010 12:47p).]
sodiumacetate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strongbad,

There are some problems with your proposal.

First, that move would have little impact on Texas. Texas would still have every option available to them. They would actually be free to pursue the best possible situation, which is not the case today. The idea that A&M making a move would affect the psyche of the Texas fan base is absurd. The Texas fans want what is best for Texas, and to suggest that they are worried about A&M going to the SEC is just simply not accurate. Texas would still hold the recruiting advantage, because Texas would still be winning. You are simply overestimating the effect that such a move would have on Texas.

Second, and more to the point, the SEC does not want to expand. They may do so in response to other conferences, but if they had their way they would remain as they are. The SEC is not going to make the first move.


I think what a lot of the recently posturing has shown is that if A&M could carry out their proposal, they would.
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
^
|
|Denial

From OrangeBloods:
quote:
From OB:

Originally posted by 94Sip:
This must be a strategy of disinformation. How could anyone in their right mind not want to go be part of the SEC? Or go to the Pac10 and let ATM and OU go to the SEC?

Consider the matchups:
Texas vs. LSU
Texas vs. Georgia
Texas vs Alabama
Texas vs. Florida

or

Texas vs. Oregon
Texas vs. WSU/Washington
Texas vs. Cal

I guess we could get all our lib staffers to go to Berkley and smoke dope all weekend and read philosophy?

Sure the USC/UCLA games would be "ok" and the Arizona State trips would be fun "talent" inspections. But there is no way you can sell the Pac10 matchups as anything rivaling the SEC matchups.

Hell, none of the Pac10 stadiums are near the size of ours or the SECs. Maybe Vandy or Ole Miss.


Couldn't agree more.

BTW, those concerned about SEC cheating are selectively overlooking recent Pac 10 transgressions at USC, Oregon, Washington, and Oregon State, and the presence of Dennis Erickson as HC at ASU.

-------


A&M and OU to the SEC without us is a worst case scenario. We can't join the SEC, but we can't let them (especially A&M) join either. Texas's great run will come to an end at some point and we'll have to rebuild. Trying to rebuild with A&M a part of the best conference in football while we're on the outside looking in is a situation we'd be wise to avoid at all costs.


-------


This is chapter one in a five or six chapter book and each chapter will become more interesting.

Let's assume that the Pac 10 does offer the schools listed.
I don't believe it is a all or none deal.
UT and ou are the primary targets, but I think the Pac 10 wants to add at least two more schools ASAP.

Let's look at the schools individually.

COLORADO.

I have to think CU is already a done deal.
As soon as the offer hits the table, boom, CU will accept - IMO.

Probability of CU accepting a Pac 10 offer : 99%, if not a 100%, IMO.

TEXAS TECH.

Texas tech has to face UT and ou annually in the Big XII south division.
If UT and ou do not accept a Pac 10 offer [more on that later] then Tech has a chance to play in a much softer division and a real chance to meet SoCal, Oregon or UCLA in a conference title game.

While it is true tech recruits the state of Texas the Red Raiders do NOT depended solely on Lone Star State talent as much as UT & aTm.

There is little reason [I can see] tech would hesitate long before accepting the Pac 10 offer.
It would help their recruiting efforts on the West Coast and would probably intice a few Texan's who want to stay in-state, but favor playing at West Coast venue over whereever UT or ou may end up.

Probability of tech accepting a Pac 10 offer : 90%, IMO.
Texas tech really needs the money.
If you recall the Red Raiders were talking about not be able to meet debts last year.

ou and oSu :

Both schools depend heavily on recruiting the Lone Star State.
My initial thoughs are such a move would not hurt neithers recruiting of Texas Athletes and would help recruiting West Coast Athletes.
ou got some top talent from California last year [the 2010 class].

The only thing that could hurt ou [IMO] is that if UT goes in another direction and chooses to eliminate the annual game versus ou in Dallas.
This is a huge recruiting tool for the sooners in the Lone Star State.

oSu might consider what the * Big XII would look like after the departure of ou, Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Missouri and Nebraska.

The Cowboys would be the big fish in a revamped Big XII with no ou, Texas, Texas Tech [**Nebraska, Missouri] and Texas A&M.
In oSu's case, winning it all regardless of the conference might be a consideration.
T. Boone has spent a lot money and he wants a championship of some sort.
T. Boone has a record of getting what he wants even if he has pull someones teeth to get it.

Probablity of oSu accepting a Pac 10 offer : 50%, and it will weight heavily upon whether the Cowboys wants to remain attached at the hip to ou.

Probability of the sooners accepting a Pac 10 offer : 50%, depends heavily upon whether UT would continue to play the sooners no matter where the Longhorns may end up.

TEXAS A&M.

I don't think the aggies want to be attached to UTs hip as much as most OBs think.

Plain truth is aggies are not as good as Texas and are destined to being 2nd best in the state at most anything one wants to discuss.
Except the reason the school was established [farming & ranching].

A&M has appealed to Louisiana kids in the past, and one has to believe they could do OK recruiting in Missippissi too.
We are talking about basically country boys from most smaller cities.

Plus, not being attached to UTs and playing in the SEC may change the dynamics of recruiting in the Lone Star State and at this time any change would have to be looked upon as a good thing.

I believe the SEC will offer UT and Texas A&M and I don't think it will be a all or none deal.

Probability of Texas A&M accepting a Pac 10 offer [regardless of what UT does] : 50% or less.
Probability of Texas A&M accepting a SEC offer reagrdless of UT does : 90%.

The University of Texas.

Texas will listen to every offer and I think two more offers are coming [the SEC and the Big 10].
And UT still has the going independent route and the TEXAS NETWORK as a option.

I don't think Texas will be influenced by what any Big XII school does [except the fact that when CU and TT accepts the Pac 10 offers and Nebraska and Missouri accept the Big 10 offers, UT will realize that saving the Big XII is a uphill battle they should avoid].
The 'Horns probably know that already and are just trying to quote the company line in public.

Probability of the University of Texas accepting a Pac 10 offer : 40%.

* The Big XII will survive at least for a few more years and will grab up the rements of the old SWC, Tulsa, New Mexico, Tulane and Utah if someone doesn't beat them to the punch.

** Missouri and Nebraska have all but said they would accept a Big 10 offer.

The Big 10 is the right place for both these schools in my opinion.
This is probably the reason the Pac 10 will not offer.
I believe [behind the scenes] MU and NU going to the Big 10 is already a done deal except for the small print details.

Posted on 6/3 3:55 PM | IP: Logged

-------


If a&m goes SEC, and we go Pac-10, a&m gets big recruiting advantage. Big.


-------


Originally posted by teyon shoes:
Originally posted by Craben:
Merging w. the Pac 10 only offers the hope of matching the starting point where the Big 10 and SEC already are. OTOH, adding UT to the SEC or Big 10 offers the possibility of increasing the $20MM per school already in-place. It's hard to believe UT turn down the bird-in-hand for bird-in-bush, unless it's a case of both the Big 10 and SEC being unwilling to entertain Belmont's dreams of an interregional conference.

If we join the Pac 10, and allow A&M and OU to get into the SEC, UT will have allowed itself to have been seriously outfoxed and outmaneuvered.



[This message has been edited by SpreadsheetAg (edited 6/4/2010 1:11p).]
sodiumacetate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
The other big side of this is that A&M and OU DO NOT WANT t.u. having their own TV network. So we either have to go to a different conference than them. Or we have to make sure that whatever conference we are both in will not llow t.u. to have their own TV Network.


Sorry, but that is simply not true. OU wants their own network, too. Their athletic department has expressed that several times. They aren't as advanced as Texas is, but it's something they are looking to do in the future. Tim Cassidy has said that A&M would have already pursued their own network had the athletic department's economic situation been better over the past several years.

quote:
I think that's what is holding t.u. up from committing to anything. This is why we are exploring our options aggressively.


There is nothing "holding up" Texas from committing to anything. Texas would be content to have everything stay as it is. Because it appears that things will not stay as they are, Texas is of course looking at every possible scenario to find the best one. When something does happen, Texas has the luxury of choosing it's own destiny, and will make that choice at when it needs to be made. The idea that Texas is in a state of agitation or panic is, again, absurd.
SpreadsheetAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I didn't say you were in a state of panic as long as the status quo is maintained. But if someone like A&M bounces and disrupts the status quo... it would only benefit A&M. t.u. can't have that... they are too egotistical.

...

You're proving this assertion everytime you type.

[This message has been edited by SpreadsheetAg (edited 6/4/2010 1:14p).]
Saxsoon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Exposure doesn't mean chit when you are getting your teeth kicked in the SEC week and week out.
Ross Brown
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This has already been done, just look at Arkansas after the SWC collapse. How did that work out for them?
John David Stutts
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
I don't think ANYONE knows where the politics are on this one.


I think we have a pretty good idea.....

So far, with all of this conference madness, only one absolute, indisputable fact has emerged. Because of the open records request that got a hold of the Ohio State President's email, we know for a fact that the Texas president, while discussing a possible move to the Big 10, said that Texas has a "Tech problem".

tu would love to run off to the Big 10. We would love to go to the SEC. The only problem is that neither conference wants Tech. The PAC 10 will take Tech if it means getting us and the sips so guess where we are going......
UTGrad02
How long do you want to ignore this user?
One item of discussion I'm curious about (and haven't seen raised although I haven't read every post) is what a move to the SEC (rather than Pac 10 or Big 10) would say about A&M from an academic standpoint.

I mean, other than Vandy and Florida, the SEC is just a bunch of community colleges all trying to out-cheat each other for football superiority. I think that stigma (and the fact that the Academics are terrible) is the main reason Texas isn't interested.

A&M has obviously significantly increased its academic standing over the past 20 years and is currently considered a top academic institution. Are any of you worried about the academic reputation taking a hit by passing up either the Pac 10 or Big 10 for the SEC.

On that same note (and why I feel the Academic Powers at A&M will be strongly against this move) there are a lot of research and design dollars at stake. UT & A&M would obviously both significantly benefit (Millions long term) by alligning with either the Pac 10 or Big 10 (especially the Big 10).

Just curious what yall's thoughts are from a non football angle. Obviously from a pure football perspective, the SEC is the way to go. I also think it would certainly negatively impact our football program. Not so much that I think A&M would improve dramatically (frankly, I don't see it happenning at all) but opening up the state even more to LSU, TN, Bama, etc. would definitely hurt us.

sodiumacetate
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Strongbad,

Obviously there are a lot of people that have varying opinions on these matters. If you are going to selectively pull out a sample of those that support your argument, you and I both know that doesn't tell the whole story. There are also a lot of posters on that site posting that they hope A&M goes to the SEC because it would only help Texas. I disagree because I think a strong A&M is beneficial to Texas.

quote:
I didn't say you were in a state of panic as long as the status quo is maintained. But if someone like A&M bounces and disrupts the status quo... it would only benefit A&M. t.u. can't have that... they are too egotistical.

...

You're proving this assertion everytime you type.


First, it would not only benefit A&M. It would benefit Texas because we would be able to freely pursue the best situation for us. How do you figure that it would only benefit A&M if Texas were able to turn it into a huge revenue gain?

Secondly, how exactly am I proving your assertion? You and I have had some good conversations over the years and have even exchanged some emails in the past. I enjoy discussing topics with fans of every school, which is why I post on here and the main board. How does my opinion that Texas and A&M are both able to operate independently in this scenario make me egotistical?
horninatx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I think UTGrad02 nailed it. Other than for football reasons, what is the draw of the SEC? Wanting to go to a "football conference" is extremely short-sighted. Right now, the SEC is the dominant football conference, however, that could change someday. It is much less likely that the academics and other benefits of other conferences (Big/PAC 10) offer will change drastically.

Additionally, I don't understand the huge desire to run away from Texas to another conference. Do you really hate Texas that much that the long standing rivalry gets damaged in the process? The two schools should be playing each other for more than just bragging rights. I can't stand Oklahoma, but it would suck to lose that rivalry.
St Hedwig Aggie
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Someone...the P10, B10, ACC, SEC...make the first move already so all the dominoes can call and we can get past this BS...
rln_01
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
OP

rln_'01 Whoop!
shulaball
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Texas A&M might not be the prettiest girl at the dance, but she might be the one you'd rather marry.


Texas is the Paris Hilton of college football.
DE88
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Some of you need to wake up and realize that we are not offering a strong package right now. How many times were we on TV last year, and the year before? Not many We do not bring a TV market. The chances of us making a deal on our own is between nil and zero.
AnalogyAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
quote:
Plain truth is aggies are not as good as Texas and are destined to being 2nd best in the state at most anything one wants to discuss.


To this Orangeblood quote, I just need to say that I want to discuss

Men's basketball, women's basketball, golf, softball, men's and women's track, soccer....

and a few other sports that we're starting to gain an upper hand, like women's swimming.
SWCBonfire
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Yes, don't forget women's swimming.... we all know about the school-defining traditions that came about from the women's swimming team.

This is about $$$, prestige on a national scale, and more $$$$.

quote:
Cassidy has said that A&M would have already pursued their own network had the athletic department's economic situation been better over the past several years.



The AD couldn't even get A&M football on a radio station in San Antonio that broadcasted its signal past 1604 until this coming season. Please.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.