quote:

---

Also, we would not be at the bottom due to the fact that we would be able to be in recruiting wars with Tu and LSU; however, we would win the one with tu because we play in the best conference while they're playing against the Wazzus of the world.

---

See, this shat is funny.

The Pac 10 has been the #2 football conference over the past decade according to the ratings, head to heads (and again, they've either beaten the SEC straight up, or it's now tied after the 3rd place SEC got lucky against Washington last year). #2 while playing the toughest OOC schedules without another conference close when it comes to non-con scheduling.

So, you take the #2 conference and then add the sips & sooners & WTF happens? Common sense should tell most of you that the Pac 10 will NOT be 2nd fiddle in football, and based on the past 10 years, would be #1.

But, please continue the SEC is God on Earth bullshat, and I'll laugh about a bad UCLA team beating it's runner up recently.

My mistake, it was a 7-6 Cal team that whipped the SEC runner-up's arse.

[This message has been edited by Syd_X_Barrett (edited 6/10/2010 12:16p).]

So Billy is saying what Lane Kiffen said last year about florida?

Saben, Miles and the rest of the SEC cheat?

USC just got hit for cheating today..

All these schools skirt the rules, and we've been doing it for years as well. How quickly we forget our past indiscretions. The only sad thing is the Schools get hurt as the kids and coaches leave.

USC will pay for Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll's abuses for years to come.

quote:

---

Take a look around� show me examples of two flagship schools in any state competing at an elite level in football within the same conference?

---

USC & Cal both finished in the top 5 in '04

Then the next year, USC & UCLA were top 15. Miami & Florida State were top 10 & top 20 that year as well.

[This message has been edited by Syd_X_Barrett (edited 6/10/2010 12:25p).]

I'm so glad some of you guys aren't making the decision for this University.

So if it takes cheating to be successful in the SEC, then we should go for it?

Brilliant..........

For the sake of arguement let's assume that all schools, including dear old A&M, cheat.

IF we go to the PAC 16 w/ tu and God forbid regularly beat them, then our cheating will be immediately investigated by the killer of the old SWC the DMN. (Notice how they discovered cheating in damn near every school including local SMU & TCU, but not tu.)

IF we go SEC BY OURSELVES, well nobody will give a tinker's damn what we do.

SEC!

Billy is selling the Fish Pond Manager short. LSU would live in fear, cause Texags knows stuff!

Seriously, LSU cheats. OU doesn't? USC doesn't? We're skeerewed on that front any way you slice it.

forget cheating...

The real issue is that playing the weaker teams in the PAC10 makes us look even better than the over-exaggerated SEC. The SEC is good...but media makes them out to be AMAZING.

A&M culture fits the SEC, but we need to be with t.u. anywhere they go. We are better off competing against AZ and ASU than SEC West. Cali kids come to Texas to play football....but Florida/Bama/Miss/Georgia/Etc do not. We can recruit in PAC10 and steal some SoCal kids, but not likely from SEC school.

Let's see - in the distance it would take the Ags to make it to El Paso (about 680 miles) and still not be near Arizona and Arizona State (let alone the rest of the Pac 10 schools), the Aggies could make it to Ark, LSU, 'Bama, both Miss schools, and stop just short of Auburn.

Also, compare the following for gameday atmosphere (excluding A&M-tu which will occur either way):

Pac 16:
A&M - OU
A&M - OSU
A&M - Tech
A&M - ASU
A&M - UAz

SEC:
A&M - Ark
A&M - LSU
A&M - 'Bama
A&M - Auburn
A&M - Miss St/Ole Miss


Which would you rather see?

But according to Liucci, we are getting the players we want...Shouldn't be a problem.

[This message has been edited by 1876er (edited 6/10/2010 12:39p).]

I agree with a lot of what he said, but he's wrong about one thing... we're not above cheating.

Cal, and UCLA successful? Your threshold for success is pretty low. I’m talking long term real success, not an occasional good year. Correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t Miami play in the Big east for quite a while?

quote:

---

BTW, we have nothing in common with Pac 10 schools. We have NOTHING in common with the state of california.

Pac 10 school fans will not be traveling to college station to watch their team play in Kyle.

A&M stands to lose a lot of money as a tag-a-long with texas to the Pac 10.

---

True, we don't have much in common with the state of California, but I don't think we stand to lose that much from non-traveling fans. We'd be in a division w/ most of the old Big 12 South. Those fans will travel just as much as they always have. AZ and AZ State will be less likely to travel, but Tucson and Tempe aren't that much farther from C.S. than several of the Big 12 North schools. And I'd say the state of Texas has got a helluva lot more in common w/ the state of AZ than CA, so it wouldn't be that much of an issue.

Maybe A&M loses a little money on a few less visiting fans coming in. But wouldn't we probably more than make up for that in additional TV revenue? (I'm only considering money to A&M, not to the B/CS economy, by the way)

We are getting a significant upgrade from Fran FWIW and the 2012 team will be the most talented, deepest team we have had here at A&M in over a decade FWIW. It's about us.

Billy is a good company man. If the powers that be decide at the last minute to go the SEC, he will be talking about the problems with the pac16.

The only thing joining the SEC would be good for is being able to chant SEC! SEC! SEC! while we beat up on Stephen F. Austin.

[This message has been edited by Danny Duberstein (edited 6/10/2010 12:44p).]

Just another made up excuse to justify our mediocrity the past few years and put down others' success. I'd like us to be successful vs. trying to ridicule other schools. The SEC makes complete sense for us and the argument that Urban Meyer, Saban, Spurrier, etc. the past decade have only done better than us due to cheating isn't backed by any facts and doesn't make any sense. Their schools have been better coached and they have just outrecruited us.

quote:

---

The only thing joining the SEC would be good for is being able to chant SEC! SEC! SEC! while we beat up on Stephen F. Austin.

---

OOC schedules will be interesting to watch. Pac 10 teams don't p***** out in scheduling. I wonder how much complaining their existing teams will do if the the SFA's, LA-Monroe's, & Ark St's (oops) remain on the Big 12 team schedules?

quote:

---

I'm so glad some of you guys aren't making the decision for this University.

So if it takes cheating to be successful in the SEC, then we should go for it?

Brilliant..........

---

so let me get this straight.

1) you're going to automatically buy that BS line that you have to cheat to win in the SEC?

2) you're going to assume the Ags do not cheat at all, and have always kept a clean program?

3) you're going to say this on the day that the team who has dominated the Pac 10, college football, the west coast, and the media for the last decade just gets busted for cheating?

laughable.

I really don't have a preference one way over the other. I think the safer pick is the Pac-16, keeping texas schools together with okie schools, and it wouldn't really change the yearly landscape much at all for the Ags. I wouldn't be upset either way, and I don't really get why so many people sound like they'd sell their children to go one way or the other...but the nonsense being spewed by quotes like this and the thread subject is almost making me want to choose SEC over Pac 16.

[This message has been edited by J Peterman (edited 6/10/2010 1:04p).]

I guess somebody needs to agree with Billy.

Yes, Southern Cal got caught and Oregon has thugs...but c'mon, there are 3 times as many schools in the SEC doing that.

Tennessee's players make Oregon's look like sunday school teachers.

Syd, I don't know if I'd call USC (or Miami?) a flagship school. I think of flagship schools as being tier 1 schools within a multi-institution public system, such as the UT System, the TAMUS, the UC System etc. Berkeley and UCLA could be viewed as flagships with Riverside, Irvine, Davis etc. being the rest of the fleet.

Note that I don't think 1st and Goal's question is very useful, especially after his goalpost moving:

quote:

---

I’m talking long term real success, not an occasional good year.

---

The number of states with multiple systems with Tier 1 flagships is much less than 50. So the sample is limited...

Same conference
Cal and UCLA
tu and TAMU (and tech?)
kansas and k-state
michigan and michigan state
ou and okie lite
Miss and MSU
Virginia and Va Tech
UNC and NC State
Washington, WSU
Idaho and Boise State
...

Different conferences
Florida and FSU
Iowa and Iowa State
Colorado and Colo State
Utah and Utah State
Georgia and GA Tech
S. Carolina and Clemson
...

I'm not sure how many of these are long-term successes by 1st and Goal's standards. But I'm not seeing a pattern of paired schools from the same state being better off in different conferences. Florida and FSU is just one data point.

[This message has been edited by biobioprof (edited 6/10/2010 1:27p).]

quote:

---

Tennessee's players make Oregon's look like sunday school teachers.

---

Assuming we're talking football, are you referring the players that Lane Kiffin recruited and got busted last year, the same Lane Kiffin that is now a coach in the Pac 10?

What a crock. "to be successful in the SEC you have to cheat"?

How about, "in order to be successful in the the SEC, you have to be able to outrecruit TCU"

Hey Looch, what's it take to be successful in the Big 12? The bottom line is WE'RE NOT SUCCESSFUL. So let's go to the SEC and NOT be successful. At least we will play in a conference we more identify with.

quote:

---

He's great for recruiting info.

---

not really

the constant spin about all aspects of the program begins to contradict itself with all this realignment talk.


It's about as jumbled as this...

Getting outrecruited? Nah, we're just getting the guys we want. 2 losing seasons in a row. What's that? The talent level is down, and we need more talent to win? We can't recruit unless we win? We can't win unless we cheat? tu and OU win, they obviously cheat. Don't go to the SEC, because they cheat, go to the pac 16 with those cheaters tu and ou, along with usc and the rest, because the SEC means you have to cheat to win.

I'm surprised no one has started a thread saying "Why Dan Beebe needs at least 3 more years to succeed" with the first response being some tool going "how DARE you bring logic to this board?!"

[This message has been edited by J Peterman (edited 6/10/2010 1:32p).]

I have been talking to Aggie friends of late and what I have noticed is that a lot of the older ones (my age) favor the SEC and most of the younger ones want the west coast.

I haven't met a UT grad yet who favors the SEC and only a few who wanted to consider the Big X.

As for cheating, the USC deal is mostly lack of institutional control, not active cheating, which is what permeates the SEC.

Talk to Bama alums about Tennessee and you get a taste of what those crackers think of ethics: they hate Fulmer and Tenn because they turned them in for buying players---and the Vols do it too!!!

They don't deny they do it, they just think it is hypocritical to get called on it by somebody else when they all do it.

quote:

---

At least we will play in a conference we more identify with.

---

Not everyone here identifies with the deep south, guy.

quote:

---

Syd, I don't know if I'd call USC (or Miami?) a flagship school. I think of flagship schools as being tier 1 schools within a multi-institution public system, such as the UT System, the TAMUS, the UC System etc. Berkeley and UCLA could be viewed as flagships with Riverside, Irvine, Davis etc. being the rest of the fleet.

---

Uh, USC IS a Tier 1 school and ranked higher academically than anyone in the Big 12.

They are THE flagship school in football in the Pac 10.

Public vs Private in this argument doesn't mean anything. We're talking football where at least 1/2 the players couldn't get admitted anyhow. USC IS a flagship school academically AND more importantly athletically, especially in football.

We're using flagship in different contexts. Forgetting the semantics, I think your overall point stands: two schools or more from large states can do fine in the same conference.

[This message has been edited by biobioprof (edited 6/10/2010 6:10p).]

My vote is the SEC. BL is way off base on cheating on recruits.

How do you know, exactly?

quote:

---

Another reason I will never pay for info

---

this

quote:

---

We're using flagship in different contexts. Forgetting the semantics, I think your overall point stands: two schools or more from large states can do fine in the same conference.

---

Fair enough. USC is a different animal than most private institutions. They have a larger enrollment (close to 34K) than a lot of Public schools considered "flag ships" That's why I consider them in the same category as those schools. They are a very highly ranked Private school, but they have the enrollment & alumni of a public school.

The overall point is that 2 schools from the same state can certainly be ranked highly in the same conference.

Cheating goes on everywhere, I'd be more concerned with Academic standards.

And no, I'm not talking about overall academics, I'm talking about entrance requirements and to a lesser extent rubber stamping degrees.

In terms of entry requirements, Texas Public schools are at a disadvantage because of the TAKS and THEA tests.

I remember a few years ago Spurrier had a fit because a couple recruits didn't get accepted into South Carolina even though they passed NCAA requirements. I have my doubts that most SEC schools are going to give a crap though. I would bet overall the PAC-10 requirements are higher, but I can't be sure.

Anybody got some facts?