What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
Petition to Bring Back TAMU v. t.u. Game
49,791 Views |
439 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by rootube
What are the chances the OP got their undergrad from tu.
It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
Player To Be Named Later
Joined:
Sep 22, 2003
Posts:
22,825
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Can I start a petition to never play them again?
Please do!Player To Be Named Later said:
Can I start a petition to never play them again?
It would also be much more honest if you allow the results to be seen to the poll takers. It would eliminate a bunch of speculation.
It may also enlighten a few minds, including mine... It may just change my mind...?
I say that becasue we have 115 years of history as a program that completely suggest otherwise. We still have a large contingent of former students that, to this day, put one upping tu in some form or fashion as the highest achievement possible. That has been our anchor and we thankfully cut the chain a few years back. It will still take a few more years for our system as a whole to metabolize out the stupid mentality that tu needs to somehow be such an important part of our life. To go back to that is just stupid.Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
You keep talking about the fans as if they are the driving factor. Simply put, they aren't. TV contracts and exposure is the driving factor. Fans are going to be there whether we play tu or not, and we'll get a lot more fans being a contender than we ever would playing tu. Not sure why this is such a hard concept, other than you simply think bragging rights over them is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
It would absolutely sell more tickets than any of our other OOC games, so it would maximize revenue. They absolutely do see us as a rival, as indicated by sold out games in sports like baseball. So it is absolutely a positive move.LightningDammitt said:It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
Again you are misrepresenting my argument. No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football. You are setting up ridiculous either/or fallacies.schmellba99 said:I say that becasue we have 115 years of history as a program that completely suggest otherwise. We still have a large contingent of former students that, to this day, put one upping tu in some form or fashion as the highest achievement possible. That has been our anchor and we thankfully cut the chain a few years back. It will still take a few more years for our system as a whole to metabolize out the stupid mentality that tu needs to somehow be such an important part of our life. To go back to that is just stupid.Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
You keep talking about the fans as if they are the driving factor. Simply put, they aren't. TV contracts and exposure is the driving factor. Fans are going to be there whether we play tu or not, and we'll get a lot more fans being a contender than we ever would playing tu. Not sure why this is such a hard concept, other than you simply think bragging rights over them is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
As far as exposure goes, it's one of the best rivalries in college football. Rivalry games gain you national exposure. So it would benefit us in the tv markets as well.
This sure goes against your return on investment in facilitates and coaching post.
You say "no one is advocating for us to play tu" and literally the very next paragraph you advocate for us to play tu.
I believe I said:
Quote:
No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football.
It does? How?jonbgoff said:
This sure goes against your return on investment in facilitates and coaching post.
Again. You are missing the point. Playing teams other than them broadens our market. They depreciate our market. Broadening our market will pay off later, much better than our market playing them.Champ Bailey said:It would absolutely sell more tickets than any of our other OOC games, so it would maximize revenue. They absolutely do see us as a rival, as indicated by sold out games in sports like baseball. So it is absolutely a positive move.LightningDammitt said:It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
We played them far too long. They cheated and degraded us at every turn, just to win a game, that in the end, even they do not appreciate as much as they appreciate their rivalry with OU. they even try to elevate their "rivalries" with Tech and TCU above the rivalry we once had with them. As with all their rivals, at some point they will deem themselves above OU, TCU and Tech also, and will devalue it. They are toxic. Even the "old days" you are longing for bear that out.
Round and round we go. Your debates are much like their behavior. Just devalue the debate with points and questions that have been answered time and time again.
Remind me please... In your opinion... Why did we leave the Big12? Why did we stop playing them if it was so profitable?
Champ Bailey said:
I believe I said:Quote:
No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football.
Playing tu has nothing to do with being good at football or not. It has nothing to due with your "maximizing revenue" arguement either. People above me have already poked holes in that theory. The reason is clear why you want to play them and it's not business related. That's fine, but you should just come out and say that instead of trying to hide behind a false revenue justification arguement.
I know that. I was responding to Schmelba's statement saying we had to choose one or the other.GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:
I believe I said:Quote:
No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football.
Playing tu has nothing to do with being good at football or not.
Quote:
we'll get a lot more fans being a contender than we ever would playing tu.
Why would one want to expose themselves to cancer again when they were able to get rid of it once. Some of you people let nostalgia get in the way of rational thought. Rational thought exposes tu for what they are. A stack the deck at all costs to win program. They are still the same tu that was left behind. If you think otherwise then you really have let nostalgia cloud your thinking into making a move that would be detrimental in more ways than one.
Really? They depreciate our market? What game is the average national football fan tuning into to watch Georgia Tech? What about South Carolina? What about Florida? This idea that we won't get national exposure playing the sips is a lie. Especially since it is certainly more exposure than we would get playing Prarieview A&M.LightningDammitt said:Again. You are missing the point. Playing teams other than them broadens our market. They depreciate our market. Broadening our market will pay off later, much better than our market playing them.Champ Bailey said:It would absolutely sell more tickets than any of our other OOC games, so it would maximize revenue. They absolutely do see us as a rival, as indicated by sold out games in sports like baseball. So it is absolutely a positive move.LightningDammitt said:It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
We played them far too long. They cheated and degraded us at every turn, just to win a game, that in the end, even they do not appreciate as much as they appreciate their rivalry with OU. they even try to elevate their "rivalries" with Tech and TCU above the rivalry we once had with them. As with all their rivals, at some point they will deem themselves above OU, TCU and Tech also, and will devalue it. They are toxic. Even the "old days" you are longing for bear that out.
Round and round we go. Your debates are much like their behavior. Just devalue the debate with points and questions that have been answered time and time again.
Remind me please... In your opinion... Why did we leave the Big12? Why did we stop playing them if it was so profitable?
We left the Big 12 because it was a toxic conference because of the mismanagement by the sips. Which is why I never want them to join the SEC. That has nothing to do with playing them once a year.
Of all the time Myles has turned his head in that gif, some will never get it.UncleNateFitch said:
I really don't understand why anyone wouldnt want to play tu
Champ Bailey said:Really? They depreciate our market? What game is the average national football fan tuning into to watch Georgia Tech? What about South Carolina? What about Florida? This idea that we won't get national exposure playing the sips is a lie. Especially since it is certainly more exposure than we would get playing Prarieview A&M.LightningDammitt said:Again. You are missing the point. Playing teams other than them broadens our market. They depreciate our market. Broadening our market will pay off later, much better than our market playing them.Champ Bailey said:It would absolutely sell more tickets than any of our other OOC games, so it would maximize revenue. They absolutely do see us as a rival, as indicated by sold out games in sports like baseball. So it is absolutely a positive move.LightningDammitt said:It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
We played them far too long. They cheated and degraded us at every turn, just to win a game, that in the end, even they do not appreciate as much as they appreciate their rivalry with OU. they even try to elevate their "rivalries" with Tech and TCU above the rivalry we once had with them. As with all their rivals, at some point they will deem themselves above OU, TCU and Tech also, and will devalue it. They are toxic. Even the "old days" you are longing for bear that out.
Round and round we go. Your debates are much like their behavior. Just devalue the debate with points and questions that have been answered time and time again.
Remind me please... In your opinion... Why did we leave the Big12? Why did we stop playing them if it was so profitable?
We left the Big 12 because it was a toxic conference because of the mismanagement by the sips. Which is why I never want them to join the SEC. That has nothing to do with playing them once a year.
Ahhh.... I see... there is no reasoning with some that thinks, in any way, that comparing an A&M/PVAMU is a fair comparison to any other rivalry in the nation.
Also, all those fams you mention watching other rivalries? Few of them by comparison want to watch tu/A&M... THAT is why they are watching the other games.
A&M/tu does not have the draw of those other rivalries.
Now.... Why did we leave that ribalry behind?
LightningDammitt said:Champ Bailey said:Really? They depreciate our market? What game is the average national football fan tuning into to watch Georgia Tech? What about South Carolina? What about Florida? This idea that we won't get national exposure playing the sips is a lie. Especially since it is certainly more exposure than we would get playing Prarieview A&M.LightningDammitt said:Again. You are missing the point. Playing teams other than them broadens our market. They depreciate our market. Broadening our market will pay off later, much better than our market playing them.Champ Bailey said:It would absolutely sell more tickets than any of our other OOC games, so it would maximize revenue. They absolutely do see us as a rival, as indicated by sold out games in sports like baseball. So it is absolutely a positive move.LightningDammitt said:It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
We played them far too long. They cheated and degraded us at every turn, just to win a game, that in the end, even they do not appreciate as much as they appreciate their rivalry with OU. they even try to elevate their "rivalries" with Tech and TCU above the rivalry we once had with them. As with all their rivals, at some point they will deem themselves above OU, TCU and Tech also, and will devalue it. They are toxic. Even the "old days" you are longing for bear that out.
Round and round we go. Your debates are much like their behavior. Just devalue the debate with points and questions that have been answered time and time again.
Remind me please... In your opinion... Why did we leave the Big12? Why did we stop playing them if it was so profitable?
We left the Big 12 because it was a toxic conference because of the mismanagement by the sips. Which is why I never want them to join the SEC. That has nothing to do with playing them once a year.
Ahhh.... I see... there is no reasoning with some that thinks, in any way, that comparing an A&M/PVAMU is a fair comparison to any other rivalry in the nation. That's the type of game we would be switching it out with.
Also, all those fams you mention watching other rivalries? Few of them by comparison want to watch tu/A&M... THAT is why they are watching the other games. False
A&M/tu does not have the draw of those other rivalries. False.
Oh! Also... if that game is such a money maker, why were we losing ground with tv markets the last few years.... It used to be the tv markets asked us when we were going to play so they could make money televising it. Later, tv execs were telling us when they thought we might make a buck for them, in lieu of the NFL and other college games.
Why throw their football program a lifeline?
Because we are one of the only teams that played the game on Thanksgiving Day. Do I have to defend the rivalry versus the Cowboys and Redskins now?LightningDammitt said:
Oh! Also... if that game is such a money maker, why were we losing ground with tv markets the last few years.... It used to be the tv markets asked us when we were going to play so they could make money televising it. Later, tv execs were telling us when they thought we might make a buck for them, in lieu of the NFL and other college games.
Prove it.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bailey said:Really? They depreciate our market? What game is the average national football fan tuning into to watch Georgia Tech? What about South Carolina? What about Florida? This idea that we won't get national exposure playing the sips is a lie. Especially since it is certainly more exposure than we would get playing Prarieview A&M.LightningDammitt said:Again. You are missing the point. Playing teams other than them broadens our market. They depreciate our market. Broadening our market will pay off later, much better than our market playing them.Champ Bailey said:It would absolutely sell more tickets than any of our other OOC games, so it would maximize revenue. They absolutely do see us as a rival, as indicated by sold out games in sports like baseball. So it is absolutely a positive move.LightningDammitt said:It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
We played them far too long. They cheated and degraded us at every turn, just to win a game, that in the end, even they do not appreciate as much as they appreciate their rivalry with OU. they even try to elevate their "rivalries" with Tech and TCU above the rivalry we once had with them. As with all their rivals, at some point they will deem themselves above OU, TCU and Tech also, and will devalue it. They are toxic. Even the "old days" you are longing for bear that out.
Round and round we go. Your debates are much like their behavior. Just devalue the debate with points and questions that have been answered time and time again.
Remind me please... In your opinion... Why did we leave the Big12? Why did we stop playing them if it was so profitable?
We left the Big 12 because it was a toxic conference because of the mismanagement by the sips. Which is why I never want them to join the SEC. That has nothing to do with playing them once a year.
Ahhh.... I see... there is no reasoning with some that thinks, in any way, that comparing an A&M/PVAMU is a fair comparison to any other rivalry in the nation. That's the type of game we would be switching it out with. and the A&M rivalry is not comparable to the other rivalries.
Also, all those fams you mention watching other rivalries? Few of them by comparison want to watch tu/A&M... THAT is why they are watching the other games. False Prove it.
A&M/tu does not have the draw of those other rivalries. False.
Prove Unicorns don't exist.LightningDammitt said:Prove it.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bailey said:Really? They depreciate our market? What game is the average national football fan tuning into to watch Georgia Tech? What about South Carolina? What about Florida? This idea that we won't get national exposure playing the sips is a lie. Especially since it is certainly more exposure than we would get playing Prarieview A&M.LightningDammitt said:Again. You are missing the point. Playing teams other than them broadens our market. They depreciate our market. Broadening our market will pay off later, much better than our market playing them.Champ Bailey said:It would absolutely sell more tickets than any of our other OOC games, so it would maximize revenue. They absolutely do see us as a rival, as indicated by sold out games in sports like baseball. So it is absolutely a positive move.LightningDammitt said:It has nothing to do with playing Texas. The business of A&M football is more important than playing a former rival, who no longer sees us as a rival. It is not a revenue stream, and is not a positive move in making A&M's football business great. Our success since 2012, compared to other teams in the Big12 bear that out.Champ Bailey said:What does that have to do with not playing Texas though?GoodOldAgs said:Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
Doing what's best for the program and what's best for the fans has nothing to do with revenue stream. That's pretty misguided. Do you think the players give a **** how much money the administration is making off them when they don't get any of that? Hell no. They want to win football games. The fans want to support a winning football team. The administration's priority should be to field a winning football team because you. play the game to win. A&M is a going to be highly profitable either way, so I don't understand why winning can't be foremost and everyone has such a problem with it. Winning only drives up profitability. Our fancy new stadium and facilities wouldn't have been possible without the success of 2012.
There are better, bigger, more competitive games without them.
We played them far too long. They cheated and degraded us at every turn, just to win a game, that in the end, even they do not appreciate as much as they appreciate their rivalry with OU. they even try to elevate their "rivalries" with Tech and TCU above the rivalry we once had with them. As with all their rivals, at some point they will deem themselves above OU, TCU and Tech also, and will devalue it. They are toxic. Even the "old days" you are longing for bear that out.
Round and round we go. Your debates are much like their behavior. Just devalue the debate with points and questions that have been answered time and time again.
Remind me please... In your opinion... Why did we leave the Big12? Why did we stop playing them if it was so profitable?
We left the Big 12 because it was a toxic conference because of the mismanagement by the sips. Which is why I never want them to join the SEC. That has nothing to do with playing them once a year.
Ahhh.... I see... there is no reasoning with some that thinks, in any way, that comparing an A&M/PVAMU is a fair comparison to any other rivalry in the nation. That's the type of game we would be switching it out with. and the A&M rivalry is not comparable to the other rivalries.
Also, all those fams you mention watching other rivalries? Few of them by comparison want to watch tu/A&M... THAT is why they are watching the other games. False Prove it.
A&M/tu does not have the draw of those other rivalries. False.
Easy! Have you ever seen one?
I was thinking along the lines of...I have fond memories of an ex-girlfriend of mine but I'd rather get kicked in the nuts 1000 times before I would go date her again. It just makes no sense. But yours is good too.DayAg! said:
Why would one want to expose themselves to cancer again when they were able to get rid of it once. Some of you people let nostalgia get in the way of rational thought. Rational thought exposes tu for what they are. A stack the deck at all costs to win program. They are still the same tu that was left behind. If you think otherwise then you really have let nostalgia cloud your thinking into making a move that would be detrimental in more ways than one.
You keep changing your argument. First it was for the fans. Then it was for the revenue. Now it is for the exposure.Champ Bailey said:Again you are misrepresenting my argument. No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football. You are setting up ridiculous either/or fallacies.schmellba99 said:I say that becasue we have 115 years of history as a program that completely suggest otherwise. We still have a large contingent of former students that, to this day, put one upping tu in some form or fashion as the highest achievement possible. That has been our anchor and we thankfully cut the chain a few years back. It will still take a few more years for our system as a whole to metabolize out the stupid mentality that tu needs to somehow be such an important part of our life. To go back to that is just stupid.Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
You keep talking about the fans as if they are the driving factor. Simply put, they aren't. TV contracts and exposure is the driving factor. Fans are going to be there whether we play tu or not, and we'll get a lot more fans being a contender than we ever would playing tu. Not sure why this is such a hard concept, other than you simply think bragging rights over them is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
As far as exposure goes, it's one of the best rivalries in college football. Rivalry games gain you national exposure. So it would benefit us in the tv markets as well.
We have all of those, even without playing tu. You have your head buried in the sand when faced with the reality of what playing tu has historically meant. We get it, you have ***** envy and want to crow to your friends when we win. Problem is that when you look at the overall picture and weigh the pros versus the cons of playing, there really aren't any pros that carry weight and a whole lot of cons. Well, to a rational person anyway.
They are like playing with a scorpion. At some point you are going to get stung, and when you do the fact of the matter is that you can't get mad at them for doing what their very nature dictates they should do.
I love how people always get personal when their arguments get refuted. I won't take part in it though.schmellba99 said:You keep changing your argument. First it was for the fans. Then it was for the revenue. Now it is for the exposure.Champ Bailey said:Again you are misrepresenting my argument. No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football. You are setting up ridiculous either/or fallacies.schmellba99 said:I say that becasue we have 115 years of history as a program that completely suggest otherwise. We still have a large contingent of former students that, to this day, put one upping tu in some form or fashion as the highest achievement possible. That has been our anchor and we thankfully cut the chain a few years back. It will still take a few more years for our system as a whole to metabolize out the stupid mentality that tu needs to somehow be such an important part of our life. To go back to that is just stupid.Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
You keep talking about the fans as if they are the driving factor. Simply put, they aren't. TV contracts and exposure is the driving factor. Fans are going to be there whether we play tu or not, and we'll get a lot more fans being a contender than we ever would playing tu. Not sure why this is such a hard concept, other than you simply think bragging rights over them is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
As far as exposure goes, it's one of the best rivalries in college football. Rivalry games gain you national exposure. So it would benefit us in the tv markets as well.
We have all of those, even without playing tu. You have your head buried in the sand when faced with the reality of what playing tu has historically meant. We get it, you have ***** envy and want to crow to your friends when we win. Problem is that when you look at the overall picture and weigh the pros versus the cons of playing, there really aren't any pros that carry weight and a whole lot of cons. Well, to a rational person anyway.
They are like playing with a scorpion. At some point you are going to get stung, and when you do the fact of the matter is that you can't get mad at them for doing what their very nature dictates they should do.
I haven't changed my argument at all. My original point still stands. We should play Texas every year, because it's the most fun game that we can play. However, people keep listing all these additional reasons we shouldn't play them. So I'm just addressing why they are wrong on that. You are actually the person who brought up revenue and then exposure. Don't get mad at me when I address those and prove your reasoning wrong.
And yes, I fully admit, the sips were conniving, backstabbing, lecherous conference partners. That's why I don't want them in our conference when the Big 12 inevitably fails. I do still want to play them every year, because it's the most fun matchup out of anyone in the nation.
They still are regardless of conference affiliation. They are toxic. What could have possibly made you think that has changed and still wouldn't be the case if we played them now? A tiger doesn't change its stripes..Champ Bailey said:I love how people always get personal when their arguments get refuted. I won't take part in it though.schmellba99 said:You keep changing your argument. First it was for the fans. Then it was for the revenue. Now it is for the exposure.Champ Bailey said:Again you are misrepresenting my argument. No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football. You are setting up ridiculous either/or fallacies.schmellba99 said:I say that becasue we have 115 years of history as a program that completely suggest otherwise. We still have a large contingent of former students that, to this day, put one upping tu in some form or fashion as the highest achievement possible. That has been our anchor and we thankfully cut the chain a few years back. It will still take a few more years for our system as a whole to metabolize out the stupid mentality that tu needs to somehow be such an important part of our life. To go back to that is just stupid.Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
You keep talking about the fans as if they are the driving factor. Simply put, they aren't. TV contracts and exposure is the driving factor. Fans are going to be there whether we play tu or not, and we'll get a lot more fans being a contender than we ever would playing tu. Not sure why this is such a hard concept, other than you simply think bragging rights over them is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
As far as exposure goes, it's one of the best rivalries in college football. Rivalry games gain you national exposure. So it would benefit us in the tv markets as well.
We have all of those, even without playing tu. You have your head buried in the sand when faced with the reality of what playing tu has historically meant. We get it, you have ***** envy and want to crow to your friends when we win. Problem is that when you look at the overall picture and weigh the pros versus the cons of playing, there really aren't any pros that carry weight and a whole lot of cons. Well, to a rational person anyway.
They are like playing with a scorpion. At some point you are going to get stung, and when you do the fact of the matter is that you can't get mad at them for doing what their very nature dictates they should do.
I haven't changed my argument at all. My original point still stands. We should play Texas every year, because it's the most fun game that we can play. However, people keep listing all these additional reasons we shouldn't play them. So I'm just addressing why they are wrong on that. You are actually the person who brought up revenue and then exposure. Don't get mad at me when I address those and prove your reasoning wrong.
And yes, I fully admit, the sips were conniving, backstabbing, lecherous conference partners. That's why I don't want them in our conference when the Big 12 inevitably fails. I do still want to play them every year, because it's the most fun matchup out of anyone in the nation.
So we desired some Aggie and Cornhusker booty, huh? We did cornhole Nebraska more than a few times...Quote:
And yes, I fully admit, the sips were conniving, backstabbing, lecherous conference partners.
GoodOldAgs said:They still are. They are toxic. What makes you think that has changed and still wouldn't be the case if we played them now?Champ Bailey said:I love how people always get personal when their arguments get refuted. I won't take part in it though.schmellba99 said:You keep changing your argument. First it was for the fans. Then it was for the revenue. Now it is for the exposure.Champ Bailey said:Again you are misrepresenting my argument. No one is saying that we should start playing tu and stop trying to be good at football. You are setting up ridiculous either/or fallacies.schmellba99 said:I say that becasue we have 115 years of history as a program that completely suggest otherwise. We still have a large contingent of former students that, to this day, put one upping tu in some form or fashion as the highest achievement possible. That has been our anchor and we thankfully cut the chain a few years back. It will still take a few more years for our system as a whole to metabolize out the stupid mentality that tu needs to somehow be such an important part of our life. To go back to that is just stupid.Champ Bailey said:Believe it or not, most fanbases are capable of caring about beating more than their rival. Why do you automatically assume that because I want to beat Texas that I don't care about beating LSU or Bama? It's a misrepresentation of the argument.schmellba99 said:A&M football is a business, what is best for the fans is largely irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. A&M football needs to do what is best for A&M football.Champ Bailey said:LightningDammitt said:Champ Bai said:
Oh well when you phrase it that way you are right. I shouldn't have to want what is best for A&M's football program. A&M's football program should do what is best for the fans. Playing the sips is best for the fans, because it provides the most entertainment value.
You are projecting your priorities as the group priorities. My priorities as a fan differ from yours - I'd be much happier, assuming we go with the fallacy that what is best for the fans is a contributing factor, with A&M being competitive for West division and SEC titles on a fairly regular basis versus the occasional win against tu just because nostalgia kicks in.
If we go back to playing tu, we fall right back into the rut of worrying about just being better than tu in some metric. I will be happier as a fan to not have that albatross hanging around our neck and want us to worry about what A&M football (and other sports) can do to become A&M sports and not "we are better than tu in some obscure category" sports.
Nobody is suggesting to invite them to the SEC. We are saying play them just like FUor USCe do.
Also, A&M football's business is providing entertainment to the fans. Your point that they don't care what is best for the fans is wrong. Their entire revenue stream is dependent on the fans. So really, playing against tu is best for the program, as it maxes revenue stream, regardless of how good our team is that year.
You keep talking about the fans as if they are the driving factor. Simply put, they aren't. TV contracts and exposure is the driving factor. Fans are going to be there whether we play tu or not, and we'll get a lot more fans being a contender than we ever would playing tu. Not sure why this is such a hard concept, other than you simply think bragging rights over them is the ultimate aphrodisiac.
As far as exposure goes, it's one of the best rivalries in college football. Rivalry games gain you national exposure. So it would benefit us in the tv markets as well.
We have all of those, even without playing tu. You have your head buried in the sand when faced with the reality of what playing tu has historically meant. We get it, you have ***** envy and want to crow to your friends when we win. Problem is that when you look at the overall picture and weigh the pros versus the cons of playing, there really aren't any pros that carry weight and a whole lot of cons. Well, to a rational person anyway.
They are like playing with a scorpion. At some point you are going to get stung, and when you do the fact of the matter is that you can't get mad at them for doing what their very nature dictates they should do.
I haven't changed my argument at all. My original point still stands. We should play Texas every year, because it's the most fun game that we can play. However, people keep listing all these additional reasons we shouldn't play them. So I'm just addressing why they are wrong on that. You are actually the person who brought up revenue and then exposure. Don't get mad at me when I address those and prove your reasoning wrong.
And yes, I fully admit, the sips were conniving, backstabbing, lecherous conference partners. That's why I don't want them in our conference when the Big 12 inevitably fails. I do still want to play them every year, because it's the most fun matchup out of anyone in the nation.
Because we wouldn't be conference partners with them. We would just be playing them once a year.
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
80
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
62
Cade Harris
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
55
TayTrox
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53
Big Shooter
LIVE from BBP: No. 1 Texas A&M vs. No. 20 Georgia (Saturday, Game 1)
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
49