TXK said:

---

ebag02 said:

---

The good old days of the big 12 vs the SEC.

Big 12 113 - 86 (56.8%)
SEC 63-34 (64.9%)

---

The SEC years portion of that is padded with lots of games against PV, Lamar, Nichols, Sam Houston, Houston Baptist, SFA,

---

So are the Big 12 years...back then we had UAB, New Mexico, Arkansas State, Montana State, Louisiana Monroe, Fresno State, etc.

Mike Sherman does not consider Arkansas State padding the schedule.

ebag02 said:

---

Mike Sherman does not consider Arkansas State padding the schedule.

---

I was 11 years old when that happened and remember having a meltdown. Definitely not padding the schedule back then.

The real reason: we had a $16 million loan and couldn't pay it back as the Big 12 started coming apart at the seams. Our media partners agreed to keep the funding the same for 10 teams as 12 and Texas, OU, and Texas A&M were promised $20 million revenue shares from the conference. That, plus Texas getting an initial "no" from Larry Scott on the LHN being Texas' regional network similar to how each group of two schools in the PAC-12 today has a regional network. It wasn't clear whether Texas was demanding it be hosted by ESPN, but all of the sudden in the 2010 push to the Pac they changed their minds.

Remember in that push the SEC talked to us and to OU and the public assumption was they wanted OU and Texas A&M as a package deal. But former state governor, US Senator from Oklahoma, and sitting OU President David Borden wasn't all gay interested in moving to the SEC due to academics. (They later tried to wrangle and invite for just themselves and Oklahoma State and were turned down because Texas had no interest.)

But we stayed for the cash. And then were told it wasn't available yet and OU and Texas tried to shake us down by magnanimously turning down their promised $20 million shares. Then the LHN was revealed in all of its glory and the contract called for Texas and ESPN to work together to secure more college games and the Texas high school playoffs for broadcasting in LHN.

That arrived at the Big 12 meetings like a too ole lutefisk.

Some things worth remembering:

1. We had a loan that the former students did not step up and discharge
2. Texas did the negotiations for the six schools to move to the Pac-10 to make it the Pac-16 and purposefully excluded Nebraska.
3. Nebraska confronted Beebe while making their own plane which Beebe caught wind of.
4. Beebe issued an ultimatum to leave and Mizzou immediately reached out to the Big Ten for their 12th spot that Nebraska had been angling for. The Big Ten rejected Mizzou and the six-team move to the PAC-10 didn't include them.
5. When the LHN came up with contract documents in 2011 (one year after the aborted move of the six teams), Texas was selling the story that we had previously been invited to share a network and turned it down. Plus the high school games being seen as an advantage for recruiting for Texas.
6. Finally: it became public that ESPN was pressuring schools like Texas Tech to agree to their games with Texas being on the LHN. Tech threatened to forfeit rather than have that happen and word got out.

As an fascinating epilogue, the Big 12 agreed to equal tier 1 and tier 2 revenue sharing with the schools retaining tier 3 rights. Presumably Texas recommended this and it probably was related to getting grants of rights secured.

None of it matters because we can't go back. We would look like the most ultimate ******* if we tried to return. The only thing left to do is wallow in our SEC mediocrity because the chances of us winning a conference championship, much less a national title are slim to none.

greg.w.h said:

---

The real reason: we had a $16 million loan and couldn't pay it back as the Big 12 started coming apart at the seams. Our media partners agreed to keep the funding the same for 10 teams as 12 and Texas, OU, and Texas A&M were promised $20 million revenue shares from the conference. That, plus Texas getting an initial "no" from Larry Scott on the LHN being Texas' regional network similar to how each group of two schools in the PAC-12 today has a regional network. It wasn't clear whether Texas was demanding it be hosted by ESPN, but all of the sudden in the 2010 push to the Pac they changed their minds.

Remember in that push the SEC talked to us and to OU and the public assumption was they wanted OU and Texas A&M as a package deal. But former state governor, US Senator from Oklahoma, and sitting OU President David Borden wasn't all gay interested in moving to the SEC due to academics. (They later tried to wrangle and invite for just themselves and Oklahoma State and were turned down because Texas had no interest.)

But we stayed for the cash. And then were told it wasn't available yet and OU and Texas tried to shake us down by magnanimously turning down their promised $20 million shares. Then the LHN was revealed in all of its glory and the contract called for Texas and ESPN to work together to secure more college games and the Texas high school playoffs for broadcasting in LHN.

That arrived at the Big 12 meetings like a too ole lutefisk.

Some things worth remembering:

1. We had a loan that the former students did not step up and discharge
2. Texas did the negotiations for the six schools to move to the Pac-10 to make it the Pac-16 and purposefully excluded Nebraska.
3. Nebraska confronted Beebe while making their own plane which Beebe caught wind of.
4. Beebe issued an ultimatum to leave and Mizzou immediately reached out to the Big Ten for their 12th spot that Nebraska had been angling for. The Big Ten rejected Mizzou and the six-team move to the PAC-10 didn't include them.
5. When the LHN came up with contract documents in 2011 (one year after the aborted move of the six teams), Texas was selling the story that we had previously been invited to share a network and turned it down. Plus the high school games being seen as an advantage for recruiting for Texas.
6. Finally: it became public that ESPN was pressuring schools like Texas Tech to agree to their games with Texas being on the LHN. Tech threatened to forfeit rather than have that happen and word got out.

As an fascinating epilogue, the Big 12 agreed to equal tier 1 and tier 2 revenue sharing with the schools retaining tier 3 rights. Presumably Texas recommended this and it probably was related to getting grants of rights secured.

---

I'm curious where you got this information. I would love to read an account of how this went down from someone who was involved I'm sure there are different stories depending on who you ask.

greg.w.h said:

---

OU President David Borden wasn't all gay

---

Disagree

1. Profit
2. Freedom
3. Exposure

I can't think of any real positives to staying in the Big12.
I would argue that our current recruiting classes would be much worse if we weren't in the SEC. Being in this conference has given us much more media coverage. Recruits want to play here due to our conference affiliation, I think a vast majority would overlook us if we were in the Big 12.
I think we fit culturally much better with the SEC. The "A&M's a cult" rhetoric was prevalent in the Big 12, but in the SEC we just seem normal. With the exception of the Lone Star Showdown and maybe OU, I'm much more excited to talk about every single conference game we play here. We can see the grove, cowbells, war eagle....so many more meaningful teams with tradition. Not just me, but the media loves to talk that stuff up, which also gives us more exposure. I mean, what TV network really wants to hype up away games to Waco and Iowa State....I was a student during the Big 12 era and I cannot think of anything interesting to talk up about hardly any of those schools.

There is no reason we won't be a consistent top SEC team soon, and Jimbo very possibly is the right guy to get us there. It's only his second year, he's redshirting most the guys he recruited, his first 2 schedules were nightmares, we lost our TE and RB right out of the gate. If we didn't look so gross against Arkansas (which can happen, especially when the focus are on all these top 10 teams we play) I don't think everyone would be having such a meltdown. We've lost to two #1's and a top 10. In theory, only 10 teams should expect to walk away with any of those wins.

I'd much rather take a few losses in high profile games than sneak in the playoffs by avoiding any competition, that just seems cheap....plus you'd likely just end up losing to some SEC team when you get there.

wangus12 said:

---

None of it matters because we can't go back. We would look like the most ultimate ******* if we tried to return. The only thing left to do is wallow in our SEC mediocrity because the chances of us winning a conference championship, much less a national title are slim to none.

---

If it's any consolation, we would likely be fifth in the standings in the Big XII this season, which is by definition also mediocre.

Serious hypothetical- would you rather have won the national championship in 2012 but have stayed in the BDF or be where we are presently?

I think I know most of your answers, especially the laughable "Id rather be 3-3 in the SEC than 6-0 in the Big 12" guy, but curious what some of the other fans think.

I would think how you are treated should be a big factor. With us you are not backstabbed, ridiculed, stolen from and put down. From the very first day of membership you were welcomed with our very own southern hospitality, respected, treated as an equal, made us all happy you came over with us and we want you to have a top flight athletic program just like the rest of us. You no longer are surrounded by members that treat you as an enemy but by schools that take an active part in helping and wanting you to be your very best. In short, you are a brother. That's why you hear the SEC chant. We pull for our brothers with their fight against others. This is unique to the SEC.

Thanks for throwing in with us. We're glad you did. Were you treated like this from which you came? Would you have had the facilities you now have and the future facilities that are being planned? Are you looked upon as a little baby brother to abuse, kick around and keep put down or appreciated, respected as an equal with full rights, privileges, say so and, oh yes, sharing the same pot of money?

levypantsEOY said:

---

Serious hypothetical- would you rather have won the national championship in 2012 but have stayed in the BDF or be where we are presently?

I think I know most of your answers, especially the laughable "Id rather be 3-3 in the SEC than 6-0 in the Big 12" guy, but curious what some of the other fans think.

---

We don't make the national championship game in 2012 if we stay in the big 12

What a bunch of loser pansies.

Bo Darville said:

---

levypantsEOY said:

---

Serious hypothetical- would you rather have won the national championship in 2012 but have stayed in the BDF or be where we are presently?

I think I know most of your answers, especially the laughable "Id rather be 3-3 in the SEC than 6-0 in the Big 12" guy, but curious what some of the other fans think.

---

We don't make the national championship game in 2012 if we stay in the big 12

---

you're wrong. K State was #2 the second to last week of the season prior to losing to Baylor. Had we gone undefeated in the Bug 12 that year we likely would have been in the national championship game.

The SWC was the home state conference. That had long since passed. We had very little in common with the prairie schools of the Big 8. There was never any sense of rivalry whatever. We're more culturally aligned with the SEC schools. Much better fit, IMO.

Winning? Eh. Wait til next year -- same mantra as the Big XII days.

Saint Pablo said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

levypantsEOY said:

---

Serious hypothetical- would you rather have won the national championship in 2012 but have stayed in the BDF or be where we are presently?

I think I know most of your answers, especially the laughable "Id rather be 3-3 in the SEC than 6-0 in the Big 12" guy, but curious what some of the other fans think.

---

We don't make the national championship game in 2012 if we stay in the big 12

---

you're wrong. K State was #2 the second to last week of the season prior to losing to Baylor. Had we gone undefeated in the Bug 12 that year we likely would have been in the national championship game.

---

There's zero chance we jump an undefeated Notre Dame or undefeated Alabama. That's a matchup every media member and TV exec would want to see.

mlb87 said:

---

Not alot of fun running this gauntlet every year. Seems like we would be ranked higher every year if we would have stayed in the b12. I know, makes the regular season more exciting but teams don't seem to be rewarded for strength of schedule.

---

Why do we have a Southland Conf team entrance?

Bo Darville said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

levypantsEOY said:

---

Serious hypothetical- would you rather have won the national championship in 2012 but have stayed in the BDF or be where we are presently?

I think I know most of your answers, especially the laughable "Id rather be 3-3 in the SEC than 6-0 in the Big 12" guy, but curious what some of the other fans think.

---

We don't make the national championship game in 2012 if we stay in the big 12

---

you're wrong. K State was #2 the second to last week of the season prior to losing to Baylor. Had we gone undefeated in the Bug 12 that year we likely would have been in the national championship game.

---

There's zero chance we jump an undefeated Notre Dame or undefeated Alabama. That's a matchup every media member and TV exec would want to see.

---

Idiots who always make the 2012 MNC argument always forget this fact. Bama doesn't have a loss if we're not in the SEC and ND was undefeated. With the BCS formula we are #3 if we are undefeated and in the Big 12

Quote:

---

Conference plays fair with all members financially and mostly otherwise.

---

Pretty much this.

We are valued and respected by our conference mates as an equal. That was never the case in the Big 12.

TheWoodsAg said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

Saint Pablo said:

---

Bo Darville said:

---

levypantsEOY said:

---

Serious hypothetical- would you rather have won the national championship in 2012 but have stayed in the BDF or be where we are presently?

I think I know most of your answers, especially the laughable "Id rather be 3-3 in the SEC than 6-0 in the Big 12" guy, but curious what some of the other fans think.

---

We don't make the national championship game in 2012 if we stay in the big 12

---

you're wrong. K State was #2 the second to last week of the season prior to losing to Baylor. Had we gone undefeated in the Bug 12 that year we likely would have been in the national championship game.

---

There's zero chance we jump an undefeated Notre Dame or undefeated Alabama. That's a matchup every media member and TV exec would want to see.

---

Idiots who always make the 2012 MNC argument always forget this fact. Bama doesn't have a loss if we're not in the SEC and ND was undefeated. With the BCS formula we are #3 if we are undefeated and in the Big 12

---

We would have had wins over OU, Kansas State, and Texas who were all ranked at the end of the year. We also would have been the conference champions. Notre Dame only had ranked wins over OU and Stanford and obviously did not win a conference championship.

As I said, prior to losing to Baylor, KSU was ranked ahead of Notre Dame.

Notre Dame had yet to play USC. They then rocketed to #1. You should know enough about the politics of college football to know that an undefeated Notre Dame is not being left out of a national championship game regardless of their schedule.

USC sucked that year, they were 7-6 and weren't ranked at the time ND played them.

ND jumped to number one because Oregon and Kansas State who were ahead of them lost, not because they had an impressive win over USC.

I get what you are saying regarding the politics of college football, but rankings showed for weeks in a row that KSU was ahead of ND and I don't see what result would have changed that other than KSU losing.

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

Baylor is 6-0 and will be a top #20 team ranked ahead of us

---

Did they even play on TV today? If they did, then I couldn't find it. Has tech or baylor played a televised game this season?

And if you have to look it up to answer then you've just made my point.

---

What kind of garbage tv package are you rolling with that you don't have ESPN, ESPN2, FS1, FSSW and Fox?

Quote:

---

Baylor is 6-0 and will be a top #20 team ranked ahead of us

---

We would beat them again.

Fair point. I forgot that I had FS1 and that they show college football. Thanks for the reminder and enjoy that trip to Stillwater if you're not watching it on Fox.

And some of you forget history. In 2010, the sips told us to pack b/c we were going West, like it or not! Then in 2011, the sips decided to show HS games on their personal network as a recruiting tool. Those were the 2 worst things in a long littany of chickencrap moves!

In no uncertain terms: F--K THEM and F--K THEIR CONFERENCE!

Cinco Ranch Aggie said:

---

Reno Hightower said:

---

In pre-playoff 2012 a hypothetically undefeated and Big12 champ A&M would have been in the BCS championship game over an undefeated SEC champ Alabama team and an undefeated Notre Dame team? There is no way on gods green earth that would've happened. A&M would've been left out in the cold at 3rd and if you don't believe that you don't know college football.

---

This.

Go back to 1992. Alabama, Miami, and Texas A&M all finished the regular season undefeated. Alabama tacked on an SEC title game. A&M was slated to the Cotton Bowl to face a 1-loss (I think) Notre Dame team, while Alabama and Miami were aligned in another big bowl (Orange or Sugar). Was Texas A&M given any mention as finishing with a win over Notre Dame and at least a share of the national title? Nope. This was in an era when there were multiple years of two teams "sharing" a national title (Washington and GA Tech, for instance). Nope, we were not in that discussion. The national title that season was to be decided between Alabama and Miami - Alabama clubbed Miami and claimed the title. Of course, the DMN ran their hit piece on A&M shortly before the Cotton Bowl, and many of our players ended up suspended for the Cotton Bowl, and Notre Dame kicked our ass, so it was a moot point.

---

Our schedule in 1992 was weak as hell. Stanford (9-3) was the only ranked team we played. Texas, Rice, and Baylor were the only other teams w/winning records on our schedule and they were all 6-5 in regular season play with only Baylor making a bowl. When we struggled to beat a terrible Houston team 38-30 we got jumped by a 1 loss FSU (who lost by 3 to Miami in one of the wide right games) and never got higher than #4 in the polls. Notre Dame was 9-1-1 in the regular season with a tie to Michigan (8-0-3 and also had a 61-7 win over UH)) and a beatdown loss to Stanford. Has we played FSU in a Cotton rematch like we should have (Cotton people saw bigger $$$ w/ND) it's possible we could have split the title but instead we got wrecked by the Irish.

I froze my ass of watching Jerome Bettis abuse us.

Because we enjoy being a CFB floor mat.

OTredux said:

---

I actually like this question and I know the OP is getting pounded.

If we looked at it objectively there are two real benefits from playing in the SEC. And one, while important, is all in our own heads.

1-$$$. That is objective and quantifiable. I am in the minority with this opinion, but I really get such tired head of this argument. I really dont care about how many gold plated toilets we build. If we were in B10, SEC, or B12 we would be fine. IF we made $ 45M with SEC but only $ 39M with another conference, I don't care. The dick measuring fans have over money is quite stupid. I do understand the importance, but at the top 2-3 levels of the P5, it is all pretty much the same. However, more is indeed more so I do get that people care a lot about it. I just don't put a lot of stock in it in the relative terms of the top conferences.

2-getting away from the Austinites. OK, I also get it. We get an ego trip from it compared to always being their little brother. It is also my (Extreme) minority opinion to not care about this. I really enjoy playing them. And YES our home games are way way way better. But is losing to 3-4 SEC teams a year really better? We have 100k fans watch us get run in our building. And it happens pretty much 2-3 times per season.

ISU is a bad, not exciting team. I get it. So is KU, KSU, etc. But, the end result is what we should be after and that is winning conferences and (Dare I say) NC's. Our path is significantly more difficult in the SEC. And that is for a program like ours that historically never rises to the occasion.

To me, we are a Texas program. Not a southern program.

I'd be willing to forgo all the money and the presitge of playing in SEC to re-write history and play against our historic rivals. AND have a better path to conference and national championships.

Too late now. We would NEVER change and I get that.

But as years, losses, insignificance mounts, I feel stronger that our own inferiority complexes have led us to be buried in the middle of a better conference and prevent us from playing natural rivals and our history.

---

Someone sent this to 1310 The Ticket and it was read on air in it's entirety today. They used it to reinforce this notion that Aggies are starting to regret the move. Basically they are putting out a "you made your bed, now lie in it" tone.

Last year these same people were going on about how great a move it was to go to the SEC. This year is not going well and now they are all piling on with "stupid Aggies should have stayed in the Big 12" bullcrap.

I just don't get it. If we went back to the Big 12, we might have a better record but we would still be just as average. So people want to play weaker competition, potentially have a slightly better record but not actually be any better, while playing in a bunch of crappy, boring midwestern teams? Y'all are nuts.

Some of you are so stupid it's amazing you remember to breathe.

This is how stupid some of you are - our record seven years in to the SEC is BETTER than our record the last seven years on the Big 12.

Plus, we've finished ranked more times than the last seven years of the Big 12.

PLUS, we finished ranked higher in the final AP poll while in the SEC than we EVER did IN OUR ENTIRE TIME IN THE BIG 12.

We won exactly ONE big 12 title. So, those of you *****ing about not enough "hardware," when we finally win our first SEC title, we will TIE our total amount of hardware that we got while playing in the Big 12.

I strongly suspect most of you are rival big 12 fans that miss the hell out of playing Daddy, but just in the off chance you are an actual Ag - Shut the hell up. Your points are terrible. You're embarrassing the rest of us that actually understand and watch college football. Go root for the sooners or the raiders when they play the sips so you can get your rocks off doing your horn down and obsessing about the longhorns.

Leave the real football to the real fans.

TheBro said:

---

brittsgap said:

---

OU has basically 1 regular season game and all their games against cupcakes are on national tv. They are laughing their way to the playoffs, bank and national signing day. Strength of schedule, quality losses are way overrated.

---

Can you name all the tough teams Bama will play this year?

---

Top 15 Auburn, Top 25 Texas A&M, #2 LSU, Top 10 GA or Top 10 FLA dependant upon the SEC Championship, Probably soon to be ranked SCAR (who is relatively good), Top 4 team in the 1st Round of the Playoffs, Top 4 team in the National Championship....

Is that enough opponents??