A&M leaving BDF for SEC will turn out to be . . .

10,894 Views | 72 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Bryanisbest
Bryanisbest
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
. . . the most destructive thing that has ever happened to the football program at the University of Texas. We are seeing the first fruits of that decision now. The damage done will only deepen as years go by. They will never return to their once dominant position. By the way, it will also prove to be the best thing that has ever happened to Aggie football. THE ONLY POSSIBLE THING TU CAN DO TO REVERSE IT IS TO COME HAT IN HAND AND PETITION THE SEC TO GET IN. Their extreme arrogance will not ever permit them to do that. There is no other conceivable solution for them.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
Tom Doniphon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Texas ain't getting in the SEC.... delusional.
FJB
Muy
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Remember, big city media will still not mention the Ags much as they are committed to pretending that A&M left the state, and the entire state (apparently made up of 4 teams) is Big XII country.

Interestingly, Dallas media happily talks non-stop about OU as if they are located in Texas.

Fortunately, recruits don't watch local news.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
You better hope they expand to 16 or 32.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
You better hope they expand to 16 or 32.
I don't think so. A good Texas team does fine in an 8 team play off. We've seen very recently that eyeballs still is a big factor in who gets picked.
Potcake
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

Their extreme arrogance will not ever permit them to do that.

You actually think they are the ones that will not permit them entry?

Passionate Besos
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story


What the hell does this even mean? You could say the exact same thing with literally any other person they hired.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Passionate Besos said:

AlexNguyen said:

I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story


What the hell does this even mean? You could say the exact same thing with literally any other person they hired.
You really need that explained? Past UT admins wouldn't have touched someone like Sarkisian with his personal issues with a 10 foot pole.
BohunkAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
They clearly made the move to win by hiring a .500 career coach with a past drinking problem. Clearly.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
You better hope they expand to 16 or 32.
I don't think so. A good Texas team does fine in an 8 team play off. We've seen very recently that eyeballs still is a big factor in who gets picked.
It's pretty sad that you would have to depend on eyeballs to get in rather than performance.

And even so, by 2025 all your t-shirt fans may be gone.
MROD92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
OU has shown they can consistently be the tallest midget, and then bounced from the playoffs
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
You better hope they expand to 16 or 32.
I don't think so. A good Texas team does fine in an 8 team play off. We've seen very recently that eyeballs still is a big factor in who gets picked.
It's pretty sad that you would have to depend on eyeballs to get in rather than performance.

And even so, by 2025 all your t-shirt fans may be gone.
Eyeballs are what matters otherwise the G5s like Cincinnati or UCF from a few years ago would have gotten a shot. Your wild shot in the dark does not anger me. College football is what it is. Eyeballs do matter until the system changes in a huge way.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MROD92 said:

OU has shown they can consistently be the tallest midget, and then bounced from the playoffs
You only need to get there and then you have a puncher's chance. Teams that should not on paper lose all the time when the game is actually played.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
You better hope they expand to 16 or 32.
I don't think so. A good Texas team does fine in an 8 team play off. We've seen very recently that eyeballs still is a big factor in who gets picked.
It's pretty sad that you would have to depend on eyeballs to get in rather than performance.

And even so, by 2025 all your t-shirt fans may be gone.
Eyeballs are what matters otherwise the G5s like Cincinnati or UCF from a few years ago would have gotten a shot. Your wild shot in the dark does not anger me. College football is what it is. Eyeballs do matter until the system changes in a huge way.
They wouldn't have gotten a shot because they weren't good enough. Which is the same reason tu would likely not get a shot either.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
You better hope they expand to 16 or 32.
I don't think so. A good Texas team does fine in an 8 team play off. We've seen very recently that eyeballs still is a big factor in who gets picked.
It's pretty sad that you would have to depend on eyeballs to get in rather than performance.

And even so, by 2025 all your t-shirt fans may be gone.
Eyeballs are what matters otherwise the G5s like Cincinnati or UCF from a few years ago would have gotten a shot. Your wild shot in the dark does not anger me. College football is what it is. Eyeballs do matter until the system changes in a huge way.
They wouldn't have gotten a shot because they weren't good enough. Which is the same reason tu would likely not get a shot either.
An undefeated Texas team gets into the 4 team play off. A 1 loss Texas team might have a chance in an 8 team playoff depending on whatever else happened. Sorry if that irritates you for whatever reason.
MROD92
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AlexNguyen said:

MROD92 said:

OU has shown they can consistently be the tallest midget, and then bounced from the playoffs
You only need to get there and then you have a puncher's chance. Teams that should not on paper lose all the time when the game is actually played.


Spoken like a true sip. Create the easiest path, bend the rules to your favor then hope for the best
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
MROD92 said:

AlexNguyen said:

MROD92 said:

OU has shown they can consistently be the tallest midget, and then bounced from the playoffs
You only need to get there and then you have a puncher's chance. Teams that should not on paper lose all the time when the game is actually played.


Spoken like a true sip. Create the easiest path, bend the rules to your favor then hope for the best
Sure, man. That doesn't sting either.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

OU has shown you only have to win the Big 12 as an undefeated and you will get a shot in the play off. I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story, but previously I had my doubts about how committed UT really was to winning in sports.

And consider what if the playoffs expand to 8 teams....
You better hope they expand to 16 or 32.
I don't think so. A good Texas team does fine in an 8 team play off. We've seen very recently that eyeballs still is a big factor in who gets picked.
It's pretty sad that you would have to depend on eyeballs to get in rather than performance.

And even so, by 2025 all your t-shirt fans may be gone.
Eyeballs are what matters otherwise the G5s like Cincinnati or UCF from a few years ago would have gotten a shot. Your wild shot in the dark does not anger me. College football is what it is. Eyeballs do matter until the system changes in a huge way.
They wouldn't have gotten a shot because they weren't good enough. Which is the same reason tu would likely not get a shot either.
An undefeated Texas team gets into the 4 team play off. A 1 loss Texas team might have a chance in an 8 team playoff depending on whatever else happened. Sorry if that irritates you for whatever reason.
The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:



The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Football is too important in the Great Plains and in Texas. Economically, these regions will not accept teams that have no chance at winning a NC. The Big 12 will remain a P5 or P4 until the system changes completely.
LOYAL AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:



The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Football is too important in the Great Plains and in Texas. Economically, these regions will not accept teams that have no chance at winning a NC. The Big 12 will remain a P5 or P4 until the system changes completely.
Genuine question despite the nature of this board. The outsiders perception is that Texas is more concerned with becoming Berkeley than with winning in sports. your first post on this thread suggests you would be willing to believe that to be true. If the academic side of the house doesn't care about sports then the question is what is propping them up. My answer would be the old guard donors and if that's true what happens when those guys die. Right now the outsiders perception is that Texas is dying athletically and that there's nobody behind the old guard who is willing to fund this thing at level necessary to win. Thoughts?
A fearful society is a compliant society. That's why Democrats and criminals prefer their victims to be unarmed. Gun Control is not about guns, it's about control.
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:



The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Football is too important in the Great Plains and in Texas. Economically, these regions will not accept teams that have no chance at winning a NC. The Big 12 will remain a P5 or P4 until the system changes completely.
You probably didn't see us leaving for the SEC or having tu implode in the meantime either.
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

Passionate Besos said:

AlexNguyen said:

I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story


What the hell does this even mean? You could say the exact same thing with literally any other person they hired.
You really need that explained? Past UT admins wouldn't have touched someone like Sarkisian with his personal issues with a 10 foot pole.
You ever heard of Augie Garrido?
SchizoAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
LOYAL AG said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:



The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Football is too important in the Great Plains and in Texas. Economically, these regions will not accept teams that have no chance at winning a NC. The Big 12 will remain a P5 or P4 until the system changes completely.
Genuine question despite the nature of this board. The outsiders perception is that Texas is more concerned with becoming Berkeley than with winning in sports. your first post on this thread suggests you would be willing to believe that to be true. If the academic side of the house doesn't care about sports then the question is what is propping them up. My answer would be the old guard donors and if that's true what happens when those guys die. Right now the outsiders perception is that Texas is dying athletically and that there's nobody behind the old guard who is willing to fund this thing at level necessary to win. Thoughts?
I think you might be overstating matters by calling that "the outsider's perception". I'm an outsider, and that isn't my perception. My perception is that the people who care about academics and those who care about athletics at t.u. are not the same people, and that won't change. Nor do I perceive that they are "dying athletically". They've simply reverted to their normal performance in the era of scholarship limits and racial integration (after the brief anomaly under Mack Brown).
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
LOYAL AG said:



Genuine question despite the nature of this board. The outsiders perception is that Texas is more concerned with becoming Berkeley than with winning in sports. your first post on this thread suggests you would be willing to believe that to be true. If the academic side of the house doesn't care about sports then the question is what is propping them up. My answer would be the old guard donors and if that's true what happens when those guys die. Right now the outsiders perception is that Texas is dying athletically and that there's nobody behind the old guard who is willing to fund this thing at level necessary to win. Thoughts?
I think that was exactly true with Bill Powers and Larry Faulkner as past UT presidents. They were happy with Texas being competitive and did not think athletics should eclipse the school's mission as a research engine to grow the state and country's economy. Ironic because Texas saw a huge increase in student interest when the Longhorns won the 2005 title in the Rose Bowl.

I think there is synergy that should be tapped. The two arms should work hand in hand. Athletics is the public face of the university to the broad majority of America. The smarter donors know this surely. I am not connected into the donor scene so I do not know if there are any mega young donors. I can't image there not be any cultivated however. You don't necessarily have to have graduated from the school to reap the advantages whatever they are of giving a lot of money. T. Boone Pickens gave a lot of money to many schools other than A&M and OSU.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Science Denier said:

AlexNguyen said:

Passionate Besos said:

AlexNguyen said:

I like that the UT admin has clearly made a move to win with the hire of Sarkisian. Whether that bears fruit or not is another story


What the hell does this even mean? You could say the exact same thing with literally any other person they hired.
You really need that explained? Past UT admins wouldn't have touched someone like Sarkisian with his personal issues with a 10 foot pole.
You ever heard of Augie Garrido?
I have. I also had no idea about his drinking issues before they arose again in Austin. Baseball ain't football.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:



The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Football is too important in the Great Plains and in Texas. Economically, these regions will not accept teams that have no chance at winning a NC. The Big 12 will remain a P5 or P4 until the system changes completely.
You probably didn't see us leaving for the SEC or having tu implode in the meantime either.
The three aren't connected events no matter your premise. Texas is entirely capable of succeeding or failing regardless of A&M conference affiliation. We affect each peripherally as competitors for fans and players but our separate success does not depend on each other failing.

I stand by my statement that the decision makers in the Big 12 schools and states will not allow the Big 12 to falter past the point of healing.
W
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I still don't understand why the horns have not explored and seriously considered going independent.

half the teams in the BDF would still agree to play them each year...and the other half was dragging down their SoS anyway
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
W said:

I still don't understand why the horns have not explored and seriously considered going independent.

half the teams in the BDF would still agree to play them each year...and the other half was dragging down their SoS anyway
The negotiations just to get a bowl tie in would be impossible. Then you look at TV etc. Nope, UT does well financially by staying exactly where it is.
W
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
bowl tie-ins are not a problem as long as the horns are a top 10 team.

and if they are not...does it really matter which bowl game the team would go to.

the Alamo, Texas, etc.., would gladly add a caveat to their selection process
aTmAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:



The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Football is too important in the Great Plains and in Texas. Economically, these regions will not accept teams that have no chance at winning a NC. The Big 12 will remain a P5 or P4 until the system changes completely.
You probably didn't see us leaving for the SEC or having tu implode in the meantime either.
The three aren't connected events no matter your premise. Texas is entirely capable of succeeding or failing regardless of A&M conference affiliation. We affect each peripherally as competitors for fans and players but our separate success does not depend on each other failing.

I stand by my statement that the decision makers in the Big 12 schools and states will not allow the Big 12 to falter past the point of healing.
Recruits cannot go to both tu and A&M. The idea that we are completely separate is naive. Furthermore, if Texas was capable of succeeding, don't you think they would have by now? Seems to me they are not capable.

And the B12 schools and states can't work magic anymore than the SWC schools and states could for the SWC.
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I just don't see the advantage. UT is one of the leaders in the Big 12. Why leave a good thing to be independent?
Madman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
AlexNguyen said:

I just don't see the advantage. UT is one of the leaders in the Big 12. Why leave a good thing to be independent?

It would open up the possibility of getting your own TV network. And that would almost guarantee success.
Tom Doniphon
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AlexNguyen
How long do you want to ignore this user?
aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:

AlexNguyen said:

aTmAg said:



The B12 is becoming more and more of a joke every year. By the time you guys ever get another B12 championship, you may be on the same status as the PAC12. Then you have to hope that the champions of legit conferences aren't undefeated too.
Yeah, I don't see that happening. Football is too important in the Great Plains and in Texas. Economically, these regions will not accept teams that have no chance at winning a NC. The Big 12 will remain a P5 or P4 until the system changes completely.
You probably didn't see us leaving for the SEC or having tu implode in the meantime either.
The three aren't connected events no matter your premise. Texas is entirely capable of succeeding or failing regardless of A&M conference affiliation. We affect each peripherally as competitors for fans and players but our separate success does not depend on each other failing.

I stand by my statement that the decision makers in the Big 12 schools and states will not allow the Big 12 to falter past the point of healing.
Recruits cannot go to both tu and A&M. The idea that we are completely separate is naive. Furthermore, if Texas was capable of succeeding, don't you think they would have by now? Seems to me they are not capable.

And the B12 schools and states can't work magic anymore than the SWC schools and states could for the SWC.


But I didn't say we were completely separate. I said our success does not depend on each other failing. I think that is true enough on reflection. Gotta run an errand so no more time to write for an hour or so.
Last Page
Page 1 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.