Some Questions Regarding A&M vs UT and Realignment

Consider this:
-Texas has remained in the B -12 and if they had not, the league would probably fold. No loyalty? OK, but they are a pretty big factor in the league’s survival, so far. Ags, like some others, ran out on the rest.

- Would the SEC liked to have had Texas when they took our little brother? Could Texas find a another home? Haven’t so far. Probably will some day. I like the league of teams, but not the admin.

-Ags used the LHN as an excuse. They left because they thought they could be SOMBODY with their new brothers and that famous SEC rant. Has anybody noticed their SEC arrogance, or is it just me? Then there was the money, I guess. (Kind of strange since they said no to the LHN cash cow.)

The LHN has not caused any unfair advantage to any team in the league. It is simply a platform of bit- -ing about Texas. OU has the FOX Sports Oklahoma channel in North Texas and they get a lot more exposure with that than does Texas with the LHN.

 

Interesting thought other than Stanford & Berzerkley were not part of the master plan for the new SWC, which has everything to do with those two killing the original move.

 

As long as the checks from Disney continue to come in and they don't bounce, how many viewers doesn't matter. DeLoss knew what he was doing.

 

Mr. Irrelevant fails to recognize that Texas, The University of Texas, is the only university that could pull that off. I guess Notre Dame has (had?) the Notre Dame Broadcasting Corporation. TELL ME that if A&M had such an offer, would they have rebuked it? My guess is probably not.....

 

Texas threatened to scuttle the conference in 2010. Schools like Baylor, Iowa State, Kansas State, etc. were going to be left in the dust. Texas was fine with that. Let's not pretend that Texas acted in the interest of the Big 12 or its members. Texas acted in its own best interest. The survival of the Big 12 was merely byproduct of that action. Texas is the lynch pin of the conference. No UT, no Big 12.

Nebraska, Colorado, A&M and Missouri acted in their own best interest as well.

Nebraska left because it believed the 6 schools in the PAC gambit were going to follow through and the conference would fold. Rather than wait to see how things played out they made a preemptive jump to a more stable conference.

Colorado left because it was concerned that its place as one of the 6 schools would be usurped by Baylor and its culture was a better fit in the PAC.

Missouri left because it had been so openly desirous of leaving the Big 12 when it thought the B1G was going to come calling that it had burned every Big 12 bridge it had. The SEC took Missouri because it evened out the league at 14 teams, is strong academically, and brought a decent TV footprint into the league.

All of this is wrong. The LHN itself was not a problem. The money ESPN committed to UT was not a problem. The problem was the scope-creep on the content and the willingness of the conference leadership to let it happen. Once it became clear that Beebe was going to defer to UT, A&M administrators knew that they would never get a fair shake. Beebe was so afraid that UT would get mad and look for a new home that he was willing to do almost anything to keep UT happy.

When UT announced it was going to put high school games on LHN, all of the other Big 12 schools were outraged. What did the league office do? Bupkis. A&M was forced to appeal to the NCAA for a ruling. Not surprisingly, the NCAA said the high school content was impermissible. The fact that the Commissioner didn't have the stones to tell UT "no", was a clear indicator of the need for A&M to find a new home. If A&M had thought going to the SEC would make them a "somebody" they would have gone in 2010 when the opportunity first presented itself.

Additionally, A&M brass felt that it was only a matter of time before the Big 12 would

A&M said no to the network proposed in 2007, not the LHN. There was no money on the table in 2007. In 2007 all of the start-up costs would be born by the two schools. That's millions (if not tens of millions) of dollars. Additionally, there was no network distribution in place. It was a complete gamble.

In 2010 ESPN offered UT its own network in a deal where ESPN would cover all of the start-up costs, distribution, and pay UT 300 million for the privilege of broadcasting content sure to get poor ratings. A&M didn't turn that down because A&M was not a party to that negotiation.

Are you asking if the SEC would have taken Texas instead of A&M given a choice between the two? I would assume so. Texas is a much more established brand and has a much larger fanbase.

The LHN has indeed proved to be more of a hindrance than a help. But that wasn't the outcome expected by Belmont. And with the Big 12's lack of a conference network, it will continue to be an albatross around the league's neck. I find it telling that the dismal ratings for the channel's programming pretty much validates the feasibility study A&M conducted. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool Longhorn fan can only watch the 2006 Rose Bowl so many times I guess.

 

Ha! UT didn't pull anything off. ESPN ponied up that dough to anchor UT to the Big 12 to avoid having the bulk of its inventory move to the PAC which was then a Fox property. The dismal ratings for the LHN alone should clue you into the fact that UT hasn't "achieved" anything.

 

That's good money for no effort, IMHO, Mr. Irrelevant.....just look pretty and get $300 million? I'll take that deal.....is there anyone offering your college that dough? Think not.....

 

Screw the ratings. The dinero spends quite well, and that is the rub. The aggies didn’t get any, and according to you, Texas got a better deal after their little brother was dumped from the negotiation. Figures.....dumped excess baggage, better negotiators ????

Isn’t it interesting that some people give cover to to the schools that “acted in their own best interest” and abandoned the conference and yet they focus on what Texas MIGHT have done “in their own best interest”, or what they did with the LHN offer. (An offer any and all would have taken.) Nebraska was the big dog in the Big 8 but they could not beat Texas in the Big 12, and Colorado and MO were only sometimes relevant in the Big 8 and it would not get better in the B 12. Aggies were always going to be in the shadows of UT. So off they all went. Texas stayed. Nuff said.

Today is the celebration of the greatest country in the history of the world and I live in the greatest state, The Republic of Texas. And then there is that Flagship School.....UT.
Happy Birthday America!

 

I find it telling that the dismal ratings for the channel's programming pretty much validates the feasibility study A&M conducted. Even the most dyed-in-the-wool Longhorn fan can only watch the 2006 Rose Bowl so many times I guess.[/QUOTE]

I find it telling that Longhorn fans actually HAVE a 2006 Rose Bowl National Championship win to watch over and over (2005 Rose Bowl didn't suck, either).
Don't think they had TV in 1939, maybe a black and white reel movie-tone?

How may times can you watch JF beat Alabama? Or a victory over Texas? Maybe Jackie years when you dominated Texas (but still no ring?)

You can whine about LHN and ridicule it and make yourself happy doing so, but it's still Texas bringing in the $. I'm thinking you probably get some satisfaction on this board getting responses to your opinions trying to make The University of Texas look not-so-great. Glutton for punishment, I guess.

I think you've got your best shot in the last 50 years with Jimbo to be a difference maker on the national scene. He's been recruiting very well. You just need to get over that hump known as Alabama/LSU/Auburn/Georiga/Florida/etc/etc......

 

That analogy would make some sense if it had been Texas that tried to make the PAC-16 happen first. The LHN made for a convenient excuse but everybody else trying to leave was responding to Missouri in a manner similar to the "run on the bank" scene from Mary Poppins and likely would have done so had LHN never been a thing.

 

God I hate the offseason.
Make it end.

 

I have a shill? His name is Anwar? Sadat? I have never even been to Egypt.

 

Wait, I thought I was your Shil.

 

I have met people within UT that want to play A&M. However, none of them went to UT or are even from Texas.

Our Staff

Take a second to peruse the people in that work in the Longhorn foundation and where they are from.

I have become very disconnected with UT as of late as I realize the vast majority of people UT hires are not longhorns. I have met more and more outreach people from the various colleges at UT (liberal arts, etc) and they have no prior experience with UT or Texas. It is not surprising the percentage of alumni that give is so low.

The people I meet hail from UCLA, Arizona, Penn State, Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc. When I discuss UT football with them, they say things like "as long as Oklahoma is rolling, I really do not see how your school can compete with them". Then they get really excited talking about their Pac12/Big Ten football which actually has meaning for them.

Yes, these people, who have no connection to anything, want to play A&M because they think it would be good for revenue. Personally, I think UT-LSU, UT-USC, UT-Michigan, UT-Alabama almost certainly generates more revenue, especially over time.

Anyway, for the most part the people that run UT now are not longhorns, have no connection to this state and just like to live in the currently hip, fad chasing scene that is Austin.

Do some Longhorns want to play A&M? Sure. Do most Longhorns want to play A&M? Not based off of my anecdotal experience. Do the idiotic, worthless, scum of the earth money whores that currently make up most of the corrupt administration of the "University of California at Austin that hates the State of Texas" want to play A&M because they think it is good for revenue? Yes, I think they do at this time.

Do most aggies want to play the game? My understanding is yes. Does most of whomever makes up the A&M admin want to play the game? I do not know. Does John Sharp? No. God bless John Sharp. As long as at least one person in power at either school does not want to play it, we are saved from wasting a game on that second rate rivalry against a second rate school.

Texas Tech made the final four in basketball and baseball this year. A&M is one of only power conference two schools (the other being Northwestern) to have not finished in the top 4 in football, basketball or baseball since World War Two. A&M has athletically been surpassed by Texas Tech and just about everyone else. Why play the second rate rivalry that we have all seen Texas win a million times?

 

Not sure if I'm understanding your position. How is it that everyone was responding to the team that was last to leave the conference?

 

I live in ATX and have many UT alums as friends and your assessment matches what I hear from them about being disinterested in renewing the rivalry. I think the current students from both schools would like to have the game return as they are missing out on a storied part of the college experience that many heard stories about growing up.

The quotes from Anwar at Orangebloods were not from the money people in Belmont but from the coaching staff and their ancillary staff. Their rationale is not money related. I believe they feel playing the game would provide an opportunity to blunt A&M's recruiting. They would be able to sell playing an SEC team every year and a victory would go a long way re-framing the perception of conference superiority.

Financially-speaking, the benefit to playing A&M vs. any of the marquee schools that could be scheduled is minimal if not non-existent. DKR would be just as full for Penn State as it would be for a game against A&M.

This is not the case. Not a single one of my Aggie friends wants to resume the series.

Tech has had a great year! Hell, even the coach they fired for losing more games than he won got an NFL head coaching gig!

 

Because they were the first to attempt to leave.

 

I don't recall Missouri making any attempt to leave. There was plenty of talk about their desire to move to the Big 10 but never any action. The first to attempt to leave was Nebraska, and they did so because they had been able to confirm the PAC 16 annexation was for real and moving forward.

Do you think anyone really cared what Missouri wanted to do? The PAC maneuver represented a cataclysmic shift that the Big 12 would not be able to survive. Missouri lifting its skirt at the Big 10 was irritating but not something that would shake up the conference.

 

Blah, blah, blah.

Again, who cares?
Aggy took their ball and went home. Bye!
Never want to see you on the field again unless we meet in a bowl game.
I can't even watch reruns of UT beating aggy on LHN.
Aggy made a mistake. Live with it.

 

Same mistake that piggy made.

 

Missouri absolutely made the first attempt to leave and started the entire thing.

Missouri willing to listen to Big Ten possibilities

Big Ten approves Nebraska as newest member

Your memory is faulty. Missouri caused the whole realignment mess, then Nebraska saw the opportunity and seized it.

The irony of it all was that Missouri did not end up where they wanted. If they were invited to the Big Ten tomorrow, they would leave the SEC in a heartbeat.

Anyway, realignment was 100% Missouri followed by Nebraska stealing their bid. The Longhorn Network was after the fact for Missouri and Nebraska, but it was A&M's excuse to leave. However, as Stat said, realignment was already in full swing with or without LHN.

 

If Herman and Jimbo end up as successful as most people think they will be at the moment (conference titles, national title contenders ever year, etc), it would actually be extremely foolish for both UT and A&M to play as great coaches tend to beat each other and knock each other out of contention.

Unfortunately, all of my aggie friends want to resume the series. I wish I knew one that did not as when football comes up, as I have to constantly argue with them that we should not play again. Most of them did bonfire or the corps, so maybe they want to resume because they are not 2%ers?

 

I had to laugh at Mr saying Texas would like to resume playing aggy so Texas could sell that they were playing Sec sec team.

 

Seems we are doing fine at scheduling real SEC teams while avoiding the crybaby nut grabbers.

 

Missouri caused it all huh? Negative Ghost Rider...

The Big 10 was in discussions with UT from the outset. There were two teams the Big 10 was interested in... UT and Notre Dame. Those two schools brought the most to the table revenue-wise. Missouri, Nebraska, and Rutgers were considered fall-back options. In fact, the Associated Press obtained an April 2010 email from the Ohio State president to Big 10 commish Jim Delaney stating UT had a "Tech problem" in regard to moving to the Big 10.

Big Ten expansion: E-mails indicate mutual interest between conference, Texas Longhorns - syracuse.com

Agreed. They probably would.

Just plain wrong. UT was heavily involved in realignment from the beginning. It was (and is) the crown jewel of the schools available for poaching. Even Notre Dame wasn't as attractive because Indiana isn't nearly the TV market Texas is. Nebraska, Missouri, and to a lesser extent, Rutgers were always in consideration, but weren't the drivers of the process. Not sure why the Big 10 went with Nebraska over Missouri. The Huskers are an iconic program, but they bring little to the table from a TV market perspective. Missouri brings way more TV's to the BTN footprint.

Correct, the LHN had nothing to do with Nebraska leaving. Nebraska left because it caught wind of UT's plan to kill the Big 12 by taking 5 schools with it to the PAC. Nebraska was able to out-duel Missouri for a spot in the Big 10.

The LHN was not the reason A&M left nor was it an excuse. The LHN was the canary in the coal mine. When UT indicated its willingness to go to the PAC and effectively kill the conference it gained sway over the league office and the seven small-market schools. The league office deferred to UT and the small-market schools became a voting bloc that would cow-tow to UT to keep the conference from folding. This scenario played out when UT continued to change the original content scope for the LHN. Rather than tell UT it couldn't change the parameters, the League Office caved to UT's demands. By giving in to UT on the LHN content, it showed the league had become toxic. A&M was fortunate in that it had enough value that it could extricate itself from that toxic situation.

 

Mistake? Ha! Far from it. By every metric the move to the SEC has been a success.

In the six years prior to joining the SEC 23 A&M games weren't even televised. Even conference games. Since moving to the SEC, every A&M game has been televised and College Gameday has been in BCS four times.

More money, more exposure, better schedule, better recruiting... under what metric can it be seen as a mistake?

 

I agree with this last paragraph. I think most of us are saying on this board is you're not winning any more than you did in the Big 12, so the seemed pompous attitude of $EC, etc, just got you money, that's it. Not more notoriety, not more respect, just more money. And that's cool.....Still waiting on Jimbo's ability to not only get 'em to BCS, but to beat the "Big Brothers of the $EC".....I'm thinking 4 full years of Jimbo will tell.....if he does it faster, will tip the hat as it were....

 

How many of these things fill your trophy case?
When you had JFF both Texas and OU were in a down cycle.
Aggy probably could have won the conference and possibly been closer to playing for a MNC since 1939.
That's exposure. Not televising every beat down by Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Auburn, etc.
Yes, you managed to beat Alabama with JFF. How does that look in your trophy case.
You are the latest version of Arkansas.
Relegated to the middle of the pack.
Enjoy counting your money and chanting $ec, $ec.....
That's as far as aggy will ever get.

 

I cannot stand that school A&M. Why was it ever formed? Good grief they make it impossible to see them as just a rival. I am still trying to find a way out of Houston area to escape their alumns. I would venture to guess that 2% of UT alumns want to play A&M. Both sides would have to agree for this to actually happen.

Seems to me Moondog has dropped the mic on your *** twice and counting MR. I. I think this conversation is finished!

 

Given that they all started scrambling the moment they heard about Missouri trying to leave, yes I absolutely do think that.

Those two sentences contradict each other. Missouri started that duel before UT's plan - and indeed, they helped move the UT plan forward by making the Big 12 seem like a place people should be moving on from.