You just do not get it.
Winning in the Big XII means more than winning in the Mountain West.
Winning in the Mountain West means more than winning in an FCS conference.
Winning in an FCS conference means more than winning in DII or DIII.
The SEC likes to say "it just means more". Well, the difference in overall quality between the best power 5 conference and worst power 5 conference in any given season is marginal. Even if the SEC is "tougher" (this is highly unlikely, especially given that A&M and Missouri had no problems competing in the conference with mostly Big XII roster.. A&M's best season was with a Big XII rosters), it is only so marginally. On the whole, with only 8 conference games, a cupcake strategically placed in November and 3-4 non-conference cupcakes at home a year, an SEC schedule is actually less grueling than most Big XII or even Pac12 schedules.
However, the difference between any the Mountain West and any power 5 conference is not marginal. It is a substantial step up.
In short, you cannot compare a transition from the Mountain West to the Big XII to a transition from the Big XII to the SEC. The Big XII and the SEC are comparables aka "like things". The Big XII and Mountain West additionally are not "like things".
Now, to the point of "does a conference help a team winning". In A&M's case, the jury is out, but A&M has yet to do anything to show the SEC has helped A&M win more. A&M is no closer to a conference title or tier 1 bowl game in the SEC than it was in the Big XII. A&M has not yet shown it can compete with Alabama or LSU or even win 10 games on a consistent basis. So far A&M is in the same boat as the Big XII. However, A&M is doing a bit better than most of its Big XII tenure and is currently on par with how Texas Tech was good but not really great except for once or twice in the 2000s. The problem for A&M is, this is not attributable to the SEC. A&M's "rise" to "Mike Leach Texas Tech level success" began with Mike Sherman in 2009. Sherman may not have been the best overall coach, but he upgraded the talent and A&M had already improved by the time it entered the SEC. Kevin Sumlin capitalized on what Sherman built year 1 and, more or less, kept things at the same level until his last season when there was a drop off. Jimbo appears to be improving things at this time, but will have to be able to beat both Alabama and LSU (among others) consistently to take A&M from being stuck in "good" to "great".
TCU, on the other hand, had success in the Mountain West and continues to have success in the Big XII. The difference is, they have a better shot of winning at national title now as Big XII wins mean more than Mountain West wins. Being in the Big XII, an undefeated season almost certainly guarantees a playoff appearance. TCU went undefeated in 2010 and was left out of the national title. Based on the current committee makeup and decision making, it is unclear (but currently seems unlikely) that an undefeated non-power 5 conference team would make the playoff. TCU also has the benefit of likely making a tier 1 bowl with a 1 or 2 loss season, as opposed to the Mountain West where they would have to be the best of all non-power conference teams to make a tier 1 bowl. 1 loss for a non-power conference team could eliminate them. Finally, as I said earlier, wins against Big XII or any power 5 team mean more than wins against non-power 5 teams. Yes, from a winning and national title perspective, TCU is better off. Yes, TCU has won big (1 top 5 finish, 3 top 10 finishes, a conference title and a tier 1 bowl win) proving they made the right call. They have shown they can win the Big XII and can potentially reach the playoff and go for a national title. Hopefully, they do not and it is Texas playing for the national title instead.
Click to expand...