Some Questions Regarding A&M vs UT and Realignment

Your summary is pretty much what and how I remember it going down with aggy departure.

IIRC, Nebraska announced they were leaving the conference for the Big 10 sometime after losing to UT in the 2009 Big XII Championship Game. They were tired of UT being the decision making 800 lbs. gorilla in the conference but they were also very tired of losing to Texas and losing 13-12 in the 2009 title game with 1 second left. THAT was the final straw.

Since the Big XII was formed in 1996, I believe UT went 9-1 vs. UN.

As for aggy, like arky, they too may wander in the SEC wilderness for 25 years or more without ever winning the conference. However if you ask a typical aggy fan, they will say Jumbo is going to take them to the promised land in the next 2-3 years, WRTS, etc..... just give him time.

 

That is how I remember what went down plus aggy was asked twice if they wanted to be a part of what is the LHN. People who think Jumbo is going to take him to the promised in 2-3 seasons will be the front line of getting rid of him in 4-5 seasons (if he hasn't abandoned the good ship aggy by then).

 

"Aggsy stuck in their own Kobayashi Maru"

Brilliant! It is a no win situation, except to cheat. Aggsy knows that place well.

- Mike

 

The A&M administration was so clueless that Byrne was touring Europe with a women's team when the decision was made for them to leave the Big XII and announcement made.

The Aggies control their administration. which ain't a bad thing. (See also the George Smith situation & explore where their university president was during that press conference.)

As for the PAC12, that ship was sunk with the attempted coup in 1986-88. Stanford and Berzerkley stopped the original plan, and they'll button any future attempt up so tight that it will be totally unacceptable from a fiscal perspective.

 

Probably; but the PAC-12 Networks are in such a hole that the Conference needs ou and Texas to keep the Conference intact. Otherwise SC, UCLA and Oregon will bolt to the Big XII.

 

All the "what happened" really came down to Aggy thought they could do better in the SEC. I believe they were 4-7 against Tech and OU and Texas. The beating were going to continue. TCU was thriving in the Mountain West. The Aggy left like Nebraska, to see if things are better elsewhere. The Aggy overnight became the largest or 2nd largest university in the world. Basically they let in a lot of people to pay for a stadium they couldn't fill. Probably a promise to their new overlords. It is now easier to get into ATM than a 24 hour Walmart. And the experience is the same.

Agree with midget reference. That game was not a biggie if we won, but crappy if we lost. Also believe in letting them waste away in the SEC.

 

Finding the open door at a Walmart at 1 in the morning can be difficult.

 

Can't tell if my sarcasm meter isn't tuned correctly, but any Aggie who could have possibly felt that the competition level was easier in the SEC was probably buying up all the oceanfront property in Bandera, too.

They did it to spite us. Period, end of story. I think they felt that there would be an eventual "shift" where recruits would spurn us for them, and that pretty much only lasted for a year or two with the Johnny Football craze and stadium renovations. It also helped their cause that we hired quite possibly the most inept HC we've ever had, but they didn't seize that opportunity like they should have.

If they had stayed in the Big 12 for those seasons (2012-13), they would have cakewalked through the conference slate and had an easy trip to the BCS, if not a potential national championship.

If they also did it to get the eventual SEC Network money, then there's no moral ground for them to criticize LHN.

 

Except for the Everyday Low Prices

 

When aggy left, we got an upgrade.
And Aggy can fill their empty trophy case with SEC network money.
It worked out for everyone. Happy trails, aggy.

 

^^^^ I've mostly harbored this as the bottom line reason aggy left.

Spite the damn sips and the shift to SEC would bring them gold - recruits and prestige.

 

Funny thing is that Aggies are about to live their nightmare: Texas in multiple CFP appearances and Aggy stuck in 4th place in their division. If Aggies don’t produce in 2 years, they are screwed.

 

A&M didn’t think it would have a better record in the SEC. Most of us figured we’d get pummeled for the first several years. The success we had in 2012 was a shock to all but the most kool-aid infused Aggies. BTW, we were 4-2 vs Tech, OU, and UT in the last two years of Big 12 play.

Wrong. A&M left because it didn’t believe the conference was viable long-term. The Big 12 needed UT as a member to remain a P5 conference and UT had already shown it was willing to destroy the conference if a better offer came along. A&M didn’t want to get forced into a less than ideal conference affiliation the next time UT decided to flirt with the PAC or B1G. A&M had to either stay and risk not having the SEC as an option the next time realignment cropped up, or leave to secure a spot in the conference that best suited it.

Not a biggie if you won? Ha! Y’all rushed Kyle Field when you beat us there in 1995. You even printed up commemorative t-shirts for your 2011 victory. Not the type of behavior for “not a biggie”. But whatevs.


The stadium upgrade is being paid for by alums from the ‘80s, 90s, and 2000s. The current enrollment does not pay for the renovation. And why would the SEC care if our stadium stayed at 87,000 capacity? That would have put us at 5th or 6th in stadium capacity in the SEC (we had the second largest stadium in the Big 12 at the time we left).

 

Mr Irrelevant, Do you feel Aggie is more or less relevant since joining the SEC?

 

since you asked, Mr Irrelevant--how apropos (yeah, I know you don't understand--look it up), there were many factors affecting the game in '95---aggy senior class had never lost at home, and the senior "sips" as you like to refer, had never won at pyle field either---but the main reason was of course ETERNAL BRAGGING RIGHTS for the SWC football title---so we have that going for us, which is nice---oh yeah, you can review it all here ( had a freshman rb by the name of Errik Lynne Williams, Jr. who out-rushed your big-time rb 'lectric Leland also---aw shucks...
as for the t-shirts--they were made after you made a big deal of trying to get out of the shadow of Big Brother (yep, that's us!) and threw all of your chips on the table for that game--aw shucks (part deux--again, look it up)--just a very subtle reminder, mind you, of who is in charge (and has been in charge) of this state since the dawn of Man...and yes, I have one of those shirts and wear it proudly around my aggy sister-in-law (along with my son, a soon-to-be graduate of THE University of Texas) ps--if you don't remember, it's 76-37-5

 

Subjective aggy timelines.

You named the only two big games in 118 meetings. 2 out of 118. Even worse, examine why they were big. 1995 was for the last SWC title. 2011 was the last game for the immediate future and last Big XII game. When a game is only big because it is the "last" of something, it is not a big game. Now, why has UT and A&M rarely ever a big game with any national implications for both teams? Because, for the most part, A&M has never been very good. Where UT-OU are good at the same time, and even UT and Arkansas are good at the same time, it rarely happens with UT and A&M. This is pretty much on A&M and that's why it is not a biggie in the way Texas-OU is. Anyway, like I said, there are only two BIG games in the rivalry anyone refers to and both were "lasts".

 

Couldn't disagree more with the 2/118 comment.lose in '69 and Penn State plays ND for the NC. Lose in '77 and we don't play ND for it. That we lost is irrelevant.
Win in '79 we're in the Sugar not the Sun. There are plenty of other examples.

 

Here's some porn for you to look at. Now go away and do... whatever it is you freaks do.

 

I like the part where Aggy is concerned about conference stability, then promptly leaves creating the aforementioned conference instability. This was a rationalization to soothe Aggy cognition over Aggy cutting bait and running.

 

1. So do you think you're NOT going to keep losing in the SEC? And if so, is it because A&M has improved or because the SEC is getting worse? Either of those scenarios seem implausible, but Aggies do get on board with the whole "from the outside you can't understand it" thing. Someone else already pointed out the "selective timeline" thing as well. That Branding Iron idiot over at Texags likes to use the 1984-94 as the "measuring stick" of dominance that A&M is capable of against us.

2. If the Big XII wasn't viable long term, then how would anyone explain the situation each conference is in today? Or, better yet, how would anyone explain Texas and OU's decision to remain in the Big XII? Or, even better yet, do you not honestly believe that A&M could have easily WON the nonviable conference in 2012-13? A&M would have been included in both a new conference affiliation and/or something like the LHN if they had so chosen. I get that the SEC is a great conference, but the only good reason for A&M to leave its roots and join it would be to spite us, not to "forge their own security," because there's no chance in hell A&M would forge anything by constantly finishing 7-5 over there.

3. Like others said, if you can't see why the 1995 and 2011 games were big deals, then I don't know what to say. You're trying to imply that Texas "needs" A&M as a big rival and that we see the game as a big deal. The only reason A&M "thinks" the game became a big deal was because of the decade of cheating dominance they had with Sherrill and Slocum and some near top-5 finishes that they could rub in our noses. Outside of that? A&M is basically Baylor. They play spoiler on occasion. They **** the bed more frequently than they make it. When we had national championship implications on the line in 2005 and 2009, A&M played us tougher than usual at Kyle, but we still pulled it off. Just like we did two-thirds of the time. I remember so pretty ho-hum wins sprinkled in there between 1995 and 2011.

4. The stadium upgrades were jabs at Texas. The half-a-billion dollars so that they could eek out a marginal couple of hundred seats more than Texas and "fit in" with the SEC. It was screaming of "look at us SEC daddies! We just gave a middle finger to the t-sips!" and very little response. I think anything that makes the state of Texas college football look better is good, so more power to you. But if A&M continues to go 7-5 (you know, like they always have), then what's the point?

 

Paterno wasn't going to play anyone of relevance in a bowl game. He's the only coach in 60 years to REFUSE to play the #1 team for the National Championship. His "most wins" record is a joke. Half the HS coaches in Texas could have accomplished 95%+ of those wins against the teams he beat. How many had winning records, much less were ranked?

 

aggy = all male cheerleaders.

 

It's pointless to argue anything with an aggie. Even though UT ranks ahead of them in almost every academic and athletic category they still deny that. They only believe what fits their narrative.

 

Aggie can only crow when their future appears to be on a higher upswing than us. They cannot argue the history, so they focus on items that they perceive to favor them vs us. Thus, the repetitive comments on Jimbo (NC coach!), SEC, etc. Quite pathetic but that is all they got. When something fails like Sumlin, they just move to something else.

 

In 1969, A&M went 3-7 and we beat them 49-12. Beating A&M that year was no different than beating anyone else on our schedule. So, yes, we had to beat them in that we had to beat every team on our schedule.

In 1977, A&M finished unranked at 8-4. Yes, they were a tougher opponent, and this is one of the few games were both UT and A&M were ranked, but ultimately that A&M team was not special.

Why the rivalry pales in comparison to OU or Arkansas is there is rarely anything on the line other than bragging rights. That was my point with saying it has generally not mattered to the national picture other than UT could be upset (which is true for any game on UT's schedule).

UT and A&M played 12 times since 2000. Only twice (2000 and 2004) were both teams ranked. 2000 was a blowout. 2004 was closer but UT still won by 12+ points.

Years in which both UT and A&M were ranked in at least one poll when they played: 1941, 1943, 1957, 1974, 1975, 1977, 1985, 1990, 1995, 1999, 2000, 2004.

The AP poll started in 1936. UT and A&M played 76 times from 1936-2011. So in 76 meetings, both teams were ranked 12 times. That is 16% of the time or less than 1 out of every 6 games. UT is 9-3 against A&M in those 12 games. Only 3 games (1957, 1990 and 1999) were decided by one score or less. UT beat A&M by more than one score in 7 of UT's 9 wins.

By comparison, since 2000 alone, UT and OU have both been ranked 14 times out of 20 games or 70% of the time.

UT and A&M have only had five top 15 matchups (1941, 1957, 1975, 1977 and 1995). Since 2000, UT and OU have had nine top 15 matchups.

UT and A&M have only had two top 5 matchups ever (1941 and 1975). UT-OU have had four top 5 matchups since 2000. Congratulations, unless you are at least 43 years old, A&M-UT has not been a top 5 matchup in your lifetime. Even better, you have to be at least 77 years old to have lived through such an occurrence twice.

Also, since 1936, UT and Arkansas have both been ranked when they have played each other 20 times out of 61 matchups. 33% of the time is still double the percentage of the time UT and A&M play while both ranked. UT is 14-6 against Arkansas in these matchups which is still pretty dominant, but 11 out of the 20 games were decided by one score or loss aka 55% of the time as opposed to 25% of the time with UT-A&M.

At no point in Big 12 history did UT and A&M meet where they were both playing for the Big 12 or even the Big 12 South.

Years in which the UT-A&M game affected both team's chances of winning the SWC: 1919, 1920, 1921, 1925, 1943, 1975, 1977, 1985, 1987, 1993, 1995.

That is 11 times in 81 years of SWC football. At no point in A&M's 16 years in the Big 12 did UT and A&M meet with the Big 12 South or Conference on the line for both teams, so that is means only 11 times in 97 did UT and A&M meet with the conference on the line for both teams. That's 11% of the time and only 6 out of 11 occurring since world war 2 with a 32 year gap from 1943-1975 and a 16 year gap from 1996-2011.

In short, UT-A&M is a second rate rivalry because it was rarely ever a big game. Only 11% of the time was the conference title on the line for both teams and 16% of the time were both teams ranked. People bring up 1995, because it was one of the rare big games. As I said earlier, being the last game is the only reason the 2011 game was relevant. I would have a different attitude if more games like 1995 occurred, but the fact is they did not.

Only in 1975, 1977 and 1995 were both the conference on the line and both teams ranked in the top 15. My "only two big games in 118 meetings" statement is not that far off.

 

^^^^ 2%er.

 

Well, it depends on how you measure relevance. If you measure it by football wins, I would say A&M is slightly more relevant as A&M has more conference wins and wins overall in the first 7 years in the SEC then the last 7 years in the Big 12.

If you measure it by media interest in A&M games, A&M is much more relevant. For example, ESPN Gameday was broadcast from the A&M campus twice in 16 years of Big 12 play. They have broadcast from the A&M campus 4 times in 7 years of SEC play. This is one of the big reasons for the change in conference. Those games have been against 4 different teams (Florida, Bama, Tennessee, and Clemson). In the Big 12, Gameday only showed up at A&M for Oklahoma games. Over the past 7 years, Gameday has broadcast from an SEC campus 23 times and a Big 12 campus 9.

 

First off, A&M has a winning conference record in the SEC, so the idea that we are going to “keep losing in the SEC” doesn’t match up with reality. Are we going to contend for the division championship soon? Given the juggernaut that is Bama, I doubt it.

First off, the only reason the Big 12 even exists today is because A&M refused to jump to the PAC in 2010. That is a fact. UT and OU chose to remain in the Big 12 because the Big 12 was able to offer the same money as the PAC. Once that was the case, both schools realized that they would only have one real tough game to win (RRR) the entire season. This was viewed as the easiest possible path to the BCS championship game. So if the money is the same and the path to victory is easier, the decision is pretty easy. Additionally, the stability (or lack thereof) of the conference is completely within the control of UT. UT doesn’t have to worry about the conference being stable because they are the ones that make it stable. If A&M leaves, no big deal, just replace them with another school. If UT leaves, the conference is dead. UT has that kind of following and pull.


It is possible that A&M could have won the Big 12 in 2012, though not guaranteed by any means. Part of A&M’s 2012 success in the SEC was due to SEC teams not being used to defending a Big 12 style offense. That advantage would not exist in the Big 12 (obviously).


In 2007 when the two schools discussed forming a joint network, all start-up costs would be shared by both schools. Additionally, there was no TV carrier on board to pay for the network rights. That is a far cry from the LHN Texas was offered in 2010. And when A&M inquired as to the possibility of a joint network with ESPN covering all the start-up costs and distribution, Dodds said no. Completely understandable, why split the $300 million if you can keep it all? So your supposition that A&M could have been included in the LHN is just plain wrong.


So why did A&M feel the conference wasn’t stable? Because UT had already tried to leave in 2010. There was not guarantee UT wouldn’t get wandering eyes again. Additionally, the language of the LHN contract appeared to be written in such a way that made it easy for UT to go independent. Remember, at that time there was no GOR, and two other founding members had already left. UT basically had a gun to the head of the conference. It could kill it whenever it so chose. For that reason A&M had two choices. Stay in the Big 12 and hope UT didn’t kill it, or go to a conference where that was not a concern.

I’m not implying Texas “needs” A&M as a big rival. I’m saying we are a big rival. The fact that you would expend this much effort to refute it is proof in-and-of itself. Why you can’t admit it is what’s funny to us. Your own fight song references us for crying out loud! Although, admittedly, few UT students know more than the first two words.


As for the rampant cheating in the end of the SWC, UT was doing the exact same stuff A&M was. Heck, UT has been doing that stuff forever! Colt McCoy’s wife referenced it back in 2010 or so.


Yes, there have been some pretty ho-hum wins for both during that time period.

Yes, when we upgraded the stadium we made sure it was bigger than yours. When you upgraded your locker room, you made sure the monitors above the lockers were bigger than ours. That’s what the facilities arms race is all about.

 

From reading this, you are ok with the Aggies going 4-4 or 5-3 in conference play (winning overall conf record). I'm being as politie as I can here. We had a recent coach who produced those type of results. He's gone now. 5-4 or 4-5 is unacceptable at TEXAS. Always will be.

As for Alabama, they will die out soon enough.,but in your case someone else will take their place. Always do. TEXAS. Oklahoma. Arkansas. Aggies have always been on the outside looking in while a national power rides herd on a&m.

I'm in my mid 60s and I can only recall Aggies being a dominate figure in a conference in the late 80s (and the NCAA ran off your coach in short order), but were totally insignificant on the national scene during that time. Once Texas was Texas again, then OU, the ags were back in the backseat where they were all along and have remained ever since. As you say, "fact is fact"

When I mentioned Sul Ross on thanksgiving night would hold the same feeling going forward as restarting with the ags would, I really meant it. You guys aren't relevant, never have been. Really good university, won't debate that. You athletic programs, the record speaks for itself