I love how these comparisons always leave out Oklahoma, Oklahoma State and Missouri from the Big 12, as well as Ole Miss, Vanderbilt, Kentucky, etc. from the SEC. It's not that the Big 12 is as strong as the SEC, because it's not. But when you play the "teams like" game and include the top tier of one conference against the bottom tier of another, it makes it seem like you're insecure and/or have an agenda.
While denying that what UT has done (or not done) with controlling the Big 12 and developing the LHN has not influence on Texas A&M's decision is extremely inane, it is just as simple-minded to assume that the entire decision to move conferences is purely based on that alone. As much as Texas A&M is tried of (or scared UT if that is what you choose to believe), this entire spectacle would not have even begun if the Big 12 were truly a stable conference, as in neither Nebraska or Colorado left. In it's current state, whether or not you admit it, the conference is in its final decline. Those schools leaving were the Big 12 being diagnosed with cancer, and while they found a way to allow it to survive for the time being by throwing chemo and radiation at it, it is simply a ticking clock before its time is up. Given that, it makes sense that Texas A&M would decide to be pro-active to essentially "choose" conference it wishes to join as opposed to letting things fall where they may. Sure they could wait and try to ride this thing out, but why risk going down with the ship with they are not the captain?
I'm not sure in terms of defining "competitive", but they had an 11 yr stretch from 1981-1991 without a national title. And for the entire period from 1959 to 1995 (37 years), the conference's national champions were Alabama a number of times and Georgia once. No LSU, Tennessee, Auburn, Florida, etc. So it's not like they had a bunch of different programs winning national titles as they have these last 10 years or so.
Historically TAMU has had a solid non-conference schedule. For example, they added Arkansas for 10 years... Miami not so long ago. Virginia Tech. Pitt. Clemson. etc... UT's non-conference hasn't been any better than TAMU's over the past 20 years.
Bring it on. At least the SEC fans bring it. Nebraska fans were the only ones that brought it to College Station IMO. OU second. UT a distant but respectable 3rd.
I didn't include the top teams from the SEC....... Again - the bottom line: The Big 12 now has 2 major programs The SEC has at least 6 (being conservative), arguably 8 or 9 I do have an agenda. Exposing the Big 12 for what it is. I don't get this unquestioned allegiance to a conference that has been reactionary, that's been getting poached, that's hanging on by a thread. Its important that people understand this isn't directly about UT - its about the stability of the Big 12.
Look, no one is saying TAMU got a fair deal, clearly UT has been building their own glass house. But what I am sayins is that going to the SEC will NOT HELP TAMU, it will hurt them, they will not be able to compete in the SEC. I think it is a poor move on their part, one out of frustration, whereas they could stand toe to toe with UT, if they just put their foot down and demanded it etc. DD
I'm talking about going forward with new conferences - they've made an attempt to counterbalance being stuck with Baylor by tossing in ND, USC, Cal etc.
So A&M can be at UT's level but can't compete in the SEC? In other words, UT wouldn't be able to compete in the SEC?
I think A&M can demand a fair share of the pie, and can get CLOSER to competing in a 2 team power conference than the SEC which has like 7 teams better than them. UT could compete in the SEC, but they would not be the top of that confernce every year like they are in the B12, for the most part. DD
Sure - but when you rely on nonconference schedules, you never know what you'll get. Texas added UCLA and BYU when they looked on the upswing, but both were terrible last year. A few years ago during OU/TX/TT 3-way-tie debacle, Texas had scheduled Arkansas, who turned out to be sub-0.500, while OU got Cinci, who won the Big East. Who knows if ND will be any good by 2015 or on to their next coach. USC might be on the verge of falling apart with their scandals, and Cal is unpredictable because it's all based on a single person (the coach). We hope those will be great games, but because of the nature of advance scheduling, it's not real clear at this point. If you have the choice, you pick the stronger conference schedule because its far more reliable.
I guess it's a different mindset. As a Texas fan, I'm more into tailgating and partying before the game than I am with mixing it up with opposing fanbases. I rarely make it to the stadium for kickoff, usually hang out in the alumni center during halftime, then head back out to the tailgate once we start handing it off to our 3rd string Fullback in the 4th. Contrast that with the SEC, where the fans are loud, rabid, in your face, and stay throughout the game. This is where Aggie fans will fit in since they show up early, stand the whole game, and even have post-game yells.
Seriously though guys... there's about to be SEC Football 1.5hrs from Houston & Austin. How fun is that?! SEC Football in Texas. Can't wait. I'd be jealous if SEC Football was going down in Austin and not College Station, not gonna lie. And I don't mean that as a shot at UT one bit.
i think the entire city of houston will hear ziggy's head explode if the sec decides it doesn't want to add another arkansas.
The way the BCS is structured, an undefeated team from the Big XII will always make it to the title game over a 1-loss SEC, Pac-12, or Big 10 team. So there's really no benefit to playing a tougher schedule: 2000: OU-Florida State 2001: Miami-Nebraska 2002: Miami-Ohio State 2003: OU-LSU 2004: OU-USC 2005: Texas-USC 2006: Ohio State-Florida 2007: Ohio State-LSU 2008: OU-Florida 2009: Texas-Alabama 2010: Oregon-Auburn So total appearances: Big XII: 7 SEC: 6 ACC: 3 Pac 10: 3 Big 10: 3 (all Ohio State) Based on that, the best road to the BCS championship is through the Big XII.
