I don't think there is anything short sighted about making it harder on your program to win. Are you saying being able to compete at the highest level (for conference titles and championships) shouldn't factor into the decision? It's not about winning. It's not about academics (definately not about this with the SEC). It's about $$ and independence. Nothing wrong with either of those, but if you are a fan of your team winning games and being competitive on the field...for titles...then this is not the best move. Yes, I am assuming it will be a tougher path to winning on the field in the SEC.
If dominating C-USA or the WAC guarenteed you a BCS game and a high probability of playing for a national title then that would make sense.
How come nobody talks about OU? TAMU moving to the SEC could (and probably will) impact OU's ability to land all of those Texas guys they've been landing. UT gets a network. TAMU gets to pitch the SEC (big selling point for defensive recruits I'd imagine). OU gets left in a watered down conference... this is why TAMU had to make a move, and do it quick. Being reactionary doesn't get you anywhere. Just look at the Big 12 -- all of the progress that has been made inside the conference has been forced through reactionary measures.
What are you basing this on? Why would a kid pick a not dominant A&M team over a dominant OU one? The only way the dynamics change is if A&M brings it on the field, which will be harder to do in that conference. I think you guys are overrating "pitching the SEC". While I agree that it makes A&M unique for kids who just refuse to leave the state, I don't think there are that many kids who want the SEC and just refuse to leave the state. Going to the SEC has never been an issue for Texas kids that want to go. We are arguably the biggest exporter of talent in the country. My $$ goes on A&M not even being able to outrecruit LSU for kids that just need the SEC.
Because Oklahoma knows that sticking with Texas is probably it's best move and isn't as emotional about the whole thing as Texas A&M.
As long as OU and Texas meet every year in the Cotton Bowl, OU will be just fine as far as Texas prospects go. Now, if OU and UT split, then there may be an issue for them.
By this logic average teams could never be good, and dominant teams would always be dominant... I'm basing my thoughts on the fact that programs rise and fall. I'm basing it on the fact that I've seen it happen. The major Big 12 players (including Nebraska) are all grabbing a new, unique differentiator. OU is standing idle.
TAMU isn't basing the move on emotion. You're confusing their fans with the people that actually make the decisions.
OU has no interest in bolting for the SEC. Why compete will all those football powerhouses (and blurry recruiting practices) for ONE Automatic Bid when they can Rule the TX-OU conference and base their entire season on one game played on a neutral field? LSU, Alabama, Auburn, Arkansas, the Real UT, Florida, UGA or Texas....................Baylor, TT, Mizzou, Iowa State, (aTm), and the Kansas Kids. aTm cannot see this...and really shouldn't. They will continue to not win conference titles in the SEC. But...in the SEC they equally-distribute funds. It's all about money (and getting out of the shadow of Texas). OU doesn't have this problem. OU generates money by actually winning football games (and playing in BCS Bowl games).
Which is of course not the case. Every major program in the country - Fla, Ala, Aub, LSU, UT, OU, Miami, FSU, Mich, OhioSt, Notre Dame, USC, etc... went through highs & lows over the past 20 years. Seems to me the main factor is the hiring & retaining of quality coaches.
Richard Justice has been killing the Horns lately ever since details of the LHN came out. Love this latest today regarding why Texas is not going to continue the T-Day game with A&M in the SEC ... http://blog.chron.com/sportsjustice...aggies-but-that-doesnt-mean-theyre-scared-ok/
Considering your ATHLETIC DIRECTOR refuses to say "The University of Texas," opting for "our friends at the state capital" instead, I'd say there's not much difference.
If the Big 12 remains a 2 team conference OU will remain a dominant team. I don't see A&M having more success in the SEC on a year to year basis than OU or UT in the Big 12. Has nothing to do with how strong each team is, but the competition in the conference.
Oh, and if you want to find out why ESPN has been trashing A&M for the last 3 days, and why they are working hard to stop this ... read this, http://outkickthecoverage.com/how-espn-is-complicating-am-to-sec-deal.php
A&M doesn't have a high probability of a BCS game or national title games in the Big12 as is - they are still behind a couple of premier programs (as they would be in the SEC), so there's no loss there. If they go 12-0 in the WAC, however, they have a very good shot of BCS games many years, as Boise demonstrated.
When TAMU leaves, how much money will OU actually make off a Big 12 network? I'm not saying it would be in their best interest to leave the Big 12, what I'm saying is it's surprising they've been relatively silent for so long. They're so tied at the hip to UT, yet somehow TAMU catches all the heat, TAMU winds up as UT's little brother? Weird. Just let TAMU do what it wants to do. Everyone else gets to do what they want. Seems like everyone wants to step on TAMU's dick.
