A&M has been in contact with the SEC for months, despite the longstanding assumption that the Texas schools would hang together behind the wildly profitable Longhorn juggernaut. But former Aggie player/coach Gene Stallings, now an A&M regent, has taken control of the push for the SEC, where he won a national championship as Alabama's head coach in 1992. Stepping out of the back channels of Texas politics, Stallings didn't hesitate to distance A&M from the Longhorns on Alabama radio: "I think A&M is now big enough to stand on its own. We don’t need to piggyback on Texas." Truly spoken like a man with only a few months left in his term.
If A&M opts out of the Pac-10 exodus, their crucial position as the 16th team could fall to Kansas or Utah; given the political ramifications and the cold shoulder in scheduling by everyone A&M has ever considered any kind of rival, the odds remain on the Aggies' following the original route to the West Coast – especially if the SEC invite is tied to their ability to deliver Texas, as well, which appears to be a complete nonstarter.
Matt Hinton may well be right, but, the longer this goes on, the better I like the SEC's chances. Even if you take seriously Texas's alleged threat never to schedule the Aggies again in any sport unless they remain conference mates (which I'm not at all sure I do), and even if you assume Lone Star State politicos with a long history of involving themselves in athletics decisions wouldn't compel Texas and Texas A&M to continue their rivalry on the field (which I'm quite sure I don't), the Aggies have longstanding rivals in the SEC (Arkansas and LSU) . . . and it isn't as though programs haven't sacrificed rivalries on the altar of conference expansion before.
Pitt's entry into the Big East and Penn State's entry into the Big Ten all but killed that once-yearly rivalry. The expansion of the ACC and the SEC in 1992 made Georgia's battles with Clemson much more infrequent affairs. Earlier today, Nebraska essentially tossed the last handful of dirt onto the grave in which the Cornhuskers' rivalry with Oklahoma is interred.
I'm not at all sure I believe the Aggies' entry into the SEC would sound the death knell of their rivalry with the Longhorns, but, quite frankly, more storied rivalries than that one have ended when leagues grew. It might be sad, but, to Texas, this is (to quote a line from the end of "The Godfather") just business.
The 'Horns clearly want to call the shots, not just for themselves, but for everyone even remotely in their orbit. Let 'em do it. Maybe it's high time Texas A&M left Texas like Michael Corleone at the end of "The Godfather, Part II," on top of the world and increasingly cut off from everyone who got him there.
Gene Stallings sold his alma mater short. The Aggies can't just stand, they can walk. I'm increasingly convinced that their movement will be east, not west.
Cue the Jessica Simpson remake of the Nancy Sinatra classic.
Go 'Dawgs!
almost 2 years ago
T Kyle King
14 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
Interestingly enough . . .
. . . Matt edited the posting quoted and linked to above between the time I excerpted it and the time I published this fanshot. The revised version of the posting reads:
If A&M opts out of the Pac-10 exodus, their crucial position as the 16th team could fall to Kansas or Utah; given the political and competitive ramifications, the odds remain on the Aggies’ following the original route to the West Coast – especially if the SEC invite is tied to their ability to deliver Texas, as well, which appears to be a complete nonstarter. Even if the decision boils down to A&M’s own discretion, it has to weigh the prospect of big TV money in the SEC against the cold shoulder by everyone it counts as a traditional rival in scheduling (all scheduling, not just football) for the foreseeable future, and by a substantial segment of the legislature when it comes to funding and other political considerations, which adds up to one long, bitter weekend in smoke-filled rooms around the capitol. And not to get nostlagic here in a ruthless debate that boils down to revenue and television ratings and markets and apparently little else, but voluntarily balking at a heated, 109-year-old in-state rivalry that hasn’t been interrupted since 1914 – not even by World War II – seems like an unlikely move in the end. But that’s only a tentative guess by a sentimental sucker.
As always, Dr. Saturday is conscientious in taking the positions he advocates, admitting that his guess is tentative and that it is based on sentiment. My question is, why would this be the one part of the conference expansion process about which one of the participants became sentimental, when so much else history and tradition has been rent asunder? I’m as sad as anyone about this fact, but tradition doesn’t trump lucre in college football any more than it does anyplace else.
Go 'Dawgs!
Honestly, what rivals do they lose?
I mean, losing the annual Thanksgiving game with Texas is huge, but it’s not like Aggies wax nostalgic about Texas Tech. I think we’ve forgotten just how historically poor Tech is (0 outright conference titles, 2 shared vs. Baylor’s 4 outright titles — that’s right, BAYLOR). And losing OU and Okie St is not a huge deal, those are recent rivals which don’t date back to the SWC.
They are not losing rivals, they are possibly losing ONE rival. Yes, it is their biggest and most historic rival, but they would be gaining conference affiliation with two of their biggest historic rivals (Arkansas and LSU). And I see no way for Texas to force the other former SWC schools from playing A&M. If they want to play a Texas school, there are plenty of options: Baylor (probably), Rice, SMU, or TCU.
A&M might very well go to the Pac-10, but I think if they do, it will not be due to fear of the “cold shoulder” of their traditional rivals. I also think if Texas refuses to play A&M, they will be the one who bears the brunt of criticism for ending the rivalry. A&M certainly wouldn’t be the only SEC school with an out of conference in-state rival. Then again, I doubt Texas cares.
Fake Pundit. Real Fan.
http://www.andthevalleyshook.com
This is the key part of the discussion.
If Texas A&M moves to the SEC and then Texas refuses to play them because of it, it is the Longhorns who are ending the decades-long rivalry, not the Aggies.
Texas A&M has to do what’s best for them, and if that means their big brother is going to kick and scream and pitch a fit like a baby, then that’s the way it is. No one can blame them for wanting the better cultural fit (and arguably better, or at least equivalent, money situation) of the SEC.
by vineyarddawg on Jun 12, 2010 8:32 AM EDT up reply actions
If Texas ended the rivary
It would be interesting to see if the legislature would let that happen.
I agree A&M to the SEC would be providing them an opportunity to potentially come out from under big brother’s shadow.
IF
A&M comes to the SEC, who’s the 14th team? Don’t they have to bring someone along?
i dont care about the ACC's problem
plus va tech gets you the DC $$$$
Managing Editor/Chief Lackey-And The Valley Shook
Miami
I don’t see how Miami would be any less awkward in the SEC.
by NCT on Jun 12, 2010 1:57 AM EDT via mobile up reply actions
Right now, DoubleB, we can designate that as "an ACC team to be named later."
I’m not saying we’d automatically have our pick, but wresting a team away from the ACC would be a lot easier than pulling a Big 12 team out of Texas.
My preference would be Clemson, but the Tigers (like the Seminoles and the Yellow Jackets) add no new markets. Virginia Tech or one of the North Carolina schools would be the most likely to be added, and Maryland (while a bad fit culturally) would do in a pinch.
A North Carolina school makes the most sense, because it would add a large contiguous state (much like what Texas A&M brings). Miami makes absolutely no sense; it’s a bad fit culturally, it makes less sense than you may think geographically, the Hurricanes are a spent volcano with a rap sheet a mile long, and “The U” brings no meaningful fan base to the table. The ‘Canes would be a horrible choice, and I’d be disappointed in Mike Slive if he even considered that as an option.
Go 'Dawgs!
by T Kyle King on Jun 12, 2010 10:48 AM EDT up reply actions
Texas
The SEC is a FAR better fit for the Big 12 South than the Pac-10 could ever be for many (and obvious) reasons. I think, and I believe it’s been made clear (but unsaid) why Texas doesn’t want to make the obvious choice. First, as of now, the one and only game Texas really has to be concerned about on an annual basis is Oklahoma. In the SEC, that would not be the case. By joining a much, much tougher conference it decreases the likelihood Texas is in the conference championship every year. It’s just too tough. Second, Texas will not be able to run roughshod over the other members and dictate the agenda. Alabama, Georgia, LSU, Florida, Tennessee, Auburn, etc. are all formidable programs who are not going to be bullied around by anyone. Texas likes being THE bigshot and that simply will not be the case as a member of the SEC.
RiverGreenDawg
I believe your second point is the more important and accurate of the two.
I’m pretty sure Texas isn’t scared of anyone, given the fact that the Longhorns are willing to take Baylor and the Big 12 North off of their schedule and substitute in their place Southern California, Oregon, a Cal club with a distinct axe to grind, rising programs in UCLA and Washington, and a Stoops-led defense in Arizona. Texas is trading up in strength of schedule, without question.
The fact that the SEC wouldn’t be willing to let the shots be called in Austin (or in Athens, Auburn, Baton Rouge, Gainesville, Knoxville, or Tuscaloosa, for that matter) has a great deal to do with where the ‘Horns are headed. Texas wants an unequal revenue share and a disproportionate sway over conference decisionmaking, neither of which they’d get in the SEC.
Go 'Dawgs!
You just said a mouthful there
I’ve always felt that the “academic” argument was a cover up. Two reasons why: 1) Texas supposedly didn’t join the SEC in 94 because of this, then formed a conference that included the likes of TTU, ISU, and KSU. I don’t mean this in a disrespectful way, but replace these schools with Georgia Southern, Troy, and Middle Tenn. St and the academics are still the same. 2) These guys are bringing the aforementioned Red Raiders, along with the OK schools with them, to the PAC 15-16. It’s obvious that the Longhorns are just talking out the side of their mouth.
by BuddyColtrane on Jun 12, 2010 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Dawg Sports
Related FanShots on Dawg Sports
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
