Skip to content

Texas AD: ‘I don’t see us focusing on’ renewing A&M rivalry

Longhorns Aggies AP

For those hoping to see a renewal of one of college football’s most iconic rivalries, we strongly urge you to not hold your breath.

In an interview with Mike Finger of the San Antonio Express-News, Texas athletic director Steve Patterson was asked once again about the possibility of a game against hated in-state rival Texas A&M.  And, once again, Patterson appeared to have absolutely no interest in rekindling the rivalry.

“Until there’s a case made that it makes sense to play a game against another school in the state of Texas, I don’t see us focusing on it,” the AD said.

Prior to the Aggies leaving for the SEC in 2012, the UT-A&M game had been played every year between 1915-2011 and 109 games total were played in a series that dated back to 1903.  In the months after the Aggies left the Big 12, state lawmakers introduced a bill that would’ve compelled the two sides to resume the football series.

In early November of last year, amidst rumors that the rivalry could be renewed, an A&M spokesman put the kibosh on the talk, stating that “[w]e hope to play them again in a BCS or playoff game at some point.”  In early March, new Longhorns head coach Charlie Strong stated he’d like to see the series played again, albeit at a neutral site.

For the time being, however, it doesn’t appear, sadly, that any of the key decision-makers on either side are interested in rekindling what once was one of the best rivalries in the sport.

Permalink 60 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Big 12 Conference, Rumor Mill, Southeastern Conference, Texas A&M Aggies, Texas Longhorns, Top Posts
60 Responses to “Texas AD: ‘I don’t see us focusing on’ renewing A&M rivalry”
  1. thekingdave says: Apr 1, 2014 4:29 PM

    Cue a bunch of dopes from texags coming here to once again let us know how much better off they are without us. It’s like you (hypothetically) leaving an ugly chick for a hotter chick (big 12 to sec) and continually coming back to the ugly chick to let her know how much better off you are. You left and are supposedly better off. Act like it.

  2. chunkala says: Apr 1, 2014 5:16 PM

    why would Texas rekindle this rivalry? Texas is down, A&M up. Texas is most likely hoping for an A&M downturn before their resume serious talks. It’s just the Longhorn way, fear.com.

  3. stevegilbert11 says: Apr 1, 2014 5:25 PM

    This is unfortunately what college ball has become in our great state. Everyone is chasing the big pay days. Aggies whined they’re way out the door and wanted know part of Longhorns and now want to play Texas again. Texas AD is talking about making our footprint bigger outside the US (really?) 2 massive college football universities and all you will see is finger pointing from here on out…embarrassing on both sides. No one listens to what the fans want…which is this game back!
    Freaking money and politics…..our world now….what a power down

  4. iwishwvuwouldbeatbama says: Apr 1, 2014 5:37 PM

    What a non story. Texas still has their biggest game, Texas A&M now has their annual dance with Bamma, Both better games! Texas should be happy this game is off the slate, A&M has obviously surpassed them

  5. thraiderskin says: Apr 1, 2014 5:44 PM

    I think the rivalry should be renewed… but on TAMU’s terms, Texas pushed them out of the Big12 and now has to watch them succeed while the burnt orange flops about what used to be their championship swimming hole. I don’t feel bad for Texas, they are where they deserve to be.

  6. rabbi187 says: Apr 1, 2014 6:17 PM

    I can’t speak for other ex Big XII schools, but anybody saying Texas drove the Aggies from the conference is either misinformed, or just talking out of their butt. Not only was Texas A&M in favor of the tiered payout system, but they were originally were going to be a part of what is now called the Longhorn Network. They weren’t driven out, they took a deal that was best for them and left.

  7. mgmac says: Apr 1, 2014 6:35 PM

    Anyone who believes Texas A&M was for a tiered pay system is full of crap.

  8. goodfieldnohit says: Apr 1, 2014 6:59 PM

    Patterson is just butt hurt because Manziel took a dump in Strong’s cheerios the other day.

  9. thefiesty1 says: Apr 1, 2014 7:16 PM

    Good riddance. Nobody needs those arrogant jerks.

  10. gatorprof says: Apr 1, 2014 8:27 PM

    Texas is in the sandbox by themselves. No one cares.

  11. Bo Darville says: Apr 1, 2014 9:10 PM

    aTm could easily get back on the Longhorns schedule by going back to the Big 12.

  12. tgaustin says: Apr 1, 2014 9:10 PM

    …and Milkmen university is still upset that in their last meeting possibly ever, the Ag’s lost to Case McCoy! Holy SH!T, I laugh every time I think about that. Maybe I’m missing something, but didn’t the Milkmen just finish 5th and 7th in their first two years in the $EC??

    That being said, I believe everyone wants to see this renewed. Even all the Ag’s living in Austin.

  13. goodfieldnohit says: Apr 1, 2014 9:32 PM

    Nah, we really don’t care, tgaustin. You are sadly misinformed. Piss on texas. We don’t need you, and have no desire to go back to playing you. We are in the SEC now. You play Iowa State and Kansas. And Baylor, who routinely kicks your ass now.

  14. goodfieldnohit says: Apr 1, 2014 9:42 PM

    Mike Finger ‏@mikefinger 28m

    Texas AD Steve Patterson, citing alums in oil & gas industry, says he’s had conversations about sporting events in Dubai.

    Is this guy for real?

  15. stevequinn says: Apr 1, 2014 10:50 PM

    Texas wants to avoid the annual butt-whooping they would be getting from an SEC team.

  16. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 1, 2014 11:12 PM

    goodfieldnohit wrote on: Apr 1, 2014 9:42 PM

    Mike Finger ‏@mikefinger 28m

    Texas AD Steve Patterson, citing alums in oil & gas industry, says he’s had conversations about sporting events in Dubai.

    Is this guy for real?
    _________________________________
    Goodfield, It’s not an April Fools Joke.

    Texas is looking to parlay an international exposure for their University very much like the University of Oregon has done, primarily with Nike. Texas is looking to have sporting events in Mexico and in China. Texas is looking at Dubai for sports because Texas A&M has three campuses in the Middle East, Tel Aviv, Qatar and in Kuwait City. Texas A&M has an impeccable reputation in the Middle East, primarily in the Oil and Gas Arena. From what I’ve been told Texas A&M is also looking in New Delhi and in Shanghai to develop University outreach programs as well.

    Texas A&M grew up to go to the big time and left the Big 12 for the SEC. Texas now has to compete with A&M abroad and sports are an avenue for them to consider.

    A&M and Missouri are great additions to the SEC.

    The only reason I am aware of this is that I’m looking to help Alabama upgrade their
    engineering program for Petroleum Engineering from a certificate under Chemical
    Engineering to a full fledge program. With all the horiziontal drilling starting in Mississippi and Louisiana, there are opportunities to develop additional degree
    programs. Much rather keep it in the SEC family with A&M (although Texas is right behind Texas A&M in geology and Petroleum Engineering .)

    RTR

  17. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 1, 2014 11:33 PM

    tgaustin wrote on: Apr 1, 2014 9:10 PM

    …and Milkmen university is still upset that in their last meeting possibly ever, the Ag’s lost to Case McCoy! Holy SH!T, I laugh every time I think about that. Maybe I’m missing something, but didn’t the Milkmen just finish 5th and 7th in their first two years in the $EC??

    That being said, I believe everyone wants to see this renewed. Even all the Ag’s living in Austin.

    __________

    Tgaustin!

    Good to see you! I’m glad to see you laughing because the medications your attending pyschiatrist prescribed must be working. The house has been completed in the Woodlands and let me know when you want to stop by. I’ll make sure that I have non-alcoholic beverages available so you
    won’t mix alcohol with your powerful medications.

    I won’t bring up the last game of Colt McCoy because of your tender sensibilities but need to stress that reality is your friend. Texas A&M in football was ranked #3 in 2012 and #22 in 2013 while Texas was ranked #16 in 2012 and #33 in 2013.(USA Today). What that means is Texas needs to look at beating OU and OSU and Baylor regularly in football. Right now, Baylor is the premier
    Big 12 program in Texas with what they have accomplished in both football and basketball.

    Tgaustin, my recovering friend, Texas A&M and Missouri grew up and moved away. They are not coming back. Never. Ever. We in the SEC thank you giving us those two schools. I also know that
    John Calipari loves that you opened up Texas and gave Kentucky the Harrison twins and the kid from Dallas. Texas should have been all over those kids, but alas, the SEC recruited them and has opened the door EVEN further, thanks again for your recruits and your TV markets.

    I hope that last statement did not upset you in your delicate condition, but if you learn to accept reality and actually work with your attending pyschiatrist, you could have a long and productive
    life. Just stay away from 6th street.

    I’ll keep praying for you.

    RTR

  18. thekingdave says: Apr 2, 2014 2:26 AM

    @goodfieldnohit

    Your constant obsession with Texas and continued posting of Texas CFT links on texags.com and imploring people come join and back you up here suggest otherwise. But what else would you expect of aggy? Keep glorifying a contested national championship in 1939.

    Ps- use a different user here than on texags then on here. That way I can’t call you out on your bs. I guess they don’t relay those kind of basic things to you through ATMs “thorough” curriculum though, huh?

  19. kombayn says: Apr 2, 2014 6:45 AM

    They won’t do it for now, but if A&M meets Texas in the CFB Playoff. I guarantee you they’ll renew the game annually, the revenue is just massive. Can you imagine if Texas hype machine with the Longhorn Network?

  20. beveaux says: Apr 2, 2014 9:10 AM

    What success has aggy had in the SEC besides sneaking up and beating Bama in 2012? The aggy AD said he would like to see Texas in a BCS or Playoff game. I bet he would. It would mean that aggy had won something since 1999, the year of their one and only BCS game.

    Aggy being 4th in their division is about where they usually ended up in the Big XII. Nothing has really changed except for some reason they think they are more successful.

  21. normtide says: Apr 2, 2014 9:16 AM

    Fear is a powerful deterrent.

  22. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 2, 2014 9:24 AM

    King Dave,

    From an outsider looking in on the Texas/Texas A&M feud, I find it rather amusing that the paranoid cause of all the problems in the Big 12 calls Texas A&M obsessive.

    Nationally people laugh at the University of Texas at Austin simply because everyone knows that Longhorns are full of their mascot’s excrement.

    Frank Broyles took Arkansas to the SEC because the were fed up with Texas’s feces.

    Same with Nebraska under Tom Osborne.

    Same with Colorado and Missouri.

    See a pattern developing? Texas ALWAYS does what is in their best interests and is out to screw everybody else. People (Conferences included) get fed up with the abusive spouse syndrome that Texas uses constantly and people know what Texas is.

    Patterson wants to take Texas globally, great. Difference is, Oregon has Nike in China sponsoring them. Texas has only it’s name.

    Man up, recognize that Texas A&M grew up and try to catch Baylor which has passed you in the Big 12 in Texas, and try to keep OU and OSU from using you as speed bumps.

    RTR

  23. tgaustin says: Apr 2, 2014 9:38 AM

    It just dawned on me, AMOS is GOODSHIT’s DAD! It all makes since now. AMOS, nobody, and I mean NOBODY gives a rats ass what you think. Actually, I’m shocked you didn’t just give the entire CFT world GUMP University’s resume again. Your old and tired buddy…seriously, I just spit coffee all over my keyboard after reading your pathetic post…on a TEXAS vAggie thread…go water your astroturf, spray paint your dog, or whatever it is you do in the woods.

    You are bringing up Kentucky BBall stuff??? Seriously??? What in God’s name is wrong with you? Geology, Engineering?????

    “Typical Aggie”…ask anyone around the state of Texas what this means. What is even more awesome is that all Ag’s move to Austin when/if they finish school.

    76-37-5. If I was Ag, I would want to try and improve this record. Only 39 more to go.

    …and KingDave just put GoodShit on blast.

  24. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 2, 2014 10:26 AM

    TgAustin,

    Na. but nice try.

    Bama grad. 1967.

    Sorry you fell off your meds, but relapses are common with your malady.

    No need to go over Bama’s record, it speaks for itself.
    When was the last time you were in a National Championship game, what happened?

    Like you, Texas is still recovering.

    We thank you for opening Texas for recruiting and your TV markets, but most of all, thank you for giving us Texas A&M. We got the right Texas school.

    Enjoy Ames and Manhattan in a fifth ranked BCS
    conference.

    RTR

  25. coolhorn46 says: Apr 2, 2014 11:54 AM

    I’m one Longhorn fan who has no desire to see the series resumed with TAMU.

    TAMU made what they called their “hundred year” decision to head to the confederacy, and made it knowing well that the games with UT would be over. I applaud TAMU’s administrators for making that decision, and I’m sure, long term, things will work out well for agricultural.

    One thing in this thread rings true. The Big XII, as presently constituted, is on shaky ground, no matter how much money the conference is bringing in from tv partners right now. UT, OU, OSU. Tech, KU, WVU, and perhaps a couple of others are likely to look around as the grant of rights gets closer to its’ end, barring any additions to the conference that are game changers, and I don’t see any out there.

    I don’t get the complaints that UT looks out for itself. Name me one school that doesn’t. Was TAMU thinking about the good of anybody in the Big XII when they chose to bolt for the SEC? Nebraska when they headed to the B1G? Every school out there looks out for their interests first, and if it benefits them, then they look out for conference interests.

    UT is down, relatively speaking in football these days, but things won’t stay that way for long. Those who say that UT is not a good conference partner, that they wouldn’t be able to make a conference move if they wanted to, are fooling themselves. The only real question is IF UT eventually wants to change conferences, and when. If that happens, they’ll have the opportunities they want.

    Again, I’m not posting this to bag on the aggies. I just think that there’s a lot of misinformation where UT is concerned. UT did just fine when they were playing TAMU. They’ll do just fine NOT playing TAMU. There is NO groundswell movement amoung UT fans to reinstate that series now, and foreseeably into the future. Some divorces are final.

  26. bfree2k says: Apr 2, 2014 3:21 PM

    coolhorn46

    Bravo! Most sensible, thought out and well written comment on this particular article. As an outside fan (FSU-Tomahawk) I don’t have the best perspective on this UT-TAMU issue accept that it’s a GD shame that the rivalry is dead but both programs had a big hand in it’s split–UT due to its greed (others programs have split the BIG XII citing UT) and TAMU’s impetuous “take my ball and go home” attitude (TAMU couldn’t do what Baylor’s doing, seriously?). Again, I have no horse in this race outside of being a big CFB fan who hates to see these kind of rivalries go (ditto OU v NB, PSU v Pitt) but your most salient point is that while UT is down now relatively speaking, it is too big and too rich (in $$$ and football tradition) to stay for long. Also you astutely pointed out that UT is a big fish whom has already been courted by the Pac-12 and the BIG. I’m not begrudging TAMU’s recent success and the fact that they are #1 in Texas right now but don’t crow so loudly about “growing up and moving on”–they should realize that they and Mizzou are in the SEC largely because of the number of people who watch them on TV and not necessarily because they are football powers.

  27. goodfieldnohit says: Apr 2, 2014 4:05 PM

    @ kingdave -

    You wouldn’t know who I was, if you didn’t spend all you waking hours monitoring what goes on over at texags.com, would you?

    Why do you even bother going over there? It’s not like we’re your rivals, that’s OU, right?

  28. normtide says: Apr 2, 2014 4:28 PM

    I do like coolhorn’s post, because it isn’t demeaning, it just states his opinion. A smart opinion at that. I only disagree on one point. Not every school only looks out for itself. The highly functional leagues, the b1g/SEC/Pac, are that way because the schools work together. Programs like Florida, OSU, Bama, LSU, etc could start their own networks. But, they work with their neighbors for the good of their leagues. In return, they are better for it. Texas isn’t totally in the wrong though. They just carry more dead weight than most teams, I.e. Kansas/Baylor/ISU/KSU. The entire revenue for the 12 comes through two schools now. That puts Texas is a difficult spot.

    Bfee2k- another good post. But, Baylor isn’t A&M. They have no choice but to take their lumps with Texas. Basically, they have no where else to go. A&M had options. That affects your attitude. If Texas decided that their game with Baylor was going to be played in Austin every year, what could Baylor do? Not much. They have no leverage. Honestly, Baylor goes to bed every night thanking God that they are in a major conference. Like I stated, the 12 is two teams driving tv revenue and eight teams tagging along. KSU and OSU are good teams, but they don’t influence the media contracts. Colorado, A&M, Nebraska, and Missouri were the only programs that could survive without Texas and Oklahoma. So they did. The rest would be stuck joining CUSA, MWC, or the Sun Belt.

  29. coolhorn46 says: Apr 2, 2014 6:01 PM

    Normtide, you just reminded me of a point I intended to make, but didn’t, in my previous post.

    There’s a lot of b.s. out there, most of it originated by TAMU and, before them, Nebraska, that the University of Texas is somehow NOT a good partner to the other schools in the Big XII.

    When Nebraska and Colorado left for the B1G and PAC conferences, UT began to broker a deal with the PAC to bring several Big XII schools west. The original intent was that UT, OU, OSU, Tech, TAMU, and one other school would move to the PAC. UT never talked to the PAC about making a unilateral move west. Does that sound like a school that doesn’t care about the welfare of other conference schools? Yeah, TAMU wanted the SEC over the PAC, and yeah, ultimately, the Big XII schools decided to stay together instead of breaking up, but this idea that UT is somehow a predatory school that only looks out for itself just doesn’t wash.

    Nebraska and TAMU needed a fall guy to help with their realignments, and it was convenient for them to make UT the boogie man, rather than to just stand up and say we’re moving because it makes good economic sense. I’m sure I’ll get some denials from fans of some other schools mentioned, but UT is NOT responsible for the schools that left the Big XII. If UT was the bully they’ve been painted to be, I doubt any current members of the Big XII would want anything to do with them. It would be interesting to do an unscientific poll and see how many Big XII schools today would be for Texas leaving the conference.

    Before you accept something as the truth, from me or anyone, see if that person or school has an agenda. A lie repeated a thousand times doesn’t make it the truth.

  30. 8to80texansblog says: Apr 2, 2014 6:49 PM

    I obviously missed this one yesterday…

    I’ve said it once, and I’ll say it again… the A&M v UT rivalry is bigger than either AD, any of us fans, or any of the players.

    This goes back into the 1800′s…

    I firmly believe that these schools should play on an annual basis, and definitely not in a neutral spot.

    That said… I do think it’s in Texas’ best interest to renew the rivalry… A&M has past them up enrollment, recruiting, and profile. The quickest way for Texas to put “little brother” as they like to call us, back in our place is to beat us on the field….

  31. 8to80texansblog says: Apr 2, 2014 6:57 PM

    @kingdave
    You say @goodfieldnohit is obsessed, but you’re the one roaming TexAgs.com….?

    I can tell you that I’m a die hard fan and I could care less what’s said on OrangeBloods.com…

  32. thekingdave says: Apr 2, 2014 7:36 PM

    @goodfieldnohit @8to80texansblog

    All it took was a quick google search of “goodfieldnohit” about three weeks ago while I was in the midst of having to continuously to respond to the nonsense. It took all of three minutes of my time to figure out.

  33. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 3, 2014 8:59 PM

    coolhorn,

    Respectfully,

    Bill Powers went to Los Angeles when Texas played
    UCLA with the sole purpose of gauging the PAC-12
    interest of Texas, OU, OSU and Texas Tech forming
    one quadrant in a 16 team conference with 2 divisions.

    The proposal was DOA before the game even started. Texas was rebuffed for three reasons.

    (1.) Texas never had the votes. Utah, Colorado,both Arizona schools, both Washington schools,both Oregon schools and USC said “No” to even entertaining Texas nor expansion. UCLA, Stanford and Cal abstained. This had more to do with keeping long standing relationships rather than being part of a rotating four team quadrants, coupled with the outright hostility toward Texas from Colorado, Utah and the two Arizona
    schools being in the same division with Texas for sports other than football.,

    (2.) The conference was okay with Texas since they are an AAU member. The conference was upset with the academic standards of OU. The conference would consider Texas and OU as a package deal athletically IF Oklahoma would agree to become an AAU member. Texas Tech and OSU would never be considered because of “inferior ” academics., and

    (3.) The unwillingness of Texas to subordinate the recently formed LHN to the PAC-12 conference protocol and procedures in which all revenues are subject to oversight by the conference Presidents and Chancellors. When asked directly by the PAC-12 commissioner if Texas would commit to PAC-12 for the duration of ESPN/LHN and have
    conference oversight of the LHN contract in return for access to the PAC-12 network
    providers, Bill Powers said that was not his decision since Texas athletics and the LHN
    are separate from the University of Texas and Deloss Dodds would have to consulted.
    The PAC-12 reiterated that the LHN would have to come under PAC-12 guidelines.

    There has been no response to the PAC-12 conference since that meeting.

    Nebraska had ill feelings toward Texas ever since Deloss led Big 12 members to
    eliminate partial qualifiers in the conference as well as eliminating the Nebraska
    County Scholarship program. Seemed that all the County scholarship players were
    not 5’8″ ag majors with a vision problem, but strapping football players who redshirted
    and would not play until their redshirt junior year. When Nebraska’s Tom Osborne directly asked Deloss if Texas was going to continue develop the LHN outside the purview
    of the Big 12 Conference and Deloss said “Yes” because the tiered revenue was going to be for Texas minor sports, Nebraska and Colorado wanted out.

    What is striking is that when the Big 12 lost Texas A&M and Missouri to the greener
    pastures of the SEC, Texas had no problem dividing the exiting schools revenues to remaining members in return of ABSOLUTE assignment of all media GOR to the conference by the remaining members. The LHN is grandfathered. If a member leaves, all their revenue stays with the Big 12. That includes the lucrative Men’s NCAA Basketball trails that a school receives after an NCAA appearance. They don’t call it the “Sweet 16″ for nothing. This holds schools hostage to the Big 12.

    Don’t get Frank Broyles of Arkansas started on Texas. He’ll spend months outlining his decision to leave the old SWC for the SEC because of Texas.

    Texas has a long, long history of streetwalking. Care to explain why Texas approached and was rebuffed by the B!G mere days after their loss to Alabama? Money.

    The B1G universities knew Texas only wanted to join the B1G because the conference was
    receiving in excess of $1.1 billion annually in federally funded research grants and projects. Texas was arriving late to the party and wanted an equal share of the money.
    Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota were adamant that Texas would have
    to wait 10 years for entry into the research and grant funds. They told Texas “no” with the
    polite press release that “Discussions will continue”. The B1G does not want Texas in the conference,period. They already have what they want out of Texas, recruits and TV markets.

    Texas is a pariah, and the nation knows it even if Texas won’t admit it.

    RTR

  34. normtide says: Apr 3, 2014 10:59 PM

    I’m inclined to think the Grant of Rights isn’t as binding as many think. Exit fees obviously aren’t. And, I don’t see the modern court systems stripping a school of it’s tv rights. At the end of the day, any program wanting to leave it’s league can. After a little hassle, at least. Then again, WVU is the only program I see maybe bolting the 12. Oklahoma has plenty of options, but being hitched to OSU pretty much dries those options up.

    While I agree that Texas does bully it’s neighbors, coolhorn’s first post makes sense in a way. The thing is, Texas’ league mates make it that way. Which of the remaining members of the twelve would actually be better off without Texas? If they go independent the 12 folds. Or at minimum loses 75% of it’s media revenue and national relevance. The programs that could survive without Texas as a partner have done just that. At this point, Texas has to look out for itself because it’s league has been on such shaky ground.

    Now, that doesn’t excuse it’s tendency to do the same thing in the past. Going all the way back to running off Arkansas. The sad thing is, the big 12 looked formidable at it’s beginning. It was expected to be on par with the SEC and any other league. Myself, I think what started it’s spiral was ending the OK/Nebraska series. That was a big money, big hype game. The first our second biggest game the 12 had. It seems to affected NU personally, as it coincided with the program dropping off. And the big 12 started descending on the whole. Texas and Oklahoma were still were Texas and Oklahoma, but you need more than just two power programs.

  35. v2the4 says: Apr 4, 2014 3:30 AM

    great post coolhorn…

    every University is responsible for their own financial well being, and every decision that is made in the depths of the board room comes down to money…how much can we make for ourselves? screw our rivals…to hell with longstanding tradition and nostagala….how much coin can we make?

    thats the main reason that agriculture, missouri, nebraska and colorado left the big 12….missouri and kansas had a rivalry even longer than that of UT/Agriculture, but the love of money ruined that rivalry and it wont be coming back.

    neither will the UT/agriculture football game…the two womens basketball teams did play back in November in St Thomas….UT won 68-59

  36. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 4, 2014 7:00 AM

    v2the4.

    Schools want stability. The last thing any school
    President, much less an AD and alumni, is to move a school to a new conference. Arkansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Missouri and Texas A&M all moved because they had the option to move. The moves were lateral in nature because the funds received were comparable to what they had in the Big 12.
    Nebraska moved to the B1G cost them money for two years under B1G guidelines. Kansas was told by the Big 12 office not to schedule their annual game. It’s Kansas’s loss not Missouri.

    Texas is not the pristine school you think it is.

    RTR

  37. coolhorn46 says: Apr 4, 2014 1:37 PM

    AAStagg makes some very valid points in his post. UT has been pretty rigid in the past about what they expect out of any conference they’re in. UT was not willing to let Nebraska have a virtual farm system, as they did with the looser partial qualifier rules of the old Big Eight. UT wanted everybody to be on level ground, and Nebraska wasn’t happy with the conference’s 11-1 vote on the matter.

    I don’t doubt that AAStagg is right about how the PAC talks happened, but note, he agrees with me that UT talked about more than just themselves making a move west. That flies in the face of claims that UT ONLY looks out for UT.

    Frank Broyles did have some criticisms of UT when the Hogs bolted the old SWC. He had some criticisms of the whole conference, since Arkansas was the only non-Texas school in it, and the folks up in the hills always felt they were ganged up on by the Texas schools. It’s also true that Frank Broyles said a few years later that one of his biggest regrets in making the move to the SEC was giving up the UT game, since UT was Arkansas’ biggest rival, and they haven’t found one to match yet in the SEC. For that matter, with some very limited exceptions, Arkansas hasn’t had a top shelf football program since their SWC days. The SEC West is a hard nut to crack, as agricultural is gonna find out over the next few years.

    Money and stability are the two driving forces in realignment, and ultimately, they will be the deciding factor in where UT, and OU, and other Big XII schools wind up. There’s also been an undertone here concerning UT’s perceived arrogance. I don’t mind saying flatly that UT spent a very long time being very arrogant, and I’m sure that didn’t set well with some other teams in the conference. The person who drove that arrogance is no long at UT, and the new UT athletic administration seems to be much more open to new ideas and cooperation with other schools. I consider that to be a massive improvement.

    One point I disagree with…UT is NOT a “pariah”. UT is also not as rigid about some things as it once was. The indications from the new UT athletic director, Steve Patterson, are that the university is open to discussing anything, other than rescheduling agricultural. IF UT decides a move to another conference is necessary, and if UT is willing to make some concessions, especially concerning the Longhorn Network, they will have all the options they want, PAC, SEC, ACC, or B1G. No conference out there will turn a deaf ear if UT wants to talk. One last point, concerning the Longhorn Network…it should be remembered that the network is owned by ESPN, so any modifications have to go through them, as well at UT.

  38. mogogo1 says: Apr 4, 2014 4:40 PM

    Great example here of what is slowly killing college sports. It’s all about the money and the more money that comes in the more it becomes just about the money. Longtime rivalries, established conference ties… nothing matters to these guys any more.

  39. mogogo1 says: Apr 4, 2014 5:07 PM

    Also worth noting that while renewing long-time rivalries isn’t on the radar, Texas really wants to play games in Mexico. Odd priorities.

  40. coolhorn46 says: Apr 4, 2014 7:14 PM

    I won’t argue that money is driving realignment decisions and yeah, I hate seeing the college game turning into a junior version of the NFL. From a UT perspective, the Horns belong playing their long time rivals from the SWC and Big 8/Big XII. A poster above said that the original Big XII had the potential of an SEC/B1G/PAC and I absolutely agree. I’m one UT fan that was NOT happy to see the four teams leave that did, and I don’t consider TCU and WVU to be adequate replacements.

    I’m also in agreement that the Big XII’s first really bad decision was to do away with the yearly OU/Nebraska game. One thing the SEC has done well is preserve its’ cross-divisional rivalries, and that could have happened with OU/Nebraska too…but like they say, hindsight is 20-20.

    I’m not sure many would admit it, but I suspect that there are Nebraska fans who’d love to still be playing OU, UT, Mizzou, KU, and other long-time rivals. I suspect some Mizzou fans miss the hundred year rivalries they gave up in moving to the SEC, and I know that both UT and TAMU fans miss the annual Thanksgiving showdown. UT fans also miss playing Nebraska. The only former Big XII school whose move made a lot of sense was Colorado…even when they were in the old Big 8, they longed to be in the PAC.

    I don’t presume to speak for all UT fans, but for myself, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around the Horns heading either west or east. I certainly don’t see them as members of the B1G or ACC. However, in the current climate of money-driven decisions, I suppose you never say never. As for UT scheduling outside the country, the new AD wants UT’s brand to be a worldwide brand, and he’s willing to make some schedule adjustments to make that happen. The reasoning…it’s good business. That translates to making money. I’m a UT fan, and of course, I want my school to turn a profit. I’m honest enough though to say the old school side of me would prefer to see a football schedule that includes long-time rivals like Arkansas and TAMU, and newer rivalries developed in the Big XII. I just don’t expect that to happen in my lifetime, barring some unforeseen changes brought about by the new playoff. There is a part of me that envies fans of schools that are still playing their regional rivals in meaningful games.

  41. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 4, 2014 7:43 PM

    coolhorn,

    Thank you. More than one PAC-12 schools asked my professional analysis of conference expansion and the direct impact on collegiate finances and expenses for the respective athletic budgets, short and long term.

    While you say Texas looked out for others, you have to ask why was Texas enpowered to speak for Oklahoma at a meeting with the PAC-12 commissioner? Joe Castiglione is more than capable in handling OU interests and reporting back to the OU President and Board of Regents.

    Arkansas left the SWC because of Texas, specifically Deloss Dodds. Frank read the tea leafs correctly when Deloss approached the SEC in 1986. Texas had always treated Arkansas as a red headed step child. It only got worse after DKR and Broyles retired from coaching. Broyles, as AD, was marginalized more and more in SWC AD meetings by Texas and finally had enough of the behind the scene machinations by Deloss.

    When Arkansas finally did leave, Broyles was actually relieved in moving to the SEC.
    This was repeated more than one time when he would visit with people at Arkansas or conference functions.

    Texas is VIEWED as a pariah. The list is long and the list is replete with major University Presidents and Athletic Directors who will play the University of Texas in intercollegiate sports, but to have as a conference member,”Thanks, but no Thanks!”
    If the B1G was so intent on expansion, why extend to Rutgers and Maryland? Why not
    Texas and West Virginia? The TV markets alone would make the B1G the 800 pound
    gorilla. The answer is simple. The B1G did not Texas in any way shape or form in the B1G conference. The same with the ACC. FSU was willing to fire it’s President if he even thought of going to the Big 12. Reason? Academics and Texas, FSU abhors the University of Texas as an athletic program.

    Texas could go to the PAC-12, they will have to give up the LHN. I don’t know if they would have the actual votes though.

    RTR.

  42. coolhorn46 says: Apr 5, 2014 12:10 AM

    AAStagg,

    I have absolutely no proof of this, and I also don’t have any insiders who feed me information. However, I have a distinct feeling that in a few years, once the playoff system is firmly established and has been tweaked, perhaps to eight teams, I think we’re going to see a major shakeup of the current conference system.

    I’m NOT saying the conferences are going away. I am saying that the folks who float the money, the ESPN’s and Fox’s, are going to push for four, or possibly five power conferences that make some geographic sense. ESPN and Fox understand that rivalry games are great business during the regular season, and to maximize profits, those rivalry games need to be restored. There will be a PAC, a B1G, an SEC, and yes, barring a major breakdown, the Big XII, at least right now, is in a bit better position to survive than the ACC. Neither the Big XII or ACC has shown they’re capable of sustaining long-term stability, but one of them will have to to make this work. There will be 64 or up to 80 schools competing for the playoffs. TV might tolerate one conference that doesn’t make geographic sense, but won’t accept more than that.

    Before anybody says anything, yes, I know the ACC, like the Big XII, has a grant of rights, but those haven’t been tested in court. Beyond that, the ACC has a deep fracture between the football-first schools, and the basketball powerhouses along Tobacco Road that seem to have the most power in that conference. You can mention the dissention that threatened to kill the Big XII, but right now, it’s one big happy family compared to what’s stewing in the ACC.

    I think that sooner, rather than later, the NCAA is gonna go away, at least as far as the power five conferences are concerned. I think cooler heads will prevail, and all of the schools that make the cut for playoff contention will be able to work out conference alignments that make geographic sense and restore regional and long-standing rivalries. If this whole thing, indeed, is about maximizing profits, what I’m talking about here makes a lot more economic sense than keeping the status quo. If/when this happens, there might be a school or two who aren’t happy with the new shape of things, but I think they’ll all go along with it. I also do NOT see any of the conferences getting radically-altered. The SEC will still look a lot like today’s SEC, the PAC like today’ PAC, the B1G like today’s B1G. Some schools that have moved, like Nebraska to the B1G or Colorado to the PAC will stay with their new conferences. Some won’t. I just don’t see today’s conferences and alignments being stable beyond the next few years.

  43. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 5, 2014 3:09 AM

    coolhorn,

    The Big 12 is on borrowed time. The dream of TV since the 1950′s has been to have a “Super Conference” of 64 teams is rapidly becoming a reality.

    The NCAA is not going away. It will merely form another division of the “Mega elites”, the Texas’s, the Alabama’s, the Texas A&M’s…. the huge state schools will dominate. The four dominant conferences,The B1G, The SEC, The PAC-12 and the ACC will be the players since they all have 12 teams. The Big 12 has 10 ten teams and there simply are not 6 quality, large alumni base programs out there that want to join the Big 12.

    No, realignment is coming perhaps the seeds coming to fruition this weekend. I’m in Dallas for the NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament and meeting with conferences and clients to discuss their ideas and their plans. Two items are dominating conversations.

    (1.) The unionization of college sports and

    (2.) Connecticut.

    First, Unionization. Every AD, University President and Chancellor is worried about
    the distinct probability of an additional item being added to already strained athletic
    budgets that will cost tens of thousands of true student athletes, men and women, an
    opportunity to go to college to obtain a college degree. The NCAA is more than the Mega Elites. It’s 600,000 kids going to Division I, II, and III schools that will never
    play on Sundays. That is why the NCAA will remain in play, for those conferences and schools that don’t have 100,000 seat stadiums.

    15 to 35 programs can absorb the costs of paying stipends to their ENTIRE athletic
    programs. Title IX is already in play and in talking with AD’s and school Presidents and Chancellors, they WILL cut athletic programs, Men and Women’s, to keep the revenue sports liquid.

    Conferences discussed yesterday and today here in Dallas,

    In the SEC, you have Alabama, LSU, Texas A&M, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina,
    Kentucky and Vanderbilt that have the COMMITTED resources to paying the stipends.
    Tennessee maybe.

    The B1G as a whole is holding their cards cost to the vest. Their is a distinct possibility
    that Commissioner Delaney’s thought of going Division III could be a reality.

    ACC has Notre Dame, Florida State, Duke, Wake Forest COMMITTED. North Carolina, Clemson, Virginia maybe.

    PAC-12 has shown interest in COMMITING as a conference.

    Big 12 has Texas and OU, with OSU has a maybe(T. Boone Pickens)

    The three service academies and BYU round out the COMMITTED.

    That is 35 schools, which leads us to

    (2.) Connecticut.

    There is more than a rumor that Connecticut is playing this weekend for an ACC
    admission. If they succeed, there are rumblings that Connecticut is the “magic”
    16th team for the ACC and the advent of the first of four superconferences is before us.
    Raycom’s reacquistion by ESPN is ahead of schedule and the ACC could have their
    network up BEFORE 2016.

    What does this mean?

    Nothing and everything. There is going to be an enormous amount of angst and upheaval in the relative near future. Fleshing out the four conferences at the table now are the SEC, the B1G, the PAC-12 and the ACC. The Big 12 is not. It is viewed as a Texas centric conference, regional at best in TV scope and other than OU and Texas,
    no viable Madison Avenue splash for TV dollars.

    If change happened today,It is perceived Texas is a strong candidate to the PAC-12 along with BYU. That leaves two slots in the PAC-12.

    WVU and Iowa State to the B1G.

    OU and OSU to the SEC, since they have to go together.

    Three super conferences and one super conference two teams away.

    What is the payout?

    Another BILLION dollars in TV revenue to the super conferences and the NCAA in football ONLY.

    That is why the NCAA is going to create another division, increase revenue to the NCAA and keep Division II and II happy.

    That is why I continue to say, enjoy college sports today because these are the good old days.

    RTR

  44. coolhorn46 says: Apr 5, 2014 10:53 AM

    What you propose make a whole lot of sense Stagg. I never saw more than four super conferences from the start, and as for the Big XII, as it is currently constituted, I really don’t care if it goes way.

    I question BYU to the PAC. You know that conference a lot better than me, but from a distance, I’m given to understand that they don’t want any other private schools, and they don’t particularly want any religion-affiliated schools. BYU also has their own network, creating the kinds of problems for the PAC that the LHN does with adding UT.

    You mentioned in an earlier post that the PAC is concerned about OU’s academics. The folks in Norman are already working to upgrade academics. Again, I don’t have any inside knowledge, but I believe UT and OU would prefer to make a joint move to a new conference. OU might have a problem separating from OSU, but it could be done if needs be.

    One question…IF the PAC expands to 16, and UT is one of the adds, and BYU is not, where would the other three come from? OU and Tech are making concerted efforts to beef up their academics, and OSU is expected to follow suit. I still think the most logical expansion plan for the PAC is to add UT, OU, OSU, and Tech and create some form of an eastern division with the Arizona schools, Colorado, and Utah. As for the votes being there, I’m sure a little persuasion could be applied to make that happen.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong on any of this…I just have my questions.

  45. amosalanzostagg says: Apr 5, 2014 11:46 AM

    Coolhorn,

    I need coffee. I am not 20 something. I stayed up way too late this morning visiting with colleagues consuming adult beverages. I was going to tell you what the PAC-12 commissioner said yesterday that was a topic of conversation last night. Low and behold, I log on to CFT and his musings are the first thing I see.

    I’ll be visiting some B1G administrators, University and Athletic, later this afternoon and see what the consensus developing among their colleagues.

    The Big 12 is a subject here in Dallas, not as an expansion, but a pillaging. The only school that has options is Texas. OU and OSU are joined at the hip by the Oklahoma legislature and the only viable option for those two schools is the SEC. The B1G is all about AAU admissions as is the PAC-12. Yeah, I know the Arizona schools aren’t members, but the PAC 12 is adamant about the AAU standard.

    Right now, BYU is in the AAU process. They are one of four schools with a true national
    exposure. Southern Cal, ND, BYU and Texas are the four schools. The ACC has ND.
    The very quiet goal of the PAC-12 is to create and national marketing social media
    juggernaut. This makes sense since Hollywood is in their backyard.

    Just a hypothetical, what would the value of a conference network with access to over one billion viewers paying to watch your product? Think Madison Avenue would not throw billions of dollars to a conference for mere access?

    By adding BYU and Texas to the PAC-12, the conference would have 3 of the 4 NATIONAL programs and plays the fourth in major inter conference play.

    OU and OSU are not in play for the PAC-12. Tech, Baylor, KSU and TCU need to dust off theirresumes. The most attractive schools right now are Kansas(AAU), Iowa State(AAU), and WVU. Can you imagine Iowa State be woo’d by the PAC-12 AND the B1G at the same time specifically because of Academics?

    Iowa is lobbying Iowa State to join the B1G. So if Iowa State and WVU join the B1G, you have another 16 team conference.

    I can see Kansas joining the PAC-12. I can also see the PAC-12 adding Air Force. Before
    you laugh, you add Air Force in order to keep Sherman Anti-trust laws from even being a thought before the Congress if you’re the PAC-12.

    Money is driving the train now and you throw the mere thought of a 5 year, 10 Billion
    dollar multiple vendor social media contract and you can see why Universities are selling
    their souls.

    RTR

  46. normtide says: Apr 5, 2014 12:17 PM

    I have to disagree with on a few points. Texas couldn’t have its pick of league homes. The SEC, Pac, and b1g are stable, I doubt any of them would accept Texas. SEC ad’s wouldn’t turn in A&M in that manner. The thing about your idea about future super conferences is, you have two elite programs that put a kink in it. ND doesn’t want any partners, and an already successful league wouldn’t want the trouble Texas brings. Not that things couldn’t be worked about for two of the top programs. If anything, I see independence as the future for Texas. That would create huge tremors across the Midwest with maybe only Oklahoma getting into one of the top leagues. I think of it comes to that, they will be able to drop OSU from their hip. I think it’s only a matter of time before UT decides it’s tired of propping up teams like Kansas and Iowa State and the majority of the 12. I am sure they will want to keep the rivalry with OU, like A&M wants to keep one with UT. Let’s just hope OU is more reasonable than UT is right now.

  47. coolhorn46 says: Apr 6, 2014 5:04 AM

    UT will not be an independent. The administration understands the scheduling problems that would bring, not to mention that it would severely limit UT’s access to the playoffs.

    I tend to agree with AAStagg that UT’s probable direction is to head west to the PAC. People need to realize that UT has an entirely new athletic administration, and some of the attitudes of the previous administration are a thing of the past now. I might be a UT fan, but I don’t live my life with burnt orange blinders on. UT was arrogant under the previous AD, but Steve Patterson is a big change from DeLoss Dodds. IF UT decides to relocate, it will have all the options open that it wants…but my sense is that UT has wanted the PAC for years. I had that same sense about agricultural and the SEC, and that turned out as predicted.

    UT and OU are NOT joined at the hip, and if they have to head in different directions they will. That being said, I believe that the administrations of both schools would like to stay in the same conference if its’ feasible, and I also believe that OU seriously would like a move to the PAC. Academics aside (…and OU is improving their academics and is likely to seek AAU admission.) any conference would have to take a look at the Sooners given their history of success, and not just in football. The Oklahoma legislature is not going to impede OU by forcing OSU to be included in any move, and OSU on its’ own is good enough for consideration by the SEC.

    I mentioned in an earlier post that I wouldn’t be heartbroken to see the Big XII go away. There is not the loyalty to it that a lot of us held for the old SWC or Big 8, especially with the four defections. I also agree that several schools in the Big XII now need to be networking to find a soft landing place. I’ll be interested to see what AAStagg has to say after his trip to Dallas.

  48. normtide says: Apr 6, 2014 11:22 AM

    Texas has the cache to go independent and make it work. The LHN, in my opinion, would keep UT out of the Pac. That and Texas would have to rebuild its image as a conference partner. The PAC has positioned itself really well, and they know it. They won’t throw that away for a quick payday. That said, UT to the Pac could happen, but it would be at least 6 or 7 years away.

    OSU , on its own, will never be admitted to the SEC. I’m really doubtful they could get in with Oklahoma as a package deal. The SEC has talked to OU on more than one occasion, and their discussions never included OSU. Not to mention, everything I’ve read says OU and OSU was bound to each other by law. T Boone is a powerful man in that state.

    Baylor, ISU, KU, KSU, TT, and TCU will find no soft landings. They will find homes in the MWC, CUSA, or Sun Belt. I suppose Kansas has a small chance of landing in the b1g, but I wouldn’t bet on it. Like I said, UT and OU are the only marketable teams in the 12.

    The fact that the fans are not loyal to the 12 is a bad sign. Things have changed so much since its beginnings.

  49. coolhorn46 says: Apr 6, 2014 7:22 PM

    @ Norm…I’m not sure most fans in this part of the country ever really warmed up to the Big XII. A couple of the old Big 8 schools made a big thing out of how they “helped” or “rescued” the four teams that came in from the SWC. It’s not like the SWC teams came to the old Big 8 hat in hand. UT, TAMU, Tech, and Baylor brought with them Dallas/Fort Worth, Houston, Austin/San Antonio…the biggest tv markets in the original Big XII. The Big 8 brought St. Louis, K.C., Denver, Omaha, and OKC…nice markets but not on a par with the Texas markets.

    There are, to this day, quite a few folks in my neighborhood who still miss the SWC. Obviously, the Nebraska fans missed the old Big 8, with its’ much looser partial qualifier rules, enough to jump at the chance to move to the B1G. Colorado always wanted to move to the PAC, TAMU has lusted after the SEC for several decades, and who knows what Mizzou wants, although I still think they’d bolt to the B1G given half a chance. KU, being an AAU school with one of the winningest basketball teams ever, would be attractive to the B1G or PAC, and WVU would probably hold some attraction for either the ACC or B1G. Tech will probably try to go where UT goes, and the same with OSU trying to follow OU. The rest, as you say, are on their own. My best guess would be that they do a deal with the AAC to form a western side of that conference, and try to stay at playoff level. I do get what Stagg is saying about ISU…they’re an AAU school and perhaps attractive to the B1G. Baylor has a good overall sports program and nice facilities, and should attract attention, but I doubt they will. TCU being in the Metroplex and with a recent winning tradition in football should also be attractive, but I don’t think they’ll be attractive enough.

    What I’m saying here is that, barring some last minute game-changing resolutions to some problems, some schools are gonna be left on the outside looking in when realignment finally shakes out. Some of those will be playoff-worthy schools, and better than some schools that make the cut. Unfortunately, with money driving the decisions, things will just have to play out that way. By the way, if you continue to insist that UT is gonna be treated like a leper colony, you will be surprised. Like ‘em or don’t, UT is a very major player and attractive to any conference out there. UT will not be left behind, despite the ardent wishes of some haters. Money talks, and you know what walks.

  50. southernpatriots says: Apr 6, 2014 7:40 PM

    I’m sure Texas would be scheduling TAMU if Mack Brown when he put his hand around the shoulder of Johnny Football when he told him he was the best player at the Texas state high school championship, would have offered Johnny a full scholarship as a QB.

    That past history have come and gone, and due to poor coaching Texas is down. Due to good coaching TAMU is up. The truth is that if the Longhorns were enjoying a powerful program at this moment and the Aggies were as they were before the SEC, there would be a series.

  51. coolhorn46 says: Apr 6, 2014 9:25 PM

    It needs to be kept in mind that UT didn’t have much of a say in ending the TAMU rivalry.

    DeLoss Dodds, the AD at UT, told ag administrators who were talking about a jump to the SEC that they should do what’s best for TAMU. He also told them that if they did make the move, UT would compensate on the schedule and there would be no more games between the two schools. TAMU made their decision knowing that the rivalry would go away. Strictly speaking for myself, I think TAMU made the right decision, just as I think UT will eventually make the right decision concerning continued membership in the Big XII – 2.

    TAMU decided to chart their own course, separate and apart from UT, and so far, it looks like a brilliant move.

  52. normtide says: Apr 6, 2014 11:21 PM

    I never intended to infer that Texas would be unwanted. Saying that Texas is one of the few programs that could make independence work is a huge complement. I just don’t think them to the SEC would happen. Alabama could never join the b1g, it isn’t a knock on either, but it’s true. If I had to bet on which league Texas would go to, I would say the Pac. Austin is a west coast city, stuck in Texas. My point is I doubt UT would join another league without making concessions with the LHN. I also doubt they would do that, way to much pride to admit it was a mistake. The old big 8 had to get Texas. They all recruit there. As for ISU to the b1g, I rule that it. The b1g expands for media markets and Iowa is wrapped up there. As for Kansas, BCS leagues don’t expand for basketball. Your idea for a western division of the AAC makes the most sense.

    The root of that issue is, between the SEC/B1G and the PAC there is a lot of space with only two great football programs. Texas and Oklahoma. The only way I see the PAC expanding its with those two schools, maybe with OSU and TT coming along. They don’t want religious schools like Baylor or TCU or even BYU.

    The Big 12 was a great idea at the time. The problem was the old 8 didn’t like power being based in Texas. But, that was were all the recruits were. The other schools took the moving of the league office out of KC to strongly. The 12 should have worked. All it took was unity. SEC schools do feel a brotherhood. That was missing in the 12. From the start it was every program for itself, and a blind man could see that Texas was going to win that. Then everyone was mad that Texas won.

    I don’t think the current big 12 will last. WVU doesn’t fit. Only two top programs. No other league’s security relies on one program. It’s just a weird mix. But, the collapse will not hurt Texas. In fact, they will probably do better without so many cling on schools. It would probably also end league expansion by creating the super conferences.

  53. coolhorn46 says: Apr 7, 2014 1:24 AM

    @ Norm…there’s a lot of good points in your post. Austin is very much like the west coast cities, and UT had an awful lot in common with PAC schools. UT also has a new administration over sports, and longtime school president Bill Powers is likely to leave within the year as well. IF a move becomes necessary, I think UT, with the consent of ESPN, the LHN’s actual owner, would consider some concessions.

    I mentioned in a post above that I harbor no bad feelings toward TAMU moving east. They have wanted SEC membership for ages, and the ags are much more suited for the SEC than they’d ever have been suited for the PAC. The PAC is not a rural conference, and TAMU would probably feel like the third wheel on a bicycle if they were in that conference. I don’t blame them for resisting UT’s move west in ’10, nor for their move east a couple of years ago.

    It wasn’t apparent at the time, but the Big XII had some deep-seated problems at its’ formation that were never resolved. The four schools that left the Big XII were the four schools, other than UT and OU, that did have options. They may have cited some problems with UT in leaving, but UT was NOT responsible for driving them away. Each had their own agenda for making a move, and each would have made that move, no matter what concessions UT might have made to keep the Big XII together.

    You made a point that AAStagg and I seem to have differing opinions on, and it concerns PAC expansion. If the move is going to be to super conferences of sixteen teams, and if the PAC needs to make that move, UT, OU, Tech, and OSU are the only real options that make sense to the PAC. I believe what Stagg says about concern over the academics of the Oklahoma schools, but both are making an effort to beef up their academics and gain AAU admission. I’ve been on record for at least two or three years that the Big XII, as currently constructed, is a regional conference and won’t last into the playoff era. There is an answer out there…the top eight programs from the Big XII and the top eight from the ACC form a new sixteen team super conference. However, I don’t think that will happen…there would be lawsuits out the wazzoo from the schools that get left behind, so yes, I agree that some combination of schools from the Big XII will split for greener pastures in five years or so. I’m just not sure who goes where.

  54. normtide says: Apr 7, 2014 7:25 PM

    Coolhorn- If nothing else, thank you for an intelligent conversation on college football. No name calling or program bashing. That has become rare in this day and age.

    I think the rest of the 12 will be left out in large part. Although I think programs like TCU deserve a spot over teams like Illinois or Indiana. But, it’s all about positioning. That’s why schools scrambled to get out of the old big east. In my mind, the 12 not grabbing Louisville when they could well end up being it’s last mistake. Then maybe adding Cincinnati to go with WVU. None of the three are great football powers, but they are the best of what’s left in the east. And there is nothing west of them to get.

    In all you can’t blame Texas for being a bit conceded. Look at all the programs in the 12 who need Texas. The will give UT anything they want. Because most of them don’t really deserve to be where they are in the first place.

  55. 8to80texansblog says: Apr 7, 2014 8:03 PM

    coolhorn46 says:
    Apr 6, 2014 9:25 PM
    It needs to be kept in mind that UT didn’t have much of a say in ending the TAMU rivalry.

    DeLoss Dodds, the AD at UT, told ag administrators who were talking about a jump to the SEC that they should do what’s best for TAMU. He also told them that if they did make the move, UT would compensate on the schedule and there would be no more games between the two schools.
    ________________

    I feel these two statements are COMPLETELY at odds with each other….

  56. coolhorn46 says: Apr 8, 2014 12:04 AM

    The point, 8 to 8, is that UT did not push TAMU out the door when they talked about a move to the SEC. DeLoss Dodds simply explained to TAMU officials that the ags’ spot on UT’s schedule would be filled with other schools, and UT wouldn’t be playing TAMU any longer. The decision to move east was TAMU’s alone. UT was on record more than once that they’d prefer that the ags stay in the Big XII, but that they (A&M) had to do what was best for their school. They did.

  57. 8to80texansblog says: Apr 8, 2014 11:39 AM

    Of course UT wanted A&M to stay…. they were the second largest institution in the conference. If they were still in the conference they would currently be the biggest by enrollment.

    But UT pushed A&M out the door all the same… The same with Nebraska, Colorado, and Mizzou. The LHN and Texas’ flirtation with the Big 10 and Pac 10 set the entire conference into a tailspin and 1/3 of the conference decided to find a more stable residence. OU is the only other member left in the conference with any power or clout but they are legally handcuffed to OSU so they kind of have to stay put. Everyone else would be looking at either the MWC, CUSA, or AAC, so the risk of staying with a crumbling BCS conference was better than moving to a non BCS conference.

    The simple fact is that DeLoss Dodds was unhappy that A&M would no longer live underneath his thumb so he used the only chip he had and pulled the rivalry game off the table.

    UT was the school that decided not to play anymore… not A&M.

    A&M made it perfectly clear that though they were leaving, they still wanted to continue the rivalry game across conference lines, as many rivalry games currently exist.

    UF v FSU
    Clemson v S.Carolina
    ND v USC

    I personally would love to see the game renewed. It is a part of Texas history and had been a source of annual bragging rights within my family as my dad and uncle both went to UT and myself and grandfather both went to A&M. I sincerely hope that Patterson at some point realizes that the game is bigger than himself or either institution…

  58. coolhorn46 says: Apr 8, 2014 6:12 PM

    You’re definitely in the minority 8. There are some Longhorn fans that miss the Turkey Day game too, but not nearly enough to put it back on the schedule.

    agricultural is just fine in their new digs over in the confederacy. Enjoy your new rivalries, and your revisionist history. There’s even a precedent for this in the SEC…’Bama went decades without playing Auburn because of the enmity that built up in that rivalry. Barring a bowl game or two, I expect UT will go at least as long, maybe longer, without playing TAMU again. Just enjoy the divorce, and put UT out of your mind…agricultural has bigger fish to fry…and UT has much more important business than jump-starting a rivalry that needs a nice, long rest.

  59. coolhorn46 says: Apr 8, 2014 6:15 PM

    A quick question for AAStagg…you planned on picking up some realignment and playoff info at the Final Four this past weekend. Did you get the info, and if so, care to share?

  60. 8to80texansblog says: Apr 8, 2014 7:05 PM

    @coolhorn

    Such a typical longhorn attitude to look down your nose at me and brush my points off as “revisionist history” instead of actually addressing them.

    You know from reading this thread previously, I assumed this conversation would be fairly civilized and above the name calling… but I was obviously mistaken…

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!