The Move

[h-town12]

Yes, but that doesn't make it right. Sometimes you have to let her get over the grieving phase first.

 

 

Baylor needs the money for child support

[Lobos2004]

Ok so if you divorce your wife, but tell her you still want to have sex, she should be ok with that?

 

I dunno. Ask Mulkey HAHA

[Lobos2004]

Proof? You mean other than all the crying and complaining the last two years? Texas thinks the conference is all about them. Texas makes more money. Texas gets their own network. Etc, etc, etc. So if it's not about Texas, then why does every complaint include Texas?

 

But you do bring up a good point about proof. You're basically implying it had nothing to do with Texas. Okay, there are many comments most people would claim as "proof" that it does (just listed several for you above), so show some "proof" that it didn't!

 

So wait. A few A&M fans not liking a rival team's success means that you know the reasoning behind the A&M President, Athletic Director, and Board of Regents? I never claimed it didn't have anything to do with Texas. I only laughed at you or anyone else telling me that you know the reasons that A&M made the move. You claimed it had everything to do with Texas. The burden of proof is on you.

[Lobos2004]

I wonder if all these whining little aggy @#$%!@ will finally stop crying about Texas after they are officially in the SEC? That's all I am hoping for. What a bunch of vaginas.

 

1. This thread was made by a Texas fan about the A&M move to the SEC.

2. Many Texas fans are in here constantly posting about it.

 

So much for indifference, huh? Actions speak louder than words.

[Lobos2004]

TCU is an opponent, not a rival. Time will tell if it is another one sided in state rivalries such as Baylor & Tech. I think Texas fans believe in today's world of college football it will be a quality football game. The quality of the game will not see a drop off. If TCU and Texas are playing for major bowl bids it will be just as intense. It is true the story lines will not be as intriguing.

 

Now if the Aggies believe the LSS was on par with the RRR, they are sadly mistaken. The location and ticket allocations make it a special game.

 

Yeah, that's why Texas holds a Hex Rally before the RRR, right?

 

And why they mention OU in their fight song?

[bordertown]

Yeah, that's why Texas holds a Hex Rally before the RRR, right?

 

And why they mention OU in their fight song?

 

No doubt up until the Royal / Switzer years, the TAMU game was king. Over the last 40 years the OU game has supplanted the Aggie game. I think Barry amd his outlaw tactics had a lot to do with it. Yes, A&M is mentioned in "Texas Fight". Will be interesting to see if the wording is changed in the future. The words were written with A&M was the #1 rival. I guess we could easily substitute "O&U".

 

Now the words of the Aggie War Hymn are going to be out of place in the SEC.

 

The Hex Rally has never been a huge event with the student body in Austin unlike the midnight yell practice. In the 70's it was lightly attended. Those from more recent decades can comment on recent history. I had 3 kids attend in 2000's and not once did I hear the Hex Rally mentioned. Now, I heard the attempts to get tickets to the OU game.

[Lobo97]

Your statement is inaccurate because of the reasons Texas and OU won the titles. It's not because of one game upset over the other. It's because the big 12 has been an extremely top heavy conference until the last 2-3 years. The south teams dominated the north and texas and OU dominated the south.

 

My point was not that the RRR didn't feature good teams. You are accurate that they both went on to win big things. What my point was, is that it's not like that one game settled it. Texas fans act like the RRR was virtually a MNC semifinal game when it wasn't. Both teams lost multiple games after losing to the other. The only time that game truly had as much implications as people make it out to, was 2008 ad 2009. Every other year the loser went on to lose multiple games and finish 9-3ish. How can you not see my point? If there were 5-6 times over the last decade where the winner basically went 12-0 and the loser went 11-1 then I see your point. But it's not like that....

 

How can I not see your point......Umm, because you are wrong!

 

2000 (9-3): Texas lost to OU. It was their only conference loss of the season. OU went undefeated in conference. OU played in the Big 12 Championship. Had Texas won that game, Texas would have been undefeated in conference, OU would have had one loss, and Texas not OU would have played in the Big 12 Title game.

 

2001 (11-2): Texas lost to OU. It was their only loss of the regular season. Had Texas won, they more than likely would have made a BCS game (again, it was their only regular season loss).

 

2002 (11-2): Texas lost to OU. They finished the season tied with OU for the Big 12 South. OU played in the Big 12 Title game. Had Texas won, Texas would have played in the Big 12 Title game.

 

2003 (10-3): Texas lost to OU. Once again, this was their only conference loss of the season. A win would have put them in the Big 12 Title game instead of OU.

 

2004 (11-1): Texas lost to OU. It was their only loss of the season. A win would have put them in the NC game.

 

2007 (10-3): OU played in the Big 12 Title game finishing 1 game better than Texas. Had Texas won the RRR, Texas would have finished 1 game better than OU and played in the Big 12 Title game.

 

SIX times the outcome of that game had major implications on where those two teams played in the post-season. Not a single time did Texas go on to lose "multiple" games as you claimed. Only twice did they even lose a single game.

 

Like I said, more times than not, there is more at stake in that one game than any other for those two teams. But that's okay, I wouldn't completely expect a fan of such an irrelevant team as A&M to understand the stakes of a single game.

[WETSU]

How can I not see your point......Umm, because you are wrong!

 

2000 (9-3): Texas lost to OU. It was their only conference loss of the season. OU went undefeated in conference. OU played in the Big 12 Championship. Had Texas won that game, Texas would have been undefeated in conference, OU would have had one loss, and Texas not OU would have played in the Big 12 Title game.

 

2001 (11-2): Texas lost to OU. It was their only loss of the regular season. Had Texas won, they more than likely would have made a BCS game (again, it was their only regular season loss).

 

2002 (11-2): Texas lost to OU. They finished the season tied with OU for the Big 12 South. OU played in the Big 12 Title game. Had Texas won, Texas would have played in the Big 12 Title game.

 

2003 (10-3): Texas lost to OU. Once again, this was their only conference loss of the season. A win would have put them in the Big 12 Title game instead of OU.

 

2004 (11-1): Texas lost to OU. It was their only loss of the season. A win would have put them in the NC game.

 

2007 (10-3): OU played in the Big 12 Title game finishing 1 game better than Texas. Had Texas won the RRR, Texas would have finished 1 game better than OU and played in the Big 12 Title game.

 

SIX times the outcome of that game had major implications on where those two teams played in the post-season. Not a single time did Texas go on to lose "multiple" games as you claimed. Only twice did they even lose a single game.

 

Like I said, more times than not, there is more at stake in that one game than any other for those two teams. But that's okay, I wouldn't completely expect a fan of such an irrelevant team as A&M to understand the stakes of a single game.

What I clearly said was, the game did not have national title implications but twice. BCS games are not national title level. A effing big east team makes the BCS for crying out loud... You posted earlier that this game carried MNC implications nearly every year and that is false.

[Lobo97]

What I clearly said was, the game did not have national title implications but twice. BCS games are not national title level. A effing big east team makes the BCS for crying out loud... You posted earlier that this game carried MNC implications nearly every year and that is false.

 

Once again WET, you are wrong sir. Go back and read what I said. What I "clearly" said was, that the game usually (usually and most does not mean every) has major implications on the Big 12 Title game and/or the NC game. I just showed the accuracy of that comment with 6 examples.

 

Big 12 and/or NC. That means one or the other....not just one. You are right that BCS games are not NC games. But that is a moot point seeing as how I included both!

[WETSU]

Once again WET, you are wrong sir. Go back and read what I said. What I "clearly" said was, that the game usually (usually and most does not mean every) has major implications on the Big 12 Title game and/or the NC game. I just showed the accuracy of that comment with 6 examples.

 

Big 12 and/or NC. That means one or the other....not just one. You are right that BCS games are not NC games. But that is a moot point seeing as how I included both!

And once again your arrogance made you look foolish. I clearly said in my post that the game did not have MNC implications but twice. Only twice did Texas and OU both finish in a position where the winner received a national title birth. I clearly stated that in my post. So your "I included both" doesn't matter because I focused on one. So either tone back the I'm an arrogant Texas Ahole routine or learn to read the convos before you spout off something thats calling me out on something I didn't even say.

[Lobo97]

And once again your arrogance made you look foolish. I clearly said in my post that the game did not have MNC implications but twice. Only twice did Texas and OU both finish in a position where the winner received a national title birth. I clearly stated that in my post. So your "I included both" doesn't matter because I focused on one. So either tone back the I'm an arrogant Texas Ahole routine or learn to read the convos before you spout off something thats calling me out on something I didn't even say.

 

If you want to revert to name calling, then we can just end the conversation. Yes, I've found it a bit frustrating that you weren't getting my point...but that has nothing to do with arrogance.

 

As for as the bold comments, the "I included both" absolutely does matter seeing as how you were responding to my comment...hence, I started the conversation meaning the point of "both" was the focus of the conversation. So don't tell me to "learn to read before spouting off something" when you are the one who changed the argument in the middle of the conversation. I mean seriously WET, you and I usually have great debates and I always enjoy them. But in this instance, you tweaked the argument to tell me I was wrong. You don't think that is foolish?

[WETSU]

If you want to revert to name calling, then we can just end the conversation. Yes, I've found it a bit frustrating that you weren't getting my point...but that has nothing to do with arrogance.

 

As for as the bold comments, the "I included both" absolutely does matter seeing as how you were responding to my comment...hence, I started the conversation meaning the point of "both" was the focus of the conversation. So don't tell me to "learn to read before spouting off something" when you are the one who changed the argument in the middle of the conversation. I mean seriously WET, you and I usually have great debates and I always enjoy them. But in this instance, you tweaked the argument to tell me I was wrong. You don't think that is foolish?

No, I said something you didn't agree with and you call it tweaking. My argument has been the same this whole topic. You are arguing one thing and in arguing another is why it seems that one or the other is wrong. Im not arguing that the Texas OU game doesnt have huge conference implications, but it doesn't har near the national implications it's made out to have. That's has been my point in every post on this thread with facts to back it up. You provided facts about how it has conference implications when I clearly wasn't even referring to the conference. I was focusing on the national title part of your argument. So no I didn't tweak anything. You just don't want discuss it unless you include both. Doesn't make me wrong...

 

And I called you arrogant, because your acting that way. You can't just say you misread my post and understand what I'm saying now. You just assumed your right and brought up facts that were not relevant to my side of the argument. Ill admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong but I'm not wrong here. You are absolutely right that the Texas OU game is a huge conference game. But I wasn't even arguing that point.... My exact words were,"Texas fans act like the OU/Texas game is practically a national semifinal" but that's not true. You didt provide any info that proved otherwise. You just tuned the argument and wanted to act like mortal and say that "wet is wrong yet again" when you couldn't even address the same argument I was making.

[Lobo97]

No, I said something you didn't agree with and you call it tweaking. You replied to my comment (that included both the Big 12 Title AND NC...NOT just one) by saying it was inaccurate. Yet I disagree with you. Okay, don't really see how that works, but whatever you say WET! My argument has been the same this whole topic. You are arguing one thing and in arguing another is why it seems that one or the other is wrong. Im not arguing that the Texas OU game doesnt have huge conference implications, but it doesn't har near the national implications it's made out to have. That's has been my point in every post on this thread....You didn't make your first comment as to the implications of the Texas-OU game until you responded to MY comment. But that's been your point in every post on this thread? Again, whatever you say, but I don't see how that works. with facts to back it up. You provided facts about how it has conference implications when I clearly wasn't even referring to the conference. I was focusing on the national title part of your argument. So no I didn't tweak anything. You just don't want discuss it unless you include both. Doesn't make me wrong...When you are responding to my comment, calling it inaccurate while only focusing on one part as opposed to my entire comment and fail to point that out to top things off...it Absolutely does make you wrong!

 

And I called you arrogant, because your acting that way. You can't just say you misread my post...I didn't misread anything. I continue to comment on my entire comment. You continue to argue against it because you're only focusing on part of the comment. However, it wasn't your argument to pick and choose! and understand what I'm saying now. You just assumed your right and brought up facts that were not relevant to my side of the argument...I brought up facts supporting MY argument. Had my original comment only included the NC, you would be right. But it didn't include only the NC. It included the NC as well as the BCS. It was MY argument! You continue to argue with me after pulling out only part of my argument. I don't know what your definition of "tweaking" is, but that is the clear definition for the rest of us! Ill admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong but I'm not wrong here...My guess is, you're not ever wrong. You are absolutely right that the Texas OU game is a huge conference game. But I wasn't even arguing that point.... My exact words were,"Texas fans act like the OU/Texas game is practically a national semifinal" And when exactly did you make this comment WET....AFTER I already started the debate about the implications of the RRR!!! Look at the thread. You made that comment on post #71. OU wasn't even brought into this conversation until post #57 when you brought up the Texas record against them in the last 12 games. It was after that, in post #61 that I brought up the implications of the RRR (not you). Prior to that, this entire thread was about A&M's move to the SEC and the LSS. but that's not true. You didt provide any info that proved otherwise. You just tuned the argument and wanted to act like mortal and say that "wet is wrong yet again" when you couldn't even address the same argument I was making....You weren't the one that started the argument...you replied to it. And I just pointed out each of the posts to prove that. So for you to make a "Different" argument, that shows that it was you, not me, who couldn't address the same argument being made.

[WETSU]

It you say so lobo.... I can tell this isn't going to go anywhere so let's just end it. Im wrong. Your right. Your bit willing to admit it so I will....

 

For future reference, when someone addresses you then chooses to change the argument, it's ok to adapt to it and discuss it with them. Just because I initially replied to your post about both, doesn't mean I wanted to talk about both. I clearly made the point I was talking about one side but you either do not care or do not understand the difference. So you win by default because like you said, you started the discussion. Next time I'll make sure I don't take an argument into any more depth than what you provide.

[Lobo97]

It you say so lobo.... I can tell this isn't going to go anywhere so let's just end it. Im wrong. Your right. Your bit willing to admit it so I will....

 

For future reference, when someone addresses you then chooses to change the argument, it's ok to adapt to it and discuss it with them. Just because I initially replied to your post about both, doesn't mean I wanted to talk about both. I clearly made the point I was talking about one side but you either do not care or do not understand the difference. So you win by default because like you said, you started the discussion. Next time I'll make sure I don't take an argument into any more depth than what you provide.

 

That would have been fine had the initial argument at least been addressed first. But you changed it right away. I have no problem if a conversation changes direction, just don't dismiss my argument before it's even been addressed. Is that really too much to ask?

[DB2point0]

1. This thread was made by a Texas fan about the A&M move to the SEC.

2. Many Texas fans are in here constantly posting about it.

 

So much for indifference, huh? Actions speak louder than words.

 

 

I started this thread. I am a Texas Longhorn fan that is tired of the thread derailments about how it was a smart decision, how it is going to be better, etc... Look at the poll so far. The Aggies that have voted are not even unanimous in it being a good move. My ultimate goal in the poll was to show Lion70, Wetsu and yourself that only aggies felt it was a good move and that everybody else looking in thought it was a dumb move.

 

 

Indifference??? Votes speak louder than your words.

[DB2point0]

What I clearly said was, the game did not have national title implications but twice. BCS games are not national title level. A effing big east team makes the BCS for crying out loud... You posted earlier that this game carried MNC implications nearly every year and that is false.

 

 

Maybe aTm should've joined the Big East then.

[Lobos2004]

I started this thread. I am a Texas Longhorn fan that is tired of the thread derailments about how it was a smart decision, how it is going to be better, etc... Look at the poll so far. The Aggies that have voted are not even unanimous in it being a good move. My ultimate goal in the poll was to show Lion70, Wetsu and yourself that only aggies felt it was a good move and that everybody else looking in thought it was a dumb move.

 

 

Indifference??? Votes speak louder than your words.

 

Is there a public poll option? Because I'd like to see which "Aggie" fans voted for bad decision. It was likely not even Aggie fans. And on the other foot, of course a bunch of butthurt whorns will say it was a bad move, and even they aren't unanimous. Do you even know what indifferent means? LOL apparently not

[justafan903]

Is there a public poll option? Because I'd like to see which "Aggie" fans voted for bad decision. It was likely not even Aggie fans. And on the other foot, of course a bunch of butthurt whorns will say it was a bad move, and even they aren't unanimous. Do you even know what indifferent means? LOL apparently not

 

 

I voted it was a bad move even though I believe the Ags will be competitive in every sport next year besides football. My reasoning was based mainly in that I hated to see the Ags leave all the TX schools. I understand the money issue, and I also get the 'cultural' fit agrument. I just think Texas A&M is a better cultural fit with the TX schools seeing as it is a TX school. I've also been an A&M fan all my life even though I have no real connection to the school, through the good years when I was young and all my friends were A&M fans, and through this last decade when the Ags were average at best and all my friends decided to be UT fans and ridicule me daily lol. And I just don't see A&M making any noise in the SEC for 3-4 yrs......so technically I voted bad move for the football program and neutral to good move for the rest of the athletic program.

[DB2point0]

No matter what the Aggies do is a bad move because you never take your burnt orange glasses off. Don't kidyourself.

 

 

 

 

You see your proving my point.

 

 

How stupid can you get? I have posted here time and time again that I want the Aggies to succeed. I want all universities in Texas to succeed. I pull for this state. Longhorn fan first, but that has nothing to do with me thinking it was a dumb move. Time will prove me right as I feel the Aggies will never breakthrough in the SEC. They will match what success they've had in the Big 12 and that's it. I can see a 9-4 season every 5 years or so, but bowl eligibility will be a question year in year out. I am not the one(s) wearing tinted glasses.

[DB2point0]

Is there a public poll option? Because I'd like to see which "Aggie" fans voted for bad decision. It was likely not even Aggie fans. And on the other foot, of course a bunch of butthurt whorns will say it was a bad move, and even they aren't unanimous. Do you even know what indifferent means? LOL apparently not

 

 

The votes may not be unanimous for the "non-Aggie" fans, but it isn't as close as the few Aggie votes are. My point was that only Aggies thought that it was a good move, evidently they don't feel the same about it either.

[Lobo97]

Time will prove me right as I feel the Aggies will never breakthrough in the SEC. They will match what success they've had in the Big 12 and that's it. I can see a 9-4 season every 5 years or so, but bowl eligibility will be a question year in year out. I am not the one(s) wearing tinted glasses.

 

+1

[Lobo97]

wow pot meet kettle. Yeah ok calling bull on that one. A&M will be competive but thats about it.

 

Serious question for you Lion, as well as any other Aggie for that matter....

 

First of all, I am one of the many people (outside of college station that is), that believes A&M will rarely ever be any better than the Ole Miss, Miss St's of the SEC. But agree or disagree, that is just an opinion.

 

That said, why exactly do you (or any of you Aggies) believe A&M will be competitive in the SEC?

 

Here is why I want to know. Ever since A&M joined the SEC, every Aggie has jumped on the bandwagon that the SEC is the best overall conference in all of college football....Hands Down! To believe that implies you believe it is far superior to the Big 12.

 

Okay then, let's look at what you did in an "Inferior" conference:

 

Since the inception of the Big 12, A&M had an overall "conference" record of 68-61. That is only a 53% winning percentage in such an "inferior" conference. That's an average record of 4-4 every year! Out of 16 seasons in the Big 12, A&M had only 7 seasons with a winning record in conference play.....7!

 

That's not just one season as an example. That's your entire existence in the Big 12.

 

So I ask again (seriously, not as a shot...I really want to know), if A&M could only win 53% of their conference games in such an inferior conference as the Big 12, what makes any of you believe they will be better than that in a conference that is far superior to the rest???

[WETSU]

Serious question for you Lion, as well as any other Aggie for that matter....

 

First of all, I am one of the many people (outside of college station that is), that believes A&M will rarely ever be any better than the Ole Miss, Miss St's of the SEC. But agree or disagree, that is just an opinion.

 

That said, why exactly do you (or any of you Aggies) believe A&M will be competitive in the SEC?

 

Here is why I want to know. Ever since A&M joined the SEC, every Aggie has jumped on the bandwagon that the SEC is the best overall conference in all of college football....Hands Down! To believe that implies you believe it is far superior to the Big 12.

 

Okay then, let's look at what you did in an "Inferior" conference:

 

Since the inception of the Big 12, A&M had an overall "conference" record of 68-61. That is only a 53% winning percentage in such an "inferior" conference. That's an average record of 4-4 every year! Out of 16 seasons in the Big 12, A&M had only 7 seasons with a winning record in conference play.....7!

 

That's not just one season as an example. That's your entire existence in the Big 12.

 

So I ask again (seriously, not as a shot...I really want to know), if A&M could only win 53% of their conference games in such an inferior conference as the Big 12, what makes any of you believe they will be better than that in a conference that is far superior to the rest???

To answer your question as simple as possible, it's potential. Yes the Aggies were bad the last decade in the big 12, but the big 12 has only been around for 16 years. A very short time in college football terms. The Aggies were one of the better teams(better than both OU and Texas) when the big 12 first formed. Stoops and Mack were the start of a decade long drought in aggie football. They exposed the flaws in RC Slocum. A&M then had some bad luck in hiring Fran. Nobody could have projected he would flop after his success at TCU and short stint at Bama. Then the Aggies were gunshy about pulling the trigger on another potential big paycheck for little results, so they hired Sherman on the cheap. Point is, it just so happened that the Aggies had a string of bad hires and bad luck in the last ten years. It's not like they "could never compete" or anything like that. It's just that the big 12 existence hasn't been around long enough to get a truly accurate sample...

 

A&M is top 20 all time in wins. They have upper end facilities. They are in the biggest recruiting talent bed in the country. Even in these down times they have only failed to recruit a top 25 class twice. They recruited a top 12 class off a 9-4 season. The first winning season in 3 years.... Imagine how they could recruit if they ever managed to string 2-3 of those together. They are one of only 22 programs in the country operating in the black, so money is not an issue. They have the 4th largest alumni base in the country with tons of support.

 

 

I guess if your asking what "proof" do I have to why the Aggies will be competitive in the sec, I don't have any "proof". But teams like Oregon, Stanford, Oklahoma st, and even TCU have rose from average at best teams to having pretty good runs the last 5 years.

 

I've also posted this before, but go look at LSU prior to nick saban. They were literally almost a spitting image of the Aggies success wise. Nothing outstanding by any means. They made one decent hire and have turned their program into A top 5 program this decade. To think they have anything more to work with back then than what A&M does now is stretching it. Yes they are the only team in their state, but A&M and Ole Miss we're recruiting Louisiana heavily with much success before saban locked it down.

[Lobo97]

I for one do not think the Big 12 is a bad conference quite competive . A&M will get better recruits , have great facilites and are improving. Yes they will be competive, yes eventually they will contend ,but Nc I am not sure about that. Texas was very bad in 2010 in 2011 they were average so you can see they will contend for the NC next year right.....

 

I never said anything about Texas, their last 2 seasons, nor a prediction for them this year. I simply asked a question.

 

I do find it extremely amusing though how much a&m fans want to continue to focus on two seasons for Texas. You continue to focus on those two seasons as if that's the norm for Texas. Yet you seem to forget (or I guess, this is actually where the true blinders come on) the 9 consecutive 10+ win seasons prior to that. The 12 consecutive bowl games, winning 8 of them (I wonder how far back you'd have to go to even get 8 bowl wins for A&M, LOL....oh wait, I already know that, 1976!). The 4 BCS appearances, winning 3 of them. And, the 2 National Championship appearances, winning 1 of those.