Jump to content

Sherrington column: Was it worth leaving the Big XII?


Mr. P
 Share

Recommended Posts

For all those teams who chose to leave the Big 12, has it really gotten any better?

Quote

In case you’re having a hard time keeping up, the schools listed above were once members of either the Big 12 or the old Southwest Conference. All left of their own volition. Most packed up because of grudges with Texas or felt the ground shifting under their feet. Maybe both. They were looking for stability and, God bless ’em, they found it.

But if all are better off financially — well, except for Colorado, mired in the Pac-12 muck — was it worth the price?

f57ol5G.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without rehashing the same debate we’ve had a million times, you cannot measure whether this move was “worth it” for at least another few years. Those teams where in the big 12 for 15-16 years. I think the best way to decide if this was a productive move is to compare equal time frames. So in 8 more years get back to me. 

But just for fun my answer now is for A&M it has been worth it. They have become the number 1 profit margin in college football. They have a stadium and facilities that are top 5 in the country. They just lured away a national title winning coach and was able to give him one of the largest deals ever. Something I don’t think would have happened if A&M was still in the big 12. A heisman winner, better national brand, better recruiting classes... It’s almost hard to look at where A&M is at today and find a single negative compared to their situation in the big 12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Without rehashing the same debate we’ve had a million times, you cannot measure whether this move was “worth it” for at least another few years. Those teams where in the big 12 for 15-16 years. I think the best way to decide if this was a productive move is to compare equal time frames. So in 8 more years get back to me. 

But just for fun my answer now is for A&M it has been worth it. They have become the number 1 profit margin in college football. They have a stadium and facilities that are top 5 in the country. They just lured away a national title winning coach and was able to give him one of the largest deals ever. Something I don’t think would have happened if A&M was still in the big 12. A heisman winner, better national brand, better recruiting classes... It’s almost hard to look at where A&M is at today and find a single negative compared to their situation in the big 12.

You are focusing on 1 team.  Look at Colorado and Nebraska’s success since leaving the B12...  

as for A&M, I would argue that their success was a lateral move while increasing revenue and conference stature.  Missouri has won the SEC East twice, but has also fallen off the map after that early success.  Looking at it as a whole, I say it hurt Nebraska and Colorado the most.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, MavGrad99 said:

You are focusing on 1 team.  Look at Colorado and Nebraska’s success since leaving the B12...  

Yes, I was more interested in a broader view, though I do appreciate WETSU's take from a purely A&M-focused perspective...  I wish we had some passionate Nebraska or Colorado fans here to weigh in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only two teams would actually consider and even succeed by leaving the Big 12. The ten others just shut up and thank Texas and Oklahoma.  Gotta no your place . As for A&M good move considering where they were at. The others not so much. I personally wish the Big 12 would add some teams in a area where they have no footprint. Taking away from others could benefit as well. No real legit candidates will unfourntley come that is in a power 5 conference. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, WETSU said:

Without rehashing the same debate we’ve had a million times, you cannot measure whether this move was “worth it” for at least another few years. Those teams where in the big 12 for 15-16 years. I think the best way to decide if this was a productive move is to compare equal time frames. So in 8 more years get back to me. 

But just for fun my answer now is for A&M it has been worth it. They have become the number 1 profit margin in college football. They have a stadium and facilities that are top 5 in the country. They just lured away a national title winning coach and was able to give him one of the largest deals ever. Something I don’t think would have happened if A&M was still in the big 12. A heisman winner, better national brand, better recruiting classes... It’s almost hard to look at where A&M is at today and find a single negative compared to their situation in the big 12.

A&M sells a lot of tickets and merchandise as well as bringing in a good sum of money from their SEC share. They are one of the more profitable programs in the nation. They vaulted to #1 due to contributions to help update facilities. The question is how long will it last? They will remain one of the more profitable programs because let's face it... Aggies love their football.

As to the question, I read a pretty interesting article this past weekend about one of the main reasons A&M pushed for a move to the SEC was due to money. Their program was basically broke with facilities in need of repair. The push and acceptance to the SEC boosted interests in the fan base and big donors to bring in the money.  Now this is not my opinion, it was what I read.

I'd say Colorado and Nebraska hurt themselves. Neither team has done much on the national level since the move. Nebraska has become an embarrassment of what they once were. In my opinion, the move has helped A&M with recruiting and helped somewhat on a national level. I think a decent case could be made that the SEC helped Manziel win the Heisman due to his win vs Alabama at the time. But seeing how the last two Heisman winners came from the BIG XII, it would also be very easy to argue the opposite. Jimbo coming to A&M has nothing to do with the SEC. It has everything to do with what Jimbo is allowed to do within his program. Florida St didn't want to give him those freedoms or the money, and he fits in with the Aggie culture. This one negative that sticks out like a sore thumb in regards to A&M moving to the SEC is they cannot compete in the SEC. In fact, their best year in the SEC was their first year in the SEC. Since then they've finished 3rd once in the West in the last 7 years.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can’t really speak about the other teams because I simply do not know enough about them. I don’t know what their finances were like prior to the move or how their fan base takes it. Just my very little understanding of the situations those programs are in...

A&M=Good Move

Mizzou= Good move 

Nebraska= Bad move 

Colorado= Good move. 

 

Nebraska i think has suffered more with the move than any. Not just on the field results, but these kids don’t know anything about the 90s Nebraska teams. Nebraska doesn’t have the reputation it once had anymore. I think recruiting has dropped off for them some since the move and I really think staying in the big 12 and having a few games in Texas a year would have helped them in recruiting. I could be dead wrong that’s just my belief. 

Colorado seems to have done okay. A decent year or two. They are just a natural fit with those west coast teams so I don’t think their move was bad. Not really good either but not bad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, WETSU said:

I can’t really speak about the other teams because I simply do not know enough about them. I don’t know what their finances were like prior to the move or how their fan base takes it. Just my very little understanding of the situations those programs are in...

A&M=Good Move

Mizzou= Good move 

Nebraska= Bad move 

Colorado= Good move. 

 

Nebraska i think has suffered more with the move than any. Not just on the field results, but these kids don’t know anything about the 90s Nebraska teams. Nebraska doesn’t have the reputation it once had anymore. I think recruiting has dropped off for them some since the move and I really think staying in the big 12 and having a few games in Texas a year would have helped them in recruiting. I could be dead wrong that’s just my belief. 

Colorado seems to have done okay. A decent year or two. They are just a natural fit with those west coast teams so I don’t think their move was bad. Not really good either but not bad. 

I personally don’t believe it was a good move for Missouri.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lhornfan said:

A&M sells a lot of tickets and merchandise as well as bringing in a good sum of money from their SEC share. They are one of the more profitable programs in the nation. They vaulted to #1 due to contributions to help update facilities. The question is how long will it last? They will remain one of the more profitable programs because let's face it... Aggies love their football.

As to the question, I read a pretty interesting article this past weekend about one of the main reasons A&M pushed for a move to the SEC was due to money. Their program was basically broke with facilities in need of repair. The push and acceptance to the SEC boosted interests in the fan base and big donors to bring in the money.  Now this is not my opinion, it was what I read.

I'd say Colorado and Nebraska hurt themselves. Neither team has done much on the national level since the move. Nebraska has become an embarrassment of what they once were. In my opinion, the move has helped A&M with recruiting and helped somewhat on a national level. I think a decent case could be made that the SEC helped Manziel win the Heisman due to his win vs Alabama at the time. But seeing how the last two Heisman winners came from the BIG XII, it would also be very easy to argue the opposite. Jimbo coming to A&M has nothing to do with the SEC. It has everything to do with what Jimbo is allowed to do within his program. Florida St didn't want to give him those freedoms or the money, and he fits in with the Aggie culture. This one negative that sticks out like a sore thumb in regards to A&M moving to the SEC is they cannot compete in the SEC. In fact, their best year in the SEC was their first year in the SEC. Since then they've finished 3rd once in the West in the last 7 years.

You are correct a lot of this sec move was about money. A&M was in the red in the mid 2000s. They were back in the black before the move, but the move did push them in the right direction.

I respectfully disagree that A&M in the sec wasn’t a major factor for jimbo. He NEVER would have taken the job in the big 12 imo. Just because I don’t think A&M is the same team in the big 12 from a national brand standpoint. I know people just think FSU let him go and that he went to the highest bidder, but A&M is an elite level job right now. Great recruiting, top 5 facilities, huge and passionate fan base... Coaches care about those things. A&M is a MUCH better job than Nebraska. Yet Nebraska has had success at a national level A&M can’t come close to. People confuse the fact that coaches view these jobs in terms of resources not past success. They all believe they will win regardless of the past success of the school. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Valhalla said:

I personally don’t believe it was a good move for Missouri.

I don’t think it was a great move or anything...  But they have had a couple of division wins (even though the east is not near as good as the west) and they appear to be making some money while doing it. I don’t know enough about them to really know if they have benefited from the move or not. I just don’t think they would be doing much more in the big 12 right now so I think it’s a push. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, WETSU said:

I don’t think it was a great move or anything...  But they have had a couple of division wins (even though the east is not near as good as the west) and they appear to be making some money while doing it. I don’t know enough about them to really know if they have benefited from the move or not. I just don’t think they would be doing much more in the big 12 right now so I think it’s a push. 

I was thinking less financial terms.

The basketball program has disappeared from the level they were on in the Big 12.

They has early success in the terrible East division but when it’s been bad it has been bad. 
 

Plus they are stuck in the East division which is weird geographically for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Valhalla said:

I was thinking less financial terms.

The basketball program has disappeared from the level they were on in the Big 12.

They has early success in the terrible East division but when it’s been bad it has been bad. 
 

Plus they are stuck in the East division which is weird geographically for them.

All valid points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A&M = Good Move

Missouri = Neutral 

Nebraska = Bad move

Colorado = Good move 

I think A&M made a really good move, regardless if they aren't winning their division every year (A&M baseball has been successful). Yes the money has made it a good move, but I think the culture at A&M fits great in the SEC. A&M has a TON of school pride and tradition, and every school in the SEC is rich in tradition (for the most part) and they all have pride in being a part of the SEC. I truly think that has benefited A&M. It's great when you can be proud of representing your conference, in all seriousness. Thinking back on A&M in the Big 12 is weird. Maybe that's just me. 

Missouri has had success early, but they haven't really done anything else across the board. They are kind of just there. You don't hear much about them, and when you do you think "oh yeah, forgot about you guys. What's up?" 

Nebraska was a terrible move. And not just in football. I remember their baseball program being pretty decent in the Big 12. It seems as though their brand has diminished quite a bit. Which is a shame because I've always liked Nebraska. Their fans are loyal as can be, but it was not a good move by any means. They are getting run over in every way possible.

Colorado going to the PAC12 was a good move to me solely based on geographical terms and culture. One of the reasons I hate WVU being in the Big 12 is their location. Geographically makes ZERO sense. And as far as culture, well, if you've ever been to Boulder you would know that they really fit in with the other PAC12 schools. I could say the same about Austin. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Valhalla said:

I personally don’t believe it was a good move for Missouri.

It was a dumb/bad move for all 4.   Specifically talking about money....the sec teams draw $6million more per team than the big 12 the last numbers I saw.  That included the sec network too.  
 

Wetsu spoke about another 8 years to get back to him.  8 years ago it was get back to him in 10 years and that this was a 100 year decision.  The first season spike fell back to the normal trajectory of the program and it’s been there ever since.  Regardless of how much the coach was making it’s basically the same results.  Annual 9-3 ceiling and 6-6 floor.  No Texas game to hopefully tilt recruits your way either.  In another 8 years Jimbo will be retired as a wealthy man.  You can’t say the trajectory of the program has changed either.  Maybe your perception of it has.  But history keeps repeating itself when it pertains to ATM.

 

same for Missouri.  They walked away from traditional rivalries, had a couple decent years and then poof....

 

nebraska....same thing

 

colorado....  same thing but good riddance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DB2point0 said:

It was a dumb/bad move for all 4.   Specifically talking about money....the sec teams draw $6million more per team than the big 12 the last numbers I saw.  That included the sec network too.  

Wetsu spoke about another 8 years to get back to him.  8 years ago it was get back to him in 10 years and that this was a 100 year decision.  The first season spike fell back to the normal trajectory of the program and it’s been there ever since.  Regardless of how much the coach was making it’s basically the same results.  Annual 9-3 ceiling and 6-6 floor.  No Texas game to hopefully tilt recruits your way either.  In another 8 years Jimbo will be retired as a wealthy man.  You can’t say the trajectory of the program has changed either.  Maybe your perception of it has.  But history keeps repeating itself when it pertains to ATM.

same for Missouri.  They walked away from traditional rivalries, had a couple decent years and then poof....

nebraska....same thing

colorado....  same thing but good riddance

Imagine believing this LOL!

22 hours ago, ETXfan16 said:

A&M = Good Move
Missouri = Neutral 
Nebraska = Bad move
Colorado = Good move 

I think A&M made a really good move, regardless if they aren't winning their division every year (A&M baseball has been successful). Yes the money has made it a good move, but I think the culture at A&M fits great in the SEC. A&M has a TON of school pride and tradition, and every school in the SEC is rich in tradition (for the most part) and they all have pride in being a part of the SEC. I truly think that has benefited A&M. It's great when you can be proud of representing your conference, in all seriousness. Thinking back on A&M in the Big 12 is weird. Maybe that's just me. 

Missouri has had success early, but they haven't really done anything else across the board. They are kind of just there. You don't hear much about them, and when you do you think "oh yeah, forgot about you guys. What's up?" 

Nebraska was a terrible move. And not just in football. I remember their baseball program being pretty decent in the Big 12. It seems as though their brand has diminished quite a bit. Which is a shame because I've always liked Nebraska. Their fans are loyal as can be, but it was not a good move by any means. They are getting run over in every way possible.

Colorado going to the PAC12 was a good move to me solely based on geographical terms and culture. One of the reasons I hate WVU being in the Big 12 is their location. Geographically makes ZERO sense. And as far as culture, well, if you've ever been to Boulder you would know that they really fit in with the other PAC12 schools. I could say the same about Austin. 

Pretty much spot on. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Imagine believing this LOL!

I think it’s funny how naive some of you Aggie fans are.  Each year just keeps proving they’re a mediocre program.  I think it’s funny how some of you get so upset when others don’t agree with you.  I have a lot of friends that are fans of various sec schools and ATM is the butt of a lot of jokes to them.  Good national brand you’re building.  Sounds like the Aggies of old

22 hours ago, WETSU said:

Tell me about it. Never mind the fact that 2 of this years playoffs teams were literally on par or worse than A&M historically just 20 years ago. 

They didn’t lose 5 games this year.  They changed their trajectory, y’all havent.  Having more money or paying more for a coach doesn’t do that.  Winning does.  Win games you get respect, not laughed at.  Until you build a history of winning, you are who everybody thinks you were, a mediocre program 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, ETXfan16 said:

A&M = Good Move
Missouri = Neutral 
Nebraska = Bad move
Colorado = Good move 

I think A&M made a really good move, regardless if they aren't winning their division every year (A&M baseball has been successful). Yes the money has made it a good move, but I think the culture at A&M fits great in the SEC. A&M has a TON of school pride and tradition, and every school in the SEC is rich in tradition (for the most part) and they all have pride in being a part of the SEC. I truly think that has benefited A&M. It's great when you can be proud of representing your conference, in all seriousness. Thinking back on A&M in the Big 12 is weird. Maybe that's just me. 

Missouri has had success early, but they haven't really done anything else across the board. They are kind of just there. You don't hear much about them, and when you do you think "oh yeah, forgot about you guys. What's up?" 

Nebraska was a terrible move. And not just in football. I remember their baseball program being pretty decent in the Big 12. It seems as though their brand has diminished quite a bit. Which is a shame because I've always liked Nebraska. Their fans are loyal as can be, but it was not a good move by any means. They are getting run over in every way possible.

Colorado going to the PAC12 was a good move to me solely based on geographical terms and culture. One of the reasons I hate WVU being in the Big 12 is their location. Geographically makes ZERO sense. And as far as culture, well, if you've ever been to Boulder you would know that they really fit in with the other PAC12 schools. I could say the same about Austin. 

Absolutely nailed it about the culture thing. A&M fits in the sec perfectly from that perspective. 

22 hours ago, DB2point0 said:

They didn’t lose 5 games this year.  They changed their trajectory, y’all havent.  Having more money or paying more for a coach doesn’t do that.  Winning does.  Win games you get respect, not laughed at.  Until you build a history of winning, you are who everybody thinks you were, a mediocre program 

When did anyone say different? But what you’re too arrogant and obviously ignorant to understand, is Dabo lost 5 games in year two at Clemson as well. Hell he went 6-7 in year 3. Your ridiculous notion that teams you need a history of winning to progress forward is just plain silly. People use to literally call any team that underachieved “clemsoning” just 5 years ago... now, after a 5 and 7 loss season in year two and three, Dabo has arguably made Clemson the best program in college football. It literally changed that quickly. That’s why I think you’re the village idiot around here for thinking just because a program didn’t win titles in the 70s or some other completely irrelevant period that they aren’t capable of making that jump with the right resources in place. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

I think it’s funny how naive some of you Aggie fans are.  Each year just keeps proving they’re a mediocre program.  I think it’s funny how some of you get so upset when others don’t agree with you.  I have a lot of friends that are fans of various sec schools and ATM is the butt of a lot of jokes to them.  Good national brand you’re building.  Sounds like the Aggies of old

Man, you're pretty triggered today. Bad day at work? 

I know that it's a complete waste of time trying to educate you on anything (hence why you are where you are), but I'll at least try. 

See, it isn't "Aggie fans" that are saying it was a good move. It's Sooner fans and Longhorn fans in this very topic saying the same thing. Are they just "naïve Aggie fans"? It would be hilarious if you legit tried to convince yourself of that. We know you're not really keen to reality. 

Also, everything after "I have a lot of friends" is pretty worthless reading because we all know that that isn't true. :) 

  • LOL! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, WETSU said:

When did anyone say different? But what you’re too arrogant and obviously ignorant to understand, is Dabo lost 5 games in year two at Clemson as well. Hell he went 6-7 in year 3. Your ridiculous notion that teams you need a history of winning to progress forward is just plain silly. People use to literally call any team that underachieved “clemsoning” just 5 years ago... now, after a 5 and 7 loss season in year two and three, Dabo has arguably made Clemson the best program in college football. It literally changed that quickly. That’s why I think you’re the village idiot around here for thinking just because a program didn’t win titles in the 70s or some other completely irrelevant period that they aren’t capable of making that jump with the right resources in place. 

Well what’s yalls holdup?  We’re still waiting for y’all to prove us wrong.  
 

ive never said anything about the 70’s.  Hell I wasn’t around in the 70’s.  You said the Aggies were in the Big12 for 16 years and that we needed to wait 16 years to really assess how the Aggies are doing in the sec.  you’re halfway there and sti spinning your wheels.  Prove us wrong, get some traction and get it going because so far the last 7 have been about what non-Aggies predicted for you guys

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, JohnnyFootball said:

Man, you're pretty triggered today. Bad day at work? 

I know that it's a complete waste of time trying to educate you on anything (hence why you are where you are), but I'll at least try. 

See, it isn't "Aggie fans" that are saying it was a good move. It's Sooner fans and Longhorn fans in this very topic saying the same thing. Are they just "naïve Aggie fans"? It would be hilarious if you legit tried to convince yourself of that. We know you're not really keen to reality. 

Also, everything after "I have a lot of friends" is pretty worthless reading because we all know that that isn't true. :) 

What did I say that made you think I’ve been triggered, lol.  
 

reality..... Aggies are a mediocre program with lots of money.  
 

triggered.....an Aggie trying to argue otherwise.

 

as far as the other guys that say they think it was a good move.  I didn’t quote them when I posted did I?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So 

Mav says lateral move at best.

Longhornfan said it was beneficial in some aspects, but they haven’t won.

ETXFan16 said good move

 

Valhalla has talked about Mizzou.

 

4 non-aggies and one specifically said it was a good move.  One says maybe so, but let it play out.  One says it didn’t really matter/lateral move, one hasn’t really said either way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DB2point0 said:

So 

Mav says lateral move at best.

Longhornfan said it was beneficial in some aspects, but they haven’t won.

ETXFan16 said good move

 

Valhalla has talked about Mizzou.

 

4 non-aggies and one specifically said it was a good move.  One says maybe so, but let it play out.  One says it didn’t really matter/lateral move, one hasn’t really said either way.

This really bothers you. Anything pro A&M or pro sec and you lose your mind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, DB2point0 said:

What did I say that made you think I’ve been triggered, lol.  
 

reality..... Aggies are a mediocre program with lots of money.  
 

triggered.....an Aggie trying to argue otherwise.

 

as far as the other guys that say they think it was a good move.  I didn’t quote them when I posted did I?

1. Your obsessions with A&M prove you to be in a constant state of being triggered. You can't wait to run here daily to release your aggressions and seek attention the way you're doing in this thread. That's fine. There are other outlets, though.

2. Did anyone argue that A&M wasn't "mediocre"?

Since you want to throw that word around, A&M is not "mediocre". Learn the definition of the word before throwing it around. Don't just say it because you saw people on another website say it. You CAN think for yourself. I believe in you. 

3. No, but that's irrelevant. They aren't "naïve" Aggie fans. They're Texas and OU fans who say that the move to the SEC was good for us. So your little theory of it being "naïve Aggies" is wrong. Yet again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...