Teaxs A&M to leave Big 12

[flirt5721]

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...nference-sec/1

They will be leaving the Big 12 conference to possibly go to the SEC in June.

[knight_shadow]

[wareagle93]

I'm keeping my eye out for Arkansas. They could possibly leave and go to the Big 12, according to everything I've seen/heard from guys like Reece Davis, Joe Schad and Herby on espn. We shall see!

[Kappamd]

This is all so dumb. At this point they might as well dissolve all of the conferences and start over.

[Mcr]

There's no way a&m can compete with SEC schools unless they start recruiting players on the Alabama, Oklahoma (and I hate ou), and Boise state level. Even though they're ranked 8th in bcs this year I just don't see why they'd want to leave.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by wareagle93

I'm keeping my eye out for Arkansas. They could possibly leave and go to the Big 12, according to everything I've seen/heard from guys like Reece Davis, Joe Schad and Herby on espn. We shall see!

While geographically and athletically they would be a good fit (not to mention, revive the Texas rivalry from the SWC days), a lot of people have a hard time seeing them leave the SEC. It would make sense from a numbers standpoint (for the SEC at least) to not be stuck at 13 or not wait around for a #14. Though some have also thrown in Mizzou's name as the 14th school.

Originally Posted by Mcr

There's no way a&m can compete with SEC schools unless they start recruiting players on the Alabama, Oklahoma (and I hate ou), and Boise state level. Even though they're ranked 8th in bcs this year I just don't see why they'd want to leave.

Not to mention that this now opens up Texas recruiting for the other SEC schools. Obviously Bama, Auburn, Georgia, etc... have done just fine with the kids they get from their own or other states, but this gives them another avenue for recruiting, fishbowl rules allowed or not.

[IndianaSigKap]

Mizzou also kept getting thrown in with the Big 10 discussions. Having been on both SEC and Big 10 campuses, as well as Mizzou, I think they might be a better fit in the Big 10.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Mcr

There's no way a&m can compete with SEC schools unless they start recruiting players on the Alabama, Oklahoma (and I hate ou), and Boise state level. Even though they're ranked 8th in bcs this year I just don't see why they'd want to leave.

Oh yes, the vaunted Boise State recruiting classes .... which have ranked in the top 25 classes 0 times in the last 4 years (A&M twice), even while Boise became a solid top-10 program (and A&M's been comparatively down).

Ah, but recruiting rankings are inherently flawed, right? The Broncos find overlooked talent? Well, not really - they have 10 players drafted since 2007. Baylor has 9 (and has 3 1st-rounders to Boise's 2). So has A&M.

A&M certainly has the tools to compete in the SEC (money, recruiting availability, a willingness to "do anything" to compete, money, and a national brand, even if not as strong as it could be). A&M's been down because of coaching issues, not because they can't recruit.

A&M wants to leave because they're being bent over by Texas. Other schools in the BigXII want to stay because even though they're being bent over by Texas, they're still getting a ton of money and eating at the big kids' table in a prestigious conference.

The animosity between ATM and UT probably tipped the scales toward ATM leaving - which may or may not be a smart way to do business, but they're not jumping off a cliff into oblivion here. If anything, being in the SEC (both in terms of prestige, and general willingness to "look the other way") may actually help ATM's recruiting.

[AXOmom]

MCR - You lost me with Boise State. Boise State does an outstanding job with what they have, but they don't get big name recruits. They are nowhere near the top on any recruiting list. They weren't even ranked in the top 10 for recruiting on Scout or Rivals. Texas A & M was ranked 4th on Scout and 8th on Rivals, so they are keeping up with Alabama and Oklahoma already in recruiting and considerably ahead of Boise State.

As to the rest - I don't care about Texas A & M one way or another, but in their defense - after Texas started in with their own network - they had to expect every school in the Big XII was going to start to rethink. I can totally understand why Texas A & M wants out - they're seeing the writing on the wall. The Bix XII almost fell apart last year. They are currently the least stable of the big conferences.

And the SEC, while certainly the strongest overall football conference isn't strong top to bottom. There are plenty of teams in that conference Texas A & M can handle. They've been in a conference with Texas, Nebraska, Okalahoma, and Oklahoma State for years, so they haven't exactly been going up against pansies. There are loads of SEC teams ranked well below them.

I don't see it changing recruiting much either. Everyone recruits in Texas -shoot, we're in the NW and WE recruit in Texas. Everyone will continue to recruit in Texas (and Florida and Southern Cal). There are certain states where every division I program in the country recruits.

Edit - K Sig beat me to Boise State's recruiting.

[Mcr]

Agreed. I could careless about a&m although I'm not a fan of the aggies, the fact the ut has had such a monopoly on Texas football is unfair and I think it's about to come to an end. I find it sad that college football is so persuaded by money. College football means so much more than pro I think.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

As to the rest - I don't care about Texas A & M one way or another, but in their defense - after Texas started in with their own network - they had to expect every school in the Big XII was going to start to rethink. I can totally understand why Texas A & M wants out - they're seeing the writing on the wall. The Bix XII almost fell apart last year. They are currently the least stable of the big conferences.

The Aggies could have their own damn network if they wanted. Every school in the Big 12 can have their own freaking network; OU is purportedly working on one as well. Texas was just the first to do it because they have the resources and national brand to make it happen.

I don't know if aTm will be competitive in the SEC. They might and they might not. They certainly haven't done well against the SEC teams they've played recently. They weren't competitive in the Big 12 until about 3 years ago, and that's including when NU, CU, OSU, and even Texas were having down years. Iowa State has a better bowl record than aTm as members of the Big 12. aTm wants to be out of Texas' shadow, yet still play them every Thanksgiving weekend because it's "tradition." A tradition they may have to have the Texas legislature create a law to keep because, according to DeLoss, Texas has no desire to play the aggies if/when they move to the SEC. We may be seeing a Texas/ND Thanksgiving game instead.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by Kappamd

This is all so dumb. At this point they might as well dissolve all of the conferences and start over.

This.

[AXOmom]

Originally Posted by ISUKappa

The Aggies could have their own damn network if they wanted. Every school in the Big 12 can have their own freaking network; OU is purportedly working on one as well. Texas was just the first to do it because they have the resources and national brand to make it happen.

I don't know if aTm will be competitive in the SEC. They might and they might not. They certainly haven't done well against the SEC teams they've played recently. They weren't competitive in the Big 12 until about 3 years ago, and that's including when NU, CU, OSU, and even Texas were having down years. Iowa State has a better bowl record than aTm as members of the Big 12. aTm wants to be out of Texas' shadow, yet still play them every Thanksgiving weekend because it's "tradition." A tradition they may have to have the Texas legislature create a law to keep because, according to DeLoss, Texas has no desire to play the aggies if/when they move to the SEC. We may be seeing a Texas/ND Thanksgiving game instead.

No, every team in the Big XII could not get a $300 million television contract for their own football network through ESPN. To get a contract with a major tv network to run a network that exclusively shows your games, which is what Texas has, a team has to show they have the alum and fan base to make that commercially profitable. When you say Texas did it first because they have the resources and the national brand – that’s the ONLY reason they could do it – because they have the resources and the national brand. If you don’t then you can’t get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN or any other major network. This is why tv contracts are worked out with conferences, so that schools without those resource or national brand can still get some games on tv and things are reasonably fair. Schools that pull in big tv money split that with smaller schools that don’t pull in much. Oklahoma can look into it because they also have resources and a national brand. Who doesn’t have those kind of resources and a national brand is every other school in the Big XII (now that Nebraska is gone). Well, Oklahoma State probably has the resources, but not the brand…yet. If Oklahoma goes that route then guess who will get left out in the cold with a lousy tv conference deal – you, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Texas A &M.


Texas A&M wants in the SEC which has a lucrative tv deal for the conference as a whole. Texas did what was best for them. Oklahoma may do the same thing – why wouldn’t Texas A&M do what’s best for themselves when they’re clearly in an every man for himself conference. You’re on the Titanic, and they’re grabbing a life boat.

Texas A&M’s record against SEC schools (all-time) is .426. An okay (not great, but okay record) and that doesn’t take into account that for most of that history they were an all-male military institution and only recently became a university (1988 I believe) which put them at a disadvantage. Do I think they will come in and do great against the SEC? No. But .426 is just slightly below their overall winning percentage in the Big XII, so as you said, there’s no way to tell and based on that and their current ranking – no reason to think they will do worse over the long run. Short term they’ll probably do worse. They’ve only played 3 SEC schools in the last 10 years (excluding bowl games) at any rate, so it would be hard to draw a conclusion about how they will do in that conference from past experience.


Using their 3 year record against Big XII schools is a little misleading. For two of those years they had coaching distractions to say the least. They have winning records against four current Big XII schools overall. Last year they went 6-2 in the Big XII.


Their bowl game record isn't going to get any worse if they go to the SEC, so I’m not sure why that would figure into the argument. I don’t know that bowl games say a lot about the quality of the team in the regular season anyway. You’re right – your bowl game record in the last 10 years is better; on the other hand they’ve beaten you 9 out of 10 times in roughly that same time period. Not trying to offend – just pointing out that bowl game records aren’t particularly reliable methods for judging a team’s ability level.

[shirley1929]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

Texas A&M’s record against SEC schools (all-time) is .426. An okay (not great, but okay record) and that doesn’t take into account that for most of that history they were an all-male military institution and only recently became a university (1988 I believe) which put them at a disadvantage. Do I think they will come in and do great against the SEC? No. But .426 is just slightly below their overall winning percentage in the Big XII, so as you said, there’s no way to tell and based on that and their current ranking – no reason to think they will do worse over the long run. Short term they’ll probably do worse. They’ve only played 3 SEC schools in the last 10 years (excluding bowl games) at any rate, so it would be hard to draw a conclusion about how they will do in that conference from past experience.

I actually agree with everything you said, but FTR, Texas A&M became Texas A&M University in 1963...a good 25 years before you're noting.

[ISUKappa]

Originally Posted by AXOmom

No, every team in the Big XII could not get a $300 million television contract for their own football network through ESPN. To get a contract with a major tv network to run a network that exclusively shows your games, which is what Texas has, a team has to show they have the alum and fan base to make that commercially profitable. When you say Texas did it first because they have the resources and the national brand – that’s the ONLY reason they could do it – because they have the resources and the national brand. If you don’t then you can’t get an exclusive tv contract with ESPN or any other major network. This is why tv contracts are worked out with conferences, so that schools without those resource or national brand can still get some games on tv and things are reasonably fair. Schools that pull in big tv money split that with smaller schools that don’t pull in much. Oklahoma can look into it because they also have resources and a national brand. Who doesn’t have those kind of resources and a national brand is every other school in the Big XII (now that Nebraska is gone). Well, Oklahoma State probably has the resources, but not the brand…yet. If Oklahoma goes that route then guess who will get left out in the cold with a lousy tv conference deal – you, Baylor, Kansas, Kansas State, Missouri, and Texas A &M.

My point was every school in the Big 12 has the opportunity to create their own network - that's not true for every conference out there. Are they all worth $300 million? No. Personally, I think ESPN was nuts to pay Texas that much, especially as they still haven't necessarily fulfilled the requirements of the contract (conference game is still up in the air). But that's what the market was, for better or worse, and Texas is now either tied to their ESPN deal if the Big 12 does implode or some other conference (Pac12/Big10) is going to have to rewrite their conference rules to allow school networks. (Unless Texas, ND and BYU create their own holy superconference in the next 5 years.) The LHN can't show any FB games that are already scheduled to air on another network, and even then both schools have to agree to it. It'll mostly be filler programming, replays and Olympic sports.

The SEC may not get to renegotiate their TV deal with the addition of aTm, so they may not be making more money, anyway, at least not for a while. They were guaranteed $20m starting next year in the Big 12, more if they sold their third tier rights for the right price (like Texas). Competition will definitely be stronger in the SEC. That doesn't mean aTm won't be able to rise to the occasion, but nothing is guaranteed. It may get them away from Texas, but it doesn't mean that they won't find there are other issues in a different conference.

It sucks being the little guy in this situation. But aTm was NOT the little guy. They (along with Nebraska) had numerous chances over the years to keep the monster that is Texas in check by voting for equal revenue, yet they didn't. They, along with Texas and OU, were the only three schools guaranteed to make at least $20m with the new tv deal. They also pledged to make a 10-team Big 12 work, but obviously that didn't mean anything as some have said the SEC deal has been in the works under the table since the whole realignment meltdown last year. So they may be "saving" themselves on that lifeboat, but they're also letting the little guy schools drown in the freezing water. Especially if the TV contract the Big 12 signed with Fox last summer is voided by aTm leaving.