SEC Officially Invites A&M

UNTflyer · September 7, 2011

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/tamu-aggies-sec-southeastern-conference/

LongJim · September 7, 2011

Contingent upon the B12 schools signing a waiver holding the SEC harmless for interference.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 7, 2011

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/tamu-aggies-sec-southeastern-conference/

This is an even better read from the same site:

http://www.saturdaydownsouth.com/2011/sds-responds-to-baylor/

Some nugggets:

As for “hundred-year-old rivalries,” A&M and Baylor may play each other every year, but it’s not much of a rivalry. Baylor has exactly two wins in the last 25 years against A&M. Is it any surprise that A&M seeks more challenging annual competition in the SEC?

Baylor knows it can’t compete in the changing college football environment...Like Vanderbilt in the SEC and Northwestern in the Big 10, Baylor’s presence in college football’s first tier is largely a longevity prize.

Baylor is the only institution that’s not thinking about the future. Instead it’s obsessed with preserving a mythical past where Baylor is somehow relevant to the larger college football community.

This process began with Texas creating the Longhorn Network in an effort to maintain its chokehold over Texas A&M and other Big 12 institutions. A&M finally decided it had enough and realized the future was with the SEC.

Harry · September 7, 2011

The Baylor fans are coming unglued. Comments like, "The Titanic is sinking and we are on it..!"

They appear to be resigned to the fact that they will either join the Mountain West or the Big East, but they are not happy about either. I will say this, they have taken a huge PR hit over this nationwide.

Eagle1855 · September 7, 2011

This process began with Texas creating the Longhorn Network in an effort to maintain its chokehold over Texas A&M and other Big 12 institutions.

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that this was the intent of the LHN.

To me it seems more like "hey, here's $300M that you can use to fund other academic programs, we'll create a network off your brand... you in?" Which is an effing no-brainer... for any institution.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 7, 2011

I'm still waiting for someone to prove that this was the intent of the LHN.

To me it seems more like "hey, here's $300M that you can use to fund other academic programs, we'll create a network off your brand... you in?" Which is an effing no-brainer... for any institution.

Hmmm. Trying to show high school games with its recruits and potential recruits. Then, trying to show highlights. Then, trying to get other schools to shift their games to LHN.

Why doesn't Texas just make a pay channel of its sports and be done with it? Why? Because they know it wouldn't make as much money as having a cable service charge their subscribers to have it in a regular package or sports package...regardless of demand.

There's nothing wrong with Texas wanting to be the whale in the stock tank. But, that doesn't mean everyone else has to play ball.

A&M can stand on their own. So can OU. Nebraska and Colorado could and did. Kansas and Missouri, on the strength of basketball, will be able to do so.

Texas Tech can filch their way into some conference, basically based on they are nice guys and give pretty good competition without giving headaches off the fields of play. Ditto, Oklahoma State and Kansas State.

Basically, everyone is walking away from the bully. And, this has caused Baylor to lose their mind and sue.

MeanGreenTexan · September 7, 2011

Hmmm. Trying to show high school games with its recruits and potential recruits. Then, trying to show highlights. Then, trying to get other schools to shift their games to LHN.

Why doesn't Texas just make a pay channel of its sports and be done with it? Why? Because they know it wouldn't make as much money as having a cable service charge their subscribers to have it in a regular package or sports package...regardless of demand.

There's nothing wrong with Texas wanting to be the whale in the stock tank. But, that doesn't mean everyone else has to play ball.

A&M can stand on their own. So can OU. Nebraska and Colorado could and did. Kansas and Missouri, on the strength of basketball, will be able to do so.

Texas Tech can filch their way into some conference, basically based on they are nice guys and give pretty good competition without giving headaches off the fields of play. Ditto, Oklahoma State and Kansas State.

Basically, everyone is walking away from the bully. And, this has caused Baylor to lose their mind and sue.

Question: If North Texas were in the same position as Texas, would ANYONE here have a problem with it? If you answer "yes", you're either lying, or extremely bitter.

TFLF, you say in one sentence that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, and follow it up by saying they're a "bully". Which is it?

UT is a successful school in all sports. They have a huge enrollment and a huge alumni base all over the country/world. Now, they have a network contract with ESPN that is paying them gobs of money. They can't fill that time with their own sporting events, so they approach other colleges and Texas High Schools to broadcast their games. Does this create an unfair advantage? You'd better believe it! But, that's what you get when you're one of the most powerful college athletic brands out there. Some teams will crawl in bed with them (ahem Tech), and why not? Texas is the strongest pimp on the block.

Now, A&M has hurt feelings and are going to "show 'em" by joining the SEC. Good Luck! Some say they are attracted to the money in the SEC. How is this different than UT launching the LHN? It's all about money.

Bottom Line: UT is continuing their success in a new avenue (whether the LHN itself is successful or not remains to be seen) and A&M doesn't want to be in the shadow anymore, so they bolt to a conference full of UT's (whether their athletic endeavors in the SEC are successful or not remains to be seen). A&M's move is much, much riskier than UT's. Ask Arkansas.

All I know is, I would love to be able to watch a UNT game on the LHN if it's not broadcast elsewhere.

UNTflyer · September 7, 2011

Question: If North Texas were in the same position as Texas, would ANYONE here have a problem with it? If you answer "yes", you're either lying, or extremely bitter.

Would anybody HERE have a problem with it? A few, but mostly "no."

Would conference members have a problem with it. Most definitely, yes.

Eagle1855 · September 7, 2011

Would conference members have a problem with it. Most definitely, yes.

So what?

The Fake Lonnie Finch · September 7, 2011

Question: If North Texas were in the same position as Texas, would ANYONE here have a problem with it? If you answer "yes", you're either lying, or extremely bitter.

TFLF, you say in one sentence that there's nothing wrong with what they're doing, and follow it up by saying they're a "bully". Which is it?
UT is a successful school in all sports. They have a huge enrollment and a huge alumni base all over the country/world. Now, they have a network contract with ESPN that is paying them gobs of money. They can't fill that time with their own sporting events, so they approach other colleges and Texas High Schools to broadcast their games. Does this create an unfair advantage? You'd better believe it! But, that's what you get when you're one of the most powerful college athletic brands out there. Some teams will crawl in bed with them (ahem Tech), and why not? Texas is the strongest pimp on the block.
Now, A&M has hurt feelings and are going to "show 'em" by joining the SEC. Good Luck! Some say they are attracted to the money in the SEC. How is this different than UT launching the LHN? It's all about money.

Bottom Line: UT is continuing their success in a new avenue (whether the LHN itself is successful or not remains to be seen) and A&M doesn't want to be in the shadow anymore, so they bolt to a conference full of UT's (whether their athletic endeavors in the SEC are successful or not remains to be seen). A&M's move is much, much riskier than UT's. Ask Arkansas.

All I know is, I would love to be able to watch a UNT game on the LHN if it's not broadcast elsewhere.

And, yet, they can't get any major carrier to carry their network. Because, the demand is limited.

Again, this isn't 1957. This isn't all-white football squads 1969. In the major metropolitan cities, half or more of the populations are made up of non-Texans.

There are many colleges in Texas as well. And, graduates of those schools outnumber UT grads every year. So, the majority of college grads in Texas have no affiliation with UT.

There is nothing wrong with what they are doing. They are free to bully. But, the other schools are just as free to seek greener pastures are well without the bullying.

If it's okay to Texas to seek what they believe to be greener pastures in the own network, then it's okay for A&M to seek greener pastures in another conference. Ditto OU. And, KU and Mizzou. And, OSU, Tech, KSU, and the rest. It was right for Nebraska and Colorado to seek greener pastures as well.

I'm far from bitter. I find it comical that Texas supporters have a problem with others school doing the best for their own schools without Texas.

But, therein lies the problem with Texas. It perpetually jumps the shark, believing that it has some sort of power over other schools. Well, congratulations for having power, apparently, over Baylor, dudes. I mean, what a return on investment.

As it turns out, only Baylor and Iowa State really "need" Texas. Everyone else will end up in better circumstances. Texas is then free to reform some new form of the SWC, or scale back their network enough to become palatable to another conference.

Either way, Texas, for all of the power it assumes to have, is stuck waiting on whim of others schools who are supposedly less powerful. And, deliciously, its been first A&M and now OU.

MeanGreenTexan · September 7, 2011

And, yet, they can't get any major carrier to carry their network. Because, the demand is limited.

That's the risk they chose to take. It may work, it may not. I'm sure some sucker will pick it up.

Again, this isn't 1957. This isn't all-white football squads 1969. In the major metropolitan cities, half or more of the populations are made up of non-Texans.

There are many colleges in Texas as well. And, graduates of those schools outnumber UT grads every year. So, the majority of college grads in Texas have no affiliation with UT.

There is nothing wrong with what they are doing. They are free to bully. But, the other schools are just as free to seek greener pastures are well without the bullying.

If it's okay to Texas to seek what they believe to be greener pastures in the own network, then it's okay for A&M to seek greener pastures in another conference. Ditto OU. And, KU and Mizzou. And, OSU, Tech, KSU, and the rest. It was right for Nebraska and Colorado to seek greener pastures as well.

I agree with all of this, although I'm not sure how the 1969 football argument is relevant.

I'm far from bitter. I find it comical that Texas supporters have a problem with others school doing the best for their own schools without Texas.

If any Texas supporters have problems, I don't know any of them. Most UT alums I know usually say: "So what?" or "Who cares?" Most have demeaning things to say about A&M, but when is that not the case?

But, therein lies the problem with Texas. It perpetually jumps the shark, believing that it has some sort of power over other schools. Well, congratulations for having power, apparently, over Baylor, dudes. I mean, what a return on investment.

They've had this power since before the 1969 all-white football days... and maintained it up to the present. Why get timid now? Why be a "team-player" now? They're looking out for themselves as well!

As it turns out, only Baylor and Iowa State really "need" Texas. Everyone else will end up in better circumstances. Texas is then free to reform some new form of the SWC, or scale back their network enough to become palatable to another conference.

I don't believe that Baylor or IASt. "need" Texas. They "need" the big 12. Also, it remains to be seen whether or not the other schools who leave (which will be everyone) will be in better circumstances. I mean, the big 12 had enough clout that if you win conference while only dropping 1 game or less, you're in the national championship game! That's a pretty good deal.

Either way, Texas, for all of the power it assumes to have, is stuck waiting on whim of others schools who are supposedly less powerful. And, deliciously, its been first A&M and now OU.

Any conference (even the SEC, wouldn't that be ironic) would LOVE to have UT in their conference. They're one of the few teams who are in a position to wait. I don't think anyone thought OU could not move without UT's blessing. I think there were some who believed that A&M would not move without UT because of the PUF and how they have been tied together since the beginning of time. Maybe that perception was perpetuated for years by A&M's inferiority complex. Now that they have flexed their muscle, we know that's not the case (Tech will slide right into their place though).