Why Texas A&M should SECede

With one compound sentence, Brent Zwerneman, Aggie beat writer for several different Texas newspapers, may have prodded the Aggies into SECeding. According to Brent’s unnamed A&M source, Big 12-2 commissioner Dan Beebe recently told A&M officials that “Texas holds the key to the long-term future of the Big 12 and that the Big 12 would survive without the Aggies.” If this is true, then Beebe just tried to use the worst negotiating tactic ever to keep A&M in the Big 12-2. By reinforcing Aggie opinion that Beebe and the Big 12-2 are UT’s puppets, he may have finally given the Aggies the impetus they need to break away.

So why are Aggies so anti-UT and the Big 12-2 these days (aside from the normal reason that UT as an institution is elitist and arrogant and thinks the world, i.e. Texas, revolves around them)? It is my belief that the events of last summer, when UT attempted to leave the Big 12 for the Pac-10, and promised to bring a handful of other Big 12 schools with them (one of which was A&M), put a sour taste in the Aggies’ mouths. Sure, the Pac-10 kind of made sense for the hippy-dippy crowd at UT (after all, Austin’s unofficial motto is “Keep Austin Weird”) but the Pac-10 would have been a TERRIBLE fit culturally for A&M. Think of Austin as an extension of the Left Coast whereas College Station has more in common with the rural south and you’ll understand why A&M would never join the Pac-10.

When the Aggies revolted against UT’s master plan and began exploring their options in the SEC, for which A&M is a cultural fit, UT was shocked that the Aggies weren’t blindly going along with their brilliant plan and threatened A&M with cancellation of the annual Thanksgiving game. Hold a sword over someone’s head and see how they like it; that’s about how well that threat went over in Aggieland and it only served to reinforce the image of UT as a bully and spoiled child to the Aggies.

As it turned out last year, UT abandoned their Pac-10 aspirations after realizing that the Pac-10 would never have let them have their coveted ESPN Longhorn Network (the Ocho?). UT then worked with Beebe to throw more financial scraps to the Big 12’s poor kids’ table to mollify the other nine members (by now it was known that Nebraska and Colorado had had enough of UT’s dominance and would be leaving for the expanding Big 10 and Pac-10 respectively). With a promise of increased revenue due to new television contracts and fairer distribution of league income, the Big 12-2 survived as a 10 team league without a conference championship.

In the end, UT got something that it had long whined about: the removal of the conference championship game (to be fair, OU had also whined that playing in the conference game had sometimes derailed their national championship contention hopes, to which the rest of the nation told both schools to, “Man up and play the damn game, Nancy”. The fact that the Big 10 and Pac-10 both expanded so that they could have such a game, and the revenue previous Big 12 championship games had generated, should have told Beebe, OU, and UT something). With the smaller, weaker conference saved, all was quiet on the Southwestern Front for almost a year.

The quiet was shattered when ESPN and UT announced during the summer of 2011 the creation of the LHN, a 20 year, $300 million venture which would add UT programming to ESPN’s family of networks. The Aggies, while maybe jealous of such a deal, could deal with such a channel existing. After all, that’s just free market capitalism at work: if ESPN wanted to pay that kind of money to partner with UT then good luck to both parties. HOWEVER, Aggies, and others around the nation, soon became incensed when UT and ESPN officials both made it clear that one of the primary goals of the LHN would be to broadcast high school football games in which athletes being recruited by UT were playing. Such maneuvering was CLEARLY intended as a recruiting advantage for UT and, as such, was deemed neither fair nor honorable by Aggies. As a result, A&M officials quickly sought rulings from both the Big 12 and the NCAA on the matter.

Another issue, that of UT using the network to broadcast UT conference games, was seen as mostly secondary (after all, if the rights to those games were not already spoken for by the conference’s existing television rights, then what harm did it due to allow the LHN to broadcast such unmarketable games?) until it became clear that UT officials were exerting pressure on other conference members to pre-schedule such games. Reportedly, Texas Tech officials responded to such pressure by telling UT to go take a hike. This is the first time Tech and A&M have been allies in anything since 1999 (the year Tech students tore down their own goalposts and shoved them into the visiting fans’ section after defeating #5 ranked Texas A&M).

During these tumultuous events, UT officials and fans have offered several arguments as to why A&M should not leave the Big 12-2:

1) The traditional A&M vs. UT game would no longer be viable if the two teams were in different conferences.

This is flatly ridiculous. A number of in-state college football rivalries exist, quite strongly in fact, despite the fact that the teams play in different conferences. Below is a list of the most prominent such examples:

• Idaho/Boise St. (have played every year for 40 years, streak ends this year)
• Nevada/UNLV (Battle for Nevada)
• Utah/BYU (Holy War, they are working to keep the tradition going and will play for sure in 2011 and 2012)
• Colorado/Colorado St. (Rocky Mountain Showdown)
• New Mexico/New Mexico St. (Rio Grande Rivalry, includes a bonfire by UNM before they play NMSU!)
• Iowa St./Iowa (Cy-Hawk Trophy)
• Kentucky/Louisville (Governor’s Cup)
• Georgia/Georgia Tech (Clean, Old-Fashioned Hate)
• Florida/Florida St. (Sunshine Showdown)
• Clemson/S. Carolina (Battle of the Palmetto State)
• Pitt/Penn St. (Pitt – Penn State Rivalry)

And to those who argue that the game will mean less if the two teams are in different conferences I say that it will mean MORE. Not only will the game continue to be for bragging rights in the state of Texas, but it could also have national title implications for two conferences IF both teams arrive for it undefeated. In the current situation, if both teams arrive undefeated, the game only matters to one conference. Even if both teams aren't undefeated but if they are both ranked, the game becomes a much more interesting spectacle to the rest of the nation, almost like an early bowl game. As such, it should command huge ratings, especially if it is still played on Thanksgiving Day.

2) The Aggies will get killed in the SEC.

While competition in most major sports will likely be stiffer in the SEC than in the Big 12-2, the myth that an 8-4 SEC team can beat the champion of any other conference is just that, a myth. Yes, A&M has lost quite a few games to SEC teams in recent years. Quite frankly, A&M hasn’t been a good team for quite some time. Arkansas State, anyone? As a result, games were lost. HOWEVER, A&M now appears to be righting the ship (especially if you drink the maroon Kool-Aid, which I have been accused of doing from time to time). In my opinion, in 2010, the Aggies should have finished 11-2 instead of 9-4. I say this because it now seems clear that Jerrod Johnson, the Aggie starter at the beginning of the year, was feeling the effects of his off-season shoulder surgery far more than either he or the A&M staff had realized or let on. Quite frankly, he should have been benched after the third game of the season, a narrow win of lowly Florida International. Had that happened, Tannehill likely leads the Aggies to a win over Oklahoma State (a game which was lost because JJ threw five picks, the last of which set up Oklahoma State’s go-ahead score) and Arkansas (A&M only lost by a touchdown despite JJ’s injured arm). That A&M is ranked in the Top Ten heading into the 2011 season should, hopefully, tell us something about the future of Aggie football. What is known is that A&M is returning more starters and more letterman than any other previous season. With experience and depth come championships. Which is a better time to move to a tougher conference: when the Aggies are down or when the Aggies are rising?

3) If A&M joins the SEC, SEC teams will have a sudden flood of recruits from the state of Texas.

Say what? Put the crack pipe down. First of all, some SEC teams are already recruiting Texas players as evidenced by their 2011 rosters (provided by ESPN.com):

• Alabama, 4
• Arkansas, 20
• Auburn, 2
• Florida, 1
• Georgia, 1
• Kentucky, 1
• LSU, 13
• Mississippi State, 4
• Ole Miss, 9
• South Carolina, 0
• Tennessee, 0
• Vanderbilt, 7

Secondly, Texas players have been getting poached by OU for decades!

• OU, 59

If A&M joins the SEC, it seems logical that A&M’s recruiting will improve compared to OU’s and UT’s. After all, in which conference would a top recruit rather play: the one that is dying or the one that has won five out of the last six national championships? With the ability to offer Texas recruits something neither UT nor OU can, the ability to play in the SEC, I believe that A&M’s recruiting would soon surpass that of those two schools. In addition, A&M’s ability to recruit in Louisiana would dramatically improve. How many kids in Louisiana would rather play in the SEC than in the Big 12-2? I would have to guess that the answer is “the vast majority” due to LSU’s influence and presence.

4) If A&M leaves the Big 12-2, it will have to pay millions of dollars in exit fees.

What if the conference no longer exists? With A&M leaving, I believe that the entire conference landscape will begin to change. The Big 10+2 could easily invite Iowa State and Missouri to join them. The Mountain West probably takes Texas Tech and UTEP. Kansas, Kansas St., OU, Oklahoma St., Baylor and UT join Tulsa, SMU, Houston, and Rice in a revised Big 12-2. With this new iteration of the Big 12-2 only having six of the original 12 members, A&M makes a case that the Big 12 is dead and therefore refuses to agree to the exit fee. When the new Big 12-2 conference withholds A&M’s 2011 season TV revenue, A&M takes the conference to court and the matter is soon resolved out of court in A&M’s favor.

5) It’s harder to win a conference championship or national championship in the SEC.

This may be so but, shit, A&M couldn’t do it in the Big 12 because a) A&M’s coaching and recruiting were terrible under Fran, b) A&M’s recruiting still lags behind OU and UT despite beating UT in recent years. Fran’s now long gone and I believe, as stated above, that a move to the SEC gives A&M a huge recruiting advantage over UT, OU, and, quite frankly, over other SEC schools as A&M will have first choice of top Texas talent (would you rather play for TCU in the Big East, UT in the Big 12-2, or A&M in the SEC?).

Frankly, A&M doesn’t need to win a division or conference or national championship every year to be successful in the SEC. Does Florida win their division and conference every year? Auburn? Alabama? LSU? No, but it seems clear that the constant high-level of competition better prepares them for the years when they can string together undefeated or one-loss seasons. Let’s not get too greedy here: for the vast majority of schools in the country, a 9-3 regular season, which I feel should be A&M’s goal every year, is not a good year, it’s a GREAT year. I feel that this is a viable goal for A&M in the SEC as early as next year (granted, I’ll feel a lot better about that if we beat Arkansas and win our bowl game this year).

Also, the fact that five of the last six national champions have come from the SEC, and some of those had one loss (and one even had two losses!) going into the national championship game, should tell us that teams in the SEC are in fact more likely to win national championships than those that are not.

6) A&M’s TV revenue will take a hit.

If A&M joins the SEC, it will allow the SEC to renegotiate their contract rights. Currently, the SEC has one top 10 TV market (Atlanta). A&M will bring two more top 10 markets with it (Houston and Dallas). Based on the increase the Pac-12 saw during its recent renegotiations, the SEC, the nation’s top conference for football, will surely be able to secure a comparable increase. Such an increase will likely take the ~$18 million each SEC team currently receives over the ~$20 million A&M is expected to receive in the Big 12-2.

7) A&M would lose important conference rivalry games.

Really? With who? I’ve already postulated that the annual A&M vs. UT Thanksgiving Day game would continue to be played. While it might be nice to think A&M has a rivalry with OU, it’s a fact that one doesn’t exist (OU dominates that series and is more focused on UT anyhow. Plus, honestly, that Boomer Sooner song that the OU band plays and the fans sing after every first down, field goal, touchdown, tackle, penalty, and food order is really annoying. Aggies won’t miss that at all). Kansas or Kansas State? Yawn. Baylor? Pah-lease. Baylor gets into one bowl game in a bazillion years and suddenly thinks they aren’t Baylor any more. The Baylor rivalry made sense when A&M was an all-male school and needed an excuse to go to Waco to poach girls (who couldn’t dance) but that need is long gone. Texas Tech? All their fans do is throw rocks and batteries at people and cars when they visit College Station (maybe Aggies should throw condoms back at them to help combat their excessively high STD rates). And who wants to go to Lubbock? Ugh, no thanks, the Aggies will happily leave Tech behind.

In the SEC, A&M would immediately have new, more exciting rivalries. A&M is already playing old-SWC foe Arkansas every year in Jerry World. A&M vs. LSU is as good as any rivalry in the SEC, especially when those games are played on campus with the attendant pre-game tailgating. A&M vs. Alabama every year would be amazing. When those teams visit Kyle Field, image the national media attention the Aggies would get when 89,000+ fill the stands. Imagine ESPN’s College GameDay circling the dates when SEC teams come to Kyle Field.

8) A&M won’t be on TV as much.

In the Big 12-2, there are five scrub teams that don’t make for compelling matchups (Iowa State, Kansas State, Kansas, Baylor, and arguably Texas Tech [because networks keep avoiding this game for some reason]). In the SEC, there would only be four non-compelling matchups (Kentucky, Vanderbilt, Ole Miss, and Mississippi State). Despite the lack of national attention a Kentucky vs. A&M game would command, as a new team in the conference, especially one ranked in the top 25, such games would likely be on TV for at least for the first two years A&M is in the conference.

Finally, let’s look at the SEC on TV in another way. Below are two breakdowns of the 2010 ESPN College GameDay schedule.

• ESPN College GameDays with at least one conference team in the game:
• SEC, 4
• Big 10, 4
• Pac 10, 4
• Big 12, 2
• Mountain West, 2
• ACC, 2
• WAC, 1
• ESPN College GameDays by conference host team:
• SEC, 3
• Big 10, 3 (one of which was played at a neutral site)
• Pac 10, 3
• Big 12, 2
• ACC, 1 (played at neutral site)
• WAC, 1
• Mountain West, 1

Clearly, the Big 12, even when Colorado and Nebraska were still in the league, didn’t command as much national attention last year as the other major conferences. Is this likely to improve now that Nebraska has gone to the Big 10+2? No way.

Finally, a move to the SEC will likely mean that Brent Musburger never again has to visit College Station. That’s got to be worth something.

SECede!!!