Trouble Coming with UTexas...

TitleWave

All-American
Dec 3, 2012
2,673
472
102
Not a fan of the current expansion either. Had enough trouble when aTm and Mizzou were admitted. But that's just me.
Just bring back Sewanee and Tulane so the shorthorn-teasippers-whatever effete nickname Tejas goes by might win a conference game or two to get their joining fee's worth of value...
 
Sep 30, 2002
1,028
542
132
Knoxville, TN USA
I had no idea who Frank Erwin was, but the Frank Erwin Center is the premier concert venue in Austin. I saw several famous bands there back in the Eighties. I think it's also on the U-Texas campus, but don't quote me on that part.
 

C2Ag93

BamaNation Citizen
Jul 25, 2021
37
86
27
Just one long-time Aggie's thoughts on this thread ---

Good points by a few posters....
  1. The fact the Big 12 couldn't survive with UTex and OU proves that they will not have the sway some give them when they get to the SEC
  2. (Not said directly, but think this was the point...) The college football landscape has radically changed since the 70's and 80s, when UTex could legitimately claim "We're Texas" as their motto goes
  3. The SEC has strong legacy schools from decades past to keep UTex and OU in check.
That said, I see no reason to believe we won't have to put up with their propensity to want to run a conference or arrogance. You will find out that, on the whole, they seem to think their truly leading position from the SWC days has continual relevance today. It's uncanny. Their fans love to point to the "all time record" in the rivalry with us, which of course is abysmal with them winning something like 70-75%. But it ignores the fact until 1975, playing Texas A&M was like playing a military academy. Since '75, we split the series and improved facilities. They continued to treat us as a second-class conference partner, which ultimately led to our departure. The jury is out in my mind whether, after a bit over a decade apart they will see the world for what it is - battle of equals.

I think they will likely give Bama their due, perhaps you may find their fans subdued, respectful, hospitable, etc. But (not pandering to the crowd), you can't argue Bama has built a legacy that will take decades for the luster to even fade, even if you do find yourselves in a trough. They will respect schools they think are "equally legacy laden with." Other than their hatred for OU, which does have a legacy too, they just may show you a different face than probably anyone else in the SEC. They will come in thinking they are "already" better than LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Ole Miss, etc. (in terms of legacy/history/nostalgia). But they will likely come in wanting to "resume" roles (look down on, etc.) with us, Arkansas, and Mizzou. I could be wrong.

And for one poster that seems to class Texas A&M with U Tex, I only hope we've proved at least to some extent we're an honest conference partner and mostly hospitable fan base. Manziel is not the face of Texas A&M. FWIW, other than on the boards with keyboard jockeys, not many Aggies hold him on a pedestal anymore, mainly because of his antics and sad (but foreseeable) outcome post-college.

And the Aggie Code of Honor is a value, but humans will always fall short of values. I'd rather have the Code and fall short, than not have it at all.

Best of luck in 2022, Tide. Thinking of making the trek to Tuscaloosa this year, want to catch a game there in our series before it likely gets busted up with expansion. But it falls on a horrible weekend for what I do professionally. Grrr.... May just have to hope it happens again in 2024 or the Good Lord keeps me around for a decade or so, to catch the next meeting in Tuscaloosa after 2024.
 
Last edited:

Padreruf

Hall of Fame
Feb 12, 2001
6,926
7,985
287
71
Charleston, South Carolina
Just one long-time Aggie's thoughts on this thread ---

Good points by a few posters....
  1. The fact the Big 12 couldn't survive with UTex and OU proves that they will not have the sway some give them when they get to the SEC
  2. (Not said directly, but think this was the point...) The college football landscape has radically changed since the 70's and 80s, when UTex could legitimately claim "We're Texas" as their motto goes
  3. The SEC has strong legacy schools from decades past to keep UTex and OU in check.
That said, I see no reason to believe we won't have to put up with their propensity to want to run a conference or arrogance. You will find out that, on the whole, they seem to think their truly leading position from the SWC days has continual relevance today. It's uncanny. Their fans love to point to the "all time record" in the rivalry with us, which of course is abysmal with them winning something like 70-75%. But it ignores the fact until 1975, playing Texas A&M was like playing a military academy. Since '75, we split the series and improved facilities. They continued to treat us as a second-class conference partner, which ultimately led to our departure. The jury is out in my mind whether, after a bit over a decade apart they will see the world for what it is - battle of equals.

I think they will likely give Bama their due, perhaps you may find their fans subdued, respectful, hospitable, etc. But (not pandering to the crowd), you can't argue Bama has built a legacy that will take decades for the luster to even fade, even if you do find yourselves in a trough. They will respect schools they think are "equally legacy laden with." Other than their hatred for OU, which does have a legacy too, they just may show you a different face than probably anyone else in the SEC. They will come in thinking they are "already" better than LSU, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Ole Miss, etc. (in terms of legacy/history/nostalgia). But they will likely come in wanting to "resume" roles (look down on, etc.) with us, Arkansas, and Mizzou. I could be wrong.

And for one poster that seems to class Texas A&M with U Tex, I only hope we've proved at least to some extent we're an honest conference partner and mostly hospitable fan base. Manziel is not the face of Texas A&M. FWIW, other than on the boards with keyboard jockeys, not many Aggies hold him on a pedestal anymore, mainly because of his antics and sad (but foreseeable) outcome post-college.

And the Aggie Code of Honor is a value, but humans will always fall short of values. I'd rather have the Code and fall short, than not have it at all.

Best of luck in 2022, Tide. Thinking of making the trek to Tuscaloosa this year, want to catch a game there in our series before it likely gets busted up with expansion. But it falls on a horrible weekend for what I do professionally. Grrr.... May just have to hope it happens again in 2024 or the Good Lord keeps me around for a decade or so, to catch the next meeting in Tuscaloosa after 2024.
Welcome and well said...the Aggies I have known have always been huge fans of their school...but fairly rational and always respectful of Bama. Besides, they are fairly easy to distract...just mention Texas and sit back and enjoy....
 

selmaborntidefan

TideFans Legend
Mar 31, 2000
32,049
19,678
287
52
Four all beef patties, 6 feet under: the McCPR
Their fans love to point to the "all time record" in the rivalry with us, which of course is abysmal with them winning something like 70-75%. But it ignores the fact until 1975, playing Texas A&M was like playing a military academy. Since '75, we split the series and improved facilities. They continued to treat us as a second-class conference partner, which ultimately led to our departure. tch a game there in our series before it likely gets busted up with expansion.
What makes this evaluation kind of difficult (in all sincerity) is that both points of view have varying degrees of validity.

1) Your comment is 100% on the mark, and you get no argument from me.

I've covered this in one of my mammoth posts on this board, but let's just come right out and acknowledge that college football for so much of its history was largely a stacked deck game where the large monster generally devoured the overmatched foe. To cut bait quickly:

a) from 1968-1986, either Michigan or Ohio State or BOTH won or shared the Big 10 all but two times (1983 Illinois and 1985 Iowa), and even 1985 Iowa lost to the Buckeyes

b) from 1943-1988, Oklahoma or Nebraska won or shared all but 3 Big Eight titles (1945, 1960, 1961) - and you just roll your eyes on virtually all CFB stats and wins from 1942-45 given the circumstances.

c) from 1959 to 1977, Texas or Arkansas won or shared all but three SWC titles

d) from 1964 to 1982, Alabama or Georgia won or shared all but three SEC titles (2 of which the Vols won and one of which LSU won in our four-year downhill slide 1967-70)

e) from 1959 to 1989, USC or UCLA won or shared all but 7 of the conference titles (mostly won by Washington), and two of those times the conference champ lost to one or the other of those teams.

That's not to diminish the schools who did well back in the day, but on one hand it IS kind of ludicrous to compare stats from long ago with today. It's no accident that scholarship limitations adopted in 1976 at least pulled the elite blue bloods back closer to the pack for at least some level of parity. This is unquestionably true with the Texas/Aggie rivalry.

2) By the same token, it can be a self-serving argument.

I'm willing to along with the "until 1975" argument as long as you use it consistently. Problem is, most folks (no reflection on present company) don't want to use it consistently (looking right at a large section of the Auburn apologists whose lives have apparently been ruined because - as George Wallace used to say - "they daddies never took 'em to a Pittsburgh Steelers game."

A huge contingent of Auburn fans - and there are some ways one can argue ATM is little brother, too - basically let their lives evolve around some of the most ridiculous cherry-picking this side of the West Coast.

They only want to count the Iron Bowl starting in 2002.
(Because we upset them in a pole axing in 2001 and won 4 of 6 right in there).

They only want to count undefeated seasons starting in 1993.
(Sure, Alabama had an undefeated season in 1992 and yet another going back to 1979 but why count those?)

They count probations starting in 1995, when Alabama got our first.
(Because Auburn got hit with probation in 1956, 1958, 1978, and 1993, but what's four probations when it means running down Alabama???)

And they insist national championships either:
a) don't exist because there's no legit playoff (yes - even now they say this)
b) don't count because Alabama lost the bowl game and wouldn't have won the poll after the bowl
c) DO count but those old Ivy League schools have a bunch more

You can engage the same twisted moron on this and he'll contradict himself by arguing all 3 in a five-minute span.

A number of Oklahoma fans liked to do that to claim they have more national titles than us - right up until we began collecting national title rings like they were marbles at the county fair.

Nevertheless, you make good points - and welcome to the best board on the net.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AlexanderFan

C2Ag93

BamaNation Citizen
Jul 25, 2021
37
86
27
What makes this evaluation kind of difficult (in all sincerity) is that both points of view have varying degrees of validity.

1) Your comment is 100% on the mark, and you get no argument from me.

I've covered this in one of my mammoth posts on this board, but let's just come right out and acknowledge that college football for so much of its history was largely a stacked deck game where the large monster generally devoured the overmatched foe. To cut bait quickly:

a) from 1968-1986, either Michigan or Ohio State or BOTH won or shared the Big 10 all but two times (1983 Illinois and 1985 Iowa), and even 1985 Iowa lost to the Buckeyes

b) from 1943-1988, Oklahoma or Nebraska won or shared all but 3 Big Eight titles (1945, 1960, 1961) - and you just roll your eyes on virtually all CFB stats and wins from 1942-45 given the circumstances.

c) from 1959 to 1977, Texas or Arkansas won or shared all but three SWC titles

d) from 1964 to 1982, Alabama or Georgia won or shared all but three SEC titles (2 of which the Vols won and one of which LSU won in our four-year downhill slide 1967-70)

e) from 1959 to 1989, USC or UCLA won or shared all but 7 of the conference titles (mostly won by Washington), and two of those times the conference champ lost to one or the other of those teams.

That's not to diminish the schools who did well back in the day, but on one hand it IS kind of ludicrous to compare stats from long ago with today. It's no accident that scholarship limitations adopted in 1976 at least pulled the elite blue bloods back closer to the pack for at least some level of parity. This is unquestionably true with the Texas/Aggie rivalry.

2) By the same token, it can be a self-serving argument.

I'm willing to along with the "until 1975" argument as long as you use it consistently. Problem is, most folks (no reflection on present company) don't want to use it consistently (looking right at a large section of the Auburn apologists whose lives have apparently been ruined because - as George Wallace used to say - "they daddies never took 'em to a Pittsburgh Steelers game."

A huge contingent of Auburn fans - and there are some ways one can argue ATM is little brother, too - basically let their lives evolve around some of the most ridiculous cherry-picking this side of the West Coast.

They only want to count the Iron Bowl starting in 2002.
(Because we upset them in a pole axing in 2001 and won 4 of 6 right in there).

They only want to count undefeated seasons starting in 1993.
(Sure, Alabama had an undefeated season in 1992 and yet another going back to 1979 but why count those?)

They count probations starting in 1995, when Alabama got our first.
(Because Auburn got hit with probation in 1956, 1958, 1978, and 1993, but what's four probations when it means running down Alabama???)

And they insist national championships either:
a) don't exist because there's no legit playoff (yes - even now they say this)
b) don't count because Alabama lost the bowl game and wouldn't have won the poll after the bowl
c) DO count but those old Ivy League schools have a bunch more

You can engage the same twisted moron on this and he'll contradict himself by arguing all 3 in a five-minute span.

A number of Oklahoma fans liked to do that to claim they have more national titles than us - right up until we began collecting national title rings like they were marbles at the county fair.

Nevertheless, you make good points - and welcome to the best board on the net.
Selma, wow, you did a lot of research. Cannot diminish that at all. But for context on my comment about 1975, it was limited to the point about our (Texas A&M) series with U Tex,. rather than a commentary on the wider state of college football.

The original point I was making was how the relationship with Texas A&M and UTex went in order to make a point a) how their Achilles heel is their arrogance and b) why you will likely see a different face on them, not directly detect it as much (at least not at first).

On a), it is completely true they dominated our series from inception to 1975. But that date is key as it relates to our series (not just a random date in relation to all of college football). Texas A&M was an all-male, military college until 1965. In 1965, Corps membership became non-mandatory (e.g. any male student could come and attend as a regular student or as a member of the Corps). In 1971/1972, Texas A&M became fully co-ed. It is somewhat subjective where to draw the line at when Texas A&M and UTex were on equal footing, both being large co-ed state schools, with the ability to recruit football talent on equal footing. But I'd argue to start the clock at when the first co-ed classes began graduating, so 1975. Until then, expecting Texas A&M to compete with the state's main university is like arguing Army or Navy should consistently compete with Bama, Ohio State, Michigan, etc.

On b), the point was UTex never realized that Texas A&M had changed. Since 1975, we split the series with them. In the waning days of the SWC, we dominated them (winning something like the last 10 out of 11 games, with the one UTex win being a 1 point "upset" in Austin). All the while, UTex always tried to dominate the SWC politically. That didn't change after the Big 12 was formed. UTex always thought they deserved more of the "pie". Their arrogance of how well they had done in the past never let them get over it. They threatened to go to the Pac 12, I believe on at least 2 occasions when conference tensions arose. And of course the hubris of the Longhorn Network happened. Bu 2010, we had had enough, and you know the rest of the story. So on b), the point is despite all that Texas A&M has become since 1975, us splitting the series over that time, the fact that Texas A&M has even surpassed them in enrollment and arguably facilities, and the two schools having large endowments, they will still enter the SEC looking down on us but likely show Bama a different face given Bama's winning legacy. I don't think our decade or more break in our rivalry will change that. But most other schools in the SEC will probably suffer the arrogance they have, how they always look to their past as the measuring stick rather than the reality of the present.
 

Latest threads

Shop the TideFans.shop !


Your purchase through our TideFans.shop links helps support the site! Thanks!