|
Replies: 8
| visibility 2,315
|
Orange Blooded [3571]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4500
Joined: 11/9/03
|
|
|
|
 |
110%er [6223]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4310
Joined: 6/23/17
|
Re: Good article from A&M guy. Pokes fun at SEC
Sep 6, 2019, 12:46 AM
|
|
Thanks for posting, I like his writing.
"The SEC is a conference of bluebloods, and I mean that in the, sickly, physically deformed, hemophilic way"
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [5572]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4060
Joined: 10/3/03
|
Re: Good article from A&M guy. Pokes fun at SEC
Sep 6, 2019, 3:43 AM
|
|
That was entertaining.
His perspective on A&M's leaving the BIG XII vs. Clemson sticking it out with the ACC is interesting. He also makes the analogy that A&M is presently just a more functional version of SCAR. That's a painful assessment.
There's a lot of truth to not running your university like a bunch of knee-jerk hot-heads. Getting even or "showing 'em" may seem like a sound strategy at the time, but decisions made out of that sort of hubris rarely work out in the long-run (SEE South Carolina's Football program).
Luckily Clemson stayed the course and never jumped conferences (that includes the SEC).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24060]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9776
Joined: 10/7/15
|
Re: Good article from A&M guy. Pokes fun at SEC
Sep 6, 2019, 9:02 AM
|
|
He had me at “A struggle for the last Pringle in the can almost plunged us into the Missouri River.” lol
Thanks for the share; entertaining read.
GO TIGERS!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scout Team [198]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 20
Joined: 9/10/06
|
Just to be clear, he's not an 'A&M guy'...
Sep 6, 2019, 9:19 AM
|
|
He's a Clemson guy with a post-graduate degree from A&M. He writes regularly for STS and also a Kansas State football site, so he's well-traveled, and a very funny writer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6350
Joined: 7/20/18
|
Re: Good article from A&M guy. Pokes fun at SEC
Sep 6, 2019, 9:21 AM
|
|
Wow, that is a surprisingly a sober take.
While they kinda missed with the "functional south carolina" -interesting idea but off. T&M had some of a tradition, coot don't. Coots just took the paycheck in exchange for being a extra W in conference standings for other teams. The coots where horing it up, the other programs had expectations of greatness.
Really, they are/were the new Arkansas or "Arky West". Arky and atm both competed for conference titles pre SEC days (13 and 18 titles respectively). The coots were never like this. Both Arky and atm are looking to improve national standing, the coots wanted a paycheck and maybe .500 if lucky. My question is what about Mizzou... are they more like Arky or atm or more like the coots. I am thinking the latter.
I always thought that the atm move was more of a bluff to reduce texas's influence and that there would be pressure to reform the B12/SWC of sorts.
They went from being second/third fiddle to behind Bama, Aubie, LSU, and the Sippi.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [557]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 149
Joined: 9/2/18
|
Re: Good article from A&M guy. Pokes fun at SEC
Sep 6, 2019, 11:12 AM
|
|
One Aggie's take on the article, FWIW ---
SUMMARY / BACKDROP: There was a disparity between Texas and Texas A&M from 1876 to around 1975, creating the "little brother" narrative. In short, A&M was specialized college for those seeking a military career (e.g. think West Point or Annapolis) until 1965, and didn't allow women in until 1975. In "Old Army Days", it essentially offered only Agricultural and Engineering degrees. But one likely wasn't going to A&M unless they had a military mindset and desire to likely enter the military (not everyone did, but it was closer to a military academy mindset than a normal state institution). After 1975, Texas A&M added essentially all degrees and completed it's transformation from the Old Army Days to a regular co-ed university (up for debate by when, but roughly mid-1980s). Today, Texas A&M is the second largest university in America (larger than Texas), and Texas and Texas A&M are both in the top ten in endowment funding and research budgets of ALL (including ivy leagues) universities in America. It has commonly ranked in US News rankings of the top 25 public universities in America (as of course Texas has and, interestingly, Clemson and Texas A&M are tied for #24 in the latest ranking). That doesn't happen overnight or due to a move to the SEC, it was essentially the case by the 1990s. After Texas A&M left the Big 12 for the SEC, it became the most valuable football program (in terms of revenue and income) in America (source: Forbes), which is validation for our motives to do what's best for Texas A&M (as opposed to a narrative of "getting out of Texas's yolk").
1 - Agree, very entertaining, he's a good writer... but off on many things.
2 - College Station is FAR from "arid and treeless". Surprised he wrote that after spending time there. Sounds like he actually went to Texas Tech.
3 - ON "YOLKED LITTLE BROTHER": Needs a bit of a course correction on playing that stereotype. He seems to believe Texas A&M was still "little brother" to Texas "at the time it left for the SEC". The fact is Texas A&M was no longer "little brother" by the late 1980s (long before even the formation of the Big 12). It certainly was prior to the 1980s. I graduated in 1993. By the time I went to A&M, the sense was that there was little real difference in terms of resources, attention, size, degrees offered, as well as athletic success between Texas A&M and Texas. Companies in Houston (where I went after college to work in public accounting), for example, recruited equally out of Texas A&M and Texas. The schools had approximately the same number of students, but RADICALLY different cultures. The record in football from 1975 to the end of the series in 2011 was even.
Where the article is correct is that we were tired of Texas's bullying, and the arrogance it continued to display toward us despite our growth was palpable. We had been dealing with it for decades, but Texas could not see it. But nor were we the only ones tired of Texas's arrogance. Colorado and Nebraska announced their exit from the Big 12 a couple years before us stating clearly their issue was with Texas. Texas, for it's part, would threaten the Big 12 schools that it would leave for the PAC 12 if it didn't get what it wanted. So, the article is not wrong that we were finally fed up with Texas's attitude, but it is a bit off in making it "all about" us being treated as "little brother" to Texas. We were already standing on our own for decades prior; we, just like Nebraska, Colorado and Missouri, finally got tired of Texas. The move to the SEC had nothing to do with "throwing off a yolk". We had already done that by the 1980s, but we just got tired of trying to "work to bring about a system of equals" when the other party didn't see it that way. It was only about completing a process to "get whats fair financially" based on the reality of who we already were, than spurring growth by leaving the Big 12.
This is a good (but long) read on the politics of leaving, and how Texas almost made the Big 12 completely implode: https://texags.com/forums/5/topics/3047369/replies/54619869
4 - ON THE MOVE TO THE SEC: Completely and wholeheartedly disagree on his assertion the move to the SEC was not a good one. Sorry.. I know you guys hate the SEC, I can see it all over your boards. But we are quite happy with our move, both now and for what the future portends. Since joining the SEC, Texas A&M football has become the most valuable program in the country. https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/2018/09/11/college-footballs-most-valuable-teams/#2d8531c66c64 And, bluntly, there is no reason we cannot be competitive and ultimately the team to beat in the SEC. Aggies have known for decades the only thing holding us back was putting the right coaching in place. We knew we wanted to redevelop Kyle Field and improve facilities, but until we solved "the Big 12 problem", didn't begin that in earnest. With the move to the SEC, we finally executed plans we had for decades on that front (sorry, but no... the redeveloped Kyle Field is NOT "the house that Johnny built", one simply doesn't spend half a billion like that without having it planned out for 5-10 years prior). We have the money, facilities, fan base, recruiting grounds, etc., and our national brand is finally rising by being in the SEC. We are FAR from an Arkansas, and of course, his analogy of us to South Carolina is swayed by his rivalry for South Carolina and completely off. The author clearly doesn't understand Texas A&M's tangible and intangible resources, and may be pandering a bit to the Clemson faithful in writing some things. But by any measure, there is no reason A&M couldn't lead the SEC someday.
His language lambasting the "blue bloods" of the SEC is pandering to Clemson. It's a literary job well done, but totally off of the reality of who Texas A&M is. We don't give two shizes about what the other SEC schools think of us. It simply doesn't matter. Why?
A - Equal revenue sharing in the SEC... there's nothing to be gained by "kissing the ring".
B - The SEC is happy to have Texas A&M in the SEC (it's actually a bit of the other way around on the question of who wants whom). Recruiting and the Texas TV market was HUGE for the SEC. A media outlet did a study on the number of recruits from Texas ending up on rosters of legacy SEC schools, and it's a notable uptick since A&M joined the SEC. And SEC conference revenue has never been higher.
C - The dynamics Missouri, Arkansas, or South Carolina may face in the SEC simply don't apply to A&M, for the aforementioned reasons.
Ultimately, the above are the reasons many of you have already spotted his comment that "A&M is a more functional South Carolina" is so awkward. It simply defies the reality of most any measure.
Given time, competition in football in the SEC will boil down to A&M, Bama, and a couple others like Georgia and LSU. Resource-wise, Texas A&M is so far ahead any SEC school that it's quite doubtful any of them will ever catch up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [38427]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33200
Joined: 7/28/11
|
Re: Good article from A&M guy. Pokes fun at SEC
Sep 6, 2019, 11:26 AM
|
|
The very idea that a football school has to allege with other supposedly " better " schools to improve their own product is a tired and dangerous philosophy .
It's so erroneous it's comical .
Coots are an example of how it doesn't work . Big state school , plenty of money and resources ... can't even get a peek at the top . Have never been and never will , seemingly . Can but won't ...for a myriad of reasons all of which are usually self inflicted .
It's a belief in your own identity , a plan and its proper execution at every level . It's keeping your balance when everyone else is tripping up around you . It's doing it the right way , through hard work and dogged determination . It's never settling for the silver .
Message was edited by: Tigerdug23®
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-American [557]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 149
Joined: 9/2/18
|
Re: Good article from A&M guy. Pokes fun at SEC
Sep 6, 2019, 11:41 AM
|
|
The very idea that a football school has to allege with other supposedly " better " schools to improve their own product is a tired and dangerous philosophy .
It's so erroneous it's comical .
Coots are an example of how it doesn't work . Big state school , plenty of money and resources ... can't even get a peek at the top . Have never been and never will , seemingly . Can but won't ...for a myriad of reasons all of which are usually self inflicted .
It's a belief in your own identity , a plan and its proper execution at every level . It's keeping your balance when everyone else is tripping up around you . It's doing it the right way , through hard work and dogged determination . It's never settling for the silver .
Message was edited by: Tigerdug23®
Bingo... 100% agreed. You summarized the tenor of my response above. We didn't believe we needed the SEC to be who we thought we already were. We took exception to Texas always politicking for an unfair revenue sharing (as did Nebraska, Colorado, and Missouri). But that wasn't stopping us from doing what we needed to. We fixed the lack of financial equity by joining the SEC. We DO believe that our brand is improving by being OUT of the Big 12, but it's not necessarily because of the SEC.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 8
| visibility 2,315
|
|
|
50
