Cha-ching

Any reason why this game is not on Thanksgiving?

If the Aggies lose at Auburn, do the prices drop, stay the same, or increase?

quote:

---

If the Aggies lose at Auburn, do the prices drop, stay the same, or increase?

---

They’ll continue to increase, regardless, once the game is the next one up.

The hype (media) is starting to really ramp up down here, and that will only continue as we get closer.

Wait bro. Auburn is about to beat A&M.

As you know, I don’t care one bit for either program but anyone who is a fan of college football as a whole, should be looking forward to this game. If both win their next game, this has the potential to be the third matchup all time where both are ranked in the top ten (1941 and 1975 being the previous two).

quote:

---

Any reason why this game is not on Thanksgiving?

---

Likely because of the Dallas game.

College football doesn’t want to compete with the 3 NFL games now on Thanksgiving.

Prices will remain high, regardless…

Lots of demand from both fanbases.

The sips will pay top dollar, assuming they don’t lose to Kentucky

Awesome. Looking forward to not giving a single frick about this Big 12 matchup.

quote:

---

Any reason why this game is not on Thanksgiving?

---

The game was not shown on TV in 1994 as Texas A&M was on probation by the NCAA, for which the Aggie football team was barred from playing in a bowl game or appearing on television during the 1994 season.

With the 1 year TV ban, the game lost the Thanksgiving Day slot and was moved to T+1.

Texas A&M; Banned From Bowl and TV for One Year - LA Times, Jan 6, 1994

quote:

---

The NCAA sent a stern message Wednesday to one of its oft-troubled members, Texas A&M;, taking the unusual step of placing the school on probation for five years as a result of rules violations involving the Aggies’ football program.

Only two other schools--Southeastern Louisiana and Upsala College--have received probationary periods of a similar duration from the NCAA.

Despite the lengthy probation, Texas A&M; was given relatively light sanctions by the NCAA Committee on Infractions, which issued its ruling after a yearlong investigation by the NCAA enforcement staff and university officials.

The Aggie football team was barred from playing in a bowl game or appearing on television during the 1994 season. However, Texas A&M; was spared other sanctions, such as cuts in scholarships and recruiting visits.

Texas A&M; players were found to have benefited from a scheme in which a booster arranged jobs requiring little or no work.

A similar scheme was a central element of the Pacific 10 Conference’s case against Washington last year. That case resulted in a ruling by the conference in which the Huskies were barred from bowl appearances for two seasons.

The Aggies, Southwest Conference champions the last three years, finished the 1993 season 10-2 after a 24-21 loss to Notre Dame in the Cotton Bowl.

The NCAA also found that the university showed a lack of institutional control over its football program by failing to monitor appropriately its jobs program for athletes.

The ruling marks the seventh time that Texas A&M; has received public sanctions because of athletic rules violations--a factor in the Committee on Infractions’ decision to impose such a lengthy probationary period.

The NCAA placed the Aggie football program on two years probation in 1988 for infractions that occurred during the coaching tenure of Jackie Sherrill, who was later forced to resign.

Texas A&M; could have received the NCAA’s so-called “death penalty” for repeat violators, and, according to the Committee on Infractions’ report, the panel gave serious consideration to applying such a sanction.

However, the committee backed off because of several factors, including the relatively limited scope of the infractions and the university’s attempt to investigate fully.

---