Not the goal, but absolutely a welcome consequence. Both programs can be successful simultaneously, but it is more likely that A&M can maintain perpetual success with a marginalized tu. A marginalized A&M was good for tu wasnt it? tu won MORE conference championships in the 90s than it did in the 2000s, but the 2000s are viewed as much more successful. If you don't think that had anything to do with A&M's lack of success in the 2000s and domination in the 90s, you're a moron.

quote:
Also, don't you think that beating Texas soundly and winning the Big 12 and playing ND for the MNC would go further to marginalize Texas than to crow about going 10-2, beating Bama, & playing in the Capital One Bowl?

Not with a tu chance to rebuttal. OU went to 3 BCS games from 2000-2004 and won the RRR all 5 years. Then VY comes, and OU's Texas recruiting still has not recovered.

quote:
My opinion - A&M would have had OU & KSU at home & beaten both. Most likely gone undefeated & would be playing for MNC.

Maybe. If Sumlin is a better coach than Stoops and Brown, A&M would have been successful. No doubt. But the SEC move has the potential to create a systematic and fundamental advantage going forward that is institutionalized by the conference and its dominance of quality it possesses over the Big 12 in to perpetuity. It was a 100 year decision. Not one for the new coaching staff.

I know that that is hard for you to deal with. That is why the Big 12 homers want to talk about "top to bottom" nonsense as if it holds any weight. Your conference has two power programs. The SEC has 7 or 8.