quote:
I think this is the heart of the matter. A&M views its move to the SEC this way. If you are in any other conference, you would view it as a good football move. But kind of weird social/academic move. Texas was in the Confederacy but most folks along and West of 35 wouldn't see it as anything other than an attempt to get out of Texas' shadow and make a solid and bold football move. "Growth as an institution." That seems a bit much to most. You changed athletic conference. Like Colorado. Like Utah. Like West Virginia. It happens. Elevating it to more than that seems a bit dramatic. But not surprising for Aggies.

From the outside, probably. But you have to appreciate the significance of football of this state. texas vs Texas A&M was symbolic of many things. Liberal vs conservative, city vs country, etc. It's a bitter rivalry because it symbolized the struggle for different ways of life. I don't think it's overdramatic to liken it to that because of the uncommon importance placed on football. If that doesn't register, explain to say..europeans why we have two 100K plus stadiums to watch amateur athletics. It's a big deal. Texas A&M's identity is no longer tied to texas.

quote:
You had a little man with a big bow tie who made an intelligent move. You have an Aggie who was governor. Other than that, not much has changed, other than A&M growing in size.

Going to disagree. Look at academic rankings, enrollment, and things like that over the last 20 years for Texas A&M. Night and day, culminating in this.

quote:
Stanford has been relevant (I'd say more relevant) in about the same time frame that the Aggies claim they have been relevant. Actual BCS bowls. That was due to a great coach and a great quarterback.

And yes, there is no reason that the program can't compete for national titles with the right people. You can say that about 50% of the teams in all of the conferences.

I think the feeling on both sides, at least the bulletin board poster, is that neither side cares if they play each other again. Not sure why anyone feels it is important to write about this either.

Odd that the coaches, especially Strong, felt compelled to say they wanted the rivalry to resume. Strong especially should be focused on other things.

Stanford benefits from a league that has maybe 2-3 serious teams year in and out. Oregon, yall, and maybe a L.A. or Arizona school. I like Stanford and how they play ball, but be honest. It's not the SEC over there.