re: Permanent rivals. The best version so far.

Auburn should get

Alabama: in state
Georgia: long history
Florida: Auburn is the closest school to Florida and we played every year from 1934 until after first expansion.

In fact, Pat Dye called the part of the schedule with Florida, Georgia, and Alabama “Amen Corner.”

quote:

---

...just that you're mischaracterizing them.

---

I don't agree.

Going back to the post you originally quoted, I was referring specifically to the time after Broyles left. And I was referring to competing at a high enough level to generate interest in the Texas fan base. I realize I probably didn't convey that well enough, but that was definitely my context.

I've noted several times in the 60s Arkansas was a top 5 program. I've also noted several times Frank Broyles was a Hall of Fame coach with one of the best coaching trees in all of college football history. It's the reason the assistant coach of the year award is named after him. Now, I don't expect you to have my posting history memorized. But I also can't be expected to regurgitate every single point I make on this site simply to provide my views more context.

Once Lou Holtz got there, the program had a couple of good teams, but not good enough for Holtz to keep his job. Hatfield ran a steady program, but never spectacular. He was married to his flexbone offense which provided a stable foundation, but not elite squads.

Arkansas simply didn't generate that much interest in Texas fans during that time. The SMU cheating teams were more interesting as opponents. A&M under Sherrill and Slocum were more interesting. UH under Jack Pardee and John Jenkins were more interesting. And OU was always the 800lb gorilla, especially under Switzer.

Their historical record isn't going to matter that much to Texas fans, because Texas was so dominant in the SWC throughout its history, 3rd place doesn't mean anything to us.

So for the period after Broyles stepped down to when they entered the SEC, I do not feel like I mischaracterized them as all. I feel like it was a very accurate characterization. My fault lay more in not explaining every nuance of what I was trying to convey, and in that sense you're probably right to chastise me.

quote:

---

The only Texas fans who care about Arkansas are well into their 70s.

---

Simply not true. I’m nowhere near my 70s. But just because your little universe began 20-30 years ago doesn’t make decades of history between Texas-Arkansas not matter.

Curious who you think the third rival should be. We have barely any history with LSU save for a couple of cotton bowls when they kicked our asses. Most of the other SEC teams already have their big rivals.

quote:

---

Auburn- Alabama, Georgia, LSU

---

quote:

---

But just because your little universe began 20-30 years ago

---

My "little universe" as far as Texas football is concerned began in the mid 70s.

I'm simply saying what I've observed.

In my mind I'm reluctant to admit Texas has more than one rival. If it weren't for A&M grads/fans becoming so numerous since they turned the school into a diploma mill - especially in the Houston suburbs - and for how obnoxious they are when they're in a group, I doubt I'd think much of them at all.

As far as SEC scheduling, I don't care. It can be Arkansas. It can be Vanderbilt, LSU, Florida, South Carollina. Just because the SEC sets aside a game as a rivalry game doesn't make it that.

If I had my druthers we'd probably play Alabama every year, because they're the only SEC football program I don't look down on in some way. And I can even figure out ways to look down on them, too.

So this was interesting..



The Battle of UT would be a fun game each year..

Auburn and Florida are happy, I think..

Alabama and Georgia are happy, I think..

LSU and Oklahoma might be happy with this Thanksgiving game each year..

Who wouldn’t be okay with these permanent rivals?

quote:

---

If you’ve been a Horns fan as far back as the 70s then respectfully it’s tough for me to understand how you have trouble recognizing Arkansas as a traditional rival

---

Because I know what a traditional rival looks like. It's when fans care about what happens to that team and root against it regardless of which opponent they're playing. It's when fans can't wait for the upcoming game. They circle it on the calendar and talk about it long before the game is played. They're juiced when the game is played, bringing extra energy to the home environment. If Texas loses, there's an extra element of bitterness and anger following the loss. If Texas wins, there's a special level of exaltation that's above and beyond other wins during the season.

That describes OU to a T. It also describes A&M. It does not describe Arkansas and it hasn't since the epic battles of the 60s wore off, which occurred sometime in the late 70s.

As I posted elsewhere, in the 80s there were 3 series in the SWC more important than Arkansas. SMU prior to their death penalty when they were fielding a semipro squad. A&M as they rattled off their 10 out of 11 streak which redefined the series for a generation for both sets of fans. And UH, who blitzkrieged us under Pardee and Jenkins in the run and shoot, until the 1990 game which Texas fans got up for as much as any home game we've played in my lifetime, including storming the field and tearing down the goal posts after the win.

I didn't think of either SMU or UH as rivalries, either, but those games mattered more than the annual bout with the Razorbacks at that time.

quote:

---

Well done list. It's logical and makes a lot of sense

---

Mizzou, Vanderbilt and Kentucky get off way too easy

ADMD, despite the votes I think this is the best one.

BigBro, Mississippi is a guarantee with LSU, Florida has run it's course so don't care either way but Oklahoma just ain't it. Nothing is there.

I would prefer one of Auburn or Bama.