re: Taco Meat commercial running a lot lately

To my Aggie brethren who oppose resumption of the t.u. series:

I respect your position, but I simply do not understand it. Sure, there are potential downsides to an annual series with the 'sips, which I fully understand. And I understand the argument that the potential benefits are so small as to be easily-outweighed by the potential "costs."

But why does the same analysis not preclude other in-state OOC rivalry games?

The SEC breaks down into three groups regarding in-state rivalry games:

(A)
Six of the 14 SEC schools have in-state rivalries with conference mates: Bama/Auburn, Mississippi/MSU, and Tennessee/Vanderbilt. Obviously, they all play annually.

(B)
Three of the 14 SEC schools have an annual in-state OOC rivalry game: Florida/FSU, Georgia/Tech, USEe/Clemson

(C)
Five of the 14 SEC schools lack an annual in-state rivalry game: Missouri, Kentucky, Arkansas, LSU & TAMU. Of those five, four of the states lack a second school which has traditionally fielded a decent football program over an extended period of time.

In other words, TAMU is unique in the SEC, in that we have several legitimate prospects (including, but not limited to, the 'horns) for an in-state rivalry game, but we do not play an annual game against any of them.

As I understand the argument, we should not participate in such a series because there are significant potential downsides and no significant potential benefits for the TAMU football program.

So, why do USCe, Georgia and Florida participate in their annual OOC rivalry games?

It seems to me that there are only two potentially-logical answers to that question: either (a) that Florida, Georgia and S.Carolina are too dense to recognize the downside of these games or (b) that t.u./A&M game presents a unique cost/benefit analysis that is inapplicable to our SEC brethren.

I have trouble believing that the university administrations at Florida, Georgia and USCe are complete idiots, so avoiding an annual game with the 'horns has merit only if the TAMU/t.u. series presents an utterly-unique cost/benefit analysis.

So, what is it about TAMU/t.u. that presents a greater downside or lesser benefit than Florida/FSU, Georgia/Tech or USCe/Clemson?



And TLDR right back at you!

I don't think so. Whiskey Bents trolling is about as subtle as a bat to the face. This is much craftier

quote:

---

Are you Whiskey Bent?

---

No, but probably Hell Bound.

quote:

---

why does the same analysis not preclude other in-state OOC rivalry games?

---

Simple. We have a different relationship with t.u. than others do with their OOC rivals. We took the high road and extended the olive branch already to play them OOC, and they declined, purely out of spite. If they come calling to resume the series, it will only be because it benefits them. Other OOC rivalries have plenty of hate, but without one side constantly trying to undermine the other like t.u. has done without fail in our rivalry with them.

quote:

---

I understand the argument that the potential benefits are so small as to be easily-outweighed by the potential "costs."

---

Then you should understand why it would be to Texas A&M's detriment to resume such a series regularly. I love my alma mater far more than beating the sips.

quote:

---

I respect your position, but I simply do not understand it.

---

I wish I could say "likewise," but I cannot respect a position that is decidedly against TAMU's best interests for the sake of rote nostalgia.

T Bird summed it up nicely. But not only did they shoot us the bird when we offered to keep them on the schedule, from the top down every one of them ran and STILL runs the narrative that we were the destroyers of the big 12 and that we ran away from competition. Which we all know isn't true. We left because they destroyed the conference and the future was very uncertain.

Look I'm not saying you're a troll although I have my serious doubts about Shadow...but you do present your opinions in a way that very few Aggies agree with. I respect your right to your opinion but it is not really the norm on here. Maybe we do get our group think going too much. But most of us recognize how poisonous any kind of relationship with tu could be for our upward trend right now.

quote:

---

I still don't think this is trolling. there are a good amount of people who say this stuff seriously

---

Truth

And furthermore, folks' druthers on the game aren't strictly an old army/new army issue, as proven by your little swing and miss with asking Klarvin his class year. My dad is class of '83 and grew up in Aggieland and knows it's better for us not to play them on an annual basis right now, even though of course we both miss the history of the game.

This isn't about old army or new army groupthink.

Bird, I did notice that Hank went to tu Law and his dad played football for tu under DKR(according to one of his posts). So I can see how he could have a shared affection for both schools more that we can understand. So if I put myself in his shoes, maybe my tu hate wouldn't be near as strong. He also lists BCS as where he lives and so he isn't as exposed to daily tu asshatery (is that a word?) as much as those of us out in Austin, San Antonio Dallas and Houston are.

quote:

---

I did notice that Hank went to tu Law and his dad played football for tu under DKR(according to one of his posts). So I can see how he could have a shared affection for both schools more that we can understand.

---

I understand. He's not the only Ag with connections to both schools, though. And of course that doesn't change the fact that resuming the rivalry would be detrimental for A&M. Hell, I wish we still played Baylor for similar reasons, but life isn't perfect.

quote:

---

He also lists BCS as where he lives and so he isn't as exposed to daily tu asshatery (is that a word?) as much as those of us out in Austin, San Antonio Dallas and Houston are.

---

Can't let him off the hook for that--my folks live in CStat, too, and share my sentiments

quote:

---

it just has sentimental value to me. I'd still want a favorable deal if we were to schedule them, but I'd be all in favor of playing again in principle.

---

Same. My favorite football memory as a Corps member was t.u. 2007 (I was a non-regular taking an extra half lap for Nebraska 2010).

I just don't see how that will be possible the way cfb is currently constructed. It's a shame, but running back to an untenable arrangement just because many of us miss it is naive.

quote:

---

I get the impression from some Ags that pride will never again allow them to even consider scheduling Texas.

---

That probably is the case with some Ags. Hell, it's the case with a lot of horns right now, too.

I'm just in favor of waiting for a more even playing field from a benefits standpoint before we resume. If that never happens, again it's a shame, but so be it.