3 games back, 2008. Baylor 41, A&M 21.
And anybody who puts Oklahoma-Nebraska into a “lower-level” rivalry must not have been living in the Midwest in the 1970s. Oh, my .. as Keith Jackson would say.
Interestingly, ending that annual rivalry by splitting the Big XII into North-South divisions was probably step one or one-A in the eventual cracking up of the Big XII. Or at least so says Nebraska, heartily looking forward to continuing their long-time rivalries with Purdue, Michigan State and Indiana. :rolleyes:
I was Ga Tech in the early 80’s as they were making a transition into the ACC. They were losing long-standing rivalries with Auburn and Tennessee as they started to play an ACC schedule.
What is astounding to me is how fluid the transition these days as compared to 30 years ago. GT joined the ACC in 1978, it was 1983 until Tech played a full ACC schedule an eligible for the ACC title.
GT played as an independent in those transition years (and played a super tough schedule). And we were terrible.
notfrommensa, that’s similar to Miami’s entry to the Big East in the early 90s. I think they won the conference with a 4-0 record one year. (/checks wiki…) Yep, Miami won it in '92 at 4-0, and actually shared it in '91 going 2-0 while Syracuse went 4-0.
I have family members who still think about this as a rivalry, since from 1900 to 1974, the teams met on average about 2 out of every 3 seasons. (47 meetings in 75 seasons).
But Minnesota wasn’t always the bug. They still lead the all-time series. Granted, they haven’t won since 1960, but they did post a pair of 54 point victories at one point. [Note to self: hide the fact that in the last 40 years Nebraska has victories of 54, 56, and 71 points over the Gophers]
Maybe. I’d expect that’d be the one OOC game UT would keep. Or else go to every other year. Which isn’t the same. 
UT-Arkansas was huge then, too. So were bell bottoms.
In 2011, I’d bet OU fans list their top rivalries as Texas and OSU. If they have to choose which game gets dropped, it’ll be Nebraska, not Texas.
I’m for rivalries too, but I’m not sure it counts when the two people directly involved in the rivalry are the very ones that made the realignment necessary. That’s not “losing” a rivalry. That’s willingly sacrificing it.
Just saw this:
Which reminded me of this:
So I guess that must mean it’s a done deal, PAC16, right?
Print it in ink.
<Corso>Not so fast my friend!</Corso>
[QUOTE=@PeteThamelNYT]
Pac-12 decision came down Scott meeting with Texas and realizing there was no way the conference could be one of equals. So they passed.
[/QUOTE]
Damn straight.
Understood, but I’m not convinced either way - I just don’t know what is real and what is negotiations.
I may be speaking a little broadly, but I suspect that A&M (and most Aggies) would prefer to continue playing UT on Thanksgiving day. Not so sure about UT though; they treat us like we’re weak sisters, despite having a relatively equal win/loss record vs. them (20-26) since A&M quit being all-male and military.
I think that despite wanting to still play them, we’re tired of being pushed around by UT in most every way (in the legislature, athletically, etc…) and putting up with their condescension, and that’s why we want out of the conference with them.
The only reason why UT/TAMU rivalry will end is because at least one of the teams want it to end. Florida plays FSU every year. Georgia plays Ga Tech every year. South Carolina plays Clemson every year. These are big intra-state, inter-conference rivalries. If the rivalry ends, it is not because of the conference realignment.
I think this is part of A&M’s long-standing issue of constantly comparing itself to Texas. Some of it is historical in nature - A&M being founded first, and then the new shiny Austin campus coming along diverting attention and income from College Station - but at some point I think it would have been better to forge an identity independent of Texas instead of constantly making comparisons. I was in school when the rivalry favored A&M, and there certainly wasn’t any “compassion” about the Wrecking Crew’s dominance over us back then.
Also, it doesn’t help the charge of “condescension” when Dodds went to Byrne to offer partnership in what became the Longhorn Network. He turned it down and wanted in once he saw the potential cash flow it might provide. Dumb decision. It’s not as if Texas went about the LHN in secret.
Other point - how, exactly, do you characterize Texas pushing around A&M in the Lege when the governor is an Aggie and has appointed every regent to both Texas and A&M?
To the Thanksgiving Day game - frankly, I’d be happy replacing it with game with Notre Dame. Ags left the conference on their own and ended the rivalry. Just like we said goodbye to the Arkansas rivalry when they left the SWC, I’d have no problem saying goodbye to A&M in that case. Can’t have your cake and eat it too.
(And by the way, better get started on a new draft of the fight song… one that doesn’t mention Texas so often. :))
The Pac-12 decision wasn’t a surprise to me, as I knew OU and OSU would be a hard sell based on academic reputation. If it was only about dollars then OU and OSU would have been a slam dunk. But they care in some measure about the academic rigor of Pac-12 schools. (And frankly, I think it’s a little unfair - both schools have become much stronger institutions and the concern about academic standing is something of a historical issue.)
I think the Big 12 stays together with duct tape and a whole lot of hurt feelings for a few more years.
Based on comments I see (Chip Brown, Larry Scott, etc.) - it was Texas unwillingness to budge on revenue sharing - I don’t see anything being said about academics.
The Big 12 has presented the following demotivational plaque to Texas, Oklahoma, Oklahoma State, and Texas Tech:
DON’T FORGET: YOU’RE HERE FOREVER.
What does this have to do with OU and OSU making a move to the Pac-12? Both schools were interested in leaving. Larry Scott obviously didn’t want them by themselves.
I did some digging and found this. Apparent 5 of the Pac-12 schools were concerned about the Oklahoma schools’ academics. (It does say, however, that Scott would have convinced them to vote yes if it was thought to be a good idea.)
Agreed that they weren’t wanted by themselves - that’s because it wouldn’t bring in enough extra money - which means all of this is primarily about money.