NDL Forum

I don't care what the Aggies do. They can go to the SEC ACC or whatever they want. Texas does not need the Aggies, although the rivalry would have a hard time staying alive with all the teams Texas would have to play going to the PAC 24. It would have to be a pre-conference game I assume? I would think that Texas needs the Red River Rivalry to stay alive more than Texas needs the Aggie Rivalry.

So basically with all due respect the Aggies can go wherever they want

When its all said and done I will still watch Football on Saturday from my home or at work

shel311 wrote:Does anyone have a legit explanation as to why Texas would go to the PAC 10 over the SEC???

Seems like the money would be better with the SEC.

Travel would seemingly be easier as well.

Just weird that they're likely going to the PAC 10, IMO.

SEC has long been known for the image of treating athletes more important than academics, while Pac-10 usually has the opposite image (especially when dealing with the likes of Stanford and California).

Texas is acting like they don't want any part of the SEC image, though, lets be honest, they might also be smart enough to realize the competition is a little easier in the Pac-10.

kdog36 wrote:I don't care what the Aggies do. They can go to the SEC ACC or whatever they want. Texas does not need the Aggies, although the rivalry would have a hard time staying alive with all the teams Texas would have to play going to the PAC 24. It would have to be a pre-conference game I assume? I would think that Texas needs the Red River Rivalry to stay alive more than Texas needs the Aggie Rivalry.

So basically with all due respect the Aggies can go wherever they want

When its all said and done I will still watch Football on Saturday from my home or at work

I believe the concern with A&M going their own way (sec) is that it would open up Texas recruiting to the SEC. If A&M is forced to follow Texas, they can maintain control of the state.

Mtwasik wrote:

shel311 wrote:Does anyone have a legit explanation as to why Texas would go to the PAC 10 over the SEC???

Seems like the money would be better with the SEC.

Travel would seemingly be easier as well.

Just weird that they're likely going to the PAC 10, IMO.

SEC has long been known for the image of treating athletes more important than academics, while Pac-10 usually has the opposite image (especially when dealing with the likes of Stanford and California).

Texas is acting like they don't want any part of the SEC image, though, lets be honest, they might also be smart enough to realize the competition is a little easier in the Pac-10.

Now I know we can spin this several different ways but the APR scores tell a different story.

Football Arizona State University AZ 945
Football Oregon State University OR 947
Football Stanford University CA 976
Football University of Arizona AZ 940
Football University of California, Berkeley CA 969
Football University of California, Los Angeles CA 953
Football University of Oregon OR 942
Football University of Southern California CA 965
Football University of Washington WA 948
Football Washington State University WA 918


Football Auburn University AL 935
Football Louisiana State University LA 965
Football Mississippi State University MS 939
Football University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa AL 957
Football University of Arkansas, Fayetteville AR 930
Football University of Florida FL 971
Football University of Georgia GA 973
Football University of Kentucky KY 951
Football University of Mississippi MS 921
Football University of South Carolina, Columbia SC 938
Football University of Tennessee, Knoxville TN 944
Football Vanderbilt University TN 975


AVG Pac 10=950.3 vs SEC 949.9. Both graduate about the same amount of athletes in football.

BFiVL wrote:

Mtwasik wrote:

shel311 wrote:Does anyone have a legit explanation as to why Texas would go to the PAC 10 over the SEC???

Seems like the money would be better with the SEC.

Travel would seemingly be easier as well.

Just weird that they're likely going to the PAC 10, IMO.

SEC has long been known for the image of treating athletes more important than academics, while Pac-10 usually has the opposite image (especially when dealing with the likes of Stanford and California).

Texas is acting like they don't want any part of the SEC image, though, lets be honest, they might also be smart enough to realize the competition is a little easier in the Pac-10.

Now I know we can spin this several different ways but the APR scores tell a different story.

AVG Pac 10=950.3 vs SEC 949.9. Both graduate about the same amount of athletes in football.

Dude, I clearly said the outside image of the conferences is that, didn't say the actual numbers backed it up. But there is no doubt that the Pac-10 thinks that of themsevles.

Pac 10 academics are perceived to be better because like in everything else in college football, the top is all that matters. Put the SEC top 3 schools (guessing Vanderbilt, Florida, Georgia) against the Pac 10 top 3 (Stanford, Cal-Berkeley, UCLA) and you'd find few people who would say the SEC is better. Is LSU vs. Arizona State equal? who the hell knows. In general, certain schools are better at certain subjects and degrees. An engineering degree at Georgia or Virginia Tech means a hell of a lot more than an engineering degree at a liberal arts college.

Also, the schools may be thinking of sports other than football. After the money reason of course, and in that sense, the Pac 10 trumps the SEC.

SEC is full of retards.

Uuaww wrote:Pac 10 academics are perceived to be better because like in everything else in college football, the top is all that matters. Put the SEC top 3 schools (guessing Vanderbilt, Florida, Georgia) against the Pac 10 top 3 (Stanford, Cal-Berkeley, UCLA) and you'd find few people who would say the SEC is better. Is LSU vs. Arizona State equal? who the hell knows. In general, certain schools are better at certain subjects and degrees. An engineering degree at Georgia or Virginia Tech means a hell of a lot more than an engineering degree at a liberal arts college.

Also, the schools may be thinking of sports other than football. After the money reason of course, and in that sense, the Pac 10 trumps the SEC.

exactly. We're talking about the perception of the academic status of the overall schools in those leagues, not comparing the football players at each school, but the overall student body. And the SEC will always have that reputation since when the NCAA allowed conferences to accept non-qualifiers, almost every conference put some kind of limit on how many each team could have, but the SEC allowed their teams to take as many as they wanted, or something like that, so that helped build the idea of what was important to those schools.

Rumor has it VT was offered a spot in the SEC on Thursday.

Mtwasik wrote:Texas is acting like they don't want any part of the SEC image, though, lets be honest, they might also be smart enough to realize the competition is a little easier in the Pac-10.

That's exactly what I was hinting at with my post. I just didn't wanna say it and be called an SEC homer lol.

But I think the competition factor is a huge reason in Texas seemingly not even considering the SEC.

Yea, because playing Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Auburn, and South Carolina are just terrifying to Texas.

Hoos wrote:Yea, because playing Kentucky, Vandy, Ole Miss, Miss State, Arkansas, Auburn, and South Carolina are just terrifying to Texas.

This is just dumb and u know it.

Is that all the teams in the SEC? Or did u conveniently leave out a few teams?

Are you really trying to compare the PAC 10 to the SEC? LOLZ.


So what is the reason then?

Are you fucking retarded? I clearly listed the schools in the SEC that are below Texas talent wise. Those schools wouldn't scare Texas. Not to mention, you wouldn't even play every team every year because the schedule rotates.

To suggest that a decision between the PAC 10 and the SEC comes down to being scarred of competition is laughable. There are a tons of factors that go into the equation. Competition might well be one of them but it isn't the deciding factor.

Texas plays a lot of sports and plays them at a high level. The SEC is completely football driven. Maybe they feel the PAC 10 is a better overall fit? Economics change over time. It wasn't long ago that the ACC was loaded in money because of hoops. Things change and this is a very pro-SEC football market right now. Tomorrow, maybe it is something else.

Maybe they are just weighing all their options right now and will ultimately decide the SEC. However, I guarantee they didn't get an offer and immediately run off scarred because of the big, bad SEC competition. Only a fucking SEC fan would come up with that bullshit.

With all due respect, and I mean with all due respect, but WTF are you talking about? LOL.

Nowhere did I say that Texas was scared of the SEC.

But I'm very confident that the competition factor plays a factor in this, and goin to the PAC 10 would provide less competition. That's what I said in each of my posts.

So what did I say that was so retarded?

You seem to agree with my exact premise while at the same time saying my post is retarded. LOLZ

I guess this is what I get when I discuss sports wit a UVA fan.

Why i said you can spin it how ever you want. Perception is what it is and they can think what they want but numbers wise based on APR tells a different story.

BFiVL wrote:Why i said you can spin it how ever you want. Perception is what it is and they can think what they want but numbers wise based on APR tells a different story.

We are talking about long held (as in the past 20 years and longer) perceptions of the overall universities that are in the 2 different leagues.

Why are you talking about grades of football players? They have nothing to do with the overall student body, and APR scores didn't even exist 4 years ago, so that has nothing to do with the current arguement about why Texas didn't want any part of the SEC, according to Texas sources.

There's also talk that Texas still wants to create their own TV deal with a TV station ... the Pac-10 would allow them to still do so, the SEC does not allow their schools to ... so that could be a third reason.

Mtwasik wrote:There's also talk that Texas still wants to create their own TV deal with a TV station ... the Pac-10 would allow them to still do so, the SEC does not allow their schools to ... so that could be a third reason.

Good stuff. That's the kind of things I was looking for but didn't know about.

Corndog311 wrote:

Hoos wrote:Post owning Shel again

Good stuff. That's the kind of things I was looking for but didn't know about.

You're welcome.

shel311 wrote:

Mtwasik wrote:There's also talk that Texas still wants to create their own TV deal with a TV station ... the Pac-10 would allow them to still do so, the SEC does not allow their schools to ... so that could be a third reason.

Good stuff. That's the kind of things I was looking for but didn't know about.

actually I don't think the PAC-10 allows for schools to start their own networks. I have never heard that from SEC offices, but am not sure on SEC rules for such.

Texas, which wanted to start its own network, will have to compromise on that point if it opts for the Pac-10 or, for that matter, if it wanted to join the Big Ten. — Houston Chronicle