OT: Official SEC Announcement: A&M to join SEC in 2012

Submitted by psychomatt on September 25th, 2011 at 5:11 PM

The Southeastern Conference Presidents and Chancellors, acting unanimously, announced today that Texas A&M University will join the Southeastern Conference effective July 1, 2012, with competition to begin in all sports for the 2012-13 academic year.

http://www.secdigitalnetwork.com/NEWS/tabid/473/Article/228257/texas-am…

Comments

Seattle Maize

September 25th, 2011 at 6:14 PM ^

While I agree that their move to the SEC ultimatley probably makes the most sense I dont think that geography has as much to do with conference realignment as other factors anymore.  It will always play a role but I believe that schools will look at things like conference strength, tradition and obviously revenue before geography.  Taking these factors into account it actually makes even more sense to me that A&M is now in the SEC.  

jmblue

September 25th, 2011 at 6:36 PM ^

That may be, but I wonder if ADs are taking into full account how expensive it can be to be in a far-flung conference.  Those travel costs add up, when you consider that they're for all sports, not just football.  If you have to charter a plane for all conference athletic competition, all of sudden a lot of that added revenue will disappear.

bluebyyou

September 25th, 2011 at 6:50 PM ^

I'm sure the AD's have taken all the various factors into account.  A & M is a good addition. As long as Texas and their LHN remains in place, I have my doubts as to how long it will be until realignment moves start again and we have another week like last week,

I also wonder who the other team will be that takes the SEC to 14 members.

Tater

September 25th, 2011 at 7:29 PM ^

It might be a smart move, but it could backfire, too.  What if A&M is just good enough to be a glorified tomato can in the SEC?  Will they be happy with a bunch of 6-6 and 7-5 records?  I hope it works out for them, though.  They will learn what they need to do and what they don't pretty quick.

Mr Miggle

September 25th, 2011 at 8:01 PM ^

A&M's main recruiting rival is Texas. If you're a top HS player in Texas, why would you pick A&M over UT? If you grew up hating UT, then Oklahoma might be your first choice. Unless there is some personal connection A&M is at a big disadvantage. They've been in a similar situation to MSU.

Now, A&M is going to be playing on a bigger stage. That's something to sell. Would you rather recruit against big brother in the same conference or big brother playing in a watered down league with an uncertain future?

Yes, it will probably open up Texas more to the SEC, but I think A&M is the team that stands to benefit the most.

Needs

September 25th, 2011 at 9:54 PM ^

That's not how it works in Texas. UT makes about 25 offers in the spring before players' senior years. Out of those offers, it gets 20 recruits. They then work on filling the last 5. An offer from UT is around the biggest status symbol a texas high school player can get, and UT gets to pick and choose from one of the 3 most talent rich states in the country. This move may help aTm when they recruit against Oklahoma (and even then, it's Dallas area kids who tend to go to OU and Houston area kids to aTm), but it will have virtually no effect on Texas's recruiting.

Space Coyote

September 25th, 2011 at 5:34 PM ^

And with the more money they will make from the SEC they can upgrade their facilities.  They may never have as much money as Texas, but they can at least compete with facilities if they make more money, and the talent in Texas is as deep as anywhere.  I don't think it's a safe assumption to think A&M will just be a door mat.  

With all the talent in Texas, the chance for recruits to play in the SEC, and play for a school with similar facilities as UT, this seems like a smart move to me.

psychomatt

September 25th, 2011 at 5:38 PM ^

I am sure WVU is somewhere on the list, but where? If I were the SEC, I would put them behind UT, FSU, Clemson, Miami and Mizzou. I am basing that on markets and tradition/national appeal (which drives TV ratings). Assuming, for argument's sake, that the first four are non-starters, I would still put them behind Mizzou. And since Mizzou is in a conference that is in the process of imploding, I think they would accept an invite. IMO.

justingoblue

September 25th, 2011 at 5:53 PM ^

Yea, I agree that Missouri might be the more likely choice. OTOH it's hard to see WVU going to Conference USA or making a pact with Kansas, K-State and everyone else left behind.

Might be a little funny to see WVU playing for the C-USA bowl bid against UAB or Tulsa, but I think they'll go somewhere, and the SEC seems to be in the market for a team.

coldnjl

September 25th, 2011 at 9:59 PM ^

It was reported all over that they received an offer (http://espn.go.com/blog/big12/post/_/id/34125/report-missouri-sec-reach-informal-deal 

http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/20/3155336/source-mizzou-has-sec-offer-but.html 

but their are some links that says that might not have been authentic...Once more, missouri held a press conference to say they were staying in the BIGXII...

Not really sure what to think anymore.

Mr Miggle

September 25th, 2011 at 10:31 PM ^

Nothing there made me believe Missouri said no to the SEC. Talk about holding the Big XII together makes sense if they aren't sure they're getting a better offer and doesn't necessarily mean anything if they do. Now that A&M's move looks official things should move faster. 

BlueAggie

September 25th, 2011 at 5:27 PM ^

Well, I for one am glad this year-plus farce of a courtship has finally come to an end.  Maybe now A&M can get back to doing what it does best: abandoning a successful run game in the 2nd half.  (If you need me, I'll be over here, next to the copious supply of pain-numbing bourbon.)

StraightDave

September 25th, 2011 at 5:47 PM ^

A team like Kentucky or MIss St will have a new rival.  It's sad that TAMU would put movey over the players.  No way they compete in the SEC.  The only chance TAMU had at winning the big 12 was if Texas and Oklahoma had a down year.

jrt336

September 25th, 2011 at 6:06 PM ^

A&M will probably go 4-8 in their first year after losing Tannehill, Gray, and Fuller. Plus I think 6 starters on D, including the entire Dline.

oakapple

September 25th, 2011 at 8:41 PM ^

Everyone seems to be convinced that A&M will never be competitive in the SEC. I understand that argument, but there is a wild card here.

In the Big 12, A&M will never be better than the second-best Texas school. They have very little to offer, that UT can’t also offer. The announcers mentioned yesterday that when they compete with UT for in-state recruits, A&M wins only about 20 percent of the time. Within the Big 12, there is very little they can do to change that. What’s more, the Longhorn Network exacerbates the structural advantage that UT already has.

After this change, A&M has something UT does not. It can tell kids, “we play an SEC schedule.” Without a doubt, this will help them win some of the recruiting battles they now routinely lose. Of course, they’re also going into a tougher league, but many of the 4- and 5-star recruits want to play against the best competition.

I am not suggesting A&M will win the SEC right away. But long-term, I have no doubt that A&M will be better as a result of this. From just about every perspective (and not just financially), it is preferable to be the SEC’s only Texas school than the Big 12’s second-best Texas school.

Look Up_See Blue

September 25th, 2011 at 8:48 PM ^

This is a big move for A&M.  The Big XII is falling apart.  I wonder if the SEC will add another team for next year to even out the conference or just have the SEC WEST with 7 and SEC EAST with 6.

BlueinLansing

September 25th, 2011 at 11:07 PM ^

head to head in recruiting with Arkansas, LSU, Ole Miss and MIss St frequently, if the deciding factor has been 'well they're in the SEC' then this will obviously help TAM.

 

They already have a better stadium atmosphere than Arkansas, Ole MIss and MSU from that side of the SEC.