14-0. Poor Chad.
And that decision by our SEC powers to switch our permanent to the Aggies sucks more and more.
And that decision by our SEC powers to switch our permanent to the Aggies sucks more and more.
North Texas up on Arky.
- Thread starter Judson1
- Start date
Kind of happened twice. Instead of matching up the two newbies they made the extra switch. Also at that time they switched the schedule and had us facing Georgia later. They claimed it was from expansion. Recently they switched it back... why this time?
Don't look behind you Chad, there is a gigantic fat slob pointing at you
My question is why didn't we call them out on their bs? We've been in the conference longer than A&M and Mizzou, we don't take orders from them.
Tanner is a conference yes man.
That fake no fair catch punt return was brilliant. Only other player I ever saw do that was Deon Sanders.
It takes guts to do that. The cover guy could have knocked the return guy’s teeth out if he didn’t fall for the trick. Unbelievable. I don’t have the link to post, but if you haven’t seen it, you should find it.
Because we are still the new Vanderbilt
This is why I pull for them more than other sec programs
Both times they wanted us to play Clemson in the beginning of the season to have a better SEC schedule and we refused...
Yet, Fla/FSU and GA/GA Tech haven't been asked to move those games from the end of the season and they have better SEC schedules...
They would almost immediately return to being a top-20 team. That's the way it works (for us). Their wheels came off when we lost them as a permanent opponent.
Since the game is out of hand anyway, the next time the returner signals a real fair catch, one of Arkansas' third string linebackers should just take his head off. Hey, after that first play, can't take chances.
That play right there is going to be shown to teams all over the country - and might result in some serious mayhem in the future.
From the conference's perspective, it makes sense. Arky and Mizzou are border states and the only natural rivals each schools has in the conference.
We have Georgia, but they're in our division.
Logically, Mizzou and Auburn should switch divisions, but would we want that?
Eh, about this matchup (or past matchup, meaning USC/Arkansas).
As long as we have these particular groups of teams in each division, exactly who do you match us up with from the West?
Alabama/Tennessee - famous old matchup, and neither team wants to drop it
Auburn/Georgia - no way they change this
LSU/Florida - think it has been played continously since the early 70's. Auburn/Florida was a longer running series, but frankly younger Gator fans probably don't even know that was once a thing.
Ole MIss/Vandy - they seem happy with this, since the opponent could be worse
Mississippi State/Kentucky - same as Ole Miss/Vandy I guess as far as fan satisfaction goes. I'd much rather have MSU on the schedule than A&M, but I imagine MSU wouldn't want to change opponents at this point, and I'm quite sure Kentucky wouldn't want to risk getting A&M.
Arkansas/Missouri - this is the only one where one school might want to see a change. You might be able to sell Missouri on playing A&M every year. I imagine Arkansas is perfectly happy playing Missouri though.
So basically no one in the East really wants A&M as a permanent opponent (well except MAYBE Missouri). A&M would probably rather play someone else, but unless MIssouri pushed for that to happen, I imagine we would have 11 or 12 schools preferring things as they are.
Only way it changes I think , is if Missouri goes to the West. That changes a lot of things.
As long as we have these particular groups of teams in each division, exactly who do you match us up with from the West?
Alabama/Tennessee - famous old matchup, and neither team wants to drop it
Auburn/Georgia - no way they change this
LSU/Florida - think it has been played continously since the early 70's. Auburn/Florida was a longer running series, but frankly younger Gator fans probably don't even know that was once a thing.
Ole MIss/Vandy - they seem happy with this, since the opponent could be worse
Mississippi State/Kentucky - same as Ole Miss/Vandy I guess as far as fan satisfaction goes. I'd much rather have MSU on the schedule than A&M, but I imagine MSU wouldn't want to change opponents at this point, and I'm quite sure Kentucky wouldn't want to risk getting A&M.
Arkansas/Missouri - this is the only one where one school might want to see a change. You might be able to sell Missouri on playing A&M every year. I imagine Arkansas is perfectly happy playing Missouri though.
So basically no one in the East really wants A&M as a permanent opponent (well except MAYBE Missouri). A&M would probably rather play someone else, but unless MIssouri pushed for that to happen, I imagine we would have 11 or 12 schools preferring things as they are.
Only way it changes I think , is if Missouri goes to the West. That changes a lot of things.
Of course we will, once they have a pretty good team again. Always works like that for us.
The question is how did this happen. We came into the league with Arky 20 yrs. ago, thus obvious "permanent"(guess it depends on your definition) opponent. Conference expands, can do anything they want. One team goes to west, one to east. Naturally, they should be matched up together as "permanent" opponents, especially since Missouri is a lot closer to Texas than we are. But wait, we had just won the East - Georgia, Florida, Tennessee were down. The Ol` Ball Couch seemed to be building something special. So, since SEC has always been ruled by Alabama and Georgia-linked leaders for the most part, I think they used this opportunity to make it harder for us, as everyone knew A&M`s recruiting would take off once they got in the SEC and it would just be a matter of time before they became a force. Plus, where does Arky recruit from? A lot of Texas, that`s where.A friend of mine who is a big Arkansas fan told me they really didn`t want A&M to join the SEC for fears it would hurt their recruiting(seems to be panning out). So the other argument was that to appease Missouri the switch was made. That is plausible that they wanted to play a border state. However, since when did the SEC have to start bargaining with schools to join the conference? Never until then, so something smells bad doesn`t it. Oh, we wanted Mizzou for the academics, right? I wonder what would have happened if we would have invited UNC and Virginia, or Virginia & Virginia Tech, since supposedly they were a package deal. Remember, the ACC was on the ropes, rumors of the conference collapsing, etc. Clemson was rumored to be considering going to the Big 12, remember. That was the SEC`s opportunity to destroy the ACC and they didn`t do it. If we had gotten UVA and Va. Tech, the state of North Carolina would have been on an island. Clemson may have well jumped to the Big 12 and the ACC would have become the AAC or some conference like that. But no - we had to either get on our knees and beg Missouri to join the SEC, when it should have been the other way around, and/or the SEC brass saw us arising and used the opportunity to make things more difficult for us(it has worked, hasn`t it?), or both. I think somehow they convinced us that somehow we would benefit from the switch, which was a bunch of crap if so. Was it Tanner or Hyman or who else fell for it, or we not even given a choice, which would even be worse. Now the conference is back where the SEC wants it, with Bama and UGA back in the drivers seat for the forseeable future.
Decisions were made for the convenience of others, not because the SEC schools were scared of USC.
It wan't a sinister plot to undermine us competitively. It was a lack of respect for us as a program and as an institution, simple as that.
Similar threads
