for this bizarre video of a pregame that some may not have seen.

Will someone create a new internet where drinking is not an excuse, then can we switch to it.

My own objections with Frank the Tank’s post have a lot to do with downplaying the political aspect of the Texas legislature and his own “the Big 10 adds UT or Notre Dame or no one” idea. I see no way that the move – in a vacuum – is bad for UT or A&M. I like the idea, and I would pull out my checkbook and contribute to any fund needed to make this happen. Both are institutions whose national footprint lags behind their actual quality and could use the PR boost.

But this is the same Texas legislature that has repeatedly diluted access to the the endowment, actively meddles in the admissions process (trying to appease constituencies who feel “entitled” to admission), and generally could screw up an anvil with a rubber hammer. I have no doubt that the same “the Big 10 is full of slow, ugly, cold yankees who don’t know how to eat” (all false – except the cold part – even though most of football season is awesome) mentality that creeps into message boards is represented in some corners of legislature. For that reason alone I see a few reasons why the Big 10 itself may not want to add Texas. Once we’re in the party, I see the Texas legislature presenting far more of a wildcard than the administration of either UT or A&M.

I probably should have realized I can’t mock Frank without offering at least a little bit on why his take on its all out of whack:

Is it fair to say that your biggest objection is that Mr. Tank outlines very logical reasons why Texas would move, from an "academic" view, while ignoring or downplaying very real cultural and political reasons which might torpedo a move, no matter how advantageous it might be?

That’s roughly it, but I’ll clarify and elaborate.

There’s only so much in saying that Texas is a good “fit” with the Big 10, even if the analysis is squeaky clean. In the first place, Texas would be a good fit in several places. We’re a large, research-heavy, well-funded, high-output university that would comfortably fit in many places — including, as just one example, the Pac 10. It’s like saying that I’d be a good fit as a Michigan or a UCLA blogger; I suppose that it’s true, and if Texas Longhorns blogs were forever outlawed and I had to migrate, folks could make great arguments to me about why I should head to either one. To the point: a “good fit” may be a necessary condition for determining where Texas could move, but at the outset it’s just that — a threshold requirement.

Now look at the question that we’re actually discussing: Will Texas move, and if so, where? Frank the Tank argues: (1) the best fit for Texas would be the Big 10, and (2) because Texas would benefit more by moving than staying, then (3) Texas should/will move to the Big 10.

The argument depends on an army of assumptions, some of which Frank explores well, others he adopts more or less without basis (in my view). And though I won’t go through all of them here and now, it’s enough to focus on the 800-pound gorilla: Texas is in an almost uniquely positioned university. We have so many advantages it’s almost a little bit silly. Frank the Tank has laid them all out himself, over and over again.

The critical question is why, why, why would Texas give away big chunks of its advantageous position?

It shouldn’t, and it won’t. And joining the Big 10 conference under most every plan being discussed does precisely that; it may be a snug “fit”, and it may be the correct answer to “if Texas has to move it will wind up _”, but most every scenario of Texas going to the Big 10 represents a weakening of its position athletically. If it absolutely has to go somewhere, maybe a 16-team Super Big 10 is where it would need to go and it would bargain for the best deal it could to retain as much of its advantage as it could.

But it simply doesn’t need to go anywhere. It’s in the strongest position, with the power to make moves to its benefit. Frank the Tank’s arguments on this point are all over the map; one paragraph he’s talking about being “penny-wise, pound-foolish,” and in the next he’s making precisely that mistake by saying, basically, “$10M is a lot of money by any standard, so therefore Texas should want it.”

We appreciate the chance to make more money, but thanks, our best bet isn’t to team up in a “one for all and all for one” conference in which we’re by far the most valuable commodity.

Long story short: Texas needs a can’t refuse offer to leave, or it needs to be in a situation where the circumstances of everyone else force it to make a move. Neither is anywhere near the case right now, and as such, Texas’s best move does not involve going to the Big 10. At the very least, it makes it very unlikely.

but there are too many arrogant pricks to allow it to happen.

That’s where you say one thing and mean your mother.

You say:

I don’t care how cocky or douchey he is as long as attempts to make a case for his argument

Frank’s site has ceased to represent anything resembling a realistic perspective of this issue from the Texas side.

My main objection is his failure to demonstrate a realistic grasp of the Texas perspective on this.

I got into some of it above, erik. Texas is in a position of power, with no incentive to leave, but rather to build on and strengthen its advantages. Moving to the “one for all and all for one” Big 10, in which Texas is the most valuable commodity, is anything but likely.

There really is nothing we could stipulate as being wholly outside the realm of possibility for the Texas legislature. By way of example, last year they came up with H.B. 2746, designed to create a distinct school (“SCHOOL OF ETHICS, WESTERN CIVILIZATION, AND AMERICAN TRADITIONS”) at U.T. Austin (not uncommon legislatively) but did so in a granular enough fashion to stipulate hour requirements in the curriculum (I wish I was kidding) and method of pedagogy.

While that doesn’t articulate a precise foundation as to why this particular issue might face legislative hurdles, it should demonstrate why we’re too well aware that the Texas legislature finds no aspect of the state’s flagship university too mundane for attention. There is a question, at least in my mind, as to whether the move to the Big 10, the CIC and a higher overall national profile will threaten the legislature’s perceived control over the state’s flagship schools and what ramifications that might have.

I may be overly cynical on this issue, but if I am, I’m sure someone will let me know about it.

And by “your,” I mean what you believe the common perception of Texas A&M is in other parts of the country?

I posted the image at the top of this thread somewhat as a joke but also to make a serious point: even though A&M is a very good school with lots of positives to offer as a potential expansion target, I believe its image is marred by its propensity to harbor such, um, odd traditions. But I know that I’m looking at this through burnt-orange lenses.

So how is A&M perceived once one is far enough removed from any Texas bias? Is it recognized as a good university, or is it stereotyped as a backwards place? Is it laughed at and disparaged nationally for is pseudomilitary traditions, or are things like the nutgrabbing not generally known?

These are important questions in expansion talks, since image counts for a lot, and maybe the good folks from Ann Arbor and Columbus would never want to have anything to do with a backwards school with nothing but students in weird uniforms who grab their nuts at inopportune times.

I didn’t express it as well as I could have, in part because I’m multi-tasking and just jumping in and out of this thread with quick (but long) comments. Ergo, sloppily stated comments. (Really, I’m trying to put this discussion off until June, damnit!)

A few things, though:

(1) My calculus estimates Texas to be in a position of strength much, much different than the one we were facing in 1995 when we left the SWC.

(2) Note that though we left the SWC for the Big XII, we only did so because we were able to sit down and dictate the terms of the agreement with the other schools. Tom Osborne is still crying about it.

(3) The Big 10 is not going to concede to us (or anyone) any such superior positioning. (Nor could we attain it in the Big 10.)

(4) My calculus assumes that with each year forward from now there will be an increasing viability for individual teams to cut out middle men — which is just an extension of the same trend that allowed for the viability of, for example, the Big 10 network, which would not have been possible 10 years ago. The position I’d be scared in right now is ESPN’s. How long before they’re not needed at all?

As your comment appeared I was writing much the same thing above. I think independence is where things are headed, and to the extent that technologically and financially becomes ever more the practical reality, no one is better positioned to cash in than Texas.

Texas just has nothing to lose by sitting, waiting, and being wrong on the question. It’s not as though, if they make the power play move, and it flops, that they’ll be any less attractive than they would have been had they not.

in the meantime, if it ain’t broke…