Getting Out From Under Big Brother: It Aint Just For Aggies

David Sandhop, the publisher of Aggie Websider, has penned perhaps the definitive article on the frustrations of Texas Aggies that their school did not join the SEC, instead remaining tethered to the Texas Longhorns: http://tamu.scout.com/2/978071.html

This is the best quote: "A&M fans saw the chance of a lifetime to not only move to an elite athletic conference but to also shed itself of its in-state rival that has dominated and overwhelmed many of the state’s universities  on a wide range of issues but most clearly symbolized in the world of athletics."

Just ask older Arkansas fans what they think about being in a conference that the Texas Longhorns operate as their personal fiefdom. Then multiply that by being in the same state.

When Nick Saban was leaving LSU for Miami, I met a Michigan State fan living in New Orleans who told me about seeing Saban speak in the Big Easy not long after taking the LSU job. A Tigers' fan asked him why he left a successful run at Michigan State, and Saban responded that he wanted the greater challenge of the SEC. He also said that he had learned how hard it is to take what clearly historically is the number two program in a state and elevate it beyond the state's number one program.

After the official Question & Answer period, the Spartans' fan cornered Saban and asked how he thought Michigan State could ever improve itself, considering what the coach had just said. According to the Michigan State fan, Saban responded: Leave the Big Ten and the Michigan-Ohio State game behind, because Michigan State can never overcome all that.

Texas A&M fans have that understanding. They sense that the only way to ever get beyond the weight that is the Texas Longhorns is to forge a new identity in a conference that does not have Texas. Then, A&M would not be the number two school and program in the Lone Star State, with the number one school towering over it at all turns. Instead, it would be the largest TX school and athletics department in the SEC.

That understanding has led me to ponder various situations that are similar. For example, Notre Dame became the Notre Dame of national mystique precisely because it was rejected by the Big Ten. 

The Big Ten tried to blackball Notre Dame into small time scheduling before World War 1. The Irish responded by barnstorming, primarily in the East, and becoming a major national power.

Notre Dame wanted to join the Big Ten in the 1920s, and Michigan, which had led the earlier blackballing, led the rejection efforts. Not being admitted to the Big Ten forced the Irish to emphasize the Southern Cal series and its games in the East, which were necessary to its unparalleled rise under Rockne and Leahy.

If Notre Dame now joins the Big Ten, it will place itself in a situation in which it is a little brother. Notre Dame would be the smallest Big Ten school, and as great as its football history is, it cannot overcome the collective weight of the histories of Michigan, Ohio State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan State, Penn State, etc. No matter what Notre Dame might do in Big Ten football, it can never topple the Ohio State-Michigan game as what defines the conference.

If Florida State and Georgia Tech were to join the SEC, they would emphasize more clearly for all to see that they are the number two schools in their states. Being in a BCS conference different from the one that Florida and Georgia are in allows them to forge an identity of their own; they can mask to a large degree that they are the number two schools in their states.

South Carolina, though larger and older than Clemson, is the number two athletics department in SC. In the ACC, South Carolina was a perennial bottom half finisher in most sports. Out of the shadow of Clemson, South Carolina has been a more consistent competitor in the SEC, even in football, than it was in the ACC.

Utah split from BYU to join the Pac at the moment when the MWC looked to have a BCS AQ slot in the pocket. I think a reason is that Utah people understood that because BYU has larger fan bases for all sports and overall has been the more successful athletics department, if they were in the same BCS league, BYU would reign over Utah in many ways.

This topic is relevant to possible conference expansions.

As a Big Ten member Pitt, though its athletics department overall is more successful than Penn State's, would be overwhelmed by the sheer size of the Penn State football fan base (107,000 per game) and its successes the past 25 years. Pitt would be seen universally as the distant number two school in its own state. Being in a BCS conference different from the one Penn State is in allows Pitt a more complete identity than it could have in the Big Ten. 

The other schools in the Big East that are assumed to be possibilities for Big Ten expansion are in a similar situation, though it is regional rather than in-state. Syracuse, a mid0sized private school, is the big school in NY. But in the Big Ten, as a border state rival of Penn State, Syracuse would always be seen as the distant junior partner.

Yes, that applies to football, and in basketball the opposite would hold true. But because the Big Ten is defined by its football, and especially by its large football attendance, Syracuse basketball would mean very little in the general estimation.

Rutgers is a large land grant school, but even it would be be so rated. Rutgers's fans are rightly proud of recent stadium improvements, but averaging 49,000 in a 53,000 seat stadium would be in the bottom third of the ACC. In the Big Ten, it would mark Rutgers as being to Penn State as Texas Tech is to Texas.

The Texas Aggies have hit upon something that is important to long term development and status. We will see if A&M and other schools act upon that hard fact to better position themselves.