Until I get a good answer, I am going to keep asking that question, because as I wrote in today’s paper, it makes little sense to me.
Perhaps the most bothersome aspect of the Texas A&M move to the SEC is the personal shots tossed this way from a large number of Aggies.
And by bothersome, I mean, funny. Cracks me up.
It does amaze me that so many of you think for a person to be against the move he must be anti-A&M. That’s self-loathing behavior.
The “You just want A&M to always be in Texas’ shadow, Jerome,” crowd is a sad group indeed.
I have gone back-and-forth with so man on this via e-mail and on the radio, but let me state it again: A&M-to-the-SEC is a good thing for me personally.
It would open the door for a different kind of college coverage that the Chronicle hasn’t had in some time. New markets, new teams, new adventures, new barbecue places to eat at on an expense account.
My objections to the move aren’t about me. They are about preserving history and tradition. They are about having the state’s two signature programs, the two best athletic programs in the state (and, no, that doesn’t mean I am anti-TCU or anti-Tech, though I guarantee you that will draw nasty e-mail from those two as well) staying together as they always have and always should.
That’s the simple.
Now the deeper one, is I am still waiting for the Aggies’ powers that be to explain how the move makes sense academically, athletically or financially.
They can’t make an academic argument. That’s a given. We all know this isn’t good for athlete-students at A&M, and there is no way to try and spin it in that direction.
Athletically, there isn’t much of an argument either. Ask the coaches whether it would be easier to be a dominant program, a championship program in the Big 12-minus-2, where only Oklahoma and Texas could regularly compete recruiting-wise, could come close to matching A&M facility-wise and has anywhere near the depth of fan base. (And I don’t know how many times I have to say it for it for some of you to catch on, Kyle Field is the best place to watch a football game in these parts and A&M fans are the largest, most passionate group of fans in Texas. Period.)
Finally, perhaps there is sound financial reasoning behind the move.
If it is that sound, then show it to me.
If you read my column today, I can show you where A&M president R. Bowen Loftin and athletic director Bill Byrne stated explicitly a year ago that the Big 12-minus-2 was the better option financially than the SEC or the then-proposed Pac-16.
If that has changed, show it.
Challenge have come from Aggies who are guessing that CBS and ESPN will tear up their SEC TV contracts and rewrite them because A&M will bring in the Texas market to the league.
And that would mean the $20 million a year A&M will get from the Big 12 will be chump change.
Possible? Yes. Likely? No.
Here is why.
The SEC already does very well in Texas. It would be different if the conference had pitiful ratings in the state, and could se that adding A&M would increase its audience by a significant number. SEC games already beat A&M games when they are on at the same time.
The A&M-Texas game draws more viewers than SEC games, but that’s about it. The league could expect a bump, but I doubt the networks are thinking adding A&M is enough to rework a huge deal that lasts until 2024.
Sure if A&M is better on the field, the ratings will increase a bit, but that’s no automatic.
But let’s say they do decide to give the SEC a 20-percent bump. That’s a ridiculously, huge bump, for the addition of one team on a 15-year contract signed two years ago isn’t it?
Well, the SEC gets $200 million a year from CBS and ESPN combined, in 15-year contracts that they signed in 2009. That is a little less than $17 million per school per year.
Let me give the league a 20-percent bump, aw heck. I’ll give it a 25-percent bump, because the kissing after touchdowns makes Kyle Field look so good on television. (I’ll ignore the fact the ESPN isn’t likely to pay ball there because of well, you know, its $15 million/yr commitment something called the Longhorn Network.)
That would take the league up to $250 million per year. Forget that. Let’s give it another $10-million bump to $260 because of all the attention Aggie Rick Perry will give the SEC once he becomes president.
Now divide that by 13 teams and each would get $20 million a year. Nice money.
Wait, where have I heard that total before? Oh, that’s what A&M gets in the softer Big 12, where it has, according to Byrne, $1 million less in travel expenses. (And that estimate was last year before it started costing me $65 bucks for a tank of gas.)
So if the move isn’t for academics, athletics or money, then what in the world is it for?