How many people thought that TAMU joining the SEC wouldn't hurt Arkansas?

[Hoggish1]

I think it's definitely hurt us as Texas kids can play in the SEC and stay home instead of going elsewhere like Arkansas. 

Ding, ding, DING!

Addition of OU and OSU would be even worse.....

True!

[HiggiePiggy]

When the Longhorns become relevant again, we are going to have to work our ass off down in that neck of the woods.

Actually our recruiting overall has been pretty much the same for awhile now. It just boosted Texas A&M way above us now instead of about the same as we were before they joined the SEC.

So really there isn't much we can do to make our recruiting better unless we want to start cheating or find a way to start averaging 10 wins a season for about 5 years or more.   

We should always expect to be behind Alabama, LSU, auburn, and Texas A&M in recruiting. For now we will probably be ahead of ole miss and usually ahead of Mississippi state most years. 

[Hoggish1]

I wonder how we managed to kick their butt for so many years. 

They were not in the SEC and didn't make a major push to open their wallets.

[Hoggish1]

I wonder how we managed to kick their butt for so many years. 

link=topic=635483.msg10895943#msg10895943 date=1501473256]
I don't think it has hurt us really, it has just helped them quite a bit.
[/quote]

Right.  anything that helps them hurts us...

[bennyl08]

 

It's all relative.  Everything we do in this conference is relative.  And like you just said, we've definitely been hurt by the Aggies.

It isn't all relative though.

Lets say that Oklahoma gets added to the SEC this season and Oklahoma and Bama for the next decade win 11-12 games each every single season but we improve to winning 9-10 games every single season.

Did adding Oklahoma hurt us in that scenario? Relatively speaking, absolutely they did. Now, instead of being 3rd-5th in our division most years with the occasional second and rarer 1st, we'd now be 4th-6th most years with an occasional 3rd and never higher. Relatively speaking, we would definitely be worse off. However, winning 9-10 games each and every season would undoubtably be an improvement for the hogs.

Again, it goes back to working out with Arnold and The Rock. You will become a much stronger individual but relatively speaking, you will be weaker than you were before because you'd be surrounded by those even stronger.

So, there absolutely is a difference between being intrinsically hurt versus being relatively hurt. But why make such a big deal about the distinction? It's simple. If we haven't been intrinsically hurt by the aggies joining the SEC, then that means there is nothing to stop us from getting better and beating them. If they got stronger by eating food off of our plate, then it is going to be hard to near impossible for us to get strong enough to defend our food and get strong enough to beat them. However, if they simply were allowed to eat more food at the table but our ability to eat more food was unchanged, then there's nothing to keep us from being stronger than them.

It's also important to look at the actual results. A lot of razorback fans look at the 5-0 in the past 5 years as something similar to our ability to beat Bama. Deifying the aggies to a certain degree. That is not an accurate picture whatsoever. Similarly, they remember us being undefeated against them in the SW classic prior to the aggies joining the SEC as if we were dominating them which isn't accurate either.

2009: 28 point margin victory
2010: 7 point victory
2011: 4 point victory
2012: 48 point loss in the year that should be forgotten
2013: 12 point loss, within 5 points in the 4th quarter
2014: 7 point loss, OT
2015: 7 point loss, OT
2016: 19 point loss, within 7 points in the 4th quarter

In the 8 years that we've played them, only 2 games haven't been within 7 points in the 4th quarter, and half of the games have been decided by a final margin of 7 points or less. We could easily be looking at a 1-7 record over the past 8 years against them if you just change 2 plays. We could easily be looking at a 5-3 record against them and being 50/50 under Bielema again by simply changing 2 total plays. A bit more of a stretch but if you throw in the philosophy changes of playcalling and momentum swings in games, you could argue that changing 4 plays could have us be 7-1 versus them given that even the non-OT losses were still one possession games in the 4th quarter.

Point being, aggies are not some dragon after coming into the SEC that we have to slay. They were neck and neck with us in recent years before joining the SEC, they have been neck and neck with us since joining the SEC.

[bphi11ips]

They were not in the SEC and didn't make a major push to open their wallets.

I didn't realize A&M alums never cared about football until now.  You learn something new every day. 

[Wildhog]

It isn't all relative though.

Lets say that Oklahoma gets added to the SEC this season and Oklahoma and Bama for the next decade win 11-12 games each every single season but we improve to winning 9-10 games every single season.

Did adding Oklahoma hurt us in that scenario? Relatively speaking, absolutely they did. Now, instead of being 3rd-5th in our division most years with the occasional second and rarer 1st, we'd now be 4th-6th most years with an occasional 3rd and never higher. Relatively speaking, we would definitely be worse off. However, winning 9-10 games each and every season would undoubtably be an improvement for the hogs.

Again, it goes back to working out with Arnold and The Rock. You will become a much stronger individual but relatively speaking, you will be weaker than you were before because you'd be surrounded by those even stronger.

So, there absolutely is a difference between being intrinsically hurt versus being relatively hurt. But why make such a big deal about the distinction? It's simple. If we haven't been intrinsically hurt by the aggies joining the SEC, then that means there is nothing to stop us from getting better and beating them. If they got stronger by eating food off of our plate, then it is going to be hard to near impossible for us to get strong enough to defend our food and get strong enough to beat them. However, if they simply were allowed to eat more food at the table but our ability to eat more food was unchanged, then there's nothing to keep us from being stronger than them.

It's also important to look at the actual results. A lot of razorback fans look at the 5-0 in the past 5 years as something similar to our ability to beat Bama. Deifying the aggies to a certain degree. That is not an accurate picture whatsoever. Similarly, they remember us being undefeated against them in the SW classic prior to the aggies joining the SEC as if we were dominating them which isn't accurate either.

2009: 28 point margin victory
2010: 7 point victory
2011: 4 point victory
2012: 48 point loss in the year that should be forgotten
2013: 12 point loss, within 5 points in the 4th quarter
2014: 7 point loss, OT
2015: 7 point loss, OT
2016: 19 point loss, within 7 points in the 4th quarter

In the 8 years that we've played them, only 2 games haven't been within 7 points in the 4th quarter, and half of the games have been decided by a final margin of 7 points or less. We could easily be looking at a 1-7 record over the past 8 years against them if you just change 2 plays. We could easily be looking at a 5-3 record against them and being 50/50 under Bielema again by simply changing 2 total plays. A bit more of a stretch but if you throw in the philosophy changes of playcalling and momentum swings in games, you could argue that changing 4 plays could have us be 7-1 versus them given that even the non-OT losses were still one possession games in the 4th quarter.

Point being, aggies are not some dragon after coming into the SEC that we have to slay. They were neck and neck with us in recent years before joining the SEC, they have been neck and neck with us since joining the SEC.

They've beaten us five straight years.  In conference play so far, they are an auto-loss.  Write as many words as you want, but them joining the SEC was bad for us.

[ChicoHog]

Apparently 2.5 million people tuned in to watch that game last season so I guess that includes your "43".

LSU-A&M only drew 2.8 million as the lone CFB game on Thanksgiving Day.

They were up against an NFL game which is a huge draw.  We also had some competition in our time slot and there were probably 1-15 games played sometime that Friday.  But I guarantee you LSU/A&M would out draw Arkansas/Missouri every day of the week.   

[niels_boar]

They've beaten us five straight years.  In conference play so far, they are an auto-loss.  Write as many words as you want, but them joining the SEC was bad for us.

Not beating them does not mean that we shouldn't have.  A&M hasn't had a winning record in the SEC since 2012.  In that time LSU has been a better football team than A&M, and we have beaten the Tigers twice.  In order to beat, say, Bama we have to play our best and get a few breaks.  In order to beat A&M we need to not trip an Aggie when our RB is thirty yards down the field.  Our record against A&M has been more about our stumbling starts in the Bielema era, followed by strong finishes, coupled with fast starts by A&M under Sumlin, followed by face plants.  If the A&M and LSU dates were switched, we might be winless against LSU over that time with three or four wins over A&M.

[GuvHog]

They've beaten us five straight years.  In conference play so far, they are an auto-loss.  Write as many words as you want, but them joining the SEC was bad for us.

The last 3 years the Hogs beat themselves in Arlington more than the Aggies beat them.

[caveman]

Ever since Arkansas joined the SEC in 1992, it has been an exciting ride. Now every game is like Texas/Arkansas , no cream puffs on our schedule. In the old SWC there may be one other team that would give Ark problems, it was mainly Tx/Ar when it come down to the SWC championship.

[bennyl08]

They've beaten us five straight years.  In conference play so far, they are an auto-loss.  Write as many words as you want, but them joining the SEC was bad for us.

Sure. Your slanted opinion trumps actual facts.

[Wildhog]

Sure. Your slanted opinion trumps actual facts.

I can make more than a few arguments that TAMU joining the SEC was bad for us.  You can twist facts to defend against some of them (to a point.)

However, you can't make one (non-financial) argument that it was good for us.

I never said it was devastating, but it certainly hurt us more than it helped us.  Which you've admitted.  So I'm not sure what we're doing here.

[bennyl08]

I can make more than a few arguments that TAMU joining the SEC was bad for us.  You can twist facts to defend against them (to a point.)

However, you can't make one (non-financial) argument that it was good for us.

Then why haven't you? I'd love to hear your actual arguments rather than simply you stating that you are right and others are wrong without demonstrating why.

What facts have I twisted? That we were neck and neck with the aggies before they joined the SEC, and that we've been neck and neck with them since they joined the SEC? They are no more a "sure loss" than MSU is.

[bennyl08]

I never said it was devastating, but it certainly hurt us more than it helped us.  Which you've admitted.  So I'm not sure what we're doing here.

When did I admit that it hurt us more than it helped us?

I fully admit it helped them more than it helped us. With their move to the SEC helping them but being having essentially zero impact on our program.

[Wildhog]

Then why haven't you? I'd love to hear your actual arguments rather than simply you stating that you are right and others are wrong without demonstrating why.

What facts have I twisted? That we were neck and neck with the aggies before they joined the SEC, and that we've been neck and neck with them since they joined the SEC? They are no more a "sure loss" than MSU is.

We were already playing them every year.   Them joining the SEC improved their recruiting.  Therefore, the move made a yearly opponent stronger, while doing (at best) absolutely nothing to help us.

There's one.

[bennyl08]

We were already playing them every year.   Them joining the SEC improved their recruiting.  Therefore, the move made a yearly opponent stronger, while doing (at best) absolutely nothing to help us.

There's one.

How is that one? You showed it help them, and they were and are a yearly opponent. That doesn't show our program being hurt though.

Have we been less able to pull in the talent that we want from Texas? Has our recruiting suffered? Has our ability to hire coaches suffered? Has our talent suffered? Has our ability to improve our own program actually been impacted in any way by the aggie move? Other than we have more money to upgrade our facilities, hire better coaches, etc...

[Wildhog]

How is that one? You showed it help them, and they were and are a yearly opponent. That doesn't show our program being hurt though.

Have we been less able to pull in the talent that we want from Texas? Has our recruiting suffered? Has our ability to hire coaches suffered? Has our talent suffered? Has our ability to improve our own program actually been impacted in any way by the aggie move? Other than we have more money to upgrade our facilities, hire better coaches, etc...

Because we're in the same division.  If it helps them and does nothing to help us, it's a net negative.   This isn't complicated.  Just another big time program to compete against in the West. 

[bennyl08]

Because we're in the same division.  If it helps them and does nothing to help us, it's a net negative.   This isn't complicated.  Just another big time program to compete against in the West.

We've been over this before but I'll explain it to you again.

The relative impact has zero importance long term and is entirely dependent on the circumstances at that point in time.

For example, what is the impact of not having an adequate run game? Clearly, it is a net benefit. Why? Our best finish in decades in the final standings was in 2011 when we had a crappy run game. The results don't lie. Those are the facts. Best finish came with a bad run game. Therefore, relatively speaking, having no run game is an improvement.

Of course, there were a crap ton of other factors involved. I'm sure you can make a ton of arguments of how we could have done even better than we did in 2011 if we did have an adequate run game. How not being balanced on offense is intrinsically a disadvantage. However, you can't argue that our best finish in a generation came with a very unbalanced offense.

Relative hurt/benefit is not a very useful measuring stick. Arkansas has unquestionably been relatively hurt by the aggies joining the SEC. Anybody arguing otherwise I'd love to hear that argument. However, coastal carolina transitioning right now to be an FBS school instead of an FCS school relatively hurts our program. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. Them moving up to FBS hurts the hogs in 2017. Absolutely true, however, absolutely meaningless as well.

What matters is whether or not our ability to improve ourselves has been altered. I'm still waiting on an argument from somebody in favor of that. The actual results from the games have been very telling. We've had one year where we spanked them. They've had one year where they spanked us. There have been 6 games where the outcome could have gone either way.

[Wildhog]

We've been over this before but I'll explain it to you again.

The relative impact has zero importance long term and is entirely dependent on the circumstances at that point in time.

For example, what is the impact of not having an adequate run game? Clearly, it is a net benefit. Why? Our best finish in decades in the final standings was in 2011 when we had a crappy run game. The results don't lie. Those are the facts. Best finish came with a bad run game. Therefore, relatively speaking, having no run game is an improvement.

Of course, there were a crap ton of other factors involved. I'm sure you can make a ton of arguments of how we could have done even better than we did in 2011 if we did have an adequate run game. How not being balanced on offense is intrinsically a disadvantage. However, you can't argue that our best finish in a generation came with a very unbalanced offense.

Relative hurt/benefit is not a very useful measuring stick. Arkansas has unquestionably been relatively hurt by the aggies joining the SEC. Anybody arguing otherwise I'd love to hear that argument. However, coastal carolina transitioning right now to be an FBS school instead of an FCS school relatively hurts our program. No ifs, ands, or buts about that. Them moving up to FBS hurts the hogs in 2017. Absolutely true, however, absolutely meaningless as well.

What matters is whether or not our ability to improve ourselves has been altered. I'm still waiting on an argument from somebody in favor of that. The actual results from the games have been very telling. We've had one year where we spanked them. They've had one year where they spanked us. There have been 6 games where the outcome could have gone either way.

That's a lot to type to say absolutely nothing that backs up your point or disproves mine.

[Peter Porker]

I can make more than a few arguments that TAMU joining the SEC was bad for us.  You can twist facts to defend against some of them (to a point.)

However, you can't make one (non-financial) argument that it was good for us.

I never said it was devastating, but it certainly hurt us more than it helped us.  Which you've admitted.  So I'm not sure what we're doing here.

If it helps them then it hurts us. bottom line.

[EastexHawg]

Excuse making.  It's the new excelling.

[Wildhog]

Excuse making.  It's the new excelling.

Wait.  You think I'm making excuses?

[ricepig]

Seriously, what does it matter, it's not like there is, or was anything we can/could have done about it. They're on the schedule, lets try and beat them like the rest.

[GuvHog]

If it helps them then it hurts us. bottom line.

It helped the Aggies in their recruiting against the Longhorns, they are getting players the Longhorns would have gotten if the Aggies had stayed in the Big 12.

It hasn't hurt the Hogs recruiting because the Hogs recruiting in Texas had already started to decline some after the Hogs joined the SEC so the Hogs have increased their recruiting in other states like Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida. As a result, they are getting players from those other states that they would not have gotten if they had stayed in the SWC which offsets the recruits they no longer get from Texas.

[Wildhog]

Seriously, what does it matter, it's not like there is, or was anything we can/could have done about it. They're on the schedule, lets try and beat them like the rest.

I'm with you.

[GuvHog]

Seriously, what does it matter, it's not like there is, or was anything we can/could have done about it. They're on the schedule, lets try and beat them like the rest.

100% agree! Well said!

[EastexHawg]

Wait.  You think I'm making excuses?

I think this entire thread, like so much of Razorback fandom over the last several years, is full of excuse making.  Other programs can turn their fortunes on a dime.  Other programs benefit from SEC membership.  Other programs have seemingly countless advantages.  Meanwhile, we have no such capabilities or advantages.  The deck is stacked against us.

It's all a huge conspiracy.

[Wildhog]

I think this entire thread, like so much of Razorback fandom over the last several years, is full of excuse making.  Other programs can turn their fortunes on a dime.  Other programs benefit from SEC membership.  Other programs have seemingly countless advantages.  Meanwhile, we have no such capabilities or advantages.  The deck is stacked against us.

It's all a huge conspiracy.

Adding A&M to the West was bad for us.  If we ever add OU, that'll be bad for us, too. That doesn't excuse CBB's record here.  That's just a fact. 

[HiggiePiggy]

Before Texas A&M joined the SEC it was recruiting on par with Arkansas. Now that they are in the SEC our recruiting hasn't changed, but they have gone up a lot compared to what they were before and now it puts 4 teams in the west thst out recruit Arkansas every single year. So out of 7 teams we fight ole miss and Mississippi State for the 5th spot. 

So has it hurt our recruiting. No because we still average about the same as we have for the last decade or more. It just made our opponent a lot higher in recruiting.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Before Texas A&M joined the SEC it was recruiting on par with Arkansas. Now that they are in the SEC our recruiting hasn't changed, but they have gone up a lot compared to what they were before and now it puts 4 teams in the west thst out recruit Arkansas every single year.

I'm going to attribute that to two things: 1) Sumlin is a far better recruiter than Mike Sherman, 2) Texas lost a lot of their luster with their downturn in wins, which opened the door for A&M to be a destination for the better Texas high school players.

Joining the SEC may have helped to some degree, but I think the removal of Sherman, the addition of Sumlin (already heavily entrenched in Texas HS recruiting) and the downturn of Texas contributed to their better recruiting classes to a greater degree than joining the SEC. It really was a perfect storm for A&M. But that is also why Sumlin is in trouble now. No one down there understands why they haven't competed for the West with the classes that they have landed.

[HognitiveDissonance]

I wonder how we managed to kick their butt for so many years.

The game-changer was Aggies leaving Texas.
No longer are they tied to Texas; no longer are they Texas's little brother.
A&M is their own man now, in their own league. It's the best move they've ever made. They're the only school in Texas that can recruit the state of Texas and offer those recruits a chance to play in the SEC.

Aggies in the SWC - second fiddle to 'Horns. Easier win for Ark
Aggies in the SEC - totally different ballgame

[Hollywood870]

It's been five full seasons since TAMU has been a member of the SEC. How much has TAMU joining the SEC hurt the Hogs in your opinion?

Didn't seem to bother Bobby P. Had nothing to do with us squandering away the last two ballgames in the 4th qtr either. Need to beat them this year. It is the must win game on the schedule.

[bphi11ips]

The game-changer was Aggies leaving Texas.
No longer are they tied to Texas; no longer are they Texas's little brother.
A&M is their own man now, in their own league. It's the best move they've ever made. They're the only school in Texas that can recruit the state of Texas and offer those recruits a chance to play in the SEC.

Aggies in the SWC - second fiddle to 'Horns. Easier win for Ark
Aggies in the SEC - totally different ballgame

I agree with this.  Just don't agree the Aggies joining the SEC hurts Arkansas.  It helps the Aggies . That is all. Joining the SEC helped Arkansas.  We have a better football team because of it.

Everything is not a zero sum game.  Head-to-head competition? Yes.  Program to program?  No. 

[Hawghiggs]

Ever since Arkansas joined the SEC in 1992, it has been an exciting ride. Now every game is like Texas/Arkansas , no cream puffs on our schedule. In the old SWC there may be one other team that would give Ark problems, it was mainly Tx/Ar when it come down to the SWC championship.

Have you seen our schedule? We basically play 3 FCS programs this season.

[bennyl08]

That's a lot to type to say absolutely nothing that backs up your point or disproves mine.

Then you clearly didn't read anything.

Why don't you go sit in the shade and enjoy being a darksider.

I'm going to enjoy the summer sun and be excited for the upcoming seasons.

[Peter Porker]

I agree with this.  Just don't agree the Aggies joining the SEC hurts Arkansas.  It helps the Aggies . That is all. Joining the SEC helped Arkansas.  We have a better football team because of it.

Everything is not a zero sum game.  Head-to-head competition? Yes.  Program to program?  No.

If it helps them then it hurts us. How is this so hard to understand? If we are at war with another country and that country gets help, you don't think it hurts us?

[GuvHog]

If it helps them then it hurts us. How is this so hard to understand? If we are at war with another country and that country gets help, you don't think it hurts us?

Bad analogy. The Aggies recruiting improved (at the Longhorns expense) when they joined the SEC but the Hogs recruiting did not decline when the Aggies joined the SEC. Therefore while the Aggies helped themselves, they did not hurt Arkansas. Arkansas has hurt themselves more than the Aggies could ever hurt the Hogs.

[HiggiePiggy]

Bad analogy. The Aggies recruiting improved (at the Longhorns expense) when they joined the SEC but the Hogs recruiting did not decline when the Aggies joined the SEC. Therefore while the Aggies helped themselves, they did not hurt Arkansas. Arkansas has hurt themselves more than the Aggies could ever hurt the Hogs.

It hurt Arkansas by having now 4 teams that out recruit them every year compared to having only 3.  Before joining the SEC Texas A&Ms recruiting was pretty close to Arkansas. Now it's way above it.  So yes it did put another team that out recruits Arkansas every single year.  So is having 3 teams that out recruit us every single year better than 4? Texas A&M can now play sloppy and because of talent are able to over come their mistakes and beat us unlike us overcoming our mistakes and being able to pull out a win over them since joining the SEC.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

If it helps them then it hurts us. How is this so hard to understand? If we are at war with another country and that country gets help, you don't think it hurts us?

Aside from us blowing games against them that we should have won, how else has their addition to the SEC hurt us?

[Wildhog]

Aside from us blowing games against them that we should have won, how else has their addition to the SEC hurt us?

It made a yearly opponent better.  If nothing else, that's a negative for us.

[cosmodrum]

The last 3 years the Hogs beat themselves in Arlington more than the Aggies beat them.

so, 5 times in a row, then?

[Wildhog]

so, 5 times in a row, then?

Last time we beat A&M I wasn't married yet.

[cosmodrum]

Last time we beat A&M I wasn't married yet.

You mean the happiest day of your life?

Except for, well...

[Wildhog]

You mean the happiest day of your life?

Except for, well...

I remember being on honeymoon and hearing an Ohio Bobcats fan talking s*** about the Hogs. 

[MuskogeeHogFan]

It made a yearly opponent better.  If nothing else, that's a negative for us.

Again, joining the SEC has helped them financially but the two things that have helped them the most since 2012 has been the fact that Sumlin is a far better recruiter than Sherman was and Texas being very average really helped A&M's recruiting. Talent wise, A&M has gotten better but it hasn't hurt us. We blew games against them that we should have won, even with less perceived talent. We hurt ourselves in that regard. Everything isn't just black and white.

[Wildhog]

Again, joining the SEC has helped them financially but the two things that have helped them the most since 2012 has been the fact that Sumlin is a far better recruiter than Sherman was and Texas being very average really helped A&M's recruiting. Talent wise, A&M has gotten better but it hasn't hurt us. We blew games against them that we should have won, even with less perceived talent. We hurt ourselves in that regard. Everything isn't just black and white.

Not only is Sumlin a good recruiter, but the SEC is a major draw.  You're not actually going to sit there and tell me that joining the SEC didn't help their recruiting, are you?  Please tell me you're not.

[MuskogeeHogFan]

Not only is Sumlin a good recruiter, but the SEC is a major draw.  You're not actually going to sit there and tell me that joining the SEC didn't help their recruiting, are you?  Please tell me you're not.

What I am trying to tell you is that if you go back and look at the number of 5 star, 4 star and 3 star players that they were signing and compare that to the time frame that Texas started losing and how their same numbers dropped, and compare that to the same number of ranked players acquired by other big name teams in Texas, you'll see that it probably had more to do with the Texas downfall than anything else. Now of course, joining the SEC may have helped to some degree, but the truth is that neither of our points of view are easy to prove. From my side of it, it might have been easier to prove had Sumlin not shown up the exact same year that they began to play in the SEC.

Just as an example, look at 4 years prior to Sumlin and the next 4 years with him at the helm.

                       TX A&M                      Texas
                 5 Stars     4 Stars      5 Stars      4 Stars
2008               0             5             0              14
2009               1             4             2              12
2010               0             4             4              13
2011               0             3             2              12

2012               2             7             2              17
2013               0            11            1               8
2014               1             8             0               7
2015               2            11            1               9                     

[Wildhog]

What I am trying to tell you is that if you go back and look at the number of 5 star, 4 star and 3 star players that they were signing and compare that to the time frame that Texas started losing and how their same numbers dropped, and compare that to the same number of ranked players acquired by other big name teams in Texas, you'll see that it probably had more to do with the Texas downfall than anything else. Now of course, joining the SEC may have helped to some degree, but the truth is that neither of our points of view are easy to prove. From my side of it, it might have been easier to prove had Sumlin not shown up the exact same year that they began to play in the SEC.

Just as an example, look at 4 years prior to Sumlin and the next 4 years with him at the helm.

                       TX A&M                      Texas
                 5 Stars     4 Stars      5 Stars      4 Stars
2008               0             5             0              14
2009               1             4             2              12
2010               0             4             4              13
2011               0             3             2              12

2012               2             7             2              17
2013               0            11            1               8
2014               1             8             0               7
2015               2            11            1               9                     

The SEC is a greater recruiting draw than the Big 12.  You can point to Sumlin, or the downfall of Texas as much as you want.  It doesn't change the fact that it's easier to recruit to the SEC than it is the Big 12. 


And your post doesn't do anything to disprove that.  Really, it only helps my case.  So... thanks?

[MuskogeeHogFan]

The SEC is a greater recruiting draw than the Big 12.  You can point to Sumlin, or the downfall of Texas as much as you want.  It doesn't change the fact that it's easier to recruit to the SEC than it is the Big 12. 


And your post doesn't do anything to disprove that.  Really, it only helps my case.  So... thanks?

Read more...as I said, there isn't anything to really prove or disprove either of our points.