Texas' oldest public university stands at a crossroads.

The state's largest public research university, with the nation's seventh largest student enrollment, prepares to make a decision that will affect other universities throughout the country.

Texas A&M has been personally courted by the commissioners of the SEC, PAC 10, and Big 12 conference in the last 48 hours.

But which is the right move for A&M?

Should the school remain in a watered-down Big 12 Minus Two? This seems the least rewarding of the options, as it is a clear step down from where A&M was just a few months ago.

The PAC 16 presents an odd option. Culturally, A&M shares little in common with these schools. While they stand toe-to-toe with Cal-Berkeley in research spending (A&M's $582 million to Cal's $592 million), could two alumni bases be further at odds politically?

Then you throw in other schools that have no commitment to research at all (Oregon at $67 million and Texas Tech at $57 million).

Don't be fooled by claims of academic alignment. The mere inclusion of Texas Tech in the discussion disproves that entire argument.

It's not to say that the cultural differences wouldn't provide some intrigue. A Conservative East division of Arizonans interested in enforcing immigration laws would battle a Liberal West division of Californians interested in abolishing marijuana laws. Imagine the Petrolium Engineering Aggies versus the Prius-driving Beavers.

On a daily basis, how many A&M fans in Dallas and Houston run into USC graduates, or Washington State alumni, or even Arizona football fans?

Compare that to the Razorbacks you know in Dallas. Or the numerous LSU fans in southeast Texas' golden triangle. Or the unusually large contingent of Ole Miss grads that live in the metroplex.

While many of the discussions revolve around money, the bigger discussion should be about exposure. After all... Exposure = Money.

If A&M joins the SEC, it would be the conference's second largest school from an enrollment standpoint behind Florida. Do you really believe the SEC would only televise it's second largest school in 7 of the 13 games it plays per season? That's exactly what the Big 12 accomplished this past season with A&M.

The SEC provides exposure to ALL of its schools, even if the televised coverage area is limited to the southeast.

There would be no guesswork with the SEC, while the PAC16 has provided few public details about the extent of coverage for all of its games.

The time zone difference IS a factor, regardless of how much the PAC16 officials try to downplay it. The late November clash of Oregon vs. Stanford at 9:30PM Central may actually be worth watching when it determines the opponent for the conference championship game.

But who wants to stay up past midnight to watch it? Unlike our Bay Area friends, we take our kids to church on Sunday mornings.

What about the fans? The people who provide the entire structure for the money to flow? Are they more likely to show up for an A&M-LSU tilt or an A&M-Arizona battle?

Will Cal-Berkeley kids fly into College Station in the same number as the hordes driving from Alabama? Doubtful.

The SEC has the advantage culturally, geographically, competitively, and monetarily. We know that our games will be on TV against quality teams with supportive fan bases.

The SEC provides an opportunity for advancement on many levels. A&M should take it.

Am I the only one who doesn't give a rat's *** about political differences?

For the past 14 years, we were in the same conference as Colorado and Texas, two very liberal schools. Missouri is up there too. It doesn't bother me. I consider myself moderate. That doesn't mean I should leave A&M just because I'm not as conservative as most people.

Just for the sake of clarity, the town of Berkeley is much more liberal than UC-Berkeley. That isn't too important, but you even said that schools in the Pac-10 aren't all on the same page politically, such as the AZ schools compared to the CA schools. There are several differences in SEC schools too. Georgia and Vandy are by no means right-wing schools. Auburn and Mississipi State are pretty similar to A&M, but have you been to Ole Miss or Florida?

You're right. SEC football fans are much more passionate. I think A&M would fit in better in the SEC. I personally don't mind sticking out, but that's just me. If we joined the Pac-16, we would only make occassional trips to west coast schools were we to divide the conference up. But this is all beyond my control. If we do somehow end up going west, we'll have to make the best of it.

I'm more concerned with the crappy state of the Big x-lite. Reputation, and post-season opportunities will be diminished.

Oh, The Big 12 its still alive.



But does it deserve to be?

I don't get a couple of things.
1) Why is the big 12 all of a sudden watered down? We lost CU who hasn't been significant in years, and NU who has been in and out of football significance the last 8-10 years. Replace them with a BYU or the like and it is the same conference it was prior to last week. Still probably the 1-3 strongest conference in every sport.

2) I think you are underestimating the foothold that some SEC schools could establish here. We already lose some big fish to LSU, UT, AL, Aub., and FL. I have seen some posts discussing how A&M's recruiting will improve by being able to play these big schools but what about how they might improve by playing a game in Tx every other year or so?

You think BYU can replace Nebraska? Keep smoking the green stuff.

I understand the fear of external forces recruiting our kids.

I doubt there will be any more or less kids flocking to our SECOND opponents. Rather, we are more likely to pick off kids who don't want to listen to OU and play PAC16 ball.

Also, think about it in reverse. What about that kid who is trying to get away from Miami gangs. He may consider an A&M option that will get him away from "the scene" while still allowing Momma to watch him on TV.