I could envision a scenario where A&M explored being in the PAC or B1G just to keep our options open, but that doesn’t mean it was ever going to happen. The University of Texas, and Texas A&M, at their core, are just very different institutions. At least they are to my eye. Just because one wants something doesn’t mean the other wants the same thing.
I never read or heard anything from any kind of media or news or even fan sites that made me think UT, it’s leaders and it’s fans, wanted to be in the SEC. Even now, I’m not sure I detect much true excitement from anybody who is truly associated with UT. Most of the Longhorn posters on here seem kinda ambivalent about it, like they knew it was an eventuality that’s is just accepted rather than welcomed.
For A&M, to me, it seems just the opposite. Our fans were excited to be in the SEC, if not a little scared due to the high level of competition. But, despite some bumpy rides along the way, I’d say we’re pretty happy with how we’ve competed here relative to our history and the level of our competitors.
Yes, Texas fans don't view the SEC as a brotherhood they longed to join. Conferences might have been that way 50 years ago but ever since the Georgia/OU court decision in 1984 it's been all about business. Penn State didn't join the Big Ten in 1991 because they thought they were joining a brotherhood of like-minded fellow fans, they joined because the Big Ten offered them more money. Arkansas didn't leave the SWC in 1992 because they thought the SEC was their destiny, they left because the SEC offered them more money. Missouri didn't even want the SEC, they wanted the B1G, but they left for the SEC anyway, because the SEC offered them more money. And then think of ALL of the smaller schools shifting conferences, moving up from the G5 conferences into the P4 conferences. West Virginia didn't join the B12 because it was emotionally invested, they joined for more money and exposure. Same for Cincy, Houston, TCU, BYU. Maryland left the ACC not because it desperately wanted to play games in the Rust Belt, they left for the promise of more money. Same for Rutgers to the b1G, plus countless other schools shifting around amongst the G5 conferences.
Honestly A&M is an outlier here, and I understand why. A&M wanted to move away from UT's shadow and believed that staying in the same conference ultimately worked against its long-term interest, so the A&M administration made a change. Aggie fans wanted a place to belong that felt more like their own. I think it was the right decision for A&M at the time and for the most part it worked out for the Ags. But I think it's a bit misplaced, or out of touch with reality, to think that all of the other schools switching conferences, are doing it because they long for a sense of belonging. I think the Ags are pretty unique in that aspect.
But don't misunderstand our lack of some burning desire to join the SEC, for being unhappy about it. I'm excited about the new matchups, I'm excited to be reunited with longtime rivals Arkansas and A&M on an annual basis (hopefully). As you said, many of us felt this move was inevitable, because the B12 contracts were never ultimately going to be able to keep pace with the B1G and SEC contracts, and geographically the SEC makes more sense than the B1G for Texas. This is the new landscape of college football, such as it is.
