TXAG 05 said:

---

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

Honestly, I would have preferred Vandy for the road trip to Nashville or Auburn just for being the school that seems most like A&M (IMO), but Mizzou is ok with me.

---

We will still have those, just not as often.

A lot of people on here are acting like Texas, LSU, and Mizzou are the only teams we will play every year. We will be playing 6 other SEC teams every year.

---

Texags is just texag'ing

Texas is going to own them too.

CC00 said:

---

Texas' most logical 3 are OU, A&M, and Arkansas. It's one of the easiest teams to set the 3 opponents for. I don't see how they would be matched with anyone else. So I doubt Jerry had anything to do with it.

Also, any time its said that someone with the ego of Jerry Jones is effectively afraid to play someone, I tune out.



Also also - for A&M, Texas and LSU are obvious. I think we are forever tied to Missouri because we came into the SEC together. While we never associated ourselves with them, the rest of the SEC sees us as linked because of that.

---

They came in after us…

Btw: this is the official public rationale why Colombia which is further than Fayetteville and whom we have played much less than the 81 games against Arkansas was justified:

"Annual Opponents (Traditional Rivalries)
Annual opponents were determined based on these factors:
o Traditional rivalries
Final week matchups (i.e., Alabama-Auburn, Ole Miss-Miss. State)
Neutral site games (i.e., Oklahoma-Texas, Florida-Georgia)
Historical long-time series (i.e., Auburn-Georgia, LSU-Ole Miss)
10 matchups among annual opponents in the new schedule have
been played more than 100 times
o Additional considerations
Competitive Fairness
Geography
Avg. distance of annual opponents is 281 miles (4-hour drive)
80 pct. of annual opponents are in same or contiguous state
Alignment with Non-Conference Home/Away commitments
Annual opponents will be evaluated after each four-year cycle to maintain continued
competitive balance"

https://www.secsports.com/championships/2026-2029-sec-football-opponents-reveal

There's an argument to be made that we got the rougher end of the bargain here. Mizzou has been good under Drinkwitz. Whatever tho, just win. You're going to have to win tough games no matter who you are to compete for titles.

I dunno if Arky fans would have preferred having us vs LSU? Maybe a mix of opinions on that from them. I believe most of us would have preferred Arkansas from a history of rivalry viewpoint vs Mizzou

The Collective said:

---

Texas is going to own them too.

---

Unless it becomes borderline erotic.

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Sbisa Chef said:

---

Not sure how pairing two losers is a win for the TV markets.

tu vs ark doesn't make sense.
us vs mizz doesn't make sense.

mizz doesn't make sense period. they should go back to the big xii.

---

i dont see why you dont think ARK vs t.u. doesnt make sense

They were HUGE rival for Arkansas at one point in time

---

They played each other several times when the SWC title was on the line and at one point it was #1 vs #2. National title implications

It's interesting how we have the same permanent opponents as Arkansas. Also, both Alabama and Vanderbilt have Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State as their permanent opponents. In addition, both Missouri and Texas have Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M as their permanent opponents.

I knew Texas and LSU would be our permanent opponents, but the 3rd annual opponent would be a crapshoot. I was hoping it would be Arkansas or Mississippi State, but I am fine with having Missouri as our 3rd annual opponent. Missouri joined the SEC at the same time as we did, and they were our annual cross-division opponent in our first two years in the SEC before the SEC swapped Missouri for South Carolina as our annual cross-division opponent and South Carolina for Missouri for Arkansas in 2014.

jturner181 said:

---

Jerry Jones asked for Arkie to replace A&M with Texas… influenced the school, conference office, and networks to make this happen.

Apparently he/others feels that losing to A&M have set them back quite a bit, and winning doesn't bring them the same value as beating Texas.

So much like beating Bama or ND means more, so does tu according to Mr Jones.

So that is the "why" behind us getting Mizzou; similar TV market as Arkie, with similar projections on ratings, etc. Conference office agreed…

---

Let me explain how this doesn't make sense

1) "Jerry Jones asked for Arkie to replace A&M with Texas… influenced the school, conference office…. To make this happen"

- OK so their going in position was Texas and the rest don't matter? You know there are three permanent games right?


2)"Apparently he/others feels that losing to A&M has set them back…"

- Did Jerry not just hear the Arkansas AD come out and say Arkansas doesn't have the money to compete in football in the SEC. Seems like he should start his investigation there and not scheduling. I wonder where Arkansas could get more money?

3) "Winning doesn't bring the same value as Texas"

- See point #1, plus wait to see what a win (or loss) to Missouri does, compared to A&M.


I bet he didn't say this and if he did he should see that there is no hiding in the SEC.

Iraq2xVeteran said:

---

It's interesting how we have the same permanent opponents as Arkansas. Also, both Alabama and Vanderbilt have Auburn, Tennessee, Mississippi State as their permanent opponents. In addition, both Missouri and Texas have Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas A&M as their permanent opponents.

I knew Texas and LSU would be our permanent opponents, but the 3rd annual opponent would be a crapshoot. I was hoping it would be Arkansas or Mississippi State, but I am fine with having Missouri as our 3rd annual opponent. Missouri joined the SEC at the same time as we did, and they were our annual cross-division opponent in our first two years in the SEC before the SEC swapped Missouri for South Carolina as our annual cross-division opponent and South Carolina for Missouri for Arkansas in 2014.

---

…for the next four years…

If its true. Jerry Jones is implying,

1. If we're going to lose, it should be to Texas
2. If you win it needs to be to a blueblood

He doesn't like getting slapped around by a program he thinks is equal or below Arkansas.

He loves high risk, high reward scenarios

Aggie Dad 26 said:

---

If its true. Jerry Jones is implying,

1. If we're going to lose, it should be to Texas
2. If you win it needs to be to a blueblood

He doesn't like getting slapped around by a program he thinks is equal or below Arkansas.

He loves high risk, paper gain reward scenarios

---

FIFY!!!

The Banned said:

---

TXAG 05 said:

---

Sgt. Schultz said:

---

Honestly, I would have preferred Vandy for the road trip to Nashville or Auburn just for being the school that seems most like A&M (IMO), but Mizzou is ok with me.

---

We will still have those, just not as often.

A lot of people on here are acting like Texas, LSU, and Mizzou are the only teams we will play every year. We will be playing 6 other SEC teams every year.

---

I think this is spot on. We play everybody every other year. The difference between every year and every other is pretty painless.

---

Agree! The mix of teams over 4 years is awesome.
I really hate playing the same exact opponents in back to back years.

Hank the Grifter said:

---

CC00 said:

---

I don't know that its true, just what I think based on conversations here in Alabama.

Also Arkansas and SC have been in the SEC for almost 35 years now. I think that's long enough for them to be considered 'not new'.

Not to mention that A&M and Missouri moving to the SEC was the first big conference move (since the formation of the Big12) in a continuing chain of changes that has ended up with where we are now.

---

I would quibble with this but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter. They're ours for the next 4 years regardless.

---

It's definitely a quibble-able comment because a few other moves preceded us.

I think we're all just bummed to be stuck with Mizzou.
But the SEC had to give them to someone…

Who cares.. they can't consistently beat many SEC schools and never will.

Even Vandy has passed them by

So rather than adding more to their nil, facilities, or coach contracts, Jerry shelled out cash for Arky to lose sip every year instead of us?


He sure showed us whats what, didn't he?

We cancelled his shindig after all…

Playing a game in Columbia every other year is probably better for our recruiting than playing in Fayetteville.
And probably just about as difficult to win in Fayetteville as at Columbia.

Mizzou will never be a true riival but no use whining.

Like it or not Arkansas and tu have a very heated rivalry. Especially before they left the SWC. That goes way back. 1969 game anyone?

Whether he did this or not, it's not surprising. They are one of their main rivals from way back.

Lots of people have very short memories and/or not understanding history.

Maroon Flash said:

---

Playing a game in Columbia every other year is probably better for our recruiting than playing in Fayetteville.
And probably just about as difficult to win in Fayetteville as at Columbia.

Mizzou will never be a true riival but no use whining.

---

With their notoriety and position in the Midwest we should be able to go basketball recruiting better? They're ALMOST a Bg Ten school right???

I feel bad for the students at Arkansas, who will now have to replace "Driving To Arlington 101" and "Driving Back Home 201" in their graduate level curriculum with something much more difficult, possibly "Driving to Austin 101".

Aggie Dad 26 said:

---

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Sbisa Chef said:

---

Not sure how pairing two losers is a win for the TV markets.

tu vs ark doesn't make sense.
us vs mizz doesn't make sense.

mizz doesn't make sense period. they should go back to the big xii.

---

i dont see why you dont think ARK vs t.u. doesnt make sense

They were HUGE rival for Arkansas at one point in time

---

They played each other several times when the SWC title was on the line and at one point it was #1 vs #2. National title implications

---

SunrayAg said:

---

I said weeks ago that Missouri wanted us, and was shouted down by the peanut gallery…

Missouri wants to play us regularly to have a recruiting presence in Texas.

Missouri requested us.

---

Who teams requested for their top 2 choices had a lot more to do with this than who teams wanted for a third choice

The likely scenario that played out is probably that tu requested us and oU for top 2, we requested tu and lsu, ark requested tu and lsu and mizzou requested us and either ark or ou

annie88 said:

---

Like it or not Arkansas and tu have a very heated rivalry. Especially before they left the SWC. That goes way back. 1969 game anyone?

Whether he did this or not, it's not surprising. They are one of their main rivals from way back.

Lots of people have very short memories and/or not understanding history.

---

I know it's not on the same level rivalry-wise, but it reminds me of when Ags and LSU fans ignore the history between the two schools despite having played 60+ times.

Honestly, over it.

Really, all SEC schools really only have two "rivals" at most, thus just calling it "permanent" (but could change) "opponents" (not rivals).

I really don't care about Jones, Arky, or even tu. So this thread turned out to be a big nothing burger to me. I didn't even realize until this thread Arky went to tu. But it actually makes more sense than us anyway. While both tu and A&M probably have played about the same number of games, the games were more heated between them.

Is our admin completely owned by tu? Why do they have to be our permanent rival. The horns have a sick obsession with us.

Wicked Good Ag said:

---

Sbisa Chef said:

---

Not sure how pairing two losers is a win for the TV markets.

tu vs ark doesn't make sense.
us vs mizz doesn't make sense.

mizz doesn't make sense period. they should go back to the big xii.

---

i dont see why you dont think ARK vs t.u. doesnt make sense

They were HUGE rival for Arkansas at one point in time

---

Wicked Good Ag with the triple negative. Is that wicked good or wicked bad? I kid, too many hours in airports and airplanes today, sorry.

No idea if this is true. That said, looking from the ferry fingers perspective, it makes sense. If you are gonna get a shot at tu every year, the Aggie game has no upside.

I can't bring myself to care about Arkansas or Missouri. Texas and LSU were obvious. The third didn't really matter so long as it wasn't Alabama or Georgia. Missouri works just fine since we should have enough resources to beat them regularly. Do you guys actually care about Arkansas?

Jbob04 said:

---

Does Jerry care that much about arky football? Their NIL sucks and he should be the biggest bagman they have

---

I don't think he's permitted to give to NIL as an active NFL owner per league rules. But he does have a large student athlete center named after him on campus with the Cowboys logo on it.

He also contributed Chad Morris…

Piggies have won 4 of the last 6. I approve.

the SEC offices don't care what Jerry thinks or wants.

I probably misunderstood, but it sounds like these "permanent rivals" are only permanent for the next 4 years. Subject to change at that time. Correct? Not correct?

Not so sure how long the current conference structure lasts anyway. Texas will probably be agitating for something better by then and getting pretty close to blowing the whole thing up.

You are correct. Despite the SEC not calling them permanent and saying they are only for 4 years, then reassess, people insist they are permanent.

Some are permanent. We are never not going to play tu. Iron and egg bowl will always happen