Have You Heard the Latest Aggy Joke?

https://www.hornsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/agcorpjoke.jpg

I just couldn’t let the funniest story of past few weeks pass without chuckling about the actions of our farmer friends over in College Station. Texas hires Steve Patterson as their new athletic director, and before he is even formally introduced our friends from Texas A&M are buzzing about the possibility of having the Longhorns put back on their schedule. It says a lot that before the new athletic director is introduced or before he has even reached an employment agreement with the University of Texas, the hot topic among the aggy faithful is whether they will be playing the University of Texas anytime soon. It’s funny in the same way a scorned suitor pines for the possibility of reuniting with a lost love. Funny in the same way any love-hate relationship is funny. Funny in the way they can’t quit talking about UT, and yet sad in how they just can’t let go.

Hope Springs Eternal

In response to the excitement that yet again had the aggy nation thinking their dreams of scheduling the University of Texas in the near future might just come true, TAMU senior associate athletic director Jason Cook was forced to go to the press and remind the forgetful aggys that TAMU had no interest in scheduling Texas again anytime soon, but added “We hope to play them again in a BCS or playoff game at some point.” Last year it was “any time, any where.” This year it’s “no interest.” TAMU needs to take some time and decide how it feels about the subject. Actually, TAMU needs to come to a decision on a number of issues.

As for Cook’s statement to the press, I’m sure he hopes the aggys play the Longhorns in a BCS or playoff game at some point. I’m sure TAMU hopes to have a season good enough that they get to play anyone in a BSC or playoff game at some point. Cook is well aware that the aggys have failed to accomplish much of anything in the BCS era. TAMU has a BCS trophy case that contains fewer trophies than Utah, Kansas or West Virginia. And by fewer, I mean exactly zero. In their BCS trophy case is a single, dusty “Certificate of Effort” received for losing to Ohio State in a game played before Johnny Manziel was even in first grade. TAMU remains the only school in the BCS era to add two national titles to their record yet never win a BCS game. No one is quite sure exactly which trophy case on campus contains the hardware awarded to the school for those national championships.

Nothing But the Best

The all-time funniest statement regarding TAMU and their obsessive desire to schedule the University of Texas still remains that of TAMU regent Tony Buzbee from January 2013: “I think I speak for a great majority of Aggies in the state, that we’ve moved on,” said Houston lawyer Tony Buzbee, an A&M alumni. “We want to play the best in the country and we don’t want to be stuck playing the University of Texas.”

Buzbee’s comment qualifies as award-winning humor for two reasons. First, the claim that TAMU only wants to “play the best.” Since leaving the Big 12 for the SEC, no BCS team has padded their schedule (or their quarterback’s statistics) by feasting on more FCS teams than TAMU. Since TAMU left, Texas has admittedly struggled to a record so far below historic performance and fan expectations that the future employment of their head coach is in grave danger. Texas’ dismal winning percentage during this time frame is .727. Historically, Texas ranks in the all-time top 10 total wins (2nd), all-time winning percentage (5th), total conference championships (8th), bowl games played (2nd), most bowl victories (3rd), total weeks in AP poll (8th) and total weeks in the BCS poll (1st) and holds the NCAA record for most winning seasons. Aggy logic believes this resume doesn’t qualify Texas as one of best teams in NCAA football. That opinion alone should tell you all you need to know about aggy logic.

In 120 years of playing football, Texas A&M has played games against 127 different opponents. Of the schools they have faced 20 or more times, the two schools TAMU has the greatest record of futility against are Texas (.313) and Oklahoma (.387). Texas doesn’t have a losing record against any school it has faced 20 or more times, Oklahoma has a losing record against one school it has faced 20 or more times — the University of Texas. A glance at TAMU’s SEC-era schedule shows powerhouses such as Missouri, Louisiana Tech, Ole Miss, UTEP, Vanderbilt, Auburn and Mississippi State, teams against which they have a lifetime .818 winning record (add in FCS creampuffs every year and they guarantee themselves consistent winning seasons). Against the teams they quit playing in the Big 12 — Texas, Oklahoma, Texas Tech, Kansas State and Oklahoma State — they had a lifetime .425 winning record (hence the reason they struggled most years to even become bowl eligible). TAMU’s lifetime winning percentage is .602, 22nd among FBS schools.

TAMU claims they don’t want to play Texas any more because they want to play “the best.” Their words don’t match their actions. They drop teams they have historically struggled against to load up on FCS schools and play an overall much easier schedule. In 23 games since leaving the Big 12, TAMU has faced a grand total of two teams that have lost fewer games than Texas — Alabama and Oklahoma, and I don’t think TAMU can honestly claim they left the Big 12 because they wanted to play Oklahoma. Planned games against USC and Oregon have mysteriously disappeared from future schedules. Lots of talk about playing the best; not much action. In all fairness, I should note their schedule isn’t entirely composed of below-average programs. They do face top-notch SEC programs. Five games so far against top SEC schools — Florida, LSU, Alabama in 2012 and Alabama and Auburn in 2013 — and TAMU is an impressive 1-4.

From the Beginning

While the suggestion that TAMU has an unquenchable desire to “play the best” qualifies as mild humor, the state statement that “we’ve moved on” is an outright aggy joke. Before we talk about why his statement is such a joke, lets look back at the roots of the relationship between Texas and TAMU.

In 1858, in establishing the University of Texas, the 7th Texas Legislature passed, and on February 11, 1858, the Texas Governor signed, O.B. 102 that stated:

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That there is hereby established, within the state, an Institution of learning, to be styled “The University of Texas.”

Eighteen years later in 1876, just prior to the founding of TAMU, Texas adopted its current Constitution which states (Article 7, Section 13):

The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, established by an Act of the Legislature passed April 17th, 1871, located in the county of Brazos, is hereby made, and constituted a Branch of the University of Texas

No educated person can reasonably claim that the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas was constituted as anything other than a branch of the University of Texas (unless they wanted to be met with howls of laughter).

In 1915 and 1919, constitutional amendments were put before the voters to separate the Agricultural and Mechanical College from the University. Both were rejected by overwhelming margins. By 1925, the legislators had given up on legally separating the branch agricultural college from the University (and allowing the ag college “to move on”). Instead, they settled for functionally dividing the governance of the ag college while retaining its status as a branch of the University of Texas. This was clarified in Title 49 of the Texas Revised Civil Statutes where the legislature, after attending matters regarding to the University of Texas as a whole, addressed the status of the Agricultural and Mechanical College. The section addressing the ag college began with Art. 2607, subheaded “Branch of University” and states:

The Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas, located in Brazos County, and by the Constitution made and constituted a branch of the University of Texas …”

Having reaffirmed the legal status of the branch agricultural college, they moved to Article 2610, subheaded “The Board of Directors.” Here the legislature stated the branch agricultural college would be controlled by a Board of Directors (distinctly different from the more prestigious Board of Regents that governed the University). Had the aggys declared “we’ve moved on” when the legislature clarified their status as a branch college governed by the Board of Directors in 1925, they would have been met with howls of laughter.

In 1931, the legislature passed HB 368, which  amended the 1925 Revised Civil Statutes with respect to funding for the University and the branch agricultural college, specifying where funds from the Permanent University Fund and Available University Fund would be directed. In HB 368, no changes to the status of the branch agricultural college were mentioned. Had the aggys declared “we’ve moved on” in 1931 when the legislature simply addressed a division of endowed funds, they would have been met with howls of laughter. Note that to this day the Permanent University Fund is referred to in the singular (as opposed to the Permanent Universities Fund). One university, one fund.

In 1963, the legislature passed H.B. 755, which changed the name of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas to Texas A&M University. HB 755 did nothing to amend Article 7, Chapter 13 of the constitution. As strange as it may seem, the newly named Texas A&M University remained a branch of the University of Texas. Even with a new name, finally beginning to desegregate and *gasp!* reluctantly admitting women as students, had the aggys declared “we’ve moved on” in 1963 when the legislature simply changed the institution’s name, they would have been met with howls of laughter. Even after all these changes, the aggys could still not bring themselves to do what it took to amend their status to be anything other than a branch of the University of Texas. They chose to remain the University of Texas’ little brother.

Sometimes You Can’t Let Go

I have never met Tony Buzbee. Based on his professional reputation as a practicing attorney in Houston; however, I cannot accept that he lacks an understanding of the Texas Constitution. As a graduate of TAMU and current aggy Regent, I have no doubt that Buzbee is fully aware of the history of TAMU. He unquestionably understands that the constitutional status of Texas A&M University is as branch of the University of Texas. He also unquestionably knows the only way TAMU can truly “move on” is to end its status as a branch of the University of Texas. Aggy alumni in the state legislature have filed bills to force the University of Texas to play TAMU in football, yet no aggy in the state legislature wants to file a bill that would lead to finally changing TAMU’s constitutionally designated status. In his tenure as the longest-serving governor in Texas state history, aggy graduate Rick Perry did nothing to change TAMU’s constitutionally designated status. So far, as a regent of TAMU, Buzbee hasn’t said a word or taken any action to change TAMU’s constitutionally designated status. Long known for talking a lot and delivering little, yet again the aggys seem to expect someone else to do the hard work for them. I don’t see that happening any time soon. If the aggys want to “move on,” they are going to have to start doing things for themselves. The Longhorns moved on once that field goal sailed through the uprights and time expired and the scoreboard read 27-25. The aggys have decided to cling relentlessly to two things — their constitutionally designated status as a branch of the University of Texas and their defining dream of again being able to schedule the University of Texas.

The aggy administrators and regents are faced with the unending task of repeatedly reminding the school’s fans that they really don’t want what they all seem to want. Last week’s reminder offered by Cook is yet another humorous example. The words sound good, but based on actions taken they seem to have precious little basis in fact. Of course the aggys are famous for claiming things to be true that have absolutely no basis in fact. It’s part of their DNA. Their maintaining branch status while claiming to have moved on is but one of these claims. In the world of aggy fairy tales, it ranks above their false claim to have influenced the naming of Bevo, the UT mascot, [EDIT: link to: https://www.hornsports.com/name-bevo] and slightly below their false claim to be the oldest public university in Texas (you can’t be the oldest if you are legally the branch of another university). It ranks far below their fabricated story involving E. King Gill and their false claim to have originated “the 12th Man.”

Cook’s hope that Texas A&M plays Texas, or anybody, in a BCS game is understandable. At TAMU, even a second “Certificate of Achievement” for a BCS game would be coveted by a school with precious little post season success. (Let’s not forget that their 2013 Cotton Bowl victory was the first time in 75 years that the school had managed to win bowl games in back-to-back seasons.) They tossed aside a traditional rivalry game in which they had lifetime record of 37-76-5 to begin new traditions of never letting a season pass without scheduling at least one FCS team and talking about how exchanging their traditional rivalry game for the FCS-caliber competition signifies their greatness. Those on the outside looking in can do little else other than just laugh. Lots of talk, lots of bluster, but not much action. TAMU can “move on” any day they choose. They just choose not to.

As long as TAMU regents are content with the school’s constitutional status as a branch of the University of Texas, any claim that TAMU has “moved on” is laughable. It’s a joke. I’m beginning to think “We’ve moved on and we only want to play the best” is the English translation of “Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.”