Instead, this is about a game that people, exlcluding Texas Aggies, have forgotten about. Backtrack a bit to the UT-A&M rivalry game. It was a tense game, with A&M actually taking the lead for a moment, but of course, UT still finished strong, beating the Aggies 40-29.
Of course, the final score is insignificant, if A&M actually let UT win, so we should hear out my teacher's argument before passing judgement. She applied economics (Which is "not a subject" and "just a bunch of horse sh-- like psychology" according to Andrew Toniolo.) and stated that A&M had an incentive to throw the game. UT made $16 million that they shared with the Big 12 when they won the Rose Bowl. According to my teacher, this accounts for the dramatic shift from A&M's "devastating" performance in the first half of the game to the dominating performance of UT.
So, does the theory hold out? No. Unless there was a sudden tragedy, UT was guaranteed to go to a BCS bowl and get $16 million to share with the Big 12. So A&M would have to monetary incentive to worry about whether UT would go to the Rose Bowl or not, because the payout would have been the same for them if they made it to another BCS bowl. (Props to my sister for this information. <3) style="font-weight: bold;">can not, in any way talk a college senior into throwing a rivalry game. It's simply not possible.
The dominating performance in the second half of the game was not unusual as my teacher suspects it is. The 2005 UT football often would come back with a sudden, overpowering performance in the second half of the game.
So, my AP Economics teacher is just a silly aggie, trying to create a moral victory for herself out of last years UT-A&M football game.
"Only an Aggie would think that throwing a game is something to be proud of."
-- my sis