The DBR Homepage links to this
article and hones in on this quote: “I’m very foolish. I assumed — and it was a rash assumption on my part — that our friends over in the state capital would want to continue playing us. It turns out they didn’t think we were as much of a rival as we thought of them.”
DBR then questions:
[D]o we understand correctly here? Did he expect the Texas legislature to force Texas to continue to play A&M? And was that part of his decision making?
The answer, I think, is clearly no. It says "capital," not "Capitol," and the state capital of Texas is Austin. So he was saying "our friends over in Austin"...meaning the University of Texas. Even if the words were switched to refer to Texas A&M's people in the legislature, the context provided by the rest of the sentence wouldn't make sense. It would have to read "our friends over in the state Capitol would have them continue playing us" or "our friends in the state Capitol would make them continue playing us" or something like that.
Anyway, I think the assumption may have been optimistic in hindsight, but I don't necessarily think it's "rash" or "foolish" to think that rivalries may be preserved across leagues. For example, Louisville and Kentucky are fierce rivals despite playing in different leagues. There might be scheduling challenges in football because there are fewer nonconference scheduling opportunities, but it's still doable. USC schedules Notre Dame every year. Florida and Florida State face off annually. There's nothing really stopping UT from playing Texas A&M regularly, other than spite. Now, perhaps it's foolish to think UT wouldn't act spitefully in deciding not to play A&M as some sort of punishment for leaving. But if the fans/boosters clamor for it enough, then they can always start putting each other on the schedule...perhaps when cooler heads prevail a few years down the road.