Started By
Message
re: Which football program is greater historically: Texas A&M or Arkansas?
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:53 am to 870Hog
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:53 am to 870Hog
Not having to compete against Arkansas was the best thing that ever happened to A&M in the death throe years of the SWC.
A&M beat the shite out of Arkansas this year.
Guess what? So did Mississippi State.
Both are teams that we are 3-1 against the past four seasons.
A&M beat the shite out of Arkansas this year.
Guess what? So did Mississippi State.
Both are teams that we are 3-1 against the past four seasons.
1
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:54 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
Espn, cfbwarehouse, etc all have a&m ranked higher in their lists of the greatest programs of all time
TD does not.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:56 am to tiger perry
Historically, Arkansas. Head to head series record with 60+ games played should end the discussion.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:56 am to Bench McElroy
And we had more SWC championships than they did before they left
This post was edited on 12/27/12 at 10:57 am
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:57 am to ApexRex
Not when a&m has the advantage in many of the metrics that one uses to judge a programs strength
This post was edited on 12/27/12 at 10:59 am
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:58 am to sorantable
quote:
Charter member with as many national titles as you. Also, 6 SEC titles
lulz
Of your three 'claimed' Natty's, you finished #1 in the polls in none of them.
Also, forgive me if I forgot about that incredible run y'all had in the late 50's, early 60's. It had slipped my mind.
I'm 26. Since I've walked this Earth, Texas A&M >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Mississippi
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:58 am to ApexRex
quote:
Historically, Arkansas. Head to head series record with 60+ games played should end the discussion.
I think most outside of College Station understand this which is why the majority of this thread is answering Arkansas.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:59 am to burbank
quote:
EVEN with the fact we were an ALL male military school until late 60's.
And here come the excuses...even if they don't make sense.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:59 am to Jack Parkman
quote:
Since I've walked this Earth, Texas A&M >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Mississippi
Not really, no.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 10:59 am to wmr
quote:
Not having to compete against Arkansas was the best thing that ever happened to A&M in the death throe years of the SWC.
A&M beat the shite out of Arkansas this year.
Guess what? So did Mississippi State.
Both are teams that we are 3-1 against the past four seasons.
And we will again.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 11:01 am to Jack Parkman
quote:
I'm 26. Since I've walked this Earth, Texas A&M >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> University of Mississippi
Your 26 years is irrelevant. Games were played prior. Deal with it.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 11:04 am to TeLeFaWx
No you won't, and congrats on your 11th win over Arkansas since 1958(37games).
Hold on to that rope.
Hold on to that rope.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 11:04 am to TheCheshireHog
Posted on 12/27/12 at 11:04 am to sorantable
Surely, you're trolling.
You don't want to get into this argument Reb. The numbers just aren't on your side.
As not to derail the thread, A&M and Arky, to me, is a push on historical relevance.
You don't want to get into this argument Reb. The numbers just aren't on your side.
As not to derail the thread, A&M and Arky, to me, is a push on historical relevance.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 11:06 am to Jack Parkman
quote:
You don't want to get into this argument Reb. The numbers just aren't on your side.
If only Ole Miss could have spent most of the past 100 years playing in the SWC. By the way, the numbers aren't much different. Quit fooling yourself.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 11:25 am to Bench McElroy
Doesn't really matter. Either can frame history to advance an argument.
But Arkansas' history is about proportional to its rightful place in CFB -- a top 25 program historically is what Arkansas should be.
A&M has been a perenial underachiever, yet, as already mentioned, can propose a viable argument that its certainly no worse than Arkansas historically.
But back to why it doesn't matter. The current gap between the programs in talent, coaching*, and momentum is so vast that in ten years the idea that the two were once comparable will trigger as many laughs as stunned faces.
*Don't care about Belli's Rose Bowl losses, his collective losing record in the Big 10 against teams not named Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, and Northwestern, nor the fact that he hates recruiting.
But Arkansas' history is about proportional to its rightful place in CFB -- a top 25 program historically is what Arkansas should be.
A&M has been a perenial underachiever, yet, as already mentioned, can propose a viable argument that its certainly no worse than Arkansas historically.
But back to why it doesn't matter. The current gap between the programs in talent, coaching*, and momentum is so vast that in ten years the idea that the two were once comparable will trigger as many laughs as stunned faces.
*Don't care about Belli's Rose Bowl losses, his collective losing record in the Big 10 against teams not named Illinois, Minnesota, Purdue, and Northwestern, nor the fact that he hates recruiting.
This post was edited on 12/27/12 at 11:27 am
Posted on 12/27/12 at 11:45 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
then why does this say otherwise? LINK
MN higher than both
Posted on 12/27/12 at 12:02 pm to Burma Jones
To get on the record.
I would call both programs as a dead heat historically.
Obviously this thread has turned into a "who's the better head to head team" Which would be won by Arkansas, but I think the original question was which team is historically greater.
That point is too close to call either way. Win % is too similar. A&M may have more conference titles, but ARK has more recent natty. A&M may have won this year by a wide margin, but ARK won the last couple. A&M may have racked up wins in a weaker SWC while ARK floundered at first in the SEC, therefore it's indeterminable who to give the edge in that decade.
Hence me calling it a dead heat. If A&M ever gains the lead in head to head, we win. If ARK roles off a few conference titles/gains a lead in all time wins, they win.
I would call both programs as a dead heat historically.
Obviously this thread has turned into a "who's the better head to head team" Which would be won by Arkansas, but I think the original question was which team is historically greater.
That point is too close to call either way. Win % is too similar. A&M may have more conference titles, but ARK has more recent natty. A&M may have won this year by a wide margin, but ARK won the last couple. A&M may have racked up wins in a weaker SWC while ARK floundered at first in the SEC, therefore it's indeterminable who to give the edge in that decade.
Hence me calling it a dead heat. If A&M ever gains the lead in head to head, we win. If ARK roles off a few conference titles/gains a lead in all time wins, they win.
Posted on 12/27/12 at 12:08 pm to Bench McElroy
Posted on 12/27/12 at 12:25 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
then why does this say otherwise?
I think the bigger question is why does that say A&M has more points from schedule than Arkansas?
Page 4 of 5
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News