re: JFF is Everywhere

quote:

---

A&M had a great season, but at this point it's more likely that it was anomaly than it is the start of A&M's rise to dominance. I say this because most teams that jump up from the pack to a 2-loss season tend to fall back to the pack.

---

Usually true. But see Oregon and Stanford.

But there's a more critical flaw in your analysis. You're assuming TAMU is a place with resources like the schools that rise to success out of nowhere (those that achieve anomalous success).

But it's not.

TAMU's 2012 season achieved success that's proportionate to its resources, and what the program should typically attain. With what TAMU has at its disposal, performing the way it did between 2002-2009ish was a massive failure. That's why A&M is/was considered one of the most underachieving programs in the country.

What you're seeing now is a level of success that mirrors what TAMU should achieve year in and year out, provided the leadership doesn't suck. The trend will likely continue because, unlike 2002-2009ish, we now have competent coaching and leadership. What's more, we're recruiting at an elite level with ease. If TAMU can secure the kind of talent it had on the 2012 team--talent acquired on the heels of the previous decade of futility--imagine the level of talent that will rush to a successful TAMU team? To make it easier, consider the current 2014 recruiting rankings.