re: Future sched news - '24 M&W game on 4/20

as for TexAgs, man what a miserable lot those guys are.

I've already seen several "I'll believe it when I see the tickets" posts.

Why the hell would be announce a series that starts in 2 years if we weren't absolutely sure we were going to be able to play?

I think that's mainly a reaction to the Bill Byrne style of talking about series before they were a done deal and often screwing it up because of that.

Hyman is far more close to the vest and doesn't put up with leaks. He doesn't announce anything until it is done.

I still don't understand why half the threads here end up with some Looch/Texags bitch session though. It's not even that I disagree so much as it is annoying and really takes away from the site imo.

As for the series, it's a solid add. I'd probably be more excited about one of the major B1G schools like Penn State, Michigan, or Ohio State but UCLA is nice and the chance to play in the Rose Bowl is cool. Really glad we are playing it in an even numbered year, our home schedule is off balance right now even/odd and we need our big OOC opponents at Kyle in even years.

quote:

---

I still don't understand why half the threads here end up with some Looch/Texags bitch session though. It's not even that I disagree so much as it is annoying and really takes away from the site imo.

---

Agreed. Who gives a shite about Texags.

quote:

---

As for the series, it's a solid add. I'd probably be more excited about one of the major B1G schools like Penn State, Michigan, or Ohio State

---

Those might be interesting, but how many recruits are we going to pull from B1G country as opposed to PAC country?

Also, I kinda like the idea of different SEC schools playing the other major conferences early to establish the dominance of the SEC. Doing that early in the season will help down the road when the playoff committee is making selections. The SEC East teams already take care of the ACC. Alabama played Michigan recently, and LSU is going to play Wisconsin in the future, so maybe they can handle the B1G. So if we work on the PAC, that will cover all the major conferences.

Other than OSU, I'd rather play UCLA by far than Michigan or PSU. Michigan will have a new coach and likely be a bit down and PSU is going to struggle for quite a while with the sanctions.

UCLA is going to be a top 10 program for quite a while the way they are going. I'll be pretty surprised if both games aren't opening weekend clashes between top 10 opponents.

quote:

---

Texags is what it is for good and for bad, I just tire of the obsession to rail against it as if it is some great evil. Does every piece of A&M news have to relate back to how Texags reported on it in some way? I just don't care.

---

I think you're kinda greatly overstating the amount of Texags ranting that goes on over here.

Personally, I'd rather people talk about what they want to talk about, and if other people don't care about what they have to say, they can ignore it. I rarely post on Texags anymore because of the censorship. I'd hate for the posters on the Ark to start self-censoring themselves, too.

quote:

---

We've gseemingly gone all in against the PAC 12.

---

It makes sense. As the west-most SEC team this is exactly where we need to be.

While I agree UCLA is on the upswing, you honestly can't schedule based on that when you are looking too far out. It's actually unusual you can get a home and home only 2 years out, most of the time it is at least 5 and from our perspective our next real opening isn't until '20 for a name team home and home. There is no way to know who will be going up or down 6 years from now so you are better off getting a name team that travels and has a great home game environment.

Ohio State, Michigan, and Penn State are all very rich programs with 100k plus stadiums they sell out. They also are the dominant schools in strongly populated states that love football. Are we recruiting much there now? No, but that isn't because of lack of talent in those areas. More than that though games with those schools are going to be nationally broadcast and highly rated because they have such large fanbases and B1G fans tend to watch B1G games even if it isn't their team playing.

Also, my first ever college football game was A&M beating Penn State at Happy Valley and I have to say it was awesome. That's a big time football environment and a great road trip. Michigan and Ohio State are also about as big as they come as well in terms of atmosphere not in the SEC.

I'm fine with the Pac12 games because I think we can take advantage of being the Westernmost SEC school but I would love some B1G games. They haven't been as good football wise recently but they are still great venues and widely viewed with huge fan bases.

quote:

---

You get all of that with UCLA. Strong historical program, not on OSU or Michigan's level but in that next tier, the historical football stadium that sits 90k and in the middle of one of the hottest recruiting beds around. Playing at UCLA or at USC are great games. Much better than playing ASU or Oregon

---

And better weather. And prettier girls.

Oh and I like associating with the program that kills sip coaches. Hell they might kill Strong's chances this year!!!

quote:

---

UCLA is not a great historical program

---

is it Ohio state? No. But is it in that next tier? Yep

quote:

---

The Rose Bowl is a great venue but not because of UCLA

---

does it really matter why a venue is a great one?

You're right that UCLA doesn't travel.

My position still stands. Its a great home and home to set up with about the same advantages as playing a big time school from the big 10