re: Aggies, are you guys concerned at all about Strong at UT?

quote:

---

That's why most of us were not even overly concerned if the sips had managed to lure Saban away from Bama.

---

I was concerned with that.

Saban is such a brand, such a respected name, that his arrival would have raised the profile of the entire Big 12. The RRR would have gone from not being a top 10 game every year to being must-see-TV. OU, and Baylor and all the rest would have gotten a boost from Saban to Texas that would have hurt us.

Thank God their culture prevented the possibility of that happening (frick there is that politics thing again).

quote:

---

He was a monster recruiter. He's recruited a lot of NFL talent and is really highly regarded when it comes to recruiting.

---

Apparently Sumlin didn't get the message. He's already flipping Strong's defensive recruits.

I'm not worried about Strong. The guy they needed was Franklin. That dude would have been a fricking nightmare at Texas. Thinking about it really is frightening.

Instead Strong's losing kids to Sumlin already. He's not bringing in an OC that runs the style offense in which Texas kids want to play. Hell he's hiring Joe Wickline--Ok State's great OL coach--as co-OC. Shawn Watson will call the plays. Texas fans are livid.

I don't doubt Charlie will get his fair share of kids. But he's not threatening Sumlin right now. And I'm not worried about that changing soon.

quote:

---

But don't you know TBird, they got much in return for losing that control! I mean, the LHN brings in a whole 9% of their AD revenue and exposure to a whole 180,000 people.

---

Not to mention the UPGRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYEDS

quote:

---

The guy they needed was Franklin. That dude would have been a fricking nightmare at Texas. Thinking about it really is frightening.

---

That really did scare me, actually.

quote:

---

Second would be SMU and we know they won't be an issue.

---

Where are you getting this? They had like a three year run in the 80s.

Don't you know, all that matters is national titles apparently?


I mean, the State of Texas had produced only one national title program the last quarter century, but despite that lack of data that is somehow the only valid way to determine which program was on top that entire time.

So guess what Texas fans- even though your team sucked in the 90's they won a national title in 2005 so that means Texas dominated the state the entire time. All those losses to A&M and empty stadiums were just a illusion, or simply a poor metric to determine the success of a program compared to the one true method.

Edit: Ooops my bad, I mentioned the fact football existed before 2000 in a thread with LSU fans in it.

So TWO metrics matter: national titles, and were they won when football existed (aka after 2000).

Hang it up Texas fans, yall are apparently kings forever.

quote:

---

aTm isn't very successful, historically speaking.

---

we are a top 20 program of all time at least. 700 wins, 60+ winning percentage, 33+ bowls, a good number of all americans and NFL draftees, 18 conference championships, etc. The past 13 years doesn't equate our entire history

That and Osbourne would take players that no one wanted to touch because of grades and shite like that

quote:

---

Aggies, are you guys concerned at all about Strong at UT?

---

No.

quote:

---

Makes you wonder just how in the world Oklahoma and Nebraska used to win all those Orange Bowls back in the heyday of the Big 8

---

2 things.

1 - IIRC, there was either very lax limits or no limits at all on partial qualifiers. The Big 12 reduced that to 1 per season.

2 - Nebraska had something called a "preferred walk-on" program. IIRC, athletes that would normally be on scholarship but would cause Nebraska to bust the 25/85 cap would be able to enroll as preferred walk-ons and the bills were funnelled to donors. Since those donors only covered the tuition, room and board, etc. it stayed under the radar of the NCAA. Once the NCAA and Big 12 closed that loop as well, Osborne retired.