re: Programs who've had a great past 20 years...

quote:

---

It has been explained ag. You can ignore the 5 straight arse whippins and try to act internet tough but we know that since joining the SEC you dumbasses have a record or 1-7 vs LSU and Bama and are just 3-9 when you throw in Aubie.

Welcome to the SEC numbnuts.

---

So, no truce, then? OK

You cancelled the contract.

quote:

---

It is sad to see how far Nebraska football has fallen. They literally averaged finishing in the Top 6 every other year between 1963 and 1999

---

when they were in the Big 8 it boiled down to either Nebraska or Oklahoma every year. they each played 9 or 10 easy teams and then each other. so even the loser of that game was 9-1 or 10-1 and wrapped up a major bowl. the state of Nebraska supplied the 5 year linemen (those corn fed boys) and they "imported" the skill players. they also benefited greatly, as did Tejas and Bama, by specializing in the triple option attack before teams recruited to stop it.

nevertheless, Nebraska has lost it's identity on a national basis. no longer is it cool for great RB's from all over the country to go there. and no longer is the triple option a viable offense. and, of course, the great defenses they had are no longer being recruited due to them not being cool any longer.

I doubt that Nebraska will ever regain their national prominence. they just won't be able to recruit like they used to or excel at a difficult to defend offense.

quote:

---

The scary thing about Nebraska's drop-off is this recent 20-year period still counts (just barely) their 1997 National Championship. Will look even worse once that year drops off.

---

What were they doing back then to be so powerful that they aren't able to do now? Is it lack of local/regional talent in their recruiting base?

quote:

---

Truce? With Aggies? Lol.

All we have for y'all is more arse whippins.

---

All I ask is that when the tide turns again, you don't try to cancel the contract again.

Like you did last time.

quote:

---

Damn I would have thought Florida would be closer if not ahead of us

---

The comparison with the prior 20 years includes a good run in the 80's and the first half of Spurrier's tenure. It's about what I would have expected.

I'm going to reserve judgment on tamu for another couple of years.

Once they get Tate Martell on campus, they'll consistently compete for SEC titles.

quote:

---

On A&M. I've asked this many times.

First, Wtf did y'all run off RC?

---

Good question. I was one who wanted him gone, but now view that as a mistake.

Lots of things converged.

- Stoops and Brown amped up recruiting to levels far above what they had been earlier in RC's tenure. We were no longer getting all of the choicest cuts of beef.

- Our facilities had fallen behind the times, exacerbating the effects of the above.

- You know how our defense has been the problem lately? It was the offense under Slocum. He and Bob Davie could field some hellacious defenses, but we would still lose games 14-10. He would never fully turn that over to a high-power OC, simply because he did not like the risk/reward calculations.

- Tech had become an issue. They had been a thorn in his side in the 90's, as we lost too many games to Tech teams we should have beaten handily. Just one of those things. Then, in 2000, Leach showed up and took that to another level. When an offensive mind is sticking it to a defensive coach that is perceived as unable (or, worse, unwilling) to amp up his team's production, he has problems.

Slocum was widely respected for the defenses he produced. I still remember an article in some magazine (I think it was Sport) that analyzed five specific college football plays that simply could not be countered if the team that ran it executed it correctly. One of them was a Florida play under Spurrier. The only defensive play was one of Slocum's blitzes.

His problem was that he was (fairly or unfairly) perceived as someone who could not put together the coaches, schemes, and players to be effective on the other side of the ball.

Texas OWNS aTm by a 70% plus clip in Football, Baseball, and Basketball over 100 years

no wonder aTm tucked tail and left, easy decision

wow, didn't realize Texas dominated aTm so bad

quote:

---

Texas leads the series vs Texas A&M:

---

Nobody has ever disputed this. And LSU has never beaten Army. Not even close.

Does history matter? Sure it does.

Is it more valid when the teams are on anything close to equal footing? Yup.

A&M was basically the Citadel up until the early 70's. After that, the series is even. Before then, it should have been an embarrassment to big, bad Texas that they EVER lost to A&M.

And that goes for LSU, too.