Started By
Message
0
Posted on 5/5/16 at 8:51 pm to Ag Zwin
quote:
Thing is, and I know it sounds like rationalizing, a fair comparison really should start from he early 70's. Scholarship limitations kept Texas from putting all the state's talent on the shelf and out of reach
Not this shite again. A&M had as many (or more) scholarship players during the time of no limits, You weren't Rice, dude.
quote:
For the last 40 or so years of the Texas rivalry, it was roughly even.
Let me put this in perspective for your dumb arse.
A&M record vs. TEXAS, 1894-1983: 22 wins, 63 losses, 5 ties.
A&M record vs. TEXAS, 1984-1994: 10 wins, 1 loss, two NCAA probations and zero national hardware.
A&M record vs. TEXAS, 1984-2011: 5 wins, 12 losses.
quote:
When you consider that for the first 60-70 years of the rivalry, the dominant program in the dominant state (for football talent) was basically playing a Texas version of The Citadel
You won a national title 24 years before TEXAS did, you freakazoid.
Posted on 5/5/16 at 8:56 pm to texashorn
quote:
Not this shite again. A&M had as many (or more) scholarship players during the time of no limits, You weren't Rice, dude.
We were a small, all-male military school.
Posted on 5/5/16 at 8:58 pm to TeLeFaWx
Again, for the slow-witted aggies: You were a state university with plenty of money that had just as many (or more) scholarship players than TEXAS before limits.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:45 am to texashorn
Whorn misses the point of a post, argues a completely different point, slices up another point to make it harder to understand, goofs up the math in THAT point (look at your last grouping), and I am the dumbass. Man, do I miss the days of arguing with the Randolph Dukes of the world.
Let's start with the scholarship limits. The point WAS NOT that we also had no limits. The point WAS that Texas and other big schools could just bring all the talent they wanted and put them on the shelf. Lest you think this is just my opinion, let's see others have to say:
Now, tell me how those could be Aggie propaganda. Even Barry Switzer freely admitted it was a strategy of the big programs:
As for the period I referred to, I will give you credit for trying to "three-card-monte" the point by breaking it up, but let me put it back together for everyone. The limits started in 1973, and probably didn't affect things for a couple of years. I could start in 1975, when A&M broke a long streak of Texas wins, but I said 40 years, so I will stick to that and include the Texas wins in '72, '73 and '74. From 1972 to 2011:
Texas: 21 wins, 11 conference championships, 1 MNC
A&M: 19 wins, 8 conference championships, 0 MNC
Texas does have the edge, but it is hardly dominance, and if the scholly limits are indeed said to have started affecting things in 1975, then Texas loses 3 wins against A&M and 2 of the conference championships.
Like I said, pretty even.
Let's start with the scholarship limits. The point WAS NOT that we also had no limits. The point WAS that Texas and other big schools could just bring all the talent they wanted and put them on the shelf. Lest you think this is just my opinion, let's see others have to say:
quote:
"Those were the carefree days before scholarship limits, the days when it was widely acknowledged that UT's third stringers could whip any other school's starters."
- 100 Things Longhorns Fans Should Know & Do Before They Die
quote:
"He (Darrell Royal) surrounded himself with the best assistants he could hire, and his policy of recruiting as many good players as he could explains the NCAA’s adoption of today’s thirty-scholarship limit."
- Texas Monthly
quote:
"The flip side is that, before, the NCAA did not impose scholarship limits. An athletic department could sign as many players as it had tuition money for them. Texas alumni 'could come up with the funds to have enough for the number of players that (Royal) wanted to recruit,' Nobis said. 'Sometimes you were trying to get a player just so somebody else wouldn’t get him.'"
- Inside Texas (The Inside Scoop on Longhorn Sports)
Now, tell me how those could be Aggie propaganda. Even Barry Switzer freely admitted it was a strategy of the big programs:
quote:
"If it hadn't happened, you'd still have the big disparity between two divisions (powers and also-rans) in college football. Back in the days when Nebraska and Texas and Oklahoma could take 50 (players in a year), it didn't leave much in the talent pool for everyone else. Back then, I took players in the state just to keep them away from (Oklahoma State). I didn't want anyone else getting good.''
- Barry Switzer
As for the period I referred to, I will give you credit for trying to "three-card-monte" the point by breaking it up, but let me put it back together for everyone. The limits started in 1973, and probably didn't affect things for a couple of years. I could start in 1975, when A&M broke a long streak of Texas wins, but I said 40 years, so I will stick to that and include the Texas wins in '72, '73 and '74. From 1972 to 2011:
Texas: 21 wins, 11 conference championships, 1 MNC
A&M: 19 wins, 8 conference championships, 0 MNC
Texas does have the edge, but it is hardly dominance, and if the scholly limits are indeed said to have started affecting things in 1975, then Texas loses 3 wins against A&M and 2 of the conference championships.
Like I said, pretty even.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:48 am to jb4
Nobody gives a frick about the state of Texas. What is this idiotic hold they have on you?
Posted on 5/6/16 at 9:50 am to jb4
OP: it is really hard for anyone with an Arkansas logo next to their handle to be taken seriously when they say that tu should be in the SEC and A&M in the XII.
You really miss them that much?
You really miss them that much?
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:01 am to The Balinese Club
you aggies are weird folk, look at Big3 Sports
UTa has around a 75% win percentage vs aTm in football, baseball, and basketball
those are the facts
UTa has around a 75% win percentage vs aTm in football, baseball, and basketball
those are the facts
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:17 am to lestertheghost
Oh, Jeez. Not this alter again. Why can't you at least own the flying uterus logo in your handle?
Look, the thread was focused on football, so I addressed that. You want to talk about the other 2, fine.
I won't look up the actual statistics. I have work to do. I will say, though, that neither school really has a distinguished history in basketball. We have both had streaks in the last 40 years, and Texas probably has a more consistent edge with Rick Barnes being consistently above average.
In baseball, I will freely admit that Texas has a pedigree and history that I would consider (in some metrics) to be unrivaled by anyone. Their appearances in the CWS (35) are almost 50% more than second place Miami (24). Not as many championships as USC, but that Deadeaux run was something never to be seen again. I think A&M has held their own in that 40-year timespan after the school opened up, but I would still expect Texas to have a solid lead.
Does Texas have a big edge in the all-time history? Certainly. They dominated a school on par with The Citadel and VMI.
Do I think either of those sports will show a 75% winning percentage for Texas since A&M moved away from all-male and all-military? Nope.
Look, the thread was focused on football, so I addressed that. You want to talk about the other 2, fine.
I won't look up the actual statistics. I have work to do. I will say, though, that neither school really has a distinguished history in basketball. We have both had streaks in the last 40 years, and Texas probably has a more consistent edge with Rick Barnes being consistently above average.
In baseball, I will freely admit that Texas has a pedigree and history that I would consider (in some metrics) to be unrivaled by anyone. Their appearances in the CWS (35) are almost 50% more than second place Miami (24). Not as many championships as USC, but that Deadeaux run was something never to be seen again. I think A&M has held their own in that 40-year timespan after the school opened up, but I would still expect Texas to have a solid lead.
Does Texas have a big edge in the all-time history? Certainly. They dominated a school on par with The Citadel and VMI.
Do I think either of those sports will show a 75% winning percentage for Texas since A&M moved away from all-male and all-military? Nope.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 10:21 am
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:49 am to Ag Zwin
Jesus, who cares?
A&M is the school in Texas most fixated on tradition and the proximity to the deep south makes them the best fit for the SEC. The only other major schools east of them, Rice and U of Houston, are less tradition bound and probably look to the West more than A&M. The rest of the Big 12 is just not within the Southern world, period. Or wants to be. You guys have it running smoothly enough.
Both Texas and A&M are weak in football. By a healthy margin I like what Strong is doing at Texas more than what Sumlin is going at A&M. Given that football is king, I'm satisfied.
I actually like the trajectory at basketball at Texas as well, but A&M right now, is better.
A&M baseball is better, but Texas will get better with a new coach.
(The history issue is pointless, but if you have to go down that route, UTs national championship is the only significant fact in recent memory. Nothing else means shite, and the NC and $3.50 will get you a tall cup of coffee.)
A&M is the school in Texas most fixated on tradition and the proximity to the deep south makes them the best fit for the SEC. The only other major schools east of them, Rice and U of Houston, are less tradition bound and probably look to the West more than A&M. The rest of the Big 12 is just not within the Southern world, period. Or wants to be. You guys have it running smoothly enough.
Both Texas and A&M are weak in football. By a healthy margin I like what Strong is doing at Texas more than what Sumlin is going at A&M. Given that football is king, I'm satisfied.
I actually like the trajectory at basketball at Texas as well, but A&M right now, is better.
A&M baseball is better, but Texas will get better with a new coach.
(The history issue is pointless, but if you have to go down that route, UTs national championship is the only significant fact in recent memory. Nothing else means shite, and the NC and $3.50 will get you a tall cup of coffee.)
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 10:50 am
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:50 am to lestertheghost
quote:
you aggies are weird folk, look at Big3 Sports UTa has around a 75% win percentage vs aTm in football, baseball, and basketball those are the facts
Look dumbass, we all know you are a sock and a troll. Why are you too much of a pussy to put the "Longhorn" icon next to your handle?
So, let's dissect your idiotic post:
quote:How is this relevant to the OP? Does us being "weird" in your mind make us a bad fit in the SEC?
you aggies are weird folk,
quote:
look at Big3 Sports UTa has around a 75% win percentage vs aTm in football, baseball, and basketball
Again, relevance to us being in the SEC? Does this make tu a better fit for the SEC than TAMU?
Why don't you learn to have a real discussion rather than act like a third grader and back your discussion and reasons up with actual talking points rather than: aggy weird we better.
Better yet, why don't you just go frick yourself and eat a dick on 6th Street? That's what your people are doing this weekend.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:52 am to Ag Zwin
Is any school less deserving of recommending what school should be in what conference than Arkansas?
(Although I would love Arky to some back to the Big12 if you all don't want them.)
(Although I would love Arky to some back to the Big12 if you all don't want them.)
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:52 am to oman
quote:
By a healthy margin I like what Strong is doing at Texas more than what Sumlin is going at A&M.
Going for 3 years without a winning record more than middle of the pack WINNING SEC team.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:54 am to The Balinese Club
quote:
How is this relevant to the OP? Does us being "weird" in your mind make us a bad fit in the SEC?
Makes you a perfect fit for the SEC.
Maybe not so great a fit for just being around other people, socially.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 10:58 am to oman
Why don't you just show us on the doll where the Yell Leader touched you?
Socially we are just fine. In fact, I have never had as much fun as the last four years visiting other schools on road games and interacting with other fans. I have heard the same thing about their visits to College Station.
Yup, socially dysfunctional indeed.
Socially we are just fine. In fact, I have never had as much fun as the last four years visiting other schools on road games and interacting with other fans. I have heard the same thing about their visits to College Station.
Yup, socially dysfunctional indeed.
This post was edited on 5/6/16 at 1:38 pm
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:00 am to Farmer1906
quote:
Going for 3 years without a winning record more than middle of the pack WINNING SEC team.
I'm not sure ANYONE other than A&M fans would rather be in A&M's shoes, football wise.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:01 am to The Balinese Club
quote:
Why don't you just show us on the doll where the Yell Leader touched you?
Socially we are just fine. In fact, I have never so much fun as the last four years visiting other schools on road games and interacting with other fans. I have heard the same thing about their visits to College Station.
Yup, socially dysfunctional indeed.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:06 am to oman
quote:
I'm not sure ANYONE other than A&M fans would rather be in A&M's shoes, football wise.
You don't think other non-top 10 programs wouldn't want our facilities, our huge stadium, our passionate fanbase, or our huge revenues? You are delusional.
All we are dealing with is the equivalent of a shite smell in a billionaire's bathroom. Eventually someone will flush the toilet (IE fire Sumlin) and run the fan (IE hire a new hotshot coach) and what you will have is a room with more gold in it than most people are worth in their lifetimes.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:19 am to cardboardboxer
quote:
You don't think other non-top 10 programs wouldn't want our facilities, our huge stadium, our passionate fanbase, or our huge revenues? You are delusional.
Reading comprehension. The response was about comparing A&M football, current status, to Texas football, current status.
No, almost no one outside of A&M would prefer to be in A&M's shoes, football wise.
Posted on 5/6/16 at 11:22 am to cardboardboxer
quote:
You don't think other non-top 10 programs wouldn't want our facilities, our huge stadium, our passionate fanbase, or our huge revenues? You are delusional.
I personally don't think any non-top 10 program fans, if asked "what school would you most want to be like" would say Texas A&M.
I think everyone one of them would say -- yeah, I'd like a bigger stadium and bigger revenues and a full house every game.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News