quote:
No, help me understand your point lol.

Your last title was in 1939. You went 30 years without a title before letting women in around 1969(?). Since letting women in 50 years ago, you've not won a national title.

Is your point allowing women in helped elevate your program, bc if the above is true, I don't see it.

The problem is you are mixing arguments. "Good" does not necessarily mean winning a NC every fricking year.

So, I guess this all depends on your definition of "good." So, what is "good" in your opinion?
(careful how you define that

)

2 ...

Report Post

Posted by ibldprplgld

Member since Feb 2008

25120 posts

Posted on 1/9/19 at 1:17 pm to KaiserSoze99

quote:
The problem is you are mixing arguments. "Good" does not necessarily mean winning a NC every fricking year.

So, I guess this all depends on your definition of "good." So, what is "good" in your opinion?
(careful how you define that )

I hear Ags on here (and the ones in my family) talk about the admission of females to A&M as being a defining moment for A&M football. Ostensibly indicating that since that time, A&M football is better than it was before that point. But are you?

I don't think having females on campus has anything to do with a football program's success, or more to the point of this thread, A&M's.

What metric would you use to support that idea? I threw out the idea of national titles because it's a pretty glaring one. In the 50 years or so before letting women in, A&M had 3 national titles. In the 50 years or so since letting women in, you have none.

And to your point, I didn't say you have to win national titles to be "good." Obviously teams and programs that don't win titles every year are good.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by lsufball19