re: "College football's top 24 jobs" according to ESPN and fellow coaches..

Better to win championships than to NOT win championships. Not sure what else we could have done in that situation.

Because he's mad that Texas AMC is an objectively better job than UT jr, even with their rusted trophies that no one remembers.

7 National Titles

MUST BE A TOP 5 JOB IN COUNTRY!!!

quote:

---

Because he's mad that Texas AMC is an objectively better job than UT jr, even with their rusted trophies that no one remembers.

---

You're surrounded by talent, it should be better. aTm talking about rusted trophies is laughable. When was your last? 1939?

Crystal doesn't rust, bra

quote:

---

You are not a top 15 program just because you won a bunch of conference championships in a league where Texas was the only school with a winning percentage in the top 20 historically

---

This thread isn't about where a program ranks historically. It is about how good our job is.

We are NOT a top 15 program alltime.

We are NOW a top 15 job.

That is what this thread is about.

The hope is long term our program will reflect what our job is, as normally programs that are better jobs get better coaching talent and can keep that talent. But that hasn't happened yet, all that is happened is we bought and politiced our way into the nice neighborhood so we can be IN THE CONVERSATION. Thats all for now.

I don't know why we offend you so much. I could get some Boise St fan being pissed that all their on the field success couldn't buy what was handed to us, but you are s'pposed to be SEC.

quote:

---

We are NOT a top 15 program alltime

---

yes... actually we are. nearly every reputable CFB analyst agrees with this

"We're Texas" was literally their official slogan in the 2000's. frick those counts

quote:

---

yes... actually we are. nearly every reputable CFB analyst agrees with this

---

I mean MAYBE we are, but lets be honest once you get past the blue bloods that measure their dicks in national titles the whole "whose program is better" turns into this subjective thing where you have to decide which conference championship is worth more, or where a Heisman stacks next to a top ten season, etc. Any single metric like wins, or winning percentage, or anything will by default have too many Ivy Leagues or mid-majors in there to be taken seriously. The only way to do it past about the top 10-ish is subjective judgement, so 10-20 are pretty interchangeable.

Suffice to say I don't care what A&M is ranked all time. The past is the past and it really doesn't help us today. If it did Nebraska and Notre Dame would top the job list.

If I am going to put my stock in a subjective measurement, it is whichever one is the best predictor of what A&M will be in the future as that is the time period I care about more as a fan. I personally think a list of coaching jobs is the closest thing we get to that, as coaches are tuned in more than anyone which programs are rising and which ones are falling.

Hence why I love these rankings when they were released. I have kept my eye on them for years, and prior to the SEC move we VERY rarely made the top 25 (and sometimes a program like Okie State would get in instead). Since the SEC move we have been in the top 25 of every one I have seen. That matters way more to me than any rusty trophy.

I see A&M more in the 15-20 range with a chance to surpass a good amount of schools ahead of them in the future

Sorta surprised to see LSU over FSU.

However, A&M, Arkansas, and Michigan are too high. And I think Clemson and UCLA are too low.