Started By
Message
re: Recruiting Texas: Longhorn vs Aggies
Posted on 2/19/14 at 1:34 am to JimmyHDeridderhigh
Posted on 2/19/14 at 1:34 am to JimmyHDeridderhigh
Of course Texas will eventually compete again for recruits. Over the next ten years I think you'll see a fairly even split between A&M and Texas. Right now A&M is dominating at what is likely an historical rate. That shouldn't be expected to last.
Nevertheless, things will never be how they were over the last decade. The SEC is a permanent game changer that will forever narrow the perceived gap between the programs. While Texas has its brand, history, and Austin, A&M has its own emerging brand and Texas simply won't ever be able to offer the level of competition and platform that we do. So the field of inherent, permanent advantages is leveling--to what degree is likely dependent on the weight one accords to each advantage. That's probably a subjective determination, so I won't waste my time running through them.
The bottom line is this: Gone are the days when A&M had one or two kids on the roster with Texas offers (this was probably the case during the entire Sherman era and most of Fran's). As A&M stacks top ten classes and begins to win, we'll enjoy a lot of momentum. Still, we shouldn't expect a Texas to remain dormant and they won't.
Nevertheless, things will never be how they were over the last decade. The SEC is a permanent game changer that will forever narrow the perceived gap between the programs. While Texas has its brand, history, and Austin, A&M has its own emerging brand and Texas simply won't ever be able to offer the level of competition and platform that we do. So the field of inherent, permanent advantages is leveling--to what degree is likely dependent on the weight one accords to each advantage. That's probably a subjective determination, so I won't waste my time running through them.
The bottom line is this: Gone are the days when A&M had one or two kids on the roster with Texas offers (this was probably the case during the entire Sherman era and most of Fran's). As A&M stacks top ten classes and begins to win, we'll enjoy a lot of momentum. Still, we shouldn't expect a Texas to remain dormant and they won't.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 1:36 am
1
Posted on 2/19/14 at 1:56 am to DWag215
Texas could easily lose 6-8 games in 2014. Possible losses include:
North Texas
BYU
UCLA
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
TCU
Kansas State
North Texas
BYU
UCLA
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Baylor
TCU
Kansas State
Posted on 2/19/14 at 3:09 am to CGSC Lobotomy
Agreed.
But Texas won't remain idle forever. They'll snap back within 5 years, probably sooner. That's fine, too. The circumstances are such that A&M's success is no longer subject to Texas's failure.
But Texas won't remain idle forever. They'll snap back within 5 years, probably sooner. That's fine, too. The circumstances are such that A&M's success is no longer subject to Texas's failure.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 11:35 am
Posted on 2/19/14 at 8:58 am to nebraskafaninwi
quote:
Texas has been the more powerful program over the last 100 years and that will continue onto the future as well. Obviously there are periods of times when one program is more pronounce than the other and that is occurring right now with Texas A&M, but Texas will regain control of the state of Texas eventually. It is what it is and history shows it.
No one here is stupid enough to predict Texas' permanent demise, they'll be good again, but the days of Texas just dominating the state as a natural right are over. There has been a real, huge, structural change, in that A&M is now in the SEC, which is perceived (and perception is reality for recruits) to be the elite conference, and essentially the NFL's developmental league. The SEC also offers far, far grater exposure. Meanwhile, UT is relegated to what's perceived (and perception is reality for recruits) to be the stigmatized scrub conference, the 10 member "Big" 12 which has a terrible TV contract that is essentially keeping it in isolation. That said, YES, Texas can transcend that conference, which is why I've stated that they'll be back, in terms of fielding big-winning teams that get national attention, but now they don't wield a trump card over A&M in every single way like they used to. They have their advantages still, sure, but now A&M has a big card of its own, which is something it never used to have.
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 8:58 am
Posted on 2/19/14 at 9:15 am to CGSC Lobotomy
Excellent points everyone. It's nice to have a honest discussion with no attacks or flames. Too bad this couldn't be the norm but im happy. Thanks again my fellow recruitniks.
:geauxSEC:
:geauxSEC:Posted on 2/19/14 at 9:20 am to DWag215
quote:
But areas won't remain idle forever. They'll snap back within 5 years, probably sooner. That's fine, too. The circumstances are such that A&M's success is no longer subject to Texas's failure.
Exactly. This isn't really a story at all. Texas will be back, but we no longer have to worry about being confused with Texas Tech nationally.
The real story is how A&M to the SEC killed OU's recruiting in Texas. OU, basically the FSU of the state of Texas and top ten program alltime, is stuck depending on cali recruits because only on the west coast does their history still matter. We basically forever turned the table on them, as long as they aren't willing to let OSU die.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 10:28 am to JimmyHDeridderhigh
As others have mentioned, there's enough talent to go around. If Strong does well, they'll get their share of recruits. When we initially made the move to the SEC, everyone speculated that the team that would really be hurt is OU. I still think that's going to end up being true.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 10:35 am to Projectpat
the bottom line is simple. strong is a better coach than sumlin. he has proven success at louisville and dc on nc team at uf. at any point in time, ut can match or exceed any spending initiatives that aTm has going on right now.
Strong is MUCH more likely to win big 12 (in next few years)than sumlin is to win sec.
Strong is MUCH more likely to win big 12 (in next few years)than sumlin is to win sec.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 10:55 am to aggressor
quote:
It's not going to get easier with the New Kyle unfolding. Strong is taking a big chance with his "old school" mentality of telling kids they can't live off campus until they are Srs and taking the frills out of the facilities. If he wins all will be well but if he doesn't then it could get real bad, real fast.
He's not selling this to the recruits, he's selling it to their parents. That may or may not pay off, but it's definitely not as crazy as it sounds. He gets the parents' attention and he minimizes the chances of off-the-field incidents in the program. If he want to (semi-) neg recruit, all he has to do is sit in the parents' living room and point out (and this is just me hypothesizing, not attacking y'all) stuff like Manziel's off-field news items and talk about how he's going to run a much tighter ship.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 10:57 am to WestCoastAg
quote:
cause texas a&m is the same exact school and program it was back in the 60s
That explains the tie dyed, flared, and pleated overalls.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:08 am to randomways
quote:
Manziel's off-field news items
The only people that care about Johnny Manziel partying are other SEC and current big 12 fanbases looking for flames. If a recruit or their parents bit on that as a neg recruiting point I'd be shocked.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:16 am to Projectpat
quote:
The only people that care about Johnny Manziel partying are other SEC and current big 12 fanbases looking for flames. If a recruit or their parents bit on that as a neg recruiting point I'd be shocked.
I think that's a bit naive, especially in the context of Strong selling his program as one where the kids will be looked after and kept out of the news (at least for negative stuff.) Parents do care about their kids' welfare, after all, and it's not so much about neg recruiting Manziel as it is about using that as an example of what Strong will be preventing.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:19 am to randomways
quote:
as an example of what Strong will be preventing.
Preventing what? Drinking and getting women? If someone wants that path for their kids they'll be pushing Baylor.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:23 am to randomways
quote:and if a kids parents, or the kid, actually let that sway their decision then I don't know what to tell ya. that will have very little, if any, effect on anything
all he has to do is sit in the parents' living room and point out (and this is just me hypothesizing, not attacking y'all) stuff like Manziel's off-field news items and talk about how he's going to run a much tighter ship.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:23 am to oldschoolgreats
quote:
Strong is MUCH more likely to win big 12 (in next few years)than sumlin is to win sec.
True, but that in no way suggests Strong is a better coach. The big 12 is a mid-major conference. This proves nothing.
And running through a crappy Big East conference and beating UF doesn't make Strong a demigod. I understand you'd like him to be better than Sumlin, but until he at least shows signs of being a threat to Sumlin's order your wish remains a wish.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:26 am to randomways
quote:
I think that's a bit naive, especially in the context of Strong selling his program as one where the kids will be looked after and kept out of the news (at least for negative stuff.) Parents do care about their kids' welfare, after all, and it's not so much about neg recruiting Manziel as it is about using that as an example of what Strong will be preventing.
So because JFF became a public figure who attracted unprecedented media attention, Strong can somehow sell that his program takes better care of kids than Sumlin's?
I mean what a ridiculous point.
The last thing Strong wants to do is strain himself to use JFF against A&M, much less tell a kid or his parents, "Look, if you choose A&M you risk turning into Johnny Manziel."
This post was edited on 2/19/14 at 11:33 am
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:30 am to DWag215
quote:I mean shite, we just honored the scholarship of a kid who will never play football again. if that's not "watching over" a kid or caring about their welfare then I don't know what is
Strong can sell that his program will watch over kids better than Sumlin's?
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:37 am to DWag215
Never mind. Y'all are getting way too defensive over what was a legitimate point about what Strong's motivations might be. It was an observation about the reasons behind running a tight ship even when that is likely to be less appealing to some recruits. The person I replied to was talking about how difficult it would be and how Strong was taking a "big chance." I was pointing out that there might actually be a method behind the "big chance" rather than simply taking a chance without a reasonable strategy.
It wasn't an attack on TAMU's program, Manziel, or your favorite pet dogs.
It wasn't an attack on TAMU's program, Manziel, or your favorite pet dogs.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:40 am to randomways
I love how if someone is defending a position on these boards it gets dismissed as "being defensive." Obviously that's what happens in a disagreement.
I'm just curious as to what specifically would be used as a negative recruiting point, because I don't see it. The generic term "off-field issues" does not suffice.
I'm just curious as to what specifically would be used as a negative recruiting point, because I don't see it. The generic term "off-field issues" does not suffice.
Posted on 2/19/14 at 11:41 am to randomways
quote:but that's exactly what it is. its not a reasonable strategy
I was pointing out that there might actually be a method behind the "big chance" rather than simply taking a chance without a reasonable strategy.
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News