Started By
Message
re: Concept Uniforms
Posted on 3/17/15 at 2:56 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
Posted on 3/17/15 at 2:56 pm to ShaneTheLegLechler
I just don't think that our underperformance is all that closely tied to This topic. I think a mistake a lot of groups make is to look at a goal they want to achieve and focus on what is different about their approach and blame that difference for not reaching the goal. Instead of seeing the actual underlying issues, differences are pointed out as the issue since they are easy to identify.
In our case the underperformance has more to do with how far behind we got in facilities and a coaching/contract decisions that blew up in our faces. You couple those problems with our main competition getting their crap together and you get us in the position we have been in.
Now back to the topic at hand: I think concept uniforms are done best when they are less "gimmicky" for lack of a better term. i.e. our all whites form 2012 vs the all whites from miss state this year.
In our case the underperformance has more to do with how far behind we got in facilities and a coaching/contract decisions that blew up in our faces. You couple those problems with our main competition getting their crap together and you get us in the position we have been in.
Now back to the topic at hand: I think concept uniforms are done best when they are less "gimmicky" for lack of a better term. i.e. our all whites form 2012 vs the all whites from miss state this year.
This post was edited on 3/17/15 at 2:58 pm
1
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:05 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
I detest the Corps block-seating deal, so we agree there. (T-Bird loves it, but I assume he's always drunk when he says that.) Football games were about my only exposure to you clowns.
I agree. I think it would help to build campus cohesion at least in some small way.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:07 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
Oh, bullshite. That's going too far the other way. Show me another school with as large an ROTC program. It may take you a while .
The way the university is portrayed nationally you would think the majority of the student body was affiliated with the corps. That's simply not the case. The corps is a tiny fraction of said body, and therefore my opinion is they should be reflected in that manner.
I have nothing against the corps, and actually like it especially for those that go into the armed services once they're done. Now, the posers that decide to be in the corps and don't...that's anoher story.
This post was edited on 3/17/15 at 3:10 pm
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:11 pm to betweenthebara
Ok somebody remind me this fall. I want to chart the student body coverage during football games. Will be interesting to see how the channels go to and come back out of commercial breaks and do cut away shots etc.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:17 pm to greenbastard
quote:
Another thing that will probably be very unpopular and will probably get me burned is the following: Being a member of the band should NOT require corps membership!
There are a lot of reasons that won't work that you don't need to be lynched for. Top 2 (BQ's I'm sure can name more):
1) They don't get to be that good at marching by what normal people think of as "practicing". They get that good by torturing each other. I can't see civilians putting up with this.
2) They live together in one dorm, which undoubtedly provides cohesiveness which leads to performance you can't get w/o that setup. And you DO NOT want to live with the band.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:27 pm to betweenthebara
quote:
The way the university is portrayed nationally you would think the majority of the student body was affiliated with the corps. That's simply not the case. The corps is a tiny fraction of said body, and therefore my opinion is they should be reflected in that manner.
I've already mentioned I agree that the Corps block seating is a bad idea (in my always correct opinion). But I'm curious where you think the cameras should be turned to? Every game I watch I see plenty of civilian students, it's just that they don't stand out because they're just a generic college student crowd.
quote:
I have nothing against the corps, and actually like it especially for those that go into the armed services once they're done. Now, the posers that decide to be in the corps and don't...that's anoher story.
SafetySam comin' in here to kick your butt soon. Or at least he will if you hand him a basketball. I understand what you're saying but of course I disagree. Those fools ran every mile I ran, did every pushup, chopped down every tree, etc. Other than summer camp, a few training weekends, and ridiculously easy Military Science classes, their experience was the same as mine. And besides, old lady was and is a damn fine feller. Being a D&C punk didn't hurt him any.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:50 pm to derSturm37
I like em--fun concept.
For one game a year, something similar would get an upvote from me.
For one game a year, something similar would get an upvote from me.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:51 pm to greenbastard
quote:
Being a member of the band should NOT require corps membership!
I'm not sure that would really work.
However, I do think that the Hullabaloo Band should be allowed to perform at games if the opponent fails to bring their own band. (and pep bands dont count since they stay in the stands)
Posted on 3/17/15 at 3:52 pm to EKG
A&M never ratified the 19th Amendment. Sorry.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 4:12 pm to derSturm37
quote:
So how about these, then?
Better
Posted on 3/17/15 at 4:34 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
Better
Posted on 3/17/15 at 4:35 pm to AgBQ00
I love how you say this:
And then follow it with:
RC, our best coach by the numbers in my lifetime, got his clock CLEANED in recruiting by Mack Brown before he left. And Mack didn't have the kind of facilities early on that he had by the time Vince was enrolled.
CLEANED HIS CLOCK I tell you, and we saw that when the draft picks completely evaporated.
How did that happen? It wasn't all the facilities, and it wasn't a coaching decision as RC was our best modern coach. Heck it wasn't even success, we won the Big 12 in 1998 the year he cleaned our clock.
It happened due to the "actual underlying issue" of the fact that the old A&M brand was FARRRRRRRR different than the types of brands that appeal to the types of 18 year olds who are usually good at football.
Heck, in 2004 we just got a BRAND NEW football complex plus the hottest coach in the nation. Yet Fran's first class was full of desperate no-qualify reaches, and his second class wasn't even top 25 in the nation. At that point in time we had the facilities AND the coach (no one knew Fran was a fraud yet), and still we were more than ten spots behind OU on the recruiting rankings that year.
Why?
Because that jerkface at OU pointed out to all the recruits that the image we put forth was not compatible with their culture (aka nice way of saying he called us militant racists) and so despite having both of the "easy to identify" things you want to blame bad recruiting on we couldn't do it because of the perception of the school.
At some point you older Aggies have to realize that a choice has to be made- either you can have a program and brand that REALLY appeals to your and represents you. Or you can have a program that wins.
To not put too fine of a point on it, 80 thousand perfectly placated (and mostly white) Aggies can't make the players on the field (who are mostly non-white) play any better. It was true in 2004 and its true today. Sure maybe the noise helps a little, but all those yells are to distract US from the reality that this program was never built to be a contender in its original form. So lets change what the form and brand is to be more inclusive.
I want to address another point you made:
This is complete and total bullshite AgBQ00. Maybe you believe this lie, but that is all it is- a lie.
The reason Aggies turn out so well has NOTHING to do with "the traits that get nourished and trained in our university," at least for us nonregs. The reason Aggies seem to be cut from a different cloth is because they were RAISED BY AGGIES, aka good decent people that taught them to be a good decent person.
In fact I HATE your lie. I have seen it before and I hate it.
It assumes that Aggies are some incredible people that are magically created when they entered the school. Heck the best Aggie I know never went to A&M. He is a decent person because he is a good a decent person, and he is a good Aggie because he was raised that way.
I think we need to look in the mirror and see that we aren't perfect, but there is a lot of good in that old pile that can transcend to the modern world. We shouldn't hold back the magic of the good parts of the Aggie experience just people some people want it to be whole hog.
We can have all of the best traditions, and still keep the corps off the pedestal. There can be balance, and that is what our goal should be.
quote:
Instead of seeing the actual underlying issues, differences are pointed out as the issue since they are easy to identify.
And then follow it with:
quote:
In our case the underperformance has more to do with how far behind we got in facilities and a coaching/contract decisions that blew up in our faces.
RC, our best coach by the numbers in my lifetime, got his clock CLEANED in recruiting by Mack Brown before he left. And Mack didn't have the kind of facilities early on that he had by the time Vince was enrolled.
CLEANED HIS CLOCK I tell you, and we saw that when the draft picks completely evaporated.
How did that happen? It wasn't all the facilities, and it wasn't a coaching decision as RC was our best modern coach. Heck it wasn't even success, we won the Big 12 in 1998 the year he cleaned our clock.
It happened due to the "actual underlying issue" of the fact that the old A&M brand was FARRRRRRRR different than the types of brands that appeal to the types of 18 year olds who are usually good at football.
Heck, in 2004 we just got a BRAND NEW football complex plus the hottest coach in the nation. Yet Fran's first class was full of desperate no-qualify reaches, and his second class wasn't even top 25 in the nation. At that point in time we had the facilities AND the coach (no one knew Fran was a fraud yet), and still we were more than ten spots behind OU on the recruiting rankings that year.
Why?
Because that jerkface at OU pointed out to all the recruits that the image we put forth was not compatible with their culture (aka nice way of saying he called us militant racists) and so despite having both of the "easy to identify" things you want to blame bad recruiting on we couldn't do it because of the perception of the school.
At some point you older Aggies have to realize that a choice has to be made- either you can have a program and brand that REALLY appeals to your and represents you. Or you can have a program that wins.
To not put too fine of a point on it, 80 thousand perfectly placated (and mostly white) Aggies can't make the players on the field (who are mostly non-white) play any better. It was true in 2004 and its true today. Sure maybe the noise helps a little, but all those yells are to distract US from the reality that this program was never built to be a contender in its original form. So lets change what the form and brand is to be more inclusive.
I want to address another point you made:
quote:
Most Aggies I know have the fight 'til the end mentality/work until the job is done and done right mentality that is not prevalent anymore. The quality of professional, doctor/vet, soldier/officer turned out by our school outshines most. It all stems from the type of education and the traits that get nourished and trained in our university.
This is complete and total bullshite AgBQ00. Maybe you believe this lie, but that is all it is- a lie.
The reason Aggies turn out so well has NOTHING to do with "the traits that get nourished and trained in our university," at least for us nonregs. The reason Aggies seem to be cut from a different cloth is because they were RAISED BY AGGIES, aka good decent people that taught them to be a good decent person.
In fact I HATE your lie. I have seen it before and I hate it.
It assumes that Aggies are some incredible people that are magically created when they entered the school. Heck the best Aggie I know never went to A&M. He is a decent person because he is a good a decent person, and he is a good Aggie because he was raised that way.
I think we need to look in the mirror and see that we aren't perfect, but there is a lot of good in that old pile that can transcend to the modern world. We shouldn't hold back the magic of the good parts of the Aggie experience just people some people want it to be whole hog.
We can have all of the best traditions, and still keep the corps off the pedestal. There can be balance, and that is what our goal should be.
This post was edited on 3/17/15 at 4:52 pm
Posted on 3/17/15 at 4:57 pm to cardboardboxer
Much, much, much of what Cardboard has said in this thread is the troof. A hard, cold, brutal truth albeit. But, then, ain't truth always?
I'm convinced that the only reason we decided to let in women and non-regs in the first place was to regain competitiveness in football. If we could have stayed the way we'd always been AND competed for a national championship once every twenty-five years we wouldn't have changed a thing. (Not until the Supreme Court made us, perhaps). Even if it had meant no wins in baseball, basketball, swimming, and tiddly-winks... if we could have stayed all male, all military and still won at football then we would have stayed.
Cardboard is saying that further amendment must be made and further change accepted if we are to compete for football natties. It hurts my heart but he is right. It is what it is.
In some ways we are like BYU trying to do it all with Mormons. They actually pulled it off once. We haven't even done that.
I'm convinced that the only reason we decided to let in women and non-regs in the first place was to regain competitiveness in football. If we could have stayed the way we'd always been AND competed for a national championship once every twenty-five years we wouldn't have changed a thing. (Not until the Supreme Court made us, perhaps). Even if it had meant no wins in baseball, basketball, swimming, and tiddly-winks... if we could have stayed all male, all military and still won at football then we would have stayed.
Cardboard is saying that further amendment must be made and further change accepted if we are to compete for football natties. It hurts my heart but he is right. It is what it is.
In some ways we are like BYU trying to do it all with Mormons. They actually pulled it off once. We haven't even done that.
This post was edited on 3/17/15 at 4:58 pm
Posted on 3/17/15 at 5:02 pm to cardboardboxer
quote:
How did that happen?
Clearly it happened because the Corps got too much attention.
I swear, I wanna like you non-reg communist pussy bastards, but sometimes you make it impossible. I mean that in a nice way.
What's the highest national ranking A&M has ever had in my lifetime? #2 in 1975 during Emory Bellard's tenure, when nobody gave a damn how A&M students were perceived. Nut up, dammit.
"The TV is showing too much Corps stuff!" Well boo hoo. Why do you think that is? It's because w/o the views of the Corps, Kyle would look like any other college football game. I don't like the Corps block seating, but blaming this for A&M's subpar football performance is ludicrous.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 5:03 pm to cardboardboxer
You know what else happened when Mack got to Texas...early recruiting. And the fact that Texas had just begun the first steps of improving facilities in 96-97 with the master plan drawn up to show recruits pretty much makes my point. RC was used to late recruiting and had no answer available to the change in paradigm and definitely had no support to point to the plans to better our facilities. RC himself has said as much.
Now to you other point. You will notice I said nourished and trained. The connotation of that statement means that there is something there to be grown and nourished and built upon. You yourself admitted that the school trained you before your edit. Does it mean we have some moral high ground or that the school automatically creates all of us to be this way? No. I also said most if you will notice. I do however believe that the rigors of our school and the things that are unique about our school do in fact cause the end product to be better. Both NON-REG and Corps. We went/go to an exceptional university. But I also believe in American Exceptionalism. Maybe I'm just cut from an older moulde
Now to you other point. You will notice I said nourished and trained. The connotation of that statement means that there is something there to be grown and nourished and built upon. You yourself admitted that the school trained you before your edit. Does it mean we have some moral high ground or that the school automatically creates all of us to be this way? No. I also said most if you will notice. I do however believe that the rigors of our school and the things that are unique about our school do in fact cause the end product to be better. Both NON-REG and Corps. We went/go to an exceptional university. But I also believe in American Exceptionalism. Maybe I'm just cut from an older moulde
This post was edited on 3/17/15 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 3/17/15 at 5:22 pm to finestfirst79
quote:
I swear, I wanna like you non-reg communist pussy bastards, but sometimes you make it impossible. I mean that in a nice way.
Another thing, why do you corps peeps keep calling us "non-reg"? We the majority now, so you're the non-reg now!
Posted on 3/17/15 at 5:33 pm to greenbastard
We're more than the majority now
Posted on 3/17/15 at 5:36 pm to greenbastard
Clearly it is because you are all weirdos, thus non-regular. Wikipedia, the source of all knowledge, makes it official:
Non-reg
A student who is not in the Corps of Cadets.
Non-reg
A student who is not in the Corps of Cadets.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 5:42 pm to WestCoastAg
quote:
We're more than the majority now
... and still whining because those mean TV people keep looking at CT's, all the while wondering why you dumb fricks can't elect a yell leader. Hell we had a non-reg yell leader in MY day, back before you cretins started whining about everything. I'm pretty sure there's a connection.
Posted on 3/17/15 at 5:44 pm to finestfirst79
day drinking rocks
Page 3 of 5
Latest Texas A&M News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News