twk

quote:

---

There has been this thread nearly every single week. How many double headers have we played all season?

---

A&M has played doubleheaders two out of the seven series so far.

Columbia and Fayetteville are only 225 miles apart as the crow flies. Geography, while not ideal, is not an insurmountable problem. So, yes, if they hired someone like Vitello and invested in the sport, there's no reason why they couldn't be competitive. But we all know that is not going to happen.

quote:

---

I don't see Wes Johnson leaving Georgia unless it is for Arkansas.

---

Tend to agree. Plus, I don't think State would like it if Wes asked to have a rug installed like he did at UGA. Just wouldn't be right.

quote:

---

Is the DBU guy not in the conversation?

---

At this point, Heefner probably isn't going anywhere. Good coach, but having to adjust his program to what is allowable at a state school probably isn't something he's willing to do at this stage in his career.

quote:

---

Are there any comparisons of a coach being successful and leaving for a rival? I can't think of any.

---

The only one that I can think of is actually in this rivalry, but in football. Dana Bible had success at A&M and Texas, but those were separated by a stint at Nebraska (back a century ago).

quote:

---

there is a decent chance that we'll meet again in a Super Regional.. you could make the argument that losing this series helps win that series.. and vice versa..

This series is fun.. but that series (if played) will matter a whole lot more..

---

If A&M loses the series, we probably won't be able to pull off the miracle and end up hosting. In that case, there seems to be a high probability that we'd end up at TCU, who will be one of the lower seeded hosts, and that Texas will be #1 or close to it. So, yes, we could easily see a super matchup in that scenario.

If A&M were to win the series, then I think we have a decent chance of playing ourselves into a host spot, and I think the odds go down that the seedings line up for a super regional rematch (but, of course, the NCAA isn't above manipulating seedings to create interesting matcups).

quote:

---

I'm picking Aggie to take 2 out of 3, and yes, y'all will be sure to let us know about it. You guys have blue steel right now and we have some adjustments to make on the mound.

Texas still fares well in the post-season.

---

We do seem to be catching you at at good time, but it's such a fine line between winning and losing in this league that I'm not making any predictions.

Things seem to be sorting themselves out for us at the plate (particularly if Sorrell can go back to playing outfield), but we're still trying to get our pitching in sync

quote:

---

Weren't OU and Texas gonna join the Pac 10 (along with 4 other Big 12 schools)?

---

In 2010, Larry Scott thought he had a deal for Texas, Oklahoma, A&M, OSU, Texas Tech and Colorado to go to the Pac and make it the Pac-16. He had talked to Bill Powers and Deloss Dodds, who assured him that everyone else would go along with whatever the Horns worked out.

A&M refused to commit, and started talking to the SEC.

Afraid of being left behind, Nebraska bolted for the Big 10.

Afraid of being muscled out by other Texas schools, Colorado jumped unilaterally to the Pac.

When A&M made it clear they would go to the SEC rather than the Pac, suddenly, Powers and Dodds insisted that if the Horns went to the Pac, they would have to be exempted from the new Pac network (the whole reason for the expansion). When told that was a no (from the existing Pac membership), Texas decided to stay and the deal was off. Some tinkering was done to the Big XII contract, and things appeared to be settling down until...

But, to bring this back to a what if discussion, my what if question is, what if Stanford hadn't blackballed Texas from joining the Pac in the '80s (Colorado would have come along as a partner)? A&M was ready to go to the SEC, presumably with Arkansas. There never would have been a Big XII. It would have been interesting to say the least.

It is a big rivalry weekend

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

Twitter Link

There wasn’t a whole lot of planning that went into what women’s sports the schools adopted. Basically, every sport that men played, save football, the schools also had a women’s team (swimming, golf, tennis, track, basketball). A&M had soccer and softball teams before Texas, which ended up adding those sports to settle a Title IX suit. I guess if one had added gymnastics, the other would have followed suit, but it just didn’t happen. By the time both schools were filling out their women’s sports portfolios, the main considerations were cost effectively adding as many participants as possible (so as to balance football numbers). I believe Texas went with crew (rowing) and A&M went with equestrian because they had large rosters and manageable costs.