A&M - Page 3

macallan25 · #31 02-06-2007, 01:20 PM

Hi pot, I'm kettle. Live in the past?? You brought up a football game that was played nearly three months ago. But hey, i'm sure Aggie Nation is still basking in the win.....I would be too if I hadn't beaten someone since 1999.

#32 02-06-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Hi pot, I'm kettle. Live in the past?? You brought up a football game that was played nearly three months ago. But hey, i'm sure Aggie Nation is still basking in the win.....I would be too if I hadn't beaten someone since 1999.

Standard Scoreboard rules dictate that Scoreboard in any sport can be called until the following time the teams compete in said sport. Seeing as how the most recent time the Fighting Texas Aggies and the longhorns competed in football we ended up the winner, calling scoreboard isn't considered living in the past.

So, you can feel free to relish in the Scoreboard you have on us in Women's BB, Swimming and Diving, XC and the like. Go ahead.

Kitso
KS 361 days a year the only thing that matters is 12-7.

KSigkid · #33 02-06-2007, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Dick Vitale always blows the best player in every game he calls. Not sure if you noticed.....but Kevin Durant is easily one of the top players to come into the NCAA in recent memory. Its no secret that he is getting player of the year.

Haha, especially if it's a Duke player or coached by Bobby Knight.

Durant is sick though; I can't remember a more dominating college player in my lifetime, and I've been following college basketball pretty closely for as long as I can remember.

macallan25 · #34 02-06-2007, 04:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AggieSigmaNu361

Standard Scoreboard rules dictate that Scoreboard in any sport can be called until the following time the teams compete in said sport. Seeing as how the most recent time the Fighting Texas Aggies and the longhorns competed in football we ended up the winner, calling scoreboard isn't considered living in the past.

........ha, i'm sorry, but I can actually hear a nerdy, dork A&M cult member explaining this to someone.

#35 02-06-2007, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

........ha, i'm sorry, but I can actually hear a nerdy, dork A&M cult member explaining this to someone.

Too bad its something that I got from the intellectual black hole that is HornFans.

Kitso
KS 361 high-fives for those swimming and diving titles though man!

macallan25 · #36 02-06-2007, 08:33 PM

Remind me of when A&M athletics did anything significant? Oh yeah, girls softball won some national championships in the 1980s. Football......try 1939.

Face it......your athletics programs couldn't hold our jocks.

Bob Dole · #37 02-07-2007, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Remind me of when A&M athletics did anything significant? Oh yeah, girls softball won some national championships in the 1980s. Football......try 1939.

Face it......your athletics programs couldn't hold our jocks.

Macallan25, 1
AggieSigmaNu361, 0.

#38 02-07-2007, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

Remind me of when A&M athletics did anything significant? Oh yeah, girls softball won some national championships in the 1980s. Football......try 1939.

Face it......your athletics programs couldn't hold our jocks.

Definition of something significant? Doing something that the vaunted Longhorn athletic department hasn't done?

I'd say the last time was Saturday, when we became the first and only team from the Big XII south to win at Phog Allen.

Man, you 'horns are gettin awful riled up over some friendly smack. But oh no, we're not your real rivals. Actually, I think y'all should take 12-7 in stride. I don't think Fran is the guy to get us to where we should be and that win probably will keep him around a couple seasons longer than he should be. Given Byrne's track record hiring coaches, I'd love to see who he'd go after to turn around our football program.

Kitso
KS 361 more hours until I head off to Custer to start student teaching.

macallan25 · #39 02-07-2007, 02:15 PM

FSUZeta · #40 02-07-2007, 05:02 PM

why are they holding their hands in their laps and bending over in that position?

KSig RC · #41 02-07-2007, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AggieSigmaNu361

I don't think Fran is the guy to get us to where we should be and that win probably will keep him around a couple seasons longer than he should be.

Besides the lunacy of this statement given the time frame you've used to make it (not to mention the complete 180 it is from A&M fans' attitudes at his hiring), let's talk about this "get us where we should be" thing . . .

Texas A&M's overall winning percentage as a program is .610 (643-413-49) - they went 9-4 last year (.692). They're under .500 overall in bowl games overall, and while they did get pounded this season by Cal, they were matched against a superior program - no shame there, and again no 'history' to live up to.

What "level" exactly should A&M get to? Let's stop this delusional stuff about every team being a "national powerhouse" - A&M is not a traditional national power, and they are not below "where they should be" in any reasonable sense.

shinerbock · #42 02-07-2007, 05:47 PM

Ksig, I'm not sure I agree with you. A&M is a pretty formidable football program. Considering what people claim are "national powerhouses" of college football, A&M should probably be included in that. Now, there may be an entitlement issue, like there is at Alabama.

Since 1869 Texas A&M is ranked 22 in winning percentage from what I've read.

Some other notables with similar percentages- UGA .64, Miami .638, LSU .637, Auburn .63, UF .622, etc.

I don't think many people would deny those schools as leading powerhouses in college football. A&M, if not among them, is pretty close.

KSig RC · #43 02-07-2007, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Ksig, I'm not sure I agree with you. A&M is a pretty formidable football program. Considering what people claim are "national powerhouses" of college football, A&M should probably be included in that. Now, there may be an entitlement issue, like there is at Alabama.

Since 1869 Texas A&M is ranked 22 in winning percentage from what I've read.

Some other notables with similar percentages- UGA .64, Miami .638, LSU .637, Auburn .63, UF .622, etc.

I don't think many people would deny those schools as leading powerhouses in college football. A&M, if not among them, is pretty close.

Actually I probably shouldn't have used the term "powerhouse" there - in the definition you've used, which means "national recognized, successful program" I would agree that A&M belongs in the conversation with UGA, Auburn, LSU (although clearly they are just below that range - but again, they're in the conversation).

The actual category I was trying to isolate is that select group of schools that expect to compete for a national title on a regular basis, the true 'premiere' programs. I don't think A&M can put themselves into that category - in fact, I think 10-win seasons should be viewed as the goal, and 9-4 should not have the cadets banging the drums for the coach's firing.

I think the 'Bama issue is somewhat separate, but related in a way - no one is entitled to a national title every few years. That's why there are only a select few schools with that claim - it's one thing to be Nebraska or OU and have some down years to get the alumni riled up. It's entirely another to be a .610 program and puke over a 9-4 season.

shinerbock · #44 02-07-2007, 06:18 PM

I agree with that mostly. However, I think there is a change that demands higher success sometimes (Not really for A&M, I think 9-4 is fine). For example, with us at Auburn, some people would say based on history 9-4 is ok, or similar for UGA. Hell, you could make the claim that given history we should be ok with something like 8-4. However, its a letdown for both schools in that situation, considering recruiting talent, coaching, recent history, etc. I think its tough to judge what proper expectations are using long term history. Florida would be a team where it is especially tough current expectations with historical success. This isn't really about A&M, I just think 130 years of history is too much to use given the changing state of the game and the teams that play it.

You are right about the NC expectations though. I really don't think any team can expect to compete yearly. USC is probably the closest thing to that. The best you can do, if you're an elite/powerhouse type team, is to strongly compete to win your conference every year. Hence USC can have somewhat higher expectations considering the edge they have on their conference.

I don't even think most elite teams truly believe they should be in the NC talk every year. I mean, Texas, OU, Michigan, NU, OSU those teams expect to be in BCS contention regularly, but only delusional fans really get angry about a "down" 10 or 11 win season. The exception, overall (all schools have delusional fans), is Alabama. They feel they are not only entitled to winning seasons and SEC championships, but national titles as well. I don't see it to that degree from any other school.

Alright, sorry for the rant.

macallan25 · #45 02-07-2007, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

why are they holding their hands in their laps and bending over in that position?

They are Aggies........nobody knows why they do the things they do.