A&M

[macallan25]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

[FSUZeta]

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

[macallan25]

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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

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

It's called 'humpin' it'. It is a body position that allows for better vocalization of the yells. A&M does not have cheerleaders, we have Yell Leaders. The Yell Leaders are 3 seniors and 2 juniors from the Corps. It is a big deal to get elected by the student body to be a Yell Leader.

Anyway, during the football games A&M fans do not sit down, we stand. The only time we sit is when the opposing school's band is on the field during half time. So, as we stand the Yell Leaders are down on the field giving out the yells (at some schools this would be the cheers), and as the fans in the stands we 'hump it' when we yell the yell. It is never a problem to figure out which yell is being done because there are different hand signals for each yell.

[Kevlar281]

Originally Posted by FSUZeta

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

They are performing a maneuver called “squeeze army.” Basically to share solidarity with the football team during a critical play they squeeze their testicles to endure pain as a sign of support. http://pokerblog.blogspot.com/squeeze_ags.jpg

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

It's called 'humpin' it'. It is a body position that allows for better vocalization of the yells.

Someone needs to go back to Fish Camp.

[KSig RC]

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]

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]

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.

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

Ok, I had a nice long researched reply that I clicked submit too that was lost to stupid internet issues, so here we go.

A&M is one of the top 5 largest universities in the nation, in arguably the most talent rich state in the country, with top notch facilities and fan support, and more Alumni Donation $$ than the University of Texas.

A&M has a stunted history because for the first 90 years of our existence we were an all-men's military school. When Corps membership became voluntary and the school became CoEd in the 70's, we finally began to take our place as one of the two Flagship institutions in the state of Texas. Since the 70's our record vs. Texas has been pretty much equal, indicating that the dominance of Texas over us in the overall record has more to do with us being a school more complimentary to West Point or the Citadel from the 1940's til the 1970's (coincidentally the last glory years of Texas football prior to Mack Brown). We were the better program from the mid-80's til 2000.

In Fran's four years, the Ags are 25-22 overall with a 15-17 conference record. His tenure has seen our first losing season (03) since 1982, our most losses in a season (8) since 1972, our worst ever loss (OU '03), and our worst ever bowl loss (Cotton '05, Tenn). We have never finished a season under Fran ranked in the top 25. Fran, additionally, is 2-10 vs. Tech, OU and Texas.

His predecessor, RC Slocum was 124-47-2 in 14 seasons, with 11 bowl games, 10 seasons ranked in the final top 25 and 3 rankings in the top 10, a 7-7 record vs. UT (which, in my opinion is where we should be, equal), and a Big XII title.

What do I honestly expect year in and year out? To compete as an equal with Texas and Oklahoma for Big XII south titles annually, winning a Big XII title every 3-5 years, finishing with no worse than 3-4 losses with those losses coming from the likes of Texas, OU, or NU and occasionally one out in Lubbock because that place is a black hole of Aggie Athletics. Why do I expect this? Because of the quality of our facilities, the donations of our Alumni and the talent pool that exists in the state of Texas.

Fran went 5-3 in conference last season, with all 3 losses coming at home. To me that is unacceptable. We outplayed all 3 of those teams, Tech, NU, and OU and I personally believe that those losses are attributible to some questionable game planning and play calling from Franchione.

This is his 5th season and when I say that win in Austin may have bought him some time I mean this. That is the first big road win in his tenure. Prior to that we would go on the road and look completely lost (Norman and Lubbock in '03). I expect us now to be competitive and maybe even steal a couple games on the road, which is where we will be a lot this season, with games in Lincoln, Lubbock, Norman and Miami(Fl.). An 0-fer in those games or bad showings will HOPEFULLY signal the end of the Franchione era.

Kitso
KS 361

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by AggieSigmaNu361

Ok, I had a nice long researched reply that I clicked submit too that was lost to stupid internet issues, so here we go.

A&M is one of the top 5 largest universities in the nation, in arguably the most talent rich state in the country, with top notch facilities and fan support, and more Alumni Donation $$ than the University of Texas.

A&M has a stunted history because for the first 90 years of our existence we were an all-men's military school. When Corps membership became voluntary and the school became CoEd in the 70's, we finally began to take our place as one of the two Flagship institutions in the state of Texas. Since the 70's our record vs. Texas has been pretty much equal, indicating that the dominance of Texas over us in the overall record has more to do with us being a school more complimentary to West Point or the Citadel from the 1940's til the 1970's (coincidentally the last glory years of Texas football prior to Mack Brown). We were the better program from the mid-80's til 2000.

In Fran's four years, the Ags are 25-22 overall with a 15-17 conference record. His tenure has seen our first losing season (03) since 1982, our most losses in a season (8) since 1972, our worst ever loss (OU '03), and our worst ever bowl loss (Cotton '05, Tenn). We have never finished a season under Fran ranked in the top 25. Fran, additionally, is 2-10 vs. Tech, OU and Texas.

His predecessor, RC Slocum was 124-47-2 in 14 seasons, with 11 bowl games, 10 seasons ranked in the final top 25 and 3 rankings in the top 10, a 7-7 record vs. UT (which, in my opinion is where we should be, equal), and a Big XII title.

What do I honestly expect year in and year out? To compete as an equal with Texas and Oklahoma for Big XII south titles annually, winning a Big XII title every 3-5 years, finishing with no worse than 3-4 losses with those losses coming from the likes of Texas, OU, or NU and occasionally one out in Lubbock because that place is a black hole of Aggie Athletics. Why do I expect this? Because of the quality of our facilities, the donations of our Alumni and the talent pool that exists in the state of Texas.

Fran went 5-3 in conference last season, with all 3 losses coming at home. To me that is unacceptable. We outplayed all 3 of those teams, Tech, NU, and OU and I personally believe that those losses are attributible to some questionable game planning and play calling from Franchione.

This is his 5th season and when I say that win in Austin may have bought him some time I mean this. That is the first big road win in his tenure. Prior to that we would go on the road and look completely lost (Norman and Lubbock in '03). I expect us now to be competitive and maybe even steal a couple games on the road, which is where we will be a lot this season, with games in Lincoln, Lubbock, Norman and Miami(Fl.). An 0-fer in those games or bad showings will HOPEFULLY signal the end of the Franchione era.

Kitso
KS 361

This is well-reasoned, and while I think you're being incredibly short-sighted by comparing the earliest years of the Fran era w/ RC Slocum (it takes time to replace a local legend, get in your own guys/system, etc), I can totally understand what you're saying about success. That's fine, I just think this last season should be what you expect, considering the schedule (I don't think OU and Nebraska are terrible home losses . . . it's not Baylor), and shouldn't be considered "below" the A&M standard. Good post though, well-reasoned.

However, I also want to point out that if you replaced all applicable instances with Michigan State, you wouldn't really be stretching too far to have similarities in your comparison between A&M and UT and the expectations therein . . . (adjusting for relative talent pool, etc)

It's circular, on some level - remember, it's a zero-sum game. Somebody has to lose.