A&M

macallan25 · #1 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 · #2 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.

#3 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 · #4 02-07-2007, 02:15 PM

FSUZeta · #5 02-07-2007, 05:02 PM

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

macallan25 · #6 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.

sigmadiva · #7 02-07-2007, 08:39 PM

Quote:

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.

FSUZeta · #8 02-07-2007, 10:06 PM

thank you, sigmadiva.

Kevlar281 · #9 02-08-2007, 06:46 PM

Quote:

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

Quote:

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.

macallan25 · #10 02-08-2007, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevlar281

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.

= This Week's Sign of the Apocolypse.

blueangel · #11 02-09-2007, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by macallan25

= This Week's Sign of the Apocolypse.

That's right!

sigmadiva · #12 02-12-2007, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevlar281

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

Someone needs to go back to Fish Camp.

For us 'non-regs' we were told it was called 'humping it'. Maybe the Corps had their own slang. I was never a quad-queen or boot chaser so I am not familiar with Corps slang.

btw, I would love to back to Fish Camp - had lots of fun and made some life long friends there!!!

KSig RC · #13 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 · #14 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 · #15 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.