A&M

[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.

[shinerbock]

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.