quote:

---

TEAM Hardware

---

Goalposts successfully moved....yet again.

quote:

---

3. Players were choosing Texas over A&M, nobody was forcing them.

---

Except those cash payments the boosters were paying them.

But yet, t.u. NEVER cheated. t.u. NEVER had a supporter on the NCAA committee, t.u. NEVER had referees that gave games to t.u. through questionable calls, and t.u. NEVER had sports "journalist" whose clear aim was to insult, malign, and print half truths about A&M.

No, t.u. and the sips ran a very "clean" program.

quote:

---

quote:

---

TEAM Hardware

---

Goalposts successfully moved....yet again.

---

You don't understand the concept of moving goalposts.

You haven't won anything. The Heisman is an individual award. Having a Heisman winner and doing so little with him is more embarrassing for the Aggies than a source of pride. You got worse with a second year Heisman winner and then slumped further the following year.

The Aggies got a lot of mileage out of beating a sorry USCe team and then another boost when you beat an overated Auburn team. You're not doing so well against teams that are actually good. That could change because now Sumlin is in his fourth year and all the pieces are in place, right?

These are your glory days and they really don't much shine since the flashes of 2012.

quote:

---

quote:

---

3. Players were choosing Texas over A&M, nobody was forcing them.

---

Except those cash payments the boosters were paying them.

But yet, t.u. NEVER cheated. t.u. NEVER had a supporter on the NCAA committee, t.u. NEVER had referees that gave games to t.u. through questionable calls, and t.u. NEVER had sports "journalist" whose clear aim was to insult, malign, and print half truths about A&M.

No, t.u. and the sips ran a very "clean" program.

---

Excuses again.

quote:

---

The Aggies got a lot of mileage out of beating a sorry USCe team and then another boost when you beat an overated Auburn team. You're not doing so well against teams that are actually good.

---

And you aren't doing so well against terrible teams like BYU and Iowa State. Please keep sharing your brilliance

quote:

---

Having a Heisman winner and doing so little with him is more embarrassing for the Aggies than a source of pride.

---

so you were embarrassed about ricky's heisman? that's the angle you're going to try to take here?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Rv your right now argument is a losing cause for mighty texas. I want to hear your talking points for mighty texas being a better place to play football right now than A&M. Right now remember, not all your last 100 years bull****. Thanks in advance for your list.

---

Talking points? You think UT has the same kind of hive mind that Aggies do? I don't have talking points, I have my own opinion.

Texas is in transition right now. I believe we have good coaches who develop players. But let's look at the players and what they are doing. Last year Texas' recruiting class was comparable to the Aggies. The oft repeated 15-6 (or whatever) score counts players from the first class Strong had when he'd been in place about a month. Texas stadium and facilities are first rate even if they're not as new as yours. DKR-Memorial Stadium is a great stadium.

By the way, you pose your question as though I'd made a point about Texas right now. I was responding to a post.

Y'all laugh it up. You're pretty sure you're on the edge of greatness when you could just as easily be on the edge of collapse. You need to win no less than Texas needs to win.

---

You were saying something about excuses?

So your stadium is nice and you think your coach can recruit and develop players is about all that makes texas a better football school than A&M? Not much to go on there pal. Good luck with that.

They were NOT embarrassed. They threw a parade for Ricky's Heisman. An actual parade.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Having a Heisman winner and doing so little with him is more embarrassing for the Aggies than a source of pride.

---

so you were embarrassed about ricky's heisman? that's the angle you're going to try to take here?

---

It would have been embarrassing had he come back and we'd been a worse team.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Aggies got a lot of mileage out of beating a sorry USCe team and then another boost when you beat an overated Auburn team. You're not doing so well against teams that are actually good.

---

And you aren't doing so well against terrible teams like BYU and Iowa State. Please keep sharing your brilliance

---

Has nothing to do with my point about A&M, but I hope writing that made you feel better.

State of the art

I figured you'd go with the weight room so as to be really impressive.

Where da no stand on da hook em till game day ropes?
-Chollie

quote:

---

They were NOT embarrassed. They threw a parade for Ricky's Heisman. An actual parade.

---

They did actually.

quote:

---

The longer this thread goes, the worse it gets for Rvhorn.

• Strong has won nothing at Utx. Nada. Not even a win in a lowly tier-3 bowl against a last-place Arkansas team -- Strong had 4 weeks to prepare, and got curbstomped. Out of the 1,100+ d-1 games played last season, Strong coached Utx to the lowest offensive output in all of d-1 football in 2014: 59 yards of offense. Against a team Sumlin beat. Strong's record is 6-7 at Utx. Zero finishes as a ranked team at Utx for Strong. Zero point zero, lol. He doesn't have even a winning season at Utx.
• Sumlin has 3 winning seasons at A&M in 3 years. His three year w-l at A&M is 28-11. He has won 3 bowls in 3 years. He has stomped the B12 champ in a New Year's Day bowl, has coached Aggie players to a Heisman and an Outland, has beaten #1 Bama and #3 Auburn, and has had each of his 3 A&M teams finish ranked in the Top25.

---

But, but, but texas was really good a long time ago!!!!

Yea, you geniuses win.

Dang.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The Aggies got a lot of mileage out of beating a sorry USCe team and then another boost when you beat an overated Auburn team. You're not doing so well against teams that are actually good.

---

And you aren't doing so well against terrible teams like BYU and Iowa State. Please keep sharing your brilliance

---

Has nothing to do with my point about A&M, but I hope writing that made you feel better.

---

Your thoroughly refuted silly as **** point? I guess you are right, you were talking about GOOD TEAMS

****ing chucklehead talking **** when looking down the barrel of back to back losing seasons.

Why does a bearkat spend all his time on Aggie message board defending the horns? ****ing weird.

rv I believe that qualifies as a head shot. Maybe you can go over to Jabba and fubar's website and jizz over the hope that golson comes to the storied program that was texas.

quote:

---

Who says excuses have to be based on untruths? It's true youdidn't admit women until late, but it's a lousy excuse for all the years of losing.

---

All those years of losing? Among current FBS programs, you guys're currently 3rd in all-time wins. We're 17th. The long time sip narrative is that you dominated forever and we sucked forever. Neither is true. Please share this with all your longhorn friends:

Success or failure in college athletics is not institutional, it's circumstantialand situational. Frankly, I'm getting tired of explaining it to youguys. The sip fan base is freakishly adept at
spreading stupid, ignorance-based lies and trash-talky falsehoods, but practically non-existent at disseminating facts that disrupt the "We're Superior" self-delusion. Endeavor to assist your fan base at improving in that regard.

quote:

---

It's also an admission that all the things that have made A&M so great are not actually so great.

---

No, it's not. Please try to make sense, or explain your rationale for a statement this worthy of ridicule.

quote:

---

Wasn't A&M drawing enough tough guys to play good football?

---

Craftily worded. Deceitful. It takes more than being "tough" to be good at football, sip.

quote:

---

Other schools that were not particularly large or crowded with women were doing better than A&M.

---

It's about how good your coach is, which is probably the biggest factor,
generally. Further, please list specific schools.

You know what? I'm not sure it's even worth it to continue to have
exchanges with sips such as yourself. There is no innate superiority or
inferiority. With more and more money from TV and other sources, Baylor's got enough money now to pay Briles $4 mil./year, and their facilities are generally better now with the new stadium, locker room, etc. Their circumstances and situation have changed. Have you noticed by watching them over the last few years? Against your "tradition rich" uteri?

When this **** gets more and more even, RV, you'll see more parity reflected in
your average record over a 3 to 4 head coach time period. There's nothing
"Institutionally Inferior" about Baylor. They've had tougher
circumstances which begat more difficult situations.
There is the repeated story about scholarship limits. Please document
how Texas was using this to great advantage over A&M. You say it all the
time, but nobody proves it.
1. Those who entered the 1950-ishperiod with good to great success with recruiting
up were able to sign as many
players as they wanted/could afford. Remember, Texas always got 2/3of the PUF. We got 1/3. Further, it wasn't until November of 1984 that the Texas legislature ceased to allow PUF money to be used for athletics. (I'd like to know how much money, if any, was put aside by
both schools over time, for continual investment, perhaps the interest of which
goes to athletics in the form of a yearly donation of some kind. Just a
thought.)

2. It wasn't the number ofplayers, it was the quality of them. There are far more HSplayers in Texas now than in the '50s, so it was easier
to get a larger percentage of them, especially with t.u. and A&M coming out
of the 40s decade where the sip winning percentage was literally about double
ours.......about 80% to 40%.

3. Winning and playing time have long been the two generally mostinfluential factors in many, many, many if
not by far the most recruitments of
high school football players. Texas was winning a lot of games for a
decade. We were not, to put it mildly. Therefore, t.u. would start
out in the Unlimited Scholarship Period with tremendous advantages, and the
relative lack of parity this period created would benefit Texas to the
detriment of pretty much most everybody else in the state.

4. During those timeperiods, Texas would have appreciably more appeal to a very widespectrum of
Texas High School football players for other reasons, as well:
A) Far greater variety of course offerings, degrees offered and areas ofstudy with A&M still being primarily and A&M-only school,
B) Having women around. (Not only on campus, but BryanandCollege Station were quite a bit smaller back then, so there really weren't
very many people in the community surrounding the campus, much less females in
an age range for dating college guys.)
C) Go to college without being ROTC. Couldn't do thatatA&M. (A longhorn in ROTC told me once that our Cadet Corps was
"ROTC on steroids.)

RV, I like girls, was non-reg and I was a Theatre major. If I'd wanted to
play football back then - or just go to college only like I did - I wouldn't've
come to A&M back then. So thank goodness I was born later.

5. The schools that enjoyed those advantages tried to keep them by gettingas many of the top players in their geographic regions as possible. A) They had access to that talent. B) It kept that talent off the rosters of their conference competitors. DKR wrote about this tactic
in his book; everybody knew it was going on; there was a lot of lying to and
misleading prospects; there were players who would've developed at other
programs and perhaps played in the NFL that never got off the bench at the
"schools of advantage" during that period. After many years of
kvetching, the notoriously slow-acting NCAA finally ended the Unlimited
Scholarship Period with a 4-year step-down from '73-'76, which just happened to
be DKR's last year at Texas. He finished on a 2-game skid to us making
his overall record v. us 17-3. I question how good a coach he really
was. Did he suddenly forget how to do it, or did the evening out of the
talent to be more paritous just **** him up?

Have you noticed how much the ending of the Unlimited Scholarship Period
increased the parity? And why do you need this explained to you? At
Texas, I think you guys largely deny what everybody else knows about this
period. They reference this stuff all the time on podcasts of ESPN,
sports info shows on multiple networks.......how can so many horns seriously
need this explained to them? I think it indicates how much in denial many
sips are about how there's no inherent greatness at t.u. If we're down
and you guys're up, you raked back then. When we were up and you guys
were down, we raked. Gonna be different moving forward with all this dang
money from all these TV contracts giving most everybody in Top 5 conferences
the opportunity to have facilities and coaching salaries more on par with
everyone else than ever before in College Football history. The circumstances and situations will change.

quote:

---

Further on the notion that Texas gave scholarships to kids who were great players but would never start at Texas just to keep them from other teams. That's another absurd Aggie myth.

---

You're ill-informed about that. It was apparently something of a common practice. It's embarrassing that you don't know this. It's fact. t.u. wasn't alone. Why do you think the Unlimited Scholarship Period was ended by the NCAA? Stop smooching your own butt long enough to look around and realize that almost everybody else thinks you're wrong. If you're REALLY lonely for some ignorant company on this topic, try only the least knowledgeable yet most arrogant fans of Ohio St., Michigan and Notre Dame. They may be similarly delusional about the same topic. (I think Nebraska fans kinda get it, now.)

quote:

---

1. You couldn't attract guys who would rather start at A&M than ride the
bench at Texas?
2. Even if Texas did recruit a lot of good players, who knows who will start
over time?
3. Players were choosing Texas over A&M, nobody was forcing them.

---

1. Sometimes yes, sometimes no, and sometimes they were lied to. Read that section in DKR's book.
2. Do you not understand that if you guys have 6 5-stars and 22 4-stars per class (by modern parlance) and we have 7 four-stars and 21 three-stars that you're going to have more talent than we will, and by a LOT? Even though "who knows who will start over time?" I'm finding communicating with you about these things to be trying to my patience.
3. Most of the top players, yes, were choosing Texas over us. Why? Well, because they were winning and we weren't. Hell, for the entire decade of the 40s. Given the parameters of the Unlimited Scholarship Period, it was tougher to break a cycle then. (An "up" one or a "down" one.) Also, please see my points above re: where I'd most likely've gone to play college ball. That's the point. The circumstances are different, which puts everybody into a different situation than previously. If you think you're going to get the same results or winning percentage over time, it'll be fun to rehash this thread farther into the future.
The best way to get similar
results to the past is to replicate as closely as possible the same
circumstances. Hell, scientists do this all the time.

quote:

---

You can also do good whines about the refs.

---

When they **** up? Yessir.

tl;dr

The weak first paragraphs discouraged much more reading. Strive for relevance.

You cared so little today that you "quit" for a solid 47 minutes.

Seriously, deep throating a 12 gauge would improve your station in life.

quote:

---

tl;dr

The weak first paragraphs discouraged much more reading. Strive for relevance.

---

New sip football motto?

You get schooled? You ignore it.

Sounds pretty friggin relevant to what's been happening at tu since A&M joined the SEC.