longhornmagic89
 |   posted 8:21a, 11/30/11   
Serious question here, not trying to start anything just want to know why A&M believes the modern era started in 1975? Is it because from that date the rivalry is even?
Why not use 1970? Why not use 1980? why not use the B12 era? What not use the entire history?
Why do the games from 1975 on only count and everything else is insignificant? By doing so aren't you not counting your 1939 National Championship?
|
Incorrect, sir!
 | posted 8:25a, 11/30/11
Scholarship limits.
Top programs were no longer able to stockpile unlimited talent by offering a scholarship to any player they wanted. The 85 scholarship limit forced parity throughout the league.
|
OxygenAg
 | posted 8:28a, 11/30/11
That is close to the time when A&M went from being an all male military school to expanding and admitting women. Basically we were transitioning from being an small institution like Army, to what we are now.
|
Uncle Jimbo
|  posted 8:28a, 11/30/11
Yep, scholarship limits.
And for the record, I'm an Aggie and I don't count the 1939 national championship.
|
bbb78
 | posted 8:29a, 11/30/11
Way after women were admitted and ROTC was optional.
I say that's when Emory Bellard's first recruiting class became seniors.
|
Uncle Jimbo
| posted 8:31a, 11/30/11
Scholarship limits.
Scholarship limits.
Scholarship limits.
Anyone claiming another reason is clueless.
|
Mr D
| posted 8:32a, 11/30/11
scholarship limits. Aka the modern era.
|
Incorrect, sir!
| posted 8:33a, 11/30/11
Also, if you move a few years back from 1975, you'll find that college football "looked" completely different than it does now. Before about 1970, the sports was largely non-integrated. Some coaches (Darrel Royal) took pride in resisting social change. In fact, his 1970 championship team was the last all-white championship team in college football.
I agree with Jimbo that I get no enjoyment from the 1939 football championship, and I certainly don't claim it as some sort of cornerstone of Aggie "historical" dominance. It is from a byegone era that bears little resemblance to the current climate of college football. Its odd that Texas doesn't feel the same way about their performance in the 60s.
|
aggiehawg
 |  posted 8:41a, 11/30/11
Scholarship limits cannot be emphasized enough. Royal's recruiting philosophy was more of taking potential talent away from other schools, then cherry-picking the best, benching the rest. He could have unlimited players suited up and on the sideline, and did.
Both Royal and Broyles retired soon after the scholarship limits became effective for incoming classes.
____________________________________________________
Aggie by birth, Hawg by marriage! And a Grand Ol' Dame.
|
GregZeppelin
 | posted 8:45a, 11/30/11
Yup, 3 reasons:
1. A&M was finally catching up to texas in terms of size and enrollment after allowing minorities and women beginning in the 1960's, becoming the large state university that it is today rather than a small military college more akin to the Citadel or VMI which it had been previously.
2. The game in the south and southwest had become integrated in the early 1970's and by 1975 rosters were pretty much fully integrated for the first time.
3. Scholarship limits were put in place in 1975, providing a clear demarcation of a paradigm shift in the very nature of the game to go along with all the other changes that were taking place in the early 1970's.
In all,1975 signifies the year that the playing field was leveled, and college football became what it is today. From that point on the game itself hasn't changed much an any fundamental way. Thus the "modern era" is from 1975-present.
|
Incorrect, sir!
|  posted 8:50a, 11/30/11
quote:
Why do the games from 1975 on only count and everything else is insignificant?
It is not that Aggies became competitive in 1975 and thus chose that as the line of demarcation for the modern era...the changes that resulted in the arrival of the "modern era" culminated around 1975 and, as a result, A&M has been far more competitive* than it was historically.
*You can argue whether our current performance counts as "competitive" all you want, but the modern era lessened natural barriers to us being competitive. We continue to handicap ourselves through poor coaching hires.
[This message has been edited by Incorrect, sir! (edited 11/30/2011 8:51a).]
|
longhornmagic89
| posted 8:55a, 11/30/11
Thank you all, that is what I was looking for.
BUT in 1990 scholarships were reduced to the current 85, so why not use 1990 then?
[This message has been edited by longhornmagic89 (edited 11/30/2011 9:06a).]
|
GregZeppelin
| posted 9:12a, 11/30/11
Read my previous post, there was more change going on in the SWC than just scholarship limits around 1975.
A subsequent adjustment to the specific number of scholarships allowed is pretty insignificant in comparison to the fundamental shifts that occurred in the mid 1970's.
|
commando2004
 | posted 9:25a, 11/30/11
quote:
Way after women were admitted and ROTC was optional.
Right. That was 1963.
|
Stones
 |  posted 9:31a, 11/30/11
OP is professional troll
|
OTredux
| posted 9:33a, 11/30/11
Because it fits our narrative very well.
|
aggie schadenfreude
 | posted 9:37a, 11/30/11
quote:
so why not use 1990 then?
because the Ags are 9-13 in that stretch.
|
gunan01
| posted 9:39a, 11/30/11
Use 1975
Use 1990
Anything before that is just longhorn bs
|
jturner181
| posted 9:41a, 11/30/11
Because I was born in 1975 and in that timeframe, in my lifetime, we have a winning record against the whorns...
Enough said - I'm the center of the A&M world! 
|
Hellraiser97
| posted 9:46a, 11/30/11
According to this article, scholarship limits weren't actually put in place until 1977.
http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/article/Former-UW-walk-on-sues-NCAA-over-scholarship-1145301.php
quote:
The NCAA limits Division I-A teams to 85 scholarship players. Until 1977, schools were allowed to offer as many scholarships as they saw fit -- an era when top programs routinely stockpiled top players.
The number of scholarships was set at 95 from 1977-91; at 92 in 1992; and 88 in 1993. It has been at 85 since 1994.
Hook 'Em Horns
Hellraiser97
--
"You may all go to hell and I will go to Texas." -- Davy Crockett
|
yakman
| posted 9:50a, 11/30/11
I thought going co-ed marked the beginning of the modern era?
A&M started admitting women in 1965. Prior to 1965, A&M's record is 353-230-44 (59.81%). After 1965, A&M's record is 328-220-4 (59.78%).
|
BoyNamedSue
|  posted 9:54a, 11/30/11
Scholie limits? What? The SWC had scholie limits going back into the late 60's, and before that A&M signed HUGE classes each year!
You can pull up some of Dave Campbells older issues from that time and the rosters A&M had were actually larger.
Between 1960 and 1969 A&M averaged 50 players signed per year, followed by Texas, then Tech, and Arkansas in 4th. As a matter of fact, A&M signed an average of 55.3 players per year from 1961-'63 (Texas averaged 53), and yet from '64 through '65 your team only managed three wins.
It's never been about A&M being limited to a few players, but about you and other schools having the best coaches, facilities, and top players in the state. The more things change, the more they stay the same...
|
JLF3
| posted 9:56a, 11/30/11
So, the record is 18/17 Texas, if using the scholarship limit as the bar.
|
RecklessAg
 | posted 10:02a, 11/30/11
J turner with an ag tag !!!!!
|
BoyNamedSue
| posted 10:05a, 11/30/11
Limits don't mean a damn thing and more than one coach at big-time programs have gone on record as saying they would be in favor of reducing them even more. Back when they were first put into place Royal completely supported the move because be knew he was still going to get the top talent in the state - set limits simply limited the other smaller schools from competing becuase they had a select number of players to pick from now.
Then as is now, quality is all that matters. Texas' largest class signed in '62 was 66 players. That class managed a string of so-so 6-4 seasons. Their best class, ironically was their smallest at 46 (The Worster Bunch in '65) won titles in both '69 and '70.
|
RVHorn
| posted 10:06a, 11/30/11
It's interesting that all of the traditional ways that A&M claims to be tougher and superior to UT seem to be what made you weaker than UT.
As for the scholarship claim, is there evidence that Texas took more scholarship football players than A&M? I heard that when I was younger but thought it had been debunked.
If there is an element that points to A&M success, it is the presence of a dynamic coach in a period when players were being paid. Even the years following that time benefited from reputation (Wrecking Crew, great name and marketing tool) gained during that time.
You need to get lucky (it's a matter of luck for everyone who searches) with a dynamic coach who wants to stay at A&M. I think Sherman is your Mackovic and has done some good things. Is he teeing it up for the next guy? We'll see.
|
Incorrect, sir!
| posted 10:26a, 11/30/11
quote:
It's interesting that all of the traditional ways that A&M claims to be tougher and superior to UT seem to be what made you weaker than UT.
You know, there a college's merits and character have are based on a lot more things than simply whether its football team wins and loses. I know it may not seem like it when you are winning 10 games a year for a decade, but you'll come around to some of the subtleties of the experience if ya'll continue to trot out crap teams like you have the last two years.
Nobody here has ever acted like being an all-male military college in the 40s, 50's, and early 60's was particularly helpful to fielding successful football teams against big conventional state schools.
[This message has been edited by Incorrect, sir! (edited 11/30/2011 10:29a).]
|
twk
  | posted 10:34a, 11/30/11
Regarding timing of scholarship limits, while the 95 cap may not have been in place until 1977, I'm pretty sure that the limitation of 30 initial scholarships per year started in 1973 (which would make sense--annual limits four years in advance of the overall cap).
The reason limits are important isn't that Texas was signing more than everyone, it's that Texas (and some other schools) were wharehousing talent, signing kids simply so that they wouldn't play for the competition. Texas fans always said that the best team that they faced each year, outside Oklahoma, was the second string in practice. The 30-95 rule, coupled with freshman eligibility, changed the landscape drastically.
|
bert harbinson
| posted 11:42a, 11/30/11
To the op---fine, use 1970 then. Scholarship limits are clearly a factor, and Aggie success starting in 75 at least marks the return of the competitiveness of the rivalry, but as others have said, all white teams can hardly be included in a discussion of modern era football.
|
OTredux
| posted 11:45a, 11/30/11
our classes and theirs were comparable per old Dave Campbell's in size since 1960.
Draw the line where it best suits you, but while the 70's were certainly a time of change in CFB, the real fact we closed the gap was we hired Bellard and then after a disaster, we hired Sherrill and RC.
We had equal or better coaching for 20+ years and we held our own and even had a great 10 of 11 win streak.
|
012-MAN
| posted 2:05p, 11/30/11
I believe the most reasonable definition of the modern era is 1979, the same year that ESiPN went on air for the first time.
|
Uma
| posted 2:13p, 11/30/11
There are different, debatable starts to the modern era.
1936 - AP Poll
1969 - Texas vs. Arkansas last big all white game
1973 - 105 scholarship limit
1978 - 95 scholarships
1984 - NCAA v. Board of Regents of Univ. of Oklahoma -- allowed conferences to negotiate their own TV deals
1994 - 85 scholarships
1998 - BCS era
|
jdcook100
| posted 2:14p, 11/30/11
quote:
yet from '64 through '65 your team only managed three wins.
Thats a pretty good one year run if you ask me.
|
Bitter Old Man
|  posted 2:17p, 11/30/11
quote:
Some coaches (Darrel Royal) took pride in resisting social change.
Royal had to be forced to integrate his team. I guess that's why the klanhorns named the stadium after him..
|
davidt
| posted 2:19p, 11/30/11
It was either '74 or 75 before we had any on-campus housing for women. Before that there was limited housing available either on or off campus for women. Without a place to live the appeal was somewhat limited. It doesn't matter if yu have a policy to admit them if they have no place to live.
Once Krueger Hall opened female enrollment and total enrollment took off. It think it was in 1987 that for the first time an A&M freshman class had more girls than guys
|
